Talk:Battle of the Ten Kings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

The Rig veda is stated to have been composed between 1700-1000 BCE, but this article states that the Battle of the Ten Kings took place during the same period of time. If it was mentioned in the Rig veda then obviously it happened before the composition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.117.71 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why Witzel and McDonnell are the only reference here?[edit]

I am seeing lot of reference from Witzel and McDonald lately on Vedic articles, including this one. Why not referencing Indian texts and writers alongside? Credibility of Witzel and McDonals is already in question.141.160.28.251 (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • +1 Witzel is known for his ridonkyolous arguments about how harrapan script is supposedly hieroglyphic script! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.180.205 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

I stand accused of removing sourced content and will like to have an example. I am not finding a single line which I have removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to S. S. N. Murthy, the Battle of the Ten Kings may have "formed the 'nucleus' of story" of the Kurukshetra War, narrated in the Mahabharata. (Murthy 2016 pp. 1–15)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S. S. N. Murthy proposes the battle to be the very "nucleus" of the Kurukshetra War is there? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; your edits seem to be okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witzel and McDonald[edit]

Why are Witzel and McDonald the only authors cited?? McDonald is a completely incredible Quack and Witzel is a propaganda outlet? Who wrote this and thought that it was acceptable to not include a single Hindu Author when discussing Hindu history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poxah19 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
McDonald? Ain't Murthy a Hindu? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some one edit[edit]

Dāhān) were an ancient Eastern Iranian nomadic tribal confederation, and Pani or parni is branche of dahae you should add like this: 

  Panis or parni, Dasa(Dahae?)

Actually parni is dahae brache Realone23 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is inscrutable. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He mentioned dehae or parni separate .parni is branch of dehae.
    And there is no record that dehae fight in Battle of 10 kings. Realone23 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dating[edit]

@Harpreet 25: your addition diff

edit-sumary

Joshua please stop promoting colonial ideas. Have you ever did research on the topic? You are not even Indian. Why the hell are you doing this? David Frawley is a researcher he researched super hard to come up with this date. And what did your Max Müller did?

is problematic for several reasons:

  • it's unsourced; see WP:VERIFIABILITY;
  • Frawley is not WP:RS; his datings belong to the Indigenous Aryanism-genre, which is deemed WP:FRINGE; we don't promote fringe-theories at Wikipedia;
  • in some contexts, the datings of the "Puranic chronology" may be given, as at Kurukshetra War, but it's always explained that these are non-scholarly views;
  • 3400 BCE is totally incompatible with the Indian chronology; Indo-European people had just started to move out of the steppes, the Shintashta culture didn't exist yet, and no Indo-European speaking people had entered India yet;

