Surviving Achaemenid Persia

Artaxerxes

Banned
Persian Fire by Tom Holland gives a pretty good view of Persia and Greece up to Alexanders invasion, forget where it stops but starts in run up to Marathon
 
One of the things I am concerned about though is how to romanize Old Persian names. I insist on using them for three reasons, firstly that in my mind it seems more respectful and all, secondly that using proper native names as often as possible is kind of my thing, and most importantly, the Old Persian names just sound better than their Greek and Latin forms for the most part. Only problem is that while most of them are pretty simple to put into a romanized form anybody can read, some of them resist such efforts. I mean, how the hell do I render Artaxšaça in a form most people can comprehend? Took me a bit of research just to be able to understand how to pronounce that.

In any case, what do people think about the options for scenarios? The two best choices in my mind (based on a matter of simplicity and effectiveness) are Cleitus being late to save his king at the Granicus, leading to a dead Alexander and Darius III remaining the king of Persia, or Artaxerxes IV Arses figuring out his vizier Bagoas' plot before he is killed and staying alive. The positives about the first are that it is the simplest and most well-known, with some very obvious short-term effects. The second, while more obscure, has the potential for a stabler empire though as I imagined making Artaxerxes a sort of Persian Alexander, being a young, confident, and trusting king who doesn't ignore good advice and is a bit more daring and less cautious.

Whichever one I pick, the results I have planned will be much the same. Macedon's army is crushed and their surviving generals make a mad dash back to Pella to get there in time of the violent succession crisis that will follow. The Greek states, Athens in particular, waste no time in taking advantage of this, as do their northern neighbors in Epirus, with Alexander Molossus, uncle to the late Macedonian king, having possibly his greatest rival in the character of Antipater and his son, with Parmenion also playing a significant role. This cuts the current Epirote invasion of Italy short, with consequences there, I imagine. This gives Athens and Sparta and their allies quite a bit of breathing room though, to say the least, with Phocion and Demosthenes continuing to rise to prominence in particular. Under the guidance of Phocion, Athens becomes the dominant power of Greece and its influence is felt quite some ways west.

In the west Athens finds a new economic (and occasionally military) rival in Carthage. The Carthaginians continue to attempt to control the western Mediterranean, with Sicily being the greatest battleground as IOTL. Continued Greek adventures in Italy still have an effect on the Oscans, Etruscans, and the Roman state, but whether Rome still comes to control the whole of Italy or more remains to be seen. Carthage though is given some measure of support every now and then by the Achaemenids, who humor their Phoenician vassals who want to support their Punic brethren in Africa. It's in Africa that the Persians have a major setback, when Egypt rebels yet again and this time more completely than usual.

In Asia, the Persians are forced to accept the loss of one of their richest satrapies as unrest continues far closer to home. The King of Kings partakes in military campaigns across the empire, but the most effective measure against rebellion is taken when he decides to revert the policies of Xerxes regarding Babylonia. The Persians follow the example of their founder Cyrus and patronize some of the more powerful (and friendlier) priests and allow them a greater measure of autonomy as they once had under Cyrus. This goes a long way to restoring Persian control of their richest province. Eventually, possibly after a civil war, the other Iranian peoples are given the same preferential treatment the Persians and Medes have been accorded, and in time the Mesopotamians are given the same treatment, particularly in their home region, with Mesopotamians being appointed satraps of Assyria and Babylonia. Thus, the empire comes to be forged into a more unified nation through both violence and understanding.

Or so is the general plan I have sketched out in my head for the long term. Thoughts?
 
Good stuff! If I were you, I'd go with the Artaxerxes IV scenario, because it's less expected and because he's a lot younger than Darius III. I'll also say that I think you should stay with the more common English renderings, just because it's a hell of a lot easier for everyone....

A few questions/comments/thoughts-of-my-own besides that...

I think Athens would have a tough time becoming the Greek hegemon. Athens wasn't as strong early in Alexander's reign as it would become later, after all, it just suffered a major defeat at Chaeronea. Athens and Sparta are allied in their rebellion against Macedonia, right? Maybe the two of them could have another "Peloponnesian War" once they overthrow the Macedonians, that Athens ends up winning? How the Macedonians and Darius/Artaxerxes fit in to such a war could be very, very interesting.

Also, IIRC, Phocion's almost eighty... I don't think he'd live long enough to lead Athens in any golden age. Demosthenes and Hyperides would be the leaders, I'd imagine... and I think their relationship would be something interesting to explore, especially as they go from being the oppressed to the oppressor.

Will Athens, once it becomes the Greek Hegemon, focus any on Persia, or will it focus almost exclusively on the west and Carthage? It seems to me that Persia would be just as, if not more important to Athens, unless the Athenians decide to do another Sicilian expedition....

And then the civil war in Macedonia. It probably wouldn't be over the kingship itself, since Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus would be the obvious successor, as the last living Argead male. The problem, of course, is figuring out the regent. As Arrhidaeus is with the army, I'd imagine that Parmenion would declare himself the regent (in which he would have full support from the army); it depends a bit on how heavy the Macedonian losses are, but Parmenion should have a superior army to Antipater and, for that reason, as well as a common interest in keeping Macedonian control over the Greek cities, I'd expect that Antipater wouldn't make war over it. However, that said, Antipater would have to be rewarded well by Parmenion. He would certainly be 1.b to Parmenion's 1.a; besides that, perhaps Parmenion would allow Arrhidaeus to marry Antipater's daughter Phila, and then Parmenion could have his son Nicanor marry Antipater's younger daughter Eurydice? That might be too kind for Antipater from Parmenion's perspective, but he would have to do a lot to avoid a war with Antipater while the Persians and Greeks look to destroy the both of them.

The Macedonians still have a navy at the Granicus, so Parmenion should be able to cross over the Hellespont back to Europe without any harassment from the Athenians/Spartans or Persians. Then the war with Athens and Sparta: the Greeks need the Thessalians to support them to neutralize the Macedonian cavalry advantage (which I'd imagine would happen, given how they joined the Athenians in the Lamian War upon Alexander's death IOTL). They need that to have a chance. Though the Macedonians should have the larger army, a Greek victory is definitely possible, especially if they can get good ground. Another idea: Darius/Artaxerxes could intervene on behalf of the Greeks in the battle, either by giving the Greeks gold or even by sending some troops to fight with them. Perhaps even Memnon could be sent out to help....

The defeat would be what cripples the regime; I have no idea what would happen. Alexander the Molossian could come claiming the throne, and might have success... Parmenion or Antipater's families could be completely annihilated... or the regime might manage to stay around. A lot of it could depend on what Persia does - the Persians could, in fact, choose a winner and make him their puppet. Alexander the Lyncestian could make an ironic Achaemenid puppet....

Oh, and I will also say that I think that, if you go with the Artaxerxes scenario, you could wait to have the Macedonians defeated until TTL's equivalent of Issus - that way, Artaxerxes himself would be commanding the victorious army, instead of Memnon and the satraps. The victors at the Granicus become more rivals for Artaxerxes to overcome; if he is responsible for the victory over the Macedonians, it deepens the crisis that Artaxerxes has to overcome, thereby increasing his legend and his grip on power. :cool: Plus, on top of that, it's more likely that the Macedonians will suffer heavy casualties there than at the Granicus (as there are more Persian troops), so it could make Macedonia a lot weaker than a defeat at the Granicus would.

Actually, now that I think about it, if you do that, really, the Macedonians are screwed. The navy had been disbanded by this point, so, with the Persian navy dominant, Parmenion is stuck in Anatolia unless the Hellespont can be opened up. Parmenion would have to retreat back, probably chased by the Persians the whole way. Macedonian gains would quickly revert back to the Persians as the armies march westwards, denying Parmenion any supplies. Antipater would have to secure their crossing the Hellespont back to Europe, but with the Greek revolt led by Athens and Sparta, and without any ships of his own, he might not be able to. The whole thing (Alexander disbanding the fleet) could really backfire, and his army could be utterly obliterated in what would be an absolutely massive disaster.

**

I threw more at you than I initially meant to! Feel free to ignore, those are just my thoughts. I'm really looking forward to how you do this timeline; it's been a long time since there's been a good Achaemenid timeline on here. Good luck! :)


EDIT: I forgot that this was ten years earlier, so scratch Phocion being too old. Demosthenes and Hyperides would be the big winners with an Athenian victory over the Macedonians, but Phocion's voice would be interesting to see develop as Athens goes from powerless to powerful and able to flex it's military might. After all, Phocion's made a career on caution....

EDIT 2: I made some changes in the civil war paragraphs, and to the Issus suggestion.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Will Athenai be Hegemon Hellas or will Siracusai be Hegemon Hellas? Siracusa after all is in Grecia Magna and has a larger hinterland.
 
In the Achaemenid times, Zoroastrianism was very diverse and very decentralised.

Just jumping in briefly here: there's not a great deal of evidence that Zoroastrianism as we know it is anything other than a Sasanian creation out of older elements. Achaemenid Iran was emphatically not a Zoroastrian state or even a monotheistic one.

Whoever recommended Pierre Bryant's book has my support: I used that for several essays in my degree.
 
Yay, I love long responses! Means someone's actually taking the time to think about something I posted and cares enough to comment on it. :D

So yeah, this is quite a few years before Phocion's OTL death and given that he was working all the way up until then he's going to be a leading figure in the short-term of Athen's return to glory. Of course, given that he was 84 when he died IOTL butterflying away his execution won't postpone his death for very long. And thanks for the advice about Macedon, to be honest I don't know very much about ancient Greek dynastic politics. ;)

Basileus: Everything I've read seems to indicate the Zoroastrian religion did exist during the Achaemenid era and was the faith of the kings, even if they permitted other religions to exist equally. Even if Zoroastrianism wasn't the organized, dogmatic faith it was in Sassanid times it still probably existed.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
One of the things I am concerned about though is how to romanize Old Persian names. I insist on using them for three reasons, firstly that in my mind it seems more respectful and all, secondly that using proper native names as often as possible is kind of my thing, and most importantly, the Old Persian names just sound better than their Greek and Latin forms for the most part. Only problem is that while most of them are pretty simple to put into a romanized form anybody can read, some of them resist such efforts. I mean, how the hell do I render Artaxšaça in a form most people can comprehend? Took me a bit of research just to be able to understand how to pronounce that.

In any case, what do people think about the options for scenarios? The two best choices in my mind (based on a matter of simplicity and effectiveness) are Cleitus being late to save his king at the Granicus, leading to a dead Alexander and Darius III remaining the king of Persia, or Artaxerxes IV Arses figuring out his vizier Bagoas' plot before he is killed and staying alive. The positives about the first are that it is the simplest and most well-known, with some very obvious short-term effects. The second, while more obscure, has the potential for a stabler empire though as I imagined making Artaxerxes a sort of Persian Alexander, being a young, confident, and trusting king who doesn't ignore good advice and is a bit more daring and less cautious.

Whichever one I pick, the results I have planned will be much the same. Macedon's army is crushed and their surviving generals make a mad dash back to Pella to get there in time of the violent succession crisis that will follow. The Greek states, Athens in particular, waste no time in taking advantage of this, as do their northern neighbors in Epirus, with Alexander Molossus, uncle to the late Macedonian king, having possibly his greatest rival in the character of Antipater and his son, with Parmenion also playing a significant role. This cuts the current Epirote invasion of Italy short, with consequences there, I imagine. This gives Athens and Sparta and their allies quite a bit of breathing room though, to say the least, with Phocion and Demosthenes continuing to rise to prominence in particular. Under the guidance of Phocion, Athens becomes the dominant power of Greece and its influence is felt quite some ways west.

In the west Athens finds a new economic (and occasionally military) rival in Carthage. The Carthaginians continue to attempt to control the western Mediterranean, with Sicily being the greatest battleground as IOTL. Continued Greek adventures in Italy still have an effect on the Oscans, Etruscans, and the Roman state, but whether Rome still comes to control the whole of Italy or more remains to be seen. Carthage though is given some measure of support every now and then by the Achaemenids, who humor their Phoenician vassals who want to support their Punic brethren in Africa. It's in Africa that the Persians have a major setback, when Egypt rebels yet again and this time more completely than usual.

In Asia, the Persians are forced to accept the loss of one of their richest satrapies as unrest continues far closer to home. The King of Kings partakes in military campaigns across the empire, but the most effective measure against rebellion is taken when he decides to revert the policies of Xerxes regarding Babylonia. The Persians follow the example of their founder Cyrus and patronize some of the more powerful (and friendlier) priests and allow them a greater measure of autonomy as they once had under Cyrus. This goes a long way to restoring Persian control of their richest province. Eventually, possibly after a civil war, the other Iranian peoples are given the same preferential treatment the Persians and Medes have been accorded, and in time the Mesopotamians are given the same treatment, particularly in their home region, with Mesopotamians being appointed satraps of Assyria and Babylonia. Thus, the empire comes to be forged into a more unified nation through both violence and understanding.

Or so is the general plan I have sketched out in my head for the long term. Thoughts?

I like that too. I find myself reading the Book of Daniel or Esther in the original Hebrew or Aramaic and Darius is written Daryavesh and Cyrus, Koresh (and nobody can figure out who Achasferosh was). The Hebrew-Aramaic has to be closer to the Farsi than the Greco-Roman butchering of the names.
. My best suggestion would be to consult some Zoroastrian and Bahai and Iranian exile websites and see how they do it when they transpose the names of Achmenid kings and vizers into Roman script from Farsi.
 
I like that too. I find myself reading the Book of Daniel or Esther in the original Hebrew or Aramaic and Darius is written Daryavesh and Cyrus, Koresh (and nobody can figure out who Achasferosh was). The Hebrew-Aramaic has to be closer to the Farsi than the Greco-Roman butchering of the names.
. My best suggestion would be to consult some Zoroastrian and Bahai and Iranian exile websites and see how they do it when they transpose the names of Achmenid kings and vizers into Roman script from Farsi.
Wikipedia seems to think that that refers to Xerxes. Bit of an odd transliteration considering the proper version I've read is Xšaya-ṛšā and I've seen it transliterated as Khashayar. In any case, a bit more effort with Google's removed my problem. A transliteration of Artaxerxes most people should be able to understand is Artakshatra, which should be acceptable. I might also use familiar forms every now and then as well, or when the native version is unknown.
 
In any case, what do people think about the options for scenarios? The two best choices in my mind (based on a matter of simplicity and effectiveness) are Cleitus being late to save his king at the Granicus, leading to a dead Alexander and Darius III remaining the king of Persia, or Artaxerxes IV Arses figuring out his vizier Bagoas' plot before he is killed and staying alive. The positives about the first are that it is the simplest and most well-known, with some very obvious short-term effects. The second, while more obscure, has the potential for a stabler empire though as I imagined making Artaxerxes a sort of Persian Alexander, being a young, confident, and trusting king who doesn't ignore good advice and is a bit more daring and less cautious.

The problem you need to solve if your Artakshatra (Artaxerxes) IV is gonna become a Persian Alexander is how the Persians will have a core of disciplined infantry. IOTL, the Persians never raised a corps of well-trained and disciplined heavy infantry, beyond the immortals, and tended to rely on Greek mercenaries (after all, these were cheap and plentiful, and the Persian treasure could certainly stand the strain) to provide this unit. Potentially, you can think of two ways to give the Persians access to infantry pre-dead-Alexander.
1) They ally with the Greeks (Sparta and a few small cities were the only free Greek states). The rest, including Athens, were technically allied with Alexander, even if they were reluctant and treacherous allies. This brings into play a game similar to Memnon wanted to play. A descent on the Cyclades by ArtaKshatra IV is perfectly possible. Even more, if they fight a skirmish at Granicus and Alexander dies, it could potentially cut off the Macedonians in Anatolia. The Greek navy (which is what Alexander used to cross the Dardanelles) is not going to prove loyal post Alexander. Hell - even when Alexander was alive, the Spartans under Agis III fought a war with Antipater in Arcadia.
2) Knowing Alexander is coming, the Persians start ramping up their mercenary forces, by recruiting Aetolians and Spartans into their army. There is no alliance, but there are plenty of mercenaries. The rest would be the same.

Whichever one I pick, the results I have planned will be much the same. Macedon's army is crushed and their surviving generals make a mad dash back to Pella to get there in time of the violent succession crisis that will follow.
The question is - can they get back at all? If the Greek navy proves disloyal, the Persian navy could simply cut off their retreat. The Macedonians (and their Greek allies) will be left in Anatolia, forced to leg it to one of the hopefully loyal Greek cities on the Anatolian coast, and try to find a ship back home. Would not some change their loyalties, and sell their spears to the Persian king, especially if he has grand ambitions and can use the Graeco-Macedonian infantry?

The Greek states, Athens in particular, waste no time in taking advantage of this, as do their northern neighbors in Epirus, with Alexander Molossus, uncle to the late Macedonian king, having possibly his greatest rival in the character of Antipater and his son, with Parmenion also playing a significant role. This cuts the current Epirote invasion of Italy short, with consequences there, I imagine. This gives Athens and Sparta and their allies quite a bit of breathing room though, to say the least, with Phocion and Demosthenes continuing to rise to prominence in particular. Under the guidance of Phocion, Athens becomes the dominant power of Greece and its influence is felt quite some ways west.
Isn't Alexander's half witted half brother (Arrhideus?) still alive? Would the question not be over who is going to be regent? If Parmenion is cut off in Anatolia, it would be Antipater by default. Olympias is not gonna like this - she loathed Antipater. IOTL, she offered the hand of her daughter, Cleopatra, to whoever would bring her the head of Antipater - this was her conspiracy with Leonnatus.

Secondly, it gives the Greeks a lot more than breathing space. They are going to attack Macedonia, particularly much before the Asian army can return. IOTL, they nearly killed Antipater at Lamia (this when he had a ton of money to hire himself mercenaries). IOTL, the Thessalonians also went over to the Athens-Aetolian side (led by Menon of Thessaly - Pyrrhus maternal grandfather). Simply, if Alexander dies, Macedonia may be toast.

In the west Athens finds a new economic (and occasionally military) rival in Carthage. The Carthaginians continue to attempt to control the western Mediterranean, with Sicily being the greatest battleground as IOTL. Continued Greek adventures in Italy still have an effect on the Oscans, Etruscans, and the Roman state, but whether Rome still comes to control the whole of Italy or more remains to be seen. Carthage though is given some measure of support every now and then by the Achaemenids, who humor their Phoenician vassals who want to support their Punic brethren in Africa. It's in Africa that the Persians have a major setback, when Egypt rebels yet again and this time more completely than usual.
Except for Tyre, which was the mother city of Carthage, none of the other Phoenicians seem to have cared much for Carthage. Carthage tended to be quite proprietary when it came to trade, and did not favour even Phoenician merchants. I cannot see anyone in Phoenicia caring much about Carthage. On the other hand, with the stronger Greeks and weaker Carthage ITTL, the Carthaginians may come to terms with the Achaemenids.

As for Egypt - when do you plan to have them rebel? IOTL, Egypt was utterly exhausted by what Artakshatra III did to it, which is why it remained loyal (or did not betray) when Alexander won at Issus. Maybe they can take advantage when the Persians are dealing with the double threat of the Galatian Celts in Anatolia and Parthians (Parni tribes) in Central Asia/Hyrcania?

In Asia, the Persians are forced to accept the loss of one of their richest satrapies as unrest continues far closer to home. The King of Kings partakes in military campaigns across the empire, but the most effective measure against rebellion is taken when he decides to revert the policies of Xerxes regarding Babylonia. The Persians follow the example of their founder Cyrus and patronize some of the more powerful (and friendlier) priests and allow them a greater measure of autonomy as they once had under Cyrus. This goes a long way to restoring Persian control of their richest province. Eventually, possibly after a civil war, the other Iranian peoples are given the same preferential treatment the Persians and Medes have been accorded, and in time the Mesopotamians are given the same treatment, particularly in their home region, with Mesopotamians being appointed satraps of Assyria and Babylonia. Thus, the empire comes to be forged into a more unified nation through both violence and understanding.
If anyone is favoured, it is going to be the Phoenicians. The Persians needed their ships badly, and they were always treated better than other vassals, until the revolt of Sidon. This was why Tyre fought to the last against Alexander - they preferred Persian rule. What the Persians really need to win the loyalty of the Phoenicians is Cyprus turned over to them. ITTL, your Alexander-wannabe Persian emperor can take Cyprus and hand it over to the Phoenicians.
 
The problem you need to solve if your Artakshatra (Artaxerxes) IV is gonna become a Persian Alexander is how the Persians will have a core of disciplined infantry. IOTL, the Persians never raised a corps of well-trained and disciplined heavy infantry, beyond the immortals, and tended to rely on Greek mercenaries (after all, these were cheap and plentiful, and the Persian treasure could certainly stand the strain) to provide this unit. Potentially, you can think of two ways to give the Persians access to infantry pre-dead-Alexander.
It's been suggested that IOTL the Persians tried creating their own answer to hoplites, the kardakas, who were Persian infantry armed in hoplite fashion, most importantly with a hoplon-type shield. Whether this is true or not, something like this will probably happen ITTL as well.

The question is - can they get back at all? If the Greek navy proves disloyal, the Persian navy could simply cut off their retreat. The Macedonians (and their Greek allies) will be left in Anatolia, forced to leg it to one of the hopefully loyal Greek cities on the Anatolian coast, and try to find a ship back home. Would not some change their loyalties, and sell their spears to the Persian king, especially if he has grand ambitions and can use the Graeco-Macedonian infantry?
I've thought of this as well, though I didn't think of the possibility of some of the people in the army turning. It's a good idea, though I imagine the Greeks in the army are far more likely to join than the Macedonians who are itching to get back home and take sides. Depending on who's still alive, there might be some generals more sympathetic to Olympias than Antipater.

Isn't Alexander's half witted half brother (Arrhideus?) still alive? Would the question not be over who is going to be regent? If Parmenion is cut off in Anatolia, it would be Antipater by default. Olympias is not gonna like this - she loathed Antipater. IOTL, she offered the hand of her daughter, Cleopatra, to whoever would bring her the head of Antipater - this was her conspiracy with Leonnatus.

Secondly, it gives the Greeks a lot more than breathing space. They are going to attack Macedonia, particularly much before the Asian army can return. IOTL, they nearly killed Antipater at Lamia (this when he had a ton of money to hire himself mercenaries). IOTL, the Thessalonians also went over to the Athens-Aetolian side (led by Menon of Thessaly - Pyrrhus maternal grandfather). Simply, if Alexander dies, Macedonia may be toast.
Yeah, I suppose I goofed by forgetting the halfwit, but in any case I think Cleopatra's already married by this point, to her uncle (brother of Olympias) Alexander I of Epirus. She only made the offer of Cleopatra's hand in marriage after Alexander of Epirus had already died, which has not happened yet. Granted, I'm sure Alexander would find helping his sister out a good excuse to meddle in Macedonian politics. Olympias and Alexander could get a few important people on their side, from Macedonian generals who don't like Antipater to other royals who Antipater would feel threatened by, such as Cynane.

As for Egypt - when do you plan to have them rebel? IOTL, Egypt was utterly exhausted by what Artakshatra III did to it, which is why it remained loyal (or did not betray) when Alexander won at Issus. Maybe they can take advantage when the Persians are dealing with the double threat of the Galatian Celts in Anatolia and Parthians (Parni tribes) in Central Asia/Hyrcania?
I don't actually have any plans about them. Maybe I'll try asking NikoZnate, our resident ancient Egypt expert. And while the Celts would be migrating, the Parthians were already subjects to the Achaemenid Empire. They even had contingents of Parthian cavalry at Gaugamela.

If anyone is favoured, it is going to be the Phoenicians. The Persians needed their ships badly, and they were always treated better than other vassals, until the revolt of Sidon. This was why Tyre fought to the last against Alexander - they preferred Persian rule. What the Persians really need to win the loyalty of the Phoenicians is Cyprus turned over to them. ITTL, your Alexander-wannabe Persian emperor can take Cyprus and hand it over to the Phoenicians.
Good idea, and it gives me an excuse to talk about Canaan, which is closer to the native name and sounds way cooler than the Greek "Phoenikia". :p In any case though, the Babylonians will be shown some favor by Artakshatra. While I didn't actually realize it before I came up with that idea, Artaxerxes IV actually planned on restoring the two most important temples in Babylon, the Esagila and Etemenanki, the latter of which is known to us as the Tower of Babel. Obviously he died before this could be accomplished and the work was left unfinished until Alexander took it up.

In any case, thanks for the critiques and responses. ;)
 
In any case, what do people think about the options for scenarios? ... or Artaxerxes IV Arses figuring out his vizier Bagoas' plot before he is killed and staying alive. ... I imagined making Artaxerxes a sort of Persian Alexander, being a young, confident, and trusting king who doesn't ignore good advice and is a bit more daring and less cautious.

