Reply to Poros/Alexander Topic

[Guest guest]

At 07:31 AM 4/7/01 -0000, you wrote:

 

>>>>(Reply Based on Arrian, the historian who followed Alexander)

 

<excerpt>Pranshu B Saxena

 

 

 

Hi,

 

 

The conflict might have taken a lot out of greeks.

 

Another legend that they were anxious to get home after a long

 

campaign would be sheer baloney. Most of Alexander 's troops were

 

from Bactria and Persia and not "twelve years" away from home.

 

again his officers were mainly greek and if they were homesick, how

 

come none of them went back home and settled in asia to find

 

kingdoms.

 

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

 

 

 

Based on Arrian, the historian who followed Alexander,

 

it is something like this:

 

 

Alexander noticed that his troops did not follow him

 

with the same enthusiasm that they had shown earlier.

 

He made pep speeches about all the brilliant campaigns

 

and glorious victories, right from the Hellespot to the Hydaspes.

 

But his words did not have the desired effect, and Alexander

 

received a painful silence which lasted for a long time.

 

Koinos was the cavalry general who took part in the battle

 

with Poros. He gathered the courage and argued with Alexander

 

that they should fix a limit to all the hardships and dangers to

 

the army.

 

He reminded that out of the Greeks and Macedonians who had

 

started initially with Alexander eight years ago, a certain numebr

 

had been sent back as invalids; some had been kept unwillingly to

 

look after the new conquests; others had been disabled by wounds

 

and stranded here and there; but most of them had died of wars or

 

diseases.

 

There were few who were left. These were weary wretches,

 

with deranged health, ill-armed, and depressed.

 

He implored Alexander:

 

"Moderation in the midst of success, O King! is the noblest

 

of virtues, for, although, being at the head of so brave and army,

 

you have nought to dread from mortal foes, yet the visitations of

 

God cannot be forseen or guarded against by man".

 

Koinos was greeted with very loud applause.

 

That flabbergasted Alexander and he disappeared into his

 

tent, speechless with graet disappointment. He enmerged only after

 

three days. By that time, he was fully convinced that further

 

advance was not practical. The psychics found very bad omens and

 

predicted negetive raedings.

 

With a heavy heart, Alexander gave orders for returning in

 

September, 326 BC.

 

 

Regards

 

 

JayBee

 

 

 

>>>>

 

<excerpt>

 

 

The legends on the other side point to Greeks scared of stories of

 

powerful eastern states of Gangahridaya (heart of ganga) and Prasii

 

(poorva or eastern, another explanation is Prachya or Panchala state

 

which would be bordering Delhi).

 

They were of course meaning the Powerful Nanda empire in case of

 

Ganga hridaya.

 

The very fact that Chandragupta was able to rally paurava, abhisara

 

and nieghbouring forces to his standard and attack and conquer

 

Magadha (which alexander did not try to attempt) within a year

 

indicates that Chandragupta had won renown on field of valor atleast.

 

he hailed from a republican community and to be elevated to

 

samratship indicates that his deeds were enough for the crowned kings

 

to accept his leadership. Of course, other republican communities

 

would have followed him because he was one of them.

 

 

Chandragupta might resisted the greeks and won the ultimate honors

 

through that path.

 

 

Panchala, kekaya , abhisara as states existed under otherwise

 

centralized mauryan empire and even outlasted it indicating that they

 

had a part to play in the early establishment of the Mauryan state.

 

 

also, Indian tradition points to Budhha's nirvana as 544 BC, the

 

piyadassi plate celebrating coronation is 218 years after nirvana.

 

One of names or titles of CG was priyadarshan, same as his grandson,

 

so if that plate is Chandragupta 's then he was crowned 326 BC justa

 

year after alexander fought paurava. The battles fought were many in

 

defeating the nanda armies and it involved

 

defections galore but those could be ongoing at time of alexander or

 

that capital fell first and nandas carried struggle afterwards.

 

 

Or that plate could be of Ashoka and refer to Chinese Nirvana date of

 

487 BC which has problems like ashoka was crowned 273 BC (mayhap a

 

four year civil war) and that means that naming imperial plates after

 

budhha 's years was standard practise which now mitigates against

 

theory of ashoka 's change of heart which happened around 261 BC

 

after kalinga conquest.

 

 

or Piyadassi might also be priya-das (as chandragupta might be to

 

chanakya or ashoka to Buddha /public). Traditions persist of strong

 

monastic support for Chandragupta (minister shaktar was jaina, his

 

son sthulabhadra became mendicant, of what sect is not specified),

 

which might have found expression in victory coronation plate

 

referring to Buddha.

 

 

all refers to probable quick downfall of nanda state just after

 

alexander left and as greeks credit his soldiers of being wary of

 

Nandas mean military position of Alexander was not very good.

 

It was'nt bad though they were molested on the way to the sea they

 

fought through.

 

</excerpt>============================