Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c14: Appendix D. Alexander's Camp; the Passage of the Hydaspes; and the Site of the Battle with Pōros

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c14

Language
English

Appendix D. Alexander's Camp; the Passage of the Hydaspes; and the Site of the Battle with Pōros

c14.2

The solution of the problems concerning the sites of Alexander's camp on the bank of the Hydaspes, the passage of that river, and the battle-field, may be attained, I believe, with sufficient accuracy by careful and impartial examination of the statements made by the ancient historians and of the actual topography.

c14.3

The Hydaspes (Vitastā, Bihat, or Jihlam, commonly called Jhelum) river has changed its course in a less degree than any of the other rivers of the Panjāb, and in the portion of its stream above Jalālpur, with which alone the present discussion is concerned, little material change has occurred. The solution of the three problems in question is consequently not complicated to any serious extent by doubts as to the ancient course of the river.²

c14.4

² Greek, Ὑδάσπης or Βιδάσπης (Ptolemy); Sanskrit, *Vitastā*; Prākrit, *Vidastā*; Kashmīrī, *Vyath*; Panjābī, *Bihat* or *Wihat*. Muhammadan writers refer to the river as 'the river of Jihlam', that is to say, the river flowing past the town of Jihlam, where the royal ferry (*shāh guzār*) was situated. Modern usage has abbreviated the Muhammadan designation into 'the Jihlam', or, as it is commonly written, 'Jhelum'. Little deviation has occurred in the course of the stream, except near its junction with the Akesinēs or Chināb, which has been moved 'often and considerably' (Raverty, 'The Mihrān of Sind and its Tributaries', *J.A.S.B.*, part i, 1892, pp. 318, 329, 332; Stein, *transl. Rājat*, ii, 411).

c14.5

Nor is there any doubt as to the position of Taxila, the great city from which Alexander started on his march to the Hydaspes. Although Cunningham's description of the remains of the city is in many respects inadequate, his identification of the ruins at and near Shāhdhērī with the site of Taxila is certainly correct. The ruins, which are mere mounds scattered through the fields, are situated about 20 miles to the north-west of Rāwalpindi, and about 9 miles to the south-east of Hasan Abdāl village.¹

c14.6

¹ Shāhdērī is in N. lat. 33° 17′, E. long. 72° 49′ (*Imp. Gaz.* 1908, s. v.). The ruins extend over more than 12 square miles. Cunningham counted 55 *stūpas*, 28 monasteries, and 9 temples (*Reports*, ii, 151).

c14.7

The distance from the site of Taxila to the town of Jihlam (Jhelum) in a direct line, as measured on the map, is about 90 miles, and the direct distance from Taxila to Jalālpur, some 30 miles lower down the river, is a few miles more. The northern or upper road from Shāhdhērī (Taxila) to the town of Jihlam via Rohtās and the Bakrāla Pass is 94 English miles. Roads or paths leading from Shāhdhērī to Jalālpur via Dudhiāl and the Bunhār Pass vary in length from 109 to 114 miles.²

c14.8

² Cunningham, *Archaeol. Survey Rep.*, ii, 112, 172.

c14.9

Every one is agreed that Alexander must have reached the bank of the Hydaspes either at Jihlam or Jalālpur; no other place can be thought of. Both towns are situated on ancient lines of road commanding ancient ferries.

c14.10

The invader's obvious goal unquestionably would have been Jihlam, which is appreciably nearer to Taxila, and has a ferry 'infinitely more convenient, and only one-third the width of the Jalālpur ferry'.³ The road to either crossing-place is rugged and difficult, but a large force marching to Jalālpur would be more liable to entanglement in the intricate ravines of the Salt Range, and would encounter more formidable obstacles, than those met with on the road to Jihlam. The presumption, therefore, is that Alexander would have adopted the shorter and easier route and formed his camp near the town of Jihlam. The opinion that he followed this natural and obvious course of action has been advocated by Burnes, Court, and Abbott, who were all well qualified to express an authoritative opinion in virtue of their military experience and exact local knowledge.

c14.11

³ Abbott, in *J.A.S.B.*, 1852, p. 219.

c14.12

The rival theory that Alexander's camp was formed at Jalālpur, and that the passage of the river was effected a few miles above that town has been maintained by authorities of equal personal weight—Elphinstone, Cunningham, and Chesney—and these writers, being better known in Europe than their opponents, have succeeded in winning general assent to the Jalālpur theory in spite of its inherent improbability.

