Saturday, May 25, 2024

Karna fans (their mentality part 2).

Intro - this's about calling out/addressing karna fans.
=
PART 1;
Karna fans brag about not insulting the overrated hanutati (u all know i refer to Hanuman like that). But here a karn tard named "soham garg" upvoted a answer which showed that hanuman was weaker than karna.
[Photo-Evidence.]
As you can see it should be obvious that karna fans are hypocrites and guilty of whatever they accuse arjuna fans of doing or that karn fans are not truly bhakts of hanutati neither do they respect hanuman, rather they deep down inside also dislike him. But they need protection from his namard bhakts which is why they fake praise him at times or pretend to like his gandu baazi of a character.
=
PART 2.
When a karna fan is proven wrong they respond like this;
{Image}
Note - the person who was debunked here was "Vishwesvaran," according to what i know he has supported karna since the year of 2014.
But has never changed his opinion, he continues to repeat, spam & copy paste the same incorrect opinions/claims and spread misconceptions on a monthly/regular basis.

This reply "OK" was another way of him saying "i do not desire to debate but i will type 2 letters in hopes that u might stop replying to me" or "i have no argument so i will just type this instead without giving up my affection for namards like karna."
=
PART 3;
Another gem from Vishwesvaran below.
Basically; he believes that jarasandha stalemated krishna sixteen times. Though i've my own personal beliefs and opinions on the jarasandha conflicts its clear their are karna fans that claim jarasandha was equal to/superior against krishna so they overhype karna's victory.

More:
Kaustav Kundu is not able to fight one debater on his own so he needs to contact a group for help in the comment section.

Part 4:
A Karna fan girl wanted to type Mahanayak but she clearly failed & ended up mispelling it as "Mahayanayaka"
Clearly the only thing they learned from their british MAALIK was to love fair skin/hate dark skin but never the English language. They should go to elementary school to take a language arts exam.
=
Part 5 - Karna fan "vishnu kumar" praised the answer of a person using madhvacharyas commentary.
                                                [The answeR]
                                                       The individual's comment (Vishnu Kumar).
Same karna fan thinks bheem (who is above karna in madhvacharyas MB) is inferior to karna.
Their beliefs, claims & logic does not add up.
=
They say that "Karna defeated Bheem 33 times in war" obviously that is pure BS. I mean those two did not even have the time to fight eachother 33 times, their were not even 33 fights between them, let alone times where Karna defeated Bheem.
Lastly;
This person has failed to spell the word "bhurisravas" right. He failed to get Bhagadatta right either. Also Kritvarma defeated Bheem so ignoring celestial astras he should be ranked higher than overrated karna while bhishma should be rated beneath bhagadatta.

The post was intended to be a continuation from one I typed in 2018 but all screenshots are from incidents that took place in 2023 to 2024.

Thursday, May 23, 2024

Malaydhwaj Parva.

=
Introduction; This post of mine is dedicated to the character of a kshatriya warrior monarch called "Pandya" but he had a nickname "Malaydhwaj" which i liked better since it helps a reader tell the difference in identity crisis between him & the pandavas. Malaydhwaj is a name likely created based on the flag/insignia of his vehicle.
He also had another name Sarangdhwaj but i thought their are enough MB characters whose names begin with S (sutasoma, srutakarman, satanika, suvajra, suvraja, satyaki, suyodhan, sakuni and srutarvan) so no point in him having a name like that.
=
What Sanjaya believed is witnessed by Krishna:
"And while returning (from the field to their camp), they heard a loud noise in the army of Duryodhana. Indeed the uproar that was heard consisted of the blare of conchs and the beat of cymbals and drums and Patahas and the clatter of car wheels, the neighing of steeds, the grunt of elephants, and the fierce clash of weapons. Penetrating into that force by the aid of his steeds possessing the fleetness of the wind, Krishna became filled with wonder upon beholding the army grinded by Pandya. Like Yama himself slaying creatures whose lives have run out, Pandya, that foremost of warriors skilled in shafts and weapons, was destroying crowds of foes by means of diverse kinds of shafts. Piercing the bodies of the elephants and steeds and men with sharp shafts, that foremost of smiters overthrew and deprived them of life. Cutting off with his own shafts the diverse weapons hurled at him by many foremost of foes, Pandya slew his enemies like Sakra destroying the Danavas."
Logic - him being "filled with wonder" show's that even krishna felt surprised seeing the man's power, he held Pandya in high regard. Even if the krishna here was actually Arjuna & not Vasudeva's son then it still counts as a worthy achievement.

Actions of Malaydhwaj;
"Even such was Pandya, that foremost of kings, that first of wielder of weapons. Filled with rage like the Destroyer himself, Pandya at the time was slaughtering the army of Karna. That force, swelling with cars and steeds and teeming with foremost of foot-soldiers, struck by Pandya, began to turn round like the potter's wheel. Like the wind dispersing a mass of congregated clouds, Pandya, with his well shot arrows, began to disperse that force, destroying its steeds and drivers and standards and cars and causing its weapons and elephants to fall down."

What Karna did while Malaydhwaj is killing his warrior's:
[quoTe]
"Meanwhile Karna rushed against the large elephant force of the Pandavas and began to rout and destroy it."
[End]
Note - this took place when a kourav warrior under karna (ashwathama was ranked below him despite being a better fighter) got surrounded by Malaydhwaj & 6 of his assistants it was a group attack, yet instead of defending his best ally Karna decided to attack nameless elephantine rider's.
Ashwathama's line:
 "O king, O thou with eyes like the petals of the lotus, thy birth is noble and learning great. Of celebrated might and prowess, thou resemblest Indra himself. Stretching with thy two massive arms the bow held by thee and whose large string is attached to thy grasp, thou lookest beautiful like a mass of congregated clouds as thou pourest over thy foes thick showers of impetuous shafts. I do not see anybody save myself that can be a match for thee in battle."
"Alone thou crushest numerous cars and elephants and foot-soldiers and steeds, like the fearless lion of terrible might crushing herds of deer in the forest. Making the welkin and the Earth resound with the loud clatter of thy car-wheels thou lookest resplendent, O king, like a crop-destroying autumnal cloud of loud roars. Taking out of thy quiver and shooting thy keen shafts resembling snakes of virulent poison fight with myself only, like (the asura) Andhaka fighting with the three-eyed deity."
Thus addressed, Pandya answered, "So be it." Then Drona's son, telling him "Strike," assailed him with vigour. In return, Malayadhwaja pierced the son of Drona with a barbed arrow.
Possible scenario - like jayadrath saved karna from Satyaki (on day 12) so did Ashwathama save karna from Sarangdhwaj at day 16. Obviously the biggest point here is that Ashwathama claims nobody in the kourav army could check Malaydhwaj or be a challenge (match) for Malaydhwaj. That might be a clue that he did fight karna or atleast injure him.

