Why didnt Alexander the Great penetrated into the heart of the Indian subcontinent during his invasion on India?Tell me three reasons.
Answers
Answer:
Alexander conquered most parts of the Western World, but there is a great deal of controversy over his invasion of India. In BC 327 Alexander came to India, and tried to cross the Jhelum river for the invasion, but was then confronted by King Purushottama (King Porus, according to the English rendition.) According to Indian history he was stopped by Porus at his entry into the country, but most of the world still believes that Alexander won the battle. Many of Internet links claim that Porus was defeated by Alexander, then he returned to Greece, giving back the Kingdom to Porus. Campaigns and landmarks of Alexander's invasion of India.
says that "After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom". This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.
Also claimed there: "Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return." Did that mutiny actually occur?
After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?
Explanation:
Answer:
Alexander the Great did invade India.
In 326 BC, after conquering the Persian Empire, Alexander launched his Indian Campaign, crossing the Hindu Kush into what is today Eastern Afghanistan. He conquered areas up to the Beas river in India, where his army mutinied against further moving into India.
In antiquity(period upto 600 AD), India was not a country like India after 1947. It was a name used to refer the Indian Subcontinent - an area where the Vedic Hindu religion was practiced. It included regions what we today know as Afghanistan east of the Hindu Kush mountains, Pakistan, modern India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and possibly some parts of Thailand as well.
Thus, if anyone attacked any of the above regions, historical sources refer it to ‘India’. Just like Greece was the Greek peninsula, not modern Greece, made up of individual states like Athens, Sparta, Thrace and so on.
In fact, even parts of modern India were captured by Alexander, albeit, only up to the Beas river. This would be maybe 1–2% of modern India, geographically.
Evidence:
Since we are talking about 326 BC - 2291 years ago - we obviously are not going to find photos, videos, radio transcripts, etc. For evidence, we have to look for textual and archeological finds.
A. Textual Evidence: Alexander’s life is documented by extensive historical texts written by five prominent historians - Quintus Curtius Rufus, Arrian, Plutarch and .
Arrain, not only documented Alexander’s campaign, he wrote about him basis the writings of Ptolemy and who were officers in Alexander’s army.
. You may read this for a better understanding of the Indian conquest of Alexander.
But textual records are pointless if they do not correspond to archeological finds.
B. Archelogical Evidence: The greatest archeological evidence is the many cities founded by Alexander. Some of these cities with their modern names are:
Alexandria on the Oxus - Ai Khanoum, Afghanistan
Alexandria Arachosia - Kandhar, Afghanistan
Also, the modern city of Karachi, Pakistan was the place Alexander used to construct a naval fleet for his journey back to Babylon.