Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

22

In regards to the battle between Alexander and Porus, both accounts are correct, in their own way. Alexander won the battle, and received an acknowledgement of such from Porus; Porus won the war, by convincing the Greek army (if perhaps not Alexander himself) that continuing was pointlessly expensive. Both sides saved face through the reappointment of ...


20

Prior to Phillip's time, the ancient Greek world was fragmented in (often warring) city states and kingdoms, and citizenship was considered far more important than nationality or ancestry. Pericles' reforms (451 BC) exemplify the distinction: From that point on Athenian citizens would lose their citizenship if they married non Athenians, regardless of their ...


15

I think the first time he is mentioned as "Alexander the Great" (at least in the sources known to us) is Quintus Curtius Rufus' "Historiae Alexandri Magni Macedonis", this "Magni" has been translated into English as "Great". Here it clearly refers to his talent as a military leader which allowed him to build up a huge empire. Quintus Curtius Rufus was a ...


11

The bulk of India then was not controlled by Porus, but by the Nanda dynasty, centered at Pataliputra. Porus controlled only a small section of India, close to Punjab (now divided between Pakistan as well as India). The Nandas were quite a powerful force, and the Greek troops had become war-weary (whether they actually refused orders is open to debate). So, ...


11

Actually, it wasn't intended specifically to set an example, but it did serve to deliver a message that he was not someone who was going to just go away. Alexander's father, Phillip, was murdered in 336 BC, leaving Alexander to rule in his place. Many states, including Thebes and Athens, rose up in revolt when they heard the news. Alexander responded ...


10

Alexander, for the most part, left things unchanged in the lands he conquered. He didn't impose Greek customs, respected (or perhaps ignored) local religions and cultures and allowed a certain degree of self government that, for several of the territories of the former Achaemenid empire, was quite a refreshing change. Not everyone under his rule accepted ...


10

I am Adrienne Mayor and I never wrote that Porus used any kind of poison weapons, not swords or arrows and certainly not poisoned elephant tusks, as claimed on About.com and the Univ. of Washington sites See my "Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World" (Overlook/Duckworth, 2003, 2009) pp 88-91 and ...


9

The Greeks had demonstrated military superiority over the Persians for many years. Both Cimon and Agesilaus had led successful expeditions into Persian territory. That Persia maintained its dominant position over Greece had not so much to do with their own military capabilities, but rather because of the incessant warfare amongst Greek cities. Their focus on ...


8

Note that an empire isn't necessarily ruled by an emperor. When historians describe Alexander's conquests as an "empire", it is at least partly in reference to the fact that he subjugated many nations and countries under his central authority. Alexander was definitely an "emperor in the sense that he was a ruler of this polity. Since the word "emperor" ...


8

I voted up lins314159's answer. I would like to add a couple of things though. The vast majority of Alexander's empire actually started his tenure as the Persian's empire. So a great deal of credit (and attention) should be paid to all the work they did to put that empire together. However, Persia's loss of the Persian-Greek wars 100 years earlier had ...


8

When Alexander built his great empire, what he was essentially doing is taking over the Achaemenid Empire piece by piece, at a point when the empire was weakened by internal fights. The Kingdom of Pauruva is sometimes claimed to have lain outside the Achaemenid empire, but earlier Persian rulers seems to have claimed it was a part of the empire. This ...


7

I strongly suggest you read the celebrated and widely read and revered books on Ancient India by: Romila Thapar (Marxist in views) A. L. Basham (Non-partisan) You can also refer to the bibliography of the Wikipedia page Indian campaign of Alexander the Great. In earlier times, India ran from the Hindukush mountains(Afghanistan) to the Himalayas, and ...


5

Alexander apparently received that epithet from the Romans, who admired him. The oldest surviving reference of the title is found in the Mostellaria ("The Haunted House"), a play written by Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254 – 184 BC). This roughly a century or so after Alexander's death in 323 BC. Tranio: Alexandrum magnum, atque Agathoclem, aiunt maxumas Duo ...


5

The man in the top right corner is Philip II of Macedon. According to legend, Zeus took to the serpent form and seduced and had coitus with his wife Olimpias and fathered Alexander the Great (or Alessandro Magno in Italian). This is why Zeus is shown in the half serpent form. The legend also says that Philip caught a glimpse of this and hence one day would ...


