रोमिला थापर ने कहा है कि धर्मराज युधिष्ठिर को सम्राट अशोक से प्रेरणा मिली थी और राममंदिर के संदर्भ में भी कई झूठ कही है इसलिए कृपया रोमिला थापर का जिक्र अपनी चर्चाओं में ना करें अन्यथा आपका अध्ययन शंकित हो जाएगा ।
बहुत सुन्दर सुरु से अंत आपने भारत, भारतीय शासक, भारतीय संस्कृती, भारतीय स्थापयत कला, भारतीय इतिहासकार और सनातन धर्म को डिसक्रेडिट करने रोमिला थापर और विदेशी इतिहासकार को महान साबित करने का प्रयास!
Most ridiculous thing is They want to justify that Just because of continuos battle their soldiers got frustrated and tired They decided to go back 😂 You want us to believe this huh ? 😁😂🤣
@@PriceyTomato they believe in Arya culture and a concept of Dharma. Those who didn't follow the civilization of Arya culture were termed as 'Yavana' and 'mlechha' . Specifically talk about Maurya they spread Dharma (defined by buddha) throughout the south asia including China. India never had policy of expansion. Here in India conquerers are not termed as great just because he had conquered huge landmass. Just see the barbarity and heinous crimes committed by Alexander meanwhile his conquest. Yet he is termed as Great
@@KetanJayade china isn't geographically attested in south asia. "India never had policy of expansion" Is that why mauryans stalemate at eastern Afghanistan with seleucus? Or is that why Rajendra Chola’s Naval Conquest Of South-East Asia happened? Or are you coming from a group who thinks that when Indian expansion is thwarted it's "india never had policy of expansion" and when Indian expansion is successful it's "foreign powers were weak in front of us"? Talking about barbaric invasion Ever heard of begal massacre by marathas? Or The Ashoka-vadana recounts how Ashoka once had 18,000 Ajivikas in Bengal put to death in a single episode? Dhamma of ashoka was notorious for forcefully converting people into buddhism.
I recently read a tweet saying that Bihar can't prosper because there's flood half of the year and basically Bengal has declined and jharkhands resources are not with Bihar. Is it right? Anyways the biggest reason we all know is bihars political parties and stupid leaders and caste politics.
अगर सिकंदर जीता तो उसने राजा पोरस को जिंदा कैसे छोड़ दिया। जिसने अपने सगे भाइयों को मार डाला वो अपने शत्रु को जिंदा छोड़ रहा है जिस शत्रु ने उसको इतना नुकसान पहुंचाया
Har koi nafrat ka Ghulam nhi hota .. jaise Mafiveer tha .. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 Prithviraj ne bhi dushman ko jeevan daan diya tha .. Alexander ne bhi de diya .. Tumhari kyu jal gayi ? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@Bhavesh_Joshi Jab Porus nhi jeeta to kyu maan le? Itni zyada aag lagi hai mirchi se .. ki Porus ki haar bardasht nhi ho rhi. 🤣😂🤣😂 Ab ye bhi bol de ki Mughals bhi haar kar wapis chale gye the 😂🤣😂🤣
18:52 sorry, but sources mil bhi jaye to nahi accept karenge as the academia , especially the social sciences, they just pat each others back , and still see the western manipulations of the colonial era as the infallible truth . To do away with the AIT , it took so so long and yet it’s a half measure.
Interestingly my father's name is also Ashok, and both my father and mother didn't know that Ashoka's son was Kunal. My teacher who is a Jaina told me this fact.
@@namankandpal2095 yes , may we follow Greek sources but we can't disagree of Interpolations . This podcast was somewhat left leaning, they said that we as a culture have habit of Interpolations but the thing here is that Greeks too interpolated many things , Diodorus the first ever person who wrote about Alexander had included many things that r distorted and sounds mythical. His works sounds very supremacist
@@thealchemist100 Yes Greeks were actually known to distort history herodotus was known as a father of history and in his book he mentions some 3 eye devils 😂
These people atleast do their homework before starting podcast. If you little search in google about Pauravas, katoch dynasty or tirgata dynasty(Trigarta refers to the land between three rivers, namely, Beas, Sutlej, and Ravi) and it's territory, Mangala fort The town of Mangla was named after Mangla Devi, ruled by king Kshatriya Raja Porus(Brother of King Porus, Porus was not the name of king but Greek name of word Paurva tribe). you people will get all your answers. Tirgata kingdom had territory started from Multan, jalandhar, kangra, indora(where porus fought against invading army of Alexander) Jammu till POK(where Mangala fort situated). Beas river merged with Satluj river near Amritsar. And don't even enter in Pakistan...these people don't even has knowledge of geography and they have become historians. If you have any doubt about above I will explain to you..
On my visit to Peris, Versailles Mesuim, I view 2 big paintings in which Greek King Alakjendra riding horse talking to injured fallen King Porus in battle field.
मार्कंडेय पुराण में कहां लिखा है कि ये राक्षस थे जैसा आपने कहा। मेरे पास मार्कंडेय पुराण है परन्तु आपकी कही बात उसमे नही है। मेरे पास तीन वॉल्यूम का मार्कंडेय पुराण है।
@@jagbirsinghmann1966 That's why Shivanand is saying it. Indians have the largest volume of recorded texts/history and scripture of all the civilisations in the world, the fact that alxander episode appears negligibly in Indian texts is solid evidence that greeks over inflated it and disorted the whole fiasco.
Bahut achha Discussion. Aise discussion bar bar dekhne ko nhi milti Aise baat ek bench Constitute of Good Historians + a Researchers Like this , could have been a Encyclopaedia. Any way very very good effort. Keep it up. 👍🙏
It's Interesting lots of History revolves around modern-day Odisha...More specifically the South & the Northeastern side of India which was the strategic backyard of western Indians more like Aincent India was like the Russian Empire which napoleon thought he could conquer...I mean according to Vardhan ji seems like Alexander thought he won half of India is not the truth seems like It was reached a level of stalemate between the two armies I mean marriage treaty ka kiya matlab hai...Edit: Note Western historian still take Alexander's history very seriously because for them Alexander was their first white land conqueror from the west but if that is so then half of the land conquered on earth are by non-white best example is Changez Khan because he is non-white they present him like barbarian but not an emperor from a modern civilization so do the rest of the math and calculate how western historian sees Aincent India from their perspective...
Changez khan didn’t command in most of their war . Mongols has 4 Dogs of War , generals like Sabutai . Alexander is famous coz he was the first to capture the Civilisation of Greek , Levant , Egypt, Anatolia , Babylon, Mesopotamia, Persia , Central Asia . Mongols were defeated in Egypt and Hungary .
very very interesting...kept me captivated thru out. Interesting because Jay Singh ji quoting references from various sources and that makes this podcast informative and interesting.
About the detailed source about Chandragupt having been written in 10th century AD, it is just that this one was found. Normally, the medium on which a text was written will deteriorate with time and so copies are made from the earlier one. It doesn't mean that the original text was composed in tenth century AD!! If it is detailed, the original composition must have been prepared during the time of Chandragupt or it used multiple preexisting sources originally composed during the time of Chandragupt!!
I think the reason why people say that Porus defeated Alexander is because 1. Taxila University which is close by at that time they never mentioned Porus. 2. Chanakya who wrote Arthashastra didn't mention Porus.
Taxila University didn't write any history in general, it's main focus would've been religion, philosophy and maths/science. What other historical text do you find in India at that time? To say that indians didn't "mention " something
@@phanboichau8498 Ashoka write about his time after 50 years of Alexander invasion. Invasion of Alexander is a major event and we in India didn't mention that like it never happened. As far as Alexander is concerned, it's written about 300 after his death. Lots of questions and very few answers that too in assumptions
Hindus can't digest alexander defeated porus... unbaised historian clearly mention bout defeat of porus, Many hindu youtubers try nd promote that alexander was defeated the irony is they r neither a historian nor ASI peer... jst bc they cant digest they make fiction what suits them
There can't be similarities drawn between aurangzeb and Great Ashoka....the earlier was using religion to butcher civilians, had no respect for morals in war and destroyed 1000s of hindu sacred temples in the name of religion. His intent was henious. YOU SHOULD BRING IN NEERAJ ATRI FOR DISCUSSION OR SUBSCRIBE TO SANGAM TALKS FOR CORRECT HISTORY AND NOT JUST KHOKHALA GYAAN BY A PAPLU...
Very thoughtful and informative analysis of history, insightful as to how history has been put together… Porous Jatt … hilarious … popular culture corrupts history….
😂😂 there are literal clans who trace their ancestry back to poras himself In the region of bulandshahr and west up they are 'poras' and in shekhawati they are poraswal
Doesn't matter who won who lost... Maybe porus won and we had the histories but we did a poor historiography and could not tell, maybe Alexander won but if we ask time, the civilization which porus belonged to is still Surviving, the civilization which Alexander belonged to is surviving only in marvel Cinematic universe.
Greek historians refer to the river “Errannaboas”. In all probability, Errannaboas derived from Yamuna-Sarasvati. Historians speculated Errannaboas as Hiranyabahu but no such name of a River ever mentioned in Indian literature. Shone river was never referred to as Hiranyabahu. Megasthanes refers to Sone river in another context because Sone river flowed through the kingdom of Shonabhadra. Therefore, it is totally absurd to identify Sone River as Errannaboas. Undoubtedly, Errannaboas was Yamuna-Sarasvati and the confluence of Rivers mentioned by Greek historians was the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna at Prayag. In ancient times, Pratishthanapura was located close to Prayag which was the capital of Chandravamsi kings. Historians have identified Jhusi to be Pratishthanapura. The Chinese translation of “Life of Vasubandhu” has assumed A-yu-ja to be Ayodhya. If we add “P”, it can be Pa-yu-ja or Prayaga. Thus, Pratishthanapura or Prayagabhadra or Ayodhya can be identified as Polibothra. Possibly, Shonebhadra was called Honebhadra in Gandhara and Persia. Gradually, the transliteration in Greek script might have evolved Honebhadra into Polibothra. Evidently, King Chandra, Chandragupta Vikramaditya and Chandraprakasha Baladitya must be identified as Xandremes, Sandrokottus and Allitrochades respectively. They probably belonged to the Chandra vamsa or Lunar dynasty. Vasubandhu was the minister of King Chandraprakasha Baladitya. Polibothra was Prayagabhadra or Pratishthanapura or Ayodhya or Shonabhadra. Gandaridae was Gandhara not Gangaridae Western historians have translated Gandaridae as Gangaridae and speculated the region of Ganga River to be as Gangaridae. Greek historians mention that Sandokottus was the king of Gandaridae and Prasii. Prasii (Prachi) was the name of eastern India. King Chandra or Xandrames crossed Sindhu (Indus) and conquered the parts of Gandhara and Bahlika kingdom as recorded in the Iron Pillar inscription. Therefore, Gandaridae must be Gandhara Kingdom and not the region of Ganga River. It may be noted that a king who controlled the Gandhara Kingdom can only be in conflict with Seleucus Nicator, the King of Syria and Parthia. There is no evidence that Alexander or Seleucus ever crossed over Sindhu (Indus). Porus, the later descendant of Paurava Chandra Vamsi king was ruling over northern Pakistan, Bactria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan etc. He was controlling the traditional silk route. In all probability, Porus fought a battle against Alexander on the bank of Hydaspes (Jhelum) and defeated him. There is a serious need to study once again the original Greek texts to understand the episode of Porus-Alexander conflict. Moreover, Megasthanes mentions that Porus was greater than Sandrokottus. The Marriage alliance Strabo says that the Indians possess partly some of the countries lying along Indus, but these belonged formerly to the Persians. Alexander took them away from the Arianoi and established in them colonies of his own. Seleucus Nikator gave them to Sandrokottus in concluding a marriage alliance, and received in exchange 500 elephants. In all probability, Arianoi is the region of Khurasan closer to Kandhar. It appears that Seleucus was desperate to get elephants because he realized the importance of elephantry in battle field. Most probably, Seleucus negotiated with Sandrokottus for 500 elephants. He has sent Megasthanes to negotiate the deal. The Sakas or Skythians of Northern side of India Megasthanes says that the Sakas or Skythians were living in the northern side of India; “India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai.Evidnetly, Megasthanes indicates the kingdom of Kushanas in the northwestern India. Sakas and Kushanas had common origin and they belonged to ancient Kamboja clan. The Andhrae According to Pliny, Megasthanes described 30 walled cities of the Andrae. Evidently, Andrae were the Andhra Kings or Shatavahana Kings. It may be noted that Simuka was not the first king of Shatavahanas. Simuka was the first Shatavahana king who conquered Magadha around 830 BCE and founded his dynasty. There was Shatavahana kings existed in the South before Simuka. Five of these walled cities of the Andhras (Satavahanas) have been excavated in Dhulikatta, Karimnagar District. All Puranas refer to Shatavahana kings as Andhra kings. Shatavahanas did not exist during the period of Mauryas. Asoka refers to Chola, Chera, Pandya etc. kings of South in his inscriptions. There is no mention of Andhra kings. Shatavahanas lost their kingdom in the south before the rise of the Gupta dynasty. Thus, Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I cannot be identified as Sandrokottus.
@@tonmoy1549 please do not say " kaha se kaha pahuch gaye intellectual dikhne me chakkar me" many thing stated above is true; if you have some tangible information then please share. It is about sharing information.
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 patliputra and patlibothra. Are pretty apparently the only names that are close and similar. You can praisthanpur doesn't even come close.
Concern yeh hai yhn ki jo sb mannyavaar jay sahab ne bataya whi sb to Western historian kafi time se chipka rhe hai, or jb baat aayi ki battle kon jita he said Alexander jeeta 😗😶 4 sbdo m baat khatam, to isme alag kya tha, debate to yhi hai nhh ki porus jeeta tha, or the way he said resources laao, 100 saal se aayi baat ki porus jeeta usse pehle nhi tha to strabo ancient greek historian ne to likha hi hai iss baare m jo 2000 saal pehle ki baat hai But fact hai ki Bharat k itihaas m porus k baare m kuchh mention nhi hai karan ho sakta hai ki vo rajya porus ka itna mention krne yogya naah rha ho, vo to Greeks ne unnecessarily glorify kiya porus ko which was later copied by the historians of colonial era and still uttering the BS. Mere hisaab se porus bs 1 chota sa raja (chieftain) tha jisse alexender haar gya uski khud ki military k karan or porus k sahas k karan or Babylon m ja kr mrityu ko prapt hua, and #the great alexender ko hara hua naah dikhe Greeks wrote this BS.
@Патрико Владимир(Tsar) yeah this could be the another possibility that the war never happened, since there is no archeological and literally evidence till now.
Nadir shah also returned back after fighting mughals. Abdali returned back after fighting marathas. Taimur left after fighting till Haridwar. Everyone returns.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
Sagala was not completely destroyed. It was revived and was the capital of many Indo-Greek Kingdoms including King Menander (Malinda). It is believed that Sagala is modern day SiyalKot.
In case of porus, the question comes not being hurt but of logic. The Alexander who was so brutal that he used to finish entire tribes become so impressed with Porus answer that he not only left him alive and returned him his kindom but even gave him kindom of ambhi.. This sound ridiculous. All we have is some greek sources making hype of alexander. Even the Russian general have doubted the claim. There is an interesting book Elephant Medallion which raises some interesting question. The question also comes that why some important has not being mentioned in Indian source despite Taxila university being in such close distance. So the entire story sound illogical.
Trigartha was the empire which has three Major towns known as present day Kangra, Jalandhar and Multan. It's capital was Kangra. Probably Alexander was defeated in this area that's why he returned from Beas. Because after Victory their was no point in withdrawal as done by Alexander.
Victory is a common thing for Alexanders army, so a victory didn't affect his decision. He's return because of his devastative army who are marching and in battles for long 12 years
Jayvardhan ko ek source batana tha IIT kharagpur ka ek professor ka kehna hai ki sandrocottas was neither changragupt nor samudragupt...He was rather a king from undivided bengal region whose name was chandraketu...And archeological sources have also found the site "chandra ketu garh" which is older than mauryan era...and Greeks called bengal as gangaridai ...Sadly historians and archeologists are not working on it...Because of some literary and regional biases 🙏🏻
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
In trying to figure out who this Indian king Sandrocottos (Alexander's contemporary) could be, William Jones referred to our Puranas and the kings' lineages mentioned therein. Now Puranic lineages stop at Andhra Saatvahan dynasty and up to this point there was only one Chandragupt (Maurya). However, there have been 2 more kings with the same name as Chandragupt AFTER the Andhra Saatvahan dynasty -- Chandragupt-I of the Gupt dynasty and his grandson Chandragupt-II. Since these 2 Chandraguptas were not mentioned in the Puranas, William Jones was not aware of them, hence assumed Chandragupt Maurya as the Sandrocottos mentioned in Greek sources. There was no other basis behind setting this arbitrary sheet anchor for ancient Indian history.
@@kanhaibhatt913 Chankya in Arthashashtra mentions Alexander conquest of India. He dosent mention Porus . So if Porus has really defeated him wouldn’t that a Big news . To Alexander it was just another war . To his soldiers Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
Interesting podcast! Poras was important In Indian History because He was the one who fought tooth & nail with the Greeks.His Mighty army of Elephants was fearful for Greeks ,who had never saw such a thing. Alexander's Historian had written in detail about the war between the two. Though Porus was defeated .But His True King like behaviour earned respect of the Enemy .
@@GOLDROGER-xt3bx Oh come on... U don't want to recognize one of the Great warrior of his time... That's your problem & problem with people who see history with a different lens 👓
@@royarnab26 i saw history with the lens of evidence and support as nd with logic You people just see it with dogmatic religious view and what can feel you you proud you just follow your emotion does not even digest how can you people's avoid the evidence , May be you don't know
You need to read "Bhartiya Itihas ki Bhayankar bhulen" by P N Oak to understand how Poras defeated Alexander and not the other way around. Alexander had to leave India after that defeat and soon he died by illness. Although nothing taking away from his other victories.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
Hecataeus Greek geographer (550 - 476 BC) was the 1st one to refer in his map Indus river and Gandarii tribe followed by Herodotus (485 - 425 BC) who mentioned Caspapyrus city along the north Bank of Indus River these were the only sources available for Alexander about the knowledge of India ...
The Truth about Alexander's defeat Alexander the Great attacked the bordering states of India in 326 BC. He had a decisive battle with the Indian king Purushottam (called Porus in Greek Texts, also called Puru) by the banks of the river Jhelum (Hydaspes as mentioned by Greek Historians). Greek historians narrate that Alexander had a decisive victory over Puru; and thereafter returned from India after his army displayed signs of home-sickness and fatigue. The Greek view of Alexander’s victory at Jhelum was generally accepted by British historians and thereafter by Indian historians who generally toe the British line. However, counter-narratives have not been given due credit, for example: Greek historian and geographer Strabo, questioned the trustworthiness of several Greek accounts on which much of this version of history is based. He complains in the Geographika that all who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvellous to the true. He writes: “Generally speaking, the men who hitherto 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.”Egyptologist and philologist E. A. W. Budge, in his epic volume, The Life and Exploits of Alexander, has given a vivid account of the Macedonian’s misadventure in India. According to Budge, “In the Battle of Hydaspes the Indians destroyed majority of Alexander’s cavalry. Realising that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined, the Macedonian king requested Porus to stop fighting. True to their traditions, the magnanimous Indian king spared the life of the surrendered enemy. A peace treaty was signed, and Alexander helped Porus in annexing other territories to his kingdom.”In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Marshal Gregory Zhukov of USSR stated that “Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia”. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty. As per Marshal Zhukov, one of the finest generals of Russia ever, Alexander was decisively defeated by Puru and went back because he did not have the heart to fight the Indians. This theory in fact punctures the story of invincibility of Alexander. As per Zhukov, Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine. Theafter, in May 326 BCE at the Battle of Hydaspes, he faced king Puru of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle.According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry. Another terrible weapon in the Indians’ armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.The battle was savagely fought. To cut a long story short:It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon; they killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.Puru’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount.This was a big deal. In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king’s body, let alone slay his mount.According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, “Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king”.Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Puru’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”. Says Plutarch:“The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander’s design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”The Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places“where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”. Although the historians claim Macedonian victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander’s army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world. According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”.Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers. The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander’s army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.Says Military History magazine:“Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”Alexander never recovered of wounds taken in India and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33. The Hole in the Greek Story: Why did Alexander and Puru agree to share spoils? Alexander had bought over Ambhi the king of Taxila to his side and in the war against Puru, Ambhi’s forces supported Alexander. Ambhi had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Puru’s kingdom. After the war however, Alexander allowed Puru to not only keep his own kingdom but also to usurp Ambhi’s. Does it sound counter-intuitive? Handing over an ally’s kingdom to a defeated enemy’s!! How stupid was Alexander? Fresh recruits from Macedonia were routine matter for his army and there was a system for replacement of weary troops. So, what really happened that forced him back from the borders of Indian sub-continent. There is more possibility of the history, forced on us by the rulers, to be incorrect as they wanted to glorify themselves and Westerners and laid down us as they considered us slaves, uncivilised, without knowledge, disgusting and powerless.
Romila Thapar mentions that the story of Yudhisthir from Mahanharat is inspired by Budhidm (dharm). Interestingly she does not mention any source for ut. Do we have sny primary source for this theory.
One more reason to conclude Alexander was defeated by Porus is that if Alexander won then why he hasn't looted Porus's kingdom as India was wealthy at that time.🧐
Yes, and also the fact that indian texts doesn't mention alexander at all also seem to show that alexander was only a trivial issue for them, which can not be said about someone who defeated their strong kingdoms and razed an entire city to the ground. He could be a trivial issue only when he was defeated and his threat repelled before causing any large political upheavel. It is very possible that alexander might had been defeated by some Indian king (not necessarily porus), and allowed to return back safely to his kingdom, as has been the tradition with Indian kings even later on. This might had caused such a setback to alexander that he became ill and soon died later. Of course, greek texts would only write what alexander and his men would had told them back home. problem is that today's historians are completely dependent on greek texts for this history. True history can only come out when some other corroborative non-greek texts are found and get translated.
@@samayturki Porus wasn't a small tribal chief lol, he was a full fledged sovereign king in North West and his kingdom though limited by rivers on either sides was a very powerful one on that too, haan uski dynasty ke records ya inscriptions kuchh mile nhi iska mtlab ye nahi ki vo ya to exist hi nahi karta tha ya irrelevant chhota sa tribal chief tha, Elephant corp afford karna kisi Tribal chief ke bas ki baat nahi hoti, 17 century AD tak nahi thi, jo ki horse raiders bhi 200 ke upar afford nahi kar sakte. Plus Porus ke paas Lord Balbhadra ke banners the, jisko Greeks Heracles samajh rhe the, Koi tribal chief banner leke Pitched battle ke liye nahi aata, tribal chiefs sirf raids karte aaye hain historically aur to aur Porus aur Alexander ke bich discussion bhi hua tha to Alexander ne Porus ko as a King treat kiya tha aur use apne saath join hone ka invitation diya tha, tribal chief ke hone na hone se koi farak nahi padhta Alexander ko
@@vaibhav_Jat still better than 17th century churu chanaks tate 🤣 your guys are nothing more than servant of my clan le vajbhav jhangalas ancestors before 17th century sar muhh bandhua mandir plz give us land 🤣 claiming ancestory known as chandal sudras after democracy we wazzz decendant of porus king 🤣 still we want reservation 🤡 pajeets
@@VELTROS ye kab huya sainiput genetics 🧬 article padh ke aa thode ab hmm andvashwas se dur karege toh bhrahman toh ek books me ulta toh likhege hi sainiput, mughalput,baniyaput aur zameen toh hamare pass phele se hi hai ye kab huya jo toh muhje bata raha hai sainiputro ne new theory nikali hai kya🙃
When he has quote rc majumdar . I know how it gonna be. And also trying to prove everything from Greek sources. How western call our sources myth why don't we do the same.
In recent known history the first King that put a strong fight to foreign invasion was Porus , that is why love shown for him not that he belongs to a particular caste .
First point; As to why Alexander was ignorant of Nand Empire? When in the East a great empire was existing, it cannot be unknown to the western Indian people. Second point: Alexander's army had not travelled short distance from the Greece to India. His army had travelled thousands of miles. His army had passed through the countries having extreme weathers. It was as if trained for different weather. Many other emperors had even greater empire than Alexander. e.g. Chengiz Khan. No great emperor had stopped their march for "Army Tired" - reason. Third point: Has Alexander made such a treaty with a defeated king other than Poras? Why Alexander should make a treaty with Poras? Forth Point: Was it the first time in Indian History that elephants were used in a battle, and the first time the battle took place in monsoon. The soil of the battle field became slippery only for Elephants and for comparatively light weighted horses it was not slippery. Actually light weighted the soil has to be slippery that gigantic weighted Elephants. Elephants were being used by the kings from the time immemorial. Such slippery cause has not be recorded in before and past of a battle between Alexander and Poras. Fift point: It is very common that Alexander and his army was afraid and scared of Nand's large army containing thousands of Elephant, when Poras a comparatively a very small king gave them a tough fight.
Alexander did not defeat Porus. Ambhi aided Alexander and they lost. That is why Porus acquired Ambhis region. It is not beleivable that Alexander wins and gives Ambhis territory to Porus. Historians should not take foreign accounts at face value but analyse them. It is not that Indians did not have records. They did but as you know millions of books in Takshila and Nalanda and other Universities were burned.
@@anoop61284 There are many reasons why the foreign account of Alex vs Porus is constructed. How could Alexander the Great go back and recount a defata? Could he?
Pajeet say that Alexander winning againts porus is fake history written by greeks but the same pajeets have no problem believing the same greek historians who wrote that chandragupta defeated the greeks😂😂
Ye bhi ho sakta hai ki porus k saath match tie ho gya ho aur usne aage jane ti sart rakhi ho bina porus ko kuuch kahe .. par baad me greeks ki fatt k chaar ho gyi aur lahore k paas se u turn maar bhagg gye . Only greek sources can not be trusted . Koi bji jeeti hui army stay karti asse hi dum dabake nhi bhagti . Mughal , british , turk sabhi stay kiya . Jeet k koi nhi bhagta
Alexander bahut chalak tha, usne dekha uski defeat ho rahe hai to aage badhne ke liye usne sandhi kar li, phir age gaya to pata chala nando ki sena to bahut badi hai, wo khudh dar gaya par ilzam apne soldiers pe laga dia kyunki face saving karni thi, Seleucus Alexander se zyada intelligent tha, use pata tha kab kisse kya fayda ho sakta tha
If there was such war being fought thakshashila was the greatest record keeping centre at time didn't even record this event, how come?.. next point is - Alexander did not even spare single King till now. How did he have a change of heart on parvateshwar now.
55.30 mins......ashok was made Shatrapala of Ujjain, after he suppressed the revolt of Takshashila,......takshashila revolt was silenced without any arms or without any Sastras Jai Nepal 🇳🇵 Jai Nepal 🇳🇵
After Alexander conquered India, Greeks settled in India and they wrote all Ved and Upanishads. And finally, they tought that to Induans and left India. Is this correct?
Dear frds I know about 'Sangla' .. my mother's birth place she told many times .. she migrated from with her parents during the indo-pak partition, now she is 90 years old .. but I don't know axact she telling about any village/city/mega city (district) I remmember she told many times two names Sangla & Mintkumbri May be both situated nearby And I want to explain about Greek language (Alexander .. Alexanderos*) .. 's' letter is not just a simple alfabet letter .. it has a big/ spacial meaning in Greek language (can tell because I have been in Greece 6 years .. in Poros region) So 's' letter represents to word 'he' For example you said many times in video Alexander but his correct name is Alexanderos .. the fact , in Greece the correct pronounsation if you call a male person you have to call/ pronounce ...Alexanderos/Columbos/Georgeos /Nicolos & mostly you can see last letter of male names as 's' And if you call to a female you have to call Alexandria/Columbia/Georgia/Nicola etc And also want to mention in Greece also has a beutifull iseland named 'Poros' But I don't know axact this 'Poros' have any connection between Poros of indian history/mytheology.
Gajab irony hai … Jo Alexander kisi raja ko nahi baksha, kisi City ko nahi chhora… woh Porus ko mukt kar deta hai. What is the reason that we need to trust on Greek Indicas and left historians?? And isn’t it possible that Jhelum and Bias river changed their path in past 2000 years???
@@ApophaticMystic 😂 😂 lol Alexander was nothin but a rat Indian historians didn't even wrote anything about him proof he got belted by porus Later his general by the great Chandragupt Maurya 😂😂😂😂
The difference of opinion regarding Sandrokottos has not been represented properly. It's not between Chandragupta and Samudragupta, but between the multiple Chandraguptas.
@@sportsvihar3351 because most of the historical texts and records of royal lineages have been destroyed due to the foreign invasion and occupation of bharat. i just wish to god that time travel should become possible so that all people can see what really happened.
About the gap seen between Sindhu Saraswati civilization and Ashok, it is pertinent to refer to the archeological finds and the technological changes in construction that has been found. Post Sindhu Saraswati, stucco with a bamboo skeleton was used to make the structures.
Chandragupta Maurya DID NOT become a Jain and go and die in Shravanabelagola. It is his great-grandson Samprati Chandragupta who did that. None of the historians (including RC Majumdar) say that the first Chandragupta became Jain. All sources point to the fact that he followed Vedic religion all his life.
@@rishavkumar1250 stop cursing and abusing without knowing the background of sanghiis. Research without prejudice about their accomplishments and their contribution to the society. Come out of the prejudiced opinion. It has become a fashion with a woke generation to abuse anyone without reading the correct sources.
@@nidhimagon4469 आर, एस, एस, समाज में घृणा, नफरत और साम्प्रदायिकता के साथ साथ फासीवादी विचार देश में थोपने के प्रयास के अतिरिक्त और कुछ भी नहीं कर रहा है..
रोमिला थापर ने कहा है कि धर्मराज युधिष्ठिर को सम्राट अशोक से प्रेरणा मिली थी और राममंदिर के संदर्भ में भी कई झूठ कही है इसलिए कृपया रोमिला थापर का जिक्र अपनी चर्चाओं में ना करें अन्यथा आपका अध्ययन शंकित हो जाएगा ।
बहुत सुन्दर सुरु से अंत आपने भारत, भारतीय शासक, भारतीय संस्कृती, भारतीय स्थापयत कला, भारतीय इतिहासकार और सनातन धर्म को डिसक्रेडिट करने रोमिला थापर और विदेशी इतिहासकार को महान साबित करने का प्रयास!
" kuch log mahan the, aur kuch logo ko mahan banaya gya. "
Aap kis ki baat kar rahe ho
@@gauravmekade7704 ashok maybe
@@Panku619 kya matlab
@@gauravmekade7704 Ashok ko mahan bnaya gya hai wo bolna chahre hai
@@Panku619 baat to sahi he
Par aap aurangjeb ke bare me kya soch rakhte he
Most ridiculous thing is
They want to justify that
Just because of continuos battle their soldiers got frustrated and tired
They decided to go back
😂
You want us to believe this huh ?
😁😂🤣
So why didn't maurya Empire take over all of asia?
@@PriceyTomato they believe in Arya culture and a concept of Dharma. Those who didn't follow the civilization of Arya culture were termed as 'Yavana' and 'mlechha' .
Specifically talk about Maurya they spread Dharma (defined by buddha) throughout the south asia including China.
India never had policy of expansion.
Here in India conquerers are not termed as great just because he had conquered huge landmass.
Just see the barbarity and heinous crimes committed by Alexander meanwhile his conquest. Yet he is termed as Great
@@KetanJayade china isn't geographically attested in south asia.
"India never had policy of expansion"
Is that why mauryans stalemate at eastern Afghanistan with seleucus?
Or is that why Rajendra Chola’s Naval Conquest Of South-East Asia happened?
Or are you coming from a group who thinks that when Indian expansion is thwarted it's "india never had policy of expansion" and when Indian expansion is successful it's "foreign powers were weak in front of us"?
Talking about barbaric invasion
Ever heard of begal massacre by marathas? Or The Ashoka-vadana recounts how Ashoka once had 18,000 Ajivikas in Bengal put to death in a single episode?
Dhamma of ashoka was notorious for forcefully converting people into buddhism.
@@tonmoy1549 ??
and you want everyone to believe that porus defeat alexzander the great but allowed his gen. to rule over lands around river khelum and river Ravi.
Proud of bihars history but present condition of bihar is very sad. Lowest per capita income in India is of bihar 😭😭
That's how the great Magadh got destroyed into being Bihar today now
Bihar now lacking because of politician of bihar....!! Like lalu yadav...nitish kumar...tejasvi yadav....corruption and gangster destroying bihar...!!
Toh bhai vote matt Dena nitish ko aur kya
I recently read a tweet saying that Bihar can't prosper because there's flood half of the year and basically Bengal has declined and jharkhands resources are not with Bihar.
Is it right?
Anyways the biggest reason we all know is bihars political parties and stupid leaders and caste politics.
@@abhilash9918 whole of east India has declined
Great conversation. Really happy that you'll be making series of podcasts with Jay.
Turki?? Ye kaisa surname hai
@@Playerone1287 Xavier kaisa firstname hai?
@@DharmRakshak2 shandar
अगर सिकंदर जीता तो उसने राजा पोरस को जिंदा कैसे छोड़ दिया। जिसने अपने सगे भाइयों को मार डाला वो अपने शत्रु को जिंदा छोड़ रहा है जिस शत्रु ने उसको इतना नुकसान पहुंचाया
Har koi nafrat ka Ghulam nhi hota .. jaise Mafiveer tha .. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Prithviraj ne bhi dushman ko jeevan daan diya tha .. Alexander ne bhi de diya ..
Tumhari kyu jal gayi ? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@amitarora7466aap ki kyo jal gayi agar Poras jit gaya ye bolde to.
@@Bhavesh_Joshi Jab Porus nhi jeeta to kyu maan le?
Itni zyada aag lagi hai mirchi se .. ki Porus ki haar bardasht nhi ho rhi. 🤣😂🤣😂
Ab ye bhi bol de ki Mughals bhi haar kar wapis chale gye the 😂🤣😂🤣
इसी बात का तो महान था वो बेटा। जिस शत्रु ने उसे इतना नुकसान पहुंचाया उस तक को जिन्दा छोड़ दिया 😂
I like the way he gave proper references, makes it more credible.
18:52 sorry, but sources mil bhi jaye to nahi accept karenge as the academia , especially the social sciences, they just pat each others back , and still see the western manipulations of the colonial era as the infallible truth . To do away with the AIT , it took so so long and yet it’s a half measure.
🙏
Lol,Indians don't mention porus
Nothing new in the talk. All old recording with one sided information! Even Hollywood did better research!
😊😅😮good joke
One sided matlab Greeks ko tumne kab interview Kiya ? Huthiye 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Bas burai krle sbki lo de 😂😂😂😂
Jaivardhan is answering d doubts of a history research scholar.
I appreciate both of you.
Interestingly my father's name is also Ashok, and both my father and mother didn't know that Ashoka's son was Kunal. My teacher who is a Jaina told me this fact.
Rahul and sanghamitra
@@debasissarangi4404 I think it was Mahendra and Sanghmitra who went to Sri Lanka. Rahul was lord Buddha's son.
Was Porus from Puru dynasty mentioned in Mahabharata? And is this the same dynasty as the katoch dynasty of today’s Kangra in HP?
Yep
They are samw
The Puru tribe is mentioned in the Vedas.
@@indrajeet yes
No puru as named purushottam
Kuru kingdom is situated at deli kurukshetra region
This is by far one of the most useful and informative video on the channel
Isse zyada info wiki pe available hai 😐😔🤣
@@lucymiyu5754 Maine video Kahan text nhi....🤣
@@shiv6680 🙄
@@lucymiyu5754 Wikipidea par nahi likha ki alexander ka reference harshcharita mein hai
Interestingly, Bucephalus (Alexander's horse) died in what is now Punjab, Pakistan, after the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC. (From Wikipedia)
It also said that he built a city after his horse, at the confluence of two rivers, but the city was never again found.
@@namankandpal2095 yes , may we follow Greek sources but we can't disagree of Interpolations . This podcast was somewhat left leaning, they said that we as a culture have habit of Interpolations but the thing here is that Greeks too interpolated many things , Diodorus the first ever person who wrote about Alexander had included many things that r distorted and sounds mythical. His works sounds very supremacist
@@thealchemist100 Yes Greeks were actually known to distort history herodotus was known as a father of history and in his book he mentions some 3 eye devils 😂
These people atleast do their homework before starting podcast. If you little search in google about Pauravas, katoch dynasty or tirgata dynasty(Trigarta refers to the land between three rivers, namely, Beas, Sutlej, and Ravi) and it's territory, Mangala fort The town of Mangla was named after Mangla Devi, ruled by king Kshatriya Raja Porus(Brother of King Porus, Porus was not the name of king but Greek name of word Paurva tribe). you people will get all your answers. Tirgata kingdom had territory started from Multan, jalandhar, kangra, indora(where porus fought against invading army of Alexander) Jammu till POK(where Mangala fort situated). Beas river merged with Satluj river near Amritsar. And don't even enter in Pakistan...these people don't even has knowledge of geography and they have become historians. If you have any doubt about above I will explain to you..
