Alexander vs Porus | Truth Uncovered | We have fooled for centuries | Keerthi History
2023 ж. 21 Қаң.
1 023 215 Рет қаралды
After almost a month of research on Alexander vs Porus, this is what I came up with. I was shocked to see this at first. And even the available records are not Primary sources. They are just secondary sources. But we are blindly following everything the west said, without raising questions!!!
This video will keep gaining more and more views year after year.
Why only year after?
@@Keerthihistory bcos Indians are raising there awareness and knowing history after 2014, ... It will take time to reach the peak of the wave. People like you may bring it within months ❤️☮️.
@@opinionabout938 Awww thank you ♥️🙏🏼
My grandmother told me a story... Alexander भारत आता है लड़ने के लिए पर बुरी तरह से हार जाता है, तो उसे राजा पुरु (जो की मेरे पूर्वज है) हराकर बंदी बना लेते है... पर अलेक्जेंडर की पत्नी जो parsia से थी वो भारत के संस्कृति के बारे में जानती थी (क्यू की भारत और परसिया इतिहास में अच्छा संबंध रखते थे) तो उसने एक तरकीब निकाली और राजा पुरु को राखी भेजी... उस राखी का मान रखने के लिए राजा पुरु ने अलेक्जेंडर को छोड़ दिया... पर चाणक्य जो विष विद्या ने बड़े माहिर थे उन्होंने अलेक्जेंडर को मार दिया क्योंकि उन्हें अलेक्जेंडर के पुनः आक्रमण की शंका थी जो की सेलुकस ने सही साबित की... पर तबतक चाणक्य ने चंद्रगुप्त को सम्राट बनाकर भारत को सशक्त बना दिया था ... जय भारत माता...
@@Keerthihistory because you're a fool and your subscribers super fools believing in your cartoon history🤣🥺🥺
I think that Greek historians did not want to show that Alexander was defeated by Porus . Because they write in the favour of Alexander . So it could be possible that the Greek historians wrote the wrong history
Possible
But this does not explain why Indians don't mention any war.
Who was the historian of Alexander, Arrian, who based his accounts on the report of Alexander's Naval commander Nearchus, 200 years later. So you can imagine how in these years the actual accounts were altered. And western historian based their research on this as no accounts of Alexander's survived.
They use to depict other history.
Event there god's r same as our god's weapons,indra vaiara zeus lighting, massager like narad ect.
Someone wise said " History is not what happened, History is what we write "
Is it what she is trying to do ? From mere assumptions?
@@varghesemanikkoth21certainly you are assuming
Why is it that Indians are always lining up to get into western countries yet no one from the west ever lines up in droves to get into India.
@asmitraj1110 Hear properly the conclusion. 7:18 She herself says “we can make only assumptions…” and just like that not accepting existing documents.. When you counter a so far agreed history, that is when you need a proof to counter. History is not false pride.She only says “it could have happened like this and like that”. She blatantly denies already recorded history as partiality and don’t have any documents to prove otherwise.
She is happy with her assumptio?s !
This is the history I was taught in school. After defeating Porus, near the banks of the river Jhelum, Alexander and his army proceeded till the river Beas, the borders of the Nanda empire. 2) Though victorious against Porus, it was the costliest victory for the Greeks. Prospect of a 4 time larger Nanda army demoralized them. 3) Alexander had a history of creating sattraps in conquered regions. Defeated generals had been made sattraps. 4) A few years after the battle, Chandragupta Maurya arose and recaptured Punjab from Greeks before conquering Magadha. After that, Selucus tried to regain his lost territory, and lost again. This time he had to give several more provinces including all territories of present day Afghanistan which became part of Maurya empire, which means, the area from where Chandragupta initally drove the Greeks out from was further east, present day Pakistan, around the region of Taxila i.e. that area was under Greek occupation. This is absolutely inconsistent with Greeks defeated at Jhelum. Point 4 history is from Indian sources. 5) Consider the situation, if Porus had actually defeated Alexander, he would be the undisputed champion from the Chenab till Asia Minor/Egypt. While western historians could rewrite history, Persians would not have any incentive to glorify Alexander. To them, Porus would be the God who defeated the tyrant Alexander. Some records, tales ought to have survived. Also, a king with that level of dominion, would have brought as much western territory as possible under his control. Persian records would have shown a 7 feet tall Indian king who ruled between 326-323 BC. (Check the dates, I am not sure if I remember school history with full accuracy) Your story (not absolutely impossible) sounds great to Indian ears like myself, but needs to address the above inconsistentencies to be plausible.
1. Your points you made in point 5, Porus would be the undisputed champ from India till Eygpt, and that he had so much power, he could've conquered that region after defeating Alexander has already been addressed in the video where, compared to the other kings of India, Porus wasn't a big king, in-fact he wasn't even a king at all, he was a Cheiftan of his tribe. Alexander was humiliated by losing to a Cheiftan and when his army already defeated heard about the prospect of "Larger" Indian Kingdoms awaiting in the East, such as the Nanda Dynasty, they knew they would get crushed, & Alexander knew this too, so he left Selecus in charge of the regions he had conquered far east, and turned back. Your other point where you said "Persians would not have any incentive to glorify Alexander. To them, Porus would be the God who defeated the tyrant Alexander. Some records, tales ought to have survived. Also, a king with that level of dominion, would have brought as much western territory as possible under his control. Persian records would have shown a 7 feet tall Indian king who ruled between 326-323 BC." First off The Renowned Taskhashila University, just A FEW miles away from the site of Battle, didn't even care to write about either Porus, Alexander, or of this Battle, If this Battle was indeed so big, then the University would certainly write about it, but they didn't so many people in India didn't even have a clue this battle happened b/c it was deemed "un important" which is why their are no Persian records about it, b/c if Indian's themselves didn't know about the war at the time, how would the Persians know, when they were Miles away. The most likley outcome is that when Alexander's soldiers got back, they started making their own versions of what actually happened instead of saying "we came back b/c we lost to an Indian Cheiftan of a local tribe, and we were scared b/c their were even more powerful Indian Kings awaiting us for battle. Again Porus didn't conquer the entire west after defeating Alexander, b/c he was a local Cheiftan and not a King.
The reason Porus isnt really mentioned as defeater of Alexander is not because persians or greeks but because of Chanakya. Chanakya was trying to market Chandragupt Maurya as the undefeated/undisputed unifier of Bharat (or well, at least the northern part) and one of their biggest achievements was defeating Selucus Necator who was Alexander's General. He also married one of Selucus' daughters. Do u think a master strategist/kingmaker like Chanakya would like it if it was known that some local chieftain, Puru, defeated not just a Greek General, but the undefeated Alexander himself? Kya ijjat reh jati market mein. And it doesn't help that Chandragupt Maurya was succeeded by Raja Ashok, one of the most successful kings in our history, who started his reign with blood. Why would they let some local chieftain from Sindh overshadow their achievements?
@@Furrina89 He was asking why did persians not make him take all the glory if he really defeated Alexander , don't tell me you're saying chanakya was behind this 😂
So let me tell you something as Iranian , there is no sign of ever attack of Alexander in Iran too , Greek say that Alexander set fire to Persepolis but , Architecture students had studied the stones of the monuments, and guess what? there is no sign of getting ever burned in the region, secondly they alleged roman has ruled Persia for more than hundred years!! So how is that there are less than 100 Greek words in all Iranic languages?? While you can find many Arabic and Turkish words as Arabs has ruled the region for 200 years and also Mongolians! Even French words are more than Greek words in Iranic languages,I think Alexander is a made up fictional character, respond to Cyrus The Great and Achaemenians empire and their civilization since they had attacked Greece and conquered it
Alexander did not create any sattarps. Thats another western lie. Your alexander winning against Porus sounds great to western hears but you need to address illogic behind Alexander winning against Porus. Porus won against Alexander hands down and you cant change this fact.
The "Arthashastra" by Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, is a treatise on statecraft, economics, and military strategy. This text was written in Sanskrit around the 4th century BCE. In the "Arthashastra," Kautilya mentions Alexander in the context of discussing the strategies that Indian rulers should use to defend their kingdoms against foreign invasions. He refers to Alexander as "Sikandar," which is the Persian name for Alexander. Kautilya describes Alexander's invasion as a major threat to the Indian subcontinent, and he analyzes the military tactics and strategies used by Alexander and his army. He also provides some advice on how Indian rulers can counteract these tactics and defend their territories. Overall, the references to Alexander in the "Arthashastra" provide some insight into the historical context of the time and the military challenges faced by Indian rulers during this period of history.
In the movie Alexander, he was shown as killed by porus, which was criticised by some, but the director was firm in his stand saying that he had researched a lot for the film..
U must have read hindi subtitle.... he was injured and later died in babylon due to disease.. lol such illiterate idiots
Ya, it doesnt make senses to give back after taking a small piece of india and not taking india inspite india being 33% of world gdp of that time
@@zalayashpalsinh5427 33% gdpa Lool why are you guys so delusional
Conquered through out their existence ,yet somethow think they are fearsome warriors. " But by the end ofthe day, Porus' troops were defeated.Out of thirty-five thousand men, Porus had lost a staggering twenty-three thousand; Macedonian losses were a few hundred"
@@user-lv1jk9qb9t lol indians going to hunt u down
There's a Chinese & Persian records of this war which states that Alexander was defeated but Porus not only spared him but also gave him swords made of Indian steel (Roman Steel now). Alexander after some time started his return journey as his soldiers had refused to go any further and wanted to return to homeland. Strangely, our own historians ignore these records.
Can i humbly ask where can i read those sources, as i wish to know more about this subject
Plz mention the sources i am interested
Sir please mention the name of that Chinese Persian record and where did you find the source. I'm doing my master in History and haven't heard about any such sources.
@@na2co312source is - " trust me bro"... If he had any legitimate sources he would have mentioned it by now...
Bro, which sources. Seriously, i really want to read this. This is amazing
If Alexander was defeated by Porus, then Indian records of that should have existed. Especially because the name and fame of Alexander was far reached. That could mean that Alexander was not defeated by Porus. But perhaps the Greeks did invent to story to give a last hurrah to Alexander, especially since he died on his way back. That is more plausible.
I somehow don't prescribe to the view that says his name & fame reached far? It may have reached the places where he had passed or conquered. But beyond that, maybe, maybe not.
@@infinity1726no. even before you reach a destination, those areas would still know who you are. if you're a conqueror. merchants, runners, gossipers, slaves, nomads, escapees, traders. they'll speak what happened. so they know
First off The Renowned Taskhashila University, just A FEW miles away from the site of the Battle, didn't even care to write about either Porus, Alexander, or this Battle, If this Battle was indeed so big, then the University would certainly write about it, but they didn't so many people in India didn't even have a clue this battle happened b/c it was deemed "unimportant". If they didn't write about they definitely didn't think this battle had a huge effect on the Country and that's why they didn't write about it, Plus if they didn't mention Porus then how would they mention the battle. And you have to Remember King Ambi, who was enemies with Porus, was the king of Takshila, so if Alexander did beat Porus, then wouldn't you think Ambi would want to be the first to write about his enemy's loss and make it public for everyone to know? One the other hand if Porus lost, Ambi would want to hush up the news b/c he didn't want to look like an Idiot siding with Alexander and still losing against Porus.
@@anishgowda6877 Do you know something called PROPGANDA? Do you think Maurya can't do PROPOGANDA?!
@@anishgowda6877 Hadn't that university been closed for two or three centuries by that point though? (genuinley curious)
I have personally visited the area where its said the war between Alexander and Raja Porus happened. Looking at the terrain, it's nearly impossible for an invader to win there. The locals believed Raja Porus won the battle however some of his sons died. Alexander was asked to go back through a different route instead of the route he came from.
Since you are a Great tactician and master of the art of war, especially in the ancient times, and most importantly you were there to witness it...
When i read about Alexander's invasion of India i was also very confused since Alexander didn't spared his uncle's and siblings to gain control over the throne, him giving porus his kingdom back was completely opposite of his nature. Either Porus killed Alexander in this war and Greek historians out of humiliation framed a story to claim their superiority or this war never happened is what I agree to.👍
Lolzz there were 3 kings before porus whom alexander had spared so porus was not the only one
@@anoop61284 can you find out who was king porus at that time... with substantial proof.. She mentioned there is no mention of such king Porus...
Dumb fk he died in babylon..go read history
@@rampmahe4298porus is puruvaras I read the story of this war in a book named khaleela and Dimna , persian version of panjathanthra stories. I that book the story is entirely different though puruvaras defeated Alexander initially alexander built hollow metal horses to defeat the elephant army. After the war alexander appointed his representative as king in india a left the country but later Indians were not satisfied with the representative so they dethroned him and gave power to a relative of puruvaras
@@fithakabeer768 bullshit. There is no such stories. You think lying will help you
Alexander didn't "give back" the Kingdom. He allowed him to rule as a puppet king as he did with all kings he defeated. My guess as to why there is no Indian records of Alexander's conquest of India is because most the Battles he fought in India were small skirmishers with small weaker states that either surrendered at the sight of Alexander's larger army or were easily defeated. And as we know, ancient sources almost never recorded their losses. They only recorded victories. When he was ready to advance on the Nanda Dynasty in India, the largest power in India, the scouts reported armies as large as 150,000 men estimated. 5 times the forces that Alexander had with him. Alexander also received heavy casualties again in India fighting a city that gave him an even harder fight than Porus. Alexander was so upset that instead of letting the king rule this city, he burned this city to the ground. It was clear the heavy losses were finally getting to not only his army but getting Alexander frustrated as well, but he wanted to still press on. His men however were not for it. They wanted to go back ro Greece. Realizing he had lost his army, Alexander reluctantly goes back sending his army on a death march through the deserts of Persian, taking the most dangerous route and losing a large portion of the army during the retreat out of India.
