Puru was completely unprepared for the sort of battle that the Greeks had perfected. The Puruvians, typical of the early Indian kingdoms, fought set piece battles where each arm fought with its equals. Cavalry would fight with cavalry, foot soldiers with foot soldiers. This was built around the archaic idea that the 'greater' did not fight the 'lesser'. This form of war was centuries out of date having being abandoned in the Mediterranean region where Greeks , Persians and Carthaginians had developed new ideas of warfare. The Persians had developed combined arm warfare to defeat their enemies, where light cavalry and light infantry would co-ordinate attack. If the enemy halted, the Persian infantry would shower arrows at them. If they moved, the Persian cavalry would hit their flanks. The Athenians and Spartans, had perfected Heavy infantry that fought in tight formations. Phillip and Alexander developed The Companions, a shock cavalry unit, to break up enemy cavalry. The Companions delivered the killer punch, that defeated the Athenian -Theban alliance at Chaeronea , and the Persians at Granikus, Issus and Gaugamela. At Hydespes, Alexander had added Horse Archers to his already formidable Army of heavy and light infantry and cavalry. Puru was outgeneralled and his army outclassed. An interesting outcome of the battle was that a young man, Chandragupta on Alexander's side, observed the merits of this new army and he weakness of the native forces. He told Alexander that Dhana Nanda, the King of Magadha was hated by his subjects and Alexander would defeat him easily. Later, Chandragupta would use his experience to destroy Magadha and start his own, the Mauryan dynasty.

I am reading "On War" by Carl Von Clausewitz, a general of the Napoleonic wars, and I am reading the chapter about "defence of rivers and streams". And I noticed when this part related to Alexander's crossing the river, when Alexander crossed the river, Porus focused a slight part of his troops on the Army that crossed the river dedicating only 2000 men, according to Clausewitz this may have been a tactical mistake as he illustrates: "The battles resulting from such conditions is bound to have one peculiar characteristic: the defender must show the utmost impetuosity. The feints with which the enemy may well have kept him guessing for a time will generally allow him to get to the right place only at the last minute. The special advantages of his situation lie in the difficult position of those enemy troops that are directly opposite him. If additional forces arrive from other crossing point and envelop him, he cannot deal with them in the normal way by sustained counterattacks from the rear. If he did, he would sacrifice the advantages of his position. he must decide the issue before these additional troops begin to press him -- in other words, he must attack whatever troops are before him with the utmost speed and vigor, and their defeat reach a decision for the encounter as a whole" (On war, Book six, chapter eighteen, page 531, Everyman edition) I saw that part of the paragraph related to Alexander's assault on Porus while he was playing mind games at the Hydaspes river. Did Porus make the right move by sending only 2000 to confront the army that crossed the river or should he have dedicated half or all of his fighting force and without reserve eliminated the army that crossed the river as fast as he could thereafter focusing his attention on the remaining reserve troops that Alexander left behind, do you think he would have won if he'd done this?

Thank you very much! I'll be recommending this to my classics teacher!

"The Battle with Porus depressed the spirits of the Macedonians, and made them very unwilling to advance farther into India... This river (the Ganges), they heard, had a breadth of two and thirty stadia, and a depth of 1000 fathoms, while its farther banks were covered all over with armed men, horses and elephants. For the kings of the Gandaridai and the Prasiai were reported to be waiting for him (Alexander) with an army of 80,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 8,000 war-chariots, and 6,000 fighting elephants." -Plutarch (42-120 AD) reason why alexander never forward again. Gandaridai capital was in kotalipara (modern bangladesh) prasai capital was pataliputra (modern bihar). All of this written at that time in Indica by Megasthenes

However had his army not mutinied, he would have lost against Nanda. He had lost too many men in previous battles, disease and fatigue and Nanda, while being smaller then Persia, was still massive. Alexander, drunk on too many victories by then had gotten cocky and reckless. His generals mutinied because they rightfully predicted that had Alexander invaded Nanda, it would have resulted in Alexanders first defeat.

I'm not trying to say that Alexander was the first person to do all what he did. If you follow my conversation, you'll know that I had said this to an Ignoramus who was trying to say that Alexander was defeated by an Indian king, which is simply a hoax. Anyways, sir, thank you for having shared this with me! Regards.

Excellent video!

Really good! Thanks

Taxila wasn't ruled by Taxilius at the time, but by Ambhi.

It would be really cool if you guys did a animation of the Battle of Thapsus, and showcase how Caeser used his archers to route Scipio's war elephants.

GREAT.

perfect vid

Nanda Army strength in the east was 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 war elephants. (wikipedia) And hearing this his army refused to march further into INDIA

of all his victories I like this one best...

What does the "Well" mean in the opening summary screen? Is this the commander's state of health?

i just wonder how terrifying it was to face the most effective military unit of ancient times for the infantry of Alexander the Great. but in spite of having a large contingent of war elephants, porus lost miserably.

THIS IS FROM WIKIPEDIA Indian campaign of Alexander the Great Battle of the Hydaspes River[edit] The Battle of the Hydaspes River was fought by Alexander in July 326 BC against king Raja Purushottama (Poros) a Kshatriya on the Hydaspes River (Jhelum River) in the Punjab of Pakistan, near Bhera. The Hydaspes was the last major battle fought by Alexander.[7] The main train went into modern day Pakistan through the Khyber Pass, but a smaller force under the personal command of Alexander went through the northern route, resulting in the Siege of Aornos along the way. In early spring of the next year, he combined his forces and allied with Taxiles (also Ambhi), the King of Taxila, against his neighbor, the King of Hydaspes. Porus wiz Puru was a great King of Indus/ Asiatic continent. Arrian writes about Porus, in his own words "One of the Indian Kings called Porus a man remarkable alike for his personal strength and noble courage, on hearing the report about Alexander, began to prepare for the inevitable. Accordingly, when hostilities broke out, he ordered his army to attack Macedonians from whom he demanded their king, as if he was his private enemy. Alexander lost no time in joining battle, but his horse being wounded in the first charge, he fell headlong to the ground, and was saved by his attendants who hastened up to his assistance". Porus drew up on the south bank of the Jhelum River, and was set to repel any crossings. The Jhelum River was deep and fast enough that any opposed crossing would probably doom the entire attacking force. Alexander knew that a direct crossing would fail, so he found a suitable crossing, about 27 km (17 mi) upstream of his camp. The name of the place is 'Kadee'. Alexander left his general Craterus behind with most of the army while he crossed the river upstream with a strong part of his army. Porus sent a small cavalry and chariot force under his son to the crossing. According to sources[citation needed], Alexander first encountered Porus's son in the past, so the two men were not strangers. Porus's son killed Alexanders's horse with one blow and Alexander fell to the ground. Arrian also writing about the same encounter adds that "Other writers state that there was a fight at the actual landing between Alexander's cavalary and a force of Indians commanded by Porus's son, who was there ready to oppose them with superior numbers, and that in the course of fighting he (Porus's son) wounded Alexander with his own hand and struck the blow which killed his (Alexander's) beloved horse Buccaphalus." The force was easily routed, and there isn't any mention in any account that Porus' son was killed.[citation needed] Porus now saw that the crossing force was larger, and decided to face it with the bulk of his army. Porus's army were poised with cavalry on both flanks, the war elephants in front, and infantry behind the elephants. These war elephants presented an especially difficult situation for Alexander, as they scared the Macedonian horses. Diodorus wrote about the battle tactics of war elephants - "Upon this the elephants, applying to good use their prodigious size and strength, killed some of the enemy by trampling under their feet, and crushing their armour and their bones, while upon other they inflicted a terrible death, for they first lifted them aloft with their trunks, which they and twisted round their bodies and then dashed them down with great violence to the ground. Many others they deprived in a moment of life by goring then through and through with their tusks" Alexander started the battle by sending horse archers to shower the Porus's left cavalry wing, and then used his cavalry to destroy the Puru's cavalry. Meanwhile, the Macedonian phalanxes had advanced to engage the charge of the war elephants. The Macedonians eventually surrounded Porus's force. Arrian also writes about the armour and the courage of soldiers of Puru: "The foot soldiers carry a bow made of equal length with the man who bears it. This they rest upon the ground, and pressing against it with their left foot thus discharges the arrow, having drawn the string far backwards for the shaft they use is little short for three yards long, and there is nothing can resist an Indian archer's shot, neither shield nor breast plate, nor any stronger defence if such there be." According to Curtius Quintus, Alexander towards the end of the day sent few ambassadors to Porus: "Alexander, anxious to save the life of his great and gallant soldier, sent Texile the Indian to him (to Porus). Texile rode up as near as he dared and requested him to stop his elephant and hear what message Alexander sent him, escape was no longer possible. But Texiles was an old enemy of the Indian King, and Porus turned his elephant and drove at him, to kill him with his lance; and he might indeed have killed him, if he had not spurred his horse out of the way in the nick of the time. Alexander, however, far from resenting this treatment of his messenger, sent a number of others, last of whom was Indian named Meroes, a man he had been told had long been Porur's friend".(Arrian Page 180) From the above Greek accounts it is clear that Alexander was willing to have treaty to be done to avoid further damage to his side. These writers do not state precisely whether Alexander won and Porus lost the war.[citation needed] Plutarch writes in his book on page number 212 as follows " The combat then was of a more mixed kind; but maintained with such obstinacy, that it was not decided till the eight hour of the day." It means till the eighth hour of the day the victory was not achieved, neither by Alexander nor by Porus. Porus was one of many local kings who impressed Alexander. Wounded in his shoulder, standing over 2 m (6 ft 7 in) tall, but still on his feet, he was asked by Alexander how he wished to be treated. "Treat me, Alexander, the way a King treats another King" Porus responded. Rogers (1970), questions the accuracy of this entire event, writing that Porus would never have said those words.[8] Alexander did not continue, thus leaving all the headwaters of the Indus River unconquered[citation needed]. Afterwards, Alexander founded Alexandria Nikaia (Victory), located at the battle site, to commemorate his triumph. He also founded Alexandria Bucephalus on the opposite bank of the river in memory of his much cherished horse, Bucephalus, who carried Alexander through the Indian subcontinent, and died heroically during the Battle of Hydaspes.[9] Revolt of the army East of Porus's kingdom, near the Ganges River (the Hellenic version of the Indian name Ganga), was the powerful Nanda Empire of Magadha and Gangaridai Empire of Bengal. Fearing the prospects of facing other powerful Indian armies and exhausted by years of campaigning, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis River (the modern Beas River) refusing to march further east. As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants.[10] Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as he did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.[11] Alexander, using the incorrect maps of the Greeks, thought that the world ended a mere 1,000 km (away), at the edge of India. He therefore spoke to his army and tried to persuade them to march further into India but Coenus pleaded with him to change his opinion and return, the men, he said, "longed to again see their parents, their wives and children, their homeland". Alexander, seeing the unwillingness of his men agreed and turned back.

