Alexander vs. Chandragupta?

Two wannabe-world conquerors living during roughly the same period! :p What if Alexander didn't die, or if his empire (atleast most of it) survived a little longer?

Historicly, Chandragupta united northen India, attacked Seleucus for modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan. He won and then turned south and added most of southern India to his empire. What if he didn't do that and continued into Persia instead? Perhaps his successor did, when southern India was entirely subdued?

And Ashoka, what would be his role? I guess that this would buttefly away his conversion to buddhism toghether with his general kindness and benevolence...
 
Hmmmm. Interesting match-up. Especially considering how the Indian armies fought Alexander's Macedonians to a near standstill at the Hydaspes.
Question, though: wasn't a large catalyst for Chandragupta's success in subjugating the eastern satrapies primarily the fact the Diadochi were busy fighting themselves to unite against an external threat? Without Alexander's death, you don't have the wars of the Diadochi, which means that Chandragupta will have a much harder time conquering Alexander's eastern holdings than in OTL.
 
Alexander retreated from India to Babylon and was planning to conquer Arabia. If he was attacked by Chandragupta, he would probably change priorities.

An empire from Greece all the way to Ganges if probably a little far-fetched. If the macedonians win, hellenized kingdoms would appear further east then OTL and India would be a independent diadochi-kingdom

If Chandragupta won, I can't really see him in Pella, but perhaps in Babylon?
 
Top