Alexander the great vs Porus?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26731
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 13:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Alexander the great vs Porus?
Posted By: Goocheslamb
Subject: Alexander the great vs Porus?
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2009 at 05:57
|
so who won this battle, i know there are many theories but no knows for sure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itul9pDj7g4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itul9pDj7g4
|
Replies:
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2009 at 20:17
|
If you mean the battle in the film, Alexander did win, but at great cost to himself and his men. The film battle was a mishmash of the Indian campaign, combining the battle with Porus with a later one that Alexander was nearly killed in, after he charged ahead when his men balked. The forest was used to show how different India (in the old usage) was from Gaugamela. It was an artistic choice. Though I do think that the region was more forested perhaps, some 2300+ years ago. As for the actual Hydaspes battle with Porus, Alexander did win. I do not doubt that one bit. If there was an effort to "whitewash" the Indian campaign, it would have occurred at the Beas when his men would go no further. The Battle at Sangala was brutal, the highest Macedonian casualites ever admitted in battle if memory serves. We would have had some alternate history where Alexander decided for himself that he had gone far enough, though there are some historians who think the whole "mutiny" was a put up job, because Alexander himself did not want to go further. Heckel is one, if memory serves. |
Posted By: Goocheslamb
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 02:43
| How come there so little known about Porus? |
Posted By: Jallaludin Akbar
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2009 at 18:39
Porus was the King of the Pauravas, who are a collection of small states on the "western frontier" for hindu kingdoms. Since india at the time, was comprised of multiple nations (some big and some small), Porus' kingdom was one of the lesser ones, and therefore, most accounts of him are via the encounters with Alexander. ------------- "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi 
|
Posted By: rcscwc
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2009 at 07:57
|
Alexander won, no doubt about it. Porus was the first serious opponent, and a typical one of those times. The region had a number of highly militarised states. Compared to his Indian campaign, his victory in Iran was a cakewalk.
Battle of Sangla was near one. Even his retreat was messy. He nearly died in an encounter with a small, firce tribe.
Porus gets very little mention, that too negative. His words to Alexander: Treat me as a king, has been seen as a surrender.
|
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2009 at 22:56
This is partly due to poor excavations and understandings of his kingdom and the limited financial resources that the Pakistani Government has allotted for this endeavour and in general, has available to it given its economic priorities.
King Porus ruled a region which lay in and around the modern city of Jhelum in Pakistan, besides some preliminary digs and excavations around the city and that of the site of Bucephala(Sharif on the outskirts of jhelum), where Pakistani and Greek archeologist have identified the ''tomb'' of Alexander's favourite horse (Bucephalus). More extensive follow-up digs have not been undertaken due to financial reasons.
Lets hope that the Archeological society of Pakistan along with its supporters can promote this issue and help generate greater interest into this native Kings life and kingdom as it will help in further understanding the region at the time of Alexander's arrival.
What is understood, is that, Alexander with his advanced military tactics and equipment was eventually able to rout the forces of King Porus, but was so impressed with the King as a person, his demeanor and also by his physique(he has said to have beengreater than 7 feet tall and of impressive build) that he later kept King Porus, allowing him to continue to rule and to work under his subsequent Hellenic kingdom that Alexander established in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. The funny thing is, even to this day, Jhelum is a major army cantonment area and the Pakistani army still continues to draw many of its ranks from this city.
Alexander, as per tradition, held a mass marriage in the area with his troops, administrators and large camp with the locals of the region to solidify their integration into the greater Hellenic world which stretched from Greece proper, through modern day Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and all the way back to Pakistan. Even in modern day Pakistan today, the people of Jhelum are known as Yunan-i-ru which translates roughly too, (people) ''of Iionian Faces''
But i agree, more research is required to be done to better understand the life and times of King Porus and his kingdom. :)
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 08:53
|
What i found very interesting is that in the dark of night, Alexander, with a force of 10,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, slipped away up the banks to make the 25-kilometer trek to attempt the crossing at dawn. The baggage train and a large part of the army remained at the base camp. Alexander had given orders to openly start making preparations for an attack at the crack of dawn. He even had one of his men, an Alexander look alike, come out of his royal tent wearing the royal cloak, barking out orders. Not speaking of the film ofcourse. ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: rcscwc
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 07:17
One very cogent reason.
