Achaemenid empire with no Alexander the great

Skallagrim

Banned
Eventually, parts will break off. Nothing goes right for any one empire indefinitely, so a time of decline and unrest and splintering will eventually come. But that time is not likely to be in the immediate future. Alexander hit them at a bad time, when they were still recovering from a succession struggle / civil war. The strain of that war had forced them to tax local governors to an extent that had caused resentment. (And not just in money, but in resources and in fighting men levied.) Alexander exploited that, too, swaying Satraps to his side by promising a lighter touch, less taxation and more self-government. But without his campaign, the Akhaimenids have all the time they need to get their house in order. The worst is behind them.

The Macedonians have a succession struggle ahead of them now, and there's a good chance the Greek poleis will take the opportunity to revolt. How eager the Persians will be to fund the city-states in this endeavour! How ready they will be to turn all Greeks against all other Greeks, and watch them kill each other. Squabbling little upstarts, their spears turned on each other. Things are looking good for the Akhaimenid Empire.
 
Eventually, parts will break off. Nothing goes right for any one empire indefinitely, so a time of decline and unrest and splintering will eventually come. But that time is not likely to be in the immediate future. Alexander hit them at a bad time, when they were still recovering from a succession struggle / civil war. The strain of that war had forced them to tax local governors to an extent that had caused resentment. (And not just in money, but in resources and in fighting men levied.) Alexander exploited that, too, swaying Satraps to his side by promising a lighter touch, less taxation and more self-government. But without his campaign, the Akhaimenids have all the time they need to get their house in order. The worst is behind them.

The Macedonians have a succession struggle ahead of them now, and there's a good chance the Greek poleis will take the opportunity to revolt. How eager the Persians will be to fund the city-states in this endeavour! How ready they will be to turn all Greeks against all other Greeks, and watch them kill each other. Squabbling little upstarts, their spears turned on each other. Things are looking good for the Akhaimenid Empire.

Yet as you said, the Achaemenids cannot rule indefinitely. Threats will appear both from the east and west. From the east, the cavalry of the steppe is improving steadily and at such a large size, the Achaemenids risk great upheaval.
 
Yet as you said, the Achaemenids cannot rule indefinitely. Threats will appear both from the east and west. From the east, the cavalry of the steppe is improving steadily and at such a large size, the Achaemenids risk great upheaval.

If The Seleucids could hold their own against them for at least one hundred years, the Achaemenids sure can do the same. They will collapse, sure, but with Alexander gone, they can rest easy for the remainder of the fourth century.
 

Md139115

Banned
When your armies fail to conquer Greece twice, and ten thousand Greeks can march through your heartland with impunity some fifty years prior, and you’re STILL not prepared to fight a numerically inferior Greek-style army, you have a bit more problems than just internal instability.
 
When your armies fail to conquer Greece twice, and ten thousand Greeks can march through your heartland with impunity some fifty years prior, and you’re STILL not prepared to fight a numerically inferior Greek-style army, you have a bit more problems than just internal instability.

I tend to agree with this sentiment.
 
Achaemenids would collapse during next decades. The empire was already suffering from internal revolts and there was serious weakness in central government. Some areas like Egypt would gain independence and Persian core areas would probably get new dynasty.
 
When your armies fail to conquer Greece twice, and ten thousand Greeks can march through your heartland with impunity some fifty years prior, and you’re STILL not prepared to fight a numerically inferior Greek-style army, you have a bit more problems than just internal instability.

Darius’ expedition was never meant to conquer Greece, it was just a small advance force sent as punitive expedition against Athens and Eretria. Xerxes failed, true, but so did the Spartans fail to conquer Anatolia, not even deep in Persian territory, with Agesilaus.

Marching with impunity is a bit much. The Greeks in Cyrus’ army were supported by Cyrus, an influential person within the Achaemenid e pire who carefully planned his whole revolt. After Cyrus’ defeat, the remaining mercenaries hastily decided to retreat, and were costantly harried by Persian forces, they never posed a threat merely a nuisance to get rid of.

The Macedons had actually numerical superiority in infantry at Granicus, and Alexander could count on tens of thousands of reserves, the conflict wasn’t nearly as one-sided as it’s commonly believed.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
When your armies fail to conquer Greece twice,

Failing to conquer territory on your periphery isn't the same as being unable to defend your empire.

and ten thousand Greeks can march through your heartland with impunity some fifty years prior,

Ten thousand mercenaries, who only got there because a would-be usurper brought them there under false pretenses, who then lost, while said would-be usurper got killed. And then the Greeks decided to leg it out of there. Why expend energy killing mercenaries who are no longer getting paid, no longer a threat, and in fact leaving post-haste? Maybe some local peoples will kill them, maybe they'll get away. But in either event, they are no longer a threat to you, and forcing them into a desperate battle will cost you more than just letting them run.

and you’re STILL not prepared to fight a numerically inferior Greek-style army, you have a bit more problems than just internal instability.

Numerically inferior, but consisting of just about the best-trained crack troops the ancient world had ever seen, and led by carefully selected officers (both the old guard and Alexander's hand-picked younger companions, who typically proved to be exceedingly capable).
 
Last edited:
Achaemenids would collapse during next decades. The empire was already suffering from internal revolts and there was serious weakness in central government. Some areas like Egypt would gain independence and Persian core areas would probably get new dynasty.

Artaxerxes III proved that a strong king could manage those revolts and actually bring renewed strenght within the empire. It wasn’t so much the empire to be weak as his ruler, Darius III, he lacked experience, energy and had a tendency to either give battle in the worst possible places or to underestimate his adversaries, or both really.
 
Eventually, parts will break off. Nothing goes right for any one empire indefinitely, so a time of decline and unrest and splintering will eventually come. But that time is not likely to be in the immediate future. Alexander hit them at a bad time, when they were still recovering from a succession struggle / civil war. The strain of that war had forced them to tax local governors to an extent that had caused resentment. (And not just in money, but in resources and in fighting men levied.) Alexander exploited that, too, swaying Satraps to his side by promising a lighter touch, less taxation and more self-government. But without his campaign, the Akhaimenids have all the time they need to get their house in order. The worst is behind them.

I think you're being too optimistic here. The Achaemenids had been having difficulty keeping control over their westernmost provinces for decades prior to the succession struggle (I think there's evidence that they were losing ground in the east as well, although we don't have as much evidence for what was going on in this part of the empire), so I'd expect them to lose effective, and possibly even nominal, control over most of Asia Minor, and quite possibly Egypt as well.

Another thing: the Achaemenids demanded taxes in silver and gold, which they then kept locked up in their treasury (or technically buried, as I think Herodotus says), only spending it when they needed to hire mercenaries. This led to more and more money dropping out of circulation, causing inflation and economic hardship. Hence by the end of the Achaemenid Dynasty Persian rule was very unpopular in most of their provinces. So for a proper Achaemenid recovery, you'd probably need them to either start accepting taxes in kind in lieu of precious metals, or else start reinvesting the money in the provinces somehow to keep it in circulation (although this would probably presuppose a more advanced understanding of economics than was available in the 4th century BC).
 
I think you're being too optimistic here. The Achaemenids had been having difficulty keeping control over their westernmost provinces for decades prior to the succession struggle (I think there's evidence that they were losing ground in the east as well, although we don't have as much evidence for what was going on in this part of the empire), so I'd expect them to lose effective, and possibly even nominal, control over most of Asia Minor, and quite possibly Egypt as well.

Another thing: the Achaemenids demanded taxes in silver and gold, which they then kept locked up in their treasury (or technically buried, as I think Herodotus says), only spending it when they needed to hire mercenaries. This led to more and more money dropping out of circulation, causing inflation and economic hardship. Hence by the end of the Achaemenid Dynasty Persian rule was very unpopular in most of their provinces. So for a proper Achaemenid recovery, you'd probably need them to either start accepting taxes in kind in lieu of precious metals, or else start reinvesting the money in the provinces somehow to keep it in circulation (although this would probably presuppose a more advanced understanding of economics than was available in the 4th century BC).

I agree that the Achaemenid Empire couldn’t last long as it was, but I doubt it would lose Asia Minor right after winning the Battle of Granicus and killing its main opponent. The Macedons would be forced to sue for peace, a harsh one at that, and Persian authority would end up strengthened. It wasn’t even that much hated everywhere as it might be thought. Tyre and Halicarnassus resisted with vigour, and so did Spitamenes in the Easternmost satrapies, this last one in particular genuinely caught Alexander off guard. Egypt would probably be the first satrapy to go in the long run, but I think Darius might be able to still hold onto it for some time. If Persia could survive the revolt of the satraps, which was the lowest point it had ever reached prior to Alexander, with most of their satrapies still intact, then I think it has good hope of keeping things together after a resounding victory in 334 BCE at least until the end of the century.
 
Top