ALEXANDER IN INDIA AFTER THE BATTLE WITH PORUS
Magnanimity of Alexander towards Porus
Alexander was impressed by Porus's bravery and made him an ally. He appointed Porus as satrap, and added to Porus's territory land that he did not previously own, towards the south-east, up to the Hyphasis (Beas). Choosing a local helped him control these lands that were distant from Greece.
After the battle with Porus Alexander founded two towns on opposite sides of the Hydaspes river. One was named Bucephala, in honor of his horse, who died around this time. The other was Nicaea (Nikaia, Victory), thought to be located at the site of modern-day Mong, Punjab. Nicaea meant to commemorate his victory, arose on the site of the battle with Poros.
After defeating Porus, Alexander’s army advanced towards the Acesines: the Chenab River, a major river that flows in India and Pakistan, and is one of the five major rivers of the Punjab region. Alexander marched into the territory of a nation called the Glausai or Glaukanikai, taking thirty-seven of their cities “the smallest of which contained not fewer than 5,000 inhabitants, while many contained upwards of 10,000”, At this stage Alexander heard of revolts against him; After the arrival of Thracian reinforcements and the renewed submission of the ruler of Abhisara, Alexander crossed the Akesines (Skt. Asiknl or Chenab) and subdued the younger Poros, nephew of the great Poros. His territory, known as Gandaris, as also that of the Glausai, was added by Alexander to the kingdom of his quondam enemy — the senior Poros (Paurava).[Source: “History of Ancient India” by Rama Shankar Tripathi, Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Benares Hindu University, 1942]
Arrian wrote: “When Alexander had paid all due honours to those who had been killed in the battle, he offered the customary sacrifices to the gods in gratitude for his victory, and celebrated a gymnastic and horse contest upon the bank of the Hydaspes at the place where he first crossed with his army. He then left Craterus behind with a part of the army, to erect and fortify the cities which he was founding there; but he himself marched against the Indians conterminous with the dominion of Porus. [Source: Arrian the Nicomedian (A.D. 92-175), “Anabasis of Alexander”, translated, by E. J. Chinnock, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884, gutenberg.org]
“According to Aristobulus the name of this nation was Glauganicians; but Ptolemy calls them Glausians. I am quite indifferent which name it bore. Alexander traversed their land with half the Companion cavalry, the picked men from each phalanx of the infantry, all the horse-bowmen, the Agrianians, and the archers. All the inhabitants came over to him on terms of capitulation; and he thus took thirty-seven cities, the inhabitants of which, where they were fewest, amounted to no less than ,, and those of many numbered above ,. He also took many villages, which were no less populous than the cities. This land also he granted to Porus to rule; and sent Taxiles back to his own abode after affecting a reconciliation between him and Porus. At this time arrived envoys from Abisares, who told him that their king was ready to surrender himself and the land which he ruled. And yet before the battle which was fought between Alexander and Porus, Abisares intended to join his forces with those of the latter. On this occasion he sent his brother with the other envoys to Alexander, taking with them money and forty elephants as a gift. Envoys also arrived from the independent Indians, and from a certain other Indian ruler named Porus. Alexander ordered Abisares to come to him as soon as possible, threatening that unless he came he would see him arrive with his army at a place where he would not rejoice to see him. At this time Phrataphernes, viceroy of Parthia and Hyrcania, came to Alexander at the head of the Thracians who had been left with him. Messengers also came from Sisicottus, viceroy of the Assacenians, to inform him that those people had slain their governor and revolted from Alexander. Against these he despatched Philip and Tyriaspes with an army, to arrange and set in order the affairs of their land.
“He himself advanced towards the river Acesines. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, has described the size of this river alone of those in India, stating that where Alexander crossed it with his army upon boats and skins, the stream was rapid and the channel was full of large and sharp rocks, over which the water being violently carried seethed and dashed. He says also that its breadth amounted to fifteen stades; that those who went over upon skins had an easy passage; but that not a few of those who crossed in the boats perished there in the water, many of the boats being wrecked upon the rocks and dashed to pieces. From this description then it would be possible for one to come to a conclusion by comparison, that the size of the river Indus has been stated not far from the fact by those who think that its mean breadth is forty stades, but that it contracts to fifteen stades where it is narrowest and therefore deepest; and that this is the width of the Indus in many places. I come then to the conclusion that Alexander chose a part of the Acesines where the passage was widest, so that he might find the stream slower than elsewhere.”
