From the Indus Valley in the east and the Aegean coast in the west, from the Iaxartes/Syr Darya river in the north to the Aswan in the south, the Persian Achaemenid empire, for more than two centuries, was the largest empire ever put together in antiquity. During a decade of conquest, Alexander had constituted it precisely to his advantage by appropriating the same boundaries (Elephantine, Syr Darya, and Indus). Already in antiquity, Greek observers highlighted what they regarded as one of the major problems of imperial government: the contrast between the immensity of imperial territories and the will of the Great Kings to establish and maintain their hold. 

Preview:

Until recently, Achaemenid historiography did not show much interest in the reign of Darius III, or in the state of the empire at the time Alexander set foot in Asia Minor. It sufficed to explain everything by the convenient thesis of the "colossus with feet of clay" that had become irreversibly undermined by disorganization, overtaxation, and rebellious subjects. This thesis was, in itself, deemed sufficient to explain the Persian defeat in confrontations with the Macedonian armies. From its origins, Alexander historiography has developed two visions of the Persian adversary. One is found in handbooks and the most recent conference proceedings: that the Achaemenid empire is evanescent to such a degree that it does not even represent one of two players in the game about to be played on the Near Eastern chessboard: time passes "as if Alexander were alone...when he faced his personal quest." In contrast, other historians have attempted to reevaluate the military strategic capacities of the last Great King.

This double orientation in modern historiography is, to some extent, the latest avatar of a double-sided image of Darius handed down by the Greco-Roman tradition and continuously running through modern European historiography: Darius is either portrayed as a despot characterized by weakness and lack of drive, a man incapable of facing the danger that the Macedonian invasion presented to his throne and his empire; or he is glorified as a king possessing virtues and all kinds of admirable qualities, yet confronted by an enemy of such overwhelming strength that he stood no chance of gaining victory over him. This second image, of a man both capable and courageous but overcome by a peerless adversary (presented by Bossuetas early as 1681), was adopted by Droysen from 1833 on, and the same conclusion is reached by a recent study by Badian (2000b: 265)

Read the entire paper on Academia.edu
(c) Pierre Briant: Collège de France, Chaire d'histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l'empire d'Alexandre and Emeritus

Preview: 

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries historians and scholars collected the heritage of Classical antiquity, a corpus in which, traditionally, Greek vigor and Macedonian strength were contrasted with the weakness of the Persian empire. The latter was usually defined by its state of political and territorial disorganization, by its corrupting luxury, and by its irreversible military inferiority, in short by, to use the traditional expression, “Achaemenid decadence.” According to a tenacious stereotype, which can be traced back to Greek authors, this empire was wealthy and weak at the same time.(8) It suffices to examine a single example, the Histoire ancienne by Charles Rollin, which was published from 1730 onward to exceptional acclaim in all European states. Influenced by Bossuet (1681), Rollin developed a catastrophic view of the Persian enemy and its continuous decline from Xerxes to Darius III. Based on the same pedagogical and political presuppositions (the values to be impressed upon a prince), Rollin condemned Alexander’s excesses, which he saw corrupted by Asian luxuries:(9) “In imitation of the Persian kings he turned his palace into a seraglio, filling it with three hundred and sixty concubines (the same number Darius kept) and with bands of eunuchs, of all mankind the most infamous” (Rollin 1791: 168)

Read the entire paper on Academia.edu
(c) Pierre Briant: Collège de France, Chaire d'histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l'empire d'Alexandre and Emeritus