CHAPTER VI.
General Description of India.
Whoever arranges the position of Asia in such a way that it is divided by the Taurus and the Caucasus from the west wind to the east wind, will find that these two very large divisions are made by the Taurus itself, one of which is inclined towards the south and the south wind, and the other towards the north and the north wind. Southern Asia again may be divided into four parts, of which Eratosthenes and Megasthenes make India the [275]largest. The latter author lived with Sibyrtius,[654] the viceroy of Arachosia, and says that he frequently visited Sandracotus, king of the Indians.[655] These authors say that the smallest of the four parts is that which is bounded by the river Euphrates and extends to our inland sea. The other two lying between the rivers Euphrates and Indus are scarcely worthy to be compared with India, if they were joined together. They say that India is bounded towards the east and the east wind as far as the south by the Great Sea, towards the north by mount Caucasus, as far as its junction with the Taurus; and that the river Indus cuts it off towards the west and the north-west wind, as far as the Great Sea. The greater part of it is a plain, which, as they conjecture, has been formed by the alluvial deposits of the rivers; just as the plains in the rest of the earth lying near the sea are for the most part due to the alluvial action of the rivers taken singly. Consequently, the names by which the countries are called were attached in ancient times to the rivers. For instance, a certain plain was called after the Hermus, which rises in the country of Asia from the mountain of Mother Dindymene,[656] and after flowing past the Aeolian city of Smyrna discharges its water into the sea. Another Lydian plain is named after the Caÿster, a Lydian river; another from the Caïcus in Mysia; and the Carian plain, extending as far as the Ionian city of Miletus, is named from the Maeander. Both Herodotus and Hecataeus[657] the his[276]torians (unless the work about the Egyptian country is by another person, and not by Hecataeus) in like manner call Egypt a gift of the river[658]; and Herodotus has shown by no uncertain proofs that such is the case[659]; so that even the country itself perhaps received its name from the river. For that the river which both the Egyptians and men outside Egypt now name the Nile, was in ancient times called Aegyptus, Homer is sufficient to prove; since he says that Menelaüs stationed his ships at the outlet of the river Aegyptus.[660] If therefore single rivers by themselves, and those not large ones, are sufficient to form an extensive tract of country, while flowing forward into the sea, since they carry down slime and mud from the higher districts whence they derive their sources, surely it is unbecoming to exhibit incredulity about India, how it has come to pass that most of it is a plain, which has been formed by the alluvial deposits of its rivers. For if the Hermus, the Caÿster, the Caïcus, the Maeander, and all the other[661] rivers of Asia which discharge their waters into the midland sea were all put together, they would not be worthy of comparison for volume of water with one of the Indian rivers. Not only do I mean the Ganges, which is the largest, and with which neither the water of the Egyptian Nile nor the Ister flowing through Europe is worthy to compare; but if all those rivers were mingled together they would not even then become equal to the river Indus, which is a large river as soon as it issues from its springs, and after receiving fifteen rivers,[662] all larger than those in the province of Asia, discharges its water [277]into the sea, retaining its own name and absorbing those of its tributaries. Let these remarks which I have made about India suffice for the present, and let the rest be reserved for my “Description of India.”
CHAPTER VII.
Method of Bridging Rivers.
How Alexander constructed his bridge over the river Indus, is explained neither by Aristobulus nor Ptolemy, authors whom I usually follow; nor am I able to form a decided opinion whether the passage was bridged with boats, as the Hellespont was by Xerxes and the Bosporus and the Ister were by Darius,[663] or whether he made a continuous bridge over the river. To me it seems probable that the bridge was made of boats; for the depth of the water would not have admitted of the construction of a regular bridge, nor could so enormous a work have been completed in so short a time.[664] If the passage was bridged with boats, I cannot decide whether the vessels being fastened together with ropes and moored in a row were sufficient to form the bridge, as Herodotus the Halicarnassian says the Hellespont was bridged, or whether the work was effected in the way in which the bridge upon the Ister and that upon the Celtic Rhine[665] are made by the Romans, and in the way in which they bridged the Euphrates and Tigres, as often as necessity [278]compelled them. However, as I know myself, the Romans find the quickest way of making a bridge to be with vessels; and this method I shall on the present occasion explain, because it is worth describing. At a pre-concerted signal they let the vessels loose down the stream, not with their prows forward, but as if backing water.[666] As might naturally be expected, the stream carries them down, but a skiff furnished with oars holds them back, until it settles them in the place assigned to them. Then pyramidal wicker-baskets made of willow, full of unhewn stones, are let down into the water from the prow of each vessel, in order to hold it up against the force of the stream. As soon as any one of these vessels has been held fast, another is in the same way moored with its prow against the stream, distant from the first as far as is consistent with their supporting what is put upon them. On both of them are placed pieces of timber with sharp ends projecting out, on which cross-planks are placed to bind them together; and so proceeds the work through all the vessels which are required to bridge the river. At each end of this bridge firmly fixed gangways are thrown forward,[667] so that the approach may be safer for the horses and beasts of burden, and at the same time to serve as a bond to the bridge. In a short time the whole is finished with a great noise and bustle; but yet discipline is not relaxed while the work is going on. In each vessel the exhortations of the overseers to the men, or their censures of sluggishness, neither prevent the orders being heard nor impede the rapidity of the work.[668]