WI: Alexander Attacks Nanda Empire

Assume the mutiny by Alexander's troops that forced him to turn back happened slightly later. Alexander waits it out a few days as per OTL, but here, in wonderfully perfect timing, Memnon arrives with his reinforcemence of 6,000 cavalry, 7,000 infantry, and 25,000 suits of armor (IOTL, Memnon unfortunately arrived shortly after Alexander caved). This might just be enough to persuade Alexander's men to press forward, and for the sake of the what if, assume that it is.

How does Alexander fare against the Nandas?
 
It would have been a really hard fight, one that Alexander is really not bound to win.
See how Alexander fared against Indus' kingdoms, while they were only minor players in India? You can take than up to eleven with Nanda Empire and its large, really large army.

Two hundred of thousands footmen, eight thousands chariots and six thousands war elephants, as tought Greeks.

It's worth noting that India gathered one of the largest population of the world at this point and that Alexander was far from his supply and reinforcement cores (and giving how much hard was Alexander's troops crossing over Central Asia, I don't think Memnon's reinforcements would be that fresh)

Now, I know that the mighty whitey trope plays fully in this sort of discussion, but there's a reason why Alexander had really hard time with the small Indian kingdoms, and why he didn't seem to have planned another attempt at the sub-continent, and why he remained a footnote for what matter Indian history eventually.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
It would have been a really hard fight, one that Alexander is really not bound to win.
See how Alexander fared against Indus' kingdoms, while they were only minor players in India? You can take than up to eleven with Nanda Empire and its large, really large army.

Two hundred of thousands footmen, eight thousands chariots and six thousands war elephants, as tought Greeks.

It's worth noting that India gathered one of the largest population of the world at this point and that Alexander was far from his supply and reinforcement cores (and giving how much hard was Alexander's troops crossing over Central Asia, I don't think Memnon's reinforcements would be that fresh)

I have to agree with you here, I'm not sure what changed with the Greco-Bactrians to enable them to invade and hold territory in India, but I'd put my money on disorganised opponents, no horde of war-elephants in the way.

Really, Alexander would only have a chance in India, if somehow he was able to bring over either captured Indian Elephants from the smaller kingdoms, or imported vast numbers of N.African Elephants for his armies, so that he could at least have something providing the impact of Indian Elephants. Add in maybe some time to figure out a strategy, and perhaps (Perhaps) the Nanda won't just rofl-stomp Alexander. Unlike gaugamela, it'll be Nanda combing in with the epic flank with those elephants, rather than Alexanders cavalry.

Now, I know that the mighty whitey trope plays fully in this sort of discussion, but there's a reason why Alexander had really hard time with the small Indian kingdoms, and why he didn't seem to have planned another attempt at the sub-continent, and why he remained a footnote for what matter Indian history eventually.

Woah, ok. Calling out racism before there is racism, basically accuses the forum of being racist. Not cool dude. Not cool.

Whilst I agree with your strategic summation, and Alexanders historical impact in India, maybe don't suggest the forum are white supremacists.
 
I have to agree with you here, I'm not sure what changed with the Greco-Bactrians to enable them to invade and hold territory in India, but I'd put my money on disorganised opponents, no horde of war-elephants in the way.
Demetrios and Menandros beneficied from an overall better logistical situation : Greco-Bactrians were closer, beneficied from Silk Way exchanges and structures.
Eventually, the political turmoil, with the fall of Maurya Empire greatly helped.

Still, these conquests remained largely stuck on Indus valley, and quickly pushed back to the upper part of it while the loss of Bactriana (their actual bases) and the pressure from other peoples intensified.

Roughly, they did better than Alexander, in such way they actually ruled the Indus valley (Alexander went with making Indus kingdoms subordinated, without even a Macedonian garrison), but not that better.

Really, Alexander would only have a chance in India, if somehow he was able to bring over either captured Indian Elephants from the smaller kingdoms, or imported vast numbers of N.African Elephants for his armies, so that he could at least have something providing the impact of Indian Elephants.
I'm a bit dubious : Greeks didn't really mastered elephantry before that Maurya sent elephants to Seleucids with indian riders teaching the how-to.

As for North African elephantry, it was a thing because it came from hellenistic elephantry.

You could argue that kingdoms as Poros' could do their part, on which I agree. But I'm not sure it would be enough to provide a victory element both because of numbers and the unknown factor it was for Greeks.

Woah, ok. Calling out racism before there is racism, basically accuses the forum of being racist. Not cool dude. Not cool.
Giving how much the rational arguments were ignored last time because Alexander! and the supposed cultural superiority...

It may be "not cool", but I'm fed up seeing arguments as
The Ganges and Deccan didn't matter back then, a bunch of petty kingdoms with no history of greatness, it was the inspiration of Alexander and the Greek culture that led to future unification and empires

Which, regardless comes from ignorance or bias, are a variation on mighty whitey coming to bring civilization.
Blame XIXth and XXth historiography and its impact on popular perception, not me.

Whilst I agree with your strategic summation, and Alexanders historical impact in India, maybe don't suggest the forum are white supremacists.
I don't suggest that, I say there was a bias based on a really really innacurate view of India history, and equaling its civilization to western influence.

I won't make again the debate that bias isn't just KKK people in hoods and cartoonishly racists, but something culturally ingrained, but yeah : bias do exist.

And I prefer to call bullshit right away on this, in order to have an actually relevant discussion.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Demetrios and Menandros beneficied from an overall better logistical situation : Greco-Bactrians were closer, beneficied from Silk Way exchanges and structures.
Eventually, the political turmoil, with the fall of Maurya Empire greatly helped.

Today I learned! Though, what were the other benefits that the Silk Way was providing? I would have just assumed resources/intelligence.

Still, these conquests remained largely stuck on Indus valley, and quickly pushed back to the upper part of it while the loss of Bactriana (their actual bases) and the pressure from other peoples intensified.

Roughly, they did better than Alexander, in such way they actually ruled the Indus valley (Alexander went with making Indus kingdoms subordinated, without even a Macedonian garrison), but not that better.

Alas poor Greeks. So much for the idea of Hoplite Invincibility! :p Went to a fantastic lecture about the topic, and how utterly easy it was to disprove. And how tied it was to the idea of the Persian Immortals. Fantastic stuff.

I'm a bit dubious : Greeks didn't really mastered elephantry before that Maurya sent elephants to Seleucids with indian riders teaching the how-to.

As for North African elephantry, it was a thing because it came from hellenistic elephantry.

You could argue that kingdoms as Poros' could do their part, on which I agree. But I'm not sure it would be enough to provide a victory element both because of numbers and the unknown factor it was for Greeks.

This probably makes the point I wasn't straight with. Without Elephants they can't succeed, and the Greeks can't Elephant. :p

Giving how much the rational arguments were ignored last time because Alexander! and the supposed cultural superiority...

It may be "not cool", but I'm fed up seeing arguments as

Which, regardless comes from ignorance or bias, are a variation on mighty whitey coming to bring civilization.
Blame XIXth and XXth historiography and its impact on popular perception, not me.

I don't suggest that, I say there was a bias based on a really really innacurate view of India history, and equaling its civilization to western influence.

I won't make again the debate that bias isn't just KKK people in hoods and cartoonishly racists, but something culturally ingrained, but yeah : bias do exist.

And I prefer to call bullshit right away on this, in order to have an actually relevant discussion.

My issue is more that you did it pre-emptively. I empathise with the desire to quash the issues before they turn up. I won't say more beyond this because I don't want to derail the thread, but it wasn't relevant in the context of the thread, but another thread entirely. Sure, call out racists, or ignorant fools when they are being ignorant. Provide the info (I mean, that shorthand of the Nanda army is terrifying, and illustrates quite how difficult it would be for Alexander to an Indian-History-Novice like me) but doing that just makes the thread hostile - which I doubt was your intention.