c14.13

This theory has been defended at length by Cunningham, whose arguments would have gained additional force if they had been propounded after impartial examination of the site which Abbott, after careful survey, determined to be that of the battle-field. If the battle took place in the Karrī plain, as maintained by Abbott, Alexander’s camp must have been at or close to Jihlam, and the passage of the river must have been effected above that town. But, unfortunately, Cunningham never attempted to meet Abbott’s reasoning, nor did he examine the course of the river above Jihlam. Having formed in 1846 the opinion that Alexander’s camp was at Jalālpur, Cunningham was content in 1863 to examine the Jalālpur position with a determination to make the topography fit in with his preconceived decision. He merely alludes to General Abbott’s paper as ‘an elaborate disquisition’, and there is nothing to show that he ever studied it carefully.¹

c14.14

¹ *Reports*, ii, 174.

c14.15

Cunningham relies on three arguments in favour of the Jalālpur site for Alexander’s camp. The third of these is that, according to Arrian (*Anab.* vi, 2, 4), the fleet when descending the Hydaspes from Nikaia, the town on the battle-field, reached the capital of Sophytes, king of the Salt Range, on the third day. The capital of Sophytes, according to Cunningham, was at Ahmadābād, ‘which is just three days’ distant for a laden boat from Jalālpur, but is six days from Jhelum’,² and, consequently, Jalālpur suits the conditions better than Jhelum. This argument, on which Cunningham himself laid little stress, obviously depends on the correct identification of the capital of Sophytes. Inasmuch as the ‘identification’ proposed by Cunningham is a bare guess, quite unsupported by evidence, the argument based upon it does not demand further consideration.

c14.16

² *Reports*, ii, 37, 38, 180. On p. 38 Cunningham makes out that Bhera was the capital of Sophytes, while on p. 37 he makes the same assertion concerning Ahmadābād on the opposite bank.

c14.17

The second and more important argument is based upon a passage of Strabo (xv, 32), which states that Alexander’s ‘route as far as the Hydaspes was for the most part towards the south, and thenceforward was more easterly as far as the Hypanis [= Hyphasis]; but throughout it kept closer to the foot of the mountains than to the plains’.³

c14.18

³ ῾Η μὲν οὖν μέχρι τοῦ ῾Υδάσπου ὁδὸς τὸ πλέον ἦν ἐπὶ μεσημβρίαν· ἡ δ᾽ ἐνθένδε πρὸς ἕω μᾶλλον μέχρι τοῦ ῾Υπάνιος· ἅπασα δὲ τῆς ὑπωρείας μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν πεδίων ἐχομένη.

c14.19

Inasmuch as Jalālpur is nearly due south, while Jihlam is approximately south-south-east from Taxila, the Jalālpur position for the camp seems at first sight to suit the first clause of Strabo’s statement better than the Jihlam position.

c14.20

But in reality either position suits the text equally well. We do not know the points at which Alexander crossed the succeeding rivers, the Akesinēs and the Hydraōtes, nor the point at which he reached the most distant stream, Hyphasis [=Hypanis]. The assumption commonly made that Alexander crossed the Akesinēs (Chināb) at Wazīrābād does not rest on any evidence. Cunningham and the other authors who maintain the Jalālpur position forget the last clause of Strabo's statement to the effect that the whole route kept as close as possible to the foot of the hills. In another passage (xv, 26) Strabo explains that Alexander adopted this line of march because the rivers which traversed it could be crossed with greater facility near their sources than lower down.

c14.21

McCrindle, forgetting this most important general statement, which covers the whole route from Taxila to the Hyphasis, has constructed a map which represents Alexander as keeping away from the hills, and marching through the plains of the Panjāb past Jalālpur, Wazīrābād, Lahore, and Amritsar. The real line of march must have lain much farther to the north. The Hydaspes must have been crossed close to the spot where it emerges from the hills above Jihlam, and the army must subsequently have passed close to Siālkōt and Gurdāspur, keeping near the present frontier of the Kashmīr (Jamū) state.

c14.22

The assumption that Alexander followed this line of march agrees accurately with every part of Strabo's statement. A line drawn from Jihlam to Siālkōt, or to the north of that place, is considerably more easterly in direction than a line drawn from Taxila to Jihlam.

c14.23

Cunningham's second argument in favour of the Jalālpur position therefore fails, like the third.

c14.24

The argument which Cunningham places first, and on which he lays most stress, is based on Pliny's figures for the distance from Peukolaitis (Chārsadda), via Taxila, to the Hydaspes (vi, 21). Pliny gives the distances as (1) from Peukolaitis to Taxila 60 Roman=55 English miles, and (2) from Taxila to the Hydaspes 120 Roman, or 110 English miles; and Cunningham argues that these figures suit Jalālpur better than they suit Jihlam. But it is notorious that the figures in Pliny's text are often erroneous. For example, the very passage referred to gives the distance from the Hydaspes to the Hyphasis as 390 Roman miles, which is wildly wrong. It is rash, therefore, to rely on the figures in Pliny's text as we possess it. Cunningham himself was satisfied that the actual distance from Peukolaitis to Taxila, via Uhand, where Alexander crossed the Indus, is greater than that stated by Pliny, and proposed to correct the text (*Reports*, ii, 112).

