fought was the greatest day of Alexander’s life, if we take together the
splendour and difficulty of the military achievement and the generous
treatment of his conquered opponent.” Military critics cannot point to a
single strategical error in the whole series of operations conducted by
Alexander himself, or his generals acting under his orders, from the time
he encamped on the bank of the Hydaspês till the overthrow and surrender
of Pôros. At the same time the courage and skill with which the Indian
king contended against the greatest soldier of antiquity, if not of
all time, are worthy of the highest admiration, and present a striking
contrast to the incompetent generalship and pusillanimity of Darius. “The
Greeks,” says General Chesney, “were loud in praises of the Indians;
never in all their eight years of constant warfare had they met with
such skilled and gallant soldiers, who, moreover, surpassed in stature
and bearing all the other races of Asia.... The Indian village community
flourished even at that distant period, and in the brave and manly race
which fought so stoutly under Porus twenty-two centuries ago we may
recognise all the fine qualities of the Punjabi agrarian people of the
present day, the gallant men who fought us in our turn so stubbornly, now
the most valuable component of the Indian empire, and the best soldiers
of its Queen-Empress.”
NOTE L.—THE KATHAIANS
The Kathaioi, it would appear from the text, inhabited the regions lying
to the east of the Hydraôtês. Some writers, however, as Strabo informs
us (XV. i. 30), placed their country in the tract between the Hydaspês
and Akesinês, but this view is manifestly wrong. They are described by
ancient authors as one of the most powerful nations of India. Their
very name indicates their warlike propensities and predominance, for if
it is not identical with that of the military caste, _Kshatriya_, it
is at least a modified form of that word. Arrian subsequently (vi. 15)
mentions a tribe of independent Indians whose name is a still closer
transliteration of _Kshatriya_, the _Xathroi_, whose territories lay
between the Indus and the lower course of the Akesinês. Strabo (XV. i.
30) notices some of the peculiar manners and customs of the Kathaians,
such as infanticide, and Sati. Lassen has pointed out that their name is
connected with that of the Kattia, a nomadic race scattered at intervals
through the plains of the Panjâb, but supposed to be the aborigines of
the country and of Kolarian descent. Their name occurs in that of the
province of Kâthiawâr, which now comprises the province of Gujerat.
NOTE M.—SANGALA
Sir E. H. Bunbury, referring to the uncertainty of the identifications of
the tribes and cities of the Panjâb mentioned by Alexander’s historians,
says: “While the general course of his march must have followed
approximately the same line of route that has been frequented in all ages
from the banks of the Indus to those of the Beas, his expeditions against
the various warlike tribes that refused submission to his arms led him
into frequent excursions to the right and left of his main direction. And
with regard to these localities we have a general clue to guide us. The
most important of these sites to determine would be that of Sangala, the
capital of the Cathaeans, which, according to the narrative of Arrian,
was situated between the Hydraotes and the Hyphasis. Hence it was placed
by Burnes at Lahore, and by others at Umritsir. But on the other hand
there are not wanting strong reasons for identifying Sangala with the
Sakala of Indian writers, and this was certainly situated to the west
of the Hydraotes, between that river and the Acesines” (_Hist. of Anc.
Geog._ pp. 444, 445). This was the view of General Cunningham, who,
taking _Śâkala_ or _Sâkala_ (the _Sagala_ of Ptolemy’s _Geography_) to
be the name in Sanskrit of the place which the Greeks called _Sangala_,
found a site for it at Sânglawâla-Tiba, a small rocky hill with ruins
upon it and with a large swamp at its base, and situated between the
Râvi (Hydraôtês) and the Chenâb (Akesinês) at a distance of about sixty
miles to the west of Lahore. This was no doubt the site of the Śâkala
of Sanskrit writers and of the She-kie-lo of the Chinese pilgrim Hwen
Thsiang, who visited the place in 630 A.D. But it cannot have been the
site of the Sangala of the Greeks, for, in the first place, according to
the testimony of all the historians, that city lay between the Hydraôtês
and the Hyphasis, and was attacked by Alexander after he had crossed the
former river. To meet this objection Cunningham assumes that Alexander
must have recrossed the Hydraôtês on hearing that the Kathaians had risen
in his rear. His thus turning aside from the direction of his march to
make his rear secure is quite consistent with his usual practice, but
the historians say nothing from which it can possibly be inferred that
on this occasion he made any retrograde movement. But again philology as
well as history is adverse to this identification, for, as has lately
been shown by M. Sylvain Lévi (_Journal Asiatique_, series viii. vol. xv.