Alexander never penetrated Into as far as it is portayed. Consequently, he might not have encountered Porus at all. In fact, little is known about Alexander himself. Though he was a famous person in the West, he was unknown in India in the classical period as he did not enter India at all and went back from the North-Eastern border of India. Even Magasthenese ingores Porus.
|
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 08:50
|
If we believe Arrian's accounts of the campaign, then Alexander was very intelligent in the way he approached Porus. Alexander's army set up camp on the western banks of the Hydaspes, facing Porus's army on the other side of the river. Porus stationed men at every concievable crossing point, and Alexander didn't want to make the difficult crossing of the river while the opposing army (which also had war elephants) was in an organized position and would be at a great advantage. Alexander sent cavalry up and down the Macedonian side of river, basically to bluff a crossing and make Porus send small portions of his army to obscure the crossing. He would also fake crossings in the middle of the night, and he made his army give warcries while he had trumpets blowing and drums banging in order to keep Porus on his defense at all times. He also built boats and had them go up and down the river, and lit great fires, and Porus was left confused as he did not know where to concentrate his defenses. Alexander used this tactic and waited until the season when the river Hydaspes receded. So after many days (or weeks) of such behavior, he lulled Porus into a false sense of security, making him think the Macedonians wouldn't go past screams and shouts, and Alexander finally decided to make a real crossing. He chose a spot 18 miles up the river, at a point where the Hydaspes bends and the bank is forested. Alexander, as usual, led the group making the first crossing, which consisted of several thousand phalanx infantry, several thousand cavalry including his Companion Cavalry, and a few thousand Indian troops. As they were about to cross, it began to rain tremendously, but all went well, until he realized they had landed on a forested island in the middle of the river, which he didn't notice because the sheer size of the island made it seem like part of the opposite bank. He found a tiny fork on the island where his troops could walk to the eastern bank, albeit the water was so high that it reached the armpits of his infanty. After the successful crossing he caught a few units of Porus's army completely by surprise, and frightened them by the boldness of his action. After winning this brief engagement, Porus engaged him with his main army, which consisted of about 30,000 infantry, several thousand cavalry and war elephants. Both sides fought hard and with great valor. The main reasons Alexander won was the experience of his cavalry compared to Porus's, the fact that his infantry moved and acted in one solid mass, and the fact that Porus's army had very little room to manuever, which resulted in their elephants running amok, killing many of their own men and spreading panic within their ranks. Alexander, even with the main body of his army still camped in their original position on the western bank of the river, was able to rout Porus's army. At the moment of the rout, the main body of Alexander's army, still fresh, had crossed the river and chopped down Porus's exhausted men and captured many of them.
Alexander noticed Porus's bravery during the battle, the way he fought fiercly even when most of his army had routed. Porus only withdrew himself when he recieved a wound to the shoulder. Alexander appreciated his bravery so much, and was so pleased with the way Porus conducted himself in their discussions, that he left Porus as a sovereign leader and even extended his domain. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2009 at 15:30
Sure but victory is what greeks recorded many hundred years after the war. Other extant versions show alexander lost. "Alexander the great" by Wally Badge which is a Syriac edition, with English translation, of the folk-lore and legends connected to Alexander the Great. This ancient text represents a Greek text that is much older than any text that has been known before. This text shows that alexander was actually defeated (though perhaps a later layering of the text confuses the issue). In addition more evidence has been unearthed by modern historians: Peter Green's : Alexander of Macedon , Page 413: "Despite the legendary wealth of the Indians, Alexander did not acquire much loot .....". "Yet by the end of his Indian campaign there are definete signs that he was hard pressed for ready cash". A victor is not pressed for cash as Indians in general had good amount of gold. So to sum up: a) Alexander left india hard pressed for cash. (Definetely not a sign of a victor) (Peter Green Page 413) b) Porus increased his territory manifold after this war. (Peter Green Page 412). c) Alexander showed no mercy to any opponent who opposed him bitterly yet we are supposed to believe Porus was pardoned. d) Badge's translation of syriac work which represents the oldest greek work describing the battle which shows alexander lost. a) Darius's call to help from Porus 
b) Porus's letter to Alexander and the reply and the ensuing fight 
 |
Posted By: Goocheslamb
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 01:43
well he did not enter present india, but he did come to Taxila in Pakistan and even south wards to Punjab. There is not denying his army came in the punjab simply because the greek coins from that time are still found in many parts of Pakistan. There was no such thing as united India because this whole region had different kingdoms.
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2009 at 09:41
|
Ruffian, you've made some good points. But lets say alexander had truely been defeated that day, win or loss, would he have still been able to commision 2 new found cities, Necaea and Bucephala? In fact, Bucephala was built on the exact spot where the battle took place. On his way back to persia, he defeated all of the tribes who inhabited the area surrounding the chenab river. Would a defeated army have accomplished that too? Upon returning to persia, he executed a satrap, along with his followers for usurping the title "great king". In fact, he put down a number of "satrap ursurpers" militarily. After his death, his eastern-most territories would remain stable for a long time, becuase of him being successful at maintaining control by way of quelling rebellians. The seleucid empire benefited from what he did by being able to remain "safe" with virtually no uprisings or invasions throughout most of the wars of the diadochi as well. ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 09:18
Ruffian...
