I meant what would now be Iraq; it was traditionally a part of the Persian empire. I should have been more exact.csharma wrote: There were a bunch of Ottoman-Persian wars but Persia remained independent of Ottoman rule.
Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat
Thanks. Would you know from which century did there control of eastern europe started? Also why was france not attacked again after Tours?Sanku wrote:The Turks did reach Austria and laid siege to Vienna in 1529. Even though they could not take Austria they did control much of East europe and Greece etc till the 19th century when a expanding Europe with strength from colonial loot broke Ottoman power. Greece continued with Ottomans till such time.peter wrote: We do read about attack after attack on India but not on europe after Tours.
What was the reason despite initial forays being defeated in India too?
They did control Egypt Persia et al. along with Europe at the same time.
What "saved" Europe was Europe then consolidated substantially under the Hapsburgs as well as looking at the war as a continuation of the holy war or the crusade (the last bit is my own understanding)
All in all not what you would call unaffected by Turks.
Were turks and persians of same sect? Also which two kings fought from each side?csharma wrote:Turks actually laid siege to Vienna a couple of times. In 16th century when the Ottomans were at the peak of their power, Europe Christendom actually feared for its survival.
However, they did not rule Persia. There were a bunch of Ottoman-Persian wars but Persia remained independent of Ottoman rule.
Arabia was under their control.
In effect Turks held sway over vast expanses of land from parts of Europe to India.
Airavat
Could I take your attention to a different battle in the history.
Accoding to Greek historians who wrote after the battle of Jhelum between Alexander and Porus 325BC (I do not have the refernence), it is said that Indian soldier did not wear any protection (Armor) and carried a sword much inferior to the Greek. Also the Javelin the Indian carried could not pierce the Greek armor.
Not only above, the Indians followed the age old tactic of fighting in day light hours, whereas Alexander carried out his classical move of crossing the river at night when Indians were asleep. Later defensive moves by Porus to protect his flanks prove to be useless.
What say you? Is it all true?
Then Porus was bound to loose.
The above, Mohumad of Ghor, repeated that tactical move of attacking at night when Indians were sleep in the second Battle of Terrain with Prithvi Raj Chauhan.
How did Indians miss these tactical moves, although they were barve and very good in individual man to man combat.
Hari Sud
Could I take your attention to a different battle in the history.
Accoding to Greek historians who wrote after the battle of Jhelum between Alexander and Porus 325BC (I do not have the refernence), it is said that Indian soldier did not wear any protection (Armor) and carried a sword much inferior to the Greek. Also the Javelin the Indian carried could not pierce the Greek armor.
Not only above, the Indians followed the age old tactic of fighting in day light hours, whereas Alexander carried out his classical move of crossing the river at night when Indians were asleep. Later defensive moves by Porus to protect his flanks prove to be useless.
What say you? Is it all true?
Then Porus was bound to loose.
The above, Mohumad of Ghor, repeated that tactical move of attacking at night when Indians were sleep in the second Battle of Terrain with Prithvi Raj Chauhan.
How did Indians miss these tactical moves, although they were barve and very good in individual man to man combat.
Hari Sud
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhrmi/ch4.htmMohumad of Ghor, repeated that tactical move of attacking at night when Indians were sleep in the second Battle of Terrain with Prithvi Raj Chauhan.
Before he reached Tarain again, Muhammad Ghuri had sent a messenger from Lahore asking Prithviraja “to embrace the Musalman faith and acknowledge his supremacy.â€
Arabs, Turks, Iranian etc. may be of the same religion, but they are not the same political groups, and even among the same political groups the individuals change with each generation. For example when India first made violent contact with the Arabs, at least some of the people who later became "Afghans" were probably allied with the Indians who routed the Arabs. In later centuries their role changed its polarity.peter wrote:Sorry. Used Arab incorrectly. Should have been more precise: Please read Arab+Turk+Aghan+(whoever else of the same religious group) inplace of Arab.ParGha wrote: After the Battles of Rajasthan and Navsari the serious threat of Arab conquest in India stopped. At the end of their raids they only held some marsh lands in the Sindh. So I am unsure as to what pattern you are referring to? The most successful Islamist efforts into India were largely outsourced to the Turanis (Turkics), and Iranis to a lesser extent - against whom the Arabs had much better record of success.
...
What was the reason despite initial forays being defeated in India too?
