What's new

Pakistanis of Greeks and Macedonians Descent

I have done lots of reading on the subject. What do you trust?

Greeks after defeat in Multan played diplomatic card with Porus and Nanda. Later Selucus taking back lost territories in Bactria gave his daughter to mauryans for a friendship, so that they do not uproot their administration from North Pakistan, Afghanistan (Bactria).

I trust this. The others are lying. .

Legends and myth spun by revisionist Hindutwa Indians

@Shan-e-ibrahim

Why do I get a feeling your a Indian ...?

Iam not a greek neither my descendants were greek nor I am light skinned nor with blue eyes, neither I am Hindu, well I am a Muslim, Alhamdolillah. But this theory of west I reject.
 
.
Greeks after defeat in Multan played diplomatic card with Porus and Nanda. Later Selucus taking back lost territories in Bactria gave his daughter to mauryans for a friendship, so that they do not uproot their administration from North Pakistan, Afghanistan (Bactria).

I trust this. The others are lying. .



Iam not a greek neither my descendants were greek nor I am light skinned nor with blue eyes, neither I am Hindu, well I am a Muslim, Alhamdolillah. But this theory of west I reject.

You a closet Hindu period. The Greeks contrary to what North West Europeans claim are not and were not blue eyed blondes. Go to Greece and you will see what the majority look. Most Pashtun's could easily pass of as Greeks. The Greeks, Turks and even Iranians look remarkably similar. It is only Western revisionist history and Hollywood movies that have made Alexander in some German looking guy. Fact was he was Meditearnean.

And i have no idea why you brought 'Muslim' or 'Islam' into this. This was well before advent of Islam or even Christianity ...

and after 2,000 years you think anybody would still be Greek? That is over 70 generations ago. By now the Greek influence will have been subsumed with the population matrix.
 
.
Why hold onto the ''mixed-event''? There are many ethnicities who do not mix with others and I think it's kind of racist. Thankfully, the idea of Kashmiri only marriage is on the decline. My sister-in-law is from Punjab and another male cousin married to a Faislabadi.
I thought people from AJK were Punjabis/Paharis anyways
 
.
You a closet Hindu period. The Greeks contrary to what North West Europeans claim are not and were not blue eyed blondes. Go to Greece and you will see what the majority look. Most Pashtun's could easily pass of as Greeks. The Greeks, Turks and even Iranians look remarkably similar. It is only Western revisionist history and Hollywood movies that have made Alexander in some German looking guy. Fact was he was Meditearnean.

May be Pashtun believe that their ancestors were greeks or what soever. That region has been invaded by many empires from all sides. Tomorrow they will become Mongols and later they will call them selves turks, or iranians as all look alike.

Anyways, I am not a Pathan, nor my ancestors migrated to Pakistan from north or west or wherever. I look like typical south asian, neither an invader nor a slave of an invader.

And I reject this theory of Alexander winning the battle of Haydapses. It is false and a lie.

And i have no idea why you brought 'Muslim' or 'Islam' into this. This was well before advent of Islam or even Christianity ...

You brought the word hindu nationalists, and India, so I cleared your doubt.
 
.
and WTF have you brought up Nanda? No Pakistani would mention that Ganges Ganga Nanda. Care to explain what has Nanda got to anything? Nanda was from Ganges in India. Porus was Punjabi. But care to explain what has a Ganges Nanda have anything to do with this ?

Your line of thinking smacks of a closet Indian. I should know I have enough arguments with Ganga dwellers and this is exactly what rubbish they spin ...
 
.
and WTF have you brought up Nanda? No Pakistani would mention that Ganges Ganga Nanda. Care to explain what has Nanda got to anything? Nanda was from Ganges in India. Porus was Punjabi. But care to explain what has a Ganges Nanda have anything to do with this ?

Your line of thinking smacks of a closet Indian. I should know I have enough arguments with Ganga dwellers and this is exactly what rubbish they spin ...

A learned Pakistani would know what is Nanda, like you pointed out. Because you know it.

Purshottam was a Punjabi, Nanda was from plains of ganga, both were the great kings of this subcontinent India and Pakistan who played major role in defeating and stopping Greek influence in the region. Protected the term DESI.
 
.
I ask you again why did you did you bring Nanda in the discussion? Only a Indian would bring that in to embellish mother India ?
 
.
Greeks in Ancient Pakistan
by Rafi Samad.

44623.jpg



Alexander the Great of Macedonia established a vast empire in the 330s and 320s BC by storming across the globe from his northern Greek homeland as far as today’s Pakistan, where he spent three years before dying in Babylon in 323 on his return march to Greece at the age of 32. His premature death meant that his empire instantly fell apart, but also guaranteed Alexander’s own enduring unique fame, whether as Alexander or Sikander. After Alexander the Mauryans from Northern India dominated the area for a while, only to be replaced by descendants of Alexander’s soldiers who remained in the Bactrian region north of the Hindu Kush.
It was during the centuries that followed that what we now think of as Indus Greek culture flourished. It was of course a culture that brought together many different elements into a new synthesis, most exquisitely expressed in the masterpieces of Gandharan sculpture, which increasingly focused on Buddhist themes. It also produced work of the highest quality in coinage, in jewelry and in other fields, for example, town planning.
Alexander had chroniclers with him, so that in contrast to most earlier and many later empire builders, precise and reasonably reliable details of his life and campaigns survive, and for the later period there are works by Greek writers such as Megasthenes. These written sources add a whole new dimension to the silent evidence of numismatics, architecture and art.
Rafi Samad, an engineer by training, has carefully assembled all the available evidence, together with the work of specialist research scholars, to provide this straightforward account of the Greeks in the Indus region, for which he coins the term Indusland. After a general introduction, he proceeds chronologically from Alexander’s campaigns of 3274-324 BC to the philhellenic Scythian, Parthian and Kushan dynasties from about 85 BC to 490 AD. Further chapters discuss intellectual and religious interaction, the Greek influence on both architecture and Gandhara art, and finally trade and commerce.
The author has performed a valuable service in bringing together such scattered information. Some of the most useful parts of the book are effectively catalogued, for instance, of the Greek cities; the statues which show the development of Gandhara art; coins and some of the other finds from Taxila, the pre-eminent locus of Greek interaction with local cultures.
In the sections of the book devoted to Alexander, the focus is inevitably on his military campaigns and victories. This emphasis on the military aspects of the subject reflects the primary sources, since the contemporary writers focused almost entirely on the campaigns and the regions through which they and the army passed. Samad is cool-headed about the identification of various uncertain locations, a topic which has sometimes roused pathological levels of scholarly passion.
Nevertheless the concentration on Alexander is excessive, and reflects a more general problem. Samad fails to distinguish sufficiently between the impact and importance of overlordship on the one hand, and the longer term quotidian dynamic of different communities, many of them initially traders rather than soldiers, living and interacting together. The book is therefore rather less than the sum of its several excellent parts, since solid detail in the specific chapters is sometimes contradicted is facile general statements elsewhere. The author knows but forgets that there were already Greek traders in the area before Alexander arrived. Trade and commerce, which ought to be central, only appear as a short final chapter.
A similar reluctance to look at previous or wider contexts is apparent in chapters 8 and 10, which deal with interaction in philosophy and religion. Many of the archaeologists and historians whom Samad acknowledges are western, and he is certainly right in perceiving an earlier imperial bias which claimed the flow of enlightenment to have been entirely a one-way process.
But his own efforts are weakened by unconscious acceptance of the old imperial belief, wrong on all counts, that the Greeks were the forerunners of the Roman and British empires, and therefore entirely in an anachronistic western camp. Thus he opens chapter 10 by claiming that they had been isolated and unaware of higher religious concepts until Alexander’s eastward campaigns, but then admits that contact with the Achaemenid empire had started the process three centuries earlier. As today, processes of cultural contact and exchange took place through many different channels.
The book is copiously illustrated, although many of the pictures and all of the maps are smudgy. It is also let down by poor copy-editing. Greek and Latin endings for personal names are used indiscriminately, as are upper and lower case for terms such as Silk Route. Such flaws are not only irritating but undermine the credibility of what is in fact a useful book.

Greeks in Pakistan.

The invasion of Alexander the Great of the territories,which now constitute Pakistan ,was an event of great significance not only because of the extraordinary nature of the military expenditure undertaken by one of the worlds greatest conquerors, but also because it was the first time that direct contacts were established between Europe & South Asia. Alexanders invasion opend up a new era of mutually benificial trade and cultural exchanges between the two regions,more than 2,000 miles apart.

The fairly intense interaction between ancient South Asia and Greece,which commenced with the invasion of invasion of Alexander in fourth century BC, continued for almost seven centuries till the middle of 5th century AD. After Alexander it was the Seleucid and Bactrian Greeks settled in West and Central Asia,who continued to interact from across the borders,before the Bactrian/Indus Greeks conquered Gandhara and Punjab, Ancient Pakistan in the begining of 1st century BC.The Indus Greeks were succeeded by the philhellenic Scythian,Parthians and Kushans,who continued to rule Ancient Pakistan,till the middle of 5th century AD

During this extensive period,the nature and extent of Greek involvement and the impact,which the interactions produced in Ancient South Asia and Greece,has been the subject of much controversy.This book incorporates the latest material,which has become available through the research of international scholars.This material has been critically evaluated and supplemented by the author´s own critical analysis of the Hellenistic influences on local art and the influence of eastren Philosophy and religions on the intellectual movments in Greece and elsewhere in Europe.

The book also seeks to identify places and regions mentioned by Alexander´s Generals in their accounts of his military campaigns in the territories,which now constitute Pakistan.It provides latest information on the Alexandrias and the cities founded by the Indus Greeks in this region and on the cantoments and military posts established by Alexander.

A modern reminder of Pakistan's connection with Alexander's Greeks.

AlexanderPakistan.JPG




I have done lots of reading on the subject. What do you trust? Legends and myth spun by revisionist Hindutwa Indians ?

@Shan-e-ibrahim

Why do I get a feeling your a Indian ...?

He is banned hindu troll screwmbol of mixed nepali/bihari heritage. Mods said they will take action since they know who he is from IP, but still nothing. @Horus
 
.
This is a typical Indian habit

Discuss Taxila and they will bring up Nalanda university
Discuss Harappa and they will bring up Dholavira
etc

He is banned hindu troll screwmbol. Mods said they will take action since they know who he is from IP, but still nothing. @Horus

This guy is a Indian. You know me I have regular argument with Indian's and they all follow a standard format. If I bring up something from Taxila, Pakistan they will instead bring up Nalanda in India. If I mention Harappa they will bring up Dholarvira, here we were discussing Porus and this guy brought up Nanda who had nothing to do with fighting against Alexander. The credit for fighting against Alexander goes to Porus.

By throwing in Nanda is typical Indian tactic of 'milching' our history ....
and then he goes all 'Dhesi' and South Asian.

WTF this is a Pakistan Defence Forum I am going to call Porus, Punjabi and if I have to I will call him Ancient Pakistani. You chop my testicles but I am not going to call this hero Porus a Dhesi or Indian. I don't care what western writers call him Indian or whatever.

@save_ghenda

I can smell a Ganges Hindu from thousand miles ......
Ha Ha Ha .....
 
.
After Aornos, Alexander crossed the Indus and fought and won an epic battle against King Porus, who ruled a region in the Punjab, in the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC. Alexander was impressed by Porus's bravery, and made him an ally. He appointed Porus as satrap, and added to Porus' territory land that he did not previously own. Choosing a local helped him control these lands so distant from Greece. Alexander founded two cities on opposite sides of the Hydaspes river, naming one Bucephala, in honor of his horse, who died around this time. The other was Nicaea (Victory), thought to be located at the site of modern day Mong, Punjab.

East of Porus' kingdom, near the Ganges River, were the Nanda Empire of Magadha and further east the Gangaridai Empire (of modern day Bangladesh). Fearing the prospect of facing other large armies and exhausted by years of campaigning, Alexander's army mutinied at the Hyphasis River (Beas), refusing to march farther east. This river thus marks the easternmost extent of Alexander's conquests.

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. 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 war elephants."


Alexander tried to persuade his soldiers to march farther, but his general Coenus pleaded with him to change his opinion and return; the men, he said, "longed to again see their parents, their wives and children, their homeland". Alexander eventually agreed and turned south, marching along the Indus. Along the way his army conquered the Malhi (in modern day Multan) and other Indian tribes and sustained an injury during the siege.

My understanding is same on this subject. Alexander won the battle but it was intense enough to take its toll on his army. Battle fatigued from years of military campaign, Alexander soldiers were missing their homes by now. Alexander, being a great general as he was, sensed this sentiment quite well and gave up plans to move any further. Porus did fight quite well and exacted heavy losses on Greek Army, losing the battle but at the same time destroying Greek will to push any further east.

People have to remember here what Alexander Army has been through before this battle took place. By no means it was a small feat to come this far from Europe.

And please, please keep national sentiments aside people, when discussing history. History is well, history. It happened just the way it happened.
 
.
If he was defeated why didn't Alexander march towards further east? And Alexander gave a piece of Land to the defeated king in Multan (Hydaspes) Nonsense!

Alexander was thrashed by Purshottam(Porus) in Pakistan brutally!

Your hinduness/gangid keep getting exposed since you don't know anything about land of pure region. After defeating Porus in Gujrat district, he crossed river Chenab and with help of Porus and killed 5000 Sialkotias. I mean killed 5000 people in Sakala/Sialkot district.

Then he went south and fought with Mallians and Oxydracians in Multan district. Google map is your friend, if he was defeated then he probably would have went back and never crossed Chenab.
 
. .
My understanding is same on this subject. Alexander won the battle but it was intense enough to take its toll on his army. Battle fatigued from years of military campaign, Alexander soldiers were missing their homes by now. Alexander, being a great general as he was, sensed this sentiment quite well and gave up plans to move any further. Porus did fight quite well and exacted heavy losses on Greek Army, losing the battle but at the same time destroying Greek will to push any further east.

People have to remember here what Alexander Army has been through before this battle took place. By no means it was a small feat to come this far from Europe.

And please, please keep national sentiments aside people, when discussing history. History is well, history. It happened just the way it happened.

He did go further east and slaughtered 5000 Sialkotias, but didn't bother crossing pure land since only jungles and savages were awaiting him with no sign of civilization yet.
 
.
My Pakistani brothers. Alexander won but I tell you this, the world conqueror recieved such a thrashing that his troops were worn out. In fact in Multan he almost got killed. All books I have read make it clear that Indus basin ( Pakistan ) gave Alexander a big headache. He reinstated Porus because Alexander was impressed by his bravery.

Alexander probably lost more men in Indus Basin/Pakistan then in any other campaign. We can now we can take pride in that. I have respect for both Alexander and Porus ...
 
Last edited:
. .
Back
Top Bottom