TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Hellraiser007]

There is not a SINGLE piece of historical evidence backing your fanciful version. There are four versions giving a detailed account of his descent from the mountains, the capture of the Rock of Aornos, of several other triumphs by siege and capture of the cities of the Assacenoi, his battle with Porus, his arrangements after the battle, and his progression down the Indus, the location of the IVC, down to the sea near Karachi.

I can cite each and every one of my sources, and the world knows this to be true. It is only a handful of idiot revisionists, who think that by converting every piece of historical evidence to read as an Indian victory, they somehow make up for the defeats that actually occurred. It is juvenile to think that forcing an account where none exists, that using a court poet's account in preference to that of several historical narrators, that using internal literary evidence against long-established linguistic studies which have been validated a dozen times over in completely different circumstances, you have managed to add glory to India's past. That past does not need your efforts at concocting history, and you are only making yourself and India look ridiculous.

Probably not what you set out to do, but something that you have managed with effortless ease.

I said Alexander never controlled north West India he may have won some battles but he went back after making some peace agreements with king Purushottam.

go through this link and enlighten yourself.

Alexander’s Waterloo in Sindh




One of the greatest warriors of all time, Alexander the Great, had a tryst with Sindh, where his initial luck turned sour and his army received its first ever mauling…

If anyone were to rule the world, it was thought it would be Alexander the Great, the Greek warrior who struck terror worldwide during his reign. Tales of Alexander and his feat, are inscribed in history books and he is revered as ‘the world conqueror’ who ‘came, saw and conquered’ every land he had visited. His rendezvous with India’s Porus (Puru) still runs across pages of the Indian history books. But what goes unmentioned is his attempt to capture territories in Sindh and his army’s failure in achieving the feat. Records reveal, that the Greek warrior, in his quest to conquer the world had skirmishes across the Middle Eastern Gulf. His wars against Iran, Afghanistan and India had earned him a number of foes and so petrified was he that he was reluctant to even return by the same route that he entered through.

If historical records are to be believed, Alexander had a modus operandi set to vanquish the reigning rulers in Sindh and India. Prior to his entry, his spy army was all across the Sindh and the Gangetic plains surveying the region to the last detail. These experts had a detailed report made on the geographical conditions and had even measured the distance between the Sindhu valley and the Gangetic plains till Patliputra (Patna). His urge to capture Sindh stemmed from his records of the region, which was supposedly a storehouse of fabulous treasures and the riches that the inhabitants had amassed after years of toil. His entry into Sindh wasn’t difficult and his army ravaged through the neighbouring territories, setting their foot on Sindh. Alexander’s hordes invaded Sindh with the novel war cry ‘Alalalalalai!’ The Sindhis were obviously jolted by the Greek’s war cries and their aggression, but nevertheless fought back with equal vigour. The resistance, one of the toughest the Macedonians had ever encountered made the monarch angry and wherever he was resisted, he plundered the inhabitants wealth, massacred them and even destroyed their flourishing towns. His operational force went about building bridges for the army to cavalcade across territories, the famous one being the ‘Sikander-ji-Pul’ , the bridge of Alexander that was constructed in an attempt to enter the Alore province (then called Musicanus).

Alore (or Alwar), that had remained the capital of Sindh for more than a thousand years, was the richest place in the whole of the sub-continent at that time. The rulers of this place, the Sodha Rajputs put up a valiant fight but couldn’t hold back against the strong army of Alexander. After defeating the Rajputs, the Greek army went about on a killing spree, massacring all inhabitants and leaving the city in ruins. The next destination of the Greek army was Sehwan (then called Sindemana), a flourishing town on the banks of the Indus river. A Brahmin king, Sambhos who ruled Sehwan accepted the rule of the Greeks, but the residents of this town rose to the occasion and refused to open the gates of the forts to the Greeks. Irked by this, Alexander vigorously fought the resisting battalion and after the conquest ordered the killing of each and every Brahmin. By that time the Greek became aware of another town, in fact a rich port, Patla (now Hyderabad) near the river delta. The Greek regiment marched towards this town and on hearing the news, the king of Patla agreed to the suzerainty of the invaders, but as the Greek entered the land, the king fled his palace to take refuge in Kutch. Humiliated by this event he looted the place and killed all the Brahmins there. Notes H.T. Lambrick, a former commissioner of Sindh, and author of the ‘Sindh before Muslim Conquest’: “There was a subtle power in Sindh which created the will to resist the foreigner, the influence of the Brahmins.” Alexander never excused the Brahmins for persuading the Sindhi kings to run for cover. However, he was so impressed with the intellectual prowess and spirit of the Brahmins that he captured and kept with him ten of them.

However, unfazed by all the resistance he continued with his conquest and the Greek monarch marched across the territories of Sindh vanquishing all rulers and capturing almost every town. His army also reached the place where Karachi stands today and called it Sikandar-jo-Bihist (Alexander’s heaven). But his army’s honeymoon in Sindh was about to come to an end. In his campaign to conquer the entire of Sindh, he touched upon the mighty river, Indus. Amusingly, he mistook it for the source of river Nile, because of the presence of crocodiles! With great fanfare, his army sailed down the Indus in hopes of reaching Egypt.

But unaware of the fact that it wasn’t the destination they assumed to reach, the Greek army sailed ahead. Here the monsoon and the tides - both unknown to his native little land-locked Mediterranean country - bewildered the King to no end. He split his army into two - one half led by himself to go by lower Sindh and coastal Baluchistan to Iran, while the other half led by Nearchus, to proceed by sea. Soon the two halves lost contact, each thinking the other to be lost and dead! The army travelling by the land route was struck by severe paucity of water. Of the 40,000 Greeks who had started out by land from Sindh, only 15,000 reached Iran. Robin Lane Poole, the modern biographer of Alexander’s writings sums up the Greek monarchs tryst
with Sindh: “The highest officers were alive - and so was Alexander - but they had suffered a disgrace, which was agonizingly irreversible. Alexander had known his first defeat”.

Our Roots

another link

Alexander
In another incident He was shot with an arrow in Multan and was severly injured while he was retreating and every body thought he was dead.



Alexander is viewed as symbol of west domination on East. Alexander wanted to paint himself as a god and so some twisted facts in his conquests.

 

[Joe Shearer]

True but that does not necessarily suggest that the "Aryans" did not exist alongside the tribals. The association of the tribals or "Dravidians" with the remnants of the IVC , if that is the connection being drawn, is not very sensible. The IVC culture was at the zenith of urbanisation(for its period). It would be extremely odd to suggest that such people, having been supposedly defeated by the "Aryans" would give up their urban culture & turn neolithic.

I think that this is a misinterpretation in geographical terms.

The IVC seems to be located along the Indus and to have spread up the river - no inter se dating seems possible - and along the tributaries. Logically, applying common sense, but without an iota of proof, one is tempted to surmise that the civilisation started near the sea, the main vehicle of commerce, and spread inland as more and more prosperity followed. On the other hand, it might have started far away and approached the sea as its capability to create new settlements grew along with its prosperity and wealth. All this makes yet another, rather risky observation: that the administrators were connected, in communication, and had reason to help one another, or to sponsor new settlements. Quite honestly, that lies in the realm of pure speculation.

However, the point is that the internal evidence of the Rg Veda that has so unfortunately provided so much of the material for the points of view that we have seen displayed also points in two other directions. While there were tribes who moved south along the Indus bed, and were defeated there by more northerly lying earlier settled tribes, there seems to have been a steady and systematic movement down the Gangetic Plain, on the parts of most of the active elements of the tribes located in the Punjab and further north. As this is being written more or less 'on the run', a detailed account of these events from the passages of the Rg Veda itself will have to wait for my return, alas, with much else, including poor Sashan's promised replies about the Brahmins.

The point of all this is to propose that while the migrants did come to the banks of the Saraswati and may have overlapped the dwellers in the cities, that was not their only movement. They also penetrated the densely forested plains around the Ganga and the Yamuna, and made slow but steady progress through that forest.

