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.
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.
But what does Alexander's army do it retreats out of India scared to go any further, something doesn't seem right here. He also leaves through a
desert route out of India, why?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
Im just saying we are getting only one side of the story and their was propoganda even back then.
[edit on 8-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]
And here's what I'm just saying, ShadowXIX:
One side of the story? Huh? You kight want to try again ShadowXIX. Indian sources can be and were provided, to your lack of acknowledgement or
recognition of. Btw, see any verification above to your insistance that Alexander lost that battle with Por?!
To be quite forward about this ShadowXIX, the very same can be said for your vaunted Genghis Khan? For everyone! "We are only getting one side of
Whats further amazing is how you keep chiming "only one side of the story"
but have yet to recognize that also these accounts are from
multiple upon mulitple varied sources. Alexander the Great is one of the most scholarly researched and studied individual's in military history, if
not History, itself, ShadowXIX, even more so than Genghis Khan! In all my checking last night, I found ONE
minimally and questionable source
indicating what you have said and mentioned and with only ONE
reference to back what it was claiming, and on verifying that ONE
source, guess what? Did not come anywhere close to backing your and it's assertion and claim.
Your skepticism is noted and despite the validity of "numbers" to your satisfaction, History is based on eye-witness accounts and other historical
writings from that or around that time period. You not liking that, your debating that, without doing your own crossreferencing and research, amounts
to adhereing to the priciples and standards of Historical Revisionism
! Certainly your not a proponent of historical revisionism, are you?
Whether it was 80 Macedonian men killed or 5000, the simple point that history agrees on, based on the eye-witness and historical accounts from and
around that age, was that Por
lost, was defeated
, was captured, had a conversation with Alexander, and was subjugated! You can continue
to profess "loopsided" battles and such till your bloody heart is content, but as an active historical research assistant, you are and were in error
here and will continue to be so, till you provided more credible sourcing to contradict those institutions of Oxford and Harvard and Chicago, and
other highly prestigeous authors and historians that spent more years researching and studying all
historical accounts on Alexander than you
probably have been alive, and longer!
You want to contest such, you want to argue against, you want to belittle and whine "loop-sided" battles and "amazing victories," then please
start producing some serious verifiable, historical sourcings that substantiate your continued efforts to deny that you were wrong and are wrong, k?
[edit on 8-2-2005 by Seekerof]