Advance Beyond the Hydraotes
By the fall of 326 B.C., the Macedonian arms penetrated beyond the Hydroates (Parusni or Iravati i.e., modern Ravi), and Alexander won fresh laurels by capturing Pimprama belonging to the Adraistai (Aristas of Panini).[Source: “History of Ancient India” by Rama Shankar Tripathi, Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Benares Hindu University, 1942]
The last major river that Alexander crossed in Pakistan-India region was the Hydraotes: The Ravi, a transboundary river crossing northwestern India and eastern Pakistan and one of six rivers of the Indus System in Punjab region. Arrian wrote: “After crossing the river [Acesines], he left Coenus with his own brigade there upon the bank, with instructions to superintend the passage of the part of the army which had been left behind for the purpose of collecting corn and other supplies from the country of the Indians which was already subject to him. He now sent Porus away to his own abode, commanding him to select the most warlike of the Indians and take all the elephants he had and come to him. He resolved to pursue the other Porus, the bad one, with the lightest troops in his army, because he was informed that he had left the land which he ruled and had fled. For this Porus, while hostilities subsisted between Alexander and the other Porus, sent envoys to Alexander offering to surrender both himself and the land subject to him, rather out of enmity to Porus than from friendship to Alexander. [Source: Arrian the Nicomedian (A.D. 92-175), “Anabasis of Alexander”, translated, by E. J. Chinnock, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884, gutenberg.org]
“But when he ascertained that the former had been released, and that he was ruling over another large country in addition to his own, then, fearing not so much Alexander as the other Porus, his namesake, he fled from his own land, taking with him as many of his warriors as he could persuade to share his flight. Against this man Alexander marched, and arrived at the Hydraotes, which is another Indian river, not less than the Acesines in breadth, but less in swiftness of current. He traversed the whole country as far as the Hydraotes, leaving garrisons in the most suitable places, in order that Craterus and Coenus might advance with safety, scouring most of the land for forage. Then he despatched Hephaestion into the land of the Porus who had revolted, giving him a part of the army, comprising two brigades of infantry, his own regiment of cavalry with that of Demetrius and half of the archers, with instructions to hand the country over to the other Porus, to subdue any independent tribes of Indians which dwelt near the banks of the river Hydraotes, and to give them also into the hands of Porus to rule. He himself then crossed the river Hydraotes, not with difficulty, as he had crossed the Acesines. As he was advancing into the country beyond the Hydraotes, it happened that most of the people yielded themselves up on terms of capitulation; but some came to meet him with arms, while others who tried to escape he captured and forcibly reduced to obedience.”
Invasion of the Land of the Cathaeans
Soon afterwards Alexander invested Sangala, the stronghold of the Cathaeans (Kathaians) who “enjoyed the highest reputation for courage and skill in the art of war.” Strabo, quoting Onesikritos, informs us that among the Cathaeans beauty was highly valued and “the handsomest man was chosen as king.” Every child was examined by public authority two months after its birth to determine “whether it has the beauty of form prescribed by law and whether it deserves to live or not.” [Source: “History of Ancient India” by Rama Shankar Tripathi, Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Benares Hindu University, 1942]
Men and women among them chose their own partners, and the women burnt themselves along with their deceased husbands. These Cathaeans fought with great dash and stubbornness, so much so that even Poros had to come to the aid of Alexander with “a force of 5,000 Indians”. At last, when the fortress fell, no less than 17,000 of the defenders gave up their lives and more than 70,000 were captured together with 300 waggons and 500 horsemen. This resolute resistance of the Cathaeans incensed Alexander to such an extent that he razed Sangala to the ground. Then with a view to guarding the rear he sent Greek garrisons to the conquered cities, and himself marched towards the Hyphasis (Beas) to realise his cherished dream of planting the Hellenic standards in the easternmost ends of India.
