 |
| |
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Alexander's Horse: Thank's for quoting the whole of the battle against Porus. It looks like Porus may have lost battle, but in the process he won the war. Alexander retreated from India.
|
I included the full account because its pretty mind blowing to think a Greek army was fighting full scale battles on the sub-continent - the Rajah of Kashmir is even mentioned. Its not so much Porus lost the battle but won the war, its more a case the Macedonians went there not expecting major wars. If Alexander had lost they would never have got out alive - they had to fight their way to sea, then they build a fleet near modern day Lahore. They might as well have been on the moon. The only modern equivalents I can think of is the Conquistadors.
Here is a revisionist account however which may interest you:
quote:
Alexander, The Ordinary
Prof. Dinesh Agrawal
Address: 156 Aberdeen lane, State College, PA 16801 USA
Tel: (814)-234-3558 (Home), (814)-863-8034 (Office)
The facts narrated below will expose the popular myth about the so-called world-conquerer "Alexander, The Great(?)". I am sure your readers will be interested to learn the truth about the mis-adventures of Alexander in India.
Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus's army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender.
Alexander after winning many battles and defeating the Persian king, invaded India and crossed Indus. Here he was joined by Ambhi, the king of Taxila. Ambhi surrendered himself to Alexander. He was enemy of Porus and wished to defeat Porus with the help of Alexander.
The facts of Alexander's miserable defeat and his shattered dream at Indian soil have been avoided consistently by Greek historians and the same was perpetuated during British regime. But the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeans themselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers' lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India.
In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:
"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander's cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".
Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief- stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said,
"Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."
These expressions of 'Alexander, The Great!' do not indicate from any stretch of imagination his victory over Porus? Can such words be uttered by a 'World Conquerer"?
I am sure many readers will find in the history texts, an account of Alexander's exploits and conquests which totally contradict what is quoted above. And most of us have been taught in the school that Alexander defeated Porus and he wept because he had no more worlds to conquer, and that is what made him 'Alexander, The Great'. These myths and beliefs will receive a rude shock by these facts which show that Alexander was not that great after all, but in fact he was 'Alexander, The Ordinary'.
Another myth is propagated by the Western historians that Alexander was noble and kind king, he had great respects for brave and courageous men, and so on. The truth is other-wise. He was neither a noble man nor did he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.
The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father's trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander. The Indian soldiers who were returning from Masanga were most atrociously murdered by Alexander in the dead of night. These exploits do not prove Alexander's kindness and greatness, but only an ordinary emperor driven by the zeal of expanding his empire.
|
In most of central Asia Alexander is considered the devil incarnate and Persian legend and oral tradition portrays him with horns.
quote:
What is it about Spartacus that you disparage? |
Everything. Peasant revolts are always difficult to put down. Slave rebellions are little different. It just takes a bit of time.
You really shouldn't form your military history knowledge from popular films.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
It looks like Porus may have lost battle, but in the process he won the war. Alexander retreated from India.
|
Porus was cought as a prisoner and his kingdom control passed into Alexander's hands at list temporarily but most likely will never now.
Alexander was impressed with Porus bravery and freed him and gave him back his kingdom. Of cource that was not his intension rather clever politics. He could possibly use an ally in the area for his own reasons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarthVeda
Justinian the Great |
So great the despicable POS had General Belisarius blinded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mercator
That isn't a map of Genghis Khan's conquests. |
Actually, it isquote:
It's a map of the Mongolian Empire at its largest extent (excluding the vassal states in Southeast Asia, India, Turkey and Russia). That wasn't achieved until the rule of Kublai Khan. |
Not even close, Mercator.
Full Mongol extent would include half on Hungary and Russia as far west as kiev and Novgorod.
The first map, minus a bit of China, is VERY close.
quote:
Most importantly, the conquest of the Southern Chinese Song empire wasn't fully completed until Kublai Khan's rule (Genghis Khan was still struggling with the northern Jin empire). |
A small enclave, and hardly worth noting.
quote:
Well, not all men. Usually only the people with special skills. Of the general population a portion was decimated, while the rest was set free (so they conveniently spread the word of the brutal Mongols, often causing cities to surrender before the Mongols had even arrived). |
One, I would ask you to read more carefully, I said cities they refused surrender, not those that capitulated.
If you made a Mongol wait for conquest, he made you pay.
Second, word of mouth was spread easily by those who capitulated.
quote:
If the Internet is any good, that would be around 3 years. |
Should I dignify that with an answer?
The net is often THE WORST place for such information, so I have prepared a biblography for you at the conclusion of my remarks.quote:
And Khwarizm didn't extend west into Iraq (which was part of the Abbasid caliphate), but rather further East, into Afghanistan, and the former Soviet republics. |
The easiest way to tell people things is to give them a general location, sorry if that wasn't precise enough for you.
quote:
I'm not sure, but I think Boshko is right. |
I am, and he's wrong.
Why do you think I said it if I wasn't sure?quote:
They took the siege technologies from their conquests with the two northern "Chinese" empires and used them at least against Khwarizmia. |
Wrong again, neither Jebe Noyan nor Subitai Bahadur (The Khan's finest generals) EVER bothered with seiges, nor did the Khan himself.
