=
Are Greek sources reliable or not?
Answer; even if they are not still the fact remain's they are the only record available.
The only thing i find to be incorrect in greek sources would be their usage of the term "Asia" as in several places it is mentioned Alexander conquered all of asia. Yet authors and historians ignore the fact alexander did not ever once step foot on chinese soil or vietnamese soil or even kazakhstan/tibet.
His campaign ended in western india, that is a fact, so he clearly did not conquer asia or become lord of asia. The only explanation behind this mistake is that the historians did not know the true size or extent/length of the Asian continent. They were ignorant of the geography of the world outside the persian empire and Greece.
Reason's i think the greek sources can be considered a trustworthy source.
1st;
Multiple incidents which make Alexander look bad exist & get recorded in the sources written by Greeks, Roman's, Macedonians etc. Like the burning of persepolis, the mass murders of Philip's family by Alexander and his well wishers, the unjustified mass killings near the Sogdian rock.
The fact that many greeks were not happy with his rule, that one of alexander's predecessors (who shared his name) was an ally of the Persians during the war where Persia had invaded Greece at one point (centuries before Alexander's campaign) also that Macedon itself was once a vassal region ruled and controlled by Persian's.
Many embarrassing things for alexander, the macedonian's, his people and family have been recorded in greek written records and sources (written by invaders and europeans) therefore it is entirely unreasonable and fake to claim that greek sources would hide a defeat of Alexander.
2nd;
If lying about the battle of Hydaspes was done then why not also lie about the military might which the Nandas had? Why did they say the Nanda Army consisted of no more than 225 thousand men? When the same sources mention the persians to have a even bigger army (300 thousand to 1 million) then it makes less sense for alexander's army to fear the Nandas. But such contradiction is possible only if the authors were being honest cause they did not lie about the numbers of the Nanda army.
Its entirely possible that the two biggest reasons for alexanders men refusing to fight Nandas were the number of elephants and the fact they were homesick, they'd been away from Greece/Macedon for way too long so they needed to return, and with all this fatigue most likely they would find a battle against 225 thousand nanda soldier's to be tougher than the battle with 300 thousand persians.
3rd - they claim Heracles could not win over a fortress which housed normal dark skinned human beings from what is afghanistan (or these current days in 2024 referred to as India).
Quote.
"Alexander's desire to outdo his kinsman Heracles, who allegedly had proved unable to take a fort that the Macedonians called Ἄορνος Aornos."
[End]
Logic - if they can show a god failing to win a conflict how come they have a problem in showing that alexander was defeated by Porus?
4th; Greek sources admit Seleucus's son killed his own son and Seleucus's son married Stratonice (wife of Seleucus). The disgusting history of relative marriages (uncle x niece or cousin x cousin) is admitted in greek textbooks. It shows honesty. Alexander killing Parmenion, Attalus, Philotas, Cleitus and Calisthenes is all described and admitted by historians like Plutarch, Arrian etc.
5th; The loss of alexander's horse when alexander himself was their is documented in greek sources & incident of alexander doing reckless things out of pride, bravado/ego have been narrated too, he did actions that historians think were not prudent, alot of them think he did them out of sheer stupidity instead.
6th - These biased greek author's & historians were the same people who famously wrote that Alexander murdered "Cleitus The Black" in cold blood cause of a argument. And that the same casualty (Cleitus) was the guy that saved Alexander's life twice. So its clearly a embarrassing crime committed by Alex, so how can we accuse these people of bias if they admit such a thing?
=
The foreign historians (anyone that isn't indian/russian) admit and accept facts like the indos province was the most populous/rich province of the Persian Empire.
Quote;
"The Indians made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation known to me, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust."
So India was praised by greeks and romans too, so stands to reason they would have no problem in admitting that a indian king (Porus to greeks was an indian) defeated alexander.
=
Overrated Importance of Seleucus:
At least 5 men were ranked higher than him during alexander's era (besides the man himself) they are Ptolemy, Antigonus, Perdiccas, Hephaiston & Craterus.
"The bulk of his army marched along the bank of the river, under the command of Craterus and Hephaestion."
