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
and the Kaïkos and the Maiandros and the other rivers of Asia which fall
into the inland sea were united, they could not be compared in volume of
water with one of the Indian rivers, and much less with the Ganges, which
is the greatest of them all, and with which neither the volume of the
Egyptian Nile, nor the Istros (Danube) which flows through Europe, can be
for a moment compared. Nay, the whole of those rivers if combined into
one would not be equal to the Indus, which is already a large river where
it issues from its springs, and which after receiving as tributaries
fifteen rivers,[90] all greater than those of Asia, enters the sea still
retaining its own name. Let these remarks which I have made about the
country of the Indians suffice for the present, while I reserve all other
particulars for my description of India.
_Chapter VII.—The bridging of rivers_
In what manner Alexander made his bridge over the Indus neither
Aristoboulos nor Ptolemy, the authorities whom I chiefly follow, have
given any account; nor can I decide for certain whether the passage was
bridged with boats, as was the Hellespont by Xerxes and as were the
Bosporos and the Istros by Darius,[91] or whether the bridge he made over
the river was one continuous piece of work. I incline, however, to think
that the bridge must have been made of boats,[92] for neither would the
depth of the river have admitted the construction of an ordinary kind of
bridge, nor could a work so vast and difficult have been executed in so
short a time. But if the passage was bridged with boats I cannot decide
whether the vessels being fastened together with cables and anchored in
a row sufficed to form a bridge as did those by which, as Herodotos the
Halikarnassian says, the Hellespont was joined, or whether the method was
that which is used by the Romans in bridging the Istros and the Keltic
Rhine,[93] and by which they bridged the Euphrates and the Tigris as
often as necessity required. Since, however, the Romans, as far as my
knowledge goes, have found that the bridging of rivers by boats is the
most expeditious method of crossing them, I think it worth a description
here. The vessels at a preconcerted signal are let go from their moorings
and rowed down stream not prow but stern foremost. The current of course
carries them downward, but a small pinnace furnished with oars holds
them back till they settle into their appointed place. Then baskets of
wicker work, pyramid-shaped and filled with rough stones, are lowered
into the river from the prow of each vessel to make it hold fast against
the force of the current. As soon as one of those vessels has been held
fast another is in the same way anchored with its prow against the stream
as far from the first as is commensurate with their bearing the strain
of what is put upon them. On both of them beams of wood are rapidly laid
lengthwise, and on these again planks are placed crosswise to bind them
together.
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