|
|
Post by HINDI on Dec 20, 2003 2:57:58 GMT -5
There is very popular myth that Alexander defeated Porus in 300 BC.
This myth is propagated by the Western historians, mainly, British.
The writings of Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch show
that Alexander was defeated by Porus and was forced to make a treaty
to save the lives of his soldiers. The Indian king in his "grand-
pardoning" manner let Alexander go free.
In reality any honest historian will tell you the out come of this
battle is not too clear. What is clear at that very moment Alexander
decided to go back. Why did he go back? The excuse his soldiers were
tired has no bearing. The fact is after defeating the mighty Persians
Alexander was confident and India rich. I think Porus did the job on
him. As is well known Porus was six feet six inches tall too.
Did he defeat the Indians? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by HINDI on Dec 20, 2003 2:59:27 GMT -5
From: Pranshu B Saxena
about Porus (Parvataraja Paurava) and Alexander conflict. Paurava was
small king of kekaya
(or jallandhar Doab , i think). After the conflict Alexander instead of striking into now open gangetic
valley decided to assist Pauarava defeat his renegade nephew and then
turned south skirting the desert and moved towards what is now
Dipalpur, on to Multan.
The conflict might have taken a lot out of greeks.
Another legend that they were anxious to get home after a long
campaign would be sheer baloney. Most of Alexander 's troops were
from Bactria and Persia and not "twelve years" away from home.
again his officers were mainly greek and if they were homesick, how
come none of them went back home and settled in asia to find
kingdoms.
The legends on the other side point to Greeks scared of stories of
powerful eastern states of Gangahridaya (heart of ganga) and Prasii
(poorva or eastern, another explanation is Prachya or Panchala state
which would be bordering Delhi).
They were of course meaning the Powerful Nanda empire in case of
Ganga hridaya.
The very fact that Chandragupta was able to rally paurava, abhisara
and nieghbouring forces to his standard and attack and conquer
Magadha (which alexander did not try to attempt) within a year
indicates that Chandragupta had won renown on field of valor atleast.
he hailed from a republican community and to be elevated to
samratship indicates that his deeds were enough for the crowned kings
to accept his leadership. Of course, other republican communities
would have followed him because he was one of them.
Chandragupta might resisted the greeks and won the ultimate honors
through that path.
Panchala, kekaya , abhisara as states existed under otherwise
centralized mauryan empire and even outlasted it indicating that they
had a part to play in the early establishment of the Mauryan state.
also, Indian tradition points to Budhha's nirvana as 544 BC, the
piyadassi plate celebrating coronation is 218 years after nirvana.
One of names or titles of CG was priyadarshan, same as his grandson,
so if that plate is Chandragupta 's then he was crowned 326 BC justa
year after alexander fought paurava. The battles fought were many in
defeating the nanda armies and it involved
defections galore but those could be ongoing at time of alexander or
that capital fell first and nandas carried struggle afterwards.
Or that plate could be of Ashoka and refer to Chinese Nirvana date of
487 BC which has problems like ashoka was crowned 273 BC (mayhap a
four year civil war) and that means that naming imperial plates after
budhha 's years was standard practise which now mitigates against
theory of ashoka 's change of heart which happened around 261 BC
after kalinga conquest.
or Piyadassi might also be priya-das (as chandragupta might be to
chanakya or ashoka to Buddha /public). Traditions persist of strong
monastic support for Chandragupta (minister shaktar was jaina, his
son sthulabhadra became mendicant, of what sect is not specified),
which might have found expression in victory coronation plate
referring to Buddha.
all refers to probable quick downfall of nanda state just after
alexander left and as greeks credit his soldiers of being wary of
Nandas mean military position of Alexander was not very good.
It was'nt bad though they were molested on the way to the sea they
fought through.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 21, 2003 18:33:41 GMT -5
There is very popular myth that Alexander defeated Porus in 300 BC. This myth is propagated by the Western historians, mainly, British. The writings of Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch show that Alexander was defeated by Porus and was forced to make a treaty to save the lives of his soldiers. The Indian king in his "grand- pardoning" manner let Alexander go free. In reality any honest historian will tell you the out come of this battle is not too clear. What is clear at that very moment Alexander decided to go back. Why did he go back? The excuse his soldiers were tired has no bearing. The fact is after defeating the mighty Persians Alexander was confident and India rich. I think Porus did the job on him. As is well known Porus was six feet six inches tall too. Did he defeat the Indians? I doubt it. Is this piece yours Hindi? Or is it partly yours? If so which part? Have you read any of the ancient historians you name? If yes, could you perhaps tell us exactly what they say on the subject? I have read some of the ancient historians you mentioned and I will not mince my words. I am certain you are bullcrapping again. |
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 21, 2003 19:22:37 GMT -5
Is this piece yours Hindi? Or is it partly yours? If so which part? Have you read any of the ancient historians you name? If yes, could you perhaps tell us exactly what they say on the subject? I have read some of the ancient historians you mentioned and I will not mince my words. I am certain you are bullcrapping again. I highly doubt the piece is his, there are no apparent mistakes in the grammar and spelling. It's probably from some other source for I also doubt that he has ever read any of the mentioned historians, let alone all of them, to reach to the conclusion. Oh, and guess what I've found, check out these two links for the original messages: groups.yahoo.com/group/vediculture/message/1551?source=1groups.yahoo.com/group/vediculture/message/1552At least have the decency to "quote". If you were to do this in college, you would be kicked out for plagiarism, as is it's exactly what you did. |
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 21, 2003 19:42:45 GMT -5
Ouch! Hindi, we're awaiting your response here  |
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 21, 2003 19:46:15 GMT -5
Ouch! Hindi, we're awaiting your response here As a response he'll probably mention the barbaric origins of a random nation and accuse me of being a Balkan who's a Turkish wannabe and a Turk who thinks she's Balkanoid -interchangeably- and thus holding a grudge. *yawn* |
|
|
|
Post by HINDI on Dec 22, 2003 10:19:38 GMT -5
You Turk! ;D Why pay attention to minor issues here.Fact is Alexander got defeated because if he weren't why did he go back trough the desert of Persia which was the most dangerous place .Why didn't he invade the Indian subcontinent filled with richness, the biggest diamonds, kilos of gold,tons of pearls from the Indian ocean.The Indian army of maharaja Poros was superior though it was a weaker army in substance...
