Thursday, May 29, 2025

Sahadeva RT (respecThreaD)

Intro - i will not only discuss the military career of Sahadeva but i am also going to provide details for what he did outside of combat.
=
Achievements of Sahadev.
The Rajasuya was the biggest & lengthiest achievement of prince sahadeva.
Cross-reference's;
"Do they remember the mighty Sahadeva, the son of Madri, who in Dantakura conquered the Kalingas, shooting arrows by both the left and right hand?"
Logic - maybe dantakura was the capital town of kalinga.

Accolade;
"He who vanquished in battle the warriors of Kasi, Anga, and Kalinga with that Sahadeva will the Pandavas encounter you in battle. He, who in energy hath for his equals only four men on earth. Aswatthaman and Dhrishtaketu and Rukmi and Pradyumna with that Sahadeva, youngest in years, that hero among men, that gladdener of Madri's heart, with him will you have a destructive battle?"
Logic - most likely those 3 nations fought sahadev during the rajasuya cause i cant see a different incident where they might have had a conflict with him.

Detailed/Elaborated rajasuya campaign.
Quote:
"Strong in strength, that mighty prince of the Kuru race, vanquishing completely at the outset the Surasenas, brought the king of Matsya under his sway."
Logic - matsya's king is virata and surasena was a tribe that was ruled either by krishna's paternal grandfather (Surasena is father to vasudeva and biological father of kunti) or a different king (since kamsa's brother was stated as a former monarch of the surasena tribe).

Sahadeva wins a additional 5 territory's.
[start]
And the hero then, defeating Dantavakra, the mighty king of the Adhirajas and making him pay tribute, re-established him on his throne. The prince then brought under his sway Sukumara and then king Sumitra, and he next vanquished the other Matsyas and then the Patacharas.
Logic - this proves their existed another tribe of matsyas. Maybe virata did not command authority over his entire family. So it could be controlled by a brother of virata or a elder son of virata.

Part 3.
"Endued with great intelligence, the Kuru warrior then conquered soon enough the country of the Nishadas and also the high hill called Gosringa, and that lord of earth called Srenimat. And subjugating next the country called Navarashtra, the hero marched against Kuntibhoja, who with great willingness accepted the sway of the conquering hero. And marching thence to the banks of the Charmanwati, the Kuru warrior met the son of king Jamvaka, who had, on account of old hostilities, been defeated before by Vasudeva. O Bharata, the son of Jamvaka gave battle to Sahadeva. And Sahadeva defeating the prince marched towards the south."
Logic - navarasthra most likely means 9 countries, i think it was nine small states merged into a single nation. Besides kuntibhoja none of the opponents yielded to sahadev without resisting him. if navarasthra is counted as a single country then sahadeva conquered another 5 kingdoms here but if it counts as nine then he won 13 kingdoms.

Riverbank charman wati;
Logic - according to wikipedia king jamvaka's son is the lower neighbhor of king droopad, so his land was close to kampilya. And this also is considered the location where karna was abandoned by Kunti yet sahadeva conquered that place.

Part 4;
The mighty warrior then vanquished the Sekas and others, and exacted tributes from them and also various kinds of gems and wealth. Allying himself with the vanquished tribes the prince then marched towards the countries that lay on the banks of the Narmada. And defeating there in battle the two heroic kings of Avanti, called Vinda and Anuvinda, supported by a mighty host, the mighty son of the twin gods exacted much wealth from them.
logic - he defeated 2 community's here before attacking the narmada river valley (where avanti was ruling instead of haihaya). One tribe was seka the other victim (tribe that lost) was not named. But sahadeva proved his intelligence as he made the army he defeated join his own army and help him fight a future opponent.

Part 5;
"After this the hero marched towards the town of Bhojakata, and there, O king of unfading glory, a fierce encounter took place between him and the king of that city for two whole days. But the son of Madri, vanquishing the invincible Bhismaka, then defeated in battle the king of Kosala and the ruler of the territories lying on the banks of the Venwa, as also the Kantarakas and the kings of the eastern Kosalas."
Note; bhishmaka was the father of Rukmini and the king of kosala is either descended from Raam or Bharat. The term 'kings' indicates more than one, so its fair to assume that their were 2 kings ruling the eastern kosala tribe, so sahadeva altogether defeated 6 monarchs. This also showed his endurance that he can fight non stop for two days.

Part 6.
"The hero then defeating both the Natakeyas and the Heramvaks in battle, and subjugating the country of Marudha, reduced Munjagrama by sheer strength. And the son of Pandu then vanquished the mighty monarchs of the Nachinas and the Arvukas and the various forest king of that part of the country. Endued with great strength the hero then reduced to subjection king Vatadhipa. And defeating in battle the Pulindas, the hero then marched southward."
Logic - possibly vatadhipa was the king of pulinda. Including him sahadeva has defeated at minimum 9 opponents here.

Parshuram's disciple Bhandya:
"And the younger brother of Nakula then fought for one whole day with the king of Pandrya. The long-armed hero having vanquished that monarch marched further to the south."
Logic - he lost here but is capable of fighting well against Ashwathama during day 16.
Vanara Yudh;
He beheld the celebrated caves of Kishkindhya and in that region fought for seven days with the monkey-kings Mainda and Dwivida. Those illustrious kings however, without being tired an the encounter, were gratified with Sahadeva. And joyfully addressing the Kuru prince, they said "O tiger among the sons of Pandu, go hence, taking with the tribute from us all. Let the mission of the king Yudhishthira the just possessed of great intelligence, be accomplished without hindrance." And taking jewels and gems from them all, the hero marched towards the city of Mahishmati, and there that bull of men did battle with king Nila.
Logic - the winner was obviously Sahadeva its not a draw or tie. What is impressive is that it lasted for 7 days completely.

Both vanara co rulers achieved much in ramayana:
"Dvivida, with a mountain-peak, struck down Narantaka, the one among them who was rushing upon quickly and killing the monkeys."
"The valiant Dvivida, after splitting open shonitaksha's face with his claws, threw him down on the floor by his strength and crushed him down."
"Mainda, the foremost of monkeys, was enraged and pressed Yupaksha with his arms. Yupaksha fell down dead on the ground."
Logic - victory against them indicates he could thrash raamduta hanumaan.
=
Final I:
"The long-armed hero then brought the king of Tripura of immeasurable energy under his sway. And next turning his forces against the Paurava kingdom, he vanquished and reduced to subjection the monarch thereof. And the prince, after this, with great efforts brought Akriti, the king of Saurashtra and preceptor of the Kausikas under his sway. The virtuous prince, while staying in the kingdom of Saurashtra sent an ambassador unto king Rukmin of Bhishmaka within the territories of Bhojakata, who, rich in possessions and intelligence, was the friend of Indra himself. And the monarch along with his son, remembering their relationship with Krishna, cheerfully accepted, O king, the sway of the son of Pandu. And the master of battle then, having exacted jewels and wealth from king Rukmin, marched further to the south. And, endued with great energy and great strength, the hero then, reduced to subjection, Surparaka and Talakata, and the Dandakas also."
Logic - since viswagaswa (paurav king) was defeated by arjuna in the northern digvijay it makes sense that the 2nd paurav king here was venudari. But here in all sahadeva won 6 abodes cause akriti was stated to be subjugated after immense effort, i assume that means battle.

Final II:
"The Kuru warrior then vanquished and brought under his subjection numberless kings of the Mlechchha tribe living on the sea coast, and the Nishadas and the cannibals and even the Karnapravarnas, and those tribes also called the Kalamukhas who were a cross between human beings and Rakshasas, and the whole of the Cole mountains, and also Surabhipatna, and the island called the Copper island, and the mountain called Ramaka."
Logic - Because kalamukhas were basically hybrids it would make sense for Ghatotkaca to be classified as one instead of an asuric/rakshasa tribesman. Because he conquered an island (named copper) its presumed that Sahadeva probably had expertise when it came to naval warfare. For math about 8 battles were won here excluding the unknown amount of mleccha rulers he faced.

