In spring 327, Alexander re-crossed the Hindu Kush and began his invasion of India, the easternmost limits of the Achaimenid Empire. The extent of Persian rule in Gandhara and the Punjab had doubtless declined since the age of Dareios I, but the response of the local dynasts to Alexander’s demands for submission shows that they continued to recognize some form of Achaimenid overlordship (hence Arrian’s use of the term hyparchoi), that is, that they regarded Alexander’s authority as legitimate (cf. Bosworth 1995: 147-9). Not all came over willingly. In Bajaur, the Aspasians, who dwelt in the Kunar or Chitral valley, fled to the hills after abandoning and burning Arigaion (Nawagai); nevertheless the Macedonians captured 40,000 men and 230,000 oxen. More obstinate was the resistance of the Assakenoi, who fielded 2,000 cavalry, 30,000 infantry and 30 elephants. After the death of Assakenos, who may have been killed in the initial skirmish with Alexander, Massaga in the Katgala pass relied for its defence on Kleophis, the mother (or possibly widow) of Assakenos. Soon Kleophis sent a herald to Alexander to discuss terms of surrender, gaining as a result the reputation of ‘harlot queen’; for she was said to have retained her kingdom through sexual favours (cf. Justin 12.7.9-11). The story that she later bore a son named Alexander is perhaps an invention of the late first century and an allusion to Kleopatra VII and Kaisarion (von Gutschmid 1882: 553-4; Seel 1971: 181-2). Ora (Udegram) and Beira or Bazeira (Bir-kot), other strongholds of the Assakenoi, fell in rapid succession. But a more strenuous effort was required to capture the rock of Aornos, which abutted on its eastern side the banks of the Indus River. Hence, it is probable that its identification with Pir-Sar by Sir Aurel Stein (Stein 1929; cf. Bosworth 1995: 178-80) is correct, though recently others have suggested Mt Ilam (Eggermont 1984: 191-200; Badian 1987: 117 n. 1).
In the meantime, the king had sent an advance force to bridge the Indus and secure Peukelaotis (modern Charsadda) with a Macedonian garrison. Ambhi (whom the Greeks called Omphis or Mophis), the ruler of Taxila - the region between the Indus and the Hydaspes - had already sent out diplomatic feelers to Alexander and he now welcomed the Macedonian army near his capital (in the vicinity of modern Islamabad); for he was prepared to exchange recognition of Alexander’s overlordship for military help against his enemies, Abisares and Poros, who ruled the northern and western regions respectively. In return for Macedonian support, Philip son of Macha-tas was appointed as overseer of the region, with Ambhi (under the official name of ‘Taxiles’) as nominal head of the kingdom.
Abisares had known of Alexander’s advance since, at least, winter 327/6, when he sent reinforcements to Ora. After the fall of Aornos in 326, natives from the region between Dyrta and the Indus fled to him, and he renewed his alliance with Poros. Though clearly the weaker partner in this relationship, Abisares could nevertheless muster an army of comparable size; hence Alexander planned to attack Poros before Abisares could join forces with him. In the event, Poros looked in vain for reinforcements, as Abisares made (token?) submission to Alexander and awaited the outcome of events. After the Macedonian victory at the Hydaspes, Abisares sent a second delegation, led by his own brother and bringing money and forty elephants as gifts. Despite his failure to present himself in person, as had been required of him, Abisares retained his kingdom, to which was added the hyparchy of Arsakes; he was, however, assessed for an annual tribute and closely watched by the satrap, Philip son of Machatas. Although Abisares is referred to as ‘satrap’ by Arrian, his son doubtless followed an independent course of action after Alexander’s return to the west.
Poros meanwhile prepared to face the invader and his traditional enemy, Taxiles, at the Hydaspes (Jhelum), probably near modern Haranpur (Stein 1932; Wood 1997: 184-7; Fuller 1960: 180-4 for earlier theories). Here, Alexander positioned Krateros with a holding force directly opposite Poros and stationed a smaller contingent under Meleagros and Gorgias farther upstream; he himself conducted regular feints along the riverbank before marching, under the cover of night and a torrential downpour, to ford the river some 26 km north of the main crossing point, catching Poros’ son, who had been posted upstream, off his guard. This was near modern Jalalpur and the wooded island of Admana. The main engagement was a particularly hard-fought and bloody one (Hamilton 1956; cf. Devine 1987), in which the Indian ruler distinguished himself by his bravery. The valiant enemy earned Alexander’s respect, and was allowed to retain his kingdom. It had not always been so: Alexander had not always been so generous in his treatment of stubborn adversaries. The greater challenge lay, however, in the attempt to bring about lasting peace between the Indian rivals. Curtius claims that an alliance between Taxiles and Poros was sealed by marriage, the common currency in such transactions. But the arrangement was never entirely satisfactory. Though Taxiles was perhaps more to be trusted than Poros, Alexander needed a strong ruler in what would be the buffer zone at the eastern edge of his empire (cf. Breloer 1941).
