Alexander the Great Invades India

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
@Johnee

Alexander was a western hero and hence his deification must also be understood from the point of view of the Western civilization.Persian empire was at the time the largest land based empire,it was not weak,rather it suffered from all the encumbrances that massive empires suffer from,Persia's position in Egypt had been weakened by revolts,but militarily it still reigned supreme,no wonder Darius was called the 'Lord of Asia'.Historically speaking Greece almost always was at Persia receiving end,ether under Cyrus or Xerxes,all tales of Greek courage and valor were epic tales of Greek struggle,often in vain, against Persian preponderance.Alexander perhaps for the first time reversed the time attested Greco-Persian power equation and stamped Greek(western) supremacy over Persia.

Infact as history would attest it was not the Greek who added the epithet Great(Megus)to Alexander's name,rather it was the Romans,wary of Alexander's deified status,who brought some sense of balance in how we perceived Alexander.Greece and Greeks veritably deified Alexander had for them Alexander had transcended the realm of mortals and become a demigod,enjoying the same exalted status as hector,Achilles or Hercules.Alexander's influence on western military intellect was quite immense,the Carthaginians and Romans swore by him,everybody from Julius Caesar,Napoleon to Rommel paid a military pilgrimage to Siwa,where Alexander himself had his Oracular vision of military glory.under Alexander Greece came o age and it was this Greece that western Europe,from Caesars Rome to Napoleons France found its most profound inspiration.This is why for west Alexander is the first of the greatest.Who can really contest that.

Alexander recorded magnanimity would not be entirely uncharacteristic.Like mentioned in the previous posts,Alexander had an axe to grind with the Persian and it was historical,after all Alexander had vowed to avenge all the humiliations Greece had to suffer from the Persians,all the way from Xerxes to Artaxerxes.Alexanders hatred for Persians and Darius was understandable,after they have been accused of plotting his father Philip II murder.However even Alexander would have known Porus was no Persian and hence would have faced the wrath of Alexander.Moreover it must be remembered that the battle of Hydaspes is hailed by western scholars as his greatest and most challenging,the production of the Elephant Medallion,which is believed to be the only physical commemoration of any of Alexander's ten year long battle,attests to its importance to Alexander himself.

Its conceivable that when you are involved in a duel with a worthy opponent,an opponent who has given you a fight that you would want to commemorate,you probably might want to spare him if he was captured or surrendered.Alexander abhorred regicide,Bessus,Daruis's ally who betrayed the Persian emperor and murdered him,was put to death by Alexander for the crime of killing the Persian king.Alexander followed this up by giving Darius a dignified ceremonial farewell.Arrain states how porus impressed Alexander by demanding a treatment 'befitting a king',hence we can assume that was how a magnanimous Alexander treated him.

Moreover all attested evidence,the only record of Alexander's conquest by Greek historians,the Numismatic evidence all declare Alexander was victorious.We have nothing to contradict them.

There were several reasons why Alexander preferred a march through the Thar and along the makaran coast.This was by far the swiftest way to reach Persia proper(now the Macedonian stronghold) as compared to the treacherous march across Punjab,Hindukush,Bactria and eastern Iran.

The Macedonians still remembered the harassment they were subjected to by steppe nomads in Bactria(whom they were not able to subdue completely).At the time of his Indian campaign Alexander's army was quite immense,swelled by the Persian and other mercenaries,and Alexander had to choose a passage which could supply this huge retinue.Going back by the route he came would have meant passing through regions which his army had only recently devastated,besides hostile populations,these devastated regions couldn't have have supplied the necessary food, water and other necessary provisions.

This is precisely why the Alexander loaded his sea fleets with provision enough to last their passage to Persia.When presented an opportunity Alexander actually preferred this kind of arrangement, where his land forces could be supplied with provision without the danger of being harassed.This was how Alexander marched to Egypt through the Palestinian coast and burning desert on the other side.Desert did not necessarily scare Alexander.

However his immaculate planning for the trip along the Baluchistan coast came undone because of the onset of the Monsoons,which forced his sea fleet to fall behind troops marching along the coast,by several months,this eventually turned disastrous for the Macedonians.

Lack of proper information on the subcontinental weather pattern and sheer bad luck put paid for their planning ,but still it was a good and reasonably solid retreat plan.
 
Last edited:

sweepy

New Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
3
Likes
0
I'm stunned. I know a lot about Alexander the great, he was one of my favorite historical figures but I could not have written that much information in such well construction for a post. I could for a paper but wow. I am just shocked you are are very intelligent person. When you are passionate about something it is hard to stop talking about it, you just want others to know how awesome it is so I think I get it.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Are you sure?! If you are right, then I think 'Alexander was defeated' theory seems more compact then the legend of 'Alexander pardoned Porus'...
I am fairly sure. Immediately after Alexander finished his Indian "campaign", Chandragupta Maurya conquered the western parts of India, as well as present-day Afghanistan. The treaty that ended the fighting between the Mauryans and the Seleucid Greeks (Alexander's successors) was signed in 305 B.C.E.

