Exchange of letters between Alexander the Great and Porus

porus_alexander

“The glorious battle between Alexander the Great and King Porus” – 18th century tinted woodcut

Book 3

When Alexander arrived with all his forces at the border of India, letter bear-
ers sent by Poros, king of India, met him and gave him the letter of Poros.

Alexander took it and read it out before his army. Its contents were these.

King Poros of India, to Alexander, who plunders cities:I instruct you to withdraw. What can you, a mere man, achieve against a god? Is it because you have destroyed the good fortune of others by meeting weaker men in battle that you think yourself more mighty than me? But I am invincible: not only am I the king of men, but even of gods—when Dionysus (who they say is a god) came here, the Indians used their own power to drive him away. So not only do I advise you. but also I instruct you, to set off for Greece with all speed. I am not going to be frightened by your battle with Darius or by all the good fortune you had in the face of the weakness uf the other nations. But vou think von are more mighty. So set off for Greece. Because if we had needed Greece, we Indians would have subjected it long before Xerxes; but as it is, we have paid no attention to it- because it is a useless nation, and there is nothing among them worth the regard of a king—everyone desires what is better.

 

So Alexander, having read out Poros’s letter in public before his soldiers, said to them:


Comrades-in-arms, do not be upset again at the letter of Poros’s that 1 have read out. Remember what Darius wrote too- It is a fact that the only state of mind barbarians have is obtuseness. Like the animals under them—tigers, lions, elephants, which exult in their courage but are easily hunted thanks to man’s nature—the kings of the barbarians too exult in the numbers ol their armies but are easily defeated by the intelligence of the Greeks.”

 

 

Having given this declaration to encourage his armv, Alexander wrote King

 

 

Alexander, to King Poros, greetings: You have made us even more eager to be spurred on to battle against you by saying that Greece has nothing worth the regard of a king but that you Indians have everything—lands and cities. And i know that every man desires to seize what is better rather than to keep what is worse. Since, then, WE Greeks do not have thesethings and you barbarians possess them, we desire what is better and wish to have them from you. You write to me that you are king of gods and of all men even to the extent of having more power than the god. But i am engaging in war with a loudmouthed man and an absolute barbarian, not with a god. The whole world could not stand up to a god in full armor—the rumble of thunder, the flash of lightning, or the anger of the bolt. So the nations I have defeated in war cause you no astonishment and neither do boastful words on your part make me a coward.

 

 

Back

 

Comments
ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

Who is the direct descendant of the ”famous”,”glorious” but terribly wild and savage Illyrian tribes,really,finally?The ”S(h)qippettar(s)” little gangsters or the Croatian people?A RESPONSIBLE ANSWER,PLEASE,HERE,I F YOU DARE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_movement

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

This is a well-known propaganda made from their Hozha,idiot.Have you any historical conscience or you repeat this nonsense again?Are you S(h)qippettar maybe probably?Don’t you really know that the ”Alba(na)nians” were created by the Major Forces of Europe?

I AM ASKING YOU AGAIN:CAN YOU QUOTE US PRIMARY ELEMENTS LINKING THE LOST WHITHIN THE TIME ILLYRIAN TO THE MODERNIZED,STANDARDISED,ARTIFICIAL SO-CALLED ”S(H)QIP”?

IF THERE AREN’T ANY PROOFS OR,SOMEHOW,JUST,SIMPLE INDICATIONS AT ALL,WHY AND WHO TOLD YOU TO EXPORT SO EASILY AND QUICKLY SUCH DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS,WHILE YOUR BASIC ETHNOREALITY OF YOUR ETHNOGENESIS HAS ACCEPTED SO STRONG I N T E R N A T I O N A L WOUNDS AND IS STRONGLY DISPUTED AS WELL AS UNDERMINED?

Andreas says:

Pirro is a complete nutjob, don’t concern yourselves with him that much. On the other hand, the Albanians ARE quite likely the linguistic descendants of the Illyrians, who as we know lived *north* of the Acroceraunian mountains at which point Greek Epirus ended. There’s no need to dispute the Illyrian-Albanian connection which is probably the best possibility.

