Remove following characters from the epic - Page 9

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Okay, remove Balarama, Amba and Kripacharya

Balram - world gives thanks at one less assaulter/assault supporter

Amba - no Shikhandi. Bheeshma's death doubtful. Pandavas might lose war. Unless It made Krishna intervene in which case end would have been same

Kripa - Does it mean Kripi too since they were twins? Then, it would take out Ashwatthama. Otherwise, unsure what diff it would make. Someone else would prob kill anyone Kripa was involved in killing

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I said Chitrangad (elder brother of Vichitraveer) not Chitrangada

No difference: Vichitravirya would have been fast-tracked to the Hastinapur throne

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Balram - world gives thanks at one less assaulter/assault supporter.

Amba - no Shikhandi. Bheeshma's death doubtful. Pandavas might lose war. Unless It made Krishna intervene in which case end would have been same

Kripa - Does it mean Kripi too since they were twins? Then, it would take out Ashwatthama. Otherwise, unsure what diff it would make. Someone else would prob kill anyone Kripa was involved in killing

Balaram admired Duryodhan, but there's nothing to suggest that he endorsed the assault of Draupadi. Incidentally, Rukmini haran would have been more difficult, since it was Balarama who held Jarasandha's army at bay, allowing only Rukmi to go thru. Also, Rukmi would have had to have been killed by someone else, had Balaram not been around

Had there been no Amba, there wouldn't have been a sword of Damocles on Bheeshma's head: he still could have been immobilized, but there would have been nobody specifically born to either kill him or be the cause of his death.

No, I was asking just Kripa: assume that Kripi alone was born, and got married to Drona. While Drona and Ashwatthama did the bulk of the killing, Kripa killed almost nobody, despite being equivalent in stature to Drona and about as powerful a warrior. Also, no companion to Dhritarashtra post war.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Balaram admired Duryodhan, but there's nothing to suggest that he endorsed the assault of Draupadi. Incidentally, Rukmini haran would have been more difficult, since it was Balarama who held Jarasandha's army at bay, allowing only Rukmi to go thru. Also, Rukmi would have had to have been killed by someone else, had Balaram not been around

Had there been no Amba, there wouldn't have been a sword of Damocles on Bheeshma's head: he still could have been immobilized, but there would have been nobody specifically born to either kill him or be the cause of his death.

No, I was asking just Kripa: assume that Kripi alone was born, and got married to Drona. While Drona and Ashwatthama did the bulk of the killing, Kripa killed almost nobody, despite being equivalent in stature to Drona and about as powerful a warrior. Also, no companion to Dhritarashtra post war.

re: Balram. I was referring to Harivamsa's description of his assault on Yamuna and his support of Samba in SB. AFAIK, Balram doesn't say a word about the assault on panchali.

Seeing it in terms of literature and not history, I think it's also important which characters play a role in character support/development. Of course there are many choric characters but I believe characters like Amba, Keechak, Vyasa, Shakuni, Balaram- play an important role in bringing out certain sides of characters.

Bhishma's sacrifice and oath prevented him from helping a woman- doing something what was right which also shows the negative consequences of a noble act. There are many such examples as well.

Jarasandh is not such a character but without his presence Krishna's political choice in war would not be justified. Jarasandh was his enemy and Bheem killed him, which I believe is the reason Krishna bonded with the Pandavas (to use Bheem's strength to his benefit) and also he helped them back to get back their land.

Shakuni plays an important role in the most important event in the story apart from war- the dice game. He also plays a role in bringing out who were Dury's support. His 100 brothers have little role. I do believe Shakuni as an elder or father figure did give him support. He isn't a huge strategist as TV serials suggest but yet he was support.

CaptainSpark, if one is talking just physically, Jarasandha could have been killed by Balaram on any of the 17 wars b/w Magadha and Mathura. But somehow, that never happened, even though Magadha is said to have lost all of those wars. So what would have prevented Balaram from slaying Jarasandha?

Or could it be that in the effort to glorify Krishna, what was actually a defeat at Jarasandha's hands was totally sidelined? After all, Jarasandha made 17 attempts on Mathura, which didn't result in his defeat, or else, he wouldn't have come back 16 times. That would suggest that the Yadavas held their own, but their strength was getting eroded after every invasion. So after the 17th invasion, Krishna told his kinsmen to evacuate Mathura for an island off the coast of Aryavarta, while he and Balaram held off Kalyavan's invasion. It probably resulted in Kalyavan being killed but Mathura still falling to the Yavanas, and so the Yadavas completely evacuated to Dwarka.

So that pretty much suggests an actual military defeat for the Yadavas, except that they lived to fight another day, and decades later, after much of Aryavarta's kings and armies had been consumed at Kurukshetra, they got to return to Mathura following Krishna's passing. But it still leaves the question of why Bhima was needed to kill Jarasandha, especially since we're talking about a duel, and why it couldn't be Balaram

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

CaptainSpark, if one is talking just physically, Jarasandha could have been killed by Balaram on any of the 17 wars b/w Magadha and Mathura. But somehow, that never happened, even though Magadha is said to have lost all of those wars. So what would have prevented Balaram from slaying Jarasandha?

