Did Alexander win at Hidaspes, Veeky Forums?

then you should have asked him to define what "winning" meant and told him that he was a retard like yourself.

I literally made this thread for him. I believe that he won.
How am I retarded?
Anyways, any more proof he won? I can present to you his arguments if you want.

>My friend made those arguments that Alexander didnt win because King Porus or whatever his name was kept his lands
Your friend is retarded too. If removal of the enemy regime is the only arbiter of victory, you better watch the fuck out, because apparently

>The U.S. didn't win the war of independence
>Nobody won the War of 1812
>Nobody won the War of Spanish Succession
>Nobody won the Austro-Prussian War
>Nobody won the Hundred Years War
>Nobody won the 2nd Punic War
>Nobody won the First Punic war either
>Nobody won the Samnite Wars
>Nobody won the Social Wars

And of course, nobody won any of the battles in any of those wars either, if "winning the battle" is decided by removing the enemy commander from power. It's a stupid as fuck definition for a war, let alone an individual field action within that war.

WHhat do you mean that Alexander didn't keep his conquests? It was customary for local rulers to keep their lands after being conquered, if they were willing to collaborate. Alexander and Porus respected each other and got along well. Porus descended from vassal kings of the Achaemenids if he wasn't one anyways so little changed for him. Porus keeping his kingdom is not in contradiction with Alexander keeping the conquest. Alexander died like immediately after this campaign anyways.

Also by "made this thread for him" and "his arguments" i meant my friend and "i believe he won" i meant alexander just saying

Are you 15, dude?

Was Indian King Porus defeated by Alexander?

Alexander "the world conqueror'' who "came and saw and conquered'' was kind enough to let a king live and to top it gave him more because he was impressed by his stature and willingness to fight till the death?

22 ANSWERS



Ram Chanduri, a proud Quora addict!

Answered Apr 11, 2015

NO, NOT AT ALL


The Indian campaign of Alexander-the Great in 326 B.C. has a lot of historical importance. This battle (Battle of Hydaspes) fills itself with great importance. According to the Greek records, In his conquest of occupying Asia, Alexander reached Hindukush mountains (in the present-day Pakistan) and made an alliance with Ambhi, king of Taxila and their combined force defeated the Purushottama (Porus) in the battle. Though he won the battle, impressed by the king, Alexander returned the kingdom. However, these dossiers beg serious doubts against the Alexander's campaign to India.

Here are some proofs that Alexander could not invade India

Why should Alexander reward Porus?

According to the records of Greek history, Alexander returned Porus his kingdom though he had won the war. A simple logic here. Alexander spent 1000 talents (25,000 kilograms of gold) to Ambhi for defeating Porus. If he had spent such a large amount, why would he offer back the kingdom he won to the defeated knowing that on doing so, they would not have enough gold to return to their home? Moreover, Porus was mentioned as a very noble king. And so, why would any noble king accept that offer?

There was a mention about Porus that

"Wounded in his shoulder, standing over 2 m (6 ft 7 in) tall, but still on his feet, he was asked by Alexander how he wished to be treated. "Treat me, Alexander, the way a King treats another King"

Im just trying to get a question answered. I am presenting my friends points who said that Alexander did not win.
Dont insult me, insult my friend. I did nothing wrong, all i did was ask a question and present my friends points to you

>Here are some proofs that Alexander could not invade India
>Why should Alexander reward Porus?
>According to the records of Greek history, Alexander returned Porus his kingdom though he had won the war. A simple logic here. Alexander spent 1000 talents (25,000 kilograms of gold) to Ambhi for defeating Porus. If he had spent such a large amount, why would he offer back the kingdom he won to the defeated knowing that on doing so, they would not have enough gold to return to their home? Moreover, Porus was mentioned as a very noble king. And so, why would any noble king accept that offer?

Hindu nationalists are fucking retarded.

I agree, but are you going to debunk their points?

>HURRR WHY DID ALEXANDER NOT SWIM ACROSS THE OCEAN IN ONE BREATH???? HUHH ANSWER THAT???

He conquered the entire inhabited world in literally one motion. His men got tired of winning. Literally.

wow goddamn, he might need to take a 15 minute time out by the time he reached India. Still he wooped their ass, so much they lovingly referred to him in their own indigenous tales.

>Alexander was poisoned by Aristotle. He wasnt killed in combat.

>IF Alexander led from the front, and hes not dead in combat, its safe to say then he never lost a "battle".

Alexander was the ultimate and final "come up" of the "West" over the "East". Alexander FOREVER defeated eastern empires and their world Hegemony. Alexanders victory was so decisive, it ushered in a new reality of Western Hellenistic democracy ( Which you still live in today).

The entire human condition is understood through western eyes thanks to him. Alexanders victory is when western history begins. Our first king. Imprisoned gog and magog, to let the white man flourish.

"western hellenistic democracy"

lmao misnomer of the century. Any 4th century Hellene would burst out laughing if you described modern government as democratic.

>Yeah the Greeks and Romans pulled him out of their ass

They did it Homer, Zeus, Achilles...

>"""""new reality of Western Hellenistic democracy"""""""
Alexander ended democracy in Greece. His failure to consolidate a democracy brought misery and warfare to the former subjects of the Achaemenids.
It takes a special brand of stupidity to imagine a despot to be the creator of modern democracy. If anything, Alexander was the first to weaken Greek democracy by wholesaling it without the democracy...

>final come up of the west over east
>defeats a tiny village tier empire on the outskirts of India, and could also be said to not even be one of Indian empires since it was west of Indus river.
>fucks off forever after hearing that thousands of elephants are waiting for his army

>muh gorillion elephants

Nope. If Alexander had more time, he would have came back with newly freshed soldiers and wiped India off the map. Poo in loos were lucky Alexander died shortly after his campaign against Porus.

>. Porus descended from vassal kings of the Achaemenids if he wasn't one anyways so little changed for him.
Achaemenid reach wasn't in the Punjab a long time before Alexander invaded the Persian empire.
People forget that it was deteriorating for a long time before it got wiped out completely.

Simple - there were Greek generals and governors on said territory after Alexander left. Eudemus, a general appointed by Alexander, killed Porus after Alexander's death and took his kingdom, seizing the war elephants which he used in the Second DIadochi War. Alexander also founded two cities on said territory - Victory and Bucephalus. That's not something a loser would be allowed to do.

>if
Opinion discarded. Theres also so many other things that could have happened. Like alexander being raped as a kid, or him dying to herpes.

> Alexander FOREVER defeated eastern empires
His empire collapsed shortly after he died and Greeks would be cucked repeatedly by invading Huns, Arabs and Turk's a few centuries later.
> ( Which you still live in today).
How is that possible if the West only finally overcame the East in the mid 18th century?

They aren't making any. Alexander literally does not need gold to return home.

Is your friend an Indian?