Yudisther's quote indicates Pandya might be alive on day 17.
[Start]
"Pandya against the son of Drona. I myself will fight with Kripa. Let the sons of Draupadi with Shikhandi amongst them, proceed against the rest of the Dhartarashtras."
[End]
=
Malaydhwaj vs Ashwathama:
"Drona's son, that best of preceptors, smiling the while, struck Pandya with some fierce arrows, capable of penetrating into the very vitals and resembling flames of fire. Then Ashvatthama once more sped at his foe some other large arrows equipped with keen points and capable of piercing the very vitals, causing them to course through the welkin with the ten different kinds of motion. Pandya, however, with nine shafts of his cut off all those arrows of his antagonist. With four other shafts he afflicted the four steeds of his foe, at which they speedily expired. Having then, with his sharp shafts, cut off the arrows of Drona's son, Pandya then cut off the stretched bow-string of Ashvatthama, endued with the splendour of the sun. Then Drona's son, that slayer of foes, stringing his unstringed bow, and seeing that his men had meanwhile speedily yoked other excellent steeds unto his car, sped thousands of arrows (at his foe). By this, that regenerate one filled the entire welkin and the ten points of the compass with his arrows. Although knowing that those shafts of the high-souled son of Drona employed in shooting were really inexhaustible, yet Pandya, that bull among men, cut them all into pieces."
Note; It appears that Malaydhwaj has the upper hand here, Ashwathama's attacks failed.

"The antagonist of Ashvatthama, carefully cutting off all those shafts shot by the latter, then slew with his own keen shafts the two protectors of the latter's car wheels in that encounter. Beholding the lightness of hand displayed by his foe, Drona's son, drawing his bow to a circle, began to shoot his arrows like a mass of clouds pouring torrents of rain. During that space of time, O sire, which consisted only of the eighth part of a day, the son of Drona shot as many arrows as were carried on eight carts each drawn by eight bullocks."
Analysis; 1/8th of a day would realistically mean 3 hours but if they meant 1/8th of the time the sun shines on the world then its different. In a winter day one eighth would about 63 minutes.

"Almost all those men that then beheld Ashvatthama, who at the time looked like the Destroyer himself filled with rage, or rather the Destroyer of the Destroyer, lost their senses. Like a mass of clouds at the close of summer drenching with torrents of rain, the Earth with her mountains and trees, the preceptor's son poured on that hostile force his arrowy shower. Baffling with the Vayavya weapon that unbearable shower of arrows shot by the Ashvatthama-cloud, the Pandya-wind, filled with joy, uttered loud roars. Then Drona's son cutting off the standard, smeared with sandal-paste and other perfumed unguents and bearing the device of the Malaya mountain on it, of the roaring Pandya, slew the four steeds of the latter. Slaying then his foe's driver with a single shaft, and cutting off with a crescent-shaped arrow the bow also of that warrior whose twang resembled the roar of the clouds, Ashvatthama cut off his enemy's car into minute fragments. Checking with the weapons those of his enemy, and cutting off all the weapons of the latter, Drona's son, although he obtained the opportunity to do his enemy the crowning evil, still slew him not, from desire of battling with him for some time more.
Note; this's an obvious exaggeration made by Sanjaya cause Malaydhwaj did not lose his senses but if he did lose senses then that means king Malaydhwaj has a valid excuse for being defeated, cause he was in a vulnerable position. And Ashwathama clearly had to rely on the vayavy astra & a intimidation factor but Malaydhwaj had not relied on any such tool for fighting.
=
Battle continued:
That mighty bowman, the son of Drona, although he had made Pandya, that slayer of foes and foremost of car-warriors, carless, yet he did not slay him from desire of fight. At that time a huge riderless elephant with large tusks, well-equipped with all utensils of war, treading with speed, endued with great might, quick to proceed against any enemy, struck with Ashvatthama's shafts, advanced towards the direction of Pandya with great impetuosity, roaring against a hostile compeer. Beholding that prince of elephants, looking like a cloven mountain summit, Pandya, who was well acquainted with the method of fighting from the neck of an elephant, quickly ascended that beast like a lion springing with a loud roar to the top of a mountain summit.
Then that lord of the prince of mountains, striking the elephant with the hook, and inspired with rage, and with that cool care for which he was distinguished in hurling weapons with great force, quickly sped a lance, bright as Surya's rays, at the preceptor's son and uttered a loud shout. Repeatedly shouting in joy, "Thou art slain, Thou art slain!" Pandya (with that lance) crushed to pieces the diadem of Drona's son adorned with foremost of jewels and diamonds of the first water and the very best kind of gold and excellent cloth and strings of pearls. That diadem possessed of the splendour of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, or the fire, in consequence of the violence of the stroke, fell down, split into fragments, like a mountain summit riven by Indra's thunder, falling down on the Earth with great noise."
Explanation: if this diadem is the same gem which the pandavas try to take from him in Souptika Parva then this appears to be a clerical error in Mahabharat or it is possible that the diadem here was just a jewel that decorated his golden helmet not the one for his forehead.

End of Malaydhwaj.
"At this, Ashvatthama blazed up with exceeding rage like a prince of snakes struck with the foot, and took up four and ten shafts capable of inflicting great pain upon foes and each resembling the Destroyer's rod. With five of those shafts he cut off the four feet and the trunk of his adversary's elephant, and with three the two arms and the head of the king, and with six he slew the six mighty car-warriors, endued with great effulgence, that followed king Pandya. Those long and well-rounded arms of the king, smeared with excellent sandal-paste, and adorned with gold and pearls and gems and diamonds falling upon the Earth, began to writhe like a couple of snakes slain by Garuda. That head also, graced with a face bright as the full Moon, having a prominent nose and a pair of large eyes, red as copper with rage, adorned with earrings, falling on the ground, looked resplendent like the Moon himself between two bright constellations."
=
Details about king Malaydhwaj's background, his life before getting into the war, who his predecessor is (the previous ruler/monarch of his country).

How his father dies.
[quote]
"It was he that slew king Pandya by striking his breast against his, and moved down the Kalingas in battle."
[end]
Sarangdhwaj's dad (original king of the pandya state).
Quote:
"The king of the Pandyas, on steeds of the hue of the moon's rays and decked with armour set with stones of lapis lazuli, advanced upon Drona, stretching his excellent bow. His country having been invaded and his kinsmen having fled, his father had been slain by Krishna in battle."
"He then desired to destroy the city of Dwaraka and subjugate the whole world. Wise friends, however, from desire of doing him good, counselled him against that course. Giving up all thoughts of revenge, he is now ruling his own dominions."
"Steeds that were all of the hue of the Atrusa flower bore a hundred and forty thousand principle car-warriors that followed that Sarangadhwaja, the king of the Pandyas."
Analysis: here it's made clear that even though krishna was god the aggressor in the situation was krishna himself, he choose to invade the land of Sarangdhwaja's father. How can a invasion with loss of lives be justified?
But the 2nd quote shows that Sarangdhwaj brought at minimum 140,000 soldiers to the pandav army so he controls a big chunk of their men.
=
Whether he fought Karna or not?
In chapter 8019 it should be understood that Sanjaya said it was the army of Duryodhana (not karna) which made a noise loud enough to get attention from Krishna so that leads me to believe king Malaydhwaj attacked Suyodhana's legion instead not Karna's. Though it is possible that 'duryodhan's army' is a term used for the full kourav army (whose leader is Karna today) theirs also a chance that is not its meaning.

In the next one (chapter 8020) it is made obvious by Sanjaya that it was Karna's army which Malaydhwaj was harassing, killing, injuring etc. No retaliation from Karna is mentioned but Sanjaya does hold a firm belief that Malaydhwaj is equal as a warrior to Karna. And Ashwathama himself stated that he thinks nobody besides himself on the kourav army could beat Malaydhwaj.

Karna only chooses to rush to attack pandav elephants after its been confirmed that ashwathama is busy dueling Malaydhwaj. But during the rampage of Malaydhwaj he is not mentioned trying to stop him at all.
Quote.
"Filled with rage like the Destroyer himself, Pandya at the time was slaughtering the army of Karna. That force, swelling with cars and steeds and teeming with foremost of foot-soldiers, struck by Pandya, began to turn round like the potter's wheel. Like the wind dispersing a mass of congregated clouds, Pandya, with his well shot arrows, began to disperse that force, destroying its steeds and drivers and standards and cars and causing its weapons and elephants to fall down."
"Like the splitter of mountains striking down mountains with his thunder, Pandya overthrew elephants with their riders, having previously cut down the standards and banners and weapons with which they were armed, as also the foot-soldiers that protected those beasts. And he cut down horses, and horsemen with their darts and lances and quivers."
End.
CONCLUSION; Even if karna did not fight him its implied that Malaydhwaj was either above karna or equal to him. That is as long as no bhargavastra is used.

He was another student Parshuram had who is not a brahmin.
"Obtaining weapons then from Bhishma and Drona, Rama and Kripa, prince Sarangadhwaja became, in weapons, the equal of Rukmi and Karna and Arjuna and Achyuta."
Comment; So even Kripa, Drona & Bhishma taught him not just Parshuram.
Accolade given by Bhishma;
"Devoted to the Pandavas and endued with great bravery, there is another great Ratha of the Pandavas, king Pandya, that bowman of mighty energy."
Other;
"And there hath come Pandya also, who, hardly inferior to Indra on the field of battle, is followed when he fights by numberless warriors of great courage. Remarkably heroic and endued with prowess and energy that have no parallel, he is devoted to the Pandava cause."

Sanjaya said this's what he saw himself as;
[begin]
"Bhishma and Drona and Kripa and Drona's son and Karna and Arjuna and Janardana, those thorough masters of the science of weapons, are regarded by thee as the foremost of car-warriors. Know, however, that Pandya regarded himself superior to all these foremost of car-warriors in energy. Indeed he never regarded any one amongst the kings as equal to himself. He never admitted his equality with Karna and Bhishma. Nor did he admit within his heart that he was inferior in any respect to Vasudeva or Arjuna. Even such was Pandya, that foremost of kings, that first of wielder of weapons."

Information of his past-life; "The eldest of the four sons of Danayu, who was known by the name of Vikshara, became known on earth the spirited monarch, Vasumitra. The second brother of Vikshara, the great Asura, was born on earth as the king of the country, called Pandya."
=

Thursday, May 16, 2024

Alexander could have conquered the Nanda empire.

=
INTRO: At minimum half of this post will be about proving how credible and reliable or trustworthy the historical records of the macedonians/greek's are.
=
First i must prove why greek sources can be used & should be considered authentic/genuine for the topic of this post.
1st reason they are genuine - the greek and roman historians claim Alexander did things they disagree with, it is described in great detail that Alexander did an atrocity like the burning of Persepolis which was considered a mistake (bad move) by his own fans and sycophants. Many of these historians had the courage to speak against alexander and claim they dont agree with him because they wrote their articles and accounts after he died, since alexander isn't alive their was no need to fear alexander or lie to gain a favor/award from him.
Examples of such deed's are Alexander murdering Parmenion, Attalus, Cleitus. Also Alexander killing his older cousin "Amyntas IV" so clearly Alexander was not always seen as the good guy even by the citizens he ruled over. Im sure that this information would have been altered if westerners had their own AGENDA to push, cause it doesnt look like someone who killed their baby brother, their older innocent cousin, or their father's other wives should be seen as a "great" soul.

2nd reason is: Because these writers admit many disgusting realities of being in a royal family, that internal marriages were common like uncle wedding niece, cousins marrying cousin's etc, and the fact Alexander's father Philip disliked him. If the author's wanted to lie to save the face of their hero alexander then they could have chosen to rewrite history and make it seem like his father valued him or held alexander in a positive light.
But instead they stick to the truth and admit that even alexander's relatives had multiple flaw's & that he had a negative relationship with them.
This's evidence from a greek source that Alexander did not like his own father cause he felt he was getting in the way of his own success & attempt of making a name for himself.
1st;
"There were indeed periods of intense strain and conflict between Alexander and Philip that led to situations which could be perceived as a form of exile or estrangement."
2nd;

Another one admits a weakness/flaw of Alexander;
[quotE]
"Alexander, although strong testimony against Philotas came to his ears, endured in silence and restrained himself, either because he had confidence in Parmenio's good will towards him, or because he feared the reputation and power of father and son."
Note; the historian wrote how a possibility existed of alexander fearing the father-son duo that worked under him as military leaders. The name of Parmenion has been miswritten as 'Parmenio' by the way but its just a casual error, it does not make the source any less reliable.
=
They also admitted that Alexander was injured by a nameless enemy in the Mallian Campaign, if they wanted alexander to be seen as a DEVTA/GOD they would not have said that, rather to make alexander seem more impressive and tough they could say that one hundred men together were the reason behind his injury, or that a tough king like Porus/Dhananand was the one that injured alexander instead.

