Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,

[justanobserver]

For reference

 

[prototype]

One more attempt to distort history,and guess from were it all emerge-Pakistan

To make u people believe urself about ur superior trait u people keep coming which such spectacular stories born out of ur incompetence and subjugation from the new world order, believing this was the same force which conquered the world at one time and will do it once again if the faith in ummah is reinforced.

Grow up guys,nobody is even now interested in whom defeated whom,just they will have a look at history and say,Ya Alexander defeated Porus,now whats for dinner tonight

 

[Masterchief]

Going by the author's logic dr hk khorana,kalpana chawla are pakistanis because their ancestors lived in lahore,c'mon guys this guy telling us that porus was a pakistani, when there was no such nation itself at that time is hilarious,and as sir william wallace once remarked, 'i know i hate the englishmen but since their princess love me they will call me one of their own and i would extremely hate that, for whatever the circumstances iam and i remain a scot'

 

[AR]

There was no India either, so using the names of the Kingdoms shouldnt be a problem. The whole point of the article is that people use the British India map to trump all regional identities of the subcontinent with the only intention to mislead.

my goodness.... india was even there as back as 5000 years....
We even have an ocean named after our country.... which was called after its name as back as 2000 years and is continuous being called so...

and you are saying there was no country named "India" prior to 1947
learn some GK..... In 1947 pakistan emerged from India... india was there since millenniums

 

[justanobserver]

You know what, going by this logic. Since the Indus is in Pakistan, all Pakistani's are Hindus

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

The term Indika was derived from the Indus river which I am pretty sure refers to modern day Pakistan. Hence the Maurya Empire is not called Indkia empire, but Maurya Empire. Dont confuse the modern usage of the term.

Like I said, the intention is to mislead.

That is not possible .....because Megasthenes was an ambassadar to Chandragupta Maurya 's court,which was centred in Magadha ,with his capital at Pataliputra ( present day Patna ). Megasthenes choose the name for depicting the culture of the people living in the subcontinent in contemporary times , when sanskrit was the court language and vedic rituals were followed . The Indika name was clearly used to indicate the ancestors of Indians .....

 

[prototype]

my goodness.... india was even there as back as 5000 years....
We even have an ocean named after our country.... which was called after its name as back as 2000 years and is continuous being called so...

and you are saying there was no country named "India" prior to 1947
learn some GK..... In 1947 pakistan emerged from India... india was there since millenniums

One more example is the East India Company,from were did they get the name India as it was created some 200 yrs before the independence of India.

 

[Masterchief]

Porus was a gandhar and they are hindus,if the poster has his way tomorrow he will call bhagat singh a pakistani

 

[The HBS Guy]

@Urbanized Greyhound: WoW yaar! you know a lot about history...

 

[bc040400065]

Yes there was (and there is).

Remeber 'Indika' ? Name of the book that Megasthenes wrote when he visited the Mauryan emperor in Patliputra. I'm sure it doesn't refer to Pakistan

And i m not surprized that you don't know from where the word INDIKA originates and belongs.

 

[justanobserver]

^
Please read previous posts

 

[prototype]

And i m not surprized that you don't know from where the word INDIKA originates and belongs.

he had and he proved it all along the thread,it is like this that u dont have much counterclaims

 

[abrahams]

There was no India either

well guess one among the oldest books is bible.... especially the old testament... which i believe has connections both with quran and the jewish holy book...

so check out Esther 1:1 and Esther 8:9 to see the word.. India...

 

[UnitedPak]

Mauryans were the rulers, the name Indika refers to the all land east of the Indus. Remember Megasthenes wrote about the Mauryans in Patliputra (in Indika) which is in present day Bihar (Patna=Patliputra)

The origin of the term is not up for discussion but pretty much fact. Alexander only came into contact with the Indus valley, which he referred to as Indika. The usage of the term does not prove that all of British India is also part of this Indika. Your entire argument is based on misleading terms and other India definitions. I wont entertain this as its been discussed to death. (see other threads)

The article does NOT talk of Pakistan as a political concept, but as a geographic region which has gone by a lot of different names, however the people have remained the same, hence its Pakistani history. Lumping the entire subcontinent as one does not make it Indian.

 

[Ganga]

First of all Alexander the great was never defeated.The battle was quite bloody due to the presence of elephants in defenders side.Alexander's soldiers had never seen an elephant before in their life.As a result they panicked and many got killed.But at the end Alexander was victorious and king porous was captured. Porous and his men were Hindus.They went to battle chanting the name of Lord Shiva.