Alexander the Great/ Mauryans/ Graeco-Bactrians

[Joe Shearer]

I will try to explain, @Indus Pakistan , why it seemed necessary to call a halt to the flood of rubbish coming from some of your acolytes who obviously haven't brought to the subject your own insight and erudition, but have simply used this topic as an opportunity to buttress very insecure personalities. Look, for instance, from the very populist account of the OP, at these examples; while you might well look at them as weaponry with which to defeat enemies of the cause and build up the concept of a transcendental Pakistan, a nation in embryo for three thousand years, others see them as gospel truth, as you intended all along. These observations are necessarily addressed to you; the canaille hardly matter:

"It is clear from classical accounts of Alexander's campaign that the Greeks were not unimpressed by what they saw in India (i.e. Sindhu or Indus Valley or Pakistan -- ancient India was in Pakistan region, not present day India).

Ancient India was at least as far East as Pataliputra, as the account of Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the Maurya court at Pataliputra, suggests; he named his book Indika, as I have already mentioned. I really dislike propaganda spread by the uneducated.

They much admired the courage

of the Indian (Pakistani) troops,

...as distinct from the cowardice of the dhoti-wearing poltroons across the Beas? How strange can this straining to achieve an identity get?

..the austerity of the ascetics whom they met at Taxila and the purity and simplicity of the tribes of the Punjab and Sind.

Is it your case, in saying these rather desperate things, that it was different in the rest of India? That only ascetics in Taxila were austere, that only the tribes of the Punjab and Sind were pure and simple? Is there any evidence for your statements, or is it just that you so desperately want to lay claim to heritage issues, some heritage, any heritage?

What- ever the immediate cause, by reaching Beas Alexander had almost touched the eastern-most frontier of the traditional boundaries of Pakistan and accomplished his mission. It was but logical that he should return. He came down through the entire length of Pakistan, crossed the Hub River near Karachi and departed for home dying on the way.

He set out for Babylon, reached Babylon and died there after a very short illness.

Alexander's invasion of this area and the extent of his journey again boldly highlight the fact that Pakistan's present boundaries were almost the same in those days. From Hindu Kush, Dir and Swat to the banks of the Beas and down to Karachi - this entire area was one single geographical, political and cultural bloc under the suzerainty of the Persians.

What is the basis for this assertion? (I am not using the word 'bizarre' because repeated use devalues it; in examining this note, its use might have been continuous without remission).

Alexander went through the Persian provinces that existed, in his effort to pacify the eastern provinces, also in an effort to quell Bessus, the Satrap who had the Persian Emperor killed.

Starting east of the heartland, as amateur historians might consider it, the Achaemenid Empire had the following provinces:

1. Hyrcania
2. Partha
3. Dahae
4. Chorasmaea
5. Aria
6. Massagetae
7. Sogdia
8. Bactria
9. Drangiana
10. Arachosia
11. Amyrgoi
12. Gandhara
13. Sattagydia
14. Hindush
15. Gedrosia

What was the distinctive feature of these provinces that singled some out from the others that he also entered? Pointing out that some of these provinces are today part of Pakistan does not amount to proving that these same provinces were marked out for separate and differential treatment. If they were just six others or seven others without any distinction one from the other, how do we get a cultural and political entity out of a random list of provinces that the Macedonians entered? There were not even any Persian Satraps in these Satrapies; they were ruled by petty kings and princes and chieftains, who amounted to little more than the quarrelsome Thakurs of a later time.

The curious part is that we readily accept the Greek assertion that these were provinces under the Achaemenids, but when it comes to the Battle of Hydaspes, suddenly the same sources are found unreliable.

TO BE CONTINUED. Continued. 12 noon.

It will also be recalled that this was the same area as covered by the Indus Valley Civilization which continued to remain separate from India through the ages. Alexander's halt and return from the bank of the Beas is not without significance in this context. "The sphere of Persian influence in these early times can hardly have reached beyond the realm of the Indus and its affluents.

What is THAT supposed to mean?

1. Does it mean that India had nothing to do with the Indus Valley Civilisation? If so, where did the founders come from? Or are you not aware in the first place, thereby setting yourself up for the disastrous question of who they were?
2. Did the former inhabitants of the IVC crumble into dust after the IVC declined and vanished? Was there a mass extinction, as happened to the Mastodon? Have you ever heard of Northern Grey Painted Ware? (Hint: It was the most martial among the shards of pottery found on ancient Indian sites).
3. The incursion of the Indo-Aryan speaking migrants occurred sometime between 1700 and 1500 BC. By then the IVC was already in terminal decline, and from the archaeological remains and carbon dating, it appears that the culture did not continue beyond 1300 BC. So what were the people here doing, between 1500 BC and 516 BC?

