What's new

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

That is one funny piece Shearer and I have promptly shared it with my tribesmen, the Jatts. Dont worry I have kept your identity hidden!

On Porus, I read somewhere that he could have been a Janjua Rajput. The Janjuas are still a pretty well known community in Punjab and along with the Kambojas (another common surname in Punjab and Haryana) they ruled huge swathes of the Punjab in late BC times.

G***i is a sardar, I've mentioned that; so, too, Hayyer. Together, they keep us on the run. Sometimes our discussions on this mailing list are more interesting and exciting than PTH, which is awesome.

Porus couldn't have been a Rajput; they came in much much later. I know about the Parama Kamboja being well-known around these parts; check out my previous post. However, this is the first I've heard of the Janjua being around from so far back. Frankly, I will need to know more about this before being convinced ;-)
 
G***i is a sardar, I've mentioned that; so, too, Hayyer. Together, they keep us on the run. Sometimes our discussions on this mailing list are more interesting and exciting than PTH, which is awesome.

Porus couldn't have been a Rajput; they came in much much later. I know about the Parama Kamboja being well-known around these parts; check out my previous post. However, this is the first I've heard of the Janjua being around from so far back. Frankly, I will need to know more about this before being convinced ;-)

Yes, Hayyer or Hayer is a jatt surname and only a jatt himself could have written such a hilarious piece on jatts. Great job..!

Regarding Janjuas, maybe they were later absorbed into the fold of the Rajputs. Let me try and remember where I first came across the argument that Porus could have been a Janjua.
 
Whatever his caste; it is enough that he was a son of Punjab and a warrior par excellence. That should be enough for any one of the subcontinent to honour him.

I'd second that..!
 
:rofl:

If you are willing to pay for a life insurance policy for me worth Rs. 5.0 crores or so (negotiable), I am willing to go on record and say what is the most likely position with regard to Porus being a Jat.

Nobody - nobody - least of all, poor old Joe, takes panga with a Jat. Or more than one of them.

Off the record, the Jats were probably part of the Saka-Pahlava lot who came flying in one hard-ridden horse-ride ahead of the fear-crazed Tocharians, themselves flying from the ferocious Hioung Nu (ask our Chinese friends for details; one of them in particular is very good at their own ancient history).

However, this is a potent topic. My home list is Silk List, but I used to be active at PakTeaHouse. There a group of us became very close and set up our own rather whimsical mailing list. One of us is a Jat, a mechanised Sardar now a very prosperous surgeon on the west coast, a loyal Indian who is, like the other Indians on that mailing list a committed friend of Pakistan, a guy who is trying to see if he can set up scholarships for Pakistani kids to come and train in medicine in India. He forwarded us this (REMEMBER, IT WASN'T I WHO WROTE IT OR FORWARDED IT!!!)

FROM G***I:

You all may remember that recently some truths and half truths were
spread about the jats on this forum by some people like Hayyer (I may
have spread some as well).

Now while trying to read up on the Aryan invasion (or not) I came up
on this site that explains the truth about the Jatts.

It also has in its reference section similar truths about India,
Pakistan, Brahamins etc. that i did not have time to read yet.

enjoy! http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jat
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jat

The migration of Scythians/Sakas into the southern Indus plains happaned around the end of 2nd century BC .
Since , Battle of Hydaspes was fought in the last quarter of 4th century BC , I believe King Porus wasn't a Jat i.e If we assume that modern Jutt/Jat clans descend from Sakas .

There has been precence of Ganas i.e Tribal Confederacies/Republics vis. Kaikeya , Madra , Yaudheya , Sauvira , Sivis , etc . in the Indus plains during the Mahajanapada times . In your opinion , is there a possibility of Porus belonging to one of these Tribal Confederacy ?
 
AFAIK, none of the classical authorities mentioned a caste, or even mentioned caste. A thorough search will take a couple of days; we will see if anything turns up.

Alexander mentions as having defeated xathroi after porus. so if porus was also xathroi why should he mention them seperately.
importance given to son indicates a patriarchial society.
modern names may not match with system of that time.
 
The migration of Scythians/Sakas into the southern Indus plains happaned around the end of 2nd century BC .
Since , Battle of Hydaspes was fought in the last quarter of 4th century BC , I believe King Porus wasn't a Jat i.e If we assume that modern Jutt/Jat clans descend from Sakas .

There has been precence of Ganas i.e Tribal Confederacies/Republics vis. Kaikeya , Madra , Yaudheya , Sauvira , Sivis , etc . in the Indus plains during the Mahajanapada times . In your opinion , is there a possibility of Porus belonging to one of these Tribal Confederacy ?

Alexander mentions as having defeated xathroi after porus. so if porus was also xathroi why should he mention them seperately.
importance given to son indicates a patriarchial society.
modern names may not match with system of that time.

First, it is a typical Indian bad habit to get side-tracked into issues relating to societal structures and the politics of societal domination. All discourses, including historical, anthropological, linguistic and cultural discourses, have been diverted in this manner. We are obsessed with caste and race and who is superior to whom, rather than with practical aspects of forming a cohesive society and getting on with things.

This thread is about the tactical methods used by Alexander and by Porus respectively; it is about military analysis. It doesn't matter a dam what Porus was, what his caste was, what his dynastic descent was, what god he worshipped, and all the rest of that. Discussing those things is typical, and also pathetic; instead of discussing military systems and methods, perhaps with a view to understanding warfare and the development of warfare better, we are sitting around discussing social systems and structures, perhaps with a view to understanding society, social processes and the development of society better. That is good. It's just that such discussions are not appropriate for this forum. If any of you want, this can be taken off-forum. Write a mail to Thy Neighbours Life

As far as this thread is concerned, I am now looking for suggestions for the next battle to be considered, in a similar manner, on the basis of sources, rather than on the basis of our half-remembered anecdotal information, or our prejudices, inherited sometimes from distant ancestors, or said to be.

As a courtesy to the posters, I shall reply 124 and 125, and no more.
 
First, it is a typical Indian bad habit to get side-tracked into issues relating to societal structures and the politics of societal domination. All discourses, including historical, anthropological, linguistic and cultural discourses, have been diverted in this manner. We are obsessed with caste and race and who is superior to whom, rather than with practical aspects of forming a cohesive society and getting on with things.

As I am the person who raised the caste issue of Porus in this thread at first, so need to clear few things;
Apart from typical habits of persons here and there and what they think, race and/or caste is a sub set of every discourse on history, anthropology, linguistics and culture. Our obsessions are our own problems stemming from our inferiority or superiority complexes etc but consideration of race is one of paramount factors that has to be investigated for an man that lived 2200 years ago.
At least for me, it is a matter of identification not superiority or inferiority.
Strong racial or tribal affiliations/prejudices has inverse relationship with cohesiveness in a multi-ethnic society, true, but why we should shy away form a scholarly discussion?

This thread is about the tactical methods used by Alexander and by Porus respectively; it is about military analysis...... Porus was, what his caste was, what his dynastic descent was, what god he worshipped, and all the rest of that................... Discussing those things is typical, and also pathetic; instead of discussing military systems and methods, perhaps with a view to understanding warfare and the development of warfare better..............
If, Porus was a Kshtriya, then we can discern his principles of warfare, weapons employed, etc. (in short, military systems and methods, as you wrote) in the light of huge plethora of literature, info, wisdom or lack of that, that is available to us in Mahabharata, Dhanurveda(s), Nitisaras, Agnipurana etc. etc.
For example, Greeks spoke of mighty bowmen of Indica, wielding a bow of equivalent height of bowman, whose one nock/edge has to be pressed with left foot after placing it on the ground and an arrow of about 3 cubit long can be discharge by pulling bow string way back the head. Now, I am unable to find any such bow which meet the description, method of holding the bow, method of discharge of arrow...... in any ancient literature of warfare mentioned above.
furthering my point, Greeks also spoke of a caste system, which, in my view, has only fleeting semblance of what we find in literature.
etc. etc.
And if Porus is not Kshtriya, then, I don't know what to make of it.

As a courtesy to the posters, I shall reply 124 and 125, and no more.
I would be thankful to you for your kind gesture, but I would hold that discussion is far from over.
For one, we had not established the decisive factor(s) in the success of Macedonian army and/or it was a victory of stalemate (remember...)?
 
There is an element of compulsion about this response which is unpleasant. The post to which I am responding was not really necessary, in my opinion. As it was made, and is on record, and demands a response if only to clear the air and clarify what an even earlier note intended to convey, it seems to be a compelling need to reply.

First, it is a typical Indian bad habit to get side-tracked into issues relating to societal structures and the politics of societal domination. All discourses, including historical, anthropological, linguistic and cultural discourses, have been diverted in this manner. We are obsessed with caste and race and who is superior to whom, rather than with practical aspects of forming a cohesive society and getting on with things.

This thread is about the tactical methods used by Alexander and by Porus respectively; it is about military analysis. It doesn't matter a dam what Porus was, what his caste was, what his dynastic descent was, what god he worshipped, and all the rest of that. Discussing those things is typical, and also pathetic; instead of discussing military systems and methods, perhaps with a view to understanding warfare and the development of warfare better, we are sitting around discussing social systems and structures, perhaps with a view to understanding society, social processes and the development of society better. That is good. It's just that such discussions are not appropriate for this forum. If any of you want, this can be taken off-forum. Write a mail to Thy Neighbours Life

As far as this thread is concerned, I am now looking for suggestions for the next battle to be considered, in a similar manner, on the basis of sources, rather than on the basis of our half-remembered anecdotal information, or our prejudices, inherited sometimes from distant ancestors, or said to be.

As a courtesy to the posters, I shall reply 124 and 125, and no more.

As I am the person who raised the caste issue of Porus in this thread at first, so need to clear few things;
Apart from typical habits of persons here and there and what they think, race and/or caste is a sub set of every discourse on history, anthropology, linguistics and culture. Our obsessions are our own problems stemming from our inferiority or superiority complexes etc but consideration of race is one of paramount factors that has to be investigated for an man that lived 2200 years ago.
At least for me, it is a matter of identification not superiority or inferiority.
Strong racial or tribal affiliations/prejudices has inverse relationship with cohesiveness in a multi-ethnic society, true, but why we should shy away form a scholarly discussion?

It is true that in a full and well-rounded consideration of an historical event, it is necessary to possess some elements, at least the essential elements of historiography, archaeology, linguistics and social anthropology. To that extent, you are justified in arguing that a consideration of the social anthropology of the opponents is relevant. That is a fair and proper evaluation in an abstract sphere, but it does not take into account the cultural and political context within which this discussion is taking place.

Your arguments are an insufficient reason to embark on an enquiry into race in this instance, in spite of what you have added in the later portions of your note. These are insufficient because of the very negative aspects of such an enquiry in the current political context. There are some keywords, Aryan, kshatriya, caste, that go into a contemporary political dialogue with very serious overtones, which is conducted by one side at least with a lack of information about the history of that dialogue: the historiographical foundation, so to speak. To take only the example of the Arya, it was originally not a racial term; it was a social distinction, a
"consciousness of upper-caste status in a system of varna-based society (sudras are not aryas); respectability of occupation or designation (scavengers are not aryas); using the Sanskrit language where others used a different languages; and worshipping the Vedic deities propitiated in hymns and initially as abstractions through sacrificial rituals, where others worship iconic or aniconic fertility and folk symbols through rituals other than large-scale sacrifices."
Gradually the concept of arya also changed. A Buddhist monk, essentially opposed to Vedic belief and ritual, breaking the rules of varna-based society and speaking Prakrit, was nevertheless addressed as arya by lay Buddhists as a mark of respect.

It was never about race. The subsequent use of Aryan by Europeans, and, imitating them, Indians was grossly incorrect. Aryan was a label for the Indo-Aryan languages, therefore the use of the word Aryan is legitimately a short-cut for 'speakers of Indo-Aryan languages', not for a racial category which could be defined as Aryan. Biology and linguistics should obviously never be confused. Unfortunately, they were confused; they are, in fact, confused in daily life in the context of the Indian political discourse that goes on.

This confusion was present in the writings of Max Mueller even though he admits clearly the distinction between race and language. At some subconscious level, he, however, persisted in that mistake, and in his writings, this confusion creeps in more than once. To him, a race of the Indo-Aryans went away westwards, into Iran; a race of those same Indo-Aryans invaded northern India and laid the foundation of Indian civilisation. These concepts are disastrously wrong, as has been established again and again by scholars working on these aspects. These concepts persist, however, sometimes in the form of belief-systems held by scholars. These concepts have, in fact, been taken up to justify the absorption, sometimes the forcible or coercive absorption of the tribal population into Hindu society.

I have used the concept arya and Arya to illustrate the point. The use and abuse of kshatriya, Jat and caste are similar. Their use gives rise to disastrous extrapolations into modern life, through the sheer power of the conceptual finesse and comprehensive nature of the varnasrama. (In case these descriptions are not understood as description, and finesse is taken as a compliment and a recommendation, let me state on record that I am opposed to varnasrama and to the caste system).

Kshatriya is used to indicate dominant status, and has been co-opted, without justification, by dominant sections of Indian society to imply some superiority of social status. Other than those who call themselves Varma, both in north India and in south India, there are no legitimate Kshatriyas who have survived into today's age and day. Some Varmas are those who have born the title from times immemorial; they are proably Kshatriya. Others took it originally as part of their name, not as caste descriptor but merely name; these include sudras; these are mistakenly considered to be Kshatriya.

The word Kshatriya itself has survived, and has been used, however, to legitimise feudal remnants, and to imply their dominant, leadership role in society, which is quite wrong and is positively dangerous, seeking as it does to set up a social system which subverts democracy and the democratic value of equality.

We can argue similarly against the idea of caste, and urge that it be swept away, however long it takes, and to avoid taking it as a socially significant category, or any category or concept that dilutes the democratic desideratum of equality.

If, Porus was a Kshtriya, then we can discern his principles of warfare, weapons employed, etc. (in short, military systems and methods, as you wrote) in the light of huge plethora of literature, info, wisdom or lack of that, that is available to us in Mahabharata, Dhanurveda(s), Nitisaras, Agnipurana etc. etc.

A horrible error. This places legitimate and acceptable sources of history in the same category as myth and fable. The equivalent examples may be illustrative. We accept Herodotus as authentic history, and, subject to critical analysis (elimination of men with one leg, gold-mining ants, those who slept in the shelter of their own ears), we take his account as a starting point in some instances. We do not take the Iliad and the Odyssey as history. Sources which inform us about Achaian Greek culture, perhaps, but not as history, not even as historical sources. Why, then, allow ourselves the luxury of converting our own myths into history, or as sources of history. This implies accepting the king-lists of the Puranas, the proto-history recorded in the Vedas and the Puranas, accepting the split into Puru-descended Bharat in the north of north India, and Turvasus and Yadus in the south of north India, accepting the Krishna myth as authentic, and tracing his troubles from an intrusion of the Yadu clan into the Mathura region, an internal usurpation of power by a sub-section of the ruling Yadus (and Vrishni and Astaka), a defeat of the usurper and threats from the suzerain in Magadha, leading to a precipitate flight into the Gujarat-Saurashtra region.

Are we to take this as historical fact? As we did Herodotus, in our parallel, eliminating daityas and danavas, and wonderful weapons shot from a bow which could destroy the world, all of creation for that matter, flying chariots, sons born of Asura wives who could change shape from a thumb-sized to a colossal giant who could kill an entire akshauhini in his fall?

If we are to bring these myths and fables in, and try to force fit the weapons-craft of the epics into real-life battles and wars, can we find anything comprehensible? It is certainly an option, but it is not an option for the professional or amateur historian, and by extrapolation, not an option for the military historian or the analyst. If we bring in one idiot example, we bring in the lot; we then have to submit to the earnest Pakistani army officer instructing his planners that one Pakistani soldier is equal to five Indian soldiers, only to be interrupted by his indignant senior, who intones that the correct ratio is one is to seven (the figures vary from fable to fable).

I can cite other examples from fanboy accounts of the Kargil conflict, or, to switch to the Indian side, some from the conflict with the Chinese in 62. From kshatriya, we are one short step away from martial races and the rest of that British mythology born out of their need to change the composition of their forces immediately after the Mutiny. From caste-based paradigms, we are one short step away from refusing to heed historical records about Bhils and Doms used as infantry in the west of India and the east respectively; they do not belong to the correct caste, so they can't possibly have been used).


For example, Greeks spoke of mighty bowmen of Indica, wielding a bow of equivalent height of bowman, whose one nock/edge has to be pressed with left foot after placing it on the ground and an arrow of about 3 cubit long can be discharge by pulling bow string way back the head. Now, I am unable to find any such bow which meet the description, method of holding the bow, method of discharge of arrow...... in any ancient literature of warfare mentioned above.

Why strain to find something in fabulous literature? This is incredible; your argument amounts to saying that an observation from real life is somehow illegitimate because it is not corroborated by myth!

furthering my point, Greeks also spoke of a caste system, which, in my view, has only fleeting semblance of what we find in literature.

Again, a dangerous fallacy. We have the accounts of the Greeks; we have a system described in the literature which perhaps never existed in real life, except as a theoretical taxonomy; and we have the reality as it exists around us today. Why must the first and the third be force-fitted to the dimensions demanded by the second?

And if Porus is not Kshtriya, then, I don't know what to make of it.

How this dilemma exists in the first place is difficult to understand. It seems - again - that your assessment of the historical record is determined by its validation by mythology.

Are you serious?


I would be thankful to you for your kind gesture, but I would hold that discussion is far from over.
For one, we had not established the decisive factor(s) in the success of Macedonian army and/or it was a victory of stalemate (remember...)?

This is perfectly correct, and perfectly out of context. My self-imposed restriction was to avoid any commitment to sorting out the mish-mash of fable and myth and literary quandary that could possibly be deployed around a caste-description of Porus which is not established, not by writers who knew the significance and context of caste, and which in any case has nothing to do with the battle per se.

If it had not drifted, and we had still been at a consideration of the reasons for arguing either for a decisive victory for the Macedonians or a stalemate, I would have participated very happily. That option, as it seemed by the diversion that the discussion took, was no longer left to me.
 
...............That is a fair and proper evaluation in an abstract sphere, but it does not take into account the cultural and political context within which this discussion is taking place.

Your arguments are an insufficient reason to embark on an enquiry into race in this instance, in spite of what you have added in the later portions of your note. These are insufficient because of the very negative aspects of such an enquiry in the current political context.



My arguments provide insufficient 'reasons' because of very negative aspects of such enquiry in current political context...... Errr.....What?

Issues of race, castes etc are very relevant in current political, cultural context.... your points taken,............. but caste or race of Porus is wholly different matter, a question of history; already made amply clear by me. what if we strip the Porus of its ethnicity, then what would remain of cultural and political figure, Puru (making a point only) would be Porus? ... it would leave a gap (in fact left a gap), in my opinion.
If we say (lets assume 'history' is hazy ), was the Alexander a Greek or a Macedonian, or it would not matter, what is your pick?


Joe Shearer said:
Gradually the concept of arya also changed. A Buddhist monk, essentially opposed to Vedic belief and ritual, breaking the rules of varna-based society and speaking Prakrit, was nevertheless addressed as arya by lay Buddhists as a mark of respect.

It was never about race. The subsequent use of Aryan by Europeans, and, imitating them, Indians was grossly incorrect. Aryan was a label for the Indo-Aryan languages, therefore the use of the word Aryan is legitimately a short-cut for 'speakers of Indo-Aryan languages', not for a racial category which could be defined as Aryan. Biology and linguistics should obviously never be confused. Unfortunately, they were confused; they are, in fact, confused in daily life in the context of the Indian political discourse that goes on.

This confusion was present in the writings of Max Mueller even though he admits clearly the distinction between race and language. At some subconscious level, he, however, persisted in that mistake, and in his writings, this confusion creeps in more than once. To him, a race of the Indo-Aryans went away westwards, into Iran; a race of those same Indo-Aryans invaded northern India and laid the foundation of Indian civilisation. These concepts are disastrously wrong, as has been established again and again by scholars working on these aspects. These concepts persist, however, sometimes in the form of belief-systems held by scholars. These concepts have, in fact, been taken up to justify the absorption, sometimes the forcible or coercive absorption of the tribal population into Hindu society.

