Ancient India

IN TRACING the early history of a country, the natural course is to apply to the sources of information which the country itself may be able to furnish. In this respect India might be presumed to be rich. Long before the nations of Western Europe had begun to emerge from barbarism, it was in possession of a language remarkable for the completeness of its grammatical forms, for copiousness, and for the number and variety of the works which had been written in it. Several of these works were of a scientific and metaphysical character, requiring talent of a higher order than would have been necessary for historical compilation; and yet, strange to say, while the more difficult intellectual effort was successfully made, the less difficult, the more useful, and, as one would have imagined, the more attractive, was so entirely neglected, that with the exception of a work on Kashmir of no very ancient date, the literature of India has failed to furnish a single production to which the name of history can in any proper sense of the term be applied. In dealing with the past, ages are heaped upon ages till the years amount to millions; and endless details are given of gods and demigods, children of the sun and moon, and creatures still more monstrous, combining divine, human, and bestial forms—but men as they really lived; and the events produced by their agency are entirely overlooked, or treated as if they were unfit to be recorded until they had been moulded into some fantastic shape. In short, the Brahmins, the only depositories of learning, abusing their trust, have made everything subservient to an extravagant mythology, obviously designed, and in many respects skilfully framed, to secure their own aggrandizement.

In the absence of direct information from historical records in India, it is proper before abandoning the search there as hopeless, to inquire whether it may not be possible to discover other native sources from which some amount of authentic information may be obtained indirectly by means of cautious and legitimate deduction. In ancient works, not properly historical, the state of society, and consequent degree of civilization at the period when they were written, are often exhibited, not less accurately, and perhaps far more vividly, than if they had been composed for that special purpose; and hence, provided their date can be fixed with any degree of certainty, much information of an historical nature may be easily and safely extracted from them. Of the writings which thus tend to elucidate the primitive history of India, the most valuable are the collections of ancient hymns and prayers, known by the name of Vedas, and the kind of commentary upon them contained in a compilation, which the translation of Sir William Jones has made familiar to English readers under the title of the Institutes of Manu. The Vedas, four in number, prove by diversities both of style and contents, that they are the productions of different periods, between which a considerable interval must have elapsed. According to the Hindus, they are a little more than 3000 years older than our era, but though this age is short compared with that which figures generally in their chronology, it is doubtless an exaggeration. Mr. Colebrooke, by a very ingenious and convincing process,¹ has cut off sixteen centuries from the Hindu date. Founding on a calendar of antique form by which the Vedas regulate the times of devotional service, he was able to ascertain the exact position of the solstitial points in accordance with which the calendar was regulated; and assuming, as he well might, that the position was not hypothetical, he had only to compare it with the position at present, and calculate how many years must have elapsed in order to produce the difference. The annual precession of the equinoxes is an invariable quantity; and by counting backwards and deducting this quantity successively till the whole amount of difference is exhausted, the true date appears. In this way the completion of the Vedas has been fixed in the fifteenth century before the Christian era. The Institutes of Manu, referring to the Vedas as productions venerable even then for antiquity, must be much more recent. How much, is the important question; and unfortunately a question which does not admit of a very definite answer. The Institutes themselves give no dates, and any conclusion which can be founded on internal evidence is little better than conjecture. Still, however, though a large margin must be allowed as a kind of debatable ground on which the sticklers for an earlier and a later period may carry on their wordy warfare, there is enough, both in the comparatively pure and primitive form of the religion inculcated, in the sanction of usages which are known to have become obsolete some centuries before the Christian era, and in the omission of religious sects and controversies which would certainly have been mentioned if they had then been in existence, to support the conclusion that the Institutes of Manu must have appeared not later than the fifth, and probably as early as the ninth century B.C. Either period would carry us back to a remote antiquity; for it is always to be remembered, that the laws and manners which the work details, and the corresponding state of society which it implies, did not begin to exist at the time when it was written, but must have preceded it by several ages. Every page of the Institutes, therefore, must be held to furnish indubitable evidence that about 3000 years ago India was nearly as far advanced in civilization as in the present day, containing a dense population, not merely scattered over the country in rural villages, but collected into large towns and cities, extensively engaged in manufactures and trade, and forming a number of independent States. These, under the government of rulers whose despotism was greatly modified by customs and laws, raised large revenues by a complicated system of taxation, brought into the field powerful armies, and executed many stupendous and magnificent works. Among these works are the temples of Elephanta, Salsette, Ajanta, and Ellora, whose testimony, as imperishable as the rocks out of which they have been hewn,² tells of an age, which, though far short of that which was at one time extravagantly assigned, must still in the most ancient be not less than 2000 years.

Another testimony to the antiquity of Indian civilization has been found in its astronomy. This testimony, in consequence of the perverse attempts of some philosophers of the French revolutionary school to confront it with the Sacred Records, for the purpose of bringing them into discredit, was justly subjected to a very rigorous examination, and did not come out of it unscathed. The astronomical tables, because founded on calculations which had been carried backward to a very remote period, were erroneously assumed to exhibit the result of actual observations, and it was gravely maintained that the Hindoo astronomer must have been sitting in his observatory, surrounded by his instruments and patiently committing the results of his observations to writing, nearly 1000 years before Noah entered the ark. As usual in cases of similar extravagance, a reactionary feeling was produced, and many, running to the opposite extreme, insisted that Indian astronomy had no independent existence, and was at best a rude plagiarism from the Chaldeans and the Greeks. More moderate views are now entertained on both sides and those best qualified to judge, agree in holding that, while recorded actual observations by the astronomers of India cannot be carried farther back than the sixth century A.D., their science had probably made some progress 200 years before there was any mention of astronomy in Greece. One of the most pregnant facts on which this conclusion is founded, is the remarkable coincidence between the signs of the zodiac in the Indian and Arab systems—a coincidence which, while it proves that they must have had a common origin, cannot be explained without admitting that the Indian system has the better title to be regarded as the original.

While there is thus abundant evidence to show that India must have received its first inhabitants at no distant period after the dispersion of the human race, and become one of the first cradles of civilization, no distinct dates are obtained; and consequently the history of the country cannot be said to begin till we quit its own soil, and apply for information to the writers of the West, who for the most part follow some sort of chronological order, and even when they indulge in fable, have generally some foundation in fact. The first Greek writers who throw any light on the history of India are Herodotus, the father of history, whose immortal work, written in the fifth century B.C., still exists; and Ctesias, who, though he may have been for a short time contemporary with Herodotus, properly belongs to the immediately succeeding century. Among other historical works, he wrote one expressly on India. His opportunities for obtaining materials were considerable. Having been taken prisoner, or been in some other way carried to the Persian capital, he gained the favour of Artaxerxes by his skill as a physician, and lived at his court during the seventeen years preceding B.C. 398. Unfortunately, his work as a whole has perished, but many fragments of it have been preserved, particularly by Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca, which was written in the first years of the Christian era, but possesses far more value as an authority than its date might seem to give it, because it is a compilation, and in many cases apparently an exact transcript, of more ancient writers, whose works are lost. The earliest accounts of India, drawn from the materials furnished by these writers, and especially by the last, are presented with all the gravity of history—a gravity, however, which, when the nature of the details is considered, occasionally becomes ludicrous.

An Egyptian king, whom Diodorus calls Sesoosis and most other writers Sesostris, and who is now generally believed to be identical with Rameses, who belonged to the nineteenth dynasty, came into the world about 1500 B.C., after happy omens which foretold his future greatness. To prepare him for it, his father caused all the male children born in Egypt on the same day to be brought to court and educated along with him. As they grew up they were trained in all manly exercises, and formed a chosen band, bound to their young prince by the strongest ties of affection, and prepared to follow with unflinching courage and fidelity wherever he might lead. During his father’s lifetime he began his military campaigns, and proceeding first into Arabia and then westward into Libya, subdued both. His ambition having been thus inflamed, he had no sooner succeeded to the throne than he resolved on the subjugation of the world. His first step was to conciliate the affections of his subjects—his next to collect an army adequate to the contemplated enterprise. It consisted of 600,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry, and 27,000 war-chariots. The chief commands were given to the youths who had been brought up with him. The Ethiopians were the first who were made to feel his power. Their country was adjacent to Egypt, and could be reached by a land force, but on turning to the east the necessity of a fleet became apparent. Hitherto the Egyptians had been averse to maritime enterprise, but everything yielded to the energy of Sesostris, who built the first ships of war which Egypt possessed, and ere long had a fleet of 400 sail. He did not allow it to remain idle; but setting out, proceeded down the Arabian Gulf into the main ocean, which then bore the name of the Erythraean Sea, and then coasting along the shores continued his voyage as far as India. He returned, but it was only to recommence his victorious career, and lead a mighty army eastward, not only to the frontiers of India, but beyond the Ganges, and still on till he traversed the whole country and reached a new ocean. On his return, he caused pillars to be erected in various places, with inscriptions attesting his victories, and at the same time lauding the courage or stigmatizing the cowardice of those who had encountered him.

The above narrative, which Diodorus admits to be only the most probable of several contradictory accounts circulated in Egypt, carries some extravagances on the face of it. One of the most palpable of these is the number of the youths who are said to have been born on the same day with Sesostris. When that monarch set out on his Eastern expedition, he must have been on the borders of forty, and yet even then more than 1,700 persons born on the same day were still surviving. Assuming that they were subject to the ordinary law of mortality, their number at forty years of age could not be more than a third of what it was at first. In other words, the number of male children born in Egypt on the same day with Sesostris must have been 5,000, and, consequently, adding female children, the whole number of births must have been 10,000. At the usual rate of increase, this would give Egypt a population bordering upon 40,000,000—a population so enormous as to be utterly incredible. Founding on this discrepancy, and some other objections, which, besides being somewhat hypercritical, are stated more strongly than facts seem to justify, Dr. Robertson, in the first note to his Historical Disquisition concerning Ancient India, labours to prove that the whole account of the expedition of Sesostris to India is fabulous. It ought to be observed, however, that, in this instance, Diodorus does not stand alone. Herodotus, whom Dr. Robertson not very fairly quotes against him, bears strong testimony in his favour, and in fact confirms his statement in all that is essential to it. He distinctly refers both to the maritime and the land expeditions of Sesostris, and though he does not expressly use the word India, he says that in the one Sesostris continued sailing eastward till he came to a sea so shallow as to be no longer navigable, and that in the other he subdued every nation that came in his way, and built pillars of the very kind and for the very purpose mentioned by Diodorus. To reject a statement thus supported, because some flaws may be picked in particular parts of it, is to strike at the foundation of human testimony, and countenance the captious quibbling process under which all ancient history, sacred as well as profane, runs some risk of being converted into a myth. The fair conclusion concerning the Indian expeditions of Sesostris seems to be that they really took place, but that in the accounts given of them, both the means which he employed and the extent of country which he subdued or traversed are exaggerated.

Of another Indian expedition, also mentioned by Diodorus Siculus on the authority of Ctesias, greater doubt may reasonably be entertained, notwithstanding the minuteness with which the details are given. The leader of this expedition was the famous Assyrian queen Semiramis. Having learned that India was the greatest and richest country in the world, and was ruled by a powerful monarch called Staurobates, who had innumerable hosts of soldiers, and a great number of elephants trained to war, and so equipped as to inspire terror, she determined to give herself no rest till she had made proof of her prowess against him. She accordingly commenced preparations, and carried them on upon so immense a scale, that though myriads of artificers were employed, three years were spent in completing them. All the country west of the Indus was already subject to her power, but in order to cross that mighty river, an immense number of ships was necessary. In order to provide them, she brought ship-builders from Phoenicia, Syria, and Cyprus. As the banks of the Indus furnished no timber, she was obliged to procure it in the adjacent territory of Bactria, the modern Bokhara. Here she established her building yards, and fitted out her ships in such a manner that she could afterwards transport them piece-meal on the backs of camels, and launch them when they were required. In the number of her troops, which Diodorus, quoting Ctesias as his authority, states at the fabulous number of 3,000,000 infantry, 500,000 cavalry, and 100,000 war-chariots, each provided with a charioteer and carrying a soldier armed with a sword 6 feet long, she considered herself more than a match for Staurobates; but she feared his elephants, and as this was a kind of force in which she had no means of coping with him, she had recourse to a singular stratagem. Having collected 300,000 black cattle, and slaughtered them to feed the countless workmen employed in her vast arsenal in Bactria, she caused skins to be sewed together in such a manner that each, when a camel was placed inside with a man to guide it, bore such a resemblance to an elephant as to be readily mistaken for it. By this device she hoped that the Indians would be terror-struck on seeing themselves opposed to a species of force which they had imagined to be exclusively their own. Meanwhile Staurobates, on his part, had not been idle. Besides a land force scarcely less numerous than that of Semiramis, and headed by a formidable array of elephants, his fleet, composed of 4,000 vessels constructed out of reeds or bamboos, covered the river. Here the first encounter took place, and a great naval battle was fought. Victory was long undecided, but at length, owing mainly to the superior naval skill of the Phoenician and Cypriot sailors, declared in favour of the warlike queen. Staurobates, with the loss of a large portion of his fleet, and an immense carnage of his soldiers, was obliged to withdraw and leave the passage of the river free. The queen immediately caused a bridge of boats to be constructed, and crossing with her whole army, hastened forward, with the hope of soon completing the conquest which she had so successfully begun. Staurobates, however, had no idea of submission, and stood prepared for her approach. At first, in the general engagement which ensued, the Indians were greatly disconcerted at the appearance of the fictitious elephants, and a kind of panic took place; but the trick which had imposed upon them was soon discovered, and the real elephants advancing to the charge, carried everything before them. It was now the turn of Semiramis to flee. Most of her army perished in the field, or in attempting to regain the right bank of the river. She herself, severely wounded during a personal encounter with Staurobates, made her escape with difficulty with a mere handful of troops, and retiring into the interior with humbled pride, dreamed no more of crowning her fame by the conquest of India.

Notwithstanding the circumstantiality with which the Indian expedition of Semiramis is detailed, it is impossible to doubt that the whole account is highly coloured, and in many parts not less fictitious than her elephants. Of the enormous army which she is said to have collected, Sir Walter Raleigh quaintly and shrewdly observes, that no one place on the earth could have nourished so vast a concourse of living creatures, “had every man and beast but fed on grass.” Similar exaggeration is apparent in other parts of the narrative; and grave doubts have even been raised as to the individual existence of Semiramis, whom some maintain to have been a creation of Assyrian mythology, and others to have been the common name of an Assyrian dynasty. As Ctesias, from whom Diodorus borrowed the account, is said to have extracted it from Persian records, it is not improbable that its basis of fact has been overlaid with the embellishments which usually adorn a Persian tale.

When India is next brought under notice, the portion of it lying along the right or west bank of the Indus figures as a satrapy or province of the Persian empire. This position it naturally assumed when the Assyrian empire was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. Thus incorporated, it paid nearly a third of the whole tribute which Darius levied from his twenty satrapies, and must, therefore, be presumed to have been the wealthiest and most populous, if not the most extensive of them all. In this fact it is easy to find a more rational account of the curiosity which Darius Hystaspes felt in regard to the Indus, than that which is assigned by Herodotus.³ According to him, the Persian monarch was merely desirous to know where the river had its mouth, and with this view caused some ships to be fitted out, and gave the command of them to Scylax, a Greek of Caryanda, who, after sailing down the stream to the ocean, turned west, and spent two years and a half in a tedious voyage along the coast. That Darius, when he fitted out the expedition, entertained the thought of enlarging his dominions by new conquests, is confirmed by the statement which Herodotus adds, that immediately after the voyage was completed, he made himself master of the sea and subdued the Indians. These terms, however, are so general, that no definite limits can be assigned to the new territory thus subjected to Persian rule.

Hitherto only a succession of ambitious monarchs has appeared on the scene, and India has become the prey successively of devastating armies from Egypt, Assyria, and Persia. An intercourse of a more peaceful and pleasing description was in the meantime carried on both by land and sea, and an active trade had been established, by which the East and West exchanged their peculiar products against each other, to the great advantage of both. This trade was chiefly in the hands of the Phoenicians, whose capital, Tyre, situated on the shores of the Levant, had in consequence risen to be one of the richest, mightiest, and most splendid cities in the world.⁴ This unexampled prosperity had engendered many vices, and the day of retribution, which prophets had been divinely commissioned to denounce, was fast approaching. While Alexander the Great was making his first campaigns against the Persians, the inhabitants of Tyre had taken part with the latter, and by their maritime superiority, kept the coast of Macedonia and Greece in perpetual alarm. Alexander, incensed, turned back from his Persian conquests, and after subduing several of the adjoining cities, laid siege to Tyre. To a mind capable of being repelled by ordinary obstacles, the difficulty of the task would have been a sufficient dissuasive from attempting it. To him it was only an additional incentive, because, if he succeeded, his fame would be the greater. It also appears from a speech which Arrian puts into his mouth, that he was actuated as much by policy as by revenge. While the Tyrians remained independent and maintained a hostile attitude, he could not venture with safety to prosecute the ambitious schemes which he had begun in the East, and was also contemplating in Egypt. Hopeless, therefore, as it might have seemed for a land army to attempt the capture of a great maritime city strongly fortified by art, and rendered still stronger by its natural position on an island, and the possession of a powerful fleet commanding all the approaches to it, he at once commenced operations by constructing a mound, which, after the greatest difficulties had been surmounted, connected the island with the mainland, and formed a highway for the passage of his troops. The result was that, in about seven months, Tyre lay in ruins. It might have risen from them again, for the lucrative trade which it monopolized would soon have made wealth to flow in upon it, and furnished the means of repairing its disaster. The fatal blow which extinguished its greatness was not struck till Alexander, after a successful campaign in Egypt, laid the foundation of Alexandria. The site was so happily chosen that the new city soon became the central emporium of the East and the West. The trade of the world was thus diverted into a new channel, and Phoenician prosperity, once fallen, could not be revived. The downfall of Tyre has been dwelt upon here, both because it was indirectly the means of greatly extending the intercourse with India, and because to it probably is to be ascribed the determination which Alexander now expressed to persevere in his Eastern conquests. While he was engaged in the siege of Tyre, Darius, humbled by his previous defeats, made him the offer of a most advantageous peace, but he haughtily spurned all ideas of compromise, and plainly told him that his only alternative was unqualified submission, or a decision by the sword. The war thus resumed, so long as it was confined within the limits of Persia, is foreign to our subject, but the course which it subsequently took brings us at once to the most interesting period in the history of ancient India.

After the battle of Arbela, which was fought B.C. 331, and decided the fate of the Persian empire, Darius continued his flight eastwards into Bactria, through a pass in the Elburz Mountains, known to the Greeks by the name of the Caspian Gates. Alexander, following in pursuit, was informed that Bessus, the satrap of Bactria, had not only thrown off all allegiance to the Persian monarch, but had made him his prisoner. With mingled feelings of compassion for the fallen monarch, and indignation at the conduct of the satrap, he quickened his pace, and was flattering himself with the hope of a speedy capture, when he learned that Bessus, to increase his speed, and, at the same time, remove a great obstacle to his ambition, had disencumbered himself of his royal master, and left him on the road, dying of wounds which he had treacherously inflicted. When Alexander reached the spot, Darius was breathing his last.

Determined to punish the atrocity, Alexander lost no time in continuing the pursuit of the perpetrator. A thorough knowledge of the country gave Bessus great advantages, and these he improved to the utmost, by burning and devastating, so as to interpose a desert between him and his pursuer. Fortune seemed to favour his escape, when Alexander was obliged, by a revolt, to retrace his steps. During the winter of B.C. 330, Bessus was, in consequence, left in undisturbed possession of the usurped title of King of Persia. In the following spring, however, the pursuit was resumed, and the criminal having been delivered up by his own associates, paid the forfeit of his crimes by a barbarous mutilation and an excruciating death.

In avenging the death of Darius, Alexander had advanced far to the east, and seen a new world open before him. For a time, however, sensuality seemed to have gained the mastery over him, and many months were wasted in Bactria in drunken and licentious revellings. Ambition did not re-assume its ascendency till B.C. 327, when he reached the banks of the Indus, and prepared to cross it with an army consisting of 120,000 foot and 15,000 horse. About 70,000 of these were Asiatics. The point at which he first reached the Indus has been made a question; but it is admitted on all hands that he crossed it in the north of the Punjab, where the town of Attock now stands. Here a bridge of boats had been constructed by Hephaestion and Perdiccas, who had been sent forward with a division of the army for that purpose. When Alexander arrived, the southwest monsoon had set in, and the river was greatly swollen by the rains. Had the passage been opposed, it could scarcely have been forced; but Taxila, the chief whose territories lay on the eastern bank, had hastened to give in his submission, and thus, instead of an enemy, proved a valuable auxiliary. In Taxila, his capital, described as a populous and wealthy city, unequalled by any situated, like itself, between the Indus and its nearest tributary, the Hydaspes or Jhelam, Alexander and his army were hospitably entertained. In return for this hospitality, Taxila received an arbitrary grant of as much adjoining territory as he chose to ask.

If Alexander expected that all the Indian princes would prove as pusillanimous as Taxila, he was soon undeceived. Porus (Puru), a native ruler, whose territories bounded those of Taxila on the east, met a demand for tribute with defiance, and lay with his army on the left bank of the Hydaspes. On reaching the river, Alexander found it running broad, deep, and rapid, and immediately saw that even an undisputed passage could not be effected without a great number of boats. The neighbourhood not furnishing the necessary materials, he caused the boats which he had used on the Indus to be taken to pieces, and transported overland. The more serious obstacle still remained. Porus (Puru) kept strict watch on the bank. His army appears to have been greatly outnumbered by that of Alexander, for the main body consisted of only 30,000 infantry, with an inconsiderable body of cavalry, 200 elephants, and 300 chariots; but placed as he was, numbers counted as nothing against him, since he could easily, with a mere handful of troops, overmatch any number, provided the attempt to force a passage were made openly. Alexander was too skilful a tactician not to perceive this at a single glance, and had, accordingly, from the very first, determined to trust less to open force than to stratagem. By a series of movements and counter-movements, he distracted the attention of the enemy, and kept him in a state of uncertainty as to the point where the attempt at crossing was likely to be made. Next, by selecting a number of stations along the bank, and making false alarms during the night, he obliged the troops of Porus (Puru) to be always in motion, till nature itself was completely exhausted by want of repose. Lastly, by ordering provisions to be brought in from all quarters, he encouraged the belief that he had abandoned the idea of crossing until the swollen waters had subsided. Under this impression, the vigilance of Porus (Puru) relaxed. Meanwhile, in the course of reconnoitring, Alexander had discovered a spot where the channel was greatly contracted by an island. It was a good way up the stream, and, to lull suspicion, none of his troops were allowed to be seen near it. Craterus was stationed considerably below, with the main body of the army; and Porus (Puru), thinking that there the greatest danger lay, was encamped opposite to him. Alexander selecting a body of chosen troops, amounting to about 6,000 men, quitted the banks of the river and marched back into the interior, as if he had been called away by some sudden emergency. When out of sight he bent gradually round, and in the course of the night arrived on the bank opposite the island. The boats of the Indus were hastily launched, and he was steering his way among the foremost to the opposite bank, when the enemy’s sentinels discovered him and gave the alarm. Porus (Puru) first sent forward one of his sons with a small body, but these being speedily routed, he himself, leaving only a few troops to watch the motions of Craterus, hastened to the encounter. It was too late. Alexander, with a large portion of his detachment, had effected a landing, and stood on the bank among marshes, into which the elephants, to which Porus (Puru) mainly trusted, could not venture. He therefore withdrew to the nearest spot of solid ground, and calmly waited Alexander’s approach. As this is the first battlefield in which the soldiers of Europe were arrayed against those of India, a deep interest naturally attaches to all its arrangements, and will justify a fuller detail than might have been necessary under different circumstances.

Porus (Puru) stationed his elephants in front, with an interval of 100 feet between each of them. The infantry were placed in a second line behind the elephants, and in such a way as to fill up the intervals. The two wings consisted of cavalry, and of the chariots ranged on either side beyond them. Alexander commenced the battle by attacking the enemy’s left wing with his cavalry and mounted archers. He had anticipated that this attack would compel the enemy’s right wing to move forward in support of its left, and had ordered that, in that case, a detachment of his cavalry under Coenus should move round to the rear, and thus place the enemy’s cavalry, as it were, between two fires. The result was as he had foreseen; and the enemy’s cavalry was obliged, in order to meet the double attack, to face about and form two fronts. Taking advantage of the partial confusion thus produced, Alexander brought up his phalanx to the charge, and the enemy’s wings, totally unable to sustain it, sought shelter by rushing into the intervals between the elephants. By these powerful animals the fortune of the day seemed for a short time to be retrieved, as they pressed forward and trampled down everything that opposed. The advantage, however, was only momentary. The Macedonians, under thorough discipline, opened their ranks, and then, as the elephants passed, attacked them on flank and rear, shooting down their guides, and inflicting wounds which, without being mortal, so galled them that they became utterly unmanageable. Thus hurried back among the Indian ranks, they produced irremediable confusion. At this critical moment Craterus, who had succeeded in crossing the river, made his appearance. His troops were perfectly fresh, while the Indians, exhausted by fatigue, broken in spirit, and thinned in numbers, had lost all power of resistance. A dreadful slaughter ensued, and Porus (Puru) saw his troops falling by thousands. He still, however, kept the field. During the whole day he had mingled in the thickest of the fight, and performed prodigies of valour. His stature, which was almost gigantic, and the elephant on which he was mounted, made him a conspicuous object for the Macedonian archers; and he must have fallen early had he not worn a coat of mail which no arrow could pierce. The right shoulder was the only part exposed, and in it he was severely wounded. His determination seemed to be to perish on the spot, for he was left almost alone before his attendants could induce him to mingle with the fugitives. About 12,000 of his troops were slain, and 9,000 taken prisoners. The Macedonian loss was trifling, amounting, at the utmost, according to Diodorus, to 700 infantry and 230 cavalry. According to Arrian, the loss of infantry was only eighty.

Alexander, struck with admiration of the valour which Porus (Puru) had displayed, was anxious to save his life, and sent Taxila after him to endeavour to induce him to surrender. The choice was unfortunate, for the two native chiefs had long been at deadly feud; and Porus (Puru), when overtaken, was so exasperated at the sight of his old enemy, whom he probably also regarded as a main cause of the great disaster which had just befallen him, that he aimed a blow which Taxiles narrowly escaped. A second summons, by a more influential messenger, succeeded, and Porus (Puru), finding escape impossible, yielded himself a prisoner.

In the midst of his misfortunes, Porus (Puru) displayed a manliness and dignity which proved him worthy of a better fate. In one day he had lost his kingdom, and seen three of his sons fall in battle, but he disdained to assume the attitude of a suppliant, and, when Alexander, riding up at the head of his officers, asked how he wished to be treated, simply answered, “Royally.” “That,” rejoined Alexander, “I shall do for my own sake, but what am I to do for yours?” “Do just as I have said,” was the reply. Sound policy combined with Alexander’s natural magnanimity in making him desirous to secure the friendship of such a man. He accordingly heaped favours upon him, not only restoring his former territories, but enlarging them by many new annexations. Porus (Puru) was not ungrateful, and continued faithful to his Macedonian masters.

In commemoration of his victory, Alexander erected a city on the spot, and gave it the name of Nicaea. Another city, which he erected on the site of his encampment on the right bank of the Hydaspes, he called Bucephala, in honour of his horse Bucephalus, which, after carrying him through all his campaigns, had recently died of old age or in battle. Neither of these cities has since been identified. After reposing for a time in the dominions of Porus (Puru), he again set out, and proceeded north-east into the territory of the Glausae, which is represented as densely peopled and covered with cities, many of them with more than 10,000 inhabitants. The terror of his name had preceded him, and the chiefs hastened to make their submission. It would seem that, before quitting the Hydaspes, his thoughts had been turned homewards; for on finding timber well fitted for the purpose, he caused immense quantities to be cut down and employed in building vessels, with which he proposed, at a later period, to descend the Indus. Meanwhile his ambition urged him forward, and he arrived at the banks of the Acesines or Chenab. Though much broader and more impetuous than the Hydaspes, there was no enemy to dispute the passage, and it was crossed with comparative ease. It seems, however, that though no enemy appeared, the country was in possession of one whose name, somewhat strange to say, was also Porus (Puru). He was not only not related to the Porus (Puru) of whom the above account has been given, but was at open enmity with him, and, probably under the influence of this enmity, had, previously to the battle of the Hydaspes, sent in his submission to Alexander. It appears, however, that the favour into which the other Porus (Puru) had been received had offended or alarmed him; and therefore, on the news of Alexander’s approach, instead of waiting either to welcome him as a friend or oppose him as an enemy, he suddenly disappeared, carrying almost all the youth of the country fit for arms along with him. Alexander, offended, endeavoured to overtake him; and in the course of the pursuit arrived at another of the Punjab rivers, called the Hydraotes or Ravi. Before crossing it, he bestowed the territories of the fugitive Porus (Puru) on his more deserving namesake. The passage, which, according to Rennel, took place near Lahore, he appears to have effected without difficulty; but in the country beyond, he found a formidable combination formed to resist him. Three native States, of which that of the Malli was the most powerful, had united their forces against the invader. In the campaign which followed, Alexander was drawn far to the south, where a strong city, which bore the name of Sangala or Sagala was situated, somewhere between Lahore and Multan. Both from the description and the name of the inhabitants, it is conjectured to have been nearer the latter. Resistance in the open field soon proved hopeless; and the confederates, as a last refuge, shut themselves up in Sangala, which occupied a commanding position, and was otherwise as strong as Indian art could make it. Alexander commenced the siege, and carried it on with so much vigour that the place soon fell into his hands. The resistance had exasperated him; and forgetting the magnanimity which he had displayed in the case of Porus, he disgraced himself by a horrible massacre, in which neither age nor sex was spared.

From this atrocity Alexander turned to make new conquests, and reached the banks of the Hyphasis or Beas. Here he was met by an obstacle more formidable than any he had yet encountered. His European troops, worn out with long service, had become impatient; and, when he formally intimated his intention to cross the river, broke out into loud murmurs. In vain he harangued them, and pointed to the country beyond, where new victories and rich spoils awaited them. Their hearts were set on home, and they plainly declared their determination not to proceed. Even Coenus, one of the generals who stood highest in his favour, espoused the cause of the soldiers, and delivered a speech which, if less rhetorical than that of his master, made a deeper impression, and was received with acclamations. For a time Alexander was immoveable, and declared that, even if his own countrymen should abandon him, he would place himself at the head of his Asiatic subjects. This, however, was mere bravado; and on finding that his Greeks were not to be worked upon, either by threats or promises, he announced his intention to return.

Late in the autumn of B.C. 327, he had retraced his steps to the Hydaspes, and found the fleet which he had ordered to be constructed, in readiness to carry him down the stream. The voyage itself was not free from danger; but the greatest risk which Alexander ran, was during one of the frequent descents which he made on land for the purpose of subjugating the adjoining territories. While storming one of the cities of the Malli, he found himself almost alone on the rampart. He could easily have saved himself by a retrograde movement, but disdaining to have it said that he had turned his back, he leaped inside, and was for a time exposed to the whole fury of the defenders. Having gained a tree and placed his back against it, he made almost superhuman exertions, and kept his opponents at bay till an arrow pierced deep into his shoulder, and he fell down in a swoon. Another moment and his death was inevitable; but the time gained by his defence had been gallantly redeemed by his troops, and several of his officers rushing in, placed their shields around him. The wound, at first deemed mortal, spread grief and consternation among his followers; but the vigour of his constitution and the skill of his physicians prevailed, and he was able ere long to make his appearance amid general rejoicings.

In proceeding down the river, Alexander formed his army into three divisions, two of which marched along the opposite bank, while the third, under his own command, kept the stream. He afterwards despatched Craterus with a third of the army by an inland route across Arachosia and Drangiana to Carmania or Kerman, and proceeded with the remainder down the Indus. On arrival at Pattala, evidently the modern Tatta, situated near the apex of the delta, he remained for some time; and, on departing, sent a body of troops to explore the adjoining country, and afterwards join him at a fixed place of rendezvous. He selected the west branch of the river for the remainder of his voyage, during which his want of pilots and ignorance of navigation exposed him to serious danger. This was not diminished but rather increased on reaching the estuary. Acquainted only with the insignificant tides of the Mediterranean, what was his astonishment and that of his Greeks when they beheld the magnificent tide of the Indian Ocean rushing in, and, in consequence of the sudden contraction of the opposite shores, moving rapidly along in one volume of water several feet high! This singular phenomenon, now well known to mariners by the name of the bore, and common to the Indus with many other rivers similarly situated, produced not only wonder but terror, because it seemed to portend the destruction of the whole fleet. In point of fact, considerable damage was sustained before the necessary precautions could be taken.

Here Alexander’s maritime adventures ended. The little he had seen of the sea had probably left him no desire to become better acquainted with its dangers. These he left Nearchus to encounter, by giving him the command of the fleet, with injunctions to skirt and explore the shore from the Indus westward. He himself, with the main body of the army, took leave of India for ever by an inland route, which, though he was not aware of the fact, was the more perilous of the two, as it led through the heart of a sandy desert, which stretches, almost without interruption, from the eastern edge of the basin of the Indus across the south of the Asiatic and the north of the African continent to the Atlantic Ocean.

The Indian expedition of Alexander cannot be justified on moral grounds. It was dictated by a wild and ungovernable ambition; and spread misery and death among thousands and tens of thousands who had done nothing to offend him, and were peacefully pursuing their different branches of industry, when he made his appearance among them like a destroying demon. Such exploits, once deemed the only avenues to fame, are now judged more wisely. Still it is impossible to deny that conquerors were often in early times pioneers of civilization, commerce following peacefully along their bloody track, and compensating for their devastation by the blessings which it diffused. Such was certainly the result of the Indian expedition of Alexander; and therefore, while reprobating the motives in which it originated, we cannot but rejoice that it was so overruled by Providence as to be productive of most important and valuable results.

The conquests of Alexander were never consolidated, and formed only a nominal Macedonian empire, which fell to pieces on his death, and was partitioned by his officers. The most eastern portion was given to Seleucus Nicator, who established himself in Babylon, and became the founder of the dynasty of the Seleucidae, which lasted for two centuries and a half. In the early part of his reign, the struggles which he had to maintain with powerful competitors, completely engrossed his attention; but when, by the overthrow of Antigonus, he felt firmly seated on the throne, he appears to have become animated with an ambition to imitate the exploits of Alexander, and carry his arms far to the East. India, indeed, he naturally regarded as forming part of his territory, and, on hearing that the natives had risen in insurrection, killed Alexander’s prefects, and thrown off the Macedonian yoke, he resolved to treat them as rebels. Accordingly, after having made himself master of Bactria, he crossed the Indus, and entered the territories of which Taxila and Porus (Puru) were still rulers. Neither of them disputed his authority, and he continued his progress till he reached the country of the Prasi, over whom Sandracottus had usurped the sovereignty, after he had murdered their lawful king. This usurper, whose identity with Chandragupta, who figures in the traditions and also in a drama of the Hindus, has been established, was of low origin, and, according to Justin,⁵ the chief classical authority for all that is known of him, owed his rise to a pretended zeal for liberty. His countrymen, believing him, placed power in his hands, and the first use he made of it was to enslave them.

Unprincipled though Sandracottus had proved himself to be by the mode in which he attained the throne, he soon showed by his talents that he was not unworthy of reigning, and, by force, fear, or persuasion, had extended his dominions on every side, till he was able to bring into the field an army estimated by hundreds of thousands. Such was the enemy with whom Seleucus was about to come into collision. We cannot wonder that the prospect made him pause, and that, more especially on learning how much his presence was required in the West, where new wars were raging, he was glad to propose terms of accommodation. Sandracottus, aware of his advantage, made the most of it; and all that Seleucus obtained was 500 elephants, in return for which he ceded all his Indian territories on both sides of the Indus. As a means of cementing the treaty, Sandracottus married the daughter of Seleucus. The capital of the kingdom of the Prasii, called by classical writers Palibothra, and by the Hindus Pataliputra, and believed to have stood on or near the site of the modern Patna, formed a quadrangle of vast extent, inclosed by wooden walls loop-holed for arrows.⁶

