रोमिला थापर ने कहा है कि धर्मराज युधिष्ठिर को सम्राट अशोक से प्रेरणा मिली थी और राममंदिर के संदर्भ में भी कई झूठ कही है इसलिए कृपया रोमिला थापर का जिक्र अपनी चर्चाओं में ना करें अन्यथा आपका अध्ययन शंकित हो जाएगा ।
बहुत सुन्दर सुरु से अंत आपने भारत, भारतीय शासक, भारतीय संस्कृती, भारतीय स्थापयत कला, भारतीय इतिहासकार और सनातन धर्म को डिसक्रेडिट करने रोमिला थापर और विदेशी इतिहासकार को महान साबित करने का प्रयास!
I recently read a tweet saying that Bihar can't prosper because there's flood half of the year and basically Bengal has declined and jharkhands resources are not with Bihar. Is it right? Anyways the biggest reason we all know is bihars political parties and stupid leaders and caste politics.
Most ridiculous thing is They want to justify that Just because of continuos battle their soldiers got frustrated and tired They decided to go back 😂 You want us to believe this huh ? 😁😂🤣
@@PriceyTomato they believe in Arya culture and a concept of Dharma. Those who didn't follow the civilization of Arya culture were termed as 'Yavana' and 'mlechha' . Specifically talk about Maurya they spread Dharma (defined by buddha) throughout the south asia including China. India never had policy of expansion. Here in India conquerers are not termed as great just because he had conquered huge landmass. Just see the barbarity and heinous crimes committed by Alexander meanwhile his conquest. Yet he is termed as Great
@@KetanJayade china isn't geographically attested in south asia. "India never had policy of expansion" Is that why mauryans stalemate at eastern Afghanistan with seleucus? Or is that why Rajendra Chola’s Naval Conquest Of South-East Asia happened? Or are you coming from a group who thinks that when Indian expansion is thwarted it's "india never had policy of expansion" and when Indian expansion is successful it's "foreign powers were weak in front of us"? Talking about barbaric invasion Ever heard of begal massacre by marathas? Or The Ashoka-vadana recounts how Ashoka once had 18,000 Ajivikas in Bengal put to death in a single episode? Dhamma of ashoka was notorious for forcefully converting people into buddhism.
अगर सिकंदर जीता तो उसने राजा पोरस को जिंदा कैसे छोड़ दिया। जिसने अपने सगे भाइयों को मार डाला वो अपने शत्रु को जिंदा छोड़ रहा है जिस शत्रु ने उसको इतना नुकसान पहुंचाया
Har koi nafrat ka Ghulam nhi hota .. jaise Mafiveer tha .. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 Prithviraj ne bhi dushman ko jeevan daan diya tha .. Alexander ne bhi de diya .. Tumhari kyu jal gayi ? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@Bhavesh_Joshi Jab Porus nhi jeeta to kyu maan le? Itni zyada aag lagi hai mirchi se .. ki Porus ki haar bardasht nhi ho rhi. 🤣😂🤣😂 Ab ye bhi bol de ki Mughals bhi haar kar wapis chale gye the 😂🤣😂🤣
18:52 sorry, but sources mil bhi jaye to nahi accept karenge as the academia , especially the social sciences, they just pat each others back , and still see the western manipulations of the colonial era as the infallible truth . To do away with the AIT , it took so so long and yet it’s a half measure.
Interestingly my father's name is also Ashok, and both my father and mother didn't know that Ashoka's son was Kunal. My teacher who is a Jaina told me this fact.
Jayvardhan ko ek source batana tha IIT kharagpur ka ek professor ka kehna hai ki sandrocottas was neither changragupt nor samudragupt...He was rather a king from undivided bengal region whose name was chandraketu...And archeological sources have also found the site "chandra ketu garh" which is older than mauryan era...and Greeks called bengal as gangaridai ...Sadly historians and archeologists are not working on it...Because of some literary and regional biases 🙏🏻
@@jagbirsinghmann1966 That's why Shivanand is saying it. Indians have the largest volume of recorded texts/history and scripture of all the civilisations in the world, the fact that alxander episode appears negligibly in Indian texts is solid evidence that greeks over inflated it and disorted the whole fiasco.
मार्कंडेय पुराण में कहां लिखा है कि ये राक्षस थे जैसा आपने कहा। मेरे पास मार्कंडेय पुराण है परन्तु आपकी कही बात उसमे नही है। मेरे पास तीन वॉल्यूम का मार्कंडेय पुराण है।
It's Interesting lots of History revolves around modern-day Odisha...More specifically the South & the Northeastern side of India which was the strategic backyard of western Indians more like Aincent India was like the Russian Empire which napoleon thought he could conquer...I mean according to Vardhan ji seems like Alexander thought he won half of India is not the truth seems like It was reached a level of stalemate between the two armies I mean marriage treaty ka kiya matlab hai...Edit: Note Western historian still take Alexander's history very seriously because for them Alexander was their first white land conqueror from the west but if that is so then half of the land conquered on earth are by non-white best example is Changez Khan because he is non-white they present him like barbarian but not an emperor from a modern civilization so do the rest of the math and calculate how western historian sees Aincent India from their perspective...
Changez khan didn’t command in most of their war . Mongols has 4 Dogs of War , generals like Sabutai . Alexander is famous coz he was the first to capture the Civilisation of Greek , Levant , Egypt, Anatolia , Babylon, Mesopotamia, Persia , Central Asia . Mongols were defeated in Egypt and Hungary .
@@namankandpal2095 yes , may we follow Greek sources but we can't disagree of Interpolations . This podcast was somewhat left leaning, they said that we as a culture have habit of Interpolations but the thing here is that Greeks too interpolated many things , Diodorus the first ever person who wrote about Alexander had included many things that r distorted and sounds mythical. His works sounds very supremacist
@@thealchemist100 Yes Greeks were actually known to distort history herodotus was known as a father of history and in his book he mentions some 3 eye devils 😂
These people atleast do their homework before starting podcast. If you little search in google about Pauravas, katoch dynasty or tirgata dynasty(Trigarta refers to the land between three rivers, namely, Beas, Sutlej, and Ravi) and it's territory, Mangala fort The town of Mangla was named after Mangla Devi, ruled by king Kshatriya Raja Porus(Brother of King Porus, Porus was not the name of king but Greek name of word Paurva tribe). you people will get all your answers. Tirgata kingdom had territory started from Multan, jalandhar, kangra, indora(where porus fought against invading army of Alexander) Jammu till POK(where Mangala fort situated). Beas river merged with Satluj river near Amritsar. And don't even enter in Pakistan...these people don't even has knowledge of geography and they have become historians. If you have any doubt about above I will explain to you..
Doesn't matter who won who lost... Maybe porus won and we had the histories but we did a poor historiography and could not tell, maybe Alexander won but if we ask time, the civilization which porus belonged to is still Surviving, the civilization which Alexander belonged to is surviving only in marvel Cinematic universe.
In case of porus, the question comes not being hurt but of logic. The Alexander who was so brutal that he used to finish entire tribes become so impressed with Porus answer that he not only left him alive and returned him his kindom but even gave him kindom of ambhi.. This sound ridiculous. All we have is some greek sources making hype of alexander. Even the Russian general have doubted the claim. There is an interesting book Elephant Medallion which raises some interesting question. The question also comes that why some important has not being mentioned in Indian source despite Taxila university being in such close distance. So the entire story sound illogical.
Bahut achha Discussion. Aise discussion bar bar dekhne ko nhi milti Aise baat ek bench Constitute of Good Historians + a Researchers Like this , could have been a Encyclopaedia. Any way very very good effort. Keep it up. 👍🙏
Concern yeh hai yhn ki jo sb mannyavaar jay sahab ne bataya whi sb to Western historian kafi time se chipka rhe hai, or jb baat aayi ki battle kon jita he said Alexander jeeta 😗😶 4 sbdo m baat khatam, to isme alag kya tha, debate to yhi hai nhh ki porus jeeta tha, or the way he said resources laao, 100 saal se aayi baat ki porus jeeta usse pehle nhi tha to strabo ancient greek historian ne to likha hi hai iss baare m jo 2000 saal pehle ki baat hai But fact hai ki Bharat k itihaas m porus k baare m kuchh mention nhi hai karan ho sakta hai ki vo rajya porus ka itna mention krne yogya naah rha ho, vo to Greeks ne unnecessarily glorify kiya porus ko which was later copied by the historians of colonial era and still uttering the BS. Mere hisaab se porus bs 1 chota sa raja (chieftain) tha jisse alexender haar gya uski khud ki military k karan or porus k sahas k karan or Babylon m ja kr mrityu ko prapt hua, and #the great alexender ko hara hua naah dikhe Greeks wrote this BS.
@Патрико Владимир(Tsar) yeah this could be the another possibility that the war never happened, since there is no archeological and literally evidence till now.
Greek historians refer to the river “Errannaboas”. In all probability, Errannaboas derived from Yamuna-Sarasvati. Historians speculated Errannaboas as Hiranyabahu but no such name of a River ever mentioned in Indian literature. Shone river was never referred to as Hiranyabahu. Megasthanes refers to Sone river in another context because Sone river flowed through the kingdom of Shonabhadra. Therefore, it is totally absurd to identify Sone River as Errannaboas. Undoubtedly, Errannaboas was Yamuna-Sarasvati and the confluence of Rivers mentioned by Greek historians was the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna at Prayag. In ancient times, Pratishthanapura was located close to Prayag which was the capital of Chandravamsi kings. Historians have identified Jhusi to be Pratishthanapura. The Chinese translation of “Life of Vasubandhu” has assumed A-yu-ja to be Ayodhya. If we add “P”, it can be Pa-yu-ja or Prayaga. Thus, Pratishthanapura or Prayagabhadra or Ayodhya can be identified as Polibothra. Possibly, Shonebhadra was called Honebhadra in Gandhara and Persia. Gradually, the transliteration in Greek script might have evolved Honebhadra into Polibothra. Evidently, King Chandra, Chandragupta Vikramaditya and Chandraprakasha Baladitya must be identified as Xandremes, Sandrokottus and Allitrochades respectively. They probably belonged to the Chandra vamsa or Lunar dynasty. Vasubandhu was the minister of King Chandraprakasha Baladitya. Polibothra was Prayagabhadra or Pratishthanapura or Ayodhya or Shonabhadra. Gandaridae was Gandhara not Gangaridae Western historians have translated Gandaridae as Gangaridae and speculated the region of Ganga River to be as Gangaridae. Greek historians mention that Sandokottus was the king of Gandaridae and Prasii. Prasii (Prachi) was the name of eastern India. King Chandra or Xandrames crossed Sindhu (Indus) and conquered the parts of Gandhara and Bahlika kingdom as recorded in the Iron Pillar inscription. Therefore, Gandaridae must be Gandhara Kingdom and not the region of Ganga River. It may be noted that a king who controlled the Gandhara Kingdom can only be in conflict with Seleucus Nicator, the King of Syria and Parthia. There is no evidence that Alexander or Seleucus ever crossed over Sindhu (Indus). Porus, the later descendant of Paurava Chandra Vamsi king was ruling over northern Pakistan, Bactria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan etc. He was controlling the traditional silk route. In all probability, Porus fought a battle against Alexander on the bank of Hydaspes (Jhelum) and defeated him. There is a serious need to study once again the original Greek texts to understand the episode of Porus-Alexander conflict. Moreover, Megasthanes mentions that Porus was greater than Sandrokottus. The Marriage alliance Strabo says that the Indians possess partly some of the countries lying along Indus, but these belonged formerly to the Persians. Alexander took them away from the Arianoi and established in them colonies of his own. Seleucus Nikator gave them to Sandrokottus in concluding a marriage alliance, and received in exchange 500 elephants. In all probability, Arianoi is the region of Khurasan closer to Kandhar. It appears that Seleucus was desperate to get elephants because he realized the importance of elephantry in battle field. Most probably, Seleucus negotiated with Sandrokottus for 500 elephants. He has sent Megasthanes to negotiate the deal. The Sakas or Skythians of Northern side of India Megasthanes says that the Sakas or Skythians were living in the northern side of India; “India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai.Evidnetly, Megasthanes indicates the kingdom of Kushanas in the northwestern India. Sakas and Kushanas had common origin and they belonged to ancient Kamboja clan. The Andhrae According to Pliny, Megasthanes described 30 walled cities of the Andrae. Evidently, Andrae were the Andhra Kings or Shatavahana Kings. It may be noted that Simuka was not the first king of Shatavahanas. Simuka was the first Shatavahana king who conquered Magadha around 830 BCE and founded his dynasty. There was Shatavahana kings existed in the South before Simuka. Five of these walled cities of the Andhras (Satavahanas) have been excavated in Dhulikatta, Karimnagar District. All Puranas refer to Shatavahana kings as Andhra kings. Shatavahanas did not exist during the period of Mauryas. Asoka refers to Chola, Chera, Pandya etc. kings of South in his inscriptions. There is no mention of Andhra kings. Shatavahanas lost their kingdom in the south before the rise of the Gupta dynasty. Thus, Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I cannot be identified as Sandrokottus.
