Monday, August 26, 2024

Kumbhkarna Puran

Intro; 2 sources will be used, Mahabharat and Ramayana.
The intentions behind this post are to create an article which can be used as a debating resource by myself & others that have interest in the story of Ramayan.
One warrior that gets downplayed, underestimated, underrated, ignored, sidelined, or misportrayed in popular fanfiction presented on television screens is Kumbhkarn, one of Ravan's brothers.

Part 1 will discuss the battles kumvakarna had against devas & anyone before the lankan war. Part 2 will detail his achievements against only vanaras. Part 3 is about his duel vs raam/laxman.
=
PART 1)
Against Yama:
1-"He is the powerful Kumbhakarna, the son of Visravasa. He conquered Yama and Indra in battle. There is no other demon, corresponding to the size of his body."

2-"Seeing that demon of terrific eyes who could not be destroyed by Yama the lord of death the monkeys ran away."

3-"Anyone who even stands before me, the god of death, holding forth a weapon in a great battle here, is venerable. What to tell about a person who bestows battle on me?"
Quotes for his battle against Indra.
1st:
"Seeing that demon of terrific eyes who could not be destroyed either by Indra the lord of celestials or by Yama the lord of death or by Varuna the god of water, the monkeys ran away."
2nd:
"Indra also gets frightened of me, having a mountain-sized body wielding a sharpened pike, having pointed tusks and even as I roar. Without using a javelin or a mace or a sword or sharp arrows, I myself, on getting excited, can kill even Indra, with my bare hands."
3rd
"That Mahendra wielding a thunder-bolt was enraged and struck Kumbhakarna with his weapon of the white thunderbolt. The great souled Kumbhakarna struck by Indra's thunderbolt was quite agitatated at it and roared loudly with anger. Enraged as he was on Mahendra, the mighty Kumbhakarna then pulled out a tusk of Airavata, Indra's elephant & struck it into Indra's chest."
"That Devendra, tormented by the hit of Kumbhakarna, was burning with rage. The celestials, Brahmanical sages and demons were suddenly aggrieved. Even Indra with his people went to the abode of Brahma the Lord of creation."
4th
"He is the powerful Kumbhakarna, the son of Visravasa. He conquered Yama and Indra in battle. There is no other demon, corresponding to the size of his body."
5th:
"Even the powerful Indra, the lord of celestials, who mounted Airavata the elephant and accompanied by all celestials, did not ever stand before me in battle."
6th:
"O brave demon! You are telling that while you show your prowess, the heroes like Indra and others feel unbearable; it is true. Just now, I have seen your prowess."

Uttar Kanda version;
Kumvakarna's involvement in the battle against Indra & other devas.
[Quote]
"And the wicked Kumbhakama, brandishing weapons of every kind, came there, O King, unaware with whom the conflict was taking place; using his teeth, his feet, his hands, lances, picks, mallets or anything whatsoever in order to assail the Gods in his fury. Having attacked the formidable Rudras, it went ill with that Ranger of the Night, who, in an instant, was riddled with wounds; and the army of the Rakshasas, hard pressed by the Gods, assisted by the Hosts of Maruts and armed with every weapon, were completely routed and, in the struggle, some fell on the earth mutilated and palpitating, whilst others remained clinging to their mounts."
Next quote; "Meantime Dashagriva, seething with anger on seeing his army entirely overthrown by the Gods, hurled himself with one bound into that sea of warriors, slaying the Celestials in the fight and challenging Shakra himself."
The lines ''hard pressed by the gods" & "it went ill with that ranger of the night" {other word for Rakshasa/daitya} & "seeing his army entirely overthrown" clearly hint at the fact that (at least according to Uttara Kanda) the devtas/rudras defeated Kumbhkarna. Of course because this paragraph comes from Uttara Kanda its reliability is disputed/debatable.

Cause in Uttara Kanda the antagonist Ravan was vulnerable to getting killed by a character called Yamraaj. Yet according to Yuddh Kanda the character of Kumbhkarna was immune to death against Yamraaj.

Cross References.
Word of Ravan again;
"Earlier, together with you I conquered the celestials in a battle between the celestials and demons. You also conquered them."
Note - Here when Ravan said 'together with you' he was talking to more than just 1 single character, he was actually adressing a group of his courtier's, ministers, friends & servants. In much simpler terms he said that "all of us together defeated the devas" the claim "together with you" was not a reference to Kumbhakarna alone.

Ravan believed he could only annex Indra through the support of Kumbhkarn (that's probably the way he waged war against the devtas before):
"O Kumbhakarna! Now that you are dead, how can I conquer Indra the lord of celestials?"

Vibeeshan's quote hints at a Indra vs Kumvakarna duel.
{Begin}
"Kumbhakarna, my elder brother born after Ravana, who is valiant and highly powerful, has enough strength to fight against Indra in battle."
{completE}
Comment - Parenthesis text (lord of celestial's) was in the way so it has been deleted by me. This line does not prove he defeated indra but rather that he could compete with/duel vs indra.

Besides the devas he had other opponents but they do not receive any worthwhile attention in Ramayana. Kumbhkarn also had many off-screen battles against danavas but none are described in great detail at all.
So a theory has to be made here, its possible the danavas he had beaten were Maya (father to Mandodari) or Madhu (cause he was labelled the Danavendra of that era).
Quote:
devadaanava darpahaa = who humbles the pride of the celestials and demons

Gandharva Yudh.
Quote;
[etena = by him; sahasrashaH = thousands of;] [yakSaaH = a class of demi-gods; bhujangaaH = serpent-demons; pishitaashanaashcha = ogres; gandharva vidyaadhara pannagaashcha = celestial musicians; celestial artistes & kinnaras yudhi = in battle.

It's commonly believed that Kumbhakarna was able to scare BRAHMA (from the tridev club) as much as i would like for that to be the truth (so their could be villains outside of the purans that could beat the tridevs) its actually a mistake by a translator.
Quote:
vitatraasa = was frightened;
Screenshot:
Logic - This's from a authentic dictionary with credible information.

Not just the danavs but even the asuras were defeated by him.
[quote]
bahushaH = for several times; prativyuuhya = attacking; devaah = the celestials; asuraaH = and demons; daivaasureSu yuddheSu = in battles between celestials and demons nirjitaaH = were defeated tvayaa = by you
Theory; It is possible that asuras who were his victims (they lost but were not killed) are "Bali" (the vishnu-bhakt) or "Vana" (father of naraka). Cause Uttara Kanda says he married the sister of Vana who is Bali's duaghter.

Also cause Bali had no mention of being involved in a relevant incident after Ramayana it is possible he died before Mahabharat. But i doubt his killer was Kumbhakarna. Unless the indra (who vibeeshan claimed LOST vs Kumbhakarna) was actually Bali (since he got promised Indra's position).
=
PART 2
1st] Slew three vanar elites.
Quote;
"Kumbhakarna only laughed at them and began to eat them up. And he devoured those foremost of monkeys known by the name of Chala, and Chandachala, and Vajravahu. And beholding that fearful act of the Rakshasa, other monkeys were frightened and set forth a loud wail of fear."
[End]
Logic - hanuman claim's that everyone in Sugriva's circle/council or vicinity is equal to hanuman or above hanuman, so my belief is that kumbhkarna killed 3 Hanumans as they were Hanuman's equal in battle power. They did nothing to prove they were stronger so i can't place Vajrabahu, Chandachala & Chala as individuals stronger than him. But its fair to consider them to be at least equal to hanutati.

Sundara-Kanda quote;
"In them, some of the monkeys are superior to me and some are even equal to me. No one in the vicinity of Sugreeva is inferior to me. When I have arrived here, why to talk about the mighty ones? Generally, superior ones are not sent for errands. Only others are indeed sent."
[done]

Quote; "As directed by Raghavana, Neela the commander-in-chief and the foremost of the monkeys, ordered the monkey-troops suitably. Then, Gavaksha, Sharabha, Hanuma and Angada looking like mountains, reached the gate, taking the mountain-tops."
Logic; hanutati's rank was below Nila's. Mahagandu hanuman followed the orders of Neela.

