Talk:Porus/Archive 1

Archive 1

merge

As this article is more comprehensive, I propose that this be retained with the other article made re-direct. I'd wait for comments till the 5th of November and then carry out the merger. --Gurubrahma 17:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why wait a week? Since the source article is only a stub and an obvious duplicate, and Porus is by far the most common name of this individual, I'm willing to merge it already tomorrow if I don't hear any good objections. Aldux 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from what I mentioned on your talk page, I'd also like to state that Purushottama is a more common and widely used name in India and, he being an Indian king, some may argue that the Indian name should be retained. (As is the case with most such articles) --Gurubrahma 06:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As the articles mention, the two names may or may not refer to the same person. We absolutely know that the Greek sources mention a "Porus", and Indian sources mention a "Purushottama", but it's only a guess that both names refer to the same individual. A merge could put us in the position of seeming to make a stronger claim of identity than is justified by the information we have. Stan 13:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It is considered common knowledge that both the people are one and the same; However, I understand the concern you've raised and I'm coming round to your point of view that it may be better to leave them both as they are. I'd remove the "merge tags." This discussion hopefully wd serve as a guideline for future attempts at merger, if any. --Gurubrahma 06:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Death of Porus

Porus is supposed to have held the position of a Macedonian subordinate ruler until he was assassinated, sometime between 321 and 315 BC, by the Thracian Eudamus' agents after the death of Alexander (Diodorus Siculus . After his assassination, his son Malayketu ascended the throne with the help of Eudamus. However, Malayketu was killed in the Battle of Gabiene in 317 BC.

If Malayaketu succeeded Porus and was then killed in 317, wouldn't that put Porus' death between 321 and 317 (instead of 321/315) ? 24.34.166.212 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

reverts between User:192.94.94.105 and User:Aldux

The former has been adding a different viewpoint along with his refrences and sources (?) while the latter has been removing it without discussion. I suggest that this page be used to air differences if any - removing of what seems to be a well0sourced fact without contesting it seems wrong. --Gurubrahma 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't discussed this, as in Battle of the Hydaspes River, because the same fact (the battle) has already been fully discussed and refused by all non-indian editors, for the simple question this so-called "sourced" is refused by all scholars, except some Indian nationalists. The so called, while a very intersting source for building the development of the various redactions of the Alexander Romance. Budge's work a century ago is really a translation of medieval ethiopic texts that is a redaction from the Arabic version of the Alexander Romance, which in turn is a version of the first one, the Greek one by the Pseudo-Callisthenes, a fantastic story of the exploits of Alexander. Every new version brought radical changes to the Pseudo-Callisthenes (i.e. he became Christian, or a prophet of Islam).

For the discussion that brought to the unanimous refusal of the Indian nationalistic edits see Talk:Alexander the Great#Conquest of India and Talk:Alexander the Great#Disputed Indian History. And I'don't think this can be called an an anti-indian conspiracy, since User:Idleguy, an Indian editor, has also reverted the same insertions at Battle of the Hydaspes River, because, as he said "i'm not Greek. I'm Indian. That doesn't mean one has to falsify history". I monitor all Greek-Persian-Macedonian-Egyptian articles between 400 BC and 30 BC, and have done my best to make so that no nationalism of any sort passes in the articles; and have always believed that not all views had legitimate presence in the history articles, but only those have scholarly basis behind them. For this, I cannot accept 192.94.94.105's edits. Aldux 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Grow up ALdux. Porus was not an Indian king. He was a mere vassal of Magadha, who were the rulers of India. You people are hell bent on glorifying Alexander as if he conquered India. Had Alexander really won he would not have gone down the Indus alone and faced the Malli tribe alone (who nearly killed him). Porus would have accompanied him but that did not happen. Truth is after his retreat from fight with Porus his army fell back and he tried to egg them on but they refused. Thus he walked without Porus down Indus to sail back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.94.94.106 (talk • contribs) 06:13, January 25, 2006 (UTC)

Another absurdity is that Porus was given Gold by Alexander after Porus's defeat!!!. And do see Oliver Stone's Alexander. Stone does not depict an outright defeat for Alexander, so as to not hurt his movie at the box-office by going against the eon old myths held in the west, but he does come pretty close to showing that Alexander lost, there was no "treat me like a king" non-sense. What I have written will stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.75.29 (talk • contribs) 07:19, January 25, 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean when I say that speaking with nationalists is losing one's time, because they're simply not interested in listening anything that they can't use in their propaganda war; and I know what I'm speaking about, because I've met legions of Greek, Macedonian, Persian nationalists and they all behaved in the same way. I must confess I haven't found "Roman nationalists", whatever they are, but I don't cover Roman history, so I may have missed them ;-) But what's most interesting is that when I spoke of sources, you didn't even try to awnser, which tells much of your knowledge of the whole affaire, but only spoke of a film and a completely unsourced statement that Porus was a vassal of Magadha. Not a word about the fact that all scholars refuse (or, more exactly, don't even care to refute) this crap, even those, and there are many, who have a very critical view of Alexander. Aldux 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Read Indian history and you will learn Porus was a satrap of Magadha, which was the ruling capital of India at that time. Infact I gave a link to Wiki page on Nanda dynasty. You have also been spreading lies: Ptolemy was present against Porus, WRONG. But ofcourse you will not accept these arguments because how else can you push "Alexander's conquest of India". Step back and reflect why you are not a roman nationalist!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.91.75.30 (talk • contribs) 11:04, January 26, 2006 (UTC)

re-indenting Doesn't the source added by anon, viz., "E. A. Wallis Badge, Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great, Publisher: Kessinger Publishing Company ISBN 1417947837" substantiate what he is stating? Just wondering... --Gurubrahma 12:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the work - it's from 1896, and is just Budge's translation of Ethiopic primary sources of uncertain value. At best one can say "according to ...", not take it as literal truth, or representative of current scholarly opinion. Stan 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What's this crap ?!

