Alexander the Great vs Nanda Dynasty

No, he couldn't have, barring a miracle mutiny or something.

The most important (and salient) thing to consider is this: who defeated the Nandas, Mauryas, Shungas, Satavahans, Guptas, Chalukyas, Cholas, Rasthrakutas, Palas and Gujjars ? The answer is: either nobody (they collapsed due to political reasons) or somebody with equal multitude of elephants.

It is interesting that barring the Guptas not a single indian empire has ever been defeated by a non-Indian one in the age before cannons. Conquerors such as Alexander, Kushans, Sassanids, Scythians, Turks, Arabs, etc. have followed two distinct courses pre cannonry:
a) contended themselves with the small kingdoms & city-states of western India (essentially modern day pakistan and eastern Afghanistan) or
b)made piece-meal of a motley crew of small kingdoms in the Gangetic plains and further south.

Even the few Indo-Greeks who encountered some success- such as Demetrius or Menander, had elephant corps.

The reason, IMO, is war elephants: empires could muster thousands of them while small kingdoms could only muster several dozens/a hundred or two of them. As such, Indian war elephants were extremely hard to deal with in multitudes since they were so versatile: if you show up with a phalanx, the elephant (which can run faster than a man), keeps the gap while the archers on top shower you with arrows. If you show up with light infantry, the elephants who have barbed wires and blades attached to them, run amok and virtually shreds the army. if you showed up with cavalry- well, the archer on top of an elephant outranges the horseback archer (Indian longbows = similar draw strength to English longbows/Mongol bows, fired from higher point vertically = greater horizontal trajectory) and horses almost never charge elephants.

As such, IMO, if the numbers are accurate, i can see why Alexander's troops mutinied and better sense prevailed: Alexander only faced 150-odd elephants from Porus and they were the most damaging instrument of Porus. This, despite the fact that Alexander picked his time to coincide with the rainy season, so the elephant's mobility was compromised and Indian bows were compromised as well ( Indian foot-archers used to anchor their longbows in the ground, which they couldn't against Alexander at Hydaspes).
If 150 elephants on a disadvantaged season could be the biggest instrument of damage against Alexander's army of 40,000 or so troops, six thousand elephants deployed represents an almost overwhelming advantage- even in the rainy season.
As such, Alex must've figured that the situation & timing wouldn't always be at his command as he waded deep into hostile territorry (for Porus's was a border conflict, where Alexander was allowed to muster in security of his own empire for a year or two- a luxury he wouldn't have a thousand kms east deep in the ganges basin).

Not to mention, Indian chariotry was similar to its elephants: predominantly an archery station with melee capabilities only when the enemies were breaking. As such, instead of driving their chariots inside the phalanx wall (like the Persians did), the Indians would most likely hang back and shower alex.

With his cavalry negated by the elephants and a far numerous cavalry force of their enemies, his Phalanx may've munched through the light Indian infantry at an alarming rate. But Indian infantry was far more numerous and there are roughly 15,000 archery stations showering them with arrows, it would've been overwhelmed before it won a 3:1 or 4:1 numerical disadvantage against its infantry counterparts.

The other interesting thing is, Indian warriors at that age were heavily influenced by the Kshatriya tradition- its not until medeival ages, with the erosion of the Kshatriya principles and their successes, do we see routs in Indian history.Usually battles were done till the ruling commanders were slain or submitted. At which point, the soldiers and the opposition army were repatriated. On the other hand, armies that routed usually ended up completely stripped of honor and their families were disenfranchized for 'cowardice'. As such, its unlikely that his opposition would've routed- indicating that the tremendous manpower advantage, along with massive superiority in mounted and archery units would've most likely carried the day for the Indians. Its worth mentioning that Indians at that era had steel armaments of superior quality than Alexander's own troops- especially arrowheads that show rudimentary armor-piercing capabilities as a precursor to bodkin points.

Pythagoras said:

Thank you for your input. To be honest, I also think that it would have been a very difficult task to conquer the Nanda Empire providing that the numbers of Plutarch are accurate and not over-exaggerated. We can see a map in order to compare Nanda Empire with Alexander's Empire.



On the other hand though, I am sure that Alexander would have chosen a different strategy (like guerrilla tactics) in order to tackle the huge number and the advantage provided by the war elephants. I am sure that he would not have faced the army of Nanda at once.

Moreover, we have to take into account the fact that Nanda Dynasty was easily extinguished few years later by Chandragupta Maurya, (the one the Greeks called Sandrokottus) and therefore we can assume that it was already declining at the years of Alexander.

Click to expand...

IMO, guerilla tactics won't really work in Northern India. Invaders such as Mohammed Bin Qasim, Mohammed of Ghor, etc. were allowed to proceed and pillage till their armies arrived at a vast plain, where the Indians picked the spot to ambush: Indians, due to their vast coastal and Indo-Gangetic plains, were inclined towards combat in vast fields. historic battle-grounds such as Tarain, Panipat, etc. are essentially completely flat and grassy fields that stretch 50-100 kms in any given direction. As such, chances of ambush tactics or effective usage of terrain is pretty slim: it is virtually garanteed that had Alexander crossed the ganges, combat would've been on some vast piece of plains where half a million combined forces could melee around with abandon.

