Were the Mauryans vassals of the Seleucids?

What that Porus could be trained in controlling his elephant? There's no dearth of references to Indian kings being trained in the skills associated with Mahouts. Also, you really should think about letting some of that weird complex you have about european scholars go.

Actually never mind. I'll just say - ethnocentrism is never a good look on someone wanting to appear academically justified.
actually its the opposite

this eurocentric argument is not backed by hard facts but mere claims. when evidence is presented and busting their false claims they label those people as ethnocentric, nationalists etc which i find abhorring. The nationalism is not producing counter evidences that howdahs were present or coin is an artistic rendition nothing else, but nationalism is making tall false claims based on agenda driven just like ''victory coin'' minted by alexander in honour of his victory against porus or howdahs ''invented'' by ''greek engineers''. where is the evidence of this ''victory coin'' how is it a ''victory coin''? it is like seeing some holy name in clouds or banana peel or animal hide or something

these are all european fake claims is making a mountain out of a mole for european history.

regards
 
Nov 2011
1,032
The Bluff
there is no reason to believe that the coin is not just an imitation of an indian coin of similar motif...
There is no such reason, as your repeated google searches failing to find any such Indian coin motif demonstrate. That should be easy, given a motif is a dominant and recurring pattern in such.

i dont believe one BS which comes from european scholars and im not interested in showing you anything,
You're "not interested" because you can not. QED.
 
There is no such reason, as your repeated google searches failing to find any such Indian coin motif demonstrate. That should be easy, given a motif is a dominant and recurring pattern in such.
the mughal painting demonstrates its an artistic motif and nothing else, several indian motifs have reappeared in mughal paintings like fighting bulls after a gap of more than a thousand years, if you think its a coincidence then i can only laugh and it only shows you are in severe mode of denial like rest of european scholars.

you either need to bring coins with inscription containing name of porus and alexander or you need to bring similar ''victory coins'' issued as commemoration for the victory against achaemenids which would prove this as not one off coin but a tradition of victory coins issued by alexander in each of his battle victories. i dont think that his ''victory'' against porus was bigger than achaemenids.

i have already put forth evidences of coin motifs from western india appearing in iraq/babylon, so not a one off incidence as well.

regards
 
Last edited:
Nov 2011
1,032
The Bluff
the mughal painting demonstrates its an artistic motif and nothing else, several indian motifs have reappeared in mughal paintings like fighting bulls after a gap of more than a thousand years, if you think its a coincidence then i can only laugh and it only shows you are in severe mode of denial like rest of european scholars.
The Mughal painting is irrelevant: it does not depict what the Alexander "Medallions" depict. Similarly, the punch marked coins are irrelevant. Simply because the PMC show pictograms of birds, crocodiles and elephants (among other animals) does not mean they are a "motif" for the "Alexander Medallions".

you either need to bring coins with inscription containing name of porus and alexander or you need to bring similar ''victory coins'' issued as commemoration for the victory against achaemenids...
This is nothing more than a diversion. You would do well to read and understand Bosworth's remarks in the paper (which I referenced far earlier in the thread) regarding the nature of these coins. Your pet evidentiary crutch of simply deciding what doesn't suit you is "BS" is no argument. The nature of the images on these coins has been explained by Aelfwine. You have not only ignored that but seem not to understand that Greco-Macedonian coinage did not include explanatory wording on coins nor did it record the name of the king, god or other symbols: these were known. Those for whom these coins were struck well realised what they were about.

I will ask one more time: can you provide the forum with unequivocal evidence of the so-called motif of a cavalryman in combat with a rider throwing javelins from an elephant being driven by a mahout upon which the "Medallions" were based? No paintings of a mahout and elephant without a rider 19 centuries after the date and no pictograms of animals centuries beforehand.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,578
New Delhi, India
I'll just say - ethnocentrism is never a good look on someone wanting to appear academically justified.
I will second Tornada. Discuss, trash a view, but never take recourse to ethnocentrism. Amateurs who are genuinely interested don't do that.
What that Porus could be trained in controlling his elephant? There's no dearth of references to Indian kings being trained in the skills associated with Mahouts.
No, Tornada. Why would a king endanger his life in this way when mahout are available? A king will give directions to his soldiers sitting in a 'howda' (must have used hand gestures in the din of the battle, seated higher and getting a better view of the happenings).
Alexander certainly adopted some aspects of Persian court ritual. However it was limited in scope.
I have read that he made people prostrate themselves in the Persian way before him. I do not know if it was Persians only who were required to do that.
You are missing an important point here. It was the actual elephant which was the weapon. The mahout`s weapons would have been for personal defence.
I agree I missed the point. Elephant as a war machine. It won't be the king who would do that but a mahout. His duty will be to charge where the enemy is concentrated. He might have had a light armor, bow and arrows (to shoot when the enemy is at a distance) and a sword to defend himself in case he is brought down by the enemy. As you know Indian elephants were not as tall as the African elephants. There have been cases when tigers have attacked mahouts and tourists sitting on the elephant.
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
Why would a king endanger his life in this way when mahout are available? A king will give directions to his soldiers sitting in a 'howda' (must have used hand gestures in the din of the battle, seated higher and getting a better view of the happenings).I have read that he made people prostrate themselves in the Persian way before him. I do not know if it was Persians only who were required to do that.I agree I missed the point. Elephant as a war machine. It won't be the king who would do that but a mahout. His duty will be to charge where the enemy is concentrated. He might have had a light armor, bow and arrows (to shoot when the enemy is at a distance) and a sword to defend himself in case he is brought down by the enemy. As you know Indian elephants were not as tall as the African elephants. There have been cases when tigers have attacked mahouts and tourists sitting on the elephant.
There's too many assumptions here. Kings fought in history. On the front lines. Porus would not have been the first. Alexander wasn't even the first either. The assumption that merely because he was a king ergo he wouldn't have fought but directed from the rear is assumptive. Yes Kings did that. But many did not. Porus' son died in the battle IIRC, so its clearly not impossible to imagine that Porus did seek to lead from the front.

Or he did not. But to say the latter would require us to claim that the sources were just flat out wrong about his role in the battle. In which case, why imagine he was even on an elephant? Maybe he was on a giant wooden tower? Or a horse. Or on a giant throne carried by slaves
1555258765523.png

But we can't do that now can we? We have to go by the sources. And the sources say Porus fought on the back of an elephant. Fought. Not just directed. Fought so well infact that even Alexander was beyond impressed. Now the same sources say nothing of a driver. Ergo, its not an over-interpretation of our evidence to argue that Porus may simply have been trained in elephant driving (like other rulers were trained in horse riding - such as Alexander was) and fought off the back of his elephant while driving him. Functioning as his Mahout.

Yes we can imagine he fought off a howdah, with a Mahout. But there's no reference to either, so it becomes even less likely, since it requires us to add things which are not there in the evidentiary record. Imagining that Porus was trained in elephant riding requires me to add nothing to the evidentiary record, and is also consistent with the broad set of skills associated with Indian rulers.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,578
New Delhi, India
Kings changed mounts during the battle if required. From an elephant to a horse or vice-versa. One can't do much of fighting while sitting on an elephant. Shooting arrows and throwing spears. If Porus fought Alex, then perhaps he had changed his mount according to the need of the battle. All this is guess work only. As for a king, handling his elephant as well as fighting and commanding his army, I have my reservations. Too much bother.
 
Likes: No Bias FTW