2nd]
Kumbhkarn vs other vanaras.
Quote;
"Looking at the perturbed Hanuma, all the troops of demons then suddenly shouted with rejoice. The monkeys, on their part, felt restless and being oppressed with fear, ran away from the battle-field. Thereupon, cheering up the army and stopping them, the mighty Neela then hurled a mountain-top on the intellectual Kumbhakarna.
Seeing that mountain-top befalling on him, Kumbhakarna then struck it with his fist. By that strike of the fist, that mountain-top was burst into pieces and fallen down on the ground, with sparks of fire and blaze. The five excellent monkeys, Rishabha, Sharabha, Neela, Gavaksha and Gandhamadana marched ahead quickly towards Kumbhakarna. Those five mighty monkeys struck the large-bodied Kumbhakarna from all sides, with crags, trees, palms of their hands, feet and fists in battle.
Perceiving those blows merely as the senses of touch, Kumbhakarna was not at all perturbed. He enfolded the greatly agitated Rishabha in his arms. Squeezed by Kumbhakarna's arms, the awful Rishabha, the foremost among the monkeys, fell down with blood coming out of his mouth. Then, in battle, the enraged Kumbhakarna, the enemy of Indra, beating Sharabha with his fist and Neela with his knee, struck Gavaksha with a palm of his hand and struck Gandhamadana violently with his feet. Perturbed by the blows given by Kumbhakarna, those monkeys being moistened with blood, were bewildered and fell down on the ground, like chopped off Kimsuka trees. Seeing those mighty chief commanders of monkeys falling down on the ground, thousands of monkeys ran towards Kumbhakarna."

Victory vs Angada;
"Seeing the monkeys defeated in that great battle, Angada the son of Indra, ran rapidly towards Kumbhakarna. Taking a large mountain-top, Angada, roaring repeatedly and frightening all the demons following Kumbhakarna's heels, hurled the mountain-top on Kumbhakarna's head. Struck on the head with that mountain, that Kumbhakarna, Indra's adversary, with a great rage, was excited and then ran rapidly towards the wrathful Angada. Frightening all the monkeys with his great roar, the mighty Kumbhakarna hurled his spike at Angada with anger. Knowing that the spike is going to fall on him, the mighty Angada, the chief of the monkeys, who was skilled in war-fare, avoided it with his alacrity. Jumping up Angada struck on Kumbhakarna's chest, with the palm of his hand. Thus beaten with anger by him, Kumbhakarna resembling a mountain, became giddy. Getting his consciousness, that mighty demon threw down Angada by tightening his fist with a scorn. Angada fell down unconscious. When that Angada the foremost among the monkeys fell down unconscious on the ground, Kumbhakarna ran towards Sugreeva, taking that spike in his hand."
=
First victory against Hanutati:
His roar & entrance was all that was needed to scare Hanuman to the point where Hanuman fled like a rat despite having multiple vanaras with him.
Raam's word
[start]
"He alone with a huge body here on this earth, is appearing like a solitary meteror, by seeing whom all the monkeys are running away hither and thither."

"The highly enraged Kumbhakara devouring the monkeys on is way, is running towards us. Even on merely seeing Kumbhakarna, the monkeys have now fled away. How can the monkeys check him, who is thus enraged in battle?"

QuotE.
"Kumbhakarna emitted a roar, making the sea to reverberate, causing the mountains to quake and drowning the thunder-claps, as it were. Seeing that demons of terrific eyes who could not be destroyed either by Indra the lord of celestials or by Yama the lord of death or by Varuna the god of water, the monkeys ran away."
[Quote]
"Dvipada, Panasa and hanuma marched ahead very quickly, with their faces turned towards the battle."
[done]
Logic - Cause hanuman was among this trio that went back to fight in the war its clear he was motivated by Angada's speech so he was also among the vanaras that ran away like cowards from Kumbhakarna.

[Passage]
"Thereafter, with the coaxing words and inferential arguments by Angada, all those fleeing commanders of monkeys turned back."
[enD's]

Other incident;
"Seeing that slayer of his foes on the royal high way, that monster as high as the peak of a mountain, those monkeys stationed outside the city, as also their leaders, were frightened suddenly. Some gained refuge in Rama who affords protection, some fell down tottering, some fled away perturbed in all directions and some others lay on the ground, confounded with fear. Seeing that colossus appearing like a great peak, having a diadem who seemed to touch the sun with his brilliance, the monkeys were seized with terror and had grown immensely in size, fled hither and thither."
It's a scene which happen's before kumbhakarna talked to Ravan. Prior to the 66th chapter.

Later battle;
"The heroic Rama, enraged with red-hot eyes, as though he was scorching the enemy with his looks, walked with speed, causing delight to all the leaders of the monkey-troops, who were tormented with the fear of Kumbhakarna and quickly marched towards the demon."
=
2nd victory against hanumana;
[Quote]
"Staying in the sky, Hanuma showered mountain-tops, rocks and various types of trees on Kumbhakarna's head. The mighty Kumbhakarna broken those mountain-tops and shattered the torrent of trees with his spike. Then, taking the dreadful spike in his hand, Kumbhakarna ran towards that terrific army of monkeys. Taking a mountain-peak in his hands, Hanuma stood in front of the approaching Kumbhakarna. The enraged Hanuma struck with violence Kumbhakarna, who was endowed with a magnificent body and looking like the most elevated mountain. Thus attacked by Hanuma, Kumbhakarna was stumbled with a sprinkling of blood and with his limbs succulent with flesh. Holding firmly the spike, which was bright as lightning and looking like a blazing mountain-peak, Kumbhakarna struck Hanuma on his chest, as Guha (the son of Shiva) struck Krauncha mountain with his powerful javelin. That Hanuma, struck in his broad chest by the spike in that great combat, was highly perturbed and while vomiting blood from his mouth, awfully roared like the sound of thunderous clouds at the time of dissolution of the world. Looking at the perturbed Hanuma, all the troops of demons then suddenly shouted with rejoice. The monkeys, on their part, felt restless and being oppressed with fear, ran away from the battle-field."
[Ending]

3rd victory against hanuman is a indirect one. Based on my analysis of events and reasons. It is when Sugrīva got captured by him then it was a victory of kumvakarna against all vanars because of various different reasons. First of all kumbhkarna did it in front of hanuman, the second one is that hanuman expressed his desire to try and save Sugrīva but understood he himself was incapable. So he backed off.
I know hanubhakts won't agree but I have a easy debunk to their arguments. A excuse like "hanuman did not want to save Sugrīva because it is disgraceful for a king to be saved by a minister" is lame. Cause Raam was also a king (but in exile) he recieved help from a minister (hanuman) when it comes to searching for seetha.

Hanuman himself helped Sugrīva by looking for the whereabouts/location of seetha so that the promises (made by Sugrīva to Raam) can be fulfilled. So if he is willing to help in a situation like that then it makes no sense why he wouldn't aid Sugrīva when his life is in danger unless the obvious choice (hanuman was afraid of Kumbhakarna).
=
4th incident - It is a possibility that hanutati was among the vanar leaders that tried to climb on kumbhkarna but were shaken off.
Word's of laxman;
"Let the foremost of monkeys ascend well upon his body from all sides. Following the commanders of their troops, let the monkey-leaders stand, surrounding him. If we do in that way, that evil-minded demon would be harassed by the huge weight, making him to crawl on the floor and cannot kill the other monkeys."
Logic - Yes hanutati was not the BEST vanara, but he is among their top 10 warrior's, so he should be considered 1 of the "foremost" i do not believe angada was in that group (which climb on kumbhakarna). The reason is angad was unconscious at the moment & sugreev should be absent too because the army at this point already risked losing the war cause he got captured briefly. So they would not risk letting their king get so close to kumbhakarna this time.
Deeds committed by vanaras;
"Hearing those words of that intelligent Lakshmana, those monkeys were rejoiced and mounted on the body of Kumbhakarna. Kumbhakarna, when climbed upon by the monkeys, was enraged and shook them off with violence, as a vicious elephant would shake off its mahout. Seeing the monkeys shaken down, Rama on his part understanding that he was enraged, jumped up speedily towards the demon and took an excellent bow."
Result is that kumbhkarn wins again.

Power difference/comparison with Hanuman:
"As the illustrious Kumbhakarna did not waken from his slumber despite those great sounds, all troops of demons seized hold of bars, pestles and maces towards him."
"Then, the cruel demons struck that sleeping Kumbhakarna on his chest with mountain-tops, pestles, maces, hammers and their fists."
"Even with all their strength, the demons could not stand upright before the breathing winds of Kumbhakarna, the demon."

Foot soldier's damaged Hanuman;
"That Hanuma, then being beaten with sticks and fists by the cruel demons, was dragged to the vicinity of Ravana. Then, recognizing that Hanuma, tied with barks of trees and ropes."
Hanuman got dragged around like a toy: "That Ravana, who was endowed with an extraordinary energy, saw Hanuma the foremost of monkeys, being dragged hither and thither by demons."
Clearly Hanuman was tied up by ordinary wood, trees & ropes. I think if Kumbhkarn was in his place then he could easily get rid of such low level restraints.
=
Hanubhakts claim 'our hanuman said he could grow to a bigger size and end or squash kumbhkarna very easily'
MY DEBUNK;
[Quote]
"Indra’s younger brother Viṣṇu has been sent by Devas due to the words of the Earth. O my heroic friends, he is already scorched by my valour. I do not mind him at all."
Note - just cause Kamsa said it or bragged does that mean it really happened? Had kamsa defeated vishnu or even injured him (as he claimed "vishnu is scorched by me")? As far as i can tell their is no line in the puranas which reference vishnu fighting or meeting kamsa.

Conclusion; So just because Hanuman claims that he can grow to a size more massive than kumvakarna or that he can defeat kumbhakarna that does not make his claim a fact. Valmiki could not even read the minds of people so how can he know a internal thought of a character in the war? So it is doubtful whether these were the true thoughts of hanuman at all.

Sugrīva lost (in MB);
"And then, as if roused from his torpor by that blow, Kumbhakarna stretching forth his arms seized Sugriva by main force. And beholding Sugriva dragged away by the Rakshasa, the heroic son of Sumitra, that delighter of his friends, rushed towards Kumbhakarna."
As per Mahabharat king Sugrīva failed to injure Kumvakarn but according to Ramayana he succeeded in wounding the giant but according to both sources Sugrīva still loses the fight between them.
[Begin]
"Uplifting and tightly holding a mountain-top, the mighty Sugreeva ran towards the sturdy Kumbhakarna with speed. Seeing that Sugreeva coming rapidly towards him, Kumbhakarna, with all his limbs braced, stood facing the king of monkeys."
{BREAK}
"Sugreeva, firmly holding the mountain, hurled it quickly on him. He struck Kumbhakarna's chest by that mountain, which was as strong enough as Indra's thunderbolt. Soon after falling on his broad chest, that mountain was crushed to pieces. Then, the monkeys were suddenly distressed. The troops of demons roared with rejoice. Struck by the mountain-top, that Kumbhakarna was enraged and roared with his mouth wide open with anger. Holding firmly the spike, which was emitting a flash of lightning, he hurled it to kill Sugreeva, the king of monkeys and bears."
(HANUTATI STOPPED THE SPIKE)
"Uprooting a crest from Malaya mountain standing in the vicinity of Lanka and approaching Sugreeva, he struck him with it. Struck by the mountain-top in battle, that Sugreeva fell unconscious on the ground. Seeing him falling unconscious on the ground in battle, the demons were exceedingly pleased and cried out loudly. Seizing hold of that Sugreeva having wonderful and terrific prowess in battle, that Kumbhakarna took him away, as an impetuous wind takes away a cloud. Lifting up Sugreeva appearing like a huge cloud in the battle-field and marching forward, Kumbhakarna shone like Mount Meru, distinguished by its very high and formidable peak. Then, being praised in the battle-field by the demons for having seized hold of Sugreeva and hearing the sounds of the celestials who were wondering at the seizure of Sugreeva, Kumbhakarna the valiant chief of demons, sallied forth.
[donE]
Sugrīva broke his nose, ribs and teeth.
Quote;
"Thus thinking, Sugreeva tore asunder Kumbhakarna's ears by his nails as also nose by his teeth and ribs by his feet. Torn asunder with teeth and nails by Sugreeva, that Kumbhakarna with his ears and nose deprived and his limbs moistened with blood, was subdued with rage, threw Sugreeva down on the floor and crushed him."
[Complete]

Still he got crushed by kumbhkarna so kumvakarna had the last laugh.
Evidence:
"Crushed down on the floor by that terrific Kumbhakarna and struck by the demons, Sugreeva moved with speed like a ball towards the sky and got united with Rama."

What kumvakarna said to Raam "You need not treat me with contempt, as I am deprived of my ear and nose. To me, there is no agony even indeed a little, for having lost the ear and the nose."
Point; he felt no pain from Sugrīva's achievement.
=
PART 3)
Magical power.
1] Regrowing of limbs.
[quote]
"But as soon as the two arms of the Rakshasa were thus cut off, double that number of arms soon appeared on his person. Sumitra's son, however, displaying his skill in weapon, soon by means of similar arrows cut off those arms also, each of which had seized a mass of stone. At this, that Rakshasa assumed a form enormously huge and furnished with numerous heads and legs and arms."
[end]

Other abilities:
Weapons came out of his mouth like fire is released from a dragon's mouth.
[Quote]
"The demon with his very sharp teeth, rained spikes on the monkeys, like Yama, the god of death, risen to power at the end of the world-cycle."

Versatility.
Kumbhkarn was an archer too.
[Start]
"If Rama today survives even after facing the rapid blows of my fists, then my flood of arrows will drink the blood of Rama."
Durability.
1] Withstood attack of king Sugriva.
[Quote]
"that high-souled king of the monkeys swiftly approaching the Rakshasa, violently struck him on the head with the trunk of a Sala tree. And though the high-souled Sugriva always prompt in action broke that Sala tree on the head of Kumbhakarna, he failed to make any impression on that Rakshasa."
[End]
Logic - don't forget how much blood got shed from Vali's body due to Sugriva's attacks as per Kishkinda Kandam.

Sugriva vs Vali:
"Vali and Sugriva rushed to the encounter, fighting with Sala and Tala trees and stones. And they struck each other down on the earth. And leaping high into the air, they struck each other with their fists. And mangled by each other's nail and teeth, both of them were covered with blood."
Logic; Unless u believe Vali was covered with Sugriva's blood instead of his own u have to admit Kumbhkarn's durability was better than Vali's.

Arrows that prove to be the mrityu of VALI failed against kumbhakarna:
[quoTe]
"Those arrows, which chopped off the Sala trees and killed Vali the foremost of monkeys, could not torment Kumbhakarna's body which was like a thunderbolt. Sucking those arrows with his body, as mountains suck up torments of water, that Kumbhakarna, flourishing his hammer with terrible speed, hindered the tremendous speed of Rama's arrows."
=
Laxman vs Kumbhakarna (only ramayana not other sources).
Quote:
"Immediately, Lakshmana the son of Sumitra, the annihilator of the foe's army and conqueror of the cities of adversaries, commenced the battle with a rage. The valiant Lakshmana pierced seven arrows into the body of Kumbhakarna. He took some more arrows and released them too. Tormented by that weapon of Lakshmana, that demon destroyed it completely. Thereupon, the aggressive Lakshmana was enraged. Then, Lakshmana covered the shining and charming golden armour of Kumbhakarna with his arrows, even as the wind would make an evening-twilight cloud completely disappear. Kumbhakarna, looking like a mound of collyrium, tormented by the arrows, decked with gold, shone like the radiant sun with its rays screened by clouds.
After this he has a conversation and laxman is pushed aside.
Quote.
"Hearing in this manner, that mighty Kumbhakarna the demon, brushing aside Lakshmana and crossing him, ran, as though he is causing an earth-quake, towards Rama."
[END]
Conclusion - though laxman did put up a decent resistance against him in the finale Kumbhakarna overcame him. Possibly the praise he granted laxman was just a sarcastic speech (kumbhkarn spoke) to catch laxman off guard so he could get a chance to throw him away like a softball.
=
Valmiki compared Kumbhkarn to Vishnu himself:
"Seeing that paramount demon, whose appearance was in the form of a mountain and looking like Lord Narayana."
Again he got compared to Vishnu: "Adorned with all ornaments to all his limbs and with a spike in his hand, that demon shone like Narayana, the all-embracing Lord, enthusiastic to take the three long strides."

