Alexander vs Porus | Truth Uncovered | We have fooled for centuries | Keerthi History 

Why only year after?

@@Keerthihistory bcos Indians are raising there awareness and knowing history after 2014, ... It will take time to reach the peak of the wave. People like you may bring it within months ❤️☮️.

@@opinionabout938 Awww thank you ♥️🙏🏼

My grandmother told me a story... Alexander भारत आता है लड़ने के लिए पर बुरी तरह से हार जाता है, तो उसे राजा पुरु (जो की मेरे पूर्वज है) हराकर बंदी बना लेते है... पर अलेक्जेंडर की पत्नी जो parsia से थी वो भारत के संस्कृति के बारे में जानती थी (क्यू की भारत और परसिया इतिहास में अच्छा संबंध रखते थे) तो उसने एक तरकीब निकाली और राजा पुरु को राखी भेजी... उस राखी का मान रखने के लिए राजा पुरु ने अलेक्जेंडर को छोड़ दिया... पर चाणक्य जो विष विद्या ने बड़े माहिर थे उन्होंने अलेक्जेंडर को मार दिया क्योंकि उन्हें अलेक्जेंडर के पुनः आक्रमण की शंका थी जो की सेलुकस ने सही साबित की... पर तबतक चाणक्य ने चंद्रगुप्त को सम्राट बनाकर भारत को सशक्त बना दिया था ... जय भारत माता...

@@Keerthihistory because you're a fool and your subscribers super fools believing in your cartoon history🤣🥺🥺

Possible

But this does not explain why Indians don't mention any war.

Who was the historian of Alexander, Arrian, who based his accounts on the report of Alexander's Naval commander Nearchus, 200 years later. So you can imagine how in these years the actual accounts were altered. And western historian based their research on this as no accounts of Alexander's survived.

They use to depict other history.

Event there god's r same as our god's weapons,indra vaiara zeus lighting, massager like narad ect.

Is it what she is trying to do ? From mere assumptions?

​@@varghesemanikkoth21certainly you are assuming

Why is it that Indians are always lining up to get into western countries yet no one from the west ever lines up in droves to get into India.

@asmitraj1110 Hear properly the conclusion. 7:18 She herself says “we can make only assumptions…” and just like that not accepting existing documents.. When you counter a so far agreed history, that is when you need a proof to counter. History is not false pride.She only says “it could have happened like this and like that”. She blatantly denies already recorded history as partiality and don’t have any documents to prove otherwise.

She is happy with her assumptio?s !

1. Your points you made in point 5, Porus would be the undisputed champ from India till Eygpt, and that he had so much power, he could've conquered that region after defeating Alexander has already been addressed in the video where, compared to the other kings of India, Porus wasn't a big king, in-fact he wasn't even a king at all, he was a Cheiftan of his tribe. Alexander was humiliated by losing to a Cheiftan and when his army already defeated heard about the prospect of "Larger" Indian Kingdoms awaiting in the East, such as the Nanda Dynasty, they knew they would get crushed, & Alexander knew this too, so he left Selecus in charge of the regions he had conquered far east, and turned back. Your other point where you said "Persians would not have any incentive to glorify Alexander. To them, Porus would be the God who defeated the tyrant Alexander. Some records, tales ought to have survived. Also, a king with that level of dominion, would have brought as much western territory as possible under his control. Persian records would have shown a 7 feet tall Indian king who ruled between 326-323 BC." First off The Renowned Taskhashila University, just A FEW miles away from the site of Battle, didn't even care to write about either Porus, Alexander, or of this Battle, If this Battle was indeed so big, then the University would certainly write about it, but they didn't so many people in India didn't even have a clue this battle happened b/c it was deemed "un important" which is why their are no Persian records about it, b/c if Indian's themselves didn't know about the war at the time, how would the Persians know, when they were Miles away. The most likley outcome is that when Alexander's soldiers got back, they started making their own versions of what actually happened instead of saying "we came back b/c we lost to an Indian Cheiftan of a local tribe, and we were scared b/c their were even more powerful Indian Kings awaiting us for battle. Again Porus didn't conquer the entire west after defeating Alexander, b/c he was a local Cheiftan and not a King.

The reason Porus isnt really mentioned as defeater of Alexander is not because persians or greeks but because of Chanakya. Chanakya was trying to market Chandragupt Maurya as the undefeated/undisputed unifier of Bharat (or well, at least the northern part) and one of their biggest achievements was defeating Selucus Necator who was Alexander's General. He also married one of Selucus' daughters. Do u think a master strategist/kingmaker like Chanakya would like it if it was known that some local chieftain, Puru, defeated not just a Greek General, but the undefeated Alexander himself? Kya ijjat reh jati market mein. And it doesn't help that Chandragupt Maurya was succeeded by Raja Ashok, one of the most successful kings in our history, who started his reign with blood. Why would they let some local chieftain from Sindh overshadow their achievements?

​@@Furrina89 He was asking why did persians not make him take all the glory if he really defeated Alexander , don't tell me you're saying chanakya was behind this 😂

So let me tell you something as Iranian , there is no sign of ever attack of Alexander in Iran too , Greek say that Alexander set fire to Persepolis but , Architecture students had studied the stones of the monuments, and guess what? there is no sign of getting ever burned in the region, secondly they alleged roman has ruled Persia for more than hundred years!! So how is that there are less than 100 Greek words in all Iranic languages?? While you can find many Arabic and Turkish words as Arabs has ruled the region for 200 years and also Mongolians! Even French words are more than Greek words in Iranic languages,I think Alexander is a made up fictional character, respond to Cyrus The Great and Achaemenians empire and their civilization since they had attacked Greece and conquered it

Alexander did not create any sattarps. Thats another western lie. Your alexander winning against Porus sounds great to western hears but you need to address illogic behind Alexander winning against Porus. Porus won against Alexander hands down and you cant change this fact.

Is that so? Ive never come across this in the Arthashastra. Would you be so kind enough as to tell us what chapter this is mentioned in?

U must have read hindi subtitle.... he was injured and later died in babylon due to disease.. lol such illiterate idiots

Ya, it doesnt make senses to give back after taking a small piece of india and not taking india inspite india being 33% of world gdp of that time

@@zalayashpalsinh5427 33% gdpa Lool why are you guys so delusional

Conquered through out their existence ,yet somethow think they are fearsome warriors. " But by the end ofthe day, Porus' troops were defeated.Out of thirty-five thousand men, Porus had lost a staggering twenty-three thousand; Macedonian losses were a few hundred"

@@user-lv1jk9qb9t lol indians going to hunt u down

Since you are a Great tactician and master of the art of war, especially in the ancient times, and most importantly you were there to witness it...

Can i humbly ask where can i read those sources, as i wish to know more about this subject

Plz mention the sources i am interested

Sir please mention the name of that Chinese Persian record and where did you find the source. I'm doing my master in History and haven't heard about any such sources.

​@@na2co312source is - " trust me bro"... If he had any legitimate sources he would have mentioned it by now...

Bro, which sources. Seriously, i really want to read this. This is amazing

It doesnt even bother them to do that, fight of elephant killing a ant should be written unless ant kill elephant

@Vishal Autade He actually did move to east. He only retreated because his army mutinied.

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as the original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

Because it didn’t happen

Well because they lost but this bunch of idiots invented that Porus won because they don't want to admit that every time someone arrives to conquer their lands, they were defeated

Lolzz there were 3 kings before porus whom alexander had spared so porus was not the only one

​@@anoop61284 can you find out who was king porus at that time... with substantial proof.. She mentioned there is no mention of such king Porus...

