Alexander the Great/ Mauryans/ Graeco-Bactrians

[HariSinghNalwa]

Good old pakistani identity crisis

 

[khanmubashir]

The Indus river and Ganges river systems created two separate ecosystems which in north were divided in the north by mountains and In South by deserts the lands in between had sporadic kingdoms protected by there geographic isolation through most of ancient times

only with advent of modern communication network like Early GT road by sher shah and road / train . network and irrigation sys by British could these lands be properly ruled under one administration for a considerable time period

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Thank you.

I do not let the choice of terminologies get in the way of my judgement because this is not wise; your sensitivity in this regard is duly noted but this will hamper your judgement process in the long term. Forces coming from the West recognized inhabitants of now modern era Pakistan as "people of the Indus," and the word India is derived from this perception in ancient and modern writings. Just concentrate on the contents, and not on terminologies. You are free to apply (and utilize) the title Pakistan in your personal writings wherever you deem fit but the course of events should be correctly highlighted.

B/W this is an important discovery: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2016/08/pakistan-unearths-city-defeated-by.html (Archaeological evidence of the Siege of Aornos in Swat finally)

Alexander fought many battles in Pakistan, and but his fight with Porus is relatively well-known.

Brilliant find...Thank you

 

[LeGenD]

Lol as if your ragtag Punjabi "Kingdoms" had any chance to fight against Mauryans, they did what Punjabis are doing since eternity.

Spread their cheeks to their Conquerors like Porus and Ambhi, both Mauryans and Greeks used those as tissue papers and kicked them around when they forgot their Aukaat.

We all know what Ashoka did to people in Punjab when they revolted beforehe became Buddhist.

Helenas marriagewas pre arranged lol.

Instead of trying to re write history like a retarded idiot learn to accept that you were just a doormat of big empires and do tunuk tunuk run dance.

You (are) immature, retard, misinformed, and lacking in manners as well (despicable). Instead of embracing facts and coming to terms with the chain of events which facilitated advances of Mauryans into regions encompassing modern-era Pakistan and Afghanistan, you have cultivated an inflated perception of Chandragupta's prowess in your mind (grandeur of delusions).

As I have pointed out earlier, Alexander softened several kingdoms across Pakistan and Afghanistan with his attacks by destroying their forts, reducing their manpower, and taking many prisoners in the process. After his untimely death, his own followers turned on each other and weakened his Empire in the process. Chandragupta (being a powerful but SMART ruler) saw an opening in this situation and capitalized on it.

Some details in this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/alex...-graeco-bactrians.601039/page-8#post-11162977

With greatest regional commanders such as Porus and Alexander's former general Eudemus out of the picture (assassinated; internal strife), Seleukos Nikator stood no chance against the formidable Mauryans on his own. Chandragupta was undeniably powerful and an able commander in his own right; he defeated Seleukos in the battlefield but realized that the war with Macedonians could drag for years and chose the path of diplomacy to settle his dispute with them.

"Later, Chandragupta Maurya married Seleucus’ daughter Helena as part of his diplomacy and entered into an alliance with Seleucus." From: https://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/ancient-india/chandragupta-maurya.html

Chandragupta was in contact with Helena prior to the war and she was reciprocating his feelings (Indian accounts); Helena convinced her father for marriage with Chandragupta and the latter rewarded Seleukos handsomely in return for lasting peace. Chandragupta even supplied 500 elephants to Seleukos to facilitate his exploits in the Persian sector.

FYI:

Television history is usually a soap-opera; mostly far from reality; spiced up to feed the audience with intriguing storylines; and keep them engaged.

Now; the real story is sometimes even stranger than fiction. According to the academic narrative; there was definitely a war between Chandragupta Maurya and Seleucus Nicator; one of the Diadochi (Alexander’s friends, family and generals etc).

Some narratives mention that there was a romantic affair between Chandragupta Maurya and Helena; both of them becoming infatuated with each other. However; Seleucus Nicator did not approve of the “heathen”; but Chandragupta Maurya wanted the mleccha’s daughter; so he fought a battle and eventually won.

Chandragupta Maurya took up Jainism in present-day Karnataka according to the most popular story; and Helena by most accounts was an ideal foreigner in India; loving the land and its people; learning Sanskrit and Indian classical music.

The name of Bindusara’s mother was Durdhara; who according to some sources was Macedonian. Also; most historians suggest that there were cordial relations between the Indians and the Greeks; Nicator was more interested in the brutal slashing/game of thrones happening amongst the Macedonians/Greeks after Alexander’s death; and cementing his own position.

So; in all probability; the story depicted in Chakravartin Ashok Samrat is TV masala.

Source: http://sunil-kumar.co.in/helena-actually-conspire-father-destroy-bindusara/

One can continue to hold Chandragupta in high regard at personal capacity without adhering to revisionist nonsense and/or inflated perceptions of his prowess.

Alexander was the real deal; his untimely death led to destabilization of his Empire, and its Eastern flank was exposed after assassinations of Porus and Eudemus. Chandragupta capitalized on this situation to his advantage.

Above all, kingdoms in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the time were not a bunch of cowards; many resisted advances of Alexander to the best of their abilities but they were eventually outmatched. Only an idiot (like you) would argue otherwise.

You talk big from the safety of your home, but you are a spineless moron in reality. Idiots like you would have fared no better back in the time; probably being polishing boots of a Macedonian somewhere. So spare me your silly attitude.

 

[saiyan0321]

This thread has generated some great debate yet much of it is offtopic.

The study of history has underwent a catastrophic change as many states study it with the modern lenses of today's nation state and nation boundaries which are slave to modern international concepts based on Westphalia and other notable treaties.. This change and lense has created a toxic atmosphere where each is competing over the other for something somebody did a thousand years ago with which he claims relation based on geographical entities that didn't even exist a century prior.... The story of pakistan is even more complicated as the state is a union of areas which have straddled the edges of civilizations, been home to some and have been center of events that changed the very formation of history. Its borders are formed in such a way encompassing areas which claim parts of great civilizations and have been home to one as well. On top of it all the relative recent events in the sense of Islamic events ( relative in the sense that most Islamic events happened after the 10th century and the civilizations are bronze period) have also allowed the people to create a sense of bond with other brethren bcz that is what the religion is. A brotherhood where all are equal.

I personally feel that our entire focus has been greatly on our Islamic roots highlighting Islamic achievement and we have ironed it into our history but our focus has been extremely less on our preislamic history.. Thus today we see efforts rising up in learning our historical place thousands of years ago.....



This is a very touchy subject... Very touchy which is why I would implore that we, rather than make it a Indus vs Ganges battle or Pakistan vs India battle, simply learn from history as it is and gain knowledge to learn what happened thousands of years ago on the area were we wall today? What historical events took place where our cities stand today? What battles happened and how it effected our ancestors...

Our entire object right now should be to focus entirely on teaching ourselves our history which we have criminally ignored and investing in its knowledge to the populace..

This history will become ours the day, not the posters of this forum, but the 210 million people become as much aware of it as much as we are of our Islamic roots. The question is has our govt taken any positive step to include the Indus history into our syllabus enmasse? The answer is no.

@Indus Pakistan I appreciate your efforts to bring awareness to people about the glory of the Indus civilization but it won't work unless its taught in our books in droves chapter to chapter rather than some mention of it in a page... Neither tourism nor threads will make the difference ( in my view) but a full govr policy to include Indus civilization study into our curriculum. The last change in curriculum I heard was addition of Islamic history in our curriculum a few days ago. So you tell me.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

So you tell me.

Tell you what?

 

[Republic]

You (are) immature, retard, misinformed, and lacking in manners as well (despicable). Instead of embracing facts and coming to terms with the chain of events which facilitated advances of Mauryans into regions encompassing modern-era Pakistan and Afghanistan, you have cultivated an inflated perception of Chandragupta's prowess in your mind (grandeur of delusions).

As I have pointed out earlier, Alexander softened several kingdoms across Pakistan and Afghanistan with his attacks by destroying their forts, reducing their manpower, and taking many prisoners in the process. After his untimely death, his own followers turned on each other and weakened his Empire in the process. Chandragupta (being a powerful but SMART ruler) saw an opening in this situation and capitalized on it.

Some details in this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/alex...-graeco-bactrians.601039/page-8#post-11162977

With greatest regional commanders such as Porus and Alexander's former general Eudemus out of the picture (assassinated; internal strife), Seleukos Nikator stood no chance against the formidable Mauryans on his own. Chandragupta was undeniably powerful and an able commander in his own right; he defeated Seleukos in the battlefield but realized that the war with Macedonians could drag for years and chose the path of diplomacy to settle his dispute with them.

