Who broke the rules of the war first?

Who broke it the first time ? , Who was the first person to break the rules of war.

I've read somewhere in this forum that Bhishma was the first person to break the rules of war by killing 10,000 soldiers. ( only a car warrior can battle a car warrior )

But was it really him or anybody else?

Or was it someone from the pandav army?

found this in the internet hope it is useful:

Reading an explanation of the Mahabharata by Rajagopalacharia, i was amazed by the war rules he says both sides had to agree to before the battle could start , maybe some others may be interested:
Before the battle of the Pandava's against the Kaurava's the warrior leaders were called together by Krishna,who solemnly bound them to honour the traditional rules of war.
Single combat was only to be allowed between equals, a horseman could only attack a horseman, and not a man on foot,Charioteers elephant troops and infantry could only engage their opposite numbers in the enemy ranks ,
Those who left the field exhausted , or retired injured or for any other reason not in combat could not be attacked ,any who either surrendered or sought quarter could not be attacked ,or slain
Once you had slain the man you were fighting , and disengaged ,you could not engage a warrior who is already engaged in combat,you could not slay anyone who is unarmed , or who you have disarmed ,or anyone whose attention is elsewhere , is retreating , or who has lost his armour.
No arrow shaft may be directed at non-combatants , flag carriers , conch shell blowers ,or drum beaters .

Both sides duly agreed to be bound by the rules ,then Yudishthira took of his armour ,and laid down his weapons , and walked unharmed through the thousands of men of the opposing army , to find the head chief/god and asked for his permission to commence the battle.and then was allowed back to his battlelines.
i should think in the heat of battle these rules were broken on occasion but it is certainly different to how war is conducted today, i hope some of you enjoy it.
Do you think they were more civilised then, or war was just a game for the rulers, and maybe we are more honest about war just being a vicious nasty necessity, and you should aim to end it as soon as possible, whatever that takes.??

Great post. I too remember reading.. It was Bhishma who sometimes was forced to use divyastras on ordinary soldiers due to his vow to kill atleast 10000 enemies a day.

Bhishma's death was not unjust, because he himself laid down his arms upon seeing Shikhandi. No one else in the Kauravas' side had a problem fighting Shikhandi. Although she was born a woman, she later turned into a man so was allowed to fight in a war. All other Kauravas viewed her as a male only, so if Bhishma laid down his arms upon seeing her, that was his own decision and no one on the Pandavas' side is responsible for it.

As for Arjuna killing Bhishma being unjust, it was not because Arjuna and Bhishma were both equal in terms of skill and prowess, so it was a battle between equals. Arjuna may have been considerably younger, but he has many astras and shastras to make himself as competent as Bhishma if not more. Even during the battle of Virata, Arjuna defeated Bhishma in the form of Brihannala.

point 1: If Sikhandin was refused a battle he could have very well used that situation as it was Bhishma's problem.. even running behind and killing him from the back would be fine..again as it was his problem.. not much adharmic than what happened..

point 2 & 3: If Bhishma wanted to die as soon as possible, why waste 10 days? or why wait for uttarayan? Not emo blackmail? did they begin the conversation with 'excuse me Pitamah, tell me how to kill you?' Yudi went to return the ashirvad of vitory and thus making Bhishma give away the secret... Somehow I think it is adharma 😆 if we base the discussion on which side Krishna stood and that Krishna can not do adharma, then there is no point in discussing POVs.. this thread can very well be closed 😛 and infact no discussions or understanding of Mahabharata is required as it is just and old version of IPL T20 😆

Originally posted by: ...Diala...

point 1: If Sikhandin was refused a battle he could have very well used that situation as it was Bhishma's problem.. even running behind and killing him from the back would be fine..again as it was his problem.. not much adharmic than what happened..

point 2 & 3: If Bhishma wanted to die as soon as possible, why waste 10 days? or why wait for uttarayan? Not emo blackmail? did they begin the conversation with 'excuse me Pitamah, tell me how to kill you?' Yudi went to return the ashirvad of vitory and thus making Bhishma give away the secret... Somehow I think it is adharma 😆 if we base the discussion on which side Krishna stood and that Krishna can not do adharma, then there is no point in discussing POVs.. this thread can very well be closed 😛 and infact no discussions or understanding of Mahabharata is required as it is just and old version of IPL T20 😆

1. Sorry, I can't agree with you there. Running behind someone and killing them unawares is way worse than facing them in front of everyone. Morever, neither Shikhandi nor the Pandavas did anything deceitfully in the case of Bhishma. Shikhandi merely stood in Arjuna's chariot with him, which was not unusual since chariots always got destroyed in wars and warriors often had to jump into someone else's chariot before they got crushed. Bhishma himself refused to face Shikhandi. He himself laid down his weapons. Arjuna challenged him openly in front of everyone. There was no deceit involved. After openly challenging someone and giving them a chance to wield their weapons, it is not wrong for a warrior to begin fighting, even if the other warrior does not respond. Bhishma's death happened only on his own wish, so if any adharma happened, it was on the part of Bhishma since he, in a way, became disloyal to Duryodhan by laying down his arms and accepting death.

2. For me, Krishna is a very important part of the Mahabharat. I am willing to discuss why something may have happened and whether it could have happened another way, but when it comes to dharma vs. adharma, Krishna is the final judgment since he was God. If he approved something the Pandavas did, it had a reason and cannot be termed Adharma. In the Bhagawat Gita when Arjuna had a vision of all his relatives lying death on the battlefield, Krishna told him that people killing each other was merely an illusion. In reality, he already wrote the destinies of everyone and both the Pandavas and Kauravas were merely instruments in the greater hands of fate. Krishna told Arjuna to have faith in him and follow him without having any doubts. Whatever Krishna said or did, there was a reason behind it. To call it Adharma would be to call Krishna an Adharmi, which for me is a sin in itself.