The effect of a surviving Achaemenid Empire

One of the things I have always found my self fascinated by Alexander the Greek conquest of Persia, and how it lead to the hellenization. But it also got me to wonder what would have happen if he was never conquered the empire. let's say he dies at Chaeronea, or Philip II never takes the throne, what happens to the Persian empire,Greece, Egypt, the rest of the world. I what to hear what you guys think of about this, what do you think would have happen?
 
Sooner or latter it will suffer the fate of all empires. But it might bounce back from that.

It would certainly be an interesting not-exactly-threat to a rising Rome.
 
Actually, it may very well butterfly Rome's rise to power, especially with that PoD.

The effects really depend on how long it lasts... But I can see some Achaemenid innovations being adopted by the states that eventually break away, such as the satrapy system, the postal network, the qanat (partially subterranean aqueduct) etc.

You'd probably see quite a lot of Persianization in Mesopotamia. Less so in Egypt, which frequently rebelled against Persian rule.
 
Actually, it may very well butterfly Rome's rise to power, especially with that PoD.

The effects really depend on how long it lasts... But I can see some Achaemenid innovations being adopted by the states that eventually break away, such as the satrapy system, the postal network, the qanat (partially subterranean aqueduct) etc.

You'd probably see quite a lot of Persianization in Mesopotamia. Less so in Egypt, which frequently rebelled against Persian rule.

Well, Rome is moving anyway, so I'm not sure it would be butterflied entirely - but Rome never meaning much more than (part of?) Italy wouldn't be too surprising.

And why would states break (for good) away as opposed to just a collapse of the dynasty but its successors regaining much of what was lost in the chaos of a failing dynasty?
 
Well, Rome is moving anyway, so I'm not sure it would be butterflied entirely - but Rome never meaning much more than (part of?) Italy wouldn't be too surprising.

And why would states break (for good) away as opposed to just a collapse of the dynasty but its successors regaining much of what was lost in the chaos of a failing dynasty?

Rome ruling over parts of Italy sounds reasonable to me, but it's not guaranteed that it'll still be as successful as OTL with all the butterflies flapping around.

And the collapse of the Dynasty is what I meant when I referred to states breaking away. Egypt would break off entirely, as would Judaea and Thrace, most likely, but the rest of the Persianized areas (Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Persia proper, Chorasmia, etc.) would likely fall under competing dynastic states.

Actually, I can see Persia becoming something of a fixture in the land scape, breaking apart and recoalescing under different dynasties like a west Asian China. Hell, that's kind of what it did OTL.
 
Rome ruling over parts of Italy sounds reasonable to me, but it's not guaranteed that it'll still be as successful as OTL with all the butterflies flapping around.

That I agree with. Those butterflies could lead anywhere so far as the western Mediterranean is concerned.

My guess is that Rome does about as OTL until it turns east - not identically, but close enough to be broadly recognizable. But after it turns east (meaning Greece and beyond), it would be running into an entirely different situation even if the one prior to that has been similar.

And the collapse of the Dynasty is what I meant when I referred to states breaking away. Egypt would break off entirely, as would Judaea and Thrace, most likely, but the rest of the Persianized areas (Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Persia proper, Chorasmia, etc.) would likely fall under competing dynastic states.

Actually, I can see Persia becoming something of a fixture in the land scape, breaking apart and recoalescing under different dynasties like a west Asian China. Hell, that's kind of what it did OTL.
That sounds reasonable. I thought you just meant it would break apart and never be reassembled.

Not sure on Judaea and Egypt - I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue, but that sounds like something that would be disputed as the state is pulled together after the collapse. Thrace seems outside what the "core" empire (that would be the Western China sort of state) would hold firmly.

Lots of possibilities depending on how exactly "so, Macedon collapsed." works out - it seems OTL to be shaky but recovering from trouble in Egypt rather than on its way out, but it could fall apart after Darius for god-knows-what-reason. Or last another two centuries.
 
I see it lasting anywhere between 150 - 350 more years, because it was quite well run. Any more is pushing it.

And Egypt would DEFINITELY break off at some point. That may even be what hastens the decline/collapse. The Egyptians were among the most rebellious of the Achaemenid's subjects.
 
I see it lasting anywhere between 150 - 350 more years, because it was quite well run. Any more is pushing it.

Yeah. A lot depends on how much is dragged down with the dynasty. To use the ERE, dynastic collapse meant little to the state's survival. Someone would take the throne and the system would keep running.

But while well-run, the Achaemenid was loosely tied together. A collapse of central authority will see satraps take advantage of a chance to be kings of their own kingdoms.

That's my half-educated guesstimate.

And Egypt would DEFINITELY break off at some point. That may even be what hastens the decline/collapse. The Egyptians were among the most rebellious of the Achaemenid's subjects.
Yeah. How this works out in the very long term (1000+ years) is anyone's guess.

If memory serves, ImmortalImpi said at least a good part of that was Greeks stirring up trouble there - but that they had people who would be stirred indicates a troublesome province.

And across Syria and Mesopotamia is an uncomfortable distance to reach across to break heads. Doable, but awkward.

Not something that will last in days of imperial weakness.

And anyone's guess on Central Asia. That area seems likely to spawn trouble at some point, for one reason or another. But that's another sort of problem than Egypt.
 
-snip-

But while well-run, the Achaemenid was loosely tied together. A collapse of central authority will see satraps take advantage of a chance to be kings of their own kingdoms.

-snip-

If memory serves, ImmortalImpi said at least a good part of that was Greeks stirring up trouble there - but that they had people who would be stirred indicates a troublesome province.

And across Syria and Mesopotamia is an uncomfortable distance to reach across to break heads. Doable, but awkward.

Not something that will last in days of imperial weakness.

And anyone's guess on Central Asia. That area seems likely to spawn trouble at some point, for one reason or another. But that's another sort of problem than Egypt.

That's definitely another possibility... Perhaps it would be a mix of both, actually... New dynasties seeking to replace the Achaemenids AND local Satraps trying to assert regional authority as kings. it could get really messy-interesting.

The Greeks definitely interfered in Egypt, but another major factor was the Egyptians' desire to have a native ruler. The memories of the powerful 26th dynasty were still very fresh, and the desire to reclaim that legacy was strong and enduring.

As for central Asia, Turkic peoples are likely going to show up eventually, but it will doubtless turn out rather differently, in numerous ways, from OTL.

EDIT: AND with no Macedon, the Greeks may have even more reason to keep stirring up trouble in Egypt as a means of distracting the Persians from their still fractious domain.
 
That's definitely another possibility... Perhaps it would be a mix of both, actually... New dynasties seeking to replace the Achaemenids AND local Satraps trying to assert regional authority as kings. it could get really messy-interesting.

Yeah. The author's call on how it works out, I think, with only "Macedon collapses." as the POD. I'd tend to favor Western China in the long run - Persia has a pretty solid basis for resurrecting itself. But it would be in the short run more complicated, and interesting.

The Greeks definitely interfered in Egypt, but another major factor was the Egyptians' desire to have a native ruler. The memories of the powerful 26th dynasty were still very fresh, and the desire to reclaim that legacy was strong and enduring.

Yeah. Thus observing that there must have been something there to stir up.

Still, the longer Egypt remains under Persian rule, the more those memories will fade. I wouldn't want to guess how long, or if it would be long enough for Egypt to be in the more-or-less permanent area of Not-Iran empire.

As for central Asia, Turkic peoples are likely going to show up eventually, but it will doubtless turn out rather differently, in numerous ways, from OTL.

Yep. Depending on how one plays with the butterflies, the possibilities are endless.

EDIT: AND with no Macedon, the Greeks may have even more reason to keep stirring up trouble in Egypt as a means of distracting the Persians from their still fractious domain.

That I'm not sure about. The Greek city-states seem mostly (not entirely, obviously) focused elsewhere - namely amongst themselves.
 
It should be remembered that by about 350BC, there were budding independent states all around the Achaemenids- not only in the Balkans, but in the Caucasus, Egypt, and the Indus area too. The Achaemenid system of governance is, IMHO, ultimately too decentralised to be able to survive forever, so I think that their collapse to one of these dynamic new powers is inevitable at some stage.
 
One of the things I have always found my self fascinated by Alexander the Greek conquest of Persia, and how it lead to the hellenization. But it also got me to wonder what would have happen if he was never conquered the empire. let's say he dies at Chaeronea, or Philip II never takes the throne, what happens to the Persian empire,Greece, Egypt, the rest of the world. I what to hear what you guys think of about this, what do you think would have happen?

Collapse within a few generations. Darius was a very mediocre ruler, a mere teenager with very little experience. Unless some genius sent from Ahura Mazda is able to stop the cycle of satrapal in-feuding and plotting the empire will capsize eventually.
 
Top