Alexander, The Ordinary

[Father of Truth]

Prof. of History
Address: 156 Aberdeen lane, State College, PA 16801 USA
Tel: (814)-234-3558 (Home), (814)-863-8034 (Office)Alexander, The Ordinary
The facts narrated below will expose the popular myth about the so-called world-conquerer "Alexander, The Great(?)". I am sure your readers will be interested to learn the truth about the mis-adventures of Alexander in India. Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus`s army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender. Alexander after winning many battles and defeating the Persian king, invaded India and crossed Indus. Here he was joined by Ambhi, the king of Taxila. Ambhi surrendered himself to Alexander. He was enemy of Porus and wished to defeat Porus with the help of Alexander. The facts of Alexander`s miserable defeat and his shattered dream at Indian soil have been avoided consistently by Greek historians and the same was perpetuated during British regime. But the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeans themselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India. In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following: "In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom". Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief- stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said, "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these

[marcus]

Yes, this is a cut and paste job from a link that was provided in an earlier post.It doesn't make it any more likely, or true, that Alexander lost to Porus, I'm afraid.Sorry, but using an Ethiopian version of the Romance, or whatever it is, is not a very convincing way of approaching the subject. It's as pointless as using a 9th century AD version of a bad version of the Alexander Romance to 'prove' that Alexander was murdered by Roxane.All the bestMarcus

[jona]

This is the theory of Buddha Prakash. It was formulated in 1970's among Indian nationalists, and was revived in 1994 in the Punjab when a Pakistani parlimentarian named Aitzaz Ahsan republished Budda Prakash's book: "Poros the Great. A warrior of Punjab who fought with Alexander on the bank of the river Hydaspes (Jhelum) in 327 BC* (1994, Gautam Publishers, Lahore).I bought my copy in Lahore, in a lovely bookshop from which I had a view on the gun Zam-Zam (see Rudyard Kipling, *Kim*, first page).Jona

[susan]

I read that Lahore = Lo-Pore = city of the Porus region; Porus was named after his region in the same way that Taxiles was named after Taxila. So, Lahore was the right place to buy it.Susan

[ancientlibrary]

There's just no point in fighting this stuff. Facts
and rational argument didn't create these
opinions, and fact and rational argument are
powerless against them.