Athens unites the Greeks

Very interesting.

But could you have something where the polis-centric view of things -changes- over time? In a hypothetical scenario where the Macedonians or Romans or Persians don't take over the place first, that is.
What he is describing is the Palace system that is prevelant during the Mycenaic period and it also appears later in a similar form with the Merovingian Franks;city-states can only evolve to a hegemonial Federal system one city is the hegemon but giving space and power to the other,Sparta and the dyarchy rules Greece abd lives to Macedonia enough leash to deal with the North and North West for a start(a tall order) until Alexander comes into picture.
Athens the hegemon to change her constitution to accomodate extended citizenship and Sparta the same in order to undertake the agoge of the most promising young of various Greek cities(something Sparta was already doing in limited numbers).
 
Elfwine asked:
If Athens tried to build an empire, every other city would see it as Athens trying to dominate the rest for the good of Athens. Expect a lot of speechifying about being free men and not slaves.
Good question. The answer is that obstacle CAN and HAS been overcome in similar situations elsewhere, with better luck and maybe better institutions. Rome faced the same obstacles - the Latin League near it, in fact, concluded that Rome had to be beaten for their own protection, and survived that. Britain' and its empire faced plenty of coalitions, but solved that by building other coalitions and caring more about the sea than the rest

Athens, in fact, had its own invincible coalition for decades as well, until it fluffed Syracuse in several ways (including going to war with a big city before local matters with the Peloponnesians were settled). It also cared more about the sea, building invulnerably tall walls to their harbor and so being invulnerable to land seige as much as Britain, later, until they lost their fleet due to being down to duffer admirals.

Blackfox5 wrote:
That's what the Social Wars were about - Rome's allies wanted to be treated better. Rome decided that it was best to do so which explains the loyalty of its client states in Italy. Eventually it extended citizenship throughout the Italian penninsula, and when it acquired overseas territory, it kept making more and more people citizens.
But, Blackfox, allied citizenship wasn't an issue for Athens, because the allies had the right to overrule Athens in their league (imperial?) assembly. The issue to Athens' empire was lands, cleruchies, which were granted only to Athenian citizens. I'm surprised so much time passed without an allied League resolution to bring justice on that, and guess time would've seen one.

And, you're wrong about the Delian League, too. Virtually all WANTED in until Athens collapsed. It was mostly the Allies' idea to have one, and 90% came voluntarily. And, few revolted at the same time.


Daeres, so, yes, you ARE being, effectively, racist. We all know those so dumb ;)) classical Greeks whom invented democracy and figured the earth's circumference couldn't possibly go from city state to unified state like Babylon or Rome, even if the Delian League was copying alot of Persian Imperial institutions. Entertaining, but wrong....
 
Good question. The answer is that obstacle CAN and HAS been overcome in similar situations elsewhere, with better luck and maybe better institutions. Rome faced the same obstacles - the Latin League near it, in fact, concluded that Rome had to be beaten for their own protection, and survived that. Britain' and its empire faced plenty of coalitions, but solved that by building other coalitions and caring more about the sea than the rest

I don't know very much (to put it mildly) about the Latin League, but I wouldn't compare Britain and its empire and that world to the world of Ancient Greece where the Greeks are bitterly divided, decidedly pariochical, and in general about as fragmented as possible.

This isn't just resisting being conquered. This is resisting being part of the empire once its established because "Athens unites the Greeks" means (to the Greeks) "every Greek is forced to serve Athens" - empire building of the least popular sort.

Cue rhetoric on being free men and not slaves (again).


Also, observation:

Daeres, so, yes, you ARE being, effectively, racist. We all know those so dumb ;)) classical Greeks whom invented democracy and figured the earth's circumference couldn't possibly go from city state to unified state like Babylon or Rome, even if the Delian League was copying alot of Persian Imperial institutions. Entertaining, but wrong....

What does having democracy or figuring out the earth's circumference have to do with being able to develop a working empire?

