Originally posted by: Chandraketu
That brings to mind another side question. In this serial, when Ravan is talked out of taking on Rama directly by Akampana and Vibhishan, Mandodari, in her anger later at Shurpanakha, tells her that if Ravan were to engage Rama in combat, he'd definitely win. Vibhishan too seemed to alude to that somewhat reluctantly, as he agreed with Akampana that winning a combat against Rama would not bring him any glory, since Rama was a mere mortal (a bizzare argument, given that Rama had just wiped out Khar and Dushan). Does anybody actually think that Mandodari & Vibhishan was right, and that if Ravan had gone there with just Indrajit (to take on Lakshman), Shurpanakha (to abduct Sita) and a few more warriors, like, say, Atikaya, that Rama would have prevailed against them? In other words, was the abduction of Sita (aside from fulfilling Vedavati's curse) a necessary pre-requisite for Rama to be victorious against Ravan?
I'd think that Rama being a mortal would be enough, but I'm interested to hear how many think Ravan would have prevailed, particularly since he did suffer defeats in the past, including a stalemate with Rama's ancestor Mandhata.