Does anyone feel mahabharata is more believable than ramayana? Mahabharata seems like an exaggerated account of a real succession crisis in limited geography of kuru kingdom. Ramayana otoh feels too fantastical and geographically hard to believe.
>>157798
Yeah precisely. Its easier for me to believe oral tale of a succession crisis in a small polity got exaggerated over time without leaving much epigraphic evidence. Panini in 6th century BC makes reference to mahabharats which further adds to credibility. With ramayana otoh its hard to believe an outright invasion of sri lanka by a northern prince and his allies happened and it did not leave any epigraphical evidence.
>>157809
Mahabhart havd historical vibes great world building, Ramayna may have developed a story how should a man be maryada purshottam and other thing then several writes kept expanding the lore throughout centuries
>>157813
Actually bride kidnapping was not that uncommon. Genghis khan's wife also kidnapped by a rival tribe and he rescued her with help of his friend. Ramayana must have similar core story but lanka invasion and scale of war and distance seems too exaggerated.
>>157819
Yeah. In og story Ram setu was probably built across a river and sita was kidnapped by some not so distant southernly kingdom. The scale was exaggerated.