Despite the popular view ofAlexander as a man obsessed with conquest and intent upon reaching the eastern edge of the world - a view which will persist because the legend of Alexander has become so firmly rooted that it defies all rational attempts to change it - Alexander abandoned thoughts of acquiring new territory after his hard-fought victory over Poros. What he needed now was security, and he worked with his new ally himself to bring the neighbouring dynasts under Poros’ authority. The Glausai were reduced by Alexander and their realm added to that of Poros, while Hephaistion annexed the kingdom of the so-called ‘cowardly’ Poros, between the Akesines (Chenab) and Hydraotes (Ravi) rivers. Garrisons were established in the region, but they comprised Indian troops and were responsible to Poros, not Alexander. Beyond the Ravi, the campaigns were either punitive or pre-emptive, depending on how Poros in his discussions with the king assessed their power or reported their activities. Sangala, indeed, was stubborn in its resistance, and the attackers paid a heavy price in casualties; but Sophytes (Saubhuti) made peace, perhaps relieved by the conqueror’s suppression of the neighbouring Kshatriyas.
Nevertheless, the Hyphasis (Beas) marked the end of the eastward march - and Alexander knew it. He had, in truth, already determined to take the army elsewhere. After the victory at the Hydaspes, the king had established two cities, Boukephala and Nikaia, as outposts of his realm, and sent men into the hills to cut down trees for the construction of a fleet that would sail down the Hydaspes to the Indus delta, thus following a route known to the Greeks since the exploits of Skylax of Karyanda during the reign of Dareios I (Hdt. 5.44). His reasons for campaigning in the eastern Punjab were simple and practical enough. It was essential that Poros should control a strong vassal kingdom on the edge of Alexander’s empire, and it was important to keep the men occupied and to place the burden of feeding his troops on the hostile tribes in that region rather than on his newly acquired friend Poros. Alexander’s behaviour at the Hyphasis, when he withdrew into his tent and sulked because his troops would not follow him to the Ganges, was as much an act of dissembling as the larger-than-life structures that were erected at the river, designed to deceive posterity into thinking that the Macedonian invaders had been more than mere humans (Spann 1999; Heckel 2003b).
For Alexander the path to the Ocean was still open, but the need to secure the empire was not forgotten: the descent of the Indus waterway, conducted by land as well as on the river, shows that Alexander intended a systematic reduction of the area which would ensure Macedonian rule in the Punjab (Breloer 1941). The expedition was a show of force on the eastern side of the Indus to support Macedonian claims to rule the western lands adjacent to the river (Bosworth 1983). The Siboi, allegedly descendants of Herakles, were woven into the fabric of the Alexander legend more securely than into that of the empire. The Kshudrakas (Oxydrakai or Sudracae) and Malavas (Mallians) were deadly foes and long-time enemies of both Poros and Abisares. The sack of one of their towns - probably located at or near modern Multan (Wood 1997: 199-200) - nearly cost the king his life, and from this point, he was conveyed downstream by ship, displayed to the troops, in an attempt to stifle rumours that he had died and the ‘truth’ was being kept from them by the generals.
When the king recovered his strength, he turned his attention to Mousikanos, whose kingdom beyond the confluence of the Chenab is probably to be identified with ancient Alor. Mousikanos, surprised by the enemy’s approach, surrendered and accepted a garrison. But Oxikanos (or Oxykanos), a nomarch of upper Sind (Egger-mont 1975: 12 locates him at Azeika), resisted the invader and was eventually captured and, presumably, executed. Portikanos, ruler of Pardabathra, suffered a similar fate, but the arguments for identifying the two rulers as one and the same, as many scholars do (Smith 1914: 101 n. 3; Berve 1926: 2.293), are not compelling (Eggermont 1975: 9-10,12). At Sindimana, the capital of the dynast Sambos, whom Alexander had appointed satrap of the hill-country west of the Indus, the inhabitants opened their gates to receive the Macedonians, but Sambos himself fled. Mousikanos, too, on the advice of the Brahmans, had rebelled soon after the king’s departure, only to be hunted down by Peithon son of Agenor and brought to Alexander, who crucified Mousikanos and other leaders of the insurrection. What became of Sambos, we do not know, but Krateros’ return to the west through the Bolan Pass may have been intended to root out the remaining insurgents; for it appears that Sambos controlled the profitable trade-route between Alor and Kandahar (cf. Eggermont 1975: 22).
World History
