What's new

Alexander's conquest of "India" & historical revisionism

well in the movies, both the roman empire and alexander the great conquered the world.
 
The geographical extent of the area associated with a name keeps changing over time. For example, the Russian state was first established in Kiev, but even many ardent Russian nationalists wouldn't claim Kiev to be part of Russia today.

The extent of "India" has varied over time and depends on who you ask. Even today, the maps from the Pakistani and Indian governments show great differences regrading the extent of their respective countries.

In 1947, most people accepted India to mean the territories in the subcontinent belonging to the British Empire and under British paramountcy along with other European ( French and Portuguese) colonies in the the subcontinent. So, places like Nepal, Bhutan and Burma were excluded based on this definition, even though Burma would have been considered part of British India only 10 years earlier. After 1947, India for most prople, refers to the territories of the present -day Indian state ( Bharat).

As far as Alexander is concerned, it is a well-documented historical fact that his army turned around from the Beas river. The Nanda dynasty of the Magadha empire, which controlled most of northern India east of the Beas, never had to fight Alexander and was overthrown by Chandragupta Maurya just a few years after Alexander left India and who reclaimed territories under the rule of Greek satraps for his own empire.
 
Alexander's campaign to India was in 327 B.C. yet your source talks about more than a century earlier? :P
We could play poker if you can hold that st face.

There’s a reason Alexander’s campaigns were called the most meticulously planned and well scripted ones
 
I would have expected you to do a little more digging beyond Wiki and check the Greek sources, since you are supposedly Greek, and you understand Greek, but I did that for you..

From Anabasis by Arrian, 5.24.8 -


Used Google translate to get a rough translation, which is:

"and as I was about to pursue the fugitives, when you came back to Sagala, the city was razed, and the country of the Indians, who were formerly independent, but then they willingly acceded to you. And Poron, as soon as he could by the power of the army, sent him to the cities which they had entered, and sent a garrison into them, but he immediately advanced the army to the river Ephasin, as if he were also to destroy the Indians there. It did not appear to him what was left of the war, what of the war."

So that does indicate the Greeks thought they had conquered India, since they considered it no longer independent. The perspective of the Greeks, as written in the Greek sources, is very different to how thigs are stated in Wiki by unknown Wikipedia editors.

Thanks for the share. This is interesting.

Wiki-idiots not getting things right is not a surprise to me.
Modern-era revisionists trying to rewrite ancient history by inventing facts to support their narrative.

Greeks might have assumed that they have conquered Indos and there wasn't much to see further. Indus river and its surroundings were far more likely to receive attention than lands deep inside modern India in ancient times. Indus river and its surroundings were home to an advanced civilization in fact.

Alexander's army mutiny might be an exaggerated tale, therefore. It could be that his followers were convinced that they have conquered the known world and it was a waste of time to advance further.
 
Modern-era revisionists have attempted to hype Porus beyond measure as well.

Alexander had subjugated Achaemenid dynasty, a much bigger and stronger pan-Asian Empire and threat to European kingdoms of the time. He also absolutely and utterly destroyed Porus's army in the battle around Indus river.

Why he would be afraid of anything?
Silly insecure people writing fake stories to soothe themselves.

Just accept the history as it is.
 
Well somethings are buried in time capsule.
We can never know the real truth.
Only Greek historians wrote about Alexander the great battle with Raja Porus and they were extremely biased. And that too after 400 years Alexander died.
If you study Alexander's personality then all the historical accounts of him and Raja porus are extremely dubious. Infact they point towards the victory of Raja Porus the son of Jhelum. The true son of this soil.
 
Well somethings are buried in time capsule.
We can never know the real truth.
Only Greek historians wrote about Alexander the great battle with Raja Porus and they were extremely biased. And that too after 400 years Alexander died.
If you study Alexander's personality then all the historical accounts of him and Raja porus are extremely dubious. Infact they point towards the victory of Raja Porus the son of Jhelum. The true son of this soil.
There is no historical evidence that Alexander was defeated by Porus but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Next you will see because there are no surviving Persian accounts of Cyrus's defeat it means that Alexander didn't defeat the Persian Empire. Also, just because Pakistani sources say very little about the surrender of Dhaka it doesn't mean that Niazi didn't publicly surrender.
 
