2023-02-17 20:21:56 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
MADHURAVIJAYA.M
Rājanārāyaṇa's rule must have extended upto, at
least 1359, as we have inscriptions of his bearing his
20th regnal year. The presence of Vijayanagar inscrip-
tions in his territory in the eleventh and twelth years of
his rule implies that he had come into clash with the
Vijayanagar rulers already.5 If Kampaņa's invasion
had taken place by about 1351 we have to account for
the following: (1) The Madhurāvijayam explicitly says
that the Sambuvarāya ruler was killed in the battle. If
Rājanārāyaṇa had been killed in 1351-52 how could
records have been issued in his name after this date?
(2) Some of Kampana's relations and generals who
were associated with the campaign assumed the title
Sambuvarāya sthāpanācārya, meaning 'establisher of
the Sambuvarāya." Where does the question of esta-
blishing come in, if the Sambuvarāya had been slain in
battle?
26
In answer to the above it may be pointed out that
the Madhurāvijayam refers only to the ultimate con-
quest of the Tondaimandalam region. We have evi-
dence from epigraphs also for that conquest. There-
fore, we have to see in Kampaņa's Tiruvaṇṇāmalai
inscription, an evidence of a preliminary conquest in
which Kampaṇa probably played a minor part but
4. Cf., A.R.E., 36 of 1933-34 from Kilminnal.
5. Cf. A.R.E., 297 of 1919 No. 357 of 1928-29.
6. Mangu took this title as will be noted in a later chapter. Some
of the members of the Säluva family also assumed this title till very
long after the actual event of the Sambuvarāya defeat. Savanna
Udaiyar also took the title. Also refer to the Udaharaṇamāla (Sources:
pp. 49 and 50), where another member claims to have overcome
'Champa'.
7. Eg., Cf. 18 of 1899 (also p. 22 of the same report) dated saka
1287 (1365 A.D.), ref. to the taking 'permanent possession of Rajagam-
bhirarājya.'
Rājanārāyaṇa's rule must have extended upto, at
least 1359, as we have inscriptions of his bearing his
20th regnal year. The presence of Vijayanagar inscrip-
tions in his territory in the eleventh and twelth years of
his rule implies that he had come into clash with the
Vijayanagar rulers already.5 If Kampaņa's invasion
had taken place by about 1351 we have to account for
the following: (1) The Madhurāvijayam explicitly says
that the Sambuvarāya ruler was killed in the battle. If
Rājanārāyaṇa had been killed in 1351-52 how could
records have been issued in his name after this date?
(2) Some of Kampana's relations and generals who
were associated with the campaign assumed the title
Sambuvarāya sthāpanācārya, meaning 'establisher of
the Sambuvarāya." Where does the question of esta-
blishing come in, if the Sambuvarāya had been slain in
battle?
26
In answer to the above it may be pointed out that
the Madhurāvijayam refers only to the ultimate con-
quest of the Tondaimandalam region. We have evi-
dence from epigraphs also for that conquest. There-
fore, we have to see in Kampaņa's Tiruvaṇṇāmalai
inscription, an evidence of a preliminary conquest in
which Kampaṇa probably played a minor part but
4. Cf., A.R.E., 36 of 1933-34 from Kilminnal.
5. Cf. A.R.E., 297 of 1919 No. 357 of 1928-29.
6. Mangu took this title as will be noted in a later chapter. Some
of the members of the Säluva family also assumed this title till very
long after the actual event of the Sambuvarāya defeat. Savanna
Udaiyar also took the title. Also refer to the Udaharaṇamāla (Sources:
pp. 49 and 50), where another member claims to have overcome
'Champa'.
7. Eg., Cf. 18 of 1899 (also p. 22 of the same report) dated saka
1287 (1365 A.D.), ref. to the taking 'permanent possession of Rajagam-
bhirarājya.'