Do you mean BUdge? E.A.W Budge? And his work The History Of Alexander The Great Being The Syriac Version Of The Pseudo-Callisthenes? From the late 1800's? Budge himself dated the Syriac "Alexander Romances" to the 7th to the 9th century, certainly NOT one of the oldest Greek works. Others a bit earlier (late 6th century) and yet others place it later, in the 10th century. And please remember that the Alexander Romances, and the Pseudo-Callisthenes are fanciful things to a large extent, much like the Arthurian Cycles from western Europe. The first Greek writer to have a surviving account is Diodorus of Sicily, from the 1st century B.C. |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 11:41
|
Is Pseudo-Callisthenes considered a reliable source really?
-------------  
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 13:11
|
If Alexander's victories in India are a mere fantasy, how can one explain the fact that the Triparadeisos agreement between the diadochs (the successors of Alexander) mentions Porus and Taxiles as being within the Macedonian sphere of influence? The relevant text is in Diodoros, 18.39: "Of the two neighbouring kingdoms, the one along the Indus River was assigned to Porus and that along the Hydaspes to Taxiles, for it was not possible to remove these kings without a royal army and an outstanding general." The situation of Porus and Taxiles is one of well-entrenched kings, it's true, and the diadochs can do little more than confirm them in the position they already occupy, but this does not hide the fact that de iure the two kings needed a confirmation from the Macedonian authority, however formal. It is hard to explain how this legal situation could have arisen if one denies Alexander's victories in the area. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 17:57
|
Penelope, In India the defeated were treated with great dignity. We have many examples where the invaders were defeated and they were allowed to return with their armies. So I am not surprised that Alexander's armies' nuclues remained intact. Plutarch clearly mentions: "As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India." Also telling is that Alexander had to find a new route to return home. The provinces he captured were up in arms and would have made return miserable. When he decided to sail down Indus no one from Porus's kingdom helped him to: a) Navigate Indus b) Fight against the Malli clan. Fighting them Alxander's lung was pierced. Selucid were able to consolidate because selucus was a good general but his reign was short lived as he was defeated by Chandragupta maurya. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 18:13
Typo. It is Budge. Scholars are unsure about pseduo-callisthenes. Alexander romance are attributed to Callisthenes who was related to Arsitotle and accompanied alexander in his campaingns. Once alexander extablished alexandria a library was also setup there and it could have contained material of alexandrian romance which could have formed the basis for egyptian/arab work in later centuries. It is true world over that court historians exaggerate the exploits of their kings. Think 300 of leonidas against thousands of persians. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 18:15
I would say they are reliable because alexander romance is attributed to Callisthenes who accompanied Alexander on his campaign. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 18:30
But then how do you explain the anomalies in his behavior after the war with porus: a) Porus enlarges his kingdom i.e he has more area then what he had before (As a contrast whoever opposed Alexander bitterly , had their land taken away and their treausure taken over by alexander). b) Alexander is finding it difficult to pay his army and Porus gets lots of Gold. Now how in the earth would a looser get alexander's gold? The treaty you mention could just be to boost morale in greek troops because Indian kings usually did not attack if you did not occupy their land. In other words if greeks held land that did not belong to taxiles or Porus they would not have been attacked. |
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 20:09
|
Ruffian, there is a reason why it is called the PSEUDO-Callisthenes. No serious scholar considers it to be the work of Callisthenes, who, by the way, was dead or at least in chains by the time of the Indian invasion, c. 327. He may have been executed in the Kabul Valley before the invasion or some months later, after being chained and caged the entire time. Callisthenes stopped writing/propagandizing not too long after the succuss of Alexander against Darius. He was quite dead or imprisoned, but certainly not commenting on the Hydaspes. There are many versions of his death, but all agree that he never made it out of India. If he ever got there in the first place. The pseudo-callisthenes doesn't show up until centuries later, like 700 years later. Some of the PC may be based on Onesicritus, who served Alexander, but even that early, he wrote a rather fanciful story about Alexander and the Amazon Queen which when being read to Lysimachus, a king who has also been very close to Alexander, caused Lysimachus to remark, ‘And where was I at the time?’...being as he was with Alexander at the time and would have known about some tryst with an Amazon Queen. As for the difficulty in paying his troops in India, that was a logistics problem in actually transferring the very heavy talents, etc from the treasuries in the west.. And he had 125,000 troops and a fleet to pay for then. Note that it was Alexander personally who was short of dosh. When one of his aides, Eumenes pleaded poverty when outfitting the fleet, his tent "accidentally" caught fire..revealing that he was sitting on a 1000 talents (at c. 57 lbs each) of gold and silver. Alexander had asked for 300 talents, but Eumenes, pleading poverty, had coughed up only 100. Alexander came from a palace culture that required largesse from it's ruler. He gives Porus a lot of gold, but Alexander still has thousands of talents elsewhere (in Iran). And as has been shown, his commanders certainly had ready cash. Hence the funding by 33 of them of his fleet. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 22:07
|
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. -------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 06:00
Athenas,
Let us remember that it is possible other contemporaries of Callisthenes finished his work. Scholars have a consensus what we know as "Alexander Romance" was created by Callisthenes and perhaps filled in by others at a later time. These syriac tranlsations of budge are part of that corpus only.
