Alexander the Great Invades India
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Nanda Dynasty
Nanda Dynasty
Nanda Rule
The Nandas are sometimes described as the first empire builders in the recorded history of India. They inherited the large kingdom of Magadha and wished to extend it to yet more distant frontiers. To this purpose they built up a vast army consisting of 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 war chariots and 3,000 war elephants (at the lowest estimates).cf. Diod. XVII.93.2; Curt. IX.2.3-4; Plut. "Alex." 62.3. According to Plutarch however, the size of the Nanda army was even larger, numbering 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 war chariots, and 6,000 war elephants. However, the Nandas never had the opportunity to see their army up against Alexander, who invaded India at the time of Dhana Nanda, since Alexander had to confine his campaign to the plains of Punjab, for his forces, frightened by the prospect of facing a formidable foe, mutinied at the Hyphasis River (the modern Beas River) refusing to march any further. This river thus marks the eastern-most extent of Alexander's conquests:
"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants."Plut. "Alex." 62..
The Nandas made the methodical collection of taxes by regularly appointed officials a part of their administrative system. The treasury was continually replenished, the wealth of the Nandas being well-known. The Nandas also built canals and carried out irrigation projects. The possibility of an imperial structure based on an essentially agrarian economy began to germinate in the Indian mind.
Nanda Dynasty
Nanda Rule
The Nandas are sometimes described as the first empire builders in the recorded history of India. They inherited the large kingdom of Magadha and wished to extend it to yet more distant frontiers. To this purpose they built up a vast army consisting of 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 war chariots and 3,000 war elephants (at the lowest estimates).cf. Diod. XVII.93.2; Curt. IX.2.3-4; Plut. "Alex." 62.3. According to Plutarch however, the size of the Nanda army was even larger, numbering 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 war chariots, and 6,000 war elephants. However, the Nandas never had the opportunity to see their army up against Alexander, who invaded India at the time of Dhana Nanda, since Alexander had to confine his campaign to the plains of Punjab, for his forces, frightened by the prospect of facing a formidable foe, mutinied at the Hyphasis River (the modern Beas River) refusing to march any further. This river thus marks the eastern-most extent of Alexander's conquests:
"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants."Plut. "Alex." 62..
The Nandas made the methodical collection of taxes by regularly appointed officials a part of their administrative system. The treasury was continually replenished, the wealth of the Nandas being well-known. The Nandas also built canals and carried out irrigation projects. The possibility of an imperial structure based on an essentially agrarian economy began to germinate in the Indian mind.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Darius's call for help to Porus
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Exchange of letters between Alexander and Porus by Callisthenes - Macedonia Forums
Exchange of letters between Alexander and Porus by Callisthenes
Book 3
When Alexander arrived with all his forces at the border of India, letter bear-
ers sent by Poros, king of India, met him and gave him the letter of Poros.
Alexander took it and read it out before his army. Its contents were these.
King Poros of India, to Alexander, who plunders cities:
I instruct you to withdraw. What can you, a mere man, achieve against a god? Is it because you have destroyed the good fortune of others by meeting weaker men in battle that you think yourself more mighty than me? But I am invincible: not only am I the king of men, but even of godsâ€"when Dionysus (who they say is a god) came here, the Indians used their own power to drive him away. So not only do I advise you. but also I instruct you, to set off for Greece with all speed. I am not going to be frightened by your battle with Darius or by all the good fortune you had in the face of the weakness uf the other nations. But vou think von are more mighty. So set off for Greece. Because if we had needed Greece, we Indians would have subjected it long before Xerxes; but as it is, we have paid no attention to it- because it is a useless nation, and there is nothing among them worth the regard of a kingâ€"everyone desires what is better.
So Alexander, having read out Poros's letter in public before his soldiers, said to them:
"Comrades-in-arms, do not be upset again at the letter of Poros's that 1 have read out. Remember what Darius wrote too- It is a fact that the only state of mind barbarians have is obtuseness. Like the animals under themâ€"tigers, lions, elephants, which exult in their courage but are easily hunted thanks to man's natureâ€"the kings of the barbarians too exult in the numbers ol their armies but are easily defeated by the intelligence of the Greeks."
