Talk:Battle of the Hydaspes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Greece      (Rated B-Class) Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. If you would like to participate, you can improve Battle of the Hydaspes, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments) ??? This article has not yet been prioritized. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD) WikiProject India (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup. More information about this article... High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale by the India project. WikiProject Pakistan     (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

"Many dead" sounds a little amatuer....could someone correct this and maybe make it sound a little better please? -Colin MacDonald

It is interesting to note that this page claims that "His tired army saw the use of elephants for the first time in war," when the War elephant page states that the Battle of Gaugamela was possibly the first European encounter with elephants, and the Gaugamela page does state that 50 elephants were involved on the Persian side. The Battle of the Hydaspes River is listed as occuring in 326 b.c. vs. the Gaugamela battle in 331 b.c. It seems like the Hydaspes River page may need some correction.

Howard C. Shaw III--68.213.34.248 18:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I actually kept the summary from the previous portion, but see the second paragraph of the "Aftermath" section for the discussion on War elephants. Basically, I have not seen any description of Gaugamela that included anything about the war elephants other than the fact that they were there. Maybe the elephants didn't charge? They definitely did charge in this battle. - Vina 19:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that "Hydaspes" should redirect to the Battle of the Hydaspes River instead of an article about the Hydaspes river. The river itself is little known. Axeman89 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Infantry 2 Dates in battle page names 3 To: Anon editor 4 Greco-Indian Kingdom 5 Pyrric? 6 How much thought was put into the casualty numbers? 7 Porus' 200 elephants - Was Arrian exaggerating? 8 Aftermath and consequence

[edit] Infantry

The table at the top of the article mentions that Alexander's army had 5000 infantry, while the article mentions 50,000 infantry. Which is the correct number? --ashwatha 19:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dates in battle page names

I moved the page back to the original name. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles no need for date in name unless as a disambiguation.

If you wish the page name to include the year and it is not for disambiguation, please discuss it under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles#Dates in battle page names --Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To: Anon editor

Please don't attempt to rewrite history. If you wish to present a minority view, then please don't attempt to pass it off as the truth. For all your reverts, you haven't come up with a better and more reliable source for this claim. And your edits are not NPOV. Idleguy 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greco-Indian Kingdom

Shouldn't that get any mention at all? At least there should be a link to the wikipedia article on it in the see also section.

[edit] Pyrric?

Could whoever says the battle was a Pyrric victory please say or at least summarize what is said in "Welman"? I personally don't see how since a Pyrric victory is one where the victor would be better off not having fought at all. If Alexander had not fought his empire would of been slightly smaller as opposed to advancing slightly into India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.222.223 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats not an accurate definition, a Pyrrhic victory is a victory that is extremely costly, either out of relation to the size of the two armies (such as the Battle of Thermopylae where the Persians lost probably somewhere around 10% of their forces defeating an army the about a third of that, it was still required to get into Greece) or where the cost in soldiers makes another major battle almost impossible, numbers aren't even necassarily the main thing in that calculation either, the losses of skilled commanders is also very dehabilitating for further victories. According to this article, he fought a smaller army and killed 12000 compared to losing 4000, but with 8000 wounded that equals a similar amount of casualties for both sides (not including the prisoners). He would not be able to engage another such army because of this one, and the effect of the battle was very dehabilitating to his own army who wouldn't follow him any further into India. Thats pretty Pyrrhic.

And if you consider the casualities with his other famous battles this is definatly one of the most costly, far out of proportion to when he fought armies several times the size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much thought was put into the casualty numbers?

I understand the sources that mention them; I'm simply not sure that blind quoting is always the best policy. You can't very well have an article cite 4,000 infantry deaths and then make the statement that "perhaps ... 10,000 foot" made up the infantry force that fought the battle. Nothing in any of the extant record gives the impression of a 40% casualty rate--nevermind a 40% death toll. Phoebus Americanos 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porus' 200 elephants - Was Arrian exaggerating?

I have a source, the journal Greece & Rome 2nd ser. Vol.12 No. 2 (Oct. 1965), "The Generalship of Alexander," (p.140-154) by Burns, A.R., that reports as follows in the second footnote on page 151:

"Arrian (loc. cit.) gives Porus 30,000 foot, 4,000 horse, and 200 elephants in the battle; but 200 elephants of 'not less than a plethron' (100 feet), would make the whole line of infantry, extending beyond the elephants at each end, as he says, about four miles long; far too long for even 30,000 infantry in ancient warfare. I take Arrian's figures for horse and foot to be campaign totals. Some had been left facing Craterus, and many cavalry lost in the rout of Porus' advanced guard. The 200 elephants I take to be a simple exaggeration."

Citing the source "Numbers: C. viii. 13.6," Burns puts the total at 85 elephants, and estimates that "about 70 elephants" were used in the actual battle. This would of course put the infantry line at less than a mile and a half (7000 feet) in length. His numbers on infantry and cavalry do however agree with this article.

This article can be reached at www.jstor.org, however it is a pay-site so hopefully someone who belongs to a university which has membership to this site as mine does may be able to check this source for further information.

[edit] Aftermath and consequence

This section is full of unreferenced material and opionated material, some of which does really connect to the section title at all (the theories). The current "Indian side of the story" sounds unproffessional, I suggest replacing it with something better, not reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)