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?