O.k. So Prithivi was imperialist. Not a unifier. Now, tell me what is wrong in being an imperialist? And why can he not be termed as a unifier? Wait! Hold on. Not so early. Before you jump off the wagon, and give me million reasons as to what exactly is wrong as being perceived as an imperialist, instead of a unifier, let me understand one thing clear - are we not talk about history, say like of 200 years and plus? And what were the situations back then? How big were the so called "sano rajya haru" all over what is known as Nepal until this day? Weren't the bigger kingdoms then, in what is known as India today, falling to the foreign invaders? Whereas, is Prithivi the sole reason why then British occupied India could not gobble Nepal? I do not know. But Nepal being a unified country and not "dass biss kilometer ko rajye" has a lot to do with him. Now, let's not even talk about, "British did not want Nepal" or "Ramro bhaag lee halyo" blah blah. Only he knows what he wanted to do. Did he amalgamate those "sano sano rajyas" in to today's Nepal for the sake of all the Nepalese, or he was only satisfying his thirst of power, influence and other imperialistic attributes. Who knows - may be both, or one more so than another. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, HE DID UNIFY NEPAL. Aapp ko achar banauna rukh roopeko hoss ya fruits ko roop ma khanu. Rukh ta ropekai ho nai ho. No matter how much we bang our head on the wall or try to paint it differently, the fact stares at us like a mirror that you can not break. Period! Now, later his lineage, the kings that we had turned out to be all "Guu khane," DOES NOT mean that you can take away from what IS. Imperialist or not, he DID unify Nepal. You can not spin it! IndisGuise:)