One of the major factors that hinders research on our ancient past is the complete lack of texts, or manuscripts. Our past, largely, depends on oral traditions, which with time become coloured. Where just one point of view exists, we, increasingly, see a nationalistic streak at play.

A lot of readers wish to understand the role of Lahore’s army in the decisive battle against the Greek invader Alexander the Great. Mind you that was over 2,347 years ago. What were the set of circumstances that led to Alexander ‘escaping’ down our rivers and what was the role of Porus in assisting in this ‘retreat’? In two earlier pieces we had explored the manner in which the history of Alexander and Porus has been described. In this piece we will explore the probable common sense manner in which events unfolded. In a way an algorithmic probability based on acceptable ‘facts’, and mind you these facts have been presented by Greek and western scholars using academic referencing. The other side has nothing in terms of describing its past.

Before we examine Greek and European sources for this episode, let us examine the Indian scenario. The oldest written book in the entire sub-continent is the Rig Veda in Vedic Sanskrit, a language that evolved out of the spoken languages of Pakistan’s Punjab and KPK with Prakrit (meaning original) and Old Punjabi as its base. Prakrit evolved into Hindko and Punjabi gathered Persian and other influences to its present form. That being the case no written history, even 1,000 years after the events of Porus and Alexander, existed in the sub-continent. That is our starting point.

On the other side we know that accompanying Alexander were Aristobulus and Nearchus who seem to praise Porus equally, while we have Arrian’s report ‘Anabasis’, based on descriptions – suspect at best - provided by those who managed to return to Greece. Even that was written almost 500 years after the event took place. The same is true of other historians like Plutarch in AD 119 and Diodorus in 21 BC. So in a sense even these descriptions are based on oral traditions, which by their very nature present positive outcomes for the Greeks.

So all the descriptions about Alexander and his alleged victory against Porus are primarily western oral-based descriptions. Mind you this prevailed because no competing description existed on the other side. Vedic Sanskrit existed before Alexander came for we know of Panini’s book of grammar ‘Astadhyayi’ produced in approximately 400 BC. But then the language faded away by 500 AD. Even this being the case no book about this event exists.

The mixed army of Greeks, Caucasian, Persian and Indian forces of the traitor King Ambhi of Potohar who was promised Porus’s kingdom in return for support, made up the army of Alexandros III of Makedonia facing the Paurava Puru (changed to Porus by the Greeks) known as Purushotama, in May, 326 BC on the banks of the River Jhelum. The location is near the present day city of Jhelum, most probably near Jalalpur. Some sources place it opposite the ancient city of Bhera on the other side of the river.

Greek sources claim that unlike earlier opposition forces experienced by the Greeks, the opposing Punjabi Jat Rajput forces refused to retreat, instead they repeatedly attacked and counter-attacked the invaders. Greek sources all claimed that Alexander for the first time faced defeat. They claim that every Greek attack was met by a fierce counter-attack. Then, suddenly, we see from numerous descriptions a change in the descriptions. They claim Alexander won and praised Porus and allowed him to maintain his army and rule over his kingdom. That is the strangest thing to do given his ruthless adventures and battles before he reached the River Jhelum. Mind you before reaching Punjab in Waziristan they had met the smaller almost suicidal Pathan forces.

The Battle of the Hydaspes, as all the Greek ‘historians’ claim, was the closest Alexander ever came to losing. I do not wish to be quoted as a Pakistani nationalist, but it does make sense that they settled for a peaceful draw. We must ask ourselves just do these events justify a ‘victory’ claim, especially since beyond Porus’s kingdom lay an even more powerful kingdom of Lahore with solid support from five other larger kingdoms having a combined army of over 200,000 foot soldiers, 80,000 horsemen, 8,000 chariots with archers, and 6,000 battle elephants.

Our algorithm suggests that the Greek generals and soldiers immediately realised that even a 20,000 cavalry attack would decimate them, let alone a massive army the likes of which they had never faced. Hence they revolted and ran. They bypassed Lahore and headed back home. We know from what is considered the most authentic history ‘Anabasis of Alexander’ by the Greek historian Arrianos of Nikomedia (89 AD–160 AD), almost 500 years after the event, that even Porus escaped back to his capital on the Jhelum.

There he planned the escape of Alexander back to Greece via Egypt and sent along his most trusted Mohyal Rajput Dutt forces to guard Alexander from his own men. The question is does this portray the end of a victorious army, or does it portray a defeated army saved by a Rajput ruler to whom honour was more important.

Mind you the Mohyal Rajputs stayed on in Arabia and on the request of our Prophet (PBUH) seven of them were killed in Karbala. Their names are inscribed in a monument to the Martyrs’ of Karbala in Qom, Iran. The Indian acting family of Dutts are direct descendants of what are known as Husseini Brahmins.

But what about the Puru of Lahore? He returned and was responsible for the first known expansion of the old mud-walled city. His expansion of his forces led to the army of Lahore always having influence beyond its border.

Among the alleged genuine sources quoted by Greek and western scholars was Alexander’s personal campaign historian Kallisthenes (360-327 BC) who provided written scripts about earlier campaigns. But by the time the Battle of the Hydaspes took place he had died. Yet he remains the most quoted. Here we see two Greek generals, Soter and Nearchos, provide descriptions of the battle. Those most authentic descriptions were written for Chandragupta Maurya by Megasthenes in approximately 290 BC, or 36 years after the event. It is entirely based on Greek oral descriptions.

The combined Porus and Alexander forces surely provided a few problems for the Puru of Lahore, who sought help from his eastern cousins and withdrew. At Sialkot where the Greek forces reached only to revolt, a Greek general took over and became the ruler. Another Greek general Eudemus managed to murder Porus. It is a story of complete confusion.

But then it goes without saying that Greek influence did permeate the lives of the people of today’s northern Pakistan. Just what did the Greeks see before they revolted? Of the six Purus the combined force was led by the Nandas of Magadh with the world’s largest and most powerful army.

In an earlier piece I had mentioned the works on this subject by Irfan Habib and Vivekanand Jha’s classic ‘Mauruan India’. This is also mentioned in Romila Thapar’s classic ‘Asoka’. But the reason clearly given is in Eugene Borza’s investigative classic ‘Alexander’.

As Alexander headed southwards at Sangala the local ruler decimated his cavalry. “Dead horses lay all around” writes Plutarch. At Multan archers pierced the breastplate of Alexander. Defeated and on the run, this ‘great’ Greek died in Iraq, only for his body to be stolen and taken to Alexandra.