Who won the battle of the Hydaspes, Alexander or Porus??

[Current News Times]

Battle of hydaspes (326 BCE) was a battle between Alexander the Great and
king porus of Paurava which was on the banks of river Jhelum (Greeks know this
river as Hydaspes) in the Punjab region of Indian subcontinent.

As according to the question that who won the battle of hydaspes.So the
answer to the question is that many resources say that alexandar won the battle
but many other also claim that porus won the battle, because after this battle
of Hydaspes no other invasion into India was conducted by Alexander. And Alexanders army
were not in the postion to face another battle.
According to the resouces which claim that Alexander won the battle in these
resources it was mentioned that the resistance put up by King Porus and his men won the respect of Alexander,
who asked Porus to become one of his governor. And porus was appointed as
plenipotentiary after Battle of Hydaspes.

 

[Kovax]

A battle can be a draw, or even a tactical victory yet a strategic defeat. Alexander may have won the field, but may have decided that the cost of continuing against that kind of resistance was going to be more than his tired and depleted army could bear, since the army was already showing signs of unrest and fatigue, with a considerable number of veterans already retired and founding new towns along the way (with a ridiculous number of them being named after Alexander....or his horse in one case). The Macedonian army was most likely getting steadily weaker with age and injuries as it went, not stronger with experience. At what point do you have to say "this is as far as we can go"? Even if you defeat the opposing army, if you can't pacify the land, or replace losses along the way to the next battle, a victory isn't doing you any good.

 

[Yakman]

from my understanding, Alexander won the battle on the field, but realized that continuing into India wouldn't be advantageous and withdrew.

victorious armies walk away from continued offensives all the time in warfare.

 

[Cavalry]

There is an interesting article claimed to be opinion from Marshal Zhukov:

https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383

 

[Yakman]

There is an interesting article claimed to be opinion from Marshal Zhukov:

https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383

? there's no opinion of zhukov there that i saw. it's just a re-hashing of the history. it's a fine article on the facts known i suppose.

 

[Cavalry]

? there's no opinion of zhukov there that i saw. it's just a re-hashing of the history. it's a fine article on the facts known i suppose.

here:
----------

In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.

So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.

 

[Yakman]

here:
----------

In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.

So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.

then it's a poor analogy by Zhukov, if in fact, he made it. Might have done it to bolster the morale of an ally whose military record at the time was less than stellar. i sincerely doubt he would have come to that conclusion if he were being honest.

Alexander crossed the river, won the battle, realized that further advance would lead to disaster, and came back in good fashion.

he didn't run away like Napoleon did, didn't have his army disentegrate, and spent a year establishing settlements, fortifications, and pacifying his conquests.

 

[olm]

Macedonians controlled the field, captured enemy king, and added his kingdom into their empire, a very clear victory. That said, clearly Porus put up very good fight and earned Alexander's respect with that.

 

[Geriander]

here:
----------

In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.

So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.

If Alexander had suffered losses similar to Napoleons in Russia there is no way that the Persians would stay subjugated. The army Alexander brought to India was his main force, without it his closest source of power was in Macedonia. Zhukov was obviously pandering to his hosts.

 

[Warial]

Battle of hydaspes (326 BCE) was a battle between Alexander the Great and
king porus of Paurava which was on the banks of river Jhelum (Greeks know this
river as Hydaspes) in the Punjab region of Indian subcontinent.

As according to the question that who won the battle of hydaspes.So the
answer to the question is that many resources say that alexandar won the battle
but many other also claim that porus won the battle, because after this battle
of Hydaspes no other invasion into India was conducted by Alexander. And Alexanders army
were not in the postion to face another battle.
According to the resouces which claim that Alexander won the battle in these
resources it was mentioned that the resistance put up by King Porus and his men won the respect of Alexander,
who asked Porus to become one of his governor. And porus was appointed as
plenipotentiary after Battle of Hydaspes.

I wonder, why ask the same question on multiple forums, when you keep getting the exact same answers? Alexander won the battle, no source says otherwise.

 

[demanvanwezel]

during the early diadochi period one general got the title of satrap of lower india as a reward, the fact that there was a satrapy of lower india to be handed out and that doing so was considered to be a reward shows that the macedonians did have control over the area

these were later conquered by chandraguptha of the mauryan empire, the fact that he gave seleukos 500 elephants in the peace deal and married seleukos's daughter to seal the deal shows to me further that the macedonians were firmly entrenched in the region prior to this

 

[Dave Consiglio]

Alexander won a decisive victory over Porus in 326 B.C. at the Hydaspes River (current name Jhelum River). Even though at a numerical disadvantage, Alexander out thought and out fought Porus. Originally Answered: Who won the battle between Porus and Alexander? Indeed, Alexanderwon the battle.

 

[Lord Tim]

If Alexander had suffered losses similar to Napoleons in Russia there is no way that the Persians would stay subjugated. The army Alexander brought to India was his main force, without it his closest source of power was in Macedonia. Zhukov was obviously pandering to his hosts.

The campaign as a whole, if you include the withdrawal through Gedrosia, was pretty disastrous. Reputedly nearly all the armies animals and camp followers and estimates of a third of the soldiers.

during the early diadochi period one general got the title of satrap of lower india as a reward, the fact that there was a satrapy of lower india to be handed out and that doing so was considered to be a reward shows that the macedonians did have control over the area

these were later conquered by chandraguptha of the mauryan empire, the fact that he gave seleukos 500 elephants in the peace deal and married seleukos's daughter to seal the deal shows to me further that the macedonians were firmly entrenched in the region prior to this

Or that Chandragupta was more interested in fighting more profitable campaigns to the south and east than campaigning across mountains and deserts against a fortified opponent.

 

[The Heroic Champion]

It was my understanding that King Porus lost to Alexander, and thus became a vassal to him and the Greek/Macedonian Empire.

 

[Geriander]

The campaign as a whole, if you include the withdrawal through Gedrosia, was pretty disastrous. Reputedly nearly all the armies animals and camp followers and estimates of a third of the soldiers.

Two thirds of an army that had still never been beaten in the field could inspire enough fear to keep recently conquered peoples from rebelling. A beaten army fleeing and disintergrating in a manner similar to Napoleons during the retreat from Russia wouldn´t have made it to Babylon at all.

 

[GaiusC]

The campaign as a whole, if you include the withdrawal through Gedrosia, was pretty disastrous. Reputedly nearly all the armies animals and camp followers and estimates of a third of the soldiers.

A thirdof the troops. As opposed to close to 95% of your troops and having your "allies" revolting as soon as you come back from your disaster of an expedition.

 

[demanvanwezel]

The campaign as a whole, if you include the withdrawal through Gedrosia, was pretty disastrous. Reputedly nearly all the armies animals and camp followers and estimates of a third of the soldiers.



Or that Chandragupta was more interested in fighting more profitable campaigns to the south and east than campaigning across mountains and deserts against a fortified opponent.

well yes, it's widely estimated that alexander lost 1/4th of his soldiers at the crossing of gedrosia alone
historians have been nitpicking over this move for centuries because it doesn't make any sense militarily, even if he was defeated then he could just go back the way he came since the sogdians were his greatest ally at this point

if alexander lost then there wouldn't be a need to marry or give elephants because they wouldn't be there anyway, unless the diadochi somehow defeated the indians later (which is doubtfull)

 

[Furion Matsuya]

well yes, it's widely estimated that alexander lost 1/4th of his soldiers at the crossing of gedrosia alone
historians have been nitpicking over this move for centuries because it doesn't make any sense militarily, even if he was defeated then he could just go back the way he came since the sogdians were his greatest ally at this point

if alexander lost then there wouldn't be a need to marry or give elephants because they wouldn't be there anyway, unless the diadochi somehow defeated the indians later (which is doubtfull)

Wasn't the later long march to to Babylon a punishment move by Alexander to his army because the Macedonians wanted to go home and started complaining very openly about the endless conquest. I recall reading that Alexander around the same time or close to it learnt of and crushed conspiracy within the army that may thus have being a factor.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Wasn't the later long march to to Babylon a punishment move by Alexander to his army because the Macedonians wanted to go home and started complaining very openly about the endless conquest. I recall reading that Alexander around the same time or close to it learnt of and crushed conspiracy within the army that may thus have being a factor.

that's one of the likeliest theories yes, although it's been speculated that alexander vastly underestimated the trek through the desert (I can't remember it that well at the moment but the fleet couldn't supply the army as well as he thought)

 

[SorelusImperion]

Wasn't the later long march to to Babylon a punishment move by Alexander to his army because the Macedonians wanted to go home and started complaining very openly about the endless conquest. I recall reading that Alexander around the same time or close to it learnt of and crushed conspiracy within the army that may thus have being a factor.

Yes, or at least that is one of the more common explanations for his decision. Anyway while it can be argued that the battle helped shape his opinion to the point that he decided not going further east the route he chose for his return to Babylon was not a direct result of it and he was neither followed by an an enemy force nor were other routes blocked.