Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,

[The HBS Guy]

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...

BIBLE Esther 1:1

Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces,

BIBLE Esther 8:9

So the king's scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language.

 

[justanobserver]

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.

The term Indica is originally used by Megasthenes (not Alexander) when he was visiting the court of Chandragupta Maurya in Patliputra (which is not in modern day Pakistan)

 

[prototype]

A simple fact Alexander's conquest continued till magadha and Bengal were he eventually he faced Nanda and gandhari empire were his forces mutinied because of exhaustion,so that means to reach up to there,he had to simple defeat Porus

 

[Masterchief]

We dont need to give proofs for our presence in the world at that time,at that time university of taxila was there and so was chanakya who was deeply hurt when king of ambhi accepted alexander's bribes

 

[bc040400065]

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

Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact....

Nafrat chupaye nai chupti

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

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.

Pakistan as a ancient/historical geographic region is chronological error.

Pakistan was formed where there was a higher concentration of Muslims during partition.

That happened to be at west and east of modern day India.

However ,If you wish to see Pakistan's history encompassing all events which took place on land which belongs to present day Pakistan,then be my guest ,as i too believe that Indus valley civilization should be more linked with Pakistan rather than India.

But judging how pre-Islamic Pakistani people are demonized and seen as inferior people in your society ,i doubt if your people will ever accept it that history.

Even if they do accept,they"ll accept it motivated by greed for the achievements of that time(with selective amnesia),rather than a genuine love for one's past/history

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact....

Nafrat chupaye nai chupti

replace the word in bold with "Jhooth"...and then see it from Indian view how funny it is to try to prove something which is just a plain lie.

Porus was a hindu is a well known fact..whats the doubt on it ?? Indians so far have given a better and logical arguments than your Pakistani friends,you will easily know it it, if you have any knowledge of history...read them carefully and honestly judge whats the truth.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

BIBLE Esther 1:1

Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces,

BIBLE Esther 8:9

So the king's scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language.

Wow!
though not that surprised ,as the old testament has many refences to Babylon

 

[AR]

Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact....

Nafrat chupaye nai chupti

so why do you bring pakistan in Indian history?
your history starts after 1947 you are free to talk about every date after that

 

[MYSTIC]

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.

Persia or Iran as wee know it today is a lot smaller than the Persian empire. The empire got split into smaller pieces but that does not mean it is not part of persian history. Similarly, the creation of Pakistan does mean that all of history pre-1947 is not part of Indian history.

There is a reason why it is called the Indian sub continent. It is because we have a shared history. Why do Pakistanis shy away from this fact. Is it some kind of superiority complex that you feel bad to be associated with Hindu India of the past.

 

[justanobserver]

so why do you bring pakistan in Indian history?
your history starts after 1947 you are free to talk about every date after that

Apparently their history starts when Muhhamed Bin Qasim, annexed (read raped and plundered) Sindh and most parts of Punjab

 

[The HBS Guy]

Why do Pakistanis shy away from this fact. Is it some kind of superiority complex that you feel bad to be associated with Hindu India of the past.

It's so because they do not want to have anything to do with India or ancient India or stuff like that.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Apparently their history starts when Muhhamed Bin Qasim, annexed (read raped and plundered) Sindh and most parts of Punjab

I hope Indians too accept this fact ,rather than ignorantly saying Pakistan did not exist before 1947.

 

[prototype]

Its a fact that if this article was an "Ancient Indian Hindu King Porus defeated Alexander the Great" the response from you indian members would have been totally different. Just the use of word "Pakistan" brings pain alot of pain to you all. Its a fact....

Nafrat chupaye nai chupti

any doubt about the Hindu background of Porus,we all know it,we oppose because for as it is to much to digest the distortion of history to this much extent,Alexander's conquest continued very much into the heartlands of India,but we r not ashamed to accept it

 

[Ganga]

I want to ask all Pakistani members here a question.

The city of Lahore was founded by the son of lord Ram LUV.Another Pakistani city named Kasur was founded by his twin brother KUSH.I want to know how many Pakistani members would call them 'Ancient Pakistanis'.