Did Alexander really defeat Indian Porus?
June 18, 2009 by admin
Filed under Short History Articles
There is a controversy on battle between Alexander (Macedonian) and Indian Porus, one of his last battles before he died . While history (legend) says that Alexander won the hard fought battle, some scholars and experts argue that Greeks turned the tale around to hide Alexander’s first defeat, which forced him to leave the plans to move further into Great India. It’s even more surprising to find out that Plutarch wrote Alexander’s biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source.
Alexander’s quest to conquer the entire world started in 335 B.C . It’s 326 B.C spring time that he entered India “the land of milk and honey”, for invasion. He set to battle with Porus, the ruler of the kingdom Paurava situated between the rivers Hydaspes (modern Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab). Its capital may have been at the site now known as Lahore, assisted by Porus arch rival Ambi of Taxila.
The legend : (According to History)
The Porus were outnumbered and outclassed by the Macedonian army. A wounded king Porus surrendered only after the destruction of his entire army.The Indian leader accepted his defeat. When Alexander asked him how he wanted to be treated, he gave the famous reply ‘as a king‘. An impressed Alexander reappointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom. Porus received additional territories to the north of his kingdom which belongs to Ambi . Alexander moved down to conquer more Indian territories .When the armies reached the Beas, they were tired and homesick. So they refused to proceed any further.This rebel forced Alexander to giveup the quest and divided army into two parts to reach home. On his way back, Alexander died in 323 B.C.at an early age of 33 at Babylon near Baghdad.
The controversy :
In the 1960, an Indian scholar named Buddha Prakash argued, basing himself on the famous medieval epic named Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi, that Alexander was defeated’ by Porus, that the two men became friends, and that this explained why Alexander left him so much territories. So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin? So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Let’s see the two famous conspiracy theories put forth by some famous scholars :
Theory 1 : Alexander gave up to battle rest of India….
Alexander won on Porus with utmost difficulty. Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, “Like a king” – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander’s admiration. Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi’s Taxila. Alexander made mistake by asking Porus “What it would take to win the rest of India?” in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom. As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander’s generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces? And so army revolted against continuing for this reason but not for “homesick” as told in history.
Theory 2: Alexander lost to Puru.
Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru. So there’s Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. Alexander suffers a wound to the side. They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split . Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great The two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. leaving true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake.
What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. A shrewd politician, like Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. Alexander even resorted to pure and simple cheating to win some places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army.
With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. King Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
Other History posts at Explainstuff:
Ice Age
World’s First Rocket Warfare!
HOT at Explainstuff!
Smartest animals on the planet!
Woman who can remember everything !!!
Alexander’s quest to conquer the entire world started in 335 B.C . It’s 326 B.C spring time that he entered India “the land of milk and honey“, for invasion . He set to battle with Porus, the ruler of the kingdom Paurava situated between the rivers Hydaspes (modern Jhelum) and Acesines (Chenab). Its capital may have been at the site now known as Lahore, assisted by Porus arch rival Ambi of Taxila.
The legend : (According to History)
The Porus were outnumbered and outclassed by the Macedonian army. A wounded king Porus surrendered only after the destruction of his entire army.The Indian leader accepted his defeat.
When Alexander asked him how he wanted to be treated, he gave the famous reply ‘as a king‘. An impressed Alexander reappointed Porus as satrap of his own kingdom.Porus received additional territories to the north of his kingdom which belongs to Ambi .
Alexander moved down to conquer more Indian territories .When the armies reached the Beas, they were tired and homesick. So they refused to proceed any further.This rebel forced Alexander to giveup the quest and divided army into two parts to reach home. On his way back, Alexander died in 323 B.C.at an early age of 33 at Babylon near Baghdad.
The controversy :
In the 1960, an Indian scholar named Buddha Prakash argued, basing himself on the famous medieval epic named Shahnameh by the Persian poet Firdausi, that Alexander was defeated’ by Porus, that the two men became friends, and that this explained why Alexander left him so much territories.
So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin? So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Let’s see the two famous conspiracy theories put forth by some famous scholars :
Theory 1 : Alexander give up to battle rest of India….
Alexander won on Porus with utmost difficulty. Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, “Like a king” – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander’s admiration. Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi’s Taxila.
Alexander made mistake by asking Porus “what it would take to win the rest of India?” in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom.
As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander’s generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces? And so army revolted against continuing for this reason but not for “homesick” as told in history.