Arrian wrote: “Meantime he received information that the tribe called Cathaeans and some other tribes of the independent Indians were preparing for battle, if he approached their land; and that they were summoning to the enterprise all the tribes conterminous with them who were in like manner independent. He was also informed that the city, Sangala by name, near which they were thinking of having the struggle, was a strong one. The Cathaeans themselves were considered very daring and skilful in war; and two other tribes of Indians, the Oxydracians and Mallians, were in the same temper as the Cathaeans. For a short time before it happened that Porus and Abisares had marched against them with their own forces and had roused many other tribes of the independent Indians to arms, but were forced to retreat without effecting anything worthy of the preparations they had made. [Source: Arrian the Nicomedian (A.D. 92-175), “Anabasis of Alexander”, translated, by E. J. Chinnock, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884, gutenberg.org]
“When Alexander was informed of this, he made a forced march against the Cathaeans, and on the second day after starting from the river Hydraotes he arrived at a city called Pimprama, inhabited by a tribe of Indians named Adraistaeans, who yielded to him on terms of capitulation. Giving his army a rest the next day, he advanced on the third day to Sangala, where the Cathaeans and the other neighbouring tribes had assembled and marshalled themselves in front of the city upon a hill which was not precipitous on all sides. They had posted their waggons all round this hill and were encamping within them in such a way that they were surrounded by a triple palisade of waggons. When Alexander perceived the great number of the barbarians and the nature of their position, he drew up his forces in the order which seemed to him especially adapted to his present circumstances, and sent his horse-archers at once without any delay against them, ordering them to ride along and shoot at them from a distance; so that the Indians might not be able to make any sortie, before his army was in proper array, and that even before the battle commenced they might be wounded within their stronghold. Upon the right wing he posted the guard of cavalry and the cavalry regiment of Clitus; next to these the shield-bearing guards, and then the Agrianians. Towards the left he had stationed Perdiccas with his own regiment of cavalry, and the battalions of foot Companions. The archers he divided into two parts and placed them on each wing. While he was marshalling his army, the infantry and cavalry of the rear-guard came up. Of these, he divided the cavalry into two parts and led them to the wings, and with the infantry which came up he made the ranks of the phalanx more dense and compact. He then took the cavalry which had been drawn up on the right, and led it towards the waggons on the left wing of the Indians; for here their position seemed to him more easy to assail, and the waggons had not been placed together so densely.”
Porus and Alexander
Assault upon Sangala
Sangala — Sagala or Sakala — was the last conquest of Alexander’s army in their drive eastward. It was the ancient predecessor of Sialkot, in Pakistan's northern Punjab province and was razed by Alexander the Great in 326 B.C.. Sangala was made capital of the Indo-Greek kingdom by Menander I. Menander embraced Buddhism after extensive debating with a Buddhist monk, and Sangala became a major centre for Buddhism. Arrian wrote: “As the Indians did not run out from behind the waggons against the advancing cavalry, but mounted upon them and began to shoot from the top of them, Alexander, perceiving that it was not the work for cavalry, leaped down from his horse, and on foot led the phalanx of infantry against them. The Macedonians without difficulty forced the Indians from the first row of waggons; but then the Indians, taking their stand in front of the second row, more easily repulsed the attack, because they were posted in denser array in a smaller circle. [Source: Arrian the Nicomedian (A.D. 92-175), “Anabasis of Alexander”, translated, by E. J. Chinnock, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884, gutenberg.org]
“Moreover the Macedonians were attacking them likewise in a confined space, while the Indians were secretly creeping under the front row of waggons, and without regard to discipline were assaulting their enemy through the gaps left between the waggons as each man found a chance. But nevertheless even from these the Indians were forcibly driven by the phalanx of infantry. They no longer made a stand at the third row, but fled as fast as possible into the city and shut themselves up in it. During that day Alexander with his infantry encamped round the city, as much of it, at least, as his phalanx could surround; for he could not with his camp completely encircle the wall, so extensive was it. Opposite the part unenclosed by his camp, near which also was a lake, he posted the cavalry, placing them all round the lake, which he discovered to be shallow. Moreover, he conjectured that the Indians, being terrified at their previous defeat, would abandon the city in the night; and it turned out just as he had conjectured; for about the second watch of the night most of them dropped down from the wall, but fell in with the sentinels of cavalry.
