Pakeeza aka
@Atanz . You have been spanked (metaphorically speaking) by both Indians and non-Indian on other forums for being intellectually dishonest and posting same third grade crap on forums dedicated to history.
Here on these threads.
India of Herodotus - Indus Basin? - Historum - History Forums
Are Pakistanis Indians? - Historum - History Forums
Etymology of India - Linguistic drift? - Historum - History Forums
You have copy-pasted same posts on this forum because most of moderators here are illiterate in History ( no doubt three people thanked you;
@Chinese-Dragon , you too) and would ban posters for not agreeing with your Gobblesian propaganda.
I would only post some answers that were already given to you and you have already ignored since propaganda is your end-goal.People interested in detailed debate could visit those threads.
"This is actually something that really annoys me actually, that a certain demographic gets annoyed at us using India as a term which has happened here time and time again.
If I'm talking about antiquity and using Achaemenid and Greco-Roman sources, I'm going to use the word "India". I'm speaking with a linguistic hat on I'm going to say "Indic". If we're talking about the historical influence of south Asia of course we're going to say "Indosphere" or "Indo-China". Because that's how either our ancient sources deem it or out pedagogical material of the past 200 years or so has done so. I'm not going to start throwing around terms like "Pakistan" which have been around less than my grandfather and will probably nuke itself out of existence while we're still reading the Classics in Europe.
The only time we mention "Pakistan" in ancient history is if we're giving a modern location of something i.e as a label apended to a map, I'm not going to start translation Ινδία as Pakistan when it's the extreme northwest. And, to be fair, I think the vast majority of Pakistanis understand and agree with this. It's just we've had a serious of determined trolls here on about 5000 year old Pakistan or whatever.
That said, it's also obvious that despite this basis the modern nation state of Pakistan is quite divergent from India. But then, this is a history forum and not a modern politics one.
"-World Focker
Are Pakistanis Indians? - Page 61 - Historum - History Forums
This lie of yours has also been corrected multiple times.
"Also, Asia never really meant Anatolia. The term for that was Asia Minor. The term Asia was used by the Greeks and Romans to describe pretty much everything west of the Aegean. Thus, when Alexander was in Persia, Greek historians recorded, in different places, that he was in Asia. This understanding of Asia as a continent simply expanded as knowledge of the lands further east became known. Thus the idea that Japan "later became part of Asia" is flawed. Japan was always part of Asia, it was simply unknown. To state that Japan wasn't part of Asia is a bit like saying the territory of New York wasn't "part of America" in the "Ancient World", which is ludicrous.
Asia
Asia Minor
But never let it be said that facts get in the way of a great argument.
"
Regarding your map:
" HYDASPES! THAT WAS THE BORDER OF TAXILES' KINGDOM. Beyond it was the the territory of PORUS, who ruled from HYDASPES to ACESINES. Your map just lumps in the territory of PORUS into Persia as well, despite all the historical sources saying otherwise. Omphis/Taxiles was the Indian satrap. Porus was NOT a PERSIAN SUBJECT ruler
The Ancient South Asian World - Jonathan M. Kenoyer, Kimberley Burton Heuston - Google Books
THE MAP IS WRONG. The persian satrapy was the kingdom ruled by Taxila. We call it Gandhara. And we have hard literary sources of where it ended. One of the world's most famous battles were fought there. So what is the basis for including it as a part of Persia? There is none.
"
And since most of members on this forum are illiterate in history, I would post account of ancient Historians to deflate this propaganda
Megasthenes:
" India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile. The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000. Being thus of such vast extent, it seems well-nigh to embrace the whole of the northern tropic zone of the earth, and in fact at the extreme point of India the gnomon of the sundial may frequently be observed to cast no shadow, while the constellation of the Bear is by night invisible, and in the remotest parts even Arcturus disappears from view. Consistently with this, it is also stated that shadows there fall to the southward"
Plutarch:
"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. 3 For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. 4 And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
5 At first, then, Alexander shut himself up in his tent from displeasure and wrath and lay there, feeling no gratitude for what he had already achieved unless he should cross the Ganges, nay, counting retreat a confession of defeat. 6 But his friends gave him fitting consolation, and his soldiers crowded about his door and besought him with loud cries and wailing, until at last he relented and began to break camp, resorting to many deceitful and fallacious devices for the enhancement of his fame. 7 For instance, he had armour prepared that was larger than usual, and mangers for horses that were higher, and bits that were heavier than those in common use, and left them scattered up and down. Moreover, he erected altars for the gods, 8 which down to the present time are revered by the kings of the Praesii when they cross the river, and on them they offer sacrifices in the Hellenic manner. 9 Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth."
Arrian
"Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as he did on all others (*Indians in the original text); for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war"
Resource here: Full text of "Ancient India As Described By Megasthenes And Arrian by Mccrindle, J. W"
Arrian
"The western part of India is bounded by the river Indus right down to the ocean, where the river runs out by two mouths, not joined together as are the five mouths of the Ister; but like those of the Nile, by which the Egyptian delta is formed; thus also the Indian delta is formed by the river Indus, not less than the Egyptian; and this in the Indian tongue is called Pattala. Towards the south this ocean bounds the land of India, and eastward the sea itself is the boundary."
Arrian
"I hope I may be allowed to regard Eratosthenes of Cyrene as worthy of special credit, since he was a student of Geography. He states that beginning with Mount Taurus, where are the springs of the river Indus, along the Indus to the Ocean, and to the mouths of the Indus, the side of India is thirteen thousand stades in length. The opposite side to this one, that from the same mountain to the Eastern Ocean, he does not reckon as merely equal to the former side, since it has a promontory running well into the sea; the promontory stretching to about three thousand stades."
Internet History Sourcebooks
Arrian
"But Ctesias of Cnidus affirms that the land of India is equal in size to the rest of Asia, which is absurd; and Onesicritus is absurd, who says that India is a third of the entire world;
Nearchus, for his part, states that the journey through the actual plain of India is a four months' journey. Megasthenes would have the breadth of India that from east to west which others call its length; and he says that it is of sixteen thousand stades, at its shortest stretch. From north to south, then, becomes for him its length, and it extends twenty-two thousand three hundred stades, to its narrowest point.
The Indian rivers are greater than any others in Asia; greatest are the
Ganges and the Indus, whence the land gets its name"
Arrian
"As for the yonder side of the Hyphasis, I cannot speak with confidence, since Alexander did not proceed beyond the Hyphasis"
Arrian
For Megasthenes has recorded names of many other rivers, which beyond the Ganges and the Indus
run into the eastern and southern outer ocean; so that he states the number of
Indian rivers in all to be fifty-eight, and these all navigable.
Last I checked, there's no ocean to the east of Pakistan. Unless there's been some minor geographical/geological event (or change to textbooks) that I missed. Either that, or today Pakistan extends all the way upto Bengal
While Nation state (all nation states) are very recent in origin,there has been concept of nation for quite a long period of time, but even the concept of Pakistan originated in 712CE.
You know what, I would not even participate in this thread. In that History forum, your propaganda may have had got you some positive result by convincing some European budding historian with weak grasp on History,who would have later gone on to become professor of some reputed university, but here on this Pakistani forum; no one gives a damn. Pakistanis may think that India meant Pakistan or that Pakistan meant whole world, it simply does not matter.What matters are the established facts of History which this third grade write-up would not change.
@Roybot @Sneaker @WAR-rior @Dash
, is he ban from historum or some other site ?
