Talk:Greek campaigns in India

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jballs0311.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

From the article: The Greeks then founded the city of Taxila. Are there any sources for this? From what I know, Taxila (or Takshashila as it was called) was a city that had already been there for quite long before Alexander came to India.

Did Alexander really 'conqure' India? An alternative view by Prof. Dinesh Agrawal which refutes the view that Alexander won any war on Indian soil: http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593

That is a pseudo-historical site. You can check out any of the ancient sources which he refers to, none of them supports this rambling in the least. Then of course, Alexander did not conquer India in its modern sense, being restricted to Punjab in the north-west corner. Sponsianus 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is redundant. The material is already discussed at length under the Alexander and Indo Greek articles. There is no "Persian Conquests in Greece" article. This article should be deleted.

Devanampriya (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been 8months since I have posted this remark, sufficient time has passed for me to nominate this for deletion.

Devanampriya (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Conquest vs invasion

Why is the word conquest used instead of invasion? 116.50.60.180 (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lack of references

In the section, Conquests of Alexander The Great (327–326 BC), there are no references cited in the section. Are there any sources that support the facts for this section?Jballs0311 (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Greek conquests in India → Greeks in India – The more suitable name for this wikipedia page is Greeks in India. This proposed title is similar to other existing wikipedia pages such as Greeks in Egypt and Greeks in Italy, etc. Furthermore, the Ottoman conquest of Greece is titled Ottoman Greece instead of using a charged narrative. The present title does not differentiate the different campaigns and has a weak grouping. The only shared similarities is the diaspora in South Asia, which is covered in the proposed title. Additionally the present title is also disputed by other users in the talk page, as conquests should be seen as invasions. Since the Seleucid Empire lost more land after the conclusion of the Seleucid-Maurya War, it should be regarded as a failed invasion instead of a glorified conquest. The titles current narrative does not fit all of the contents in the page. Instead of disputing the difference of invasions and conquest, the title should be less charged and follow the precedence set by other wikipedia pages. Vajra Raja (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Vajra Raja (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Vajra Raja, You shouldn't move articles while initiating a RM discussion. Your moves created a lot of confusion. It becomes really hard for page movers and admins to cleanup. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The page is covering the long-term presence of the Greeks, not just conquests. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Uncertain "Greeks in India" would cover an expanded range of topics than this page does. In particular I can think of the Greek explorers and philosophers who travelled to India. Teishin (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the problems mentioned by those in opposition and that no clear idea of what the scope and contents of proposed page would be, I side with those opposed. Teishin (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed. Moving this to Greeks in India would appropriately expand the page. Right now it only limited to initial military campaigns. However as the OP pointed out, Bacchus and Seleucid should not be considered legitimate conquests. Bacchus is mythological and Seleucid lost the war. If solely looking at conquests, these sections should be amended, making article page very restricted. Also, there were many more Greeks under the Mauryan Empire like the Greek King Tushaspha. Greeks continued to live under the Indo-Scythians and Kushan Empire as depicted in thier inscriptions and culture. Just focusing on the initial conflicts ignores later history. This article should also incorporate the exchanges that existed since antiquity which continued during later migrations. These cultural exchange were only hinted in the intro of the article, but it should be further expanded upon. Later migrations resulted in exchange of religions, languages, sciences, numismatics, etc. Addressing other users, I think that this page should include the Greek philosophers and travallers to India as they too had a lasting impact to society and culture such as the Yavanajātaka written by the Indo-Greek Sphujidhvaja, under the Indo-Scythians rule. These topics aren't covered under the present title. I advise that the article title should be changed and the page organized with sections (and subsections) dividing; History (Alexander, Seleucid, Mauryans, Scythian, Kushan), Mythology (Move Bacchus here along with Buddhism and other Greek and Vedic religions), Culture (language, science, coins, clothing), etc. I can make this layout once the page is moved which can be further filled in with the help of other users. However, I propose that this page be moved to Greeks in South Asia since that would encapsulate the Greco-Bactrians in Afghanistan, Indo-Greeks in Pakistan, along with the Greeks that contributed to the vast Kushan Empire. The term India is largely associated with the nation of India. Although the Greeks called the region India altogether, so Greeks in India also works well. Cheers. Rancid Boar (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Regardless of whether the current title is best, the proposed title is not good. Srnec (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Greeks in India" would be such a broader and essentially unrelated subject, as late as the Greek diaspora in India until the 21st century...?? "Greek conquests in India" refers appropriately to the period of Greek military appropriation (or attempts thereof) in the sub-continent between the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Greeks in India" is extremely broad and could for example refer to modern Greeks living in modern India. "Greek conquests in India" is more descriptive of the article's subject matter. Khirurg (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 27 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Greek campaigns in India — there's consensus to move, but to "India" and not "the Indian Subcontinent". (non-admin closure) Tol | talk | contribs 22:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Greek conquests in India → Greek campaigns in the Indian Subcontinent – This page should be titled Greek campaigns in the Indian Subcontinent. The contents of this page generally refers to the campaigns of various Hellenistic entities, not all of them directly resulted in conquests. Starting with Alexander the Great, he is certainly credited for conquering up to the Beas River during his illustrious campaigns. Seleucid however ceded vast expanses of land in the Seleucid-Maurya War, this campaign ultimately resulted in a loss instead of a conquest. Of the Indo-Greeks, Demetrius is noted for being a conquer while Menander was an expansionist during their campaigns, the other recorded kings either maintained or ceded land. This nomenclature is supported by both historical and scholarly references. The ancient Greek historian Arrian compiled the The Anabasis of Alexander or Campaigns of Alexander. This is the most reliable historical account of the ordeal and refers to Alexanders campaigns. It includes the vast territorial conquest during Alexanders campaigns, but also other details such as mutiny. Other references and even the wiki page refers to this as Campaigns of Alexander and the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great respectively. Even though Alexander's campaigns and successes are synonymous with conquest, that was just the outcome of his campaigns. This seemingly small difference is more profound in the other examples. Sir William Woodthorpe Tarn wrote extensively on the history of Greeks in India, and is one of the most referenced modern works on this subject. In in his work The Greeks in Bactria & India pg 131 Tarn stated "The Greek 'conquest' of India was hardly a conquest in the ordinary sense of the word, the sense in which Alexander conquered Persia". When addressing the Indo-Greeks Tarn notes that Demetrius led conquests during the early stages of his campaigns. Menander expanded the Indo-Greek domain to its extant but this annexation was far more complex due to welcoming alliances. Furthermore the other Indo-Greek rulers assimilated and governed in individual poleis or joined local republics during their campaigns and assimilated. Sir William Woodthorpe Tarn was deliberate to differentiate the different campaigns and their results, thus opposed to a general use of conquest on this subject. Using the current title is limiting and it is not entirely accurate as it brushes over historical details. A google search for Greek conquests in India specifically results to this Wikipedia page and not scholarly or historical works supporting the grouping. Comparatively, there are more literature and scholarly references to the various Greek campaigns in India such as Sir William Tarn's works. Using campaigns is not only more accurate, but it is also more credible as compared to this Wikipedia being the primary reference. Furthermore, I believe that this page should ideally use Indian Subcontinent instead of India, as most of these campaigns occurred in the Greater Punjab region which includes modern day Pakistan. Vajra Raja (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support "Greek campaigns in India", but not the Indian Subcontinent. "Campaigns" does seem to be more accurate than "conquests", to the extent that a number of campaigns did not result in conquests (feel free to correct me here, I'm not an expert). But "the Indian Subcontinent" is not a nomenclature found in classical, or I suspect most modern literature referring to these campaigns. The Greeks certainly did not distinguish between India and Pakistan (est. 1948); indeed the name "India" is derived from the Indus valley, while the boundaries of Pakistan seem to have been intentionally drawn in order to include all of the lower Indus.

The concept of India and surrounding nations constituting a "subcontinent" is a modern one and would be sharply anachronistic in this context; moreover there might be some confusion as to precisely what is included in the designation, since some readers might be more familiar with the geological subcontinent, which differs from the political boundaries used to define it, or suppose it to be contiguous with British India, which included territory not considered part of the subcontinent, either geologically or politically (by today's borders). And in any case, it should not be capitalized: "subcontinent" is a common noun, even when combined with a proper adjective. In a book title, it would be capitalized, but not under Wikipedia's article titling rules.

Exactly what constituted "India" in Greek times is at best a hazy concept, since there was no single political entity identifying itself as "India" with a stable frontier that could be used to distinguish Indian and non-Indian territory; to this extent it might be regarded as a sort of exonym. Trying to define it more narrowly by using "the Indian subcontinent" risks introducing a degree of certainty that would not accurately reflect either the political reality or the territorial extent of the campaigns in question. Better to use a hazy term to describe a hazy concept (I note that "Greece" is itself a hazy term in antiquity) than to use a precise one that appears to limit the extent of the article's coverage, or worse becomes an artificially limiting term due to its use, even though the scope of the campaigns relevant to the article foreseeably exceed that limitation. P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with P Aculeius. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Greek campaigns in India. Until 1947 that's what the whole subcontinent was always called and Wikipedia is not revisionist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.