the line of Cyrus the great survives, what happens next?

So I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the reign of Cyrus the great and his son cymbases, and I was wondering, if cymbases had married who could he have married? And if they had had issue, what would this have changed for the Persian empire? Especially if he was alive to see his son become a man?
 
It might not be called Achaemenid. Achaemenes might well have been the invention of Darius to legitimize his claim to the Persian throne. So the lineage might have remained Teispid.

Other than that, I'm not sure.
 
It might not be called Achaemenid. Achaemenes might well have been the invention of Darius to legitimize his claim to the Persian throne. So the lineage might have remained Teispid.

Other than that, I'm not sure.

Hmm interesting, I do wonder if Cymbases had survived, if he would have tried to conquer Kush again.
 
It's Cambyses/Kambujiya.

Also, maybe. Or maybe he'd just have gone the same route as Darius and conquered Greece. Who knows? :p

Right you are there, interestingly enough his father's name bears a similar styling in Sanskrit to a legendary Hindu King.

And this is very true, Greece, Africa who knows how big the empire culd have become
 
This is true, though equally if Cambyses, and his descendants were capable it could be something else
This can be said of any dynasty, in any country and in any age of the world.
Statistically, it is very difficult to have more than two or three above average kings.
 
This can be said of any dynasty, in any country and in any age of the world.
Statistically, it is very difficult to have more than two or three above average kings.
This can be said of any dynasty, in any country and in any age of the world.
Statistically, it is very difficult to have more than two or three above average kings.

Hmm, the Early Mauryan dynasty might disagree with you there, they produced four aha. Though, two or three above average, and then a few averages Kings can keep an EMpire ticking along
 
Hmm, the Early Mauryan dynasty might disagree with you there, they produced four aha. Though, two or three above average, and then a few averages Kings can keep an EMpire ticking along
Did I say impossible? I said "statistically very difficult", which is a different thing.
Btw, I looked around for an embassy of the Mauryan empire but wasn't able to find it ;)
Out of the joke, even 4 good kings were not enough: the Mauryan empire lasted 4 centuries, which is a very impressive achievement, but even after this series of lucky draws 50 years of weak kings were enough to destroy it.
Which is par for the course: a dynasty raises, last a couple of centuries (or maybe even 4, never mind) and then falls; sometimes a new dynasty picks up the pieces and builds again an empire, sometimes it does not.
Persia is a case in point: the Persian empire rose and failed multiple times, but in the end there was always an Iran (even after a cataclysmic even like the Arab invasion which changed the religion of the country or the Mongol invasion with the associated destruction of infrastructures).
There has never been, however, a dynasty which lasted a whole millennium (which, funnily enough, was achieved by a republican state, the Serenissima Republic of Venice): food for thought.
 
Did I say impossible? I said "statistically very difficult", which is a different thing.
Btw, I looked around for an embassy of the Mauryan empire but wasn't able to find it ;)
Out of the joke, even 4 good kings were not enough: the Mauryan empire lasted 4 centuries, which is a very impressive achievement, but even after this series of lucky draws 50 years of weak kings were enough to destroy it.
Which is par for the course: a dynasty raises, last a couple of centuries (or maybe even 4, never mind) and then falls; sometimes a new dynasty picks up the pieces and builds again an empire, sometimes it does not.
Persia is a case in point: the Persian empire rose and failed multiple times, but in the end there was always an Iran (even after a cataclysmic even like the Arab invasion which changed the religion of the country or the Mongol invasion with the associated destruction of infrastructures).
There has never been, however, a dynasty which lasted a whole millennium (which, funnily enough, was achieved by a republican state, the Serenissima Republic of Venice): food for thought.

Indeed, this is true, though there was also the Holy Roman Empire, as much of loose state that was. Byzantine Empire, technially the Empire of Japan, Zhu Empire, Khmer Empire. ALl of which lasted between 600 to 1000 years
 
Indeed, this is true, though there was also the Holy Roman Empire, as much of loose state that was. Byzantine Empire, technially the Empire of Japan, Zhu Empire, Khmer Empire. ALl of which lasted between 600 to 1000 years
Dynasty=/=Country the HRE and Byzantines changed dynasties a frequently as one changes their clothes.
 
I have to add the Plantaganet dynasty.

Not sure. It is hard to call the Hanovers Plantagenet, as it is hard to call the Spanish Bourbons Habsburgs, although Philip V of Spain was much closer to the last Habsburgs of Spain than George I of Britain was from to the last ... Stuarts .
 
Top