Theory 2 : Alexander lost to Porus :
Alexander lost to Puru. Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru .So there’s Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. Alexander suffers a wound to the side. They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split . Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great.
The two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. leaving true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever.
Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake. What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. A shrewd politician, like Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India.
Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. Alexander even resorted to pure and simple cheating to win some places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army. With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. King Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.
Check the Latest Posts and Archives if you like our posts.
second theroy was right ,it was recently changed after british invasion of india , this ws book written
“Alexander the great” by Wally Badge which is a Syriac edition, with English translation, of the folk-lore and legends connected to Alexander the Great. This ancient text represents a Greek text that is much older than any text that has been known before. This text shows that alexander was actually defeated (though perhaps a later layering of the text confuses the issue).
a) Darius’s call to help from Porus
b) Porus’s letter to Alexander and the reply and the ensuing fight
Thanks a lot for pointing that out! I will for sure take a look at that one!
Hey,interestingly since past sometime I been hearing different truth about this issue of Alexanders invasion of India.His very own biography and conquests in Persia,egypt by greeks scholars.I mean it seems so absurd to even think that a ruthless king like Alexander would be happy on Purous’s bravery and reward with huge chunk of his territories in Pakistan and Afghanistan or appoint him as a satrap.Why would he do so?He would have appointed his generals in charge and killed or imprisoned Purous as his biography tells us his ruthless nature.At the same time he would have proceeded further towards China ,Mongolia to carry on his conquest of world.The modern day Europeans are still under the influence that Alexander was undefeated.Yes he was undefeated but until he met Porous.The fact was Alexander was great and higly renowned warrior no question about that but his army was outnumbered against the huge army of Porous in the battle of Jhelum and had to accept defeat in the end.The story of “how one king treats another” is a manufactured and fake story created by some of Alexanders own friends just to keep his enemies away from him.I also request the European historians that this true history should also be a part of global education system.Even the greatest of the greatests are defeated at some stage.This is he law of nature.Truth can’t be hidden for long.
The reason why Alexander may have let King Porus stay in power was because an invader like Alexander, with a now depleted military at the moment, wasn’t going to be able to hold a rebellion off, but King Porus would. Think about it, even America allows Dictators to rule despite them being mere puppets to the American Empire. Why? Because they are better suited to continue to rule and control their people.
This is also very different than say, allowing a Persian kind to continue to rule parts of Persia. That would be unacceptable to Greeks who had a bad history with the Persians. But Indians, different matter.
It’s funny that people think that someone so ruthless, someone with such an ego, actually can’t respect his opponent. Look at sports if you have to. Mike Tyson was a killer in the ring in his prime, but in Victory, would hug and congratulate the majority (if not all) of his opponents. Not only that, but would often make his defeated opponent his sparring partner afterwards. Yes, he gave them a job to help him train. Respect.
And even in defeat, he was gracious.
You don’t have to kill your opponent. Not so one of honorable nature as King Porus was supposed to be. Not one who had a great grip on his land/people. You use that to your advantage. The worst thing you can do is have a rebellion soon after you are on your way and now have someone at your flank ready to strike.
Now could he have Lost? YES, he could have. However, if you go by the stories told of his character, the way he fought battles, the many injuries he suffered because he was a General, a Soldier, who would fight to win at all costs, and go by the battle after Porus, the battle in which he was nearly killed with an arrow, that story tells of a Man that would rather die on the battlefield than to stand alive in defeat.
I favor victory in that battle, however, the prospect of continuing on was the defeat.
Plus, The Greeks are not shy about recording their losses with their Heroes/Generals.
Well, the greeks may say what they want but the fact is that Raja Porus did defeat Alexander the great, otherwise why on earth would a young macedonian, who set out to conquer the world, turn back and stop fighting. The greeks have been very good in history writing because they were much more educted at that time than the indians. It is very easy to twist history when you dont have any other accounts to challenge what has been written.
It is also shown in the hollywood movie “Alexander” that alexander the great was injured during his battle against raja porus. but the movie does not go on to show who won the battle. The reason behind this is that there was not enough evidance avilable to show that alexander had won the battle.
Alexander turned back because his army was depleted from years of war. His battle(s) in India really took its toll. The Environment alone was hard to get used to. His men grew tired and were sick and dying from illness. So once your army starts to deplete, even an egotistical general like Alexander will have to turn back.
He is not only trying to win land in this new territory, but he still has to stay strong for lands he already won…like in Persia. Because if word gets out that you are weak, revolt happens…which did while he was away.
Forget the Hollywood movie. Books are better. Alexander was injured while fighting a tribe but the story does go on to say that Alexander’s men won the battle after seeing their Leader fall. It was a rallying cry for them to basically kick ass at all cost.
At this point they were already fatigued Mentally and Physically from War but at this moment, they won the battle on sheer guts because of their leader had fallen.
Why? Well for one, they respected him and even loved him despite the love/hate relationship. And two, without Alexander (alive), many thought they could never get back home in one piece.
Alexander’s injuries took its toll. And because of it, his Army demanded to turn back because their leader could no longer do what was needed to go on to something even more dangerous.
Alexander agreed because he had little choice. It would also allow him to heal up and plan his next invasion.
All that Said:
Now could he have lost? Sure. It wouldn’t have been the first time somebody tried to cover up a loss. Even Napoleon tried it. Although history noted the cover-up. So although Alexander was even further back in history, I doubt he could have gotten away with it either considering many even back in Greece/Athens, would have loved to expose the truth so they could get rid of him.
He wasn’t actually liked in Athens since he was considered kind of an “invader” himself being “Macedonian.” Not to say he wasn’t himself “Greek,” but not quite an “Civilized” stuck-up “Athenian” either.
As for the Ancient Indians….they were very bright and their military was very advanced…both in tactics and weaponry. So again, do not look at the Hollywood movie but actual history. Even many smaller tribes were highly skilled warriors.
The battle with Porus was a true hell of a War. Since I mentioned boxing already, think of it like Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier (III)
September 30, 1975
Manila, Philippines… since that was a popular fight between two great warriors that nearly killed each other and basically finished off what “greatness” was left of them.
As far as evidence: This is true as well. Which is also why it would be great for Pakistan to allow studies/archaeologist excavation to be done on the land.
My point with the Greeks, the “Athenians,” is that they love a good ending. A tragic ending. I think they would have loved more to see Alexander completely defeated than just to note that he was depleted from long wars but not utterly defeated…like Napoleon was after Russia.
actually its not true
indian are far far more educated than the greeks
the thing is that the britsh changed the history altogether so as to rule india ….they knew what we were capable f and knew our prosperous history or were ignorants (idiots) so they changed everything
It is much more likely that Alexander lost to Porus. As ruthless as Alexander was, it makes no sense that he suddenly became a fan of Porus out of the blue!
The Greeks twisted their story to save Alexander’s face as an undefeated warrior, but sorry that was until he fought Porus!
It does make sense and I replied with an answer why in my very first reply.
NEVER confuse what you feel with what a “leader” would do. Someone who separates emotion from what needs to be done. That’s what a great leader does.
Only when you have a “bad” King/Leader in power do you overthrow him. Weakness is not to be tolerated. And there were plenty of those. But if you come across a King that is on your level, you can either kill him or make him your ally. And in this case, since Alexander would have continued to have problems controlling the land had he put his own General(s) in charge, which would also spread him thin, he wanted a reliable “Great” Ally who could also possibly help him.
It’s also a great tactic to keep control of the land because it shows the people that you are willing to “join” forces rather than destroy everybody. Which is what Alexander’s intentions were about…”To Unite The World of all Races.”
He did this in Persia. And he was kind to the Royal Family. Yes, the King was dead but that was not from his doing. But in that case it would not have mattered because the Persian king was no longer respected by Alexander after his actions during battle (and after). Much different than Porus who stood his ground.
Alexander’s Historians may have wanted to save face but not the “Greeks.” The Greeks at the time weren’t really on board with him. They was still a feeling of “occupation” that the Athenians felt from Alexander and his Macedonian forces. When he died, for example, I read some say they cheered his death or were at least relieved.
Being “Macedonian,” He wasn’t quite “Greek” to them. And they didn’t approve of his behavior. Some Greeks even fought against him when he invaded Persia.
If the Greeks can kill off Hercules, they can certainly kill off Alexander. And the “real story” of Hercules isn’t so kind. It’s not so “Hollywood.” And that’s very important to this story.
Did Alexander defeat Porus or did Porus kick Alexander’s tutsi?
It is now a question which can not be answered accurately unless time travel is possible. Though there are certain logics which prove that Alexander was beaten by Porus and the way Arius in the above comments tried to explain, I believe it is possible too that Alexander befriended Porus and appointed him as his representative to hold the kingdom of Paurava. However, on questions still remains which Ali in the above comments, right below Arius’ comment asked, “Why someone who won almost half of the world would go back out of the blue? Because his soldiers were homesick and were not ready to proceed. Alexander WAS a ruthless king and he DID some brutal stuff to his own men when they disobeyed him. So why not kill all the disobeying soldi Macedonian brats and hire a new and efficient workforce of Indian soldiers (we Indians have always been a good outsourced labor)???
This does raise a doubt that maybe… Greek Historians wrote Alexander’s tale differently and made him ‘The Great’ !!!
BUT… who cares?
Alexander, Porus… both of them are dead now. The kingdoms they conquered are under another rulers and everyone (well almost) is happy.
Though Oliver Stone DID make a sweet movie.
RESPECT !
I agree with some of the posts that it was unlikely for a maglomaniac like Alaxander to be swayed by a simple statement of Puru (“–treat me as another king–). Macedonian generals were appointed as satraps for all of Alexander’s conquered territories, without exception. Here Puro (Porus) ended up with even a bigger territory than what he had before the battle!!Besides, victorious Macedonian army would be got so much gold and diamonds from the victory that they would have surely ventured further into India. Afterall, they were mercenaries – soldiers of fortune and ndia had plenty of it. I think Puru won the battle. Being magnanimous was what the Indian kings known for. Till even 1500 years later Prithviraj forgave Ghori for the first time (with disasterous consequence later, of course)Puru just let Alexander go back alive. One thing Indians were bad at was writing down history. So the Greek version stuck. Besides, the Greek story was convenient for the asendent West. Aryan invasion theory proposed by Western historians is another such attempt.
It doesn’t matter how much money you gain if you don’t have a strong army left. HIs army was Fatigued both Mentally and Physically and now depleted in numbers. His army would also have to spend money on new weapons since they were already destroyed from the weather (which they couldn’t prepare for). As well as restocking fresh “qualified” men.
And Alexander wanted to go on because he was going to bring in new men but his “Old Guard” soldiers wouldn’t allow it. They were the backbone of his army even though they were being depleted and replaced through the years. If they revolted, no matter what, he would now become a true outsider. Someone who turned his back. Which in that case, he would have had a revolt in Macedon and Greece as well as his field commanders who were from his clan. And that would not be good because there is no replacing them. A lot of these men were “great” in their own right. Went on to be “Kings” themselves after he died.
THERE IS NO REPLACING QUALIFIED LOYAL SOLDIERS NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU PAY NEW ONES. Alexander new this. Money is great but not greater than “Family/Love/Loyalty.” Macedonians were a “Clan.” They won years of war because they refused to retreat despite the odds. You can’t replace “EXPERIENCE.”
definetly without any doubt porus defeated alexander..as we all know tht greeks and the westerners had the common habbit of misinterpereting history..some of the examples r:
phythagorus theorem,newtons law of motion,gravitational force,aryan invasion theory,invention of catapault,discovery of america and many sea routes which were discovered by indians long ago .
As I have read in upgiven articles niether any ancient Indian historian wrote about the battle between Alexander and porus clearly nor any greek or roman historian clarified the battle between the two great men,but it will be wrong to say that alexander couldn’t give porus’s kingdom away because at last if not india completely,he had won more than half of the world (as we hear in or day to day life)so at last he was a brave warrior.I think that alexander must have won to porus,but nothing is 100 percent proved inhistory and this epic story still remains a mystery
agreed with most of the comments above.
indians were not less educated than romans.in fact they were more advance in certain fields.
the thing is india was a slave country when the research on alexander was going on.
we can say that it was like during world war !! hitler was an savage bcoz he killed several thousands but at the same time americans r angels although they slayed equal no. by just dropping two bombs.
Great article and great discussion!! Interesting comments by all without degrading the discussion into a dirt fight!!
So in the end, Alexander could have won and he could have lost. You can make an argument for both but it doesn’t mean one isn’t stronger than the other. But just because he had to turn back doesn’t mean he lost the battle. It could have easily just been that he lost to much in the battle that he was left weak and had to turn back. He still had other territories to control.
