According to all surviving ancient historical sources, King Alexandros III of Makedonia (most commonly known in English as “Alexander the Great”) defeated King Porus (whose name is conjectured to have been Puru in his native tongue) of the Indian kingdom of Paurava in the Battle of the Hydaspes in May 326 BC.
Although Alexander was ultimately victorious, Porus and his men fought valiantly. The Battle of the Hydaspes was the closest one Alexander ever came to losing and he was reportedly so impressed by Porus’s valor that he asked him how he wished to be treated. Porus replied that he wished to be treated the way Alexander would have wanted Porus to have treated him. Alexander therefore appointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom and the lands to the southeast as well.
Until I started writing answers on Quora, I had never heard anyone try to argue that Porus actually defeated Alexander in battle. We have nothing in our sources to suggest that and, as I shall explain in a moment, we have very good reason to doubt this assertion. Nonetheless, since I started writing answers on Quora around a year ago, I have discovered that there seems to be something of an obsession among Indian and Pakistani nationalists with “proving” that Alexander really lost and that the accepted narrative is a fabrication by the Greek historians who idolized Alexander.
In the answer, I intend to examine the historical evidence supporting the historical consensus that Alexander really did win the Battle of the Hydaspes. I doubt I will convince any hardcore Indian or Pakistani nationalists, but I am not writing this answer for them; I am writing it for those who are genuinely interested in knowing what really happened.
The Indian nationalist version
I have already told you the account of the outcome of the battle that is accepted by historians. Now, here is more-or-less the revised history that some Indian and Pakistani nationalists are promoting: Alexander not only lost to King Porus in the Battle of the Hydaspes, but he was utterly whupped and forced to flee into retreat and leave India forever. The Indian and Pakistani nationalists typically claim that the accepted history in which Alexander won the battle is just propaganda made up by Greek historians to make Alexander look good.
Our written sources for the Battle of the Hydaspes
There are five main surviving written sources that provide us with most of our information on Alexander the Great’s campaigns in general and the Battle of the Hydaspes in particular. Of these, the source that is generally considered the most reliable is the Anabasis of Alexander, written by the Greek historian Arrianos of Nikomedia (lived c. 89 – after c. 160 AD).
The other major sources for Alexander’s campaigns are the Universal History by the Greek historian Diodoros Sikeliotes (lived c. 90 – c. 30 BC), the Historiae Alexandri Magni by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (lived c. first century AD), the Life of Alexander the Great by the Greek biographer Ploutarchos of Chaironeia (lived c. 46 – c. 120 AD), and the Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by the Roman historian Marcus Iunianus Iustinus Frontinus (lived c. second century AD).
These sources, in turn, rely on earlier sources that have since been lost. Alexander’s personal campaign historian Kallisthenes (lived c. 360 – 327 BC) was an important source for these writers, providing them with much information about Alexander’s earlier campaigns. Kallisthenes was dead by the time of the Battle of the Hydaspes, though, so he obviously never wrote about it. Nonetheless, there were many other writers who covered the period after Kallisthenes’s death.
For instance, Ptolemaios I Soter and Nearchos, two of Alexander the Great’s generals who outlived him, both wrote accounts of his conquests, which would have included the Battle of the Hydaspes. Meanwhile, Aristoboulos of Kassandreia, a junior officer in Alexander’s army, and Onesikritos, Alexander’s helmsman, also wrote accounts of his conquests.
In addition to the sources covering the campaigns of Alexander, there were also other Greek sources covering Indian history that some of the authors of the surviving sources are known to have used. The Greek historian Megasthenes (lived c. 350 – c. 290 BC), who served as an ambassador of Seleukos I Nikator to Chandragupta Maurya, wrote a history of India titled Indika, which was used extensively as a source by some of our surviving writers, including Arrianos and Diodoros Sikeliotes.
ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of an edition of Arrianos’s Anabasis of Alexander from 1575. Arrianos’s account of the campaigns of Alexander the Great is generally considered the most reliable.
Couldn’t have been made up by Greek historians
The vast majority of these early writers were writing independently. If Alexander had really lost the Battle of the Hydaspes and the story about him winning were really an invention of Greek historians, then we would expect to find major inconsistencies in our sources concerning the outcome of the battle. We would expect to find some sources claiming Alexander totally won, other sources claiming Porus won but Alexander fought valiantly, and other sources claiming that the accounts of the battle are contradictory.
Instead, all of our surviving sources agree that Alexander won the Battle of the Hydaspes. None of them ever mention the existence of an alternative version of the story in which Alexander lost the battle. It is almost inconceivable that all these authors, working independently, could have managed to come up with the same lie. This shows that, if Alexander’s victory were indeed a lie, it couldn’t have been a lie on the part of the historians. Instead, the lie could only have originated with Alexander himself.
The fact that none of the Greek historians could have made Alexander’s victory up on their own is also confirmed by the fact that Alexander himself issued a series of coins commemorating his victory over Porus. These coins were minted between c. 324 BC and c. 322 BC. A number of them have survived to the present day. Clearly, Alexander himself claimed that he had won.
ABOVE: Silver victory coin of Alexander the Great, minted in Babylon at some point between c. 324 and c. 322 BC, depicting a Makedonian warrior on horseback and two Indian warriors on the back of an elephant
Logistical problems with Alexander claiming victory in spite of defeat
There are serious logistical problems, though, with the idea of Alexander claiming victory when he really lost. For one thing, there would have been literally tens of thousands of surviving eyewitnesses to the battle at the time when the earliest historians such as Ptolemaios I Soter, Nearchos, Aristoboulos, Onesikritos, and Megasthenes were writing.
Alexander the Great’s army at the Battle of the Hydaspes is estimated to have included around 40,000 infantry and between 5,000 to 7,000 cavalry. Meanwhile, Porus’s army at the Battle of the Hydaspes is estimated to have included somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 infantry, between 2,000 and 4,000 cavalry, around 130 war elephants (each of which would have probably carried two warriors), and around 1,000 chariots. It was, all in all, quite a massive confrontation.
If Alexander had really lost the battle, then the tens of thousands of people who survived the battle would have all known that he was lying when he claimed victory over Porus. It is exceedingly difficult to persuade the public that you won a battle that you really lost if there are tens of thousands of people who know full well that you really lost the battle.
Furthermore, King Porus was still alive at the time when Alexander was minting his victory coins. If, as Indian and Pakistani nationalists claim, he really won the Battle of the Hydaspes and was still ruling his kingdom at this time, he presumably would have been pretty annoyed by Alexander claiming that he had won. If Porus really won, then we are left wondering why he never tried to stop Alexander from claiming victory. Why didn’t he invade or launch a propaganda campaign of his own?
All in all, there are serious problems with the idea that Alexander could have just claimed victory despite having actually been defeated. The simplest and most logical conclusion here is that Alexander really won, just as all the historical sources record.
Greek influence in India
Another problem with the claim that Alexander could have just claimed victory without having actually won is that Alexander’s conquests were followed by centuries of Greek influence in the northwest part of the Indian subcontinent. Alexander himself either founded or renamed two cities on the banks of the Hydaspes River, Boukephala and Nikaia. If Alexander really lost the Battle of the Hydaspes as so many Indian and Pakistani nationalists claim, we have to seriously wonder how he managed to name two cities located so close to the site of the battle immediately afterwards.
Furthermore, the Seleukid, Greco-Baktrian, and Indo-Greek kingdoms all had influence in this region throughout the Hellenistic Period (lasted c. 323 – c. 31 BC). An entire genre of Greco-Buddhist art came to flourish in the region. The city of Gandhara is known for its astounding Greco-Buddhist sites. Meanwhile, some of the earliest known statues of the Buddha display him in a heavily Greek-influenced fashion.
If Alexander really lost the Battle of the Hydaspes, then one would have to come up with an explanation for why the influence of Greek culture became so pervasive in the region for centuries afterwards. While the influence of Greek culture in the region does not necessarily rule out the possibility that Alexander could have secretly lost the battle in and of itself, it does make this idea seem a lot less likely. When you take into consideration that all the historical sources agree that Alexander won the battle, the evidence for Alexander’s victory become pretty compelling.
ABOVE: Photograph of a Greco-Buddhish freestanding stone statue of the Buddha from Gandhara, Pakistan, dating to the first or second century AD
Doesn’t really make for good propaganda
Even if we leave aside how incredibly implausible this whole idea that Alexander somehow managed to pass off a total defeat as a total victory is, there is still another problem, which is that, quite frankly, the story as we have it does not exactly make the best pro-Alexander propaganda and it is not the kind of story we would expect Alexander to have made up if he were going to make a story up.
The story as it has been passed down to us emphasizes Porus’s courage and nobility. For instance, here is how Arrianos describes Porus’s surrender in his Anabasis of Alexander book five, chapter eighteen, as translated by E. J. Chinnock:
“When Porus, who exhibited great talent in the battle, performing the deeds not only of a general but also of a valiant soldier, observed the slaughter of his cavalry, and some of his elephants lying dead, others destitute of keepers straying about in a forlorn condition, while most of his infantry had perished, he did not depart as Darius the Great King did, setting an example of flight to his men; but as long as any body of Indians remained compact in the battle, he kept up the struggle. But at last, having received a wound on the right shoulder, which part of his body alone was unprotected during the battle, he wheeled round.”
This is not the kind of portrayal we would expect Greek writers to give us if Alexander had actually been defeated by Porus. People generally only tend to acknowledge their enemies’ courage after they have been defeated. So long as their enemies are still at large and still threats, people tend to emphasize their ferocity, their cruelty, and their barbarism. Being defeated by an enemy usually on exacerbates one’s hatred towards them.
If Alexander were really defeated by Porus, it does not make much sense why Greek writers looking to glorify Alexander would be so keen to emphasize Porus’s own courage and nobility. The fact that the Greek writers portray Porus as brave and honorable, then, is an indication that Alexander either defeated Porus or at least made peace with him.
ABOVE: Fictional illustration from c. 1911 depicting Alexander’s armies fighting the armies of King Porus in the Battle of the Hydaspes
The “softer” version of the claim
Some Indian and Pakistani nationalists, realizing how implausible it is to claim that Porus actually defeated Alexander in the Battle of the Hydaspes, have resorted to what you might call a “softer” version of this claim. There are people who acknowledge that Alexander won the Battle of Hydaspes, but insist that Porus ultimately won because Alexander’s troops eventually mutinied at the Hyphasis River, forcing Alexander to return back west.
