Alexander the Great Invades India

[civfanatic]

Did Chandragupta have any children with Helen?

Or is it possible that Helen and Durdhara are one and the same (I doubt Indian records would call her "Helen", just as Greek records used the name "Sandrocottos" to refer to Chandragupta)?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Did Chandragupta have any children with Helen?

Or is it possible that Helen and Durdhara are one and the same (I doubt Indian records would call her "Helen", just as Greek records used the name "Sandrocottos" to refer to Chandragupta)?

Yes, the people at RSS use that as an famous analogy towards Rahul and Sonia. Legend goes that Chanakya the then Prime Minister of Maurya and mentor of Chandragupta claimed that the off-spring with an Greek can not become King or claim to the highest power because his loyalties will be split between Greece and India just as his blood would 50% Indian and 50% Greek, not even the next generation would have be eligible because he would be 75% Indian and 25% Greek and it is only the 4th generation that would be eligible as he would have become more Indian than Greek.

These are the many examples from History that they use to justify their dislike of Sonia and Rahul and rightly so. Even in the US an immigrant can not aspire to become President. That would mean an easy entry to an foreigner to rule the country.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

These are the many examples from History that they use to justify their dislike of Sonia and Rahul and rightly so. Even in the US an immigrant can not aspire to become President. That would mean an easy entry to an foreigner to rule the country.

In US only born citizens can become President. India in this regard is more flexible allowing foreign born Sonia to become Prime minister .

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Yes, the people at RSS use that as an famous analogy towards Rahul and Sonia. Legend goes that Chanakya the then Prime Minister of Maurya and mentor of Chandragupta claimed that the off-spring with an Greek can not become King or claim to the highest power because his loyalties will be split between Greece and India just as his blood would 50% Indian and 50% Greek, not even the next generation would have be eligible because he would be 75% Indian and 25% Greek and it is only the 4th generation that would be eligible as he would have become more Indian than Greek.

This seems to have ended when Mughal rule started??

 

[civfanatic]

Yes, the people at RSS use that as an famous analogy towards Rahul and Sonia. Legend goes that Chanakya the then Prime Minister of Maurya and mentor of Chandragupta claimed that the off-spring with an Greek can not become King or claim to the highest power because his loyalties will be split between Greece and India just as his blood would 50% Indian and 50% Greek, not even the next generation would have be eligible because he would be 75% Indian and 25% Greek and it is only the 4th generation that would be eligible as he would have become more Indian than Greek.

These are the many examples from History that they use to justify their dislike of Sonia and Rahul and rightly so. Even in the US an immigrant can not aspire to become President. That would mean an easy entry to an foreigner to rule the country.

Interesting. I don't quite understand the analogy, but interesting that the RSS chums have to go so far back in history to justify their dislike for someone as inept as Rahul.

 

[civfanatic]

This seems to have ended when Mughal rule started??

Mauryan rule was ended by an Indian brahmin named Pusyamitra, under whose rule Orthodox Hinduism and caste discrimination/brahman superiority (as prescribed in the Laws of Manu) first came into play.

Honestly, I would prefer Ashoka and his tolerant Buddhism, even if he was 25% Greek.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Interesting. I don't quite understand the analogy, but interesting that the RSS chums have to go so far back in history to justify their dislike for someone as inept as Rahul.

Nationalism is born out of an deep attachment to culture and history and it is no surprise they use analogy from their glorious history. For me Nationality is just glorified tribalism and which creates xenophobia to people who follow that very seriously. However i do think it is necessary to keep an eye out. I think i have some psychological scares in me that evoke fear of being dominated and destroyed after i had conversations with Kashmir separatists. However hard i rationalize to let go of silly narrow piss marks on paper, back of my mind i am terrified that such people exist and we need to guard the gates. I dont know if that makes sense!

 

[civfanatic]

Nationalism is born out of an deep attachment to culture and history and it is no surprise they use analogy from their glorious history. For me Nationality is just glorified tribalism and which creates xenophobia to people who follow that very seriously.

It is true that nationalism is just glorified tribalism. But is that a bad thing? Humans are social creatures. Our natural habitat is in larger groups, whether they be families, tribes, or nations. All human individuals require a sense of belonging and an identity of some sort.

