Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c16: Chapter IV. Alexander's Indian Campaign: The Retreat

The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c16

Language
English

Chapter IV. Alexander's Indian Campaign: The Retreat

c16.2

THE retreating army retraced its steps, and arrived again without further adventure on the bank of the Akesinēs (Chināb), where Hephaistion had completed the building of a fortified town. Voluntary settlers from the neighbouring country and such of the mercenary troops as seemed unfit for active service were left to occupy and garrison this post, and Alexander began to prepare for his voyage down the rivers to the Great Sea.

c16.3

Envoys bearing tribute from the kings of the lower hills, now known as the chieftainships of Rajauri and Bhimbhar and the British district of Hazāra, were received at this time. Alexander, who regarded his Indian conquests as permanent additions to the empire, and evidently cherished hopes of a return to the country, having accepted the tenders of submission, solemnly appointed the king of Abhisāra (Bhimbhar and Rajauri) to the office of satrap, and invested him with authority over the king of Urasā (Hazāra), who is called Arsakes by Arrian.¹

c16.4

¹ The name Arsakes may be a corrupt form derived from Uraśā, its apparently Parthian guise being accidental. It is possible, however, that he may have been a Parthian.

c16.5

About the same time a welcome reinforcement of 5,000 cavalry from Thrace, and 7,000 infantry, sent by the king's cousin, Harpalos, satrap of Babylon, arrived, bringing no less than 25,000 suits of armour inlaid with gold and silver. The new accoutrements were at once distributed to the ragged troops, and the old suits were burned.²

c16.6

² Curtius, ix, 3. Diodorus (xvii, 95) gives higher and less credible figures, namely, 30,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry. Both authors agree as to the number of suits of armour, which must have required an enormous transport train. Diodorus adds that 100 talents of medicines were received at the same time.

c16.7

Alexander then advanced to the Hydaspes (Jihlam), and encamped on the bank, probably on the site of the camp formerly occupied by Pōros. Several weeks were now devoted to the final preparations for the voyage down the rivers. All available country boats plying on the river were impressed for the service, and deficiencies were supplied by the construction of new vessels, for which the forests at the base of the hills afforded ample facilities. Crews were provided from the contingents of seafaring nations, Phoenicians, Cyprians, Karians, and Egyptians, who accompanied the army, and by the end of October, 326 B. C., all was ready. The fleet, which included eight galleys of thirty oars each, and a multitude of horse transports and small craft of all kinds, probably numbered nearly two thousand vessels.¹

c16.8

¹ Arrian (*Anab.* vi, 2), on the excellent authority of Ptolemy, son of Lagos, who became king of Egypt. The same author in *Indika*, ch. xix, probably on the authority of Nearchos, gives the total strength as 800 only (νῆες δὲ αἱ σύμπασαι αὐτῷ ὀκτακόσιαι ἦσαν, αἵ τε μακραὶ καὶ ὅσα στρογγύλα πλοῖα, καὶ ἄλλα ἱππαγωγά, καὶ σιτία ἅμα τῇ στρατιῇ ἄγουσαι). Curtius and Diodorus estimate the number of vessels as 1,000. Considering that 8,000 troops, several thousand horses, and vast quantities of supplies were carried, the higher estimate of Ptolemy must be admitted to be correct. Some editors arbitrarily change the ‘eight hundred’ of the *Indika* into ‘1,800’, but the reading is ‘eight hundred’.

c16.9

Before the voyage began Alexander convoked an assembly of his officers and the ambassadors of the Indian powers, and in their presence appointed Pōros to be king of all the conquered territories lying between the Hydaspes and the Hyphasis. These territories are said to have been occupied by seven nations, the Glausai, Kathaioi, and others, and to have comprised no less than two thousand towns. The opportunity was seized to effect a reconciliation between Pōros and his old enemy the king of Taxila, and the friendship between the two monarchs was cemented by a matrimonial alliance. The king of Taxila, who had vied with his rival in zealous service to the invader, was formally confirmed in his sovereignty of the country between the Indus and the Hydaspes.

c16.10

Alexander, who never neglected to make provision for the protection of his flank and rear, and for the uninterrupted maintenance of communications with the distant base in Europe, instructed Generals Hephaistion and Krateros to march with all possible speed to secure the capital of King Saubhūti (Sophytes, or Sopeithēs), lord of the fastnesses of the Salt Range stretching from Jihlam to the Indus, who submitted without resistance.¹

c16.11

¹ The position of the kingdom of Sophytes is fixed by the remark of Strabo (xv, 30) that it included 'a mountain composed of fossil salt sufficient for the whole of India'. Curtius (ix, 1) misplaces Sophytes on the west of the Hyphasis, and is followed by McCrindle, whose map shows the kingdom as lying north of Amritsar, an impossible position. Cunningham (*Anc. Geog.*, p. 155) may or may not be right in placing the capital of Sophytes at Old Bhīra (properly 'Bahrah'), on the west side of the Jihlam. For the coins of Sophytes of Greek type see *ante*, Plate 'Indian Coins I', fig. 1; and Rapson, *Indian Coins*, §§ 9, 11; *Catal. of Coins in the Indian Museum*, vol. i, p. 7. The restoration of the name Saubhūti is due to M. Sylvain Lévi (*J.A.*, sér. viii, vol. xv, pp. 237–9).

c16.12

The fleet was to be protected by an army of 120,000 men marching along the banks, under the generals above named; Krateros having the command on the right or western bank of the river, while the larger portion of the army, accompanied by two hundred elephants, was led by Hephaistion along the left or eastern bank. Philippos, satrap of the countries west of the Indus, had orders to follow three days later with the rear-guard.

c16.13

Thus escorted the vast fleet began its memorable voyage. At daybreak one morning towards the end of October, Alexander, having offered libations from a golden bowl to the river gods, his ancestor Herakles, Ammon, and any other god whom he was accustomed to reverence, gave the signal for starting by sound of trumpet. In stately procession, without confusion or disorder, the ships quitted their anchorage, and moved down stream to the astonishment of the crowds of natives lining the banks, who had never before seen horses on board ship. The plash of thousands of oars, the words of command, and the chants of the rowers wakened the echoes, which reverberated from bank to bank, and enhanced the amazement of the gaping throng of spectators. On the third day the fleet reached the place, perhaps Bhīra, where Hephaistion and Krateros had been ordered to pitch their camps facing each other on opposite sides of the river. Here a halt was made for two days to allow the rear-guard under the command of Philippos to come up, and that general, on his arrival, was directed to convert his force into an advance-guard and proceed along the bank of the river.

c16.14

On the fifth day after leaving the halting-place, the fleet arrived at the first river confluence, where the Hydaspes met the greater stream of the Akesinēs. The channel where the waters of the two rivers then met was so very narrow that dangerous whirlpools were formed, and much disorder was occasioned in the fleet. Two of the warships were sunk with the greater part of their crews, and the vessel which carried Alexander was in imminent danger of sharing the same fate. By dint of great exertion on the part of the king and all concerned the bulk of the fleet was ultimately brought to a safe anchorage under the shelter of a headland, and the necessary steps were taken to repair the damage suffered.

c16.15

It is impossible to determine the spot where these exciting incidents occurred. The confluence of the two rivers at Timmū (N. lat. 31° 10′) now takes place quietly, and presents none of the peculiarities to which Arrian and Curtius devote so much vivid description. All that can be said is that in Alexander’s time the confluence must have been situated much farther to the north.

c16.16

Our exact knowledge of the courses of the rivers in the Panjāb and Sind begins only from the date of the Arab invasion in 712 a.d., more than a thousand years subsequent to the expedition of Alexander. Concerning the changes which happened during that millennium absolutely nothing is known. But during the twelve hundred years that have elapsed since the Arab conquests changes on a stupendous scale are known to have occurred, and it is certain that similar effects must have been produced by the ever operating causes during the thousand years which intervened between Alexander and Muhammad bin Kāsim.¹ During the known period, earthquakes, floods, changes of level, denudation, accretion, and alterations of climate all have contributed to transform the face of the country. The delta of the Indus has advanced more than 50 miles, and has thus lengthened the courses of the rivers, while necessarily diminishing their gradients and velocity. One huge river, the Hakrā or Wahindah, which formerly gave life and wealth to the desert wastes of Bikanīr, Bahāwalpur, and Sind, has ceased to exist; the Biās (Hyphasis) has forsaken its ancient independent bed, and become a tributary of the Sutlaj;¹ while the other rivers, the Indus, Jihlam (Hydaspes), Chināb (Akesinēs), and Rāvī (Hydraōtes) have all repeatedly changed their courses and points of junction.

c16.17

¹ Muhammad was the son of Kāsim. Elphinstone’s blunder, ‘Muhammad Kāsim’, is repeated in most books on Indian history.

c16.18

¹ Raverty gives as various correct spellings, Sutlaj, Sutlāj, and *Shuttlaj*. This river, which was called Śatadra in Sanskrit, is rarely mentioned by the Greek or Roman authors under the name of Hesidrus. The Hypanis of Strabo is a variant for Hyphasis. A learned reviewer of the first edition says that 'exception may be taken to the strange remark that the Biās was in early days not a confluent of the Sutlej (p. 85); for the Rig Veda says that one flows into the other'. The only passage in the Rig Veda which mentions the Vipāśa is iii, 33, and that may be interpreted as referring to twin streams more or less parallel, but not necessarily confluent. Compare the reference to 'the Vipāś together with the Śatudrī' in the *Brihaddevatā* (Macdonell's ed., i, 114). The Sutlaj is the most erratic of the rivers of the Panjāb. The Biās or Biāh deserted its ancient channel about A. D. 1790, for the first time since it is heard of in history, and moved towards the east, combining with the Sutlaj, which shifted westwards simultaneously (Raverty, pp. 504, 505: see next note).

c16.19

These facts, although indisputably true, have been generally ignored in practice by the historians of Alexander, who have pretended to trace the line of his river voyage on modern maps, and to 'identify' town after town on the banks of the several rivers. All such identifications are vain. No man can tell in which of the ancient beds the Chināb or any of the other rivers named flowed in the time of Alexander, and, when the positions of the rivers are not ascertainable, it is clear that we cannot reasonably expect to identify places on their banks. The most that is possible is to give general indications of the course of the voyage and of the location of the principal nations encountered by Alexander. The sites of the towns and the precise positions of the confluences and crossing-places mentioned by the ancient historians cannot be determined. Inasmuch as the courses of all the rivers were then much shorter than they now are, all the confluences must have been situated considerably farther north than at present, and this *a priori* inference appears to be fully supported by observation of the most ancient beds of the streams. The confluence of the Akesinēs and Hydaspes, the first of the four confluences described by Arrian, probably was situated not very far from the modern town of Jhang, and approximately in N. lat. 31°.¹

c16.20

¹ The text is mainly based on Raverty's valuable work, 'The Mihrān of Sind and its Tributaries: a Geographical and Historical Study', in *J. A. S. B.*, 1892, Part I, with numerous maps, which has not attracted the attention that it deserves. The defects of form in that treatise, which is overloaded with 590 discursive notes, make it very difficult reading. The observations on Alexander's Indian campaign are scattered through the text and notes, and mixed up with remarks on the most diverse topics. For general comments on the futility of current 'identifications' see pp. 155, 226, 250, 469, note 539, &c.; the Hydaspes (Jihlam), pp. 336-52; Akesinēs (Chināb), pp. 336-52; Hydraōtes (Rāvī), pp. 352-71; Hyphasis (Biās or Biāh), pp. 371-90; Sutlaj, pp. 391-418; Hakṝā, pp. 418-22, 454-66; general results, pp. 469-508; earthquakes and floods, pp. 392, 468, 470, &c.; changes of level, pp. 300, 470; alterations of climate, pp. 282, 354, 417; extension of coast-line, p. 272 (note 235), pp. 317, 469, 501, &c. The whole work is deserving of the most careful study. The author gives full references, so that his statements can be readily tested.

c16.21

Alexander here landed his troops in order to subjugate the adjoining tribes, called Siboi² and Agalassoi by Curtius, and to prevent them from joining the powerful nation of the Malloi (Sanskrit Mālava), who dwelt lower down the river, and were known to be preparing for strenuous resistance. The Siboi, who are described as rude folk clad in the skins of wild beasts and armed with clubs, submitted, and were allowed to retain their freedom. Their neighbours, the Agalassoi, who were able to muster a force estimated at 40,000 foot and 3,000 horse, ventured to resist, and met with a terrible fate. Multitudes were put to the sword, and multitudes sold into slavery. Alexander advanced some 30 miles into their country, and captured their principal town. At a second town he met with an obstinate defence, which cost the lives of many Macedonians. The inhabitants, said to number 20,000, despairing of ultimate success, set fire to the town and cast themselves with their wives and children into the flames. The citadel escaped the fire, and was garrisoned by a detachment left behind for the purpose. The lives of 3,000 of its gallant defenders were spared.¹

c16.22

² Shorkot in the Jhang District was the capital of the Sibi country, its ancient name being Sibi—or Sivipura, as proved by an inscription dated 83 [G. E. = A. D. 402-3] on a huge copper cauldron from a Buddhist monastery, now in the Lahore Museum (Vogel in *J. P. H. Soc.*, vol. i, p. 174).

c16.23

¹ Arrian, *Anab.* vi, 5 ; Curtius, ix, 4 ; Diodorus, xvii, 96. The Agalassoi are distinguished by Diodorus only, who says that Alexander fired the town. The account in the text follows Curtius in respect of the voluntary immolation of the townspeople, an incident quite in keeping with Hindu character, and often repeated in later times. The Siboi were probably the ancestors of some of the half-wild tribes of pastoral Jāts, who now inhabit the same region. For discussion of the topography, see my paper, 'The Position of the Autonomous Tribes of the Panjāb conquered by Alexander the Great', in *J.R.A.S.*, Oct. 1903. These tribes are mentioned together in early Sanskrit literature. Weber pointed out that Āpiśali, one of the teachers cited by Pāṇini, speaks of the formation of the compound 'Kshaudraka-Mālavā (*scil. senā*)', 'the army of the Kshudrakas and Mālavās' (*J. A. S. B.*, pt. i, vol. lxi, 1892, p. 60). The *Mahābhārata* couples them as forming part of the Kaurava host in the Great War (Pargiter, in *J. R. A. S.*, 1908, p. 329, citing, *Mbh.*, vi, 2106, 2584, 2646, 3852, 3853, 4808, 5484, 5648 ; vii, 183 ; and viii, 137).

c16.24

These events probably took place to the north-east of Jhang, the operations having been undertaken in accordance with Alexander's invariable practice, in order to secure his flank and rear.

c16.25

Information having been received that a confederacy of the Malloi, Oxydrakai, and other independent tribes occupying the river valleys was being formed with the intention of offering strenuous resistance to the invasion, Alexander hastened the movements of his fleet and army with the object of attacking the confederates severally in detail, before they could mature their plans and combine their forces. The fleet and the bulk of the army received orders to assemble at the next confluence, that of the Hydraōtes (Rāvī) with the Akesinēs (Chināb, including the Hydaspes or Jihlam).

c16.26

Alexander in person landed with a picked force, largely composed, as usual, of mounted troops, to operate against the Malloi, the most formidable of the allied tribes, who occupied [Figure: SKETCH MAP showing position of AUTONOMOUS TRIBES CONQUERED BY ALEXANDER. Scale of Miles]

c16.27

the fertile valley of the Hydraōtes, on both banks of the river. Their neighbours, the Oxydrakai (Sanskrit, Kshudrakā), who dwelt on the banks of the upper course of the Hyphasis, although ordinarily at war with the Malloi, had resolved to forget old enmities and to make common cause against the invader. The rival nations cemented the alliance by wholesale intermarriage, each giving and taking ten thousand young women for wives.¹ But personal jealousies, such as in all ages have reduced to futility political combinations in India, prevented the alliance from taking effect. While the allies were discussing the claims of rival generals to command, Alexander acted, and, with masterly strategy, sweeping down upon the Malloi, extinguished their military power before the Oxydrakai could come to their aid. The forces at the command of the confederacy should have sufficed, if properly handled, to annihilate the small flying column at Alexander’s disposal; for they are said to have comprised 80,000 or 90,000 fully equipped infantry, 10,000 cavalry, and from 700 to 900 chariots.

c16.28

¹ Diodorus, xvii, 98.

c16.29

The exact strength of the Macedonian field force is not stated, but it must have been very small, not exceeding a few thousands.² What it lacked in numbers was compensated for by its perfect mobility and the genius of its general. The Macedonians were alarmed at the magnitude of the opposing forces, and a repetition of the mutiny of the Hyphasis was with difficulty prevented by a stirring address delivered by the king. By two forced marches across the waterless uplands, now known as the *Bār*,³ which separate the valleys of the Akesinēs and Hydraōtes, Alexander completely surprised the Malloi, most of whom were working unarmed in the fields. Many of the helpless wretches were ruthlessly cut down, ‘without their even turning to offer resistance’, and those who escaped the sword were shut up in the fortified towns.

c16.30

² It consisted of the hypaspist infantry, the foot-archers, the Agrianian or Thracian light horse, the foot-guards under Peithōn, all the mounted archers, and half of the companion cavalry, or horse-guards. The force can hardly have exceeded 7,000 men in number.

c16.31

³ For the changes now effected in the *Bār*, see Sir James Douie, K.C.S.I., ‘Canal Colonies in the Panjāb’, 1915, reprinted from *The Monthly Bulletin of Economics and Social Intelligence*, year vi, No. 1, Jan. 1915.

c16.32

One of these towns, with a citadel situated on a commanding height, was stormed under Alexander’s personal direction, and 2,000 of the garrison were slain. Another town, against which Perdikkas had been sent, was found to be deserted. The inhabitants fled to the marshes in the river valley, but, even among the reeds and rushes, they could not escape the weapons of the Macedonian cavalry. Alexander then pushed on to the Hydraōtes, and caught up the retreating Malloi at the ford, inflicting severe loss upon them. He pursued them to the east of the river into the country now known as the Montgomery District, and took by mining and escalade a town inhabited by Brahmans. The king, with his customary disregard of danger, was the first man to scale the wall. The place was gallantly defended, but in vain; ‘about 5,000 in all were killed, and as they were men of spirit, very few were taken prisoners’.

c16.33

The Malloi, being hard pressed, recrossed the Hydraōtes, the passage of which they attempted to defend with 50,000 men; but they were no match for the Europeans, and fled ‘with headlong speed’ to the strongest fortified town in the neighbourhood. This small town, which cannot be identified precisely, and was situated somewhere near the boundary of the Jhang and Montgomery Districts, 80 or 90 miles to the north-east of Multan, was the scene of one of the most memorable incidents in Alexander’s adventurous career, admirably described by Arrian from materials supplied by Ptolemy.¹

c16.34

¹ The town was a small one (Strabo, xv, 33). The current assertion that it should be identified with Multān (=Mūlasthānapura, see Beal’s *Hiuen Tsiang*, ii, 274) is absolutely baseless. The name Multān has no etymological connexion with the name Malloi, and Multān is much too far south. The campaign against the Malloi was fought in the valley of the Hydraōtes, where they occupied the fertile lowlands, corresponding to the Montgomery District and parts of Jhang. See Raverty, op. cit., p. 364, and my article in *J. R. A. S.*, Oct., 1903. Ptolemy himself did not take part in Alexander’s defence, as some authors say that he did.

c16.35

The Macedonians, already masters of the town, were endeavouring to scale the walls of the citadel, when Alexander, thinking that the men bearing the ladders loitered too long, snatched one from the man carrying it, and mounted the wall, followed by only three companions, Peukestas, Leonnātos, and Abreas. Standing on the wall in his gleaming armour, the king was a mark for every missile, and, feeling that he could effect nothing where he was without support, boldly leaped down into the citadel followed by his three comrades. Abreas soon fell dead. Alexander, standing with his back to a tree that grew near the wall, slew the Indian governor and defended himself against all comers until his breast was pierced by an arrow and he fell. Peukestas bestrode him as he lay, covering him with the sacred shield brought from Ilion, while Leonnātos, although severely wounded like his surviving comrade, protected him from side attacks. The ladders having broken, the maddened Macedonians were for a time powerless to help their king, but at last a few managed to scramble up the earthen wall, while others broke in a gate, and so saved Alexander, who had fainted.

c16.36

The barbed arrow was withdrawn by a bold operation which involved much bleeding and threatened immediate death, but Alexander's strong constitution eventually triumphed, and the dangerous wound was healed. The infuriated troops fell upon the unfortunate inhabitants, and slew them all—sparing neither man, woman, nor child.

c16.37

When convalescent, Alexander was carried to the Hydraōtes, and conveyed by boat to the junction with the Akesinēs, where he met his fleet and army, under the command respectively of Nearchos and Hephaistion.

c16.38

The survivors of the Malloi, whose nation had felt the full weight of Alexander's hand, now tendered their humble submission, and the Oxydrakai, whom fortunate procrastination had saved, feeling that resistance would be hopeless, purchased the conqueror's clemency by offers of tribute and the delivery of valuable gifts. Alexander, stern and even cruel to those who opposed him, but always courteous and generous to the submissive, readily accepted the proposals, presents, and excuses of the tribal envoys, a hundred in number, who are described as dignified men, of uncommon stature, clad in purple and gold, and riding in chariots. The presents are said to have included 1,030 four-horsed chariots, 1,000 bucklers of native manufacture, 100 talents of steel, great store of ‘linen’ goods, a quantity of tortoise-shells, the skins of large lizards, with tame lions and tigers, in addition to a contingent of 300 horsemen.¹

c16.39

¹ These details are taken from Curtius, ix (chap. xxiii and xxiv of Delphin Edition). Arrian (vi, 14) mentions only 500 chariots, but Curtius probably had good authority for his statement. In the 10th impression of the annotated text by Dosson and Pichon (Paris, Hachette, 1916) the relevant chapters are numbered vii and viii. Chap. vii (p. 355) states that the two nations complied with a requisition for 2,500 horsemen, as in chap. xxiii of the Delphin Edition. The gifts in chap. viii (= xxiv of Delphin text) are as stated in my account, viz, 300 horsemen, 1,030 chariots, linen goods, lizard skins, *&c.* According to Delphin text (chap. xxiii) the envoys wore ‘lineae vestes, intextae auro, purpuraque distinctae’. Prof. Jogeschandra Ray (*J.B.O.Res.Soc.*, vol. iii, June, 1917, ‘Textile Industry in Ancient India’) shows (pp. 187–97) that linen made of the fibre of the *atasi* (*alsi*) or flax plant was known in the time of the *Arthasāstra*, and for centuries before and after, but the manufacture was gradually superseded by cotton, and recently in Bengal by jute. The old general name for flax was *kshumā* (adj. *kshauma*). *Kshauma* was the name for linen, *dukūla* for the finest, and *aṭṭa* for the coarsest (p. 191). *Kshauma* was made from *atasi* fibre. It was used for bandages. *Dukūla* was woven of *atasi* thread. *Kshauma* was known in Vedic times, but after about the 12th century the correct meanings were forgotten and much confusion arose in the terminology, *kshauma* being taken to mean ‘silk’. Coarse linen seems to have been made in Bengal as late as the eighteenth century (p. 196). The Bihār Planters’ Association has proved that ‘flax can be successfully grown and prepared at a profit in Bihār’ [James Mackenna, *Agriculture in India*, 1915] (App., p. 236). Balfour (*Cyclopaedia*, 1885) observed that ‘by proper treatment, however, good fibre can be got from plants raised in India’. Steel of peculiarly excellent quality has been produced in India from remote times. Curtius calls it *ferrum candidum*, which is assumed to mean ‘steel’, not ‘tin’, or more strictly, ‘tin-plate’ (*fer blanc*). Tortoise-shell (χελώνη) was still an article of Indian trade in the first century A. D. (*Periplus*, in *Ind. Ant.* viii, 111). The statement of Curtius (ix, 7) that Alexander imposed upon the Malloi and Oxydrakai ‘the tribute which the two nations paid in instalments to the Arachosians’ is unintelligible; and the name ‘Arachosians’ must be corrupt. Arachosia, the Kandahār country, cannot possibly have levied tribute from tribes in the Eastern Panjāb. Bacon makes a curious and inaccurate allusion to the Oxydrakai in his essay ‘On the Vicissitudes of Things’, apparently quoting loosely from Philostratos, *Life of Apollonios of Tyana*, ii, c. 33 (*Ind. Ant.*, 1906, p. 335).

c16.40

Philippos was then appointed satrap of the conquered nations; and the fleet, passing the third confluence, where the Hyphasis contributed its waters to the stream, continued its voyage to the fourth confluence, that of the Akesinēs (Chināb), including the Hydaspes (Jihlam), Hydraōtes (Rāvī), and Hyphasis (Biās), with the river which the ancient writers call the Indus. But it is probable that the ‘lost river of Sind’, the Hakrā or Wahindah, then existed, and that all the Panjāb rivers, including the Indus, joined it, and formed one great stream, afterwards known as the Mihrān of Sind.

c16.41

It is absolutely impossible to determine the position of any of the confluences in Alexander’s time; but, long afterwards, in the days of the early Arab writers, all the rivers met at a place called Dosh-i-āb, or ‘the Meeting of the Waters’, in territory now belonging to the Bahāwalpur State.¹ Our complete uncertainty as to the courses of the rivers, which have ranged, as the old channels indicate, over a space of 110 miles wide in the region of the final confluence, deprives the remainder of Alexander’s river voyage of much of its interest. His course in Upper Sind cannot be indicated even approximately, and it is impossible to fix accurately the position of either the towns or the nations mentioned by the historians.

c16.42

¹ Raverty, op. cit., p. 473. The ‘Meeting of the Waters’ was near Bhagla or Baghlah, which is marked on the India Office map of 32 miles to the inch, in approximately N. lat. 28° 20′, E. long. 70° 30′. The four confluences are correctly enumerated by Arrian in *Anab.* vi, 14. The contradictory and unintelligible passage in the same author’s *Indika*, ch. 4, is hopelessly corrupt.

c16.43

The confluence of the combined Panjāb rivers with the ‘Indus’, wherever it may have been situated, was appointed to be the southern boundary of the satrapy of Philippos, to whom all the Thracians were made over along with an adequate force of infantry to form the garrison of his province. At about the same time the Bactrian nobleman, Oxyartes, father of Alexander’s wife, Roxana, was deputed to the Paropanisadae, or the Kābul province, as satrap in succession to Tyriaspes, whose administration had been unsatisfactory. A city was founded at the confluence of the rivers with the ‘Indus’, which Alexander hoped would become prosperous and famous. Dockyards also were constructed.

c16.44

Certain independent tribes, whom Arrian calls Abastanoi, Xathroi or Oxathroi, and Ossadioi, submitted or were subjugated, and it is noted that galleys of thirty oars and transport vessels were built and supplied by the Xathroi.¹ Although it is impossible to determine precisely either the correct names or the true positions of the tribes in Northern Sind mentioned by the various ancient authorities, the region occupied by the tribes referred to seems to be that lying to the north and south of N. lat. 28° and between E. long. 69° and 70° 30′. During this stage of the campaign, Krateros, who hitherto, from the beginning, had always marched on the right, or western, bank of each successive river, was transferred to the left, or eastern bank, which offered greater facilities for movement and was occupied by tribes less hostile than those on the other bank.²

c16.45

¹ Arrian, *Anab.* vi, 15. According to Curtius (ix, 8), Alexander came to a second nation called Malli (whom McCrindle confounds with the Malloi of the Rāvī), and then to the Sabarcae, a powerful tribe with a democratic form of government and no king. Their army was said to comprise 60,000 foot, 6,000 cavalry, and 500 chariots, under the command of three renowned generals. This nation submitted. The name Xathroi (v. 1. Oxathroi) looks like a transcription of the Sanskrit Kshatriya. The Sabarcae are called Sambastai by Diodorus, who agrees with Curtius in his account of the government and military force of the tribe. Diodorus (xvii, 102) adds that two other tribes, the Sodrai and Massanoi, occupied both banks of the river, and that a city named Alexandria was founded within their borders, and occupied by a colony of 10,000 men. The attempts made by McCrindle and many other writers to localize these tribes are necessarily futile, inasmuch as we do not know where the river was. The mention in *Anab.* vi, 15, of Oxyartes as the colleague of Peithōn, satrap of the Lower Indus, is evidently, as Chinnock rightly observes, due to corruption of the text. The Thracians made over to Philippos seem to have been infantry; for the Agrianian light cavalry, who were Thracians, took part in subsequent operations.

c16.46

² The words διὰ τῆς Ἀραχωτῶν καὶ Δράγγων γῆς in the passage (Arrian, *Anab.* vi, 15) describing the transfer of Krateros from the right to the left bank were evidently a blundering marginal note which has crept into the text. Krateros was sent from a point above the head of the Delta ‘into Karmania by the route through the Arachotoi and Zarangoi’ (τὴν ἐπ’ Ἀραχωτῶν καὶ Ζαράγγων), as stated in ch. 17. McCrindle’s theory that Krateros was sent, as stated in ch. 15, and subsequently recalled, seems to me very unsatisfactory. I have already noted another corruption in the text of the same chapter, due probably to the same cause, the absorption into the text of an erroneous gloss.

c16.47

Alexander now hurried on in order to surprise the powerful monarch called Mousikanos by Arrian, who had proudly abstained from sending envoys or presents to the invader.

c16.48

The capital of this stiff-necked king may be probably, although not certainly, identified with Alōr or Arōr, the ancient capital of Sind, now included in the Sukkur District, and situated in N. lat. 27° 39′, E. long. 68° 59′. The peculiarities of the people of this kingdom excited the surprise and admiration of the Macedonians. The inhabitants were believed to attain the age of a hundred and thirty years, their longevity being the result of good health secured by temperance in diet. Although their country possessed mines of both gold and silver, they refused to make use of either metal. Unlike the other Indians, they kept no slaves, employing in their stead 'young men in the flower of their age, as the Cretans employ the Aphamiōtai, and the Lacedaemonians the Helots'. They also resembled the Lacedaemonians in observing the custom of a public meal, at which the food served was the produce of the chase. They decline to study any science save that of medicine, and were reputed to have no system of civil law, the jurisdiction of the courts being confined to cases of murder and other violent crime.¹

c16.49

¹ Strabo, xv, 34, 54. Strabo, on the authority of Onesikritos, points out that other authors do not seem to be justified in asserting that slavery was unknown everywhere in India. Megasthenes (Arrian, *Indikos*, ch. 10), affirmed it to be a great thing (μέγα) in India that all the Indians were free, and that no Indian slave existed (οὐδέ τινα δοῦλον εἶναι Ἰνδόν). In reality, mild praedial and domestic slavery seems to have been an institution in most parts of India from very remote times.

c16.50

King Mousikanos, like the Malloi, being completely surprised by the rapidity of the movements of Alexander, who had reached the frontier before his departure from his last camp had been reported, hastened to meet the conqueror, bringing with him all his elephants and the choicest presents which India could offer. Alexander, with his habitual readiness to accept submission, received the king courteously, expressed much admiration of his capital and realm, and confirmed him in his sovereignty. But Mousikanos, acting under the advice of Brahman councillors, quickly repented of his ready submission, and revolted. Peithōn, the son of Agēnōr, who had been appointed satrap of the country to the south of the territory entrusted to Philippos, was sent in pursuit of the rebel;¹ while Alexander in person operated against the towns, some of which were destroyed, while others were occupied by garrisons. Mousikanos, having been captured by Peithōn, was executed along with the Brahmans who had instigated his defection.²

c16.51

¹ Peithōn was sole satrap of the Lower Indus, the mention of Oxyartes as his colleague being due to corruption of the text (*ante*, p. 104, note 1).

c16.52

² Κρεμάσαι Ἀλέξανδρος κελεύει. McCrindle translates ‘Alexander ordered the rebel to be hanged’; Gronovius renders ‘Alexander crucifigi iubet’.

c16.53

Alexander next marched with a flying column against a chief named Oxykanos, who was taken prisoner. His two principal cities having been sacked, the other towns in the neighbourhood surrendered without attempting resistance; ‘so much were the minds of all the Indians paralysed with abject terror by Alexander and the success of his arms.’³ Another chieftain, named Sambos, whose capital was Sindimana,⁴ and who had fled in terror, surrendered; and more Brahmans, who had instigated the revolt of an unnamed town, were executed. It is said that during this campaign on the Lower Indus 80,000 of the natives were killed, and multitudes sold as slaves.

c16.54

³ Οὕτω καὶ Ἰνδοὶ πάντες ἐδεδούλωντο ἤδη τῇ γνώμῃ πρὸς Ἀλεξάνδρου τε καὶ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου τύχης. The translation is McCrindle’s. Curtius speaks of ‘the people known as the Musicani’; calls Oxykanos by the name of Porticanus; and states that his subjects were the Praesti. According to him, Porticanus was slain. The same author states that the troops of Sambos used poisoned swords (ix, 3).

c16.55

⁴ Sindimana may or may not have been Sihwān, with which it is commonly ‘identified’, for no better reason than that both names begin with *S*. The MSS. read Sindonalia. Readings of names in Strabo are open to much doubt. See Dübner’s edition, Didot, Paris, 1853.

c16.56

After the execution of Mousikanos, the ruler of the Delta, which was known to the Greeks as Patalēnē, from its capital Patala, arrived in camp and proffered the submission of his kingdom, which was accepted. He was sent back to his country to prepare for the reception of the expedition.

c16.57

About the same time Krateros, one of Alexander’s most trusted lieutenants, was detached with orders to conduct a large portion of the army into Karmania by the route leading through the territories of Arachosia (Kandahār)

c16.58

and Drangiana (Sīstān).¹ The troops entrusted to Krateros comprised the brigades (τάξεις) of Attalos, Meleager, and Antigenes, besides some of the archers, the ‘companions’ or guards, and other Macedonians unfit for further active service. The elephants also accompanied this force.

c16.59

¹ All the experts are agreed that Krateros must have used the easy open route past Kalāt, through the Mulla (Mūla, Mulloh) Pass, along the modern caravan road. The Bolān and Quetta route did not come into use until recent times (Holdich, *The Gates of India*, 1910, p. 147; Sykes, *Ten Thousand Miles in Persia*, p. 49). The Mulla Pass is open all the year round (Masson, *Journeys*, ii, 120).

c16.60

Alexander in person retained the command of the troops serving as marines, while Hephaistion was given supreme command of the rest of the army, which advanced on the right bank of the river. Krateros, who had been transferred to the left bank in Upper Sind, had, of course, been obliged to recross the stream in order to begin his homeward march. His place on the left bank was now taken by Peithōn, son of Agēnōr, who was given a mounted force of lancers and Agrianians, with instructions to place colonists in certain fortified towns, to suppress attempts at insurrection, maintain order, and ultimately rejoin Alexander at Patala. The prince (ὕπαρχος) and people of that city fled in terror, but were mostly reassured and induced to return to their homes (Arrian, *Anab.* vi, 17).

