From 2015: My suspicion is that Parsa was close enough to southern Mesopotamia and also close enough to Iranian pastures. They were thus able to figure out how to tax that densely-populated irrigated-farming population of southern Mesopotamia. And at the same time they were able to figure out how to use the horse-mounted herders of the Iranian pasture. Add in the growing size of then-modern larger horse. And they had an advantage in communications, in mobility, in the use of the bow, and in the use of the rider for combat. They thus brought the age of iron and horse to the fertile crescent, and did so in a way that had not been possible in the age of bronze and chariot, or even iron and chariot. But I do not know, I do not claim to know, and I have not found anybody who does know. Nor do we know why the empire held together, save that it repeatedly almost did not. And, of course, the rule of the Loyal-Spirit Great Kings of Iran is followed by something even more extraordinary. At the end of the Haxamanishya Empire there is what is probably best-called its LBO, by Alexander the Great of Macedon, and then by his marshals who became his successors.
Most of these involved some combination of technological and organizational innovation wrapped in a cultural capsule. The former enabled the conquest but the latter maintained the ruling culture well past its golden age of plentiful resources. Those conquests were followed by cultural and technological shifts, new systems of law, new ways of justifying the ruling class and a payoff for adopting the ruling culture even if you yourself were an outsider.
(Judaism shows the signs of repeated cultural shifts as new empires arose. Literacy came from the Egyptians. The Persians got good press in the Bible for their multicultural state and its opportunities. The Greeks provided the model for the annual Passover symposium, and the Romans detached the religion from its land.)
You might throw in the Bantu expansion in Africa which is poorly documented, if documented at all, but likely involved the introduction of iron working. Indian history and genetics indicate a conquest that culturally unified India and spread its religion at least as far as Indonesia. There is evidence in the New World of expansions like this in Central America and in the northwest of South America.
Also, another means of controlling population growth is a celibate clergy. Joining a religious order as a monk or nun meant regular meals, a safe place to live and not having children. Even in cultures where such commitments are temporary, it defers reproduction.
It may be worth pointing out that non-procreative sex was well-known to the Romans, at least, as perhaps was contraception. Infanticide, virginity and celibacy were not the only options. Could the uniquely Christian horror of non-procreative sex explain some things about European demography? (The book to read is John Noonan's "Contraception." Noonan was an interesting fellow--a devout RC law professor learned in canon law. Reagan put him on the Ninth Circuit for his opposition to abortion, and then discovered that he was a flaming liberal. Republicans vet better these days.)
This note reminds me of a point you have made before in similar contexts, that it was always difficult or impossible in ancient times for the ruler to have “visibility” into what was going on in distant corners of the realm. Perhaps the Persians had better visibility in that sense than most of their contemporaries, and that deepened their ruling capacity.
I've always wondered about the utility of the bread subsidies in Rome and Byzantium. How did that contribute to the power of the state or of its rulers?
Most of these involved some combination of technological and organizational innovation wrapped in a cultural capsule. The former enabled the conquest but the latter maintained the ruling culture well past its golden age of plentiful resources. Those conquests were followed by cultural and technological shifts, new systems of law, new ways of justifying the ruling class and a payoff for adopting the ruling culture even if you yourself were an outsider.
(Judaism shows the signs of repeated cultural shifts as new empires arose. Literacy came from the Egyptians. The Persians got good press in the Bible for their multicultural state and its opportunities. The Greeks provided the model for the annual Passover symposium, and the Romans detached the religion from its land.)
You might throw in the Bantu expansion in Africa which is poorly documented, if documented at all, but likely involved the introduction of iron working. Indian history and genetics indicate a conquest that culturally unified India and spread its religion at least as far as Indonesia. There is evidence in the New World of expansions like this in Central America and in the northwest of South America.
Also, another means of controlling population growth is a celibate clergy. Joining a religious order as a monk or nun meant regular meals, a safe place to live and not having children. Even in cultures where such commitments are temporary, it defers reproduction.
It may be worth pointing out that non-procreative sex was well-known to the Romans, at least, as perhaps was contraception. Infanticide, virginity and celibacy were not the only options. Could the uniquely Christian horror of non-procreative sex explain some things about European demography? (The book to read is John Noonan's "Contraception." Noonan was an interesting fellow--a devout RC law professor learned in canon law. Reagan put him on the Ninth Circuit for his opposition to abortion, and then discovered that he was a flaming liberal. Republicans vet better these days.)
This note reminds me of a point you have made before in similar contexts, that it was always difficult or impossible in ancient times for the ruler to have “visibility” into what was going on in distant corners of the realm. Perhaps the Persians had better visibility in that sense than most of their contemporaries, and that deepened their ruling capacity.
I've always wondered about the utility of the bread subsidies in Rome and Byzantium. How did that contribute to the power of the state or of its rulers?