Seleucus Nicator's Invasion of India, c.306-303 BC

[EyanKhan]

That and also Alexander's battle in India , which was as many international historians claim, his toughest. After that battle he and his army were too wary to fight any further and bigger Indian armies.

Yup though his army was already exhausted from years of campaigning , many of whom had not seen their parents , children , wives etc . His constant demand of fresh troops from Macedon/Greek had already damaged his homeland .

Did you know many historians claim that it lead to a population imbalance which could not be resolved for a long time , It weakened Greece itself which was eventually subjugated by Rome
Fascinating isn't it though Alexander brought everlasting glory to Greece it would not be a major power ever after that , would remain under foreign control for more then 2000 years (except perhaps the period of Macedonian Dynasty in Roman empire) till the 1800s.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Alot of odds were against them especially because Seleucus was more concerned for his Western front , he could never go into an all out battle against Chandra Gupta , though as well know Chandragupta himself was no joke.

It made sense for them to come to terms. Seleucids continued their campaign to the west, and the Mauryas campaigned down in the deccan.

We dont know exactly what started this fight really. It could be a Seleucid invasion for land. Or to defend what they see as their subordinates from Chandragupta's expansion.

 

[SMStealth]

Seleucus I Nicator's invasion of India (c.306-303 BC) was one of a series of obscure campaigns fought by Seleucus in an attempt to gain control of the eastern part of his recently regained kingdom.

Seleucus was appointed Satrap of Babylon in 321 BC, and retained more of an eastern outlook that most of Alexander's successors, remaining married to his Iranian wife. In 315 BC Seleucus was expelled from Babylon by Antigonus, and was forced to flee to Ptolemy in Egypt. Three years later Ptolmey defeated Antigonus's son Demetrius at Gaza, and Seleucus took the chance to return to Babylon, where he regained power. Antigonus attempted to expel him for a second time, but was defeated in a battle somewhere near Babylon (Babylonian War).

In theory Seleucus now had control over the eastern part of the old Persian empire, stretching out to the Indus River, but in reality large parts of that empire had slipped out of Macedonian control during the civil wars. A new empire had risen in India, where Chandragupta Maurya had seized control of Magadha at about the time of Alexander's death, and now controlled most of northern India as far as the Indus (see conquests of the Mauryan Empire).

The events of the war between Seleucus and Chandragupta are obscure. Seleucus crossed the Indus, and may have advanced towards the Ganges. If there were any major battles Chandragupta must have won them, for when the war ended (possibly in 303 BC) the peace was greatly to his advantage. Seleucus abandoned any claims east of the Indus and also transferred the satrapies of the Parapanisadai (around Kabul), Aria (around Heart) and Arachosia (around Kandahar) and possible eastern Gedrosia to Chandragupta. In return he was given 500 war elephants. The treaty was to be ratified by a marriage alliance between the two men.

Seleucus made good use of his elephants, taking them 2,500 miles west to Ipsus, where they played a major part in the defeat and death of Antigonus, a victory that gave Seleucus access to the Mediterranean coast. In India Chandragupta's victory enhanced the strength of the Mauryan Empire, the first in Indian history.

Seleucus Nicator's Invasion of India, c.306-303 BC

Chandragupta was one of the first king to have envisioned the concept of Bharat along with Chanakya (his advisor). He had a very large army & a large number of Elephants as well which were the prime reason why Alexander retreated from India as his men had taken a toll during the battle of Hydaphses.

@AUSTERLITZ MATE, I believe you can shed some more light on the subject at hand.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Yup though his army was already exhausted from years of campaigning , many of whom had not seen their parents , children , wives etc . His constant demand of fresh troops from Macedon/Greek had already damaged his homeland .

Did you know many historians claim that it lead to a population imbalance which could not be resolved for a long time , It weakened Greece itself which was eventually subjugated by Rome
Fascinating isn't it though Alexander brought everlasting glory to Greece it would not be a major power ever after that , would remain under foreign control for more then 2000 years (except perhaps the period of Macedonian Dynasty in Roman empire) till the 1800s.

Things, people, civilisations, fortunes, everything changes with time. The good thing about Europeans is, they know how to move forward and don't live in the past.

 

[atatwolf]

The greatest Indian empire to ever exist, nothing will ever compare to that.

You can't compare that to Turkic Mughal Empire.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

@atatwolf - Why did you thank my post ? They were Turks from modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan not Anatolian Turks.

You can't compare that to Turkic Mughal Empire.

Indian Mughal empire with Turkic origin. After Babur anther Mughal emperors were mixed with locals ann born and brought up in India. Babur ruled only for 4 years.

Anyway, I would put Mauryans, Cholas and Mughals at the same level.

 

[atatwolf]

@atatwolf - Why did you thank my post ? They were Turks from modern day Uzbekistan and Afghanistan not Anatolian Turks.

Turks are Turks. In the past there were no Anatolian or Afghan Turks. There were Turks. You were our subordinates. You had to do what we say. In plain english.

 

[Contrarian]

You can't compare that to Turkic Mughal Empire.

I'd rate Mauryan Empire to be better than the Mughal Empire.

 

[atatwolf]

I'd rate Mauryan Empire to be better than the Mughal Empire.

Mughals were richer and better.

 

[Contrarian]

Mughals were richer and better.

Nope.

 

[Srinivas]

Mughals were richer and better.

Dude Mughals are just Nomads they only became rich after they established their empire in India. Mughals has this advantage of cannons, advanced technology at that time.

Babur's dream was to rule samarkhand but because of fear of central asian empires he settled in India.

Together with Canons and Horse and Bow techniques helped them to win the wars.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Mughals were richer and better.

Mughals claimed descend from timur.

 

[atatwolf]

Mughals claimed descend from timur.

Timur is much used name in Turkey

 

[atatwolf]

Dude Mughals are just Nomads they only became rich after they established their empire in India. Mughals has this advantage of cannons, advanced technology at that time.

Babur's dream was to rule samarkhand but because of fear of central asian empires he settled in India.

Together with Canons and Horse and Bow techniques helped them to win the wars.

So what, British came also rich by using Hindus as water boys. The workers don't get the credit. The CEO gets the credit.

Nope.

ehm.. yes

 

[Contrarian]

ehm.. yes

Sorry, for a variety of reasons the Mauryan Empire exceeds the Mughal Empire though Mughal Empire was great in its own right.
This is one of the reasons we adopted the Mauryan motif for the modern India.