Even if Porus was a vassal of the Nanda dynasty, the Nanda Empire never covered the whole actual India, but merely the North, plus eventually the Pakistan. The wound against the Malli tribe is never attested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 12:39, February 7, 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh*. I can only repeat this, with the hope that this time you will awnser the objections I moved to Budge's translations: "Budge's work a century ago (1896) is really a translation of a medieval ethiopic texts that is a redaction from the Arabic version of the Alexander Romance, which in turn is a version of the first one, the Greek one by the Pseudo-Callisthenes, a fantastic story of the exploits of Alexander. Every new version brought radical changes to the Pseudo-Callisthenes (i.e. he became Christian, or a prophet of Islam)." Please awnser to this, and not by insults and arguments ad hominem. Aldux 15:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"TheTruth" vs "Reality"

Budge, Arrian, Plutarch etc based there work on someone else's. To say one is better then the other or is more scholarly is one POV. There is another POV recorded by Budge. Budge's POV seems quite logical because of reasons already discussed.

The difference is that some sources are more accurate than others, and based on reliable writers, like Arrians use of the memories of Ptoleme Soter. On contrary, you cite an autor who use a fragmental translation of a translation of a translation...I don't know if you have seen it but the Alexander of the Ethiopoc text is clearly a Christian-philosopher-king...doesn't seems strange to you ? It's one of the traditionnal way of propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

Recap :

• If Porus lost he would have helped Alex go down Indus and fought against Mallis. Did not happen.

But the fought against the Mallis never happened, it's just a mystical legend. We know each wounds of Alexandros except this one ? Be serious please, or quote your sources for the Mallis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

• If Porus lost he would not have gotten gold from Alex.

We don't know if he received anything from Alexander. It's a very doubtful an modern story, who's not in the Arrian version, par exemple. Used for magnified the glory of the mythic Alexandros. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

• Alex's army revolted on loosing the war and seing many of there comrades loose there lives.

8 years of war, 12 000 km of forced marching, more gold gained from lotting than they can send home...isn't this enough good reasons for you ? Of course they lost many mens, after 10 years. Remember that they live Makedonia only for a raid against the Persian Empire, and foud themselves in an eternal war, in the way to the end of the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

• Oliver Stone alludes to all this in his movie Alexander to some degree or another.

You use a film as a scientific source ? A film who is " a personnal an non 100% historical vision " for Oliver Stone himself ???

I would also said that you see this in a very " Mahabaratic " point of view. The fall of the hero is there to make the watcher remember that it was just a men. Absolutly not picturing the defeat of his army. It was the first battle the Pezhetaroï fought alone, particulary against elephants, and one of the bloodiest battle of this army, but the victory of the Makedonians is undoubtful. ( and, actually, a lot of Occidental watchers, particulary in Europe, would have loved to see the defeat of the " whites ", don't be so manicheist.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

• India was ruled by Nanda dynasty and to call Alex invaded India, when he just fought a small war with one commander of the Magadha empire is quite untrue.

We use the term " India " because Hindustan, Pakistan and India are today nonsenseless, and India was the term used by the ancients. Remerber also that the Nanda dynasty was absolutly not establisshed on whole India, but just the North-Est quarter. The Indus was not under their sovereinty. De plus, Nanda dynasty was at this time crippled by civil wars. See how it was easy for Chandragupta to usurpate their throne and create the Mauryan dynasty.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

Now I would tell you something: We know, by archaelogy, that the Achaemenid submit the Indus valley. After them, Antiochos I came there and obtain a heavy tribute, including hundreds of elephants, who were presents on a number of battles between the Successors states. The nationalists wants to see this just as a dowrit for the daughter of Antiochos...what a joke... After him, Antiochos III obtain the same thing. One hundred years after, the Graeco-Baktrian invade the whole North-West India, who was at this time under Mauryan rule, creating the Indo-Graecian kingdom, who burn Pataliputra a few years after. None of this power was as powerful as Alexandros was. It sounds logic to you that one of the best general of the ancient times, leading the greatest army ever raised by an hellenistic king, with more than 40 000 veterans of more than 10 years of war, was defeated by a single client-kingdom ? See the problem of your demonstration ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

TheTruth (Nick name I will use from now on) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.61.7 (talk • contribs) 08:09, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

The truth...bienvenue, let me introduce myself: I'm Reality.

On last thing: Chandragupta is present in a few writings about Alexander...and describe as an Indian advisor in his court during the invasion of the Indus valley.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

Which Indian source/Text please?

Am just curious to know. Can somebody cite the Indian source which rewfers to king "Purushotthama" who is being identified with Puru here?. Exactly which Indian Text refers to this king and in what time frame?

Thanks

Sze cavalry01 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Markandey Purana has a geneology list that states Purushottama as the ruler of the lands between Vitsata and Chandrabhaga exactly at the time of Alexander's expedition. 21 MArch, 2007

Indian references

Are there any Indian sources on Porus and his kingdom?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All informations are from Greek historian which are not plausible .According these informations in the battle with Alexander Porus was not defeated .It was a compromise between to kings .Alexander restored his kingdom and porus supported him in other battlesRasoolpuri 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately, there was not one Indian account of the Alexander-Porus encounter. It is quite natural that Greek accounts glorified Alexander's foray into India. The episode of Ambhi (Omphis) must have been very true because many such self-destructing incidents, fuelled by envy and jealousy, happened in Indian history. Oliver Stone has projected a picture quite sympathetic to Porus. Does it have any historical evidence? There was a story that Ruksana visted Porus the day before the battle and tied Rakhi to Porus's wrist (Rakhi is an Indian festival/tradition during which sisters tie a sacred thred to brothers' wrists seeking protection to their honour and family). During the battle Alexander fell down the horse wounded by an arrow from an Indian soldier. Porus jumped at him and raised the sword to Kill Alexander. While raising the hand he watched the Rakhi tied by Ruksana and overpowered by sentiment he left Alexander untouched. The Greek soldiers carried away the wounded Alexander to the camp. I do not know if this story had any historical support.

Takhasila and Punjab were very much part of ancient India. The foray of Alaxander can certainly be described as an attack on India, if not a victory.Kumarrao 07:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kumarrao (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

There is an opposite reference of Alexander having had a rakhi tied by Porus's wife too. I dont believe this is historically sound, as Porus's son was murdered by Alexander prior to this main battle, therefore no ceremonial ties of brotherhood could have occurred. Legends Im afraid. Also removing the Khkurain oral citation. This is not fair. A proper cited source needs to be provided.--82.20.133.19 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Can we rule out the bias of Greek historians?Kumarrao (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think that most of the history was written with Euro-centric views.Kumarrao (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but thats not their problem. There's no way to find out truth except just to believe whats written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.99.53 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Well,lets not forget Alaxander was not given hard time before Porus. I dont think there was any spmpathy element from both sides .And i disagree with the sympathic treatment by Alaxander for Porus. Why we dont think about that Alaxander realised that he is not strong enough to rule over the punjab.

Arrian & Pseudo-Callisthenes

I see a great reverence for Arrian in the references. I think it is important to remember Arrian's texts are far from the primary sources of history and he wrote the account good 450 years after Alexander.

Pseudo-Callisthenes accounts confirm that Alexander was beaten by Porus until he he used metalic elepants filled with heating fuel (something looks more like the fable invented by a court historian).

While there is definitely a chance of history of Porus being embellished from Indian perspective by modern Indian scholars, no greater objectivity and truthfulness should be attributed to those written by Greek court historians and bards, based on whose accounts colonial historians conveniently conculded that Alexander had been victorious in the campaign. Arrian's account is entirely derived from the Ptolemy and Aristobolus' works and other hagiographies left by the earlier court historians. Pseudo-Callisthenes confirms atleast at one place that the forces of Porus had beaten Alexander in the intial battle until he used heated 'fake metallic elephants' to distract Porus' elephants. The latter part seems to be a gross exaggeration on the part of Greek bards to salvage the image of their national hero but does not seem credible.

The entire episode of Alexander giving back Porus' kingdom out of generosity might be an attempt on the part of Greek bards to embellish the account of Alexander's actual defeat in the Indian campaign.

I believe Oliver Stone has done some justice to the story finally in his movie where he showed Porus having repulsed a wounded Alexander and his entire Indian campaign being an ummitigated disaster.

I have pseudo-Callisthenes in my personal collection and would be contributing more to this article in coming months. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a map of South Asia from 1200AD On this Page?

I can't understand why a map of indian kingdoms in 1200AD is included on this page- it there no more relavent map available? We might as well include a modern map since the kingdoms in 1200 ad have little connection to those in Porus's time. Should this image be removed? Bradby (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradby (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Porus as Parasoi , or Prachaya , or "Easterner"

Yadus cannot be excluded from Tod's mention of Puru dynasties , since he uses Puru in dual sense to mean the lineage from Yadus' brother and also "Eastreners" as derived from Parasois (skt. Prachaya). Infact, the linking of Porus with 'Paurava' is not supported by Greek writings. First of all , the descendants of Purus were not known as Pauravas even in Mahabharata times. His lineage had morphed into Kurus, of which a later offshoot was Pandavas, after a later descendant of Puru. The Porus of Greek writers is linked with "Parasois" which is a Greek translaton of "Prachaya" , literally meaning "Easterner". Chandragupta was also described as "Parasoi" by Greek writers to indicate Magadha as his origin which was further on the east of Mathura. Porus , in the context Tod is trying to argue, means more a "king of easterners" than a "descendant of Puru". It would be natural for a king hailing from Mathura to be known as "Parasoi" or "Easterner" in Punjab (west of Mathura). Tod's mention of Puru- the brother of Yadu- and his link with founding of Prayag , a place venerated by Yadus- is a red herring and contributes nothing to the conclusion he reached about Porus being a Parasoi , or "Easterner", or "Prachaya".

--History Sleuth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander's victory over Porus : a work of Greek spin doctors?

I found the following posts on another website. It may not be a citable reference but raises important questions about Alexander's supposed victory over Porus. It examines circumstantial evidence and considers the authenticity of the primary sources about the legend:

Many years ago I came across a comment in a Usenet posting (to those who don’t remember Usenet, it was the blog of the pre-web world), that said that there was no proof that Alexander won any victories in India and that it might be more appropriate to call him “Alexander the Merely Mediocre”.The comment amused and intrigued me and much later I had an opportunity to read Alexander’s biography by Plutarch. I was surprised to find out that Plutarch wrote his biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source. It is possible that he may also have had access to a personal diary kept by Alexander’s physician, but that is about it. Plutarch wrote the biography of Alexander as part of a series of biographies that contrasted the different styles of great Greek leaders, and in his view, Alexander was possibly the greatest of the greats, flawed only by youthful indiscretions. But otherwise, the tale came from legends spread by Alexander’s friends after he came back from India and died.So the story of how Alexander met and defeated the Puru king (“Porus” to the Greeks) and released him because Puru asked to be “treated like a king” in defeat did not come from any documented source. It was a legend.

The story, then, of Alexander’s triumphant march into India, finally only giving up at the urging of his soldiers who were tired after years of fighting and who wanted to return to their loved ones (in Persia?); the odyssey down the Indus, defeating various kingdoms but sustaining a deadly wound; and, finally splitting his army in two so that they would have a better chance of returning with the news in case of further conflicts; returning with a fraction of his army to the seat of his empire in Persepolis and his death from his wounds; all based on legend. No documents, no sources, just myth.So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin?

I’ve searched what I can access of Usenet now and looked elsewhere for any follow-up to the original comment. I did not find any, so I thought I should follow up, if only with a comment on Boloji!

Alexander’s defeat of the Persian empire and his victory over Egypt are well documented by non-Greek sources. So, I am not saying anything about these. After Alexander’s death the empire was divided into three, corresponding roughly to Greater Greece, Egypt, and Greater Persia, with tributaries to the east commanded by generals, such as Seleucus. No lands east of the Indus were part of this division; and subsequently, under the Mauryas, an Indian empire extended all the way into modern Afghanistan (ancient Gandhara) and modern Baluchistan (ancient Gedrosia). So Alexander did not even leave behind successors who would acknowledge his rule.

So what exactly happened to Alexander in India? Supposedly, Alexander first met some resistance from minor kingdoms in the Northwest, possibly from around Swat. He defeated these rulers. Then he met Ambi of Taxila who welcomed him as a fellow ruler, agreed to be his vassal, and offered him safe transit to the east. Then Alexander laid siege to a city and commited a crime against Athena by promising a safe conduct to mercenaries defending the city and massacring them after they left the city – Plutarch believes that the withdrawal of Athena’s blessing was the reason why he could not complete his victories in India. Then Alexander crosses the Indus into the Punjab and somewhere near modern-day Delhi, perhaps even in the historic battlefields of Panipat or Kurukshetra, he fought Porus and Porus lost. There is a story about how the Indian elephant brigade was winning the day when by cleverly attacking Porus’ elephant, the Greeks managed to un-elephant Porus, and the elephants in disarry retreated rough-shod over their own troops.Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander looks at the tall (supposedly 6 cubits) Porus and 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.Huh?

Let’s have that again. Ambi, who fought on Alexander’s side, lost lands to Porus as a result of Porus’s defeat. Some defeat. Then, having established himself as a magnanimous victor, Alexander asked Porus what it would take to win the rest of India. He made the mistake, I guess, of asking this 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 Plutarch’s story goes that the army revolted against continuing. And Alexander decides to retreat, but he asks Porus what the best way to return would be. He is told that he should go down the Indus in boats and then go along the Makran coast in boats and ships to Arabia and thence to Persia. And Alexander does something like that – at the Indus delta he splits his force into two and sends one by sea and the other by land and they both return safely after three years.

But, uh-ho?Why couldn’t he just retreat? He had just defeated Porus and obtained his eternal friendship. He had defeated the kingdoms along the way and set up his own warlords to rule them. Ambi was his friend (well, maybe). He knew the way back.There is a simpler explanation that does not require one to strain one’s intelligence. Alexander lost to Puru. Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru and a withdrawal of support for the Greeks. Alexander negotiated a safe-conduct for his own troops, provided they went down the Indus, and did not trouble Taxila or Puru again.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. They even pick up some “philosophers” from a city populated and defended by “philosophers”, i.e., Brahmins. Plutarch has some stories about these Brahmins, some of which remind one of prescriptions in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.Along the way, Alexander suffers a wound to the side.They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split – I’d like to imagine that the idea of splitting his force came from his Indian philosopher friends. It was wise advice. Alexander’s most urgent concern would have been for his family and his empire if any Persian enemies or even some fair-weather friends received the news of his defeat. The two halves of his army would be tied by bonds of friendship (and hostages in all but name retained by Alexander in his force). Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great.

What was left back in the Gangetic plain? Two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were to be swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. Twenty years later, Chandragupta Maurya would take over the Magadhan empire and the true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever.Instead, Alexander’s physician and friend who had taken care of him on his deathbed had a journal to write. And his other friends had a story to tell, that would ensure that the myth of Alexander Megalos (the Great) would keep his enemies from attacking him as he lay dying.

Centuries later, Plutarch makes Alexander immortal.Why do I call the legend of Alexander “spin”. Because that is what it is. Alexander could not afford to look like a loser. His successors could not afford to look like losers. Years later, Plutarch could not afford to deflate the Alexandrian bubble.If we took the inhabited portions of all of Alexander’s verified conquests, and excluded the “Indian” provinces of Gandhara and Gedrosia, the resulting empire, “Alexander’s empire”, would be a little bit smaller than the inhabited portions of the Gangetic plain. Yes, Alexander may have been a great warrior and he was surely a lucky one when he defeated the weakened Persian empire, but it would be silly of us to accept without question the thesis that Alexander was all set to conquer the kingdoms of North India. But such is the influence of the “West” on us Indians – and by the “West” I mean the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Europeans, the English, the Americans, and so on, that we accept without question that some tin-pot megalomaniac was about to do just that.

--99.233.132.217 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a good logic. If Man writes history lion is a mere animal. If lion writes the history man is a small fry. Unfortunately, ancient Indians were poor in documentation. This trait continues even todayKumarrao (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

So-called Victory coins

"Victory coin" of Alexander the Great, minted in Babylon c.322 BCE, following his campaigns in India.
Obv: Alexander being crowned by Nike.
Rev: Alexander attacking king Porus on his elephant.
Silver. British Museum. Controversially labeled "Victory coin" , the value of these coins as a source of history is disputed.

Here's one of the famous "Victory coins of Alexander", minted in Babylon after Alexander's India campaigns and just before his death. It is thought to depict Alexander being crowned by Nike, and attacking king Porus on his elephant. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it is king Porus? Darius of Persia also had war elephants.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question! Any answer?Kumarrao (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic background of Porus: possibly a Yaduvanshi king

Please note that I added the following section about the possible Yaduvanshi or Yadava orign of Porus. The claim is backed up secondary source citations from Col. Todd and Dr. Ishwari Prasad. Please initiate a discussion before amending it in any radical way because citations are from very reliable sources and spot on. thanks. --Internet Scholar (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"There were no known Hindu textual sources regarding Porus indicating the tribe or ethnic group he belonged to. Several ethnic groups in the Indian subcontinent have tried to claim him as their own ancestor. However, the academic consensus seems to be that he was a Yadava or Yaduvanshi king. Col. Tod was the proponent of this view which was also held by Dr. Ishwari Prashad, another renowned historian."

These are important names among historians, of course, but they do not speak of a consensus. Sober as his scholarship was, Tod was a political officer of the British, working with (1) traditions, Puranas and documents available in Udaipur as interpreted by Pandit Jetty Gyanchandra and (2) Alexander's historians. Tod developed the notion of "martial races", and separated the warlike from indolent "natives". His work should be seen in this light. Greek historians, too, are notoriously poor guides to the anthropology of the outer limits of their world.

Several articles claim an "academic consensus", but this looks like more than our sources support. Do historians today actually have any such consensus on this question? Fconaway (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Have a concern regarding the origin of the Porus as it is bit contradictory. I have checked one more article on Rajput clans claiming Porus being one of the Chandravanshi kings

One of the Indian kings who fought Alexander on the river Beas was a Katoch king Parmanand Chandra famously known as Porus.

I am sure that his origion would be bit difficult to claim looking into the all the relevant document in Wiki and other historical details. Would be help if some body could really kill this curiosity~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishkat (talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

.....

poru singh....what's up...battle lost...never mind....we got them...finally. all square.1-1. the punjab is the light not the darkness the punjab is the truth, not lies the punjab is the courage, not fear...

poru singh....salaam....:)))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.245.72 (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Who was Porus' successor?

Infobox says Porus' successor was "Malayketu (Porus' brother's grandson)", whereas the text says "His son reigned for a short period and was eventually succeeded by Chandragupta Maurya." Can these contradictory statements be rectified by reference to reliable sources?Fconaway (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"Porus and Harikulas (Yadus) opposed Alexander"

The sources for this section are an article from The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Miscellany (a magazine published by the East India Company! well over a century and a half old) and another article (Nicaea, Punjab) which has nothing to do with the claims made. Given that the claims made are not themselves uncontroversial (the Purus as the Pandavas?) and that the sources don't back it up, I'm deleting the section. If someone wants to bring it back in (preferably with some cleanup) it needs better sources. -Senori (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The "death" of Porus

99.241.170.231 edited the intro to the following:

"...Porus fought Alexander the Great in the Battle of the Hydaspes River in 326 BC (at the site of modern day Mong) and was killed when he turned his back to Alexander The Great who then stabbed him under the shoulder, driving the knife up to his navel."

The reference is to the Syriac translation/adaptation of psuedo-Callisthenes' Alexander Romance, which is a fictional (though ancient) novel. Moreover, the event in question (the apparently duplicitous murder by Alexander) is not mentioned in either ancient or modern histories of the conflict; I have therefore reverted it back. -Senori (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sanskrit and the Puru Vedic Tribe

While the expertise in Sanskrit is certainly to be appreciated - thank you - it has to be right in English also. Puru: that is Indic, not Latin, and the Latinization of Poros is simply Porus. There is a very good explanation of the name Puru under Puru (Vedic tribe), which wasn't brought in perhaps because not then done. The Sanskrit given tells too much or too little. Puru- is obviously only the prefix, so what is all the rest of it? Do we need it or what? Is Puru an abbreviation or what? Since most English speakers don't know any Sanskrit, including me, we have not been touching it, with the result that it no longer makes sense in English. I think we need either to shorten the Sanskrit to Puru- or explain what the rest of it is, and I certainly would have a link to the article of the Vedic tribe. Temporarily I have commented out the Sanskrit.Botteville (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

PS, all you have to say that Poros is the same as Raja Purushottam ("meaning x") known from the y tradition. Not hard for someone of your knowledge, ya?Botteville (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Images from Illuminated manuscript

This image and others from the same volume have just been added to Commons (CC-0). Perhaps this would be suitable for this article?

• File:Alexander killing Porus in single combat.jpg

Thanks! Jason.nlw (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexander was defeated

Guys... Alexander the Great was defeated in this battle. Many historians acknowledge this fact.

99.231.182.12 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Most historians doubt this battle even happened and that the indians were weak in documentation. Akmal94 (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent Revert by Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs)

Hello, you made a revert recently. Can you please go through the sources at serial no.12 and 13 of the page reference list. It quotes the related contents too. Does this not connect Porus to Yadava or Yadu of Mathura origin. Please clarify the reason to attempt this revert. Regards.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mahensingha: My bad. It does. I was going by the lack of sources in the Pauravas article. That said, I'm not sure if Porus should be categorised as a Yadava kingdom either. Please revert/correct as you see fit. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Actually, this is about what the presently accepted sources say. That's why I asked. Thanks to be fair enough and responsive. --MahenSingha (Talk) 19:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

King Porus's Indian name

• A television program that I saw, said that his own Indian name was Purushottama. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Dubious source and protected article without discussing on talkpage

Problems:
A. Unidentifiable source: Some bold dubious statements have been attributed to the source "Fuller" (like Porus lost to Alexander), with no details of who or what this "Fuller" source is. This "Fuller" source is heavily quoted in multiple places in the article. But in the source list there is no identifying details of this source, e.g. full name of the author, book/journal title, year of publication. There is nothing that can be used to identify the source and then verify the claims. This falls way below acceptable type of citation/source. Only thing there is "ref name="Fuller pg xyz". Nothing more.
B. Someone protected the article without discussing on the talkpage.

Please do the following:
1. Unprotect the article. It must not be made protected without a valid reason and without discussing here on talk page first.
2. Remove dubious sources and dubious claims based on these kind of unidentifiable sources.
3. Help improve the article please with the "verifiable" and reliable sources.
4. Due Balance: Include both sides of the argument, claims of Alexander's win and counter claims of those claims being lies.
Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Fuller" was inserted by User:Spacecowboy420. It seems to have been copied from the Battle of the Hydaspes article, and I've copied the full reference from that article.

I semi-protected the article temporarily, because of constant castecruft (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]) and other unsourced additions from multiple IP addresses.

The article is not fully protected -- you're welcome to create an account and contribute, or submit edit requests. utcursch | talk 16:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

1/4. Thanks for the explanation above about the "Fuller" I will check out the Battle of the Hydaspes and will let other helpful editors know here if I have concerns, questions, request for clarification, proposal for changes, or if need guidance or help. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

2/4. Also, thanks for the explanation that others have been making mess here. As for me, I have never edited this article before. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

3/4. Thanks Utcursch, for letting me know about the use of Edit Request, I will try it out. In case my future edits get rejected, please provide me with the "specific and actionable reason" so that I can fix it. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

4/4. Thanks for the invite to register. Right now, I do not wish to register for the multiple reasons. IP is working well for me.
First, I have no ambition to become admin, wiki official, etc also.
Second, I noticed IP may be taken as vandal (knee-jerk revert of edits by others). Some kind-heart editor taught me to leave talk page message with edits for the long edits and contentious articles. I no longer feel it is a risk for me (being taken lightly) if I use this good tip.
Third, sometimes I have to take longer route in creating articles. But it forces me to be more thorough and my work gets reviewed by others within few weeks before being published. Sometimes my work may get rejected but eventually it helps me to refine, resubmit and make it acceptable-enough new article which will not be deleted.
Fourth, there are other benefits too e.g. no annoying notifications. I do not get dragged into the articles unless I really want to visit a specific article. More peace of mind. Less wiki addiction. Less emotional attachment to the articles or my own edits. Easy to walk away from the peace-destroying wiki articles/drama, etc.
Finally, being IP user is unlike facebook, more like public-twitter where I can send tweets (make edits) without being logged on and bugged/troubled. it is deeply satisfying to create articles and edit wiki and great way of learning as well. In the end, the peace of mind is more important than wiki articles. Being IP is a small price to pay with several good benefits.
Thanks once again for being patient and kind enough to explain all the above nicely to me. Please continue to stay as nice and sweet to all same way. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Cast of Pours

Can you tell me which cast of Pours according your investigation ? Rajpal Singh Rathore (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you mean "caste", there is no mention of Porus' caste in historical records. In all probability, the concept of caste identity, as known in modern India, didn't exist back then. utcursch | talk 14:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

He was of Yadav caste. He was Yadava Shursena. Almost all the Kings other than Rajasthan are of Yaduvanshi Yadav caste. Like Porus, Chandragupt Maurya is Yadav, Ashok, Shivaji's Mother Jijabai, King of Vijayanagar(South India) Krushnadevraaya is Yadav. There are 4 kshatriya castes (A.J.G.A.R= Ahir, Jat, Gujjar and Rajput). Rajputs(Thakur) and Yadavs(Ahir) were those who had Kingdoms. Gujjars(Patidars) and Jat were only Soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.254.24 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Utkarsh, Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Where did you get this information about Porus? Book names.

Also I really feel that most of the references about history is from Western authors who have mostly misguided the masses. Especially history of India. People like Dr David Frawley has tried to tell this to the world. I personally feel that King Porus would not surrender to Alexander under any condition. It's wrongly portrayed that he lost battle with Alexander. Please throw some light on my comments. That will be helpful. Regards Shirish Shirts Patil (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

He was "kshatriya" varna and no caste. Castes might not have evolved during his time, though 4-varna system (based on work, not by birth, because it was before manusmirti) may have existed. Jats (e.g. one of the Jat gotra is literally called "Porus" and "Paraswal"), Rajput, Yadav/Gujjars/Ahirs and even Khatris all claim him to be one of theirs. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

About AJGAR, those caste classifications did not exist during Porus' time. Says who only Rajput and Ahir's were kings. There were plenty of Jats and Jat sikh rulers, even Brahmin (e.g. Kashi ruler), numerous tribal and several dalit rulers. Early Rajputs were the ruler who accepted Brahmanical rituals, and those who did not accept it were still given that tag, gain the power and get the tag as rajput (early days) or "higher/kshatriya caste" (pre-Manu as well as late medieval era onward). There have been rulers of all castes and tribes. Among Rajputs there were those who were like Rana Sanga and Maharana Paratp (fight to death "jauhar and juhar"), and then there were those who gave away their underage daughters to 60-70 years old mughals in lieu of petty mansabdari ("beti becho, padvi pao"). Shahjahan onward all mughal rulers were sons of young underage hindu rajput princesses and old mughal muslim kings). Post 1857, all the kings of all castes and religions were "angrejo ke pitthoo/chamche/desh-drohi/stooge" or whatever you wanna judge them as from the nationalist perspective. Not promoting or putting down any caste. The point is, "the casteism is crap". There were plenty of bravehearts and bhrastachari in all castes. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Shahnameh

In the Shahnameh, he is known as King Fur of Hind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.184.59 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Error detailing Porus's House (Dynasty)

Porus solely belongs to the Paurava Dynasty, not the Puru Tribe. The Puru Tribe was an entity in the the Vedic Tribes era, and they were replaced by the Mahajanapadas. Darius I conquered more land then Alexander, as his Empire conquered most of Punjab as well as Ethiopia. Porus gained a short lived independence from the Achaemenid Empire, after the fall of Artashata ( who adopted the title of Darius III), before Alexanders arrival. Porus established the Paurava Dynasty, reminiscent to the Puru Tribe, in order to reinforce his right of rule. It is possible the editor mistaken King Porus with King Puru. Regardless this page should be edited, the citations provided for the Puru house are extraneous to Porus, as they only describe the Puru Tribe and not to King Porus himself. Vajra Raja (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"A History of India", Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermung. Is obscenely incorrect as the Rig Vedas(1500 BC) were written far before the Pauravas came to exist. The statement was an academic oversimplification in a book meant to span India's entire history. Vajra Raja (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Biased Greek's history

The Greek's history on Alexander is clear attempt to eulogize their leader / clans. The facts and logical conclusions have no place in their (Greek/ European) history versions. An Indian version is worth to be considered also.223.230.78.214 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018

The battle is won by Indian Kind Porus 122.180.215.91 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The battle was won by King Porus

Alexander didn’t defeat Porus. The Greek history is baised. The Indian version should also be considered. The battle was won by King Porus. Since both Alexander and King Porus were alive after war, the best way to find out who won is to find who was denied the motive of the war. As King Porus stopped the conquest of Alexander further into India, He emerged as clear winner from this war.

References

Modern scholarly consensus says that Alexander "won" the Battle of the Hydaspes. Do you know of any scholars who disagree? Whether or not his campaign (or war) was successful, is another matter, one which the article doesn't say anything about. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

""Porus was last shoorsen king""

Porus was last shoorsen king facts based below

1) Some of the descendants of Shoorsen , i.e. Shoorsainis had moved to Punjab after Mahabharata war;

2) The Shoorsainis were called 'Prasioi' or 'Prachaya', or 'Easterners' because they had migrated to Punjab from Mathura which is in the east of Punjab;

3) The etymology of 'Porus' is derived from 'Prasioi' or 'Pracahaya', or 'Easterner', not from 'Paurava', or the descendant of Puru.

4) The frontline soldiers of Porus carried an effigy of either Balarama or Krishna, i.e Indian Herakles, who were both ancestors and patron deities of Shoorsainis;

5) Megesthenes had clearly noted that Herakles was held in special regard by 'Sourasenoi' or Shoorsainis of Mathura when he had visited the place after in around 300 BC as the ambassdor of Seleukos Nikator.

All of the above facts lined up perfectly to support the conclusion that Porus was a Yadava, or Shoorsaini, the descendant of Maharaja Shoorsen of MathuraFlykites (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Has this analysis been published in any scholarly source, or is this your original research? utcursch | talk 14:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Can u provide us more information about porus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhpreetkaurmylove (talk • contribs) Can i add the above facts in porus article Mr utcurschFlykites (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pls add hight

Pls add hight details of Porus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhpreetkaurmylove (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Can i add some information in the article's

Can i add some information in the article kindly tell me the exact way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhpreetkaurmylove (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC) You can add on basis of reliable sourcesFlykites (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

I'm requesting for the 'Indian' references to be changed with a more accurate term such as 'Pakistan', based on the geography of his reign. Changing 'Indian King' to 'Pakistani King' and 'Indian Subcontinent' simply being 'Subcontinent'. It is crucial that we refer to accurate terminology when describing the proximity of the region, the conception of 'India' wasn't until 1947, nor was Pakistan for the matter - BUT, based on where he ruled; the region is known as Pakistan today hence it needs to be fixed.

'The name India, exclusively comes from the river Indus. Greeks and Persians did not know much about what laid beyond the Indus Plains as it was separated by a large desert, thus the land beyond the Indus plains also became synonymous with India.' India is a butchered term of the river Indus, please look into fixing this.

'ancient Indian king' 'Indian subcontinent' 'Indian source' SonPoros (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done, we follow whatever language reliable secondary sources use. See the Britannica article on him. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The native name

Regarding this and this edit, the native name of Porus is still the matter of academic debate, and there's a reason why the section under 'Identification' is relatively big. His native name is not confirmed anywhere. As such, I could not find a academic or scholarly source categorically affirming his name as 'Raja Purushottam.' Magazines are not reliable sources without papers confirming it. LΞVIXIUS💬 00:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I only see confusion regarding his kingdom or his tribe, not his name. And regrading the sources, I believe something published by University of Michigan and University of Chicago should be reliable. LearnIndology (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with LearnIndology as citations clearly talk about his native name being Purushottam. If there is any issue, you can credit the author since the ones we have meet WP:RS. desmay (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please specify which citations you are mentioning? Surely if they qualify they could be used as references for his name. The only sources Indology used are obscure magazines and something like a name requires particularly good quality and (in the case of history) academic sources conjecturing that name. LΞVIXIUS💬 15:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There are scholarly sources leading a discussion on his name, some identifying as something else. Eg. Encyclopedia Britannica's Indian History is a secondary source, and it states

Not known in Indian sources, the name Porus has been conjecturally interpreted as standing for Paurava, that is, the ruler of the Purus, a tribe known in that region from ancient Vedic times

References

I do not see his name having a consensus (so it can't be categorically stated as a name in the lead). If you can still find reliable sources, feel free to edit those in the prescribed manner. LΞVIXIUS💬 15:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why both of those names can't be included if there are reliable citations. desmay (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Desmay: Yes of course, but so far no reliable sources have been provided for "Purushottam". Can you provide any? Paul August ☎ 16:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• The India Magazine of Her People and Culture, Volume 13. University of Michigan. 1992. p. 54-55.

Indian steel , famous worldwide , is mentioned in history books which tell us that when Alexander invaded India , Porus , otherwise known as Purushottam , presented him with thirty pounds of steel , thus indicating its high value

• Kisan World, Volume 25. University of Chicago. 1998. p. 16.

Corrupfailings of heroes is a major chink in Indian tion is an international phenomenon ) . Why does it character . Purushottam ( that is , Porus ) ...

@Paul August: Here are the sources. LearnIndology (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The India Magazine of Her People and Culture, is published by A. H. Advan, not by the University of Michigan, and Kisan World is published by Sakthi Sugars Ltd. not the University of Chigago. They are periodicals and do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (see WP:RS). Paul August ☎ 18:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I got confused with the publishers. LearnIndology (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Porus (IPA: [porus]) or Poros (from Ancient Greek: Πῶρος, Pôros), was an ancient Indian king,

The above should read: Porus, was an ancient Panjabi King, SelinerZ (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for your changes. LearnIndology (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

Porus was not defeated by Alexander,but Alexander was defeated by Porus but he spared his life because he was a Hindu Kshatriya. Because Hindu Kshatriya don't kill defeated enemies but they give their enemies thier life as a donation. Correct the article as it is manipulating and completely bias towards Indians. 2409:4063:4D19:F414:C1FD:C35B:C328:8F (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing for the claims, then get consensus to include them in the article before requesting an edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

Hi! So it is mentioned with the Khukrans that King Porus is actually the First Sabharwal, which makes him a Khatri Khukhan. I have a fair idea about my ancestry and hence thought I should point this out :). Rusabharwal (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Grayson Indica, please explain your deletions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Grayson Indica: ? Paul August ☎ 11:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: Grayson Indica has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an user, whom I don't know. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

