Was reading an article against Alex on the web written by an Indian prof. in the U.S. somewhere and he seemed
strongly to believe that Alex won no victories on Indian soil and that he got well-beaten by Porus's army in Hydapes. I was confused. According to every single writer I have read Alex won a decisive victory over Porus. Has anybody read anything else to the contrary?
Porus- defeated?
Moderator: pothos moderators
Porus- defeated?
carpe diem
-
Dave J
Re: Porus- defeated?
I would love to read that article. Can I ask where you found it. I have no doubt that Alexander won many battles in India. I have serious doubts about any nationalistic motivated research. However there may be some valuable local knowledge to be gleened.
Re: Porus- defeated?
Hi,Indeed it's a nationalist site. But it's also ammusing to see the kind of impact that Alex has on people 
http://www.itihaas.com/ancient/1.htmlEnjoy it!
regards,
Yiannis
http://www.itihaas.com/ancient/1.htmlEnjoy it!
regards,
Yiannis
Re: Porus- defeated?
Yeah, I have to say that I think this is rubbish. I have read various things (probably by the same, or similar writers) along these lines.From my dim memory of the gist of these articles I would say that there is a possible (although, to be honest, not probably) argument that Alexander didn't actually beat Porus - but I think the whole premise falls down when you consider all of Alexander's actions afterwards: his continued march Eastwards and then, when persuaded to turn back, his frenetic activity en route to the Indian Ocean.If Porus really won the battle, then he was very stupid not to follow it up properly.All the bestMarcus
-
Dave J
Re: Porus- defeated?
Thanks for the link as I expected it was a load of crap. There was no evidence at all, only falsehoods. I wonder which copies of Arrian, Plt, Curtius etc he ahs read. All my copies say Alexander fought a hotly contested battle against the Indian but won. I have some doubt about the actual battle itself included the use of Sarissa against elephants ????????. But that is another story. I have done extensive research on Alexanders use of Sarissa and have found it was rarely used by infantry or cavalry.
Re: Porus- defeated?
Exactly, this guy doesn't site his sources (probably because he has none!).
When it comes to the battle against Porus' elephants I believe that I've read (but I can't remember my source either:) that they used axes to injure the animals' feet and javelins to kill the mahouts thus forcing the elephants in rage. Actually they trampled the Indians and Macedonians indiscretionally.
When it comes to the battle against Porus' elephants I believe that I've read (but I can't remember my source either:) that they used axes to injure the animals' feet and javelins to kill the mahouts thus forcing the elephants in rage. Actually they trampled the Indians and Macedonians indiscretionally.
-
Dave J
Sarissae at Hydapes vs elephants.?????
Ilifted this out of an old essay of mine, it contians I thinka convincing arguement on how the battle went down. The elephants were wounded using axes and sickles as you have suggested.
+
At the battle of Hydaspes, the weapon may well have been used, however, it is difficult to establish what role it played. Whilst Markle states there is no reason to disbelieve DiodorusGÇÖs statement that the Sarissa was used , Markle himself asserts that Diodorus GÇ£has no understanding of the weaponryGÇ¥. DiodorusGÇÖ statement that the Macedonians GÇ£used their long spear to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephantsGÇ¥ and RufusGÇÖ inserted speech that says GÇ£Our spears, which are very long and strong will never serve us better than against these beasts and their drivers,GÇ¥ do not withstand closer examination. Both authorsGÇÖ descriptions of the battle expound the existence of the Sarissa and then go on to detail how the Macedonians turned the beasts using Javelins. This adds weight to ArrianGÇÖs argument that the Indian infantry retreated behind the elephants, leaving the Macedonian phalanx free to engage the elephants by throwing Javelins at the drivers. The Sarissa does not figure in the ancient accounts to any degree. That the Sarissa was useless against elephants, is evidenced by the fact that, not only do the authors describe that javelins were the weapon used to turn them, or in the case of Rufus, javelins, along with axes and sickle, but also by the biology of the elephant itself. Due to their height and the position of both the driver and the castle, the angle required by the Sarissa-bearing infantryman holding a 5m lance against an Indian Elephant of around 3m, means not only is the angle to acute for a lethal attack, but the elephants armoured head is in the way of an attack on the driver. It is difficult to see that the weapon would have been any use against elephants whatsoever.
+
At the battle of Hydaspes, the weapon may well have been used, however, it is difficult to establish what role it played. Whilst Markle states there is no reason to disbelieve DiodorusGÇÖs statement that the Sarissa was used , Markle himself asserts that Diodorus GÇ£has no understanding of the weaponryGÇ¥. DiodorusGÇÖ statement that the Macedonians GÇ£used their long spear to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephantsGÇ¥ and RufusGÇÖ inserted speech that says GÇ£Our spears, which are very long and strong will never serve us better than against these beasts and their drivers,GÇ¥ do not withstand closer examination. Both authorsGÇÖ descriptions of the battle expound the existence of the Sarissa and then go on to detail how the Macedonians turned the beasts using Javelins. This adds weight to ArrianGÇÖs argument that the Indian infantry retreated behind the elephants, leaving the Macedonian phalanx free to engage the elephants by throwing Javelins at the drivers. The Sarissa does not figure in the ancient accounts to any degree. That the Sarissa was useless against elephants, is evidenced by the fact that, not only do the authors describe that javelins were the weapon used to turn them, or in the case of Rufus, javelins, along with axes and sickle, but also by the biology of the elephant itself. Due to their height and the position of both the driver and the castle, the angle required by the Sarissa-bearing infantryman holding a 5m lance against an Indian Elephant of around 3m, means not only is the angle to acute for a lethal attack, but the elephants armoured head is in the way of an attack on the driver. It is difficult to see that the weapon would have been any use against elephants whatsoever.