Abstract This dissertation demonstrates that the ancient source traditions which furnish historians with information concerning Alexander the Great’s subjugation of India are deeply complex and often underappreciated as being such. This is done through a systematic analysis of the various extant and fragmentary traditions surrounding this period. Therefore, the evidence of the authors who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign directly after, or within a generation or so of it, are first discussed. This involves primarily a study of the extant fragments of many of the men who accompanied Alexander himself. This is followed by an investigation into the so-called ‘secondary authors’, or our extant histories of Alexander. The focus here is on evaluating the transmission of detail, bias, and distortion through the various aims, methods and prejudices of these later historians. Following this, there is a discussion of the numismatic evidence relating to the Indian campaign. This involves a study of Alexander’s ‘elephant medallions’ and various coins of the Diadochoi in which the intricacies of our documentary evidence is made evident. Finally, there is included in this dissertation a case study in which the problematic nature of the ancient evidence surrounding this period of the great conqueror’s life is shown. This is comprised of a detailed analysis of the evidence for the battle of the Hydaspes.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/287483 |
| Creators | Michael Welch |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0032 seconds