According to Ramayana he was drunk before the battle occurred;
"Having drunk two thousand pitchers, Kumbhakarna prepared to set out and slightly inebriated."
His physical condition below:
nidraamada samaakulaH = but filled with an intoxicating drowsiness

Kumbhkarn's armour was heavy so it reduced his physical speed/movement.
[Begin]
"Secured with a golden armour, carrying a great load, impenetrable by weapons and as if blazing with its own splendour with flashing like lightning, Kumbhakarna shone as a king of Mountains, enveloped by clouds at sunset."
So he had a restriction (shackle holding the bulk of his power back) during his victory against hanuman/sugreev etc.
=
Incident which makes no sense.
{Quoted texT}
"They crushed his limbs under piles of heavy logs and pillars, as also maces lifted with all their strength."
Logic - how did kumbhkarn even awaken let alone fight in war after his bones were broken?

But one thing i will clear up is that he was not a machine:
"Let all the monkeys be told that it is a kind of machine, advancing forward. By knowing this, they can become fearless by now."
Note; and his body was not that of a machine controlled by ravan or a brother of ravan either, he was born a giant instead.
Its clearly explained that either Vibeeshan or Raam chose to spread a rumor that kumbhkarna is a machine so the vanars become less intimidated by his entrance.
=
Raam vs Kumvakarna [PART A]
"Thereupon, Rama, the son of Dasaratha, employing a spell called Raudra, discharged sharp arrows into Kumbhakarna's chest. Flames of fire mixed with particles of charcoal came forth from the face of Kumbhakarna, who was thus struck and who was running quickly towards Rama. That foremost among demons, struck by Rama's arrow, roaring terribly with rage, making the monkeys to run away in battle, ran himself towards Rama. Those arrows, adorned with peacock's plumes, penetrated into his chest. His mace dropped off from his hand and fell on the ground. All his weapons fell scattered on the ground. Considering himself as weaponless, that mighty Kumbhakarna then fought fiercely with his fists and arms. That Kumbhakarna, with his body struck fiercely by arrows and bathed in blood, poured forth blood, even as a mountain would pour forth a cascade. With a terrific wrath, he felt insensible with blood. He roamed about, devouring the monkeys, demons and bears. Then, that Kumbhakarna, comparable to Yama the god of death, of terrific prowess and strength, firmly holding a fearful mountain-peak, hurled it towards Rama. Wile that mountain peak was still on its way and had not yet reached him Rama, fixing together his well-known bow and arrows, split the mountain in the middle, with seven straight-going arrows. Then, Rama, the virtuous man and the elder brother of Bharata, split the large mountain-peak which was hurled by Kumbhakarna at that time, with his variegated arrows made of gold. That mountain-peak, in the form of a peak of Mount Meru, as if shining with splendour, while falling, caused two hundred monkeys to fall."
After this a tactic is devised by laxman himself.

Kumvakarna vs Raam {part B};
"Seeing the monkeys shaken down, Rama on his part understanding that he was enraged, jumped up speedily towards the demon and took an excellent bow. The heroic Rama, enraged with red-hot eyes, as though he was scorching the enemy with his looks, walked with speed, causing delight to all the leaders of the monkey-troops, who were tormented with the fear of Kumbhakarna and quickly marched towards the demon. Taking in his hand, a terrific bow with a firmly fastened cord looking like a snake and looking variegated with its crust of gold, with a quiver full of excellent arrows fastened on his back and fully restoring the monkeys to confidence, that Rama quickly marched forward."
[BREAK]
"Seeing that Kumbhakarna, the foremost of demons, having a splendour of blazing fire, Rama, the excellent of men, then stretched his bow. Enraged by the twang of Rama's bow, Kumbhakarna, the foremost of demons, not tolerating that sound, ran towards Rama."
[BREAK AGAIN]
"Rama released plumed arrows. Even after struck by them, whose speed was equal to a thunderbolt, that demon was neither shaken nor afflicted. Those arrows, which chopped off the Sala trees and killed Vali the foremost of monkeys, could not torment Kumbhakarna's body which was like a thunderbolt. Sucking those arrows with his body, as mountains suck up torments of water, that Kumbhakarna, flourishing his hammer with terrible speed, hindered the tremendous speed of Rama's arrows. Then, flourishing that hammer which was smeared with blood and which can frighten the great army of celestials, in terrific speed, that demon scared away the army of monkeys. Thereupon, taking a great missile called Vayavya, Rama hurled it on the demon. By that weapon, he chopped off Kumbhakarna's arm along with the hammer. With his arm chopped off, Kumbhakarna roared tumultuously. That Kumbhakarna's arm, identical to a mountain-peak, which was chopped off by Rama's arrow, fell along with the hammer on that army of Sugreeva and killed that regiment of monkeys.
[BREAK]
"Having an arm chopped off by the arrow like a mountain-peak chopped off by a gigantic sword, that Kumbhakarna with his another arm, pulled up a tree by its roots and then ran towards Rama the lord of men in that battle-front. By his arrow, which was made variegated by gold and furnished with a mystic spell of Indra used for charming it, Rama chopped off Kumbhakarna's remaining arm, appearing like the coil of a serpent along with his uprooted palm-tree. That Kumbhakarna's arm, which appeared like a hill, was chopped off and fell down on the ground. Wallowing hither and thither, it dashed with trees, rocks, monkeys and demons. Seeing Kumbhakarna with his arms chopped off, abruptly with a roar, coming upon him and taking two sharp arrows with a shape of a half-moon each, Rama chopped off the feet of the demon in that battle. Creating a resound everywhere in all directions, even in hill-caves, in the great ocean, in Lanka as also in the armies of monkeys and demons, Kumbhakarna's feet fell down."
https://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/yuddha/sarga67/yuddha_67_frame.htm

Logic; raam clearly wins but it was not a fair fight from the beginning, on one side is raam who is fighting in a fresh condition vs Kumbhkarn who already fought numerous battles.
Shri Kumbhkarn would have a better chance at defeating Ram if he fought him first instead of fighting Angad initially. Kumbhkarn was injured grievously by Angad, Hanuman, Sugreev, Lakshman cause in order to defeat all 4 of them he had to suffer wounds first.
Conclusion; Kumbakarna was the underdog in his fight with Raam as it was, not fair at all. If the deaths of bhishma, karna, shalya can be classified as unfair ones, then the death of Kumvakarna was much more unfair than theirs.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, August 22, 2024

Satyaki other fact's.

=
Information besides him defeating the overrated karna/bhishma etc. Or his other battle victories.

Satyaki had superior education to almost every character, cause he was trained by 5 people who are all different.

Names of his mentors;
"That same Satyaki who, I have heard, obtained weapons from Drona and Arjuna and Krishna and Kripa and Bhishma, and who is said to be equal to the son of Krishna, is devotedly attached to the Pandava cause."
Logic; if u learned English u would know who trained him.
Satyaki had more than one son alive after day 5:
[Quote]
"If before this night passes away, I do not slay thee, that art so proud of thy heroism, with thy sons and younger brothers, provided Jishnu, the son of Pritha, does not protect thee, then let me sink into terrible hell."
[Ending]
Logic - in mausala parva he had another son making the total remainder 2 sons.
Quote.
"The dear son of Yuyudhana, with a company of old men and children and women, the righteous-souled Arjuna established on the banks of the Sarasvati."

Younger brothers were also mentioned in drona parva, since it is unlikely that they got killed by the vahika family its likely the reason for their absence (after ghatotkaca vadha) is that they were murdered by lesser known warriors (kourav brother's).
Or they're just insignificant kills of Drona/Ashwathama or possibly their deaths were not witnessed by Sanjaya but their bodies could be seen as corpses. Cause bhishma clearly did not kill them since they lasted till the fourteenth night.

