Hello again. I had meant to post this earlier but you know how life gets. Following on from last week’s posts about the Third Samnite War and the Fourth Diadochi War, today we’ll focus, as promised, on the Mauryan-Seleucid conflict over the Indus.
I think first, to give some context to it all, I’ll explain who the Maurya* are. Feel free to skip this bit if you already know, or if you’d like to know a little (tiny) bit more about Seleukos feel free to read my previous post about the Diadochi. Maurya’s first Emperor, Chandragupta, has been a source of debate as to his exact origins. Plutarch seems to suggest he even met Alexander the Great himself, but the exact details of this meeting are so hazy its almost pure conjecture. The short of it is, he raised an army and overthrew the old ruler of what was known as the Nanda Empire. Standard really - it’s a pretty common theme throughout history. Chandragupta’s method of doing said usurpation was based around winning over the common man to his side, which was met with great success. The previous ruler absconded the throne, and Chandragupta found himself set up very nicely with a vast Kingdom dominating almost the entirely of Northern India.
The conflict over the Indus valley started in 305 BC. It’s indeterminate who invaded who – some (Hellenist) sources suggest it was Chandragupta who invaded Seleukos, but I’m personally doubtful. I try to keep personal history out of these and keep it fairly uncontroversial, but in this particular case I’ll break my rule. I don’t find it a convincing argument that tackling a vast Empire, such as the Seleucids, when you have thousands of small tribes to your South to easily conquer instead, is an expedient plan for your recently usurped throne. In fact, its considered that the Seleucids had the larger army when it came to the field of battle, which gives even further credence to the thought that this wasn’t an invasion by the Mauryans. It’s entirely possible that Seleukos, thinking of how close Alexander had come in India, considered himself to be up to the task, only to be met with a new, more potent power coming into play between Alexander’s invasion and his own.
The conflict itself was short and decisive – lasting a mere two years (exceptionally short for wars in antiquity†) – and ending with Seleukos admitting defeat and ceding power in the region to the Mauryans. It’s suggested there was only one major battle (which the Seleucids lost), but Chandragupta’s main source of success was in the native populations. Once again utilising his skills of persuasion on the common prole, he was able to gain a significant amount of local support which made campaigning in the region difficult for Seleukos’ slow, heavily armoured armies. Chandragupta’s forces, mostly made up of light cavalry and infantry (with a few hundred elephants thrown in for good measure), were able to wage what was essentially a lightning-fast guerrilla campaign. A blitzguerilla, if you will (You won’t, what an awful name). With trouble brewing in the West and the 4th Diadochi war on the horizon, Seleukos called it a day in 303 BC and gave up with little bad blood between the two sides. They came to an agreement that probably suited them both just fine – Seleukos relinquishing control of troublesome satrapies on the extreme end of his Empire in return for a powerful force of 500 elephants. Meanwhile, Chandragupta got a new wife, more rich land - along the Indus and close to his powerbase - and presumably he had enough elephants that he could afford to give a few hundred away without much consideration.
As those of you who read my post on the 4th Diadochi War will know, those 500 elephants will prove pivotal in the defeat of Antigonus at Ipsos in 301BC, likely playing the decisive role in the battle. The Seleucids and Mauryans would go on to have a pretty easy-going relationship, both seemingly content with their borders and to focus their attentions elsewhere. Although Chandragupta would die in 298 BC, he still had plenty of time to get to know Seleukos in enough of a capacity to send him some aphrodisiacs (imagine sending those to your father in law… weird) – asking in return for some grapes and one of those famous Greek teachers. (He was denied the teacher, apparently, they were too important to be sold as slaves.)
As for how this will play out in the game… well, it will almost certainly be different. The game has a stated start date of 304 BC, set in what would be the middle of the war. PDS have already said that the conflict isn’t yet concluded, so we could easily see what was historically a short war expand into a long, large and gruelling game war. Such a conflict could long delay the expansion of Maurya, which historically encompassed the entire subcontinent of India, and instead possibly force significant changes in the region, either one way or the other. Of course, if Seleukos was tied down in the East for the duration of the 4th Diadochi war, he and his 500 elephants wouldn’t have been present at Ipsos, and the world of antiquity could have maybe been a very different place.
So, how can this be balanced? Us Paradox faithful are always lovers of alt-history, and I’m sure plenty of you have pondered the intricacies of finding the right balance between accuracy and variety in all PDS titles. Not everyone agreed with how I’d balance the game on my last post, and I doubt this will be any different, but oh well…
I maintain by my previous assessment that PDS will balance the gluttony of great powers through the Diadochi and through to Maurya by nerfing their troop numbers. It’s the easiest way to stop these powers from ballooning out of control in the early game, even if its not terribly accurate historically. I think that most of Seleukos’ army will be along the Indus, that he won’t usually become involved in the 4th Diadochi War, and instead Maurya and Seleukos will have armies of equitable size with the mind that they’ll be constantly slowing each other down. Of course, eventually, the scale will tip one way more than the other, but the idea is that neither power is able to go crazy in the first 50 years of the game. With Seleukos’ historical army mostly being slow-moving heavy infantry, I can imagine it will be difficult for them to bring the Mauryans more mobile forces to the field of battle. We know little of the exact combat mechanics now, but if Maurya are able to dance around the slow columns of phalanx, a player may become just as tired of the war as Seleukos did.
Again, my usual disclaimer – I haven’t treated this with as much historical depth as it deserves. I’d be happy to discuss it all in further depth in the comments, but if I did it with the OP this would easily stretch to over 3,000 words (it’s over 1,200 as it is) and that’s a bit much to expect you all to read. Next time I’m gonna talk about Pyrrhus, because he was a fun guy.
Incidentally, I still plan on doing a series about factions. If anyone has any in particular they’d like to hear about then let me know.
* - Map thanks to u/A_spec in this video
† - I suppose it's not quite fair to say its exceptionally short, but given the vast amount of space being fought over, the comparitive army strengths and the general speed of army movement it is certainly an outlier. By comparison, the second Samnite War (326-304) was 22 years long, the 4th Diadochi War was 8 years, The Pyrrhic War (280-275) 5 years, and of course the 1st Punic War (264-241) taking 23 years. These are all wars of powers that have roughly equal strengths (Bar maybe the Pyrrhic war, which was slightly in favour of Rome), similar to this, and they all lasted significantly longer.
I think first, to give some context to it all, I’ll explain who the Maurya* are. Feel free to skip this bit if you already know, or if you’d like to know a little (tiny) bit more about Seleukos feel free to read my previous post about the Diadochi. Maurya’s first Emperor, Chandragupta, has been a source of debate as to his exact origins. Plutarch seems to suggest he even met Alexander the Great himself, but the exact details of this meeting are so hazy its almost pure conjecture. The short of it is, he raised an army and overthrew the old ruler of what was known as the Nanda Empire. Standard really - it’s a pretty common theme throughout history. Chandragupta’s method of doing said usurpation was based around winning over the common man to his side, which was met with great success. The previous ruler absconded the throne, and Chandragupta found himself set up very nicely with a vast Kingdom dominating almost the entirely of Northern India.
The conflict over the Indus valley started in 305 BC. It’s indeterminate who invaded who – some (Hellenist) sources suggest it was Chandragupta who invaded Seleukos, but I’m personally doubtful. I try to keep personal history out of these and keep it fairly uncontroversial, but in this particular case I’ll break my rule. I don’t find it a convincing argument that tackling a vast Empire, such as the Seleucids, when you have thousands of small tribes to your South to easily conquer instead, is an expedient plan for your recently usurped throne. In fact, its considered that the Seleucids had the larger army when it came to the field of battle, which gives even further credence to the thought that this wasn’t an invasion by the Mauryans. It’s entirely possible that Seleukos, thinking of how close Alexander had come in India, considered himself to be up to the task, only to be met with a new, more potent power coming into play between Alexander’s invasion and his own.
The conflict itself was short and decisive – lasting a mere two years (exceptionally short for wars in antiquity†) – and ending with Seleukos admitting defeat and ceding power in the region to the Mauryans. It’s suggested there was only one major battle (which the Seleucids lost), but Chandragupta’s main source of success was in the native populations. Once again utilising his skills of persuasion on the common prole, he was able to gain a significant amount of local support which made campaigning in the region difficult for Seleukos’ slow, heavily armoured armies. Chandragupta’s forces, mostly made up of light cavalry and infantry (with a few hundred elephants thrown in for good measure), were able to wage what was essentially a lightning-fast guerrilla campaign. A blitzguerilla, if you will (You won’t, what an awful name). With trouble brewing in the West and the 4th Diadochi war on the horizon, Seleukos called it a day in 303 BC and gave up with little bad blood between the two sides. They came to an agreement that probably suited them both just fine – Seleukos relinquishing control of troublesome satrapies on the extreme end of his Empire in return for a powerful force of 500 elephants. Meanwhile, Chandragupta got a new wife, more rich land - along the Indus and close to his powerbase - and presumably he had enough elephants that he could afford to give a few hundred away without much consideration.
As those of you who read my post on the 4th Diadochi War will know, those 500 elephants will prove pivotal in the defeat of Antigonus at Ipsos in 301BC, likely playing the decisive role in the battle. The Seleucids and Mauryans would go on to have a pretty easy-going relationship, both seemingly content with their borders and to focus their attentions elsewhere. Although Chandragupta would die in 298 BC, he still had plenty of time to get to know Seleukos in enough of a capacity to send him some aphrodisiacs (imagine sending those to your father in law… weird) – asking in return for some grapes and one of those famous Greek teachers. (He was denied the teacher, apparently, they were too important to be sold as slaves.)
As for how this will play out in the game… well, it will almost certainly be different. The game has a stated start date of 304 BC, set in what would be the middle of the war. PDS have already said that the conflict isn’t yet concluded, so we could easily see what was historically a short war expand into a long, large and gruelling game war. Such a conflict could long delay the expansion of Maurya, which historically encompassed the entire subcontinent of India, and instead possibly force significant changes in the region, either one way or the other. Of course, if Seleukos was tied down in the East for the duration of the 4th Diadochi war, he and his 500 elephants wouldn’t have been present at Ipsos, and the world of antiquity could have maybe been a very different place.
So, how can this be balanced? Us Paradox faithful are always lovers of alt-history, and I’m sure plenty of you have pondered the intricacies of finding the right balance between accuracy and variety in all PDS titles. Not everyone agreed with how I’d balance the game on my last post, and I doubt this will be any different, but oh well…
I maintain by my previous assessment that PDS will balance the gluttony of great powers through the Diadochi and through to Maurya by nerfing their troop numbers. It’s the easiest way to stop these powers from ballooning out of control in the early game, even if its not terribly accurate historically. I think that most of Seleukos’ army will be along the Indus, that he won’t usually become involved in the 4th Diadochi War, and instead Maurya and Seleukos will have armies of equitable size with the mind that they’ll be constantly slowing each other down. Of course, eventually, the scale will tip one way more than the other, but the idea is that neither power is able to go crazy in the first 50 years of the game. With Seleukos’ historical army mostly being slow-moving heavy infantry, I can imagine it will be difficult for them to bring the Mauryans more mobile forces to the field of battle. We know little of the exact combat mechanics now, but if Maurya are able to dance around the slow columns of phalanx, a player may become just as tired of the war as Seleukos did.
Again, my usual disclaimer – I haven’t treated this with as much historical depth as it deserves. I’d be happy to discuss it all in further depth in the comments, but if I did it with the OP this would easily stretch to over 3,000 words (it’s over 1,200 as it is) and that’s a bit much to expect you all to read. Next time I’m gonna talk about Pyrrhus, because he was a fun guy.
Incidentally, I still plan on doing a series about factions. If anyone has any in particular they’d like to hear about then let me know.
* - Map thanks to u/A_spec in this video
† - I suppose it's not quite fair to say its exceptionally short, but given the vast amount of space being fought over, the comparitive army strengths and the general speed of army movement it is certainly an outlier. By comparison, the second Samnite War (326-304) was 22 years long, the 4th Diadochi War was 8 years, The Pyrrhic War (280-275) 5 years, and of course the 1st Punic War (264-241) taking 23 years. These are all wars of powers that have roughly equal strengths (Bar maybe the Pyrrhic war, which was slightly in favour of Rome), similar to this, and they all lasted significantly longer.