If empire building was easy, we wouldn't see the pages of arguments against Eurofed's visions of what Rome should be, or this discussion.

The Italian city-states in a later era were divided and quarreled amongst themselves, which did no good for Italian unity - but saying that isn't saying they were idiots.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the fact that the actual number of citizens (which automatically excludes children, slaves, women, and foreign residents inside cities) of any individual polis was never huge. In Greece, Athens was for a time the most populous city, and the city itself probably never exceeded 35,000 inhabitants. Attika may have had about 200,000-300,000 total inhabitants, but that is including all of the non-citizen categories I just mentioned.
I thought the population of Attika was more like 400k, with a significant
percentage in the Polis of Athens itself (100-150k). Of course, I realize that
the borders of Athens encompassed more than the city itself, however didn't
Xenophen himself throw out an estimate of 10k houses with 120-180k
people in them for the city itself?

This certainly looks like a city with a lot more than 35k people.
Athenswholecity2.png


TheLongWalls.png
 

Spengler

Banned
Simply put, let's suppose the Sicilian expedition ends in Athens favor, due to Athens not behaving so tactically pathetic like in OTL. Athens uses its new found wealth, power, resources, and engineering might to eventually unify all of the Greeks into a confederated democratic republic. When would this happen, how would this happen, how long would it last, how far would the Greeks expand, and what other butterflies would occur? (no Alexander, affecting the Jews, Romans, and Persians, religion in this world, etc.)
How does it suceed though? I mean Corinth (Athen's enemy and the Metropolis of Syracuse) was closer. The Athenians didn't exactly have allies. Also taking the place brings the Athenians into the politics of Sicily which means they ave to defend their holdings from the Phoenicians.

If the Delian League is a model of an Athenian Empire at its best, Athens, simply put is incapable of unifying the Greeks. They had no model of empire acceptable to their subjects nor did they ever seriously seek to change this despite the repeated shocks to their system of OTL.
__________________
Effectively this, they basically did business by coersion and domination, really the were no different than the Persians. Except that the persians were a little less xenophobic about the next city over.

anyways Athens did try to unite Greece earlier in the fifth when it dominated Boeotia and had been kicked out. Somehow I think a victory at Syracuse, a place much father away may just end up seeing the same thing happen at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
Didn't the Athenian Confederation already include citystates run by tyrants? To me it seems like a Democratic Republic would be too unstable for the spread out confederation to organize. Tyrants already in the confederation probably wouldn't want to be overthrown and Sparta probably wouldn't want to be run by vote, when they have a highly honored royal family.

Athens would be better off with a Republic that elects a powerful Strategos with dictatorial powers.
Not as far as I know and Sparta DID run by vote(Ephors-Assembley)
What "royal family" you are talking about? Sparta had dual kingship which
did not have real powers.
 
How does it suceed though? I mean Corinth (Athen's enemy and the Metropolis of Syracuse) was closer. The Athenians didn't exactly have allies. Also taking the place brings the Athenians into the politics of Sicily which means they ave to defend their holdings from the Phoenicians.
It's been a long time since I've read Thucydides. What kind of government did Syracuse have? What were the Athenian goals with regards to Syracuse? Did they plan to replace an Oligarchic government with a Democratic one?
 
Well that might depend on what causes it to succeed. Does Gylippus die, or do the Athenians just not behave so tactically pathetic? And even if they do succeed, it doesn't mean the war is won. While its a good idea, specifics need to be addressed.
If Nikias was not left in command by force of circumstances,Syracusae would be burned to the ground Gilypos or none!
Further analysis is provided by Thucidides when he deals with the Sicilian campaign,with inference to Alkibiades recall and the death of Lamachos.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the fact that the actual number of citizens (which automatically excludes children, slaves, women, and foreign residents inside cities) of any individual polis was never huge. In Greece, Athens was for a time the most populous city, and the city itself probably never exceeded 35,000 inhabitants. Attika may have had about 200,000-300,000 total inhabitants, but that is including all of the non-citizen categories I just mentioned. When you read Thucydides' history of the Pelopponesian War, notice that Athenian armies are vary rarely more than a thousand Athenian men strong (though they often include detachments of allies as well).

