Alexander's conquest of "India" & historical revisionism

[nahtanbob]

Obviously you haven't seen posts online by Pakistanis. Those that know agree with me. When logic remains buried too long, it begins to re-emerge; usually uncontrolled.

India today is an non-ambiguous term.

"non-ambiguous" ??

There is no reality as of yet that Alexander went to India, the last place where his cultural remains are found in the Hunza valley in Pakistan or Hazara region.

He stopped in modern day Pakistan

 

[ThunderCat]

"non-ambiguous" ??
He stopped in modern day Pakistan

Yes non-ambigious. Because the Indus land is still historical/geographical India and not coherent with the modern-day country.
Just as Alexander was from the historical Macedonia and not the Republic of Macedonia.

@ThunderCat What's he talking about? You understand Indians a bit better,can you explain to me or to him? His post had a source with a wrong date,that he used as proof and now he says that Alexander's campaigns were the most meticulously planned and well-scripted ones. I'm confused.

I'm as confused as you are.

 

[LeGenD]

There is no reality as of yet that Alexander went to India, the last place where his cultural remains are found in the Hunza valley in Pakistan or Hazara region.

Greeks knew about the Indos at maximum. To Alexander, this region was like exploring the ends of Earth.

He was curious about what lay beyond in the East but he was under pressure to reunite his men with their families.

He wanted to come back and explore lands beyond the Indos with a new army but he could not because he died.

Alexander's campaign in the Indos region was already an ambitious move on his part given the times. Global transportation was not well-developed back then. Alexander did the impossible.

 

[nahtanbob]

Yes non-ambigious. Because the Indus land is still historical/geographical India and not coherent with the modern-day country.
Just as Alexander was from the historical Macedonia and not the Republic of Macedonia.

Two basic issues you need to resolve

Pakistani Punjab was part of an empire based in Delhi for most of the last 1000 years

The Europeans, Chinese and Arabs have tagged modern India as India.
Your protestations aside no one was interested in the Indus Valley since they bypassed the Indus to access India by the sea.

 

[ThunderCat]

Two basic issues you need to resolve

Pakistani Punjab was part of an empire based in Delhi for most of the last 1000 years

The Europeans, Chinese and Arabs have tagged modern India as India.
Your protestations aside no one was interested in the Indus Valley since they bypassed the Indus to access India by the sea.

Last thousand years? The Ghaznavid Empire was headquartered in Lahore over 150 years before it reached Delhi.

Despite the other empires that were headquartered in Delhi, were they the forefathers of modern Indians or foreign Muslim empires?

The Europeans, Arabs and Chinese used Indie, Al-Hind and Hintoi to refer to the Indus, before the term was artificially expanded.

Even Shashi Taroor claimed Pakhtun pilgrims in Arabia were referred to as "hindi" people which still translates to Indus people and not the people of Delhi.

Delhi is not the region of the Indus. Never was.

Just because foreigners artificially expanded the term later on, does not mean the natives of the Ganges and the rest of the regions called themselves such or their lands such.

British already offered the Muslim league the title India and they rejected it on the grounds that it's a foreign name. And no Pakistanis don't reject it.

All those whom are aware of it accept it. India is not an ambiguous term. Much like Macedonia.

 

[nahtanbob]

Last thousand years? The Ghaznavid Empire was headquartered in Lahore over 150 years before it reached Delhi.

Despite the other empires that were headquartered in Delhi, were they the forefathers of modern Indians or foreign Muslim empires?

The Europeans, Arabs and Chinese used Indie, Al-Hind and Hintoi to refer to the Indus, before the term was artificially expanded.

Even Shashi Taroor claimed Pakhtun pilgrims in Arabia were referred to as "hindi" people which still translates to Indus people and not the people of Delhi.

Delhi is not the region of the Indus. Never was.

Just because foreigners artificially expanded the term later on, does not mean the natives of the Ganges and the rest of the regions called themselves such or their lands such.