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

Another part of some photos again:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2049346249/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2049346247/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2050124458/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2050124448/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2050124444/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2050124438/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2049327949/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapsoftheancientworld/2050026564/in/photostream/lightbox/

Sorry,”my” friends”,”Alba(na)nians”-S(h)qip(e)taret but you are totally foreigners and i n c o m e r s in our Aemus,despite all your tireless efforts to convince us for ”your Ancient Illyria”(in your dreams only) from the establishment of your pseudepigraph state by your ”historians”.I apologize for my albanian before but someone has to explain some things in their own and native idiom(not language for me at all!)..
I hope not to be misunderstood.

Pantelis says:

@ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ that happens because of our DNA.We,the Greeks have contributed almost every noble idea, to western civilization.So everytime that someone ignorant doubts about something, we believe that is our duty to offer him enlightment.That’s why we constantly answer to those annoying questions and comments.We have this unfulfilled hope,that one day they will see the truth.For the other ideas, it took centuries to western nations (more developed than the Albanians and the people of FYROM) to intergrate that knowledge.Maybe for the Albanians and FYROMians we will have to wait a little more.Propably a millenium.

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

”Pirro” and his mothy fellow-travelers belong for sur to the so-called ”homo sqipetaricus predatorius”!Never mind!It’s about a perpetual and perplexed parenthesis of our valuable time!So,why being always so serious by showing some indicative forgeries and paradoxes or taking them so seriously every time they repeat the memorabilia of their shaky chauvinism?

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

Nowadays,every,almost,F.y.r.o.m.ian or every Shqippettar (and not only these two!) feels very anguish in order to consolidate the ”spiritual rights and titles” of a completely unknown and obscure gender-tribe-race of our past and all this to escape from his miserable and awful as well as extremely pressed and presumptuous present.Every balkan state obviously,all the world maybe except Hellenes,you think sometimes (although they seem to do it rarely)!
What do they want really?What do all these adventurers and impudents clearly pursue?Taking out their real face,their barbarity again in history?Their Hozha?Their Petkov?

ΜΟΝΑΣΤΗΡΙ,ΓΕΥΓΕΛΗ,
ΓΙΑ Π Α Ν Τ Α ΓΗ Ε Λ Λ Η Ν Ι Κ Η.

Η ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΚΡΙΝΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΤΑΔΙΚΑΖΕΙ,ΦΥΡΟΜΑΡΕΙΑΝΟΙ.ΔΕΝ ΕΧΕΤΕ ΤΟΠΟ ΝΑ ΣΤΑΘΗΤΕ.Β Ε Β Η Λ Ο Ι.

Pantelis says:

Dear Pirro,here are some links from wiki that you might find usefull.They are about the origins of the Greeks,their language and about Illyrians and their religion (you mentioned Aphrodite and Ares and i was curious to find out if the Illyrians had tha same religion with us,obviously they didn’t.)As you will see at the references,the authors aren’t Greeks but scientists from all over the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_religion

About Ilion (Troy) the Greeks were able to communicate with the Trojans because they were Greeks also.The Trojan war was a civil war like all the other conflicts between Greeks.That’s why they had the same religion.Also you should better explain us why you connect those Albanian words with Illyric.No Illyric text was found.So how do you know that you speak the same language with them?Molossia-Malesia?????More possible is for you to have common origins with the Malaysians than with the Molossians.

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

Οι Σκιππεττάρ είναι μοναδικοί τροφοσυλλέκτες (ως προς τη γλώσσα και την ”εθνική” των ταυτότητα) ‘στον Αίμο.Καχεκτικός πληθυσμός με έντονο το αίσθημα κατωτερότητας και συμπλεγματικότητας,ουσιαστικότατα ξενόδουλος και ξενομανής (μια επίσκεψη μόνο ‘στα Τίρανα/Νέα Τεχεράνη θα σας πείση),μηδενικού πολιτισμικού/πολιτιστικού υποβάθρου,ενασχολούμενος,πλέον,καθότι ”φημισμένος” και άπληστος,στερηθείς χρόνους πολλούς,με το (διεθνές/”διεθνοποιημένο”-”παγκοσμιοποιημένο”) κοινωνικό περιθώριο (μαφία-οργανωμένο έγκλημα).Υπόκοσμος,άτακτοι,ληστοσυμμορίτες,όποτε ”τους δίδεται” η ευκαιρία να παρουσιάσουν μια ”εθνική ταυτότητα”..

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

Can a chauvinist denounce and indict really his chauvinism,finally,especially if they are uncouth,who do not rely on scientific arguments when they do not,in fact,even,know how to read?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sKJxYwi0dN0/ThMpg-llOQI/AAAAAAAAAmE/TUqLQRAho9s/s1600/illyrian1.png

http://www.glossesweb.com/2011/07/illyrika.html

http://pierce.yolasite.com/albanian.php

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

You seem to have lost the contact with the historical reality with all this propaganda as well as your mind,trying to prove exactly the sqippettar propagandists.A reset of outdated and outmoded theories which have been given reasonable and adequate responses.I have also given answers but you don’t pay attention at all because of your total ignorance and your passion to pass your anti-hellenic prejudice!

pirro says:

Dear ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ, Can You give any details,
-- where have been Helenes tribues?
-- Can you explain in what time have lived those helenes and who have been their neighbours?
-- Can You explain why in original ancient documents have not written words Helade and Helenes, but are written athenians, Spartans, Danaes, Achaeans, Macedonians, Mollossians?
So, I think You are a little bit delirious about obssesions to make all ancient world of Illyrian peninsula as greek, greek, greek, helenes, helenes, helenes, etc.
Finally when You give me a right answers I say You why Old greek written language have so similarity with albanian words, and why old written greek language is different from modern written greek language.
So Who is delirant now? You with to day`s obsessionist mania to make helenes all people of Ballkan today especially macedonians and South albania, or historical facts that you after 1829, you historians have manipulated ?

pirro says:

Dear Pantelis,
if you want to understand ancient history without any prejudices, can You explain me:
-- in what so called ancient greek authors papiruses is mentioned word Hellas or helenes?
-why Homerus did not mentioned any helenes tribues in war with Troya but mentioned Troyans, Akchaeans, tribues from Sparta?
-- Why Homerus mentioned word Iliada and not Hellada?
-- Why was not neccessary for transaltors between Troyans and Achaeans and spartans armies?
-- Why all ancient tribues have had names that can explain and translated easily with albanian language like:
Zeus (post fix-us is put from greek historians) does it mean – ze- or voice in english.
Aferdita- is the same- near the day i naglish
Artemis – qe hante mish- that eat meat in english
Athens -- ka thene -- that talking, that tell,
Hera– era- or wind in english
Hares (Ares) – qe ka re- or have clouds in english
Hades – qe ka deke-vdekur- has dead in english
Cronos (postfix-os is put from greek historians)- does it mean – qe harron- forgetful, forget ( so Cronos forget that were his children and eat them),
Troy- troje- place i englsih
Enea – i henes- of moon
Molossia – Malesia- from mountin -in englosh
Epri- i eperm, i siperm, or above over in nelgish
Thesprotia- qe mbajne thes or keep sacks

That`s is first part of key questons to understand.
My argument, and arguments of serious today`s historians is that in ancientall tribues have spoken the same language, you can call that old albanian spoken language or old so called greek language. Both last terms are the same because a lot of old greek words are and the albanian words. That`s the reason that Homerus mentioned history of Iliada so, History of Ilion (in albanian ylli jone- or -- our star), and Iliada history of ancient illyrians-pellazgs tribues.
I think that
Historian Aristidh Kola (arvanitas but greek citisien) has been right in his theory of pellasgian.
I think that word Helenes as e special ancient tribues idoes not egsist, but egsist word name Helenus an Epirotas, son of Achiles Dinasty of Mollossia and Epirus (both illyrian tribues).

ΑΡΧΑΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΣ says:

Could you give us now,after your delirium,some details about the correlation between the Illyrians and the Illyrian and Epirus?

Pantelis says:

I won’t say anything about the theory of the Indo-European which could explain a lot about the names.I will just make a question. Pirro,can you explain me please,why all those words must be loans from the Illyrians to the Greeks and not from the Greeks to the Illyrians which is more logical?Everyone knows, from example, that Aphrodite was the goddess that was born at Cyprus when Zeus’s blood felt at the sea.So Aphrodite is the goddess that emerged from the foams of the sea.Aphro,Αφρο= foam + dite,δυτη=emerge.Ares,is a god that you can find centuries before Homer “wrote” Iliad.And he can be found at the lips of the Greeks.I’m not going to explain every word because i’m not a linguist and i don’t have the answer for everyone. But i’m 1000% sure that if you search at objective books of glossology you will find the answers.Even try wiki.By the way…did you know the the japanese cloth kimono is greek?it’s from the greek word χειμωνας which means winter.Using the same logic with you i should believe that kimono is a cloth that the Japs wear during the winter because of the cold.

