Alcibiades

Well,I could say that the underlined is a "blatant lie",but I'm more inclined toward "misconception".Just because,when Darius I built it,it was a palace complex (and even then not 100%),doesnt mean it was so AFTER 150 YEARS OF ALMOST GLOBAL DOMINATION.It is clear from ancient sources that many ordinary people lived there.Money and nobility was in Persepolis (at least part of the time).Money attracts people.

What does this have anything to do with anything we are talking?What relevance does 550s and 500s (and the population figures for those) have to do with anything related to 330s?That's a lot more than 60 years.
Alcibiades

Darth Roach

Emm, no.
1. There was no money in the province of Fars. They had a barter economy in most parts of the empire. Only in western Anatolia and Phoenicia did monetary economies exist. Which helps explain why the western regions were so much richer than the eastern and central ones.
2. The nobility certainly didn't live in Persepolis. In a feudal state like the Achaemenid empire, estates are power, and nobles lived in their provincial estates.
3. Finally, if you look at a map or even a photo of the site, it's pretty obvious that there's pretty much no conceivable way the location could have supported a huge population like that, unless the Persians could live in the clouds and conjure water out of nothing.
I am talking about the time between Xenophon's provided figure of 120 thousand Persians, and the building of Persepolis, roughly.

Alcibiades

Look,we've been over this already.Here is how the conversation,more or less will go:

I:No author I ever read mentions anything about the total absence of money in Achaemenid.Any source?

You:I already gave you once before (puls some random articles,which doesnt even state that money was not used)

I:What about Persian treasure?

You:It was only used for paying Greek mercenaries

I:Oh,yes,the famous "only Greek mercenaries" bull.Even though it is well established Persian gold darics were widely used in circulation all throughout the empire.Yes,I guess for everybody else "barter economy",eh?I guess all those hundreds of jewel-makers living in Susa and Persepolis were buying food from the blocks of wood they would receive for their products from the Royal Court.Or,perhaps even more brilliantly,oxen and sheep to domisticate right in the ******* middle of splendid milennia-old Susa.Oh,yes Achamenid Persia was THAT primitive.It is the only explanation for how those overrated and hateful Greeks could achieve so many victories over them.Global empire,with dozens and dozens of different nations living in it,some of whom were infinitely more sophisticated then Persians were when they started their Imperial days,ALL lived on barter economy.

Well,after having my eyes opened here,I might just see the sense in your statement that Thebes in 360s was stronger than Persia.It was not so diffucult,after all.



To make it simple,name the dates.Then maybe we'll se what the heck you are trying to say.In the meantime,I have to repeat this:


Ultimately,though,can we go back to OP?If you want to discuss Persian economy and size of Persepolis further,open a new thread.
Alcibiades

Darth Roach

Total absence? Nice strawman you have got there. It'd be nice if you read what I wrote.
As for a source, this could be a good start:
ECONOMY OF ANCIENT IRAN: ECONOMY IN PRE-ACHAEMENID IRAN - (CAIS) ©
Not all. Not goddamn all. But there is not a SINGLE find of a SINGLE Daric ėast of Phoenicia. Read. The. Source.

Of course the king had a treasury, but what good did it do for him if to the average Iranian a piece of gold was only, you know, a piece of metal? It is pretty well established that only the western regions of the empire had a monetary economy, before Alexander arrived - both by administrative records, and archaeology.
No, not really, since even if you count money as power, the Persian king had more of it than all of Thebes combined. But since money was not power in Persia, the amount of gold is irrelevant. Power was held through hereditary allegiances, and the king had the allegiance of every single Persian noble in the empire, nominally - and every Persian noble had the allegiance of everything within his estates. The king also had wast personal estates in Mesopotamia and Fars, from which he could raise a personal army. Oh, and let's not forget that according to Herodotus, the king also had a standing private army as well - of 10 thousand men. Which, all combined, is obviously a lot of power. In fact, one might even go out on a limb and say that the Persian king was (relatively) the most powerful man in the world sometimes.
There is absolutely no evidence of a significant population center around the original Persepolis, built in 515-490. And if there was a significant population increase between 550 and 330, all that population must have shown in some way, no? But, as it happens, there is no evidence of a population increase in Fars. As a matter of fact, in 1900 Iran still only had about 9-10 million inhabitants - less than a million of whom lived in Fars. Sorry, I just don't see how there could have been 1.5 million people in Fars in 330BC.

heavenlykaghan

Considering the region of Punjab and Sindh alone probably had over 5 million as it was considered the most populous part of the Persian empire, i would say the rest of India had 6 to 10 times the population of this region alone during Persian times meaning probably at least 40 million by the end of Ashoka´s time.
Changdragupta Maurya probably conquered at least as many people as Alexander the Great as he conquered virtually the entire Mauryan Empire with the sole exception of Kalinga.


The Qin already have half of China´s territory and probably over a third of its population before Yin Zheng set out to conquer in 232 BC. Although that still means he probably conquered close to 30 million people as the entire warring states at this time probably had 45 million people, and he later conquered the Baiyue in the south as well.
However one must define what a conquerer is here. Yin Zheng might be the emperor, but the people doing the conquering are his generals, not himself. If so, it was his general Wang Jian that conquered most of five of the other six states.
Xiang Yu on the other hand did conquer the Qin Empire´s over 30 million people(declined from 40 million by this time), but war also reduced the population, so it is indeed something that needs to be clarified, whether the people killed in war counts is important in Chinese history as large wars of conquest usually plummet the population down to under half its original level.

Alcibiades

I dont know by whom,but thats definitely false.I sense Indocentrism at work.Asia Minor had more,and Egypt had about the same.Levant as whole also approximately the same.

But we're been there before.You think Persian population was 2 times smaller than I do,so there's no point in arguing.We've both said what we wanted to say.

The thing which might generates the confusion is the level of difficulty of Alexander' Indian Campaign.Just because it was harder (substantially so) to conquer Punjab and Sindh than it was with Asia Minor,does not mean the former had a greater population.Many other factors determined that.But that's obviously beside the OP.

Okay,if the emperors in question were absolutely "stay-at-home",and generals were the ones doing all,then count those generals.Like for example,for Justinian I,it is Belisarius and Narses who should be considered for this thread.
Alcibiades

HackneyedScribe

Qin Shi Huang was the stay-at-home type. XiangYu was like Alexander, he led from the front. In fact XiangYu's personality seemed to be a mirror image to Alexander's. They would not get along.

Guaporense

I think that the Qin already had 50% of the population of China by the time Qin Shi Huang lauched the wars of unification. So he conquered about 15 million people.

So he is among the top 5 ancient conquerors in population.

Guaporense

Indeed. The regions with access to the mediterranean sea had more developed market economies.

That's why the Diadochi always focused their efforts on the mediterranean.

Though the Persians had a huge stock of gold and silver in Persepolis: equivalent to about 5,000 tons of silver.

Well, in theory they could have imported food, like Rome. Though Persepolis was a bit far off the seas to enable imports in bulk commodities.

Anyway, Persepolis was indeed initial not an actual city but a administrative palace complex.

Frank81

Qin state controlled a large, though sparcely populated area. The Wei river valley was their only truely densely populated territory, while Sichuan population was still tiny. The bulk of Chinese people lived in the great plain.

However, I admit that the idea of Qin Shi Huang being a "conqueror" is a bit odd. I spect though the same criticism to other "conquerors"