Alexander vs Porus | Truth Uncovered | We have fooled for centuries | Keerthi History
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- After almost a month of research on Alexander vs Porus, this is what I came up with. I was shocked to see this at first. And even the available records are not Primary sources. They are just secondary sources. But we are blindly following everything the west said, without raising questions!!!
This video will keep gaining more and more views year after year.
Why only year after?
@@Keerthihistory bcos Indians are raising there awareness and knowing history after 2014, ... It will take time to reach the peak of the wave. People like you may bring it within months ❤️☮️.
@@opinionabout938 Awww thank you ♥️🙏🏼
My grandmother told me a story...
Alexander भारत आता है लड़ने के लिए पर बुरी तरह से हार जाता है, तो उसे राजा पुरु (जो की मेरे पूर्वज है) हराकर बंदी बना लेते है...
पर अलेक्जेंडर की पत्नी जो parsia से थी वो भारत के संस्कृति के बारे में जानती थी (क्यू की भारत और परसिया इतिहास में अच्छा संबंध रखते थे) तो उसने एक तरकीब निकाली और राजा पुरु को राखी भेजी...
उस राखी का मान रखने के लिए राजा पुरु ने अलेक्जेंडर को छोड़ दिया...
पर चाणक्य जो विष विद्या ने बड़े माहिर थे उन्होंने अलेक्जेंडर को मार दिया क्योंकि उन्हें अलेक्जेंडर के पुनः आक्रमण की शंका थी जो की सेलुकस ने सही साबित की...
पर तबतक चाणक्य ने चंद्रगुप्त को सम्राट बनाकर भारत को सशक्त बना दिया था ...
जय भारत माता...
@@Keerthihistory because you're a fool and your subscribers super fools believing in your cartoon history🤣🥺🥺
Someone wise said " History is not what happened, History is what we write "
Is it what she is trying to do ? From mere assumptions?
@@varghesemanikkoth21certainly you are assuming
Why is it that Indians are always lining up to get into western countries yet no one from the west ever lines up in droves to get into India.
@asmitraj1110 Hear properly the conclusion. 7:18 She herself says “we can make only assumptions…” and just like that not accepting existing documents.. When you counter a so far agreed history, that is when you need a proof to counter. History is not false pride.She only says “it could have happened like this and like that”. She blatantly denies already recorded history as partiality and don’t have any documents to prove otherwise.
She is happy with her assumptio?s !
Even if King Alexander was defeated by King Porus, It still doesn't explain absence of records by Indian Historians.
It doesnt even bother them to do that, fight of elephant killing a ant should be written unless ant kill elephant
@Vishal Autade He actually did move to east. He only retreated because his army mutinied.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as the original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Well because they lost but this bunch of idiots invented that Porus won because they don't want to admit that every time someone arrives to conquer their lands, they were defeated
@@stefanogagliano6067then bro why he returned it doesn't make sense
Here is what really happened. I saw a legit TH-cam video who give information from trusted article.
1st Alexander was on a mission to conqueror the world and Bharat is his ultimate goal since it is richest and wealthiest country.
2nd Alexander and Porus faced eachother in war not single time but 3 times, No one won in that battle so they came into a peace agreement.
3rd Indian kings never battle in night times it's rule. So Alexander used this as weapon and killed Porus.
4th But still small portion of porus tribal people are alive and aware of this backstab by King.
5th Since Alexander lost his so much army, Wounds and energy he had to face a 50 times larger army which is NANDA.
6th So he logically thinked and step back for new back after strengthen his army.
7th On the way to back his kingdom a tribal man from Porus land shooted a Infectious Arrow into Alexander body.
8th So that Alexander didn't died quickly but later he died of infection caused by that arrow.
I think I clarified all doubts about this mysterious Story.
contemprary history and proofs of other country litterature says other wise, alexander was defeated.
@@dhruvyamdagni5858 It's a defeat for Alex boy. Because he step back without thinking fight about Nanda dynasty. That's a living death for ego person like Alexander.
@@iammealways1124 bro everything you wrote is off , contemporary texts and proofs say other wise , and king puru didn't die , he was not killed. Like that's very clear to everyone.
@@dhruvyamdagni5858 Bro I also wrote that only. The 3 times conflicts between porus and Alex didn't result anyone victory and hence they came into agreements. And Alex army fought on kingdom when everyone is inactive but I didn't said he killed poru king.
@@iammealways1124 brother the 3 times war is also highly debatable , the contemporary history says , one war is recorded where alexander was witnessing huge elephants used in war for the first time , and more more detail , like this video saying his horse died and all... So not three wars bro , one war where alexander had to go back after losing.
In the movie Alexander, he was shown as killed by porus, which was criticised by some, but the director was firm in his stand saying that he had researched a lot for the film..
U must have read hindi subtitle.... he was injured and later died in babylon due to disease.. lol such illiterate idiots
Ya, it doesnt make senses to give back after taking a small piece of india and not taking india inspite india being 33% of world gdp of that time
@@zalayashpalsinh5427 33% gdpa Lool
why are you guys so delusional
Conquered through out their existence ,yet somethow think they are fearsome warriors.
" But by the end ofthe day, Porus' troops were defeated.Out of thirty-five thousand men, Porus
had lost a staggering twenty-three thousand; Macedonian losses were a few hundred"
@@user-lv1jk9qb9t lol indians going to hunt u down
This is the history I was taught in school.
After defeating Porus, near the banks of the river Jhelum, Alexander and his army proceeded till the river Beas, the borders of the Nanda empire.
2) Though victorious against Porus, it was the costliest victory for the Greeks. Prospect of a 4 time larger Nanda army demoralized them.
3) Alexander had a history of creating sattraps in conquered regions. Defeated generals had been made sattraps.
4) A few years after the battle, Chandragupta Maurya arose and recaptured Punjab from Greeks before conquering Magadha. After that, Selucus tried to regain his lost territory, and lost again. This time he had to give several more provinces including all territories of present day Afghanistan which became part of Maurya empire, which means, the area from where Chandragupta initally drove the Greeks out from was further east, present day Pakistan, around the region of Taxila i.e. that area was under Greek occupation. This is absolutely inconsistent with Greeks defeated at Jhelum. Point 4 history is from Indian sources.
5) Consider the situation, if Porus had actually defeated Alexander, he would be the undisputed champion from the Chenab till Asia Minor/Egypt. While western historians could rewrite history, Persians would not have any incentive to glorify Alexander. To them, Porus would be the God who defeated the tyrant Alexander. Some records, tales ought to have survived. Also, a king with that level of dominion, would have brought as much western territory as possible under his control. Persian records would have shown a 7 feet tall Indian king who ruled between 326-323 BC. (Check the dates, I am not sure if I remember school history with full accuracy)
Your story (not absolutely impossible) sounds great to Indian ears like myself, but needs to address the above inconsistentencies to be plausible.
