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
In the Achaemenid times, Zoroastrianism was very diverse and very decentralised.
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?
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.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.
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 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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
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".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.
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?
In that case, Esther's son would be Daryavesh III--who would be Jewish!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.
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.In that case, Esther's son would be Daryavesh III--who would be Jewish!
Is the Etemenanki actually separate from the Esagila? I always thought it was part and parcel of the Esagila complex.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".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.![]()
Two different complexes it would seem, even if they were associated.Is the Etemenanki actually separate from the Esagila? I always thought it was part and parcel of the Esagila complex.