how many were killed in MB war.. - Page 2

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

@ Shyam.rathi
Shyam ur saying that India's population can't be 35 millon at MB era.

Not 35 million.. we are talking about 35 billion...

Originally posted by: shyam.rathi

Not 35 million.. we are talking about 35 billion...

ops typo mistake. I'll edit it

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

@ Shyam.rathi
A very tough question to answer but yet interesting. Shyam ur saying that India's population can't be 35 billion at MB era. But India was a very big country then. Modern Pakistan n Afganistan were included in it. Gandhar is mordern Kandhar(afganistan). Also there is mention of countires like Yamen in Mahabharat (I think u know abt kaalyaman).

By any means, the population of India at that time can't be 35 Billion... as i mentioned earlier, the population of entire world (not India) crossed the One billion mark in 1810 AD only.. Today, India's population is just over one billion, then how can one justify the 35 billion tag for that time..

Also, I've given 3 references for 3.94 million as the total strength of the entire army..

ok lets not debate abt wat was population of India n world at that era because no number is given in epic n no. u have've given is only ur assumption(i mean abt inida n world's poputaion)

But if it was vishwa yudhha n rulers form all over world have participated in it then it think the strength if army given in MB cannot be wrong

Originally posted by: shyam.rathi

Not 35 million.. we are talking about 35 billion...

Wow, interesting calculations and discussions from everyone; good job!

Originally posted by: godisone

Wow, interesting calculations and discussions from everyone; good job!

I also have one question. I'm not really that informed when it comes to Geography of the world, but does anyone know when the continents of the world were formed? I mean, I know for a fact that all the continents were once a big chunk of land, so when did they separate and become seven continents? By when, I mean which year?

@Shyam.rathi,

I understand your opinion about wikipedia, but it has come into news that many people live for changing information. They go into wikipedia, get an account, type in a very broad topic, and change the numbers and years of the article they see. Anyone can do it. Even I can, had I chosen to.

Your numbers may be right; I never said they were wrong, but I just wanted other sources other than wikipedia, and you gave me some, so thanks!

I'm sorry, but I don't take wikipedia as a source anymore. For me, it's not reliable. Here are some websites that criticize the reliability of wikipedia.

http://its.unc.edu/inside/fs/?p=23

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/Is-Wikipedia-Reliable-.id-5394.html

http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2006/06/how_reliable_is.html

Originally posted by: godisone

Wow, interesting calculations and discussions from everyone; good job!

I also have one question. I'm not really that informed when it comes to Geography of the world, but does anyone know when the continents of the world were formed? I mean, I know for a fact that all the continents were once a big chunk of land, so when did they separate and become seven continents? By when, I mean which year?

It happened 180-200 million years ago, much much before the MB war.. much before the first human being appeared on Earth..

And even though the India was spread from Afghanistan to Mongolia to Burma, there is no reason to believe that the entire world was governed by India under Vedic Administration.. If MB has happened around 5000BC, then Egypt was under the control of Great Pharaohs, who also built the Pyramids.. Europe was also not under Indian control.. And leave Americas which were not discovered until 16th century.. 😆
Many people take fake and unnecessary pleasure by assuming India to be a ruler of the entire world.. But we should understand that most of the events of MB take place in north India only, with the total area covered under India being only that of Indian subcontinent (south Asia).. India has lots of things to be proud of, so therez no need of 'creating' facts to make ourselves proud..

I've also read in one other post in MB forum that India has made a lots of scientific advancements since the Vedic era.. all the points given in that post are taken directly from a spam email circulating on Internet since last one decade.. I was wondering if the author of that post can give some verifiable references about the claims.. I think We should learn to separate mythology from actual science..

Originally posted by: godisone

@Shyam.rathi,

I understand your opinion about wikipedia, but it has come into news that many people live for changing information. They go into wikipedia, get an account, type in a very broad topic, and change the numbers and years of the article they see. Anyone can do it. Even I can, had I chosen to.

Your numbers may be right; I never said they were wrong, but I just wanted other sources other than wikipedia, and you gave me some, so thanks!

I'm sorry, but I don't take wikipedia as a source anymore. For me, it's not reliable. Here are some websites that criticize the reliability of wikipedia.

http://its.unc.edu/inside/fs/?p=23

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/Is-Wikipedia-Reliable-.id-5394.html

http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2006/06/how_reliable_is.html

I'm not saying that Wikipedia can be trusted easily, but the fact is that most of the articles on popular topics are written very well compared to other major encyclopedias.. even if someone attempts to change it for fun, the facts are reverted very quickly by other users.. And the most important thing, each and every line of fact in Wikipedia is referenced by some solid article, journal entry, book and page numbers or other work.. So, even if you can't rely on Wikipedia, you can surely verfiy the facts using those references.. Even the link, given by you regarding criticism, states that
"These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia ' and, for that matter, reference works in general."
In fact, Wikipedia is unreliable only for obscure and small articles, not for major topics in History, Arts, Science and Politics..
Even the numbers given about Akshouhini in Wikipedia are correct.. and those given in the first article are not.. so now you can decide about the reliability on your own..

1400 crores people died....damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 😲

Originally posted by: shyam.rathi

It happened 180-200 million years ago, much much before the MB war.. much before the first human being appeared on Earth..

And even though the India was spread from Afghanistan to Mongolia to Burma, there is no reason to believe that the entire world was governed by India under Vedic Administration.. If MB has happened around 5000BC, then Egypt was under the control of Great Pharaohs, who also built the Pyramids.. Europe was also not under Indian control.. And leave Americas which were not discovered until 16th century.. 😆
Many people take fake and unnecessary pleasure by assuming India to be a ruler of the entire world.. But we should understand that most of the events of MB take place in north India only, with the total area covered under India being only that of Indian subcontinent (south Asia).. India has lots of things to be proud of, so therez no need of 'creating' facts to make ourselves proud..

I've also read in one other post in MB forum that India has made a lots of scientific advancements since the Vedic era.. all the points given in that post are taken directly from a spam email circulating on Internet since last one decade.. I was wondering if the author of that post can give some verifiable references about the claims.. I think We should learn to separate mythology from actual science..


I'm not saying that Wikipedia can be trusted easily, but the fact is that most of the articles on popular topics are written very well compared to other major encyclopedias.. even if someone attempts to change it for fun, the facts are reverted very quickly by other users.. And the most important thing, each and every line of fact in Wikipedia is referenced by some solid article, journal entry, book and page numbers or other work.. So, even if you can't rely on Wikipedia, you can surely verfiy the facts using those references.. Even the link, given by you regarding criticism, states that
"These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia ' and, for that matter, reference works in general."
In fact, Wikipedia is unreliable only for obscure and small articles, not for major topics in History, Arts, Science and Politics..
Even the numbers given about Akshouhini in Wikipedia are correct.. and those given in the first article are not.. so now you can decide about the reliability on your own..