1. Your points you made in point 5, Porus would be the undisputed champ from India till Eygpt, and that he had so much power, he could've conquered that region after defeating Alexander has already been addressed in the video where, compared to the other kings of India, Porus wasn't a big king, in-fact he wasn't even a king at all, he was a Cheiftan of his tribe. Alexander was humiliated by losing to a Cheiftan and when his army already defeated heard about the prospect of "Larger" Indian Kingdoms awaiting in the East, such as the Nanda Dynasty, they knew they would get crushed, & Alexander knew this too, so he left Selecus in charge of the regions he had conquered far east, and turned back. Your other point where you said "Persians would not have any incentive to glorify Alexander. To them, Porus would be the God who defeated the tyrant Alexander. Some records, tales ought to have survived. Also, a king with that level of dominion, would have brought as much western territory as possible under his control. Persian records would have shown a 7 feet tall Indian king who ruled between 326-323 BC." First off The Renowned Taskhashila University, just A FEW miles away from the site of Battle, didn't even care to write about either Porus, Alexander, or of this Battle, If this Battle was indeed so big, then the University would certainly write about it, but they didn't so many people in India didn't even have a clue this battle happened b/c it was deemed "un important" which is why their are no Persian records about it, b/c if Indian's themselves didn't know about the war at the time, how would the Persians know, when they were Miles away. The most likley outcome is that when Alexander's soldiers got back, they started making their own versions of what actually happened instead of saying "we came back b/c we lost to an Indian Cheiftan of a local tribe, and we were scared b/c their were even more powerful Indian Kings awaiting us for battle. Again Porus didn't conquer the entire west after defeating Alexander, b/c he was a local Cheiftan and not a King.
The reason Porus isnt really mentioned as defeater of Alexander is not because persians or greeks but because of Chanakya. Chanakya was trying to market Chandragupt Maurya as the undefeated/undisputed unifier of Bharat (or well, at least the northern part) and one of their biggest achievements was defeating Selucus Necator who was Alexander's General. He also married one of Selucus' daughters. Do u think a master strategist/kingmaker like Chanakya would like it if it was known that some local chieftain, Puru, defeated not just a Greek General, but the undefeated Alexander himself? Kya ijjat reh jati market mein.
And it doesn't help that Chandragupt Maurya was succeeded by Raja Ashok, one of the most successful kings in our history, who started his reign with blood. Why would they let some local chieftain from Sindh overshadow their achievements?
@@Furrina89 He was asking why did persians not make him take all the glory if he really defeated Alexander , don't tell me you're saying chanakya was behind this 😂
So let me tell you something as Iranian , there is no sign of ever attack of Alexander in Iran too , Greek say that Alexander set fire to Persepolis but , Architecture students had studied the stones of the monuments, and guess what? there is no sign of getting ever burned in the region, secondly they alleged roman has ruled Persia for more than hundred years!! So how is that there are less than 100 Greek words in all Iranic languages?? While you can find many Arabic and Turkish words as Arabs has ruled the region for 200 years and also Mongolians! Even French words are more than Greek words in Iranic languages,I think Alexander is a made up fictional character, respond to Cyrus The Great and Achaemenians empire and their civilization since they had attacked Greece and conquered it
Alexander did not create any sattarps. Thats another western lie. Your alexander winning against Porus sounds great to western hears but you need to address illogic behind Alexander winning against Porus. Porus won against Alexander hands down and you cant change this fact.
There's a Chinese & Persian records of this war which states that Alexander was defeated but Porus not only spared him but also gave him swords made of Indian steel (Roman Steel now). Alexander after some time started his return journey as his soldiers had refused to go any further and wanted to return to homeland. Strangely, our own historians ignore these records.
Can i humbly ask where can i read those sources, as i wish to know more about this subject
Plz mention the sources i am interested
Sir please mention the name of that Chinese Persian record and where did you find the source. I'm doing my master in History and haven't heard about any such sources.
@@na2co312source is - " trust me bro"... If he had any legitimate sources he would have mentioned it by now...
Bro, which sources. Seriously, i really want to read this. This is amazing
When i read about Alexander's invasion of India i was also very confused since Alexander didn't spared his uncle's and siblings to gain control over the throne, him giving porus his kingdom back was completely opposite of his nature.
Either Porus killed Alexander in this war and Greek historians out of humiliation framed a story to claim their superiority or this war never happened is what I agree to.👍
Lolzz there were 3 kings before porus whom alexander had spared so porus was not the only one
@@anoop61284 can you find out who was king porus at that time... with substantial proof..
She mentioned there is no mention of such king Porus...
Dumb fk he died in babylon..go read history
@@rampmahe4298porus is puruvaras I read the story of this war in a book named khaleela and Dimna , persian version of panjathanthra stories.
I that book the story is entirely different though puruvaras defeated Alexander initially alexander built hollow metal horses to defeat the elephant army. After the war alexander appointed his representative as king in india a left the country but later Indians were not satisfied with the representative so they dethroned him and gave power to a relative of puruvaras
@@fithakabeer768 bullshit. There is no such stories. You think lying will help you
I have personally visited the area where its said the war between Alexander and Raja Porus happened. Looking at the terrain, it's nearly impossible for an invader to win there. The locals believed Raja Porus won the battle however some of his sons died. Alexander was asked to go back through a different route instead of the route he came from.
Since you are a Great tactician and master of the art of war, especially in the ancient times, and most importantly you were there to witness it...
The locals who live 2500 years after the battle
If Alexander was defeated by Porus, then Indian records of that should have existed. Especially because the name and fame of Alexander was far reached. That could mean that Alexander was not defeated by Porus. But perhaps the Greeks did invent to story to give a last hurrah to Alexander, especially since he died on his way back. That is more plausible.
I somehow don't prescribe to the view that says his name & fame reached far? It may have reached the places where he had passed or conquered. But beyond that, maybe, maybe not.
@@infinity1726no. even before you reach a destination, those areas would still know who you are. if you're a conqueror. merchants, runners, gossipers, slaves, nomads, escapees, traders. they'll speak what happened. so they know
First off The Renowned Taskhashila University, just A FEW miles away from the site of the Battle, didn't even care to write about either Porus, Alexander, or this Battle, If this Battle was indeed so big, then the University would certainly write about it, but they didn't so many people in India didn't even have a clue this battle happened b/c it was deemed "unimportant". If they didn't write about they definitely didn't think this battle had a huge effect on the Country and that's why they didn't write about it, Plus if they didn't mention Porus then how would they mention the battle. And you have to Remember King Ambi, who was enemies with Porus, was the king of Takshila, so if Alexander did beat Porus, then wouldn't you think Ambi would want to be the first to write about his enemy's loss and make it public for everyone to know? One the other hand if Porus lost, Ambi would want to hush up the news b/c he didn't want to look like an Idiot siding with Alexander and still losing against Porus.
