Talk:Indian campaign of Alexander the Great

The modern nation state of India did not exist till 1947. The territory that is now India, was not a single entity until the 19th century under British rule. As this article itself states, during Alexander's campaign, present day India was several independent kingdoms. So I have remove the completely incorrect statement, "what was then part of India".

"India" was the name given to that territory and group and kingdoms. To make it a litle better, I have linked the name "India" to History_of_India#Persian_and_Greek_conquests. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

In this page, the hyperlink to "Massaga" (which I think is actually supposed to be a place, based on context) in the part under "The Kambojas" wrongly points to something that relates to biology ("Massaga is a genus of moths of the Noctuidae family."). Can someone please fix this?

Thank You. Aashishsatya (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

I tried to edit some contents of the page. Initially I did not knew the rules, so harshly tried to put my point forth. Now I realized the process and still learning. I have some observations from some authentic sources which I would like to correct on the page. For every statement I have given their on the page , I have got sources, which I have mentioned. If someone want to challenge the sources, lets talk. We will discuss here and then we should do revert or editing on the page.

Regards,

Hemantvavale (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Comment--The article seems to be very poorly written with confusing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.235.91 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the grammar on this page. It is written in bad English. Leecorp1 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Editors, there is no source of greek histroy whihc claims victory by alxander over Parvatheshwara(Porus). is hight ime you remove stupidty..like 1. Alexander defeated Porus and gave away his ally's(Ambhi) territory to a defeated King how stupid of you. And to prove this there is no eveidence even from Greek scholars of that time. how long will u keep telling lies. 2. It was Bharatha ruled by several Independent Kings but all kings complied rules set froth by Rajguru meaning even King was servant.. numerous occasions are there to porve that royal were paid from treasury including Kings wife, children. ganarajya. the rulers are srvant of the people. 3. Council of ministers were chosen not by King but by the different chieftans who were either defeated or were awareded by king. without approval of the council of misters not a pie could taken by king. read Dhanananda story sorruption, being a king he was taking money from treasury and hiding it in different places if it was his then why take and hide it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.252.231.12 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisionist Indian nationalism written in broken English 103.93.115.18 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting this be moved back to Alexander's invasion of the Indian subcontinent, since "Indian" alone won't give readers a proper idea of what is being referred to. Since it's Indian subcontinent in this case, isn't that what it should be called?--Boxman88 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please initiate a proper WP:RM and notify the relevant wikiprojects. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• One question, why aren't the WikiProject members reading discussions of this article; especially if this is tagged under their project? Thanks--Boxman88 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Project members should be here by now.--Boxman88 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose to merge Musicanus into this article, since its merely a small paragraph. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In the section Indian campaign of Alexander the Great#Revolt of the army, there is a block quote that begins, "As for the Macedonians". I keep my screen at 125% resolution since I work on a small laptop. At 125%, that block quote appears as a long, very narrow column going down the middle of the page. Each line contains only one word. At 110%, it is also a long, narrow column, with each line containing one to three words. At 100%, is is a narrow column, with each line containing four to five words. Redrose64, can you figure out a way to reformat the block quote so that it does not end up looking like this?  – Corinne (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: How about now?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock Much better! Thank you. On a different issue, don't you think it would be a good idea to precede the block quotes with some kind of introduction, that is, something of author, date, source? As they are now, the quotes just appear out of the blue. It's also not clear, unless one studies the references, whether both paragraphs come from the same source or are from two different sources.  – Corinne (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Perhaps the quote template can be used instead of the blockquote tag as it supports attribution.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock I know how to use the quote template, but I'm not sure what to put as the attribution. In the first one, I see Plutarch. Is that all I put, or do I need to add the name of the work (before the citation)?  – Corinne (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: I've attributed the first quote to "Plutarch's Lives" which makes the author field rather redundant. I think the bigger problem with this section is that pg. 34 of Kosmin doesn't say what this section says he does.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that the modern nation state of india is a new 19th century construct that officially never existed at the time and that there are several nations which encompass the region the article should be more correctly termed as Alexanders Campaign in South Asia. If one looks at the conquests and routes that Alexander took geographically he never really stepped foot into the modern nation state of india geographically. Using the term South Asia would more appropriately and correctly explain Alexanders march to the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1320:1746:C8C2:94C0:EFD0:1E9E (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The Greek records describe the land as India (Indica). If we want to avoid confusion with Republic of India, "Indian subcontinent" is a possibility. utcursch | talk 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"This is an interesting observation, as the neighboring kingdom of Taxila housed one of the seats of higher learning in the Indian subcontinent.[9] The university recorded many prominent events of the time including the Seleucid–Mauryan war followed by the alliance between Alexander's successor Seleucus I Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya. An event such as Alexander's conquest of Taxila's neighboring state would have been recorded in their libraries, given the rarity and significance of such an event at the time. The lack of Indian accounts on the subject leads many to believe that Alexander's visit to India was insignificant to the Indians or was completely formulated by later Greeks, with the latter being more popular of the two. Supporting this notion, we also find no mention of King Porus in Indian accounts."

What Indian accounts? There are no Indian accounts from this time period, what library texts? We know of Seleucus and Chandraguptas deal due to Greek/Roman historians, not Indian ones. It's amazing how much Indian nationalists can be allowed to deface. If these Indian sources from that time period exist, can someone give an example?Chronicler87 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Some adjustment made; more might be needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it's better now, but I'm not sure why to leave it in at all. Unless someone has a source? India did not have a tradition of history writing in this period, and the first written Indian accounts come much later. (Hundreds of years later). There should be a question asking for who the "many" or the "some" are. Chronicler87 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

While the original text is surely not usable in this article due to factually inaccurate mentions of "records in the Taxila library", I'd like to address Chronicler87's points.

While it's true our primary narrative sources are Greco-Roman, the claim that "no Indian accounts from this time period exist" is highly misleading.

This is because it mistakes a lack of mention on the specific topic of Alexander, for a complete absence of record-keeping. India did have a rich record-keeping tradition, but it operated differently from that of the Greeks (see: Indian literature).

Also, Chronicler87 also says "India did not have a tradition of history writing in this period, and the first written Indian accounts come much later. (Hundreds of years later)", but, it is important to recognize that India did have an oral tradition of passing information which has mostly maintained integrity in its contents (see: Chandas (poetry)).

Numerous texts from the time-period also kept records of several battles and wars. (See: List of wars in the Indian subcontinent, c. 15th to 1st century BCE, and their sources)

However, the original text is inaccurate too, as silence on Alexander in Indian sources is therefore not proof that the event was fabricated. Instead, it could more possibly deflect that from the perspective of the Indian heartland and its meticulous preservation traditions, his campaign was not considered significant enough to record.

The "lack of Indian accounts" that Chronicler87 mentioned is actually just a lack of a specific style of historical writing that the Greco-Romans and later Europeans are used to.

I suggest we add a brief section to the article explaining this historiographical context, as it provides crucial nuance. HighlyPaidIntern (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Also see: Sanskrit prosody#Use of metre to identify corrupt texts HighlyPaidIntern (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually my point was that to my knowledge nothing from the Taxila library survives, no matter how it was written...but yes, that was also part of my point. Chronicler87 (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel my edits were in Campaign in Punjab and Campaign in Lower Indus Valley. Review them and see why they weren't necessary.Sutyarashi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Still you have to show why you are adding "Conquest of Cathaeans" when no sources even support this WP:SYNTH by you. You are adding what is clearly WP:UNDUE. Alexander went towards the Chenab River, and had captured about 37 towns. It has been already mentioned. Are you going to write about each? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The source mentioned was taken from Sagala. It doesn't come under WP:SYNTH. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Which source calls it a "Conquest of Cathaens"? Can you also answer the rest of the concerns which I raised? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexander's campain in India was a macedonian victory as showed in the result section is not citied by any WP:RS, in addition of that he was partially forced to retreat because of the might of the Nanda Empire. Hence, it should be removed or a consensus is needed for the result section. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not clear what edit you are requesting. Barjimoa (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the result section that's why there is not any source cited for Alexanders victory Rawn3012 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Senapatiji your edit was removed and you have added the same source again . Stop citing colonial-era sources. Tod is one, not "some" historians, and your secondary/contemporary source explaining that "evidence remains uncertain" is not "modern," it was written in 1990. Drew Stanley (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Content from this source was also removed from Kathi people. Drew Stanley (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge your concern regarding colonial-era work. But it would have been better if you had discussed your concerns before outrightly removing the sourced content. Anyway let's do it now.

Clarify following things.

1. Why colonial-era work is unreliable even when its claims are supported by contemporary work? (In this case the contemporary work is Khachar, Pradhyumn; Vala, Dhirubhai (2022). Saurashtrana Prasiddha Rajavio [Celebrated Rulers of Saurashtra] (in Gujarati) (3rd ed.). Ahmedabad: University Granth Nirman Board. p. 262. ISBN 9788174682321.)
2. What source 'published in 1990' are you talking about? (There is no souce cited by me which was published in 1990. Though there are many sources in this page published in 1960s. Are you also going remove them?)
3. If you have issue with the word 'some historians', correction would have been done instead of complete removal.
4. What are your arguments against the contemporary which supports colonial work in this particular case?

Senapatiji (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

1. The contemporary work is not academic nor is it written in English
2. When was the first edition published?
3. How would I correct the claim? Should we write "Two people wrote a book that Senapatiji says demonstrates" ? I don't have the source, which is not available online or in libraries and not written in English
4. It is not academic nor is it written in English. Drew Stanley (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Your link is misleading, it is not the source in question here. This is the source that I have cited here is this (link ). Moreover it is an academic source published by University Granth Nirman Board, which is a government publisher which publishes reference work for universities in Gujarat state. And no Wikipedia policy restricts the use of non-english source, please refer Wikipedia policy on non-English source which explicitly says, "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia."

2. First edition was published in 2020.

3. No need to mention my name on the article, we can just write "Some historians (name 1, name 2, name 3) claims that....", or "Historians like, name 1, name 2, name 3, claims that...", this will resolve the issue if you find it good. Secondly if you don't have the source, I can provide quotation from the book and will translate it in English for you. And if you are looking for purchasing it, it's available online in India (I don't know is it okay to share the purchase link here or not, but just let me know if you are looking forward to it).

4. Already addressed this in point no. 1. Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 06:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, share the quotation and Khachar's evidence for the information - if this book is a reliable source, I will add the quotation to the article.

As a reminder, you've been asked to self-revert. Drew Stanley (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Content has been removed as per the ANI discussion. Senapatiji (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Drew Stanley your edit has been reverted, let's finish this discussion first and then we will decide what changes are to be made. Thanks. Senapatiji (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

as well as contradictions. 47.189.7.153 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)