Alexander the Great Invades India

GPM

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,507
Likes
522
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.
Don't believe those stories of oppression by Pusyamitra. They were written 200 years after his death. Even Romila Thapar discounts them. Mind you, she is one who sees a Hindu murderer every where. Wonder how she is able to sleep.

This was the period which saw a spurt in art, literature, philosophy and sceinces.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
The Gordian Knot - Alexander The Great - Gordius - Alexander - Gordian Knot

The Gordian Knot


In Greek legend, the Gordian knot was the name given to an intricate knot used by Gordius to secure his oxcart. Gordius, who was a poor peasant, arrived with his wife in a public square of Phrygia in an oxcart. An oracle had informed the populace that their future king would come riding in a wagon. Seeing Gordius, the people made him king. In gratitude, Gordius dedicated his oxcart to Zeus, tying it up with a peculiar knot. An oracle foretold that he who untied the knot would rule all of Asia.

Many people tried to undo the knot but all to no avail.

In 333 B.C. Alexander the Great had invaded Asia Minor and arrived in the central mountains at the town of Gordium; he was 23. Undefeated, but without a decisive victory either, he was in need of an omen to prove to his troops and his enemies that the outcome of his mission - to conquer the known world - was possible.

In Gordium, by the Temple of the Zeus Basilica, was the ox cart, which had been put there by the King of Phrygia over 100 years before. The staves of the cart were tied together in a complex knot with the ends tucked away inside.

Having arrived at Gordium it was inconceivable that the young, impetuous King would not tackle the legendary "Gordian Knot".

Alexander climbed the hill and approached the cart as a crowd of curious Macedonians and Phrygians gathered around. They watched intently as Alexander struggled with the knot and became frustrated.

Alexander, stepping back, called out, "What does it matter how I loose it?" With that, he drew his sword, and in one powerful stroke severed the knot.

That night there was a huge electrical storm, which the seers conveniently interpreted to mean the gods were pleased with the actions of this so-called Son of Zeus who had cut the Gordian knot.
 

GPM

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,507
Likes
522
Shows sword his favourite tool. Would he have held it back from applying to Puru? NO.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Shows sword his favourite tool. Would he have held it back from applying to Puru? NO.
Would you please explain why you think so? Also, what is your hypothesis? What do you think happened?

The way I see it is that just because Alexander cut a knot doesn't mean he would have used it again Puru even if he could. I slice vegetables everyday with my knife, would that imply I would slice someone's throat?

Help me understand.
 

GPM

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,507
Likes
522
Vegetables are meant to be chopped, knots for untying with hands applying brains.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Chanakya: From novels to big screen - Lifestyle - DNA

Chanakya: From novels to big screen

The exploits of Chanakya, the master strategist of ancient India, can soon be seen on the big screen.

UTV Motion Pictures has acquired the rights to novelist Ashwin Sanghi's book Chanakya's Chant, a fast-paced story based on politics in two radically different eras.

The book, published by Westland in January, narrates two parallel political tales - Chanakya's puranic Bharat 2300 years ago and post-independence contemporary India.

While the ancient story is largely historical, based upon Chanakya's rise to power and the clever tactics applied by him towards installing Chandragupta Maurya on the throne, the modern story is mostly fictional and tells the tale of Kanpur's Pandit Gangasagar Mishra who draws inspiration from Chanakya and employs his strategies in a modern context to get his protegee Chandini Gupta appointed to the highest office in India.

"'Chanakya's Chant' has huge scope for a film. It has a cinematic story and great role for actors," says UTV Motion Pictures CEO Siddharth Roy Kapur.

"Lot of filmmakers have shown interest in the project. We are right now figuring out who should write the screenplay. Once that takes place, other things like choice of actors and music will follow," Kapur told PTI.

He hopes that Chanakya's Chant has the ingredients of the next big political drama after Raajneeti.

Sanghi is more than delighted.

"UTV is known to have produced differential cinema across genres, and I am confident that they will do complete justice to the plot of the book. This novel combines history and politics and given that they've been involved in both Jodhaa Akbar as well as 'Raajneeti', I think they are ideally suited for Chanakya's Chant, the author says.

He sees his book as delicately balancing the ancient and the modern.

"The transitions between the historical track and the contemporary track are crucial. I would hope that the fundamental DNA of the book is maintained and that the essential wit and charm of the story is preserved. I am extremely excited about this project and eagerly waiting to see the book manifest into a movie.

"The movie will reach a much wider audience apart from the people who loved the book," says Sanghi, whose debut work The Rozabal Line, a thriller swirling between continents and centuries, was compared to The Da Vinci Code by critics.

According to Sanghi, UTV is contemplating one actor who could play both roles of Chanakya and Gangasagar Mishra, and it will definitely be someone significant in the industry.

"Each of these two characters is hugely difficult to pull off thus it would need to be someone of incredible capabilities to carry off both roles."

Sanghi chose Chanakya because "so little is actually known about him." According to him, the name Chanakya is not mentioned even once in the Arthashastra.

While watching all the 47 episodes of the famous TV series on Chanakya, directed by Chandraprakash Dwivedi in the nineties, Sanghi was struck by the many of the political strategies described that could easily be adopted in modern-day political drama.
 

GPM

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,507
Likes
522
Chanakya does mention Ambhi and Puru. He had the latter assissinated as he was stubling block in westward expansion of the Maueyan empire. But he hardly mentions Alexandar. In fact Alexandar is hardly noticed by other contemporary writers. Had Alexandar invasion been a catacismic event he would surely find some mention. Shows that Alexandar's invasion was treated just as a foray by a border brigand, and brigands are not mentioned copiously.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
..:: ATOPIA - the polylogic e-zine ::.. - Alexander's India: terra incognita as propaganda

Alexander's India: terra incognita as propaganda

The ancient Greeks located the end of the world in India as the very East of Asia. Philosophers like Aristotle wrote that there was nothing behind this frontier anymore but the okeanos, the great sea that surrounded the whole world (Hahn 2000, 11). So, unknown India became in the eyes of the Greeks an enchanted fairyland, an adventurous place where strange creatures, exotic plants and legendary animals existed like the famous gold-digging ants that already Herodotus in the 5th century had heard about (3.102). This ant myth was handed down to the 4th century B.C.

India was thought to be a source of wealth and a kind of paradise, a tradition reflected in the Medieval Alexander Romance, where the king, transformed into a Christian emperor, set out on a pilgrimage.

The India Campaign

In 327 B.C. Alexander the Great started his Indian campaign after the conquest of Persia. He was not the first indeed. In the 6th century the Persian king Darius I had ordered to explore this unknown area and to establish a sea trade (Dihle 1998, 2-3). For Alexander the Indian war was a political necessity. First of all the legitimacy of the Macedonian king derived primarily from successes in campaigning. Alexander had to establish his position repeatedly with military triumphs and conquests. The opposition of the Macedonians against his new representation and policy as a king of Asia after the conquest of the Persian empire had increased and was a serious threat to his authority. Alexander had to continue his march, carry on the war and keep his men busy to avoid a widespread inner revolt. Moreover by adapting the Persian kingship he had taken over the duty to secure the Eastern borders of the empire and to establish his reign over the Indian satrapies following the example of the Achaemenid kings. He could not take the risk to ignore the imperial tradition and to leave India unconquered.

Waging war on India he moreover wanted to establish his declining authority. Nevertheless, his contemporaries regarded the campaign as an ambitious adventure to expand his new empire to the very limits of the world. The Athenian orator Aeschines commented: "žMeanwhile Alexander had withdrawn to the uttermost regions of the North, almost beyond the borders of the inhabited world" (Against Ctesiphon 165). So the tales about Alexander's attempt to break on through to the end of the world were grounded on daily gossip of his very lifetime (Gunderson 1980, 5).

There can be no doubt that Alexander exploited the rumours for his propaganda. He had proved to be a master of creating his own myth in propagandist forms from the beginning of his reign on and he knew very well how to gain profit for his reputation as an invincible new Achilles from the ancient ideal of overcoming the present and conquer the whole world. This imperial claim was a traditional, nevertheless purely ideological feature of the ancient oriental kingship (Metzler 1975, 449) .

But Alexander's Indian campaign 327-326 B.C. developed to be all but a brilliant success. It was in fact a desperate struggle. The scientific staff he had taken with him to describe the unknown fauna and flora of the Eastern regions must have been disappointed with the real character of the adventure trip into the exotic paradise. The Indians turned out to be warlike fighters. Instead of undergoing thrilling adventures, Alexander and his exhausted army encountered great perils in fierce battles and succeeded only with heavy efforts and losses. Besides the toils and dangers the estrangement between the troops and Alexander because of his Asian kingship different from the traditional Macedonian became a serious problem. At the river Hyphasis the soldiers and their generals simply refused to follow their commander any further. It was a turning point in Alexander's career, and he himself regarded it as a major defeat. The wide gap between king and soldiers and the serious lack of support for his politics had become obviously.

Alexander was forced to give up his plans of a further invasion to the end of the world. He had to return to Persia. His authority had suffered a bitter blow and the hard fights against the Indian tribes of the kings Musicanus and Sambus, the Oreitans and the Mallians on the way back deepened the crisis. The Macedonian army showed a lack of discipline and motivation that led to a disaster while besieging the Malli town. Alexander was struck by an arrow and nearly lost his life.

The marvellous and the true

The severe setbacks and problems of the campaign had to be covered up for the public eye by the official Macedonian court propaganda. Alexander and his advisers made extended use of the possibilities terra incognita offered to them by legends and myths. They had met dangers and no fantastic creatures or gold treasures at all, but they did their best to conceal the disappointments. The Greek geographer Strabo complained that all who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvellous to the true (Geographika 2.1.9). Certainly he alludes to Alexander's original propaganda to glorify his struggle in the East. He created his own mystified version of the campaign, transforming it into a search for divine traces. To impress the Greek and Macedonian public the propaganda relied heavily on ancient Greek mythological traditions (Bosworth 1996, 125-126).

Alexander spread the rumour that he had visited the birthplace of Dionysus, the city of Nysa, mentioned already by Euripides and now discovered by the Macedonians in India. Alexander claimed that he had met the god's presence and nearly transformed into a new Dionysus. Arrian reports in his Anabasis: "žAlexander then was seized with the desire to see the place where the Nysaeans proudly displayed certain memorials of Dionysus... Then Alexander sacrificed there to Dionysus... Some have related that many of the ... Macedonians ... crowned themselves with the ivy, and were, on this invocation of the god, possessed by Dionysus..." (Anabasis 5.2.5-7). In Carmania he organized a dionysic procession "žin mimicry of the bacchic revelry of Dionysus, since there was a story about Dionysus, too, that after subduing India he traversed in this guise the greater part of Asia, Dionysus himself being surnamed Triumph'..." (Anabasis 6.28.1-2)

The message was clear: Alexander claimed to have surpassed the achievements of Dionysus as mythical first conqueror of India and that he was blessed by meeting his presence in Nysa. So the military and inner problems were hidden by propagandist rumours of godlike achievements and fantastic explorations. Arrian also points out the necessity for Alexander to create the belief that he had outdone his godly ancestor: "žhe wanted to believe the tale about the wandering of Dionysus... in which case he had already reached the point Dionysus reached, and would go even farther. He also thought that the Macedonians would not refuse to join him in still further efforts, in emulation of Dionysus' achievements" (Anabasis 5.2.1-2).

Alexander didn't miss the chance to proclaim that he had surpassed even his mythical ancestor Heracles because he had advanced further than Dionysus and Heracles. Arrian quotes Eratosthenes: "žHe says... that the Macedonians caught sight of a cave among the Parapamisadae and... spread the rumour that this was Prometheus' cave, where he had been chained, and that the eagle used to visit there, to feed on Prometheus' liver, and that Heracles, arriving at this same spot, shot the eagle and released Prometheus from his chains." (Anabasis 5.3.2-3) According to the legend Heracles had arrived at the shores of the great okeanos and erected the Pillars of Heracles at the western limits of the world. Alexander claimed to emulate him and promoted the belief that his achievements invited comparison with Heracles' deeds.

Craterus' Letter

The creating of myths concerning terra incognita in India was not in fact the prerogative of Alexander. Strabo mentions a letter of Craterus, one of Alexander's leading generals, to his mother Aristopatra in the Macedonian homeland, "žwhich alleges many other strange things and agrees with no one else, particularly in saying that Alexander advanced as far as the Ganges. And he says that he himself saw the river and monsters in its banks and a magnitude both of width and of depth which is remote from credibility rather than near it." (Geographika 15.1.35).

Despite the theory that this miracle-letter was merely a later fabrication, a piece of pseudepigrapha to support the legend that Alexander reached the Ganges (Gunderson 1980, 121-122), it was probably based on historical grounds. Craterus was confronted with a severe setback in his career during the Indian campaign and needed to counteract by every means. He had shown his opposition to Alexander's orientalizing policy too obviously and got into a heavy conflict with Alexander's closest friend and lover, Hephaistion. In consequence, he lost status and Alexander's favour. After the Indian campaign he received no honours like other generals who were given golden crowns. Moreover, Hephaistion got the responsibility for the majority of the troops. In 324 B.C. Craterus was appointed to lead the veterans back to Macedonia. Clearly, Alexander wanted to get rid of him and didn't shed a tear despite Arrian's comments (Müller 2003, 213-216).

Craterus' letter about alleged Indian monsters was certainly meant to be published. As the Macedonians in reality never approached the Ganges, the historians don't agree concerning the question whether Alexander knew about its existence and the way to the Persian Gulf, that Darius' expedition had discovered in the 6th century (Kienast 1965, 181). It is most likely that Alexander's geographical knowledge was very restricted and that Craterus' letter was interpolated later on to prove that the Macedonians had arrived at the riverbanks of Ganges. Nevertheless the basics of the letter were probably historical and reflected Craterus' struggle to regain status again. He certainly boasted with his Indian experiences and told some tales about strange Indian creatures there as Herodotus and Ctesias had done before him.

Strabo's critical comments on the incredibility of certain episodes of Alexander's Indian campaign reflects the method of the Macedonians and their king to exploit the common gossip about the legendary world so far only gods and heroes had approached to glorify their own achievements.