@@tonmoy1549 please do not say " kaha se kaha pahuch gaye intellectual dikhne me chakkar me" many thing stated above is true; if you have some tangible information then please share. It is about sharing information.
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 patliputra and patlibothra. Are pretty apparently the only names that are close and similar. You can praisthanpur doesn't even come close.
भाई साहब जब कोई भी रिसर्च करता है तो उसको खोजी होना चाहिए।क्या ये प्रश्न नही होता कि जितने भी सोर्सेज हैं वो उन्ही के हैं जो खुद को विजेता कह रहे हैं।क्या आप उसी की बात पे विश्वास कर लेंगे?ऐसा क्यों नहीं हो सकता की सिकंदर बुरी तरह हारा हो ,तभी तो आगे बढ़ने की जगह कोई वापसी करेगा।अब उसके आदमी तो बहाना बताएंगे ही।आपको कोई और सोर्स ढूंढने चाहिए।जो ग्रीक बोल रहे हैं वही बताएंगी तो कोई भी पढ़ सकता है,नया क्या पढ़ा फिर? कोई विश्व विजेता शहर के शहर तबाह करने वाला क्रूर राजा भारत आया,,जीता ,,पोरस की बातों से प्रभावित हुआ,,फिर वापसी,सेना की थकान,,,सब बहने लगते हैं. वो इतना क्रूर था , हराने के बाद गर्दन नही छोड़ता सर पे पोरस की।।महान नही था।।।सब भ्रम है,सच्ची सोर्सेज ढूंढिए।🙏
@@rishavkumar1250 stop cursing and abusing without knowing the background of sanghiis. Research without prejudice about their accomplishments and their contribution to the society. Come out of the prejudiced opinion. It has become a fashion with a woke generation to abuse anyone without reading the correct sources.
@@nidhimagon4469 आर, एस, एस, समाज में घृणा, नफरत और साम्प्रदायिकता के साथ साथ फासीवादी विचार देश में थोपने के प्रयास के अतिरिक्त और कुछ भी नहीं कर रहा है..
On my visit to Peris, Versailles Mesuim, I view 2 big paintings in which Greek King Alakjendra riding horse talking to injured fallen King Porus in battle field.
There can't be similarities drawn between aurangzeb and Great Ashoka....the earlier was using religion to butcher civilians, had no respect for morals in war and destroyed 1000s of hindu sacred temples in the name of religion. His intent was henious. YOU SHOULD BRING IN NEERAJ ATRI FOR DISCUSSION OR SUBSCRIBE TO SANGAM TALKS FOR CORRECT HISTORY AND NOT JUST KHOKHALA GYAAN BY A PAPLU...
Nadir shah also returned back after fighting mughals. Abdali returned back after fighting marathas. Taimur left after fighting till Haridwar. Everyone returns.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
very very interesting...kept me captivated thru out. Interesting because Jay Singh ji quoting references from various sources and that makes this podcast informative and interesting.
Interesting podcast! Poras was important In Indian History because He was the one who fought tooth & nail with the Greeks.His Mighty army of Elephants was fearful for Greeks ,who had never saw such a thing. Alexander's Historian had written in detail about the war between the two. Though Porus was defeated .But His True King like behaviour earned respect of the Enemy .
@@GOLDROGER-xt3bx Oh come on... U don't want to recognize one of the Great warrior of his time... That's your problem & problem with people who see history with a different lens 👓
@@royarnab26 i saw history with the lens of evidence and support as nd with logic You people just see it with dogmatic religious view and what can feel you you proud you just follow your emotion does not even digest how can you people's avoid the evidence , May be you don't know
Sagala was not completely destroyed. It was revived and was the capital of many Indo-Greek Kingdoms including King Menander (Malinda). It is believed that Sagala is modern day SiyalKot.
About the detailed source about Chandragupt having been written in 10th century AD, it is just that this one was found. Normally, the medium on which a text was written will deteriorate with time and so copies are made from the earlier one. It doesn't mean that the original text was composed in tenth century AD!! If it is detailed, the original composition must have been prepared during the time of Chandragupt or it used multiple preexisting sources originally composed during the time of Chandragupt!!
Trigartha was the empire which has three Major towns known as present day Kangra, Jalandhar and Multan. It's capital was Kangra. Probably Alexander was defeated in this area that's why he returned from Beas. Because after Victory their was no point in withdrawal as done by Alexander.
Victory is a common thing for Alexanders army, so a victory didn't affect his decision. He's return because of his devastative army who are marching and in battles for long 12 years
@@kanhaibhatt913 Chankya in Arthashashtra mentions Alexander conquest of India. He dosent mention Porus . So if Porus has really defeated him wouldn’t that a Big news . To Alexander it was just another war . To his soldiers Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
The Truth about Alexander's defeat Alexander the Great attacked the bordering states of India in 326 BC. He had a decisive battle with the Indian king Purushottam (called Porus in Greek Texts, also called Puru) by the banks of the river Jhelum (Hydaspes as mentioned by Greek Historians). Greek historians narrate that Alexander had a decisive victory over Puru; and thereafter returned from India after his army displayed signs of home-sickness and fatigue. The Greek view of Alexander’s victory at Jhelum was generally accepted by British historians and thereafter by Indian historians who generally toe the British line. However, counter-narratives have not been given due credit, for example: Greek historian and geographer Strabo, questioned the trustworthiness of several Greek accounts on which much of this version of history is based. He complains in the Geographika that all who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvellous to the true. He writes: “Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”Egyptologist and philologist E. A. W. Budge, in his epic volume, The Life and Exploits of Alexander, has given a vivid account of the Macedonian’s misadventure in India. According to Budge, “In the Battle of Hydaspes the Indians destroyed majority of Alexander’s cavalry. Realising that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined, the Macedonian king requested Porus to stop fighting. True to their traditions, the magnanimous Indian king spared the life of the surrendered enemy. A peace treaty was signed, and Alexander helped Porus in annexing other territories to his kingdom.”In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Marshal Gregory Zhukov of USSR stated that “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. As per Marshal Zhukov, one of the finest generals of Russia ever, Alexander was decisively defeated by Puru and went back because he did not have the heart to fight the Indians. This theory in fact punctures the story of invincibility of Alexander. As per Zhukov, 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 did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine. Theafter, in May 326 BCE at the Battle of Hydaspes, he faced king Puru of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle.According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry. Another terrible weapon in the Indians’ armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.The battle was savagely fought. To cut a long story short:It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon; they killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.Puru’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount.This was a big deal. In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king’s body, let alone slay his mount.According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, “Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king”.Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Puru’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”. Says Plutarch:“The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander’s design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”The Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places“where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”. Although the historians claim Macedonian victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander’s army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world. According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”.Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers. The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander’s army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.Says Military History magazine:“Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”Alexander never recovered of wounds taken in India and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33. The Hole in the Greek Story: Why did Alexander and Puru agree to share spoils? Alexander had bought over Ambhi the king of Taxila to his side and in the war against Puru, Ambhi’s forces supported Alexander. Ambhi had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Puru’s kingdom. After the war however, Alexander allowed Puru to not only keep his own kingdom but also to usurp Ambhi’s. Does it sound counter-intuitive? Handing over an ally’s kingdom to a defeated enemy’s!! How stupid was Alexander? Fresh recruits from Macedonia were routine matter for his army and there was a system for replacement of weary troops. So, what really happened that forced him back from the borders of Indian sub-continent. There is more possibility of the history, forced on us by the rulers, to be incorrect as they wanted to glorify themselves and Westerners and laid down us as they considered us slaves, uncivilised, without knowledge, disgusting and powerless.
इतना तो बेवकूफ कोई नही होगा जो सिर्फ ग्रीक की हिस्ट्री पड़ कर मानले की Alaxendar पोरस से जीत गया था. जब ऐसा ही हुआ जैसे कोई मंदिर को मस्जिद बोल देगा और हम मानलेंगे जब तक भारत की तरफ से इतिहास में ना मिल जाए की पोरस हरा था हम कैसे मान ले
When he has quote rc majumdar . I know how it gonna be. And also trying to prove everything from Greek sources. How western call our sources myth why don't we do the same.
Porus was jat, porus is still a clan of jat and malli clan which fought for porus is again a clan of jats, punjab was land of jarta as mentioned in mahabharata, they use to live in ganas(republics) same as khap, paal or misls of sikh.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
Hecataeus Greek geographer (550 - 476 BC) was the 1st one to refer in his map Indus river and Gandarii tribe followed by Herodotus (485 - 425 BC) who mentioned Caspapyrus city along the north Bank of Indus River these were the only sources available for Alexander about the knowledge of India ...
In recent known history the first King that put a strong fight to foreign invasion was Porus , that is why love shown for him not that he belongs to a particular caste .
