pothos.org

The reality is Alexander "the Great" suffered heavy losses and failed campaigns in India. Moreover, there is no reliable evidence to indicate that King Porus was ever captured by Alexander and then magnanimously released; in fact it was more like the other way around. And far from being magnanimous, Alexander murdered innocent Brahmins and other Indian philosophers. Mythology surrounding Alexander continued to be embellished and fabricated even centuries after his death. Check the below sites for the reality of Alexander's defeat in India: The Myth, Romance and Historicity of Alexander and His Influence on India - http://hinduwebsite.com/history/researc ... ermyth.htm Alexander, The Ordinary - http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?i ... lexander's Waterloo in Sindh - http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sind ... node7.html i. Chivalry suited the politics of balancing one Punjab rajah against another, but Indian historians have been unable to believe this intelligent generosity and still argue that if Porus received such honours, IndiaGÇÖs alleged defeat at the Jhelum can only be a western falsehood: The cruel nature of Alexander has well been brought out by the western historians and therefore under the circumstances, the treatment of Porus by the victor Alexander makes one to suspect the VictorGÇÖs victory. In fact, the psychology of the poets / writers in eulogizing the Defeated was to make him a Victor always. ii. The retreat he inspired has always seemed sympathetic: Because, already many soldiers were killed. His pet horse was killed or died. The rest of the army had already started revolting and urging him to return. GÇ£In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of AlexanderGÇÖs cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He, therefore, requested Porus to stop fighting. True to Indian tradition Porus did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed a treaty. Alexander then helped him in annexing othere territories to his kingdomGÇ¥15. 15. E. Migot, Memoris Sur les anciens philosophers de lGÇÖ Inde, andMemories de lGÇÖ Academie Eroyal des Inscriptions et Belles, Letters, XXXI, 1761,-63, pp.90-92. What was the Direct and Indirect Effect of AlexanderGÇÖs Invasion of India? Vincent Arthur Smith gives answer to this crucial question, which is reproduced as follows: 1. GÇ£Whatever Hellenistic elements in Indian civilization can be detected were all indirect

What was the Direct and Indirect Effect of AlexanderGÇÖs Invasion of India? Vincent Arthur Smith gives answer to this crucial question, which is reproduced as follows: 1. GÇ£Whatever Hellenistic elements in Indian civilization can be detected were all indirect consequences of AlexanderGÇÖs invasion. The Greece influence never penetrated deeply. Indian polity and structure of society resting on the caste basis remained substantially, unchanged, and even in military science Indians showed no disposition to learn the lessons taught by the sharp sword of AlexanderGÇ¥ (emphasis added). 2. GÇ£AlexanderGÇÖs fierce campaign produced no direct effects upon either the ideas or the institutions of India. During his brief stay in the basin of the Indus, he was occupied almost solely with fighting. Presumably, he was remembered by the ordinary natives of the regions which he harried merely as a demon-like outer barbarian who hanged Brahmins without scruple and won battles by impious methods in defiance of scriptures, Indians felt no desire to learn from such a personGÇ¥ (emphasis added). 14. Vincent A. Smith, The Oxford History of India, Clarendon Press, UK, 1923, p.87 and 139, quoted verbatim with emphasis added.

What utter tosh.You state Alexander was defeated and held to ransom, His men and army had had enough, So much so that they begged Porus for terms and clemency.The point here where it totally falls apart if as you say he and his army were finished and at the end as to they wouldnt continue for Alexander tghere kindg and ruler who they loved.Then explain to me why they would fight and help Porus in his endevours to complete his own power build and and maintain his hold on the region,,, If you say is correct and the Macedonians were done the would have returned there and then and left Porus to fight his pwn battles.Your sources and readings make absolutely no sense at all.Kenny

This theory does appear every once in a while in this forum. Unfortunately, the best evidence that is cited is from an Ethiop Romance, which is certainly late, and almost completely fictional.It is true that one could take some of the main accounts and construct a story that Alexander was defeated by Porus, but it would be a very tenuous one and easily countered.There is, in fact, absolutely no proof that Alexander was defeated. On the other hand, I think it says a lot for Porus and his army (and quite probably the other Indian rulers and theirs) that Alexander treated Porus so leniently and generously. It certainly seems more like a mutual pact than a victor/vanquished situation. Not least is the fact that Alexander then headed further east - if he'd been defeated by Porus, then how come he set off eastwards with the king who had defeated him blocking his return home?All the bestMarcus

