I think after he took over part of India, his next conquest i heard was of Arabia, i do not think he was going to go much further.

Anyways, you are talking of a huge unified place, while alexanders army was still far away from Hellas.. he could not raise as many men as perhaps the Unified India could of

Mystic,

You start from a false premise. You are assuming somehow, just because Mauryan empire defeated Seleukos army there would be the same result with Alexander.

Its the same faulty logic to assume from the other side that just because Alexander defeated Poros he would defeat easily every Indian army OR as i have heard elsewhere, just because much later, Phillip V was using the same macedonian tactics against Romans and they crushed him, they would have done the same with Alexander.

All these leaders, even if they used the same tactics didnt shared the same military skills and in fact Seleukos and Phillip V were extremely inferior in comparison with Alexander's authentic military talent. Remember also back in that times, a leader's military brilliance during a battle was perhaps the most determinant factor for the outcome of a battle and Alexander had proved it in many battles.

I also dont see the point, if i was in Alexander's shoes, why should i march against a large and well-trained army like the Mauryans. I would simply used diplomacy by bribing one or two Indian leaders and  turn them against Mauryans. Remember greed is always one very effective weapon.

As for the Mongolian option, Alexander had fought, and defeated, cavalry heavy armies (including cavalry archers) before.

Let's not forget that the effective range of a cavalry archer of the time was 50m. Alexander used non-Greek (I believe they were from the eastern part of the ex-Persian empire) cavalry archers (Hippotoxotes), against Porus in the battle of Hydaspes, but mainly as a diversion.

As we see he was able to engage different types of troops according to the type of war he was conducting and to the terrain and type of enemy he was facing. A main example of the above was his campaign against Spitamenes, when he had to face a guerilla war, instead of big scale battles.

Besides Seleucus, there is another not so well known Greek general that may shed some light on martial relations between the Successors and the Indians. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

MENANDER (MILINDA), a Graeco-Indian dynast. When the Graeco-Indian king Demetrius had been beaten by Eucratides of Bactria, about 160 B.C., and the kingdom of Eucratides (q.v.) dissolved after his assassination (c. 150 n.e.), a Greek dynasty maintained itself in the Kabul Valley and the Punjab. The only two kings of this dynasty mentioned by classical authors are Apollodotus and Menander, who conquered a great part of India. Trogus Pompeius described in his forty-first book (see the prologue) the Indian history of these kings, Apollodotus and Menander, and Strabo, Xi. 516, mentions from Apollodotus of Artemita, the historian of the Parthians, that Menander conquered more tribes than Alexander, as he crossed the Hypanis to the east and advanced to the Isamus; he and other kings (especially Demetrius) occupied also Patalene (the district of Patala near Hyderabad on the head of the delta of the Indus) and the coast which is called the district of Saraostes (i.e. Syrastene, in mod. Gujarat, Brahman Saurashtra) and the kingdom of Sigerdis (not otherwise known); and they extended their dominion to the Seres (i.e. the Chinese) and Phryni (?). The last statement is an exaggeration, probably based upon the fact that from the mouth of the Indus trade went as far as China.

That the old coins of Apollodotus and Menander, with Greek legends, were still in currency in Barygaza (mod. Broach), the great port of Gujarat, about A.D. 70 we are told by the Periplus mans Erythraei, 48. We possess many of these coins, which follow the Indian standard and are artistically degenerate as compared with the earlier Graeco-Bactrian and Graeco-Indian coins, with bilingual legends (Greek and Kharoshti, see BACTRIA). Apollodotus, who must have been the earlier of the two kings, bears the titles Soter, Philopator, and Great King ; Menander, who must have reigned a long time, as his portrait is young on some coins and old on others, calls himself Soter and Just (~LKmoc). Their reigns may be placed about 14080 B.C. Menander appears in Indian traditions as Milinda; he is praised by the Buddhists, whose religion he is said to have adopted, and who in the Miuindapanha or Milinda Paho (see below), the questions of Milinda (Rhys Davids, Sacred Books of the East, 35., 36.) relate his discourses with the wise Nagasena. According to the Indians, the Greeks conquered Ayodbya and Pataliputra (Palimbothra, mod. Patna); so the conjecture of Cunningham that the river Isamus of Strabo is the Son, the great southern tributary of the Ganges (near Patna), may be true. The Buddhists praise the power and military, force, the energy and wisdom of Milinda ; and a Greek tradition preserved by Plutarch (Praec. reip. ger. 28, 6) relates that when Menander, one of the Bactrian kings, died on a campaign after a mild rule, all the subject towns disputed about the honor of his burial, till at last his ashes were divided between them in equal parts. (The Buddhist tradition relates a similar story of the relics of Buddha.) Besides Apollodotus and Menander, we know from the coins a great many other Greek kings of western India, among whom two with the name of Straton are most conspicuous. The last of them, with degenerate coins, seems to have been Hermaeus Soter. These Greek dynasts may have maintained themselves, in some part of India till about 40 B.c. But at this time the west, Kabul and the Punjab were already in the hands of a barbarous dynasty,, most of whom have Iranian (Parthian) names, and who seem therefore to have been of Arsacid origin (cf. Vincent A. Smith, The Indo-Parthian Dynasties from about I20 B.C. to A.D. 100, in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft, 1906, lx. 69 sqq.). Among them Manes, two kings named Azes, Vonones and especially Gondophares or }fyndophares are the most conspicuous. The latter, whose date is fixed by an inscription from the Kabul Valley dated from the year 103 of the Samvat era ( = A.D. 46), is famous by the legend of St Thomas, where he occurs as king of India under the name of Gundaphar. Soon afterwards the Mongolian Scyths (called Saka by the Indians), who had conquered Bactria in 139 s.c., invaded India and founded the great Indo-Scythian kingdom of the Kushan dynasty. (See BACTRIA;

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.

The Nandas had created a huge professional army.  Greek sources claim it at 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 3,000 elephants, and 2,000 chariots!  And there was no huge technological gap between the two like you seem to be suggesting.

Oh yes ! , there was a gap. The only thing Alexander would have to seriously deal with where the elephants. The rest of the indian army was not a match for the Greeks. And come to think of it , Alexander faced elephants for the first time in his life in the battle of Hydaspes. He made a good laugh out of them ! Imagine what would happen if he was prepared for such a clash.

The man was invincible , so stop all that stuff " if that " , " if this " , " had Alexander faced a unified Indian , Chinese , Martian..e.t.c. army " 

That Makedonians got a hard victory over one of the weaker Indian kingdoms when they had the numerical advantage, but that certainly doesn't mean they could've defeated Dhana Nanda's massive, well-trained army.  Take the numbers into consideration:  Alexander's cavalry would've been outnumbered 1:2 (and the disadvantage would've been even greater had I not rounded about 8,000 horse up to 10,000) and his infantry was outnumbered by 170,000 (and that's not even mentioning the 3,000 elephants and 2,000 chariots)!  Put your bias aside and realize how dominating the numbers of this Indian power would've been.  No 40,000-strong force of the time could defeat a 225,000-strong force.

His terrified troops weren't laughing.  After they heard rumors of a 4,000-strong force of elephants across the Hyphases, they began to mutiny and Alexander had to re-distribute armor to make them feel more protected.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar Funilly enough i've never heard of you Lannes, how did i miss your posts?!

Heh, not sure.  I suppose I'm not very memorable.

How about telling me how strong exacly the Indian infantry for example was. What tactics where they familiar with? , phallanxes? , cohortes? or where they just shouting out loud like the Persians and ran , in no order at all , towards the enemy forces?

Did they rely only in their numbers?  

He himself may have laughed at those elephants but his men certainly weren't. In fact, part of the reason they wanted to turn around was exactly that, being terrified of fighting thousands of elephants. Either way, you really give Alexander too much credit.

They primarily served as archers (the elephants would do the bulk of the actual attacking), though they had large swords for close-quarters combat. 

You should note that Pauravan army at Hyphases wasn't acting in the typical Indian fashion.  The elephant line was oddly defensive in the battle (presumably had to do with the cavalry transfer that took place).

And how many lived in Alexanders huge empire? At least the number India also had. And also, numbers aren't this important when it is just poor peasant farmers, as much of the population was.

The Persians also had a huge, but CRAPPY army. Who thought that Alexander would be able to defeat the huge Persian army? You speak of a huge, well trained army, but where have they proven themselves? Against the weaker buffer states? Alexander's army was experienced, and that comes a long way. Maybe Alexander would of recruited some mercenaries from India if he actually planned a full out assault on the Indian subcontinent, which I highly doubt.

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.

The Nandas had been fighting for years.  Their initial expansion (southwards) saw them defeat many peoples and kingdoms (Ikshvakus, Kurus, Kalingas, etc).  And the Mauryans certainly proved they were capable of conquest from the get go (they would've been using a large part if not all of the former Nandan army.  In fact, Chandragupta is mentioned as 'inheriting' a huge army from the last Nandan king, which he would soon expand).

You really think they could field and feed 600,000 soldiers for a long period of time? This seems unreasonible in ancient times..

In this case you're very swift to limit the numbers of Persians, although most researchers agree to 200,000 and only one mentions your figure (can't remember the name right now) but you're equally fast to accept that Indians could field 600,000 armies. Who would feed them, train them, arm them and finally lead such crowd into battle?

An elephand demands 200 kilos of food per day. 4,000 of them would need 800,000 k per day. If they stay pinned at the sane place for over two days they would starve

That number has come more and more into question in mondern times.  John Warry agrees with around 90-100,000, Delbr�ck even puts them much lower than that, and Victor Davis Hanson agrees at around 100,000.  Anyway, the bulk of the army were ill-prepared reserve levy (of which most saw little to no combat).

I've never seen numbers to the contrary for either the Nandan army or the Mauryan army(if you know some, I'd love to see).  While 639,000 may be a stretch, the Mauryan army was nevertheless going to be larger than the Nandan army(the empire grew and Chandragupta made a specific point of recruiting). 

Remember Indian leaders - or at least some of them - at the time of Alexander, didnt exactly liked eachother. If you keep in mind that it was the king of Taxila, Ambhi (sp?) who invited Alexander to support him and defeat Porus, you can imagine it wouldnt be difficult at all for Alexander to repeat it with other Indian leaders. At the time he defeated Porus, i doubt there was even a united Mauryan empire.

Not always!! Remember the example of Rome during Macedonian wars -especially the third - and the stand of greek cities where even in front of the fear of subjection to Rome, not only they didnt united but on the contrary, a few of them allied with Rome in order to destroy the rest.

How long do you think he would have lasted living in the lavish way he did? Not to mention many of the soldiers he had were trained since his father's time. They were specialty. It would have taken years to properly train new armies to that level.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Indeed, Egyptians only served as auxiliaries in Ptolemaic armies.

When your say "South Africa" you don't actually meant "south", right?

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

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.  

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.

[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.

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