"Zhukov’s view of Alexander" Topic

"In 326 BCE a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander of Macedon it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.

Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander's forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.

Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India's northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

What a silly article. Really, it speaks more about current Indian nationalism than anything to do with ancient history.

Not sure what the article was based on historically. Seemed to be based on current political propaganda. Alexander and his army had been on campaign for several years and had reached the low point in morale. The Indian Army under Porus gave the Macedonians are close fought battle. The troops were ready to go home. The Indians were still not united and were in no position to push Alexander back themselves. Their resistance was a factor in Alexander deciding to turn back. The area remained under Macedonian control after Alexander left. The Selucid and Bactrian Greek Successor states controlled the region even after Alexander died.

Glup…!

Amicalement
Armand

There is a lot of smoke to be thrown on the official stories that western historians have ladled onto Alexander's Indian adventure. Most of the areas he invaded were not even in modern India but are part of Pakistan now.

The consternation about the Nanda King's unified assets is somewhat accurate – but maybe only on paper – as they were not unified allies – as is described by Chandragupta's successful campaign to unify Northern India and Pakistan of that time by dividing and conquering them. This was a decades long process and not something that Alexander ever probably thought practical.

What can be gleaned from sources is that the campaign was hard fought. Alexander's war aims were not achieved and the march back from India through the desert caused great attrition among his veterans. Nothing as critical as Napoleon's Moscow disaster- nevertheless his rule was majorly altered by his wounds, his losses, the army's fatigue, and his distressing psychological plunges, and drinking.

The return to Babylon created many other crises for Alexander- many of which festered openly and then finally resulted in Civil War after his death.

By the time of his death- most of his gains on the fringes of India had been lost. Only Taxila remained controlled- and they were previously a region under Persian control. Taxila also supplied large numbers of troops and elephants to Alexander that are only rarely attributed to his army- increasing his numbers so he could split his forces and cross the river Hydaspes.

Seleucid and Bactrian influence had to be re-established in Pakistan- only much later did the Indo Greeks temporarily control the northern central regions of India.

It seems, under non hero worship scrutiny, that Alexander did indeed win his battles in India- but at such great cost that they were short lived and his war aims were defeated.

It is difficult to determine how Alexander would have shored up his empire had he lived longer. Seleucus 1st had to march all the way to the frontier to create a border between him and Chandragupta. Creating all sorts of possible battle situations and campaign ideas that we have no details about. Whether there was a "shooting war" is mostly guesswork, but the result created boundaries and deals were made trading land for elephants and non aggression pacts.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

"..in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete"

And then he doesn't cite one who says so.