He is considered a satrap in India, by all accounts received Alexander well and provided with him troops and supplies. The records indicate a history of rivalry between Ambhi (Taxiles) and Porus, with Ambhi having encouraged Alexander to attack Porus. For instance, Alexander's treatment of Porus is seemingly inconsistent with the account. The historian who seeks to critically engage with the sources ends up with even more confusing questions. Similarly Porus lost the battle, even losing a son (according to the Greek historians) but emerged from the conflict with an enlarged set of territories. Yet the historians insist he wanted to conquer India, but was thwarted by his troops, forcing him to turn back at the Hyphasis (Beas). Alexander won a victory, hard fought though it was. If we go strictly by the accounts of historians, one could argue that to some extent they both won, and they both lost. Whether he lost or won in his overall engagement with Alexander comes down to defining Alexander's goals, and in relation to that Porus (since the evidence suggests he was reacting, not acting). Different historians have engaged with the question of whether Alexander won and whether Porus lost (the two BTW need not be connected, one could even argue that both "won") depends on how and what we understand of Alexander's Strategic goals. As the saying goes, one can win battles and yet lose a war. There is no historical evidence available today that allows us to conclude that Alexander lost the engagement.ĭid he lose to Porus however? Victory isn't always about tactical domination. The same applies to the issue of the Battle of Hydaspes. I might very well offer any number of plausible explanations for why it is a perfectly logical hypothesis, but absent SOME sort of evidence it is unsupported conjecture. There is simply no evidence that supports this assertion. I cannot for instance posit that the Mutiny of 1857 was initiated by the American South to destabilise India's and Britain's cotton trade and industry.
#Porus alexander free#
While the historian is free to interpret the evidence, work within it and even manipulate the different sources a fair bit, what a good historian cannot do is make a theory absent any support.
The reason for this is that historical theory is built on evidence. The likelihood of the possibility is however remote, and the average historian will dismiss this possibility. The one word a Historian should be using the least, if at all, is the word impossible. Is it possible that Alexander lost, and that the Greek historians were engaged in an act of propaganda (or atleast the first recorders of the event) to cover it up? Yes, insofar as anything is possible unless it can specifically rule it out.
0 kommentar(er)
