What if Athens had won the Peloponnesian War?

TaylorS

When the war started The Delian League was already mutating into an Athenian Empire. An Athenian victory would result in a Greek great power several decades before the rise of Macedonia, and a Great Power with a democratic government.

Some possible butterflies:

1. No conquest of Persia. The Athenian Empire would probably grab some more territory in Asia Minor for it's Ionian vassals, though, as well as help any Anatolian satraps that revolt. Athens would quite likely help Egypt successfully revolt from Persia, too.

2. This will certainly affect the Italian Greeks, but I'm not sure how, exactly.

3. with no Persian Conquest there is no Bactrian Greek kingdom messing around in India. There will be no King Menander to ask questions from Buddhist monks.
 
Last edited:

Rex Romanum

Banned
If Athens won the Peloponnesian War, I could imagine Athens forced Greek city-states in Peloponnesia, Magna Graecia, and maybe even in Sicily and Black Sea coast as well, to join the Delian League.
More members means more treasuries, which the Athenians can use to expand their Army and Navy, thus ensuring Athens' hegemony over another Greek city-states.
However, the question is would the Delian League be able to stop Macedonian invasion?
If not, then the Macedonian conquest of Persia would still happen.
Another interesting possibility is that Athens giving citizenship to other Greeks (thus fully transforming the League into an Empire), resisting Macedonians and Persians altogether, then going into war with the Carthage and Roman Republic...
 

Lysandros Aikiedes

Rex Romanum said:
Another interesting possibility is that Athens giving citizenship to other Greeks (thus fully transforming the League into an Empire), resisting Macedonians and Persians altogether, then going into war with the Carthage and Roman Republic...
Click to expand...

I enquired a while ago about what political or legal processes would be needed in the Delian League to extend the enfranchisement of Athenian citizenship to allied Polistai and Metics.
 

Douglas

Rex Romanum said:
Wasn't the combined Phalanx-Companion Cavalry system of Macedonian army far better than Athenian Hoplite...?
Click to expand...

I think the point is that it's very questionable that the Macedonians would ever be in economic position to challenge a unified Greek Empire for dominance of the Aegean periphery. It was only after Athens and Sparta had both fallen from their heights of power and Thebes had rested on its laurels for a time that Macedon was able to defeat a spur-of-the-moment Greek army at Charonaea.
 

wolf_brother

Banned
The Persians would continue to attempt conquer the Greeks. A strong, unified Greece, with a strong navy, would probably be able to hold off, but eventually some type of counter-attack into Anatolia along the lines of what Alexander did would simply have to take place to weaken the Persia threat.
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
TaylorS said:
Agreed, It was the post-war squabbling that gave King Phillip the chance to impose his will on Greece.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand, how can Greeks (even if they were united) would be able to hold Macedonians with an inferior army...
I mean, look at the Persia, they were united under Achaemenids, but Alexander didn't have any serious problem conquering it with a far more superior army...
IMHO the stronger Delian League only give Phillip II a pretext to conquer Greek city-states at Black Sea coast, Magna Graecia, Anatolian coast, and Sicily...
Expanding the Macedonian power and influence even further...
 

TaylorS

Rex Romanum said:
I still don't understand, how can Greeks (even if they were united) would be able to hold Macedonians with an inferior army...
I mean, look at the Persia, they were united under Achaemenids, but Alexander didn't have any serious problem conquering it with a far more superior army...
IMHO the stronger Delian League only give Phillip II a pretext to conquer Greek city-states at Black Sea coast, Magna Graecia, Anatolian coast, and Sicily...
Expanding the Macedonian power and influence even further...
Click to expand...
Hmmm, when did Macedon's millitary differentiate itself from that of the rest of Greece? I thought it was a post-Peloponnesian War innovation. :confused:
 

TaylorS

mrmandias said:
Since this 'union' would be created and maintained by force, why would the other Greek cities not treat Macedon as a liberator?
Click to expand...
many of the city-states were emphatically NOT united in opinion at this time period. The populist, pro-democratic factions in the various cities were emphatically pro-Athens, while the aristocratic factions were just as strongly anti-Athens. During the war many cities erupted into internal class war, with the Populists calling in the Athenians and the Aristocrats calling in the Spartans.

Be aware that Thucydides, our main source on the time period, is an aristocrat himself and has a noticeable bias against Athens' democratic government. That is not to say Athens was not engaging in imperialistic arm-twisting, but one must keep aware of anti-populist spin by ancient sources demonizing Athens
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
TaylorS said:
Hmmm, when did Macedon's millitary differentiate itself from that of the rest of Greece? I thought it was a post-Peloponnesian War innovation. :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, Macedonian military innovation largely contributed by Phillip II, whose reign was decades after the end of Peloponnesian War.
Then the only chance for Athenian Empire is to invade and conquer Macedonia, immediately after Peloponnesian War was over...
Sounds interesting...
 

