Alexander vs Chandragupta

Who would win

  • Chandragupta

    Votes: 69 48.3%
  • Alexander

    Votes: 74 51.7%

  • Total voters
    143
If Alexander tried to conquer more of India after returning to Greece, consolidating his political power in Babylon, then invading the Saudi peninsula as planned, he would probably lose. His army and resources would be stretched too thin to beat Chandragupta in India. Alexander's army nearly broke apart during the India campaign which is why he was forced to turn back. However, there's no doubting that Alexander was the superior tactician and leader. Under normal circumstances Alexander would win, but given the POD he'd lose.
 
Beating India at home while his soldiers have been away from home for 10 years? Unlikely. If an Indian army were dropped into Mesopotamia to face a Macedonian army or equal size, I could see them performing better. However, one should take into account that Alexanders battles against the Malians and other Indian chiefdoms were some of the costliest of his campaign, and Chandragupta would probably be better organized and more numerous compared to the Indians that Alexander did face.
 
If Alexander tried to conquer more of India after returning to Greece, consolidating his political power in Babylon, then invading the Saudi peninsula as planned, he would probably lose. His army and resources would be stretched too thin to beat Chandragupta in India. Alexander's army nearly broke apart during the India campaign which is why he was forced to turn back. However, there's no doubting that Alexander was the superior tactician and leader. Under normal circumstances Alexander would win, but given the POD he'd lose.
Alexander's army had been campaigning for several years continually at that point, having fought multiple powerful Persian, Scythian, and Indian armies, and had come from far away. If he started over again fresh, he could invade the Ganges region with an army primarily composed of Asians, who would be less inclined to mutiny, having served much less time.
 
who would be less inclined to mutiny, having served much less time.

Like how the Indians serving in the British army never mutinied thanks to their short service periods? Length of service is only one thing that can provoke mutiny. The more decisive factor in this case would probably be ethnic or tribal loyalty, since Alexander would be an invading conqueror, whereas Chandragupta would be seen as the defending liberator.
 
Like how the Indians serving in the British army never mutinied thanks to their short service periods? Length of service is only one thing that can provoke mutiny. The more decisive factor in this case would probably be ethnic or tribal loyalty, since Alexander would be an invading conqueror, whereas Chandragupta would be seen as the defending liberator.
Chandragupta would be the defending liberator to the 50,000 Iranians Alexander raised to succeed his Macedonians? That sounds like a very interesting timeline.
 
Chandragupta would be the defending liberator to the 50,000 Iranians Alexander raised to succeed his Macedonians? That sounds like a very interesting timeline.

"with an army primarily composed of Asians"

I misread that then, my bad. I assumed you meant Indians. Either way, I'm not sure why an army full of Persians, Bactrians, etc. whom had themselves just been conquered by Alexander, would be nearly as loyal as his Macedonian army (which itself was largely just a holdover from his father's army, thus, why they were so loyal)
 
"with an army primarily composed of Asians"

I misread that then, my bad. I assumed you meant Indians. Either way, I'm not sure why an army full of Persians, Bactrians, etc. whom had themselves just been conquered by Alexander, would be nearly as loyal as his Macedonian army (which itself was largely just a holdover from his father's army, thus, why they were so loyal)
Because they won't be in the field nearly so long, or be so far from home, and their king has adopted many elements of Achaemenid culture, and married into the Achaemenid dynasty, and ruled well, and displayed great honor towards his foes, and has established an already legendary career of victory already causing them to show "great zeal" in serving him, and had surpassed the achievements of the previous Great Kings, and which promises great riches and honor for those who follow?
 
Because they won't be in the field nearly so long, or be so far from home, and their king has adopted many elements of Achaemenid culture, and married into the Achaemenid dynasty, and ruled well, and displayed great honor towards his foes, and has established an already legendary career of victory already causing them to show "great zeal" in serving him, and had surpassed the achievements of the previous Great Kings, and which promises great riches and honor for those who follow?

I don't think you're hearing me. All those things you listed are entirely subjective. "Great honor towards his foes" and "ruling well" are totally dependent on who you're asking. Our (meaning western) culture and history is descended from the Roman Empire, and they were obsessed with Alexander, but would a contemporary Persian subject of his do the same, especially after they had just had their country invaded by him? In their eyes, Alexander might have been a marauder, a butcher, and a tyrant. You can't guarantee the loyalty of formerly hostile armies just because he had a winning military record. He sacked Persepolis after Gaugamela for god's sake, how is that "ruling well" and showing "great honor towards his foes"?
 
I don't think you're hearing me. All those things you listed are entirely subjective. "Great honor towards his foes" and "ruling well" are totally dependent on who you're asking. Our (meaning western) culture and history is descended from the Roman Empire, and they were obsessed with Alexander, but would a contemporary Persian subject of his do the same, especially after they had just had their country invaded by him? In their eyes, Alexander might have been a marauder, a butcher, and a tyrant. You can't guarantee the loyalty of formerly hostile armies just because he had a winning military record. He sacked Persepolis after Gaugamela for god's sake, how is that "ruling well" and showing "great honor towards his foes"?
If you're arguing against a problematic body of evidence, you're arguing from no evidence. Yes, the sources we have regarding Alexander are not perfect, but the evidence we have says that Alexander and his satraps like Peucestas inspired great zeal in the Persians for their prudence in ruling. They talk about how he gave Darius III a proper funeral, treated his extended household with respect, and repaired the tomb of Cyrus. There's just not much evidence of disloyalty among Alexander's new asian soldiers.
 
If you're arguing against a problematic body of evidence, you're arguing from no evidence. Yes, the sources we have regarding Alexander are not perfect, but the evidence we have says that Alexander and his satraps like Peucestas inspired great zeal in the Persians for their prudence in ruling. They talk about how he gave Darius III a proper funeral, treated his extended household with respect, and repaired the tomb of Cyrus. There's just not much evidence of disloyalty among Alexander's new asian soldiers.

I don't to argue from a body of firm evidence because I'm not the one making a positive claim. You're arguing for a long, difficult, and potentially problematic campaign into a foreign country using an army comprised of men who were Alexander's enemies less than ten years previously, against a powerful and organized state, and an army with strong loyalty to a man who took over their country for a goal that they would almost certainly not share. Those are some extraordinary claims, especially when the extremely loyal Macedonian army mutinied under those same circumstances. I'm not saying he wouldn't be able to try, nor am I saying that he wouldn't see any initial success, but Alexander could not win that war when he could barely maintain order within his own army by this time IOTL
 
I don't to argue from a body of firm evidence because I'm not the one making a positive claim. You're arguing for a long, difficult, and potentially problematic campaign into a foreign country using an army comprised of men who were Alexander's enemies less than ten years previously, against a powerful and organized state, and an army with strong loyalty to a man who took over their country for a goal that they would almost certainly not share. Those are some extraordinary claims, especially when the extremely loyal Macedonian army mutinied under those same circumstances. I'm not saying he wouldn't be able to try, nor am I saying that he wouldn't see any initial success, but Alexander could not win that war when he could barely maintain order within his own army by this time IOTL

His OTL Indian champaign was the last part of a huge champaign through a huge swathe of enemy territory. A new indian champaign would start from his own lands likely after considerable preparation. Here the champaign would really just begin in India as till than he is on friendly territory. Also on his first champaign he was facing difficulties he never before encountered - elephants and the indian style of war were both new to him. And he has still won. On the second run he would be prepared and already know much more about the enemy. Though this last part would be true for said enemy as well.

And in regards of sources: sadly we have to work with wath we have. Putting your ideas and beliefs before the only written sources we have saying that you think those are unreliable without providing an alternative source - any kind - wont get us anywhere. We have no records from the persians themselfs on what they thought on Alexander. We cant do anything but go by what we have. What we know indicates that the persians were at least subdued - no major rebellion even after Alexanders sucessors who were much worse in their threatment of the natives than Alexander. Who we have written records has went out of his way to win over the persians.

Mind you I dont say Alexander would win for sure but I wouldnt be so sure that he would loose. All in all he took on foes OTL that seemed much stronger than him and has never been defeated. I would put my money on him but it would be a risky bet.
 
Last edited:
All in all he took on foes OTL that seemed much stronger than him and has never been defeated. I would put my money on him but it would by a risky bet.
There's a lot of differences on taking on Achemenid Empire and Nanda Empire : the first was known by Greeks trough mercenariate, trade and scholars; the other was largely unknown until Alexander came to the Indus and fought its harshest campaign of his life against what were, to the Indian scale, essentially petty-kingdoms compared to what awaited in the Gange's valley.
While Achemenid Empire was made up of various cultural/political groups, that were ready to consider Alexander as a liberator if they really had to, India was (while not monolithic) essentially homogenous on this regard, and Alexander couldn't hope to just fit in the shoes of the previous overlord, but rather consider a general opposition comparable to what he had to fight of in Central Asia.
There's the logistical issue : Darius' Empire was kinda close, at least up to Mesopotamia : how Macedonian coalition suffered in Central Asia and India should be understood as well as a lack of logistical possibilities : the Silk Road which tends to be often mentioned as why and how Alexander could have pulled it off is a result of Alexandrine conquest and couldn't be much help unless Alexander focuses on creating roads and communication from scratch.
Finally, there's the final issue, namely that you had a reaction to Alexander's failure to go beyond Indus among Indians : Chandragupta's rise is partially explained trough a reaction against foreign encroachment on the region that while not really having touched to core of Indian civilization and resources, might have been considered as a threat : so we have an Empire gathering a lot of resources, without major political problems, sitting on the demographic heartland of Asia which allowed a first offensive against newly conquered/submitted lands in 323 BCE, meaning not two years after Alexander left the region.

Indians were really not pushover, and benefited from a lot of features that Achemenid Empire didn't, and Alexander wasn't enough of a magic totem to get rid of all this. As @Atamolos said, you have to consider that the more difficult battles Alexander had to fight were against small kings of the Indus to the point his troops basically answered "nope" to any further advance, knowing very well what awaited them);
Alexander might have thought he was invulnerable, but his army seems to have disagreed, eventually, and probably for good reasons.

Does that means Alexander couldn't win? Maybe not, but his chances were rather limited and would rely on factors outside his reach, such as political/social crisis in India.
 
Last edited:
A critical matter is how Alexander manages the recruitment of his army and which social mechanisms are available to him.

The Macedonians who mutinied against going on in 325 BC had been recruited for likely a short campaign no further than Asia Minor. And wound up in 10 years of war.

The heavy losses on the return through Gedrosia would not have been quite encouraging.
If Alexander survived and collected a new army, after 320 BC and a few campaigns elsewhere, then he might have picked men who knew they would be going to India, and volunteered - while those inclined to object could be permitted to stay home, or defending other fronts closer to home.
But would Iran have a social infrastructure enabling Alexander to pick an all-volunteer army not inclined to mutiny? Or would the army have been noble retinues - the lord might be a volunteer, yet not all of his men?
 
Alexander, with 10/15 years of preparation could field an army strong enough to defeat Chandragupta. Someone will mention supply, but India is huge, wet and fertile. Enough for a large army to supply itself.

Also correct me if im wrong, but Chandragupta unified India 5-10 years after Alexander, and while people tend to think India as a whole is one homogeneous people, its not. The difference between South Indian and North Indian is somewhere in between Greek-Macedonian and Macedonian-Persian difference. So while compared to Alexander, Chandragupta is an liberator, he is also an invader.

I think everyone here agrees that Alexander is the better tactician, and personally i think Greek Phalanx and Cavalry is better then their Indian counterpart on plain ground (Its not like the battle will take part in forests, both army is too large)

So to conclude, If Alexander march immediately after his Persian campaign, he will lose but if he prepare it for a few years chances are he will win.
 
Alexander, with 10/15 years of preparation could field an army strong enough to defeat Chandragupta. Someone will mention supply, but India is huge, wet and fertile. Enough for a large army to supply itself.
Before supplying itself, an army need to occupy a territory and that's admitting the enemy doesn't use a scorched earth tactic, as it could benefit from non-occupied areas (that, as Nanda/Maurya would be concerned, were richer and wealthier in the East). And Alexander still needs to supply his army trough a desertic land something that already inflicted her great losses in his final expedition both to and from India.

Also correct me if im wrong, but Chandragupta unified India 5-10 years after Alexander, and while people tend to think India as a whole is one homogeneous people, its not.
Northern India was relatively homogeneous politically-wise : Nanda Empire already managed to unify the Gangetic region before Chandragupta, from a tendency to regional unification launched by Magda dynasties.

So while compared to Alexander, Chandragupta is an liberator, he is also an invader.
Chandragupta didn't as much conquered lands, exception made of the Indus valley, than enforcing an existing political network at his benefit. His takeover of Nanda Empire is, in most matter, more of a dynastic replacement than a conquest.
As for southern India, Chandragupta doesn't seem to have really had an old on it, safe maybe in the latter part of his reign and probably more as overlord than conqueror.

and personally i think Greek Phalanx and Cavalry is better then their Indian counterpart on plain ground (Its not like the battle will take part in forests, both army is too large)
And still, Alexander had to fight as harshly he ever had to Indus' kingdoms whom armies were dwarfed by what Nanda Empire had at his disposal. Again, logistically and numerically, Nanda and Maurya would have the clear advantage, with known tactical and political assets that Achemenids didn't have.

if he prepare it for a few years chances are he will win.
Thing is, Chandragupta's rise is to be tied with Alexander's encrochement in Indus' valley : we have there a known military organizer and strategist that wouldn't just sit on his thumbs smiling like an idiot, but someone that would definitely prepare himself as well.
So far, I've trouble seeing another argument than "He's Alexander, of course he'll win", to be honest, which while not systematically born out of an eurocentric view, owes a lot to centuries of this bias' predominance.
 
Last edited:
Before supplying itself, an army need to occupy a territory and that's admitting the enemy doesn't use a scorched earth tactic, as it could benefit from non-occupied areas (that, as Nanda/Maurya would be concerned, were richer and wealthier in the East). And Alexander still needs to supply his army trough a desertic land something that already inflicted her great losses in his final expedition both to and from India.


Northern India was relatively homogeneous politically-wise : Nanda Empire already managed to unify the Gangetic region before Chandragupta, from a tendency to regional unification launched by Magda dynasties.


Chandragupta didn't as much conquered lands, exception made of the Indus valley, than enforcing an existing political network at his benefit. His takeover of Nanda Empire is, in most matter, more of a dynastic replacement than a conquest.
As for southern India, Chandragupta doesn't seem to have really had an old on it, safe maybe in the latter part of his reign and probably more as overlord than conqueror.


And still, Alexander had to fight as harshly he ever had to Indus' kingdoms whom armies were dwarfed by what Nanda Empire had at his disposal. Again, logistically and numerically, Nanda and Maurya would have the clear advantage, with known tactical and political assets that Achemenids didn't have.


Thing is, Chandragupta's rise is to be tied with Alexander's encrochement in Indus' valley : we have there a known military organizer and strategist that wouldn't just sit on his thumbs smiling like an idiot, but someone that would definitely prepare himself as well.
So far, I've trouble seeing another argument than "He's Alexander, of course he'll win", to be honest, which while not systematically born out of an eurocentric view, owes a lot to centuries of this bias' predominance.

So we have one of the greatest generals of history who in his career has nearly always fought against numerically superior foes, who has fought champaigns very far away from his core and home - like in Bactria and middle asia, in India, against foes and difficulties of whom he never heard of - and while doing that always adapting his tactics in a way that left him the winner. But if we dare assume that he would beat another potential foe we are eurocentrics.

See his plans before his death: he was building a huge fleet to fight Carthage. He was not underestimating his designed enemies and was making preparations. However we should accept your assumption that he would attack India - where he faced his biggest difficulties so far - unprepared, and completly ignore logistic. That his forces would be inferior even though he had decades to prepare with the resources of one of the biggest empire of the world behind his back.

And im not even saying that Alexander would win for sure. I simply think its more likely he would.
 
So we have one of the greatest generals of history who in his career has nearly always fought against numerically superior foes
On relatively favorable logistical and political grounds, tough : you can make a comparison, if you will, at how even greatest generals of history™ often find themselves going a bit too far outside their field of competence or possibilities. Or, more simply, there's no such thing as an undefeated general that keeps pushing his luck.

who has fought campaigns very far away from his core and home - like in Bactria and middle asia, in India, against foes and difficulties of whom he never heard of - and while doing that always adapting his tactics in a way that left him the winner
That's true, and I wouldn't give the impression that Alexander wasn't a particularily skilled commander. I'd want to point, however, that as he left Mesopotamia, he faced much more important difficulties, which are essentially about supplies and logistics of his armies, and that he didn't managed to obtain nearly as definitive victories he did so far : either trough climatic/supply hardship, little war or Indian warfare, he really had to face something he had much more difficulties with than against Persians even before he had a chance to attack the heart of India.
Surely, that's something that can't be handwaved.
I think that being aware of this bias existence and importance can only be beneficiary for all involved, regardless of our opinion about Alexander's possibilities.

But if we dare assume that he would beat another potential foe we are eurocentrics.
I apologize if you understood this from my post : it was not my intent and I should have been clearer.

What I wanted to say, however, is that a lot of bias I encountered on this question, including on this board, was based on lasting eurocentric bias that tends to largely ignore the historical realities of India (on this board alone, I remember someone arguing that before Alexander, there wasn't an Indian political or military organisation) while exagerating capacities of Alexander as well as the strategic advantages he would have, ignoring logistical/military issues in favor of a "he could".

