AHC/WI : No Achaemenid Empire

As it's say on the tin.

What could have prevented the appearance of the Achaemenid Empire, or any Iranian super-power in Iron Age Middle-East and Near-East?

And what would be the consequences of this absence? For Egypt, Medians, Mesopotamia, or course; but as well for Greece, Indias or northern Iranian peoples?
 
As it's say on the tin.

What could have prevented the appearance of the Achaemenid Empire, or any Iranian super-power in Iron Age Middle-East and Near-East?

And what would be the consequences of this absence? For Egypt, Medians, Mesopotamia, or course; but as well for Greece, Indias or northern Iranian peoples?

Well the Achaemenid Empire was essentially a product of the Kingdom of Anshan (Persia proper, centered around modern Fars) replacing the elite of the Median Empire, so you would have to prevent the Median Empire coming about, as they are already pretty close to fulfilling the role of an "Iranian superpower in the Iron Age Middle East and Near East".

Consequences would likely include a surviving Elam, whose language is generally classified as a language isolate, Mesopotamia and Egypt continuing to be the big kids on the block, and maybe a greater 'civilising' of the Gutians and other Iranian groups.

Also Lydia will remain a significant polity in Asia Minor, which will impact Greek interaction with Anatolia, although I'm not 100% on what the nature of that interaction would be.

Things that would probably stay the same: India would be relatively similar to OTL, just with less Iranian influence at that time period. Afghanistan forms a natural limit for the hard-power expansion of Indian kingdoms, which are unlikely to "break out" into Central Asia or Iran with more promising, easier conquests to the south.

I do have reservations about the idea of no power rising to occupy the whole Iranian plateau, as geography suggests that it would be eventually controlled by one administration.

We may see more incursions of nomads from Central Asia using Iran as an entrypoint into the Middle East, with unpredictable consequences for the social, historical, governmental, religious and environmental future of the Middle East. Overall, it is very difficult to say how the region will change because the Achaemenid hegemony shaped the area in such a key way.
 
I think Hrvatskiwi's point about nomads is interesting because i'm struggling to see how you could prevent some tribal group or another from filling the vacuum that is left by removing the Medes / Persians.

I guess you could have a number of competing nomadic tribes which lead to a fragmented Iranian plateau - but the Parthians still managed a pretty impressive state built on the same foundations.

It would give Egypt and the Phoenician states more leeway to survive - Greeks would also be stronger, possibly dominating the Aegean coastline to an even greater degree than OTL. Begs the question whether an Alexander analogue might arise 300 years earlier?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
The only way I can see this happening is if you have the unusual circumstance where the Iranian Plateau is divided, but the Mesopotamians are taking their coastline - and acknowledges that it doesn't have the strength to unite the Iranians, but it could either

1) Regularly raid them to destabilise the region

2) Set themselves up as a regional policeman. Purposely making it so that the Iranian people can't unify, but working alongside them during nomadic invasion - so essentially turning it into a series of tributary states. A bit of effort to ensure that the different proto-Iranian groups form distinctly differently.

Problem is that you have a Mesopotamian power expending resources on the Iranian plateau, that may not be profitable, when they could preferably displace, colonise, or assimilate the region - which would lead to a non-Iranian power on the plateau. (Is that acceptable?).

A third/fourth option is to add Central Asia, and India into the mix. Have strong polities there try and exploit the Iranian plateau. The Central Asians raiding and setting up tributaries, the Indians using the Iranians on the Plateau in a proxy war during a trade war with a strong mesopotamia (don't know why, but possible), and you have 2/3 client states in the area. At the very least the Indian and Mesopotamian powers can use them to protect against powerful steppe tribes.

So maybe that is the trick, have a steppe tribe charge through and lay waste to the Iranian steppe, and overambitiously try and raid Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, forcibly conscripting the local Iranians into forming levies for them, providing the majority of their strength. The local powers suffer, but push them back brutally, and each draw the same conclusion that they want a client state as a buffer - using Iranian soldiers to protect these client states, and possibly drawing on them for troops in their own campaigns, reducing the populations on the plateau.

Another option would be to have the steppe tribe (and retained levies) that survive, only to be broken by some settled group in central Asia(the Bactrians/Proto-Bactrians?) who bring them into their protection, using them as a cavalry arm for their forces, to unite central Asia. - Then you have three powers, neither of whom wants a strong Iran, using the plateau as an impressive buffer zone. None of them wish to spend the resources to conquer it all, as it would end up being too wealthy and cause issues with their own power structures, be too costly to take on the other powers, and would rather use Iranian men and money to expand closer to home.
 
Top