This is why, @Indus Pakistan, I feel cheated by you; for all your superior learning and academic insight, in effect, you inflamed a mob of proto-historians (or are we looking at microlithic ethnographers, microlithic referring to the size of their tools?), and walked away, leaving the rest of us to cope with these.

The redeeming feature of this period that stands out distinctly is that Pakistan, again, was NOT a part of India and was affiliated to a western power. We have seen that whether during (a) the Indus Valley Civilization 3000 B.C. - 1500 B.C. or (b) during the period of Aryan settlement 1500 B.C. - 1000 B.C. or (c) during the half a millennium period after further Aryan migrations eastward 1000 B.C. - 500 B.C. or (d) during its affiliation with the Achaemenian Empire 500 - 325 B.C., Pakistan was all along a separate entity having nothing to do with India. The period covered by these four chapters of its history is from 3000 B.C. to 325 B.C., i.e., about two thousand seven hundred years.

More home-made history, with about the same effects on the human nervous system as its Tennessee Valley moonshine counterpart.

1. The Indus Valley Civilisation was set up in the first place by a mixed people; even a cursory acquaintance of the current state of knowledge in genetics about the origins of the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation will give robust rebuttals of the pseudo-history cited above.
2. The second period of urban growth was not restricted to the Ganges Valley; it extended all over India, other than Tamilakam (look it up, chelas). The cities and towns ruled over by petty rulers encountered during Alexander's campaign were set up precisely in this period, between 1500 BC and 500 BC and even longer after; Alexander happened along only in 326 BC.

These are really ridiculous assertions, unfounded and unheard of before the need to prepare and present falsified family trees for the modern nation of Pakistan extending backwards into that distant past.

TO BE CONTINUED.

The immediate impact of Alexander's invasion on Pakistan was faint and inconsequential.

Fortunately for India, at this opportune moment a man from Punjab, Chandragupta Maurya, was able to set up a strong government in the Gangetic Valley which extended its sway over most of northern India.

Alexander's successor Seleucus who had yet to grid his loins and muster his forces after the Dictator's sudden and unexpected demise, was prevailed upon by diplomacy to cede Pakistan to Chandragupta peacefully, avoiding the sufferings of war whose outcome seemed uncertain to him. Pakistan, as such, became a part of India's Maurya Empire in 300 BC without war. This was the first time in history that Pakistan was looking eastward and the first time it had become part of India and ruled by India. But strangely indeed, shortly afterwards, the third Mauryan Emperor, Asoka, became Buddhist and Pakistan did not have to smart under Hinduism for long. Though incorporated in the Indian Empire, Pakistan escaped Hindu rule. Under Asoka's missionary activities she adopted Buddhism and was to remain largely Buddhist till the arrival of Muslims.

Pakistan's ties with India were severed barely a hundred years later in about 200 BC when the Greek King Demetrius, already in control of the areas beyond Hindu Kush with his capital at Bactria (Balkh in northern Afghanistan), pounced upon Pakistan at the very first opportunity. Within a few years (190-180 BC) Demetrius took over a considerable portion of the Indus basin. This ushered in the golden period of Graeco-Bactrians who had their capital in Taxila. This new state also embraced almost the whole of present day Pakistan within its eastern boundary extending up to Sutlej; had an independent existance and again looked westward having hardly anything to do with India. The greatest Graeco-Bactrian king was Menander who was a Buddhist and ruled from 160-140 BC.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

From the IVC? elaborate, please
As for the Mongols, Arabs, Persians and Turks, they are not the ancestors of 'most' of us.

Check the the first part of this series. That information is there.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Check the the first part of this series. That information is there.

I am not interested in stupid propaganda articles, any reliable academic source to back up your assertion?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

the flood of rubbish coming from some of your acolytes who obviously haven't brought to the subject your own insight and erudition, but have simply used this topic as an opportunity to buttress very insecure personalities.

@Dubious You told me not to call him a verbose troll as it might hurt his feelings, but he has been continuously attacking me in every thread.

How come you have tied my hands but are allowing him and @Nilgiri to keep attacking me with personal attacks?

I have stopped responding to him, but the Moderators need to do something about it.

I have many more threads to create about Pakistani history and would appreciate some support in preventing them from getting derailed by some Indian trolls by personal attacks and insults.

I appreciate you guys for your fair moderation, that is why I won’t be confronting said posters.

I am not interested in stupid propaganda articles, any reliable academic source to back up your assertion?

For which assertion do you require a reliable academic source?

The author quotes research in the first part, check it out there. The link is in the OP.

Please keep all IVC related queries there, as the topics here are Alexander and the Greek states ruling the Pakistan region.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I will try to explain, @Indus Pakistan , why it seemed necessary to call a halt to the flood of rubbish coming from some of your acolytes who obviously haven't brought to the subject your own insight and erudition, but have simply used this topic as an opportunity to buttress very insecure personalities. Look, for instance, from the very populist account of the OP, at these examples; while you might well look at them as weaponry with which to defeat enemies of the cause and build up the concept of a transcendental Pakistan, a nation in embryo for three thousand years, others see them as gospel truth, as you intended all along. These observations are necessarily addressed to you; the canaille hardly matter:




Ancient India was at least as far East as Pataliputra, as the account of Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the Maurya court at Pataliputra, suggests; he named his book Indika, as I have already mentioned. I really dislike propaganda spread by the uneducated.



...as distinct from the cowardice of the dhoti-wearing poltroons across the Beas? How strange can this straining to achieve an identity get?



Is it your case, in saying these rather desperate things, that it was different in the rest of India? That only ascetics in Taxila were austere, that only the tribes of the Punjab and Sind were pure and simple? Is there any evidence for your statements, or is it just that you so desperately want to lay claim to heritage issues, some heritage, any heritage?



He set out for Babylon, reached Babylon and died there after a very short illness.



What is the basis for this assertion? (I am not using the word 'bizarre' because repeated use devalues it; in examining this note, its use might have been continuous without remission).

Alexander went through the Persian provinces that existed, in his effort to pacify the eastern provinces, also in an effort to quell Bessus, the Satrap who had the Persian Emperor killed.

Starting east of the heartland, as amateur historians might consider it, the Achaemenid Empire had the following provinces:

1. Hyrcania
2. Partha
3. Dahae
4. Chorasmaea
5. Aria
6. Massagetae
7. Sogdia
8. Bactria
9. Drangiana
10. Arachosia
11. Amyrgoi
12. Gandhara
13. Sattagydia
14. Hindush
15. Gedrosia

What was the distinctive feature of these provinces that singled some out from the others that he also entered? Pointing out that some of these provinces are today part of Pakistan does not amount to proving that these same provinces were marked out for separate and differential treatment. If they were just six others or seven others without any distinction one from the other, how do we get a cultural and political entity out of a random list of provinces that the Macedonians entered? There were not even any Persian Satraps in these Satrapies; they were ruled by petty kings and princes and chieftains, who amounted to little more than the quarrelsome Thakurs of a later time.

The curious part is that we readily accept the Greek assertion that these were provinces under the Achaemenids, but when it comes to the Battle of Hydaspes, suddenly the same sources are found unreliable.

TO BE CONTINUED.

It's really hard to reply to such kind of stupid ahistorical propaganda with as much patience and knowledge as you do.... Admirable

For which assertion do you require a reliable academic source?

That we have ancestors from IVC, and Mongols, Arabs, Persians, and Turks are the ancestors of 'most' of Pakistanis.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

That we have ancestors from IVC, and Mongols, Arabs, Persians, and Turks are the ancestors of 'most' of Pakistanis.

The greater genetic similarity of Pakistani populations to those in the west than to eastern populations is illustrated by the fact that four of the five frequent haplogroups in Pakistan (haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9, which together make up 79% of the total population) are also frequent in western Asia and Europe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447589/#!po=48.5294

Here is a useful thread shared by our brother @Indus Priest King RIP - https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/genetic-map-of-pakistan.558317/

Both links detail the various origins of different ethnic groups in Pakistan.

Do check them out and get back to us.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The greater genetic similarity of Pakistani populations to those in the west than to eastern populations is illustrated by the fact that four of the five frequent haplogroups in Pakistan (haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9, which together make up 79% of the total population) are also frequent in western Asia and Europe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447589/#!po=48.5294

From the link you yourself provided:

Punjabi-speaking individuals form the majority population of Pakistan, but they represent a complex admixture of ethnic castes and groups (Ibbetson 1883) and are not analyzed here


As for Eastern and Western populations:

Pakistani populations mostly cluster around a pooled South Asian sample and lie close to a Middle Eastern sample (fig. 2A). This finding is unsurprising, in part because the South Asian sample included 62 Pakistani individuals (i.e., 32% of 196 total) and in part because Y variation in many areas of the world is predominantly structured by geography, not by language or ethnic affiliation (Rosser et al. 2000; Zerjal et al. 2001). The greater genetic similarity of Pakistani populations to those in the west than to eastern populations is illustrated by the fact that four of the five frequent haplogroups in Pakistan (haplogroups 1, 2, 3, and 9, which together make up 79% of the total population) are also frequent in western Asia and Europe but not in China or Japan

===

And sorry, this report disproves your assertion. Even the Non-Punjabi Pakistanis do not have Greek or Syrian or other Middle Eastern (Jewish) ancestors.

The Y data support the well-established origin of the Parsis in Iran, the suggested descent of the Hazaras from Genghis Khan’s army, and the origin of the Negroid Makrani in Africa, but do not support traditions of Tibetan, Syrian, Greek, or Jewish origins for other populations.

=====

Did you even bother to read it (or the question I asked) yourself before posting it here?

 

[Nilgiri]

Alexander went through the Persian provinces that existed, in his effort to pacify the eastern provinces, also in an effort to quell Bessus, the Satrap who had the Persian Emperor killed.

EPIChistoryTV did a good job covering Alexanders campaign including this part you mention.

Well worth a watch:

@M. Sarmad

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

I don't get why the brief Mauryan rule over the Indus region is so over-exaggerated. Their loose rule lasted less than a century and was marred by revolts.

A deficiency of most people of the region.
''Skin whitening'' is the best example,black Africans dont care but you(the regions people) do.

"Whiteness" doesn't really have anything to do with superiority/inferiority as you guys see it in regards to Pakistan and varies greatly.

Being lighter skinned meant that you did not work the fields, which is considered a sign of being wealthy and well-off.

It depends on the gender as well. Being light-skinned among men can also be seen as being too feminine and you can often be picked on by others.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Dubious You told me not to call him a verbose troll as it might hurt his feelings, but he has been continuously attacking me in every thread.

How come you have tied my hands but are allowing him and @Nilgiri to keep attacking me with personal attacks?

I have stopped responding to him, but the Moderators need to do something about it.

I have many more threads to create about Pakistani history and would appreciate some support in preventing them from getting derailed by some Indian trolls by personal attacks and insults.

I appreciate you guys for your fair moderation, that is why I won’t be confronting said posters.

For which assertion do you require a reliable academic source?

The author quotes research in the first part, check it out there. The link is in the OP.

Please keep all IVC related queries there, as the topics here are Alexander and the Greek states ruling the Pakistan region.

So - no reliable academic sources.

Perhaps because no reliable academic wants to be caught anywhere near these assertions. Who knows?

I don't get why the brief Mauryan rule over the Indus region is so over-exaggerated. Their loose rule lasted less than a century and was marred by revolts.

Loose rule? marred by revolts? Oh, sorry, I forgot; these are not to be questioned or authenticated.

BTW, did you eminent historians notice what happened before 516 BC and after the Mauryas?

"Whiteness" doesn't really have anything to do with superiority/inferiority as you guys see it in regards to Pakistan and varies greatly.

Being lighter skinned meant that you did not work the fields, which is considered a sign of being wealthy and well-off.

It depends on the gender as well. Being light-skinned among men can also be seen as being too feminine and you can often be picked on by others.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Did you even bother to read it (or the question I asked) yourself before posting it here?

I said mixture. We do have Greek, Arab, and other mixing from the time they ruled us.

Yes, I did read my link. You can try to search as much as you wish to justify your rejection of our history. Not my problem.

Arain, the second largest Punjabi group, for example, are patrilineal Arabs.

Anyway, we are veering off topic.

I don't get why the brief Mauryan rule over the Indus region is so over-exaggerated. Their loose rule lasted less than a century and was marred by revolts.

Mauryans have been re-written by modern Indian revisionists as an Indian Hindu government striving for Akhand Bharata and Hindutva.

You have the Hindu right promoting Asoka as some great Hindu leader defeating Pakistanis and Afghans and conqueroring parts of Iran, etc.

Asoka was a staunch Buddhist and an enemy of Hinduism, in reality. Also, he and the other Mauryan rulers were heavily influenced by the Greeks whom they were fighting back and forth during this period.

They were not saviors and champions of Hinduism as Indian propaganda would like us to believe. Their rule over The Pakistan was transient and loose, as well.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Arain, the second largest Punjabi group, for example, are patrilineal Arabs.

They are the third largest Pubjabi group and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim/assertion that they are patrilineal Arabs.

I said mixture. We do have Greek, Arab, and other mixing from the time they ruled us.

Let me remind you that You tried to claim that the forefathers of Pakistanis were not Indians but IVC people, Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Mughals etc.

Yes, I did read my link. You can try to search as much as you wish to justify your rejection of our history. Not my problem.

No, you did not.
And it's you my friend who is rejecting our history (and spewing ahistorical propaganda instead).

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

And it's you my friend who is rejecting history

Ok, man. You are an Indian, and we are all Pakistanis.

Have a good one. Allah hafiz.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Ok, man. You are an Indian, and we are all Pakistanis.

Have a good one. Allah hafiz.

Quite the contrary, you, my friend, are one confused Greco-Turco-Mongoloid Arab.
And I am a Pakistani, who knows his history, and who is proud of his roots and heritage.
Allah Hafiz.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Let me remind you that You tried to claim that the forefathers of Pakistanis were not Indians but IVC people, Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Mughals etc.

Forefathers of Pakistanis were primarily a mixture of IVC inhabitants and various peoples that migrated into the Indus Region.

I would say that Arabs, Turks, Greeks and "Mughals" had an extremely limited impact in terms to genetic contribution.