See his plans before his death: he was building a huge fleet to fight Carthage.
I must say that this is quite debatable : such projects are appearing in textual sources really late, during the Roman era, and even there doesn't really appears everywhere. Arrian who is considered one of the more accurate ancient historians on Alexander, doesn't mentions it but mentions an Arabian expedition.
Diodorus of Sicily does mentions plans for Carthage, but not only points they were considered as extravagant, but precises that was what Perdicas' said of Alexander's ambitions in an eulogy and to be taken extremely cautiously.

At best, we could say that naval ambitions of Alexander were real, but probably more realistically limited : Alexander himself had a lot to do to strengthen and solidify his newly founded empire. In fact, there's little to say he was about to campaign again when he died.

However we should accept your assumption that he would attack India - where he faced his biggest difficulties so far - unprepared, and completely ignore logistic.
I did not said he would go unprepared (On this regard, I don't think you can imply this from my post) but that not only his enemy would be prepared as well but on much more favorable conditions than Alexander would, and that's something that while he could take it in account himself, but would have to be resolved nevertheless.
You say that I ignore logistics, but so far I only pointed that Alexander would have to create infrastructures from scratch to allow a much easier cross of Central Asia that wouldn't involve his troops dying as flies due to guerilla and harsh terrain with few suppliment capacities. I'm all ears about how it can be resolved to the point it can match Nanda/Maurya's advantage on this regard.

That his forces would be inferior even though he had decades to prepare
Nobody argued his troops would be inferior regardless of the preparation, but that by virtue of having access to a wealthy region and not having to cross an hostile/unfit arid region to fight, Nanda/Maurya would simply have an important advantage. When you consider that the Indus' petty king with their limited resources were as much a strong opponent than Persians (if not more), having the full weight of an Indian empire that would prepare himself (as it did IOTL), you certainly agree that it wouldn't be an obvious victory for Alexander, far from it.

with the resources of one of the biggest empire of the world behind his back.
Which is not as relevant that you make it : ancient warfare is vastly different from Total War, in the sense that there's a quick limit to resources polling (or Rome would never have any issues in warfare, ever).
Long story short, piling up soldiers doesn't works in the regional frame we're talking about, to the point actual Macedonian garrisons weren't really a thing in Indus (most of forces there were submitted Indian rulers, contrary to what happened in most of conquered lands) and it would be undoubtedly one of the more complex campaigns not only Alexander, but really any ancient general would have to pull over.

Note that India, at this point, was considered one of the wealthiest and more populated regions in the ancient world (to the point having took the place of former Achemenid Empire when it comes to gather the third of known humanity), and would certainly have the resources of one the strongest empires in existence, which possibly (although it would ask for a more detailed account that I'm not sure could be pulled) inferior to Alexander's dominion, wouldn't have to deal with logistical obstacles he would, and with technical advantages (that were borrowed IOTL by Diadokoi, but probably not ITTL by Alexander).

And im not even saying that Alexander would win for sure. I simply think its more likely he would.
All I'm saying is that it asks for more than pointing at Alexander to answer the problematic issues a new campaign in India would make to argue it would be "more likely it would".
 
Last edited:
On relatively favorable logistical and political grounds, tough : you can make a comparison, if you will, at how even greatest generals of history™ often find themselves going a bit too far outside their field of competence or possibilities. Or, more simply, there's no such thing as an undefeated general that keeps pushing his luck.

How was his champaign in Central Asia or India logistically favourable? And he still went undefeated. Im not saying he was unbeatable but he has a really impressive track record.

That's true, and I wouldn't give the impression that Alexander wasn't a particularily skilled commander. I'd want to point, however, that as he left Mesopotamia, he faced much more important difficulties, which are essentially about supplies and logistics of his armies, and that he didn't managed to obtain nearly as definitive victories he did so far : either trough climatic/supply hardship, little war or Indian warfare, he really had to face something he had much more difficulties with than against Persians even before he had a chance to attack the heart of India.
Surely, that's something that can't be handwaved.
I think that being aware of this bias existence and importance can only be beneficiary for all involved, regardless of our opinion about Alexander's possibilities.

However I think that part of the "because he is Alexander" bias is warranted. He fought a very diverse area of foes from greeks to persians, sogdians and indians. And he has beaten them all, though as he went farther it became more difficult.

I apologize if you understood this from my post : it was not my intent. What I wanted to say, however, is that a lot of bias I encountered on this question, including on this board, was based on lasting eurocentric bias that tends to largely ignore the historical realities of India (on this board alone, I remember someone arguing that before Alexander, there wasn't an Indian political or military organisation) while exagerating capacities of Alexander as well as the strategic advantages he would have, ignoring logistical/military issues in favor of a "he could".

Your comment is more understandable in light of such arguments however luckily I havent seen those yet in this thread.

I must say that this is quite debatable : such projects are appearing in textual sources really late, during the Roman era, and even there doesn't really appears everywhere. Arrian who is considered one of the more accurate ancient historians on Alexander, doesn't mentions it but mentions an Arabian expedition.
Diodorus of Sicily does mentions plans for Carthage, but not only points they were considered as extravagant, but precises that was what Perdicas' said of Alexander's ambitions in an eulogy and to be taken extremely cautiously.

At best, we could say that naval ambitions of Alexander were real, but probably more realistically limited : Alexander himself had a lot to do to strengthen and solidify his newly founded empire. In fact, there's little to say he was about to campaign again when he died.

I willingly acknowledge that I dont consider myself an expert of ancient history and accept your point here.

You're reading things that I not wrote, really : I did not said he would go unprepared (or, if I did, could you quote this precise part? Thanks you) but that not only his enemy would be prepared as well but on much more favourable conditions.
You say that I ignore logistics, but so far I only pointed that Alexander would have to create infrastructures from scratch to allow a much easier cross of Central Asia that wouldn't involve his troops dying as flies due to guerilla and harsh terrain with few suppliment capacities. I'm all ears about how it can be resolved to the point it can match Nanda/Maurya's advantage on this regard.

Again, you're seeing things that aren't there : nobody argued his troops would be inferior regardless of the preparation, but that by virtue of having access to a wealthy region and not having to cross an hostile/unfit desertic region to fight, Nanda/Maurya would simply have an important advantage. When you consider that the Indus' petty king with their limited resources were as much a strong opponent than Persians (if not more), having the full weight of an Indian empire that would prepare himself (as it did IOTL), you certainly realize that Springtime for Alexander is out of question.

What I meant was that you assume Alexander would ignore logistics. Sorry if that wasnt clear. I dont think it impossible that if he prepared for an Indian champaign he would take at least consideration of logistical preparation in to account. Being prepared means for me that he does something about logistics and that he come up with counter strategies of what he encountered in india the first time. Also a fresh army instead of one after a very long champaign. I also think that he will retain a core of veterans and his very experienced and proven officers.

Also I think that part of Alexanders difficulties in his first time in India were the unknown enemy and tactics, the elephants, the distance from his core and not knowing anything from india in general, the tyredness of the army. A lot of those could be remedied in a new, prepared chanpaign.

Even considering the above Im willing to acknowledge that Maurya as the defender would have the favourable position. But a prepared Alexander with a fresh army is IMO very hard to beat - I dont say impossible.

Which is not as relevant that you make it : ancient warfare is vastly different from Total War, in the sense that there's a quick limit to resources polling (or Rome would never have any issues in warfare, ever).
Long story short, piling up soldiers doesn't works in the regional frame we're talking about, to the point actual Macedonian garrisons weren't really a thing in Indus (most of forces there were submitted Indian rulers, contrary to what happened in most of conquered lands) and it would be undoubtly one of the more complex campaigns not only Alexander, but really any ancient general would have to pull over.

Note that India, at this point, was considered one of the wealthiest and more populated regions in the ancient world (to the point having took the place of former Achemenid Empire when it comes to gather the third of known humanity), and would certainly have the resources of one the strongest empires in existence, which possibly (although it would ask for a more detailed account that I'm not sure could be pulled) inferior to Alexander's dominion, wouldn't have to deal with logistical obstacles he would, and with technical advantages (that were borrowed IOTL by Diadokoi, but probably not ITTL by Alexander).

How is it that for Maurya its relevant that he has a very rich and populated country and for Alexander less so? He has already beaten the much wealthier than him persians with the resources of Macedon and Greece. And having a lot of extra money and people to threw at the problem should make him stronger so in India his resourc pool is much closer to his enemies than in the case of Persia was. And I think Alexander was much more an innovator than the Diadochi so I dont think it unlikely that he wouldnt take any advantage he has and use it fully.

All I'm saying is that it asks for more than pointing at Alexander to answer the problematic issues a new campaign in India would make to argue it would be "more likely it would".

If the commanders were equal I would agree with you, the one leading India would have the advantage. However I obviously put much more faith in Alexanders ability as a commander and believe that the disparity caused by Chandragupta's favourable position would be much less than you and others imply as I think Alexander would go prepared.
 
Top