3rd reason is that historian's admit Alexanders older brother Arrhidaeus had many learning disabilities, surely in order to maintain a good image such a defect in a royal prince would have been kept secret and not become public information available to every citizen of Greece right? They would not admit he was mentally hampered and a liability to his family members. Such a flaw could be misused to always insult macedon's people that their ruler is the brother of a mentally impaired man.

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:
"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."
{ending}
So India was praised by persian's, greeks and romans too, we know more of ancient india mainly due to accounts/record's kept & stored safely by non indian's.
=
4TH;
If they lied about Chandragupta's statement then Plutarch and others could have spread many other lies what was the need to inform greeks that alexanders army was tired after just fighting porus? The tired army still fought against the Mallavas (in the Gedrosian desert) despite their homesick illness, this contradiction would make sense only if it was a realistic account of events as it mirrors what happens in real life that though u are tired u will still choose to put in effort as it was the only way those soldier's could make it back home otherwise the mallian's could murder them.

Example of a believable rumor that Macedonian's could have spread but choose not too is:
"Alexander defeated the nanda empire & was the reason why the 7 brothers of Dhananand got killed after that he coronated prince Dhananand into king Dhananand the ruler of Magadh, because dhananand helped him conquer magadh, the reason dhananand betrayed his country was cause he desired the throne of magadh its former ruler was his oldest brother. Now that alexander died in babylon this indian king Dhananand has decided to rebel against greek reign"
And this would have a high chance of being believed by many ignorant citizens. Because the Greeks were involved in a civil war, so they had a excuse to not attack magadh or usurp Dhananand. Also cause nothing is written in india regarding the 7 nanda chiefs that were in between Dhananand & Mahapadma (their were seven other monarchs besides them) even indian historians would not be able to dispute the claim of Macedonians that alexander killed the nameless brothers of dhananand.

So then why would the greeks (IF THEY ARE DISHONEST) not choose to create a similar propaganda story/hoax to make Alexander seem even more impressive? Im sure the answer is not because a young man like me is more cunning when it comes to spreading rumors than they are.
=
FIFTH/FINAL REASON.
They gave indian states (which i believe just had their own independent identity and did not identify as india ever) enough praise to the point where Taxila (Gandhar) was considered a equal of Egypt.
Quote:
"Taxiles, we are told, had a realm in India as large as Egypt, with good pasturage, too, and in the highest degree productive of beauti­ful fruits. He was also a wise man in his way, and after he had greeted Alexander, said."
Logic - but local indians, deshbhakts, patriots and other obsessed/biased individuals refuse to consider king Omphis's nation (taxila) to be a metropolis or praise it at all, some downplay and underrate his power/luxury and state he was a weak king (just cause he did not believe in akhand bharat varsh or choose to fight alexander).

Greek historians claimed that Heracles could not win over a fortress which housed normal dark skinned human beings from Afghanistan.
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 and admit such a incident what makes the indians doubt greek honesty & integrity? Alexander had inferior status compared to Heracles.
They admitted Alexander's horse died;
"Of these cities, he named one Bucephalia, after Bucephalas, the horse which fell during the battle with Porus (he was an excellent war-horse and was always used by Alexander in his fights) and he called the other Nicaea, after his victory."
Note - u know it is embarrassing for a cavalry rider/man if their horse died even if its in the battlefield right? So why not rewrite this part of history too?

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. That 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?

FINAL CONCLUSION;
The claim of "these historians being dishonest" is a false accusation in my viewpoint. Yes it is possible that greek writers could be victims of ignorance or MISUNDERSTANDINGS but in my opinion they would say what they believe is true/correct/right most of the time.

I think i do not need to provide more points regarding whether the Greeks were genuine or not. Only the spartan historians/authors can be discredited but the people who wrote alexander's history were not spartan, they were macedonian, roman, greek etc.
=
NOW I CAN COME TO WHY THE NANDAS ARE NOT A REAL THREAT FOR ALEXANDER & WHY HE CAN DEFEAT ALL NANDA RULER'S.

1st reason is:
According to plutarch the famed Chandragupta basically admitted that Alexander could conquer the Nanda empire.
Quote;
"Sandrocottos [Candragupta] himself, who was then but a youth, saw Alexander and afterwards used to declare that Alexander could easily have taken possession of the whole country, since the king [i.e. one of the Nanda kings of the Gangetic valley] was hated and despised by his subjects for the wickedness of his disposition and the meanness of his origin." 

So most likely the account which mentions that Chandragupta believed Alexander would have beaten Dhananand is a genuine statement and not a fake cooked up story by Plutarch. Because i have provided many reasons for why the greek records are reliable and genuine above before i quoted Plutarch's claim surrounding chandragupta's opinion.
But of course just one king saying Alexander will win is not enough, so i will provide other reasons on why Alexander should win.

2ND REASON.
The pro nanda empire fans (or maybe just haters of alexander) have basically 2 points, one is the numerical advantage (how the Nanda Army is bigger) and the other is the whole hype surrounding elephantine units.
In this part i will address the comment about elephants only and then in my reason 3 part i will talk about why the population difference does not matter when it comes to army's fighting eachother.

Alexander led armies to victory against those army's which also had presence of elephant's before like the persian empire used indian war elephants against alexander but failed obviously, so did porus have 200 elephants and he failed too.
Since most indians will deny porus's defeat i will have to highlight the persian army instead, its mentioned in this passage of text that they had fifteen elephants.
"He also had 15 Indian elephants supported by Indian chariots."
[End]
Now of course that is a tiny number in comparison to the nandas, i agree with such a counterargument, but it does not change the fact that elephants are not a new thing that alexander had to deal with, so a intimidation factor does not exist here.

Decades after he died Alexander's comrades and generals were involved in a civil war, one called Selucus was able to defeat a contingent of war elephants used against him by Antigonus.

Alexander also had access to war elephants:
Quote.
"Substantial loot was gained, with 4,000 talents captured, the King's personal chariot and bow and the war elephants. It was a disastrous defeat for the Persians and one of Alexander's finest victories."
IF elephants are a true issue then he can train and utilize those same creatures of his own, its possible he could garner support of more elephants than the amount which existed in the Nanda Empire. Keep in mind alexander died before the roman empire was created & cause of the roman empire many animal species became extinct, so during alexander's era the Barbary Lion existed too. He could have amassed a dangerous army of them.
=
3rd reason; Alexander being outnumbered is irrelevant.

List of battles where alexander fought a enemy that he was outnumbered against:
1st - Battle of Issus (333 BCE).
2nd - Battle of Gaugamela (331 BCE)
4th ten thousand vs fifteen thousand; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cyropolis
Note still Alexander end's up winning this battle with very little casualties in his army.
Final Campaign:
"Next Alexander undertook a campaign against the Sydracae & the people known as Mallian's. Both were populous and warlike tribes. They were mobilized in force, 80 thousand infantry, 10,000 horse rider's and 700 chariot's."
Note - that is 90,700 defenders against alexanders army (which at this point can't be greater than 40 thousand). Also alexander's army had low morale and was homesick by this point.
=
9 other examples of armies that were led by OTHER LEADERS that won against armies that had a numerical edge.

7 thousand persians defeat 50 thousand egyptian's at 525 BC:

40 thousand roman's defeated 100,000 armenians; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tigranocerta

31,600 Romans defeat an army of 300 thousand; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cyzicus
40,000 men defeated 200 thousand byzantine soldier's:

Romans again beat an army that was double their own size; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(86_BC)

Thirty thousand vs Seventy five thousand yet the winner was the one with less troop's;

Ignoring estimates of the "Modern Consensus" greeks were outnumbered in this battle (according to all other account's of this incident) but still won fairly against the Achaemenid generals (Masistius & Mardonius);

During January 5th 1659 the battle of khajwa, Aurangzeb had over 90 thousand men his rival Shuja had a little over 30 thousand. I agree that aurangzeb won due to a numerical edge but still his army suffered more casualties (they lost 11,000) while Shuja's despite losing still had less casualties in comparison to the larger force (nine thousand).
Thus proven that a larger army does not mean everything.

In the 1550s Humayun [another Moghul emperor];
During this war Humayun's army won despite being numerically inferior.
=
Alexander's father (Philip) himself also had a incident in his life where his army was better in numbers but still failed & was beaten, proving that being outnumbered does not mean u will be defeated in a war same way having more soldiers or a larger army is not a guaranteed advantage.
[Quote]
"Philip's army was more numerous and had siege engines. However, since Perinthus was receiving constant aid from Byzantium and the Achaemenids, the siege was difficult to maintain. Eventually, Philip had found the challenges of successfully besieging the city too much, and so withdrew."
Note - again this also proves the fact greek historian's were UNBIASED cause they admit alexander's father lost, but these days even anime fans like dbz fans refuse to admit the weaknesses of Bardock (father of goku).
Alexander at minimum had the same skill lvl as Philip II so i dont see any reason why the result would be any different against a numerically big army of Dhananand.
=
Not only did Alexander hold greater experience, he was also more versatile and capable. He is unlike any other enemy faced by the Nandas before.
Explanation:
While it is true that all battles the Nanda Army was involved in are not described in detail or elaborated by any text of indian or foreign literature its still believed that every city/kingdom in the upper half of the indian subcontinent submitted to them.
Following order's of the Nanda monarch. So it can be assumed before bowing down they tried to resist or fight, ancient indian armies had chariots, elephants and horses, but were mainly infantry based. So those are the types of armies that the Nanda Army had fought against.
But Alexander's army was the most experienced of its time up until that point, they had fought enemies from greece, armenia, turkey, persia, bactria, sogdia, till afghanistan/paurava. They travelled the furthest distance that any other army of that time period had. And Alexander was highly skilled in organizing his army into VYOOHAS (arrangement phalanxes).

Their has been no evidence of the magadh leaders (Dhananand, Bhadrasaal, Amatya Rakshas) being able to achieve anything similar to him. It is not known which battle they fought but accusations have been made that all they really did was just forcibly extort and tax their own subjects and villagers. So their only achievement is taking money by force from random citizens in their territory.

Its likely that most of the battles which earned the nanda empire a status to the point where all north indian kingdoms (except for the north western part which had taxila, gandara, ashvaka, youdheya, madraka, vahika, porus's land etc) happened in the TIME period of dhanananda's predecessors.

His father Mahapadma Nand & his older brothers (Sukalpa, Bhutapala, Kaivarta, Govishanaka) but not dhanananda himself. They're the ones who built a empire that dhananand lost. One last point is that an empire close to magadh existed in Indian territory, it was either north of magadh or east of it, the name was Gangaridhai Empire.

That same time Dhananand was controlling magadh itself but he had a powerful neighbhor that was his enemy. If he could not get rid of that individual (despite having more soldier's) then how could u expect him to get rid of Alexander who plans tactics in a unseen & unpredictable style?
=
Online argument against a supporter of the Nanda Empire (a fan of history) who is most likely a biased deshbhakt.

The screenshot was taken during may 16th 2024 (10:29 PM). Meaning he did not reply after even 2 months of time passed by.
=

Monday, May 6, 2024

Why Vibeeshan was a negative character.

=
The reason is obviously because he has all the attributes of a negative person, he was not a respectable individual at all. He was greedy, opportunistic, biased & hypocritical. Proof that Vibeeshan was not a positive, supportive or decent person will be shown in this article.
I will only use Ramayan, Mahabharat & Uttar Kanda here not puranas.

Vibeeshan abandoned his wife in lanka & his children/offspring their too;
[quote]
"I, leaving my sons and my wife, have come to take refuge with Rama."
[End]
Point - he could have brought them along as many councilors also joined him on his journey away from lanka's border and straight into Rama's abode.
Why its bad: It can be assumed that in lanka these people rotted, went through discrimination, shame & a bad reputation cause of vibeeshan's treachery.

Vibeeshan's behavior during previous abductions committed by Ravan:
"Dashagriva with his son and Bibishana returned to his dwelling and caused all the captives, who were crying and sobbing, to be brought down; and the virtuous Bibishana, being aware of his intention regarding those women, who were noble and veritable pearls, the offspring of the Gods, Danavas and Rakshasas, said to his brother."
Note; vibeeshan did make a statement right after the quoted text, but it was to highlight the fact Madhu abducted Kumbhinasi. It was not for discouraging ravan from committig a future crime or with a intention of freeing these women that he abducted. It is clearly described in the first line that vibeeshan caused female prisoner's to be brought off the vehicle.
=
Vibeeshan supported ravan despite knowing what past crimes he did. Here's a list of incidents done by Ravan which people label as crimes, all of them occur in a time period when Vibeeshan was in his court as an adviser & servant or minister. They are referenced in uttar kanda, yuddh kanda both.

1 - The humiliation of Vedavati leading her to commit suicide.
2 - The rape of Rambha at hand's of Ravan.
3 - The abduction of multiple women from devalok and nagalok.
4 - Murdering a million Aryan kshatriyas.
Vibeeshan had knowledge and context of all crimes only the incident of Punjiksthala was hidden from his eye/vision etc.

But Vibeeshan only choose to rebel or speak his mind or abandon lanka or do whatever form of protest when he felt that a victim of Ravan (the victim in this case would be "Seetha") has connections to powerful people (Ram & the vanara lord Sugreeva).
=
Details of Anaranya incident.
Ravan remembers it;
Rama the son of Dasaratha is the man I think of whom Anaranya born of Ikshvaku dynasty formerly spoke, saying "O, the worst of demons, the worst of your race and the wretched one! In my race will be born a man who will slay you in battle with your sons, ministers, army, horses and charioteer."

Amount of soldier's in his army;
"The king with his army set out, in an attempt to slay Ravana, with his elephants numbering ten thousand, his horses a million, his chariots in their thousands and his infantry, which, O Prince, covered the whole earth. And that force rushed out to fight with its infantry and cavalry and a terrific and extraordinary struggle ensued between the King Anaranya and the Lord of the Rakshasas."
Note - his cavalry by itself was a million, but its mentioned his infantry fought aswell, so the death toll on his side would be more than just one million.

Proof it was eradicated:
"The army of that monarch, having fought for a long time and manifested supreme courage, was entirely destroyed as a libation poured into a fire is wholly consumed. Coming in contact with those ranks projecting flames, the remaining battalions were completely annihilated."
Logic: If u can read then i dont need to provide any commentary, cause the quote speaks for itself.

CONCLUSION - So vibeeshan understands the basic fact that Ravan provoked anaranya for a battle, invaded his kingdom, killed one million animals/humans, yet still vibeeshan agrees to feed his wife and offspring with food grown in lanka (a city ruled by Ravan). He also tries to give advice to ravan sometimes, advice that could prevent him from dying at the cost of embarrassment.
=
The name of Vibeeshan's father in law;
"Bibishana received as wife the virtuous Sarama, the daughter of the King of the Gandharvas, the magnanimous Shailusha, and she had been born on the shores of the Lake Manasa."
Note - this's only as per uttar kanda, because if you remove uttar kanda then the name of Vibeeshan's wife & father in law is not available.
According to uttar kanda when Bharat was deployed for a campaign then he encounters many gandharvas possibly the father of Vibeeshan's wife.
[Quote]
"Caught in the noose of destruction, three hundred thousand Gandharvas were slain in an instant, cut to pieces by that hero. The inhabitants of the Celestial Region were unable to remember such a fearful conflict in which, in the twinkling of an eye, so vast a number of warriors perished. The Gandharvas all being slain, Bharata, the son of Kaikeyi entered those two opulent and magnificent cities."
Analysis - of course theirs always a chance that Sarama's father was not among the gandharvas here but when u think about it does it not seem ironic that Sarama's father Sailusa did not get mentioned in Mahabharat? That is a sign he passed away, now either its due to death by natural causes or death by violence.

Key point; THE MANASA RIVER WAS A PART OF NORTHERN ARYA VARTH.
=
Quote:
"After Lavaṇa’s death, a sect of Gandharvas called Śailūṣas, who lived on the shores of the eastern sea, proved to be enemies of Ayodhyā."
Logic; This tribe just happeṇed to have the same ṇame that Sarama's daddy had.

Even if Sarama's dad was not involved then still Vibeeshan supported a king like Raam who dispatched his brother to wage war against the race of gandharvas (a species that vibeeshans wife hailed from). Its like if Rana Pratap's wife was from Gujarat but he supported a monarch who wanted to conquer the human citizens of Gujarat. Think of it from that perspective and u will see how Vibeeshan can't be considered positive by any standard.
=
Vibeeshan did not have a good natured heart cause he felt like his nephew (Indrajeet) should be hung or killed just for disagreeing with him in a verbal affair/dispute in the conversation of lanka's councilors in Yuddh Kanda (when they were deciding what action they should take).
Full statement;
"In the guise of a son, O, Indrajit, you are an enemy of Ravana putting on the mask of a well wisher in that even hearing (from me) of his destruction at the hands of Rama, you are blindly agreeing with him. You surely are fit to be killed."
"Nay, he too is fit to be killed, who brought you, a reckless boy here today and ushered you foolishly in the proximity of counselors. O, Indrajit! You are a stupid, irresolute, without humility, rude natured; unwise; evil person, inexperienced and highly evil minded. You are speaking in this manner because you are an immature boy."
Logic; Obviously this bhuzdil kutta vibeeshan made a mistake saying this, he wanted the best warrior of lanka to die so then Ravan's army would have less of a chance to defend itself.
=
Vibeeshan was a victim of jealousy.
Quote; "And the warriors, learned in the Vedas and diligent in ceremonial rites, all lived with their father in the Gandhamadana. And there they beheld Vaisravana seated with their father, possessed of riches and borne on the shoulders of men. And seized with jealousy, they resolved upon performing penances."
Logic: Ravan wasn't the only person who envies Kuber, above it says "seized with jealousy THEY resolved upon performing penances"
DEBUNKING THE Statement of Soorpanakha;
"The virtue-souled Vibheeshana too is my brother, but he does not behave like a demon."
Logic - this line could easily be used by vibeeshan fans (or anyone that wants to argue against the case i make) that Vibeeshan was a follower of dharma & a kind hearted soul. Still their exists 2 obvious issues with it.
One: It comes from the mouth of a known liar (Surpanakha) who also didnt tell her brother Ravan the truth, she claimed she wanted to abduct Seetha for him so she could add onto his harem's glory (antar pura or enjoyment chamber). But in reality she wanted to murder Seetha so Raam/Laxman would be attracted to her instead.
Two: Actions speak louder than words, their had not been a mention of a single decent or positive deed committed by Vibeeshan which proved him to be a virtuous, righteous, noble character. Not just before he joins Raam but even after he joins Raam then still Vibeeshan did not do a single positive thing that benefitted mankind.
=
Ravan's espionage network predicted Vibeeshan would go against him eventually.
Quote:
I have seen Kumbhakarna and others, perfectly naked and with crowns shaven, decked with red wreaths and unguents, and running towards the southern direction. Vibhishana alone, with umbrella over his head, and graced with a turban, and with body decked with white wreaths and unguents, I beheld ascending the summit of the White hill. And I saw four of his counsellors also, decked with white wreaths and unguents, ascending the summit of that hill along with him.
Comment - i am sure trijata's words were overheard by another person cause the ashok vatika is not very huge. Overall my point is that the only reason Vibeeshan was even able to make it to Raam's camp in one peace without any struggle (no lankan/rakshas prevented him) is cause they never deemed him to be a true threat to themselves, if they did take him seriously then they would have captured or eliminated him easily.

Details of Vibeeshan's reign over lanka.
[Passage]
"The virtuous and intelligent son of Madri having arrived at the sea-shore, then despatched with great assurance messengers unto the illustrious Vibhishana, the grandson of Pulastya. And the monarch willingly accepted the sway of the son of Pandu, for that intelligent and exalted king regarded it all as the act of Time. And he sent unto the son of Pandu diverse kinds of jewels and gems, and sandal and also wood, and many celestial ornaments, and much costly apparel, and many valuable pearls. And the intelligent Sahadeva, accepting them all, returned to his own kingdom."
[Finish]
Comment; under vibeeshan's reign lanka did not have even a tiny portion of the splendor, power, or status that it had under the reign of Ravan. Instead he had to submit against a young recently established state of the pandavas.
=
Vibeeshan too fell prey to a emotion called anger, he did not have control over his feelings.
[start]
"Hearing those harsh words from Ravana, Vibhishana who advocates justice, wielding a mace in his hand, soared high into the sky, along with four other demons. Then, the illustrious Vibhishana who became angry also spoke these words to king Ravana, his brother after moving into the sky."
[ending]
Logic; vibeeshan only had the courage to speak against ravan or give him a reply if he was not in close proximity of him cause he feared him, so to move away from a danger zone he jamp up in the sky (asuras can walk on clouds through magic) and then choose to bark like a harami kutta.

Vibeeshan literally encouraged Ravan to protect lanka with guards instead of peace;
"As an elder brother, bear the words spoken by me, who desire your welfare. Guard this city and yourself along with demons, by all means. Let all be well with you. I am departing. Be a happy person without me."
Logic - if he wanted raam to get seetha back then why did he speak like this? Maybe he was trying to convince others to join him by pretending to be a really nice guy during his end phase.
As per chutiya hanuman, this's among the real reasons why Vibeeshan seeked an audience with Raam.
[Begin]
"It is indeed appropriate for him to arrive at this place and time, by seeing the prowess in you and the wickedness in Ravana. It is worthy of his judgment."
[Done]
Logic - clearly it was Raam's prowess, vibeeshan would not care if it was a negative terrorist or a criminal, he does not side with a person based on if they are a dharmatma or not. I am not claiming that Raam is a terrorist or a villain i am trying to get this point across that Vibeeshan supports people only if they have power, not if they have a just cause or good reason/motive for their own actions.
=
The vanara military force consisted of plunderers, terrorists, looters and cowards, but Vibeeshan aided them in their deeds.

The 2nd burning of Lanka;
[quoTe]
"Getting scorched in fire, beautiful women, while lying fast asleep in their seven-storeyed mansions, gave up all connection with their ornaments and screamed loudly."
"The noise of the women-folk, who were burnt by fire and covered with smoke, roaring loudly, was heard upto one hundred Yojanas (or eight hundred miles)."
Note - here women were slaughtered, it did not matter if they were widows or innocent civilian's that never wished ill on Seetha, still they were burnt alive without a chance of cremation/proper funeral rites, they committed no crime to deserve that.

Evidence of looting.
"And the monkey warriors began to pull down pillars made of precious stones and the terraces and tops of palatial mansions. And breaking into fragments the propellers of catapults and other engines, they began to cast them about in all directions. And taking up the Sataghnis along with the discs, the clubs, and stones, they threw them down into the city with great force and loud noise. And attacked thus by the monkeys, those Rakshasas that had been placed on the walls to guard them, fled precipitately by hundreds and thousands."

Proof their treasury was depleted by a significant amount;
"Rescuing me, whose treasury has become completely diminished, you protect this city of Lanka, where only the children and the aged are left over."
Logic - ravan had no reason to be dishonest he told the truth, and the only logic is that this wealth was taken by the vanaras during their invasion. Cause when lanka is being invaded then ravan is paying the soldiers to fight, but that salary goes in their homes, yet it obviously wont stay in their homes after they get killed. Because if that wealth remained within the homes of the families of soldier's then Ravan would not claim his treasury was getting depleted.

Vandalism of property.
"Having crossed the ocean and arrived at Lanka, Rama caused its extensive and numerous gardens to be devastated by his monkeys."
[End]
Comment; Vibeeshan helped barbarians like that get in lanka yet devotees of raam, hanutati have the nerve to protest against modern day terrorism and rioters.
=
Murdering a freedom fighter who is also his uncle Prahasth.
Quote: "Vibhishana, taking up a huge and mighty javelin furnished with a hundred bells, inspired it with mantras & hurled it at the head of his adversary. And by the impetuosity of that weapon rushing with the force of the thunderbolt, Prahasta's head was severed off, and he thereupon looked like a mighty tree broken by the wind. And beholding that wanderer of the night, Prahasta, thus slain in battle, Dhumraksha rushed."
1st of all Prahasth was defending his country, 2nd of all Prahasth was a uncle of Vibeeshan even if his mother isn't kaikesi, because in MB vibeeshan's mother was a rakshasi that is the cousin sister of Kaikesi, he still shares a blood connection with Prahasth.

Evidence;
"Prahasta, Akampana, Vikata, Kalikamukha, Dhumraksha, Danda, Suparshva of great energy, Samhradi, Praghasa, Bhasakarna, Raka, Pashpotkala, Kaikasi of gracious smiles and Kumbhanasi. These, we are told, were the offspring of Sumali."
MB supports the claim:
"Our great kinsmen also, Prahasta and others, have already been slain by him."
Basically - prahasth was their kinsman.
Name of mother;
"Malini had a son named Vibhishana."
Logic - the character Malini does not receive mention in Ramayan, but it can be assumed that since her name has the term Mali then its entirely possible she is related to one of the 3 sons of sukesha since all of them have MAL in their names (Malyavan, Mali, Sumali).
=
Help's Laxman cheat by doing a group attack;
"The son of Sumitra then, under Vibhishana's guidance, rushed towards that wrathful son of Ravana coming back, from desire of battle, to lead the attack. And Lakshmana, excited to fury and receiving a hint from Vibhishana, and desiring to slay Indrajit who had not completed his daily sacrifice."
Logic: nobody calls vibeeshan a crook warrior, or a chaali, or a cheater.

In all of aranya kanda's 2nd half, during the incidents where Surpanakha provokes Ravan to abduct Seetha their was no mention of Vibeeshan protesting against this act or advising Ravan to steer him in the right path. Besides tv serials theirs no authentic mention of it, in valmiki's ramayana the character of vibeeshan fails to make an appearance until Sundara Kanda.
=
Vibeeshan's double faced personality.
"These two lions among men, on whom depended the positon aspired by me, are lying insensible, waiting for the dissolution of the body. Deprived of the hope now of becoming a king, I am as one dead, eventhough surviving; while my rival Ravana sees his vow fulfilled and gets his desires realised."
Logic - this's after Meghanad won his battle against both brother's. Which caused Vibeeshan to admit his greed for a kingdom. He didnt care about getting Seetha back, he didnt care about ending the life of a murderer and rapist, he only cared about his attachment to a throne.

Quote;
Rama spoke to Vibhishana as follows "Let the obsequies of your brother be performed and let these crews of women be consoled." Reflecting with his intellect, the intelligent Vibhishana, the knower of virtue, thereupon, spoke to Rama, the following words, which were in conformity with righteousness and self-interest "I am not obliged to perform the obsequies to him, who had abandoned the vow of virtue, who was cruel, who killed human beings, who was a cheater and who had longed for others' wives."
Logic: Just 2 chapters ago he was lamenting for Ravan & claimed to feel sorry for his death so thats all the more motive to actually do his funeral rites, but now hes pretending to be a hater of ravan again which makes no sense. Vibeeshan unnecessarily created more drama, discussions, arguments that were not needed, he loved to waste time.
Turns out when vibeeshan eventually does become lanka's lord then he does nothing besides wasting time.
Vibeeshan physically harmed his own vanara & bear allies:
"Vibhishana, who knew what was right, began to disperse the crowd there quickly." "Crowds of bears, monkeys and demons, dispersed on all sides, bounced for a distance, from their nearness to the palanquin. While those warriors were being driven away, there was a very great sound, resembling the roar of a sea, lashed by a storm."
Rama enraged as he was spoke the following words with a reproach to the highly intelligent Vibhishana "Why disregarding me, are these people harassed by you? Stop this exertion. They are my own people."

Vibeeshan tries to bribe Raam by giving him servant girls;
"These women with lotus-like eyes, who are skilled in the art of decoration, came with bathing accessories like garments, ornaments, sandal-pastes and beautiful garlands of various kinds. They will assist you in bathing O Rama!"
Think he said they would assist him in bathing, that means they could indeed touch his naked body, including his manhood/genitals, this was clearly pimping.

Final act of lund chooser;
"Thereupon, that Sugreeva along with the monkeys gladly ascended that wonderful Pushpaka, the aerial car. Vibhishana together with his counselors also ascended it."
Logic - this was right after he got coronated as lanka's monarch/king, his duty was to help rebuild lanka since the war ended, instead what he did was give precious minerals to the vanara invaders and then choose to go to Ayodhya through this pushpak vimana, leaving lanka's throne vacant again, their subjects are now leaderless.
=
Edit {11:55 AM} feb 28th (2025)
Vibeeshan originally wanted the lankan war to happen, he was a hater of Raam or atleast behaved like one.
Quote:
"O Ravana, who is fond of war! If he is dead, I do not find any other hero, who can incite those two arrogant princes, who are hindered by a long distance, for war."
[end]
[new-beginning] "Therefore, let some who follow your command, by talking a portion of your army, subjugate those two stupid princes, in order to make your power known to your adversaries."
[final end]
Logic - he was using disrespectful words about Raam.
end of editH {11:58 AM} February 28th 2025.
=
List of his crimes;
1 - Helping Meghanada, Ravan etc both bring widowed and captured women down from the vehicle so they could step foot in lanka as slaves of Ravan.
2 - Staying in the borders and country of a monarch that was a mass murderer (explained how Ravan led his army to kill anaranya's men).
3 - being obedient to Raam or allied with him despite the attack on gandharvas (same species of his wife Sarama).
4 - Left all his own children and his wife too in lanka when he abandoned it, despite knowing they would rot in lanka facing discrimination, blame and potential abuse.

5 - When Meghanada encourages the rakshasas to retaliate, have self respect & stand up for themselves then Vibeeshan said Meghanad should be killed for this action.
6 - After Laxman & Ram both lose to Meghanad then the true colors of Vibeeshan get revealed that he was more worried about failing to get lanka's throne not failing to rescue Seetha from captivity.
7 - He did not protest the burning of innocent civilians, women & houses in the war of lanka.

8 - After the death of ravan then vibeeshan claims ravan was a disgusting person that did not deserve respect, his thought process/mid only changed once Raam began to praise ravan after his death, since raam wanted it Vibeeshan had to do the last rites of ravan although in his heart he secretly did not desire it. But in order to look convincing vibeeshan goes on a praise spree singing praises for Ravan this tells u readers how much of a manipulative, hypocrite vibeeshan was. He changes his beliefs like a juggler moves objects around.
9 - Vibeeshan assumed that Raam would not want Seetha to be seen in public so he began violently trying to remove Vanara soldier's, rakshasas and bears too from the scene, this act of Vibeeshan was considered a crime by Raam but he did not want to ruin his own happiness by punishing vibeeshan so he let it slide after a conversation.

10 - Then Vibeeshan graduated to the rank of a PIMP by trying to bribe Raam.
11 - According to Vana Parva he was jealous of Kuber.
12 - People insult Arjuna for killing Bhishma (who they consider a grandfather) nobody insulted vibeeshan for the murder of his uncle prahasta.

13 - Gave Laxman the clue he needed to attack Meghanada when he was vulnerable, since Meghanada killed most of the vanaras (a race of terrorist and looters) he should be considered a positive individual but Vibeeshan wanted the death of this heroic patriot.
14 - And at last he left the people of lanka alone, instead of helping them rebuild after war he took a vacation to ayodhya.

CONCLUSION; Vibeeshan was an opportunist, coward, traitor & a incompetent husband. This greedy politician should be compared to the hunchback in the film 300 (2006& not legends like Yuyutsu.