Alexander the Great Invades India
- Thread starter LETHALFORCE
- Start date
S.A.T.A
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,569
- Likes
- 1,560
What i meant is Indian Dharmic scriptures where never intended to be reduced to a written form.Infact they very form of their composition and its underlying grammar was intended to aide its easy memorization.While there is evidence that Indians did maintain written records of their literary works, still the emphasize of the system was on recording in in the mind than on any perishable surface.Infact the rules and procedure of memorizing them was so strict and rigid that memory even retained the language it composed in.Vedic Samskrit as a language is only known to us only because of such strict methods,otherwise even by the time of composition of the epics,Vedic Samskrit was a dead language as a means of mass communication.
Mass Recording literary works on perishable surface as means of communication, perhaps started when non religious literature, both with political and entertainment value,gained importance.That happened late in our historical period.
That was the genius of Indian intellect,the repository of our civilization was not some paper or tablet that would be rendered to dust in a few generation,but the vast and imperishable human mind.
P.S:This is becoming off topic.
Mass Recording literary works on perishable surface as means of communication, perhaps started when non religious literature, both with political and entertainment value,gained importance.That happened late in our historical period.
That was the genius of Indian intellect,the repository of our civilization was not some paper or tablet that would be rendered to dust in a few generation,but the vast and imperishable human mind.
P.S:This is becoming off topic.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
Did Alexander really defeat Indian Kings? | Short Articles - Science, Technology, Computers
Did Alexander really defeat Indian Porus?
There is a controversy on battle between Alexander (Macedonian) and Indian Porus, one of his last battles before he died . While history (legend) says that Alexander won the hard fought battle, some scholars and experts argue that Greeks turned the tale around to hide Alexander’s first defeat, which forced him to leave the plans to move further into Great India. It’s even more surprising to find out that Plutarch wrote Alexander’s biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source.
Alexander’s quest to conquer the entire world started in 335 B.C . It’s 326 B.C spring time that he entered India “the land of milk and honey”, for invasion. He set to battle with Porus, the ruler of the kingdom Paurava situated between the rivers Hydaspes (modern Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab). Its capital may have been at the site now known as Lahore, assisted by Porus arch rival Ambi of Taxila.
The legend : (According to History)
The Porus were outnumbered and outclassed by the Macedonian army. A wounded king Porus surrendered only after the destruction of his entire army.The Indian leader accepted his defeat. When Alexander asked him how he wanted to be treated, he gave the famous reply ‘as a king‘. An impressed Alexander reappointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom. Porus received additional territories to the north of his kingdom which belongs to Ambi . Alexander moved down to conquer more Indian territories .When the armies reached the Beas, they were tired and homesick. So they refused to proceed any further.This rebel forced Alexander to giveup the quest and divided army into two parts to reach home. On his way back, Alexander died in 323 B.C.at an early age of 33 at Babylon near Baghdad.
The controversy :
In the 1960, an Indian scholar named Buddha Prakash argued, basing himself on the famous medieval epic named Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi, that Alexander was defeated’ by Porus, that the two men became friends, and that this explained why Alexander left him so much territories. So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin? So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Let’s see the two famous conspiracy theories put forth by some famous scholars :
Theory 1 : Alexander gave up to battle rest of India….
Alexander won on Porus with utmost difficulty. Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, “Like a king” – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander’s admiration. Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi’s Taxila. Alexander made mistake by asking Porus “What it would take to win the rest of India?” in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom. As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander’s generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces? And so army revolted against continuing for this reason but not for “homesick” as told in history.
Theory 2: Alexander lost to Puru.
Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru. So there’s Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. Alexander suffers a wound to the side. They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split . Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great The two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. leaving true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake.
What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. A shrewd politician, like Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. Alexander even resorted to pure and simple cheating to win some places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army.
With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. King Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
Did Alexander really defeat Indian Porus?
There is a controversy on battle between Alexander (Macedonian) and Indian Porus, one of his last battles before he died . While history (legend) says that Alexander won the hard fought battle, some scholars and experts argue that Greeks turned the tale around to hide Alexander’s first defeat, which forced him to leave the plans to move further into Great India. It’s even more surprising to find out that Plutarch wrote Alexander’s biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source.
Alexander’s quest to conquer the entire world started in 335 B.C . It’s 326 B.C spring time that he entered India “the land of milk and honey”, for invasion. He set to battle with Porus, the ruler of the kingdom Paurava situated between the rivers Hydaspes (modern Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab). Its capital may have been at the site now known as Lahore, assisted by Porus arch rival Ambi of Taxila.
The legend : (According to History)
The Porus were outnumbered and outclassed by the Macedonian army. A wounded king Porus surrendered only after the destruction of his entire army.The Indian leader accepted his defeat. When Alexander asked him how he wanted to be treated, he gave the famous reply ‘as a king‘. An impressed Alexander reappointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom. Porus received additional territories to the north of his kingdom which belongs to Ambi . Alexander moved down to conquer more Indian territories .When the armies reached the Beas, they were tired and homesick. So they refused to proceed any further.This rebel forced Alexander to giveup the quest and divided army into two parts to reach home. On his way back, Alexander died in 323 B.C.at an early age of 33 at Babylon near Baghdad.
The controversy :
In the 1960, an Indian scholar named Buddha Prakash argued, basing himself on the famous medieval epic named Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi, that Alexander was defeated’ by Porus, that the two men became friends, and that this explained why Alexander left him so much territories. So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin? So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Let’s see the two famous conspiracy theories put forth by some famous scholars :
Theory 1 : Alexander gave up to battle rest of India….
Alexander won on Porus with utmost difficulty. Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, “Like a king” – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander’s admiration. Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi’s Taxila. Alexander made mistake by asking Porus “What it would take to win the rest of India?” in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom. As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander’s generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces? And so army revolted against continuing for this reason but not for “homesick” as told in history.
Theory 2: Alexander lost to Puru.
Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru. So there’s Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. Alexander suffers a wound to the side. They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split . Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great The two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. leaving true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake.
What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. A shrewd politician, like Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. Alexander even resorted to pure and simple cheating to win some places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army.
With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. King Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
http://newbiepoetry.blogspot.com/2008/03/alexanders-defeat-in-india.html
ALEXANDER THE DEFEATED!
Alexander the Great invaded India after the conquest of Persia. In the battle of Jhelum, he defeated Porus and in a dramatic interaction between the victorious and the defeated, Porus impresses Alexander by his boldness and gets back his kingdom as a reward.
This is the most popular story that commemorated Alexander's invasion in India. It depicts a victorious and brave Alexander. But what if all these tales about a victorious invader were a myth? What if history presents a completely different and gloomy picture of Alexander's invasion in India? What if the actual history and modern research topples the well groomed representation of a victorious Alexander and reveals a sad, devastated and defeated Alexander?
Well, that is what the true history has to say. Quite astonishingly, all the chronicles and writings about Alexander's Indian adventure that we have today were actually composed two to three centuries after the death of the Macedonian hero. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake. Often the ancient Greek writers, who wrote about Alexander's Indian campaign, had exaggerated the facts to a greater extent. What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. Most important was the work of Kautilya. As a shrewd politician, Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. Further, since the illuminated days of Buddha, the pali and Sanskrit literature had recorded Indian politics, economy, society in a great detail. They left distinct records about Bimbisara and Ajatsatru. They spoke about the Magadhan kings, the Mauryas and so on. But why did the keen observers of Indian politics miss out the invasion of Alexander? All these suggest that Alexander's campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. It was perhaps the earliest European scholars who nurtured with the Indian ancient, found Alexander's invasion an important tool to legitimize the European presence and interests in the Indian subcontinent. Thus they portrayed the stereotypical image of a victorious Alexander in the Indian context.
Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. In the first encounter, Alexander fought for four days against the Swat people. Massaga was the stronghold of the warlike and prosperous Swat tribe. On the first day of this four day battle, Alexander was forced to retreat. The same fate awaited him on the second and third days. When Alexander lost men and was on the verge of defeat, he called for a truce. However, Alexander treacherously slaughtered the unaware and unarmed Swat population as they slept in the night of the fourth day believing that the battle was over.
In the second and third battles at Bazaira and Aornus, Alexander faced similar fate and ultimately resorted to pure and simple cheating to win those places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army. With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. The ancient chroniclers mentions of a huge army of Porus and gave some figures of his strength. But what was the strength of Alexander's troop? The greek and roman chroniclers preferred to keep silent. However, the flow of events since Alexander invaded India suggests Alexander led a weak and small Macedonian army in the build up to the battle of Jhelum. Though the numerical majority might not be the x-factor in winning battles after the coming of gunpowder, in the days of Alexander, numerical majority decided a battle fought on land. Moreover, a large regiment of elephants that constituted the first row of Porus' phalanx was a decisive factor also. In any case, the Macedonian horses would be frightened and the infantry would be trampled by the advancing elephants. Where Alexander's troops failed against the petty regional tribal chiefdoms, how could they have crushed the huge and increasingly powerful army of Porus?
Ancient texts reveals that Alexander was seriously wounded and his horse Bucephala and his trusted general Nicaea died in the first charge of Porus. And yet, quite illogically, the ancient writers concluded the battle in favour of Alexander. The most popular version speaks of Alexander being the winner and that Alexander orders porus to surrender and thus follows the well known myth.
The events that followed the battle speak against Alexander's victory. Those were:
Firstly, in his next two campaigns at Sangala and Malli, Alexander's cavalry was totally destroyed and Alexander himself had to leave the troops on foot!!!
Secondly, whatever land that was gained was added to Porus' kingdom. Alexander fought battles as if he was the general of Porus and especially in Sangala campaign where Alexander lost hundreds of soldiers. But the gains were not for him, but for Porus.
Thirdly, king Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander's warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
Fourthly, when Alexander was fighting on the battlefield, Porus' army rested in the garrison both at Sangala and Malli. If Alexander would have defeated Porus at helum, the opposite would have happened. It is quite illogical that the victor would engage his weakened force in battle in order to conquer new territories for the conquered and subdued. Alexander was mortally wounded in these campaigns also.
All these evidences and suspicious silence of the Greek and the Roman chroniclers suggests Alexander's total defeat at Jhelum. It is also obvious that he signed a sort of subsidiary alliance with Porus. If the myth that I mentioned at the beginning had really taken place, then Alexander and Porus must have interchanged their positions. And that was history.
Alexander's Indian campaign was a great blunder on his part and it certainly scripted the fall of this much celebrated conqueror.
ALEXANDER THE DEFEATED!
Alexander the Great invaded India after the conquest of Persia. In the battle of Jhelum, he defeated Porus and in a dramatic interaction between the victorious and the defeated, Porus impresses Alexander by his boldness and gets back his kingdom as a reward.
This is the most popular story that commemorated Alexander's invasion in India. It depicts a victorious and brave Alexander. But what if all these tales about a victorious invader were a myth? What if history presents a completely different and gloomy picture of Alexander's invasion in India? What if the actual history and modern research topples the well groomed representation of a victorious Alexander and reveals a sad, devastated and defeated Alexander?
Well, that is what the true history has to say. Quite astonishingly, all the chronicles and writings about Alexander's Indian adventure that we have today were actually composed two to three centuries after the death of the Macedonian hero. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake. Often the ancient Greek writers, who wrote about Alexander's Indian campaign, had exaggerated the facts to a greater extent. What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. Most important was the work of Kautilya. As a shrewd politician, Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. Further, since the illuminated days of Buddha, the pali and Sanskrit literature had recorded Indian politics, economy, society in a great detail. They left distinct records about Bimbisara and Ajatsatru. They spoke about the Magadhan kings, the Mauryas and so on. But why did the keen observers of Indian politics miss out the invasion of Alexander? All these suggest that Alexander's campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. It was perhaps the earliest European scholars who nurtured with the Indian ancient, found Alexander's invasion an important tool to legitimize the European presence and interests in the Indian subcontinent. Thus they portrayed the stereotypical image of a victorious Alexander in the Indian context.
Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. In the first encounter, Alexander fought for four days against the Swat people. Massaga was the stronghold of the warlike and prosperous Swat tribe. On the first day of this four day battle, Alexander was forced to retreat. The same fate awaited him on the second and third days. When Alexander lost men and was on the verge of defeat, he called for a truce. However, Alexander treacherously slaughtered the unaware and unarmed Swat population as they slept in the night of the fourth day believing that the battle was over.
In the second and third battles at Bazaira and Aornus, Alexander faced similar fate and ultimately resorted to pure and simple cheating to win those places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army. With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. The ancient chroniclers mentions of a huge army of Porus and gave some figures of his strength. But what was the strength of Alexander's troop? The greek and roman chroniclers preferred to keep silent. However, the flow of events since Alexander invaded India suggests Alexander led a weak and small Macedonian army in the build up to the battle of Jhelum. Though the numerical majority might not be the x-factor in winning battles after the coming of gunpowder, in the days of Alexander, numerical majority decided a battle fought on land. Moreover, a large regiment of elephants that constituted the first row of Porus' phalanx was a decisive factor also. In any case, the Macedonian horses would be frightened and the infantry would be trampled by the advancing elephants. Where Alexander's troops failed against the petty regional tribal chiefdoms, how could they have crushed the huge and increasingly powerful army of Porus?
Ancient texts reveals that Alexander was seriously wounded and his horse Bucephala and his trusted general Nicaea died in the first charge of Porus. And yet, quite illogically, the ancient writers concluded the battle in favour of Alexander. The most popular version speaks of Alexander being the winner and that Alexander orders porus to surrender and thus follows the well known myth.
The events that followed the battle speak against Alexander's victory. Those were:
Firstly, in his next two campaigns at Sangala and Malli, Alexander's cavalry was totally destroyed and Alexander himself had to leave the troops on foot!!!
Secondly, whatever land that was gained was added to Porus' kingdom. Alexander fought battles as if he was the general of Porus and especially in Sangala campaign where Alexander lost hundreds of soldiers. But the gains were not for him, but for Porus.
Thirdly, king Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander's warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
Fourthly, when Alexander was fighting on the battlefield, Porus' army rested in the garrison both at Sangala and Malli. If Alexander would have defeated Porus at helum, the opposite would have happened. It is quite illogical that the victor would engage his weakened force in battle in order to conquer new territories for the conquered and subdued. Alexander was mortally wounded in these campaigns also.
All these evidences and suspicious silence of the Greek and the Roman chroniclers suggests Alexander's total defeat at Jhelum. It is also obvious that he signed a sort of subsidiary alliance with Porus. If the myth that I mentioned at the beginning had really taken place, then Alexander and Porus must have interchanged their positions. And that was history.
Alexander's Indian campaign was a great blunder on his part and it certainly scripted the fall of this much celebrated conqueror.
Last edited:
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
http://www.indiayogi.com/courses/sw/workshop4.aspx
Chanakya/Kautilya's Arthashastra
Kautilya (Chanakya), the world's first Management Guru
Chanakya was the world's first management guru. His management thoughts and ideas helped kings and rules for centuries. All the powerful kings in ancient India like Ashoka had learnt Arthashastra and practiced it to expand their kingdom [Chanakya] multifold (increase market share), to protect the kingdom against powerful enemies (develop a strategy against competitors), develop winning strategies, habits and practices.
How do the kings and rulers of today's corporate world apply his techniques in their respective organisations? Chanakya in his world famous book Kautilya's Arthashastra has brought out some of the key business principles and strategies.
Kautilya's Arthashastra, the oldest Book on Total Management
Kautilya's Arthashastra is the oldest book on Management available to the world. It was written by Kautilya (also known as Chanakya and Vishnugupta) in 300 BC. When literally translated, it means 'Scripture of Wealth'. The main focus of the book is on creation and management of wealth.
However, the book is a masterpiece which covers a wide range of topics like statecraft, politics, military warfare, strategy, selection and training of employees, leadership skills, legal systems, accounting systems, taxation, fiscal policies, civil rules, internal and foreign trade etc. It also covers various technical subjects including medicine, gemology, metallurgy, measures of length, tables of weights, divisions of time, among many others.
No wonder scholars down the centuries have time and again described Kautilya as a rare mastermind who could be an expert in so many varied and specialized fields.
He was responsible for bringing down the Nanda dysnasty and establishing his able student Chandragupta Maurya on the throne as the emperor. Hence, he is called a King Maker. He is also credited with having masterminded the defeat of Alexander the Great in India, when he was on his march to conquer the world.
As a political thinker, he was the first to visualize the concept of a 'Nation' for the first time in Human History. During his time, India was split into various kingdoms. He brought all of them together under one central governance, thus creating a nation called Aryavartha, which later became India.
He documented his life-long work in this book Arthashastra. For ages, rulers across the world have referred to the Arthashastra for building a nation on sound economics, based on spiritual values. Emperor Ashoka is supposed to have built and expanded his kingdom on the principles described in this book. Shivaji, the ruler of the Indian state of Maharashtra, is said to have studied this book in order to plan and defeat the Mughals.
Even though India and Indians never forgot the Arthashastra, the study and practical application of the book lost its importance since the British rule. Prof. Shama Shastry rediscovered the book in 1905, and he wrote its first English translation.
However, apart from the scholarly work, this book needs to be once again represented for practical application in today's world. The book has got many principles and techniques, which once applied can prove a tremendous improvement even in our day-to-day management.
Your eCourse Facilitator
Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai, himself a businessman, has taken lot of pains over the last ten years to study this book in detail under many well known scholars of India. He has been teaching the principles of management contained in this book to various corporations, management students and research scholars. He is a weekly columnist on the same subject for the Times of India newspaper (the world's largest selling newspaper).
Some may ask, "Is this book written over 2000 years ago still applicable in today's world?" For which, great thinkers have said, "The Arthashastra is a book about the management of the 'human mind', which has remained the same since ages."
"So long as the Human mind remains filled with its negativities of jealousy, ego, hatred and over indulgence, so long as human beings require self control, discipline and management., 'Kautilaya's Arthashastra' will remain relevant."
Chanakya/Kautilya's Arthashastra
Kautilya (Chanakya), the world's first Management Guru
Chanakya was the world's first management guru. His management thoughts and ideas helped kings and rules for centuries. All the powerful kings in ancient India like Ashoka had learnt Arthashastra and practiced it to expand their kingdom [Chanakya] multifold (increase market share), to protect the kingdom against powerful enemies (develop a strategy against competitors), develop winning strategies, habits and practices.
How do the kings and rulers of today's corporate world apply his techniques in their respective organisations? Chanakya in his world famous book Kautilya's Arthashastra has brought out some of the key business principles and strategies.
Kautilya's Arthashastra, the oldest Book on Total Management
Kautilya's Arthashastra is the oldest book on Management available to the world. It was written by Kautilya (also known as Chanakya and Vishnugupta) in 300 BC. When literally translated, it means 'Scripture of Wealth'. The main focus of the book is on creation and management of wealth.
However, the book is a masterpiece which covers a wide range of topics like statecraft, politics, military warfare, strategy, selection and training of employees, leadership skills, legal systems, accounting systems, taxation, fiscal policies, civil rules, internal and foreign trade etc. It also covers various technical subjects including medicine, gemology, metallurgy, measures of length, tables of weights, divisions of time, among many others.
No wonder scholars down the centuries have time and again described Kautilya as a rare mastermind who could be an expert in so many varied and specialized fields.
He was responsible for bringing down the Nanda dysnasty and establishing his able student Chandragupta Maurya on the throne as the emperor. Hence, he is called a King Maker. He is also credited with having masterminded the defeat of Alexander the Great in India, when he was on his march to conquer the world.
As a political thinker, he was the first to visualize the concept of a 'Nation' for the first time in Human History. During his time, India was split into various kingdoms. He brought all of them together under one central governance, thus creating a nation called Aryavartha, which later became India.
He documented his life-long work in this book Arthashastra. For ages, rulers across the world have referred to the Arthashastra for building a nation on sound economics, based on spiritual values. Emperor Ashoka is supposed to have built and expanded his kingdom on the principles described in this book. Shivaji, the ruler of the Indian state of Maharashtra, is said to have studied this book in order to plan and defeat the Mughals.
Even though India and Indians never forgot the Arthashastra, the study and practical application of the book lost its importance since the British rule. Prof. Shama Shastry rediscovered the book in 1905, and he wrote its first English translation.
However, apart from the scholarly work, this book needs to be once again represented for practical application in today's world. The book has got many principles and techniques, which once applied can prove a tremendous improvement even in our day-to-day management.
Your eCourse Facilitator
Mr. Radhakrishnan Pillai, himself a businessman, has taken lot of pains over the last ten years to study this book in detail under many well known scholars of India. He has been teaching the principles of management contained in this book to various corporations, management students and research scholars. He is a weekly columnist on the same subject for the Times of India newspaper (the world's largest selling newspaper).
Some may ask, "Is this book written over 2000 years ago still applicable in today's world?" For which, great thinkers have said, "The Arthashastra is a book about the management of the 'human mind', which has remained the same since ages."
"So long as the Human mind remains filled with its negativities of jealousy, ego, hatred and over indulgence, so long as human beings require self control, discipline and management., 'Kautilaya's Arthashastra' will remain relevant."
Last edited:
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch13.htm
Chandragupta -- Emperor and Martyr
Shortly after the passing of Alexander, India's first great empire arose, ruled by Chandragupta Maurya. According to legend, Chandragupta Maurya was the son of a herdsman. When he was a young man he met Alexander the Great, and days later he was awakened by a lion gently licking his body -- an omen that he would become royalty.
Chandragupta's counselor and advisor was his adoptive father, Chanakya, who is said to have kept Chandragupta's youthful impulses in check and to have been learned in medicine, Hellenism and Zoroastrianism. And it is said that he guided Chandragupta in a bloody war that began two years after Alexander left India, a war that ended with Chandragupta overthrowing the Nanda dynasty that had been ruling the state of Magadha.
Chanakya became Chandragupta's Prime Minister, and legend describes Chanakya (Kautilya) as the author of a book entitled Arthasastra, which appears to have been written during the time of Chandragupta but with writings added centuries later. Arthasastra means science of property and material success, and in the book this success includes political and diplomatic strategy aimed at uniting India. It has a flavor to it similar to the Legalism that rivaled Confucianism and Taoism in China. The book advises a king to control his subjects, especially his ministers, and the Brahmins, wealthy merchants and his beautiful women. To help in this, according to the author, the king should employ an army of various artful persons as spies who keep watch at all levels of society. Arthasastra advises a king to be energetic, ever wakeful, to make himself accessible to his subjects and to guard against six enemies: anger, greed, lust, exuberance, hauteur and vanity.
Foremost is the book's advocacy of military expansion. In Arthasastra it is claimed that aggrandizement is human nature, that a power superior in strength to another power should launch a war against that power, and that war keeps a nation's blood circulation regular. Chanakya was aware that toward the northwest, in the Indus Valley, were tribal republics and monarchies that had been weakened by war against Alexander. Moreover, Alexander had demonstrated that a disciplined and strong force could conquer the region. And it appeared that an India united by a great conqueror was the best defense against a recurring foreign intrusion. Chandragupta, in accordance with the views of Chanakya, sent an army of infantry, cavalry, many chariots and elephants to the Indus Valley, extending his rule there and beyond, into the Hindu Kush. The first Seleucid king, Seleucus I, attempted to recover lands taken by Chandragupta. But in the year 305 BCE, Chandragupta turned back Seleucus' drive. Seleucus was forced to settle with Chandragupta. Chandragupta then conquered northward from Magadha, into the Himalayas, and he conquered the rest of northern India.
Chandragupta -- Emperor and Martyr
Shortly after the passing of Alexander, India's first great empire arose, ruled by Chandragupta Maurya. According to legend, Chandragupta Maurya was the son of a herdsman. When he was a young man he met Alexander the Great, and days later he was awakened by a lion gently licking his body -- an omen that he would become royalty.
Chandragupta's counselor and advisor was his adoptive father, Chanakya, who is said to have kept Chandragupta's youthful impulses in check and to have been learned in medicine, Hellenism and Zoroastrianism. And it is said that he guided Chandragupta in a bloody war that began two years after Alexander left India, a war that ended with Chandragupta overthrowing the Nanda dynasty that had been ruling the state of Magadha.
Chanakya became Chandragupta's Prime Minister, and legend describes Chanakya (Kautilya) as the author of a book entitled Arthasastra, which appears to have been written during the time of Chandragupta but with writings added centuries later. Arthasastra means science of property and material success, and in the book this success includes political and diplomatic strategy aimed at uniting India. It has a flavor to it similar to the Legalism that rivaled Confucianism and Taoism in China. The book advises a king to control his subjects, especially his ministers, and the Brahmins, wealthy merchants and his beautiful women. To help in this, according to the author, the king should employ an army of various artful persons as spies who keep watch at all levels of society. Arthasastra advises a king to be energetic, ever wakeful, to make himself accessible to his subjects and to guard against six enemies: anger, greed, lust, exuberance, hauteur and vanity.
Foremost is the book's advocacy of military expansion. In Arthasastra it is claimed that aggrandizement is human nature, that a power superior in strength to another power should launch a war against that power, and that war keeps a nation's blood circulation regular. Chanakya was aware that toward the northwest, in the Indus Valley, were tribal republics and monarchies that had been weakened by war against Alexander. Moreover, Alexander had demonstrated that a disciplined and strong force could conquer the region. And it appeared that an India united by a great conqueror was the best defense against a recurring foreign intrusion. Chandragupta, in accordance with the views of Chanakya, sent an army of infantry, cavalry, many chariots and elephants to the Indus Valley, extending his rule there and beyond, into the Hindu Kush. The first Seleucid king, Seleucus I, attempted to recover lands taken by Chandragupta. But in the year 305 BCE, Chandragupta turned back Seleucus' drive. Seleucus was forced to settle with Chandragupta. Chandragupta then conquered northward from Magadha, into the Himalayas, and he conquered the rest of northern India.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...d-Alexander-the-Great/articleshow/6181489.cms
Toxic bacteria killed Alexander the Great?
WASHINGTON: Scientists are claiming that a deadly bacterium in the The Styx River, the legendary portal to the underworld, may have ended Alexander's life.
An extraordinarily toxic bacterium harboured by the "infernal" Styx River might have been the fabled poison rumoured to have killed Alexander the Great (356 -323 B.C.) more than 2,000 years ago, according to a scientific-meets-mythic detective study.
According to the study, calicheamicin, a secondary metabolite of Micromonospora echinospora, is what gave the river its toxic reputation. It was the Styx where gods swore sacred oaths.
"If they lied, Zeus forced them to drink the water, which struck them down. The 8th-century B.C. Greek poet Hesiod wrote that the gods were unable to move, breathe or speak for one year," Discovery News quoted co-author Adrienne Mayor, a research scholar at Stanford University's Departments of Classics and History of Science, as saying.
The researchers believe this mythic poison must be calicheamicin.
"This is an extremely toxic, gram-positive soil bacterium and has only recently come to the attention of modern science. It was discovered in the 1980s in caliche, crusty deposits of calcium carbonate that form on limestone and is common in Greece," author Antoinette Hayes, toxicologist at Pfizer Research, said.
Whether Alexander really died from poisoning, as some of his closest friends believed, is pure speculation, Mayor and Hayes concede.
"We are not claiming that this was the poison that killed Alexander, nor we are arguing for or against a poison plot," Mayor said.
"However, such a sacred poison, used by the gods, would be appropriate for Alexander, who was already being thought of as semi-divine," she added.
Alexander fell ill at one of many all-night drinking parties in Babylon with abdominal pain and a very high fever - he was pronounced dead on June 11, 323 B.C.
"Notably, some of Alexander's symptoms and course of illness seem to match ancient Greek myths associated with the Styx. He even lost his voice, like the gods who fell into a coma-like state after drinking from the river," Mayor said.
"Cytotoxins cause cell death and induce high fever, chills, and severe muscle and neurological pain. Therefore, this toxin could have caused the fever and pain that Alexander suffered," Hayes said.
Toxic bacteria killed Alexander the Great?
WASHINGTON: Scientists are claiming that a deadly bacterium in the The Styx River, the legendary portal to the underworld, may have ended Alexander's life.
An extraordinarily toxic bacterium harboured by the "infernal" Styx River might have been the fabled poison rumoured to have killed Alexander the Great (356 -323 B.C.) more than 2,000 years ago, according to a scientific-meets-mythic detective study.
According to the study, calicheamicin, a secondary metabolite of Micromonospora echinospora, is what gave the river its toxic reputation. It was the Styx where gods swore sacred oaths.
"If they lied, Zeus forced them to drink the water, which struck them down. The 8th-century B.C. Greek poet Hesiod wrote that the gods were unable to move, breathe or speak for one year," Discovery News quoted co-author Adrienne Mayor, a research scholar at Stanford University's Departments of Classics and History of Science, as saying.
The researchers believe this mythic poison must be calicheamicin.
"This is an extremely toxic, gram-positive soil bacterium and has only recently come to the attention of modern science. It was discovered in the 1980s in caliche, crusty deposits of calcium carbonate that form on limestone and is common in Greece," author Antoinette Hayes, toxicologist at Pfizer Research, said.
Whether Alexander really died from poisoning, as some of his closest friends believed, is pure speculation, Mayor and Hayes concede.
"We are not claiming that this was the poison that killed Alexander, nor we are arguing for or against a poison plot," Mayor said.
"However, such a sacred poison, used by the gods, would be appropriate for Alexander, who was already being thought of as semi-divine," she added.
Alexander fell ill at one of many all-night drinking parties in Babylon with abdominal pain and a very high fever - he was pronounced dead on June 11, 323 B.C.
"Notably, some of Alexander's symptoms and course of illness seem to match ancient Greek myths associated with the Styx. He even lost his voice, like the gods who fell into a coma-like state after drinking from the river," Mayor said.
"Cytotoxins cause cell death and induce high fever, chills, and severe muscle and neurological pain. Therefore, this toxin could have caused the fever and pain that Alexander suffered," Hayes said.
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
http://ancient-military-history.sui...exander-really-beat-porus-the-lingering-doubt
Did Alexander Really Beat Porus – The Lingering Doubt
In 326 BC, Alexander the Great advanced into India after annihilating the Persian Kings in a series of battles. Alexander is generally recognized as a great soldier and general. But there are certain aspects of his battle at Hydespes against the Hindu King Porus that leave lingering doubts about the end result of the battle.
Battle of Hydespes
Porus was the Indian ruler of the kingdom of Puru. He had learnt of the advance of Alexander and thus decided to oppose the Greek warrior. The Battle of Hydespes on the banks of the river Jhelum was thus fought between the Greek army and King Porus. This is the first recorded account in Indian military history of a battle. The long-accepted version of events is that Alexander, after crossing the Hindu Kush Mountains, captured the city of Taxila and defeated India's King Porus at the battle of the Jhelum, or Hydespes as referred to by the Greeks.
Records suggest that the Greeks had the better of the Indian Army. The chariots of Porus got stuck in the river bank sand and the swift moving Greek cavalry under Seleuces played havoc . Porus's son was killed and then Porus decided to make a charge with his elephant corps. Greek writers admit that the sight of the elephants was terrifying, but the Greeks were able to counter the assault of the elephant corps. Porus was captured and there is a famous account of his encounter with the Greek warrior as narrated by the Roman Historian Arrian. The Greek king asked him how he would like to be treated. Porus replied 'like a king'. So Alexander treated him like a king and gave him back his kingdom including additional lands as well.
The Opposite View of the Battle
Despite being "defeated", Porus and his elephant corps had a devastating effect on the rank and file of the Greek army and they refused to go further. In effect it was the most terrifying battle the Greek army had fought so far under Alexander. And there is a lingering doubt about whether Porus was really defeated at all.
Some Indian scholars like Dr Buddha Prakash are of the view that Alexander was in fact defeated by Porus and after the battle they both became friends. This opinion is based on the medieval epic Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi. Dr Buddha argues in his book Political and Social Movements in Ancient Punjab that this was the reason that Alexander left vast territories to Porus. Writes Plutarch, the great Greek historian: ``This last combat with Porus took off the edge of the Macedonians' courage and stayed their further progress in India.... Alexander not only offered Porus to govern his own kingdom as satrap under himself but gave him also the additional territory of various independent tribes whom he had subdued."
Conclusion
Western historians, however, discount the defeat of Alexander at the hands of Porus. But whether Porus was defeated or not is immaterial. The fact remains that Alexander left India and Porus, though having suffered a tactical defeat, was in real terms the victor. For this alone Porus needs to be remembered as a warrior par excellence.
Read more at Suite101: Did Alexander Really Beat Porus – The Lingering Doubt http://ancient-military-history.sui...-beat-porus-the-lingering-doubt#ixzz0vf6dwJSm
Did Alexander Really Beat Porus – The Lingering Doubt
In 326 BC, Alexander the Great advanced into India after annihilating the Persian Kings in a series of battles. Alexander is generally recognized as a great soldier and general. But there are certain aspects of his battle at Hydespes against the Hindu King Porus that leave lingering doubts about the end result of the battle.
Battle of Hydespes
Porus was the Indian ruler of the kingdom of Puru. He had learnt of the advance of Alexander and thus decided to oppose the Greek warrior. The Battle of Hydespes on the banks of the river Jhelum was thus fought between the Greek army and King Porus. This is the first recorded account in Indian military history of a battle. The long-accepted version of events is that Alexander, after crossing the Hindu Kush Mountains, captured the city of Taxila and defeated India's King Porus at the battle of the Jhelum, or Hydespes as referred to by the Greeks.
Records suggest that the Greeks had the better of the Indian Army. The chariots of Porus got stuck in the river bank sand and the swift moving Greek cavalry under Seleuces played havoc . Porus's son was killed and then Porus decided to make a charge with his elephant corps. Greek writers admit that the sight of the elephants was terrifying, but the Greeks were able to counter the assault of the elephant corps. Porus was captured and there is a famous account of his encounter with the Greek warrior as narrated by the Roman Historian Arrian. The Greek king asked him how he would like to be treated. Porus replied 'like a king'. So Alexander treated him like a king and gave him back his kingdom including additional lands as well.
The Opposite View of the Battle
Despite being "defeated", Porus and his elephant corps had a devastating effect on the rank and file of the Greek army and they refused to go further. In effect it was the most terrifying battle the Greek army had fought so far under Alexander. And there is a lingering doubt about whether Porus was really defeated at all.