Not true. Alexander romance is ascribed to Callisthenese and parts of it extant from the time of Alexander.
This is not logical. Porus taking away alexander's gold and alexander having severe difficulty in paying salries to his troops cannot be explained as an oversight of the greeks. Remember they had been campaigning for many years. And such silly mistakes if they had kept committing they would have not made the journeys they made. So using occam's razor the complex explanations of what could have been would have been are discarded and the simplest explanation is accepted that alexander lost the war. Following it his troops revolted and he had to retreat. On his retreat Porus did not help him with money or men ( not a sign of vassal ). |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 06:30
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.
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? |
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 06:41
|
Ruffian, quite simply, you need to prove this, because what you re saying runs counter to pretty much everyone else. Some of the real Callisthenes was included, as were many other sources and stuff just made up as it grew. But the name Callisthenes was ascribed much, much later.
To hang your hat on the Alexander Romances as a better source of history than others, because parts of it seem to agree with your very minority view, is weak tea. As for the money issue in India, have you actually read any of the modern historical sources aside form the ancient ones (which were based on Ptolemy or Nearchus or Onisecritus or Aristobulus..all of whom were with Alexander...to the end and beyond)...I might add that for balance read someone besides Peter Green, who has his own special axe to grind. There are a lot of modern texts that deal with Alexander each differing in their opinion of him... I realise you have a certain viewpoint, however using the Pseudo-Calllisthenes as your source and discarding the others because it fits your POV will not get you any closer to the truth. It would be like me using Le Morte d'Arthur as an historical source for 5th century Britain. You don't happen to edit the Porus article at wiki do you? I recognise a similarity in the preference for the PC over other more factual sources.
|
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 07:32
|
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
To address your second point,
-------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 16:44
Nah. Court historians are far worse. Callisthenes, later on in life, had a falling out with alexander and became critical of him or it could mean he became honest and gave up flattery of his patron. So alexander romance maynot be off the mark just because it disagrees with court historians whose job is to sing praises. Another interesting reference here is of General Zhukov who liberated Europe from the clutches of Nazis. He was once invited to deliever a lecture at Indian Millitary academy and he said that Porus defeated alexander. He was saying this based on what history was known in russia.
What axe does Peter Green have to grind? Have you read the book? We cannot dismiss minority viewpoint just because it disagrees with the held majority view. All evidence needs to be evalutaed scientifically. What is POV? I dont edit wikipedia. Please tell more about arthur you mention above. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 17:47
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.
Nope see above. Alexander is the only one who would have to give up his gold because of his aggression.
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.
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. |
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 19:33
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. 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. 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. 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. Arthur? As in King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table.
|
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 22:19
|
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. -------------
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 02:33
Off topic, but that is a highly disputed point. So it doesn't help your argument at all. ------------- |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 06:42
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.
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?
I did not get the sense that Green does not like alexander. He is pretty kind to alexander.
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.
You mentiond a book in the previous page saying english history if read from that source would not be credible. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 06:54
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? |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 06:58
It is not disputed. Nationalism tendencies sometimes get in the way. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 08:32
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...) His troops - to my mind - did not rebel for lack of pay. I have already given my interpretation as to why that mutiny happened.
As mentioned by him already, Callisthenes was THE court historian. The other - more credible sources - were memoires, Ptolemy's for example. While these are not devoid of manipulative intentions, it is usually not to flatter Alexander (who was dead and buried at the time), but to put the author in a closer relation to the Conqueror.
And that is exactly his point. PS-Callisthenes is to Alexander history what the Arthurian legend is to English history. -------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 09:15
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. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 14:43
|
I never said Alexander "gave his gold to porus to uphold his "stick and carrot" policy". It's not a bad idea to read posts rather than skim them. 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. -------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 15:23
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? |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 16:32
Oh, I have a wild imagination, me... But could you please provide some more appropriate references? Curtius 5:2 covers a completely different topic. As for what Alexander did when he entered Babylon, you can read it http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t44.html - here . In particular the fragment
which in Latin sounds like this:
sounds like typical "stick-and-carrot" approach to me. As for what happened in Babylon, this is what Curtius has to say (5.1.36-39):
The content is indeed, of a sexual nature, but it's the Macedonians who are seduced and mollified, not the Babylonian women. How about that imagination, heh? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cuser%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - -------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 18:53
That is the problem. Here another reference for the rape of babylonian women. http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t45.html
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. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 20:59
|
Your accusing me of "believing Nazi propaganda that Poland attacked them first in world war 2" just because I have pointed out I could not locate in the Latin text your supposed quote from Curtius (I'm not saying you have invented it shamelessly, merely that I could not locate it) is inelegant. You quote a source for a supposed behaviour of Greek soldiers. That author simply does not say that. The takeover of Babylon was entirely peaceful, as demonstrated by a Babylonian chronicle (if you follow the link to the previous post you will see it). That soldiers billeted in cities abuse women is a tragedy, but it has always happened, from the ancient to modern times (see the numerous accusations of rape perpetrated by American soldiers in Japan, long after the war was over). It does not demonstrate Alexander was hypocritical and treated Babylon harshly. Please, for the future, make sure you do not assign modern interpretations to an ancient source, because it makes you look very, very bad. -------------
|
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 22:06
|
Ruffian you cited Diodorus 17:20 for Persepolis. Actually 17:20 discusses the Battle on the Granicus and Cleitus saving Alexnader's life. The rest, too much work to bother. I just happened to have Diodorus handy.
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 23:47
Yes, and after alexander realized that it would be impossible for him to subjigate all of India, he wanted to at least have a "piece" of India, so chandragupta over ran all of the makedonian satrapies that alexander had left in place there. The defeat of Seleukus I did not destabalize the empire in any way afterwords. It simply kept the Arche de Seleukia from ever invading india again. ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 05:35
I drew the analogy because earlier you had said:
which means that you did not believe the women in babylon were raped by greek soldiers. Now let me further add from the site to clarify it further:
Key takeaways are: a) Babylon surrendered by Mazaues and Alexander agrees to a peaceful takeover. b) Babylonians greet greeks with flower petals. c) Greeks brutally rape women and children of Babylon. d) Alexander's inaction makes one believe he condones the entire incident. e) Alexander marches on to Persepolis where a strong resistance is put up and the city meets the same fate i.e citizens are raped and looted and the city pillaged. So coming back to the context of our discussion their is no evidence that Alexander is a benevolent general because: i) When Babylon surrendered his city was raped and pillaged ii) When Persepolis fought they still met the same fate. So key questions are do you still believe A) Alexander had a stick and carrot policy B) Why did the same fate not meet Porus's city after apparently loosing it to the greeks?
I guess it depends on what your defenition of the word "peaceful". If raping women and children and is included in this definition, sure. But unfortunately such definition of yours cannot be accepted.
