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
Then came up Timaeus, and a little afterwards Leonnatus followed by
Aristonus.[294] The Indians, on discovering that the king was within
their walls, abandoned all other places and ran in crowds to where he
was, and pressed hard upon those who defended him. Timaeus, one of
such, after receiving many wounds and making a gallant struggle, fell.
Peucestas again, though pierced with three javelin wounds, held up his
buckler not for his own, but the king’s protection. Leonnatus, while
endeavouring to drive back the barbarians who were eagerly pressing
forward, was severely wounded in the neck, and fell down in a swoon at
the king’s feet. Peucestas was also now quite exhausted with the loss of
blood from his wounds and could no longer hold up his buckler. Thus all
the hope now lay in Aristonus, but he also was desperately wounded, and
could no longer sustain the onset of so many assailants. In the meantime
the rumour that the king had fallen reached the Macedonians.
What would have terrified others only served to stimulate their ardour,
for, heedless of every danger, they broke down the wall with their
pickaxes, and where they had made an entrance burst into the city and
massacred great numbers of the Indians, chiefly in the pursuit, no
resistance being offered except by a mere handful. They spared neither
old men, women, nor children, but held whomsoever they met to have been
the person by whom the king had been wounded, and in this way they at
length satiated their righteous indignation.
Clitarchus and Timagenes state that Ptolemy, who afterwards became a
king, was present at this fighting, but Ptolemy himself, who would not
of course gainsay his own glory, has recorded in his memoirs that he was
away at the time, as the king had sent him on an expedition elsewhere.
This instance shows how great was the carelessness of the authors who
composed these old books of history, or, it may be, their credulity,
which is just as great a dereliction of their duty. The king was carried
into a tent, where the surgeons cut off the wooden shaft of the arrow
which had pierced him, taking care not to stir its point. When his armour
was taken off they discovered that the weapon was barbed, and that it
could not be extracted without danger except by making an incision to
open the wound. But here again they were afraid lest in operating they
should be unable to staunch the flow of blood, for the weapon was large
and had been driven home with such force that it had evidently pierced to
the inwards.
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