Alexander the Great Invades India

[LETHALFORCE]

Best-Ever Portrait of Alexander the Great Found? : Discovery News

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Greek tomb linked to Alexander The Great yielding its treasures - Features | The Star Online

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Archaeologists fail to find remains within Alexander the Great-era tomb | Daily Mail Online

 

[LETHALFORCE]

https://spot.thinkglobalschool.com/blog/view/131936/alexander-the-great-in-india

Alexander The Great In India

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Was Indian king Porus defeated by Alexander? - Quora

 

[Hari Sud]

Do not pay too much attention in Western historian details. They always wish to portray easterners as conquered people. Alexander does fall in their eyes as one these people.

No, Alexander did not conquer India. He came only two hundred miles fro Khyber Pass inside India. By then he was a spent force. All the Greek veterans of war were dead. New recruits taken locally were unreliable hence it would take one defeat to kill his image and all his conquests. Hence he did not want to go any further.

Even the battle with Porus was inconclusive. Alexander had to settle for less than 70% victory, when he realized that the only way to capture and kill Porus was to send his remaining ten thousand veteran Greeks into the battle. He was reluctant as more than half of them would not come alive. Then five thousand miles away he will be left with an insignificant veterans force. He instead of sending Greek Veterans to the battle sent Porus's Guru to convince him to quit fighting and agree to an understanding. Porus knew that he was defeated, hence any offer was acceptable to him. The fighting stopped. Alexander saved his Greeks from sure death and Porus survived with additional charge of running the affairs of Ambhi's kingdom. The forgoing is the Russian version of the battle disagreeing with the Western accounts.

The history has to rewritten. India does not care what they write about Persia, but the Indian account has to be corrected.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Historians estimate Alexander lost 40-60 percent of his army in the battle against porus.
How is this a victory when:
Alexander had to turn back?
Alexander could not hold the territory?
Army was decimated?

 

[Redhawk]

Who knows what happened? Those who write about battles are always propagandising for one side or the other. During my childhood while the Vietnam War was being fought we were getting glowing reports of U.S. and South Vietnamese success in South Vietnam. After the war was over much of "the success" was shown to be empty, propagandist drivel, much of it based on wishful thinking from the time it was first published.

Other good examples of propagandist, revisionist drivel are Pakistan's claims of complete victory in all the Indo-Pak wars.

I'm always deeply sceptical and often just as deeply cynical about war "histories" written by one side or the other. To really get a good idea one must read a range of histories from all sides and see where they have points in common and where they have points of difference. Then a reasonable and perhaps accurate picture can built up over time.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

Historians estimate Alexander lost 40-60 percent of his army in the battle against porus.
How is this a victory when:
Alexander had to turn back?
Alexander could not hold the territory?
Army was decimated?

I read some history that the rumous about the might of the Nanda Army(thousands of elephants) causes the resentment in Alexander army and they revolted around Beas river forcing Alexander to return back.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

I read some history that the rumous about the might of the Nanda Army(thousands of elephants) causes the resentment in Alexander army and they revolted around Beas river forcing Alexander to return back.

Porus's army was a smaller army in a smaller kingdom . As you mentioned nandas
Had prepared for Porus's defeat . They had gathered numbers as high as 200,000 men
And 6,000 war elephants.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Alexander the Great vs Nanda Dynasty - Historum - History Forums

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
Plutarch, Alexander, chapter 62, section 2

So, according to Plutarch, the army of the Nanda Empire consisted of 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots and 6,000 war elephants.

So, let us assume that the army did no revolt and kept on marching in the depths of India. Could Alexander ever conquer the vast Nanda Empire and defeat its army? If the numbers are accurate, then the odds seem definitely against him (assuming that Alexander's army consisted of less than 40,000 soldiers), but then again...we are talking about Alexander. What do you think? Any thoughts, opinions?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

 

[jouni]

Alexander the Great vs Nanda Dynasty - Historum - History Forums

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
Plutarch, Alexander, chapter 62, section 2

So, according to Plutarch, the army of the Nanda Empire consisted of 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots and 6,000 war elephants.

So, let us assume that the army did no revolt and kept on marching in the depths of India. Could Alexander ever conquer the vast Nanda Empire and defeat its army? If the numbers are accurate, then the odds seem definitely against him (assuming that Alexander's army consisted of less than 40,000 soldiers), but then again...we are talking about Alexander. What do you think? Any thoughts, opinions?

Why not? He defeated much larger Persian Empire. European individualism against eastern collectivism. You can easily say one Macedonian equals five Indians, even ten. ( maybe five more accurate, but Alexander had superior experience in other fields).

 

[Peter]

Why not? He defeated much larger Persian Empire. European individualism against eastern collectivism. You can easily say one Macedonian equals five Indians, even ten. ( maybe five more accurate, but Alexander had superior experience in other fields).

You do not read the entire thread and start arguing. Either that or you are having trouble comprehending the English language here. Alexander conquered the Persian empire because he was fighting a weakened empire in the midst of a crisis. Many of the Persian generals did not join the battle of gaugamela. Also the key battle that Alexander won against the Persians was through a bit of skill and a lot of luck. The last Persian king fled the battlefield just at the moment when the Persians were about to rout the Greek centre. This caused chaos and panic in the Persian army who then retreated from the battlefield.

Coming to the Nanda empire and a "what if" battle between Alexander and the Nandas. India had a population of at least 50-100 million back then. The Nanda empire could muster much more forces than Alexander and would have easily crushed them.

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand war elephants

Alexander the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Personally, I have no jealousy against you and do not take this as a personal attack. However it is my kind advice to you that you start reading history books rather than believing in Pakistani/Finnish beliefs that one soldier can defeat 10/100/1000/10000/100000/1000000 soldiers.

As for collectivism vs individualism, I want you to answer what the proverb "United we stand,divided we fall." means.

 

[Sambha ka Boss]

Why not? He defeated much larger Persian Empire. European individualism against eastern collectivism. You can easily say one Macedonian equals five Indians, even ten. ( maybe five more accurate, but Alexander had superior experience in other fields).

But the morale of his world conquering Army was broken in India.

 

[jouni]

You do not read the entire thread and start arguing. Either that or you are having trouble comprehending the English language here. Alexander conquered the Persian empire because he was fighting a weakened empire in the midst of a crisis. Many of the Persian generals did not join the battle of gaugamela. Also the key battle that Alexander won against the Persians was through a bit of skill and a lot of luck. The last Persian king fled the battlefield just at the moment when the Persians were about to rout the Greek centre. This caused chaos and panic in the Persian army who then retreated from the battlefield.

Coming to the Nanda empire and a "what if" battle between Alexander and the Nandas. India had a population of at least 50-100 million back then. The Nanda empire could muster much more forces than Alexander and would have easily crushed them.



Alexander the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Personally, I have no jealousy against you and do not take this as a personal attack. However it is my kind advice to you that you start reading history books rather than believing in Pakistani/Finnish beliefs that one soldier can defeat 10/100/1000/10000/100000/1000000 soldiers.

As for collectivism vs individualism, I want you to answer what the proverb "United we stand,divided we fall." means.

It means that collective culture needs a dominant leader, when he falls the whole group falls apart. Individualist culture new leader takes the place of the fallen and the group stays together.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Why not? He defeated much larger Persian Empire. European individualism against eastern collectivism. You can easily say one Macedonian equals five Indians, even ten. ( maybe five more accurate, but Alexander had superior experience in other fields).

Jouni

Alexander did not get to face the nandas if he had ten percent of his army might not have
Even been left? In the battle against porus he had lost his beloved horse and more than a third
Of his men . The battle against porus was also shorter than against the Persians.
Porus's kingdom was also one of the smaller kingdoms after he made it out of the
Kyber pass. Persians were greater in numbers but porus caused more damage. Alexander tried a night attack to gain leverage even this did not do much good.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Battle of Gaugamela: Alexander the Great Defeats King Darius of Persia | The American Legion's BurnPit

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Forgotten Heroes: King Porus


One will find this strange and unjust phenomenon only in the Indian sub-continent where the sons are named after a foreign victor and no one wish to name his son after the name of the vanquished ruler, the son of the soil whose valour in combat and dignity in defeat was even recognized by the victorious king. An epic battle was fought in May 326 BC between Raja Paurava of the Punjabis and Alexander from distant Macedonia. (This is the learned pronunciation. The average man would have referred to the king as Pora, which was rendered Porus on Greek tongues. Similarly Alexander is known as Sikandar in the local parlance)

Porus alone was that king who won Alexander's unstinting admiration in all those years of campaigning in the east. Neither Darius, nor Oxyartes, the father of Roxane, the mother of Alexander's posthumous son, nor any king of the Scythians or of the Pukhtuns, nor of the Sindhis won such unyielding respect from Alexander as Paurava, king of the Punjabis of Chaj Doab, did. But he is no hero for his own people.

This is interesting. In Iran where Alexander defeated that cowardly Darius who did not once stand and fight but fled from one ignominy to another, the Macedonian is a villain. For the Iranians Darius, who was not even from the line of Persian kings but a usurper placed on the throne by the intriguing vizier Bagoas, is the great hero. Alexander, the foreigner, is the violator of all that was Persian and thus sacred. The myths overlook Darius' shameful cowardice and lionise him as the defender of Persia. They also overlook Alexander's gallant behaviour towards the defeated king's mother, wives and daughters and villianise him.

Paurava had stood at the head of his army against the horde that Alexander mustered. Some eighty thousand fighting men against each other, the one side fighting to defend the sanctity of the land of their forefathers; the other in search of glory and riches. Thence did I go to celebrate my hero exactly two thousand three hundred and twenty-six years after his heroic stand against the Macedonian. It was a day in the month of May when the foreigners, having stolen a night passage across the storm-swollen River Vitasta – Hydaspes to them and Jhelum for us, clashed with the Punjabis.

One wonders if at the moment of his stolen passage Alexander's mind went back a few years. In September 331 BCE, the Macedonians were arrayed against the Persians under the cowardly Darius. In view of the overwhelming disparity favouring the Persians, one of Alexander's generals suggested a night attack. With unusual brusqueness Alexander returned, 'I do not steal victories.'

Young as he was, Alexander did not lack the ability to judge human character: he had full measure of Darius from earlier encounters and knew he was faced with a poltroon. On the Jhelum, he had heard stories of the man he was soon to meet in mortal combat. And these were no mean yarns.

Reading Arrian's pages is like watching a film. The din of the onset, the neighing of horses, the trumpeting of elephants, the wheeling cavalry, the stolid phalanxes of Greek heavy infantry, the thundering chariots, the twang of the Punjabi longbow and the swish of clouds of arrows, the clash of steel upon steel, the cries of the wounded and dying filled my mind. From break of day until well into the afternoon the engagement continued. The tide of battle turned against the Punjabis only when their tired elephants could no longer sustain their charges. With the battlefield hallowed with the blood of twenty-three thousand of their dead brothers, the Punjabis began to withdraw.

'Throughout the action Porus proved himself a man indeed, not only as a commander but as a solider of the truest courage. "¦. his behaviour was very different from that of the Persian King Darius: unlike Darius, he did not lead the scramble to save his own skin "¦ [but] fought bravely on.' No greater tribute could be paid to Paurava than these words of Arrian.

Deserted by all his units, Paurava, bleeding heavily from a grievous wound in his right shoulder – the only part of his torso unprotected by armour in order to permit him to freely draw his bow, at last turned his elephant around and began to withdraw. Then did Alexander send Ambhi the king of Taxila (who had submitted earlier and was part of the Macedonian retinue) galloping after him with a message. But Paurava and Ambhi had long been at loggerheads and the proud warrior hurled his lance at the approaching messenger who quickly withdrew. Then it was, Arrian tells us, Meroes a much respected friend of Paurava's who came to plead that the king present himself to Alexander.

