What do we know about Arrian of Nicomedia?

Although Arrian is quoted repeatedly by many historians, ancient and modern alike, we don’t know precisely when he was born or died. He lived during the reign of two great emperors, Trajan and Hadrian, when the Roman Empire experienced its most remarkable expansion.

He was a versatile man and prolific writer, but he was a historian most of all. How he found the time to pen down his many books besides pursuing a military career, holding public offices, and becoming a famous philosopher is commendable. 

Arrian, whose full name was Lucius Flavius Arrianus, was born in Nicomedia (modern Izmit, Turkey), a province of Bithynia ruled by Rome. Consequently, he was probably a Roman citizen. He grew up in an aristocratic family, was well-educated, and held the post of governor of Cappadocia from approximately 131 until 137 AD. Since the culture in Asia Minor was still very Greek, he grew up with this dual identity, making him a true Graeco-Roman. 

Arrian was the perfect person to write about Alexander the Great, having such a background. With his upbringing in Nicomedia, he realized that Alexander left behind so much Greek culture (he didn’t use the word Hellenistic!) He absorbed it all, even though he looked at it from a Roman perspective several centuries later. 

As a young man, c.108 AD, he moved to Nicopolis, Greece (earlier in Epirus), to stay with Epictetus. Epictetus considered philosophy a way of life, meaning that whatever happened was beyond our control, and we should accept events as they unfolded. His main philosophy was self-knowledge, similar to the Delphic maxim, know thyself. These wise words were visible in the pronaos of the Temple of Apollo in Delphi and were spread by Aeschylus, Socrates, and Plato. It is unknown whether Epictetus based his thoughts on this inscription, as no writings from his hand have survived. It was Arrian who wrote down Epictetus’ lectures in his Discourses of Epictetus and Enchiridion. 

The philosopher considerably influenced Arrian’s education and introduced him to important political people. The most notable figure probably was the later Emperor Hadrian – himself a pupil of Epictetus - whom he befriended in 126 AD. Hadrian appointed Arrian to the Roman Senate around 130 AD and promoted him to the governor of Cappadocia about a year later. During his governorate, he successfully stopped the invasion of the Alani in 135 AD. This was when Arrian documented his victory by writing his Ectaxis contra Alanos (Order of Battle against the Alans), which provides us with a unique insight into the Roman army in action that still bore “the stamp of Macedon.” Aware of the difference between the Macedonian and Roman phalanx, Arrian drew parallels between them. He underscored that the phalanx was not something of the past but still an active weapon in the contemporary military. His military career took him to many countries away from his native Bithynia, where he saw very different animals and plants from his familiar homeland. 

Arrian’s military career probably started earlier as he led an army to the Caspian Gates during Emperor Trajan's rule (98-117 AD). As governor of Cappadocia, Arrian commanded two Roman legions, which was when he wrote his Ars Tactica (The Tactical Arts). Experiencing the strategies and maneuvers firsthand, he described cavalry tactics and praised military innovations. In both Ectasis and Tactica, he mixed Greek and Roman military theories.

Arrian has a great interest in geography and a keen eye for details. Under Hadrian, he wrote the Periplus of the Euxine Sea (Sailing around the Black Sea) to inform the emperor about the region he considered exploring. Besides helpful information about ports, rivers, and cities, he included specific details about the viability and landscapes. In his Cynegeticus, which is an addition to Xenophon’s work, he stated, for instance, that Mysia (northwest Turkey), Dacia (mainly all of present Romania), Scythia, and Illyricum (the greater Balkans) had plains that were “adapted for riding.” 

Clearly, our historian started writing at a very young age. However, many of his works are lost or only survive fragmentarily, leaving us with titles alone. Besides the titles already mentioned above, he wrote:

- Biographies like Lives of Dion, Timoleon, and Tillorobus

- several volumes dedicated to his homeland, the Bithyniaca

- a history of the Parthians, the Parthica

- a history of the Alans, Historia Alanica

- an essay on maneuvers, On Infantry Exercises

- an essay about astronomy, On Nature, Composition, and Appearances of Comets

- And, most interestingly, a volume focusing on the events after the death of Alexander, The History of the Successors – sadly lost to humanity forever! Imagine the twists history could take if we had this book!

When or where exactly Arrian wrote his famous Anabasis or The History of the Wars and Conquests of Alexander the Great remains obscure. It is generally accepted as his most outstanding work, together with the Indica addendum about India. With these two books, Arrian is, to this day, our most precious and reliable source about Alexander. The historian could project his own military experiences and campaigns into his vision of Alexander. Arrian also had a profound fascination with Persia and Persian customs, which he lavishly shares in his Anabasis. 

Notably, he could rely on several sources, from first-rank witnesses to Alexander’s campaigns. These were generals and close Companions who had access to Alexander’s Royal Journal – men like Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Megasthenes. Another precious source was Eratosthenes, a librarian at the rich Library of Alexandria. Aristobulus also served under Alexander and later wrote a history of Alexander, including careful observations on geography, ethnography, and natural science. Aristobulus’ notes about which plants grew in specific regions of the lands Alexander conquered were vital because it gives us a glimpse of Alexander’s knowledge of plants and animals based on Aristotle’s lessons. 

It is still being determined what happened to Arrian at the end of his governorship in Cappadocia in 137 AD. Still enjoying the favors of Hadrian, he most probably became governor of Syria between 135 and 150 AD.

Towards the end of his life, he moved to Athens, where he became archon, probably in 145 or 146 AD. Other sources, however, state that Arrian retired to Nicomedia, where he was appointed priest to Demeter and Persephone. 

Arrian died some time during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, 121-180 AD, who was the last of the so-called good emperors. 

Witnessing how meticulous and objective Arrian proceeds in his Anabasis to describe Alexander’s campaigns, not only the sieges and the battlefields but also the geography and the nature and habits of the people, it is easy to realize how much information is lost in his other works.

Historical truth and legends surrounding Alexander

In his lifetime, Alexander was a living legend. As he marched ever further eastward, his impact was told and retold over the centuries to the extent that nobody, in the end, knew where reality stopped and legend started. Today’s travelers will easily meet locals ready to share their tales or direct them toward the routes the conqueror followed more than two thousand years ago.

It is quite remarkable that the most prominent figure in history left us with almost no contemporary documents. As a comparison, Julius Caesar, who lived some three hundred years after Alexander, managed to put down detailed accounts of his campaigns. His best-known books are The Conquest of Gaul and The Civil Wars, whereas The African Wars, The Alexandrian Wars, and the Hispanic Wars are also attributed to him.

The results for Alexander are very meager. Among his historians, we count his royal secretary, Eumenes of Cardia, and the keeper of his official diary, Callisthenes of Olynthus. As contemporary authors of Alexander, we may also include Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus, who participated in his campaigns and lived the events firsthand. Despite these apparent sources, only a few fragments have survived, no matter how deep we dig.

Callisthenes inspired Onesicritus as well as Cleitarchus. Cleitarchus turned out to be the key figure for many historians to rely on. He, in fact, had access to earlier accounts by Nearchus, Ephippus, Polycleitus, Megasthenes, and Aristobulus (who also drew from Onesicritus himself).

Under these circumstances, it becomes obvious that we have sources that are very much truncated over the centuries. In the 1^st century BC, Diodorus of Sicily wrote his history of Alexander based directly on Cleitarchus. Curtius Rufus, in the 1^st century AD, composed his version of the events, leaning heavily on Cleitarchus and to a lesser extent on Trogus and Ptolemy. Shortly afterward, Plutarch made headlines with his Lives using, besides Cleitarchus, Aristobulus, Chares (who was in charge of Alexander’s journal), and remaining bits of the official Ephemerides that were kept by Eumenes. Arrian, in the 2nd century AD, seems to be our most reliable source. For his Anabasis, he mainly trusted Ptolemy. However, he also consulted other historians like Aristobulus, Megasthenes, Nearchus (who himself wrote Indica to recount his sea voyage from India back to Persia), and the surviving  texts of the Ephemerides as well. It should be noted that Trogus’ book is almost entirely lost, but his story has been summarized, not all too well, by Justin two hundred years later.

This is quite a cocktail of information, and it becomes very hard to sift through so many versions and interpretations of the facts and figures.

In my quest to find the sources, I came across an extensive list of lost works on Wikipedia that I insert hereafter. I added the appropriate dates as far as I could find them.

Life of Alexander by Aesopus (no dates found)

Works of Anaximenes of Lampsacus (ca. 380-320 BC)

Works of Aristobulus of Cassandreia (ca. 375-301 BC)

Geographical work of Androsthenes of Thasos (one of Alexander’s admirals who sailed with Nearchus)

Deeds of Alexander by Callisthenes (the official historian)

Personal Notebooks, or Hypomnemata, by Alexander himself (possibly inauthentic)

History of Alexander by Cleitarchus (4^th century BC)

On the Empire of the Macedonians by Criton of Pieria (2^nd century AD)

Histories (also listed as Macedonica and Hellenica) by Duris of Samos (350-after 281 BC)

Ephemerides (royal journal) of the royal secretary Eumenes (existence or authenticity disputed)

Work of Ephippus of Olynthus

Work of Hagnothemis upon which Plutarch rested the belief that Antipater poisoned Alexander.

Work of Hieronymus of Cardia (354?-250 BC)

On the education of Alexander and Macedonian history by Marsyas of Pella (ca. 356-ca. 294 BC)

Work of Medius of Larissa (general under Alexander and senior commander under Antigonus Monophthalmus)

Work of Nearchus, the primary source of Arrian's Indica

How Alexander was Educated and geographical works by Onesicritus (ca. 360-ca. 290 BC)

Work of Ptolemy I Soter (ca. 367-282 BC)

History of Alexander by Timagenes (1^st century BC)

Historiae Philippicae by Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus (1^st century BC)

This list cannot be exhaustive. There must have been many more documents. Nobody mentions, for instance, Alexander’s correspondence with his mother and his sister, with Aristotle, with Antipater in Macedonia, with Queen Ada, and Queen Sisygambis. Letters were exchanged with the many embassies that contacted him or came to visit him. The entire world evolved around Alexander, and strangely enough, there is not a single document left to prove it. The famous  Library of Alexandria must have held scores of such precious testimonies. Besides, the later Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Empires most certainly produced literature of their own. 

We do have, of course, the Alexander Romance (see: Le Roman d’Alexandre, traduit du grec par A Tallet-Bonvalot). The oldest known version dates probably from the 3rd century AD, and its author is unknown, although it has been attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes. This document is generally called version α and served for all subsequent accounts that were published on a more or less regular basis until the 16^th century. They were written in Latin, Greek, Armenian, Georgian, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic, Islamic, French, English, Italian, Spanish, Hungarian, Romanian, German, Ethiopic, Mongolian, and several medieval patois. Useless to say that each translation or interpretation contributed to embellishing the legendary person of Alexander.

Historians generally agree that Pseudo-Callisthenes based his tales on the writings of Onesicritus, who used Callisthenes.

The legends about Alexander are endless, and a great many of them have not been put in writing. They are part of the oral tradition of many peoples. They were told and retold by traveling bards over the centuries, and we can still find those tales today in the countries crossed by Alexander.

From the top of my head, I remember the story about the Prison of Alexander in Yazd, Iran (see: Alexander’s Prison?), and that of his general Farhangi-Sarhang in Nur, Uzbekistan (see: Sogdian Forts and Alexander Fort in Nurata).

There is also the later tale of Alexander Rex, which is part of the mosaic in the church of Otranto in southern Italy (see: Alexander's presence in Magna Graecia). Or Saint Alexander depicted in Byzantine and Orthodox art, appearing in the 12th-century Church of S. Demetrius in Vladimir, Ukrainian Kiev. Around the 15^th and 16^th centuries, Alexander became a symbol of vanity. Several churches in Greece display frescoes of monks who meditate on vanity while gazing down on Alexander’s body at their feet. For instance, at the church of St John the Baptist in the Peloponnese and at the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at the Meteora (see: Alexander, from hero to saint).

The references to Alexander are endless, and I am talking mainly about written documentation here. His legacy in architecture, paintings, statues, coins, jewelry, and other decorative elements constitutes another fascinating testimony of Alexander to the world

Updated 24 May 2025

Heliodorus, Greek ambassador in India

It sounds rather strange to hear about an ambassador in antiquity. However, throughout his life, Alexander repeatedly met ambassadors from cities he would conquer or those who wanted to show their goodwill towards the conqueror. Yet, more often than not, they remain anonymous. One such exception, however, took place in India.

Chandragupta had entertained friendly relations with Seleucos, and the Greek Megasthenes had functioned as a capable ambassador. After Changragupta’s death, his son Bindusara came to the throne. This was six years after the death of Seleucos. Still, the friendly relations between the Seleucids and the Mauryan empire remained. Seleucos had been replaced by his son Antiochus, and Megasthenes was replaced by Deimachos as envoy to the Mauryan court (see: Transition between two great rulers, Chandragupta and Asoka).

Heliodorus, in the present case, is a Greek ambassador sent by the Indo-Greek King Antialcidas Nikephoros to the court of King Bhagabhadra, who ruled over north, east, and central India around 110 BC.

We have only scant information about the spreading of Hellenism in that part of the world, but it did happen. In the wake of Alexander and Seleucos, Hellenistic art, culture, and knowledge eventually took root in Central Asia, where the Bactrian kings proudly showed off their close ties.

In India, on the other hand, the influence of Hellenism was much slower since the Mauryan kingdom imposed itself shortly after Alexander’s short passage, eliminating all Greek influences in the area. (see: Indo-Greek art or the influence of Hellenism on Buddhist art).

But things changed in 185 BC with the fall of the Mauryas. The Graeco-Bactrian King Demetrius, son of Euthydemus, saw an opportunity to venture into India. He invaded the country by 180 BC, setting the foundations for the Indo-Greek kingdom that lasted till 10 AD. This was when the influence of Hellenism appeared in India, and those rulers' coins carried inscriptions in Greek and Indian languages. Furthermore, art in the Indo-Greek kingdom reached an unequaled level blending Greek, Hindu, and Buddhist elements harmoniously together.

In this context, it is unsurprising to meet a person like Heliodorus, who lived in Taxila then. The fact that he was sent by Antialcidas Nikephoros places our envoy at an unusually high level. This king ruled from ca. 115 to 95 BC over western India, although other sources prefer to date his rule to ca. 130 to 120 BC and include eastern Punjab in his domain (supported by coin findings). Antialcidas had coins struck representing Zeus and Balram, an Indian god.

Interestingly, Antialcidas may have been a relative of a Bactrian king since Heliocles II, as well as Amyntas, Diomedes, and Hermaeus, struck coins with similar features.

The Hellenistic dynasties in India had a very open mind in true tradition with Alexander. It may not surprise us to hear that Heliodorus converted to Hinduism and erected a pillar confirming his role and position. Our ambassador was logically inspired by Asoka, whose columns were taller and more refined. The inscription on Heliodorus’ pillar in ancient Brahmi reads as follows:

This Garuda-pillar of Vãsudeva, the god of gods, was constructed here by Heliodora, the Bhãgavata, son of Diya, of Takhkhasilã, the Greek ambassador who came from the Great King Amtalikita to King Kãsîputra Bhãgabhadra, the Savior, prospering in (his) fourteenth regnal year. (These?) three steps to immortality, when correctly followed, lead to heaven: control, generosity, and attention. (Translated by Richard Salomon)

Initially, the pillar was surmounted by a sculpture of Garuda, a divine eagle-like sun bird and the king of birds. How close can one get to the eagle who so often accompanied the images of Zeus? It is interesting to realize that Garuda was linked to Vishnu, the Hindu god who fights injustice and destroys evil and, as such, stood as the symbol of the king’s duty and power.

The “Khamb Baba” or Heliodorus Pillar still stands in Vidisha, some 60 kilometers northeast of Bhopal in India.

Excavations in the pillar area have also exposed the remains of a large temple from the 2^nd century BC, measuring 30mx30m with exceptionally thick walls of 2.40m. An earlier elliptical temple from the 4^th-3^rd century BC has been located underneath this level. Apparently, this strange construction was destroyed by a flood in 200 BC, i.e., before the erection of the Heliodorus pillar.

[Picture of the pillar: By Regents Park - Own work, CCBY-SA 3.0]
[Picture of the inscription from Wikimedia]

Transition between two great rulers, Chandragupta and Asoka

Chandragupta’s death did not mean the end of the Mauryan Empire, which was to flourish for another four centuries. The most famous ruler was to be his grandson, Asoka, but we cannot ignore the binding role played by his son Bindusara.

[Maurya Empire at its maximum extent]

Bindusara came to the throne in 297 BC, six years after the death of Seleucos. Still, the friendly relations between the Seleucid and Mauryan empires were not interrupted. In 280 BC, Seleucos I was replaced by his son Antiochus I while Megasthenes, his ambassador at the Mauryan court, was replaced by Deimachos. Unfortunately, very few of the new envoy’s records have survived.

There are some speculations that Bindusara’s mother might have been Greek or even Macedonian because his father had made a marriage alliance with Seleucos. Yet there is no hard proof for this theory.

There is, however, an exciting anecdote worth to be mentioned about the relationship between Bindusara and Antiochus, whether it is true or not. Nothing being sweeter than figs, Bindusara apparently begged Antiochus to send him some figs and, while he was at it, some raisin wine as well; he added that he would like him to buy and send him a professor. The irony of the situation cannot have escaped Antiochus, who sent him the figs and the wine but told Bindusara that he could not oblige him with his last wish since it was unlawful for Greeks to sell a professor.

Otherwise, nothing much has been recorded about the reign of Bindusara. He seems to have followed his father’s footsteps and worked on consolidating his empire rather than expanding India further. It also transpires that Chanakya, the famous and highly competent minister of Chandragupta, continued to serve his son with the same dedication.

It is certain, however, that Bindusara maintained peace during his 25 years of kingship and managed to keep the empire together for his son, Asoka. He died in 272 BC at the age of 48.

All these events, it should be said, evolved at a time when the wars of succession for Alexander’s Empire finally settled down.

Was Chandragupta inspired by Alexander?

Chandragupta went down in history as King of India, founder of the Maurya Empire, and ruled from 321 to 297 BC; he was the first to unify India as we know it today. His Greek name was Sandracottus or Sandrokottos, as is reported by Megasthenes, the Greek envoy of Seleucos Nicator, Alexander’s successor in that part of the world.

Yet Chandragupta’s appearance in history started much earlier when, as a youngster, he spent time at Alexander’s camp either as a fugitive or as an exile. He was born in 340 BC, making him only sixteen years younger than Alexander. How and under what circumstances both men met is told in different ways. Some say that after his victory over Porus, Alexander had been approached by Chandragupta to help him overthrow the neighboring Nanda Kingdom, which extended from Punjab to the Bay of Bengal and whose capital was Pataliputra (the Greek Palimbothra), modern Patna. Another theory presented by Plutarch is that Chandragupta, being of lower birth on his mother’s side, sneered at the base origin of his King Xandrames of the Nanda Empire, whose father was a barber. The pot calls the kettle black! Dad had murdered his king to marry the queen with whom he was romantically involved, although Curtius claims that the queen killed her husband with her own hands. Well, if his father did indeed murder the king, this led evidently to the exile of Chandragupta. Whatever version is true, Chandragupta ended up spending time at Alexander’s camp. He must have been 14 or 15 years old at the time, which means that he was about the same age as Philip, Alexander’s father, when he was taken to Thebes as a hostage – in other words, the right age to be influenced to accomplish great deeds (and Chandragupta did not need much conviction, it seems!)   

The fact is that the last king of the Nanda Dynasty was Mahapadma Nanda, and that the collapse of his empire, just east of Porus’ realm, was imminent. It seems that Alexander was informed of this situation while he was at the Hyphasis River (modern Beas). The prospect of including this important and powerful country in his conquest may have been the true reason for Alexander’s decision to march further east and not his dream to reach the end of the world, as is generally assumed. The mutiny of his army changed the course of history. This is, however, where Chandragupta takes over. As soon as Alexander left India, Chandragupta managed to unify the northern tribes and assemble a formidable force, and since Alexander had not overthrown the Nanda Dynasty, he decided to do it himself.

When Alexander died in 323 BC, Chandragupta seized his chance and set out to throw the Macedonians out and successfully conquer Punjab. The Macedonian successors were too busy and too late to realize that they had neglected India in their cutting up of Alexander’s empire at the Partition of Babylon. Besides, Antigonus Monophthalmus, as a self-proclaimed master of Asia, showed little interest in the eastern part of his empire and left it pretty much to rule itself.

Chandragupta needs no further encouragement to dethrone the Nanda king, and he exterminates every member of his family. As a result, he became the first king of the Mauryan Empire in 322 BC. He inherits Nanda’s huge army, which, increased with his own forces, brings it to a total force of 30,000 cavalry, 600,000 infantry, 9,000 elephants, and a multitude of chariots. By now, there is nothing to stop Chandragupta from further expansion, which is favored by the conference of Triparadeisus held by the Diadochi in 321 BC, where they once again failed to make clear provisions for the Indian satrapies. By 317 BC, Chandragupta effectively controlled all of northern India, reaching from the Khyber Pass to the Ganges delta, and he then concentrated on further expansion, becoming eventually the absolute ruler of this new empire that reached from the Himalayas down to the Arabian Sea.

In 309 BC, Seleucos entered a pitched battle with the 70-year-old Antigonus Monophthalmus, who was defeated and withdrew to Syria, leaving Seleucos as the sole ruler of Bactria, Sogdia, and India. Four years later, Seleucos attempts to reconquer the territories west of the Indus, which Alexander had occupied some twenty years before, but he obviously lacks the time and the resources. The best he could do was to reach a diplomatic agreement with Chandragupta, along the same line as the settlement he had previously reached with the Sogdians. This happened after both parties faced each other in a fierce battle in 304 BC, from which Chandragupta emerged victoriously, and where Seleucos ceded the provinces of Arachosia, Gandaris, Paropamisadae, as well as parts of Areia and Gedrosia in exchange for 500 war elephants and their handlers; a marriage alliance completed the compromise.

This settlement of 303 BC could well be inspired by Alexander’s earlier agreement with Porus, and since Antiochus the Great renewed this very treaty a century later, it indicates that it was the most practical solution for all parties involved. It is important to note that the treaty included a guarantee of connubial rights, meaning that the rights of those children born from mixed marriages of Greeks with natives were protected – a small detail but an important one.

None of Alexander’s easternmost territories were ever recovered by any of the Diadochi, and after Seleucos attempted to that end, nobody ever contemplated it again, and all Seleucid kings from Seleucos Nicator I to Antiochus III simply accepted India as semi-independent. This may, in fact, be exactly what Alexander had in mind when he left Porus to rule his own territory and more. Besides, we should not forget the role played by the substantial number of Greek colonists who had to live alongside the native population. The growth of Mauryan power did not mean the Greek settlers were exterminated or expelled. It was a matter of simple judgment; they either adapted to local conditions and native rules to become independent from Macedonia and part of India, or they saw themselves purged.

At this point, the Hindu Kush Mountains, the Greek Paropanisos, became Chandragupta’s western frontier, an inglorious end to Alexander’s eastern conquest, it may seem. Yet all those who ever fought at Alexander’s side had learned his lessons very thoroughly. Seleucos was one of his outstanding pupils, and immediately after the conclusion of the treaty, he sent an envoy to the court of Chandragupta. This was Megasthenes, who spent many years at Palimbothra, the capital of the Mauryan Empire. We owe him some excellent reports about the geography, products, and institutions of India, for he was a unique source of information from that part of the world. His work on Chandragupta’s civil and military administration is considered to be accurate and trustworthy, although only fragments have survived. Strabo interestingly tells us that Megasthenes said we should not believe the old stories about the Indians simply because they never invaded any country outside India, and no foreign army ever invaded India till Alexander. Megasthenes must have been a fine diplomat, for he not only had to comply with Chandragupta but also with his capable advisor and minister Kautilya (also named Chanakya), who wrote down the very first laws and the constitution of the Maurya Empire, which were strictly enforced. This handbook for effectively running an empire, the Arthashastra, contained extensive information about diplomacy and military strategy, but also careful recommendations on taxation, irrigation, coinage, agriculture and mining, manufacturing and trade, and many other useful topics.

It was this Kautilya who was responsible for the administration of Palimbothra, which was headed by a Municipal Commission divided into six boards or committees of five members each, entrusted with specific duties. The administration of the distant provinces was, in turn, placed in the hands of viceroys, usually members of the royal family. The matter of land irrigation was extremely important in India, and Chandragupta made sure that everyone got their fair share, and a special department was created to oversee the land measurements and the sluice regulations. The roads were well-maintained, and milestones were set up at regular intervals of ten stadia; a royal road is said to connect the northwest frontier with Pataliputra, 10,000 stadia long! The general honesty of the people was high on the list of duties of every citizen, and Megasthenes tells us that crimes like theft or giving false evidence were severely punished. Arrian already reported that elephants, horses, and camels were only used by the king, the wealthy, and those of the king’s entourage. All in all, an organization that is very different from that known in the West or even in Persia.

At the summit of his power, Chandragupta had eliminated all his opponents and ruled over an empire larger than what British India ever would be! He owed his power and empire to his enormous army, which was organized and equipped in such a way that it became extremely efficient. Not unlike Alexander’s forces, it was a standing army where each man was on a regular payroll, and the government provided horses, arms, and other equipment. From his Nanda campaign, Chandragupta acquired 8,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 elephants. Just imagine what Alexander would have done with such an army force that exceeded his own by far. He definitely could have marched to the end of the earth!

The reality was that the impressive number of troops from the Nanda Dynasty increased Chandragupta’s own troops, totaling his infantry to 600,000, some 30,000 cavalry, and a staggering 9,000 elephants, besides an unspecified number of chariots. His men were very well-equipped, and sources tell us that each cavalry carried two lances (saunia) and a small shield (buckler). All infantrymen were equipped with a broadsword and would additionally have javelins or a bow and arrows. Each elephant, beside its mahout, would typically be manned by three archers, implying a force of 36,000 men. Each chariot, as we have seen during Alexander’s fight at the Hydaspes (see: The Battle of the Hydaspes and the Genius of Alexander), would accommodate two soldiers next to the driver, requiring 24,000 men. If we add up all these numbers, Chandragupta’s army would have reached at least 690,000 men, and that is without counting its followers in the baggage train.

It is obvious that no battle could or would be fought involving the whole of this huge army, but portions of it must have been distributed all over the many provinces of Chandragupta’s newly conquered empire.

Despite such a great achievement, or maybe just because of it, Chandragupta decided to spend his final years in religious devotion as a follower of Jainism. In 298 BC, after a reign of 24 years, he left his throne to his son Bindusara. Chandragupta died shortly afterward as he starved himself to death; his empire, however, would live on for more than a century.

History or legend has it that Chandragupta liked to tell his Greek guests, “I watched Alexander when I was still a young man. Alexander had been within an ace of seizing India because its king was so hated and despised, both for his character and his low birth”. Yes, Alexander might have strolled through Palimbothra’s gardens, admiring its fish ponds, which were not far from the silt-brown fields along the Ganges River. Alexander was only three months away from taking all of India, but his soldiers refused to follow him, not realizing how much this would have meant to their king and eventually to their own conquests.

[Picture credits and links: 
Young Chandragupta from JatLand.org
Map of Nanda Empire
Head of Seleucos from Pompeii
Statue of Chandragupta from Wikimedia
Map of Maurya Empire
Place where Chandragupta died]