The alliance between Seleucus and Sandracottus was not disturbed; and Megasthenes, who long lived at Palibothra as ambassador from the former, wrote a work which, notwithstanding its excessive leaning to the marvellous, was the great source from which ancient classical writers derived most of what they knew concerning the interior of India. The period of Indian history subsequent to the reign of Seleucus is very imperfectly known. Recently an unexpected light has been thrown upon it by the discovery of large quantities of coins, which show that the western portion of the country continued subject to the Greek kings, who had the seat of their government in Bactria. Considerable progress, also, has been made in deciphering and interpreting certain monumental inscriptions which are written in an unknown alphabet, and, like the Egyptian hieroglyphics, seemed as if they had been designed not so much to inform as to puzzle posterity. The key having at length been found, some valuable information has already been obtained, and more may be expected; but as yet the amount is too scanty to justify any attempt at detail. All that need be said here is, that after several of the Seleucidae, among whom Antiochus the Great is most conspicuous, and several Kings of Bactria, which first became independent under Theodotus about B.C. 260, had held sovereignty to a greater or less extent in India, a horde of Scythians, driven by the Huns from the shores of the Jaxartes, made their appearance about a century before the Christian era, and gained a firm footing in the lower basin of the Indus. Here they formed what has been called the Indo-Scythic province of Sindh, and were endeavouring, against a bold and often successful opposition from the natives, to force their way into the fertile basin of the Ganges, when another horde arrived from Persia about B.C. 26 under the leadership of Yu-chi, who gained for them a temporary ascendency, and became the founder of an Indo-Scythian dynasty. About the same time a native prince called Vikramaditya, who is one of the greatest heroes in Hindu history, established an extensive sovereignty, which had the Narmada for its southern boundary; and at Ujjain, his capital, held a court, remarkable not only for its splendour, but for the number of learned men whom the enlightened liberality of the sovereign had drawn around him. In Southern India, also, several native sovereignties appear to have been established as early as the Christian era. Among these the most conspicuous are Pandya, which occupied a large tract in the south-west of the peninsula, and one of whose kings, called Pandion, is said by Strabo to have sent an ambassador to the Roman emperor Augustus; and Chola, which, including the Carnatic, extended over a large portion of the south-east of the peninsula, and reached north to the banks of the Godaveri. They are now, however, little better than empty names, as they do not furnish during their long duration any facts so well authenticated as to entitle them to a place in history.

It is somewhat remarkable that the Romans, though they boasted of being the rulers of the world, never possessed an inch of territory in India. On several occasions during their wars in the East, they came into collision with sovereigns whose dominions reached beyond the Indus, but the tide of Roman victory invariably stopped, as if it had met an insuperable barrier, before it reached that celebrated stream. It was not ignorance or indifference that led the Romans thus to contract the limits of their eastern frontier. On the contrary, several of their most popular writers had made them well acquainted with the geography and the leading physical features of India, while many of its peculiar products were exhibited for sale in their marts, and found eager purchasers, often at enormous prices. They must often have longed to be masters of a country which ministered so greatly to their luxury and comfort; and however much they may have wished it to be thought that they could have carried their conquests farther, had they believed that there was anything beyond to tempt their ambition, it is sufficiently obvious that India never felt the terror of their power, merely because inhospitable deserts and warlike nations interposed to place it beyond their reach.

While it is impossible to give the Romans credit for moderation in refraining from any attempt to conquer India, it is pleasing to find in their conduct an illustration of the important fact, that the peaceful intercourse which commerce carries on between distant nations, besides escaping all the horrors which war carries in its train, secures all and more than all the advantages which could have been hoped from the most absolute and least expensive form of conquest. In Rome and all its dependencies, the rich products of the soil and the looms of India arrived as surely, as abundantly, and as cheaply as they could have done had the whole country from the Himalaya to Cape Comorin been one vast Roman province.

Before leaving ancient India, it will not be out of place to take a survey of the leading routes by which, at this early period, the traffic between the East and West was conducted. Overland the only practicable method of traffic was by means of caravans, which, after quitting the western confines of India, proceeded directly to Bactria. Here the first great halt was made at Balkh, on the southern frontiers, and a great emporium was established. From Bactria the usual line of route was toward Babylon, which, in like manner, became another great emporium. In pursuing this line the shores of the Caspian were nearly approached, and advantage was often taken of it to ship goods, which were carried north to a convenient spot, and then conveyed by land to the Black Sea, by which not only the countries adjacent to the coasts could be supplied, but an easy access could be had through the Dardanelles to the ports of the Mediterranean. From Babylon the route westward led directly to Palmyra, which, in consequence of the mart thus established, overcame all the disadvantages of its situation in the heart of a desert, and became the capital of a powerful and opulent kingdom. From Palmyra the coast of the Levant was reached without much difficulty, and its harbours became places of exchange for the three quarters of the globe, bartering the spices of India and the frankincense of Arabia against the peculiar products both of Europe and Africa. Besides the direct overland route now traced, there were many lines of divergence from what may be called its main trunk. These were chiefly intended to supply the places which lay at a distance on either side of it, and thus furnished the means of transport for a very extensive inland trade.

The overland route, which, but for the camel, would have been altogether impracticable, was necessarily slow, toilsome, and expensive, and was therefore less extensively used than the maritime route, especially after a knowledge of the monsoons in the Indian Ocean had emboldened navigators, even before the compass was discovered, to launch out into the deep and steer their course directly across from shore to shore. In this way the outward voyage was accomplished by the south-west, and the homeward by the north-east monsoon—the former, consequently, in the summer, and the latter in the winter months. This was a vast improvement on the earlier mode of navigation, but even before it was discovered the trade by sea obtained great importance. Mention has already been made of the Phoenicians, who, by means of it, acquired an opulence which made the merchants of Tyre princes, and a power which it took all the skill, prowess, and perseverance of Alexander the Great to overthrow. As they could not communicate directly with India, and were unwilling to depend for transport on the Egyptians, who might at any time, by declining to perform their part of it, have extinguished the trade, they, by force or negotiation, made themselves masters of some convenient harbours on the Arabian coast, near the entrance of the Red Sea, and, using them as entrepots, formed a communication with Tyre by a land route, of which they had secured the entire control. The distance was still so great as to be very inconvenient; and hence new facilities for the trade were obtained when the Phoenicians took possession of Rhinocolura, the nearest port in the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. It is true that before the goods could reach Tyre a double re-shipment thus became necessary; but the diminished land carriage more than compensated for this disadvantage, and enabled them, by the abundance and cheapness with which they could supply other nations, to establish almost a complete monopoly of the Indian trade.

