What If the Persian Empire Never Fell?

[Daniel]

What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and
the Mideast (also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians")
was never defeated. After defeating the 300 Spartans, under
King Leonidis, the armies of Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed
all the armies of the Greek states? The Macedonian royal house
is destroyed.

The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great
are killed, so they are never born. The King Darius of OLT
Alexander's
time strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his
armed forces.

What would the world be like today? Would Rome ever become a
world power- or be smashed by Persian forces?

-Daniel

[Matthias M. Giwer]

What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and the Mideast
(also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians") was never defeated.
After defeating the 300 Spartans, under King Leonidis, the armies of
Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed all the armies of the Greek states? The
Macedonian royal house is destroyed.
The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great are
killed, so they are never born. The King Darius of OLT Alexander's time
strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his armed
forces.
What would the world be like today? Would Rome ever become a world power-
or be smashed by Persian forces?

What if you were to post things like is soc.history.what-if?

[Daniel]

Post by Daniel
What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and
 the Mideast (also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians")
 was never defeated.  After defeating the 300 Spartans, under
 King Leonidis, the armies of Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed
 all the armies of the Greek states?  The Macedonian royal house
 is destroyed.
The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great
 are killed, so they are never born.  The King Darius of OLT
 Alexander's
 time strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his
 armed forces.
What would the world be like today?  Would Rome ever become a
 world power- or be smashed by Persian forces?
-Daniel

You might want to read "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. While the
premise is Al getting killed in battle in BC 334 at the Granicus
River, the potential outcome would be very similar.

Interesting. do you think the present President of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad,
would like to restore the ancient Mede-Persian Empire?

-Daniel

[Matt Giwer]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Daniel wrote:

A what if as in soc.history.what-if is a form of entertainment with
its own rules for playing the game. It is not intended to be something taken
seriously as there is absolutely no way to replay history and test the
viability of the alternative. It is taken from the science fiction alternate
history form. If the alternative is not entertaining then it is really not
of interest.

The idea of learning from it is lost in the free will v
predestination, that history depends upon the individual or there is a tide
in the course of history. It is not something that can be resolved.

On fact is very clear in this reality. If a different sperm reaches
an egg a different person will be born with a 50% chance of being of the
other sex. Anything which causes a different sperm to reach the egg changes
all history afterwards. Do it in Europe, a firecracker in the Parthenon, and
likely in barely a century any time since Rome and every person is
different. It does not require simply different people to marry. It only
requires a slight difference in the time of ejaculation. Given the size and
mobility of sperm slight in probably less than a second.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Matt Giwer
A what if as in soc.history.what-if is a form of entertainment with
its own rules for playing the game. It is not intended to be something taken
seriously as there is absolutely no way to replay history and test the
viability of the alternative. It is taken from the science fiction alternate
history form. If the alternative is not entertaining then it is really not
of interest.
The idea of learning from it is lost in the free will v
predestination, that history depends upon the individual or there is a tide
in the course of history. It is not something that can be resolved.
On fact is very clear in this reality. If a different sperm reaches
an egg a different person will be born with a 50% chance of being of the
other sex. Anything which causes a different sperm to reach the egg changes
all history afterwards. Do it in Europe, a firecracker in the Parthenon, and
likely in barely a century any time since Rome and every person is
different. It does not require simply different people to marry. It only
requires a slight difference in the time of ejaculation. Given the size and
mobility of sperm slight in probably less than a second.

I think we all understand the birds and the bees - what's your point?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Matt Giwer
A what if as in soc.history.what-if is a form of entertainment with
its own rules for playing the game. It is not intended to be something taken
seriously as there is absolutely no way to replay history and test the
viability of the alternative. It is taken from the science fiction alternate
history form. If the alternative is not entertaining then it is really not
of interest.
The idea of learning from it is lost in the free will v
predestination, that history depends upon the individual or there is a tide
in the course of history. It is not something that can be resolved.
On fact is very clear in this reality. If a different sperm reaches
an egg a different person will be born with a 50% chance of being of the
other sex. Anything which causes a different sperm to reach the egg changes
all history afterwards. Do it in Europe, a firecracker in the Parthenon, and
likely in barely a century any time since Rome and every person is
different. It does not require simply different people to marry. It only
requires a slight difference in the time of ejaculation. Given the size and
mobility of sperm slight in probably less than a second.

I think we all understand the birds and the bees - what's your point?

I misread the subject. He originally posted this WI only to
soc.history.ancient. I suggested he post to WI. I thought I was explaining
to him on the s.h.a only thread. My error.

[Nirvanam]

Post by Daniel

Post by Daniel
What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and
 the Mideast (also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians")
 was never defeated.  After defeating the 300 Spartans, under
 King Leonidis, the armies of Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed
 all the armies of the Greek states?  The Macedonian royal house
 is destroyed.
The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great
 are killed, so they are never born.  The King Darius of OLT
 Alexander's
 time strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his
 armed forces.
What would the world be like today?  Would Rome ever become a
 world power- or be smashed by Persian forces?
-Daniel

You might want to read "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. While the
premise is Al getting killed in battle in BC 334 at the Granicus
River, the potential outcome would be very similar.

Interesting. do you think the present President of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad,
would like to restore the ancient Mede-Persian Empire?
-Daniel

No way! Islam has no allegiance to any history, culture, nation,
whatsoever except for Allah. In other words as long as Iran remains an
Islamic country, its history before the 8th century AD will be of
least importance to them. Persian culture and Zoroastrianism survived
only because a handful of Persians fled the massacre of the Islamic
thugs from Arabia and found shelter in some Indian states.

In fact when I was growing up there was this legend on how the
Persians found homage in India in story books...nice beautiful
story...the legend has that a group of Persians came to the King's
court (the king of Kutch I think) and told him that they were
massacred by the Arabs and that they wanted to settle down in the
Indian kingdom. But the king had his own problems with famine and
drought so wasn't sure if he could allow them. And in order to let his
predicament known he sent a glass of milk to the leader of the
Persians. The glass of milk was full...almost overflowing...as if to
convey the message that we don't have space here for you. So, the
Persian leader took the glass of milk and added a spoonful of sugar
and stirred the milk, and gave it back to the king and asked him to
drink it. By this the Persian leader conveyed that we are hardly a few
people and we will mingle within your community so effortlessly that
you will not even notice us but you will see that your community has
somehow become sweeter. The king drank the milk that indeed tasted
sweet and welcomed them!

[MILES GLORIOSUS]

Post by Nirvanam

Post by Daniel

Post by Daniel
What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and
 the Mideast (also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians")
 was never defeated.  After defeating the 300 Spartans, under
 King Leonidis, the armies of Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed
 all the armies of the Greek states?  The Macedonian royal house
 is destroyed.
The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great
 are killed, so they are never born.  The King Darius of OLT
 Alexander's
 time strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his
 armed forces.
What would the world be like today?  Would Rome ever become a
 world power- or be smashed by Persian forces?
-Daniel

You might want to read "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. While the
premise is Al getting killed in battle in BC 334 at the Granicus
River, the potential outcome would be very similar.

Interesting. do you think the present President of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad,
would like to restore the ancient Mede-Persian Empire?
-Daniel

No way! Islam has no allegiance to any history, culture, nation,
whatsoever except for Allah. In other words as long as Iran remains an
Islamic country, its history before the 8th century AD will be of
least importance to them. Persian culture and Zoroastrianism survived
only because a handful of Persians fled the massacre of the Islamic
thugs from Arabia and found shelter in some Indian states.

Really?
Never heard about the Samanid rulers of Iran? About the revival of the
Persian literature and language during and after their age (search for
"Shahnameh")? Never heard even about the late Pahlavi dinasty?