So would you call Americans or Japanese using a stick and carrot policy in Iraq and China respectively? Would you not call USA and Japan hypocritical for preaching human rights to the world when in fact they have committed the worst atrocities on innocent civilians in Iraq and China? I dont get it how alexander is any different. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 06:03
Athenas, I am quoting other sources who have quoted diodorus. It is possible they are wrong or it possible you did not look in the correct section. Can you please recheck? In January 330, http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html - Alexander reached http://www.livius.org/pen-pg/persepolis/persepolis.html - Persepolis , the capital of the http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/achaemenians.html - Achaemenid empire . Three months later he destroyed the palace, because he was not yet sole ruler of the Persian empire, and it was too dangerous to leave the enormous treasures behind, where his enemies could recapture them. The Greek author http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diodorus/siculus.html - Diodorus of Sicily , describes the events in sections http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/17B*.html#20 - 17.20-22 of his http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/home.html - World history . The translation was made by M.M. Austin. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 09:22
|
They got it wrong. It's in 17.70-72. Check the site/edition they linked:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/17D*.html#70 - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/17D*.html#70 |
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 18:43
I have the actual books...if you wish to use them as sources, I'd recommend you do the same. The less filtered the better. :) Chilbudios gave you a link to an excellent online source for Diodorus though, as well as some other ancient sources. I don't know that Curtius is online. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 14:42
This is your post. In it, you say that Curtius described at 5:2 how the Babylonian women were treated. Curtius did NOT write that. I'm not sure if you made this quote up or just took it from the bosom of the overly generous internet without bothering to check the actual source. The point of the matter is this: Curtius does not say the Babylonian women were raped, Curtius says the Babylonian women practiced sacred prostitution. Now, aware of the blunder, you quote the much more reputable livius.org site:
Perhaps that is true. It is very likely that Macedonian soldiers did, indeed, rape Babylonian women (as soldiers of all times, ages, creed or race are prone to do). But what exactly does this have to do with Alexander? Nowhere does Curtius say that Alexander instigated the immoral behaviour of his soldiers. Not even the author of the article on livius.org, though highly critical of the Macedonians, can accuse Alexander personally. That you see fit to judge Alexander according to our modern standards, shaped by the spirit of the Geneva Convention is your own choice. Feel free to accuse Alexander of anything and feel free to think anything about him. But it may be better to bring something more solid than a fake quote from an ancient author as an argument, or else don't be surprised to see people don't agree with you. -------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 16:19
Thanks. That is precisely the point. Takeover of Babylon was not peaceful as you had been insisting. The reason this point is important as I have asked previously that why similar events not take place in Porus's town. We are not here judging alexander's character or that of that of his army just his war with Porus. As collateral what is also emerging that Alexander has been romanticised to such a level that all his misdeeds have been shoved under the rug.
Agree Curtius is courteous towards alexander. Well why dont we move to Persepolis where Alexander infact did instigate to wreck the city?
I dont get it. You agree that Babylon and Persepolis were raped and pillaged. BTW it might have been the norm in Europe to treat the defeated the way alexander's army did in India it was never the case. In fact thru the centuries we have many instance where Indian general caught the harem of the opposing mughal general but the women were never molested instead were treated with dignity and sent back. To paint the entire world with one brush is wrong. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 16:21
Thanks. Will take a look. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 10-May-2009 at 17:13
|
The takeover of Babylon was peaceful. Isolated acts of violence committed by soldiers against the civilians among whom they are stationed do not imply anything about the manner in which the community received the garrison. Let me make this more clear with an example:
Judging by your standards, if one sees the story of a Roman soldier assaulting or threatening to assault an ephebe, one should naturally conclude that the Romans had pillaged the city when they had taken it over. Well, that's just not true, and the story of how the Romans did get possession of the city is recounted again by Plutarch, this time in his "Life of Sulla", in the episode relating the Roman dictator's battle with the Pontic general Archelaos by the walls of this city. It was an entirely peaceful business, with the Chaeroneans gladly receiving the Roman troops (indeed inviting them) and subsequently giving them substantial aid. More on the interactions and tensions between guards and civillians may be found in A. Chaniotis & P. Ducrey (eds.) - Army and Power, in particular J. Ma's article "Oversexed, overpaid and over here". To sum things up, your theory about Alexander's alleged hypocrisy based on something an ancient source does not say, ut we moderns believe it should actually say simply does not hold water. At Persepolis things are entirely different. Persepolis was one of the major residences of the Achaemenids, so in burning it down Alexander may have wanted to signal his Greek allies that he had completed the mission entrusted to him by the Corinthian League, namely exacting revenge on the Persians for the damage inflicted by them on Greece during the Medic Wars. By burning Persepolis, Alexander may have "exacted revenge" on the Persians for the burning of Athens. It is also important to mention that the burning of Persepolis is in some sources instigated not by Alexander, but by a Greek prostitute. That there were Indian generals who captured the harems of enemies and treated them generously does not surprise me one bit. It is the very thing any half-wit politician would do. And, to your dismay, that is precisely what Alexander did as well, when he captured the women of Dareios III. Or you have just found a source which says otherwise? -------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 05:44
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 05:48
If you read Nazi literature do you know what they say about the start of World War 2?
What do you mean?
Well what I have found out is Darius's wife was raped by Alexander's soldiers and died in child birth. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 22:56
No, I don't. Presumably you are an avid reader of such literature, so please enlighten me.
I mean that in the Middle-Easten tradition taking over the wife of the former king was a claim for legitimacy. With such a gesture Cyrus the Great was famed to have fundamented his claim for kingship. Alexander had a relation with Stateira, Dareios III's wife, thus sending the message far and wide that Dareios was crushed and effectively removed from office and that he was the legitimate Achaemenid king. This was, of course, his message to the subjects of the Achaemenid empire, who could be expected to serve the Achaemenid king loyally - whoever the Achaemenid king was, Dareios or Alexander. In the Shahname - this bit I got from wikipedia, so I cannot personally vouch for its accuracy - Alexander is said to have been the son of a Persian king, so his propaganda really did work. Other historical examples of generals treating kindly family members of their enemies include a successor of Alexander, the Seleukid king Antiochos III, who captured the son of Scipio, but did the young man no harm, but rather returned him to his father.
This version I've never come across. See above for what I did come across - Alexander had an affair with Stateira, the wife of Dareios III. Stateira is said to have died in child-birth, but the child was Alexander's. Alexander then married Barsine, daughter of Dareios and Stateira and Parysatis, daughter of Artaxerxes III (the Achaemenid king who preceded Dareios III). They thus became second and third wife, respectively, after Rhoxane. -------------
|
Posted By: athenas owl
Date Posted: 19-May-2009 at 04:43
|
There are conflicting versions of what happened to Stratira the wife of Darius, not his daughter. She dies in childbirth, or she simply died. She died before Gaugamela, within a year of Issos, or she died shortly before Guagamela, very shortly before. She may have had a relationship of some kind with Alexander or she may not have. The sources conflict. Plutarch (30.1) and Justin (11.12.6) are the only ones who says she died in childbirth. Even Curtius, who never met a salacious story about Alexander he didn't love, says she died of illness. Women, especially the Persian women, weren't really of interest to the Greek and Roman writers, except as conveninet props to further a storyline. Afterthoughts in a man's world. But in NONE of them show the daughter of Darius raped by Alexander and dying in childbirth. In fact both daughters were married to Alexander and Hephaistion. Sadly they wouldn't long outlive Alexander because, so say the sources, Roxane (his Sogdian wife) had them murdered, with the help of Perdiccas. Again, this may be true, or it may not...easy to blame Roxane, later a victim herself and Perdiccas because neither had much say in what was told in the histories and the propaganda wars, Perdiccas being dead within a few years of Alexander, and Roxane and her sad, sad son rendered moot as well, then murdered. Though, in real politik, it does make sense for the Achaemenid wives to be done in by her, or at least on her behalf. Ruffian, seriously, a suggestion. If you are going to use the Greek and Roman sources, you need to read them yourself. You are getting some very faulty information from somewhere. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 14:40
Well the nazis said they were attacked by Poles and thus had to invade Poland in self defence! Obviously we cannot believe them can we?
Hmmm:
Nope. See above. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 17:06
It was a typo. I meant to say Darius's wife.
Well she did die in childbirth and that is why some people think that Barsine, her daughter with Darius, had a motive to knock off ALexander.
Please see above. It was not the daughter but the wife of Darius that I wanted to say who died in childbirth.
Well Cassander had Roxane and the young son knocked off as also olympias. I guess thessalionke survived somehow.
No not faulty info just a typo on my part. Apologies for that. |
Posted By: khshayathiya
Date Posted: 20-May-2009 at 19:25
|
Yes, we don't know that Stateira was officially Alexander's wife. But it seems their relationship was widely known at the time. That was enough for official propaganda. You state that "Statira was taken against her will". Perhaps. But you imply that she had married Dareios III with her full consent, which is by no means certain. Besides, Alexander was a young man, and a handsome one by all accounts. Who can tell if she was or was not genuinely attracted to him? Anyway, a political marriage hardly equates with being "raped by Alexander's soldiers" as you had posted with supreme confidence earlier. This is the sort of faulty info athenas owl warned you against. -------------
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 06:28
What official propaganda? Please point a source.
Are you suggesting she was a spoil of war and Darius had gotten her the same way? Can you please point a source? Even if this is true what does it have to do with the context of this discussion?
Her cities plundered, her people pillaged and raped, her husband hounded and she fell for him? Is this your opinion or are you quoting a historian here?
Please point out a source for this political marriage. |
Posted By: rcscwc
Date Posted: 28-Oct-2009 at 03:39
Alexander won and Porus lost. But it was a touch and go thing till Porus was captured.
Now recall. Ambhi, the ruler of Texila, had surrendered to Alexander. He wanted to settle scores with Porus. But during the months Alexander had with Ambhi, the latter must have filled him lot many briefings. One was THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT REGICIDE.
Another: No plundering post victory.
These rules were strictly adhered to the Hindus. Violation thereof would have made even Ambhi suspicious, if not hostile. After all who does value his own life?
Moroever, Alexander was impressed by the personal valour of Porus.
Taken together, it is no surprise that Alexander wanted to befriend Porus, and thus add to his military strength and securing his supply lines. In fact Alexander had plans to cross Chenab too, which were undone by the revolt of Greek soldiers. They were dispirited by the firce opposition in the very first serious battle. Remember Alexander still had to cross Ravi and Satluj rivers. Further beyond that Yamuna, across which powerful military force of Pataliputra were stationed.
