pothos.org

Hello!

Been a really long time since posting here.

Anyway, came across this silly biased article written by some woman who makes a futile attempt to degrade and diminish Alexander's achievements.

What are your thoughts on it?

Here's the link... not a very long article. It is fairly recent...

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/alexander ... n-conquest

PS : DON'T FORGET TO CHECK OUT THE READER COMMENTS BELOW THE ARTICLE. SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF CONFUSED PEOPLE OUT THERE..



Atb, Rob

Deary me....

Hey Paralus!

Wish to expand on your thoughts...? I am curious..

She does have a point to some extent as Alexander's influence on Indian history was not as great as it was on other parts of the world.

Thank you for replying, Alexias! I find it somewhat strange, the scant nature of replies in this thread..

1. What are your thoughts on rest of what she wrote? I find her very anti faction.. like on some personal crusade to disparage Alexander.

2. Interesting though about later greek conquests in India..

i would also say- interesting... That's for short. In length- this style (and especially comments on her article) reminded me of those who always think that their nation is the mightiest one (we have such a group of people in Baltics- Balts made all the world; Leto is from the name Leti (Latvian tribe) etc. ) The tolerance in commentaruies is absolutely the same. I would say that this is no scientific article at all but such type of articles floating around the internet are spreading the disease of "this is science"- have seen some references on such. So I'm afraid we will meet one soon. (I was a little astonished on her bio as well).

Sandros, I applaude you response! I agree with you, and ironically, I've found lately that it mostly is those in India who is most adverse to Alexander... why??

And they keep on with the nonsense that Porus actually won the battle... dear, dear me...

I’d always understood that at the time he was incorporated into the Hindu pantheon and became associated with Skanda, the god of war. The Indians may have hated Alexander, but they also feared him enough to worship him.

Derek

Hypaspist wrote:And they keep on with the nonsense that Porus actually won the battle... dear, dear me...

Oh it's worse than that. Notwithstanding the Nanda 600k+ army and 9,000 elephants, the march through the Makran was invented to cover Alexander's catastrophic losses against Poros!

Thanks Derek for your reply!


Yes, Paralus haha you're spot on with the nonsense they keep pulling! But why do they do it?? Why do they perpetutate that falsity about Alexander losing?!

Hypaspist wrote:Yes, Paralus haha you're spot on with the nonsense they keep pulling! But why do they do it?? Why do they perpetutate that falsity about Alexander losing?!

A result of the marriage of nationalism and an inventive approach to sources. Alexander did not conquer India but was soundly defeated by Poros and this is why Poros keeps his kingdom. The decimated remains of Alexander's army revolt and he is forced into an embarrassing retreat with the remnants of his army. This is then covered up by the sources when they invent the return via the Makran. Anything counter to this is Greek propaganda and not to be believed. This removes the difficulty of dealing with the campaign to the south. They do have a difficulty in explaining the elephants that Alexander took from this campaign into India. Those in the royal army and in the battles of Antigonos and Eumenes are a major impediment to this nationalistic fiction. Just how Eudamos came across those for Eumenes is a major stumbling block considering the Macedonians retreated in incontinent fashion from the Punjab!

Paralus, a most comprehensive answer!!

Paralus, have you ever entered a debate with someone who foolishly and falsely claimed that Alexander lost against Porus? If not, would you ever...?

Yep. Wasted some time on that. There is no point when source material is dismissed as after the fact propaganda to explain a disastrous and debilitating loss. The fact that the elephants returned with Krateros west is usually dismissed as either propaganda or the result of Taxiles - the traitor - gifting them. How they survived the decimation at the hands of Poros is never explained. How those same elephants turn up in the west after Alexander's death is usually simply ignored. It is a world of "alternative facts" as the current White House occupant operates.

What is true is that the Macedonian hold on the Punjab was never as strong as elsewhere. This is not due to any defeat but to resources stretched too far. The tribes of the area were restive and some rose as soon as the invader moved on. Holding this restive area with the resources available was always a big ask and hence Poros and Taxiles are found having their purview enlarged and secured. In the end, it was Macedonian overseers with small contingents which had the task of enforcing Macedonian suzerainty. Without a large presence it was destined to end in tears. We don't know when Eudamos murdered Poros - only that it happened after Triparadeisos and prior to the satrapal coalition coming together against Pithon. I'd think it later rather than earler. That he wanted to stay in the Punjab is debatable and perhaps he figured to murder the dynast and nick the elephant corps. But that's only a guess; there is no hard evidence. Either way, Antigonos murdered him and so he never went back even were that his intention.

This also plays into Seleukos' great campaign into Bactria, Soghdia and the Punjab. He too came to an embarrassing and debilitating end. The 400 or so elephants were a gift to make him happy and go away. Chandragupta was not interested in areas in the west so he paid his haplessly defeated foe to leave. Into this feeds Megasthenes. He is often associated with Seleukos and his invasion of 304. Here, his report scares Seleuokos into giving up territory for elephants so as to be allowed to go back west. In fact, Megasthenes' visit to India is far better placed in the period 319/18 as a representative of Sybirtius with whom he was associated (Arr. Anab. 5.6.1-2) as Bosworth demonstrated.

Well what do you know Paralus... you even managed to throw in some details I didn't about


What a great, well put answer from you...


One should really just write these conspiracy theorists in big bold letters: Alexander won, get over it!! The indians have lost so many wars that they are desperately trying to rewrite history.... it's a crime really...


But Paralus... what do you mean by:
"This also plays into Seleukos' great campaign into Bactria, Soghdia and the Punjab. He too came to an embarrassing and debilitating end. The 400 or so elephants were a gift to make him happy and go away. "

1. Who, too, came to an embarrassing end??

2. Did Seleukos lose??

I guess I am confused because the version in the Greek sources is not so unflattering to proud Indians and Pakistanis. The Macedonians killed a lot of people and burned a lot of cities, but when it came to trying to set up lasting rule in the area, they pretty quickly gave up. Alexander and his successors might have made it easier for Chandragupta Maurya to conquer the Indus Valley, and many people in South Asia liked Greek sculpture, but they did not exactly set up a 200-year Raj. You don't need to pretend that Alexander lost some big battles in India!