is prithvi really a veer yudha - Page 2

A true veer yodha is one who bounces back from every small/big setback and eventually Conquers........therefore, Prithvi was indeed a veer yodha in every sense of the word!!!

Yes he is veer...because he has all the attributes of a a brave warrior.
Forgiveness is not an attribute of the weak, it's a quality possessed only by the strong and PRC had this quality...therefore he is a veer yodha...no doubts about that!

PRC was a veer yodhdha but ala was THE veer yodhdha... more veer than prc... ala had never lost any single battle...

Originally posted by: dps_patel

PRC was a veer yodhdha but ala was THE veer yodhdha... more veer than prc... ala had never lost any single battle...

Are you sure about this Ms.Patel?

Ala was a veer warrior but he does not beat PRC in being the most veer warrior. Look at all the accomplishments of PRC and Ala, which one is more successful in his endeavors? If Ala was stronger than PRC, then people would have praised him more than PRC.

And Ala may have never lost a single battle, but PRC was undefeated even in his death, now this is what you call veer yodha. The rest are just strong, but PRC is the true Dharti ka Veer Yodha. Thank you.

-M Shah

In the sagars world, everything can be possible(even turning around the earth) 😆 , so don't ever believe wat they show u because it's always fake 🤢

Originally posted by: pollydolly

In the sagars world, everything can be possible(even turning around the earth) 😆 , so don't ever believe wat they show u because it's always fake 🤢

Excuse me Mam, If you think that what what they show is fake, then you are free to stop watching the show😡 We have no problem with that. And if you think that everything they show is fake, then do not watch the show...

So is PRC fake too? Are all of his friends a big invention? Is Sanyo a made up character? Even though a lot of PRC is based off of folklore, there is a semblence of truth in what they say...so please do not say it is all fake...because if this whole story was fake, then it would not have been so popular in indian history. Thanks

-M Shah

Originally posted by: miraclemun

Are you sure about this Ms.Patel?

Ala was a veer warrior but he does not beat PRC in being the most veer warrior. Look at all the accomplishments of PRC and Ala, which one is more successful in his endeavors? If Ala was stronger than PRC, then people would have praised him more than PRC.

And Ala may have never lost a single battle, but PRC was undefeated even in his death, now this is what you call veer yodha. The rest are just strong, but PRC is the true Dharti ka Veer Yodha. Thank you.

-M Shah

you must understand that ALA was only a soldier... he did not inherit a kingdom from his father... yet he is known in people's heart of his land... PRC was son of a KING and inherited delhi and ajmer... if ala had ben in prc's shoes he would have killed ghori not let go and history would have been different today... you must not forget that ala was in his post mahoba days a general of PRC and fought many winning battle for PRC... it was ala who helped PRC to win first battle against ghori and captured ghori and also advised PRC not to free the infidel ghori... well he was JUST a admiral of PRC so he did not listen to him and we all know the history... ALA died in second battle of terrain against GHORI fighting with PRC and i would believe that his death may have been responsible for PRC's defeat in 2nd battle against ghori.... had he been alive PRC would not have lost the battle....

In conclusion, i am not saying that PRC was not VEER, indeed he was but given the circumstances and who ALA was, ALA is the superior indeed. Superior general makes KING superior.....

Originally posted by: dps_patel

you must understand that ALA was only a soldier... he did not inherit a kingdom from his father... yet he is known in people's heart of his land....yes, soldiers and countrymen are usually more patriotic then the rulers and more willing to put their life on the line for their country.. PRC was son of a KING and inherited delhi and ajmer...the fact that PRC cared so much about his people and did everything to protect them, shows his willingness to defend his people...ala would only fight for his country, but prc would fight for his country and the honor of his people.... if ala had ben in prc's shoes he would have killed ghori ...and PRC DID kill Ghori...he killed him and gave him the death he deserved...not let go and history would have been different today...you can't judge if history would be different today based on just one person being alive, yes ala's presence was needed, but you cannot jump to conclusions that he would have been able to defeat Ghori...

you must not forget that ala was in his post mahoba days a general of PRC and fought many winning battle for PRC... it was ala who helped PRC to win first battle against ghori and captured ghori and also advised PRC not to free the infidel ghori... well he was JUST a admiral of PRC so he did not listen to him and we all know the history... ALA died in second battle of terrain against GHORI fighting with PRC and i would believe that his death may have been responsible for PRC's defeat in 2nd battle against ghori.... had he been alive PRC would not have lost the battle.... and even in death PRC is still undefeated...no one has ever defeated PRC, not in life and not in his death...

In conclusion, i am not saying that PRC was not VEER, indeed he was but given the circumstances and who ALA was, ALA is the superior indeed. Superior general makes KING superior.....Ala was a veer yodha, but PRC is also a veer yodha, perhaps more veer....please dont compare the two though, you are not doing justice to PRC by comparing them...

me in purple...

bottom line...no comparisons...both were great warriors of their times...but PRC beats all

upbringing of a mere citizen and upbringing of a Yuvraj is very different... hence ALA may not have learned technics such as Shabdbhedi vidhya etc which PRC did...

agreed in most of ur pleading however i beg to differ where you said " you can't judge if history would be different today based on just one person being alive, yes ala's presence was needed, but you cannot jump to conclusions that he would have been able to defeat Ghori..."

It only takes ONE person (esp like of PRC and ALA) to change the history... IT is just a SINGLE EVENT that can change the history... they said that if Rana Sanga had not missed his bhala by one inch to babur it was i think (which he did) history of india would have been different... if Jaliyawala baag massacre would not have occurred history of india would have been different... if Gandhi and Sardar PATEL (not sardar manmohan) were not born History of india would have been different...

Originally posted by: dps_patel

upbringing of a mere citizen and upbringing of a Yuvraj is very different... hence ALA may not have learned technics such as Shabdbhedi vidhya etc which PRC did...

agreed in most of ur pleading however i beg to differ where you said " you can't judge if history would be different today based on just one person being alive, yes ala's presence was needed, but you cannot jump to conclusions that he would have been able to defeat Ghori..."

It only takes ONE person (esp like of PRC and ALA) to change the history... IT is just a SINGLE EVENT that can change the history... they said that if Rana Sanga had not missed his bhala by one inch to babur it was i think (which he did) history of india would have been different... if Jaliyawala baag massacre would not have occurred history of india would have been different... if Gandhi and Sardar PATEL (not sardar manmohan) were not born History of india would have been different...

very well said........one cant ignore history as it is past……...past always leaves imprint on future………history of a country determines its future……..if the rulers of India would able to preserve the glory & wealth of ancient India then we are never considered as a citizen of a third world country today……..