No Alexander the Great -- How does the Achaemenid Empire develop?

Say that Alexander dies of an illness or accident at around the same time as Philip, and without him the Macedonian hegemony collapses, the Greeks fall back into fighting each other, and there's no Hellenic state left which could launch a major invasion of the Persian Empire. How do the Achaemenids fare in this scenario? Would they end up falling anyway due to internal strife; would they manage to set things back on track; or would they keep hold of their core territories but lose some of their more distant provinces (in Asia Minor and Egypt, for example), whether de facto or de jure.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The Empire, contrary to popular belief, was generally healthy. Its internal problems were (on the whole) no more severe than those of any other large empire in Antiquity. Alexander attacked at about the worst possible moment: after a bloody civil war / succession crisis had really fucked up the Empire, cost a lot of lives and money, and had eroded trust in the ruling dynasty among the local aristocracy (e.g. the satraps and their peers).

Without Alexander's invasion, the Empire can recover from the recent troubles. I reckon that it would, although poor administration can always screw things up. Even if that happens, the likeliest outcome is that another civil war occurs, and another dynasty basically takes over the Empire wholesale. The long-term effect of that is basically identical to the long-term effect of Akhaimenid consolidation: the shape of the Empire, its institutions and its culture are basically preserved.

In both cases, I think the loss of far-flung regions is almost certain. The Empire had used all its opportunities to expand, and the periphery was at this stage demanding more equal status. (That is: to be respected as part of the Empire proper, rather than as a barbarian fringe to be economically exploited). This means that the basic economic model of any and every imperial system (pumping revenue from the periphery to the core) had ceased to function. At that point, an Empire can hold on for two or three centuries yet (basically "living off the reserves")... but its ultimate death is already unavoidable.

I'd expect Egypt, (parts of) Anatolia and swathes of Central Asia (so, "old Parthia") to break off. The ATL equivalent to the Parthians will show up roughly on schedule to do what they did to the Seleukids in OTL.
 
I'd expect Egypt, (parts of) Anatolia and swathes of Central Asia (so, "old Parthia") to break off. The ATL equivalent to the Parthians will show up roughly on schedule to do what they did to the Seleukids in OTL.

Though, the fringes had been breaking off and been being reconquered for several centuries at this point. I doubt the empire would grow much smaller.

Depending on when the Parthians invade (i.e. do they arrive after a civil war or major series of revolts) I could see them taking over the empire or being smashed. (In a number of ways, the Persians military and political setup would be much more robust against an invasion by a group from Central Asia. Their armies are lighter. Their cavalry is set up better to fight steppe nomands. They have more political legitimacy. Of course, Rome was well set up to handle the barbarian invasions that ended the Western Empire, so like Rome being overwhelmed by the Goths, the Parthians can overwhelm the Persians IF their timing is right.)

I could see the Achaemenids lasting until the Huns moved in OTL, even beyond that, though as with the Hunnic invasions of the Sassanid empire, the improved technology of steppe nomads will take a heavy toll on the empire. Depending on what is happening in the Mediterranean and India at the time, that could spell the end of the empire, or it could be a time of great contraction, but the empire survives and can maybe recover after.

If Persia retains Egypt and Syria through most of this period, Arabia is quite different, and would be much more Persian-influenced.

And of course, as with all empires, the Achaemenid Empire must eventually die. Though I don't think it is impossible to have a run like Rome where it lasts well over 2000 years, likely it lasts less time. The average lifespan of an empire is 300 years, and the Acheamenids were already about that old when Alexander came along.

fasquardon
 
Do not forget, the Arsacids conquered Iran from the Seleucids partly due to its near unbreakable alliance with the Greco-Bactria kingdom and its powerful southward push into more oriental provinces in the Seleucid realm.
 
Top