Alexander the Great

**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.

**Kraxis** · 10-31-2005, 12:26

If we assume that the homegrown troops had not opted to resist Alexander, then I believe there would have been a series of battles in rapid succession. Alexander, having learned from his experience against Porus would have become better and better against the Indian armies.
But eventually he would realize that India was not really worth it. Unpleasant and far between riches (oh yes there were riches). He would sign agreements similar to protectorates and then head off to fight the Chinese instead.