... Thus, the empire comes to be forged into a more unified nation through both violence and understanding.
Or so is the general plan I have sketched out in my head for the long term. Thoughts?

Well, I might propose one more scenario with much earlier POD than these.

As we know after the battle of Cunaxa it was obvious that the Greeks were better soldiers than the Persians, Iranians and the Asians on the whole.
But the Greeks fought against Artaxerxes II and he was not willing to use these ferocious barbarians in his army for obvious reasons. After him some Persian kings used Greek mercenaries but they were never the core and the main part of the Grand Persian army. Though army with a better proportion of the Greeks might have won against the invading Macedonians of Alexander the Great.

What if Cyrus the Younger was not killed by a stray javelin?

Then he would definitely win the battle and become the Persian king.
As he owed his victory to his Greek mercenaries there was a good chance that the Greeks would play important maybe even decisive part in his army.
Cyrus the Younger being a prince was responsible for the Greek policy of the Achaemenid Empire and now becoming the king he would have all the resources to solve the Greek problem once and for all. I do not mean that he would conquer all the Balkan Greece like Phillip II did though there was such a possibility. I think that he would dominate Greece by holding some strategically important points and interfering into Greek policy on pretext of defending freedom of Hellas as a protector guarantor and benefactor.

Cyrus the Younger might be known in history as Cyros Philhellenos or Cyrus φιλέλλην. He would use Greece as a place to take as much cannon fodder as he needed.
Cyrus was a very promising general and outstanding politician if we believe Xenophon.
He might be as great as Alexander the Great himself. He might fulfill to some extent the dream of Alexander about dualistic Empire in which the Greeks and the Persians would rule in unity.
More realistically I see this as the Greeks playing very important part in the armies of the Persian Empire like the Germans played in the armies of the late Roman Empire.

The Persians would be holding Greece under tight control with the hands of the Greek mercenaries fighting for the Persian gold. Thus the Macedonians would have no chance to conquer Greece and threaten the Achaemenid Empire.
This ATL Persian Empire would have some features of Hellenistic Empires of our TL. Persian kings might settle their loyal and faithful Greeks in deep Asia like Hellenistic monarchs did, they might even found some Greek cities inside their Empire to strengthen their borders and to boost the economy of Empire.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Wikipedia seems to think that that refers to Xerxes. Bit of an odd transliteration considering the proper version I've read is Xšaya-ṛšā and I've seen it transliterated as Khashayar. In any case, a bit more effort with Google's removed my problem. A transliteration of Artaxerxes most people should be able to understand is Artakshatra, which should be acceptable. I might also use familiar forms every now and then as well, or when the native version is unknown.
In that case, Esther's son would be Daryavesh III--who would be Jewish!
 
In that case, Esther's son would be Daryavesh III--who would be Jewish!
Actually Darius III was born almost a hundred years after Xerxes died. Xerxes only had one child named Darius, who was born to a wife who wasn't Esther (who may not have existed), and never gained the throne.

^As for the scenario regarding Cunaxa, I don't see it as necessary. For starters it's far too early, butterflying away many of the essential figures I've got planned out. Persian domination of Greece wasn't the goal either, merely a preservation of the Achaemenid kingdom. And as I mentioned in the above post, the Persians were actually trying to reform their army it looks like at the time of Alexander's invasion. By then they had a corps of trained soldiers armed with spear and hoplon-type shield, so it's not like they didn't recognize the advantages of heavy infantry and needed Greek soldiers to do anything.
 
Good idea, and it gives me an excuse to talk about Canaan, which is closer to the native name and sounds way cooler than the Greek "Phoenikia". :p In any case though, the Babylonians will be shown some favor by Artakshatra. While I didn't actually realize it before I came up with that idea, Artaxerxes IV actually planned on restoring the two most important temples in Babylon, the Esagila and Etemenanki, the latter of which is known to us as the Tower of Babel. Obviously he died before this could be accomplished and the work was left unfinished until Alexander took it up.

In any case, thanks for the critiques and responses. ;)
Is the Etemenanki actually separate from the Esagila? I always thought it was part and parcel of the Esagila complex.
 
Top