I have used the concept arya and Arya to illustrate the point. The use and abuse of kshatriya, Jat and caste are similar. Their use gives rise to disastrous extrapolations into modern life, through the sheer power of the conceptual finesse and comprehensive nature of the varnasrama. (In case these descriptions are not understood as description, and finesse is taken as a compliment and a recommendation, let me state on record that I am opposed to varnasrama and to the caste system).

Kshatriya is used to indicate dominant status, and has been co-opted, without justification, by dominant sections of Indian society to imply some superiority of social status. Other than those who call themselves Varma, both in north India and in south India, there are no legitimate Kshatriyas who have survived into today's age and day. Some Varmas are those who have born the title from times immemorial; they are proably Kshatriya. Others took it originally as part of their name, not as caste descriptor but merely name; these include sudras; these are mistakenly considered to be Kshatriya.

The word Kshatriya itself has survived, and has been used, however, to legitimise feudal remnants, and to imply their dominant, leadership role in society, which is quite wrong and is positively dangerous, seeking as it does to set up a social system which subverts democracy and the democratic value of equality.
Now all above is a Pandora's box, waiting to burst open, I will not touch it now, as few words will derail the discussion, but move to next very interesting observations.

Joe Shearer said:
A horrible error. This places legitimate and acceptable sources of history in the same category as myth and fable. The equivalent examples may be illustrative. We accept Herodotus as authentic history, and, subject to critical analysis (elimination of men with one leg, gold-mining ants, those who slept in the shelter of their own ears), ................... Gujarat-Saurashtra region.

The same 'practice' of critical appraisal (as afforded to Herodotus) may be applied to Dhanurvedas etc,(ok... I took little liberty of mentioning texts only with out clearing my point); if we critically analysis say, freely available, dhanurveda portion of Sranghadara Paddhati, we can appreciate the technical aspects of archery ......... and if this is't the case, then say bye bye to your all ancient texts of medicine, philosophy, astronomy, warfare (already included), buildings and construction, jurisprudence etc etc. and sit tight and ask someone; what is that thing which rises from that side in every morning and gives light and heat?

Joe Shearer said:
Why strain to find something in fabulous literature? This is incredible; your argument amounts to saying that an observation from real life is somehow illegitimate because it is not corroborated by myth!

This is indeed much more than incredible; we find that a description of a unique weapon in a historical account by an out sider, and insiders who maintain an incredibly profuse amount of literature on all most any thing has no account of that, not even in paintings, reliefs, etc.

Very long ago, I read about a similar bow and discharge method by Chaldean (?....this I don't remember) and arrow could traverse that much distance etc,.... if anyone may help me with my memory?

Joe Shearer said:
Again, a dangerous fallacy. We have the accounts of the Greeks; we have a system described in the literature which perhaps never existed in real life, except as a theoretical taxonomy; and we have the reality as it exists around us today. Why must the first and the third be force-fitted to the dimensions demanded by the second?
Void (absence of historical records) existed, not only from Greeks, but much before and much after, and in this void, we have, literature, books after books,.... but no society or culture, nothing on ground, so to speak (here I am touching the Pandora's Box).
Surely, nothing was stagnant, every thing moved on its part of evolution, every thing change, but what was the change, how it changed? So what should we do? Discard all as pure garbage, fables, fairytale, myths.......

Joe Shearer said:
How this dilemma exists in the first place is difficult to understand. It seems - again - that your assessment of the historical record is determined by its validation by mythology.

Are you serious?
Dilemma is no more, as Kshtriya and all, figments of imaginations. I am thoroughly relieved. No more pieces to put together.
At this stage of post, I am feeling funny.
 
Thank you for taking the trouble to write in response to my rather laboured and lengthy post. For the sake of readability, I will break up my thoughts on your points into single sections, and perhaps, if there is sufficient material on both sides, attempt a reconciliation in a final, separate post.

Joe Shearer said:
...............That is a fair and proper evaluation in an abstract sphere, but it does not take into account the cultural and political context within which this discussion is taking place.

Your arguments are an insufficient reason to embark on an enquiry into race in this instance, in spite of what you have added in the later portions of your note. These are insufficient because of the very negative aspects of such an enquiry in the current political context.

Alternative said:
My arguments provide insufficient 'reasons' because of very negative aspects of such enquiry in current political context...... Errr.....What?

Issues of race, castes etc are very relevant in current political, cultural context.... your points taken,............. but caste or race of Porus is wholly different matter, a question of history; already made amply clear by me. what if we strip the Porus of its ethnicity, then what would remain of cultural and political figure, Puru (making a point only) would be Porus? ... it would leave a gap (in fact left a gap), in my opinion.
If we say (lets assume 'history' is hazy ), was the Alexander a Greek or a Macedonian, or it would not matter, what is your pick?

Joe Shearer said:
Gradually the concept of arya also changed. A Buddhist monk, essentially opposed to Vedic belief and ritual, breaking the rules of varna-based society and speaking Prakrit, was nevertheless addressed as arya by lay Buddhists as a mark of respect.

It was never about race. The subsequent use of Aryan by Europeans, and, imitating them, Indians was grossly incorrect. Aryan was a label for the Indo-Aryan languages, therefore the use of the word Aryan is legitimately a short-cut for 'speakers of Indo-Aryan languages', not for a racial category which could be defined as Aryan. Biology and linguistics should obviously never be confused. Unfortunately, they were confused; they are, in fact, confused in daily life in the context of the Indian political discourse that goes on.