Final III
"The high-souled warrior, having brought under subjection king Timingila, conquered a wild tribe known by the name of the Kerakas who were men with one leg. The son of Pandu also conquered the town of Sanjayanti and the country of the Pashandas and the Karahatakas by means of his messengers alone, and made all of them pay tributes to him."
"The hero brought under his subjection and exacted tributes from the Paundrayas and the Dravidas along with the Udrakeralas and the Andhras and the Talavanas, the Kalingas and the Ushtrakarnikas, and also the delightful city of Atavi and that of the Yavanas."
Logic - because pashanda, karahataka & sanjayanti were won by messengers (assuming negotiation/threat's) i am not counting them like i also refused to count rukmi as one of the subdued enemies. But adding the fabled keraka's he won 11 battles altogether in this quote. The only problem i have is that yavanas being in south india is illogical (only IF yavanas meant greek) because greeks can only enter from the north not south.

Other:
Sahadeva's battle with Nila is one he would have lost if Agni Dev did not accept his plea to abandon Nila so i will not count it as a successful conquest of his. Instead i will claim that Nila was a unconquered monarch. I also refuse to add the conquest of lanka (ruled by vibeeshan) cause theirs either no battle or no elaboration done regarding it.

Counting his list of victim's (enemies he defeated or battles he won).
If navarasthra was one battle (not 9) then his grandtotal is 56.
If navarasthra was nine seperate battles then his grandtotal is 64.

So it should be confirmed that he is more experienced than both parshuram & bhishma. At minimum 56 battles in one digvijay that is more than arjuna's northern digvijay battle.
=
Protected a yagya;
[Quote] "Dhananjaya, Bhima, Nakula, Sahadeva and Dharma’s son, the king Yudhishthira destroyed all who went to that sacrificial ground where took place the martial festivity, consisting of diverse weapons, of those heroes." https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/harivamsha-purana-dutt/d/doc485627.html
Logic - of course being a group effort you cant really credit him for it.

In the kurukshetra war he did not achieve much apart from killing Uluka/Sakuni but he did beat Duryodhan in a fair duel once.
"The high-souled Sahadeva, however, quickly approaching their and invoking without loss of time a celestial weapon, pierced Duryodhana with twenty arrows. Thus pierced by Sahadeva, the Kuru king, covered with blood, looked beautiful, like a huge elephant of split temples. Beholding thy son deeply pierced with many arrows of great energy, that foremost of car-warriors, the son of Radha, filled with rage, rushed to that spot."

He defeated duhsasana twice.
15th day
Quote;
"Sahadeva pierced those steeds with keen shafts. Afflicted with those shafts, they quickly ran away, careering hither and thither. For catching hold of the reins, he once laid aside his bow, and then he took up his bow for using it, lying aside the reins. During those opportunities the son of Madri covered him with arrows. Then Karna, desirous of rescuing thy son, rushed to that spot."

16th day
Sahadeva then, O monarch, filled with rage, fixed on his bow-string a terrible shaft resembling the Destroyer himself and forcibly drawing the bow, he sped that shaft at thy son. Piercing with great speed through his strong armour and body, that shaft entered the Earth, O king, like a snake penetrating into an ant-hill. Then thy son, that great car-warrior, swooned away, O king. Beholding him deprived of his senses, his driver quickly took away the car, himself forcibly struck all the while with keen arrows. Having vanquished the Kuru warrior thus, the son of Pandu, beholding Duryodhana's division, began to crush it on all sides."

Fought kritvarman's brothers;
"Hridika's son, Kritavarman, with three of his uterine brothers, appeared on the scene and attempted to oppose Dhrishtadyumna. Those bulls among men, however the twins, Nakula and Sahadeva following in the wake of Dhrishtadyumna who was thus proceeding like a blazing fire towards Drona, began to protect him. Then, all those great car-warriors, endued with might and excited with rage, began to strike one another, making death their goal. Of pure souls and pure conduct, O king, and keeping heaven in view, they fought according to righteous methods, desirous of vanquishing one another. Of stainless lineage and stainless acts, and endued with great intelligence, those rulers of men, keeping heaven in view, fought fair battles with another. There was nothing unfair in that fight and no weapon was used that was regarded as unfair."
Logic - cause these nameless brothers were not mentioned after this day its reasonable to guess that they either died here or they abandoned the war entirely once drona died (because their was a huge retreat before ashwathama returned).
=
Gandharv Yudh:
"The mighty sons of Madri also, battling with vigour, encountered hundreds of Gandharvas, O king, and slaughtered them all. And as Gandharvas were being thus slaughtered by the mighty warriors with their celestial weapons, they rose up to the skies, taking with them the sons of Dhritarashtra."

