What Alexander really looked like.

Over the centuries, endless theories have circulated about the real appearance of Alexander. Statues, busts, paintings, and sketches have depicted Alexander as imagined by their creators, just as ancient and modern authors have described their version of Alexander. 

It is inevitable since Alexander became a legend during his lifetime. The legend took a life of its own, and still does today. 

[Picture from Wordscene]

I have just read an article on the Greek Reporter, “Beyond the Busts: Unveiling Alexander the Great’s True Face” by Paula Tsoni.  A very promising title that misleads the reader in many ways. The most absurd theory is the one quoted towards the end, reading: 

"A fresco depicting a hunt scene at the tomb of Philip II, Alexander’s father, at the archaeological site of Aegae is the only known surviving depiction of Alexander produced during his lifetime in the 330s BC."      …

"A most disruptive theory is proposed by Greek-French academic Byzantinologist Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, who has herself been identified by the 2008 show Great Greeks as one of the 100 greatest Greeks of all time. In her 2018 book published by Gutenberg, the famous scholar suggests that the tomb in Aegae is, in fact, Alexander’s, and not his father’s. This would explain why the young king was depicted in the famous fresco inside that tomb."

First of all, it has been clearly demonstrated that the tomb in Vergina, ancient Aegae, belongs to Philip II and not to Alexander, who was entombed in ancient Alexandria. The latest confirmation of Philip’s presence in the Vergina tomb has been established by studying the adjacent tomb that turned out to be Cynane’s, Philip’s daughter (see: Cynane buried next to her father, Philip II). 

Secondly, stating that the hunting scene in Philip’s tomb (which is unclear) is “the only known surviving depiction of Alexander” is not correct. It has been established that the ivory heads recovered from a Macedonian funerary couch in Vergina belong to Philip and Alexander. Greek archaeologists agree that the Alexander head is the only one made during Alexander’s lifetime. 

There have been repeated tentative efforts to recreate the Macedonian King’s face, even showing occasional look-alikes. A lot of wishful thinking, no doubt, but not very realistic. 

The question about Alexander’s real face already arose in 2016, when I wrote about a hoard found at Mir Zakah in north-eastern Afghanistan (see: Alexander’s real face). The hoard had been hidden in a well for over two thousand years and contained an estimated 550,000 coins. One of them showed Alexander with wide-open eyes, a crooked nose, and wild curls on the obverse and a tiptoeing elephant on the reverse. This is Alexander as he saw himself - invulnerable, verging on godhood, immortalized in the moment of his triumph after his battle against Porus on the Hydaspes in India in 326 BC. 

Osmund Bopearachchi was the first to recognize the medallion, and together with Frank Holt, he wrote a book on the subject, “The Alexander Medallion, Exploring the Origins of a Unique Artefact.” This information is ignored by or unknown to the eminent Greek-French academic Byzantinologist Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, used by the Greek Reporter!

[Picture of the coin is from The Hindu]

Macedonian swords set against history

As mentioned in an earlier post (see: Alexander’s battle outfit), the Macedonians basically used two types of swords. The straight sword with a double-edged blade, which was most popular, was about 60-70 cm long. The blade was exceptionally efficient because of the swelling toward the sword’s tip. It added weight and momentum to each blow. It was used by cavalry and infantry alike, as it functioned for hacking and stabbing. 

The kopis, or saber-shaped sword with the crooked hilt, was less common. The blade was 40-60 cm long, and only the curved side had a cutting edge. The kopis was more effective for fights on horseback since the rider could deliver a heavy blow from above. 

Sources tell us that the Cyprian King of Citium (ancient Larnaca) gave Alexander a masterly executed sword, which was exceptionally light and well-tempered (see: The role of Cyprus in Alexander’s campaign). 

Quality swords were widespread among Alexander’s commanders and even common troops. Several memorable encounters have been reported by our historians. The most striking one was when Cleitus, with a single blow, severed the arm and shoulder of a Persian attacking Alexander at the Granicus. The Paeonian cavalry leader Ariston used his sword to behead the Persian leader Satropates during a skirmish near the Tigris River. 

The kopis were handled by the Macedonians at the Hydaspes to slash at the elephants’ trunks. Ptolemy drove his sword through the thigh of a local chief during the Indian expedition, and Alexander cut off the hand of his Arab assassin with one stroke of his sword during the siege of Gaza. The Macedonian tradition of handling weapons with high cutting capacity is still alive in 276 BC when King Pyrrhus inflicted such a blow to his adversary that he cleaved his opponent in two parts, falling to either side! 

Now we may wonder where and how all these swords were made. Cyprus was known for its quality weaponry, but did the artisans accompany the Macedonians into Asia, or did they train a selected number of people in this specific craftsmanship? Either theory is plausible. 

There is, however, the case of Porus’ gift. After the Battle of the Hydaspes, King Porus gave Alexander a precious sword. This story leads us to another source, Wootz Steel (the name is a corruption of ‘ukku’), a well-kept secret amongst the metallurgists in India. The name first appeared when Alexander received a gift of over 2500 kg of ‘white iron’, a kind of steel that originated in India millennia before reaching Europe. 

Wootz steel is a type of crucible steel made using a clay crucible. The vessel was closed and heated for several days to a temperature of 1300-1400 degrees Celsius. In the process, the quality of the product acquired high ductility, high impact strength, and reduced brittleness. After a slow cooling, the Wootz ingots were ready. Archaeologists discovered an industrial steel center from around the 3^rd century BC in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. 

How was this new technology received in the Macedonian camp? It is hard to imagine that Alexander did not explore or use the possibilities of this Wootz steel. He always was a ringleader when confronted with new inventions and improvements in warfare. The next time we hear about this revolutionary steel is that Indians had a monopoly over the production and export of Wootz steel from the 3^rd to the 17^th century, reaching from the Roman Empire in the West to China in the East. 

In the Middle Ages, Damascus became the main supplier of the famous Damascene swords, which is only another name for weaponry made using Wootz steel. 

By the 8^th century, manufacturing in India had spread throughout Central Asia, where the Vikings had established trade posts to exchange their furs and slaves over Eurasia. Hoards of Arab dirhams have been found in Scandinavia, documenting these trades. As a result, by the 9^th century, the Vikings produced high-quality Ulfberht swords, made of crucible steel known as Wootz steel. 

[Picture from Ulfbeht sword - Credits: Secrets of the Viking sword]

The blades of Viking swords were generally 70 to 90 centimeters long and 5-6 centimeters wide. The so-called Ulfberht swords carried the inscription +VLFBERH+T, which may be linked to some religious invocation rather than the maker’s signature. The earliest known specimen was created in the 9^th century and was one of the heaviest (1.9 kg) and longest (102 cm) Viking swords. It is exhibited at the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo. Another surviving example is the sword of Saint Stephen from the 10^th century, which was the coronation sword of the Hungarian King Stephen. It still has its walrus-tooth hilt. 

The so-called Lincoln sword from the same era is one of only two known swords bearing the inscription +LEUFRIT, also made of crucible (most probably Wootz) steel. It was found near Monks Abbey in Lincolnshire, UK, in 1848. 

It is noteworthy that the science behind the production of Wootz steel was only understood in the 20^th century! From a technological point of view, this means that the metallurgists of ancient India were far, really far ahead of their time! 

Unfortunately, history has, to my knowledge, not linked the weaponry from Cyprus to the Wootz steel swords made in India. Consequently, we still don’t know how Alexander acted and reacted to Porus’ highly prized gift. I can’t imagine that Alexander did nothing to explore this newly acquired knowledge.

Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander

Robbert Bosschart has published an Updated Version 2025 to his book All Alexander’s Women, which deserves special attention.

Of particular interest is this newly reworked Chapter, Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander, where the author focuses on the Persian side of history. The Achaemenids did not have a counterpart for the Greek writers and chroniclers and relied instead on the verbal transmission of Alexander’s life and deeds by way of mouth by their storytellers.

This new information is too good to be kept hidden in the dust of time, and I am very happy to share hereafter the most important information together with some of the magnificent illustrations. 

Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander

For Persia’s own first-hand memories of Alexander perforce we have to rely on oral history: all the published testimonies available today originated from texts of local storytellers, later written down and ‘enriched’ by scribes, poets or translators.

...

Early Persian/Arab authors who included history themes in their writings, based their texts both on oral history accounts and on written documents. From Umara in the 7th century AD up to Masudí in the 10th century they used all sorts of sources, including the first Arabic translations of the pseudo-Kallisthenes’ Alexander Romance.

As times went by, the most popular versions of Alexander’s exploits became more and more sensational and sexy, big adventure tales usually known as the Iskandar-Nama, the Book of Alexander. As a result, their reports about Alexander’s reign are quite entertaining literature, but in historical accuracy ‘few and far between’.

Therefore it is interesting to find that the only text with specifically Persian memories of Alexander’s life and deeds is, again, that of a simple storyteller. Or not exactly ‘simple’, for Abu Taher al-Tarsusí describes himself as «a compiler of histories and narrator of mysterious facts». The saga that Tartusi published under the title of Darab-Nama (‘Tale of Darius’) was a written version of an ancient folk story. From the 12th century AD on it became very popular.

The oldest manuscript we have is dated to 1580 AD, in an edition illuminated with precious miniatures made in India for the Mughal emperor Akbar. Painstaking research on this and other, later versions finally yielded in 1965 the definitive edition of the Darab-Nama. In his introduction, Professor Zabiholla Safa underlined that the text is based on oral source material that is much older than the Arabic translations of the Alexander Romance. In other words, the Darab-Nama reflects Persia’s own historical memory. 

Its title is rather misleading, because only 386 of the 1159 known pages concern Persia’s glory years under the revered figures of Darius the Elder and his successor. But the bulk of the text, 773 pages long, displays an elaborate tale of how his fictional granddaughter, princess ‘Buran-dokht’, first opposes, but finally permits Alexander’s conquest of Persia. 

A unique characteristic of the Darab-Nama is that here, Alexander does not get the brilliant leading role. That privilege is reserved solely for the purely Persian personage Buran-dokht. As long as the story takes place in Persia, Alexander is even portrayed as a hotheaded, at times stupid or cowardly, and always vulnerable young man, with no special military talents. More than once, Buran-dokht has to come and save him. Only after the story has moved to foreign lands, Alexander is allowed to become a brilliant warrior and wise statesman.

The Iskandar-Nama became a popular (and often hilarious) 

adventure tale with lots of action and sex

Of course, like many other works of oral literature, the Darab-Nama has been compiled over the centuries by successive storytellers. This makes it even more impressive that in Tarsusí’s final version, the text still manages to retain Persia’s popular memory of three historical facts concerning Alexander. 

The most extensive of the three is the (re)appearance of a goddess from a legendary past, Anahita. Time and again she intervenes to promote and protect Alexander’s kingship. To begin with, as Nahid, Alexander’s secret mother, who succeeds in placing him on the throne of the Western empire called “Rum“. Then she pops up briefly as queen Aban-dokht, who becomes his lover, and presents him with the capital of Persia, Estakhr. Finally she shines forth on hundreds of pages as the divine Buran-dokht, who ends up marrying him and setting him on the throne of the empire. Which means that even in islamic Iran, popular folklore still remembered –from 1500 years back!– the goddess Anahita, her role as Giver of Kingship, and her blessing for Alexander.

The second historical fact reported about Alexander in the Darab-Nama refers to his double Persian marriage «according to core royal usage»; that is, the multiple political marriages practised by Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great in the 6th century BC. This is told as follows:

«Buran-dokht took Alexander by the hand, made him sit on the throne and saluted him as King of Iran. Then they sent messengers and letters from Estakhr to all the provinces to announce that Buran-Dokht and Alexander had married. 

The gates of the treasuries were opened, gold was distributed profusely, and with both of them installed on their thrones on equal footing, they had seven months of celebrations. In accordance with the core royal usage, Alexander was also given in marriage the daughter of King Shahush».

So here Alexander marries a daughter of king Darab and a daughter of a king called Shahush. History tells us that in Susa, in 324 BC, Alexander married princess Barsine/Stateira, daughter of Darius III, and the princess Parysatis, last daughter of a king we know as Artaxerxes III Ochus, but who was called ‘Vahush’ in Old Persian. So the «daughter of King Shahush» in the Darab-Nama evidently is the daughter of Shah Vahush, as Artaxerxes III was known to his court.

The Persian warrior-queen Buran-dokht repeatedly 

saves Alexander from his enemies. 

Here she defeats the Indian king Poros, when she grabs 

his war elephant by the trunk and overturns him.

(Miniature illustrating a Darab Nama manuscript of 1720 AD, 

now in the Statsbibliothek of Berlin)

The third popular memory of a historical fact embedded in this saga recounts Alexander’s decision to promote mass-marriages for the better integration of conquerors and conquered into one realm; a theme that takes up some 20 pages in the Darab-Nama. This is how the story goes:

Alexander and his army happen upon an island of women, and thousands of these invade the camp «searching for men». Alexander suspects that in reality they may be hostile, but soon understands they only want to make love —and then fears that his own men will “go berserk”, causing even worse problems. So he allows his wise chancellor –whose name is given as Plato— to apply a miracle-working solution.

Plato calls upon the women and asks them: «By the will of God, and so be all the Angels your witnesses, will you give yourselves in legal union to the men that will enter your city?» They agree. The storyteller concludes: «When the women were trying to seduce the men, it was the work of the Devil; but as soon as they were conveniently and legally married, it became God’s work, and Alexander could no longer be held responsible for any problems arising of their arrival».

Clearly, this is a remembrance of the mass-marriages (in reality, the legalization of de facto marriages) that Alexander organised in parallel with his double wedding at Susa in 324 BC. Out of his own purse, as Arrian reports in VII, 4, 8, he paid dowries for the Persian and other Oriental women who had taken up with his officers and soldiers, so they could be legally married.

The list totalled some 10,000 dowries, and the classical sources say that Alexander disbursed over 10,000 talents of silver for them; an amount equivalent to 150 million dollars of today. It is understandable that these marriages, converting thousands of concubines into legal wives, left an indelible memory among the Persians. 

Just as important was Alexander’s pledge that he would care for their offspring. Arrian notes in passing that he promised his veterans that their children from Oriental partners “will be educated as Makedonians”. But Diodoros tells more: he registers (in his Book XVII, 110, 3) that Alexander has set up a specific fund and appointed the necessary teachers to ensure that the 10,000 children his men have had with “women who were taken in war” will be educated “as is the right of free men”.

Alexander and his wise chancellor Plato receive Queen Sabaterah, 

who reigns over an island where only women live, 

and they all want sex with men. 

Plato will ensure that they become legal spouses.

(Miniature from the 1720 AD manuscript of the Darab-Nama)

In Book XVIII, Diodoros adds that Alexander had decided to apply his integration policy on a much broader scale:

«…he intended to establish cities and to transplant populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continents to common unity and to friendly kinship by means of intermarriages and family ties».

Alexander’s intermarriage policy found lasting approval in Persia, as shown by the positive comment of the storyteller in the Darab-Nama on the “miraculous solution” devised by Plato. In fact, all three of Tarsusí’s historical storylines, repeated again and again in the saga, must have met with notable approval of his Persian audience. After all, no storyteller makes a living by irritating his public.

Around the year 1000 AD, the prominent court poet Farrukhi Sistaní affirmed: “The story of Alexander’s exploits and his travels has found listeners everywhere, and everybody knows those tales by heart”. So Tarsusí and the storytellers before him had to take into account that among their public, there always would be people who remembered some previous version of the Alexander Romance.

As a case in point, their public in Ghazna could perfectly well remember an Eskandar-Nama compiled around 1015 AD out of stock tales of Persian storytellers that simply copied episodes from the pseudo-Kallisthenes Romance, with some fancy (and errors) added. In that text, Alexander is the undisputed hero of the saga. But to entertain the audience, this Eskandar-nama turns him into a comical figure who not only conquers kingdoms, but also women galore. He seduces princesses, amazons, warrior beauties, servant girls, widow queens, noble dames and even fairy queens (!) far and wide. With the result that this Alexander suffers all the problems of a bumbling man with too many wives and/or concubines.

When Alexander is listening to the deathbed pleas of king Darab, who begs him to treat his family well, Roxana makes her appearance in this Eskandar-Nama. “She is still young, you could marry her,” suggests Darab. (Here, Roxana is said to be not a daughter, but one of the wives of the Persian king.) Alexander answers hastily that this is a petition he will not agree to:

“God forbid that I should desire your wife, for I already have four wives, all free women, plus 40 concubines from here and from Greece.”

Roxana is an unavoidable heroine in all the Oriental translations of Romance episodes. So she also has to appear in the Darab-Nama. Well, more or less. When introducing his top star the princess Buran-dokht, Tarsusí takes the precaution of telling his public that «elsewhere she was also called Roshanak».

In other words, despite the fact that the following 773 pages prove without a shadow of doubt that his majestic Buran-dokht has nothing in common with the insignificant Roxana, Tarsusí still thought it wise to bow –if only once– to the Alexander Romance.

For my comments on Robbert Bosschart’s Third Edition, please refer to my earlier blog post: All Alexander's Women.

