Review of Ranajit Pal, Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander

[abm]

BMCR has a review of

Ranajit Pal, Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander, New Delhi: Minerva Press, 2002. Pp. 254. ISBN 81-7662-032-7. £21,50.

@ http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-12-39.html

The book seems to shed new light on a lot of problems from an Indian perspective, but assessing the arguments probably requires a thorough Indological knowledge.

[jan]

This is one of the more enjoyable book reviews that I have read, and I am truly hopeful that this book will be available to read.

Several things struck me. I know that Dr. Pal had long been a visitor at Pothos, and so probably will read this review also.

I am impressed with his effort to produce a motivation other than vaingloriousness in crossing the Gedrosian Desert. The reference to Badian is pertinent to my understanding of Alexander, and Dr. Pal's efforts to dissuade his readers from that kind of thinking.

With only miniscule historical sources at hand, it is often preposterous to think that a modern writer will ever discover something new that has not already been cussed and discussed, but this effort by Dr. Pal suggests that he has sources that others had not considered. It will be interesting to read what he has to say.

In light of what is happening in Pakistan today, as I have just learned that former Prime Minister Bhutto has been assassinated, it is important to remember that what was called India is really Pakistan after all in today's geography. Only a small portion of India is included in Alexander's itinerary.

I am rather concerned that Alexander's legacy is still at work in Pakistan. There is little doubt of that, as both Americans and the Taliban seem to be under its influence.

Despite Dr. Pal's efforts to disprove the idea that all Alexander was intending to do was to outwit, outlast, and outplay both Semiramis and Cyrus the Great, I daresay that that was the primary motivation for his taking that route. He knew the costs and the prospects very well, but had to prove that he and his troops had the blessings of the gods to do them all one better. Whether that proves his own vaingloriousness, his own megalomania, or his own deterioration is subject to interpretation. I believe it only proves that Alexander is always up to the challenge, no matter how difficult the odds. He did make it through, thus proving his own case.

As centuries pass, many scholars will attempt to explain away the impossible aspects of Alexander's life. Good for each of them to become so immersed in such a study. It only helps further the mystery.

[Phoebus]

Engels also put forth a compelling (to me, at least) argument for Alexander crossing the Gedrosian. As I recall, his theory was that, operating coastally with a supporting navy, Alexander would have been better off going that route than back the way he came. Speed and efficiency were mentioned, IIRC, as was the idea that, had Alexander backtracked so soon, the territories Alexander's enlarged army and entourage would have had to re-cross would not have the supplies needed for them.

Of course, I didn't bring his work on Macedonian logistics with me, but I'm seriously contemplating ordering it again.

[Trader]

Hi. Which is the proper term for the desert, Gedrosian or Makran or are these separate things?

AND I'm looking for an article on the desert crossing that's supposed to be on this site can anyone tell me where it is?

Thanx!!

[amyntoros]

Hi. Which is the proper term for the desert, Gedrosian or Makran or are these separate things?

AND I'm looking for an article on the desert crossing that's supposed to be on this site can anyone tell me where it is?

Thanx!!

Although the territory the army passed through was known to the ancients as Gedrosia, the desert itself is known as the Makran today. Can't be sure when exactly it was given that name - my geographical knowledge of the area is pretty poor.

The pathway to the article is: Pothos.org (Home Page) - Geography and Culture - Makran desert; but here's a direct link

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Well, i dont know if Makran means something in the local language, but Makris, means lengthy in Greek, or distant. So, Makran could be actually a name that was given in the ancient years for this desert which is lengthy.

[rocktupac]

According to Wikipedia it is a combination of the "Persian phrase Mahi khoran" or "fish-eaters (Mahi = fish + khor = eat)."

Although it is from Wikipedia, it could be one possible explanation. Another website, Livius.org is listed as the source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makran

[Tantalus]

Here's another, even if a less favorable, review:

http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm

And here's the contents of the book:

http://www.classics.und.ac.za/reviews/pal.htm

.

[rjones2818]

Dr. Pal looks at Alexander from and Indian perspective, which is one we don't get very often. If you've read his web pages, you'll have an idea where the book goes.

I got my copy via an Amazon reseller. At first I ordered through amazon.co.uk and it didn't go through, so I bought through the reseller. It's usually listed, when you can find it, starting at $60, although it's listed at Amazon right now at $145:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... 859&sr=1-1
and 136+ pounds at Amazon.co.uk:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listin ... 933&sr=8-1

I'm not selling mine!

[appietas]

I read this review article today, quickly. Maybe too quickly.
With all the new evidence on Bactrian and Indo-Greek chronology, the idea that anyone can seriously assimilate Diodotos I and Ashoka is amazing. Is this guy serious or another Hindutva extremist?

The reigns of Diodotos and Ashoka weren't even contemporary, and certainly over different lands with the only possible overlaps in Arachotia and Gadrosia.

[rjones2818]

The reigns of Diodotos and Ashoka weren't even contemporary, and certainly over different lands with the only possible overlaps in Arachotia and Gadrosia.

According to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Diodotus, Diodotus' reign was between ~250 - ~238 BCE.

According to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Asoka, Asoka's reign was 264-228 or 27 BCE.

Not contemporary?

And if you view the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grec ... domMap.jpg, you'll see a fairly large common border.

[appietas]

Yes apologies, I was thinking 280s-240s for Ashoka and should have checked before saying there was no overlap.
But I follow the more recent research than 1911 Britannica, and it dates Ashoka's reign to 270s-230s, e.g;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

I've also spent some time investigating Parthian, Bactrian and Indo-Greek chronology, and since Jozef Wolski's (1950s-60s) demolition of the bogus ("Tiridatid") version of early Arsakid history in the Arrian _Parthika_ fragments, there are no longer any grounds to accept the 250s BC date for Diodotos' rebellion in Bactria and his reign can now be dated securely from 246/5 to ca.230 BC.
So some overlap with Ashoka's reign, but not much.
The idea of identifying the two remains the nuttiest thing I've ever heard re ancient Indic and Central Asian studies.

I don't think a map link amounts to much, or indeed anything at all.
Ashoka appears to have controlled Gandhara and Arachotia (or at least southern Arachotia), while Diodotos had Areia/Margiana and either or both of them might have controlled Gadrosia and Drangiana. There is nothing to indicate Mauryan control of any part of Diodotos' principal territories north of the Hindu Kush; Bactria and Sogd.

I'm working on my own theory that the Diodotids were a branch of the Achaids, which at least has some epigraphic, cultural and geo-political evidence in support. Including some weasel words of Euthydemos I to Antiochos III in 206 BC, as recorded by the best historian of the period (Polybius xi.34); that Euthydemos had exterminated those who had rebelled against the Seleukids, i.e. the Diodotids. Superficially not a very smart thing to be saying; but in context it was only a few years after Antiochos himself had brutally executed the last of the Achaids (Achaios II, the anti-king) at Sardeis, so a fairly relevant and even subtle comment if indeed the Diodotids were Achaids.
On the other hand, try matching this information with Mauryan dynastic history. Not a good fit, in several ways. Since the paucity of authentic information is the great problem with Mauryan and far eastern Hellensitic history, I'd be interested to learn how Ranajit Pal deals with this important piece.

[rjones2818]

appietas wrote:

...can now be dated securely from 246/5 to ca.230 BC.
So some overlap with Ashoka's reign, but not much.

14 - 15 years...come now...you're on an Alexander board.

336-323bc.

I'm not arguing with your general premise, although I think looking at Alexander from an Indian perspective is a good idea, so I'm open to Dr. Pal's ideas.

[amyntoros]

Due to lack of historical knowledge on India I'm unable to contribute to the current dialogue, but I want to add a further comment to this thread.

One of the difficulties I have with Dr. Pal's work (which I know from his time on Pothos and his websites) is that I find it very confusing, this being partly understandable due to my lamentable ignorance of Indian history. However, if I were to read his book then I would hope for an explanation of said history in order to further my understanding. If, on the other hand, I need to first research Indian history then it's not likely I would purchase Dr. Pal’s book, whatever the cost.

I use the word difficulties above rather than problems because I always felt Dr. Pal to be a delightfully intelligent and charming man who makes me want to know more about Alexander and India. Unfortunately, even when he was active on Pothos (and I asked for explanations) his answers made me more confused than I was previously! And nothing I've read since then has increased my comprehension - see the quotes below for an example:

From the BMCR Review:

If Pal's idea that Diodotus of Erythrae, the mysterious editor of Alexander's diary, was Chandragupta is indeed true, then there is ample ground to suspect that Alexander was poisoned. In many manuscripts Chandragupta is not mentioned, but his place is taken by Rantivarma. From this Pal concludes that Rantivarma was another name of Chandragupta and identifies him with Orontobates, the Carian satrap who fought against Alexander.

From one of Dr. Pal's websites:

The Sanskrit sources provide the crucial information that Orontobates is the same as Chandragupta who eventually became one of the greatest rulers of the East. The drama Mudrarakshasa shows that Chandragupta was also known as Rantivarma which is the same as Orontes. When and where did they first meet? We do not know but there is a clue in the form of a princess (Ada the younger, daughter of Pixodarus) who had once fired the fancy of Alexander’s youth and later became Orontobates’ wife. There is no warrant to invent a love triangle here but it is absurd to think that Alexander would forget Ada and as such her husband must have had a special place in his mind …

… Though it can be inferred from Diodorus' report, western scholars have failed to realise that Orontobates was the same as Tiridates who later assumed the name of Sisicottos or Sasigupta. Tiridates handed over the fabulous treasury of Persepolis to Alexander. As Diodorus writes he played a silent role in many of Alexander's victories. Other names of Sisicottos were Diodotus of Erythrae, Sissines, and Andragoras.

So, according to Dr. Pal, Diodotus of Erythrae was also (known as) Chandragupta, Rantivarma, Orontobates, Orontes, Tiridates, Sisicottos, Sasigupta, Sissine, and Andragoras! Now, is it likely that one man could have been all these people or have been known by all these names? In his book does Dr. Pal explain the connections? – I mean really explain them along with supplying supporting information which might make me say, “Oh yes, I see it.” Or does he continue to use the seemingly commonplace "A’s name has the same meaning as B; B was also known as C; C’s name means the same as D; therefore I conclude that D and A are the same person."? If the latter then I’m afraid the amateur historian in me is unlikely to find the arguments convincing. I’m wide open to learning more about Alexander via sources other than the Greek and Roman, but I'm afraid I need some kind of supporting evidence in order to believe what I’m being told rather than just taking the writer's word for it.

Best regards,