Alexander's conquest of "India" & historical revisionism

[nahtanbob]

Have you not seen/read Herodotus? He had a pretty clear definition of it. Same for the Persians with "Hind." When do you folks not get it?

Shashi Taroor while claiming to foreigners that a concept of India existed prior to the British, he claimed Pakhtun pilgrims in Arabia were called "Hindi" which, according to him, proves "India" as a country existed prior to British.

Except Hindi translates to "of the Indus." You cite Romans calling the Peninsula "India" but where did they get the term from?

Europeans might have refered to Native Americans as "Indians" but what exactly were they thinking when they gave that label? You folks just don't get it do you?

How does Herodotus know anything about the world ? He is compiling 2nd/3rd/4th/5th hand information he gets.

The Europeans did not refer to Americas as India. Did they ? Indonesia is East Indies. The Caribbean is West Indies. In any case it is not India. Indies were islands close to India. The Europeans knew what they were looking for. Columbus hit America in 1492. Vasco de Gama hit India in 1498.

 

[ThunderCat]

This guy asked if Greeks thought they conquered all of the subcontinent. I told him no. What are you saying now?

As for Macedonians,there's no "Macedonian" nation. Macedonians are greek. The ones in FYROM or "North Macedonia" are Slavs of Bulgarian origin.

Exactly my point. You don't seem to be disagreeing with me. The Macedonian argument holds no credibility just because there was no Greek state at the time.

But the historical Macedonia is part of Greece so Macedonian history belongs to Greece as much as Roman history belongs to Italy as much as Ancient Indian history belongs to Pakistan.

 

[Foinikas]

Macedonia was free to call themselves anything. It is just Greeks made a big deal on EU membership for them

I'll give you an example:

Imagine that someone steals your ID and goes around telling people that he's you. He uses your name,your achievements,your reputation and say that you were never this person,despite obviously lying.

Would you just say "It's ok,he's free to call himself anything he wants"?

 

[ThunderCat]

How does Herodotus know anything about the world ? He is compiling 2nd/3rd/4th/5th hand information he gets.

I didn't claim he knew the whole world, but he knew a lot for his time as he was well traveled for his time. He gave a clear definition of what he knew to be Indi or later India and it's the region of the Indus riverbed.

The extremes people like you go to twist it around. And even if the term was incorrectly expanded, the natives of these regions never had a concept of an "India."

Even the term Hind was a Persian and later Arab cognate for Sindh. The modern "Indian" identity is built on nothing but misnomers. Same for the modern "Hindu" identity.

 

[Foinikas]

Exactly my point. You don't seem to be disagreeing with me. The Macedonian argument holds no credibility just because there was no Greek state at the time.

But the historical Macedonia is part of Greece so Macedonian history belongs to Greece as much as Roman history belong to Italy as much as Ancient Indian history belongs to Pakistan.

Well yes. You confused me in the previous post. The modern state of "Northern Macedonia" was born after Tito renamed Vardarska Banovina into "Socialist Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in hopes to unite it with northern Greece with the help of Greek communist guerillas.

 

[ThunderCat]

The Europeans did not refer to Americas as India. Did they ? Indonesia is East Indies. The Caribbean is West Indies. In any case it is not India. Indies were islands close to India. The Europeans knew what they were looking for. Columbus hit America in 1492. Vasco de Gama hit India in 1498.

Since you mentioned Indonesia, it was part of "Dutch India."
Howcome modern "Indians" don't go lynching after it and claiming it for "India?"

 

[Foinikas]

How does Herodotus know anything about the world ? He is compiling 2nd/3rd/4th/5th hand information he gets.

People had contact with other people due to trade. So for example,Greeks had relations with the Persians and the Persians knew the Indians. Also,various individuals travelled to various parts of the world.

 

[nahtanbob]

I didn't claim he knew the whole world, but he knew a lot for his time as he was well traveled for his time. He gave a clear definition of what he knew to be Indi or later India and it's the region of the Indus riverbed.

The extremes people like you go to twist it around. And even if the term was incorrectly expanded, the natives of these regions never had a concept of an "India."

Even the term Hind was a Persian and later Arab cognate for Sindh. The modern "Indian" identity is built on nothing but misnomers. Same for the modern "Hindu" identity.

Herodotus did not travel to India. He is basing his opinions on India based on 2nd/3rd4th hand knowledge.

Since you mentioned Indonesia, it was part of "Dutch India."
Howcome modern "Indians" don't go lynching after it and claiming it for "India?"

Dutch had possessions in India proper. It was part of the overall empire.

I'll give you an example:

Imagine that someone steals your ID and goes around telling people that he's you. He uses your name,your achievements,your reputation and say that you were never this person,despite obviously lying.

Would you just say "It's ok,he's free to call himself anything he wants"?

Alexander is only Macedonian or Greek I know of. I have no reference point here

People had contact with other people due to trade. So for example,Greeks had relations with the Persians and the Persians knew the Indians. Also,various individuals travelled to various parts of the world.

That is definition of 2nd hand information. Unless you have compiled written works that were not destroyed it is hard to conduct serious research

For proof look at the maps of the ancient world

 

[ThunderCat]

Herodotus did not travel to India. He is basing his opinions on India based on 2nd/3rd4th hand knowledge.

He traveled to the historical India and not the modern country that appropriated the name.

Dutch had possessions in India proper. It was part of the overall empire.

That doesn't address my argument. In fact it further strengthens it. If both modern India & Indonesia were part of "Dutch India" then all the more "reason" for the Indians to claim Indonesia.