So on the one hand, on the southern axis, the migrants faced a declining IVC (not, as you have suggested, a flourishing civilisation, at "the zenith of urbanization") and on the other hand, on the eastern axis, a wilderness which was never urbanized and which therefore would not have displayed retrograde behaviour by demonstrating a neolithic, even a Copper Age kind of civilisation.

 

[FireFighter]

According to the German philosopher, Max Weber, India and China both did not have the required rationalism embedded in their culture that is needed for any system to work efficiently towards a civilization. Unlike Europe which went through the medieval period full of superstitions and irrational belief systems, and then the renasiance that allowed free thinking and scientific method to develop, he focuses particularly on India stating that the widespread and diverse hindu beliefs systems based on superstitions and irrational beliefs didn't create room for scientific thought to develop in india and held it back from embracing capitalism in the 19th century. Despite of being the mother of maths and having the material riches and resources, India still could not progress as a single entity due to the stated reason according to Weber and Marx.

But India saw prosperity and growth every time it was ruled by foreigners in recent history. Whether teh Mughals who established educational and military institutions, and later the British.

I think Gandhi even said that India needs a democratic dictator like the Caliph Umar to progress.

Happy Diwali to my hindu friends here. This is by no means to offend any religious feelings, the point of contention is the supersitious beliefs in the subcontinent rather than the Hindu religion
.

 

[Hellraiser007]

According to the German philosopher, Max Weber, India and China both did not have the required rationalism embedded in their culture that is needed for any system to work efficiently towards a civilization. Unlike Europe which went through the medieval period full of superstitions and irrational belief systems, and then the renasiance that allowed free thinking and scientific method to develop, he focuses particularly on India stating that the widespread and diverse hindu beliefs systems based on superstitions and irrational beliefs didn't create room for scientific thought to develop in india and held it back from embracing capitalism in the 19th century. Despite of being the mother of maths and having the material riches and resources, India still could not progress as a single entity due to the stated reason according to Weber and Marx.

But India saw prosperity and growth every time it was ruled by foreigners in recent history. Whether teh Mughals who established educational and military institutions, and later the British.

I think Gandhi even said that India needs a democratic dictator like the Caliph Umar to progress.

Happy Diwali to my hindu friends here. This is by no means to offend any religious feelings, the point of contention is the supersitious beliefs in the subcontinent rather than the Hindu religion
.

Your post is true except the foreign rule thing.
India knows how to reform its beliefs and how to preserve the achievements throughout its history and identity of the achievements therefore adding these to Brand India.

 

[jbond197]

But you understand that the Vedas did not spring out of thin air all over India? They radiated out of one area onto North India first, and then beyond.

Care to tell, What that so called secret area was? And why is it that something like Vedas that spread so heavily in majority of India is non-existent, unknown and without any reference anywhere else.. I am sure you must be having some concrete proofs to support your claims that Vedas actually radiated out of some so called fairy land onto North India and then influenced beyond.

Why do you not think that people evolved over a period of time? Why is it not possible that people learnt/invented/found things systematically and came up with the books of knowledge? To be specific, if you look at Ayurveda - All the medicines described are made up of herbs, things found locally. Do you really think an outsider can do that?

I know your and your fellow Pakistani's intent and that is to some how prove that rig vedic religion was enforced on the people of the land. I would buy that if you can point out the center of its origin otherwise it is just your poor imagination/bad effort to some how show the later invasions of the land in good light..


And btw, why are we discussing a myth called AIT in this thread? Let's assume if it really happened in some prehistoric ages then was that even a turning point in the history of Indian subcontinent?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I said Alexander never controlled north West India he may have won some battles but he went back after making some peace agreements with king Purushottam.

go through this link and enlighten yourself.

Alexander’s Waterloo in Sindh




One of the greatest warriors of all time, Alexander the Great, had a tryst with Sindh, where his initial luck turned sour and his army received its first ever mauling…

If anyone were to rule the world, it was thought it would be Alexander the Great, the Greek warrior who struck terror worldwide during his reign. Tales of Alexander and his feat, are inscribed in history books and he is revered as ‘the world conqueror’ who ‘came, saw and conquered’ every land he had visited. His rendezvous with India’s Porus (Puru) still runs across pages of the Indian history books. But what goes unmentioned is his attempt to capture territories in Sindh and his army’s failure in achieving the feat. Records reveal, that the Greek warrior, in his quest to conquer the world had skirmishes across the Middle Eastern Gulf. His wars against Iran, Afghanistan and India had earned him a number of foes and so petrified was he that he was reluctant to even return by the same route that he entered through.

If historical records are to be believed, Alexander had a modus operandi set to vanquish the reigning rulers in Sindh and India. Prior to his entry, his spy army was all across the Sindh and the Gangetic plains surveying the region to the last detail. These experts had a detailed report made on the geographical conditions and had even measured the distance between the Sindhu valley and the Gangetic plains till Patliputra (Patna). His urge to capture Sindh stemmed from his records of the region, which was supposedly a storehouse of fabulous treasures and the riches that the inhabitants had amassed after years of toil. His entry into Sindh wasn’t difficult and his army ravaged through the neighbouring territories, setting their foot on Sindh. Alexander’s hordes invaded Sindh with the novel war cry ‘Alalalalalai!’ The Sindhis were obviously jolted by the Greek’s war cries and their aggression, but nevertheless fought back with equal vigour. The resistance, one of the toughest the Macedonians had ever encountered made the monarch angry and wherever he was resisted, he plundered the inhabitants wealth, massacred them and even destroyed their flourishing towns. His operational force went about building bridges for the army to cavalcade across territories, the famous one being the ‘Sikander-ji-Pul’ , the bridge of Alexander that was constructed in an attempt to enter the Alore province (then called Musicanus).

Alore (or Alwar), that had remained the capital of Sindh for more than a thousand years, was the richest place in the whole of the sub-continent at that time. The rulers of this place, the Sodha Rajputs put up a valiant fight but couldn’t hold back against the strong army of Alexander. After defeating the Rajputs, the Greek army went about on a killing spree, massacring all inhabitants and leaving the city in ruins. The next destination of the Greek army was Sehwan (then called Sindemana), a flourishing town on the banks of the Indus river. A Brahmin king, Sambhos who ruled Sehwan accepted the rule of the Greeks, but the residents of this town rose to the occasion and refused to open the gates of the forts to the Greeks. Irked by this, Alexander vigorously fought the resisting battalion and after the conquest ordered the killing of each and every Brahmin. By that time the Greek became aware of another town, in fact a rich port, Patla (now Hyderabad) near the river delta. The Greek regiment marched towards this town and on hearing the news, the king of Patla agreed to the suzerainty of the invaders, but as the Greek entered the land, the king fled his palace to take refuge in Kutch. Humiliated by this event he looted the place and killed all the Brahmins there. Notes H.T. Lambrick, a former commissioner of Sindh, and author of the ‘Sindh before Muslim Conquest’: “There was a subtle power in Sindh which created the will to resist the foreigner, the influence of the Brahmins.” Alexander never excused the Brahmins for persuading the Sindhi kings to run for cover. However, he was so impressed with the intellectual prowess and spirit of the Brahmins that he captured and kept with him ten of them.

However, unfazed by all the resistance he continued with his conquest and the Greek monarch marched across the territories of Sindh vanquishing all rulers and capturing almost every town. His army also reached the place where Karachi stands today and called it Sikandar-jo-Bihist (Alexander’s heaven). But his army’s honeymoon in Sindh was about to come to an end. In his campaign to conquer the entire of Sindh, he touched upon the mighty river, Indus. Amusingly, he mistook it for the source of river Nile, because of the presence of crocodiles! With great fanfare, his army sailed down the Indus in hopes of reaching Egypt.

