Alexander vs Indian army

[Acronym]

Does anyone have any info on the battle at the Indus river between the Macedonians and the Indians? Most sources say Alexander won and "wept because of no more worlds to conquere". Few sources indicate he was defeated, as the macedonians solders refused to fight anymore(some throwing down their weapons), hundreds of companions slaughtered, so Alexander surrendered, the indian king(whats his name) accepting.

I can see how he would have lost, since his men were in no mood to fight and march into india.

[Rosacrux]

Which battle are you reffering to Acronym? As far as ancient sources mention, Alexander didn't lost any battle, but his soldiers indeed refused to march beyond Hindus river, understanding that their leader did not intend to stop his campaign, until he'd manage to conquer the whole world (they didn't shared his vision to that extend... imagine their psyche and general conditions after several years of non-stop fighting, away from their homes etc. etc.).

I wouldn't go as far as assuming that they stopped fighting during a battle - that would prove fatal, you know, resulting only to their slaughter.

[Acronym]

I'm talking about the battle against the Indian king Porus, right by the indus river. Here's what I'm talking about...

http://forumhub.com/tnhistory/985.19.17.24.html
http://www.itihaas.com/ancient/1.html

[LadyAnn]

The Macedonean army didn't lose any battle against the indians. They got ambushed in a place now is Afghanistan and I believe the people before the Afghans were never been part if India. Even the ambush in Afghanistan is not really a defeat, just a guerrilla thing and annoyed the Greeks. The Greeks won several battles against Indian armies. We also must understand that India is not the unified India now. It was some states on western of modern India.

I think the path of his conquest is like this: moving to Anatolia and reach the capital of Persia (modern Iran). Push on to modern Afghanistan (was part of the Persian Empire, the most eastern province of Persia, thus claims entire Persia). Then he swing South into modern India, halt at the Indus river. In fact, he just won a major battle there.

There are several reasons why he stops at Indus River, most important is his companions want to go home. But there are some more reasons too.
1. He feel ill, as his headache is now more than terrible.
2. His supplies from Greece didn't arrive, so he now must seek out the supply convoy. The supply convoy is by sea, and he knows the ocean is in the South. But he was a bit surprised to see there are much more land South. You see, he went a bit too far East. So he now wants to go Southwestern.
3. He got a new concubine, and indian concubine. He got a soft touch of a woman
4. He already accomplished what he set out to do: defeat Persia in the East. The Indian states he conquered were vassals to Persia, but beyond the Indus River, the land was filled with people the Greeks only know exists by this first contact. Now, he must return West to claim the rest of Persia: the Middle East and Egypt.

So Alexander the Great moves his relative small army Southwest, through Arabia, There, many dies from thirst and exhaustion. He marches on the edge near the ocean, trying to catch a glimpse of his supply ships.

Alexander went home, but not before stopping his campaign on the West in Egypt.

He never been properly defeated by any army of his time. Lost more companions to the heat and the deseases than any enemy's action. His army was often outnumbered, but always managed to flank (hehe) the enemy at the right moment.

Annie

[rasoforos]

lady ann is correct. a descroption of the battle can be found in Arianos i think who wrote about the whole campaign. and as it was said there is no indication of alexander losing a battle.

moreove i saw your links . ok the first is an indian ( natonalist to appear historical) page and its quite clear to me that it is just trying to discredit alexander ( the lack of references , historical evidence , archaeological discoveries , as well as the fact that the area stayed under greek leadership ( kinda difficult to do that if you lose the battle) ) point to me that it shouldnt be taken seriously

[LadyAnn]

Revisionist history by anti-colonial complex?

I spot it when it starts with "british historian"...

Persia at the time was a superpower, with territory extends from Egypt to the West and Afghanistan to the East. Even the Indian states are vassals to Persian rule. Defeating Persia was not a mean feat (I do conceed that the conquest of Alexander the Great is romanticized by the West as the greatest conquest, because what Alexander did was just take what Persia already achieved).

BTW, most of the states Alexander encountered were now in modern Pakistan, so the Indian patriots could rest in peace

I don't think any ruler would be stupid enough to spare an army that just conquered his bigger and richer power, the Persians. You know the way war was fought. If Indians waged bloody wars among themselves, don't talk about how humanitarians this king or that king could be. And to say that a king would not jump on the opportunity to rule Persia simply by executing Alexander (if the theory was true) is to ignore how economy, politics and history are all related.

The fact that Macedoneans ruled Persia for another hundred years or so proves it all. And the fact that Julius Caesar did it again a couple of hundred years later means those Indian states are not ready for prime time.

Sorry folks, I must stop because this thread is getting heated.

Annie

[Acronym]

I'm not saying I agree with the author of the web page, mainly I'm questioning the ancient sources. But I also think the Macedonians were most likely successful against porus.

Btw, much of alexanders eastern army was made up of persian recruits, and very few macedonians and greeks went back to greece, many settling in asia after alexanders death, indicating not many were as homesick as we may think.

[rasoforos]

rasoforos is boiling some hot oil up on the city walls. anyone who disagrees with my godsent oppinions should come to the city and tell me so...

acronym you are correct. Alexander pursued the policy of marrying some of his people to local girls. However there were many married men in his army as well ( especially high ranking officers) so i guess there were many complaining about the duration of the war. ( not to mention being 30+ and fighting at hot and moist india in heavy greek armor must not be very pleasant. Moreover as you say there were some persian recruits but not many because it was something new. I sometimes stand and think that with an army of 30.000 he conquered the persian empire....imagine what could he do with 500.000 (taken from population rich persia) trained in phallanx.....

[LadyAnn]

Persian recruits couldn't make up a lot of his 30000 army. On the other hand, there were some indians fighting along his side, eager to settle local disputes by allying with a new conquering force (Alexander's guides are local).

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the just conquered Persians. I am not talking about a generation of something. Your army was just slaughtered like yesterday. Your king killed. Your capital sacked. Your treasury (10 times the amount of silver of the treasury of Greece, many more gold) looted, your women captured, raped, or put it mildly, forced to marry greek soldiers. You are no longer a proud citizen of the Empire, but a defeated slave. Would you fight along their side? And you didn't hate the Greek last year. After all, they defeated your empirial armies a couple of times in Marathon, Salamis, etc. You hate them for many generations.

Let's put us in the sandals of the Greeks. Yes, they would welcome the defeated people and assign the task of arrow magnets. So the real persians know that. They would rally around what left of persian leadership, trying to take back their land, instead of dying.

But it is very possible that Greek receives Indian help. Perhaps the "persians" that helped Alexander were Indians of vassal states to Persia. They don't see themselves as part of the people on the other side of the Indus River. Heck, they may even speak different languages. Nor they feel attached to the Persian culture. And yes, it was recorded that there is an Indian King who came to greet the greek and offer the service of his army.

Am sadden that the colonial complex is still around. You see, am half Viet, and I see some Viet pseudo-historians also falls into the same trap, enslaved forever in anti-colonial sentiments. Indians are great people. Stand up and proud to be your own, instead of sinking back to the inferiority sentiments. First step is to accept that at certain time in history, your ancestors may not be as great as you want them to be. Then you may understand how to avoid being defeated again.

A point of solace. Alexander marked one of the highest points the Greek achieved. It all goes down hill from there.

Annie

[rasoforos]

lady ann do not forget that there were many monorities in the persian empire that under persian occupation they were little more than slaves, this can be seen by the way alexander was greeted in egypt. moreover the persian army was not an army of men fighting willingly , behind every unit there was a group of people with whips to make sure they ll go and fight , even the persians had to go through this. so i speculate that many people were more than happy not to have to be mass recruited , ill equiped and sent to a slaughter. moreover being on the winning side is a motive for a lot of people. i do not believe that alexander used persians as a first line soldiers at any battle but i believe that if he had lived 20-30 years more he would do that.

[nokhor]

1. porus was defeated by alexander and was made a satrap by alexander who doubled the amount of territory under porus' control after he swore fealty. after alexander's death porus was assasinated by a greek co-administrator who drew all the power into his hands.

2. there was a strong indian kingdom, maghda, i believe, that lay to the south with 1000s of war elephants and a huge army. it was this that alexander's troops feared he was going to lead them onto next and they mutinied more from exhaustion of 13 years constant campaining than the fear of the indians and their elephants.


3. several years later, one of alexander's successor, selucus, was defeated, by the man who usurped power in maghda, chandragupta maurya, who was on his way to creating the first real pan-indian state.

i think 1. 2. and 3. got muddled together to create the idea that alexander was defeated by porus in india.

[Acronym]

rasoforos you took the words right outta my mouth

Very true that many persian soldiers were ill treated and had no say in the battle. Tradition greek culture consisted of men who fought more or less for freedom, in a sense, and had much say in the politics and military. This wasn't really the case when Philip and Alexander took over, but there was still a sense of freedom and heroism in the macedonian army, also the men were paid for their services.

What philip and alexander did was revolutionize the concept of military, and alexander often visited the wounded, trying to be some help(though I don't think he really did this after his first major persian battles).

The recruited persians knew they had to accept their new ruler, and aside from the ruthless killing and burning cities, most persians I'm sure were treated better, at least the ones that accepted him. And the ones in his military did have a sense of unity I'm sure, and were paid, instead of being forced to march into their own death. After Gaugamela, most persian recruits probably shared a sense of invincibility too.

[LadyAnn]

we must be careful of what is called "recruit persians".

There are the ruling Persian, based in currently Iran, and
the vassal states around it. There are people of Anatolia, some of them were Greeks colonies, the Egyptians, the Semite (Jews and other Nomads), various Indian-cultured states in now modern Pakistan and Northern India, the people of Mesopotamia who are not Persian, the Afghans in the East and various steppe tribes in the North.

I don't consider the vassal states as Persian recruits. In the case of Indus River, the "recruits" are actually Indians.

So, I don't see I am in disagrement with Rasoforos. That was the point I made all along: the recuits are from vassal states, not persia proper.

Annie

[Acronym]

But there were recruites long before alexander reached the indus, causing macedonians suspicious of their king

[Tachikaze]

It's difficult to say for sure what really happened in ancient times when the historians' biases were so important. The histories I've read did imply that Alexander respected Porus more than any of his other opponents.

I figure that if it is true that Alexander made Porus a satrap, he must have defeated him.

[Acronym]

Tachikaze, true and that's why I brought the topic up. When one source says one thing and one says another it's almost like pick and chose. Just figuring out the most credible I guess. I'm thinking he most likely defeated porus, even the bible seems to indicate that claim.

[nokhor]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Jan. 10 2003,15:49)]rasoforos is boiling some hot oil up on the city walls. anyone who disagrees with my godsent oppinions should come to the city and tell me so...

acronym you are correct. Alexander pursued the policy of marrying some of his people to local girls. However there were many married men in his army as well ( especially high ranking officers) so i guess there were many complaining about the duration of the war. ( not to mention being 30+ and fighting at hot and moist india in heavy greek armor must not be very pleasant. Moreover as you say there were some persian recruits but not many because it was something new. I sometimes stand and think that with an army of 30.000 he conquered the persian empire....imagine what could he do with 500.000 (taken from population rich persia) trained in phallanx.....

rasoforos, alexander did have several 10s of thousands of persian upperclass youth trained in the way of fighting in the madedonian phalanx. but alexander died before he could ever get around to using them. the macedonians troops feared them being used as a political counterweight to them and after alexander's death we hear no more of them. so it is assumed they were disbanded.

on a related note, one of the ptolemies of egypt later on did train native egyptians in phalanx fighting and by the accounts they fought well. there was a native egyptian revolt sometime after that though that was put down with some difficulty. a while after, the egyptian phalanx was disbanded. and some historians infer that it was disbanded because members of the egyptian phalanx participated in the revolt, or it was just seen as too politically dangerous to keep them armed.

[Rosacrux]

In all the diadochoi kingdoms, the mainstay of the army was drafted of the local populations. The Greeks were only a minority (a rather large in Selefkia and Pondos, a small in Egypt and a tiny one in Baktria etc.) so they couldn't possibly man the huge armies the hellenistic kingdoms are famous for.

They used Greek mercenaries extensively, but the bulk of their armies were the locals.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

As far as I know,

Alexander was never defeated.... he was very lucky at times, was possibly saved once or twice by his second in command, (Parmenion), and had the good fortune of facing a commander who lost his cool easily (Darius II), when Alexander fought the main Persian army.

He defeated Porus quite decisively at the Hydaspes in 326 BC. After the battles, when it became clear that Alexander wanted to march on his men protested an mutinied..Alexanders gave in to the mutineers, while according to legend, weeping that he now could not conquer the rest of the world.

IMHO the following things (öisted in random order of importance) contributed to the mutiny:

1. The men had been fighting and marching for 8 years now, and covered 1000's of miles (the mediterranean coast, Egypt, through central Iraq, Northern Iran, Pakistan ((re)founded Kandahar) , up north to Uzbekistan where he (re)founded the present day city of Tasjkent and through Tadjikistan and then down south to Indus river. Often this route led through very difficult terrain (the Taurus mountains, the Hindu Kush (with peaks up to 5000 meters (15,000 ft)and edges of the Pamir mountains (the central part of which has peaks over 7000 m (21,000 ft.) high), and various deserts. Incredibly, Alexander's army often crossed these obstacles under the most difficult circumtances, as far as weather is concerned, while, in the mountains, continously being harrased by hostile tribes. Probably plain and simple battle fatigue. After marching for 8 years, fighting countless battles and having lost many 1000's of comrades the men simply had had enough.

2. Alexanders was more and more taking over the eastern style of living, and forced many of his senior officers, and expected many of his rank and file, to do the same. A legendary example of this is the mass wedding were Alexander married Roxane, a Bakhtrian princess. In Greece, the eastern way of living was heavily frowned upon. So this led to growing resentment.

3. Alexander had been showing an increasing amount of despotical and dictatorial tendencies. One of the most prevalent was a growing feeling of paranoia. Among the victims were Clitus, his brother-in-arms, who saved Alexander's life at the Battle at the Granikos river, killed in an alcohol induced rage, Filotas, commander of his Companion Cavalry, on the bogus/trumped up charge of treachery. And last and possibly most important, Filotas' father, Parmenion, commander of the left wing of the Macedonian army, and 2nd in overall command after Alexander. Parmenion had served under Alexander's father, had, through his command abilities, enabled Alexander to take the (irrisponsible) risks in battle he had taken at the Battle of Issos and Battle of Gaugamela (Arbela), and probably the most beloved and popular commander in the Macedonian army after Alexander himself. Again, this led to a growing resentment of the Macedonian rank and file.

[nokhor]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Jan. 11 2003,09:01)]In all the diadochoi kingdoms, the mainstay of the army was drafted of the local populations. The Greeks were only a minority (a rather large in Selefkia and Pondos, a small in Egypt and a tiny one in Baktria etc.) so they couldn't possibly man the huge armies the hellenistic kingdoms are famous for.

They used Greek mercenaries extensively, but the bulk of their armies were the locals.

couldn't agree more, but the phalanx components of the armies were kept exlusively greek for political reasons.