AHC: Wank Athenian Power and Democracy

For one, its military system is just not that great compared Spartan, Macedonian, Persian, and Roman models of professional or at least trained armies; Greek soldiers generally rejected the concept of military discipline, and in democracies, would hold commanders to account for 'abuses' on campaign. Athens had a large population to draw on, but it would need major reforms to make the most of it.

I would go strongly against the idea that the Spartan model is in any way something to be immitated. Yes they made splendid hoplites but a terrible coast: they had pretty much no commerce to speak off and their economy was completely dependant on the Hilotes, forcing them to spend their down keeping down a population six time their size who hated their guts. In fact, such was their fear of the Hilotes that they where supremely and famously hesitant to even use their army outside of the Peloponese.

Their over specialisation also pretty much made them ditz in all other aspects of warfare such as siegecraft, naval warfare (the fleets where supplied by revolted athenian allies during the last phase of the Peloponesian war and strategy, appart from the od ones like Brasidas and Lysander.

Finally, they where also extremely vulnerable to even small looses among their Homoios population (the actual spartan citizens and the hoplites who made the legend, the rest of their army was average, including the Periocois). Athens could have easily srughed off, and did, a defeat like the ones Sparta suffered at Sphacteria with 500 hoplites captured. For Sparta, however, it almost destroyed her and had she not been lucky at Mantinea it might very well have. When she was facing with an actual large scale disaster in the aftermath of Leuctra she was done for as a power of significance in Greece. Athens, on the other hand, was able to take similar blows four or five time before being truly K.O.

Sparta was lucky on an almust painfully ridiculous level during the Peloponesian war. She had the plague, the Argives snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at Mantinea, the Sicily expedition, Alcibiades pretty much spelling out to them out to win to supply for their lack of strategic intelligence and the Persian and the revolted athenian allies making most of the job for them. Getting even one of these factors out could have changed the outcome drastically. Having things being more balanced would have resulted in Athens breaking Sparta piece by piece.

As for the greater pictures, I believe its usefull to note that Golden Age Athens actually fought Persia one on one and was winning, solidly, and that even with the plague Persia didn't dare trying to take advantage of the war, such was its fear-respect for Athens possibility and that she needed the Sicily expedition for that.
 
I think there are two big changes Athens could make to change things in their favour, and a third consolidates it.

Decentralise, early introduction of the Sarissa (which I don't see as too hard), and a standing army.

Phalangites were pretty epic, not on their own, but as a way to dominate the battlefield, hard to beat. Sure, siege equipment and other techs would be good too, but if you can out-reach the Spartans, you're on to a winner.

A standing army means that post victory, there is always a force ready to go - which means that you don't get a yo-yo effect whenever a war comes around. Plus, retirees from said force should be loyal to the ideas of the 'League'. Everyone has to contribute a fixed number of men for it at all times, and funding. They then get deployed. This is smaller, but permenant, so as to prevent "War happened, and now the economy has crashed/nothing is getting done" situations.

But decentralisation is the key - rather than have all of the cities tied to Athens (my main understanding), group them.

Ionia under one city, the Black Sea city states under Byzanton, Attica & the Cyclades under Athens, etc. Then have THOSE cities orchestrate local unity, and handle representation of the group. Plus, if those cities get the backing of the standing army (with recruits from elsewhere), they have some proper bite.
 
But decentralisation is the key - rather than have all of the cities tied to Athens (my main understanding), group them.

Ionia under one city, the Black Sea city states under Byzanton, Attica & the Cyclades under Athens, etc. Then have THOSE cities orchestrate local unity, and handle representation of the group.
Earlier in the discussion, we came across the idea of Sicily under Syracusian leadership (possibly managing to keep the Carthaginians at bay) and southern Italy being bound together by Taranto. Does anyone have thoughts about how the greek colonies in Spain might fare differently (e.g. might Phoenician expansion be curbed there as well)? If the Delian League is decentralizing in the east, does that mean this decentralized power have a fair chance of expanding west?
 
Earlier in the discussion, we came across the idea of Sicily under Syracusian leadership (possibly managing to keep the Carthaginians at bay) and southern Italy being bound together by Taranto. Does anyone have thoughts about how the greek colonies in Spain might fare differently (e.g. might Phoenician expansion be curbed there as well)? If the Delian League is decentralizing in the east, does that mean this decentralized power have a fair chance of expanding west?

I missed that bit on Sicily, but I'd agree.

I think it might still be able to face off Carthage and Phoenicia. For most of the Easterners there isn't really a concern. Sicily might freak out, as might Magna Grecia. They'd be outvoted but given the bulk of the standing forces, and then any required levies in that situation.