But unaware of the fact that it wasn’t the destination they assumed to reach, the Greek army sailed ahead. Here the monsoon and the tides - both unknown to his native little land-locked Mediterranean country - bewildered the King to no end. He split his army into two - one half led by himself to go by lower Sindh and coastal Baluchistan to Iran, while the other half led by Nearchus, to proceed by sea. Soon the two halves lost contact, each thinking the other to be lost and dead! The army travelling by the land route was struck by severe paucity of water. Of the 40,000 Greeks who had started out by land from Sindh, only 15,000 reached Iran. Robin Lane Poole, the modern biographer of Alexander’s writings sums up the Greek monarchs tryst
with Sindh: “The highest officers were alive - and so was Alexander - but they had suffered a disgrace, which was agonizingly irreversible. Alexander had known his first defeat”.

Our Roots

another link

Alexander
In another incident He was shot with an arrow in Multan and was severly injured while he was retreating and every body thought he was dead.



Alexander is viewed as symbol of west domination on East. Alexander wanted to paint himself as a god and so some twisted facts in his conquests.

I thought that you were stupid and ignorant. I admit that I was wrong.

You are incredibly stupid and ignorant beyond belief.

There is only a piece of dialogue between Alexander and Porus which has no bearing on the battle that followed, a dialogue that must have taken place through courier and messenger and herald, since the two kings never met before the Battle of the Hydaspes. There is nothing in the account, a popularization of historical sources and not a source by itself, to suggest anything other than a successful march down the Indus. There was resistance, as is reported by the authorities, and it was overcome; so what is the new element in this account?

Incidentally the march followed precisely the locations of the IVC, dead and buried by then, which you had been vehemently denying all along. Or perhaps you thought that references to settlements in the lower Indus delta were references to the settlements of the IVC, even though it was 326 BC, nearly a thousand years since the IVC had disappeared.

The travails of the journey across the Makran Desert from Sind to Babylon are widely known to every military historian and student of Alexander's campaigns. There was nothing of a military nature which affected the Army, or would justify your fantastic visions of losses and defeats suffered by the Macedonians. In fact, Malkani's account indicates that Alexander came in through the passes, after several encounters with the mountain dwellers in their lofty cities, and encountered Porus in battle, defeated him and marched south, leaving Ambhi's son responsible for the southern part of Porus' holdings. Malkani goes on to relate precisely what you have been denying all along, that the Greeks marched down the Indus, thus establishing military supremacy over both the north-west and the Indus Valley, and went across the Makran desert back to Babylon.

Why you had to take refuge in this History for Dummies version is not clear - or perhaps it is - but it happens to say all the things that you say never happened, and does not mention what you think happened instead.

PS: Oh, by the way, in case you have not noticed it as yet,both accounts that you have posted are identical. The same piece.

PPS: There were no Rajputs known in India until the 8th or 9th century AD, about 1,100 years after Alexander. It is difficult to know who these "Sodha Rajputs" were, who fought so bravely against Alexander, more than a millennium before they could have been there.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Care to tell, What that so called secret area was? And why is it that something like Vedas that spread so heavily in majority of India is non-existent, unknown and without any reference anywhere else.. I am sure you must be having some concrete proofs to support your claims that Vedas actually radiated out of some so called fairy land onto North India and then influenced beyond.

Why do you not think that people evolved over a period of time? Why is it not possible that people learnt/invented/found things systematically and came up with the books of knowledge?

I know your and your fellow Pakistani's intent and that is to some how prove that Hinduism was enforced on the people of the land. I would buy that if you can point to the center of its origin otherwise it is just your poor imagination to some how show the later invasions of the land in good light..

Very true mate Hindu Civilization was flourished in River Banks of India, It had nothing to do about Foreign lands and their beliefs.
India is home for Numerous faiths and Dharmas and there is no question about it.

 

[Rig Vedic]

I was wondering when Dr. Elst would make his appearance.

We are much illuminated by getting to know about your wondering.

 

[Hellraiser007]

I thought that you were stupid and ignorant. I admit that I was wrong.

You are incredibly stupid and ignorant beyond belief.

