Fall of Great Empires: Storm Over Persia

Fall of Great Empires: Storm Over Persia2,500 years ago Persia was a great empire; regarded as the forerunner of the Roman Empire. However in spite of its size and strength it had an adversary that would seal its doom. Persia’s nemesis was a smaller empire - Macedonia; ruled by Alexander The Great.

This documentary shows how the failure of one king can lead to the downfall of a whole empire and how Alexander could manage to win against his superior enemy - The Persians.

The Persian Empire was formed under Cyrus the Great, who took over the empire of the Medes, and conquered much of the Middle East, including the territories of the Babylonians, Assyrians, the Phoenicians, and the Lydians.

Cambyses, Son of Cyrus the Great, continued his conquests by conquering Egypt. The Achaemenid Persian Empire was ended during the Wars of Alexander the Great, but Persian Empire arose again under the Parthian and Sassanid Empires of Iran, followed by Iranian post-Islamic Empires like Safavids, up to the modern day Iran.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 40 minutes)

174
8.17
12345678910
Ratings: 8.17/10 from 23 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • Sha Supreme

    I was hoping to watch a doc about the actual empire... ( rise, inventions, civilization ) but like most docs on the Persian empire, the focus is entirely on the conflict between Dirus and Alexander.

    Interesting none the less

  • robe33

    Awesome! Thanks.

  • lallu

    It takes only one person, who makes decisions on behalf of the masses that changes much of what is to follow...pathetic humans.

  • sasal

    I wonedr why!!,these historian always tell the history they way it please them,not they why it reaaly happen.for example Xerxes the Great overcome Athenian ,and took The Creak Empire,..The Historian picture him a GIANT devil who killed 300 Spartian!!!,and in other hand, they picture thier dear Alexander a very handsome brave man,who off course orderd to BBQ people and burn whole perspolice,to send home a "political Massege"!!!!!!
    this movie has nothing to do with persian Empire,well,it`s more about how Bravely Alexander went through Persian Empire.,but again off course they do not tell you how,persian could get to gether,rise again,and didn`t let even ONE Alexsander`s solger go back home,from the way they came.and again they do not tell you,the story of Alexander had wroten by persian themself to be learn for future,not by Creek.

  • WTC7

    I sympathize sasal. Unfortunately, it is the truth that the only way you will see history depicted in the west is through the eyes of the "western 'civilization'". The truth is in the eye of the beholder, they say... but nothing is as we have been taught... Good night

  • Hellonia

    they never show the real deal do they? there is one documentary about 300 from discovery channel! It shows the fact that the greek never could conquer us as the badly made hollywood movie 300 shows...well the one who created the movie, u can always ask urself who he was and why he made such a failure movie...just check on his beliefs and such...and his failure in making a movie like 300...same goes with some historic documentaries which show the wrong story....pittyful...

  • Benny

    I would just like to point out to you guys that you are all misguided. The documentary is called "storm over Persia". So it is generally going to focus on the later half of the empire and the forces that transpired to its demise. Also The movie is based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL. Neither the author nor the Director intended you to take them seriously as an accurate depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae. It is essentially a work of fiction that is loosely based on true events. If you guys are that upset by these things Read a F*%$ing Book. Documentaries are for entertainment as well as education.

  • who_me_yeah_you

    Chill out. The title is "Fall of an empire". Xerxes is not detailed because his rule did not fit the title. If you want to hear great stuff about Persia's might watch "7 ages of Persia" or a title similar to that.

  • who_me_yeah_you

    Actually it's called "Iran 7 Faces of a civilisation."

  • Eniki520

    there were ony 300 full spartans but their were 900 Lacedaemonian(spartans) Perioeci, and 900 Spartan helots, around 1000 Arcadians, 500 Tegeans, 500 Mantineans, plus between 3000 and 4000 Peloponnesians. it wasnt 300 spartans by themselves fighting the Persian invasion.

  • griproller1

    It is truly remarkable how a much smaller Macedonian army could defeat the greeks, then move on to Persia, then India, Egypt, wow! Truly marvellous!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Si-Belsi/100002429315032 Si Belsi

    thnx god..that damn moving ,f**king advertisement for turkey at the right top of a page has disapeared at last..

  • Natlover

    They moved on to India and after seeing giant Indian army beyond Sindhu (hydapsus) river frightened and return back. Even a small King Porus made such a big dent in Alexander army. He couldn't have even imagined to go and fight with great kings beyond Porus. Now, people say his army was tired and that is why they came back? Excuse me, why were they went till the Indian border then? Excuses, Excuses and Excuses to glorify Alexander.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adrian-Gheorghe/100001881005264 Adrian Gheorghe

    You are ********. Alexander had seventy thousand men at his command and he managed to destroy an Indian army of a hundred and fifty thousand. Read you history, Alexandra turned back because his generals threatened to leave him and return to Greece with most of the Greek army which had been fighting for years.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adrian-Gheorghe/100001881005264 Adrian Gheorghe

    Are you ********? Alexander turned back because his men threatened to leave if they were not back in babylon within a year. The one battle Alexander fought in India he crushed the Indian army untrained and undisciplined. Indian warriors did not achieve the standard of their European counterparts until late medieval times Alexander could have, had he been able to do so without mass desertion conquered India in a year. He was at anytime capable of fielding some two hundred thousand men but this would take weeks/months.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4LRKGY3FMKCHICD53P2MGSLNOY Daka Ty

    India is not like Europe or a desert like middle east.you have to fight in mountains,dense forest,muddy fields ets.you have to face drunk war elephants in hundreds.with heavy shields and Armour you cannot fight here in mountains,dense forest,muddy fields.you have to be light and flexible.you have to know the ground like you palm of your hand.north west India has four or more giant rivers you have to cross.his army would be a sitting duck while crossing the river. its not as easy as fighting in a desert ground of middle east.

  • adis ababa

    Alexander was roundly defeated by porus in the first battle, and fearing that the large army that was awaiting him under Shri Chandragupta Maurya, Alexander made an escape route and still got plundered on the way out. Do not make reference to the Mighty Chandragupta army with the colonized India. Note there is no other civilization as old as the Indian civilization, its ancient past is still well connected with the present day India, no other country in the present day world has the resilience like Indians have..their past has been wiped cleaned by either christianity or islam.

  • Dean Thompson

    Alexander was defeated in battle? Please reply with the literary sources (Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch...) anyone who can back up this claim which I believe from study of Alexander, is untrue.

  • stephen

    Just goes to show you that the underdog can win. The Persian empire was 10x the size of Greece and had way more soldiers, yet Alexander totally destroyed Persia in a short amount of time.

  • Aditya Rajan

    Ya right you and your brainwashed history, Alexanders army was around the same size as that of Porus, and Alexander admitted that the battle with Porus was the hardest he had ever fought in his life and porus kingdom was tiny, it would have appeared like an ant next to an elephant compared to the Nanda Empire that ruled the majority of India. The greeks said they were tired and did not want to go further, why do you think they thought this? It is because the Nanda Empure was out of their league after all these barbarians had only beater Persia because it was in civil war.

  • Aditya Rajan

    Lol why did you think they threatened to do that??? Its because those barbarians wre terrified of having to face the might of the Nanda Empire. The Persian empire was in civil war when Alexander invaded, just because someone is western or Greek does not make them great.

  • hernan cortez

    Yes I always found it weird, Persians bad, egyptians bad, Greeks and Romans, cook people and rape and murder half the world and are good, pretty ridiculous

  • hernan cortez

    Alexander was a phony, he beat one or two strong empires and then steamrolled a bunch of tiny and weak middle eastern empires. Once he got to India he ran away. Once he hit the bottom of Egypt, he did not dare send a single troop into Nubia, who had assembled with ethiopian Allies 250,000 soldiers and 10,000 war elephants ready to pound his brains in, then he ran away to asia to go beat failing empires. all Alexander did was conquer Egypt, Greece and a bunch of weak empires.

  • vinsin

    Then why Indian Historian wrote that Alexander defeated Porus? Chandragupta came after alexander left. Prove that India is the oldest civilization. If Indians had resilience then what Muslims are doing in India? Why Britisher taught India about the Chankaya and Ashoka then? Why Indians didn't fight to reclaim their history?

  • whats up

    they dont want to face the fact