Chandragupta's early conquests denied the ability of any Hellenic states to develop in India proper. As a result, the closest Hellenic states to India by the time of Ashoka's reign were the Seleucid Empire (based in present-day Iran and allied to the Mauryas now) and the nation of Bactria (located in present-day Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). In addition, the rock and pillar edicts of Ashoka show that there considerable Yavana populations in the far Western regions of the empire, in modern Afghanistan, but not so much in the Indus Valley.

Bactria, which obtained its independence in 240 B.C.E (coinciding with the height of Ashoka's reign) following a mass revolt against the Seleucid Empire, would soon emerge as the main opponent of Mauryan influence in Central Asia. In the decade following Brhadratha's assasination and the collapse of the Mauryan Empire, the Bactrians appeared to have launched a mass invasion of western India. Although there are records of Greco-Bactrian forces capturing Pataliputra itself, the more permament Greco-Bactrian gains were around the Indus Valley. This region, which witnessed an amazing blend of Greek, Bactrian, Persian, and Indian culture, became home to the Indo-Greek Kingdoms, which lasted until the mass migration of Sakas (Scythians) into the region in the first century B.C.E. There are no records whatsoever of any Greek state in India prior to the Bactrian invasion, which itself took place one and a half centuries after Alexander's conquests.

Strangely enough, there are also very few Indian records concerning Porus, his battles, or even Alexander's campaign in India. The obvious conclusion that one could draw from this is that Alexander's role in shaping ancient India was extremely limited, and was confined almost exclusively to the periphery of the subcontinent. The heart of Indian civilization at the time, in Magadha ( modern Bihar), was completely untouched by the young Macedonian.
 
Last edited:

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
SATA,
awesome post. But how can one explain the fact that Porus apparently ends up with greater land and Ambi ends up losing some of his land?

PS: Thanks Civ.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
Remember Alexander was magnanimous and in his magnanimity he could have given territory to porus who now acted as his ally.Arrian also states that Porus joined Alexander in his campaign further east(before his eventual departure)and as a result territories as far as the Vipasha(beas) were added to porus holdings,because at Vipasha(Greeks called Hyphasis)Alexander's army famously mutinied.Besides it made sense,because these territories were east of the Pourava kingdom and would have been contiguous to Porus' territories.Moreover Porus was arguably the most powerful lord in the region,infinitely powerful than Taxila(which is why Ambhi wanted to ally Alexander as a leverage against Porus)
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...scendants-in-Himachal/articleshow/4832428.cms

Experts to study Alexander's 'last descendants' in Himachal

SHIMLA: The legend of Alexander the Great lives on. In Himachal Pradesh's sleepy Malana, a cluster of 12 villages comprising eight clans, the mystique comes alive when its inhabitants proclaim themselves as descendants of the Greek king and speak a language only they can understand.

This may be unravelled soon: a Swedish university is in talks with the Institute of Tribal Studies of Himachal University to launch a research to understand the mysterious but small population.

Uppsala University, one of the oldest institutions Nordic countries founded in 1477, and named after the town where it is located, boasts of preserving a large number of ancient symbols that have survived even today.

Institute of Tribal Studies director P K Vaid told TOI that the project had been broadly divided into two parts - trace the origin of the language that the people of Malana, a village located at a height of 8,600 ft and considered as the oldest democracy, speak. And second, trace the origin of the people in Malana.

"Their dialect, which differs from the one spoken in the region, does not find mention even in `vanshavallis' (ancestral tree) of Kullu kings. It is a mixture of various languages. We've got about 500 to 600 words that are used in their dialect and will be tracing them back to the languages from which they may have been taken. This could give us a clue to its origin," Vaid said.

The people of Malana have their facial features that, to an extent, resemble the Romans', Vaid claimed. Alexander the Great had defeated Indian king Porus along the banks of the Beas. After a series of campaigns on India, his soldiers felt tired and wanted to return home. Alexander, too, is said to have gone back home. Lore has it that some of his soldiers, too tired to return, preferred to settle down along the banks of the Beas and it is said residents of Malana may be their descendants.

Vivek Mohan, who has conducted over four years of study and produced a national award winning documentary `Malana', said the answer to Malana residents' origin remains a riddle to him.

Malana is the oldest known `republic' in the country. The police could reach the inaccessible area only in 1996. "However, I'm convinced the settlement has nothing to do with Alexander," he said.

Malana worships Lord Jamlu. Some historians believe Jamlu Dev comes from Jamabala Dala Shakche in Bhotti dialect, which means God of Wealth or God Against Enemies and it is He who gives them their rigid rule of governance called `ra-Deo' (rule in the name of God).

"They are a few thousand people whose political allegiance is only to themselves and whose religious devotion focuses on their deity," Vivek Mohan said. On their origin, Vaid claimed, since their dialect is a mixture of Sanskrit, Bhotti and Kinnauri, this alone could be the only clue to their origin.

Read more: Experts to study Alexander's 'last descendants' in Himachal - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...imachal/articleshow/4832428.cms#ixzz1C1Wg9LuF
 

rcscwc

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
280
Likes
7
Remember Alexander was magnanimous and in his magnanimity he could have given territory to porus who now acted as his ally.Arrian also states that Porus joined Alexander in his campaign further east(before his eventual departure)and as a result territories as far as the Vipasha(beas) were added to porus holdings,because at Vipasha(Greeks called Hyphasis)Alexander's army famously mutinied.Besides it made sense,because these territories were east of the Pourava kingdom and would have been contiguous to Porus' territories.Moreover Porus was arguably the most powerful lord in the region,infinitely powerful than Taxila(which is why Ambhi wanted to ally Alexander as a leverage against Porus)

Conquerers in those times were not known for magnimity. Alxender was no exception. Looks like he was rather submissive. Porus got lots of territory and gifts of gold from Alexender. Sounds like a ransom was paid. It could be either because Alexender was defeated or he was held to a hopeless stalmate. Maybe the later.

Porus did not join Alexander in further campaigns, as noted by the Greeks. But he was not hostile either. Stand off type of situation, which only those with upper hand can afford. The moment Alexender turned back, Porus took over the other territories too. Hmmm. Porus was later assassinated by machinations of Chanakys, as he had become powerful enough to challenge rise of Mauryan emperor Chandragupta.
 
Last edited:

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
Perhaps it was not an act of magnanimity,Alexander must have restored Porus his kingdom,but as a mere satrap not an independent ruler,this is indicated by accounts that Porus taking part in the war efforts of Eudemus,who was the Greek regent in the Greek conquered India,who replaced the assassinated Phillip.Alexander organized his newly conquered territories whether in Persia,Bactria or India on similar lines,organized them into satraps governed by subservient locals(former rulers turned vassals or members from the ruling clans)overseen by Greek mercenary force under a Greek or Macedonian general.

It must be remembers that the Porus of Alexander and the battle of Hydaspes,only comes to us from Greek accounts,if we have no other alternative independent account to cross reference them or to correct them,anything else would pure speculation,from a historiographical point of view.No doubt there is a hypothesis that relates The Porus or Arrain and other Greek historians,with King Parvataka of indian tradition,who tradition holds helped Maurya Chandra Gupta to overthrow the Nanda of Magadha.

The historical link between porus and Parvataka is at best very tenuous.One of the earliest reference to parvataka,who helped Chandra Gupta in outstaging the Nandas,comes from the Sanskrit Drama Mudrarakshasha by Vishakadatta,a work which roughly dated to a period as early as 6th century CE and as late as 9th century CE.In the play, Parvataka is killed by accident when he becomes hapless mistaken victim of Amatya Rakhasha's plan to assassinate Chandra Gupta by poisoning.Jaina and Buddhist accounts also refer to Parvataka the king of Himavatkuta,whose help Chadragupta and Chanakya reportedly sought.

However King Parvataka is said to belong to the kingdom Himavatkuta,not Pourava or Kaykayi if it was supposed to be the Greek porus.Moreover the Mudra raksahsa calls Parvataka a Mleecha(a reference to outsider or non Aryan),this would be erroneous if it was in reference to Porus,porus is supposed to be a Greek rendering of Pourava,or 'of the Purus',one of the foremost of Aryan dynasties.

There also appears to be a problem at arrive at a date coterminous for porus and Parvataka.If we take the commonly accepted date of Mauryas ascension to the Magadhan throne of 321 BCE,then according to Mudra Rakshasa, Parvataka must already been dead,by Rakshasa's poisoning,before this date.According to diodorus, Porus was assassinated by Eudemus in 317 BCE and his son who ascended him was killed a year later at the battle of Gabiene(Iran).There is also an instance where another porus is mentioned by Greek historian Arrian,this Porus(he is called bad porus)is said to be from a place which was between rivers Chenab and Ravi and reportedly fled to eastern Gandaridae(which is east of Bipasha,where Alexander's troop mutinied and forced him to turn back)
 

rcscwc

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
280
Likes
7
Curiously, Porus does not find much mention in Indian texts. Alexander nearly nothing. Shows one thing: At least Alexender did not exert much influence on the Indian political situation. To that extent he seems to be a minor pin prick on the periphery of India.

