Comments on: What We Learned... from the Hydaspes River http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:51:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: RIPU http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-634059 RIPU Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:18:50 +0000 #comment-634059 First of all I would like to make clarification here, that repeatedly people are referring to Porus as king of Indians, but reality is that, he was a king of a very small province in the north western part of Indian Sub continent. Secondly he had a small army, and there is no doubt about that, so defeating Porus did not meant that Alexander defeated indian Emperor, who at that point of time was Dhananand, a king of Nanda dynasty, with seat of power at Patliputra(now Patna). Porus was just like a big landlord, and the Battle between the two was also not a major battle and in Indian history text books also there are only minor references to it. History always keeps on changing according to will of those in power, and the truth of the moment is that West is powerful today, so they have all the logic in the world to glorify there past. People talk in a way as if they were present there and watching everything with their own eyes.... First of all I would like to make clarification here, that repeatedly people are referring to Porus as king of Indians, but reality is that, he was a king of a very small province in the north western part of Indian Sub continent. Secondly he had a small army, and there is no doubt about that, so defeating Porus did not meant that Alexander defeated indian Emperor, who at that point of time was Dhananand, a king of Nanda dynasty, with seat of power at Patliputra(now Patna). Porus was just like a big landlord, and the Battle between the two was also not a major battle and in Indian history text books also there are only minor references to it.
History always keeps on changing according to will of those in power, and the truth of the moment is that West is powerful today, so they have all the logic in the world to glorify there past. People talk in a way as if they were present there and watching everything with their own eyes….

]]> By: Dionysiac http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-467736 Dionysiac Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:39:46 +0000 #comment-467736 Furthermore Alexander's idea was to reach the edge of the world the great ocean that the greeks believed was on the other side of India. His army mutinied when it became apparent that he would never stop and a great ocean was still not to be found. Not losing a medium size battle with Indians as is suggested. Furthermore Alexander's idea was to reach the edge of the world the great ocean that the greeks believed was on the other side of India. His army mutinied when it became apparent that he would never stop and a great ocean was still not to be found. Not losing a medium size battle with Indians as is suggested.

]]> By: Dionysiac http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-467731 Dionysiac Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:36:17 +0000 #comment-467731 Far from bieng a matter of nationalistic pride the indians were no match for the macedonians which had already conquered better trained and equipped armies. Not to mention the most modern and largest cities of the world at the time. I find the idea that the sources and histories were made up naiive history has taught us that the victors always write the accounts. Far from bieng a matter of nationalistic pride the indians were no match for the macedonians which had already conquered better trained and equipped armies. Not to mention the most modern and largest cities of the world at the time. I find the idea that the sources and histories were made up naiive history has taught us that the victors always write the accounts.

]]> By: dinil http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-358451 dinil Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:02:33 +0000 #comment-358451 please update the article, i find it highly misleading please update the article, i find it highly misleading

]]> By: bobby http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-207625 bobby Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:26:43 +0000 #comment-207625 I noticed that you didn't say that Alexander was killed in this battle, and some of the infromation was misleading. I noticed that you didn't say that Alexander was killed in this battle, and some of the infromation was misleading.

]]> By: Michael http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-173808 Michael Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:43:45 +0000 #comment-173808 <i>Agrianes as allies and the secret weapon of Alexander’s cavalry-javeliners charging with the horse cavalry-allies are mentioned but the silver-shields 10000 of them trained with Macedonian standards ofHypaspists [...] are not mentioned...</i> I admit to being somewhat confused at this. Numbers for Alexander's arrays always included the Agrianes, Balacrus' "javelin men" and the hypaspists. Indeed, the hypaspists are clearly named as part of the assault force that Alexander takes across the river with two <i>taxeis</i> of the phalanx. These troops at no stage are numbered to the tune of 10,000 in Alexander's army. Three units of 1,000 are mentioned. The numbers of Persian armies are rediculously exaggerated in the Greco-Macedonian sources. The numbers for Porus are similarly exaggerated as I've suggested above. Agrianes as allies and the secret weapon of Alexander’s cavalry-javeliners charging with the horse cavalry-allies are mentioned but the silver-shields 10000 of them trained with Macedonian standards ofHypaspists [...] are not mentioned…

I admit to being somewhat confused at this. Numbers for Alexander's arrays always included the Agrianes, Balacrus' "javelin men" and the hypaspists. Indeed, the hypaspists are clearly named as part of the assault force that Alexander takes across the river with two taxeis of the phalanx. These troops at no stage are numbered to the tune of 10,000 in Alexander's army. Three units of 1,000 are mentioned.

The numbers of Persian armies are rediculously exaggerated in the Greco-Macedonian sources. The numbers for Porus are similarly exaggerated as I've suggested above.

]]> By: John Merkatatis http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-167278 John Merkatatis Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:44:53 +0000 #comment-167278 I like to point out another important matter; Alexander invaded Asia when he was still a boy(22 years old) a talented tactician but no stragegist;He became one as his campaigns progressed and acquired the awareness of high strategy that leads to war policy. He had already destroyed two great Carthagenian cities,Tyre and Sidon and new that he had an enemy in the west and also learned about the growing power of Rome.When he returned from India in Babylon already discussions were under way about future plans;and two possibilities arose:Arabia or West. The death of Alexander,the war in Greece and the wars of the successors(diadohoi) made India fall into low priority but not abandoned;Antiochus the Great showed that. I like to point out another important matter; Alexander invaded Asia when he was still a boy(22 years old) a talented tactician but no stragegist;He became one as his campaigns progressed and acquired the awareness of high strategy that leads to war policy.
He had already destroyed two great Carthagenian cities,Tyre and Sidon and new that he had an enemy in the west and also learned about the growing power of Rome.When he returned from India in Babylon already discussions were under way about future plans;and
two possibilities arose:Arabia or West.
The death of Alexander,the war in Greece and the wars of the successors(diadohoi) made India fall into low priority but not abandoned;Antiochus the Great showed that.

]]> By: John Merkatatis http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-167211 John Merkatatis Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:02:32 +0000 #comment-167211 1)The western sources the Indian friend doubts are mainly Arrian and to a certain extent Plutarch but Arrian draws his sources from writers contemporary to Alexander and taking part in the campaign either in the scientific group(Callisthenes,nephew of Alexander's tutor Aristoteles) or Greeks who had no love for Alexander or at best were impartial towards him like Onesicritus,Nearchus Aristobulous and mainly Ptolemy's biography of Alexander with a lot of information from Aristobulous and since many of them are also sited by Diodorus the Sicilian,the cross-checked information must be considered accurate. 2)Arrian and Diodorus agreed with Alexander's army strenth being between 36000 and 45000 and Porus losses numbering 21000 but Diodorus classifies 9000 of them as prisoners. A word of caution here:the Greek historians and chroniclers in counting an army strength number only the citizen soldiers of the phalanx and allies not subject peoples(see A.R.Burn "Persia and the Greeks" where he gives examples of that standard practice);the same by extention applies to Alexander's army,Agrianes as allies and the secret weapon of Alexander's cavalry-javeliners charging with the horse cavalry-allies are mentioned but the silver-shields 10000 of them trained with Macedonian standards ofHypaspists and all youngPersian noblemen are not mentioned aswell as other specilized cavalry units and others,greately outnumbering The Greeks by two to one,all elite Persian professional troops.of Darius are not mentioned.Porus indian troops were inferior to them since the persians had conquered that part of India and it constituted part of the Persian Empire.Don't forget Alexander wanted to conquer the Persian Empire and that part of India constituted part of it and that is why Alexander's army didn't want to advance further.These Indians,conquered by the Persians were paying tribute Alexander let porus govern as those before him and tribute was more usuful than leaving behind expensive occupation forces.The same system was generally followed by the Romans later with few exceptions on strategic grounds.Alexander never executed defeated leaders;our Indian friend is misinformed;Alexander used leaders to govern people through them. 3) India could not fight Alexander to a standstill let alone defeat him;the hardest nut to crack for Alexander had been Afganistan(Bactria,Sogdiana) due to the hazardous terrain and the ferocity of its inhabitants which taxed his skill and endurance to the outmost;;there Alexander had to show his powers of adaptation and his skills on the ground;India was never up to Alexander's standards in respect of organization,training and tactical ingenuity. 1)The western sources the Indian friend doubts are mainly Arrian and to a certain extent Plutarch but Arrian draws his sources from writers contemporary to Alexander and taking part in the campaign either in the scientific group(Callisthenes,nephew of Alexander's tutor Aristoteles) or Greeks who had no love for Alexander or at best were impartial towards him like Onesicritus,Nearchus Aristobulous and mainly Ptolemy's biography of Alexander with a lot of information from Aristobulous and since many of them are also sited by Diodorus the
Sicilian,the cross-checked information must be considered accurate.
2)Arrian and Diodorus agreed with Alexander's army strenth being between 36000 and 45000 and Porus losses numbering 21000 but Diodorus classifies 9000 of them as prisoners.
A word of caution here:the Greek historians and chroniclers in counting an army strength number only the citizen soldiers of the phalanx and allies not subject peoples(see A.R.Burn "Persia and the Greeks" where he gives examples of that standard practice);the same
by extention applies to Alexander's army,Agrianes as allies and the secret weapon of Alexander's cavalry-javeliners charging with the horse cavalry-allies are mentioned but the silver-shields 10000 of them trained with Macedonian standards ofHypaspists and all youngPersian noblemen are not mentioned aswell as other specilized cavalry units and others,greately outnumbering The Greeks by two to one,all elite Persian professional troops.of Darius are not mentioned.Porus indian troops were inferior to them since the persians had conquered that part of India and it constituted part of the Persian Empire.Don't forget Alexander wanted to conquer the Persian Empire and that part of India constituted part of it and that is why Alexander's army didn't want to advance further.These Indians,conquered by the Persians were paying tribute Alexander let porus govern as those before him and tribute was more usuful than leaving behind expensive occupation forces.The same system was generally followed by the Romans later with few exceptions on strategic grounds.Alexander never executed defeated leaders;our Indian friend is misinformed;Alexander used leaders to govern people through them.
3) India could not fight Alexander to a standstill let alone defeat him;the hardest nut to crack for Alexander had been Afganistan(Bactria,Sogdiana) due to the hazardous terrain and the ferocity of its inhabitants which taxed his skill and endurance to the outmost;;there Alexander had to show his powers of adaptation and his skills on the ground;India was never up to Alexander's standards in respect of organization,training and tactical ingenuity.

]]> By: Samrat http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-165491 Samrat Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:08:26 +0000 #comment-165491 Whereas every kingdom conquered before was pillaged and its womenfolks raped, Porus and his folk were let off just because he wanted to be treated king like? How does one explain that? Couple this with the fact that Porus ends up with more Gold and Land after he was supposedly defeated? How is this supposed to happen? Whereas every kingdom conquered before was pillaged and its womenfolks raped, Porus and his folk were let off just because he wanted to be treated king like? How does one explain that? Couple this with the fact that Porus ends up with more Gold and Land after he was supposedly defeated? How is this supposed to happen?

]]> By: Michael http://www.historynet.com/what-we-learned-from-the-hydaspes-river.htm#comment-124790 Michael Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:24:43 +0000 #comment-124790 <i>Yes, the Greeks say that Alexander did this becaise he respected Porus but I dont buy that story. If the greeks had won why did they never ever return to conquer India?</i> A statement that betrays a lack of knowledge of events post Alexander. The "Greeks" - for which read the Macedonians - were much preoccupied with the squabble for empire. The satraps of the "upper" satrapies (Bactria, Soghdia, Arachosia, Parapamisadae, India, etc) engaged in a major war against the aggrandising Peithon and then fell into the second Diadoch War which culminated in the great battles of Paraetecene (Nov 317) and Gabiene (early January 316). After the settlement imposed by Antigonus Monophthalmus, the far eastern satrapies gradually slipped as attention turned to the great struggle between Antigonus, Lysimachos, Seleucus, Ptolemy and Kassander. By the time this was decided (Ipsos and Corupedium) the “upper” satrapies would be largely out of Macedonian control until Antiochus III (The Great) and his anabasis. The fact of the matter is that Alexander did not want to commit the manpower necessary to hold India and, by the time of the campaign in Iran (317) the south of India was lost. Further, Alexander's successors had little or no interest in the Indian satrapies preferring to control the heart of empire Persis to the west) even unto allowing the Bactrian satrapy to become a quasi-independent eventually becoming the Greco-Bactrian state which fell about 150 BC. Yes, the Greeks say that Alexander did this becaise he respected Porus but I dont buy that story. If the greeks had won why did they never ever return to conquer India?

A statement that betrays a lack of knowledge of events post Alexander. The "Greeks" – for which read the Macedonians – were much preoccupied with the squabble for empire. The satraps of the "upper" satrapies (Bactria, Soghdia, Arachosia, Parapamisadae, India, etc) engaged in a major war against the aggrandising Peithon and then fell into the second Diadoch War which culminated in the great battles of Paraetecene (Nov 317) and Gabiene (early January 316). After the settlement imposed by Antigonus Monophthalmus, the far eastern satrapies gradually slipped as attention turned to the great struggle between Antigonus, Lysimachos, Seleucus, Ptolemy and Kassander. By the time this was decided (Ipsos and Corupedium) the “upper” satrapies would be largely out of Macedonian control until Antiochus III (The Great) and his anabasis.

The fact of the matter is that Alexander did not want to commit the manpower necessary to hold India and, by the time of the campaign in Iran (317) the south of India was lost. Further, Alexander's successors had little or no interest in the Indian satrapies preferring to control the heart of empire Persis to the west) even unto allowing the Bactrian satrapy to become a quasi-independent eventually becoming the Greco-Bactrian state which fell about 150 BC.

]]>