TaylorS

Rex Romanum said:
Well, yeah, Macedonian military innovation largely contributed by Phillip II, whose reign was decades after the end of Peloponnesian War.
Then the only chance for Athenian Empire is to invade and conquer Macedonia, immediately after Peloponnesian War was over...
Sounds interesting...
Click to expand...
the status of Macedon would probably depend on how badly the Spartans and their allies would have gotten their butts whooped by Athens, and thus by how much Athens fully dominates the area. Macedon could be a near parity rival, a client state, or anywhere in between depending on how exactly strong Athens is.
 

PaulPierce

TaylorS said:
2. This will certainly affect the Italian Greeks, but I'm not sure how, exactly.
Click to expand...

In OTL, Athen's Sicilian Expedition was a massive failure, and was a significant reason for their loss. If Athens is more successful in this endevor, we could possibly see a stronger greek hold on southern italy/sicily, which could butterfly away the Punic wars.
 

jkay

One thing that'd help Athens to survive better longterm and win the war in the first place would be to get it some governmental checks and balances, somehow.


Anaxagoras' right about Macedon not being a threat, I think. We're all taught in school about Alex the Great. But he just took excellent advantage of what his genius daddy, Philip II, gave him - the unification of Greece to fight Persia. Phil II DID very much take advantage of Greek disunity. I also think Philip II, or at least his evil-genius-inspiring nasty youth, would probably be butterflied away. If there were a Phil II, IMHO, he'd conquer the balkans using his Greek miltech advantage rather than go against the highest-tech and richest power that a unified Greece'd be.

I recommend reading Phil II of Macedon's wiki page. It's very interesting reading in its own right, and you'll come to understand my answer about Macedon better.
 

Mikestone8

Iirc, wasn't there apowerful Athenian ally up in those parts - a city called Olynthus?

Istr that for a time it controlled a lot of what later became Macedonian territory - including Pella, the capital in Philip's day. It was an ally of Athens so might have grown even bigger had Sparta not butted in and cut it down to size.

Toynbee did a what-if about it in his Study of History.
 

Rex Romanum

Banned
Alright then how about this:
- Athens won the Peloponnesian War, forcing Greeks in Peloponnesia, Magna Graecia, Black Sea coast, and Sicily to join Delian League (or more correctly, Athenian Empire)
- After some battles, Macedon and Epirus become client states
- Dispute of Sicily with Carthage and dispute of southern Italy with Rome make both cities to allying themselves and declared war to Athens
- While war continued, the Persians realizing how much problem that Athens have, declared war too
- Macedon, Epirus, and some Greek city states revolt
- Exhausted by four-fronts war, Athenian assembly sued for peace to Rome, Carthage, and Persia
- Carthage took Sicily, Rome took Magna Graecia, Persia took Anatolian coast, and both Macedon and Epirus regain their independence, while the Delian League was dissolved
How that sounds...?
 

Basileus Giorgios

Rex Romanum said:
Alright then how about this:
- Athens won the Peloponnesian War, forcing Greeks in Peloponnesia, Magna Graecia, Black Sea coast, and Sicily to join Delian League (or more correctly, Athenian Empire)
- After some battles, Macedon and Epirus become client states
- Dispute of Sicily with Carthage and dispute of southern Italy with Rome make both cities to allying themselves and declared war to Athens
- While war continued, the Persians realizing how much problem that Athens have, declared war too
- Macedon, Epirus, and some Greek city states revolt
- Exhausted by four-fronts war, Athenian assembly sued for peace to Rome, Carthage, and Persia
- Carthage took Sicily, Rome took Magna Graecia, Persia took Anatolian coast, and both Macedon and Epirus regain their independence, while the Delian League was dissolved
How that sounds...?
Click to expand...

Implausible, I'm afraid. Athens lacks the ability to impose herself fully upon Sicily and Magna Graecia, where, in any case, there are various Greek city states, notably Taras and Syracuse who are just as powerful and rich as a post war Athens would be. She can happily scrap with these states for influence in Magna Graecia, but for her to impose full Delian-league status on them is rather unlikely.

Macedon and Epirus as client states is very doable indeed, and is indeed desirable for Athens. If she can then bring the Macedonian heavy cavalry into her own forces and combine it with a traditional hoplite army, Athenian armed forces will be dangerous.

Rome isn't strong enough in c. 400BC to be much of a threat to Athens: remember she was still weak enough to be sacked by a rough and ready group of Gallic raiders in 390BC. Without the shame of that experience (probably butterflied by a POD thirty years or so earlier), Rome's development changes enormously, and there's a fair chance she could become another mercantial republic like Carthage rather than a fiercely martial city state.

War with Persia is likely to happen at some stage, but communications in this era aren't good enough for the Persians to be able to form and co-ordinate an alliance with Carthage, let alone the puny city state that Rome is at this point. The Achaemenid Empire is in any case dead on its feet for much of the fourth century BC, witness how easily it fell apart to Alexander, who did in a decade with a modestly sized army what it took hundreds of thousands of invaders nearly a century to do to the Western Roman Empire. The Achaemenids need to be "reforged" by a man of real ability, as they were under Darius, if they want any hope of long term survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top