Why? It was still going strong when Alexander conquered it.
No, not exactly. I pretty much agree with smiling bandit on this one - the state was not quite on its last legs, but it was starting to totter a bit and had been for awhile. Though the eventual disintegration may have just been partial and paved the way for a successor state at the center, a la the Parthians giving way to the Sassanids. But I suspect peripheral areas like mainland Greece would have quickly spun off from central control, just as Egypt had succeeded in doing for 2-3 generations.
The Persian royal family had been decimated by the machinations of Ochus/Artaxerxes III and later his vizier Bagoas. But more importantly the Persian economy was staggering and locked into a death spiral as more and more specie was sealed away via an unfortunate economic ratchet in the vaults at Perseopolis. It took the Alexandrian conquest to release generations of accumulated hard cash back into circulation and trigger an economic boom.
But with an occupied Greece wouldn’t the King have seemed even more invincible?
Would anyone still dare to rebel? Also the number of hoplites in Persian armies would increase even more, now that they could just recruit them at the base.
This sounds awfully as economic theorzing. Why would the hoarding of the King’s gold at Persepolis have a negative effect on the economy? I think it would rather aid price stability.
Deflation is even worse for an economy than inflation.
The same reason rich people & organizations sitting on their money helped fuel the Great Depression, and the present recession. The economy is fueled by the movement of money, not its mere existence. If enough money just sits in some vault somewhere, then the economy stalls because no one is buying or selling anything with it.
The Persian Shahanshah demanded tax in specie whenever possible and the bulk of it was then melted down and stored as bullion. A small amount was re-coined, but most of that went to foreign sources ( i.e. to hire mercenaries or bribe dignitaries ). As a result even with new mines being brought online there was a steady drain of precious metals into the royal vaults and ever decreasing amounts of coinage to pay things like tax bills. Which meant landlords had to go to loan sharks that were carefully hoarding coins and pledge land at 40% per annum as collateral to get the money to pay their taxes. Which caused loan sharks to hoard all the more, while Perseopolis sucked up more specie every year. Coined money became steadily rarer, yet the central government year after year was still saying, to quote Goodfellas, “fuck you, pay me” ;). If anything demand for taxes increased over time. More and more middle-class landowners defaulted to the state through of failure to pay taxes, which was then as often as not leased out to the uber-wealthy loan shark families.
The result was ever-increasing social tension and economic displacement. And an ever increasing number of revolts. It was hardly the only issue with the late Persian state, but it was certainly one of them and unchecked would have continued to bleed stability down through the decades.
I doubt if Darius could have swept France and Germany. He can have all the shores of the Med if he wants it.
This is not the only view of how the world works. Another view emphasizes that large scale social forces, technological development, environmental changes and the like will eventually “swallow” up the small scale consequences of individual events. You throw a rock in the pond and you get dramatic short term effects, but come back in ten minutes and you would never know you had thrown the rock.
This is a great post, and I say that as a pompom-waving cheerleader for Team Classical Heritage. 
It would have been snickers all along.
Err… No. There were rebellions before, during and after both Greek operations. Xerxes left in the middle of his invasion to deal with a rebellion in Babylon. The Persians would lose both Egypt and the Indus Valley within a few years, both far more valuable than Greece could ever be.
I don’t think establishing a direct satrapy was the aim in either invasions and certainly not in the first anymore than conquering Afghanistan was the aim of the Anglo Afghan wars.
Pinch-hitting for Team Classical here … 
Well, clearly it isn’t the case that there was some sort of ethnic or racial difference between east and west that makes the one superior and the other inferior - that’s an invention of the 19th century anyway. If one reads authors of the time, particularly Heroditos, one clearly gets the impression that the Greeks themselves did not believe in any such thing: his Persians are often portrayed as admirable people, in many cases moreso than the Greeks.
No, what makes the difference, in his eyes, was the legacy of Greek “freedom”.
Now let’s take this notion and examine it. Greek “freedom” doesn’t mean anything like what we would recognize as “freedom”, so it is easy for us, with our 21st century views, to dismiss it as nonsense. The Greeks had slaves, the Greeks treated women in many cases as chattels, the Greek “freedom” really was restricted to male citizens with money.
And indeed, the Persians were perfectly willing to allow the Greek cities under their rule to exercise such “freedom” more or less unhindered - until they rebelled.
So what does this “Greek freedom” really mean? The “freedom” of Greek city-states to act as they pleased, more or less - disunited, violent, and competitive.
However, such conditions are (arguably) extremely significant for the creation of culture. Eras of disunity combined with competitive fervour have, historically, been associated with creativity, quite irrespective of the unpleasantness of the states and governments involved - in literature, the arts and the sciences. The Greeks are one example of this; others include the Italian Renassance, Sung China, and, more generally, the squabbling rise of Western Europe itself.
In contrast, imperial control can be stultifying. Hence, the case can be made that, had the Persians obtained control over the Greek world and snuffed out the particular Greek notion of “freedom”, the legacy of the Greeks in arts, literature, and philosophy would be the less.
the Benny hill international.
Malthus, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment re “culture”. Within the Persian Empire you had the Book of Job written, at Taxila, Painini wrote the first scientific book of grammar, the Banylonian schools were unmatched in astronomy.
Greek may have been the birthplace of Western civilisation and culture and learning. It certainly not the birthplace of civilisation, culture and learning.
Certainly, I would never suggest that the matter was black-and-white. More a matter of relative significance.
Culture happens everywhere, but for whatever reasons certain places and times are “hotspots”. Classical Greece was one of 'em.
My theory is that lack of centralized power, relative freedom for a monied class, and intensive focus on competition between individuals and between political units are factors - not, as proposed by 19th century theorists, some essential quality inherent in a particular “race” or culture.
If this theory is correct, Persian dominance may have dampened the ancient Greek “hotspot”, with significant effects on the subsequent history of the world.
Furthermore, losing the war would not even have meant the end of Athenian democracy, as distinct from independence. The Persians allowed democratic self-government to many Greek cities under their rule; so, later, did the Romans.
Herodotus seemed to assume that too, IIRC.
Loan-sharks . . . I knew it! The fall of Persia was a Jewish plot! :mad:
I don’t see why it would have. As stated unthread lots of classical culture emanated from places under Persian control historically.