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

[Alternative]

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.

I just did that and that was lost on you, because you are clubbing all with History.
I gave the example of Archery, from a fabled account, which can pass the litmus test of present day practices and logic, of course, if we study it critically.

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.

Fallacy on your part.
Let us compare what was the status of English medicine and Ayurveda, about 200 years ago and what is the current position of each?
Why are you comparing it in this time frame?
Extensive advances have been made, by whom, in what theory, on what lines?
Same case with Construction....yes, knowledge has increased by leaps and bounds, but by whom, whose practices continue to follow evolutionary path? (I some time get amazed by concept in design of stairs, roofs, etc when happen to observe some old Havali/building... ancient practices and knowledge, all lost, down the drain of time.....)
Critical study of texts was not taken, all was considered fables.....not worthy of effort.....

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.

In this part I would only want to add that Indian Philosophy/Darshan, main six branches, are not considered Philosophy by western sources and termed as 'speculative thinking'. Why?

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.

Don't be facetious. Between, have you read Tilism-e-Hoshruba?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The easiest way to respond to your suggestions is by a differentiation between general history and military history. The problem with this approach is that if you refuse to consider this an instance of military history, or if you refuse to accept any differentiation, this solution is unusable.

Let us leave this dilemma aside for the time being and see what we have in the detailed response that you have made.

My answers, interpolated, in BLUE; 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...)

Here we have the refusal of rules of engagement. Between a view that holds that history and military history are essentially different, and a view that holds both are the same, it is difficult to find a meeting place.

Here my justification is that we are, in fact, not considering people, culture, economy, etc., etc., but are considering, within the context of a battle the appreciation of one commander's position, options and intentions.

It is certainly not a water-tight barrier between the two, but in this we have actually chosen the scope of our discussion, in military history.

If this were general history, a consideration of the effects of Athenian democracy, the militaristic Macedonian army-which-possessed-a-kingdom, and the imperial Persian bureaucracy on the armies that each summoned would be most relevant, provided, of course, that we were able to deploy as much knowledge about the methods of statecraft known to Indians at those times, and the probable nature of Porus' kingdom and its internal processes were known to us, or had prospects of being known to us.

It is not general history, but you are of the opinion that that shouldn't make such a difference. Let us grant you the point; such distinctions would be possible to establish in a discussion and within a context where these academic distinctions are considerably stronger, and carry the protection of academic sanction; here, they do not, as we have seen, and it is better not to insist on it. The second problem still remains for your attention: there is no further evidence, so what would you like to do? And here, let us willingly agree that 'absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence'.

What I am unable to comprehend, why should't we discuss the caste/race issues of Porus or any other historical person?

Because there is nothing to discuss, no evidence? Oh, right, evidence doesn't matter, absence of evidence, etc.; the discussion does.

If that is what you want, by all means let us. You go first.

But a preliminary hymn to an inebriated Clio:

Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.

And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.

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..

At last.....

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.

This has all the freshness and appeal of Ground Hog Day. In principle, good. In practice, bad. It is not at all clear that the practices of 2,200 years ago required a differentiation of the birth rites, maturity rituals and death and burial rites of a human being, depending on his or her race or caste, except for the upper three castes being different from the fourth, the Sudra. Any further differentiation seen toda This is a comparatively recent development, and extrapolating it backwards into historical times is bad history. At that

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.

Let us resign ourselves to it: ask your questions. Forgive me for interrupting.....

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.

No, no, go ahead. Just remember, he's probably not a Jat, not a Rajput. The overwhelming indirect evidence is that he was a Kshatriya, but this is indirect evidence, it is generic evidence relating to the Vedic and Puranic ages, and does not take into account the plethora of contrary examples in the east of the Gangetic basin. Perhaps rightly, considering the attenuation of the acculturation process as it spread down the Ganges, considering that the old ways were freshest in the Punjab itself, as well as in the upper reaches of the Yamuna-Ganga Doab.

But we digress..........

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war.....

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.'

'One'=Alexander III of Macedon, part-Illyrian, part-Macedonian king of Macedon, son of Philip II and Olympia;
'Other'=A king of a small tribe in the doaba of the Hydaspes and Hyphasis.

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?

The question here is what historians would do after asking, and getting for themselves, after due diligence, to borrow a phrase from my daily life, a blank response. The question is whether they move on, or return to this one, in a kind of fated, doomed return.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

I just did that and that was lost on you, because you are clubbing all with History.
I gave the example of Archery, from a fabled account, which can pass the litmus test of present day practices and logic, of course, if we study it critically.

But I thought that the archery example was invalid, because the text quoted, the Dhanurveda, dealt with the recurved bow, and is a very late text besides?

And I thought sticking to history was the least common denominator. We had agreed on history being the discipline to be used.

Apparently I was wrong on basics! :-(

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.

Fallacy on your part.
Let us compare what was the status of English medicine and Ayurveda, about 200 years ago and what is the current position of each?
Why are you comparing it in this time frame?
Extensive advances have been made, by whom, in what theory, on what lines?
Same case with Construction....yes, knowledge has increased by leaps and bounds, but by whom, whose practices continue to follow evolutionary path? (I some time get amazed by concept in design of stairs, roofs, etc when happen to observe some old Havali/building... ancient practices and knowledge, all lost, down the drain of time.....)
Critical study of texts was not taken, all was considered fables.....not worthy of effort.....

You have a point. But that itself supports mine: our practices have not kept pace.

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.

In this part I would only want to add that Indian Philosophy/Darshan, main six branches, are not considered Philosophy by western sources and termed as 'speculative thinking'. Why?

I don't know, and I believe this will divert us from the topic.

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.

Don't be facetious. Between, have you read Tilism-e-Hoshruba?

Yes, on reading Yasser Latif Hamdani's rave reviews, and that it was better than Harry Potter. Like hell it was! I want my money back!!

 

[Alternative]

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?

Greek accounts don't tell any thing lest whatever you asking, so we don't have description(s), so no comparison is possible.

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,

If you mean that Paddhati dealt with horn-bow,(a composite bow..?) and classic accounts (???) single curve bow (a kind of straight or flat bow )? I am little confused here,..... as per my understanding, two basic shapes of different sizes were followed by ancients (excluding crossbows), one is the flat or straight and other the recurved shape... and techniques of manufacture and/or materials used, included single material construction, pieces of laminated wood, composite i.e., combination of wood, horn and sinew, etc...
so you are essentially saying that Paddhati deals with horn-bow, a composite, so its teaching can't be applied to a straight bow, Why, if I may ask?

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.

Kshtriyas were not qualified, but the Brahmans were?...please tell me how or why?
Or, this has some thing to do with 'immortality' thing, chiranjeevani, you have presumed that in Mahabharata time no horn-bow production technology known and only single curve bows were available, and above three could only out lived that period?..... very funny.

 

[Alternative]

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.





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)?

We only want to critically analyse (don't know how many time I used this term) the available fables.
As of Kshatriyas, none existed, figments of out of control imaginative powers of ancient poets. OK please quote the historical evidence/references that Kshatriyas, as fables made them, existed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Now this response of yours either means that we are reading different accounts, or that we are speaking about the same thing in different terms.

First, Greek accounts give a fairly full description, as I thought the records made clear, of all weaponry; secondly, they are the only descriptions that we have. To discard them in favour of literary records, merely because the literary records have some mention of topics that we wish to discuss, is to discard the proven tested historical record in favour of the unproven. We might just as well depend on a poem for historical evidence. Not that this has not been done, in a manner that distresses historians but about which they are relatively helpless, except to wring their hands and wail - more or less what I'm doing.