Droupadi-harana.
quote I;
"Sahadeva from his chariot began to fell with his iron shafts, many warriors fighting on elephants, like birds dropped from the boughs of a tree."
quote II;
"Yudhishthira the just, seeing Draupadi with Dhaumya walking before, caused her to be taken up on a chariot by the heroic Sahadeva, the son of Madri."
Logic - maybe droupadi felt safest with sahadev not bhima.

Virat Parva;
[quote]
"And powerful Sahadeva also, commanded by Yudhishthira, slew three hundred brave warriors."
Logic - besides that their exist's no other achievement he had in this parva.
=
The personality of Sahadeva shined more than most characters, in the randomest incidents he would gain importance from Souti/Vaisampayan.

15th afternoon;
[starT]
Sahadeva, O king, jumping down from his own car, addressed Satyaki, thus held fast by the strong arms of Bhima, in these words "O tiger among men, O thou of Madhu's race, we have no friends dearer to us than the Andhakas, the Vrishnis and the Panchalas. So also the Andhakas and the Vrishnis, particularly Krishna, cannot have any friends dearer than ourselves. The Panchalas, also, O thou of Vrishni's race, even if they search the whole world to the confines of the sea, have no friends dearer to them than the Pandavas and the Vrishnis. Thou art even such a friend to this prince; and he also is a similar friend to thee. Ye all are to us even as we are to you."
"Acquainted as thou art with all duties, remembering now the duties thou owest to friends, restrain this wrath of thine, that has the prince of the Panchalas for its object. Be calm, O foremost one of Sini's race! Forgive the son of Prishata, and let Prishata's son also forgive thee. Ourselves also will practise forgiveness. What is there that is better than forgiveness?" While the scion of Sini, O sire, was thus being pacified by Sahadeva.
Logic - It was not krishna or yudisther or bheem that calmed satyaki down rather it is Sahadeva who did this noble act.

As a husband he seems to care about Droupadi the most;
Sahadeva said "What hath been said by the king is, indeed, eternal virtue, but thou, O chastiser of foes, shouldst act, in such a way that war may certainly happen. Even if the Kauravas express their desire for peace with the Pandavas, still, O thou of Dasarha's race, provoke thou a war with them. Having seen, O Krishna, the princess of Panchala brought in that plight into the midst of the assembly, how can my wrath be appeased without the slaughter of Suyodhana. If, O Krishna, Bhima and Arjuna and king Yudhishthira the just are disposed to be virtuous, abandoning virtue I desire an encounter with Duryodhana in battle."
Logic - each pandava including arjuna/bheem favored peace with kauravas but sahadeva did not favor peace cause he wanted justice for his wife.

Jatasura Vadh
{quote}
Sahadeva addressed Yudhishthira, the son of Kunti, saying "What can be more meritorious for a Kshatriya than to fall in fight, or defeat a foe? O repressor of foes, we will fight and either this one will slay us, or we shall slay him, O mighty-armed one. Verily this is the place and time. O king. And, O thou of unfailing prowess, the time hath come for the display of our Kshatriya virtue. It behoveth us to attain heaven either by gaining victory or being slain. If the sun sets to-day, the Rakshasa living yet, O Bharata, I will not any more say that I am a Kshatriya. Ho! Ho! Rakshasa. say! I am Pandu's son, Sahadeva. Either, after having killed me, carry off this lady, or being slain, lie senseless here."
Logic - yudisther told him to run but he refused, he was the only brother that had the necessary courage to disobey yudisther.

His advice to Yudhishtir;
[quote]
"Thou hadst heard of the numerous faults and the great sinfulness of dice that Sahadeva spoke about."
Basic's - the time he said it to his brother is not made clear, only theories exist, possibly vana parva or sabha parva were the time periods where he made these statements.

Thursday, May 22, 2025

Mistranslation'S in both stories

Intro: This post will cover not all but still quite a decent amount of mistranslations in both Mahabharat & Ramayana. It show's that sometimes you can not always rely on the text. I gathered a list of 13 in total, five for MB eight from ramayan.

