Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion
Handing victory in India to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.
In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.
On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.
Then a second wave of these mighty beasts rushed into the gap created by the first, either trampling the Macedonian soldiers or grabbing them by their trunks and presenting them up for the mounted Indian soldiers to cut or spear them. It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.
In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king's body, let alone slay his mount. Yet in this battle Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon, they also killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.
Says Plutarch: “The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”
According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”. Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.
In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.
Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the legendary Russian commander, said the Macedonians had suffered a catastrophic defeat in India. In the final part of this analysis, fact and fiction are separated.
May 27, 2013
Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East. But according to Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia.
Handing victory in India to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.
In 326 BCE a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander of Macedon it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.
Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.
Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete.
In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.
Zhukov’s view of Alexander
Statue of Alexander in Istanbul Archaeology Museum. Source: wikipedia.org
In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat.
In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.
So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.
No easy victories
Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine.
The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India.
On the first day after bitter fighting the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself was seriously wounded in the ankle.
On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.
Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called for a truce. The Assakenoi agreed; the old queen was too trusting. That night when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora.
However, the fierce resistance put up by the Indian defenders had reduced the strength – and perhaps the confidence – of the until then all-conquering Macedonian army.
Faceoff at the river
In his entire conquering career Alexander’s hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek accounts as standing seven feet tall.
In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle. The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry were bolstered by the Indian king Ambhi, who was Porus’s rival. Ambhi was the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Taxila and had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Porus’s kingdom.
Alexander meets Porus. Source: wikipedia.org
Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy strength.
According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry.
Another terrible weapon in the Indians' armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.
Indians strike
The battle was savagely fought. As the volleys of heavy arrows from the long Indian bows scythed into the enemy’s formations, the first wave of war elephants waded into the Macedonian phalanx that was bristling with 17-feet long sarissas. Some of the animals got impaled in the process.
Then a second wave of these mighty beasts rushed into the gap created by the first, either trampling the Macedonian soldiers or grabbing them by their trunks and presenting them up for the mounted Indian soldiers to cut or spear them. It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.
In the first charge, by the Indians, Porus’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount. This was a big deal.
In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king's body, let alone slay his mount. Yet in this battle Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon, they also killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.
According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king.
Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Porus’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”.
Macedonians: Shaken, not stirred
Although the Greeks claim victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander's army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.
The Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places “where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”.
Says Plutarch: “The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”
Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world.
According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”. Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.
Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers.
Partisans counterattack
The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander's army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.
In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot.
In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.
Says Military History magazine: “Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”
Alexander never recovered and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33.
Alexander vs Porus: Beyond the fog of war
June 3, 2013
Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the legendary Russian commander, said the Macedonians had suffered a catastrophic defeat in India. In the final part of this analysis, fact and fiction are separated.
Alexander meets Porus. Source: wikipedia.org
After defeating Persia in the year 334 BCE, Alexander of Macedon was irresistibly drawn towards the great Indian landmass. However, the Persians warned him the country was no easy target; that several famous conquerors had fallen at the gates of India.
The Persians told him how their greatest king, Cyrus, who had conquered much of the civilised world, had been killed in a battle with Indian soldiers exactly two centuries before Alexander.
And in an earlier antiquity, the Assyrian queen Semiramis, who had crossed the Indus with 400,000 highly trained troops, escaped with just 20 troops, the rest being slaughtered by the Indians.
Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion
In his book, Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Krishna Chandra Sagar says 150 years before Alexander, Indian archers and cavalry formed a significant component of the Persian army and played a key role in subduing Thebes in central Greece.
Alexander, however, knew no fear. More than anything else, he wanted to invade India. It would prove to be a strategic blunder.
Zhukov’s take
“Following Alexander’s failure to gain a position in India and the defeat of his successor Seleucus Nikator, relationships between the Indians and the Greeks and the Romans later, was mainly through trade and diplomacy. Also the Greeks and other ancient peoples did not see themselves as in any way superior, only different.”
This statement by Russia’s Marshal Gregory Zhukov on the Macedonian invasion of India in 326 BCE is significant because unlike the prejudiced colonial and Western historians, the Greeks and later Romans viewed Indians differently. For instance, Arrian writes in Alexander Anabasis that the Indians were the noblest among all Asians.
In fact, Arrian and other Greeks say the Indians were relentless in their attacks on the invaders. They say if the people of Punjab and Sindh were fierce, then in the eastern part of India “the men were superior in stature and courage”.
All this is glossed over by Western historians, in whose view the one victory over king Porus amounted to the “conquest of India”. But the Greeks made no such claim.
Battle of Hydaspes – Hardest ever
Greek contemporary writers describe the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) as the hardest fought of all Alexander’s battles. Frank Lee Holt, a professor of ancient history at the University of Houston, writes in his book, Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions: “The only reference in Arrian's history to a victory celebration by Alexander's army was after the battle with Porus.”
Alexander’s army did not indulge in celebrations after the Battle of Gaugamela where they defeated 200,000 Persians. No wild festivities were announced after the Battle of Issus where they defeated a mixed force of Persian cavalry and Greek mercenaries.
The fact they celebrated after the Battle of Hydaspes suggests they considered themselves extremely lucky to survive after the clash with the Hindu army, with its elephant corps.
If Porus lost, why reward him?
According to the Greeks, Alexander was apparently so impressed by Porus he gave back his kingdom plus the territories of king Ambhi of Taxila who had fought alongside the Macedonians.
This is counterintuitive. Ambhi had become Alexander’s ally on the condition he would be given Porus’ kingdom. So why reward the enemy, whose army had just mauled the Macedonians?
The only possible answer is at the Battle of Hydaspes, the Macedonians realised they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. The Indian king struck a bargain – in return for Ambhi’s territories, which would secure his frontiers, Porus would assist the Macedonians in leaving India safely.
Alexander’s post-Hydaspes charitable behaviour, as per Greek accounts, is uncharacteristic and unlikely. For, in battles before and after, he massacred everyone in the cities he subdued.
Why pay off a vassal?
Before the battle, Alexander gave king Ambhi 1000 talents (25,000 kilos) of gold for fighting alongside the Macedonians. The only explanation is Ambhi was driving a hard bargain. He knew the rattled Macedonian army was seeking to quickly exit India. He thought he could use the Macedonians to remove his rival Porus. However, Porus’ decision to offer Alexander combat checkmated those plans.
Tired of fighting: Lame excuse
Greek sources say Alexander retreated from India because his soldiers were weary, homesick and close to mutiny. Imagine if German soldiers had told Hitler they were tired of fighting? They would have been summarily shot. In Alexander’s time, the punishment was crucifixion.
The Macedonian army had a system of rotation where large batches of veteran soldiers were released to return home (with sufficient gold and slaves). In their place, fresh troops eager poured in from Europe.
If they were weary of constant warring, it is inexplicable why these soldiers chose to fight their way through obstinately hostile Indian territories. The homesick soldiers would have preferred the garrisoned northwestern route they took while coming in. Why would a brilliant commander subject himself and his troops to further violence when all they wanted was a peaceful passage home?
Clearly, the Macedonians were in a mess and not thinking straight. Not the sign of a victorious army.
After defeating Persia in the year 334 BCE, Alexander of Macedon was irresistibly drawn towards the great Indian landmass. However, the Persians warned him the country was no easy target; that several famous conquerors had fallen at the gates of India.
The Persians told him how their greatest king, Cyrus, who had conquered much of the civilised world, had been killed in a battle with Indian soldiers exactly two centuries before Alexander.
And in an earlier antiquity, the Assyrian queen Semiramis, who had crossed the Indus with 400,000 highly trained troops, escaped with just 20 troops, the rest being slaughtered by the Indians.
Marshal Zhukov on Alexander’s failed India invasion
In his book, Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Krishna Chandra Sagar says 150 years before Alexander, Indian archers and cavalry formed a significant component of the Persian army and played a key role in subduing Thebes in central Greece.
Alexander, however, knew no fear. More than anything else, he wanted to invade India. It would prove to be a strategic blunder.
Zhukov’s take
“Following Alexander’s failure to gain a position in India and the defeat of his successor Seleucus Nikator, relationships between the Indians and the Greeks and the Romans later, was mainly through trade and diplomacy. Also the Greeks and other ancient peoples did not see themselves as in any way superior, only different.”
This statement by Russia’s Marshal Gregory Zhukov on the Macedonian invasion of India in 326 BCE is significant because unlike the prejudiced colonial and Western historians, the Greeks and later Romans viewed Indians differently. For instance, Arrian writes in Alexander Anabasis that the Indians were the noblest among all Asians.
In fact, Arrian and other Greeks say the Indians were relentless in their attacks on the invaders. They say if the people of Punjab and Sindh were fierce, then in the eastern part of India “the men were superior in stature and courage”.
All this is glossed over by Western historians, in whose view the one victory over king Porus amounted to the “conquest of India”. But the Greeks made no such claim.
Battle of Hydaspes – Hardest ever
Greek contemporary writers describe the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) as the hardest fought of all Alexander’s battles. Frank Lee Holt, a professor of ancient history at the University of Houston, writes in his book, Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions: “The only reference in Arrian's history to a victory celebration by Alexander's army was after the battle with Porus.”
Alexander’s army did not indulge in celebrations after the Battle of Gaugamela where they defeated 200,000 Persians. No wild festivities were announced after the Battle of Issus where they defeated a mixed force of Persian cavalry and Greek mercenaries.
The fact they celebrated after the Battle of Hydaspes suggests they considered themselves extremely lucky to survive after the clash with the Hindu army, with its elephant corps.
If Porus lost, why reward him?
According to the Greeks, Alexander was apparently so impressed by Porus he gave back his kingdom plus the territories of king Ambhi of Taxila who had fought alongside the Macedonians.
This is counterintuitive. Ambhi had become Alexander’s ally on the condition he would be given Porus’ kingdom. So why reward the enemy, whose army had just mauled the Macedonians?
Charles Le Brun Alexander and Porus (1673). Source: wikipedia.org
The only possible answer is at the Battle of Hydaspes, the Macedonians realised they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. The Indian king struck a bargain – in return for Ambhi’s territories, which would secure his frontiers, Porus would assist the Macedonians in leaving India safely.
Alexander’s post-Hydaspes charitable behaviour, as per Greek accounts, is uncharacteristic and unlikely. For, in battles before and after, he massacred everyone in the cities he subdued.
Why pay off a vassal?
Before the battle, Alexander gave king Ambhi 1000 talents (25,000 kilos) of gold for fighting alongside the Macedonians. The only explanation is Ambhi was driving a hard bargain. He knew the rattled Macedonian army was seeking to quickly exit India. He thought he could use the Macedonians to remove his rival Porus. However, Porus’ decision to offer Alexander combat checkmated those plans.
Tired of fighting: Lame excuse
Greek sources say Alexander retreated from India because his soldiers were weary, homesick and close to mutiny. Imagine if German soldiers had told Hitler they were tired of fighting? They would have been summarily shot. In Alexander’s time, the punishment was crucifixion.
The Macedonian army had a system of rotation where large batches of veteran soldiers were released to return home (with sufficient gold and slaves). In their place, fresh troops eager poured in from Europe.
If they were weary of constant warring, it is inexplicable why these soldiers chose to fight their way through obstinately hostile Indian territories. The homesick soldiers would have preferred the garrisoned northwestern route they took while coming in. Why would a brilliant commander subject himself and his troops to further violence when all they wanted was a peaceful passage home?
Clearly, the Macedonians were in a mess and not thinking straight. Not the sign of a victorious army.
Need for glory
David J. Lonsdale, a lecturer in Strategic Studies at the University of Hull, writes: “Alexander’s invasion of India and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 both appear reckless and unnecessary from a strategic perspective. Therefore, perhaps they can both be explained by the sheer naked ambition of the two commanders.”
Alexander’s tragedy was he was in a Catch-22 situation. The Macedonians and Greeks welcomed the wealth from the conquered lands, but the man who ensured this flow was persona non grata.
In Greek eyes a Macedonian was hardly an equal. The Greeks hated Alexander for sacking their cities and enslaving their people. In his own country, he was an outsider for being half-Albanian, from his mother’s side. The common people suspected him of murdering his father.
A few years before the Indian campaign, a large part of the Macedonian army was massacred by the Scythians (Hindu Shakas, the Buddha’s clansmen) at Polytimetus, present day Tajikistan. Alexander warned his surviving troops not to discuss the massacre with other soldiers.So in order to retain the loyalty of his troops, Alexander had to wage constant war while also taking great personal risks in battle. For, he could not be seen as weak, let alone beaten.
Strabo, the Greek historian wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”
David J. Lonsdale, a lecturer in Strategic Studies at the University of Hull, writes: “Alexander’s invasion of India and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 both appear reckless and unnecessary from a strategic perspective. Therefore, perhaps they can both be explained by the sheer naked ambition of the two commanders.”
Alexander’s tragedy was he was in a Catch-22 situation. The Macedonians and Greeks welcomed the wealth from the conquered lands, but the man who ensured this flow was persona non grata.
In Greek eyes a Macedonian was hardly an equal. The Greeks hated Alexander for sacking their cities and enslaving their people. In his own country, he was an outsider for being half-Albanian, from his mother’s side. The common people suspected him of murdering his father.
A few years before the Indian campaign, a large part of the Macedonian army was massacred by the Scythians (Hindu Shakas, the Buddha’s clansmen) at Polytimetus, present day Tajikistan. Alexander warned his surviving troops not to discuss the massacre with other soldiers.So in order to retain the loyalty of his troops, Alexander had to wage constant war while also taking great personal risks in battle. For, he could not be seen as weak, let alone beaten.
Strabo, the Greek historian wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”
- Devika Menon · Palakkad, India
Also Alexander wrote to his mom that u have given birth to one brave Alexander here in India every mother has given birth to Alexander what he meant was that Indians were so brave. They also mentioned in Greek account that King Porus was 7 ft tall
Desh Pal Alagh · Kurukshetra University
super story of panjab , and story of brave ruler ,who never defeated by sikender
Ravinder Jeet Singh Balhara · Nda school, mumbai
The Jats ( Scythians) are still fighting for theire rightful place in indian history but Indian historians are prejudice.
Amit Srivastava
To start with, our academia has been hijacked by Western Christian Missionaries and Arab loyalists i.e. the Leftists/Marxists, who only have to keep glorifying their masters by teaching us twisted and manipulated historical facts since our school days, thus, sowing the seeds of subservience in our minds since our childhood days..
History books have been written (manipulated) and portrayed to us in a way to make us believe that we're just a bunch of forest dwelling savages and village illiterates, who have no civilization nor any contributions towards arts, science and medicines etc.. This has led us to continue treating ourselves with indignity and continue living with our servile attitude..
Remember that slaves don't question or overthrow the hegemony of their masters, so the masters will continue reigning upon us... :-)
If we scratch even the surface of our history, we get that the situation is completely reverse.. So, please continue with your quest for "THE" truth and feel very proud about your culture and ancient civilization.. We had a glorious past and WE CAN make our future glorious once again..!!!
Om Prakash Gupta · DAV College
Amit Srivastava
The problem with Indians from ancient times had been that they never chronicled the history of their times and relied more on shruti(spoken words) and smriti(memory).Muslim ,Arab,Persian and western chroniclers made full use of this weakness of Indians and wrote history suiting to their kings and emperors.Very little written material representing the Indian side of history in the times of Alexander is available and his contemporary historians wrote what added to glory of the Alexander even if it was untruth.Western historians in order to demean the Indians over whom they ruled took leaf from those ancient writings of the times of the Alexander which not only suited them but slighted their subjects . Earlier to British rule after Prithviraj Chouhan was defeated and Muslim sultanate established in Delhi followed by the dominance of Muslim rulers till East India Company spread it's tentacles ,the existing rulers naturally destroyed every thing which glorified Indians.Thus between 12 century AD to 20 century AD the history books were written to glorify the then rulers and demean Indians .After independence in the absence of any credible history by contemporary Indian historians of ancient and medieval times available we continue to read and believe what our rulers between 12th century and 20th century made us to believe.
Ajay Saini · Follow · Faculty at Mathematical finance · 718 followers
.Great narration of our History.. Feel proud as Indian..
Samya Chakraborty · University of Kalyani
This analysis should be reflected in the school history syllabus in India. Otherwise the old story would continue.
Ashish Shetty · Top Commenter · Manager, Trade Marketing at NMC Trading
Alexander usually allowed defeated kings to keep their kingdoms as long as they paid their tributes to his empire. So the article is wrong when it says it was "uncharacteristic and unlikely". And to further draw a conclusion that Alexander struck a truce with Porus to avoid defeat, is nothing short of a stark rewriting of history.
There were multiple historians who recorded this battle. And after defeating Porus, Alexander went on to establish two cities in that territory. That would've been impossible if he wasn't Porus' overlord at that time.
However, it is true that their Pyrrhic victory blunted the courage of the Greeks and they decided not to move further inland into India.
ushainst (signed in using yahoo)
Typical whitewashed sanitized Indian brainwashed by the lumpen elements that constitute the Politburo in Alimoodin Street, Ajoy Bhavan and the infamous ICHR who have always been at their "best" form while denigrating our past while publishing fiction as History thanks to their patronage by the Ghiasuddin Ghazi parivar often referred to the Nehru parivar.
Devakumar Madhavan
English references are taken from greek historians, who wrote about the battle 100 - 300 years later. Obviously the truth is distorted by that time.. Still the greeks only claimed Alexander did not lose the battle. It is the english text that claims he won.
1. How come after a truce, Porus secured his kingdom and extra territories from Alexander?
2. Why Alexander neglected his previous ally Omphis (Ambhi) from Taxilia (Thakshashila)? He should have given Porus kingdom to Omphis if he really won the battle. It is their previous Ally agreement.
3. Why did Chandragupta fought the first alexander satrap "Selucus" on the far west side of Sindu river, near modern day afghanistan? It is nowhere near the Jheelum river and porus kingdom.
4. Do you really think Phalanx is a superior technique than war elephants + heavy chariots?
Rajnish Sinha · Writer, Director, Photographer at Self-Employed
It also says that an Indian betrayed an Indian for self gain but with the near result that India lost. In later centuries, we see how the Moguls and then the British made inroads into the country and then ruled us, because we ourselves betrayed each other. History is replete with such incidents where one region betrayed another to the foreign power. We should also seriously incorporate this aspect of unIndianness into school curriculum along with the usual facts that we are brave etc.
Shankar Kumar Chatterjee · Top Commenter · Works atRabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences (RTIICS)
The same had been narrated by Bhagwanji to his followers listening across the curtain.
Abhas Verma · Follow · Senior Analyst / Developer at Musigma
Have a look at my book on Third Battle of Panipat
http://thirdbattleofpanipatmaratha .blogspot.in/2013/10/ third-battle-of-panipat-by- abhas-verma.html
Suresh Shama Shetty Shetty · Top Commenter · Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
it feels so wonderful to read and the writings are so insightful. better than the herd mentality prevalent currently.
Satish Marathe · Follow · Top Commenter · Director at Rajkot Nagarik Sah Bank Ltd · 175 followers
Late Man Moropantji Pingle had always stressed the need to re write true history of India. And during his lifetime, he organised a strong devoted team of historians/researchers for the purpose.
Rajat Ailawadi · Delhi, India
True. India is Grand and.
it conquers land.
Even it's mud and sand.
hold a popular brand.
Ravishekar Krish · M.D. at PHOENIX SOFTNET TECHNOLOGIES
now, that's a different take on the history that I learnt in school. almost similar to the present day lies being thrown by a subjugated media....makes interesting reading though...
Aseem Mishra · Follow
probably the history we learn in school needs revision. the world history books . the knowledge of the Indians regarding history is questionable. and the education system keeps the though provoking to the minimum. Its not an interesting story. rather needs rationalization by educated folks.
Shri Singh · Top Commenter · Works at UP Basic Education Board
I.E.WHY J.L.NEHRU WAS INSTALLED BY HIS MASTERS AS P.M.OF OUR COUNTRY-TO TEACH EURO VERSION AND INDIA IS A LAND OF BEASTS AS UNDERSTOOD IN WEST AS PER OUR PT.JASRAJ OF CLASSICAL MUSIChttp://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383.html
SB Nimse, president, Indian Science Congress Association, said that he had made a conscious effort to invigorate the century-old Science Congress by ensuring that leading, active researchers from all over the world congregate, exchange ideas and inspire young students to the possibilities of science. The proposal to include a session on scientific ideas in ancient Indian literature — the first such in the organisation's history — came from the Kavikulaguru Kalidas Sanskrit University, Nagpur and, while Nimse emphasised that he had no role in conceiving such a session, it appeared a good idea. "While they initially requested a day-long session, I insisted it be only a few hours and moreover it seemed worthwhile to have a discussion on scientific thought in our ancient texts," said Nimse. "There is considerable scholarship, for instance, on the conception of multiple infinities in old Jain literature and how even Fields medallist Manjul Bhargava's [one of the speakers at the Science Congress] prize-winning work was party influenced by his reading of [19th century] German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss in the original." Nimse emphasised that there was no request or pressure from the government to include such a session and that whether such as session would be included in future was "up to the future president".
Sawant, an Ayurveda physician and a PhD student, dressed in an immaculate grey suit, concluded with an exhortation that "...Sushruta is asking for credit to be known worldwide as the father of surgery". He argued that sophisticated techniques, such as corrective nose surgery, and the use of scalpels so sharp that they could "split hair", were lost because of the subsequent dominance of "certain religions". Also, he argued, "Buddhism's advocacy of non-violence gained such precedence that even the use of scalpels were considered to be violent and over time, surgery started to be practiced by 'lower classes' and they lost their refinement."
earchers, who are exploring provocative ideas and challenging conventional West-backed histories, said that sessions such as the science and Sanskrit impede their work.![Lost Kingdom of Champa / Angdvipa on the coast of Annam
Champa was an Indian Civilization in the East and was equally matured as civilization in Kamboja and Java. The kingdom was known variously as Champa Nagar in Cham and Cambodian inscriptions, Cham-Pa in Vietnamese and Zhancheng in Chinese records. They speak the Cham languages, a subgrouping of Malayo-Polynesian which shows a strong influence of Sanskrit. Thien Y A Na or Lady Po Nagar are the new names of Indian goddess Bhagwati Uma. Shiva worship was part of this kingdom as Shivaling could be found as Singhapura (Today my-Son ruins [3]). The record of this kingdom goes upto 2nd century AD. The Cham controlled the trade in spices and silk between China and India. Bodhidharma was too from southern part of India who took various Kaaripattu (kungfu) to China.
Historical Champa consisted of up to five principalities:
➊ Indrapura ("City of Indra") was the capital of Champa. It was located at the site of the modern village of Dong Duong, near the modern city of Da Nang. Also in the region of Da Nang are the ancient Cham city of Singhapura ("City of the Lion"), which currently is Tra Kieu, and the valley of My Son [1]
❷ Amaravati was located in present-day Quang Nam Province.
❸ Vijaya was located in present-day Bình Dịnh Province. The capital has been identified with the archeological site at Cha Ban. The associated port was at present-day Qui Nhon. Vijaya became the political and cultural center of Champa around 1000 AD, when the northern capital of Indrapura was abandoned due to pressure from the Viet.