c14.25

But, even if the figure of 120 Roman miles from Taxila to the Hydaspes be accepted as correct, it does not exclude the theory that Alexander's camp was at Jihlam. According to Cunningham (*Reports*, ii, 179) the distance by an old road is 94 miles. Pliny’s distance is 110 English miles, and the difference is only 16 miles, which is insignificant, considering that we have no information concerning the route taken by Alexander in very difficult country, and no knowledge of the changes which have occurred in twenty-two centuries. The argument based on Pliny’s figures is, consequently, worthless, whether the figures be right or wrong.

c14.26

I have thus shown that all Cunningham’s arguments for the Jalālpur theory fail, and that the Jihlam theory, so far from being opposed to Strabo’s evidence, is actually supported by it.

c14.27

The theory of Elphinstone and Cunningham is still more strongly opposed by the evidence of topographical facts than by that of Strabo.

c14.28

The statements of Arrian, a critical writer, who had access to the best contemporary authorities and carefully weighed their testimony, are extremely clear.

c14.29

The spot higher up the river to which Alexander marched by night in order to ‘steal a passage’ was situated at ‘a remarkable bend’ in the stream, which helped to conceal his movements.¹ There is no such bend at the spot above Jalālpur, between the villages of Mandiala and Kothera, where Cunningham locates the passage (*Reports*, ii, pl. LXVI). But there is such a bend at Bhūnā above Jihlam, where Abbott rightly locates it.

c14.30

¹ Ἄκρα ἦν ἀνέχουσα τῆς ὄχθης τοῦ Ὑδάσπου, ἵνα ἐπέκαμπτεν ὁ ποταμὸς λόγου ἀξίως (*Arrian, Anab.* v, 11).

c14.31

Arrian’s excellent and vivid account (v, 11) clearly implies that Alexander made his night march parallel to the river. Having described the wooded bluff and island near the remarkable bend of the river, he goes on to say:—

c14.32

‘Now the bluff and the island were 150 stadia [= about 17 English miles] distant from the great camp. But along the whole of the bank he had posted running sentries at a proper distance for keeping each other in sight, and readily transmitting along the line any orders that might be received from any quarter.’

c14.33

Half-way between the camp and the crossing-place Meleager and other officers were stationed with a considerable force, under orders to cross over in detachments as soon as they should see the Indians fairly engaged in action. The historian then goes on to state that Alexander marched ‘at a considerable distance from the bank so that he might not be seen’. These statements prove that Alexander, when making his night march, kept an approximately straight course, parallel to the river bank, but sufficiently far from it to escape the enemy’s observation.

c14.34

They are absolutely inconsistent with the theory of Cunningham, as expressed in his map (*Reports*, ii, pl. LXVI), which This page is blank (it only contains faint show-through/ghost text from the reverse page).

c14.35

[Figure: PLAN

c14.36

BATTLE OF THE HYDASPES between Alexander and Pōros.

c14.37

*Indian Infantry* [symbol] *" Cavalry* [symbol] *" Chariots* [symbol] *" Elephants* [symbol] *Greek Infantry* [symbol] *" Cavalry* [symbol] *" Mounted Archers* [symbol]

c14.38

KARRĪ PLAIN]

c14.39

represents Alexander as going round three sides of a rectangle among the ravines of the Salt Range, marching inland from Jalālpur nearly due north for seven or eight miles, then eastward for seven miles, and finally, two or three miles back to the river. The local facts at Jalālpur cannot be reconciled with the account of the night march as given by Arrian, and Cunningham's map is a desperate attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, and to bolster up a preconceived theory based on fallacious premisses.

c14.40

The descriptions of the river itself at the time when Alexander crossed it, as given by the ancient historians, are equally inconsistent with the Jalālpur theory. All authorities agree that the river was then in high flood owing to the melting of the snows in the mountains and incessant rain. But the width of the stream was only four stadia or 809 yards, whereas at Jalālpur at the same season, the end of June or the beginning of July, the river would have been more than double that width. The current was interrupted by numerous islands and sunken rocks. At Jalālpur there are neither rocks nor islands.¹

c14.41

¹ During the operations preceding the battle the soldiers of the opposing armies used to swim out to the islands and engage in combat. The river, confined by high banks, rushed in a seething torrent over sunken rocks (Curtius, viii, 13). The army during its progress to the Hyphasis was exposed for seventy days to violent storms of rain (Diodorus, xviii, 94; Strabo, xv, 27 ὕεσθαι συνεχῶς). In July Elphinstone found the river at Jalālpur to be 1 mile, 1 furlong, and 35 perches wide, and from 9 to 14 feet deep (Thornton, *Gazetteer*, s.v. 'Jhelum'). The ferry at Jihlam is only one-third of the width of that at Jalālpur, and there are 'no islands' at the latter place (Abbott, *J.A.S.B.*, 1852, p. 219). Mr. Pearson says that there are still wooded islands above Dārāpur, midway between Jihlam and Jalālpur (*Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 260).

