Look, folks, I have not seen a single Hindi historical which did not play havoc with history. And all the production houses claim that they did a lot of research. The only characters with whom they have not dared to tamper are Shivaji Maharaj and Maharana Pratap, for fear of the assured and violent reaction from their admirers.
In CAS, they showed that Ashoka was born in a village and raised there till he was 13, was noticed accidentally by Chanakya, and brought to Pataliputra. The fact is, and this has been put down in historical texts from that period and in Ashokan edicts, that he was born in the palace in Pataliputra and raised there. See what a huge distortion that was!
Here, with Puru. there is no historical evidence about him till he was an adult and an experienced king, who bravely stood up to Alexander and faced him on the battlefield in 326 BC. So it has been very easy for the producers to create a background and history for him which has nothing to do with any available facts.
Fair enough. But Purushottam was over 50 when he fought against Alexander, and two of his sons died in the battle. His daughter had been married off to Ambhikumar. He was NOT of the same age as Alexander but nearly 30 years older. All this niyatu judi huyi hai is fiction.
So is Alexander's unbelievable obsession with Bharat. There is nothing in the contemporary Greek accounts to support this thesis. He simply wanted to conquer the whole world, only he did not know where it ended!😉 If he had known about China, he would have wanted to conquer that too. Never mind, and put it down to cinematic licence.
Then again, while I personally am bored by the lilywhite, impossibly good Puru - I am sure the real Purushottam was far more worldly; he is shown very well in the 1990 serial Chanakya - that is a decision of the makers, not to give him the slightest grey shades. Unki marzi, and as we know nothing definite about him, there is no way to prove them wrong.
But this does not hold good when it comes to Alexander, about whom there is a great deal of contemporary narrative, and later ones that drew on the contemporary ones. Neither they nor any others state that he was an angel or flawless in his character. He is a grey character, and the shades lighten or deepen depending on the situation. He should have been depicted as such, and Puru too more realistically, which would have made the story far more interesting, as was the script of Chanakya.
But in Porus, there has been, almost from the beginning, a systematic plan to make Alexander a dark, indeed black, not a grey character. I have discussed this in almost all my posts here, and anyone interested can take a look at them, they are only about half a dozen. I shall now cite the four worst examples of this kind of distortion, which are flatly contradicted by historical evidence from that period.
1) Showing Alexander killing the Pythia, the High Priestess of Delphi just because she was warning him against going to Bharat. This sequence is a distortion of an unbelievable degree. The Delphic Oracle, and thus its High Priestess, were so revered throughout the Hellenic world and even beyond that if Alexander had actually killed the Pythia, his soldiers, convinced that the wrath of the god Apollo would descend on them, would have refused point blank to follow him to Persia, or indeed anywhere else. He would, in effect, have been excommunicated.
Yes, contemporary Greek sources narrate that Alexander did visit the Oracle at Delphi before he set out on his campaign against Persia. This was in the winter of 335 BC, in November, to be precise. The Oracle, for unknown reasons, was silent and would not make prophecies again till February 334 BC. So Alexander, who needed a favourable prophecy to enthuse his 40000 plus troops, found that his demand, request, and even pleading would not work.
Predictably, his famous temper flared up, and he charged into the temple, grabbed the shocked Pythia, and dragged her to the sacred tripod, insisting on having his prophecy. Plutarch, the historian, narrates that thereupon, as if overcome by his ardour, she exclaimed : "Thou art invincible, my son!"
Phir to kya tha. Alexander ki to chaandi lag gayi. He promptly released her, saying that he desired no further prophecy as he had his answer, came out of the temple and told his anxious troops that the Pythia had said he would be invincible. They were all reassured and perked up, and he then led them on to the conquest of Persia.
Instead of this factual account, the script shows us Alexander murdering an old woman, that too a universally revered High Priestess of Apollo, because he did not like her prophecy about the need for him to stay out of Bharat!
Nor is there is any historical backing for this piece of natakiya rupantar, or "creative scripting, about Alexander being warned by the Delphic Oracle to stay away from India.
Why then this total fabrication, or to use a current term, fake news? Why, it is just part of the campaign to paint Alexander black, and make Puru stand out by contrast.
2) The raving and ranting of the assistant of the High Priestess after she mysteriously lands up in Paurav Rashtra incredibly quickly, and then spouts undiluted venom against Alexander and asks Puru to kill him.
Interestingly enough, while demonising Alexander with vim and vigour, she carefully omits to mention the way in which her boss, the High Priestess or the Pythia, actively encouraged him to have Philip assassinated, and also wanted him to be totally detached from and devoid of any softer emotions. It is only later that she has fresh visions, and changes her mind and her stand on his going to Bharat. Hiding all this in toto is some verbal sleight of hand! 😡 This purely imaginary exercise is a direct corollary of the first point.
3) The total omission of Sisygambis, the mother of Darius, who had been present at Issus and had met Alexander there. It is as if a major character who did much to shape Alexander's attitudes towards Persia had never existed! 😲
It has been narrated by innumerable contemporary and later Greek and Roman historians that Sisygambis loved Alexander far more than she cared for her son Darius- whom she in fact disowned and refused to mourn when he was finally killed by one of his former satraps. She loved him so much that she committed suicide when she received the news of his death.
If that relationship had been shown, no one, beginning with the CVs, could have seen what Alexander did for the Persian royal ladies as merely a political ploy to gain leverage against Darius, and also locate where he had hidden himself, the latter argument being totally illogical. What leverage would holding these women give Alexander against Darius, who cared so little for the women of his family that he took them to the battlefield and then abandoned them to Alexander 's mercy? He would not have cared what happened to them if if he could have salvaged half his empire and made such a deal with Alexander. He did make a pro forma request to get his family back, but the key factor for him was the half of his empire. No wonder his own mother despised him so much.
The CVs want to systematically darken Alexander's character, and they do not want to introduce any contrary evidence, whence the omission of Sisygambis. I never expected that!😲
4) Alexander was the first, and for centuries the only major conqueror who sought to assimilate the conquered peoples with his own Macedonians, encouraged inter-marriages with Persian ladies, and generally wanted to create a composite culture that would eradicate the hostility of centuries between them. His speech to the Persian populace at Issus encapsulates his approach to his conquered territories. But here, that, as also the generous way in which he treated the Persian royal ladies has, in the absence of Sisygambis, been presented as a hypocritical ploy, meant only as a bridging exercise till he could chase Darius down and eliminate him.
This is not just fake news, but it is also a great pity, for it reduces the story to a conflict between a black-hearted villain and an impossibly good-hearted hero. This is like a 1980s Hindi film. This is not what I watch Porus for.
Plus it plays at ducks and drakes with history at both ends, by sending Puru to Persia and now on to Bactria, whereas the fact is that he met Alexander only at the battle of the Hydaspes. And again by cutting out large chunks of the Alexander story, including his conquest of Egypt and Syria. Instead, they are fastforwarding his invasion of Bactria by fully 4 years, and are sending Puru and his Four Musketeers in hot pursuit!😕
This has turned out to be a much longer post than I had intended it to be, and it might try your patience. But I hope you will all give serious thought to what I have said here.
Shyamala Aunty
Originally posted by: Priya258
Just because makers claimed that they did lot of research toh wo jo bhi show me dikha rehe h sab sahi h aisa hum q maane.Ajki audience stupid nai h internet me toh sab info milta hi h chalo internet pe bhi bharosa nai karte h historical books toh h wo toh galat bol nai sakti.
Me nai kehti historians ne jo bhi kaha 100% sahi hoga q ki aise kitne point h jinko leke historians me different opinion hota h.
King Puru ko hum jan paye just only because of Alex attacked in India and fight with him.
Indian history me puru kaisa tha uske family k bareme itni info nai h.
Anusuya bamni kanishk shivdutt yesab fictional characters h
Av jiske bareme kuch info h na zahir si baat h kuch fictional characters ki zarurat warna dikhayege kya.
Par ye toh stupidity h ki koi king ya prince khud itni dur faras jayega like seriously kya hum itne bewukuf h isme believe karege.
Initially I like Puru's character but I don't like it I couldn't relate with his character.
Alex dudh ka dhula hua nai tha but kuch points jo historians ne boli waise dikhao na alex cruel tha in some cases wo dikha sakte h but agar bola gaya h alex was kind towards persian loyal ladies sisygambis ko apni maa maana barsine ko educate karne bheja wo itna hi cruel hota wo mar nai deta.historians yesab baate kahin h toh kuch toh evidence mila hoga.bus makers jo dikhayenge wo kaise sahi h
Originally posted by: siyanu
Kyu yr acha to aa RHA h show.. Muje to bht interesting lg RHA.. And aapko kese pta h saari history?
Log Jo is forum me likh Rhe h, us PR bhi to Puraa trust nhi kiya ja Sakta.
Makers ne fr bhi research krk bnaya h show.. Thk hi dikha rhe honge.
Alex cruel hoga, tabhi dikha re h.
Edited by sashashyam - 7 years ago
Hindi TV Shows
Veer Hanuman