Secondly, the collapse of the Nanda empire wasn't military defeat per se: it was caused by Chanakya, who was a political theorist and scholar from Taxila.
Upon Alexander's arrival at the doorsteps of India ( remember, Alexander waited a year or two between conquest of Kabul and proceeding to cross the Indus), Chanakya travelled from Taxila to Pataliputra, to petition Dhana Nanda (Xandrammes in Greek sources) to 'take up the fight' against the Greek invader of Bharatvarsha- the name of all lands east of Qandahar to the Arakan Yoma. His petition was one of cultural and civilizational unity against a foreigner, while Dhana Nanda refused to make unnecessary war against those who didn't threaten his borders (which at this point, Alexander is not threatening). After Alexander's departure, Chanakya used his rhetoric against 'foreign invasions jeopardizing Indian civilization' to call for a centralized indian government, that went beyond political borders and incorporated all that is Indian on a cultural and geopolical basis. This petitioning, which was extremely effectively distributed in the Nanda empire by Chanakya's agents ( he went on to create the first spy network attested in history), lead to significant defection of nanda generals to his cause- where he pitted a 'selfish emperor, keen to keep only his inheritance' versus 'a new age of a new empire, where the new empire would unite all Indians against a foreign aggressor, so that the genocides of Assakenoi, Mallas, etc. were never again inflicted on Indians', with great success.

Ultimately, the 'combat' involving the Nanda empire's overthrow involved a solitary combat outside the gates of Pataliputra, where the Royal guard of the Nanda emperor squared off against his former (defected) generals, leading to a rout.

This chain of events, which is quite well attested scholarly, does not speak of military incompetence or defects in the Nanda system, instead, it speaks of political manueverings and successes- by appeal to ethnic, cultural and civilizational principles- all of which Alexander wouldn't have been able to exploit.

Well, the premise is a bit misleading. Alexander may have only had 40,000 with him at the time, but he had the vast resources of Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, Thessaly, Syria, Anatolia, Mesopatamia, Persia, and even to some extent Afghanistan to draw from. No reason he could not have come back later with a bigger force.

As for our friends Gauda's contention about elephants- the West was only briefly impressed by them and eventually found them to be consistant losers. Too wild and unpredicatable a weapons sytem.

All that being said, I don't think he could have done it. It would have been a conquest on a different magnatude. He would have really had to go back to the drawing board and start over, and what you see towards the end is Alexander and his schemes in decline. His troops did not just mutiny once, remember. They were very upset and there were multple incidents over his continuing fusion of the Greek and Persian worlds.

Pythagoras said:

I think the wise choice for Alexander was to retreat in Babylon (like he did) or somewhere closer (like in Arachosia for example) and organize a second campaign with new troops that were psychologically prepared for this new type of warfare. Meanwhile, he could have sent representatives to other kingdoms and tribes in India and follow a "divide and conquer" policy in order to further weaken the influence of the Nanda Dynasty. I think that it was impossible to conquer Nanda without following this kind of strategy.

Click to expand...

This strategy is only viable if it is backed by sufficient military force and only after the Macedonians proved themselves as a worthy ally by scoring several important victories against Nanda first. Foreign polities don´t just enter an already established international system and expect to gain influence when no one in the system has any knowledge regarding to these new polities. This is even more the case since the Macedonians knows little about Indian politics, customs, or language, which would actually put them at a diplomatic disadvantage. The art of diplomacy is already pretty developed in India by that time, and it would probably be at the Nanda´s advantage to rally Indians against a foreign invader than the other way around.

cachibatches said:

Well, the premise is a bit misleading. Alexander may have only had 40,000 with him at the time, but he had the vast resources of Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, Thessaly, Syria, Anatolia, Mesopatamia, Persia, and even to some extent Afghanistan to draw from. No reason he could not have come back later with a bigger force.

Click to expand...

Logistical supply lines would've prevented Alexander from mounting anything greater than a 100,000 strong force and by then, surely the nandas too would've inflated their numbers. Their empire's population is conservatively estimated at 20 million folks. Lot of elephants would've been recruited.

As for our friends Gauda's contention about elephants- the West was only briefly impressed by them and eventually found them to be consistant losers.

Click to expand...

No kidding!! People who never grew up with elephants in their habitat, mostly seeing them once-in-a-blue-moon circus, importing them and promptly throwing them into battle, found them hard to handle.

I wonder then why is it that virtually everywhere the Asian elephant occurs- India, Indo-China, Indonesia, does it see extensive usage in warfare & economics.

might it have something to do with these people, who co-habitated with the elephant and evolved from neolithic times with these beasts sharing their ecosystem, figured out how to interact with them better ?

People who realized its awesome capabilities and its limitations, to've used it better ?

Too wild and unpredicatable a weapons sytem.

Click to expand...

