Talk:Indian campaign of Alexander the Great

Alexander defeated by Porus.

The Greek's history on Alexander and his attempt to invade Indian subcontinent is clear attempt to eulogize their leader / clans. The facts and logical conclusions have no place in their (Greek/ European) history versions. An Indian version is worth to be considered also. When this ref. is added to the Article, it is deleted branding it as not reliable source though the referred essay/analysis is also based on same historical sources frequently referred in the Article.117.98.131.168 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

My 2 cents. Rakesh Krishnan Simha is a journalist that writes about defence issues. He is not a historian specialized in Alexander or Ancient Greece or India or similar. That's already a point against using him. We have far better authors available, which is another point against using him.

In the linked article he expresses his opinions about "A more probable scenario" of Alexander asking for a truce (in the middle of the battle? Before the battle? He doesn't clarify).

As far as I know, this scenario does not appear in modern mainstream historians. And it's not on ancient historians. We should get a much better or several good sources to sustain a theory that is not supported or even mentioned by reliable historians. Also, the article seems to be self-publisehd on his own personal page?

For me, this source shouldn't be used because of 2 reasons: a) lack of credentials of author and b) an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alexander's Indian campaign

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alexander's Indian campaign's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mookerji":

• From Chandragupta Maurya: Radha Kumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 4th ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988 [1966]), pp. 31, 28–33.
• From Taxila: Radha Kumud Mookerji (2nd ed. 1951; reprint 1989). Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist (p. 478-489). Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 8120804236.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"what was then part of India"

The modern nation state of India did not exist till 1947. The territory that is now India, was not a single entity until the 19th century under British rule. As this article itself states, during Alexander's campaign, present day India was several independent kingdoms. So I have remove the completely incorrect statement, "what was then part of India".

"India" was the name given to that territory and group and kingdoms. To make it a litle better, I have linked the name "India" to History_of_India#Persian_and_Greek_conquests. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect reference to "Massaga"

Hi,

In this page, the hyperlink to "Massaga" (which I think is actually supposed to be a place, based on context) in the part under "The Kambojas" wrongly points to something that relates to biology ("Massaga is a genus of moths of the Noctuidae family."). Can someone please fix this?

Thank You. Aashishsatya (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian campaign of Alexander..

Dear Editors,

I tried to edit some contents of the page. Initially I did not knew the rules, so harshly tried to put my point forth. Now I realized the process and still learning. I have some observations from some authentic sources which I would like to correct on the page. For every statement I have given their on the page , I have got sources, which I have mentioned. If someone want to challenge the sources, lets talk. We will discuss here and then we should do revert or editing on the page.

Regards,

Hemantvavale (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Comment--The article seems to be very poorly written with confusing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.235.91 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the grammar on this page. It is written in bad English. Leecorp1 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Editors, there is no source of greek histroy whihc claims victory by alxander over Parvatheshwara(Porus). is hight ime you remove stupidty..like 1. Alexander defeated Porus and gave away his ally's(Ambhi) territory to a defeated King how stupid of you. And to prove this there is no eveidence even from Greek scholars of that time. how long will u keep telling lies. 2. It was Bharatha ruled by several Independent Kings but all kings complied rules set froth by Rajguru meaning even King was servant.. numerous occasions are there to porve that royal were paid from treasury including Kings wife, children. ganarajya. the rulers are srvant of the people. 3. Council of ministers were chosen not by King but by the different chieftans who were either defeated or were awareded by king. without approval of the council of misters not a pie could taken by king. read Dhanananda story sorruption, being a king he was taking money from treasury and hiding it in different places if it was his then why take and hide it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.252.231.12 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisionist Indian nationalism written in broken English 103.93.115.18 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Move request

I'm requesting this be moved back to Alexander's invasion of the Indian subcontinent, since "Indian" alone won't give readers a proper idea of what is being referred to. Since it's Indian subcontinent in this case, isn't that what it should be called?--Boxman88 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please initiate a proper WP:RM and notify the relevant wikiprojects. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• One question, why aren't the WikiProject members reading discussions of this article; especially if this is tagged under their project? Thanks--Boxman88 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Project members should be here by now.--Boxman88 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge request

I propose to merge Musicanus into this article, since its merely a small paragraph. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

In the section Indian campaign of Alexander the Great#Revolt of the army, there is a block quote that begins, "As for the Macedonians". I keep my screen at 125% resolution since I work on a small laptop. At 125%, that block quote appears as a long, very narrow column going down the middle of the page. Each line contains only one word. At 110%, it is also a long, narrow column, with each line containing one to three words. At 100%, is is a narrow column, with each line containing four to five words. Redrose64, can you figure out a way to reformat the block quote so that it does not end up looking like this?  – Corinne (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: How about now?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock Much better! Thank you. On a different issue, don't you think it would be a good idea to precede the block quotes with some kind of introduction, that is, something of author, date, source? As they are now, the quotes just appear out of the blue. It's also not clear, unless one studies the references, whether both paragraphs come from the same source or are from two different sources.  – Corinne (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Perhaps the quote template can be used instead of the blockquote tag as it supports attribution.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock I know how to use the quote template, but I'm not sure what to put as the attribution. In the first one, I see Plutarch. Is that all I put, or do I need to add the name of the work (before the citation)?  – Corinne (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: I've attributed the first quote to "Plutarch's Lives" which makes the author field rather redundant. I think the bigger problem with this section is that pg. 34 of Kosmin doesn't say what this section says he does.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Heading is misleading and a More correctly heading would be Alexanders Campaign in South Asia

Given that the modern nation state of india is a new 19th century construct that officially never existed at the time and that there are several nations which encompass the region the article should be more correctly termed as Alexanders Campaign in South Asia. If one looks at the conquests and routes that Alexander took geographically he never really stepped foot into the modern nation state of india geographically. Using the term South Asia would more appropriately and correctly explain Alexanders march to the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1320:1746:C8C2:94C0:EFD0:1E9E (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The Greek records describe the land as India (Indica). If we want to avoid confusion with Republic of India, "Indian subcontinent" is a possibility. utcursch | talk 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just silly

"This is an interesting observation, as the neighboring kingdom of Taxila housed one of the seats of higher learning in the Indian subcontinent.[9] The university recorded many prominent events of the time including the Seleucid–Mauryan war followed by the alliance between Alexander's successor Seleucus I Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya. An event such as Alexander's conquest of Taxila's neighboring state would have been recorded in their libraries, given the rarity and significance of such an event at the time. The lack of Indian accounts on the subject leads many to believe that Alexander's visit to India was insignificant to the Indians or was completely formulated by later Greeks, with the latter being more popular of the two. Supporting this notion, we also find no mention of King Porus in Indian accounts."

What Indian accounts? There are no Indian accounts from this time period, what library texts? We know of Seleucus and Chandraguptas deal due to Greek/Roman historians, not Indian ones. It's amazing how much Indian nationalists can be allowed to deface. If these Indian sources from that time period exist, can someone give an example?Chronicler87 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Some adjustment made; more might be needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it's better now, but I'm not sure why to leave it in at all. Unless someone has a source? India did not have a tradition of history writing in this period, and the first written Indian accounts come much later. (Hundreds of years later). There should be a question asking for who the "many" or the "some" are. Chronicler87 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing content

User:Aman.kumar.goel my edits were in Campaign in Punjab and Campaign in Lower Indus Valley. Review them and see why they weren't necessary.Sutyarashi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Still you have to show why you are adding "Conquest of Cathaeans" when no sources even support this WP:SYNTH by you. You are adding what is clearly WP:UNDUE. Alexander went towards the Chenab River, and had captured about 37 towns. It has been already mentioned. Are you going to write about each? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The source mentioned was taken from Sagala. It doesn't come under WP:SYNTH. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Which source calls it a "Conquest of Cathaens"? Can you also answer the rest of the concerns which I raised? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)