Poll
Which mythology other than Hindu fascinates you?
| Poll Choice |
|---|
Page
of
1Originally posted by: varaaliVrish-
That was a fantastic question from you - comparing the Ramayan War and the Trojan War. In the Ramayan, the motive for the War was pretty straight forward. Rescue Seeta at all costs and in the process if Ravana and his family had to be killed, so be it. Since Vibhishana had already surrendered to Rama and Rama had instated Vibhishana as king , he was probably not inclined to ransack Lanka.But in the case of the Trojan war, things get a bit complicated, not least because of Helen's own wavering loyalties. Agreed that it was Helen's abduction in the first place which spurred Melenaus to amass forces against the Trojans, but by the time the War entered its final phase after ten long years, it was not just about Helen any more. Even Gods like Apollo and Aphrodite has become involved and there were various personal scores to be settled amongst the different parties.The ending of the Ramayan War and Trojan war also differed because of the casualities suffered. In the former, apart from the vanars, Rama's side did not lose any major warrior. But in Trojan's case, each side suffered heavy casualities. Hector's death was probably the turning point- the point after which there was no looking back. Hector killed * I think* Achilles brother, which spurred Achilles to kill Hector, in revenge of which Paris killed Achilles. After Achilles death, the battle was led on the Greek's side by Odysseus . Paris too was eventually killed, but since Helen had taken his brother as her husband, freeing her was no longer the main motive as much as capturing her and punishing her was. Priam, I don't think was much of a warrior. He was hiding behind the statue of Apollo when he was discovered and killed.In fact if you notice, the war did end when Helen was captured / recovered. Only it was not immeditely after Paris' death but after the death of his brother ( I need to Google and find out his name now).A very interesting question coming from you. Maybe we can have more discussions on these lines.VaraaliMy memory is faint, but I recall reading about Paris being asked to adjudicate some contest b/w Hera, Athena and Aphrodite. All 3 tried to influence his decision w/ promises of gifts - Hera promised him power, Athena wealth, and Aphrodite the most beautiful woman in the world. Paris judged Aphrodite the winner, which made Hera and Athena the enemy of the Trojans. Also, the woman who Aphrodite had promised him was Helen. It's interesting that she didn't promise him the most beautiful maiden in the world, but most beautiful woman, period. 😈In the Ramayan, Sita, in her previous birth as Vedavati, was harassed by Ravan, and vowed to get reborn to cause his death. So in other words, Paris was promised Helen as a gift from someone who wanted to reward him, whereas Ravan was promised that Vedavati would be reborn to cause his death. That too is a pretty big change in circumstances.In the Ramayan, the logical sequence made sense - as long as Ravan was alive, there was no question of releasing Sita, and as long as Ravan's kinsmen - Indrajit, Kumbhakarna, Atikaya, Prahast, Kumbha, Nikumbha and others were alive, it was impossible to kill him, thereby making the war last until the death. I think that had Rama killed Ravana on their first encounter, leaving Kumbhakarna and Indrajit alive, there are some chances that the war might have ended, although Indrajit, as a potential successor, may have chosen to continue the war with or without returning Sita. But point is that aside from Ravan, nobody else was interested in Sita - not Indrajit, not Kumbhakarna and not anyone else. The other thing here was that since Ravan was the king, his decree to have Sita ruled, and nobody could overrule him.With the Trojans, it didn't, since after Paris died, Helen remained w/ the Trojans until Troy fell. Frankly, I haven't heard the story of her moving on to any of Paris' brothers, so I too would have to read up on that aspect. But unlike in the Ramayan, after a number of years where leading warriors on both sides - Patrocleus, Hector, Achilles were killed, the war acquired a momentum all its own, and at this point, it was a war to wipe out the other side. Normally, Prium might have overruled Paris and returned Helen, but nothing like it happened. In the Ramayan, Rama was pretty happy to accept Vibhishan and name him as the future ruler of Lanka. Here, had any Trojan gone over to the Greek side, it's unlikely that they'd have decided to exempt the Trojans from a massacre. In other words, this was a deathmatch war b/w the Greeks and the Trojans.This momentum issue also showed itself up in the Kurukshetra war as well. After a number of warriors on both sides were killed, ending the war was pretty much out of the question. There was no way that Duryodhan was going to call off the war after the fall/deaths of Bheeshma, Lakshmana, Jayadrath, Drona, Dushashan, Karna and Shakuni, and just as unlikely, Yudhisthir wouldn't have called off the war after the deaths of Uttar, Sveta, Sankha, Satyaki's sons, Iravana, Drupada's various sons, Abhimanyu, Kuntibhoj, Dhrishtaketu, Sahadev of Magadha, Drupada, Virata and others. Doing so would have just illustrated that those people died in vain, so only a victory would vindicate their heroism. The same logic ran w/ the Greeks and Trojans. In fact, w/ Ravan too, once several leading kinsmen, including Kumbhakarna & Indrajit were killed, it was impossible for him to accept any peace, since even if it didn't demonstrate him as a coward, it would certainly have made the point that they died for nothing.
| topics | author | replies | views | reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum-Dot | 35 | 1966 |
comment:
p_commentcount