Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Topic: If Alexander had faced a unified Indian empire Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 05:15 |
Originally posted by Iskender Bey ALBO
Now were are moving into assumptions though. Would it have unified? Would it have not? The topic mentions a unfied Indian power. |
No assumptions at all! We are dealing with facts. In antiquity it was a common practise to exploit internal disputes of your opponents or...create them in case of absense. Macedonians, like others, took advantage of this practise noumerous times.
Sandracotta, the founder of Mauryan empire, in order to defeat Nandas asked for the help of Macedonians. Internal disputes were never absent even in a unified empire like Mauryan.
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 05:27 |
Originally posted by Sabzevarian
With his armies under his command at his death he probably would have lost. But if he continued training Persians and other people's in the empire into his army then he would have sufficient manpower combined with his talents to win. |
I completely agree with you. If you keep in mind that according to royal inscriptions, Only Egypt under Ptolemy B' had an army of 40,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry and 300 elephants, well-trained under Macedonian standars you can imagine what size of army could Alexander had taken from every quarter of his empire.
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
Anujkhamar
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 06:17 |
Out of curiosity, how many people in this thread actually know
something about ancient indian militaries? And how many people are just
here to advertise Hellenism?
Edited by Anujkhamar
|
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 06:38 |
One of the same here. I keep wondering how many actually do know something about Alexander's capabilities and military force and how many are just here to promote Mauryan empire??
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
Anujkhamar
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 07:35 |
|
|
Lannes
Baron
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 11:21 |
Originally posted by Aeolus
I completely agree with you. If you keep in mind that according to royal inscriptions, Only Egypt under Ptolemy B' had an army of 40,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry and 300 elephants, well-trained under Macedonian standars you can imagine what size of army could Alexander had taken from every quarter of his empire. |
Even the coalition army at Ipsus didn't reach such a huge figure (save for in the way of elephants, of which they had 400). And certainly, the solely Ptolemaic army at Raphia wasn't anywhere near that.
|
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
|
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 17:12 |
Originally posted by Lannes
Even the coalition army at Ipsus didn't reach such a huge figure (save for in the way of elephants, of which they had 400). And certainly, the solely Ptolemaic army at Raphia wasn't anywhere near that.
|
I am refering to the year 246 BC, year of death of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The official Royal Egyptian records of this year, mention the exact numbers i wrote. I checked also my books and i found out that N.G.L Hammond in his "Macedonian state" makes a comparison between the armies of diadochi. Hammond verifies the numbers above, expanding them by 2,000 Scythe-chariots. The fact remains that Ptolemy II had the largest army from all diadochi of Alexander the Great.
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
giani_82
Shogun
Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 17:18 |
Originally posted by Anujkhamar
Out of curiosity, how many people in this thread actually know something about ancient indian militaries? And how many people are just here to advertise Hellenism? |
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king (or something like that)
Somebody actually knows something, but that something is easily applied to another parallel universe yet not to our own
|
"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall."
Confucius
|
|
Lannes
Baron
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 19:54 |
Originally posted by Aeolus
[QUOTE=Lannes] I am refering to the year 246 BC, year of death of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The official Royal Egyptian records of this year, mention the exact numbers i wrote. I checked also my books and i found out that N.G.L Hammond in his "Macedonian state" makes a comparison between the armies of diadochi. Hammond verifies the numbers above, expanding them by 2,000 Scythe-chariots. The fact remains that Ptolemy II had the largest army from all diadochi of Alexander the Great. |
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 .
|
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
|
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 11:22 |
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.
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 11:26 |
Indeed, Egyptians only served as auxiliaries in Ptolemaic armies.
When your say "South Africa" you don't actually meant "south", right?
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Lannes
Baron
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 12:10 |
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.
|
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
|
|
Perseas
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 13:48 |
Originally posted by Lannes
[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.
|
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.
|
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
|
|
Lannes
Baron
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 14:36 |
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
|
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2005 at 02:17 |
[QUOTE=Mythos_Ruler]I don't think Alexander would have even tried. Someone else said it best when they suggested he would have surrounded the empire with vassal/buffer states instead. [/QUOTE
Maybe he would.No one knows exactly if he planed to.If he didn't die might of faught.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2011 at 16:59 |
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.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2011 at 17:03 |
Originally posted by GENERAL PARMENION
Originally posted by Anujkhamar
Originally posted by GENERAL PARMENION
If Alexander had faced a unified Indian Army , he would most propably follow a different strategy. He was not an idiot , a genius is a rather more suitable word. He would have crushed them one way or another. |
and the general's of the indian kingdoms weren't idiots either, what's to stop them changing strategy?
As I said before, in that timeframe 1/4 to 1/5 of all people on this planet lived in India at the time, conquest would have been imposible.
|
The number of inhabitants in a land are not the problem when someone is trying to invade that land. Powerful military power , high quality weaponary and above all capable generals are far more important. Exacly what the Greeks had , to far higher extend , than the Indians. |
Sorry my former post was reply on this topic
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2011 at 17:14 |
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.. |
But they can't send all that in 1 battle of course .
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2011 at 18:03 |
If Alexander was not death and still invade India I he had a slim chance to win. But if he invade in the time India was unite I would say he had no chance.
1st almost of military history was propaganda 2 nation that fight in same battle never write the same history.They write to praise their side. Number of persian troop at Gaugamela souldn't more than 100,000 but it likely to be 50,000 because in ancient time It hard to feed army that more than 50,000 men 100,000 men was possible but they had to move all the time because they would ate everything in the area .But it depend on some factor. If your supply line was short you could send more troop.And if the land was fertile you could send more .Also if your troop was close to river or sea and you had strong fleet you could send more of them.Persian side had short supply but arid land so the estimate become 50,000-100,000.Also catualty of both side likely to be propaganda.
Alexander had 47,000 at Gaugamela but had only 41,000 at Hydaspes .Even he could reinforce his troop from Greek and from local Persia also India.But his army was smaller.That mean his lost from former battle was more significant than most people think.
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2011 at 19:07 |
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
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|