The afterlife of a myth

The elements of political propaganda still developed after Alexander's death. The Indian chapters of the Greek Alexander romance, a compilation of legends about the Macedonian king deriving from various traditions, can be regarded as a kind of summary of the Macedonian adventure tales on the foreign world. On his trip to terra incognita Alexander meets giants with hands like saws, fantastic creatures like the dog-headed or lion-faced men, man-eaters, the Six-Handers, headless humans, strange plants and animals, griffins, a huge crab with claws six feet long and a pearl in its shell and fleas the size of frogs. The Romance was very popular in the Middle Ages and influenced the common views on foreign places in general up to the Early Modern Times.

In Medieval literature and art the legends of Alexander's flight to heaven in a griffin-drawn chariot and about his exploration of the depths of the ocean in a glass vessel, an early type of submarine, were especially popular. These adventure stories served metaphorically as moral exempla and illustrated the dangers of pride: who soars with pride shall fall deep (Schmidt 1995, 33-38). The image of Alexander's aerial flight therefore was often depicted in Romanesque art on capitals in churches and monasteries.

Certainly the tales on legendary India went back to contemporary stories of Alexander's campaign. At the corner of the world in a strange country everything could happen and nobody in Macedonia or Greece could verify it. To sum up Alexander's mystifying exotic propagandist tales were at least a success in his afterlife and served to create a romantic tradition of his adventure trip to the Indian terra incognita particularly popular in the Middle Ages.

The fantasy stories couldn't indeed cover up the political problems in Alexander's lifetime. After his return from India he was faced with the consequences of his prolonged absence: revolts and disobedience had spread over his newly won empire and his reputation in Greece and Macedonia was bad, leading to increasing difficulties in recruiting soldiers and pages. The Greek philosopher Plutarch commented in his Life of Alexander: "žIn a word, restlessness and a desire for change spread everywhere." (Alexander 68.2-3). Alexander's satraps and generals hadn't expected his safe return. Encouraged by the belief that he was lost at the border of the world they had usurped great powers and were shocked by his sudden and – no doubt unwelcome – reappearance. Alexander reestablished his authority with severity: about seven satraps were executed. His treasurer Harpalus who had bestowed kingly honours on his lover Glykera, flew in panic to Athens and caused a diplomatic crisis in Alexander's empire.

As it were, no fairy tale about the traces of Dionysus and strange creatures in an exotic wonderworld could solve Alexander's political problems. But such stories served to lighten up his legend.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
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.

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.

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.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Map of the Empire of Alexander the Great - 334 to 323 B.C.

What happened to Alexander The Great's empire after his death?


Alexander the Great (Born: July 20, 356 B.C. Died: June 10 or 11, 323 B.C.), also known as Alexander III, was an ancient Greek king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 B.C.). He was one of the most successful military commanders in history and was undefeated in battle. By the time of his death he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.

Following the unification of the multiple city-states of ancient Greece under the rule of his father, Philip II of Macedon (a labor Alexander had to repeat because the southern Greeks rebelled after Philip's death), Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire, including Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria, and Mesopotamia, and extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Prior to his death, Alexander had already made plans for military and mercantile expansions into to the Arabian peninsula, after which he was to turn his armies to the west (Carthage, Rome, and the Iberian Peninsula). His original vision had been to the east, though, to the ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea, as described by his boyhood tutor Aristotle.

Alexander died in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon after twelve years of constant military campaigning. His early death may have been brought about by poisoning, typhoid fever or the consequences of alcoholism. His legacy and conquests lived on long after him, and ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence (known as the Hellenistic Age) over distant areas.
:
After his death in 323 B.C. Alexander's world-ruling empire was not passed on to one of his two sons nor was the unified kingdom ruled by others in his family. Instead, his kingdom was divided up between his four chief generals ("the four winds of heaven"):

In 321 B.C. Ptolemy took possession and eventually ruled Egypt (the southern part of the empire).

In 317 B.C. Cassander assumed the government of Macedon (Macedonia), the western part of the empire.

In 311 B.C. Seleucus took over Babylon and Syria (the eastern part of the empire).

In 306 B.C. Antigonus declared himself king of Asia Minor (the northern part of the empire). He was slain in battle in 301 B.C. and was succeeded by Lysimachus.

Soon after Alexander the Great's death his family came to a tragic end:

His wife Statira was murdered soon after his death by his other wife Roxana.

Alexander's brother Aridaeus who succeeded him was killed, together with his wife Euridice, by command of Olympias, Alexander's mother, after he had been king about six years and some months.

Olympias herself was killed by the soldiers in revenge.

Alexander Aegus, his son, together with his mother Roxana was slain by order of Cassander.

Two years later, his other son Hercules with his mother Barsine were privately murdered by Polysperchon.

Within fifteen years after his death NOT ONE
of Alexander's family or posterity remained alive!
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Thought Facet: Battle of the Jhelum

Battle of the Jhelum

Preface

It was an early June of 326 B.C. Both armies were huddled on either banks of the river 'Jhelum', the north-western outline of the house of Paurava's. Soon they were to fight a ferocious battle of all times. India at that time was divided into many small kingdoms & republics. They used to fight amongst each other frequently, many times for the territorial sovereignty. The king 'Ambhi' amongst them who was ruling the kingdom of 'Gandhar', the Indian borderland, succumbed to the Alexander. But his neighbor & enemy 'Puru', king of Paurava's, decided to forbid the advance of this foreign invader. He had a full confidence in his huge 'chaturang sena' but he was aware that sovereignty & independence of his kingdom spread between the river 'Jhelum' & 'Chenab' was at bet.

Alexander, the king of Macedonia having conquered whole of the Greece had already subdued many of the kingdoms from Africa & central Asia. He was under the impression that he will be at earth's edge once he will reach the river 'Indus'. When he subjugated the Persian Empire under 'Darius III', he came to know about the region 'Indica' across the river 'Indus'. The local Persians told him about splendor & wealth of the Indian kingdoms, rich & fertile northern plains & powerful 'Maharajas'. The mad Greek king with his ambition to conquer the world marched towards the Indian border.

Before the battle

Having 'Ambhi' in his pocket, there were two obstacles in front of Alexander. First was the river 'Jhelum' ( known as 'Hydaspes' to Greeks ) now swollen to the great extent due to monsoon & the other was the Puru's army guarding eastern bank of the river. Alexander knew that crossing the river in front of the opponent would be like a suicide especially considering bulge of the river. The enemy would have doomed the Macedonians before they reach other side of the river. The cunning commander planned to play his cards in a different manner. He moved his troops up & down side of the river during night. He also sent some of his men to the middle of the river inside & then brought them back. War trumpets were kept blaring purposely & troops themselves were made to make a lot of noise. The scenario continued for several nights. Puru's troops who were also moving accordingly from the eastern bank soon got fed up and gave up following a hostile from the other bank. They were baffled & couldn't judge the place from where enemy will cross the river. Alexander also spread a rumor that he is planning to withdraw his army & come back when the water level would be more manageable & let Indians became complacent & lethargic.

Under a cover of one dark, stormy night Alexander with a contingent of his army moved upward side of the river silently. Greeks left their tents as it is at their camp. Some of the force was also kept behind at the camp itself, exactly in front of Puru's army on the other bank, making him feel that it's a main Greek force. Soon he was to experience a surprise. When the dawn broke, Puru's scouts brought the information that Macedonians had
crossed a river. With an apparent main Greek force on the other bank in front of him, he thought that it must be a small platoon performing reconnaissance. Under the command of his son 'Puru junior' he sent a small troop of horsemen & chariots to handle the situation. Soon he regretted his decision. Small Indian troop was easily annihilated by the actual main Greek force managed to cross the river. Puru junior got killed. Indians now awakened, marched towards the enemy with all of their force. Looking at the tents on the other bank they also kept some of their force at the camp itself fearing landing of the Greeks at the rear end.

For diagrams one may refer the following link -
Battle of the Hydaspes River

Face off

Puru fielded his infantry at the centre with elephants in front of them while half of the cavalry was kept at each of the wing along with the chariots. Greek companion cavalry stood in front of the Indian left & phalanxes besides them were in front of Indian elephants. Alexander opened a battle with a heavy companion cavalry on his right flank. Puru's horsemen at his left wing were facing this attack. Apart from having numerical edge over Indian cavalry Macedonians were technically superior. They were guarded with metal greaves, armors, shields & helmets whereas Indians wore cotton turbans & held shields made up of hide which got easily punctured by Greek lances. Moreover, cushions or blankets tightly tied on a horseback gave better grip to Greek horsemen & horse archers & they proved accurate than their Indian counterparts who rode on bare horses. Well trained Greek cavalry arranged in successive lines performed superior than chaotic Indian cavalry & started retreating. Puru looking at his left wing getting collapsed decided to reinforce the same with a cavalry on his right flank leaving chariots as a guard for the right side. This proved to be a terrible mistake on Indian part. Alexander was the supreme General indeed. Reading these movements he changed strategies right at the battlefield. He asked his troop of Scythian horse archers to encircle the Puru's army & attack Puru's left wing from the rear end. Lumbering Indian chariots couldn't stop these troopers. Their wheels got bogged down in a swampy, soggy ground & were shot easily by Scythian arrows due to immobility.

By now, Indian armored elephants at the centre had started crumbling the Greek phalanxes. Many of the phalangites were lifted & flange by the trunks of the huge creatures. Others were trampled down under pillar like legs & some were impaled by tusks & iron spikes attached to the metal plates covering the tusks. While both of the Indian wings were being crushed, the situation was somewhat stabilized by these giant beasts. But now Greek infantrymen started stabbing elephant legs & eyes making them crazy with pains. They also shot many of the mahouts with their javelins. The trumpeting animals now mostly without mahouts fall back on Puru's infantry creating havoc. As such Indian infantry fighting with the support of the elephants had already started retreating. They could not stand their ground in front of the organized, disciplined phalanxes. Greek phalangites arranged in rows drilled their troops using drums & vanquished chaotic Indian infantry. They wore metallic armors, helmets & held 'sixteen feet long' spears (called 'Sarissa') along with the metal shield. Before Indian swords could reach their opponents, Sarissa's slew Indian soldiers without armors & helmets. Actually Indians had powerful huge bows 'five feet long '. To shoot their long arrows which could penetrate even the strongest of the armors, archer had to press the bow on the ground using his leg. But it had rained heavily the earlier night. Indian archers couldn't hold their bows on a swampy, sticky & slippery surface firmly, losing their accuracy. They lost the strongest weapon they had.

All this was no less when invaders hammered their final stroke. Encircling platoon of Scythian horse archers carrying light composite bows, attempting to traverse the Indians reached at the back of the Indian cavalry now gathered at the left wing. They were crushed between the companion cavalry from the front & horse troopers from the back. Indian horsemen were finished. Most of the elephants being cordoned by Alexandrian infantrymen were captured by now. With Indian pikes already annihilated Indian defeat became merely clear before the dusk fell. But Puru was not going to give up. Truly he was a man of courage. He had already lost his son & now his entire army was being shattered in front of him. Still the 'seven feet tall' graceful figure rode on the elephant kept on fighting valiantly. Wounded badly in the right shoulder & with his 'mahout' slain, finally he was captured by the enemy. When taken in front of Alexander & asked that how he wished to be treated, he famously replied 'As befits a king'. Alexander spared life of the king Puru for political reasons & assigned him as a 'Satrap' (Governor) of his own kingdom.

The battle was extremely difficult for the Alexander & probably the toughest one he had ever fought. Macedonians had never seen such lethal use of war-elephants here before. It is said that the situation was somewhat similar to infantry fighting with tanks. The fact that they pulled a victory was an aftermath of their tremendous discipline, bravery & off course their superb leader. The casualty figures & number of soldiers each of the opponents had, remains unknown. Some saying Puru's force contained 22000 infantry, cavalry, chariots & 200 elephants & Alexander equipped with 35000 soldiers & 11000 more on the other bank as a diversionary force. Some claim that Puru fielded approximately 40000 people with a contingent of 15000 Macedonians in front of him. Each of the references gives its own figures of casualty & number of combatants. It is better to leave the dispute for the historians.

Alexandrian retreat

Having defeated Puru, Alexander marched ahead towards the Indian heartlands but when he reached the river 'Beas', his soldiers refused to move forward. They heard about the powerful armies & elephant forces of the Indian kingdoms ahead. Rumors spread about the strange Indian weapons. Unwilling to face the elephants in the battlefield again, frightened soldiers simply rejected to go ahead. They had been away from their homeland for more than eight years. The men had done too much. Alexander hardly had any choice rather than to move back towards Greece. On his way back through the river Indus, kingdoms situated on the banks preferred to dispute his Advance than to surrender. Alexander himself got severely injured in one of those combats. We are not to discuss those battles. Over here it is sufficient to say that almost none of the kingdoms on the banks of the river 'Indus' spared him without a battle. Indian valor taught him an unforgettable lesson.

Undoubtedly, Alexander was one of the best commanders of all times. But his depiction as a 'conqueror of the world' is entirely untrue. Despite the fact that he didn't even turned towards countries like China, he could hardly manage to subdue small north-western strip of the Indian subcontinent. That too immediately got restored back after his death in 323 B.C. in Babylon. King Puru got assassinated after some years.

At last

'Battle of the Jhelum' is one of the earliest recorded battles of the Indian king with a foreign invader. It proved supremacy of 'disciplined, organized & professional full time army' over the 'troops of part time soldiers & peasants'. Importance of quick maneuvers of a mobile army was marked. Limitations of lumbering chariots got highlighted. Indian warfare underwent remarkable changes. Irrespective of military limitations Indians came to know that country broken into small kingdoms couldn't defend itself effectively from the foreign invaders. Probably that itself was the inspiration behind the revolution in 321 B.C. which gave rise to 'Maurya' dynasty.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Alexander the Great in the Punjab: a Photo Essay � New at LacusCurtius & Livius

Alexander the Great in the Punjab

In the autumn of 327 BCE, Alexander the Great had settled his affairs in Bactria and crossed the Hindu Kush mountains for the second time. Although he arrived in the city he had founded two years before, Alexandria in the Caucasus (modern Begram near Kabul), he was not returning home. Far from it: he wanted to invade the mysterious country of the Indus, which he believed to be on the eastern edge of the earth.