@@anishgowda6877 Do you know something called PROPGANDA? Do you think Maurya can't do PROPOGANDA?!
@@anishgowda6877 Hadn't that university been closed for two or three centuries by that point though? (genuinley curious)
Thank you Keerthi..I was also confused when I read this narrative...But now I think I find the side which I can believe. We are used to blindly believe in Western resources but now we should rewrite our history and try to critically analyse each and every narrative.
Glad to hear that♥️
Russian historian wrote that alexander was defeated by porus and in film alexander the great the same was shown tats y he went back.
@@Keerthihistory keep going keerthi awesome narration and great information thx for the updates
@TI:24-XII-{RHODIUM} ncert jaise har desh mei hai aur bahut soch ke likhte hai
logo se jindabad murdabad karvana hai aur kaam bhi
aam admi inta aam nahi hai
@@raghavbalaji5258 what is the name of the book. Is it available in English
The "Arthashastra" by Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, is a treatise on statecraft, economics, and military strategy. This text was written in Sanskrit around the 4th century BCE.
In the "Arthashastra," Kautilya mentions Alexander in the context of discussing the strategies that Indian rulers should use to defend their kingdoms against foreign invasions. He refers to Alexander as "Sikandar," which is the Persian name for Alexander.
Kautilya describes Alexander's invasion as a major threat to the Indian subcontinent, and he analyzes the military tactics and strategies used by Alexander and his army. He also provides some advice on how Indian rulers can counteract these tactics and defend their territories.
Overall, the references to Alexander in the "Arthashastra" provide some insight into the historical context of the time and the military challenges faced by Indian rulers during this period of history.
Is that so? Ive never come across this in the Arthashastra. Would you be so kind enough as to tell us what chapter this is mentioned in?
Sikandar is not a persian term but a 6th century arab term 😂😂😂 if arthashashtra mentions the term sikandar then arthashashtra is a fake text written after 6th century😂.
one more theory... alexander was so heartbroken by the death of his favourite horse/ brother and so humbled by his defeat, that he went into deep depression and never quite came out of it. The greek historians changed the narrative so that Alexanders image did not get tarnished
He never listened to Billie ellish
It has less possibility because a person who want to conquer the world not give up so easily. Although this is not the first defeat of alexander that he could not come out of the depression.
What evidence or historical event you can show to say that the greek historians have changed the story of Alexander???
Right! A ruthless marauder who killed hundreds of thousands and saw many thousands of his own getting killed would have remained so attched to his horse that he couldn't bear the loss! Keep drinking whatever you are
Nonsense
Just found your account on Instagram and came here to see the whole video!! You've presented the information wonderfully and have gained a new subscriber! Thank you for your continuous efforts to bring our great Bharat's actual history to light!! Wishing your channel will grow soon ^^💜
Awww thank you ♥️♥️♥️
@@Keerthihistory indian sources were either destroyed by invaders or edited by them. I mean all invaders did was destruction , looting , forced Conversions , Destruction of Education institutes Gurukuls etc editing/destroying history of bharatha ☠️ but even Today our education system says they were great but our Indians kings weren't ☠️ if only Gandhi died before Independence it would have helped india alot no Gandhi = no INC = less problems and Akhand bharath ☠️ and if Gandhi died before independence india wouldn't have suffered massacres of indian tribes and indian orginated religions in between 1947 to 2014. He did alot damage then contribution to freedom as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose said Azadi hame diyinahi he Hamne lia he. This Gandhi even suppressed Netaji ji ☠️helped Britishers in WW2 and even after independence...
@@KeerthihistoryPlease make a video of the great Indian Warrior Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose❤️
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
After marching to the “end of the world”, Alexander discovered that he was only halfway there. His army had had enough and was on the verge of mutiny. To save face, he “let” King Porus keep his throne (provided he didn’t attack Alexander’s army from behind) and wearily headed back home. This seems far more likely than face saving story we were all taught. BTW the history of the “Successors”, relating how Hellenism was established is also more realistic than thinking that a string of battles could truly build a civilization. I really liked your video. I’m looking forward to more! Thank you.
The most effective way to manipulate people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.
Just found this channel. Great work. Keep it up.👍
Welcome aboard!♥️
How ironic
Yes exactly what this chanel does, manipulate
@@KeerthihistoryAlexander defeated Porus You Apsara of Chinese men.
When i was kid i used to argue with my teacher that a tyrant who killed his brothers and father,how such a man can forgive a foreign king ? Teachers always said read what is written in book and write it in exams take marksheet and sit down lol.
Thank you for your hard work for research and making this content. 🙏
Oh so Ashoka and many Gupta rulers were not a tyrant the truth is in India they were many kings who were tyrants too that you people don't want to accept and that is kings or emperors are not kind people.
@Ujjwal did he killed civilians ? Or he killed people on basis of religion ? Did he killed women and childs?
@@chanderwalia4120 Every kings or emperors have did cruel things in their life and that's why history is bias there is not such thing called anti bias in history they are for sensitive people like you, If you don't believe me fine but first go open world history about leaders all of them were cruels and they have to if they want to keep there country live because If you are weak, naive or innocent you can't become a leader and you can't make your country powerful, strong, peaceful in you country, if not there will be internal wars in kingdom and empire corrupt people will try to rule. You people really have no idea what is means to be a leader.
@@vishalautade509 Ashoka had hundred and many so called step brothers and he killed all of them for the throne, his ordered tortures inflicted on prisoners in his jail in Patliputra he was very cruel and he changed because of accepting buddhism and buddhas philosophy and after that he created the kingdom many people couldn't do in India only by Mauryas,Guptas,Mughals,British Empires. So what i am not understood tell me you stupids.
Porus’s son was killed. And he did not leave porus. He made him vassal**
what does it matter if ALEXANDER lost the battle with KIng porus? Alexander is the greatest conqueror of all times and Porus is only know in India.With all the respect to a great nation such as India, as ALEXANDER would say he stopped his campaign due to the corpus fatique and excaustion not be cause of kING Porus military skils.Alexander is a true dreamer whos srpead hellenic spirit and coultoure throught Asia and he also repsected the Asians as people of the world without looking identity and ethnocity as criterium.Modern world would be different without the Greeks reaching India and that is the true meaning of ALEXANDERS EMPIRE.Aristotele taught him well in the pylons of greek culture , HUMANIZAM, DEMOCRACY, PHILOSOPHY.
This is Indian history now. We've started writing new history based on our own perception. Though 'we don't have any record of any invasion by Alexander', yet we have an immaculate details of the army of Porus, how many soldiers, how many elephants, horses, archers, lancers, etc etc. We refute Megasthenes.
That's why megthenes condescending nature for him not to able to except defeat 😏😏
@@veerhamira162 Thank you for setting an example. This will remain a sample, who the milieu that want to rewrite history of India.
Keerthi ma'am. Please consult Dr.Chandraprakash Dwivedi on this vital issue. He did a PhD on Arya Chanakya and brought a very famous 52 episod TV serial in the 90s on Chanakya. He has explained very nicely what exactly happened....
he is very secular and more so under the influence of mohan bhagwat
No, during making of the serial he simply took the written history taught to us or rather say imposed on us by western and left wing historians.
@@chandra_himanshulol. No serial is free from imagination 🤣u must be in illusion to think they give history lesson.
Chanakya is a fictional character.. no proof..
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Simple if alexander won the battle he makes the city and named Alexandria. And also this is the last battle for alexander career, if he won the battle he built the city alexandria. And there is no historical reference about the king porus, only one is he battle against alexander Is there. And also alexander mentioned about the king porus and his son. The name is malaiyan this type of name is only used in Tamilnadu especially in chera dynasty. And alexander mentioned that his son is the ruler of the mountain region. That is also 100% correct. That name is came from only in the chera dynasty . And during that same period the chera king imayavaramban cheran (or) neduncheralathan conquered himalayas and upto Tibet and won the battle against the Greek. When he conquered towards the north he defeted Greek and makes victory against lot of indian kings. And finally he flagged the cheras flag in himalayas after Tibet. And he arrested the Greek soliders and others tonsure there head and applied the ghee and makes them to walk rounded there empire. This is the oldest punishment that was gives in that region. After the Rome and Greece government request him to release them all. And they gives lot of reparation complements like gold and diamond. After that they all are released. After 32 month later he returned to his hometown and celebrated the victorys against the himalayas and Tibet, and the poet's prises him and his victory and named him '' imayavaramban'' the meaning of imayam is himalayas in Tamil. And named him as '' vaanavaramban'' that means he makes the victory in the tallest place. In Tibet there is still the name of the mountain called vaanavaraban is there. This is mentioned in sangam Tamil literature called (pathitrupathu). And some thing is mentioned about the king porus by alexander. He was the tallest person and here the pathu paatu also mention the chera king is the tallest person. And he also had the strong elephant infantry. And the weopen used in that battle is came from chera dynasty. Chera dynasty is the greatest iron weopen manufacturers in the world during that time. And king porus gifted the nearly 15-20 kg strongest sword for alexander. And before the king chandra gupta mauryar and magatha dynasty there is no elephants calvary in North India side. So there is no doubt about the king porus (porusothaman) and the king imayavaramban cheran is same person Is. Apart from this during very first onwards there is the stronge trade relationship between Tamil, Rome and Greece. After some years they conquered the chera dynasty for second time to took revenge against cheran senguttuvan period. Same Greece indo-Greece, Aryan, kadamba all join together and battle against the king cheran senguttuvan, but the cheran senguttuvan defeted them all. And arrested them and put them as the labor in there port, they all are worked here during the senguttuvan period also and again there government request him and gives lot of reparation complement like gold and diamond and they all are sent back to there empire. And he conquer the himalayas for couple of times and won both of times. All of this is mentioned in the sangam Tamil literatures, poet . This two chera kings imayavaramban cheran and cheran senguttuvan are the greatest kings in the world. Try to sent this knowledge to your views this is history. The Greek and Persian story is false they writen 300 years after the death of Alexander. But sangam Tamil literature '' pathitrupathu'' was clearly mentioned about his victory among indian kings and Greek ect. And it was written after few months of the victory of himalayas and upto Tibet.
Whilst I agree there is definitely holes in this account. You can't deny this war happend though as there was a greek-indo civilization which lasted for over a 100 years. The language of Punjab, food & even dress proves this civilisation existed. Also remember the Mughals took over & wiped out alot of history in this region, they would of course leave some history that benefits them. We also then have the British who would have happily wiped out more Greek history to make them look like the first guys to conquer Punjab. Alexander's army spent 2 years in Modern day Pakistan Punjab & it's in the history books because it happend. Also Alexander the Great never gave back the kingdom? He simple made it a satellite state of the Greek Empire.
Awesome content di . Praying for your 10k subs.
Thanks a ton♥️
1 Million followers on instagram 😅
@@TH-camEarth Awww 🥺♥️
👍👍Thank you for this post. Must spread this info as much as possible
I went to school in Germany and even we learnt that Roman and Greek chronologists severely exaggerated their kings and their forefathers. In the end they were paid to write the king's history and glorify them. Now most learnt Europeans don't know which part of the chronicles is true and which one is lie.
Thank you for shedding light on this.
I am also from Germany. Here I learned zero was a contribution by the Arabs. Actually whole number system came originally from India. Ofcourse Arab scientists have changed the position of indian numbers
Can you please give the sources about what they taught in German schools.
@@mangopudding5979 You have to search for the text books in the 90s in Hamburg. Especially those who learn Latin at school learn a lot about the Roman history.
Ich hab es wirklich vergessen wie die Lehrwerke hießen.
😂 we Indians are really dumb and we glorified these foreign invaders and diminished our indian rulers
If so why they wrote the defeat of Leonidas from Persian? Why do they wrote defeat of Roman in parthian Empire? ? If they want to exaggerate they will just wrote victory of their kings
It was king Purushotaman who defeated Alexander in the battle of Taxila.
Alexander was keen to meet Porus who had refused to submit to him and proceeded to Jhelum (Hydaspes). The weather conditions were very unfavourable as the entire region was covered under snow. He faced great adversity but managed to cross the Jhelum and mounted an attack on Porus’ army which was stationed at the opposite bank Porus was wounded and retreated. Alexander was very impressed by his military prowess and persona and decided to reinstate Porus who then became his ally. Alexander’s victory was momentous, and he celebrated it by the founding of two cities-Nicaea and Bucephala (Map 14.1). The latter was founded after his horse Bucephalus who had died due to exhaustion following the battle. Alexander also issued a commemorative coinage at a mint in Babylon. Alexander continued his march into the Indian subcontinent and crossed the Chenab and Ravi (Acesines and Hydraotes). He defeated many principalities and fought a fierce battle with the Kathas of Panjab. The Kathas did not submit easily and fought valiantly. Alexander was able to capture Sagala, the hill fortress of Kathas and razed it to ground. Thereafter he was informed by a nearby king about the might of the Nandas, east of Beas. His information was corroborated by Porus too. Alexander wanted to proceed but his troops refused to advance. Hence, he was forced to return to Jhelum. He handed all the country between Jhelum and Beas to Porus and sailed down Jhelum for his return journey. Below the confluence of Jhelum and the Chenab, he fought his last important campaign against the Malavas (Malloi). The republican states of Malavas and Kshudrakas wished to form a confederacy against Alexander but the latter was successful in preventing Kshudrakas from joining with the Malavas. The Malavas fought bravely but were defeated. The Kshudrakas also could not stand anywhere before Alexander. It is believed that during the last days of Alexander in Babylon, Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya along with Porus attempted to unify the Punjab. Later the Mauryas established themselves by bringing a major onslaught upon the Nandas of the Ganga valley. Three years after his campaigns in India, in 324 BCE, Alexander was back at Susa in Persia. In the following year he died at Babylon. Upon being asked at his death bed as whom his empire should be bequeathed to, he supposedly replied‘ to the strongest’. Thereafter ensued a long series of struggles between his generals and governors for the control of his vast empire. The struggle among the Diadochi, the successors, was a prelude to the establishment of the Hellenistic suzerainty in the region. By 317 BCE, even the Greek outposts in India were given up.
Another loophole is that if at all the rainy season happened during war, king Porus would have gained upper hand in local climatic conditions.
How so
The contrary Happened Nitin, Indian Bows were Long Bows and to launch them it has to stick to the ground and pulled by legs . Under rainly conditions they were not able to launch and hence their majot fire power didnt worked out
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Are you serious, that was a damage for Porus because he couldn't use his war chariots and the bows with efficiency, Alexander instead had some problem with his phalanx but could be fixed, Alexander cavalry was very light instead and that's made an advantage for him against a lesser mobile opponent like Porus army
Under local climatic conditions so called mythical King Porus would have used a chariot and army that was suitable for his campaign in rainy season. Greeks were not used to Indian local climatic conditions of Punjab for sure.
All this foolish stuff is coming from Con Greek's mythological imaginary texts.
We Indians condemn such foolish mythical stories from Ionian Greeks.
Clearly explained...appreciative pronunciation, deep gathering knowledge...one should be there for india 🇮🇳
Some greek historians also revealed that alexander got defeated & he with his army ran away from battelfield,& in the way to greece,they are attacked by other tribes,which cause serious injury to alexander which lead to his death.After that greek king (Selucus Necater) take his emipre,& was defeated by Hindu King of India (Chandragupta Maurya).😊
Indeed very informative, the same reference of Alexander defeat in the hands of Porus was reported by Pakistani Historian Aitzaz Ahsan in his book Indus Saga
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
thank you didi this is in fact the truth, even Abhijit Chavda sir had given his perspective on this first
Yeah, even I got to know about this from his video only.
"No such war had taken place" could be the best possible explanation as no mention of such a big event by any contemporary Indian historian is not under records. It's really sound quite silly of not drafting an event of that stature by an Indian scholar😅
Learning so many things from u r channel madam and u became a great inspiration to our students from our Institutions in Hyderabad
Respect and love from Hyderabad
Awww thank you so much 🥺♥️🙏🏼
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
@Keerthi History Loved your work and I'm from kangra himachal pradesh which is known for its glorious past since Mahabharat period as it was named Trigarta and ruler was Susharma who fought the battle along with Kauravas against Pandvas and the old fort of Susharma is still there ...and that fort is invaded by Mahmud of Ghajni and and other rulers but was recaptured by Katochs. Their successors claims that they are originally successors of Puru or Poras who actually defeated Alexander. I really hate writing but can't stop myself from sharing. Please do research on Kangra history and make detailed video on Trigarta kingdom. 🙏
Thanks for sharing.
King Porus was from Katoch dynasty of Kangra in present day Himachal Pradesh.❤
Agree with you completely the Greek account of events is very questionable. I remember seeing a similar episode on Alexander in which they included comments of Field Marshal Zhukov. He was the Soviet general who led the Russian army against the nazis in world war 2. He says that the description of Alexander's return from India is a classic description of a defeated army in retreat. Considering the fact that Zhukov led the Russian army that chased the nazis back to Berlin he must be an expert on what a retreating army looks like. Zhukov views are available on internet in case you are interested.
Where is it?
Wow! New perspective
Let’s ask Napoleon, Hitler, the Romans and Imperial Japan why military usually retreat back to their homeland. You’ve made a great point.
From the Greek point of view they had reached the end of civilization. There was not much left to conquer past the Indus at that time. Mauryas learnt the tricks from the Greeks to establish the first Indian empire.
What I fail to understand is, if Alexander was defeated by Porus, why aren't there any records of him in Indian texts, because at least I think defeating Alexander the Great was kind of a big deal (if it really happened), and even if it was vice versa then also it should have been written because being alive even after battling Alexander the Great is again a big deal.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent. Coming to your question, the answer is Alexander's soldiers might have been fully exhausted by the time they reached Indus river. Alexander might have suffered serious injuries from previous battles. He must have left the task to Seleucus Nicator.
Thers the movie Alexander, a Hollywood movie where it was portrayed that Alexander was defeated by purushottama or porus. Hollywood movie makers do heavy research before making a movie. So it's likely that they have that Info.
And here in India in our communist literature, they wrote opposite of it. and there was a movie in Telugu, name Chanakya Chandra guptha starring NTR, Anr, Shivaji ganeshan .
Lastly , historians say that There are no geographical evidences to prove that Alexander exists at all.
BTW, you are doing great.
"historians say that There are no geographical evidences to prove that Alexander exists at all".....Ok can you plz tell which historians & what was their basis of such claim ?
@@somnathdatta6991 , Hey, could Alexander be like the modern day, Allah?
Hollywood movie makers know how to make a woke propoganda.
Rofl Hollywood movies are reliably terrible at showing history accurately . Movies are only for entertainment. Oliver Stone’s movie is based on Classicist Robin Lane Fox’s book. Honestly I admire and am fascinated by Alexander and his successes and flaws of character, but western historians would love to find anything new regarding the Indian armies of the time or bactrian forces, or even what sort (if any ) Achaemenid Persian presence existed in India. Alexander beat Porus after a hard fought battle and then quit the campaign before he knew he’d lose. What’s wrong with that? It doesn’t diminish Indian prestige at all. India is a great country with a rich and ancient history.
Tomorrow Pakistan's youtuber will start saying this India didn't win 1971 war, it's Indian narrative not us right.
The behaviour of Alexander after the event is charactistic of a defeated army. He split his column into two and retreated. One (including Alexander) fled by water and the other went back by the way they had come. Only a defeated army will split up in hostile territory and hope at least some guys can make it home.
Which teacher taught you military history
Well Alexander’s story comes into light 300 years after his death when Greek mythologist (historian) Quintus wrote Alexander’s biography. According to him in this battle Alexander was fatally wounded. There is a Hollywood movie as well on the subject based on Quintus. Alexander’s victory over Porus comes into their mythology after compiled after Quintus.
Quntos Arabe Name... Ptolemy was hitted till Athena by Ar Civilisation Kingships!!!
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent. Finally, Quintus who lived in 1st century AD might have relied heavily on these above mentioned Greek historians.
@@Bostonite1985 First thing, All the name Alexander is linked with ALM Isriyyah AL Eskandariyya and have nothing to do with Athenos Invader Ptolemy (Alexander the Great) Was Invader Ptolemy HaiyOs (Herculas)... Bacteria= B Isht Eria is a place in Afghanistan!!! So the Route has been different!!! Have the Ancient Ar Civilisation - Scriptures Tradition Tribes completely destroyed Athena Kingdom after that Invasion. Answer is Yes !!! Read History properly!!! Megasthenes = Agast Athenes !!!
@@Bostonite1985 Who is Quintus ??? Arab, Right ???
@@faisalhussainmohammed2815 ....Quintus Curtius Rufus, a Roman historian. By the way I got a message from God that Oxygen was invented by Arabs around 610.
I'll ask you all the questions that I ask my students. What do you think really happened here? Why the story? Does this mean that Alexander's soldiers' rebellion and his famous speech were a lie? Did he not even consider the conquest? Why isn't there Indian commentary on Alexander after he took Persia? If India defeated Alexander why didn't they mention it?
i always doubted that and debated many times with my history teachers that if he won why did he went back and why did he left porus alive and gave back his kingdom when he was on a mission to conquer the world.
The Katoch dynasty fought the war against Alexander. Rajnaka Paramanda Chandra was known as Porus by the Greeks. The kingdom was spread from kanga, himachal, jalandhar, punjab and was also mentioned during the Ramayana and mahabharata ( thrighata). Personally I have stayed in the current dynasty head Aditya Dev's and Chandresh Kumari's holiday home. Privileged to get access of their journal , kept for reading to guests and had a great time with my family being hosted by them. And guess what? You can book a stay at the place though various booking apps. Further, was privileged enough to be visited personally by both of them. And heard their narrative on the linage and legacy. Well....sorry to disappoint you....maharaja porus existed and famously fought the war.....further, a hughe amount of Greeks were captured and their decendents still dwell in the hills of Himachal. Sorry, won't subscribe to this Video .
Please reply op
very nice comment , you mentioned holiday home - where is it ? Porus is so fascinating for some reason. May he was the first King who thwarted a foreign invasion.
You said exactly what the video said. Her 3rd theory. So why won't you subscribe to this video's narrative?
Jat Raja tha purushottam
The Malana people youre talking about came with Selucus. Selucus was a better diplomat compared to Alexander, who fancied war more. When the greeks retreated eventually, for some reason people in the Malana hills didn't get the memo. They have stayed in himachal ever since, adapted the local culture to an extent, and interbred.
This channel deserves 10 Million Subscribers
I really liked your narration madam...Thanks for putting huge efforts in order to make people understand about our country's history...your videos are so interesting...
Thanks a lot♥️♥️♥️🙏🏼
I am totally in agreement of your third possibility.... That Alexandre would have come here and got defeated by King Puru in the battle and have had an upper hand in this battle in rainy days in local condition. Hence due to great defeat Alexandre must have turned back and died while returning due to wounds in this War.
But ionion historians kept telling lies that Alexandre defeated King Porus and came back assuming the world ended in Punjab.
Porus lost. He surrenders and became a Satrap of Alexander.
Alexander continued campaigning in India for months after the battle, conquering along the Indus River and re-establishing the old Persian Empire border.
He died three years after returning to Babylon, either from typhoid fever or malaria.
I totally disagree with Greek mythological characters... And so called fake stories seeded by Greek historians!
@@nitink15 What mythological character?
The battle of Hydaspes was a greek narrative and in this war , Alexander, who belonged to Greece was glorified by the greek historians as the ' winner ' of this war . May be due to " Greek victory" in this battle , Greek historians wanted to spread Alexander's victory . Moreover, as Porus got defeated who belonged to India , may be the Indian historians of that time didn't want to reveal this . This is what's my opinion about the truth of this war .
You are too good Keerthy.
I was always fascinated with Indian history, and felt why it was ignored so much. You have taken up to dig into it and give narrative of Indian version. Do keep it up and all the best.
Want to see many more like this.
Great efforts keep this to bring in real or close to factual history.
Don't believe Indians & Indian istorians had telling
or writing lies on Indian history in their blood that too writers of old generation unless that was forced or driven by force or economic benefits offered by foreign forces.
On the contrary most of the foreign historians cannot be trusted on this. They have/ had the habit of boosting their people and downplay our heroes.
I am very glad to find you daring & dashing videos about facts in the misled history and other topics.
Your narratives and voice modulations are pretty good. Pl keep doing the research and bring in many more such facts into light for our new generation people who only believe whatever foreigners say in any field is correct.
Hearty congratulations to you.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Yes dear ,in 1940's Sohrab modiji released a film on Alexander, Sikkander e Azam with the song jahan daal daal per sone ki chidiya chudiya karti hai basera showing that Porus had defeated Alexander, the British government did stop screening thus movie in Mumbai and hence it was released in Pune.
Later ,I think it wasreleased in Mumbai ,may be because of some court order . My father use to narrate this story about the screening of the film
If possible please see this classical movie with Prithviraj on the lead role
To understand this narattive, we need to ask the question: "Was the American withdrawal from Afghanistan a defeat?"
0:07-0:24. Actually he didn't go back. Instead he undertook what is known as the Mallian campaign. Some of the most brutal fighting took place in this campaign, post the battle of Hydaspes. He fought the Assakenoi, Oxidrakai(if I remember correctly) , Mallians etc, fierce warlike people with strong cavalry. In fact he almost got killed when besieging a citadel in this campaign. Alexander still had his core army of agrianes, mounted archers, hypaspists, companion cavalry intact and having good morale to stay undefeated in this campaign. Please consider watching the full video on the battle of Hydaspes on Kings and Generals channel. 2:10. Craterus was in command of about 8000 soldiers on the other side. He did not cross immediately. The Macedonian cavalry outflanked the Indians, and Porus tried to form a double phalanx, which led to further confusion. It was much later when Craterus crossed. By that time the battle was already weighed against Porus, Craterus crossing led to a massacre.
😂
Yes but the story of this campaign is highly dubious. Also the dividing of the army is suspicious.
@@curiouskid1547What are the basis of your suspicions? Many generals used to divide their armies.
Alexander didn't "give back" the Kingdom. He allowed him to rule as a puppet king as he did with all kings he defeated. My guess as to why there is no Indian records of Alexander's conquest of India is because most the Battles he fought in India were small skirmishers with small weaker states that either surrendered at the sight of Alexander's larger army or were easily defeated. And as we know, ancient sources almost never recorded their losses. They only recorded victories. When he was ready to advance on the Nanda Dynasty in India, the largest power in India, the scouts reported armies as large as 150,000 men estimated. 5 times the forces that Alexander had with him. Alexander also received heavy casualties again in India fighting a city that gave him an even harder fight than Porus. Alexander was so upset that instead of letting the king rule this city, he burned this city to the ground. It was clear the heavy losses were finally getting to not only his army but getting Alexander frustrated as well, but he wanted to still press on. His men however were not for it. They wanted to go back ro Greece. Realizing he had lost his army, Alexander reluctantly goes back sending his army on a death march through the deserts of Persian, taking the most dangerous route and losing a large portion of the army during the retreat out of India.
Beti - Powerful presentation. My pranams to your parents who gave birth to you......
Good work... Much appreciated 👏👏👏
It's time to rewrite proper history...
Definitely♥️
King Porus lost a war to Alexander but he was praised for his bravery and courage and gave the kingdom to him to rule under him and gave other Villages and places to him
Maybe Indian Historians wrote it but lost it is option
Much of India's history was buried along with Nalanda university. Also Selucus Nicator is actually mentioned in Mauryan history. It is true that history can be covered with deceit ,but here it's Alexander we are talking about. So ye we haven't been fooled
Sister make video on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
I wish every Indian should be aware of his sacrifices and contribution in the freedom struggle.
He's the one who played the major role.
Hope you'll take my request into consideration.
BTW, keep up the good work.😄
You are the icon of Bharat the people of Bharat will very much thanks to you.we very proud of you ❤❤👌👌👌🙏🙏🙏🙏🎉🎉🎉
keerthi, mark my words. your gateway to 1 million subscribers is not so far.
i subscribed.
lots of blessings and love from Assam.
you are truly a gem and an eyeopener in learning our own culture better.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
I started getting doubts when we were taught this, since Porus is not an Indian name, so how does all fit in, something questionable, or creativity of the greek historians.
Exactly! Porus sounds a lot like Greek name!
@@Keerthihistory yup, agreed!
Porus is Persian name
Mam.. it's very interesting..to know and think of what really is history..and if the history is history......
Aleksander the legend from north Macedonia 🇲🇰 Killed the middle east and he won the biggest battle in history vs Persia and lose from India is not possible i know that Persia where week but is not possible to lose from a smaller kingdom
He most likely lost that's why he went back.
That's a weak argument, first of all.
We aren't claiming he lost, we are just asking where are the local sources? It's nearly impossible for such an invasion to take place and no scholars write about it. Just asking no claiming.
I appreciate your take on this. I also feel the Romans handled the story of Hannibal a similar way, with his alleged defeat to Scipio.
Thank you for bring this story to light. I am so happy that the truth is finally out in a language we all can understand. Just as a fyi I am have also checked with Bard ai which also supports your findings.
According to my guess and understanding.
As per I saw and read about it, I think Ambi, the king was allied with Alexander, not because of fear of death, but due to internal issues with King Porus. And the records of that part of India was obviously be kept on Taxila University, because it was the nearby place for scholars and libraries.
King porus must have won the battle, and atleast enough to force Alexander to step back. Because as I know about ancient Indian war elephants, they were trained against such counter attacks, they never March on their army till they made mentally mad by some poison. Also they have sword attach to their trunk, and it cuts subodh who comes to attack on legs and belly.
Also the Alexander was so determined and mad for the world conquest that he even personally didn't care of his own land and keep catching more, also brutally killed the old ruler of Persia, kill all other potential warrior and marry kings daughter also. It's impossible that he turn around by seeing a brave warrior, he must had killed porus if this was really happened.
So the king porus force Alexander to backfoot and was proved victorious. But as the king ambi was against porus, he didn't allow texila to mention King porus anywhere.
There was not and major mention earlier also because those 4-5 small kingdoms were nearby and were friendly too, they may even seen as one by the outsiders...
Now, after that, when Selucus came, Chanakya went to Magadh in search for a great king, and when the ambition of the Great Mauryan Empire was to defeat Selucus Nikator, then how it can be missed in history.
And talking about Greeks, they were really good at history. They may be biased but were not Liar. So probability that nothing like that happen is 0 for me.
The war could have happened.He belonged to lineage of Pururavas(son of Yayati and husband of urvashi). Porus real name was Purushottam/Pururavas. Purush was later turned into porus. He was from the clan of Chandravanshi. He belonged to the bloodline of Vedic lineage.Even Rajaraja chola defeated a Yayati king.
No proof for this
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
@@Bostonite1985 Alexander died in India
@@Bostonite1985 Alexander was not that great
So I saw a comment saying that there were Persian and Chinese records of this war saying that Alexander was defeated by King porus. Many of the universities were invaded by invaders at that time. The accounts might be there in takshashila but controllers of takshashila that time might have send it to Nalanda University and the books might be burnt when invaded by Bahktiyar khilji.
I am just in 6th class it's just one of my opinion.
Taxila itself was burned by the Alchon Huns under their ruler Toramana...
Thank you for telling the truth. Alexander might had won this battle but the resistance given by king Pouras was so fierceful that Alexander could not proceed further. This was the real fact.
Ur contradicting urself here..
He surely Did.
Even our Government acknowledged this
@@rampmahe4298 not necessarily. Agar resistance bohot fierce he aur army thaki hui then it won't turn out good . And king probably had more armies . Agar ek har gai to wo dusri gather kar sakta he in some amount of time
Alexander lost with a pound of prejuidice.
Mam , this is the first time i have heard this from a person from southern state. I really admire your findings and salute you. Only people like you can stop the so called historians, who are hell bent on creating north south division. Please do more to stop them in their mission and our BHARAT will be world leader again
As per Buddhist monuments and coins found in Taxila currently in museums, In that war there was no defeat but had heavy casualties on both sides. King Porus was appreciated by Alexander the Great and they had mutual treaty. When Alexander returning through Persian gulf fall sick from injuries and later died. King Porus was attacked by other rebels and later killed but King C Mourya later was able to recover all territories of Punjab, Afghanistan and Sindh. Alexander and its army journals also had wife’s in that region and till date that DNA can be traced in modern day Pakistan, Iran and in North Indians.
It’s very valuable information love u mam ❤
Thanks a lot♥️🙏🏼
Keerthi- we have been taught wrong history and it is embedded in millions of our minds for generations . thank you for clarifying this. but it is really unfortunate people in our generation do not even know the real truth of History
Can there be movement to correct books at state and Central board schools ? I wish so !
Jai Hind
Correct history, you mean indian propaganda. She doesnt even clarify that in thi same area there were hellenistic kingdoms during diadochi wars that also crashed india. So tell me, how an entire culture and civilization from hundrends of kms away went there, created kingdoms and deafeated the same indians who killed alexander? Ok keep believing in that crap. Its very bad to change history because you were just left heartbroken
In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, the great Russian general Georgy Zhukov said that Alexander's actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest that he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov's view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. General Zhukov was the Russian commander who captured the east Germany after defeating Hitler's army. He is absolutely right because Alexander was surrounded by the son of Porus Malayketu and his men and in the fierce fight that ensued, Alexander's beloved horse Busephalos was killed, Alexander fell to the ground but a determined fight by the Greek soldiers saved his life. He was later killed by the Khokhar tribe on way to Persia. So widespread was the news of Alexander's defeat that all through his retreat his convoy was repeatedly attacked by Indian chieftains that he had defeated on his way in, and a lot of the loot that he was carrying with him from Iran was looted. Alexander died in India in an area which is now part of Pakistan. It was a broken rag-tag army that returned to Macedonia.
