1956/11/01 by J. R. Hamilton · 1 citation
Social Sciences · Arts and Humanities · Engineering · #Classical Antiquity Studies #Eurasian Exchange Networks #Ancient Near East History #Battle #Interpretation (philosophy) #Narrative #Action (physics) #Set (abstract data type) #Criticism #Genius #History #Epistemology #Operations research #Law #Philosophy #Computer science #Political science #Engineering #Literature #Art #Physics #Art history #Ancient history
paper · doi:10.2307/629551
openalex publication_date 1956/11/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Alexander's battle against the Indian king, Porus, at the R. Hydaspes is in many respects the most interesting of all his set engagements. There he had to cope with a new weapon, the elephant, and few things show his military genius more clearly than the resource which he displayed in solving this difficult problem. The main outlines of the battle are clear, but, despite all that has been written, there is little agreement amongst historians regarding Alexander's tactics in the cavalry engagement which led up to the main action. The most recent treatment of the problem is that by Sir William Tarn, and it is this which has led me to examine the question more closely. Although, as will become clear, I find myself at variance with Tarn's interpretation on numerous points he has, I believe, shown that it is only by a detailed study of Arrian's text that we can arrive at a satisfactory understanding of the orders to Coenus—the hub of the matter. I intend, therefore, to re-examine Arrian's narrative and to attempt to substantiate a view of the overall strategy—particularly the part played by Coenus—radically different from that put forward by Tarn. Moreover, Tarn has subjected Arrian's account of the battle and its preliminaries to such severe criticism that it is not, I think, unfair to say that, if Tarn's interpretation of the operations is accepted, Arrian must be held to have misunderstood his source on several important points and to have failed to make Alexander's tactics intelligible. This article has, therefore, a second purpose—to demonstrate that the undoubted difficulties in Arrian's narrative, due in part to the complicated manoeuvres involved in part to the ambiguity of military terminology, do not indicate any fundamental misunderstanding of the situation by the historian.