The foundation of Western thought, science, culture, religion, and philosophy dates back to the Greek and Roman civilizations. Alexander ‘the Great,’ still represents the pinnacle of these civilizations which symbolizes the win of the West over the East.
In 336 B.C., Alexander conquered Macedonia’s throne which made him a powerhouse in Greece. After solidifying his presence in Greece, it was time for him to conquer the world. His first victory was the Persian Empire and within four years, he had Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia in his hand.
Renowned as Alexander the Great, he had unmatched military prowess. Historians have immortalized Alexander and his grand conquests. This Macedonian king’s far-reaching campaign for world domination has been lauded by Greek writers and scholars from all over the world.
Yet, among the various expeditions done by Alexander, there is one that receives comparatively less attention from historians: India.
Let us examine how successful was his India campaign.
THE WARNING OF PERSIANS:
After conquering Persia in 334 BCE, Alexander diverted his gaze towards India. However, Persian advisories warned him about the challenges and reminded him of the defeats of early conquerors by the Indian forces. Cyrus the Great, who lived two centuries before Alexander was killed in a battle. The legendary Assyrian queen Semiramis, who was heading a massive army, suffered a similar fate with only a handful of survivors.
Despite these warnings, Alexander looked at a strategic blunder by invading India. His Persian advisors, who were aware of the historical failures of Semiramis and Cyrus, fueled Alexander’s eagerness to excel and outdo his predecessors.
However, doubts had arisen about the credibility of historical accounts, including a modernized version by Strabo. The locals claimed that Semiramis and Cyrus escaped India with minimal survivors.
THE INVASION IN INDIA:
In 326 BC, Alexander thought of a heroic entry into India but soon, it morphed into a humiliating drawback as the Greek-Macedonian army was met with intimidating resistance on Indian soil. Let us take a look at Indian resistance.
1) First Resistance at SWAT and Peshawar Valley- SWAT is located in today’s Pakistan KP Region bordering Afghanistan. The local tribesmen in this region put up the first resistance to Alexandar’s forces and harassed his troops. Alexandar and his troops did not expect that even the local tribes would be up in arms like this and this incident gave them a hint of what is to come when they advance ahead into India.Although these tribesmen and their armies were small by Indian standards they did not submit to Alexanders threat but infact went on to give more than a bloody nose to Alexander’s invading army.
2) Treaty with King Ambhi and Clash with Porus:
After overcoming the resistance in SWAT & Peshwar, Alexandar took advantage of the enmity between King Ambhi of Takshasila and King Porus (King Purshottam). Porus was an ancient Indian king whose territory spanned the region between the Jhelum River (Hydaspes/ Vitasta) and Chenab River (Asikni), in today’s Punjab region of India. Interestingly both King Ambhi and King Porus were co-students at Takshashila University but later fell out with each other and that is why Ambhi decided to sign a treaty with Alexander and agreed to aid him against Porus.
Alexandar and Porus’s armies met at the banks of Jhelum river. Many versions exist about the outcome of this battle. Some versions say that Porus with his War Elephants and Chariots run riot and comprehensively defeated Alexander while some say since it rained heavily and additionally the flood like situation at Jhelum made the elephants useless and hence Alexander and his cavalry brigade was able to subdue Porus. There seems to be no clear consensus amongst the historians on this. Even if we go by even the writings and references of Greek and British historians which suggests that there was a peace treaty signed between Alexandar and Porus and whereby Porus agreed to be a regional Satrap of Alexandar in Punjab. Even these so called facts are also quite baffling and suggest a significant shift in Alexandar’s behavior pattern from his earlier conquests in Persia where he put the defeated kings to a certain death. What circumstances forced him to come to table for a peace accord with Porus. The only possible answer to this was heavy casualties on the side of Alexander and to avoid any more loss and to somehow pacify his already home sick and disgruntled army. His troops had lost the energy will and more importantly the moral to march further into Indian territory and face the vast and formidable forces of Magadha. A British historian, Frank Holt in his book “Alexander the Great and the Mystery of Elephant Medallions” cites Greek historian Arrian and he writes-
“The jubilation of Alexander’s troops after the battle ended was not matched even by the celebrations they had thrown after defeating the Persians whose forces exceeded two hundred thousand soldiers.It was the euphoria of relief that they had not been utterly destroyed in this difficult battle”. This citation helps us to understand the mindset of Alexander and his army just after the hard battle they fought with Porus. Thus it appears that Alexander decided to return back to Greek instead of advancing further and this is why he appointed his general Selecus Nicator to govern his new acquisitions to the west of Punjab and make an honorable retreat.
3) Resistance of smaller Indian Republics even while Alexander was Retreating back- Alexander on his way back had to face numerous attacks from independent republics of Punjab and central India like the Yaudheyas and Malava’s which further weakened Alexander’s might. There are various references which suggest Alexander also got injured when an arrow managed to pierce one of his ribs in one of the battles with Malva’s. In these fierce skirmishes the Greek cavalry was destroyed forcing most of Alexandar’s soldiers to travel on feet. This return journey to Greece became all the more challenging than he himself had imagined. Alexander never fully recovered from this injury further complicated by the arduous back home took a heavy toll on his health and finally Alexander died at the age of 33 at Babylon (modern Iraq) in year 323 BC.
Zhukov’s Assessment: Georgi Zhukov was a Soviet military commander and politician. He was one of the finest and certainly one of the most successful army commander during World War II. Marshal Gregory Zhukov’s assessment of Alexander’s Indian campaign is different from that of Western historians. In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes (Battle with Porus) 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
Chandragupta’s Rise:
In the wake of these occasions, Chandragupta Maurya, under the guidance of Chanakya, became a key figure in Indian History of the time. He assembled a small army, defeated Macedonian garrisons, and proclaimed India’s independence. He comprehensively defeated the same Seleucus Nicator who was appointed by Alexander to govern his fringe North Indian territories westwards of Punjab just across Hindukush Range. In less than 2 decades Chandragupta freed India from the Yavanas (The Greeks) and then went on to bring the entire Bharatvarsha under one central rule by establishing powerful Maurya Kingdom.
Conclusion:
The Greek invasion of India came a long way from being a win as it’s far regularly portrayed in the West. It faced bold resistance and strategic setbacks that in the long run contributed to the retreat of Alexander’s forces from the subcontinent.
The Indian armies posed significant challenge, in particular with their powerful use of battle elephants, cavalry formations, effective use of terrain. Thus, it is obtrusive that the notion of the Greek invasion of India being a victory is anything but a misconception.
