Alexander the Great Invades India

[civfanatic]

N.W. India is a different story..

These are Gandhara reliefs. I have seen scale armor many times from them.

Their soldier's layout, much like their culture, is a mix of Indian, Greek, etc.

Porus was the ruler of Gandhara, Shaitan. His kingdom was located in NW India, and it was only in NW India that Alexander fought Indian armies.

So again, is that illustration you posted historically accurate?

 

[Shaitan]

Porus was the ruler of Gandhara, Shaitan. His kingdom was located in NW India, and it was only in NW India that Alexander fought Indian armies.

So again, is that illustration you posted historically accurate?

I should have worded it better. You start to see armor popping up more after heavy foreign invasions/influence. Post-Greek, etc.

So again, is that illustration you posted historically accurate?

It's hard to say. Because we dont have a lot of art from pre-Greek N.W. India. So the artist uses styles from N. India, E. India, etc.

I'm willing to say it is.

You can see armor popping up in that region, because they were in contact with westerners. But I do believe they used tunics more than other Indians.

 

[Tolaha]

Porus was the ruler of Gandhara, Shaitan. His kingdom was located in NW India, and it was only in NW India that Alexander fought Indian armies.

So again, is that illustration you posted historically accurate?

Porus was one of the kings ruling a region in Punjab.

 

[civfanatic]

It's hard to say. Because we dont have a lot of art from pre-Greek N.W. India. So the artist uses styles from N. India, E. India, etc.

I'm willing to say it is.

Do you think the lack of armour by the Indian troops played a major role in their defeat, Shaitan?

Porus is generally believed to have been defeated by Alexander, but the Greeks in NW India were later defeated by Chandragupta Maurya. In addition, an attempted invasion by Seleucus Nicator was also repelled. It's hard to believe that such military victories were achieved by troops fighting half-naked, although the artwork you posted seems to indicate that.

Porus was one of the kings ruling a region in Punjab.

That's what I meant, saar.

 

[Shaitan]

Do you think the lack of armour by the Indian troops played a major role in their defeat, Shaitan?

Porus is generally believed to have been defeated by Alexander, but the Greeks in NW India were later defeated by Chandragupta Maurya. In addition, an attempted invasion by Seleucus Nicator was also repelled. It's hard to believe that such military victories were achieved by troops fighting half-naked, although the artwork you posted seems to indicate that.

I honestly tried to look for armor from the ancient period. From their art work. But I haven't found none so far.(doesnt mean it didnt exist there though) Plus there isn't a lot of art work from that period and rarely do they show anything about the military.

I do believe Chandragupta, Kharvala, etc would have stood a chance against the westerners. Chandra already proved it. Those masses of troops can still be tough to defeat I guess.

Guptas probably did use armor similar to the Kushans.

 

[civfanatic]

I honestly tried to look for armor from the ancient period. From their art work. But I haven't found none so far.(doesnt mean it didnt exist there though) Plus there isn't a lot of art work from that period and rarely do they show anything about the military.

I don't think we can assume too much from artwork. There is one famous carving from Andhra (Amaravati) of a king, often thought to be Ashoka:

Notice that the king is wearing very little besides a dhoti. But this doesn't mean clothing wasn't available for royalty to wear. The same logic can also be applied to depictions of soldiers and armour. However, I do agree with you that armour probably became more prevalent and more widely produced after c.4th century B.C.E., due to military necessity (frequent invasions and border conflicts) as well as the rise of great Indian empires (Mauryas).

I do believe Chandragupta, Kharvala, etc would have stood a chance against the westerners. Chandra already proved it. Those masses of troops can still be tough to defeat I guess.

Guptas probably did use armor similar to the Kushans.

The Persian defeat in the Greco-Persian Wars a few centuries before Alexander showed that masses of lightly-armored troops can be defeated by a smaller number of heavily-armored, disciplined troops. Even if we assume the Greeks exaggerated the size of Persian armies, it's still amazing how the Persians were unable to subdue Greece, given how large and powerful they were. The difference in the quality of Greek and Persian troops must have been an important factor. Later, the Persians themselves acknowledged this and recruited large numbers of Greek mercenaries.

