Would Alexander have defeated Porus if...

I too think Alexander would have won on the grounds that he was an extraordinary military genius capable to adapting to even the most radical situations. 

However, I think Porus would have stood a better chance.  True, the weather was the same for both armies, and the Indians would have been more used to the monsoon, but the Indians may have expected not to fight until after the monsoon, and in that case perhaps Porus could have summoned and recieved allies, and his own men would be more ready to fight.  Also, the effectiveness of the longbows, I think, would have been greatly hampered by the weather. 

Alexander's surprise crossing was aided by the meteorological conditions as well.

What do you think?

I will try to dig up an article I once found relating to this.  I know my post was very brief.

Alexander, had to face the problem of crossing a swollen, due to the monsoons, great river like Hydaspes. At the same timehe had to do so facing a strong army at the other side of the river. In order to do so, he consciously faked crossing of the river, while at the same time kept his troops ready with continuous maneuver exercises etc. After some time, the Indians became tired by being alert all the time, while Alexander only faked crossings. At that point Alexander split his army, left Crateros at the camp and went 12 miles to the north. He crossed the river there (under pouring rain) and started moving South, to meet Porous' army, after destroying a 3,000 strong force what came to meet him and killing Porous' son who was leading it.

The brilliance of the plan was that Porous was now pinned. If he moved to meet Alexander, Crateros had orders to cross the river and attack his rear, if he chose to continue facing the river, Alexander would attack him from the rear and of course retreating and abandoning his country undefended was not an option.

The rest is history...

well as i see it even if Alexander lived and defeated all empires and nations around him from china to western Europe. then one day he'll die and his huge empire will be divided and his son if lived wont be able to keep control on all that area.

so the empire will be divided and after 200 to 300 years all the former empires before alexander will come back with different names and Alexanders empire wont effect them as expected.

also as i said before he was a good general but not so good ruler. this type of rulers are only for conquering and not for keeping what they conquered which is a harder than the conquering itself.

You are right, but you might find it interesting to know that many historians believe the war-elephants at Gaugamela were too travel weary and not deployed during the battle. This seems to jive with the fact that Alexander commandeered all fifteen of the elephants.

As to the central question, Alexander defeated Parvataka (King Porus) because he did know how to deal with the war elephants. He assumed a loose formation and harassed the elephants with javelins causing them to panic and trample the more tightly packed enemy infantry while his cavalry circled around and flanked and his phalanx pushed Porus' troops into the river.

I think that, monsoon season or no, Alexander's tactical genius and experience would have prevailed. He beat Porus because he was the better general. Come on, this is a guy who permanently altered the world map to take Tyre. Seriously--it was an island, now it's a peninsula.

Although, it is interesting to note that at the battle of Granicus Alexander was stunned by a blow to the head. While he was down a Persian Satrap (forget which one,) raised his arm up to strike the killing blow when Cleitus the Black a personal friend of Alexander leapt forward and cut the Persian’s arm off. Had he been a moment slower, Alexander would’ve died in 334 B.C—two years before Hdaspes, before Gaugamela, and before spreading Greek influence across the Persian empire.

I wonder how the world might have developed were that the case...