Comment; as u can read the man called Selecus is nowhere to be found or mentioned, he did not have a prominent role in the army during the period of alexander's life.
Yet serial's (TV media in India & films) overrate Seleucus just cause he became relevant decades after the death of Alexander. Cause India has very few things to brag about so they overrate the power of Seleucus to make the achievement of Chandragupta (incident where he battled Seleucus to a draw in 303 BCE) seem greater/more-impressive than it really is.
THIS'S WHERE THE POST REALLY BEGINS BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT WHETHER ALEXANDER LOST OR WON THIS BATTLE.
Porus could have began his own propaganda campaign:
Think about it before the war he had 300 cities to his name and after it he gained control of 5 thousand cities (the three hundred he lost were granted back to him, 4,700 extra town's were given due to Alexander's respect).
If he won the battle then he should have had adequate/sufficient resources like bards, historians, soothsayers to spread propaganda/rumors that show him defeating alexander.
=
Incident's where Alexander decided to let a enemy live.
1st (in 333 BCE);
"During the Battle of Issus, the immediate family of Darius had been captured by the Macedonian Army. Darius family was hysterical that they would suffer a dreadful fate. However, Leonnatus was able to explain to them, on behalf of Alexander, that this would not be the case. In fact, Alexander promised to respect them as royalty, increase their household servants and to raise Darius 6-year-old boy as his own."
2nd;
"Madates tried to fight Alexander, but the Uxians were at first reluctant. He fought and lost, but was eventually pardoned."
3rd) the sparing of Lysimachus:
{Begin}
"Pausanias and the historian Justin both record a story that Alexander had Lysimachus thrown to a lion as a punishment. According to Justin this was because Lysimachus had smuggled poison to a person Alexander had condemned to a slow death. Both Pausanias and Justin report that Lysimachus overcame the lion with his bare hands and subsequently became one of Alexander's favorites. Some coins issued during Lysimachus's appointment had his image on one side and a lion on the other."
Comment - even giving the man a promotion in turn/exchange, showing that he values a persons capability.
4th the sparing his own namesake;
{Quoted}
"King Alexander not only pardoned him, but even made him his friend and raised him to high honors. He was first entrusted with the command of an army in Thrace, and afterwards received the command of the Thessalian cavalry. In this capacity he accompanied Alexander on his eastern expedition. In 334, when Alexander was laying at Phaselis, he was informed that the Lyncestian was carrying on a secret correspondence with King Darius III of Persia, and that a large sum of money was promised, for which he was to murder Alexander. The bearer of the letters from Darius was taken by Parmenion and brought before Alexander, and the treachery was considered proven. Yet Alexander the Great, dreading to create any hostile feeling in Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, whose daughter was married to Alexander Lyncestes, thought advisable not to put him to death, and had him merely deposed from his office and kept in custody."
{Done}
5th Quote:
"The local leaders in Central Asia would be allowed to maintain their authority. Furthermore, Alexander had not only pardoned many of his former opponents but had also restored them to their former satrapies. Thus the indigenous rulers now regarded Bessus as being a threat to their continued security."
Logic - yeah bessus got killed but the point is the local leaders [the guys whose names are not mentioned] got spared.
So it stands to reason he would spare Porus too.
Argumentative point; Porus getting praise from alexander or his allies is not a big achievement.
Greeks praised enemies besides porus too like a brother of Darius.
[Quoted texT]:
"Oxyathres far surpassed his comrades in the splendour of his arms and in physical strength, and very few could match his courage and devotion to Darius. In that engagement especially he won distinction by cutting down some Macedonians who were recklessly thrusting ahead and putting others to flight."
So it's no surprise if they praised Porus or any warrior belonging to his area of control.
Was Porus actually 'brave'? It's hard to think of the man as a brave person, though it is true he did not abandon his army unlike Darius, at the same time one must think his true motive of fighting till his last breath was cause Porus felt like he had nothing left to lose. Think of it this way, all his sons are dead, he can't find their killers (cause the greeks who murdered them are not named) and his kingdom is already facing enemies from various angles (Ambhi, Dhananand, Alexander).
So what use is their in living to fight another day or even trying to do a futile retreat? Another obvious fact is that he submitted to foreign rule of the Macedonian's even after this heroic resistance. King Porus became a tax payer of Alexander and assisted him in a future campaign.
Since Porus had nothing positive to say about dhana nanda (apart from his military strength) one can conclude that porus was definitely not on good terms with dhananand. So he considered him a enemy that might invade his region of control too.
=
Alexander's victories (after the battle with Porus) are below.
1ST Against a familial-rival/cousin of Porus;
{Quoted}
"A joint expedition was then mounted against a territory east of the Chenab, ruled by an enemy cousin of Porus. He had earlier submitted to Alexander but, suspicious of Porus' rise in rank, chose to flee with his army. The date of this battle remains disputed; Alexander's forces overran his lands before meeting stiff resistance at a walled Sangala on the other side of the Ravi. Siege warfare was executed to brilliant effect and the full-fledged attack began once Porus had joined with his elephants. As Sangala and allied cities were razed, Porus was allowed to station his garrisons."
2ND is a WAR against GLAUSAES;
"His territory was not only restored, but also expanded, with Alexander's forces annexing the territories of Glausaes, who ruled to the northeast of Porus' kingdom."
3RD;
[quote]
"Alexander campaign west of the Indus River brought him into conflict with the Assacani. In defence of their homeland, they assembled an army of 20,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry, and 30 elephants, according to classical writer Quintus Curtius Rufus. Their army included a contingent of 7,000 Kamboj mercenaries recruited from Abhisara."
[finish]
Logic; he was outnumbered here again but alexander succeeds again.
[begin]
"After being defeated in the field, the Assacani fell back to the fortified city of Massaga, where the fighting continued for five days (or nine days, according to Curtius). It was during this battle that Assacanus was killed. After her son's death, Cleophis assumed command mustered the Assacani women to fight, and led the continued defence of the city. Eventually, however, Cleophis judged that defeat was inevitable. She came to terms with the invaders and abandoned Massaga with her followers."
{done}
[start]
"Alexander pursued the Kamboj mercenaries, surrounded them on a hill, and killed them all."
[complete]
All above quotes are taken from the same page/source (Cleophis)
=
The indian campaign does not end here.
QUOTE;
"Barsaentes fled to the Indians, and was given shelter by local dynast, Samaxus. However, the latter handed Barsaentes over to Alexander in 326 BC, seemingly in order to gain the favour of the Macedonian king. Barsaentes was subsequently executed."
Information about Samaxus;
"Samaxus was also brought in chains, the king of a small Indian state, who had espoused the cause of Barsaentes."
vol_II silk road_alexander and his successors in central asia.pdf
My opinion - it's possible that Samaxus was the name of king abhisares (ruler of the kasmira tribe or leader of abhiras in northwester india). He was the 3rd lesser known indian ally of alexander.
Alexander continues.
Quote;
"The assault on the capital city of the Malavas (325 BC); and all authors agreed in attributing the chief share in saving the life of Alexander upon that occasion to Peucestas."
Quote:
"He found that the Agalasseis, as they were called, were drawn up in battle formation. note Their strength was forty thousand infantry and three thousand cavalry. He engaged them and, conquering, cut down most of them. Those who escaped into the neighbouring cities he besieged, captured, and sold as slaves. Other groups of natives had collected also. He took by storm a large city in which twenty thousand persons had taken refuge. The Indians barricaded the streets and fought stoutly from the houses, and he lost not a few Macedonians in pressing his victory home. This made him angry. He set fire to the city and burned up most of the inhabitants with it. note The remaining natives to the number of three thousand had fled to the citadel, whence they appealed for mercy with suppliant branches. Alexander pardoned them."
Logic; yeah it was an atrocity i agree, alexander behaved like a villain here, but its not very different compared to hanutati (Hanuman) burning gardens/property of lankan citizens. Or Sugriva ordering the town of lanka to get burnt in yuddha kandam. But my main point is this occurs after the battle with Porus.
Conclusion; In the rare case if porus did defeat alexander & let him live then in my eyes he should be seen as a criminal because he freed a dangerous person & then stood back as a spectator/bystander when that criminal (Alexander) was burning towns and murdering innocent humans of the indian sub continent.
The last incident i will give a quote for;
"Next he came to the country of King Musicanus; getting him into his hands he killed him and made the country subject. Then he invaded the kingdom of Porticanus, took two cities by storm, allowed the soldiers to plunder the houses, and then set them on fire. Porticanus himself escaped to a stronghold, but Alexander captured it and slew him, still fighting. Then he proceeded to take all of the other cities of his kingdom and destroyed them, and spread the terror of his name throughout the whole region. Next he ravaged the kingdom of Sambus. He enslaved the population of most of the cities and, after destroying the cities, killed more than eighty thousand of the natives. He inflicted a similar disaster upon the tribe of the Brahmins, as they are called; the survivors came supplicating him with branches in their hands, and punishing the most guilty he forgave the rest. King Sambus fled with thirty elephants into the country beyond the Indus and escaped."
Logic - alexander indeed conducted even more campaigns after this but the reason i am ending it here is cause if i continue the post will become too long and boring, theirs no point in continuing a endless cycle.
All of these quotes, references and incident's are being shown by me not with a intention to show alexander's power or glorify him but rather my intent is to show that he was still a powerful threat & invader to northwestern india.
He attacked many region's close to Porus's abode, so it makes no sense for a defeated king to do that much rampaging after losing to Porus.
=
Inactivity of Porus in the time after Alexander's death also indicates that his freedom, control & power declined rapidly, his condition was akin to that of the mughals after the marathas became the main power of India in the 1700s or the family who Hyder Ali usurped Mysore's kingdom from.
Captain Leonidas quells a revolt of north western aryans.
[Quote]
"After Alexander left, at some point Oreitans rebelled. Leonnatus manage to defeat them killing 6,000 and all their leaders, while losing only 15 cavalrymen and a handful of men, but Apollophanes (the Satrap) killed in the battle."
[Ending]
=
THE AMBHIRAAJ ARGUMENT;
A very common argument provided by Indians (people that are pro Porus) is that since Ambhi (Taxiles) joined Alexander only with a promise that he'd receive territory of Porus or that Porus would be killed that means Alexander must have lost to Porus cause theirs no way he would spare Porus only to risk the displeasure and possible betrayal of Taxiles. But what they dont get is that their was another side of the story after Alexander spared Porus. Not only did Porus begin to give annual tribute to Alexander but his last surviving offspring (since all sons of Porus died in the war) was married off to Ambhiraaj (Taxiles), he married the daughter of Porus.
It was in order to secure his claim to Porus's throne provided should anything bad happen to Porus in the future (death by age, poisoning or illness). It's also deemed a political wedding/alliance conducted by Alexander to unify 2 of his vassals (since porus/ambhi had a big enmity/rivalry before alexander came into their lives).
So Alexander kept his promise to Ambhi & held up his end of the bargain by arranging such a wedding, provided that Porus does die in the future then the sole ruler of his kingdom will be Ambhi cause no son of porus existed or it will be a person of Ambhi's blood line as the daughter of porus is now property of Ambhi raaj.
=
Alexander's horse dying is a up played achievement which alexander hater's/porus bhakts keep exaggerating.
Quote;
"After the battle with Porus, too, Bucephalas died not at once, but some time afterwards as most writers say, from wounds for which he was under treatment, but according to Onesicritus, from old age, having become quite worn out; for he was thirty years old when he died."
First of all it was a worn out and aged horse. Second of all its death occurring at porus's own blade or hands is not mentioned, so far i have not found any detail on the identity of the person that injured it.
Size of the assyrian faction (a minor unit in the persian military);
Quote.
"A massive army was assembled by Xerxes in the early 5th century BC. Contemporary estimates place the numbers between 100,000 and over a million."
{Done}
Comment - at minimum the persians could muster 300 thousand soldiers in my opinion, one hundred thousand from their province (assyria) 100 thousand citizens and 100 thousand trained soldiers of their capital.
When alexander is able to win against a foe that had access to a minimum of 300,000 and maximum of a million men then its clear its not hard to believe he would win against Porus too (who at minimum had 22,000 and at maximum had 50 thousand men).