My personal opinion is that Chandragupta Maurya was a highly charismatic leader who recruited and brought together many different kinds of troops from diverse groups of people. Just like how Hannibal led a very diverse army consisting of Libyans, Numidians, Iberians, Gauls, etc., I believe Chandragupta also led a very diverse army consisting not only of Indians, but also Persian refugees, Bactrians, Kambojas, and probably some Greeks too. Each of these groups had their own strengths and specialties, and Chandragupta may have used them in combination to make an effective and balanced army. Something like: recruiting heavy infantry from the Greeks, heavy cavalry from the Persians and Bactrians, light cavalry from the Kambojas, etc, while relying on Indians for the bulk of the infantry and archers (and elephants). Even Alexander did a similar thing towards the end of his campaign; as he was running out of Macedonian troops he began recruitng Persians, Bactrians, Scythian horse archers, etc. into his army.

I definitely think Chandragupta and Chanakya did some novel and innovative things. I doubt the Mauryas would have been so successful if they simply stuck to tradition.

 

[Shaitan]

^^^

This style is pretty much what the emperors, high class, etc wore. You see Guptas wearing more Kushan influenced stuff along with the native clothing as well later on.

This style repeats over and over and over again. Not just in that relief. And not just in one region. So it's obvious that's the style that was preferred.

Even in Gandhara where they had very mixed influence stuck to this style mostly. Obviously little more mixed looking though.

My personal opinion is that Chandragupta Maurya was a highly charismatic leader who recruited and brought together many different kinds of troops from diverse groups of people. Just like how Hannibal led a very diverse army consisting of Libyans, Numidians, Iberians, Gauls, etc., I believe Chandragupta also led a very diverse army consisting not only of Indians, but also Persian refugees, Bactrians, Kambojas, and probably some Greeks too.

He did that from the very start. But so did the Persians as well.

 

[Shaitan]

If you guys think ancient Indian royalty wore something like this, you're very wrong. Above is a mixture of many styles. Mostly stuff outside of India mixed with local things.

North, etc India lost a lot of it's original styles because of central asians ,etc.

A lot of the South Indian medieval kingdoms that seems to look different in terms of architecture, clothing, etc are ones that retained ancient Indian styles.

 

[Shaitan]

High quality turban, high quality 'Dhoti', and high quality jewelry.

Torso is exposed.(male and female)

<--- that's pretty much indigenous ancient, pre medieval(mostly) Indian royalty.


You do see torso being covered from time to time. Maybe depending on weather.

 

[Shaitan]

Gupta emperors clothing

Classical indigenous styles

Kushan influenced styles

I'm sure they were one of the first to absorb military concepts from westerners as well.(in a big way)

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Alexander The Great in India at Jhelum with Porus, the Indian rajah

Treated Like A King


The greatest battle of Alexander the Great was fought in India at Jhelum. The Indian infantry attacked with 20,000 men and 130 elephants. The trumpeting, ferocious elephants were defeated at great cost to Alexander.

Porus, the Indian rajah, led the final elephant charge in person. He lost more than 12,000 troops while trying to stop the Macedonian phalanx; both of his sons were also killed in battle. Porus was finally captured and brought to meet Alexander. Arrian, the Roman historian, described the meeting:

"Alexander, informed of his approach, rode out to meet him, accompanied by a small party of his Companions. When they met, he reined in his horse, and looked at his adversary with admiration: he was a magnificent figure of a man, over seven feet high and of great personal beauty; his bearing had lost none of its pride; his air was of one brave man meeting another, of a king in the presence of a king, with whom he had fought honourably for his kingdom.

"Alexander was the first to speak. 'What,' he said, 'do you wish that I should do with you?'

"'Treat me as a king ought,' Porus is said to have replied.

"'For my part,' said Alexander, pleased by his answer, 'your request shall be granted. But is there not something you would wish for yourself? Ask it.'

"'Everything,' said Porus, 'is contained in this one request.' The dignity of these words gave Alexander even more pleasure, and he restored to Porus his sovereignty over his subjects, adding to his realm other territory of even greater extent." (The Campaigns Of Alexander, p. 281).

