Alexander the Great and the Mutiny at Hyphasis: A Critical Examination

This essay explores the mutiny at the Hyphasis River, a critical turning point in Alexander the Great's campaign. The paper examines the events leading up to the mutiny, including the battles against Porus and the siege of Sangala, highlighting the exhaustion, injuries, and demoralization suffered by the Macedonian army. It analyzes Alexander's leadership, his relentless pursuit of conquest, and his perceived disregard for the well-being of his troops. The essay argues that the mutiny was inevitable, given the army's deteriorating condition and the daunting prospect of facing the Nanda dynasty with its massive army and war elephants. The analysis assesses Alexander's actions, from his bravery and tactical skills to his potential blindness to his soldiers' plight, concluding that the mutiny significantly impacted the evaluation of Alexander as both a king and a general. The essay references scholarly sources to support its claims.

Phillip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian 1
PHILIP II, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE MACEDONIAN
Student’s Name
Course Name
Professor’s Name
University Name
City, State
Date

Phillip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian 2
Alexander the great, king of ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon succeeded his father
Phillip II to the throne at 20 years old. He was a great King and general who led his army in
winning all of his battles, his army was feared as it had the ability to besiege and conquer
empires that had larger armies several times its size. However, going by the mutiny at Hyphasis,
it seems all wasn’t always well between him and his troops. The purpose of this paper is to find
out if the mutiny at Hyphasis was inevitable and how it affects our evaluation of Alexander as
king and general.
Prior to the mutiny at Hyphasis, Alexander’s army had little time to rest after battling
Porus at the Hydaspes, news reached them that Porus’ cousin, coincidentally named Porus, had
escaped across the Hydraortes River despite surrendering to Alexander earlier on. Alexander
took it as a sign of defiance and pursued him. He met resistance from the town of Sangala which
he besieged but conditions were unfavorable to his army, monsoon rains hampered deployment
of his siege engines. This was an advantage to the defenders who almost escaped one night. The
advantage would swing back to Alexander by the arrival of troops and elephants from Porus the
vassal-the defeated prince at Hydaspes, this strengthened his troops and after two days the
defenders capitulated. In the end 1,200 Macedonians were wounded but in return they massacred
17000 defenders, took 70000 prisoners and razed down Sangala in a barbaric show (Strait 2017,
p. 609). Burning down the town even after subduing the defenders paints Alexander as a barbaric
and violent King and general as it was unnecessary and wreaked havoc to everyone including the
vulnerable women and children who couldn’t do him any harm. By destroying their town and
potentially their food reserves he caused a lot of misery on top of taking them as prisoners
(Palagia 2018, p.140).

Phillip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian 3
Alexander had no intention of turning back after the Sangala victory. However, his men
were exhausted; they were tired and fed up of taking endless risks with no end to the cycle in
sight. Discontent had been brewing with the men agitating to go home but kept on with their king
into Bactria nonetheless (Piacentini 2019, p. 77). However, their present conditions escalated
things up. Permanently soaked in the unyielding monsoon rains, they marched inland for 70 days
from Sangala, probably infested with dysentery, snake bites, trench foot, exhaustion and
depression. Also, the Indians fought using poison arrows which the Macedonians likely never
encountered before, the poison resulted in an agonizing death where victims convulsed in pain
and shivers, vomiting uncontrollably and suffered black pus that oozed from their wounds before
gangrene spread throughout their bodies.
Finally, the troops reached Hyphasis River. Beyond it was the Nanda dynasty territory.
Alexander wanted to cross Hyphasis and conquer that territory. He had heard that the land there
was not only fertile but the people were good farmers and brave warriors. However, they
numbered in hundreds of thousands and in their capital alone, Pataliputra, had a population of
400,000. All of them fierce warriors reputed to have 4000 war elephants (Elliott 2018, p. 20).
Elephants were at the time animals armies feared most. There is the possibility that Alexander’s
information of what lay beyond the Hyphasis River was tainted as it came from local inhabitants
who would mislead an invading army. Regardless of the information, Alexander still resolved to
cross the Hyphasis River and it is at this point that his men mutinied.
Alexander was a great king judging by the loyalty his people accorded him up to the
mutiny at Hyphasis. He was a young King but led his people through many wars without any
fallout from within his camp. It’s likely that if he was not viewed as a great leader by his people
they would long have revolted against him especially by using his constant desire to go to war as

Phillip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian 4
a good reason (Garstad 2019, p. 27). As a general, he was brave, fearless and a great tactician
who not only fought alongside his troops on the battlefront but also directly organized them into
tactical formations that were formidable for their opponents. However, the run up to the mutiny
exposes Alexander’s greed to amass great wealth and power by invading and conquering every
territory he could, his greed seems to have blinded him from the plight and suffering of his
troops who were greatly reduced in number from the numerous wars they were involved in. At
the Hyphasis River, despite his troops seemingly lacking in numbers and unfit to go to war, he
still wanted to cross the river to attack a territory that had massive number of troops that were
better prepared for war with about 4000 feared war elephants. Proceeding with that would
potentially be catastrophic for him and his men and it showed complacency in him as the king
and general of the Macedonians (Carney 2017, p. 109)
In conclusion, the mutiny at the Hyphasis River was inevitable judging by the series of
events that took place prior to its happening. Alexander’s army had been in numerous wars
beginning with the battle with Porus at the Hydaspes which was closely followed by the battle at
Sangala that left 1,200 men wounded. The men did not have time to rest between these battles
and with many men injured they had to march for 70 days in the monsoon rains towards
Hyphasis River while suffering from dysentery, snake bites, trench foot, exhaustion and
depression and still had to fight the Indians with their poisonous arrows. Therefore, the
possibility was that even more men succumbed to injuries and attacks so that by the time the
survivors reached Hyphasis River the army had lost so many men and were demoralized and
reluctant to be engaged in yet another war.

Phillip II, Alexander the Great, and the Macedonian 5
Reference List
Carney, E., 2017. Commemoration of a royal woman as a warrior: the burial in the antechamber
of Tomb II at Vergina. Syllecta Classica, 27(1), pp.109-149.
Elliott, P., 2018. The Role of Money in the Economies of Ancient Greece and Rome. Handbook
of the History of Money and Currency, pp.1-20.
Garstad, B., 2019. Alexander the Great, the Disguised Dinner Guest. Symbolae Osloenses, pp.1-
27.
Palagia, O., 2018. The Reception of Alexander in Hellenistic Art. In Brill's Companion to the
Reception of Alexander the Great (pp. 140-161). Brill.
Piacentini, A., 2019. Make Macedonia Great Again! The New Face of Skopje And The
Macedonians’identity Dilemma. Reinventing Eastern Europe: Imaginaries, Identities and
Transformations, p.77.
Strait, J., 2017. The Wisdom of Solomon, Ruler Cults, and Paul's Polemic against Idols in the
Areopagus Speech. Journal of Biblical Literature, 136(3), pp.609-632.
.