WI: No Achaemenid Persian Empire

I was thinking about this recently. What if Cyrus the Great was killed in his youth and thus never ascended to power and conquered the Median and Lydian Empires? He is said to be the first to make a serious declaration of human rights, and created the largest empire the western world would see until Alexander.


Middle East Before Cyrus's Conquests:
Median_Empire.jpg


Cyrus's Empire:

Persia-Cyrus2-World3.png
 
I can't speak for the political consequences, but cultural butterflies should be very interesting. Greek architecture was heavily inspired in that found on Persia, especially the Acropolis and most column-heavy buildings. I have a passing underestanding that Greek philosophy and religion was heavely influenced by Persia. The lack of a Royal Road and a huge superpower to keep trade constant may mean a lack of contact between East and West. And of course, Jews may be kept under bondange by Babylon many years more...
 
I can't speak for the political consequences, but cultural butterflies should be very interesting. Greek architecture was heavily inspired in that found on Persia, especially the Acropolis and most column-heavy buildings. I have a passing underestanding that Greek philosophy and religion was heavely influenced by Persia. The lack of a Royal Road and a huge superpower to keep trade constant may mean a lack of contact between East and West. And of course, Jews may be kept under bondange by Babylon many years more...
Hmm. That would be very interesting indeed.
 
The Persians still would have a chance to form their own Empire. Though, Iran may not be called Persia after the Persian region of Persis/Pars (Modern day Fars) if the Persians never form the 3rd Aryan Empire in time to affect the Greeks.

Though if the Medes had centralized then the Greeks might end up calling Iran, Media.

Well as we know the Achaemenids were the first major Centralized Aryan state and heavily affected the turn out of Zoroastrianism. Though a centralize state may still form as a basis as the Sassanids preferred the legendary Kayanian Dynasty over the Acheaemenids, at least according to the Book of Cambridge History I have.
 
I've always wanted to do a timeline on this, but just haven't gotten around to it. :/

Without a Persian Empire, you essentially have four big states in the Near East: Lydia, Babylon, Egypt, and Media. Lydia during Cyrus' time was of course ruled by Croesus, who was a confirmed expansionist (according to Herodotus, he wanted to gain Cappadocia from Persia in their war, and he had campaigned against the Ionian Greeks earlier in his career); Babylon is ruled by Nabonidus, and by his son Belshazzar while he went away to Tayma; Egypt is ruled by Amasis II, who was a fairly strong ruler; and Media is ruled by Astyages, whom Cyrus deposed. As is evident from the Persian conquests, Media has the greatest potential of the four, though it would take a stronger and more of a visionary leader for it to truly threaten the others. Croesus is likely to try and expand his empire across Anatolia - particularly Cappadocia, which he is confirmed to have desired, and Cilicia, which would be a fairly rich province for him. Egypt's likely to stay out of any conflicts that might emerge, only getting involved if they feel one state is becoming too powerful - they're doing well, and have no need to expand. Babylon's on shaky ground under Nabonidus... Belshazzar if he can rule alone would likely be a more popular King than Nabonidus - Nabonidus was likely made out to be much more unpopular than he really was, but he still can't have had too much support if he left Babylon for ten years and supported Sin over Marduk, subtly or unsubtly. But Babylon is enormously wealthy, would be a difficult conquest for any of the other states without a Cyrus to lead their armies, and had in its past (notably under Nebuchadnezzar II) shown an expansionist streak.

Basically, at the time you had a fairly equal balance of power... Egypt and Babylon currently have little desire for expansion (though Babylon had in the past shown an appetite for it, and might seek to invade Egypt as the Assyrians had done, since it already had Phoenicia and Judaea); Media has a large pool of manpower to draw on, and should it have the right King, could be threatening; and Lydia under Croesus was a rising power... he was an expansionist and likely sought to rule most of Anatolia, and from there, maybe more (Palestine, maybe?). For whatever it's worth, that's what I've got for the political situation.

Culturally, all I can guess at is that Zoroastrianism probably won't be as big of a thing without the Achaemenid Empire, if not a thing at all... especially since, IIRC, Zoroastrianism was founded during Cyrus' conquests, so it might be butterflied away. Other cultural stuff would depend on who, if anyone, does take Persia's spot as the preeminent power in the Near East, and whether they are as tolerant as Cyrus was (which is probably unlikely, though it would be pragmatic).
 
Culturally, all I can guess at is that Zoroastrianism probably won't be as big of a thing without the Achaemenid Empire, if not a thing at all... especially since, IIRC, Zoroastrianism was founded during Cyrus' conquests, so it might be butterflied away. Other cultural stuff would depend on who, if anyone, does take Persia's spot as the preeminent power in the Near East, and whether they are as tolerant as Cyrus was (which is probably unlikely, though it would be pragmatic).

Eh, their is issue regarding the birthdate of Zoroaster. Namely that the Avesta makes no mention of the Medes or the Persians and is written in Old Avestan which is more similar to the Rig Veda. This along with the description of the region puts Zoroaster closer during the 2nd Millenium BC.

Generally the root of confusion comes from commentary of Western/Greek sources that places him in Western Iran and scholars. And competition between the Seleucids and Zoroastrian priests who wanted to edit things to support their own cultural epochs. The issue is further confuse by the fact that most conquerors, especially the Sassanids, have messed with or edited their own version of events.
 
As is evident from the Persian conquests, Media has the greatest potential of the four...Media has a large pool of manpower...
My guess Media is a favourite.
In OTL since that time for another thousand years that region had a superpower, the core of which was some Arian people uniting other Arian tribes and they together holding a bunch of non-arian peoples and states under their control.
 
Lydia was the richest. So it had the better chances to attract the potential conquerer from the East. imo. It was surprisingly easy prey for the Persians in OTL. There was not serious resistance after the conquest. It was kind of artificial state without serious perspective for survival.
 
Last edited:
The link and the link within the link really helped. Something that ernnge asked that never seemed to get answered that I have an interest in as we'll...what effect does this have on Phoenician and Greek colonization? The Phoenicians had been going strong since 3,000 bc and always seemed to escape conquest by foreign Powers until Alexander thanks to their vast wealth and trade network (iirc even the Assyrians were content with them just pating them tribute as was Persia).
 
The Best Possible Thing: No 300 Movie.

Though, if we take less Zoroastrian influence in Judaism as being linked to the Persians, then it is possible that Judaism will be less Good vs Evil and will revert to a form of Henotheism.
 
Eh, their is issue regarding the birthdate of Zoroaster. Namely that the Avesta makes no mention of the Medes or the Persians and is written in Old Avestan which is more similar to the Rig Veda. This along with the description of the region puts Zoroaster closer during the 2nd Millenium BC.

Generally the root of confusion comes from commentary of Western/Greek sources that places him in Western Iran and scholars. And competition between the Seleucids and Zoroastrian priests who wanted to edit things to support their own cultural epochs. The issue is further confuse by the fact that most conquerors, especially the Sassanids, have messed with or edited their own version of events.

Interesting; thanks. I've always had it in my head that Zoroaster was a 6th century BC guy... so it's good to get that cleared up!

The Best Possible Thing: No 300 Movie.

Oh come on! 300 was great in how silly it was! :p

Also what would be the major effects on Greek and western civilization as a whole?

Well mass Greek and Punic colonization was about done by the mid to later sixth century BC - there were still some Greek colonies set up in Italy during the fifth and fourth centuries, and Carthage expanded some where it could, but largely, the great colonization period was over by this point, so I don't think you're going to see major changes there. There is a theory out there that without Persia as a unifying enemy, the Greeks would've never unified amongst themselves... I don't really agree with that, but I'll put it out there.

Instead, what I think you get out of Greece is a stronger and earlier Spartan hegemony - they were the dominant power in Greece by the time of Cyrus, and arguably remained in that position until 370 BC, despite a crippling earthquake, some dynastic conflict, population decline, and several enormous wars with Athens' empire and later Thebes. Athens wasn't very strong during Cyrus' lifetime (even under Pisistratus it wasn't close to how it was once it became a democracy), with a lot of political unrest, and its democracy could very well be butterflied away (which obviously has enormous consequences). Should Athens remain down, only Thebes and (stretching a bit) Argos would be threats to Spartan Hegemony, since Corinth was a part of the Peloponnesian League. Now, Sparta is still destined to fall eventually - primarily because of their difficulties in maintaining the Spartan population, but also because the other Greek cities would start "ganging up" on Sparta until they gain their "freedom" under the direction of some other city - but they were definitely a rising power at the time, and I think it's likely to see them rise all the way to the top without democracy in Athens or Persia building up other states to maintain a balance of power, and for them to maintain that position for some time.

The Greeks in general without Persia might look west a bit more without Persia... without Persia, the "great enemies" for Greeks in general would be Carthage and Lydia (since Carthage has disputes with Greek Sicily and Lydia has disputes with the Ionians), and since Carthage and Lydia are closer in power and prestige than Carthage and Persia, Carthage might get a stronger focus amongst Greeks as the enemy they need to chase around, if this all makes sense.

The big cultural change for Greece and the West is if democracy is butterflied away... I mean, Athenian democracy is just a staple of western culture and history. (Another thought: the Roman Republic might be butterflied too) Without democracy, oligarchies and tyrannies are the staple Greek political systems. As another poster mentioned, Greek philosophy was influenced by Persian thought, so that'll be different. There's also little chance that a Greek conqueror a la Alexander the Great would want to conquer all the eastern states in revenge, since there would be no Persian Empire to get revenge on for the Persian Wars... that means no Hellenism in the East. Carthage would be the strongest cultural power that the Greeks border, so maybe more Phoenician influences will emerge in Greek culture ITTL?
 
Interesting; thanks. I've always had it in my head that Zoroaster was a 6th century BC guy... so it's good to get that cleared up!



Oh come on! 300 was great in how silly it was! :p



Well mass Greek and Punic colonization was about done by the mid to later sixth century BC - there were still some Greek colonies set up in Italy during the fifth and fourth centuries, and Carthage expanded some where it could, but largely, the great colonization period was over by this point, so I don't think you're going to see major changes there. There is a theory out there that without Persia as a unifying enemy, the Greeks would've never unified amongst themselves... I don't really agree with that, but I'll put it out there.

Instead, what I think you get out of Greece is a stronger and earlier Spartan hegemony - they were the dominant power in Greece by the time of Cyrus, and arguably remained in that position until 370 BC, despite a crippling earthquake, some dynastic conflict, population decline, and several enormous wars with Athens' empire and later Thebes. Athens wasn't very strong during Cyrus' lifetime (even under Pisistratus it wasn't close to how it was once it became a democracy), with a lot of political unrest, and its democracy could very well be butterflied away (which obviously has enormous consequences). Should Athens remain down, only Thebes and (stretching a bit) Argos would be threats to Spartan Hegemony, since Corinth was a part of the Peloponnesian League. Now, Sparta is still destined to fall eventually - primarily because of their difficulties in maintaining the Spartan population, but also because the other Greek cities would start "ganging up" on Sparta until they gain their "freedom" under the direction of some other city - but they were definitely a rising power at the time, and I think it's likely to see them rise all the way to the top without democracy in Athens or Persia building up other states to maintain a balance of power, and for them to maintain that position for some time.

The Greeks in general without Persia might look west a bit more without Persia... without Persia, the "great enemies" for Greeks in general would be Carthage and Lydia (since Carthage has disputes with Greek Sicily and Lydia has disputes with the Ionians), and since Carthage and Lydia are closer in power and prestige than Carthage and Persia, Carthage might get a stronger focus amongst Greeks as the enemy they need to chase around, if this all makes sense.

The big cultural change for Greece and the West is if democracy is butterflied away... I mean, Athenian democracy is just a staple of western culture and history. (Another thought: the Roman Republic might be butterflied too) Without democracy, oligarchies and tyrannies are the staple Greek political systems. As another poster mentioned, Greek philosophy was influenced by Persian thought, so that'll be different. There's also little chance that a Greek conqueror a la Alexander the Great would want to conquer all the eastern states in revenge, since there would be no Persian Empire to get revenge on for the Persian Wars... that means no Hellenism in the East. Carthage would be the strongest cultural power that the Greeks border, so maybe more Phoenician influences will emerge in Greek culture ITTL?

Is it possible to have more Phoenician influence without butterflying away Athenian democracy?
 
Is it possible to have more Phoenician influence without butterflying away Athenian democracy?

I don't see why not.

EDIT: As to whether Athenian democracy is butterflied away... it depends on your view on butterflies, I guess. If we're having the PoD be Cyrus is killed as a child, that means the PoD's in the 570s or 560s at the latest, which means that there's at least fifty years separating the PoD and Cleisthenes' changes. I'd say it'd likely be butterflied away with all that time, but you can make the case that it wouldn't be given that Persians and Greeks didn't often directly mingle before Cyrus, and that Cleisthenes' changes were where Athens was inevitably heading from Solon on.
 
Last edited:
A few thoughts:

- There's no real evidence that a "Median Empire" ever really existed as a proper state. I take the view that "Media" was probably a lose and shifting confederation of Iranian states, occasionally acknowledging one or another ruler as pre-eminent, but not a lot more than that. Certainly, Mesopotamian documents don't make regular references to a huge empire to their north. The interventions of the "Uman-Manda", as the Medes are called, are presented as an absolute bolt from the blue.

- Cyrus certainly wasn't an innovator of human rights. His policies in Babylon were to ensure he had the support of the gods, and through them, the powerful priestly caste. "Human rights" is a convenient bit of propaganda that various Iranian regimes have been recycling since the 1970s, but it's certainly not true in any modern sense of the word.

- There's no evidence that Cyrus (or Cambyses) were Achaemenids. Darius was, and he may have been distantly related to the two first monarchs, but the Achaemenid dynasty proper only starts with Darius. You can retrospectively call Cyrus and Cambyses members of the dynasty because Darius' married Cyrus' daughters, and through them all later Achaemenids did have descent from Cyrus.

- Linked to this, Cyrus may not even have been a Persian. Surviving texts contemporary texts all call him "King of Anshan", with no mention whatsoever of Persia or Persians, which comes only with Darius.

- Zoroastrianism certainly didn't exist in Cyrus' time, and the earliest mentions of Ahura Mazda as being a patron deity of the dynasty come, once again, with Darius. Even then, Darius and his descendants were quite happy to acknowledge the power and patronage of other gods. As a text, the Avesta was only properly written down and codified in late antiquity, partly as a response to Judeo-Christian influenced cults.
 
Top