Alexander vs Chandragupta

Who would win

  • Chandragupta

    Votes: 69 48.3%
  • Alexander

    Votes: 74 51.7%

  • Total voters
    143
I think Chandragupta Maurya would win, judging by his war record against Seleukos. However, he certainly won’t be pushing into Alexander’s territory, so until Alexander dies, Chandragupta Maurya would “only” be on the right bank of the Indus.
It's amazing how it is forgotten that the Greeks pretty much lost to the Indians in the end. Alexander's conquest of Porus's kingdom in the Punjab is overemphasised but not how Seleucus lost all of Alexander's Indian satrapies plus all of Bactria to Chandragupta, territory that was never recovered and which is a far greater victory than anything Alexander did India.
 
It's amazing how it is forgotten that the Greeks pretty much lost to the Indians in the end. Alexander's conquest of Porus's kingdom in the Punjab is overemphasised but not how Seleucus lost all of Alexander's Indian satrapies plus all of Bactria to Chandragupta, territory that was never recovered and which is a far greater victory than anything Alexander did India.

I mean, you need to account for how Alexander got to the Indus from Macedonia all in one burst of conquest, whereas Chandragupta Maurya simply ventured from Bihar to Bactria and the Deccan, a far smaller distance. And Alexander conquered the entirety Persian Empire, the largest empire in history until that point, whereas Chandragupta Maurya’s greatest conquest was “merely” the Nanda Empire. So, looking at Alexander’s conquest of the Paurava kingdom and Chandragupta Maurya’s conquest of Bactria in isolation, Chandragupta Maurya was greater, but in context, the fact that Alexander even got to Punjab is a wonder unto itself.

That doesn’t stop the fact that the Indus was the end of the supply line of any “Persian” empire, especially one with a capital in Babylon, and Chandragupta Maurya would be a much greater general than anyone Alexander fought.
 
I mean, you need to account for how Alexander got to the Indus from Macedonia all in one burst of conquest, whereas Chandragupta Maurya simply ventured from Bihar to Bactria and the Deccan, a far smaller distance. And Alexander conquered the entirety Persian Empire, the largest empire in history until that point, whereas Chandragupta Maurya’s greatest conquest was “merely” the Nanda Empire. So, looking at Alexander’s conquest of the Paurava kingdom and Chandragupta Maurya’s conquest of Bactria in isolation, Chandragupta Maurya was greater, but in context, the fact that Alexander even got to Punjab is a wonder unto itself.

That doesn’t stop the fact that the Indus was the end of the supply line of any “Persian” empire, especially one with a capital in Babylon, and Chandragupta Maurya would be a much greater general than anyone Alexander fought.
According to indian thinker and writers after reading kautilya arthashastr who was teacher at that time in taxshila used his spy systems to ignite muttiny in Alexander army .
So kautilya and chandra gupta deafted alaxender by only political manuverring .
After alaxender they outmaneuver all other vessel king and killed porus after taking command of his army.
Second imp lessons chandra gupta was a normal peasant boy from pataliputr who had sharp mind and he impressed Kautilya after he insulted by Nanda king
 
Last edited:
There is immense doubt by historians over whether Kautilya, the writer of the Arthashastra, was indeed the same figure as Chanakya, the mentor of Chandragupta Maurya, or simply attributed as such in Gupta times to connect a venerated book on statescraft to a figure who played a central role in the creation of what the Gupta viewed as their predecessors.
 
There is immense doubt by historians over whether Kautilya, the writer of the Arthashastra, was indeed the same figure as Chanakya, the mentor of Chandragupta Maurya, or simply attributed as such in Gupta times to connect a venerated book on statescraft to a figure who played a central role in the creation of what the Gupta viewed as their predecessors.
only for shadow historians
 
Shadow historians = propandenda , without knowledge of Indian storytelling and using sources whose origin is not from India , surface translation of sanskrit book

Yeah, no. That’s not what’s happening. The (Indian) sources which claim Kautilya and Chanakya are the same person are from the Gupta era, and it is obvious why the Gupta would attach one of the greatest and most influential works on statescraft to a man they viewed as their predecessor. Granted, the Arthashastra seems to come from the appropriate period judging by its mentions of the Ajivaka and Charvaka, but that in and of itself isn’t proof that it was written by Chanakya. See this, for instance, from what is certainly a fairly recent and credible source.
 
We don't take Arrian as the sole source for Alexander - why would we do the same for an Indian source.

The issue with non-Indian sources in this case is that they’re extremely vague on Chanakya, and foreign sources on the Arthashastra are almost inexistent (excluding Indianized Southeast Asia, which was influenced by that treatise after the fact).
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
The issue with non-Indian sources in this case is that they’re extremely vague on Chanakya, and foreign sources on the Arthashastra are almost inexistent (excluding Indianized Southeast Asia, which was influenced by that treatise after the fact).
I was really making the point that Greco-Roman sources are pretty unreliable on Alexander - why would Indian sources (particularly one with multiple revisions over time) be any better on Chanakya
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
It's amazing how it is forgotten that the Greeks pretty much lost to the Indians in the end. Alexander's conquest of Porus's kingdom in the Punjab is overemphasised but not how Seleucus lost all of Alexander's Indian satrapies plus all of Bactria to Chandragupta, territory that was never recovered and which is a far greater victory than anything Alexander did India.
I overlooked this one. Chandragupta only acquired the Indus valley from Seleucus. Bactria remained with the Seleucids until the the Greco-bactrian kingdom formed, an offshoot of which formed the Indo-Greek kingdom which took alot of the Indus valley back after the demise of the Mauryans.
 
I overlooked this one. Chandragupta only acquired the Indus valley from Seleucus. Bactria remained with the Seleucids until the the Greco-bactrian kingdom formed, an offshoot of which formed the Indo-Greek kingdom which took alot of the Indus valley back after the demise of the Mauryans.
An offshoot, as you said, that no longer spoke Greek and had converted to Buddhism while worshipping Hindu deities. They were as Greek as much as the Ottomans were Byzantines.

Also, wrong, Chandragupta obtained at least southern Bactria from Seleucus, which formed at least a third of that territory. And acquire? That's like saying Alexander "acquired" Porus's kingdom. He conquered it in military campaigns, battles that prove that had Chandragupta directed his attention to the Greek empire instead of the Nanda, he most likely would have conquered the entirety of it.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
An offshoot, as you said, that no longer spoke Greek and had converted to Buddhism while worshipping Hindu deities. They were as Greek as much as the Ottomans were Byzantines.

Also, wrong, Chandragupta obtained at least southern Bactria from Seleucus, which formed at least a third of that territory. And acquire? That's like saying Alexander "acquired" Porus's kingdom. He conquered it in military campaigns, battles that prove that had Chandragupta directed his attention to the Greek empire instead of the Nanda, he most likely would have conquered the entirety of it.

It's amazing how it is forgotten that the Greeks pretty much lost to the Indians in the end. Alexander's conquest of Porus's kingdom in the Punjab is overemphasised but not how Seleucus lost all of Alexander's Indian satrapies plus all of Bactria to Chandragupta, territory that was never recovered and which is a far greater victory than anything Alexander did India.

If we re talking about who is wrong - you said all of Bactria - not Southern Bactria (which you haven't defined). Your words.

Definition of acquire "buy or obtain (an asset or object) for oneself". Did Chandragupta give Seleucus 500 elephants or not? Were these a goodwill gesture or part of the deal to end the war? What about the marriage contract and nominal alliance. Yes Chandragupta had the upper hand in the war but Seleucus cut a deal becuase the Indian provinces were not worth the cost of extended conflict.

As for the Indo-Greeks - yes some of them were Buddhists but they were a bilingual nation as their coinage demonstrates. And to discount the Greek influence when the line of kings went

Menander I
Zoilos I
Strato
Heliokles II
Theophilos
Menander II
Archebios
and Peukolaos

seems a little odd.
 
If we re talking about who is wrong - you said all of Bactria - not Southern Bactria (which you haven't defined). Your words.

Definition of acquire "buy or obtain (an asset or object) for oneself". Did Chandragupta give Seleucus 500 elephants or not? Were these a goodwill gesture or part of the deal to end the war? What about the marriage contract and nominal alliance. Yes Chandragupta had the upper hand in the war but Seleucus cut a deal becuase the Indian provinces were not worth the cost of extended conflict.

As for the Indo-Greeks - yes some of them were Buddhists but they were a bilingual nation as their coinage demonstrates. And to discount the Greek influence when the line of kings went

Menander I
Zoilos I
Strato
Heliokles II
Theophilos
Menander II
Archebios
and Peukolaos

seems a little odd.


It's still wrong to say he "kept Bactria" even if I was wrong in saying "all of Bactria" since the former is also not true. And there was an exchange because Seleucus's satraps in Pakistan and north India and Seleucus himself got defeated. It was a conquest. Saying "they weren't worth the cost of extended conflict" is nothing but trying to save face for Greeks' defeat. Seleucus got thrown out, simple as that. Also, "some" is wrong. All the Indo-Greeks you mentioned who recovered the Indus Valley beginning in 180 were already Buddhist and only used Greek for coinage while speaking local languages like Karosthi and Gandharan and having adopted their scripts too. In terms of names, this is like saying that Bulgars and other Eastern Europeans that use names of Greek origin like Dimitri and Basil are Greek. Said kings remained with Greek names, and Indian sources identified them as "Yavana", but themselves no longer identified as Greek and were thoroughly Indianised. Again, it's like saying the Ottomans were Byzantines.
 
Also, "some" is wrong. All the Indo-Greeks you mentioned who recovered the Indus Valley beginning in 180 were already Buddhist and only used Greek for coinage while speaking local languages like Karosthi and Gandharan and having adopted their scripts too. In terms of names, this is like saying that Bulgars and other Eastern Europeans that use names of Greek origin like Dimitri and Basil are Greek. Said kings remained with Greek names, and Indian sources identified them as "Yavana", but themselves no longer identified as Greek and were thoroughly Indianised. Again, it's like saying the Ottomans were Byzantines.

This is wrong—the Indo-Greeks referred to themselves as “Yavana” or “Yahavana” as much as foreign Indian sources did, no matter what languages they spoke. It’s telling, though, that the legends on their coinage remained legible Greek until the end of their independent states, implying retention of the language to some extent.
As for faith, Gandharan art of the era often depicted Greek gods even if Buddhist art became more prominent.

The point is that to imply that the Indo-Greek Kingdom was only the latter in theory is silly.

EDIT: There’s also the fact that excavated Indo-Greek cities have been found to have been built to Greek city plans...
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
It's still wrong to say he "kept Bactria" even if I was wrong in saying "all of Bactria" since the former is also not true. And there was an exchange because Seleucus's satraps in Pakistan and north India and Seleucus himself got defeated. It was a conquest. Saying "they weren't worth the cost of extended conflict" is nothing but trying to save face for Greeks' defeat. Seleucus got thrown out, simple as that. Also, "some" is wrong. All the Indo-Greeks you mentioned who recovered the Indus Valley beginning in 180 were already Buddhist and only used Greek for coinage while speaking local languages like Karosthi and Gandharan and having adopted their scripts too. In terms of names, this is like saying that Bulgars and other Eastern Europeans that use names of Greek origin like Dimitri and Basil are Greek. Said kings remained with Greek names, and Indian sources identified them as "Yavana", but themselves no longer identified as Greek and were thoroughly Indianised. Again, it's like saying the Ottomans were Byzantines.

Do you want to define "Bactria"?

Does it include the satrapies of Arachosia and Gedrosia - if so why?

Please supply evidence why the Indo Greeks "only used Greek for coinage while speaking local languages like Karosthi and Gandharan"
 
Do you want to define "Bactria"?

Does it include the satrapies of Arachosia and Gedrosia - if so why?

Please supply evidence why the Indo Greeks "only used Greek for coinage while speaking local languages like Karosthi and Gandharan"
The thread appears that it requires a push forward to move on.
 
Top