Having given this declaration to encourage his armv, Alexander wrote King
Alexander, to King Poros, greetings:
You have made us even more eager to be spurred on to battle against you by saying that Greece has nothing worth the regard of a king but that you Indians have everythingâ€"lands and cities. And i know that every man desires to seize what is better rather than to keep what is worse. Since, then, WE Greeks do not have thesethings and you barbarians possess them, we desire what is better and wish to have them from you. You write to me that you are king of gods and of all men even to the extent of having more power than the god. But i am engaging in war with a loudmouthed man and an absolute barbarian, not with a god. The whole world could not stand up to a god in full armorâ€"the rumble of thunder, the flash of lightning, or the anger of the bolt. So the nations I have defeated in war cause you no astonishment and neither do boastful words on your part make me a coward.
Exchange of letters between Alexander and Porus by Callisthenes
Book 3
When Alexander arrived with all his forces at the border of India, letter bear-
ers sent by Poros, king of India, met him and gave him the letter of Poros.
Alexander took it and read it out before his army. Its contents were these.
King Poros of India, to Alexander, who plunders cities:
I instruct you to withdraw. What can you, a mere man, achieve against a god? Is it because you have destroyed the good fortune of others by meeting weaker men in battle that you think yourself more mighty than me? But I am invincible: not only am I the king of men, but even of godsâ€"when Dionysus (who they say is a god) came here, the Indians used their own power to drive him away. So not only do I advise you. but also I instruct you, to set off for Greece with all speed. I am not going to be frightened by your battle with Darius or by all the good fortune you had in the face of the weakness uf the other nations. But vou think von are more mighty. So set off for Greece. Because if we had needed Greece, we Indians would have subjected it long before Xerxes; but as it is, we have paid no attention to it- because it is a useless nation, and there is nothing among them worth the regard of a kingâ€"everyone desires what is better.
So Alexander, having read out Poros's letter in public before his soldiers, said to them:
"Comrades-in-arms, do not be upset again at the letter of Poros's that 1 have read out. Remember what Darius wrote too- It is a fact that the only state of mind barbarians have is obtuseness. Like the animals under themâ€"tigers, lions, elephants, which exult in their courage but are easily hunted thanks to man's natureâ€"the kings of the barbarians too exult in the numbers ol their armies but are easily defeated by the intelligence of the Greeks."
Having given this declaration to encourage his armv, Alexander wrote King
Alexander, to King Poros, greetings:
You have made us even more eager to be spurred on to battle against you by saying that Greece has nothing worth the regard of a king but that you Indians have everythingâ€"lands and cities. And i know that every man desires to seize what is better rather than to keep what is worse. Since, then, WE Greeks do not have thesethings and you barbarians possess them, we desire what is better and wish to have them from you. You write to me that you are king of gods and of all men even to the extent of having more power than the god. But i am engaging in war with a loudmouthed man and an absolute barbarian, not with a god. The whole world could not stand up to a god in full armorâ€"the rumble of thunder, the flash of lightning, or the anger of the bolt. So the nations I have defeated in war cause you no astonishment and neither do boastful words on your part make me a coward.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Coin commemorating Alexander's campaigns in India
Lethal, as it is, the sharp battle that resulted was the first and last battle the Greeks fought in India. Alexander ended up gifting gold and territories to Puru. Victors do not do that, but vanquished do it.
Alexander's retreat was very, very messy. He barely escaped with his life, but was seriously injured in a battle with a small tribe. Moment vAlexander turned back, Puru occupied more territory.
Alexander's retreat was very, very messy. He barely escaped with his life, but was seriously injured in a battle with a small tribe. Moment vAlexander turned back, Puru occupied more territory.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
No. The last battle that the Greeks fought was between Chandragupta and Hellenic satrapi Seleucus Nicator.
Alexander was the victor. His subsequent retreat was due to mutiny by his own army and not by virtue of his defeat in the hands of Puru, because he was not defeated by Puru, rather he defeated Puru.
