Alexander the Great

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 10-30-2005, 17:06

Alexander had many conquests all through Asia and India. Many said he couldn't be beaten, but he didn't even meet the greatest Indian empire there was. Could he have beaten them? I don't know...here is some food for thought...

In Magadha, Megasthenes reported a sales tax of 10%, while throughout the territories a tax of 20% was applied to all produce (with a 20% trading-surcharge). Philosophers, however, were exempt from taxation. One quarter of total revenue was reserved for major works, the salaries of civil servants, and the maintenance of a standing army of (according to Megasthenes) 9,000 elephants, 30,000 cavalry, and 600,000 infantry.

I'm sure this is an exageration, but still the army must have huge numbers. Numbers that Alexander could not possibly defeat, even with superior tactics.

In 305 Seleukos Nikator invaded the Punjab. It is not known wether there had been battle or not, but it is certain that Chandragupta kept the Punjab and annexed three of the richest provinces of Seleukos. Also, the border was moved to the western side of the Hindu Kush. The young Empire was secured.
Then it was time to launch a new campaign; Ashoka invaded the kingdom of Kalinga in southern India and conquered it after a long and bloody war.

Seleukos Nikator was a great general, but he was defeated by Chandragupta. If he was defeated Chandragupta must have had excellent tactics, thus being able to possibly beat a foreward movement of Alexander.

Then it was time to launch a new campaign; Ashoka invaded the kingdom of Kalinga in southern India and conquered it after a long and bloody war.

The Magadha empire conquered the southern Indians which was a great feet. They were the uniters of India, and a United India could defeat the Macedonians, in my opinion...

After the removal of a loyal ruler and his troops, it became possible for the king of Magadha, Sandracottus (Chandragupta Maurya), to conquer the Indus valley. This meant the end of the Macedonian empire in the east, less than ten years after the invasion

After the war, the Magadha empire crippled the
eastern Macedonian empire. They had their revenge.

**The Wizard** · 10-30-2005, 18:35

Chandragupta only rose to power after Alexander left India, taking control of the kingdom of Maghada and expanding from there, creating the Mauryan Empire. He even claimed to have learned from Alexander's feats and mistakes.

The Maghada Alexander was opting to face was an internally weakened, declining state -- hence why Chandragupta had such an easy time rising to power within it. Ruled by the aging, ailing Dhana Nanda, who was referred to by Porus as "merely the son of a barber", which is an Indian proverb for not only someone born into a low caste, but also a weak man. As such he did not have the loyalty of his court nor his people; Maghada was nothing more than house of cards waiting to be blown apart. In this case it was not Alexander, but Chandragupta who did so, a mere three years after Alexander built his twelve pillars and made to leave India.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 10-30-2005, 19:30

I still think it is a good question as whether Alexander could have conquered all of India. Porus was problem enough, but it is made worse when he was only an outer province.

Many powerful armies lay further ahead, that Alexander would have had a heck of a time with...

**nokhor** · 10-30-2005, 22:50

i think alexander's military acumen was surpassed by his political skills. the guy who could simulataneously be king of macedonia, hegemon of greece, pharoah of egypt, shahanshah of iran and make it all work, would have found a way to exploit the divisions in chandragupta's empire. as he had already shown an ability to adapt his strategies and his tactics to the different types of foes he fought, and he had already defeated indian forces similar in composition to the one he would have faced vs chandragupta, i think alex would most likely win in a struggle between the two.

i am a bit suspicious of the link between chandragupta and alex though. i've heard some of the stories, and while i believe that chandragupta knew of and may have been motivated in part by the tales of a great empire builder, i don't think that knowledge of alexander was a necessary condition for chandragupta's achievement. just as i don't think that aristotle tutoring alex for a couple of years was a necessary condition of alex's achievements, or the fact that phillip happened to be in thebes during the glory years of epaminondas is a necessary condtion for phil's achievements.

**Cataphract_Of_The_City** · 10-31-2005, 02:37

Keep in mind that if Alexander decided to go on instead of turning back, he had a force of 300 trained war elephants (which he would use in their utmost efficiency and in innovative ways), a large, battle hardened and superbly drilled army and he was the richest king in the world, with the resources of millions upon millions of people from Greece to Bactria. He had faced one Indian army and he was quite adept at learning from his mistakes. Huge numbers he had faced and in locations where they could be used in outmost efficiency. India is not exactly the place where huge numbers can operate with impunity. As such, I can't see any single reason on why wouldn't Alexander be capable of conquering the whole of India.

**Rosacrux redux** · 10-31-2005, 11:33

But Alexander wouldn't be able to move on eastwards - it was not his decision to back off, it was the will of his veteran soldiers. He alone couldn't do much now, could he?

Alexander was a victim of the Greek culture, in that account. Had he had an army of easteners, they would march with him to the end of the world and beyond. But with the strong-minded, individualist Greeks... well, after so many years of campaigning they just wouldn't take it any more.

As to the "what if" side of the argument... I think he could effectively play a different game here - divide and conquer. I tend to think of him as a rather innovative statesman ...I believe a pupil of Aristotle, commanding the vast resources of the Graeco-Persian empire, would be absolutely capable of playing one against the other the Indian hegemons, ally with one to take out the other... What the Romans did in the eastern mediteranea, just in a reduced timeframe. I don't think it would be easy to take and hold by solely brute force India, but he knew his trade well and was an exceptional military leader.

**Steppe Merc** · 10-31-2005, 15:03

Even if Alexander had managed to keep his army together for India, no way they would last all the way to China. His eastern troops might, since the power of a king was a lot more absolute in the Persian mind, and they were more used to the cultures on the way to China, but no way his Greeks would. In addition, I really doubt that he could have defeated the Chinese. Not because of their military skills so much as the fact that his empire could not have stayed intact with him so far away. Evantaully Greece would revolt or Iranian nomads would have invaded Central Asia, or some place would have revolted, and in order to keep his empire he would have needed to rush back.

**Conqueror** · 10-31-2005, 15:17

How would he even GET to China in the first place? Due to this little rock formation we call the Himalayas, he'd have to go either through South-East Asia, or cross the steppes. Marching any sizeable army (and for invading China he'd need a BIG one) through either route would be difficult to say the least.

**Geoffrey S** · 10-31-2005, 16:55

But wasn't that what Alexander was best at, getting troops to do things often thought too difficult or even impossible?

If Alexander had had a chance to use his new Persian armies rather than his Macedonians there's a good chance there wouldn't be trouble over troops refusing to go further. He had a knack for making the best of unexpected problems or new experiences.

**AquaLurker** · 10-31-2005, 19:14

Maybe Alexander can defeat the martians lol.

**Seleukos** · 10-31-2005, 22:07

the Greeks did it.

Alexander died young,but the Greek kingdom of Bactria did it.
After the revolt against the Seleucuds and establishment by Diodorus(ar.250 BC) -some decades passed and it was devided in 2-East and West.
The Eastern part invaded ,when kings was Demetrius and then Menander, ito mainland India,conquering all the valley of Ganghes -the greatest part of Northern India.

(Menander survived in Indian myths).

So,u think Alexander couldnt have done it ? hm....

I

**Steppe Merc** · 10-31-2005, 23:23

Originally Posted by Conqueror

How would he even GET to China in the first place? Due to this little rock formation we call the Himalayas, he'd have to go either through South-East Asia, or cross the steppes. Marching any sizeable army (and for invading China he'd need a BIG one) through either route would be difficult to say the least.

Yeah, no way Alex could have marched his entire army through the steppe. He was good, and could beat nomadic armies, but fighting them in the open steppe is different. If tried to conquer the nomads on the way, that is (like Darius). If he ignored them, they would probably end up raiding his baggage and supply lines (he would really need them in order to cross the steppe. Their horses couldn't exist solely on the steppe grass, not to mention his soldiers). If he made alliances with the a few of the tribes, he might go farther, expect for the fact that steppe mercanaries have often turned on their employers if they think someone else will pay them more.

I know nothing about the Himilyans, so I can't comment on that.

Seleukos, an army can invade India. The question was, could Alex's? And I think not, because of his tempermental Greek troops. If he just had Persians and other Central Asian troops he conquered, I think he would do better, not only morale wise, but also fast hitting skirmishers cavalry is better than phalanxes against elephants.