2:45 "Alexander was on a mission to conquer the world." A lot of people assume this but we don't know if it was true. Even for Alexander this would have taken a very long time, even with the parts of the world he knew of. He knew that there were lands to the West as well, since Greeks had already gone to what's now France.
Just found your account on Instagram and came here to see the whole video!! You've presented the information wonderfully and have gained a new subscriber! Thank you for your continuous efforts to bring our great Bharat's actual history to light!! Wishing your channel will grow soon ^^💜
Awww thank you ♥️♥️♥️
@@Keerthihistory indian sources were either destroyed by invaders or edited by them. I mean all invaders did was destruction , looting , forced Conversions , Destruction of Education institutes Gurukuls etc editing/destroying history of bharatha ☠️ but even Today our education system says they were great but our Indians kings weren't ☠️ if only Gandhi died before Independence it would have helped india alot no Gandhi = no INC = less problems and Akhand bharath ☠️ and if Gandhi died before independence india wouldn't have suffered massacres of indian tribes and indian orginated religions in between 1947 to 2014. He did alot damage then contribution to freedom as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose said Azadi hame diyinahi he Hamne lia he. This Gandhi even suppressed Netaji ji ☠️helped Britishers in WW2 and even after independence...
@@KeerthihistoryPlease make a video of the great Indian Warrior Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose❤️
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Even if King Alexander was defeated by King Porus, It still doesn't explain absence of records by Indian Historians.
It doesnt even bother them to do that, fight of elephant killing a ant should be written unless ant kill elephant
@Vishal Autade He actually did move to east. He only retreated because his army mutinied.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as the original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Because it didn’t happen
Appreciate your attitude on raising questions about what we learnt and the effort you've put in (Spending 1 month on a single topic deserves huge love). It is something we all must learn and inculcate. Please treat my feedback as a positive one and I do not intent to criticise your content in any possible way. From what I learnt, Alexander did win the battle but at a very heavy price mainly because of 2 reasons. a) Alexander attempted to attack Porus (King Purushotam) in a surprise blitzkrieg tactic but he and his army were spotted by Porus's vanguard. His cover was now blown and he must face Porus army head on. b) Elephant division of Porus inflicted heavy casualties on the Greek Army. Alexander had put his elite Greek cavalry on his left side (right side of Porus face) and Porus focussed mainly on them, the remaining Alexander's army focussed on stopping the elephant regiment. This caused an encirclement of Porus army at the end and battle turned into a chaos which resulted in heavy losses on both sides. Alexander won the battle but it did not go as he planned and in addition he lost his beloved horse Bucephalus. NOTE: There is a misconception that Porus killed Alexander's horse. This isn't true. Porus fought the battle as per the rules set at that time and did not violate the terms.
At the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander III of Macedon had an army of 45.000 men while Porus had an army of 54.000 men, 200 elephants and 1.000 chariots. At the end of the battle, Alexander III of Macedon lost only 310 men while Porus lost 23.000 men. So i don't think that the battle costed too much for the Macedonians like you say...
I've heard that Bucephalus died in the first attack that Alexander had after crossing over the river during the storm 17 miles down from the main camp against the 1st smaller Indian force led by Porus' son in which the king's son perished as well. I am an Alexander kook😆 but at times it is hard for me to fully take in that when they crossed the night before during the storm, it was a mighty storm at that, to the point where the Indian long bows were neutralized from from the overly muddy grounds unable to anchor and draw to let loose their arrows, a big blow to Porus, but what I'm getting at is Alexander found a place to cross but he miscalculated the crossing spot and crossed merely to the middle of a small island which was mistaken for the main land of the other side, much to their dismay it was back to work, cross the rest of the river, it took all night, they're on the otherside, up all night and exerting so much energy and no sleep, and no food to recharge with, at least it wasn't mentioned, and then fight 2 battles the next day 17 miles up the river after crossing all night? OK let's say the 1st part happened, they crossed and defeated the smaller contingent led by the son of Porus, then the Greeks and the pieces of the army added on as they went like the Iranian horse archers and such, had to regroup, all the while it would take some time to ride 17 miles back for the surviving indians to alert Porus of the news that Alexander had indeed landed with a pretty sizeable army all the while leaving a big enough force across the river to keep Porus pinned down there making it a really tough decision for him especially hearing his son had perished in the outmatched battle. Does he leave or does he hold there to keep the remaining Greeks at bay? I'd be willing to bet the minute he heard Alexander had landed, it was go time, that's the main event on the ticket and he had to leave. One last thing, supposedly Alexander split his army into 3rds and left a Greek force at the middle of the 17 mile gap between the 2 armies on the Greek side of the river the night before. I would like to bet that the 2nd battle happened the next day, after the crossing of the river. Alexander's men were tough as they come but March 17 miles in a violent storm, cross the river twice, no rest no food, fight a battle, win, regroup and start marching towards Porus who is now about to leave his spot and head for the showdown on muddied grounds, and I'd heard Alexander's army had gotten too much separation from itself after the 1st battle as he sent many me on their way right after early victory. I'm fascinated , and I love reading about him, he's my favorite, by far, but history is written by the winners and this seems to me a superhuman task to get it all done in a day, but then again, these guys could handle a 30 mile night March, they were ridiculously conditioned too, what do I know? Not much. Thankyou for everyone's comments and the maker of the film, I really get a thrill out of this stuff, but to write its all a lie, may be a bit of a stretch, but in the words if Alexander himself, "there is nothing impossible to him who will try"
Keerthymmaa... I studied somewhere not in academic books as alexander woonded his leg damaged and he got sever fever and decided to go back on the way back to home he died, as a commerce student i dont have opportunity to study about alexander in my studies... But my elder brother told few things what you told now since he studied history as a subject in his B. A. Thanks kuttyy for detail analysis in different dimensions...
Also remember that Alexander made examples of kings that did not surrender without a fight by killing them brutally. A departure from this would not happen because he wanted more land. Conclusion: he was defeated, turned back to return to Greece and died from injuries suffered while fighting in India.
No you fool
@@aadhithanu9070 does it make you feel secure and validated to call others fool?
@@wramper Nope. I feel that it's important to call out gullible and non intelligent people
@@aadhithanu9070 so who is gullible and non-intelligent? And how have you reached this conclusion?
@@wramper If you even read basic history, you'll know that this lady is lying . Gullible fools who disregard and are ashamed of our history are lapping it up
Thank you Keerthi..I was also confused when I read this narrative...But now I think I find the side which I can believe. We are used to blindly believe in Western resources but now we should rewrite our history and try to critically analyse each and every narrative.
Glad to hear that♥️
Russian historian wrote that alexander was defeated by porus and in film alexander the great the same was shown tats y he went back.
