Lurker Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 This is a question that has bugged me since time immemorial and unfortunately I stand as confused today as I was when I first felt this question in my mind. In school we have read that Alexander decimated every single Kingdom that fell in his tracks in his quest to conquer the world. He overran Greece, Persia and finally reached the western coast of India. There he meets King Ambi of Taxila who agrees to become his vassal. After Taxila he is met at the Jhelum river where he has a fierce fight with King Puru which he eventually defeats. When Puru is brought to his court he is asked how he wished to be treated and Puru replies, "Like a King". That is pretty much it as far as Indian history books are concerned. But here is my question: 1) By most accounts Puru is not only received by a lot of respect and admiration by Alexander but he is also allowed to retain his Kingdon, indeed he is given extra land to rule over. Now this must account for the best "defeat" in human warfare history where a defeated king not only retains his Kingdom but actually ends up getting extra land! 2) The Jhelum war is the last war for Alexander(in India) who is told that the countries post Puru's control areas are actually far more powerful. His army sort of rebels and his Generals are reluctant to push any more forward and Alexander turns back. This is a hard point to ignore since post Alexander the Magadha King Chandragupta Maurya would fight with Alexander's successor Selecus Nicator and beat him. So what exactly happened at the War of Jhelum? Did Puru did what Marshall Zukhov(he of Battle of Leningrad fame) suggested once at IMA Dedradun, "India defeated Alexander"? Did scholars(Western and Indians) put a spin of Alexander's "success" in India? The more you look at it, the less it looks like Alexander really had any sort of win on Indian soil. So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? As far as i am aware, Alexandrine army experienced war elephants for the first time in the battle of the Jhelum river. Alexander's main tactic was to deploy his phalax regiments to engage the enemy infantry and cavalry while his elite heavy cavalry - known as the legendary companion cavalry ( comprised of Alexander himself, his best friend/lover Hepasthion and various Macedonian nobles and rich guys)- drove in straight for the commanding general's regiment and destroyed it. This resulted in the enemy army panicking( you just took out their commander! duh!) and the companion cavalry/phalanx finishing the job. Back in those times, India was the only place where elephant cavalry were seen as a war machine. In the battle of Gaugamela, where Alexander conquered Persian empire, Darius III had 50 elephants but they didn't take part in the fighting- Darius used them as a vantage point and sign of status/royalty and just 'hung around' the battle field on his elephants watching his army getting owned. Then he ran way and was eventually hunted down. In the battle of Jhelum river, Porus had 200 war elephants who gave Alexander a lot of headache. Porus 'almost' won the war with his 200 war elephants because the phalanx couldnt deal with it and the companion cavalry couldnt charge the elephant regiment ( no horse- not even a war horse- is stupid enough to charge a war elephant).Alexander was forced to use his phalanxes as cannon-fodder (phalanx = elite heavy infantry) while his archers slowly picked off the mahouts. Ultimately Alexander was able to prevail over Porus but the 200-strong elephant cavalry was very hard for Alexander to subdue. So when Alexander's troops learnt that beyond Porus's kingdom lay the Magadha empire that commanded 10,000+ war elephants, they pretty much went ' sod this, 200 elephants almost schooled us, 10,000+ will decimate us. Lets turn back'. Hence the army mutiny and Alexander was forced to turn back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Amazing innit. Alexander captured every bit of land he sought but returned home even after defeating the Indian king "Puru". More baffling is the gifting back of the kingdom to the King and also rewarding him with extra land. I can't buy the argument that the kingdom beyond Puru's had better Elephant army hence Alexander made this move. If that were the case he wouldn't concede his already won land and also give away extra land to King Puru. That simply doesn't sound logical to me. Just because the next kingdom is stronger why would a war mongrel like Alexander that loved his name engrossed in every bit of land he won give up on a land that was won with lot of hardship??? I guess he may have found his match in Puru or possibly he saw something in Puru that impressed him. Good topic to search for in google and read some historic findings about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? As far as i am aware, Alexandrine army experienced war elephants for the first time in the battle of the Jhelum river. Alexander's main tactic was to deploy his phalax regiments to engage the enemy infantry and cavalry while his elite heavy cavalry - known as the legendary companion cavalry ( comprised of Alexander himself, his best friend/lover Hepasthion and various Macedonian nobles and rich guys)- drove in straight for the commanding general's regiment and destroyed it. This resulted in the enemy army panicking( you just took out their commander! duh!) and the companion cavalry/phalanx finishing the job. Back in those times, India was the only place where elephant cavalry were seen as a war machine. In the battle of Gaugamela, where Alexander conquered Persian empire, Darius III had 50 elephants but they didn't take part in the fighting- Darius used them as a vantage point and sign of status/royalty and just 'hung around' the battle field on his elephants watching his army getting owned. Then he ran way and was eventually hunted down. In the battle of Jhelum river, Porus had 200 war elephants who gave Alexander a lot of headache. Porus 'almost' won the war with his 200 war elephants because the phalanx couldnt deal with it and the companion cavalry couldnt charge the elephant regiment ( no horse- not even a war horse- is stupid enough to charge a war elephant).Alexander was forced to use his phalanxes as cannon-fodder (phalanx = elite heavy infantry) while his archers slowly picked off the mahouts. Ultimately Alexander was able to prevail over Porus but the 200-strong elephant cavalry was very hard for Alexander to subdue. So when Alexander's troops learnt that beyond Porus's kingdom lay the Magadha empire that commanded 10,000+ war elephants, they pretty much went ' sod this, 200 elephants almost schooled us, 10,000+ will decimate us. Lets turn back'. Hence the army mutiny and Alexander was forced to turn back. You couldn't have summed it better. Jesus , just when I tought I will start ignoring your post , you come with this Gem. You certainly know your history. BTW, one should not ignore the role played by Ambhi, the king of Takshshila who made an alliance with Alexander. Puru was his sworn enemy. Ambhi had planned to destroy Puru using Alexander. Like Ambhi, King Shashigupta also joined hands with Alexander. So , in the battle Porus had to fight Ambhi's army also. In fact , when Porus was losing and his elephant was injured , Ambhi was sent by alexander to ask Porus to surrender. Even then , he did not .But , finally he was captured alive by Alexander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birbal3 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Does the movie Alexander give this version? I've not seen the Brad Pitt movie btw... just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
head coach Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Alexander had to face stiff resistance from King Porus who impressed Alexander with his tremendous fighting abilities. The army of Alexander ultimately overcame the resistence of Porus who was wounded in the battle and was arrested. However ,the Greeks returned the territory of Porus to him because Alexander liked the heroics of the king. Author Buddha Prakash contradicts this in his book but was later proved that its was not right by historians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Does the movie Alexander give this version? I've not seen the Brad Pitt movie btw... just curious... Saw the movie. Shows Alexander losing to Porus and his Elephants. Don't think they went into the details of his brother, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Thanks guys for all the comments. :wtg: Here are two more things to confuse the mix. 1) One prevalent legend in present day Magadha, Centra-Southern Bihar, is that during the war of Alexander-Porus warfare, one of Alexander's wife meets Porus, ties a rakhee and asks him to spare Alexander life. During the course of war Porus has a chance to kill Alexander but spares him because of the rakhee connection. This may be both true and false. True because Porus is noted by historians on both sides as a man of great valour, towering height and personality and hence it should not come as a surprise if he got enagaged on some sort of one to one with Alexander and triumphed over him. It may be false as it seems today Alexander was more fond of male "company" than females. The key here of course could be Alexander's wife that does not appear much in history. 2) While searching web on this topic I came across a mention of Firdausi, the Arabian traveller, who mentions in his Shahnama that Porus had indeed defeated Alexander. His mention is somehow subdued by Western literateur since Firdausi hailed from Persia and as Alexander triumphed over Persia it is seen as an act of biasedness against Alexander. I am looking online for translation of Shahnama, if I get the book I shall order it and share with you guys. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Does the movie Alexander give this version? I've not seen the Brad Pitt movie btw... just curious... There's about 2-5 minutes of this episode in the movie that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? If that were the case he wouldn't concede his already won land and also give away extra land to King Puru. That simply doesn't sound logical to me. Actually, that was a common practice by Alexander. He'd defeat a king and if the king conceded/admitted Alexander's superiority (ie, play vassal to him), Alexander was quite happy to re-instate the defeated ruler as a Satrap ( governor) of his realm and even added to his realm. He did this in Egypt, he did this when Macedon conquered rest of greece, in Afghanistan, central Asia and with Porus. He didn't do it with Darius ( Persian emperor) because of several other reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? I dont like saying this often for people look at me jaundiced eyes when i say this, but i will say it once, and it is up to those who read this to decide if they desire to buy this or not: History is bunk! History is bunk! Contemporary history, especially that revolving around the Mesopotamian and Ganges-Indus valley civilizations have suffered a number of biases, fabrication due to influences from western european revisionist historians who manipulated history to show that the at every instance, at every junctions, the fair skinned Caucasians took the largest chunk of the pie. for instance, the whole deal about Vedas being written by aryan invaders from central asia is bunk. Debunked not just by the very evidence that it is based on: a historian (who shall remain unnamed) who formulated this theory and that is now periodically regurgitated by students all over india based his theory on the linguistic similarities between the languages now identified as the Indo-European languages. and of course, since the europeans were superior, their language had to originate first, and thus, he concluded a mass emigration of central asians and europeans into northern india. this evidence has been debunked by the most reliable historical evidence that we have at hand. heck, save for a loud voice from the heavens, this evidence is more authentic than anything else. this evidence is mitochondrial DNA. in human cells, there are two places where DNA can be found: the nucleus where the DNA accounts for the heredity and other features, and the other DNA is in the mitochondrias. this later DNA is retained from the mother, and infact, is the same DNA from the very first homo sapien sapien(s) who walked the rift valley in africa. however, this mitochondrial DNA, just like every other DNA undergoes periodic mutations and can thus be used as a rather accurate calendar. there is more evidence of this available in the national geographic (i can post the entire article if someone can show me how to). using this evidence, it has been shown that while humanity as we know it originated in africa over a million years ago, it moved out of africa, into persia and south india around 500,000 years ago. there it forked into three: one towards europe (250,000 years ago), one towards china (250,000 years ago) which eventually crossed the bering strait into north africa (50,000 years ago) and into south america (15,000 years ago), and a third moved into south east asia and eventually into africa (50,000 years ago). time and again, evidence is found that the history occassionally forced down our throats is incorrect, yet it is not easy to debunk the norm as it is often met with vigorous and vehement opposition. an indian historian attempting to straighten the record, is often ostracised and labeled as a revisionist by his european counterparts. as joseph stalin once said "the 'correct' history is worth a hundred armies of a hundred divisions" keeping this in mind, i will just add this: the movie made by oliver stone, though a massive failure was infact rather accurate in depicting that alexander was infact stopped by king porus, but just about. porus was not as good a strategist as alexander and his army of elephants was severely handicapped by the mushy terrain on which the war occurred. but yes, alexander did turn back, not because his army rebelled, but because his supply lines were running thin and he needed to consolidate his captured territory for the sake of building the global empire he had envisioned in another of his megalomaniac dreams. and yes, while chandragupta maurya had defeated the greek general appointed by alexander to oversea the empire in persia, greek influence in persia and current day afghanistan was far from over after that defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gator Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? nice post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? there is more evidence of this available in the national geographic (i can post the entire article if someone can show me how to). If you know how to copy/paste text .... then you already know how to ... (yes it works for URLs also) :hmph: they do not post entire articles... i was going to scan it from my copy and then covert it into a pdf or jpeg and then post it. but i will not post the entire article as that is a copyright violation. so i can post the graphics and about a quarter of the written content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? You can just post the link .... which Iam pretty sure is not a violation ... no i cant... for non exists. national geographic does not post its stories online. they only post small excerpts and a few visuals... i ll look nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? correction... a link does exist. not the entire article, but the most valuable map is indeed included: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature2/map.html apologies for the incorrect dates i listed previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Thank you, THX. I would just like to add two things though : 1. Don't take these things as gospel or cast in stone. These are all indirect suppositions based on fossil evidence found so far. I am not saying that this hypothesis is flawed but it can easily be turned on its head if a 250,000 year old human fossil is found in India or China or something. 2. I am wary of trusting most things printed by National Geographic. They have published good stuff recently but i happened to collect National Geographic as a kid and i still have some with me from the 60s and 70s- they were a very very biassed and pro-white/pro-christian magazine and still has such undertones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? Thank you, THX. I would just like to add two things though : 1. Don't take these things as gospel or cast in stone. These are all indirect suppositions based on fossil evidence found so far. I am not saying that this hypothesis is flawed but it can easily be turned on its head if a 250,000 year old human fossil is found in India or China or something. 2. I am wary of trusting most things printed by National Geographic. They have published good stuff recently but i happened to collect National Geographic as a kid and i still have some with me from the 60s and 70s- they were a very very biassed and pro-white/pro-christian magazine and still has such undertones. please note that this article is not suggesting that primates did not inhabit indian sub continent or otherplaces more than 250000 years ago. infact, the oldest primate which is regarded as a direct ancestor of Homo sapien sapiens walked this earth some 20-22 million years ago and is known as Ramapithicus (no prizes for guessing that the name is derived from the name Rama), and as human evolution progressed, the great survivalist, Neanderthal man certainly was present in india over 2 million years ago before his mysterious disappearance. however, cro magnon man, and his next in line, Homo sapien sapiens i.e. us, first completed the evolutionary steps in the rift valley of central africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Re: So what actually happened between Alexander and King Puru? I know THX and i am not saying that all this is incorrect or rubbish. All i am saying is, i do not take debates about 'where humanity originated and how they spread' as facts cast in stone because in reality, we have very little information and so far all our theories are based on a handful of discoveries. All i am saying is, there is a lot we don't know- if tomorrow we find a 1.5 million year old homo sapiens skull in australia, it changes the whole 'out of Africa theory' completely. I just dont know if they are correct and the only way we shall know is through the test of time- if in several hundred years facts still indicate out of africa theory, i think then we could claim it to be a fact. For now, its just the tip of the iceberg i feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts