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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Shogun

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]

Originally Posted by trollhole

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]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

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]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

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]

Originally Posted by Shogun

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

Originally Posted by Shogun

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]

Originally Posted by TyranicusMaximus

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]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

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]

Originally Posted by trollhole

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.