Joe Shearer
I understand from these rambling comments that these threads did not please the Pakistani sections of the readership, and a possible reason may have been that they "don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent. That is wrong, but apparently you have not been following the three threads very closely, so it is a pardonable error. Both Panipat I and Tarain have been suggested. None others seemed to qualify for the top 10 or even the top 20. Of course, this is a subjective opinion, and you are free, like everybody else was, to add your own list.
Ramblings started from the post of '500', then to your post and mine post and now you have again completely ignored Indian part very graciously, OK, Fine.
As what i have gathered that discussion forums are not for pleasing any readership, these are log records of interested persons and not necessarily comments by all reader are required or expected.
I don't post to 'please' anyone.
Now mine post regarding hydaspa was brutally shredded to pieces by you and then each piece was tried to fit into your own jizsaw puzzle, failing which, thrown out of window.
Lets me try again,
Your comments on hydaspa, raise doubts on the outcome of battle, i.e., decisive victory of Macedon was may be a stalemate, doubts were raised on 'stated battle tactics by historians', higher Macedonian losses(in comparison with previous engagements) were highlighted, political/spiritual advantages to Alexander the Great were taken into account etc.
And I dared to suggest an alternate solution, which rested on the most important point, (of-course in my view) reasons of higher Macedonian Losses. In my solution I ignored the, Stated Battle Tactics by Historian as you raised doubts,(but in your rebuttal you took it as a 'hard fact' and smashed it on my head).
Macedonian battle plan, that I wrote is my general understanding of Macedonian usage of two element of army, that is, Phalanx and Cavalry, and that I have not linked it to any particular battle as you seem to suggest.
Did not happen at Hydaspes; the battle was at arms' length for most of its duration. In any case, the mind boggles to imagine the phalanx facing the elephants. The phalanx held back until the elephants had spent their energy and closed only after that, when the archers and the Companion cavalry had been launched in that sequence.
Now some statistics, which I have taken from
The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps (AUSTERLITZ suggested this excellent site), as different sources quote different figures but I will use the mentioned in the site (lazy me).
Battle was hardly at arm's length at most of the duration as you suggest, as at first skirmish right after crossing, 2000 cavalry out of 4000 and 120 out of 300 chariots headed by Porus's son was engaged and destroyed, son slain. Then at battlefield, Porus was left about with 1000 cavalry at each wing. No wonder Alexander started at Porus' cavalry.... with odds overwhelmingly in favour of Alexander, 5000 against 2000, at initial phases, What was Porus doing then,..? waiting for his remnant of cavalry to perish?.. No, he would charge with elephants on the very first opportunity .. and he did.
My mind don't boggle at war elephant charge at Macedonian Phalanx. 'Regular', well drilled and disciplined to the core, battle hardened, with 20 foot long sarissas, in Phalanx formation was more than a match to war elephants or other tools of trade at that time and for many centuries to follow (Roman legions with smaller pikes/lances applied the same concept). Enemy coming at Phalanx would only see, pointed heads after heads for a depth of 15 or 16 feet in formation then faces of Phalangites. This formation was never penetrated by any enemy. Infantry (Phalanx) was the core strength of Macedonian Army.
..... The phalanx held back until the elephants had spent their energy and closed only after that, when the archers and the Companion cavalry had been launched in that sequence.
OK, Phalanx under attack from elephant had a pressing job at hand to deal with them in shortest possible time, but what was the Raja Porus doing with huge infantry? Why would he not try to capitalize on dishevel or destruction brought on by the elephants and home in with his infantry? why give the time to enemy to recover?
For starters, this was invariably an oblique attack across the front in earlier battles, and not necessarily directed to a flank;........I don't think the analysis of flank attacks fits very well.
Now I am lost here by "this was" and "across the front in earlier battles", if you mean hydaspes, and suggest it as Oblique attack, I would disagree on following grounds.
Firstly, every battle in days gone by started with skirmishes, to judge the battle plan of enemy, weak points in enemy defenses, feints, to draw enemy in preplanned snares etc., closely observing the responses and movement of the enemy. Decisions were made with lightening speed. Only psychics would know what would be the enemy's battle Plan before hand and there was't any. So Alexander Started with cavalry skirmishes on remanents of enemy cavalry and chariots, carefully avoiding the front with elephants, and after initial success, sent his lieutenant in envelopment attack (anticipating very well that crux of battle will be fought at center), no major push was made by flank to flank.
Porus army, on other hand attempted to penetrate the center and Macedonian, after 'bearing the burnt', attacked from defensive position in the center.
Considering that he was always outnumbered by the enemy, and could not possibly have attempted an envelopment or a double envelopment, blocking the escape of enemy troops was never a realistic proposition; instead, relentless pursuit by his strong cavalry unit was, and that is what was done.
So you missed my observation "......gave enough room (part of tactical planning of Alexander the Great, in my opinion) to enemy...". and at Hydaspes Macedonian were not Out Numbered.
Not very convincing.
First, how do you reconcile your preliminary analysis (the section in red) with your conclusion that a draw was unlikely? If there were heavy losses to both sides, as reported by all, a draw is precisely what one might expect. This is borne out by the reports that troops on both sides were on the battlefield until well after hostilities stopped.
I, in previous post, ventured to suggest the high Macedonian losses, due to 2 main factors; one, cutting of exit route, secondly, valiant character of King Porus. But it is the extent of losses that matter in analysis, 4000 Macedonian lost (throwing aside 310 by Arian as ridiculous) against 21000 Puruvians.
Cavalry, chariots and elephants destroyed, surrounded by enemy no other than Macedonians, left little hope of any thing else. Why would Macedonians after reaching on top would relinquish the opportunity of complete victory?
Porus' army did in fact hold out till sunset, and your inference is incorrect. They did attempt to retire after sunset, as has been pointed by many, in accordance to the rules of engagement followed traditionally, and there were heavy casualties during this phase. It seems, from inference, that the casualty rates during the earlier phases of the battle were overwhelmingly against the Greeks, who however got the upper hand tactically, and had taken the initiative, but the Indian casualties shot up at the end. It did in fact survive to fight another day, in the sense that it was not a destroyed army, only one that had fought a hard battle and suffered heavy casualties - like its opponent.
I would request some source of post marked red in your above post. In initial phases almost all of Porus's Cavalry was destroyed, then came elephant charges, did some serious damage but Porus was unable to capitalize on it. That left the infantry, sandwiched.
The detailed plan of battle was not like the other three battles that Alexander fought in his Persian campaign; it was completely different, and the use of archers was a first. The charge on the Indian rear by the Companion cavalry led by Koinos, and Alexander not being at the head of that, was another first.
Reason of this I gave above.
For all these reasons, my evaluation was that this was a use of tactics quite different from what we have seen from him before, and that should be taken into account while considering why the Macedonians fought with less than their usual smooth proficiency
Rrrrrrr... What?, 'less than usual smooth proficiency???? After all this.....
Are you the person who wrote on the Sikh quoit versus the Sudarshan Chakra?
A good question indeed, and a better question for anyone to ask would be;
Am I the same person?
There were many mythological weapons left for discussion, I could only hope for more participation from other posters. That thread helped me to further my understanding on "Why/How seemingly continuously evolving civilizations seem to lose some traditions(whether arts or sciences or social customs etc).
