How much of Europe and North Africa could a Persian empire realistically hold?

Thande

Donor
An oft-pondered What-If when AH comes up in academic media is the possibility of Xerxes defeating the Greeks and Greece being incorporated into the Persian Empire. Additionally, in OTL the Persians briefly held Egypt and even Cyrenaica.

My question is how much of Europe and North Africa do you think could realistically be administered as part of a unitary Persian empire? (I.e. puppet states and vassals don't count). I don't mean an empire to last forever, of course, but one with a reasonable lifetime, say a couple of hundred years--an empire that holds those parts of Europe and Africa long enough to put down some linguistic, cultural and government-style roots.

Could the Persians rule over the modern areas of Italy, Tunisia, Algeria? What about the Balkans?
 
I think it's difficult to go much further than the OTL Achaemenid holdings plus Greece- and perhaps even then only Thessaly and Attica will become a satrapy, with the rest under vassals. Land based mega-empires struggle to maintain themselves without civil war due to slow communications- see Achaemenid Persia, the Ummayad Caliphate, the Mongols, and so on.
 
After taking Greece you are looking at the law of diminishing returns. Wht both with the rest of north africa? There where no real resources (except trade), ditto the rest of Greece and into the Balkans, no real money to cover the cost of invasion and suppression.
 
Is it bad that I initially read the title of this thread as "How Much of Europe and North America could a Persian empire realistically hold"? :rolleyes:

Regardless, I think the answer to the actual question posed depends on the patterns of settlement and possibilities for a reasonably developed transportation and commercial infrastructure. Otherwise, the prospects for holding any part of Europe for any length of time seems next to impossible.
 
There are natural limits to any polity based upon the available means of communication and transportation at that time period. The primary means by which someone secures allegiance is either through short term fear of having an army run rampage over them, or through patronage and benefits. If an area is too far away from the center to secure benefits for the local elites in terms of favors, jobs, money, etc. then they will eventually attempt to break away.

The Achaemind Empire was already far beyond its Persian and Central Asia heartland. There is a reason why it lost is conquests in the Levant, Egypt, Anatolia, and Greece and never regained it. After losing one battle, Persia pretty much lost eveything west of Mesopotamia forever. I think that indicates how shallow its control really was. I don't think it can expand much farther than what it has, although it could expand to take all of Greece, but probably not any part of Magna Greacia.

Another factor is big Empires consume a lot of resources. Wealthy areas can afford to pay for the bureaucratic apparatus and governing elites, but poor areas cannot and are thus a drain on the Empire. At this time, there is no wealthy area west except for perhaps Carthage. Expanding Persian rule into the Balkans or even Italy will be a net drain on its coffers. And as for Carthage, the Carthaginians are defended by the Libyan Desert and Mediterranean Sea. While they are not insurmountable barriers, the core of Persia is far away and not able to project power that far consistently to ensure victory and hold onto the area in face of rebellion.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Europe: Thrace and Greece (however, I guess the Illyrians would pay tribute).
North Africa: I don't think they can stretch much more than OTL, i.e. Egypt and parts of Libya.
 
There are natural limits to any polity based upon the available means of communication and transportation at that time period. The primary means by which someone secures allegiance is either through short term fear of having an army run rampage over them, or through patronage and benefits. If an area is too far away from the center to secure benefits for the local elites in terms of favors, jobs, money, etc. then they will eventually attempt to break away.

The Achaemind Empire was already far beyond its Persian and Central Asia heartland. There is a reason why it lost is conquests in the Levant, Egypt, Anatolia, and Greece and never regained it. After losing one battle, Persia pretty much lost eveything west of Mesopotamia forever. I think that indicates how shallow its control really was. I don't think it can expand much farther than what it has, although it could expand to take all of Greece, but probably not any part of Magna Greacia.

Another factor is big Empires consume a lot of resources. Wealthy areas can afford to pay for the bureaucratic apparatus and governing elites, but poor areas cannot and are thus a drain on the Empire. At this time, there is no wealthy area west except for perhaps Carthage. Expanding Persian rule into the Balkans or even Italy will be a net drain on its coffers. And as for Carthage, the Carthaginians are defended by the Libyan Desert and Mediterranean Sea. While they are not insurmountable barriers, the core of Persia is far away and not able to project power that far consistently to ensure victory and hold onto the area in face of rebellion.

Though I agree pretty much across the board, I do feel the need to point out that it was two battles it took to ensure total loss of the West by Persia. Of course, the first battle had already made the situation much worse by the time the second came around, and made possible its outcome, but still.
 
The only way it could go much further than OTL+Greece is would if most of the Asian part of the Empire, probably including Persia proper, was lost (to steppe tribes or an Indian *Alexander, for example) and the center of gravity shifted to Lydia/Ionia. Then it might expand into southern Italy or around the Black Sea, or end up at war with Carthage. Expansion north into the Balkans would be difficult, but with military reforms they could make it as far as the Romans did. Or they might collapse immediately or wear themselves out trying to regain their old lands.
But non-Persian cultures would dominate the Empire, even if it was still ruled by Achaemenids.
 
Another factor is big Empires consume a lot of resources. Wealthy areas can afford to pay for the bureaucratic apparatus and governing elites, but poor areas cannot and are thus a drain on the Empire. At this time, there is no wealthy area west except for perhaps Carthage. Expanding Persian rule into the Balkans or even Italy will be a net drain on its coffers. And as for Carthage, the Carthaginians are defended by the Libyan Desert and Mediterranean Sea. While they are not insurmountable barriers, the core of Persia is far away and not able to project power that far consistently to ensure victory and hold onto the area in face of rebellion.

Nitpick: the Libyan coast was not desert at the time. Otherwise correct, though.
 
This makes me think of another idea. If the Balakans was not so awful agriculturally given its mountainous terrain it would be a wonder if the region was much more agiculturally fertile and to what extent a civilization founded there could streatch into Europe and the Anatolia and around the Black Sea.
 
Between the Balkans, India and Africa, I'd say Persia would probably try and expand into the Balkans. If they took it slow and steady they could have a sizable chunk of it before they collapsed. It'd be interesting to see how they deal with Rome if they don't get butterflied away.
 
I’d think that a few misconceptions need to be cleaned up here. First off, we need to make it clear that Persia would not expand anymore. Persia was already at the threshold of its power under Darius; under Xerxes some of the outer provinces such as Gandhara were lost, a sign of dwindling power. The Persian Empire at this point was already wearing out. Though there were competent leaders after Xerxes the fact that they lost Egypt and the whole lot so easily should be a sign. Run like a decentralized occupation rather than an actual nation the satrapies of the Persian Empire enjoyed virtual autonomy, and the system with which the armies were drawn from relied on the massive pool of levies. This can be attested to the fact that within the vast area of the Empire they used Median cavalrymen, Ethiopian spearmen, Phrygian peltists, and so on. While such a system is fine for a single war or two it is easy to see how it falls apart when the empire has more and more frontiers to deal with. Though the problem of logistics was temporarily solved by the Persian Royal road this only lessened the problem, not fixed it. The fact of the matter still remains that as a Land-based empire the Persians had a lot of difficulty moving infantry from place to place. With no easily navigable body of water such as the Mediterranean the travel of an army is made agonizingly slow. The Persians managed to solve the problem of running it by making something so decentralized but even then it was at the military and geographical limits of its power, both in the opinions of the Persian Shahs and in simple fact.

Regarding how they were militarily at the limit of their power, one needs to look no further than Persian campaigns in such areas as Nubia, Thracia, and Central Asia. In Nubia Persian expeditions were either repulsed by the Nubians or found nothing of use; this is because Nubia is a very poor country without much to give to Persia. In Thracia Persian expansion was checked in the Danube by Scythians and had it not been for the heroic efforts of the Ionian levies Darius would have likely been killed. Central Asia is the most difficult of the frontiers. This great expanse is naturally shielded by the Karakum desert but where the string of oases laid the Scythians plunder, often venturing into the Persian Empire. This has caused the forced defense of the area, of course, in order to defend the valuable resources of Bactria. It had taken the life of the Great Cyrus when he battled the nomads.

Regarding geographical factors, the Thar Desert in the east, the mountainous desolate Balkans, the Caucasus, the Arabian Desert, and the Egyptian coastal strip where nothing except a few Greek towns specializing in creating dyes laid all limited Persian expansion. Besides the obvious danger of overextension there was simply the fact that none of these areas were appealing. Even Carthage had not grown to the apex of her power, not nearly as strong as she would later become.
With this in mind and the fact that Persian ‘rule’ in Greece would mean a few satrapies and the dismantling of Athens and Sparta, perhaps with taxes every now and then, we can see why Persia would not expand any longer. However, it does make the Persian empire easier to rule with the Greeks gone. The two most rebellious areas of the empire, Ionia, and Egypt, have now been simultaneously pacified due to the fact that Greek funding is now gone.

The Greeks were funding these two areas to rebel against the Persians, particularly the former. While the former was easier to control the revolt of the latter was much, much harder and that is why the area became such a pressure point for Persian destabilization. Without Greek funding the Egyptian problem is not nearly as prevalent.

I hope this has cleared up everything here.

Our resident Persian expert ImmortalImpi asked me to post this.
 
Think most important things are already said save for logistics and cultural differences.

The larger an empire becomes in a short time the more the people will resist. Especialy if its armies are spread all over the place. And local leaders see opertunity revolts happen and rebellions spread.
The cultural difference between the greeks and the persians was so big that the greeks would be easily aiding any rebellion. That means you need troops stationed all over greece to keep every city in check.

Taking into acount that the Athenians kicked out the spartans earlier they wouldnt take kindly Persian overlords either. So expect rebellion everywhere in greece. Just like in Egypt. Also the logistics at the time dont favor a big landmass (like said earlier). So Persia at the time was realy at its peak, actualy it went to fast. Same with the greek/macedonian empire Alexander created. You cant keep a large landmass together like that unless you change hearts and minds of people in your favor.
 
Even with their hearts and minds in the sense of them not rejecting Foreign Barbarians, you still have the local big shots deciding that the emperor is far away and they control enough of the army to establish their own polity.

I don't know if Persia had maxed out its available growth (as in, it couldn't take any more without crippling costs or defeats), but it sounds like it was already in the range of "the most it can feasibly hold on to" - that is, the territory within which it can project power against regularly enough and successfully enough that if and when troubles come from either locals or overmighty satraps that central authority can be reimposed.

Egypt is doable, if problematic - but its on the frontier between the realm of more-or-less secure to more-or-less independent. Any further west would be getting increasingly "Okay, you can conquer it, but can you hold it longer than it takes the army to about face?" even without any particular unruliness - the sphere where central authority is acknowledged has reached the limits the technology and geography permit.

My impressions, some based on other statements here.
 
Well the only way you can successfully build a bigger empire is through doing it slowly, as in converting the subjects you conquer into *persians* themselves and gradually move up. So that the conquered no longer feel like being subjugated. But this takes time and what the persians mostly did is conquer and move on to the next. This is what gave rise to revolts in the first place. You cant enslave a people and then leave a token force behind to deal with uprisings and move on.

Then comes the vast distance that at the time was impossible to travel. By the time the persians had a army in the field the rebels would have formed government and their own army, making reconquering thus harder then the initial conquest was. Cause this time they aint fighting for a king or regent. (lets say the egyptians or the Ionians, but their own freedom.) The first test on this was the american civil war, trains were the revolution in warfare and you could deploy troops way faster in that time then the persians could do. Btw most the persians were infantry.

To my understanding all empires before inproved transport failed, Greek-Macedonians,Persians,French empire. You conquer to fast to be able to quell resistance behind your own army. So the Persians were at their max with what they had prior to the Greek invasions. Actually the Ionian revolt showed its shortcomings.

The Romans however held onto their empire due to its Mediterranean location. as you an see the distance into the north and east is rather limited (south is obviously desert). Britain they eventually gave up on. And the expeditions into both Germania and Persia failed, again logistical issues regardless of the battle tactics of themselves and foes. A war is usually won by whom wont give up and can pour in more troops.

Well im diverting a bit from the subject but just to give an example.

Still the size of the persian empire and its long lasting shows its remarkable. But any attempt on further expansion would be doomed.
 
I do not think that the Persian empire would be really interested in conquering additional portions of Europe, with the only possible exceptions of Sicily and Crimea, both being wheat producing countries.

The task of keeping together a really big empire is daunting, but not impossible. There is no large enough competitor (unless there is a big empire forming in India - even in such a case the logistics of attacking from the Indus westward are quite poor) and even if provinces can be temporarily lost due to insurrections or civil war they can always be reoccupied and pacified.

The only real problem is with the nomads coming out from the steppes, but it is a problem which will be real for any kind of state controlling the southern Balkans and/or Anatolia and/or the Iranian plateau. Darius had his own troubles with the nomads, and went on a famous sweep of the steppes which did not really produce any lasting success: the nomads will be a big real headache until the time of gunpowder weapons.

Funnily enough, I might forecast an east-west division of the empire similar to what happened in the Roman one: a WPE with its capital in Byzantium (surprise, surprise) and an EPE with its capital as usual in Ctesyphon. The border would almost automatically be set between Syria and Mesopotamia.

An interesting byproduct of a Persian conquest of Greece might be a significant Greek diaspora in the western Mediterranean, which might produce a much larger Magna Grecia and possibly a Greek Provence. No guarantees, however: it might go the other way too. Greek culture is very vital in this age and might permeate the Persian empire even without the boost of a Greco-Macedonian military victory.
 

Thande

Donor
Funnily enough, I might forecast an east-west division of the empire similar to what happened in the Roman one: a WPE with its capital in Byzantium (surprise, surprise) and an EPE with its capital as usual in Ctesyphon. The border would almost automatically be set between Syria and Mesopotamia.

That seems like an interesting scenario: like OTL Byzantium, it would presumably keep calling itself "Persian" even as it slowly shifts to Greek as its court language. The cultural aspects like art and architecture might be interesting hybrids too.

One wonders how such an empire would do if the rise of Rome is not butterflied away.
 
That seems like an interesting scenario: like OTL Byzantium, it would presumably keep calling itself "Persian" even as it slowly shifts to Greek as its court language. The cultural aspects like art and architecture might be interesting hybrids too.

One wonders how such an empire would do if the rise of Rome is not butterflied away.

If there is an influx of Greek immigrants into Magna Grecia, Rome might be butterflied away.
In any case, the proto-Romans would be confronted - and influenced - by the Persian behemoth beyond the Adriatic.

I would expect that Greek would in any case become the dominant language of eastern Mediterranean. The interesting thing would be if this uber-Persian empire can be used to transfer more Indian culture to Middle east and viceversa.
 
Lots to respond to!

Think most important things are already said save for logistics and cultural differences.

The larger an empire becomes in a short time the more the people will resist. Especialy if its armies are spread all over the place. And local leaders see opertunity revolts happen and rebellions spread.
The cultural difference between the greeks and the persians was so big that the greeks would be easily aiding any rebellion. That means you need troops stationed all over greece to keep every city in check.

Taking into acount that the Athenians kicked out the spartans earlier they wouldnt take kindly Persian overlords either. So expect rebellion everywhere in greece. Just like in Egypt. Also the logistics at the time dont favor a big landmass (like said earlier). So Persia at the time was realy at its peak, actualy it went to fast. Same with the greek/macedonian empire Alexander created. You cant keep a large landmass together like that unless you change hearts and minds of people in your favor.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned logistics in my post. Even so, taking care of the Greeks is easier than others. Why? Because the Greeks have internal feuds that can be played upon. When Persia conquers Greece they will most likely institute a tributary/satrapy joint system, depending on what the city state is. Sparta and Athens will both be razed to the ground the Helots will be given Spartan land. this will appease the Helots, which control most of the area. The Laconians will most likely be free to rule themselves and be given former Spartan land.

Cultural differences don't mean much. Persia controlled an empire of so many different cultures and nationalities that at this point I don't think they had a large problem. They would appoint royal princes to the Greeks as Satraps, make them fork over Hoplites for levies and as mercenaries in the Spada. It's quite easy to get their hearts and minds in your favor by bringing a much more prosperous economy and introducing Qanats to Greece.

Even with their hearts and minds in the sense of them not rejecting Foreign Barbarians, you still have the local big shots deciding that the emperor is far away and they control enough of the army to establish their own polity.

I don't know if Persia had maxed out its available growth (as in, it couldn't take any more without crippling costs or defeats), but it sounds like it was already in the range of "the most it can feasibly hold on to" - that is, the territory within which it can project power against regularly enough and successfully enough that if and when troubles come from either locals or overmighty satraps that central authority can be reimposed.

Egypt is doable, if problematic - but its on the frontier between the realm of more-or-less secure to more-or-less independent. Any further west would be getting increasingly "Okay, you can conquer it, but can you hold it longer than it takes the army to about face?" even without any particular unruliness - the sphere where central authority is acknowledged has reached the limits the technology and geography permit.

My impressions, some based on other statements here.

Again, Persia wouldn't go further than Egypt. The only reason Egypt looks problematic in OTL is because of the fact that the Persians had to contend with Greeks in Nacrautis stirring up trouble and Athenian funding for Egyptian revolts. Without that Egypt is easy to control as the Persians simply appealed to the Priests and showered them with privileges and the people were happy.

Well the only way you can successfully build a bigger empire is through doing it slowly, as in converting the subjects you conquer into *persians* themselves and gradually move up. So that the conquered no longer feel like being subjugated. But this takes time and what the persians mostly did is conquer and move on to the next. This is what gave rise to revolts in the first place. You cant enslave a people and then leave a token force behind to deal with uprisings and move on.

Then comes the vast distance that at the time was impossible to travel. By the time the persians had a army in the field the rebels would have formed government and their own army, making reconquering thus harder then the initial conquest was. Cause this time they aint fighting for a king or regent. (lets say the egyptians or the Ionians, but their own freedom.) The first test on this was the american civil war, trains were the revolution in warfare and you could deploy troops way faster in that time then the persians could do. Btw most the persians were infantry.

To my understanding all empires before inproved transport failed, Greek-Macedonians,Persians,French empire. You conquer to fast to be able to quell resistance behind your own army. So the Persians were at their max with what they had prior to the Greek invasions. Actually the Ionian revolt showed its shortcomings.

The Romans however held onto their empire due to its Mediterranean location. as you an see the distance into the north and east is rather limited (south is obviously desert). Britain they eventually gave up on. And the expeditions into both Germania and Persia failed, again logistical issues regardless of the battle tactics of themselves and foes. A war is usually won by whom wont give up and can pour in more troops.

Well im diverting a bit from the subject but just to give an example.

Still the size of the persian empire and its long lasting shows its remarkable. But any attempt on further expansion would be doomed.

Conversion? Zoroastrianism was a petty cult during this time, not in any way majority, not even large minority. One has to remember the Persian empire is an occupation that allowed the occupied cultures to continue living as they did with taxes and levies, and with the bonus of being more prosperous than they were before. Areas like Syria grew to tremendous levels of wealth and the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, in a formerly poor area of Anatolia, attests to what Persian conquest could bring.

In Persia the point of a satrapy was to give a province both autonomy and reassurance that their culture wasn't under attack or that they had something to fear. When Cyrus allowed the Jews back to Israel it was because he wanted to make a political statement.

I'd also like to note that the Persians had several armies. Contrary to an accident in my last post, the Persians had three armies.

