pothos.org

Sorry, missed out on this before, due to holidays.
First, the controversial link to "Alexander the Ordinary" has been here on pothos.co.uk all the time: check Battles (Major) in the Campaigns section.
Secondly, military history has examples of defeated armies which remained largely intact. As only part of Alexander's forces took part in the Hydaspes battle, such a thing 'might' have been the case if Alexander indeed was defeated by Porus. When I first noticed "Alexander the Ordinary", I was quite disturbed. It shocked my belief in Alexander as the invincible conqueror.
A defeated but intact army poses danger to both its commander as well as to its nation. It is rife for revolt, to place a 'coup' or to plunder its own people. When around '91 the Marxist Ethiopian Dergue army was defeated, the new regime immediately assigned fresh forces with the cruel task to eliminate the remaining pockets of the former national army. The general of a defeated army will try to do three things: 1. He will send his forces against substantial weaker enemies to restore morale and allow space to ventilate frustration through plunder, murder and rape; 2. He will split up the army to prevent overall mutiny; 3. He will try to eliminate the most powerful or influential units or commanders.
If one examines Alexander's Indian campaigns after Hydaspes, it is quite easy to reconcile his strategy with that of a defeated commander. Against Sangala and weak Indian enemies his troops were destined to win and had plenty of room to ventilate agression. Alexander then split up his army in four large divisions (Craterus, Leonnatus, Nearchus and himself). The Makran march weakened the original core of the army. A defeated general will NEVER lead his army back through conquered territory.
Plutarch says that the battle with Porus "blunted the Macedonian courage". The recorded speech of Coenus at Hyphasis confirms that the Macs had lost most of their weapons and armor. I am not advocating the view that Alexander actually lost to Porus. But our sources leave room for some speculation, and not to dismiss "Alexander the Ordinary" as a load of crap. My view is that indeed something terrible happened at the Hydaspes that our sources are not clear about. Also note Green's theory that Alexander lost at the Granicus, only to retaliate next day. The Great might not be as invincible as we would like. I seriously doubt Lane Fox's claim that Hydaspes was a "masterpiece".

Hi NickI think what you suggest is interesting, as Alexander's policy after India seems a bit strange and unfocused, which historians seem to put down to the effect of the mutiny on him. The defeat was by his army, and surely he woudl apply the same tactics as you outlined your post. I do have a couple of questions:1. There were so many people who didn't like Alexander in the Hellenistic world that surely one of them would have written if he had not defeated Porus.2. The elephants - would a victor give his defeated enemy weapons like those?Linda

I'm glad this subject is being raised again; since I read the article last year I've felt there may be some truth in it.
Susan

Hi Nick,This is the most reasonable answer to the 'question' that I've read so far - or maybe just that I've remembered.My main problem with it revolves around the geography. Not so much your statement that a defeated general never marches back through conquered territory, but the fact that Alexander continued eastwards before turning back at the Hyphasis. Had he been defeated by Porus, would he not be dangerously exposing himself by leaving Porus between him and the rest of the empire? If he had been defeated and made a treaty with Porus, I find it difficult to believe that he would have trusted his erstwhile enemy so much to allow Porus to straddle Alexander's lines of communication while the Macedonians went gallavanting off towards the Ganges. There is no record that I know of that Alexander took hostages from Porus to guarantee keeping the lines of communication free - and, if he didn't win at the Hydaspes then why would Porus have been giving him hostages anyway?All the bestMarcus

Dear Susan, Linda & Marcus -Thank you for your support.I never claimed to have any substantial answers to all the doubts and questions, only the personal view that someway something terrible happened at the Hydaspes.After Hydaspes Alexander subdued the Glausae and handed over their territory to Porus. Why? Also Porus did send units to help Alexander during the siege of Sangala, but these reinforcements only arrived after the Macedonians had done all the dirty work. Why? (Did Porus hand over elephants to Alexander to do the job for him? Or is this over-speculation?)Maybe one day the issue needs the thorough study of a scholar. For now I am happy with the view that our sources leave some space for reasonable doubt.Regards -
Nick

Nick
If you think this is over-speculation, I have even wondered if Alexander actually died in Multan, and the generals, faced with this disaster and needing to get back to 'civilisation' in one piece, connived at a body double to act as a figurehead. On further reflection I discounted this as improbable, but I think it was worth considering. Certainly there seems to have been some psychological watershed in India or earlier.
I think that the Central Asian campaigns may not have been a victory, more of a tactical retreat. Perhaps Alexander was very good at retrieving himself from difficult situations with a Public Relations masterstroke.RegardsSusan

I think at this point, we are verging on science fiction This is still interesting and certainly fascinating from a 'fiction' point of view, (i.e. for instance, we know there was a body double in the battle with Porus) but I fail to be convinced there is any evidence that Alexander lost. As I related to others, I could make a case for Alexander being deaf in one ear based on snippets from the sources, but I know that not to be the case. However, while certainly more boring and less exciting, I see absolutely no reason to disbelieve the soldiers being miserable and having had enough. Alexander's 'behavior' after the 'mutiny' is typical of that particular King. 'If I can't explore going east, I damn well will going back west and the soldiers have little choice but to come - after all they wanted to go back didn't they?'Regards,Tre

HiAlthough Alexander defeated Porus (I do actually think he did) he did not crush him, take all his land etc. This would have increased the army's unhappiness. Who was it who complained when Alexander gave Taxiles presents, saying that he was ignoring his own men? Orientalising. As for helping Porus, I do not think that is odd at all; it was a gift to secure his loyalty. Porus was an ally, not just a vassal king. I think, though, as Susan and Tre think, that his attitudes changed significantly e after the mutiny (understandably). He had to reassert himself, and managed to do it even when badly wounded. I can't remember if it was Green who suggested that he nearly got himself killed to show the men just how much he meant to them. Ludicrous, but it probably had that effect.