Even this “softer” version of the story, though, does not hold up to scrutiny. Alexander conquered Porus’s kingdom and continued further into India. While Alexander fought Porus on the banks of the Hydaspes River in around May 326 BC, his soldiers mutinied on the banks of the Hyphasis River in around July or August 326 BC—after they had already marched all the way through Porus’s kingdom. It is hard to claim that Porus “won” when his entire kingdom was, in fact, conquered. Porus may have been permitted to rule his former kingdom as satrap, but he was nonetheless forced to become subservient to Alexander.
Furthermore, even after the mutiny, Alexander did not just head straight back west; instead he headed south, conquering further lands as he went. The mutiny on the Hyphasis, then, did not mark a complete end to Alexander’s conquests in the Indian subcontinent, although it did mark the furthest extent east that his armies ever reached.
I think there is little doubt that the unexpected difficulties Alexander’s army encountered in the Battle of the Hydaspes against Porus’s army played an important role in their decision to mutiny. In particular, the Greeks were reportedly astonished by Porus’s large number of war elephants. Nonetheless, the unexpected skill of Porus’s army was far from the only reason why the troops mutinied. They had marched halfway across the known world and they were no doubt exhausted and homesick.
ABOVE: Map from Wikimedia Commons showing Alexander’s conquests in Asia
Conclusion
We can never absolutely prove anything in history beyond any possible doubt. Nonetheless, there are some things we can be close to certain about. We must base our conclusions on the Law of Parsimony, which states that the conclusion that requires the least number of ad hoc assumptions is probably correct.
All our surviving historical sources agree that Alexander won the Battle of the Hydaspes. We have no evidence that leads us to doubt the correctness of our sources in this regard and we actually have a great deal of evidence to support them. The most parsimonious conclusion, then, is that Alexander really won the battle.
I am not saying this because I am secretly shilling for Alexander. I have already written on no uncertain terms about how disturbingly brutal Alexander could be. I am concluding that Alexander won the battle because that is where the historical evidence leads me. If there was good reason to question Alexander’s victory, then I would question it, but, as matters stand, I am not aware of any good evidence to indicate that Alexander lost.
Why? Just why?
I have to admit I am really genuinely puzzled by how there are so many people who feel the need to make up an alternative history in which Alexander lost the Battle of the Hydaspes. First of all, it is perplexing to me why people care so much about whether or not one ruler of a small kingdom in northwest India won a single battle 2,345 years ago. I mean, come on, people, it’s not like Porus’s victory or defeat has any real present ramifications.
Second of all, I am confused why people feel the need to make stuff up, since the real history here is already absolutely ripe for nationalist retellings. King Porus gave Alexander, the unstoppable conqueror and military mastermind who never lost a battle, the toughest battle of his life. He fought so hard that even his enemy was impressed and he was not only permitted to govern his former kingdom as a satrap, but the lands to the southwest as well.
There is no way in which this story could possibly reflect poorly on Porus. Sure, he lost, but he was going up against Alexander the Great, whom no one else ever managed to defeat. Porus, at least, came the closest to defeating Alexander out of anyone.
ABOVE: The Battle between Alexander and Porus, painted by the Dutch Golden Age painter Nicolaes Pieterszoon Berchem 1 view
Maybe the motivation is to flip the dictum that “the winners write the history” by rewriting the history, which if they get accepted (even locally) makes them the winners. We cannot necessarily attribute a high level of thought to the motivations of those proposing this alternate history.
Steve, we had another dude go looking for India. And you know how that story unfolded. Was he a winner or did we “re-write” history a different way? One doesn’t need a “high level of thought” just opportunity. And not sure if Oliver Stone accepts himself to be an Indian or Pakistani nationalist.
Yes your right if you not stupid you will understand will what is told in this artical and history can’t change to appropriate your mood Alexander the great is the winner it’s true that all historical and archeological evidence prove
Alexander Gave 25 TALONS (Tonnes) of Gold to King Amphis so that he sided him against Alexander. So WHY would he give the Kingdom he won BACK to Puru? Alexander DID not slaughter the local population in India . BUT he did slaughter the local persian population in what is Today Iran. If Alexander did Defeat Puru , WHY did he not advance deeper into India? He Stopped at Punjab.Alexander was a Dimunitive 5 ft 3 inches to Purus 7 ft 6 inch Height. Alexander was literally terrified when he first SAW Puru. Alexander was defeated and convincingly by Puru,. The History by Greeks and English is a pack of LIES.
Contrary to what you say here, Alexander the Great did not, in fact, for the most part, “slaughter the local persian [sic] population” or Iran. He certainly did kill some Persians, but he didn’t “slaughter” the entire population. Alexander did slaughter a large portion of the population of the Phoenician city of Tyre in what is now Lebanon after that city fell to his forces in July 332 BC, but he only did that because the city had held out for seven months in a siege before his forces were finally able to infiltrate it. He did what he did to Tyre out of bitterness and frustration, not because total destruction was his usual policy.
The reason why Alexander did not advance further into the Indian subcontinent than he did historically is because his troops mutinied at the Hyphasis River and refused to go any further. Thus, he was forced to turn back.
We have absolutely no reliable historical record of how tall Alexander was or how tall Porus was. The ancient historical sources do not record their exact heights, let alone their exact heights in feet and inches. Meanwhile, neither Alexander’s physical remains nor Porus’s have survived to the present day. Your idea of Alexander being 5’3″ and Porus being 7’6″ is pure fantasy.