@@Keerthihistory keep going keerthi awesome narration and great information thx for the updates
@TI:24-XII-{RHODIUM} ncert jaise har desh mei hai aur bahut soch ke likhte hai logo se jindabad murdabad karvana hai aur kaam bhi aam admi inta aam nahi hai
@@raghavbalaji5258 what is the name of the book. Is it available in English
Good analysis keerti, According to my thinking Since thakshshila was under Ambi an ally of Alexander possibly the records of actual battle could hv been destroyed Secondly the presence of large number of Elephants in Porus army is questionable with the kind of terrain and climatic conditions of NW India
Dear sister, you are bringing back honour tu us, thanks from the depths of my heart.
The most effective way to manipulate people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. Just found this channel. Great work. Keep it up.👍
Welcome aboard!♥️
How ironic
Yes exactly what this chanel does, manipulate
When i was kid i used to argue with my teacher that a tyrant who killed his brothers and father,how such a man can forgive a foreign king ? Teachers always said read what is written in book and write it in exams take marksheet and sit down lol. Thank you for your hard work for research and making this content. 🙏
Oh so Ashoka and many Gupta rulers were not a tyrant the truth is in India they were many kings who were tyrants too that you people don't want to accept and that is kings or emperors are not kind people.
@Ujjwal did he killed civilians ? Or he killed people on basis of religion ? Did he killed women and childs?
@@chanderwalia4120 Every kings or emperors have did cruel things in their life and that's why history is bias there is not such thing called anti bias in history they are for sensitive people like you, If you don't believe me fine but first go open world history about leaders all of them were cruels and they have to if they want to keep there country live because If you are weak, naive or innocent you can't become a leader and you can't make your country powerful, strong, peaceful in you country, if not there will be internal wars in kingdom and empire corrupt people will try to rule. You people really have no idea what is means to be a leader.
@@vishalautade509 Ashoka had hundred and many so called step brothers and he killed all of them for the throne, his ordered tortures inflicted on prisoners in his jail in Patliputra he was very cruel and he changed because of accepting buddhism and buddhas philosophy and after that he created the kingdom many people couldn't do in India only by Mauryas,Guptas,Mughals,British Empires. So what i am not understood tell me you stupids.
Porus’s son was killed. And he did not leave porus. He made him vassal**
Thank you for bring this story to light. I am so happy that the truth is finally out in a language we all can understand. Just as a fyi I am have also checked with Bard ai which also supports your findings.
I appreciate your take on this. I also feel the Romans handled the story of Hannibal a similar way, with his alleged defeat to Scipio.
one more theory... alexander was so heartbroken by the death of his favourite horse/ brother and so humbled by his defeat, that he went into deep depression and never quite came out of it. The greek historians changed the narrative so that Alexanders image did not get tarnished
He never listened to Billie ellish
It has less possibility because a person who want to conquer the world not give up so easily. Although this is not the first defeat of alexander that he could not come out of the depression.
What evidence or historical event you can show to say that the greek historians have changed the story of Alexander???
Right! A ruthless marauder who killed hundreds of thousands and saw many thousands of his own getting killed would have remained so attched to his horse that he couldn't bear the loss! Keep drinking whatever you are
Nonsense
I went to school in Germany and even we learnt that Roman and Greek chronologists severely exaggerated their kings and their forefathers. In the end they were paid to write the king's history and glorify them. Now most learnt Europeans don't know which part of the chronicles is true and which one is lie. Thank you for shedding light on this.
I am also from Germany. Here I learned zero was a contribution by the Arabs. Actually whole number system came originally from India. Ofcourse Arab scientists have changed the position of indian numbers
Can you please give the sources about what they taught in German schools.
@@mangopudding5979 You have to search for the text books in the 90s in Hamburg. Especially those who learn Latin at school learn a lot about the Roman history. Ich hab es wirklich vergessen wie die Lehrwerke hießen.
😂 we Indians are really dumb and we glorified these foreign invaders and diminished our indian rulers
If so why they wrote the defeat of Leonidas from Persian? Why do they wrote defeat of Roman in parthian Empire? ? If they want to exaggerate they will just wrote victory of their kings
Very good video. Thank you. You may be right. There are no records to say that Alexander invaded India. But whatever we know about Alexander are from the records made by his historians. He took historians with him to record all the events in his campaign. He is among the very few invaders who documented the wars including other observations. His historians record the ruins of the Indus Valley. He became afraid. There was another invader in India who was more fearsome than him. Alexander left India.
King Porus was from Katoch dynasty of Kangra in present day Himachal Pradesh.❤
Keerthi ma'am. Please consult Dr.Chandraprakash Dwivedi on this vital issue. He did a PhD on Arya Chanakya and brought a very famous 52 episod TV serial in the 90s on Chanakya. He has explained very nicely what exactly happened....
he is very secular and more so under the influence of mohan bhagwat
No, during making of the serial he simply took the written history taught to us or rather say imposed on us by western and left wing historians.
@@chandra_himanshulol. No serial is free from imagination 🤣u must be in illusion to think they give history lesson.
Chanakya is a fictional character.. no proof..
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
You are too good Keerthy. I was always fascinated with Indian history, and felt why it was ignored so much. You have taken up to dig into it and give narrative of Indian version. Do keep it up and all the best. Want to see many more like this.
Great efforts keep this to bring in real or close to factual history. Don't believe Indians & Indian istorians had telling or writing lies on Indian history in their blood that too writers of old generation unless that was forced or driven by force or economic benefits offered by foreign forces. On the contrary most of the foreign historians cannot be trusted on this. They have/ had the habit of boosting their people and downplay our heroes. I am very glad to find you daring & dashing videos about facts in the misled history and other topics. Your narratives and voice modulations are pretty good. Pl keep doing the research and bring in many more such facts into light for our new generation people who only believe whatever foreigners say in any field is correct. Hearty congratulations to you.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
After marching to the “end of the world”, Alexander discovered that he was only halfway there. His army had had enough and was on the verge of mutiny. To save face, he “let” King Porus keep his throne (provided he didn’t attack Alexander’s army from behind) and wearily headed back home. This seems far more likely than face saving story we were all taught. BTW the history of the “Successors”, relating how Hellenism was established is also more realistic than thinking that a string of battles could truly build a civilization. I really liked your video. I’m looking forward to more! Thank you.
Excellent research. You are enlightened us. Keep it up Keerthi. You are a true Patriot 🙏
Clearly explained...appreciative pronunciation, deep gathering knowledge...one should be there for india 🇮🇳
@Keerthi History Loved your work and I'm from kangra himachal pradesh which is known for its glorious past since Mahabharat period as it was named Trigarta and ruler was Susharma who fought the battle along with Kauravas against Pandvas and the old fort of Susharma is still there ...and that fort is invaded by Mahmud of Ghajni and and other rulers but was recaptured by Katochs. Their successors claims that they are originally successors of Puru or Poras who actually defeated Alexander. I really hate writing but can't stop myself from sharing. Please do research on Kangra history and make detailed video on Trigarta kingdom. 🙏
Thanks for sharing.
Can u please explain what did we learn from this video
I respect your opinions regarding this ma'am. And thanks for the video it was quite interesting to watch. But as we don't have any Indian records as you are saying so we have to accept the Greek record and whatever have been written in the record. There are so many mysteries in the ancient Indian history because of the lack of sources. Battle of Hydaspas took place in 326 BCE, that time the religious texts got attention the most.
thank you didi this is in fact the truth, even Abhijit Chavda sir had given his perspective on this first
Yeah, even I got to know about this from his video only.
Indeed very informative, the same reference of Alexander defeat in the hands of Porus was reported by Pakistani Historian Aitzaz Ahsan in his book Indus Saga
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Dear lady. I am from Sri Lanka, and I have read this account written by one of our historians about 40 years ago. According to that account, the name of that great regional king was Sinhal. He fought bravely, and Alexander could not defeat him. So Alexander went back (perhaps as his favourite horse got killed), leaving the fight to one of his generals. The Greeks were so impressed about this king and gave the daughter of that general in marriage. The king Sinhal has had ten sons from that girl who was a princess. However, that king was pushed out by Chandraguptha Maurya (aided by Chanakya?). So he had come down with his people to Mangalore(Mangal Pura) and ruled there for some time. Later his ten sons came to Sri Lanka with some people of that region and established colonies and ruled the country. Those colonies have their names. The ancient city of Anuradhapura is one of them. In Anuradhapura, you find ruins of buildings very much similar to what you find in Athens. By the way, the infrastructure has a similarity to your Mohenjo Daro as well. May be the most of them vanished around 7th century. Probably, they migrated to Sri Vijaya. Do the people in Mangalore speak konkarni?. .
I am from mangalore and we speak Tulu as our major language and yes konkani also is spoken here by konkani people who migrated to the region around the period of maybe 15th century something. And one thing I would like to ask you if you don't mind I can see your name consists some shetti in between so could you explain is it a common term in srilanka too? Because it's a very popular community(Bunt) of mangalore and I also hold the same surname
@ananyas1863 hetti is a shortened form of Shresta, perhaps the same as Shety or seth in the North Indian region. Legend has that my ancestors and those of my wife came from India carrying the sacred tooth relic of Buddha around 4th century AD. This I came to know recently. Some of those who came with sons of Porus (King Sinhal) settled in the east of Sri Lanka. It seems that in the town of Batticoloa, there are those who got mixed with Portuguese. But they sing Portuguese style songs in Konkarni. Google 'Sri Lankan Batticalo Burghers' and listen to their lovely songs.
@@ananyas1863 I think you are correct. The songs I mention previously is called Kafirigna. Portuguese style songs by their African slaves. They are a dying generation. Perhaps they were brought by the colonials for their campaigns in Ceylon from Goa area.
Keerthi- we have been taught wrong history and it is embedded in millions of our minds for generations . thank you for clarifying this. but it is really unfortunate people in our generation do not even know the real truth of History Can there be movement to correct books at state and Central board schools ? I wish so ! Jai Hind
King porus defeated Alexander. The clinching evidence was that after this battle the recards showed that the kingdom of Ambi was also ruled by Porus. How did it happen? Impressed by the valor of Porus Alexander was said to have returned his kingdom. Then, why did Ambi's kingdom was also given to Porus. Was it a punishment Alexander offered to King Ambi for supporting him against Porus? It could be highly improbable. So the truth was that in that battle Porus defeated Alexander along with Ambi and annexed his kingdom also to his as a punishment.
@Von oost Following your logic, if Porus lost, he too wouldn't be alive, but he too lived. 🤔
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
@Von oost The opposite...the kings of Bharat are peace lovers. They prefered to transform others by forgiving them. History has ample evidence to substantiate this fact. Whenever Alexander conquered he prefered to kill the loser and appoint his own people to rule the kingdoms. History has ample evidence to prove this fact too. Alexander's conquering and making friends with the defeated King is the product of the creativity of the Greeks. Why is the original Indica missing? It's because of it's impartial attitude and presentation of facts as they are. Greeks employing Chinese to be the historians is I'm afraid not true. The present indica must be the Greeks version. Those who want to rule the world would like to manipulate History. Bharat has never been over ambitious. Bharat only wanted to be an educator and civiliser that too only through its soft power. Hindus are Brahmins. Muslims are Kshatriyas. Christians are Vaishyas and Nasthiks or atheists are Shudras. There are subdivisions internally. Each Varna or Religion again has these four divisions. Atheism is a Shudra religion.
@@Oost129Indian kings are famous for letting their opponents live after defeating them. Greek kings especially someone like Alexander was not famous for such acts. So more likely Porus let him go.
@@Oost129 Buddy... King Ambhi actually helped Alexander in this war. If Porus had actually lost, how could Alexander have given a part of Ambhi's Kingdome to Porus ? How would Alexander ignore Ambhi who actually helped him? Wondering how you are saying "someone who spoke the language. Porus was the ideal figure to do so"
Learning so many things from u r channel madam and u became a great inspiration to our students from our Institutions in Hyderabad Respect and love from Hyderabad
Awww thank you so much 🥺♥️🙏🏼
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
This is great analysis. I did some research of my own. Looks like the original text is greek and some authors in India picked it up and published it as empirical evidence.
What we were taught was that king puru( porus) was asked how you should treated. King puru told " As a king should treat another king" king Alexander was shocked because he had thought that he will beg for his life. His answers were blowing his mind as these were based on indian values and philosophy.
keerthi, mark my words. your gateway to 1 million subscribers is not so far. i subscribed. lots of blessings and love from Assam. you are truly a gem and an eyeopener in learning our own culture better.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Agree with you completely the Greek account of events is very questionable. I remember seeing a similar episode on Alexander in which they included comments of Field Marshal Zhukov. He was the Soviet general who led the Russian army against the nazis in world war 2. He says that the description of Alexander's return from India is a classic description of a defeated army in retreat. Considering the fact that Zhukov led the Russian army that chased the nazis back to Berlin he must be an expert on what a retreating army looks like. Zhukov views are available on internet in case you are interested.
Where is it?
Wow! New perspective
I think your third option seems to be correct because we belong to the area in Pakistan where his horse Bucephalus died and present day it's called Phhalia in Punjab. It's also right, he was injured during this campaign. But it's also true, it has not been written in any authentic source of India. I also have some thoughts, at those times, there was not any single ruler of Punjab. He had fights with different clans of Jatts and Ghakkarrs of this region. One thing is for sure which has been mentioned in many books, he was injured here , then they took him back to his homeland.
Yes I agree with ibrarsherif
calling him tyrant is pretty bold claim , while he was very tolerant towards others cultures , he was a brilliant commander Arrian a Greek historian, wrote that Alexander was asked who should succeed him. In Arrian's version, Alexander supposedly said, "The strongest." Alexander character is multifaceted and cannot be easily categorized as solely "nice" or "not nice." His actions were a product of his time, his upbringing, and his ambition. While he exhibited qualities that could be considered admirable, his military conquests and the repercussions of his empire-building also reflect aspects that might be seen as less commendable. While not Indian texts, the accounts of Alexander's campaigns by Greek historians like Arrian and Plutarch, as well as Roman historian Curtius Rufus, include descriptions of King Porus and his valiant resistance against Alexander's forces during the Battle of the Hydaspes. also i want you to remember that he to wanted to take revenge for the persian king from his killer he treated his family very nicely and the held no grudge against him While there might not be extensive records about Alexander in Indian texts, his campaigns did leave an impact on certain regions, influencing trade, diplomacy, and cultural exchange between the Greek and Indian worlds. Despite the lack of Indian textual records, accounts of Alexander's campaigns and interactions with Indian leaders are available in Greek and other external sources. maybe i am biased as i have spent a lot of my time onto mythologies and studying diffrent rulers even i have studied a lot of indian empires as well but even after that i fell the two greatest people to ever live as emperor are 1 alexander and 2 napolean i am not very fond of others tho i have studied them all Alexander the Great Genghis Khan Napoleon Bonaparte Julius Caesar Hannibal Barca Subutai Admiral Horatio Nelsons Duke of Wellington
Awesome content di . Praying for your 10k subs.
Thanks a ton♥️
1 Million followers on instagram 😅
@@KZheadEarth Awww 🥺♥️
I really liked your narration madam...Thanks for putting huge efforts in order to make people understand about our country's history...your videos are so interesting...
Thanks a lot♥️♥️♥️🙏🏼
We were under British rule and they wrote all f this to suppress our valour. Make us meek snd submissive. Reality we know but could not ever speak up. You have done it Keerthi. You are a brave girl. 👍🤣👏
Exactly...When I was in school...I got the same doubt as the story of Alexander The Great (I don't know the reason) invasion makes no sense even for a school going kid! Now my doubt was clarified...Thank You!😊
This is Indian history now. We've started writing new history based on our own perception. Though 'we don't have any record of any invasion by Alexander', yet we have an immaculate details of the army of Porus, how many soldiers, how many elephants, horses, archers, lancers, etc etc. We refute Megasthenes.
That's why megthenes condescending nature for him not to able to except defeat 😏😏
@@veerhamira162 Thank you for setting an example. This will remain a sample, who the milieu that want to rewrite history of India.
It was king Purushotaman who defeated Alexander in the battle of Taxila.
Hi You are the one who never hesitates to say the truth instead of just repeating what other's say
“Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.” Strabo. The Greek historian
Another loophole is that if at all the rainy season happened during war, king Porus would have gained upper hand in local conditions.
How so
The contrary Happened Nitin, Indian Bows were Long Bows and to launch them it has to stick to the ground and pulled by legs . Under rainly conditions they were not able to launch and hence their majot fire power didnt worked out
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Whilst I agree there is definitely holes in this account. You can't deny this war happend though as there was a greek-indo civilization which lasted for over a 100 years. The language of Punjab, food & even dress proves this civilisation existed. Also remember the Mughals took over & wiped out alot of history in this region, they would of course leave some history that benefits them. We also then have the British who would have happily wiped out more Greek history to make them look like the first guys to conquer Punjab. Alexander's army spent 2 years in Modern day Pakistan Punjab & it's in the history books because it happend. Also Alexander the Great never gave back the kingdom? He simple made it a satellite state of the Greek Empire.
I think the best that can be said is that there is a gap in the records, everything else is speculation, and there are way more than just three possibilities that explain this.
Wow Great work Ms Keerthi.. We need to work on the history of our country.. which we have great heritages..
Thers the movie Alexander, a Hollywood movie where it was portrayed that Alexander was defeated by purushottama or porus. Hollywood movie makers do heavy research before making a movie. So it's likely that they have that Info. And here in India in our communist literature, they wrote opposite of it. and there was a movie in Telugu, name Chanakya Chandra guptha starring NTR, Anr, Shivaji ganeshan . Lastly , historians say that There are no geographical evidences to prove that Alexander exists at all. BTW, you are doing great.
"historians say that There are no geographical evidences to prove that Alexander exists at all".....Ok can you plz tell which historians & what was their basis of such claim ?
@@somnathdatta6991 , Hey, could Alexander be like the modern day, Allah?
Hollywood movie makers know how to make a woke propoganda.
Rofl Hollywood movies are reliably terrible at showing history accurately . Movies are only for entertainment. Oliver Stone’s movie is based on Classicist Robin Lane Fox’s book. Honestly I admire and am fascinated by Alexander and his successes and flaws of character, but western historians would love to find anything new regarding the Indian armies of the time or bactrian forces, or even what sort (if any ) Achaemenid Persian presence existed in India. Alexander beat Porus after a hard fought battle and then quit the campaign before he knew he’d lose. What’s wrong with that? It doesn’t diminish Indian prestige at all. India is a great country with a rich and ancient history.
i always doubted that and debated many times with my history teachers that if he won why did he went back and why did he left porus alive and gave back his kingdom when he was on a mission to conquer the world.
Content was great. Special star was the kitty in ur background. Trying to sleep...dreaming that eventful war. I think it knows...it saw in its dream...who won that battle!
Excellent analysis Keerthi. Have you done some more research from other European travelers during this period, if any
Good work... Much appreciated 👏👏👏 It's time to rewrite proper history...
Definitely♥️
King Porus lost a war to Alexander but he was praised for his bravery and courage and gave the kingdom to him to rule under him and gave other Villages and places to him Maybe Indian Historians wrote it but lost it is option
Thank you for dedicting your life for this mission 🙏. Respect
Mam , this is the first time i have heard this from a person from southern state. I really admire your findings and salute you. Only people like you can stop the so called historians, who are hell bent on creating north south division. Please do more to stop them in their mission and our BHARAT will be world leader again
Simple if alexander won the battle he makes the city and named Alexandria. And also this is the last battle for alexander career, if he won the battle he built the city alexandria. And there is no historical reference about the king porus, only one is he battle against alexander Is there. And also alexander mentioned about the king porus and his son. The name is malaiyan this type of name is only used in Tamilnadu especially in chera dynasty. And alexander mentioned that his son is the ruler of the mountain region. That is also 100% correct. That name is came from only in the chera dynasty . And during that same period the chera king imayavaramban cheran (or) neduncheralathan conquered himalayas and upto Tibet and won the battle against the Greek. When he conquered towards the north he defeted Greek and makes victory against lot of indian kings. And finally he flagged the cheras flag in himalayas after Tibet. And he arrested the Greek soliders and others tonsure there head and applied the ghee and makes them to walk rounded there empire. This is the oldest punishment that was gives in that region. After the Rome and Greece government request him to release them all. And they gives lot of reparation complements like gold and diamond. After that they all are released. After 32 month later he returned to his hometown and celebrated the victorys against the himalayas and Tibet, and the poet's prises him and his victory and named him '' imayavaramban'' the meaning of imayam is himalayas in Tamil. And named him as '' vaanavaramban'' that means he makes the victory in the tallest place. In Tibet there is still the name of the mountain called vaanavaraban is there. This is mentioned in sangam Tamil literature called (pathitrupathu). And some thing is mentioned about the king porus by alexander. He was the tallest person and here the pathu paatu also mention the chera king is the tallest person. And he also had the strong elephant infantry. And the weopen used in that battle is came from chera dynasty. Chera dynasty is the greatest iron weopen manufacturers in the world during that time. And king porus gifted the nearly 15-20 kg strongest sword for alexander. And before the king chandra gupta mauryar and magatha dynasty there is no elephants calvary in North India side. So there is no doubt about the king porus (porusothaman) and the king imayavaramban cheran is same person Is. Apart from this during very first onwards there is the stronge trade relationship between Tamil, Rome and Greece. After some years they conquered the chera dynasty for second time to took revenge against cheran senguttuvan period. Same Greece indo-Greece, Aryan, kadamba all join together and battle against the king cheran senguttuvan, but the cheran senguttuvan defeted them all. And arrested them and put them as the labor in there port, they all are worked here during the senguttuvan period also and again there government request him and gives lot of reparation complement like gold and diamond and they all are sent back to there empire. And he conquer the himalayas for couple of times and won both of times. All of this is mentioned in the sangam Tamil literatures, poet . This two chera kings imayavaramban cheran and cheran senguttuvan are the greatest kings in the world. Try to sent this knowledge to your views this is history. The Greek and Persian story is false they writen 300 years after the death of Alexander. But sangam Tamil literature '' pathitrupathu'' was clearly mentioned about his victory among indian kings and Greek ect. And it was written after few months of the victory of himalayas and upto Tibet.
Hi Keerrhi Jee, I really impressed u r research and the way u delve into our ancient history deepenely. I have been following u since long and learnt a lot espicially innumerable latent facts about our true rudimentary heros who made our primitive nation proud . I wanted know, which book would u refer and what are the prevalence sources to conclude such theories. I am very obsessive to keep my self abreast towards our real history rather than concocted stores devised by some western and erstwhile biased indian historians. Pl comment.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Let’s ask Napoleon, Hitler, the Romans and Imperial Japan why military usually retreat back to their homeland. You’ve made a great point.
How do you know this and where do you found these all thing which telling by you from which sources,??
Don't just read history, read the history of those people who write history also! 👍
Sister make video on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. I wish every Indian should be aware of his sacrifices and contribution in the freedom struggle. He's the one who played the major role. Hope you'll take my request into consideration. BTW, keep up the good work.😄
Thank you for telling the truth. Alexander might had won this battle but the resistance given by king Pouras was so fierceful that Alexander could not proceed further. This was the real fact.
Ur contradicting urself here..
He surely Did. Even our Government acknowledged this
@@rampmahe4298 not necessarily. Agar resistance bohot fierce he aur army thaki hui then it won't turn out good . And king probably had more armies . Agar ek har gai to wo dusri gather kar sakta he in some amount of time
Alexander lost with a pound of prejuidice.
Yes sister! It was also mentioned in the wikipedia that only in Greek sources about king Puru is mentioned not in any Indian sources
Good question posed and leaving them unanswered. Possibilities: A:- 1. War did take place 2. Pours nay hv acceded just as others 3. The inserted win was to glamorise Alex valour after the accession B:- 1. King Porus adversaries who allied with Alex decided to write Porus of the books 2. Alex returned from war front as his soldiers mutinied and didn't cross over on seeing the elephants abd his horse refusing to face off the elephants l 3. So Alex forced the scholars to write Porus off and inserted his victory before he return to show he never loses or chickens off from a fight. C:- 1. Yes there was never a King Porus and 200 elephants and 400 horses in such arid and less vegetated places is beyond imagination unless it was vegetated then 2. The story was inserted just so to instil fright in other kingdoms of his winning streak and win any war by convincing the others to bow down to his rule abd pay taxes, so he can bring it back to project his image. Finally to arrive to a more convincing conclusion -excavations shd be conducted in the suspected site of war if not this will always be a mystery Cheers 🥂
appreciate your efforts so much depth in the video and this is the need for our youth to learn real history and regain the glory of our country keep it up sister.
Thank you so much 🥺♥️🙏🏼
Well Alexander’s story comes into light 300 years after his death when Greek mythologist (historian) Quintus wrote Alexander’s biography. According to him in this battle Alexander was fatally wounded. There is a Hollywood movie as well on the subject based on Quintus. Alexander’s victory over Porus comes into their mythology after compiled after Quintus.
Quntos Arabe Name... Ptolemy was hitted till Athena by Ar Civilisation Kingships!!!
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent. Finally, Quintus who lived in 1st century AD might have relied heavily on these above mentioned Greek historians.
@@Bostonite1985 First thing, All the name Alexander is linked with ALM Isriyyah AL Eskandariyya and have nothing to do with Athenos Invader Ptolemy (Alexander the Great) Was Invader Ptolemy HaiyOs (Herculas)... Bacteria= B Isht Eria is a place in Afghanistan!!! So the Route has been different!!! Have the Ancient Ar Civilisation - Scriptures Tradition Tribes completely destroyed Athena Kingdom after that Invasion. Answer is Yes !!! Read History properly!!! Megasthenes = Agast Athenes !!!
@@Bostonite1985 Who is Quintus ??? Arab, Right ???
@@faisalhussainmohammed2815 ....Quintus Curtius Rufus, a Roman historian. By the way I got a message from God that Oxygen was invented by Arabs around 610.
I love you keerti ❤❤❤ because every thing when you tell me about Indian it's made me so proud
King Prusotaman , it’s written in Greek , thank you for your time sharing 🦚🪷🙏🏿 Some of remaining Greek , from that time , still living in Pakistan
Actually king Porus son attacked Alexander and killed his horse, during that Alexander fell down on ground and his bodyguard took Alexander to his camp. So neither Porus son got killed nor king Porus got defeated, its all story. and That's why Alexander might have made a treaty with Porus .
The behaviour of Alexander after the event is charactistic of a defeated army. He split his column into two and retreated. One (including Alexander) fled by water and the other went back by the way they had come. Only a defeated army will split up in hostile territory and hope at least some guys can make it home.
Which teacher taught you military history
When i first heard the story about the battle of hydaspes from my teacher in the school i instantly asked a simple question to which my teacher remained silent to answer. The question was - If Alexander had actually won then why did he go back and why did his horse died and just after 2 years or so after his horse's death, Alexander died too? That doesn't make sense.
I think that Alexander was defeated by a Tamil King Chola which was misnamed as porus by Greek, when he tried to invade South India. In India King cheras had strong Elephants Army for war. Alexander gave up his plan of invading south india where Chera, chola and pandya kings South India were strong military forces and used Army of Elephants in their wars. There are some evidences abt this war in Sangam Literature of Tamil. Usually proud ancient Tamil Kingdoms are left in the indian history which talks more abt Northern kingdoms.