As Socrates has said: `Plato is my friend but real friend I have the Truth.`
So, study without prejudice,- and have to find the truth about Great Alexander and Epirus (and all the other words).

pirro says:

Dear, Friends,

As Socrates has said: `Plato is my friend but real friend I have the Truth.`
So, study without prejudice,- and have to find the truth about Great Alexander and Epirus.

Edessa says:

Pirro (with the nice Greek name),

Next time, if you wish to be taken seriously, provide serious argumentation based on ancient sources and not ridiculous crap.

Your claim is: #All antic historians like Plini, Herodotus, says about Epir as place of barbars? or not/ go and read them.#

Its you who have to go and read ancient historians. If ALL ancient historians shared your claim, we wouldnt have numerous ancient accounts saying:

but we know of NO GREEK BEFORE Pyrros who fought against Rome.

Pausanias, 1.11

“So Pyrros was the first to cross over against Rome from MAINLAND GREECE, and even so he went over only because he was called in by Tarentum”

Pausanias, 1.12

“Greece starts at Oricus and the MOST ANCIENT PART OF GREECE IS EPIRUS.”

Claudius Ptolemy, The Geographer

Furthermore, if you wish to claim Epirotes are Illyrians, provide ancient sources that verify that Epirotans are Illyrians. Unfortunately ancient sources differentiate Epirotes from Illyrians since they were both a different, alien people.

19. When Harrybas, king of the Molossians, was attacked in war by Bardylis, the Illyrian, who commanded a considerably larger army…

Frontinus, Strategemata, 13

Alexander, the Epirote, when waging war against the Illyrians

Frontinus, Strategemata, On Ambushes, 10

Furthermore, coming with ridiculus manipulations of original names to fit your agenda doesnt help you at all. I would ask for instance what the original name Molossis have to do with… Malesia or Aphrodite with…Aferdita but i dont see the reason to respond to such low-level crap.

pirro says:

Dear Edessa, I think you are wrong as for Epirus. Epir has significance in Albanian language and I have explained some days ago.
Epirus can not be as you says greek. All antic historians like Plini, Herodotus, says about Epir as place of barbars? or not/ go and read them.
secondly, How do you explain that all tribues that lived in Epir have name can translated very simply in albanian language,
third, how do you explain that all GOD that you says as `greek gods` have albanians name? example:
Zeus (post fix-us is put from greek historians) does it mean -- ze- or voice in english.
Aferdita- is the same- near the day i naglish
Artemis -- qe hante mish- that eat meat in english
Hera-- era- or wind in english
Hares (Ares) -- qe ka re- or have clouds in english
Hades -- qe ka deke-vdekur- has dead in english
Cronos (postfix-os is put from greek historians)- does it mean -- qe harron- forgetful, forget ( so Cronos forget that were his children and eat them),
Troy- troje- place i englsih
Enea -- i henes- of moon
Molossia -- Malesia- from mountin -in englosh
Epri- i eperm, i siperm, or above over in nelgish
Thesprotia- qe mbajne thes or keep sacks

etcetera.

Thats only for improving your knowlidge.

Pantelis says:

Sorry,i meant Alexandria Bucephalus.

Pantelis says:

Dear friends,there are 3 facts that you ignore.First of all,Alexander had on his side as an ally Taxilis, who had hostile relations with king Porus.After Alexander won the battle he tried and succeded to compromise the 2 Indian leaders.If Alexander had been defeated by Porus he wouldn’t be able to do that.King Porus was stronger than Taxilis and such that he wouldn’t have accepted to compromise but he would have tried to conquer the lands of his weaker opponent.The second is, that after the battle with Porus,Alexander continued his expedition in India and he stop at the banks of river Hyphases (Beas).A defeated enemy, the common military sense says that, would have been chased by Porus until annihilation.On the contrary, the winner would be able to continue his expedition.The third fact is,that until nowdays archaeologists still find greek antiquities at the lands of India.Of course that has happened because Alexander as the winner founded one more satrapy and one more Alexandria, Eschate….the Last.You all can understand why did this happen.

Edessa says:

Pirro (with the nice Greek name),

Academics from all over the world accept that Epirus has a Greek etymology. They also accept that Epirotans were a Greek tribe. Illyrians were a different people. As modern Albanians are also different people. Why do you confuse yourself with unfounded crap?

The topic is about Alexander and Porrus. Stick to the topic even if i suspect soon you will start claiming that Porrus is an.. Albanian name therefore Indians are Albanians too. Cant you see you are becoming comical here?

pirro says:

DEAR BIBIT, Pirro (PYRRHUS) was King of Epirus
(Epir does it mean in albanian language- i eperm, i siperm, -- or in english upper, over, top, so upper, top, neighbor country). Is normally in that time to live in Epir old tribues that speak albanian language but and other old tribues like helenes that speak derived language from albanian. Is true that old greek language and albanian language are more close than you believe.

BitBit says:

Pirro: you have a very nice Greek name. 🙂

edessa says:

In the original text of Alexander’s letter the word used is “Ελλάς/Hellas”. The modern state is called “Hellenic Republic / Republic of Hellas”. Whats so difficult for you to understand?

Also in Julius Valerius Alexander Polemios I.18: “omni Macedonia et reliqua Grecia conspirante” (=Macedonia and the rest of Greece)

Try harder with the ancient sources.

pirro says:

In the Alexander letter is not written word `greece` or not? In that time word `greek or greece` was not in use, but has been used word:- Danae for Greece, or Akej.

Ajit says:

The slaughter in Tyre was not an exception to the rule. I am giving three more examples. I did not base my “perception” on an isolated incident. Alexander had a history of destroying the tribes he conquered and executing all the males of military age and in some places even women and children, especially those who offered resistance.

Tyre was repeated in Ghaza.

“.. At the beginning of the Siege of Gaza, Alexander utilized the engines he had employed against Tyre. After three unsuccessful assaults, the stronghold was finally taken by force, but not before Alexander received a serious shoulder wound. As in Tyre, the male population was put to the sword and the women and children were sold into slavery.”

Alexander repeated the same fate to the citizens of Massaga.

“Not only did Alexander slaughter the entire population of Massaga, but also did he reduce its buildings to rubbles”.

And again Alexander repeated the same at Ora.

” A similar slaughter then followed at Ora, another stronghold of the Assakenoi. In the aftermath of Massaga and Ora, numerous Assakenians fled to the fortress of Aornos.”

As you are also aware, Alexander began his reign by executing his cousins, and several other Macedonian principals aided by his mother.

So It seems very unlikely that after losing more than 2/3 of his army in the battle with Puru, he would give all back to Puru without destroying his army.

Athanasios says:

This is goddamn amazing, D-Mak! You’ve attracted Indians (both muslims and hindus, if they aren’t really the same person under a myriad names after all) simply because you posted the Alexander Romance mentioning Alexander’s defeat of Porus and that’s not even what you were concentrating on!

D-Mak says:

How does that help you with your assertion? An event from an isolated incident, namely of a hostile city that took him several months and many hardships to take over, does not mean that he massacred all the men of military age everywhere he witnessed resistance.

If so, many Thracian and Illyrian tribes who were conquered by him, would have been faced the same tragic fate along with lots of cities and tribes found in Asia. The incident you refer is the exception of the general rule, not the opposite!!

Ajit says:

Please refer to “Alexander the Great”, Main articles: Battle of Issus and Siege of Tyre in wiki:

Alexander proceeded to take possession of Syria, and most of the coast of the Levant.[82] However, the following year, 332 BC, he was forced to attack Tyre, which he eventually captured after a famous siege.[83][84] After the capture of Tyre, Alexander massacred all the men of military age, and sold the women and children into slavery.[85]

D-Mak says:

Ajit,

Please always provide references from ancient sources to back up your premises. For instance, you claim:

“Alexander had a history of destroying the tribes he conquered and executing all the males of military age.”

where is this writtent in ancient sources??

Ajit says:

Alexander had a history of destroying the tribes he conquered and executing all the males of military age. So It seems very unlikely that after losing more than 2/3 of his army in the battle with Puru, he would give all back to Puru without destroying his army. He is alleged to have helped Puru win more land he did not own before. And because Alexander was impressed with Puru’s much publicized response! I have always wondered if events have been completely reversed by western historians.

I can without doubt relate to the character of an Indian King of Puru’s stature, to let Alexander go free after being defeated in the war, if Alexander had responded in this manner.

Alexander had been shipping all the booty he won from his conquests of the Persian empire to Macedonia. After defeating Puru, he was standing on the door steps of the richest civilization of those times but he decides to turn back because his soldiers were missing their families? It does not make any logical sense to me.