Today, a visit to the Swat valley is almost impossible, as it has been taken over by the Taliban. Maybe these photos are of some help. Bold links lead to pages with more photos.


Statuette of Aphrodite, from Begram (Afghanistan)


Preliminaries
Invading the Punjab was comparatively easy. There was an old road, called the Uttarāpatha ('the upper road'), which started in the country of the Upper Kabul, went through the Khyber Pass, and passed along the capitals of the Lower Kabul valley, the western and eastern Punjab, and finally reached Patna on the Ganges. The Macedonians would use this road, but realized that they had to cover their flanks.


Map of the valleys of the Kabul and Swat


In Nagarahara (the neighborhood of modern Jalalabad), a group of rajas offered their submission. They were not the first: a man named Ambhi, prince of the western Punjab, had already come to Bactria to subject himself to Alexander, and had asked the "son of Zeus" to help him fight against the ruler of the eastern Punjab. In Jalalabad, Alexander was recognized as avatar of the Indian god Vishnu, and he believed that the country had already surrendered to him. In other words: those who refused to obey Alexander, were traitors, and would be punished. This explains the extreme violence of the coming campaign.

In the first days of 326, the Macedonian army was divided into two columns. Perdiccas and Hephaestion took the largest group along through the Khyber pass and occupied PuskalāvatÄ«, "the city of lotus flowers", the capital of the Lower Kabul valley. The photo shows one of the two hills, and some Pathan boys looking for eggs in the nests of the birds. The site is covered with sherds, waiting for an archaeologist to investigate it. Not much later, this column reached the river Indus, and built a pontoon bridge across this mighty stream.

The Swat Campaign



The second column was commanded by Alexander himself. This army did not take the main road, but took a more northern route, to cover the flank of the main force. Alexander's men walked across the valleys of several tributaries of the Kabul. The first of these was the Kunar, where the native Aspasians were miraculously saved when it was discovered that the god Dionysus, one of Alexander's ancestors, was born on a nearby mountain (more"¦). There was strong proof for this claim: everywhere, the Macedonians saw ivy, and everybody knew that this was the symbol of Dionysus. It is likely that some cult of Vishnu lies behind this story.

Having terrorized the inhabitants of another city, Arigaion, Alexander entered the next valley along the dry bed of the river Wuch, where he laid siege to a town called Massaga, which is probably identical to the place that is now called Churchill's Picket. The siege lasted some time, but after an Indian mercenary leader had been killed, his men surrendered. Negotiations started and Alexander ordered the mercenaries to occupy a nearby hill. However, during the cease-fire, Alexander ordered his men to attack the Indians, explaining that he had granted them a safe-conduct to the hill, but had not granted them their lives. The city was captured immediately after, and Alexander appears to have had a brief relationship with the queen.
The lovely Swat valley was now open to the Macedonian armies. Alexander had already sent out two divisions, commanded by Coenus and Polyperchon, to attack two fortresses: Bazira and Ora. The first of these has been identified near modern Bir-Kot. It is a steep rock, and on many places, you can still see the walls and ditches that once surrounded the fortress. Catapult stones were also found. Ora, modern Ude-Gram, was even larger. Walls have been identified, but a proper excavation has not taken place.

Alexander's colonels were unable to capture Bazira and Ora, which were defended by the Assaceni, who felt little incentive to come to terms. After all, those who had surrendered at Massaga, had been killed. Besides, the fortresses were simply too high and too steep to storm. Even worse, a nearby Indian king sent reinforcements to Ora. Only when Alexander personally saw to the sieges, the fortresses were taken. At Ora, elephants were captured, and the Macedonians rapidly learned how to deal with these animals. The fate of the defenders is not recorded.

Through the Shang-La pass, even today not an easy road, Alexander's men proceeded to the valley of the Indus. A large group of Assaceni had taken refuge on a steep rock called Ä€várana, "hiding place". It was no less than 1500 meters high and would be hard to take. According to a local legend not even the god Krishna had been able to capture the fortress – which meant that Alexander had to try it.

There were two summits; the eastern one had an artesic well and was occupied by the Indians. Ptolemy managed to occupy the other summit with a small group of Macedonians, but when Alexander tried to reinforce this vanguard, he was unexpectedly attacked by the Assaceni. However, he managed to pass along them, and when the two Macedonian divisions were on the western summit, the final attack could begin. A dam had already been built across the valley between the two summits when the besieged surrendered. They were all massacred. Alexander had surpassed Krishna.

The Battle of the Hydaspes



A couple of days later, Alexander's army reached the other Macedonian army, and the united troops crossed the bridge and proceeded along the Uttarāpatha. Soon, they were in Taxila, the capital of the western Punjab. Actually, there are several ancient cities over there (Sirkap, Sirsukh, Rawalpindi, Islamabad), but the place that Alexander visited has been excavated on a place called Bhir Mound. The prince who had invited Alexander, Ambhi, now accepted the royal title and was from now on called after his city – in the Greek sources, he is called Taxiles. The Macedonians perfected their knowledge of the elephant and developed a weapon against it: a lance to which some kind of knife was added, useful to cut off trunks. They also understood that a phalanx, if it stayed close, had no reason to fear the big animals. There was some time to relax, and we know that at least one officer, Onesicritus, spent some time trying to meet the local saddhu's (non-Brahman wise men). This meeting of cultures, however, was not without difficulties: he had to make use of four translators – and that which he took to be the name of his new friend, Calanus, in Indian means something like "hello".

Alexander had promised the new king of the western Punjab to help him fight against the king of the eastern Punjab. As was customary, he was named after his city: Poro, or, as the Greeks said, Porus. His capital, Lo Poro, is probably identical to modern Lahore, and could be reached following the Uttarāpatha. The landscape, however, is hilly and uneven, and although the road itself appears to have had some sort of pavement, the soldiers must have hated it – especially because they had to carry the pontoons with them, which they had used to build a bridge across the Indus. Their complaints would soon force Alexander to take special measures.

Our sources present the clash with Porus as a big, decisive battle, but it was not. Alexander employed only one sixth of his army; lesser known battles like those at the Persian Gate and the Jaxartes were larger. Nor was the outcome in doubt: the king of Poro was an isolated raja, leader of a small part of the eastern Punjab. However, he held one trump card: Alexander would have to cross the river Vitaçtā (Hydaspes in Greek, modern Jhelum). This would be difficult under all circumstances, because the rivers in the Punjab are very wide; but the monsoon was early that year, and it would be impossible for mere humans to cross the rivers. A stand-off was possible, and would -against the avatar of Vishnu- be something like a victory.

However, Porus did not know that Alexander's men had carried the pontoons to the river. One night, Alexander moved through the hinterland to a place more upstream, where he managed to cross the river without being observed: it was raining too hard. When he encountered Porus' vanguard, the Indian chariots slipped away in the mud, and this was also the reason why the Indian archers could not employ their two-meter high bows – these terrible weapons, which could project spears instead of arrows, needed a stable point on the ground, but there was only mud. Alexander's phalanx, cavalry, and mounted archers, on the other hand, did not suffer from the rain, and they surrounded Porus' army, forcing the Indian infantry to move ever closer to their own elephants. The result was terrible: about two thirds of the Indian army was killed, and Porus was forced to surrender.

To the Edge of the Earth


Alexander founded a city on the battlefield, called Nicaea, "victory city". It must be very close to the city of Jhelum, where the Uttarāpatha crossed the river. A Buddhist source mentions Nicaea and its twin city, Bucephala, as stages along the road. The men who were left behind to build these cities, were also commanded to build ships. Alexander believed that he was now very close to the edge of the earth, and believed he would be back soon.

The Macedonian army proceeded now directly to the east, and no longer followed the Uttarāpatha, which would have brought them to the southeast, to Lahore and Amritsar. The other road, straight east, was less hot.

Still, the soldiers complained, and Alexander gave them a lot of money. The coins are splendid, and the sum he paid was a good one – but there was a catch. On the reverse, one could see Alexander himself, carrying a thunderbolt. In other words, he claimed to be the one who had created the lightning and rain that had made the battle against Porus so easy. The soldiers who accepted the money, at the same time accepted Alexander as their god – a battle theology with very serious implications. Within three years, Alexander would demand worship in the cities of Greece as well.

For the moment, the soldiers continued, and they did cross several new rivers, like the Ashkini, which the Macedonians called Acesines and is now known as Chenab. The Iravati (Hydraotes, modern Ravi) was no problem either, and the sack of a city called Sangala did not create any troubles too. The inhabitants were killed. But the soldiers were getting tired of the monsoon rains and complained that their weapons could no longer be refitted. When they reached the Vipäs (Hyphasis, modern Beas), and learned that between the river and the Ocean was the kingdom of Magadha, they refused to follow their king. Alexander gave in. It was mid-summer, and he must have expected a different thirtieth birthday.

To the south


Porus was still in Alexander's company, and was useful: he had already been isolated when he fought against Alexander, and he had lost his army, so he was dependent upon the Macedonian forces. This made him the perfect viceroy, and he received all country east of his own kingdom.

Alexander now went back to Nicaea, where his fleet was ready. Its commander was Nearchus. The army, about 100,000 men, was divided into three groups: one army for the left bank, one for the right bank, and one aboard of the ships. The native population surrendered well in advance of Alexander's arrival, except for the Mälava, or Mallians as the Greeks called them. When Alexander reached the northern border of their country, not far from modern Jhangsadar, he decided to break their resistance.

The ships were to continue to the south, and to wait at the confluence of the Ashkini and Iravati, which, back then, was at Shorkot. Of the remaining two groups, one would go straight to the east, and the other one (commanded by Alexander) would pass through a dry area and go to the southeast, to Kamalia. The people would be trapped: the main force would kill them all – and if they fled to the north or southwest, they would meet the other army or fleet, while the river Iravati would obstruct their flight to the southeast. At a ford in the river, Alexander killed the last refugees.

Nor was this the end of the genocide. A city that was known for its Brahmans was sacked as well. The killing of the holy men would send a shock wave through the Indus valley, and made sure that Alexander would encounter more resistance when he headed south.

For the time being, the merciless attack on the unarmed Mallians went on, and Alexander reached their capital, modern Multan, south of the point that Alexander had chosen for the rendez-vous with his fleet. Buddhist sources tell that there was an important shrine on a hill, which was surrounded by a wall, part of which still stands. When Alexander stormed the city, an Indian archer was able to use his dangerous weapon, and the large arrow hit Alexander in the sternum. He was unconscious when his soldiers sacked the city and killed the inhabitants.


What remains of Alexandria: an acropolis that is partly rebuilt and partly washed away
When Alexander regained consciousness, he was at the place that is now called "Head of the Punjab": the confluence of the five great rivers, almost six kilometers wide. He built a city, which is now known as Uch. The campaign through the Punjab had come to an end, and a new campaign, equally savage, was about to begin: the Macedonians had to fight their way to the Ocean against people who wanted to avenge the Brahmans and understood that Alexander was a human being, not an avatar of a god.

The violent intermezzo had no direct consequences: Porus was too weak and the Macedonian garrisons were too small to defend the region, and besides, Ambhi of Taxila still hated Porus. Violent resistance never ceased, and in 317, the latest Macedonian soldiers left the country. The destabilized region, which was still suffering from manpower shortage, was taken over by the king of Magadha, Chandragupta, who had copied Alexander's army tactics and founded the Maurya Empire. This new state was Alexander's most lasting legacy.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Alexander’s Conquest of India – A 2ndlook « 2ndlook

Alexander's Conquest of India – A 2ndlook


Alexander – Son of God

Alexander has long been a vital cog in Western history. Alexander's halo gave bragging rights – first to the Greco-Romans and then to the Euro-colonialists. The American Department of Defense, in its Legacy Program, has a section on Cultural Heritage Training. The use of Alexander's mythos there is self evident. Between the Greco-Roman historians and the Euro-Colonialists, has sprung an entire industry, to create a mythos surrounding Alexander.

The conquest of India, a super power then, by Alexander was seen as major victory. Much was made of this 'victory', as for most of history, India and China accounted for nearly half the world's economic output. Modern econometric modelling shows that for much of the last 1000 years (at least), India has been a significant economic power. Till the 1900, China and India, this analysis estimates, accounted for 50% of the world economy. Statistical analyses showed India with a world trade share of 25% for much of the 500 years during 1400-1900.

In modern times, within a short 70 years after British evacuation from India, the decline of the Britain has been slightly faster than the turn around in the Indian economy. Thus, Alexander's 'conquest of India' was the seminal point in Western history. Western time lines of Indian history are ante-post Alexander 'invasion' of India. Some Western historians seem to imply that Indian nationhood itself sprang from Alexander's conquest.

The Porus Red Herring

Modern Western historians use the 'Porus Red Herring' to claim conquest over all of 'India' – with a single victory against Porus! Indian political class is blamed for "dividing India into small kingdoms, which were hamstrung by infighting." But when one of these small kings (like Porus) is defeated, India is defeated. Colonial Western historians have maintained a uni-directional focus on the battle with Porus at Hydaspes – to draw attention away from the more glaring aspects of the hagiographic details of the Alexander's Indian conquest.

"Arrian and other writers clearly recount the special significance to Alexander of the victory in India. Later authors in the West continued to dwell upon the commemoration of this battle. Some of the accounts are quite unbelievable, but their very existence proves that the battle against Porus remained a popular subject in Greece and Rome for many centuries."


Western Colonial historians implied that after the Battle at Hydaspes, India became a Greek colony, due to the the loss in that one battle! Anyone in the world can have their lucky day – including Alexander! The one important question which is ignored was "Were the Greeks able to retain their Indian conquests?"

Within the next few years, Western history admits that the Indians kings won back all their losses – quite unlike the rest of Alexander's conquests. For instance the Sassanians, a true-blue Persian dynasty was able to retake Persia, in 223 AD, 500 years after Alexander, from the phil-hellenistic Parthians, who in turn were able to depose the Seleucids after 250 years – by 63 BC. Egypt, Greece never, of course, never recovered.

Accounting for the Porus Red Herring, further analysis of Alexander's actions, in fact, seem to show that Alexander aimed at patching up alliances with Indian rulers to secure his borders.

Reaction

Of course, Indians believe that all are वासुदेवाय कुटुम्बकम 'vasudevaih kutumbakam' and ईसा वास्यो मिदं सर्वं 'isa vaasyo midam sarvam' (meaning we are all God's family and God is in everyone and everywhere respectively). So, Alexander's claim that he was son of Zeus would not enthuse Indians – or strike as odd or strange.

Enigmatically, Indian archaeology, writers and history do not know of any Porus or much of Alexander's Indian campaign. Under the onslaught of a 'defeatist' version of Indian history by colonial historians, Indian nationalistic historians admit that at best, Alexander may have conquered some border districts of India. They ask "Why did Alexander's undefeated troops, after the Indian campaign, suddenly feel homesick?"

Nationalism apart, there are many reasons to examine the plausibility of Alexander's conquest of India? There are two interesting positions (for me) to examine. For one, it represented "the importance of Alexander as a positive paradigm for European expansionism in India" (from British Romantic Writers and the East By Nigel Leask). Alexander represented the 'triumphant West' over the 'muddling East.'

The other interesting aspect of the Western History is the Colonial device of the 'divided Indians.' This device overused the assumption that 'Indians always lost because Indians were divided – look at Ambhi versus Porus, Jaichand versus Prithviraj Chauhan, Mir Jafar versus Nawab ud Dowlah, Tipu Sultan versus the Marathas, et al.'

Alexander – Hagiography and /or Cultural Dacoity?


Th first step in the propaganda campaign was how a Balkan general, (Macedonian father and Albanian mother) from an obscure part of Eastern Europe, Macedonia, was Hellenized. Alexander, became a Greek conqueror of the world. It would be similar to the Chinese claim to Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire.

Since recent history of the Balkans has not been very glorious, Alexander was transported from the Balkans to the Mediterranean region – for propaganda purposes. Truth is, the contribution of the Greek soldiers and the Greek City States, was always a drag on Alexander – rather than a help. Alexander's release of Greek soldiers after Ecbatana, was also in response to the difficulties that Antipater was having in Macedonia with the Spartan revolt.

The mythos surrounding Alexander calls for serious questioning of the sources themselves. What and who are these sources?
Sources Of Alexander mythos



Our knowledge of Alexander therefore rests on histories produced long after the fact: a late first-century b.c.e. section of a world history written in Greek by Diodorus of Sicily; a Latin History of Alexander published by the Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus in the first century c.e.; a biography in Greek by Plutarch of Chaeronea, also produced in the first century c.e.; a history written in Greek by Arrian of Nicomedia sometime in the second century c.e.; and Justin's third-century c.e. Latin abridgment (Epitome) of a lost Greek secondary account by the first-century author Pompeius Trogus. Each of these five narrative treatments of Alexander's reign claims to be a serious work of history or biography, but all five contradict one another on fundamental matters and cannot be considered absolutely reliable unless somehow corroborated by other evidence. Beyond these texts, we have little except a compilation of legendary material known as the Greek Alexander Romance, a wildly imaginative work filled with talking trees and other wonders that later thrilled the medieval world. (from Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions By Frank Lee Holt).

400 years after Alexander's death, Arrian's hagiography is today seen by the Western world as the last word on Alexander. One man's word as history? Arrian, of Nicomedia (in modern Turkey, near Istanbul) patterned his own version of 'history' on Xenophon's Anabasis - a propaganda account of 10,000 Greek mercenaries. Arrian's version of history alleges that Alexander conquered India by defeating King Porus. This is the foundation on which Westerners have based their version of Indian history.

The (deliberate?) trickle of translated material from the Babylonian clay tablets, Astronomical diaries released in the last few years is, of course, filtered and edited, to raise suspicions about the charade of Western history.

Homesick troops – after 7 years of war

Greek 'historians' tell us that the main reason for Alexander's turning back was homesick soldiers. During the (nearly) half-year long siege of Tyre, Alexander received fresh troop reinforcements from Macedonia. Before his India 'campaign', at Ecbatana, Alexander cashiered thousands of his Greek troops who wished to return home. After the death of Darius, at Ecbatana (330 BC), to all the Greek officers, wishing to return home, Alexander awarded one talent of gold (approx. 25kg-60 kg).

Also at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed the allied Greek troops he had requisitioned thus far under the powers granted him by the Greek league. The official goal of the invasion, the destruction of the Persian empire in revenge for its attack on Greece, had now been achieved, so the official duties of these troops were fulfilled. (from Alexander the Great By Arrian, James S. Romm, Pamela Mensch)

At this stage, Alexander also inducted into his army, fresh Persian soldiers, trained in Macedonian style of warfare. Again, after his marriage to Roxanne, a further 10,000 Persian soldiers joined his army. Hence, the troops left with Alexander, were either fresh or those who decided to stay with Alexander.

Homesick "¦ or frightened?

The pleadings of Coenus, that Alexander's men, "long to see their parents, wives, and children, and their homeland again." were patently the cries of frightened soldiers. Once back in the folds of the secure Macedonian Empire, the same soldiers joined the mutiny at Opis. These Macedonian soldiers revolted when they were released by Alexander to return to Macedonia, demonstrates that reason for the revolt in India, was not home-sickness.

As per Arrian, the only 'victory' celebration by Alexander's troops was after the battle with Porus. Surprising – that Alexander's troops did not celebrate any victory, till the very end of the campaign. Was it, instead, a celebration that they had escaped with their lives?

After all, Alexander's horse, Bucephalus died during the Indian campaign. Before that, in the Battles with the Aspasioi /Asspassi, Alexander (along with Ptolemy and Leonnatos) was wounded. Again in the battles with the Gandaridae /Candaras /Gangaridae Gandridae and then the Massagaetae.

And – a soon after the revolt, he received a large contingent of cavalry and infantry - with military supplies and medicines, through Memnon, from Thrace. As Alexander retreated from India, a Mallian force attacked the Macedonian army. In this Mallian attack, Alexander was himself injured – and his very life was in balance for the next many weeks.

So, what frightened Alexander's army ?

326 BC was the year of the battle with Porus. After that battle, what possibly frightened Alexander's army was the 'information' that further from Punjab, lay places

"where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage"

And Plutarch tells us how Alexander's armies 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. (from The Life of Alexander, Plutarch, The Parallel Lives).

A hundred years later, terrorized Roman armies lost major battles against Hannibal and Pyrrhus. What about Pyrrhus and Hannibal frightened the Roman armies?

Elephants. That is what. War elephants.

Pyrrhus' army had elephants. That is what. Hannibal's elephants are better known. If 20 elephants of Pyrrhus, or Hannibal's 37, frightened the Romans so much, what happened to Alexander's army, when faced with 100s, if not 1000s of elephants, which were common in Indian armies.

To put that in perspective, Chandragupta Maurya had thousands – figures range between 5,000 to 9,000. And how many elephants did Porus' army have? 200 of them is the estimate by Greek hagiography.

War elephants in history

In the battle against the Massaga, resulting in the defeat and death of Cyrus, against Queen Tomyris, Indian elephants played a crucial role. Thereafter, Persians (then Zoroastrians) did not use elephants (considered evil by Zoroastrians). Possibly, the outcome against Alexander would have been different, had they used elephants.

The story of Semiramis, the Assyrian Queen and the Indian King Stabrobates by a Greek 'historian,' Ctesias (in Diodorus Siculus) is of interest. Apparently, foreign armies used 'faux' elephants to frighten enemies.

One of Alexander's generals, Seleucus Nicator traded in some part of his empire, for 500 elephants. In the ensuing Diadochi wars, at the decisive battle of Ipsus, it were these Indian elephants that gave Seleucus victory.

At this decisive battle of Ipsus, the Seleucid army fielded "the largest number of elephants ever to appear on a Hellenistic battlefield" which turned out to be, as a historian describes as the "greatest achievement of war elephants in Hellenistic military history." And Pyrrhus learnt his lessons, on using elephants in battle, at Ipsus.

What did the Persians tell Alexander "¦

Alexander's newly inducted Persian advisors would have filled him in, on how a few centuries ago, Semiramis, Queen of Assyria, and Cyrus the Great, two significant historical figures of the Levant, had failed against the Indians.

Both Cyrus the Great and Semiramis are the subject of many volumes and books written by the Greeks, Persians, Babylonians tablets, etc.

Alexander in fact is said to be eager to capture India precisely because two earlier conquerors-Semiramis and Cyrus-had failed to do so. Here it is worth noting, Alexander apparently views the legendary Assyrian queen as an historical figure, the equal of Cyrus the Great, and strives to outdo them both. (from Warrior Women By Deborah Levine Gera).

The Assyrians, whose trans-Asia Minor Empire and their legendary Queen Semiramis too, had failed in the Indian campaign with faux elephants. Cyrus The Great, too had met his nemesis, trying to conquer India (or an army with significant Indian component). A modernized version of Strabo's The Geography of Strabo reads,

Alexander "¦ heard that no one had hitherto passed that way with an army and emerged in safety, except Semiramis, when she fled from India. The natives said that even she emerged with only twenty men of her army; and that Cyrus son of Cambyses, escaped with only seven of his men "¦ When Alexander received this information he is said to have been seized with a desire of excelling Cyrus and Semiramis "¦ What credence can we place in these accounts of India "¦ Megasthenes virtually agrees. (from Alexander the Great By Ian Worthington – ellipsis mine).

The Indian elephant contingent had played a significant role in the win of Massaga Queen, Tomyris over Cyrus The Great and the Persians. Were the Massagas from Magadha? The other name for this tribe (referred to by the Greeks) against the Persians was the Derbices or Dahae. Was this name derived from the darbha grass, which Chanakya had used to swear the downfall of the Nanda kings?
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Alexander's Conquest of India – A 2ndlook � 2ndlook

Alexander's Conquest of India – A 2ndlook


Alexander – Son of God

Alexander has long been a vital cog in Western history. Alexander's halo gave bragging rights – first to the Greco-Romans and then to the Euro-colonialists. The American Department of Defense, in its Legacy Program, has a section on Cultural Heritage Training. The use of Alexander's mythos there is self evident. Between the Greco-Roman historians and the Euro-Colonialists, has sprung an entire industry, to create a mythos surrounding Alexander.

The conquest of India, a super power then, by Alexander was seen as major victory. Much was made of this 'victory', as for most of history, India and China accounted for nearly half the world's economic output. Modern econometric modelling shows that for much of the last 1000 years (at least), India has been a significant economic power. Till the 1900, China and India, this analysis estimates, accounted for 50% of the world economy. Statistical analyses showed India with a world trade share of 25% for much of the 500 years during 1400-1900.

In modern times, within a short 70 years after British evacuation from India, the decline of the Britain has been slightly faster than the turn around in the Indian economy. Thus, Alexander's 'conquest of India' was the seminal point in Western history. Western time lines of Indian history are ante-post Alexander 'invasion' of India. Some Western historians seem to imply that Indian nationhood itself sprang from Alexander's conquest.

The Porus Red Herring

Modern Western historians use the 'Porus Red Herring' to claim conquest over all of 'India' – with a single victory against Porus! Indian political class is blamed for "dividing India into small kingdoms, which were hamstrung by infighting." But when one of these small kings (like Porus) is defeated, India is defeated. Colonial Western historians have maintained a uni-directional focus on the battle with Porus at Hydaspes – to draw attention away from the more glaring aspects of the hagiographic details of the Alexander's Indian conquest.

"Arrian and other writers clearly recount the special significance to Alexander of the victory in India. Later authors in the West continued to dwell upon the commemoration of this battle. Some of the accounts are quite unbelievable, but their very existence proves that the battle against Porus remained a popular subject in Greece and Rome for many centuries."


Western Colonial historians implied that after the Battle at Hydaspes, India became a Greek colony, due to the the loss in that one battle! Anyone in the world can have their lucky day – including Alexander! The one important question which is ignored was "Were the Greeks able to retain their Indian conquests?"

Within the next few years, Western history admits that the Indians kings won back all their losses – quite unlike the rest of Alexander's conquests. For instance the Sassanians, a true-blue Persian dynasty was able to retake Persia, in 223 AD, 500 years after Alexander, from the phil-hellenistic Parthians, who in turn were able to depose the Seleucids after 250 years – by 63 BC. Egypt, Greece never, of course, never recovered.

Accounting for the Porus Red Herring, further analysis of Alexander's actions, in fact, seem to show that Alexander aimed at patching up alliances with Indian rulers to secure his borders.

Reaction

Of course, Indians believe that all are वासुदेवाय कुटुम्बकम 'vasudevaih kutumbakam' and ईसा वास्यो मिदं सर्वं 'isa vaasyo midam sarvam' (meaning we are all God's family and God is in everyone and everywhere respectively). So, Alexander's claim that he was son of Zeus would not enthuse Indians – or strike as odd or strange.

Enigmatically, Indian archaeology, writers and history do not know of any Porus or much of Alexander's Indian campaign. Under the onslaught of a 'defeatist' version of Indian history by colonial historians, Indian nationalistic historians admit that at best, Alexander may have conquered some border districts of India. They ask "Why did Alexander's undefeated troops, after the Indian campaign, suddenly feel homesick?"

Nationalism apart, there are many reasons to examine the plausibility of Alexander's conquest of India? There are two interesting positions (for me) to examine. For one, it represented "the importance of Alexander as a positive paradigm for European expansionism in India" (from British Romantic Writers and the East By Nigel Leask). Alexander represented the 'triumphant West' over the 'muddling East.'

The other interesting aspect of the Western History is the Colonial device of the 'divided Indians.' This device overused the assumption that 'Indians always lost because Indians were divided – look at Ambhi versus Porus, Jaichand versus Prithviraj Chauhan, Mir Jafar versus Nawab ud Dowlah, Tipu Sultan versus the Marathas, et al.'

Alexander – Hagiography and /or Cultural Dacoity?


Th first step in the propaganda campaign was how a Balkan general, (Macedonian father and Albanian mother) from an obscure part of Eastern Europe, Macedonia, was Hellenized. Alexander, became a Greek conqueror of the world. It would be similar to the Chinese claim to Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire.

Since recent history of the Balkans has not been very glorious, Alexander was transported from the Balkans to the Mediterranean region – for propaganda purposes. Truth is, the contribution of the Greek soldiers and the Greek City States, was always a drag on Alexander – rather than a help. Alexander's release of Greek soldiers after Ecbatana, was also in response to the difficulties that Antipater was having in Macedonia with the Spartan revolt.

The mythos surrounding Alexander calls for serious questioning of the sources themselves. What and who are these sources?
Sources Of Alexander mythos



Our knowledge of Alexander therefore rests on histories produced long after the fact: a late first-century b.c.e. section of a world history written in Greek by Diodorus of Sicily; a Latin History of Alexander published by the Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus in the first century c.e.; a biography in Greek by Plutarch of Chaeronea, also produced in the first century c.e.; a history written in Greek by Arrian of Nicomedia sometime in the second century c.e.; and Justin's third-century c.e. Latin abridgment (Epitome) of a lost Greek secondary account by the first-century author Pompeius Trogus. Each of these five narrative treatments of Alexander's reign claims to be a serious work of history or biography, but all five contradict one another on fundamental matters and cannot be considered absolutely reliable unless somehow corroborated by other evidence. Beyond these texts, we have little except a compilation of legendary material known as the Greek Alexander Romance, a wildly imaginative work filled with talking trees and other wonders that later thrilled the medieval world. (from Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions By Frank Lee Holt).

400 years after Alexander's death, Arrian's hagiography is today seen by the Western world as the last word on Alexander. One man's word as history? Arrian, of Nicomedia (in modern Turkey, near Istanbul) patterned his own version of 'history' on Xenophon's Anabasis - a propaganda account of 10,000 Greek mercenaries. Arrian's version of history alleges that Alexander conquered India by defeating King Porus. This is the foundation on which Westerners have based their version of Indian history.

The (deliberate?) trickle of translated material from the Babylonian clay tablets, Astronomical diaries released in the last few years is, of course, filtered and edited, to raise suspicions about the charade of Western history.

Homesick troops – after 7 years of war

Greek 'historians' tell us that the main reason for Alexander's turning back was homesick soldiers. During the (nearly) half-year long siege of Tyre, Alexander received fresh troop reinforcements from Macedonia. Before his India 'campaign', at Ecbatana, Alexander cashiered thousands of his Greek troops who wished to return home. After the death of Darius, at Ecbatana (330 BC), to all the Greek officers, wishing to return home, Alexander awarded one talent of gold (approx. 25kg-60 kg).

Also at Ecbatana, Alexander dismissed the allied Greek troops he had requisitioned thus far under the powers granted him by the Greek league. The official goal of the invasion, the destruction of the Persian empire in revenge for its attack on Greece, had now been achieved, so the official duties of these troops were fulfilled. (from Alexander the Great By Arrian, James S. Romm, Pamela Mensch)

At this stage, Alexander also inducted into his army, fresh Persian soldiers, trained in Macedonian style of warfare. Again, after his marriage to Roxanne, a further 10,000 Persian soldiers joined his army. Hence, the troops left with Alexander, were either fresh or those who decided to stay with Alexander.

Homesick "¦ or frightened?

The pleadings of Coenus, that Alexander's men, "long to see their parents, wives, and children, and their homeland again." were patently the cries of frightened soldiers. Once back in the folds of the secure Macedonian Empire, the same soldiers joined the mutiny at Opis. These Macedonian soldiers revolted when they were released by Alexander to return to Macedonia, demonstrates that reason for the revolt in India, was not home-sickness.

As per Arrian, the only 'victory' celebration by Alexander's troops was after the battle with Porus. Surprising – that Alexander's troops did not celebrate any victory, till the very end of the campaign. Was it, instead, a celebration that they had escaped with their lives?

After all, Alexander's horse, Bucephalus died during the Indian campaign. Before that, in the Battles with the Aspasioi /Asspassi, Alexander (along with Ptolemy and Leonnatos) was wounded. Again in the battles with the Gandaridae /Candaras /Gangaridae Gandridae and then the Massagaetae.

And – a soon after the revolt, he received a large contingent of cavalry and infantry - with military supplies and medicines, through Memnon, from Thrace. As Alexander retreated from India, a Mallian force attacked the Macedonian army. In this Mallian attack, Alexander was himself injured – and his very life was in balance for the next many weeks.

So, what frightened Alexander's army ?

326 BC was the year of the battle with Porus. After that battle, what possibly frightened Alexander's army was the 'information' that further from Punjab, lay places

"where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage"

And Plutarch tells us how Alexander's armies 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. (from The Life of Alexander, Plutarch, The Parallel Lives).

A hundred years later, terrorized Roman armies lost major battles against Hannibal and Pyrrhus. What about Pyrrhus and Hannibal frightened the Roman armies?

Elephants. That is what. War elephants.

Pyrrhus' army had elephants. That is what. Hannibal's elephants are better known. If 20 elephants of Pyrrhus, or Hannibal's 37, frightened the Romans so much, what happened to Alexander's army, when faced with 100s, if not 1000s of elephants, which were common in Indian armies.

To put that in perspective, Chandragupta Maurya had thousands – figures range between 5,000 to 9,000. And how many elephants did Porus' army have? 200 of them is the estimate by Greek hagiography.

War elephants in history

In the battle against the Massaga, resulting in the defeat and death of Cyrus, against Queen Tomyris, Indian elephants played a crucial role. Thereafter, Persians (then Zoroastrians) did not use elephants (considered evil by Zoroastrians). Possibly, the outcome against Alexander would have been different, had they used elephants.

The story of Semiramis, the Assyrian Queen and the Indian King Stabrobates by a Greek 'historian,' Ctesias (in Diodorus Siculus) is of interest. Apparently, foreign armies used 'faux' elephants to frighten enemies.

One of Alexander's generals, Seleucus Nicator traded in some part of his empire, for 500 elephants. In the ensuing Diadochi wars, at the decisive battle of Ipsus, it were these Indian elephants that gave Seleucus victory.

At this decisive battle of Ipsus, the Seleucid army fielded "the largest number of elephants ever to appear on a Hellenistic battlefield" which turned out to be, as a historian describes as the "greatest achievement of war elephants in Hellenistic military history." And Pyrrhus learnt his lessons, on using elephants in battle, at Ipsus.

What did the Persians tell Alexander "¦

Alexander's newly inducted Persian advisors would have filled him in, on how a few centuries ago, Semiramis, Queen of Assyria, and Cyrus the Great, two significant historical figures of the Levant, had failed against the Indians.

Both Cyrus the Great and Semiramis are the subject of many volumes and books written by the Greeks, Persians, Babylonians tablets, etc.

Alexander in fact is said to be eager to capture India precisely because two earlier conquerors-Semiramis and Cyrus-had failed to do so. Here it is worth noting, Alexander apparently views the legendary Assyrian queen as an historical figure, the equal of Cyrus the Great, and strives to outdo them both. (from Warrior Women By Deborah Levine Gera).

The Assyrians, whose trans-Asia Minor Empire and their legendary Queen Semiramis too, had failed in the Indian campaign with faux elephants. Cyrus The Great, too had met his nemesis, trying to conquer India (or an army with significant Indian component). A modernized version of Strabo's The Geography of Strabo reads,

Alexander "¦ heard that no one had hitherto passed that way with an army and emerged in safety, except Semiramis, when she fled from India. The natives said that even she emerged with only twenty men of her army; and that Cyrus son of Cambyses, escaped with only seven of his men "¦ When Alexander received this information he is said to have been seized with a desire of excelling Cyrus and Semiramis "¦ What credence can we place in these accounts of India "¦ Megasthenes virtually agrees. (from Alexander the Great By Ian Worthington – ellipsis mine).

The Indian elephant contingent had played a significant role in the win of Massaga Queen, Tomyris over Cyrus The Great and the Persians. Were the Massagas from Magadha? The other name for this tribe (referred to by the Greeks) against the Persians was the Derbices or Dahae. Was this name derived from the darbha grass, which Chanakya had used to swear the downfall of the Nanda kings?

CONTINUED BELOW
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
The start of the Indian campaign

Alexander's troubles began soon after Ecbatana (331 BC).

Allied troops were released from the Macedonian army – at Ecbatana and Hecatompylus. Then the veterans decided to leave – with a show of loyalty by veterans like Atenor. Bessus has destroyed the bridge across Oxus river – and that finally took a toll on the veterans – who decided to leave. After the Cyropolis treaty, Alexander 'released' the victors at Gaugemela, the Thessalian cavalry, much to the astonishment of Cleitus The Black.

Then began the conspiracies, confrontation and revolts. Even before Bactra, at Artacoana, was the conspiracy at Xerxes' Gate (or the Persian Gate) – the first of the many assassination conspiracies. The conspirators' main grouse was the expansion of Alexander's military brief to include India. Philotas and others (Dimnus, Nicomachus) were implicated in this affair.Then came The Pages Conspiracy (327 BC) - which saw the indictment of Callisthenes. Next in line was the killing of Cleitus the Black.

If this was not enough, came the constantly shifting battles against the rulers of the Indian North West – especially, the foursome of Satibarzanes, Bessus, Spitamenes and Datafernes.

First, off the block was the ruler of Artacoana, Satibarzanes allied himself with Bessus. He was finally killed in a one-to-one combat with (sources differ) with Erigyius (or with Leonnatus) in 329 BC. Then started the chase for Bessos /Bessus. Bessos, Spitamenes and Datafernes were to take up the next nearly three years with constantly shifting theaters of wars. Spitamenes and his Massagetae soldiers created havoc in Alexander's army.

Bessos, the mathista, was handed over to Alexander's army, (only Arrian claims that Ptolemy represented Alexander) by Spitamenes and Dartafernes. Was the handover of Bessos, made as a hostage, upon a guarantee of safekeeping, by Alexander? Did Alexander break a safe-keeping covenant, when Bessos was executed? This scenario acquires credibility when seen in light of the fact that Bessos was finally executed after nearly a year of his surrender.

Did Alexander, finally agree to execute Bessos, to curry favor and gain acceptance with Sisygambis, Stateira and Oxyathres? Was the disfigurement of Bessos, the spark that set off the Bactra-Sogdia War against Alexander by Satibarzanes, Spitamenes and Datafernes?

This was also the grist of the satire mills. A Greek poet, (possibly named Pranikos) with satire, provoked Cleitus Black into insulting Alexander himself. Alexander killed Cleitus.

At Bactra (Bharata?), Alexander did not have to battle the ruler Artaozos. He had a credible story. The stated story – the avenging of the Persian king, by the assassin, Bessos. Or was it the new Persian King, securing his frontiers against the biggest threat – India. Based on this story, Alexander's armies were allowed to pass through.

Instead of the complete collaboration that Alexander got from the defeated Achmaenid ruling family of Sisygambis, Stateira, Oxathres (brother of Darius III; also written as oxoathres and oxyathres) et al, the foursome of Bessos, Spitamenes, Datafernes and the Scythians made Alexander's life miserable. At Gaugamela, it was Bessos and his cavalry which broke Alexander's formation.

The tribes and kshatrapas (satraps) of Indian North West swath, delayed Alexander for nearly three years – before he could step into India. In India, Alexander had to pay the King of Taxiles, Omphis, (Ambi) 1000 talents of gold (more than 25 tons of gold) – to secure an alliance. He had to return the kingdom of Punjab to Porus – purportedly, after winning the battle. His loot and pickings from India were negligible. Thus while, invaders were kept at bay, within the Indic area, borders and crowns kept changing and shifting.

The Greek characterization of Bessos as the killer of Darius III and usurper was out of touch. Bessos was appointed as mathiÅ¡ta – the Achaemenid word for a successor. The appointment of Bessos as the mathiÅ¡ta, also explains the support that Bessos got from the various kings.

Dutch scholars have argued that mathiÅ¡ta (which simply means "the greatest" and can also be used in common expressions like "Ahuramazda is the greatest of the gods") was the title of the man who had been chosen by the great king as his successor.

As a killer /usurper or a successor, either way, Alexander's target was Bessos.

Between Bessos, Satibarzanes, Spitamenes and Datafernes, Alexander was tied up in the Bactra-Sogdia region for more than two years. To control this war, Alexander travelled all the way to the Scythian chief, Dravas, agreed to release all Scythian soldiers for no ransom. While he was negotiating a treaty with the Scythians at Jaxartes, Kurushkkat or Cyropolis, the Macedonian army was massacred at Polytimetus. Alexander instructed his surviving troops, at the pain of death, not to discuss the massacre of Polytimetus with other soldiers – 'to maintain the morale of his own men, and to limit the propaganda value of these losses to his enemy' (from Alexander the Great:Lessons in Strategy By David J. Lonsdale).

Thus well before, the start of the Indian campaign, Alexander had a first hand experience of the North West buffer that protected India from Western foreign invaders. Added to this experience by Alexander, was the history of costly misadventures by Semiramis and Cyrus, in the Indian realms.

Alexander paid in gold to Indian king "¦

If the Porus Red Herring is ignored, we can see that an important success of Alexander was his alliance with Ambhi – the ruler of Taxila. To cement this alliance, Alexander 'gifted' Ambhi with 'a wardrobe of Persian robes, gold and silver ornaments, and 30 horses, 1000 talents in cash'. 1000 talents is anywhere between 25,000-60,000 kg of gold – 25-60 tons of gold !

Does this look like Ambhi accepted Alexander as the conqueror of the world – or was Alexander 'persuading' Ambhi to seal an alliance – at a huge price? Portrayed as traitor, a sell out, by Colonial historians, Ambhi's case was a simple case of providing neutrality and supplies (at a fabulous price) to a travelling army, which was securing its own borders.

The payment of 1000 talents in gold to Ambhi aroused much envy and outrage in Alexander's camp. It prompted Meleager, to sarcastically congratulate Alexander for 'having at least found in India a man worth 1000 talents.' What seals this incident is Alexander's retort to Meleager, "that envious men only torment themselves." (C 8.12.17 & 18).

In the year 518 BC, a few years after the defeat and death of Cyrus the Great, by a joint force of the Massagetae and the Indians, and more than 200 years before the death of Alexander, Darius-I re-organized his inherited empire into 20 satrapies.

To put these figures in perspective, Babylon and Syria, the richest provinces, paid 1000 talents, while Egypt paid 700 talents. (from Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire By David Christian).

At least, Darius-I, did not pay anything to the satrapies – unlike Alexander. If Ambhi wanted Alexander to wage a war against Porus, would it not be more logical that Ambhi, the (supposed) feudatory should have paid Alexander? Allegedly, Alexander bribed Ambhi (bribe a satrapy?) to join him and wage war against Porus.

What was Alexander's response to a 'sub-continent occupied by a complex network of peoples and states, who viewed Alexander as a new piece to be played in their complex political chess game.' He had to return the kingdom of Punjab to Porus – purportedly, after winning the battle. His loot and pickings from India were negligible.

To these lean pickings, what was Alexander's response? Writes a historian, "the Macedonians frequently massacred the defenders of the city, especially in India." Another modern historian, an expert on Greek history writes that 'the tale of slaughter told in the ancient sources is unparalleled elsewhere in the campaign.' ( from Ancient Greece By Sarah B. Pomeroy, Stanley M. Burstein, Walter Donlan)

His other famous 'victory' was at Jaxartes, over the Scythians - 'over a people which had hitherto been deemed by its neighbours invincible'. Of course, the writer goes onto mention that it was Alexander's illness (he had the runs, the dysentery, these days known as Delhi belly), which 'saved the Scythians from extermination.'

But after a few paragraphs, Alexander becomes 'famous for clemency and liberality.' After an overnight ride, the next morning, Alexander concluded a friendship pact with the Darvas, the Scythian chieftain with just a handshake – at Alexandria Eschate ("The Furthest") in modern Tajikistan. He also 'agreed' to release all Scythian prisoners – without a ransom. Was the reason for this clemency and liberality, or to isolate Bessus, Spitamenes and Datafernes responsible for 'two years of savage warfare waged across Sogdiana on a scale unequalled anywhere else in Alexander's anabasis.'

By the way, Scythians are known in India as Sakas or Shakhyas – and Buddha was Shakhya. Scythians were also engaged in Athens to patrol Rome, with clubs. Is that why they were called Massagata = Maha + gada (club), finally becoming known as Magadha? Much like their descendants, the Pathans were used in India, for debt recovery.

Alexander's marriage


Was Alexander's marriage, a similar alliance, with the Bactrian (Afghan) King, Oxyartes, whose daughter Rhoxane /Roxana /Roxanne /Roshanak (in Bactrian) was?

For almost the first ten years of his reign Alexander avoided marriage with remarkable success. After Issus the majority of the Persian royal ladies were in his power. Alexander scrupulously cultivated the Queen Mother, Sisygambis as his "Mother' and promised dowries to Darius' daughters. Taking over Darius function as son and father he buttressed his claims to be the genuine King of Asia. But he stopped short of actual marriage, contenting himself with a liaison with Barsine, the daughter of Artabazus and descendant of Artaxerxes II. This liaison was protracted and from it came a son, Heracles, born in 327, but there was no question of marriage till the last days of Alexander's campaign in Bactria /Sogdiana. Then came his meeting with Rhoxane and almost immediate marriage. (from Alexander the Great By Ian Worthington).

How would Greeks pronounce Bharata? Most probably as Bactra (τὰ Βάκτρα)!

And we know that in the Indic context, a marriage is for life – and a marriage alliance is sure way of creating goodwill and positive bias. And the importance given to a son-in-law by Indians is also known! And in the Indian marital tradition (Savitri, Sita and Draupadi), wives did not stay back in palaces. And Roxane accompanied Alexander, like an Indian wife would.

Other sources

Ekkehard, a 12 century Benedictine monk, a participant in the Crusade of 1101, had many such questions, in his updates of Chronicon Universale, (probably co-written by Frutolf of Michelsberg).

Coming so soon after the schism between the Greek and the Roman Church, Ekkehard must also be seen through the prism of Christian Church politics. After all, how could a monk of the Roman Church let go of such a juicy Greek target? Similarly, in 19th century environment, Alexander's inflation must also be seen in the context of Western colonialism, which needed to show 'Western' superiority.

Alexander's Indian Conquests

Apart from the written sources there are 'other proofs' also. Subsequent to his Indian 'conquest', Alexander minted (possibly only some) elephant coins and his successors minted definitely many coins – for propaganda purposes.

The propaganda purpose of the elephant coins becomes clearer, when the spread of the coins becomes is seen – 21 of the 24 specimens recovered are in the Iraq and Babylonia region. It is in this region that this coinage would have worked – and the local population who would have looked at the Macedonians with respect, as they had 'conquered' India.

After all, a few centuries ago, Cyrus The Great had met his nemesis, trying to conquer India (or an army with significant Indian component). Semiramis the Assyrian Queen, whose Empire in Asia Minor, rivalled Alexander, lost her throne (to her son (Ninyas /Ninus) – after her loss to the Indian king, Stabrobates. Many of Alexander's actions in fact seem to have been aimed at patching up alliances with Indian rulers on his borders – to avoid the fate of his predcessor 'conquerors' – Cyrus The Great and Semiramis.

The significance of these coins itself is questionable. Elephant units, managed by Indians, were a common feature in Central Asian region – and later Greek armies also co-opted elephant units. These elephant coins could well have been stuck to celebrate Alexander's victory at Gaugemela over Darius.

Alexander's coinage system itself is very hazy subject, with many sub-plots and qualifications. An expert writes,

There are few series which present more difficulties in the way of chronological classification than the 'Alexanders.' The mass of material is so vast and the differences between the varieties so minute, so uninteresting to anyone but the numismatic specialist, and so difficult to express in print, that very little progress has been made since the publication of L. Müllerr's remarkable work in 1855 "¦ (By Sir George Hill from The Numismatist, American Numismatic Association; page 57)

After Alexander


Alexander's 'boasts' about his conquest of India, a super-power then, did get him mileage. Ptolemy, to create legitimacy for his rule, issued coins showing Alexander wearing a elephant head, looking like a mixed Zeus and Ammon.

It also became the butt of comedies. These Greek comedies survive through Roman writers like Plautus' Curculio – with an ex-India soldier, Therapontigonus Platagidorus, who boasts of his conquest of

the Persians, Paphlagonians, Sinopians, Arabs, Carians, Cretans, Syrians, Rhodes and Lycia, Gobbleollia and Guzzleania, Centaurbattaglia and Onenipplearmia, the whole coast of Libya and the whole of Grapejusqueezia, in fact, a good half of all the nations on earth, have been subdued by him single-handed inside of twenty days

and wants a golden statue – made with melted gold from Philip (of Macedon's) gold coins. Other such unbelievable accounts were written in Greece and Rome about Alexander's victory against Porus – "a popular subject in Greece and Rome for many centuries."

By 303 BC, less than a 20 years after Alexander's death (323 BC), Alexander's greatest general, Seleucos Nicator, sued for peace with Chandragupta Maurya. He ceded large parts of empire, made a marriage alliance with Chandragupta, stationed an ambassador (Megasthenes) in Chandragupta's court. – and obtained 500 elephants, which proved invaluable in at the decisive battle of Ipsus.

Where did the much vaunted 'Greek' sarrisae and Macedonian phalanxes miss out? On the other hand, the 500 elephants that Seleucos Nicator bought from Chandragupta were decisive in the Battle Of Ippsus – which ended the Daidochi wars .

Indo-Greek colonies and kingdoms – at Indian borders


Modern historians refer to the Greek colonies in Bactria, Sogdiana (modern Afghanistan and Baluchistan) as proof of Alexander's and Greek conquests in the Indian sub-continent. The truth – Herodotus informs us that rebellious Greeks in the Persian kingdoms were exiled to Indian borders – at Susa, Khuzestan (in modern Iran) and Bactria (modern Afghanistan). Among these exiles were citizens of Miletus, who were behind the Ionian revolt in 499 BC.

Alexander continued with this practice. After his death, we are informed by Diodorus of Sicily (World history, 18.7) veteran Macedonians and Greek exiles revolted against their externment – and the Daidochi had to send an expedition, under Peithon, to quell this revolt.

Alexander's own propaganda machine


Also must be remembered that Alexander had his own in-camp propagandists - like Callisthenes and Aristobolus, who were his camp followers. Alexander was introduced to Xenophon Cyropaedia and Anabasis. These books were excellent propaganda material, which converted a retreat of Greek mercenaries into a heroic saga.

To do his portraits, Alexander commissioned Appelles, the 'greatest' Greek painter of the time. Further, Alexander, 'gifted' his favorite mistress, Pancaspe (also Campaspe) to Appelles as an added 'incentive.' Lysippus was similarly appointed as the official sculptor for Alexander.

Ptolemy (one of Alexander's inner circle) was himself no mean wielder of the propaganda pen - and Ptolemy's memoirs of the campaign were used as sources by many subsequent hagiographers. In 321 BC, Ptolemy captured Alexander's body – and kept it till Alexander's mausoleum

Soma, was built in midst of the city, at the point where the two main thorough fares crossed each other. Encased in a translucent shroud, it stood there for centuries for all to see.

As a propaganda tool and obtain legitimacy for his rule. In modern times, I am reminded how Lenin's body was kept embalmed and displayed for the next 7 decades.

Ptolemy, a master propagandist, also subsequently issued many coins showing Alexander as a elephant slayer, as God (Zeus and Ammon). Ptolemy is famous for the set up of the Library of Alexandra, to promote 'Greek' learning and propaganda – the precursors to the Alliance Francaise, the British Council and the USIS of today. He 'imported' Demetrius of Phalerum, to run the Mouseion - an institute of higher learning, or Temple of the Muses.

But, his masterstroke was to circulate rumors about his parentage. Ptolemy I Soter, claimed through these rumors, that he was not the son of Lagos, but in fact one of Phillipp II's illegitimate children – and thus Alexander's half brother. Was it therefore strange that his descendant, Cleopatra, surrendered to the Roman usurpers, seeing them as successors to the 'Greeks'?

Foreign rule in India


Why did Ghenghis Khan avoid India? India, a rich civilization, with massive exports and large gold reserves, was an attractive target. Genghis Khan, whose empire, from Mongolia to Austria, from Central Asia to Russian borders, was larger than Alexander's – and whose conquests brought Chinese culture to Europe (like abacus, gunpowder, paper, printing) by-passed India completely. Why?

For the same reasons, that Islamic conquerors, by that time, had conquered most of Eastern Europe, had failed in India. By 1000 A.D., Al Beruni's description of India and its wealth, spread over the Islamic world. By the time of the first significant Islamic raid of Indian heartland, in 1001, when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded India, Islam was already entrenched in Europe. Spain was already under Islamic rule by 718 AD. Parts of Italy fell by 902. Crete (part of modern Greece) fell in 961. In Northern Europe, modern day Georgia (on Russian borders) fell to Islamic rule, by 735.

For the next 500 years, Islamic territories continued to expand. India was the last significant conquest of the Islam. Islamic raiders targetted India for plunder and loot – but were not able to establish themselves till the 13th century. The first significant Islamic dynasty in India was the Slave dynasty – only in the 13th century, Qutubuddin Aibak in 1206. From the 1206 to 1526, Islamic rulers struggled to consolidate in India.

The successful invasion of Babur – from in the 1526 established Islamic rule in the Indian heartland. From 1526 onwards, Islamic conquest waned. Islamic empires started consolidating. On the other, the European star, was on the ascendant from 1492, with the voyage of Columbus.

Colonial historians show Central Asian and Levantine raiders as Islamic raiders, but themselves as European. Central Asian and other invaders like Nadir Shah, Timur Lang, Mahmud Ghazni, Muhammed Ghori, traced their extract from non-Indic countries.

As soon as we redefine India, and include Afghanistan as also a part of the Greater India(deriving its very name from up+gana-stan, meaning allies from the North) foreign presence in India is limited to a brief period of 1206-1500 and from 1756-1947. Thus Mughal rule was characterized by Indic values – whereas less than 200 years after Babur, Ranjit Singh, captured most of Afghanistan again. Thus to show Afghan rule as foreign rule, is colonial mischief.

As Britain itself could never capture Afghanistan (neither could Russia and now the USA is unable to). But Afghanistan was ruled by Indian rulers like Chandragupta Maurya, the Gupta Dynasty did, or the Kushans could, as did Ranjit Singh – made the colonial historians separate Afghanistan from India.

India's line of defence

Unlike what most Western historians would like us to believe, Indian military machine was a successful system – which safeguarded India well.

What were India's main military differentiators? It's main line of defence? In one word – elephants. The first military general to have an answer to elephants was Timur Lane. Timur mined the fields with caltrops – a four headed spike, with one spike always upward.

Then came the guns, cannons and gun powder. Elephants were no longer effective against caltrops or gun powder. Indians were not lagging in gunpowder, cannons, guns or muskets. Indian ships sailed the world – under Indian or foreign flags.

The main reason for India's military eclipse was the economic reason – slavery. The use of slaves for economic production, gave a temporary edge to slave societies – which India did not have. Indian rulers, with limited options could not wage long term wars – as slave owning cultures could. Indian rulers, were hobbled by a system which dispersed property, wealth – unlike the rest of the world where it was concentrated in the hands of the few. India, which was never a slave-owning culture, could not muster resources to wage a 100 year war, like Europeans could – at a great cost to their societies.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
SASIGUPTA AND THE POISONING OF ALEXANDER

SASIGUPTA AND THE POISONING OF ALEXANDER

After Mary Renault called him the Persian boy, scholarly interest in Alexander has noticeably declined in the west. The great Emperor had an acute sense of history and included professional writers in his train, yet it is ironical that great mystery surrounds his last years. Did he die a natural death or at the hands of conspirators? Did he defeat the Prasii as Justin wrote? Did he speak about the Brotherhood of Man in the banquet at Opis as Sir W.W. Tarn[1] held? What was the background of his deification? Historians of Alexander have rarely benefitted from new sources[2] - textual or archaeological, and new writers had to be content with only reinterpretation of old documents but Indian literature now ends the impasse and offers a deep insight into many aspects of his life.