But more than his victories, his messy retreat is comparatively better known. If Porus was really an ally or a starap, why did Alexender not retreat along secure routes. Simple: there were no longer any secure routes for retreat. More than advance, his retreat had to be fought, what with even tribal bands attacking his army.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
Traditionally Indian scholarship's,in antiquity, approach to history and historiography has placed less emphasis on chronicling history as an independent narrative,the endeavor always has been to interpolate moments into the endless strand of a continuing saga that transcended epochs(Yuga's),hence our chronicles aren't constrained by the demands of of geospatial and time concurrence.The time transcending Hindu intellect's reaction to events fostered by external agencies is best summarized British poet Matthew Arnold's these lines...

"The East bowed low before the blast
In patient, deep disdain,
She let the legions thunder past,
And plunged in thought again."


Indian scholarship had made attempts to render the story of Alexander and his short adventure in India in our epics, unsuccessful attempts have also been made to infer the story of Alexander in the Puranas and the Skanda Purana(Skanda son of Shiva and Parvati,also known as Muruga and Karthikeya) is often the favorite target of this school of opinion.They contended that Greeks literature,esp Greek historians have often compared Lord Shiva to the Hellenic Dionysus.Alexander traces his ancestry among others to Dionysus and has been sometimes called son of Dionysus.Skanda(which they think might have been derived from Iskandar-Iskanda,the eastern nomenclature for Alexander)may be a reference to Alexander.Clearly this hypo is a long shot and based highly speculative inferences,but that's the long and short of Alexander in indian traditional historiography.

There are plausibilities why Indian chroniclers have failed to record the Macedonian invasion and the indian resistance to it,surely if the Greeks saw it fit to chronicle the bravery and courage of porus and of that unnamed queen of Muskavati,who led her people to defend their city against Alexander and died in that pursuit,Indians must have recorded it somewhere and if they didn't,then why?

Like i mentioned before Indian history is so deeply enmeshed in our myths so much so that sometimes its difficult to separate one from the other.The other history's form part of the Vamshavali's(King lists)belonging various royal dynasties,of which Kalhana's Rajatarangini is the best example.However to compose Vamshavali one requires royal patronage and that requires the existence of a hereditary royalty.According to Hindu and Buddhist scholarships from just before the time of Macedonian invasion,like Ashtadhyayi and the Jatakas,north west India was teeming with small Ganapadas,who were essentially Arratas(country with out King,Republics).Based on these evidence we might speculate that Gandhara,Takshashia,Pourava were perhaps republics and their rulers mere heads of republics.Such republics probably discouraged Vamshavali's and this is evidenced by how little information we have about the ruling clans of such republican Ganapadas from the middle of the 5th century BCE.
 

shuvo@y2k10

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,709
Country flag
well it is the old habit of india that we make conqerers-heroes as is the case of alexander,muslim invaders,babaar,british etc.our land has been one of the golden birds in the history of mankind. india is home to one of the largest,oldest and grandest civilization of the planet and the invaders have come to our land mainly to plunder and loot our enormous wealth and knowledge.hence alexander may be a western hero but to us he was just another invader.any attempt of greek or "secular"indian historians to connect greek mythology and hindu mythology is completely baseless.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mutiny-of-alexanders-army-in-india-a152786

The Mutiny of Alexander's Army in India

The Limits of Alexander the Great's Empire

Sep 25, 2009 Grant Sebastian Nell
In 326 BC, on the banks of the Hyphasis River in India, Alexander the Great's quest for Empire ground to a halt.

The Empire of Alexander

His men were exhausted. Some of Alexander's veterans had campaigned with him in Europe before shipping out to Asia: they had covered, on foot or horseback, over the course of a decade, as much as 20,870 miles. They had crossed deserts, mighty rivers, and towering mountain ranges. They had seen sights that few could have dreamt of. They had fought in great battles and sieges.
Mutiny at the Hyphasis River

The most recent battle, where Alexander crushed an Indian King named Porus at the Hydaspes river, had been especially taxing. Alexander was keen to push on into the Ganges River valley, but his men had had enough. We can gather something of their exhaustion from the words of one Coenus, son of Polemocrates:

'We stand almost at the ends of the earth, and you are preparing to enter another world . . . that is a mission appropriate to your spirit, but not to ours.'

Alexander made a lengthy appeal to his assembled men before storming off to his tent in a sulk. The following day, he declared his intention of resuming his campaign: but it was now abundantly clear that the army was not prepared to follow. Alexander had little alternative: relations between commander and men were soothed, and Alexander made his preparations for the homeward journey.

Some modern historians believe that Alexander deliberately allowed reports of dangerous beasts and enemies to reach the ears of his tired veterans, knowing it would demoralize them still further. Perhaps Alexander ( who made a point of enduring the same hardships and danger as his men) was himself weary of conquest but did not wish to lose face by suggesting that the army turn back. Alexander was a consummate leader who implicitly understood the men he commanded. And his ego was massive.

He ordered a vast camp to be constructed, including abnormally large couches and 12 sacrificial altars. All of this was deliberately left behind, perhaps in an attempt to fool any who gazed upon it that the army of Alexander was superhuman, above such considerations as weariness and exhaustion, and that their decision to return home was a mere whim.
Alexander's return to Susa

Alexander accordingly marched his army southward, following the Indus River system, with the intention of reaching the ocean and sailing back to Persia. En route, he suffered a near-fatal wound at a siege against the Mallians. He was the first to scale the walls of their city and recieved an arrow in the chest for his efforts.

Upon arriving on the shores of the Indian Ocean, (a mistake??)he took half of his forces westward through the Gedrosian desert, whilst the other half, under the command of Nearchus, sailed along the coast up the Persian Gulf. This march was to cost the lives of thousands of soldiers and camp followers.

Finally, in 325 BC, Alexander returned to Susa. But the hostility between the Europeans and Asians in his army was to return in another mutiny in 324, at Opis, on the Tigris River. Apart from the fact that many soldiers were almost crippled with fatigue and old wounds, discontentent was further exacerbated by Alexander's policies regarding the conscription of 'barbarians' ( the term for non-Greeks) into his army. This had become necessary due to the attrition of long campaigns and the sheer distances that reinforcements from Europe had to traverse.

But many Greeks and Macedonians felt that they were being discarded in favour of Asiatics. To them, this was intolerable: the former Persian Empire and all her multitudinous peoples were the hereditary enemies of ancient Greece. Tensions were heightened further by Alexander's unpopular practice of forcing his officers to take Persian wives. Alexander had the ringleaders bound in chains and drowned.

Alexander the Great died in 323 BC. Many Persians who had joined the army were murdered, and the majority of his former officers repudiated their Asian wives. With his empire torn apart by the wars of the Successors, most of his veterans never realised their dreams of returning home.

Sources:

Alexander the Great at War Edited by Ruth Sheppard, Osprey 2008
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
http://socyberty.com/military/alexander-and-porus-who-won-the-battle-of-hydespes/

Alexander and Porus-who Won The Battle of Hydespes?


You are here: Home » Military » Alexander and Porus-who Won The Battle of Hydespes?
Alexander and Porus-who Won The Battle of Hydespes?
by Madan in Military, July 17, 2010

Alexander who invaded India in 327 BC from all accounts( mostly by western historians) is supposed to have beaten the Hindu King Porus who ruled the Punjab. But a fresh look is called for and the fact remains that Alexander went back after this battle.

In 327 BC , Alexander the great invaded India after defeating the Persian kings in a series of battles.He was rightly called Sikander or the victorious. Alexander from all accounts( mostly by western historians) is supposed to have beaten the Hindu King Porus who ruled the Punjab at that time.

The battle fought on the banks of the river Jhelum referred to as Hydespes by the Greek chroniclers is supposed to have resulted in the defeat of Porus and his capture by Alexander. Detailed accounts of the battle are available. There was rain that day and the the soft sand of the river bank incapacitated the chariot's of Porus. In addition one flank of Alexander's cavalry crossed the Jhelum resulting in the death of the son of Porus.

Porus now launched his feared elephant corps( 200 in all) against the Greeks. Greek writers admit that the sight of the elephants did unnerve the Greek soldiers. They also concede that this was the most difficult battle fought by Alexander, but they claim he won.

Perhaps they are correct, but it is a mystery why such an important battle finds no place in the chroniclers of that period from the Indian side. Even a shrewd thinker like Chanakya makes no mention of this battle and Alexander.So we must add a rider to the available writings of that period.It is possible that the political effect of the battle was minimal as the power equation did not change. Hence a few scholars have concluded that perhaps Alexander was defeated by Porus.

It is also a fact that Alexander left India after this battle by the river route and handed extra lands to Porus.It is possible that after Alexander was defeated he decided to go back and as a good will gesture handed over extra domains to Porus.

On prominent scholar Dr Budha Prakash has argued in his book 'Porus' that Alexander was the loser.He has based a lot of his research on the Persian epic Shahnamehby Firdausi. In this epic the persian poet says that Porus was the victor. However the Shahnameh written in the tenth century AD cannot be accepted as entirely correct, as it was written much after the battle of Hydespes. But again it cannot be dismissed out of hand.

