Alexander Feared Bengalis, Fled

I have expressed,through my many articles,that the history of India is not only old but is also a record of people,their lives,kings and events and lamented the fact that  though precious information is found in Indian regional languages they do not get the attention it deserves.

Main reason is that most of us learn our history through English knowing well it is doctored.

An inexplicable reluctance to study and research our langages Sanskrit and other regional languages has landed us a position where one finds it difficult to collate Indian History as a Unified one.

With my limited knowledge of English,Tamil and Sanskrit I have been exploring Indian History, cross referencing each other.

Thanks to Internet resources are available which had been out of reach.

No all English books carry misinformation.

It is that we have been allowed to study and read what suited the British and the psuedo Intellectuals of India.

Not only this, the English Translations of workks from Greek,Latin and other Historians open up a new window of Knowledge.

Aleander, the great.Image.

Alexander, The Great withdrew from attacking Bengal.

What I found, to my amazement, is that the facts mentioned in Indian Texts Vedas,Puranas,Ramayana,Mahabharta and Regional classics check out when tested out against the foreign sources.

It is the curse of Indians that they would trust others than their Mother !

For me, my cultuarl roots are primary and they would be verified against external sources.

In this process many myths perpetrated have been exposed, like Alexander Conquered India, Indians were a superstitious lot, Hinduism is mumbo jumbo,India had been a country of warring chieftains,Rama and Krishna were figment of Imagination!

I have written articles exposing these untruths with authentic sources.

My regret is that scholars of other Indian Languages, like Telugu,Kannnada,Bengali and others, have not been forthcoming with resources from their respective languages on Sanatana Dharma and ancient India.

If one has this information one can get a unified view of Indian History.

I have requested for information but of no avail.

With my knowledge of Sanskrit, and Tamil, though it is limited,I have been able to uneart real History of India.

Atleast now, would people from the other langauges come forward?

Because of my dependance on Sanskrit and Tamil I am accused being a Sanatana Dharma or Tamil Fanatic!

Be that as may, I shall continue my journey.

I have remarked in an earlier article that as civilizations are reported to be have sprung up on the Banks of Rivers, we need to check all the Major Rivers mentioned in Indian Texts.

The Rivers are,






Sindhu and Kaveri.

And there are two more rivers of antiquity in the south, Vaigai and Tambrabarani.

We have scratched Ganga,Saraswathi.

I have written on these two and an article each on Vaigai,Godavari and Vaigai.

And there are records of civilization having sprung  from Mountains as well.

This is evidenced from the Tamil Classics.

Recent findings of fossils belonging to ancient Man confirm this view.

I propose exploring this .

Now to anothe great langauge and culture of India which has been the bulwark of Sanatana Dharma.

It is Bengal and Bengalis.

Thanks to the ‘Divide and Rule’ policy of the Inavders of India, people of India belonging to different regions began identifying themselves with either the region they live in or the language they speak.

There has been only Sanatana Dharma and people , though they lived in different regions of India under different Kings, they did not have the regional tendencies nor was there any linguistic issue.

People were aware of the others and were receptive to other regional ideas and languages.

The term Bengali does not seem to have been in use in those days.

They were a part opf a culture called Sanatana Dharma and propagated it.

The Bengalis, who traditionally lived in the area where the Ganga met the Bay Of Bengal were a an ancient seafaring community through the East of India and their Kingdoms extended in these areas.

Along with the  Tamils they were the earliest settlers in South East India.

Tamils were also a seafaring a community.

The Bengalis, I am using the term to enable people follow the the thoughts, were an ancient people( I have written on the 28,000 year old History of the Bengalis) and were referred to by ancient Greeks.

The Bengalis or the Area that now comprises of West Bengal, India and Bangladesh, was called Gangaidai.

They were living in the region around the five mouths of  the River. Ganga where it meets the sea.

The kings possessed a great army including a  frightening army of Elephants.

This made Alexander, the Great to flee , fearing the Bengali Might.

I have earlier written on the fact that the success of Alexander in India was a Myth and he did not defeat Porus.

The only possible answer is at the Battle of Hydaspes, the Macedonians realised they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. The Indian king struck a bargain – in return for Ambhi’s territories, which would secure his frontiers, Porus would assist the Macedonians in leaving India safely.

Alexander’s post-Hydaspes charitable behaviour, as per Greek accounts, is uncharacteristic and unlikely. For, in battles before and after, he massacred everyone in the cities he subdued’

Porus Defetas Alexander, spared his Life

Not onlky this, Alexander feared the Bengal King and withdrew without engaging in a battle..

The source for this information is ancient respected Greek Historians.

Gangaridai (Greek: Γανγαρίδαι; Latin Gangaridae) was an ancient kingdom, which existed around 300 BC, in the Bengal region of the Indian subcontinent. It was described by the Greek traveller Megasthenes in his work Indica. Greek and Latin historians suggested that Alexander the Great withdrew from the Indian subcontinent, anticipating the valiant joint counterattack of the mighty Gangaridai and Prasii (Nanda) Empires, the latter located in central Bihar. The capital of the Gangaridai was situated at Kotalipara in present-day Gopalganj District, Bangladesh.

This is what the Greek Hitorians have to say on this subject.

‘The Gangaridai occupied the entire region about the five mouths of the Ganges and that the royal residence was in the city of “Ganges”. The five mouths were:

  1. The Kambyson
  2. The Mega
  3. The Kamberikhon
  4. The Pseudostomonn..


‘ Among the southern countries the first under the Kaukasos is India, a kingdom remarkable for its vast extent and the largeness of its population, for it is inhabited by very many nations, among which the greatest of all is that of the Gandaridae, against whom Alexander did not undertake an expedition, being deterred by the multitude of their elephants. This region is separated from farther India by the greatest river in those parts (for it has a breadth of thirty stadia), but it adjoins the rest of India which Alexander had conquered, and which was well watered by rivers and highly renowned for its prosperous and happy condition. –Diodorus Siculus (1st century AD). Quoted from Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature, John W. McCrindle, p. 201.’

Next came the Ganges, the largest river in all India, the farther bank of which was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king Agrammes kept in field for guarding the approaches to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, and, what was the most formidable of all, a troop of elephants which he said ran up to the number of 3,000. –Quintus Curtius Rufus (wrote between 60-70 AD). Quoted from The Classical Accounts of India, p. 103-128.

Plutarch noted both Gangaridae and Prasii together:

The Battle with Porus depressed the spirits of the Macedonians, and made them very unwilling to advance farther into India… This river (the Ganges), they heard, had a breadth of two and thirty stadia, and a depth of 1000 fathoms, while its farther banks were covered all over with armed men, horses and elephants. For the kings of the Gandaritai and the Prasiai were reported to be waiting for him (Alexander) with an army of 80,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 8,000 war-chariots, and 6,000 fighting elephants. –Plutarch (42-120 AD). Quoted from The Classical Accounts of India, p. 198.

‘Now this river, which at its source is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its waters into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. [Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as he did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai and India when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.] –Megasthenes (c. 350 BC-290 BC). Quoted from the Epitome of Megasthenes, Indika. (Diod. II. 35-42. ), Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian. Translated and edited by J.W. McCrindle.

‘Megasthanes in Indica.




  • Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta, ed. (1988) [1967], Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Second ed.), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0465-1
  • The Classical accounts of India, Dr. R. C. Majumdar. p. 103-128, 170-172, 190, 234, 341-343, 375.
  • Ancient India as Described in Classical literature, John W. McCrindle. p. 201.
  • Ancient India as Described by Ptolemy, John W. McCrindle. p. 172
  • The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Wilfred H. Schoff. p. 47-8.
  • Studies of Geography of Ancient and Medieval India, Dr. Dineshchandra Sarkar. p. 213, 218.
  • Political History of Ancient India. p. 231.
  • Pre-Aryan and Pre-Davidian in India, Jean Przyluski. p. 137
  • Historic Geography of Ancient and Early Medieval Bengal, Dr. Amitav Vattacharya. p. 38.
  • Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian ( 2nd Edition), J. W. McCrindle

Porus Defeated Spared Alexander Life .

A I wade through the History of India , I found and still find that it is littered with lies.

As about 5000 years of History has been suppressed and misinterpreted, it is an arduous task.

Reason for this state of affairs lies in the attitude of Indians.


King Porus

By tradition and their religious belief  Indians considered mundane subjects like History and even science as inferior knowledge s only the Knowledge of the Reality is worth considering as Knowledge.

Secondly the invasion by foreigners, who , realizing that the Indians could not be subjugated without destroying their faith in their Religion, their History as enumerated in their Puranas and the science as revealed in the Vedas and other Sanskrit Texts ( and in regional languages as well), destroyed this faith in the garb of bringing in western education and culture.

One is by the early invaders like the Greeks and  in a more systematic way by the British who colonized and ruled  Indian for nearly 300 years.

In between we had Muslim invaders who, though misinterpreted Indian History, it was not as damaging as the British.


Alexander Empire?

This blog is about exposing these lies, misinterpretations with evidence from Archeology,etymology, cultural affinities between various civilizations around the word and Sanatana Dharma, which was labeled as Hinduism.

Indian History taught at school begins with the Invasion of India as the beginning of Real (?) History , events narrated in Indian texts, both English and Regional having been dismissed as legends,myths and fantasies.
That India did not exist before 4000 years (John Stuart Mill in History of India, the first official(?) History of India.)
That Indians were a barbaric race deeply mired in superstitions and uncivilized religious practices,
That the Greeks were the first to bring civilization to India,
There were Aryans who entered India through the Khyber Pass and drove the Dravidians south,
There was caste system which was eating away the vitals of India,
Aurangazeb was a pious and noble man,

Islamic invaders left a legacy in architecture, mutual respect for other religions, in the last case by Emperor Akbar’s Deen Elahi.
There was an immortal love story of Shah Jehan and he built the Taj Mahal in memory of his love,
No mention about authentic puranic evidence found by archeology and validated by carbon dating and infra-red analysis,
No mention of advanced modern concepts in the Vedas and other treatises.
This blog explores the history of India with the help of Indian texts,archeology,other scientific tools like astronomy based dating (Internal evidence as found in Sanskrit and Regional language, references in the contemporary texts of other civilisatios(external evidence) and the archaeological finds in other countries, their language , culture and present customs.

I have written a number of articles on these subjects.
In an earlier article that Alexander’s triumph over Porus and Alexander’ subsequent return to Greece looked suspicious., as thte source one depends on heavily is Megasthanes’s Indica of Chadra Gupta Maurya Empire.

Megasthanes writes in detail about Chandra Gupta even intimate details.

But the catch is Megasthanes never met Chandra Gupta Maurya.
Now I have found information that buttresses my claim that Alexander did not defeat Porus and it was Porus who defeated Alexander.
And scared of meeting up with Porus’s army Alexander’s army revolted and as a result Alexander returned to Greece and en route he died or poisoned tp death.
The latter seems to be true in the light of Alexander’s remains having been found to contain evidence of poisoning.
What  is

taught as history on Alexander in Indian schools and colleges?
Alexander, having won all the kingdoms west of Greece up-to Bacteria( Persia) , proceeded to India ,defeated many kings and finally met his foe Porus in Punjab.
Alexander entered into a pact with Ambhi a sworn enemy of Porus with whom he attended the Taxila as a Student.

Ambhi was a descendant of Shakuni of Mahabharata

Alexander defeated Porus and in appreciation of his valor, Alexander gave the Kingdom back to Porus and left Selecus Nicator as his Representative in India..

What are the facts?

“Strabo, the Greek historian wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”

“Following Alexander’s failure to gain a position in India and the defeat of his successor Seleucus Nikator, relationships between the Indians and the Greeks and the Romans later, was mainly through trade and diplomacy. Also the Greeks and other ancient peoples did not see themselves as in any way superior, only different.”

This statement by Russia’s Marshal Gregory Zhukov on the Macedonian invasion of India in 326 BCE is significant because unlike the prejudiced colonial and Western historians, the Greeks and later Romans viewed Indians differently. For instance, Arrian writes in Alexander Anabasis that the Indians were the noblest among all Asians.

In fact, Arrian and other Greeks say the Indians were relentless in their attacks on the invaders. They say if the people of Punjab and Sindh were fierce, then in the eastern part of India “the men were superior in stature and courage”.

All this is glossed over by Western historians, in whose view the one victory over king Porus amounted to the “conquest of India”. But the Greeks made no such claim…

Greek contemporary writers describe the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) as the hardest fought of all Alexander’s battles. Frank Lee Holt, a professor of ancient history at the University of Houston, writes in his book, Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions: “The only reference in Arrian’s history to a victory celebration by Alexander’s army was after the battle with Porus.”

Alexander’s army did not indulge in celebrations after the Battle of Gaugamela where they defeated 200,000 Persians. No wild festivities were announced after the Battle of Issus where they defeated a mixed force of Persian cavalry and Greek mercenaries.

The fact they celebrated after the Battle of Hydaspes suggests they considered themselves extremely lucky to survive after the clash with the Hindu army, with its elephant corps.

According to the Greeks, Alexander was apparently so impressed by Porus he gave back his kingdom plus the territories of king Ambhi of Taxila who had fought alongside the Macedonians.

This is counterintuitive. Ambhi had become Alexander’s ally on the condition he would be given Porus’ kingdom. So why reward the enemy, whose army had just mauled the Macedonians?

The only possible answer is at the Battle of Hydaspes, the Macedonians realised they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. The Indian king struck a bargain – in return for Ambhi’s territories, which would secure his frontiers, Porus would assist the Macedonians in leaving India safely.

Alexander’s post-Hydaspes charitable behaviour, as per Greek accounts, is uncharacteristic and unlikely. For, in battles before and after, he massacred everyone in the cities he subdued.

Description of the War.

In reality, the Greek-Macedonian force, after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting much smaller Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had also heard about the havoc that Indian war elephants were supposed to create among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the war elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry.

According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, the battle was savagely fought. Puru 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 (and this is where legend meets history) when Puru perhaps remembered his promise to his rakhi sister (probably a Trojan horse sent in by the Greeks). He spared the Macedonian’s life, and Alexander’s bodyguards quickly carried off their king.

The Greeks may claim victory but if Alexander’s troops were so badly mauled by the petty regional fiefdoms, how could they have crushed the comparatively stronger army of Puru? An unbiased re-examination of contemporary histories suggests the Greeks probably lost the battle and Alexander sued for peace.

In his epic volume, The Life and Exploits of Alexander, a series of translations of the Ethiopic histories of Alexander, E.A.W. Budge, Egyptologist, orientalist and philologist, has given a vivid account of the Macedonian’s misadventure in India.

According to Budge, who worked for the British Museum in the early part of the 20th century, in the Battle of Hydaspes the Indians destroyed the majority of Alexander’s cavalry? Realising that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined, the Macedonian requested Puru to stop fighting. True to Indian traditions, the magnanimous Indian king spared the life of the surrendered enemy. A peace treaty was signed, and Alexander helped Puru in annexing other territories to his kingdom.

The Greek geographer Strabo complains in the Geographika that all who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvellous to the true. Certainly he alludes to Alexander’s original propaganda to glorify his struggle in the East. He created his own mystified version of the campaign, transforming it into a search for divine traces.

Sources and Citations.

Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the legendary Russian commander, on Alexander’s Invasion