One new finding - the identification of Megasthenes' Palibothra with Kahnuj in Carmania (instead of Patna in eastern India), calls for sea changes in the ancient history of the Orient. It sheds new light on the strange and exciting adventures of Alexander in Indo-Iran and resolves the mystery of his sudden death and of many other long-standing puzzles. It also belies the claims of E. Badian[3] and P. Green that Alexander was a thoroughgoing tyrant, ruthless and cruel. Badian was unaware that behind Alexander's clarion call for Brotherhood of Man stands a Prophet of Prophthasia[4] who had once adorned the Persian throne[5] and that the sage Kalanos was the great Buddhist scholar Asvaghosha. The very name Sasigupta tells a story (Sashi=Chandra)[6] that has remained unheard due to the callousness of historians. Palibothra in the north-west brings to the fore a great Sanskrit drama, the Mudrarakshasa, which is widely recognised as a mine of historical information[7]. Most strikingly, the drama shows the great respect of Chandragupta for Alexander, the benevolent hero he himself had managed to poison.


NEW HINTS FROM SANSKRIT LITERATURE



Though it remained virtually unknown for centuries, in modern India the Mudrarakshasa is a popular drama, yet its interpretation is still in infancy[8]. To appreciate this court drama it is essential to recreate the ambiance in which it was first staged and realise that it had nothing to do with Bihar. The word Mudra in Sanskrit stands for a signet-ring and the plot is woven around the stealing of the signet-ring of Rakshasa, the minister of the Nandas. This need not immediately remind one of the possession of Alexander's signet-ring by Perdikkas which was probably stolen[9] and which played a crucial role in the succession battle. In the play Parvataka is killed as he passes under a mechanically operated Torana or coronation arch. Can this be related to the warning of the Chaldeans who came to Alexander and asked him to enter Babylon from the eastern side[10]? Was there a conspiracy to kill Alexander by a crashing gate? After all this was a well-known Babylonian tactic. This may not sound convincing but there is more. Bhagurayana who spies on his master may be an echo of Bagoas the younger who is widely suspected to have been an agent. The name of the bard Stanakalasha is a simple inversion of Callisthenes who was probably caught up in the tragic course of events. There are slanted references to the aging chamberlain who is clearly Permenio. The flaunting of wealth by the treasurer in the play points to Harpalus' misadventures. Poisoning, Poison-maidens and forged letters have all been discussed in relation to Alexander's death and these are also the central elements of the play. Rakshasa, after whom the drama is named is clearly Roxyartes or Oxyartes as can be seen from the name of his daughter Roxane. It is more than likely that Tissaraxa, one of Asoka's wives, was related to Raxasa's line.



The other principal character of the play is Chanakya, the minister of Chandragupta. A careful study shows that he was none other than Bagoas the Elder, Prime Minister of Artaxerexes-III Ochus. In the drama Abhayadatta attempts to poison Chandragupta but the plot is detected and he is forced to drink the draught. This is exactly what one reads about Bagoas the Elder's death – that he attempted to poison Darius-III but was forced to drink his own cup of poison[11]. The name of Darius-III in the Babylonian records is Arta-Sata. This, in fact, is the same as Sarva-Arta-Sata or Sarva-Artha-Siddhi, the name of the Nanda king in the play. Sarva[12] was the name of Shiva, a protector god.



Classical writers reported[13] that Bagoas poisoned Ochus, gave his flesh to cats and made knife handles with his bones. It is astonishing to find that the Mudrarakshasa also recounts an identical story. Chanakya refused a decent burial to the Nanda king he had poisoned and animals feasted on the flesh of the Nandas[14]. It is uncanny to realise that apart from Chanakya and Chandragupta the play has among its dramatis personae the ghost of Alexander, his wife Roxane, his infant son and his father-in-law Oxyartes. From the drama itself it is difficult to explain why, after all his misdeeds and bungling, Rakshasa was installed as the Prime minister in preference to the mighty Chanakya, but if one remembers that Roxane, his daughter, became the regent after Alexander's death, this appears only natural. The original inspiration of the Mudrarakshasa may have been derived from Alexander's foray into dramatics at Patala. It is probable that it was written under the patronage of Sasigupta, once a darling of Alexander. The Mudrarakshasa, which is one of the great Sanskrit Classics, belongs to world literature.


ALEXANDER AMIDST PEACOCKS



Palibothra, the Indian capital, was famous for its peacocks; Lane Fox writes, ".. Dhana Nanda's kingdom could have been set against itself and Alexander might yet have walked among Palimbothra's peacocks"[15]. Curiously, Arrian wrote that the great Emperor was so charmed by the beauty of peacocks that he decreed the severest penalties against anyone killing it[16]. Where did he come across the majestic bird? Does this fascination lead us to Palibothra? After all Justin wrote that he had defeated the Prasii. A closer examination of the histories of India and Iran shows that this is indeed the truth, but before going into details it is expedient to examine an age-old riddle which has been glossed over by all the writers though its bearing on the history of Alexander is immense. Where exactly was Palibothra?[17]



In the closing years of the eighteenth century Sir William Jones made the so-called discovery that Palibothra was Patna in eastern India. In Jones' day history was written on the basis of texts alone and though learned contemporary scholars like Rennell did not agree, the 'discovery' was hailed as a landmark in Orientology by popular vote. It is alarming to note that there is no archaeological corroboration of Jones' hypothesis at all. Excavations at Patna have failed to unearth a single inscription, sculpture or coin of not only the Nandas or Chandragupta but even of Asoka[18]. The famous archaeologist A. Ghosh categorically stated that the history of Patna is based on texts, not archaeology. Kulke and Rothermund also express scepticism about the Jonesian story.[19] Moreover as Wheeler pointed out, urbanisation of Eastern India cannot be traced before the period of Bindusara[20]. It is impossible to visualize the enormous wealth of the Nandas in Patna of the fourth century BC. The absurdity is heightened by the fact that Persian emperors assumed the name Nanda[21] - Darius-II was Nonthos - and that the name Nunudda occurs in the Persepolis fortification tablets. This clearly indicates that Palibothra must have been in the north-west.



VICTORY OVER THE INDIANS AT KAHNUJ IN CARMANIA



The relocation of Palibothra throws overboard the entire history of Alexander's expedition after the revolt at Hyphasis and focusses on another great figure of 4th century BC - Chandragupta. Palibothra in the north-west leads to a sweeping reformulation of the early history of India. Nearly all the historical figures appear to be from the north-west. Gomata of the Behistun inscription must have been Gotama Buddha.[22] Bagapa of Babylon was surely Gotama whose title was Bhagava. Diodotus-1 turns out to be the true Asoka.



The name Palibothra, which means 'city of the Bhadras' (City = Kala, Bala, Pala, Polis etc.) indicates a location in Gedrosia which was the Bhadrasva of the Indian texts. Another hint is in name Batrasasave of an important city in Carmania. This is linked to Palibatra or Palibothra[23]. A clearer hint leading to the exact location of Palibothra is available from Alexander's history. Owing to Jones' error the direct implication of Alexander's famous week-long celebration[24] of "victory over the Indians" at Kahnuj in Gedrosia has been lost. Writers like Bosworth and Badian failed to realise that the victory over the Indians could have been celebrated only at the chief Indian city. In fact, this clearly attests to a Palibothra in the north-west. Numerous other evidences indicate that in the fourth century BC south-eastern Iran was a part of India. V. Elisseeff[25] remarks that from the archaeological viewpoint eastern Iran was closer to India. Vincent Smith agreed with authors like Stephanus and Pliny that Gedrosia and Carmania were within ancient India but due to the blind faith in Jones' hypothesis the majority of the Indologists have ignored this. Bosworth writes that the victory was celebrated near Khanu or Kahnuj[26]. The name itself shows the absurdity of the Jonesian premise. The name Kanyakubja, which is thought to be synonymous with Kanauj occurs in the Ramayana and certainly dates from an era far earlier than the age of the Maukharis (6th Cent. AD) when Kanauj in eastern India was a great city. Therefore the significance of the presence of another ancient city of the same name in far away Carmania is immense. As Khuvja was the name of Elam, Kanyakubja can be easily seen to be Kahnuj. Incidentally it is in this area that one encounters hoary primogenitors like Manu who ruled Dilmun, Magan and Melukhkha[27]. Palibothra was the chief city of the Indians which suggests that it was only a different name of Kanauj which had a similar position in the Indian texts. Dow in his `History of Hindostan' identified Sandrocottos with Sinsarchund who, according to Firista, ruled from Kanauj.


REVOLT AT HYPHASIS AND FORMATION OF A CLIQUE



Through the mist of vague reports and Jonesian misinterpretation it is difficult to recreate the course of events that led to the revolt at Beas which came as a serious jolt to Alexander's plans. Did the army refuse to fight the Prasii or only to march eastwards? The important point which all the writers miss is that the empire of the Prasii was not in the east as Jones taught but lay westward in the Gedrosia-Carmania-Seistan area[28]. If Alexander had really wanted to move eastward it could not have been to conquer the Prasii. If he had learnt that the fertile plains of the Ganges were only few days march away and wanted to be there for mere expansion of his Empire, he could have expected little resistance. Reluctance of the army cannot have been due to apprehension of the Great strength of the Easterners as Jonesian writers fancied but due to the lack of any tangible political or military gain from the venture. If this was the case then Alexander had to bow down to the wishes of his men and curtail his ambitions. On the other hand if the reluctance of the soldiers and officers was to confront the Prasii it appears sensible enough as the latter were a formidable force to reckon with. However, its military might was certainly overblown by magicians and other secret agents of Chanakya[29] and Chandragupta to frighten the Greek army. As Meroes or Sasigupta had already fought beside Porus, the Prasiian army cannot have been left intact though it could still have been a formidable fighting force. A century later the Jats and other fierce fighters of Seistan under the Surens humbled the mighty Roman army.



Although the revolt was engendered by genuine misgivings of the soldiers it would be simplistic to not to view it as a part of a grander design. It offers the first glimpses of the formation of a secret clique in which Harpalus probably played a key role. Coenus who acted as a spokesman of the soldiers had taken a leading role in securing the conviction of Philotas. Both he and his brother Cleander, who was later executed by Alexander, were close to Harpalus whose exploits were parodied in the play Agen. However, here the chief orchestrator must have been Bagoas who, together with Sasigupta, conspired with Harpalus, Eumenes, Perdikkas, Seleucus, Apollophanes, Cleander, Philip and others.


PURSUIT OF MOERIS THROUGH GEDROSIA



Coming down to the lower Indus area near Brahmanabad, Alexander reached the great city of Pattala in 325BC and found it deserted. Pattala is an echo of Pataliputra and the name Moeris of its ruler again shows the dubious nature of Jones' identification. The absence of any archaeological relic of the Nandas or Chandragupta from eastern India shows that the latter belonged to the north-west. Thus Moeris of Pattala cannot be any other than Chandragupta Maurya. The true objective of the Gedrosian voyage now becomes apparent - Alexander was chasing Chandragupta through the desert. Bosworth's opinion that 'stories about Cyrus and Semiramis were later to attract him to the Gedrosian desert' is based on ignorance. In order to ensure food supplies for his army Alexander had imposed a levy which had adversely affected the local population. Blind to the reality, Badian goes on to compare Alexander with Chengiz Khan.



Chandragupta is described as the king of Patna by Jonesian historians who have no truck with archaeology. This however did not deter B.M. Barua, one of the greatest scholars on Buddhism, from stating boldly; 'To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila.'[30] Curiously the Satrap of the Taksashila area under Alexander was another Gupta whose history has been treated in the most perfunctory manner[31]. After capturing the rock fort at Aornos near Taxila Alexander left Sasigupta in command. Sasigupta of Taxila who is first heard of in 327BC is clearly the Chandragupta of Barua. McCrindle[32] also noted the discrepancies but missed the real Chandragupta. Bosworth writes without any circumspection, 'There were also refugees like Sisicottos, who had first served with Bessus and then co-operated with Alexander throughout the Sogdian campaigns (Arr. iv, 30. 4). Such men had every reason to encourage the king to invade, and he himself needed little encouragement.' Bosworth fails to note that Chandragupta was also a refugee like Sasigupta and that 'Sashi' is a synonym of 'Chandra', but Raychaudhuri[33] surely knew the meaning of Sashi, yet he wrote in an equally desultory manner, 'Chandragupta's first emergence from obscurity into the full view of history occurs in 326-25 B.C. when he met Alexander.' So poor was the prognosis that even when H.C. Seth pointed out that Chandragupta could be Sasigupta, Raychadhuri took shelter under makeshift arguments.


ENCIRCLING THE PRASII FROM ALL SIDES



Even his worst detractors do not deny that Alexander was one of the greatest military tacticians of all times. The Gedrosian operation was in fact a brilliant three-pronged attack against the armies of Moeris and his allies. Alexander must have studied why both Cyrus and Semiramis were defeated by the fierce Massagetae who are none other than the Mahageatae or the Magadhans. Apart from the great fighting qualities and numerical strength of the Prasii, the desert terrain presented intractable logistical problems. To circumvent this he decided to carry supplies in ships. This is why the ships kept near the shoreline and the army also marched along the coast. Bagoas and Moeris knew this and despite the great care taken by Alexander to ensure food supplies, his enemies nearly succeeded in thwarting his plans by conniving with his Satraps. Harpalus and Bagoas probably were certain that Alexander would perish in the desert.



After the surrender of the ruler of Patalene near the Indus delta Alexander placed a large column of veterans under the command of Craterus but instead of taking them along with him he sent them through the Bolan Pass (or Mulla Pass) to the Helmand valley from where they were to make their way to Carmania and unite with the main forces. This was a fairly strong force comprising three phalanx battalions, a large number of elderly troops, infantry and cavalry and the whole of the elephant corps. The elephants already smell of Chandragupta whose major point of strength were these stately animals. One can recall his gift of 500 elephants to Seleucus. About 40 year later, as we learn from the Babylonian records, his grandson Diodotus-I (Asoka) was to repeat a gift of twenty elephants to Antiochus-I. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the main purpose of Craterus' men was to encircle the Prasii.