You may call this a colonial mindset; I call this term closed-mindedness and blind belief. Wikipedia exists to share scholary insights with the world and dispell ignorance, not to extend it. Sorry for the harsh words, but this is how Wikipedia works. I'm going to remove your dates again; if you reinsert them again, I'll ask for a topic-ban for you. Up to you. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read it till the end.
I am sick and tired of people like you questioning my expertise and knowledge! If you think you have the power to support the date of the 14th century BCE, then prove it with facts and evidence, not baseless accusations. I have done my research and can back up my claims with logical reasoning, so until you can do the same, keep your doubts to yourself. End of discussion.
I can't believe that you are supporting Foriegn Aryanism while completely ignoring Indigenous Aryanism. It's total hypocrisy and shows your true colors. How can you claim to care about Aryan beliefs when you are only focusing on one aspect of it? It's disgusting and shameful. I stand with Indigenous Aryanism because it is more scientific and logical. And I won't stand for this Foreign Aryanaism nonsense. You need to wake up and recognize the true diversity within Aryan beliefs.
Aryan Invasion and Migration theories are absolute SHIT! There is ZERO proof that Sanskrit or any other Aryan language was spoken in the Steppes. Those nomads of the Steppes and Europe were nothing compared to the advanced Aryans. The Vedas mention Indian fruits, vegetables, climate, clothes, and so much more that did not exist in Central Asia. Aryans had Ayurveda, Gurukulas, Vedic Maths, astronomy, and other advanced knowledge. But Central Asia didn't. You cannot prove the Aryan migration or invasion theory so stop spreading lies and misinformation!
You just believe in the dates of Max Muller.The question is: what is the basis for Max Mueller's dates? Well, basically his argument was that you can divide the Vedic literature into a series of stages based on the texts themselves. And he postulated that each stage would correspond to a stage in civilization in India. And he argued that: well, a given stage must take a certain amount of time. So, he assigned a period of 200 years for each stage, because the argument was that: well, you had to have the authors of the texts come up with the original texts and then they had to be followed for some time and become traditional. So, that might take a couple of hundred years, let's say. So, on that basis, starting with the time of Buddha, which was assigned to about 600 BC, one works backwards by jumps of 200 years and so that way he wound up with the Ṛg Veda at around 1500 BC. So that's the way that was calculated. And you can see it's a pretty shaky calculation really. I mean, how do you know that a stage in the society should take 200 years? What if it's 300?
In the Rig Veda, there are references to over 5 generations, indicating a long history of the Aryans. However, despite this long history, there is no mention of Central Asia in the text. This absence suggests that the Aryans did not originate from Central Asia, as one might expect if they had migrated from there to India.
Furthermore, the Rig Veda describes a climatic process that unfolds over a 60-year cycle, specifically tailored to the climate of India. This process would not have been applicable or feasible in Central Asia, which has a vastly different climate. The fact that this climatic process is described in detail in the Rig Veda indicates that the Aryans had a deep understanding of the Indian climate and environment, further supporting the idea that they were native to the region and had been there for a significant amount of time.
Overall, the absence of Central Asia in the Rig Veda, along with the specific references to the Indian climate and environment, suggest that the Aryans were indigenous to India and had been living there for generations prior to the composition of the text.
How dare the west choose to believe in the nonsense spread by paid propagandists, while dismissing the credible research and reports conducted by Indians and other researchers! It is absolutely hypocritical and infuriating. The fact that you, coming from Europe or someplace similar, have the audacity to interfere in Indian history without even understanding the Indian perspective is beyond me. Your colonial ancestors have already wreaked havoc on our history, so maybe it's time to start trusting in science rather than perpetuating your supremacist beliefs. Shame on you for perpetuating this ignorance and disrespect.
I understand that you support the Aryan invasion theory, but I would like to provide you with some factual information that challenges this belief.
    1. Lack of Scientific Evidence for Aryan Invasion
Firstly, it is important to note that the colonial historians who proposed the Aryan invasion theory did not use scientific evidence to support their claims. Their theories were based on limited archaeological and linguistic data, and were heavily influenced by their own biases and agendas.
    1. No Evidence of Invasion or Migration in Modern Times
Secondly, even in modern times, there is no conclusive evidence of any large-scale invasion or migration of Aryans into the Indian subcontinent. The genetic and archaeological data available today does not support the idea of a sudden influx of a foreign population into the region.
    1. Absence of Aryan Invasion in Vedas
Thirdly, if there had been a significant Aryan invasion or migration, one would expect to find some mention of it in the Vedas, which are the oldest and most important texts of Hinduism. However, there is no such mention, which casts doubt on the validity of the Aryan invasion theory.
    1. Aryan Settlers and the Indus Valley Civilization
Fourthly, if the Aryans had indeed invaded and conquered the Indian subcontinent, it is puzzling that they did not settle in the well-developed cities of the Indus Valley Civilization, which predated the Vedic period. This suggests that the Aryans were not a foreign invading force, but rather a group that gradually integrated with the existing population.
    1. Reliable Modern Dates and Evidence
Fifthly, the modern dating methods and evidence used by researchers are far more reliable and scientific than the outdated theories proposed by 19th-century colonial historians. The current understanding of the Vedic period and the origins of Hinduism is based on a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the available data.
    1. Avoiding Colonial Propaganda
Sixthly, it is important to be wary of colonial propaganda and to critically examine the evidence and arguments presented by various scholars and researchers. The Aryan invasion theory was heavily influenced by the colonial mindset and was used to justify the subjugation of the Indian people.
    1. Conclusion
In conclusion, I would urge you to reconsider your support for the Aryan invasion theory and to instead explore the growing body of evidence that challenges this outdated and problematic concept. The origins of Hinduism and the Indian civilization are far more complex and nuanced than the simplistic narrative of a foreign invasion. Harpreet 25 (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Aryan invasion theory" is a strawman used by people disconnected from the current state of scholarship. Let me remind you that Wikipedia summarizes what WP:RS state. Let me also remind you that that talkpages are not a WP:FORUM. If you think that basic Wiki-policies do not apply to you, you're WP:NOTHERE. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings&oldid=1218606235"