"Later, Chandragupta Maurya married Seleucus’ daughter Helena as part of his diplomacy and entered into an alliance with Seleucus." From: https://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/ancient-india/chandragupta-maurya.html

Chandragupta was in contact with Helena prior to the war and she was reciprocating his feelings (Indian accounts); Helena convinced her father for marriage with Chandragupta and the latter rewarded Seleukos handsomely in return for lasting peace. Chandragupta even supplied 500 elephants to Seleukos to facilitate his exploits in the Persian sector.

FYI:

Television history is usually a soap-opera; mostly far from reality; spiced up to feed the audience with intriguing storylines; and keep them engaged.

Now; the real story is sometimes even stranger than fiction. According to the academic narrative; there was definitely a war between Chandragupta Maurya and Seleucus Nicator; one of the Diadochi (Alexander’s friends, family and generals etc).

Some narratives mention that there was a romantic affair between Chandragupta Maurya and Helena; both of them becoming infatuated with each other. However; Seleucus Nicator did not approve of the “heathen”; but Chandragupta Maurya wanted the mleccha’s daughter; so he fought a battle and eventually won.

Chandragupta Maurya took up Jainism in present-day Karnataka according to the most popular story; and Helena by most accounts was an ideal foreigner in India; loving the land and its people; learning Sanskrit and Indian classical music.

The name of Bindusara’s mother was Durdhara; who according to some sources was Macedonian. Also; most historians suggest that there were cordial relations between the Indians and the Greeks; Nicator was more interested in the brutal slashing/game of thrones happening amongst the Macedonians/Greeks after Alexander’s death; and cementing his own position.

So; in all probability; the story depicted in Chakravartin Ashok Samrat is TV masala.

Source: http://sunil-kumar.co.in/helena-actually-conspire-father-destroy-bindusara/

One can continue to hold Chandragupta in high regard at personal capacity without adhering to revisionist nonsense and/or inflated perceptions of his prowess.

Alexander was the real deal; his untimely death led to destabilization of his Empire, and its Eastern flank was exposed after assassinations of Porus and Eudemus. Chandragupta capitalized on this situation to his advantage.

Above all, kingdoms in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the time were not a bunch of cowards; many resisted advances of Alexander to the best of their abilities but they were eventually outmatched. Only an idiot (like you) would argue otherwise.

You talk big from the safety of your home, but you are a spineless moron in reality. Idiots like you would have fared no better back in the time; probably being polishing boots of a Macedonian somewhere. So spare me your silly attitude.

Thanks for sharing an amazing story.

I have some doubts though....

1. The links you quoted are not credible enough. Mr. Sunil Kumar has narrated the story with out naming any source.
Same can be said about other link.
2. Indian historian have narrated Mauryan history on the basis of some literary books and not historical accounts that too have been written after several centuries.
They have deliberately overlooked some facts and concocted/misinterpreted some others to peddle their narrative.
For example, It has now been proven that there was no person like Chanakya.
Arthashastra was not written by Chanakya. It is a collection of several writers compiled by a person named Chanaka, not chanakya or kautilya.

There was no Sanskrit in Mauryan era, so why Helena was learning it and from whom ? ( Because no written evidence has been found of Sanskrit before second CE while Pali, Prakrit and Aramaic are found in plenty)
It can not be possible that all other languages has been recorded and Sanskrit was left out. Just not possible.
This theory is peddled to prove that Sanskrit is older than Pali and Vedas are oldest literature and were written in India.
3. What is the source of romantic love story of Chandragupta and Helena, I am eager to know it.

Regards,
Republic.

 

[saiyan0321]

Tell you what?

How will a change and awareness of preislamic history come without govt making it an active policy to teach the subject at school?

I knew about the Indus valley civilization in passing due to harrapa and a 6th class oxford book at beacon but I found more about it in a single paper in MA history titles ancient India paper 1 part 1...

Yet when I was giving matric exam I knew about salahuddin about general tariq who invaded Spain even the Islamic name of Spain al andalus. I knew about all Islamic kingdoms of the region from qasim to zafar to tipu yet I didn't know that 400km from my city over 2500 years ago that a great king if a region had put up such a fight against "sikandar e azam" that his army was devastated...


Without it becoming an active govt policy to teach Indus civilization in our schools, I am afraid its learning will only be limited to threads and self study.

My murghi wala will know who sher shah suri was but wouldn't know that he stands on a land that was the cradle of one of the greatest bronze civilization on the world.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

This is how I see it. The British arrived in South Asia* and over the period of 300 years by using military force defeated myriad peoples of this region and imposed a unity under the Union Jack and then named that administrative region 'British India'. It's important to note that British India [that so many here worship implicitly] was integrated by force. non of our peoples jumped, joined or elected for it. Indeed most fought not to be 'British Indian'. If somebody can cite me one example where natives of South Asia craved to be 'British Indian's' and seized that opportunity with joy I would be grateful.

However by early 20th century we knew the British would leave sooner or later. That began the rush for who was going to inherit the Raj ~ a gift built over 300 years on the piles of dead natives who had fought to avoid being integrated and British soldiers who had died fighting to make 'British India'. And boy was it not a gift. from the borders of Khyber Pass to Irrawady, from Karakorums to Tamil Nadu the Raj covered a region as large as Europe, twice the population and three times the diversity.

The jewel in the crown was [unfortunately] disintegrated by Muslim League in 1947. Jinnah partly un-made what the British had made over 300 years. Those who hope to inherit this British gift have never forgiven Jinnah and have refused to accept his creation. They act like a spoilt child who wanted all the cake but had to share it.

How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Well, Indians can do nothing to negate the physical existence of Pakistan. But that refusal to accept 1947 [like a spoilt child wanting the entire British gift] is played out today in many levels. One is refusing to accept Pakistan has it's own unique history ~ instead thrusting their blunt sub-continental narrative on us. This is where the genesis of Indus versus Ganges plays out. Indians will not accept that Indus has it's own story.

Before I build on this I want people to think of Europe which is analogous to South Asia. Although Europe has smaller population, it is lesss diverse and more homogenous. It is far more uniform then South Asia in genetics, history, religion etc. In fact I would argue that Pakistan has about as much diversity as Europe leave alone all of South Asia. I must add I here I have travelled far and wide in Europe. By air and road. I probably know Europe better then most of South Asia.

In Europe every peoples, every country have their own history and are proud of it. However all also accept that each of their unique histories do converge and overlap over the time continuum. This map below describes the continent and country histories. Each country having it's own [circles] but overlapping within the bigger continent [box].

I have never seen Germans fighting the British by saying their DNA is same as them. Or the Poles trying to undo the Slovaks by saying they are 'mutually intelligible'.

The problem we have as I alluded to earlier is in South Asia Indians refuse to accept 1947. They regard [like spoilt children] that somehow the Raj that was built by British, given boundaries by British should have been gifted to them. That they only got a truncated part of the British colony is something most refuse to accept.

Whilst nothing can be done about Pakistan as physical reality and therefore cannnot take ownership of the land of indus they take ownership of our heritage. Anything east of Durand becomes 'Indian'. That is the root cause of the problems we see. And my push for Indus versus Ganges.

If this one story, one narrative that Indians insist on being applied across South Asia or the region that was the British Raj was applied on Europe this [below] is what you would get. One story being stamped on all of Europe erasing the dozens of narratives that are jealously guarded by Europeans countries.

This impulse by Indians appears to be a rooting for the British Raj but with one big differance. Instead of Gorah Sahibs running it and owning it. It is the present days Indians who own it. That is why you get Indians almost as matter of fact taking ownership over anything that is in Pakistan. Some sharp minds might ask is if the Indians root for a British Raj ruled by Hindutwas why do they not bother with Bangladesh?

Well, call me prejudiced but the answer is simple. The land of Indus Valley Pakistan is motherlode of history. Anything good in South Asia most of the time will be traced to the lands of the Indus Valley. Sans Indus region South Asia is barren wasteland that was home of aboriginals of South Asia ~ whose pure versions can still be found in South and East India.

Indus Valley is the mother of civilization in South Asia and that is exactly why Indians are motivated to go for the one narrative fits all because it enables them to take pride ride by saying "we wuz civilized" to use @OsmanAli98 expression.

This is what we should be going for in South Asia. Each country with it's own unique history but overlapping only where there was convergence. Replication of the European model.

