Talk:Sena dynasty

On origins

The paragraph is abound with inaccuracies —

• Samantasena who described himself as a Brahmin-Kshatriya of Karnataka

• A book on sociology/politics (Indian Nationalism) can seldom be a good-enough source for early medieval history.
• The second source was edited by a poet/lit. critic. It does not state anything about Samantasena describing himself.

• The inscriptions of the Sena kings mention them as Brahma-Kshatriyas, that is Brahmin by caste and Kshatriya by profession.

• The source does not mention anything similar to what is claimed.

• sources have identified them with the Vaidya

• Inden did not find them as Vaidyas, at-least at the page cited. He merely quotes a kulanji. (I have a gut-feeling that Inden, usual of his idiosyncratic scholarship, had bought the theory; will read the book.)
• I have never heard about the second book: it is neither held in any reputed library nor cited by anyone nor reviewed in any journal. Looks like a local textbook.

• Ambashtha caste or sub-caste, considered as a mixed caste, being born of Brahmin father and Vaishya mother.

• This is mostly wrong. B+K.

• and were identified with the Bengali Vaidyas (commonly known as Baidyas in Bengal) in Vaidya Kula-panjikas

• So? As I wrote at Baidya, [Baidya kulanjis] claim the mythical Adi Sura and Ballāla Sena as their own — this is agreed upon by some Brahmin genealogies but rejected by Kayastha ones. Fwiw many other castes claim Sens to be one of their own.

• According to Panchanana Raya

• How is he an expert in history? People have all kind of weird views and justifications.

TrangaBellam (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Added basic facts at Sena dynasty#Origins. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

origins and amalgamated

@ekdalian I think we should move the amalgamated part from origin,just like you did on pala Empire Miller110 (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can do that as per consensus on the other similar article. Thanks for your suggestion! Let us give some time to other editors as well. Ekdalian (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@ekdalin where should I move it?? can you give me a suggestion please?or you can move it for us.I think senas merged with both vaidyas and kayasthas atleast in sources it is there. Miller110 (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you got me wrong! We can't merge the statements; WP:SYN is not allowed here. We can have the same (as it is) in a separate section on decline, that's what I meant. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

got you.I am moving it to the decline part.is it ok?Miller110 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Miller110, as mentioned in my edit summary, let's wait for consensus for a separate section on 'Decline'. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Caste of Senas

To attribute a modern caste to Senas as a matter-of-fact is ridiculously anachronistic. Two sections above, I wrote [Baidya kulanjis] claim the mythical Adi Sura and Ballāla Sena as their own — this is agreed upon by some Brahmin genealogies but rejected by Kayastha ones. Fwiw many other castes claim Sens to be one of their own.

Sarkar et al do not deem the Senas to be Baidyas: they are translating a pamphlet from 1963 titled "Hindu Mahilaganer Hinabastha" by one Kailashbasini Devi (p. 504). As I noted in the edit-summary, this is a misrepresentation of source. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. now I can understand.you are really good in your work Miller110 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)