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

Status
Closed

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
???
No one here has shown a lack of respect to anyone, apart from you to the Greeks. You said that because they lose to the Turks in 1500AD, they must have lost to the Indians in 500BC, and said so in clearly offensive terms. Frankly, such a line of reasoning is pretty much racist too.
Really. I wonder why you have to think that way. As a history hobbyist, I have lots of lots of respect for all ancient warriors, powers, kingdoms, nations, empires etc., including those of both Greece & India. But I have to admit that I have a big problem with this idea that one ancient man is simply beyond the possibility of having been defeated at all, no matter where, in what situation & who he fought. Nothing to do with lack of respect about that at all. That is only an accusation from you. And it's not because I have any claim to lineage from India or Indians at all.

That Byzantine Greeks lost to Turks in 11th century, and kept losing to them in later centuries, are uncontestable facts of history. I am not claiming that because of that, then they must have certainly lost at Hydaspes too. But just pushing back against this long held doctrine of Alexandrian invincibility. And Hydaspes was not really some historically incontestible battle event on the same level as Manzikert & Constantinople. Hydaspes is relatively much more open to debate & argument. That is the very purpose of this thread, right?

BTW, Hydaspes was not 500 BC, but more like circa 320 - 330 BC.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2012
516
Really. I wonder why you have to think that way. As a history hobbyist, I have lots of lots of respect for all ancient warriors, powers, kingdoms, nations, empires etc., including those of both Greece & India. But I have to admit that I have a big problem with this idea that one ancient man is simply beyond the possibility of having been defeated at all, no matter where, in what situation & who he fought. Nothing to do with lack of respect about that at all. That is only an accusation from you. And it's not because I have any claim to lineage from India or Indians at all.

That Byzantine Greeks lost to Turks in 11th century, and kept losing to them in later centuries, are uncontestable facts of history. I am not claiming that because of that, then they must have certainly lost at Hydaspes too. But just pushing back against this long held doctrine of Alexandrian invincibility. And Hydaspes was not really some historically incontestible battle event on the same level as Manzikert & Constantinople. Hydaspes is relatively much more open to debate & argument. That is the very purpose of this thread, right?

BTW, Hydaspes was not 500 BC, but more like circa 320 - 330 BC.
Those are some very good points that look like are being missed by the majority here.

Even when I do think that Alexander won over Porus, I have to be honest and say that it is one of the most tenuous agreements today. I would not be surprised, despite the existence of the short-lived Greek colonies, that the facts may turn out to be pretty much the opposite of this tenuous agreement in the future. This is just basic accountability for posterity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bharata
Mar 2014
1,993
Lithuania
This discussion was started on premise that there are some other sources claiming that Porus won that battle. Did I missed those sources somewhere? Or this is what if Germany won WW2 kind of discussion?
 
Mar 2018
792
UK
But I have to admit that I have a big problem with this idea that one ancient man is simply beyond the possibility of having been defeated at all, no matter where, in what situation & who he fought.
No one is saying that Alexander couldn't be defeated. Just that he wasn't. Considering he only fought four or five major engagements, there is nothing so extravagant about that.

That Byzantine Greeks lost to Turks in 11th century, and kept losing to them in later centuries, are uncontestable facts of history. I am not claiming that because of that, then they must have certainly lost at Hydaspes too.
And Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. Why are we mentioning random historical facts if they're not relevant to who won at Hydaspese?


Hydaspes was not really some historically incontestible battle event on the same level as Manzikert & Constantinople. Hydaspes is relatively much more open to debate & argument. That is the very purpose of this thread, right?
Even when I do think that Alexander won over Porus, I have to be honest and say that it is one of the most tenuous agreements today. I would not be surprised, despite the existence of the short-lived Greek colonies, that the facts may turn out to be pretty much the opposite of this tenuous agreement in the future. This is just basic accountability for posterity.
No, there is no doubt. All the historical evidence from sources, describing both the battle and the aftermath, agree. They go into significant detail into what happens in the region for decades afterwards, all of that only makes sense if Alexander beat Porus. The only alternative is some insane conspiracy theory where multiple sources make things up consistently between them for decades. The evidence has all been laid out clearly in the first two pages of this thread, go and read it. At present, absolutely no evidence (even circumstantial) has been presented that Porus won. Instead, three incredibly weak arguments have been presented:
1) It hurts Indian pride, so it can't be true
2) No one is invincible, so Alexander must have lost a battle
3) The Greeks lost to the turks in the 11th century
The first two are not even logically coherent: there is no link between the assertion and the conclusion. The third has had its conclusion withdrawn so I'm not sure why Dreamhunter even brings it up now??


Unless someone is actually going to present evidence that Porus won the battle, or at the very least a half decent argument why we should consider the possibility, can someone lock this thread?
 
Aug 2019
38
tilted towers
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.
Yes because the world didn't change at all in 1300 years
 
  • Like
Reactions: World Focker

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,759
Australia
The Battle of Hydaspes is a classic tactical triumph. Alexander's plan is still taught in military colleges today as an ideal model of how to execute a river crossing. In addition, unlike the earlier Persian battles where Philip's generals did most of the planning, the Indian campaign was pretty much all down to Alexander. By the time he reached India, he was the most battle-hardened and experienced commander in the world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aelfwine

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
Really. Uh huh. So, this river crossing stuff must be rocket science then. Wow.

Well, since this Alexander is a confirmed demigod now, perhaps some spiritually inclined ones from amongst us could kind of invoke his spirit. Ask him to come back & show us all again how he really did it to such absolute perfection. I'm sure that not a few Indians would like to learn from him too.

So, Hydaspes was the classic tactician stuff. Because Euros won. Or at least officially proclaimed here, there & everywhere to have 'won, without the slightest shadow of a doubt'. But Manzikert was an absolute fluke, huh. Because Asians won. Okay.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed