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?
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.
17 comments:
heyy really gr8 read....
keep on updating this site ....
if i go by this theory that Alexander's victory against Porus was a myth then why do we have these chroniclers writing about his glorious victory over Porus. As we know, history most often than not favors the winner, then why write such tall tales about a looser, that too a foreigner? Again, we know that after Alexander's supposed victory over Porus,on his way home he died [ reason of his death is of course shrouded in mystery, as the article before this one explains ]. After that, the lands gained in India were ruled by his general and there were Greek colonies present here. if he had lost then how come Greek settlers were allowed to stay here?
We have to remember that most of the chronicles were composed by Greek authors around that time and detailed jotting down of important political events had never been the custom of the Indians until quite late, as compared to the Western writing traditions.
The important point, I think to be stressed upon here was one particular battle between the Greek general and his Indian counterpart, (I dont quite remember which battle it was, I have to check it out) regarding the results of which the Greek historians have always remained silent over. The implications point towards a matrimonial alliance between the two parties, which could have taken place only as a negotiation. Also, I think that since the chronicles had been written long back, they enjoy a certain advantage, because after so many years, it will prove quite difficult to prove otherwise.
Well,firstly, lets think other way round.Glorification of Porus was needed to glorify Alexander. You see, for instance, if India had defeated Scotland in a cricket match by a great margin, none wud consider this as a great win.........an equal battle or such wud never be thought. But if India beats Australia by the same margin, that wud be considered as a G R E A T achievment. Isnt it? So, here also...after some hard earned victory against the swat people, the Greek writers needed to glorify Alexander as a victorious and real champion. So the depiction of a brave enemy was necessary...as if the battle was among equals. However, Alexander in reality might have lost the battle.
Blad West ...
Its a known fact most of the western failures have been mentioned as success in their writings ..
Trachery is the foremost weapon of the western countries ...
Keep updating this ..
Hello, do you have an idea where and when from is the picture that features in your post? I have a reproduction of it on an old (late 19th century) Russian postcard (where Porus is named Boris) and I'm trying to establish a "provenance" of this painting. Would be grateful for any suggestions. Best :)
If Alexander was defeated by Porus, why have all generals since the time of Alexander looked to him as the greatest general of all time, and called him undefeated. This myth of Alexander's defeat was made by enemies of Alexander within his own empire. This myth was not considered true by anyone until the internet allowed people like you to brainwash others into believing you. I can go onto the internet right now and find "strong" evidence that the Holocaust never occured, but do you expect me to believe that?
Please disclose all your sources. It would be a more convincing article if you attach citations for statements you make as facts.
1. There were numerous contemporary accounts of Alexander
2. Treachery is surely not a western phenomenon.
3. Alexander never entered India proper, hence it is indeed true that he did not have great political impact in India. This has no bearing on what transpired in the conflict between Porus and Alexander
4. What are the sources of porus's army? If they are greek, then its not surprising for the greeks to have exaggerated the size of their opponent's army.
I am not contesting the accuracy of Greek historians. They have been often accused of conjecture and documenting hearsay. However, I do not think your argument relies partly on the "lack of evidence" as opposed to the presence of.
Is there reasonable doubt about what happened 2300-2400 yrs ago? of course!! You could be right, but your argument is not complete.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Pharmacy mevacor 10mg propecia Visa/Mastercard/Amex/eCheck bactrim No prescription protonix Sale carafate Cheap sustiva
Hello, I do not agree with the previous commentator - not so simple
Good point, though sometimes it's hard to arrive to definite conclusions
, goldie hawn nude, vcp, leslie bibb nude, >:-]]], jennette mccurdy fakes, 283, shakira nuda, ffdofk,
chances of clomid working first time | purchase clomid no prescription - clomid pills online, clomid 100mg success 2011
top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]001[/url] brake the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]free casino bonus[/url] autonomous no consign reward at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]casino compensation
[/url].
كشف تسربات المياه
مكافحة حشرات
نقل العفش و الاثاث
Post a Comment