When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Pakistanis eat fish? I thought they only enjoyed meat of ungalates

 

[Haryanvi Jat]

If you call a "barsati nalla" a river, then good luck. I used to catch fishes in such barsati nalla during monsoon season.

Are you Dumb???? [emoji53][emoji53] I said Saraswati was a river. Saraswati's origin dried and it became a seasonal river.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Readers who are bemused by the bizarre theories being trotted out may take comfort from my friend's blog:

https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/parthian-shot/will-you-brand-mir-jafar-a-hero/

 

[Taimoor Khan]

It is merely amusing and nothing more to see that the lack of non-Greek sources leads to a conclusion that the missing evidence proves your illusory case. You say that the majority of accounts mentioned by the Greeks are this, that or the other; when did the Greeks monopolise the narration? It may, or may not, have come to your notice that there is a mix of Greek and non-Greek sources in these histories; you mention Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch; let's see what that gives us:

• Curtius: Quintus Curtius Rufus - Roman, probably 1st century, about 400 years after Alexander; only book was his book on Alexander, originally in ten books, but available in badly patched up form, in nine books, each of which was in further incomplete, damaged condition; to draw conclusions about Hydaspes and its aftermath from his account is to look at the blanks and fill them up with one's own imagination. Roughly an approximation of your approach. His sources are not clear; since he mentions Cleitarchus (an historian in the Macedonian camp), Ptolemy and Timagenes, there is some speculation that he may have used their eye-witness accounts, since lost.
• Justin: Marcus Junianus Justinus Frontinus - Roman, 2nd century (one analyst says 4th century) therefore either 500 or 700 years after Alexander; his book was an excerpt of another book, by Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus, an earlier historian, from whose work he made excerpts. Not very accurate excerpts; he used the opportunity to moralise, rather than sticking to an excerpt. The original was a history of the Macedonian kings, not of Alexander alone.
• Diodorus: Diodorus Siculus (of Sicily) - Greek, 1st century BC, some 200 years after Alexander. He wrote a history of the world in 40 'books' (chapters). The history of Alexander is in the sections (chapters) 7 to 17, of which only 11 to 17 survive; so we have most of Alexander's life and times contained in this surviving section. He used a number of sources.
• Arrian: Arrianos, Arrian of Nicomedia, Romanised as Lucus Flavius Arrianus - Greek, 2nd century (probably around the time of Justin, if the traditional thoughts about his dates are accepted). He was a military officer himself, and that makes his accounts of Alexander more attractive. Generally, historians have taken Arrian the most seriously of the whole lot. He wrote a most attractive collection of books: on Alexander, modelling it on the famous Anabasis of Xenophon; a work on India, based on Megasthenes and on Nearchos the sailor; on hunting dogs, specifically a type of hound, and its characteristics and uses; on cavalry training; on a campaign against the Alans, which he won with the two legions at his command, and in which he describes the post-battle exploitation to be used, in terms of how the Greeks had used it in their time. Used to be considered the best account surviving.
• Plutarch: Ploutarchos, Romanised as a Roman citizen to Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus - Greek, 1st century, around 400 years after Alexander. Probably the most anecdotal, and the least useful from the point of view of concrete fact and evidence.

Is the point clear? It was not the Greeks, it was a collection of sources on which these accounts rest. Of the set that are usually cited, three are Greek, all Romanised Greeks, meaning, no Greeks that were writing in times when Greek cities were independent; two are Roman.

Read what you wrote here and come back to me after having a reflection. Your pathetic attempts are actually proving my point. The narrative of Alexander winning this battle are all hearsay, legends, a crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blonde boy.

If you read the accounts, the passages through the mountains were not simple; there was every reason to believe that by reaching the sea, the army would have a safe and assured passage back home. Before marching down, and actually encountering enemies that they did encounter, they had no idea that some of the biggest challenges were still ahead.

That they headed south willingly was precisely the reason that it becomes clear that Alexander's army was not disinclined to fight, was not defeated and discouraged, but were willing to march through the plains and get to the sea.

You may like to read The Anabasis, where, when the inland-bound Greeks finally saw the Black Sea from an elevation, they broke into shouts,"Thalassa! Thalassa!" It needs more than a querulous, skimpy knowledge of history, twisted to form a self-serving account, to understand this campaign or what happened. If you could break away from your strenuous effort to prove that the people in the location of the present Pakistani Punjab defeated the world-conquering army of their times, you might make better sense.

OK, take a deep breath, relax and READ again. I will try to be concise as possible here to make it easy for you to understand.

Alexender came to subcontinent to plunder its wealth and expand its empire. For him not to go further east into what is now India, does not make any sense what so ever , as the lands and its wealth have always been the prime reason for the foreign invaders to control this region, right down to the Britishers.

I dont have to speak with you in eight different languages to get some simple facts across.

Lets assume for argument sake that he won battle of Hydespas, why didnt he march further down east? after all that was his direction of moment coming from bactria into Indus plains.

When you say that Nandas on east were more powerful and Alexenader army after taking heavy toll in battle of hydespas simply didnt want walk into more trouble , that implies that they knew what lies ahead, in military terms, they had the intelligence. On this basis it will be foolish to assume that the Greeks did not have the same information of on what challenges lies in south going downstream Indus. If the movement towards east was not made due to challenges there, its plain stupid to assume that Greek army will simply walk into more trouble, considering all the loses they incurred. Mind you, battle of hydespas was the most bloody war fought by Alexander.

For once leave what the history says, just war game this. Ask yourself, after the battle of Jehlum, why Alexander didnt march further east and leave his main goal of plundering and expanding his empire in subcontinent? We are told that his army were "home sick" and tired , wanted to go back home. Even if we take that as truth, why venture into hostile and uncharted territory down south when knowing that the most safest passage is where he came from, as the lands were his own domain, Taxilla and bactria. The arugment that mountain terrain going back towards west was difficult is quite frankly pathetic when the circumstances were as they were. What Alexender was trying to achieve going towards Arabian sea? There was no floatia that was accompanying him that will be waiting for him on makran coast to ferry back to Babylon.


As it has been said:

"Handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad"

Are you Dumb???? [emoji53][emoji53] I said Saraswati was a river. Saraswati's origin dried and it became a seasonal river.

That is what we call barsati nalla.

The sites are equally large..morover dur to lack of funds the Pakistani sites will dissappear by 2030..this is what Pakistani scientists are claiming..I am saying what is on our territory is ouir civilization, what is on your territory is your civilization..India and Pakistan are completely two different civilizations

Yes we are two different civilization and those sites you mentioned are part of our, Pakistani civilization, not Indian civilization. Do not be confused by current maps and borders. Indian civlization can be traced into ganges plains.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

@Taimoor Khan If that was the case people of NorthWest India would have readily accepted Islam to differentiate themselves from the Gangetic plain...on the contrary people of North West India (Jammu till Northern edge of Maharashtra) are even more vigorously Hindu than Gangetic plain ..they are way more vegetarian..if anything the elite class of the North West have a soft corner for Buddhism....look at how much both Nehru and Modi promote Buddhism at the expense of Hinduism ...(Modi wines and dines Asians leaders at old Buddhist monasteries in his state, names every second new train after Buddhist personalities aka "Mahanama" express)


But the funny thing is Buddhism is an innovation of the Gangadesh


and your statement is like saying Karachi is an outpost of Lahore..both Karachi and Lahore are great cities in their own right, and are not outposts of the other

We are completely different people..Lothal is completely different from Harappa

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Taimoor Khan If that was the case people of NorthWest India would have readily accepted Islam to differentiate themselves from the Gangetic plain...on the contrary people of North West India (Jammu till Northern edge of Maharashtra) are even more vigorously Hindu than Gangetic plain ..they are way more vegetarian..if anything the elite class of the North West have a soft corner for Buddhism....look at how much both Nehru and Modi promote Buddhism at the expense of Hinduism ...(Modi wines and dines Asians leaders at old Buddhist monasteries in his state, names every second new train after Buddhist personalities aka "Mahanama" express)


But the funny thing is Buddhism is an innovation of the Gangadesh


and your statement is like saying Karachi is an outpost of Lahore..both Karachi and Lahore are great cities in their own right, and are not outposts of the other

We are completely different people..Lothal is completely different from Harappa

Glad you agree that Pakistan and India have nothing in common.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Glad you agree that Pakistan and India have nothing in common.

But people whose ancestors have been in India for half a century to a century are Indians

 

[MultaniGuy]

But people whose ancestors have been in India for half a century to a century are Indians

I do not understand your post.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

I do not understand your post.

Look at Machurians who invaded in conquered China..they were a nomadic people or at least more similiar to nomadic Mongols by their own account than the farming Chinese....They invaded Ming China in 1644...Their emperors were afraid that Manchus would lose their nomadic warrior ways and would become soft like Chinese...so Manchu emperors reintroduced Manchu Shamanism among the Manchu soldiers to differentiate themselves from Chinese Confucianism and Taoism...Manchu emperors insituted the royal imperial hunt for Manchu soldiers and other nomadic soldiers annually in Central Asia/steppes...Chinese soldiers were not allowed...but even all these measures could not stop Manchus from becoming Chinese...by 1771 Manchu emperors stopped their royal hunt and started following Chinese spirituality instead of their shamanism..and then started Manchu downfall and the Century of Humiliation


I am saying many Afghan people (semi-nomadic or nomadic culture) came to India and settled in Rohilkhand and Bundelkhand...but because they were among farming Indians, they slowly became Indians...their old ways , customs and lifestyles were lost to Indian farming

even when they returned to Pakistan after Parition, they were looked at, thought of , identified as Indians only...or more pejoratively Gangoos

 

[MultaniGuy]

Look at Machurians who invaded in conquered China..they were a nomadic people or at least more similiar to nomadic Mongols by their own account than the farming Chinese....They invaded Ming China in 1644...Their emperors were afraid that Manchus would lose their nomadic warrior ways and would become soft like Chinese...so Manchu emperors reintroduced Manchu Shamanism among the Manchu soldiers to differentiate themselves from Chinese Confucianism and Taoism...Manchu emperors insituted the royal imperial hunt for Manchu soldiers and other nomadic soldiers annually in Central Asia/steppes...Chinese soldiers were not allowed...but even all these measures could not stop Manchus from becoming Chinese...by 1771 Manchu emperors stopped their royal hunt and started following Chinese spirituality instead of their shamanism..and then started Manchu downfall and the Century of Humiliation


I am saying many Afghan people (semi-nomadic or nomadic culture) came to India and settled in Rohilkhand and Bundelkhand...but because they were among farming Indians, they slowly became Indians...their old ways , customs and lifestyles were lost to Indian farming

even when they returned to Pakistan after Parition, they were looked at, thought of , identified as Indians only...or more pejoratively Gangoos

Those who live in India are Indians.

Those who live in Pakistan are Pakistanis.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Those who live in India are Indians.

Those who live in Pakistan are Pakistanis.

But what about those Pakistanis who have their roots in India?


A lot of Muslim Indians dearly want to be Pakistanis though...

 

[MultaniGuy]

But what about those Pakistanis who have their roots in India?


A lot of Muslim Indians dearly want to be Pakistanis though...

They are no longer Indians.

Once they live in Pakistan, they are Pakistanis.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I said Saraswati was a river. Saraswati's origin dried and it became a seasonal river.

Please read this thread. The Saraswati myth has been "busted".

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-fraud-of-saraswati-river-hindu-myth-busted.419558/

friend's blog

I would love to ask the Karnatka Minister Mr Kageri how would it be possible for Albanians to swell with pride over the achievements of far away Swedes - who are some 1,000 miles away? Possibly by playing the "European" denominator but that would be gasping for air. That is exactly what it looks if you place the sub-continent on top of Europe. Porus' kingdom falls around Sweden. Karnatka falls in Albania.

And here is the South Asian context.

I love use these maps/infographics as they convey the facts better than 5,000 words could do. Just think Albanians bragging about how some Swedish warrior king fought some invader. And if anybody uses the "continent" as a common denominator do note so is Europe a continent with a shared history/culture etc.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Read what you wrote here and come back to me after having a reflection. Your pathetic attempts are actually proving my point. The narrative of Alexander winning this battle are all hearsay, legends, a crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blonde boy.

And against this hearsay, these legends, these crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blond boy, what do you oppose?

Unwritten history, interpolations into the record to read what has not been explicitly denied, quotations from blog-sites, including, the most laughable instance, Indian Defence blog sites, the polar opposites of PDF?

You don't even know whom you are citing: there is no historian named Badge.

Do you even understand that I am a formal student of history, that Alexander's campaign was studied at great depth, that I was a kind of unpaid assistant to a presentation that sought to prove in the 60s that Hydaspes was not such an outright victory as it was made out to be, to an audience that included an appreciative but unconvinced R. C. Majumdar? And you oppose these vague sites, and their totally spurious narrations to this?

OK, take a deep breath, relax and READ again. I will try to be concise as possible here to make it easy for you to understand.

If we could only interpret conciseness as absence, it would be so intellectually appealing.

Alexender came to subcontinent to plunder its wealth and expand its empire. For him not to go further east into what is now India, does not make any sense what so ever , as the lands and its wealth have always been the prime reason for the foreign invaders to control this region, right down to the Britishers.

He was more than willing; what gave you the impression that Alexander did not want to go further?

And since you claim to be so learned in this matter, are you even aware that there was a reason other than the lands and their wealth for Alexander to seek to go further east in the first place? Think about it; you know nothing about the campaign and about the happenings except whatever shallow knowledge exists on the web.

I dont have to speak with you in eight different languages to get some simple facts across.

Speaking logically in one language would suffice. Unfortunately, in the absence of that, even eighty languages will not do.

Lets assume for argument sake that he won battle of Hydespas, why didnt he march further down east? after all that was his direction of moment coming from bactria into Indus plains.

Because his soldiers didn't want to go on.

When you say that Nandas on east were more powerful and Alexenader army after taking heavy toll in battle of hydespas simply didnt want walk into more trouble , that implies that they knew what lies ahead, in military terms, they had the intelligence.

It implies NOTHING, except that you don't know your subject.

The description of the territory and its armament further east were explicitly mentioned as coming from specific sources; there was no implication, that is not a term needed if you knew Jack Squat about the sources.

Read:

<general comment by R. S. Tripathi, in History of Ancient India> During their progress towards the Hyphasis Alexander's troops had heard all sorts of alarming rumours that beyond it there were extensive and uninviting deserts, impetuous and unfathomable rivers, and, what was more disquieting, powerful and wealthy nations maintaining huge armies.

Tripathi cites two original sources:

<Curtius> Curtius represents Phegeus (Phegelis?), identified with Bhagala, as giving the following information to Alexander: the further bank of the Ganges was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king Agrammes kept in the field for guarding the approaches to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, and what was most formidable force of all, a troop of elephants, which ran up to the number of 3,000.

<Plutarch> Similarly Plutarch says that the kings of the Gangaritai and Prasiai were reported to be waiting for him with an army of 80,000 horse and 200,000 foot, 8,000 war chariots and 6,000 fighting elephants.

For the information of those not like @Taimoor Khan, born as latter-day Jowetts, who knew all about everything from birth, Gangaridae is an obvious derivation from Ganga, Prasii is only the nominative of Prachya, eastern.

More later: @Kaptaan has posted, and I need to attend. Don't forget your medication.

On this basis it will be foolish to assume that the Greeks did not have the same information of on what challenges lies in south going downstream Indus. If the movement towards east was not made due to challenges there, its plain stupid to assume that Greek army will simply walk into more trouble, considering all the loses they incurred. Mind you, battle of hydespas was the most bloody war fought by Alexander.

For once leave what the history says, just war game this. Ask yourself, after the battle of Jehlum, why Alexander didnt march further east and leave his main goal of plundering and expanding his empire in subcontinent? We are told that his army were "home sick" and tired , wanted to go back home. Even if we take that as truth, why venture into hostile and uncharted territory down south when knowing that the most safest passage is where he came from, as the lands were his own domain, Taxilla and bactria. The arugment that mountain terrain going back towards west was difficult is quite frankly pathetic when the circumstances were as they were. What Alexender was trying to achieve going towards Arabian sea? There was no floatia that was accompanying him that will be waiting for him on makran coast to ferry back to Babylon.


As it has been said:

"Handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad"




That is what we call barsati nalla.




Yes we are two different civilization and those sites you mentioned are part of our, Pakistani civilization, not Indian civilization. Do not be confused by current maps and borders. Indian civlization can be traced into ganges plains.

Read what you wrote here and come back to me after having a reflection. Your pathetic attempts are actually proving my point. The narrative of Alexander winning this battle are all hearsay, legends, a crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blonde boy.

...against which you oppose unwritten history? You put up all that has not been explicitly denied?

Are you serious?

OK, take a deep breath, relax and READ again. I will try to be concise as possible here to make it easy for you to understand.

Alexender came to subcontinent to plunder its wealth and expand its empire. For him not to go further east into what is now India, does not make any sense what so ever , as the lands and its wealth have always been the prime reason for the foreign invaders to control this region, right down to the Britishers.

I dont have to speak with you in eight different languages to get some simple facts across.

Lets assume for argument sake that he won battle of Hydespas, why didnt he march further down east? after all that was his direction of moment coming from bactria into Indus plains.

When you say that Nandas on east were more powerful and Alexenader army after taking heavy toll in battle of hydespas simply didnt want walk into more trouble , that implies that they knew what lies ahead, in military terms, they had the intelligence.

On this basis it will be foolish to assume that the Greeks did not have the same information of on what challenges lies in south going downstream Indus. If the movement towards east was not made due to challenges there, its plain stupid to assume that Greek army will simply walk into more trouble, considering all the loses they incurred. Mind you, battle of hydespas was the most bloody war fought by Alexander.

For once leave what the history says, just war game this. Ask yourself, after the battle of Jehlum, why Alexander didnt march further east and leave his main goal of plundering and expanding his empire in subcontinent? We are told that his army were "home sick" and tired , wanted to go back home. Even if we take that as truth, why venture into hostile and uncharted territory down south when knowing that the most safest passage is where he came from, as the lands were his own domain, Taxilla and bactria. The arugment that mountain terrain going back towards west was difficult is quite frankly pathetic when the circumstances were as they were. What Alexender was trying to achieve going towards Arabian sea? There was no floatia that was accompanying him that will be waiting for him on makran coast to ferry back to Babylon.


As it has been said:

"Handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad"




That is what we call barsati nalla.




Yes we are two different civilization and those sites you mentioned are part of our, Pakistani civilization, not Indian civilization. Do not be confused by current maps and borders. Indian civlization can be traced into ganges plains.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

@Joe Shearer would you consider RC Mazumder the best among nationalist historians? the most level headed ?

and who is better Mazumder or DD Kosambi?

I will not interrupt this thread anymore as long as you and @Kaptaan are conversing

best wishes to both of you