4

There are certainly references to "poison" and these come from Diodorus, Arrian, Plutarch and Justin. But these seem more like many of the other fantasies that the Greeks spun- especially if you consider the methods of preparation of the poison and how Alexander was told in a dream about the antidote. Also, the only reference to anyone being ...


4

I like to point out two reasons behind Alexander's return without conquering India which is not identified in this answer till now. From Madison to North-West India, Alexander faced few wars. We may say that his army first faced a war after coming to the Indian Border i.e. the battle with Porous beside the Sindhu. Distance from Madison to India was very ...


4

I would like put few points from my reading: Who won the battle ? Well as pointed out by others, it is not quite sure who won the battle i.e. "The Battle of Jhelum". Alexander being the great king would have had a victory in that battle. But according to Battle of the Jhelum analysis which gives valid reasons why Alexander would have lost the battle taking ...


4

Such estimates are pretty difficult. Even for WWII there is no universal agreement over the number of dead - and that's for a relatively recent event that was extensively documented. However, I think one can say from the record that the civilian/military ratio among Genghis Khan's victims was much higher than that of Alexander's. (To wit, Genghis Khan ...


4

As one more piece of evidence, Philip Freeman in his biography Alexander the Great judges thus: The question of Macedonian language and ethnic identity is one of the most contentious topics in classical scholarship, the debate often driven more by modern Balkan nationalism than the small amount of ancient evidence we actually possess. I incline to ...


4

There is no way to know because there are no records of his birthdate.


3

The Charisma - Macedonian soldiers were ready to go with Alexander, because they loved their leader and didn't just go with him because of fear of him. The War techniques - Alexander was "great" at designing new techniques at war. For example, He let the war chariots go inside his line and made his warriors attack the chariots from behind. The chariots then ...


3

Against the Romans, Alexander would have lost. Several hundred years later, when Perseus of Macedon fought the Roman army, the Macedonians found it hard to keep the line strait and their ranks unbroken, so once there was a gap, the Romans would rush in and massacre the people left and right. The Macedonians with a ridged command structure and armed with ...


3

Alexander was called "the Great" by historians shortly after his death in his early 30s. During his short life, we conquered essentially all of the modern Middle East and Egypt, starting with a base of Macedonia, a kingdom near Greece. In the process, he defeated much larger, mostly Persian armies, in an unbroken series of battlefield victories and ...


3

There were actually about 70 towns (by Plutarch's count) named after Alexander, but he didn't found and name all those places himself. He was the founder of the various Greek states (even if mostly by virtue of conquest), so it would be perfectly natural for the Greek ruling classes to want to pump up his reputation, including naming a lot of things after ...


3

Alexander won ONE battle. That does not necessarily mean that he will win the second or third. By being able to appoint Porus "Satrap," Alexander got the "props" for winning the first battle. By accepting the position from Alexander, Porus got to keep control of his country without risking a second or third battle. It was a "win-win" (limited victory) ...


2

There are no Indian accounts of the Battle of the Hydaspes River. It is difficult to prove a negative, but since there is very little historical material from that era (326 BCE) at all, we can be reasonably certain that there are no historical accounts. Tarn (1966) discusses this when talking about the Bactrian Greeks. Had the story of the Bactrian ...


1

Alexander the Great held the title of Archistrategos (Supreme Commander) of the Corinth League, which was granted to him at the Second Corinth Congress. He also was a king of Macedon. He could not bear the toitle of "imperator" which was a Roman title.


1

Defeating Parvateshwar (Porus) had been a very difficult task. Moreover Sage Dandyayan had told him that it is impossible to win over this country. When asked, Maharaj Parvateshwar told him to behave with him as a king. So he left him.


1

actually the greek force was fearful of the great Nand king that was ruling the vast empire of Magadh from its capital patliputra(modern patna and gaya area).he was tyrant but had a huge army under his command including elephants expert in war.had alexender moved to eastern part of punjab there was chance of direct confrontation with nand king .hence was ...


1

This is a grey area of history. While the Porus-Alexander story is legendary, there is no guarantee that it actually took place. Neither is there any guarantee that it did not. And there the matter lies as on date. The Alexander episode does not find much mention in the entire written record, that is the strangest aspect of it. Neither is there any record ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible