Pakistanis of Greeks and Macedonians Descent

[Jaanbaz]

"Macedonia" is a fake country founded by Bulgarians. The ancient Macedonians were Greek.

Ouch!

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

there were no good or bad people... come on, you cant make history so simplistic. Not unless you are a teenage girl.
Alex should be given some credit for the campaigns that he managed without much greeks in army, by the time he reached India(modern day pakistan) it was a hugely heterogenous army with all sorts of people.

And don't give credits to those who saved you all from becoming a slave. Call them losers right? Why did he even come, it was his mistake, to get lost in our region.

 

[Jaanbaz]

If the Library at Alexandria had not been torched by a mob of zealots (Christians) we would have a much clearer understanding of the origins of religious practices and beliefs.

(The Library at Alexandria was torched in 400 AD and 750,000 volumes were destroyed – and it is no coincidence that it happened so soon after the Council of Nicea which was partly convened in an attempt to hide the pagan origins of the new faith).

Man that library was a treasure trove specially for someone who loves history of religion and mankind. So sad that religious zealots always ruin things for future. I heard some Christians priests had blamed the burning of this library on Muslims lol.

 

[faisal6309]

Man that library was a treasure trove specially for someone who loves history of religion and mankind. So sad that religious zealots always ruin things for future. I heard some Christians priests had blamed the burning of this library on Muslims lol.

That is not what I was trying to say there buddy. I am sure there were some good references of Ptolemy I or even Philip III who became pharaoh of Egypt after Alexander's death.

 

[anonymus]

King Porus (the Latinisation of the Greek Πῶρος - Pôros, a representation of the Puru Vedic tribe) was the King of Paurava, an ancient kingdom located between the Jhelum and Chenab rivers (in Greek, the Hydaspes and the Acesines rivers) in modern-day Punjab, Pakistan, and later of dominions extending to the Beas (in Greek, the Hyphasis). Porus fought Alexander the Great in the Battle of the Hydaspes River in 326 BC (at the site of modern-day Mong) and was defeated. He then served Alexander as a client king.

There is a very strong counter-narrative in History that, either Alexander lost Battle of Hydaspes, or was severely mauled in that battle to the extent that he was rendered incapable of carrying out further major action. The reason for this is not only the strange and completely out of character (of Alexander's) restoration of Porus as per Greek historians, but also revolt in his Army on reaching the most juiciest part of his conquest.

Firstly, the reason given by Historians of homesickness of his army is not correct as barely any of those supposed homesick soldiers returned home. They settled in dominions of various Hellenic kingdoms crafted out of Alexander's empire after his death.

Second, GDP of India at that time was larger than rest of world combined. It is very out of character of soldiers who fought through mountains and desert of Persian highlands, and Afghan wastelands, to balk at conquest of most prosperous part of their conquest. Even a fraction of Indian territory would have yielded more revenue for Alexander than rest of his holdings combined.

Third, The story of marching his armies through a desert ,a desert that was well known and charted by locals, and losing nearly half his army sounds highly unlikely from any tactical or strategic PoV. This was a very stupid decision, if it was taken at all. There are precedence of generals sending expedition units through desert, but there is no instance of a victorious general marching half his army through a desert.

Fourth, The Magadha empire whose armed strength is said to have scared Alexander's soldiers was still 500+ Km away, and Alexander could have easily won rest of Kingdoms between kingdom of Porus and Magadha empire,if he was as clearly one-sided victorious in battle as Greeks claimed and retained most of his Army.Apart from that he still have to fight tribes in current day Pakistan to return.


In most probability what happened was that Alexander either lost (Though an outright loss of Alexander is not likely and I would not argue for that) , or won a Pyrrhic victory (a very strong possibility) in which though Alexander was tactically victorious but suffered heavy casualties ,which Greek historians following their tradition of playing down their casualties covered up, and has to reach an understanding with Porus , which allowed Porus to rule his Kingdom. Losses he suffered in battle of Hydaspes rendered Alexander's army incapable of waging war against any organized Army; he could not get reinforcements from across Hindukush, and he most probably wasn't able to subjugate Porus completely so he could not use his resources completely. Seeing the hopeless situation Greek Army was in at this moment , his soldiers (probably on exertion of their generals) and Generals mutinied at though of further conquest.


