Alexander and India
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15301
Printed Date: 01-May-2024 at 17:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Alexander and India
Posted By: Hellios
Subject: Alexander and India
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 23:06
|
Could Alexander have conquered the rest of Foot-note to question: "At the battle vs Porus - 1 of the powerful Indian leaders - the Indians were defeated (even though they fought with war elephants, which the Macedonians didn't have). Alexander captured Porus & (like other rulers he defeated) allowed him to continue ruling his kingdom. Alexander also conquered an independent province & granted it to Porus as a gift. His next goal was to reach the ...they had heard tales of powerful Indian tribes living on the ...they felt that the continuation of the Indian campaign was unnecessary - it's only cause being Alexander's curiosity. ...they had left ...they had seen their king start to behave like a Persian & tolerated his behavior. Now he was starting to become enamored with ...they had invaded So, they refused to go any farther east. Alexander was extremely disappointed, but he accepted their decision, although he did manage to persuade them to travel south down the Hydaspes &
During this trip, Alexander sought out the Indian philosophers (the Brahmins) who were famous for their wisdom, & debated them on philosophical issues. Alexander & his army reached the mouth of the |
Replies:
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 04:26
|
Two points.
1) Alexander conquered Pakistan.
2) There were no Brahmins in this Pakistani area when Alexander conquered it. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Turkali
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 04:57
|
Indian army was a crapy army but macedonian were exhusted and tired and wnated to come back to their home |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 06:22
Proof? Sources? Nope. Thought not. |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 06:36
Please research "Alexander India".
------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 06:45
Please research where the Hydaspes & Indus River is. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 07:14
|
I'm confused; why are some people saying that Alexander didn't reach India? All sources fround within 30 seconds, and there are countless others to the same effect:
http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/alexander/11.shtml - http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/alexander/11.shtml
http://www.indhistory.com/alexander.html - http://www.indhistory.com/alexander.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch13.htm - http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch13.htm
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/ALEX.HTM - http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/ALEX.HTM
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-59259/Alexander-the-Great - http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-59259/Alexander-the-Great
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=355&HistoryID=aa36 - http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=355&HistoryID=aa36
------------- |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 07:24
|
While you two discuss the existance of Brahmins.... I have one point to make out. Hellious you claimed Porus was one of the strongest "Indian" kings (Telde and most other Pakistani's will call him a Pakistani king, but thats not what we're arguing here). I disagree with you. Porus' kingdom was reletavly small and simply put weaker than other Indian kingdoms. The argument is that Alexander had such a hard time defeating such a small kingdom (comparred to the others) then how was he going to beat Kingdoms like Magadha? Also you stated he faced Elephants for the first time with Porus. I was under the impression that he met some while in Persia. Also note, these Elephants he met were imported from "India". The number of Elephants that Magadha possesed was much great than Porus. Imagine 100 Elephants (this number is just an example) charge at a formation of Phalanxes. Who's going to win? Obviously the Elephants as nobody could survive a stampede such as that. The formation would be broken apart almost instantly. My opinion is, no Alexander could not defeat Magadha at that point in time. His troops are exhausted, he is in a new tropical climate on foriegn terrain where he litterally has to fight for every meter of land he wants to claim. He does not have as much troops as he had while facing the Persians or even Porus. He is thousands of miles away from Persia, imagine the supply problems? If he had a chance to go back, regroup and come back it may be a different story. edit: To end this confusion about Pakistan and India to you Hellious let me sum it up. The author of the websites above refer to India as a geographical location ie the Indian Subcontinent. Most Pakistani's claim a seperate historical and political identity to Indians, which is why Telde is claiming he only reached Pakistan. If you use his logic, it's true. Alexander did not reach lands occupied by the present Republic of India. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 07:48
Alexander conquered up till the Indus River. He did not go beyond it. The River Indus is in modern day Pakistan, not India. The ancient Greeks called the region of Pakistan, "India" - in fact this does not mean India in the modern sense.
------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 07:55
The Maghada werent that powerful. Chandragupta overran them about the same time as Alexander?..not sure about this, he might have just assasinated the Nandas. Maghada vs Porus? Porus was weakened by Alexander's invasion, then the Maghada took over under Maurya. But the Nanda Maghada versus Porus probably wasnt that different in strength, else Maghada would have overrun Porus's kingdom.