That battle was child's play to him. He was outnumber and yet like always he still won.

(Part 1) Actually in 7 of the 8 bloodiest battles during the invasion of Persia, Alexander outnumbered the Persian army. Alexander did a great job at avoiding conflict whenever his army didn't have the upper hand and an made sure to annihilate the enemy whenever he did. As for this battle, most sources say Alexander's causalities were closer to 9%, not 23% like this suggested. The mutiny was not due to moral drop, but from Alexander's ambitions following the battle.

Right notion. But to be more precise Alexander's army was a combination of greek army (Macedonians, Greek city-states) and armies from the nations that he had conquared (like Mides, Baktrians etc)

What a boss that guy was

Excellent content, but I would recommend a faster pace, at least remove the long pauses

Alexander the Ordinary lost to the Mighty Punjabi Khatri Porus and his warriors. All modern historians have concluded that. Old historians falsely claim that Alexander won. As shown in the Hollywood movie, Alexander's horse got hit by Porus's javelin and Alexander fell on the ground. There he got hit by an arrow. When Porus approached him and almost was about to crush him with the elephant's foot, his soldiers came running to his rescue to save him and raised a white flag to surrender. His horse died and he signed a truce to not return in future and requested Porus not to mention his defeat to anyone. Porus kept that promise. Prior to him Cyrus, Darius, Syrian Queen Semiramis all lost to the Mighty Punjabi Khatris and retreated back to their home. Semiramis came to conquer India with 400,000 soldiers and returned home with only 20,000 soldiers.

It can be said that euro-centric historians were not 100% true about his life, but it is true that they are the BEST sources we can obtain. Plus, I've already demonstrated how, even if we ignore any historian, can say that alexander 1) defeated porus and 2) never fought the Nanda Empire. Hope we come to a conclusion soon :-)

Dude, I don't know what you're trying to say. He led a massacre at Multan. Which means that either Porus was defeated, which made him roam free to destroy everything, or that Porus didn't care at all. We are already aware that Alexander had made the Pauravan Kingdom his vassal. And as you had said, he couldn't think of advancing any further owing to his health.... I still need you to specify what you think, I'd be glad to hear. Thanks.

GG

sure, everyone stands in awe and fear of the GREAT and POWERFUL India. wooooo

Hello Morran, You better mail him. He responds to his mails quite late, owing to his studies. But he would check your mail if he has the time. so better mail him. Hej da!! (Learnt this one from IKEA) :-P

To tell you the truth,mate, I didn't try concentrating about how did he die!! I just read about the monkey incident from a book by "DEAN". My most favorite parts of his life were his battles. and, yes, sorry for my ignorance :P

Doesn't matter who was loser but does matter who was wrong .

the version about the monkey bite is new. i'm sure you read it somewhere and I find it strange you believed in it. Alexander died more than two years after he left India. No animal bite inflicts such slow death. Perhaps, your sources say he had a pet monkey that he brought w/ him to Babylon through 60-days march across Gedrosian deserts? The real cause of Alexander's death might be uncertain, but monkey bite is something totally uncredible and unheard before, at least by me.

wow this is so much different than how hydaspes is displayed in the movie alexander

In Persia etc they met much larger armies. So if the Macedonians suffered as few casualties as advertised here, there was no reason for them to retreat from the subcontinent after Panjab. Fact is, this was the first time they met army which is comparable in size with Macedonians but was militarily no inferior - and they had Taxila army with them. These numbers are dubious.

But I think our topic wasn't that, right? It was about whether he had won hydapses or not. Not of why did he die!

Uh no, he wasn't. He suffered many more losses in India and most of his battles became Pyrrhic victories, but he wasn't defeated. Although I've never heard that he died of a monkey bite, seeing as he died in Babylon rather than India. His army refused to continue on because of the huge armies of the various Indian states. Look at Porus. He was a relatively minor king yet he still had a force equal to Alexander's.

I am from Greece , i live there were Alexander was born , but there is a mistake in this video. Not only Macedonians fought that time , but many Greek towns helped in that war.

Also Alexanders victories in Persia, while impressive, weren't as impressive as they are made out to be. Prior Greek leaders had won victory against the Persians with far few numbers, against far more numbers. Also a Greek Mercenary group came close to invading Persopolis (Persian capital) in 420 BCE (100 years prior to Alexander), and returned home after running out of money, not after being defeated. Alexander wasn't the only Greek to successfully wage war on Persia.

Ge had 1 not 39

No..friend..he had to return because of illness. Moreover, the Persian EMpire was the mightiest of his time. Mightier than even NAnda Empire. But disease and fatigue prevented him from attacking any further. Also, Selucus and his army were not much experienced to fight in India. Plus, the details regarding the war are highly misted beyond reality. We cannot debate on it because most of the events seem to be exxagerated. I agree on the modern scholars that they were always at good terms.. Thanks.

the people of Alex army was not so naive ,but instead they have a great skills in warfare ,and despite the relative small numbers they have and only personal weaponery they succed in the battle for survival ,so you Can meet theyr descendants nowadays if you only get there

Alexander winning battle is controversial. Why did he not continue further? Greek historians have doctored report of battle outcome.

the history of Alex entering hindustan is well know in all asia ,at very beginning of the subcontinente they meet a formidabile army of a poll of various hindustan kings ,endorsed whit lot of warriors elefants they been largely defeated ,the remenants of the army retreat to the valley of Himalaya mountains ,but they been follows by the enemy ,so they got deeply down the Himalaya to avoid the hunting ,and by the disposition they have in the last battle every company chose the nearest valley ,also for misplaced the hunters ,the descendants of the army are still there, lock for kailash valley people in North pak they are pure blond ,because was a company from there sweden rented for theyrs special warriors skills other walleys ost the main bulk of the army from greece ,was even a company of archers from Genoa Italy ,who toock settlement in Deep Himalaya region and also a company from East germany specialized in pirotecnik warfare and black smiths who set in the walleys North of peshawar ,people there nowadays still have blu eyes and fair complexion ,if you tour guide valleys and if you know the complexion for example of peloponesian people they arexsame ,also the place where they sets ,the mountains are similar of Peloponneso ,the army of Alex have differenti mercenaries from differents places every onecwhit is specialized skills in North pak they still practice blacksmit on weapons the nice thing is that the people who have a country near by others set in valleys near by ,so you have germans in the First valley ,and next caucasians then greeck spanishs and italians ,for avoid been captured they go cross a 4000 mt pass and chose for settlement narrow valleys whit outstanding High gorges where they showered avalanches on pursuing enemis if the have the will of pursuing them till there .i

Very good video but ....it was not only Macedonians...rest of the Greek Army was with him :)

Alexander was indeed great. He was also, however, a murderous and treacherous brute. We can thank him for, among atrocities far too numerous to discuss here, such inventive novelties as crucifixion and decimation.

What? 30,000 infantry was raised by this kingdom ruled by Porus which was roughly the size of Luxemberg in 320s BC? As usual the ancient grecko-roman sources are complete biased nonsense. It would be surprising if kingdom of this size could field more than 3k-4k men and that's counting mercenaries. In the same way the number given for Nanda Empire's army in comments is also complete nonsense. There is no way in hell, this empire could had maintained an army of almost a million men under arms.

Alexander was losser infront of porus

Oh, MadiraRas is 100% wrong, and seems to be blinded by some sort of Indian Nationalism. I just have the personal opinion that Alexander was overrated, great general and leader, but I think he's given too much credit nowadays. I'd also like to make an amendment to my previous statement. The mercenaries I spoke of got to Babylon, and never actually into Persia. My memory fails me at times.

But he is certainly very far away from alexander due to chronological distances. Noone between him and alexander had said this thing. Now, if Holt, Rinehart and Winston say you that the battle of Quebec was a french vicory, would you believe it? No!! Certainly because we know it's aftermath. Likewise, we know of the limitations imposed on Paurava's kingdom by Alexandros. How can a defeated army make a vassal out of a victorious one. Silly isn't it? Hope i educated you a bit. :-P Jai HIND!!

TOTALLY WRONG!! 1) I'm from Thane, Maharashtra, INDIA!! I'm not a "Praji" for god's SAKE!! 2) I'm not "PROUD" of Alexander, all I was doing was objecting the bias and immaturity I found in your comment. It is something our CBSE (NCERT) books might be teaching us that he was defeated. But in reality, he wasn't

Alexander did not won in Jhelum war, if he won this war, he conquered india

Wrong information

he was undefeated in a fucking tiny pakistani kingdom LOL if alexander went on, he would have been killed by the real indian nanda empire

Western biased story.. did alex just returned kingdom and left without any tribute... then for what he fought and lost his thousands of army?! Alex and his army utterly wounded in Jhelum (hydaspes) battle... Purushottham(Porus) fought bravely...

You seriously are unsure whether there indeed was a school of historians keeping this information alive. See, dude, you are crossing the limits now. You can't go as far as thinking all of this stuff...You see, It's too far-fetched... I don't think it is a disgrace for us indians to be defeated by alexander in any way. HE defeated the greatest empire on earth. what are we then? And yes, I believe there are tons of non-greek sources that pen alexanders life check those... Thanks Again.

Again, nothing of the sort is proving your point, friend.

Actually Alexander lost this war, n porus allowed him to return back.if in case Alexander would hv won this battle y will he return back the kingdom to porus. Western historians hv narrated completely wrong in order to show his greatness. Alexander would not have entered India even if won dat war, because after that thr was magadh kingdom he had to face, which included almost a 200000 soldiers, 6000chariots,8000 cavalry, 2000elephants.And they never even imagined to face such a big army. Alexander's defeat has shown in in the movie Alexander the great 2004.

stand in fear of greece hahaha

Johnathan Webb. Your voice is boring. Could be remedied by voice lessons.

What is up with you Indian revisionists claiming Alexander lost this battle? Spewing bullshit with no proof. Alexander beat Porus. This is accepted by all respected ancient Historians. If Alexander crossed the Ganges with this army he would've lost.

Totally fake ...do some research before publishing such insolent information

Very inaccurate version of events. Also, your mundane tone makes this 10x more painful to watch.

this video is a white lie , while the truth is that porus defeated Alexander very badly in this war