But in the far west, I think we might see a shift in behaviour. If there is one 'leader city', then you might see less city states, and more small kingdoms centred around them, with the idea of defence of the entire region as a whole from the offset (that might betray a misunderstanding of the development of city states on my part). Instead, I think you'd see a larger city, with some larger towns built around defensive forts at appropriate natural borders, and then lots (and I mean lots) of small towns that aren't fortified beyond a palisade because... well... the forts.
 
I would go strongly against the idea that the Spartan model is in any way something to be immitated. Yes they made splendid hoplites but a terrible coast: they had pretty much no commerce to speak off and their economy was completely dependant on the Hilotes, forcing them to spend their down keeping down a population six time their size who hated their guts. In fact, such was their fear of the Hilotes that they where supremely and famously hesitant to even use their army outside of the Peloponese.

...

As for the greater pictures, I believe its usefull to note that Golden Age Athens actually fought Persia one on one and was winning, solidly, and that even with the plague Persia didn't dare trying to take advantage of the war, such was its fear-respect for Athens possibility and that she needed the Sicily expedition for that.
Briefly,

Most Greek city states, not just Sparta, were reliant on a large slave class that would rather not be slaves, including Athens. Both sides sought to liberate each others' slave populations during the Peloponnesian War; the difference was that the Spartans took advantage of this class to allow their citizens to train for war, while the Athenian leisure class used their time for idle vices. The Athenian advantage was that they didn't have arbitrary rules preventing people with the requisite property from becoming a part of the citizenship body, and the related problem of constant fragmentation of property through equal inheritance. Also, that when helpless at the end of the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans didn't take the opportunity to destroy their old rival once and for all.

While they didn't have the citizen population to fight Athens one on one, Spartan military professionalism made them excellent at the top of an alliance; their MO was to deploy 30 citizen officers to train and command armies made up of allies, mercenaries, and non-citizens. Actually being able to maneuver during combat gave Spartan led forces a major tactical advantage, and unitary command was much more efficient than leadership by a board of generals. Simply being a larger city, Athens could often afford these suboptimal uses of resources, but from a strategic POV, the prospect of their untrained citizen levies constantly facing Persia-financed coalition armies with superior discipline and leadership was unenviable.

Furthermore, Athens was reliant on grain imported either through the Bosporan straits or from Sicily; the Persians can easily threaten the former, and the strategic problems with the latter option are well known. Persian funding, strategy, and threats of intervention were enough to turn the Corinthian War around; after funding a coalition to defeat Sparta, the King turning around forced the Athenians to surrender the Ionian cities they'd fought so hard and so long for. Athens would need a decidedly superior military system to hold all of Greece in permanent subjugation and an Alexander who could take the war deep into Anatolia to get a more than temporary respire from foreign meddling in Greek affairs. They would have to overcome significant cultural hurdles to accomplish this, though.
 
Man, you're lucky. You get lots of people to help you, but I don't have that kind of luck and I'm a bit stalled for ideas.
 
Briefly,

Most Greek city states, not just Sparta, were reliant on a large slave class that would rather not be slaves, including Athens. Both sides sought to liberate each others' slave populations during the Peloponnesian War; the difference was that the Spartans took advantage of this class to allow their citizens to train for war, while the Athenian leisure class used their time for idle vices. The Athenian advantage was that they didn't have arbitrary rules preventing people with the requisite property from becoming a part of the citizenship body, and the related problem of constant fragmentation of property through equal inheritance. Also, that when helpless at the end of the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans didn't take the opportunity to destroy their old rival once and for all.

While they didn't have the citizen population to fight Athens one on one, Spartan military professionalism made them excellent at the top of an alliance; their MO was to deploy 30 citizen officers to train and command armies made up of allies, mercenaries, and non-citizens. Actually being able to maneuver during combat gave Spartan led forces a major tactical advantage, and unitary command was much more efficient than leadership by a board of generals. Simply being a larger city, Athens could often afford these suboptimal uses of resources, but from a strategic POV, the prospect of their untrained citizen levies constantly facing Persia-financed coalition armies with superior discipline and leadership was unenviable.

Furthermore, Athens was reliant on grain imported either through the Bosporan straits or from Sicily; the Persians can easily threaten the former, and the strategic problems with the latter option are well known. Persian funding, strategy, and threats of intervention were enough to turn the Corinthian War around; after funding a coalition to defeat Sparta, the King turning around forced the Athenians to surrender the Ionian cities they'd fought so hard and so long for. Athens would need a decidedly superior military system to hold all of Greece in permanent subjugation and an Alexander who could take the war deep into Anatolia to get a more than temporary respire from foreign meddling in Greek affairs. They would have to overcome significant cultural hurdles to accomplish this, though.

Equally briefly

Any comparaison with slavery in most of Greece and Spartan hilotes is flawed to a very high degree. Athens and other greek cities slaves population where minorities, at most maybe half of the population. The Hilotes utterly outnumbered the Laconians and, unlike slave population in other greek cities, where actually culturally united as most of them where Messenians and lived in Messania, therefore far more of a problem and far more able to revolt. They're was no large scale slave revolts in Athens and she never feared to send her fleet to the rest of the world by fear of it. Sparta had to face very serious Hilotes revolts and the fear of further risings by them collored Spartan strategical toughts straight up to the point when Epaminondas liberated Messenia.

One also need to take into account the fact that many episodes of spartan history (such as Cinadon conspiracy) show that the fidelity of the Periocois to Sparta was rather tepid while the Metics of Athens where generally faithfull, as shown by the fact that many of them participated and-or financed Thrasybulus campaign to restore democracy and that in all probability a good chunk of the rowers of the athenian fleet came from their ranks.

Sparta did produce splendid hoplites, and good tacticians, but Brasideis and Lysander are pretty much the only two strategist to show any competence we know off and their strenght on classical hoplites battle was at least partially upseted by their uther weakness in siege warfare and at sea. As for Sparta sparing Athens it wasn't a decision made from the goodness but their hearts but a balance of power move to prevent the Thebans to became too powerfull (not that it worked). Sparta had similar ''luck'' when the Athenians saved her by building anti-theban coalition by fear of Epaminondas. All and all Athens had a better overall military package then Sparta from the moment she assumed leadership of the Delian League to Aigos Potami.

Athens reliance on grain what her achille hell but it was still far less problematic then spartan reliance on Messenian helot labour. It took the Sicily expedition, massive revolts, persian participation (by no mean acquired automaticaly or guarantee to last) and Aegospotami to close the straits, Leuctra was enough to end Sparta. As noted above, the idea that Persia could just organise coalitions for year on out is also very problematic: Athens managed to gave her tremendous dificulties during the War of the Delian League, despite fighting a war in Greece simultaneously for a while. Persia was understandably warry of what a second round would bring. It took the plague and the Sicilian expedition as well as a general revolt from Athens allies to have Persia dare to move once more.

Of course, by the point of the Corinthian war Athens was allot more vulnerable and Persia allot more bold but thats like arguing 1900 Britain couldn't have done something just because 1950 Britain wasn't able too: Pre-Peloponesian war Athens and post-Peloponesian war Athens where quite different beasts.

To all this one need to add the sheer downward spirals of Spartan demography, very much due to their military and political system. Sheer attrition grinded on their homoios population, the famous hoplites who where the base of their power and the only denizens they could really relly on. At Platea they mustered 5 000 of them, at Mantinea 3000-3500 and at Leuctra 1200-1500. With that kind of stats it was a question of time before the house of cards came crashing down.
 
Last edited:
So a more general thought -- does all this rampant radical democracy among the Greeks across the Mediterranean have any "cross over" effect on non-Greek populations they come into regular contact with (e.g. the Iberians by way of colonies in Spain, the Latins by way of conflict with the Tarantian League, Egypt by way of Naucratis, etc)?

And building on this -- we've already discussed why TTL is unlikely to see a Macedonian Empire, or a Roman Empire; so with all these democratic cities flourishing and dominated the Mare Nostrum, what are the prospects of any empires emerging in the next couple of centuries or so?
 
Last edited:
And building on this -- we've already discussed why TTL is unlikely to see a Macedonian Empire, or a Roman Empire; so with all these democratic cities flourishing and dominated the Mare Nostrum, what are the prospects of any empires emerging in the next couple of centuries or so?

Well, Athens has created an Empire - or at least, is the major power in the continent. Other groups will organise in opposition. Carthage rising to dominate the Phoenecians in the West is likely to accelerate, simply through neccessity, and Italia isn't about to suddenly become Athenian just because.

So not only is it going to lead to other groups forming states that could later become Empires, but also, you have the problem that this system will likely lead to slower reactions - and as such local strongmen are going to be able to pull a Barca, and use Republican resources to dominate the local area. I.e. One of the leading cities in Spain may well elect itself a (for all intents and purposes) an Emperor of Spain.

You've got Gauls, you've got Germanians, heck, with more settlement, you may well create a leading Briton power emerging and uniting the isles and starting their own Empire.

But in a short time frame like 1/2 centuries? Athenian Fracture Empires, and maybe, Thrace.
 
Re the Greek colony cities in Egypt:
In theory they were based on the assemblies of Athens but in practice they were represented by the nobles.
So, like Rome then... :winkytongue:
What it was is that, while 'democracy' of a sort spread rapidly after the 5th century, becoming by the Hellenistic era probably the dominant form of city-government, citizenship requirements everywhere tightened up and cities stopped being 'states' unto themselves. People of a class similar to the statutory status of classical Athenian metis became demographically dominant, no matter how long they lived in the city.
This brings up an interesting prospect -- could TTL see *more democratic* greek cities in Egypt coming together and forming a sort of semi-legislature to advise/check the Pharaoh, in effect creating a quasi-constitutional *republican* government? Or is that just getting too crazy?
 