Or could it be that in the effort to glorify Krishna, what was actually a defeat at Jarasandha's hands was totally sidelined? After all, Jarasandha made 17 attempts on Mathura, which didn't result in his defeat, or else, he wouldn't have come back 16 times. That would suggest that the Yadavas held their own, but their strength was getting eroded after every invasion. So after the 17th invasion, Krishna told his kinsmen to evacuate Mathura for an island off the coast of Aryavarta, while he and Balaram held off Kalyavan's invasion. It probably resulted in Kalyavan being killed but Mathura still falling to the Yavanas, and so the Yadavas completely evacuated to Dwarka.

So that pretty much suggests an actual military defeat for the Yadavas, except that they lived to fight another day, and decades later, after much of Aryavarta's kings and armies had been consumed at Kurukshetra, they got to return to Mathura following Krishna's passing. But it still leaves the question of why Bhima was needed to kill Jarasandha, especially since we're talking about a duel, and why it couldn't be Balaram

1. Balram never got the one-on-one chance Bheema did. And with Magadha army, it's doubtful Yadavas could have beaten Jarasandha.

2. Political legitimacy. It wasn't enough to beat Jarasandha. They needed someone in place who'd let them live in peace. Traditionally, Kurus and Panchalas seem to have been the ones with claim on imperial throne. Krishna and Balram could defeat all the enemies they wanted, but as long as it was not a Kuru or a Panchala ruling as emperor, it would've been nearly impossible to have lasting peace. As Yudhishtira's representative, Bheema could issue that challenge in a way Balram couldn't. Yudhishtira would have legitimacy that Krishna wouldn't. Plus, the Vasishta-Varunis would throw full support behind Yudhishtira, and priestly support was quite important those days.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

CaptainSpark, if one is talking just physically, Jarasandha could have been killed by Balaram on any of the 17 wars b/w Magadha and Mathura. But somehow, that never happened, even though Magadha is said to have lost all of those wars. So what would have prevented Balaram from slaying Jarasandha?

Or could it be that in the effort to glorify Krishna, what was actually a defeat at Jarasandha's hands was totally sidelined? After all, Jarasandha made 17 attempts on Mathura, which didn't result in his defeat, or else, he wouldn't have come back 16 times. That would suggest that the Yadavas held their own, but their strength was getting eroded after every invasion. So after the 17th invasion, Krishna told his kinsmen to evacuate Mathura for an island off the coast of Aryavarta, while he and Balaram held off Kalyavan's invasion. It probably resulted in Kalyavan being killed but Mathura still falling to the Yavanas, and so the Yadavas completely evacuated to Dwarka.

So that pretty much suggests an actual military defeat for the Yadavas, except that they lived to fight another day, and decades later, after much of Aryavarta's kings and armies had been consumed at Kurukshetra, they got to return to Mathura following Krishna's passing. But it still leaves the question of why Bhima was needed to kill Jarasandha, especially since we're talking about a duel, and why it couldn't be Balaram

Agreed with you. I too wonder why Balaram didn't manage to kill Jarasandha but most probably he was unable to because I see no reason why he would NOT DO IT unless he was UNABLE to, if you get my point. Maybe Jarasandh was quite powerful, he was good with military techniques too I suppose so Balaram didn't manage to do it.

Hence I believe it was necessary that outside help is taken ie Bheem. Now the Rajasuya Yajna happens and for Yudhi to be Chakravartin, isn't it necessary that Jarasandh be killed - so it was benefitting both Krishna and Yudhishthir. So Bheem did it and it removed Krishna's main enemy.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I do wonder if Karna was Dury's soulmate, generally television shows give this place to Shakuni but as I read everything here, it looks like Karna was the power behind Dury

"As regards this thy ever dear friend, this one who is always boastful of his skill in battle, this one who always urgeth thee, O king, to fight with the Pandavas, this vile braggart, Karna, the son of Surya, this one who is thy counsellor, guide, and friend, this vain wight who is destitute of sense, this Karna, is neither a Ratha nor an Atiratha. Without sense, this one hath been deprived of his natural coat of mail. Always kind, he hath also been deprived of his celestial ear-rings. In consequence of the curse of Rama (his preceptor in arms) as also of the words of a Brahmana (who cursed him on another occasion), owing also to his deprivation of the accoutrements of battle, he, in my judgment, is only half a Ratha. Having approached Falguni (in battle), he will not certainly escape with life!' Hearing this, Drona, that foremost of all wielders of weapons, said, 'It is even so as thou hast said. That is not untrue! He boasteth on the eve of every battle, but yet he is seen to retreat from every engagement. Kind (out of season) and blundering, it is for this that Karna, in my judgment, is only half a Ratha!

Bheeshma and Drona both ranked him as Half rathi because of his curses and his tendency to leave the battlefield

I do wonder, if Bheeshma did this to rile him up so he would back off from the war and Bheeshma did succeed in this

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Maybe he did. It might have been an attempt to avoid the war because Karna bloated Duryodhana's ego and the quest for war.

Sometimes I feel more than Duryodhan, Karna wanted the war.

I recently read that in dice hall Karna not only asked for Draupadi's disrobe but also ordered the Pandavas to immidiately undress (and remember they weren't His slaves), he was being more cruel to them than the actual owner (and someone who still had reasons to hate them) of Pandavas+Draupadi

Initially I was of the opinion that Karna had ordered for Draupadi's disrobe to shut her up considering the way she was arguing or to just support Duryodhan in his evil plan, but this Pandavas undress order makes it seem that he was some weird kind of sadist.

Without Karna the Mahabharata would have been very different, perhaps no war at all