Paurava, 'much distressed by thirst' asked for a drink. Then, revived, he mounted his friend's chariot and permitted himself to be driven to Alexander's camp. As the Macedonian saw the Punjabi approaching, he rode out with a party of soldiers to meet his opponent. Alexander reined in his horse, writes Arrian, and 'looked at his adversary with admiration: he was a magnificent figure of a man, five cubits high and of great personal beauty.' The cubit being variable in various parts of Greece, this figure would yet mean that Paurava was over seven feet tall – perhaps almost eight and a half. Alexander of middling stature would have had to look up into those dark eyes and the sweat-streaked face. It was then that the dramatic and well-known exchange took place between two great kings:

'What,' asked Alexander, 'do you wish that I should do with you?

'Treat me as a king ought,' replied the Punjabi.

'For my part your request shall be granted. But is there not something you would wish for yourself? Ask it.'

'Everything is contained in this one request,' said Paurava the Punjabi whom we are ashamed to claim as our own.

Alexander was so moved by the dignity in defeat of this king that he declared friendship. Subsequently, he did not only return Paurava's kingdom to him but also helped him annex the country between the Chenab and the Ravi Rivers. As for Paurava, he was the only king of the Sindhu Valley who remained steadfast in his loyalty to Alexander even after the latter had left the country – indeed even after he had died in Babylon.

Lamenting this sordid attitude of Punjabis, Salman Rashid, a Pakistani writes in his blog: A villager in Mong (now in Pakistan) spoke proudly of Alexander's triumph over Raja Paurava sounding quite like the usual rave about all battles of Islam against the Rest.

'It was a great win,' I observed.

'Oh, it was indeed.'

'Are there fathers in Mong who celebrate that victory by naming their sons Sikander?' I asked.

'Of course there are! What manner of absurd question is that?' I could just discern his chest expanding with pride.

'But are there fathers here who name their sons after the great Paurava?'

The man, indignation personified, looked at me as if I had uttered the most condemnable blasphemy.

'Porus was no Muslim!' he said contemptuously. 'He was a Hindu! The man almost spat out the last word. I was not surprised that my repeated reference to that great king by his real name did not impress the man sufficiently for him to follow suit. I very nearly blurted out that once the rest of us too were Hindus – all of us who have since conversion invented illegitimate Arab fathers for ourselves. Thanks heavens for discretion, however.

'But then neither was Alexander,' I pointed out instead.

'Alexander is named in the Quran, and that is reason enough to name sons after him.'

But in Pakistan, Alexander becomes almost an Islamic hero worshipped for overthrowing the infidel Paurava. The Punjabi kings' admirable gallantry in combat and his magnificent conduct in defeat does not raise Punjabi admiration for this great king for he was not a Muslim and therefore not for them to honour. It matters little to these people that he lived almost a thousand year before the advent of the religion they profess to hold so dear to their hearts.

Salman Eashid added that as for the name of Alexander being contained in the Quran, that too is no more than fable. The name Zulqurnain – the Two-Horned, is what we translate to signify Alexander. Now this king, according to the Quran, was a great conqueror who brought under his control all the countries from the rising to the setting sun. In the course of these adventures he also came upon a barbarous people, the Gog and Magog, against whom he built a wall. The Two-Horned king could have been Alexander who wore the ram's horns with his diadem. And it could also be Cyrus the Great, the Achaemenian conqueror who lived two hundred years before Alexander, whose conquests were no less than the Macedonian's and who also wore a double-horned helmet. If greatness be measured by the longevity of one's kingdom, Cyrus was indeed the greater for his kingdom survived him by two hundred years. Alexander's, on the other hand, did not make it beyond his premature death.

And in Punjab (India) too, this Punjabi hero is forgotten though he was a hindu

- See more at: Forgotten Heroes: King Porus � The Indian Republic

 

[Tamil Soldier]

The Maurya victory over the Selucid dynasty is just epic. The Greeks who had conquered so much in this world were repulsed by an expansive kingdom with humble Bihari origins.