Were the Mauryans vassals of the Seleucids?

these european scholars take their gold digging ants and giant indian earlobes, unicorns fantasy very seriously, these europeans are still not willing to accept that India might have been literate before the ashoka period, despite the fact that mauryan empire for its gigantic size couldn't possibly have functioned without literacy not to mention the tamil brahmi script showing literacy much before the greeks and roughly contemporary to the persians and panini's work which couldn't possibly would have been memorised, the europeans just want to assess india based on sources of gold digging ants. They refuse to accept these evidences because of megasthenes observation that indians were using oral memory and hence they were illiterate. An illeterate society can make coins but not literacy, how strange?

as i said, the sooner indian scholars discard this european scholarship/indology the better, but then again, have no alternative other than hindu nationalists taking over the narrative and bringing their own gibberish.

the situation of euro scholars is, if an indian is not wearing unstitched loin cloth from pre kushana period, the relief depiction must be of a foreigner since indians didn't know stitched clothing.

regards
 
Last edited:
Nov 2011
1,011
The Bluff
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.
All of which is possible. I'd suggest, though, that you see ancient battle far too much through a modern eye. Ancient battles were as near enough to fully pre-planned as possible. Tactics and movements all mapped out down to the last detail (see the summary relating of Alexander's general staff meeting prior to Guagamela for example or Polybios' relating of Doson's plans prior to Sellasia). Why? Because in ancient times there was near to no battlefield communications as we know them. For the Greco-Macedonians, we hear of "trumpets", but these are "gross" implements signalling attack, recall etc. Many kings fought and led in battle and Alexander is no abnormality in this. Ancient generals (and kings) regularly fought and died. It is only in later times that kings and generals directed from the rear.
 
Nov 2011
1,011
The Bluff
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.
Again, all of which is possible. But sources do not stop with the literary and the decadrachms and tetradrachms under discussion are also sources:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/resea...?partid=1&assetid=1188447001&objectid=1274497

https://www.britishmuseum.org/resea...x?partid=1&assetid=836050001&objectid=1274497
 
Nov 2008
1,361
England
But here in India, Generals were offended if they were not in the vanguard.
We see that also in Europe in antiquity.

To be the first to die in battle was also an honor.
We also see that, although it was specifically regarded as dishonourable to remain alive on the battlefield when one`s lord had died. In theory anyway, but I have doubts how many followers of a lord would actually have been prepared to die given human nature . I am referring to so called Dark Age warfare not Hellenistic warfare.
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
We see that also in Europe in antiquity.



We also see that, although it was specifically regarded as dishonourable to remain alive on the battlefield when one`s lord had died. In theory anyway, but I have doubts how many followers of a lord would actually have been prepared to die given human nature . I am referring to so called Dark Age warfare not Hellenistic warfare.
Offtopic, but the Spartans seemed to have some of that no? I was under the impression that one of the Spartiates who survived Thermopylae fought like a maniac at Plataea because of some stigma that attached to him for surviving it. The Dilios character in 300 was a loose interpretation of him as I recall.
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India