Where did Bucephalus die?

The question of whether Alexander’s dear mount died at the Battle of the Hydaspes or at another location around that time has been discussed at length and obviously without any conclusive result.

Today, I have been wondering where Bucephalus actually died. It so happened that a friend of mine forwarded me an article about Bufliaz, a town on the foothills of the Peer Rattan Range in India that claims to be the place where Alexander’s horse died.

Bufliaz, according to the locals, is named after Bucephalus (Bunifales) to commemorate his death. The town is located 39 kilometers east of Poonch or Punch, roughly some 120 km northeast of Taxila. This sounds pretty odd because it is generally accepted that from Taxila, Alexander marched to the southeast to the banks of the Hydaspes, where his famous battle against Porus was fought.

Although Bucephalus may have died at Bufliaz, that does not exclude the possibility that a city in his honor was built on the banks of the Hydaspes near modern Mong (see: Locating Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala).

Opinions about the burial site of Alexander’s prized horse vary widely. Jona Lendering cites Jhelum, and G. Huntingford identifies a mound west of Jhelum as Alexandria Bucephala. Sir Aurel Stein tends to believe that Alexander went south from Taxila and crossed the Hydaspes near modern Behra. This town is close to Mong and could be the very site where the Battle of the Hydaspes took place. Michael Wood, although he agrees with Stein to identify Mong as ancient Alexandria Nicaea, suggests Garjak as Alexandria Bucephala. Garjak is said to have its own legend of a magical horse. Last but not least, Mansoor Behzad, a local historian, supports the idea that Bucephalus was buried in Jalalpur Sharif, 75 km northeast of Bhera.

Clearly, the possibilities are endless, and in the end, we could only establish that Bucephalus died and was buried in that general area.

An exceptional Alexander Frieze

Honestly, I am not too keen on statues, paintings or other depictions of Alexander other than those from the Greek and Hellenistic era. I obviously have to include the Roman copies because more often than not, the Greek originals no longer exist.

Over the centuries, Alexander enjoyed many admirers. Scores of sculptors and painters have tried their best to produce a portrait of Alexander befitting the great king, placing him in their own historical context. It is precisely that kind of setting that I often find awkward.

Paintings by Charles le Brun (Entry into Babylon, Alexander and Porus, the Battle of Arbela, etc.), Peter-Paul Rubens (Roxane), Paolo Veronese (The family of Darius before Alexander), Jacques-Louis David and Tieopolo (Alexander and Campaspe in the studio of Apelles) are all beautiful representations. Still, for me, those pictures don’t take me back to the very days of Alexander. The same happens with most of the stone and marble renditions of the conqueror by great artists like Verrocchio or Andrea della Robbia, as well as the portraits on cameos and medallions.

Today, I am, however, making an exception for this Alexander frieze displayed on the walls of the cafeteria at the Harris Museum and Art Gallery in Preston, UK. It is a plaster copy of a work by the Danish artist Bertel Thorvaldsen. 

The name Thorvaldsen probably doesn’t ring a bell with most of us, but in the 19th century, he was one of the highly successful artists. After his studies at the Copenhagen Academy, he went to Rome, where his enthusiasm for classical sculpture fired his imagination. 

Just like the copy we find in Preston, the original Alexander Frieze was also made of plaster. It was actually commissioned in 1812 to celebrate Napoleon’s entry into Rome. It took Thorvaldsen three months to accomplish this masterpiece. Yet, Napoleon never showed up in Rome, and the frieze remained at the Palazzo Quirinale. 

However, the scene was so inspiring that two other versions were created in marble. One for Count Sommariva, who lived near Lake Como in Italy, and one for the Palace of Christianborg in Copenhagen. Several plaster casts were made during Thorvaldsen’s lifetime and also afterwards. The Preston copy arrived in England in 1862 to celebrate Danish art at the International Exhibition in London. The Victoria and Albert Museum offered this piece of art to the Harris Museum and Art Gallery in Preston in 1987.

The scene of the frieze loosely interprets the triumphant entry of Alexander the Great into Babylon in 331 BC. Basically, the frieze starts from two sides. One is showing the army led by Alexander in a chariot, and the other the citizens of Babylon led by the goddess of peace holding an olive branch. 

