a stronger, united greece vs philip?

If the Greeks were considerably united and stronger during 4th century BC, would Philip still be able to conquer Greece? If not, what would be the implications? Is it inevitable that Philip will eventually unify Greece, just taking a bit longer? Or possibly Alexander continues it, therefore spending most of his life subjugating Greece, therefore no Persian conquest?

I'm not good with POD's, so here's a couple. Which might be the most effective for the plausibility of defending against Macedonia?

-Kimon's pro-Spartan policy gains weight (The Spartans don't dismiss the Athenian contingent in helping quell the helots, causing no politcal scandal against Kimon plus a detente with Sparta).

In the Peloponnesian War:
-Battle of Mantineia is victorious for Athens, thus ending the War quickly (leaving Greece relatively unscathed, as compared to the extra years the Greeks endured OTL).

-Peace of Nicias lasts (probably ASB)

-After Sphacteria in 425BC, Athens accepts honourable peace offer (could be ASB because of hawkish Cleon, but i dunno, gets overthrown by the distanced aristocrats?)

-Perikles survives the plague, thus handling the War better/ending it quickly (I'm assuming he was a very able politician).

-Peloponnesian War is is wholly avoided (ASB? I dunno, but some scholars say this was possible, that the mishaps i.e. corcyrian affair and others could be prevented) through adherence of both parties to Thirty Years' Peace.


Aside from these I was thinking if the Greeks were more responsive to Philip's earlier actions, such as Phocis/Olynthus, but it was probably too late by then. Anyway with these POD's, with the aversion (or shortening) of general war meaning a much less impoverished Greece, is it possible to hold off against the rising Philip? How would that significantly affect the world then? A stronger Persia?
 
YAY! An Ancient Greek Discussion. It's certainly an interesting question.

Before I delve into PODs, though, let me question the premise just a bit. From a very high level, there are two sorts of reasons that help to explain Philip's rise and dominance over the rest of Aegean & Mainland Greece. First, as you acknowledge, the decline in power of Athens, Thebes, and Sparta. Sparta in particular is able to field smaller armies. Athens has no imperial tribute to build navy after navy. Thebes without Epaminondas is a shadow of itself. Moreoever, though, the decline of each one of these states' hegemonic abilities means that the Greek world is left without an organizing influence. I'll set this issue aside. Second, the Macedonian army and logistics system was far superior to the hoplite militia and mercenary armies of the Greek city states. This is the really hard part. Phillip's army included several things that made it very difficult for the other Greeks to beat: 1) an effective heavy calvary, 2) professionalism (only the Spartan elite could match it in terms of man-hours invested in training but not in the numbers of the Macedonians), and 3) superior logistics. Because of how closesly symbiotic hoplite militia and Greek city-states were, positing a POD that allows the creation of such a system before Philip is quite difficult. A united Greece probably does not do much to change or help this mis-match. Nevertheless, Philip's manipulation of interstate Greek politics and rivalries was an indispensible part of his rise to power. It's also the most maleable field for a potential POD.

Most of your PODs seem to focus on avoiding the Peloponnesian War and the fifty or so years of hegemonic wrestling that followed it. I agree that stopping the war could possibly avert some loss of wealth (and certainly of life), but there are problems. First, stopping the War won't stop the dynamic of hegemonic struggle. Here I refer to a scheme that would either see the war fizzle out earlier than it did or avoid it altogether. Ironically, IMO you could probably stop a lot more loss by allowing Sparta or Athens to win more definitively a fair amount sooner, without either needing to call on Persian aid or suffering the Stasis of 411 or the Thrity Tyrants. Nevertheless, such a power would still need to confront Thebes, Corinth, and Argos -- to say nothing of revolts and Persia. Secondly, a POD 50-100 years before the rise of Philip is going to change a lot (particularly the Macedonian situation which was the context of his reign in the first place).

To really get at the situation directly, I think you could go for a POD much later (though these will depend on your reading of 4th Century events, a far from certain field). For example, IMO, it's quite possible to have Athens avoid and/or win the Social War (i.e. Revolt) that errupted amongst the members of the 2nd Athenian League in 357. The surest path to accomplishing this is to allow Athens to take Amphipolis sometime in the 360s: firstly, this means that Athens won't be distracted by needing to take Amphipolis, which distracted it; secondly, Athens won't fail to deliver security to the members of the League (which makes them less likely to start taking umbrage at the fact that non-League Greek states are not treated well by Athens**); thirdly, Athens (and the League) will have the resources of Amphipolis (ship building stores and gold deposits) and Macedon won't.

Another possibility is the survival of Jason of Pherae, Tagus of Thessaly. OTL he was becoming quite powerful by 370, but his rise was cut short by his assassination. A significant factor playing to Jason's strength is his cavalry, meaning he will more easily be able to match Philip's heavy forces (which Athens by itself won't be able to). Ancient commentators portray Jason sometimes as the "Philip who might have been" -- spurred on by the fact that Isocrates wanted Jason to unite Greece in a crusade against Persia before he wanted Philip to do so. He showed himself an able diplomat and manipulator of the Greek state system. If he (and his successors) serve as a rival to Philip, then the other Greek states will more naturally form coalitions to add to the balance. And Jason and Philip can destroy each other.

In conclusion, IMO, a significant part of such a POD turns on the nature and future of the Greek city-states themselves in the mid-4th century. The progression from the Peloponnesian War to the Macedonian Conquest makes it pretty easy to argue for a "decline of the polis." Indeed, I wouldn't deny the existence of such a phenomenon. Poverty does seem to increase over the course of the 4th century, for example. However, I would argue that such a dynamic is a more or less natural result of first the growth of Spartan power (which isn't a typical polis) and later of Athenian power (which also isn't a typical polis). The polis was already changed enough that both states organized Leagues and crafted international strategy more or less divorced from the needs of an small-farm owning hoplite citizen class (see VD Hanson, The Other Greeks). All this means is that the polis and thus be changing, but it's not verly clear whether it's growing or dying...until Philip manages to conquer everything.

____________________
**This is where one's reading of history is very important. The standard line about the Social War of 357-55 is that it occurred because Athens was repeating the sins of its fifth century empire, which its allies/member state resented. I prefer Jack Cargill's interpretation (mostly) as explained in The Second Athenian League: Empire or Free Alliance?: that the war came and the allies revolted because Athens kept losing and thus failed to provide the kind of security and tangible benefits the allies were looking for in the first place (which was all the more necessary to demonstrate once Thebes defanged Sparta).
 
Or you could simply have Philip die early. he was just a man, after all, and being in the wrong place in the wrong time could kill him. Then all the rivalry and fight for hegemony that happened (OTL) after Alexander's death would happen much earlier, since Alexander would either be too young or not even born yet. Philip's empire would die stilborn, and the Greek
city-states would be safe.
 
You could set PODs in the 5th century, but I'm not fond of PODs that happen so early. There's just too many variables and what-ifs that can happen in 100 years. One, closer POD might be if the Athenian thalassacracy had more staying power, i.e., the 2nd league had teeth. This means that Conon, Iphicrates, and the other good Athenian military leaders have the trust of demos, and the demos are in full favor of renewed imperial adventure. The key is tributes; the 2nd league had only voluntary contributions and thus the 2nd empire was stillborn --and Demosthenes simply lacked the funds to finance his war against Macedon. Of course, this also entails a POD where Athens not only checkmates Thebes under Epaminondas, but also is able to militarily subjugate coastal cities. Most importantly, this entails that Athens is weaned off Persian gold fairly early. Difficult to accomplish these objectives, but not impossible. Athenian generals were nowhere as good as Epaminondas, but they didn't need to be, given the navy. What is crucial is for Athens to take coastal cities and start exacting tributes fairly early on, so that Athens could throw the King's Peace at the Great King's face and continue warring in Greece against Sparta, and against Persia and Thebes too if necessary. Again, these are difficult objectives to achieve, but not impossible, if both the demos and Conon (and the mercenary leaders) had shown more initiative and some of that old crass Alcibiadian imperial spirit. Enough avenues for tributes existed in the 4th century, even if Athens gave the Asia Minor to Persia (from the Black Sea, to the islands, to Euboea), that a 2nd empire was viable -- if the demos were willing to endure hardship and if Conon and co had more initiative and intelligence, in the trying times when the democracy was being reborn. If the empire is reborn and stable (at least until Phillip comes along), then Demosthenes would have an excellent weapon to use against Phillip and because of tributes, the demos (like during Periclean times) would be far more willing to shed blood and gold to stop Phillip from taking two of the juiciest fruits of the 2nd empire: Thrace and the Bosporus.
 
You could set PODs in the 5th century, but I'm not fond of PODs that happen so early. There's just too many variables and what-ifs that can happen in 100 years. One, closer POD might be if the Athenian thalassacracy had more staying power, i.e., the 2nd league had teeth. This means that Conon, Iphicrates, and the other good Athenian military leaders have the trust of demos, and the demos are in full favor of renewed imperial adventure. The key is tributes; the 2nd league had only voluntary contributions and thus the 2nd empire was stillborn --and Demosthenes simply lacked the funds to finance his war against Macedon. Of course, this also entails a POD where Athens not only checkmates Thebes under Epaminondas, but also is able to militarily subjugate coastal cities. Most importantly, this entails that Athens is weaned off Persian gold fairly early. Difficult to accomplish these objectives, but not impossible. Athenian generals were nowhere as good as Epaminondas, but they didn't need to be, given the navy. What is crucial is for Athens to take coastal cities and start exacting tributes fairly early on, so that Athens could throw the King's Peace at the Great King's face and continue warring in Greece against Sparta, and against Persia and Thebes too if necessary. Again, these are difficult objectives to achieve, but not impossible, if both the demos and Conon (and the mercenary leaders) had shown more initiative and some of that old crass Alcibiadian imperial spirit. Enough avenues for tributes existed in the 4th century, even if Athens gave the Asia Minor to Persia (from the Black Sea, to the islands, to Euboea), that a 2nd empire was viable -- if the demos were willing to endure hardship and if Conon and co had more initiative and intelligence, in the trying times when the democracy was being reborn. If the empire is reborn and stable (at least until Phillip comes along), then Demosthenes would have an excellent weapon to use against Phillip and because of tributes, the demos (like during Periclean times) would be far more willing to shed blood and gold to stop Phillip from taking two of the juiciest fruits of the 2nd empire: Thrace and the Bosporus.

Yes, but as you said, the Athenians were pretty much slow to react and reluctant to fight. It had to take several philippics just to convince the Greeks, and personally i felt even then that it was half-hearted. Indeed, they did lack the Periclean/Alcibadian spirit.

Most of your PODs seem to focus on avoiding the Peloponnesian War and the fifty or so years of hegemonic wrestling that followed it. I agree that stopping the war could possibly avert some loss of wealth (and certainly of life), but there are problems. First, stopping the War won't stop the dynamic of hegemonic struggle. Here I refer to a scheme that would either see the war fizzle out earlier than it did or avoid it altogether. Ironically, IMO you could probably stop a lot more loss by allowing Sparta or Athens to win more definitively a fair amount sooner, without either needing to call on Persian aid or suffering the Stasis of 411 or the Thrity Tyrants. Nevertheless, such a power would still need to confront Thebes, Corinth, and Argos -- to say nothing of revolts and Persia. Secondly, a POD 50-100 years before the rise of Philip is going to change a lot (particularly the Macedonian situation which was the context of his reign in the first place).

Yes I agree that ending the War sooner in someone's favor would be a more interesting situation. I can think of two ways, as i mentioned earlier: 1. Pericles doesn't die (I hope I'm not overestimating his capabilities, but many historians seem to suggest that they lost the War because they stopped following the Periclean strategy of naval dominance and refusal of aggressive action on land). As such, this would probably have an enormous effect on the way the rest of the war would be carried out, as his successors varied greatly in terms of their strategies. Possibly an earlier Athenian win then
2. Athenian victory in Mantineia, coalition is able to take Sparta

Personally, I prefer the former, since I'll admit I love a good ol' Peri-wank :p. Besides, it would be interesting to see how his policies are develop after the War, considering it finishes early in Athenian favor (possibly Mantineia is not butterflied away after death of Pericles? Or an "alternate" Mantineia battle happens with Athenian victory too?). I think it would be interesting to witness an Athenian hegemony over almost ALL of Greece, as finally, their longstanding rivals are finally out of the way, without anyone to pose an immediate dangerous threat, which I think was unprecedented.

Well, the Thebans could challenge them next, but a different war would happen between them than Thebes and Sparta; Athens would rely on its navy, so this would mitigate Epaminondas and Pelopidas' competence on land. Much more, Athens would have had more resources and been less exhausted than Sparta OTL after the Peloponnesian War, if we assume the latter ends rather quickly.

Then again, this would again weaken them, so it's back to square one with the city-states of Greece considerably weakened. Hmm... honestly I'm at a loss at how to figure out the both of them stop from going at each other's throats before Philip comes knocking on their doorstep. :( Possibly Demosthenes yet again recognizes Macedonians as the more dire threat, and focuses on solidifying an alliance with Thebes?
 
Top