Alexander the Great conquers India; What are the effects of a Hellenic India

[dreadnought jenkins]

So lets say that Alexander lives longer. He does not have to conquer India on the first try, but eventually he does, replacing the Mauryan dynasty as the would be conqueror of India.

Eventually of course, Alexander dies and even if he left a viable heir I doubt that heir would have been able to hold an empire stretching from India to the Mediterranean, though I don't care if he does.

What I'm interested in is what are the effects of a Hellenic Empire in charge of India. This empire can be run by an actual descendant of Alexander, or it can be run by one of his generals in a carve up similar to what happened OTL following Alexander's death.

Can Buddhism and Jainism make a bigger splash in the West?
What would the effects of Greek political and religious ideas have on India?

Im just curious to the effects.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Personally, I'd call ASB on the premise. I don't see any possible way Alexander could take India, no matter how long he lived. Magadha would just be too capable an enemy for him to beat, especially when he's going to have to rely on the most ridiculously long supply line. He doesn't have the most mobile of armies, and between Magadha and Persia is just miles and miles of harsh desert, and then high mountains full of dangerous tribes opposing them.

[ImmortalImpi]

Chandragupta makes Hydaspes seem like a joy ride.

[Tangerine]

Any possibility that the Seleucids might make a successful attempt at conquering lands beyond the Indus? Maybe if they had a more secure basis in the Near East (weaker Ptolemies perhaps), they might be able to shift focus east with some success. This could be combined with the erasure or marginalization of Chandragupta Maurya somehow to give the Seleucids a good chance against Magadha.

I'd be interested to know if this is at all plausible. Certainly there's no way the Seleucids could establish overlordship over all India like the Mauryans, but what about just replacing Magadha as the most influential player on the subcontinent, if only for a short time?

[freethinker]

Why not Alexander draft a large fleet for India instead of Arabia and dose not die? Hmm.. send some phonecians and persains to clean up Goa?

[Massa Chief]

To be able to conquer such a large area in such a short amount of time, you'd need to butterfly away Sandrakottos and this Magadha person. If the is assassinated along with any possible successors (preferably after they originally consolidates power, so that the old structures of the conquered lands are gone), than India is thrown into chaos. Alexander would also need a less tired army- he should play multiple sides against each other and invade late in his reign (this presumes he lives much longer).

In the chaos, Alexander would become a stabilizing force, and India would be conquered, piecemeal or otherwise. Have the son that will rule India marry a local (perhaps the daughter of Sandrakottos) to gain political legitimacy.. Of course, Hellenic India later on would have to be ruled by a cadet dynasty- it is too large to be ruled from anywhere other than India (at least, before the British came along).

[Shogun]

Any possibility that the Seleucids might make a successful attempt at conquering lands beyond the Indus? Maybe if they had a more secure basis in the Near East (weaker Ptolemies perhaps), they might be able to shift focus east with some success. This could be combined with the erasure or marginalization of Chandragupta Maurya somehow to give the Seleucids a good chance against Magadha.

I'd be interested to know if this is at all plausible. Certainly there's no way the Seleucids could establish overlordship over all India like the Mauryans, but what about just replacing Magadha as the most influential player on the subcontinent, if only for a short time?

The Mauryans never controlled all of India (although they came close)-nor did any dynasty since then until the British Raj. Under an energetic and ambitious ruler like Antiochus III, the Seleucids were more than capable of replacing the Mauryans (by then clearly in decline after the death of Ashoka) as a rival dynasty and occupying their former territories if they had wanted to.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

If he had a hard time conquering an insignificant polity by the Indus and his men bitched and moaned, wanting to return home, what makes you think he can conquer the rest of India?

[Badshah]

If he had a hard time conquering an insignificant polity by the Indus and his men bitched and moaned, wanting to return home, what makes you think he can conquer the rest of India?
Yep. Not to mention the humongous amount of soldiers in India at the time. As well as the deadly war elephants, which at this point, would be very tough to counter. Chandragupta would destroy his armies.

[Badshah]

The Mauryans never controlled all of India (although they came close)-nor did any dynasty since then until the British Raj. Under an energetic and ambitious ruler like Antiochus III, the Seleucids were more than capable of replacing the Mauryans (by then clearly in decline after the death of Ashoka) as a rival dynasty and occupying their former territories if they had wanted to.
Yes they did. The small southern portion they didn't control at max extent was a vassal, so technically...

[TyranicusMaximus]

Even if Alexander gets his men to continue, and smashes an Indian army, so what? He's going to have to smash more than one if he wants to be successful. At some point, he's going to run out of men, and it's going to be sooner rather than later.

Except Maghada's reinforcements don't have to march through a desert.

[Shogun]

And why is everyone fixated on Alexander conquering India? I accept that he could not force his men to continue any further -so why not move on, and discuss one of the Seleucids doing it under more ideal circumstances, like the ruler I have just mentioned?

[Flocculencio]

Yes they did. The small southern portion they didn't control at max extent was a vassal, so technically...

Nope- you're mistaking the Indian concept of Empire. Indian Empires were never centralised. What tended to happen was that a powerful enough king would make local rulers his vassals- he'd replace the ones who fought but the ones who submitted stayed in place. This was why Indian empires tended to be fragile.

When you look at maps of the Mauryan Empire, most of that consisted of vassal kingdoms.

This stil doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that Alexander or the Seleucids could have mounted a successful invasion of India with lasting conquests.

[TyranicusMaximus]

Nope- you're mistaking the Indian concept of Empire. Indian Empires were never centralised. What tended to happen was that a powerful enough king would make local rulers his vassals- he'd replace the ones who fought but the ones who submitted stayed in place. This was why Indian empires tended to be fragile.

When you look at maps of the Mauryan Empire, most of that consisted of vassal kingdoms.

True, but as an OT aside, weren't the Mughals more centralized than most European states, at least in the 1600s?

[Shogun]

This stil doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that Alexander or the Seleucids could have mounted a successful invasion of India with lasting conquests.

Why? Among other weapons and tactics, the Seleucids would have had access to elephants and would have known how to use them in battle after about a century of continuous co-existence with the Mauryan Empire by the time Antiochus III would have ascended to the throne.

[Flocculencio]

Why? Among other weapons and tactics, the Seleucids would have had access to elephants and would have known how to use them in battle after about a century of continuous co-existence with the Mauryan Empire by the time Antiochus III would have ascended to the throne.

The Selucids were overstretched as it was. Campaigning in Indian would have required coordinating an invasion across mountains and desert while the Maurya would have none of the logistical issues involved.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

To be able to conquer such a large area in such a short amount of time, you'd need to butterfly away Sandrakottos and this Magadha person. If the is assassinated along with any possible successors (preferably after they originally consolidates power, so that the old structures of the conquered lands are gone), than India is thrown into chaos. Alexander would also need a less tired army- he should play multiple sides against each other and invade late in his reign (this presumes he lives much longer).
Magadha is a kingdom, not a person, and it's kind of weird that you'd insist on using the Hellenization of Chandragupta that I've seen nobody else ever use.
Why? Among other weapons and tactics, the Seleucids would have had access to elephants and would have known how to use them in battle after about a century of continuous co-existence with the Mauryan Empire by the time Antiochus III would have ascended to the throne.
The Seleucids didn't nearly have as many elephants as India, and if they try to fight the Mauryas they will lose all access to them. That, and the Indians have a lot more men than the Seleucids and, again, no massive supply line stretching across the Gedrosian desert and the Hindu Kush to maintain.

[Flocculencio]

True, but as an OT aside, weren't the Mughals more centralized than most European states, at least in the 1600s?

It tended to depend on the Emperor- you'll notice that a lot of Indian princely titless (e.g. Nawab or Gaekwar) actually translate to something like "Deputy" or "Viceroy" while others are the standard Indian titles of Raja and Maharaja- this shows where local rulers either submitted and were kept as vassals or fought and were overthrown and replaced with Mughal deputies. Once the central government weakened the old pattern took over and the regions split off.

[Badshah]

Nope- you're mistaking the Indian concept of Empire. Indian Empires were never centralised. What tended to happen was that a powerful enough king would make local rulers his vassals- he'd replace the ones who fought but the ones who submitted stayed in place. This was why Indian empires tended to be fragile.

When you look at maps of the Mauryan Empire, most of that consisted of vassal kingdoms.

This stil doesn't change the fact that it's highly unlikely that Alexander or the Seleucids could have mounted a successful invasion of India with lasting conquests.
The map on wikipedia only shows two vassals, with the majority being administrated by the Mauryas themselves, but I get where you're coming from. However this was virtually the same in European empires, what with the Dukes and the Barons etc. It's not inconceivable to say that an Indian empire couldn't be strong. In fact it is a trait of all countries, let alone empires

[Flocculencio]

The map on wikipedia only shows two vassals, with the majority being administrated by the Mauryas themselves, but I get where you're coming from. However this was virtually the same in European empires, what with the Dukes and the Barons etc. It's not inconceivable to say that an Indian empire couldn't be strong.

Oh I'm not arguing that at all. The difference, I think, in Europe was that there was at least some sort of legitimization beyond administrative and military strength. In Europe even if a new king was weak you generally wouldn't have barons and dukes declaring independence outright whereas that was often the case in Indian politics. The Mughals are a perfect example- when weak rulers came along everyone started ignoring Delhi.

[Badshah]

Oh I'm not arguing that at all. The difference, I think, in Europe was that there was at least some sort of legitimization beyond administrative and military strength. In Europe even if a new king was weak you generally wouldn't have barons and dukes declaring independence outright whereas that was often the case in Indian politics. The Mughals are a perfect example- when weak rulers came along everyone started ignoring Delhi.
They ignored Delhi, but still acknowledged their legitimacy over their land. Something that was more or less common. Had we seen the Empire last in its strength a century longer, then we wouldn't really see that anymore.

[Badshah]

This sort of discussion on the Mughals is helping with my timeline though, and something I should explore as it continues.

[Shogun]

The Selucids were overstretched as it was. Campaigning in Indian would have required coordinating an invasion across mountains and desert while the Maurya would have none of the logistical issues involved.

Against the Mauryan Empire at its height under either Chandragupta Maurya or Asoka, I would definitely agree an invasion would be foolhardy. Against a declining and disunited polity that the Mauryans clearly were in the timeline that I am talking about, I beg to differ. This would be the golden opportunity for the Seleucids under Antiochus III to attack when they are at their strongest and their enemies to their east at their weakest -and there wouldn't be the issue of tired, depleted, and homesick men that Alexander Megas had to deal with that effectively forced him to turn back.

I agree with you that the Seleucid Empire would be stretched to the breaking point with an invasion of India -but if the invasion were successful (and I think there is a very excellent chance of that happening), the Seleucids would likely move their capital to Magadha or some other city along the Ganges Plain, thus starting the process of hellenization that would profoundly influence India for centuries to come long after the Seleucids. By the time the Seleucid Empire outside of India would disintegrate due to over-expansion, the dynasty itself would have found a new home within the Indian subcontinent, and survive. If it plays its cards right, the Seleucids within India could last for about as long the Mauryans did before them.

[King Gorilla]

They ignored Delhi, but still acknowledged their legitimacy over their land. Something that was more or less common. Had we seen the Empire last in its strength a century longer, then we wouldn't really see that anymore.

They acknowledged Delhi only insofar as it granted them legitimacy. It is one thing for the Nizam of Hyderabad to maintain the Mughal title, administrative system, while symbolically swearing fealty towards the distant and enfeebled empire. Its another for him to provide Delhi with tax revenue, military levies, and to acknowledge its political supremacy.

For much of the Mughal empire, the Zamindars were their province's hereditary princes and kings. When the empire was no longer able to enforce its authority, said individuals merely reverted towards independently ruling their traditional principalities as if nothing had changed in the intervening 300 years.

[Major Major]

What did Chandragupta himself say?

I watched Alexander when I was still a young man; Alexander had been within an ace of seizing India, because its king was so hated and despised, both for his character and his low birth.

From Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans, Life of Alexander, 62.9


Chandragupta met Alexander, apparently, in 326 BC[E]. Chandragupta was around fourteen then.

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Against the Mauryan Empire at its height under either Chandragupta Maurya or Asoka, I would definitely agree an invasion would be foolhardy. Against a declining and disunited polity that the Mauryans clearly were in the timeline that I am talking about, I beg to differ. This would be the golden opportunity for the Seleucids under Antiochus III to attack when they are at their strongest and their enemies to their east at their weakest -and there wouldn't be the issue of tired, depleted, and homesick men that Alexander Megas had to deal with that effectively forced him to turn back.

I agree with you that the Seleucid Empire would be stretched to the breaking point with an invasion of India -but if the invasion were successful (and I think there is a very excellent chance of that happening), the Seleucids would likely move their capital to Magadha or some other city along the Ganges Plain, thus starting the process of hellenization that would profoundly influence India for centuries to come long after the Seleucids. By the time the Seleucid Empire outside of India would disintegrate due to over-expansion, the dynasty itself would have found a new home within the Indian subcontinent, and survive. If it plays its cards right, the Seleucids within India could last for about as long the Mauryans did before them.

They couldn't even keep the east from the Parthians and Greco-Bactrians or the west from the emerging Anatolian states, what makes you think they can honestly hold onto India, so much as Hellenize it? There's only as many Greeks as you can spread around.

[Flocculencio]

Against the Mauryan Empire at its height under either Chandragupta Maurya or Asoka, I would definitely agree an invasion would be foolhardy. Against a declining and disunited polity that the Mauryans clearly were in the timeline that I am talking about, I beg to differ. This would be the golden opportunity for the Seleucids under Antiochus III to attack when they are at their strongest and their enemies to their east at their weakest -and there wouldn't be the issue of tired, depleted, and homesick men that Alexander Megas had to deal with that effectively forced him to turn back.

I agree with you that the Seleucid Empire would be stretched to the breaking point with an invasion of India -but if the invasion were successful (and I think there is a very excellent chance of that happening), the Seleucids would likely move their capital to Magadha or some other city along the Ganges Plain, thus starting the process of hellenization that would profoundly influence India for centuries to come long after the Seleucids. By the time the Seleucid Empire outside of India would disintegrate due to over-expansion, the dynasty itself would have found a new home within the Indian subcontinent, and survive. If it plays its cards right, the Seleucids within India could last for about as long the Mauryans did before them.

Like Cuāuhtemōc says, I doubt they could actually do this. I suspect that even if they did somehow conquer and hold the Indo-gangetic plain, you'd see them being Indianised rather than India being Hellenised. If the empire outside India is disintegrating how is it that they can hold on in what would be their most recently occupied, least Hellenised and most heavily populated provinces?

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Like Cuāuhtemōc says, I doubt they could actually do this. I suspect that even if they did somehow conquer and hold the Indo-gangetic plain, you'd see them being Indianised rather than India being Hellenised. If the empire outside India is disintegrating how is it that they can hold on in what would be their most recently occupied, least Hellenised and most heavily populated provinces?

Oddly enough that is what I was considering in a timeline concept I was doing and I remembered you posted a thread of a Hellenistic empire in India a few years back....fascinating stuff! :)

[dreadnought jenkins]

Oddly enough that is what I was considering in a timeline concept I was doing and I remembered you posted a thread of a Hellenistic empire in India a few years back....fascinating stuff! :)

Actually, it was the threads by Flocc of a Hellenistic empire in India that inspired me to write this thread.

Quite frankly, I was not caring so much about the how this could happen (though I understand that is of immense importance to most people on this site). In fact, I could have cared less if the Greeks were Indianised totally. Im slowly trying to pull together a religious timeline idea, and I wanted a more Indian influx of ideas into the eastern Mediterranean to flavour up some of the religious movements during that era (I know Buddhism was known to the west, but I wanted it to have a bigger impact).

[King Gorilla]

Quite frankly, I was not caring so much about the how this could happen (though I understand that is of immense importance to most people on this site). In fact, I could have cared less if the Greeks were Indianised totally. Im slowly trying to pull together a religious timeline idea, and I wanted a more Indian influx of ideas into the eastern Mediterranean to flavour up some of the religious movements during that era (I know Buddhism was known to the west, but I wanted it to have a bigger impact).

I can think of a couple consequences that would likely emerge from this. Alexander would probably found another Alexandria either near the Indus river delta or perhaps in Gujarat. Said city would be the primary site of Hellanic culture, although most of its "Hellanic" inhabitants would likely be Persian.

Although Alexander "conquers" the Indo-Gangeatic plain mostly he just wins the temporary fealty of its native kings who spend a generation as Satraps before resuming their traditional independence. Alexander remains however in Indian folklore, alternatingly being seen as a god, a king amongst kings, or as a somewhat comical conqueror.

A rump Hellenic kingdom remains, centered around Alexandria which becomes an important maritime trading center. The west trades precious metals, horses, and wine in exchange for spices, silk and cotton cloth, and gemstones. Although elements of Greek (and Persian) culture remain, it is almost completely Indianized over the span of 2-3 generations. Said Kingdom is eventually conquered by a native Indian king, declines as its european ties wither, and is ultimately leveled by invading horse nomads from central Asia.

[Flocculencio]

Oddly enough that is what I was considering in a timeline concept I was doing and I remembered you posted a thread of a Hellenistic empire in India a few years back....fascinating stuff! :)

Yeah I had fun with that scenario- I do acknowledge that it was pretty damn implausible, though. When I write TLs I tend to go for entertainment value rather than accuracy.

[dreadnought jenkins]

I can think of a couple consequences that would likely emerge from this. Alexander would probably found another Alexandria either near the Indus river delta or perhaps in Gujarat. Said city would be the primary site of Hellanic culture, although most of its "Hellanic" inhabitants would likely be Persian.

Although Alexander "conquers" the Indo-Gangeatic plain mostly he just wins the temporary fealty of its native kings who spend a generation as Satraps before resuming their traditional independence. Alexander remains however in Indian folklore, alternatingly being seen as a god, a king amongst kings, or as a somewhat comical conqueror.

A rump Hellenic kingdom remains, centered around Alexandria which becomes an important maritime trading center. The west trades precious metals, horses, and wine in exchange for spices, silk and cotton cloth, and gemstones. Although elements of Greek (and Persian) culture remain, it is almost completely Indianized over the span of 2-3 generations. Said Kingdom is eventually conquered by a native Indian king, declines as its european ties wither, and is ultimately leveled by invading horse nomads from central Asia.

Thank you:)

Would at least a larger presence of Greeks in India allow a better transmission of Indian religious/philosophical ideas westwards?

[Sarantapechaina]

If you want a Greek-ruled India, the traditional route is via Demetrios I Aniketos, who launched the invasion of post-Maurya India in the 180s BC. Keep him around longer, probably by getting rid of Eukratides somehow, and you could certainly see a long-term Greek series of states dominating the Gangetic Plain instead of just the Indos Valley and the Mathura area.

[John Fredrick Parker]

The real (non-ASB) question is, could Alexander have conquered (or at least laid plausible claim to) the Indus River Valley, and if so, what would be the effects? Regardless of what happens to the rest of the continent, this is now three of the big four cradles of civilization under one empire...

[Winnabago]

Why not create a successful Persian conquest of India using Greek mercenaries, creating a hardy stock of Greeks and semi-Greek hoplites (who feel threatened) there willing to side with Alex against the Indians?

He’d get a nice pile of reinforcements, maybe the first campaign would never even end.

After must of the Indo-Gangetic plain is conquered, he dies of some tropical disease and another Greek empire (along with successor states in Egypt, Iraq-Persia, and Macedon) in India.

This empire becomes a bit like the Maurya dynasty, except it is Greek.

[Shogun]

Why not create a successful Persian conquest of India using Greek mercenaries, creating a hardy stock of Greeks and semi-Greek hoplites (who feel threatened) there willing to side with Alex against the Indians?

He’d get a nice pile of reinforcements, maybe the first campaign would never even end.

After must of the Indo-Gangetic plain is conquered, he dies of some tropical disease and another Greek empire (along with successor states in Egypt, Iraq-Persia, and Macedon) in India.

This empire becomes a bit like the Maurya dynasty, except it is Greek.

An intriguing idea -speaking of which, why didn't the Persians under the Achaemenids ever conquer India when they were at their OTL zenith?

[Elfwine]

An intriguing idea -speaking of which, why didn't the Persians under the Achaemenids ever conquer India when they were at their OTL zenith?

Because reality does not work like a Eurofed timeline, where the only limits to imperial expansion are that of the Emperor's imagination.

Same reason I doubt any semi-Greek colonies in India are going to feel much inclination to join Alexander on the very unlikely chance that Persia establishes them.

[Flocculencio]

An intriguing idea -speaking of which, why didn't the Persians under the Achaemenids ever conquer India when they were at their OTL zenith?

A lot of people don't seem to realise just how big India is.

India is a large again as the entire Persian Empire and it's far more heavily populated

[John Fredrick Parker]

A lot of people don't seem to realise just how big India is.

India is a large again as the entire Persian Empire and it's far more heavily populated

Right, that's why conquering "India", as such, is ASB -- the Indus River Valley (as far south, say, as the Gulf of Khambhat), that's another matter...

[Winnabago]

Because reality does not work like a Eurofed timeline, where the only limits to imperial expansion are that of the Emperor's imagination.

Same reason I doubt any semi-Greek colonies in India are going to feel much inclination to join Alexander on the very unlikely chance that Persia establishes them.

I imagined the Greeks (and their Indian wives) living in their own communities, feeling threatened by the Indian majority. So, they side with who is culturally and religiously similar to they are, same way Ethiopia sided with Europe against the Ottomans and their allies.

Then, Alex’s main army settles in India. OTL, Alex’s conquest was enough to Hellenize somewhere. Though the problem is that there are only two real opportunities for us to get a significant number of Greeks in India.

[Elfwine]

I imagined the Greeks (and their Indian wives) living in their own communities, feeling threatened by the Indian majority. So, they side with who is culturally and religiously similar to they are, same way Ethiopia sided with Europe against the Ottomans and their allies.

Then, Alex’s main army settles in India. OTL, Alex’s conquest was enough to Hellenize somewhere. Though the problem is that there are only two real opportunities for us to get a significant number of Greeks in India.

1) Why? Why would they join the conqueror, particularly when this conqueror has had absolutely no problem with killing Greeks loyal to Persia or suspected of being loyal to Persia or Greeks who he just happens to be paranoid about?

There's no reason for them to see this barbarian warlord as on their side more than the other Indians (used as "inhabitants of the subcontinent") If they have Indian wives, that just makes it worse - for Alexander and anyone else who thinks they'd say "Hey, fellow Greeks! Welcome!"

2) There is no way in hell Alex's main army is settling in India.

[Winnabago]

1) Because they were sitting in the middle of an alien culture, and also India is rich and is good plundering?

2) Let’s say he conquers the Indo-Gangetic plain. How exactly would he get out of India? India is a big place, and it would be difficult to get back to the Mideast. Same as when he settled in Babylon: find an important city, and plan your next attacks from there.

[CandyDragon]

As far as I see it, India, being more populous, with a more entrenched, alien civilisation, would entirely resist "Hellenization". I can't see even Northern India falling to Alex the Overachiever, nor to any other random genius Greek. Think of the situation the Ptolemies, and to an extent, the Seleucids, got their sorry asses into; a situation in which their primary source of military manpower, the Greeks, are massively outnumbered by the native population. When the Ptolemies allowed the natives to join the phalanx, that emboldened them to revolt. With India, this is significantly worse, as their are fewer opportunities for Greeks to emigrate, and a larger native population to begin with.

[Elfwine]

1) Because they were sitting in the middle of an alien culture, and also India is rich and is good plundering?

2) Let’s say he conquers the Indo-Gangetic plain. How exactly would he get out of India? India is a big place, and it would be difficult to get back to the Mideast. Same as when he settled in Babylon: find an important city, and plan your next attacks from there.

1) Not alien if they're marrying Indian women, or even just having lived here for generations. The "alien culture" is Macedon at this point. As for rich and good plundering: So?

2) Same way he got in. Which the army is going to want to do given any choice in the matter, or even the ability to mutiny/rebel against his madness.

[Winnabago]

Okay then, how would you expect to get a Hellenized India?

He got in by marching in, and campaigning a lot. It’s a lot easier to get in than to get out, so people stay a lot of the time. Call it the Roman program.

It doesn’t matter if the army mutinies, Alexander still dies and the army is still Greek.

[Elfwine]

Okay then, how would you expect to get a Hellenized India?

He got in by marching in, and campaigning a lot. It’s a lot easier to get in than to get out, so people stay a lot of the time. Call it the Roman program.

It doesn’t matter if the army mutinies, Alexander still dies and the army is still Greek.

I don't. I think that the concept of more than a tiny fraction of India being Hellenized is even more absurd as Megastate Rome Forever, which is as shameless an ASB scenario as anything up to and including Sealion I've read.

As for getting out: Yes, and his army is going to get otu by marching out and campaigning as necessary. They are not going to stay here if they can avoid it, and saying "they can't" - if you can say that they can subdue the area on the way in enough to count for anything, they can march through these places on their way back home..

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

If Alexander's army gets into a position where it looks like they might not be able to go back home if they go any further, they'll mutiny. Like OTL. And yeah, India ain't getting Hellenized. There are just too few Greeks in the army (the army that doesn't have much of a chance of conquering India in the first place) compared to the numbers of Indians proud of their own ways, and all the Greeks will be homesick like hell.