The battle of Hydespes is important however for a number of reasons. Firsly it effectively halted the advance of Alexander as he went back. Secondly even if he had won a tactical victory, the result was in favor of Porus who was the startegic victor. The battle however marked a turning point in the History of India at that time as it led to the rise of the Mauraya dynasity and Chandragupta I who defeated the Greeks.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Some excellent posts here LF, I read through all of them but couldn't help commenting that a sizable reason Alexander was defeated in India had to do with his army being worn out from a long campaign in Asia Minor, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and parts of Central-Asia. It is still very impressive though that the Indians were able to defeat him .
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
All empires Collapse when Indians make up their mind to fight back, be it the Greeks, Persians, Mugal Muslims, British Colonialism they all had their end here. :heh:

India had more resources than Greece,Roam,Persia,Egypt or China and yet choose to conquer by Dharma than by War.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
All empires Collapse when Indians make up their mind to fight, be it the Greeks, Persians, Mugal Muslims, British Colonialism they all had their end here. :heh:
Sounds like a blind nationalists interpretation of history. :p

Persians were defeated by the Greeks, who were encroaching into India prior to Alexander the Great. Mughals were defeated with the help of the British, and the British left partially due to the Quit India campaign, but also from pressure from the Americans to give up their overseas colonies after WWII.
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
Sounds like a blind nationalists interpretation of history. :p

Persians were defeated by the Greeks, who were encroaching into India prior to Alexander the Great. Mughals were defeated with the help of the British, and the British left partially due to the Quit India campaign, but also from pressure from the Americans to give up their overseas colonies after WWII.
Your right about the bit where i sound Nationalistic but in A way there is more to that statement than mere Nationalism. The British played no roll in the fall of Mugals, all the credit goes to the Marathas lead by Shivaji which everyone in India knows. The British merely steeped into vacuums after the collapse of Marathas and Mugals the civil war and conflicts left India vulnerable and East India Company just bought its way through. India is in a busy part of the world between east-west where we have no time to relax after an war, enemies and armies always pass by as the saying goes grass does not grow on a busy street, empires where hard to hang on to or forge because of India's Strategic location. Its not like Norther Europe which was isolated and no on was interested in finding it or conquering it because it was not as Rich as India,Persia,Roam or China and not worth the trouble. British Empire is the most over rate, all they did was fight the poor stone age Aboriginal, Native American Indians, African Tribals and an desolated post war India. The British could not do anything as long as the Mugals rained and it was only after their collapse did they step in.

Indians on the other hand had the fortune or missfortune of fight everyone who ever wanted rule the world.Right from Alexander,Mongols,Muslims,Arabs,Persians like Muhammad Ghazni etc., So we had a lot less interval after wars and invasions compared to England which is an Island in far north.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Your right about the bit where i sound Nationalistic but in A way there is more to that statement than mere Nationalism. The British played no roll in the fall of Mugals, all the credit goes to the Marathas lead by Shivaji which everyone in India knows. The British merely steeped into vacuums after the collapse of Marathas and Mugals the civil war and conflicts left India vulnerable and East India Company just bought its way through. India is in a busy part of the world between east-west where we have no time to relax after an war, enemies and armies always pass by as the saying goes grass does not grow on a busy street, empires where hard to hang on to or forge because of India's Strategic location. Its not like Norther Europe which was isolated and no on was interested in finding it or conquering it because it was not as Rich as India,Persia,Roam or China and not worth the trouble. British Empire is the most over rate, all they did was fight the poor stone age Aboriginal, Native American Indians, African Tribals and an desolated post war India. The British could not do anything as long as the Mugals rained and it was only after their collapse did they step in.

Indians on the other hand had the fortune or missfortune of fight everyone who ever wanted rule the world.Right from Alexander,Mongols,Muslims,Arabs,Persians like Muhammad Ghazni etc., So we had a lot less interval after wars and invasions compared to England which is an Island in far north.
You are right about some European countries isolation, but England is not a country that has been isolated throughout its history; even when it tried to be. Maybe if you are talking about Sweden. The British isles have been invaded/attacked/conquered by the Vikings, Romans, Normans, Spanish, French, Dutch, Barbary Pirates, and the Germans during WWII (which if it were nextdoor to India, I think you might be saying something entirely different). Being an island has helped to safeguard them from certain kinds of invasions, but that doesn't mean it hasn't had its own fair shares of raiders and conquerors. Highlighting the colonial period (which I would somewhat agree with you) is a very narrow view of their history, and yet again more nationalism on your part.

As you know I don't defend colonialism, but the British did play a far less significant role in bringing down the Mughals compared to the Marathras. British rule did unite the Indian subcontinent for a period though, and was also a lot less violent and oppressive in rule compared to that of the muslim predecessors. I think you might know what I'm talking about here.

I could with equal measure say that Indias struggle against its invaders is also overrated. They were unable to fight the Persians successfully until the Greeks defeated them, allowing the Mauryans to conquer and capture all of what is known today as Pakistan and Afghanistan, as the Greeks themselves were worn out from a long campaign, and Alexanders megalomania didn't seem to dwindle. The muslims who invaded India did so gradually, and if you read up on how they managed to steal land from the Hindus and Buddhists; you would be disgusted, it would dwarf anything the British ever did. The Mongols further weakened the Indian subcontinent allowing Timur and his descendants to eventually subjugate the subcontinent, and the subsequent Mughal dynasties were arguably some of the most oppressive and barbaric of rulers in Indias history, barring Ackbar of course.

Although this would be unnecessarily dismissive, bordering on being nationalist myself. Instead I would prefer to highlight the similar struggles that most in the west and those in India have today; which is against islamism.
 
Last edited:

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
You are right about some European countries isolation, but England is not a country that has been isolated throughout its history; even when it tried to be. Maybe if you are talking about Sweden. The British isles have been invaded/attacked/conquered by the Vikings, Romans, Normans, Spanish, French, Dutch, Barbary Pirates, and the Germans during WWII (which if it were nextdoor to India, I think you might be saying something entirely different). Being an island has helped to safeguard them from certain kinds of invasions, but that doesn't mean it hasn't had its own fair shares of raiders and conquerors. Highlighting the colonial period (which I would somewhat agree with you) is a very narrow view of their history, and yet again more nationalism on your part.

As you know I don't defend colonialism, but the British did play a far less significant role in bringing down the Mughals compared to the Marathras. British rule did unite the Indian subcontinent for a period though, and was also a lot less violent and oppressive in rule compared to that of the muslim predecessors. I think you might know what I'm talking about here.

I could with equal measure say that Indias struggle against its invaders is also overrated. They were unable to fight the Persians successfully until the Greeks defeated them, allowing the Mauryans to conquer and capture all of what is known today as Pakistan and Afghanistan, as the Greeks themselves were worn out from a long campaign, and Alexanders megalomania didn't seem to dwindle. The muslims who invaded India did so gradually, and if you read up on how they managed to steal land from the Hindus and Buddhists; you would be disgusted, it would dwarf anything the British ever did. The Mongols further weakened the Indian subcontinent allowing Timur and his descendants to eventually subjugate the subcontinent, and the subsequent Mughal dynasties were arguably some of the most oppressive and barbaric of rulers in Indias history, barring Ackbar of course.

Although this would be unnecessarily dismissive, bordering on being nationalist myself. Instead I would prefer to highlight the similar struggles that most in the west and those in India have today; which is against islamism.
All those you mentioned about invading Europe are European tribes themselves, you cant expect even that not to happen? When Alexander set off from Greece Aristotle did not teach Alexander that great wealth lay beyond Britian. He taught Alexander that great wealth and power lay beyond Persia in India. Everyone knew the richness of Indias golden temples and diamond studded idols, most of the worlds famous Diamonds come from pillaging Hindu temples and palaces. Even when the Colonials set off to find trade they did not choose to find America or set sail to Congo, they wanted to find India. Everyone wanted the riches in India and even today India is the largest consumer of Gold and no one spends more than in Indian weeding. So naturally India was targeted out because of its richness in trade and wealth.

The British did not rule by a Kingdoom, instead the East India Company did the bull work. They where more interested in pillaging and digging temples and selling drugs to everyone. They where in India 200years and could not do a thing till both the Marathas and Mugals collapsed and they simply walked in.

You blame me for nationalism while your line is not any different from the regular line that every westerner treads in every discussion and wants us to troll the same line of European greatness. Why would i do that! You defend the Greeks out of mere Westernism, while you think it is over rated to defend myself. The Greeks converted to Buddhism and Ashoka who wanted to conquer all of Alexanders territory gave up violence and threw down the sword in disgust after he slaughtered 100,000 people in Kalinga. He said, "It is better to conquer through Dharma than to Conquer by force, a man who conquered himself, is greater than a man who conquered land. Even by then Ashokas know territory was at least three fourths the size of Alexanders and the unknown conquests could go as far as Thailand and into Central Asia.

What have I done? If this is a victory, what's a defeat then? Is this a victory or a defeat? Is this justice or injustice? Is it gallantry or a rout? Is it valor to kill innocent children and women? Do I do it to widen the empire and for prosperity or to destroy the other's kingdom and splendor? One has lost her husband, someone else a father, someone a child, someone an unborn infant.... What's this debris of the corpses? Are these marks of victory or defeat? Are these vultures, crows, eagles the messengers of death or evil?

The conquest by Dharma has been won here, on the borders, and even six hundred yojanas (5,400–9,600 km) away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tambaparni (Sri Lanka).
—Edicts of Ashoka, Rock Edict 13 (S. Dhammika)


Everywhere within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi's [Ashoka's] domain, and among the people beyond the borders, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos, everywhere has Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown. Wherever medical roots or fruits are not available I have had them imported and grown. Along roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals.
—Edicts of Ashoka, Rock Edict 2


Ten years (of reign) having been completed, King
Piodasses (one of the titles of Ashoka: Piyadassi or Priyadarsi, "He who is the beloved of the Gods and who regards
everyone amiably") made known (the doctrine of)
Piety (Greek:εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia) to men; and from this moment he has made
men more pious, and everything thrives throughout
the whole world. And the king abstains from (killing)
living beings, and other men and those who (are)
huntsmen and fishermen of the king have desisted
from hunting. And if some (were) intemperate, they
have ceased from their intemperance as was in their
power; and obedient to their father and mother and to
the elders, in opposition to the past also in the future,
by so acting on every occasion, they will live better
and more happily.