Sir, I don’t know your level of knowledge of history. We need logic, that would be primary.
1. Why did king of Taxila surrender to Alex? We can’t just put a conclusion. We need a why here.
Taxashila was house of one biggest library in world at that time. Rather than lives of his citizens. It was the Library which was important. That’s the reason he surrendered.
Everyone would know that anyone on war foot would never stop at one place for more that couple of weeks, that too if there is a reason. Alex was in Taxila for around 4-6 weeks. Ambhi knew about the region more than Alex did.
2. Western historians have always mentioned that Punjab kingdom to be a small kingdom. From thousands of years until partition in 1947. Punjab started from Jhelum to almost Shimla in the eastern India. Alex didn’t realise that too.
3. Alex never had faced war trained elephants. Porus has more than just 120 mentioned in history. He had a huge army at his disposal.
4. Now we come to Jhelum. Though Alex crossed Jhelum. Jhelum is a monster. Even the present time, Jhelum is around almost 800-1km wide. When it is flooding if we have to rescue victims, we have to use helicopters. No boats are possible enough. We have think did whole of Army crossed Jhelum? Did whole of weaponry crossed Jehlum? Think logically.
Porus army was divided into two. One part was lead by Amar. Though Alex was facing porus. It was Amar who shot at Alex.
It was in 19th century coins were discovered which showed that Greek historians were wrong.
Well, I am going through a lot of articles and debates all over the internet on this issue. I really find it very confusing as whom to believe. However, the fact about their height, I know height can’t win wars but anyway I think it was Plutarch who accounted that the Greek army was shocked at the massive structure of King Purushottam and recorded it to be in whatever measurements which converts to above 7ft. And his elephant being above 11ft. which made him look magnanimous. On the other hand, he noted that Alexander, like most of the Greeks at that time, was little above 5ft. I don’t think you should be doubting him here when you’re not doubting any of the other statements by the Greek historians. I mean they absolutely have no reason to embarrass their leader by calling him so shorter than his enemy if it is not an absolute truth.
And about who lost to whom, I’m still not convinced. That’s a personal opinion. There are many evidences which indicate Alexander’s victory but many recent developments show otherwise. If only we had Indian accounts then at least we could compare between the two but sadly, we only have the Greeks narrating us what they believe is true.
Yep Raveesh, just ignore the fact there are no Indian sources on Porus. I’m sure Alexander who always led from the front and was wounded several times was scared and ran away because an Indian guy was tall lol.
Absolutely Rubbish! He didn’t advance much because of the army mutiny. The guy who was never defeated by the enemies was defeated by his own army men.
Why army mutiny in the first place? You can get a reason in the answer itself. And second possibility is that his army saw what the war elephants could do in a battle and they might know about the power of “Nandas” in East.
Nandas had an enormous army at that time. What I know is this :
Around 200,000 Infantry
60,000 Cavalry
6,000 War Elephants
Now going by this, even with a fresh army, no one would have dared to attack them. Alexander’s army was damn weary! And Magadha had a very good geographical advantage as well. You can read the history for the rest.
So, please stop this nationalist shit and stop pretending that people from your land never lost to invaders. The writer is quite on point.
First- Alexander don’t slaughter the persians actually most the city that Alexander cross from he didn’t cause any massacre yes he burn persepolis city because it was capital of Persia and sing for their roll.
Regarding he didn’t cause any slaughter to local city in india it’s not true he in fact he destroy many villages.
Why he return porus to his position like if Alexander returned porus only to his position Alexander did this for many kings to keep stability and prevent any possible revolt against his rule
When a pro-Roman king framed the story initially after the war happened and a pro western talks supports the initial writings as he has studied in his schooling, we cannot conclude as none of the indian texts mention about who won the war till british same to India.
1. India was a different country till peaceful Buddism dominated later and non violence was practiced.
2. Plague was killing thousands of Romans on a daiy basis, but there was no mention of these deceases in India during same time. you can see how much Indian medicine was advanced.
3.West doesn’t know ancient India and their wisdom. 9 million Vedic books were burnt by an Islamic conquerer n Nalanda University in 600 AD. If you ask me why India lost to Mugfuls. India got divided into 414 small kingdoms by the time Islam came. India was not under single king. Hence it became easy as there were differences between kings.
4. Hinduism has 1 billion verses condensed into 4 lakhs verse against 6000 verses of Christianity.(Not comparing religions here). These vedic texts which were the oldest talks about war fare, science, medicine, marshal arts etc. And there were no similar structured roman oldest texts etc dating so old.
5. Ancient India spanning from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tibet, Burma and Sri lanka and having half of the worlds population at that point of time as the Indians were blessed with more breeding gene. was having the biggest armies in the world and hence Persia was able to rule the west and they could not even cross the river Ganges till India was broken. There was a mention that some of the oldest Indian kings even conquered till Persia.
6. Not only in Indians and Pakistanis books, all the Asian countries and even Russian texts tell that Alexander pulled back when Porus was winning the war to save his respect.
7. When Indian texts clearly mention that some Indian kings lost to Huns(mongolians) and Mughuls who are non Indians and there is no reason why Indian’s don’t accept that Alexander won, they don’t accept because its highly Impossible.
8. Some Roman kings lies about winning the battles were not uncommon in Rome. A Roman king captures his own soldiers and goes back to Rome saying that he won against Britan. The truth was that the army did not agree to cross the ocean because of cyclone.
9.Alexander waged the war with Porus by taking the help of Indian king Ambi and that means Romans did not fight the war alone and they took Indian kings help and that means, Alexander knew that Its impossible to wage a war with Porus. Note: Romans never trust anyone and they trusted Ambi here.
10. 100% impossible. Ambi supported Alexander and Alexander gave Ambi’s lands to Porus. This is a foolish support and 100% lie. None of the evidence except the roman texts supports the western theory.
Literally everything you have written here is wildly inaccurate. Most obviously, Alexander the Great was certainly not “Roman”; he was the king of Makedonia, a kingdom located in northern Greece that was made up of people who identified as Greeks and who spoke a language closely related to Greek. At the time when Alexander was alive, the Roman Republic only ruled a small territory in west-central Italy. The Romans did not come to dominate the Mediterranean until centuries after Alexander’s death. The fact that you can’t even tell the difference between Greeks and Romans does not do much to help your credibility.
Oh My Man! Just don’t ever EVER! try to argue with a nationalist. They are all the same. There is a trend going out in India where the nationalists are trying to tell the world that their ancient ancestors had knowledge of everything. Ranging from Micro Biology to Quantum Physics! That is absurd. So please don’t reply them. It won’t help at all.
You said:
“There is a trend going out in India where the nationalists are trying to tell the world that their ancient ancestors had knowledge of everything.”……………………………………….
Tell me where we are wrong……………
Do we say that Albert Einstein was indian??????
Answer—–No. Then how can you blame us. Are you jealous?????
No he’s just Muslim and his ancestors got converted. Not that bright to understand that’s not where he actually came from. That’s why he’s hating.
Yes certain stories may not have much weight yet I study history and that doesn’t take away that most of them do.
The sutra theorem not Pythagorean theorem
Democracy was first in Indian subcontinental cities not Athens
Metallurgy and chemistry
Indian numerals not Arabic numerals and a zero
Indian gunpowder not Chinese gunpowder given to the Chinese by the Buddhist
The list goes on and India had the prime geography and structure to be a world power for 3 millennia. That’s why people came to them like they come to us now.
The greater evidence points to these events being the truth
Calling someone Nationalist, leftist, rightist whatever ist. Doesn’t prove anything. Prove your point, to a way. People got to accept it. Calling someone any name proves your desperation. Nothing else.
Vishal is saying right bro, except stating Alexander as Roman..
Alexander killed so many persons ruthlessly, but he gave up the kingdom of Porus back to him.
He was actually feared from the rest hindu kingdoms.
Alexander was brave in his Makedonia.
But our Bharatvarsh is a land of braves since ancient times.
You are judging the knowledge and comments of “Vishal” only on the basis of a mistake.
He had said everything right except one mistake which you told him above.
Let’s talk point by point.
1. Have you seen Jhelum. I have seen it, while ‘not flooding’. Even if it is not flooding, its ferocious. It is double the length while flooding and double the ferocious. Even today Pakistan has to use helicopters to save citizens. They can’t assure any boats can be used always to help the citizens.
2. It is still a jungle, a part of it. Pakistani soldiers have told, it is almost like seeing death if one doesn’t get supplies in time. Snakes for which there is no cure, deadly scorpions. The jungle is still like seeing death.
3. Roman historians say, 2k soldiers of Alex right? You answer me, how could Alex cross a ferocious flooding river with 2k soldiers, horses, armaments and supplies.
I can solicit not everyone could cross. It’s not the nature of Jhelum to be understanding while someone crossing in the time of flooding.
4. Roman historians say, Porus was a small vassal. Roman historians are wrong there. He was king of ‘Punjab’. Which strecthes from Jhelum to almost indraprastha.
Again, roman Empire is wrong that after Punjab came Mauryan empire. It was Nanda empire, Mauryan empire came after that.
5. As we told emperor of such a huge kingdom and have only 200 war trained elephants and very few soldiers?
6. Porus had a huge army. With Alex have never faced war trained elephants. They were massacred.
7. Again roman hisorians hides another important fact. Brother of Porus. Amar had led one part of army. Though Roman historians say it was porus who shot arrow at Alex.
8. But, present day historians believe after seeing evidence and facts that the place where it was shot and the direction it came from. It was Amar who shot Alex not Porus.
9. Roman historians intentionally hides many factors, because Alex was considered a god and, seeing a god suffer defeat from a eastern empire, would be a shame.
10. I say shame because Persians had told Alex many times not to cross Jhelum, else we won’t probably see you again.
10. Around 1940s western historians found a coin and, when perused they found an Indian on upper hand and, another was a western person.
11. When researched properly, it was found that coin of Alex surrendering.
12. You people are not broadaning your mind that, maybe that could also have happened.
13. It is clear that Alex surrendered and accepted defeat.
With Roman historians wouldn’t be able to accept it. They manipulated facts.
I will give you a simple example of how roman hisorians manipulated facts.
They said king of ‘Takshashila’ surrendered. You accept that. But, you won’t wonder why? It is because he had to protect the world famous university of Takahashila. That was primary than to protect his citizens.
Another fact, Alexander stayed in Takshashila for 2 months. If you were on a war path. Would you stay somewhere for 2 months for comfort? No. Why? Because king of ‘Takshashila’ knew that area well and, intentionally took Alex to Jhelum when it would be flooding.
Think again, do some research. Atleast be like half of modern historians who accepted that Alex was defeated.
Actually all he said in not right and Alexander not like you love to made ruthless killer he didn’t like kill and he lift porus alive not for mercy or fear but for political reason.
And what a Indian and Pakistani and russian source say that Alexander defeated porus is Russian was in battle if you mean authors of some books who make theory about Alexander is losing in the battle it’s true there was few of them no one take them seriously if you meant ancient sources that tall about battle I will demand this source from you
You clearly have Western bias in your style of writing. To everyone: this author is inaccurate and does not even point out the Nanda army or the fact that Alexander had enormous losses in the war. There’s absolutely a case for Alexander’s defeat by porus. Territorial control is the greatest indicator of all in war
There’s so many indicators that we have western bias in history. I study history and I know for three millennia Indian civilizations had the largest GDP by far. Yet in our history classes we learned that their savages. They were what we are now… the Americans of the world.
“Never argue with an idiot they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you through experience”
– Mark Twain
“Arguing with a person who cannot admit defeat is like adding more fire wood to the fire.”
These Ultra-Nationalists and Jingoists won’t learn, they’re too dumb and stubborn to accept defeat.
And I don’t understand their logic, why twist history about Porus?, he definitely gave Alexander a hard time but he lost, and compared to so many other kings he’s Insignificant, people like Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka the Great, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, Skandagupta, Harshavardhana , Pulakesin II, Raja Raja Chola, Rajendra Chola , Shivaji Bhonsle etc.
I just have some confusions which are very popular among us indians like,
1- why Alexander chose the tough root while returning from India when he called have returned via the root he came?
2- Why Alexander betrayed Ambhi if he really won against porus?
Alex didn’t betray ambhi. Ambhi intentionally took Alex at the time Jhelum would be flooding. Ambhi had Porus had no enemity. Porus was king of Punjab. Huge kingdom. Ambhi wanted Alex to be defeated.
Alex was defeated way badly.
Ma’am,
The comment on Gandhara is wrong. Gandhara was already under his control, how would he would come to Jhelum without crossing Gandhara?
We all know that, king of Takshashila surrendered his kingdom to protect the university. Even in his sleep he wouldn’t he have let someone destroy it. People think he is a traitor.
Take a Visa to Pakistan when, Jhelum is flooding. You will get all proof yourself.
A Pakistan Senior Army officer serving there had mentioned, working here is tough. You won’t know, when you will go to lord’s path. Poisonous serpents, too many wild elephants. Back then, it was a complete forest, with ravaging river with ambhi intentionally delaying the arrival at Jhelum. Use your common sense and pen and paper ma’am. In usual times, river is 700-800m long, tell me how long it will be when it is flooding. It floods way too bad.
2 thousand years ago, how will he transport such a huge army, horses, weaponries. Ma’am be practical, rely on your common sense. Also, remember Persians had clearly told Alexander, never cross over to subcontinent.
Everyone agree, he succeeded to cross Jhelum. Everyone came? All weaponries came? If I am not wrong, Jhelum there is 700-800m long in usual times. Imagine how will it be when it be ravaging? No way, he would have all soldiers, all weaponries, horses.
– I am not relying on Indian historians, but western. Western historians themselves on record say it.
– Western historians themselves say, Greek historians of that time considered Alexander as God and wouldn’t write anything against him. So can’t be relied upon.
– Coming to battle, we know Alexander didn’t used to like to lose. Porus used this and provoked. Again, Greeks of that time has not recorded Amar, brother of Porus. Who headed a small section, to come by other side.
– I am again asking to use your common sense and Instincts. Flooding river behind. Battle elephants heading from front, Amar with arrows. I have written arrows here because, western historians themselves are more certain that it is was Amar who shot the poisonous arrow at Alexander and not Pourava.
– So, madam you tell me, according to Greek historians, Alexander’s Army fought bravely for 4 days to defeat a small feifdom.
A small feifdom? Which had trained war elephants, which shot Alexander. Beyond kingdom of Porus stood the one of the biggest empires in India, Nanda Empire. Which had moved it’s whole army towards the path, depending on any resulting.
– ma’am you have not mentioned so many things. Let’s not rely on Indian historians. Let’s rely on Western historians and most important, common sense.
Ma’am keep Greek historians out of perspect. Be practical first, use a pen and paper. Use Google maps. You will get all the answers, I will rest my case.
I am bit wondering here, you are saying let us not trust Indian Historians while we should trust only Western Historians. What does it show ? As I know Porus had lost the battle, but at the same time Alexander had to retreat due to various reasons which are well debatable and he could not conquer this land for which he was traveling to.
If some historians say, ZERO was invented by some western person, I am sure you will ask everyone to believe as you do not trust any of the Indian Historians.
One point is very sure, western people who think they are the greatest do not like to agree that there was another great civilization towards their eastern side other than Greeks and Romans, Which is the saddest part in today’s era.
Not sure how much you have traveled India or Pakistan and know how this land, so if you want to know about the richness of this land, you need to travel not by air only in the cities, travel in interior parts of the country, you will know how rich and advanced this land was.
What you people are finding about celestial details, the same was told in various ways to make layman to understand.
So my dear friend, if you think Alexander conquered the entire earth and became the king of the world, you and your western historians can say it. We have a saying, when a lie is being said for 100 times, there will be people who will start to trust the lie and start believing that the lie is real true.
So good luck with this PhD.
Yes, you are right.
Indians are genuis in mathematics, politics, astronomy etc. from ancient times.
Our fastest growing economy, ‘indian talents in the west’ and ‘our contribution in inventions and technology of modern times’ are the biggest proofs of hindu minds in history.
Science , ‘almost every parts of mathematics’ , astronomy, astrology, literature, politics etc. all were begin in Bharatvarsh.
But the history was changed by europeans and destroyed by muslim invaders.
Europeans took away every credit from us and showed themselves as glorius.
It was greek historians who say, Alex won the battle. Western historians of these days are sure that, Alex did not win the battle. They say that, Alex had no chance of winning the battle. With how the forest was, how the river was. And, that Porus had a large army and not small.
Both Indian and Western historians have proof that, Alex didn’t win the battle. It was that, greek historians could not accept Alex losing the battle. Thats why, the historians said that, Porus lost using stupid reasons.
Nachiketh, Spencer is NOT a girl. Lol though having Alexander in his name fights valiantly for Alexander.
Nichiketh is far from the first person to assume that I am a woman. I’ve had people who have seen me in person interpret me as a woman, since I’m very small for an adult man, I have long curly hair, my face looks a bit feminine, and I have a squeaky voice. In all honesty, I don’t really mind. I don’t consider women inferior to men in any way, so it doesn’t particularly bother me when people mistake me for one. In any case, there’s no need to leave a bunch of comments with the name “Spencer is NOT a girl.”
You have written all your sources are greek historians who obviously have bias towards their golden boy alexander. And then you admit that ancient sources been now lost so all these relatively recent sources (15th century books) rely on fairy tales of now “lost” original ancient sources. Thus have no merit or credit.
What we can all understand is that basically alexander the greek shat himself when he saw the massive punjab army and war elephants king purava (porus) had amassed. He and his downtrodden troops literally begged and ran for their lives managing to flee by ship to persia via the sindh route. Alexander was a blood thirsty tyrant you never forgave his opponents he made it his mission to sack and destory and impose his culture over conquered lands. Had he conquered punjab we would have seen greek influence all over it.
Also had Alexander defeated the punjabi’s then his troops would have advanced deeper into india and on to china to really claim that he ruled the known world. The punjabi’ routed the white european’s because the punjabi’s were more expert in guerilla jungle warfare, more violent and more determined to defeat the outsider aggressor invader out of their lands.
Did you even read the Article? If Alex had lost then why didn’t accounts by his generals (Ptolemaios I Soter, Nearchus etc) use Alex’s defeat as propoganda to make Alex look weak and make themselves look superior.
It is not the fault of indians that muslims were dumb…………………………
They don’t knew the meaning of development and science.
They only knew about killing and islamic ocnversions.
Where do you think “Vishal” had said wrong facts except comments Alexander as Roman…..??
You Pakistanis want to take credits of hindu kings but are denying the knowledge of ancient hindu ancestors……………….
I am not a Muslim, but you can’t call Muslims dumb, you can criticize or hate the religion of Islam, but not all of it’s followers are dumb, what about the Islamic Golden Age of learning in 700s ?
Spencer, you are a student of history. Might wanna check out the geography of the region as someone pointed out.
Saying Alexander conquered “India” is like saying Hitler conquered the Soviet Union. Alexander / Porus whatever …
Porus did not rule India. He ruled a very small part on the border. And it’s well documented in history that he did not go ahead. So, yes Alexander is in your name and you present a good case but the Alexander did not conquer “India”.
Its not the region’s jingoism, its the fact that he never even fought the biggest players in India. And this is also portrayed in the Hollywood film by Oliver Stone.
And this question about the authenticity of Alexander’s and history’s claims come from the WWII’s Marshall Zukov’s speech at the military academy in India.
You’d agree by all the cited accounts it appears a very pyrrhic victory for Alexander.
I don’t wanna rail road your assumptions or anything, just trying to show the forest. Lets not get bogged down in the genus of the trees. Those nationalists etc. are not students of history, you are.
Alexander won a pyrrhic victory at Hydaspes and to maintain his social media status showed the good judgement of not going further.
So let them be kid, enjoy your undergrad.
Oh just to add, Plutarch says: “The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ — Pyrrhic victory? Or lost in translation … “combat with Porus” instead of the defeat of Porus or the victory over Porus. Who knows.
Moreover, Alexander’s MO right before Hydaspes was to call for a truce with the adversary e.g. Aspasioi and Assakenoi. So the chances are higher that there was a truce or very very pyrrhic victory. In either situation its logical to be confused about the salutations for the other. And hence the “like a king” …
Because some historic accounts do state that he was wounded badly enough in these battles and that wound eventually led to his death.
Nevertheless, there was a flourishing trade at that time. Cultural influences can go a long way. Just becoz people loved Michael Jackson in the Soviet Union does not mean …
So even if there was a truce the cities could be named and all that jazz.
But yes he did take a very non-intuitive route back home. A blatant victory does not explain that route but a truce or pyrrhic victory might …
Spencer being any of the 3 genders won’t make sense. The only situation here is, why would anyone assume Alexander defeated Pourava?
Until Partition, Punjab empire has been the strongest and biggest empires we have seen.