--------------------------------

Anyway, moving on. I think we've shown that it isn't as easy as Alexander marching in and "VICTORY". Assuming that he has Memnons reinforcements, what would Alexanders likely response be? I know he was one of the few generals to achieve victory on the steppe - but could be he be strategically flexible enough to find a counter to the sheer number of Elephants? I can see him being belligerent enough to try again, but short of hiding behind giant wooden stakes (ideally lifted at the last moment) I can't see how to win a battle against that many, especially on the offensive. You'd have to defeat them strategically, rather than tactically.
 
Today I learned! Though, what were the other benefits that the Silk Way was providing? I would have just assumed resources/intelligence.
Well, resources are vital when you go for military conquest, after all.

Roads and cultural (which includes military tought and organisation) exchanges played an important role too.

For the first, we can see how important they were with Alexander's campaign in Central Asia. It's simply easier and quicker to have armies using "marked" trails with more easily managable logistics.

For the rest...Giving our discussion about elephantry, being more accustomed and integrating local strategy and military tought is usually a good idea.

Alas poor Greeks. So much for the idea of Hoplite Invincibility! :p Went to a fantastic lecture about the topic, and how utterly easy it was to disprove. And how tied it was to the idea of the Persian Immortals. Fantastic stuff.

I'd have tought Kardaka being closer to hoplitic forces, tough.

This probably makes the point I wasn't straight with. Without Elephants they can't succeed, and the Greeks can't Elephant. :p
Well, they could and they did (up to revolutionnary development as howdah).

It just took time, and it may have more to do with prestige than real tactical efficience*, contrary to India, as they were relatively few territories were elephants were native.
You can see that Persian elephantry, while impressing Greeks, didn't played a real tactical role, probably due to their fairly limited numbers.

*Altough you have the Battle of Ipsos, where Selucos used 500 war elephants graciously sent by the Maurya Empire. But there again, the lack of native elephants made a large use a bit utopic.

Having Alexander integrating immediatly an elephantry from the recently defeated Indus Kingdom (that have then a limited number of "units"), is however stretching it.

My issue is more that you did it pre-emptively.
Maybe. My point is just that I'd want us to have a quality discussion without something that pops up regularily, and against which there's hardly rational discussion to have (once someone is convinced that X civilisation is superior to Y, not only that becomes a whole different question than Alexander possibilities in India, but you'd never break this with rational arguments, because that's not an informed or rational assessment).

That said, I'll end with this as well, to not derail the thread.

Anyway, moving on. I think we've shown that it isn't as easy as Alexander marching in and "VICTORY". Assuming that he has Memnons reinforcements, what would Alexanders likely response be?
Before going for Nanda Empire, he would have to deal with other small states, as in Gurjarat (Saurashtra among them?) and choose between going for highlands, desert or marsh, while Nanda army is going to wait for him.

I know he was one of the few generals to achieve victory on the steppe - but could be he be strategically flexible enough to find a counter to the sheer number of Elephants?
Well, he could. I don't think that's really likely, but he could.
But could his men take it? IOTL, it was the battle with Poros that made them unwilling to continue : assuming they doesn't mutinate then, are still they going to be much obedient with an elephantry taken up to eleven charging at them?

Even if they win, Alexander's gonna have troubles keeping up with them.

You'd have to defeat them strategically, rather than tactically.
I think that's the main problem. Alexander had no clue at all about India : its geopolitics, wealth, situation, military...
In order to have some strategic tought, you need something more than the king you just defeated saying "these guys stinks. Also they're a fuckton more powerful than I".

And giving that India was a big unknown for Alexander, even with tactical victories, I think he'd have bogged down while the rest of his Empire will contemplate some reedition of what happened in Greece while he was fighting in Central Asia.

While I think a longer-living Alexandrine Empire *may* do something about it (while I'd be more convinced by seeing it recentering on Near-East and Mediterranean basin), I don't think the conflated raid of 326 may have been that pushed.
 
Last edited:
In all honesty, for all his military brilliance, Alexander was very likely going to lose this one. And lose badly. He was at the end of his supply line, very far into hostile territory. His army is at the brink of mutiny over homesickness and disease that no amount of stunning victories can hope to win them over again. Turning back OTL was genuinely the wisest decision Alexander could ever do that that point. Marching on would just be asking for his army to desert him en-masse, or even outright kill him, far before he even confronted any Nanda army in combat.

EDIT: If at all possible, perhaps he could have taken on locals to replace his ranks, but again, they're more likely to follow their own compatriots than some pale-faced 'alien' from god-knows-where.
 
What I want to know is where do the Nandas get the 150kg minimum of food and 200l per day of water each elephant needs and the transport to move it people to cut it and their rations water etc etc etc.


One of the issue with quoting 200,000 men is they have to travel , its basically a 135 column mile problem with the bearers, camp followers, markets etc in addition. and the ability to command them in a meaningful way. The 135 mile is scaling up from a Prussian Corps of 1870 btw.
 
What I want to know is where do the Nandas get the 150kg minimum of food and 200l per day of water each elephant needs and the transport to move it people to cut it and their rations water etc etc etc.
Nanda put in place an important fiscal structure, wich while burdening, made them (and their Maurya successors) able to deal with the costs of a large army.

One of the issue with quoting 200,000 men is they have to travel
Keeping in mind that the number given by Greeks are less exact XIXth like armies count, that "holy shit there's a fuckton of them" (that said Plutarch numbers are generally more realistic than any other ancient historian), Nanda were on the defensive, awaiting for a possible attack, technically they have the logistical advantage.

Admittely this count probably included Gandhara, and maybe Kalinga's troops.

I would'nt be overly surprised at an high account trough : India counted for nearly a 1/3 of the world poplation at this point.
 
So what exactly would a campaign look like? Goes on Gurjarat first, his troops refuse to mutiny long enough for him to at least fight the Nandas once...fights a battle to a draw maybe before his troops have enough and force him to return home?
 
I'd think, but that's a personal idea not too much based on hard facts, that Alexander will try to go for Upper Gangetic river trough Sultej, as it would makes him having an easier access rather than the coast of the desert.

Plus, it would allow him to benefit more easily from submitted Indus kingdoms's resources.

But that means going only trough an handful of janapada or mahajanapadain as Madra, before reaching Nanda cores, if Nanda simply doesn't side with them from the start as it may be implied by Plutarch when he associates Gandarites (Gandhara) and Prasians (Nanda).

If it's the case, it means immediate big fight, if not it means that Alexander have to go trough several rounds before actually meeting the big player in the region.
 
I'd think, but that's a personal idea not too much based on hard facts, that Alexander will try to go for Upper Gangetic river trough Sultej, as it would makes him having an easier access rather than the coast of the desert.

Plus, it would allow him to benefit more easily from submitted Indus kingdoms's resources.

But that means going only trough an handful of janapada or mahajanapadain as Madra, before reaching Nanda cores, if Nanda simply doesn't side with them from the start as it may be implied by Plutarch when he associates Gandarites (Gandhara) and Prasians (Nanda).

If it's the case, it means immediate big fight, if not it means that Alexander have to go trough several rounds before actually meeting the big player in the region.

I doubt then that his troops would take it long enough to go through several smaller states to get to the Nanda. They'd probably have enough b then and force him to turn back.
 
The costs of the large army re not the issue, the issue is the transport of bulk perishable goods. While I slightly doubt they had the numbers of Elephants standing around in barracks waiting for a war they could easily have had the numbers of foot and equipment for the other troops in those numbers available, just not all in one place at the same time.

I used the Prussians btw because late 19th century/pre WW1 tables are valid for horse transport armies working efficiently on a decent road net.

One of the reasons why Alex gets such a good rep is he was able to move a significant sized army and fight Klein and Grosse Kreig campaigns and win them as he chose.
 
The costs of the large army re not the issue, the issue is the transport of bulk perishable goods.
Again, the fiscal network of the Nanda, that was much the same than Maurya used later, seems to have allowed that.
Land revenue and requisitions are known to have existed, and giving the wealth and the resources of Gangetic basin, it's less about transporting perishable ressources than using an imperial system.

There's also the much probable existance of senabhaktam that allowed an army to live on the country they marched on.