Thanks for the share. This is interesting.

Wiki-idiots not getting things right is not a surprise to me.
Modern-era revisionists trying to rewrite ancient history by inventing facts to support their narrative.

Greeks might have assumed that they have conquered Indos and there wasn't much to see further. Indus river and its surroundings were far more likely to receive attention than lands deep inside modern India in ancient times. Indus river and its surroundings were home to an advanced civilization in fact.

Alexander's army mutiny might be an exaggerated tale, therefore. It could be that his followers were convinced that they have conquered the known world and it was a waste of time to advance further.

The remnants of the Indus valley civilization were not so advanced in 300 BC. It is revisionist to claim otherwise

Only to return with a question mark in it's head.
What is India has been settled ? Even 95% of Pakistanis would not back you
 
What is India has been settled ? Even 95% of Pakistanis would not back you

Obviously you haven't seen posts online by Pakistanis. Those that know agree with me. When logic remains buried too long, it begins to re-emerge; usually uncontrolled.

India today is an non-ambiguous term.
 
We could play poker if you can hold that st face.

There’s a reason Alexander’s campaigns were called the most meticulously planned and well scripted ones
@ThunderCat What's he talking about? You understand Indians a bit better,can you explain to me or to him? His post had a source with a wrong date,that he used as proof and now he says that Alexander's campaigns were the most meticulously planned and well-scripted ones. I'm confused.
 
The remnants of the Indus valley civilization were not so advanced in 300 BC. It is revisionist to claim otherwise

The ancient Indus Valley civilization was extinct but local kingdoms around Indus river were fairly advanced with fort-like cities in times of Alexander. The Greeks were somewhat surprised to see this level of development in the region.
 
Well somethings are buried in time capsule.
We can never know the real truth.
Only Greek historians wrote about Alexander the great battle with Raja Porus and they were extremely biased. And that too after 400 years Alexander died.
If you study Alexander's personality then all the historical accounts of him and Raja porus are extremely dubious. Infact they point towards the victory of Raja Porus the son of Jhelum. The true son of this soil.

Bro, Greeks respected Raja Porus enough to document him in their recollections. WE would have no clue about Raja Porus being real otherwise. Raja Porus is noted for being a proud ruler and giving tough time to Alexander in the battle.

Greeks documented Alexander's exploits during his life, 400 years later claim is wrong.

Alexander had limited knowledge of the Indos region. He had no backup army with him. Defeat would be the end of him in the region. War Elephants were certainly strong and intimidating animals but a well-equipped army could bring them down. Alexander and his generals were not a bunch of amateurs but came up with battle tactics that are taught in military academies worldwide.

Pakistani researchers have a rich recollection of Alexander's exploits in the Indos in fact. I recommend following peer-reviewed article for consultation:

Warraich, T. A. (2014). First Europeans in Ancient Pakistan and their impact on its society. Pakistan Vision, 15(2), 191.

This is a comprehensive recollection of the local political landscape and Alexander's exploits in the region. He fought multiple battles and brought entire Indos to his control. Porus was handled a lot earlier in fact.

He returned to his homeland with his followers to reunite them with their families. But he wanted to create a new army and come back with it to explore additional lands, but this was not meant to be.

Some Hindu revisionists are trying to overhype Porus in line with their hindutwa narrative and chaddi researchers in Pakistan are buying it.

Punjab is historically noted for its lush lands and nobility. Not so much for producing world champions. No issue.

It is rather interesting to see that Punjab attracted people from far flung areas due to its beauty. Some of these visitors decided to stay including one of the Alexander's generals Eudemus.

Eudemus is rumored to have assassinated Raja Porus, and he died in Greek Civil War.

Fall of both Raja Porus and Eudemus exposed Punjab to invasion from the East by Mauryans.

How times change.
 
There is no reality as of yet that Alexander went to India, the last place where his cultural remains are found in the Hunza valley in Pakistan or Hazara region.
 

Back
Top Bottom