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.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.
who would be less inclined to mutiny, having served much less time.
Chandragupta would be the defending liberator to the 50,000 Iranians Alexander raised to succeed his Macedonians? That sounds like a very interesting timeline.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.
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?"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?
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 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.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.So while compared to Alexander, Chandragupta is an liberator, he is also an invader.
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.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)
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.if he prepare it for a few years chances are he will win.
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.
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.So we have one of the greatest generals of history who in his career has nearly always fought against numerically superior foes
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.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
I apologize if you understood this from my post : it was not my intent and I should have been clearer.But if we dare assume that he would beat another potential foe we are eurocentrics.
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.See his plans before his death: he was building a huge fleet to fight Carthage.
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.However we should accept your assumption that he would attack India - where he faced his biggest difficulties so far - unprepared, and completely ignore logistic.
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.That his forces would be inferior even though he had decades to prepare
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).with the resources of one of the biggest empire of the world behind his back.
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".And im not even saying that Alexander would win for sure. I simply think its more likely he would.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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).
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".