WI: Alexander the Great conquered India

Oh aye. I'm just pointing out that its not "all" the generals dead - and there are still soldiers in Macedon.

Alexander didn't completely strip it of manpower.

Not that things won't fall apart, but Macedon the kingdom is more likely to shatter for the reasons it has in the past (successor? What successor?) than Alexander's adventure being wiped out so far as there's a distinction.

The empire, though...

Yes, I agree that he didn't take all of the manpower. However, there were already satrapies in OTL that did split off, such as AFAIK Cappadocia. Just now it'll be even more fragmented. I think the Parthians may rise earlier or not at all.
 
Yes, I agree that he didn't take all of the manpower. However, there were already satrapies in OTL that did split off, such as AFAIK Cappadocia. Just now it'll be even more fragmented. I think the Parthians may rise earlier or not at all.

You mean the Parni who were a subgroup of the Dahae. ;) The Parthians were already there in Parthia. You probably mean the Parni, specifically the Arsacids.
 
You mean the Parni who were a subgroup of the Dahae. ;) The Parthians were already there in Parthia. You probably mean the Parni, specifically the Arsacids.

As in rise to become more than a satrapy state quarreling with tens of others. The Parni had been mentioned many times in Achaemenid texts as a tributary satrapy that was often annoying them with revolts.
 
As in rise to become more than a satrapy state quarreling with tens of others. The Parni had been mentioned many times in Achaemenid texts as a tributary satrapy that was often annoying them with revolts.

I had a source that says different about the Parthians, not necessarily the Parni. The former revolted once and got creamed by Darius.
 
I had a source that says different about the Parthians, not necessarily the Parni. The former revolted once and got creamed by Darius.

Well, Yes. But the Parni, the subgroup of them, also revolted several times in the later years of the empire.
 
Not at all knowledgeable in the political/military stuff about Alexander's conquest of India (I'm the modern Middle East history guy... sorta) but I'd love to see the cultural effects of it, there was a primitive Greco-Indian culture that flourished following Alexander's conquest as an after-effect, the death throes of a dead Hellenic empire. If Alexander had subjected a large amount of the kingdoms of India or gotten others to be vassal kingdoms of his empire it would have been interesting to see the cultural effects. Science-wise the world could have become way more advanced and the political spread of the world (i.e. what was considered the "known" world at the time) could have been largely expanded. For successor powers like Rome, places like India and China were profitable trade partners and routes that linked to their trade networks were IMMENSELY sought after in that era, that said, you might have a Rome that places more emphasis on expansion eastward than OTL, wars with the Parthians and the Seleucids would have been less of a half-assed every so often affair and something frequently done, either that or Rome would work for an alliance, because suddenly there's a lot more of the Asian trade to which Rome will have access thanks in part to Alexander's Empire.

I think this would still have the existence and flourishing of the Roman Republic, a more overextended Seleucid Empire might even make Rome stronger.
 
Uh. There was. You have the Indo-Greeks. They managed to survive well into the 4th century AD in distinct communities throughout India.
 
Uh. There was. You have the Indo-Greeks. They managed to survive well into the 4th century AD in distinct communities throughout India.

I did acknowledge that there was some mixture of Hellenistic and Indian cultures... or were you not addressing me?

Though my point was more to say that a larger or even a complete conquest of India would've made that way bigger, to the point where Hellenestic culture was less of a minor addition to the tapestry of Indian culture, a few threads if you will, but this would be more of a whole new layer. It would not be the whole tapestry, Alexander's brief rule over the place would not negate untold centuries of Indian cultural development but it would direct it greatly in new directions... Indian states may even become more powerful than OTL because of all the Hellenestic technology and thought.
 
I did acknowledge that there was some mixture of Hellenistic and Indian cultures... or were you not addressing me?

Though my point was more to say that a larger or even a complete conquest of India would've made that way bigger, to the point where Hellenestic culture was less of a minor addition to the tapestry of Indian culture, a few threads if you will, but this would be more of a whole new layer. It would not be the whole tapestry, Alexander's brief rule over the place would not negate untold centuries of Indian cultural development but it would direct it greatly in new directions... Indian states may even become more powerful than OTL because of all the Hellenestic technology and thought.

Well, assuming that the Greeks manage to diffuse their culture permanently into India, we could see a blending of Greek thought and philosophy with that of Indian. The Caste system may be weakened as well, thought it was not as strong during this time.

As well, I do believe the Indians had a cure for smallpox. This may be invaluable to Europeans. In fact, the entire Indian medicinal package would be very helpful, as would their knowledge of hygiene and aqueducts.
 
And Greek knowledge of warfare and mathematics (easily some of the best in the world at that at the time)... *sigh* imagine where we could have been with that great synthesis eh? Maybe even a world where instead of dominator and dominated like India's relationship with the West was it would be a group of equals.

Maybe the Europeans could learn something about tolerance from India while they're at it...
 
Chandragupta Maurya was a awesome figure in world history (Sad that he is left out, but I suppose we of the West must root for our own eccentric Alexander) and he did invade the Seleucid Empire taking their eastrern territories. It would be a wonder if he ended up invading Persia and marching westward to the Med. Sea only to be defeated in Macedonia by Alexander!!

Uh. There was. You have the Indo-Greeks. They managed to survive well into the 4th century AD in distinct communities throughout India.
Personally one of my favorite eras in history.

Well, assuming that the Greeks manage to diffuse their culture permanently into India, we could see a blending of Greek thought and philosophy with that of Indian. The Caste system may be weakened as well, thought it was not as strong during this time.
.


I believe it was called Mahayana Buddhism. Their are serious questionings that the Western Philosphers were influenced by the Indian philosophies in their thinking, especially the like of Zeno and Pythagoras.
 
Chandragupta Maurya was a awesome figure in world history (Sad that he is left out, but I suppose we of the West must root for our own eccentric Alexander) and he did invade the Seleucid Empire taking their eastrern territories. It would be a wonder if he ended up invading Persia and marching westward to the Med. Sea only to be defeated in Macedonia by Alexander!!

The problem with that is he took power in 321 BC. When Alexander got there Magahda was under control by the Nanda dynasty.
 
In ancient times, they meant everything. Also, India at this point also had the dreaded war elephants.

After about a century of co-existence with the Mauryans, the Seleucids had their own war elephants in OTL, so I doubt that would have posed as great a challenge to them in their bid to conquer India as it had to Alexander and his by-then worn-out army who saw these elephants (and other jungle fauna) for the first time.
 
Top