The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin: Being Translations of such portions of the Works of these and other Classical Authors as describe Alexander's Campaigns in Afghanistan, the Panjâb, Sindh, Gedrosia and KarmaniaMcCrindle, John Watson
History
The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin: Being Translations of such portions of the Works of these and other Classical Authors as describe Alexander's Campaigns in Afghanistan, the Panjâb, Sindh, Gedrosia and Karmania
McCrindle, John Watson
Alexander, the Great, 356 B.C.-323 B.C.; India -- History -- To 324 B.C. -- Sources
_Chapter II.—Alexander obtains information about the Ganges and the
strength of the army kept by Agrammes, king of the Prasians—His speech to
the soldiers to induce them to advance to the Ganges_
The king made a halt of two days with this prince, designing on the third
day to cross the river, the passage of which was difficult, not only
from its great breadth, but also because its channel was obstructed with
rocks. Having therefore requested Phegeus to tell him what he wanted
to know, he learned the following particulars: Beyond the river lay
extensive deserts which it would take eleven days to traverse.[271] Next
came the Ganges, the largest river in all India, the farther bank of
which was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii,[272]
whose king Agrammes[273] kept in the field for guarding the approaches
to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2000
four-horsed chariots, and, what was the most formidable force of all, a
troop of elephants which he said ran up to the number of 3000.
All this seemed to the king to be incredible, and he therefore asked
Porus, who happened to be in attendance, whether the account was true.
He assured Alexander in reply that, as far as the strength of the nation
and kingdom was concerned, there was no exaggeration in the reports, but
that the present king was not merely a man originally of no distinction,
but even of the very meanest condition. His father was in fact a barber,
scarcely staving off hunger by his daily earnings, but who, from his
being not uncomely in person, had gained the affections of the queen,
and was by her influence advanced to too near a place in the confidence
of the reigning monarch. Afterwards, however, he treacherously murdered
his sovereign; and then, under the pretence of acting as guardian to
the royal children, usurped the supreme authority, and having put the
young princes to death begot the present king, who was detested and held
cheap by his subjects, as he rather took after his father than conducted
himself as the occupant of a throne.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account