@@nareshsharma6526 Bro the man in podcast doing his PhD from jawaharlal nehru University on history what could we expect from him 😅
On my visit to Peris, Versailles Mesuim, I view 2 big paintings in which Greek King Alakjendra riding horse talking to injured fallen King Porus in battle field.
Learning from this podcast: beware of confident and convincing narration of history.
Correct.
Guest from JNU what do you expect.
Male version of Romila Thapar
मार्कंडेय पुराण में कहां लिखा है कि ये राक्षस थे जैसा आपने कहा।
मेरे पास मार्कंडेय पुराण है परन्तु आपकी कही बात उसमे नही है।
मेरे पास तीन वॉल्यूम का मार्कंडेय पुराण है।
Isko Greek source pa pura bharosa hai par India source pe nahi jazab ke hypocrisy hai... a be West ka gulam hai😂😂😂😂😂
भाई ये बता रहे हैं कि एलेक्जेंडर पर भारतीय संदर्भ उपलब्ध नहीं है इसीलिए केवल ग्रीक संदर्भ बताए जा रहे हैं।
No contemporary Indian source mentions Alexander and Porus.
lol...he's a professional historian not fake nationalist propagandist.
@@jagbirsinghmann1966 That's why Shivanand is saying it. Indians have the largest volume of recorded texts/history and scripture of all the civilisations in the world, the fact that alxander episode appears negligibly in Indian texts is solid evidence that greeks over inflated it and disorted the whole fiasco.
Gadhe mahasya humare souce to 15th century k baad k hai. Whatsapp university se history padhoge to yhi hoga. History is based on facts not assumption.
सिर्फ़ एक सवाल क्या शत्रु लेखक हमारे नायकों के साथ अपनी लेखनी में न्याय करेगे?
Syndrocottas = विक्रमादित्य चंद्रगुप्त
Your researcher clearly did not study the text of Pseudo-Callisthenes, which says Porus dominated Alexander.
यस
lol
Jin 18 logo ne ise like kiya unhe pta bhi nhi hai ki ye bnda kon hai
@@Playerone1287 too bata de.
Bahut achha Discussion. Aise discussion bar bar dekhne ko nhi milti
Aise baat ek bench Constitute of Good Historians + a Researchers Like this , could have been a Encyclopaedia. Any way very very good effort. Keep it up. 👍🙏
It's Interesting lots of History revolves around modern-day Odisha...More specifically the South & the Northeastern side of India which was the strategic backyard of western Indians more like Aincent India was like the Russian Empire which napoleon thought he could conquer...I mean according to Vardhan ji seems like Alexander thought he won half of India is not the truth seems like It was reached a level of stalemate between the two armies I mean marriage treaty ka kiya matlab hai...Edit: Note Western historian still take Alexander's history very seriously because for them Alexander was their first white land conqueror from the west but if that is so then half of the land conquered on earth are by non-white best example is Changez Khan because he is non-white they present him like barbarian but not an emperor from a modern civilization so do the rest of the math and calculate how western historian sees Aincent India from their perspective...
Nice thoughts dhost. Aap ne aache points baniya
Changez khan didn’t command in most of their war . Mongols has 4 Dogs of War , generals like Sabutai . Alexander is famous coz he was the first to capture the Civilisation of Greek , Levant , Egypt, Anatolia , Babylon, Mesopotamia, Persia , Central Asia . Mongols were defeated in Egypt and Hungary .
very very interesting...kept me captivated thru out. Interesting because Jay Singh ji quoting references from various sources and that makes this podcast informative and interesting.
About the detailed source about Chandragupt having been written in 10th century AD, it is just that this one was found. Normally, the medium on which a text was written will deteriorate with time and so copies are made from the earlier one. It doesn't mean that the original text was composed in tenth century AD!! If it is detailed, the original composition must have been prepared during the time of Chandragupt or it used multiple preexisting sources originally composed during the time of Chandragupt!!
I think the reason why people say that Porus defeated Alexander is because
1. Taxila University which is close by at that time they never mentioned Porus.
2. Chanakya who wrote Arthashastra didn't mention Porus.
Chanakya does mention Alexander though.
Taxila University didn't write any history in general, it's main focus would've been religion, philosophy and maths/science.
What other historical text do you find in India at that time? To say that indians didn't "mention " something
@@phanboichau8498 Ashoka write about his time after 50 years of Alexander invasion.
Invasion of Alexander is a major event and we in India didn't mention that like it never happened.
As far as Alexander is concerned, it's written about 300 after his death.
Lots of questions and very few answers that too in assumptions
Bruh, Porus was a tribal chieftain lmao, he wasn't even a king, why would anyone mention him.
Hindus can't digest alexander defeated porus... unbaised historian clearly mention bout defeat of porus, Many hindu youtubers try nd promote that alexander was defeated the irony is they r neither a historian nor ASI peer... jst bc they cant digest they make fiction what suits them
There can't be similarities drawn between aurangzeb and Great Ashoka....the earlier was using religion to butcher civilians, had no respect for morals in war and destroyed 1000s of hindu sacred temples in the name of religion. His intent was henious. YOU SHOULD BRING IN NEERAJ ATRI FOR DISCUSSION OR SUBSCRIBE TO SANGAM TALKS FOR CORRECT HISTORY AND NOT JUST KHOKHALA GYAAN BY A PAPLU...
The host was the one who made the comparison not the guest.
Should've attached a map of rivers in the Punjab but anyways he narrated it pretty well
@vaad ...call Abhijit chavda sir ...
He is not a historian. So why call him?
Very thoughtful and informative analysis of history, insightful as to how history has been put together…
Porous Jatt … hilarious … popular culture corrupts history….
😂😂
there are literal clans who trace their ancestry back to poras himself
In the region of bulandshahr and west up they are 'poras' and in shekhawati they are poraswal
Doesn't matter who won who lost... Maybe porus won and we had the histories but we did a poor historiography and could not tell, maybe Alexander won but if we ask time, the civilization which porus belonged to is still Surviving, the civilization which Alexander belonged to is surviving only in marvel Cinematic universe.
Even Marvel comics will make them more Western European. Greek history ka englishization hua he.
@@Narimannanglicization*
Next Rajiv Mishra 🌟 auther of vishela vampanth
Greek historians refer to the river “Errannaboas”. In all probability, Errannaboas derived from Yamuna-Sarasvati. Historians speculated Errannaboas as Hiranyabahu but no such name of a River ever mentioned in Indian literature. Shone river was never referred to as Hiranyabahu. Megasthanes refers to Sone river in another context because Sone river flowed through the kingdom of Shonabhadra. Therefore, it is totally absurd to identify Sone River as Errannaboas. Undoubtedly, Errannaboas was Yamuna-Sarasvati and the confluence of Rivers mentioned by Greek historians was the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna at Prayag. In ancient times, Pratishthanapura was located close to Prayag which was the capital of Chandravamsi kings. Historians have identified Jhusi to be Pratishthanapura. The Chinese
translation of “Life of Vasubandhu” has assumed A-yu-ja to be Ayodhya. If we add “P”, it can be Pa-yu-ja or Prayaga. Thus, Pratishthanapura or Prayagabhadra or Ayodhya can be identified as Polibothra. Possibly, Shonebhadra was called Honebhadra in Gandhara and Persia. Gradually, the transliteration in Greek script might have evolved Honebhadra into Polibothra. Evidently, King Chandra, Chandragupta Vikramaditya and Chandraprakasha Baladitya must be
identified as Xandremes, Sandrokottus and Allitrochades respectively. They probably belonged to the Chandra vamsa or Lunar dynasty. Vasubandhu was the minister of King Chandraprakasha Baladitya. Polibothra was Prayagabhadra or Pratishthanapura or Ayodhya or Shonabhadra. Gandaridae was Gandhara not Gangaridae Western historians have translated Gandaridae as Gangaridae and speculated the region of Ganga River to be as Gangaridae. Greek historians mention that Sandokottus was the king of Gandaridae and Prasii. Prasii (Prachi) was the name of eastern India. King Chandra or Xandrames crossed Sindhu (Indus) and conquered the parts of Gandhara and Bahlika kingdom as recorded
in the Iron Pillar inscription. Therefore, Gandaridae must be Gandhara Kingdom and not the region of Ganga River. It may be noted that a king who controlled the Gandhara Kingdom can only be in conflict with Seleucus Nicator, the King of Syria and Parthia. There is no evidence that Alexander or Seleucus ever crossed over Sindhu (Indus). Porus, the later descendant of Paurava Chandra Vamsi king was ruling over northern Pakistan, Bactria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan etc. He
was controlling the traditional silk route. In all probability, Porus fought a battle against Alexander on the bank of Hydaspes (Jhelum) and defeated him. There is a serious need to study once again the original Greek texts to understand the episode of Porus-Alexander conflict. Moreover, Megasthanes mentions that Porus was greater than Sandrokottus.
