What changes would have happened had Duryodhan won the war

We have been discussing for long that a lot of importance has been given to Arjun because Janamejay was the one to hear about the story from Vaishampayan. 

This makes me feel what would have been the narrative of Vaishampayan, had Duryodhan won the war, and instead of Janamejay, Lakshman's son or grandson would have been listening this story? 

I have a feeling that Jaya that was written by Vyas would have been more a documentation of events with not much importance to any character or their personal lives, that happened in the Vaishampayan narration. 

But had Lakshman's son/grandson been hearing the story, would Vaishampayan have tried to conceal/omit the wrong doings and criminal acts of Duryodhan in his narration?? Would he have tried to justify those criminal acts?  Would he make a statement like since Duryodhan was right therefore the greats like Bheeshm and Dronacharya and most of the Indian states supported them?? While the evil Pandavas only got the support from their in laws and evils like the son of evil Jarasangh, evil Shishupal etc.?

Just wanted your views on this...

If Duryodhan had won the war,  the biggest change that would have happened was Krishna would be a clever human,  not a Vishnu Incarnation. Arjun would not be a Nara Incarnation. He may have been son of Indra,  just to show Duryodhan defeating the son of a Deva.

Glorification of Krishna and Arjun as Nara Narayana happened because their descendents won and survived to create the hype and propaganda around them. 

The divinity of ancestor gives a King a legitimacy to rule,  specially when the king himself is inferior or his claim on the throne weak. 

We have seen these in every civilization. Egyptian Pharaoh's claimed themselves to be either Horus or Isis

Alexander claimed to be son of Zeus

Even today Thai kings are worshipped as divine.

Even royal families in India try to trace their origin to one or the other God to buttress their claim

While Pandavas themselves or Krishna were remarkable men themselves their descendents Parikshit or Vajra were going up against resurgent Magadha and  other kingdoms. 

In the Puranas itself,  every King who had a substantial victory or remarkable reign either himself   becomes an Avatar of Vishnu or becomes Vishnu's special devotee for whom he does some remarkable Leela, for his descendents 

Tu Janta Nahin mera baap  dada par dada koun hai  is a statement we are all familiar with 

If Duryodhan had won,  this statement would have been made by his descendents. 

Who knows Karna may become Narayana and Durydodhan Nara. 

First thing is that, are we considering it a real event? How come Vyasa know so much about these people? Sitting here, I can get news of what's happening in USA but how can I know minute details? Then they didn't have Television

The way everything is described in details, including the agyatvas, It seems like a story, it is possible they wrote the story around real war which took place due to property dispute

If Dury had won, he would not have been the criminal or in the wrong because the whole story and inside information would have been written around the winner 

Did I make any sense? 

If it had been about only property dispute, there wouldn't have been so many fighting the war alongside them. Not the Yadavas. They had a cushy life safe in Dwaraka. Not the devas who got involved. Not the rishis who got involved. There was a multiplicity of motives for those who went to war.

The details aren't hard to add for a narrator once a core story is known. For ex, we know there was WWII. How difficult has it been for any filmmaker to present the story from any POV even though we know nothing of the personal lives of the leaders involved? But the motives again were multiple, not simply a matter of property.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

If it had been about only property dispute, there wouldn't have been so many fighting the war alongside them. Not the Yadavas. They had a cushy life safe in Dwaraka. Not the devas who got involved. Not the rishis who got involved. There was a multiplicity of motives for those who went to war.

The details aren't hard to add for a narrator once a core story is known. For ex, we know there was WWII. How difficult has it been for any filmmaker to present the story from any POV even though we know nothing of the personal lives of the leaders involved? But the motives again were multiple, not simply a matter of property.

I didn't say 'Only property dispute', it was just an example to explain my POV, the core point was that the story was written after they got to know that Pandavas won which would have been different if Kauravas had won, the winner was the protagonist

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I didn't say 'Only property dispute', it was just an example to explain my POV, the core point was that the story was written after they got to know that Pandavas won which would have been different if Kauravas had won, the winner was the protagonist

Absolutely would have been different. Vaishampayana would have been talking about the Pandavas as tree of wickedness and Krishna would've taken Shakuni's place.😆 But Krishna actually did a lot of the plotting from the Pandava side unlike Shakuni.