I could define myself as many things. I am a Telugu speaker. I belong to the Velama caste. I am a Rao. I was born in a strict Hindu family, though I am now atheist.

But all those things are irrelevant, because I choose to define myself as one thing and one thing only: an Indian. That definition is what gives me the greatest peace of mind, and greatest satisfaction.

However i do think it is necessary to keep an eye out. I think i have some psychological scares in me that evoke fear of being dominated and destroyed after i had conversations with Kashmir separatists. However hard i rationalize to let go of silly narrow piss marks on paper, back of my mind i am terrified that such people exist and we need to guard the gates. I dont know if that makes sense!

It is part of human nature to associate with people who are similar to you and be afraid of people who are different. There's nothing wrong with that either, nor is that necessarily "xenophobia". We fear what we do not know, or what is different from ourselves.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

It is true that nationalism is just glorified tribalism. But is that a bad thing? Humans are social creatures. Our natural habitat is in larger groups, whether they be families, tribes, or nations. All human individuals require a sense of belonging and an identity of some sort.

Thats what primitive animals do, dogs piss on trees and sent mark their territory and if another dog comes in they fight. Then are we doomed to such mindless territoriality? Animals cant think and if we humans claim we have gone beyond then are we no better than dogs?

It is part of human nature to associate with people who are similar to you and be afraid of people who are different. There's nothing wrong with that either.

It was part of human nature, we have evolved to go beyond the animals in every way, cant we go beyond in this? After all we have invented the atomic bomb and WMDs to defend our tribal spheres, so all these so called advancements have been born out of mere animal instinct to chest thump. So would it not be good to go beyond that fallacy, now that we can see the errors and communicate those errors to others? As long as our higher intelligence is imprisoned by lower instinct like fear we will be merely a cave man who killed his neighbor with the jaw bone of an ass. If we are to go beyond the cave man and so far we have not(mentally) then we need to study ourself more than we study the outside world.

 

[civfanatic]

Thats what premetive animals do, dogs piss on trees and sent mark their territory and if another dog comes in they fight. Then are we doomed to such mindless territoriality? Animals cant think and if we humans claim we have gone beyond then are we no better than dog?

Humans are no different than other animals. Our base desires are still the same. All the inventions we have created cannot change nature.

And who said other animals can't think?

It was part of human nature, we have evolved to go beyond the animals in every way, cant we go beyond in this? After all we have invented the atomic bomb and WMDs to defend our tribal spheres, so all these so called advancements have been born out of mere animal instinct to chest thump and would be good to go beyond that fallacy now that we can see the errors and communicate those errors to others?

We will see the folly of our ways only when we are on the verge of extinction.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

umans are no different than other animals. Our base desires are still the same. All the inventions we have created cannot change nature.

And who said other animals can't think?

I have edited my previous post go through that again!

Animals can think but they cant question those thoughts and neither can they question their existence or tell themselves they are an entity, they exist as part of nature. We on the other hand because of our thinking which has separated us from the totality of existence, experience our self as separate entities. Thought has has broken up our existence as past and future, which lies only in our minds, where as animals live totally in the present. We live in a dream state or dream time, Our brain has to one day realize the dream can not become the entity itself and the thoughts are not the entity, thought is merely an contaminant in the conscious, not consciousness itself. We need to wake up from our day dreams. So we need to find the balance between the animal state and the human thoughtful state. Some people like Buddha, Krishnamurti have done it. Perhaps it will be more wide spread if incase modern medicine does find a pill for it!

We will see the folly of our ways only when we are on the verge of extinction.

That i am not sure off, yes we would have the instinct to change then, when the pain out ways the pleasure then we would need to find an alternative or who knows we would end up like the missing link! Good reddens i would say!

