Oops! It appears that you have disabled your Javascript. In order for you to see this page as it is meant to appear, we ask that you please re-enable your Javascript!

Failed Indian invasion by Alexander of Macedon

Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganized East. But according to Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia.

~  Rakesh Krishnan Simha

In 326 BCE a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander of Macedon it comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.

Marshal Gregory Zhukov

Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.

Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete.

In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.

Zhukov’s view of Alexander

In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.

So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.

Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum)

No easy victories

Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine.

The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India. On the first day after bitter fighting the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself was seriously wounded in the ankle. On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.

Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called for a truce. The Assakenoi agreed; the old queen was too trusting. That night when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora.

However, the fierce resistance put up by the Indian defenders had reduced the strength – and perhaps the confidence – of the until then all-conquering Macedonian army.

Faceoff at the river

In his entire conquering career Alexander’s hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus of Paurava, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek accounts as standing seven feet tall.

In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle. The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry were bolstered by the Indian king Ambhi, who was Porus’s rival. Ambhi was the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Taxila and had offered to help Alexander on condition he would be given Porus’s kingdom.

Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy strength.

According to Greek sources, for several days the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry.

Another terrible weapon in the Indians’ armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier.

Indians strike

Alexander and Porus

The battle was savagely fought. As the volleys of heavy arrows from the long Indian bows scythed into the enemy’s formations, the first wave of war elephants waded into the Macedonian phalanx that was bristling with 17-feet long sarissas. Some of the animals got impaled in the process. Then a second wave of these mighty beasts rushed into the gap created by the first, either trampling the Macedonian soldiers or grabbing them by their trunks and presenting them up for the mounted Indian soldiers to cut or spear them. It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders. As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap.

In the first charge, by the Indians, Porus’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount. This was a big deal. In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king’s body, let alone slay his mount. Yet in this battle Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon, they also killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.

According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king.

Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks, when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Porus’s army “rallied and kept resisting the Macedonians with unsurpassed bravery”.

Macedonians: Shaken, not stirred

Although the Greeks claim victory, the fanatical resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of Alexander’s army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny.

Says Plutarch: “The combat with Porus took the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000 horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander’s design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes of enemies.”

The Greek historian says after the battle with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled Macedonians panicked when they received information further from Punjab lay places “where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture, where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature and courage”.

Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most powerful and largest standing armies in the world. According to Plutarch, the courage of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”. Undoubtedly, Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse.

Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland, Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers.

Alexander on deathbed

Partisans counterattack

The celebrations were premature. On its way south towards the sea, Alexander’s army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms.

In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.

Says Military History magazine: “Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”

Alexander never recovered and died in Babylon (modern Iraq) at the age of 33.

Alexander vs Porus: Beyond the fog of war

After defeating Persia in the year 334 BCE, Alexander of Macedon was irresistibly drawn towards the great Indian landmass. However, the Persians warned him the country was no easy target; that several famous conquerors had fallen at the gates of India.

The Persians told him how their greatest king, Cyrus, who had conquered much of the civilised world, had been killed in a battle with Indian soldiers exactly two centuries before Alexander.

And in an earlier antiquity, the Assyrian queen Semiramis, who had crossed the Indus with 400,000 highly trained troops, escaped with just 20 troops, the rest being slaughtered by the Indians.

In his book, Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Krishna Chandra Sagar says 150 years before Alexander, Indian archers and cavalry formed a significant component of the Persian army and played a key role in subduing Thebes in central Greece.

Alexander, however, knew no fear. More than anything else, he wanted to invade India. It would prove to be a strategic blunder.

Napoleon's retreat from Moscow
Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow

Zhukov’s take

“Following Alexander’s failure to gain a position in India and the defeat of his successor Seleucus Nikator, relationships between the Indians and the Greeks and the Romans later, was mainly through trade and diplomacy. Also the Greeks and other ancient peoples did not see themselves as in any way superior, only different.”

This statement by Russia’s Marshal Gregory Zhukov on the Macedonian invasion of India in 326 BCE is significant because unlike the prejudiced colonial and Western historians, the Greeks and later Romans viewed Indians differently. For instance, Arrian writes in Alexander Anabasis that the Indians were the noblest among all Asians.

In fact, Arrian and other Greeks say the Indians were relentless in their attacks on the invaders. They say if the people of Punjab and Sindh were fierce, then in the eastern part of India “the men were superior in stature and courage”.

All this is glossed over by Western historians, in whose view the one victory over king Porus amounted to the “conquest of India”. But the Greeks made no such claim.

Battle of Hydaspes – Hardest ever

Greek contemporary writers describe the Battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) as the hardest fought of all Alexander’s battles. Frank Lee Holt, a professor of ancient history at the University of Houston, writes in his book, Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions: “The only reference in Arrian’s history to a victory celebration by Alexander’s army was after the battle with Porus.”

Alexander’s army did not indulge in celebrations after the Battle of Gaugamela where they defeated 200,000 Persians. No wild festivities were announced after the Battle of Issus where they defeated a mixed force of Persian cavalry and Greek mercenaries.

The fact they celebrated after the Battle of Hydaspes suggests they considered themselves extremely lucky to survive after the clash with the Hindu army, with its elephant corps.

Alexander's Troops wanting to return home
Alexander’s Troops wanting to return home

If Porus lost, why reward him?

According to the Greeks, Alexander was apparently so impressed by Porus he gave back his kingdom plus the territories of king Ambhi of Taxila who had fought alongside the Macedonians.

This is counterintuitive. Ambhi had become Alexander’s ally on the condition he would be given Porus’ kingdom. So why reward the enemy, whose army had just mauled the Macedonians?

The only possible answer is at the Battle of Hydaspes, the Macedonians realised they were dealing with an enemy of uncommon valour. Sensing defeat they called for a truce, which Porus accepted. The Indian king struck a bargain – in return for Ambhi’s territories, which would secure his frontiers, Porus would assist the Macedonians in leaving India safely.

Alexander’s post-Hydaspes charitable behaviour, as per Greek accounts, is uncharacteristic and unlikely. For, in battles before and after, he massacred everyone in the cities he subdued.

Why pay off a vassal?

Before the battle, Alexander gave king Ambhi 1000 talents (25,000 kilos) of gold for fighting alongside the Macedonians. The only explanation is Ambhi was driving a hard bargain. He knew the rattled Macedonian army was seeking to quickly exit India. He thought he could use the Macedonians to remove his rival Porus. However, Porus’ decision to offer Alexander combat checkmated those plans.

Tired of fighting: Lame excuse


Greek sources say Alexander retreated from India because his soldiers were weary, homesick and close to mutiny. Imagine if German soldiers had told Hitler they were tired of fighting? They would have been summarily shot. In Alexander’s time, the punishment was crucifixion.

The Macedonian army had a system of rotation where large batches of veteran soldiers were released to return home (with sufficient gold and slaves). In their place, fresh troops eager poured in from Europe.

If they were weary of constant warring, it is inexplicable why these soldiers chose to fight their way through obstinately hostile Indian territories. The homesick soldiers would have preferred the garrisoned northwestern route they took while coming in. Why would a brilliant commander subject himself and his troops to further violence when all they wanted was a peaceful passage home?

Clearly, the Macedonians were in a mess and not thinking straight. Not the sign of a victorious army.

Need for glory

David J. Lonsdale, a lecturer in Strategic Studies at the University of Hull, writes: “Alexander’s invasion of India and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 both appear reckless and unnecessary from a strategic perspective. Therefore, perhaps they can both be explained by the sheer naked ambition of the two commanders.”

Alexander’s tragedy was he was in a Catch-22 situation. The Macedonians and Greeks welcomed the wealth from the conquered lands, but the man who ensured this flow was persona non grata.

In Greek eyes a Macedonian was hardly an equal. The Greeks hated Alexander for sacking their cities and enslaving their people. In his own country, he was an outsider for being half-Albanian, from his mother’s side. The common people suspected him of murdering his father.

So in order to retain the loyalty of his troops, Alexander had to wage constant war while also taking great personal risks in battle. For, he could not be seen as weak, let alone beaten.

A few years before the Indian campaign, a large part of the Macedonian army was massacred by the Scythians (Hindu Shakas, the Buddha’s clansmen) at Polytimetus, present day Tajikistan. Alexander warned his surviving troops not to discuss the massacre with other soldiers.

Strabo, the Greek historian wrote: “Generally speaking, the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars…Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander.”



Click here to post a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • The historians in general are never truthful The elephant corps which is unique to India has not been propeeese traveller Zhao Raguarly analysed. The elephant corps is particularly famous in Punjab/Rajasthan/Deccan/Tamilnadu/Srilanka. There has been a port at the entry of Jaffna Peninsula ANAI IRAVU THURAI meaning in Tamil as place where elephants landed The Gangs King Sivamara wrote a treatise on Gaja sastra.The Cholas kings famed themselves as KUNJARA MALLAN and all the Cholas kings as per Chinnese traveler Zhao Ragua charged in the forefront of the battle in elephants The Cholas inscriptions eloquently speaks about the places PANCHAPALLI/NANMANIKOTTAM/MADURAMANDALAM as possessing the fiercest archers and one of the Cholas princes broke the BOW WHICH WAS LONG FROM EAR TO TOE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO DESCRIPTION OF PUNJAB WARRIORS OF GREEK. The Cholas army had specialized archers known as VILLIS formed separate battalion.The Cholas during the conquest of Ceylon and Ganges transported huge baTtallions of elephant corps across sea/rivers. The mute point is how is that the THE BATTALION OF ARCHERS AND ELEPHANT CORPS SUDDENLY DISAPPEARED?

  • Very interesting account, I too have read and recently visited Pella in Greece having becoming fascinated with alexander the great. I have read a couple of books about him. I have an interest in his india campaign, but unfortunately his indian campaign written in books by western authors have seem baised and simply don’t add up. Reading your article has cleared this murky area, and is well worth further investigation. He NEVER conquered india, and had to retreat.

  • First of all I do not understand why you call him Alexander the Great, tell me one great thing he did for his people….? Everybody is aware that he was kicked on his back and he had to retreat.

  • I would like to believe that Alexander was defeated in India and turned back but no Indian historian has ever written an account of that battle saying that Alexander was defeated. In this respect, Greeks were meticulous. Of course the question arises, if Alexander won, why did he turn back? why did he not go further.
    There are no easy answers. Only speculations.

    • Yes because there was so much to write that India historians didn’t gave a s’hit about a little skirmish because it was too insignificant. Probably he was defeated too early, that nobody gave a rats eye about it.

  • alex gave ambhi land to porus after hed feated porus…ally’s to enemy? hahaah comedy….hai kya..I ahd rasied this atleast ayear ago….the only victories alex scored was was sleeping soldiers…woemn who cud not like….since idnian soldeirs never fought in the bight…nor inside villages cities…This shud termed as introdcution adharma and barbarianism to India..and how India defended itself from these buthcers of mankind…

  • This should be termed as Introductin of barberianism to India by greeks and opw India defended and taught Greeks to be human and kind.

  • How come you did not cover Chankya and his great warrior Chandra Gupt.
    They played a different trick of breaking the morale of Alexander’s army and also led them to disease of plague. Alexander lost of his life just after leaving India

  • Hi Mr Simran, Excellent article, highlights something I thought was true but couldn’t cite. I would request you to share the bibliography and citations for this article.
    Thanks already!

  • Alexander established the lost contact of Vedic India with the Greeks. The Greeks are the descendants of Garga muni and Pulindas who left before Mahabharat War and settled on the coast of Aegean Sea and Greece. After the Mahabharat War which occured in 3102 BC the trade contacts were lost but both the Greeks and Vedics were advanced in the science of warfare and archery. The Vedics were more advanced than the Greeks in medicine, surgery as Alexander and his troops himself saw the advanced Indian science of medicine. So the Greek invasion on Northwest India started the Silk route which then connected Rome and passed through Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, Central Asia and finally into China. So the Greek invasion on Northwest India was a major turning point in world history.

  • Kashmiri hindu bramhnoko apne hi country me sharan leni pad rahi hai. Even hidu are the majority riligon in india.Kashmiri hindu bramhan saves the vedas sanskriti from the thousand and thuosand year ago

  • Very interesting article. I studied Alexander in University. The major issue that I have with this article are the sources. My professor told us that in general we can discount most of them except for Arrian as hearsay and nice stories. Most of this article is based on Plutarch and Justinius which are based on what someone said who heard it from someone else, who spoke to a bloke who may known somebodies grandfather, who was the grandson of someone who may have fought in the campaign. It was such a long time ago and the only source we can truly trust is Arrian. I will go back and read it though with a fresh perspective.

  • I had read somewhere , that Alexander’s forces were decimated by Cholera and other waterborne diseases, as their bodies were not resistant to Indian diseases.That is why they left.
    It does not make sense that after conquering the deserts and crossing the Himalayas, Alexander will leave the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains unharmed, because he was homesick.

  • The problem is that no Indian historian has kept a good record of what happened when Alexander invaded India. Alexander is mistakenly referred to as “Great”. What is so great about this barbarian who utterly destroyed the Persian city of Persepolis only to regret it later when his troops were returning. They had no place to rest!
    I only wish we had historians like Al-Bareuni who faithfully recorded history.

  • History for India was re written by Britishers to suit them or as they have seen. It is my surprise when I see the quotes of Indian Freedom Fighter mentioned as Rebels? even today by today’s educators.
    Do we have National spirit? How long we will continue to see our history from other Glass.
    Also in all fairness, during my last visit to India. I found when British officer was trying to reserch what was at Bodh Gaya no one had a clue they thought may be Sita Mandir. Mayapur was Miyapur untill some one in land record department came out with the theory it to be birth place of Chaitanya Maha prabhu.
    I hope we come with National Spirit and pride to search our history which is accurate.

  • “The great powerful kingdom of Magadh”. As much as it makes me proud, it also hurts me terribly that today’s Magadh aka Bihar is in shambles and that we Biharis have a contributed a lot in this. Magadh was the largest kindom India had ever seen. Currently Bihar is one of the poorest we are seeing. It hurts deeply.

  • With all my love and respect for the Indian people, I keep from his article that the Greeks never considered the Indians inferior and that the western propaganda machine tried to usurp Alexander’s legacy for their own reasons. Alexander won the battle but he could not subdue the whole of India which should be considered a whole new continent by itself in my opinion. So being realistic both rulers, Alexander and Porus reached an honourable agreement since they reached a strategic stalemate. End of story, there cannot be an argument of superiority or other racist concepts, just because the British wanted to show their superiority many centuries later. The great mistake of the article is that they call a Macedonian Greek a half-Albanian, which is both historically inaccurate and insulting. Alexander’s mother was a Greek from the tribe of Molossoi, of Epirus, a tribe whose king Phyrrus would later try to carve a Greek Empire in the West, Alexander-style and faced the Romans. Albanians were nonexistent then in this area and there is not a proof that they are the descendants of the ancient tribe of Illyria who populated a much northern geographical area than that of the Molossoi.

    • thanks admin for sharing up such an great information through this wonderful article. keep up your great work.