Write the most significant effect of alexander's invasion
Answers
Answered by
0
In reality Alexander's invasion was not really an invasion but more of a military incursion.
But it had its impact on both the sides.
First of all it gave India a taste of how powerful one single state could become.
India had long been divided in separate small states the largest of those being Magadha.
But suddenly they were threatened by a hurricane like campaign that had destroyed the largest empire (Persian Empire) at that time.
And it certainly planted the idea of a huge empire like the Persians in some people. ( Well let's say in Chanakya at least)
When faced with external threat the states hadn't exactly shown model behavior of unity.
They needed a binding force. Because even leaving Alexander had left his general and a large contingent of soldiers in India's northwest. They could certainly expand in the east if not resisted and India needed one large state to drive these remaining Greeks out of India and preempt any future threats from them.
So after Alexander had gone Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya started building that one large state.
It wouldn't have been easy to suddenly drop centuries old quibbles and grievance.
But by the time Chandragupta Maurya left the throne he had managed to build a large empire which was further enlarged by his son and Grandson.
But it's effects can be seen even now. Ashoka's edicts were written in Prakrit but the letters used to write those in Northwest were Greek where as the same edicts written in South used Brahmi lipi.
It's effects on Greek was also equally marked. When Chandragupta Maurya defeated Seleucus Nikator , he married off his daughter to Chandragupta Maurya and conceded all the lands east of what is Afghanistan today to Chandragupta.
But in lieu of leaving the land east of Afghanistan, he got a large contingent of Indian soldiers and elephants.
Seleucus used these to defeat Greek general in the West and forged his own empire there. Indian elephants were instrumental in those victories.
But in my view the effects on both sides were fleeting as both reverted to its original state soon after.
Greek certainly didn't become an important language as English did when British came.
Greeks surely didn't have as lasting impact on India as Mughal empire did.
Nor did we change Greeks the way we changed Mughals.
Mughals became Indians. Greeks didn't. Nor did we become Greek.
All in all it was fleeting but important nonetheless event in Indian history.
We probably wouldn't have had Chandragupta Maurya without Greeks.
But it had its impact on both the sides.
First of all it gave India a taste of how powerful one single state could become.
India had long been divided in separate small states the largest of those being Magadha.
But suddenly they were threatened by a hurricane like campaign that had destroyed the largest empire (Persian Empire) at that time.
And it certainly planted the idea of a huge empire like the Persians in some people. ( Well let's say in Chanakya at least)
When faced with external threat the states hadn't exactly shown model behavior of unity.
They needed a binding force. Because even leaving Alexander had left his general and a large contingent of soldiers in India's northwest. They could certainly expand in the east if not resisted and India needed one large state to drive these remaining Greeks out of India and preempt any future threats from them.
So after Alexander had gone Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya started building that one large state.
It wouldn't have been easy to suddenly drop centuries old quibbles and grievance.
But by the time Chandragupta Maurya left the throne he had managed to build a large empire which was further enlarged by his son and Grandson.
But it's effects can be seen even now. Ashoka's edicts were written in Prakrit but the letters used to write those in Northwest were Greek where as the same edicts written in South used Brahmi lipi.
It's effects on Greek was also equally marked. When Chandragupta Maurya defeated Seleucus Nikator , he married off his daughter to Chandragupta Maurya and conceded all the lands east of what is Afghanistan today to Chandragupta.
But in lieu of leaving the land east of Afghanistan, he got a large contingent of Indian soldiers and elephants.
Seleucus used these to defeat Greek general in the West and forged his own empire there. Indian elephants were instrumental in those victories.
But in my view the effects on both sides were fleeting as both reverted to its original state soon after.
Greek certainly didn't become an important language as English did when British came.
Greeks surely didn't have as lasting impact on India as Mughal empire did.
Nor did we change Greeks the way we changed Mughals.
Mughals became Indians. Greeks didn't. Nor did we become Greek.
All in all it was fleeting but important nonetheless event in Indian history.
We probably wouldn't have had Chandragupta Maurya without Greeks.
Answered by
0
Alexander, the son of Philip of Macedonia, is considered one of the great conquerors of the ancient world.
He ascended the throne at the age of twenty in 335 BC. Alexander, who was fired by an ambition to become the world conqueror, gathered a large army and started his conquests in 334 BC.
After consolidating his position by conquering neighbouring powers, he became busy in waging war with Persia between 334 and 330 BC and conquered Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt.
Similar questions