His Allahabad Pillar inscription similarly describes how Chandragupta I called him a noble person in front of the courtiers, and appointed him to "protect the earth".
[21] The Mathura stone inscription of Chandragupta II describes Samudragupta as an "exterminator of all kings", as someone who had no equally powerful enemy, and as a person whose "fame was tasted by the waters of the four oceans".
[25] Another possibility is that the author of the inscription thought it necessary to repeat these names while describing Samudragupta's later conquests in Aryavarta, simply because these kings belonged to that region.
M. G. S. Narayanan interprets the word anugraha differently based on its occurrence in the Arthashastra; he theorizes that Samudragupta gave "protection and aid" to these kingdoms in order to secure their alliances.
[32] Some scholars, such as J. Dubreuil and B. V. Krishnarao, theorized that Samudragupta only advanced up to the Krishna River, and was forced to retreat without fighting a battle, when the southern kings formed a strong confederacy to oppose him.
[33] Such political ideals existed in the Gupta period too, as evident from Kalidasa's statement in Raghuvamsha that "the righteous victorious monarch (Raghu) only took away the royal glory of the lord of Mahendra who had been captured and released, but not his kingdom."
[60] The Allahabad Pillar inscription mentions that rulers of several frontier kingdoms and tribal oligarchies paid Samudragupta tributes, obeyed his orders, and performed obeisance before him.
[52] "Samudragupta, whose formidable rule was propitiated with the payment of all tributes, execution of orders and visits (to his court) for obeisance by such frontier rulers as those of Samataṭa, Ḍavāka, Kāmarūpa, Nēpāla, and Kartṛipura, and, by the Mālavas, Ārjunāyanas, Yaudhēyas, Mādrakas, Ābhīras, Prārjunas, Sanakānīkas, Kākas, Kharaparikas and other nations.
[66] According to historian R. C. Majumdar, it is likely that Samudragupta's conquests in Aryavarta and Dakshinapatha increased his reputation to such an extent that the frontier rulers and tribes submitted him without a fight.
Historian D. R. Bhandarkar argued that Daivaputra ("a descendant of Devaputra") cannot be a stand-alone name, and identified Daivaputra-Shahi-Shahanushahi as a single ruler, possibly Kidara I, who had established a new kingdom Gandhara (present-day Afghanistan).
In Raghuvamsha, the Gupta court poet Kalidasa states his hero Raghu defeated the Parasikas (Persians): Agrwal speculates that this description may be inspired from the Kidraite-Gupta victory over the Sasanians.
[89] According to Hans T. Bakker, candidates for the Daivaputrasāhi are the late Kushan kings of Gandhāra: Vasudeva II or Kipunadha, and regarding the śaka-murunda I follow Konow and Lüders, who argue that this 'passage in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta leaves no doubt that murunda (i.e. 'commander'), originally was a title used by Saka princes'.
To address these concerns, he formed an alliance with Kidara, a strategic move aimed at countering the threats posed by Shapur II of the Sassanian Empire.
[93][94] According to the Chinese sources, Meghavarna, the king of Simhala (present-day Sri Lanka), sought to build a monastery at Bodh Gaya, for the convenience of the pilgrims from his kingdom.
[100] According to historian Kunal Chakrabarti, Samudragupta's military campaigns weakened the tribal republics of present-day Punjab and Rajasthan, but even these kingdoms were not under his direct suzerainty: they only paid him tribute.
[100] Historian Ashvini Agrawal notes that a gold coin of the Gadahara tribe bears the legend Samudra, which suggests that Samudragupta's control extended up to the Chenab river in the Punjab region.
[8] The Allahabad Pillar inscription alludes to his divine kingship, comparing him to the Parama Purusha (supreme being), and also with deities such as Dhanada (Kubera), Varuna, Indra, and Antaka (Yama).
[114] The Mathura stone inscription of Chandragupta II describes Samudragupta as "the restorer of the Ashvamedha sacrifice that had been long in abeyance" (Smith's translation).
[128] The Allahabad Pillar inscription presents him as a compassionate ruler, stating that his "mind was engaged in providing relief to the low, the poor, the helpless, and the afflicted".
Napoleon’s empire, centered around France and including adjacent Dutch, Belgian, German, and Italian regions, was surrounded by a network of allied and protected states such as Spain, the Confederation of the Rhine, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and the Kingdoms of Italy and Naples.
[131] Samudragupta's imperial structure resembled that of Napoleon’s organizational strategy, featuring a strong central core surrounded by friendly states and dependencies.
His Allahabad Prasasti (inscription) reflects his aspiration for *chakravartitva* or universal sovereignty, a Hindu ideal prevalent during the Gupta era, which sought to establish overlordship over all of Bharatavarsha (India).
Unlike Napoleon, whose ambitions were curtailed after the Battle of Waterloo, Samudragupta successfully realized his vision and celebrated his achievements with the performance of an Asvamedha (horse sacrifice).
While Ashoka sought to be a *chakravarti dharmika dharmaraja*—a ruler who conquered through righteousness (dhamma) rather than force—Samudragupta aimed to be a traditional *chakravartin* through military conquest.
Ashoka emphasized the moral aspects of religion, while Samudragupta focused on traditional martial and political authority[131] The question of whether Vikramaditya existed or is a legend is unresolved.
This event holds historical significance when viewed in the context of the political conditions in India during the mid-fourth century AD[131] Before 361 A.D., Rome was at war with the Sassanian Empire.
[91] In light of the political dynamics in Bactria and North-Western India, there is a suggestion that Kalidasa's portrayal of Raghu's conquests in his work, "Raghuvaṃśa," might be based on the actual historical events of Samudragupta's campaigns.
Kalidasa describes Raghu's military expeditions, including the conquest of Trikūta in the Deccan and subsequent campaigns against the Parasikas, Hunas, and Kambojas.
Kalidasa's epic, therefore, might reflect the real historical interactions and conflicts of the time, providing a literary perspective on the political and military landscape of the era.
[132] Based on a reconstruction of the partially-lost Sanskrit play Devichandraguptam, a section of modern historians believe that Samudragupta was initially succeeded by Ramagupta (presumably the eldest son), who was then dethroned by Chandragupta II.