pothos.org

I raise the point about the so called Persian decline at the time Alexander was trouncing them.. I hear the Arguments the Persian Empire was not what it was as with Daruis 1st or Cyrus the Great. That by the time of Alexander it was ripe to be taken.

I would questionthe so called decline of Persia and its parts. Its fare to say that the Great Roman Empire hardly made a dint in what was Persia infact the Parthians that were only part of Darius Persia kept the so called Great Romans at bay and I dont think the Romans got anywhere with those people.

So for Alexander to trounce the whole of the Persian Empie including the Parthians has got to go some way to solidifying his Greatness in measures comparison to Roman Conquest. Its far to say that Consecutive Roman Armies and Generals could not Conquer what Alexander had done.

Or it could he argued that East had barely no financial Interest or profit for Rome. Maybe Persia was too far as Scotland was the other way. Whatever the theories It casts doubt on the Theories that Persia was spent force. Unless it did a Pheonix and rose from the ashes.

kenny

jasonxx wrote:Its fare to say that the Great Roman Empire hardly made a dint in what was Persia infact the Parthians that were only part of Darius Persia kept the so called Great Romans at bay and I dont think the Romans got anywhere with those people.

I don't know enough about Achaemenid Persia to be able to engage properly in discussions about Persia's decline (or not) in the time prior to Alexander's conquests. However, do remember that the Parthians were not the Achaemenids, and one has to be extremely careful about making comparisons of that nature. (Bear in mind that I don't really know enough about the Parthians, either ...).

ATB

Marcus

Maybe the question and concept is too tricky.Im pretty sure the Parthians were part of Darius forces at Gaugamella. If so were they a lesser Calibre to the Parthians the Romans couldnt beat. If not then indeed Alexander did crush some hard nuts that the Romans could not.

jasonxx wrote:Maybe the question and concept is too tricky.Im pretty sure the Parthians were part of Darius forces at Gaugamella. If so were they a lesser Calibre to the Parthians the Romans couldnt beat. If not then indeed Alexander did crush some hard nuts that the Romans could not.

You're right that there were Parthians in Darius' force - levies from Parthia, at least. How far they are the same as the Parthians who ended up ruling in Mesopotamia I'm afraid I don't know.

We have to consider that 300-odd years elapsed between Alexander's conquests and, say, Crassus' defeat by the Parthians - and then much longer before other Parthian-fighters such as Julian - and plenty can happen in that time (in the early 18th century the French defeated everyone in Europe ... now they are referred to in derogatory terms).

Of course, what we don't know is whether the Parthians at Gaugamela might have been more formidable if they had formed a larger part of the army - as one of many contingents, we couldn't expect them to have made too much difference to the ultimate outcome ... I think.

ATB

The Parthians were only a minor people in Alexander's day and only became a power when they were re-inforced from the steppe late in the second century BC how far the two overlapped is a moot point.

The decline of the Persian (Achaemenid ) Empire is shown by the series of satrapal rebellions and Palace coups, the last of which brought Darius III to the throne. The fabric of Persian society was in tatters and Darius who was trying to institute reforms was defeated before any could take effect. The Empire of Cyrus was young and vigourous that of even DariusII decaying the old warrior elite even substituting their cooks and bottle-washers for themselves when called up to the army, (a letter exists bemoaning this fact).

agesilaos wrote:The decline of the Persian (Achaemenid ) Empire is shown by the series of satrapal rebellions and Palace coups, the last of which brought Darius III to the throne. The fabric of Persian society was in tatters and Darius who was trying to institute reforms was defeated before any could take effect. The Empire of Cyrus was young and vigourous that of even DariusII decaying the old warrior elite even substituting their cooks and bottle-washers for themselves when called up to the army, (a letter exists bemoaning this fact).

Dear me Agesilaos. Letters -- written by Persians? Please don't destroy the gestalt of uncivilised, illitterate beasts who couldn't write. That simply will not do!

Never mind the plentiful inscriptions and clay tablets -- writen often in all three of the distinct langauges of "Old Persian", Elaminte and Akkadian -- which have survived, unlike much of the leather and papyrus documents. Never mind, also, those few (such as a copy of the Bisitun text at Elephantine in Egypt) papyri, written in Aramaic, that have survived.

Whilst I would agree that the empire of Codomanus showed nothing like the vigour of the time of Cyrus, one wouldn’t expect it to be so. Cyrus was, of course, busy over his time creating that which others built upon and /or inherited. Poor Codomanus simply inherited the empire in “autumn” -- eventually.

Persian society was in tatters (though that might be a little strong) though mostly as a result of the mongrel eunuch Bagoas and his murderous ways. The “Achaemenid” line was rather diluted by this time, allowing such a creature to play such games. Prior to his interference both Memnon and Ochus (Artaxerxes II and III) were energetic in their efforts to both stabilise (the Levant) and recover (Egypt) the empire. Indeed I have often wondered what might have been had the Macedonian invader faced the rather industrious and effective Ochus. Of course, we’ll not ever know.

The pointing up of rebellions as indicators of the health of the Achaemenid Empire, I think, is somewhat misleading. Despite propaganda otherwise, each successive king had such to deal with. Darius, a regicide, necessarily brought about his own at his “accession” but, it is worth noting, he had others towards the end of his reign. His Son too had Babylon to deal with ( and there is some suggestion of unrest in Egypt – what’s new?). Artaxerxes I Makrocheir had Egypt to deal with (with Athenian connivance) whilst Memnon and Ochus have been mentioned already. Memnon, of course, had the hegemony lusting Greeks to barter with and thus had to “donate” his Phoenician fleet (readying for the recapture of Egypt) to Conon so as to bring an arrogant Sparta to heel. This after having dealt with his brother, Cyrus the Younger, whose towering ambition (if not ability) matched that of his great namesake.

Darius II Nothus is an interesting subject. Whilst having the perennial Egypt problems, he spent a good part of his reign directing the recovery of his Ionian or Asiatic Greeks. A job he succeeded in admirably by buying off Greeks that, in the end, were only too happy to trade these cities for Persian gold and ships. Whilst he had his differences with ambitious satraps who overstepped their authority (necessitating the sending of Cyrus) and got ahead of themselves (Amorges, again with Athenian connivance), he achieved what, due to the peace of Callias, was hitherto impossible.