If Alexander had faced a unified Indian empire

Against a united India Alexander cannot invade amd win. India cannot invade and win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya#Nanda_army

According to wikipedia, Alexander's approach completely failed.

"Chanakya had trained Chandragupta under his guidance and together they planned the destruction of Dhana Nanda."     ?

It seems to me as if influenced by Alexander, but learned from his mistakes if you read the page. I don't know much about this guy.

Alexander III of Macedon have suffered the heaviest casualties in India, and after he faced King Porus, he retreated without continuing onwards, ultimately ending the invasion of India, and leaving.

Some would argue that apparently, it's because his men "longed to see their families", but we ought to remember that in India, most of the original native soldiers of Alexander's birth place are dead, and saying that his army (which now composed mostly of mercenaries) longed to see their homeland is actually quite unbelievable.

His army is actually crumbling, and his Macedon approach have been proven to be less then successful, such as the Phalanx formation. He adapted to the situation, and the style of warfare India uses, especially recruiting certain mercenaries, he even traded his own original soldiers (which some claims that his army longed to see their homeland) for certain mercenaries, such as mounted archers.

Alexander have clearly showed that the Macedon approach not only failing in India, but definitely responsible for the destruction of his army (he recruited lots of mercenaries to maintain the shape of his army, otherwise it would be gone). Alexander actually only faced small parts of India, especially the fact that he is only fighting against small tribes, King Porus isn't even the "ultimate" ruler of all of India, and he suffered extreme heavy casualties when faced against him.

Apparently, Alexander was impressed with King Porus, and decided to let him keep his land (he retreated and left India afterwards, why?), but did King Porus showed that he have good tactical skills? No. What's so impressive is the Indian army, then why would Alexander claimed that he is impressed with King Porus?

Lets say that if Alexander have a life span of 80 years, if he continues further into China, Qin just emerged victory from the Warring States, and boast the most powerful army, therefor defeating and conquering all others, reuniting in what it is China.

I seriously doubt Alexander would be able to conquer India.

I agree that Alexander is overrated, anyone who say he isn't, what exactly is his best tactics or strategies? Those cannot be compared to generals such as Hannibal Barca (who claims that Alexander is the "best" general), or the generals of The Three Kingdoms.

Although its quite possible Alexander could've died in India I do not think that they were his hardest opponents.

Even if there was a single empire in India, the troops of each region probably wouldn't want to go outside their boundaries, resulting in a weak, divided army Alexander could easily defeat. I'd be more interested in a face-off between Greece and ancient China whose armies were both numerous and technologically advanced

Originally posted by strategos Originally posted by Lannes Originally posted by strategos The Persians also had a huge, but CRAPPY army. Who thought that Alexander would be able to defeat the huge Persian army? Even Persian numbers don't compare with the manpower of the Indians.  At Gaugamela, we could put the Persians at around 90-100,000, and that's counting the 50,000 reserve levy.  The case is nearly the same at Issos.  And if we were to pull our discussion closer to what the original topic was (a unified Indian Army), the odds wouldn't get any better -  the larger Mauryan army is listed at 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 elephants.   You really think they could field and feed 600,000 soldiers for a long period of time? This seems unreasonible in ancient times..

I don't think so.Greek had good design  phalanx army but India use weapon with  better metal they use wootz steel while Greek use only bronze.For general I give alexander better but not much .Chandragupta Maurya conquer all India bystart with only small state .And he did beat Seleucus the Alexander best men.

Originally posted by Aeolus Simply, Machimoi in 5th century according to Herodotus amounted to 410,000. Surely the number wouldnt be as huge in Ptolemaic Egypt but enought to verify the stats of Egyptian records.

This number is obviously high.  Not even the Nandan dynasty with their massive kingdom in India could field such an army.

Anyway, the native phalanx at Raphia was only 20,000 strong.

Edited by Lannes

Originally posted by Aeolus We shouldnt take for granted that the number of troops taking part in a battle is the ultimate proof of the entire size of Ptolemy's army.

Generals of the day generally gave invasions all of what they could muster.

The numbers stated before could be explained, if we have in mind that in Ptolemaic Egypt there was in use the system of allotment-holders - machimoi, an equivalent term to cleirouchoi -  in the model of Athens. Each allotment-holder was also a soldier, who could easily help in Ptolemaic Egypt military services when needed on special occasions.  Despite this, Ptolemies before Philopator, had a kind of tradition not to put native soldiers in the field but rather prefer as the great majority of regular soldiers, Macedonians, Thracians, Cretans, Greek mercenaries and a small amount of Asiatic troops due to the wealth of Ptolemy royal house.

Well, Polybius tells us Raphia (troops numbered 75,000 plus 73 elephants) was in fact the first time the native machimoi had been used in battle.  Though, modern scholars disagree and say Raphia was just the first time they had been armed as phalangites.  Certainly, we know native machimoi had been used for various roles before Raphia.  Ptolemy I Soter is even mentioned as using native troops at Gaza.  At any rate, native troops never became the majority of the army. 

Anyway, I'm not sure how this is supporting your number. 

Originally posted by Lannes The number isn't at all consistant with any other figures for the era.  I don't see any mention of such a massive army in the Laodicean War (246-241).  And only 29 years after the date you ascribed this army to (Battle of Raphia), the Ptolemaic army was only at 75,000 plus the 73 elephants, which isn't even close to half the number you mentioned.  What seems likely is that these Egyptian records did a bit of exaggerating  .

We shouldnt take for granted that the number of troops taking part in a battle is the ultimate proof of the entire size of Ptolemy's army.

The numbers stated before could be explained, if we have in mind that in Ptolemaic Egypt there was in use the system of allotment-holders - machimoi, an equivalent term to cleirouchoi -  in the model of Athens. Each allotment-holder was also a soldier, who could easily help in Ptolemaic Egypt military services when needed on special occasions.

Despite this, Ptolemies before Philopator, had a kind of tradition not to put native soldiers in the field but rather prefer as the great majority of regular soldiers, Macedonians, Thracians, Cretans, Greek mercenaries and a small amount of Asiatic troops due to the wealth of Ptolemy royal house.

We do know also that one of the deeds of Ptolemy II, was to organize expeditions for capturing African elephants in the regions of South Africa, even though the use of African elephants in the battlefield against the Indian elephants of Seleukides proved finally to be a failure.