Who won the battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander or Porus??

Status
Closed

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,889
Portugal
Like Dan Howard, Alexander was most likely covered top to bottom with battle-scars by the time he fought Porus.
Indeed. But somehow, don’t know why, I have the idea that he was also wounded badly in the siege of Tyre. Don’t recall where I got this idea, or if it is really in the sources. If anyone recalls about this please confirm it or… not.

My major doubt is that I could have read this on a historical novel and now mixing the things.
 
Nov 2008
1,402
England
Indeed. But somehow, don’t know why, I have the idea that he was also wounded badly in the siege of Tyre. Don’t recall where I got this idea, or if it is really in the sources. If anyone recalls about this please confirm it or… not.

My major doubt is that I could have read this on a historical novel and now mixing the things.
Having just read an account of the siege of Tyre, there is no mention of Alexander receiving any wounds there. Could you be confusing this with the siege and storming of Multan during his campaign in India? It was at that city where he suffered a very serious arrow wound which punctured his lung.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius and Olleus

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,889
Portugal
Having just read an account of the siege of Tyre, there is no mention of Alexander receiving any wounds there. Could you be confusing this with the siege and storming of Multan during his campaign in India? It was at that city where he suffered a very serious arrow wound which punctured his lung.
Thanks. As you say, I am probably confusing something.
 
Feb 2019
345
California
Greeks fighting on their own home turf lost to Turks in 11th century AD, and kept losing to them in the next several centuries, all the way down to 20th century AD. So, why would it have been so hard for them to lose to Indians, or perhaps Pakistanis, fighting in the Punjab, many thousands of miles away from Greece, in early 4th century BC. And these were big & tall strapping Kabir Bedi types, not your average finweight class fighters whom not a few might have been imagining.

Oh, them Greeks no more had an invincible, indestructible demigod to lead them in the latter day eras. While Zeus, Ares & Athena had more or less abandoned them to their own fate. Maybe that explains it.

I'm not quite following you....was there a point to this?
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
Erm what? What have Turks got to do with it? We're almost 1500 years later, in markedly different times. Those "Greeks" btw were Romans (Byzantine in the modern parlance).
The Frankish empire was also styled the Holy Roman Empire at one time, with Charlemagne styling himself Holy Roman Emperor. That does not make either empire or emperor Roman.

Ditto Byzantium. It was Roman only in name. The guys actually running it were it were Greeks. It was even alternately called the Empire of the Greeks.
 
Jun 2012
516
All ancient Greek warriors were supermen. They were virtually Kryptonians. All their opponents were just outclassed by them. Of course they beat Porus. After all, they whupped pretty well everybody else on the planet. Even when they were fighting a not so small army with not a few elephants many, many thousands of miles away from home.

There could have been no other outcome, right? Right.

And only Greek sources are 'reliable'. Simply because someone made the effort to put stuff down in writing. The authenticity or otherwise of their 'records' notwithstanding. All others are all hopeless bunkum. Simply because they are just oral tradition. Of course.

And if their modern descendants started playing hockey & cricket, they'd be whupping both India & Pakistan within couple of months too. Because they are progeny of ancient Greek warriors.
Looking to the discussion so far, it is rather evident that in the particular battle of the Hydaspes Porus was defeated. Indian pride is not hurt. Porus was ruling over a small kingdom and he fought his best. IIRC, Alexander then went south along the western bank of the Sindhu (aka Indus) river, where he fought yet another battle with a small sized force commanded either by a king or by a Republic under whom the army was serving. In that battle, he received an arrow wound in his elbow. This was probably the only battle wound he ever received. His army not being interested in going into Mainland India, more so because of the reports of the army of King Nanda, a much larger force advancing from Pataliputra (aka present day Patna, Bihar ), Alexander departed from India. Not a very distinguished campaign.
Despite liking Dreamhunters post, I think that rvsakhadeo here is the most accurate in terms of what really went down in the past.

Dreamhunter, however, was right when it comes to overall likelihood and what you consider pertinent in the discipline of 'history' (historical and archaeological sources only or including other fundamentals established by the academics in general).
 
Last edited:
Jun 2012
516
I don't understand your argument. In more recent past India was conquered by England. What that means for ancient history in our opinion?
Based on Dreamhunter's posts, I don't think he was merely referring to events of the recent past, but also the pattern that most consistently exists for a vast portion of written history.

In this sense, Dreamhunter is right when it comes to Westerners not accurately and accountably applying the Principle of Uniformity when such a principle still matters (a concept touched upon in this thread). Yes, Britain did conquer India in very recent history. However, most of the conquests that came from the western* side of India were not as expansive and as everlasting as those that came from the eastern side after the Indo-European migrations and until the 1200s C.E. We are talking about Nandas, Mauryas, Shungas, Guptas, and possibly Kanvas, Shishunagas, and Satavahanas (from South-East India). The Indo-Greek conquests (if they can be considered completely Greek accomplishments) lasted only around 30- 38 years before most of their territories weren't even vassals to them. From their actual peak, Kushans also lost most of their central Indian territories in relatively quick time. Note that the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, and Kushans had lived close to their areas of peak conquests for generations and should have been more familiar with the rulings of the subcontinent. Meanwhile, most of the conquests of former Macedonian territories were done by the definite 'Easterners' (Rome being the exception). We are talking about Slavs, the formerly far eastern Bulgarians, and Turks for at least the core territories of Macedon. The principle of uniformity tells us that the Macedonians may have not been 'Super-Soldiers/Generals' as may have been implied here. Super-militaries can be said to exist when we have something most consistent like the continual re-expansion of some Far Eastern polities for 1 to 2 millennia.

I agree that Porus (if he exists) likely did lose, yet it is also still reasonably true that the opposite could have happened. Hypotheses don't exist in their own vacuums and their strengths lay in their comparisons with other hypotheses. So to answer this thread in totality, the possibility of Alexander's defeat is still more reasonable and likely than the reality of Ancient Aliens, the flood of Noah, Mauryans being vassals to the Seleucids, the Exodus as described in the Bible, etc. Here, Dreamhunter's point about the existence of super soldiers without the broader, academic evidence is pertinent and should not be disagreed upon on this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Assuming that the consensus of the academics is correct, the Kushans weren't actually from the west of India. Instead, they were migrating and expanding from Gansu province (the same East-West axis as that of Bengal). The same can be said of Sakas; during their conquests into India, they only reached around the same axis as that of their recorded origins.*
 
Last edited:
Mar 2018
792
UK
I agree that Porus (if he exists) likely did lose, yet it is also still reasonably true that the opposite could have happened.
Have you read this post?

Repost from an earlier thread:

f Porus defeated Alexander, how do you explain the presence of Greek soldiers and governors/generals in northwest India immediately after Alexander's invasion? The Greek general Eudemus was appointed by Alexander to command the troops he left in the Panjab, and sometime after Alexander's death, Eudemus was able to kill Porus and usurp his territories and wealth, including his war elephants (which he brought to Iran to participate in the Second Diadochi War on the side of Eumenes of Cardia). Sometime after the death of Eudemus following the Battle of Gabiene in 316 BCE, King Sandrocottus (Chandragupta Maurya) overran the Greek territories in northwest India, as he had suzerainty over the territories along the Indus when Seleucus Nicator launched his invasion of India in 305 BCE.

Here is a map showing the rulers of northwest India and neighboring territories to the west following Alexander's campaign in this area:




If Porus had defeated Alexander and repulsed the Greeks, it is indeed strange that the Greeks maintained a military presence in his territory and that a Greek general was eventually able to kill him and seize his possessions. Basically, if we are to believe that Porus had defeated Alexander, we have to also believe the following:

  • Greek historians lied about the Battle of Hydaspes, and fabricated the entire subsequent interaction between Alexander and Porus.

  • Greek historians fabricated the career of Eudemus in India, the man whom Alexander entrusted command of his troops and who eventually killed Porus to dominate much of Panjab.

  • Greek historians fabricated Eudemus' participation in the Second Diadochi War, as Diodorus Siculus explicitly states that Eudemus brought with him 120 war elephants that he acquired after killing Porus, along with a contingent of Indian troops led by a man named Ceteus.

  • Greek historians fabricated Sandrocottus' overrunning of former Greek territories in northwest India.

Basically, we have to believe that Greek historians fabricated everything that happened in this area after 326 BCE. :)

That makes it pretty clear that the probability of Porus having won Hydaspes is about as high as Napoleon having won Waterloo
 
Status
Closed