Why Alexander did not invade India?

After he had captured Persepolis and was crowned King of Asia, he felt the need to capture the remaining former Eastern Satraps of Persia. One of the Punjab (modern day) has been and still is amongst the most fertile area in the world. It had been the main supply of the Persian Kings, and now he felt he had to take it.

Alexander wanted more than money he wanted the feeling of power. Of having achieved what none had done before. The urge to go on fueled him and finally pushed him over the edge. His generals had seen this develop and finally persuaded to go back over a year after his behavior became erratic. He was being dosed with an ancient world version of a pain killer because of a foot wound I believe.

He had what some would call an addictive personality in the way he developed sudden obsessions for one thing or another. He became addicted to the pain killer and finally overdosed on it. One day he would be very lucid and another day raving. On the way back he still held to power and insisted on going through the desert instead of the coastal route and the journey cost the lives of many of his most loyal men.

Originally posted by elenos Alexander wanted more than money he wanted the feeling of power. Of having achieved what none had done before. The urge to go on fueled him and finally pushed him over the edge. His generals had seen this develop and finally persuaded to go back over a year after his behavior became erratic. He was being dosed with an ancient world version of a pain killer because of a foot wound I believe. He had what some would call an addictive personality in the way he developed sudden obsessions for one thing or another. He became addicted to the pain killer and finally overdosed on it. One day he would be very lucid and another day raving. On the way back he still held to power and insisted on going through the desert instead of the coastal route and the journey cost the lives of many of his most loyal men.

Is it fair to ask what part of our "western" history you do agree with? The history I try to follow is international. The same cannot be said for all people. 

Alexander accompished his goal. He wanted to defeat the Persians instead of the Persian attempt to conquer the Greeks, he decided to conquer the Persians. He really had not intention of conquering more then the Persian Empire until he kept conquering.

Originally posted by andrew As for India being to tough to conquer, didn't the Macedonians themselves say the same about Persia? Persia at the time before Alexander's conquest was 10 times stronger than any Indian kingdom at the time. He faced overwhelming numbers at Issus and Gaugemala so to underestimate Alexander saying he would've lost in India Proper is definitely strange to say the least.

India was not like Persia at the time. The Indians have such a different culture than the Persians that the Greeks knew little to nothing about them. Alexander fought for the first time in a open battle against Porus and discovered that Porus was a much more difficult opponent to face than Darius. At the Battle of the Hydaspes River, Alexander out numbered Porus, it was the other way around unlike when Alexander was fighting against Darius in which Alexander was outnumbered. Even with this advantage, Alexander suffered more casualties than any of his other battles which concludes that it was one of the most difficult battle that Alexander ever fought. To fight more of those battle would really put Alexander and his men in a very difficult position, putting them to the extreme limits in which contains them. The Greeks saw how tough the Indians were, and realized that India was a much more difficult place to conquer than Persia.

Alexander had over-extended his supply lines and had become dependent on the good will of client kingdoms that had traded with either the Greeks or Persians. It was not military conquests alone that pushed Alexander forward but the willingness of the lands he entered to become modernized and receive help in setting up their old way of state in more organized ways. India was preparing for his coming for many did approve of the trade advantages he had to offer.

There was more than just the touch of showman about Alexander when his traveling military circus came into town. He not only showed off but flaunted himself at every opportunity. Much of the diplomatic work had been done years before by his father Philip. Alexander pushed those advantages to the point no return. Had he returned earlier history would have been different. He would have had to become the fulltime administrator which was something he clearly did not like doing.

I would say he couldn't stand the thought of sending in another army under another commander to take over "virgin" India in the sense nobody from the West had entered to fight them before. Of course there were those in India wanting a fight to test out the mettle of their troops before this new way of unity came sweeping in. In that sense Alexander was a symbol of a changing world. Even coinage was not that old at the time.

Originally posted by Kamizake India was not like Persia at the time. The Indians have such a different culture than the Persians that the Greeks knew little to nothing about them. Alexander fought for the first time in a open battle against Porus and discovered that Porus was a much more difficult opponent to face than Darius. At the Battle of the Hydaspes River, Alexander out numbered Porus, it was the other way around unlike when Alexander was fighting against Darius in which Alexander was outnumbered. Even with this advantage, Alexander suffered more casualties than any of his other battles which concludes that it was one of the most difficult battle that Alexander ever fought. To fight more of those battle would really put Alexander and his men in a very difficult position, putting them to the extreme limits in which contains them. The Greeks saw how tough the Indians were, and realized that India was a much more difficult place to conquer than Persia.

Originally posted by Penelope I know this may be a bit off topic, and i apologize for it, but does anyone know WHY Alexander felt the need to invade India?

For money...it was said that by the Achaemenid Persians that the Indian city of Takshashila earned double of what Babylon and Persepolis did combined. 

Originally posted by andrew   So you're going to tell me the Indian Kingdoms were stronger then the Persian Empire? That does not deny the fact the Persian army was still 10 times stronger then the Indians one. Indians employed elephants and quite simply Alexander's men didn't know how to counter attack them. Just like when the Persians used Scythed chariots, you have to find a way to answer but Alexander's men didn't know how to. If they had expected elephants, they would have prepared and kept the casualties low.

Stronger?  Combined, maybe.  The Mahajanapadas combined would definetely be.  Look at it this way.  Alexander took top notch skilled phalangists, companions and other skilled Macedonians into India - as well as other troops from all over his now-massive empire.  However, he had a terribly tough time with Porus, a ruler of a 60 km Punjabi state - who had an army far smaller than Alexanders - and one that would obviously be not that well trained either (seeing as to how it was defending a small state - compared to Alexander's which was drawn from all over the Middle East and Meditterranean).  Even against these odds, Porus dealt Alexander's forces a bad blow - the hardest battle Alexander had ever fought was against a bunch of levies from a small state in India.  If he had such a hard time with these, how would he stand up to the supremely disciplined and hardened warriors of the Nandas, whose infantry alone numbered 200 000 skilled men?

Alexander used his brains and got the hell out!