True.
pmaitra, I am tralking Greeks with Alexander.
1. Mutinies break out in defeated armies, not the winning ones. History is witness to it.
2. It is clear that Puru was not defeated. His capital was not sacked, the modus operandi of greeks till that time at least.
3. Why should a victor give gifts of gold and territories to a defeated king? He would rather extract a kig's ransom!! That was not the nature of Greek generals.
4. Why was the retreat messy? Two factors. A mutinous arma AND route of invasion closed behind him. So Alexander had to retreat along another route, where he made no conquests, but had a number of skirmishes. Maybe the tribals were following him and picking off whatever they could.
1. Mutinies break out in defeated armies, not the winning ones. History is witness to it.
2. It is clear that Puru was not defeated. His capital was not sacked, the modus operandi of greeks till that time at least.
3. Why should a victor give gifts of gold and territories to a defeated king? He would rather extract a kig's ransom!! That was not the nature of Greek generals.
4. Why was the retreat messy? Two factors. A mutinous arma AND route of invasion closed behind him. So Alexander had to retreat along another route, where he made no conquests, but had a number of skirmishes. Maybe the tribals were following him and picking off whatever they could.
Iamanidiot
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2009
- Messages
- 5,325
- Likes
- 1,504
Porus's elephants made mince meat out of Alexanders armies he had to retreat.But the greek sources call it a victory.Plutarchs account is a more authenic account of the events I feel.A drunk on rampage on the enemies ranks is utter chaos
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Seleucus Nicator's Invasion of India, c.306-303 BC
Seleucus Nicator's Invasion of India, c.306-303 BC
Seleucus I Nicator's invasion of India (c.306-303 BC) was one of a series of obscure campaigns fought by Seleucus in an attempt to gain control of the eastern part of his recently regained kingdom.
Seleucus was appointed Satrap of Babylon in 321 BC, and retained more of an eastern outlook that most of Alexander's successors, remaining married to his Iranian wife. In 315 BC Seleucus was expelled from Babylon by Antigonus, and was forced to flee to Ptolemy in Egypt. Three years later Ptolmey defeated Antigonus's son Demetrius at Gaza, and Seleucus took the chance to return to Babylon, where he regained power. Antigonus attempted to expel him for a second time, but was defeated in a battle somewhere near Babylon (Babylonian War).
In theory Seleucus now had control over the eastern part of the old Persian empire, stretching out to the Indus River, but in reality large parts of that empire had slipped out of Macedonian control during the civil wars. A new empire had risen in India, where Chandragupta Maurya had seized control of Magadha at about the time of Alexander's death, and now controlled most of northern India as far as the Indus (see conquests of the Mauryan Empire).
The events of the war between Seleucus and Chandragupta are obscure. Seleucus crossed the Indus, and may have advanced towards the Ganges. If there were any major battles Chandragupta must have won them, for when the war ended (possibly in 303 BC) the peace was greatly to his advantage. Seleucus abandoned any claims east of the Indus and also transferred the satrapies of the Parapanisadai (around Kabul), Aria (around Heart) and Arachosia (around Kandahar) and possible eastern Gedrosia to Chandragupta. In return he was given 500 war elephants. The treaty was to be ratified by a marriage alliance between the two men.
Seleucus made good use of his elephants, taking them 2,500 miles west to Ipsus, where they played a major part in the defeat and death of Antigonus, a victory that gave Seleucus access to the Mediterranean coast. In India Chandragupta's victory enhanced the strength of the Mauryan Empire, the first in Indian history.
Seleucus Nicator's Invasion of India, c.306-303 BC
Seleucus I Nicator's invasion of India (c.306-303 BC) was one of a series of obscure campaigns fought by Seleucus in an attempt to gain control of the eastern part of his recently regained kingdom.
Seleucus was appointed Satrap of Babylon in 321 BC, and retained more of an eastern outlook that most of Alexander's successors, remaining married to his Iranian wife. In 315 BC Seleucus was expelled from Babylon by Antigonus, and was forced to flee to Ptolemy in Egypt. Three years later Ptolmey defeated Antigonus's son Demetrius at Gaza, and Seleucus took the chance to return to Babylon, where he regained power. Antigonus attempted to expel him for a second time, but was defeated in a battle somewhere near Babylon (Babylonian War).
In theory Seleucus now had control over the eastern part of the old Persian empire, stretching out to the Indus River, but in reality large parts of that empire had slipped out of Macedonian control during the civil wars. A new empire had risen in India, where Chandragupta Maurya had seized control of Magadha at about the time of Alexander's death, and now controlled most of northern India as far as the Indus (see conquests of the Mauryan Empire).
The events of the war between Seleucus and Chandragupta are obscure. Seleucus crossed the Indus, and may have advanced towards the Ganges. If there were any major battles Chandragupta must have won them, for when the war ended (possibly in 303 BC) the peace was greatly to his advantage. Seleucus abandoned any claims east of the Indus and also transferred the satrapies of the Parapanisadai (around Kabul), Aria (around Heart) and Arachosia (around Kandahar) and possible eastern Gedrosia to Chandragupta. In return he was given 500 war elephants. The treaty was to be ratified by a marriage alliance between the two men.
Seleucus made good use of his elephants, taking them 2,500 miles west to Ipsus, where they played a major part in the defeat and death of Antigonus, a victory that gave Seleucus access to the Mediterranean coast. In India Chandragupta's victory enhanced the strength of the Mauryan Empire, the first in Indian history.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Chandragupta's Macedonian wife (Page 4) | 1650790
Chandragupta's Macedonian wife
1. Helen/Carnellia/Roseanne ( she had many names just like Chanakya), was a very lovely and very intelligent Greek girl. She was very much in love with India and its culture. She used to stay in Greek shivir with his father selucus and study sanskrit, hindi, grammer, Indian classical music, history, geography, ramayan etc. this shows that she had no problem in India and its culture.
2. CGM and her love was a love at first sight. They met before he killed Dhanand and became King of Magadh.
3. Their marriage alliance was a plan of Chanakya as ek panth do kaaj. Bcoz, CGM got the love of his life with this alliance as well as many parts of Ariana and Kandhar as a marriage gift by Selukus.
4. When he married Helen he was of the age b/w 18-20 not more than that. That was the last war of his life and later he ruled India for 16-20 yrs and died at the age of 42.
5. I think he married Durdhara quite later as he had no successor for the throne. And, there was no description of Durdhara by Jay Shankar prasad till Cgm's war with Seleucus.
Chandragupta's Macedonian wife
1. Helen/Carnellia/Roseanne ( she had many names just like Chanakya), was a very lovely and very intelligent Greek girl. She was very much in love with India and its culture. She used to stay in Greek shivir with his father selucus and study sanskrit, hindi, grammer, Indian classical music, history, geography, ramayan etc. this shows that she had no problem in India and its culture.
2. CGM and her love was a love at first sight. They met before he killed Dhanand and became King of Magadh.
3. Their marriage alliance was a plan of Chanakya as ek panth do kaaj. Bcoz, CGM got the love of his life with this alliance as well as many parts of Ariana and Kandhar as a marriage gift by Selukus.
4. When he married Helen he was of the age b/w 18-20 not more than that. That was the last war of his life and later he ruled India for 16-20 yrs and died at the age of 42.
5. I think he married Durdhara quite later as he had no successor for the throne. And, there was no description of Durdhara by Jay Shankar prasad till Cgm's war with Seleucus.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Bindusara
Bindusara
Bindusara (298 B.C.-273 B.C.), son of Chandra Gupta, was the second to sit on the throne of the Great Mauryan Dynasty.
Chandra Gupta ruled for about twenty five years and then became a Jain ascetic, leaving behind him a fairly huge Empire which included Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Assam, Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, Mysore, Vindhyas, Narmada and Hindukush, for his son to inherit.
Bindusara further expanded the Mauryan Dynasty as far as Mysore down south. It is said that he conquered sixteen states to extend the empire between the two seas. Bindusara did not attack the Dravidian Kingdoms of the Cholas, the Pandyans and the Cheras perhaps because they were friendly with the Mauryan Empire.
He ran the administration smoothly and maintained a good relation with distant countries like the Greeks, the Syrians and the Egyptians. Ambassadors from these countries lived in the King's Court. He was called 'Amitrochates' or the destroyer of enemies by the Greeks.
The Mauryan Empire reached its peak during the rule of Ashoka, the son of Bindusara. He defeated Kalinga in a devastating war but he underwent a transformation after seeing the goriness of the war. He embraced Budhhism and started preaching non-violence. The dynasty crumbled rapidly after him.
Bindusara
Bindusara (298 B.C.-273 B.C.), son of Chandra Gupta, was the second to sit on the throne of the Great Mauryan Dynasty.
Chandra Gupta ruled for about twenty five years and then became a Jain ascetic, leaving behind him a fairly huge Empire which included Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Assam, Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, Mysore, Vindhyas, Narmada and Hindukush, for his son to inherit.
Bindusara further expanded the Mauryan Dynasty as far as Mysore down south. It is said that he conquered sixteen states to extend the empire between the two seas. Bindusara did not attack the Dravidian Kingdoms of the Cholas, the Pandyans and the Cheras perhaps because they were friendly with the Mauryan Empire.
He ran the administration smoothly and maintained a good relation with distant countries like the Greeks, the Syrians and the Egyptians. Ambassadors from these countries lived in the King's Court. He was called 'Amitrochates' or the destroyer of enemies by the Greeks.
The Mauryan Empire reached its peak during the rule of Ashoka, the son of Bindusara. He defeated Kalinga in a devastating war but he underwent a transformation after seeing the goriness of the war. He embraced Budhhism and started preaching non-violence. The dynasty crumbled rapidly after him.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
Great post LF. However, certain details are still debated. For example, this matrimonial alliance was a result of Seleucus' defeat to CGM and that Seleucus gave up Gandhara province not out of affection but out of compulsion. To maintain royal decorum, CGM gifted Seleucus with war elephants with which he travelled westward and fought other battles. Some also dispute the age at which CGM married.
The records are so old, we can only go down to a certain detail, not more.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
The facts are clear:
1)winners do not give their Daughter to the loser
2)the marriage was a peace treaty-why was a peace treaty needed if there was victory by selucus??
3)CGM gained territory from selecus again losers do not get this
4) after marriage CGM gifted war 500 elephants which selucus used with great success in his meditarrean campaigns
5)Helen must have been a good wife and mother looking out for her husband's interest her son was Bindusara and her Grandson was Ashoka the Great both went on to greatly expand the Mauryan empire.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
Correct. Winners do not give their daughters or territories to losers. That matrimonial alliance was indeed a peace treaty. Those 500 war elephants were probably a mark of dowry, if you will.
Was CGM in love with Helen or was it a plan of Chanakya or a political alliance? This is debated.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
It was a brilliant move by Chanakya solidifying CGM's position and directing Selucus's focus westward, now that the Eastern side was covered. Meanwhile CGM focused on expansion.
S.A.T.A
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,569
- Likes
- 1,560
^
Accoring to jain accounts chronicling the life of Chandragupta Maurya,Emperor Maurya's chief queen and the mother of his son and successor Bindusara,was Durdhara,a daugher of one of Maurya's maternal uncles,hence she was also of Mauryan descent.
Accoring to jain accounts chronicling the life of Chandragupta Maurya,Emperor Maurya's chief queen and the mother of his son and successor Bindusara,was Durdhara,a daugher of one of Maurya's maternal uncles,hence she was also of Mauryan descent.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,882
- Likes
- 48,595
Stories passed down claim that Bindusara mother Durdhara had died during child birth. When Bindusara was older he was told that Chanakya had posioned his mother and he ordered a death sentence which, had chanakya flee into a life of sanyas ending his political career and his ties to the Mauriyan empire. The truth was revealed later to Bindusara that Chanakya was not responsible but chanakya refused to come back.