This confusion was present in the writings of Max Mueller even though he admits clearly the distinction between race and language. At some subconscious level, he, however, persisted in that mistake, and in his writings, this confusion creeps in more than once. To him, a race of the Indo-Aryans went away westwards, into Iran; a race of those same Indo-Aryans invaded northern India and laid the foundation of Indian civilisation. These concepts are disastrously wrong, as has been established again and again by scholars working on these aspects. These concepts persist, however, sometimes in the form of belief-systems held by scholars. These concepts have, in fact, been taken up to justify the absorption, sometimes the forcible or coercive absorption of the tribal population into Hindu society.

I have used the concept arya and Arya to illustrate the point. The use and abuse of kshatriya, Jat and caste are similar. Their use gives rise to disastrous extrapolations into modern life, through the sheer power of the conceptual finesse and comprehensive nature of the varnasrama. (In case these descriptions are not understood as description, and finesse is taken as a compliment and a recommendation, let me state on record that I am opposed to varnasrama and to the caste system).

Kshatriya is used to indicate dominant status, and has been co-opted, without justification, by dominant sections of Indian society to imply some superiority of social status. Other than those who call themselves Varma, both in north India and in south India, there are no legitimate Kshatriyas who have survived into today's age and day. Some Varmas are those who have born the title from times immemorial; they are proably Kshatriya. Others took it originally as part of their name, not as caste descriptor but merely name; these include sudras; these are mistakenly considered to be Kshatriya.

The word Kshatriya itself has survived, and has been used, however, to legitimise feudal remnants, and to imply their dominant, leadership role in society, which is quite wrong and is positively dangerous, seeking as it does to set up a social system which subverts democracy and the democratic value of equality.

Alternative said:
Now all above is a Pandora's box, waiting to burst open, I will not touch it now, as few words will derail the discussion, but move to next very interesting observations.
Joe Shearer said:
A horrible error. This places legitimate and acceptable sources of history in the same category as myth and fable. The equivalent examples may be illustrative. We accept Herodotus as authentic history, and, subject to critical analysis (elimination of men with one leg, gold-mining ants, those who slept in the shelter of their own ears), ................... Gujarat-Saurashtra region.

Alternative said:
The same 'practice' of critical appraisal (as afforded to Herodotus) may be applied to Dhanurvedas etc,(ok... I took little liberty of mentioning texts only with out clearing my point); if we critically analysis say, freely available, dhanurveda portion of Sranghadara Paddhati, we can appreciate the technical aspects of archery ......... and if this is't the case, then say bye bye to your all ancient texts of medicine, philosophy, astronomy, warfare (already included), buildings and construction, jurisprudence etc etc. and sit tight and ask someone; what is that thing which rises from that side in every morning and gives light and heat?

Joe Shearer said:
Why strain to find something in fabulous literature? This is incredible; your argument amounts to saying that an observation from real life is somehow illegitimate because it is not corroborated by myth!

Alternative said:
This is indeed much more than incredible; we find that a description of a unique weapon in a historical account by an out sider, and insiders who maintain an incredibly profuse amount of literature on all most any thing has no account of that, not even in paintings, reliefs, etc.

Very long ago, I read about a similar bow and discharge method by Chaldean (?....this I don't remember) and arrow could traverse that much distance etc,.... if anyone may help me with my memory?
Joe Shearer said:
Again, a dangerous fallacy. We have the accounts of the Greeks; we have a system described in the literature which perhaps never existed in real life, except as a theoretical taxonomy; and we have the reality as it exists around us today. Why must the first and the third be force-fitted to the dimensions demanded by the second?

Alternative said:
Void (absence of historical records) existed, not only from Greeks, but much before and much after, and in this void, we have, literature, books after books,.... but no society or culture, nothing on ground, so to speak (here I am touching the Pandora's Box).
Surely, nothing was stagnant, every thing moved on its part of evolution, every thing change, but what was the change, how it changed? So what should we do? Discard all as pure garbage, fables, fairytale, myths.......
Joe Shearer said:
How this dilemma exists in the first place is difficult to understand. It seems - again - that your assessment of the historical record is determined by its validation by mythology.

Are you serious?

Alternative said:
Dilemma is no more, as Kshtriya and all, figments of imaginations. I am thoroughly relieved. No more pieces to put together.
At this stage of post, I am feeling funny.
 
My answers, interpolated, in RED; segregated, after your comment, in BLACK.

...............That is a fair and proper evaluation in an abstract sphere, but it does not take into account the cultural and political context within which this discussion is taking place.

Your arguments are an insufficient reason to embark on an enquiry into race in this instance, in spite of what you have added in the later portions of your note. These are insufficient because of the very negative aspects of such an enquiry in the current political context.
By Joe Shearer

My arguments provide insufficient 'reasons' because of very negative aspects of such enquiry in current political context...... Errr.....What?

Issues of race, castes etc are very relevant in current political, cultural context.... your points taken,.............

Should this factor itself not serve as a warning line against going into unscientific speculation? Leaving aside all other reasons?

but caste or race of Porus is wholly different matter, a question of history; already made amply clear by me. what if we strip the Porus of its ethnicity, then what would remain of cultural and political figure, Puru (making a point only) would be Porus? ... it would leave a gap (in fact left a gap), in my opinion.
If we say (lets assume 'history' is hazy ), was the Alexander a Greek or a Macedonian, or it would not matter, what is your pick?
By Alternative

Two points in response: as Niaz pointed out, in studying history, the cultural and political context of Porus has to be established to some degree of certainty. In studying military history, however, this is not necessary; unless we seek to establish that there was some cultural or racial factor, or some other, non-material idealistic reason for trends in battle, we really don't need to know Porus' ancestry.

Some speculative elements have already been presented; there is simply not enough material to establish anything one way or the other, as the only persons to report on the battle had insufficient knowledge of the cultural context to say anything from which any material evidence can be teased out.

So why flog a dead horse? There is nothing else left to come; this is not Wikileaks, with a new disclosure every day; this is established history and all the evidence is in, in front of us, with nothing left to go.

Coming to your question about Alexander:

If we say (lets assume 'history' is hazy ), was the Alexander a Greek or a Macedonian, or it would not matter, what is your pick?

very simply, if it is a question of his context in Greek history, the reasons for his attack on Athens and on Sparta, his assumption of office as Hegemon of the League, if it is a question of justification of his attack on Persia, it is important to know that he was Macedonian. So also his inheritance of a particular military organisation, a phalanx coupled with a body of heavy infantry and the Companion cavalry, separate from and independent of the light cavalry: it is important to know that Philip II had created the organisation, Alexander practised with it in small campaigns within Greece and perfected his skills before he crossed the Dardanelles.

If it is a question of his battle tactics, his campaign strategies and the analysis of his methods in each of his major battles, Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes, it really doesn't matter. The tactics are known, their effects on the enemy are known, the movements and manoeuvres of the troops at each stage are known, except for the details of the methods by which the Alexandrians kept the shock of the elephant charges at the Hydaspes to a minimum. It doesn't matter whether Alexander was a Greek or a Macedonian, or a Hottentot, as far as the victories at these four battles are concerned.
 
Gradually the concept of arya also changed. A Buddhist monk, essentially opposed to Vedic belief and ritual, breaking the rules of varna-based society and speaking Prakrit, was nevertheless addressed as arya by lay Buddhists as a mark of respect.
It was never about race. The subsequent use of Aryan by Europeans <snip> to legitimise feudal remnants, and to imply their dominant, leadership role in society, which is quite wrong and is positively dangerous, seeking as it does to set up a social system which subverts democracy and the democratic value of equality.

By Joe Shearer

Now all above is a Pandora's box, waiting to burst open, I will not touch it now, as few words will derail the discussion, but move to next very interesting observations.
By Alternative

Noted; there will be a watch on the Rhine!
 
My answers, interpolated, in RED; segregated, after your comment, in BLACK.

Joe Shearer said:
A horrible error. This places legitimate and acceptable sources of history in the same category as myth and fable. The equivalent examples may be illustrative. We accept Herodotus as authentic history, and, subject to critical analysis (elimination of men with one leg, gold-mining ants, those who slept in the shelter of their own ears), ................... Gujarat-Saurashtra region.

Alternative said:
The same 'practice' of critical appraisal (as afforded to Herodotus) may be applied to Dhanurvedas etc,(ok... I took little liberty of mentioning texts only with out clearing my point); if we critically analysis say, freely available, dhanurveda portion of Sranghadara Paddhati, we can appreciate the technical aspects of archery .........

Regrettably, not valid.

IF you submit a critical analysis of these ancient texts for peer review by established historians, knowledgeable in historical methods and in the evaluation of historical evidence, and these analyses are found acceptable, then, by all means, bring these in for consideration. use them in support of your case.

Until that time, however, it amounts to saying that it is possible to sail around the moon in a yacht rigged ketch, without actually doing so.

If you are so sure that this can be done, do it and show us.

Any other action, for instance, including any anecdotal evidence known to you and outside history will seem as important to you as including evidence from accepted research.


and if this is't the case, then say bye bye to your all ancient texts of medicine, philosophy, astronomy, warfare (already included), buildings and construction, jurisprudence etc etc. and sit tight and ask someone; what is that thing which rises from that side in every morning and gives light and heat?

This does not follow, either. Medicine, astronomy, building and construction, all these have been explored and enhanced through the ages until they hardly resemble what was known originally. The original sources are no longer useful or necessary, not in these disciplines. There have been such extensive advances in these disciplines that there is little connection left any longer.

In philosophy, war-fare and jurisprudence, the original sources have a value beyond their apparent value. Over the years, things have changed. Learning what has changed, and how it underwent changes,and what were the stimuli for change is important in these examples that you have mentioned, philosophy, war-fare and jurisprudence.

Clearly, then, some disciplines are best interpreted with relation to their original sources, others with regard to their current state. History, and especially military history, is emphatically to be analysed with a firm grip on the original sources. These original sources do not include fabulous accounts, or myths, or mentions in texts not critically evaluated.

