PoD: Athenians abandon Attica in 480

[Forum Lurker]

At the outbreak of the Persian Wars, the Athenian assembly publicly contemplated taking their entire nation and sailing to Magna Graecia (their colonies in southern Italy). What would be the results of this divergence? Key questions are:

A) What does this do to Roman expansion?

B) What does this do to Philip of Macedon?

C) What does this do to the Persian Empire?

 

[DMA]

I think you can forget about Philip of Macedon & a Roman Empire. The Persians will, at first conquer all of Greece, & then move into the rest of the Mediterranean including Italy.

So the Athenians, in their colonies, survive about 50 years until the Persians arrive in Italy & conquer them as well as everyone else in Italy. Whether the Romans, along with allies, can rebel & kick out the Persians, in a manner similar to what the Greeks did OTL, could be a possibility, but I doubt anything akin the Roman Empire will arise. Certainly there won't be an Alexandrian/Macedon Empire.

 

[Forum Lurker]

I've generally been given the impression that the Persian Empire was getting too big for unity before that point; the rebellion in Egypt during the war seems evidence for that argument, and I've been told that both Egypt and the Indian territories were generally quite rebellious. I don't think that the Persians would be able to hold onto Greece and Italy if they took them.

Perhaps a better route for the Persians, in the long run, is to make Greece a tributary state, possibly under the rule of Pausanius (who was accused after the war of collaborating with the Persians; perhaps in this ATL he betrayed the Corinthian fortifications in return for this rulership?). If they do this, and likewise with Macedon, and even Egypt, they'll have the income of those nations without the administrative nightmare that they had in OTL.

 

[DMA]

Well I don't think the Persians could hold onto Italy & Greece for ever either. Italy would probably be the first to revolt, but it'd probably take a decade or two before such a revolt would be successful. But considering the dates involved, say around 400bc, a whole lot of new powers come to the fore in Italy. As a result, Rome will miss the opportunity to become a major power as there will be strong power(s) already established.

As for Greece - whether it's occupied completely, or as you say a tributary state, you're not going to have Thebes grow in power & develop the phalanx, which is later copied & further developed by Macedonia. So no phalanx, no Philip conquring Greece. No Philip, no Alexandria. The rest follows.

You may even find that whoever kicks the Persians out of Italy, moves into Greece as conqurers & not liberators. So a Greeco-Roman civilisation may indeed arise, but it will only have similarities with the Roman & Alexandrian Empires. In substance it'll be very different. Furthermore, due to Persia's location, any Roman Empire may actually go east in the place of the OTL Macedonian-Alexandrian Empire. Western Europe, meanwhile, may have a Gaulic/Celtic Empire arise in the place of the OTL Western Roman Empire.

 

[Forum Lurker]

So, if the Persians do try for Italy, I'd say it's safe to say by 400 they'll have taken it, and by 350 not only all of Italy and Greece, but also Egypt and India, will be in full revolt. Split on three fronts, and never a strong naval power, they abandon everything west of the Hellespont after a decade or two of failing to suppress the rebellion.

Who, in Italy and Greece, will take up the mantle of empire? Or will Carthage take this opportunity to seize these lands for themselves?

 

[DMA]

So, if the Persians do try for Italy, I'd say it's safe to say by 400 they'll have taken it, and by 350 not only all of Italy and Greece, but also Egypt and India, will be in full revolt. Split on three fronts, and never a strong naval power, they abandon everything west of the Hellespont after a decade or two of failing to suppress the rebellion.

Yeah, all that sounds about right to me. But I think Greece won't be able to liberate itself. Instead it'll be conqured in turn by the Italian armies pursuing the Persians. Whether some arrangements take place where the numerous Greek states gain ally status is possible, but none will have the power that they enjoyed previously. Some may even be completely destroyed such as Sparta & Thebes. Certainly Macedonia won't be able to arise to establish it'\s OTL empire.

Who, in Italy and Greece, will take up the mantle of empire? Or will Carthage take this opportunity to seize these lands for themselves?