c16.61

The position of the city of Patala has been much disputed; but the best opinion is that it was at or near the very ancient site of Bahmanābād, situated in N. lat. 25° 52′ and E. long. 68° 52′, some 6 miles westward from the more modern city of Mansūriya. The apex of the Delta was probably near Kalari, about 40 miles north of Bahmanābād, in approximately N. lat. 26° 40′ and E. long. 68° 30′. For the discussion of Alexander’s movements the identity of Patala and Bahmanābād may be assumed, although it cannot be fully proved.²

c16.62

² Bahmanābād, Bahmannih, or Bahmannū, not Brahmanābād, as commonly and erroneously written. Under the name of Bahmanābād it was founded by Bahman, son of Isfandiyār, ‘in the time of Gushtāsib, ruler of Irān-Zamīn’. Bahman is another name of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or Ahasuerus, who reigned from about 465 to 425 B. C. (Raverty, *Notes*, p. 510; Reinaud, *Ind. Ant.*, viii, 336). He was the grandson of Gushtāsib. But the site is much more ancient, and includes extensive prehistoric remains (*Progress Report, Arch. Survey W. I.* for 1896–7, par. 30–50; ibid., for 1903–4, pp. 133–44). The site of Bahmanābād was discovered by Mr. Bellasis in 1854 (*Jo. Bo. Br. R. A. S.*, Jan., 1856). Mansūriya has been built from, and partly on, the ruins of the primitive city (Cousens, *Annual Rep. A. S. W., India*, 1903–4, pp. 132–44; 1908–9, pp. 79–87). Raverty's discursive note 105 (op. cit., pp. 196–205) gives much information. For the position of the apex of the Delta, and the city of Patala, see ibid., pp. 226, 461, 462. General Haig, who greatly underestimates the growth of the Delta, is certainly wrong in placing Patala below the latitude of Hyderābād (N. lat. 25° 23′, E. long. 68° 25′). The same writer was not aware of the evidence which led Raverty to place the most ancient known apex of the Delta 40 miles above Bahmanābād (*The Indus Delta Country*, pp. 1, 129, 135, 136, Kegan Paul & Co., 1894). Most books (e. g. Balfour's *Cyclopaedia*) erroneously identify Patala with Hyderābād.

c16.63

Alexander, considering Patala to be a position of high strategical importance, caused Hephaistion to construct a citadel there and to dig wells in the adjoining region. He proposed to make a great naval station at the point where the river divided, and remained sufficiently long on the spot to see some progress made in the construction of a roadstead and dockyard. He then resolved to explore personally both arms of the river down to the sea, and first sailed down the western or right branch, which probably debouched near or below Dēbal, the ancient port of Sind, distant about 15 miles from Thatha (Tatta). His sailors, accustomed to the tideless waters of the Mediterranean, were thrown into a state of great alarm and confusion by the ebb and flow of the tide, but ultimately Alexander succeeded in pushing on with some of the fastest vessels, and reaching the open sea. He sailed out a few miles into the deep, sacrificed bulls to Poseidon, and followed up the sacrifice by a libation, casting the golden vessels used in the ceremony into the ocean as a thank-offering.¹

c16.64

¹ Curtius (ix, 9) gives a spirited and detailed account of the voyage from Patala to the sea. Thathah (Tatta) is in N. lat. 24° 45′, E. long. 67° 58′. In the seventeenth century (Sir Thomas Herbert, Thevenot, &c.) Dēbal or Dēwal was the southernmost town in Sind, and a much frequented seaport, distant about 15 miles from Thathah. The town has now utterly disappeared; but it must have stood near to the shrine of Pīr Patho, or a little farther to the south-west, at the foot of the Makkahlī hills, and near the Bhāgar branch of the Indus, which was in those days a very great stream (Raverty, 'The Mihrān of Sind', pp. 317–31, note 315). Haig puts it at a ruin-covered site 20 miles SW. of Thathah (Holdich, *The Gates of India*, p. 310). That identification seems to be correct. But Raverty (p. 321) makes a slip in saying that Herbert landed at ‘Diul’. He landed at ‘Swalley Road’, off Sūrat (*Travels*, ed. 1677, p. 42). Diul is mentioned by him on p. 80 as a port.

c16.65

He then returned to Patala, where he found the works of the new naval station well advanced, and proceeded to explore the eastern, or left, branch of the river. Near its mouth he passed through a large lake, apparently that now known as the Samārāh lake, to the west of Umarkōt, and again reached the sea-shore in about latitude 25°.¹ Having spent three days in reconnoitring the coast and arranging for the construction of wells, he returned to Patala. Harbours and docks were built on the shores of the lake, and furnished with garrisons. Provisions to supply the forces for four months were collected, and all other necessary preparations were made for the two bold enterprises which he had planned: the voyage of the fleet along the coast to the Persian Gulf, and his own march with the army through Gedrosia in a direction, so far as might be practicable, parallel to the course of the fleet.