Some Indian scholars like Dr Buddha Prakash are of the view that Alexander was in fact defeated by Porus and after the battle they both became friends. This opinion is based on the medieval epic Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi. Dr Buddha argues in his book Political and Social Movements in Ancient Punjab that this was the reason that Alexander left vast territories to Porus. Writes Plutarch, the great Greek historian: ``This last combat with Porus took off the edge of the Macedonians' courage and stayed their further progress in India.... Alexander not only offered Porus to govern his own kingdom as satrap under himself but gave him also the additional territory of various independent tribes whom he had subdued."
Conclusion
Western historians, however, discount the defeat of Alexander at the hands of Porus. But whether Porus was defeated or not is immaterial. The fact remains that Alexander left India and Porus, though having suffered a tactical defeat, was in real terms the victor. For this alone Porus needs to be remembered as a warrior par excellence.
Read more at Suite101: Did Alexander Really Beat Porus – The Lingering Doubt http://ancient-military-history.sui...-beat-porus-the-lingering-doubt#ixzz0vf6dwJSm
S.A.T.A
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,569
- Likes
- 1,560
Alexander's benign treatment afforded to Porus after his defeat goes largely against what we come to know from history of Alexander's less than chivalrous attitude towards defeated rivals,that alone does not give enough reasons to rewrite the well known chronicle of Macedonians campaign in India.The presence of powerful Greek states to the west of Indus all way down to the Asokan and post Mauryan period illustrates the fact that Greeks were a stronghold in the Gandhara region west of Indus,this may not have been the case had Alexander lost his famous battle at Hydaspes.
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 14,104
- Likes
- 63,370
These videos are masterpieces and gives me extreme strength and proud being an Indian.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
I think Alexander won the Battle of Hydaspes, but it was very costly for him, which is why he offered such lenient terms to Porus.
As people have stated previously, if Alexander had not won the battle there would be no Indo-Greek kingdoms in the Gandhara and Bactria regions.
As people have stated previously, if Alexander had not won the battle there would be no Indo-Greek kingdoms in the Gandhara and Bactria regions.
S.A.T.A
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,569
- Likes
- 1,560
It remains one of India's greatest unsolved mystery whether Kautalya and Alexander ever ran into one another.Indian and Greek accounts are so completely silent on this matter that the silence itself seems mysterious.Its still a mystery why Kautalya's work do not refer t the Macedonian(unless the works were completed before the Macedonians arrived at gates of India)
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
I don't think they did, and even if they did does it really matter?
The important thing is that Kautilya after his studies at Taxila helped Chandragupta establish the most powerful empire in the world (at the time) and the most powerful empire in Indian history.
S.A.T.A
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,569
- Likes
- 1,560
Academically speaking its quite important.The clear absence of any reference to Kautalya in Greek accounts,while Maurya is clearly referred,has led to several questions regarding the relationship between Kautalya-Chanakya on one hand and Maurya on the other hand.You have to remember that several scholarly circles,respected ones at that,still hold Chanakya and Kautalya as separate individuals.
Assuming Kautalya was in Takshashila at the time of arrival of Macedonians,it would have been interesting to know whats his opinion or even role was in the subsequent events.Senior Acharyas of the university had useful leverage with the ruling elite of state,what role did Kautalya have in Ambhi seeking alliance with Alexander.Kautalya the tacticians would actually welcomed the thought of Alexander destroying the powerful,but disparate republics and consolidating them under a single state.You have to remember that Maurya's revolt in the west was successful because the republics had been utterly destroyed during the Macedonian campaign,which allowed Maurya to consolidate his power a vast territory.Moreover When Maurya marched on Magadha,a large part of his contingent included Persians and Bactrians(bahilka)who had earlier campaigned for the Macedonians.
It wouldn't have been entirely unlike kautalya to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds,first allowing the Greeks to destroy the republics an consolidate them and then guiding Maurya to over throw the Greeks and takeover the former republics and march against Magadha..........Just brilliant.The events that transpired during the Macedonians Indian campaign are so 'Kautalyan',only if we could confirm it.
Assuming Kautalya was in Takshashila at the time of arrival of Macedonians,it would have been interesting to know whats his opinion or even role was in the subsequent events.Senior Acharyas of the university had useful leverage with the ruling elite of state,what role did Kautalya have in Ambhi seeking alliance with Alexander.Kautalya the tacticians would actually welcomed the thought of Alexander destroying the powerful,but disparate republics and consolidating them under a single state.You have to remember that Maurya's revolt in the west was successful because the republics had been utterly destroyed during the Macedonian campaign,which allowed Maurya to consolidate his power a vast territory.Moreover When Maurya marched on Magadha,a large part of his contingent included Persians and Bactrians(bahilka)who had earlier campaigned for the Macedonians.
It wouldn't have been entirely unlike kautalya to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds,first allowing the Greeks to destroy the republics an consolidate them and then guiding Maurya to over throw the Greeks and takeover the former republics and march against Magadha..........Just brilliant.The events that transpired during the Macedonians Indian campaign are so 'Kautalyan',only if we could confirm it.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
So, are you saying that Kautilya wanted Alexander to conquer the Indus valley, so they would be weakened and could be used as a base for the insurrection against the Nandas?
I suppose that is possible.
I suppose that is possible.
johnee
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,473
- Likes
- 499
SATA, I think in Chanakya neeti, there is a mention of yavanas. I think Yavanas are supposed to be greeks. If I remember correctly, then the neeti says that Yavanas are much much worse than even a chandala. :happy_2:
Coming to the topic, I think Alexander must have won the battle of hydaspes but to win the war he had to be lenient to his opponent. From what I have read at various random sources, it seems to me that Alexander did win many battles as he progressed into India defeating many large tribalistic kingdoms. But the balance was not in his favour. Their was always a fear of revolt. So, when he returned from India, he took a route that was not the same as the one he came into India. Some attribute this decision to some other reason.
Hydapses, actually the present Jhelum.
A few facts.
The Alexander-Porus battle was supposed to be in mid May, AFAIK. It is too early for MONSOONS in that region. I know, after a life time of study and analysis of the various River Systems. (If there were RAINS, then it was a freak phenomena). But yes, even in May, Jhelam does have high discharges, but then it is true of all the Himalyan rivers.
OK, Alexander CROSSED Jhelam. But then REAL MONSOONS had not set in, but were approahing, and he had to cross Chenab [highly turbulent on any given day, Beas and Mighty Satluj, shatadru. Was it easy? Do you you 1971 B'Deash campaign waS IN december, THE LOWEST FLOODS SEASON IN THAT REGION?
Granted, there were rains. It is a FACT that elephants can cope with soft muds, but horses cannot. You can say chariots were no good. But elephants?
PS: I have EXAMINED 1971 purely FROM ENGINEERING pov. The conclusions SHALL be vehementally contested.
But gentlemen, I am a hard headed engineer. A more realist cannot be found.
A few facts.
The Alexander-Porus battle was supposed to be in mid May, AFAIK. It is too early for MONSOONS in that region. I know, after a life time of study and analysis of the various River Systems. (If there were RAINS, then it was a freak phenomena). But yes, even in May, Jhelam does have high discharges, but then it is true of all the Himalyan rivers.
OK, Alexander CROSSED Jhelam. But then REAL MONSOONS had not set in, but were approahing, and he had to cross Chenab [highly turbulent on any given day, Beas and Mighty Satluj, shatadru. Was it easy? Do you you 1971 B'Deash campaign waS IN december, THE LOWEST FLOODS SEASON IN THAT REGION?
Granted, there were rains. It is a FACT that elephants can cope with soft muds, but horses cannot. You can say chariots were no good. But elephants?
PS: I have EXAMINED 1971 purely FROM ENGINEERING pov. The conclusions SHALL be vehementally contested.
But gentlemen, I am a hard headed engineer. A more realist cannot be found.
Last edited:
LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,876
- Likes
- 48,566
http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593
Alexander, The Ordinary
Alexander, The Ordinary
Prof. Dinesh Agrawal
Address: 156 Aberdeen lane, State College, PA 16801 USA
Tel: (814)-234-3558 (Home), (814)-863-8034 (Office)
The facts narrated below will expose the popular myth about the so-called world-conquerer "Alexander, The Great(?)". I am sure your readers will be interested to learn the truth about the mis-adventures of Alexander in India.
Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus`s army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender.
Alexander after winning many battles and defeating the Persian king, invaded India and crossed Indus. Here he was joined by Ambhi, the king of Taxila. Ambhi surrendered himself to Alexander. He was enemy of Porus and wished to defeat Porus with the help of Alexander.
The facts of Alexander`s miserable defeat and his shattered dream at Indian soil have been avoided consistently by Greek historians and the same was perpetuated during British regime. But the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeans themselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India.
In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:
"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".
Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief- stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said, "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."
These expressions of `Alexander, The Great!` do not indicate from any stretch of imagination his victory over Porus? Can such words be uttered by a `World Conquerer"?
I am sure many readers will find in the history texts, an account of Alexander`s exploits and conquests which totally contradict what is quoted above. And most of us have been taught in the school that Alexander defeated Porus and he wept because he had no more worlds to conquer, and that is what made him `Alexander, The Great`. These myths and beliefs will receive a rude shock by these facts which show that Alexander was not that great after all, but in fact he was `Alexander, The Ordinary`.
Another myth is propagated by the Western historians that Alexander was noble and kind king, he had great respects for brave and courageous men, and so on. The truth is other-wise. He was neither a noble man nor did he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.
The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander. The Indian soldiers who were returning from Masanga were most atrociously murdered by Alexander in the dead of night. These exploits do not prove Alexander`s kindness and greatness, but only an ordinary emperor driven by the zeal of expanding his empire.
Alexander, The Ordinary
Alexander, The Ordinary
Prof. Dinesh Agrawal
Address: 156 Aberdeen lane, State College, PA 16801 USA
Tel: (814)-234-3558 (Home), (814)-863-8034 (Office)
The facts narrated below will expose the popular myth about the so-called world-conquerer "Alexander, The Great(?)". I am sure your readers will be interested to learn the truth about the mis-adventures of Alexander in India.
Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus`s army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender.
Alexander after winning many battles and defeating the Persian king, invaded India and crossed Indus. Here he was joined by Ambhi, the king of Taxila. Ambhi surrendered himself to Alexander. He was enemy of Porus and wished to defeat Porus with the help of Alexander.
The facts of Alexander`s miserable defeat and his shattered dream at Indian soil have been avoided consistently by Greek historians and the same was perpetuated during British regime. But the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeans themselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India.
In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:
"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".
Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief- stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said, "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."
These expressions of `Alexander, The Great!` do not indicate from any stretch of imagination his victory over Porus? Can such words be uttered by a `World Conquerer"?
I am sure many readers will find in the history texts, an account of Alexander`s exploits and conquests which totally contradict what is quoted above. And most of us have been taught in the school that Alexander defeated Porus and he wept because he had no more worlds to conquer, and that is what made him `Alexander, The Great`. These myths and beliefs will receive a rude shock by these facts which show that Alexander was not that great after all, but in fact he was `Alexander, The Ordinary`.
Another myth is propagated by the Western historians that Alexander was noble and kind king, he had great respects for brave and courageous men, and so on. The truth is other-wise. He was neither a noble man nor did he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.
The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander. The Indian soldiers who were returning from Masanga were most atrociously murdered by Alexander in the dead of night. These exploits do not prove Alexander`s kindness and greatness, but only an ordinary emperor driven by the zeal of expanding his empire.
theevian100
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5
- Likes
- 0
Very good thread with very interesting information. This comes to show how very differents ancient cultures managed to meet and exchange values. Of course there were wars but also something good should have definitely come out, which hopefully is a resulting mutual respect from both nations (Hellas and India) to each other.
Regards to all members here and keep posting interesting articles!
Regards to all members here and keep posting interesting articles!
