No Greek conquest-how long does the Achaemenid empire last

ar-pharazon

Banned
As we all know a certain extraordinary Macedonian put the Achaemenid dynasty to rest and hellenized the near east.

What if the Achaemenid empire had remained?

How much longer would it have lasted?

Could it endure indefinitely?

And if not the Greeks who would be its end who would be?
 
I honestly don't know (this time period is not my strong suit) but prolly a lot longer as as far as am aware it was Alexander's foren crisis that caused it's collapse, not a internal problems.
 
Nothing lasts forever. My guess is like the how the Achaemenids usurped control from the Medes, some Persian house or related people would usurp control and become the next dynasty to become the next major Persian powerhouse. Otherwise you do have steppe nomads who would potentially take opportunity of any weakness, perceived or actual, in the Persian Empire. You have the Yuzehi and Saka tribes who migrated into Bactria and India - perhaps they instead would take turns invading Persia?
 
In the Ancient Age, where tactical military engagements decided the fate of most countries, practically any noble from any Persian satrapy (Bactrians, Sogdians, Medes, Babylonians, Assyrians, Parthians, etc, not to mention the peoples not under Persian control, such as the Scythians and the aforementioned Sakas and Yuezhi) would be able to revolt against and usurp the Achaemenid throne if Alexander doesn't come, depending on their martial prowess and expertise. That's what makes long-timeframe speculation hard when it comes to PoD's in Antiquity.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If some tribe invades the Iranian plateau from the steppes wouldn't that not necessarily be the end of the Persian empire?

As the Persians had governors, satraps, garrisons, etc... located elsewhere?
 
If some tribe invades the Iranian plateau from the steppes wouldn't that not necessarily be the end of the Persian empire?

As the Persians had governors, satraps, garrisons, etc... located elsewhere?
Indeed, not necessarily. A Persian rump state could survive somewhere, depending on the military leaders' expertise.
 
Probably not too much longer. Rebellion had been brewing in the further satraps, with Egypt being a frequent revolter that drained the manpower of Persia. In addition dynastic struggles lead to civil war which lead to further weakness in the empire. Add to that corruption among the bureaucracy and the tendency of the kings to hoard their treasure instead of putting it back into the economy and you don't have a pretty picture. That said, the decline wasn't terminal and Persia could probably have recovered if given time and competent rulers. If the empire falls Persia as a whole will probably unite again under a different dynasty in a few generations. In the meantime I'd expect that the Satraps to the west of the Iranian plateau would go back to being independent, possibly falling to Greek conquest if those happen later.
 
Top