wrong spelling

[alexandersdesciple]

check this outhttp://www.itihaas.com/ancient/1.htmlsorry mespelt it what do u all thinkAlexes desciple

[ruthaki]

Thanks for reposting. This was worth a read. My, my! I for one am interested in the comments that will follow. Perhaps a grain of truth in some of it? Or is it just a twisted bit of history? I know his soldiers were suffering terribly from malaria and other conditions of the weather/climate, etc. and eventually threatened to mutiny. And I know that Porus was said to have a formidable force (those elephants and all!) but to say Alexander 'surrendered' to Porus seems a bit far-fetched considering what all the historians have written. Comments please!

[S]

Greetings,I have seen this before; I believe that this represents a good example of why even things that are written in "scholarly journals", books and on the Internet must be taken with as much a grain of salt of anything else.One interesting note, however, are the comments regarding cutting off the nose and ears of the enemy- because traditionally, in numerous cultures, that action has a distinct purpose and message. It would be interesting to pursue what that punishment actually indicated, since most punishments then (more so than now, at least in the "more industrialized nations" ) were directly related to a concept or idea of a related transgression. For example, cutting off the ears and lips of someone who betrays his country, via listening to evil and spreading evil.. Regards,
Sikander

[gb]

I was intrigued by the mention of Ethiopic texts, but unfortunately I can't find anything other than this one mention:http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0001/ET21-5317.htmlFor example, 'Alexander the Great's' ambiguous retreat from India. Why would his victorious armies mutiny on the threshold of reaching their goal of India? Mysteriously, after allegedly defeating the powerful king Puru (Poros), the Greeks decided to mutiny and march back to Persia. These inconsistencies are analyzed by H.C. Seth in his paper, 'Was Poros the victor at the battle of Jhelum?' Also the ancient Ethiopic Text covering the life of Alexander(edited and translated by E.A.W. Badge,) reveals a picture of defeated Alexander.I should think it's impossible to say anything on the subject unless you know these texts and their history.Any ideas, suggestions, tips on H.C. Seth or E.A.W. Badge?

[Linda]

There is an entry in the British Library catalogue for this item:Uniform Title: Romances on the Life of Alexander. English and Ethiopic
Title: The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great. Being a series of Ethiopic texts edited ... with an English translation and notes by E. A. Wallis Budge. Published 1896. Budge is listed as being : BUDGE. Sir. Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis. Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities, British MuseumThere is another record for what looks like the same item, with the authors recorded as: the Pseudo-Callisthenes [and Other Writers] I suspect "Romance" is the operative word.Linda

[susan]

I've read the Ethiopian version of the Alexander Romance, and there's no way that it can be taken seriously as history. It's very garbled, and full of references to mythical creatures.Susan

[ruthaki]

Thanks for those interesting responses. Just as I suspected, I agree: the "romance" stories of Alexander. Intersting theory but it seemed so far-fetched after all that is written in the historical texts.

[alexandersdesciple]

Thanks, I thought this item would pick up a few eye brows and ammglad other aspects were notived. Ajax you are correct with traditional punishments the one metted out to Bessus was indeed Persian,maybe Alexander allowed it but it was in line withthe people Bessus had violated,people were executed it was part of the day y such a big deal,there is so much made of Alexander atrocities and the Persian atrocities hardly mentioned.We hardly get a mention of Alexanders wounded soldiers been mutalated before Issuss or macedonian envoys crucified on the walls of trye,but I suppose thats alright to do that against an invader.The piece I pointed out didnt say a good thing about Alexander, so the guy was a bit biased it was akin to modern lunatucs who claim the Hloocaust didnt happen.Alexander fought battle after battle following Porus and if he was a quiter I doubt he would have taken on the gedrosian dessert.I would say had he been beaten at that point it only makes sense that it would be there that the macedonians would have turnedback and not continued forther to the Beas,y would a beaten army keep going if they were as demoralised as claimed.No companions reasoning dont make the acoount stand the evidence,the description,the battle plan and the way it was done makes more sense,Porus became an all i if he beat Alexander im sure he would have demanded he left there and then and made more demands than to allow Alexander to recieve rienforcements and to carry on waring where ever he went.Thanks Brandon for the piece regardsAlesex desciple

[Kit]

I agree. If Alexander had lost his forces would have retraced their steps through 'relatively' friendly countryside, falling back upon their own lines of communication. I'm afraid the world is full of people trying to re-write history to suit their own agenda. Next we will hear that Alexander lost at Gaugamela, and became one of Darius' satraps! Or have we already had that one!?The fact is, as the sources state, Alexander won at the Hydaspes after heavy fighting and proceeded onwards until his army mutineed at the Beas. This was not due to defeat in battle; but fatigue from battle, monsoon, fear of the unknown (as they really were, by then, going where few if any Greeks/Macedoninas had gone before) and the realisation that Alexander saw no limits to his conquests. It was the loss of hope that caused the troops to stop- at least stop going in that direction!regards,Kit

[ruthaki]

"The loss of hope"...that's a very good way of explaining the mutiny. I read somewhere in the Sources (I can't remember exactly at the moment but it was during the research I did at the British School library in Athens...) more details about the Indian campaigns. Evidently there was a lot of strife in the other part of India (eastern) and had Alexander known, they could have easily defeated those people and gone Eastward right into China. But it was at that point the men mutinied, because of illness, weather, snake bites, fear of the unknown, and, as Kit says "loss of hope". Whoever wrote that piece about Alexander surrendering to Porus did not do their research correctly. He won, because he was a brilliant strategist and knew exactly what to do to overcome those fearsome elephants.

[yiannis]

Well, put yourselves to the shoes of one of AtG's soldiers. You have fought many battles, walked thousands of miles, saw many of your friends die. But you're now finally victorious and rich!
And what does your king say? "Let's go back and enjoy our hard-earned wealth with our friends and families?" or perhaps "let's go to Babylon and get drunk and enjoy the company of women?" NOOOOO!!!!
He said: "let's cross into India, walk another thousand miles into the unknown, into jungles and deserts and with our equipment worn out let's fight strange beasts like the ones who trampled over our unlucky comrades at Hydaspes (or perhaps even worse) and face who knows who more many battles.What would you do when facing the above two options?
I don't know about you but I would definitely mutiny!