Could Alexander have conquered the Nanda Empire?
- Thread starter Maoistic
- Start date
Ancient state in India that was eventually conquered by the Mauryan Empire.
To answer le OP. This is the same Alexander whose troops are on the verge of revolt and assassination circa what is now Pakistan, yes? I find it unlikely, if only due to those issues, that he'd be able to conquer the Nanda.
Doubtful. He probably would have tried, but there's a reason his soldiers mutinied once they got to India. The states there were more militarily complex than the enemies they had faced in Thrace or Bactria, and they sustained much heavier losses. His troops would unity if he tried again without recruiting a new army, but the time it would take to raise that army would mean massive changes to the domestic political landscape which would probably preclude another major expedition
The mutiny problem can be resolved easily enough assuming that he returns to Babylon and lives, but instead of planning to conquer South Arabia and Carthage, he decides to conquer the rest of India. Then, let's also assume that Chandragupta Maurya dies while being trained by Chanakya, and Chanakya instead mentors another boy who doesn't turn out to be anywhere near as great as Chandragupta Maurya, and therefore his revolt against the Nanda fails and also takes place right before Alexander sends his army out to the Indus (through pacified territory). Therefore, Alexander is able to conquer the critically weakened Nanda Empire.
Maoistic
Banned
Let's include a scenario where he survives his famous death in Babylon and decides to invade the Nanda in a well-organised campaign.
So if the Nanda found themselves in a civil war, Alexander could have conquered it? Do you think he could have consolidated his rule there as well?
I think a couple questions can set useful parameters for discussion.
How is the Nanda kingdom organized?
How much autonomy do the local communities have?
Is there internal discord?
What's the greatest number of war elephants ever gathered on one battlefield at one time?
How is the Nanda kingdom organized?
How much autonomy do the local communities have?
Is there internal discord?
What's the greatest number of war elephants ever gathered on one battlefield at one time?
From the macrohistorical point of view, nearly every empire based in Mesopotamia invaded and conquered the Indus Valley (Achaemenids, Macedonians, Sassanians, Umayyads), but none of them were able to expand into the Ganges due to logistical concerns. In the case of Alexander, his troops mutinied and refused to go further east; and I doubt they would change their mind even if Alexander took a hiatus from his conquests. It doesn't matter how well-planned and organized a campaign is; the Indus is the furthest an empire based in the Fertile Crescent can reach, such as Alexander's. Even if this objection is pushed aside, control of the region would be ephemeral and a native dynasty would replace the Nanda as soon as Alexander leaves the region.
Could he? Potentially.
His problem is organising his Empire so he CAN. After being refused his first attempt, he was going to conquer Arabia, which to me suggests that he was going to start to unite his realm via the sea. Which makes Indian conquests very different.
So we have an Empire that ties Macedonia to Babylon by sea/canal/sea, why not the Indus Delta? This means that an invasion can come via the Delta, which gives them many options.
1) They can campaign north, to secure the entire Indus Valley, and create a border with any Ganges state (i.e. Nanda Empire)
2) They can campaign south-east, taking the Gujarat region, before opening a well-supplied campaign southwards down the Indian coastline.
However, to take on the Nanda, you'd have to complete Campaign 1, and then follow it up with an overland campaign to the Ganges - I don't think this is either wise, or possible. Alexanders logistics would be much worse than the Nandas (or Maurya is that isn't butterflied).
I think that in an optimistic, reformed Empire that completes Campaign 2, and can take control over the Deccan Plateau and its coasts, and then move on the Ganges, then it could use India-Raised Phalanxes to complete the job, which is much easier, and the Empire can campaign from three sides - from the Delta, the Mid-River from the Deccan, and from the Northern Indus to the Ganges. Much wiser.
So I'm going to have to say, reasonably no. Short of Alexander living an incredibly long time and engaging in a cross-Indian "Retirement Campaign" it seems impossible. Although I'd read that timeline in a second.
His problem is organising his Empire so he CAN. After being refused his first attempt, he was going to conquer Arabia, which to me suggests that he was going to start to unite his realm via the sea. Which makes Indian conquests very different.
So we have an Empire that ties Macedonia to Babylon by sea/canal/sea, why not the Indus Delta? This means that an invasion can come via the Delta, which gives them many options.
1) They can campaign north, to secure the entire Indus Valley, and create a border with any Ganges state (i.e. Nanda Empire)
2) They can campaign south-east, taking the Gujarat region, before opening a well-supplied campaign southwards down the Indian coastline.
However, to take on the Nanda, you'd have to complete Campaign 1, and then follow it up with an overland campaign to the Ganges - I don't think this is either wise, or possible. Alexanders logistics would be much worse than the Nandas (or Maurya is that isn't butterflied).
I think that in an optimistic, reformed Empire that completes Campaign 2, and can take control over the Deccan Plateau and its coasts, and then move on the Ganges, then it could use India-Raised Phalanxes to complete the job, which is much easier, and the Empire can campaign from three sides - from the Delta, the Mid-River from the Deccan, and from the Northern Indus to the Ganges. Much wiser.
So I'm going to have to say, reasonably no. Short of Alexander living an incredibly long time and engaging in a cross-Indian "Retirement Campaign" it seems impossible. Although I'd read that timeline in a second.
At this point there was nothing to take in the Deccan Plateau. Avanti was the southernmost established Janapada with it's capital around modern-day Ujjain. Assaka was a loose collection of republican townships.
The Deccan's major population centres such as Pratisthana only rose around c.150 BC. And even then they were few and far between with the Sataygahanas heavily utilizing chariots in their armies to connect their cities. The first true cities would only rise under the late Chalukyas in places like Vatapi and Badami.
Last edited:
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
It's not that they would change their mind, is that they would have been exchanged. The mutineers wanted to finally go home, and Alexander agreed.
Not if he establishes a loyal satrap in the conquered territory first. I imagine such a satrap would be rather independent-minded, but then again, so were many Achaemenid satraps.
Hang on, aren't we ignoring the Chola and Satavahana? Even if we accept that there was nothing to take, it then becomes worthwhile territory to settle Macedonians so as to provide local recruits in India. Greco-Indian Deccan ftw! Bonus is the mineral wealth of the Deccan that would likely be found post-settlement, and its relatively central position so they could campaign against nearly all of the Empires Indian subjects.
I mentioned the Satavahanas above. They acted as a true imperial power within the few cities (mostly inland) but still werr pretty decentralized and low on population. The Cholas basically treated the area as a cash cow and milked it for the mineral wealth in it's southern most part. Warangal and Mysore where the minerals lie are way too far out of Alexander's reach if he doesn't take the Gangetic plains.
The thing with Macedonian settlement is... is it worth it? The Marathi and Kannada coastlines are bountiful but would not be rich till the Cholas kickstarted trade from the Indonesian islands with their maritime empire. Even then the majority of the power lay in the Malabar and Coromandel coast.
So the retired Macedonian soldiery could establish a few poleis along there but that region lies in the situation where the Gujarati gold and pearling cities steal trade to the north and the Malabari cities control the spice market to the South.
Ah, I assumed they were different. I tend to know little about India, so I follow the exact characters typed, so I wouldn't know if your g was the v I typed, etc.
Mysore is SW India - you can't get much further away from the Ganges without leaving India! As for Warangal, I don't agree that you need the Ganges, Alexander could well use that as a frontier city.
As for is the settlement worth it? Possibly not for purely economic reasons, but for Alexanders idea of creating a common culture? Certainly. A Greek speaking demographic is a prime recruitment centre for bureaucrats, soldiers, essentially every office of state. So would the coast for that matter, stimulating the very trade the Chola did, except with the potential for the huge consumption in Babylon and Egypt to make it more fierce.
I think it'd have to be more long term than a few, but all those areas you're talking about are areas that would be providing resources to the Alexandrian Coffers, making them also worth fortifying, likely before Deccan.
