Who was the heir to the Throne after Yudhishtira? - Page 2

Actually the post war sequence are very haphazard and mixed up so can't say really what happened to other sons of pandavas . I even have my doubts on the existence of upandavas since their birth order does not makes sense to me specially when abhimanyu is mentioned as the heir. Or maybe they existed as but were kids of pandavas with their other wives adopted by krishnaa ( princess of panchal) along with abhimanyu as her own and who were not crown prince because their mothers belonged to lesser known kingdom and alliance with dwaraka would have been strengthened by making Abhimanyu the crown prince

Or they did existed were very much krishaa s kids prativindhya was the crown princea and Abhimanyu being crown prince is later interpolation

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

For the 3rd time 😆 in same thread, Abhimanyu is explicitly stated as heir during Krishna and Satyaki's visit to the Pandavas during exile.

Also re: Abhimanyu being oldest. Not only the wording about birth order, HE is the one who tutors Upapandavas in weaponry according to Satyabhama.

That is another reason to prove the fact that they were not Krishnaa s sons because krishnaa was married to yudhishtra much longer than subdhara was to arjuna. So maybe they were kids of other queens adopted by krishnaa

It is said there is no mention of chitraganda in actual Mahabharata text

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Huh? Duryodhan congratulated Ashwatthama on what he did, telling him that he achieved what neither Bheeshma, Drona or even Karna couldn't. Also, Parikshit wasn't even born, and Ashwatthama hadn't released the Brahmashira against Uttara at that point, since the Pandavas were yet to discover the massacre

It is unclear who was older - Prativindya or Abhimanyu, the way it's worded in the description. First Abhimanyu's birth is mentioned, and then the birth of Draupadi's sons. But yeah, Prativindya would probably have been the heir, although I do think it possible that he'd have gotten Hastinapur and Abhimanyu Indraprastha.

Incidentally, Bhima was the yuvraj for the 36 years that Yudhisthir ruled Hastinapur. While I can understand that at the beginning, when Parikshit was not even born, I'd have thought that at some point, Parikshit should have replaced Bhima in that position. Same thing in the Ramayan - Bharat was Rama's yuvraj until the end: Kush didn't replace him when he and Lav united w/ Rama

No, Duryodhan only congratulates him when Ashwatthama tells him it's the Pandavas. When he shows him the heads and Duryodhan realizes it's the Upa Pandavas, that's when he chastises him. Fueled by anger at Duryodhan's criticism, Ashvatthama then decides to end the entire Kuru vansh by killing Parikshit, because Duryodhan didn't "appreciate" what he did for him.

Should it matter who was older? As the son of the King, Prativindhya should have been heir.

If Abhimanyu was Crown Prince then he must be older than Upapandavas

I was wondering, isn't it possible that none of the Pandavas actually stayed with Draupadi during 12 years of exile? Or was Arjun's exile only for 1 year?

I don't believe Abhimanyu was only 16 as hell lot of things happened after his birth

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

That is another reason to prove the fact that they were not Krishnaa s sons because krishnaa was married to yudhishtra much longer than subdhara was to arjuna. So maybe they were kids of other queens adopted by krishnaa

Nope, the Upa Pandavas were definitely the children of Draupadi. The text explicitly mentions that she gives birth to Prativindhya first and then the other children. Arjuna married Subhadra soon after Indraprastha was formed, so it's possible Abhimanyu was born soon after, but Draupadi should have given birth to at least Prativindhya by then, if not the others.

Yudhisthira married Devika much later, so his son Yaudheya born to her was much younger than the others. Still, he would have been heir after Prativindhya.

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

Nope, the Upa Pandavas were definitely the children of Draupadi. The text explicitly mentions that she gives birth to Prativindhya first and then the other children. Arjuna married Subhadra soon after Indraprastha was formed, so it's possible Abhimanyu was born soon after, but Draupadi should have given birth to at least Prativindhya by then, if not the others.

Yudhisthira married Devika much later, so his son Yaudheya born to her was much younger than the others. Still, he would have been heir after Prativindhya.

Exactly atleast prativindhya should be elder to Abhimanyu if we considered them as krishnaa s children and if prativindhya did really existed and was really krishnaa s son he should have been the heir but if abhimanyu is mentioned as the heir i am not really sure .

@priyamvada citation needed

I'm going to look for the actual text to post here, lol. To clear up confusions.

I do believe Abhimanyu was older actually. I remember reading that he was born, and soon after Draupadi gave birth to the Upa Pandavas. Even though he was not the son of the King, I believe Abhimanyu was the heir because he was Krishna's nephew. After all, the people in Dwapara yuga didn't care that much about oldest son succession, as the Kuru vansh proves.

Also, Abhimanyu being 16 at the time of death is from folklore. He is actually in his 30s when he dies. By Dwapara yuga standards, 30s was still considered 'youth' since people lived much longer back then, and thus he was referred to as "child" in several places. Our society converted that to 16 years since that what we consider a child, lol.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I don't understand, What's Vanaparva? Was it before or after the war?

Abhimanyu wass very young in comparison to other warriors in Mahabharata war

Other might have cross 40 even 80 even 100 but abhimanyu was still at teenage when he in Mahabharata

Abhimanyu was born around when pandav went to exile for 13 years so when pandav complete 13 years exile abhimanyu age might be 13 years