Porus didnt beat Alexander but he wasnt far from it. If Gandhara had combined with Paurava Alexander wouldnt have got very far. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 08:32
I claimed? Yes, I didn't quote, so you're right. I read several versions of Alexander's India campaign from decent encyclopedias, top university history professors, etc., (not from wikipedia or other forum posts), and they indicate that Porus' kingdom was not as weak as portrayed in your post. I don't doubt that there were more powerful Indian kingdoms.
The fact that he had a hard time defeating Porus didn't necessary mean inevitable defeat with the other kingdoms. Don't forget that Alexander had a system of military integration whereby he integrated the techniques, weapons, and fighters, of armies he conquered along his campaigns. His ability to relate with other cultures made this very easy for him to do. He incorporated war elephants into his army after Porus, and learned how Indians did battle, all things that could have been used against the other tribes. His army at that point would have been a superb amalgamation of the best of each kingdom conquered since he had left Greece. What it lacked was the troops' spirit to go on.
Where had Alexander's army done battle against mounted war elephants in Persia? Interesting!
Yes, 100 war elephants charging would be quite something, but Alexander's army would also have war elephants at this point (maybe not as many) in addition to it's other abilities & weapons, stuff like this http://www.frapanthers.com/teachers/white/siege_gallery.htm - http://www.frapanthers.com/teachers/white/siege_gallery.htm
I like your opinions, well expressed.
His army had a good supply system wherever they went. When the decision was being debated (in India) about weather or not to continue eastward, supply worries were not a critical factor in the decision from what I've read. The factors are what I've highlited in red in the opening post.
------------- |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 08:53
Thanks for this info. Strange that so many of the top encyclopedias, academic institutions, and historians talk about "India", not just "Indian Subcontinent". I don't think the majority of the academic community uses Telde's logic.
------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 09:02
Why would they use my logic? I'm speaking purely from a nationalistic viewpoint, not an academic viewpoint! Most academics wont care whether it's Indian, Pakistani or whatever. But for me, it's Pakistani history, not Indian history. Just as Brahmagupta is Pakistani history, not Indian history, and so many other instances that are easily confused. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 10:33
|
In that moment, Alexander couldn't go far away, but if he stop a moment, build his empire and of course, live, surelly he could go into the rest of India, as the greeks of the grekobactrian kingdom advanced until Pataliputra.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 01:14
|
Very different time. The Greeks of Menander's time were locals living there for generations, who knew their enemies and knew the land. Alex was none of the above.
------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 07:45
| Even if he had lost in India or any other place, he would still be known as Alexander The Great. |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 08:55
| I just had a thouhgt. Imagine Alexander was able to conquer the entire subcontinent. How do you think that will change history? (i'll add my own version later, to compare). |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 10:16
Hmm...reminds me of a what if the Persians had won at Marathon or Salamis or Platea type scenario. India was notoriously difficult for native Indians to unite, it would've been a nightmare to administer from outside. I don't think it much Greek influence would've been passed down as it would've been the last part of the empire to be conquered and likely the first part to break away. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 10:21
|
Quite a lot of greek influenece was passed down as it was. ------------- |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 18:05
Perhaps the impact on history would've been more positive than negative because Alexander had a habit of allowing the rulers he conquered to continue ruling their kingdoms, and the civilizations to continue their own ways? I get the impression that his true intentions were not to eradicate other cultures (like some other conquerors), but perhaps to compliment them with his.
------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 01:21
| Hellios, I couldnt have said it better. |
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 01:54
Right. Not only was Porus's kingdom of minor importance compared to the other Indian kingdoms, he had virtually no allies during the time Alexander attacked him. I highly doubt Alexander would ever fully have the support of his army, considering the amount of distrust among his corps of Macedonian officers as well as the numerous mutinies along the way. Don't forget, we're not even completely sure if he was not murdered by these same Macedonian officers.
These are the two main reasons the Macedonians (the core of the army) were not pleased with Alexander. But it wasn't only the fact that Alexander was acting more 'Persian', but the fact that they were fighting bitter wars just so they can see their enemies incorporated in their army. Also, they did not like having Persians in the court. They viewed the inclusion of Persians in the court as a joke, and they didn't take this seriously some of the time. This was a major cause of distrust among his Macedonian core. They believed that by including Persians in the army and training them in the Macedonian style and teaching them the language, that Alexander was slowly preparing to replace them as soon as they did not follow his lead. It is important to point out though, that there were differences within the Macedonians themselves. The older soldiers, which held the highest ranks in the army, did not like it when younger Macedonian soldiers would revere Alexander as a god, and give all the credit of the campaign to him. The older soldiers believed that without the army itself, Alexander would be nothing. The older soldiers also gave credit to Philip for raising the army, and were insulted when younger Macedonians would revere Alexander without acknowledging Philip's contributions. Cleitus raised this issue with Alexander and paid for it with his life in Maracanda. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 19:23
| Is it true that Alexander adopted most of his military tactic from Philip? And that he was not as smart in a military sense as Philip was? |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 01:02
He only managed to defeat the so called pakistani people of telde, who have always been defeated by every invading army in the history. If he had not been able to beat India, he would still be great for he had beaten these people !! I am going by telde's hypothesis for a change. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 03:44
Armenian, the other member's text you're quoting; I answered it (kindly see other posts on pg.1 of this thread). You said Porus had no allies, therefore his kingdom must have been powerful enough to remain independent from the other Indian kingdoms. Logical?
Yes, we've established all this already.
"Bitter"? Defeat is 'bitter'. Victory is not bitter for any army, and his army was undefeated, wasn't it? Also, I don't agree that "to see their enemies incorporated into their army" was the reason for the invasions (of Persia, etc.) and the corresponding wars.
Correct, the Macedonian officers hated that he appointed Persians to the court, as well as Egyptians, and Indians too (I'm trying to find the article now, I remember it gives the names of 2 Indians he appointed to the court).
Interesting, and I think correct also. I like the way you look at it.
------------- |
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 05:02
I know I just wanted to add the fact that Porus didn't have any significant allies during Alexander's invasion (in fact he had some enemies such as Ambhi, ruler of Taxila, who did not resist Alexander).
Porus was strong and brave as an individual and his kingdom was pretty tough (it was Alexander's most costly victory). But if you compare his domain to the other Indian kingdoms he does not really stand out.
I didn't mean that was the reason for the invasion. I meant that the Macedonian core of the army slowly started becoming weary of Alexander when he incorporated more and more foreigners into the army. From their point of view, they were fighting tough battles, and then witnessing all their enemies hold equal ranks with them in the next battle. This did not please them. They believed that by training foreigners in the Macedonian style and language, that Alexander was ready to replace the Macedonians as soon as they refused to follow him. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։ |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 05:33
Armenian is right. In fact Ambhi had invited Alex to attack Puru & supported him with his army. Puru was not independednt because he was powerful. He was an arrogant king so not popular. His kingdom was just a tiny stat. Infact Ambhi's army was bigger than puru's but the Puru army was better as it had a better leader in puru. Further Indian accounts of war dont have this defeated by alex hisotry, they say the opposit. There was a stalemate due to the heavy losses of Alexander who offered his own territory to Puru in compromise. This was repeated later when Chanakya's army under Chandragupta defeated the Selucas Army in whose compromise he was offered the daughter of selucas nicator for marriage. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 05:41
Isn't this a cheap shot at telde (our fellow member)?
 Ok seriously now, don't you think that adding war elephants & locals to his already multi-dimensional army would be enough to at least even the odds? Perhaps not all of India, but he would've surely been able to conquer some parts of it.
------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 05:59
|
Yes it would be. He would become far stronger & given his nature far more deadly. But then look at how many people he would have to fight in India. It was not a centralised empire like Persia or Egypt. It was a collection of city states, all independent, at the most paying some tribute to the Nands. I never mean to say that Indians were brave or superior. Theri is nothin called bravery or that stuff. It was just a different set of circumstances & situations. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 09:51
Let's stay on topic. Vivek, who were the Pakistani people of Telde back then? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 16:40
| Is it really so much of a burden to you to let someone else answer my question? The topic is about Alexander's military competence and my question is about where his military knowledge and tactics originated, how are the two not connected? |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 16:57
|
Of course its not a burden. Yet Alexander's conquest of the east is being scrutinized, not those of his father's tactics. ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 01:49
|
Telde has this theory that pakistan always existed separate from India. The 47 event was only a minor one & the pakistanis were always a different nation / people / culture. He also claims that they are genetically different from Indians. Though rest of the world seems to know that prior to 47, Pakistan was India. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 02:02
|
Could Alexander have conquered the rest of With his reduced army and in defiance of the big casualities?! No way. ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 02:57
|
Even his impending death would have been a big factor. After he was hit by that poisonous arraow in the lungs, he never really recoverd fully. The poison was doing its work & his death would have come sooner or later. Well sooner if he had chosen to march into India, because the hot & humid weather, the jungles, terrible fighting with disease would all have taken its toll on his health not to mention of the fierce military fights with the bigger kingdoms.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 08:17
We've been through this before many times. Pakistan was part of British India for 200 years prior to 1947. Before the 17th century, Pakistan was never a part of India (and in fact the subcontinent was not named India by the inhabitants at the time). The "theory" that Pakistan was a part of India because small peripheral Northwestern states like Indian Punjab and (during the Indus Valley times) the south of Gujerat formed a single entity, is a ridiculous concept because Indian Punjab is by no means all of India (it's merely a very small fragment of a very large country). You can say that Pakistan was a part of Indian Punjab or that Indian Punjab was a part of Pakistan prior to the 17th century but under NO circumstances can you say that Bengal or Orissa or Tamil Nadu was a part of Pakistan during the course of history, and these states are what form the majority of modern day India.
Simply, Alexander did not invade the land of modern India, he invaded the land of modern Pakistan (up till Pakistani Punjab), and then he turned back because the Pauravas inflicted enough to damage the morale of his troops - this has always been the case in history, the only way into India is through Pakistan (also the North Eastern side but this was hardly used), and thanks to Pakistan all invaders into the subcontinent turned back before they reached into the subcontinent - another reason why the people of Pakistan are clearly more diverse than in India. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 08:33
|
This so called pakistan is just one of those fragments of the earlier India. But off course not for you. For the rest of the world. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 12:39
It would be the other way round. Earlier India was Pakistan (as the ancient Greeks knew it), and during the later Indo Greek period, bits of the modern day India gradually were added onto the Greek and Roman knowledge of the Indian subcontinent. You could say Pakistan was the core of India. This is what the rest of the world, who have done some research of history would know, not just the misleading modern geographical naming of the subcontinent. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 13:23
|
I don't think the problem is with the naming of the subcontinent, but with the naming of the Republic of India. But please try to stay on topic, there is already a topic on this. Back to my "what if alexander actually managed to pull it off" I don't believe it actually makes any big difference to history. My Scenario After Alexander's death the empire will split up anyway, this is inevitable. There will be very little different to Seleucus Nicator's empire. A new state will emerge, similar to that of Maurya, and the rest will be similar to the rest of history. |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 15:39
Seko was just trying to keep the thread on topic - the topic being a very specific question (see opening post).
"Alexander or Philip; who's method of warfare was better?" doesn't really have much to do with the topic question of this thread. It's a very educated question though, and if you want to start a thread on it, I'll gladly contribute.
------------- |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 16:24
Thanks for staying on topic Chargemaster. I believe the downsizing of the army before leaving The 'fear of casualties' rarely stopped the ancient Greeks from going into battle, as long as the troops felt the battle was justified. They refused to go further into Naturally, all soldiers have some fear of dying - it's human nature, but the ancient Greeks did a decent job of making their soldiers able to defeat this fear. Modern day Greeks tied themselves to their battle posts during some independence wars so they wouldn't run if they fell into a state of temporary shock. Ancient Spartans, when going off to war, were informed by their mothers that if they didn't win, they would no longer be welcomed back into their homes. ------------- |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 16:47
Heh Anujkhamar, quite probably.
I was just reading about the Mauryan Empire, and Hellenistic India & Pakistan...interesting stuff...I'm going to look for other threads on that now.
------------- |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 17:21
|
Ok, but I do suggest you dont look pay close attention to the recent topics in the South Asia forum. I havnt been on much and in that time its because a battleground for pointless chats. Start from the back of the forum if you plan on reading it. Back to your original question, I agree with Vivek's post above about climate change. Are his troops experienced in fighting in tropical jungles, mountains and the other terrain? Actually I have a link for you that I bookmarked. In the discussion the discuss whether or not it could be done if Alexander waited a few years. Here it is http://heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=10,5636,,all - http://heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=10,5636,,all The post was begun by Ghorkali, who used to help run the South Asia forum |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 17:38
|
That's good advice Anujkhamar. You fellas should weed out those threads your talking about. It's a history forum, any political attacks should be against the rules and weeded out, or confined to a specific section (political debates).
I'll check out that thread you recommended, thx again.
------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 18:17
|
I don't think he could have conquered all of India with the army that he had at that time. There are a few reasons why I think so... 1. Alexander lost a substantial amount of phalangites at the battle of Hydapses river which composed some of his best and most experienced men in his army. Moreover his army was tired at best and had no desire to fight any longer. 2. Porus was just a local king at the time and still was capable of mustering a strong opposing force that hurt Alexander's campaign more than any of his previous battles againts Persia. The Nandas a kingdom in eastern India alone could muster as much as 5000 elephants, imagine if Alexander fought all the rest. 3. The climate of India would make it very difficult for a foreign army to be able to conquer it. Heavly forested, muddy, hot and humid it would be a nightmare for heavily armored phalangites and companions to progress far into this territory. Now if Alexander goes back to Babylon, manages to resupply his army with new soldiers from Macedon and the Greek cities, convinces the conquered Persians to join him but most importantly stays alive himself then the situation could be different. If he decides to go for India instead of Italy that is... ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 00:59
I never said you are wrong, only the world things differently. But on the whole I agree with you. Not only the ancient India, we belive even today they are same. Only a matter of time before history is repeated & that region again comes back to where it had been since thousands of years. Ruled by delhi & related areas. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 02:41
Fair enough.
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 04:05
|
IFs & Buts will never end. that comes under the category of amusement. What if while he went back, the persians, the egyptians etc..... came together with the indians who had already defeated him once to conquer & divided greece with china leading the war ? Such jokes can go forever. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 04:15
|
Alexander left a long lasting impact on India. Emperor Chandragupta Maurya who defeated Seucas Nicator after Alex's death got Selucas's beautiful daughter in marriage as one of the agreements in compromise. The other being that Selucas will leave the all Indian territories forever & rule persia & him being gifted 500 war elephants by Chandragupta to help him fight the rebels in his empire. What is important is that Chandragupta started a clan that had some of the best emperors modern india has had so far. Including the famed Ashoka the great, who contributed to spreading Buddhism all over the world. This lineage was half greek, half indian as they had been born to Greek mother (Selucas's daughter) & Indian father (Chandragupta). this Greek part in the lineage possibly led to a lot of Greek influence in that part of cultural history. Chandragupta maurya's personal bodyguards were composed of Greek Women loyal to the daughter of Selucas specially trained as an elite corps by Chanakya. This was done by Chandragupta's Godfather Chanakya to avoid any clash of interests as Greeks would not have any affiliation with any other indian king who opposed Chandragupta. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 04:35
!!!
More please... is this fact or fiction? ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 04:51
Fascinating.
------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 06:32
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. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 12:07
Wasn't the original question of this thread pertaining to the "ifs and buts"? ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 12:11
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. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 01:51
|
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. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 07:02
Vivek, our countries' historical connections are so rich
 ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 07:36
|
Yes Hellios, Further Selucas's daughter brought with herself her friends & maid servants whom Vishnugupta trained to be fierce warriors & turned them into an elite personal bodyguard division of Chandragupta Maurya in the royal palace.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 08:18
|
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. |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 08:32
| Just so you know, they are not the Gupta's. The Gupta empire was another empire in India a few hundred years later. I plan on writting an article on it shortly. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 08:44
|
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") |
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 09:19
|
They are two very different dynasties. I believe that you are getting confused for two reasons: 1) The inclusion of the name gupta in Chandragupta Maurya. It is only part of his name and not part of his children. The most famous is his grandson called Asoka, under whose reign, the empire expanded into Iran, Afganistan and all of India unincluding the Southern tip, which paid tribute to him. 2) There is a emporor in the Gupta dynasty called Chandragupta I. As far as i know, he has no blood connection to Chandragupta Maurya and merely shares a name. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 01:47
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 09:42
It would be nice to have maid guards  ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 02:40
|
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.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 20:36
|
Sorry, no. While I'm no expert by any means, how exactly could he conquer whole India, if he lost 3/4 of his troops on his short voyage, almost died, lost his famous horse...? As Plutarch wrote:
------------- The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed. |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 00:25
|
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  |
Posted By: Josip
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 11:22
|
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. Also, India at that time had around 1/3 of world population, at least from what I've read. And third, based on Plutarch wrote, numbers would be of no avail. Alexander defeated much much larger Persian army, but in India he had serious problems defeated Porus alone, who had (according to Plutarch) few times smaller army. Sure, Alexander didn't have as many greeks as at te beginning of campaign, but too many "what ifs" may cloud the discussion so I'll let that be. 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. 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. 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. I'll just paste a paragraph from this very website:
------------- The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed. |
Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 00:28
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.
What kind of evidence are you talking about?
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...
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. |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 22:22
|
The supply lines would be cut off, different tatics would have to be used, and many of the Indian allies would have joined together and defeated Alexander. Chandragupta was also a powerful Indian leader, and even Alexander had problems with Porus. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 23:32
|
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. |