Читать книгу The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great - John Watson McCrindle - Страница 6

Table of Contents

The invasion of India by Alexander the Great, like the first voyage of Columbus to America, was the means of opening up a new world to the knowledge of mankind. Before the great conqueror visited that remote and sequestered country, which was then thought to lie at the utmost ends of the earth, nothing was known regarding it beyond a few vague particulars mentioned by Herodotos, and such grains of truth as could be sifted from the mass of fictions which formed the staple of the treatise on India written by Ktêsias of Knidos. A comparison of this work with the Indika of Megasthenes, which was written after the invasion, will show how entirely all real knowledge of the country was due to that event. It may even, we think, be asserted that had that invasion not taken place, the knowledge of India among the nations of the West would not have advanced much beyond where Ktêsias left it, until the maritime passage to the East by the Cape of Good Hope had been discovered.

It was early in the year 326 B.C. that Alexander, fresh from the conquest of the fierce tribes of northern Afghânistân, led his army over into the plains of India by a bridge of boats, with which he had spanned the Indus a little below its junction with the Kabul river.[1] He remained in the country not more than twenty months all told, yet in that brief space he reduced the Panjâb as far as the Satlej, and the whole of the spacious valley of the lower Indus, downwards to the ocean itself. He would even have penetrated to the Ganges had his army consented to follow him, and, in the opinion of Sandrokottos, would have succeeded in adding to his empire the vast regions through which that river flows. The rapidity with which he achieved his actual conquests in the country appears all the more surprising when we take into account that at every stage of his advance he encountered a most determined resistance. The people were not only of a most martial temperament, but were at the same time inured to arms; and had they but been united and led by such a capable commander as Pôros, the Macedonian army was doomed to utter destruction. Alexander, with all his matchless strategy, could not have averted such a catastrophe; for what is the record of his Indian campaigns? We find that the toughest of all his battles was that which he fought on the banks of the Hydaspes against Pôros; that he had hot work in overcoming the resistance of the Kathaians before the walls of Sangala; that he was wounded near to death in his assault upon the Mallian stronghold; and that in the valley of the Indus he could only overpower the opposition instigated by the Brahmans by means of wholesale massacres and executions. It may hence be safely inferred that if Alexander had found India united in arms to withstand his aggression, the star of his good fortune would have culminated with his passage of the Indus. But he found, on the contrary, the political condition of the country when he entered it eminently favourable to his designs. The regions of the Indus and its great tributary streams were then divided into separate states—some under kingly and others under republican governments, but all alike prevented by their mutual jealousies and feuds from acting in concert against a common enemy, and therefore all the more easy to overcome. Alexander, in pursuance of his usual policy, sought to secure the permanence of his Indian conquests by founding cities,[2] which he strongly fortified and garrisoned with large bodies of troops to overawe and hold in subjection the tribes in their neighbourhood. The system of government also which he established was the same as that which he had provided for his other subject provinces, the civil administration being entrusted to native chiefs, while the executive and military authority was wielded by Macedonian officers.

The Asiatic nations in general submissively acquiesced in the new order of things, and after a time found no reason to regret the old order which it had superseded. Under their Hellenic masters they enjoyed a greater measure of freedom than they had ever before known; commerce was promoted, wealth increased, the administration of justice improved, and altogether they reached a higher level of culture, both intellectual and moral, than they could possibly have attained under a continuance of Persian supremacy.

India did not participate to any great extent in these advantages. Her people were too proud and warlike to brook long the burden and reproach of foreign thraldom, and within a few years after the Conqueror’s death they completely freed themselves from the yoke he imposed, and were thereafter ruled by their native princes. The Greek occupation having thus proved so transient, had little more effect in shaping the future course of the national destinies than a casual raid of Scottish borderers into Cumberland in the old days could have had in shaping the general course of English history.[3]

By this disruption of her relations with the rest of Alexander’s empire, India fell back into her former isolation from all the outside world, and for more than fifteen or sixteen centuries afterwards the western nations knew as little of her internal condition as they knew till lately of the interior of the Dark Continent. The invasion was, however, by no means fruitless of some good results. As has been already indicated, it drew aside the veil which had till then shrouded India from the observation of the rest of the world, and it thus widened the horizon of knowledge. It is fortunate that what then became known of India was not left for its preservation at the mercy of mere oral tradition, but was committed to the safer custody of writing. Not a few of Alexander’s officers and companions were men of high attainments in literature and science, and some of their number composed memoirs of his wars, in the course of which they recorded their impressions of India and the races by which they found it inhabited.[4] These reports, even in the fragmentary state in which they have come down to us, have proved of inestimable value to scholars engaged in the investigation of Indian antiquity—a task which the sad deficiency of Sanskrit literature in history and chronology has rendered one of no ordinary difficulty. Strabo, we must however note, stigmatized the authors referred to as being in general a set of liars, of whom only a few managed now and then to stammer out some words of truth. This sweeping censure is, however, a most egregious calumny. It may indeed be admitted that their descriptions are not uniformly free from error or exaggeration, and may even be tainted by some intermixture of fiction, but on the whole they wrote in good faith—a fact which even Strabo himself practically admits by frequently citing their authority for his statements. If one or two of them are to some extent liable to the censure, it must be remembered that Ptolemy, Aristoboulos, Nearchos, Megasthenes, and others of them, are writers of unimpeachable veracity.

It is to be regretted that the works in which these writers recorded their Indian experiences have all, without exception, perished. We know, however, the main substance of their contents from the histories of Alexander, written several centuries after his death by the authors we have here translated, as well as from Strabo, Pliny, Ailianos, Athênaios, Orosius, and others.

The following is a list of the writers on India who visited the country either with Alexander, or not many years after his death, or who were at least his contemporaries:—

1. Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, who became king of Egypt.

2. Aristoboulos of Potidaia, or, as it was called afterwards, Kassandreia.

3. Nearchos, a Kretan by birth, but settled at Amphipolis, admiral of the fleet.

4. Onêsikritos of Astypalaia, or, as some say, of Aegina, pilot of the fleet.

5. Eumenês of Kardia, Alexander’s secretary, who kept the Ephemerides or Court Journal. His countryman, Hieronymos, in his work on Alexander’s successors, made a few references to the campaigns of the Conqueror.

6. Chares of Mitylene, wrote anecdotes of Alexander’s private life.

7. Kallisthenes of Olynthos, Aristotle’s kinsman, author of an account of Alexander’s Asiatic expedition.

8. Kleitarchos (Clitarchus), son of Deinôn of Rhodes, author of a life of Alexander.

9. Androsthenes of Thasos, a naval officer, author of a Paraplous.

10. Polykleitos of Larissa, author of a history of Alexander, full of geographical details.

11. Kyrsilos of Pharsalos, who wrote of the exploits of Alexander.

12. Anaximenes of Lampsakos, author of a history of Alexander.

13. Diognêtos, who, with Baitôn, measured and recorded the distances of Alexander’s marches.

14. Archelaös, a geographer, supposed to have accompanied Alexander’s expedition.

15. Amyntas, author of a work on Alexander’s Stathmoi, i.e. stages or halting-places.

16. Patroklês, a writer on geography.

17. Megasthenês, friend of Seleukos Nikator, and his ambassador at the Court of Sandrokottos, king of Palibothra, composed an Indika.

18. Dêïmachos, ambassador at the same court in the days of the son and successor of Sandrokottos, author of a work on India in two books.

19. Diodotos of Erythrai, who, like Eumenês, kept Alexander’s Court Journal, and may possibly have been in India.

Five consecutive narratives of Alexander’s Indian campaigns, compiled several centuries after his death from the works of the writers enumerated, who were either witnesses of the events they described, or living at the time of their occurrence, have descended to our times, and are respectively contained in the following productions:—

1. The Anabasis of Alexander, by Arrian of Nikomêdeia.

2. The History of Alexander the Great, by Quintus Curtius Rufus.

3. The Life of Alexander, in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.

4. The History of Diodôros the Sicilian.

5. The Book of Macedonian History, compiled from the Universal History of Trogus Pompeius, by Justinus Frontinus.