The reality is Alexander "the Great" suffered heavy losses and failed campaigns in India. Moreover, there is no reliable evidence to indicate that King Porus was ever captured by Alexander and then magnanimously released; in fact it was more like the other way around. And far from being magnanimous, Alexander murdered innocent Brahmins and other Indian philosophers. Mythology surrounding Alexander continued to be embellished and fabricated even centuries after his death. Check the below sites for the reality of Alexander's defeat in India:

The Myth, Romance and Historicity of Alexander and His Influence on India - http://hinduwebsite.com/history/research/alexandermyth.htm

Alexander, The Ordinary - http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593

Alexander's Waterloo in Sindh - http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sindh/story/node7.html

i. Chivalry suited the politics of balancing one Punjab rajah against another, but Indian historians have been unable to believe this intelligent generosity and still argue that if Porus received such honours, India’s alleged defeat at the Jhelum can only be a western falsehood: The cruel nature of Alexander has well been brought out by the western historians and therefore under the circumstances, the treatment of Porus by the victor Alexander makes one to suspect the Victor’s victory. In fact, the psychology of the poets / writers in eulogizing the Defeated was to make him a Victor always.

ii. The retreat he inspired has always seemed sympathetic: Because, already many soldiers were killed. His pet horse was killed or died. The rest of the army had already started revolting and urging him to return.

“In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander’s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He, therefore, requested Porus to stop fighting. True to Indian tradition Porus did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed a treaty. Alexander then helped him in annexing othere territories to his kingdom”15.

15. E. Migot, Memoris Sur les anciens philosophers de l’ Inde, andMemories de l’ Academie Eroyal des Inscriptions et Belles, Letters, XXXI, 1761,-63, pp.90-92.

What was the Direct and Indirect Effect of Alexander’s Invasion of India? Vincent Arthur Smith gives answer to this crucial question, which is reproduced as follows:

1. “Whatever Hellenistic elements in Indian civilization can be detected were all indirect consequences of Alexander’s invasion. The Greece influence never penetrated deeply. Indian polity and structure of society resting on the caste basis remained substantially, unchanged, and even in military science Indians showed no disposition to learn the lessons taught by the sharp sword of Alexander” (emphasis added).

2. “Alexander’s fierce campaign produced no direct effects upon either the ideas or the institutions of India. During his brief stay in the basin of the Indus, he was occupied almost solely with fighting. Presumably, he was remembered by the ordinary natives of the regions which he harried merely as a demon-like outer barbarian who hanged Brahmins without scruple and won battles by impious methods in defiance of scriptures, Indians felt no desire to learn from such a person” (emphasis added).

14. Vincent A. Smith, The Oxford History of India, Clarendon Press, UK, 1923, p.87 and 139, quoted verbatim with emphasis added.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2004

Answers

Feel-good history isnt any good for nobody,lets just stick to archaelological findigs and ancient scrolls .Greeks won over their campaign in India 2,300yrs ago,and this is a fact.The other way around,might as well have happened in some empty Bollywood heads!!

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2005

From what I've read and understood, Alexander was defeated by Chandragupta.

Cheers.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2004

Porus lost the battle. But Alexander had befriended him and allowed him to retain his Kingship. The reason there wasn't as much of an influence in India was because Alexander didn't leave any garrisons or Greek Satraps to rule over that region. He even helped Porus (Chandragupta) conquer land belonging to his nephew(another Porus) Not long after Alexanders men revolted and wanted to return to see their families again. So instead of pushing on to the Ganges he decided to head back to Babylon. He won the battle but he didn't have time to establish much of an Hellenistic influence on the area.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2004

The facts are Alexander won the battle of hydaspis which I have probrably spelt wrong. He also won several other skirmishes against Porus and other Indian noblemen. Alexander later made a kind of friendship with Porus and even conquered land for him. You shouldn't say there was no Hellenistic influence in India as there was a lot. Indian Statues of the period show much Greek influence and Indian coins had pictures of Alexander on them. Greek gods were also being worshipped in some areas.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2004