[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924) › c15 # The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c15: Appendix E. The Date of the Battle of the Hydaspes The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c15 - **Language:** English ### Appendix E. The Date of the Battle of the Hydaspes ### [c15.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.2) The evidence of the ancient historians concerning the flooded state of the river, and the continued wet weather before, during, and after the battle, which has been cited in Appendix D, establishes beyond doubt that the battle was fought towards the end of June, or early in July. But certain positive statements which profess to define the date with greater precision have also been made, and must be briefly examined. Arrian makes two such statements, and a third is added by Diodorus. ### [c15.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.3) Arrian's first statement (\*Anab.\* v, 9) that the battle was fought after the summer solstice, that is to say later than June 21, is undoubtedly correct, being in accordance with the evidence as to the state of the river and with the remark of Diodorus that when the army reached the Hyphasis it had endured violent showers of rain for seventy days. The MSS. all read \*μετὰ τροπάς\*, and the suggestion made by some editors to substitute \*κατά\* for \*μετά\* is unjustifiable. ### [c15.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.4) But the second statement of Arrian (\*Anab.\* v, 19) that the battle was fought 'in the month of Mounychion of the year when Hēgemōn was Archon in Athens' seems to be partially inaccurate. The assertion of Diodorus (xvii, 87) that the entry into Taxila, in the spring preceding the battle, occurred during the year 'in which Chremēs was archon at Athens, and in which the Romans appointed Publius Cornelius and Aulus Postumius consuls', is apparently altogether erroneous. Neither the consuls nor the archon named can be accepted as correct. ### [c15.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.5) The original authorities, the Macedonian officers of Alexander's army, probably expressed the date in terms of the Macedonian calendar, and the divergent statements made by the historians may be due to errors in the conversion of Macedonian into Attic and Roman dates. As Mr. Hogarth has observed, it is impossible for a modern scholar to check such conversions, because our knowledge of the details of the Macedonian calendar is very imperfect, and little is known of the methods used for converting Macedonian dates into those expressed in terms of other calendars.¹ ### [c15.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.6) ¹ Hogarth, \*Philip and Alexander of Macedon\* (Murray, 1897), \*Appendix\*. ### [c15.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.7) The battle certainly was fought in the year 326 B. C., and the corresponding Attic year (=Ol. 113, 2) is supposed to have begun on June 25, 327, and ended on June 15, 326 B. C.² The close of Mounychion, the tenth month, even if the aid of an intercalary month be called in, cannot be brought down later than June 13. If there were no intercalary month, Mounychion should have ended on or about May 14. But, as we have seen, the battle occurred later than June 21, and it seems clear, therefore, that Arrian has wrongly named the Attic month. A rash proposal to substitute ‘Metageitnion’ for ‘Mounychion’, the reading of the MSS., is, as Grote observes, ‘mere conjecture’, and is, moreover, inconsistent with the statement that Hēgemōn was archon. ### [c15.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.8) ² Unger, ‘Zeitrechnung der Griechen und Römer’, in \*Grundriss des klass. Alterth.\*, pp. 742–4, 752, 755. But the exactness of the results of the inquiry appears to be doubtful. See also Cunningham, \*Book of Indian Eras\*, pp. 39, 44, 103; and note 1 in McCrindle, \*Invasion of India by Alexander the Great\*, 2nd ed., p. 274. ### [c15.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.9) Chremēs certainly succeeded Hēgemōn as archon; and if Unger is right in assigning the end of the Attic year 327–6 B. C. to June 15, Diodorus, although wrong in ascribing the entry into Taxila to the archonship of Chremēs, would be right if he meant his readers to understand that the battle occurred after Chremēs had become archon. If, as other authorities suppose, the archonship of Chremēs did not begin until July 18, then Arrian will be right in stating that the battle was fought while Hēgemōn was still archon. ### [c15.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.10) Arrian’s error in naming the month Mounychion may be explained plausibly by the supposition that Alexander reached the river bank in that month, and that by a slight carelessness the date of his arrival in camp was taken as the date of the great battle. The king’s elaborate secret preparations for crossing the river must have occupied a long time, at least six or seven weeks, and if the camp was formed during Mounychion, early in May, the battle must have been fought at the very end of June, or, more probably, early in July. ### [c15.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.11) Exact certitude is not attainable, and it is not possible to go much beyond the remark of Grote, that ‘as far as an opinion can be formed, it would seem that the battle was fought about the end of June, or beginning of July 326 B. C., after the rainy season had commenced; towards the close of the archonship of Hēgemōn, and the beginning of that of Chremēs'.¹ I accept the archonship of Hēgemōn on the authority of Arrian, and believe that the battle took place early in July 326 B. C., in the last month, Skeirophorion, of the Attic year, a few days before Chremēs became archon. ### [c15.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15.12) ¹ \*History of Greece\*, vol. xii, 51, note, ed. 1869. Mr. Pearson, however, basing his opinion on his personal knowledge of the rivers at all times of the year, and under all conditions, holds that 'the real date for the passage of the Hydaspes was, as stated by Arrian, the month of Mounychion in the archonship of Hēgemōn, and that Mounychion in that year occurred as early as April rather than as late as June. It was a matter of prime importance to cross the river before it was in high flood, and no sufficient explanation is given of the supposed delay' (\*Ind. Ant.\*, 1905, p. 257). Mr. Pearson, consequently, is obliged to disbelieve the positive statements of our authorities about the weather. The simple 'explanation of the supposed delay' is that Alexander was unable to 'steal a passage' earlier, and was obliged to make the best of unfavourable conditions, imposed on him through the delay caused by the vigilance of Pōros. ## Linked texts (1) - [Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀνάβασις](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.gr.roman.arrian.anabasis) — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c15) · Pramāṇa