Assuming either no Macedonian invasion or an easily thwarted one, when would the Achaemenids have collapsed? Did Alexander just deliver the coup de grace to a tottering state, or absent him,would the Achaemenids have survived for a while yet?
Without Alexander's Conquest, When Would the Achaemenid Empire Have Fallen Apart?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
A little while, I estimate that it would take as much time as when the Mongols collapsed into the four empires, less than seventy-five years.
Anaxagoras
Banned
I think it would be considerably longer than that. The Persian Empire was much more stable than the Mongol Empire and I don't think there was ever any thought of splitting it between different sons of a deceased ruler.
I didn't say there would be a split, I simply put my two cents into the matter of it's survival at the time of conquest.
The state had survived pretty well until then, occasionally putting their hands in the affairs of the Greek states to play them off against one and another. Other times they would either be campaigning against the Saka and Saormata tribes in Transoxiana or putting down revolts in Egypt whenever they struggled to reinstate a Pharaonic Dynasty. Trade flowed pretty well from China to the West and India, making the dynasty rich and extravagant. In fact I remember reading that the reason Philip of Macedon even managed to defeat the Theban Hegemony was the fact he was funded by Achaemenid coin, as well institutionalizing their method of Satraps.
Alexander really was a guy that sort of came out of nowhere and toppled the entire regime and balance of the time, making his mark upon history.
Alexander really was a guy that sort of came out of nowhere and toppled the entire regime and balance of the time, making his mark upon history.
It will probably hang on into the 2nd Century BC.
Then it is liable to face Romans on one side and Parthians on the other, and very likely folds.
Then it is liable to face Romans on one side and Parthians on the other, and very likely folds.
"Sir, you're under arrest for the mass murder of butterflies. You have the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, and anything you say will be used against you."
More seriously, I'd say a few more centuries. Is the POD here that Alexander simply doesn't exist? It would be quite interesting to see how they deal with the already not insignificant Macedonian Empire.
Is there any particular reason why either Romans or Parthians should be butterflied away? I suppose the Parthians could be, but they'd most likely just be replaced by another nomadic people of similar strength.
Could have some consequences for Rome though. You probably don't get the divide between Latin West and Greek-speaking East. It's Latin everywhere. could well make for a very different Middle Ages.
Perhaps the roman expansion to the East would never happen, with a solid persian empire in Minor Asia /Syria /Egypt. Now the romans would focus on the West.
In another scenario Rome becomes a protecting power of greek states or an ally of the macedonian empire, if it still exists. And Rome starts its eternal war against the persians a few centuries earlier.
Or the macedonian empire conquers Italy before Rome is able to expand.
It is hard to say. Touching Alexander means opening a can of worms (butterflies).
In another scenario Rome becomes a protecting power of greek states or an ally of the macedonian empire, if it still exists. And Rome starts its eternal war against the persians a few centuries earlier.
Or the macedonian empire conquers Italy before Rome is able to expand.
It is hard to say. Touching Alexander means opening a can of worms (butterflies).
Last edited:
I imagine it'd still take at least another century or two. You could very well see the Achaemenid Empire survive right into the 2nd century BC.
As Shahrasayr said, Alexander really did just come out of nowhere and topple everything. He smashed the status quo.
The empire was already on a decline by the time Alexander popped up though, was it not? It certainly wasn't the same power that it used to be in the 5th century BC. We might be overestimating the empire's ability to survive for so long.
In any case, a continued Achaemenid Empire in the east, and the lack of Hellenic dominance in the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, REALLY changes things. Rome wouldn't be the same I'd imagine, heck it might not even rise up to be the great empire that it would become OTL. A strong and unified Persian presence in the eastern Mediterranean might really screw up any eastern expansion plans for the fledgling Roman Republic.
As Shahrasayr said, Alexander really did just come out of nowhere and topple everything. He smashed the status quo.
The empire was already on a decline by the time Alexander popped up though, was it not? It certainly wasn't the same power that it used to be in the 5th century BC. We might be overestimating the empire's ability to survive for so long.
In any case, a continued Achaemenid Empire in the east, and the lack of Hellenic dominance in the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, REALLY changes things. Rome wouldn't be the same I'd imagine, heck it might not even rise up to be the great empire that it would become OTL. A strong and unified Persian presence in the eastern Mediterranean might really screw up any eastern expansion plans for the fledgling Roman Republic.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Without Alexander does the Macedonian Hegemony lead to a "Greek" state? Didn't happen with Sparta or Thebes (or indeed Athens) but the opposition to Macedon looks rather weak. A "tepid" war with Persia is quite likely in this scenario leading to islands and coastal Greek cities being absorbed by the League of Corinth (or similar). Persia isn't really facing much of an external challenge apart from the Greeks until someone is established in either India or Bactria / Parthia / Scythia and arguably this wasn't particualrly likely to happen until Alexander created the political vacuum in any case.
Persian Egypt is likely to be a weak point - an early revolt (with or without external - Greek - "help") is quite likely. But absent an expansionist Greece or Persian / Central Asian tribes then the core area of Achaemenid Persia could go on for another couple of centuries.
Persian Egypt is likely to be a weak point - an early revolt (with or without external - Greek - "help") is quite likely. But absent an expansionist Greece or Persian / Central Asian tribes then the core area of Achaemenid Persia could go on for another couple of centuries.
PhilippeO
Banned
what about The Steppe ? if Achaemenid really in decline, they would have fewer resource to deal with nomadic invasion. is there some steppe tribes that 'scheduled' to fight Seleucid and Parthian ?
without Alexander (and Hellenic era) would some military invention, disciplined infantry or heavy horse, still retain popularity ? there are argument that Western military is better than Indian and Chinese due to Greece-Macedon-Rome example that Asiatic never develop.
without Alexander (and Hellenic era) would some military invention, disciplined infantry or heavy horse, still retain popularity ? there are argument that Western military is better than Indian and Chinese due to Greece-Macedon-Rome example that Asiatic never develop.
fi11222
Banned
Regarding the Parthians, yes.
Regarding the Romans, I cannot see them becoming what we know as Rome without the Hellenistic influence. In particular, in such a TL, there would probably be no Pyrrhus. This guy scared the shit out everyone in Italy and goaded the Romans into becoming much stronger militarily. It is not obvious they would even have won the Punic wars without his influence.
They'd conquered the Samnites and most of the Italian peninsula before Pyrrhus showed up. That's the main reason why he lost. No reason why things should have stopped there.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Depending on how the said Macedonian invasion is thwarted, the Celtic tribes might take the opportunity to cross the Danube and conquer the Balkans and parts of Asia Minor.
They did but Galatae didn't really stay 'Celtic' culturally for long. Within a generation or two they had either assimilated into the local Pontic culture or had moved back westwards into the Ionian coast and merged with the Greeks that had their cities there.
Last edited:
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Well more of it than IOTL. If we're talking about a decaying Achaemenid Empire, then more Gauls can end up pouring into Asia. It was only a small remnant that ended up becoming the Galatians.