Search results

Seleucus is lucky to have had a ally like chandragupta. After all, India Euro Bhai Bhai :)

I hope you realize that those territories were basically useless and had no agricultural or productive value. Yes, Chandragupta defeated the Satraps, no question about it, and he may have had the upper hand in his conflict agaisnt Seleucus, but he didn't "annihilate" him. Seleucus also got 500...

Not a single one of those sources provided any evidence of his failure. As I already said, Chandragupta gave Seleucus 500 elephants as well. It must've been a stalemate. Also, keep in mind, the Seleucids were more focused on their western fronts.

It doesn't imply a defeat. In fact, Seleucus got 500 elephants which were decisive in the battle of Ispus. Marriage alliances were common back then.

Annihalted is a too big of a word. We simply knew that he fought some campaign against Seleucus and was able to hold his own, which is no small achievement considering that Macedonians had the best army of its time.

I wish there were more records on the war with the Seleucids, Mauryas campaign against the Macedonian garrisons of Alexander, Chandragupta's campaign against the Sakas.

Are there any records of the Nandas or Mauryans using horse archery? Indian horses also weren't of the best quality. I know they used mounted archers and archers on chariots as well as elephants.

Indians didn't use horse archery pre Gupta era if I am aware. The Phalanx was very beatable, I'm surpirsed no one figured out it's weakness.

Alexanders Phalanx was unstoppable and he could probably steamroll past any infantry us Indians will throw at him. It will be interesting to see how he deals with 3,000+ elephants.