Alexander At Gedrosia

[Divi Filius]

On his return from India Alexander decided to bypass the territory of the southwest Pakistan and southeast Iran then called Gedrosia with its capitol in Pura. Alexander left his navy 10 supplies and marched into the territory out of need to fully pacify the province and out on the conquest to achieve glory by surpassing Cyrus the Great whos last march through the land ended with only 7 men of his entire escort party having survived. A misscalculation on the part of Alexander and a delay on the part of his Navy(who is said to have incurred attacks from nearby tribes and from natural forces after his leave, this was mentioned by its leader Nearchus) forced Alexander to march into the desert territory incurring more casulaties then in his hole conquest put together. Out of a army of 86,000(counting "camp people"). Barely 20,000 survived the trip, His own Macedonian guard suffered massively and flew from 1700, to 1000. Green, in his historical bio of Alex compared this to Napoleon's march from Moscow in 1812. Alexander's personality in general took a huge toll for this march. The fear and paranoia of being conspired against reached its peak after this due not only to the navy never making it but also from the lack of response he attained from any of the nearby Satrapies.

 

I have to say this part seems to never even be mentioned by lighter sources. Those who do mention it seem to play it off by stating it was Alexanders intention in order to punish his army. This was not out of character of Alex but it also shows misscalculation on his part for a failure to properly inform himself on the terain. Infact this cost alexander quite the loss of face. He had lost his image of invincibility and later events showed he still needed the army which he had.

Another view is to see it through Alexander's own ambitious need to top everything and all. Alexander knew already that the territory was perilous since he knew the events of Cyrus quite well, yet rather then push him away from the territory he chose his gamble to push through it to further prove his greatness and unlike most of the things in his career, this completely flew back to bite him in the rear. Here Alexander took the challenge and it ended as an incredible failure. A failure that his his prestige and mental state.

 

I would say if anything, considering Alexander showed he was clearly going against this and its odd, I would say Alex did infact lose a battle in his career. The opponent doesnt have to be a rival general...

 

There are also many other things that added to this disaster. For one a massive sand storm covered up the path which the guides were following. Others say the guides were in on a conspiracy, which Alexander was likely to have believed since at that point he thought everyone was against him. But for me the idea that he would purposely do that to spite his army due to their revusal to go further into India sounds way to farfetched,.

[Segestan]

Alexander went no further than the Ganges because his Army was wanting to return to into Macedonia after years of War , and not have seeing their wives and children , they grew old fighting. He relented to this demand. Even though he had the ability to replace all of them with mercenary and fresh Macedonian troops which were often sent him. He Fought many battles with the indian Tribes and he defeated all of them as well as captured many Indian cities. The Indians had Two main Kings ; Abisares and Porus. The Macedonian Army crushed them both with ease. Alexander met Porus near the banks of the Hydaspes, A.M 3677 - J. C. 327 , Porus had an army of eighty-five large elepants , and behind them 300 charoits, supported by 30000 foot; he had about 7000 horse.Then indians lost on this occasion 20000 foot and 3000 horse, not to mention the complete loss of chariot and elephants.

At the Ganges the indians had massed 200000 foot , 2000 chariots 20000 horse and 3000 elephants ; after a fierce battle the Indians were in flight.

Alexander killed the son's of porus but latter due to his having respect for that King reimposed him on the Throne in the protection of Macedon.

 

It was Not Alexander who made the error of crossing a desert wasteland but his Army of home sick generals who forced a compromise from him through their pleas. .

If alexander would Not have been concerned about the condition of his Empires treatment from some of the regents in certain cities he might not have returned for many years as Alexander was a warrior whose life was to wage war thus building the foundations of what would be the Hellenic Empires under the Diadochi ; his successors.

 

 

regards,

[Divi Filius]

The Macedonian Army crushed them both with ease

 

From Soghdia on nothing Alexander won was by ease. The battle of Jhelum was by far one of the most difficult he ever fought, if not the most difficult. Crossing the river, facing massive armies of elaphants, the massive Indian storms, the mountain guerilla warfare. The casualties in that time till Gedrosia were emmense. Infact I would say Alexander had a relatively easy time till Soghdia(which took two years to pacify)

 

It was Not Alexander who made the error of crossing a desert wasteland but his Army of home sick generals who forced a compromise from him through their pleas.

 

What most of his men had endured was more then any man wanted to considering at that point they had realized this war was nothing more then one for Alexander's ambitions. The massive storms of India, the elaphants, the endless mountain ranges and guerilla tribes, the fear in the unknown(alexander was walking on unchartered land). They were worn out and tired. So wasted infact that when they were requipped, Alexander said to burn the older ones. They had fought an endless war for over 11 years and from what they saw, the real war was just beginning.

 

It goes beyond the point as who made the person turn back. This isnt the issue on getting someone to cross the street but rather one of which street would be safest to cross. Not to mention Alex men were not exactly too thrilled about marching again. Alexander had an agenda in his mind when crossing the Gedrosian desert, one which I mentioned above, not to mention further pacification. Infact by then his men were dreading every single disembarkment.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Divi Filius

[Divi Filius]

I personally believe that Alex would infact have been defeated. Maybe not in an actual battle, but the Indians were on a completely different level from the persians. Much more unaccepting of a foreigner. The religious crusade inwhich the Brahmin priests took up against Alex is a testament to this. By 300 BC nearly all of the Macedonian outposts in India were massacred and even Alexander saw the difficulties. On sail through hindu kush was the most violent campiagn he had ever untaken. He took no interest in diplomacy, just simple raping and violent conquest and even then there was nothing but rebellion in the eyes of the Indians. The various tribes and kingdoms within India were still powerful and warlike with no intention of giving in to Alexander.

[Kosmo]

I think that, after many years when Alexander was seen as a hero, now he is villified to much.

His campaign in India, never reached today India, only today Pakistan. The NW India was a part of the persian empire and for the heir of the persian throne was normal to see it brought under his rule and when he was there with his strong army it was natural to consolidate it by expanding in the nearby regions.

The indians were no serious match for his superb army, despite great numbers and those elephants, but his soldiers got tired and wanted to stop. Maybe himself wanted to stop, but needed a justification for that.

The march thru Gedrosia it's a strange thing. Maybe he did not knew of the arid nature of that place or maybe it was a supply problem. Anyway Gedrosia and Archosia were under his control when his army was marching thru the desert and this is why he executed so many satraps after that.

[Divi Filius]

Considering India comes from the Hindu Kush which is in modern Pakistan means he was in what wa sthen India. Infact then it was religiously Indian also. Culturally the same as say deeper India. Yes its Pakistan today, but India until Islaminization.

[Rameses the Great]

I agree, Alexander could have beaten the Indians with ease. The Indian warfare tactics was no where near the level of Alexander's. These were strange people to him, so he did not know how to cope with them. They had elephants and many men, but Alexander killed 600,000 Persians in one battle! Alexander's battle tested men could have taken any land if they had the ability to do it. His men were never tired, after all they though he was the son of Zeus.

 

Alexander was known for not losing a battle and winning with relative ease wherever he went. Why would India be any different? At that time the Persian kingdom was a lot more powerful than India, and much richer. Alexander the Great may have been an underdog going in, but he became victorious going out.

[Honorius]

Rameses what battle was this?? if your talking about Gaugamela i think that was a bit exagerated with the numbers...the greeks tended to do that alot eg. Herodotus...

 

alot of people io know actually believe Alexander lost against Porus as he returned the land to Porus who ruled under Alexander.... i think thats a valid theory but yeah the ones who believe in that are persian fanatic people i call friends

Edited May 30, 2006 by Honorius

[longbow]

Considering India comes from the Hindu Kush which is in modern Pakistan means he was in what wa sthen India. Infact then it was religiously Indian also. Culturally the same as say deeper India. Yes its Pakistan today, but India until Islaminization.

 

Pakistan gained Independance from India after WW2,i think it was 1947.

 

L

[Rameses the Great]

Rameses what battle was this??talking about Gaugamela i think that was a bit exagerated with the numbers...the greeks tended to do that alot eg. Herodotus... if your

 

It was by Plutarch, and as we know Plutarch is very accurate in his writings. Also Herodotus was said to been an honest and trustworthy man, so if he claimed the same thing it must have happened.

 

alot of people io know actually believe Alexander lost against Porus as he returned the land to Porus who ruled under Alexander.... i think thats a valid theory but yeah the ones who believe in that are persian fanatic people i call friends

 

No, Alexander was indeed undefeated. He will remain so throught history no matter what anyone says. Or as they say here in America, 'that's all she wrote.'

[Honorius]

Rameses what battle was this??talking about Gaugamela i think that was a bit exagerated with the numbers...the greeks tended to do that alot eg. Herodotus... if your

 

It was by Plutarch, and as we know Plutarch is very accurate in his writings. Also Herodotus was said to been an honest and trustworthy man, so if he claimed the same thing it must have happened.

 

alot of people io know actually believe Alexander lost against Porus as he returned the land to Porus who ruled under Alexander.... i think thats a valid theory but yeah the ones who believe in that are persian fanatic people i call friends

 

No, Alexander was indeed undefeated. He will remain so throught history no matter what anyone says. Or as they say here in America, 'that's all she wrote.'

 

 

plutarch wrote about Alexander? plutarch wasnt there he wrote this like hundreds of years later. Herodotus being honest?!?!? are u being serious? he said there were 2 million persians at Thermopylae.. i think not remember he is greek and would be incredibly bias.

 

Well as i said its a Theory!

[Primus Pilus]

While Plutarch has long been lauded for his attention to detail and accuracy we must also be aware of two factors.

 

1. Plutarch did pay particular attention to the works of previous writers such as Cleitarchus and Ptolemy whose works include information based on the even earlier recordings in the Deeds of Alexander and the Royal Diary, etc.. However, while it's understood that Plutarch attempts to use all available material for accuracy, the possibility of this source material being tainted or altered over the course of 3 to 4 centuries is a viable concern.

 

2. Despite my personal appreciation of Plutarch his intention is not necessarily a narrative history but a look into the character of greatness and achievement, etc. Perhaps it is Plutarch himself who says it best in his own prologue of the Alexander/Caesar comparison:

 

It is not histories I am writing, but lives; and in the most glorious deeds there is not always an indication of virtue of vice, indeed a small thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of a character than battles where thousands die.

[Pantagathus]

Herodotus being honest?!?!? are u being serious? he said there were 2 million persians at Thermopylae.. i think not remember he is greek and would be incredibly bias.

 

Be fair to Herodotus, he didn't have other histories to consult, he interviewed people to compile his narrative. Though some times some incredulous things slipped past his keen eye, he was typically pretty skeptical. Though he would report everything, he would give caveats to the reader when he thought what he was reporting was rubbish.

 

Ultimately, I personally do not consider Herodotus to really be biased towards the Greeks.

[Honorius]

Herodotus being honest?!?!? are u being serious? he said there were 2 million persians at Thermopylae.. i think not remember he is greek and would be incredibly bias.

 

Be fair to Herodotus, he didn't have other histories to consult, he interviewed people to compile his narrative. Though some times some incredulous things slipped past his keen eye, he was typically pretty skeptical. Though he would report everything, he would give caveats to the reader when he thought what he was reporting was rubbish.

 

Ultimately, I personally do not consider Herodotus to really be biased towards the Greeks.

 

 

good point i havent really read much into herodotus or hes histories.... lol oh well tho was jsut making a point lol

[Rameses the Great]

good point i havent really read much into herodotus or hes histories.... lol oh well tho was jsut making a point lol

 

That's ok Honorius that is a more than regular reaction to assume that the person would be biased to his own country. The Greeks, were a bit more unbiased that is why we get accurate information from them. The Egyptians for example would do anything to make the pharaoh look good, and were one sided. On the other hand the Greeks tried to base it off of historical information.

 

Greeks were biased to their country, like every other person. The thing is they are not overly biased and do a good job of getting the true story across.