If you drive off one pack of wolves, that pack may be wary of attacking you again. But that does not mean that all the members of the wolf species are automatically afraid of attacking you; neither does it mean that future generations of the same pack will be afraid of your children. Oh, and wolf in always hungry. Does this answer your question?
1. India was by far the most advanced in iron and steel metallaurgy, so the whole contention of poor swords sounds very fishy. It takes a real stretch of imagination to believe that the region from which processed iron-ores were the most prized by smiths from Sweden to Japan would have inferior swords to the Greeks.Hari Sud wrote:Accoding to Greek historians who wrote after the battle of Jhelum between Alexander and Porus 325BC (I do not have the refernence), it is said that Indian soldier did not wear any protection (Armor) and carried a sword much inferior to the Greek. Also the Javelin the Indian carried could not pierce the Greek armor.
...
How did Indians miss these tactical moves, although they were barve and very good in individual man to man combat.
Disclaimer: I am making argument for the state of Indian science, not for the state of Porus' logistics department.
2. Indians may have initially mis-calculated the tactical deployment of their forces, they may have even screwed up operational aspects of their defense... but history is witness to the fact that the Alexandrian Empire in India was extinguished almost immediately after his death. Strategically the defense was successful.
It seems that the Indians, in case of the Alexandrian invasion, also had better strategic situational awareness than their tactical and operational deficiencies would imply.
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
Many people believe that Alexander was defeated by Indians and had to turn back. There is not much research into what actually transpired. Greeks fought many tough battles with Indian kings and Alexander was wounded many times, once almost fatally. There is only a Western version of the events which glorifies their race, with Indians treated as a necessary evil in their story.ParGha wrote:1. India was by far the most advanced in iron and steel metallaurgy, so the whole contention of poor swords sounds very fishy. It takes a real stretch of imagination to believe that the region from which processed iron-ores were the most prized by smiths from Sweden to Japan would have inferior swords to the Greeks.Hari Sud wrote:Accoding to Greek historians who wrote after the battle of Jhelum between Alexander and Porus 325BC (I do not have the refernence), it is said that Indian soldier did not wear any protection (Armor) and carried a sword much inferior to the Greek. Also the Javelin the Indian carried could not pierce the Greek armor.
...
How did Indians miss these tactical moves, although they were barve and very good in individual man to man combat.
Disclaimer: I am making argument for the state of Indian science, not for the state of Porus' logistics department.
2. Indians may have initially mis-calculated the tactical deployment of their forces, they may have even screwed up operational aspects of their defense... but history is witness to the fact that the Alexandrian Empire in India was extinguished almost immediately after his death. Strategically the defense was successful.
It seems that the Indians, in case of the Alexandrian invasion, also had better strategic situational awareness than their tactical and operational deficiencies would imply.
No Indian historian has bothered to set the record straight. Our historians have really let our race down. They write academic tomes in a language that people find boring and theoretical. There is no history for masses written as a story teller. Indian Historians write for other historians, not for common citizens. The Goras step in to fill the gap and we are forced to write biased Indian history books written by people like Wiliam Darymple and John Keay.
They (Indian historians) also write as if they are writing about a dead long gone people to whom they have no connection. I can understand Western writers of Indian history might take that approach but for Indian historians to take that tack is quite self defeating. Maybe gets them fellowships and accolades abroad but not with Indian public.
Modern research does extend to critically examining what exactly happened with Alexander's campaign. Please see the reference I posted sometime back on this thread. It does raise some very tough questions about Alexandrian Wars that the academics who had prostituted their knowledge to political expediency had studiously avoided or glossed over with misinformation.sanjaychoudhry wrote: Many people believe that Alexander was defeated by Indians and had to turn back. There is not much research into what actually transpired. Greeks fought many tough battles with Indian kings and Alexander was wounded many times, once almost fatally. There is only a Western version of the events which glorifies their race, with Indians treated as a necessary evil in their story.
The reason it is not as popular is that it is dull and boring academic work, but it is lot more useful for a serious student of history than mythical tales. Admittedly the story of a 7 feet tall gigantic Indian king who knicked old Alex, causing spesis and killing him eventually is a darn good yarn I would tell my 5 year old kid. But seriously I would be much more interested by the fact that the combat-enginers from the Lower Indus city-states observed Alexander's northern campaigns and adapted their fortifications accordingly. Each seige became much more bloody and costly for Alexander's troops as they ventured into India, each defensive action became much more successful for the Indians in turn - A classic study of defense-in-depth. Ultimately the advance was stopped and the tide turned - all lost positions were regained. This is exactly the same observe-learn-adapt paradigm the successful Indian commanders at Ladakh used 2300 years later against an enemy their strategic culture hadn't prepared them to expect.
How far exactly did Alexander actually get into India? and how did the Indians change their defense to counter Alexander (through their fortresses, as you mentioned) and his phalanx?ParGha wrote:Each seige became much more bloody and costly for Alexander's troops as they ventured into India, each defensive action became much more successful for the Indians in turn - A classic study of defense-in-depth.
Did Porus ever come up with a good strategy to counter the phalanx?
I guess what I'm asking is if this information is there or needs to be done, the in-depth part that is, since Indians didn't seem to that interested in recording military details.
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
Is there any Indian historian who has written a story of Indian resistance to Alexander based on hard research from all available sources? I doubt it. And if written, it will be written in a research paper style that never goes out of the history department of universities. Our historians write to impress other historians while teh Goras have made an art form out of writing history for the average Joe.Modern research does extend to critically examining what exactly happened with Alexander's campaign. Please see the reference I posted sometime back on this thread. It does raise some very tough questions about Alexandrian Wars that the academics who had prostituted their knowledge to political expediency had studiously avoided or glossed over with misinformation.
The reason it is not as popular is that it is dull and boring academic work, but it is lot more useful for a serious student of history than mythical tales. Admittedly the story of a 7 feet tall gigantic Indian king who knicked old Alex, causing spesis and killing him eventually is a darn good yarn I would tell my 5 year old kid. But seriously I would be much more interested by the fact that the combat-enginers from the Lower Indus city-states observed Alexander's northern campaigns and adapted their fortifications accordingly. Each seige became much more bloody and costly for Alexander's troops as they ventured into India, each defensive action became much more successful for the Indians in turn - A classic study of defense-in-depth. Ultimately the advance was stopped and the tide turned - all lost positions were regained. This is exactly the same observe-learn-adapt paradigm the successful Indian commanders at Ladakh used 2300 years later against an enemy their strategic culture hadn't prepared them to expect.
History is nothing but a story of your ancestors. Truth is stranger than fiction, and there is no reason why it cannot be told like a good yarn, especially when history is full of battles, courage, cowardice and treachery at every step. Look at the excellent (but biased) book History of India by John Keay. The whole thing reads like an action novel. See The Last Mughal by Darympl. I read the book cover to cover in three days, it is so gripping.
Our historians lack writing skills and are unable to connect with the lay people like us who are forced to read views of Westerners about our history just because they write well. Go to any book store. The history shelves will be full of books written by Goras and published by Penguin, etc. The less said about Romila Thapars of India, the better.
1. The furthest East he ventured was, I believe, Jallandhar in modern India. Mostly his armies kept close to the Indus River, so that much of the battles were fought in what is modern day Southern Pakistan.Keshav wrote:How far exactly did Alexander actually get into India? and how did the Indians change their defense to counter Alexander (through their fortresses, as you mentioned) and his phalanx?ParGha wrote:Each seige became much more bloody and costly for Alexander's troops as they ventured into India, each defensive action became much more successful for the Indians in turn - A classic study of defense-in-depth.
Did Porus ever come up with a good strategy to counter the phalanx?
I guess what I'm asking is if this information is there or needs to be done, the in-depth part that is, since Indians didn't seem to that interested in recording military details.
2. Indian combat-engineers started putting up forward obstacles on the approaches to the main forts. A simple, but highly effective and quick adaptation that made rapid storming (as was done in the North and in Mediterranean seiges) almost impossible. Alexander had no choice but to expose his troops to missile fire as they first breached the forward obstacles and then did it all over again at the main fort. Obviously it did not make him very popular among his own soldiers.
3. The long seiges also forced him to make many involuntary mistakes: Out of frustration in the drawn out and bloody seige his troops would go out of control inside the fort and slaughter all the civilans. The news of the genocide would inevitably spread to other cities, where the civilians became even more resolute in their fight against the invaders. Now Alexander could not longer get one Indian prince to fight another Indian prince like he could in the first battles in the North, because it had become a "People's War".
4. Strategic implications of those bloody, drawn-out seiges and the popular war was that (a) most Greeks wanted to stop fighting, and (b) those Greeks and Iranians who were willing to settle in India would never be allowed to do so because of the hate they had engendered among the local people. Thus the strategic victory was ensured even though there were tactical failures initially.
Points 2, 3 and 4 have been researched in Alexander the Great Failure, which I have referenced in an earlier page.
See page one of this thread. It was by peter and he gave the link to the google book. Might be worth reading it and summarizing it.Keshav wrote:Someone posted the Syriac edition of tales about Alexander that stated he lost to Porus (and something about the Emperor of Persia asking Porus for help against Alexander), but what are the other sources that state Porus beat Alexander?
No, I was asking if anyone knew of other sources (besides the version on page one) that state Porus beat Alexander.ramana wrote:See page one of this thread. It was by peter and he gave the link to the google book. Might be worth reading it and summarizing it.Keshav wrote:Someone posted the Syriac edition of tales about Alexander that stated he lost to Porus (and something about the Emperor of Persia asking Porus for help against Alexander), but what are the other sources that state Porus beat Alexander?
Who say's its a romance?Hari Sud wrote:Let us stick with that instead of Porus beat Alexander type romantic ideas.
The point here is to understand the whole scenario from an Indian point of view. Too much of our history is written by white people. Just asking for resources doesn't imply that we've taken any side seriously.
Even historians like John Keay have mentioned that Alexander's "invasion" of India was nothing but an incursion. He also mentions that given what happened to Alexander in the battle with the Malloi tribe when they were retreating, it was a good idea that he decided not to mess with Magadha.
In terms of resistance, watch the DVD series called Chanakya. Chanakya with Chandragupta in the lead, led an insurgency against the Greek forces that stayed in India after Alexander's return. They murdered Phillopsis ( I am not sure) and harassed the Greeks while showing mercy to the Indian mercenaries fighting on the Greek side. Later Chandragupta defeated Seleucus, thus establishing India as a world power.
History is an interesting subject. Bernard Lewis says that Arab historians do not talk much about two centuries of Crusader presence in the Levant. He actually says that literary, political and theological do not write about it at all. Now coming to Jodha Akbar, some people say it is not mentioned in the Mughal chronicles. Why should one take what is in Mughal chronicles as gospel truth? Why should one ignore the Rajput narrative. Another example is the controversy over Arthshastra. Historians of Indian origin have mentioned and it is widely accepted that Chanakya wrote it. Prof Trautmann has done a statistical analysis to prove that it is not written by one person. John Keay agrees with that while Indian authors such as Rangarajan and others maintain that it is written by Chanakya.
So first they complain that India does not chronicle its history. Where there is record, they want to dispute and twist it to suit their opinion. Where is the objectivity to history? What we need is an Indian narrative, not a third party narrative. Hindu voice has been silent for a long time. What we have heard so far is the halla gulla from others. Now we should stand up and tell the story from our point of view.
In terms of resistance, watch the DVD series called Chanakya. Chanakya with Chandragupta in the lead, led an insurgency against the Greek forces that stayed in India after Alexander's return. They murdered Phillopsis ( I am not sure) and harassed the Greeks while showing mercy to the Indian mercenaries fighting on the Greek side. Later Chandragupta defeated Seleucus, thus establishing India as a world power.
History is an interesting subject. Bernard Lewis says that Arab historians do not talk much about two centuries of Crusader presence in the Levant. He actually says that literary, political and theological do not write about it at all. Now coming to Jodha Akbar, some people say it is not mentioned in the Mughal chronicles. Why should one take what is in Mughal chronicles as gospel truth? Why should one ignore the Rajput narrative. Another example is the controversy over Arthshastra. Historians of Indian origin have mentioned and it is widely accepted that Chanakya wrote it. Prof Trautmann has done a statistical analysis to prove that it is not written by one person. John Keay agrees with that while Indian authors such as Rangarajan and others maintain that it is written by Chanakya.
So first they complain that India does not chronicle its history. Where there is record, they want to dispute and twist it to suit their opinion. Where is the objectivity to history? What we need is an Indian narrative, not a third party narrative. Hindu voice has been silent for a long time. What we have heard so far is the halla gulla from others. Now we should stand up and tell the story from our point of view.
Once read "Races of Afghanistan" by Walther Belew who lived in NWFP and he says most afghan last names are of Hindu origin. Your point about wolves is interesting but I still do not follow that a singular defeat at Tours and multiple defeats in India of Arabs (Turks/Afghans etc) had different consequences. France was never attacked again but India was.ParGha wrote:Arabs, Turks, Iranian etc. may be of the same religion, but they are not the same political groups, and even among the same political groups the individuals change with each generation. For example when India first made violent contact with the Arabs, at least some of the people who later became "Afghans" were probably allied with the Indians who routed the Arabs. In later centuries their role changed its polarity.peter wrote: Sorry. Used Arab incorrectly. Should have been more precise: Please read Arab+Turk+Aghan+(whoever else of the same religious group) inplace of Arab.
...
What was the reason despite initial forays being defeated in India too?
Not so sure. See the beginning of this page. Syriac versions of Alexander's campaigns paint a very different picture.Hari Sud wrote:Airavat
it is said that Indian soldier did not wear any protection (Armor) and carried a sword much inferior to the Greek. Also the Javelin the Indian carried could not pierce the Greek armor.
Then Porus was bound to loose.
Porus's army used a bow which was longer then the height of man. It used an arrow which was much bigger then the normal arrow. No armour could stand it. You had to hold the bow with your foot and then cock the arrow.
I have wondered about this also that how can they fall for similar trap time and again? Googled and found lots of similar happenings described here:Hari Sud wrote:
The above, Mohumad of Ghor, repeated that tactical move of attacking at night when Indians were sleep in the second Battle of Terrain with Prithvi Raj Chauhan.
How did Indians miss these tactical moves, although they were barve and very good in individual man to man combat.
Hari Sud
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajput ... s_of_India
Pretty much every defeat "has reason" associated with it. Why was there no learning?
Was'nt steel invented it india? Or was it China?ParGha wrote:1. India was by far the most advanced in iron and steel metallaurgy, so the whole contention of poor swords sounds very fishy. It takes a real stretch of imagination to believe that the region from which processed iron-ores were the most prized by smiths from Sweden to Japan would have inferior swords to the Greeks.Hari Sud wrote:Accoding to Greek historians who wrote after the battle of Jhelum between Alexander and Porus 325BC (I do not have the refernence), it is said that Indian soldier did not wear any protection (Armor) and carried a sword much inferior to the Greek. Also the Javelin the Indian carried could not pierce the Greek armor.
...
How did Indians miss these tactical moves, although they were barve and very good in individual man to man combat.
Disclaimer: I am making argument for the state of Indian science, not for the state of Porus' logistics department.
The only purpose would be swords won't it if it happened? Also is it true that Indian swords were exported back then?
It actually very simple really -- we don't understand the enemy; never have really; our world view despite everything is wedded to the Veda+Upanishads+Gita etc etc and is Dharmic -- we have time and again as a people been unable to comprehend how THE eternal truth which we follow can cease to be important let alone eternal for humans even if they are not from Aryavarta.peter wrote: Pretty much every defeat "has reason" associated with it. Why was there no learning?
I have never understood it myself really why are the eternal truths not lived by humans outside India.
The western and sekoo indian historians mention in their history books that Alexander invaded India - the land of milk and honey in 326 BC
History says india was comprising of Janapadas and Mahajanpadas.
Mahapadmananda was king and conquerer of Janapadas/Mahajanpadas. Was Jhelum territory of Porus was part of Nanda?
Porus was king of Jhelum territory. Alexander invaded territory of Porus and not of Magada king or India. But the text mentions foolishly that alexander invaded india at one place and mentions Jhelum territory of Prousor at some other place in the same chapter.
http://www.textbooksonline.tn.nic.in/Bo ... pter-4.pdf
History says india was comprising of Janapadas and Mahajanpadas.
and not of any janapds.Porus was the king of Jhelum territory.
Mahapadmananda was king and conquerer of Janapadas/Mahajanpadas. Was Jhelum territory of Porus was part of Nanda?
this information comes from nic.in website and confusing.The Nandas (C. 425 - 325 B.C.): Mahapadmananda was the
founder of Nanda rule in Magadha. He conquered Panchala, Kasi,
Asumaga, Kuru, Mithila and Surasena kingdoms. He brought the
whole of North India under Magahdan rule. He invaded Kalinga in the
South. After him, his successors were not powerful. Dhana Nandha
was the last ruler of this dynasty. Alexander invaded India during his
rule.