c14.42

If the Jalālpur theory be given up, and Alexander's camp be located at or near Jihlam, all topographical difficulties disappear. Alexander's march by night is then seen to have taken place at a moderate distance from the bank of the river, in a direction nearly parallel to the stream, and to have been directed to a point situated at a 'remarkable bend' of the river, distant from the supposed position of his camp about 13 or 14 miles in a direct line, which distance might well be estimated as 17 miles for marching purposes, if the route actually taken were slightly circuitous. It is, of course, impossible to define either the exact site of Alexander's camp or the precise spot where the army embarked on its perilous passage, and it is quite possible that 2 or 3 miles should be added to the approximate distance indicated by General Abbott's map.

c14.43

By marching to the vicinity of Bhūnā near the 'remarkable bend' south-east of Manglā, Alexander gained the advantage of moving along an interior chord line, while his opponent on the opposite side of the river was compelled to go round the outside of a curve. If the quicksands were in the same position in Alexander’s time as they now are, the forces of Pōros must necessarily have covered a long circuit before they could approach the Macedonian landing-place. In any case, the distance which the Indians had to traverse was considerably longer than the chord traversed by Alexander.

c14.44

When the Macedonian army of about 11,000 men, after surmounting all the difficulties of the passage, ultimately found itself on the mainland, it entered a considerable plain of firm soil known as ‘Karrī’, girdled by low hills on the north and east. This plain at its widest part is about 5 miles broad, and afforded a sufficient, though not excessive, space for the battle. The river at the crossing-place runs over quartz boulders, and a still existing island, ‘larger than the rest’, corresponds closely with that described by the Greek historians as the place on which Alexander first landed, and may or may not have continued in existence since his time.

c14.45

The channel marked ‘Alexander’s channel’, now considerably silted up, seems to be similar to that which the Macedonian army forded, and if not precisely identical, is certainly very close to the position of the channel crossed by Alexander. General Abbott is quite justified by his map in saying that ‘the river is at this moment [1848] so exactly as described by Alexander’s historians that the map might seem to be an ancient rather than a modern production’. General Abbott’s ‘elaborate disquisition’ is based on a careful survey effected by two days’ hard work from sunrise to evening each day, and his observations have never been contradicted or impugned. Cunningham simply took no notice of them.

c14.46

Grote, the historian of Greece, is the only author of repute who has shown due appreciation of Abbott’s labours, and he has acknowledged that the general’s memoir supplies ‘highly plausible reasons in support of the hypothesis that the crossing took place near Jelum’. Mr. Grote’s opinion would doubtless have become that of the learned world if General Abbott’s essay had been published in an easily accessible form. Buried as it is in an old volume of the Asiatic Society’s Journal, few people have read it; whereas the official publications of Sir Alexander Cunningham are widely known, and his opinions have been accepted too often without criticism.

c14.47

I have not the slightest doubt that Alexander marched to the Hydaspes by the shortest and easiest route open to him; that he struck the river at or near Jihlam, where he pitched his camp; that he crossed the stream where it was rocky and narrow, a little below the point where it emerges from the hills; and that the battle with Pōros was fought in the Karrī plain. The line of march between the Hydaspes and the Hyphasis cannot be precisely delineated, but it was certainly as close as possible to the foot of the hills, and must have passed near Siālkōt. Raverty was of the same opinion. He wrote to me in 1905: 'I quite agree with you as to Alexander's crossing-place over the Hydaspes ... I well recollect when we crossed the river after the battle of Guzerāt, in pursuit of the Sikhs and Afghāns, that we crossed just at the place that you have mentioned, and the matter was discussed and Abbott's theory endorsed. We must give Alexander credit for some military knowledge at least, and that would naturally lead him to keep nearer the sources of the rivers in order to cross the more easily; and, at the same time, the hills on the north protected his flank.'¹

c14.48

¹ The name of the battle-field is more usually and correctly written Gujrāt. The battle took place on Feb. 21, 1849, and resulted in the annexation of the Panjāb.

Linked texts (9)