Compare that to the city of Babylon, a centre for several different Empires, which already had 140,000 inhabitants by the 9th Century BC. Or Nineveh, which probably exceeded it at the height of Assyrian dominance, along with other huge Assyrian imperial cities like Kalhu, Nimrud etc.

Assyria was able to found an Empire because it was already the largest state in the Near East, because it had the largest and best equipped armies, and because it had a number of administrative technologies that enabled it to control populations under its dominance.
Athens, whilst from the 5th Century to the mid 4th Century the largest city in mainland Greece, was never so large in comparison to the rest of Greece that it was militarily dominant in this way. And the social technologies of Greece were dedicated to the control of the populations of single cities at a time under institutions and civic duties/responsibilities.

It's got nothing to do with racism, I've spent years studying Ancient History with a focus on Greece. It's got everything to do with the specific situation of Ancient Greece; its history, its culture, its political structure, its geography, its population distribution, its amount of arable land. It's not an insult to Ancient Greeks or Athenians, I'm not sure at what point you decided that if a group of people are not capable of creating an Empire they must be worse than other people.

If you want to point to Hellenic states that might have been capable of Imperial regimes, I'll point you at Macedon (who actually did establish one), Epirus (who nearly created one under Pyrrhus), Syrakuse (who at one point dominated the Greek cities of Sicily and had the largest population of any Greek city in the world at that time), maybe Taras (Largest and most militarily powerful Greek city in Italy after the fall of Sybaris). Why are these places different to Athens, and mainland Greece? Each of them existed in a completely different political environment, geographical environment, and had a completely different set of peoples to contend with.
Well,that amounts to a hell of a number of profound,but untrue or sweeping statements,if your study of Greek History leads you to that summary probably you need to reevaluate:for example,speaking about the cities of Italy you write"Each of them existed in a different political enviroment"(than the cities of mailand Greece) untrue!these cities carry the political,social and religious institutions of their mother city.Where did you see the different political enviroment?
Now,there is nothing wrong with racism since it encompasses certain beliefs, social in nature to be certain,and it is wrong to judge ancient societies with nowdays standards be those write or wrong(like some students criticize slavery in one place or another disregarding the fact that it was ageneral phaenomenon at those times).
Ancient Greek societies were nothing if not racist;look at the constitutions of Sparta and Athens for examle:both imposed such restrictions in obtaining their citizenship:none can fail to see the amount of racism that was denoted there,which was altimetly their downfall.
Now to your main point,the founding of Empires:The Examples you give are Epirus and Macedon,kingdoms;I will like to remind you that the Athenian Empire at its peak contained 178 cities with a total population of 20.000.000,so it was far larger than the one of Epirus or the Macedonian dominions in Europe.The problem with Athens was different from what appears to be:The Delian League was on right footing with the Constitution of Aristides also stating number of men and ships each city were to contribute.The recipe became faulty when the allies after Euremedon proposed to contribute money instead of ships and men.Automatically they fell to the status of tributaries with all the known consequences.
That was the first problem.The next was more difficult:the plebian population that was rowing the ships of the fleet had to secure their two obols a day by rowing warships;for a time they found employmentin the great structures on the Acropolis and others,but they needed more work so every time a question of war or punitive action came before Pnyx
they voted in favour;Athens was a prisoner of its democracy.I hope now you understand.Athens could easily hope to expand her empire if the first mistake was corrected and the problem was adressed.
 
Last edited:
Well,that amounts to a hell of a number of profound,but untrue or sweeping statements,if your study of Greek History leads you to that summary probably you need to reevaluate:for example,speaking about the cities of Italy you write"Each of them existed in a different political enviroment"(than the cities of mailand Greece) untrue!these cities carry the political,social and religious institutions of their mother city.Where did you see the different political enviroment?
Now,there is nothing wrong with racism since it encompasses certain beliefs, social in nature to be certain,and it is wrong to judge ancient societies with nowdays standards be those write or wrong(like some students criticize slavery in one place or another disregarding the fact that it was ageneral phaenomenon at those times).

So Carthage existed in the same political environment as cities in Phoenicia/Canaan because it was originally a Phoenician colony and probably began with the same institutions? You have failed to understand what I meant, which is that the situation of any polity in any period is as defined by its neighbours as by its 'original' character. Also, you seem to think that the colonies had some sort of undying link to their metropolis, but the majority of them were independent and had no more than a sentimental relationship with their original mother city. When did Massalia, or Taras, or Metapontion care about the political situation in Hellas? The fact that they didn't have to care what happened in Hellas automatically makes their political situation different from the mainland, because their interests and responsibilities are different.

You also don't understand why I brought up racism; I mentioned it because I was being accused of being racist by suggesting that Greeks of the 5th-4th centuries were incapable of forming a unified state/Empire.
 
I thought the population of Attika was more like 400k, with a significant
percentage in the Polis of Athens itself (100-150k). Of course, I realize that
the borders of Athens encompassed more than the city itself, however didn't
Xenophen himself throw out an estimate of 10k houses with 120-180k
people in them for the city itself?

This certainly looks like a city with a lot more than 35k people.
Athenswholecity2.png


TheLongWalls.png

Ah, you misread me. I said 35,000 citizens and not 35,000 inhabitants. Including metics (foreign residents), children, slaves, freedmen, and women, the population of Athens was indeed over 100,000 people. But as far as Athenian understanding of statehood goes, there were 35,000 people who were 'useful' to the state who functioned as rowers, soldiers, generals, jurors, magistrates, craftsmen, and miscellaneous others. The exception to that general rule is that male metics got used for military service fairly frequently.

Also, never take an ancient literary source verbatim on numbers/sizes without some archaeology to go with it, just as a general rule. Xenophon is a good writer but is untrustworthy with regards to specific, hard facts.

EDIT: Also, nice pictures! I may have to remember those for future use...
 
It's been a long time since I've read Thucydides. What kind of government did Syracuse have? What were the Athenian goals with regards to Syracuse? Did they plan to replace an Oligarchic government with a Democratic one?

At the time of the Athenian Expedition, Syrakuse had a democratic government similar to that of Athens. In the aftermath of the expedition however, Syrakuse came under the control of a tyranny/oligarchy again.

Daeres, so, yes, you ARE being, effectively, racist. We all know those so dumb ;)) classical Greeks whom invented democracy and figured the earth's circumference couldn't possibly go from city state to unified state like Babylon or Rome, even if the Delian League was copying alot of Persian Imperial institutions. Entertaining, but wrong....

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. If that's considered trolling or flaming then so is calling me a racist. I never at any point accused Archaic, Classical, or Hellenistic Greeks of being inherently stupid. You just cannot seem to comprehend that saying a cultural group was incapable of becoming an Imperial state is not actually saying that there's anything wrong with them. I don't think the Sumerians in 3000 BC could have formed an Empire, and I think they're possibly history's most important civilization.

So because Athens was apparently directly copying Achaemenid Persia, that means they would have formed a unified state? What? The former does not imply the latter. Because I have copied techniques from Leonardo da Vinci, I too will become one of the world's expert painters!

I think Greek civilization is one of the most important cultures in the history of both Europe and Asia. I also think that several states in that culture could have constructed Imperial states, and several did. You seem to think that Athenians are the same as Greeks, or you wouldn't have been so stupid as to accuse me of hating on all Classical Greeks when the discussion is about Athens.

Answer me this; why is being unable to form an Empire bad? Why is being able to form an Empire good? Empires can have substantial benefits to the quality of life of subjects, can create an incredibly peaceful environment and can be far more mutualistic and pancultural than nation states. But they are also aggressive, economically and technologically stagnating, arbitrary, and to achieve that Imperial state have to be incredibly controlling over their subjects. Part of the reason the Achaemenid Persian Empire was so stable was because they had troops stationed all over their Empire, in every major city, and those troops were fed and bedded by the local populations. Is that your idea of a cool Greece; where every city has Athenian soldiers, and has to obey Athenian laws, and has to give over its surplus to Athens, and can be subject to brutal reprisals if it tries to break away?

Empires are not nice. They are not automatically evil, they can do more good than harm, and in some respects are far nicer than modern nation states. But they are not nice. So when I imply that a culture or area or polity cannot form one, I'm really not implying I think they're stupid or backward.

I do not think Athens was capable of forming an Imperial state that was 'better' than the Delian League. I do not think the Delian League/Athenian Empire would have succeeded. I do not think that any of the polis states in mainland Greece could have done anything similar. I think these things because of practical realities; insufficient disparity between the Imperial centre and its potential subjects, insufficient numbers to maintain an Imperial state with sufficient guarantee for the Imperial centre's safety, and insufficient ability to defy geographical barriers or states opposed to the forming of an Imperial state. I'm an ancient historian by profession, a general historian by inclination and I believe all historical cultures and civilizations to have equal value. I'm sorry to have dared argue against your fantasy of Athenian uberdemocracy uniting all of Greece into Panacealand, but it's just not plausible. I also don't much care for your vision of Athens being the most important Greek city or for your Atheno-centric interpretation of what it meant to be a Hellene between 480-336 BC.
 
So Carthage existed in the same political environment as cities in Phoenicia/Canaan because it was originally a Phoenician colony and probably began with the same institutions? You have failed to understand what I meant, which is that the situation of any polity in any period is as defined by its neighbours as by its 'original' character. Also, you seem to think that the colonies had some sort of undying link to their metropolis, but the majority of them were independent and had no more than a sentimental relationship with their original mother city. When did Massalia, or Taras, or Metapontion care about the political situation in Hellas? The fact that they didn't have to care what happened in Hellas automatically makes their political situation different from the mainland, because their interests and responsibilities are different.

You also don't understand why I brought up racism; I mentioned it because I was being accused of being racist by suggesting that Greeks of the 5th-4th centuries were incapable of forming a unified state/Empire.
I do understand you and very well that is why I gave you the comparison of Athens and Epirus,Macedon etc.In that case I should be a racist too,so what?
Historical reality is byond such characterisms and the reality was that Athens was in the verge of such an Empire in Sicily;if you read the speech of Alkibiades in Pnyx as reported by Thucidides you should understand that.
Tyros and Carthage had the same institutions and Syracuse and Corinth had the same oligarchic system of government and the same institutions.The greek colonies around the Mediterranean had and maintained a link with their mother cities,THAT didn't make them subjects of course they were independent,but the "undying link"as you call it of course was there:winkytongue:lease don't confuse issues;emulation of political and social systems don't make cities lose their independence.
Yes they did care about Hellas;in the Persian invasion Sicilian ships from Syracusae were present in Salamis,despite the fact that they were facing Carthaginian invasion.Syracusae supplied Sparta with corn during the Peloponnesian war;isn't it weird that a commercial city like Syracusae found Sparta...to export corn whose money were worthless in international exchange? or they did so because mother city,Corinth, was the second most important city in the Peloponnesian alliance? please think of that...
 
Last edited:
Because he'd made a career in exactly such a system and his intended audience were committed to the same? This isn't exactly a subtle bias...
No he didn't;he made his career in democratic Athens and he was relieved of command by the same system...



You're answering a strawman here - and doing it badly. No one said empires per se are impossible - which has nothing to do with the Greeks holding off the Persians anyway, as an alliance is hardly an empire. The attempt to turn alliance into empire is what led to the Pelop'n War...
I agree there about the alliance,but an alliance(Delian League) turned to an empire and Syracusae was the critical juncture where the Athenian Empire would encompass and the western Mediterranean and would possibly force Sparta to sue for peace.
The empire was not the cause of the Peloponnesian War,but the growing power of Athens,empire or otherwise, who was then threatening the vital interests of the members of Spartan alliance(Epidamnos/Corinth,Megara/Sparta,Plataea/Thebes) the Spartans didn't even want war as they said they would be satisfied if the Megarian Decree would be cancelled...
 
At the time of the Athenian Expedition, Syrakuse had a democratic government similar to that of Athens. In the aftermath of the expedition however, Syrakuse came under the control of a tyranny/oligarchy again.



I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. If that's considered trolling or flaming then so is calling me a racist. I never at any point accused Archaic, Classical, or Hellenistic Greeks of being inherently stupid. You just cannot seem to comprehend that saying a cultural group was incapable of becoming an Imperial state is not actually saying that there's anything wrong with them. I don't think the Sumerians in 3000 BC could have formed an Empire, and I think they're possibly history's most important civilization.

So because Athens was apparently directly copying Achaemenid Persia, that means they would have formed a unified state? What? The former does not imply the latter. Because I have copied techniques from Leonardo da Vinci, I too will become one of the world's expert painters!

I think Greek civilization is one of the most important cultures in the history of both Europe and Asia. I also think that several states in that culture could have constructed Imperial states, and several did. You seem to think that Athenians are the same as Greeks, or you wouldn't have been so stupid as to accuse me of hating on all Classical Greeks when the discussion is about Athens.

Answer me this; why is being unable to form an Empire bad? Why is being able to form an Empire good? Empires can have substantial benefits to the quality of life of subjects, can create an incredibly peaceful environment and can be far more mutualistic and pancultural than nation states. But they are also aggressive, economically and technologically stagnating, arbitrary, and to achieve that Imperial state have to be incredibly controlling over their subjects. Part of the reason the Achaemenid Persian Empire was so stable was because they had troops stationed all over their Empire, in every major city, and those troops were fed and bedded by the local populations. Is that your idea of a cool Greece; where every city has Athenian soldiers, and has to obey Athenian laws, and has to give over its surplus to Athens, and can be subject to brutal reprisals if it tries to break away?

Empires are not nice. They are not automatically evil, they can do more good than harm, and in some respects are far nicer than modern nation states. But they are not nice. So when I imply that a culture or area or polity cannot form one, I'm really not implying I think they're stupid or backward.

I do not think Athens was capable of forming an Imperial state that was 'better' than the Delian League. I do not think the Delian League/Athenian Empire would have succeeded. I do not think that any of the polis states in mainland Greece could have done anything similar. I think these things because of practical realities; insufficient disparity between the Imperial centre and its potential subjects, insufficient numbers to maintain an Imperial state with sufficient guarantee for the Imperial centre's safety, and insufficient ability to defy geographical barriers or states opposed to the forming of an Imperial state. I'm an ancient historian by profession, a general historian by inclination and I believe all historical cultures and civilizations to have equal value. I'm sorry to have dared argue against your fantasy of Athenian uberdemocracy uniting all of Greece into Panacealand, but it's just not plausible. I also don't much care for your vision of Athens being the most important Greek city or for your Atheno-centric interpretation of what it meant to be a Hellene between 480-336 BC.
Yes we heard the argument,Athens was incapable of having an Empire why?your opinion based on what? Rome conquered Italy with approximately the same population like Athens;and they were very lucky,very lucky indeed.Please imagine Rome with a corresponding Sparta somewhere in Northern Italy(South of Roubico).Such a monolithic organization would have the Romans fighting for decades and getting weaker and weaker...and I am not adding another Thebes.
Let me make you a small note on population of Athens:If Athens had a male population of 35000 citizens,then mr historian that you need a lesson in analysis,then after the Sicilian losses Athens should have owed to history...5000 citizens more since the losses in the Sicilian expedition just exceeded 40000 men if you have touched mainly A.R.Burn "Persia and the Greeks" and as a second Russel Meiggs the 'Athenian Empire' you will know that the Greek classic historians when giving numbers of armies take into acount the numbers of the 'honourable' citizens that stand in the phalanx and
also don't forget that the rowers of the Athenian fleets were Athenian citizens,those could could not afford to purchuse their armour,but nevertheless citizens and now please insist that Athens had 35000 citizens...
If Athens had come out victorious(and Thucidides thought that was the certain outcome,but for the choice of the commander) in that campaign-western Mediterranean would be in its palm.
 
How is it racist to say that the Greek polis-centric pariochialism made empire building of the sort Rome (for instance) did impossible even merely over Hellas/Greece?

If Athens tried to build an empire, every other city would see it as Athens trying to dominate the rest for the good of Athens. Expect a lot of speechifying about being free men and not slaves.

Like the classical ("Neither Holy, Roman, or an Empire") HRE, only in even smaller pieces.

To use an old-but really, really appropriate-metaphor here, Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither was its model of imperialism, which evolved over centuries of conquests and alliances. By contrast, the Delian league lasted, as I remember, around 50 years or so, a good chunk of which it spent fighting the Peleponesians for its life.

In an ATL where it manages to crush Sparta and Thebes, the Delian League will, of course, have to give the various non-Athenian components reason to be loyal to it, or fly apart. I'd grant that flying apart is certainly possible, and probably the most likely outcome even, but I don't think its inevitable. It could proceed down the same development path as Rome, planting Athenian colonies and gradually granting citizenship to the elites of the various other Delian cities.
 
If the Delian League is a model of an Athenian Empire at its best, Athens, simply put is incapable of unifying the Greeks. They had no model of empire acceptable to their subjects nor did they ever seriously seek to change this despite the repeated shocks to their system of OTL.
The Delian League was just an alliance.That alliace changed into an Empire when the allies stopped contributing men and ships and contributed money instead.Don't forget that the Delian Alliance was defensive alliance to protect the cities from Persian aspirations of reconquest and conducted offensive operations with that purpose in view.It was not formed in order that Athens persues a long war against the peloponnesian alliance with which the Athenian allies and members of its empire had nothing against.In absence of Sparta,the Athenian empire would have developed like the Roman one and much faster because the Athenians,unlike the Romans had imperial ambitions and the corresponding planning to persue those ambitions.During the course of their expansion,citizenship would be given to members of the alliance.It took Romans 200 years to give citizensship to the Italians,not 50 years and a Peloponnesian war that was the life of Delian Allince;that's why the Syracusan expedition was the pivot point of the Athenian Empire.
 
Last edited:
The Caucasus was already home to a few Hellenic colonies nearby, but the actual depths of it had settled states in existence already. The Balkan peninsular ditto; there were Greek colonies such as Epidamnos on the coast of Epirus, and a few Greek-aligned Illyrian cities, but the interior were either inhabited by groups related to the Greeks like Macedonians and Epirotes, or inhabited by rather warlike tribes like the Getai, Dalmatians, Pannonians, Bastaernae. Ukraine had already been rather claimed by the Saka/Scythians by this point in history, and Greek settlers are not going to beat large bands of horse-archers in such an open landscape.

Also, 95% of the time colonies were politically independent of the metropolis, i.e the city/s that the colonisation attempt originates from. A good example of a colony that decided to completely do its own thing is Massalia (modern Marseilles) on the southern coast of Gaul.

Macedonians were NOT relared to the Greeks,they were Greeks...
 
Top