You need to read "Bhartiya Itihas ki Bhayankar bhulen" by P N Oak to understand how Poras defeated Alexander and not the other way around. Alexander had to leave India after that defeat and soon he died by illness. Although nothing taking away from his other victories.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
There is no proof Bindusara had that much children or sons. If he had their names should have been mentioned. This 99 brothers killing and all is from Mahavamsa which is Sri Lankan text. Ashoka did kill some brothers but not all. He killed his older brother and heir apparent Sushima in civil war for throne that is fact. But he didn't kill all his brothers. Ashoka's many own rock inscriptions mentioned him appointing his some brothers on important posts and missions. So it's crystal clear this 99 brothers killing is nonsense without any proof. There is no proof of him having that much brothers and killing them. Plus Ashoka converted to Buddhism at least 4 years before Kalinga war not after . As per Puranic evidences, Bindusara ruled for 2.5 Decades ( nearly 25 years). His death took place in about 273 B.C. immediately led war over succession. As mentioned in Divyavadana, Bindusara wanted his son Susima to succeed him however, Ashoka was the unanimous choice among his father's ministers, who found their Emperor's choice to be arrogant and disrespectful towards them. Ashokavadana recounts Radhagupta's offering of an old royal elephant to Ashoka for him to ride to the Garden of the Gold Pavilion where King Bindusara would determine his successor. Royal Minister Radhagupta seems to play a vital role in pages of history and reason behind Ashoka's rise to the throne. He was later appointed as prime minister, once Ashoka seated on throne. According to Mahavansa and Dipavansa, Ashoka killed 99 of his brothers, sparing only one, named Vitashoka or Tissa or Tishya. Please note that there is no clear proof about this incident (as mentioned in Wikipedia to it is more or less saturated with mythological elements). One more argument, which I cam across was that when prince Asoka was working as the viceroy at Ujjayini, prince Susima, the eldest son of Bindusara, was serving as his father’s viceroy at Taxila. A revolt of the people of Taxila broke out at that time for the misdeeds of the wicked officers which Susima failed to suppress. Thereupon, the Emperor sent Asoka to Taxila to suppress it which he did. Asoka thus served as the viceroy of Taxila after serving as the viceroy in Ujjayini. There is also reference to a second rebellion in Taxila which Asoka faced and suppressed. The Ceylonese (Sinhalese) Chronicles describe of a fratricidal war which followed the death of Bindusara. The chief rivals to the throne were the eldest son of the late Emperor Susima or Sumana and Asoka. The Chronicles narrate that it was fierce struggle in which Asoka won at last by killing his ninety-nine (99) brothers. He spared the life of only one brother, Tishya, who was the youngest. Such descriptions of Ashoka’s cruelty were perhaps motivated exaggerations on part of the Buddhist writers who wanted to show Asoka as a Chandasoka before he became a Buddhist and turned into a Dharmasoka. According to Taranatha, the Tibetan writer, Asoka killed six (6) brothers to capture the throne. It is most probable that there was a war of succession for which Asoka’s coronation was delayed for four years. Between his accession to the throne in 273 B.C. and his coronation for appointment as king in 269 B.C. four years after his succession to the throne. As per a site known as History Discussion, Historians believe that there was a war of succession which ended in the victory of Asoka. However, Buddhist legends about his cruelty and about his killing of as many as 99 brothers do not seem to possess historical substance.
Very thoughtful and informative analysis of history, insightful as to how history has been put together… Porous Jatt … hilarious … popular culture corrupts history….
😂😂 there are literal clans who trace their ancestry back to poras himself In the region of bulandshahr and west up they are 'poras' and in shekhawati they are poraswal
One more reason to conclude Alexander was defeated by Porus is that if Alexander won then why he hasn't looted Porus's kingdom as India was wealthy at that time.🧐
Yes, and also the fact that indian texts doesn't mention alexander at all also seem to show that alexander was only a trivial issue for them, which can not be said about someone who defeated their strong kingdoms and razed an entire city to the ground. He could be a trivial issue only when he was defeated and his threat repelled before causing any large political upheavel. It is very possible that alexander might had been defeated by some Indian king (not necessarily porus), and allowed to return back safely to his kingdom, as has been the tradition with Indian kings even later on. This might had caused such a setback to alexander that he became ill and soon died later. Of course, greek texts would only write what alexander and his men would had told them back home. problem is that today's historians are completely dependent on greek texts for this history. True history can only come out when some other corroborative non-greek texts are found and get translated.
@@samayturki Porus wasn't a small tribal chief lol, he was a full fledged sovereign king in North West and his kingdom though limited by rivers on either sides was a very powerful one on that too, haan uski dynasty ke records ya inscriptions kuchh mile nhi iska mtlab ye nahi ki vo ya to exist hi nahi karta tha ya irrelevant chhota sa tribal chief tha, Elephant corp afford karna kisi Tribal chief ke bas ki baat nahi hoti, 17 century AD tak nahi thi, jo ki horse raiders bhi 200 ke upar afford nahi kar sakte. Plus Porus ke paas Lord Balbhadra ke banners the, jisko Greeks Heracles samajh rhe the, Koi tribal chief banner leke Pitched battle ke liye nahi aata, tribal chiefs sirf raids karte aaye hain historically aur to aur Porus aur Alexander ke bich discussion bhi hua tha to Alexander ne Porus ko as a King treat kiya tha aur use apne saath join hone ka invitation diya tha, tribal chief ke hone na hone se koi farak nahi padhta Alexander ko
o sochta tha ki isse lade to itna maaraa hum logo ko or andar jayenge or kon kon Raja kitna maarega,uske or uske sena mann mey darr baith gaya tha,,warna jo duniya ko jeetna chahata tha o kaise lotgaya Bharat ko jeete bina🚩jo jeeta o Raja Porus🚩
Romila Thapar mentions that the story of Yudhisthir from Mahanharat is inspired by Budhidm (dharm). Interestingly she does not mention any source for ut. Do we have sny primary source for this theory.
First point; As to why Alexander was ignorant of Nand Empire? When in the East a great empire was existing, it cannot be unknown to the western Indian people. Second point: Alexander's army had not travelled short distance from the Greece to India. His army had travelled thousands of miles. His army had passed through the countries having extreme weathers. It was as if trained for different weather. Many other emperors had even greater empire than Alexander. e.g. Chengiz Khan. No great emperor had stopped their march for "Army Tired" - reason. Third point: Has Alexander made such a treaty with a defeated king other than Poras? Why Alexander should make a treaty with Poras? Forth Point: Was it the first time in Indian History that elephants were used in a battle, and the first time the battle took place in monsoon. The soil of the battle field became slippery only for Elephants and for comparatively light weighted horses it was not slippery. Actually light weighted the soil has to be slippery that gigantic weighted Elephants. Elephants were being used by the kings from the time immemorial. Such slippery cause has not be recorded in before and past of a battle between Alexander and Poras. Fift point: It is very common that Alexander and his army was afraid and scared of Nand's large army containing thousands of Elephant, when Poras a comparatively a very small king gave them a tough fight.
Ye bhi ho sakta hai ki porus k saath match tie ho gya ho aur usne aage jane ti sart rakhi ho bina porus ko kuuch kahe .. par baad me greeks ki fatt k chaar ho gyi aur lahore k paas se u turn maar bhagg gye . Only greek sources can not be trusted . Koi bji jeeti hui army stay karti asse hi dum dabake nhi bhagti . Mughal , british , turk sabhi stay kiya . Jeet k koi nhi bhagta
Alexander bahut chalak tha, usne dekha uski defeat ho rahe hai to aage badhne ke liye usne sandhi kar li, phir age gaya to pata chala nando ki sena to bahut badi hai, wo khudh dar gaya par ilzam apne soldiers pe laga dia kyunki face saving karni thi, Seleucus Alexander se zyada intelligent tha, use pata tha kab kisse kya fayda ho sakta tha
55.30 mins......ashok was made Shatrapala of Ujjain, after he suppressed the revolt of Takshashila,......takshashila revolt was silenced without any arms or without any Sastras Jai Nepal 🇳🇵 Jai Nepal 🇳🇵
What a foolish question like why Ashok is so famous in Indian history? Sir ,don't try negate Ashok only because he was a Buddhist. Buddhism is derived from Hinduism and Ashok is the identity of India, Nobody has made India so famous as Ashok did and the rest is history.
@@vaibhav_Jat still better than 17th century churu chanaks tate 🤣 your guys are nothing more than servant of my clan le vajbhav jhangalas ancestors before 17th century sar muhh bandhua mandir plz give us land 🤣 claiming ancestory known as chandal sudras after democracy we wazzz decendant of porus king 🤣 still we want reservation 🤡 pajeets
@@VELTROS ye kab huya sainiput genetics 🧬 article padh ke aa thode ab hmm andvashwas se dur karege toh bhrahman toh ek books me ulta toh likhege hi sainiput, mughalput,baniyaput aur zameen toh hamare pass phele se hi hai ye kab huya jo toh muhje bata raha hai sainiputro ne new theory nikali hai kya🙃
I think the reason why people say that Porus defeated Alexander is because 1. Taxila University which is close by at that time they never mentioned Porus. 2. Chanakya who wrote Arthashastra didn't mention Porus.
Taxila University didn't write any history in general, it's main focus would've been religion, philosophy and maths/science. What other historical text do you find in India at that time? To say that indians didn't "mention " something
@@phanboichau8498 Ashoka write about his time after 50 years of Alexander invasion. Invasion of Alexander is a major event and we in India didn't mention that like it never happened. As far as Alexander is concerned, it's written about 300 after his death. Lots of questions and very few answers that too in assumptions
Hindus can't digest alexander defeated porus... unbaised historian clearly mention bout defeat of porus, Many hindu youtubers try nd promote that alexander was defeated the irony is they r neither a historian nor ASI peer... jst bc they cant digest they make fiction what suits them
@@nidhimagon4469 Dumbo , people didnt even knew brahmi , britishers cracked the script . Love them or hate them, britishers have contribution in indian history is remarkable
Chandragupta Maurya DID NOT become a Jain and go and die in Shravanabelagola. It is his great-grandson Samprati Chandragupta who did that. None of the historians (including RC Majumdar) say that the first Chandragupta became Jain. All sources point to the fact that he followed Vedic religion all his life.
