Talk:Porus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India 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...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] merge

As this article is more comprehensive, I propose that this be retained with the other article made re-direct. I'd wait for comments till the 5th of November and then carry out the merger. --Gurubrahma 17:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why wait a week? Since the source article is only a stub and an obvious duplicate, and Porus is by far the most common name of this individual, I'm willing to merge it already tomorrow if I don't hear any good objections. Aldux 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Apart from what I mentioned on your talk page, I'd also like to state that Purushottama is a more common and widely used name in India nad he being an Indian king, some may argue that the Indian name should be retained. (As is the case with most such articles) --Gurubrahma 06:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
As the articles mention, the two names may or may not refer to the same person. We absolutely know that the Greek sources mention a "Porus", and Indian sources mention a "Purushottama", but it's only a guess that both names refer to the same individual. A merge could put us in the position of seeming to make a stronger claim of identity than is justified by the information we have. Stan 13:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It is considered common knowledge that both the people are one and the same; However, I understand the concern you've raised and I'm coming round to your point of view that it may be better to leave them both as they are. I'd remove the "merge tags." This discussion hopefully wd serve as a guideline for future attempts at merger, if any. --Gurubrahma 06:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which Indian source/Text please?

Am just curious to know. Can somebody cite the Indian source which rewfers to king "Purushotthama" who is being identified with Puru here?. Exactly which Indian Text refers to this king and in what time frame?

Thanks

Sze cavalry01 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Markandey Purana has a geneology list that states Purushottama as the ruler of the lands between Vitsata and Chandrabhaga exactly at the time of Alexander's expedition. 21 MArch, 2007

[edit] reverts between User:192.94.94.105 and User:Aldux

The former has been adding a different viewpoint along with his refrences and sources (?) while the latter has been removing it without discussion. I suggest that this page be used to air differences if any - removing of what seems to be a well0sourced fact without contesting it seems wrong. --Gurubrahma 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't discussed this, as in Battle of the Hydaspes River, because the same fact (the battle) has already been fully discussed and refused by all non-indian editors, for the simple question this so-called "sourced" is refused by all scholars, except some Indian nationalists. The so called, while a very intersting source for building the development of the various redactions of the Alexander Romance. Budge's work a century ago is really a translation of medieval ethiopic texts that is a redaction from the Arabic version of the Alexander Romance, which in turn is a version of the first one, the Greek one by the Pseudo-Callisthenes, a fantastic story of the exploits of Alexander. Every new version brought radical changes to the Pseudo-Callisthenes (i.e. he became Christian, or a prophet of Islam).
For the discussion that brought to the unanimous refusal of the Indian nationalistic edits see Talk:Alexander the Great#Conquest of India and Talk:Alexander the Great#Disputed Indian History. And I'don't think this can be called an an anti-indian conspiracy, since User:Idleguy, an Indian editor, has also reverted the same insertions at Battle of the Hydaspes River, because, as he said "i'm not Greek. I'm Indian. That doesn't mean one has to falsify history". I monitor all Greek-Persian-Macedonian-Egyptian articles between 400 BC and 30 BC, and have done my best to make so that no nationalism of any sort passes in the articles; and have always believed that not all views had legitimate presence in the history articles, but only those have scholarly basis behind them. For this, I cannot accept 192.94.94.105's edits. Aldux 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Grow up ALdux. Porus was not an Indian king. He was a mere vassal of Magadha, who were the rulers of India. You people are hell bent on glorifying Alexander as if he conquered India. Had Alexander really won he would not have gone down the Indus alone and faced the Malli tribe alone (who nearly killed him). Porus would have accompanied him but that did not happen. Truth is after his retreat from fight with Porus his army fell back and he tried to egg them on but they refused. Thus he walked without Porus down Indus to sail back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.94.94.106 (talk • contribs) 06:13, January 25, 2006 (UTC)
Another absurdity is that Porus was given Gold by Alexander after Porus's defeat!!!. And do see Oliver Stone's Alexander. Stone does not depict an outright defeat for Alexander, so as to not hurt his movie at the box-office by going against the eon old myths held in the west, but he does come pretty close to showing that Alexander lost, there was no "treat me like a king" non-sense. What I have written will stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.75.29 (talk • contribs) 07:19, January 25, 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mean when I say that speaking with nationalists is losing one's time, because they're simply not interested in listening anything that they can't use in their propaganda war; and I know what I'm speaking about, because I've met legions of Greek, Macedonian, Persian nationalists and they all behaved in the same way. I must confess I haven't found "Roman nationalists", whatever they are, but I don't cover Roman history, so I may have missed them ;-) But what's most interesting is that when I spoke of sources, you didn't even try to awnser, which tells much of your knowledge of the whole affaire, but only spoke of a film and a completely unsourced statement that Porus was a vassal of Magadha. Not a word about the fact that all scholars refuse (or, more exactly, don't even care to refute) this crap, even those, and there are many, who have a very critical view of Alexander. Aldux 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Read Indian history and you will learn Porus was a satrap of Magadha, which was the ruling capital of India at that time. Infact I gave a link to Wiki page on Nanda dynasty. You have also been spreading lies: Ptolemy was present against Porus, WRONG. But ofcourse you will not accept these arguments because how else can you push "Alexander's conquest of India". Step back and reflect why you are not a roman nationalist!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.75.30 (talk • contribs) 11:04, January 26, 2006 (UTC)

re-indenting Doesn't the source added by anon, viz., "E. A. Wallis Badge, Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great, Publisher: Kessinger Publishing Company ISBN 1417947837" substantiate what he is stating? Just wondering... --Gurubrahma 12:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the work - it's from 1896, and is just Budge's translation of Ethiopic primary sources of uncertain value. At best one can say "according to ...", not take it as literal truth, or representative of current scholarly opinion. Stan 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What's this crap ?!
Even if Porus was a vassal of the Nanda dynasty, the Nanda Empire never covered the whole actual India, but merely the North, plus eventually the Pakistan. The wound against the Malli tribe is never attested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 12:39, February 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh*. I can only repeat this, with the hope that this time you will awnser the objections I moved to Budge's translations: "Budge's work a century ago (1896) is really a translation of a medieval ethiopic texts that is a redaction from the Arabic version of the Alexander Romance, which in turn is a version of the first one, the Greek one by the Pseudo-Callisthenes, a fantastic story of the exploits of Alexander. Every new version brought radical changes to the Pseudo-Callisthenes (i.e. he became Christian, or a prophet of Islam)." Please awnser to this, and not by insults and arguments ad hominem. Aldux 15:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "TheTruth" vs "Reality"

Budge, Arrian, Plutarch etc based there work on someone else's. To say one is better then the other or is more scholarly is one POV. There is another POV recorded by Budge. Budge's POV seems quite logical because of reasons already discussed.

The difference is that some sources are more accurate than others, and based on reliable writers, like Arrians use of the memories of Ptoleme Soter. On contrary, you cite an autor who use a fragmental translation of a translation of a translation...I don't know if you have seen it but the Alexander of the Ethiopoc text is clearly a Christian-philosopher-king...doesn't seems strange to you ? It's one of the traditionnal way of propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

Recap :

