National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

and the river Professor Breloer recognizes the ἄκρα of Arrian, and in the *nālā*
itself the deep *fossa* of Curtius. The island which we are told by Arrian screened
the crossing of the river, and which Curtius describes as 'larger than the rest,
wooded and suitable for concealing an ambuscade', is assumed to be represented
by one or both of two small boulder-strewn islets projecting from the mouth
of Pothawāla Kas.

The great island which was reached after the crossing and was taken by the
Macedonians as the main land is identified by Professor Breloer with the long
stretch of swelling ground which lies between the left bank of the river and the
torrent bed of the Jabba Nālā at the foot of the high ridge bearing the Mangla
fort at its end. After the difficult passage of this obstacle had been secured and
a short distance beyond it, the small Indian force of cavalry and chariots under
Poros's son had been defeated, Alexander's troops are assumed to have marched
for some 15 miles along the left bank of the Hydaspes before engaging in battle
with Poros's main army arrayed near the position it originally occupied opposite
Jhēlum town, at the present Naurangābād. This supposed line of the Mace-
donian advance, as shown in Professor Breloer's sketch-map, lies across the
succession of the wide torrent beds of the Sukētar, Bandar Kas, and Jabba Nālās,
not to mention a number of smaller ones both above and below them. This
very important topographical fact remains wholly unnoticed in the text.

On the other hand, we are furnished in the initial and major portion of
Professor Breloer's book³¹ with an elaborate and painstaking critical analysis of
all notices bearing on the battle itself. From this he draws the conclusion that
on receiving the news of Alexander's crossing Poros did not, as has been hitherto
assumed by all commentators, on the strength of Arrian's words, move out to
meet the invader, but ranged his army into an array of approximately horseshoe
shape, his intention being to defend the ground where he had so far successfully
barred the passage of the river against the Macedonian main force and at the
same time to defeat the attack boldly launched against him by Alexander himself.

The ingenious argumentation with which this view is supported may well
claim the merit of affording a possible explanation for certain incidents of the
battle, such as the much discussed movement of Koinos's cavalry in the rear of
the Indian horse. But at the same time this critical analysis, exhaustive as it is,
only helps to bring out how inadequate and in some aspects discordant are the
notices about the tactical incidents of the battle, as preserved in our extant
sources. It does not come within the scope of the present report to attempt to
discriminate between those features of the battle which Professor Breloer's
careful examination guided by military experience and insight has put into their