One critical evidence that Mahabharata is not a fiction imagined by Vyasa is that. There is not a single verse in the epic where Vyasa enters a charachter's mind

There is not a single verse in any unabridged edition that says this is what this person thought. Any person

There is not even a single verse that says this is what he/she may be thinking 

He only quotes a charachter in first person or third person (As in what someone said,  or someone heard another person saying)

Or he describes the body language of a charachter in first person or third person (eg.  She seemed cheerful,  he looked desolate)

If Mahabharata was fiction,  like every single fictional story available today,  the author would also think for the character. 

Pick up any fictional book,  English or Hindi,  a Tagore story or Munshi Premchand or even Shivaji Sawant, you can even pick up English ones Palace of illusions or Jane Austen or J K Rowling's Harry Potter 

The author actually writes what a charachter thinking. Or why they are reacting in a given situation in a particular way

Vyasa never does that. He is actually narrating things he saw or he heard from somebody. 

His work does not show him using his imagination or creativity 

However Mahabharata is a poem. And a poem is not one if it doesn't have metaphors,  similes and hyperbole. 

There is also the element of propaganda that may have been forced into by Parikshit, Vajra and their descendents to fortify their claim to the thrones

We have seen that kind of propaganda  in Asoka's edicts. But Asoka who was devanampriya really did exist

Originally posted by: Chiillii

One critical evidence that Mahabharata is not a fiction imagined by Vyasa is that. There is not a single verse in the epic where Vyasa enters a charachter's mind

There is not a single verse in any unabridged edition that says this is what this person thought. Any person

There is not even a single verse that says this is what he/she may be thinking 

He only quotes a charachter in first person or third person (As in what someone said,  or someone heard another person saying)

Or he describes the body language of a charachter in first person or third person (eg.  She seemed cheerful,  he looked desolate)

If Mahabharata was fiction,  like every single fictional story available today,  the author would also think for the character. 

Pick up any fictional book,  English or Hindi,  a Tagore story or Munshi Premchand or even Shivaji Sawant, you can even pick up English ones Palace of illusions or Jane Austen or J K Rowling's Harry Potter 

The author actually writes what a charachter thinking. Or why they are reacting in a given situation in a particular way

Vyasa never does that. He is actually narrating things he saw or he heard from somebody. 

His work does not show him using his imagination or creativity 

However Mahabharata is a poem. And a poem is not one if it doesn't have metaphors,  similes and hyperbole. 

There is also the element of propaganda that may have been forced into by Parikshit, Vajra and their descendents to fortify their claim to the thrones

We have seen that kind of propaganda  in Asoka's edicts. But Asoka who was devanampriya really did exist

Yes, and the absence of description of emotional state in many scenes has given rise to a lot of misconceptions.

The conversation between Krishna and Karna is a prime example. Consider that Krishna was returning angry from his diplomatic mission. He divulges Karna's origin and throws in offers which knew were illegitimate. After Karna refuses, what follows is threatfest combined with mockery from Krishna and sarcasm from Karna. That was somehow interpreted as Karna being this mahaan vyakthi who knew he would die and sacrificed himself for his friend. Heck, he himself later says that he cannot let go of his bitterness. But because Vyasa didn't explain the tone, the K-K scene is interpreted as something else.

^^^^^

It appears that the writer is narrating things he saw or heard is because The Mahabharata we have is not work of Vyasa, it is description of a conversion between two people, these two people are part of poems.

"Janmejaya Said/asked" "V Replied" are words in the poem

The narrator is telling a child what characters did and said as if he was there, he wasn't narrating a documented version, he was telling him the story of his ancestors

What I am trying to say is that V wasn't telling the Sanskrit poems we have today, these poems are depicting the event of storytelling not the war 

Vyasa wrote Mahabharata, but the one we read is not written by him

Originally posted by: NoraSM

^^^^^

It appears that the writer is narrating things he saw or heard is because The Mahabharata we have is not work of Vyasa, it is description of a conversion between two people, these two people are part of poems.

"Janmejaya Said/asked" "V Replied" are words in the poem

The narrator is telling a child what characters did and said as if he was there, he wasn't narrating a documented version, he was telling him the story of his ancestors

What I am trying to say is that V wasn't telling the Sanskrit poems we have today, these poems are depicting the event of storytelling not the war 

Vyasa wrote Mahabharata, but the one we read is not written by him

Not exactly. Vaishampayana did not witness the events, Vyasa did. Sometimes, he simply heard of the events.

Vyasa DID narrate it to his son, Suka, and 4 of his disciples, including Vaishampayana.

Vaishampayana narrated it to Janmejaya as only partly a Q & A session. A huge chunk of it was merely "tell me the story." He narrated what Vyasa narrated to him.

Ugrasravas Sauti then narrated the narration to the rishis.