09-23-2006, 02:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 22 2006, 10:59 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 22 2006, 10:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did Porus actually surrender?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Western Historian says he did, but Indian accounts say otherwise.
It will take some time to make this issue clear like Aryan Invasion or tourism theory. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[right][snapback]57745[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Background
The most ridiculous excuse ever being heard in history is that a powerful succesful army, defeating opponents from Macedonia to the Indus, feels home sick and revolt against their leader without having lost any battle.
The morale of an army drops to a low point after a severe battle with a win or defeat at a heavy cost, with still more heavily opposing armies awaiting.
The lesson Alexander learned, before them the Achaemenids, afterwards the Muslims and British, is that Indian armies fight back from all layers of the society, men and in many cases women too. Alexander like the Muslims had overrun the areas upto Indian territories, but from there on troubles never ceased. Seleukos I Nikator would soon find out the Indian mentality to oppose foreigners.
see what Plutarch has to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>62 As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India.101 2For having had p401all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was â¢thirty-two furlongs, its depth â¢a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. 3For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. 4And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India. </i>http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/9.html <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOTE: notice the remark about the small figure of Poros'army! Alexander's army must have been not much different or larger, as he had the recruits from Omphis Taxiles. The army sizes are another factor to be determined more exactly.
Most western historians are eager to glorify Alexander, and try to minimalize his war crimes, genocides, most clearly committed on Indian soil. For a more balanced western view point see: http://www.dragonrest.net/histories/alexander.html
He is still much hated in the histories of former Persian areas. He is rather non-existent in Indian texts, that much of his epithet "the Great". Chengiz Khan was even more "great, but he isn't remembered with that epithet, as an Asian. Hitler's army was militarily seen brilliant and modern. The German military marked the beginning of modern warfare. But does history mark Hitler as "the Great"? Or does history stress the German military achievement or glorify warfare (except the military academia)?
Retreat
The even more idiotic explanation of Alexander by the historians is that he retreated back to the west through one of the most deadly deserts only to punish the revolters. Why then did he split his army in two?
The simple question is, why Alexander didn't retreat through already conquered, and thus safer, areas from the NW to the Persian capital?
The true answer is as simple as the question, but do the historians like it: Alexander was hated by the Indian and "Iranoid/Iranized" Indian Avagana=farther away Janas, and his army would certainly be confronted again by their fierce armies. An opton he would rather try to avoid.
Thus in order to retreat back to the safer centre in Persia of his conquered areas in order to maintain his fresh dominance over these areas, he did split his army in two. One of these at least should reach safer areas and hopefully both.
Poros
The Greek and Roman classical accounts about Alexander's failed Indian expedition are on closer examination not anonymous about certain crucial points. The most "reliable"account is the one of (the former military and later politician) Arrian, as that one glorifies Alexander most, from a classical=western point of view.
Remember that the classical accounts are written down several centuries later on, from accounts of the commanders, etc. who would never admit any defeat in order not to reveal the failed expedition and also not to stimulate revolts in the conquered areas.
That the Macedonian army didn't know the existence of war elephants before they met Poros, is another veil most western historians are putting to the truth. He was confronted with these elephants when he was opposed by Indian armies on the other side of the Indus. (if I am not wrong, but I have to check this, he even saw the first limited use in Persia, possibly a Gandharan section). He even had his own elephant section under command of Crateros. Animals he had taken from defeated armies and been given by a friendly one in the Apara and Purva Gandhara areas respectively.
see: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Al-Ele.html
The crucial question is, did he defeat Poros? He may have defeated one Poros, his son who was killed, but is that defeat certain? Did he defeat the father? He certainly didn't defeat another Poros from an adjoing area.
What was the month of the Hydaspes Battle, were there one or two battles. Was there heavy rain, how then did the elephant sections crush the soldiers, etc.
See what Plutarch has to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>3Then, on a dark and stormy night, he took a part of his infantry and the best of his horsemen, and after proceeding along the river to a distance from where the enemy lay, crossed over to a small island. 4Here rain fell in torrents, and many tornadoes and thunder-bolts dashed down upon his men; but nevertheless, although he saw that many of them were being burned to death by the thunder-bolts, he set out from the islet and made for the opposite banks. 5But the Hydaspes, made violent by the storm and dashing high against its bank, made a great breach in it, and a large part of the stream was setting in that direction; and the shore between the two currents gave his men no sure footing, since it was broken and slippery. </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOTE the Macedonians crossed the Hydaspes (Vitasta) or Jhelam under the most difficult circumstances. How well-equipped can such an army be? Remember that we are amidst heavy rains and storms when Plutarch goes on to describe the battle:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>8For after routing a thousand of the enemy's horsemen and sixty of their chariots which engaged him, he captured all the chariots, and slew four hundred of the horsemen. 9And now Porus, thus led to believe that Alexander himself had crossed the river, advanced upon him with all his forces, except the part he left behind to impede the crossing of the remaining Macedonians. 10But Alexander, fearing the elephants and the great numbers of the enemy, himself assaulted their left wing, and ordered Coenus to attack their right. 11Both wings having been routed, the vanquished troops retired in every case upon the elephants in the centre, and were there crowded together with them, and from this point on the battle was waged at close quarters, and it was not until the eighth hour that the enemy gave up. Such then, is the account of the battle which the victor himself has given in his letters. </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOTE: how is it possible to use effectively war chariots and elephants in a territory drained by heavy rains?
Notice also that the battle went on for 8 hours, as per Plutarch.
Alexander is said to have reached the Hypasis (Vipash) or Beas. But Plutarch only refers to the Malli who nearly killed Alexander. Did Alexander really reach the Hyphasis, sounding somewhat like Hydaspes, or is there some (con)fusion with the expedition of Seleukos I Nikator against the Kathaioi and Malloi before being defeated by Sandrocottos later on?
How reliable are classical or any accounts about the defeats of the armies of their heroes? What is the extent of (con)fusions of different accounts from different periods put together for one historical person? Why do western historians stress about the historical Shri KrShNa that he was more than one "mythical" personality, but show instant amnesia when European (liked) characters are being described?
In short, I wouldn't accept uncritically the western historical standard accounts.
See one clear instance of viewing the biased classical accounts with some suspicion:
The Astronomical Diary: <i>âThe most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.â
The official account of the battle was written by Callisthenes of Olynthus and as we will see, the stories of Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian are derived from this account. Modern reconstructions of the battle of Gaugamela that ignore the Astronomical diary are therefore nothing but reconstructions of what the Macedonians thought that had happened, and not of the battle itself.â</i>
Western Historian says he did, but Indian accounts say otherwise.
It will take some time to make this issue clear like Aryan Invasion or tourism theory. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->[right][snapback]57745[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Background
The most ridiculous excuse ever being heard in history is that a powerful succesful army, defeating opponents from Macedonia to the Indus, feels home sick and revolt against their leader without having lost any battle.
The morale of an army drops to a low point after a severe battle with a win or defeat at a heavy cost, with still more heavily opposing armies awaiting.
The lesson Alexander learned, before them the Achaemenids, afterwards the Muslims and British, is that Indian armies fight back from all layers of the society, men and in many cases women too. Alexander like the Muslims had overrun the areas upto Indian territories, but from there on troubles never ceased. Seleukos I Nikator would soon find out the Indian mentality to oppose foreigners.
see what Plutarch has to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>62 As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India.101 2For having had p401all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was â¢thirty-two furlongs, its depth â¢a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. 3For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. 4And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India. </i>http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/9.html <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOTE: notice the remark about the small figure of Poros'army! Alexander's army must have been not much different or larger, as he had the recruits from Omphis Taxiles. The army sizes are another factor to be determined more exactly.
Most western historians are eager to glorify Alexander, and try to minimalize his war crimes, genocides, most clearly committed on Indian soil. For a more balanced western view point see: http://www.dragonrest.net/histories/alexander.html
He is still much hated in the histories of former Persian areas. He is rather non-existent in Indian texts, that much of his epithet "the Great". Chengiz Khan was even more "great, but he isn't remembered with that epithet, as an Asian. Hitler's army was militarily seen brilliant and modern. The German military marked the beginning of modern warfare. But does history mark Hitler as "the Great"? Or does history stress the German military achievement or glorify warfare (except the military academia)?
Retreat
The even more idiotic explanation of Alexander by the historians is that he retreated back to the west through one of the most deadly deserts only to punish the revolters. Why then did he split his army in two?
The simple question is, why Alexander didn't retreat through already conquered, and thus safer, areas from the NW to the Persian capital?
The true answer is as simple as the question, but do the historians like it: Alexander was hated by the Indian and "Iranoid/Iranized" Indian Avagana=farther away Janas, and his army would certainly be confronted again by their fierce armies. An opton he would rather try to avoid.
Thus in order to retreat back to the safer centre in Persia of his conquered areas in order to maintain his fresh dominance over these areas, he did split his army in two. One of these at least should reach safer areas and hopefully both.
Poros
The Greek and Roman classical accounts about Alexander's failed Indian expedition are on closer examination not anonymous about certain crucial points. The most "reliable"account is the one of (the former military and later politician) Arrian, as that one glorifies Alexander most, from a classical=western point of view.
Remember that the classical accounts are written down several centuries later on, from accounts of the commanders, etc. who would never admit any defeat in order not to reveal the failed expedition and also not to stimulate revolts in the conquered areas.
That the Macedonian army didn't know the existence of war elephants before they met Poros, is another veil most western historians are putting to the truth. He was confronted with these elephants when he was opposed by Indian armies on the other side of the Indus. (if I am not wrong, but I have to check this, he even saw the first limited use in Persia, possibly a Gandharan section). He even had his own elephant section under command of Crateros. Animals he had taken from defeated armies and been given by a friendly one in the Apara and Purva Gandhara areas respectively.
see: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Al-Ele.html
The crucial question is, did he defeat Poros? He may have defeated one Poros, his son who was killed, but is that defeat certain? Did he defeat the father? He certainly didn't defeat another Poros from an adjoing area.
What was the month of the Hydaspes Battle, were there one or two battles. Was there heavy rain, how then did the elephant sections crush the soldiers, etc.
See what Plutarch has to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>3Then, on a dark and stormy night, he took a part of his infantry and the best of his horsemen, and after proceeding along the river to a distance from where the enemy lay, crossed over to a small island. 4Here rain fell in torrents, and many tornadoes and thunder-bolts dashed down upon his men; but nevertheless, although he saw that many of them were being burned to death by the thunder-bolts, he set out from the islet and made for the opposite banks. 5But the Hydaspes, made violent by the storm and dashing high against its bank, made a great breach in it, and a large part of the stream was setting in that direction; and the shore between the two currents gave his men no sure footing, since it was broken and slippery. </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOTE the Macedonians crossed the Hydaspes (Vitasta) or Jhelam under the most difficult circumstances. How well-equipped can such an army be? Remember that we are amidst heavy rains and storms when Plutarch goes on to describe the battle:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>8For after routing a thousand of the enemy's horsemen and sixty of their chariots which engaged him, he captured all the chariots, and slew four hundred of the horsemen. 9And now Porus, thus led to believe that Alexander himself had crossed the river, advanced upon him with all his forces, except the part he left behind to impede the crossing of the remaining Macedonians. 10But Alexander, fearing the elephants and the great numbers of the enemy, himself assaulted their left wing, and ordered Coenus to attack their right. 11Both wings having been routed, the vanquished troops retired in every case upon the elephants in the centre, and were there crowded together with them, and from this point on the battle was waged at close quarters, and it was not until the eighth hour that the enemy gave up. Such then, is the account of the battle which the victor himself has given in his letters. </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOTE: how is it possible to use effectively war chariots and elephants in a territory drained by heavy rains?
Notice also that the battle went on for 8 hours, as per Plutarch.
Alexander is said to have reached the Hypasis (Vipash) or Beas. But Plutarch only refers to the Malli who nearly killed Alexander. Did Alexander really reach the Hyphasis, sounding somewhat like Hydaspes, or is there some (con)fusion with the expedition of Seleukos I Nikator against the Kathaioi and Malloi before being defeated by Sandrocottos later on?
How reliable are classical or any accounts about the defeats of the armies of their heroes? What is the extent of (con)fusions of different accounts from different periods put together for one historical person? Why do western historians stress about the historical Shri KrShNa that he was more than one "mythical" personality, but show instant amnesia when European (liked) characters are being described?
In short, I wouldn't accept uncritically the western historical standard accounts.
See one clear instance of viewing the biased classical accounts with some suspicion:
The Astronomical Diary: <i>âThe most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.â
The official account of the battle was written by Callisthenes of Olynthus and as we will see, the stories of Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian are derived from this account. Modern reconstructions of the battle of Gaugamela that ignore the Astronomical diary are therefore nothing but reconstructions of what the Macedonians thought that had happened, and not of the battle itself.â</i>