Alexander the “Great”

>coin hoards means everything was greek

They lost all those lighter settlements after 80 years. They were mostly kept around the Afghanistan/Pakistan region.

What is this meme? Alexander defeated Porus. The army being exhausted isn't his fault, not everybody is superhuman.

It wasn't just exhaustion. His army had a narrow victory over Porus (who had a smaller army) and didn't want to pointlessly risk fighting another much bigger army.

>His army had a narrow victory
Narrow? IIRC it was a catastrophic defeat for porus, the indians' losses and prisoners were ten times those of the greeks.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Hesitation to fight ever larger armies after such a long and successful campaign can be called "exhaustion" and noone would bat an eye. The fact is, Alex never lost a battle, and the Indians hardly came close to overturning that. It's not like the commander wanted to stop the campaign or was afraid that he wouldn't be able to adapt his strategy for the indian armies.

>highest estimate was 1000 macedonians dead
>lowest estimate was 21,000 injuns killed
>narrow victory

Please stop meming.

I just love how everyone forgets that Alexander kept conquering India after turning south;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallian_Campaign

>Narrow? IIRC it was a catastrophic defeat for porus,
Nobody's disputing that the Indians lost in that battle, but it was narrow because of the use of war elephants as well as longbows, coupled with rotting linothorax due to Indian humidity, had struck a nerve to the Macedonian morale as conventional tactics appeared to fail.

Due it raining at night the Indian longbow, which was their bread and butter, was effectively neutralized and the Macedonians had an overwhelming advantage.

>the indians' losses and prisoners were ten times those of the greeks.
According to Greek writers yes.

>Either way, it doesn't matter. Hesitation to fight ever larger armies after such a long and successful campaign can be called "exhaustion" and noone would bat an eye. The fact is, Alex never lost a battle, and the Indians hardly came close to overturning that.
Nobody implied that he lost but the reason his army turned back is more complicated than saying they just got sick of fighting.

>kill a bunch of tribal ooga boogas
>get shot
>die to lung perforation
wow.

>these greek writers were bias in their number reports but their reports about the issues the army faced definitely weren't inflated

It cuts both ways pal. Classical historians also had a big habit of maling molehills seem like mountains to inflate the glory of the victory.

Likewise, some of the estimates were from modern historians that factor in that inflatiom and draw from archeological evidence. Fuck off, Pajeet. Porus got dutifully spanked.

>these greek writers were bias in their number reports but their reports about the issues the army faced definitely weren't inflated
Where did I say this? All writers back then had a fetish for inflating their reports but to take them seriously (like you are) is just obtuse.

>Likewise, some of the estimates were from modern historians that factor in that inflatiom and draw from archeological evidence.
Well taking a look at wikipedia it seems you got modern estimates for the Macedonian losses and the ancient estimates on Porus's side.

>Fuck off, Pajeet. Porus got dutifully spanked.
I'm not a Pajeet and you're missing my point once again.
>what is reading comprehension

>die to lung perforation

Yeah, because living in health for 3 years with not a single source even implying injury is sure evidence of lung collapse lol

> but the reason his army turned back is more complicated than saying they just got sick of fighting.

You do realize that the sources mention them wanting to go home ever since they even left Babylon?

It is a perfectly valid reason.

Are you telling me they wouldn't have continued if they breezed through it like Afghanistan and every other kingdom so far?

>breezed through it
But they didn't "breeze" through those areas at all.

> Are you telling me they wouldn't have continued if they breezed through it like Afghanistan and every other kingdom so far?

They did not breeze through Afganistan, they experienced months of constant warfare by the tribes.

Hell, they did not breeze through Persia either, as most presume, they lost 7000 soldiers at Issus alone, they lost a load of men by the time they reached the Oxus to battle the steppe tribes.

By all accounts, Alexanders invasion of India went smoother than anything after Gaugamela.

They marched in India, vassalized the north western tribes within weeks, the king of the neigboring Indian state to Porus, Taxila sent an embassy to Alexander along with presents consisting of 200 Talents of silver, 3,000 fat oxen, 10,000 sheep or more, 30 elephants and a force of 700 horsemen and offered immediate surrender.

So Alexander took everything from Afganistan to Punjab in barely more than a months time, Plutarch states that they took hold of an area the size of Egypt, they almost marched as fast as they conquered.

Then Alexander received 5000 more local Indian troops as support and reinforced with all this, went to fight Porus.

So yeah, they kinda did breeze through.

Not saying they would breeze through the Nanda, they would possibly be fucked there if their numbers were even 1/5th of what the primary sources state, but all I am saying is tha Alexander himself definitely wanted to continue eastwards, the man slowly turned into a megalomaniac who thought himself a demigod, the very incident where he was shot by the arrow on the wall clearly shows that he was fearless to the point of psychosis.

>victory sources ever being right
I mean, that would have been the entire population of that tiny kingdom

> that would have been the entire population of that tiny kingdom

Dude, the country that Porus ruled was probably of similar size as Macedonia itself, likely a few million population in total.

20 000 men was a larger coastal city in that period, not an entire country.

Its amazing that there wasnt anyone in that time that stopped that barbarian and those olive subhumans
All those ancient civ mongrelized by those olive niggers
That really get me

>Probably
No it wasnt big at all. It was just on the outskirts, his kingdom doesnt even fall inside the border of India today, and most of it is covered by pakistan and afghanistan.

Chandragupta woulnd't even get past of modern day Kandahar... in fact, you pajeets still cannot get past of Pakistan

On the contrary, Alex steamrolled that place

>steamrolled
>died after the seeing what he had to fight
>didnt even get inside india proper

>be Alex
>look at elephants
>die

> No it wasnt big at all.

Well, it wasn't some massive empire sure, but it was still a sizeable kingdom.

Plutarch describes the kingdom of Taxila as the size of Egypt ffs, and Porus is seen in sources as a more powerful king, which at least implies territory of some size.

>died after the seeing what he had to fight

...but he continued conquering south and then lived for 3 additional years?

Why are all the Indians so butthurt about Alexander lol?

except porus is never mentioned as a king of importance in any indian source.
And porus was not the king of Taxila, that was ambhi.
>he conquered south
yes, isolated tribes before falling for the gedrosia meme. He never attacked the nandas

>didnt even get inside india proper

But he literally did, the Hyphasis river is the Beas River, which is inside the Indian subcontinent and within even modern Indian borders.

> except porus is never mentioned as a king of importance in any indian source.

That argument is silly, as neither is Darius or Alexander nor any other ruler before Maurya.

Indian written sources of time before the rise of the Maurya are barely existent.

In fact, most of what we know of the Nanda's army is from Greek sources.

> And porus was not the king of Taxila

I did not say he was.

> yes, isolated tribes before falling for the gedrosia meme.

He still conquered a vast area in a span of just three months.

> He never attacked the nandas

No, he did not.

Why are you people so butthurt because some Greek blondefuck conquered some border areas of your civilization 2300 years ago?

Wtf is with that?

Seriously...

>vast area
which was not united politically.
Hell the biggest kingdom in the area capitulated to him to ask for help against porus. Then he conquered down the indus river against isolated tribes and returned home instead of going onward.

>why are you pajeets so butthurt
because people assume that alexander had cheatcodes and would have continued to conquer inside india because every king was going to be porus tier and get his chariots stuck in the mud.
At the same time if someone reminds alexboos that chandragupta kicked out the seleukids out the land alexander conquered it doesn't matter.

> which was not united politically

Nobody is arguing that it was.

> because people assume that alexander had cheatcodes and would have continued to conquer inside india because every king was going to be porus tier and get his chariots stuck in the mud.

No, barely anyone assumes this.

It is clear that the Greek army reached it's limits even by the time they hit Afganistan, let alone India.

They were exhausted from a several year long campaign.

> At the same time if someone reminds alexboos that chandragupta kicked out the seleukids out the land alexander conquered it doesn't matter.

To be fair, Chandragupta kicked out the Seleucids while the Seleucids were in a middle of a constant state of war against the other successor Greeks, and, to be doubley fair, the Seleucids did not have anything close to what the army of Alexander was...and to be triply fair, the Nanda Empire was not even fuckhalf of what the Maurya Empire was.

In fact, one of the main arguments that is used for the chances of Alexander conquering the Nanda Empire is how quickly they fell to the Maurya.

The Nanda Empire was conquered by Chandragupta, who just before was nothing but some random ass Indian warlord who retook the Indian satrapies and formed his own kingdom.

So yeah, Alexander could have been defeated by the Nanda, but he also could have won apparently.

The macedons were exhausted because hey spent 8 years conquering the entire Persian Empire, not because some a moderately large indian kingdom had unfavourable climate and weather.

>the reason his army turned back is more complicated
It really isn't, the majority of Alexander's troops and commanders had expected to return home after the defeat of Darius and the conquest of Persipolis and they had no enthusiasm for following Alexander across the Indus river.

Revisionist shit. If that was true, then he wasn’t great after all if his commanders refuse to follow orders.

Just face it. He was no match against the Indian warrior.

Quads of truth AND historians agree. Alexander wanted to keep going but all of his top officers approached and pretty much begged him to return to Makedonia. Alexander pouted for a day or two but then reluctantly agreed.

Obviously shilling. Pick up a book for once and read the old historians on him. Plutarch, Curtius and Arrian all agree and it seems realistic. Most macedonians thought they'd be going home one Darius was dead. Alexander taking them to the edge of the known world drove them to the edge. Particularly because the troops had a cause of hereditary vengeance with the persians (being a greco-macedonian army) but had no quarrel with the Indians

Alexander WON a battle against the Indians. He WON op.

The Indians never defeated Alexander in battle, but he defeated them, every time. Let's be honest you don't care about detailed history so just try and let those basic facts sink in.

You're the one bringing in the revisionist bullshit mate, the Macedonian troops refusing to continue is the widely accepted history, and there are no recorded defeats suffered by Alexander. Bait elsewhere.

except there is one major difference between chandragupta and alexander
Alexander was at the tail end of his empire and going to march into unfamiliar lands if he wanted to cross. The nandas would be nearer their heartlands and be able to supply their armies easily.
At the same time the nandas were toppled by an indian ruler who was part of indian society. Alexander being a foreign barbarian could not count upn that kind of support.

I am not taking the figures seriously. I am just doing what ecery sensible historian does on the subject which is examine the only primary and contemporary sources we have with a scrutinous eye and come to a conclusion based on likely logistics and archeological evidence which every credible classical historian does. Likewise, Herodotus aside even the most bias of contemporary historians haven't been shown to RADICALLY exaggerate the figures based on evidence we've seen.

The fact is Porus was beaten badly enough that was ecstatic to accept the terms Alexander laid before him which means he recognizes how bad his defeat was. A "narrow victory" wasn't going to illicit that response. Nor do we have archeological evidence that indicates loads of Macedonians died there.

>Where did I say that?
>Nobody's disputing that the Indians lost in that battle, but it was narrow because of the use of war elephants as well as longbows, coupled with rotting linothorax due to Indian humidity, had struck a nerve to the Macedonian morale as conventional tactics appeared to fail.
>Due it raining at night the Indian longbow, which was their bread and butter, was effectively neutralized and the Macedonians had an overwhelming advantage.

So you'll take reports about these logistics from greek writers seriously but the part traditionally speaking to be the most objective from contemporary historians you think should be thrown out entirely? Read something other than wikipedia on the subject, my dude.

Alexander's army at the time just wasn't big enough to fight the Nanda:

"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants."

It wasn't that Alexander wasn't a good general, it was just that, when your enemy has almost as many elephants as you have men, plus all his soldiers and cavalry, you're screwed. If Alexander had fought the Nanda, he would have surely died. At full strength, he might have had a chance.

> Alexander was at the tail end of his empire

But at the front end of his army, and his army as in India.

The main issue was that he did not receive reinforcements from Greece for quite some time, yet they did arrive in India three weeks too late for the action.

One wonders if Alexander's army would have continued had they received those reinforcements earlier.

> and be able to supply their armies easily

Alexander was already doing that with the conquered Indians.

He received upwards to 200 elephants, thousands of livestock and other supplies as well as 5000 Indian warriors before he even ventured down the Indus, that is not counting the unknown number of warriors and stuff that Porus gave him.

By the time he reached the Nanda proper, it is possible that he would just keep recruiting local Indians to fight the Nanda as he went through.

As a matter of fact, the number of elephants in Alexander's army increased from 0 to 30 by the time he reached Porus, and then from 30 to 200 by the time he reached the Mali.

This could have just stacked up.

Again, if the Maurya destroyed the Nanda with such ease just years after Alexander, it is obviously possible that Alexander could have indeed done the same and that the power of the Nanda was exaggerated by the sources.

> Alexander's army at the time just wasn't big enough to fight the Nanda:

> when your enemy has almost as many elephants as you have men

Those numbers are obviously heavily exaggerated.

>Chandragupta woulnd't even get past of modern day Kandahar... in fact you pajeets still cannot get past of Pakistan
Go back to Poland, mongrel.
And on your second "point," a quick glance at any of the wars between India and Pakistan shows that India always won or achieved more of their goals than the P*kis, even in UN-Mandated Ceasefires.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts

That map is exaggerated to the west.

There is no evidence of Maurya rule that far off.

Pic related is the actual proposed territories of Maurya at the ascent of Ashoka by historiography, notably historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund

Just about every pre-modern empire should have a map like that with large swathes of not or hardly-controlled tribal bumfuck land.

Either way, it still debunks Polanon's claims.

>He's never seen the real version of the map

t. Iranian

Alexander had no plans to continue after India, his plans were to conquer Arabia and then North Africa next.

I think he had beaten pajeet ass back to the ground
And whatever i think he was intelligent enough not to go into pajeet land where everyone was shitting outdoors and drinking cow piss

Stay mad white boy. You will be forever jealous.

>forged map
>implying the Greeks knew what the landmass looked like
>being this retarded

Alexander feared the mighty warriors of Gangaridai

He feared the poo warrior.