|
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 22, 2003 12:38:44 GMT -5
You Turk! ;D Why pay attention to minor issues here.Fact is Alexander got defeated because if he weren't why did he go back trough the desert of Persia which was the most dangerous place .Why didn't he invade the Indian subcontinent filled with richness, the biggest diamonds, kilos of gold,tons of pearls from the Indian ocean.The Indian army of maharaja Poros was superior though it was a weaker army in substance... Excuse me but the point made here is not Alexander getting defeated or not, but rather YOU ripping off from other people and posting it here as if it was your own, as I believe you have read above, but as always, failed to answer. That's plagiarizing, and one of the most dishonest things to do, if you ask me. You have proved yourself to be a dishonest person, so now, why would anyone take you seriously? I can't even believe that you're still around posting, at least have some decency to feel ashamed for what you've done. Again you're trying to change the subject with a fake issue. And stop calling me you "Turk" and you "woman" and you that, towelhead. |
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 22, 2003 12:43:13 GMT -5
I see that you have edited your second post and quoted the writer as it is his or her due. It doesn't work that way though, Hindi. You cannot excuse yourself and correct your *mistake* after someone catches you in the act. That's just trying to be a smartass, it's nothing to do with honesty. It's like saying "oh I had quoted them in the first place". Only to forget quoting the first post, as that is not yours either. You're not only dishonest and shameless but you're also incapable of doing anything right.
|
|
|
|
Post by HINDI on Dec 22, 2003 19:27:51 GMT -5
lol  like do you ever get a life?The internet seems to be your 2nd house.. and aren't you a Turk or a woman?Or do you feel ashamed when I call you Turk..lol..it seems to be a swearing word to you... |
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 22, 2003 19:50:32 GMT -5
Rusalka 207 posts
Hindi 216 posts
Something about glass houses and stones was mentioned previously. Of course you are blissfully unable to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Dec 22, 2003 19:54:22 GMT -5
lol like do you ever get a life?The internet seems to be your 2nd house.. and aren't you a Turk or a woman?Or do you feel ashamed when I call you Turk..lol..it seems to be a swearing word to you... Like I said, I work with my computer, almost all day; and lucky me, I happen to have cable. My life, by the way, is no concern of yours, but your being a shameless plagiarizer is a concern of this board and all the people in it, not to mention the actual owners of what you have ripped off of. Answer the question, don't sidetrack it with puny attempts to make your word usage yet another issue. You can only make ad hominem attacks because you're lacking the substance to make any comment worthy on any subject you choose to dabble in. And it's not 2nd house, it's called second home, if you're so inclined to use it. |
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Dec 22, 2003 20:09:15 GMT -5
You Turk! ;D Why pay attention to minor issues here.Fact is Alexander got defeated because if he weren't why did he go back trough the desert of Persia which was the most dangerous place .Why didn't he invade the Indian subcontinent filled with richness, the biggest diamonds, kilos of gold,tons of pearls from the Indian ocean.The Indian army of maharaja Poros was superior though it was a weaker army in substance... The title of your thread is minor issue? Poros and Alexander it reads. Now let me quote Plutarch, who you mentioned or rather copied and pasted from someone elses equally ignorant post: "When Porus was taken prisoner, Alexander asked him how he wished to be treated. As a king, Porus answered and when Alexander went on to ask whether he had anything more to say, the reply came, Those words, as a king include everything." It happens in all nations, some men are magnificent and some ... are not. Since you wonder why Alexander did not proceed, well, according to Plutarch on the other side of the Ganges there were 80,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 8,000 chariots and 6,000 war elephants. Obviously if he wanted to proceed he would have needed to gather a lot more men than he had. |
|
|
|
Post by HINDI on Dec 23, 2003 17:04:58 GMT -5
He couldn't face the Hindu army even with his Persian soldiers..
|
|
warlord
New Member
Tum mujhe khoon do, main tumhe aazaadi doonga
Posts: 28
|
Post by warlord on Dec 24, 2003 15:33:03 GMT -5
Alexander's "conquest" of India .................. he came, he saw, and he fled. ;D  |
|