Adding more to his family Satyaki's biological father was Satyaka:
"And Satyaki and Kritavarma, conversant with weapons possessed of mighty energy, well-versed in all branches of knowledge, and obedient to Narayana in everything and competent in the use of weapons, had their births from Satyaka and Hridika."
=
Astra quiver:
"Knowledge of Brahma, and high weapons, are all in him (Satyaki) of the Satwata race, as the three worlds are in Kesava. What heroes (of my army), approaching that mighty bowman, Satyaki, possessed of all those accomplishments and incapable of being resisted by the very gods, surrounded him?"
Logic - so he did have a brahmastra which could be used to combat bhishma, karna etc. And cause brahmastra is the weakness of hanuman & laxman its fair to conclude Satyaki can win against both of them too with such power.
=
Satyaki was considered a great warrior even before the Kurukshetra battle.
Pradyumna's fear of his opinion.
[Quote]
"What also, O Suta, will that lion among men, the grand-son of Sini (Saṭyaki), that great warrior, say on hearing that I have forsaken the fight?"
[Complete]
Note; if someone likes pradyumna or has a high opinion of him then they need to also admit satyaki was a better warrior than parshuram, pradyumna, hanuman & karna.

Bhishma said:
"The brave Satyaki of Madhu's race is a leader of leaders of car-divisions. Foremost among the heroes of the Vrishni race, he is endued with great wrath, and is perfectly dauntless."
Meaning - satyaki was the finest hero among all yadava's.
=
Celestial weapons that Saṭyaki actually used.
Quote;
"Beholding him then thus blazing up (like a swelling fire), king Duryodhana despatched ten thousand cars against him. But that great bowman, Satyaki, of prowess incapable of being baffled and possessed of great energy, slew with his celestial weapons all those mighty car-warriors. Having achieved, bow in hand, that fierce feat, that hero then approached Bhurisravas in battle."
[End]

[Quote]
"That son of Vrishni's race applied the Aindra weapon which that illustrious hero of Madhu's race had obtained from Vijaya. That weapon consuming into ashes that Demoniac illusion, covered Alamvusha all over with terrible shafts, like a mass of clouds covering the mountain-breast with torrents of rain in the rainy season. Thereupon the Rakshasa, thus afflicted by that hero of Madhu's race, fled away in fear, avoiding Satyaki in battle. Then the grandson of Sini, having vanquished that prince of Rakshasas who was incapable of being vanquished by Maghavat himself, uttered a loud roar in the very sight of all thy troops. And Satyaki, of prowess incapable of being baffled, then began to slay thy troops with innumerable shafts whereupon the latter fled away in fear."

Satyaki was also equipped with anjalik vaans;
"Mangled by Satwata with long shafts & calf-tooth-headed arrows & broad-headed arrows & Anjalikas & razor-faced arrows & crescent-shaped ones fled away, with blood flowing down their bodies, and themselves ejecting urine and excreta and uttering loud and diverse cries, deep as the roar of clouds."
Logic - it was the elephants who cried/fled. Ironically here he fell in the category of bhishma/karna (both failed to kill elephants).

Varunaastra;
"Beholding that terrible foe-slaughtering Agneya weapon, Satyaki, that mighty bowman, invoked another celestial weapon, the Varuna. Seeing them both take up celestial weapons, loud cries of Oh and Alas arose there. The very creatures having the sky for their element ceased to range through it. Then the Varuna and the Agneya weapons which had thus been grafted on their shafts coming against each other became fruitless."

https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07094.htm

Him countering the divya astras thrown at him.
15th day;
[Quote]
"Both of them loudly applauded Satyaki of unfading glory, who was thus destroying the celestial weapons of all those warriors."
[quoTe]
"Indeed, in that dreadful battle, Satyaki, by means of his own celestial weapons, duly resisted all those celestial weapons aimed at him by those illustrious warriors."
Note - those warriors were karna, drona, kripa & suyodhan. So clearly satyaki was not vulnerable to divya astras.
=
Praise given to him.
"Others there are tigers among men, equal in might to a thousand Akshauhinis, such as Satyaki and Bhimasena, and the twin brothers of mighty strength."
Logic - i bet 1 crore vanaras like hanuman would be inferior to satyaki alone.

His incredible achievement which (apart from sri krishna) nobody else did:
"That host consisting of panic-stricken combatants and elephants and steeds, slaughtered on all sides by Satyaki with his shafts repeatedly turned round, and wandered hither and thither as if afflicted with the chilling blasts of winter. We saw not foot-soldiers or car-warriors or elephants or horsemen or steeds that were not struck with Yuyudhana's arrows. Not even Phalguna, O king, had caused such a carnage there as Satyaki, O monarch, then caused among those troops. That bull among men, the dauntless grandson of Sini, endued with great lightness of hand and displaying the utmost skill, fighteth, surpassing Arjuna himself."
How it does make sense even if arjuna killed 7 aukshounis on day 14 and satyaki killed 7.1, 7 & a half or maybe a total of 8 aukshounis.
Because the kourav army was bigger than what is normally believed (11 aukshounis).
Sanjaya said that their existed over 6 million protector's of just elephant's and chariot's;
"They that protected the wheels of the cars and they that protected the elephants, numbered full six millions."
Proof can always be found by those that are determined.

15 aukshouni = 3,280,500
Total kourav army was over 6 million (before karna's aukshouni from anga desh comes to join the war).

Also here is another side of the coin/reality (how much the kouravas had in their sena):
"In thy army, O Bharata, were a thousand elephants of the foremost fighting powers. Unto each elephant was assigned a century of cars; unto each car, a hundred horsemen; unto each horseman, ten bowmen; and unto each bowman ten combatants armed with sword and shield."
Logic; 100 thousand chariots, 10 million horsemen, 100 million archers, 1 BILLION infantry (that had shield/sword together). The total would be (without anga desh & alayudha's unit) = 1,110,101,000 (1 billion, 110 million, 101 thousand) warrior's.

So all of this will continuously be supportive of my opinion that Satyaki murdering 8 aukshounis or more than 7 aukshounis (just not equal to eight) is believable. Arjuna was more focused on the goal of killing jayadratha so his time would be invested in that.
He was not able to kill as many as satyaki was because his purpose was not to kill these nameless, random foot soldier's who are in the way. At times arjuna would avoid ending a battle too that day unlike satyaki who made sure that whenever he faces a person their battle would reach a conclusion either with a enemies death or loss.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, August 20, 2024

Who broke the rules of war 1st?

Rules are described/narrated in the bhishma parva day 1 or before in that parva.
Quote:
"Then the Kurus, the Pandavas, and the Somakas made certain covenants, and settled the rules, O bull of Bharata's race, regarding the different kinds of combat. Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly. And if having fought fairly the combatants withdraw (without fear of molestation), even that would be gratifying to us. Those who engaged in contests of words should be fought against with words."
"Those that left the ranks should never be slain. A car-warrior should have a car-warrior for his antagonist; he on the neck of an elephant should have a similar combatant for his foe; a horse should be met by a horse, and a foot-soldier, O Bharata; should be met by a foot-soldier. Guided by considerations of fitness, willingness, daring and might, one should strike another, giving notice. No one should strike another that is unprepared or panic-struck."
"One engaged with another, one seeking quarter, one retreating, one whose weapon is rendered unfit, uncased in mail, should never be struck. Car-drivers, animals (yoked to cars or carrying weapons) men engaged in the transport of weapons, players on drums and blowers of conches should never be struck. Having made these covenants, the Kurus, and the Pandavas, and the Somakas wondered much, gazing at each other."

The speech said by overrated Karna before his death in karna parva.
Quote;
He said these words, "O Partha, O Partha, wait for a moment, that is, till I lift this sunken wheel. Beholding, O Partha, the left wheel of my car swallowed through accident by the earth, abandon (instead of cherishing) this purpose (of striking and slaying me) that is capable of being harboured by only a coward. Brave warriors that are observant of the practices of the righteous, never shoot their weapons at persons with dishevelled hair, or at those that have turned their faces from battle, or at a Brahmana, or at him who joins his palms, or at him who yields himself up or beggeth for quarter or at one who has put up his weapon, or at one whose arrows are exhausted, or at one whose armour is displaced, or at one whose weapon has fallen off or been broken! Thou art the bravest of men in the world. Thou art also of righteous behaviour, O son of Pandu! Thou art well-acquainted with the rules of battle. For these reasons, excuse me for a moment, that is, till I extricate my wheel, O Dhananjaya, from the earth. Thyself staying on thy car and myself standing weak and languid on the earth, it behoveth thee not to slay me now. Neither Vasudeva, nor thou, O son of Pandu, inspirest me with the slightest fear. Thou art born in the Kshatriya order. Thou art the perpetuator of a high race. Recollecting the teachings of righteousness, excuse me for a moment, O son of Pandu!"
https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08090.htm
Logic - that means that cause during the jayadrath vadha chapter bheems arrows were exhausted Karna should not have attacked him with arrows.
Group attack vs Bhima (day 1):
"And roaring like a deep mass of clouds, and assuming an awful form, that hero frightened thy sons and fell upon them. Thereupon the brothers thy sons Duryodhana, and Durmukha and Dussaha, and that mighty car-warrior Dussasana, and Durmarshana, O king, and Vivingsati, and Chitrasena, and the great car-warrior Vikarna and also Purumitra, and Jaya, and Bhoja, and the valorous son of Somadatta, shaking their splendid bows like masses of clouds exhibiting the lightning's flashes, and taking out (of their quivers) long arrows resembling snakes that have just cast off their sloughs."
"Surrounded that mighty bowman rushing (towards them) covering him with flights of arrows like the clouds shrouding the sun. And the (five) sons of Draupadi, and the mighty car-warrior Saubhadra, and Nakula, and Sahadeva, and Dhrishtadyumna of Prishata's race, rushed against (those) Dhartarashtras, tearing them with whetted shafts like summits of mountains with the impetuous bolts of heaven. And in that first encounter characterised by the awful twang of bow-strings and their flapping against the leathern fences (of the warriors) no combatant, either on thy side or that of the foe, turned back."
Detail's; Here the kouravas began the rule breaking trend. Before any pandava warrior came to interfere these 12 warrior's (eleven were kourava princes, one was a son to Somadatta) ganged up on Bheem it was clearly cheating. How could a unbiased reader claim the first side to break rules was the pandav army?
Adding the other warriors still it was just 9 characters who aided Bheem that too only after he was attacked. So the pandav side was outnumbered it remains a group attack.
Rules broken by Vrihadvala (in his fight with Abhimanyu).
Quote;
"The mighty bowman Abhimanyu battled with Vrihadvala. Soon, however, in that encounter, O king, the ruler of Kosala cut off the standard and overthrew the charioteer of Subhadra's son. The son of Subhadra then upon the overthrow of his charioteer, was filled with wrath and pierced Vrihadvala, O king, with nine shafts, and with a couple of sharp arrows that grinder of foes also cut off (Vrihadvala's) standard, and with one (more) cut off one of the protectors of his car-wheels and with the other his charioteer. And those chastisers of foes continued to weaken each other with sharp arrows."
According to the laws previously explained the charioteer's were supposed to be given special treatment so they should never be struck or attacked. You can read that obviously the first warrior to hit a chariot driver was Vrihadvala (descendant of Raam) not Abhimanyu (son of shri Subhadra).
So this's the 2nd time that army (kouravas led by gandu bhishma) broke rules, ethics & laws of combat.

Also if we take this further back then during Adi Parva the kouravas together with Karna/Yuyutsu (102 chariot-fighter's in total) fought 2 people (Drupada/Satyajeet) unless you include pancala citizens so it was clearly adharma/cheating. After doing such a cowardly act these kouravas should never expect a fair fight.

Or in Ramayana it was cheating when Wiraadh was forced to fight a 2 vs 1 battle alone, him by himself up-against Laxman/Raam or the fights of Kabandha/Viswavasu were just as unfair. Readers/fanclubs often forget that the vanaras always did group attacks against Meghanada during Yuddh Kanda. Yet he gets immense hatred from hindus (cause he defeated 3 stooge character's). Even Atikaya was a victim of a vanar group attack, but never did a single vanara earn the label of "KAYAR" "Crook warrior" 'coward" "namard" etc. Because people have a bias/favoritism.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Alexander vs Porus, who actually won?

Intro; if you the reader does not care about whether greek sources are authentic/trustworthy then you can skip to the good part of this post by using CNTRL F "THIS'S WHERE THE POST REALLY BEGINS BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT WHETHER ALEXANDER LOST OR WON THIS BATTLE."
=
Are Greek sources reliable or not?
Answer; even if they are not still the fact remain's they are the only record available.

The only thing i find to be incorrect in greek sources would be their usage of the term "Asia" as in several places it is mentioned Alexander conquered all of asia. Yet authors and historians ignore the fact alexander did not ever once step foot on chinese soil or vietnamese soil or even kazakhstan/tibet.
His campaign ended in western india, that is a fact, so he clearly did not conquer asia or become lord of asia. The only explanation behind this mistake is that the historians did not know the true size or extent/length of the Asian continent. They were ignorant of the geography of the world outside the persian empire and Greece.
Reason's i think the greek sources can be considered a trustworthy source.
1st;
Multiple incidents which make Alexander look bad exist & get recorded in the sources written by Greeks, Roman's, Macedonians etc. Like the burning of persepolis, the mass murders of Philip's family by Alexander and his well wishers, the unjustified mass killings near the Sogdian rock.
The fact that many greeks were not happy with his rule, that one of alexander's predecessors (who shared his name) was an ally of the Persians during the war where Persia had invaded Greece at one point (centuries before Alexander's campaign) also that Macedon itself was once a vassal region ruled and controlled by Persian's.
Many embarrassing things for alexander, the macedonian's, his people and family have been recorded in greek written records and sources (written by invaders and europeans) therefore it is entirely unreasonable and fake to claim that greek sources would hide a defeat of Alexander.
2nd;
If lying about the battle of Hydaspes was done then why not also lie about the military might which the Nandas had? Why did they say the Nanda Army consisted of no more than 225 thousand men? When the same sources mention the persians to have a even bigger army (300 thousand to 1 million) then it makes less sense for alexander's army to fear the Nandas. But such contradiction is possible only if the authors were being honest cause they did not lie about the numbers of the Nanda army.

Its entirely possible that the two biggest reasons for alexanders men refusing to fight Nandas were the number of elephants and the fact they were homesick, they'd been away from Greece/Macedon for way too long so they needed to return, and with all this fatigue most likely they would find a battle against 225 thousand nanda soldier's to be tougher than the battle with 300 thousand persians.

3rd - they claim Heracles could not win over a fortress which housed normal dark skinned human beings from what is afghanistan (or these current days in 2024 referred to as India).

Quote.
"Alexander's desire to outdo his kinsman Heracles, who allegedly had proved unable to take a fort that the Macedonians called Ἄορνος Aornos."
[End]
Logic - if they can show a god failing to win a conflict how come they have a problem in showing that alexander was defeated by Porus?

4th; Greek sources admit Seleucus's son killed his own son and Seleucus's son married Stratonice (wife of Seleucus). The disgusting history of relative marriages (uncle x niece or cousin x cousin) is admitted in greek textbooks. It shows honesty. Alexander killing Parmenion, Attalus, Philotas, Cleitus and Calisthenes is all described and admitted by historians like Plutarch, Arrian etc.

5th; The loss of alexander's horse when alexander himself was their is documented in greek sources & incident of alexander doing reckless things out of pride, bravado/ego have been narrated too, he did actions that historians think were not prudent, alot of them think he did them out of sheer stupidity instead.

6th - These biased greek author's & historians were the same people who famously wrote that Alexander murdered "Cleitus The Black" in cold blood cause of a argument. And that the same casualty (Cleitus) was the guy that saved Alexander's life twice. So its clearly a embarrassing crime committed by Alex, so how can we accuse these people of bias if they admit such a thing?
=
The foreign historians (anyone that isn't indian/russian) admit and accept facts like the indos province was the most populous/rich province of the Persian Empire.
Quote;
"The Indians made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation known to me, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust."
So India was praised by greeks and romans too, so stands to reason they would have no problem in admitting that a indian king (Porus to greeks was an indian) defeated alexander.
=
Overrated Importance of Seleucus:
At least 5 men were ranked higher than him during alexander's era (besides the man himself) they are Ptolemy, Antigonus, Perdiccas, Hephaiston & Craterus.

"The bulk of his army marched along the bank of the river, under the command of Craterus and Hephaestion."
Comment; as u can read the man called Selecus is nowhere to be found or mentioned, he did not have a prominent role in the army during the period of alexander's life.

Yet serial's (TV media in India & films) overrate Seleucus just cause he became relevant decades after the death of Alexander. Cause India has very few things to brag about so they overrate the power of Seleucus to make the achievement of Chandragupta (incident where he battled Seleucus to a draw in 303 BCE) seem greater/more-impressive than it really is.
THIS'S WHERE THE POST REALLY BEGINS BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT WHETHER ALEXANDER LOST OR WON THIS BATTLE.

Porus could have began his own propaganda campaign:
Think about it before the war he had 300 cities to his name and after it he gained control of 5 thousand cities (the three hundred he lost were granted back to him, 4,700 extra town's were given due to Alexander's respect).

If he won the battle then he should have had adequate/sufficient resources like bards, historians, soothsayers to spread propaganda/rumors that show him defeating alexander.
=
Incident's where Alexander decided to let a enemy live.
1st (in 333 BCE);
"During the Battle of Issus, the immediate family of Darius had been captured by the Macedonian Army. Darius family was hysterical that they would suffer a dreadful fate. However, Leonnatus was able to explain to them, on behalf of Alexander, that this would not be the case. In fact, Alexander promised to respect them as royalty, increase their household servants and to raise Darius 6-year-old boy as his own."

2nd;
"Madates tried to fight Alexander, but the Uxians were at first reluctant. He fought and lost, but was eventually pardoned."

3rd) the sparing of Lysimachus:
{Begin}
"Pausanias and the historian Justin both record a story that Alexander had Lysimachus thrown to a lion as a punishment. According to Justin this was because Lysimachus had smuggled poison to a person Alexander had condemned to a slow death. Both Pausanias and Justin report that Lysimachus overcame the lion with his bare hands and subsequently became one of Alexander's favorites. Some coins issued during Lysimachus's appointment had his image on one side and a lion on the other."
Comment - even giving the man a promotion in turn/exchange, showing that he values a persons capability.

4th the sparing his own namesake;
{Quoted}
"King Alexander not only pardoned him, but even made him his friend and raised him to high honors. He was first entrusted with the command of an army in Thrace, and afterwards received the command of the Thessalian cavalry. In this capacity he accompanied Alexander on his eastern expedition. In 334, when Alexander was laying at Phaselis, he was informed that the Lyncestian was carrying on a secret correspondence with King Darius III of Persia, and that a large sum of money was promised, for which he was to murder Alexander. The bearer of the letters from Darius was taken by Parmenion and brought before Alexander, and the treachery was considered proven. Yet Alexander the Great, dreading to create any hostile feeling in Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, whose daughter was married to Alexander Lyncestes, thought advisable not to put him to death, and had him merely deposed from his office and kept in custody."
{Done}

5th Quote:
"The local leaders in Central Asia would be allowed to maintain their authority. Furthermore, Alexander had not only pardoned many of his former opponents but had also restored them to their former satrapies. Thus the indigenous rulers now regarded Bessus as being a threat to their continued security."
Logic - yeah bessus got killed but the point is the local leaders [the guys whose names are not mentioned] got spared.
So it stands to reason he would spare Porus too.

Argumentative point; Porus getting praise from alexander or his allies is not a big achievement.

Greeks praised enemies besides porus too like a brother of Darius.
[Quoted texT]:
"Oxyathres far surpassed his comrades in the splendour of his arms and in physical strength, and very few could match his courage and devotion to Darius. In that engagement especially he won distinction by cutting down some Macedonians who were recklessly thrusting ahead and putting others to flight."
So it's no surprise if they praised Porus or any warrior belonging to his area of control.

Was Porus actually 'brave'? It's hard to think of the man as a brave person, though it is true he did not abandon his army unlike Darius, at the same time one must think his true motive of fighting till his last breath was cause Porus felt like he had nothing left to lose. Think of it this way, all his sons are dead, he can't find their killers (cause the greeks who murdered them are not named) and his kingdom is already facing enemies from various angles (Ambhi, Dhananand, Alexander).
So what use is their in living to fight another day or even trying to do a futile retreat? Another obvious fact is that he submitted to foreign rule of the Macedonian's even after this heroic resistance. King Porus became a tax payer of Alexander and assisted him in a future campaign.

Since Porus had nothing positive to say about dhana nanda (apart from his military strength) one can conclude that porus was definitely not on good terms with dhananand. So he considered him a enemy that might invade his region of control too.
=
Alexander's victories (after the battle with Porus) are below.
1ST Against a familial-rival/cousin of Porus;
{Quoted}
"A joint expedition was then mounted against a territory east of the Chenab, ruled by an enemy cousin of Porus. He had earlier submitted to Alexander but, suspicious of Porus' rise in rank, chose to flee with his army. The date of this battle remains disputed; Alexander's forces overran his lands before meeting stiff resistance at a walled Sangala on the other side of the Ravi. Siege warfare was executed to brilliant effect and the full-fledged attack began once Porus had joined with his elephants. As Sangala and allied cities were razed, Porus was allowed to station his garrisons."

2ND is a WAR against GLAUSAES;
"His territory was not only restored, but also expanded, with Alexander's forces annexing the territories of Glausaes, who ruled to the northeast of Porus' kingdom."

3RD;
[quote]
"Alexander campaign west of the Indus River brought him into conflict with the Assacani. In defence of their homeland, they assembled an army of 20,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry, and 30 elephants, according to classical writer Quintus Curtius Rufus. Their army included a contingent of 7,000 Kamboj mercenaries recruited from Abhisara."
[finish]
Logic; he was outnumbered here again but alexander succeeds again.
[begin]
"After being defeated in the field, the Assacani fell back to the fortified city of Massaga, where the fighting continued for five days (or nine days, according to Curtius). It was during this battle that Assacanus was killed. After her son's death, Cleophis assumed command mustered the Assacani women to fight, and led the continued defence of the city. Eventually, however, Cleophis judged that defeat was inevitable. She came to terms with the invaders and abandoned Massaga with her followers."
{done}

[start]
"Alexander pursued the Kamboj mercenaries, surrounded them on a hill, and killed them all."
[complete]
All above quotes are taken from the same page/source (Cleophis)
=
The indian campaign does not end here.
QUOTE;
"Barsaentes fled to the Indians, and was given shelter by local dynast, Samaxus. However, the latter handed Barsaentes over to Alexander in 326 BC, seemingly in order to gain the favour of the Macedonian king. Barsaentes was subsequently executed."

Information about Samaxus;
"Samaxus was also brought in chains, the king of a small Indian state, who had espoused the cause of Barsaentes."
vol_II silk road_alexander and his successors in central asia.pdf
My opinion - it's possible that Samaxus was the name of king abhisares (ruler of the kasmira tribe or leader of abhiras in northwester india). He was the 3rd lesser known indian ally of alexander.

Alexander continues.
Quote;
"The assault on the capital city of the Malavas (325 BC); and all authors agreed in attributing the chief share in saving the life of Alexander upon that occasion to Peucestas."

Quote:
"He found that the Agalasseis, as they were called, were drawn up in battle formation. note Their strength was forty thousand infantry and three thousand cavalry. He engaged them and, conquering, cut down most of them. Those who escaped into the neighbouring cities he besieged, captured, and sold as slaves. Other groups of natives had collected also. He took by storm a large city in which twenty thousand persons had taken refuge. The Indians barricaded the streets and fought stoutly from the houses, and he lost not a few Macedonians in pressing his victory home. This made him angry. He set fire to the city and burned up most of the inhabitants with it. note The remaining natives to the number of three thousand had fled to the citadel, whence they appealed for mercy with suppliant branches. Alexander pardoned them."
Logic; yeah it was an atrocity i agree, alexander behaved like a villain here, but its not very different compared to hanutati (Hanuman) burning gardens/property of lankan citizens. Or Sugriva ordering the town of lanka to get burnt in yuddha kandam. But my main point is this occurs after the battle with Porus.

Conclusion; In the rare case if porus did defeat alexander & let him live then in my eyes he should be seen as a criminal because he freed a dangerous person & then stood back as a spectator/bystander when that criminal (Alexander) was burning towns and murdering innocent humans of the indian sub continent.

The last incident i will give a quote for;
"Next he came to the country of King Musicanus; getting him into his hands he killed him and made the country subject. Then he invaded the kingdom of Porticanus, took two cities by storm, allowed the soldiers to plunder the houses, and then set them on fire. Porticanus himself escaped to a stronghold, but Alexander captured it and slew him, still fighting. Then he proceeded to take all of the other cities of his kingdom and destroyed them, and spread the terror of his name throughout the whole region. Next he ravaged the kingdom of Sambus. He enslaved the population of most of the cities and, after destroying the cities, killed more than eighty thousand of the natives. He inflicted a similar disaster upon the tribe of the Brahmins, as they are called; the survivors came supplicating him with branches in their hands, and punishing the most guilty he forgave the rest. King Sambus fled with thirty elephants into the country beyond the Indus and escaped."
Logic - alexander indeed conducted even more campaigns after this but the reason i am ending it here is cause if i continue the post will become too long and boring, theirs no point in continuing a endless cycle.

All of these quotes, references and incident's are being shown by me not with a intention to show alexander's power or glorify him but rather my intent is to show that he was still a powerful threat & invader to northwestern india.

He attacked many region's close to Porus's abode, so it makes no sense for a defeated king to do that much rampaging after losing to Porus.
=
Inactivity of Porus in the time after Alexander's death also indicates that his freedom, control & power declined rapidly, his condition was akin to that of the mughals after the marathas became the main power of India in the 1700s or the family who Hyder Ali usurped Mysore's kingdom from.
Captain Leonidas quells a revolt of north western aryans.
[Quote]
"After Alexander left, at some point Oreitans rebelled. Leonnatus manage to defeat them killing 6,000 and all their leaders, while losing only 15 cavalrymen and a handful of men, but Apollophanes (the Satrap) killed in the battle."
[Ending]
=
THE AMBHIRAAJ ARGUMENT;
A very common argument provided by Indians (people that are pro Porus) is that since Ambhi (Taxiles) joined Alexander only with a promise that he'd receive territory of Porus or that Porus would be killed that means Alexander must have lost to Porus cause theirs no way he would spare Porus only to risk the displeasure and possible betrayal of Taxiles. But what they dont get is that their was another side of the story after Alexander spared Porus. Not only did Porus begin to give annual tribute to Alexander but his last surviving offspring (since all sons of Porus died in the war) was married off to Ambhiraaj (Taxiles), he married the daughter of Porus.
It was in order to secure his claim to Porus's throne provided should anything bad happen to Porus in the future (death by age, poisoning or illness). It's also deemed a political wedding/alliance conducted by Alexander to unify 2 of his vassals (since porus/ambhi had a big enmity/rivalry before alexander came into their lives).
So Alexander kept his promise to Ambhi & held up his end of the bargain by arranging such a wedding, provided that Porus does die in the future then the sole ruler of his kingdom will be Ambhi cause no son of porus existed or it will be a person of Ambhi's blood line as the daughter of porus is now property of Ambhi raaj.
=
Alexander's horse dying is a up played achievement which alexander hater's/porus bhakts keep exaggerating.
Quote;
"After the battle with Porus, too, Bucephalas died not at once, but some time afterwards as most writers say, from wounds for which he was under treatment, but according to Onesicritus, from old age, having become quite worn out;​ for he was thirty years old when he died."
First of all it was a worn out and aged horse. Second of all its death occurring at porus's own blade or hands is not mentioned, so far i have not found any detail on the identity of the person that injured it.
Size of the assyrian faction (a minor unit in the persian military);
Quote.
"A massive army was assembled by Xerxes in the early 5th century BC. Contemporary estimates place the numbers between 100,000 and over a million."
{Done}
Comment - at minimum the persians could muster 300 thousand soldiers in my opinion, one hundred thousand from their province (assyria) 100 thousand citizens and 100 thousand trained soldiers of their capital.

When alexander is able to win against a foe that had access to a minimum of 300,000 and maximum of a million men then its clear its not hard to believe he would win against Porus too (who at minimum had 22,000 and at maximum had 50 thousand men).
=
Plutarch's words can be seen as a exaggeration:
{quote}
In the Roman period, the 'Lion of Chaeronea', an enigmatic monument on the site of the battle, was believed to mark the resting place of the Sacred Band. Modern excavations found the remains of 254 soldiers underneath the monument; it is therefore generally accepted that this was indeed the grave of the Sacred Band, since it is unlikely that every member was killed.
Note - however it is not that big of an exaggeration as it can be seen that not all 300 (of the sacred band) died still 254 indeed fell in battle. So he was only 15 percent off (since 254 is 84.6 percent of 300). So maybe if he stated their were 600 thousand men in the persian army of Issus then it was really 84 percent of that number then.

At the end of the day by all accounts the persian empire was the largest of its time (before alexander's rise to fame) so they clearly had the resources and means that enabled them to have at minimum 100 thousand soldiers, they definitely had a population of more than 20 million citizens so why would they not be able to bring at least 1/40th (500,000) of it into a war?
Not hard to believe 504 thousand persian warriors (most of that army could be from vassal states like troy, illyria, assyria, egypt, armenia etc) would exist during that era.
Also just the fact of 254 corpses being found compared to 300 does not really prove that Plutarch's conclusion was incorrect because its highly possible that 46 of the corpses faded away, their bones were ate or lost due to natural disasters or humans messing with grave sites.
[ImagEvidence of the population of the persian empirE]
=
Misunderstanding;
"Alexander not only permitted him to govern his former kingdom, giving him the title of satrap, but also added to it the territory of the independent peoples whom he subdued, in which there are said to have been fifteen nations, five thousand cities of considerable size, and a great multitude of villages. He subdued other territory also thrice as large as this and appointed Philip, one of his companions, satrap over it."
Analysis - pay attention to the last line/sentence which mentions that Philip (not his dad instead a companion/mate/comrade/friend) was given ownership of land that was 3 times the size of whatever he granted Porus.
=
Before Alexander invaded then Porus was at a time period where he controlled over 300 cities;
{Quote}
Between the Hydaspes and the Acesines is, first, the country of Porus, extensive and fertile, containing about three hundred cities; secondly, the forest near the Emodi mountains, from which Alexander cut, and brought down on the Hydaspes, a large quantity of fir, pine, cedar, and other logs of all kinds fit for shipbuilding, from which he built a fleet on the Hydaspes near the cities founded by him on either side of the river where he crossed and conquered Porus.
Basic question; since porus held this much power and influence why did no indian record the history of porus a king that owned more than three hundred towns in the northeastern territory of Akhand Bharat Varsh?

From 300 cities (what Porus had before Hydaspes's battle) to 5 thousand cities (what Porus gained after that battle) makes u wonder how much land alexander had to waste if he could give porus about 16 to 17 times the size of his land.
=
The only thing i find to be unbelievable, untrustworthy & illogical in greek sources is the following quote;
"Yet his elephant was of the largest size and it showed remarkable intelligence and solicitude for the king, bravely defending him and beating back his assailants while he was still in full vigour, and when it perceived that its master was worn out with a multitude of missiles and wounds, fearing he should fall off, it knelt softly on the ground, and with its proboscis gently took each spear and drew it out of his body."
Because it shows that a Elephant had that much of a mind of its own, i do agree that animals can be intelligent in certain times but here it just seems impossible to believe that a elephant would use his tusk to pull each spear, missile, weapon out of porus's body.

Final basic list of reasons why alexander beating porus is more believable then the recent revisionist claims of porus winning that battle:
1 - porus's daughter married ambhiraaj.
2 - porus became totally irrelevant after hydaspes, the only two times he's brought up is when he dies and when his relative's land is conquered by alexander to increase porus's extent of control.
3 - alexander was involved in at minimum 9 or more war's/battles where he won, all were in a close distance of porus's land. If porus had the ability to stop him then he most likely would not let alexander continue to do a rampage conquest.

4 - alexander won the battle of issus which was tougher than his battle against porus cause at most darius had six hundred thousand at minimum he had a little over 1 hundred thousand soldiers.
5 - alexander won against many people tougher than porus.
6 - the Greek sources have proven to be authentic enough already so theirs no point in denying them.
=
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)