“The foremost of them were cut to pieces by these; but the men behind them perceiving that the lake was guarded all round, withdrew into the city again. Alexander now surrounded the city with a double stockade, except in the part where the lake shut it in, and round the lake he posted more perfect guards. He also resolved to bring military engines up to the wall, to batter it down. But some of the men in the city deserted to him, and told him that the Indians intended that very night to steal out of the city and escape by the lake, where the gap in the stockade existed. He accordingly stationed Ptolemy, son of Lagus, there, giving him three regiments of the shield-bearing guards, all the Agrianians, and one line of archers, pointing out to him the place where he especially conjectured the barbarians would try to force their way. “When thou perceivest the barbarians forcing their way here,” said he, “do thou, with the army obstruct their advance, and order the bugler to give the signal. And do you, O officers, as soon as the signal has been given, each being arrayed in battle order with your own men, advance towards the noise, wherever the bugle summons you. Nor will I myself withdraw from the action.”
Capture of Sangala
Arrian wrote: “Such were the orders he gave; and Ptolemy collected there as many waggons as he could from those which had been left behind in the first flight, and placed them athwart, so that there might seem to the fugitives in the night to be many difficulties in their way; and as the stockade had been knocked down, or had not been firmly fixed in the ground, he ordered his men to heap up a mound of earth in various places between the lake and the wall. This his soldiers effected in the night. When it was about the fourth watch, the barbarians, just as Alexander had been informed, opened the gates towards the lake, and made a run in that direction. However they did not escape the notice of the guards there, nor that of Ptolemy, who had been placed behind them to render aid. [Source: Arrian the Nicomedian (A.D. 92-175), “Anabasis of Alexander”, translated, by E. J. Chinnock, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884, gutenberg.org]
another take on Porus and Alexander
“But at this moment the buglers gave him the signal, and he advanced against the barbarians with his army fully equipped and drawn up in battle array. Moreover the waggons and the stockade which had been placed in the intervening space, were an obstruction to them. When the bugle sounded and Ptolemy attacked them, killing the men as they kept on stealing out through the waggons, then indeed they were driven back again into the city; and in their retreat of them were killed. In the meanwhile Porus arrived, bringing with him the elephants that were left to him, and , Indians. Alexander had constructed his military engines and they were being led up to the wall; but before any of it was battered down, the Macedonians took the city by storm, digging under the wall, which was made of brick, and placing scaling ladders against it all round. In the capture , of the Indians were killed, and above , were captured, besides chariots and cavalry. In the whole siege a little less than of Alexander’s army were killed; but the number of the wounded was greater than the proportion of the slain, being more than ,, among whom were Lysimachus, the confidential body-guard, and other officers. After burying the dead according to his custom, Alexander sent Eumenes, the secretary, with cavalry to the two cities which had joined Sangala in revolt, to tell those who held them about the capture of Sangala, and to inform them that they would receive no harsh treatment from Alexander if they stayed there and received him as a friend; for no harm had happened to any of the other independent Indians who had surrendered to him of their own accord.
“But they had become frightened, and had abandoned the cities and were fleeing; for the news had already reached them that Alexander had taken Sangala by storm. When Alexander was informed of their flight he pursued them with speed; but most of them were too quick for him, and effected their escape, because the pursuit began from a distant starting-place. But all those who were left behind in the retreat from weakness, were seized by the army and killed, to the number of about . Then, giving up the design of pursuing the fugitives any further, he returned to Sangala, and razed the city to the ground. He added the land to that of the Indians who had formerly been independent, but who had then voluntarily submitted to him. He then sent Porus with his forces to the cities which had submitted to him, to introduce garrisons into them; whilst he himself, with his army, advanced to the river Hyphasis, to subjugate the Indians beyond it. Nor did there seem to him any end of the war, so long as anything hostile to him remained.”
