Do kauravas has another name?

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Dhritarashtra's sons were also known as Dhritarashtras. As for the Kaurava name, usually, the name of the dynasty permeated through the eldest of sons of any ruler. So despite the fact that Duryodhan was less qualified to the throne than Yudhisthir, as far as family brand ownership goes, Dhritarashtra's sons got to own it, not the Pandavas.

Vyasa often referred to the Pandavas too as Kauravas, but that's more of careless writing on his part: he also described Krishna as all of the sub-groups of Yadavas, even though Krishna was a Vrishni. In different places, Krishna has been described as a Vrishni, Satwata, Bhoja, Andhaka and so on. Vyasa also did things like describe Dhrishtadyumna as Prishatha's son, rather than Drupada's.

At any rate, getting back to the original point, Dhritarashtra's direct descendants were called the Kauravas. After Yudhisthir, the dynasty went by the name of Purus or Pandavas, not Kauravas. Actually, given not only the war, but also the fact that after it, Yudhisthir directly became the king rather than wait for Dhritarashtra's death - something that Duryodhan couldn't have done - it makes more sense to state that the Kuru dynasty ended w/ Dhritarashtra and that the Pandava dynasty started either w/ Pandu or w/ Yudhisthir

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Dhritarashtra's sons were also known as Dhritarashtras. As for the Kaurava name, usually, the name of the dynasty permeated through the eldest of sons of any ruler. So despite the fact that Duryodhan was less qualified to the throne than Yudhisthir, as far as family brand ownership goes, Dhritarashtra's sons got to own it, not the Pandavas.

Vyasa often referred to the Pandavas too as Kauravas, but that's more of careless writing on his part: he also described Krishna as all of the sub-groups of Yadavas, even though Krishna was a Vrishni. In different places, Krishna has been described as a Vrishni, Satwata, Bhoja, Andhaka and so on. Vyasa also did things like describe Dhrishtadyumna as Prishatha's son, rather than Drupada's.

At any rate, getting back to the original point, Dhritarashtra's direct descendants were called the Kauravas. After Yudhisthir, the dynasty went by the name of Purus or Pandavas, not Kauravas. Actually, given not only the war, but also the fact that after it, Yudhisthir directly became the king rather than wait for Dhritarashtra's death - something that Duryodhan couldn't have done - it makes more sense to state that the Kuru dynasty ended w/ Dhritarashtra and that the Pandava dynasty started either w/ Pandu or w/ Yudhisthir

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Dhritarashtra's sons were also known as Dhritarashtras. As for the Kaurava name, usually, the name of the dynasty permeated through the eldest of sons of any ruler. So despite the fact that Duryodhan was less qualified to the throne than Yudhisthir, as far as family brand ownership goes, Dhritarashtra's sons got to own it, not the Pandavas.

Vyasa often referred to the Pandavas too as Kauravas, but that's more of careless writing on his part: he also described Krishna as all of the sub-groups of Yadavas, even though Krishna was a Vrishni. In different places, Krishna has been described as a Vrishni, Satwata, Bhoja, Andhaka and so on. Vyasa also did things like describe Dhrishtadyumna as Prishatha's son, rather than Drupada's.

At any rate, getting back to the original point, Dhritarashtra's direct descendants were called the Kauravas. After Yudhisthir, the dynasty went by the name of Purus or Pandavas, not Kauravas. Actually, given not only the war, but also the fact that after it, Yudhisthir directly became the king rather than wait for Dhritarashtra's death - something that Duryodhan couldn't have done - it makes more sense to state that the Kuru dynasty ended w/ Dhritarashtra and that the Pandava dynasty started either w/ Pandu or w/ Yudhisthir

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Vyasa often referred to the Pandavas too as Kauravas, but that's more of careless writing on his part: he also described Krishna as all of the sub-groups of Yadavas, even though Krishna was a Vrishni. In different places, Krishna has been described as a Vrishni, Satwata, Bhoja, Andhaka and so on. Vyasa also did things like describe Dhrishtadyumna as Prishatha's son, rather than Drupada's.

At any rate, getting back to the original point, Dhritarashtra's direct descendants were called the Kauravas. After Yudhisthir, the dynasty went by the name of Purus or Pandavas, not Kauravas. Actually, given not only the war, but also the fact that after it, Yudhisthir directly became the king rather than wait for Dhritarashtra's death - something that Duryodhan couldn't have done - it makes more sense to state that the Kuru dynasty ended w/ Dhritarashtra and that the Pandava dynasty started either w/ Pandu or w/ Yudhisthir

Originally posted by: snowdream

As per the story of Mahabharata Dhritrashtra's kids were called kauravas and Pandu's kids pandavas..But then taking in to account of Hastinapur empire even Pandavas were one among Kauravas- the kuru vansh descendants. Even then they were never called so.. and their battle was also name war between Pandavas and Kauravas.

Does that have any other story behind? Do kauravas name came from something else rather than being descendants of kuru vansh.??? Did Dhritrashtra denied considering pandavas as one among the royal descendants..???

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Surya

I missed this post of yours earlier, but thanks. However, a person was usually not known by his mother's parentage, unless he was adopted into that side, like Bahlika or Babruvahana. Therefore, it wouldn't be accurate to call Krishna an Andhaka. (Devaki-Vasudev's marriage is less strange to me than Krishna-Bhadra, Krishna-Mitravindya, Arjun-Subhadra, Nakul-Karenamati, Pradhyumna-Rukmavati or Anirudha-Rochana) Or else, one could call KYBA Yadavas, or Kunti vansh, as per Kunti's families.