Talk:Battle of the Ten Kings/Archive 1

Untitled
The idea that Sudas *fought* the Bharatas strikes me as more than a little odd. As far as I understand the Vedic hymns, Sudas was the king of the Bharatas, not their opponent, and it was the Bharatas who were attacked by, and defeated, the alliance of ten chiefs (vedic "raja" really ought not to be rendered "king", though it often is). A quick Google search shows this to be confirmed by several articles in the EJVS (see, , and these search results) and the Britannica. Are you sure the cited sources really say the opposite? Vedic grammar makes my head spin, but I find it hard to believe the reference to the Bharatas in 7:33:6 and 3:53:24 could be that ambiguous - it seems quite clear to me.

As far as the reference to Vishwamitra egging the kings on goes, the tradition is that Sudas dismissed Vishwamitra as his priest and replaced him with Vasishta, in retaliation for which Vishwamitra assembled the alliance. I believe this tradition is based on an interpretation of the relationship between RV 3:33, 3:53 and the dasarajña verses in RV Book 7. The Britannica article I linked to above seems to endorse some bits of this, but my books are at the other end of the world and I do not remember exactly what view critical scholarship takes of it. -- Arvind 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

let's see... I think it is less a matter of grammar than of interpretation of the context. in 7.33.6, we learn that It appears to me that the Bharatas lost their king in the battle, and so passed under the rule of Sudas/Vasishtha. This would mean that Sudas was indeed king of the Bharatas, but only as a result of the battle. Your EJVS link (S.S.N. Murthy) seems to claim that Sudas was not king of the Trtsu, but of the Bharatas, allied with the Trtsus. Monier-Williams, however, simply lists him as a king of the Trtsu (and mentions that both Vishvamitra and Vasistha were at his court). The EB unfortunately gives no source for its version, and I imagine it is well possible that the Bharatas "changed sides" in later (post-RV) versions, especially since "Bharata" came to be a prestigious name. We should of course take note of this if we can pin it down to a source. Unfortunately, the Bharatas are not mentioned at all in our "best" account, that of 7.18. I would be interested in a source of the Vishvamitra story; it does not appear to be in the RV itself, but I am of course willing to believe that it appears in commentaries on the story (unfortunately, I don't have Sayana available just now, maybe he has more info). dab (&#5839;) 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * following the battle (33.5), the Bharatas were defenceless (leaderless?)
 * Vasishtha became their leader
 * thus were the ranks of the Trstus increased
 * If you look at the second link above, you'll see that Michael Witzel, too, takes the view that Sudas was a king of the Bharatas which makes it unlikely to be just a post-Vedic tradition, since he comes down quite harshly on those who use later traditions to interpret Vedic verses. This [search is restricted to the EVJS, and nearly all the articles it throws up call him a Bharata (the ones that don't don't seem to address the question at all).  That seems a pretty significant weight of scholarly opinion.
 * But let's get to the more fun bit (in dangerous violation of the Original Research ban, but good fun nonetheless). I'm looking at the Vedic now, and the word used in 7:33:6 is "arbhakAsaH" which means "small" or "weak". "Defenceless" is a contextual rather than literal rendering, and I don't see any context of leaderlessness at all in the word.  Further, Vasishtha is described as becoming the Bharatas' "puretA".  "puraetR" - literally one who goes before - signifies "leader" in the sense of "guide" and also in a stronger sense, but it doesn't have the sense of "overlord" which is what would be required.
 * In addition, and this to me seems quite conclusive, I simply see no way to read 3:53 in its entirety that doesn't make Sudas a Bharata.
 * On the Vishwamitra story, I called it a "tradition" for very good reason - i.e., I don't know its ultimate source although I suspect it may well be quite late! I'll do some digging when I next visit my parents (where most of my books still remain), but that, alas, is not likely to be for a good many months.  If you have access to Sayana, it would be interesting to see if he has anything to say about it. -- Arvind 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * to avoid misunderstandings: I do not mean to posit that Sudas was not king of the Bharatas. I just found nothing to that effect impressing itself on me in the texts. If authorities agree that he was, I am happy to accept that, but I would still be interested on what grounds they believe so. I admit that Sudas seems to be associated with the Bharatas in 3.53. But what is the relation between Bharatas, Kushikas, and Trtsus? Are the Bharatas some sort of super-tribe that includes sub-tribes? As I said, my personal understanding was that Sudas became king of the Bharatas as a result of the battle, which might explain 3.53, which after all refers to the time of Sudas and Vishvamitra as lying in the past (9cd, vishvaámitro yád ávahat sudaásam / ápriyaayata kushikébhir índraH "at the time when Vishvamitra guided Sudas, Indra by means of the Kushikas[?] grew friendly"). Your excellently informed "OR" is most welcome btw. At present, it would seem wise to accept from your sources that Sudas was a Bharata and his enemies were Purus. dab (&#5839;) 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I recovered my reference for the Bharatas being on the side of the ten kings: the 1911 Britannica has
 * Not unfrequently, too, the light-colored Aryas wage internecine war with one another — as when the Bharatas, with allied tribes of the Panjab, goaded on by the royal sage Vishvamitra, invade the country of the Trtsu king Sudas, to be defeated in the ten kings battle, through the inspired power of the priestly singer Vasishtha.  (see Vedic civilization/EB 1911)

This may of course be an outdated opinion, but nevertheless shows that the case is unclear and we should try to trace the debate. dab (&#5839;) 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm almost positive that Michael Witzel devotes some space to discussing this war in a chapter in the Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia collection. I do not have the book handy - can you look it up, if you have access to it?  Else I'll put it on my list of things to do on my next trip down to Cambridge. -- Arvind 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

recent edits
an anon contributor tried to paint this battle as some sort of founding myth of both India and Persia. That is just too far-fetched. All we really know about this battle is in the couple of verses that are fully addressed here. It will not do to set this up as the big Deva/Indian vs. Asura/Persian showdown. At best, we can say that this was a battle that set the scene for the emergence of the Mahajanapadas. If the battle has fed speculation in literature, we'll have to discuss this separately, attributing each bit of speculation to a specific author. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bharatas, and Paarthas are both Pauravas
We know that Arjuna is a descendant of the Puru Dynasty but in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna addresses him as Bhaarat (descendant of the Bharatas) and Paartha (descendent of Prtha.) So Bharat and Parth are clans of the Puru tribe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.178 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC).


 * ...in the Mahabharata, yes. We have to keep apart arguments based on the Rigvedic text itself, and arguments based on later literature. dab (𒁳) 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

discussion of tribes
I don't think we need a list giving general information about the tribes. Each tribal name is linked, and can be discussed in the sub-article. There is also Rigvedic tribes for a comparative discussion. Most other additions were clearly offtopic, where not dubious or unsourced. dab (𒁳) 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree on the list - in fact, I think a "For information on the tribes involved, see ..." would cover it without having to include a big list. If consensus is that the list stays, I personally would prefer a bare list of links with no commentary, except perhaps a "Minor role only" parenthesis if that is the case. Orpheus 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

battlebox etc.
I appreciate the effort to present this as a real battle with "commanders", "troop strength" and "casualty" figures. But unless you can quote some author who was (idly) speculating on such things, this is pure OR. The only thing we know about the battle is the content of the hymns named. It stands to reason that the Trtsu were heavily outnumbered (per the "swarming like fish" pun on the Matsyas), but beyond that -- we just have the "6,666" number for what the rshi considers "heavy" casualties, putting some sort of crude scale to it all. Any attempt to build on this will just give the flawed impression that we know more than we really do. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also preferred the scare quotes surrounding "6,666": The number is obviously artificial, and need not have any historical significance. The problem is that we can barely say that the battle itself likely took place historically in one form or another. Beyond that, we don't even have a poetical account as such, all we have are allusions in passing in a few liturgical hymns. Compare Battle of Thermopylae, which is vastly better documented. Herodotus was a historian, not a composer of liturgical hymns. Yet we are very far from taking his "2.6 million" number for granted, and consensus hovers around barely a tenth of that number. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to post an article of this length and depth, and which is cited by other articles (Military Strategy--how I found this) and give no indication whatsoever as to the date of the battle. I understand that there is little or no real evidence as to what actually happened. But if there is enough to post the article in the first place, then there is enough to give some indication of when it occurred. For example, it must predate the "Rigveda;" what is the accepted dating of the Rigveda? "Rigveda" aside, you must have some idea of when this occurred. Or it is simple a fairy tale, and therefore better presented as such? Did it occur BC or AD? Was it stone age, bronze age (early? late?), or iron age? Was it before or after Alexander? Or Chinese dynasty #??. You (the author) have *some* idea when it occurred. Please tell us. See, for example, 'battle of jericho' for an example of how this can be done. Or, failing that, remove the link from the military strategy page which claims that this battle is the beginning of the age of military strategy ("origins before the Battle of the Ten Kings"). Please, please, please be serious; some of us actually rely on this site as a reasonable source. Finally, if I have missed the clearly presented date offered to supplement the "unknown" in the battle box, *if* I have missed it, then I beg your pardon. Amccray (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Irresponsible", eh? Or you could just read the Rigveda article. It is irresponsible to expect to be able to rely on Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is priceless in helping you to find information. E.g. before the days of Wikipedia, you would have been hard put to even find out this battle even existed. Now you have found out about it, and are proposing to do anything "serious" with it, you are expected to take the literature offered as references here and use that. What I consider irresponsible is throwing around "possible dates" for events such as the battle of Jericho. Posting a "battlebox" was a bad idea, I agree. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)