Alexander Reaches His Limit in India as His Troops Refuse to Advance
Alexander's next goal was to reach the Ganges River, which was actually 400 kilometers away, a considerable distance, because he thought that it flowed into the outer Ocean. His troops, however, had heard tales of the powerful Indian tribes that lived on the Ganges and remembered the difficulty of the battle with Porus, so they refused to go any farther east. Alexander was extremely disappointed, but he accepted their decision and persuaded them to travel south down the rivers Hydaspes and Indus so that they might reach the Ocean on the southern edge of the world. [Source: Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, Thomson Gale, 2007]
Arrian wrote: “It was reported that the country beyond the river Hyphasis was fertile, and that the men were good agriculturists, and gallant in war; and that they conducted their own political affairs in a regular and constitutional manner. For the multitude was ruled by the aristocracy, who governed in no respect contrary to the rules of moderation. It was also stated that the men of that district possessed a much greater number of elephants than the other Indians, and that those men were of very great stature, and excelled in valour. These reports excited in Alexander an ardent desire to advance farther; but the spirit of the Macedonians now began to flag, when they saw the king raising one labour after another, and incurring one danger after another. Conferences were held throughout the camp, in which those who were the most moderate bewailed their lot, while others resolutely declared that they would not follow Alexander any farther, even if he should lead the way. [Source: Arrian the Nicomedian (A.D. 92-175), “Anabasis of Alexander”, translated, by E. J. Chinnock, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884, gutenberg.org]
Plutarch wrote: “On the banks of the Hyphias (now Beas) River, Alexander ordered his men to head east, the men refused. Alexander was enraged and was little consoled by the words of one of his noble advisors, who told him, "A noble thing, O king, is to know when to stop." Alexander reacted by saying anyone who disobeyed him would be accused of desertion and went to his tent to sulk. After confining himself to his tent from three days, he consulted his omens and was conveniently told he trouble awaited him in India. On hearing the news his men shouted: "Alexander allowed us, but no others, to defeat him."Alexander then decided to head back home. In retrospect this may have been a hasty decision as a major Indian army had already been defeated and all of India was within their grasp. [Source: Plutarch (A.D. 45-127), “Life of Alexander”, A.D. 75 translated by John Dryden, 1906, MIT, Online Library of Liberty, oll.libertyfund.org ]
Administration Left by Alexander the Great in India
It is said that with a view to marking the extreme point of his advance eastward Alexander gave directions for the construction of twelve colossal stone altars, dedicated to the chief Greek gods. When these massive monuments were completed, Alexander offered sacrifices, accompanied with appropriate ceremonies, for a safe return home.[Source: “History of Ancient India” by Rama Shankar Tripathi, Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Benares Hindu University, 1942]
Alexander placed his new ally, Poros, in charge of all the tract between the Hydaspes and the Hyphasis, and Omphis or Ambhi of Taxila was given full jurisdiction over the Indus-Hydaspes Doab. Likewise, the ruler of Abhisara had his authority extended over Kashmir with Arsakes of Urasa (Hazara district) as his vassal. And as a counterpoise to the rule of these Indian princes, Alexander stationed adequate Greek garrisons in cities founded by himself on Indian soil. These Greek settlers were meant to be the sentinels or guar dians of his overlordship, so that no enterprising Indian monarch may be able to rise in revolt in order to shake off the alien yoke.
During his time in India, Alexander the Great mostly busy fighting, and he could not, therefore, get time enough to consolidate his conquests. But the steps he took clearly indicate that he intended to annex the Indian provinces permanently to his empire. He posted Greek garrisons at strategic centres; appointed governors, like Philip over the region above Sind up to the lower Kabul valley, and Peithon in Sind, to exercise control over the native princes; conciliated [Source: “History of Ancient India” by Rama Shankar Tripathi, Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Benares Hindu University, 1942]
and yet another view of Porus and Alexander
India After Alexander the Great
Although Indian accounts to a large extent ignored Alexander the Great's Indus campaign in 326 B.C., Greek writers recorded their impressions of the general conditions prevailing in South Asia during this period. Thus, the year 326 B.C. provides the first clear and historically verifiable date in Indian history. A two-way cultural fusion between several Indo-Greek elements — especially in art, architecture, and coinage — occurred in the next several hundred years. [Source: Library of Congress]
After Alexander went back to Babylon in 324 B.C., a man named Chandragupta was able to overthrow the old Aryan kingdom of Nanda under the powerful Nanda king Magdha in 323 - 322 B.C. He formed a big new empire over all of northern India and into Afghanistan. When people asked him how he had done it, he said (according to Greek historians) that he got the idea from Alexander. Chandragupta conquered the Indus valley back from the Greeks and as part of the peace treaty he married the daughter of Seleucus, who had succeeded Alexander. [Source: Glorious India ]
Alexander left behind agents in order to control the territories that he had overrun and to maintain the alliance with Poros who quickly abused their authority. With the treaty broken thus, Poros joined the cause of Chandragupta (Sandrakottos) Maurya. Together they overthrew the remaining Macedonians and lay the foundation for what would become one of the largest empires to ever exist in India. By the time Seleukos I Nikator made his own attempt to annex India in 305 B.C., the Mauryan Empire of Chandragupta encompassed most of modern Pakistan and India north of the Vindhya mountain range.
Chandragupta met Seleukos in battle somewhere in Gandhara and defeated the forces of the successor king. A treaty was made between the two rulers in which Seleukos ceded authority over the eastern satrapies of Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia and the Paropanisadai and Chandragupta gave Seleukos a gift of 500 war elephants. These animals were instrumental in the defeat of Antigonos Monophthalmos in 301 B.C. Chandragupta also recieved the hand of a daughter of Seleukos. The kings parted on good terms with Seleukos maintaining an ambassador named Megasthanes at the Mauryan court in Pataliputra.
Impact of Alexander the Great on India
One of the important effects of Alexander’s invasion was the establishment of a number of Greek settlements in India. The army of occupation, of course, did not long survive his departure, but the cities founded by him continued to flourish. Another indirect result of this expedition was that it discredited the small state system of the Punjab, and thus helped the cause of Indian unity. It also demonstrated to Indians that there was something inherently wrong with their military organisation and strategy, and that a drilled and disciplined army, though small, could accomplish wonders in the face of odds. Lastly, it brought India into direct touch with the European world. This not only gave an impetus to trade and commerce, but also mutually influenced the development of art, thought, and literature. Some of the tangible relics of Alexander’s invasion of India are.imitation Athenian “owl” coins and silver drachms of Attic weight. One remarkable silver decadrachm is supposed by Barclay Head to represent Alexander on the reverse and on the obverse Poros mounted on a retreating elephant, which is being pursued by a horseman. [Source: “History of Ancient India” by Rama Shankar Tripathi, Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Benares Hindu University, 1942]
Alexander the Great spread knowledge of the world to India (and Pakistan). Greek chroniclers described widow burning and the selling of daughters by their parents at local market places and oxen that were so string Alexander order 200,000 of them to be sent back to Greece. But despite al this there are no references to the Greeks in Indian texts.
Alexander the Great incursion opened up new trade routes between Europe and the East. A number of settlements were established, including Boukephala on the Jhelum and Alexandria in Sind, but survived for that ling. From the 2nd century B.C. to the 4th century A.D. Gandhara, produced wonderful art that combined East and West. Sculptures had “togalike robes and halos modeled after statuary of the Greek gods, yet typically possessed the serene expression of devotion traditionally found in South Asian religious artworks.
India After Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great successors were absorbed by the new Maurya dynasty (c.321–c.184 B.C.); under Chandragupta (r. c.321–c.297 B.C.), from his capital at Pataliputra (now Patna), the Mauryans subdued most of northern India and what is now Bangladesh. [Source: Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, Thomson Gale, 2007]
According to PBS: “Alexander's invasion itself left no long lasting impression on India (though he may have influenced the young Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Mauryan Empire), but his campaigns cemented his reputation as one of the great conquerors of the ancient world. Later Greek leaders however conquered much of northwest India; the most famous, Menander (ruled c. 155-130 B.C.), struck down the Ganges as far as Patna and according to legend later became a Buddhist. [Source: PBS, The Story of India, pbs.org/thestoryofindia]
When the Macedonian empire was partitioned for the second time in 321 B.C. at Triparadeisos, Peithon had already retired to the west of the Indus, and Greek authority had all but disappeared in the Punjab and Sind, although Eudamos succeeded in holding his charge until 317 B.C. his mighty opponent, Poros; constructed docks and harbours at Pattalene (Indus delta); and tried to explore the easiest and quickest route between India and Greece. All his arrangements and aspirations, however, came to nought when Alexander prematurely died in Babylon in June 323 B.C.
Sirkap
Sirkap, meaning “Severed head,” was built during the Greek era. It features a fortification wall, over five kilometers long and up to six meters thick, and an impressive main street once lined with mansions and gold shops. The foundation of the Apsidal Temple are raised on a platform and cover an area almost the size of a football field. Its central location and the way houses seem to feed off it suggests to archaeologists it may have been a sun temple. Located in a small courtyard, the Shrine of the Double Headed Eagle boasts weathered base-reliefs of structures that look like dog houses and columns adorned with double headed eagles, hence the name.
Sirkap was a fortified city founded during the mid-2nd century BC. Taxila was the capital of a kingdom called Hinduš (Indus country) and consisted of the western half of the Punjab. It was added to the Achaemenid empire under Darius I the Great, but the Persian occupation did not last long. The many private houses, stupas and temples are laid out on the Hellenistic grid system and show the strong Western classical influence on local architecture. The city was destroyed in the 1st century AD by the Kushans of central Asia.
To the north, excavations of the ruins of the Kushan city of Sirsukh have brought to light an irregular rectangle of walls in ashlar masonry with rounded bastions. This wall attests to the early influence of Central Asian architectural forms on those of the subcontinent. The city of Sirkap, chronologically the second major city of Taxila, is to be found spreading down the Hathial Spur and on to the plains of the Taxila valley. It is bounded by the Tamra stream and to the north and south by the Gau stream, which today has been almost completely obliterated by a modern road and water channel. The present layout of the city was established by the Bactrian Greeks sometime around 180 BC and takes the form of a wide and open grid system. In general, the city presents a better planned architecture than Bhir Mound. The city is encompassed by a mighty wall over 5 km long and up to 6 m thick. There may well have been an entrance on each of the four sides originally, but today the only one evident is the northern wall and it is through here that visitors normally enter the city. A number of temples and monasteries can be found here: Apsidal Temple, Sun Temple, Shrine of the Double Headed Eagle, Kunala Monastery and Ghai Monastery.
The major attraction in this city is the Great Stupa, one of the largest and most impressive throughout Pakistan, located just 2 km east of Bhir Mound and Sirkap. The chapels and chambers around the Great Stupa were built at various times from the 1st century BC to the post-Kushan period. These structures display a wide range of designs and probably were donated by pilgrims, possibly representing various schools of Buddhism.
Other sites of interest include the city of Sirsukh which is believed to belong to the Kushan period. To the north of Sirkap are four temples, all standing on earlier mounds and overlooking the city. They are all in the style of Greek temples. The best to visit is probably the one at Jandial, 1.5 km north of Sirkap.