Seems like a lack of western training and communication with the elephant & elephant driver. The west has shown no evidence of training a creature that is in the top 5 most trainable creature list outside of the group '.... sapiens'

All that being said, I don't think he could have done it. It would have been a conquest on a different magnatude. He would have really had to go back to the drawing board and start over, and what you see towards the end is Alexander and his schemes in decline. His troops did not just mutiny once, remember. They were very upset and there were multple incidents over his continuing fusion of the Greek and Persian worlds.

Click to expand...

That, is IMO the most practical reason why he couldn't have done it.

Pythagoras said:

I agree 100% with what you said.

I think the wise choice for Alexander was to retreat in Babylon (like he did) or somewhere closer (like in Arachosia for example) and organize a second campaign with new troops that were psychologically prepared for this new type of warfare. Meanwhile, he could have sent representatives to other kingdoms and tribes in India and follow a "divide and conquer" policy in order to further weaken the influence of the Nanda Dynasty. I think that it was impossible to conquer Nanda without following this kind of strategy.

In any case, historians debate about Alexander's intention before he died in Babylon few years later. Some claim that he was planning to initiate a new campaign in India, while some others argue that he was going west against the Romans and the Italian peninsula and some other believe that we was going to take over the Arabian peninsula.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, Arrian has him looking towards Arabia and Rome.

Lord_of_Gauda said:

Logistical supply lines would've prevented Alexander from mounting anything greater than a 100,000 strong force and by then, surely the nandas too would've inflated their numbers. Their empire's population is conservatively estimated at 20 million folks. Lot of elephants would've been recruited.



No kidding!! People who never grew up with elephants in their habitat, mostly seeing them once-in-a-blue-moon circus, importing them and promptly throwing them into battle, found them hard to handle.

I wonder then why is it that virtually everywhere the Asian elephant occurs- India, Indo-China, Indonesia, does it see extensive usage in warfare & economics.

might it have something to do with these people, who co-habitated with the elephant and evolved from neolithic times with these beasts sharing their ecosystem, figured out how to interact with them better ?

People who realized its awesome capabilities and its limitations, to've used it better ?




Seems like a lack of western training and communication with the elephant & elephant driver. The west has shown no evidence of training a creature that is in the top 5 most trainable creature list outside of the group '.... sapiens'



That, is IMO the most practical reason why he couldn't have done it.

Click to expand...

I just don't think that they were that great of a weapon system. I was just re-reading some Livy yesterday and Livy wrote about how unipressed the Romans were with elephants at Magnesia as they had men who had the knowledge to step out of the way and hit them with javelins. Same thing at Zama. I don't think there is any specific training that makes them much more dangerous. That being said, hey, I could be wrong.

As for the logistical probelms, I agree compeltely it would have been difficult for him to brring an army big enough to contend with the size, wealth and power of the Indians (not to mention that, according to Arrian, Alexander thought a lot of them as warriors with or without elephants), which is why i said I don't think he could have done it.

These are important points-
*The elephants the western armies faced in the west are different than Indian war elephants. It's like saying the Parthians are the same as Mongols just because they got ranged cavalry.
*Porus was a small time king who maintained a petty kingdom. The Nandas had a huge empire with a well developed society, and military. Porus had a city-state. Dhanand was an emperor.
*The number of elephants is close to being accurate. They are not dinosaurs from some exotic place. Elephants are a part of India's ecosystem. Wild elephants in classical era India probably numbered in the millions.
*Indians could field huge armies. More than Persians. India still has the most fertile lands in the world, and the Nanda had their empire in the gangetic plains, and could support a huge population, unlike the mountainous regions of the Persian empire and Greece.
*The Ganges was a very big obstacle yes. You should read more about it's magnificent dimensions.

These are my thoughts:

1)It is possible Alexander never even intended to invade any further than Punjab,which was,btw,already once a part of Achaemenid Empire,while anything beyond Hyphasis NEVER was.

More of this particular theory in the upcoming thread I will open soon.

2)Even if the above is not true,and he WAS forced to return,the chances are he lost any interest of ever returning to India,right there and then.

3)No,ultimately,he could not conquer Nanda Empire.Not only because of logistical and distance problems,either.Anyone who has read his Indian Campaign will know how INCREDIBLE difficult it was to conquer just that part of Indian Subcontinent that he did (Punjab,Indus Delta and Hindu-Kush),which,on the other hand,does not represent even 10% of the entire India,AND will know how impossible such a task would be.

To militarily defeat opponents,maybe(although,again,probably not everyone).To conquer,NO.
Alcibiades

The Nanda Dynasty represented a huge population and therefore a huge army could have been mustered in order to face any Western invader. In order to match those numbers, Alexander would have needed an army made up of Hellenic, Roman, Celtic and other European forces (at least 200,000 warriors and 50,000 cavalry). Even in that case, a victory would be far from certain.

Yes. I think Alexander couldn't have conquered India. Alci has excellent points, and am not really sure if it's Thess who typed the above post!!

The Imperial said:

Yes. I think Alexander couldn't have conquered India. Alci has excellent points, and am not really sure if it's Thess who typed the above post!!

Click to expand...

Why are you saying that? I have made similar posts, lots of times....