I'm, a bit confused by the different opinions I see on the internet. Indians especially seem to think that Porus won the Battle of the Hydaspes.
Printable View
I'm, a bit confused by the different opinions I see on the internet. Indians especially seem to think that Porus won the Battle of the Hydaspes.
Clear win for Al, but at a bit of a psych cost. His army was done heading East after that battle -- even though it was a pretty big win tactically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandy Blue
Im with Seamus in this one. Clear tactical victory for Alexander, but he must have clearly understood after the battle that with what army he still had. He would not take all India.
Tactical victory for the Greeks
Strategic win for Porus. He didn’t win on the field but his defense broke the will of the enemy to continue.
Agree, but I would suggest that it was the Army's will to fight that was sapped, not Al's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I think that is a very complex issue. Did not his troops already try to make a stop at Afghanistan and the result was that he mopped up the ring leaders and executed them? I bet good old Al made big show that it was the troops that let him down, while he would have taken the world if it was up to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Alexander never struck me as a dumb one. I am quite sure that he understood quite clearly that he could fight only so many battles against such odd´s so far from his base of operations and if he would loose eventually. Every vassal he had made would turn against him and finish him off. It is strictly my opinion, but i think he blamed the army to save face as we know he did not rule a democracy and he could have always forced the army to push on, just like in Afghanistan.
Didn't he punish the army with a grueling march through the Gedrosian Desert?
Shortest route home. Im sure he was not thirsty..;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Looks like the answers (except Kagemusha's, to some degree) are based on the assumption that the story the Greeks and Macedonians brought home and was eventually retold by Greek historians is pretty much how it happened. Do we have any particular reason for believing their story? Have we any reasons to doubt it? Are there any sources that tell the story differently? Seems to me that those are the sorts of questions one has to deal with in order to evaluate claims that he lost the Battle of the Hydaspes. To be honest, I wouldn't know where to start.
If you want to evaluate the question more throughout. You have to go to the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexand...historiography
Like i said before my hypothesis is based on how he reacted to the unwillingness of his men to continue before he reached India.:yes:
The only sources are Greek or western. We have no Indian sources of the battle or the aftermath.
There was an Indo-Greek culture and kingdom. It is apparent at the very least some understanding was reached.
Western sources say that Alexander made Porus a Client King and enlarged his lands.
This seems the basis for the argument. If he lost why leave him as a king and give him more lands.
That seems to be the big sticking point in modern arguments.
It was not the end of the campaign of course as the army continued south securing borders before returning west.
There would be little need of that had he met with defeat. Obviously they were cementing gains not abandoning the area to a victorious enemy or doubtful friend.
To add, they genuinely thought they would reach the Ocean (as in the end of the world's land) in a matter of days...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
It is a matter of debate how much of the mutiny is true, face-saving propaganda or whatever. Any sound military commander would've realised that his position in India couldn't be maintained with the available resources. (local Brahmins were also raising revolts in basically every single village)
The march in the desert was supposed to be the quickest way out. Especially because the land army was to meet up with the fleet, but they didn't failed to do so. Or at least that is how the history that has come down to us goes...
Still Alexandros had to resort to shows of leadership by refusing water, which doesn't seem to imply punishment, but real logistical troubles. Unless it is yet another face-saving episode...
Moreover back in Babylonia, plans were being made for naval and amphibious operations, due to the new gathered geographical informations. So a possible "Indian re-match" might've been on the eventual new campaigns...
As for who won and all their possible labels, tactical/political/strategic and blah blah blah. To me that's all moot XD
Supposedly, Alex was bruiting a Western campaign at the time of his death. Not sure of it, of course.
It is certainly possible that we have not heard "the whole story" of Porus and Alexander....but it strikes me as difficult to get that many 1000s of Greeks, Persians, and Macedonians to all "play along" with the official story. Not to say that there wasn't some "off the record" deal-making involved (seems likely) but that something of the "official" story had to ring true or we would have counter-accounts to deal with. Especially as we know the successors vied for prestige with one another following Alex's death -- a believable alternative story about how they "stayed true in India when others drew back" would have been used.
Sounds to me like there are only two choices, either accept the Greek (biassed, but not necessarily lying) accounts, or speculate. I wondered if the Indian patriotic point of view I've seen on the web had any firm basis, but it looks like it is biassed speculation (but not necessarily wrong).
Doesn't matter too much I guess. Alexander withdrew regardless of what happened at the battle.
If alexander could win that battle, all India would be part of macedon empire, like Anatolia, Iran and Afghanistan. So, my vote goes to Porus.
Beating one king in one battle would not necessarily secure Porus' kingdom for Alexander, still less all of India. Do you really think that richer and more powerful kings further into India would have lined up and tamely paid Alexander homage just like that? For that matter, did Alexander conquer all of Persia in a single battle? No.
But hey, your vote belongs to you. Who am I to tell you how to use it? :2thumbsup:
If beating one king 3 times gives you Anatolia, Iran and Afghanistan, beating one king in one battle could give India too. seems legit to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandy Blue
If alexander won that battle, he wouldn't stop, he was an advanturer. he would even try to invade China. Like I said, Porus stopped him and alexander didn't even try again to invade India.
Persia was an empire. India was a number of independent kingdoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by PilaPis
Alexander didn’t give up, his army quit on him. He could lead it back or stay there alone.
The Greek satrapies were again confirmed by the Treaty of Triparadisus in 321BC.
He became a client of the Macedonians for some reason. It is hard to figure that if he had won.
Alexander won.
I have read the accounts about Porus (His actual name was Puru, I love how names get corrupted. Alexander became Iskander and finally Sikander, and Puru became Porus) winning the battle. Most of the ones you find online have been written by fanatically nationalist Indians. The kind there is no arguing with. Even the Wikipedia page has not been spared from their drivel.
Anyway, as it has been mentioned trusted historical sources tell us that Alexander won although at a great cost. The reason he did not continue because Porus was just one of the many kings in Northern India. beyond Porus' kingdom was the kingdom of Magadha, ruled by the Nanda dynasty, which stretched across the Gangetic plains, and had an army considerably larger than that of Porus . And most importantly they had elephants. Most of the accounts of the Battle of Hydaspes agree on the fact that while Alexander's infantry phalanxes managed to hold their own against the war elephants, they were still still not too eager about fighting them again. And by some accounts the Nandas fielded upto 6000 war elephants (as opposed to just 100 that Porus had). It is also worth keeping in mind that these elephants were larger than the Atlas elephants found in North Africa (although smaller than the present day African elephant).
Add to this the fact that Alexander's army was already demoralized and that it was the humid monsoon season with the rivers overflowing their banks, no wonder he had to go back even after winning the battle.
Why his army quit on him? Please don't say "they missed their home".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
If alexander got victory, he wouldn't stop, IMHO. he or his men afraid to move more. if they would invade India they couldn't survive. And, this means, Porus won, at least for me.
Actually that is incorrect. One does not always keep fighting after winning. As you no doubt know there is something known as a Pyrrhic victory. While Alexander's victory over Porus might not have been so in the traditional sense, but as Seamus mentioned in the second post, the psychological cost of the victory was too high.Quote:
Originally Posted by PilaPis
Also JFR they did not turn back right after the battle. The army revolted before they could cross the banks of Hyphasis river (modern day Beas river).
That was the my point. They afraid to move more. greeks might have victory on battlefield (with heavy cost) but true victors were Indians. alexander and his fellows were adventurers, they just invade strapy by strapy, until they meet a real army. Don't say "Darius' army was an army", Achaemenid Empire was an almost-collapsed empire. When greeks met a real enemy they realized that that's not fun anymore and wanted to return back. If Indians didn't resist them, greeks would even invade China.Quote:
Originally Posted by rajpoot
Actually, Alexander’s army weren’t Greeks. They were Macedonians. Don’t read in too much Greek nationalism into to it. All that came later.
The army was the first full time army we have in recorded history. Professional soldiers drilled in their tactics and well trained. They used combined arms tactics and had specialized troops for specific roles.
These were all innovations and changed how armies fought. It was what allowed them to go so far.
No one else was able to do it because no one else had such an advantage. It is usually the same with any conquering army. They make some advance in tactics or technology that gives them great advantage over others which allows them to do spectacular things.
At some point something stops them. Armies adapt to counter their advantage and things stabilize.
The Phalanx was the major system for a while and was defeated by the manipular later.
Horse archers in mass were rulers of the battlefield for a time too but innovations and technology finds ways to defeat past developments.
Something new always comes a long.
Nationalism really plays little part. People think these things up. Individuals! Then their nations want to take the credit.
Hi there - I felt the urge to register to just reply on this quote. I do like the way you put logic in everything you say (I read your previous posts and I liked them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Now I hope everything I will write will not insult you or any other person or for some reason show nationalism from my side.
I am a very big fun of history and not just my history (I come from two distinct countries) but I have a fascination and respect of all nations’ history and I have been reading, studying, researching, listening and watching history all my life until now and will continue to do so.
I believe that it is incorrect to state that Macedonians were not Greeks or that Greeks were Macedonians as much as it is incorrect to call them Greeks altogether. Athens, Sparta, Thessaly, Epirus, Macedon, the islands (Creta etc), the Caucasian Pontic people (there were Iranians there too) etc they were all the same people who you now call Greeks..even the Romans were of the same people. For the sake of giving them a name I will refer to what you call Greeks of that time also as Greeks for what I have to say below with the only difference that I will include the Macedonians in the same bunch:
Alexandros (a pure ancient greek name with an actual ancient greek meaning), being taught by Aristotelis (who was born in Macedon and also a Greek), eventually marched for all the known reasons with a promoted and forced hellenisation to unite all the states into one kingdom under his rule of course and conquer Asia.
I would like to understand what you mean by saying he was Macedonian and not Greek? This statement makes no logical sense to me. Spartans were not Greek either they became Greek when all states were combined alongside Athenians, etc, which was the sole objective of the Macedonian kings long before Alexander but they never managed to do this before him.
The important thing to understand is that they were same people, all had the same ethnicity, so now the correct thing to say is that they were "Greek" speaking people. Each state has their own dialect - we are talking about big differences but that does not mean the spoke a different language...
Take the Germanic people for example. Saxons, Angles, Danes, Jutes, Nords, Franks, Langobards, Goths (the list is very big) were all Germanic people with very distinct dialects but they were all Germanic and they are now in England, Holland, France, northern part of Italy, Denmark Scandinavia etc. Take the Celts which were mostly driven away by Saxons to the western part of the United Kingdom. The Celtic people were Gauls, Britons and now they are Irish, Scots and Welsh (Welsh meaning driven away to the coast - The Saxons did this). I have friends who still speak Gallic.
Are you maybe implying that the Macedonians were not Greeks and they were actualy that new born country that is being brainwashed by their government to make them believe that they have Alexander's blood in them? Let us not forget that Greeks are the only people who managed to save the common language of that time which was spoken by the romans even at the time of the Roman empire (most history and geography related books were in Greek).
Are you saying that Alexander was speaking Slavic and that he actually decided to promote Hellenisation (the culture of Athenians and of all other Greek city states culture) instead of Macedon's culture? What the Macedonians claim and teach to their schools is what I call a shameful crime..and that I call fanatical nationalism.
For those who say that modern Greeks are not related to Ancient Greeks this is a very poor statement which proves that people have not actually connected the dots, because reading history is like the flow of life you cannot just read segmented parts on their own.
Yes I agree that in Greece you will have people of various ethnicities and cultures that have stayed in that area and remained as Greeks who were otherwise from different ethnicities. How is that you might ask? Well because the Byzantine Empire (aka ERE) was largely Greeks, Roman nobles, Armenians (Leo was the emperor of the byzantine empire also), many mercenaries such as Varangians and Goths who actually lived among them, even Celts,. After the 4th Crusader that the Christians (Latin Christians) betrayed their own brothers (the Greek Christians) and savagely sacked the Byzantine empire and destroyed a lot of historical Libraries which held so much rich information about the world - the road was open for the Ottoman Empire to come in and occupy the territory which you now call Greece and which was part of the Ancient Greeks and ruled for some time from the Roman empire. Lots of Greeks fled, lots was killed but lots also remained under the 400 year rule of the Ottomans. That does not mean that Greeks became Ottoman or disappeared from the world. Same way that Germans did not disappear and suddenly became Roman or Greek etc.
I want everyone to note this: I have the outmost respect for history and civilisations. I am fascinated by many cultures such as the Chinese, Ancient Egyptians, the nations that constituted the powerful Sassanian empire, the older Persian empire with Cyrus the Great, the Celts, the Slavs, the Indians etc.
I will always try to learn and research and understand as much as possible for these people and travel to their world whenever possible before World War 3 takes its toll in humanity. Please do not read this as an aggressive post and excuse my incorrect grammar and spelling.
Regards
Alexandros
If I've got my history straight, the ancient Greeks considered Macedonia to be a non-Greek kingdom ruled by a Greek dynasty, but I guess how you want to categorize ancient Macedonia is up to you. None of the ancient Greeks or Macedonians are around to argue.
As for Alexander the Great's army, I don't think you can consider it to be Greek by the time he reached India, even if you count Macedonians as Greeks. He had a lot of Persians in his army by then.
Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandy Blue
Thanks for your post.
Yes you are right! The Athenians never considered them to be as same but same applies for other kingdoms of ancient Greece. Athenians were very fanatic of their own and considered most underdeveloped kingdoms as not equal. But that is well know and written in many ancient documents (the said the same for Spartans...they never liked them)
One thing to remember: Every kingdom that took part in Olympic games were ancient greeks in origin and they all shared the same religion.
I am not really following what you are saying about him having Persians in his army. Obviously he had Persians in his army when fighting in India, as he had Egyptians, Celts, and 100s of other tribes and 100s of thousand greeks too. What we are saying here is that it was an ancient greek empire.
Thanks again
Alex
I hope you become a regular poster, Alex Scarface. We can always use with some more!
I didn't mean anything special by saying that there were Persians in Alexander's army. Fisher King pointed out that the army was not Greek (well not all Greek, anyway) and I was agreeing with that. If you want to consider Alexander's empire Greek because Alexander himself was considered Greek, that's fine by me. After all, no one has any problem with the Roman empire being "Roman," even though their army had lots of non-Romans in it.
If Fisher King wants to consider Alexander's empire "Macedonian" because Macedon is the kingdom which the Phillip II/Alexander the Great franchise started out with, I don't have a problem with that either. I assume Fisher King understands that the ancient Macedonians were pretty similar to the ancient Greeks, and were not really the same as the modern Macedonians.
I have no idea what is being taught in Macedonian schools, but if they are saying that Alexander and his Macedonians (and Greeks) built a Slavic empire, then I do have a problem with that. It just isn't true.
@Scarface,
The point I was making was that they came from the periphery of the Greek World. They had a different outlook and made innovations.
Core civilisations tend to grow stagnant and great innovations come from the out edges. They are usually regarded as somewhat backward until there different path places them out front.
Kings & Generals did an interesting video about the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom some time ago, outlining the farthest Greek state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQATsepKoLE