Alcibades

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
So I was reading The Daimon and got me thinking about what if Alcibades wasn't acused of his false crimes and went on to lead the Syracuse expedition. Would Athens have remained a colonial superpower and continue to dominate Greece?
 
Sicilian mission succeeds, with little room for error, the Athenians take Sicily. Which barely improves their shot at victory. I say multiple uneasy peaces over a period of 30 years with eventually the spartans run out of people and athens runs out of large amounts of money and support.
 
Not sure it would be all that easy for it to succeed - and I'm pretty sure (I don't have my copy of Keegan open at the moment) Alcibades would only have been one of the leaders, not in sole command, so even if he's a positive influence it might not be enough.

Probably not the disaster it was OTL, though.

And "colonial superpower"? "Dominating Greece"?

Um, what?

The Spartan alliance (along with cities like Corinth) is a pretty strong counter force to any "dominance" of Greece by the Athenians, and calling Athens "superpower" ignores Persia's far greater power.
 
This probably means they have killed each other enough that Persia might be able to conquer Greece sometime before the Archaemenids eventually collapse.
 
The Spartan alliance (along with cities like Corinth) is a pretty strong counter force to any "dominance" of Greece by the Athenians, and calling Athens "superpower" ignores Persia's far greater power.

Athens being a naval superpower had showed Sparta that they are vulnerable too with the battles of Pylos and Sphacteria in 425 BC so these 2 powers were roughly equal in forces (Athens in navy and Sparta in infantry).

The problem is that with a successful Sicilian campaign Athens and Sparta will keep fighting wearing themselves out making them easy prey for Persia (Persian Kings already poured gold to both sides in order to keep them fighting)
 
Athens being a naval superpower had showed Sparta that they are vulnerable too with the battles of Pylos and Sphacteria in 425 BC so these 2 powers were roughly equal in forces (Athens in navy and Sparta in infantry).

The problem is that with a successful Sicilian campaign Athens and Sparta will keep fighting wearing themselves out making them easy prey for Persia (Persian Kings already poured gold to both sides in order to keep them fighting)

But Athens has failed pretty badly at knocking Sparta out of the war kind of victories (so, up to this point, has Sparta at the same thing to Athens) - so I think neither counts as dominant until the other is defeated.
 
Its a longshot (and propably ASB) but i ll ask it anyway... What are the chances of Roman Republic implicating herself to the conflict after a successful Sicilian campaign?
 
Its a longshot (and propably ASB) but i ll ask it anyway... What are the chances of Roman Republic implicating herself to the conflict after a successful Sicilian campaign?
The chance is very little, definitely close to ASB, if they did they would have to be delivered to their points by greek ships (having no native fleet of any significance). So if they did they would definitely have to be on the side of Athens (seeing as the only other real option on how to get there other than by sea is very long and passes through enemy territory, and by sea Athens would sink any real shot of Spartans getting back). Since however I think the Romans might actually be on the side of Syracuse they are probably not going to do that so they will probably be confined to Italy. I am going to guess that maybe they will stop Carthage from attacking the weakened Doric cities of Sicily and prevent Athens from attacking mainland Magna Graecia. So nothing really major, it would be interesting to see the Romans and Carthaginians go at it a little earlier though.
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
Its a longshot (and propably ASB) but i ll ask it anyway... What are the chances of Roman Republic implicating herself to the conflict after a successful Sicilian campaign?
Unlikely. The Romans prior to the Punic Wars had very little interest outside of the Italian Penninsula. At best probably some raids onto Greek colonies in Southern Italy.
 
Unlikely. The Romans prior to the Punic Wars had very little interest outside of the Italian Penninsula. At best probably some raids onto Greek colonies in Southern Italy.

Yeah, you would need to really speed up their Italian expansion. Although if they do control Magna Graecorum early they will be interested in Sicily (it was a breadbasket at the time and incredibly valuable).
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
Yeah, you would need to really speed up their Italian expansion. Although if they do control Magna Graecorum early they will be interested in Sicily (it was a breadbasket at the time and incredibly valuable).
If they didn't hold the Magna Grecorum by this point they may try and make a grab for it with the Greeks busy with other more important matters.
 
J Magnus,

The Daimon and Alkibiades?stylistic connection,unless you would like to speak about Alkibiades daimonion which is even more apt...
Let's deal with some peripheral matters first:Athens a 'colonial superpower'
I would agree with that just to put it mildly,despite Elfwine's misgivings;why?
Many of the renowned historians place the beginning of the Peloponnesian war actually in 460 BC and not in 431 BC because the hostilities started then and with few intervals continued until 404 BC.Between 460 and and 445 the Athenian supremacy was so evident, despite fighting on three fronts at the same time, after the operation of landing in Spartan soil and burning of the Spartan shipyards,that Sparta requested armistice and the 30 year peace was signed.The Athenian Empire then had 178 cities(the last was Semeli in Frygia) and apopulation of 20000000 people,and the Athenian sheds in Munichia/Piraeus port had space for 300 triremes without counting the various squadrons on duty in all points of the Aegean.Taking into account the population of the time in eastern Mediterannean(the most advanced part of the Mediterannean)it was an enormous power.

Sources for perusal:"The Athenian Empire" by Russel Meiggs
" History of Ancient Greece" by Bury&Meiggs
About "Persian far Greater Power" as Elfwine claims:
In the offensive war against Persia carried out by Athens and her First allies under Cimon,Persians suffered such humiliating defeats and the destruction of The Phoenician Navy so total after the double battles of Euremedon(467 BC) and Cyprus near Kition(by land and sea) that the Phoenician navy disappears from history until the time of Alexander.
The Persians asked for peace that was signed by Callias(the richest Athenian ctizen) with very humiliating terms;apart from idemnity,the Persian army was forced to retire 20 klms from the sea along the entire coast of Asia minor thus securing the independence of the Greek cities of Asia Minor and the Levantine fleets were prohibited in entering the Aegean.The Persians didn't want any further entanglements with the Athenians and their navy in the Aegean especially Euremedon which was the first enemy landing on Persian soil...that is about the greater power status of the Persians;
the Athenians started the peloponnesian war with 9.500 talents in their treasury( see Bury&Meiggs) compare that with the 14000 talents that Alexander found in the Persian treasury and you understand the power of Athens.
(see also "Persia and the Greeks" by A.R.Burn-the formost authority in Ancient Greece)
...to be continued later-)
OK,a short answer about Rome:At the time of the Peloponnesian War Rome was still a searching republic,in 432 BC they had sent representatives to Athens who requested to study the Athenian system of Government and the Athenian body of laws which after careful analysis they took as much as it was needed and they adapted it to the needs of the Roman state and created the law of the twelve tables.militarily Rome was an insignificant quantity in comparison to Athens or Sparta and they didn't even measure up to the first rate states of Magna Grecia like Syracusae or Taras etc.See the treaty signed by Rome out of fear not to raise the Greeks of Magna Grecia in 303 BC.
see Plutarch "Parallel Lifes" and Scullard "History of Rome"
 
Last edited:
Top