MG

[Nirvanam]

Post by MILES GLORIOSUS

Post by Nirvanam

Post by Daniel

Post by Daniel
What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and
 the Mideast (also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians")
 was never defeated.  After defeating the 300 Spartans, under
 King Leonidis, the armies of Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed
 all the armies of the Greek states?  The Macedonian royal house
 is destroyed.
The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great
 are killed, so they are never born.  The King Darius of OLT
 Alexander's
 time strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his
 armed forces.
What would the world be like today?  Would Rome ever become a
 world power- or be smashed by Persian forces?
-Daniel

You might want to read "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. While the
premise is Al getting killed in battle in BC 334 at the Granicus
River, the potential outcome would be very similar.

Interesting. do you think the present President of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad,
would like to restore the ancient Mede-Persian Empire?
-Daniel

No way! Islam has no allegiance to any history, culture, nation,
whatsoever except for Allah. In other words as long as Iran remains an
Islamic country, its history before the 8th century AD will be of
least importance to them. Persian culture and Zoroastrianism survived
only because a handful of Persians fled the massacre of the Islamic
thugs from Arabia and found shelter in some Indian states.

Really?
Never heard about the Samanid rulers of Iran? About the revival of the
Persian literature and language during and after their age (search for
"Shahnameh")? Never heard even about the late Pahlavi dinasty?
MG

Well, yes some great art works survive even the demolition of an
entire culture. Probably an analogy of this could be that although
Italy and Greece are totally christian nations they haven't wiped out
their previous cultural stuff. Also it could be that during the period
of composing the Shahnameh, the Islamic rulers were generally more
tolerant. I guess it was around this period or maybe 100-150 years
later that Sufi 'ism a very mystical sect of Islam was born in Iran.
Someone who has studied Islam, its history, and the misadventures of
Muhammed will not believe that Sufi'ism arose from Islam...I'd
actually think that Sufi'ism was a way of the Persians expressing
their more tolerant nature yet smartly within the framework of Islam.

Pahlavi was a more recent dynasty...Islam beat it inside a century.

I hope the younger generation of Iranians rise up and get rid of their
theocracy. We might yet discover so many more things of Persian
history if Iran is not ruled by Islam

[Daniel]

Post by Nirvanam

Post by Daniel

Post by Daniel
What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and
 the Mideast (also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians")
 was never defeated.  After defeating the 300 Spartans, under
 King Leonidis, the armies of Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed
 all the armies of the Greek states?  The Macedonian royal house
 is destroyed.
The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great
 are killed, so they are never born.  The King Darius of OLT
 Alexander's
 time strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his
 armed forces.
What would the world be like today?  Would Rome ever become a
 world power- or be smashed by Persian forces?
-Daniel

You might want to read "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. While the
premise is Al getting killed in battle in BC 334 at the Granicus
River, the potential outcome would be very similar.

Interesting. do you think the present President of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad,
would like to restore the ancient Mede-Persian Empire?
-Daniel

No way! Islam has no allegiance to any history, culture, nation,
whatsoever except for Allah. In other words as long as Iran remains an
Islamic country, its history before the 8th century AD will be of
least importance to them. Persian culture and Zoroastrianism survived
only because a handful of Persians fled the massacre of the Islamic
thugs from Arabia and found shelter in some Indian states.
In fact when I was growing up there was this legend on how the
Persians found homage in India in story books...nice beautiful
story...the legend has that a group of Persians came to the King's
court (the king of Kutch I think) and told him that they were
massacred by the Arabs and that they wanted to settle down in the
Indian kingdom. But the king had his own problems with famine and
drought so wasn't sure if he could allow them. And in order to let his
predicament known he sent a glass of milk to the leader of the
Persians. The glass of milk was full...almost overflowing...as if to
convey the message that we don't have space here for you. So, the
Persian leader took the glass of milk and added a spoonful of sugar
and stirred the milk, and gave it back to the king and asked him to
drink it. By this the Persian leader conveyed that we are hardly a few
people and we will mingle within your community so effortlessly that
you will not even notice us but you will see that your community has
somehow become sweeter. The king drank the milk that indeed tasted
sweet and welcomed them!

Thanks for the insight. I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

-Daniel

[Anthony Buckland]

... I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

Head of State, Schmead of State. In an Islamic "Republic",
the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
international community or anything else. The president
or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
exactly what he (of course) is told.

[William Black]

Post by Anthony Buckland

... I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

Head of State, Schmead of State. In an Islamic "Republic",
the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
international community or anything else. The president
or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.

The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA, telling the politicians what is and is not allowed. They just
get to pick what they comment on...

Oh yes, and Pakistan is an Islamic Republic as well, but nobody is
saying that their religious leaders get to say what is allowed or not...

[Insane Ranter]

Post by William Black

...  I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

 Head of State, Schmead of State.  In an Islamic "Republic",
 the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
 on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
 decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
 ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
 international community or anything else. The president
 or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
 take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
 exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.
The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA,  telling the politicians what is and is not allowed.  They just
get to pick what they comment on...
Oh yes,  and Pakistan is an Islamic Republic as well,  but nobody is
saying that their religious leaders get to say what is allowed or not...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Why all the assuming the Persian Empire goes Islamic?

[Anthony Buckland]

Post by William Black

... I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

Head of State, Schmead of State. In an Islamic "Republic",
the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
international community or anything else. The president
or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.
The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA, telling the politicians what is and is not allowed. They just
get to pick what they comment on...
Oh yes, and Pakistan is an Islamic Republic as well, but nobody is
saying that their religious leaders get to say what is allowed or not...

...

OK, my bad, I should have said _this_ Islamic Republic.
Now, if there's evidence to look at that says Iran operates
other than a bunch of secular puppets under the control
of a religious dominant group using the armed forces of
the nation to ensure that their will is obeyed in all
crucial issues, fine, show me. And if I'm deemed to
have been brainwashed into believing the worst, again, show
me. I was educated to pay unbiased attention to
evidence, not to assurances. I'm not unwilling to concede,
given data, that the constitution of Iran provides only a
judicial role for the religious "figureheads"; but constitutions
are a dime a dozen without actual operative respect for
them; show me that Iranian power holders actually live by their
constitution (ok, first you have to show me the constitution
itself; a reliable link will do). Thanks.

[William Black]

Post by Anthony Buckland

Post by William Black

... I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

Head of State, Schmead of State. In an Islamic "Republic",
the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
international community or anything else. The president
or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.
The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA, telling the politicians what is and is not allowed. They just
get to pick what they comment on...
Oh yes, and Pakistan is an Islamic Republic as well, but nobody is
saying that their religious leaders get to say what is allowed or not...

...
OK, my bad, I should have said _this_ Islamic Republic.
Now, if there's evidence to look at that says Iran operates
other than a bunch of secular puppets under the control
of a religious dominant group using the armed forces of
the nation to ensure that their will is obeyed in all
crucial issues, fine, show me. And if I'm deemed to
have been brainwashed into believing the worst, again, show
me. I was educated to pay unbiased attention to
evidence, not to assurances. I'm not unwilling to concede,
given data, that the constitution of Iran provides only a
judicial role for the religious "figureheads"; but constitutions
are a dime a dozen without actual operative respect for
them; show me that Iranian power holders actually live by their
constitution (ok, first you have to show me the constitution
itself; a reliable link will do). Thanks.

Text

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html

Explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

The point you miss is that elderly and distinguished clerical gentlemen
(and they are exactly that, even if they would like us to all have our
throats slit) don't want to spend time running the country when there's
important theological work to be done.

These are men with long complicated books to read, politics bores them.

[Nirvanam]

These are men with long complicated books to read,  politics bores them.
--
William Black.

I agree with your point of view but just found this sentence very
ironic...does Islam believe in any other knowledge than the Quran, and
possibly some Hadith? lol!

[William Black]

Post by Nirvanam

Post by William Black
These are men with long complicated books to read, politics bores them.
--
William Black.

