When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.

[Haryanvi Jat]

LOL WHAT BULLSHIT.

India has more IVC sites than Pakistan? What nonsense. Do you want to get banned?

It is Pakistan that has way more IVC sites than India ! [emoji38]

Go check the IVC map on Wikipedia.

I already gave you a link, and it's a wikipedia link. Go figure.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I already gave you a link, and it's a wikipedia link. Go figure.

You link is biased and rubbish. There are more IVC sites in Pakistan than in India.

 

[Haryanvi Jat]

You link is biased and rubbish. There are more IVC sites in Pakistan than in India.

I saw your images. It says -
Major IVC sites in Pakistan - 5(from first IMG), (8 from 2nd IMG)
Major IVC sites in India - 5(from first IMG), 6(from 2nd IMG)

Moreover, most of the minor sites of India is not shown.
Now why don't you tell me how are my sources Biased. Didn't you told me to check on Wiki. These sources are from Wiki.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I saw your images. It says -
Major IVC sites in Pakistan - 5(from first IMG), (8 from 2nd IMG)
Major IVC sites in India - 5(from first IMG), 6(from 2nd IMG)

Moreover, most of the minor sited of India is not shown.
Now why don't you tell me how are my sources Biased. Didn't you told me to check on Wiki. These sources are from Wiki.

Listen troll, according to the maps Pakistan has more IVC sites than India.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are precisely the ones that have led to a general agreement by academics other than scholars in residence in PDF to conclude that Alexander won over Porus, and retained sufficient military strength to battle his way down the Indus Valley in a series of sanguinary sieges, each being fought to the death by the defendants.

That he was a broken man on his return is to be attributed not to military defeat or to the attrition due to battle but to the ravages of the passage along the Makran desert to Babylon, which is uniformly described as an ordeal as severe as the passage of the Grand Army on its return from Moscow. The expedition still had the energy left to found the city of Alexandria Arachosia, which some of these resident scholars in PDF might recognise by their modern names. Some achievements for a broken man.

Their accounts are the reason why its been confirmed that indeed Alexander was handed his arse on platter by ancient Pakistanis. Too many inconsistencies and no non Greek sources like they were there in his earlier exploits in Persia and lands before that. I have already explained to you, majority of accounts mentioned by greeks are myths, self glorification and preservation of the image that build around the "undefeated" Alexander the "great".

The narrative that even though he won against Porus yet his army rebelled against Marching further east due to heavy toll taken in battle of hydespas and bigger enemies they had to face in their path is, frankly speaking hilarious. Then why head south down the Indus? Were there lesser enemies down south? Heading into uncharted territories when your men are refusing to go further east, what made south lesser of a challange, when he knew that towards west in texilla and bectria, the lands under his command and control, taking the path he came from was not followed. WHY???

A school boy error by biggest general in history where he nearly lost all his soldiers eventually taking his journey south? No, these were the conditions imposed by Porus on defeated Alexender, in return for sparing his life and his army, they will help him to expand his Kingdom by merging the Taxilla which was then ruled by Ambi. After that, Porus not only retained his kingdom but expanded it, with path to taxilla back to Persia no longer available, Alexander has no choice but to head south down Indus towards Arabia sea to retreat back to Babylon.

I have been to taxilla many times, there are touts near taxilla archeological sites who sell the "fake greek" coin that they claim are from the times when Alexander came in that part of Pakistan. No where else you see the relics of this "misadventure". Consistence with the facts and ground realities.

LOL.

So now, setting aside the original sources cited, the grand assembly of Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch, we stumble into

• the peculiar, very Indian phraseology of
• an Indian revisionist account of
• a European professor's translation of
• one of the Alexander Romances.

Wait for the rest of the story.

If you can somehow manage to stick your nose out of your white master arse crack, sniffing all that come from it and taking it as musk, maybe, just maybe you can start to think more rationally. Colonial scar run deep, you are a prefect specimen of this sorry state of mind.

 

[Haryanvi Jat]

Listen troll, according to the maps Pakistan has more IVC sites than India.

A troll calling others troll????
On a serious note, as I already said, most of the minor IVC sites in India are not shown. And still the difference is not much. And can you tell me how are my sources Biased. Just because it doesn't match your view?? In fact, you yourselves told me to check Wiki.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

The sites you mentioned were all Indus settlements and outposts. Looking at them with current border markings is meaningless. They were all build by the people of Indus and shows the expansion of their empire/civilization in east from Indus river. Just like Egyptian civilization expanded from Nile going east towards what is now called holly lands.

Indians will be better off looking into Ganges river basin to find their own civilization which they can claim their own.

The sites are equally large..morover dur to lack of funds the Pakistani sites will dissappear by 2030..this is what Pakistani scientists are claiming..I am saying what is on our territory is ouir civilization, what is on your territory is your civilization..India and Pakistan are completely two different civilizations

 

[MultaniGuy]

The sites are equally large..morover dur to lack of funds the Pakistani sites will dissappear by 2030..this is what Pakistani scientists are claiming..I am saying what is on our territory is ouir civilization, what is on your territory is your civilization..India and Pakistan are completely two different civilizations

Agreed Pakistan and India are completely different. We have no similarities.

 

[trident2010]

People of the Indus, i.e Pakistani ancestors.

Indians are the people of Indus and deccan and ganges. So according to you pakistanis are Hindu Indians converted to muslims. Good with me

Most of pakistanis here denies their Indian heritage

 

[MultaniGuy]

Indians are the people of Indus and deccan and ganges. So according to you pakistanis are Hindu Indians converted to muslims. Good with me

Most of pakistanis here denies their Indian heritage

nice try.
Pakistanis are the children of the Indus river valley, not Indians.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Sadly, You didn't got what I wanted to say. I think a few good reads of my comments over and over again will make you realise what I was saying. RSS is a Hindu organization and I am not a Hindu. About Saraswati, it has been proved by archeologists that Saraswati was one of the tributaries of Indus. So until you agree with archeologists that IVC was started in Mehrgarh, you can't disagree that Saraswati was a tributary of Indus because it is an archeological fact. I never said Pakistanis have no relation with Indus. But saying NW Indians and N Indians have no relation with Indus is utter Foolishness. At last I would like to remind you again, that India have more IVC sites that Pak, and the Largest city of IVC lies in India.

Saraswati is a mythical river whose needs arose among Indian academics to somehow shift the center of IVC from River Indus towards within the borders of India to give it more "Indian stamp". Its nothing but a hogwash.

Pakistanis as a whole bunch are custodians of Indus civilization, Iraqis the Euphrates, and Egyptians the Nile, these are geographical facts, not by association. You while being Indian, where majority of you lot dont even have any connection of IVC, its pathetic attempt to link your country, your state, with IVC. Iran and Afghanistan in their entirety where once part of IVC, yet we dont hear them claiming their lineage with IVC do we? Its a double edge sword, if you as a certain ethnic group in India claim your lineage to IVC, then you should also accept that Pakistanis are your eventual grandaddies. It all come back to us.

 

[Haryanvi Jat]

Saraswati is a mythical river whose needs arose among Indian academics to somehow shift the center of IVC from River Indus towards within the borders of India to give it more "Indian stamp". Its nothing but a hogwash.

Pakistanis as a whole bunch are custodians of Indus civilization, Iraqis the Euphrates, and Egyptians the Nile, these are geographical facts, not by association. You while being Indian, where majority of you lot dont even have any connection of IVC, its pathetic attempt to link your country, your state, with IVC. Iran and Afghanistan in their entirety where once part of IVC, yet we dont hear them claiming their lineage with IVC do we? Its a double edge sword, if you as a certain ethnic group in India claim your lineage to IVC, then you should also accept that Pakistanis are your eventual grandaddies. It all come back to us.

You are kidding right???? Saraswati used to flow, and there are archeological evidences. Skeletons of fishes are found in a long stretch in Haryana, the place where there is no river in the present time. There are only moonson rivers which depend on rain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Upstream Indus is completely controlled by Indians...Indians and Pakistanis are completely different there is no relation between the two..One of us might well be Burundi and another Burgundy

 

[Joe Shearer]

Their accounts are the reason why its been confirmed that indeed Alexander was handed his arse on platter by ancient Pakistanis. Too many inconsistencies and no non Greek sources like they were there in his earlier exploits in Persia and lands before that. I have already explained to you, majority of accounts mentioned by greeks are myths, self glorification and preservation of the image that build around the "undefeated" Alexander the "great".

It is merely amusing and nothing more to see that the lack of non-Greek sources leads to a conclusion that the missing evidence proves your illusory case. You say that the majority of accounts mentioned by the Greeks are this, that or the other; when did the Greeks monopolise the narration? It may, or may not, have come to your notice that there is a mix of Greek and non-Greek sources in these histories; you mention Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch; let's see what that gives us:

• Curtius: Quintus Curtius Rufus - Roman, probably 1st century, about 400 years after Alexander; only book was his book on Alexander, originally in ten books, but available in badly patched up form, in nine books, each of which was in further incomplete, damaged condition; to draw conclusions about Hydaspes and its aftermath from his account is to look at the blanks and fill them up with one's own imagination. Roughly an approximation of your approach. His sources are not clear; since he mentions Cleitarchus (an historian in the Macedonian camp), Ptolemy and Timagenes, there is some speculation that he may have used their eye-witness accounts, since lost.
• Justin: Marcus Junianus Justinus Frontinus - Roman, 2nd century (one analyst says 4th century) therefore either 500 or 700 years after Alexander; his book was an excerpt of another book, by Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus, an earlier historian, from whose work he made excerpts. Not very accurate excerpts; he used the opportunity to moralise, rather than sticking to an excerpt. The original was a history of the Macedonian kings, not of Alexander alone.
• Diodorus: Diodorus Siculus (of Sicily) - Greek, 1st century BC, some 200 years after Alexander. He wrote a history of the world in 40 'books' (chapters). The history of Alexander is in the sections (chapters) 7 to 17, of which only 11 to 17 survive; so we have most of Alexander's life and times contained in this surviving section. He used a number of sources.
• Arrian: Arrianos, Arrian of Nicomedia, Romanised as Lucus Flavius Arrianus - Greek, 2nd century (probably around the time of Justin, if the traditional thoughts about his dates are accepted). He was a military officer himself, and that makes his accounts of Alexander more attractive. Generally, historians have taken Arrian the most seriously of the whole lot. He wrote a most attractive collection of books: on Alexander, modelling it on the famous Anabasis of Xenophon; a work on India, based on Megasthenes and on Nearchos the sailor; on hunting dogs, specifically a type of hound, and its characteristics and uses; on cavalry training; on a campaign against the Alans, which he won with the two legions at his command, and in which he describes the post-battle exploitation to be used, in terms of how the Greeks had used it in their time. Used to be considered the best account surviving.
• Plutarch: Ploutarchos, Romanised as a Roman citizen to Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus - Greek, 1st century, around 400 years after Alexander. Probably the most anecdotal, and the least useful from the point of view of concrete fact and evidence.

Is the point clear? It was not the Greeks, it was a collection of sources on which these accounts rest. Of the set that are usually cited, three are Greek, all Romanised Greeks, meaning, no Greeks that were writing in times when Greek cities were independent; two are Roman.

The narrative that even though he won against Porus yet his army rebelled against Marching further east due to heavy toll taken in battle of hydespas and bigger enemies they had to face in their path is, frankly speaking hilarious. Then why head south down the Indus? Were there lesser enemies down south? Heading into uncharted territories when your men are refusing to go further east, what made south lesser of a challange, when he knew that towards west in texilla and bectria, the lands under his command and control, taking the path he came from was not followed. WHY???

If you read the accounts, the passages through the mountains were not simple; there was every reason to believe that by reaching the sea, the army would have a safe and assured passage back home. Before marching down, and actually encountering enemies that they did encounter, they had no idea that some of the biggest challenges were still ahead.

That they headed south willingly was precisely the reason that it becomes clear that Alexander's army was not disinclined to fight, was not defeated and discouraged, but were willing to march through the plains and get to the sea.

You may like to read The Anabasis, where, when the inland-bound Greeks finally saw the Black Sea from an elevation, they broke into shouts,"Thalassa! Thalassa!" It needs more than a querulous, skimpy knowledge of history, twisted to form a self-serving account, to understand this campaign or what happened. If you could break away from your strenuous effort to prove that the people in the location of the present Pakistani Punjab defeated the world-conquering army of their times, you might make better sense.

A school boy error by biggest general in history where he nearly lost all his soldiers eventually taking his journey south? No, these were the conditions imposed by Porus on defeated Alexender, in return for sparing his life and his army, they will help him to expand his Kingdom by merging the Taxilla which was then ruled by Ambi. After that, Porus not only retained his kingdom but expanded it, with path to taxilla back to Persia no longer available, Alexander has no choice but to head south down Indus towards Arabia sea to retreat back to Babylon.

This is what I meant by a querulous and skimpy knowledge of history. Look up the governance of the Taxila region after Alexander departed, down to the point where Seleukos explicitly handed over the territory to the Mauryas. Please do not hallucinate in a vacuum; if you at least hallucinate over existing facts, it is bearable. This wholesale wild imagination of a hypothetical alternative history is really alarming.

I have been to taxilla many times, there are touts near taxilla archeological sites who sell the "fake greek" coin that they claim are from the times when Alexander came in that part of Pakistan. No where else you see the relics of this "misadventure". Consistence with the facts and ground realities.

If you can tear yourself away from your personal voyage of discovery, we can discuss history. Where else do you expect to see the relics of this 'misadventure'? Do you think that because touts do not sell you fake coins elsewhere in the Indus that the passage of the army was imaginary? Are there any more 'facts' like that you would like us to suffer?

If you can somehow manage to stick your nose out of your white master arse crack, sniffing all that come from it and taking it as musk, maybe, just maybe you can start to think more rationally. Colonial scar run deep, you are a prefect specimen of this sorry state of mind.

Don't be coarse.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

You are kidding right???? Saraswati used to flow, and there are archeological evidences. Skeletons of fishes are found in a long stretch in Haryana, the place where there is no river in the present time. There are only moonson rivers which depend on rain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River

If you call a "barsati nalla" a river, then good luck. I used to catch fishes in such barsati nalla during monsoon season.