Porus was Parmanand or purushottam chand katoch a Rajput ruler ruling over kangra,kashmir & punjab, he defeated Alexander & few greek generals even fled to remote places of Himalayas & still there're several villages in & around Himalayas whome confirm this theory till date, Few people consider themselves as historians by reading authors whom were limited in their's frame of knowledge & experience as RCMAJUMDAR
@@Playerone1287 in ancient period rajputs were known as kshatriya with different lineages, if you doesn't have any iot of idea about the ancestral history of Indian autocracy kindly don't even bother to even say anything about it
@@Playerone1287 what does a word rajput implies?? Raja ka poot, son of the ruler, Basically those of clans associated with lineages of kshatriyas since vedic era & even beyond are considered as Rajputs
अशोक के पत्थर और उत्कृष्ट वाष्टुहिल्प के परम नमूना को तो भूल ही गए भई ..बोध गया का विशाल मंदिर जो अशोक ने बनवाया था । हड़प्पा हड़प्पा सभ्यता लोग रटते रहते गईं सिर्फ़ इस लिये की वहाँ खुदाई काफ़ी हुए । मगर अयोध्या वाराणसी गया राजगीर और संपूर्ण उत्तर विहार नेपाल की तराई से हिंदुस्तान की सभ्यता पैदा हुए है और वहाँ सिर्फ़ नाम मात्र खुदाई हुए है । नालंदा विश्वविद्यालय ही सिर्फ़ ३ प्रतिशत अभी तक खोदा गया है । आजतक उसकी वो ३ लायब्रेरिया नहीं मिली जो नौ मंज़िलों की थी ! राजगृह ही अपने में हज़ारों राज लपेट के बैठा है जहां ढंग से खुदाई आज तक नहीं हुए है । पाषाण युग का एक दीवार बताते हैं वहाँ जो चाइना वाल के बाद सबसे लंबी दीवार मानी जाती है , उसपे कोई रिसर्च नहीं । सिर्फ़ राजगीर ही खोद को ढंग से तो ना जाने कितना बड़ा इतिहास हिंदुस्तान का उजागर हो जायेगा । वहीं सबसे प्राचीन स्टूप भी मिला था जिसके बुद्ध के अस्थि को रखा गया था , वो भी गलती से। रेलवे लाइन बिछाने के लिए खुदाई शुरू हुए और नज़ारा सामने निकल आया । गया से पटना के बीच में तो अशोक ने न जाने कितने अभिलेख लिख रखे हैं । ख़ास करके बाराबर गुफाओं में । अशोक ही अशोक हो जैसे हर तरफ़ । जबकि वहाँ साक्ष्य प्रमाण हैं उससे भी प्राचीन बृहद्रथ, जरासंध और हिरण्ययाक साम्राज्य के और उसपे भी न के बराबर काम किया गया है । आज पटना में मेट्रो निर्माण के लिए खुदाई हो रही है । न जाने कितने पुरातन अवशेष मिल सकते हैं । लेकिन न ASI न सरकार उसपे सोच रही है ।
44:37 In all probabilities it is possible that maybe Chandragupta Maurya gave his daughter or sister's hand to Selucus in marriage but the thing is that there is no source or text about Selucus Nicator that mentions an Indian Princess do people usually assume that the Dynastic Intermarriage went the other way around with either Chandragupta or his son Bindusara marrying a Selucid Princess.
Chandragupta defeated Seleucus, to secure the borders he demanded lands and his daughter's hand in marriage. Seleucus wasn't ready but when he saw his life was in danger he demanded elephants to defeat his enemies in west. It was a good deal for Chandragupta because in that way his borders would be secured from invasions and he made sure the Seleucid empire remained a vassal of Mauryans. This decision of Chandragupta was very visionary and shows his skills as an emperor. He gave full respect to his Persian queen which actually shows that the Mauryan empire was quite progressive.
कुछ इतिहासकार कहते हैं कि सिकंदर भारत तक पहुंचा ही नहीं था तो पोरस ने हराने का कोई सवाल ही पैदा नहीं होता। जब वह आया ही नहीं था तो पोरस ने शादी में सिकंदर को बेटी देने का भी सवाल नहीं पैदा होता।
Gajab irony hai … Jo Alexander kisi raja ko nahi baksha, kisi City ko nahi chhora… woh Porus ko mukt kar deta hai. What is the reason that we need to trust on Greek Indicas and left historians?? And isn’t it possible that Jhelum and Bias river changed their path in past 2000 years???
@@ApophaticMystic 😂 😂 lol Alexander was nothin but a rat Indian historians didn't even wrote anything about him proof he got belted by porus Later his general by the great Chandragupt Maurya 😂😂😂😂
Alexander did not defeat Porus. Ambhi aided Alexander and they lost. That is why Porus acquired Ambhis region. It is not beleivable that Alexander wins and gives Ambhis territory to Porus. Historians should not take foreign accounts at face value but analyse them. It is not that Indians did not have records. They did but as you know millions of books in Takshila and Nalanda and other Universities were burned.
@@anoop61284 There are many reasons why the foreign account of Alex vs Porus is constructed. How could Alexander the Great go back and recount a defata? Could he?
In trying to figure out who this Indian king Sandrocottos (Alexander's contemporary) could be, William Jones referred to our Puranas and the kings' lineages mentioned therein. Now Puranic lineages stop at Andhra Saatvahan dynasty and up to this point there was only one Chandragupt (Maurya). However, there have been 2 more kings with the same name as Chandragupt AFTER the Andhra Saatvahan dynasty -- Chandragupt-I of the Gupt dynasty and his grandson Chandragupt-II. Since these 2 Chandraguptas were not mentioned in the Puranas, William Jones was not aware of them, hence assumed Chandragupt Maurya as the Sandrocottos mentioned in Greek sources. There was no other basis behind setting this arbitrary sheet anchor for ancient Indian history.
There used to be nothing like surnames in India before Britishers. There were name of kul, profession, location they belongs to Our ancestors used those names either before individual name or after. When Britishers starts registering people and conducting census here in India. Surname were made compulsory, so people had to find some names accordingly
![MISSING: SLIM SHADY [Expanded Mourner’s Edition Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8qgHrOO1g/mqdefault.jpg)
रोमिला थापर ने कहा है कि धर्मराज युधिष्ठिर को सम्राट अशोक से प्रेरणा मिली थी और राममंदिर के संदर्भ में भी कई झूठ कही है इसलिए कृपया रोमिला थापर का जिक्र अपनी चर्चाओं में ना करें अन्यथा आपका अध्ययन शंकित हो जाएगा ।
बहुत सुन्दर सुरु से अंत आपने भारत, भारतीय शासक, भारतीय संस्कृती, भारतीय स्थापयत कला, भारतीय इतिहासकार और सनातन धर्म को डिसक्रेडिट करने रोमिला थापर और विदेशी इतिहासकार को महान साबित करने का प्रयास!
Proud of bihars history but present condition of bihar is very sad. Lowest per capita income in India is of bihar 😭😭
That's how the great Magadh got destroyed into being Bihar today now
Bihar now lacking because of politician of bihar....!! Like lalu yadav...nitish kumar...tejasvi yadav....corruption and gangster destroying bihar...!!
Toh bhai vote matt Dena nitish ko aur kya
I recently read a tweet saying that Bihar can't prosper because there's flood half of the year and basically Bengal has declined and jharkhands resources are not with Bihar.
Is it right?
Anyways the biggest reason we all know is bihars political parties and stupid leaders and caste politics.
@@abhilash9918 whole of east India has declined
Most ridiculous thing is
They want to justify that
Just because of continuos battle their soldiers got frustrated and tired
They decided to go back
😂
You want us to believe this huh ?
😁😂🤣
So why didn't maurya Empire take over all of asia?
@@PriceyTomato they believe in Arya culture and a concept of Dharma. Those who didn't follow the civilization of Arya culture were termed as 'Yavana' and 'mlechha' .
Specifically talk about Maurya they spread Dharma (defined by buddha) throughout the south asia including China.
India never had policy of expansion.
Here in India conquerers are not termed as great just because he had conquered huge landmass.
Just see the barbarity and heinous crimes committed by Alexander meanwhile his conquest. Yet he is termed as Great
@@KetanJayade china isn't geographically attested in south asia.
"India never had policy of expansion"
Is that why mauryans stalemate at eastern Afghanistan with seleucus?
Or is that why Rajendra Chola’s Naval Conquest Of South-East Asia happened?
Or are you coming from a group who thinks that when Indian expansion is thwarted it's "india never had policy of expansion" and when Indian expansion is successful it's "foreign powers were weak in front of us"?
Talking about barbaric invasion
Ever heard of begal massacre by marathas? Or The Ashoka-vadana recounts how Ashoka once had 18,000 Ajivikas in Bengal put to death in a single episode?
Dhamma of ashoka was notorious for forcefully converting people into buddhism.
@@tonmoy1549 ??
and you want everyone to believe that porus defeat alexzander the great but allowed his gen. to rule over lands around river khelum and river Ravi.
अगर सिकंदर जीता तो उसने राजा पोरस को जिंदा कैसे छोड़ दिया। जिसने अपने सगे भाइयों को मार डाला वो अपने शत्रु को जिंदा छोड़ रहा है जिस शत्रु ने उसको इतना नुकसान पहुंचाया
Har koi nafrat ka Ghulam nhi hota .. jaise Mafiveer tha .. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Prithviraj ne bhi dushman ko jeevan daan diya tha .. Alexander ne bhi de diya ..
Tumhari kyu jal gayi ? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@amitarora7466aap ki kyo jal gayi agar Poras jit gaya ye bolde to.
@@Bhavesh_Joshi Jab Porus nhi jeeta to kyu maan le?
Itni zyada aag lagi hai mirchi se .. ki Porus ki haar bardasht nhi ho rhi. 🤣😂🤣😂
Ab ye bhi bol de ki Mughals bhi haar kar wapis chale gye the 😂🤣😂🤣
" kuch log mahan the, aur kuch logo ko mahan banaya gya. "
Aap kis ki baat kar rahe ho
@@gauravmekade7704 ashok maybe
@@Panku619 kya matlab
@@gauravmekade7704 Ashok ko mahan bnaya gya hai wo bolna chahre hai
@@Panku619 baat to sahi he
Par aap aurangjeb ke bare me kya soch rakhte he
18:52 sorry, but sources mil bhi jaye to nahi accept karenge as the academia , especially the social sciences, they just pat each others back , and still see the western manipulations of the colonial era as the infallible truth . To do away with the AIT , it took so so long and yet it’s a half measure.
🙏
Lol,Indians don't mention porus
I like the way he gave proper references, makes it more credible.
Great conversation. Really happy that you'll be making series of podcasts with Jay.
Turki?? Ye kaisa surname hai
@@Playerone1287 Xavier kaisa firstname hai?
@@DharmRakshak2 shandar
Interestingly my father's name is also Ashok, and both my father and mother didn't know that Ashoka's son was Kunal. My teacher who is a Jaina told me this fact.
Rahul and sanghamitra
@@debasissarangi4404 I think it was Mahendra and Sanghmitra who went to Sri Lanka. Rahul was lord Buddha's son.
Jayvardhan ko ek source batana tha IIT kharagpur ka ek professor ka kehna hai ki sandrocottas was neither changragupt nor samudragupt...He was rather a king from undivided bengal region whose name was chandraketu...And archeological sources have also found the site "chandra ketu garh" which is older than mauryan era...and Greeks called bengal as gangaridai ...Sadly historians and archeologists are not working on it...Because of some literary and regional biases 🙏🏻
@Adwait Vedant are you talking about that Tharki Prashant😁
@@pppeeeeeeeeeeeee 😁😵💫🙃
Gangaridai identity is not confirmed. And the professor must be Bengali? Right? That's why making jingoistic Bengali claims.
@@piyushjaiswal9283 gangaridai was Nanda
Professor at eye eye tea aren't historian's, unse research ki jaati nahi apne fields Mai dusro ke fields mei gaand ghusate han
Nothing new in the talk. All old recording with one sided information! Even Hollywood did better research!
😊😅😮good joke
One sided matlab Greeks ko tumne kab interview Kiya ? Huthiye 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Isko Greek source pa pura bharosa hai par India source pe nahi jazab ke hypocrisy hai... a be West ka gulam hai😂😂😂😂😂
भाई ये बता रहे हैं कि एलेक्जेंडर पर भारतीय संदर्भ उपलब्ध नहीं है इसीलिए केवल ग्रीक संदर्भ बताए जा रहे हैं।
No contemporary Indian source mentions Alexander and Porus.
lol...he's a professional historian not fake nationalist propagandist.
