The Battle between Alexander and Porus at the River Hydaspes

The large canvas depicts a violent cavalry battle with horsemen being slain and horses falling and tumbling over each other in the foreground. In the middle ground the focus of attention is the battle between an individual horseman in Greek armor on a brown horse wearing a Greek helmet with red plumes piercing with his spear another horseman on a white horse wearing a white turban with feathers. In the distance, on the level, a group of Greek cavalrymen moves in full speed in a circling movement to attack from the rear a group of elephants carrying defence towers filled with archers. A gray and partially yellow sky and here and there clouds of smoke create a dramatic atmosphere.

This stunning signed work represents a rare subject in the oeuvre of Nicolaes Pietersz Berchem, who is most famous for his Italianate landscapes.

This large cavalry battle was mentioned in the 1766 sale catalog of De Winter and Yver as «a battle against the Turks»¹. However, already in 1837 the painting was presented with the correct title, Battle of Alexander and Porus, a unique subject in Dutch painting, at an exhibition at the British Institute. The life of Alexander the Great was much admired during the Middle Ages, at the court of the Dukes of Burgundy especially. In the 17th century only a few episodes remained popular, like the marriage of Alexander and Roxane, Alexander meeting Diogenes and Alexander and the wives of Darius². Earlier in the 17th century, about 1615-1620, in Delft a set of tapestries with the heroic deeds of Alexander had been designed and woven by Karel van Mander II. He sent eight tapestries of the Alexander series for approval to King Christian IV of Denmark for possible use in Frederiksborg Castle, north of Copenhagen³. One tapestry representing King Porus Surrendering to Alexander formed part of a series of the heroic deeds of Alexander by Karel van Mander II in the collection of Prince Anatole Demidov⁴. In 1976 it was acquired by the Museum Prinsenhof⁵. We cannot say that this tapestry was one of the series delivered to Christian IV, but it is known that there were several sets, one with red borders, one with orange borders and one with blue borders6.

Why Berchem did choose this subject is not clear. Berchem was not a pictor doctus like Rubens and probably received his instructions from the client who had commissioned the painting and who was familiar with the literature on Alexander at that time. In the 17th century three antique authors were the source whose text was available in a Dutch or French translation and in Greek or Latin, of course. The histories of the life of Alexander by Quintus Curtius Rufus⁷, Lucius Flavius Arrianus⁸ and Plutarch were the most generally read at that time. In his Parallel Lives Plutarch describes in book seven of the Life of Alexander how Alexander and Porus had set up their army camp on each side of the River Hydaspes⁹. To scare Alexander, Porus had stationed his elephants along the opposite bank and kept continuous watch on the crossing. The army of Porus greatly outnumbered Alexander’s, who therefore had to invent a special strategy. «So every day he caused his troops a great din and much tumult to be made in his camp, and thereby accustomed the Barbarians not to be alarmed. Then, on a dark and stormy night, Alexander accompanied by part of his infantry and his best horsemen secretly crossed the river calculating that, in case the enemy would attack with their cavalry, he would be far superior to them, and in case they moved up their men-at-arms, his infantry would join him in good season. And so one of his suppositions came to pass. For after routing a thousand of the enemy’s horsemen and sixty of their chariots which engaged him, he captured all the chariots and slew four hundred horsemen. And now Porus, thus led to believe that Alexander himself had crossed the river, advanced upon him with all his forces, except the part he le! behind to impede the crossing of the remaining Macedonians. But Alexander, fearing the elephants and the great numbers of the enemy, himself assaulted their left wing, and ordered Coenus to attack their right. Both wings having been routed, the vanquished troops retired in every case upon the elephants in the center, and were there crowded together with them, and from this point on the battle was waged at close quarters, and it was not until the eighth hour that the enemy gave up». Plutarch continues the story and tells how Porus’ elephant showed remarkable intelligence and solicitude for the King, bravely defending him and beating back his assailants while he was still in full vigor, and when it perceived its master was worn out with a multitude of missiles and wounds, fearing he would fall off, it knelt softly on the ground, and with its probiscis gently took each spear and drew it out of his body.

Porus was taken prisoner, and when Alexander asked him how he would be treated, said: «Like a king»; and to another question from Alexander whether he had anything else to say, replied: «All things are included in my ‘Like a king’». Berchem’s painting shows the first decisive phase of the battle, the surprise attack of Alexander causing havoc amongst the troops of Porus. In the middle ground we see how Alexander with much bravery attacks and kills the son of Porus who was sent in advance with Porus’ cavalry to stop Alexander’s army.

Berchem’s painting is generally dated between 1670 and 1675¹⁰, after the death of Philips Wouwerman (1619-1668), who had dominated the art market with his scenes of horse markets, horse attacks, and horse battles. Then Berchem turned his attention to this lucrative segment of the art market and produced several hunting parties, horse attacks and horse battles. In 1672 he painted a Cavalry attack on a convoy in a gorge, which since 1816 belongs to the collection of the Mauritshuis (fig. 1)¹¹. Around the same time, between 1672 and 1675 he painted another battle scene, The Battle of Gibeah by the Israelites based on the Old Testament history (Judges, 20) depicting the clever strategy of the Israelites disguising their surprise attack on the Benjaminites by darkness of night, smoke and fire¹². Almost simultaneously, in 1673 the French artist Charles Le Brun (1619-1690) painted a huge canvas of Alexander and Porus (fig. 2), one of five cartoons with Stories from the Life of Alexander for a series of tapestries woven in the Manufacture des Gobelins in Paris for King Louis XIV¹³. In his composition Le Brun shows the magnanimity of Alexander to the wounded defeated Porus just after the finishing of the battle by allowing him to keep his kingdom. Like the Burgundian Dukes, Louis XIV identified himself with Alexander as the personification of a heroic ruler.

It seems however that Berchem was not familiar with Le Brun’s painting and one intriguing question remains: did Berchem intend his battle scene for his elite clientele in Haarlem or Amsterdam? The subject seems to be more worthy of a prince and traditionally was used in series of tapestries of the Life of Alexander to decorate the walls of royal palaces and castles.

In 1672 Prince William III of Orange was reinstated in the function of his predecessors as Stadtholder and leader of the Dutch armies by the Orangist party. Earlier, France, England and the bishops of Munster and Cologne had declared war to the Dutch Republic. When Louis XIV invaded the country and broke through the Dutch defense lines, the Dutch citizens despaired and rose against the Republican government and the Orangist party took over. The young Prince of Orange was the new hope of the country. He landed in a situation more or less similar to that of Alexander before the battle of Porus. But like Alexander, the Prince of Orange soon was able to book some military success and could break up the League of France, England and Munster. Was it to hail the Prince of Orange as a second Alexander, that this painting originated and was it the intention of Berchem to gain the Prince’s patronage? Or was it an agent of the Prince who commissioned it on his behalf? There is no definite answer to these speculations, unfortunately, but we may conclude, I think, that Berchem truly surpassed himself as a brilliant storyteller deploying all his artistic skills and virtuosity of the brush to achieve such an inventive work of great perfection and artistry full of drama and pathos.