The Marriage alliance Strabo says that the Indians possess partly some of the countries lying along Indus, but these belonged formerly to the Persians. Alexander took them away from the Arianoi and established in them colonies of his own. Seleucus Nikator gave them to Sandrokottus in concluding a marriage alliance, and received in exchange 500 elephants. In all probability, Arianoi is the region of Khurasan closer to Kandhar. It appears that Seleucus was desperate to get elephants because he realized the importance of elephantry in battle field.
Most probably, Seleucus negotiated with Sandrokottus for 500 elephants. He has sent Megasthanes to negotiate the deal.
The Sakas or Skythians of Northern side of India Megasthanes says that the Sakas or Skythians were living in the northern side of India; “India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai.Evidnetly, Megasthanes indicates the kingdom of Kushanas in the northwestern India. Sakas and Kushanas had common origin and they belonged to ancient Kamboja clan. The Andhrae According to Pliny, Megasthanes described 30 walled cities of the Andrae. Evidently, Andrae were the Andhra Kings or Shatavahana Kings. It may be noted that Simuka was not the first king of Shatavahanas. Simuka was the first Shatavahana king who conquered Magadha around 830 BCE and founded his dynasty. There was Shatavahana kings existed in the South before Simuka. Five of these walled cities of the Andhras (Satavahanas) have been excavated in Dhulikatta, Karimnagar District. All Puranas refer to Shatavahana kings as Andhra kings. Shatavahanas did not exist during the period of Mauryas. Asoka refers to Chola, Chera, Pandya etc. kings of South in his inscriptions. There is no mention of Andhra kings. Shatavahanas lost their kingdom in the south before the rise of the Gupta dynasty. Thus, Chandragupta Maurya or Chandragupta I cannot be identified as Sandrokottus.
Bhai aap kaha se kaha pahuch gaye intellectual dikhne me chakkar me.
@@tonmoy1549 please do not say " kaha se kaha pahuch gaye intellectual dikhne me chakkar me" many thing stated above is true; if you have some tangible information then please share. It is about sharing information.
Polibothra? It's clear cut patliputra. Not any eastern UP kingdom.
@@piyushjaiswal9283 nope
@@descendantofbharatbharatva7155 patliputra and patlibothra. Are pretty apparently the only names that are close and similar. You can praisthanpur doesn't even come close.
Concern yeh hai yhn ki jo sb mannyavaar jay sahab ne bataya whi sb to Western historian kafi time se chipka rhe hai, or jb baat aayi ki battle kon jita he said Alexander jeeta 😗😶 4 sbdo m baat khatam, to isme alag kya tha, debate to yhi hai nhh ki porus jeeta tha, or the way he said resources laao, 100 saal se aayi baat ki porus jeeta usse pehle nhi tha to strabo ancient greek historian ne to likha hi hai iss baare m jo 2000 saal pehle ki baat hai
But fact hai ki Bharat k itihaas m porus k baare m kuchh mention nhi hai karan ho sakta hai ki vo rajya porus ka itna mention krne yogya naah rha ho, vo to Greeks ne unnecessarily glorify kiya porus ko which was later copied by the historians of colonial era and still uttering the BS.
Mere hisaab se porus bs 1 chota sa raja (chieftain) tha jisse alexender haar gya uski khud ki military k karan or porus k sahas k karan or Babylon m ja kr mrityu ko prapt hua, and #the great alexender ko hara hua naah dikhe Greeks wrote this BS.
@Патрико Владимир(Tsar) yeah this could be the another possibility that the war never happened, since there is no archeological and literally evidence till now.
Ruthless Alexander fought the bloodiest battle of his life he won and head back home, Seems like a Bollywood script.
Nadir shah also returned back after fighting mughals. Abdali returned back after fighting marathas. Taimur left after fighting till Haridwar. Everyone returns.
@@anoop61284 tho yei per dada the ek dusre ke mederchod
@@anoop61284 Nadir Shah came to pillage not rule. Same with Taimur.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
Very informative and interesting talk. Please bring him more.
He is explaining you the hollywood movie Alexander🤣
Sagala was not completely destroyed. It was revived and was the capital of many Indo-Greek Kingdoms including King Menander (Malinda). It is believed that Sagala is modern day SiyalKot.
Best podcast in India
This guy easily trust Greek sources, but when it comes to Indian ones he is not sure about everything.
that's what indian education society have been doing from long time,
They will believe their neighbours , but not the family member
As a historian he has to be rely on facts that needs proof
Ye banda toh seedha seedha foreigners ki hi history bata raha hai ....
Isme Naya kya hai ....
style is change but dream is not change
In case of porus, the question comes not being hurt but of logic.
The Alexander who was so brutal that he used to finish entire tribes become so impressed with Porus answer that he not only left him alive and returned him his kindom but even gave him kindom of ambhi..
This sound ridiculous. All we have is some greek sources making hype of alexander.
Even the Russian general have doubted the claim.
There is an interesting book Elephant Medallion which raises some interesting question.
The question also comes that why some important has not being mentioned in Indian source despite Taxila university being in such close distance.
So the entire story sound illogical.
Why would the Greeks hype Alexander?
Alexander spared 3 kings beside porus. Porus wasn't the only one
Trigartha was the empire which has three Major towns known as present day Kangra, Jalandhar and Multan. It's capital was Kangra. Probably Alexander was defeated in this area that's why he returned from Beas. Because after Victory their was no point in withdrawal as done by Alexander.
Victory is a common thing for Alexanders army, so a victory didn't affect his decision. He's return because of his devastative army who are marching and in battles for long 12 years
Subscribed Jay’s Absolutely Wonderful Channel…
I like this guy Jay he seems logical and less emotional
Hi sir your voice is very sweet
Love form Mumbai Maharashtra
🔥🚩🚩🚩🚩
Jay shivray
Sangla is a gotra in Punjab Hindus I know the Dr. Sangla you are right sir where will be Sangla city between Lahor and Amritsar
Jai Hind.
Jayvardhan ko ek source batana tha IIT kharagpur ka ek professor ka kehna hai ki sandrocottas was neither changragupt nor samudragupt...He was rather a king from undivided bengal region whose name was chandraketu...And archeological sources have also found the site "chandra ketu garh" which is older than mauryan era...and Greeks called bengal as gangaridai ...Sadly historians and archeologists are not working on it...Because of some literary and regional biases 🙏🏻
@Adwait Vedant are you talking about that Tharki Prashant😁
@@jeet-kun-do 😁😵💫🙃
Gangaridai identity is not confirmed. And the professor must be Bengali? Right? That's why making jingoistic Bengali claims.
@@piyushjaiswal9283 gangaridai was Nanda
Professor at eye eye tea aren't historian's, unse research ki jaati nahi apne fields Mai dusro ke fields mei gaand ghusate han
To reach Beas from Jehlum, Alexander didn't have to pass through the Jhelum-Chenab belt. Pl see the map of India to understand the geography.
Apke kahne ka matlab ki Maharaja porus jit Gaye thee .
44 min तक सुना, फिर लगा सब अपने अपने हिसाब से सपने बुना है
please consider doing English subtitles. Thank you
I have a theory... Alexander's soldiers were suffering from piles because of long journey on their horses.. that's why he returned...
Lmfao.
Yei bhosdika sourse sourse bakraha har baat per 😅😅
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
@@tonmoy1549 Pajeet theory.
@@ApophaticMystic trve.
In trying to figure out who this Indian king Sandrocottos (Alexander's contemporary) could be, William Jones referred to our Puranas and the kings' lineages mentioned therein.
Now Puranic lineages stop at Andhra Saatvahan dynasty and up to this point there was only one Chandragupt (Maurya). However, there have been 2 more kings with the same name as Chandragupt AFTER the Andhra Saatvahan dynasty -- Chandragupt-I of the Gupt dynasty and his grandson Chandragupt-II. Since these 2 Chandraguptas were not mentioned in the Puranas, William Jones was not aware of them, hence assumed Chandragupt Maurya as the Sandrocottos mentioned in Greek sources. There was no other basis behind setting this arbitrary sheet anchor for ancient Indian history.
Whether Alexander defeated Porus or was defeated by him has mo answer. Its inconclusive.
It's conclusive. He defeated porus
@@anoop61284 No its not. Show me victory plaques, reliefs, murals, coins from India itself then
@@anoop61284
Alexander was defeated.
@@kanhaibhatt913 Chankya in Arthashashtra mentions Alexander conquest of India. He dosent mention Porus . So if Porus has really defeated him wouldn’t that a Big news . To Alexander it was just another war . To his soldiers Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
@@kanhaibhatt913Aq to you Chandragupta defeated seleucus???
Interesting podcast!
Poras was important In Indian History because He was the one who fought tooth & nail with the Greeks.His Mighty army of Elephants was fearful for Greeks ,who had never saw such a thing. Alexander's Historian had written in detail about the war between the two. Though Porus was defeated .But His True King like behaviour earned respect of the Enemy .
His original indian name is Purushottam & he belongs from Paurav kshahtriya clan.
Elephants were earlier used by Persians too in their wars with Alexander at Battle of Gaugamela.