@@jagbirsinghmann1966 That's why Shivanand is saying it. Indians have the largest volume of recorded texts/history and scripture of all the civilisations in the world, the fact that alxander episode appears negligibly in Indian texts is solid evidence that greeks over inflated it and disorted the whole fiasco.
Gadhe mahasya humare souce to 15th century k baad k hai. Whatsapp university se history padhoge to yhi hoga. History is based on facts not assumption.
मार्कंडेय पुराण में कहां लिखा है कि ये राक्षस थे जैसा आपने कहा।
मेरे पास मार्कंडेय पुराण है परन्तु आपकी कही बात उसमे नही है।
मेरे पास तीन वॉल्यूम का मार्कंडेय पुराण है।
It's Interesting lots of History revolves around modern-day Odisha...More specifically the South & the Northeastern side of India which was the strategic backyard of western Indians more like Aincent India was like the Russian Empire which napoleon thought he could conquer...I mean according to Vardhan ji seems like Alexander thought he won half of India is not the truth seems like It was reached a level of stalemate between the two armies I mean marriage treaty ka kiya matlab hai...Edit: Note Western historian still take Alexander's history very seriously because for them Alexander was their first white land conqueror from the west but if that is so then half of the land conquered on earth are by non-white best example is Changez Khan because he is non-white they present him like barbarian but not an emperor from a modern civilization so do the rest of the math and calculate how western historian sees Aincent India from their perspective...
Nice thoughts dhost. Aap ne aache points baniya
Changez khan didn’t command in most of their war . Mongols has 4 Dogs of War , generals like Sabutai . Alexander is famous coz he was the first to capture the Civilisation of Greek , Levant , Egypt, Anatolia , Babylon, Mesopotamia, Persia , Central Asia . Mongols were defeated in Egypt and Hungary .
सिर्फ़ एक सवाल क्या शत्रु लेखक हमारे नायकों के साथ अपनी लेखनी में न्याय करेगे?
Learning from this podcast: beware of confident and convincing narration of history.
Correct.
Guest from JNU what do you expect.
Male version of Romila Thapar
Interestingly, Bucephalus (Alexander's horse) died in what is now Punjab, Pakistan, after the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC. (From Wikipedia)
It also said that he built a city after his horse, at the confluence of two rivers, but the city was never again found.
@@namankandpal2095 yes , may we follow Greek sources but we can't disagree of Interpolations . This podcast was somewhat left leaning, they said that we as a culture have habit of Interpolations but the thing here is that Greeks too interpolated many things , Diodorus the first ever person who wrote about Alexander had included many things that r distorted and sounds mythical. His works sounds very supremacist
@@thealchemist100 Yes Greeks were actually known to distort history herodotus was known as a father of history and in his book he mentions some 3 eye devils 😂
These people atleast do their homework before starting podcast. If you little search in google about Pauravas, katoch dynasty or tirgata dynasty(Trigarta refers to the land between three rivers, namely, Beas, Sutlej, and Ravi) and it's territory, Mangala fort The town of Mangla was named after Mangla Devi, ruled by king Kshatriya Raja Porus(Brother of King Porus, Porus was not the name of king but Greek name of word Paurva tribe). you people will get all your answers. Tirgata kingdom had territory started from Multan, jalandhar, kangra, indora(where porus fought against invading army of Alexander) Jammu till POK(where Mangala fort situated). Beas river merged with Satluj river near Amritsar. And don't even enter in Pakistan...these people don't even has knowledge of geography and they have become historians. If you have any doubt about above I will explain to you..
@@nareshsharma6526 Bro the man in podcast doing his PhD from jawaharlal nehru University on history what could we expect from him 😅
@vaad ...call Abhijit chavda sir ...
He is not a historian. So why call him?
Doesn't matter who won who lost... Maybe porus won and we had the histories but we did a poor historiography and could not tell, maybe Alexander won but if we ask time, the civilization which porus belonged to is still Surviving, the civilization which Alexander belonged to is surviving only in marvel Cinematic universe.
Even Marvel comics will make them more Western European. Greek history ka englishization hua he.
@@Narimannanglicization*
Jaivardhan is answering d doubts of a history research scholar.
I appreciate both of you.
In case of porus, the question comes not being hurt but of logic.
The Alexander who was so brutal that he used to finish entire tribes become so impressed with Porus answer that he not only left him alive and returned him his kindom but even gave him kindom of ambhi..
This sound ridiculous. All we have is some greek sources making hype of alexander.
Even the Russian general have doubted the claim.
There is an interesting book Elephant Medallion which raises some interesting question.
The question also comes that why some important has not being mentioned in Indian source despite Taxila university being in such close distance.
So the entire story sound illogical.
Why would the Greeks hype Alexander?
Alexander spared 3 kings beside porus. Porus wasn't the only one
Was Porus from Puru dynasty mentioned in Mahabharata? And is this the same dynasty as the katoch dynasty of today’s Kangra in HP?
Yep
They are samw
The Puru tribe is mentioned in the Vedas.
@@indrajeet yes
No puru as named purushottam
Kuru kingdom is situated at deli kurukshetra region
Next Rajiv Mishra 🌟 auther of vishela vampanth
Bahut achha Discussion. Aise discussion bar bar dekhne ko nhi milti
Aise baat ek bench Constitute of Good Historians + a Researchers Like this , could have been a Encyclopaedia. Any way very very good effort. Keep it up. 👍🙏
Your researcher clearly did not study the text of Pseudo-Callisthenes, which says Porus dominated Alexander.
यस
lol
Jin 18 logo ne ise like kiya unhe pta bhi nhi hai ki ye bnda kon hai
@@Playerone1287 too bata de.
Concern yeh hai yhn ki jo sb mannyavaar jay sahab ne bataya whi sb to Western historian kafi time se chipka rhe hai, or jb baat aayi ki battle kon jita he said Alexander jeeta 😗😶 4 sbdo m baat khatam, to isme alag kya tha, debate to yhi hai nhh ki porus jeeta tha, or the way he said resources laao, 100 saal se aayi baat ki porus jeeta usse pehle nhi tha to strabo ancient greek historian ne to likha hi hai iss baare m jo 2000 saal pehle ki baat hai
But fact hai ki Bharat k itihaas m porus k baare m kuchh mention nhi hai karan ho sakta hai ki vo rajya porus ka itna mention krne yogya naah rha ho, vo to Greeks ne unnecessarily glorify kiya porus ko which was later copied by the historians of colonial era and still uttering the BS.
Mere hisaab se porus bs 1 chota sa raja (chieftain) tha jisse alexender haar gya uski khud ki military k karan or porus k sahas k karan or Babylon m ja kr mrityu ko prapt hua, and #the great alexender ko hara hua naah dikhe Greeks wrote this BS.
@Патрико Владимир(Tsar) yeah this could be the another possibility that the war never happened, since there is no archeological and literally evidence till now.
Should've attached a map of rivers in the Punjab but anyways he narrated it pretty well
Greek historians refer to the river “Errannaboas”. In all probability, Errannaboas derived from Yamuna-Sarasvati. Historians speculated Errannaboas as Hiranyabahu but no such name of a River ever mentioned in Indian literature. Shone river was never referred to as Hiranyabahu. Megasthanes refers to Sone river in another context because Sone river flowed through the kingdom of Shonabhadra. Therefore, it is totally absurd to identify Sone River as Errannaboas. Undoubtedly, Errannaboas was Yamuna-Sarasvati and the confluence of Rivers mentioned by Greek historians was the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna at Prayag. In ancient times, Pratishthanapura was located close to Prayag which was the capital of Chandravamsi kings. Historians have identified Jhusi to be Pratishthanapura. The Chinese
translation of “Life of Vasubandhu” has assumed A-yu-ja to be Ayodhya. If we add “P”, it can be Pa-yu-ja or Prayaga. Thus, Pratishthanapura or Prayagabhadra or Ayodhya can be identified as Polibothra. Possibly, Shonebhadra was called Honebhadra in Gandhara and Persia. Gradually, the transliteration in Greek script might have evolved Honebhadra into Polibothra. Evidently, King Chandra, Chandragupta Vikramaditya and Chandraprakasha Baladitya must be
identified as Xandremes, Sandrokottus and Allitrochades respectively. They probably belonged to the Chandra vamsa or Lunar dynasty. Vasubandhu was the minister of King Chandraprakasha Baladitya. Polibothra was Prayagabhadra or Pratishthanapura or Ayodhya or Shonabhadra. Gandaridae was Gandhara not Gangaridae Western historians have translated Gandaridae as Gangaridae and speculated the region of Ganga River to be as Gangaridae. Greek historians mention that Sandokottus was the king of Gandaridae and Prasii. Prasii (Prachi) was the name of eastern India. King Chandra or Xandrames crossed Sindhu (Indus) and conquered the parts of Gandhara and Bahlika kingdom as recorded
in the Iron Pillar inscription. Therefore, Gandaridae must be Gandhara Kingdom and not the region of Ganga River. It may be noted that a king who controlled the Gandhara Kingdom can only be in conflict with Seleucus Nicator, the King of Syria and Parthia. There is no evidence that Alexander or Seleucus ever crossed over Sindhu (Indus). Porus, the later descendant of Paurava Chandra Vamsi king was ruling over northern Pakistan, Bactria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan etc. He
was controlling the traditional silk route. In all probability, Porus fought a battle against Alexander on the bank of Hydaspes (Jhelum) and defeated him. There is a serious need to study once again the original Greek texts to understand the episode of Porus-Alexander conflict. Moreover, Megasthanes mentions that Porus was greater than Sandrokottus.
The Marriage alliance Strabo says that the Indians possess partly some of the countries lying along Indus, but these belonged formerly to the Persians. Alexander took them away from the Arianoi and established in them colonies of his own. Seleucus Nikator gave them to Sandrokottus in concluding a marriage alliance, and received in exchange 500 elephants. In all probability, Arianoi is the region of Khurasan closer to Kandhar. It appears that Seleucus was desperate to get elephants because he realized the importance of elephantry in battle field.
Most probably, Seleucus negotiated with Sandrokottus for 500 elephants. He has sent Megasthanes to negotiate the deal.
The Sakas or Skythians of Northern side of India Megasthanes says that the Sakas or Skythians were living in the northern side of India; “India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai.Evidnetly, Megasthanes indicates the kingdom of Kushanas in the northwestern India. Sakas and Kushanas had common origin and they belonged to ancient Kamboja clan. The Andhrae According to Pliny, Megasthanes described 30 walled cities of the Andrae. Evidently, Andrae were the Andhra Kings or Shatavahana Kings. It may be noted that Simuka was not the first king of Shatavahanas. Simuka was the first Shatavahana king who conquered Magadha around 830 BCE and founded his dynasty. There was Shatavahana kings existed in the South before Simuka. Five of these walled cities of the Andhras (Satavahanas) have been excavated in Dhulikatta, Karimnagar District. All Puranas refer to Shatavahana kings as Andhra kings. Shatavahanas did not exist during the period of Mauryas. Asoka refers to Chola, Chera, Pandya etc. kings of South in his inscriptions. There is no mention of Andhra kings. Shatavahanas lost their kingdom in the south before the rise of the Gupta dynasty. Thus, Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I cannot be identified as Sandrokottus.
