Talk:Battle of the Ten Kings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Indian military history task force

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 [1], [2], 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

• following the battle (33.5), the Bharatas were defenceless (leaderless?)
• Vasishtha became their leader
• thus were the ranks of the Trstus increased

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 [3] (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 (ᛏ) 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you look at the second link above[4], 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 (ᛏ) 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 (ᛏ) 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)