Pandyas had been the sworne enemies of cholas since time immemorial. We are all aware that bitter battles were faught between the two throughout the later hola regime. Vijayala / Aditya, Paranthaka, Gandaradhitya (?) - and ofcourse, Paranthaka II (Sundara chola) - all had to fight Pandya revolt at some point of their time. Infact Paranthaka had to fight more than once - to supress Pandya king veerapandiya. Once such war was faught in sevur - in which veera pandiyan lost his life. If you go a bit further - you'll find that Rajaraja the great began his historic conquest first from Pandya country (though Kandalur salai battle with cheras is considered the first - Rajarja had to first cross the pandya empire even to reach Kandhalur. Thus, he had to supress Amarabhujanga, the then pandyan emperor - before proceeding to chera country). My simple question is : WHY THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PANDYA REVOLT DURING UTTAMA'S TIME - FOR 15 LONG YEARS?
It is evident that Pandyas were alive and well during this period - because Rajaraja's first battle with them and subsequent battles with cheras (in which Pandyas obviously alighned with cheras to overcome chola power) - were neverthless easy victories. Thus we cannot say that Pandyas were too weak to plan any revolt in this period.
Evidence 3 : By right, history should have seen a chola - pandya fight very close to Aditya chola's death. The confution that was prevailing in chola empire was obvious - there were confusions as to who might be the successor and it was a very good time for pandya's to capitalize this. But they did'nt. One arguement could be that there were no pandya emperors in the meanwhile. But this is strange - considering the way Pandyas organised themselves. Because, Pandya's called themselves as descendents of Pancha Pandavas and to make people believe this - more than one ruler was available at any point of time. Ofcourse, they all had a supreme leader among themselves - who was called the emperor - but the important thing is there were always some royal guys to replace a leader. There are many many evidences available to prove this - it is difficult for me to detail them here. The overall point implied here is that Pandyas might have had their own leader who replaced Veerapandya - probably the Amarabhujanga ! - when Aditya was killed. There was a 3 year gap between Sevur Battle and Aditya's death - a sufficiently long gap for the pandyas to identify their next leader.
To me, these evidences do tell something...some dark and secret story, long buried in the recesses of time ..... how about you ?
>Once such war was faught in sevur - in which veera pandiyan lost his >life.
Er, Gokul...but wasn't the Sevur war the one in which Aditya was only 12- so how could Veera Pandiyan have lost his life then??? Adithya killed Veera Pandian when he went down south- on the banks of Vaigai (iruthi por, as Kalki mentions in the 1st paagam)- and that's where the "Nandini drama' is enacted...and this was at least three years later, if not more.
I just joined the group. Been a PS fan since I don't remember when. Have read it at least a couple of dozen times -- I pick it up and read it every two years or so and there is never a shortage of excitement each time I pick it up. I usually finish the 5 volumes within a few days each time.
It is wonderful to read these postings as well.
Anyhow, Adithan was 24 when he died and he killed Veera Pandiyan about three years before that (so says Kalki in PS somewhere). He fought first when he was 12 but did not get to lead until he was 18.
I believe these are documented facts.
On the vallam issue: I thought the place was later called Vaanagapaadi (Vandiya Devan gets to be the king of this place later). Did that become Vaaniyambaadi later?