Bhai aap kaha se kaha pahuch gaye intellectual dikhne me chakkar me.
@@tonmoy1549 please do not say " kaha se kaha pahuch gaye intellectual dikhne me chakkar me" many thing stated above is true; if you have some tangible information then please share. It is about sharing information.
Polibothra? It's clear cut patliputra. Not any eastern UP kingdom.
@@piyushjaiswal9283 nope
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 patliputra and patlibothra. Are pretty apparently the only names that are close and similar. You can praisthanpur doesn't even come close.
This is by far one of the most useful and informative video on the channel
Isse zyada info wiki pe available hai 😐😔🤣
@@lucymiyu5754 Maine video Kahan text nhi....🤣
@@shiv6680 🙄
@@lucymiyu5754 Wikipidea par nahi likha ki alexander ka reference harshcharita mein hai
Ye banda toh seedha seedha foreigners ki hi history bata raha hai ....
Isme Naya kya hai ....
भाई साहब जब कोई भी रिसर्च करता है तो उसको खोजी होना चाहिए।क्या ये प्रश्न नही होता कि जितने भी सोर्सेज हैं वो उन्ही के हैं जो खुद को विजेता कह रहे हैं।क्या आप उसी की बात पे विश्वास कर लेंगे?ऐसा क्यों नहीं हो सकता की सिकंदर बुरी तरह हारा हो ,तभी तो आगे बढ़ने की जगह कोई वापसी करेगा।अब उसके आदमी तो बहाना बताएंगे ही।आपको कोई और सोर्स ढूंढने चाहिए।जो ग्रीक बोल रहे हैं वही बताएंगी तो कोई भी पढ़ सकता है,नया क्या पढ़ा फिर? कोई विश्व विजेता शहर के शहर तबाह करने वाला क्रूर राजा भारत आया,,जीता ,,पोरस की बातों से प्रभावित हुआ,,फिर वापसी,सेना की थकान,,,सब बहने लगते हैं. वो इतना क्रूर था , हराने के बाद गर्दन नही छोड़ता सर पे पोरस की।।महान नही था।।।सब भ्रम है,सच्ची सोर्सेज ढूंढिए।🙏
Jay Vardhan was My Junior in MA History 4 Years Ago 😌😌😌 How Time Flies ☺️
@@lucymiyu5754 I Beg To Differ on This Opinion of Yours..
@@lucymiyu5754 that's because you are Chaddi sanghi who thinks Porus defeated Alexander
@@rishavkumar1250 stop cursing and abusing without knowing the background of sanghiis. Research without prejudice about their accomplishments and their contribution to the society. Come out of the prejudiced opinion. It has become a fashion with a woke generation to abuse anyone without reading the correct sources.
@@nidhimagon4469 Nidhi Ji Aapne Shandaar Jawaab Diya Hain 🏆🥇
@@nidhimagon4469 आर, एस, एस, समाज में घृणा, नफरत और साम्प्रदायिकता के साथ साथ फासीवादी विचार देश में थोपने के प्रयास के अतिरिक्त और कुछ भी नहीं कर रहा है..
On my visit to Peris, Versailles Mesuim, I view 2 big paintings in which Greek King Alakjendra riding horse talking to injured fallen King Porus in battle field.
There can't be similarities drawn between aurangzeb and Great Ashoka....the earlier was using religion to butcher civilians, had no respect for morals in war and destroyed 1000s of hindu sacred temples in the name of religion. His intent was henious. YOU SHOULD BRING IN NEERAJ ATRI FOR DISCUSSION OR SUBSCRIBE TO SANGAM TALKS FOR CORRECT HISTORY AND NOT JUST KHOKHALA GYAAN BY A PAPLU...
The host was the one who made the comparison not the guest.
Hi sir your voice is very sweet
Love form Mumbai Maharashtra
🔥🚩🚩🚩🚩
Jay shivray
Ruthless Alexander fought the bloodiest battle of his life he won and head back home, Seems like a Bollywood script.
Nadir shah also returned back after fighting mughals. Abdali returned back after fighting marathas. Taimur left after fighting till Haridwar. Everyone returns.
@@anoop61284 tho yei per dada the ek dusre ke mederchod
@@anoop61284 Nadir Shah came to pillage not rule. Same with Taimur.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
very very interesting...kept me captivated thru out. Interesting because Jay Singh ji quoting references from various sources and that makes this podcast informative and interesting.
Interesting podcast!
Poras was important In Indian History because He was the one who fought tooth & nail with the Greeks.His Mighty army of Elephants was fearful for Greeks ,who had never saw such a thing. Alexander's Historian had written in detail about the war between the two. Though Porus was defeated .But His True King like behaviour earned respect of the Enemy .
His original indian name is Purushottam & he belongs from Paurav kshahtriya clan.
Elephants were earlier used by Persians too in their wars with Alexander at Battle of Gaugamela.
@@royarnab26 did you have any archeological evidence or contemporary indian historian to prove your argument
Otherwise don't spread rumors
@@GOLDROGER-xt3bx Oh come on... U don't want to recognize one of the Great warrior of his time... That's your problem & problem with people who see history with a different lens 👓
@@royarnab26 i saw history with the lens of evidence and support as nd with logic
You people just see it with dogmatic religious view and what can feel you you proud you just follow your emotion does not even digest how can you people's avoid the evidence ,
May be you don't know
Sagala was not completely destroyed. It was revived and was the capital of many Indo-Greek Kingdoms including King Menander (Malinda). It is believed that Sagala is modern day SiyalKot.
About the detailed source about Chandragupt having been written in 10th century AD, it is just that this one was found. Normally, the medium on which a text was written will deteriorate with time and so copies are made from the earlier one. It doesn't mean that the original text was composed in tenth century AD!! If it is detailed, the original composition must have been prepared during the time of Chandragupt or it used multiple preexisting sources originally composed during the time of Chandragupt!!
Best podcast in India
44 min तक सुना, फिर लगा सब अपने अपने हिसाब से सपने बुना है
Subscribed Jay’s Absolutely Wonderful Channel…
style is change but dream is not change
Trigartha was the empire which has three Major towns known as present day Kangra, Jalandhar and Multan. It's capital was Kangra. Probably Alexander was defeated in this area that's why he returned from Beas. Because after Victory their was no point in withdrawal as done by Alexander.
Victory is a common thing for Alexanders army, so a victory didn't affect his decision. He's return because of his devastative army who are marching and in battles for long 12 years
Porous was Puru king. The great kingdom in which Rigveda was composed.
Mighty king of Punjab 💪
Whether Alexander defeated Porus or was defeated by him has mo answer. Its inconclusive.
It's conclusive. He defeated porus
@@anoop61284 No its not. Show me victory plaques, reliefs, murals, coins from India itself then
@@anoop61284
Alexander was defeated.
@@kanhaibhatt913 Chankya in Arthashashtra mentions Alexander conquest of India. He dosent mention Porus . So if Porus has really defeated him wouldn’t that a Big news . To Alexander it was just another war . To his soldiers Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
@@kanhaibhatt913Aq to you Chandragupta defeated seleucus???
The Truth about Alexander's defeat
Alexander the Great attacked the bordering states of India in 326 BC. He had a decisive battle with the Indian king Purushottam (called Porus in Greek Texts, also called Puru) by the banks of the river Jhelum (Hydaspes as mentioned by Greek Historians). Greek historians narrate that Alexander had a decisive victory over Puru; and thereafter returned from India after his army displayed signs of home-sickness and fatigue.
The Greek view of Alexander’s victory at Jhelum was generally accepted by British historians and thereafter by Indian historians who generally toe the British line. However, counter-narratives have not been given due credit, for example:
Greek historian and geographer Strabo, questioned the trustworthiness of several Greek accounts on which much of this version of history is based. He complains in the Geographika that all who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvellous to the true. He writes: “Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”Egyptologist and philologist E. A. W. Budge, in his epic volume, The Life and Exploits of Alexander, has given a vivid account of the Macedonian’s misadventure in India. According to Budge, “In the Battle of Hydaspes the Indians destroyed majority of Alexander’s cavalry. Realising that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined, the Macedonian king requested Porus to stop fighting. True to their traditions, the magnanimous Indian king spared the life of the surrendered enemy. A peace treaty was signed, and Alexander helped Porus in annexing other territories to his kingdom.”In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Marshal Gregory Zhukov of USSR stated that “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. As per
Marshal Zhukov, one of the finest generals of Russia ever, Alexander was decisively defeated by Puru and went back because he did not have the heart to fight the Indians. This theory in fact punctures the story of invincibility of Alexander. As per Zhukov, 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 did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine. Theafter, in May 326 BCE at the Battle of Hydaspes, he faced king Puru of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle.According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry. Another terrible weapon in the Indians’ armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.The battle was savagely fought. To cut a long story short:It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon; they killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.Puru’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount.This was a big deal. In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king’s body, let alone slay his mount.According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, “Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king”.Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Puru’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”. Says Plutarch:“The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander’s design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”The
Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled
Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places“where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”. Although the historians claim Macedonian victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander’s army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world. According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”.Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers. The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander’s army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.Says Military History magazine:“Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”Alexander never recovered of wounds taken in India and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33.
The Hole in the Greek Story:
Why did Alexander and Puru agree to share spoils? Alexander had bought over Ambhi the king of Taxila to his side and in the war against Puru, Ambhi’s forces supported Alexander. Ambhi had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Puru’s kingdom. After the war however, Alexander allowed Puru to not only keep his own kingdom but also to usurp Ambhi’s. Does it sound counter-intuitive? Handing over an ally’s kingdom to a defeated enemy’s!! How stupid was Alexander? Fresh recruits from Macedonia were routine matter for his army and there was a system for replacement of weary troops. So, what really happened that forced him back from the borders of Indian sub-continent.
There is more possibility of the history, forced on us by the rulers, to be incorrect as they wanted to glorify themselves and Westerners and laid down us as they considered us slaves, uncivilised, without knowledge, disgusting and powerless.
Very informative and interesting talk. Please bring him more.
He is explaining you the hollywood movie Alexander🤣
I like this guy Jay he seems logical and less emotional
Is podcast me Jay ki shirt k alawa kuch accha nhi laga
Sacchai bahot logo ko hajam nhi hoti.
@@royarnab26 just like uska comment dekh tumhein nahin ho rahi. 😅
@@ItsMeSandyBaby Tumko to hazam ho gyi hai na... To fir yaha aake ulti kyun kar rahe ho???
flying kiss for those who are adharmi and non sanatani
To reach Beas from Jehlum, Alexander didn't have to pass through the Jhelum-Chenab belt. Pl see the map of India to understand the geography.
Apke kahne ka matlab ki Maharaja porus jit Gaye thee .
इतना तो बेवकूफ कोई नही होगा जो सिर्फ ग्रीक की हिस्ट्री पड़ कर मानले की Alaxendar पोरस से जीत गया था.
जब ऐसा ही हुआ जैसे कोई मंदिर को मस्जिद बोल देगा और हम मानलेंगे
जब तक भारत की तरफ से इतिहास में ना मिल जाए की पोरस हरा था हम कैसे मान ले
When he has quote rc majumdar . I know how it gonna be.