Greek Historians obviously could not say that "God King" lost nearly his whole army in battle of Hydaspes , nor could they say that "God king" feared facing a formidable foe with his emaciated army. After all "God king" is allowed personal excess and vices, but he is not allowed to have weakness of martial character. Thus a near defeat was covered up and made to sound like a one sided victory, and loss of Greek legions was explained as loss during crossing a desert, a crossing that Alexander in all probability made with a very small contingent as was norm for crossing a desert.

It is not like powerful and charismatic autocrats have not covered up defeats in past.Egyptians did it in their conflict with the Hittites.Their letters to the Hittites prove that it was at best, a strategic defeat of the Egyptians, yet the pyramid bass reliefs and histories of the same time portray unqualified success of the pharaoh.It is just that in case of Hittites vs Egyptians, alternate accounts are available, but those of Alexander are one sided.

 

[SrNair]

I do not believe Purshottam(Porus) was defeated. It was taught by western system of education to us.

Well historic evidences is avaliable about thethe marching of Alexander nearer to that
border of Nanda dynasty.
He cant do that if Purushottam was in there.Means he overrun Kingdom of Purushottam.

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

Well historic evidences is avaliable about thethe marching of Alexander nearer to that
border of Nanda dynasty.
He cant do that if Purushottam was in there.Means he overrun Kingdom of Purushottam.

oh but that does not prove that he won the battle. This proves that Purshottam(Porus) was amazed seeing his bravery and allowed him to escape safely. If Purshottam had become his allies, he would have waged war against the Dhana Nanda.

 

[SrNair]

If Alexander won that war then he could've used Indian way of battle in future. You know after conquering Persia, he came to India with both Persian and Macedonian soldiers. Well, Macedonian soldiers were exhausted after 7 years of war time but Persian army wasn't. If Porus became his ally then he could've released his Macedonian army and march forward with Persian and Indian armies. Also enemies of Porus helped Alexander for preparing against Porus. Your Greek sources say that Alexander promised them the kingdom of Porus after defeating him. If Porus was defeated then why didn't he stay with his promise. This makes no sense. Hence it is clear that Alexander lost and all the sources where it was cleared that he lost that battle were burnt. When I was searching on this topic last time, it said that oldest preserved story of Alexander was after 60 years of his death.



Who is this Ganges Nanda? Google is not showing something relevant. Only person with Nanda name I know of is Dhana Nanda who was last king of Nanda dynasty and was king at the time when Alexander fought against Porus.
Dhana Nanda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nanda empire was way too big when compare to Paurava. He was one famous for his cruelness and had bigger army. Also Indians who allied with Alexander against Porus told that there is a big sea in far east but at that time, greek thought that they would circle back to egypt and then they will reach back home in no time.


Do you know how he won in Persia? By killing Darius. That is how they were able to control their Persia. He was unable to do so in India. He was afraid to go further because of the truth revealed to him from Indians that there is vast sea in east.


Many western sources also say that Alexander was defeated in India and never ruled it. But most western sources especially european ones say that he won.
I personally don't believe that Alexander won this battle.

Persian Empire was the most powerful at that time stretching from SouthAsia to Mediteranean .So many powerful Europeans empires at that time looked the Persian empire astheir prime enemy.
Alexander was also not an exception.
But Darius was a one incompetent king unlike his predeccessors.
He attacked the Alexander without any tactics and failed even if he had large Army.
But Indian empires was good in tactics.
That is why he suffered heavily by the hands of Purushottam.
Perhaps he might forseen the fate if he attacks the Nandan.
And mutiny in his Army was also another reason

 

[anonymus]

Apart from this Greek troops who were left behind under the control of Eudemus in 321 BC returned with him in 316BC. I would say more gene flow of Greeks into India occurred Indo-Greek empires, than under Alexander.

Also Greeks were one of the earliest invaders of Invaders. After them , there were Scythians, Huns, Turks and numerous others. Whatever descendents Greeks left behind would have been pushed deep into India by subsequent invaders.

 

[Kabira]

Anyway @RiazHaq saab jee you should have done more research, Kalash or Hunza people have absolutely nothing to do with Greeks.

 

[SrNair]

oh but that does not prove that he won the battle. This proves that Purshottam(Porus) was amazed seeing his bravery and allowed him to escape safely. If Purshottam had become his allies, he would have waged war against the Dhana Nanda.

War against the Purushottam drained the Alexander .But he might got the strategy adopted by Indian Empires.
Nanda had a big Army several times larger than Purushottam.
So Alexander knew the possibility of tragedy if he attacks Nandan with his mutinied exhausted forces.


