maybe krishna wast sure she would choose arjun only and he wanted the marriage to arjun so badly that he dint want to take any risk and asked arjun to kidnap her.
why he dint arrange a formal marriage is questionable. maybe he wasnt sure balram or other yadavas would accept his proposal
He convinced Balram in a minute after Abduction, why couldn't he convince him earlier, wasn't him the best manipulator
Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
He convinced Balram in a minute after Abduction, why couldn't he convince him earlier, wasn't him the best manipulator
After the fact is easier as he could tell Subhadra would have no husband be cause of it
Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism
He convinced Balram in a minute after Abduction, why couldn't he convince him earlier, wasn't him the best manipulator
i think after abduction he was left with no choice.
Originally posted by: Chiillii
Involvement of Krishna
Drupad does not seem smart enough. It has to be Krishna working behind the scenes
Also the fact that none of the yadavas participated in the swayamvar.
It is my opinion that, Krishna suggested the Draupadi Arjun marriage through swayamvar, to gain Arjun as a weapon for himself.
He did not want Yudhi Drau marriage. He never wanted Yudhi to be emperor.
The many times I read the epic, the more I feel
1. Krishna was not a self sacrificing God who only came to earth for humanity's benefit.
He was an extraordinary human who was a good guy but at the same time had his own self interests.
2. He never liked Yudhishtir, he only tolerated him because he had no choice.
I cannot accept that Krishna ever wanted Yudhishtir to be emperor. Prativindhya was a nobody for him.
Empire does not end with emperor. There needs to be a chain of succession in place.
He had a much better candidate in Pradyumna whom he had groomed himself. And Aniruddha whom he had as a worthy successor to pradyumna. And after that Vajra his own grandson.
Abhimanyu like his father Arjuna was a weapon for him, to be used to get rid of enemies, not the one to rule but the one to protect as commander in chief.
Whatever social change that Krishna had in mind, he had 3 generations of capable candidates groomed by him in Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Vajra.
Did the other two live after krishnas death except vajra
Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
The list of kings who could build empire was limited to Kuru and Panchal which was one of the reasons Jarasandha was considered an usurper.
No Jarasandha was never considered an usurper.
All kings fought under his banner against Krishna including Kurus. Even in Shatpura battle. It was Bhishma, Karna and everyone else on Jarasandh side fighting with nikumbha against him.
Jarasandh and Kuru were on good terms, and their alliance was cemented once he handed over his part of Anga to karna.
After VV there was no blue blood kuru in HP. This was public knowledge.
Kurus were no blue bloods because of uparichara blood that came through satyavati the illegitimate daughter of Uparichara. Jarasandh was actual biological kuru/puru/uparichara descendent and it was common knowledge.
Once Panchali was married to Yudhishtira, all chances of a Yadava supremacy were done as far as Krishna knew at the time. It would've been the son born to Yudhishtira and Panchali.
Yadava like I mentioned were fighting for survival at the time. Supremacy was a distant dream. But it was dream not forgotten or given up. And when the time came when survival was ensured, Yadavas easily removed the descendents of Yudhishtir and Panchali through Ashwatthama.
Like I said, goal is different from a plan. Yadaav supremacy was the goal. Plans to achieve the goal changed with changing circumstances
Moreover, Krishna was offered the crown by Ugradena out of fear, which was refused. Krishna politely states he didn't do any of it for the power.
Krishna was not stupid. He had only killed Kansa, He still had to fight Jarasandh. Hridika Bhoja, Akrura, Satrajit were there who could still go gainst him. Most importantly Balram was there. How can Krishna be king when Balram is there. And Balram wanted to be the king atleast after Vasudev. Hell Vasudev wanted to be king.
Later, he wasn't accepted as legitimate even by the Yadavas. He was accused of being thief and murderer.
He was accused by Balram.. His elder brother. too. Now dont tell me Balram thought Krishna was illegitimate.
No one thought he was illegitimate. Not yadavas not kurus nor anybody else.
But yes people did think he was opportunist, thief and murderer, specially of Kansa. Even Balram his own brother as I mentioned
If Krishna wasn't accepted as legitimate, his son wouldn't have been, either.
It was Vasudev who lost legitimacy. Not Krishna.
Vasudev lost it because his father shurasen the king lost his kingdom and then vasudev became a cowherd.
Shurasen was a legitimate king till he lost the throne.
And Kritaverma and Balram were the problem. Not outsiders. They wanted the throne. Which is what caused the yadaav fratricide.
Word Count: 0
Did the other two live after krishnas death except vajra
They died before Krishna. Because of Pradyumna's death, Krishna slaughtered all Yadavas. I don't understand this Krishna wanted his progeny to rule theory. Nothing in Krishna's behavior suggests this.
I mean, the man refused the throne when he was offered it. Built his own city and still made no claim to rulership. Defeated all the enemies and didn't claim ther territory. How much does he have to show he had no aspirations to be emperor?
Again, Arjuna Panchali would not have resulted in Yadava supremacy. Unless we accept Panchali was Yadava.
Did the other two live after krishnas death except vajra
Like Vyasa's plan was spoiled by Duryodhan
Krishna's plan was spoiled by Kritaverma Samba and Satyaki.
Plan was Vasudev. Then Balram for sometime of he could not be disposed of quietly and then Pradyumna, followed by Aniruddha and Then Vajra.
Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
They died before Krishna. Because of Pradyumna's death, Krishna slaughtered all Yadavas. I don't understand this Krishna wanted his progeny to rule theory. Nothing in Krishna's behavior suggests this.
Krishna did not slaughter all yadaavs. Kritaverma's family slaughtered satyaki pradyumna and samba. Krishna who could not save them, then killed kritaverma's family.
I mean, the man refused the throne when he was offered it.
Krishna had an alive father and older brother and uncooperative relatives. He knew he would not last two days on throne in peace unless he kills or exiles his own family and relatives.
Ugrasen was in PTSD. Just out of prison and not just Kansa his other sons were dead too. He did the only thing any guy would do, beg krishna to take the throne and leave him.
Built his own city and still made no claim to rulership.
Dwarka was Balram's dowry. When he tried to get mani after he married satya. Akrura took it and ran away. And as soon as Balram did not get the mani in his hands he accused krishna as murderer and thief and walked away to blackmail his family. Krishna wouldnt dare sit on the throne at that time. Balram accused him. The guy who legally owned the land. Kritaverma was angry for his brother' whom krishna had actually murdered and Akrura took away all the money.
Defeated all the enemies and didn't claim ther territory. How much does he have to show he had no aspirations to be emperor?
As I mentioned before defeating a king and killing them does not entitle anyone to the throne.
Remember bhishma had to give Panchal to Prishata, not take it himself.
BANS conquered so many kingdoms during Rajasuya and Arjun during Ashwamedha. Kings died, but not in a single case did Yudhishtir appoint an outsider to the throne. Because he could not.
Only after becoming a chakravartin samrat or emperor could anyone do that be it Krishna or Yudhishtir.
They both never got to that stage, before their plans were destroyed by their own relatives.
Word Count: 0
Just like Vyasa's biggest problem was Yudhishtir himself and Duryodhan
Krishna's biggest problem were Balram and Kritaverma
comment:
p_commentcount