Which was the Greatest Fighting force ever, Romans, Greeks,Mongols, Or the present USA., page 3

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
" 20,000 Indian infantry and 3,000 cavalry were killed " and Alexander only lost 80 men how can people believe accounts like that.

I suspect people in the future will not beleive the kill ratios for the US in somalia.

A greek soldier in a phalanx is very well protected. The indian infantry was not encased in hardened armour like the greek. I'm not saying those numbers are accurate or not, but there can and infact should be a very wide disparity between indian and alexandrian casualties. This shows that when there are high greek casualties, that the indians did an especially good job.

Look at Alexanders actions after such a ''amazing victory'', you would think such a lopsided battle would would have only made his men eager to fight on against such a weak enemy.

Also, its very important to note that there aren't really indian sources from teh kingdoms that fought alexander that proclaim a victory. For example, the Egyptians and Hittites fought a major battle in the levant. It was effectively a draw. The egyptian account tells of a smashing victory. The HIttite account does too. Here, the greek account reports a victory, there are no indian accounts of victory, or of being ready to smash a retreating alexandrian army, or anything like that. The 'alexander lost' idea is something that only comes out of modern indian scholars.

But what does Alexander's army do it retreats out of India scared to go any further, something doesn't seem right here.

They're practically on the other side of the globe in an enviroment that'd be like beign on anoher planet to them and had long since defeated their actual enemy the persians and hunted down the Great King. Heck they'd conquered swaths of central asia in between destroying persia and invading india. They also apparently thought that the caspian was a bay of the world Ocean, meaning that they had at least expected to be at the end of the world, so to speak.

That is not clear was he on the run or did he fear that his diminish army could be attacked by kings he defeated on the way in.

Doubtful, the desert killed more of his soldiers that that would've. Those kings had already been defeated and paid tribute and remain a part of the system after wards no?

Im just saying we are getting only one side of the story and their was propoganda even back then.
Certainly. Heck Alexander supposedly had huge horse sadles built and buried, so that people would think his men had been giants.

amuk
A Good example for a Great Army with a great General would be Rommel in North Africa.

Why? He lost in the end, and apparently it was because of poor generalship.

An Example of a poorly equipped, trained and armed army lead by a Great General was the Southern Army lead by Robert E Lee

Perhaps this illustrates your point. THe confederacy was defeated, even tho the union had its generalship and command changed constantly.Lee was a better general than, say, Sherman, even tho Sherman's side ultimately won and Lee's side was defeated. The army, outside of its wider context, isn't overwhelmingly influential on its ultimate victories, which is certianly counter-intuitive. Thus, italians armed with long knives defeat masses of armoured greeks with 15 foot spears or hordes of germans.

seekerof
The elephants once blinded and their trunks cut by swords were as much of a danger to Porus' forces as the Macedonians.

This is why elephants never replaced horses for cavalry. They simply aren't good animals for war.