  1. the Professional army, or Spada. Composed only of Iranians and mercenaries it was the core of the Persian army.
  2. The Provincial levies. These were usually called upon in times when Persia wanted a Grand army to attack something such as what Xerxes did with the Greeks. They were brought from all over the empire.
  3. The Satrap armies. This is the small army of the Satrap in their territory, and was the army which Alexander faced in Granicus. This is a double edged sword. On one hand it stops rebellions faster, on the other hand it gives rebellious straps a lot more power.

And rebellious satraps were watched carefully by imperial inspectors using the famous royal road, making rebellion much harder.

I do not think that the Persian empire would be really interested in conquering additional portions of Europe, with the only possible exceptions of Sicily and Crimea, both being wheat producing countries.

The task of keeping together a really big empire is daunting, but not impossible. There is no large enough competitor (unless there is a big empire forming in India - even in such a case the logistics of attacking from the Indus westward are quite poor) and even if provinces can be temporarily lost due to insurrections or civil war they can always be reoccupied and pacified.

The only real problem is with the nomads coming out from the steppes, but it is a problem which will be real for any kind of state controlling the southern Balkans and/or Anatolia and/or the Iranian plateau. Darius had his own troubles with the nomads, and went on a famous sweep of the steppes which did not really produce any lasting success: the nomads will be a big real headache until the time of gunpowder weapons.

Funnily enough, I might forecast an east-west division of the empire similar to what happened in the Roman one: a WPE with its capital in Byzantium (surprise, surprise) and an EPE with its capital as usual in Ctesyphon. The border would almost automatically be set between Syria and Mesopotamia.

An interesting byproduct of a Persian conquest of Greece might be a significant Greek diaspora in the western Mediterranean, which might produce a much larger Magna Grecia and possibly a Greek Provence. No guarantees, however: it might go the other way too. Greek culture is very vital in this age and might permeate the Persian empire even without the boost of a Greco-Macedonian military victory.

It will most certainly not conquer the Crimea. They would need to conquer the land route to it and as recorded by Herodotus they were checked on the Danube. As with Sicily, again, too far as the Persian power would have already begun to fade in Greece. They don't grain producing regions; they have the fertile Persian provinces of Persis and Media in addition to the Fertile crescent. Besides, neither had really increased to the recognition they would receive later for their grain.

The Persian empire was already losing territories to Magahda in India when Xerxes was around. If we get an able emperor, he will have to battle the Magahdans for it back.

Nomads from the steppes consist at this point consist mainly of Scythians, which Darius drew(The Dahae/Parni at least) into a tribute system. If they do attack they will be driven off and they declined in the later Persian period anyhow. While Darius' sweep didn't do much good it did in fact negate the Scythians from attacking Xerxes.

There will be no east-west division. The problem is Persian culture itself is confined to the Iranian plateau and as we saw with the collapse of the Persian empire they never went beyond the Mesopotamian basin ever again. This is because they let the peoples in the area lay in peace. Unlike the Romans its impossible for such a divide to exist, and indeed, it contradicts traditional Persian claim to divine authority. There can't be two Shahanshahs at the same time.

Two things may happen to the Greeks.

1. Many Greek soldiers will be campaigning a lot, spreading Greeks around the empire.

2. There will be more deportations to outer regions of the Persian empire. This seems quite likely and the destination, again, will probably be Bactria.

Also, Bystantion was a fishing village. It would be Sardis if anything. Ctesiphon was not founded until the Parthians, so I think the eastern empire would be in either Persepolis or Pasargadae.
 
Last edited:
Again, Persia wouldn't go further than Egypt. The only reason Egypt looks problematic in OTL is because of the fact that the Persians had to contend with Greeks in Nacrautis stirring up trouble and Athenian funding for Egyptian revolts. Without that Egypt is easy to control as the Persians simply appealed to the Priests and showered them with privileges and the people were happy.

Responding to this to try to clarify my comments:

I didn't mean that Egypt isn't controllable, just that it seems as far as the state can exert control when things get unruly (not disputing that it was more a matter of people stirring up trouble artificially than the Egyptians not accepting Persian rule).

Controlling something as far away as Carthage which was giving an equal level of grief would be too much, thus what you said on not going further.
 
Top