On the destruction of Tyre and the foundation of Alexandria, the trade with India entered a new channel, in which it continued afterwards to flow for nearly eighteen centuries. Alexander had the merit of selecting this channel, but died too soon to see its advantages realized. So thoroughly, however, had he imparted his ideas to Ptolemy Lagus, that that officer, on becoming master of Egypt, made Alexandria his capital, and provided its harbour with a light-house, in the erection of which so much magnificence and engineering skill were displayed, that it ranked as one of the seven wonders of the world. His views were followed out by his son and successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, who, after endeavouring, but without success, to form a canal across the isthmus of Suez, which would have given a continuous water communication to Alexandria, founded the new city of Berenice on the west coast of the Red Sea. From this city a land carriage, not unattended with difficulties, which great exertions were made to surmount, brought the products of India to Coptos. The remaining distance to Alexandria was easily completed by a short canal and the Nile.

Through the channel thus opened, the wealth of India continued to flow into Egypt so long as it remained an independent kingdom. Outward vessels leaving Berenice with such articles of European and African export as were in demand in the East, skirted the Arabian and Persian coasts, taking advantage of such prominent head-lands as enabled them to steer direct without following the windings of the shore, and thus reached the Indian coast near the mouths of the Indus. How far they afterwards proceeded south is not known; but as there was no obstacle in the way, and some of the most prized products of the country lay in that direction, it is to be presumed that, instead of confining themselves to a few isolated spots, they formed a general acquaintance with the whole sea-bord. To secure the command of this lucrative trade, the Egyptian kings maintained a large fleet at sea, which, while it kept down piracy, deterred other nations from entering into competition with them. The nation which could have done so with most effect was Persia, which possessed the obvious and very important advantage of a far shorter sea passage. From the Persian Gulf they could have reached India in about half the time which the Egyptians must have taken. The Persians, however, had long an aversion to maritime enterprise—an aversion so great, that they are said to have erected barriers across the Tigris and Euphrates for the purpose of rendering it impossible. Be this as it may, it seems established that the Indian produce which they obtained for their own use, or the supply of adjacent countries, came mostly overland by the caravans. Another cause of the supineness of the Persians in regard to maritime intercourse with India, may be found in the erroneous ideas generally entertained respecting the proper limits of the Caspian Sea on the north, and its relative position to the Black Sea. The Caspian was somewhat unaccountably imagined to be a branch of the great Northern Ocean, and it was believed that by means of it a channel of communication might be opened up with Europe, which might thus be made to receive the products of India by a far shorter route than the Indian Ocean, and consequently at a far cheaper rate than they could be furnished by the Egyptians. Ideas of this kind seem to have weighed particularly with some of Alexander’s successors in the East. Seleucus Nicator, the first and one of the ablest of them, is even said to have contemplated a canal which would have joined the Caspian and Black Seas, and thereby secured a monopoly of European and Indian traffic.

After the Romans conquered Egypt and converted it into a province, in B.C. 30, the channels of traffic with the East continued unchanged, while its amount was enormously increased both by land and sea. By the latter, in particular, the traffic received an impulse unfelt before, when a navigator of the name of Hippalus conceived the idea of cutting off nearly a half of the voyage between the Red Sea and India, by abandoning the timid track pursued along the intervening shores, and steering boldly far out of sight of land through the very middle of the ocean. The plan seems so natural, and the considerations which suggested it so obvious, that one finds some difficulty in recognizing Hippalus as the inventor, or in giving him much credit for the invention. He had simply observed the regularity of the monsoons, and concluded that by choosing the proper seasons, the one would carry him out and the other bring him home.

The course of the voyage, and even the time occupied by it, is minutely detailed by the elder Pliny.⁷ The cargo destined for India being embarked on the Nile, was conveyed by it and a short canal to Coptos, a distance of 303 miles. At Coptos the land carriage commenced, and was continued 258 miles to Berenice, on the west shore of the Red Sea. From Berenice the vessel started about midsummer, and after a short halt near the Straits of Bab-el-mandeb, took its final departure usually for Musiris on the Malabar coast. The whole time occupied, on an average, from the Mediterranean to India was a little more than three months, or ninety-four days. Of these, the inland navigation to Coptos occupied twelve, the land transport to Berenice twelve, the voyage down the Red Sea thirty, and the voyage across the Indian Ocean forty days. The time occupied by the Red Sea voyage seems out of all proportion to the other, but may be accounted for partly by the difficulty of navigating a sea notorious for baffling winds and storms, and perhaps partly also by delays which may have been occasioned by calling on both sides of the coast for the purpose of completing the cargo. The homeward voyage, commenced early in December, appears to have been the far more tedious of the two.

Though the Persians had failed to take advantage of their maritime proximity to India, the Romans had no sooner carried their eastern frontier to the banks of the Euphrates, than an important trade sprung up in the Persian Gulf, and Indian produce was transported in large quantities up the river, and then west to Palmyra, which reaped the advantage to such an extent that even Rome condescended at one time to court its alliance. After this proud city had declined and was tottering to its fall, the Persian monarchs continued the traffic which had been established, and by means of it enriched themselves at the expense of the Greeks, who had made Constantinople the capital of their empire. As we have now touched on medieval times, it may suffice, in concluding the sketch of ancient India, to mention that the great staples of its trade were then nearly the same as at present, and consisted chiefly of cotton and silk goods, dyes, drugs, spices and aromatics, pearls, diamonds, emeralds, and other precious stones. These were paid chiefly in the precious metals, but partly also in woollen cloth, lead, tin, brass, wine, and a few foreign perfumes. Though a passage in the Institutes of Manu, which refers to sea voyages as well as land journeys, implies that the inhabitants of India had begun at an early period to navigate the ocean, they seem to have confined themselves to coasting, and to have left the external trade entirely in the hands of strangers. This aversion to commit themselves to the open sea had its origin in superstitious fears, which still continue to operate.