Talk:Battle of the Hydaspes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

"Many dead" sounds a little amatuer....could someone correct this and maybe make it sound a little better please? -Colin MacDonald

It is interesting to note that this page claims that "His tired army saw the use of elephants for the first time in war," when the War elephant page states that the Battle of Gaugamela was possibly the first European encounter with elephants, and the Gaugamela page does state that 50 elephants were involved on the Persian side. The Battle of the Hydaspes River is listed as occuring in 326 b.c. vs. the Gaugamela battle in 331 b.c. It seems like the Hydaspes River page may need some correction.

Howard C. Shaw III--68.213.34.248 18:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I actually kept the summary from the previous portion, but see the second paragraph of the "Aftermath" section for the discussion on War elephants. Basically, I have not seen any description of Gaugamela that included anything about the war elephants other than the fact that they were there. Maybe the elephants didn't charge? They definitely did charge in this battle. - Vina 19:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that "Hydaspes" should redirect to the Battle of the Hydaspes River instead of an article about the Hydaspes river. The river itself is little known. Axeman89 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Dates in battle page names

I moved the page back to the original name. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles no need for date in name unless as a disambiguation.

If you wish the page name to include the year and it is not for disambiguation, please discuss it under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles#Dates in battle page names --Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

To: Anon editor

Please don't attempt to rewrite history. If you wish to present a minority view, then please don't attempt to pass it off as the truth. For all your reverts, you haven't come up with a better and more reliable source for this claim. And your edits are not NPOV. Idleguy 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How much thought was put into the casualty numbers?

I understand the sources that mention them; I'm simply not sure that blind quoting is always the best policy. You can't very well have an article cite 4,000 infantry deaths and then make the statement that "perhaps ... 10,000 foot" made up the infantry force that fought the battle. Nothing in any of the extant record gives the impression of a 40% casualty rate--nevermind a 40% death toll. Phoebus Americanos 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Pyrric?

Could whoever says the battle was a Pyrric victory please say or at least summarize what is said in "Welman"? I personally don't see how since a Pyrric victory is one where the victor would be better off not having fought at all. If Alexander had not fought his empire would of been slightly smaller as opposed to advancing slightly into India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.222.223 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats not an accurate definition, a Pyrrhic victory is a victory that is extremely costly, either out of relation to the size of the two armies (such as the Battle of Thermopylae where the Persians lost probably somewhere around 10% of their forces defeating an army the about a third of that, it was still required to get into Greece) or where the cost in soldiers makes another major battle almost impossible, numbers aren't even necassarily the main thing in that calculation either, the losses of skilled commanders is also very dehabilitating for further victories. According to this article, he fought a smaller army and killed 12000 compared to losing 4000, but with 8000 wounded that equals a similar amount of casualties for both sides (not including the prisoners). He would not be able to engage another such army because of this one, and the effect of the battle was very dehabilitating to his own army who wouldn't follow him any further into India. Thats pretty Pyrrhic.

And if you consider the casualities with his other famous battles this is definatly one of the most costly, far out of proportion to when he fought armies several times the size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find many faults with the above arguments. first of all are the casualty figures, which, of course, go only a little way to determine whether or not a victory is Pyrrhic, are still rather lopsided in favor of Alexander, with a estimates of Porus' casualties ranging from at least 12,000 to 23,000 with and Alexander losing an estimated (according to Peter Greene at least) 4,000; although the recorded deaths are slightly less than a thousand (probably propaganda down playing actual losses). Moreover bringing loss of commanders into the equation; Perdiccas, Hephaestion Demetrius and Craterus all survived. While Porus lost both of his sons, Alexander only lost his horse. Further it was not a strategic defeat, like most Pyrrhic Victories are. While Porus' power was utterly broken (until alexander reinstated it) Alexander's army was able to go on, and in fact did, and only mutinied when it was obvious that India was a vast place that would delay their homecoming immensly.

Aftermath and consequence

This section is full of unreferenced material and opionated material, some of which does really connect to the section title at all (the theories). The current "Indian side of the story" sounds unproffessional, I suggest replacing it with something better, not reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Victory coins

"Victory coin" of Alexander the Great, minted in Babylon c.322 BCE, following his campaigns in India.
Obv: Alexander being crowned by Nike.
Rev: Alexander attacking king Porus on his elephant.
Silver. British Museum.

Here's one of the famous "Victory coins of Alexander", minted in Babylon after Alexander's India campaigns and just before his death. It is thought to depict Alexander being crowned by Nike, and attacking king Porus on his elephant. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

People..we have a problem with the sources on the details of the battle

After some lengthy conversations with a fellow wikipedian from the Indian subcontinent, I was alerted as to the huge importance that some people are giving on presenting the battle of Hydaspes a victory of Porus or a Pyrrhic victory of Alexander at best. I proposed that such a theory, although apparently supported by very few, could be presented on this article. So, I decided to study it carefully only to find out that certain individuals try to present this battle as a huge Macedonian army badly tested against a small Indian army. Among other I found that somebody quoted a certain Manav Guha, whose "study" one can find here [1]. I sincerely do not know who this person is, whether he is a historian or just someone who dabbles in military history, as is suggested by the presentation of the battle, as well as the lack of any references... His final comments "NOTE: This account will soon be revised to add more details of the battle and a list of references and acknowledgements where applicable." leads me to think that he is just some guy on the net... Anyways, this person suggests that Alexander lost about 10-12.000 men, because, as he thinks, Diodorus' losses only concern the crossing of Hydaspes and the first encounter of Alexander (apparently against Porus's son). Of course Diodorus does not state anything of the sort and clearly gives his casualties account for the whole battle.

"Many were slain in their flight, but then Alexander, satisfied with his brilliant victory, ordered the trumpets to sound the recall. Of the Indians, there fell in the battle more than twelve thousand, among whom were the two sons of Porus and his best generals and officers.Above nine thousand men were taken alive, together with eighty elephants. Porus himself was still breathing, and was turned over to the Indians for medical attention. On the Macedonian side, the losses were two hundred and eighty cavalry and more than seven hundred infantry. The king buried the dead, rewarded those who had distinguished themselves in accordance with their deserts, and sacrificed to Helius who had given him the eastern regions to conquer." Diodorus 17.89. Maybe he mixed up Diodorus with Arrian, though the latter only states 80 pezhetairoi dead in "the initial battle" but he seems to imply the battle against Porus himself and not this against his son. Anyway, even if he talks about the first incident, then, even by his calculatins, he will arrive at the same number of casualties Diodorus mentions and not to this exorbitant 12.000 assumption...

I therefore will immediately erase this person as a source.

GK1973 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In my recent edits, I didn't really get into Geha's "research", and I'm glad someone else did. I would also add this "Welman" character to the list of dubious sources- I see that someone has re-added references to him but no bibliography of any sort. As I mentioned before, the only bibliography was a link to a website which was a dead link. So the question remains- who is this "Welman" person, and why should we care what he thinks? --DarthBinky (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. It seems it is a Dutch, who has reviewed some books and written some texts on the internet. No academic background is suggested, I guess if there was any he would not hide it... Yet, if there is something we miss here, I beg any wikipedian to let us know. So, I am also erase him as a source until someone verifies Welman's status.

GK1973 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually even Harbottle is too much, although he could be referenced as an extreme. His whole text is

"Hydaspes, The (Alexander's Campaigns in Asia). Fought B.C. 327, between 65,000 Macedonians and 70,000 Asiatics, under Alexander the Great, and the army of the Indian king Porus, numbering 30,000 infantry, with 200 elephants and 300 war chariots. Alexander crossed the river a few miles above Porus' entrenchments, and utterly routed him, with a loss of 12,000 killed and 9,000 prisoners, including Porus himself. The Macedonians lost 1 ,000 only."

This is his whole text on the battle... no references, no explanations. He keeps Arrian's numbers as far as the Indians are concerned and then gives some totally peculiar numbers as to the number of Alexander's army. I will erase him from the table and refer to him in another place inside the article, so that people will not be offended. Stating that Alexander's army was anything between 35 and 135.000 is a clear problem. Again, until someone can produce more data on this extreme calculation.

GK1973 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So that no one misunderstands our motives here, I hold deep respect for Indian history and I really think that Porus was the most successful of Alexander's opponents in any pitched battle. In my changes I truly try to show this respect, not as a personal opinion, but because this was also the opinion of all ancient historians. GK1973 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is with reference to the discussion above - specificially, the following:

"Among other I found that somebody quoted a certain Manav Guha, whose "study" one can find here [2]. I sincerely do not know who this person is, whether he is a historian or just someone who dabbles in military history, as is suggested by the presentation of the battle, as well as the lack of any references... His final comments "NOTE: This account will soon be revised to add more details of the battle and a list of references and acknowledgements where applicable." leads me to think that he is just some guy on the net..."

It was recently brought to my attention that a draft article that I wrote, which is referenced in the above quote was, for a while, cited here and then removed. Thanks for removing it. As the quoted section shows, it was a draft and thus contained no refereces, citations and bibliography. It was not meant to be published for citation purposes in the public domain. As soon as I was alerted to this, I read through the discussion on this page and emailed the concerned person from whose site the article was accessed. A copy of my email to this individual is appended below:

"Dear...

I had submitted a draft article (meaning, it was work in progress)titled, "Porus and Alexander: The Battle of the Jhelum 327-326 BC" v.1.0 June 15, 2005. The closing line of this draft article was - I quote: "NOTE: This account will soon be revised to add more details of the battle and a list of references and acknowledgements where applicable." This is currently available on your website and can be accessed at http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/cimh/battles/Porus-Alexander.pdf

It has recently come to my attention that Wikipedia had quoted this draft article. It has since been removed - and for good reason. Given that the article was not referenced, no bibliographical sources were listed, and the fact that it was a v.1.0 version, which implies that it was open to be re-worked, it follows that it is an 'informal' account and not to be cited in and on public knowledge forums. I am sure you will agree with my reasoning here.

May I request you to either (1) explicitly mention that this particular article is not to be cited given that it is a draft, and thus, quite obviously unfinished, or (2) remove it from your website to prevent it being accessed and used for citation purposes.

Your urgent attention to this request would be appreciated.

Thanks and regards..."

And, for the record, I am NOT a historian of any shape, colour and size!

Thanks Quadruped (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification GK1973 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Porus' 200 elephants - Was Arrian exaggerating?

I have a source, the journal Greece & Rome 2nd ser. Vol.12 No. 2 (Oct. 1965), "The Generalship of Alexander," (p.140-154) by Burns, A.R., that reports as follows in the second footnote on page 151:

"Arrian (loc. cit.) gives Porus 30,000 foot, 4,000 horse, and 200 elephants in the battle; but 200 elephants of 'not less than a plethron' (100 feet), would make the whole line of infantry, extending beyond the elephants at each end, as he says, about four miles long; far too long for even 30,000 infantry in ancient warfare. I take Arrian's figures for horse and foot to be campaign totals. Some had been left facing Craterus, and many cavalry lost in the rout of Porus' advanced guard. The 200 elephants I take to be a simple exaggeration."

Citing the source "Numbers: C. viii. 13.6," Burns puts the total at 85 elephants, and estimates that "about 70 elephants" were used in the actual battle. This would of course put the infantry line at less than a mile and a half (7000 feet) in length. His numbers on infantry and cavalry do however agree with this article.

This article can be reached at www.jstor.org, however it is a pay-site so hopefully someone who belongs to a university which has membership to this site as mine does may be able to check this source for further information.

You forgot to add the space needed by the elephants (4-5 meters per beast). A battleline of 30.000 infantry in typical close formation needs approximately 2-3.000 meters if it is arrayed 8-10 men deep. If the elephants were arrayed at intervals of about 30 meters, then, between them, there would be about 25-26 m frontage of infantry. Thus, about 250-300 foot. So, allowing 4 m for the elephant and 26 m for the line, we reach an average of 250-300 men per 30 meters, per elephant. Thus, it depends on what depth Porus has chosen for his men, but 100-150 elephants can be easily accounted for in a line of a total frontage of 3-4 kilometers. 200 seems much but is not exorbitant, since the actual distance could be 3/4 of a plethron. GK1973 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. You some kind of a mathematician? But I do agree that with a line formation of 10 men deep, 200 elephants spread in a single line can stretch a few miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.162.6 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lines stretching for miles was nothing peculiar to the ancients. The problem with the battle of Hydaspes is that since we do not have a clue as to where exactly the battle took place, it is absolutely impossible to talk with certainty about the mathematics of this battle. I am not personally familiar with the geography of the river but I have been told that there are lots of places where armies of this size could have deployed. Generally speaking, Arrian is very well versed in pitched combat mathematics and his battle descriptions are among the most trustworthy any scholar can turn to. The numbers he uses are traditional and thus open to criticism (especially regarding the Persian forces) but their placement and movement on the battlefield extremely realistic. GK1973 (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bhera, where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence that Bhera was the place where the battle was fought? Most historians say that the location where the battle was fought is a location called 'Mong' in the district Jhelum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.24.72 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory and casualty figures

That term gets thrown around Wikipedia a lot, and frequently in places where it doesn't belong. I see there was already a discussion about it. What it really comes down to, however, is not what Wikipedia editors believe, rather, what the sources cited state. Now the source given for that it's a PV is "Welman", which leads to dead links. So we need a source that states that it's a PV. Other online encyclopedias that I've checked (and aren't mirrors of this- for example, Britannia and Encarta I remember looking at) just say that it was a victory or that he simply defeated Porus. That doesn't sound Pyrrhic to me.

Secondly, the casualty numbers. I just got a copy of Fuller's Generalship (the same one listed as a sources here), and in it he briefly discusses the various casualty figures listed by the ancient writers. He concludes that Diodorus' figures are likely the most realistic- that Porus lost 12,000 dead and 9,000 captured (including 80 elephants), and Alex lost 280 cavalry and 700 infantry (no MIA/captured numbers). Now I see the numbers listed here come from several sources (including Arrian and Diodorus, both of which are discussed by Fuller), and there's an obvious disparity but no apparent reason for why one figure was chosen over another. I don't have a copy of Green's writing, so I can't comment on that, but I'd be interested to hear why his numbers were chosen over Fuller's. Same for the Arrian, Curtius and Diodorus numbers.

So... any thoughts? --DarthBinky (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks and no response, so I'm going to edit per above. I'm going to insert Fuller's notes on the casualties, and provide some sources for it just being a "victory", rather than "Pyrrhic". I'll also be switching things over from the "Welman" thing since those links no longer work and I can't verify the info contained therein; lastly, I'm removing that OR bit at the end regarding a lack of Indian sources on the subject (which proves nothing- it was 2300 years ago, writing gets lost all the time) and that some historians believe Alexander actually lost- if that's the case, whoever inserted that bit should feel free to re-add such a comment later with the sources supporting it. --DarthBinky (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I used Green's figures in my argument for no reason other than his was the book in my hand at the time (which I fully recommend to everybody) so using fuller's casualty list over his will raise no complaints from me, although I believe that an ancient source should be used. Penguinsforever (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources I've looked at online don't seem to agree with those casualty figures. The most likely while being reasonable is...

Alexander: Many infantry Few cavalry

Porus: All cavalry Many infantry 100 elephants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad108 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Quad108 which online sources did you consult? I see that this is probably where you got the above. But note that that text is probably simply an earlier version of our article. Paul August ☎ 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This >"many", "few", "some" description does not belong to this article. We have perfectly well given all ancient accounts as to the casualties of the battle and Green's extreme hypothesis. GK1973 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the figure given in that source is more logical and unbiased. From all the modern accounts I've seen, there isn't an actual number other than for the elephants. The ancient account gives an unrealistic projection for Greek casualties. Eighty six infantry killed vs. 12,000 killed? Even the Spartans haven't pulled something of that magnitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.230.119 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "that source" you mean: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/History/Battles/Hydaspes.html, that doesn't qualify as a reliable source (see WP:RS). It may well be that we need to qualify the casualties figures given by Arrian and Diodorus. But that needs to be based upon some reliable source. The article does mention that "Historian Peter Green supports that Greek casualties might have mounted to 4.000 men, mainly phallangites, but his claims are not supported by the sources." Paul August ☎ 18:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way as regards Green, does anyone have access to this work? Can they please quote the relevant passages? Based on what Green actually says, It might be appropriate to further qualify our casualty figures. Paul August ☎ 18:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The 86 infantry vs. 12,000 is from Diodorus if I'm not mistaken? The beginning of the article states that this battle was the most "costly" for Alexander and it also resulted in a mutiny by his men forcing him to stop going further into India. I fail to understand how 86-700 infantry vs. 12,000 would have prevented him from going any further when he had greater casualties in the Persian battles. That's why something seems awfully wrong about the figure. I highly reccomend 700-4000 for Greek infantry, that figure compromises Diodorus and Peter Green. Aside from that, few cavalry and heavy infantry would also be more reasonable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.230.119 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources for the casualty figures are given in the article. The figure of 80 (not 86) Macedonian infantry killed is from Arrian, 700 is from Diodorus. I wouldn't be opposed to adding Green's figure of 4000 to the info box, but I'd like to see the passage form Green supporting this figure first. Paul August ☎ 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

80 vs 20.000 and more is nothing uncommon in ancient battles. Casualties were mainly inflicted during pursuit and not during the actual battle, and casualty figures are always very low in batles of armies armed with spears or pikes. Green has made an extreme hypothesis and this is mentioned in the article. The sources tell us otherwise and are consistent with other battles of such mangnitude we have information on. Nevertheless it was the costliest battle of Alexander, mainly due to the fact that he was not able to utilize the bulk of his army. The near mutiny of his troops had more to do with their fatigue of ceaseless campaigning than with this battle. Green's numbers do not belong in the infobox, because they are solely based on assumption. We have no reason to compromise Diodorus with Green, Green is a modern scholar and bases his arguments on a hypothesis, whereas both Diodorus and Arrian are drawing their numbers from primary sources. How many dead do you think did the Greeks have at Marathon or at Plataea? Even in Chaeronea, the casualties were extremely low on both sides. GK1973 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of battle

Someone added that the battle was located at the modern site of Mong (Punjab). But I am searching for sources, and the most recent book with this claim is from 1928! There is a 2003 book[3], but it's a republication of a bulletin and the claim cites Alexander Cunningham, who died in 1893! Another book is from 1964, but it's really a 1921 reprint[4].

The original source was the 1911 version of Encyclopedia Britannica. Archeology has evolved a lot since 1911. Modern sources seem to say that its location is unknown.

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the outdated Brittanica reference. The modern version of Brittanica does not mention this claim, which means that it has been abandoned by them. See also the multiple modern sources in Battle_of_the_Hydaspes#Location. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup necessary?

Can we consider the article free of misrepresentation and bias, particularly the casuality figures? For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup.

• Edits by Jagged 85 on Battle of the Hydaspes: (103 edits, 9 major, +517) (-67)(+107)(+24)(+4)(0)(+4)(0)(+22)(+59)(-3)(+1)(-7)(+264)(-42)(+6)(+163)(+8)(-14)(+1)(+20)(-81)(+25)(0)(+4)(+39)(+21)(+18)(+28)(+29)(0)(+16)(+43)(+35)(+31)(+4)(+1)(0)(-3)(+3)(+18)(+4)(0)(0)(+10)(+313)(0)(+81)(-81)(-3)(+439)(+61)(-2)(+26)(-66)(-9)(-2)(+65)(-10)(+9)(+72)(+155)(+5)(+51)(+80)(0)(0)(0)(+144)(-9)(-73)(0)(-9)(-2)(-34)(+16)(+16)(+30)(+36)(-1)(+84)(+1)(-16)(-1)(-11)(+11)(-55)(0)(+517)(+14)(-16)(+1)(0)(+150)(+13)(+62)(-2)(+62)(-75)(-1)(-19)(+2)(-3)(+53) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I have cleaned up the figures.

I am removing these references because I can't verify them:

• "Fuller estimates a further 2,000 cavalry under Craterus' command."[5].
• "Historian Peter Green supports that Macedonian casualties might have mounted to 4.000 men, mainly phallangites,<ref>Green 1974</ref> but his claims are not supported by the sources."

--Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirming that this article is clean. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

On Alexander's supposed victory

"Decisive Macedonian victory" - Can I know who decided that Alexander won the war? 5000 infantry and 6000 cavalry destroyed almost 7 times bigger army than Alexander's? That's ridiculous and not humanly possible, unless someone just wants to cover up. Some feel proud to say that he was killed by his own wife and not in a war :D.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash31 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 

I made a recent edit of the original page regarding Alexander's victory, but owing to my lack of 'sources', it was deleted. Before arguing about my sources, let me rephrase what i had originally written in the beginning of the article:

Western historians have traditionally declared Alexander victorious, and purported his unwillingness to cross the River Hyphasis to a threat of mutiny. The main source is Plutarch's Life of Alexander in the latter's Parallel Lives which is an anecdotal account and contains information about Alexander that cannot be corroborated by any other source. Within Indian historical records of the times, clear evidence of Alexander's victory is not available. Kautilya, the authoritative historical source of the times, completely ignores the invasion, suggesting that it was an insignificant event in the greater Indian political climate. After his short Indian campaign, Alexander returned to Babylon.

(http://www.hinduwisdom.info/India_and_Greece.htm )

The above is an excellent link that provides a large number of quotes and references from famous luminaries- Indian President Jawaharlal Nehru, Nobel Prize winning scientist Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and other western academics....

Nehru's quote regarding Alexander's invasion is the following- " From a military point of view his invasion, was a minor affair. It was more of a raid across the border, and not a very successful raid at that."

It essentially summarizes what I tried to put forward. Such a paragraph may sound demeaning to Alexander, but is mere fact. There is no record of a clear victory, or if this battle ever had an actual victor. Plutarch writes his account of alexander two hundred years after the man's death, on the basis of oral legends. It is not difficult to speculate if the Greeks returning turned the tale around, to show Alexander as the victor, and which continued to be repeated over the centuries....

Deletion of my paragraph is a step away from non-neutrality. By declaring that Alexander won the battle so directly, it is ignoring a good section of the Academic (non-western) world. Greek Historians can write whatever they want, but so should Indian historians, on basis of our own documents and records.

Joykrit (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been made a lot of times in the past and for the first time an editor offers some kind of sources on this view. This is good. But :

1. The very title of your contribution here "Alexander's SUPPOSED victory" is strange. There is no supposed victory, but a clear victory as acknowledged by the whole world.
2. A site of course is not a valid source, anyone can claim anything on a site.
3. Established historians and scientists' opinions are valid sources to be used.

Let's see the words of the scientists as presented by this site and let us assume they are correctly given :

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, has said,

"The Europeans are apt to imagine that before the great Greek thinkers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, there was a crude confusion of thought, a sort of chaos without form and void. Such a view becomes almost a provincialism when we realize that systems of thought which influenced countless millions of human beings had been elaborated by people who never heard the names of the Greek thinkers."

Nothing is said here about the battle of Hydaspes.

Professor Sir Flinders Patrie (1853-1942) British archaeologist and Egyptologist, author of Egypt and Israel (1911) observes:

" The presence of a large body of Indian troops in the Persian army in Greece in 480 B.C. shows how far west the Indian connections were carried; and the discovery of modeled heads of Indians at Memphis, of about the fifth century B.C. shows that Indians were living there for trade. Hence there is no difficulty in regarding India as the source of the entirely new ideal of asceticism in the West."

Nothing here too.

Alain Danielou (1907-1994), son of French aristocracy, author of numerous books on philosophy, religion, history and arts of India, remarks that: "the Greeks were always speaking of India as the sacred territory of Dionysus and historians working under Alexander the Greek clearly mentions chronicles of the Puranas as sources of the myth of Dionysus." He quotes Clement of Alexandria who admitted that "we the Greeks have stolen from the Barbarians their philosophy."

Again, nothing

Alexander is supposed to have invaded the Punjab in 326 B.C. Every schoolboy is taught and is expected to know, that he invaded India's Northwest. Strangely, this event, so significant to Western historians, seemed to have entirely escaped the attention of Sanskrit authors. Nowhere did Sir William Jones, (1746-1794),who came to India as a judge of the Supreme Court at Calcutta and pioneered Sanskrit studies, find any mention of Greeks or any sign of Greek influence.

(source: India Discovered - By John Keay p. 33).

This article is not enough. Again no assumptions are being made that it did not happen. Maybe you could find more in this book, something that would help us more.

"The Greek influence never penetrated deeply (into the Indic civilization)...On the other hand, the West learned something from India in consequence of the communications opened up by Alexander's adventure. Our knowledge of the facts is so scanty and fragmentary that it is difficult to make any positive assertions with confidence, but it is safe to say that the influence of Buddhist ideas on Christian doctrine may be traced in the Gnostic forms of Christianity, if not elsewhere. The notions of Indian philosophy and religion which filtered into the Roman empire flowed through channels opened by Alexander."

(source: In Search of The Cradle of Civilization: : New Light on Ancient India - By Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak & David Frawley p. 252-253).

Nothing here too

Alexander fared badly enough with Porus in the Punjab. Indeed, Porus put him on the spot when he told him: ``To what purpose should we make war upon one another. if the design of your coming to these parts be not to rob us of our water or our necessary food, which are the only things that wise men are indispensably obliged to fight for? As for other riches and possessions, as they are accounted in the eyes of the world, if I am better provided of them than you, I am ready to let you share with me; but if fortune has been more liberal to you than to me, I have no objection to be obliged to you. Alexander had no reply to the questions posed by Porus. Instead, with the obstinacy of a bully, he said: ``I shall contend and do battle with you so far that, howsoever obliging you are, you shall not have the better of me. But Porus did have the better of Alexander. In the fighting that ensued, the Greeks were so terrified of Indian prowess that they refused to proceed farther, in spite of Alexander's angry urgings and piteous lamentations. Writes Plutarch, the great Greek historian: ``This last combat with Porus took off the edge of the Macedonians' courage and stayed their further progress in India.... Alexander not only offered Porus to govern his own kingdom as satrap under himself but gave him also the additional territory of various independent tribes whom he had subdued. Porus emerged from his war with Alexander with his territory doubled and his gold stock augmented. So much for Alexander's ``victory over Porus. However, what was to befall him in Sindh, was even worse. In his wars in Iran. Afghanistan, and north-west India, Alexander had made so many enemies that he did not dare return home by the same route he had come. He had, therefore, decided to travel via Sindh. But in Multan the Mallas gave him hell.

(source: Alexander's Waterloo in Sindh - By K R Malkhani).

Again. No mention of any defeat of Alexander, nor any mention of any unimportant battles.

According to Indian historian Dr. R. C. Majumdar, "The invasion of Alexander has been recorded in minute details by the greek historians who naturally felt elated at the progress of their hero over unknown lands and seas. From the Indian point of view, there was nothing to distinguish his raid in Indian history. It can hardly be called a great military success as the only military achievement to his credit were the conquest of petty tribes and States by installments. He never approached even within a measurable distance of what may be called the citadel of Indian military strength, and the exertions he had to make against Poros, the ruler of a small district between the Jhelum and the Chenab, do not certainly favor the hypothesis that he would have found it an easy task to subdue the mighty Nanda empire."

Again nothing else except "He did not move on. Had he moved on, he would have faced the bulk of Indian strength and then he would see..."

According to Paul Masson-Oursel and others, "The importance of this Indian campaign of Alexander has been exaggerated. It had no decisive influence on the destinies of India, for its results were short-lived.

Noone here claimed that it was a victory whose effects lasted for millenia to come...

H. G. Rawlinson, refers to the invasion, " had no immediate effect, and passed off like countless other invasions, leaving the country almost undisturbed."

The same..

Vincent A. Smith " India remained unchanged. She was never Hellenised. She continued to live her life of splendid isolation, and forgot the passing of the Macedonian storm. No Indian author, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, makes even the faintest illusion to Alexander or his deeds." (Source: Ancient India - By V. D. Mahajan 1994. published by S. Chand & Company New Delhi. p. 265-268)

Did anyone here claim that India was hellenized?

Jawaharlal Nehru in his book Discovery of India says, " From a military point of view his invasion, was a minor affair. It was more of a raid across the border, and not a very successful raid at that." He met with such stout resistance from a border chieftain that the contemplated advance into the heart of India had to be reconsidered. If a small ruler on the frontier could fight thus, what of the larger and more powerful kingdom further south? Probably this was the main reason why his army refused to march further and insisted on returning." (source Discovery of India - By Jawaharlal Nehru p. 114-115)

This calls the invasion a minor affair for the totality of India. He is right. Not a minor affair for the independent kingdoms that Alexander conquered. Noone claimed in the article that Alexander conquered India.

Another myth is propagated by the Western historians that Alexander was noble and kind king, he had great respects for brave and courageous men, and so on. The truth is other-wise. He was neither a noble man nor did he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.

The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father's trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander. The Indian soldiers who were returning from Masanga were most atrociously murdered by Alexander in the dead of night. These exploits do not prove Alexander's kindness and greatness, but only an ordinary emperor driven by the zeal of expanding his empire.

(source: Alexander, the Ordinary - By Prof. Dinesh Agarwal http://www.itihaas.com/ancient/1.html )

This article is not about Alexander's character..

The rest is about things irrelevant to this article.

Your addition to the text is demeaning in an inappropriate way and your goal seems to be exactly that, to make Alexander's campaign along the Indus appear insignificant, when there is no mentioning of any "great" campaign which "hellenized" India and "shaped the world". This article is very neutral and correctly avoids bold statements. You are answering to a point which is inexistent here. Should there be such statements, your points would have been really valid, but there are none.

And of course, your text has little to do with even these "sources". For example this part about Plutarch being the main source as well as the text's evaluation is totally wrong and unsupported

GK 11:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

this is a non-issue. The hinduwisdom.info url provided far from being an "excellent link" is in fact a random piece of trash found on the internet. This is not how Wikipedia articles are written. As long as no real sources are provided, there isn't even anything to debate here. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Dbachmann, so far only your unfounded opinion has been fit to be called "random piece of trash found on the internet". Hinduwisdom.info has referred to several Indian Sources as promised above, unfortunately, like all Indophobic Pro-western POVs, you have failed to offer any contradicting opinion that has any substance in it regarding the vast data given here.

Historical errors

Porus was never a satrap nor was his country, essentially covering the territory of Rajasthan, ever a satrapy. Porus was so cooperative after his defeat that Alexander let him keep his kingdom and even gave him other territories to add to it. In return he was to guard the eastern frontier of the Macedonian-Iranian empire as a client-king. Alexander did not make Rajasthan a satrapy and did not go further because he was facing a mutiny of the Macedonian troops. They refused to go further east, and perhaps they were right, as they would have faced more and more Indo-Aryans under yet more formidable rajas. Alexander had the sense to draw the line at the Indus. When he went back to Babylon he replaced his Macedonian guards with a specially recruited and trained Iranian guard unit. However they could not save him from disease and maybe that was for the best. I don't imagine Europe would have allowed him to divide it into satrapies of the Persian Empire for long. The Great Alexander would have been about as great as the Great Napoleon. You just can't do everything. After his death the Indo-Aryans of central India forced the Macedonians to let go of the Indus. A domino effect followed. The Parthian satrapies on the east threw off Macedonian rule and re-established purely Iranian rule, nor were the Romans, heirs to Alexander, ever able to repeat his successes. There was no one like Alexander. He knew his limits however. He was something of a philosopher-king but I think that he knew his ideal of a multi-cultural empire of the whole world was beyond his reach.

Porus of course did not last forever and that was the problem. Rajasthan was incorporated into another empire of north central India and that empire did not care to be a client kingdom. The Macedonians had to come to terms with it after a notable defeat. Moreover, Porus held only a part of the Punjab. The Jhelum was actually his western frontier, in part. Most of his kingdom was a huge slice of land to the east of the Indus. So, the Macedonians never got the whole Punjab. They had already defeated Taxiles so they did get part of it as satrapies. This article needs to be checked and rewritten. Something of the mutinous state of the Macedonian troops might be said as well as of the significance of Alexander's arrangement with Porus.Botteville (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Caveat regarding coordinate location

Please note that the coordinate location of 32°49'40"N, 73°38'20"E is only a best-guess that I added today to the English Wikipage plus to the Wikidata item, based on the following points:

• The English Wikipedia page states that "the most plausible location is just south of the city of Jhelum"
• The file "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_hydaspes_crossing.png" [The Department of History, United States Military Academy] indicates that the action took place near a northern/north-western tributary of the river.

Of course, feel free to remove it or correct it based on better or additional sources. Fred Johansen (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Hydaspes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221175139/http://www.siu.edu:80/~dfll/classics/Civ2004/alia/alexander.pdf to http://www.siu.edu/~dfll/classics/Civ2004/alia/alexander.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Zhukov said Alexander lost the battle

According to this source Marshal Zhukov saw the battle as defeat of the Macedonians. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Attack on My Edits by users Khirurg and Dr. K

Please write your POVs here. Lord Aseem (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

1. You are removing sourced material because you do not like it.
2. You are falsifying sourced material (Roy, Arrian).
3. You are tendentiously adding cn tags to material that is sourced (because you don't like it).
4. You are shouting insults (calling me an "indophobic bastard") and trying to threaten me on my talkpage.

See WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest a 180 degree change in your attitude, or your days editing here may be numbered. Khirurg (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Refutation:- You are removing sourced material because you do not like it.
- No, as per wikipedia guidelines, the more reliable Sources are to be given weightage over older ones. The sources I have given against Kaushik Roy also offer evidence to the contrary while Kaushik Roy's works (I read it) do NOT give sources for assertions, such as "Chariot Corps" were abolished when in the the very foundation of Mauryan Statecraft, Arthashastra, is directly against it. I have given two different pdf links, one from Upinder Singh (Another Indian Scholar at the same level as Roy) that also give a second-hand commentory on this. Also, the previous edits gloss over the details of the Battle's climax in just 4 WORDS with Roy's citation when in fact this was a huge elaborative deal with Alexander personally sending his messengers to convince Porus to surrender. Again, as per most sources, Porus SURRENDERED while Roy's version states he was captured. Here numerical quantity of reliable sources is more supportive of Surrender version than Capture version. Feel free to list them out here.

You are falsifying sourced material (Roy, Arrian). - It is not falsification if superior source material is ALSO PROVIDED as in case of Roy as spoken above. I have nowhere falsified Arrian though as far as I remember.

You are tendentiously adding cn tags to material that is sourced (because you don't like it).
- These tags were mostly there before my edits. You can check the dates. And also please apply this logic at over the Mauryan Empire page which is riddled with such irrational demands. You may note that I have removed two such tags here myself with sources.

You are shouting insults (calling me an "indophobic bastard") and trying to threaten me on my talkpage. - This is just one insult out of frustration btw. Hours of painstaking research and edits being reverted in a second tend to infuriate anyone. I hold firmly to my view that your edits were Indophobic as I accuse YOU of pushing forward your PoVs. I can't remember threatening you directly on your talk page though I warned you that if any of the previous reviewers of my edits check out your repeated reversions, they may take action on you. You are declaring the technological superiority of Greeks without any base except Kaushik Roy, who is a Indian Nationalist (Critical) historical scholar, not even a proper neutral Historian whose duty is to critically point out the shortcomings of Indian forces throughout history. There are dozens of articles, blogs apart from Historical Journals that speak of superior Indian metallurgy, War Elephant design, the Indian bow design, the steel tipped bamboo arrows, four-wheeled 6 passenger chariots, the use of Wootz Steelband the "remarkable" unique gold-and-silver armour worn by Porus that defended him from attacks till the very end, when his vulnerable right-arm (to enable more maneuvarable shots of spears) was injured while Macedonians were still stuck up at Bronze Age. It is noted that only after the Mallian Campaign was over, that Alexander came in possession of Steel. You vehemently declare 'Indians' as a whole all used short swords (even Roy doesn't say this) and got killed by Sarissas when it fact it is noted that Indians had light armoured spearmen as well and Greeks simply had LONGER Sarissas. Now here are my attacks 1. What issue do you have with it being stated that Indian Satrap of Punjab was created after this lorded over by Porus? Is this a POV now? Or as I percieve, a indophobic attempt to show a one-dimensional outcome of this battle. 2. What is wrong with stating the ACCEPTED facts backed by SOURCES that Greeks suffered casualties in Pre-Battle Manuevers? Did I even remove the casualties on the Indian side?

Lord Aseem (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this to you, once.

1. . Here [6] you claim that you reverted based on Sastri. What Sastri? I don't see any Sastri. All you did was revert sourced text, sourced directly to Roy.
2. . Here [7] you added text based on Plutarch that Bucephalus was killed in battle. First Plutarch is a WP:PRIMARY source and not suitable, second he actually says that Bucephalus died AFTER the battle, and that he might have died of just old age [8]. So you are just making stuff up and passing it off as sourced. That is intellectually dishonest.
3. . Here [9] you are calling me an "indophobic bastard".
4. . Here [10] you are removing sourced material based on the "Arthashastra", which, even if true, is a WP:PRIMARY source and hence not suitable.
5. . Here [11] you are using an essay from an essay contest [12]. Not a reliable source. The writing is comically bad. See WP:RS for what is a reliable source.
6. . Here [13] you removed a perfectly valid cn tag.
7. . Here you removed sourced material [14] (sourced to Roy), because you didn't like the "superior technology". But that is what the source says. Tough.
8. . [15] Same as above.
9. . Here [16] you are again making stuff up and trying to pass it off as sourced.

I could go on. In addition to WP:COMPETENCE issues, there are also serious intellectual dishonesty issues, which makes it very hard to see your edits in positive light. Khirurg (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Refutation

1. . Here [17] you claim that you reverted based on Sastri. What Sastri? I don't see any Sastri. All you did was revert sourced text, sourced directly to Roy.

- This is not my Edit. Check out the later Edits where Nilakanth Sastri's Age of Nandas & Mauryas has been referred to for a more vivid description. Btw, you can note the jarring difference between the Original edit *content* (elephant was killed, porus was "gravely injured" and captured while his exhaustion is is given secondary aspect, Indians routed) by Nationalist critical Historical Scholar Kaushik Roy (for which he has given no sources as well) and the one added later by me copied from the universally acclaimed Nilakanth Shastri, which is in correspondence with many other Western history Scholars, Historians, Authors that Porus was injured in his right shoulder, yes, but it was his exhaustion as the primary factor, he was personally called for by Alexander the Great himself repeatedly, and at the end he still had enough troops left for one last charge. Also note that no mention of the remarkable peculiar armour worn by him that was invulnerable except for the more open right arm (for throwing shots)which stood out as rest of the Indians worn Light to no armour. This is a clear example for you to see the Indopbhobia. And the later edit is even more vague and short. I repeat I had nothing to do with either of them.

[18] you added text based on Plutarch that Bucephalus was killed in battle. First Plutarch is a WP:PRIMARY source and not suitable, second he actually says that Bucephalus died AFTER the battle, and that he might have died of just old age [19]. So you are just making stuff up and passing it off as sourced. That is intellectually dishonest. -The main source is the book The Brief Life and Towering Exploits of History's Greatest Conqueror as Told By His Original Biographers. The battle is not considered Over till the the one of the contenders surrender. Bucephalus is stated to have died just as Alexander started to ride towards Porus to personally greet him (as per Plutarch). As per Indian sources (given in other Edits) Porus' brother Amar kills Bucephallus in the Pre-Battle Manuevers. The versions are way off. There can be a debate here later.

[20] you are using an essay from an essay contest [21]. Not a reliable source. The writing is comically bad. See WP:RS for what is a reliable source. - This "Essay" is validated by the Government of India as the official version of what Mainstream Indian history accepts as the events of the battle. This has the same validity (Indian Military analysis) as that of Kaushik Roy. The Essay itself is sourced by many sources that you yourself have backed up, like Kaushik Roy. The writing is precise and soul-less so how can it have any characteer like (comically bad)?

1. . Here [22] you removed a perfectly valid cn tag.

- Yes, and see my later edits where I gave Britannica page as the source. At a personal level, who else is more successful than Porus at battling Alexander? Please get a source to the contrary.

And still, I can get you at least 5 more reliable sources supporting this if you'd want.

1. . Here you removed sourced material [23] (sourced to Roy), because you didn't like the "superior technology". But that is what the source says. Tough.

-I have justified how unreliable Roy is and also given instances and further referrences where Indian superior technology is praised in both Primary and Secondary sources. Do you want me to conjure up a source that clearly declared as "Indians were technologically superior to Greeks"?, because that is certainly not to be found in any text by *reliable* authors. I have removed this statement on the assertion of it being made on a declaration by a *unreliable* author. Every single military history book covering Hydaspes, speaks only of Tactics and Managerial skills utilised by Alexander the Great. There is nobody apart from Roy who has ever alluded to Greek technological superiority over Indians unless you'd consider longer sarissas and better armour (yet inferior metallurgy) cover as technology, but they are more like common sense. Hence this is how I justify this.

[24] Same as above. - These are my older unsourced edits. In my newer improved edits I have already given the page by page citations from Nilakanth Shastri. Porus surrendering is a established fact. And this was too much of a big elaborative deal to be just brushed off as you can read. Now you can understand the significance of my edits and how they bring out the multi-dimensional aspect of this battle.

1. . Here [25] you are again making stuff up and trying to pass it off as sourced.

-I have given a source for Bucephalus being killed/mortally wounded in this battle. The rest is just the name of the soldier, Amar who was Porus' brother (Spitakes as we know), Greek commander Nicaea was also killed and Alexander himself was injured. I can get proper sources here as well. See, this is why I accused you of Indophobia/Eurocentrism. Any mention of significant Greek casualties is inflammatory.

I could go on. In addition to WP:COMPETENCE issues, there are also serious intellectual dishonesty issues, which makes it very hard to see your edits in positive light. Khirurg (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

- Please go on. And the competentence and intellectual dishonesty issues are what you call "Smacking POVs" against me. I have explained all of my edits above and we can discuss like this further on this ahead rather than just tossing up vague alledgations. Thank you Lord Aseem (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You haven't "refuted" anything. You just make stuff up ("Roy is unreliable!" "Every source ever written on this topic agrees with me!") and somehow expect us to believe you. The stuff about Bucephalus is sheer nonsense, and you know it. You have absolutely no understanding of what a reliable source is, even though I pointed you to WP:RS. The fact that you think Roy is unreliable shows you just can't or won't understand this point. And all these claims about all these sources that back your POV. At this point you are just repeating yourself, and pretending not to hear. This is in addition to the serious WP:COMPETENCE issues already mentioned. Khirurg (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

- Please remain calm and maintain a civil tone of this discussion. So far, in this discussion, you have not brought up ANY contradictory source. Zilch. I have repeatedly, again and again shown how unreliable *comparatively* Kaushik Roy is. If you don't want to accept comparative Scholastic grading, then it is not my fault at all. "The stuff about Bucephalus is sheer nonsense, and you know it. You have absolutely no understanding of what a reliable source is, even though I pointed you to WP:RS"

-Nope. I have read (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources) twice and all of my sourced qualify as reliable. Point out to me where Government issued OFFICIAL military analysis constitute as unreliable. This analysis has also stated it's sources clearly at the bottom. Also, that Bucephalus part isn't sheer nonsense albeit confusing. Wait till I gather my sources again.

And all these claims about all these sources that back your POV. At this point you are just repeating yourself, and pretending not to hear. This is in addition to the serious WP:COMPETENCE issues already mentioned. - I am not "repeating" myself. I have linked up direct to the source a vast majority of my Edits for readers to check out. This does not make it a claim but a fact. Only I forgot to get a link for the pre-battle manuever event above.

I have refered to sources, shown how Kaushik Roy(Nationalist critical historical scholar, with mostly contradictory claims) is unreliable *compared* to Nilakanth Sastri (Declared the greatest historian from India). Why do you fail to understand this simple fact when you yourself link me to (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#IDHT) Let me list out what makes Roy less "reliable":

• "Questionable (aka Unreliable) sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no *editorial oversight*. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and *personal opinions*."

Competence refered to in the other link basically speaks of making coherent edits which my Edits are big time. Here:[26] You accused me of adding my POV when you fail to see this minor edit in the context of my newer major edits where I have established with sources (Sastri) already that Porus surrendered. This is a COMPTENCE issue. And you have only mentioned that I have Competence issue, yet to fail to point the instances out, instead you have left a hyperlink to only malign me.

You have not even discussed properly yet. You must get contraditory sources instead of links to unrelated Wikipedia behaviour articles that you yourself fail to understand as exposed above. Contradictory Sources, Language tone adjustment. That's it. We don't need to keep wasting time on personal allegdations (like calling me incompetent, biased, etc.) Lord Aseem (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the problem. You say you have "shown" that Kaushik Roy is "unreliable", but where have shown that? You haven't shown anything. You just keep saying that Roy is unreliable, and somehow you confuse with "showing". The only thing is, I can't tell if you're being genuinely obtuse or purposely so. And the fact that you think that some Hindu nationalist-flavored essay on a government website makes it a reliable source because it's "OFFICIAL" (sic), again shows you have absolutely no understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. Khirurg (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Refutation:

See, this is exactly the problem. You say you have "shown" that Kaushik Roy is "unreliable", but where have shown that? You haven't shown anything. You just keep saying that Roy is unreliable, and somehow you confuse with "showing".

-For the fourth time, let me just copy paste where I have shown he is *COMPARATIVELY* unreliable to Nilakanth Shastri (meaning that if He contradicts Sastri, it is his sourced Edits that shall have to be cut to suit the larger narrative) as well as single-handedly the source for many declarations without any base:- "Let me list out what makes Roy less "reliable":

• "Questionable (aka Unreliable) sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no *editorial oversight*. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and *personal opinions*." "

It is His opinion that Chariots are inferior to Phalanx or cavalry. It is His opinion that Indian heavy bows were useless due to moist air or whatever. It is his opinion that Porus "failed to take any initiative" when even the pre-Edit war edits says that He deployed his own brother and son in the pre-battle manuvers event with a speedy swift force while utilising the same time to move with his heavy main division of Army to arrive at a balance point of time to counter Alexander as well as leaving behind a Small force to keep a watch on mock-Alexander camp across the river (All testified by Ptolmey's Vita Alexander 60 onwards). It is his Opinion that Porus was captured. It is his Opinion that Porus'elephant was killed. It is his Opinion that Greeks had "technological superiority" though not one mention of any such thing to concur is given. You accuse me of giving Hindu Nationalist viewpoint, when in fact Kaushik Roy, the guy you keep referring to, is a self-declared Critical Indian Nationalist whose goal is to give a negative perspective of Indian military failures throughout History. He has a Vendetta, however noble or vile, and hence his work is judgemental and against Scholastic integrity as well apart from him making the unfounded assertions that no scholar, Indian or European concurs to as stated. As I have demanded repeatedly from you unless you get me sources contradictory to this (i.e. that support his assertions), my stance which is completely unhinged on personal aspects (though aware of them) but actually on lack of such corresponding sources, will not change.

The only thing is, I can't tell if you're being genuinely obtuse or purposely so. And the fact that you think that some Hindu nationalist-flavored essay on a government website makes it a reliable source because it's "OFFICIAL" (sic), again shows you have absolutely no understanding of what constitutes a reliable source.

- This is blatant and full-fledged Indophobia exposed. Some "Hindu Nationalist" flavoured essay? How many Nationalist versions of essays have you even read to know what constitutes as such? Did you even read the complete article? It is not just the Indian Government, but the Indian Military that has published and upholded it. This gives it the same validity as Kaushik Roy (who is one of the sources in the article). Getting into the content of the essay itself, and it's relation to my edits, please point out to me ONE line which patronizes Indians, glorifies them, or derides Alexander or Greeks. By all means that article is outdated, Eurocentric and souless for me (mainstream for you though) but the only reason it has been referred to is due to the "description of War-Elephants" and that "Indian Spear-men were light armoured". Is that "BIAS" in any way? Same challenge is given to you on My Edit which was based on this.

At any rate, I really do not care about that particular edit. It was only meant to improve the vividness of the Indian contenders in the battle. I personally don't think, regardless of source, any greek soldiers are turning over in their graves over description of how a War Elephant looked like or how Indian Spearmen were light-armoured. Now after your next message, let's enter a cooler and resolvent state, and you must state each edit you have to contend while I shall restore the undisputed ones with this conversation being a record of validation by consensus for the supposed future edits. Thank you Lord Aseem (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the newly editted page and give it support before another vandaliser comes on the scene Is the writing not a brillian fusion of European and Indian POVS? Lord Aseem (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Dishonest edits

I have reverted this series of edits by Lord Aseem (talk · contribs) as tendentious, dishonest, and incompetent. First, there are several instances of Lord Aseem deliberately fabricating material that he claims is sourced, but on closer inspection is not backed by the sources:
1. Here, Aseem adds that Alexander crossed the river upstream with a strong contingent, consisting, according to the 2nd century Greek historian Arrian, of 6,000 on foot and 5,000 on horseback, though it is asserted that it was larger with over 20,000 infantry and unaccounted Scythian, Sogdian and Bactrian mounted archers with Indian contingents as well, sourced to p. 553 in Green [27]. Yet a cursory inspection of Green shows that Green in fact says that it was Porus' force that numbered 20,000 and nothing about Sogdians, Bactrians. Aseem just made this up to inflate the size of Alxander's forces to make his victory seem less remarkable. Dihonesty? Incompetence? Both?

2. Here Aseem added the claim that Porus "became the most successful recorded opponent of Alexander", yet the source says no such thing [28]. It says the tribes of the Hindu Kush were alexander's toughest opponents, but as far as Porus, merely that he was better than Memnon and Spitamenes.

3. Here Aseem adds that Bucephalus was killed in the battle and sources it to Arrian [29]. But Arrian also states But Ptolemy, son of Lagus, with whom I agree, gives a different account. In other words, Arrian does NOT support the claim that Bucephalus was killed.

In addition there are at least two instances of copyvio, where Aseem lifts text straight from the sources: [30] [31]

And finally we have this little gem of WP:IDONTLIKEIT [32] where Aseem removes perfectly good sourced material because he simply, well, doesn't like it.

I am documenting these transgressions for other users to see and know who they are dealing with. I have tried discussing with this user in the past, but I have found him extremely tendentious, aggressive, incompetent, dishonest, and pompous. He displays extreme WP:IDHT, WP:TEND and WP:OWN. Discussing with him results in massive, incoherent, dishonest (to the extent that they are understandable) rants that are simply impossible to deal with. Khirurg (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Response-

1. Here, Aseem adds that Alexander crossed the river upstream with a strong contingent, consisting, according to the 2nd century Greek historian Arrian, of 6,000 on foot and 5,000 on horseback, though it is asserted that it was larger with over 20,000 infantry and unaccounted Scythian, Sogdian and Bactrian mounted archers with Indian contingents as well, sourced to p. 553 in Green [33]. Yet a cursory inspection of Green shows that Green in fact says that it was Porus' force that numbered 20,000 and nothing about Sogdians, Bactrians. Aseem just made this up to inflate the size of Alxander's forces to make his victory seem less remarkable. Dihonesty? Incompetence? Both? ---Yes, this was a genuine mistake as I mistakenly read the line as "the force with which Alexander engaged" instead of "force which Alexander engaged". There are still plenty of sources to contradict you which I shall read up on and get them here. To make Alexander's victory "less remarkable"? It seems your agenda to make it more remarkable and your hagiographic POV regarding this just got exposed. And yes, no mention of Sogdian, Indian, Bactrian and Scythian soldiers on Alexander's side is given in ANY primary source. Please feel free to refute this directly. The brutal slaughter the 30,000+ Asian contingents occured at the hands of Porus seems to be the reason why Greek authors stick to only greek casualties of around ~1000 (Which I agree too), a figure which is a embarassment to logic, but makes sense when you possess perception to understand veiling of facts and partial truths.

2.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Hydaspes&diff=next&oldid=800597018 Here] Aseem added the claim that Porus "became the most successful recorded opponent of Alexander", yet the source says no such thing [34]. It says the tribes of the Hindu Kush were alexander's toughest opponents, but as far as Porus, merely that he was better than Memnon and Spitamenes.

-- This is a ignorant point because I did not write the initial claim which does not have a direct attestment as far as I can find online. However I can get another source that clearly states Greeks suffered the greatest casualities at the hands of Porus since they began their expedition. Let me know if it will suffice.

Memnon and Spitamenes were BOTH among the most formidable opponents Alexander faced. This sentence can also be warped to this "Porus came to be considered a greater opponent to Alexander than Memnon and Spitamenes" which I can edit.

3. Here Aseem adds that Bucephalus was killed in the battle and sources it to Arrian [35]. But Arrian also states But Ptolemy, son of Lagus, with whom I agree, gives a different account. In other words, Arrian does NOT support the claim that Bucephalus was killed.

-- Wrong, this is what we know as Tendentious armtwisting of interpretations of direct claims. Firstly, Arrian does say that, however he proceeds to speak of the ENTIRE event (Pre-Battle Manuever) as a Whole and does NOT address Bucephalus death again which has been Vividly, Crisply, declared to be a DIRECT result of this conflict.

During my search for sources, I had come across a highly reliable and renowned Western historian who had directly asserted that though some Greeks remained adamant that Bucephalus died of natural wounds, by all means it is clear he died to the blow recieved in the battle. I am still hunting for that source again after I lost it. Wait till that is found. Till then refrain from giving personal interpretations out of context and accuse me of doing so.

4. In addition there are at least two instances of copyvio, where Aseem lifts text straight from the sources: [36] [37] - This was done because I have been repeatedly attacked by you (just like here again) for "tenditious" edits and language tone. I have stated I have done so plenty of times in the conversations above to prevent personal Indophobic attacks against me in the pretence of berating me of my so-percieved Hindu Nationalist agenda. If I knew such a thing was necessary, I would've editted the description to a suitable tone. I will do so ASAP.

5. And finally we have this little gem of WP:IDONTLIKEIT [38] where Aseem removes perfectly good sourced material because he simply, well, doesn't like it. - NOPE. These are *FACTUALLY INCORRECT OPINIONS* and not in my "opinion" but the contradictory evidences given by actual EXPERTS in the edits before this one. Please don't use such insulting disgraceful assumptions against me when you have not read the whole thing in the entire context and merely glanced through a edit.

Chariot Corps were never abolished. No rationale behind Chariots being inferior to Cavalry or Phalanx is to be found anywhere. Yes, Pauravan army was light to un-armoured BUT this has been judged to be a ADVANTAGE to Porus in the edits about by John M. Kistler in a muddy terrain. And NO, it is also disproven that Pauravan Army did not have metal armor. Infact the entire Elephant Corps had steel-plated trunks, while troops had steel helmets and light armor. And also that Pauravan Military infrastructure was pretty well-supported according to John M.Kistler paraphrasing another historian (given in the source related to description of Paurava Army). I have also told you in our past conversations that Porus not taking a initiative is poor analysis and opposed to by me which makes it a controversial point and can be debated further.

Also, only Colonial Dark Age "historians" support Kaushik's unholy unfounded deranged fantasy that Porus was captured or his elephant was killed or any such nonsense. Even Greek and Roman sources state that Alexander was in admiration of the unamed Elephant of Porus and instead named him Ajax (A Hellinised version I suppose, of Sanskrit name/title Ajay (Undefeated) or Ajayashatru (Undefeated Enemy)) as this noble beast had more desire to continue the conflict that Porus himself. In fact, Alexander also got two thick Greek etched gold rings made for Ajax to be worn for his tusks. All this is covered in Green's book. But now, you still believe that kur Indian 10000 IQed Kaushik Roy, spat on by every single blog/article/website covering topics that cross over the same venn-diagrams of his baseless expertise, if from the alternate universe, is reliable?! No Greek Primary Source or Roman source or Modern Historian's accounts match up to him. In fact, I am opening up a new section here completely demolishing his status as a reliable source by comparing his versions with others' versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Aseem (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

6. I am documenting these transgressions for other users to see and know who they are dealing with. I have tried discussing with this user in the past, but I have found him extremely tendentious, aggressive, incompetent, dishonest, and pompous. He displays extreme WP:IDHT, WP:TEND and WP:OWN. Discussing with him results in massive, incoherent, dishonest (to the extent that they are understandable) rants that are simply impossible to deal with. Khirurg (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

- This is just your incompetence at grasping my well-phrased and crisp arguements delivered to get complex viewpoints across as vividly and substantially as possible. You have not pointed out anything from the past so-called conversation that shows *I have been dishonest*, nor have you pointed out anything from the past conversation that shows *I have been incoherrent* (Instead here in the page, my intentions are to provide a vivid and coherrent narrative of Battle of Hydaspes pacifying all POVS) nor have you pointed out anything from the past conversation that shows *I have been tendentious* except arm-twisted shallow personal assumptions. And now you wonder why my tone has been aggressive when so far, you have been acting utterly disinterested in improving the page, pompous, eurocentric bordering on fringes of white-supremacist tendencies thereby being a utter hypocrite while accussing me of being a incoherent matter obsfuscating agenda driven Hindu Nationalist. Other users of wikipedia support you only because you have been here for a long time and are good at traversing Wikipedia's confusing interface smacking hyperlinked alphabets to some editor helping articles that will not help the article in question there at all and thus being just veiled personal attacks. Tell me, what was the reason for reverting ALL of my edits, when you have problem with two-three of them which you yourself could've editted. Is ANY of this above a rant or well-etched analysis of your actions rather than the shallow mudslinging carried out by you against me just because I am a Hindu Indian? Anyhow, leave all this, this is just food for thought against you who personally attacked me and thought that just because I called you "Indophobic Bastard" once, got you a leeway at deriding and berating my new and upcoming profile. Tell me all the issues with by edits, NOT edit by edit but straight on here with paragraphs, and I shall do the needful.

Lord Aseem (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC) ---

Porus' Territory becoming doubled/tripled is a direct result of this battle as per Nakanth Shastri, Peter Green & Plutarch and many other unread sources. Alexander was Emperor, a Samrat. Porus remained a Raja throughout his life and as per Indian royal calls, Rajas come under Maharajadhirajas/Samrats but remain Rajas unless *annexed and replaced*. Alexander was venerated and titled "Dharmavijayi", the only invader in India who won through reasonable prowess. This gives him a subscription to Hindu Kshatra title hiearchy. Hence we should stick my original edit as I believe regarding this. Lord Aseem (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please use the talk threading method at WP:THREAD so that people can figure out who is saying what. Also, there is no need to quote large tracts of what someone just said, since it's already available to read, and doing so makes it even more difficult to keep track. If you really must quote someone else, consider using the {{xt}} or {{tq}} templates.

Additionally. WP:CIVIL is not optional. (Hohum ^@) 21:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My Edits UPDATE: Elephants and Casualties at Hydaspes

I must warn against vandalism under the masquerade of reverting "tendentious" edits from now on. More than half the page is about Alexander's victorious maneuvers with the minimum emphasis on King Porus' side. I have given the renowned sources of 1. Nilakanta Sastri [39]: Many of his books form the standard reference works on the subject. Sastri was acclaimed for his scholarship and mastery of sources and was a recipient of the third highest Indian civilian honour of Padma Bhushan.[1] Nilakanta Sastri is regarded as the greatest and most prolific among professional historians of India.[9] Tamil historian A R Venkatachalapathy regards him as "arguably the most distinguished historian of twentieth-century Tamil Nadu".[11] Sastri's A History of South India is a recommended textbook for university students of Indian history. In a preface to the 2013 reprint, historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam describes the book thus ... a classic work, which retains its importance and has never quite been replaced. It shows the author's mastery over a huge set of sources, which placed him head and shoulders above other South Indian historians of his time."

2. Peter Green [40]: Historian and Professor of Classics at the University of Texas. Educated at Trinity College at Cambridge.

3. John M Kistler: Collection development librarian in Beaver Falls, PA, 1997-98; Community College of Beaver County, Monaca, PA, library director, 1998-99; West Virginia State College, Institute, collections development librarian, 2000-02; Utah State University, Logan, acquisitions librarian, 2002-04.

4. Frank Lee Holt: Dr. Holt (MA, PhD University of Virginia) is one of the world’s leading authorities on Alexander the Great, Hellenistic Asia, and new research methodologies such as Cognitive Numismatics. He has published seven books and over sixty articles in journals such as Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik and Ancient Macedonia. His research has been featured on The History Channel and has frequently been cited in such places as National Geographic, Smithsonian, BBC Current Affairs, and The New Republic; one of his books provides a plot twist in the New York Times best-selling novel The Venetian Betrayal. In addition to his large body of academic work, Holt is also a prolific writer for the public, with essays appearing in Newsweek, American Scientist, Archaeology, History Today, Archaeology Odyssey, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Saudi Aramco World, and other widely read publications. A popular speaker, Dr. Holt has lectured worldwide for academic and general audiences.

The language has been taken word by word from the sources. Hence there is no contention of tendentiousness. So PLEASE, refrain from even modifying my Edits. Leave your queries and language issues here and I shall look into it. Lord Aseem (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Greatest Casualties At Hydaspes were dealt by Elephants. Here are the citations listed. Lord Aseem (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The farce continues

In this edit [41], Aseem adds "Had King Porus aggressively attacked the rallying unready Greek army in the initial moments of the battle, there would have been a good chance at a Indian victory.", ostensibly sourced to page 35 of Roy's book [42]. Yet, looking on p. 35, there is NOTHING to that effect, not even close. Once again Aseem is making stuff up and pretending it's sourced to push POV. This is unbelievable. Khirurg (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

He then also added that lack of armor in the Indian cavalry was "considered to be a result of hot climate or prevalent habitual long-distance warfare style over close combat". Not sourced to anything, he just made that up. Khirurg (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Can Aseem provide quotes from Roy(p.36) and Kistler(p.40) and to support this sentence?

• "This shows that Alexander's army had suffered the greatest casualties at the hands of the Pauravan army surpassing those at Battle of Gaugamela, majorly due to skillful use of War-Elephants by King Porus."

Am I not seeing any mention of casualties in the Kistler source and nothing about elephants or Alexander in the Roy source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Response:-

To Kansas Bear & Khirurg:-

From Kistler page 40, look at paragraph No. 5: " After the horrendous conflict, in which the Macedonian Army *suffered more casualties than in all their fights* (speaking in proportion).." There is also a analysis in the Original edit (Just the previous statement) which has been left unmolested by me according to Fuller as well, where also says ~1000 Greeks were killed and which is a "large number of casualties for a victor".

For a more detailed Analysis, I also looked into Roy's work. I believe I have given the incorrect source here as the book seems to different from the Roy's book used as source here on the Battle of Hydaspes Article. I apologize for the issue. The actualy source is Warfare in Pre-British India – 1500BCE to 1740CE by Kaushik Roy (2015 latest revision of his studies). Here is the link: (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=xx7ICQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=kaushik+roy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp5In0j67WAhWJu48KHRv1CTgQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=porus&f=false). I shall edit it all again in about 5-6 hours time.

For Kansas Bear, continuing the backing for the edit regarding casualties, quoting from above at Page 36 Paragraph 1, starting at sentence no. 15:- "These figures are interesting *Both Arrian and Diodoros* accept that *Alexander's army suffered greater casualties at Hydaspes than at Gaugamela*, which was the the biggest battle that Alexander fought against the Persian Empire. And these two historians *accept that lesser number of Indians died compared to Persians*. In other words, it seems that the combat effectiveness of the force of a small Indian regional kingdom was greater than the much vaunted army of the Ancient World's superpower, Persia."

For Khirurg, page 35 paragraph 2: "Military Revolution or not, Alexander's victory however was not inevitable. When Alexander was forming his infantry who had just crossed the river and were organizing themselves in a phalanx, then a few squadrons of Greek Cavalry screened their front. At that time if Porus, whose army was already organized in battle formation, had attacked the unready Greek Army with his elephants, then all hell would've broken loose upon the Macedonian "world conqueror"." There is also further analysis, but I think I have backed my edits enough.

P.S. that Hot Climate and Armor factor is also discussed on Page 35 first paragraph of the text.

I will correct the source errors ASAP. Thank you for pointing out the mistakes. --Lord Aseem (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok on the "Hot climate" bit, but not the rest. The bit about "Military Revolution or not" is speculation on the part of the author. also I thought you hated Roy (" you still believe that kur Indian 10000 IQed Kaushik Roy, spat on by every single blog/article/website covering topics that cross over the same venn-diagrams of his baseless expertise, if from the alternate universe, is reliable"), what happened? Khirurg (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Aye, I hated Roy's inaccuracy, shallow and the jarring differences between others' versions and his. However my judgement was on his older texts. He revised his analysis, and added and removed lot of factors for which he no doubt was criticised for. But I then quickly read through his latest books and looked out for them myself.

His latest books are all up-to-date and his analysis is far more mature albeit some of the info is incorrect (not related to this topic here). He has changed his stance about Chariots being abolished to them playing a marginal role in Indian history. He has correctly stated that Greek CAVALRY is superior to Indian Pauravans not the entire army as a whole and also the part related to technology superiority of Greeks and no-armour on Indian soldiers has also been removed. I appreciate when intellectuals improve on their stances at embarassing degrees and I believe we all should laud their scholastic integrity. I have not written anything about his speculative part in the edits (the Indians were superior to Persians in combat effectiveness) only his numerical analysis concurred by John M. Kistler and Fuller both experts in their fields. This is also proof that Porus is thus the one who is the most successful opponent against Alexander.

I will wait for ~5 hours for your response then restore and rectify the edits. My Edits will have consensus now of both You and Kansas Bear. Lord Aseem (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am really getting sick and tired of your sneaky, dishonest removals of sourced text. That the Greeks had superior technology is very solidly sourced, and your inventing excuses for removing it is extremely tendentious. If you do this again, there will be consequences. Consider yourself warned. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

How was it "sneakily" or "dishonestly" removed? Again a blatant display of pre-assumed motives and insults. I have been pretty upfront all this while and giving sourced material and you have the audacity to accuse me of being tendentious? I have also give EVIDENCE, direct vivid Descriptions of superior Metallurgy and Material used {Steel, Brass (Tusk Spikes), Iron-Plates Reinforced Leather, Quilted metal, Tower Howdahs, Steel Axes, Maces, Lances, Baldrics, Steel Helmets, King Porus' unique Chain Mail armour that was SHOT-PROOF as noted by Nilakanth Sastri except for the vulnerable exposed right arm (needed for hurling), which got injured due to a stray javelin and was the Direct factor in making Porus surrender rather than fight to death as his original intention was} used along with Poisoned iron rods (imbued into the metal itself) to kill the elephants (which failed however) and also unadded Copper-inbraided Turbans and White leather footwear with thick padding, excellent for long marches and heavy-duty action. Alexander did possess far superior seige weapons (movable tower and ballistae) than what Indians of North-West did (As they were under Achaemenid Overlords unlike rest of India which flourished) but it had nothing to do with the Battle here. Can you get me citations from the newer reviewed Roy texts reproduced here *word by word* speaking of any such "technology" in the context of Battle of Hydaspes? (This is the *crux* of this Message of mine, ignore everything else as food for thought or defense of my side from reviews by other Users). Hell, just get me one European author's work (Not even a historian, even a chauvanist would suffice) If not, I shall report you for giving outdated unfounded references which the very Source NO longer holds solid just because you have a one-dimensional perspective of this battle as a west vs. Indian thingy. This is *Tendentious attitude* not mine. The best performing soldiers in this war apart from the Greek Cavalry and Phalanx (Who are not considered as active members of the battle) were the Indian soldiers of Taxiles who directly assaulted Porus' elephants and faced them head on. This battle was a result of vengeful Indian Ambhi Kumara hoping to get even with Porus by firing from above Alexander's shoulders else considering how egoistic he was, we would be discussing on Battle of Taxila otherwise. Many historians have noted how Alexander and Porus became fast and great friends. Porus remained a loyal Satrap throughout his life. Now Peter Green, Fuller, John M. Kistler, Plutarch, etc. are also Hindu Nationalists? Such one-dimensional attitude promotes Nationalism among maligned countries like India as a defensive mechanism. Also, I have written how great Alexander's Companion Cavalry was and how his Phalanx made excellent use of Sarissas while heavy infantry Hamstringed and hacked at the Elephants, something that even a alledgedly-eurocentric user like you has not written about while also formatting the Battle section to give a perfectly coherrent narrative, a task difficult for most historians even. My edits have been the best so far for the benefit of the Article appeasing all POVs. I have been lauded by people for my edits in real life as well who used this page for their projects. Do you really want others to review your actions here, which have been anything but constructive? *Sigh* I waste a lot time writing such repeated justifications for my edits which themselves consume hours of my time and require painstaking researchwork. Reply ASAP but ONLY when you get the source I have demanded. Remember, even a Eurocentric White-Supremacist Neo-Nazi imaginary fairytale version of this battle referring to ANYTHING remotely equivalent to "Superior greek technology at Battle of Hydaspes" would be accepted by me and I shall stop editting forever you can get so. You have 6 Hours to respond (if) otherwise simply ignore and I shall restore my edits. Do not write any threat, or anything more than the Crux of the issue here. Also, if you just had issue with the Technology thingy, why did you revert entire dang edit? I cannot waste more time for this. I am finally fully satisfied with my edits here and I consider the Indian side as well as the Greek side accurately and correctly represented and my duty complete. Once this final edit is through, I shall leave this page unmolested, except for any future vandalisms, actual tendentious POV pushing or any of that sort. Regards Lord Aseem (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You would do well to read Kaushik Roy, page 23 [43]. You would also do well to knock it off with the "Neo-Nazi" crap, otherwise you will "stop editting the page forever" (sic), though it won't be voluntary. Khirurg (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Aseem, I should have been more specific about Kistler, I meant that I do not see where he states the Macedonians/Greeks higher casualties stemmed from facing elephants.

Also, Roy makes no mention of elephants being the cause of higher casualties either.

• "This shows that Alexander's army had suffered the greatest casualties at the hands of the Pauravan army surpassing those at Battle of Gaugamela, majorly due to skillful use of War-Elephants by King Porus."

I still see nothing that supports the latter part of the sentence. The first part is supported by Kistler and Roy, but nothing about elephants being the cause.

Might I suggest this book, by Roy and a little paraphrasing to the latter half of the sentence to make it supported by the Roy source.--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you @ Kansas Bear. I will do so when I am able to restore the edits undisputedly. This is what we call Constructive attitude. User Khirurg would do well to learn from you.

@Khirurg I had written a huge reply against you. But sadly maybe due to a glitch it got removed. Anyhow, repeating a short version of it here. Please do not twist my words. I have so-far accused you only of Euro-centric and Indophobic attitude but never a serious allegation as a neo-nazi or whatever. I meant that I will accept even a Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist and all that sort's work that directly states that Greeks had any such "technological superiority". Kindly do not malign me with such out-of-context pre-assumed motives and insults. Other Users generally focus on keywords that stand out. Anyways, here you are giving a outdated text (2004) of a scholar who *NO LONGER HOLDS THESE VIEWS SOLID* as per the latest reviewed (2014) text covering the topic with over a decade worth of revisions. I can report you for sticking to a unfounded claim just because it appeals to your notions, but even this source is leaky as it is. [44] Look at page 23. Only ONE technological *ADVANTAGE* is mentioned which I have ALREADY added and YOU reverted that Greeks possessed Mass-Production capabilities of weaponry which however incorrect, has been put in just to appease YOU. This statement has been made to be applied to all of India, rather than North-West, which was under Achaemenid Overlords and did not progress at the same degrees as the rest of India. You have been more of a Hindu Nationalist so far than the alleged poor me. Further on to the page 24, Greek superior Technology in the terms of "Siege Weaponry" which have nothing to do with this Battle here, has been spoken of. Rest is all about TECHNICAL Superiority meaning what I have already written (Superior Training, Discipline, Co-ordination, Tactics, Mobility) over the PAURAVAN army. Chariots being obsolete (according to Roy) has also been written down. All of this has been fixed in the latest works of Roy. Where the advanced Cavalry of Greeks is praised instead of the entire army. Where the Heavy Infantry is praised instead of the entire army. What is your concern here? Everything has been dealt with. I have extolled the Greek Cavalry and Phalanx, Sarissas far more than you and same for Indians. There is no way on Earth anybody can call me Tenditious now, for merely giving Indians more representation for a war fought on their OWN turf!

@Kansas Bear Please review my edits and give the final verdict here. Am I as dishonest or sneaky as I have been made out to be? Is there anything that ought to be contended? Lord Aseem (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is just unbelievable. Like I said, a farce. I don't know where to begin. First, there is NOTHING in Roy 2014 that negates Roy 2004. 2004 is furthermore not "outdated". It is plainly obvious that you are really really really REALLY bothered by the "superior technology" and are making up excuses to get rid of it, even though it is solidly sourced. What is the superior technology based on? Let's see, how about: better armor, better weapons, better capability of mass production of weapons, better siege machines? Is that enough for you? Then there's the whole "If King Porus' full-fledged assembled army aggressively attacked the rallying unready Greek army in the initial moments of the battle, there would have been a good chance at a Indian victory." which is speculation and as such, worthless. With enough "if this" and "if thats", anything could have happened. If the weather was better, and Porus had more elephants, and Porus attacked more, and Alexander had had a cold, and this and that, yeah sure, it could have been a massive Indian victory. But it wasn't. Then you added all that jazz about 600,000 infantry in the Mauryan army. what does that have to do with the article? Nothing, that's what. It's just nationalistic puffery. And just because the Pauravans were fighting on their "OWN turf" , doesn't mean we have to add Hindu nationalist POV in the article. There is no such thing as WP:OWNTURF, only WP:NPOV. As for "I have so-far accused you only of Euro-centric and Indophobic attitude but never a serious allegation as a neo-nazi or whatever." let's just say you're lucky I'm still laughing at that, because that's the only reason I haven't reported you yet. And then somehow you go from there to "you have been more of a Hindu Nationalist so far than the alleged poor me", well, by then we are deep, deep in BizarroWorld. Khirurg (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You have almost crossed all limits of civility, deliberatedly acting obtuse regarding Roy's works and more so even audaciously threatened to report me.

"better armor, better weapons, better capability of mass production of weapons, better siege machines"- Better Armour? Tin, Copper and low grade bronze with some zinc tossed in is being compared to World-Renowned Indian Steel? More like Better "Armour Cover" which is already mentioned in the edits. This is COMMON sense not Technology. You can wrap yourself in tin foil and give equal protection to your whole body or protect your Chest, Head, Limb Joints and Crotch with cushioned plastic. To be honest, I doubt you hold understanding of what Heavy Infantry means. Heavy Infantry IS supposed to have Better Armour cover.

"Better capability of mass production of weapons" the only Technological *ADVANTAGE* as mentioned. Even Roy 2004 DOES NOT any where speak directly of Technological Superiority except the Seige weaponry no concerned with the Battle

Anyways, "Seige Weapons"... Yes! GREATEST ON THE PLANET if the world ended at North-West India! Used in this Battle? Nope. You are shooting your own foot here.

Better weapons? The sarissas have been repeatedly extolled. Steel Axes which could hack off Elephant limbs? A INDIAN weapon used on BOTH sides BY Indians alone. Lances? Both Sides, though Indians had superior Steel head metallurgy. Maces? Purely on the Pauravan side (Indian).

I added all that jazz thingy in Mauryan Army, because I was going to elaborate on that (From Roys's source itself). Such a huge united Imperial army obliterated existence of tiny decentralised rulers like Porus (Later Eudemus) due to logisitical efforts required in maintaining them ensuring One-State India's existence that could ward off Invaders as envisioned by Chanakya. Your eurocentric ego may be satiated to know at least 200,000 out of the 600,000 Mauryan Infantry were all war veterans of Alexander's army and his established colony members including Greeks, Scythians, Transoxianians, Persians. Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya aka Sandracottus (while he was still rebelling against Dhana Nanda) actually met and interacted personally as recorded by Roman Sources as well. Sandracottus goaded Alexander that he narrowly missed becoming a benevolent Liberator Hero for the Indians had he battled and defeated Dhana Nanda, who hated and feared throughout India. Shastri has even speculated Meroes who pacified Porus was actually Chandragupta Maurya.

You have testified what happens when we turn the Out-Of-Context quotations dial to overload by those un-substantial remarks of yours. That Turf comment was regarding what ever descriptions of Indian army excluding those of 9,000,000 11 metre tall hulks doing anything besides being slaughtered by the swaggering 2-3 greek soldiers which was added. Roy's comment like everything is a personal speculation and hence is part of "According to Roy,.." lines and part of the Aftermath and Legacy. Add your own preferred Modern Scholar's opinions if they can refute whatever Roy says by saying "According to...". Bucephalus not being killed like a wounded dog as directly declared is also Arrian's speculation. Scholastic Speculations, however incorrect are better than hiding that besides our 6,000 GREEK infantry and 4,000 GREEK CAVALRY, our army has 70,000 hordes of Central Asian cavalry. Speculations are better than saying ~1000 Greeks died (Almost 850+ by 120 elephants approx. and ignoring that ALL 70,000 Central Asians/Persians/Indians were slaughtered by just 20,000 Indians battling against the Greatest Conqueror on the planet). I have just today finished reading the entire books by Fuller and Green. I have no intention of making Porus win this war. We all know how Alexander won this war despite being exposed prostrate at Porus' feet twice. People may wonder why Porus, a nationalist warmonger throughout his life, was defensive against the World-Conqueroring invader.. But we know it has something to do with a red thread and Hindu Dharma.

Do you NOT understand Scholastics? If the same factors (Which is not even mentioned in original source as I pointed out) are NOT repeated in the revised editions, they are DISCARDED. Kansas Bear, Please help me deal with this issue. I do not want to argue with Khirurg anymore as he refuses to accept Facts. Give us your verdict and I shall restore the edits the way you see fit.Lord Aseem (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Kansas Bear is unresponsive. I think we need to sort this between ourselves @ Khirurg. There is no way I can allow a clear lie like Greek Technological Superiority over Indians/Pauravans. But the fact they had Technical Superiority and Technological Advantage, is a true and correct fact and added. What else? That "speculation". Speculation is what follows on the next section of Roy's work "What if Porus would've won the war" like the dozens of ways the real actual brutal Indian emperors like Dhana Nanda would get Invaders rid off before the war would start. The part about Porus's full fledged army attacking the rallying Greek army is event-oriented history, which is how this very page is Written. This is Analysis at the Aftermath level not Speculation and in tune with how every single battle fought by Alexander is written here on Wikipedia. Look into Battle of Gaugamela for a clear example. Try and understand. This is nothing personal. I am not some long-lost descendant of Porus to jump up and down for him. This is history and the truth. If you believe that the representation of Indian side here has gone up too much, than rather than hide the truth about them, elaborate more on the Greek Side by editting in yourself. Just leave my crisp edits alone. Lord Aseem (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No I'm actually done with you. I'm tired of your loud, incoherent rants, personal attacks, patronizing behavior, ultimatums, refusal to get the point and messianic fervor. I have nothing more to say to you. I suggest you find something else to do. Or you can keep edit-warring and get blocked. Your decision. Khirurg (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Then in order to help me deal with a hypocrite of the first order, mudslinger, liar, Kansas Bear must respond ASAP. I have no "incoherent" rants. They are saturated with unofficial information for you hoping to mould your perception. How does it matter if they are loud when you only listen to yourself. Patronizing behavior? Meh. I have made myself more than clear on this. Ultimatums? When one is as unresponsive, disinterested as you, Time slots need to be put up to speeden up the procedure. Refusal to get the point? Are we speaking about me still or YOU? You have NO sources, except one which is outdated and vague which you Tom-tom as solid about a PoV that the source itself NO longer holds. Once I get the consensus, you won't be able to do anything. Wikipedia is not your personal property where I must appease your false baseless POVs or get lost. I will be messaging Kansas Bear for getting his attention. I'll see if others may be brought here as well. Lord Aseem (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

While the others come up here @Khirurg, I am truly sorry for attacking you personally. I should have clarified that me accusing you of Indophobia and Eurocentrism is purely based off my views regarding your actions and I have no authority/moral high-ground to speak on who you are personally. This is not because I got any warning or message regarding my behavior or whatever. But after introspection, I understand your hostile behaviour is rooted towards me because I called you a "Indophobic bastard" and that I was still new to Wikipedia atmosphere and thereby aggressive (Wikipedia is not a reputatedly Hindu nationalist Indomaniac site, you know :) ) and also because Alexander is not exactly a fan-less fellow. Your allegations against me of Incompetence were well-justified (then) and I appreciate your patience. I believe I have improved at use of wikipedia's interface and I hope to learn and contribute more. I hope our relationship improves ahead. Lord Aseem (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, apology accepted, although I still don't have much more to say. Regarding the "superior technology" dispute, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I still maintain that the sourcing in Roy, the lack of armor worn by the Indians, inferior weapons (e.g. raw oxhide shields, lack of long range spears, see Roy p. 21 [45]), and low mass production capability, is more than sufficient to support the current text. Khirurg (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for your "apology" I guess [46]. Khirurg (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It is clear by your comments "peacockery" and "Unsourced Junk" comments on Edit vandalism (Not mine) that have remain unmolested for years that you did so only to take a childish sort of "revenge" for the Greeks against my edits. Did I do anything after my apology except restore the undisputed edits? You are diverting my time from finding sources and citations to keeping a tab on you. Lord Aseem (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, Roy's assertions are unsourced while Kistler cites from eminent Colonial dark age Historians with primary informations regarding descriptions of the Indian army. Yes, Indian tribals did wear Ox Hide but nowhere Pauravans are mentioned to be. Lord Aseem (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This is sad, I thought we would enter a highly cooperative phase by now, with me editting and you reviewing and vice versa like even the opponents here, Alexander and Porus did so. But you just had to go aggressive removing age old material just because it is not sourced (It is but as the entire paragraphs) to neutralize Porus' acclaim which has been attested to by every single source ever written on Hydaspes.Lord Aseem (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So it turns out your "apology" was as dishonest as the rest of your edits. And the dishonesty and/or incompetence continues. This [47] is one of those auto-generated "books" from wikipedia. Didn't you notice the text is exactly the same as in the article? It is not a reliable source. Your contention that "Roy's assertions are unsourced" is laughable, since Roy IS a source. Regarding Porus' height, that is also sheer nonsense, and it was unsourced, so I was well within my rights to remove it. That you reacted so VIOLENTLY to that removal shows you have a real problem with this article. The sources you have added about the height are either not reliable or do not back the claim you are making. Again, can't decide if it's incompetence, dishonesty, or both. Khirurg (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Arrey, what I mean to say is that Roy gives no Primary sources for statements like the one for armour unlike Kistler. I would let it stand if not for it being in DIRECT contradictions with the description by Kistler who paraphrases from ANOTHER Colonial era eminent Historian (Maccfun or something) who has Direct sources to cite from. Also, raw ox hide is not leather which is tanned. The lightest armoured Pauravans wore thin leather breastplates. Yes, I am aware the book is auto-generated. Hence it shows that being a work of non-Indian affiliated authors, the language tone (peacockery as you put it albeit true) is not a hagiographic or tendentious edit. As far as the height of Porus is concerned, the second source given is not assertive but analytical and places his height between 6 ft 1 to 7 ft 5. Every single source, I repeat, Every single source speaks of this value. I really don't see what's unbelievable. Maharana Pratap was 8 ft 1 inches and he was nothing special compared to his ancestors.Lord Aseem (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also brother, I am really sorry once again for my aggressive tone. I am currently working towards sources for clearing the cn tags and add as vivid info as possible. Please help me out.Lord Aseem (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for sourcing. They are WP:RS and WP:PSTS. Specifically: auto-generated books are not reliable sources. Colonial-era historians are heavily outdated and should be avoided. Ancient authors are primary sources and should also be avoided. Roy on the other hand is a modern, secondary source and meets WP:RS. It is not for you to second guess him. He is not under obligation to reveal the source for every single sentence. If he says no armor and oxhide shields, you have to accept it. Period. No ifs buts and maybes. Khirurg (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Read Roy (2014) and then 2004. His stance has already changed from cotton turbans to Copper-Inbraided Turbans and Ox-Hide SHIELDS (Which are not "technologically" inferior or superior) and from unarmoured to Light-Armoured. John M Kistler is also a Modern Scholar whose expertise is in deployment of War-Elephants Corps in military and who actually does have sources. Steel Helmets and copper inbraided-Turbans are not exactly something you can wear at the same time. Hindu Shrivatsa Helms require a Man-Bun to hold them in position.

[48]

Here is how the hairstyle must be:- [49]

Hence the very idea of "Copper-Inbraided' Helmets is baseless and directly contradictory to Steel Helmets mentioned in full-fledged vivid descriptions by Historians with direct access to Greek & Roman manuscripts, which are famed and spoken of repeatedly in every Hindu scripture related to war. Anyhow, Technology had no factor in the war except the mass-produced weaponry which I myself fail to see how it affected the battle. The whole battle was Porus making a foolish charge against a army of Alexander he thought was less in number to his own. Then the rest was spent in wasting manpower concentrating attack on the Phalanx and the auxillary on the 70,000 un-named Hordes of Central Asians who were slaughtered due to the same factor of light to no armour by just 20,000 Infantry, 4000 Cavalry and 85-120 Elephants. Credits must be given to Alexander's Greek force by all means only. In fact Alexander helped in solving a dreadful and ugly Power Struggle in Punjab by making Porus the unopposed King. Battle of Hydaspes was by no means a minor affair. Porus' establishment ensured Central Authority which was overtaken by Eudemus later killed and deposed by Chandragupta allowing a smooth takeover of Punjab by Mauryan Empire.Lord Aseem (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Who won the battle of Hydaspes??

I don't think this is the true story as the Indian history was written by the britishers and everyone know how Britishers were at that time this story was made by the British to make Alexander great infront of the world. Shreyash yadav (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle that Alexander never won

The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian, and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his misadventures.

Mr. E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:

"In the battle of Jhelum, a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".

Mr. Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief-stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said, "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. With a sad heart, I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8B:C300:3480:B1C7:1895:7E11:674D (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a fictional event which even ends with Alexander killing Porus. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

New Painting for depiction

I believe there should be another painting instead of the bland depressing black and white one by Andre. Who supports this? Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

I would like to edit this page as some of the information written here is not valid and is false. i would like to correct the mistakes here Bala4241 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Please format such changes in the form of "Change X to Y", providing sources as required, and change "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no" to re-active this request. NiciVampireHeart 15:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexander defeated by Porus.

The Greek's history on Alexander and his attempt to invade Indian subcontinent is clear attempt to eulogize their leader / clans. The facts and logical conclusions have no place in their (Greek/ European) history versions. An Indian version is worth to be considered also. 117.98.131.168 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

It would appear the source you have provided is written by a journalist, not an academic historian. Just so you know, Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is written by a journalist or an academic historian, the facts and logic given in the essay matter. He is also quoting from the same old ancient books as others did. His essay can be questioned only on the grounds if he is falsely giving reference to the old ancient books. What is the reason that Alexander selecting a deadly uninhabitable Baluchistan desert to reach back to Persia instead of selecting his invading itinerary in India to retreat his forces? Could he trust on safe replenishment or retirement of forces and supplies via his conquered area of India? He realized early that he got trapped in between his enemies/subdued people to take revenge. 171.49.236.183 (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Whether it is written by a journalist or an academic historian..."

Wrong. Why should Wikipedia allow the work of a journalist compared to an academic historian? This would be the first question someone could mention when checking the reliability of this particular source.

• "His essay can be questioned only on the grounds if he is falsely giving reference to the old ancient books"

Wrong, again. Whether the person in question is qualified, per Wikipedia:RS, to be used as a source for Wikipedia. If you use such a weak source to present a different, possibly fringe, perspective, I would not be surprised if it is reverted.

• "What is the reason that Alexander selecting a deadly uninhabitable Baluchistan desert to reach back to Persia instead of selecting his invading itinerary in India to retreat his forces? Could he trust on safe replenishment or retirement of forces and supplies via his conquered area of India? He realized early that he got trapped in between his enemies/subdued people to take revenge."

Such reasoning falls into the area of original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Brave Puru

The paurava army had killed more than 50 000 macedonians.Thatis why Alexander could nt march forward in India.There its given just 1000.If it would have been so less casualities then why would Alexander return from India? Alexander army was not homesick but their casualities were so high that they had no option — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.84.137 (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, no wonder this article is protected. Embarrassing. Italia2006 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018

The history of battle between Alexander and Porus was written by the British who wanted to glorify the west and thus wrote about Alexander's victory in India. However there is another narrative in which It is Porus who won the battle. Refer http://www.royalkangra.com/recordedhistory.html Most of the history has been distorted and customised based on the countries in power, when the narrative was written. 2601:1C0:4F00:89DA:85C0:995C:5F80:A7A (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Any edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made, usually in the form "Change X to Y". General requests such as this cannot be completed via edit request per WP:EDITREQ#General considerations. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

The battle resulted in a Greek victory and the surrender of Porus.[a] Large areas of the Punjab between Hydaspes (Jhelum) to Hyphasis (Beas) rivers were absorbed into the Alexandrian Empire, and Porus was reinstated as a subordinate ruler. But according to some websites the battle resulted in the victory of Porus . He had many allies . Proof Website - https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Hydaspes

              https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/battles/battle-of-the-hydaspes.html

and many more....... Shivam271101 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019

manouvre => manoeuvre Libby Kane (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Paul August ☎ 19:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

Alexander Was Defeated The Truth.The Dark. Hi (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? Where's your reliable source for that information?JBW (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

{Alexander was defeated} The Truth.The Dark. Hi (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexander was not win in this battle The Truth.The Dark. Hi (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 08:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

This whole story is really wrong, during the great war Alexander the not so great fell of his horse and was at the mercy of Puros the real great king and spared Alexander the not so great and made him sign a peace treaty to give Puros land, and so it happened. The real great man is Puros. You can look it up. Rocky1R34 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• No actual edit is proposed. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Correction

This is wrong history 2409:4055:2DBD:4D47:0:0:DF88:C60C (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Which part is wrong? Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

What are the sources for this?

i would like to ask what re the sources for this as a king who never spared his enemy suddenly got impressed by a king poros who did heavy casualties to his army? The number of casualties is overexaggrated too! 2402:8100:30A0:F00D:1:0:E95B:167B (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Consider looking at the references section. Crainsaw (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Reference for "steel helmets" etc.

What's the ancient reference for this sentence: "The Indian array was dressed in vivid colors, equipped with steel helmets, bright scarves and baldrics wielding axes, lances and maces."

Mentioned adjacent to description of elephants from a 2016 War Elephants book but it seems dubious. This battle has limited historic sources and not finding any mention of "steel helmets" or clothing as described. If it exists would be preferable to reference that here. VizBos (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information, do not mislead the world

The great king porus didn't loose the battle, below is the link for proof https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Hydaspes 103.253.148.143 (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

From the link you posted:

Porus reformed his infantry into a defensive block and then offered to surrender if granted generous terms. Alexander agreed Porus could remain king of Paurava but imposed tribute.

Losses: Macedonian, 1,000 of 41,000; Indian, 12,000 dead and 9,000 captured of 50,000. VizBos (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

Hi Team 1000 killed from Macedonian side and 20000 killed from Pauravas side. Then how was this battle was costly for Alexander. It was a great victory with less casualties. Don't you think these numbers are not digestible. Do we have any other unbiased references of historians? Philomathiquest (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The text says, "In what was possibly their most costly engagement..." so it's not saying it was costly in the context of the battle. It's saying it was probably the most costly compared to the Macedonian army's other battles. (They didn't lose much in the entirety of the campaign.) VizBos (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)