LOL no Indian historian has even recorded anything about his invasion of the subcontinent, most likely because he was swiftly crushed

He fought 6 battles in India and I challenge you to bring me the name of any Greco-Roman historian or chronicler that mentioned he won, any info from a primary source would end this debate.

This is supposed to be the same guy who mercilessly killed of his opponents and now he's giving territories to Indian kings after he "defeats them" ... revisionism at its best

Are you high? I told you Porus became a satrap, a puppet king! After the battle of Battle of the Hydaspes Alexander crushed his army and forced him into servitude. Alexander wasn't some blood thirsty killer you know, he was quite noble as well as shrewd.

LMAO yes we'll see who is high

Here is Darius calling to help to Porus




Porus writes to Alexander






ALEXANDER SURRENDERS



Taken from "Alexander the Great" by Wallis Budge who translates this from the oldest Greek text on this battle

Here is the online reference

http://books.google.com/books?id=xIa0kavYdK0C&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Alexander+the+great%22+Budge+porus&source=bl&ots=jqiqc0u320&sig=z9fdmtyq6npJnyNKVJTfQlH7gDI&hl=en&ei=ALUtTrvlApO4tgeS0rHXAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

He got his ass beat and surrendered

He was a good general, yes, but his army was modernized and more ahead than the Persians. His victories can be attributed more to his father and his teacher Aristotle than him. He didn't conquer the world or the "known world" like its claimed and felt MUCH short of doing so.

And like I mentioned before, this is the OLDEST Greek work describing the battle

In reality, nobody in India even gave a sh!t about Alexanders weak raids

so Darius got his but kicked and whined about it, then Alexander Noticed his troops were tired. He still won the battle of Battle of the Hydaspes with his tired men, the greatest causality being HIS HORSE! He became legendary for centuries in India for being both a wise philosopher and a fearless conqueror. He never surrendered, simply put off the campaign which never resumed due to his tragic death. At least he died as a warrior king, unlike Khalid ibn al-Walid who was FIRED.

WTF are you smoking??? He LOST that battle that I just showed you, are you blind?? He never beat Porus and didn't find success in India ... nobody gave a sh!t about him

You can't even admit that he surrendered, there is no point in discussing this with you

^He won the battle but abandoned his campaign due to the soldiers absolute refusal to continue. Had he survived his injuries he would have continued his conquest in the near future

Due note to MAKE the video INFORMATION from primary sources are taken.

Primary source >>> Internet youtube video

you know what, I've contacted an expert. Lets pick this topic back up after I get his reply.

LOLOLOL preids "internet expert"

this should be good

we only see it in every battle that the victor gives up his territory to the defeated, right?

^no, you know nothing about true warfare. Everything you know is from total war, which is far from the truth.

I know that Alexander got murked in India and you can't accept it

Dude, I quoted the earliest Greek source, you act as if he was your uncle or soemthing

no offense, but I don't trust a Greek translation from an Egyptology professor. Also his book is not a primary source, why don't you get me a direct translation of the record and THEN I can tell you how you have interpreted it wrong.

Talwar Khan wrote:defeating the byz and persians at once with inferior forces and less numbers and never losing a single battle >> Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Constantine, El Sid, Clovis, Richard I, Patton, Bismark, Washington, Napoleon

Hey that's like Washington defeating the strongest empire on earth!

BTW El Sid worked for Islamic empires for a time.

Which Islamic empires?

@Fang: US didn't. Fight was overseas, obviously US had the advantage. If the fight was in Europe that would have been another story.

I think he worked under Yusuf al-Mu'taman ibn Hud and Al-Mustain II. In the end he worked for both the Spanish and the moors before he decided "Screw it, I'm making my OWN kingdom."

You know...I have no idea what you are talking about...so go back to talking to sayf lol

sayf is done talking about how preids hero alexander was crushed in India

preid doesn't know that Syriac is not Greek and that the translator is a professional

^Your the one who said it was from the earliest GREEK source.

dude read the intro, I gave you the link, its a Syriac translation of the works of Callisthenes, a contemporary Greek historian to Alexander

anyway the aftermath of the battle points to him losing since he

1. signed a peace treaty with Porus where Porus retains control of his kingdom
2. gives up Taxila to Porus ... the king of Taxila was an enemy of Porus and joined Alexander in order to defeat him ...
3. actually fights as a general for Porus
4. leaves India when he is destined for world conquest
5. had his forces rebel, only LOSING forces ever rebel not victorious ones
6. DOESNT finish off Porus and his forces and doesn't loot, pillage, and murder his kingdom, something that he had done to every other losing opponent ... this man was an animal and a scourge upon the world and a faggot and suddenly he's not in an extremely wealthy place like India, home to the only known diamond mines in the world

Callisthenes was a racist who only got the job as historian because he was related to Aristotle. He was sassing Alexander after he accepted Persian culture and assimilating Persians into his army. He was also executed for treason later in life. Any of Callisthenes' works after a certain point were written in order to discredit Alexander because of their conflicting interest, as such I do not recognize his account. Should you ask any sensible Historian they will tell you Alexander won. It's also worth noting that you fail to understand Alexanders character, He was not bloodthirsty nor retarded, Had he simply subjugated the territories he won they they would simply rebel the first chance they got. Alexander even accepted Persian culture to the point that he used Persian cavalry, quite the feat. As for his troops rebelling it was simply because he had grown the largest land empire known to man in so few years, They were tired and quite frankly didn't want to put up with dragging themselves through the mud for months all the time fighting Elephants, You could was it was the end of his first conquest. Had he survived his injures he would have launched another campaign but he still stood undefeated, and the greatest military leader of all time. At the very least he was twelve times the man you elected and cant even support since your to busy trying to discredit Alexander because you know you've lost.

lol you really don't know what you're talking about and you ahven't even attempted to rebut any of my points

ive provided my sources yet you're off running to irrelevant, inane nonsense. Show me an ancient primary GREEK source that said he won any of his battles in India

Im waiting

And I didn't call him retarded (although his sanity could be questioned in his later years), simply a murderer whos lust for blood was nothing sort of being described as insatiable ... there was simply no need to cause that much destruction to conquered territories ... if Porus was as cruel as Alexander then this debate wouldn't even be going on right now ... and anotehr point to add, where was his successor for his Indian territories?? History shows without a doubt that India was not a division of his empire

He lost, end of it ... lets extend this challenge to provide ANY first hand Greek or non-Greek source claiming that Alexander won in India

He conquered a dying Persian empire and ultimately lost at the end .. how else do you explain Porus GAINING territories including Taxila, which was allied with Alexander ... a victorious army wouldn't rebel either, especially while winning in INDIA, the land of unheard of wealth and riches ... you're telling me he couldn't even hire mercenaries to keep up his campaigns?? He simply tucked his tail between his legs with his head hanging and went back when his generals couldn't save him

You guys are fools. Alexander never won in India. Nor did he lose. He never entered it when he saw that they use elephants...my Global teacher had said lol

yeah guys im sure the phalanx formation is going to save him from a bunch of charging elephants

maybe he stopped after beating the Persians and fell ill right then and there? there is also some confusion as to what river he crossed and when exactly the monsoons occured ... greeks probably wanted to keep the myth of Alexander being invincible going so they could've invented it too, because the other version of the story is quite controversial ..