Retreat of Alexander was MESSY to say the least. He nearly died!!
|
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2010 at 06:41
The Nandas are sometimes described as the first empire builders in the recorded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India - history of India . They inherited the large kingdom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadha - Magadha and wished to extend it to yet more distant frontiers. To this purpose they built up a vast army consisting of 200,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry - infantry , 20,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry - cavalry , 2,000 war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot - chariots and 3,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant - war elephants (at the lowest estimates). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch - Plutarch however, the size of the Nanda army was even larger, numbering 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 war chariots, and 6,000 war elephants. However, the Nandas never had the opportunity to see their army up against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander - Alexander , who invaded India at the time of Dhana Nanda, since Alexander had to confine his campaign to the plains of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_region - Punjab , for his forces, frightened by the prospect of facing a formidable foe, mutinied at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beas_River - Hyphasis River (the modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beas_River - Beas River ) refusing to march any further. This river thus marks the eastern-most extent of Alexander's conquests.
|
Posted By: ranjithvnambiar
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2010 at 06:51
|
Battle of Hydaspes[Alexander Vs. Porus] Porus drew up on the south bank of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhelum_River - Jhelum River , and was set to repel any crossings. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhelum_River - Jhelum River was deep and fast enough that any opposed crossing would probably doom the entire attacking force. Alexander knew that a direct crossing had little chances of success and thus tried to find alternative fords. He moved his mounted troops up and down the river bank each night, Porus shadowing him. Eventually, Alexander used a suitable crossing, about 27 km (17 miles) upstream of his camp. His plan was a classic pincer maneuver. He left his general Craterus behind with most of the army, while he crossed the river upstream with a strong contingent, consisting, according to Arrian of 6,000 foot and 5,000 horse, though it is probable that it was larger. Craterus was to ford the river and attack if Porus faced Alexander with all his troops, but to hold his position if Porus faced Alexander with only a part of his army. Alexander quietly moved his part of the army upstream and then traversed the river in utmost secrecy. He mistakenly landed on an island, but soon crossed to the other side. Porus perceived his opponent's maneuver and sent a small cavalry and chariot force under his son to fight off Alexander, hoping that he would be able to prevent his crossing. Alexander had already passed, and easily routed his opponent, the chariots in particular being impeded by the mud near the shore of the river, with Porus' son among the dead. Porus understood that Alexander had crossed to his side of the river and hasted to face him with the best part of his army, leaving behind a small detachment to disrupt the landing of Craterus' force, should he try to cross the river. When Porus reached the point where Alexander's army was arrayed, he deployed his forces and commenced the attack. The Indians were poised with cavalry on both flanks, their center being comprised by infantry with elephants towering among or before them in equal intervals. The elephants caused much harm to the Macedonian phalanx, but were eventually repulsed by the dense pikes of the phallangitai, wreaking much havoc upon their own lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_hydaspes_combined_at.gif">  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_hydaspes_combined_at.gif"> Combined attack of cavalry and infantry. Alexander started the battle by sending horse archers to shower the Indian left cavalry wing. Then, he led the charge against the weakened Indian wing. The rest of the Indian cavalry galloped to their hard pressed kinsmen but at this moment, Coenus's cavalry contingent appeared on the Indian rear. The Indians tried to form a double phalanx, but the necessary complicated maneuvers brought even more confusion into their ranks making it easier for the Macedonian horse to conquer. The remaining Indian cavalry fled among the elephants for protection, but the beasts were already out of control and would soon retreat exhausted from the field, leaving the rest of Porus's army encircled by the Macedonian horse and phalanx. At this time, the phallangitai locked their shields and advanced upon the confused enemy. Porus, after putting up a brave fight, surrendered and the battle was finally over. According to Justin, during the battle, Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. Alexander fell off his horse in the ensuing duel, his bodyguards carrying him off and capturing Porus. According to Arrian, Macedonian losses amounted to 310. However the military historian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.F.C._Fuller - J.F.C. Fuller sees as "more realistic" the figure given by Diodorus of about 1,000, a large number for a victor, yet not improbable, considering the partial success of the Indian war elephants. Indian losses amounted to 23,000 according to Arrian, 12,000 dead and over 9,000 men captured according to Diodorus.The last two numbers are remarkably close, if it is assumed that Arrian added any prisoners to the total Indian casualties. Historian Peter Green supports that Macedonian casualties might have mounted to 4.000 men, mainly phallangites, but his claims are not supported by the sources. |