  • If Porus lost he would have helped Alex go down Indus and fought against Mallis. Did not happen.
But the fought against the Mallis never happened, it's just a mystical legend. We know each wounds of Alexandros except this one ? Be serious please, or quote your sources for the Mallis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • If Porus lost he would not have gotten gold from Alex.
We don't know if he received anything from Alexander. It's a very doubtful an modern story, who's not in the Arrian version, par exemple. Used for magnified the glory of the mythic Alexandros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • Alex's army revolted on loosing the war and seing many of there comrades loose there lives.
8 years of war, 12 000 km of forced marching, more gold gained from lotting than they can send home...isn't this enough good reasons for you ? Of course they lost many mens, after 10 years. Remember that they live Makedonia only for a raid against the Persian Empire, and foud themselves in an eternal war, in the way to the end of the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • Oliver Stone alludes to all this in his movie Alexander to some degree or another.
You use a film as a scientific source ? A film who is " a personnal an non 100% historical vision " for Oliver Stone himself ???
I would also said that you see this in a very " Mahabaratic " point of view. The fall of the hero is there to make the watcher remember that it was just a men. Absolutly not picturing the defeat of his army. It was the first battle the Pezhetaroï fought alone, particulary against elephants, and one of the bloodiest battle of this army, but the victory of the Makedonians is undoubtful. ( and, actually, a lot of Occidental watchers, particulary in Europe, would have loved to see the defeat of the " whites ", don't be so manicheist.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • India was ruled by Nanda dynasty and to call Alex invaded India, when he just fought a small war with one commander of the Magadha empire is quite untrue.
We use the term " India " because Hindustan, Pakistan and India are today nonsenseless, and India was the term used by the ancients. Remerber also that the Nanda dynasty was absolutly not establisshed on whole India, but just the North-Est quarter. The Indus was not under their sovereinty. De plus, Nanda dynasty was at this time crippled by civil wars. See how it was easy for Chandragupta to usurpate their throne and create the Mauryan dynasty.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)
Now I would tell you something: We know, by archaelogy, that the Achaemenid submit the Indus valley. After them, Antiochos I came there and obtain a heavy tribute, including hundreds of elephants, who were presents on a number of battles between the Successors states. The nationalists wants to see this just as a dowrit for the daughter of Antiochos...what a joke... After him, Antiochos III obtain the same thing. One hundred years after, the Graeco-Baktrian invade the whole North-West India, who was at this time under Mauryan rule, creating the Indo-Graecian kingdom, who burn Pataliputra a few years after. None of this power was as powerful as Alexandros was. It sounds logic to you that one of the best general of the ancient times, leading the greatest army ever raised by an hellenistic king, with more than 40 000 veterans of more than 10 years of war, was defeated by a single client-kingdom ? See the problem of your demonstration ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

TheTruth (Nick name I will use from now on) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.61.7 (talk • contribs) 08:09, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

The truth...bienvenue, let me introduce myself: I'm Reality.
On last thing: Chandragupta is present in a few writings about Alexander...and describe as an Indian advisor in his court during the invasion of the Indus valley.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Porus

Porus is supposed to have held the position of a Macedonian subordinate ruler until he was assassinated, sometime between 321 and 315 BC, by the Thracian Eudamus' agents after the death of Alexander (Diodorus Siculus . After his assassination, his son Malayketu ascended the throne with the help of Eudamus. However, Malayketu was killed in the Battle of Gabiene in 317 BC.

If Malayaketu succeeded Porus and was then killed in 317, wouldn't that put Porus' death between 321 and 317 (instead of 321/315) ? 24.34.166.212 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian references

Are there any Indian sources on Porus and his kingdom?--Cúchullain t/c 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All informations are from Greek historian which are not plausible .According these informations in the battle with Alexander Porus was not defeated .It was a compromise between to kings .Alexander restored his kingdom and porus supported him in other battlesRasoolpuri 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Unfortunately, there was not one Indian account of the Alexander-Porus encounter. It is quite natural that Greek accounts glorified Alexander's foray into India. The episode of Ambhi (Omphis) must have been very true because many such self-destructing incidents, fuelled by envy and jealousy, happened in Indian history. Oliver Stone has projected a picture quite sympathetic to Porus. Does it have any historical evidence? There was a story that Ruksana visted Porus the day before the battle and tied Rakhi to Porus's wrist (Rakhi is an Indian festival/tradition during which sisters tie a sacred thred to brothers' wrists seeking protection to their honour and family). During the battle Alexander fell down the horse wounded by an arrow from an Indian soldier. Porus jumped at him and raised the sword to Kill Alexander. While raising the hand he watched the Rakhi tied by Ruksana and overpowered by sentiment he left Alexander untouched. The Greek soldiers carried away the wounded Alexander to the camp. I do not know if this story had any historical support.

Takhasila and Punjab were very much part of ancient India. The foray of Alaxander can certainly be described as an attack on India, if not a victory.Kumarrao 07:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kumarrao (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

There is an opposite reference of Alexander having had a rakhi tied by Porus's wife too. I dont believe this is historically sound, as Porus's son was murdered by Alexander prior to this main battle, therefore no ceremonial ties of brotherhood could have occurred. Legends Im afraid. Also removing the Khkurain oral citation. This is not fair. A proper cited source needs to be provided.--82.20.133.19 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)