WI: Ashoka annihilates the Seleucids

Maurya Empire annihilating the Selecuids

  • Plausible

    Votes: 19 59.4%
  • Implausible

    Votes: 13 40.6%

  • Total voters
    32
Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg


What if, after the conclusion of the Kalinga War(s), Ashoka of the Maurya Empire does not decide to renounce wars of conquest and instead chooses to head west in a reverse-Alexander campaign. The young Seleucid Empire collapses as a result.

With forces of a India united at his disposal, how plausible is this outcome and what far reaching effects would this have?

Bonus Question: How would the lack of Ashoka's patronage of Buddhism and the subsequent spreading of Hinduism in Central Asia and Anatolia effect World History?
 
Last edited:
I made a "reverse Alexander" thread a few moths back, and the consensus seems to be that the indians had no need to conquer all of Persia.
 
India saw the rest of the world like China at this point: As a bunch of uncultured barbarians (mlecchas). This view only changed after the Golden Age of the Delhi Sultanate. As such, the Maurya have no need to conquer a bunch of barbarians.

hmm..nada?
I happen to think its plausible, considering that Chandragupta kicked Seleucid I's ass previously.

There is a distinct difference between kicking the Seleucids out of India and conquering the Seleucids entirely.
 

fi11222

Banned
India saw the rest of the world like China at this point: As a bunch of uncultured barbarians (mlecchas). This view only changed after the Golden Age of the Delhi Sultanate. As such, the Maurya have no need to conquer a bunch of barbarians.
I agree. In order to make a "reverse Alexander" plausible, some major changes in Indian worldview would have to be made. Like having a central myth calling the West "the Land of the Gods" or some such.
 
What if, after the conclusion of the Kalinga War(s), Ashoka of the Maurya Empire does not decide to renounce wars of conquest and instead chooses to head west in a reverse-Alexander campaign. The young Seleucid Empire collapses as a result.

How long would the Maurya state hold together with the sovereign campaigning way off in the west? To eliminate the Seleucids, the Mauryans have to march all the way to Syria. That's a long way from Pataliputra.

Alexander made a comparable campaign, but after all, he was Alexander. There's a reason why he is remembered.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't know if the Mauryas conquering Persia is plausible (they had no need for it), but I do think it's entirely possible that the Mauryas try to absolutely destroy Seleucid armies in Persia so they won't try to invade again and this results in the Seleucid empire collapsing to a savvy Persian, Parthian or Bactrian prince deciding that now is the perfect time to rebel now that those nice men on elephants obliterated the Seleucid army.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
any campaign to West would not have 'force of United India'. There are numerous desert in Iran and Baluchistan. Remember, Alexander armies nearly dies of thirst during their return journey. There are limited water to sustain armies moving through Iran-Baluchistan, ten thousand or twenty thousands might be maximum number of men that could march through that. Lack of horse in India would make journey even slower and armies smaller.
 
Top