The Battle of the Hydaspes: A Mystery in the Mists of Time

[Joe Shearer]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

hang in there, champ.....

 

[rockstarIN]

 

[Joe Shearer]

OK, OK, I get the message! Stop shoving, I'm on the job

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

wonderfull post joey.

alexander was a great warrior, whose personal bravery and shrewd mind helped him prevail in many difficult situations. but i wonder how much of it is actually true.

for centuries together, history has been distorted/moulded to suit the victors. i have read few accounts ofalexander and i must say his acts of personal bravery left a deep impact on me. in my opinion not many kings have personally taken part in the wars. war for them was abt planning and startegising, with generals leading the army into wars. not so for alexander, he personally undertook hand to hand fight on many occasions.

 

[rockstarIN]

As I mentioned, the book by Partha Bose, "Alexander the Great's art of strategy" is a good read about his tactics & strategies and it compares the same with modern world management adoptions with good examples..

 

[metro]

I'm yet to find out a credible source/reason that why did Porus lost the war.

A good book regarding the strategies of Alexander by Mr. Partha Bose too left out the point that how did they defeated the war elephants.

Porus did not lose the war.
Infact he won it after defeating Alexander.
the history that we read today has been written keeping Greek perspective in mind, and therefore we read that Alexander returned back becoz of his heart change. which is a farce.
he returned back when he was defeated by the Porus and was left alive with the condition that he would never ever raise his eye on this land again.

Simple common sense can deduce that Purushottam didnt lose war, Alexander did.

 

[Joe Shearer]

IN INDIA: THE MARCH TO BATTLE​

Alexander crossed the Indus in early spring 326, and at Taxila, now excavated {1}, his army for the first time saw a great Indian city. It was both a commercial centre and a famous university town, a headquarters of the teaching of the Brahmans. Taxiles gave Alexander 56 more elephants and some information. He was at war with the Paurava king (Porus), whose country lay in the plain between the Hydaspes (Jhelum) and the Acesines (Chenab), and who had allied himself with Abhisares ruler of the hill states of Rajauri and Bimber....Porus, however, had himself an enemy beyond the Chenab, the 'free nations' or Aratta (kingless ones) Arasthra, who were too strong for him to conquer; these peoples, the Cathaei, Oxydracae and Malli, were confederations of village communities under oligarchic rule.

Alexander made Taxila his advanced base for the invasion of the Punjab, and while there reorganised his cavalry {2}. He separated the agema altogether from the Companions and kept it under his personal command, and of the rest (except the horse-archers and the few mercenaries he had) he made five hipparchies, each of 1,000 men. The first four contained one squadron apiece of the Companions, 300 strong, and were filled up with Eastern Iranian horse, who, however, did not become Companions, but were regarded merely as brigaded with them; the four hipparchs were Hephaestion, Perdiccas, Craterus and Coenus. The fifth hipparchy, commanded by Demetrius, a promoted squadron-leader of the Companions, was chiefly Iranian, but contained what few Companions were left over. Coenus' promotion left vacant his battalion of the phalanx, which was given to his son Antigenes {3} but as was not unusual, continued sometimes to be called by the name of its old commander; it had been the crack battalion, specially picked for the attacks at Tyre and at Aornos. The other six phalanx-leaders were now Meleager, Polyperchon, Perdiccas' brother Alcetas, Amyntas' brother Attalus, Gorgias and Cleitus the White. Alexander left a garrison in Taxila, made Harpalus' brother Philippus satrap, and advanced to the Hydaspes at Jhelum {4}, which he probably reached early in June.


1: An account of Sir J. Marshall's excavations year by year has been given in the Archaeological Survey of India from 1912-13 onwards; see also his Guide to Taxila and his forthcoming work on Taxila.
2: App. I, IV, pp. 164 sqq.
3: For the relationship, see App. 17, p. 314.
4: Whether Alexander's camp was at Jhelum or Jalalpur has been disputed for a century; see App. 6, pp. 197 sq.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Porus did not lose the war.
Infact he won it after defeating Alexander.
the history that we read today has been written keeping Greek perspective in mind, and therefore we read that Alexander returned back becoz of his heart change. which is a farce.
he returned back when he was defeated by the Porus and was left alive with the condition that he would never ever raise his eye on this land again.

Simple common sense can deduce that Purushottam didnt lose war, Alexander did.

Can you cite your sources and your reasons for deducing what you have done? Something other than personal opinion? Where did you get that he was defeated, and where did you get the information about his undertaking to Purushottam? How, indeed, did you reconstruct Purushottam from Porus? The Greeks reported Chandragupta as Sandracottos, for instance; any reason for this drastic surgery on the heroic Indian king who was in the full glare of the limelight?

You do understand that some knowledge of the sources is what we are trying to get to here?

 

[metro]

Can you cite your sources and your reasons for deducing what you have done? Something other than personal opinion? Where did you get that he was defeated, and where did you get the information about his undertaking to Purushottam? How, indeed, did you reconstruct Purushottam from Porus? The Greeks reported Chandragupta as Sandracottos, for instance; any reason for this drastic surgery on the heroic Indian king who was in the full glare of the limelight?

You do understand that some knowledge of the sources is what we are trying to get to here?

Yes i read it in few Indian sources(websites and blogs) some time back. I would try to post those sources here(cant commit).
Whatever history that we read today has been written by Greeks keeping Greek perspective in mind, so it would be natural for them to not portray Alexander as a loser.
Alexander was on a mission to win the earth, and was doing it successfully, till he fought Porus, where he was beaten and was left alive only with teh condition that he would never come back to this land again.
This is Indian perspective of that event.

Greeks say, Alexander went back simple becoz he was impressed by Porus's bravery, Indians say he went back becoz he was defeated by the mighty Porus.
I would want to believe in the later interpretation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

< Thinks wildly: Joey????????? I knew it! I'm actually a baby kangaroo!>

<Ahem!>Was that addressed to me? Thanks, if it is; if I'm butting in, apologies.

wonderfull post joey.

alexander was a great warrior, whose personal bravery and shrewd mind helped him prevail in many difficult situations. but i wonder how much of it is actually true.From all accounts, including eye-witness accounts, he was suicidally brave. He was a king's son and never unconscious of his heritage or his antecedents. His rough-edged countrymen, akin to the Greeks but not quite Greek (they were allowed to participate in the Olympic Games, which only Greeks could, but their ways, their culture, the language they spoke, their monarchism, anomalous in a largely republican Greece with only Sparta a major example of a kingdom, kept them on the fringes of Greek society). They were the wild, up-country, frontiersmen to the Greeks.

His personal bravery was demonstrated very early, in the taming of Bucephalus, not by brute strength, but by wonderful empathy with horses. Being a rider myself, that story itself is a clear guide to his instinctive knowledge of how to gauge character and personality; if one cannot gauge the character of one's mount, one can rarely do so with humans, and conversely, in my experience. But his brute courage showed up from Granicus onwards; in every single battle, he was the first at the enemy.

Examples abound. If you wish, after my main posts are over, I can post you the accounts of his personal courage.

for centuries together, history has been distorted/moulded to suit the victors. i have read few accounts ofalexander and i must say his acts of personal bravery left a deep impact on me. in my opinion not many kings have personally taken part in the wars. war for them was abt planning and startegising, with generals leading the army into wars. not so for alexander, he personally undertook hand to hand fight on many occasions.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

< Thinks wildly: Joey????????? I knew it! I'm actually a baby kangaroo!>

<Ahem!>Was that addressed to me? Thanks, if it is; if I'm butting in, apologies.

lol, it was adressed to u joey.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I agree with you in part, and disagree in part.

Yes i read it in few Indian sources(websites and blogs) some time back. I would try to post those sources here(cant commit).
Whatever history that we read today has been written by Greeks keeping Greek perspective in mind, so it would be natural for them to not portray Alexander as a loser.
I agree with this analysis, but the Greeks not wanting to show him a loser does not mean that he lost.

I may not want to say that the Indian cricket team is poor in bowling, but that does not mean that it loses matches due to bowling. It merely means that there is a colouring in my accounts, not that my accounts are untrue.

Alexander was on a mission to win the earth,
Have you read my extracts? Have you anything concrete with which to oppose Professor Tarn (not Greek btw)? other than your personal opinion? Mind you, I value your opinion, but would value it more if it was based on some basic account or on facts.

and was doing it successfully, till he fought Porus, where he was beaten
And what is the evidence on which you base this? Wishful thinking?

and was left alive only with teh condition that he would never come back to this land again.Please quote your sources or present your logic that points to this conclusion.

This is Indian perspective of that event.
What is a 'perspective' of an event, without a single fact to bear it out? Or do you mean that it is your faith and belief in India that forms this opinion, and since faith and belief cannot be evaluated by reason, you need not submit your conclusions to rational analysis?

Greeks say, Alexander went back simple becoz he was impressed by Porus's bravery,
The Greeks in fact said nothing of the kind. That is why I started by quoting the sources, so that this sort of free-for-all should not begin. If you have anything to say, please quote your sources, historical, acknowledged sources, not your personal belief, or the personal beliefs of others which sound nice to you.

Indians say he went back becoz he was defeated by the mighty Porus.
In that case, there should be some evidence to show that there was a defeat, should there not?

I would want to believe in the later interpretation.
Most certainly you are entitled to believe in such an interpretation, but there is no such interpretation. An interpretation is of an existing thing; what is the existing thing of which this is an interpretation? What are the facts, according to you and those whom you are apparently quoting?

Please do not come and start telling us what you would want to believe. That was never in question or in doubt. Here, as far as possible, I would like to present as many facts as possible and allow people to judge. It really does not help to jump up and down and say,"This is what I think, and I don't need to say why, it's just the way I want things to be."

If you continue doing this, there is a terrible and fierce warrior called Changed_Original_Inhabitant (I hope you do crossword puzzles) who will gallop into this battlefield and put me to the sword (he may first make me 'pure', which is an even more fearful prospect). Please help me to save my life, and my honour before that, by avoiding talking in terms of faith and belief about historical incidents.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As I mentioned, the book by Partha Bose, "Alexander the Great's art of strategy" is a good read about his tactics & strategies and it compares the same with modern world management adoptions with good examples..

I am interested, and am tempted to look for it, but for one inhibition: can Bengalis write, to save their lives? Their writing is usually dull and pedantic, and I hate reading dull and pedantic stuff produced by others.

 

[metro]

Indians say he went back becoz he was defeated by the mighty Porus.In that case, there should be some evidence to show that there was a defeat, should there not?

Alexander was on a mission to win as many territories as he could, and was pretty successfully doing that, till he Reached Porus's territory.
He didnt gain a single inch of porus' territory and returned back and even died on his way back.
Isnt this enough proof that he was defeated by Porus.
Why else would a man like Alexander would want to go back ? being impressed by his bravery ..? i dont think so.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am afraid again you are using your personal opinions instead of recorded accounts. You may object to Greek bias, but unless you can substitute another account for that, you are left with no alternative - unless you want to make up your own history from your own imagination.

Alexander was on a mission to win as much territories as he could,
Again, I repeat, this now for the second time: since you obviously have not studied either the original accounts or scholarly interpretations, please go through the accounts that have been copied and posted. You will find an answer there. Common sense suggests that you try to understand what already stands on record before providing your own version.

and was pretty successfully doing that, till he Reached Porus's territory.
Again, not according to the accounts that exist. On what basis are you supplying your own facts?

He didnt gain a single inch of porus' territory
On the contrary, the records show that he received submission from Taxiles, from Porus and (very dodgily) from Abisares. Do you have any evidence contradicting this?

and returned back and even died on his way back.
Again, no evidence that this was due to Porus. In fact, the record speaks of a completely different reason for his decision to travel to the mouth of the Indus. Are you aware of what that reason was?
Coming to which, what does his death have to do with anything? If he had died after the battle of Gaugamela, would Darius III then have been the winner of the war? He died by the way, not on the journey but at his destination. He died of wounds received in the hard fighting in the hills before coming down and crossing the Indus, and again in his battles on the way to the mouth of the Indus. Are you aware of these battles, and the wounds, and when and where he was wounded?

Isnt this enough proof that he was defeated by Porus.
But you haven't given a single fact to prove your point! Who said that he was defeated, that he returned due to Porus, and that he died due to Porus' battle? All the records contradict you.

Why else would a man like Alexander would want to go back ? being impressed by his bravery ..? i dont think so.
Have you tried to find out, rather than speculating? Have you read a single history of the times? Websites and blogs don't count, for your information.