The Reality

`If a Mahabharata war had actually been fought on the scale reported, nearly five million fighting men killed each other in an 18-day battle between Delhi and Thanesar; about 130,000 chariots (with their horses), an equal number of elephants and thrice that many riding horses were deployed. This means at least as many camp-followers and attendants as fighters. A host of this size could not be supplied without a total population of 200 millions, which India did not attain till the British period, and could not have reached without plentiful and cheap iron and steel for ploughshares and farmers1 tools. Iron was certainly not available in any quantity to Indian peasants before the 6th century BC. The greatest army camp credibly reported was of 400,000 men under Candragupta Maurya, who commanded the surplus of the newly developed Gangetic basin. The terms patti,gulma etc., given as tactical units in the Mbh did net acquire that meaning till after the Mauryans. The heroes fought with bows and arrows from their chariots, as if the numerous cavalry did not exist; but cavalry—which appeared comparatively late inancient Indian warfare—made the fighting chariots obsolete as was proved by Alexanderin the Punjab.`

This bold statement was made by historian D D Kosambi in his book Myth and Reality.
I completed reading the book while was in Nagpur. I was amazed by his profound research of history specialy ancient coins, idols and artifacts. These artifacts reveal the vital information of human life in that period which tells us our own evolvment.
Few more information I would share here:

'Let me put it that the underlying difficulties were economic. Images locked up too much useful metal; monasteries and temples after the Gupta age withdrew far too much from circulation without replacement or compensation by adding to or stimulating production in any way. Thus, the most thoroughgoing iconoclast in Indian history was another king Harsa (1089 - 1101 AD) who broke up all images in Kasmir, except four that were spared. This was done systematically under a special minister devotpatananayaka, without adducing the least theological excuse, though one could easily have beenfound.'

The book is full of such incidences with Kosambi's logical interpretation. It basically focuses on the origins and development of Indian culture. It also indicated similarities between two cultures of same period like Indian and Greek.

One more interesting observation I would like to mention which would trouble theist people:

`......The best such recent example is that of Satyanarayana, "the true Narayana', so popular all over the country, but which has no foundation whatever in scripture, and which is not even mentioned 200 years ago. Indeed, the origin seems to be in the popular legends of one Satya Pir, in Bengal; the Pir himselfbecame Satyanarayana. The vedas have a Visnu, but no Narayana. The etymology seems to be he who sleepsupon the flowing waters (nara) and this is taken as the steady state of Naifiyaija.'

I need to read the book again in order to remember some vital information he achieved through the research.