Alexander the Great Invades India

[W.G.Ewald]

Alexander IV of Macedon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Elephants in Warfare: The use of War Elephants on Ancient Battlefields. | Suite101.com

Elephants in Warfare

Elephants have been used in war for thousands of years. With their massive strength and magnificent ivory tusks, they inspired awe and terror in all who faced them.
War elephants

In the ancient world, war elephants were used by many cultures. In the west, Carthage harnessed the power of the relatively small North African elephant. In India, Burma and present day Thailand the larger Indian elephant was used for war and haulage. The Savannah elephant, the largest pachyderm in the world, was largely unknown to ancient cultures, and besides, it is not easy to tame. The Persians also made use of Indian elephants, who were as much status symbols as living tanks.

War elephants were not raised from infancy. Most were captured in the wild with techniques which still survive today. In India, a large ditched enclosure was constructed and tame cow (female) elephants were chained inside. Their scent attracted bulls - the best elephants for warlike purposes - and once they entered the enclosure, they would be trapped. They would be worn down by thirst and hunger and forced to fight tame bulls to further exhaust them.

A wild bull was reckoned to be sufficiently tamed once he allowed a human driver (mahout) to sit on his back. Then the process of turning a gentle, peaceful creature into a beast of war could begin.

Elephants would be lightly struck with swords, spears and arrows to inure them to pain, whilst drummers would hammer drums and cymbals to teach them to ignore noise. They were also trained to attack dummies.

Some elephants were clad in vast caparisons of metal plate armour. In India, where the use of war elephants became something of an art, lengths of chain, maces or swords were fastened to the beasts trunk. Some had specially designed swords attached to their tusks.

There were no fixed preferences concerning the amount or type of soldiers that could be crowded onto an elephants back. An elephants height makes it an obvious platform for archers and javelin throwers.

The elephant in battle
The use of troops on elephants was largely spurious, because the main purpose of a war elephant is to terrify the enemy and smash through the ranks of their army, creating terrific carnage. In this, the elephant enjoys an advantage over horses: no horse will charge home into a bristling wall of sharp points, but a phalanx-style formation will not halt an elephant's charge. Also, horses fear the smell of elephants and the presence of elephants on a battlefield often rendered cavalry useless.

A fully grown bull elephant can pick a man up with his trunk and hurl him 30 feet into the air. They can kneel on a prostrate victim to drive a tusk through his body. The sheer bulk of war elephants made them difficult to kill: there are accounts of elephants surviving up to 80 arrow hits. The downside of using elephants was their tendency to go berserk when subjected to too much pain or the loss of their driver. When this occurred, they became as much a danger to their own army as to the enemy.

The damage an elephant - let alone several hundred - could inflict was enormous, but first the beast had to be compelled to fight. In ancient Carthage, elephants were sometimes given copious quantities of wine to drink - elephants enjoy alcohol - and then their legs were prodded with red-hot irons. This helped work the beasts into a rage. Carthaginian drivers carried a spike and mallet - if the elephant became uncontrollable, they would kill it by hammering the spike into its brain before it did too much damage to its own army.

Until the advent of gunpowder artillery, there was no easy solution for dealing with war elephants. At the Battle of Zama in 202 BC, the Romans made gaps in their lines and herded the animals through their formations whilst showering them with javelins. Most of the elephants on the Carthaginian side were poorly trained, but nevertheless, they still managed to inflict heavy casualties before the Romans won.

When Alexander the Great fought the Indian King Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes in 325 BC, his infantry suffered horrendous casualties from the onslaught of Indian war elephants. Alexander won, but at a great price.

War Elephants



Read more at Suite101: Elephants in Warfare: The use of War Elephants on Ancient Battlefields. | Suite101.com Elephants in Warfare: The use of War Elephants on Ancient Battlefields. | Suite101.com

 

[vikaskumar11233]

Alexander's invasion is very famous but no one talks about Prithviraj Chauhan who fought with Mauhammad Gori for 17 times and these europeans historians says that he fought only two times.Once he won and in the next war ,he was defeated.
In the Chand Bardai's book he described out that he fought 17 times but these people only writes that which they want.We have to tell this thing to our kids and students ,at least they can feel proud on our ancient legacy.This thing is as it is mentioned in the syllabus of cbse board and no body asked to change it.

