Talk:Kurukshetra War

Date of Occurance

I hope i dont screw this page up in my contribution, but the date posted "P. V. Vartak calculates a date of October 16, 5561 BCE using planetary positions." seems highly unlogical, because the number of participants would be greater than half of the world's population at thetime period, as stated in the wikipedia site, 6th century B.C. "World population is essentially stable at circa 5 million people, though some speculate up to 7,000,000." I would appreciate some insight here. Ghost9420 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

History and mythology

This articile states that the battle went for 18 days as fact, very improbable considering the level of technology and man power avaliable to nations back 5000 years ago, is this articile presenting religious beliefs as verified facts?

Re:

1) According to the Vedic war conduct fighting is allowed only during daytime. 2) Kurukshetra war is a battle between several kingdoms from all over India. 3) There are astronomical references from the beginning through the end of the war.

It's not impossible for this "battle" to last 18 days because interpretations of what "battle" meant was most likely different back then from modern battles and numbers of loss merely means that it was a huge confrontation rather than a factual representation. If you check "Rules of Engagement", notice it codifies individual conduct rather than the conduct of a group. Thus, it makes more sense to assume that engagements were completely like a tournament with only few duels each day. It's not even ridiculous to assume that only one duel was fought each day because necessary religious preparations probably took hours, if not days. Meaning of everything changes with time. --Revth 09:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, with the numbers presented in this article, this war would have cost the lives of about 1/5 of the entire human population on Earth. And why is it presented as a fact that only 11 people from the armies survived, when that is quite obviously not true, even if the only source we have of the war says it is? 210.154.111.15 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

These are not really techincal arguments. firstly as the above user has stated the batlles between heroes could have taken a long time true but even so 18 days is not much. after all no one considers that the trojan war was fought with much less numbers over 10 years! the arguments over fact v/s myth are vaild but in the case of a page devoted to a myth, constantly saying it is believed and possibly becomes unimportant it is understood that all 'facts' are derived from quasi mythological books and thus may or may not be true. however we cannot assume the numbers to be unrealistic because no one can accurately determine populations and considering india's fertility it is highly probable that humainty's numbers burgeoned. also the epic states that 11 heroes survived and implies that many common soldiers also survived as referenced by a line later when when arjun leads an akshauni of kurukshetra veterans when he hear's of Krishna's demise. so please dont assume it to be blind myth just a historical battle where numbers may be exaggerated. a argument is that poets may have changed definitions to reach the number 18. so a day where only skirmishing may have happened or a single duel is reported as a battle. and the number 18 appears many times in the text Tca achintya (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit history

This article was split out of Kurukshetra in a cut-and paste move without acknowleding the source in July 2005. Edit history and contributors for this article from before July 2005 are at [1]. Kusma (討論) 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfinished "The War" section removed

This article had a sizeable unfinished section, including 11 empty subsections. I have removed this. The removed text follows. This leaves the article with a single section: "Introduction". Of course, this is still Not Good, but at least now we don't have lots of headings hanging around with no associated text. — Nowhither 18:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

==The War==

===Before the War===
The Pandavas appointed Dhrishtadhyuma the Supreme Commander of their Army, while the Kauravas gave a like honor to Bhishma. Bhishma ordered that as long as he be Supreme Commander, Karna would not fight in the Kaurava army. He secretly knew Karna's identity, but he officially gave several other feeble excuses.

===Day One===
Day one of Kuruksetra war was when both the armies of Kauravas and the Pandavas stood face to face. Pandava army had 7 Ashauhinis while the Kauravas had 11 Akshauhinis including the armies of Dwarka which Duryodhana got from Lord Krishna. In lieu of the Dwarka army Pandavas got Krishna, who vowed not to pick up any weapon during the war.So he became the charioteer of Arjuna

===Days Two to Nine===
===Day Ten===
===Day Eleven===
===Day Twelve===
===Day Thirteen===
===Day Fourteen===
===Day Fifteen===
===Day Sixteen===
===Day Seventeen===
===Day Eighteen===
===After the War===

Removed the sentence "(Modern World, especially Western World, Please Take Note)"..Western wars may be fought dishonourably but the main article is not the right place to air these grievances (Saurabhb 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Historical Evidence

I think it would be appropriate to mention that the only evidence of this war is in the Mahabaratha, and maybe some additional information on historical evidence that has shown atleast some of aspects of the event to be true.

I think it may be worth mentioning here about Prof. Rao's findings on Dwaraka City. It may through some light on Mahabharata war date and it seems that the date is close to Prof. Iyngar's prediction that the war could have happened around 15th century BC.

So called controversal statement

If you're going to argue that the war didn't happen, wouldn't it be wise to edit say, the rest of the first line, where it states the word evidence, as in, evidence of when the war actually took place? Dwayne Kirkwood 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that whether it happened is open to question. The second line implies an alternative opinion is possible.Dejvid 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguing whether the war actually happened in the article would make the article POV and arguements are for the Talk page. Armyrifle 11:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence to prove whether the war took place or not. Just finding the remains of Dwaraka city is not sufficient enough to prove the war took place.

by that logic there's no proof that the Trojan War happened yet it is acknowldged as having happenedTca achintya (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Size constraints

I am adding the details on each day of the war. Now i have added details upto day 3. Day 1 is 8 kb, day 2 is 6 kb and day 3 is 3 kb. Now the size is growing. If there is common consensus, I shall create separate pages for each day of the war and link it at this page.

--Jijithnr 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I will add a bit realating to roles of the Kambojas, Sakas, Yavanas, Tusharas and other participants from north-west for each and every day of the war. Other contributors can add relevant material on other participants.

Satbir Singh 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, it's better to create a seperate article Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas. So the other contributors should continue this article the way they intended. I'm reverting it back to it earlier version. Satbir Singh 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was so much information removed in this edit? And what is supposed to be the difference between this article and Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas? If anything, I think separate pages should be created for each day, but I'm confused as to what is going on right now. --Musicpvm 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I created a seperate article Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas was to pinpoint the specific role of the Kamboja Kshatryas in the Kurukshetra war. Since the Kambojas were only one of many Kshatrya tribes who participated in the battle, this Kurukshetra war article therefore can be kept as a broad-based article which may contain limited information but for as many of the various participant tribes as feasible. Thanks

Satbir Singh 02:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's all admit that Jijithnr is doing a wonderful service in researching on ancient Indian History based on Mahabharata. Credit must be given to him since he is the one who rightly deserves it. Satbir Singh 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There were many tribes and having Kambojas as one special kshatriya tribe with importance is not fair. Yes they would have been the most feirce fighters in the history but the tribes of Gatotgacha and others are not to be forgotten. Kambojas should have separate topic and should not be included as main scale. One more thing, why is there a mention of "Punjabi Warriors" separatly ? is this to thrive them out of other warriors ? or give them a special significance indicating racisim.

Fact vs Fiction

The lead paragraph reads as if there is conclusive proof that this war happened. This is open for debate. There has been no archealogical proof found so far. While we must treasure epics such as Mahabharata as invaluable cultural icons, we should be careful in taking it as the literal truth. I have slightly modified the lead para to reflect this.

Cheers Parthi 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The "date" section reads as if it was fiction. This is also POV. You have to be careful about beliefs. Armyrifle 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary style

At present this article contains long lists of the various kings,etc. To fit within the WP:MOS for a summary article, we will need to rewrite this to make it more readable. I will attempt to copyedit the various lists into readable prose. I don't believe we need to go into the minutest details of all the participants of the war. It will be suffice to summarise the eighteen days into paragraphs of readable prose. - Parthi 00:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Trojan War for example of a similar mythical battle - Parthi 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the detailed text for each day under the War heading to a new page Kurukshetra war - day 1. We can create similar pages for details of each day and convert the main article into a more manageable summary article - Parthi 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED, because "Kurukshetra War" is a proper noun. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Kurukshetra war → Kurukshetra War — proper noun —Espoo 15:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The title - War or Battle

I'll suggest that the correct title in English for this event is battle, not war. The battle was one incident that covered 18 days, at the same place. Even if it was the only significant event in the war, these events are normally called battles in English, not wars. The war (insofar as it can be clearly defined) was a wider event, and started before the first day's fighting at Kurukshetra. Imc 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of War - Compact Oxford English Dictionary : • 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2 a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

Other dictionaries give similar results[2]. I feel that the event described in this article fits within the definition easily and clearly, thus I vote not to change it. Chopper Dave 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Long time since my original comment, but I will stick with my opinion. The dicdef does not contradict it, in fact it supports it. The war is the state of conflict, not an episode in the conflict. As in the Norman Conquest (the actual war) and the Battle of Hastings (the major military event in that war). IMO, the war would be the war for the throne of Hastinapura; the battle was at Kurukshetra. Imc (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's obviously a battle and needs to be labelled as such - the article even describes it as a battle at a number of points, and the same is true in the Mahābhārata article. Knyght27 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Historically accurate"

Without getting into the argument whether the battle itself was history or myth, there has been no large scale engagement in recorded human history coming remotely close to 99.9999 etc % casualties, nor has there been a human in recorded history who's come remotely close to killing 200,000 humans with his bare hands in his lifetime, let alone in a single day, which would've required Arjuna to have slain just under three enemies a second, every second of every minute of every hour for 24 hours straight. This turn of phrase would be like suggesting that were Ragnarok historically accurate it'd be the most destructive battle in history, or were the Star Wars movie historically accurate, an Imperial Star Destroyer would be the most powerful warship built by man. They aren't, making this speculative POV and impermissible.  Ravenswing  12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC) trrt this battle was a history it is supported by archaeological discoveries, mahabharata mention many places and river which has the exact geography as mentioned in mahabharata, you can take the example of sarasvati river which root is mentioned in mahabarata and this geographical description about the river exactly matches with dried up course of ghaghar hakra river which was dried up by 1700 bce.

now how did arjuna killed 2,00,000 army men, its answer is that he killed them by using powerfull weapons, like nuclear weapon which can destroy the whole earth in a single day, mahabharata describes such tye of weapon. so it may be true--115.242.37.210 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, i haven't heard a funnier statement in the recent past. Your statement starts by stating that the battle is part of history and ends up saying "so it may be true". Can't help myself from laughing Arjun^codename024 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

friend, history is a subject of laughing for them who have very less logical power, historical events can't be said 100% accurately, it depends upon the thinking of scholars of that time. like in 500 ad arybhat who was a mathematician calculated 3000 bc as a probable date of mahabharata, but 100 yr ago all western scholars rejected the authenticity of mahabharata and introduced aryan invasion theory which was not known to any indian in a long span of 4000-3000 yr hinduism history.but all scholars supported that theory due to lack of evidence.but now many archaeological as well as linguistic analysis have supported authenticity of mahabharata.like sarasvati river, submerged city of dwarka and and many archaeological sites.

so my dear friend history can't be watched by our own eyes, it can be predicted only behalf on some facts available at that time, so keep laughing if you understand history made by today's scholars as a 100% correct estimation--115.242.119.76 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in Wiki article on proposed dates

"The Kurukshetra War is believed to date variously from 6000 BCE to 500 BCE" is stated at the beginning, yet the actually list of Proposed dates included none more recent then the 9th Century BC?