which epic do u like ramayana or mahabharata

I like mahabharat very much because.......... It has been believed by some historians and laymen that Mahabharat is just a fictitious fable emerged from the fantastic brain of the Sage Ved Vyas. It has been contended that such a 'war' could not have occured owing to the detailed description of various facets of the 'epic'. However, tradition as well as many Bharatiya scholars have all along maintained that Mahabharat did actually occur and is a complete reality. Mahabharat is not just a story, but the detailed account of a event occured in the past. The few points are noted below that indicate a few differences in what is 'reality' and 'myth'. 1. It has been written in the epic from time to time that Mahabharat is a "itihas" which exclusively means "thus occured". The words "Puraan" and "Itihas" were specifically coined by the Arya people to catagorize the "ancient" and "recent" events. Both the words denote history that has occured at different times. 2. It is mentioned in Aadiparva, Adhyaya 62 that the annals of the Bharat-Dynasty are recorded in the work. 3. It has been clearly stated in the Aadiparva, Bheeshmaparva etc. that this is "itihas". If the intentions of the writer were to write a poem or a work of fiction, he would have stated it to be a "mahakavya" or "katha". 4. It would to absurd to say that the Mahabharat is not a "itihas" due to its poetic nature. It was a custom in those days to write everything in poetic form. 5. Ved Vyas had decided to write down the "itihas" even before the initiation of the Mahabharat War. Therefore during the course of the War, Vyas meticulously noted down all the possible details. If it were a work of fiction, why would a person like Vyas want to fill his work with such minute and unnecessary details ? 6. A number of dynasties with their lond lineage of kings have been presented in the work. More than 50 kings from King Barhi to the Pandava King have been recorded. Additional information about the King, his wife, his scions, his relations, etc. have been accounted in great detail. If it were just fiction, only 4-5 kings would have sufficed to build the story on. Then why such mind-boggling details ? 7. The dynasties recorded in the Ramayan and the Mahabharat concur without a difference. Even the relations between different kings and their dynasties in both the great "epics" match with each other. If both were mere "epics" written by two entirely different at two different times, why would everything match even upto minor details ?

i too like mahabharata it is full of action , romance,adventure etc the plots in the story are good

Well I like both the epics , Ramayana and Mahabharat.Ramayana is a single story about Ram and his vanbas .But Mahabharat is a collection of stories , every character is linked with a story and having hundred's of characters.That's what accounts for the Mahabharat's size.I also like the Mahabharat more then the Ramayana, as I am fond of stories and also the stories in Mahabharat are quite interesting.