Mauryan Empire

The establishment of the Mauryan Empire bore one of the first powerful kingdoms in India. Chandragupta Maurya was born as the first ruler of
the Mauryan Empire, but the Southern part of the kingdom which was located on the southern part of the Ganges River was ruled by the Nanda
Family. Chandragupta killed the Nanda king and that was the official birth the the Mauryan Empire.Chandragupta expanded the empire greatly
as he conqured kingdoms throughout all of India.
 Geography
As you can see, to the left of this paragraph there is a map
of the Mauryan Empire in 265 BCE. By the end of the Empires
existence, much of India belonged to the Empire. As you can see, the
southern tip of the peninsula and the right part of the continent
weren't completely part of the Dynasty, but they were not complete
rivals of the Empire. Not all of the expansion was done by
Chandragupta, but there were also contributions made by other
rulers, Bindusara and Asoka.

Map of the Mauryan Empire

Government & Rulers
While Chandragupta was ruler, he relied much on his main adviser,
Kautilya. Kautilya wrote the Arthasastra which was a book of rules
that held the empire together. On top of Kautilya, Chandragupta
created a very bureaucratic government consisting of many people
doing many jobs that Chandragupta would supervise. To keep rule of
the Dynasty under control, Chandragupta split his Empire into 4 Chandragupta Maurya
provinces, each with their own "royal prince". Further dividing
continued inside of those provinces into local districts, very similar
to counties or cities here in the States. Inside those districts, officials
would govern based of the Arthasastra. The other two rulers of the
Mauryan Empire were Bindusara and Asoka. Both of the rulers of the
Empire were decedents of Chandragupta, Bindusara being his song
and Asoka being his grandson. While Asoka was in rule, the Empire
was at its highest. As soon as Asoka died the country spun out of
control and that was the fall of the Mauryan Empire

Bindusara
 Asoka The Great

Religion
When Asoka first became Emperor in 269 B.C. he followed greatly
in his grandfather's, Chandragupta's, footsteps. While he expanded
the empire through warfare, Asoka started to feel that all of the
bloodshed was not necessary. He ended up studying Buddhism and
concluded that his Empire was going to follow the teachings of
"peace to all beings" and "nirvana". Even though Asoka encouraged
Buddhism, many others urged religious tolerance. Practicing this
non-violence, peaceful religion throughout the Empire brought in
others without having to defeat them engaging in warfare. This
helped the Mauryan Empire grow to the heights that it reached as an
Empire.
Nirvana
Place of Worship
Fall of the Mauryan Empire
The death of Asoka was the beginning of the end of the Mauryan
Empire. Independent states that were loosely part of the Empire split
and became their own Dynasties. The main Empire that arose from
the downfall of the Mauryan Empire was the Andhra Dynasty. The
reason that they succeeded among the others was because of its
placement. It was in the perfect spot to trade with places like Rome
and Southeast Asia. Trade was a big factor when it came to the
establishment of the Andhra and the fall of the Mauryan Empire

Ancient Remain From The Mauryan Empire

Following the victorious battle of the Hydaspes River, Alexander's army marched until the Hyphasis river (modern day Beas river). It was at that point where
his army mutinied unwilling to face the army of the vast Nanda Emire laying to the east and demanding from the king to finally take the long way home.
Despite his initial disagreement, Alexander finally consented and later turned south against the Malli tribe. This event took place between July and
September 326 B.C. and marked the eastern point of his Empire.

As Plutarch describes it, in his book Alexander - Chapter 62

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could
do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on
crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side
were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting
them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no
boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army
of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
Plutarch, Alexander, chapter 62, section 2

So, according to Plutarch, the army of the Nanda Empire consisted of 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots and 6,000 war elephants.

So, let us assume that the army did no revolt and kept on marching in the depths of India. Could Alexander ever conquer the vast Nanda Empire and defeat
its army? If the numbers are accurate, then the odds seem definitely against him (assuming that Alexander's army consisted of less than 40,000 soldiers),
but then again...we are talking about Alexander. What do you think? Any thoughts, opinions?
Lord_of_Gauda
Ad Honorem

Nov 2009

8,402

Canada

Apr 10, 2012

#2

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.
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.

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.

Pythagoras
Mar 2012

688

Athens, Greece

Apr 10, 2012

#5

Once again, thank you for your input. Interesting thoughts.

cachibatches
Ad Honorem

Mar 2012

2,335

Apr 11, 2012

#6

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
Mar 2012

688

Athens, Greece

Apr 11, 2012

#7

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.

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.

Click to expand...
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.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2012

heavenlykaghan
Ad Honorem

Mar 2012

4,313

Apr 11, 2012

#8

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.
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.

Pythagoras
Mar 2012

688

Athens, Greece

Apr 11, 2012

#9

heavenlykaghan said:

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.

Keep in mind though that Alexander had already conquered several kingdoms and tribes in the Northwestern India. Moreover, prior to his victory against
Porus, he had already formed an alliance with Taxiles, King of Taxila, who helped him in the battle and capture of Porus. Taxiles himself was trusted with a
vast territory as a reward for his assistance. Porus was also rewarded by Alexander allowed to retain authority over his kingdom.

It is thus quite possible that both Taxiles and Porus would have assisted him in his diplomatic efforts. Therefore, I don't think that he would have entered a
completely unfamiliar diplomatic system. Nonetheless, I am sure that words of his conquests would have already spread far beyond the lands of his Empire
and several political enemies of the Nanda Dynasty or potential usurpers would have been more than willing to ally with him.

It is a valid hypothesis judging by the way Nanda Dynasty collapsed few years later.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2012

Lord_of_Gauda
Ad Honorem

Nov 2009

8,402

Canada
Apr 12, 2012

#10

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.

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.
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.

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

Nanda dynasty, family that ruled Magadha, in northern India, between c. 343 and 321 bce. The Nanda dynasty immediately preceded the
dynasty of the Mauryas, and, as with all pre-Maurya dynasties, what is known about it is a mixture of fact and legend. Indigenous traditions,
both Brahmanical and Jaina, suggest that the founder of the dynasty, Mahapadma (who was also known as Mahapadmapati, or Ugrasena),
evidently had a low social origin—a fact confirmed by classical scholarship. Mahapadma took over from the Shaishunagas not only the reins of
Magadhan power but also their policy of systematic expansion. His probable frontier origin and early career as an adventurer helped him to
consolidate the empire with ruthless conquests. The authenticity of the Puranic statement that he was the “destroyer of all Kshatriyas” and that
he overthrew such disparately located powers as the Ikshvakus, Pancalas, Kashis, Haihayas, Kalingas, Ashmakas, Kurus, Maithilas, Shurasenas,
and Vitihotras is borne out by independent evidence, which also associated the Nandas with conquests in the distant Godavari River valley,
Kalinga, and part of Mysore.

The post-Mahapadma genealogy of the Nanda dynasty is perfunctory in the Puranas, which mention only Sukalpa (Sahalya, Sumalya), while the
Buddhist text Mahabodhivamsa enumerates eight names. Dhanananda, the last of this list, possibly figures as Agrammes, or Xandrames, in
classical sources, a powerful contemporary of Alexander the Great. The Nanda line ended with him in about 321 bce when Chandragupta laid
the foundation for Mauryan power.

The brief spell of Nanda rule, along with the lengthy tenure of the Mauryas, represents the political aspect of a great transitional epoch in early
Indian history. The changes in material culture in the Ganges (Ganga) River valley beginning in the 6th–5th centuries bce, chiefly characterized
by settled agricultural technology and growing use of iron, resulted in agricultural production surpluses and a tendency toward the growth of
commerce and urban centres. It is significant in this context that in many sources, indigenous and foreign, the Nandas are portrayed as extremely
rich and as ruthless collectors of various kinds of taxes. In Alexander’s period, Nanda military strength is estimated at 20,000 cavalry, 200,000
infantry, 2,000 quadriga (chariots), and 3,000 elephants. In administration the initiatives of the Nanda state are reflected in references to
irrigation projects in Kalinga and the organization of a ministerial council.

This article was most recently revised and updated by Michael Ray, Associate Editor.
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
