thousand foot, five hundred thousand horse, while two thousand boats and a great number of mock elephants were conveyed on the backs of camels." But what was the result? "The army was utterly routed and Semiramis brought back scarcely a third of her host; some authors even maintain that she herself perished in the expedition." Horrid suggestion! thinkest thou then the gods -SOPHOCLES: Antigone. In later times, the Yadu king, Gaj Singh, who founded Gajni (Ghazni), single-handed "defeated the combined armies of Shah Secunder Roomi and Shah Mamraiz.' Murray's History of India, p. 30, X-CAUSE OF INDIA'S FALL. The race of mortal man is far too weak -GOETHE: Iphigenia, ALEXANDER the Great could not have won his one victory over the Hindus had it not been for the disunion existing among them. The German historian, Max Dunker, says :-"What essentially tended to make the attack easier was the discord among the States and tribes of the land of Indus."1 Sir William Hunter says that "the Hindu king, Mophis of Taxila, joined Alexander with 5,000 men against Porus."2 Professor Max Dunker says: "The Kshudraks and the Malavas forgetting their ancient hostility now combined against a common foe (Alexander), but the Kshudraks turned false and retired. The Malavas continued their resistance, and at last succeeded in lodging an arrow into the heart of Alexander and his commander, Abreas."3 The Professor then relates how Mophis, the king of Takshasila, who was one of the most powerful kings in the Panjab, joined Alexander, and many other petty kings following his example, brought about the defeat of Porus. It should not be forgotten that when Alexander attacked Porus "his army was twice as strong (in numbers) and had been yet further increased by 5,000 Indian from Mophis and some smaller States.' 114 Max Dunker's History of Antiquity, Vol. IV, p. 391. 2 Hunter's Imperial Gazetteer, "India," p. 262. India," p. 262. See also Cunningham's Ancient Geography of India. 3 History of Antiquity, Vol.. IV, p. 404. 4 History of Antiquity. Vol. IV, p. 399. Were it not for this unfortunate disunion of the Hindus themselves, the Great Alexander1 would probably have shared the fate of the Assyrian Semiramis. Like the melodious song of a dying swan, India again shone forth for a moment in all its glory under Vicramaditya. But this was the last faint glimmering of the consumed fire covered with ashes, the last symptoms of vitality that break upon a dying man. "There is good reason to believe," says Sir W. Jones, in his Preface to Sakuntala, "that the court at Avanti was equal in brilliancy in the reign of Vikramaditya to that of any monarch in any age or country." The emperors Bhoj and Akbar alone of the later rulers of India made attempts to give some brilliancy to 1 Alexander's treacherous and cruel conduct during this expedition can only be justified on the principle that "all is fair in love and war." The Hindu laws of war do not sanction an attack on an unprepared foc, it being against their chivalrous instincts to do so. Alexander, however, took the Aswakas at unawares and defeated them. Then again he tried by stratagem to defeat Cleophis (the mother of the deceased Hindu king, who had assumed the conduct of affairs. (See Curt 8, 10; Justin 12, 7.) On the death of the Hindu Commander, the Indian auxiliaries surrendered and encamped on a hill in front of the Macedonian camp, peace having been proclaimed in the town. But the surrendered Indians were killed the next day, on the pretence that they meditated treachery, and the town of the Masaka taken by assault. 46 Whatever may have been the case with the supposed intention of the Indian mercenaries," asks Max Dunker, "and the intelligence which Alexander is said to have received of this intention-the city had fulfilled the condition imposed upon it and had given up the mercenaries,--why then was it attacked in this unexpected and unmerited manner against the terms of the capitulation?"-History of Antiquity, Vol. IV, p. 394. |