Mr. Heitland has the following note on this passage: “Arrian (v. 16, sec. 2) tells us that Alexander was making a flanking movement (παρήλαυνεν) with the bulk of his cavalry to attack the enemy’s left wing. He then goes on (sec. 3): _Against the right wing he sent Koinos at the head of his own regiment of horse and that of Dêmêtrios, and ordered him, when the barbarians on seeing what a dense mass of cavalry was opposed to them, should be riding along to encounter it, to hang close upon their rear_,[411] a hard passage, it is true, but one which need not be unintelligible to any one who bears in mind that Alexander’s movement was a flanking one, and reads with care the description of his attack in c. 16, sec. 4, and c. 17, sec. 1, 2. The situation is this: Alexander was not himself in position on the right wing, but put Coenus there with some of the cavalry, while he himself with the main body made the flanking movement. This he did with speed, so as to take the Indian horse in flank, before they had time to change their front and meet him. They tried to execute this movement, but had not time; and while they were in the confusion thus brought about, Coenus fell upon what had been their front, but was now their disordered flank. Whether the Indian horse from their right wing was brought over to succour that on their left or not, does not affect the probable position of Coenus. The one difficulty in the way of this explanation is the presence, according to Arrian, 15, sec. 7, of the war-chariots in front of the Indian horse. But it seems easier to suppose that Coenus was able to elude these clumsy adversaries than that Alexander expected him to see from the Macedonian left the right moment for his own charge, and then wheel round the rear of the whole Indian army and execute his orders opportunely. Diodorus, xvii. 88, says: _The Macedonian cavalry began the action, and destroyed nearly all the chariots of the Indians_.[412] If this refers, as I think it does, to the beginning of the main battle, the chief objection is removed” (_Alexander in India_, pp. 122, 123). This explanation is different from that offered by Moberly, as the reader will see by referring to my note on Arrian, p. 104, _n._ 2. NOTE Z.—INDIAN SERPENTS