Comments on: What We Learned... from the Hydaspes River

By: bobby

bobby — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:26:43 +0000

I noticed that you didn't say that Alexander was killed in this battle, and some of the infromation was misleading.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:43:45 +0000

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

John Merkatatis — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:44:53 +0000

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

John Merkatatis — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:02:32 +0000

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

Samrat — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:08:26 +0000

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

Michael — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:24:43 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:34:12 +0000

Then you are somewhat unaware of Mazeus being appointed to Babylonia ofter Gaugamela? Of Atropates, part of the 'rebellion' under Bessus, who was appointed to Media?

If the greeks had won why did they never ever return to conquer India? Why, according to some accounts, that after the battle the greeks returned to Baylon demoralised?

Again, the Indian rajah led a smaller army that credited. Alexander, far from returning to Babylon demoralised after the battle, expanded his domain. The Macedonians refused to go beyond the Hyphasis. Porus ruled as client king a practise the Romans were later to near formalise.

As I've written, Alexander was not interested in investing the manpower to control the kingdom. It is likely they did not want to be so left.

For an area not ever conquered we hear much about Indian revolts against Macedonian rule at this time and after. Somehow, though, we are expected to believe that whlst Alexander contolled areas north and soutn of Porus, he was left "unconquered"? Unlikely.

By: Raj

Raj — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:49:06 +0000

I have a keen interest in the history of Alexander and admire him to be a great leader and warrior, however I have always questioned western accounts of the battle at the Hydapses river. I am of SriLankan origin and therefore it can not be argued that my view is tainted by national pride.

The current account of the battle is made on the notes taken by either Greek or Roman historians who lived 200-300 yrs after the death of Alexander. Please correct me if I'm wrong? These accounts where based on accounts made by greeks/macedonians who where with Alexander. Why do people or western historians consider the possibility that those accounts could be lies? Even in these modern times world leaders always attempt to put a possitive spin on a defeat and try to change actual events by distorting facts to make them look better. Why not during the time of Alexander?

As far as I am aware, every Kings or leader who fought against Alexander either ended up dead in battle or executed after the battle and replaced by Alexander. However, Porus despite being "defeated" get to keep his kingdon!? 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? Why, according to some accounts, that after the battle the greeks returned to Baylon demoralised?

This is my account of the battle, it ended either in a defeat to Alexander or a stalemate where both Kings agreed to part their seperate ways.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:54:04 +0000

The historical record is clear that Alexander made no lasting impression upon the sub-continent, and arguments above stating that Alexander chose to leave Porus in control of his domains, probably should be changed to “was unable to unseat Porus from his throne”.

"Unable" is likely a touch too strong. "Unwilling" to do so and invest the manpower to keep it so is more likely.

You are correct about the "lasting impression' (not) that the Macedonian made. India was slipping by the time of his death. The last realistic hold over the area slipped after Antiochus III ("The Great") lost interest. Even so, this was more an alliance with the Greco-Bactrian kingdom whereby Antiohus was recognised as "overlord"; at least untill he looked towards Egypt and ultimate defeat by Rome.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:54:51 +0000

I feel that getting bogged down in a nationalistic bunfight over the performance of Indian arms is a mistake. Sources for this period were notorious for lionising Alexanders achievements. He had a veteran, highly capable force at his back, and put this up against what appears to have been a regional army.
The historical record is clear that Alexander made no lasting impression upon the sub-continent, and arguments above stating that Alexander chose to leave Porus in control of his domains, probably should be changed to "was unable to unseat Porus from his throne".
The Tyranny of distance ended Alexanders conquests. His troops, after marching from greece, across Anatolia, into Mesopotamia and Iran, taking in Syria and Palestine along the way, ere a long way from home, and despite being elite veteran troops, were at the end of their tether.
It is highly doubtful whether Alexander, even with the full support of his troops, would have had any long term success in India. He would have had to campaign for several years, far from reinforcements and logistical support, against entrenched rulers with their own professional armies fighting in their own backyard. Alexanders troops mutinied at the prospect of this. As Alexanders successors were to find, even hanging onto the conquest he had made already was to be a difficult task, as local elites, partially hellenized at times, gradually reasserted their own autonomy over the next few decades.
There is no doubt that Alexander was a genius military leader in the tactical sense. However his long temr strategic goals (if in fact he had any, apart from conquering everything) appear to have been ill-thought out. He put little time into properly constituting the governance of his vast conquests, and his premature death led to a glorious but ultimately fractured legacy.