The Roman and Persian empires

A rather general topic, but one that interest me greatly...

How similar do you think the two were, in reality? Although most people think of the Persian empire as a sort of confederation, and the Roman empire as a true empire, I have often wondered -- using the history of Britain as my primary reference -- if the Roman empire was largely a confederacy-type empire as well. In Britain, especially, it seems that the underlying cultures stayed relatively intact, although they were influenced by the myriad other cultured of Rome. However, they were never really Romanized in the classical sense; and from what I have heard, most of the Roman empire underwent the same process. So: what do yo think?

Also: if the Roman empire had been a significantly closer copy of the Persian empire, what differences would you expect to see? Would it last longer or shorter? Or do you believe that the two were close enough that it would make little difference?

Persian satraps were practically independent kings, depending on how far from the centre of power they were. Roman provincials governors generally weren't. But in any case a "confederacy" implies that a group of states have voluntarily decided to be governed by a small national government with limited powers. Frankly the Roman empire was the exact opposite- nations were conquered and forced to accept the rule of a very large and overbearing imperial government.

"if the Roman empire had been a significantly closer copy of the Persian empire, what differences would you expect to see?"

Well that is like asking "what if up were down". There were huge gulfs between Roman and Persian society, and many of the societies they conquered were different, so the structure of the empires was different. For instance, the method of government in the provinces, at least up until the foundation of the principate, was inextricably linked with the republican system of government as the proconsuls and propraetors who governed the provinces were those who had just finished their one year term as consul or praetor in Rome, and generally they were limited to a one year governorship (longer appointments needed special legislative authorisation). Eventually Rome became a monarchy in the proper sense of the term anyway, i.e. more like Persia.

Couldn't it be argued that the Roman empire did become like the 'Satraps'? There ended up being two empires and then within that empire the military and civilian powers on the frontier provinces became more and more independent of Rome both in political power and how troops were levied (hiring more Germans) until eventually Rome could just be ignored. Isn't 476 just the year when the western consulate was sent to Constantinople thereby just a formal removal of a theoretical superior though actual power already rested in the germanic tribes that had been brought in as mercenaries.

Just trying to remember from my Roman history classes, not too sure if this is off or not though.

I'm pretty sure that was more of a case of the central control flat out deteriorating and being incapable of keeping the provincial commanders and adminstrators in check. AFAIK the Acheamenid imperial adminstration was more or less configured for a rather high degree of autonomy on part of the satraps from the start, owing to the vast distances involved and the due difficulty of overland communications - nevermind thoroughly lousy geography further restricting the speed messages could travel with.

The Romans, conversely, had their empire centered around the Mediterranean (or "Mare Nostrum" as they unabashedly took to calling it), which made for a lot easier traffic and communications and thus allowed them to at least try a bit higher degree of central control.