Yeah, I really don't see the point of Alexander invading the Deccan. Conquering the Nanda Empire would already be quite a feat and probably requires some sort of critical weakening of the Nanda at a critical time.
I imagine whatever successor satrap to the Nanda would be fairly independent (just as the Paurava kingdom and Sogdiana were from the Achaemenids) and may conquer the Deccan during the Diadochi period.
I imagine whatever successor satrap to the Nanda would be fairly independent (just as the Paurava kingdom and Sogdiana were from the Achaemenids) and may conquer the Deccan during the Diadochi period.
Yeah sorry for the typo. Should be fixed now.
But how would Alexander reach Warangal? One can’t just land classical oared ships anywhere and if the sea route is to be used then it will take months of campaigning to reach the city. And no matter the numbers the Macedonians muster it is still terrain unlike which they have campaigned before. The Western Deccan is rocky escarpments that have sheer vertical inclines and few perennial rivers after the Narmada. The Eastern Ghats are forests filled with fierce Bhil tribesmen that only Ashoka and Samudragupta managed to quell. And that’s not even factoring in stable supply lines which is something that was not a good idea before the invention of the caravel. Not saying that victory’ll be impossible but it’ll definitely be damn hard.
As I said before the idea has merit. But the person who pulls it off isn’t going to be the brash young Alexander who managed to rip apart a crumbling empire. It’s going to be a slightly older Alexander who has understood the intricacies of statesmanship. If anything I would be more interested in how Alexander deals with the Three Sisters. The Cholas, Pandyas and Cheras were ancient by all standards. Even the Pallavas who were seen as usurpers were an old state.
Will Alexander subjugate them and make them vassals, something that Ashoka had to do due to their sheer independence? Or will he tear apart the old structures and proclaim himself as the supreme monarch? Cause the latter is definitely not gonna win him any friends...
mad orc
Banned
Alexander in my opinion took out the Persian emperor by succeeding as its king.
He took out other smaller empires by the Dozens.
But Persia, no, he took them out the same way the Ostrogoths took out the Romans, by claiming leigitimcay and winning a few important battles.
The Nanda empire is not like that.
Alex has zeo legitimacy and its not a small empire, it is a huge power.
It is one of the 8 great powers of that era.
No, no way Alex's doing that shit.
He took out other smaller empires by the Dozens.
But Persia, no, he took them out the same way the Ostrogoths took out the Romans, by claiming leigitimcay and winning a few important battles.
The Nanda empire is not like that.
Alex has zeo legitimacy and its not a small empire, it is a huge power.
It is one of the 8 great powers of that era.
No, no way Alex's doing that shit.
Warangal is the tail end of a campaign in my opinion. Plus, I don't think that Alexander would use Mediterranean ships outside the Med, I reckon they'd try and use Arabian and Somali style shipping and later Chola-style craft, adopting those ship styles like his father adopted Triremes.
Ok, I'll admit I don't know enough about the Deccan to say anything other than I may have underestimated that route.
I agree with your perception of the Alexander required for this campaign, but it leaves me curious, what ARE The Three Sisters?
If we're talking about those three states, then I imagine Egypt is an example. Join, have relative independence, but be protected from the (now) rising Mauryan Empire.
The Three Sisters are the Mûvendhāram also known as the Three Glorified Kingdoms of the World. AKA, the Pandya, Chola and Chera dynasties. The former are attested to be as old 8th century BC while the youngest, the Cheras were ‘only’ founded in the 6th century. Basically these guys were old by the time of the Buddha and were three dynasties of unbroken lineage. The Pallavas were also close to joining their ranks but the Mauryans fully annexed the Kingdom of Andhra.
A comparison with Egypt would be valid by Egyptian dynasties changed every two centuries or so (I think. I don’t know much beyond Ptolemaic Egypt) whereas the Three Kingdoms were more comparable to the Yamato of Japan.