Thank you a lot mam because of you i am geting very intrest on history about bharat every day. From beging i was intrested in histroy now i am very eegar to be an historian
Awww thank you 🥰♥️🙏🏼
@Keerthi History People are misusing your channel to spread information on about crypto/stock trading. Please see the post by Andrew Livesay about $32,000 profit every werk. I'm not sure but this might be a scam. Please check if you can delete that entire thread or block the user from posting such messages in your videos.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Ohhh.... I was unaware about this. Your opinions are widely considerable. We just adopted & believed without thinking any point. Thank you for creating that kind of awareness.🙏
Your comments are also not based on any historical evidence. Hence avoid these types of comments. You should not lose your credibility when presenting Indian history. You are still young. Other wise I appreciate your efforts to provide information and creating awareness for the present generation who have no interest in our great history which contributed a lot to the world.
Battle between Alexander and porus in 326BC but nalanda University constracted after 400AD, this university constracted by kumaragupta he was born in 399AD he resigned from 415AD to 455AD is it right or wrong
Thanks for bringing real historical things to this generation . Appreciate your efforts.keep it up.
The Katoch dynasty fought the war against Alexander. Rajnaka Paramanda Chandra was known as Porus by the Greeks. The kingdom was spread from kanga, himachal, jalandhar, punjab and was also mentioned during the Ramayana and mahabharata ( thrighata). Personally I have stayed in the current dynasty head Aditya Dev's and Chandresh Kumari's holiday home. Privileged to get access of their journal , kept for reading to guests and had a great time with my family being hosted by them. And guess what? You can book a stay at the place though various booking apps. Further, was privileged enough to be visited personally by both of them. And heard their narrative on the linage and legacy. Well....sorry to disappoint you....maharaja porus existed and famously fought the war.....further, a hughe amount of Greeks were captured and their decendents still dwell in the hills of Himachal. Sorry, won't subscribe to this Video .
Please reply op
very nice comment , you mentioned holiday home - where is it ? Porus is so fascinating for some reason. May he was the first King who thwarted a foreign invasion.
You said exactly what the video said. Her 3rd theory. So why won't you subscribe to this video's narrative?
Jat Raja tha purushottam
The Malana people youre talking about came with Selucus. Selucus was a better diplomat compared to Alexander, who fancied war more. When the greeks retreated eventually, for some reason people in the Malana hills didn't get the memo. They have stayed in himachal ever since, adapted the local culture to an extent, and interbred.
It was a Great Malava Tribe of Punjab( later migrated to Rajasthan), who pierced the Chest of Alexander by their arrow, during siege of Sangala, as mentioned in Greek sources. It was last battle Alexander had Fought in which he was badly injured and fell unconscious. मालवगण जयते।🙏🙏🚩🚩
What record ?
@@tsMuthuraman-hm6wgdon't know about Rajasthan. But Malwa region still exists in punjab. And people of Punjab and Haryana Believe In King Porus Existence and And we also Believe Alexander was defeated By Our King Porus.
@@yuvrajsingh2034 It is all a case of belief. People also believe that ramayana and mahabharatha actually took place .
Here's another fascinating thing : there's not much mention of Ravana or his battle with Rama in Sti Lankan texts. There's no artifacts or things found. Sri Lanka was also not called Lanka but called Simhala. The kings who lived there during the time frame of ramayana also have no mentions in their writings and inscriptions. Makes you wonder if ramayana was just a story then.
I started getting doubts when we were taught this, since Porus is not an Indian name, so how does all fit in, something questionable, or creativity of the greek historians.
Exactly! Porus sounds a lot like Greek name!
@@Keerthihistory yup, agreed!
Porus is Persian name
0:07-0:24. Actually he didn't go back. Instead he undertook what is known as the Mallian campaign. Some of the most brutal fighting took place in this campaign, post the battle of Hydaspes. He fought the Assakenoi, Oxidrakai(if I remember correctly) , Mallians etc, fierce warlike people with strong cavalry. In fact he almost got killed when besieging a citadel in this campaign. Alexander still had his core army of agrianes, mounted archers, hypaspists, companion cavalry intact and having good morale to stay undefeated in this campaign. Please consider watching the full video on the battle of Hydaspes on Kings and Generals channel. 2:10. Craterus was in command of about 8000 soldiers on the other side. He did not cross immediately. The Macedonian cavalry outflanked the Indians, and Porus tried to form a double phalanx, which led to further confusion. It was much later when Craterus crossed. By that time the battle was already weighed against Porus, Craterus crossing led to a massacre.
😂
Yes but the story of this campaign is highly dubious. Also the dividing of the army is suspicious.
@@curiouskid1547What are the basis of your suspicions? Many generals used to divide their armies.
Finally V got a Clarity on Alexander. Good video 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I am also doubtful of the kingdom given back to porus Since studying this history Alexander had lost this war and escaped an excuse given by porus
One of Alexander's lungs were ruptured in a battle in India. He died to causes related to this. Also when Alexander returned to Babylon to consolidate his powers, he had plans to return to Indian and invade the rest of it. What I personally believe happened was that the battle against Porus actually took place and both sides suffered heavy losses. And according to the sources, Porus was probably made a Satrap or something of that sort or his kingdom made a vassal state, paying yearly tribute to makedon.
Porus killed Alexander's horse Bucephalus which was more of a brother to him. He threatened to burn down a city in Afghanistan when his horse was stolen there. No way he would have spared Porus if he won the war. Porus won the war and blocked all ways back to home so that Alexander would move southward into unknown territory and lose most of his army in Baluchistan desert through hunger, thirst and attacks from enemies and wild animals.
@@bobroy3746, yes, much of Alexander's army perished in the Makran coast of Baluchistan where it was attacked by locals including women after the Makedonian had attempted to sexually assault a female farm labourer.
@@bhavendrajyoti1655 no hard evidence. You graduated from Dumbass University
It's like a movie story 😂@@bobroy3746
Yes dear ,in 1940's Sohrab modiji released a film on Alexander, Sikkander e Azam with the song jahan daal daal per sone ki chidiya chudiya karti hai basera showing that Porus had defeated Alexander, the British government did stop screening thus movie in Mumbai and hence it was released in Pune. Later ,I think it wasreleased in Mumbai ,may be because of some court order . My father use to narrate this story about the screening of the film If possible please see this classical movie with Prithviraj on the lead role
Valid queries, I believe that there must have been some sort of a battle between him and Porus who could be some king in present day Punjab however details could be biased, as per my info Alexander did proceed towards Beas river near modern day Pathankot where he fought a bloody battle against people of Kathua and 5here he got the news of some big army assembling against him across Bias at 5his point his men refused to go further. On his way back he fought many battles with small kingdoms and got wounded thru a spear that caused a liver infection leading cause of his death.
HISTORY IS BEING REWRITTEN ABOUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU KEERTHIJI 🌹. 👍❤️🙏🕉️🙏❤️👍
Truth is already written it just doesn't fit ur narrative
@@markcapili4859 Maybe you don't realize that history is always written by victors. What every person learns has a certain amount of bias.
@@MudithV how ironic . now u are trying to rewrite history