And also trying to prove everything from Greek sources.
How western call our sources myth why don't we do the same.
Can someone please explain why chvddis hate Majumdar so much? In my opinion, he is a fair nationalist historian.
Porus was jat, porus is still a clan of jat and malli clan which fought for porus is again a clan of jats, punjab was land of jarta as mentioned in mahabharata, they use to live in ganas(republics) same as khap, paal or misls of sikh.
I have a theory... Alexander's soldiers were suffering from piles because of long journey on their horses.. that's why he returned...
Lmfao.
Yei bhosdika sourse sourse bakraha har baat per 😅😅
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
@@tonmoy1549 Pajeet theory.
@@ApophaticMystic trve.
Kangra is now in Himachal and capital of katoch riyasta but used to be now know as Jalandhar in Punjab
Hecataeus Greek geographer (550 - 476 BC) was the 1st one to refer in his map Indus river and Gandarii tribe followed by Herodotus (485 - 425 BC) who mentioned Caspapyrus city along the north Bank of Indus River these were the only sources available for Alexander about the knowledge of India ...
In recent known history the first King that put a strong fight to foreign invasion was Porus , that is why love shown for him not that he belongs to a particular caste .
You need to read "Bhartiya Itihas ki Bhayankar bhulen" by P N Oak to understand how Poras defeated Alexander and not the other way around. Alexander had to leave India after that defeat and soon he died by illness. Although nothing taking away from his other victories.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA SOMEONE UNIRONICALLY REFERNCING PN OAKKK 😂😂😂😂😂
Next Pushpak Vimana and Tejo Mahalaya bolne lag jayega
There is no proof Bindusara had that much children or sons. If he had their names should have been mentioned. This 99 brothers killing and all is from Mahavamsa which is Sri Lankan text. Ashoka did kill some brothers but not all. He killed his older brother and heir apparent Sushima in civil war for throne that is fact. But he didn't kill all his brothers. Ashoka's many own rock inscriptions mentioned him appointing his some brothers on important posts and missions. So it's crystal clear this 99 brothers killing is nonsense without any proof. There is no proof of him having that much brothers and killing them.
Plus Ashoka converted to Buddhism at least 4 years before Kalinga war not after .
As per Puranic evidences, Bindusara ruled for 2.5 Decades ( nearly 25 years). His death took place in about 273 B.C. immediately led war over succession.
As mentioned in Divyavadana, Bindusara wanted his son Susima to succeed him however, Ashoka was the unanimous choice among his father's ministers, who found their Emperor's choice to be arrogant and disrespectful towards them.
Ashokavadana recounts Radhagupta's offering of an old royal elephant to Ashoka for him to ride to the Garden of the Gold Pavilion where King Bindusara would determine his successor. Royal Minister Radhagupta seems to play a vital role in pages of history and reason behind Ashoka's rise to the throne. He was later appointed as prime minister, once Ashoka seated on throne.
According to Mahavansa and Dipavansa, Ashoka killed 99 of his brothers, sparing only one, named Vitashoka or Tissa or Tishya.
Please note that there is no clear proof about this incident (as mentioned in Wikipedia to it is more or less saturated with mythological elements). One more argument, which I cam across was that when prince Asoka was working as the viceroy at Ujjayini, prince Susima, the eldest son of Bindusara, was serving as his father’s viceroy at Taxila.
A revolt of the people of Taxila broke out at that time for the misdeeds of the wicked officers which Susima failed to suppress. Thereupon, the Emperor sent Asoka to Taxila to suppress it which he did. Asoka thus served as the viceroy of Taxila after serving as the viceroy in Ujjayini. There is also reference to a second rebellion in Taxila which Asoka faced and suppressed.
The Ceylonese (Sinhalese) Chronicles describe of a fratricidal war which followed the death of Bindusara. The chief rivals to the throne were the eldest son of the late Emperor Susima or Sumana and Asoka. The Chronicles narrate that it was fierce struggle in which Asoka won at last by killing his ninety-nine (99) brothers.
He spared the life of only one brother, Tishya, who was the youngest. Such descriptions of Ashoka’s cruelty were perhaps motivated exaggerations on part of the Buddhist writers who wanted to show Asoka as a Chandasoka before he became a Buddhist and turned into a Dharmasoka.
According to Taranatha, the Tibetan writer, Asoka killed six (6) brothers to capture the throne. It is most probable that there was a war of succession for which Asoka’s coronation was delayed for four years. Between his accession to the throne in 273 B.C. and his coronation for appointment as king in 269 B.C. four years after his succession to the throne.
As per a site known as History Discussion, Historians believe that there was a war of succession which ended in the victory of Asoka. However, Buddhist legends about his cruelty and about his killing of as many as 99 brothers do not seem to possess historical substance.
Why trust greek historians blindly?
Because after independence, Indian history was tought by commies.
Because that's what liberals do , and he is a liberal too.
@@vishalchaurasiya4903 problem is we don't have source to confirm.
Without greek source we can't even know Alexander and porus fight
Who is trusting them blindly ?
Very thoughtful and informative analysis of history, insightful as to how history has been put together…
Porous Jatt … hilarious … popular culture corrupts history….
😂😂
there are literal clans who trace their ancestry back to poras himself
In the region of bulandshahr and west up they are 'poras' and in shekhawati they are poraswal
Ambi was prebirth of raga
Syndrocottas = विक्रमादित्य चंद्रगुप्त
One more reason to conclude Alexander was defeated by Porus is that if Alexander won then why he hasn't looted Porus's kingdom as India was wealthy at that time.🧐
Yes, and also the fact that indian texts doesn't mention alexander at all also seem to show that alexander was only a trivial issue for them, which can not be said about someone who defeated their strong kingdoms and razed an entire city to the ground. He could be a trivial issue only when he was defeated and his threat repelled before causing any large political upheavel. It is very possible that alexander might had been defeated by some Indian king (not necessarily porus), and allowed to return back safely to his kingdom, as has been the tradition with Indian kings even later on. This might had caused such a setback to alexander that he became ill and soon died later. Of course, greek texts would only write what alexander and his men would had told them back home. problem is that today's historians are completely dependent on greek texts for this history. True history can only come out when some other corroborative non-greek texts are found and get translated.
@@000Aful Indian sources didn't mention Porus too
That's because Alexander was a civilized person , unike barbaric indians
Porus was a small tribal chief, usko poore India se kahan equate kar raha hai bhai tu.
@@samayturki Porus wasn't a small tribal chief lol, he was a full fledged sovereign king in North West and his kingdom though limited by rivers on either sides was a very powerful one on that too, haan uski dynasty ke records ya inscriptions kuchh mile nhi iska mtlab ye nahi ki vo ya to exist hi nahi karta tha ya irrelevant chhota sa tribal chief tha, Elephant corp afford karna kisi Tribal chief ke bas ki baat nahi hoti, 17 century AD tak nahi thi, jo ki horse raiders bhi 200 ke upar afford nahi kar sakte. Plus Porus ke paas Lord Balbhadra ke banners the, jisko Greeks Heracles samajh rhe the, Koi tribal chief banner leke Pitched battle ke liye nahi aata, tribal chiefs sirf raids karte aaye hain historically aur to aur Porus aur Alexander ke bich discussion bhi hua tha to Alexander ne Porus ko as a King treat kiya tha aur use apne saath join hone ka invitation diya tha, tribal chief ke hone na hone se koi farak nahi padhta Alexander ko
Puranas ke hisab se Sandrokottas Samudragupta hi hai and we deny our own sources.
Greek historian Alexander ke ' bhant' the.. usko prashasan mai sab likhe hai..
Alexander ka fhat gaya tha Bharat ke ander jane mai.
o sochta tha ki isse lade to itna maaraa hum logo ko or andar jayenge or kon kon Raja kitna maarega,uske or uske sena mann mey darr baith gaya tha,,warna jo duniya ko jeetna chahata tha o kaise lotgaya Bharat ko jeete bina🚩jo jeeta o Raja Porus🚩
please consider doing English subtitles. Thank you
Romila Thapar mentions that the story of Yudhisthir from Mahanharat is inspired by Budhidm (dharm). Interestingly she does not mention any source for ut. Do we have sny primary source for this theory.
Yes read Buddhists texts of dashrata jataka Katha and Jay sanhita
Aree vampanthi hai kush bhi bolenge.
Mahabharata came before Buddhist texts lmfao
Bkwas h, chanakya ne bhi yudhisthir ko mention kiya h
First point; As to why Alexander was ignorant of Nand Empire? When in the East a great empire was existing, it cannot be unknown to the western Indian people.
Second point: Alexander's army had not travelled short distance from the Greece to India. His army had travelled thousands of miles. His army had passed through the countries having extreme weathers. It was as if trained for different weather. Many other emperors had even greater empire than Alexander. e.g. Chengiz Khan. No great emperor had stopped their march for "Army Tired" - reason.
Third point: Has Alexander made such a treaty with a defeated king other than Poras? Why Alexander should make a treaty with Poras?
Forth Point: Was it the first time in Indian History that elephants were used in a battle, and the first time the battle took place in monsoon. The soil of the battle field became slippery only for Elephants and for comparatively light weighted horses it was not slippery. Actually light weighted the soil has to be slippery that gigantic weighted Elephants. Elephants were being used by the kings from the time immemorial. Such slippery cause has not be recorded in before and past of a battle between Alexander and Poras.
Fift point: It is very common that Alexander and his army was afraid and scared of Nand's large army containing thousands of Elephant, when Poras a comparatively a very small king gave them a tough fight.
Ye bhi ho sakta hai ki porus k saath match tie ho gya ho aur usne aage jane ti sart rakhi ho bina porus ko kuuch kahe ..
par baad me greeks ki fatt k chaar ho gyi aur lahore k paas se u turn maar bhagg gye .
Only greek sources can not be trusted .
Koi bji jeeti hui army stay karti asse hi dum dabake nhi bhagti .
Mughal , british , turk sabhi stay kiya .
Jeet k koi nhi bhagta
Alexander bahut chalak tha, usne dekha uski defeat ho rahe hai to aage badhne ke liye usne sandhi kar li, phir age gaya to pata chala nando ki sena to bahut badi hai, wo khudh dar gaya par ilzam apne soldiers pe laga dia kyunki face saving karni thi, Seleucus Alexander se zyada intelligent tha, use pata tha kab kisse kya fayda ho sakta tha
@@lucymiyu5754 yes
No.
We learned that Porus’s Indian name was Purushottama. Are there reliable sources for this?
that reminds me of very famous chef gordhan ramsingh.
@@kapilsethia9284 Do you agree “Porus” is a very Greek-sounding name? Don’t you think that me man would have had an actual Indian name?
55.30 mins......ashok was made Shatrapala of Ujjain, after he suppressed the revolt of Takshashila,......takshashila revolt was silenced without any arms or without any Sastras
Jai Nepal 🇳🇵 Jai Nepal 🇳🇵
What a foolish question like why Ashok is so famous in Indian history? Sir ,don't try negate Ashok only because he was a Buddhist. Buddhism is derived from Hinduism and Ashok is the identity of India, Nobody has made India so famous as Ashok did and the rest is history.
जट्ट नहीं पोरस का पूरा नाम पुरुषोत्तम था जो क्षत्रिय राजा था
Ye kaunsi you tube University me padha tune kashatriya जाट ni hote kya?
@@vaibhav_Jat not at all
@@VELTROS are you 6 century sainiput?
@@vaibhav_Jat still better than 17th century churu chanaks tate 🤣 your guys are nothing more than servant of my clan le vajbhav jhangalas ancestors before 17th century sar muhh bandhua mandir plz give us land 🤣 claiming ancestory known as chandal sudras after democracy we wazzz decendant of porus king 🤣 still we want reservation 🤡 pajeets
@@VELTROS ye kab huya sainiput genetics 🧬 article padh ke aa thode ab hmm andvashwas se dur karege toh bhrahman toh ek books me ulta toh likhege hi sainiput, mughalput,baniyaput aur zameen toh hamare pass phele se hi hai ye kab huya jo toh muhje bata raha hai sainiputro ne new theory nikali hai kya🙃
I think the reason why people say that Porus defeated Alexander is because
1. Taxila University which is close by at that time they never mentioned Porus.
2. Chanakya who wrote Arthashastra didn't mention Porus.
Chanakya does mention Alexander though.
Taxila University didn't write any history in general, it's main focus would've been religion, philosophy and maths/science.
What other historical text do you find in India at that time? To say that indians didn't "mention " something
@@phanboichau8498 Ashoka write about his time after 50 years of Alexander invasion.
Invasion of Alexander is a major event and we in India didn't mention that like it never happened.
As far as Alexander is concerned, it's written about 300 after his death.
Lots of questions and very few answers that too in assumptions
Bruh, Porus was a tribal chieftain lmao, he wasn't even a king, why would anyone mention him.
Hindus can't digest alexander defeated porus... unbaised historian clearly mention bout defeat of porus, Many hindu youtubers try nd promote that alexander was defeated the irony is they r neither a historian nor ASI peer... jst bc they cant digest they make fiction what suits them
If there were no britishers we wouldnt have know our own history
Your I'd suggests it, the colonial mindset
True.
@@nidhimagon4469
Dumbo , people didnt even knew brahmi , britishers cracked the script .
Love them or hate them, britishers have contribution in indian history is remarkable
And then they say European disapprove Bharat history. What do you expect after this type of presentation and evidence
Nothing at all is for sure
ज़ब यह सब हो रहा था तब ब्रह्मण कहा था उन्होंने क्यों नहीं लिखा संस्कृत में, क्यों हमें हमारे इतिहास को जानने के लिए विदेशी लेखक को पड़ना पड़ता है
Can't wait for the next episode.
Chandragupta Maurya DID NOT become a Jain and go and die in Shravanabelagola. It is his great-grandson Samprati Chandragupta who did that. None of the historians (including RC Majumdar) say that the first Chandragupta became Jain. All sources point to the fact that he followed Vedic religion all his life.
This guy easily trust Greek sources, but when it comes to Indian ones he is not sure about everything.
that's what indian education society have been doing from long time,
They will believe their neighbours , but not the family member
As a historian he has to be rely on facts that needs proof
Porus was Parmanand or purushottam chand katoch a Rajput ruler ruling over kangra,kashmir & punjab, he defeated Alexander & few greek generals even fled to remote places of Himalayas & still there're several villages in & around Himalayas whome confirm this theory till date,
Few people consider themselves as historians by reading authors whom were limited in their's frame of knowledge & experience as RCMAJUMDAR
Hahaha ancient history me bhi rajput le aaye tum log
He was an ancient kshtriya probably frok today's khatri community
@@Playerone1287 in ancient period rajputs were known as kshatriya with different lineages, if you doesn't have any iot of idea about the ancestral history of Indian autocracy kindly don't even bother to even say anything about it
@@direstknight6697 lmao
Chandragupta bhi rajput tha, Ashoka bhi rajput tha, samdragupta bhi rajput tha, Raja dahir bhi rajput tha, Alexander bhi rajpoot tha, Genghis khan bhi Mongolian rajput tha
Basically jo Raja wo rajput tha
Sahi bol rha hu na bhai?
@@Playerone1287 what does a word rajput implies??
Raja ka poot, son of the ruler,
Basically those of clans associated with lineages of kshatriyas since vedic era & even beyond are considered as Rajputs
@@direstknight6697 mera picha chor bhai
अशोक के पत्थर और उत्कृष्ट वाष्टुहिल्प के परम नमूना को तो भूल ही गए भई ..बोध गया का विशाल मंदिर जो अशोक ने बनवाया था । हड़प्पा हड़प्पा सभ्यता लोग रटते रहते गईं सिर्फ़ इस लिये की वहाँ खुदाई काफ़ी हुए । मगर अयोध्या वाराणसी गया राजगीर और संपूर्ण उत्तर विहार नेपाल की तराई से हिंदुस्तान की सभ्यता पैदा हुए है और वहाँ सिर्फ़ नाम मात्र खुदाई हुए है । नालंदा विश्वविद्यालय ही सिर्फ़ ३ प्रतिशत अभी तक खोदा गया है । आजतक उसकी वो ३ लायब्रेरिया नहीं मिली जो नौ मंज़िलों की थी ! राजगृह ही अपने में हज़ारों राज लपेट के बैठा है जहां ढंग से खुदाई आज तक नहीं हुए है । पाषाण युग का एक दीवार बताते हैं वहाँ जो चाइना वाल के बाद सबसे लंबी दीवार मानी जाती है , उसपे कोई रिसर्च नहीं । सिर्फ़ राजगीर ही खोद को ढंग से तो ना जाने कितना बड़ा इतिहास हिंदुस्तान का उजागर हो जायेगा । वहीं सबसे प्राचीन स्टूप भी मिला था जिसके बुद्ध के अस्थि को रखा गया था , वो भी गलती से। रेलवे लाइन बिछाने के लिए खुदाई शुरू हुए और नज़ारा सामने निकल आया । गया से पटना के बीच में तो अशोक ने न जाने कितने अभिलेख लिख रखे हैं । ख़ास करके बाराबर गुफाओं में । अशोक ही अशोक हो जैसे हर तरफ़ । जबकि वहाँ साक्ष्य प्रमाण हैं उससे भी प्राचीन बृहद्रथ, जरासंध और हिरण्ययाक साम्राज्य के और उसपे भी न के बराबर काम किया गया है । आज पटना में मेट्रो निर्माण के लिए खुदाई हो रही है । न जाने कितने पुरातन अवशेष मिल सकते हैं । लेकिन न ASI न सरकार उसपे सोच रही है ।
44:37 In all probabilities it is possible that maybe Chandragupta Maurya gave his daughter or sister's hand to Selucus in marriage but the thing is that there is no source or text about Selucus Nicator that mentions an Indian Princess do people usually assume that the Dynastic Intermarriage went the other way around with either Chandragupta or his son Bindusara marrying a Selucid Princess.
It is viceversa
Gave daughters? They were seen as outcastes and even accepting food was forbidden.
Chandragupta defeated Seleucus, to secure the borders he demanded lands and his daughter's hand in marriage. Seleucus wasn't ready but when he saw his life was in danger he demanded elephants to defeat his enemies in west. It was a good deal for Chandragupta because in that way his borders would be secured from invasions and he made sure the Seleucid empire remained a vassal of Mauryans. This decision of Chandragupta was very visionary and shows his skills as an emperor. He gave full respect to his Persian queen which actually shows that the Mauryan empire was quite progressive.
कुछ इतिहासकार कहते हैं कि सिकंदर भारत तक पहुंचा ही नहीं था तो पोरस ने हराने का कोई सवाल ही पैदा नहीं होता। जब वह आया ही नहीं था तो पोरस ने शादी में सिकंदर को बेटी देने का भी सवाल नहीं पैदा होता।
Then how come Alexander's and his immediate succesor coins have been found from Taxila.
Gajab irony hai … Jo Alexander kisi raja ko nahi baksha, kisi City ko nahi chhora… woh Porus ko mukt kar deta hai.
What is the reason that we need to trust on Greek Indicas and left historians??
And isn’t it possible that Jhelum and Bias river changed their path in past 2000 years???
This was the 1st Video of VAAD channel for which I have selected “not interested”
Large rivers can't change their course significantly in such a short span of time.
No. Itni badi rivers 2000 saalmein raasta nahi badalti.
Lol Pajeet didn't Alexandros destroy the younger Poros and enslave the Indian population of Sangala?
@@ApophaticMystic 😂 😂 lol Alexander was nothin but a rat Indian historians didn't even wrote anything about him proof he got belted by porus
Later his general by the great Chandragupt Maurya 😂😂😂😂
Greek sources be like. Hum haare toh raste mein mar gye...dobara haare to agreement kar liye 😂
Very interesting and informative episode 👍
वामपंथी एजेंडे का खुलासा किया जा रहा है।
Alexander did not defeat Porus. Ambhi aided Alexander and they lost. That is why Porus acquired Ambhis region. It is not beleivable that Alexander wins and gives Ambhis territory to Porus. Historians should not take foreign accounts at face value but analyse them. It is not that Indians did not have records. They did but as you know millions of books in Takshila and Nalanda and other Universities were burned.
It's a cope, ramayan and mahabharat books were also burned but they are still Alive among us
@@tonmoy1549 chvddis should be flogged in the streets
Lolzzz. Vedas, ramayana, mahabharata, jatakas all survived but alex vs porus got lost. Fact is Alexander defeated porus
@@anoop61284 There are many reasons why the foreign account of Alex vs Porus is constructed. How could Alexander the Great go back and recount a defata? Could he?
@@ratneshshrivastava6444if the Greek were writing lie only then why accept that chandragupta defeated seleucus also
Cancel them also
In trying to figure out who this Indian king Sandrocottos (Alexander's contemporary) could be, William Jones referred to our Puranas and the kings' lineages mentioned therein.
Now Puranic lineages stop at Andhra Saatvahan dynasty and up to this point there was only one Chandragupt (Maurya). However, there have been 2 more kings with the same name as Chandragupt AFTER the Andhra Saatvahan dynasty -- Chandragupt-I of the Gupt dynasty and his grandson Chandragupt-II. Since these 2 Chandraguptas were not mentioned in the Puranas, William Jones was not aware of them, hence assumed Chandragupt Maurya as the Sandrocottos mentioned in Greek sources. There was no other basis behind setting this arbitrary sheet anchor for ancient Indian history.
Why is this historian trusting Greek sources blindly?
Because there is no Indian sources so there is only Greek sources to be trust
he's not
@@RD-pp9ds He said if not true why did they write it. This itself gives away
@@lokeshd8564their are no indian sources for that
Even the knowledge of chandragupta defeating seleucus came from greek and Roman sources
Neo JNU
I don't understand how to accept a Greek source as correct without cross checking it with some other history
Saka Rudradaman’s Junagarh rock edict of 150 AD mentions ‘Maurya’ as Ashoka’s surname.
There used to be nothing like surnames in India before Britishers. There were name of kul, profession, location they belongs to
Our ancestors used those names either before individual name or after.
When Britishers starts registering people and conducting census here in India. Surname were made compulsory, so people had to find some names accordingly
Maurya as Chandragupta's surname