Why you need to marry alot ?? - Page 3

At that time there was thinking and rule that only son of king will take kingdom forward so Kshatriya use to marry many times for desire of son if he did not get son by first wife

And by chance if son of first martyrs in battle then then their will be another son who can run king dom

While some kings has desire to conquer world and even want to conquer woman by marrying them to satisfy their ego and pride

However not everybody use marry many times

Originally posted by: Padosan12

Why to marry so many woman's ?

Khud pe control ni tha ya sena banana tha with kids ? Population control hume abhi karne ko bolte hai why not that time ...🤔😉

At that time, mortality was high, and it was important to have sons for 2 reasons:

• To continue the family line: if one couldn't have children - either genetic or adopted, then one was considered guilty of letting down one's ancestors. Since one of the duties of a person was to pay homage to one's ancestors
• If one was royal, to continue the dynasty. And since fighting was a duty of kshatriyas and involved a high risk of death, it was important to have backup sons to fill in in case the yuvraj died, either in battle, or due to natural causes

Also, as far as politics went, it was also done to cement alliances b/w 2 kingdoms that the prince/king of one would marry the princess of another, even if that prince/king was already married

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Political alliances.

Take Krishna for instance. I think Rukmini didn't exist for a variety of reasons. But whether Krishna married Rukmini or Pradyumna marrued Rukmavati, Vidarbh was an important gateway to southern part of the subcontinent.

Satyabhama was needed to keep intra Yadava quarrels down. That it didn't work is a different matter.

So on and so forth.

Another example is Arjuna.

Panchali brought Panchal with her, the only other clan in the land with a claim to the imperial throne. Effectively, Vyasa made sure (through Arjuna) Panchal doesn't contest Yudhishtira's claim.

Ulupi was a one night stand for Arjun.

Chitrangada was actually war prize whatever Tagore made of it. The marriage ensured Manipura would not go against Indrapastha. Given the location, they would've been a buffer zone against foreign invaders.

Subhadra was Krishna's way of ensuring the alliance between Indrapastha and Yadavas.

In Krishna's case, each of his major wives had 10 sons. In the case of the 16,100 wives he captured after killing Narakasura, the reason he married them was that they had no future: no other man would marry them b'cos they had already been violated by Narakasura.

Pradhyumna marrying Rukmavat and Anirudha marrying Rochana were unhealthy, given that Vidharbha was already an ally and bound to Dwarka due to Rukmini alone. Same w/ Arjun & Subhadra: Dwarka was already beholden to the Pandavas due to Kunti being Vasudev's sister. Subhadra's marriage to Arjun was to prevent the alliance from being trumped if she married a Pandava enemy, like Dury. Also, as Shalya turned out to prove, being an uncle of the Pandavas didn't prevent him from joining their enemy.

Chitrangada was a genuine romantic interest of Arjun's, and did nothing for the Pandavas politically: Arjun's son Babruvahana was totally out of the Pandava succession, and even though he was king, he didn't participate in the Kurukshetra war, even though his father was there in it. Also, Manipur was nowhere near Indraprastha, and Pragjyotisha - Guwahati - was a Kaurava ally.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Duryodhan ne nhi kiya Krishna ko......

Even Shalya had to change his side

Although I understood what you meant. This was just a joke

Shalya was tricked into doing this - he was headed to join the Pandavas otherwise.

One advantage of Samba abducting Lakshmanaa was that she couldn't be used by Dury to entice any other kingdom to join him, the way Jayadrath did due to Duhshala

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Just that Arjuna defeated Manipura arny. Then married the princess.

Tagore made it a love story.

The "love" in that story is made evident by the fact she refused to go to Hastinapuri and refused have her son fight in Kurukshetra. There is an excuse about her father wanting her son to be heir to their kingdom. Which part of it precluded Babruvahana from growing up with his own father before taking charge of Manipura?

No, there was no battle. Arjun approached King Chitravahana and asked him for Chitrangada's hand in marriage. The king had only that daughter, so he allowed it but made it conditional that her son should be the yuvraj of Manipur, and not in the Indraprastha line of succession. Arjun had no issues w/ it, since he thought that it would in any case be Yudhisthir's sons who'd be in line to the throne

Originally posted by: proteeti

Dury also didnt have a problem with polygamy right. 😆

Fir shalya, his jeeju was no longer alive neither was his sister. His nephews weren't shakuni-close to him alright. He didnt really have a stake either way.

And problematic mamas ran in the family right. Nearly every main character suffered from a bad mama syndrome. 😆

Not true - the reason Shalya set off for Kurukshetra was to join the Pandavas. It was only due to Dury's trickery that he ended up on the Kaurava side.

Also, during Draupadi's swayamvara, when the Pandavas were disguised, he fought against Bhima when he objected to Draupadi marrying the Brahmins and ignoring the Kshatriyas. On that occasion, he was on the same side as Karna

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Shalya was tricked into doing this - he was headed to join the Pandavas otherwise.

One advantage of Samba abducting Lakshmanaa was that she couldn't be used by Dury to entice any other kingdom to join him, the way Jayadrath did due to Duhshala

I know Shalya was cheated I meant he eventually fought from enemy side and did do a lot of hamper to Pandavas army on the last day. Till the time he was alive Kauravas still had their hopes

Duryodhan enticing other kingdom for Lakshmana does seem a possibility. Though did he have only one daughter? He could have done that with other daughters. Jaidrath, the way he tried to molest Draupadi during Vanwaas, I think, would have anyway supported Duryodhan.

P.S. was just thinking that the was it just a coincidence that curse of Gandhari for the Yaduvansh to get over got fulfilled by the actions of her granddaughter's husband.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

In Krishna's case, each of his major wives had 10 sons. In the case of the 16,100 wives he captured after killing Narakasura, the reason he married them was that they had no future: no other man would marry them b'cos they had already been violated by Narakasura.

Pradhyumna marrying Rukmavat and Anirudha marrying Rochana were unhealthy, given that Vidharbha was already an ally and bound to Dwarka due to Rukmini alone. Same w/ Arjun & Subhadra: Dwarka was already beholden to the Pandavas due to Kunti being Vasudev's sister. Subhadra's marriage to Arjun was to prevent the alliance from being trumped if she married a Pandava enemy, like Dury. Also, as Shalya turned out to prove, being an uncle of the Pandavas didn't prevent him from joining their enemy.

Chitrangada was a genuine romantic interest of Arjun's, and did nothing for the Pandavas politically: Arjun's son Babruvahana was totally out of the Pandava succession, and even though he was king, he didn't participate in the Kurukshetra war, even though his father was there in it. Also, Manipur was nowhere near Indraprastha, and Pragjyotisha - Guwahati - was a Kaurava ally.

Not sure about it but my friend from Assam said that Ghatochkat ruled over the area of Dispur, her family consider themselves as the lineage of the same family( I believe her since she is a Muslim yet their family consider themselves as progeny of Ghatochkat) so Assam seems to have been an ally of Pandavas

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Not sure about it but my friend from Assam said that Ghatochkat ruled over the area of Dispur, her family consider themselves as the lineage of the same family( I believe her since she is a Muslim yet their family consider themselves as progeny of Ghatochkat) so Assam seems to have been an ally of Pandavas

I've been in Guwahati, and there are some places where I've seen 'Pragjyotisha' signs on certain shops and places. That was the place that was ruled by Narakasura and later Bhagadatta. Both of them are clearly mentioned as the rulers of Pragjyotisha

Hidimba lived and ruled in either Haryana or Himachal Pradesh, and that's where Ghatotkacha ruled. They didn't belong to the East: if you think about it, the Pandavas went nowhere near there during their escape from Lakshagriha. Ekachakra was somewhere in Haryana, if I recall right

I think Duryodhan had only 1 daughter and 1 son. Samba abducted her, so Duryodhan couldn't use her to expand his alliances. But he did use that relationship to approach Krishna for support. Aside from that, his sister Duhshala was the link to Jayadrath.

But like Proteeti mentioned, the ladki walis were obligated to support their in-laws, which is why someone from Subhadra's side was duty-bound to support the Pandavas. Which is the basis on which Arjun approached Krishna. Dury approached him on the basis of Samba's marriage to Lakshmanaa. Had Krishna gone solely by hierarchy, he'd have been more duty-bound to Subhadra than to Lakshmanaa: if anything, he could have demanded Dury's support.

One thing about Gandhari's curse that I found amusing, aside from Samba being the agent who caused it, was that Gandhari ended up widowing Lakshmanaa. I happen to think Lakshmanaa may have been one of the Yadava womenfolk abducted by bandits when Arjun was escorting them all back to Mathura