Third, the Dhanurveda that I read described a recurved bow, and while that is not exclusively a horseman's bow, the difference is more or less that. Foot archers tend to use straight bows; that is what the Welsh and then the English archers used in the mediaeval wars, and that is what I believe the Indian myths say were used in mythical accounts; in other words, there is no record of a curved bow, and I assume that it was the simpler version.

Presumably, Turks and Mongols also used their bows dismounted, so for a foot-soldier to use a recurved bow is not as far-fetched as I might seem to have implied earlier. In the Dhanurveda, however, a recurved bow is exclusively mentioned, and from the account that we have, a recurved bow of a height greater than the height of the archer implies a pull-weight well beyond the strength of any but a Titan to wield. You might like to speculate that it may have been precisely this very high pull-weight that was symbolised in the unstringable bows occurring in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but in the absence of evidence, this must remain with the straight bow.

Fourth, the Dhanurveda mentioned that Brahmins should be taught the bow, Kshatriyas the sword, Vaisyas the lance, and Sudras the mace. It does sound like a bit of brahmanical nonsense, rather than a serious weapons manual.

Perhaps you are using a different Dhanurveda?

Greek accounts don't tell any thing lest whatever you asking, so we don't have description(s), so no comparison is possible.


If you mean that Paddhati dealt with horn-bow,(a composite bow..?) and classic accounts (???) single curve bow (a kind of straight or flat bow )? I am little confused here,..... as per my understanding, two basic shapes of different sizes were followed by ancients (excluding crossbows), one is the flat or straight and other the recurved shape... and techniques of manufacture and/or materials used, included single material construction, pieces of laminated wood, composite i.e., combination of wood, horn and sinew, etc...
so you are essentially saying that Paddhati deals with horn-bow, a composite, so its teaching can't be applied to a straight bow, Why, if I may ask?


Kshtriyas were not qualified, but the Brahmans were?...please tell me how or why?
Or, this has some thing to do with 'immortality' thing, chiranjeevani, you have presumed that in Mahabharata time no horn-bow production technology known and only single curve bows were available, and above three could only out lived that period?..... very funny.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I thought I had sent out a detailed response, but it appears that the gremlins of the Internet have got me.

Greek accounts don't tell any thing lest whatever you asking, so we don't have description(s), so no comparison is possible.

This is truly confusing.

What is it precisely, that the Greek histories do not share with us? What additional material were you expecting, that you have failed to get?

If you mean that Paddhati dealt with horn-bow,(a composite bow..?) and classic accounts (???) single curve bow (a kind of straight or flat bow )? I am little confused here,..... as per my understanding, two basic shapes of different sizes were followed by ancients (excluding crossbows), one is the flat or straight and other the recurved shape... and techniques of manufacture and/or materials used, included single material construction, pieces of laminated wood, composite i.e., combination of wood, horn and sinew, etc...
so you are essentially saying that Paddhati deals with horn-bow, a composite, so its teaching can't be applied to a straight bow, Why, if I may ask?

Again, before we go further, the reality check needed is to ask you which Dhanurveda you are looking at. Then we can sort out why our perceptions are so vastly different. We can examine the common text, once we know what it is..

Kshtriyas were not qualified, but the Brahmans were?...please tell me how or why?
Or, this has some thing to do with 'immortality' thing, chiranjeevani, you have presumed that in Mahabharata time no horn-bow production technology known and only single curve bows were available, and above three could only out lived that period?..... very funny.

This is from the Dhanurved. More you cite it, the better it is.

We only want to critically analyse (don't know how many time I used this term) the available fables.
As of Kshatriyas, none existed, figments of out of control imaginative powers of ancient poets. OK please quote the historical evidence/references that Kshatriyas, as fables made them, existed.

 

[Alternative]

Here we have the refusal of rules of engagement. Between a view that holds that history and military history are essentially different, and a view that holds both are the same, it is difficult to find a meeting place.

Here my justification is that we are, in fact, not considering people, culture, economy, etc., etc., but are considering, within the context of a battle the appreciation of one commander's position, options and intentions.

There is no refusal on my part; discussion had broadened to include caste and other matters, and you pointed out the these are not a part of Military history.... so my was that if we are discussing an issue then what if it is little bit off topic (Mods, please have little patience)

The second problem still remains for your attention: there is no further evidence, so what would you like to do? And here, let us willingly agree that 'absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence'.
Because there is nothing to discuss, no evidence? Oh, right, evidence doesn't matter, absence of evidence, etc.; the discussion does.

If that is what you want, by all means let us. You go first.

I raised a question, few hypothesis were presented and discussed, few including me persisted with question, interesting info exchanged, most, probably knew that a concrete answer would not be forthcoming. You, somehow don't seem to like the question itself. OK Fine.

But a preliminary hymn to an inebriated Clio:

Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.

And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.

Not again.......

This has all the freshness and appeal of Ground Hog Day. In principle, good. In practice, bad. It is not at all clear that the practices of 2,200 years ago required a differentiation of the birth rites, maturity rituals and death and burial rites of a human being, depending on his or her race or caste, except for the upper three castes being different from the fourth, the Sudra. Any further differentiation seen toda This is a comparatively recent development, and extrapolating it backwards into historical times is bad history. At that

In Porus's time, there was no Sudra or such.
Caste differentiation was there,then, and conversely, how could you surely say that caste would not effects on daily life?
I maintain that caste differences were there, and rites 'would be' different for sure as can be evidenced empirically.
In short, caste was factor, significant enough to be considered now, unfortunately we are unable to determine that, if it could be done, may be we could solve the mystery of "Kshatriya".

..... Just remember, he's probably not a Jat, not a Rajput. The overwhelming indirect evidence is that he was a Kshatriya, but this is indirect evidence, it is generic evidence relating to the Vedic and Puranic ages, and does not take into account the plethora of contrary examples in the east of the Gangetic basin. Perhaps rightly, considering the attenuation of the acculturation process as it spread down the Ganges, considering that the old ways were freshest in the Punjab itself, as well as in the upper reaches of the Yamuna-Ganga Doab.

This is the post that I was looking for and would request for further elaboration "plethora of contrary examples in the east of Gangetic basin............"

One'=Alexander III of Macedon, part-Illyrian, part-Macedonian king of Macedon, son of Philip II and Olympia;
'Other'=A king of a small tribe in the doaba of the Hydaspes and Hyphasis.

'One' had it all and 'Other' don't even have a proper noun.

...... a blank response. The question is whether they move on, or return to this one, in a kind of fated, doomed return.

One would move on and other would ask question and try to find the answer, this is how the History move on.

 

[Alternative]

But I thought that the archery example was invalid, because the text quoted, the Dhanurveda, dealt with the recurved bow, and is a very late text besides?

And I thought sticking to history was the least common denominator. We had agreed on history being the discipline to be used.

Apparently I was wrong on basics! :-(

Recurve or straight bow don't matter, what matter in this example is age of text. The paddhati is a very late text, but is was based on Siva Dhanurveda Samhita (Gupta age..?). This make it a worthy example.

Discussion, it seems has taken new dimensions.

You have a point. But that itself supports mine: our practices have not kept pace.

Here you are very soft........considerate, but this is not that simple.

I don't know, and I believe this will divert us from the topic.

Sure will.

Yes, on reading Yasser Latif Hamdani's rave reviews, and that it was better than Harry Potter. Like hell it was! I want my money back!!

I am sorry for your loss, may be your money was spent on a better cause.
Tilism-e-Hoshruba is considered the pinnacle of Urdu prose (i.e., in Urdu) as such never replicated in its beauty, fullness and expression of language. Second best is the Fasana Azad by Ratan Nath Sarshar.

 

[Alternative]

Now this response of yours either means that we are reading different accounts, or that we are speaking about the same thing in different terms.

First, Greek accounts give a fairly full description, as I thought the records made clear, of all weaponry; secondly, they are the only descriptions that we have. To discard them in favour of literary records, merely because the literary records have some mention of topics that we wish to discuss, is to discard the proven tested historical record in favour of the unproven. We might just as well depend on a poem for historical evidence. Not that this has not been done, in a manner that distresses historians but about which they are relatively helpless, except to wring their hands and wail - more or less what I'm doing.

Greek accounts of Hydaspes mention Chariots, but do they mention its size/description....two wheelers or four wheelers (I know I am stretching it a bit)? how many persons manned it with what weapons...... one, with javelins? or two ... one driver,other with bow or javelins, or five.... one driver, two with bows or javelins and two with shields?
Similarly, Cavalry, whether heavily armored or lightly or if had any at all, carried lances(what size) or javelins or bows or else.
Infantry, it had long bows, what else, what armor if any.
I will not talk further about the fabled sources, already made my point many time of critical analysis.

Er... Second?.... missing

Third, the Dhanurveda that I read described a recurved bow, and while that is not exclusively a horseman's bow, the difference is more or less that. Foot archers tend to use straight bows; that is what the Welsh and then the English archers used in the mediaeval wars, and that is what I believe the Indian myths say were used in mythical accounts; in other words, there is no record of a curved bow, and I assume that it was the simpler version.

Presumably, Turks and Mongols also used their bows dismounted, so for a foot-soldier to use a recurved bow is not as far-fetched as I might seem to have implied earlier. In the Dhanurveda, however, a recurved bow is exclusively mentioned, and from the account that we have, a recurved bow of a height greater than the height of the archer implies a pull-weight well beyond the strength of any but a Titan to wield. You might like to speculate that it may have been precisely this very high pull-weight that was symbolised in the unstringable bows occurring in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but in the absence of evidence, this must remain with the straight bow.

Here you are mixing shape of the bow with construction technique.
Paddhati of Sarngadhara describes a horn-bow, a composite bow, Ok, but was it recurved, is pure speculation on your part.
Welsh/English used single material, straight (yew) long bows in medieval age, correct, but bows of Indian myths were, whether,straight or curved, what type of construction, is an open debate, unsettled one..........Agni Purana etc. tell the materials(wood, horn and steel) used in bow making but don't tell about the shape and technique of manufacture.
(I know how, presumably, ancient Indian bows were made, but won't tell, you will ask for a historical reference, which I don't have any).

Between single piece construction bows could be recurved to increase power.

You might like to speculate that it may have been precisely this very high pull-weight that was symbolised in the unstringable bows occurring in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but in the absence of evidence, .......

A valid point indeed,.... an empirical evidence.

Fourth, the Dhanurveda mentioned that Brahmins should be taught the bow, Kshatriyas the sword, Vaisyas the lance, and Sudras the mace. It does sound like a bit of brahmanical nonsense, rather than a serious weapons manual.

Critical analysis, Critical analysis, Critical analysis, Critical analysis, ............

 

[Alternative]

I thought I had sent out a detailed response, but it appears that the gremlins of the Internet have got me.

This is truly confusing.
What is it precisely, that the Greek histories do not share with us? What additional material were you expecting, that you have failed to get?

Explained in previous posts.

Again, before we go further, the reality check needed is to ask you which Dhanurveda you are looking at. Then we can sort out why our perceptions are so vastly different. We can examine the common text, once we know what it is..

Srangadhara Paddhati, which in turn was largely based on Siva Dhanurveda Samhita, mentioned many times.
Reason of confusion is that you are mixing the shape of bow to that of construction technique.

Now last response, in your cascading style adopted in your previous posts;

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.

Kshtriyas were not qualified, but the Brahmans were?...please tell me how or why?
Or, this has some thing to do with 'immortality' thing, chiranjeevani, you have presumed that in Mahabharata time no horn-bow production technology known and only single curve bows were available, and above three could only out lived that period?..... very funny.

This is from the Dhanurved. More you cite it, the better it is.

This is the correct order and self explanatory.


Too many intervening posts, I agree, with you PM, you may take the initiative for the direction of thread.

 

[Joe Shearer]

READERS, PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST UNTIL THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN AWAY. AS A RESULT OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF SUB-DIVISIONS, WHOSE SUBJECTS ACTUALLY RUN INTO EACH OTHER RATHER THAN RUNNING SEPARATELY, IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO COMBINE EVERYTHING INTO ONE MONSTER DOCUMENT, WHICH THEN HAS TO BE SORTED, LABELLED AND ANSWERED. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE OFF-LINE, BUT THEN IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO CHECK THE APPEARANCE OF THE SUBMISSION, AND MAKE CORRECTIONS FOR BETTER READILITY IN THE LINE OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH CHECKS. THEREFORE THIS HUGE BLOT ON THE PAGES.​

Here we have the refusal of rules of engagement. Between a view that holds that history and military history are essentially different, and a view that holds both are the same, it is difficult to find a meeting place.

Here my justification is that we are, in fact, not considering people, culture, economy, etc., etc., but are considering, within the context of a battle the appreciation of one commander's position, options and intentions.
Original Post By Joe Shearer
There is no refusal on my part; discussion had broadened to include caste and other matters, and you pointed out the these are not a part of Military history.... so my was that if we are discussing an issue then what if it is little bit off topic (Mods, please have little patience)

The second problem still remains for your attention: there is no further evidence, so what would you like to do? And here, let us willingly agree that 'absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence'.
Because there is nothing to discuss, no evidence? Oh, right, evidence doesn't matter, absence of evidence, etc.; the discussion does.

If that is what you want, by all means let us. You go first.
By Joe Shearer
I raised a question, few hypothesis were presented and discussed, few including me persisted with question, interesting info exchanged, most, probably knew that a concrete answer would not be forthcoming. You, somehow don't seem to like the question itself. OK Fine.


But a preliminary hymn to an inebriated Clio:

Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.

And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.
By Joe Shearer
Not again.......

This has all the freshness and appeal of Ground Hog Day. In principle, good. In practice, bad. It is not at all clear that the practices of 2,200 years ago required a differentiation of the birth rites, maturity rituals and death and burial rites of a human being, depending on his or her race or caste, except for the upper three castes being different from the fourth, the Sudra. Any further differentiation seen toda This is a comparatively recent development, and extrapolating it backwards into historical times is bad history. At that
By Joe Shearer
In Porus's time, there was no Sudra or such.
Caste differentiation was there,then, and conversely, how could you surely say that caste would not effects on daily life?
I maintain that caste differences were there, and rites 'would be' different for sure as can be evidenced empirically.
In short, caste was factor, significant enough to be considered now, unfortunately we are unable to determine that, if it could be done, may be we could solve the mystery of "Kshatriya".

..... Just remember, he's probably not a Jat, not a Rajput. The overwhelming indirect evidence is that he was a Kshatriya, but this is indirect evidence, it is generic evidence relating to the Vedic and Puranic ages, and does not take into account the plethora of contrary examples in the east of the Gangetic basin. Perhaps rightly, considering the attenuation of the acculturation process as it spread down the Ganges, considering that the old ways were freshest in the Punjab itself, as well as in the upper reaches of the Yamuna-Ganga Doab.
This is the post that I was looking for and would request for further elaboration "plethora of contrary examples in the east of Gangetic basin............"

One'=Alexander III of Macedon, part-Illyrian, part-Macedonian king of Macedon, son of Philip II and Olympia;
'Other'=A king of a small tribe in the doaba of the Hydaspes and Hyphasis.
'One' had it all and 'Other' don't even have a proper noun.

...... a blank response. The question is whether they move on, or return to this one, in a kind of fated, doomed return.
One would move on and other would ask question and try to find the answer, this is how the History move on.

But I thought that the archery example was invalid, because the text quoted, the Dhanurveda, dealt with the recurved bow, and is a very late text besides?

And I thought sticking to history was the least common denominator. We had agreed on history being the discipline to be used.

Apparently I was wrong on basics! :-(
Original Post By Joe Shearer
Recurve or straight bow don't matter, what matter in this example is age of text. The paddhati is a very late text, but is was based on Siva Dhanurveda Samhita (Gupta age..?). This make it a worthy example.

Discussion, it seems has taken new dimensions.

You have a point. But that itself supports mine: our practices have not kept pace.
By Joe Shearer
Here you are very soft........considerate, but this is not that simple.

I don't know, and I believe this will divert us from the topic.
By Joe Shearer
Sure will.

Yes, on reading Yasser Latif Hamdani's rave reviews, and that it was better than Harry Potter. Like hell it was! I want my money back!!
By Joe Shearer
I am sorry for your loss, may be your money was spent on a better cause.
Tilism-e-Hoshruba is considered the pinnacle of Urdu prose (i.e., in Urdu) as such never replicated in its beauty, fullness and expression of language. Second best is the Fasana Azad by Ratan Nath Sarshar.

Now this response of yours either means that we are reading different accounts, or that we are speaking about the same thing in different terms.

First, Greek accounts give a fairly full description, as I thought the records made clear, of all weaponry; secondly, they are the only descriptions that we have. To discard them in favour of literary records, merely because the literary records have some mention of topics that we wish to discuss, is to discard the proven tested historical record in favour of the unproven. We might just as well depend on a poem for historical evidence. Not that this has not been done, in a manner that distresses historians but about which they are relatively helpless, except to wring their hands and wail - more or less what I'm doing.
Original Post By Joe Shearer
Greek accounts of Hydaspes mention Chariots, but do they mention its size/description....two wheelers or four wheelers (I know I am stretching it a bit)? how many persons manned it with what weapons...... one, with javelins? or two ... one driver,other with bow or javelins, or five.... one driver, two with bows or javelins and two with shields?
Similarly, Cavalry, whether heavily armored or lightly or if had any at all, carried lances(what size) or javelins or bows or else.
Infantry, it had long bows, what else, what armor if any.
I will not talk further about the fabled sources, already made my point many time of critical analysis.

Er... Second?.... missing

Third, the Dhanurveda that I read described a recurved bow, and while that is not exclusively a horseman's bow, the difference is more or less that. Foot archers tend to use straight bows; that is what the Welsh and then the English archers used in the mediaeval wars, and that is what I believe the Indian myths say were used in mythical accounts; in other words, there is no record of a curved bow, and I assume that it was the simpler version.

Presumably, Turks and Mongols also used their bows dismounted, so for a foot-soldier to use a recurved bow is not as far-fetched as I might seem to have implied earlier. In the Dhanurveda, however, a recurved bow is exclusively mentioned, and from the account that we have, a recurved bow of a height greater than the height of the archer implies a pull-weight well beyond the strength of any but a Titan to wield. You might like to speculate that it may have been precisely this very high pull-weight that was symbolised in the unstringable bows occurring in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but in the absence of evidence, this must remain with the straight bow.
By Joe Shearer
Here you are mixing shape of the bow with construction technique.
Paddhati of Sarngadhara describes a horn-bow, a composite bow, Ok, but was it recurved, is pure speculation on your part.
Welsh/English used single material, straight (yew) long bows in medieval age, correct, but bows of Indian myths were, whether,straight or curved, what type of construction, is an open debate, unsettled one..........Agni Purana etc. tell the materials(wood, horn and steel) used in bow making but don't tell about the shape and technique of manufacture.
(I know how, presumably, ancient Indian bows were made, but won't tell, you will ask for a historical reference, which I don't have any).

Between single piece construction bows could be recurved to increase power.

You might like to speculate that it may have been precisely this very high pull-weight that was symbolised in the unstringable bows occurring in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but in the absence of evidence, .......
By Joe Shearer
A valid point indeed,.... an empirical evidence.

Fourth, the Dhanurveda mentioned that Brahmins should be taught the bow, Kshatriyas the sword, Vaisyas the lance, and Sudras the mace. It does sound like a bit of brahmanical nonsense, rather than a serious weapons manual.
Critical analysis, Critical analysis, Critical analysis, Critical analysis, ............

I thought I had sent out a detailed response, but it appears that the gremlins of the Internet have got me.

This is truly confusing.
What is it precisely, that the Greek histories do not share with us? What additional material were you expecting, that you have failed to get?
Original Post By Joe Shearer
Explained in previous posts.


Again, before we go further, the reality check needed is to ask you which Dhanurveda you are looking at. Then we can sort out why our perceptions are so vastly different. We can examine the common text, once we know what it is..
By Joe Shearer
Srangadhara Paddhati, which in turn was largely based on Siva Dhanurveda Samhita, mentioned many times.
Reason of confusion is that you are mixing the shape of bow to that of construction technique.

Now last response, in your cascading style adopted in your previous posts;

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.
By Joe Shearer
Kshtriyas were not qualified, but the Brahmans were?...please tell me how or why?
Or, this has some thing to do with 'immortality' thing, chiranjeevani, you have presumed that in Mahabharata time no horn-bow production technology known and only single curve bows were available, and above three could only out lived that period?..... very funny.
By Alternative
This is from the Dhanurved. More you cite it, the better it is.
By Joe Shearer
This is the correct order and self explanatory.


Too many intervening posts, I agree, with you PM, you may take the initiative for the direction of thread.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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 ?

As there is a very messy reconciliation of several posts, around twelve or so, going on, I may be forced to take some time to answer this.

However, a brief answer (I am so deeply submerged in the details of the main discussion that I cannot even remember if this brief answer has been attempted earlier!):

1. The Mahajanapadas were as you have pointed out, tribal confederacies and republics, which emerged from the earlier single-tribe states of the Puranic period;
2. Their typical constitution was republican, with exceptions: monarchical Mahajanapadas existed;
3. If the predominant constitutional mode of Mahajanapadas was republican, it could not have been that Porus, a king, was a member of a republican confederacy;
4. Putting aside everything, the two Mahajanapadas which qualify are Kuru and Panchal;

Was Porus' kingdom part of a Mahajanapada or not? There is no way of knowing. We need to know if all Mahajanapadas were republican or there were monarchical M'padas?

If they were exclusively republican, how long did they last? By the time of the Maurya dynasty, none of its neighbours, except the Licchavis, were reputedly republican; were there unreported republicans, therefore? Of those that ceased to be republican, is there any confirmation regarding the locations of these converted republics? Was the location of Porus' kingdom among those confirmed?

If they were not exclusively republican, what was the location of the monarchical pockets? Was Porus' kingdom in one of these located and identified monarchical pockets?

It is these reasons, these uncertainties, which hold us back from answering your question. They have to be presented after thorough study, and only then can you have the reasoned response that you may be expecting.

 

[eastwatch]

For starters, I'm not your friend. We happen to be posting to a common thread on a common forum. That's all.

As far as the rest is concerned, since you are so deft with proverbs and quotations, here is one for you: you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Knowledge and information can be presented to you in copious quantities; if you prefer to dwell in the warm glow of family legends, that's your choice.

I have deleted it, because I thought it may disturb the flow of main discussion.

 

[Alternative]

@Joe Shearer, I think, you are too impolite and arrogant. Reading a few chapters of history books should not allow you to indulge in throwing barbs at others at ease. Learn the basics of a civilized society.

How wrong you are;
The extant and depth of Knowledge, on many disciplines(I wonder if you could only name a few ) .... coupled with amazing display of expression and language, so effortlessly displayed by him (Joe Shearer) is the result of life long ardor, not some "reading a few chapters of history book".