Dumb fk he died in babylon..go read history

@@rampmahe4298porus is puruvaras I read the story of this war in a book named khaleela and Dimna , persian version of panjathanthra stories. I that book the story is entirely different though puruvaras defeated Alexander initially alexander built hollow metal horses to defeat the elephant army. After the war alexander appointed his representative as king in india a left the country but later Indians were not satisfied with the representative so they dethroned him and gave power to a relative of puruvaras

@@fithakabeer768 bullshit. There is no such stories. You think lying will help you

No you fool

@@aadhithanu9070 does it make you feel secure and validated to call others fool?

@@wramper Nope. I feel that it's important to call out gullible and non intelligent people

@@aadhithanu9070 so who is gullible and non-intelligent? And how have you reached this conclusion?

@@wramper If you even read basic history, you'll know that this lady is lying . Gullible fools who disregard and are ashamed of our history are lapping it up

Awww thank you ♥️♥️♥️

@@Keerthihistory indian sources were either destroyed by invaders or edited by them. I mean all invaders did was destruction , looting , forced Conversions , Destruction of Education institutes Gurukuls etc editing/destroying history of bharatha ☠️ but even Today our education system says they were great but our Indians kings weren't ☠️ if only Gandhi died before Independence it would have helped india alot no Gandhi = no INC = less problems and Akhand bharath ☠️ and if Gandhi died before independence india wouldn't have suffered massacres of indian tribes and indian orginated religions in between 1947 to 2014. He did alot damage then contribution to freedom as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose said Azadi hame diyinahi he Hamne lia he. This Gandhi even suppressed Netaji ji ☠️helped Britishers in WW2 and even after independence...

​@@KeerthihistoryPlease make a video of the great Indian Warrior Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose❤️

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

He never listened to Billie ellish

It has less possibility because a person who want to conquer the world not give up so easily. Although this is not the first defeat of alexander that he could not come out of the depression.

What evidence or historical event you can show to say that the greek historians have changed the story of Alexander???

Right! A ruthless marauder who killed hundreds of thousands and saw many thousands of his own getting killed would have remained so attched to his horse that he couldn't bear the loss! Keep drinking whatever you are

Nonsense

I somehow don't prescribe to the view that says his name & fame reached far? It may have reached the places where he had passed or conquered. But beyond that, maybe, maybe not.

​@@infinity1726no. even before you reach a destination, those areas would still know who you are. if you're a conqueror. merchants, runners, gossipers, slaves, nomads, escapees, traders. they'll speak what happened. so they know

First off The Renowned Taskhashila University, just A FEW miles away from the site of the Battle, didn't even care to write about either Porus, Alexander, or this Battle, If this Battle was indeed so big, then the University would certainly write about it, but they didn't so many people in India didn't even have a clue this battle happened b/c it was deemed "unimportant". If they didn't write about they definitely didn't think this battle had a huge effect on the Country and that's why they didn't write about it, Plus if they didn't mention Porus then how would they mention the battle. And you have to Remember King Ambi, who was enemies with Porus, was the king of Takshila, so if Alexander did beat Porus, then wouldn't you think Ambi would want to be the first to write about his enemy's loss and make it public for everyone to know? One the other hand if Porus lost, Ambi would want to hush up the news b/c he didn't want to look like an Idiot siding with Alexander and still losing against Porus.

@@anishgowda6877 Do you know something called PROPGANDA? Do you think Maurya can't do PROPOGANDA?!

@@anishgowda6877 Hadn't that university been closed for two or three centuries by that point though? (genuinley curious)

Glad to hear that♥️

Russian historian wrote that alexander was defeated by porus and in film alexander the great the same was shown tats y he went back.

@@Keerthihistory keep going keerthi awesome narration and great information thx for the updates

​@TI:24-XII-{RHODIUM} ncert jaise har desh mei hai aur bahut soch ke likhte hai logo se jindabad murdabad karvana hai aur kaam bhi aam admi inta aam nahi hai

@@raghavbalaji5258 what is the name of the book. Is it available in English

Oh so Ashoka and many Gupta rulers were not a tyrant the truth is in India they were many kings who were tyrants too that you people don't want to accept and that is kings or emperors are not kind people.

@Ujjwal did he killed civilians ? Or he killed people on basis of religion ? Did he killed women and childs?

@@chanderwalia4120 Every kings or emperors have did cruel things in their life and that's why history is bias there is not such thing called anti bias in history they are for sensitive people like you, If you don't believe me fine but first go open world history about leaders all of them were cruels and they have to if they want to keep there country live because If you are weak, naive or innocent you can't become a leader and you can't make your country powerful, strong, peaceful in you country, if not there will be internal wars in kingdom and empire corrupt people will try to rule. You people really have no idea what is means to be a leader.

@@vishalautade509 Ashoka had hundred and many so called step brothers and he killed all of them for the throne, his ordered tortures inflicted on prisoners in his jail in Patliputra he was very cruel and he changed because of accepting buddhism and buddhas philosophy and after that he created the kingdom many people couldn't do in India only by Mauryas,Guptas,Mughals,British Empires. So what i am not understood tell me you stupids.

Porus’s son was killed. And he did not leave porus. He made him vassal**

Welcome aboard!♥️

How ironic

Yes exactly what this chanel does, manipulate

he is very secular and more so under the influence of mohan bhagwat

No, during making of the serial he simply took the written history taught to us or rather say imposed on us by western and left wing historians.

​@@chandra_himanshulol. No serial is free from imagination 🤣u must be in illusion to think they give history lesson.

Chanakya is a fictional character.. no proof..

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

I am also from Germany. Here I learned zero was a contribution by the Arabs. Actually whole number system came originally from India. Ofcourse Arab scientists have changed the position of indian numbers

Can you please give the sources about what they taught in German schools.

@@mangopudding5979 You have to search for the text books in the 90s in Hamburg. Especially those who learn Latin at school learn a lot about the Roman history. Ich hab es wirklich vergessen wie die Lehrwerke hießen.

😂 we Indians are really dumb and we glorified these foreign invaders and diminished our indian rulers

If so why they wrote the defeat of Leonidas from Persian? Why do they wrote defeat of Roman in parthian Empire? ? If they want to exaggerate they will just wrote victory of their kings

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks a ton♥️

1 Million followers on instagram 😅

@@RU-vidEarth Awww 🥺♥️

Yeah, even I got to know about this from his video only.

Great efforts keep this to bring in real or close to factual history. Don't believe Indians & Indian istorians had telling or writing lies on Indian history in their blood that too writers of old generation unless that was forced or driven by force or economic benefits offered by foreign forces. On the contrary most of the foreign historians cannot be trusted on this. They have/ had the habit of boosting their people and downplay our heroes. I am very glad to find you daring & dashing videos about facts in the misled history and other topics. Your narratives and voice modulations are pretty good. Pl keep doing the research and bring in many more such facts into light for our new generation people who only believe whatever foreigners say in any field is correct. Hearty congratulations to you.

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

That's why megthenes condescending nature for him not to able to except defeat 😏😏

@@veerhamira162 Thank you for setting an example. This will remain a sample, who the milieu that want to rewrite history of India.

Where is it?

Wow! New perspective

At the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander III of Macedon had an army of 45.000 men while Porus had an army of 54.000 men, 200 elephants and 1.000 chariots. At the end of the battle, Alexander III of Macedon lost only 310 men while Porus lost 23.000 men. So i don't think that the battle costed too much for the Macedonians like you say...

​

I've heard that Bucephalus died in the first attack that Alexander had after crossing over the river during the storm 17 miles down from the main camp against the 1st smaller Indian force led by Porus' son in which the king's son perished as well. I am an Alexander kook😆 but at times it is hard for me to fully take in that when they crossed the night before during the storm, it was a mighty storm at that, to the point where the Indian long bows were neutralized from from the overly muddy grounds unable to anchor and draw to let loose their arrows, a big blow to Porus, but what I'm getting at is Alexander found a place to cross but he miscalculated the crossing spot and crossed merely to the middle of a small island which was mistaken for the main land of the other side, much to their dismay it was back to work, cross the rest of the river, it took all night, they're on the otherside, up all night and exerting so much energy and no sleep, and no food to recharge with, at least it wasn't mentioned, and then fight 2 battles the next day 17 miles up the river after crossing all night? OK let's say the 1st part happened, they crossed and defeated the smaller contingent led by the son of Porus, then the Greeks and the pieces of the army added on as they went like the Iranian horse archers and such, had to regroup, all the while it would take some time to ride 17 miles back for the surviving indians to alert Porus of the news that Alexander had indeed landed with a pretty sizeable army all the while leaving a big enough force across the river to keep Porus pinned down there making it a really tough decision for him especially hearing his son had perished in the outmatched battle. Does he leave or does he hold there to keep the remaining Greeks at bay? I'd be willing to bet the minute he heard Alexander had landed, it was go time, that's the main event on the ticket and he had to leave. One last thing, supposedly Alexander split his army into 3rds and left a Greek force at the middle of the 17 mile gap between the 2 armies on the Greek side of the river the night before. I would like to bet that the 2nd battle happened the next day, after the crossing of the river. Alexander's men were tough as they come but March 17 miles in a violent storm, cross the river twice, no rest no food, fight a battle, win, regroup and start marching towards Porus who is now about to leave his spot and head for the showdown on muddied grounds, and I'd heard Alexander's army had gotten too much separation from itself after the 1st battle as he sent many me on their way right after early victory. I'm fascinated , and I love reading about him, he's my favorite, by far, but history is written by the winners and this seems to me a superhuman task to get it all done in a day, but then again, these guys could handle a 30 mile night March, they were ridiculously conditioned too, what do I know? Not much. Thankyou for everyone's comments and the maker of the film, I really get a thrill out of this stuff, but to write its all a lie, may be a bit of a stretch, but in the words if Alexander himself, "there is nothing impossible to him who will try"

How so

The contrary Happened Nitin, Indian Bows were Long Bows and to launch them it has to stick to the ground and pulled by legs . Under rainly conditions they were not able to launch and hence their majot fire power didnt worked out

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

Are you serious, that was a damage for Porus because he couldn't use his war chariots and the bows with efficiency, Alexander instead had some problem with his phalanx but could be fixed, Alexander cavalry was very light instead and that's made an advantage for him against a lesser mobile opponent like Porus army

Under local climatic conditions so called mythical King Porus would have used a chariot and army that was suitable for his campaign in rainy season. Greeks were not used to Indian local climatic conditions of Punjab for sure. All this foolish stuff is coming from Con Greek's mythological imaginary texts. We Indians condemn such foolish mythical stories from Ionian Greeks.

Thanks a lot♥️♥️♥️🙏🏼

Awww thank you so much 🥺♥️🙏🏼

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

@Von oost Following your logic, if Porus lost, he too wouldn't be alive, but he too lived. 🤔

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

@Von oost The opposite...the kings of Bharat are peace lovers. They prefered to transform others by forgiving them. History has ample evidence to substantiate this fact. Whenever Alexander conquered he prefered to kill the loser and appoint his own people to rule the kingdoms. History has ample evidence to prove this fact too. Alexander's conquering and making friends with the defeated King is the product of the creativity of the Greeks. Why is the original Indica missing? It's because of it's impartial attitude and presentation of facts as they are. Greeks employing Chinese to be the historians is I'm afraid not true. The present indica must be the Greeks version. Those who want to rule the world would like to manipulate History. Bharat has never been over ambitious. Bharat only wanted to be an educator and civiliser that too only through its soft power. Hindus are Brahmins. Muslims are Kshatriyas. Christians are Vaishyas and Nasthiks or atheists are Shudras. There are subdivisions internally. Each Varna or Religion again has these four divisions. Atheism is a Shudra religion.

​@@Oost129Indian kings are famous for letting their opponents live after defeating them. Greek kings especially someone like Alexander was not famous for such acts. So more likely Porus let him go.

@@Oost129 Buddy... King Ambhi actually helped Alexander in this war. If Porus had actually lost, how could Alexander have given a part of Ambhi's Kingdome to Porus ? How would Alexander ignore Ambhi who actually helped him? Wondering how you are saying "someone who spoke the language. Porus was the ideal figure to do so"

Quntos Arabe Name... Ptolemy was hitted till Athena by Ar Civilisation Kingships!!!

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent. Finally, Quintus who lived in 1st century AD might have relied heavily on these above mentioned Greek historians.

@@Bostonite1985 First thing, All the name Alexander is linked with ALM Isriyyah AL Eskandariyya and have nothing to do with Athenos Invader Ptolemy (Alexander the Great) Was Invader Ptolemy HaiyOs (Herculas)... Bacteria= B Isht Eria is a place in Afghanistan!!! So the Route has been different!!! Have the Ancient Ar Civilisation - Scriptures Tradition Tribes completely destroyed Athena Kingdom after that Invasion. Answer is Yes !!! Read History properly!!! Megasthenes = Agast Athenes !!!

@@Bostonite1985 Who is Quintus ??? Arab, Right ???

@@faisalhussainmohammed2815 ....Quintus Curtius Rufus, a Roman historian. By the way I got a message from God that Oxygen was invented by Arabs around 610.

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

Exactly! Porus sounds a lot like Greek name!

@@Keerthihistory yup, agreed!

Porus is Persian name

Sure, I’ll do🙏🏼

Porus killed Alexander's horse Bucephalus which was more of a brother to him. He threatened to burn down a city in Afghanistan when his horse was stolen there. No way he would have spared Porus if he won the war. Porus won the war and blocked all ways back to home so that Alexander would move southward into unknown territory and lose most of his army in Baluchistan desert through hunger, thirst and attacks from enemies and wild animals.

​​​@@bobroy3746, yes, much of Alexander's army perished in the Makran coast of Baluchistan where it was attacked by locals including women after the Makedonian had attempted to sexually assault a female farm labourer.

​@@bhavendrajyoti1655 no hard evidence. You graduated from Dumbass University

It's like a movie story 😂​@@bobroy3746

Which teacher taught you military history

Definitely♥️

King Porus lost a war to Alexander but he was praised for his bravery and courage and gave the kingdom to him to rule under him and gave other Villages and places to him Maybe Indian Historians wrote it but lost it is option

Awww thank you 🥰♥️🙏🏼

@Keerthi History People are misusing your channel to spread information on about crypto/stock trading. Please see the post by Andrew Livesay about $32,000 profit every werk. I'm not sure but this might be a scam. Please check if you can delete that entire thread or block the user from posting such messages in your videos.

As a great lover of history myself, there are some serious flaws in this lady's narrative. For a start, Alexander successfully conquered territories that are now called Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Seleucus Nicator, his successor who ruled over these territories appointed Megasthenes as his Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes was believed to have written 'Indica', the first Greek (or even western account) of the Indian subcontinent. 250 years after the death of Alexander, Greek historians like Diodorus, Stratbo and Arrian wrote their own version of Alexander's life and about the Indian subcontinent based on by word of mouth stories passed on from one generation after the other as original Indica was lost. The works of these Greek historians were later translated into German by a 25 year old German journalist called E A Schwanbeck in the 1846. European historians at that time began to believe in his stories about ancient Greece and ancient India. The myth of Alexander The Great was born and went into History text books in schools and universities in Europe. My point is that there is no proof of Alexander's successful campaign to invade the Indian subcontinent. But there is proof of Seleucus Nicator's war against Chandragupta Maurya to invade the Indian subcontinent.

Yes I agree with ibrarsherif

♥️♥️♥️♥️

Thank you so much 🥺♥️🙏🏼

Thank you so much ♥️🙏🏼

♥️♥️♥️🙏🏼