BAGOAS THE ELDER WAS CHANAKYA



While recounting the gruesome stories of bloodshed and turmoil that tarnished the expedition, writer's on Alexander have lost sight of a Satan-like figure who literally revelled in murder and mayhem – Bagoas the elder.[34] Diodorus writes (xvii.5.3), "While Phillip was still king, Ochus ruled the Persians and oppressed his subjects cruelly and harshly. Since his savage disposition made him hated, the chiliarch Bagoas, a eunuch in physical fact but a militant rogue in disposition, killed him by poison administered by a certain physician and placed upon the throne the youngest of his sons, Arses. He similarly made away with the brothers of the new king, who were barely of age, in order that the young man might be isolated and tractable to his control. But the young king let it be known that he was offended at Bagoas' previous outrageous behaviour and was prepared to punish the author of these crimes, so Bagoas anticipated his intentions and killed Arses and his children also while he was still in the third year of his reign. The royal house was thus extinguished, and there was no one in the direct line of descent to claim the throne". Since Artaxerexes-III is referred to as Nindin or a Nanda in the Babylonian texts this immediately recalls the account in the Indian texts that Chanakya had decimated the Nanda line.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
'Battle of the Jhelum' is one of the earliest recorded battles of the Indian king with a foreign invader. It proved supremacy of 'disciplined, organized & professional full time army' over the 'troops of part time soldiers & peasants'. Importance of quick maneuvers of a mobile army was marked. Limitations of lumbering chariots got highlighted. Indian warfare underwent remarkable changes. Irrespective of military limitations Indians came to know that country broken into small kingdoms couldn't defend itself effectively from the foreign invaders. Probably that itself was the inspiration behind the revolution in 321 B.C. which gave rise to 'Maurya' dynasty.
It is a big big fallacy to consider that as the Mauryan empire. We should educate ourselves with the kind of distortions colonial historians bought to the antiquity of Indian history.
The contemporary of Alexander - "Sandracottus" as mentioned by Greek historians was actually ChandraGupta of Gupta empire, not the ChandraGupta Maurya of Mauryan empire who reigned way back in 1534 BC. The European historians like Mueller and William Jones attempting to read Sanskrit texts were well aware of the two ChandraGuptas. Even the ardent students of ancient Indian literature knew about both the Kings very well. By usurping the real Mauryan King's mention and calling the Gupta king as ChandraGupta Maurya the colonial propaganda tried to reduce the Indian history's antiquity by roughly 1200 years (between 1534 BC and 327 BC). The same European scholars give out their genuine knowledge of the India eras by accepting Mahabharata war to have happened at 3138 BC and Kali yuga to have begun at 3102 BC. And then surprisingly they overlooked (or chose to overlook) the fact that there were two ChandraGuptas more than 1200 years apart.

Alexander never crossed over Indus to the east. He was always accompanied by greek literary men whose occupation was to describe Alexander's victories and turn even his defeats into conquests to please him. Or they would earn the wrath of their ambitious general.
The crossing of Indus, war with Porus and establishment of greek Kingdom in Punjab are pure concoctions created only by the greek authors Alexander kept on his payroll. No other sources corroborate that version.
These are not just my views, but those of a European historian - Arrian, John Rooke in "History of Alexander's Expedition".

There are no coins, buildings, inscriptions or any other historical evidence that could make ChandraGupta Maurya (instead of ChandraGupta Gupta) a contemporary of Alexander. Pure bunkum was cooked and fed to consecutive generations of Indian populace while India was down in colonial rule and that distorted knowledge is now running like blood in our veins that we use it effortlessly as gospel truth.
For any western travellers/invaders who came to India, most authentic resource on how they fared are not the coins, inscriptions they got built and claimed to have found in NorthWest India. Because no ancient western empire has its history based/recorded primarily on basis of only coins and inscriptions.
That basis is a farce that european/greek authors could easily manage to artificially erect and float for their theories of constructing false history.
"Unfortunately no monuments have been discovered which can be referred with certainty to the period of ChandraGupta or his son, and the archeologist is unable to bring the tangible evidence afforded by excavation; to support the statements of Greek observers" ~ V. A. Smith (pg 142 "Early History of India")
Even then, there have been enough instances of historians forging inscriptions and placing them under the earth and pretending subsequently to unearth them.
The so called inscriptions of Asoka do not belong to Asoka. Most of them do no make any mention of Asoka. The few that do, have mention of SamudraGupta of Gupta dynasty who had taken the title of "Ashokaditya".
It was a common practice among Indian rulers then, to assume famous titles such as 'Ashokaditya' and 'Vikramaditya' etc.
"Here lies Indian Sramanacharya from Bodha Gaya a Sakya monk taken to Greece by his Greek pupils." -- marked at a tomb discovered in Athens. The tomb also marks the death of this Indian monk at 1000 BC. ~ A. V. Thyagaraja Iyer ( in "Indian Architecture")
If buddhist monks had gone to Greece in 1000 BC then the date of Kanishka must be as back as 1100 BC at least and that of Ashoka 1250 BC and that of ChandraGupta Maurya before 1300 BC.


Kings of Magadha:-

Barhadradha Dynasty, 22 Kings over 1006 years - 3138 BC to 2132 BC

Pradyota Dynasty
Pradyota 2132BC
Palaca
Visakhayupa
Tajaka
Nadivardhana
5 reigns over 138 years

Sisunga Dynasty 1994 BC (2132-138=1994)
Sisunga
...
Kshemajit (1892 BC onwards, during when Buddha born as son to Suddhedana of Ayodhya)
...
Maha Nandi
13 Kings over 360 years

Nanda Dynasty 1634 BC (1994-360=1634)
9 Kings reigned over 100 years starting with Mahapadma Nanda
According to maximum sanskrit literature, the last Nanda ruler was murdered by a brhamin 'Chanakya' after a Nanda reign of almost 100 years. Chanakya then raise to throne ChandraGupta Maurya.

Maurya Dynasty 1534 BC (1634-100=1534)
ChandraGupta
Bindusara
Asoka
Suparsva (Suyasa)
Dasaradha (Badhupalita)
Indrapalita
Harshavardhana
Samgata
Salisukah
Somasarma or Devasarma
Satadhanva
Brihadradha
12 reigns over 316 years

1534 - 316 = 1218 BC
Sunga Dynasty 10 Kings from 1218 BC to 918 BC for 300 years
Kanva Dynasty 4 Kings from 918 BC to 833 BC for 85 years
Andhra Dynasty 32 Kings from 833 BC to 327 BC for 506 years

Last Andhra King was 'Chandrabija' / 'Chandramas' / 'Zandrames' as the greeks called him.
After his death, Magadha isn't mentioned anywhere as an independent Kingdom.
ChandraGupta / Sandrocottus killed the last Andhra Dynasty King Chandrabija, his minor son Pulomavi in 327 BC and had his coronation in Pataliputra. This started the Gupta dynasty.

Astronomical evidence such as position of Sapta Rishi Mandala etc is recorded in the Puranas consistently to allow for scientific verification of the timelines (and events) mentioned therein. And today since the computer based processing models can simulate the same skies of thousand years back based on the given data, the Puranic timelines and events stand their scientific verification.

The 7 Kings of gupta dynasty ruled for 245 years. This was followed by Panwar Dynasty 82 BC onwards (who kept Ujjain as their Capital till their end in 1193 AD)

The greeks always mentioned SandroCyptus along with Sandrocottus. The colonial authors couldn't identify identify SandroCyptus (as there was none with ChandraGupta Maurya). Hence the only reasonable explanation is of him being SamudraGupta, the son of ChandraGupta of Gupta dynasty.

Regards,
Virendra
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
It is a big big fallacy to consider that as the Mauryan empire. We should educate ourselves with the kind of distortions colonial historians bought to the antiquity of Indian history.
The contemporary of Alexander - "Sandracottus" as mentioned by Greek historians was actually ChandraGupta of Gupta empire, not the ChandraGupta Maurya of Mauryan empire who reigned way back in 1534 BC. The European historians like Mueller and William Jones attempting to read Sanskrit texts were well aware of the two ChandraGuptas. Even the ardent students of ancient Indian literature knew about both the Kings very well. By usurping the real Mauryan King's mention and calling the Gupta king as ChandraGupta Maurya the colonial propaganda tried to reduce the Indian history's antiquity by roughly 1200 years (between 1534 BC and 327 BC). The same European scholars give out their genuine knowledge of the India eras by accepting Mahabharata war to have happened at 3138 BC and Kali yuga to have begun at 3102 BC. And then surprisingly they overlooked (or chose to overlook) the fact that there were two ChandraGuptas more than 1200 years apart.

Alexander never crossed over Indus to the east. He was always accompanied by greek literary men whose occupation was to describe Alexander's victories and turn even his defeats into conquests to please him. Or they would earn the wrath of their ambitious general.
The crossing of Indus, war with Porus and establishment of greek Kingdom in Punjab are pure concoctions created only by the greek authors Alexander kept on his payroll. No other sources corroborate that version.
These are not just my views, but those of a European historian - Arrian, John Rooke in "History of Alexander's Expedition".

There are no coins, buildings, inscriptions or any other historical evidence that could make ChandraGupta Maurya (instead of ChandraGupta Gupta) a contemporary of Alexander. Pure bunkum was cooked and fed to consecutive generations of Indian populace while India was down in colonial rule and that distorted knowledge is now running like blood in our veins that we use it effortlessly as gospel truth.
For any western travellers/invaders who came to India, most authentic resource on how they fared are not the coins, inscriptions they got built and claimed to have found in NorthWest India. Because no ancient western empire has its history based/recorded primarily on basis of only coins and inscriptions.
That basis is a farce that european/greek authors could easily manage to artificially erect and float for their theories of constructing false history.
"Unfortunately no monuments have been discovered which can be referred with certainty to the period of ChandraGupta or his son, and the archeologist is unable to bring the tangible evidence afforded by excavation; to support the statements of Greek observers" ~ V. A. Smith (pg 142 "Early History of India")
Even then, there have been enough instances of historians forging inscriptions and placing them under the earth and pretending subsequently to unearth them.
The so called inscriptions of Asoka do not belong to Asoka. Most of them do no make any mention of Asoka. The few that do, have mention of SamudraGupta of Gupta dynasty who had taken the title of "Ashokaditya".
It was a common practice among Indian rulers then, to assume famous titles such as 'Ashokaditya' and 'Vikramaditya' etc.
"Here lies Indian Sramanacharya from Bodha Gaya a Sakya monk taken to Greece by his Greek pupils." -- marked at a tomb discovered in Athens. The tomb also marks the death of this Indian monk at 1000 BC. ~ A. V. Thyagaraja Iyer ( in "Indian Architecture")
If buddhist monks had gone to Greece in 1000 BC then the date of Kanishka must be as back as 1100 BC at least and that of Ashoka 1250 BC and that of ChandraGupta Maurya before 1300 BC.


Kings of Magadha:-

Barhadradha Dynasty, 22 Kings over 1006 years - 3138 BC to 2132 BC

Pradyota Dynasty
Pradyota 2132BC
Palaca
Visakhayupa
Tajaka
Nadivardhana
5 reigns over 138 years

Sisunga Dynasty 1994 BC (2132-138=1994)
Sisunga
...
Kshemajit (1892 BC onwards, during when Buddha born as son to Suddhedana of Ayodhya)
...
Maha Nandi
13 Kings over 360 years

Nanda Dynasty 1634 BC (1994-360=1634)
9 Kings reigned over 100 years starting with Mahapadma Nanda
According to maximum sanskrit literature, the last Nanda ruler was murdered by a brhamin 'Chanakya' after a Nanda reign of almost 100 years. Chanakya then raise to throne ChandraGupta Maurya.

Maurya Dynasty 1534 BC (1602-100=1502)
ChandraGupta
Bindusara
Asoka
Suparsva (Suyasa)
Dasaradha (Badhupalita)
Indrapalita
Harshavardhana
Samgata
Salisukah
Somasarma or Devasarma
Satadhanva
Brihadradha
12 reigns over 316 years

1534 - 316 = 1218 BC
Sunga Dynasty 10 Kings from 1218 BC to 918 BC for 300 years
Kanva Dynasty 4 Kings from 918 BC to 833 BC for 85 years
Andhra Dynasty 32 Kings from 833 BC to 327 BC for 506 years

Last Andhra King was 'Chandrabija' / 'Chandramas' / 'Zandrames' as the greeks called him.
After his death, Magadha isn't mentioned anywhere as an independent Kingdom.
ChandraGupta / Sandrocottus killed the last Andhra Dynasty King Chandrabija, his minor son Pulomavi in 327 BC and had his coronation in Pataliputra. This started the Gupta dynasty.

Astronomical evidence such as position of Sapta Rishi Mandala etc is recorded in the Puranas consistently to allow for scientific verification of the timelines (and events) mentioned therein. And today since the computer based processing models can simulate the same skies of thousand years back based on the given data, the Puranic timelines and events stand their scientific verification.

The 7 Kings of gupta dynasty ruled for 245 years. This was followed by Panwar Dynasty 82 BC onwards (who kept Ujjain as their Capital till their end in 1193 AD)

The greeks always mentioned SandroCyptus along with Sandrocottus. The colonial authors couldn't identify identify SandroCyptus (as there was none with ChandraGupta Maurya). Hence the only reasonable explanation is of him being SamudraGupta, the son of ChandraGupta of Gupta dynasty.

Regards,
Virendra
Wow, that's quite the theory. I hope you understand the gravity of that theory; if true, it would warrant the rewriting of the entire history of India.

I won't debate every point of yours right now, but I have trouble accepting the fact that Asoka = Samudragupta. You are right that the pillar inscriptions do not mention Asoka directly; instead they mention a 'King Piyadasi', who is called 'Piodasses' in the Greek inscriptions. The inscriptions make clear references to the Buddha and Buddhist ideals, and of course they famously prohibit the sacrificial hunting and killing of animals. It is unlikely that Samudragupta, being a devout Hindu and practitioner of the Asvamedha (horse sacrifice ritual), would say such things in his inscription.

Furthermore, in his Allahabad inscription (the content of which strongly contrasts with the Asokan inscriptions), Samudragupta makes a clear reference to contemporary political powers of the early 4th century C.E., none of which existed during the accepted dates of Mauryan rule (4th-2nd centuries B.C.E.). These include, among others, the Sakas, the Shahis, and the Licchavis.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top