PORUS DEFEATED ALEXANDER?

Islam Comes to India 9

The battle between Porus and Alexander is recorded only in Greek history.So,it records that Alexander won in the battle. It also says that Alexander returned the conquered territory to Porus, which contradicts the earlier statement of victory.A conqueror with a thirst for power will never disposes off the territory in a hurry.Alexander was very young then.Hence we have to read between the lines.

Porus or Poros was an ancient Indian king whose territory spanned the region between the Hydaspes (River of Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab River), in the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent. He is credited to have been a legendary warrior with exceptional skills.

Porus fought against Alexander in the Battle of the Hydaspes (326 BC),thought to be fought at the site of modern-day Mong, Punjab, which is now part of Pakistan. Though not recorded in any available ancient Indian source, ancient Greek historians describe the battle and the aftermath of Alexander’s “victory”. Anecdotally, after the defeat and arrest of Porus in the war, Alexander asked Porus how he would like to be treated. Porus, although “defeated”, proudly stated he would like to be treated like a king. Porus replied that he wished to be treated the way Alexander would have wanted Porus to have treated him. Alexander was reportedly so impressed by his adversary that he not only reinstated him as a satrap of his own kingdom but also granted him dominion over lands to the south-east extending until the Hyphasis (Beas). Porus reportedly died sometime between 321 and 315 BC. 

King Porus (on elephant) fighting Alexander the Great, on a "victory coin" of Alexander (minted c. 324–322 BC

The only information available on Porus and his kingdom is from Greek sources. The Indian sources do not mention him, although modern scholars have conjectured that he may have been a ruler of the Purus, a tribe known to have inhabited north-western India since the Vedic period. Some scholars, such as H. C. Seth, have attempted to identify Porus with Parvataka, a king mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa, the Jain text Parishishtaparvan, and some other historical sources. However, there is little concrete evidence to support this theory: the Mudrarakshasa describes Parvataka as a mlechchha or non-Vedic foreigner, while the Purus were a Vedic tribe. According to the Parishishtaparvan, Parvataka ruled Himavakuta, while Porus ruled in the present-day Punjab region. According to the Mudrarakshasa, Parvataka was killed by a vishakanya (poison girl) as a result of an intrigue by Chanakya, while the Greek sources state that Porus was killed by Eudemus. 

The Achaemenid Empire occupied the western Indus basin since the conquests of Darius the Great. Neither the occupying Achaemenid nor local native sources confirmed the existence of Porus’ Kingdom at the time. Following the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, Porus and other regional powers contested for the land left behind. 

According to historian Ishwari Prasad, Porus might have been a Yaduvanshi Shurasena. He argued that Porus’ vanguard soldiers carried a banner of Heracles whom Megasthenes—who travelled to India after Porus had been supplanted by Chandragupta—explicitly identified with the Shurasenas of Mathura. This Heracles of Megasthenes and Arrian (the so called Megasthenes’ Herakles) has been identified by some scholars as Krishna and by others as his elder brother Balarama, who were both the ancestors and patron deities of Shoorsainis. Iswhari Prashad and others, following his lead, found further support of this conclusion in the fact that a section of Shurasenas were supposed to have migrated westwards to Punjab and modern Afghanistan from Mathura and Dvārakā, after Krishna walked to heaven and had established new kingdoms there.

The battle took place on the east bank of the Hydaspes River (now called the Jhelum River, a tributary of the Indus River) in what is now the Punjab Province of Pakistan. Alexander later founded the city of Nicaea on the site; this city has yet to be discovered. Any attempt to find the ancient battle site is complicated by considerable changes to the landscape over time. For the moment, the most plausible location is just south of the city of Jhelum, where the ancient main road crossed the river and where a Buddhist source mentions a city that may be Nicaea. The identification of the battle site near modern Jalalpur/Haranpur is certainly erroneous, as the river (in ancient times) meandered far from these cities .

After Alexander’s death in 323 BCE, Perdiccas became the regent of his empire, and after Perdiccas’s murder in 321 BCE, Antipater became the new regent. According to Diodorus, Antipater recognized Porus’s authority over the territories along the Indus River. However, Eudemus, who had served as Alexander’s satrap in the Punjab region, treacherously killed Porus.

There are five main surviving written sources that provide us with most of our information on Alexander the Great’s campaigns in general and the Battle of the Hydaspes in particular. Of these, the source that is generally considered the most reliable is the Anabasis of Alexander, written by the Greek historian Arrianos of Nikomedia (lived c. 89 – after c. 160 AD).
The other major sources for Alexander’s campaigns are the Universal History by the Greek historian Diodoros Sikeliotes (lived c. 90 – c. 30 BC), the Historiae Alexandri Magni by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (lived c. first century AD), the Life of Alexander the Great by the Greek biographer Ploutarchos of Chaironeia (lived c. 46 – c. 120 AD), and the Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by the Roman historian Marcus Iunianus Iustinus Frontinus (lived c. second century AD). 

These sources, in turn, rely on earlier sources that have since been lost. Alexander’s personal campaign historian Kallisthenes (lived c. 360 – 327 BC) was an important source for these writers, providing them with much information about Alexander’s earlier campaigns. Kallisthenes was dead by the time of the Battle of the Hydaspes, though, so he obviously never wrote about it. Nonetheless, there were many other writers who covered the period after Kallisthenes’s death. 

For instance, Ptolemaios I Soter and Nearchos, two of Alexander’s generals who outlived him, both wrote accounts of his conquests, which would have included the Battle of the Hydaspes. Aristoboulos of Kassandreia, a junior officer in Alexander’s army, and Onesikritos, Alexander’s helmsman, also wrote accounts of his conquests. 

Porus's elephant cavalry as depicted in the 16th century German work,Cosmographia.

In addition to the sources covering the campaigns of Alexander, there were also other Greek sources covering Indian history that some of the authors are known to have used. The Greek historian Megasthenes (lived c. 350 – c. 290 BC), who served as an ambassador of Seleukos I Nikator to Chandragupta Maurya, wrote a history of India titled Indika, which was used extensively as a source by some of our surviving writers, including Arrianos and Diodoros Sikeliotes. 

All of our surviving sources agree that Alexander won the Battle of the Hydaspes. Alexander himself issued a series of coins commemorating his victory over Porus. These coins were minted between c. 324 BC and c. 322 BC. A number of them have survived to the present day. Porus was still alive at the time when Alexander was minting his victory coins. Alexander himself either founded or renamed two cities on the banks of the Hydaspes River, Boukephala and Nikaia. 

Alexander the Great’s army at the Battle of the Hydaspes is estimated to have included around 40,000 infantry and between 5,000 to 7,000 cavalry. Meanwhile, Porus’s army at the Battle of the Hydaspes is estimated to have included somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 infantry, between 2,000 and 4,000 cavalry, around 130 war elephants (each of which would have probably carried two warriors), and around 1,000 chariots. It was, all in all, quite a massive confrontation. 

There is an Indian view of the battle.