{| Doubts and Discussions about Mahabharata |} - Page 7

Originally posted by: angelic8219

After karna died did duryodhana find out karna's real identity? If so what was his reaction?

Originally posted by: lovesunshine

btw in BR chopra's version of the mahabharatha, it is shown that duirng the war one evening after karna's death when duryodhan was feeling sad and missed karna he went to bheeshma and expressed his sadness and bheeshma told duryodhan the real identity of karna and duryodhna was shocked abt this and praised karna to be such a good friend.

Originally posted by: lovesunshine

btw in BR chopra's version of the mahabharatha, it is shown that duirng the war one evening after karna's death when duryodhan was feeling sad and missed karna he went to bheeshma and expressed his sadness and bheeshma told duryodhan the real identity of karna and duryodhna was shocked abt this and praised karna to be such a good friend.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Different question, to bring this sync this thread a bit more w/ the serial, since it's getting closer to the point where we'll be seeing the start of the story

When Satyavati's father declined to give Satyavati in marriage to Shantanu, why didn't he simply assert his royal authority and forcibly seize Satyavati & marry her? At that time, kings had absolute despotic power, and there were no limitations on what they could do. Indeed, as Bheeshma himself demonstrated several years later, when he seized Amba, Ambika & Ambalika, might is right. It would have been no big deal for the king of Hastinapur to simply seize that maiden who got him so infatuated, and then marry her. If she wanted, he could later have given Chitrangada/Vichitravirya a conquered kingdom.

So why did Shantanu not do it? Please don't make me laugh w/ a 'he respected the wishes of Satyavati's father'. Rulers of that time did nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Different question, to bring this sync this thread a bit more w/ the serial, since it's getting closer to the point where we'll be seeing the start of the story

When Satyavati's father declined to give Satyavati in marriage to Shantanu, why didn't he simply assert his royal authority and forcibly seize Satyavati & marry her? At that time, kings had absolute despotic power, and there were no limitations on what they could do. Indeed, as Bheeshma himself demonstrated several years later, when he seized Amba, Ambika & Ambalika, might was right. It would have been no big deal for the king of Hastinapur to simply seize that maiden who got him so infatuated, and then marry her. If she wanted, he could later have given Chitrangada/Vichitravirya a conquered kingdom.

So why did Shantanu not do it? Please don't make me laugh w/ a 'he respected the wishes of Satyavati's father'. Rulers of that time did nothing of the sort.