Based on that argument that everything British India equals India's "pre-47" borders, then Indonesia by that argument would also be historically "India" since it was part of Dutch India.

 

[nahtanbob]

He traveled to the historical India and not the modern country that appropriated the name.



That doesn't address my argument. In fact it further strengthens it. If both modern India & Indonesia were part of "Dutch India" then all the more "reason" for the Indians to claim Indonesia.

Based on that argument that everything British India equals India's "pre-47" borders, then Indonesia by that argument would also be historically "India" since it was part of Dutch India.

There is no evidence Herodotus came to Indus Valley
If he is a source of absolute truth look at his map

Herodotus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just because some Dutch put it for administrative or commercial needs it does not mean modern day Indians have to indulge in irredentism. Myanmar and Yemen were part of British Indian Empire. No one in India is claiming those countries as part of theirs. I do not think anyone in India seriously claims Sri Lanka as their own.

 

[ThunderCat]

There is no evidence Herodotus came to Indus Valley

Let's suppose he didn't, it doesn't change the etymology of the name India which is from the Indus.

Just because some Dutch put it for administrative or commercial needs it does not mean modern day Indians have to indulge in irredentism. Myanmar and Yemen were part of British Indian Empire. No one in India is claiming those countries as part of theirs. I do not think anyone in India seriously claims Sri Lanka as their own.

Right on. We agree. Which is why Indians should cease their irredenist claims in modern Pakistan using the stupid British India argument or the East India Company argument.

But because the land of Pakistan is sacred to them on false religious grounds, they claim it for themselves on any misnomers they can find.

 

[nahtanbob]

Let's suppose he didn't, it doesn't change the etymology of the name India which is from the Indus.

Right on. We agree. Which is why Indians should cease their irredenist claims in modern Pakistan using the stupid British India argument or the East India Company argument.

But because the land of Pakistan is sacred to them on false religious grounds, they claim it for themselves on any misnomers they can find.

Why are you hung up on etymology ? Everything changes in history. The Chinese, Europeans and Arabs regarded modern India as India. If the Pakistani elite saw things the way you saw it they would have named Pakistan as Republic of Muslim India. In fact 90%+ of Pakistanis do not want anything to do with word "India". they want to be "Pakistani"

I do not see any serious Indians making a claim on Pakistan minus Kashmir. I would expect Indus Valley (Punjab and Sind) would be part of Indian history

 

[ProudThamizhan]

From the Algapza-haramika (circa 442 b.c) :
...the mammoths were three feet to the rushing waters but the gait was stronger and easily mastered the currents. on the backs were garrisons of three to seven mounts with clay pots and spears that could be hurled on the seige. (arph:7.14)
....Decicatious reported loud clashes from inside the tents and outside; the wary (?) soldiers turning their armor inside out so the sharp wedges that were burning embers on greek skin could stop for a while. the oil from the previous insurrection still clotting with macedonian blood and skin and burnt hair

It goes on to talk more specifics about

- how the macedonian troops expressed preference for being stamped not by Porus's elephants but would greatly welcome being eaten by the bengali tigers and crocodiles of the great wells of brhmaputra

- how their leaders then bargained and negotiated for going upto the western border of what is now BD and not step inside one foot beyond that

- how the great prince and the warriots - there was almost agreement reached to continue with the take over of India upto the western border of BD but not one foot further

then Decicatious continues :

...alas woe be it that all in the soldiering tents heard of the banglasius deshius chaddis and wanted to new uniforms with made in dakkasius
...and the proud son of phillipous could agree for chaddis but not porous lungius


AND there you have it folks. Not only did Alexander's invasion stopped well short of what @Foinikas calls moden India and never reached valiant Bangla Desh but in fact it stopped because of labour negotiations falling apart on porous lungis.

Every historian got it wrong and thought it was king Porus, but it was due to Lungi Porous.

This should also settle @Maira La 's hunger for knowledge.

I hope.

 

[ThunderCat]

Why are you hung up on etymology ? Everything changes in history. The Chinese, Europeans and Arabs regarded modern India as India. If the Pakistani elite saw things the way you saw it they would have named Pakistan as Republic of Muslim India. In fact 90%+ of Pakistanis do not want anything to do with word "India". they want to be "Pakistani"

Yes and the Europeans also regarded the natives of the Americas as "Indians" because they thought they landed in India. It doesn't mean they were nor did they regard themselves as that.

Pakistanis don't want to do anything with "India" because they are confused and ill informed. But the newer generation whom are educated have been questioning it.

Lots of people have been actually.

"India" or the Indus Valley is the geographical term; wheras Pakistan is the state term. The British did offer the Muslim league recognition for their state as India.

Jinnah was reportedly angry with the congress for naming their newly founded country "India."

Sindh, Punjab & Kashmir are the historical/geographical India. What foreigners called other region using faulty etymology is irrelevant.

 

[Foinikas]

From the Algapza-haramika (circa 442 b.c) :
...the mammoths were three feet to the rushing waters but the gait was stronger and easily mastered the currents. on the backs were garrisons of three to seven mounts with clay pots and spears that could be hurled on the seige. (arph:7.14)
....Decicatious reported loud clashes from inside the tents and outside; the wary (?) soldiers turning their armor inside out so the sharp wedges that were burning embers on greek skin could stop for a while. the oil from the previous insurrection still clotting with macedonian blood and skin and burnt hair

Alexander's campaign to India was in 327 B.C. yet your source talks about more than a century earlier?