Remember : it's up to Alexander to meet the Nanda, not the contrary. Nanda fiscal and military organisation allowed the maintain of large armies.

While I slightly doubt they had the numbers of Elephants standing around in barracks waiting for a war they could easily have had the numbers of foot and equipment for the other troops in those numbers available, just not all in one place at the same time.
Again, if we're to trust Plutarch (our only very credible source on it), these armies were there : Indus kingdoms rulers were aware of their force, and it seems that Nanda were able to gather it from their land, plus sattelized/neighbouring kingdoms.

I used the Prussians btw because late 19th century/pre WW1 tables are valid for horse transport armies working efficiently on a decent road net.
It doesn't seems Indian armies at this point used much horse transport : probably elephant transport or chariots, tough.
 
Would it be possible to turn the local states against the Nanda? I mean Chandragupta did it with just the resources of the Indus satraps, maybe Chandragupta could decide to side with Alexander against the Nanda? He did already swear an oath to destroy the Nanda around this time.

I know barely anything of this time period in India, so someone more learned on this topic could explain why this probably isn't possible.
 
Remember that Maurya dynasty is somewhat related to Nanda: there's a connection, a legitimacy that Alexander couldn't have.

Without talking about "nationalism", which would be anachronistic there, the Maurya rise may be related to the change of alliance in the region : not only Alexandrine conquests provoked some geopolitical changes, but as Alexander leaves India without mecedonian garrisons in Taxila or Poros' kingdom (and the subsequent revolt in -322) certainly destabilized the region, helping a local dynast to overthrow a far imperial rule.

(The fiscal burden from Nanda is almost a trope, and while necessary, Nanda didn't seem to have really used it to support Penjab's or Kashmir's kingdoms against the situation).

That said, yes, an Alexandrine raid into India, whatever the results, could destabilize more than IOTL the region, up to a possible Nanda collapse (although that would ask for a real campaign, something that I'm not sure Macedonian had the resources for).

But I doubt Alexander could do much about it : contrary to Persia that was well known from Greek since centuries of trade, mercenaryship and political shenanigans; India was a big unknown for them.
Either Alexander would be content having made more Indian kingdoms and sub-kingdoms technical vassals (as it was the case for imperial ensemble in Ancient India, as you could argue)?

Even that wouldn't be much to ask, given the rare resources Alexander would have disposed?

I mean Chandragupta did it with just the resources of the Indus satraps,
It seems Chandragupta's fight was more about harassment and attrition warfare (against an Empire that depended heavily from fiscal ressources, that's sound) : after all Mauryas were first defeated by Nanda (and their general Bhadrasala).

Could Alexander afford such tactics, if we're to use a Maurya parallel?
 
WI we change the WI?

OTL Alexander spent/wasted a lot of time in the vast vastness of Central Asia. What if instead he went directly, or at least more directly, towards the Indus.
 
OTL Alexander spent/wasted a lot of time in the vast vastness of Central Asia. What if instead he went directly, or at least more directly, towards the Indus.

Central Asia was a nightmare for an army.

Alexander and his troops had to wander among desertic plateaux and snowy mountains, with huge logistic needs without having proper structures for, while being harassed by locals (either ambitious satraps in need for independence or imperial dreams, or local peoples on which Persian rule was superficial and sometimes history and that had no desire to comply face to Alexander).

Pacification of Drangiane, Sogdiane and Bactriane, successfuly enough to allow Alexander to launch a massive raid on Indus, are really a testimony to his military and command skills.

The only realistic way to have the Macedonian/Greek/Persian army of Alexander reaching Indus earlier would be having Alexander himself dismissing his role of legitim successor of Persian emperors, and then bound to retrive all of its provinces.

---​

If we have to change the PoD, I'd rather see a later fragmentation of Alexander's Empire, and having whoever is Lord of Asia launching a campaign on India would it be to push back Maurya Empire (if Chandragupta acts as IOTL) or (to respect the OP more litteraly) having Chandragupta being utterly defeated by Nanda and having Nanda Empire taking on Indus valley.
 
Top