Just because it's called history doesn't mean that Its not mythical. Within the life time of an event, are there multiple source and multiple copies of each reliable sources dated back to the time of the event. If not, it's not reliable as historical record.
The Mahabharat was written by the author veda vyasa within the timeline of the event.
There are multiple reference to Mahabharata and its chronicle in multiple hindu books. The lineage of kings mentioned in the Mahabharat is also reflected in the "Ashtadhyayi" of Panini and the " Ashvalayana Grhyasutra".
The oldest kashmiri hindu book, the Nilmat Purana chronicle the lineage of the king from the Mahabharata and give reference to Mahabharata.
King Damodara of Kashmir was killed by Krishna and his pregnant widow Yasovati was coronated as the ruler by krishna. Her son Bala Gonanda then becomes the king of kashmir. This lineage is chronicled.
Similarly the Mahabhrata mentions the dynasty of Mushika and this is confirmed by the oldest hindu book in Kerala (extreme south India), called "Mushika Vamsa" which cronicles the lineage of the kings of kerala right from the time of Mahabharata. King Ramaghata Mushika being the first king.
Similarly both the VIshnu Puran and Bhavisya puran continue to chronical the lineage of kings from the Mahabharata.
SO any way you look at it, there are multiple sources in Hindu texts that provide evidence of this historical fact.
Vishnu Puran gives the description of the country known as "Bharat".
uttaram yatsamudrasya himadrescaiva daksinam,
varsam tadbharatam nama bharati yatra santatih
This means,
"The country that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy Himalayan mountains, that is called Bharatam, there dwell the descendants of Bharata"
Last edited: