Place Names of Mahabhaarata

Dwaraka, Krishna's capital city by the sea. Same as modern Dwaraka inGujarat.
Dwaitavana Lake, the lake near Kamyaka forest where some Gandharvas fought and
defeated the Kauravas.
Ekachakrapura, The place where Bhima slayed Bakasura.
Hastinapura, The capital of the Kauravas (the Kurus). Near modern Delhi.
Indraprastha, The capitalof the Pandavas (the Pandus) whence they ruled for 36 years.
Kampilya, Capital of Panchala ruled by Drupada.
Kamyaka, the forest where the Pandavas spent the 12th year of forest exile.
Kurujangala, the kingdom ruled by Janamejaya.
Kurukshetra, (lit. the plain of the Kurus) the battlefield where the Great War was fought.
Now a village in Haryana, between Delhi and Chandigargh.
Upaplavya, a territory of Matsya kingdom.
Varanavata, The Pandavas were sent to live here in a fire-trap.

FACTS, FIGURES AND DATES

HOW MANY FOUGHT IN THE WAR?

Vyasa says that 18 Akshunis (divisions) fought in the battle. An

akshauni is 21, 870 chariots, 21, 870 elephants, 65, 610 horses and 109, 350 foot soldiers.

Assuming two people per chariot, two per elephant and one rider per horse, this
approximates to2 x 21,870 + 2 x 21, 870 + 65, 610 + 109, 350 = 183 680 fighters per akshauni
(division).

With 18 divisions, this comes to 183, 680 x 18 =3, 306, 240 men in arms.

Adding a few more for logistical services such as cooks, barbers, cleaners, stable hands,
and so on, we get a round figure of 4 million people in the armed services. This is larger than
the number of people in the armed services of India today.

WHEN WAS IT FOUGHT?

According to our ancient astrologers (as cited by Dr. Mahidhara Nalini Mohan, National
Physical Laboratory),Kali Yuga started in 3138 B. C. and the Great Mahabhaarata War was
fought in 3102 B. C. This is almost the same as that quoted by Dr. Veda Vyasa, IAS.

According to Western indologists, the War took place no earlier than 12 B. C. This is far
different from the calculations coming from Indian sources.

How do we resolve this discripancy?

Dr. Nalini Mohan says that one sure-shot of verifying these counter claims is to look for
astrological evidence. For example, the death of Bhismais an important events in
Mahaabharata. Important for us because Bhishma deliberately waited for an auspicious
moment to die. What is that auspicious moment? We know Bhisma waited for the Sun's
northward journey. Did Vyasa mention anything else about the positions of stars in the sky
that would be useful to us in fixing the date? Perhaps the muhoortham of Krishna's death
was mentioned. How can these muhoorthams help us?

For example, modern astronomy tells us that there is a natural phenomenon called the
precession of the equinoxes. To make it simple, let me explain as fallows. We know that the
Earth spins like a top. As it spins, its axis does not always point exactly in the same direction;
it precesses.As a result, at a fixed moment of a year, say the Spring Equinox time, the Sun
does not always rise in the same Raasi (constellation)year after year; it progressively shifts
from Raasi to Raasi as time goes by. After about 26, 000 years the whole cycle repeats. For
example, if we know that Bhisma died at a time when the Sun was rising, at the Spring
Equinox time, in the constellation Taurus, then we know for sure that Bhisma died in 2050 B.
C. This is modern scientific knowledge. If someone who really understands Mahabhaarata
can tell us if there is any mention of the Raasi in which the Sun was rising during the
Mahabharata times, we can tell when exactly the story took place.

Less accurate way of establishing the date is by making some conjectures about
population of India at the time of the War.
Vyasa says that 18 Akshunis (divisions) fought in the battle. Vyasa also says that an
akshauni is 21, 870 chariots, 21, 870 elephants, 65, 610 horses and 109, 350 foot soldiers.
Assuming two people per chariot, two per elephant and one rider per horse, this
approximates to2 x 21,870 + 2 x 21, 870 + 65, 610 + 109, 350 = 183 680 fighters per akshauni
(division).
With 18 divisions, this comes to 183, 680 x 18 =3, 306, 240 men in arms.
Adding a few more for logistical services such as cooks, barbers, cleaners, stable hands,
and so on, we get a round figure of4 million people in the armed services.
How much of a population should a country have to support 4 million people in the
armed forces? This is a hard question to answer. But, let me try the following approach - just
for the fun of it.
 During World War II, the one great war we know well, the world's population was about
2.5 billion people. It was estimated that 50 million people died in that war. That is, one out
of 50 people on this planet died during that war. That is2% of world's population.
If a great war's toll was the same then as it is now, then we can assume that 2% of India's
population also died during the Great War. But, how many of the 4 million people serving in
the armed forces died during the Mahabhaarata War? The poet says all of the fighting men
died, save a handful. If this literal interpretation is true, then India's population in 2050 B. C.
should be around 50 times 4 million, or 200 million. Is this possible?
Recently released United Nations data tells us how the population of this planet grew
sinceA. D. 1650. In fact U. N. says that world's populaion in A. D. 1650 stood at 0.5 billion.
But, what we want is India's population in 2050 B. C. This is the beginning of the weakest link
in the argument.
We need two items to get what we want. First, what was the world's population in 2050
B. C.? Second, what fraction of it lived in India at that time? We really do not know the
answer to these two questions.
The crudest thing we can do is to assume that these ratios and proportions are more or
less the same now as it had been then. Working backwards in time, we can estimate the
World's population in 12 B. C. It comes to about 300 million people. Just like at WWII time, if
every seventh person was an Indian (now, it is every sixth!), then India's population in 12 B.
C. would have been about a seventh of 300 million or about 40 million. Can a population of
40 million support a war in which 4 million people fought and died? That is 10% of the
population. In World War II only 2% ofthe population died.
One of the unreasonable assumptions we have made earlier aws to say that ALL the
soldiers died. Let us say that every 4th soldier (a high rate, though) actually died. That is,
actually one million soldiers died. Now, can a poopulation of 40 million sustain the death of
one million soldiers. This is 2.5%, a figure comparable to WWII death rate. This line of
argument lends credence to the theory put forward by western indologists. Really, I do not
know what their logic was.
In 2050 B. C. my estimate of the World's population stands at 50 million people. Perhaps,
India's share of this (every seventh person, once again) would have been seven million.
Unless, something is amiss somewhere, I know that it is impossible to fight a war and lose
50% of the population. A possible way, credible or not, of justifying this scenario is to assume
that all of the world's population of that time lived in India! An alternative explanation would
be to suspect the sizes of the divisions given by Vyasa.

We know that at WWII time, every fifth person on this globe was an Indian. We also know that the
world's population at that time was 2.5 billion. That is, at WWII time, India's population was about
0.5 billion, perhaps a little less.
Perhaps about 10% of Earth's population directly participated in the fighting. This also shows
that the figures shown in Mahabharata are not completely out of line.

In World War II, about 50 million people died. This 50 million perhaps inclued civilians also.
Let us assume that about a fourth, or 10 million, of the deaths are civilian and the rest, 40
million are battlefield deaths.
At that time, the population of this palnet was about 2 billion. That is, about 2%of the planet
died while fighting in the War. Suppose we assume thata like number of casualties occurred
during the Mahaabharata War. Now the approximate population of North India at that time
can be estimated. That is 1 million represents 2% of the population from which the fighting
men are drawn. This works out to about 50 million people. If India contained 50 million
people, it would have the stamina to support a war of the magnitude we have been talking
about.

In 2000BC, the Earth's population was about 100million people.

Assuming that most of this population was concentrated in Europe and Asia and apportioning 2/3 of
this to Asia and the rest to Europe, it looks like Asia had 60 million. Of this about 20% can be assigned
to India. This comes to 12 million. We estimated 18 million.

Year Population
(in Billions)

2000BC??(50 million)

1000BC0.1 (100 million)

10.3 (300 million)

16500.5

18501.131

19502.516

19754.079

19905.3111

20006.463
202510.978

205021.161

207546.261

2100109.405

In 2000 BC, the Earth's population was about 100million people.

Assuming that most of this population was concentrated in Europe and Asia and
apportioning 2/3 of this to Asia and the rest to Europe, it looks like Asia had 60 million. Of
this about 20% can be assigned to India. This comes to 12 million. We estimated 18 million.

Compare this with the situation at or around World War II.The world's population at that
time is about 2.5 billion people. It was estimated that 50 million people died in that war.
That is 2500/50 = 50. That is 1 out of 50 people died or 2%. Perhaps about 10% of Earth's
population directly participated in the fighting. This also shows that the figures shown in
Mahabharata are not completely out of line.

Time Scales
When Yudhishthira was 16, the Pandavas came back to Hastinapura
At this time Kunti (and Pandu) would have been 32
At this time Vichitravirya would have been 48
At this time Bhishma would have been 64
At this time Vyasa would have been 65
When Yudhishthira was 20, he performed Rajasuya at Indraprastha
When Yudhishthira was 22, he lost the game of dice
When Yudhishthira was 34, Pandavas rescued Kauravas from Gandharvas
When Yudhishthira was 34, Duhsala married Jayadratha, the Sindhu king
When Yudhishthira was 35, the Pandavas finished forest life
At this time the Great Battle took place
At this time Bhishma would have been 83
At this time Vyasa would have been 84
(Probably Vyasa wrote the story at this time)
At this time Abhimanyu would have been 16
At this time Parikshita would have been 0
When Yudhishthira was 71, the Pandavas left for the Himalayas
At this time Parikshita would have been 35 (or 17, if no Abhimanya)
At this time Vyasa would have been 119
(The claim is Kali Yuga started this year) 3105 B.C.
(The claim is Krishna died this year)
(The claim is Parikshita ruled for 60 years)
When P died Vyasa would have been 179
At this time Janamejaya would have been 19
It was stated that Parikshita ruled for 60 years. Then, he would have been 95 when he died
due to a snake (Takshaka) bite. Then, when Parikshita died, Janamejaya would have been 79.
Vyasa would have been 179, an impossibility
If Parikshita ruled only 25 years (if the scripture means until he reached 60), then
Janamejaya would have ascended the throne at age 44. In this case, Vyasa's age at the time
of the Snake sacrifice would have been 144, still an unbelievable age. (Remember the
Pandavas and Krishna died at a human age. Why should Vyasa live this long?
To me it appears that someone has introduced a couple of nonexistent generations. Is it
possible that Parikshita is the son of Arjuna?

According to Dr. Veda Vyasa, IAS, Ph.D

Mahabharata War took place in Sep. 3138 B. C.

Kali Yuga started at 2 hr. 27 m. 30 sec. on 20 Feb. 3105 B. C.

Janamejaya's Sarpa Yaga took place in 3045 B. C.