André Wink (2002) described Goetz' theory as convincing, but Ronald M. Davidson (2012) dismisses Wink's affirmation of Goetz's analysis as uncritical. Davidson rejects the argument that the conquests described by Kalhana must have been real, because Kalhana could not have invented historical persons. In his support, Davidson presents the example of the "Nilamata Purana", which is one of Kalhana's sources for "Rajatarangini", and which ascribes fictional events to historical persons. He argues that Kalhana's dubious sources could have fabricated a conquest of known parties. Davidson points out that Yashovarman's court poet Vakpati credits him with similar conquests in "Gaudavaho", according to which Yashovarman conquered not only eastern and southern India, but also defeated the king of Persia. Davidson dismisses both "Gaudavaho" and "Rajatarangini" as poetic boast, describing Kalhana's account as "Kashmiri boosterism". He, however, believes that Kalhana's claims might be closer to the truth than Vakpati's claims. According to Davidson, Lalitaditya launched his attack in 733 CE, advanced up to Magadha in the east, and then returned to Kashmir in 747 CE.