This touches on one of the key differences between the Achaemenids and their successor dynasties. From Cyrus II to Darius III they enjoyed a level of hegemony that would be unmatched in most of the world until the rise of the Caliphate 1000 years later.https://twitter.com/askhistorians/status/1393265855966765056 …
-
Weren’t the Sassanids pretty stable too though
Presumably the key difference here is the lack of peer competitors? Rome was pretty stable, but always had a peer competitor to the east (Parthia, Sassanids), but the Achaemenids really didn't have peer states on their borders.
-
-
Oh true true. The Achaemenids were indeed the hyper power of the time, even china me India weren’t United back then while during the sassanids on their east they had the kushans and Gupta’s
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Exactly this. Even Parthia was relatively stable but nobody west of the Tian Shan was as clearly unparalleled between c.330 BCE - 650 CE. Early imperial China is probably the most comparable power in the world in the interim but in very different geopolitical environment.
-
Though there's always the interesting counterfactual that Constantinople was one bad day or disaffected sentry away from Khosrow II seizing a similar level of power in 626
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.