It'll be whoever arises to power in Italy. It may be the transplated Athens (& Italian allies) as they would still have their powerful navy, whilst it's army wasn't too bad either. Furthermore, if it is Athens (& allies), well forget Carthage filling any power vacumn as Athen's navy will defeat anything Carthage puts to sea.

 

[Forum Lurker]

The survival of an Athenian nation would require that the Persians never make it to southern Italy. If they do, they'll sack New Athens as thoroughly as they did Athens in OTL, and this time with the Athenians inside.

In another thread contemplating a no-Romans ATL, the idea of the Samnites becoming a major power was mentioned. Given that, as a hill people, they'd have suffered much less than the Etrurians and Latins, that seems like a distinct possibility, but I'll want to do some actual research before giving that idea the go-ahead.

 

[DMA]

The survival of an Athenian nation would require that the Persians never make it to southern Italy. If they do, they'll sack New Athens as thoroughly as they did Athens in OTL, and this time with the Athenians inside.

Maybe so, but Athens has its navy. So, as Athens did OTL, the New Athens citizens take refuge on some island or even on Sicily, whre the Athens people have numerous cities who could taken them in. Meanwhile the Athens fleet keeps the island safe & they can plan the liberation of Italy.

In another thread contemplating a no-Romans ATL, the idea of the Samnites becoming a major power was mentioned. Given that, as a hill people, they'd have suffered much less than the Etrurians and Latins, that seems like a distinct possibility, but I'll want to do some actual research before giving that idea the go-ahead.

That could be possible. Just as possible is that an Italian league is organised between several peoples. So have Samnites, Etrustans, Latins, New Athens, & whoever else is still around, come together to counter-attack the Persian occupation in Italy. In turn, this league turns into the Italians. In turn, they develop into an empire covering Italy, Greece & onwards into the Middle East.

 

[Historico]

Magna Greecia now finding and strong leader in New Athens, would propbably fall under the Athenians. They would most likely assimlate the Samnites(Latin Hill Peoples who were heavily influenced by the greeks in OTL). Around 400 BCE, They would probably wage war agaisnt Rome and it's Latin Allies.

Rome is hit from the South and the North from the Greecians and Etruscans who raze the city to the ground and sale the population into slavery. Meanwhile, Carthage's Power Steadily growing catches the eye of the Persian Satrap of Greece, begin to wage an exhausting war with Carthage.

The Greecians prevail against the Etruscans and expand into Iberia, harnessing it rich potential. The Greecian Empire becomes formidable as the Persians around 350 BCE, and are ruled by an Democracy.

 

[JHPier]

Magna Greecia now finding and strong leader in New Athens, would propbably fall under the Athenians.

Magna Graecia already had a strong leader in the shape of Syracuse which in 480 had just decisively thrashed the Carthaginians at Himera. Expect a long-drawn out struggle between New Athens (somewhere in Southern Italy, the site of Sybaris?) and Syracuse

They would most likely assimlate the Samnites(Latin Hill Peoples who were heavily influenced by the greeks in OTL). Around 400 BCE, They would probably wage war agaisnt Rome and it's Latin Allies.

Not Latin but Oscan a.k.a. Umbro-Sabellian. And the Oscans main drive was against the Greeks of southern Italy and against the Campanians. They will bother New Athens and its allies far more than Rome.

Rome is hit from the South and the North from the Greecians and Etruscans who raze the city to the ground and sale the population into slavery. Meanwhile, Carthage's Power Steadily growing catches the eye of the Persian Satrap of Greece, begin to wage an exhausting war with Carthage..

Neither Greeks nor Etruscans had that much ethnic solidarity. And the Etruscans were apt to regard Rome as a peculiar kind of Etruscan city. It long was a firm ally of Etruscan Caere against equally Etruscan Tarquinia. Carthage and Persia were allies. With the Greeks of Magna Graecia still in the way they have every reason to stay that.

Greeks believed in direct democracy which is impossible in an Empire. They were in any case too wedded to the idea of the city-state to ever have a lasting Empire.

 

[JHPier]

Furthermore, if it is Athens (& allies), well forget Carthage filling any power vacumn as Athen's navy will defeat anything Carthage puts to sea.

Would it? The Carthaginians had a powerful fleet of their own and for rather longer than Athens (which translates as better-trained ship-against-ship than the Athenians). Plus they can call on the help of the Phoenicians within the Persian Empire. After all in 480 they attacked the Sicilian Greeks in conjunction with the Persian attack on Greece.

 

[Forum Lurker]

Suppose the Athenians, in order to maximize the usefulness of their navy, land in Sicily. A long series of skirmishes arises with Syracuse, which for several decades is fairly inconclusive. The Athenians make tentative overtures of friendship towards the Roman Republic, as the Athenians took their democratic rule very seriously (in OTL, they would have installed democratic regimes in many of their conquered foes or subjugated allies; it seems reasonable that they would ally with a somewhat democratic city for this reason). When the Persians invade from the north, beginning to shatter the Etrurian states, the Athenians make an offer: they will evacuate the Romans to Corsica, as the Athenians themselves fled to Sicily. After a stunning defeat at the hands of the Persians, the Romans accept.

When, a decade or so later, the Helots revolt in the Peloponnesus, followed swiftly by the Samians, Lesbians, and then the rest of the Greeks, the Athenians and Romans cooperate to retake the Italian mainland. Over the course of the next half-century, the combination of Roman and Athenian power manages to overcome Syracuse and the rest of the Greek cities of southern Italy; during this time the two nations have been growing closer together in culture and governance, though there's still considerable distinction. It is not yet time for Athens and Rome to be one and the same nation.

EDIT: The question will arise "What was Carthage doing?" I'd expect the answer to be that they were making further inroads in Iberia, and possibly spreading eastwards towards Egypt, as it's been made clear that the Persians can't hold onto it any longer.

 

[DMA]

Would it? The Carthaginians had a powerful fleet of their own and for rather longer than Athens (which translates as better-trained ship-against-ship than the Athenians). Plus they can call on the help of the Phoenicians within the Persian Empire. After all in 480 they attacked the Sicilian Greeks in conjunction with the Persian attack on Greece.

Well the Persian fleet didn't fair too well against the Athenians - so much for the Phoenicians. Nor did anyone else's navy, although to be fair the Athenian's had a couple of setbacks during the Peloponnesian War. But I'd highly doubt, with the Athenian fleet at it's best, that any one could defeat it.

 

[DMA]

Suppose the Athenians, in order to maximize the usefulness of their navy, land in Sicily. A long series of skirmishes arises with Syracuse, which for several decades is fairly inconclusive. The Athenians make tentative overtures of friendship towards the Roman Republic, as the Athenians took their democratic rule very seriously (in OTL, they would have installed democratic regimes in many of their conquered foes or subjugated allies; it seems reasonable that they would ally with a somewhat democratic city for this reason). When the Persians invade from the north, beginning to shatter the Etrurian states, the Athenians make an offer: they will evacuate the Romans to Corsica, as the Athenians themselves fled to Sicily. After a stunning defeat at the hands of the Persians, the Romans accept.

When, a decade or so later, the Helots revolt in the Peloponnesus, followed swiftly by the Samians, Lesbians, and then the rest of the Greeks, the Athenians and Romans cooperate to retake the Italian mainland. Over the course of the next half-century, the combination of Roman and Athenian power manages to overcome Syracuse and the rest of the Greek cities of southern Italy; during this time the two nations have been growing closer together in culture and governance, though there's still considerable distinction. It is not yet time for Athens and Rome to be one and the same nation.

EDIT: The question will arise "What was Carthage doing?" I'd expect the answer to be that they were making further inroads in Iberia, and possibly spreading eastwards towards Egypt, as it's been made clear that the Persians can't hold onto it any longer.

Yeah I can go along with what's you've said here. I don't, however, hold much hope for the Greek revolts though, especially if cities such as Sparta & Thebes have been crushed during the occupation. So I still see the Persians being kicked out of Greece by this Roman-Athenian league, which inturn occupies Greece for itself. Afterall, even though the Delian League was supposed to be a group of like mind democratic states lead by Athens, it was in reality a empire in all but name. I'd say something similar would take place here under the Roman-Athenian League.

I do wonder though if the dates are a bit too early for Rome to be able to conduct its part in such an alliance?

 

[Forum Lurker]

Athens alone against Carthage is probably a losing proposition. Carthage simply has much more access to timber, the money to make timber into ships, and the people to make ships go than does Athens-in-exile, and the only way the Athenians beat the Persians' greater numbers relied on the straits at Salamis, far narrower than anything comparable at Sicily.

If, as I mentioned above, the Athenians and Romans ally, Carthage goes down. Between Athenian nautical skill and the resources of the Italic Peninsula, they're overmatched enough that there will likely be only one Punic War needed.

 

[Hierophant]

What if upon arriving in Magna Graecia to a hostile greeting from Syracuse, the Athenians continue on settling in someother part of the Med. Maybe Sardinia or better yet on the coast of southern france on the Rhone.

 

[Forum Lurker]

Yeah I can go along with what's you've said here. I don't, however, hold much hope for the Greek revolts though, especially if cities such as Sparta & Thebes have been crushed during the occupation. So I still see the Persians being kicked out of Greece by this Roman-Athenian league, which inturn occupies Greece for itself. Afterall, even though the Delian League was supposed to be a group of like mind democratic states lead by Athens, it was in reality a empire in all but name. I'd say something similar would take place here under the Roman-Athenian League.

I do wonder though if the dates are a bit too early for Rome to be able to conduct its part in such an alliance?

The Greek revolts don't succeed because they beat the Persians on any battlefield; they can't. Instead, it's a guerilla war throughout the entire peninsula, which stacks with the rebellions constantly going on in Egypt and India. The Persians don't lose any battles, but they realize that they can't afford to keep fighting the war and go home (after sacking enough Greek cities to pay for their losses many times over, and to ensure that the Greeks don't chase after them too quickly).

Rome certainly isn't going to be a major factor prior to the retaking of Italy; after that retaking, it will be able to match Athens while the Athenians are occupied with beating down Syracuse. After that point, they'll start growing into something more resembling a federation than two separate allied states.

 

[Forum Lurker]

What if upon arriving in Magna Graecia to a hostile greeting from Syracuse, the Athenians continue on settling in someother part of the Med. Maybe Sardinia or better yet on the coast of southern france on the Rhone.

I like the Syracusan option better; aside the fact that it's the publicly stated plan, it creates a more interesting result than a Rhone landing, which likely leads to the elimination of Rome or Athens entirely.

 

[Historico]

What would Greece under the Persian King be like? I mean...The Athenians couldn't possibly take all of the Greek Sciences and Acheivments from Attica to Magna Greecia. Also What would the Eastern Middle East be like, never expiercencing and Hellinazation Period? Could Persia break up into smaller Feudal States?

What about Greek Expansion...Into France...To gain territory for their Greek allly of Masseiles? Could and Would the Gauls be willingly Hellinized into an Northern Greek Sphere?


Would The Athenians, abandon Democracy all together or come up with something similar to OTL US Government in Italy and their Territories? What about and Athenian/Syracusan Allaince against Carthage? How would take the Power Vaccum left in North Africa? Or would the Carthaginans move southward to the Rich African West Coast and establish an Powerful Colony themselves?

 

[Forum Lurker]

Greece wouldn't be under the Persians very long. Their loss to the Greeks in OTL was a sign that they were stretching farther than their logistic technology supported; in this ATL, it's the simultaneous insurrections in Greece, Egypt, and India that convinces them of this, but with much less loss of power in Persia proper. Persia will probably not break up until some outside force causes this; that might be anything from a Graeco-Roman invasion to a sudden onslaught of Bedouins, driven out of Arabia by an Ethiopia somehow empowered by a butterfly effect. It'll take a bit of time before we can see.

As far as Greek culture and philosophy, it'll be very, very changed from OTL. How, precisely, will depend on who the Graeco-Romans conquer, to whom they lose, and which elements of their society are favoured by the alliance. Likewise, the only certain thing about their governance is that it will be quite different.