Alexander vs Chandragupta

Who would win

  • Chandragupta

    Votes: 69 48.3%
  • Alexander

    Votes: 74 51.7%

  • Total voters
    143
How was his champaign in Central Asia or India logistically favorable?
I meant his campaigns in the western part of the Achemenid Empire, with pretty much known lands, relatively easy supply, etc.

And he still went undefeated. Im not saying he was unbeatable but he has a really impressive track record.
Certainly so : that Alexander was a great tactician is pretty much an understatement. But I note that even Alexander had significant troubles as he entered India, and not all due to the land being largely unknown.

I willingly acknowledge that I dont consider myself an expert of ancient history and accept your point here.
Oh, I'm far being an expert myself on this : I just wanted to advise caution as we know really little of Alexander's ambitions beyond restoring the Achemenid Empire at his benefit. I suspect that, eventually, he made them along his progress.

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.
Again, I agree but I'm not sure what Alexander would have done on this regard : as much of an unmatched tactician he was, he didn't demonstrated great logistical skills. He could learn, of course, as he matures but it would ask for resolve part of the issues being a statesman : maybe building up roads and supply posts along the Iranian plateau for instance, basically making up for the harsh ground he would encounter. That he didn't really did something like this, or rather actually planned something, in his return trail to Babylone would make me think it wasn't his priority.

and that he come up with counter strategies of what he encountered in india the first time.
Tactically, the Battle of the Hydaspe was clearly a great Alexandrine victory : prevting Poros to conentrate his troops, depriving him of cavalry at the start of the battle and efficiently using javelineers in the midst of phalanges against Elephants. There's nothing pointing that Alexander would have to loose similar battles as he did after this one up to the Bias river. But the losses IOTL were really important, and Alexander had to fight minor kingdoms only at this point. At the very least, Mauryas would make him pay for any of tactical victories he would pull : the risk for Alexander to go too deep in India and turn his expedition as an anticipation of Napoleon's campaign in Russia is real.

As you said, the problem isn't tactical (altough Chandragupta would be more than able to pull something out of his sleeve himself, even if probably not as brightly, especially as he kept contact with Greeks advisors IOTL) but strategical. If Mauryas pull a scorched earth policy, Alexander would be in a really problematic position, as he would depend on supply he would find in India.

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.
I'd say relatively fresh : crossing Iranian plateau wouldn't be a promenade. Of course, ITTL, it would be fresher than the previous attempt, and completed with Indian troops, so it's to be relativized : but logistical lines would still be particularily extended : the best solution I could think of would be a maritime supply trough Red Sea.
On the other hand, we'd have a fresh, really important army (Chandragupta's army would be dwarfing what Poros had to oppose Alexander, and that was really no easy prey) close to its supply lines.

How is it that for Maurya its relevant that he has a very rich and populated country and for Alexander less so?
Mostly because Maurya's army would have a direct access to these ressources, and that Alexander would have to rely on long logistical lines or looting, the first being costly, the second being quite vulnerable to scorched earth tactics, something that weakened skilled commanders since Antiquity.

Don't get me wrong : a new Alexander's campaign in India up to the Gangetic plain would have consequences : but militarily; it does simply not depends on tactics alone.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
I think the most relevant question is who is fighting on whose territory.

Arguably Alexander went to India to enforce the rather tenuous grip the Persians had on the fringes of India. It was the main reason for his Bactrian campaign to, to underline his status as successor to the King of Kings. After the debacle in the desert, even Alexander can see the issues about fighting a major campaign in India. And that is even allowing for Nearchus' fleet.

The most likely answer is neither as both will see the futility of invading each others lands. And have much easier targets close to hand.

I would point out though that the trained manpower reserves of the Hellenistic world was quite impressive - probably equal to that of Chandragupta if no divisions. And probably better drilled and trained in the main.

But logistics probably ensure it will be a draw.
 
I meant his campaigns in the western part of the Achemenid Empire, with pretty much known lands, relatively easy supply, etc.


Certainly so : that Alexander was a great tactician is pretty much an understatement. But I note that even Alexander had significant troubles as he entered India, and not all due to the land being largely unknown.


Oh, I'm far being an expert myself on this : I just wanted to advise caution as we know really little of Alexander's ambitions beyond restoring the Achemenid Empire at his benefit. I suspect that, eventually, he made them along his progress.


Again, I agree but I'm not sure what Alexander would have done on this regard : as much of an unmatched tactician he was, he didn't demonstrated great logistical skills. He could learn, of course, as he matures but it would ask for resolve part of the issues being a statesman : maybe building up roads and supply posts along the Iranian plateau for instance, basically making up for the harsh ground he would encounter. That he didn't really did something like this, or rather actually planned something, in his return trail to Babylone would make me think it wasn't his priority.


Tactically, the Battle of the Hydaspe was clearly a great Alexandrine victory : prevting Poros to conentrate his troops, depriving him of cavalry at the start of the battle and efficiently using javelineers in the midst of phalanges against Elephants. There's nothing pointing that Alexander would have to loose similar battles as he did after this one up to the Bias river. But the losses IOTL were really important, and Alexander had to fight minor kingdoms only at this point. At the very least, Mauryas would make him pay for any of tactical victories he would pull : the risk for Alexander to go too deep in India and turn his expedition as an anticipation of Napoleon's campaign in Russia is real.

As you said, the problem isn't tactical (altough Chandragupta would be more than able to pull something out of his sleeve himself, even if probably not as brightly, especially as he kept contact with Greeks advisors IOTL) but strategical. If Mauryas pull a scorched earth policy, Alexander would be in a really problematic position, as he would depend on supply he would find in India.


I'd say relatively fresh : crossing Iranian plateau wouldn't be a promenade. Of course, ITTL, it would be fresher than the previous attempt, and completed with Indian troops, so it's to be relativized : but logistical lines would still be particularily extended : the best solution I could think of would be a maritime supply trough Red Sea.
On the other hand, we'd have a fresh, really important army (Chandragupta's army would be dwarfing what Poros had to oppose Alexander, and that was really no easy prey) close to its supply lines.


Mostly because Maurya's army would have a direct access to these ressources, and that Alexander would have to rely on long logistical lines or looting, the first being costly, the second being quite vulnerable to scorched earth tactics, something that weakened skilled commanders since Antiquity.

Don't get me wrong : a new Alexander's campaign in India up to the Gangetic plain would have consequences : but militarily; it does simply not depends on tactics alone.

I dont really have much to add as i agree with most of what you wrote. The differences are on things we cant really mesure. We dont even really know what he planned OTL but an Indian champaign didnt seem to be an immediate concern to him. How can we guess how well would Alexander prepare later in a TL when he planned to return? I also agree that he would be really vulnerable to a scorched earth tactic. And finally that I give it a better chance that Alexander's genius would prevail and you that the difficulties he faces combined with an exceptionally talented enemy like Maurya would be enough to beat him.

I think that if it actually happened it would have been a most interesting episode of military history.

On another note: How likely do you think a draw is? I would consider a draww a scenario like this: Alexander invades, wins some victories, maybe even a big one, however sees that he cant continue and finally makes peace with some conquests but leaving much of India in Maurya's hand?
 
Personally, if we're going "Mano-a-mano", I haven't the faintest, Chandragupta was meant to have been a massive man.

In terms of battle - I'd lean towards Chandragupta as well - the Indians have Elephants on two orders of magnitude more than the Macedonians have ever seen before.

But in terms of a campaign? I'd lean towards Alexander IF we're talking about a second entry (which I assume is the case if we're facing Chandragupta).

Simply because of the potential to prepare for those same Elephants - after all, we could be campaigning any time 20 years after Alexander the Greats OTL death for this. Which is enough time for an entire generation of Syrian Elephants to mature - almost assuredly trained as "Anti-Elephant" solutions - and using Syrians rather than North African elephants means you've got Elephants both on par with the Indian Elephant in size, but able to mount the Greek Catapult, more than suitable for shattering an Elephants skull.

Basically, if we just teleported Alexanders army and Chandraguptas army, it'd be Chandragupta. But IRL, in an ATL where Alexander has lived, and has had quite a long time to obsess over how to win a campaign in India, I reckon you'd be looking at an invasion of the Indus Delta, focused on ensuring battles are fought on open ground, where significant quantities of catapults can be brought to bear. That and the whole-scale destruction of entire regions of forest by setting it on fire. It'd be devestating, but we're talking about the man who destroyed Thebes, I don't think trying to use the wind and fire to destroy the forests outside of Rajasthan is outside the realms of possibility.

Effectively you'd have Rajasthan being where Alexander wants to fight, which works well considering that the best route to supply and reinforce would be via Gujarat.

So yeah, an older, wiser, and prepared Alexander vs Chandragupta? Alexander wins as he has the time to improve on his logistical failings, and adapt to fight in India, as well as spend a fortune to import as many Elephants as possible for his campaign.
 
How likely do you think a draw is?
I wouldn't bet on it, to be honest : Alexander never really had to militarily compromise IOTL and I'm not sure which ATL opponent, realistically, would have forced him to do so.
Maybe, in a bid for restoring Persian Empire at his benefit (which is essentially what we know more or less safely of his plans), we could see Alexander trying to enforce his dominance over Scythic peoples the same way that he did against Gaete. At this point, if the drastic experience of his Gedrosian retreat (which killed the main part of his men) and the likely half-hearted results against Sycthes wouldn't learn him compromise and good logistical sense, nothing will IMO.
Then, what would Alexander search in India? Giving that we have revolts in the Indus since the conquest, either native or from Macedonian rulers : right or wrong, he could consider Chandragupta as if not the instigator, at least a support of the destabilization of his border and launch a great expedition to enforce it against Maurya.

Basically, a concievable draw is, for me, about Alexander learning to mastering his ambitions and be as much a statesman than a general.

Alexander invades, wins some victories, maybe even a big one, however sees that he cant continue and finally makes peace with some conquests but leaving much of India in Maurya's hand?
If we keep the idea of a naval supply for this expedition, we could see Alexander gaining some acknowledgement, politically-wise, from south-western Indian polities. essentially in the southern continuation of Indus kingdoms. and maybe prevent Maurya takeover of part of Deccan. Basically, the kind of political settlement that Alexander should learn to do before the campaign.
 
Didn't Chandragupta begin encroaching on the Indian satrapies shortly after when Alexander died OTL? Was that because Alexander had died or was that just when he got around to it? If it's the latter then wouldn't that mean Alexander would be the one with the home court advantage?
 
@SealTheRealDeal
It happened after Alexander's death, while it have more to do with local Macedonian rulers joining the general melee of diadokoi, and Chandragupta having enough knowledge of the situation (and earlier rebellions in Indus' valley) to take advantage of it. AFAIK, Chandragupta's takeover of Indus happened after Peithon's left to support Seleucos in the 316 BCE, conquests that were eventually accepted by Seleucos in exchange for Chandragupta's gift of elephants and military resources.
Note that even if it was the latter case, while the loyalty of Indian princes would be debatable, Alexander would have still to cross the region between Mesopotamia and India which really did a number on his army before : Plutarch argues it counted for the 3/4 of the losses since he departed India, and while likely exaggerated, maybe not this much.
 
To give an approximate idea of the situation, geopolitically wise.
kiUbufc.png
 
@SealTheRealDealAlexander would have still to cross the region between Mesopotamia and India which really did a number on his army before : Plutarch argues it counted for the 3/4 of the losses since he departed India, and while likely exaggerated, maybe not this much.
Did he have much trouble moving in from the north the first time? I know his return trip through the south was hellish, but I don't recall him struggling much with the Hindu Kush.
 
Did he have much trouble moving in from the north the first time? I know his return trip through the south was hellish, but I don't recall him struggling much with the Hindu Kush.
Perso-Macedonian army (Greco-Macedonian themselves accounted for only a fourth of the troops) were harassed by local populations and armies before crossing the Hindu Kush, but IIRC, they had trouble doing so. Note that Alexander had to divide his army in the region to supply it sufficiently, and part of his army joined him on the Indus (from Kyber pass, while Alexander probably went trough Khawak pass) using Alexandria of Caucasus as main base.
You'd argue that a later passage from the North (well, partially from the North, as a part of troops would probably follow Hephaestion's road trough the Iranic central region) would be more feasible, which is true as the local garrison replaced the previous populations (slaughtered). Still, in the absence of a coastal supply, Alexander's army would probably be divided in small bodies as well and still vulnerable to steppe harassment. And we're back to the earlier proposal of a probably necessary campaign of Alexander against Scythians, less to conquer them, than to impose his dominance as he did in Balkanic peoples as Gaetes.

Long story short, maybe not as hellish as the return path, maybe not as damaging than the previous Sogdian/Indian campaign, but far from being easy either way IMO.
 
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.
In real mutiny on the river of Indus inginte by indian spy
 
Kathasaritsagar by somadeva and book arthashastr writan by chanakya who was teacher in takshashila university and in maurya empire he was primeminister of chandra gupta and reagent ruler in time of bindusara . He was also spy master of maurya empire
 
Never heard of that, evidence please?
The problem is that they're later sources, from the IVth to XIth century CE. They might not be totally accurate. (From what I understood, but I can be vastly mistaken, the Arthashastra is more making political point than historical)
 
But Chandragupta himself defeated the corrupt nanda kings to establish maurya empire and I think the attack by Alexander was just wrong time. Young Chandra was filled with hunger as any guy who establishes a new dynasty. Chandragupta is an emperor of India and respected by Indians of today also. He is a chakravarthi and his pm chanakya is a brilliant tactician and political pundit and teacher who taught in one of the greatest ancient university of takshsila. So though I say Alexander is a brilliant conqueror till then he faced a waning Persian empire who had lot of internal conflicts. But maurya empire is a different story and it is in nascent stage so even Alexander came after 10 years with elephants and more Persian armies it would be still an extremely tough fight. India would not be a Persia anytime soon.
 
Taxshila was a city which revenue is mainly based on the teaching at the time alaxender so they simply surrender and take a toll for army.
In india environment is to much hot and humid for any type of closed heavy armor .
Tactics of alaxender in any war stop enemies foot soldiers by his phalenx and than cut the head of army

What happens in battle of hydaspes .
1 phalenx of Alexander broken by rogue elephants - in india when elephants are not in enough numbers than . Before war mahwat drugs the elephant so you know mad elephant .
2 -porus son was taken hostage by Alexander in cavalry run every one know .
How ? It's simple indians horse much slower and weak in comparison to Arabic horse which field by alaxender and have numerical disadvantage .
 
Last edited:
Top