Mistranslation's of Ramayana;
Sundar Kanda is example 1.
Original text
saH mahaakapiH = That great Hanuma; tathaa = in the same way; plupluve = leapt; bhavanam = for the house; mahodarashya = of Mahodara; viruupaakshasya caivaH = and also that of Virupaaksha; viddyujjihvasya = that of Viddutjihva; tathaivacha = and in the same fashion; vidyunmaaleH = that of Vidhunmaali; tathaiva = and in the same way; vjradamshhTrasya = that of Vajradamshhtra.
translated text
"That great Hanuma in the same way leapt for the house of Mahodara and also that of Virupaaksha, that of Viddutjihva."
Logic -Vidyunmali & Vajradaamsthra were ignored. While vidyujihvasya's name got misspelled.

Mistranslation 2
[begin]
Elaboration - the term used here 'purusha' refers to males & their manhood, it has nothing to do with whether a character was a coward or not.

Mistranslation 3 [another mistake]
kham = (discover) the hole (made by the arrow of Skanda; the Commander-in-chief of the gods);
Logic - the reason i consider this to be a big mistake is that only one sanskrit word is used (kham) yet its exaggerated by the translators as being a hole that was created by skanda's arrow even though skanda never made an appearance in yuddh kanda itself. The statements of kumbhkarna dont have anything to do with skanda so this was a error.

Example 4 is where Shambar is Subahu's father was mistranslated.
[Quote]
timidhvajasutam = Subahu; the son of Shambarasura; daanavendram = the chief of demons ; hatam = being killed
[End]
Explanation "Timidhwajasutam" should mean son of Timidhwaja (another name for "Shambar"). Nowhere in the Sanskrit was the name "Subahu" ever mentioned.

5TH EXAMPLE.
krauN^chabarhiNa viinaanaam = herons; peacocks; veena the Indian lute
Logic - the word ''india/indian" did not exist during the period of Ramayana so it makes no sense for sanskrit word's to include it aswell.

Example 6.
This one will involve screenshot image's to prove it:
Logic - Here u look at the Sanskrit/Hindi words & their translations then see if the next text actually matches or not. Clearly biased hanubhakts intervened with the script.

7th example.
Photo;
Logic: fake glorification was given to Hanutati again, read the letters that are in crimson red color (that is the original) you will never find "hanuma" or "maruti" so the translators added his name on purpose cause of their bias/favoritism. Ask yourselves what "mahaabhaagaaH" really translates into? Cause clearly it does not mean or indicate hanumana.

8 (Kumbhkarn Chapter).
mohitaaH = confused to think ayam kaalaH iti = that he was Yama the god of Death.
Reason's - Cause Kala is a different character while Yama Dev is also different.

Evidence from both Ramayan/Mahabharata.
[quote]
"And the son of Dhruva is the illustrious Kala (Time), the destroyer of the worlds."
[complete]
[quote]
"After entering a great ocean in the shape of Yama's realm, with a huge alligator in the form of death's rod of punishment, adorned with silk-cotton trees (bristling with thorns to be used a weapons), turbulent with a huge wave in the shape of noose of Kala (Time Spirit)."
[complete]

[Begin]
"The daughters of Daksha are, O tiger among men and prince of the Bharata race, Aditi, Diti, Danu, Kala, Danayu, Sinhika, Krodha, Pradha, Viswa, Vinata, Kapila, Muni, and Kadru."[complete]

[start] "And the sons of Kala were all like Yama himself and smiter of all foes. And they were of great energy, and oppressors of all foes. And the sons of Kala were Vinasana and Krodha, and then Krodhahantri, and Krodhasatru. And there were many others among the sons of Kala." [end]
[Quote]
At that time, when the hour of Karna's death had come, Kala, approaching invisibly, and alluding to the Brahmana's curse, and desirous of informing Karna that his death was near, told him, "The Earth is devouring thy wheel!"
Basically: Kala was not Yama.
=
MISTRANSLATIONS (of MB).
Example 1;
"As he of Vrishni's race protects the son of Pandu under all circumstances, even so let thyself protect Vikarna's son Karna in battle."
Logic - Vikarna was not a epithet or name for surya, pandu, adhiratha or durvasa muni.
Example 2:
"This large-eyed one had been bestowed by her father, the king of the Drupadas, in the hope that the blessed girl would be happy, by obtaining the sons of Pandu for her lords."
Logic - it said drupada in place of pancala. Theirs no kingdom or tribe named Drupadas.
Example 3:
[quote]
"Then that grandsire of the Bharatas, Bhishma the son of Sutanu, conversant with the Vedas, acquainted with the proprieties of time and place, and possessing a knowledge of every duty of morality, after the conclusion of Drona's speech, applauded the words of the preceptor."
Basic's - it says sutanu instead of santanu.

Example 4 - Staying was typed in place of slaying;
[begin]
"Yudhishthira, of virtuous soul, with his brothers in that battle, felt great joy and wandered over the field from desire of staying Duryodhana." https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09030.htm

5th mistranslation mistake.
Quote;
"They were Nagadatta, and Dridharatha, and Viravahu, and Ayobhuja, and Dridha, and Suhasta, and Viragas and Pramatha, and Ugrayayin. Beholding them Bhimasena became filled with rage. He then took up a number of arrows, each capable of bearing a great strain. Aiming at each of them one after another, he sped those arrows at them, striking each in his vital part. Pierced therewith, they fell down from their cars, deprived of energy and life, like tall trees from mountain cliffs broken by a tempest. Having with those ten shafts slain those ten sons of thine."
Point - the reason this's a mistake is because the text said ten kaurava brothers yet named only nine of them, that means its likely their were only 9 that Bhima killed not 10.

Wednesday, May 21, 2025

OrnamentaLanguagE

Intro: This post will describe various incidents in Mahabharat & Ramayana that have to do with ornamental language or basically exaggerations. When Valmiki said meghanada was beaten by Angada then he called Meghanada a ever victorious or undefeated fighter.
That is one such example, but their are incidents in both epics where ornamental language is used and my post shall elaborate upon those very incidents instead of just being related to action or a fight always. It will be about quotes that are contradictory or statements made in Ramayan/MB that are clearly false.

Like all sons of pratipa were said to resemble gods, they had god like appearances according to this narrative;
"Unto that lion among kings, who ruled his kingdom virtuously were born three sons of great fame and resembling three gods. Of them, Devapi was the eldest, Vahlika the next and Santanu of great intelligence, who, O sire, was my grandfather, was the youngest."

But in the next narrative this flaw in the appearance of a son is revealed;
"Devapi was liberal, virtuous, devoted to truth, and loved by the subjects, yet in consequence of his skin-disease, he was excluded from his inheritance."
Conclusion - either the translator messed up or maybe the original text was actually translated correctly but the author/whoever spoke (Souti or Vaisampayana) contradicted himself. My opinion is that Devapi was not a handsome human being at all.
=
2nd usage of ornamental language in MB.
Virat's kavach; "And the coat of mail that the king himself of the Matsyas put on was invulnerable and decked with a hundred suns, a hundred circles, a hundred spots, and a hundred eyes."
Basic's - his armor is considered impenetrable like the kavach kundal of karna because its called 'invulnerable' so its a clear exaggeration, most likely the armor karna wore was not invincible.

Usage 3 is this:
"The sons of Draupadi, rivalling their fathers in valour, strength, grace, and prowess, sat upon excellent seats inlaid with gold."
Logic - their is no way those guys were even rivals to sahadev (weakest among the 5 pandavas) based on the way they performed in Kurukshetra Parva. So clearly not each quote should be taken literally as a fact.
=
The 4th usage is an exaggeration in MB.
Agnidev:
"O Agni, the flames put forth by thee consume every creature. O thou of great splendour, this universe hath been created by thee. The Vedas are thy word. All creatures, mobile and immobile, depend upon thee. Water primarily dependeth on thee, so also the whole of this universe. All offerings of clarified butter and oblations of food to the pitris have been established in thee. O god, thou art the consumer, and thou art the creator and thou art Vrihaspati himself (in intelligence). Thou art the twin Aswins; thou art Surya; thou art Soma; thou art Vayu."
Explanation - this makes it seem as if Agni was the one who did the creation of the universe not BRAHMA (who is the true god of creation).
=
PART 5;
Metaphors regarding the divine-chariot of Arjuna.
1st metaphor: "Its splendour was great and the sounds of its wheels was tremendous. It delighted the heart of every creature that looked at it. It had been made by Viswakarman, the architect of the universe and one of the lords of creation, after severe ascetic meditation."
Logic - if the noise of its wheel movement will fill all the witnesses with delight then chances are they would be more enthusiastic to do battle against arjuna, so how come his opponents were said to be distressed, depressed, discouraged, unconfident repeatedly?

2nd quote:
"Its splendour, like that of the sun, was so great that no one could gaze at it. It was the very car from which the lord Soma had vanquished the Danavas."
Basic - this text implies that if a person did gaze at arjuna's chariot {for a lengthy period of time} then they could go blind cause of how it's brightness compared to that of the Sun's itself.
6TH EXAMPLE.
This's related to Bhishma.
Quote 1; He commanded his charioteer, saying "Lead thou my car to where Salya is, so that I may slay him instantly as Garuda slays a serpent."
Quote 2; 'He then vanquished that best of monarchs but left him with his life.'
Logic - bhishma was all bark no bite, he just made a empty threat. Or maybe slaying meant defeating or possibly Souti/vaisampayana made a error (their memory was inaccurate).
=
EXAMPLE 7
How the term pandava is utilized by characters of MB.
Pandavas is a term used for nameless monarchs/kings that karna attack's during Night 14.
{Start}
Then Pandavas, O monarch, and the Panchalas, celebrated for their prowess, beholding the mighty-armed Karna, loudly shouted saying "There is Karna Where is Karna in this fierce battle. O thou of wicked understanding, O lowest of men, fight with us!" Others, beholding the son of Radha said, with eyes expanded In wrath "Let this arrogant wretch of little understanding, this son of a Suta, be slain by the allied kings. He hath no need to live. This sinful man is always very hostile to the Parthas. Obedient to the counsels of Duryodhana, this one is the root of these evils. Slay him." Uttering such words, great Kshatriya car-warriors, urged by Pandu's son, rushed towards him, covering him with a dense shower of arrows, for slaying him. Beholding all those mighty Pandavas thus the Suta's son, trembled not, nor experienced any fear.

Ashwathama Saga: "Learning that thy son had been slain unrighteously by Bhima, we slaughtered the Pandavas after entering their camp buried in sleep."
Note - here the term pandava got used by ashwathama even after the souptika parva war came to an ending. Meaning he considers the other casualties (foot-soldier's anyone who is not a son of droupadi or a drupadaputra) to be Pandavas.

How the term 'kouravAis used.
"O king, when thus I fell down on the earth, Rama, filled with joy, sent forth loud shouts along with his followers, while all the Kauravas who stood beside me and all those who came there to witness the combat were afflicted with great woe on seeing me fall."
Point: unless the duel between parshuram/bhishma occurs after the birth of duryodhan but before the death of pandu (subsequent arrival of pandavas) then it makes no sense for the kauravas to be mentioned here as standing beside Bhishma.
Of course their exist's a counterargument which can be used against my opinion/claim, that possibly the word 'kauravas' was a reference to family members of the Kuru family, the issue with this counterclaim is that apart from Vicitraveerya their were none that could be considered male-relatives of Bhishma, cause Vyasa is not a kaurava, if he had been their his name would have been actually mentioned.

different explanation could be that maybe by Kouravas it was a reference for foot soldier's of the Kuru kingdom.

Adi Parva the pandavas get called "kaurava" instead.
Quote;
"He then gave, O monarch, unto the Pandavas and Kunti and Draupadi, and unto Drupada and Drupada's sons, the gems and various kinds of wealth that the Kauravas had sent through him."
Logic - This's another example of ornamental language. Its more sensible to believe that these gifts given through vidura were deployed by Bhishma, Drona & Dhritrashtra, not by Suyodhan or his kaurava brothers. Why would the kouravas give presents to people they hate/dislike or individuals that defeated them earlier (Drupada/Satyajeet/Bheem)?
Another misuse of terms & words is below.
18th day;
"Shikhandi, supported by the Prabhadrakas, fought with two Kuru bowmen, Kritavarma and the great car-warrior Kripa."
{End}
Comment - now it is obvious that Kritavarma was a younger brother to Satadhanwan, he was a member of the yadava lineage & bhoja tribe/dynasty, he was never a kuru family member, here he is likely called a "kuru archer" because he was fighting on the side of a kuru king named Suyodhana.