pp. 237-239), _Sangala_, in accordance with the rules of transcription,
must be taken to represent not _Sâkala_, but _Sâmkala_. Now, just as in
Diodôros and Curtius we find Sangala mentioned in connection with a king
called Sôphytês, so in an Appendix to Pânini’s _Grammar_, called the
Gana-pâtha, _Sâmkala_ is mentioned in connection with _Saubhuta_, which,
in accordance with the rules of transcription and the Greek practice of
designating Indian rulers after their territories, is evidently the name
of the country over which Sôphytês ruled. This country, which was rich
and prosperous, as its very name implies, lay between the Hydraôtês and
the Hyphasis, probably in the district of Amritsar and towards the hills.
Arrian in his narrative of the campaign between these two rivers makes no
mention of Sôphytês, or, as he calls him, Sôpeithes, but he afterwards
refers to a king of this name whose dominions lay between the Hydaspês
and Akesinês. Strabo was aware of the discrepancy of the accounts as to
where the dominions of the Kathaians and King Sôphytês were situated.
NOTE N.—ALEXANDER’S ALTARS ON THE HYPHASIS
These altars are mentioned by Pliny, who says (vi. 21): “The Hyphasis
was the limit of the marches of Alexander, who, however, crossed it, and
dedicated altars on the further bank.” Pliny stands alone in placing
these altars on the left bank of the river. The historians all place them
on the right bank. Philostratos states that Apollonios of Tyana on his
journey into India in the second century of our aera, found the altars
still subsisting and their inscriptions still legible. Plutarch affirms
that in his days they were held in much veneration by the Praisians,
whose kings, he says, were in the habit of crossing the Ganges every year
to offer sacrifices in the Grecian manner upon them. It would, however,
be unsafe to place much credit in either of these statements. The altars
have been sought for in recent times, but not the slightest vestige of
them has been discovered. Masson and some other modern writers place
them on the Gharra (the united stream of the Vipaśâ and the Śatadru (or
Satlej), but this view, while otherwise exposed to serious objections,
is upset by the fact alone that in ancient times the two rivers united
at a point forty miles below their present junction. As Pliny (vi. 21)
gives the distance from the Hyphasis to the Hesidrus (Satlej) along the
Royal Road at 169 miles, it is evident that the altars must have been
situated at a point high above the junction of these two rivers. V. de
Saint-Martin is inclined to think that the altars may have been situated
near a chain of heights met with in ascending the Beiâs, and known
locally under the name of the _Sekandar-giri_, that is, “Alexander’s
mountain.” These heights are at no great distance from Râjagiri, a small
and obscure place, but supposed to represent Râjagriha mentioned in the
_Râmâyana_ as the capital of a line of princes called the Aśvapati (or
_Assapati_ in Prakrit) who governed the Kekaya, or, as Arrian calls
them in his _Indika_, the Kêkeoi. Lassen, followed by Saint-Martin,
identified Sôpeithes as belonging to the line of princes indicated.
The identification has been superseded by a better, but Saint-Martin’s
argument, as far as it concerns the position of the altars, is not
thereby affected. Sir E. H. Bunbury considers that the point where
Alexander erected the twelve altars cannot be regarded as determined
within even approximate limits. It appears probable, he thinks, that they
were situated at some distance above the confluence of the two rivers,
and not very far from the point where the Beas emerges from the mountain
ranges. We learn indeed, he adds, that throughout his advance Alexander
kept as near as he could to the mountains; partly from the idea that he
would thus find the great rivers more easily passable, as being nearer
their sources; partly from an exaggerated impression of the sterile and
desert character of the plains farther south (_Hist. of Anc. Geog._ p.
444).
NOTE O.—VOYAGE DOWN THE HYDASPÊS AND AKESINÊS TO THE INDUS
From the point of embarkation at Nikaia (Mong) to the confluence of the
united streams of the Panjâb with the Indus, the distance in a straight
line may be reckoned at about 300 miles. Alexander in descending to
this confluence had no sooner left the dominions of Pôros than he was
engaged in a constant succession of hostilities with the riparian tribes.
He had no intention of leaving India as a fugitive. He must depart as
a conqueror and master of all wherever he appeared. He had no wish,
therefore, even had it been possible, to drop quietly down stream to the
ocean. He must demand submission to his authority from all the tribes he
might encounter on his way, and, if this were refused, enforce it at the
sword’s point. These tribes were the bravest of the brave in India—the
very ancestors of the Rajputras, or Rajputs, whose splendid military
qualities have spread their fame throughout the world. Such of these
tribes as inhabited the fertile regions adjacent to the rivers seemed to
have settled in towns and villages and to have practised agriculture,
while those that tenanted the deserts which extended far eastward into
the interior led a half-wandering pastoral life, and subsisted as much on
the produce of rapine as on the produce of their flocks and herds. They
were all proudly jealous of their independence, and owned no authority
but that of their proper chiefs. Though they were separated into distinct
tribes, which were almost perpetually at feud, they were still able when
confronted with a common danger to combine into formidable confederacies.
In all times they have opposed to invasion a vigorous and sometimes a
desperate resistance (_v._ Saint-Martin, _Étude_, p. 113).
NOTE P.—THE MALLOI AND OXYDRAKAI
The names of these two warlike tribes are very frequently conjoined in
the narratives of the historians. In Sanskrit works they appear as the
Mâlava and the Kshudraka, and a verse of the _Mahâbhârata_ combines
them in a single appellation, _Kshudrakamâlava_. They are mentioned
in combination by Pânini also as two Bahîka people of the north-west.
Arrian (_Indika_, c. iv.) places the Oxydrakai on the Hydaspês _above_
its confluence with the Akesinês. It is doubtful, however, that this
was their real position. Bunbury inclines to think that they lay on the
east or left bank of the Satlej—the province of Bahawalpur—and that
they may very well have extended as far as the junction of the Satlej
with the Indus and the neighbourhood of Uchh. General Cunningham, he
adds, is alone in placing the Oxydracae to the north of the Malli. That
author has, however, the _Indika_ to support his view. Their name in the
classics appears in various forms, Strabo and Stephanos Byz. calling
them _Hydrakai_, Pliny _Sydracae_, and Diodôros _Syrakousai_. Strabo
says they were reported to be the descendants of Bacchos because the
vine grew in their country, and because their kings displayed great pomp
in setting out on their warlike expeditions after the Bacchic manner
(XV. i. 8). They are no doubt to be identified with the Śudras, whose
name in early times did not denote a caste, as it did afterwards, but a
tribe of aborigines, or, at all events, a tribe of non-Aryan origin. The
final _ka_ in the Greek form of their name is a common Sanskrit suffix
to ethnic names given or withheld at random. The single combat between
Dioxippos and a Macedonian bravo called Horratas took place after a great
banquet at which Alexander entertained the envoys of the Oxydrakai.
The territory of the Malloi was of great extent, comprehending a part
of the Doâb formed by the Akesinês and the Hydraôtês, and extending,
according to Arrian (_Indika_, c. iv.), to the confluence of the Akesinês
and the Indus. In the _Mahâbhârata_ they figure as a great people, being
there distinguished into the Eastern, Southern, and Western Mâlavas
(_Mahâbh._ vi. 107). They are mentioned also in the inscription of
Samudragupta (of the first half of the third century A.D.) among other
peoples of the Panjâb who were subject to the King of Madhya-desha
(_v._ V. de Saint-Martin, _Étude_, pp. 116-120). “These two races,”
says Thirlwall (_History of Greece_, vii. 40), “were composed of widely
different elements; for the name of one appears to have been derived
from that of the Sudra caste; and it is certain that the Brahmins were
predominant in the other. We can easily understand why they did not
intermarry and were seldom at peace with each other.” The feud, however,
may have been one of race rather than of caste, though no doubt the
distinctions of caste originated in difference of race.
NOTE Q.—THE CAPITAL OF THE MALLOI
Diodôros and Curtius assign this city to the Oxydrakai, but erroneously.
General Cunningham identifies it with Multân and takes it to be also the
capital of the Malloi “to which many men from other cities had fled for
safety.” Arrian seems, however, to indicate that the two places were
distinct. V. de Saint-Martin inclines to identify the Mallian capital
with Harrâpa (the Harapa which Cunningham takes to be the city captured
by Perdikkas). Multân is at present the capital of the province of the
same name, which comprises pretty nearly the same territories as those
occupied by the Malloi of the Greek historians. Multân is not situated on
the Râvi now, but on the Chenâb, and at a distance of more than thirty
miles _below_ the junction of that river with the Râvi. This circumstance
would be quite fatal to Cunningham’s view if the junction had not
shifted. But it has shifted, for in Alexander’s time the rivers met about
fifteen miles below Multân. “The old channel (Cunningham says) still
exists and is duly entered in the large maps of the Multân division. It
leaves the present bed at Sarai Siddhû and follows a winding course for
thirty miles to the south-south-west, when it suddenly turns to the west
for eighteen miles as far as Multân, and, after completely encircling
the fortress, continues its westerly course for five miles below Multân.
It then suddenly turns to the south-south-west for ten miles, and is
finally lost in the low-lying lands of the bed of the Chenâb. Even to
this day the Râvi clings to its ancient channel, and at all high floods
the waters of the river still find their way to Multân by the old bed,
as I myself have witnessed on two occasions. The date of the change
is unknown, but was certainly subsequent to A.D. 713.” From Arrian’s
narrative it would appear that Alexander occupied three days, one of
which was spent in rest, in advancing from the city of the Brachmans
to the city of the Malloi. The distance traversed would be thirty-four
miles, if Cunningham’s identification of the former city with Atâri
and of the latter with Multân be correct. The city where Alexander was
wounded appears from Arrian’s account to have been at some distance from
the Hydraôtês, and if so could not have been Multân.
NOTE R.—ALEXANDER IN SINDH
Arrian and the other historians of Alexander have treated very briefly
and vaguely his campaign in the valley of the Indus. Hence it is
difficult to trace the course of his operations as he descended from
the great confluence at Uchh to Patala where the Indus bifurcates to
form the Delta. The distance between these two points, if measured by
the course of the river, may be estimated at nearly four hundred miles,
yet we find, as Saint-Martin observes, that in the descent not a single
distance is indicated, nor a single peculiar feature of the country
described which might serve as a sign-post for the direction and guidance
of our inquiries. It is at the same time difficult to reconcile the
discrepancies found to exist in the accounts transmitted to us, and
altogether the search for identities must here mainly concern itself with
the names of tribes. In determining how these tribes were collocated it
is necessary to take cognisance of the changes which have taken place
in the course of the Indus since Alexander’s time. Captain M’Murdo was
the first to call attention (in 1834) to these changes, which were not
confined to the terminal course of the river, but extended more than
two hundred miles above the Delta. He proved that up to the seventh
century of our aera the main stream of the Indus, instead of following
its present channel, pursued a more direct course to the sea some sixty
or seventy miles farther east than it now flows. The old channel, which
leaves the present stream at some distance above Bhakar, passes the
ruins of Alôr, and then proceeds directly towards the south nearly
as far as Brâhmanâbâd, above which it divides into two channels, one
rejoining the present course above Haidarâbâd, while the other pursues
a south-easterly course towards the Ran of Kachh. The voyage down the
lower part of the course took place during the season of the inundation
when the plains were laid far and wide under water, and the current was
rapid and violent. As the march followed mainly the line of the river
the country would appear to the Macedonians extremely rich, fertile, and
populous, while the sterility of the regions that lay beyond the reach
of the inundations would seldom be brought under their cognisance. In
descending the river they could not fail to notice the contrast presented
by the plains on its opposite banks, those on the east exhibiting a
uniform expanse without any visible boundary, while those on the west
were hemmed in by a great mountain rampart which in running southwards
gradually approached the Indus till the roots of the hills were laved by
its waters. The inhabitants would strike them as being more swarthy in
their complexion than the men of the Panjâb, from whom they differed also
in their political predilections, as they preferred kingly government to
republican independence, and allowed the Brahman to exercise a decisive
influence over public life. The descent of the Indus by Alexander, as
Bunbury remarks, may be considered as constituting a kind of aera in the
geographical knowledge of the Greeks. It does not appear, he adds, that
it was ever repeated; and while subsequent researches added materially
to the knowledge possessed by the Greeks of the valley of the Ganges and
the more easterly provinces of India, their information concerning the
great river Indus and the regions through which it flows continued to be
derived almost exclusively from the voyage of Alexander and the accounts
transmitted by the contemporary historians.