It was the first to raise their voice against partition. That Partition too by a person who had not seen India and Its culture. That person divided Punjab and Kashmir. One of the most beautiful empires in the world.
The question not why anyone assume Alexander defeated porus but why any one assumes porus defeated Alexander? There no any historical evidence porus defeated Alexander and generals in war deal with all new situations and adapte themselves to all circumstances even if Alexander didn’t saw India befor he also didn’t saw persia too and didn’t saw tyre city also but he conquered them in addition some source say he watch porus for 3 months through this time he study the river and make his plan
* Generally speaking, the
men who have hitherto written or the affairs of
India were a set of liars, — D ^ i m a o h o s holds
the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes
next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos,
with others of the same class, manage to stammer
out a few words (of truth). Of this we became the
more convinced whilst writing the history of
Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in
Deimachos and Megasthenes.” – Strabo
One simple point to erupt controversy on this topic is the silver coin minted, the image depict who’s the winner, Why would any kingdom accept such coins where the king is projected as a defeated, more over when Alexander was not even in authority nor was the king? Why not have only Alexander image instead Kind Porus and Alexander both? As a king, if I defeat my enemy I’d love to take a selfie with the defeated enemy, that’s what Porus did(think logically).
Only the issue is many of our important history books are burnt yet even we had some evidence of the battle and the result, yes there are many history books which call out Alexander won and until there is any other evidence we have to believe what’s there, but not necessarily that’s the truth.
Nilesh, there are two simple things to say Porus won.
1. Ambhi chose not to fight Alex or say surrendered because Taxila university was priority for him too. It was a stronghold of knowledge at that time. Not just Ambhi, any ruler would take it as a priority to make sure library is safe.
2. Greeks say Punjab is a small kingdom. Punjab until 1947 has been an huge empire until shimla in the east. It would simply mean, they would have a huge army not a small one. Alex would have no chance to defeat them. That’s the reason Persians had warned Alex.
Another secondary is, Nanda empire was as huge as Punjab and had already enforced their army towards Punjab. Alex knew he would just be crushed
Most of the historians you have quoted were all writing much after the death of Alexander and in fact much after the Greek states of Western and Central Asia had ceased to exist. Their consistency does not point to anything more than the received wisdom or recording that existed at that time. As such, when you use the Law of Parsimony to explain the likelihood of the victory of Alexander over Porus, there is a logical inconsistency in that your parsimony is biased in favour of only those sources that the West has (and perhaps you too have) access to.
The style of history recording in India was different from the way it was done by the Greeks. It tended to be very allegorical in construction and thus was not found reliable by Western scholars. It is only when you read the original texts of many of the earlier accounts of India from the 5th Century BC onwards that you can sift through the allegory and comprehend the linearity of history as commonly understood by Western Historians. The Indian concept of History was always cyclical and this has now found favour with many scholars since many events appear to mirror what had happened in the past. So what you say is logical could well be based upon incorrect premises.
I ask you a simple question: If you were an apologist for Alexander how would you explain a smashing defeat at the hands of a King in India? Somehow, all the descriptions of what happened on the banks of Jhelum by the Greek Historians can also be based upon the God-King’s defeat not being correctly reported.
Further, there are any number of instances in History where the same battle or war has been claimed as victory by both opposing sides. This is because of the way many victories are interpreted and defeats defined. While the attack on Pearl Harbour could be seen to be a defeat of the American Navy in that engagement, it was actually a defeat for the Japanese in so far as they failed to meet their avowed objectives for the attack.
So we can look at the circumstantial evidence as to whether it corroborates the widely held belief.
I can ask a set of questions which, if answered based upon available evidence, can point in the right direction:
1. Did the mutiny against actually occur?
Since the bulk of Alexander’s army now was made up soldiers from captured countries including Persia, Babylon and intervening lands, would the mutiny of a minority, i.e. the Macedonians actually make Alexander’s mind up to desist from venturing further East?
2. Does a victorious army led by a Megalomaniac bent upon conquest of the World suddenly become afraid of some hearsay about larger armies in the unknown beyond and ask to return?
Or was the army actually defeated on the Eastern banks of Jhelum and decided that they could at best hold on to what they had conquered till then. There is no real evidence to clearly identify Hyphasis as the present day river Beas. The land of Punjab actually comprised 7 rivers at least one of which seems to have dried up as per the latest c.4th-3rd century BC. We cannot say with certainty that Hyphasis is present day Beas which lies to the East of Jhelum.
As regards that influence of Greeks in North-Western India of the day, such influence occurs even if one country does not defeat the other. In any case, the dispute about Battle of Jhelum does not say that with this defeat Greeks were routed and went running back to Greece with their tails between their legs. In fact, only a few years later, Selucus clashed with the Mauryans and was badly mauled, is said to have married his daughter off to Emperor Chandragupta and sent an embassy to Pataliputra the capital of the Mauryas which led to the ambassador Megasthenes writing the Indika, his description of the land he went into. If you read that recounting, you would find some rather bizarre and at time exaggerated descriptions that even the most allegorical of Indian writings never mentioned. Even Megasthenes does not mention the Battle of Jhelum as a great victory for his Master’s erstwhile Master, Alexander.
I submit that the last word is not said in this saga and your conclusions, could be true or could be untrue but your arguments would not stand scrutiny of either logic or of unbiasedness in historical writing.