Spies of any country any time have always
interested me. Especially when in the midst of unusual circumstances and odds
they come out safely, my hats are off for them. Sometimes they remain unhonoured
and unsung, projected wrongly as traitors by historians, or by their heads and
enemies. Many such men have gone to gallows; or history never knows what
happened to them thereafter.
The name of Prince Ambhi (Omphis
Taxiles) is one such name known to history as a traitor since Alexander the
Great called him so. We learnt in our school days that he invited Alexander to
avenge King Puru or Porus, his arch-enemy and king of the land between the
present Jhelum and Chenab rivers in the Punjab.
Ambhi’s territory lay between the northern banks of Jhelum
right up to Kandhar of Afghanistan. His state was called as Gandhar when
Alexander invaded India. There is no reason to believe that rivalry ensued
between Ambhi and Puru as there are no records directly to believe in what the
Greeks have recorded. On the contrary the Greeks mention that Ambhi and Puru
were related matrimonially, meaning thereby that Prince Ambhi (22-24) was
probably the son-in-law of Puru. In India it was a tradition to enter into such
alliance to avoid enmity. Punjab was a very fertile territory and Gandhar was a
very rich kingdom, renowned since ancient times for the world famous university of Takshashila
or Taxila for education, commerce, arts and crafts, and for a network of roads
within India connecting it
with international trade route or the Silk Road.
Takshashila occupied a place of importance in India of those days, and became a
commercially rich capital of a rich state. Samrat Ambhi and his son are known
to India
as learned patronizers of the famous university.
Why then did Alexander initially
call Ambhi a trustworthy friend in February and a traitor same year in July 326
BC? And what treachery did Prince Ambhi do with Alexander? That itself is a
mystery, a mystery since no Greek ever proved it. Arya Chanakya who was his Teacher
and the Principal of Takshshila University, nowhere has said anything against
Ambhi. So why is he called a traitor?
Let us first understand that Puru
was never a priority for Alexander. He invaded India
just to annex Sindh and a part of the Punjab.
Earlier these provinces were captured by the Persians (Darius I), 250 years
prior to Alexander capturing them. Since Alexander defeated Darius III, it
became imperative for him to annex Sindh to his territory. This would satisfy
his ego to be the world conqueror. Alexander landed in Taxila all of a sudden
with a 120 000-strong army and 15000 cavalry, according to Plutarch.
With a small force of just 5000,
the Prince preferred to play cool and surrendered.
He probably awaited for an
opportune moment.
Ambhi’s steps proved very correct,
as otherwise Alexander’s forces would have ruined the city and the ancient
university; also they would have raped the royal females, and the women in the
city and the state. Arya Chanakya who was associated with Ambhi might have
advised him to do so. There is no Indian record of the time mentioning Ambhi’s
treachery.
That, in those days, for a petty
rivalry a royal prince would invite a foreigner was most unlikely. Alexander
was Macedonian, Ambhi an Indian; had there been any dialogue between the two it
would have used either the Macedonian or the Sanskrit in Brahmi script. No such
crucial record is available in the Greek or Sanskrit literature. Because of
Ambhi’s wisdom TaxilaUniversity and the city
continued to play its pivotal role for the next 800 years, till it was burned
down by the White Huns in the 5th century AD.
Under the guise of giving a very
hospitable treatment to Alexander, his officials and the forces in general,
Ambhi very diplomatically prolonged Alexander’s stay from one month till June, for
5 months. All Indians know that July is a month of heavy downpour and gusty
winds which play havoc; roads become muddy and slippery, communications get cut
off; there is no transport. As a long tradition which is perfectly
understandable, no wars took place during the rainy season, for four months.
This is the only war in India between
Indian kings united under Puru and Alexander the Foreigner who was unaware of
the topography and seasonal changes of the territory where he landed and
brought his end nearer. This might be a combined plan of the Indian kings to
trap Alexander in a place most difficult to operate in the rainy season. Karri battleground
suited their requirement well.
Puru who got 5 months for his war
preparation chose a terrain naturally hostile to an invader. The battlefield of
Karri, as described by Curtius 2000 years ago and by Gen J Abbots, is girdled
by Karri and Mangal hills, 8 x 8 km. It is surrounded by unpredictable streams
that pour waters into main course of Jhelum.
Big boulders tumble down the Himalayan slope into Jhelum
and cause whirlpools.
After the battle, fought in the
first week of July, Alexander had to leave India
in about a month, not by the Taxila route but crossing the hostile desert of Sindh. This route is 1000 km long and
took one year for Alexander and his remaining forces to reach Babylon, in April 324 BC. Alexander died on
10th June 324, just in two months after his return.
Taxiles (in Greek Tαξίλης or
Ταξίλας; lived 4th century BC) was the Greek chroniclers' name for a prince or
king who reigned over the tract between the Indus and the Hydaspes Rivers in
the Punjab at the period of the expedition of Alexander the Great, 327 BC. His
real name was Ambhi (Greek: Omphis), and the Greeks appear to have called him
Taxiles or Taxilas, from the name of his capital city of Taxila, near the modern Attock.
He appears to have been on terms of
hostility with his neighbour Porus, who held the territories east of the Hydaspes,
and it was probably with a view of strengthening himself against this foe, that
he sent an embassy to Alexander, while the latter was yet in Sogdiana, with
offers of assistance and support. On the first descent of the conqueror into India in 327
BCE, he hastened to meet him with valuable presents, and placed himself and all
his forces at his disposal. Nor were these vain professions: Alexander was
emboldened to divide his forces, and Ambhi assisted Hephaestion and Perdiccas
in constructing a bridge over the Indus where it bends at Hund (Fox 1973),
supplied their troops with provisions, and received Alexander himself, and his
whole army, in his capital city of Taxila, with every demonstration of
friendship and the most liberal hospitality.
On the subsequent advance of the Macedonian
king, Taxiles accompanied him with a force of 5000 men, and bore a part in the battle
of the HydaspesRiver. After that victory he was sent by
Alexander in pursuit of Porus, to whom he was charged to offer favourable
terms, but narrowly escaped losing his life at the hands of his old enemy.
Subsequently, however, the two rivals were reconciled by the personal mediation
of Alexander; and Taxiles, after having contributed zealously to the equipment
of the fleet on the Hydaspes, was entrusted by the king with the government of
the whole territory between that river and the Indus.
A considerable accession of power was granted him after the death of Philip,
son of Machatas; and he was allowed to retain his authority at the death of
Alexander himself (323 BC), as well as in the subsequent partition of the
provinces at Triparadisus, 321 BC. But at a subsequent period we find Eudemus,
the commander of the Macedonian troops in his province, possessing the sole
authority: whether Taxiles had been displaced by force or removed by a natural
death, we are not informed.
Why then did Alexander initially call Ambhi a trustworthy friend in February and a traitor same year in July 326 BC? And what treachery did Prince Ambhi do with Alexander? That itself is a mystery, a mystery since no Greek ever proved it.
In which document is he called a traitor?
Let us first understand that Puru was never a priority for Alexander. He invaded India just to annex Sindh and a part of the Punjab.
Is this really true? There were four historians Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, And Quintus Curtius accompanying Alexander. Alexander was told that he would have to cross the Gobi desert plus the Ganges river but he couldn't persuade his soldiers who were fatigued so he turned back. According to the Annals of the World which is drawn from the work of Greek historians, he even had ships built because he wanted to sail down the Indian ocean.
On the contrary the Greeks mention that Ambhi and Puru were related matrimonially, meaning thereby that Prince Ambhi (22-24) was probably the son-in-law of Puru.
There were two Porus (uncle and nephew) according to the Annals of the World by James Ussher.
That, in those days, for a petty rivalry a royal prince would invite a foreigner was most unlikely.
We see them today as Indians but in those days was this strong identity really established? In that age, they were all kings of their own land in rivalry with their neighbours. It was law of the jungle. Alexander had just vanquished the greatest empire at the time, that of the Persians, and it is natural that Omphis would surrender to Alexander.
After the battle, fought in the first week of July, Alexander had to leave India in about a month, not by the Taxila route but crossing the hostile desert of Sindh. This route is 1000 km long and took one year for Alexander and his remaining forces to reach Babylon, in April 324 BC
The impression being conveyed here is that he was fleeing through the hostile desert because he had lost which is not true. He chose not to go by the Taxila route on purpose. According to, again, the Annals of the World, Alexander sailed down the river conquering more lands south of Taxila until he almost reached the Indian ocean near the present-day Rann of Kutch.
It took some time for me to review my own sources, hence the delay.
1) Plutarch calls Ambhi a traitor.
2) Diodorus(49BC), Curtius (when born not sure), Pliny(49 AD), Arrian (86 AD) Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 AD) were not contemporaries of Alexander. Their record is spiced up since they all have based their record partially on each other's compilation. Since no historian worth the name accompanied Alexander during seven or eight years of his campaign, their views, especially on 18 months stay in India cannot be taken seriously.
3) The rivalry between Ambhi and Puru is hearsay. Had it been true, there should have been some written documentary evidence either in Sanskrit in Brahmi script if that was Ambhi's, or in Greek if it was Alexander's; there is nothing to look into. Only one Greek record tells us that Ambhi and Puru were related to each other.
4) Takshshila, was an internationally known University, a commercial city, closer to Silk Route, and a center of Education, capital of Gandhar, linked by roads to all main Indian cities 400 years prior to Alexander. All these attributes give us a clear picture of peace-loving Indian society. There is no reason to believe that a ruler of such a prosperous kingdom would invite an unknown foreigner, ever offer his kingdom to an invader just for a petty cause, and that to a shrewd politician Arya Chanakya was his Guru and the principal of the university, would not take any cognisance of such a plot, if ever existed.
5) Here are some references.
References Taxila and the Western World, Dr Saifur Rahaman Dar
Invasion of Alexander the Great, JWM Crindle (896)
Alexander’s Track to the Indus, MA Stain
Alexander the Great, John Gunther
Alexander’s Campaign on the North West Frontiers, Ibid. Alexander the Great, WW Tarn
Alexander the Great, GTGriffith (The main Problems 1966) Alexander’s Indian Campaign, Taxila to Hydaspes, (Appendix D) The Greek Map of the battle of Hydaspes (BC 326) Alexander did he really Win? PN Phadke
Alexander the Great, SL Bodhankar
Alexander the Great, Arjandass, Malik
Alexander the Great, Curtius
Alexander the Great, Diodours
Alexander the Great, GN Pant
Alexander the Great, Plutarch
Dr Saifur Rahaman Dar
Between the Indus and the Hydapes (Jhelum) is Taxila a Large city and government by good law. The surrounding country is thickly populated and extremely fertile as the mountains here begin to subside into the Plains. The inhabitants and king Taxsiles (Ambhi) received Alexander with kindness and in return came by more than they bestowed so that the Macedonians were jealous and said, it appeared as if Alexander had found none worthy of his bounty until he had crossed the Indus.
Arjundas Malik
During the days of Darius I of Persia the Indian satrapies of Kabul, Gandhara (Peshawar & Kandahar) Hindu Kush with its capital formed Part of Achaemenian Empire, but at the time of Darius III those satrapies had however become independent. Although Indian did figure in the Greek concept of the known world, it was conceived as a peninsula south of Hindu Kush comprising only the Indus basin beyond, was supported to be the ocean surrounded the world. To them India west of North Pakistan did not exist nor were Greeks aware of any other part of Asia outside Persian domains. Both Aristotle and Alexander believed that ocean was visible from the Hindu Kush further Alexander considered Indus to be the source of the Nile.
FA Wright
Nine Hundred miles down the Indus took nine months and involved hard fighting and then came march through Gedrosian desert the most terrific Journeys that army has ever attempted.
John Garther
Alexander had received a terrible wound in the breast and than as he tells a Mallian stabbed him in the neck Alexander had almost died. An arrow had plunged into his chest and its head broken off became lodged between the bones of his ribs. To get it out was a frightful job and the pain almost killed him. For a long period he was too week to move and the rumors spread that he had died.
Nearchus, Admiral of Alexander
As soon as the armies of Alexander reached the lower Sindh, then they had to face the stiff opposition of the Brahman republics, Iranians also to face similar opposition earlier (519 BC)
Narchus further admits that because of the population Alexander was faced to leave Sindh, very soon.
Arrian
When the Macedonian army of about 11000 men after surmounting all difficulties of the passage ultimately found itself on the mainland it entered a considerable plain of the firm soil, known as KARRI girdled by low hills on the north and east. This plain at its widest part, is about 5 miles broad and affords a sufficient though not excessive space for the battle. The river at the crossing place runs over quartz boulders and still existing island larger than the rest corresponds closely with that described by the Greek historians as the place on which Alexander first landed. (Ger Abbott 1848)
Plutarch
The battle with Porus depressed the spirit of Macedonians and made them unwilling to advance further in India.
Thanks for digging up this information. I had no idea Greek historians were unreliable. Do you know if any extant records authored by the historian Callisthenes exist ? Was he reliable?
1) Plutarch calls Ambhi a traitor.
If Plutarch was not a primary source, then his assertion that "Ambhi was a traitor" can be ignored and need not form a basis for your assertion that Alexander might have been fooled.
The rivalry between Ambhi and Puru is hearsay. Had it been true, there should have been some written documentary evidence either in Sanskrit in Brahmi script if that was Ambhi's, or in Greek if it was Alexander's; there is nothing to look into.
What percentage of records at Taxila have survived? How many times was it attacked or burned in the passing years? What is the probability that a record of Ambhi and Alexander's conversation would have existed?
There is no reason to believe that a ruler of such a prosperous kingdom would invite an unknown foreigner, ever offer his kingdom to an invader just for a petty cause, and that to a shrewd politician Arya Chanakya was his Guru and the principal of the university, would not take any cognisance of such a plot, if ever existed.
I thought Chanakya was a Guru to Chandragupta later. Was he an adviser to Ambhi as well?
It is unlikely that Alexander seemed as an unknown foreigner to Ambhi. After all, he had just vanquished the Persian Empire to the West and Darius was dead. He had prevailed over an enemy with vastly superior numbers. Surely news of this should have reached Ambhi, more so if Taxila was a center of learning and drew scholars from regions around it.
If Ambhi was really a friend of Porus, why didn't they organize a joint response to Alexander when he first crossed the Persian border from the West ?
Ambhi could have used another opportunity later to betray Alexander. Why did Ambhi not mount an attack from the rear while Alexander was crossing the flooded river to attack Porus ? From a strategic perspective, that was the ideal moment because Alexander's forces were divided and he would have caught off-guard and easily defeated.
These theories would have to discounted before your conclusion can be accepted.
Forget Callisthenes in my earlier comment. He wasn't there in India.
Why then did Alexander initially call Ambhi a trustworthy friend in February and a traitor same year in July 326 BC? And what treachery did Prince Ambhi do with Alexander?
When Plutarch says Ambhi was a traitor, he might have meant traitor to Indians not Greeks.
Under the guise of giving a very hospitable treatment to Alexander, his officials and the forces in general, Ambhi very diplomatically prolonged Alexander’s stay from one month till June, for 5 months. All Indians know that July is a month of heavy downpour and gusty winds which play havoc; roads become muddy and slippery, communications get cut off; there is no transport. As a long tradition which is perfectly understandable, no wars took place during the rainy season, for four months.
This is a case of Presentism , projecting present-day conditions to interpret the past. Roads may actually have been better at that time :-) The said battle occurred near the present northern Afghan-Pak border which could very well have been having snow rather than rain. Do historical records say it was raining?
Heavy rain and a river is unlikely to have deterred Alexander and his battle-hardened troops, if we read his previous exploits. In the seige of Tyre, his engineers built a kilometer-long causeway into the Mediterranean sea to lob munitions into the island fortress. Alexander persisted for six months in the conquest of Tyre.
In this case, it is quite possible that Alexander was waiting for the right moment and position to strike Porus.