There is only a piece of dialogue between Alexander and Porus which has no bearing on the battle that followed, a dialogue that must have taken place through courier and messenger and herald, since the two kings never met before the Battle of the Hydaspes. There is nothing in the account, a popularization of historical sources and not a source by itself, to suggest anything other than a successful march down the Indus. There was resistance, as is reported by the authorities, and it was overcome; so what is the new element in this account?

Incidentally the march followed precisely the locations of the IVC, dead and buried by then, which you had been vehemently denying all along. Or perhaps you thought that references to settlements in the lower Indus delta were references to the settlements of the IVC, even though it was 326 BC, nearly a thousand years since the IVC had disappeared.

The travails of the journey across the Makran Desert from Sind to Babylon are widely known to every military historian and student of Alexander's campaigns. There was nothing of a military nature which affected the Army, or would justify your fantastic visions of losses and defeats suffered by the Macedonians. In fact, Malkani's account indicates that Alexander came in through the passes, after several encounters with the mountain dwellers in their lofty cities, and encountered Porus in battle, defeated him and marched south, leaving Ambhi's son responsible for the southern part of Porus' holdings. Malkani goes on to relate precisely what you have been denying all along, that the Greeks marched down the Indus, thus establishing military supremacy over both the north-west and the Indus Valley, and went across the Makran desert back to Babylon.

Why you had to take refuge in this History for Dummies version is not clear - or perhaps it is - but it happens to say all the things that you say never happened, and does not mention what you think happened instead.

PS: Oh, by the way, in case you have not noticed it as yet,both accounts that you have posted are identical. The same piece.

I just posted these links so that you will not ignore by claiming it is Sindhi website so their propaganda. I said Alexander never controlled North west India completely and you are saying me I was incredibly stupid and ignorant beyond belief .

That was a funny joke to make me laugh nothing more.



Did Alexander really defeat Indian Kings? | Printable Science articles and Quizzes for kids

Did Alexander really defeat Indian Porus?


There is a controversy on battle between Alexander (Macedonian) and Indian Porus, one of his last battles before he died . While history (legend) says that Alexander won the hard fought battle, some scholars and experts argue that Greeks turned the tale around to hide Alexander’s first defeat, which forced him to leave the plans to move further into Great India. It’s even more surprising to find out that Plutarch wrote Alexander’s biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source.

Alexander’s quest to conquer the entire world started in 335 B.C . It’s 326 B.C spring time that he entered India “the land of milk and honey”, for invasion. He set to battle with Porus, the ruler of the kingdom Paurava situated between the rivers Hydaspes (modern Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab). Its capital may have been at the site now known as Lahore, assisted by Porus arch rival Ambi of Taxila.

The legend : (According to History)

The Porus were outnumbered and outclassed by the Macedonian army. A wounded king Porus surrendered only after the destruction of his entire army.The Indian leader accepted his defeat. When Alexander asked him how he wanted to be treated, he gave the famous reply ‘as a king‘. An impressed Alexander reappointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom. Porus received additional territories to the north of his kingdom which belongs to Ambi . Alexander moved down to conquer more Indian territories .When the armies reached the Beas, they were tired and homesick. So they refused to proceed any further.This rebel forced Alexander to giveup the quest and divided army into two parts to reach home. On his way back, Alexander died in 323 B.C.at an early age of 33 at Babylon near Baghdad.
The controversy :

In the 1960, an Indian scholar named Buddha Prakash argued, basing himself on the famous medieval epic named Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi, that Alexander was defeated’ by Porus, that the two men became friends, and that this explained why Alexander left him so much territories. So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin? So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Let’s see the two famous conspiracy theories put forth by some famous scholars :
Theory 1 : Alexander gave up to battle rest of India….

Alexander won on Porus with utmost difficulty. Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, “Like a king” – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander’s admiration. Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi’s Taxila. Alexander made mistake by asking Porus “What it would take to win the rest of India?” in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom. As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander’s generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces? And so army revolted against continuing for this reason but not for “homesick” as told in history.

heory 2: Alexander lost to Puru.

Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru. So there’s Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. Alexander suffers a wound to the side. They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split . Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great The two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. leaving true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake.

What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. A shrewd politician, like Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. Alexander even resorted to pure and simple cheating to win some places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army.

With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. King Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.


It seems you lack the knowledge of War and how it works and you are simply blindly believing those western propaganda nothing more. Alexander's conquests in India are hugely debatable and controversial.

 

[Rig Vedic]

According to the German philosopher, Max Weber, India and China both did not have the required rationalism embedded in their culture that is needed for any system to work efficiently towards a civilization.

hmm ... is this fellow from a continent that could not count properly until the Indians taught them how. And when was this guy Galileo threatened with torture.

But more seriously this is too simplistic an explanation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I just posted these links so that you will not ignore by claiming it is Sindhi website so their propaganda. I said Alexander never controlled North west India completely and you are saying me I was incredibly stupid and ignorant beyond belief .

That was a funny joke to make me laugh nothing more.



Did Alexander really defeat Indian Kings? | Printable Science articles and Quizzes for kids

Did Alexander really defeat Indian Porus?


There is a controversy on battle between Alexander (Macedonian) and Indian Porus, one of his last battles before he died . While history (legend) says that Alexander won the hard fought battle, some scholars and experts argue that Greeks turned the tale around to hide Alexander’s first defeat, which forced him to leave the plans to move further into Great India. It’s even more surprising to find out that Plutarch wrote Alexander’s biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source.

Alexander’s quest to conquer the entire world started in 335 B.C . It’s 326 B.C spring time that he entered India “the land of milk and honey”, for invasion. He set to battle with Porus, the ruler of the kingdom Paurava situated between the rivers Hydaspes (modern Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab). Its capital may have been at the site now known as Lahore, assisted by Porus arch rival Ambi of Taxila.

The legend : (According to History)

The Porus were outnumbered and outclassed by the Macedonian army. A wounded king Porus surrendered only after the destruction of his entire army.The Indian leader accepted his defeat. When Alexander asked him how he wanted to be treated, he gave the famous reply ‘as a king‘. An impressed Alexander reappointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom. Porus received additional territories to the north of his kingdom which belongs to Ambi . Alexander moved down to conquer more Indian territories .When the armies reached the Beas, they were tired and homesick. So they refused to proceed any further.This rebel forced Alexander to giveup the quest and divided army into two parts to reach home. On his way back, Alexander died in 323 B.C.at an early age of 33 at Babylon near Baghdad.
The controversy :

In the 1960, an Indian scholar named Buddha Prakash argued, basing himself on the famous medieval epic named Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi, that Alexander was defeated’ by Porus, that the two men became friends, and that this explained why Alexander left him so much territories. So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin? So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Let’s see the two famous conspiracy theories put forth by some famous scholars :
Theory 1 : Alexander gave up to battle rest of India….

Alexander won on Porus with utmost difficulty. Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, “Like a king” – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander’s admiration. Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi’s Taxila. Alexander made mistake by asking Porus “What it would take to win the rest of India?” in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom. As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander’s generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces? And so army revolted against continuing for this reason but not for “homesick” as told in history.

heory 2: Alexander lost to Puru.

Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru. So there’s Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. Alexander suffers a wound to the side. They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split . Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great The two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. leaving true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake.

What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. A shrewd politician, like Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. Alexander even resorted to pure and simple cheating to win some places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army.

With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. King Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.


It seems you lack the knowledge of War and how it works and you are simply blindly believing those western propaganda nothing more. Alexander's conquests in India are hugely debatable and controversial.

You remain stupid, and demonstrate it with every succeeding comment.

Do you know the dates of Firdausi? He lived in the 10th century, 1,300 years after Alexander came and went. He was a poet, and not an historian. And again, after your Chand Bardoi disaster, you have quoted a poet as your source.

Secondly, regarding Alexander not being reported by Kautilya. You never cease to amaze me. Nobody was reported by Kautilya. Dating him and his work is difficult precisely for that reason.

Don't you think that you should stick to Amar Chitra Katha? Or stay with - what is it? - Printable Science Articles and Quizzes for Kids?

 

[Hellraiser007]

Joe,

Can I request you something? Could you please go easy on your swears when you thrash some of your younger counterparts? They may be ignorant, less knowledgeable compared to you but resorting to personal attacks really degrades a quality post.

Thank you!!

That was his thinking that others are ignorant and less knowledgeable, the moment somebody does personnel attacks it is a sign of weakness in his argument.

You remain stupid, and demonstrate it with every succeeding comment.

Do you know the dates of Firdausi? He lived in the 10th century, 1,300 years after Alexander came and went. He was a poet, and not an historian. And again, after your Chand Bardoi disaster, you have quoted a poet as your source.

Secondly, regarding Alexander not being reported by Kautilya. You never cease to amaze me. Nobody was reported by Kautilya. Dating him and his work is difficult precisely for that reason.

Don't you think that you should stick to Amar Chitra Katha? Or stay with - what is it? - Printable Science Articles and Quizzes for Kids?

My arguments are based on logic and facts not on reports of some kings(Alexanders) poet who twists all the work done by King to glorify him.

Anyway you can continue with your Western Propaganda of Alexander's Glory.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe,

Can I request you something? Could you please go easy on your swears when you thrash some of your younger counterparts? They may be ignorant, less knowledgeable compared to you but resorting to personal attacks really degrades a quality post.

Thank you!!

I think you are making a thoroughly unreasonable request. I research every single comment of mine, or have sufficient knowledge of the subject to write it out without prior research. Each and every single comment. To the extent that in discussion with Rig Vedic, not one of my favourites, when I realized that I was going out of my depth, I withdrew my comment, deleting it entirely, until I had read up on the sources once more.

Considering this, do you think it reasonable that I put up a point, or make an observation, and some callow young idiot not only challenges me but questions my integrity?

How come you are not addressing his insolence first? I am really furious that such a request should be addressed to me, merely because the person on the other end is a youngster. Children should be seen and not read, then.

That was his thinking that others are ignorant and less knowledgeable, the moment somebody does personnel attacks it is a sign of weakness in his argument.



My arguments are based on logic not on reports of some kings poet who twists all the work done by King to glorify him.

This is history, not logic.

 

[neokautilya2]

Vedic culture spread from the North West into the rest of India. You can continue to believe that it all happened through songs and roses, but the fact is that intra-regional military conquests were the norm through the ages.



Facts vs. Popular Myths about Muslim Community in India - By P R Ram



Aren't you guys the ones going on about India's demographic advantage over China because of a large young populace?

tell me ur viewpoint, which i asked

most of the hindus here whether rich or poor, urban or rural know the importance of controlling birth rate

wats ur viewpoint, is it the same old GODS WISH!!!!!

 

[Developereo]

Care to tell, What that so called secret area was? And why is it that something like Vedas that spread so heavily in majority of India is non-existent, unknown and without any reference anywhere else.. I am sure you must be having some concrete proofs to support your claims that Vedas actually radiated out of some so called fairy land onto North India and then influenced beyond.

Why do you not think that people evolved over a period of time? Why is it not possible that people learnt/invented/found things systematically and came up with the books of knowledge? To be specific, if you look at Ayurveda - All the medicines described are made up of herbs, things found locally. Do you really think an outsider can do that?

I know your and your fellow Pakistani's intent and that is to some how prove that rig vedic religion was enforced on the people of the land. I would buy that if you can point out the center of its origin otherwise it is just your poor imagination/bad effort to some how show the later invasions of the land in good light..


And btw, why are we discussing a myth called AIT in this thread? Let's assume if it really happened in some prehistoric ages then was that even a turning point in the history of Indian subcontinent?

The authors of the Vedas explicitly told us that they felt kinship with tribes in Iran/Afghanistan. They did not claim kinship with the Nepalese or the Biharis or the Assamese or the Bengalis or the Keralites.

This is not a Pakistani ISI conspiracy to go back in time and rewrite the Vedas. This is what is written.