That is why we should not waste our time on fanciful accounts that none other have witnessed. Unless you want to write the history of Central Asia from the Tilism-e-Hoshruba.

Joe Shearer said:
Why strain to find something in fabulous literature? This is incredible; your argument amounts to saying that an observation from real life is somehow illegitimate because it is not corroborated by myth!
Alternative said:
This is indeed much more than incredible; we find that a description of a unique weapon in a historical account by an out sider, and insiders who maintain an incredibly profuse amount of literature on all most any thing has no account of that, not even in paintings, reliefs, etc.

Very long ago, I read about a similar bow and discharge method by Chaldean (?....this I don't remember) and arrow could traverse that much distance etc,.... if anyone may help me with my memory?

Tell me, which aspect of the Battle of Hydaspes has been covered by legendary accounts? The chariots? Were the chariots driven the same way, did they contain the same type of warrior, fighting the same way as in the Mahabharata? The archers? Any prior record? In either the Mahabharata or the Ramayana? Or perhaps in the Dhanurveda? Leave aside the fact that this dealt with the horn-bow, not the single-curved bow of the classic accounts, neither Arjuna nor Karna would have qualified to learn it; none other than Dronacharya, Kripacharya and Aswatthama, actually, out of all the protagonists in the battle of Kurukshetra.

This may sound sarcastic; it isn't intended to be, but unfortunately, juxtaposing the proposition made with the facts available does sound risible. That's not my fault; that's the way things are.
 
As usual: interpolations in RED, external comments in BLACK:

Joe Shearer said:
Again, a dangerous fallacy. We have the accounts of the Greeks; we have a system described in the literature which perhaps never existed in real life, except as a theoretical taxonomy; and we have the reality as it exists around us today. Why must the first and the third be force-fitted to the dimensions demanded by the second?

Alternative said:
Void (absence of historical records) existed, not only from Greeks, but much before and much after, and in this void, we have, literature, books after books,.... but no society or culture, nothing on ground, so to speak (here I am touching the Pandora's Box).
Surely, nothing was stagnant, every thing moved on its part of evolution, every thing change, but what was the change, how it changed? So what should we do? Discard all as pure garbage, fables, fairytale, myths.......

Bluntly, YES.

We do not make up for lack of historical sources by borrowing from the myths and legends.

Literature, without evidence on the ground, is highly suspect. Corroboration through anthropology or through an original source is necessary.

Examples: the Chanson de Roland and the actual events.

Joe Shearer said:
How this dilemma exists in the first place is difficult to understand. It seems - again - that your assessment of the historical record is determined by its validation by mythology.

Are you serious?

Alternative said:
Dilemma is no more, as Kshtriya and all, figments of imaginations. I am thoroughly relieved. No more pieces to put together.
At this stage of post, I am feeling funny.

It is not that Kshatriyas did not exist, it is just that they do not survive into historical times with any clear connection. All the imperial dynasties, in fact all the known figures, are not Kshatriya. So where did these Kshatriyas get to, after the age of the epics, or at best, after the age of the Buddha himself (the Buddha being a Kshatriya himself, as was Mahavir Jain)?
 
My answers, interpolated, in RED; segregated, after your comment, in BLACK.

Two points in response: as Niaz pointed out, in studying history, the cultural and political context of Porus has to be established to some degree of certainty. In studying military history, however, this is not necessary; unless we seek to establish that there was some cultural or racial factor, or some other, non-material idealistic reason for trends in battle, we really don't need to know Porus' ancestry.

History and Military history, whats the difference? if any, does not confine to battlefield only, but also studies effects on people, culture, economy etc. etc. (really don't need to tell you...)
What I am unable to comprehend, why should't we discuss the caste/race issues of Porus or any other historical person?
Should we stop asking questions when we feel that it would have negative effects in socio-politico-cultural context in current scenario?....... Yes, may be....circumstances has to be considered..
But, for a King/Warrior who lived 2200 years ago, in a period that race/caste had paramount effects from his birth to his burial rites, a very valid inquiry.

Joe Shearer said:
Some speculative elements have already been presented; there is simply not enough material to establish anything one way or the other, as the only persons to report on the battle had insufficient knowledge of the cultural context to say anything from which any material evidence can be teased out.

So why flog a dead horse? There is nothing else left to come; this is not Wikileaks, with a new disclosure every day; this is established history and all the evidence is in, in front of us, with nothing left to go.

Yes historical resources are deficient, but we can't call any historical inquiry a 'flogging a dead horse' whether or not their seem to be historical records available or not. Questions will not stop coming (and never had), whether or not records are available or not.
I can't find a single instance in history books where question of ancestry/clan/tribe was not raised for a historical figure of some substance (I may be terribly wrong on this), whether or not sufficient historical records were available or not.

Coming to your question about Alexander:
...................................................................................... It doesn't matter whether Alexander was a Greek or a Macedonian, or a Hottentot, as far as the victories at these four battles are concerned.

One had this and that, Other had this and that, One did this this, Other did that that, Result, One over came Other. OK, Who are 'One' and 'Other.'
No account of any battle can not be considered complete without knowing the belligerents.
Victories may be resulted form better equipment, better training, better moral, better application of all avaiable resources etc etc but historians would always ask; who were the belligerents?
 
Back
Top Bottom