Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c9.s12: Results
Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c9.s12
- Language
- English
Results
c9.s12.1
The consequences of Alexander's invasion of India have been exaggerated out of all proportion by some writers and altogether denied by others. That Alexander meant to rule his Indian conquests as integral parts of his empire is clear from his division of the country into satrapies on the Persian model and from the great care he bestowed on the settlement of colonies of his followers at strategic points and on the location of dockyards and harbours along the Indus to foster the growing trade of the future. Arrian's account, as we have seen, enables us to distinguish five separate divisions of the conquered country; first there was the Paropamisadae with an Alexandria, under the Caucasus for its capital, ruled at first by Tyriespes and later by Oxyartes; the second was under Philip, the son of Machatus, at first satrap of Takshaśilā, in charge not only of the principality of Āmbhi but also of what had been the satrapy of Nicanor in the lower Kabul valley; to his charge was also given all the territory up to the Jhelum on the east and the confluence of the Indus and the Chenab in the south; the third province was the extended dominion of the Paurava where he was both king and satrap; the fourth was the satrapy of Peithon, the son of Agenor, which covered the Indus valley below the confluence and extended to the Hab on the west; lastly, there was the territory of Abhisāra in Kashmir in a somewhat less intimate relation to the empire. We can hardly doubt that, if Alexander had lived to a normal age, the connection of the satrapies with the rest of the empire would have been maintained and developed. As it is, we do not know if Alexander even appointed a permanent successor to Philip as he intended. His generals recognised, soon after his death, that they were not equal to the task of maintaining their hold on all the territories that Alexander had brought under his sway; perhaps even Alexander felt the need for readjustments in the face of growing troubles in India after his return. In withdrawing from the Indian provinces and transferring Peithon to the west of the Indus in the second partition of the empire (321 B. C.) his successors evidently carried out what they knew to have been his own wish in the matter. The garrisons of European soldiers and the colonists in the different cities found their surroundings becoming more and more uncongenial and they rapidly faded from most of the stations. Only Eudemus at the head of the Thracian band of soldiers continued for some time as leader of the Hellenes in India; but even he quitted the scene by 317 B. C., taking with him the war elephants of Porus whom he had slain treacherously. Taxiles also disappeared from view soon after, we do not know how. And some years afterwards Seleucus surrendered his distant provinces to the Indian emperor in exchange for war-elephants.
c9.s12.2
But the invasion itself, though it lasted less than two years, was too great an occurrence to leave things just as they were. It showed clearly that an emotional love of independence was no match to the disciplined strength of a determined conqueror, though we should not fail to note that in this instance the states of North-Western India had to contend against one of the greatest generals of the world. It left the warrior tribes of the Indus river system weakened and broken, and thus paved the way for the easy extension of Mauryan rule. It demonstrated the need for a wiser political policy on the part of the Indian rulers. Who can doubt that the lessons of the invasion and the example of Alexander go far to account for the career of Chandragupta and the establishment of his empire? At any rate the role of Taxiles does not recur in Indian history for the next fifteen centuries. Lastly, though India was not Hellenized at any time in the sense in which Western Asia was, there was much active contact between India and the Hellenistic kingdoms, and in the realms of art, currency and astronomy India became a debtor; the fine silver coins of Sophytes with their Greek legends and their Attic weight standard are among the earliest witnesses to this development. On the European side, the expedition of Alexander brought a vast increase in the knowledge of India, which was for the most part carefully recorded by contemporaries, and availed of by later writers now accessible to us. ‘Not a few of Alexander's officers and companions were men of high attainments in literature and science, and some of their number composed memoirs of his wars, in the course of which they recorded their impressions of India and the races by which they found it inhabited’ (M'Crindle). Some wild tales indeed gained currency; but when all subtraction is made, the extent of new knowledge acquired was considerable. But even here exaggeration is easy; it has been said that the age of Alexander must take rank with that of Columbus as a time when a new world was discovered to Europe. But Alexander did not discover an unknown world; Greece and India had known each other for many generations, and trade contacts and other relations had long been established through the medium of the Persian empire. And Craterus in his journey from the Indus valley to Karmania evidently followed an already established route, though the navigation of the Indus, and the rounding of the coast of the Makran and the Persian Gulf by Nearchus, were a distinct gain to geography and trade, and the march of Alexander across Gedrosia a marvellous achievement of daring and leadership. The actual gain in the knowledge about India was much greater under Alexander's successors than in his own day; but he founded the empire which, even when it broke up, long retained in its parts, the impetus his genius had given it.
c9.s12.4
North Western India.
c9.s12.6
CHAPTER III
c9.s12.7
INDIA IN EARLY GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE