1-Alexander's Failed India Invasion - Alexander Vs Porus At The Battle Of Hydapses ruclips.net/video/JPTkqffs3RM/видео.html Contrary to what Western historians want us to believe, Alexander failed utterly in his India invasion. This is the truth behind Battle od Hydapses fought between Alexander and Poros on the banks of Jhelum. Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East. But according to Marshal Georgy Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia. In 326 BC a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000. Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes or The Battle at the River Jhelum against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians. Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete. In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad. In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty. So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin. Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards, they were very tiny kingdoms, they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine. The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India. On the first day after bitter fighting the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself was seriously wounded in the ankle. On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting. Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called for a truce. The Assakenoi agreed because the old queen was too trusting. That night when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora. However, the fierce resistance put up by the Indian defenders had reduced the strength - and perhaps the confidence - of the until then all-conquering Macedonian army. In his entire conquering career Alexander’s hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek accounts as standing seven feet tall. In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle. The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry were bolstered by the Indian king Ambhi, who was a rival of Porus. Ambhi was the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Taxila and had offered to help Alexander on condition that he would be given the kingdom of Porus. Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy strength.
2-#Alexander #Sikandar #Poras Untold History-EP13 - When Alexander 'The Ordinary' was squarely defeated by Raja Puru 'The Great' ruclips.net/video/ekL13l3VzW0/видео.html
Chandragupta Maurya with his guru chanakya during 300 bce conquered Nanda dynasty ruler dhanananda and put end to his rule. Mauryan empire flourished till 185 bce, so Mauryan empire ended Nanda rule.
How come Mahapadmananda conquered whole of northeren India virtually and ruled only totaly 10 years..A bit difficult to swallow ... --> Puranas ascribe him very long reign of almost 5-6 decade's of total 100 years for Nanadas !
How are greek-latin or persian sources providing the narration of Mahajanapada periods !!??? or HOW Is INDICA of Megasthenes the source for Mauryas !!!??? Is there any mention of Maurya name or Chanakya any where in there ???!!!!! Or for that matter by Plutarch !!??..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all..>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >???? On what basis U say Alexander invaded during Dhana Nanda !!!! Or that it was Nandas Mentioned in Greeco-Roman records !??!!What Reference ?? on what basis !!..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all....Then there are other Questions regarding the whole dating and chronology in Indic Civilisational timelines>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >???? -->> Its wrong identification of Sandrakottus with Maurya Chandragupta by William Jones in 1794 ,while it was Gupta Chandragupta I founder of Imperial gupta line who was according to Indic sources combined with Greek accounts . Because of this Distortion and concoction of Euro-Colonial-Missionary we are still trapped in the prison house of Jones wrong Sheet anchor of Sandrakotuus = Maurya chandragupta we have reduced ancient Indian chronology by 1200-1300 years .
HOW Is INDICA of Megasthenes the source for Mauryas !!!??? Is there any mention of Maurya name or Chanakya any where in there ???!!!!! Or for that matter by Plutarch !!??..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all..>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >???? On what basis U say Alexander invaded during Dhana Nanda !!!! Or that it was Nandas Mentioned in Greeco-Roman records !??!!What Reference ?? on what basis !!..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all....Then there are other Questions regarding the whole dating and chronology in Indic Civilisational timelines>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >???? -->> Its wrong identification of Sandrakottus with Maurya Chandragupta by William Jones in 1794 ,while it was Gupta Chandragupta I founder of Imperial gupta line who was according to Indic sources combined with Greek accounts . Because of this Distortion and concoction of Euro-Colonial-Missionary we are still trapped in the prison house of Jones wrong Sheet anchor of Sandrakotuus = Maurya chandragupta we have reduced ancient Indian chronology by 1200-1300 years .
Thank you so much sir. These videos are really helpful to get an overview of the Ancient history. So much greatful to you...🙏
It is sad to see that such nice talks have been reviewed by so few considering there are millions of people in India with You Tube access !
A nice one and a superb way of explanation., thanks
Sir udayein shifted its capital from rajgirha to patliputra and not(kalashoka) correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks sir...described In very easy and interesting way
The whole narration of Alexander victory over Porus clearly appears to be fully concocted ...