Porus from jat caste 2409:4053:2D94:CA68:2042:CE4F:6710:B2F6 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

On closer observation the coin shows the rider on the horse falling backwards from the lance thrust by the rider of the elephant. How could then this be interpreted as a victory of Alexander the Macedonian? Andhakaram (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

About battle winner

All indias are believing that Alexander was down infront of purushottam But all you foreigners are talking that Alexander downs purushottam . Can any one finalize this 106.217.242.236 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

JAT Claim

He was a Jat Prerit Tushir (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

*Punjab*

I think that the so-called *Indian king* should be removed from here because he was an ancient Punjabi King and yeah Punjab is situated mostly in Pakistan And back then there was no India lol AyiMVengeance (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The "Punjabi" identity (linguistic or otherwise) is of relatively recent origin, and is not at all mentioned in the contemporary or near-contemporary sources. Neither does any decent modern historian describes Porus as a "Punjabi king". The ancient Greek sources consistently describe Porus as an Indian king:

Arrian

For he states that he met Sandracottus, the greatest of the Indian kings, and Porus, even greater than he was.

Diodorus Siculus

In this year Alexander repaired his army in the land of Taxiles and then marched against Porus, the king of the neighbouring Indians.​ [...] Of the Indians, there fell in the battle more than twelve thousand, among whom were the two sons of Porus and his best generals and officers.​

Strabo

I must now begin with India [...] India is bounded [...] on the west by the Indus River [...] He says that both he himself and the others noted this when they had set out for India [...] they went down into the plains and to Taxila, a large city, and thence to the Hydaspes River and the country of Porus;

utcursch | talk 13:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a a consensus to have the elder Porus' article to remain as it is. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Porus → Porus the Elder – There are two historical ancient South Asian kings, both referred to as "Porus" in Graeco-Roman sources, and contemporary with and related to each other. Therefore I am suggesting that the present Porus page be renamed to Porus the Elder to avoid confusion. Antiquistik (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The name of both kings is Porus. Yes some sources refer to "Porus the Elder" or "Porus the Younger" but usually when the two kings need to be distinguished, "Porus the elder", and "Porus the younger"—without capitalization, hence not as a proper noun—are used. But since both articles cannot be named "Porus" we need to add a disambiguator to one or both. I would suggest that Porus seems to clearly be the WP:primary topic, and so this article can stay at "Porus", while Porus the Younger should be renamed to say "Porus (the younger)". Paul August ☎ 23:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose moving Porus the Younger to "Porus (the younger)" on WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION grounds. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I support @Paul August:'s proposal. Antiquistik (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Porus the Elder does not appear to be in widespread use. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Srnec: do we have any alternative way to tackle two related historical figures being named Porus though? Antiquistik (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no reason we cannot treat the elder one as primary. In that case, the only problem is how to deal with "Porus the Younger". That article does not tell us what sources he is mentioned in nor any dates, so it is hard for me to say. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The elder Porus is the primary topic, both in terms of pageviews ([6]) and in terms of long-term significance (he's a prominent historical figure as a result of his interactions with Alexander). Moving the younger Porus's article is out of scope for this RM, and I don't think it's necessary since the current title provides natural disambiguation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was Porus Indian?

I'm not sure it's accurate to describe Porus as an Indian King, and calling him a Punjabi king would be much more accurate.

Greek sources do indeed refer to him as a Indian King, but they didn't refer to him as an Indian in the modern sense of the word. They referred to him as being from the Indian Subcontinent. Either this distinction should be made, or he should be known as a Punjabi King.

His territory was between the Jhelum and the Chenab rivers. Describing him as an Indian King would be highly inaccurate, as these rivers flow between both Pakistan and India, specifically the historical Punjab region. EstablishmentOfKnowledge (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines Indian as, "Of or relating to India or its people", which certainly applies to this and every historical figure hailing from this region. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 15:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Full name

You should add King Porus full name Purushotam Vaid . 82.45.231.172 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What is your source for that? Paul August ☎ 01:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2023

"Credited to have been a legendary warrior with exceptional skills, Porus unsuccessfully fought against Alexander the Great in the Battle of the Hydaspes (326 BC).[2] In the aftermath, an impressed Alexander not only reinstated him as his satrap but also granted him dominion over lands to the south-east extending as far as the Hyphasis (Beas).[3][4] Porus reportedly died sometime between 321 and 315 BC.[5]" This information is Bogus, Makes no Sense, and im gonna change it.

Porus DID defeat Alexander on the Battlefield. I dont know where this info is from, but its entirely wrong. Why would Alexander give back the land? India was Rich and Prosperous! also, how would alexander win? they just went through the ENTIRE west Asian Plate and now he can win against an army of elephants? it sounds dumb to me. Furthermore, Alexander Died due to malaria IN the battle. Porus DID push back Alexander

https://victorytale.com/alexander-failed-conquer-india/#:~:text=His%20soldiers%20had%20been%20demoralized,them%20to%20march%20back%20home. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Hydaspes from wikipedia itself.

According to Greek sources, the Nanda army was five times the size of the Macedonian army;[4] Alexander's troops—increasingly exhausted, homesick, and anxious by the prospects of having to further face large Indian armies throughout the Indo-Gangetic Plain—mutinied at the Hyphasis River, refusing to advance his

so, i request you change to info to the fact that Porus Did defeat Alexander, i anyway you'd like, preferrably following what i said before Plaintikes (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources that you link to say "[Alexander the Great's] casualties were much more than his earlier battles, but he still won the day"; the other says "Alexander was able to defeat the Indian cavalry and encircle the infantry. Porus reformed his infantry into a defensive block and then offered to surrender if granted generous terms. Alexander agreed Porus could remain king of Paurava but imposed tribute." It is difficult to see how those support your claim, and when we also add in the sources already cited, the case against your suggested change is convincing. JBW (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)