AHC: Wank Athenian Power and Democracy

[John Fredrick Parker]

With no PoDs prior to the Peace of Nicias (421 BCE), how can Athens and the Delian League do as well as possible? And as a secondary challenge, how can Athenian style democracy be as widespread as possible among the polities of the Mediterranean world (in the latter fifth and fourth centuries BCE)? And given these changes, what does this "more democratic" world look like (over the next two centuries, let's say) compared to OTL?

One idea that's been discussed before (by @SlyDessertFox) is a Spartan defeat at Mantinea (in 418 BCE); there's also the ever discussed Sicilian Expedition (415-12); and there's also the Coup of 411 (of which I expect Athens would have fared better had it not happened). Any other ideas?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Athenians are still going to have the same problem that plagued them, and that is they treated the other members of the Delian League like subjects, not partners. This will always encourage revolt, and coalitions against them that powers outside the league would try to exploit. I'm not sure how you would get the Athenian Empire to reform significantly. Even the modest reforms in the Athenian Confederation that emerged in the mid-late 4th century were only really possible because Athens had learned from defeat that giving the other members of the league virtually no say would end badly. And yet they didn't learn enough, and the Athenian Confederacy disintegrated.

So let's assume you go with the victory at Mantinea. Spartan power is crushed, the Athenians encourage a Helot revolt, and the Spartans sue for peace, severely weakened by the war in a way they would not be until Leuctra IOTL. Athens still has Thebes and the Boeotian League to contend with egging on revolts in their empire and the Persians likely providing coin to encourage this as well, since any strong Greek state is not really in their interests. Unlike Sparta however, Athens certainly has the military, economic, and naval capabilities to maintain their hegemony, or to at least put up a significantly stronger resistance than the Spartans were ever capable of. So you won't see Athenian hegemony merely result in bowing at the feet of the Persian king to prop them up like the Spartans were forced to do. Athenian naval supremacy would still be intact, and in any case, on its own Thebes is not yet capable of posing any significant threat to the Athenians in a way they were when backed up by the Peloponnesian League.

Citizen armies will still decline, to be replaced with more effective professional mercenaries, who provide more campaigning flexibility (Mercenaries have no farms to return to, so it opens up more of the year for potential campaigning, for example). You're still likely to see significant threats to emerge from Thessaly like the Thessalian tyrants (think, Jason of Pherae) of OTL, though I imagine the Athenians would be much better positioned to intervene in Thessalian affairs than the Spartans were. The Thebans will have a lot of influence in this region like IOTL.

 

[Salvador79]

There was such a timeline last year, i think but I can't find it.

Including one's allies would be important, like @SlyDessertFox argued. Maybe Rome-style? Speaking of Rome, I don't see why citizen armies have to decline in Greece when they were what made Rome strong well into the 2nd century CE.

 

[Salvador79]

The effects can't be underestimated, like, I don't see a power-crazy king from Macedonia go on a conquering spree like Alexander if the powerful role model of the day are not Achaemenid kings of kings but Athenian democracy. And Alexander changed the way people looked at politics for two millennia, in places far away from Greece, too.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@SlyDessertFox So an Athenian-Spartan rivalry is succeeded by an Athenian-Thebean rivalry, correct? Would Thebes and their allies still evolve toward democracy, or would they remain bastions of Greek oligarchy? (Mind you, we all know being democratic and being an ally of Athens are not the same.) At any rate, the Achaemenids having to deal with unruly Greeks for longer has interesting implications as well, and if the Helles can stand against the Macedonians in the coming century, that would have massive implications in its own right, as @Salvador79 notices.

There was such a timeline last year, i think but I can't find it.

Is this what you're thinking of? I did check it out, and its a good TL, though an earlier PoD than what we're talking here.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

There was such a timeline last year, i think but I can't find it.

Including one's allies would be important, like @SlyDessertFox argued. Maybe Rome-style? Speaking of Rome, I don't see why citizen armies have to decline in Greece when they were what made Rome strong well into the 2nd century CE.

I'm not sure Athens would ever consider a mass arming of their subjects. That's a recipe for revolt. And in any case, they would be far more concerned with maintaining that manpower for naval warfare than land warfare.

 

[Salvador79]

@John Fredrick Parker
Yes, that was the one.

@SlyDessertFox
Naval power does make sense and is a very anti-oligarchic factor. I don't see why that would preclude an extension of Athenian citizenship or a different Type of confederacy? I didn't mean to take the analogy with Rome too literally, as in having the exact same military structure.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

@SlyDessertFox
Naval power does make sense and is a very anti-oligarchic factor. I don't see why that would preclude an extension of Athenian citizenship or a different Type of confederacy? I didn't mean to take the analogy with Rome too literally, as in having the exact same military structure.

In theory this is possible, but in practice this was never really considered. And another problem rests in the fact that there's considerably less flexibility available to enact sweeping changes in a city state than their is in a kingdom like Macedon if a king like Phillip felt so inclined.

 

[Salvador79]

In theory this is possible, but in practice this was never really considered. And another problem rests in the fact that there's considerably less flexibility available to enact sweeping changes in a city state than their is in a kingdom like Macedon if a king like Phillip felt so inclined.

Hence why it´s ALTERNATE history.
What, would you say, would have to change or happen for such reforms to happen still? I mean, it´s not like Athens hasn`t had reforms before...

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Hence why it´s ALTERNATE history.
What, would you say, would have to change or happen for such reforms to happen still? I mean, it´s not like Athens hasn`t had reforms before...

Right, I'm just not sure how possible it is. Greek city states were notoriously slow to respond to military innovations. Consider it wasn't really until a little under a century or so after Phillip and Alexander that Greeks began outfitting their armies with sarissa pikes and drilling them as Macedonian style phalangites. Aside from a shift towards more flexible peltasts during the Peloponnesian War as a way of countering inferiority in hoplites, the only major military innovations initiated in the Greek world were by Iphikrates. What's notable is he was able to do this precisely because he operated more or less on his own with mercenaries, which provided him with a flexibility to experiment with army composition and style. The same was true to an extent of the Thessalian tyrants who built their power off of mercenary armies.

You have to first figure out why the Greek cities were so slow to adopt a clearly superior fighting unit that they had fought against and lost to numerous times before you can figure out how to get them to adopt a system closer to Rome's. And I'm not entirely sure why that was the case myself.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

@SlyDessertFox So an Athenian-Spartan rivalry is succeeded by an Athenian-Thebean rivalry, correct? Would Thebes and their allies still evolve toward democracy, or would they remain bastions of Greek oligarchy? (Mind you, we all know being democratic and being an ally of Athens are not the same.) At any rate, the Achaemenids having to deal with unruly Greeks for longer has interesting implications as well, and if the Helles can stand against the Macedonians in the coming century, that would have massive implications in its own right, as @Salvador79 notices.

Not really sure. This area of ancient history isn't really my strongsuit. Macedon doesn't necessarily have to rise either-it took a lot for Macedon to even avoid ceasing to exist in the first half of the 4th century, and had Phillip not stitched everything together, it probably would have. I don't imagine Thebes would be inclined to move towards a more democratic form of government though, given the oligarchic faction is likely to heavily distrust any democratic elements.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Macedon doesn't necessarily have to rise either-it took a lot for Macedon to even avoid ceasing to exist in the first half of the 4th century, and had Phillip not stitched everything together, it probably would have.

Macedon just straight up collapsing in the early to mid 4th Century does sound like a fascinating and under-utilized area of AH potential; I take it this would be to the benefit of a Thebean dominated alliance of oligarchies?

And meanwhile, Athens is likely doing well at sea; speaking of which, how does this affect Magna Graecia? Do Italy and Sicily fall under Athenian influence? Would the democracy in Syracuse endure, or (ironically) will a more sucessful Sicilian Expedition prove its undoing?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Macedon just straight up collapsing in the early to mid 4th Century does sound like a fascinating and under-utilized area of AH potential; I take it this would be to the benefit of a Thebean dominated alliance of oligarchies?

Macedon collapsing does pose its own set of problems, in that it might put significantly more pressure on Greece from barbarian raids.

And meanwhile, Athens is likely doing well at sea; speaking of which, how does this affect Magna Graecia? Do Italy and Sicily fall under Athenian influence? Would the democracy in Syracuse endure, or (ironically) will a more sucessful Sicilian Expedition prove its undoing?

Athens probably can't maintain much influence in Magna Graecia. However, if you have either a successful siege of Syracuse, or avoid the siege alltogether, this probably significantly reduces Syracuse's own clout in the region. Enter Tarentum.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Macedon collapsing does pose its own set of problems, in that it might put significantly more pressure on Greece from barbarian raids.

Good point; then again, which Greece? Because I'd think that Thessaly would bear the brunt of these attacks, meaning the land locked oligarchies are going to have one more distraction to keep them from checking Athens.

Athens probably can't maintain much influence in Magna Graecia. However, if you have either a successful siege of Syracuse, or avoid the siege alltogether, this probably significantly reduces Syracuse's own clout in the region. Enter Tarentum.

Taranto sounds like an intersting polis, founded by Spartan bastards and with deep ties to the Peloponnesians, yet having, by this point, a democratic government (at least FWIG).

EDIT ADD: Now this could be interesting -- if we end up with a scenario where Tarentum is able to come to a dominant position in Southern Italy, could that be the basis for an alternate unification of the peninsula? Could we end up with a confederation of democratic Italian Greek colonies conquering northward instead of Rome (and her aristocratic allies) conquering southward?

 

[Riain]

You have to first figure out why the Greek cities were so slow to adopt a clearly superior fighting unit that they had fought against and lost to numerous times before you can figure out how to get them to adopt a system closer to Rome's. And I'm not entirely sure why that was the case myself.

Wasn't the fighting style tied up with land tenure and the income/status it generated and thus equipment a 'soldier' was expected to provide, a bit like the medieval era? A lot of people would have been or aspired to be Zeugitae-hoplites because it signified a certain level of wealth, power and status, so would be reluctant to give up this wealth and status because of a few defeats, especially if the defeats were far away from home and allowed a bit of social mobility as a result.

 

[Sersor]

Hi! You can check my Athenian ATL.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...hens-hegemony-atl.406460/page-7#post-13962559

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Tarentum doesnt really have the clout for that. Their height was in the first half of the 4th century and while an absence of Syracusan hegemony will provide them an opportunity to dominate the city states of Magna Graecia maybe in a revived Tarentine led Italiot League, there's still plenty of pitfalls to further expansion inland. The Italian groups of the region are quite capable of holding their own.

There also isnt much incentive. Unlike Rome, which derived is wealth and power based on land conquest, this is not tje case for the Magna Graecian cities, whose wealth derived from Mediterranean based trade. Tarentum at their height does have a much larger citizen manpower base than the mainland Greek cities-off the top of my head I think they were capable of fielding an army up to 25-40,000 men for a brief period of time. So there's potential there for expansion but it will be more along the lines of dominating Magna Graecia and what parts of Sicily they can get ahold of, and possibily the Greek colonies in Arcanania and the Adriatic coast.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@SlyDessertFox Very good points; it seems then that (the northern part of) Magna Graecia will not be able to unify the peninsula. But will they be strong enough to prevent the Romans (or any other non-Greeks) from doing so? And as a side note, would a Tarantian League be plausibly powerful enough to annex Ausone (or possibly even Aurunci and/or Samnite) territory? Enough to spook the Italics/Latins into binding closer together to defend against Greek aggression?

EDIT NOTE: Sorry, kept getting the Italic peoples mixed up.

CONSOLIDATE: So it seems that so far, in this alternate 4th Century BCE, we've got no rise of Macedon, no Roman unification of Italy, and the Helles being divided between Athens and Thebes (and democracy and oligarchy) in influence. For the Achaemenids, this sounds like a mixed bag -- on the one hand, Athens is still leading their coalition and isn't backing off the way Sparta did OTL; on the other, no rise of the Macedonian Empire can only be a good thing for them. Does Persian influence in the western empire still go into decline, and if so, do we get Egypt, et el, seceding?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

So it seems that so far, in this alternate 4th Century BCE, we've got no rise of Macedon, no Roman unification of Italy, and the Helles being divided between Athens and Thebes (and democracy and oligarchy) in influence. For the Achaemenids, this sounds like a mixed bag -- on the one hand, Athens is still leading their coalition and isn't backing off the way Sparta did OTL; on the other, no rise of the Macedonian Empire can only be a good thing for them. Does Persian influence in the western empire still go into decline, and if so, do we get Egypt, et el, seceding?

Well the Athenians will still be interested in supporting separatist groups (particularly in Egypt) in the Persian Empire as they did IOTL.

 

[Komnenos002]

Hi! You can check my Athenian ATL.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...hens-hegemony-atl.406460/page-7#post-13962559

That was a really fun read, was wondering where it had disappeared off to.