Were Indian armies stronger than European armies?

Alcibiades · Feb 2, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
*everything* on Alexander is ultimately based on two sources: Callisthenes and Megasthenes. I picked the one that is less politicized and affected by the Alexandrine cult, because Megasthenes resided in the eastern part of Selucid empire, far removed from the court intreagues. ALL other sources on Alexander is ultimately speculation (written centuries after the guy, therefor, unreliable) or based on Callisthenes's account. I cannot see how you can dismiss one of the two first hand sources as 'only one source' but pander to sources that lived hundreds of years later, in a heavily 'cult-worship' type environment.

Actually,no.There were many other primary sources on Alexander that weren't based on Callisthenes,including Nearchus,Aristobulos and Chares of Mytilene.

Completely regardless of that,my point still stands.Logic dictates that we don't base our entire convictions and opinions on a single(no matter how you spin it,Megasthenes by himself,is STILL only a single voice)voice.
Alcibiades

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

Thessalonian said:
2) You provided no evidence again with specific and verified numbers like I did for Athens. There was a time when Athenian adult male population of citizens was around 30,000 and 20% of them voted for each piece of legislation which is democracy. Voting once in 4 years is not democracy, it is a laugh... a parody of democracy. You have to google democracy. You don't know what it means. You probably think it means coca cola or mcdonalds... Democracy means participation of the population in the decision making process. Athens was the best example of its own time.

As it has been said to you repeatedly, representative democracy is just as much a democracy as direct democracy and most people prefer representative democracy due to the logistics of it. Voting once every 4 years to elect representatives who make decisions via majority vote *is* democracy. It is a more legitimate democracy, when the election process includes 100% of the adult population, of which atleast 40-60% show up to vote, than a direct democracy where only 3% of the opinions are represented. In the former process, a far larger part of the population has contribution to the government process than the latter, therefore, making it more legitimate.

3) A good climate is a climate that people can handle. 45 degrees Celcius heat is not a good climate. Humidity and heat produce diseases. The Mediterranean and Californian subtropical climates are much better and mild than Indian. It's not only about harvesting. The Indian climate is much too rainy and hot, for many parts of the country. Too much UV radiation as well (you can tell by the skin colour). As in much of the tropics, monsoonal and other weather conditions in India are unstable: major droughts, floods, cyclones and other natural disasters are sporadic, but have killed or displaced millions. Over here, we don't have cyclones or catastrophic floods while casualties caused by extreme weather are rare and very limited to a couple of people or so.

Obviously, people can handle the Indian climate, given there are 1.4 billion people in the subcontinent. Their population density, total population, etc. makes it one of *the* prime habitable zones on this planet. 'Too rainy/too hot' etc. are personal preferences, something that cannot be quantified or discussed objectively.

The only objective benchmarks are the number of people living somewhere, the frequency of their harvests and food reliability. As it stands in 2010, Indian subcontinent has the second largest amount of arable land on this planet, the largest population and one of the few regions in the world capable of three harvests without the aid of technology. While Greece is unable to feed itself ( Greece is a net food importer) and has around 1% of the population of the subcontinent. If Aliens showed up today, they'd think India and China are the 'focal points' of humanity, the most desirable and habitable zone for humans, given how many people reside there and their categoric superiority over most of the world in food security.
Throughout history, people migrated into India due to its splendid riches, excellent climate and huge room for expansion. Nobody ever went to Greece to settle there on such a large scale.

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

Alcibiades said:
Actually,no.There were many other primary sources on Alexander that weren't based on Callisthenes,including Nearchus,Aristobulos and Chares of Mytilene.

Completely regardless of that,my point still stands.Logic dictates that we don't base our entire convictions and opinions on a single(no matter how you spin it,Megasthenes by himself,is STILL only a single voice)voice.
Alcibiades

Aristobulous's work was predominantly geographic and genealogical, Chares wrote about the private life of Alex.

Nearchus(sorry i forgot him), Callisthenes and Megasthenes are the only three sources of Alexander's campaigns.

Your point is irrelevant, because we have 3 main sources regarding his campaigns, of which Callisthenes' accounts hardly exist anymore (even during his own time, after his incarceration, there is no evidence of his work influencing others) & we are left with Nearchus and Megasthenes that are the sole basis of every single Alexandrine author's reference.

When your primary sources are one or two, it makes perfect sense to use one of them, when that one happens to be the one removed from court intreagues, the politics and overglorification process, which is categorically accepted to've happened after Alexander's death in the Diadochi kingdoms, who had it in their interests to further mythify Alexander and associate themselves with his myth to give legitimacy to their kingdoms.
Simply speaking, of the two/three original sources, Megasthenes is the most trustworthy: he resided in a far-flung town at the other end of the empire, he had no reason to tear down Alexander or mythify him to the absurd levels that was going on in the western parts of the empire. Nearchus, Aristobulous, Chares etc. are *all* part of this intellectual unreliability, Megasthenes is not.

Alcibiades · Feb 2, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
Aristobulous's work was predominantly geographic and genealogical, Chares wrote about the private life of Alex.

Nearchus(sorry i forgot him), Callisthenes and Megasthenes are the only three sources of Alexander's campaigns.

Your point is irrelevant, because we have 3 main sources regarding his campaigns, of which Callisthenes' accounts hardly exist anymore (even during his own time, after his incarceration, there is no evidence of his work influencing others) & we are left with Nearchus and Megasthenes that are the sole basis of every single Alexandrine author's reference.

When your primary sources are one or two, it makes perfect sense to use one of them, when that one happens to be the one removed from court intreagues, the politics and overglorification process, which is categorically accepted to've happened after Alexander's death in the Diadochi kingdoms, who had it in their interests to further mythify Alexander and associate themselves with his myth to give legitimacy to their kingdoms.
Simply speaking, of the two/three original sources, Megasthenes is the most trustworthy: he resided in a far-flung town at the other end of the empire, he had no reason to tear down Alexander or mythify him to the absurd levels that was going on in the western parts of the empire. Nearchus, Aristobulous, Chares etc. are *all* part of this intellectual unreliability, Megasthenes is not.

Alexander's historiography simply doesn't work like that,all flowing from a one or two original sources(actually,rarely everything IS so simplistic).Primary,late primary,and secondary sources DID NOT,I repeat,DID NOT used solely Callisthenes and Nearchus.There were literally hundreds of eyewitnesses available to being interwied.You forgot Mercenary's sources?Those authors would pick bits and pieces from dozens of places and refferences(not all of them literary works).
Alcibiades

bartieboy · Feb 2, 2011

Obviously, people can handle the Indian climate, given there are 1.4 billion people in the subcontinent. Their population density, total population, etc. makes it one of *the* prime habitable zones on this planet. 'Too rainy/too hot' etc. are personal preferences, something that cannot be quantified or discussed objectively.

hah!
completely rubbish!
people in warmer climates cant work as hard as people in colder climates.
its simple human nature!
try working in a quary at 30Celsius...

Besides that you can count on more tropical diseases, more drought etc.
You can dress yourself for cold but you cant dress yourself for heath.
A big population doesnt say mutch about the living conditions.
Look at Africa south of the sahara,
how is the climate there?
and how large are the populations there?

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

Alcibiades said:
Alexander's historiography simply doesn't work like that,all flowing from a one or two original sources(actually,rarely everything IS so simplistic).Primary,late primary,and secondary sources DID NOT,I repeat,DID NOT used solely Callisthenes and Nearchus.There were literally hundreds of eyewitnesses available to being interwied.You forgot Mercenary's sources?Those authors would pick bits and pieces from dozens of places and refferences(not all of them literary works).
Alcibiades

By primary sources, i mean not the only ones who accompanied Alexander through his campaigns, but sources who lived in the time of Alexander. Of that, there are less than half a dozen at best, even if we include people who wrote about geography and geneologies. The 'hundreds' of sources you talk about are all singularly, after the time of Alexander, telling a tale, not recounting history.

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

bartieboy said:
hah!
completely rubbish!
people in warmer climates cant work as hard as people in colder climates.
its simple human nature!
try working in a quary at 30Celsius...

Besides that you can count on more tropical diseases, more drought etc.
You can dress yourself for cold but you cant dress yourself for heath.
A big population doesnt say mutch about the living conditions.
Look at Africa south of the sahara,
how is the climate there?
and how large are the populations there?

You *can* dress yourself for the heat- why do you think Bedouins the world over wear those flowing robes ?it maintains an air pocket in them and keeps them cool.

The African population south of sahara is pretty small- its only in the Niger river valley/delta that there is a huge concentration of population- most of subsaharan Africa is not a dense population.

And Yes, when objective benchmarks are used- such as population number, food security, harvest sizes and frequency, India and China along with the USA are the 'most habitable' regions on this planet.

Tennenbaum · Feb 2, 2011

bartieboy said:
hah!
completely rubbish!
people in warmer climates cant work as hard as people in colder climates.
its simple human nature!
try working in a quary at 30Celsius...

Besides that you can count on more tropical diseases, more drought etc.
You can dress yourself for cold but you cant dress yourself for heath.
A big population doesnt say mutch about the living conditions.
Look at Africa south of the sahara,
how is the climate there?
and how large are the populations there?

Isn't around 25% of the Netherlands below sea level?

Humans find a way....

bartieboy · Feb 2, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
You *can* dress yourself for the heat- why do you think Bedouins the world over wear those flowing robes ?it maintains an air pocket in them and keeps them cool.

The African population south of sahara is pretty small- its only in the Niger river valley/delta that there is a huge concentration of population- most of subsaharan Africa is not a dense population.

And Yes, when objective benchmarks are used- such as population number, food security, harvest sizes and frequency, India and China along with the USA are the 'most habitable' regions on this planet.

yes but how many hours a day can people like the bedouins perform physicly hard work?
it is funny how you say China and USA while those 2 country's have very diffrent types of climates in their territory.
Why do you think so many people in the US live on the eastern coast where the climate is just about the same as in Europe?

Isn't around 25% of the Netherlands below sea level?

Humans find a way....

thats just because we are a nation of super people ;-)
Making new land from the sea is a diffrent thing then changing the climate you live in

Tennenbaum · Feb 2, 2011

bartieboy said:
thats just because we are a nation of super people ;-)
Making new land from the sea is a diffrent thing then changing the climate you live in

Obviously, as Lord Gauda pointed out, they don't have to change their climate.

plutoboyz · Feb 2, 2011

bartieboy said:
hah!
completely rubbish!
people in warmer climates cant work as hard as people in colder climates.
its simple human nature!
try working in a quary at 30Celsius...

Besides that you can count on more tropical diseases, more drought etc.
You can dress yourself for cold but you cant dress yourself for heath.
A big population doesnt say mutch about the living conditions.
Look at Africa south of the sahara,
how is the climate there?
and how large are the populations there?

so, you are saying that people from warm area are weaker than people in cold area?

do you have any evidence for this claim?

bartieboy · Feb 2, 2011

plutoboyz said:
so, you are saying that people from warm area are weaker than people in cold area?

do you have any evidence for this claim?

noo... if you read my message well then you see that i am saying that the actions of a man can be limited by climate.
to give an example,
just try to work from 8:30-12:00 12:30-17:00 non stop in a country with a high humidity, high temperature and more diseases

now try to do that in a country with about 15C, ideal air humidity and less diseases.

bartieboy · Feb 2, 2011

Tennenbaum said:
Obviously, as Lord Gauda pointed out, they don't have to change their climate.

im NOT saying they have to change it,
im saying it is less ideal for hard physical work

Frank81 · Feb 2, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
The easternmost point of Alexander's advance- the middle reaches of the Beas river is roughly 2-4 days march from the upper-middle reaches of the Ganges. The sources you quote mentions Alexander's scouting party comming back with reports as to how deep the Ganges was and the banks being lined with the Nanda empire's soldiers.
Obviously, that is a few days away from 'collision', given the geography of the region.

Again your imagination changing the facts. They are talking about the nations in the opposite side of the river, not of a ready army in that side of the river.

Lord_of_Gauda said:
*everything* on Alexander is ultimately based on two sources: Callisthenes and Megasthenes. I picked the one that is less politicized and affected by the Alexandrine cult, because Megasthenes resided in the eastern part of Selucid empire, far removed from the court intreagues. ALL other sources on Alexander is ultimately speculation (written centuries after the guy, therefor, unreliable) or based on Callisthenes's account. I cannot see how you can dismiss one of the two first hand sources as 'only one source' but pander to sources that lived hundreds of years later, in a heavily 'cult-worship' type environment.

As our fellows have said, wrong. There are more primary sources.

He's a privileged figure in history, he has contemporary sources, a rare event, and many secondary sources. Most of the other ancient figure palished in front of the information avalaible for Alexander, both in the west and the east.

plutoboyz · Feb 2, 2011

bartieboy said:
noo... if you read my message well then you see that i am saying that the actions of a man can be limited by climate.
to give an example,
just try to work from 8:30-12:00 12:30-17:00 non stop in a country with a high humidity, high temperature and more diseases

now try to do that in a country with about 15C, ideal air humidity and less diseases.

whatever... climate has nothing to do with that.

start working at 8.30? how lazy... Indonesian work from 7.00-17.00. and we have no problem with that.

here, the Kuli works from 7.00-17.00. most job done by muscle, unlike "western" construction worker who work with all advanced technology. apart from injuries, they never have any problem.

from my experience, we hire four kuli. they work from 6.30-18.00. no "technology" apart from electric hand drill. they finish my home in three month.

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

bartieboy said:
yes but how many hours a day can people like the bedouins perform physicly hard work?
it is funny how you say China and USA while those 2 country's have very diffrent types of climates in their territory.
Why do you think so many people in the US live on the eastern coast where the climate is just about the same as in Europe?

thats just because we are a nation of super people ;-)
Making new land from the sea is a diffrent thing then changing the climate you live in

Why dont you visit a tropical nation and see how 'hard' their workers work. I certainly havn't seen any less work ethic from the Indian guy hauling stuff around their roads compared to a Canadian guy doing the same.
People live in the eastern US mostly because it is flat and has a huge agricultural base: the fundamental ingredients in massive populations.

Look, climate is a matter of getting used to. When i lived in the middle east, it took me a few months to get used to the opressive heat, but once i did, it didn't make a difference. Same story when i came back to Ontario- from 40C summer to a -20C winter immediately. Again, took some time to get used to and got back to the same work ethic. There isn't a climate that makes you work harder/slower/etc. unless you are talking about the extremes of Polar, arid and mountain climates. India, China, Europe, etc. are not at the 'extreme' end of such climates.

And like i said many times, once you remove the 'personal preference' factor, bottomline is, places like India, China, USA are more suitable for human habitation than Europe/West Asia, because of vast plains and multiple harvests per year.

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

bartieboy said:
noo... if you read my message well then you see that i am saying that the actions of a man can be limited by climate.
to give an example,
just try to work from 8:30-12:00 12:30-17:00 non stop in a country with a high humidity, high temperature and more diseases

now try to do that in a country with about 15C, ideal air humidity and less diseases.

Completely false. have you ever been to a tropical country or even lived in one ? I have and your body adjusts. Live in India for a couple of years and you will consider 35C with 90% humidity as 'awesome weather' and work away just as hard, while you'd consider 15C with 40% humidity as 'freezing cold' and start wearing sweaters and pullovers.

Unless you are talking about weather extremes- like some forsaken corner of the Sahara where the temperature routinely tops 50C or Antarctica where temperature routinely plumets to -40C or Tibet, where the altitude is routinely over 20,000 feet, human beings are pretty adaptable & after some adjustment period, function the same everywhere.

The 'more diseases' part is simply unfounded. Tropics don't have more disease than the temperates. Diseases from the tropics typically tend to be water borne contagion (cholera, diptheria, dysentry, etc.) while diseases originating from the temperate realms tend to be those of airborne contagion (common cold, flu, tuberculosis, plague, etc). If you are comming to that assessment based on the modern world, that is flawed because temperate climates are mostly western nations where western medicine has irradicated/neutralized most of these infections while the tropics still have medicare issues. But going by medeival/ancient history, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the tropics were more 'diseased' than the temperates.

It is a matter of adaptation: just like most europeans have little or no immunity to water-born disease (we drop like flies drinking roadside water in India while the Indians are fine drinking it), the Indians tend to get quite sick in the cold and damp climates of Europe: It is a rather common theme during the British Raj for Indian nobility/rich merchants comming to the UK for education, only to fall sick and die with ailments that most common Britishers at that time survived through treatment.

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

Frank81 said:
Again your imagination changing the facts. They are talking about the nations in the opposite side of the river, not of a ready army in that side of the river.

This is a direct quote from Plutarch, where he is directly quoting Megasthenes:

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand war elephants.

Clearly, he is stating that on the other bank of the Ganges, the army of the Nanda had amassed. The '3-4 days from interception/collision' is my speculation, but it is a justified one, since at that time, Alex would've been in the upper-middle course of Beas river and the Ganges from that location is a 3-4 days journey on foot.

As our fellows have said, wrong. There are more primary sources.

He's a privileged figure in history, he has contemporary sources, a rare event, and many secondary sources. Most of the other ancient figure palished in front of the information avalaible for Alexander, both in the west and the east.

False. The bulk majority of Alexandrine scholarship is from sources *after* his timeperiod. Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, etc. are only so reliable because they are not recording history, they are recording lore: they are recording something that is 'believed' in their time, without a single first person source who was alive or accompanied Alexander.
The contemporary sources of Alexander are few- of which, Megasthenes is obviously the most reliable one.
As i said,it is well accepted in history that the Diadochi, especially the first few generations of them, told a lot of tall tales, to enhance their own reputations and association with Alexander. There are a lot of claims, counter-claims and so on between Selucid, Ptolemaic, Cassander's etc. sources. As such, those historians are of lesser credibility than one living in a far flung corner of the empire with zero political involvement in the diadochi manueverings.

bartieboy · Feb 2, 2011

plutoboyz said:
whatever... climate has nothing to do with that.

start working at 8.30? how lazy... Indonesian work from 7.00-17.00. and we have no problem with that.

here, the Kuli works from 7.00-17.00. most job done by muscle, unlike "western" construction worker who work with all advanced technology. apart from injuries, they never have any problem.

from my experience, we hire four kuli. they work from 6.30-18.00. no "technology" apart from electric hand drill. they finish my home in three month.

you know im getting very tired of this...
it shows that you are incredibly fond of the indians and you just cant accept any negative points hu?

Ok,
basic biology.
your body temperature is 37C,
when you are working hard you sweat so you can keep your body temperature at that level.
This is a lot harder to do when it is 30C outside then when it is 15C outside, sounds logical right?
So what do you do when you are working hard and you cant sweat out the extra body temperature? you have a sort of ''siesta''... its nothing to be ashamed of, the people in spain do it to
When moving to a diffrent country you DONT adapt your body temperature... so it is just as hard for sombody from Africa as for sombody from the himalaya. Sure you adapt a little but that doesnt compensate it all.

The 'more diseases' part is simply unfounded. Tropics don't have more disease than the temperates. Diseases from the tropics typically tend to be water borne contagion

sorry but i realy think that everyone here can agree your wrong on this...
just an example:
Where do you find the malaria musquito?
in Europe? no
in northern America? no

whatever... climate has nothing to do with that.

start working at 8.30? how lazy... Indonesian work from 7.00-17.00. and we have no problem with that.

here, the Kuli works from 7.00-17.00. most job done by muscle, unlike "western" construction worker who work with all advanced technology. apart from injuries, they never have any problem.

from my experience, we hire four kuli. they work from 6.30-18.00. no "technology" apart from electric hand drill. they finish my home in three month.

gosh, im so interrested in the building of your home... realy

Lord_of_Gauda · Feb 2, 2011

basic biology.
your body temperature is 37C,
when you are working hard you sweat so you can keep your body temperature at that level.
This is a lot harder to do when it is 30C outside then when it is 15C outside, sounds logical right?
So what do you do when you are working hard and you cant sweat out the extra body temperature? you have a sort of ''siesta''... its nothing to be ashamed of, the people in spain do it to
When moving to a diffrent country you DONT adapt your body temperature... so it is just as hard for sombody from Africa as for sombody from the himalaya. Sure you adapt a little but that doesnt compensate it all.

So tell us then, why do people in Kolkata, India, wear 3 layers of sweaters on a 15C 'winter morning' while you and I go around in our T-shirts.
Your idea is nonsense, because body temperature maintainance is nowhere as hard as you make it out to be. Suffering heatstrokes is a reality only when you are consistently exposed to temperatures of 40C+ under insolation, ie, under sunlight.
30C or 35C, once you are accustomed to the weather, you work just as if it was 15C or 20C. As i said, go to one of these tropical countries and you will find it is the same work ethic there as it is here. "Siestas' dont exist in Asia- I have lived in India before and i've never seen or heard of work cessation in the middle of the day because it is too hot.

What people are 'comfortable' working at, is a matter of acclamatization. Living in India, i had no problems with 35C heat after the first year. Same as living in -30C Ontario after a year to get acclamatized again.

sorry but i realy think that everyone here can agree your wrong on this...
just an example:
Where do you find the malaria musquito?
in Europe? no
in northern America? no

Proves nothing. Where do you find origination of plague ? Answer: temperate climates. Tuberculosis ? Temperate climate.

The tropics are no more 'diseased' than the temperate climates- if you think so, you might want to look at any medical journal/study on this topic and you will find that there is hardly any varience in origination of disease. All types of diseases exist everywhere, but generally speaking, airborne/body fluid contagion is a temperate phenomenon while waterborne or insect-borne contagion is a tropical one.

Search

Search

Were Indian armies stronger than European armies?

Alcibiades

Lord_of_Gauda

Lord_of_Gauda

Alcibiades

bartieboy

Lord_of_Gauda

Lord_of_Gauda

Tennenbaum

bartieboy

Tennenbaum

plutoboyz

bartieboy

bartieboy

Frank81

plutoboyz

Lord_of_Gauda

Lord_of_Gauda

Lord_of_Gauda

bartieboy

Lord_of_Gauda

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions