Answer the following in brief
Explain the relationship between Samatas and kings during Medival india
Answers
Answer:
Samanta was a title and position used by the army people of kings in the history of the Indian subcontinent. The institution of Samanta finds mention for the first time in epigraphs of northern India dating to the 6th century.[1] The institution is considered to and is closely associated with the origin and growth of feudalism in India.
However, the institution is known to have existed prior to the Gupta period, though details on them are vague. A Pallava inscription dating to the time of Santivarman (AD 455 - 470) uses the term Samanta-Chudamanayah (best feudatories).[2] The Samanta in South India was used to mean a vassal to an emperor. In North India, the earliest use of the term in a similar sense was in Bengal in the Barabar Hill Cave Inscription of the Maukhari Chief, Anantavarman (dating to the 6th century AD) in which his father is described as the Samanta-Chudamanih (best among feudatories) of the imperial Guptas.[2][3]
Types of Samanta
Banabhatta describes several types of Samantas in his work, Harsha Charita. Bana's Harshacharitra is the only work from which we know of various categories of Samantas.[1] Bana mentions a large number of conquered enemy Maha-Samantas in the royal camp who were probably waiting to be assigned their new duties.[7]
Some types of Samantas mentioned by Banabhatta are:
Samanta: which signified the lowest and ordinary type of vassal.[8]
Mahasamantha (Maha-Samanta): a step higher than a Samanta.[8]
Shatrumahasamanta (Shatru-Maha-Samanta): a conquered enemy chief.[8]
Aptasamanta (Apta-Samanta): those who willingly accepted vassalage and the emperor as their overlord.[8]
Pradhanamahasamanta (Pradhana-Maha-Samanta): who were most trusted hands of the emperor and never disregarded their advice.[9][8]
Pratisamanta (Prati-Saamanta): who were opposed to the king and meant a hostile vassal.[9][8] Though hostile, all Samantas had military obligations. If they did not fulfill their obligations, the king could seize their territory and appoint a new Samanta. Despite this, some Samantas would keep trying to throw off their allegiance to the king and assert their own independent rule.
Banabhatta uses the term Anuraktamahasamanta (Anurakta-Mahasamanta) only once and it possibly meant those especially attached to their overlord.[8]
Explanation:
Samanta was a title and position used by the army people of kings in the history of the Indian subcontinent. The institution of Samanta finds mention for the first time in epigraphs of northern India dating to the 6th century.[1] The institution is considered to and is closely associated with the origin and growth of feudalism in India.