Impact of Greek Contacts on India
An Indian revolt, following closely upon Alexander the Great’s premature death in 323 B.C., soon obliterated all traces of Greek conquest. Then came Seleucus Nicator about 306 B.C., but he got no chance to disseminate the seeds of Greek culture on Indian soil. His arms were effectively checked on the frontiers by Chandragupta Maurya, who is said to have wrested from his adversary four important satrapies corresponding to modem Baluchistan and southern Afghanistan. Neither Megasthenes nor Kautilya bears out that there were any Hellenic signs in the Maurya court. For the next one hundred years India enjoyed immunity from Greek incursions. In 206 B.C. Antiochos III appeared on her border-lands, but he, too, had to hurry back home after receiving the homage of a prince named Sophagasenos (Subhagascna). The later expeditions of Demetrios, Eukratides, and Menander, which covered with intervals a period of about four decades (c. 190-155 B.C.), penetrated far into the interior of the country. These were not wholly transitory raids, for in the Punjab and adjacent territories they led to the establishment of Greek rule, which lasted over a century and a half. It is, however, surprising that traces of Hellenism are even here very scanty. [Source: “History of Ancient India” by Rama Shankar Tripathi, Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Benares Hindu University, 1942]
It appears that in the matter of coinage Indians learnt much from the Greeks. Prior to their advent rude punch-marked coins were current in India, but they introduced the practice of using regular coins, properly shaped and stamped. The Greek word Drachma was even adopted by Indians as Dramma. Further, the Greek language on coins is supposed to indicate that it was understood in the Indo-Greek.dominions, but this view is not borne out by the evidence available. The introduction of the Indian legends and the use of the Kharosthl on coins would, on the other hand, prove that the masses in general did not know the Greek language at all. That this was the case is also clear from the fact that no Greek inscription has so far been discovered in India.
Turning to literature, it is alleged by St. Chrysostom (A.D. 1 7) that “the poetry of Homer is sung by the Indians, who had translated it into their own language and modes of expression.” This is further corroborated by Plutarch and./Elian, but there is hardly any basis for such assertions except some superficial similarities between the legends or Greece and those of India. For instance, the main theme of the R atnayana curiously offers a parallel to the story of the Iliad. Similarly, although Greek plays may have been staged in places like Sakala and other centres of Greek power, we have really no evidence to warrant the assumption that Indian drama owes much to the Greek. The term Yavanikd merely denoted a curtain of Greek fabric, and other resemblances also are doubtless mostly fortuitous.
In the realm of astronomy Indians were certainly indebted to the Greeks. Thus says the Gdrgi-Samhita : ‘‘The Yavanas are barbarians yet the science of astronomy originated with them, and for this they must be reverenced like gods.” Indian astronomy preserves a number of Greek terms; and, of course, the Romaka and Vaults a Siddhantas bear obvious traces of Greek influences. As to astrology, Indians had some knowledge of it, but they are said to have borrowed from Babylon the art of divining the future by means of the stars.
It is difficult to say how far these Indo-Greeks affected the development of Indian art and architecture. Not one notable piece of sculpture belonging to the period of Demetrios and Menander has so far been unearthed, but the later Gandhara school, depicting on stone scenes from the life of the Buddha, is beyond doubt inspired by Hellenic ideals. Similarly, no Greek building in India has come to light, save the unembellished walls of some houses and a temple at Taxila with Ionic pillars and classical mouldings, dating from about the first quarter of the first century B.C. The Hellenic style preponderated in the decorative arts for a long time. It was then modified by the addition of Indian motifs.
The contact of diverse civilisations gave an impetus to trade and commerce, and there began a constant flow of ideas, which produced far-reaching results in different directions. Such instances as the conversion of Heliodorus to Vaisnavism, and of Menander or of Theodoros of the Swat Vase inscription to Buddhism, show that the Greeks were gradually succumbing to the subtle influence of Indian faiths. Thus, when “the legions had thundered past,” India “plunged in thought again” in a manner which slowly converted her military conquerors into her moral and spiritual captives. The Indianisation of the Greeks must have been, to some extent, brought about by mixed marriages also.
Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons
Text Sources: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Greece sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Hellenistic World sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; BBC Ancient Greeks bbc.co.uk/history/; Canadian Museum of History, Perseus Project - Tufts University; perseus.tufts.edu ; MIT Classics Online classics.mit.edu ; Gutenberg.org, Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Live Science, Discover magazine, Natural History magazine, Archaeology magazine, The New Yorker, Encyclopædia Britannica, Wikipedia, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, AFP and various books and other publications.
Last updated September 2024