I recently visited Sri Lanka, partly to hear about the Alexander Romance there. I came across some different traditions to the ones we've heard about Alexander & India.The first was from a Buddhist monk from Nepal in a remote jungle monastery - he told me of the tradition that when Alexander invaded India, an Indian emperor, from Kalinga, sent a Buddhist monk to him to remonstrate, and that as a result Alexander returned to the West - partly on philosophical & religious grounds.Secondly, a descendant of Sri Lankan aristocracy told me that the Taxila chronicles tell of Alexander's invasion - in the same way that the Babylonian chronicles do. Does anyone know of this ?Also, I was told that that Lahore was originally called Lo-pore, meaning city of the Porus area, so the ruler Porus was named after his area.Thirdly - We know that Chandragupta Maurya married a daughter of Seleucus & Apama. Chandragupta's grandson was the great Buddhist emperor Asoka. I'm sure that Chandragupta had many wives, but wouldn't it be great if a link could be shown ?I'm putting up Arrian's Indica & Strabo on the Alexander sources site - it should be ready by this evening.Susan

It is a known fact that Alexander The Great never defeated India proper. He was defeated or nearly defeated By Porus. Rajah Porus was the ruler of a small Kingdon In punjab and not the entire Kingdon of India. Please note that India had large empires like the Magadha's, Pandya's, Koshala, Pandava etc...The army of Alexander could not bare to fight another Indian epic battle for they know that a small king had put a chack on them and knew that they will never be able to defeat nigger kingdoms. Alexander himself definitely knew this for a fact.I think it was EW Badge who said that any helleneistic thoight and Greatness of Alexander in india is actually very trivial and small and very discardable. His glories lie in Persia and Egypt.

Since most of the works that were done on Alexander by direct historians and "associates" were destroyed or never found, how is it possible for anyone to claim that he won the battle in India against Porus ? What we know are the recent writings and even Plutarch did his work 500 years after alexander. We all know for a fact that the western empire always wanted to conquer India for many thousands of years and it was not until recently, about 1000 years ago was that possible.It is also known that many Rulers of Greece wanted to conquer India. Queen Semeremis, King Heracles etc. But they were crushed in the battles. The queen ran off with only about 20 soldiers. It was a real crushing defeat. The western power could invade India only after India itself grew weaker after many thousands of years. There has been some allegations that the British had changed the history of Alexander's Invasion of India and stated that he did invade and defeated Porus. But also, this is very easily countered. So no one knows for sure what actually took place.Also we must remember, Greek influence in India was minimal or non at all. So if Alexander did invade India, whatever happened to his influence ? It was said that the Maurya emperor also defeated the remaining greeks. I cant answer this, but I think it was that the greek trade flourished in India but was checked.

Hare Krishna.may krishna bless you.
its better that you first read the details given by greek scholars and historians of alexander's period who themselve have given the account of his defeat and this theory is already supported and accepted by many western scholars.see there is no harm in accepting that INDIAN civilization is the oldest,strongest and most superior and eternal because if you cover your face that dosen't stops sun from shining.

you are bit sensible and wise.
may Krishna bless you....Hare Krishna.

Hare Krishna.
may i bring this fact to you htat the book indika you have mentioned was by megesthenese who was in the court of chandragupta maurya and not by arrian.moreover the fact is that this book is actually lost and the version you find today ,is a biased version of 19th and 20th centuyr scholars who disrupted the Indian history to prove the racial superiority of europe over India.arrian himself mentions that in the art of warfare and weaponary used and killing instinct, Indians were far superior to the other civilizations in the worls and he mentions that alexanders army were almost attacked by flying fire shields in the sky but they did not attack out of there benevolence and this theory is supported by modern scintists
who are doing research on UFO's and found its origin as ancient VIMANA's of India as described in Vedic literature.

Hare Krishna.may krishna bless you. its better that you first read the details given by greek scholars and historians of alexander's period who themselve have given the account of his defeat and this theory is already supported and accepted by many western scholars.see there is no harm in accepting that INDIAN civilization is the oldest,strongest and most superior and eternal because if you cover your face that dosen't stops sun from shining.
who told you that alexander did dare to move eastwards after such a terrible and shameful defeat infact he and his army was terrified when they heard that a massive army of millions (magadha king's)was waiting for him on the banks of ganges and if he was so generous that he returned the kingdom of porus then why did he not do so with persian empire.better you read the texts properly and brush up your knowledge which is absolutely limited and mythical and have no relevence of archeology or history.

Hare Krishna.
angel you are raelly wise and i appreciete yu wisdom because it is rare to see that a westerner is not jealous of Indian culture's eternal and superior nature .i would like to contact you as i have got many facts and documents regarding these matters.my email id is "goldenhawks@rediffmail.com".