Re the Greek colony cities in Egypt:

This brings up an interesting prospect -- could TTL see *more democratic* greek cities in Egypt coming together and forming a sort of semi-legislature to advise/check the Pharaoh, in effect creating a quasi-constitutional *republican* government? Or is that just getting too crazy?

If that happened, any there was too much communication with Athens, I can fully expect Egypt to freak out, leading all but Naucratis being burnt.

In any case, borderline war. - which.... I'm not sure who would win if Athens got involved. In an Athenian victory - I think they'd play for control of parts of the Delta, and more cities in Egypt. If Egypt won - the Greeks that would be welcome in Egypt amount to those who can train the Egyptian army.
 
If that happened, any there was too much communication with Athens, I can fully expect Egypt to freak out, leading all but Naucratis being burnt.
It kind of depends on who "Egypt" is in this scenario though, doesn't it? Remember, TTL's Egypt is one that has thrown out the Achaemenids with a lot of Greek help, likely including Greek *mercenaries* making up a large part of their armed forces, and that's not even mentioning their alliance with Athens, whose navy is likely crucial to keeping the Persians out. So a smart Pharoh who prioritizes independence would look to reach an accommodation with these increasingly democratic cities in his jurisdiction, hence my *constitutional government* idea. That said, there will be very powerful vested interests in Egypt opposed to this, who in this scenario are likely to look for reconcilliation with, or even reabsorption into, the Achaemenid Empire.

Thus you get two factions across the country -- an urban focused, *democratic* faction looking to tie closer to Greek allies; and a conservative faction more friendly to their former Persian overlords. Could be very intersting...
 
It kind of depends on who "Egypt" is in this scenario though, doesn't it? Remember, TTL's Egypt is one that has thrown out the Achaemenids with a lot of Greek help, likely including Greek *mercenaries* making up a large part of their armed forces, and that's not even mentioning their alliance with Athens, whose navy is likely crucial to keeping the Persians out. So a smart Pharoh who prioritizes independence would look to reach an accommodation with these increasingly democratic cities in his jurisdiction, hence my *constitutional government* idea. That said, there will be very powerful vested interests in Egypt opposed to this, who in this scenario are likely to look for reconcilliation with, or even reabsorption into, the Achaemenid Empire.

Thus you get two factions across the country -- an urban focused, *democratic* faction looking to tie closer to Greek allies; and a conservative faction more friendly to their former Persian overlords. Could be very intersting...

That relies on pro-Greek independancy types. If the Greeks were simply a useful ally, then the idea of ATHENIAN domination would be unpalatable.

However, I could see an ultimatum scenario. Pharaoh essentially demanding the Greek Cities report to him directly, but retain their democracies, or face expulsion.

As you said, the Greek are useful. Not worth risking Athenian overlordship. (Not that the idea is that sensible, but Pharoah may be rightfully paranoid)
 
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.

Yeah, exactly. And it's hard to see them not throwing away the goodwill they'd acquired by being self-serving, either. Even if someone persuaded them to think bigger picture, that lasts only as long as that particular person is in favour. Whereas the appeal to individual gain will always be there, waiting to win the day. The Athenians of this time did have some brilliantly evolved mechanisms for overcoming some of the issues with direct representation, but none of them were built to handle the divergent needs of non-Athenians.
 
@RogueTraderEnthusiast If our hypothetical Pharoh is really smart, he'll find a way to use the democratic nature of these cities to push back against Athenian domination; after all, as plenty of OTL examples show, being a democracy is no guarantee that a polis will acquiesence to getting pushed around, as Athens was want to do.
 
@RogueTraderEnthusiast If our hypothetical Pharoh is really smart, he'll find a way to use the democratic nature of these cities to push back against Athenian domination; after all, as plenty of OTL examples show, being a democracy is no guarantee that a polis will acquiesence to getting pushed around, as Athens was want to do.

Fair point. But Pharaoh may not be quite adept to exploit democracies. Divine Monarch & Democrat is not a skill set I'd expect to see.
 
@RogueTraderEnthusiast If our hypothetical Pharoh is really smart, he'll find a way to use the democratic nature of these cities to push back against Athenian domination; after all, as plenty of OTL examples show, being a democracy is no guarantee that a polis will acquiesence to getting pushed around, as Athens was want to do.

The bar kept getting lowered in OTL, too. By the Diadocci period any hegemon could essentially win over the various polis by promising not to garrison. That obviously kept loyalties very fluid, but it does in some respects show their ultimate priority.
 
Top