This model [below] represents what those who think the British Raj is still around and they [Indians] own it and Pakistan while a physical reality can be scrubbed from their glorious heritage. It's like 1947 never happened. Viceroy is still rulling from New Delhi only his name is Sri Ram Modi. Just one story. India.

How will a change

I don't have time but I will address your valid point later.

 

[saiyan0321]

This is how I see it. The British arrived in South Asia* and over the period of 300 years by using military force defeated myriad peoples of this region and imposed a unity under the Union Jack and then named that administrative region 'British India'. It's important to note that British India [that so many here worship implicitly] was integrated by force. non of our peoples jumped, joined or elected for it. Indeed most fought not to be 'British Indian'. If somebody can cite me one example where natives of South Asia craved to be 'British Indian's' and seized that opportunity with joy I would be grateful.

However by early 20th century we knew the British would leave sooner or later. That began the rush for who was going to inherit the Raj ~ a gift built over 300 years on the piles of dead natives who had fought to avoid being integrated and British soldiers who had died fighting to make 'British India'. And boy was it not a gift. from the borders of Khyber Pass to Irrawady, from Karakorums to Tamil Nadu the Raj covered a region as large as Europe, twice the population and three times the diversity.

The jewel in the crown was [unfortunately] disintegrated by Muslim League in 1947. Jinnah partly un-made what the British had made over 300 years. Those who hope to inherit this British gift have never forgiven Jinnah and have refused to accept his creation. They act like a spoilt child who wanted all the cake but had to share it.

How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Well, Indians can do nothing to negate the physical existence of Pakistan. But that refusal to accept 1947 [like a spoilt child wanting the entire British gift] is played out today in many levels. One is refusing to accept Pakistan has it's own unique history ~ instead thrusting their blunt sub-continental narrative on us. This is where the genesis of Indus versus Ganges plays out. Indians will not accept that Indus has it's own story.

Before I build on this I want people to think of Europe which is analogous to South Asia. Although Europe has smaller population, it is lesss diverse and more homogenous. It is far more uniform then South Asia in genetics, history, religion etc. In fact I would argue that Pakistan has about as much diversity as Europe leave alone all of South Asia. I must add I here I have travelled far and wide in Europe. By air and road. I probably know Europe better then most of South Asia.

In Europe every peoples, every country have their own history and are proud of it. However all also accept that each of their unique histories do converge and overlap over the time continuum. This map below describes the continent and country histories. Each country having it's own [circles] but overlapping within the bigger continent [box].

I have never seen Germans fighting the British by saying their DNA is same as them. Or the Poles trying to undo the Slovaks by saying they are 'mutually intelligible'.

The problem we have as I alluded to earlier is in South Asia Indians refuse to accept 1947. They regard [like spoilt children] that somehow the Raj that was built by British, given boundaries by British should have been gifted to them. That they only got a truncated part of the British colony is something most refuse to accept.

Whilst nothing can be done about Pakistan as physical reality and therefore cannnot take ownership of the land of indus they take ownership of our heritage. Anything east of Durand becomes 'Indian'. That is the root cause of the problems we see. And my push for Indus versus Ganges.

If this one story, one narrative that Indians insist on being applied across South Asia or the region that was the British Raj was applied on Europe this [below] is what you would get. One story being stamped on all of Europe erasing the dozens of narratives that are jealously guarded by Europeans countries.

This impulse by Indians appears to be a rooting for the British Raj but with one big differance. Instead of Gorah Sahibs running it and owning it. It is the present days Indians who own it. That is why you get Indians almost as matter of fact taking ownership over anything that is in Pakistan. Some sharp minds might ask is if the Indians root for a British Raj ruled by Hindutwas why do they not bother with Bangladesh?

Well, call me prejudiced but the answer is simple. The land of Indus Valley Pakistan is motherlode of history. Anything good in South Asia most of the time will be traced to the lands of the Indus Valley. Sans Indus region South Asia is barren wasteland that was home of aboriginals of South Asia ~ whose pure versions can still be found in South and East India.

Indus Valley is the mother of civilization in South Asia and that is exactly why Indians are motivated to go for the one narrative fits all because it enables them to take pride ride by saying "we wuz civilized" to use @OsmanAli98 expression.

Hmm

There three undeniable facts...

1. That the republic of india is a union of nations that have their own history like pakistan is a Union of nations that have their own history. Cultures brought together by the efforts of a single empire that waged wars like the mughals and khiljis and mauryans and united it into a large colony under its own control where it exerted both direct control through colonial laws and indirect control through princely states and treaties. This is historically well covered and just like the previous empire this empire that created such a landmass also struggled to control it but the difference between the previous empires and this one was that it was in a world governed by concepts of core nationalisms and westphalian states of boundary states which are iron fixed. Due to extensive political efforts of Muslim league the British left two parts of the empire with the option stated that there could be not one, not two but several states like the natural existence of the subcontinent had been for eons ( unless some empire conquered It for a hundred years or so) which did not happen due to the aggressive policies of the some leaders like sardar Patel and historically he is given credit for this... Each nation and culture despite holding cultural similarities which all neighbour cultures do are home to unique cultures and nations which have distinct identity. This identity is neither morphed into any other greater identity nor it is sub to any. Geographical union based on the events of modern history does not mean that such a union was the natural outcome and its disunion was the unatural outcome lasting thousands of years... This is true for both..
2. That pakistan is indeed inheritor of a great civilization but history is not slave to modern borders. I highlighted a long time ago that Pakistan should also make efforts to claim history west of the Indus as well since many afghan related historical event happened on modern day Pakistan. Its geographical position and ideological existence is such that it can claim part of many and home to some as well.
3. That pre Islamic history is not taught at the level that it should be taught in Pakistan and this lack of taught is the major reason why when somebody thinks of Indus civilizations they click india and automatically associate it with republic of India. This is bcz the state of Pakistan has shunned such an important aspect of this country and its criminal that it has done so and even now no concrete step is being taken to teach It. When 210 million people become more aware of the idusIndus civilization then the history will automatically be claimed since such knowledge taught in schools will generate research and interests and will help pave the way for archeological programs and papers and books which will in turn teach greater history. On that day our history will come to us.

I don't have time but I will address your valid point later.

Take your time.. Looking forward to hearing it. I myself will be busy in coming days

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Does anybody know the exact number of years that Mauryans held sway over coterminous Pakistan? I count just over 100. That seems blip over 5,000 years of our history but some here do make it sound as if it ruled this region for far longer.

 

[Yankee-stani]

This is how I see it. The British arrived in South Asia* and over the period of 300 years by using military force defeated myriad peoples of this region and imposed a unity under the Union Jack and then named that administrative region 'British India'. It's important to note that British India [that so many here worship implicitly] was integrated by force. non of our peoples jumped, joined or elected for it. Indeed most fought not to be 'British Indian'. If somebody can cite me one example where natives of South Asia craved to be 'British Indian's' and seized that opportunity with joy I would be grateful.

However by early 20th century we knew the British would leave sooner or later. That began the rush for who was going to inherit the Raj ~ a gift built over 300 years on the piles of dead natives who had fought to avoid being integrated and British soldiers who had died fighting to make 'British India'. And boy was it not a gift. from the borders of Khyber Pass to Irrawady, from Karakorums to Tamil Nadu the Raj covered a region as large as Europe, twice the population and three times the diversity.

The jewel in the crown was [unfortunately] disintegrated by Muslim League in 1947. Jinnah partly un-made what the British had made over 300 years. Those who hope to inherit this British gift have never forgiven Jinnah and have refused to accept his creation. They act like a spoilt child who wanted all the cake but had to share it.

How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Well, Indians can do nothing to negate the physical existence of Pakistan. But that refusal to accept 1947 [like a spoilt child wanting the entire British gift] is played out today in many levels. One is refusing to accept Pakistan has it's own unique history ~ instead thrusting their blunt sub-continental narrative on us. This is where the genesis of Indus versus Ganges plays out. Indians will not accept that Indus has it's own story.

Before I build on this I want people to think of Europe which is analogous to South Asia. Although Europe has smaller population, it is lesss diverse and more homogenous. It is far more uniform then South Asia in genetics, history, religion etc. In fact I would argue that Pakistan has about as much diversity as Europe leave alone all of South Asia. I must add I here I have travelled far and wide in Europe. By air and road. I probably know Europe better then most of South Asia.

In Europe every peoples, every country have their own history and are proud of it. However all also accept that each of their unique histories do converge and overlap over the time continuum. This map below describes the continent and country histories. Each country having it's own [circles] but overlapping within the bigger continent [box].

I have never seen Germans fighting the British by saying their DNA is same as them. Or the Poles trying to undo the Slovaks by saying they are 'mutually intelligible'.

The problem we have as I alluded to earlier is in South Asia Indians refuse to accept 1947. They regard [like spoilt children] that somehow the Raj that was built by British, given boundaries by British should have been gifted to them. That they only got a truncated part of the British colony is something most refuse to accept.

Whilst nothing can be done about Pakistan as physical reality and therefore cannnot take ownership of the land of indus they take ownership of our heritage. Anything east of Durand becomes 'Indian'. That is the root cause of the problems we see. And my push for Indus versus Ganges.

If this one story, one narrative that Indians insist on being applied across South Asia or the region that was the British Raj was applied on Europe this [below] is what you would get. One story being stamped on all of Europe erasing the dozens of narratives that are jealously guarded by Europeans countries.

This impulse by Indians appears to be a rooting for the British Raj but with one big differance. Instead of Gorah Sahibs running it and owning it. It is the present days Indians who own it. That is why you get Indians almost as matter of fact taking ownership over anything that is in Pakistan. Some sharp minds might ask is if the Indians root for a British Raj ruled by Hindutwas why do they not bother with Bangladesh?

Well, call me prejudiced but the answer is simple. The land of Indus Valley Pakistan is motherlode of history. Anything good in South Asia most of the time will be traced to the lands of the Indus Valley. Sans Indus region South Asia is barren wasteland that was home of aboriginals of South Asia ~ whose pure versions can still be found in South and East India.

Indus Valley is the mother of civilization in South Asia and that is exactly why Indians are motivated to go for the one narrative fits all because it enables them to take pride ride by saying "we wuz civilized" to use @OsmanAli98 expression.

This is what we should be going for in South Asia. Each country with it's own unique history but overlapping only where there was convergence. Replication of the European model.

This model [below] represents what those who think the British Raj is still around and they [Indians] own it and Pakistan while a physical reality can be scrubbed from their glorious heritage. It's like 1947 never happened. Viceroy is still rulling from New Delhi only his name is Sri Ram Modi. Just one story. India.

I don't have time but I will address your valid point later.

This really disproves the Akhand Bharat folks and the much despised Shahshi Tharoor bootlickers who claim partition was a 'British Invention" anyways You make strides in using Europe yes it's very homogeneous yet each folk there pushes their own narrative Poles are still butthurt over the German and Russian partition of Poland The Balkans despite being same all are united in hating or loveing the Turks.The Indus Narative is ours same with the Mughals yet are stolen and called "Desi" or "Indian"

Does anybody know the exact number of years that Mauryans held sway over coterminous Pakistan? I count just over 100. That seems blip over 5,000 years of our history but some here do make it sound as if it ruled this region for far longer.

Ganga we ruled for 1000 oggaapgga ancient india


years we wuz real you fake porki

 

[LeGenD]

1. The links you quoted are not credible enough. Mr. Sunil Kumar has narrated the story with out naming any source.
Same can be said about other link.

They are Indian accounts; not mine. I posted those links to get some points across, to the relevant member.

There is CONSENSUS in relation to following developments:

1. Alexander's Empire deteriorated after his untimely death, and prominent Macedonians turned on each other (the Wars of the Diadochi). Prior to Mauryans making inroads into regions encompassing modern-era Pakistan and Afghanistan, two brilliant Macedonian satraps Porus and Eudemus were dead (Eudemus executed Porus and Antigonus executed Eudemus; sad but true) and the Eastern flank of Macedonian Empire was exposed. Chandragupta saw an opening and exploited it to his advantage.

2. Mauryans (under Chandragupta) and Macedonians (under Seleucus) fought a war but the belligerents eventually settled for concessions on either side. Marriage of Chandragupta and Seleucus's daughter Helena ARRANGED, and Chandragupta dispatched important supplies including many elephants to Seleucus to facilitate his efforts to curb rebellions in the Middle East. Additionally, Chandragupta retained control of Pakistan, but Seleucus retained control of Afghanistan.

2. Indian historian have narrated Mauryan history on the basis of some literary books and not historical accounts that too have been written after several centuries.
They have deliberately overlooked some facts and concocted/misinterpreted some others to peddle their narrative.
For example, It has now been proven that there was no person like Chanakya.
Arthashastra was not written by Chanakya. It is a collection of several writers compiled by a person named Chanaka, not chanakya or kautilya.

Just like Hollywood and Bollywood take creative liberties with their portrayals of ancient events, ancient poets and narrators also took creative liberties in their disclosures of earlier events.

Chanakya might or might not be a real person (some argue that he was real) but numerous accounts suggest that Chandragupta and Helena were in contact with each other prior to their marriage. Infact, some argue that Helena was actually Diadora and how she died is not clear. My point is that certain developments are clear (well-documented), but numerous poets and narrators have taken creative liberties with their disclosures of past events throughout the ages.

There was no Sanskrit in Mauryan era, so why Helena was learning it and from whom ? ( Because no written evidence has been found of Sanskrit before second CE while Pali, Prakrit and Aramaic are found in plenty)
It can not be possible that all other languages has been recorded and Sanskrit was left out. Just not possible.
This theory is peddled to prove that Sanskrit is older than Pali and Vedas are oldest literature and were written in India.

Did I claim that she was learning Sanskrit in particular? You need to posit this question to the author of the relevant source instead.

I just understand that Pakistan wasn't a backward region back in the days of Alexander. Surely the kingdoms throughout the subcontinent had well-established methods of communications (languages), and because the Macedonians invaded Pakistan, it is rather logical to assume that they were interested in understanding languages prevalent in this sector. Governance in this part of the world would not be possible otherwise.

3. What is the source of romantic love story of Chandragupta and Helena, I am eager to know it.

Helena herself maybe?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

retained control of Pakistan

This is what we need. We need to 'own' Pkistan. Nobody else will. If we are shy of using it then nobody else will. Many will croak "there was no Pakistan'. True but neither was any country on the UN list 2000, 3000 years ago. Most did not even exist 500 years ago.

When you get ancient sources mentioning 'Hendush, Hindosh, Indika, Hind, Sindh, Gedrosia, Gandhara etc' it is open to translation as how you render them today. Carthage? How do you render it today? Africa, North Afrixa, Tunisia etc Roman Empire. Italy, Rome, Romania, Europe??

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Nobody is claiming your history. It is a shared history. You have shunned your history for so many years and started your pages of history books from Muhammad bin Kasim. Your after independence history books are filled with literature which vehemently dissociate you people from your roots and associates with Arabs. Every Pakistani house hold keep a self written SIZRA (family history) which proudly associates it with some ancient Arab family. Then how can you claim your history before Bin Kasim ???

You can't set your foot on two boats. Either proudly claim that you are the Sion of IVC or shout in arrogance that you people ruled us for 1000 years. You can't claim both. First you decide what you are (doesn't matter true or false) then write your all literature putting forth that particular narrative.

Regards.

Your state propaganda is furthering lies about Pakistan and Pakistanis. We can’t be expected to correct all the disinformation being peddled by your priests, politicians, and educators.

You are claiming an origin from a civilization 1,372 km away from the focus of your civilization.

You can claim origin from Aryans, that is part of your history and religion due to migration into your region, but IVC has nothing to do with India.

We share more in common with Afghanistan than we ever will with India as we have united together for most of history.

Only a few Pakistani families have Arab patrilineal origin, many have Turk, Kurd, Persian, Afghan, and local (Aryan/Irani) origins too.

You ask an Arab, Persian, Turk to disassociate from his Pre-Islamic history and you will get only blank stares. Pakistan is the sum of all its parts.

As detailed here in this thread, Greek and Buddhist history had a lasting effect on our culture and society. It also set the stage for the Buddhist-Hindu (Brahmanism) civil war which eventually led to our Islamization.

Does anybody know the exact number of years that Mauryans held sway over coterminous Pakistan? I count just over 100. That seems blip over 5,000 years of our history but some here do make it sound as if it ruled this region for far longer.

From around 300 BC to 200 BC. The Mauryan footprint on Pakistan was temporary.

Mauryan rule, however, did not last long. Pakistan's ties with India were severed barely a hundred years later in about 200 BC when the Greek King Demetrius, already in control of the areas beyond Hindu Kush with his capital at Bactria (Balkh in northern Afghanistan), pounced upon Pakistan at the very first opportunity. Within a few years (190-180 BC) Demetrius took over a considerable portion of the Indus basin. This ushered in the golden period of Graeco-Bactrians who had their capital in Taxila.