=
Plutarch's words can be seen as a exaggeration:
{quote}
In the Roman period, the 'Lion of Chaeronea', an enigmatic monument on the site of the battle, was believed to mark the resting place of the Sacred Band. Modern excavations found the remains of 254 soldiers underneath the monument; it is therefore generally accepted that this was indeed the grave of the Sacred Band, since it is unlikely that every member was killed.
Note - however it is not that big of an exaggeration as it can be seen that not all 300 (of the sacred band) died still 254 indeed fell in battle. So he was only 15 percent off (since 254 is 84.6 percent of 300). So maybe if he stated their were 600 thousand men in the persian army of Issus then it was really 84 percent of that number then.
At the end of the day by all accounts the persian empire was the largest of its time (before alexander's rise to fame) so they clearly had the resources and means that enabled them to have at minimum 100 thousand soldiers, they definitely had a population of more than 20 million citizens so why would they not be able to bring at least 1/40th (500,000) of it into a war?
Not hard to believe 504 thousand persian warriors (most of that army could be from vassal states like troy, illyria, assyria, egypt, armenia etc) would exist during that era.
Also just the fact of 254 corpses being found compared to 300 does not really prove that Plutarch's conclusion was incorrect because its highly possible that 46 of the corpses faded away, their bones were ate or lost due to natural disasters or humans messing with grave sites.
[ImagEvidence of the population of the persian empirE]
=
Misunderstanding;
"Alexander not only permitted him to govern his former kingdom, giving him the title of satrap, but also added to it the territory of the independent peoples whom he subdued, in which there are said to have been fifteen nations, five thousand cities of considerable size, and a great multitude of villages. He subdued other territory also thrice as large as this and appointed Philip, one of his companions, satrap over it."
Analysis - pay attention to the last line/sentence which mentions that Philip (not his dad instead a companion/mate/comrade/friend) was given ownership of land that was 3 times the size of whatever he granted Porus.
=
Before Alexander invaded then Porus was at a time period where he controlled over 300 cities;
{Quote}
Between the Hydaspes and the Acesines is, first, the country of Porus, extensive and fertile, containing about three hundred cities; secondly, the forest near the Emodi mountains, from which Alexander cut, and brought down on the Hydaspes, a large quantity of fir, pine, cedar, and other logs of all kinds fit for shipbuilding, from which he built a fleet on the Hydaspes near the cities founded by him on either side of the river where he crossed and conquered Porus.
Basic question; since porus held this much power and influence why did no indian record the history of porus a king that owned more than three hundred towns in the northeastern territory of Akhand Bharat Varsh?
From 300 cities (what Porus had before Hydaspes's battle) to 5 thousand cities (what Porus gained after that battle) makes u wonder how much land alexander had to waste if he could give porus about 16 to 17 times the size of his land.
=
The only thing i find to be unbelievable, untrustworthy & illogical in greek sources is the following quote;
"Yet his elephant was of the largest size and it showed remarkable intelligence and solicitude for the king, bravely defending him and beating back his assailants while he was still in full vigour, and when it perceived that its master was worn out with a multitude of missiles and wounds, fearing he should fall off, it knelt softly on the ground, and with its proboscis gently took each spear and drew it out of his body."
Because it shows that a Elephant had that much of a mind of its own, i do agree that animals can be intelligent in certain times but here it just seems impossible to believe that a elephant would use his tusk to pull each spear, missile, weapon out of porus's body.
Final basic list of reasons why alexander beating porus is more believable then the recent revisionist claims of porus winning that battle:
1 - porus's daughter married ambhiraaj.
2 - porus became totally irrelevant after hydaspes, the only two times he's brought up is when he dies and when his relative's land is conquered by alexander to increase porus's extent of control.
3 - alexander was involved in at minimum 9 or more war's/battles where he won, all were in a close distance of porus's land. If porus had the ability to stop him then he most likely would not let alexander continue to do a rampage conquest.
4 - alexander won the battle of issus which was tougher than his battle against porus cause at most darius had six hundred thousand at minimum he had a little over 1 hundred thousand soldiers.
5 - alexander won against many people tougher than porus.
6 - the Greek sources have proven to be authentic enough already so theirs no point in denying them.
=
No comments:
Post a Comment
?