A communist military general is not source of history
@@neutralboi1984If Alexandros was defeated he wouldn't have kept attacking the land. Porus wouldn't have come to help the Greeks at Sagalla if he wasn't obligated to do so.
@@Euro.PatriotI am not saying alexander was defeated. I am saying he won and the OP shouldn't take Zhukov as source of history
@@neutralboi1984 I know.
Actually king Porus son attacked Alexander and killed his horse, during that Alexander fell down on ground and his bodyguard took Alexander to his camp. So neither Porus son got killed nor king Porus got defeated, its all story. and That's why Alexander might have made a treaty with Porus .
Great video and very well explained. Loved your presentation. ❤❤
Thank you so much!♥️
Also small tribes of Afghanistan area looted and killed large no of Greeks returning back in small groups....why so....because they were beaten and shattered....Alexander did no truce or nominated Porus or Ambhi as his chancellor or so ....why ? Because he was beaten and told his historians to change history
Thank you a lot mam because of you i am geting very intrest on history about bharat every day. From beging i was intrested in histroy now i am very eegar to be an historian
Awww thank you 🥰♥️🙏🏼
@Keerthi History People are misusing your channel to spread information on about crypto/stock trading. Please see the post by Andrew Livesay about $32,000 profit every werk.
I'm not sure but this might be a scam.
Please check if you can delete that entire thread or block the user from posting such messages in your videos.
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
Vanakam Keerthi ma'am.... keep on spreading factual/true indian history........
and bust the biased history
Best of luck 👍🏼👍🏻👍❤️
For sure♥️🙏🏼
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
The reality is that this war happened and king Porus (Puroshtam chand katoch) defeated Alaxendar vary badly and he died going back home and they preserved his body in honey until they reached.
The King porus was direct descendant of Susarma chand of Trigarta (Present Kangra and parts of Punjab) he belong to Rajput Katoch dynasty and currently king Aishwarya chand Katoch is the the 589th king. During Mahabhart era Durodhyans wife was from this dynasty and Susarma chand fought against Pandavas during Mahabharat war.
😂😂
bro is making his own hisotry
@@AK-er5rl I belong to the same area and same bloodline..we have the entire vanshavali of alst 5000 years and last year greek ambassador met his majesty.
Namasthe Keerthi, iam Madhu Krishan from Kottayam, Kerala. What I heard about this battle is Alexandra entered ghandhaara and stopped their by seeing huge army of magadha dynast. Their where around 300,000 army personnels including the elephant Calvary. This is the first time Alexander seeing such a huge army. He is not dare enough to fight with such a huge army with elephants. So he realised his defeat and went back. If u have any idea then please comment.
appreciate your efforts so much depth in the video and this is the need for our youth to learn real history and regain the glory of our country keep it up sister.
Thank you so much 🥺♥️🙏🏼
Holes
And holes and loop holes
Inside each and every
Valour story of foreigners
But
Demeaning the valour of
Bharatiya Warriors 4:48
HISTORY IS BEING REWRITTEN ABOUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU KEERTHIJI 🌹. 👍❤️🙏🕉️🙏❤️👍
Truth is already written it just doesn't fit ur narrative
@@markcapili4859 Maybe you don't realize that history is always written by victors. What every person learns has a certain amount of bias.
@@MudithV how ironic . now u are trying to rewrite history
Thank you Keerthi,,,, It seems most of medieval records must have been destroyed by later invedors just like Nalanda and than distorted by British
and Keerthi has been searching for a month...
As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.
When were the Greek accounts written? The Greeks were probably interested in writing for their audience rather than the truth. Writing fiction of a battle that never happened and kingdoms never won. Just like many western writings, the authors probably thought that India was too far and nobody would ever go check.
Arrian wrote it lol i would rather believe in Greek historian rather than Bias Indian lady on youtube
Thanks for bringing real historical things to this generation . Appreciate your efforts.keep it up.
Osm 💥💥
♥️🙏🏼
2:45 "Alexander was on a mission to conquer the world." A lot of people assume this but we don't know if it was true. Even for Alexander this would have taken a very long time, even with the parts of the world he knew of. He knew that there were lands to the West as well, since Greeks had already gone to what's now France.
Maybe alexander was on a mission to conquer Persia. After sending scouts to India turned around and went home.
Well explained video on topic 👍
Glad you liked it!♥️🙏🏼
May b records where there in thakshasila & nalandha,about Alexander defeted by poras,bt after the mughal invaders,those records might have burned in to ashes.
That is a possibility..... you are right
You say that there is no record that Porus or Purushothaman or whatever existed at all and in the end while listing the possibility you say that Porus (who didn't exist) might have defeated Alexander and killed the horse of Alexander.
Atleast one person going on with facts.. appreciate your 👍
Thank you ♥️🙏🏼
👍🏿👍🏼👍🏾
After defeating porous alexander gave him back his territory because of braveness of porous. After giving back his territory alexander didn't stopped he advanced his army towards Eastside side of india he came to Punjab's beas river and he again met a small king named king Saubhuti. King Saubhuti surrendered infront of alexander. After defeating king Saubhuti his soldiers learnt that there is another empire over the mountain. Alexander's army was already exhausted and tired because they came all the way from Greece to india. Alexander's officers convinced him to return back and he did it. While going back he appointed some governors over there. Selecus nicator later ruled Pakistan and Afghanistan after the death of alexander the great but only till chandragupta maurya defeated him
Your talking rubbish.
Maurya is 1500 bc
There is Pakistan Afghanistan these are artificial Muslim Terrorist states.
Such a great history I've never heard or taught before. Thank you so much for this .
Dear sister, you are bringing back honour tu us, thanks from the depths of my heart.
I understand Sister's emotions..She won't let any Indian Kings defeated by any foreign soldiers but we must accept the harsh truth sometimes and have a lesson from them...There's no glory but only foolishness to try to change history according to our ego..We should only focus on the future and try to develop India as one of the superpower of the world together.
"Harsh truth sometimes" 😂😂😂
You were always conquered by foreigners like the Mughals and the British, stop saying bullshits
@@stefanogagliano6067 Greeks gifted their King's daughter to an Indian king after getting brutally defeated.
@@extreme4642you can't explain to a stupid he ignore the point they defeated because they made each other fight
We are not being jealous, nor we are defying the truth. We are simply asking questions, it's true all the history is written using greek records only.
And though it's not worth claiming that "we won", we can atleast ask the question, "did we even lost?" And "why are there no record?"
Excellent research. You are enlightened us.
Keep it up Keerthi. You are a true Patriot 🙏