HistoryNet mastheadWeider Magazine Subscriptions

What We Learned… from the Hydaspes River

By Richard A. Gabriel | Military History  | 5 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

Alexander the Great had come 2,500 miles since crossing the Hellespont in 334 bc and conquering the Persian Empire to the Indian frontier. Now, planning to attack India itself, he ordered shipwrights to prepare landing craft for use on the Hydaspes and Indus Rivers, which flanked the border. In March 326 bc, Alexander crossed the Indus and seized Taxila, establishing a base for the invasion. Here he learned that Porus, an Indian prince, was marshaling his army on the banks of the Hydaspes. Alexander marched his army 110 miles from Taxila to the Hydaspes, where Porus’ army of 30,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, 300 chariots and 200 elephants waited on the far bank. Alexander faced a forced river crossing opposed by a strong enemy.

Subscribe Today

Alexander’s army comprised 23,000 Greek heavy infantry, 1,000 Iranian horse-archers and 8,000 heavy cavalry. While calling up his landing craft, he sent for large supplies of wheat to persuade Porus that he would wait until the rainy season ended before crossing. For several nights Alexander marched his cavalry up and down the riverbank as if searching for a crossing point. At first Porus moved to keep him in check, but after concluding that Alexander had no intention of crossing, Porus remained in camp. Alexander’s forces now roamed the riverbank unchallenged.

Alexander divided his army into three parts. A force of 3,000 cavalry and 8,000 infantry under Craterus stayed directly opposite Porus’ position. Alexander led the turning force of 5,000 cavalry and 10,500 infantry, including 2,000 archers, while a reserve force of 1,000 cavalry and 4,500 infantry under Meleager waited for Alexander’s force to secure the far bank. One night a terrible storm arose, with rain, wind and thunder. Using the weather as a screen, Alexander moved his turning force into position 17 miles upstream.

His chosen crossing point was a headland that jutted into the river toward a wooded island, providing concealment for his landing craft. By dawn Alexander’s force had crossed the river and begun moving toward Porus’ camp.

With Alexander approaching, Porus faced a dilemma. Was this a feint or the main attack? Porus sent 2,000 of his cavalry to intercept Alexander, reserving his main force to deal with Craterus’ expected attack. Alexander destroyed the Indian cavalry and continued his advance. Porus then switched to the defensive, deploying his infantry in a line, each wing protected by only 1,000 cavalry and some elephants.

Alexander attacked Porus’ left with 4,000 cavalry and his right with 2,000 horsemen. Porus ordered the cavalry on his right to circle behind the battle line and reinforce his left, so Alexander’s 2,000 Greek cavalry simply followed them. Alexander then shifted his 1,000 horse-archers against Porus’ left while moving his heavy cavalry to envelop the Indian infantry. Porus extended his left to block the envelopment, which created a gap in his line. Alexander sent his heavy cavalry into the gap while the Greek cavalry riding behind the battle line shattered Porus’ left.

Porus rallied his troops into a phalanx to meet Alexander’s frontal infantry attack, so Alexander ordered his cavalry to encircle the packed Indian phalanx. Then his infantry and cavalry attacked in concert. Craterus soon arrived on the field with fresh troops, turning the battle into a slaughter. Eight hours later, Alexander had lost 280 cavalry and 700 Greek infantry, while Porus suffered 12,000 killed and 9,000 taken prisoner. The road to India was open.

Lessons:

  • Seize the initiative. Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke once said, “The offensive knows what it wants, whereas the defensive is in a state of uncertainty.”
  • Conceal your intentions. Alexander deceived Porus into thinking he wouldn’t cross the Hydaspes until the dry season.
  • Use darkness and weather to your advantage, as Alexander did. The Germans did the same at the Battle of the Bulge.
  • Force your enemy into a tactical mistake and then exploit it. Alexander compelled Porus to extend his flank then sent his cavalry into the resulting gap.
  • Know the terrain. Alexander never fought a battle without first examining the field.
  • Learn from history. Napoléon studied Alexander’s campaigns. At the 1809 Battle of Wagram, he faced the same problem on the Danube that Alexander had faced on the Hydaspes and solved it the same way: Napoléon kept a pinning force across from the enemy camp, sent a turning force upstream, crossed on an island and turned the enemy flank—all in a driving rain.

Tags: , ,

  1. 5 Comments to “What We Learned… from the Hydaspes River”

  2. “Alexander had lost 280 cavalry and 700 Greek infantry, while Porus suffered 12,000 killed and 9,000 taken prisoner. The road to India was open.”
    i have serious doubts about your website’s credibility. Please update yourself.

    By sandeep on Oct 2, 2008 at 2:07 pm

  3. Please be more specific as to the lack of credibility of the web site. Any critical comment should refute the facts provided.

    By cprunk on Oct 21, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  4. 1. The historian writing here does not understand what corroded mud means, greeks can never fight in that land, indians are master of walking and running through mud ground.

    2. How alexander avoided mad elephant army? It was greatest strength of indian kings. Only way indian’s used was fire ball. In the heavy rain Alexander could not use that. How did he manage then?

    3. There is a basic addition of soldiers problem in this text. While cooking the story, historian forgot that by his statistics 26000 porous army faught against 23,000 greek army in a dark muddy jungle known to indians only. and still 12,000 indians died. Are you joking??????

    4. Prous had large army of archers? Where is that information? Indians for 5000 years were the master of archering arts, they are the inventors of various different kinds of bows with massive impacts, many evidences were there. In india at that time, archery was the most effective war tool.

    5. Please ask some european team to cross beas in a stormy rainy night using 2000 years old boats. Do you have any idea how big boats are required? And how many to cross the river? Alexander never faced such river earlier, all these processes went on and Porous was sleeping???? Do you think they were idiots, seeing 30,000 army moving and enjoying????

    6. By indian legend there were several attempts by Alexander to cross the river by boats and he suffered heavy casualties. Just think, they could not even walk in the back they were staying, how could they think of crossing the river and attack. Come to India, I will train you how to walk on a muddy clouds, it is very tricky and you have to be very concious always, forget of war. Your mental state becomes restless under these rains and a frustration comes to every common people, because you just cant do anything.

    Before cooking a story please think.

    By anirban bandyopadhyay on Jan 2, 2009 at 12:49 am

  5. What seems clear is that by all accounts Alexander foresaw the difficulty he faced with Porus. A strong, diverse army with a huge advantage in terms of position and knowledge of the terrain.

    He clearly knew he needed the weather as a screen and foresaw the difficulty in the crossing which is why he led the initial crossing and attack, as apposed to a feint led by a subordinate, which Porus seem to at least initially anticipated.

    My question to those with knowledge of Indian accounts, are there alternate accounts of the crossing? Why would it seem unlikely that Alexander’s forces would be able to handle the Indians (once engaged),who by all accounts had yet to fight a ‘Western Army’ (heavy infantry based supported by Calvary).

    But I would agree that Alexander was clearly impressed with not only Porus but also his soldiers as is evident in him allowing Porus to remain in control of his territory. If he were following his previous lessons, it seems he would have been inclined to replace Porus as the leader of the Indians, who did not share a religion or social establishment of the previously conquered peoples, making them indifferent to Alexander’s status as divine ruler of the West and ‘East’. Such admiration would suggest that the battle did not end in a massacre as the text suggests, but rather was at least a difficult victory for the ‘Greeks.’

    By Wesley on Jan 19, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  6. All that talk for great army, the greatest Alexander had to face ever and almost defeated, army mutined, ran away. Oh la la .. the fact is Porus is not even among the famous kings of era. The so called Alexander was alomost killed in fighting small tribals warlords while retreating, how could you think of facing real enemy? .. Had these might kingdoms of India attacked, probably we could have conquered all. It appears to me that Alexander is all but big hot air ball, as most of your writings is based on authors who interpreted 2 centuries later OR he and his army must have been tired and exhausted. History is always biased with too much adjectives. Interesting to see what this author had to write if Porus had crossed the river.

    By Anand on May 2, 2009 at 11:35 pm

Post a Comment

Please note that HistoryNet Staff cannot respond to requests for research of any type. Please visit our research forum to post research questions. If you have a question about our magazines, please use the contact us form.

Related Articles




SPONSORED SITES







HistoryNet Article Archives Historynet Spacer

OPINION POLL

Was a schism like that of 1861-65 inevitable in America in the 19th century, given differences between North and South?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

See previous polls

STAY CONNECTED WITH US

RSS Feed
 
Get Our Daily HistoryNet Email
 
 


What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

 Get our RSS!
 Newsletter Signup

From Our Magazines

Weider History Group

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer!

Terms of Use | Copyright © 2008 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Contact Us|Advertise With Us|Subscription Help