Interesting and legitimate issues raised by Mr. Zuber. I partly agree with his thinking. Natives of Pakistan should start to accept the fact that they have roots in the land they are born in. They should make an attempt to take pride in their ancestral history.

Unfortunately the religion they have chosen to convert to (or forced to convert in some cases) compels them to abhor their “Indian” past and relate only to the origins of their chosen religion which has no roots in their own land. They are forced to call their own great grand ancestors “Kafirs”. It is very unfortunate that they have no freedom to feel a sense of pride of their great past.

I do not agree with Mr. Zuber, that the Indians have hijacked the great men of Pakistan. Indians are proud of their history ever since the whole subcontinent was called Aryavarta. Most Indians do not relate to their history based just on religion. Indian history spans tens of thousands of years since before Rama and to Krisna to Buddha to Kautilya to Chandragupta to Asoka to Maharana Pratap to Akbar and so on.

kamal says:

Zubair
mate looks like you have a common issue.
One can choose the religion but not his parents can you claim a blue eye man to be your father.
You have to let go what is not yours.
The issue here is you not Islam.
If only swines like you self would think rationally that we all are humans which we are.
This world would be a better place for all humans

Zubair says:

I talked deliberately talked about Islam because when we talk about our ancient lands, we tend to downgrade our ancestors simply because we call them kafirs. We forget that there was no Islam at that time and our ancestors, like the rest of the world were non-Muslims. Don't we know that even before Islam, we had ancestors. I deeply resent the statement that Porus was not one of our ancestors. Warriors from Jehlum valley belonging to the Poru tribe are still among the best Infantry soldiers in the world. My question is this—why are we reluctant to use the name Porus. why do we feel proud to be a,med Sikandar—Two reasons—one, because of he wrong history that Alexander was a hero and two, we continue to see ancients of this Valley as kafirs. We do the same thing with Indus valley heros like Kotaliya and Chandar Gupta Mauria. They both belonged to Indus valley and are, therefore, our ancestors and heroes. The result is that the Indians have hijacked these great men. Even in present day Indus valley, we being the narrow minded people that we are, have disowned great men like Dr.Abdusd Salm.

Zubair says:

I talked deliberately talked about Islam because when we talk about our ancient lands, we tend to downgrade our ancestors simply because we call them kafirs. We forget that there was no Islam at that time and our ancestors, like the rest of the world were non-Muslims. Don't we know that even before Islam, we had ancestors. I deeply resent the statement that Porus was not one of our ancestors. Warriors from Jehlum valley belonging to the Poru tribe are still among the best Infantry soldiers in the world. My question is this—why are we reluctant to use the name Porus. why do we feel proud to be a,med Sikandar—Two reasons—one, because of he wrong history that Alexander was a hero and two, we continue to see ancients of this Valley as kafirs. We do the same thing with Indus valley heros like Kotaliya and Chandar Gupta Mauria. They both belonged to Indus valley and are, therefore, our ancestors and heroes. The result is that the Indians have hijacked these great men. Even in present day Indus valley, we being the narrow minded people that we are, have disowned great men like Dr.Abdusd Salm.
Zubair

sarath says:

hello zubair lets go back to history ,before ur religion there existed hindus and all the heroes u mentioned is ours u will get it by just reviewing their names. maurya dynasty are the followers of pandavas who are hindus and where comes islam?
hindus belongs to india and so all this heroes are ours.
u aggressive arabs only looted the land dont know what is peace
jai hind

pratap says:

Hello Zubair, for you information, war happened between alexander and porus in early 326 BC.At that time there are no marks of muslims/islam. The evolution of islam was in 620 AD.So its not correct to claim porus and all others who lived in indus as muslim ancestors.I do agree that there are great muslim sikindars.Also there are many people in india who respect islam.so lets not bring the religious differences, we are in matured period of time.
Coming to the point i don't think alexander defeated porus.
How can such a cruel king who has desire to conquer the world, would leave his enemy who caused major damage to his army.