@@royarnab26 did you have any archeological evidence or contemporary indian historian to prove your argument
Otherwise don't spread rumors
@@GOLDROGER-xt3bx Oh come on... U don't want to recognize one of the Great warrior of his time... That's your problem & problem with people who see history with a different lens 👓
@@royarnab26 i saw history with the lens of evidence and support as nd with logic
You people just see it with dogmatic religious view and what can feel you you proud you just follow your emotion does not even digest how can you people's avoid the evidence ,
May be you don't know
Why trust greek historians blindly?
Because after independence, Indian history was tought by commies.
Because that's what liberals do , and he is a liberal too.
@@vishalchaurasiya4903 problem is we don't have source to confirm.
Without greek source we can't even know Alexander and porus fight
Who is trusting them blindly ?
You need to read "Bhartiya Itihas ki Bhayankar bhulen" by P N Oak to understand how Poras defeated Alexander and not the other way around. Alexander had to leave India after that defeat and soon he died by illness. Although nothing taking away from his other victories.
Well Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Wars are Modern equivalent to it . Alexander campaign was atleast to Greek Army was a Revenge war against Persians for Burning of Athens in those Xerxes wars of 300 movies . They even agreed to March under a Macedonian King coz of desire of revenge .They chased Darius till Central Asia and after he died there was no point attacking India . Btw some sources even say to punish those who revolted , Alexander forced half of his army to return to Persia by ship from Sindh who were safe and half were death marched through deserts of Baloichistan .
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA SOMEONE UNIRONICALLY REFERNCING PN OAKKK 😂😂😂😂😂
Next Pushpak Vimana and Tejo Mahalaya bolne lag jayega
Puranas ke hisab se Sandrokottas Samudragupta hi hai and we deny our own sources.
Hecataeus Greek geographer (550 - 476 BC) was the 1st one to refer in his map Indus river and Gandarii tribe followed by Herodotus (485 - 425 BC) who mentioned Caspapyrus city along the north Bank of Indus River these were the only sources available for Alexander about the knowledge of India ...
The Truth about Alexander's defeat
Alexander the Great attacked the bordering states of India in 326 BC. He had a decisive battle with the Indian king Purushottam (called Porus in Greek Texts, also called Puru) by the banks of the river Jhelum (Hydaspes as mentioned by Greek Historians). Greek historians narrate that Alexander had a decisive victory over Puru; and thereafter returned from India after his army displayed signs of home-sickness and fatigue.
The Greek view of Alexander’s victory at Jhelum was generally accepted by British historians and thereafter by Indian historians who generally toe the British line. However, counter-narratives have not been given due credit, for example:
Greek historian and geographer Strabo, questioned the trustworthiness of several Greek accounts on which much of this version of history is based. He complains in the Geographika that all who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvellous to the true. He writes: “Generally speaking, the men who hitherto 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.”Egyptologist and philologist E. A. W. Budge, in his epic volume, The Life and Exploits of Alexander, has given a vivid account of the Macedonian’s misadventure in India. According to Budge, “In the Battle of Hydaspes the Indians destroyed majority of Alexander’s cavalry. Realising that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined, the Macedonian king requested Porus to stop fighting. True to their traditions, the magnanimous Indian king spared the life of the surrendered enemy. A peace treaty was signed, and Alexander helped Porus in annexing other territories to his kingdom.”In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Marshal Gregory Zhukov of USSR stated that “Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia”. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty. As per
Marshal Zhukov, one of the finest generals of Russia ever, Alexander was decisively defeated by Puru and went back because he did not have the heart to fight the Indians. This theory in fact punctures the story of invincibility of Alexander. As per Zhukov, Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine. Theafter, in May 326 BCE at the Battle of Hydaspes, he faced king Puru of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle.According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry. Another terrible weapon in the Indians’ armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.The battle was savagely fought. To cut a long story short:It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon; they killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.Puru’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount.This was a big deal. In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king’s body, let alone slay his mount.According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, “Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king”.Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Puru’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”. Says Plutarch:“The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander’s design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”The
Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled
Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places“where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”. Although the historians claim Macedonian victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander’s army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world. According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”.Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers. The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander’s army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.Says Military History magazine:“Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”Alexander never recovered of wounds taken in India and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33.
The Hole in the Greek Story:
Why did Alexander and Puru agree to share spoils? Alexander had bought over Ambhi the king of Taxila to his side and in the war against Puru, Ambhi’s forces supported Alexander. Ambhi had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Puru’s kingdom. After the war however, Alexander allowed Puru to not only keep his own kingdom but also to usurp Ambhi’s. Does it sound counter-intuitive? Handing over an ally’s kingdom to a defeated enemy’s!! How stupid was Alexander? Fresh recruits from Macedonia were routine matter for his army and there was a system for replacement of weary troops. So, what really happened that forced him back from the borders of Indian sub-continent.
There is more possibility of the history, forced on us by the rulers, to be incorrect as they wanted to glorify themselves and Westerners and laid down us as they considered us slaves, uncivilised, without knowledge, disgusting and powerless.
Porous was Puru king. The great kingdom in which Rigveda was composed.
Mighty king of Punjab 💪
Romila Thapar mentions that the story of Yudhisthir from Mahanharat is inspired by Budhidm (dharm). Interestingly she does not mention any source for ut. Do we have sny primary source for this theory.
Yes read Buddhists texts of dashrata jataka Katha and Jay sanhita
Aree vampanthi hai kush bhi bolenge.
Mahabharata came before Buddhist texts lmfao
Bkwas h, chanakya ne bhi yudhisthir ko mention kiya h
One more reason to conclude Alexander was defeated by Porus is that if Alexander won then why he hasn't looted Porus's kingdom as India was wealthy at that time.🧐
Yes, and also the fact that indian texts doesn't mention alexander at all also seem to show that alexander was only a trivial issue for them, which can not be said about someone who defeated their strong kingdoms and razed an entire city to the ground. He could be a trivial issue only when he was defeated and his threat repelled before causing any large political upheavel. It is very possible that alexander might had been defeated by some Indian king (not necessarily porus), and allowed to return back safely to his kingdom, as has been the tradition with Indian kings even later on. This might had caused such a setback to alexander that he became ill and soon died later. Of course, greek texts would only write what alexander and his men would had told them back home. problem is that today's historians are completely dependent on greek texts for this history. True history can only come out when some other corroborative non-greek texts are found and get translated.
@@000Aful Indian sources didn't mention Porus too
That's because Alexander was a civilized person , unike barbaric indians
Porus was a small tribal chief, usko poore India se kahan equate kar raha hai bhai tu.
@@samayturki Porus wasn't a small tribal chief lol, he was a full fledged sovereign king in North West and his kingdom though limited by rivers on either sides was a very powerful one on that too, haan uski dynasty ke records ya inscriptions kuchh mile nhi iska mtlab ye nahi ki vo ya to exist hi nahi karta tha ya irrelevant chhota sa tribal chief tha, Elephant corp afford karna kisi Tribal chief ke bas ki baat nahi hoti, 17 century AD tak nahi thi, jo ki horse raiders bhi 200 ke upar afford nahi kar sakte. Plus Porus ke paas Lord Balbhadra ke banners the, jisko Greeks Heracles samajh rhe the, Koi tribal chief banner leke Pitched battle ke liye nahi aata, tribal chiefs sirf raids karte aaye hain historically aur to aur Porus aur Alexander ke bich discussion bhi hua tha to Alexander ne Porus ko as a King treat kiya tha aur use apne saath join hone ka invitation diya tha, tribal chief ke hone na hone se koi farak nahi padhta Alexander ko
Kangra is now in Himachal and capital of katoch riyasta but used to be now know as Jalandhar in Punjab
Can't wait for the next episode.
Why is this historian trusting Greek sources blindly?
Because there is no Indian sources so there is only Greek sources to be trust
he's not
@@RD-pp9ds He said if not true why did they write it. This itself gives away
@@lokeshd8564their are no indian sources for that
Even the knowledge of chandragupta defeating seleucus came from greek and Roman sources
जट्ट नहीं पोरस का पूरा नाम पुरुषोत्तम था जो क्षत्रिय राजा था
Ye kaunsi you tube University me padha tune kashatriya जाट ni hote kya?
@@vaibhav_Jat not at all
@@VELTROS are you 6 century sainiput?
@@vaibhav_Jat still better than 17th century churu chanaks tate 🤣 your guys are nothing more than servant of my clan le vajbhav jhangalas ancestors before 17th century sar muhh bandhua mandir plz give us land 🤣 claiming ancestory known as chandal sudras after democracy we wazzz decendant of porus king 🤣 still we want reservation 🤡 pajeets
@@VELTROS ye kab huya sainiput genetics 🧬 article padh ke aa thode ab hmm andvashwas se dur karege toh bhrahman toh ek books me ulta toh likhege hi sainiput, mughalput,baniyaput aur zameen toh hamare pass phele se hi hai ye kab huya jo toh muhje bata raha hai sainiputro ne new theory nikali hai kya🙃
When he has quote rc majumdar . I know how it gonna be.
And also trying to prove everything from Greek sources.
How western call our sources myth why don't we do the same.
Can someone please explain why chvddis hate Majumdar so much? In my opinion, he is a fair nationalist historian.
flying kiss for those who are adharmi and non sanatani
Greek historian Alexander ke ' bhant' the.. usko prashasan mai sab likhe hai..
वामपंथी एजेंडे का खुलासा किया जा रहा है।
Very interesting and informative episode 👍
In recent known history the first King that put a strong fight to foreign invasion was Porus , that is why love shown for him not that he belongs to a particular caste .
Ambi was prebirth of raga
Good scholar....waad wale bhai sahab baar baar right le jane ki koshish kae rahe the....the guy remain in centre....😅
Poras jutt tha... Ye funny tha 🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣
😂😂😂😂😂
First point; As to why Alexander was ignorant of Nand Empire? When in the East a great empire was existing, it cannot be unknown to the western Indian people.
Second point: Alexander's army had not travelled short distance from the Greece to India. His army had travelled thousands of miles. His army had passed through the countries having extreme weathers. It was as if trained for different weather. Many other emperors had even greater empire than Alexander. e.g. Chengiz Khan. No great emperor had stopped their march for "Army Tired" - reason.
Third point: Has Alexander made such a treaty with a defeated king other than Poras? Why Alexander should make a treaty with Poras?
Forth Point: Was it the first time in Indian History that elephants were used in a battle, and the first time the battle took place in monsoon. The soil of the battle field became slippery only for Elephants and for comparatively light weighted horses it was not slippery. Actually light weighted the soil has to be slippery that gigantic weighted Elephants. Elephants were being used by the kings from the time immemorial. Such slippery cause has not be recorded in before and past of a battle between Alexander and Poras.
Fift point: It is very common that Alexander and his army was afraid and scared of Nand's large army containing thousands of Elephant, when Poras a comparatively a very small king gave them a tough fight.
Alexander did not defeat Porus. Ambhi aided Alexander and they lost. That is why Porus acquired Ambhis region. It is not beleivable that Alexander wins and gives Ambhis territory to Porus. Historians should not take foreign accounts at face value but analyse them. It is not that Indians did not have records. They did but as you know millions of books in Takshila and Nalanda and other Universities were burned.
It's a cope, ramayan and mahabharat books were also burned but they are still Alive among us
@@tonmoy1549 chvddis should be flogged in the streets
Lolzzz. Vedas, ramayana, mahabharata, jatakas all survived but alex vs porus got lost. Fact is Alexander defeated porus
@@anoop61284 There are many reasons why the foreign account of Alex vs Porus is constructed. How could Alexander the Great go back and recount a defata? Could he?
@@ratneshshrivastava6444if the Greek were writing lie only then why accept that chandragupta defeated seleucus also
Cancel them also
Pajeet say that Alexander winning againts porus is fake history written by greeks but the same pajeets have no problem believing the same greek historians who wrote that chandragupta defeated the greeks😂😂
Very interesting things Thank you so much for this podcast waiting for more from Jay
बहुत ही अद्भुत podcast था। कुछ sources के links भी से दिया करें जिससे की हम जैसे और गहरी छानपीन कर सके।
Is podcast me Jay ki shirt k alawa kuch accha nhi laga
Sacchai bahot logo ko hajam nhi hoti.
@@royarnab26 just like uska comment dekh tumhein nahin ho rahi. 😅
@@ItsMeSandyBaby Tumko to hazam ho gyi hai na... To fir yaha aake ulti kyun kar rahe ho???
I don't understand how to accept a Greek source as correct without cross checking it with some other history
And then they say European disapprove Bharat history. What do you expect after this type of presentation and evidence
Nothing at all is for sure
jo alexander puri sabhyata ko khtm kr deta tha usne porus ko kyun jinda chhor diya bro ??????
Ye bhi ho sakta hai ki porus k saath match tie ho gya ho aur usne aage jane ti sart rakhi ho bina porus ko kuuch kahe ..
par baad me greeks ki fatt k chaar ho gyi aur lahore k paas se u turn maar bhagg gye .
Only greek sources can not be trusted .
Koi bji jeeti hui army stay karti asse hi dum dabake nhi bhagti .
Mughal , british , turk sabhi stay kiya .
Jeet k koi nhi bhagta
Alexander bahut chalak tha, usne dekha uski defeat ho rahe hai to aage badhne ke liye usne sandhi kar li, phir age gaya to pata chala nando ki sena to bahut badi hai, wo khudh dar gaya par ilzam apne soldiers pe laga dia kyunki face saving karni thi, Seleucus Alexander se zyada intelligent tha, use pata tha kab kisse kya fayda ho sakta tha
@@lucymiyu5754 yes
No.
If there was such war being fought thakshashila was the greatest record keeping centre at time didn't even record this event, how come?.. next point is - Alexander did not even spare single King till now. How did he have a change of heart on parvateshwar now.
55.30 mins......ashok was made Shatrapala of Ujjain, after he suppressed the revolt of Takshashila,......takshashila revolt was silenced without any arms or without any Sastras
Jai Nepal 🇳🇵 Jai Nepal 🇳🇵
1:26:22 and if you see tombs at kash,turkey and barabar caves ,you will see the design of their entrance is similar .
After Alexander conquered India, Greeks settled in India and they wrote all Ved and Upanishads. And finally, they tought that to Induans and left India. Is this correct?
No, it is not.
Hahaha, ha bhai correct hai tu jo bole wo correct hai
I would like to Gleefully watch the Intense Debate between Jay vardha Vs Veed Veer Arya.
No way ,I think only khatris and sindhis are descendants of Greeks.
@@laxendrachauhan8202 khatris are even mentioned in Greek literature s strong warriors
Dear frds I know about 'Sangla' .. my mother's birth place she told many times .. she migrated from with her parents during the indo-pak partition, now she is 90 years old .. but I don't know axact she telling about any village/city/mega city (district)
I remmember she told many times two names Sangla & Mintkumbri
May be both situated nearby
And I want to explain about Greek language (Alexander .. Alexanderos*) .. 's' letter is not just a simple alfabet letter .. it has a big/ spacial meaning in Greek language
(can tell because I have been in Greece 6 years .. in Poros region)
So 's' letter represents to word 'he'
For example you said many times in video Alexander but his correct name is Alexanderos .. the fact , in Greece the correct pronounsation if you call a male person you have to call/ pronounce ...Alexanderos/Columbos/Georgeos /Nicolos & mostly you can see last letter of male names as 's'
And if you call to a female you have to call Alexandria/Columbia/Georgia/Nicola etc
And also want to mention in Greece also has a beutifull iseland named 'Poros'
But I don't know axact this 'Poros' have any connection between Poros of indian history/mytheology.
Gajab irony hai … Jo Alexander kisi raja ko nahi baksha, kisi City ko nahi chhora… woh Porus ko mukt kar deta hai.
What is the reason that we need to trust on Greek Indicas and left historians??
And isn’t it possible that Jhelum and Bias river changed their path in past 2000 years???
This was the 1st Video of VAAD channel for which I have selected “not interested”
Large rivers can't change their course significantly in such a short span of time.
No. Itni badi rivers 2000 saalmein raasta nahi badalti.
Lol Pajeet didn't Alexandros destroy the younger Poros and enslave the Indian population of Sangala?
@@ApophaticMystic 😂 😂 lol Alexander was nothin but a rat Indian historians didn't even wrote anything about him proof he got belted by porus
Later his general by the great Chandragupt Maurya 😂😂😂😂
The difference of opinion regarding Sandrokottos has not been represented properly. It's not between Chandragupta and Samudragupta, but between the multiple Chandraguptas.
Where is porous mentioned in Indian history?
Because indian history doesn't exist if Indus valley didn't happend u read indian history start with Alexander
@@sportsvihar3351 because most of the historical texts and records of royal lineages have been destroyed due to the foreign invasion and occupation of bharat. i just wish to god that time travel should become possible so that all people can see what really happened.
@@sidhantsingh1332 that is nonsense.
Mahabharata and Ramayana should have been destroyed by same logic .
Truth is indian pajeets didn't record history
Indian written history start much before that
Right from the magadhan Haranyaka dynasty
Grow up and study history more
Even Chandragupta Maurya isn't mentioned in contemporary Indian sources. Shall we also discard him to satisfy your we wuzz kangs mindset?
About the gap seen between Sindhu Saraswati civilization and Ashok, it is pertinent to refer to the archeological finds and the technological changes in construction that has been found.
Post Sindhu Saraswati, stucco with a bamboo skeleton was used to make the structures.
Pores was a Jat king
Teri wasiyat karke gaya hai, jo kahi nahi likha hai per tujhe pata hai .
@@hindkisaanmunch7501😂😂
reiterating western propaganda. 😄
Chandragupta Maurya DID NOT become a Jain and go and die in Shravanabelagola. It is his great-grandson Samprati Chandragupta who did that. None of the historians (including RC Majumdar) say that the first Chandragupta became Jain. All sources point to the fact that he followed Vedic religion all his life.
Jay Vardhan was My Junior in MA History 4 Years Ago 😌😌😌 How Time Flies ☺️
@@lucymiyu5754 I Beg To Differ on This Opinion of Yours..
@@lucymiyu5754 that's because you are Chaddi sanghi who thinks Porus defeated Alexander
@@rishavkumar1250 stop cursing and abusing without knowing the background of sanghiis. Research without prejudice about their accomplishments and their contribution to the society. Come out of the prejudiced opinion. It has become a fashion with a woke generation to abuse anyone without reading the correct sources.
@@nidhimagon4469 Nidhi Ji Aapne Shandaar Jawaab Diya Hain 🏆🥇
@@nidhimagon4469 आर, एस, एस, समाज में घृणा, नफरत और साम्प्रदायिकता के साथ साथ फासीवादी विचार देश में थोपने के प्रयास के अतिरिक्त और कुछ भी नहीं कर रहा है..