The frieze is a magnificent piece of art, and I feel it deserves a better setting than a cafeteria, even if it fits the neo-classical style of the building! Thorvaldsen truly understood the essence of Greek art, or rather Hellenistic art, at its apotheosis. It is not surprising to learn that the piece has been copied so many times. Napoleon clearly did not realize what he missed...

The frieze closely reflects the frieze of the Parthenon with its successive figures on horseback and their cloaks bulging in the wind. I love the lively details the artist managed to incorporate. There is this cute looking elephant carrying the trophies of war taken from the Persians. Or the Babylonian flower girls and musicians, and the chained lions. I am staring in awe at the knelt figure dragging an altar because it reminds me of a similar artifact I encountered at the Museum of Morgantina in Sicily. That specific altar from the 3rd century BC was made of silver and was found at the House of the wealthy Eupolemos, as part of an extraordinary hoard of silverware (see: Haggling over the silver hoard of Morgantina). 

I secretly wonder whether Alexander carried a similar altar with him on his campaigns. We may never know for sure, but it certainly is not impossible.

[Pictures are reproduced with the courtesy of Jim Cleary]

Punjab, Land of Five Rivers

One close look at the map will make you realize that Punjab is an enormous alluvial plain that counts far more than the five main rivers. Situated at the foot of the Himalayas, it covers a surface of over 50,000 square kilometers. Its watershed is fed by snow and glacial meltwater from the world’s highest peaks, like the Karakorum, the Hindu Kush, and the Himalayan Mountains.

The Achaemenids had only conquered the lands west of the Indus, meaning that once Alexander crossed this mighty river, he entered uncharted territory. Modern historians do not spend much time following the king’s march further east and his countless river crossings but instead focus on battlefields, sieges, and other ruthless fights. However, each and every crossing, including the numerous tributaries, is an enormous logistical enterprise. It makes you wonder how many of these rivers, streams, and waterways the Macedonians had to cross by any means available. That alone is a gigantic task!

After taking the Aornos Rock, Alexander headed for the Indus River, where Hephaistion had worked hard to build a pontoon bridge across the river as well as a fleet partly new and partly reassembling the elements which had been carried along. The crossing of the Indus took place at Ohind, modern Hund, in north-western Pakistan (see: Alexander crossing the Indus at Ohind).

Once his troops reached the opposite bank, Alexander headed for the capital Taxila at the junction of the major trade routes from Bactria, Kashmir, and the Ganges valley. This was the realm of Omphis, the son of King Taxiles, who had visited Alexander while he was still in Bactria and died before he arrived in India. Besides sending provisions to Hephaistion during the construction works, King Omphis welcomed Alexander with 200 silver talents, 3,000 oxen, 10,000 sheep, 30 elephants, and 700 Indian cavalry and 5.000 infantry.

The next river Alexander had to tackle was the Hydaspes (modern Jhelum), where the famous battle against King Porus took place (see: The Battle of the Hydaspes and the genius of Alexander), a masterpiece and a genius enterprise that was never surpassed.

As casually mentioned by Arrian, Alexander marched on through the populous region, taking some thirty-seven towns and many villages as the natives surrendered without much protest. Their lands were graciously handed over to King Porus.

The next obstacle was the Acesines River (modern Chenab), which was so broad and swift that Ptolemy found it necessary to mention it in his biography used by Arrian. It is hard to simply imagine a three-kilometer-wide river and how much one could see of the opposite bank. The Macedonians used boats to get across, but navigation among the rocks was a true challenge, and many were broken up, and the men were swept away by the current. The floats for the baggage and horses fared much better as they were far more shallow than the boats, but the trip was nevertheless one more logistical challenge.

The Hydraotes River (modern Ravi) was another major river on Alexander’s path, and as he marched through these lands, most Indian tribes surrendered without resistance. Those who refused were, of course, taken by force. Sangala was such an exception (see: The siege of Sangala). The tribes near the city had sought and found refuge inside its strong walls. Eventually, Sangala was taken by an assault in which up to 17,000 Indians were killed while over 70,000 were taken prisoner.

[Map from Wikimedia by Apuldram - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0]

The last of the five major rivers was the Hyphasis River (modern Beas). Here, the Macedonians bluntly refused to follow Alexander any closer to the edge of the world despite his eloquent and fiery speech. This was a severe blow to the king’s ego and pride, but he issued the order to retreat after three days.

Obviously, Alexander withdrew in style, and after building twelve altars (see: Alexander erected twelve altars on the banks of the Hyphasis) to thank the gods for having led him so far as conqueror and leaving an impressive memorial to his own accomplishments, he turned around, having to cross the Hyphasis, Hydraotes, and Acesines once again. He sailed down the Hydaspes to ultimately reach the Indus River.

Some scholars consider Alexander’s experience in Punjab as useless and a waste of time, but it is hard to believe that he would do anything without reason. He would not endanger the life of his Macedonians lightly, and he certainly would not have invested nine months of his life on a sole whim. Judging Alexander’s conduct with today’s eyes is impossible. Besides, we only have sparse historical documentation to support his decision-making.

The edge of the world was not reached

After the Battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander proceeded deeper into Punjab, literally meaning The Land of Five Rivers. He had already made it across the Indus and the Hydaspes. However, there were still the Acesines River (modern Chenab), the Hydraotes River (modern Ravi), and the Hyphasis River (modern Beas) to tackle.

We know he had excellent scouting parties and always relied on local people's knowledge. Still, I can't help wondering if the messages were interpreted or understood correctly here in India.

The idea first occurred when Alexander was confronted with the monsoon rains, which he had underestimated as transpires from historical sources. Rain was, of course, not going to stop him, but these rains were far heavier and more disruptive than anything he knew or expected. The fact that the monsoons were seasonal recurrences escaped the attention of Alexander – or, to say the least, he did not take the matter as seriously as he should. We know that Nearchus was marooned in Pattala for several weeks before having the favorable winds to set sail and meet up with Alexander along the coast of the Gedrosian Desert is one such surprising timing mistake. This is very much unlike Alexander, and the question should be asked whether he really knew or understood the phenomena.

Crossing Punjab, a succession of five mighty rivers swollen by the melting snows from the Himalayas may have been tuned down by the interpreters, the locals, or both. Alexander did not give it the attention required, which cannot be ascribed to negligence. It could be explained that after witnessing countless rivers, among which the Nile, the Euphrates, and Tigris, and the Oxus and the Jaxartes – all major fast-flowing rivers in their own right – it was hard to imagine anything more threatening. Indeed, what could be worse? For instance, in Punjab, he had to deal with a succession of five such mighty and extremely wide rivers. For example, it can be noted that at the points where the army crossed these wild waters, the Indus was about 500 meters wide and the Acesines nearly 3,000 meters!

The Macedonians, by now, were seasoned troops functioning according to a well-oiled discipline whether they were on the march, fighting off some enemy, setting up camp, or crossing a river. They just did it, inspired and encouraged by their king. But eight years of constant warfare had scarred the souls of even the most faithful troops.

The Hyphasis River was one river too many, and the Macedonians stopped in their tracks, bluntly refusing to continue. As usual, Alexander fell back on his excellent oratory skills and tried to rekindle his men's enthusiasm by reminding them of the past glories since the day they had left Greece and all the riches they had accumulated since. They were now so close to the world's edge, and soon all of Asia would be theirs. To Alexander's amazement, his words fell on barren ground and were blown away by the wind. A painful and deadly silence followed his fiery speech.

[Picture from Alexander movie by Oliver Stone]

Coenus, who lately had led the significant cavalry charge at the Hydaspes, was pushed forward by the troops to formulate their resentment. He appropriately reminded his king that many soldiers who had come across the Hellespont eight years ago had been sent home as invalids. Others no longer fit for service had been left behind in newly founded cities. Others still had died in combat or from disease, and the survivors were often in shattered health as they all were marked by years of battle wounds and scars.

In fact, I think that the Macedonian spirit died on the killing ground along the Hydaspes. It had been such an outrageous carnage for so little profit as there were no grand cities to be plundered like previously in Persia. Besides, Alexander had given Porus his empire back, depriving his men of the incentive to face the next challenge or engage in another battle. The continuous downpour of the monsoon rains and the fanatical resistance of the Indians cannot have improved their mood. The army squarely refused to march on and demanded to return home. Coenus' words were received with loud applause, a sign of their far-reaching power.

Deeply offended, Alexander withdrew to his tent, licking his wound, no doubt. The non-negotiable decision of his army seriously hurt his ego and pride. When he emerged from his quarters three days later, he gave the orders to retreat, much to his dismay. This happened in September 326 BC.

It makes me wonder how much, in the end, the Battle of the Hydaspes was a victory for Alexander. His men had given their all, and they had nothing more to offer except love for their king.