To help you better to understand the Mongols and their armed forces, please read:
The Campaigns of Chingas Khan Translated from Chiese text prepared during Kublai Khan's reign by Pelliot and Hambliss
Medieval researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources English translation of contemporay Chinese sources by Bretschneider
The Ancient art of warfare by Boudet
The Mongol Empire by Brent
The Mongols in Russia by Curtain
The military life of Gengis Khan:Khan of Khans by Dupuy
Decisive battles of the western world by Fuller
History of the Mongols by Howorth
The Devils' Horsemen by Chambers.
This should clear up some misconceptions you have about them and their way of war. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
paiktis: alexander indeed influenced lots of cultures. For example, in judea, people were honoured to call their children alexander, and the jewish writings respect him very much, because he gave the jews a religious autonomy, his name was "Alexander Mokdon", Alexander the Macedonian . Some Kings of the Hashmonaite dynasty that followed, after the jews revolted against the selecid greeks , that opressed them. As the ritual goes in jewish tradition, this revolt is depicted in grandeur , and is celebrated each year.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mercator
|
 |
Sorekara no Nanimo
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Actually, it isNot even close, Mercator.
Full Mongol extent would include half on Hungary and Russia as far west as kiev and Novgorod. |
Yes, that's true, the empire stretched further into Europe and Russia, but parts of that (most notably Novgorod) was a vassal state.
quote:
The first map, minus a bit of China, is VERY close. |
That is definitely NOT true! the Song empire comprised most of modern day China... Well, at least the part South of the Yangtze. Baghdad was only taken in 1241, I believe. And pretty much everything North and West of the Caspian was, during Genghis' reign, only entered by a single expedition (of some 20,000 men), which didn't conquer anything, but basically just ravaged through and returned back to Mongolia. This expedition wasn't led by Genghis Khan, but rather by his favoured generals Subedei Bahadur and Jebe Noyan.
quote:
A small enclave, and hardly worth noting. |
 Do you mean the Jin or the Song?
quote:
One, I would ask you to read more carefully, I said cities they refused surrender, not those that capitulated.
If you made a Mongol wait for conquest, he made you pay.
Second, word of mouth was spread easily by those who capitulated. |
Genghis Khan was not only a great military leader, but also a great political leader. People that capitulated were treated with respect. If they were, how could they possibly spread the word about the supposed cruelties?
Cities that refused to surrender were surely treated brutally, but releasing some (or perhaps just not bothering with the few escapees) was an important aspect of his tactics that eased further conquest.
quote:
Should I dignify that with an answer? |
No...  I seriously doubt it took that long, since Genghis Khan's "foreign" reign only lasted from 1206 to 1227 and the first and last part of that were spent on China...
As taken from a review of James Chamers' book (is that good enough ):
This first chapter gives some history of early 13th century Islamic Persia, and Islamic Turkish ruler Muhammad II, Ali ad-Din; and discusses the 1219-1221 Mongol conquest (under Chingis) of Kara Khitai and Muhammad II's empire of Transoxiana and Khwarizm, and the defeat of everybody in their path.
quote:
The net is often THE WORST place for such information, so I have prepared a biblography for you at the conclusion of my remarks. |
Right... I could retort with a nice bibliography at least 10 times larger, but let me suffice with one link, and one book:
http://www.coldsiberia.org - An abolutely superb site about the Mongols. If this isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is.
George Vernadsky's "The Mongols and Russia". It's part of a trilogy about Russian history. Due to the huge influence of the Mongols, this volume is entirely dedicated to the Mongol rule, and more generally the history of the Mongols themselves.
quote:
The easiest way to tell people things is to give them a general location, sorry if that wasn't precise enough for you. |
Sorry, no problem... I was just nitpicking. But you aren't the only one who knows something about the Mongols, you know.
quote:
I am, and he's wrong.
Why do you think I said it if I wasn't sure? |
 And there I thought you were the one who always keeps hammering on mentioning sources, and never believing anything anyone else says (when it conflicts with your ideas anyway), unless they can back it up.
You've said other things that weren't true.
quote:
Wrong again, neither Jebe Noyan nor Subitai Bahadur (The Khan's finest generals) EVER bothered with seiges, nor did the Khan himself. |
As I said earlier, I'm not sure and I don't have any reliable sources about this at hand, so I'll grant you this one
quote:
This should clear up some misconceptions you have about them and their way of war. |
Maybe you should do some re-reading. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xeones
|
|
alexander and genghis khan stand out to me. i voted for genghis because, relative to where/when he was coming from ... he conquered more after starting with less.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I'm not sure where the wings come from. That's why I did not say where they came from. It may be you're right but then again you were wrong on so many other occasions it'd be a surpise, murderer of peoples. 
And of course Nike with the wings exists in other forms all over Greece. (statues etc)
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 14-08-2002 at 07:22
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Not easy to think of any that went on to win. George Washington might be an example but my knowledge of US history is hazy. I seem to recall though that at some point he had to transform the militia into a real army and train it up.
|
Now there's someone who should be recognized as one of the great military leaders. IIRC, Washington's army suffered numerous defeats at the beginning, but he held the troops together and was politically adroit enough to maintain political support for the revolution. He stayed true to the cause when others gave up.
Had it not been for his leadership, the revolution might have failed and modern democracy would have been stillborn.
Washington is also significant because he took the reins of political power and then stepped down voluntarily, unlike many military leaders who have stayed on past their prime.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-08-2002 07:01
) As a side note, who said angels were a creation of Christianity? 
Attachment: 
but as usual, everyone ignored my sage wisdom. 
|