 

[Raj30]

Did Alexander really defeat Indian Kings? | Printable Science articles and Quizzes for kids
Did Alexander really defeat Indian Porus?

There is a controversy on battle between Alexander (Macedonian) and Indian Porus, one of his last battles before he died . While history (legend) says that Alexander won the hard fought battle, some scholars and experts argue that Greeks turned the tale around to hide Alexander's first defeat, which forced him to leave the plans to move further into Great India. It's even more surprising to find out that Plutarch wrote Alexander's biography over two hundred years after Alexander's death using oral legends as his source.
Alexander's quest to conquer the entire world started in 335 B.C . It's 326 B.C spring time that he entered India "the land of milk and honey", for invasion. He set to battle with Porus, the ruler of the kingdom Paurava situated between the rivers Hydaspes (modern Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab). Its capital may have been at the site now known as Lahore, assisted by Porus arch rival Ambi of Taxila.

The legend : (According to History)

The Porus were outnumbered and outclassed by the Macedonian army. A wounded king Porus surrendered only after the destruction of his entire army.The Indian leader accepted his defeat. When Alexander asked him how he wanted to be treated, he gave the famous reply 'as a king'. An impressed Alexander reappointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom. Porus received additional territories to the north of his kingdom which belongs to Ambi . Alexander moved down to conquer more Indian territories .When the armies reached the Beas, they were tired and homesick. So they refused to proceed any further.This rebel forced Alexander to giveup the quest and divided army into two parts to reach home. On his way back, Alexander died in 323 B.C.at an early age of 33 at Babylon near Baghdad.
The controversy :
In the 1960, an Indian scholar named Buddha Prakash argued, basing himself on the famous medieval epic named Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi, that Alexander was defeated' by Porus, that the two men became friends, and that this explained why Alexander left him so much territories. So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin? So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Let's see the two famous conspiracy theories put forth by some famous scholars :
Theory 1 : Alexander gave up to battle rest of India"¦.
Alexander won on Porus with utmost difficulty. Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, "Like a king" – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander's admiration. Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi's Taxila. Alexander made mistake by asking Porus "What it would take to win the rest of India?" in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom. As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander's generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces? And so army revolted against continuing for this reason but not for "homesick" as told in history.
Theory 2: Alexander lost to Puru.

Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru. So there's Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. Alexander suffers a wound to the side. They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split . Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great The two "small" kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. leaving true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake.
What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. A shrewd politician, like Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. All these suggest that Alexander's campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. Alexander even resorted to pure and simple cheating to win some places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army.
With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. King Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander's warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.

 

[Decklander]

Alexander was defeated by Porus is a long known truth. The Greeks tasted the might of Indian wootz steel swords for the first time when they fought Porus. The wootz steel tipped arrows of porus's army went thru the armour of greeks like a hot knife goes thru butter. An army of 20k of Porus fought an army of 140k greek army which was divided into two parts, one which stayed put on the other bank of Jhelum and the other which crossed Jhelum with Alexander and attacked Porus. In that fight, Greeks lost over 50k men while Porus lost around 16k of which 5k were killed when his son went to engage this formation which had crossed Jhelum with Alexander mistaking it to be a small force. Alexander than ran away to Ambhi with rest of his army and Porus was left with no more army to pursue him or fight his balance of troops which were on the other bank of Jhelum. It was than that a peace treaty was struck between Porus and Alexander which allowed Porus to take over Taxila from Ambhi King. Porus disliked the King of Ambhi and he had even offered to end their bitter rivalry if Ambhi agreed to fight Alexander. But Ambhi king chose otherwise and thought that he cud use Alexander to defeat and take over the Kingdom of Porus. Army of Ambhi fought alongside Alexander. Imagine if Ambhi and Porus had joined hands, Alexander wud have been killed in India itself.
Can anyone here ever quote any example from history wherein the defeated King imposes a penalty/condition and gets more land as a result of this? Alexander and his army were devastated in this battle and than he got the news that other 16 kingdoms have united against him and have a combined army of over 600k waiting for him shud he decide to attack Porus again to get deeper into India. It was than that his forces revolted and he was so scared with this news that he asked for a safe passage from India without having to enter India and took the Indus river route to go back from where he came.

 

[SPIEZ]

To think of it, what would have happened if the Khyber Pass was closed by Indian kings.

 

[Decklander]

To think of it, what would have happened if the Khyber Pass was closed by Indian kings.

That is what Ambhi was supposed to do but he joined hands with Alexander. The Ambhi kingdom also called Gandhara comprised what we now call NWFP and extended upto Kabul. It is here that you have Khyber Pass.

 

[civfanatic]

To think of it, what would have happened if the Khyber Pass was closed by Indian kings.

How do you "close" a natural, geographic feature? What if Indian kings went on a genocidal rampage in Central Asia and flooded it with colonists from Gangetic plains? That would have been easier to do than "closing" Khyber Pass.

Actually, both the Russians and Chinese (Qing dynasty) did something similar to stabilize their Central Asian frontiers, in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[SPIEZ]

How do you "close" a natural, geographic feature?

Close like what the Greeks had done during the war of Thermopylae.

Where famously 300 men defeated more than 10,000 men.

What if Indian kings went on a genocidal rampage in Central Asia and flooded it with colonists from Gangetic plains? That would have been easier to do than "closing" Khyber Pass.

More bothered about the Indian Sub continent than Central Asia.

Actually, both the Russians and Chinese (Qing dynasty) did something similar to stabilize their Central Asian frontiers, in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The Chinese were able to build a great wall to keep out the intruders.
We had a natural wall, the Himalayas, if we could have defended it properly, there is no telling how history could have been reshaped.

 

[The Fox]

The topic of this thread is so very old say by almost 2000 years behind the topic sounds like the Postal letter which you were supposed to get almost 20 year back and got it now.......... alexander-great-invades-india

 

[civfanatic]

Close like what the Greeks had done during the war of Thermopylae.

Where famously 300 men defeated more than 10,000 men.

Greeks lost Thermopylae, and the Persians burned Athens to the ground. The Greek historians probably exaggerated the number of Persian dead to make themselves feel better.

Anyway, I don't understand what you are saying Indian states should have done. Do you think they just allowed foreign invaders to pass through their lands, without any resistance? There were probably numerous battles fought around the Khyber Pass throughout history. But numerous times, the invaders were able to break through. If any Indian state or a coalition of Indian states gathered enough forces to repel an invading force at the Khyber Pass, or at any other key strategic pass like the Bolan Pass, it would be just a temporary victory. All states and nations rise and decline; sooner or later a new Central Asian horde would emerge and defeat the weakening Indian states or coalition of states. Since Central Asian peoples are nomadic in nature, populations on India's NW frontier were always in flux and the frontier was seldom stable.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. There had be a permanent solution to the problem, not just a temporary "closing" of the pass by an Indian army. One cannot expect an Indian state to maintain constant vigilance over these strategic passes for all of eternity.

More bothered about the Indian Sub continent than Central Asia.

Probably because India itself was divided into numerous states. Only a centralized pan-Indian empire with unquestioned dominance over the subcontinent could afford to look towards Central Asia. But throughout Indian history, there have been few of those. Only the Mauryas and Mughals ruled over what is now Afghanistan, and both attempted to expand their influence into Central Asia through various means, with varying degrees of success.

The Chinese were able to build a great wall to keep out the intruders.
We had a natural wall, the Himalayas, if we could have defended it properly, there is no telling how history could have been reshaped.

I am not talking about China's northern frontier with the Mongols but rather its far western frontier. Read through this:
Ten Great Campaigns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Qing Chinese dealt with the nomadic powers encroaching on their frontiers by destroying the nomads completely and utterly, in their home territories.

 

[SPIEZ]

Greeks lost Thermopylae, and the Persians burned Athens to the ground. The Greek historians probably exaggerated the number of Persian dead to make themselves feel better.

The Greeks were a scattered force back than. They were never a total force, they were a group of different forces fighting together.

The Greeks lost after the Persians had surrounded them from the back as well, after a naval group also landed. But correct me if I m wrong, anyway it was a battle of David vs Goliath.