I find this as an better example than western Heros like Alexander or Napoleon who only glorified war and could not graduate to an higher state of rational. Looks like Ashoka reached the Age of Enlightenment far before most others did! :)
 
Last edited:

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Well GK I'm going to sift through the hyperbole and fallacies to respond to the points that were in response to the ones I actually made, and not the ones you think I was making.

All those you mentioned about invading Europe are European tribes themselves, you cant expect even that not to happen? When Alexander set off from Greece Aristotle did not teach Alexander that great wealth lay beyond Britian. He taught Alexander that great wealth and power lay beyond Persia in India. Everyone knew the richness of Indias golden temples and diamond studded idols, most of the worlds famous Diamonds come from pillaging Hindu temples and palaces. Even when the Colonials set off to find trade they did not choose to find America or set sail to Congo, they wanted to find India. Everyone wanted the riches in India and even today India is the largest consumer of Gold and no one spends more than in Indian weeding. So naturally India was targeted out because of its richness in trade and wealth.
What does the richness of India have to do with anything I said? I wasn't talking about the motives, although yes they are important in another context. Interesting to note is that a sizable chunk or even majority of the destruction of Hindu/Buddhist schools, temples, places of worship, etc... were actually demolished and looted by muslims prior to and during the Mughal dynasties.

Also whether or not most of the invaders of the British isles were European or not is besides the point, and the Barbary pirates were certainly not European either. The same point could be said that apart from the Greeks and Brits, most of Indias invaders have actually been Asian; same continent as India. The point is that India is not a country that has had a disproportionate amount of invasions when you compare to many European or Middle-Eastern countries.

You blame me for nationalism while your line is not any different from the regular line that every westerner treads in every discussion and wants us to troll the same line of European greatness.
When did I say anything a long those lines in this thread exactly? All I said in relation to your original point is that England has had its fair share of invasions, and while the motivations inherently were different; the results were similar.

Why would i do that! You defend the Greeks out of mere Westernism, while you think it is over rated to defend myself.
I pointed out that India did not defeat the Persians, it was the Greeks who ultimately did and any historian can tell you that. The Mauryans captured land in Afghanistan and Pakistan because the Greeks had already came through and wiped out the Persian forces in the region. If that is considered blind western nationalism, to point out a historical inaccuracy on your part, then there can never be a serious discussion on these subjects without upsetting someones national pride or precious feelings. I've had enough of this kind of thinking from muslim extremists GK, I sure don't need it from you.

The Greeks converted to Buddhism and Ashoka who wanted to conquer all of Alexanders territory gave up violence and threw down the sword in disgust after he slaughtered 100,000 people in Kalinga. He said, "It is better to conquer through Dharma than to Conquer by force, a man who conquered himself, is greater than a man who conquered land. Even by then Ashokas know territory was at least three fourths the size of Alexanders and the unknown conquests could go as far as Thailand and into Central Asia.
In reference to your point about him becoming a Buddhist; So what? Many Mongols converted to Christianity and Islam, usually through their captured regions. Naturally even in a war situation where two or more cultures clash, there are attempts to bring differing perspectives together or to share each others experiences and knowledge. That is a common practice throughout history. I might also add that the historically accepted boundaries of the Mauryans did not reach that far, although I'm sure their cultural influence (like many other numerous empires in history) did extend beyond their borders. Ashokas realization is an admirable one though, if only the communists, fascists, and other monarchists of the world had realized the same thing, then perhaps the world would be a better place.

I find this as an better example than western Heros like Alexander or Napoleon who only glorified war and could not graduate to an higher state of rational. Looks like Ashoka reached the Age of Enlightenment far before most others did! :)
Alexander grew up in a period of history where monarchism, expansionism, and similar ideas were common, even amongst the Indians he fought against these could be found. I'm not trying to downplay the Mauryans or Indian history, I am trying to keep an objective and neutral approach to these periods without resorting to blind nationalism. If you can understand that distinction then we can have a serious discussion, otherwise I can predict that this will get unnecessarily emotional fast; I'd rather avoid that. If you fail to understand that, then I will cease having this argument with you as it will be pointless.

Now despite your dismissive and rhetorical remarks, I might highlight some things to the contrary; if that is perfectly fine with you. One of which is the Library of Alexandria, which would have not existed had it not have been for the conquests of Alexander over the Persians. Another aspect was the spreading and propagating of Hellenism, which reached as far as India and included the works of many famous Greek philosophers, mathematicians, and general thinkers. So how is Alexander any less of a ruler than Ashoka? The only difference is that the latter was able to realize war is futile after he had killed tens of thousands of people, where as Alexander was assassinated before he would have had the chance to see that for himself; despite his own massacres.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top