user-1: From this list of previous Buddhas it looks like all were Indians.( I mean from their names). 
Ancient Greece or Egypt were also developed enough to have understood the Dhamma. 
We can consider Socretes and Moses from that part, but India(Nepal) was chosen for the Buddha.
What's the reason?

user2282: We have to keep in mind the fact that general knowledge and education level of folks 2500 years ago was way different from modern time people. It was an age without internet and without any effective communication means. Geography wasn't a standardized formal academic discipline in schools, and majority of the population were un-educated folks. To them the concepts of Ancient Greece, Egypt, China, their cultures and languages were virtually non-existent. So if there was an ancient Buddha in China with a name "Chong", or Europe with a name "Kon", or Africa with a name "!Non", it would be much easier to be rendered as "John" by an American Buddha when He teaches His disciples in a subsequent period. The Dhamma would be much easier propagated to everyone once its ideas, concepts, and names were translated to the dialect local people back then could understand.

user471: You surmised that the previous Buddhas were all born in the Indian subcontinent, simply because they had names that sounded Indian.
If you look at the excerpt from an academic paper below, certain Greek and Egyptian kings had Indian-sounding names in Emperor Ashoka's edicts, but this did not mean that they were Indian. Turamaya was Ptolemy, Maka or Maga was Magas, Alikasudara or Alikyasudala was Alexander. In fact, Greece was known as Yavana in Sanskrit (from Ionia). So, just because previous Buddhas had Indian-sounding names, it does not mean that they were Indian or that they resided in the Indian subcontinent. It only shows that they had Prakritized or Sanskritized names.
From the paper entitled "Antiochus, King of the Yavanas" by Jarl Charpentier :

As concerns  Turamaya  there  can  happily  be no
  doubt. That it denotes one of the Ptolemies has been
  taken for granted ever since the days of Prinsep; and
  it seems  quite  obvious  that  none  but Ptolemy  II
  Philadelphus, whose long reign  covered  nearly  four
  decenniums   (285-247  B.C.) ,  would  fit  into  the
  chronology  of Asoka's  reign."  As for Maka  or Maga
  there existed, no doubt, more than one princeling  of
  the name of Magas; but there can be little doubt that
  we hare to do here with  that Magas  of Cyrene  whose
  regnal years fall between  c.  300-250  B.C.  Already
  Buhler(3) remarked that Amtekina (G., K.) or Amtikini
  (Sh.) would  rather  render  a Greek  Avtigenes  than
  Avtigenes. However, although we know of at least
  one Antigenes," he, for obvious  reasons, cannot come
  in here.  The old Antigonos who met his fate at Ipsus
  (301 B.C.) seems to be Out of the question;  and thus
  there  remains  only his grandson, surnamed  from the
  place  of his  birth  Gonatas, whose  reign  extended
  between  276 and 239  B.C.  Finally, Alikasudara  (or
  Alikyasudala, K.) has long been taken to be Alexander
  of  Epirus(5)  who  was  the   son  of  Pyrrhus   and
  Antigone.


user8157: There is no reason. Instead, if we actually use "reason" or "intelligence" ("yoniso manasikara"), we will conclude this is totally improbable, which is why the teachings about past Buddhas found in the DN are probably fake propaganda composed after the Buddha when Ashoka and the Buddhist clergy were undermining Brahmanism/Hindism. Theravada teaches to wisely reflect on any teaching heard or read. Theravada Buddhism is not about blind faith in every sutta but the verification of a sutta via meditative insight. To believe Buddhas only arise in India is like believing the Messiah only comes to the Chosen People (Jews) in Israel. Its non-sense religious political propaganda. 

user11541: Just as fishes are found in water and monkeys are found on trees. Different races are found in different regions of the world. They differ in their skin color, language , necessities , dominating elements and philosophies. Out of this segregated reality Jesus , Ram , Buddhas are born. Nothing happens without reason. Jesus manifested because of the conditions around him. Ram or Krishna manifested because of the conditions around them. Similarly Buddha manifested because of the conditions around him. It is no surprise that Buddha came from Indian subcontinent because he came up with a theory of Anatta which was opposite to what was preached by Hindus. That insight required conditions created by Hindus. Similarly we can say Jesus came up his theory to resolve the issues faced by middle east people. Ram and Krishna also had a purpose which was relevant to their surroundings. No one was taught to be Buddha or Ram or Jesus, they were the product of Life and its environment. There should be no shame in saying that Indian subcontinent has been a place from where great sages and Buddhas came into being. If Buddha arises again then most probably he will arise in the East because East has the conditions for his growth.    

-1: <p>From <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> list of previous Buddhas it looks like all were Indians.( I mean from their names). </p>

<p>Ancient Greece or Egypt were also developed enough to have understood the Dhamma. </p>

<p>We can consider Socretes and Moses from that part, but India(Nepal) was chosen for the Buddha.</p>

<p>What's the reason?</p>
 2282: <p>We have to keep in mind the fact that general knowledge and education level of folks 2500 years ago was way different from modern time people. It was an age without internet and without any effective communication means. Geography wasn't a standardized formal academic discipline in schools, and majority of the population were un-educated folks. To them the concepts of Ancient Greece, Egypt, China, their cultures and languages were virtually non-existent. So if there was an ancient Buddha in China with a name "Chong", or Europe with a name "Kon", or Africa with a name "!Non", it would be much easier to be rendered as "John" by an American Buddha when He teaches His disciples in a subsequent period. The Dhamma would be much easier propagated to everyone once its ideas, concepts, and names were translated to the dialect local people back then could understand.</p>
 471: <p>You surmised that the previous Buddhas were all born in the Indian subcontinent, simply because they had names that sounded Indian.</p>

<p>If you look at the excerpt from an academic paper below, certain Greek and Egyptian kings had Indian-sounding names in Emperor Ashoka's edicts, but this did not mean that they were Indian. Turamaya was Ptolemy, Maka or Maga was Magas, Alikasudara or Alikyasudala was Alexander. In fact, Greece was known as Yavana in Sanskrit (from Ionia). So, just because previous Buddhas had Indian-sounding names, it does not mean that they were Indian or that they resided in the Indian subcontinent. It only shows that they had Prakritized or Sanskritized names.</p>

<p>From the paper entitled "<a href="http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/charp.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Antiochus, King of the Yavanas</a>" by Jarl Charpentier :</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As concerns  Turamaya  there  can  happily  be no
  doubt. That it denotes one of the Ptolemies has been
  taken for granted ever since the days of Prinsep; and
  it seems  quite  obvious  that  none  but Ptolemy  II
  Philadelphus, whose long reign  covered  nearly  four
  decenniums   (285-247  B.C.) ,  would  fit  into  the
  chronology  of Asoka's  reign."  As for Maka  or Maga
  there existed, no doubt, more than one princeling  of
  the name of Magas; but there can be little doubt that
  we hare to do here with  that Magas  of Cyrene  whose
  regnal years fall between  c.  300-250  B.C.  Already
  Buhler(3) remarked that Amtekina (G., K.) or Amtikini
  (Sh.) would  rather  render  a Greek  Avtigenes  than
  Avtigenes. However, although we know of at least
  one Antigenes," he, for obvious  reasons, cannot come
  in here.  The old Antigonos who met his fate at Ipsus
  (301 B.C.) seems to be Out of the question;  and thus
  there  remains  only his grandson, surnamed  from the
  place  of his  birth  Gonatas, whose  reign  extended
  between  276 and 239  B.C.  Finally, Alikasudara  (or
  Alikyasudala, K.) has long been taken to be Alexander
  of  Epirus(5)  who  was  the   son  of  Pyrrhus   and
  Antigone.</p>
</blockquote>
 8157: <p>There is no reason. Instead, if we actually use "reason" or "intelligence" ("yoniso manasikara"), we will conclude this is totally improbable, which is why the teachings about past Buddhas found in the DN are probably fake propaganda composed after the Buddha when Ashoka and the Buddhist clergy were undermining Brahmanism/Hindism. Theravada teaches to wisely reflect on any teaching heard or read. Theravada Buddhism is not about blind faith in every sutta but the verification of a sutta via meditative insight. To believe Buddhas only arise in India is like believing the Messiah only comes to the Chosen People (Jews) in Israel. Its non-sense religious political propaganda. </p>
 11541: <p>Just as fishes are found in water and monkeys are found on trees. Different races are found in different regions of the world. They differ in their skin color, language , necessities , dominating elements and philosophies. Out of this segregated reality Jesus , Ram , Buddhas are born. Nothing happens without reason. Jesus manifested because of the conditions around him. Ram or Krishna manifested because of the conditions around them. Similarly Buddha manifested because of the conditions around him. It is no surprise that Buddha came from Indian subcontinent because he came up with a theory of Anatta which was opposite to what was preached by Hindus. That insight required conditions created by Hindus. Similarly we can say Jesus came up his theory to resolve the issues faced by middle east people. Ram and Krishna also had a purpose which was relevant to their surroundings. No one was taught to be Buddha or Ram or Jesus, they were the product of Life and its environment. There should be no shame in saying that Indian subcontinent has been a place from where great sages and Buddhas came into being. If Buddha arises again then most probably he will arise in the East because East has the conditions for his growth.    </p>