British already offered the Muslim league the title India and they rejected it on the grounds that it's a foreign name. And no Pakistanis don't reject it.

All those whom are aware of it accept it. India is not an ambiguous term. Much like Macedonia.

The important thing is that when there was a large empire out of Delhi it included the Indus Valley (India & Pakistan - especially Pakistan Punjab) and most of Gangetic plain.
We are talking 500 years of Hindu rule, 500 years of Muslim rule and 100 years of British rule (half of this time was from Calcutta). That is a lot of control over supposedly an unique civilization in a subcontinent
known for political fragmentation.

Whether you like it or not there was little separation

What might have been Hind at one point might have lost its distinction for good

 

[ThunderCat]

The important thing is that when there was a large empire out of Delhi it included the Indus Valley (India & Pakistan - especially Pakistan Punjab) and most of Gangetic plain.
We are talking 500 years of Hindu rule, 500 years of Muslim rule and 100 years of British rule (half of this time was from Calcutta). That is a lot of control over supposedly an unique civilization in a subcontinent
known for political fragmentation.

Whether you like it or not there was little separation

What might have been Hind at one point might have lost its distinction for good

"Hindu" rule? When? Muslim rule started with the Ghaznavids and ended with the Mughals all of which compiled up to eight centuries.

Hind was the Persian term for the Indus, which never included Delhi.

 

[ProudThamizhan]

Greeks knew about the Indos at maximum. To Alexander, this region was like exploring the ends of Earth.

He was curious about what lay beyond in the East but he was under pressure to reunite his men with their families.

He wanted to come back and explore lands beyond the Indos with a new army but he could not because he died.

Alexander's campaign in the Indos region was already an ambitious move on his part given the times. Global transportation was not well-developed back then. Alexander did the impossible.

this is a good summary. that's what we were taught at school as well.

The additional aspect that I also remember is that there indeed was hard fought battle with Poros (king Poros, not porous Lungi) which Alexander won but there was mutual admiration between the two kings so Poros was spared.

There is also a version where Alexander contracted some disease and died on his way back

 

[Maira La]

"Hindu" rule? When? Muslim rule started with the Ghaznavids and ended with the Mughals all of which compiled up to eight centuries.

Hind was the Persian term for the Indus, which never included Delhi.

There couldn't possible be 500 years of Hindu rule from Delhi. Delhi was created by Muslims.

I'm guessing some whatsapp university educated slumdog will claim some neighboring fort or village to be a predecessor of Delhi and hence "Delhi was always Hindu".

Besides back then there was nothing like 'Hindu rule' because the British didn't yet create the idea of Hindu religion. Definitely no one knew they were Hindu/Sindu people except the inhabitants of Pakistan.

 

[nahtanbob]

"Hindu" rule? When? Muslim rule started with the Ghaznavids and ended with the Mughals all of which compiled up to eight centuries.

Hind was the Persian term for the Indus, which never included Delhi.

call it whatever you want - rule of non-Muslim empires from Gangetic plain

 

[ThunderCat]

call it whatever you want - rule of non-Muslim empires from Gangetic plain

How many of them were there? Practically none.

 

[KingMamba]

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.

Just like there is no “Indian” nation. Indians are Pakistani. The ones in Bharat are Gangus of Dravidian origin.

 

[nahtanbob]

How many of them were there? Practically none.

I am no expert on Indian history

That is 200+ years

Gupta Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ashoka - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tell us how long Pakistan Punjab has been independent of anyone in history

 

[nahtanbob]

Last thousand years? The Ghaznavid Empire was headquartered in Lahore over 150 years before it reached Delhi.

800/1000 is a large percentage. I subtract 75 for Pakistan.

 

[ThunderCat]

I am no expert on Indian history

That is 200+ years
Tell us how long Pakistan Punjab has been independent of anyone in history

That's still low Mauryans were also about 100 years