EXAMPLE 9) Kuru Emperor is Yudisther instead of Dhritrashtra/Suyodhan.
Quote;
"Beholding them in that plight, Yudhishthira, that foremost of righteous men, became deeply afflicted. That chief of the Kurus then began to weep aloud and fell down on the earth, deprived of his senses, along with all his followers."
Logic - the proper name should've been either kounteya king or pandava emperor.
=
Other example of Ornamentalanguage
Kripa fled but gets called unretreating hero:
[Quote]
"Understanding his master afflicted with shafts to be deprived of his senses, and believing him to be dead, the driver of Kripa's car bore Kripa away from the fight. And after Kripa, the son of Saradwat, had thus been borne away from the battle."
[Finish]
[BEGIN]
"I bow to that worshipful son of Gotama, to that unretreating hero."
[END]
=
11TH EXAMPLE - Virat Parva inconsistency;
[passage]
"Indeed, our ranks seem to have been already vanquished, for none is eager to go to fight. All our warriors are of pale face, and almost deprived of their senses."
Analysis; despite guru drona's quotes still karna bragged and was eager to fight while many kaurav brothers were willing to fight arjuna, not 1 of these warriors had their senses afflicted at all, so the lines of drona make no sense.
=
Praise given to warriors.
Sugriva praised by Laxman;
"You are the knower of virtuousness and gratefulness and you do not retreat from battlegrounds, or, on your own word, thus what you have said is conclusive as well as coherent."
Logic - yes its true that sugriva was powerful/capable but it is also wrong/false to claim that he had never run away from a single fight in his life. He clearly fled twice from Vali, first was when vali returned (and blamed him for the cave blockage) the second was during the time raam told him to fight vali and could not see a difference in the looks of both brothers.

Srikandi was labelled a person superior to Parshurama.
"Drupada's son Sikhandin, therefore who hath slain in battle that bull of Bharata's race, that hero acquainted with the highest weapons, that brave and accomplished warrior conversant with every weapon, is superior in energy, prowess, and might to the invincible Vargava endued with the highest energy."

Satyajit was overhyped by Souti & Vaisampayana;
"Satyajit, who was equal to the diadem-decked Arjuna himself in battle as regards energy and might, hath been slain in battle by Drona of sure aim."
LAST EXAMPLE.
Bad omen's & nightmares was a common thing whenever a city or town was in the eve of being destroyed or invaded.
Dwaraka:
"Vrishni ladies dreamed every night that a woman of black complexion and white teeth, entering their abodes, laughed aloud and ran through Dvaraka, snatching from them the auspicious threads in their wrists. The men dreamt that terrible vultures, entering their houses and fire-chambers, gorged themselves on their bodies. Their ornaments and umbrellas and standards and armour were seen to be taken away by terrible Rakshasas."

For Lanka the statement of Malyavan is below.
Quote;
"By seeing various kinds of unexpected events (portents) and many types of terrific things, I am perceiving a destruction of all the demons. With terrifying clamour, monstrous clouds, inspiring horror, rain hot blood on Lanka on every side. Drops of tears drop from the weeping elephants, horses etc. whose skins became discoloured, covered with dust and are not shining as before. Flesh-eating animals, jackals and eagles and howling horribly. Entering Lanka, they are in the groves, forming into groups. Black women, chattering incoherently in dreams and robbing different houses stand in front, laughing loudly with their white teeth. Dogs devour the sacred offerings offered in homes. Donkeys are born of cows and rats of mongoose. Cats mate with tigers, pigs with dogs, Kinnaras (a species of demi-gods with the human figure and the head of a horse or with a horse's body and the head of a man) with demons and men. Red-footed and white pigeons, messengers of death, move in different directions, foretelling the extermination of demons. Domesticated minas (a kind of birds) making a chirping sound, defeated by other bellicose birds drop down, being twined together in groups. Birds and wild animals, facing towards the sun, cry out. Death, in the form of a frightful, monstrous and cruel blackish fellow with a shaven head casts his eyes on all our dwellings, both morning and evening. These and such other sinister omens appear."
Logic - the reason i consider this to be a not genuine quote is that if blood red rain really did pour down atr lanka then it would be red in color instead of golden. And if elephants/horses were crying then its unlikely those same animals would follow ravans army to battle when they use them. So this can be passed off as ornamental language or a exaggeration.