Muhammad Zubair says:

I have never believed the popular trash about Alexander asking Porus how the later should be treated. The fact is that we have no history written by our Indus ancestors. What we hear is from Alexander's court historian and as we all know, the king's man will always praise the master. Just imagine a young god king leaves Greece to conquer the world which according to Greek mythology lies in the east where the sun rises. He has his greatest victory against the mightiest known power—Persia. Flushed with this victory, he decides to prove that he really is God and conquer the world. On his way to the East he meets with small tribes and quickly subdues them adding troops to his army. At the banks of Jehlum, he meets a real country, king and an Army of worriers from famous Poru tribe of the Indus valley. He was so badly defeated that his most disciplined army almost mutinied. How come the mighty god king forgot about his ambition to conquer the world when he was already in the East. Even when he was sailing down the Indus, his troops were being harassed by the Indus sharp shooters using the deadly bamboo long bow( sniper rifle of the day) which was another surprise for the Greeks besides the elephant. In the end I would like to add that we, Pakistanis are unfortunate in refusing to accept the greatness of our ancestors. That is why the Indians have successfully been able to hijack all our heroes from the Indus valley—-just look at the great men our land has produced. Kotalya was another great scholar and his book Arthshastra is considered more important than The Prince. The Indian leaders not only call him their hero but also study his writings and fallow then in governace. ChandraGupta Mauria was another great son of Pothwar in Indus valley whom the Indians call their own. Ashoka does not even exist in history but was created by the British to give some hero to the Hindus of India. Even the word India is hijacked from our Indus river. Indus was the western name for Indus. In ancient times the world didn't even know the Ganga and jumna Vallies while Indus valley was known in the entire known world. Our problem is that in our enthusiasm to be called good Muslims, we disown all our ancestors. We have thousands of Sikandars in Pakistan but no Porus—why? Porus was non Muslim? But so was Alexander and the rest of the world. Have we forgotten that Porus was the son of Indus valley which is the exact boundary of present day Pakistan. I do wish we had a real leader in Pakistan who would find time to give real history of this great land. Unfortunately our rulers are too busy raping and robbing this great land to have time for honoring their ancestors and promote the greatness of this land

Lysippi says:

Zubair, it’s funny that you say the Indian’s stole heroes from you, like they were possessions. Honestly i don’t see how it matters, if you find someone honorable, honor them yourself without the feeling of having to own them. It’s just silly.

Jon says:

Since most of the works that were done on Alexander by direct historians and "associates" were destroyed or never found, how is it possible for anyone to claim that he won the battle in India against Porus ? What we know are the recent writings and even Plutarch did his work 500 years after alexander. We all know for a fact that the western empire always wanted to conquer India for many thousands of years and it was not until recently, about 1000 years ago was that possible.It is also known that many Rulers of Greece wanted to conquer India. Queen Semeremis, King Heracles etc. But they were crushed in the battles. The queen ran off with only about 20 soldiers. It was a real crushing defeat. The western power could invade India only after India itself grew weaker after many thousands of years. There have been allegations that the British had changed the history of Alexander's Invasion of India and stated that he did invade and defeated Porus. So no one knows for sure what actually took place. Also we must remember, Greek influence in India was minimal to non-existent. If Alexander did invade India, what happened to his influence ? It has been said that the Maurya emperor also defeated the remaining greeks.

The_Director says:

Sorry Devidas. Your arguments do not make any sense.

You claim "Greek writers always praise their king, how can they write their king was ever defeated."

Really? if this claim had any merit then obviously Greek leaders would have been portrayed by Greek writers as being invicible.

" If alexander was the winner then why he return poras's territory along with some more states?"

This is called simply baseless assertion. Why did then Alexander returned territories to some Persian Satraps. Does this mean following this ridiculous assertion you made that Persians had defeated Alexander.

Sorry friend, ancient history is not based in wishful thinking & baseless assertions. Its based on what ancient sources testify and all of them confirm that Alexander defeated Porus.

devidas prabhu says:

All Indians should feel proud about poras (Purushottam) who defeated alexander.There is no any evidence in India that Alexander defeated poras. Present history is completely based on that time Greek writer’s opinion. Greek writers always praise their king, how can they write their king was ever defeated. There is a clear evidence of Alexander’s defeat in India. According to Greek writers,when poras was defeated,alexader asked him, how be wished to be treated?Poras replied,"treat me o alexander as befits a king" alexander was very much impressed with this answer and he not only returned his territory and also handed over certain conquered states. If alexander was the winner then why he return poras's territory along with some more states? Actually alexander was a cruel man he was not any mahatma to return his conquered states to poras along with his territory. In reality alexander was defeated by poras and to get safe passage for his soldiers, he handed over his conquered states to poras.Really poros was mahatma he allowed alexandre to return home safely.

J The H says:

Basically strategical , geograpical and the clima of India is a good reason that Alexander defeated , but he lost a battle not the war .
If you take a look and combine all of those and many other reason then we come to the result that the history writes.
I am Hellin‎* Makedonian‎*‎* and I do not know why I have to go against in the facts that Alexander The Great defeated .
After losing this battle if we add that the Makedonian and Hellin soldiers were so many years away of homeland then you understand that Alexander couldn't go against all the troops , even he was the king .
But I am happy that I see that people know and accept that Alexander The Great was Hellin.

‎* Hellin = The origin name of Greece . Greece took the name it has now by the Roman Empire .
‎*‎* Makedonian = A Hellenic race.like Spartan , Atheneans , Thrakes , Thessalians .

Edessa says:

Alexander defeated Porus. Its common sense that there were so many people back then who disliked/hated Alexander that certainy one of them would have written if he had not defeated Porus.

Farrukh Saleem says:

what weer was writen about the war was mainly by the Greek authors (what we have now), but it was also prove that the Alexander army did not cross the river Jhelum. Instead the cross the river indus (down stream) near (now Multan) which is out of the domain of Porus. Which clearly indicate that either Porus defeat the Alexander or there is no result of war between them and if Alexender Army won the battle. There was no reason to cross the river indus to attack the other states of india instead of going strate to Lahore to go further. If this accepted that as a good justure Alexander surrender his right after winning the war to Purus. How can a defeted King denies to give a way to move further to a victorian king.

kirt says:

look at facts.. if alex did win against porus , why was he traveling down the river in wooden rafters??

Peter says:

Uhhmm…. I suppose you must be from India. Do you have any evidence at all that Alexander lost a battle? There are many sources that actually describe the battles he and his soldiers fought, for many historians, adventurers, and even his generals wrote about his conquests. You can read one of the many here:
The Grecian history, from the earliest state to the death of Alexander the Great By Oliver Goldsmith, p. 206…….
http://books.google.ca/books?id=JUIZAAAAYAAJ

These are considered quite reliable, although possibly somewhat exaggerated, by most historians.

sanjeev says:

All Indians should feel proud about poras (Purushottam) who defeated alexander.There is no any evidence in India that Alexander defeated poras. Present history is completely based on that time Greek writer’s opinion. Greek writers always praise their king, how can they write their king was ever defeated. There is a clear evidence of Alexander’s defeat in India. According to Greek writers,when poras was defeated,alexader asked him, how be wished to be treated?Poras replied,”treat me o alexander as befits a king” alexander was very much impressed with this answer and he not only returned his territory and also handed over certain conquered states. If alexander was the winner then why he return poras’s territory along with some more states? Actually alexander was a cruel man he was not any mahatma to return his conquered states to poras along with his territory. In reality alexander was defeated by poras and to get safe passage for his soldiers, he handed over his conquered states to poras.Really poros was mahatma he allowed alexandre to return home safely.

anil says:

It has been always an excuse that Alexender and his army face so much musciitoes,wheather etc and hence returned back to Greece, but in fact he had lost the battle and was returning broken heart with fatal injury to which sccumbed on the way.

Every nation writes it own history books.
In my resources it says that the Greek army defeated the Indian.
Then Greek trups settled in indian and the moussons started.
Greeks had never experienced so much continuous rain.
They had already started missing sunny Greece (it took them more than a decade already to reach india) and they took the moussons as a sign from gods.
Alexander could not go against the desire of his faithful soldiers and had to go back.

arun says:

alexander was defeated in india and he had to run for his life to greece. long live poros the great of india.

arun says:

alexander was defeatd in india nd he had to run for his life to greece. long live poros the great of india.

brahmaputra sivateja says:

i agree….king porus or purushottaman is the only king who defeated alexander although alexander had a bigger army….

Lysippi says:

You should study your history better. Alexander defeated Porus, though he did himself receive a bad wound. After the great battle, he gained much respect for Porus (though he lost, as you seem to not know), and they became friends. Alexander Allowed Porus to be satrap of his own land and even gave Porus more land than he previously had. THEN Alexander left India to go home because his men missed their homes and were on the verge of mutiny.

Perhaps you should read actual historical texts rather than going by some Hollywood movie.