why didn't ancient persia ever conquer india?

why did the persians never conquer ancient India? I mean they were able to conquer Greece then why not India. Was India really powerfull or the reason is something else?

  There is not a solid reason to why Achaemenid Persia pushed their armies west, rather than east. It could come down to the order of in which events occured.    The island of Naxos in the Agean revolted against Persian rule in 502 B.C. The Ionian Greeks revolted soon after. The Lydian satrap and the Athenians sent aid to the rebellious Greeks. When the iron fist of Persia crushed the revolt in 494 B.C, after the Persian victory at Lade. The rebels then paid their homage to the Great King, Darius of Persia. The Athenians however, were left in relative terms, untouched. Thus leading to the invasion of mainland Greece. The first invasion was stopped in its tracks at the Battle of Marathon, despite opening way to Athens itself, (The Persian objective was to burn Athens to the ground, much like the Persian city Sardis in the Ionian revolt). Xerxes' second invasion proved to be no more successful. After the second invasion the Greeks became more and more darring, attacking Persian trading vessals, and ports along the Agean Sea. India on the other hand had little or no intention to attack Persia. However, with time, and a secure northwestern border, the Great King's may have marched their armies beyond the eastern frontier.

Edited by Darius of Parsa - 21-Feb-2008 at 03:33

Which is what I stated above.

             Well Persia cannot just will and conquer everything you know.

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000              Well Persia cannot just will and conquer everything you know.                  Persia didn't conquered India did  for the same reason that they ddin't conquer China. When they got their act togehter both of them were far powerful than Persia in every matter economic, human resource wise, militiarily everything.            Perisa knew what it was getting into and never really pursued the east front that much.              Punjab shook off the Peria rule very very quickly, reminding Persia what it was dealing with.

Are these your own deductions?  You were there? Wow.

I think Sparten pretty much nailed it.

Originally posted by Sparten They had the Punjab, the richest part of S Asia. WHat was the point of going further?

Pure speculation on the part of sparten. Read this.

"Alexander the great" by Wally Badge which is a Syriac edition, with English translation, of the folk-lore and legends connected to Alexander the Great. This ancient text represents a Greek text that is much older than any text that has been known before. This text shows that alexander was actually defeated (though perhaps a later layering of the text confuses the issue).

a) Darius's call to help from Porus



b) Porus's letter to Alexander and the reply and the ensuing fight

I think Alexander had a different rationale for his conquests than the Persian empire - he was simply concerned with size at any cost from what I know, for example perilously forcing his entire army over a long stretch of desert just to get to the subcontinent.  In contrast the Persians were more concerned with cost-benefit and how much they could leverage from any peripheral region based on the cost.  Obviously having to administer an area so far from the seat of power would have tremendous human and capital costs and would be susceptible to rebellion.  

I meant the gravity of power which is not necessarily related to physical distance - the Persians were well established in the Middle East and Asia Minor and used familiar forms of governing and administration - I think deep India was culturally on a different plain, if you get my meaning.

Of course, I am just pondering here.

I think the other reason was the east of Indus the territory was mostly unknown and a lot more jungles existed there. It would have been difficult for the persians in that enviroment and thats why maybe even the greeks didn't go further.

Originally posted by Zagros I meant the gravity of power which is not necessarily related to physical distance - the Persians were well established in the Middle East and Asia Minor and used familiar forms of governing and administration - I think deep India was culturally on a different plain, if you get my meaning. Of course, I am just pondering here.