Remember Chandragupta Mauryan used same forces to establish and expands the Mauryan dynasty.

 

[Kabira]

Anyway, this thread is testament to tendency among Pakistanis to forge their lineage to cover up their inferiority complex.First Arab origin, then Persian Origin, them Turkic origin, and now Greek origin!!!! How far would Pakistanis go to soothe their inferiority complex?

They think that an Army of 40,000; most of whom consisted of levies raised from current day Afghanistan changed genetic composition of current day Pakistan!!! There could not be more comi-tragic thought than this.

Apart from this Greek troops who were left behind under the control of Eudemus in 321 BC returned with him in 316BC. I would say more gene flow of Greeks into India occurred Indo-Greek empires, than under Alexander.

Also Greeks were one of the earliest invaders of Invaders. After them , there were Scythians, Huns, Turks and numerous others. Whatever descendents Greeks left behind would have been pushed deep into India by subsequent invaders.

Interesting gangu, I wonder why you guys always left out aryans. Considirng 95% of Indians claim aryan decent lmao

Of course they didn't change genetic composition of any of Pakistani population. There is wall between Pakistani population and Indian, see this.

 

[faisal6309]

Persian Empire was the most powerful at that time stretching from SouthAsia to Mediteranean .So many powerful Europeans empires at that time looked the Persian empire astheir prime enemy.
Alexander was also not an exception.
But Darius was a one incompetent king unlike his predeccessors.
He attacked the Alexander without any tactics and failed even if he had large Army.
But Indian empires was good in tactics.
That is why he suffered heavily by the hands of Purushottam.
Perhaps he might forseen the fate if he attacks the Nandan.
And mutiny in his Army was also another reason

They didn't even know much about India then. I heard that Herakles was only one European before Alexander to travel to Asia. I have also heard that they didn't know about huge north pacific ocean in the east. I have seen some of maps around Alexander's time where there was no China in that map. So I would conclude that they didn't even know about China that time.

They just heard about Nanda's power after coming to India. They didn't knew if any Nanda empire existed there. So, Persia was most powerful because European know about them and because they were really powerful when comparing to European empires. There was still no roman republic at that time, only some savages there and in Britania. As both Greek and Romans were powerhouse of Europe and Persia was already super power so they both were natural enemies like US and USSR. so I don't think Europe was that good except Greek and Romans were good fighters too.
As I said before, new terrain and environment plus new type of warfare lead Alexander losing that battle. Also they were already afraid of Nanda empire power because they had more well-trained soldiers and elephants than Porus. But Nanda got kicked out by Chandhra Gupta too.

PS: My elders say that we are descendents of Chandhra Gupta.

 

[faisal6309]

Do you people have lessons about porus in your schools?do your children do skits or dramas on porus during independence or republic day?do parents there tell night time stories about porus to their children?but we do all those things.you won't do anything but know to bark that porus is ours,panini is ours,IVC is ours and so on and so forth.Every Indian feels Pakistan was part of India which evil muslims have snatched from them.No matter how much you shout ,the world sees the land which is now Pakistan as India before its creation in 1947.

Please stay on topic for now. Find some other thread for this discussion. What do you think about this? Did Porus won war or was it Alexander?

 

[Kabira]

Do you people have lessons about porus in your schools?do your children do skits or dramas on porus during independence or republic day?do parents their tell night time stories about porus to their children?but we do all those things.you won't do anything but know to bark that porus is ours,panini is ours,IVC is ours and so on and so forth.Every Indian feels Pakistan was part of India which evil muslims have snatched from them.No matter how much you shout ,the world sees the land which is now Pakistan as India before its creation in 1947.

Indians need to scream on top of the roof so world remember Porus was Indian. No one believe your lies, first of all Indians barely get over 4'8 feet most of the times while Porus was 7'0 tall, broad shouldered ancient Pakistani.

Very little to with Indians.

Looks like generations of inbreeding has taken a heavy toll on your IQ.

India ,historically, stretched from Kambhoja to Kamrup. Your separate history started with Bin Qasim. This is the reason that whenever any historical event is discussed, Pakistan is never mentioned, except for providing contemporary geographical location of past events.

Looks like your inferiority complex vis vis Pakistanis have no cure. Of course you guys can claim from Tajikistan to Sri Lanka is India, but real world is different. In real world people from these regions spit on your face.