Cool vs Awesome; Alexander the Great vs Emperor Ashoka

I was reading up on Kandahar on wikipedia, when I came across the fact that the city had been founded/visited by both Alexander and Ashoka just decades apart.

Now, looking at Wikipedia I know its a huge stretch, but say lets have a POD at the time of Alexanders conception, keeping him the same but giving him a good dose of long livedness (along with avoiding poison, assasins, and all that jazz that has good opportunity to kill him).

If we have Alexander live to be 90 years old instead of until his 30's he would survive up to the year 266 BC.

If we have Alexander live to be 70 years of age, he would survive until the year 286 BC.

Both of those ages, and anytime in between, gives the opportunity for Alexander to interact with either a younger or older Ashoka

Here are the dates both of the men from Wikipedia:
Emperor Ashoka
Born 304 BC
Reigned 274–232 BC
Alexander the Great
Born 356 BC
Reigned 336–323 BC

Now, in many ways I know this is a silly POD in that Alexander living that long is kind of implausible, but it is not impossible. I mean Alexander lives longer and conquers x questions and timelines are rife around here so I think this is a fair question.

I just think the premise of two of history's greatest rulers meeting, talking, and maybe fighting to be an awesome idea. What do you guys think?
What could be the possibilities?
 
Well, the entire reason Ashoka had control of such an Empire was because of Alexander; his invasion of India completely destabilised the pre-existing political balance, and into that equation Chandragupta Maurya appeared, and rapidly expanded to control the whole North of India.

This is where things get odd for your idea, because Chandragupta fought against Seleukos, who gave him the Empire's satrapies of Arachosia, Gedrosia, and the Indian territories in the subsequent peace deal. Chandragupta then turned South, and by conquering Kalinga Ashoka finished the job his grandfather started.

So the Mauryans were actually kind of defined by the legacy of Alexander in the first place. But they were also defined by the state of Alexander's Empire after he died. And besides, Alexander living to 90 is a POD I can't even begin to comprehend in terms of its ramifications, so I must confess I can barely imagine Asia with an Alexander surviving that long, let alone what would happen with the interaction of Maurya-Alexander.

Crikey.

But as I said, this is very paradoxical. Alexander needed to turn up for Chandragupta to do his thing, but then he needed to die for Chandragupta to keep doing his thing. The whole character or even survival of the Maurya empire would be completely different with a surviving Alexander.
 
Top