Alexander and India

Seems like Helios has no clue what he is talking about here.  Porus was by no means a powerful Indian King, simply a minor leader of the Panjab.  Also, Chandragupta Maurya was not in power when Alexander was in India - at the Ganges, Magadh was under the control of the Nandas. 

Also, think of it this way.  Alexander's forces outnumbered those of Porus.  Alexander's troop quality was probably much better as well, since Porus was a leader of a small state whilst Alexander commanded an army from a massive empire.  However, the army of Magadh under the Nandas was said to be a million strong and would have been of undoubtedly better quality.

Alexander had no chance.

Originally posted by Josip Even if he did return to Persia, the question is how many people would he be able to recruit, and even if he did recruit many, how would he handle it logistically? If you look at what Plutarch wrote, you will see that logistics was quite an issue.

I dont think logistics is quite an issue for Alexander so its not really about how many he recruited but what he recruited. On his death, he had already established the army with the new incorpation from his campaign such as elephants which might prove a very useful tool in battle. Though in the end, it is the long term effects that really grows into attention, if Alexander does not have a plan to conquer India then he will fail in doing it.

Originally posted by Josip In other words, even with reinforcements from Persia, I don't believe Alexander would have conquered India. India has all kinds of terrain and I don't think Alexander was prepared for those jungles, deserts etc, which proved evident even in his short campaign.

What kind of evidence are you talking about?

Originally posted by Josip Horses and phalanx may be good on flat ground, but check out how the Romans defeated greek phalanx and what tactic did they choose, and where they fought.

Greek Phalanx maybe but we are talking about the Macedonian Phalanx which proves nearly indestructible in the front. If there is enough support from the flanks, it could easily defeat an enemy that is pinned down by the phalanx. The only reason why the Macedonians were defeated in Cynoscephalae was because the phalanx was not ready and was force to rush which was why the Romans easily defeated the left side. The right side was holding and even gaining ground, it was until the defeat of the left phalanx that the Macedonians lost. If the left could have hold, Im positive that the Romans would be defeated or atleast have a pyhrric victory...

Originally posted by Josip I think most people here (and I noticed it IRL too) underestimate Indian army, and look at it as some generic vast chaotic army with no strategy/tactics.

Yea, but if one studies abit on their side, they will come to know about their strategies. I myself arent that sure about their strategies and tactics too, I only study about Porus and Alexander's battle at Hydaspes River and basically thats it. I do agree that most people underestimates Indians military might.

I would have to say no, even though I admired Alexander so much, I must admit that I dont see any victory in India for Alexander. Unless Alexander develops some kind of master strategy to defeat such as large army, then he would definitely be considered the great but I just dont think he would make it logically. And looking at the governing of India, it isnt that difficult to united the tribes together with the right man... I mean look at Han Xin and how he basically conquered all of China while Liu Bang (first Han emperor) hold off against the strongest kingdom in China. If that could be done, then I believe a person with the right talent can do the same in India, maybe it could be Alexander...

Though on the other hand, if he returned to Persia... regroup and fix his position in the Empire AND didnt dead, he could possibly return to India later and finish his unfinish business in India


Edited by Kamikaze 738 - 13-Jul-2007 at 00:32

It was nice, That is why Vishnugupta appointed them for Chandragupta, but they were not all maids, the basically consisted of a large no. of friends making the elite corp of bodyguards & maid palace guards.

Originally posted by Brainstorm Maid guards ?interesting :) ! There were many more interesting things with this brahamin teacher Vishnugupta Bhatt. If you study him in detail, he may turn out to be possibly the most shrewed & clever persons in politiccal history. Well I should say one of the most. As for the elephants given,thats obviously a part of a treaty, even if presented as "gesture of friendship"-there are not friendships in international relationships. If Seleucus was utterly beaten,there wouldnt be place for such huge receive (hundreds of elephants were a really huge military weapon ,ready for use towards the other Diadochoi) You are right. but look at the objective with which the treaty was designed. Vishnugupta Bhatt could have simply ordered his army back to India after the victory, but he didn't. He insisted on a treaty. Not just a treaty but one with a marriage relation between the two empires, which would turn the two warring empires not just into friends but direct relatives. As I had said the objective was to secure the Western & north western frontiers of the Indian empire without having to work for it.  What better way of guarding your borders than having a very strong empire of your queen next to it. The war elephants which had been given were a part ofthis exercise of making the greek empire stronger as heavy a strong direct relative next to you is better than having numerous small warring unstable kings. The fact is that Gupta's achieved their primary goals,and Seleucus understood that there were not many things to gain there,since he had other dangerous rivals to deal with. True, but the rationale of the treaty was what I mentioned above. This was not unique for Vishnugupta. He alwasy used such peculiar thinking processes. It will be easier for you to understand his thinking if you look at the fact that he was an ordinary poor brahamin teacher, who one fine day took the vow of establishing a empire & actually doing it in a very short time frame. Without much fighting.

I though Chandra-gupta and Vishnu-gupta ,belonged to the Gupta dynasty (maurya / gupta).
Is it any connection to the two dynasties then ?(Gupta and Maurya)
ps:Its funny the way greek writers "made greek" the name of Chandragupta->"Sandrakotos" (!)
(like Assurbanippal->"Sardanapalos")

Maid guards ?interesting :) !
As for the elephants given,thats obviously a part of a treaty,
even if presented as "gesture of friendship"-there are not friendships in international relationships.
If Seleucus was utterly beaten,there wouldnt be place for such huge receive (hundreds of elephants were a really huge military weapon ,ready for use towards the other Diadochoi)
The fact is that Gupta's achieved their primary goals,and Seleucus understood that there were not many things to gain there,since he had other dangerous rivals to deal with.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma The objective of Chandragupta Mauraya attacking Selucas was to send him outside India & add the Indian territories to the mauryan empire, in whichhe was fully successfull. The treaty signed between them was designed by the founder of this mauryan empire Vishnugupta Bhatt. It involved Selucas Nicator giving his daughter in marriage to Chandragupta Maurya (Vishnugupta insisted on a marriage alliance as this was the best way of securing the western & northers frontiers of the mauryan empire. His philosophy was that he didn't want his army to be tied up with guarding this vast border as he had more important things to do back home. what better way to guard your frontier than have your queen's empire on the other side !!!) As a gesture of friendship between the two empires (Greek & Indian) now related by marriage, indians offered 500 war elephants to Selucas to help him fight the rebellions in his provinces. This was done as Vishnugupta Bhatta realised that a strong & stable Greek empire was in the best interests of both India & Greece, as he himself had a lot of work to be done in his kingdom & didn't want to run the risk of having numerous small unstable kingdoms on his borders.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma The only time he had to fight really was against Selucas Nicator, which he won.

It cant be called a defeat of Seleucus.
It was rather a draw.-He was just unable to win (like Israelis in Lebanon
      ).
According to the treaty signed he got some 300 war elephants in order to not claim the territory which Alexander conquered before him.

Originally posted by Yiannis Originally posted by Vivek Sharma Chandragupta maurya's personal bodyguards were composed of Greek  Women  loyal to the daughter of Selucas   !!!   More please... is this fact or fiction?

Fact.

Reason was Chandragupta's Mentor Vishnugupta Bhatt, Chanakya.

Chanakya was a sort of super shrewed Brahamin. In fact what is know as Chandragupta's empire was really his empire. Chandragupta merely being an instrument in his hands for achieveing his objective, since Bhatt Brahamins were teachers & not supposed to rule or be material.
Chandragupta had become the undisputed supremo  of India  without fighting wars.  By sheer politics of Vishnugupta, he got a huge empire. The only time he had to fight really was against Selucas Nicator, which he won.




Edited by Vivek Sharma - 12-Oct-2006 at 06:33