❹ Kauthara was located in the area of modern Nha Trang in Khanh Hoa Province. Its religious and cultural center was the temple of Po Nagar (Bhagwati Uma), several towers of which still stand at Nha Trang.
❺ Panduranga was located in the area of present-day Phan Rang in Ninh Thuan Province. Panduranga was the last of the Cham (Champa) territories to be annexed by the Vietnamese.
The historiography of Champa relies upon three types of sources:[2]
Physical remains, including brick structures and ruins, as well as stone sculptures;
Inscriptions in Cham and Sanskrit on steles and other stone surfaces;
Chinese and Vietnamese histories, diplomatic reports, and other texts.
Khmer (Kamboja) troops from Cambodia invaded the region of Kauthara [4]. There were many wars between various empires like Khmer, Mongols etc. Indravarman series kings were in control of Champa empire, while Kamboja (present Cambodia) was in control with Jayavarman series kings. It is disputably believed that Indravarman and JayaSinhavarman were of same blood and due to dispute the kingdom of Kamboja and Champa was divided.
Champa and the Khmers: until the middle of the 13th century, the relations between the two neighbors will be mostly peaceful; this situation was mostly due to the fact that now Cham had also to face the attacks of the Khmers to the West. When that exterior threat was finally warned off, local rebellions broke. This pattern of fights first against the Khmers, then against local rebels will be repeated again later during the 12th century, until in 1203, Champa fell under the Khmer domination. However, despite the fact that the Chams were without a king of their own to lead them, the last one having fled by sea, the Khmers evacuated Champa after only 17 years. The reason for this withdrawal remains unknown to us even today.
A fatal mistake: the peace lasted a few decades. In 1301, the then King of Champa, Jaya Sinhavarman III, met the former king of the Vietnamese, Thran Nhon-Ton, who was on a pilgrimage after having left the throne to his son. He proposed to the Cham king the hand of his daughter as a gesture to show his gratitude at being so welcome, and as the King agreed, he succeeded at negociating the surrending of two northern provinces to the Vietnamese. Only, those provinces were so rebellious that they immediately caused trouble. The Vietnamese blamed Champa and invaded them in 1312. The king was taken captive and replace by his younger brother, and Champa was made a province of Annam. After a failed attempt in 1314, that resulted in the brother of the former king fleeing to Java, the viceroy, Che Anan, succeeded in driving the Vietnamese out, but didn't attempt to recover the two northern provinces. [5]
The end of Champa: this was the start of either an amazing recovery, or the last coup by an already condemned country. After years of piece, in 1360, the new King, Che Nbong Nga, started a series of attacks on Annam, going as far as Hanoi that was saked by the Cham forces. They kept the pressure on until the death of the King in 1390. They withdrew immediately afterwards, but left the Vietnamese in disaray. Therefore, the counter-attack came only in 1402, but was then successful, until the new Chinese dynasty, the Ming, first put a halt to those attacks before conquering Annam. When the Vietnamese drove the Chinese forces away in 1428, they tried at first to maintain peaceful relations with the Chams, who had recovered the lost ground and were becoming pretty aggressive towards their western neighbors, Cambodia. However, when the Cham King died in 1441, civil war was at hand, and the Vietnamese didn't miss such an opportunity. After 30 years, the greatest part of Champa was definitely under Vietnamese domination. Far south, a small Cham state survived until 1720, when the King and his people flew once again in front before the Vietnamese forces that were headed to Cambodia.[5]
[1]https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/KingdomOfChampa.html
[2] Vickery, "Champa Revised", p.4 ff.
[3] http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/mysonsanctuary.html
[4] Ngo Van Doanh, My Son Relics, p.73.
[5] http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/549713](https://scontent-a-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/q83/s526x395/10931066_348027058717680_5659194706300200785_n.jpg?oh=280d20489349621633f305a0a5a16ae3&oe=556F69AB)