1-Alexander's Failed India Invasion - Alexander Vs Porus At The Battle Of Hydapses
ruclips.net/video/JPTkqffs3RM/видео.html
Contrary to what Western historians want us to believe, Alexander failed utterly in his India invasion. This is the truth behind Battle od Hydapses fought between Alexander and Poros on the banks of Jhelum.
Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East. But according to Marshal Georgy Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia.
In 326 BC a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.
Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes or The Battle at the River Jhelum against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.
Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete.
In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.
In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.
So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.
Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards, they were very tiny kingdoms, they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine.
The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India. On the first day after bitter fighting the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself was seriously wounded in the ankle. On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.
Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called for a truce. The Assakenoi agreed because the old queen was too trusting. That night when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora.
However, the fierce resistance put up by the Indian defenders had reduced the strength - and perhaps the confidence - of the until then all-conquering Macedonian army.
In his entire conquering career Alexander’s hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek accounts as standing seven feet tall.
In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle. The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry were bolstered by the Indian king Ambhi, who was a rival of Porus. Ambhi was the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Taxila and had offered to help Alexander on condition that he would be given the kingdom of Porus.
Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy strength.
2-#Alexander #Sikandar #Poras
Untold History-EP13 - When Alexander 'The Ordinary' was squarely defeated by Raja Puru 'The Great'
ruclips.net/video/ekL13l3VzW0/видео.html
Very good class
Thank you Sir 🙏
Thank you sir
After Mahapadma there was only one ruler Dhanananda under Nanda Dynasy. Not right sons. Please correct.
Chandragupta Maurya with his guru chanakya during 300 bce conquered Nanda dynasty ruler dhanananda and put end to his rule. Mauryan empire flourished till 185 bce, so Mauryan empire ended Nanda rule.
very very thanks sir
How come Mahapadmananda conquered whole of northeren India virtually and ruled only totaly 10 years..A bit difficult to swallow ...
--> Puranas ascribe him very long reign of almost 5-6 decade's of total 100 years for Nanadas !
sorry sir but i have studied that the founder of magadha was jarasandha and brihadratha
sir clear my doubt
sir mahapadmnand was barbar by casy
Yes, under vedic brahmins manusmiriti caste 4 folds varna system.
thanks sir
Thanks u sir
thanks
How are greek-latin or persian sources providing the narration of Mahajanapada periods !!???
or
HOW Is INDICA of Megasthenes the source for Mauryas !!!??? Is there any mention of Maurya name or Chanakya any where in there ???!!!!! Or for that matter by Plutarch !!??..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all..>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >????
On what basis U say Alexander invaded during Dhana Nanda !!!! Or that it was Nandas Mentioned in Greeco-Roman records !??!!What Reference ?? on what basis !!..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all....Then there are other Questions regarding the whole dating and chronology in Indic Civilisational timelines>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >????
-->> Its wrong identification of Sandrakottus with Maurya Chandragupta by William Jones in 1794 ,while it was Gupta Chandragupta I founder of Imperial gupta line who was according to Indic sources combined with Greek accounts . Because of this Distortion and concoction of Euro-Colonial-Missionary we are still trapped in the prison house of Jones wrong Sheet anchor of Sandrakotuus = Maurya chandragupta we have reduced ancient Indian chronology by 1200-1300 years .
HOW Is INDICA of Megasthenes the source for Mauryas !!!??? Is there any mention of Maurya name or Chanakya any where in there ???!!!!! Or for that matter by Plutarch !!??..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all..>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >????
On what basis U say Alexander invaded during Dhana Nanda !!!! Or that it was Nandas Mentioned in Greeco-Roman records !??!!What Reference ?? on what basis !!..There is no connection of Alexander & Porus times with Nanda or Mauryas at all....Then there are other Questions regarding the whole dating and chronology in Indic Civilisational timelines>>>>Puranas or Indic Literature dealing with Magadhan & nanadas & mauryas never has any mention of Persian or Greek invastions !! WHY >????
-->> Its wrong identification of Sandrakottus with Maurya Chandragupta by William Jones in 1794 ,while it was Gupta Chandragupta I founder of Imperial gupta line who was according to Indic sources combined with Greek accounts . Because of this Distortion and concoction of Euro-Colonial-Missionary we are still trapped in the prison house of Jones wrong Sheet anchor of Sandrakotuus = Maurya chandragupta we have reduced ancient Indian chronology by 1200-1300 years .
Thanks sir