 

[civfanatic]

Animals can think but they cant question those thoughts and neither can they question their existence or tell themselves they are an entity, they exist as part of nature. We on the other hand because of our thinking which has separated us from the totality of existence, experience our self as separate entities. Thought has has broken up our existence as past and future, which lies only in our minds, where as animals live totally in the present. We live in a dream state or dream time, Our brain has to one day realize the dream can not become the entity itself and the thoughts are not the entity, thought is merely an contaminant in the conscious, not consciousness itself. We need to wake up from our day dreams. So we need to find the balance between the animal state and the human thoughtful state. Some people like Buddha, Krishnamurti have done it. Perhaps it will be more wide spread if incase modern medicine does find a pill for it!

That's a good way of putting it. Most animals only live in the present, and their actions are the result of built-in instinct rather than a thought process of some sort. The ability of humans to utilize this thought process for their own benefit is why we're the most successful species in the history of the Earth.

That i am not sure off, yes we would have the instinct to change then, when the pain out ways the pleasure then we would need to find an alternative or who knows we would end up like the missing link! Good reddens i would say!

The problem with life is that life is pointless. Literally. Humans are the first species (that we know of) to understand, question, and attempt to solve the problem of the inherent pointlessness of life.

Life began spontaneously as a variety of organic compunds, under extremely favorable conditions, formed simple self-replicating molecules (the predecessors of modern DNA and RNA, the basis of all life), which eventually led to the first unicellular organisms. The evolutionary process, which began as soon as those earliest beginnings of life emerged, is a spontaneous process that, at one point, gave rise to a rather ordinary-looking species of primates known as Homo sapiens, who would one day dominate the entire planet.

How would Homo sapiens, who were blessed with extraordinary intellectual capabilities, tackle the problem of life's pointlessness? One of the earliest efforts in this regard, I believe, is the development of primitive religion. The purpose of religion was to explain the unknown - the thunderstorms, the tsunamis, the tornados - which humans naturally fear because they do not understand them. Religion gave humans comfort, even if it was self-comfort, by giving them hope that there was something bigger than themselves controlling their fate. Of course, there isn't, but what matters is not the reality but the perception of reality.

My personal take on this whole dilemna of life's pointlessness is rather simple. Since our lives have no inherent purpose, why not live them however the way we want? Do whatever brings happiness to you. I feel the most satisfied when reading a good book, or talking to friends, or examining historical artifacts, or learning about diseases and their cures. So this is how I live my life.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

That's a good way of putting it. Most animals only live in the present, and their actions are the result of built-in instinct rather than a thought process of some sort. The ability of humans to utilize this thought process for their own benefit is why we're the most successful species in the history of the Earth.

We dont know if we are the most successful species, if numbers matter at all. It could only be an tangent that leads to the end.

The problem with life is that life is pointless. Literally. Humans are the first species (that we know of) to understand, question, and attempt to solve the problem of the inherent pointlessness of life.

Life began spontaneously as a variety of organic compunds, under extremely favorable conditions, formed simple self-replicating molecules (the predecessors of modern DNA and RNA, the basis of all life), which eventually led to the first unicellular organisms. The evolutionary process, which began as soon as those earliest beginnings of life emerged, is a spontaneous process that, at one point, gave rise to a rather ordinary-looking species of primates known as Homo sapiens, who would one day dominate the entire planet.

How would Homo sapiens, who were blessed with extraordinary intellectual capabilities, tackle the problem of life's pointlessness? One of the earliest efforts in this regard, I believe, is the development of primitive religion. The purpose of religion was to explain the unknown - the thunderstorms, the tsunamis, the tornados - which humans naturally fear because they do not understand them. Religion gave humans comfort, even if it was self-comfort, by giving them hope that there was something bigger than themselves controlling their fate. Of course, there isn't, but what matters is not the reality but the perception of reality.

My personal take on this whole dilemna of life's pointlessness is rather simple. Since our lives have no inherent purpose, why not live them however the way we want? Do whatever brings happiness to you. I feel the most satisfied when reading a good book, or talking to friends, or examining historical artifacts, or learning about diseases and their cures. So this is how I live my life.

[/QUOTE]

Well i would not use the word problem, even if it was used in a metaphoric sense. We where born purposeless and that did not make us unhappy, matter of fact we where happiest when we where young and clueless. If life has a meaning, it is already in operation now.Wanting to understand the meaning of life seems to be a futile attempt on our part.We go on asking these questions. The apparent superficial and intellectual seeking of purpose is what is turning this life into a meaningless one, if there is a purpose it is already in operation right now.

There are no problems in life, if there is a real problem then we dont think and if there is no problem then we invent one, because without a problem we dont feel alive. Our psychological problems are true only as much as an movie in a theater can be, both are projections and have no reality in them. One is projected in the brain and other on to a wall, at present there are no problems what so ever but we need to invent one to keep us entertained or else when there is a real problem then why the hell do we never think! When we fall of a bike or face immediate danger there is only action and no thought. Thinking is a poor alternative to doing. I have no idea how i live my life and i dont examine it much these days.

 

[GPM]

Chankya had created a state apparatus which could be maintained and controlled only by great goverance. He reformed the system of land revenues and more importamntly the personal taxes. A compulsory presumptive consumption was levied on each and every one, monks not being exception. A little let up and crash was inevitable. First signs appeared after Asoka became a buddhist. Though not intolerant of other two religions, he had a special corner for Buddhism. His policies spawned a class of Buddhist monks, almost all freeloaders. Freeloader monks were there earlier, but Chanakya's policies had changed that. Heavy state expenditure continued and revenues dwindled.

Fed up with all this Pushyamitra deposed the last Mauryan emperor Brihdratha and founded Sunga dynasty. He controlled and suppressed the small greek chieftains, and consolidated the empire. Ten Sunga rulers ruled till 85 BCE. During this period India regained the military and economic strength, weakened after Ashoka.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Bucephalus - Alexander's Horse

Bucephalus - Alexander's Horse

A short story about Bucephalus, The trusted black horse with a white patch over one of it's eyes that Alexander the Great rode for thousands of miles and through many battles to create his mighty Macedonia Empire. Bucephalus mocked at fear and did not turn away from the sword. Swallowing the ground with fierce rage during battle. Trained to charge during the sound and smell of war.

Bucephalus was originally from Thessaly, located in the center portion of Greece.

We begin in Thessaly around the time 345 B.C. during a battle in ancient Greece. During that battle a black spirited steed was speared in the eye from a pike weapon. The panic and confusion of that injury caused the horse to throw the rider from it's back. The rider was then trampled to death during that battle. For about a half a year the horse was blinded in one eye. It was this that was presumed to have triggered the horse's wild and spooked nature. Eventually the horse regained it's eye sight and legends have it that this horse continued to see the demons and ghosts of war in that eye. That is why Bucephalus continued to remain wild and out of control.

As time went on many horse grooms had tried to tame Bucephalus again but failed. Seeing no other alternative, they had to try and sell the horse to someone. A horse trader in Thessaly by the name of Philoneicus took the steed along with many other horses to the north into Macedonia. When they entered the kingdom of Macedonia they contacted King Philip the Second. The King bought Bucephalus for the cost of 13 talents.
In 1994 the World Almanac stated that 1 talent was worth 60 pounds. In today's time 60 pounds is worth $95.28 US dollars. So multiple $95.28 thirteen times and you get $1,238.64
Back in 344 B.C. that no doubt was a lot of money!

After Philoneicus sells the black horse to the King, many of his horse grooms also had a bad time of trying to break and tame it. The horse was still extremely wild and this made the King angry at Philoneicus for selling him what he thought was an evil horse. While twelve year old Alexander, son of King Philip the Second, was watching the men try to tame Bucephalus, he noticed something that no one else noticed. After watching the failed attempts a while longer. He created a challenge to his father. The challenge that Alexander put forth was that He could be the one that would tame the beast. His father was at first ashamed of his sons request. Ashamed then embarrassed about how his immature twelve year son could tame Bucephalus when all others had failed. His father took the proposition and told his son that if he failed he would have to pay back the 13 talents, the cost of Bucephalus. The boy agreed to the consequences.

Earlier while Alexander was watching the attempts to tame the horse. He had noticed that Bucephalus was shying away from his own shadow. It was "afraid" of something. Could this be the ghosts of war that were still in the horse's visions? Was it this that was making the horse so spooked and wild. Alexander gently led Bucephalus around while speaking into his ear. He then directed him into the sun so that his shadow was behind him. These actions eventually helped the horse to relax, calm down and forever lose those ghostly visions that haunted him for so long. At that time he then proclaimed the horse's name to be Bucephalus (ox-head). Alexander choose that name because of the huge head the horse had. It was the size of an ox's head. There was also two ox horn marks branded into the horse's backside. Now Bucephalus was able to be ridden. Much to the public humiliation that King Philip took, the King regained his composer and commented with tears of joy to his son and said,

"Look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee".

Legend has it that Bucephalus and Alexander were born simultaneously. Other stories tell of the horse being born in 355 B.C., a year after Alexander.

Bucephalus, the mighty stallion died of battle wounds in June 326 B.C. during Alexander's last battle at Hydaspes which is now modern day Pakistan. This was the first time Bucephalus or Alexander ever saw an Elephant during a battle.

In honor of his horse, Alexander named a city on the west bank of the Hydaspes river, Bucephala. Now thought to be the modern town of Jhelum, Pakistan. And is buried in Jalalpur Sharif outside of Jhelum, Pakistan.



Article Source: Bucephalus - Alexander's Horse

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The Loves of Alexander the Great – Statiera II, Roxana, and Barsine


The Loves of Alexander the Great – Statiera II, Roxana, and Barsine


Continuing the loves of Alexander the Great, you will encounter two of his wives – one of which produced him a son and a lover that may or may not have given birth to a son while Alexander was still alive.

Barsine

As the daughter of Artabazus, Barsine was a noble Persian that was married to Memnon – the commander of the Greek mercenaries that worked for the Persian king, Darius III. This was around the same time that Alexander the Great invaded Persia in 334 BC and was successful in winning the Battle of the Granicus River. After Memnon's death, there are several ancient tales that show a love affair between her and Alexander. It is said that he held grand banquets, where he soon fell in love with Barsine – who was his captive at the time. It was her beauty that surely did him in. The two had a son together – named Heracles.

While the story sounds believable, there are historians that find it difficult to fully swallow. Heracles would serve as the only child born when Alexander was still alive. At the time, it was highly unlikely that Alexander would have ignored his son, but it is quite curious that the first time he is mentioned in record is 12 years after the death of his father. Surely, the Macedonian army and any successors would have been interested in the boy. However, it is a claim to the throne that the boy's existence is made known. It seems that he played a fleeting role in succession battles and then disappeared. Some believe that a romance between Barsine and Alexander was created for the benefit of proving his parentage.

Stateira II

The daughter of Stateira I and Darius III of Persia was also connected to Alexander in love. She was captured by Macedonian forces alongside the rest of her family during the Battle of Issus, which marked one of Darius' defeats. While she was originally given to Mazaeus (who died in 328 BC), she married Alexander the Great instead at Susa in 324 BC. The wedding ceremony was something to talk about, as many of Alexander's officers also took other noble Persians as their own. When Alexander died, it was Roxana (another wife) that ordered the murder of Stateira II and her sister in 323 BC at Babylon. Cruelly, their bodies were tossed into a well filled with hungry cannibals.

Roxana

The ancient historians also enjoyed writing about Alexander's marriage to Roxana, who was often referred to as 'one of the most beautiful women in Asia.' The marriage between the two was heavily built upon politics. During a wedding feast held in their honor, they shared a loaf of bread – following Turkestan customs. It is said that he used his sword to slice the bread. He viewed Roxana as one of the fairest prizes in the land and felt great passion for her. He also had a plan to raise her to the position of his consort. We learn that Roxana accompanies Alexander to India and gave birth to a son that they named Alexander (becoming the IV) – six months after his father passed away.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The Story of Roxanne, Wife of Alexander the Great

The Story of Roxanne

The greatest and most tragic love story ever in history is the Story of Roxanne, a beautiful young girl from Afghanistan.
One of the greatest men in history, perhaps the very greatest man in history, was Alexander the Great. His father was the King of Macedonia. Alexander studied as a student under Aristotle, one of the greatest teachers and philosophers of history.

When Alexander's father died, Alexander became the King of Macedonia. Soon, Alexander fought wars against the neighboring kingdoms, conquering them all.

Alexander then decided to conquer the rest of the world, which he believed to be much smaller than it really is. He took his army across into what is now Turkey, conquering and defeating the people there. Then, he went into Egypt and later into Persia, with the same result.

Although Alexander is regarded as a military genius, some historians say that this was not so. He was merely a lunatic, they say, who often led his troops into battle even when they were reluctant to follow. He engaged in hand-to-hand combat in circumstances in which it was a miracle that he was not killed.

Alexander reached a place called Balkh in a region called Bactra which is near the modern city of Mazar-i-Sharif in what is now Northern Afghanistan.

In all this time, Alexander the Great had been so busy trying to conquer the world that he had never bothered to take a wife, although he obviously could have had any women he wanted. Some historians claim that Alexander the Great was homosexual.

There was a beautiful young Afghan girl in Balkh named Roxanne. Her father was the King of Balkh. Alexander the Great conquered Balkh in 329 BC and killed Roxanne's father.

Roxanne decided to make the best of the situation. She presented herself to Alexander and offered to become his wife.

Alexander accepted and Roxanne became his wife. This was an era in which most kings had many wives, but Roxanne was the only wife that Alexander the Great ever had.

Alexander did not stay in Balkh for long. He moved down into what is now Pakistan and India, defeating the armies and conquering the people along the way. Finally, his own troops decided that there was no point to this and refused to go further. Alexander was forced to turn back. On the way back, Alexander became sick and died at the early age of 33.

Meanwhile, Roxanne had given birth to a child, a baby boy, the only child that Alexander the Great ever had. This child was the heir to the Empire of Alexander the Great, which included all of Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan, parts of India and more. All this by right belonged to the son of Roxanne.

So, what do you suppose happened to that baby boy, the son of Alexander the Great? Right! You guessed it. They killed him!

Roxanne knew that she was in danger. She ran. Her journeys with her baby boy took her thousands of miles, all the time being pursued by the jealous generals who wanted to kill the boy so that they could divide the empire of Alexander the Great among themselves.

Finally, after years of chasing down Roxanne and her baby boy, they found them both. Roxanne and the child were both killed.

Had this not happened, all of world history would have been different. That child, the only son of Alexander the Great, and his descendants, would without doubt have become the rulers of the Empire of Alexander the Great. The world map, the languages and even the people who live in those places would have become different from what they are today.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Famous People With Epilepsy

Alexander the Great - Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 BC - June 10, 323 BC), also known as Alexander III, was an ancient Greek king (basileus) of Macedon (336-323 BC). Alexander died after twelve years of constant military campaigning, possibly as a result of malaria, poisoning, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of alcoholism. Born in Pella, capital of Macedon, Alexander was the son of King Philip II of Macedon and of his fourth wife Olympias, an Epirote princess. Alexander the Great had epilepsy, however at during his time epilepsy was known as "the sacred disease" because of the belief that those who had seizures were possessed by evil spirits or touched by the gods and should be treated by invoking mystical powers.


Read more: Famous People With Epilepsy

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Campaigns of Alexander the Great

 

[civfanatic]

Fed up with all this Pushyamitra deposed the last Mauryan emperor Brihdratha and founded Sunga dynasty. He controlled and suppressed the small greek chieftains, and consolidated the empire. Ten Sunga rulers ruled till 85 BCE. During this period India regained the military and economic strength, weakened after Ashoka.

We can only speculate on the exact reasons why Pusyamitra overthrew Brhadratha.

However, the Sungas definitely did not "consolidate" the empire. In fact, India became fractured once again after the collapse of the Mauryas, and if Buddhist sources are to be believed, Pusyamitra's oppression and intolerance of the Buddhists only aggravated the problem. This led to the rise of independent Buddhist states who were formerly vassals of the Mauryas, most notably the Satavahanas of present-day Andhra Pradesh.

The Sungas also lost the Indus Vally to the Greco-Bactrians, who later established the so-called Indo-Greek Kingdoms in the region, and this region would not be part of a greater Indian state until the Gupta Empire nearly four centuries later.