I agree with your point of view but just found this sentence very
ironic...does Islam believe in any other knowledge than the Quran, and
possibly some Hadith? lol!

They read books written by other clerical gentleman.

Sometimes they decide the other clerical gentleman is mistaken.

At this point there is often an outbreak of gunfire.

When the smoke clears and the bodies are cleared away all the surviving
clerical gentleman agree that:

1. It wasn't that serious a disagreement.

2. Everyone who died was wrong, but has probably gone to heaven anyway.

3. A clerical gentleman on the losing side of the dispute then marries
the youngest daughter of the senior clerical gentleman on the winning side.

As the whole world of Islam publishes fewer religious books in a year
than the University of Oxford the number of disputes is very limited.

[Nirvanam]

Post by William Black

Post by Nirvanam

These are men with long complicated books to read,  politics bores them.
--
William Black.

I agree with your point of view but just found this sentence very
ironic...does Islam believe in any other knowledge than the Quran, and
possibly some Hadith? lol!

They read books written by other clerical gentleman.
Sometimes they decide the other clerical gentleman is mistaken.
At this point there is often an outbreak of gunfire.
When the smoke clears and the bodies are cleared away all the surviving
1.  It wasn't that serious a disagreement.
2.  Everyone who died was wrong,  but has probably gone to heaven anyway.
3. A clerical gentleman on the losing side of the dispute then marries
the youngest daughter of the senior clerical gentleman on the winning side.
As the whole world of Islam publishes fewer religious books in a year
than the University of Oxford the number of disputes is very limited.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

You actually captured it exactly like how it happens... LOL!

[Anthony Buckland]

Post by William Black

Post by Anthony Buckland
...
OK, my bad, I should have said _this_ Islamic Republic.
Now, if there's evidence to look at that says Iran operates
other than a bunch of secular puppets under the control
of a religious dominant group using the armed forces of
the nation to ensure that their will is obeyed in all
crucial issues, fine, show me. And if I'm deemed to
have been brainwashed into believing the worst, again, show
me. I was educated to pay unbiased attention to
evidence, not to assurances. I'm not unwilling to concede,
given data, that the constitution of Iran provides only a
judicial role for the religious "figureheads"; but constitutions
are a dime a dozen without actual operative respect for
them; show me that Iranian power holders actually live by their
constitution (ok, first you have to show me the constitution
itself; a reliable link will do). Thanks.

Text
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html
Explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
The point you miss is that elderly and distinguished clerical gentlemen
(and they are exactly that, even if they would like us to all have our
throats slit) don't want to spend time running the country when there's
important theological work to be done.
These are men with long complicated books to read, politics bores them.
...

I _was_ a bit snitty there, wasn't I? Thanks for the pointers.
I also figured I should do some research myself, consulting
three sources I like which provide a lot of data and, certainly
in the last case, have no particular motive to say nice things
about Iran: the BBC, PBS and the CIA Fact Book. OK, I'll
admit now that Iran isn't a single-puppeteer state, and instead
has a lively interchange between the secular and the theocracy
in government. The Supreme Leader's special bodies are in a
position to exert a great deal of power, but even with the vetting
of political candidates the population seems assured of having
its interests represented. Slamming on the brakes now would,
it appears, be very dangerous and possibly fatal (politically),
unless a very heavy swing to conservatism in the people's
minds happened first.

As to the Supreme Leader doing only important theological
work, well, he is the Commander In Chief and responsible for
declaring war, and CICs who leave the decisions appropriate to
their rank to others risk losing their power, the next war and the
future of their country. IMHO.

-----------------------------------------------------

A sidelight: this made me think about my own country, Canada.
All federal power resides in the lower house of Parliament -- the
Senate is appointed for life by Prime Ministers, variously undoing the
vote-packing by their predecessors, and in any case can only
delay House bills with occasional nudging of slight amendments.
With a majority (not presently the case, but we've had some
doozies of one-sidedness), the PM, who can order votes from his
own party completely the way he wants, on pain of removal from caucus,
and his Office can run the country single-handedly. His Cabinet
is not subject to confirmation. This could be a blueprint for
dictatorship, but it doesn't happen. Tradition, plus an equivalent
to the Bill of Rights (but it's an Act of Parliament like any other),
plus a Supreme Court that doesn't toss laws anything like as
often as in the US but has still managed to annoy PMs. Forget
the Governor General, she (representing the Queen) really is a
figurehead. Currently a really attractive one, though.

[Anthony Buckland]

Post by William Black

Post by Anthony Buckland
...
OK, my bad, I should have said _this_ Islamic Republic.
Now, if there's evidence to look at that says Iran operates
other than a bunch of secular puppets under the control
of a religious dominant group using the armed forces of
the nation to ensure that their will is obeyed in all
crucial issues, fine, show me. And if I'm deemed to
have been brainwashed into believing the worst, again, show
me. I was educated to pay unbiased attention to
evidence, not to assurances. I'm not unwilling to concede,
given data, that the constitution of Iran provides only a
judicial role for the religious "figureheads"; but constitutions
are a dime a dozen without actual operative respect for
them; show me that Iranian power holders actually live by their
constitution (ok, first you have to show me the constitution
itself; a reliable link will do). Thanks.

Text
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html
Explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
The point you miss is that elderly and distinguished clerical gentlemen
(and they are exactly that, even if they would like us to all have our
throats slit) don't want to spend time running the country when there's
important theological work to be done.
These are men with long complicated books to read, politics bores them.
...

I _was_ a bit snitty there, wasn't I? Thanks for the pointers.
I also figured I should do some research myself, consulting
three sources I like which provide a lot of data and, certainly
in the last case, have no particular motive to say nice things
about Iran: the BBC, PBS and the CIA Fact Book. OK, I'll
admit now that Iran isn't a single-puppeteer state, and instead
has a lively interchange between the secular and the theocracy
in government. The Supreme Leader's special bodies are in a
position to exert a great deal of power, but even with the vetting
of political candidates the population seems assured of having
its interests represented. Slamming on the brakes now would,
it appears, be very dangerous and possibly fatal (politically),
unless a very heavy swing to conservatism in the people's
minds happened first.

As to the Supreme Leader doing only important theological
work, well, he is the Commander In Chief and responsible for
declaring war, and CICs who leave the decisions appropriate to
their rank to others risk losing their power, the next war and the
future of their country. IMHO.

-----------------------------------------------------

A sidelight: this made me think about my own country, Canada.
All federal power resides in the lower house of Parliament -- the
Senate is appointed for life by Prime Ministers, variously undoing the
vote-packing by their predecessors, and in any case can only
delay House bills with occasional nudging of slight amendments.
With a majority (not presently the case, but we've had some
doozies of one-sidedness), the PM, who can order votes from his
own party completely the way he wants, on pain of removal from caucus,
and his Office can run the country single-handedly. His Cabinet
is not subject to confirmation. This could be a blueprint for
dictatorship, but it doesn't happen. Tradition, plus an equivalent
to the Bill of Rights (but it's an Act of Parliament like any other),
plus a Supreme Court that doesn't toss laws anything like as
often as in the US but has still managed to annoy PMs. Forget
the Governor General, she (representing the Queen) really is a
figurehead. Currently a really attractive one, though.

[Robert A. Woodward]

Post by William Black

Post by Anthony Buckland

... I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

Head of State, Schmead of State. In an Islamic "Republic",
the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
international community or anything else. The president
or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.
The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA, telling the politicians what is and is not allowed. They just
get to pick what they comment on...

I do not recall the Supreme Court (or lesser judicial body)
declaring people couldn't run for political offices because they
had the wrong politics (at least not recently). I don't recall
hearing a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a bill passed by
Congress before the President could sign it into law (and in fact,
I don't recall that all bills have to pass their review). And, I
don't recall hearing that the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Defense, and perhaps even the Secretary of the Treasury serving at
the pleasure of the Chief Justice.

[William Black]

Post by Robert A. Woodward

Post by William Black

Post by Anthony Buckland

... I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

Head of State, Schmead of State. In an Islamic "Republic",
the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
international community or anything else. The president
or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.
The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA, telling the politicians what is and is not allowed. They just
get to pick what they comment on...

I do not recall the Supreme Court (or lesser judicial body)
declaring people couldn't run for political offices because they
had the wrong politics (at least not recently). I don't recall
hearing a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a bill passed by
Congress before the President could sign it into law (and in fact,
I don't recall that all bills have to pass their review). And, I
don't recall hearing that the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Defense, and perhaps even the Secretary of the Treasury serving at
the pleasure of the Chief Justice.

Did you read what I wrote?

[Robert A. Woodward]

Post by William Black

Post by Robert A. Woodward

Post by William Black

Post by Anthony Buckland

... I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

Head of State, Schmead of State. In an Islamic "Republic",
the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
international community or anything else. The president
or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.
The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA, telling the politicians what is and is not allowed. They just
get to pick what they comment on...

I do not recall the Supreme Court (or lesser judicial body)
declaring people couldn't run for political offices because they
had the wrong politics (at least not recently). I don't recall
hearing a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a bill passed by
Congress before the President could sign it into law (and in fact,
I don't recall that all bills have to pass their review). And, I
don't recall hearing that the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Defense, and perhaps even the Secretary of the Treasury serving at
the pleasure of the Chief Justice.

Did you read what I wrote?

I found it disingenuous.

[Nirvanam]

Post by William Black

...  I also forgot that, in present Islamic
Republic Iran,
the President is not the real leader of the county- the top Ayotollah
is
the real head of state, is that not right?

 Head of State, Schmead of State.  In an Islamic "Republic",
 the important thing to remember is that the religious figure
 on top of the pyramid of power will make the most essential
 decisions, regardless of political and protocol position,
 ostensible law, wishes of the electorate, objections of the
 international community or anything else. The president
 or whatever can make the public appearances and speeches,
 take the international heat, and in the final analysis do
 exactly what he (of course) is told.

That's actually a reasonably total misunderstanding of how the Islamic
Republic of Iran works.
The religious figureheads play a role not unlike the Supreme Court in
the USA,  telling the politicians what is and is not allowed.  They just
get to pick what they comment on...
Oh yes,  and Pakistan is an Islamic Republic as well,  but nobody is
saying that their religious leaders get to say what is allowed or not...
--
William Black

I am inclined to differ from that perspective. I think the head of
state (for all practical purposes as described by Anthony) is the
Ayatollah. The PM's Presidents are powerless puppets. There is a
difference between Iran and Pakistan though. Pakistan although an
Islamic country as per its constitution (it only means that they will
follow Sharia Law as supreme law) is organized (or at least claim that
they are) more as a parliamentary democracy. Although there are
clerics who provide advise on matters to the politicians, Pakistan
does not openly say that their policies are guided by Islamic
clerics...it actually may not be except in areas where Sharia could
think of pronouncing something.

[deowll]

Post by Daniel
What if the Persian Empire, which occupied Central Asia and
the Mideast (also called the Empire of the Medes and Persians")
was never defeated. After defeating the 300 Spartans, under
King Leonidis, the armies of Persian Emperor Xerxies destroyed
all the armies of the Greek states? The Macedonian royal house
is destroyed.
The ancestors of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great
are killed, so they are never born. The King Darius of OLT
Alexander's
time strengthens his empire and there are no attempts to defeat his
armed forces.
What would the world be like today? Would Rome ever become a
world power- or be smashed by Persian forces?
-Daniel

Not clear. Carthage might have ruled the west in fact it did rule part of it
for a time. Trying to make an Empire much large than Persia was work is very
hard to do. This distance were so great that the head had a heard time
reacting to what was going on around the edges of the Empire.