I would also like to note that from a personal standpoint, I am not Greek nor Indian/Pakistan so I can care less from an emotion side of it to stick up for one side of it for bias purpose.
well a young king with good amount of power in his hand and a large army behind his horse, who had conquered half of the world within a short period of time, who owned the most ferocious army of that time all of sudden says that my men are crying for there wives and they cant live without them i have to leave my conquest for this reason simply doesn’t make any sense. there is smthing missing.
and ALI greeks leaned mathematics from this land our culture have text(written text) much old then 10000 years old, do a little research and tell me what or where were greeks at that time. the vedic culture is oldest and most educated culture of all time from astrology to nuclear science every thing was here. NASA SAY” after testing the bones of harappan people we found 50 times of radioactivity more then Hiroshima n Nagasaki. can u imagine how strong must had been those blasts.
more then 70000 year old civilization is found at the basin of river saraswati. yes 70,000.
the gold city of dwarka which was considered as myth is no longer hidden.
so plz dont consider the vedic culture illiterate. maharishi Markandeya have written about the concept of peace more then 5500 years back when rest of the world was busy shedding blood.
sanskrit is cosidered the mother language of all the languages
and aristotle the teacher of alexandre himself learned math in this land, Pythagoras theoram was already present in our text they leanred it from this land and taught the rest of the world.
Battle of Hydaspes was the battle which Alexander almost lost it, his horse was killed and again he was wounded the main reasons for quitting the conquest was the mutiny among his army because of longtime of military campaign almost 11years and again to face Nanda empire, he had lost many generals and men and revolts throughout his empire, the greeks historians will certainly mention about his lose if he was defeated by Puru, greek historians always mentions truth even if they are ashamed of like they mentions that alexander and achilles were gay, and alexander ruthless guy who used to kill his general and wrong things he had done. Although rutless he is often respect his enemy like he look after the family of Darius after he defeats him. So, after all it would be the easiest to appoint the defeated king as his sartaps to avoid revolts in his new kingdoms and it would be even easier for him to maintain his vast empire. So, Puru’s barvery would impressed & led Alexander give back his kingdom.
during that time indian were not less educated than the greeks or macedonians or egyptians etc. indian also already studied astronomy, mathematic etc. like other civilized kingdom at that time. and what happen to some 21th century developed super power countries at that time they might be still living in their caves. The only reason Porus was defeated was that the macedoian were heavy armoured and used advanced military tactics (the phalanx) and moreover it was commanded by Alexander. Althought Porus lose i’m proud of it because Porus was one of one to resist powerful foreign invaders while many other kingdoms surrender out of fear, even Alexander admired Porus’s bravery. I’m proud to be indian anyway
alexander won the battle of hydaspes, he quit the campaign because of mutiny among his soldier, long expedition, he lost many men and generals.It would be easier for Alexander to appoint Porus as his governor in india to govern peacefully. Indian were not less educated then the greek (macedonian), indian scholars also studied mathematic, astrology etc. at that time.
the reason for the victory of alexander was the military tactics, macedonian heavy armoured soldiers (the phalanx) while indian were light infantry with war elephants.
To me, if there is no real evidence that Alexander had lost or own than why our education system taught whole of India that Puru lost to Alexander. It is English slavery or western slavery ? If Hollywood researchers have not came to any conclusion, than why Indian Government Indian scholars are so much eager to mention in our history books that Alexander had won. Now; Who is Alexander ? What is his contribution to Humanity, to Human Civilization ? To human happiness and human prosperity. Why we write great before his name. He was only a bloody blind killer and nothing else. In India we never write great before anyone. Not even the man of Gandhi’s stature; Goutam the Buddha’s stature. Than why before that killer. Is it not slavery to the western scholar. What they write, write right. So just stop all this nonsense for the time being. Let the truth revealed. And till that we all Indians should forget the battle of Jhelum. But don’t say any youngster a incomplete truth and a complete lie. The blind Government and the blind scholars should now open there eyes. Stop teaching Lies.
Right!!!So Alexander lost from Porus.Then how is possible for a defeated army to continue his expedition through India?Common military sense says that if Porus was the victor,he would have chased Alexander until annihilation.On the other hand it is logical that Alexander would have treated Porus kindly,because he needed a stronger ally than the king of Taxila.Moreover if Alexander had lost,he wouldn’t have founded neither Alexandria Bucephalous nor a new satrapy.Because of these,archaeologists find nowdays greek antiquities at the lands of Pakistan.