Chandragupta question
- Thread starter Gladi
- Start date
I've heard it mentioned as a distinct possibility once or twice.
If the only difference is that they don't meet, then I don't see much difference. There would still be a rather corrupt and failing Nanda Dynasty in Magadha, Chandragupta would still be on the edges of the empire, with a potentially large army that he could call to his service, and he would still have the friends he did in Magadha. I think the Mauryan Empire would still rise, and Alexander's, obviously, still fall.
If the only difference is that they don't meet, then I don't see much difference. There would still be a rather corrupt and failing Nanda Dynasty in Magadha, Chandragupta would still be on the edges of the empire, with a potentially large army that he could call to his service, and he would still have the friends he did in Magadha. I think the Mauryan Empire would still rise, and Alexander's, obviously, still fall.
MarkA said:
Velka kniha vladcu staroveku. Evin Hrych. Regia, Prague, 2002
(Big Book of Ancient Rulers, yeah it sounds like a kiddy book but it is very good if quite shallow)
North King said:
Well, from my information he started reforms of army. Acording to Persian sources 100 000 men standing army and after mobilization 600 000 footmen, 30 000 riders and 9000 elephants- though those are overblown quite obviously.
I thought that the Indian king tat Alexander met, was not Chandragupta (called Sandrokottos by the Greeks), but Purushottama (called Poros by the Greeks).