5 ms·
Interestingly enough he became politically active after India's defeat at the hands of Alexander the Great, and aided in creating an empire that unified the who
by humility 6y ago
Interestingly enough he became politically active after India's defeat at the hands of Alexander the Great, and aided in creating an empire that unified the whole of India, which was unprecedented until then.
- actuator 6y agoIs there any recommended reading you have on this? In general, all the foreign conquests that succeeded in India even later were when it was fragmented into smaller kingdoms.
- ViralBShah 6y agoI'll highly recommend "Ashoka: The Search for India's Lost Emperor". https://www.amazon.com/Ashoka-Search-Indias-Lost-Emperor/dp/1468300717 https://www.amazon.com/Ashoka-Search-Indias-Lost-Emperor/dp/... Not so much about Chanakya, but about that period in India, and describes in depth how the history was pieced together.
- muststopmyths 6y agoProbably doesn't exist, since "India's defeat at the hands of Alexander" never happened. He barely made it to the border of the largest empire in contemporary India, by geography. Even the parts of current Pakistan he conquered were nowhere near major powers in the subcontinent. That was as far as he got before his army rebelled and forced him to abandon further conquest.
- logicx24 6y agoThis is broadly true, though he did have an impressive victory at the Hydaspes and establish a series of vassal states in the Indian northwest (modern Pakistan). The historical consensus is that it's unlikely he would have succeeded in a Persian-esque conquest of the subcontinent.
- humility 6y agoYeah it's a gross simplification. At that time India was fragmented into small kingdoms, and Alexander just defeated a western kingdom before marching around.
- scriptdevil 6y agoI don't know why everyone always says someone or the other united all of India - they always ignore Kerala and Tamil Nadu (and often parts of Andhra Pradesh) which were neither a part of the Maurya empire - nor a part of the Mughal empire.
- actuator 6y agoThe native empire you mentioned, Maurya Empire abandoned the conquest through war because of the whole Kalinga episode. Ashoka was far more interested in spreading the morals around after that, so much that his son became one of the messengers. Though because of this, Cholas rose into one of the most fascinating empires with cultural influence over all of SE Asia. Even to date, the Thai king coronation ceremony is in Sanskrit, a language foreign to the land.
- nafey 6y agoPorus was a minor ruler in North Western India. Alexander never made it to the territory of the Nanda empire that held sway over larger India. Just to put it into perspective Porus was not significant enough to be remembered in Indian historical accounts. Alexander's exploit also find no contemporary mention in Indian sources. What I am getting at is that what Alexander achieved could in no way be described as "India's defeat".
- humility 6y agoThe parent comment actually encompasses this - there was no 'unified' India before Alexander visited, but there was the semblance of one once he left since Chanakya 'envisioned' a common thread running across the region and made arrangements to unite it under a single flag.
- yumraj 6y agoIndia was not defeated by Alexander, only some border states. He never really entered today's India. Nandas would have obliterated Alexander had he dared to face them.
- srean 6y agoSpeculations (about and outcome of a war between Nanadas and Alexander) are best done with some statistics on their respective military prowess, rather than vapid saber rattling.
- yumraj 6y agoper Wikipedia[0] According to the Greek sources, the Nanda army was supposedly five times larger than the Macedonian army. Nandas were obviously familiar with their own terrain, while Macedonians were not. The battle with Porus, who was ruling a tiny border state had an army at least in the same order of magnitude as Alexander, who was aided by some of the other local rulers. If Alexander had a hard time wining against Porus, we can simply make some logical assumptions about how he would have fared against a much much superior force, no vapid sable rattling is required. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_t...
- srean 6y agoThis so much a better comment.
- adictator 6y ago> India's defeat at the hands of Alexander the Great It was not India, but one kingdom that Alexander's army fought against. Also, there is no indication other than ONE Greek source that says Alexander won. In fact there is more evidence to the contrary - that Alexander lost very badly in his first encounter in India and that caused his expedition to end prematurely.
- skywave1 6y ago> aided in creating an empire that unified the whole of India. The geographical area under present day India was never under a single kingdom/government/flag until 1950s. During the Maurya Empire, the present day Kerala, Tamil Nadu and parts of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were not a part of the empire. Even when major parts of India was a British colony, some territories were controlled by the French (Pondichery), Portuguese (Goa) and the Nizams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire#/media/File:Maurya_Empire,_c.250_BCE_2.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire#/media/File:Maur...