TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Bang Galore]

As this is being written more or less 'on the run', a detailed account of these events from the passages of the Rg Veda itself will have to wait for my return, alas, with much else, including poor Sashan's promised replies about the Brahmins.

Will wait for that.

So on the one hand, on the southern axis, the migrants faced a declining IVC (not, as you have suggested, a flourishing civilisation, at "the zenith of urbanization")

Not my point, just said that if the argument was that the IVC people were overwhelmed by the "invaders" and pushed to South India, as some have suggested, then it would be unlikely that people accustomed to urbanisation (at whatever level) would simply choose to go back to neolithic living once they reached South India. That allows only for a theory like that proposed by Devolopereo where they were incorporated into the "culture" in which case the Rg vedic "Aryans" would have been to large degree, a resident indigenous people. Whether they had fights in one part or the other is then not relevant since it would then have essentially (as per said theory)been indigenous people fighting other indigenous people thereby proving very little of the case for invasion. Secondly, why would a people who accommodated the locals into their belief have such severe problems with other locals ? All these theories sound fine & plausible when looked at in isolation but when more than one theory is considered & then read against the supposed evidence within the Rg veda, it all starts to fall apart pretty quickly. Being in two different boats can never be a good idea.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Logical Reason :


Battle between Alexander the Great and Raja Porus: The Indian Viewpoint
Porus Checkmates Alexander

Hydespes is the River Jhelum and flows through the Punjab before it joins the Indus. In 327 BC Alexander the great after subduing the Persians entered India. He had received intelligence reports that his main opponent would be Raja Porus, the Hindu king who ruled the Punjab at that time. Alexander had a fair estimate of the army of Porus, but what made him think was the massive elephant corps of Porus which numbered anything from 200-300 war elephants. Alexander knew the strength of the elephants in battle having faced 16 of them earlier in his battle with the Persians.

On the night of the battle Alexander was encamped on one side of the Jhelum, while Porus was on the other side. He made a war plan with his cavalry commander Selecus and accordingly the horse soldiers of Alexander crossed the river in the early hours of the morning. The army of Porus was taken by surprise as Alexander had executed a brilliant tactical move. In addition Porus had relied on chariots to fight the Greeks.

The Chariots of Porus were found wanting as they got stuck in the soft river bank sand and the Macedonian cavalry had a field day. Two sons of Porus were killed ere the battle had commenced and Alexander was confident that victory was his. However Porus had kept his elephant corps in reserve and once he saw that the battle was slipping from his grasp he ordered a charge by his elephant corps.

To the blowing of conch shells and blare of trumpets the heavily armored elephants emerged in the morning dawn and rushed at the Greeks. It was a terrifying charge and Indian historians have confirmed that this charge unnerved the Greeks who had never seen anything like it. The elephants moving en masse at 30mph spread havoc in the Greek ranks. Despite a cavalry charge by Selecus the elephants were not contained and the Greeks fell back, leaving the ground free for Porus.

Greek chroniclers are silent about the result of this battle and only mention that his troops refused to go forward and Alexander turned back. In reality Alexander was checkmated by Porus and the Greek army having retreated was in no mood to attack again. The elephant was the key to this battle.

Greek historians record that after this battle Alexander bestowed additional territories to Porus and also appointed him ruler of the new territories. This is an act hardly likely by a victor to a vanquished. Indian historians mention that after the battle Alexander and Porus met and Alexander acknowledged the might of Porus and both became friends and Alexander ceded vast territories to Porus. Thus there is a lingering doubt that Alexander in real terms was defeated and he made his peace with Porus and turned back after rewarding him with vast lands and territories. Some times truth can be stranger than fiction.

http://mg-singh.hubpages.com/hub/Ba...the-Great-and-Raja-Porus-The-Indian-Viewpoint

 

[Rig Vedic]

The authors of the Vedas explicitly told us that they felt kinship with tribes in Iran/Afghanistan. They did not claim kinship with the Nepalese or the Biharis or the Assamese or the Bengalis or the Keralites.

They were in conflict with Iranics ... and some of the Vedic authors do talk about their distant ancestors, who lived in places as far East as Kashi (Benaras), on the border between UP and Bihar.

 

[Hellraiser007]

They were in conflict with some of the Iranics ... and some of the Vedic authors do talk about their distant ancestors, who lived in places as far East as Kashi (Benaras), on the border between UP and Bihar.

Exactly India is the one who taught the Numerical system and other aspects related to ancient science to Arabs and Persians.

 

[jbond197]

I think you are making a thoroughly unreasonable request. I research every single comment of mine, or have sufficient knowledge of the subject to write it out without prior research. Each and every single comment. To the extent that in discussion with Rig Vedic, not one of my favourites, when I realized that I was going out of my depth, I withdrew my comment, deleting it entirely, until I had read up on the sources once more.

Considering this, do you think it reasonable that I put up a point, or make an observation, and some callow young idiot not only challenges me but questions my integrity?

How come you are not addressing his insolence first? I am really furious that such a request should be addressed to me, merely because the person on the other end is a youngster. Children should be seen and not read, then.

Sir, I told you because lots of people follow and read you and while I am reading you, I would love to see the content and not someone else being addressed in it in a specific manner. I know you do a lot of research before you make comments and I respect that and that is exactly the reason why I requested you to not to degrade the quality of the post by addressing any specific person !! My request was in no way to disrespect you!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Logical Reason :


Battle between Alexander the Great and Raja Porus: The Indian Viewpoint
Porus Checkmates Alexander

Hydespes is the River Jhelum and flows through the Punjab before it joins the Indus. In 327 BC Alexander the great after subduing the Persians entered India. He had received intelligence reports that his main opponent would be Raja Porus, the Hindu king who ruled the Punjab at that time. Alexander had a fair estimate of the army of Porus, but what made him think was the massive elephant corps of Porus which numbered anything from 200-300 war elephants. Alexander knew the strength of the elephants in battle having faced 16 of them earlier in his battle with the Persians.

On the night of the battle Alexander was encamped on one side of the Jhelum, while Porus was on the other side. He made a war plan with his cavalry commander Selecus and accordingly the horse soldiers of Alexander crossed the river in the early hours of the morning. The army of Porus was taken by surprise as Alexander had executed a brilliant tactical move. In addition Porus had relied on chariots to fight the Greeks.

The Chariots of Porus were found wanting as they got stuck in the soft river bank sand and the Macedonian cavalry had a field day. Two sons of Porus were killed ere the battle had commenced and Alexander was confident that victory was his. However Porus had kept his elephant corps in reserve and once he saw that the battle was slipping from his grasp he ordered a charge by his elephant corps.

To the blowing of conch shells and blare of trumpets the heavily armored elephants emerged in the morning dawn and rushed at the Greeks. It was a terrifying charge and Indian historians have confirmed that this charge unnerved the Greeks who had never seen anything like it. The elephants moving en masse at 30mph spread havoc in the Greek ranks. Despite a cavalry charge by Selecus the elephants were not contained and the Greeks fell back, leaving the ground free for Porus.

Greek chroniclers are silent about the result of this battle and only mention that his troops refused to go forward and Alexander turned back. In reality Alexander was checkmated by Porus and the Greek army having retreated was in no mood to attack again. The elephant was the key to this battle.

Greek historians record that after this battle Alexander bestowed additional territories to Porus and also appointed him ruler of the new territories. This is an act hardly likely by a victor to a vanquished. Indian historians mention that after the battle Alexander and Porus met and Alexander acknowledged the might of Porus and both became friends and Alexander ceded vast territories to Porus. Thus there is a lingering doubt that Alexander in real terms was defeated and he made his peace with Porus and turned back after rewarding him with vast lands and territories. Some times truth can be stranger than fiction.

Battle between Alexander the Great and Raja Porus: The Indian Viewpoint

Suffice it to say that not a SINGLE Indian historian exists outside modern times who wrote about Alexander. So the references to the terror incited by the elephant charge, and to the subsequent territorial arrangements are complete bullshit.

 

[Bang Galore]

The authors of the Vedas explicitly told us that they felt kinship with tribes in Iran/Afghanistan. They did not claim kinship with the Nepalese or the Biharis or the Assamese or the Bengalis or the Keralites.

This is not a Pakistani ISI conspiracy to go back in time and rewrite the Vedas. This is what is written.

Not accurate, I think you are confusing the later Mahabharat with the vedas. The Rg veda knows of Afghanistan but not Iran and it most certainly was not kinship since they were all jostling for power.

They were in conflict with Iranics ....

Then not yet Iranic, that happened later when they moved ....supposedly.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Suffice it to say that not a SINGLE Indian historian exists outside modern times who wrote about Alexander. So the references to the terror incited by the elephant charge, and to the subsequent territorial arrangements are complete bullshit.

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.

It was a twisted fact that Alexander was impressed with Purushottam and agreed to treat him like a king, fact is Alexander is a savage who even killed ordinary people himself when he conquered a city (example Siege of Tyre where he went into the city with his body gaurds to kill oridinary people).
Alexander was weakened in the battle with Purushottam and as a result of the revolt in his army ranks he decided to go back making peace with Purushottam.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

And this is your example of an Indian historian outside modern times?

 

[Hellraiser007]

And this is your example of an Indian historian outside modern times?

It is about logic and Battle facts.

 

[neokautilya2]

It is about logic and Battle facts.

even the west has the same view about alexander

the hollywood movie alexander also agreed to the fact that he never defeated porus, but then some of the facts in that movie were twisted

 

[Bang Galore]

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:

Now I have seen everything! I need to get some "chai" to clear my head. No wonder JS is unwilling to listen to the anti-AIT theorists because they might soon be quoting Ethiopic texts to prove that Aryans were always Indians & that they moved to greece & therefore Alexander too was an Indian...Need that chai......

 

[Hellraiser007]

even the west has the same view about alexander

the hollywood movie alexander also agreed to the fact that he never defeated porus, but then some of the facts in that movie were twisted

True mate , Glorification of Alexander was more to do with West domination of East. British borrowed the concepts of democracy and other concepts from Ancient Greece and Roman empire, will always undermine India and its culture and scientific achievements.


West sees Greece as mother of Western culture and they borrowed every thing from it.
If we have to go into History Persian Empire, Indian Empires and Chinese Empires are on par with Greek empire and this glorification has to do with undermining the eastern civilization and dominating the East.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is about logic and Battle facts.

Neither logic nor battle facts figure in these accounts. Your reports are from the dregs of the popular history world. Dinesh Agrawal is not an historian, leave alone an historian who lived somewhere close to Alexander's time. He is a professor of engineering at the State University, Pennsylvania, a very good university, but still not one that can convert a professor of microwave processing and engineering into an authority on Alexander. For your information, there are substantial authorities on Alexander and his campaigns, and you have not managed to come near even one of them. Every single one cited so far is a Hindutvavadi fraud, including this specimen who does not get half his spellings correct, including his star turn, Sir E. O. Wallis Budge, an Egyptologist who became well-known due to his support of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's planchette and ghost-conversation lunacy. Budge himself had nothing to do with Alexander, and his main claim to academic distinction, not a small claim, was his translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. He knew nothing of military history, even less about Alexander.

If that is your source of logic and for battle facts, you are wasting everybody's time, including your own.

True mate , Glorification of Alexander was more to do with West domination of East. British borrowed the concepts of democracy and other concepts from Ancient Greece and Roman empire, will always undermine India and its culture and scientific achievements.


West sees Greece as mother of Western culture and they borrowed every thing from it.
If we have to go into History Persian Empire, Indian Empires and Chinese Empires are on par with Greek empire and this glorification has to do with undermining the eastern civilization and dominating the East.

If you do go into history, you may change your views. It looks quite different when you sit in a college coffee shop and shoot the breeze.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Neither logic nor battle facts figure in these accounts. Your reports are from the dregs of the popular history world. Dinesh Agrawal is not an historian, leave alone an historian who lived somewhere close to Alexander's time. He is a professor of engineering at the State University, Pennsylvania, a very good university, but still not one that can convert a professor of microwave processing and engineering into an authority on Alexander. For your information, there are substantial authorities on Alexander and his campaigns, and you have not managed to come near even one of them. Every single one cited so far is a Hindutvavadi fraud, including this specimen who does not get half his spellings correct, including his star turn, Sir E. O. Wallis Budge, an Egyptologist who became well-known due to his support of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's planchette and ghost-conversation lunacy. Budge himself had nothing to do with Alexander, and his main claim to academic distinction, not a small claim, was his translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. He knew nothing of military history, even less about Alexander.

If that is your source of logic and for battle facts, you are wasting everybody's time, including your own.

I have no problem if you do not accept the logical conclusion. You can move on.