 

[Virendra]

Alexander's invasion is very famous but no one talks about Prithviraj Chauhan who fought with Mauhammad Gori for 17 times and these europeans historians says that he fought only two times.Once he won and in the next war ,he was defeated.
In the Chand Bardai's book he described out that he fought 17 times but these people only writes that which they want.We have to tell this thing to our kids and students ,at least they can feel proud on our ancient legacy.This thing is as it is mentioned in the syllabus of cbse board and no body asked to change it.

Mr Vikas I understand that the worse than nanny-style (no offense to nanny) distorted history that Govt. feeds us in testbooks is only worth trashing.
But lets look at the facts objectively and separate grain from chaff.
The truth is, 'Raso' is a highly inaccurate poetic text that exaggerates PrithviRaj's (PR's) record. Not that PR isn't gloryful.
It has way too many mistkaes and some of them are unbelivably fundamental.
1. PrithviRaj-Sanyogita love affair,
2 Jaichand's vengeance and
3. The 17 defeats to Ghori etc
are all good bed time stories to entertain ourselves with, but do not stand any historical scrutiny.
All three are mentioned only in the heavily inaccurate and challenged PrithviRaj Raso which mentions a completely wrong name even for his mother.
It says his mother was 'Kamalavati' daughter of Tunvara Anangapala (of Delhi).
Both PrithviRaj Vijaya and Hammir Mahakavya mention 'KarpuraDevi' as the name and she was the daughter of Haihaya dynasty (of Tripuri).
There is no mention of these in :
a) Prithviraja Prabandha
b) Hammir MahaKavya
c) Prabandha Kosa
d) PrithviRaj Vijaya
e) Viruddhavidhi-vidhvamsa
The Raso also makes no mention of Prithviraja's brother Hariraja, who captured Ajmer and launched an attack on Delhi against the Turks.
Raso mentions the date of birth of PR as VS 1115 (1058 AD). But PR's father Someshwara died in VS 1236 (1179 AD).
So PR should have been born in VS 1217 (1160 AD) as he was a minor when his father died and his mother took charge of administration for few years.

Bijolia inscription and PrithviRaj Vijaya both confirm that Delhi was conquered by Chauhan Vigrahraja IV who was grand grand father of PR.
But Raso pulls out Someshwara (PR's father) ridiing to the aid of Anangapala Tanvar of Delhi almost half a century later.

1. PrithviRaj-Sanyogita love affair
Never happened. Battle of Tarain-I was fought in early 1191, for thirteen months after this Prithviraj was busy in the siege of Sarhind (early 1192) central Punjab; Tarain II was fought barely a few months later.
In the middle of all this, when did Prithviraj have the time to correspond with a princess, admit his love to her, and make arrangements to carry her away from Kannauj 400 miles away in the south east?
The time given for this love affair is 1175 AD. and Ghori - PrithviRaj battles took place at 1191-92.
It is odd to imagine that a man would be so obsessed with his woman even after 17 yrs that it would lead to his fall
or that her father would be so mad even after 17 yrs that he would collude with enemies.
No other sources (texts, inscriptions etc) except Raso mention this love affair at all.

2. Jaichand's vengeance :-
The kingdoms of Ajmer and Kannauj did not have a common border, fought no battles.
As per the gadhavala inscriptions, during PR-Ghori battles Jayachandra was fighting against the Sena ruler (LakshmanaSena) in the region of Bihar, far in the east.
According to contemporary literature, inscriptions, and coins the rulers of Kannauj were Gahadvals"¦the Rathors of Badaun were their tributaries.
There is no record of a conflict between Ajmer and Kannauj for the simple reason that they did not have a common border.
Raso tells the name of Jayachand's father as "Vijayapala" but Gadhavala inscriptions give his correct name as 'Vijayachandra'.
Raso talks of Jayachandra performing a Rajasuya yagya and Swayamvara ceremony for Samyukta.
A ceremony as grand as Rajasuya would certainly find atleast some mention in the inscriptions of Jaichand or later rulers.
But nothing of that sort in any of his 16 inscriptions or anywhere else.

Raso mentions the abduction of daughter of the Yadava king Bhana of Deogiri and the consequent battle between PR and Jaichand.
The name 'Bhana' is not found in the dynasty's chronology anywhere. Deogiri was actually founded by King 'Bhillama' in VS 1244 (AD 1187)and the event is not mentioned even in his history.

Raso calls a Maharawala Samara Singh of Mewar as brother-in-law of PR and says that he was killed in Tarain II while helping PR.
This man actually ruled Mewar in VS 1359 (1302 AD), not in VS 1249 (1192 AD).

The 17 defeats to Ghori :-
Hammir Mahakavya states only 7 border skirmishes and 2 wars after Ghori had expanded his territory upto Ajmer Kingdom's border. So the talk of 17 battles is BS.

Lastly, there is still controversy on the fate of PR and Ghori after Tarain-II. None of the versions has yet been established irrefutably on the topic of his death.
Moral of the story - Raso's value as a historical text is overrated and it is unreliable. These were only of few of the goof ups in Raso.

While we rue the distortion in our history and attack the concoted stories, this is another such instance where drama and imagination has been swallowed as is.
Now, to the otherwise trained memory of ours, truth does sound stranger that fiction in such cases doesn't it ?

Sorry about the OT guys .. back to Alexander please.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[latsar]

I came across this in wiki : 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).[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.
Asia in 323BC, showing borders of the Nanda Empire in relation to Alexander's Empire and neighbors. "As for the Macedonians, 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, including horsemen and war elephants. 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.".[4]
The Nandas made the collection of taxes methodical, 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]

US Soldiers Are Using 'Alexander the Great's Castle' in Afghanistan

Soldiers Use 'Alexander the Great's Castle' in Afghanistan

U.S. Soldiers and Airmen assigned to Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul will be using a castle built by Alexander the Great for his push into India. The castle, in Qalat City, Afghanistan, provides commanding views of the surrounding area.

Army Sgt. Robert Crosier, a combat engineer assigned to Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul, at the highest part of the castle on May 31st, 2010.

A U.S. Soldier walks up a staircase at the castle.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

A view of Qalat City, Afghanistan, from the highest part of the castle. Qalat City has a population of more than 10,000 people

U.S. Soldiers discuss different vantage points from the castle.

U.S. Soldiers search a cave in a section of the castle.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Seleucus I Nicator (358-280)

Seleucus I Nicator

Seleucus I Nicator began life as a Macedonian noble and a junior officer in the army of Alexander the Great. He ended it as the founder of the Seleucid Empire, and came close to reunited Alexander's empire under his rule. In the period immediately after Alexander's death, Seleucus served as an officer in the army of Perdiccas, taking part in his murder during a botched invasion of Egypt.

Seleucus began his close association with his future empire in 321 BC, when he was appointed satrap of Babylon. Under Alexander Babylon had been the potential future capital of the empire – for most of his successors it was an eastern backwater. Seleucus retained more of Alexander's eastern ambitions – he was the only one of the senior successors not to repudiate the Iranian wives Alexander had given then all.

Seleucus remained in command in Babylon until 315. In that year he was forced out of his satrapy by Antigonus Monophthalmus, who had emerged from the first round of fighting between the successors in a very strong position, controlling Asia Minor, Syria and now the east. Seleucus fled to Ptolemy, where he found refuge and support.

Ptolemy was always opposed to anyone who might become powerful enough to threaten his rule in Egypt. In 315 that figure was Antigonus. The same was true for Cassander and Lysimachus, and together they issued an ultimatum to Antigonus. He refused their terms, triggering the Third Diadoch War. He then left his son Demetrius to defend his position in southern Syria and Palestine.

Seleucus spent the next three years in Egypt, waiting for Ptolemy to act. Finally, in 312 Ptolemy was ready. He inflicted a heavy defeat on Demetrius (battle of Gaza), opening to road back to Babylon. Seleucus took his chance, returning to Babylon where he quickly regained power. The defeat at Gaza forced Antigonus to make peace with Cassander and Lysimachus, soon joined by Ptolemy. The peace of 311 did not include Seleucus.

One of the most obscure of Hellenic Wars followed (Babylonian War). Antigonus invaded Babylonia, but was defeated in a battle whose date and location is unclear. It was probably fought close to Babylon in 309/8, but we can not be sure. The future actions of both men suggests that they made peace in 308.

From 308 Seleucus concentrated on the eastern borders of his empire, where he was involved in a war with Chandragupta, the Mauryan ruler. This lasted until some time in 305-3, when Seleucus surrendered the far east of his empire to Chandragupta in return for five hundred war elephants.

In 305 Seleucus finally adopted the royal title, following Antigonus, who had made the move after the conquest of Cyprus (306 BC).

The successes of Antigonus and Demetrius may have triggered this peace. Seleucus joined the great coalition against Antigonus, bringing his elephants to the battlefield at Ipsus (301 BC). In the aftermath of that victory, Seleucus was granted Syria. Ptolemy had been promised the south of Syria, but had not appeared at Ipsus, so Seleucus had been given the entire area. However, during 301 Ptolemy had seized southern Syria, as far as the River Eleutherus (now the northern border of the Lebanon). This southern area now became known as Coele-Syria, and would remain a source of tension between Egypt and the Seleucid Empire. For the moment any conflict was avoided by Seleucus, who did not oppose Ptolemy's possession of the area in recognition of the debt he owned to him.

In the aftermath of Ipsus, the focus of Seleucus's empire moved west to northern Syria. In 300 he founded a new western capital at Antioch by moving Antigoneia, recently founded by Antigonus, as well as Seleucia-in-Pieria, the port of Antioch. This area would become the heart of the Seleucid Empire.

For the next few years events were dominated by the adventures of Demetrius in Greece and Macedonia. In 288 Seleucus was expelled from Macedonia and embarked on an adventure that ended in Cilicia in 286. There he was eventually trapped, outnumbered and forced to surrender. Unusually Seleucus kept him alive, in a gilded cage on the Orontes. Three years later Demetrius died after three years of uninterrupted debauchery.

Late in live Seleucus was given an unexpected chance to reunite most of Alexander's empire. Lysimachus had become king of Macedonia after 288, but quickly made himself unpopular, not least by executing his son and heir. His widow fled to Seleucus, who now found himself pressured to intervene in Macedonia. Late in 282 he invaded Asia Minor, where he was greeted with offers of assistance. The next year he defeated Lysimachus at the battle of Corupedium (281 BC). Lysimachus was killed during the battle.

In the aftermath Seleucus found himself ruler of Asia Minor, and in a strong position to take Macedonia. He waited until 280 to travel to Macedonia, but he never reached his destination. Soon after landing on the European shore of the Hellespont, Seleucus was murdered by Ptolemy Keraunos, who went on to seize power in Macedonia himself. Seleucus was succeeded by his son Antiochus I Soter, who retained most of Asia Minor.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

History of India

Seleucus Invasion of India


Alexander died in 323 B.C. As he had no heir to inherit his vast empire, it was parceled out by his three prominent generals among themselves. Seleucus was also one of them and he got the Asian parts of the Alexandrian empire. The fragmented India which Seleucus had seen during the Porus-Alexander war inspired him to see the dream of the conquest of India. His dream however, remained unrealized as by now Chandragupta Maurya had established a strong empire in India.

Seleucus was one of the leading generals of Alexander. While journeying back to Greece from India, Alexander reached Babylon, he fell seriously ill and died there in 323 B.C. Alexander died without any heir. So his extensive empire was shared out by his three generals among themselves. Thus, the far flung empire of Alexander was split up into three parts- the Greek, the Egyptian and the Asian. The first two parts came into the possession of Ptolemy and Antigones respectively, while the third i.e. the Asian part fell to the lot of Seleucus. Seleucus's Asian empire extended from Syria up to the Euphrates. Some parts of Punjab and Afghanistan were also held by him. Seleucus had accompanied Alexander during his invasion of India in 326 B.C. After the death of Alexander in 323 B.C. Chandragupta Maurya had established as strong empire in India and had driven out the Greeks from the Indian soil. Seleucus therefore wanted to regain these territories and to move further to the east of Indus.

The coronation of the Mauryan emperor, Chandragupta took place in 321 B.C. two years after Alexander had left India. He united the country into a strong and well Knit empire. With the help of his able minister and astute diplomat Kautilya, he succeeded in laying the foundation of a strong empire. The image of India which Seleucus had formed in his mind was that of a country fragmented into small kingdoms and were prone to mutual rivalries and jealousies. He, therefore, entertained the ambition of conquest of India, but little did he knew that India which he was going to face was even more powerful than his own empire. Consequently Seleucus advanced with a huge army against India in 305 B.C. The Indian soldiers were in fine fettle and their horsemen, chariot army and elephants were ready to inflict defeat on the invaders. A terrible war followed on the north-west borders of India. The Greeks could not withstand the onslaught of the gallant Indian fighters. The army of Chandragupta Maurya routed the invaders and Seleucus was forced to sign a peace treaty. Chandragupta Maurya, advised by Kautilya, presented his terms to the defeated army. Seleucus was forced to accept. By the terms of the treaty, Seleucus surrebderred his territories in Afghanistan - Herat, Kandhar, and the Kabul valley - to Chandragupta Maurya. In return, he was presented the gift of 300 elephants. On Kautilya's advice, Chandragupta married the daughter of Seleucus, Helen. Seleucus also appointed Megasthenes as his ambassador to the Mauryan court. Megasthenes wrote a famous account of his stay at the Mauryan court in a book entitled Indica.

Besides the preponderant army and armaments, one factor that contributed to the victory of Chandragupta Maurya in this war was that as a result of Alexander's invasion, Indians had also become familiar with the Greek methods of warfare. Moreover, it was by dint of his bravery and Kautilya's sharp intelligence that Chandragupta Maurya had built up such an extensive empire. His vast army was also well-trained and well-equipped.

No detailed accounts of this war between Seleucus and Alexander are available. The Greek historians have also confined themselves to just mentioning its results. From the results, however, we can draw the conclusion that Seleucus certainly sustained a crushing defeat in the war, and his dream of the conquest of India was shattered forever.

Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara in 297 B.C. To the Greeks, Bindusara was known as Amitrochates, perhaps the Greek translation of the Sanskrit Amitraghata, the destroyer of the foes.

Apparently he was a man of wide interest and taste, since tradition had it that he asked Antiochus I to send him some sweet wine, dried figs and a sophist. Bindusara campaigned in the Deccan, extending the Mauryan empire in the peninsula to as far as Mysore. He is said to have conquered 'the land between the two seas', presumably the Arabian sea and the Bay of Bengal.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

What killed Alexander the Great

What Killed Alexander?

In 323 BC Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, ruled a dominion that stretched from the Balkans to the Himalayas and from Egypt to the Caspian Sea. Possibly the most brilliant soldier in history, he had led a small and poorly equipped European army on a campaign of over 20,000 miles to conquer the mighty Persian Empire. Originally from Iran, the Persians held sway over a domain which also included all of what are now Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Egypt. It had taken him twelve years and he was still only thirty-two. Alexander the Great may have been the undisputed master of the world, but he was a slave to destiny. He did not die a warrior's death in battle, but expired as helpless as a baby in his own bed.

In the summer of that year Alexander had finished his conquest of the Persian Empire and returned to Babylon, the greatest city on earth. Situated on the banks of the River Euphrates, in what is now central Iraq, the city was to be the capital of his new empire. On the night of June 1, in chambers within the royal palace, Alexander was holding a memorial feast to honor the death of a close personal friend. Suddenly, around mid-evening, he was seized with intense pain and collapsed. He was taken to his bedchamber where, after ten days of agony, convulsions and delirium, he fell into a coma and died.

The death of Alexander the Great is one of history's most enduring mysteries. What caused the strong and healthy young ruler of half the known world to die so unexpectedly at the very height of his power? Historians have proposed malaria, typhoid and alcohol poisoning as possible causes of death. There have also been those who have suggested murder, but until now no one has seriously investigated the possibility.

Unlike many events in ancient history, the details of Alexander's death have been preserved. The initial symptoms were agitation, tremors, aching or stiffness in the neck, followed by a sudden, sharp pain in the area of the stomach. He then collapsed and suffered acute and excruciating agony wherever he was touched. Alexander also suffered from an intense thirst, fever and delirium, and throughout the night he experienced convulsions and hallucinations, followed by periods of calm. In the final stages of the condition he could not talk, although he could still move his head and arms. Ultimately, his breathing became difficult and he fell into a coma and died.

Alexander died in his bed of a mysteriously illness at the age of 32. (Mary Evans Picture Library)

The three popular theories concerning the cause of Alexander's death – Malaria, typhoid and alcohol poisoning - can now be discounted. Malaria is carried by mosquitoes that live in jungle and tropical locations, but not in desert regions such as central Iraq where Alexander died. Two years earlier, Alexander had been in an area of India where malaria was common. Nevertheless, the disease cannot remain dormant for this period of time without producing symptoms. Alexander's life from the time he was in India is well documented but there is no report whatsoever of a previous illness of this kind. Typhoid is transmitted by food or water contaminated by bacteria which causes epidemics and not just single, individual cases. There is nothing in any of the historical accounts to suggest such outbreak in Babylon at the time Alexander died. The main effect of alcohol poisoning is continual vomiting, but not once do any of the historical sources mention vomiting or even nausea as one of Alexander's symptoms. One theory that has only recently been proposed is that Alexander died of an epidemic of the so-called West Nile Virus. Although a television documentary made the idea popular for a while, scientists soon pointed out that the virus is only a relatively recent disease that could not have infected someone over 2000 years ago.

Click >HERE for further discussion of possible causes of Alexander's death.

So what did kill Alexander? According to the historical accounts, Alexander's body failed to show any signs of decay for six days after death, even though it was kept in a hot, sultry place. If Alexander's body had remained preserved for this amount of time under the conditions described, somehow bacteria had been prevented from starting the process of decomposition. There could be only two causes: radiation, which could be discounted for the time, or a lethal does of a toxic substance that pervaded the corpse. The corpse's state of preservation could only have been caused by large amounts of a toxic substance in the body's system. Alexander the Great had to have been poisoned.

Belladonna, strychnine and aconite: three of the most poisonous plants in the world. One of these deadly alkaloid toxins was used to murder Alexander the Great.

The only known poisons to produce the symptoms from which Alexander is recorded to have suffered are alkaloid vegetable toxins. Coming from plants, shrubs and trees, these nitrogen-bearing chemicals especially affect the nervous system, causing shaking limbs and muscle pains in the back or neck before the victim experiences severe agony and seizures. Most of the alkaloid poisons cause stomach pain, and many produce seizures, delirium and hallucinations; all of which are described in Alexander's case. However, the list of poisons that could have killed Alexander can be shortened considerably because many of the alkaloid toxic plants also produce severe vomiting and intense headaches that are not reported. With the help of the Los Angeles County Regional Poison Centre at the University of Southern California, Graham eventually narrowed down the poisons to just one: strychnine, which comes from the fruit of the Nux Vomica tree.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Plutarch, a Greek biographer who wrote around AD 100, tells us that Alexander’s body was unceremoniously left to lie in a stor


The Preservation of Alexander's Body



Plutarch, a Greek biographer who wrote around AD 100, tells us that Alexander's body was unceremoniously left to lie in a storeroom. Strangely, although it should have begun to decompose in the hot Babylonian summer, the body remained preserved.

During the dissensions among the commanders, which lasted several days, the body continued clear and fresh, without any sign of such taint or corruption, though it lay neglected in a close, sultry place.

(Plutarch, The Life of Alexander, vs. 77)

Curtius Quintus Rufus was a Roman politician who compiled a history of Alexander's reign around AD 33. His work, The History of Alexander, does not include details of Alexander's illness, but it does mention what happened after he died:

Although the king's body had lain in the coffin for six days in scorching heat, there was no sign of decay when the Egyptians and Chaldeans came to embalm it.

(Curtius, The History of Alexander, 9: 19)

 

[LETHALFORCE]

What didn’t kill Alexander

What didn't kill Alexander?

The most popular theory for the cause of death has been malaria. Alexander had traveled to part of India where malaria was common, and some of his symptoms do indeed match the disease. With malaria, the patient experiences chills which cause shaking, as Alexander is said to have done, and they develop a high fever, which comes and goes every few days for a week or so. Alexander is described as initially having a fever which abated until he relapsed a few days later. Malaria can also induce delirium and periods of unconsciousness, which it also seems Alexander suffered. And in cases where malaria is fatal, the cause of death is usually a ruptured spleen: an agonizing condition that would result in excruciating pain in the area of the stomach, such as described in Alexander's case. For years, malaria was widely accepted by historians as the cause of death, until a tropical disease specialist, Dr James Maynard of London University, examined the accounts of Alexander's fatal illness in the 1970s. He concluded that if the ancient reports were reliable, then Alexander could not have died from malaria.

Dr Maynard seriously doubted that Alexander had suffered a ruptured spleen. If his spleen had ruptured when he was struck down with pain at the banquet, as the malaria theory supposed, then the pain would not have subsided overnight and abated for some days, as the sources report. Alexander would have been in persistent agony until he died from internal hemorrhaging. Moreover, the pain would have been on the left side of the stomach and not beneath it, as described. The other way that malaria victims can die is when diseased blood cells clog the brain tissue of the patient. Dr Maynard found no evidence that Alexander had died in this way either, as the condition would have been accompanied by severe headaches which are not mentioned once by any of the sources. In fact, Dr Maynard was certain that Alexander not have contracted malaria at all.

Malaria is a disease carried by certain mosquitoes that can infect a person with a bite. These mosquitoes live in jungle and tropical locations, but not in desert regions such as central Iraq where Alexander died. However, two years earlier Alexander had been in an area of India where malaria was common. Nevertheless, Dr Maynard seriously doubted that Alexander could have contracted the illness there. The disease can remain dormant in the bloodstream for anything up to ten months from the time of the initial exposure. Someone who fails to exhibit symptoms after that time is probably not infected: certainly not after two years. Bouts of malaria, lasting some days, can and do recur, so it is possible that Alexander had previously suffered from the illness since he left India. However, Alexander's life from the time he was in India is well documented but there is no report whatsoever of a previous illness of this kind.

With the malaria diagnosis in question, in 1998 a team from the University of Maryland in the USA suggested that Alexander had died of typhoid. Typhoid causes chills, high fever and delirium, from which Alexander appears to have suffered. However, so do many other illnesses. What convinced the team that he had specifically died of typhoid was the description Plutarch gives of the state of preservation of Alexander's body after his apparent death. One symptom sometimes associated with typhoid is a condition known as ascending paralysis: muscle paralysis which starts at the feet and moves slowly up the body. Patients with this condition can eventually appear dead and, in the days before modern medicine, some unfortunate victims of typhoid were even buried before they had actually died. As Plutarch reported that Alexander's body failed to show any signs of decomposition for days, the team proposed that the king had been suffering from paralysis caused by typhoid and was actually still alive.

However, the typhoid theory failed to address many of the symptoms and circumstances associated with Alexander's death. To begin with, typhoid is caused by salmonella typhi bacteria which is transmitted by food or water contaminated by an infected person, or by sewage containing the germs. As such, there would almost certainly have been an epidemic of the disease when Alexander fell sick. However, there is nothing in any of the historical accounts to suggest such outbreak in Babylon at the time. Secondly, salmonella typhi is an intestinal bug which causes severe diarrhea and abdominal pain. Beside the fact that diarrhea is not mentioned in the historical accounts, Alexander's pain is reported to have been in the area of his stomach and not his bowl which would have been the area of discomfort if he had typhoid. In fact, the University of Maryland team proposed that Alexander's stabbing pain suggested that he had died of a perforated bowel, which is often the cause of death in cases of typhoid fatality. Even if the sources are wrong about the location of Alexander's pain, a perforated bowel would have left him in constant agony until he died, rather than recovering for days as the accounts all describe.

Perhaps the most obvious possible cause of Alexander's death to consider is alcohol poisoning. Not only is he reported as having been a heavy drinker, on the day he was taken ill Alexander had been consuming large quantities of strong wine. Intense pain in the area of the stomach is a symptom of alcohol poisoning and unconsciousness is inevitable. Alexander did suffer stabbing pains in his stomach and was unconscious shortly after. If Alexander had suffered from the toxic effects of alcohol to the point where he was in excruciating agony, as is reported, then the lining of his stomach would have been so inflamed that he would also be vomiting violently and would not be able to hold down food or liquid for many hours or even days. If Alexander was a chronic alcoholic, as has been suggested, then this condition would be extremely serious. Unable to hold down any alcohol, Alexander would soon suffer from dangerous withdrawal symptoms.

Serious alcoholics suffer severe withdrawal symptoms known as delirium tremens, or DTs for short. Unless the alcohol intake is lessened gradually, or substituted by modern drugs, the person experiences fevered agitation, extreme anxiety, delirium, hallucinations and severe trembling. Moreover, delirium tremens also include grand mal seizures that sometimes lead to death. All of these, or similar symptoms, seem to have been suffered by Alexander. However, as DTs occur because the body has been denied the alcohol it has become dependent upon, they do not begin until enough alcohol has left the system – usually not for twenty-four hours or more. Even with an extremely high metabolism, DTs would not occur until at least six hours after the last drink; and even then they would be the less severe effects, such as anxiety, agitation and some shaking. The more extreme conditions - delirium, hallucinations and seizures - would not occur until many hours later. However, Alexander was suffering from all these symptoms the night he was taken from the banquet. In fact, the trembling and agitation are recorded while he was still drinking. Whatever Alexander was suffering from on the night of the banquet it was not DTs, and alcohol poisoning itself would not cause such symptoms. Alcohol poisoning either results in complete unconsciousness or a state of stupor in which the nervous system is dangerously sedated for hours: the victim is in precisely the opposite condition to one which would produce the writhing seizures and delirium which Alexander is said to have suffered. In fact, the major effect of alcohol poisoning is continual vomiting. Death often results from the victim choking on their own vomit or, in the days before intravenous drips, from dehydration. Even though Plutarch does say that Alexander suffered a violent thirst on the night he was taken ill, not once does he or any of the other historical sources once mention vomiting or even nausea as one of Alexander's symptoms.

A new theory proposed in 2003 by two U.S. scientists, John Marr, an epidemiologist at the Virginia department of health, and Charles Calisher of Colorado State University, proposed that Alexander had died of West Nile Virus. One of the main features of the West Nile virus is that it begins with weakness of the muscles which Alexander does not appear to have suffered from. In fact, most damming to the theory is that, as Massimo Galli of the University of Milan pointed out, "West Nile Virus is a relatively young virus and reduces the probability of incidental infections of humans before 1,000 years ago."

 

[Shaitan]

 

[civfanatic]

^^ Those poor Macedonians. They traveled all those thousands of kilometers just to be greeted by raging, drunken elephants.

Alexander's Indian campaign represents the perfect anti-climax.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Alexander the Great - Route From India - Awesome Stories

ALEXANDER THE GREAT - ROUTE FROM INDIA

 

[Shaitan]

The Greeks minted coins commemorating Alexanders India campaign. Very rare, because it was made close to the time of the battles.

 

[Shaitan]

1:08

 

[Shaitan]

The Mir Zakah coin, believed to be the only lifetime portrait of Alexander the Great, clearly shows both the horn of Amon—indicating his status as a god—and the elephant scalp and the aegis that symbolized the divine intervention that won him victory at the Hydaspes River. With this artifact, for the very first time, we in the modern world can see Alexander as he saw himself. Ptolemy merely copied what his former sovereign had already coined.

 

[Shaitan]

 

[Shaitan]