After leaving the great confluence the first tribe Alexander reached were
the _Sogdoi_, who appear as the _Sodrai_ in Diodôros, who states that
Alexander founded among them on the banks of the river a city called
Alexandreia in which he placed 10,000 inhabitants. The Sogdoi have
been identified with the _Sohda_ Rajputs who now occupy the south-east
district of Sindh about Amarkot, but who in former times held large
possessions on the banks of the Indus to the northward of Alôr. This
place, though now only a scene of ruins, was formerly, before it was
deserted by the river, one of the largest and most flourishing cities
in all Sindh. Saint-Martin takes it to have been the Sogdian capital,
and thinks that the city which Alexander founded lay in its vicinity at
Rôri, since right opposite to this place there rose in the middle of the
river the rocky island of Bhakar, which presented every natural advantage
for the site of a great fortress. Cunningham, however, would place the
capital higher up stream, about midway between Alôr and Uchh, at a
village which appears in old maps under the name of Sirwahi, and which
may possibly represent the _Seori_ of Sindh history and the _Sodrai_ of
Diodôros. In this neighbourhood lies the most frequented ghât for the
crossing of the Indus towards the west _viâ_ Gandâva and the Bolan Pass;
and as the ghâts always determine the roads, it was probably at this
point of passage Krateros recrossed the Indus when he was despatched
with the main body of the army and the elephants to return home through
the countries in which that Pass lay. The name _Sodrai_, some think,
represents the Sanskrit _Śûdra_ which designates the servile or lowest of
the four castes. If this be so, the Sodrai may be regarded as a remnant
of the primitive stock which peopled the country before the advent of the
Aryans (_v._ Lassen, _Ind. Alt._ ii. p. 174; Saint-Martin, _Étude_, pp.
150-161; Cunningham, _Anc. Geog. of India_, pp. 249-256).
NOTE S.—SINDIMANA
Sambus is called Sabus by Curtius, who, without giving the name of
his capital, informs us that Alexander captured it by mining and then
marched to rejoin his fleet on the Indus. The Greek name of this capital,
_Sindimana_, has led to its identification with Sehwân, a site of very
high antiquity. The great mound which was once its citadel has been
formed chiefly of ruined buildings accumulated in the course of ages on a
scarped rock at the end of the Lakki range of hills. Its water supply is
at present entirely derived from the Indus, which not only flows under
the eastern front of the town, but also along the northern by a channel
from the great Manchur Lake, which perhaps formerly extended up even
to the city walls. The objection to this identification, that Sehwân’s
position on the Indus conflicts with the statement that Alexander had
to march from Sindomana to reach that river, is removed by the fact
that the Indus has changed its course since Alexander’s time. Wilson
derives the Greek Sindomana from what he calls a very allowable Sanskrit
compound, _Sindu-mân_, “the possessor of Sindh.” Cunningham, however,
would refer the name to _Saindava-vanam_ or _Sainduwân_, “the abode
of the Saindavas.” _v._ his _Anc. Geog. of India_, pp. 263-266, and
also Saint-Martin’s _Étude_, p. 166, where it is stated that the name
of Sambus is probably connected with that of the tribe called Sammah,
whose chiefs have at different epochs played a distinguished part in the
valley of the Indus. In Hindu mythology _Samba_ is the son of Krishna.
According to Plutarch, it was somewhere in the dominions of Sabbas that
Alexander had his interview with the ten Indian gymnosophists. Sehwân is
the Sewistan of the Arabs. According to Burton (writing in 1857), it is a
hot, filthy, and most unwholesome place, with a rascally population (of
6000) which includes many beggars and devotees. _v._ his _Sindh_, p. 8.
The population has since increased to upwards of 160,000.
NOTE T.—CITY OF THE BRACHMANS—HARMATELIA