c16.66

¹ For an account of the Samārāh lake, see Raverty, op. cit., pp. 465, 477. It is marked as Samaro on the India Office map. In Alexander’s time the Ran (Runn) of Cutch (Kachchh) must have been an estuary of the sea, extending northward to about parallel 25°, where the eastern arm of the great river fell into it. The lake was only a short distance from the mouth of the river (Arrian, *Anab.* vi, 20). The coast-line has extended enormously. The spot called Mughalbin, where Akbar’s officer, in Queen Elizabeth’s time, stood to get a view of the ocean, is now quite 50 miles from the sea. Farther west, at Somniyāni, near the Purāli (Arabios) river, the coast has advanced at least 20 miles since Alexander’s time. Most of the land to the south of Badin, which stands in about N. lat. 24° 40′, has been formed since the reign of Akbar: the coast-line had a mean latitude of about 24° 30′ in the eighth century when the Arab conquest took place. In Alexander’s time, a thousand years earlier, the coast-line was, of course, considerably farther north, but no man can delineate it with any approach to accuracy. The parallel of 25° may be taken as an approximate definition of the coast reconnoitred by Alexander. The land at the Kohrāi mouth (vulgo ‘Khori Creek’) now extends to about 23° 30′. (See Raverty, op. cit., pp. 468, 469, 470, 477, &c.; Haig, op. cit., pp. 136, 139; and a good paper by Mr. R. Sivewright ‘Cutch and the Ran’, *Geogr. Journal*, vol. xxix (1907), p. 518; also Sir Bartle Frere, ‘Notes on the Runn of Cutch’, ibid., 1871.) The first published account of the Runn is that by Alex. Burnes in his *Travels into Bokhara, &c.*, 1835 (2nd ed., vol. i, chap. xvii). The sites of the old harbours were still pointed out, e.g. at Nerona, about 20 miles NNW. of Bhūj, at Charee, Puchum, &c. Anchor-stones were found, and at Wawania, the wreck of a large vessel 15 ft. below the surface (pp. 320–5). The same work gives details of the changes caused by the great earthquake of 1819.

c16.67

His plans were conceived upon a comprehensive scale. Nearchos, the admiral who had successfully commanded the flotilla during the ten months’ voyage from Jihlam to the sea, was instructed to bring the fleet round the coast into the Persian Gulf as far as the mouth of the Euphrates, and to record careful observations of the strange lands and seas which he should visit. Alexander himself proposed to conduct the army back to Persia through the wilds of the country then called Gedrosia, and now known as Makrān, hitherto untrodden save by the legendary hosts of Semiramis and Cyrus, whom he desired to surpass. The king, who was independent of the winds, started on his march about the beginning of October, 325 B. C. Nearchos, being obliged to watch for the change of the monsoon, did not leave his anchorage in the river until two or three weeks later.¹

c16.68

¹ Nearchos is said to have started from his anchorage in the river on the twentieth day of the Athenian month Boëdromion (Sept.–Oct.), 325 B. C. This date seems to be correct. Alexander may have begun his march two or three weeks earlier. Aristoboulos (Strabo, xv, 17) is the authority for the descent of the rivers having lasted ten months. Patala was reached ‘about the rising of the dog-star’, July – August. The operations carried out at, or conducted from, Patala, must have occupied a considerable time.

c16.69

Although Gedrosia has usually remained outside the Indian political system, the province, or part of it, has been included from time to time within the dominions of the sovereigns of Hind, and its history cannot be regarded as altogether foreign to the history of India. But the satrapy of Gedrosia undoubtedly lay beyond the limits of India proper, and a summary narrative of the adventures met with by Nearchos on its coast and by his sovereign in its deserts will be sufficient to complete the story of Alexander’s Indian campaign.

c16.70

Nearchos was detained for several days in the river, and, after much difficulty in making a passage for the ships round a bar, which obstructed the mouth of the western branch, ultimately got out to sea.² Contrary winds detained him for twenty-four days in a secure harbour, to which he gave the name of Alexander’s Haven. The coast-line has been changed so much by both accretion and denudation that attempts at detailed identifications of places near the mouth of the river are waste of time, but it is safe to affirm that the haven where Nearchos found shelter was not very far from the modern Karāchī (Kurrachee).¹ The admiral then crept cautiously along the inhospitable coast, his crews often suffering severely from lack of provisions and fresh water. After travelling 100 miles or so (850 *stadia*), the fleet reached the mouth of the river Arabis (the Habb), which formed the boundary between the Arabioi, the last people of Indian descent settled in this direction, and the Oreitai, who occupied an extensive territory to the west of the river.²

c16.71

² ‘Bar’, ἕρμα (*Indika*, 21). Some authors base ‘identifications’ on the translation of ἕρμα by ‘rock’. Arrian goes on to say that Nearchos dug a channel through ‘the softer part of the bar’, ἵναπερ μαλθακὸν ἦν τοῦ ἕρματος.

c16.72

¹ Karāchī was founded in 1725 by some traders, migrating from another port which shoaled (Haig, 'Ibnu Batuta in Sindh', reprint, p. 410, from *Geogr. J.*).

c16.73

² W. Tomaschek, 'Topographische Erläuterung der Küstenfahrt Nearchs vom Indus bis zum Euphrat' (*Sitzungs-Ber. d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften (philosoph-hist. Klasse)*, Wien, 1890, art. viii). The Habb is the Hab of *I. G.*

c16.74

Having traversed an estimated distance of 800 *stadia* more, the fleet reached a place called Kokala, where the wearied crews were allowed to disembark and enjoy much needed rest. While the sailors were reposing here in a fortified camp (*Indika*, 23), Nearchos came into touch with Leonnātos, whom Alexander had detached with a field force to subdue the Oreitai (*Anab.* vi, 22). News arrived that a great battle had been fought in which Leonnātos had defeated the natives with terrible slaughter. The Oreitai are said to have lost 6,000 men and all their leaders out of a total force of 8,000 foot and 300 horse.³ The Macedonian loss, although numerically small, was noteworthy because it included the colleague of Leonnātos, Apollophanes, who had recently been appointed satrap of the country.⁴ Communications between Leonnātos and Nearchos having been established, the fleet was repaired and victualled, and sailors who had proved inefficient at sea were drafted into the army, their places being taken by men selected from the troops under the command of Leonnātos.

c16.75

³ Curtius, ix, 9.

c16.76

⁴ Arrian, *Indika*, 23. But the same author asserts in *Anabasis*, vi, 27, that Alexander, after his arrival at the Gedrosian capital, Poura (mod. Bāmpur), deposed Apollophanes from his satrapy, because he had utterly disregarded his instructions. Arrian then goes on to say that Thoas, who was appointed successor, soon died, and was succeeded by Sibyrtios. Curtius (ix, 10) asserts that the predecessor of Sibyrtios was Memnon, who was 'cut off by some malady'. I cannot reconcile these discrepancies.

First 75 of 108 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)