Porus was king of Jhelum territory. Alexander invaded territory of Porus and not of Magada king or India. But the text mentions foolishly that alexander invaded india at one place and mentions Jhelum territory of Prousor at some other place in the same chapter.
http://www.textbooksonline.tn.nic.in/Bo ... pter-4.pdf
Alexander the Great invaded India after the conquest of Persia. In the battle of Jhelum, he defeated Porus and in a dramatic interaction between the victorious and the defeated, Porus impresses Alexander by his boldness and gets back his kingdom as a reward.
This is the most popular story that commemorated Alexander’s invasion in India. It depicts a victorious and brave Alexander. But what if all these tales about a victorious invader were a myth? What if history presents a completely different and gloomy picture of Alexander’s invasion in India? What if the actual history and modern research topples the well groomed representation of a victorious Alexander and reveals a sad, devastated and defeated Alexander?
Well, that is what the true history has to say. Quite astonishingly, all the chronicles and writings about Alexander’s Indian adventure that we have today were actually composed two to three centuries after the death of the Macedonian hero. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake. Often the ancient Greek writers, who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign, had exaggerated the facts to a greater extent. What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. Most important was the work of Kautilya. As a shrewd politician, Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. Further, since the illuminated days of Buddha, the pali and Sanskrit literature had recorded Indian politics, economy, society in a great detail. They left distinct records about Bimbisara and Ajatsatru. They spoke about the Magadhan kings, the Mauryas and so on. But why did the keen observers of Indian politics miss out the invasion of Alexander? All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. It was perhaps the earliest European scholars who nurtured with the Indian ancient, found Alexander's invasion an important tool to legitimize the European presence and interests in the Indian subcontinent. Thus they portrayed the stereotypical image of a victorious Alexander in the Indian context.
Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. In the first encounter, Alexander fought for four days against the Swat people. Massaga was the stronghold of the warlike and prosperous Swat tribe. On the first day of this four day battle, Alexander was forced to retreat. The same fate awaited him on the second and third days. When Alexander lost men and was on the verge of defeat, he called for a truce. However, Alexander treacherously slaughtered the unaware and unarmed Swat population as they slept in the night of the fourth day believing that the battle was over.
In the second and third battles at Bazaira and Aornus, Alexander faced similar fate and ultimately resorted to pure and simple cheating to win those places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army. With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. The ancient chroniclers mentions of a huge army of Porus and gave some figures of his strength. But what was the strength of Alexander’s troop? The greek and roman chroniclers preferred to keep silent. However, the flow of events since Alexander invaded India suggests Alexander led a weak and small Macedonian army in the build up to the battle of Jhelum. Though the numerical majority might not be the x-factor in winning battles after the coming of gunpowder, in the days of Alexander, numerical majority decided a battle fought on land. Moreover, a large regiment of elephants that constituted the first row of Porus’ phalanx was a decisive factor also. In any case, the Macedonian horses would be frightened and the infantry would be trampled by the advancing elephants. Where Alexander’s troops failed against the petty regional tribal chiefdoms, how could they have crushed the huge and increasingly powerful army of Porus?
Ancient texts reveals that Alexander was seriously wounded and his horse Bucephala and his trusted general Nicaea died in the first charge of Porus. And yet, quite illogically, the ancient writers concluded the battle in favour of Alexander. The most popular version speaks of Alexander being the winner and that Alexander orders porus to surrender and thus follows the well known myth.
The events that followed the battle speak against Alexander’s victory. Those were:
Firstly, in his next two campaigns at Sangala and Malli, Alexander’s cavalry was totally destroyed and Alexander himself had to leave the troops on foot!!!
Secondly, whatever land that was gained was added to Porus’ kingdom. Alexander fought battles as if he was the general of Porus and especially in Sangala campaign where Alexander lost hundreds of soldiers. But the gains were not for him, but for Porus.
Thirdly, king Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
Fourthly, when Alexander was fighting on the battlefield, Porus’ army rested in the garrison both at Sangala and Malli. If Alexander would have defeated Porus at helum, the opposite would have happened. It is quite illogical that the victor would engage his weakened force in battle in order to conquer new territories for the conquered and subdued. Alexander was mortally wounded in these campaigns also.
All these evidences and suspicious silence of the Greek and the Roman chroniclers suggests Alexander’s total defeat at Jhelum. It is also obvious that he signed a sort of subsidiary alliance with Porus. If the myth that I mentioned at the beginning had really taken place, then Alexander and Porus must have interchanged their positions. And that was history.
Alexander’s Indian campaign was a great blunder on his part and it certainly scripted the fall of this much celebrated conqueror.
http://quaerosophisma.blogspot.com/2007 ... eated.html
This is the most popular story that commemorated Alexander’s invasion in India. It depicts a victorious and brave Alexander. But what if all these tales about a victorious invader were a myth? What if history presents a completely different and gloomy picture of Alexander’s invasion in India? What if the actual history and modern research topples the well groomed representation of a victorious Alexander and reveals a sad, devastated and defeated Alexander?
Well, that is what the true history has to say. Quite astonishingly, all the chronicles and writings about Alexander’s Indian adventure that we have today were actually composed two to three centuries after the death of the Macedonian hero. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake. Often the ancient Greek writers, who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign, had exaggerated the facts to a greater extent. What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. Most important was the work of Kautilya. As a shrewd politician, Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. Further, since the illuminated days of Buddha, the pali and Sanskrit literature had recorded Indian politics, economy, society in a great detail. They left distinct records about Bimbisara and Ajatsatru. They spoke about the Magadhan kings, the Mauryas and so on. But why did the keen observers of Indian politics miss out the invasion of Alexander? All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. It was perhaps the earliest European scholars who nurtured with the Indian ancient, found Alexander's invasion an important tool to legitimize the European presence and interests in the Indian subcontinent. Thus they portrayed the stereotypical image of a victorious Alexander in the Indian context.
Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. In the first encounter, Alexander fought for four days against the Swat people. Massaga was the stronghold of the warlike and prosperous Swat tribe. On the first day of this four day battle, Alexander was forced to retreat. The same fate awaited him on the second and third days. When Alexander lost men and was on the verge of defeat, he called for a truce. However, Alexander treacherously slaughtered the unaware and unarmed Swat population as they slept in the night of the fourth day believing that the battle was over.
In the second and third battles at Bazaira and Aornus, Alexander faced similar fate and ultimately resorted to pure and simple cheating to win those places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army. With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. The ancient chroniclers mentions of a huge army of Porus and gave some figures of his strength. But what was the strength of Alexander’s troop? The greek and roman chroniclers preferred to keep silent. However, the flow of events since Alexander invaded India suggests Alexander led a weak and small Macedonian army in the build up to the battle of Jhelum. Though the numerical majority might not be the x-factor in winning battles after the coming of gunpowder, in the days of Alexander, numerical majority decided a battle fought on land. Moreover, a large regiment of elephants that constituted the first row of Porus’ phalanx was a decisive factor also. In any case, the Macedonian horses would be frightened and the infantry would be trampled by the advancing elephants. Where Alexander’s troops failed against the petty regional tribal chiefdoms, how could they have crushed the huge and increasingly powerful army of Porus?
Ancient texts reveals that Alexander was seriously wounded and his horse Bucephala and his trusted general Nicaea died in the first charge of Porus. And yet, quite illogically, the ancient writers concluded the battle in favour of Alexander. The most popular version speaks of Alexander being the winner and that Alexander orders porus to surrender and thus follows the well known myth.
The events that followed the battle speak against Alexander’s victory. Those were:
Firstly, in his next two campaigns at Sangala and Malli, Alexander’s cavalry was totally destroyed and Alexander himself had to leave the troops on foot!!!
Secondly, whatever land that was gained was added to Porus’ kingdom. Alexander fought battles as if he was the general of Porus and especially in Sangala campaign where Alexander lost hundreds of soldiers. But the gains were not for him, but for Porus.
Thirdly, king Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
Fourthly, when Alexander was fighting on the battlefield, Porus’ army rested in the garrison both at Sangala and Malli. If Alexander would have defeated Porus at helum, the opposite would have happened. It is quite illogical that the victor would engage his weakened force in battle in order to conquer new territories for the conquered and subdued. Alexander was mortally wounded in these campaigns also.
All these evidences and suspicious silence of the Greek and the Roman chroniclers suggests Alexander’s total defeat at Jhelum. It is also obvious that he signed a sort of subsidiary alliance with Porus. If the myth that I mentioned at the beginning had really taken place, then Alexander and Porus must have interchanged their positions. And that was history.
Alexander’s Indian campaign was a great blunder on his part and it certainly scripted the fall of this much celebrated conqueror.
http://quaerosophisma.blogspot.com/2007 ... eated.html
i think steel or different types of iron alloys emerged in different parts of the world at different times, in many cases independently of other such events. clearly there would have been cases of knowledge transfer between civilisations, but there are also cases of 'steel making' in more isolated cultures, e.g. africapeter wrote: Was'nt steel invented it india? Or was it China?
The only purpose would be swords won't it if it happened? Also is it true that Indian swords were exported back then?
steel is very useful for weapons for sure, but also for making ploughshears and axes to clear forests and begin cultivation.
as for exports, India had a very insular culture, so whilst exports probably did happen, i believe that we are in many respects isolationist...
... which partly explains 'our failure to learn' from encounters with more ruthless foes, for whom our civilisational rules did not apply
OK; I get the point that Alexander did not get the same victory over Porus as he got with the Persians.
Porus became an ally after the battle.
There must have been 300BC or so record either by Chanakya or Chandragupt Mauraya to back up the claim of battle of the equals which ended in a draw.
Yes, Chanakya spent his early life training Chandragupt Mauraya into Greek warfare tactics. Rather Chanakya asked Mauraya to join the Greek army for a brief period so as to learn their warfare techniques and finally eject them from east of Indus.
Hence my point is that in order to challenge the western historian claim of Alexander's great victory over Porus, documents have to be found which are not Greek and which state that Alexander suffered immensely in his Punjab occupation and at the battle of Jhelum. This lead to his decision not to proceed any further.
Thanks guys; you truly are great history students.
Hari Sud
Porus became an ally after the battle.
There must have been 300BC or so record either by Chanakya or Chandragupt Mauraya to back up the claim of battle of the equals which ended in a draw.
Yes, Chanakya spent his early life training Chandragupt Mauraya into Greek warfare tactics. Rather Chanakya asked Mauraya to join the Greek army for a brief period so as to learn their warfare techniques and finally eject them from east of Indus.
Hence my point is that in order to challenge the western historian claim of Alexander's great victory over Porus, documents have to be found which are not Greek and which state that Alexander suffered immensely in his Punjab occupation and at the battle of Jhelum. This lead to his decision not to proceed any further.
Thanks guys; you truly are great history students.
Hari Sud
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
Indians have been known for their metallurgical skills since ancient times and these in medieval age were passed on to Middle East.
[quote]In the 1990s, R. Balasubramaniam, a metallurgist from the Indian Institute of Technology (Kanpur), solved the mystery of why the ancient cast-iron pillar in Qutub Minar complex is so resistant to atmospheric corrosion. The answer: its high phosphorous content, which is as much as 1 percent against less than 0.05 percent in today’s iron.
The phosphorous acts as a catalyst to produce a thin layer of “misawiteâ€
[quote]In the 1990s, R. Balasubramaniam, a metallurgist from the Indian Institute of Technology (Kanpur), solved the mystery of why the ancient cast-iron pillar in Qutub Minar complex is so resistant to atmospheric corrosion. The answer: its high phosphorous content, which is as much as 1 percent against less than 0.05 percent in today’s iron.
The phosphorous acts as a catalyst to produce a thin layer of “misawiteâ€
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
The failure of our historians to do so and tell Indians the correct picture is what we are lamenting about. Defeat of Alexander or thwarting his invasion can be a source of great civlisational pride for India. Maybe that is why Indian "red" historians do not want to make any effort in that direction.Hence my point is that in order to challenge the western historian claim of Alexander's great victory over Porus, documents have to be found which are not Greek and which state that Alexander suffered immensely in his Punjab occupation and at the battle of Jhelum. This lead to his decision not to proceed any further.
It seems Indians have outsourced writing of their history to other races. No other race would even think of doing this because it is dangerous to one's civilisational roots.
-
ashish raval
- BRFite
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
- Location: London
- Contact:
Interestingly i had chat on the issue with my Greek friend about Alexander's conquest and what he knew about his invasion in India. He was quite sure from what he has studied in his school in Greece and thereafter that it was a high possibility that he had actually lost to porus than the history stating that macedonian army was tired. They see Alexander as a person who returned lost.
