There were more types of victories in the Ancient World. In most cases the defeated army would flee the battlefield and take refuge in the semi-fortified camp, taking advantage of the fact that the victors would be exhausted after a long day's battle and would not have the energy to pursue a very vigorous and potentially costly assault. The defeated would then take advantage of the night and slip away with whatever they could. Only in relatively few cases would the winner, with renewed energy, take the camp of the defeated and sources usually take the trouble of mentioning if that was the case (which demonstrates this is the exception rather than the rule).

Just because Porus' camp was not plundered does not exclude his defeat in the field. Even allowing such a crushing defeat and subsequent loss of the camp and the riches therein, the amount Alexander could plunder would be limited: the war treasury, which would be a limited fraction of the overall treasury of the kingdom. Given that Porus was left in a position of authority, his resources would soon be replenished. So just because Porus later has plenty of gold does not demonstrate anything.

Regarding the fact that Porus was left as the ruler, this is not exceptional: Alexander had done the same with many Persian satraps, whom he appointed to positions of authority as soon as they acknowledged him as the ruler. Such an example is Mazaeus, governor of Babylon and an important military commander at the Battle of Gaugamela. As soon as Mazaeus changed allegiance, he was confirmed in his governorship by Alexander.

Originally posted by khshayathiya  So just because Porus later has plenty of gold does not demonstrate anything.

Porus got alexander's gold so is a bit different. It could mean that he snatched this gold from Alexander and thus alexander had trouble paying the salary to his troops.

Originally posted by khshayathiya Regarding the fact that Porus was left as the ruler, this is not exceptional: Alexander had done the same with many Persian satraps, whom he appointed to positions of authority as soon as they acknowledged him as the ruler. Such an example is Mazaeus, governor of Babylon and an important military commander at the Battle of Gaugamela. As soon as Mazaeus changed allegiance, he was confirmed in his governorship by Alexander.

Same happened to the ruler of Taxlia, Ambhi. But that is different. Relevant question is the ones who actually fought alexander bitterly how were they treated?

So your point is that Porus has beaten Alexander so thoroughly as to take his gold. That implies he captured his camp. That can only mean Alexander's troops were utterly scattered.

What does a soldier do when his army is scattered? Run for cover. Where? In the nearest allied territory. Where is that? Taxiles' land. Do Alexander's soldiers do that? Nope...

Do many commander afterwards have loads of cash? Yes, as demonstrated by the Eumenes anecdote. If the camp was plundered, how come their riches are intact? Is it credible that Porus was careful enough to plunder exclusively Alexander's war chest? Nope...

Therefore your conclusion that

"Porus got alexander's gold so is a bit different. It could mean that he snatched this gold from Alexander and thus alexander had trouble paying the salary to his troops."

doesn't exactly hold water. You argue experienced logisticians such as Alexander's officers should have encountered no problems paying up the salaries. Well, Alexander's personnel were by no means accustomed to handling troops as numerous as those taken along for the Indian expedition. Also, they may have been prepared for a much shorter campaign.

To address your second point,

Relevant question is the ones who actually fought alexander bitterly how were they treated?

I will again mention Mazaeus, who obstinately opposed Alexander up until the battle of Gaugamela. The Macedonian king was not a persistent murderer. He took a very calculated approach to reprisals (when he was sober, that is), distributing death to some who opposed him and generosity to those who had opposed him but afterwards recognised his authority, achieving a "stick-and-carrot" balance that would make his dominion easier to accept in the vast territories conquered in the East. Alexander's approach as he moves Eastward transforms from displacing existing administrative structures to merely making the existing structures work for him. In that framework, his allowing both Taxiles and Porus to remain (subordinate) kings in their lands makes perfect sense.


Edited by khshayathiya - 23-Apr-2009 at 07:35

Originally posted by khshayathiya So your point is that Porus has beaten Alexander so thoroughly as to take his gold. That implies he captured his camp. That can only mean Alexander's troops were utterly scattered. What does a soldier do when his army is scattered? Run for cover. Where? In the nearest allied territory. Where is that? Taxiles' land. Do Alexander's soldiers do that? Nope...

We are not sure of where they ran or if they ran. On surrender Porus and his troops would not have harmed them. Hindu kings fought very ethical wars. Strict rules existed on what to do with surrendering enemy. We have such bizzare examples where in the heat of the battle the enemy ran out of water and the hindu king allowed the opposing muslim army to get water from the pond near where his army was camped!

Mohammed Ghori was captured by Prithviraj Chauhan and let go after getting his wounds sutured up.

Many such examples exist.

Originally posted by khshayathiya Do many commander afterwards have loads of cash? Yes, as demonstrated by the Eumenes anecdote. If the camp was plundered, how come their riches are intact? Is it credible that Porus was careful enough to plunder exclusively Alexander's war chest? Nope...

Nope see above. Alexander is the only one who would have to give up his gold because of his aggression.

Originally posted by khshayathiya Therefore your conclusion that "Porus got alexander's gold so is a bit different. It could mean that he snatched this gold from Alexander and thus alexander had trouble paying the salary to his troops." doesn't exactly hold water. You argue experienced logisticians such as Alexander's officers should have encountered no problems paying up the salaries. Well, Alexander's personnel were by no means accustomed to handling troops as numerous as those taken along for the Indian expedition. Also, they may have been prepared for a much shorter campaign.

What is the difference in number of men brought to Guagemela versus India? What you are saying is hard to agree with. Running out of supplies only happens when unforeseen things take place as in what you had brought with yourself is taken away by somebody else. If Persians had won similar thing would have happened. Alexander travelled thousands of miles and if he was so bad at planning he would not have gone more then a few hundred miles because without pay men dont follow you.

Originally posted by khshayathiya To address your second point, Relevant question is the ones who actually fought alexander bitterly how were they treated? I will again mention Mazaeus, who obstinately opposed Alexander up until the battle of Gaugamela. The Macedonian king was not a persistent murderer. He took a very calculated approach to reprisals (when he was sober, that is), distributing death to some who opposed him and generosity to those who had opposed him but afterwards recognised his authority, achieving a "stick-and-carrot" balance that would make his dominion easier to accept in the vast territories conquered in the East. Alexander's approach as he moves Eastward transforms from displacing existing administrative structures to merely making the existing structures work for him. In that framework, his allowing both Taxiles and Porus to remain (subordinate) kings in their lands makes perfect sense.

This is a modern sugar coaty explanation of his behavior and is not logical. For the stick and carrot approach to have been the main tenet of his policy *no* greek settlement should have existed in Bactria, Gandhara etc. because everywhere he was opposed bitterly and according to the policy that you ascribe to him he should have esatblished the locals whom he plundered as the future rulers. This did not happen. To do a scientific analysis please tell us

a) how many wars he won,
b) how many were hard fought,
c) and after winning in how many places he did not cause destruction
d) in how many places he allowed the guy he defeated to continue.

Once we know the answers to these questions we can come up with what his policy really was.

Regarding Mazaeus only mercenary sources mention that he was present at guagemala. Arrian is silent on it and so is ptolemy. Why?

Even if we ignore the above it is still apples and oranges when we compare Mazaeus and Porus. The right comparison would have been darius and Porus. Also we should not forget that at Babylon Mazeus surrendered to Alexander without a fight.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and I respect the fact that you hold on to yours. Perhaps with more obstinacy than sense, but that should not get in the way of a good debate, should it?

That one army scatters another, captures its camp and is afterwards so polite as to allow the defeated to regroup, continue their march and even return some of the gold because only the capo dei tutti capi is to be held responsible for the aggression, not his immediate subordinates and collaborators is perfectly sensible. I can almost see it happen.

You speak like a knowledgeable man in these matters - indeed, you seem to know more than most, be they ancient or modern -, so I'm sure you know exactly what huge difference there was between Alexander's army at Gaugamela and Alexander's army in India.

I'm equally certain you are fully aware that Alexander lacked access to GoogleMaps (an unfortunate slip caused by some airhead in his staff...) so he could no longer calculate exactly how many days it would take him to get from point A to point B. Silly man, not knowing exactly what difficulties he would encounter and how long his campaign would be...

Fortunately for himself, though he had forgotten to pack the maps, he did remember to get his charisma. That's why his men followed him. That's why his men followed him into what they saw as essentially mythical land. I've made this comparison elsewhere, but it may be useful here as well. Compare Alexader's men with modern humans. We know our planet fairly well and have had some intercourse with the Moon. Alexander comes along and he says he will conquer Mars. Sure we'll go with him. We conquer Mars. There he gets word about another planet, Jupiter. Off we go and Jupiter is ours. Then Saturn, then Pluto. But this guy just won't stop. He wants us to go beyond! So if the Macedonians mutinied, it wasn't because lack of money, it's because they had had to swollow whole too much myth.

Originally posted by athenas owl Again, Callisthenes did have a faling out, as was told in the sources you want to dismiss.  But to make this clear...the falling out happened BEFORE the Hydaspes...at which time he was most likely dead.   He was THE court historian.   If the other writers had wanted to "spare" Alexander, they would not have mentioned the Gedrosian disaster.   Again, the writing on that was based on first hand knowledge.  People who were actually there.

Precisely because Callisthenes had a falling out won't the history attributed to him be more reliable then the court historian's version? We should be aware that *entire history of alexander* is from greek sources only. So any contradictory evidence from similar greek sources has to be given good weight. Just as an analogy from science, in genetics, the biggest break throughs have occured when the most contradictory data related to gene transmission was delved into. Enough data exists which disputes alexander's victory.

Originally posted by athenas owl   Same with Sangala...it was a bloody mess and probably the last straw for Alexander's men.   The admitted Macedonian casualities were very high.   Oh, by the way,  this was AFTER the Hydaspes.   So if Alexander had "lost" to Porus, why would Porus not have destroyed Alexander, who instead was advancing further east, until his men stopped him at the Hyphases.

Contradiction here. Do we have a record of Porus or his troops accompanying alexander further east after he supposedly became a vassal of alexander as was done by Ambhi of Taxila?

Originally posted by athenas owl Peter Green is an anti-imperialist (which is a great thing today) who pushes that anachronism back into the past thousands of years.   He, and others, can not separate they modern day views from the past.   He also simply does not "like" Alexander.   Yes I have read his work, I own pretty much ALL the contemporary scholarship on Alexander.

I did not get the sense that Green does not like alexander. He is pretty kind to alexander.

Originally posted by athenas owl There are minority viewpoints and there are fringe viewpoints.   I won't get into the way nationalism now clouds the subject...on all sides.    Choosing to use a source that is newer and much altered to fit the fancy of it's readers, like the Alexander Romance, is not the way to go.   You have to ignore every other source, which says something different.

Alexander's side of the story as we know has been repeated so often that it seems as gospel to us. If we trace back in time it may have its origin in a very small fragment of history writing just as the "alexander romance" is. The only difference is that "official version" has been repeated ad nauseum so it seems like the majority view and anything else seems like a fringe view.

Originally posted by athenas owl Arthur?   As in King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table.

You mentiond a book in the previous page saying english history if read from that source would not be credible.


Edited by ruffian - 24-Apr-2009 at 06:44

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by ruffian Mohammed Ghori was captured by Prithviraj Chauhan and let go after getting his wounds sutured up. Off topic, but that is a highly disputed point. So it doesn't help your argument at all.

It is not disputed. Nationalism tendencies sometimes get in the way.

Originally posted by khshayathiya Originally posted by ruffian Hmmm. What you are saying: a) Alexander wins in Persia and other places and he has plundered their treausries and has lots of gold b) He wants to conquer India c) He starts on a campaign and brings some gold with him d) He defeats Porus but is very generous so he gives all his gold to Porus. e) He still wants to march east and conquer rest of India so he keeps marching east f) He realises he has been too generous with Porus and is now severely strapped for money to pay his troops. g) Troops mutiny for lack of pay and they all return home. Do you see a problem with this view? Indeed, I do. That's because from point a) you seem to imply Alexander would have carried ALL his gold with him at all times, which he obviously did not. What he had with him on campaign was the war chest, which is a small fraction of the total wealth he possesses. Why do you insist that there was a trade of gold between the two parties? Just because Alexander was in a tight spot financially and Porus was not so pressed, does NOT mean Porus got Alexander's money. I will not bore everybody else to death repeating the same thing over and over (treasuries, war chest, unexpectedly long campaign...)

Did not read bullet c) of my message. I said Alexander brought some of his gold with him and not ALL as you misread.

So fundamental problem is that if alexander indeed did miscalculate how much gold he would need for India campaign his gold would not have crossed over to Porus through a gesture of benevolence.

If you still insist that alexander gave his gold to porus to uphold his "stick and carrot" policy then that would make him very stupid which I dont think he was. Any general who is planning a further campaign into India would not part with precious metal contrary to what you are suggesting.

Thus data clearly shows that court historians like ptolemy just got it plain wrong because they did not want to show alexander lost in the east. Evidence from the aftermath of the war with Porus paints a different picture.

Originally posted by khshayathiya In my opinion, Alexander's "carrot" to the defeated Porus was allowing him to continue his rule. The "stick" was a potential new confrontation in case Porus refused to behave, which, given the result of the first engagement, would have been quite unpleasant for the Indian ruler.

This is your imagination only. Let us see what curtius says about Mazaeus and his town:

(In Babylon after Mazaeus had surrendered the city to Greeks and Alexander had promised no reprisals on the cityfolk): For an entire night the men broke into homes and dragged the women, and even little girls, from their beds and raped them in the streets. The men attempted to fight off the attackers, but they were cut down as they tried. By  the time it was all over, the city was not only strewn with flowers (which the city folk had showered on alexander as he rode into the town thru the Ishtar gate), but with ravaged women and the bodies of their slain husbands and fathers. (Curtius 5: 2)

So how in the earth raping and killing the surrendered and helpless a stick and carrot policy?

Now let us  move on to  persepolis. Alexander is opposed bitterly .  And what does he do? No granting of mercy or keeping the commander who opposes him as the future satrap instead he tells his men to do what they liked. It seems that greeks had acquired a taste for rape and pillage and alexander did not care. Only the royal palace and necropolis was spared and for three days it was a nightmare for the inhabitants of what had been once the capital of one of the largest empires in the ancient world. The houses were plundered and the temples were looted and many of the citizens chose to commit suicide rather then face the appalling horrors inflicted by the Greeks. Diodorus 17: 20

Now contrast why this could not happen in Porus's kingdom?


Edited by ruffian - 26-Apr-2009 at 15:25

Originally posted by khshayathiya sounds like typical "stick-and-carrot" approach to me.

That is the problem. Here another reference for the rape of babylonian women.
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t45.html

The rape of the Babylonian women
	On 21 or 22 October 331, Alexander entered Babylon, the old capital of the ancient Near East. He had promised that the houses of the city would be left intact, but this did not mean that the women of Babylon were safe, especially since the Greeks believed that the people of Babylon were obsessed with sex.

And for you to believe that women of babylon were sex obsessed and that is why alexander's army had a free pass to rape them is akin to believing Nazi propaganda that Poland attacked them first in world war 2.

Facts are all this stick carrot policy is modern fiction to make alexander appear as a great hero. Data shows a different a rather dismal picture.

Babylon, Persepolis were treated identically. Rape and Pillage. No difference. Though in Babylon the commander suurendered without a fight but in persepolis they did not.