Could the Achaemenids have conquered Greece?

[Seleukeia]

What I would like to ask today is your thoughts on the possibility of an Achaemenid conquest of Greece, and how it could've been accomplished.

Personally, I feel that both Darius' and Xerxes' invasions could have ended in Persian victory. Let's start off with Darius' invasion. Make it so Datis is able to win the Battle of Marathon in 490 against the Athenians and Plataeans and then conquers Athens, barricading himself in the city for the Spartans to arrive. Athens, one of the most powerful city-states in Greece, being defeated by the Persians would be devastating to Greek morale and would probably make many of the other cities consider Persian overlordship to save their own skin. Anyway, the Spartans then besiege him so Mardonius can perform a pincer movement by moving from Macedonia through Thessaly and Boeotia, all 3 of which are Persian ally states that could provide Mardonius with substantial numbers of hoplites, into Attica. Then, the Spartan army is either destroyed here by Datis and Mardonius or withdraws into the Peloponnese, leaving the Persians in control of Central Greece. Then, the two Persian generals invade the Peloponnese, where, with the assistance of Moreans opposed to Sparta such as the Argives, Arcadians, Messenians, and Achaeans, Sparta is besieged and conquered by a massive Persian force, and dominance is achieved over Greece.

The second scenario, of Xerxes' invasion, is not all that different in my view. The Athenian fleet is destroyed at Salamis or Artemisium and Mardonius triumphs over the Spartans at Plataea, bypassing the Isthmian defenses by sea, landing at Argos and laying siege to Corinth with the assistance of the Argives, the city falling after a short siege. Xerxes and Mardonius then proceed quickly to Sparta which is besieged and most likely burned to the ground, and Greece is left subdued as the Persian army has conquered the mainland and the Persian navy has island-hopped all across the seas.

Any other ideas for how the Persians could conquer Greece?

 

[Skallagrim]

Victory was possible during both invasions. The bigger problem would be holding on to the conquered lands. Egypt already proved challenging, and the periodic revolts in Anatolia also indicate that holding down even further-off fringe regions would be very difficult. It's not impossible, but the best bet for governance is what the Persians actually had in mind: install a Greek collaborator as vassal king. Steer it so that he's more or less able to stay in power, but only thanks to the implicit guarantee of Persian backing. That would keep him loyal.

A system like that would last until the next Persian succession crisis / civil war. When that happens, their puppet will no longer be able to rely on Persian force-of-arms, so he'll be facing a revolt. Either he gives in to the demands of the Greek aristocrats and becomes their puppet (thus ending the Persian hegemony) or he is deposed (thus ending the Persian hegemony).

 

[isabella]

In theory was absolutely possible as in OTL the Persians were defeated mostly because the Greek generals were better strategist than the Persians...

 

[MrGreyOwl]

Yes, definitely.

Datis' expedition at Marathon was more a punitive raid targeted at Athens than an attempt to conquest, but Xerxes' campaign actually should have succeeded because the odds were in his favor. But he grossly underestimated his adversaries, and the Greeks benefited from a good leader (Themistocles) who exploited every mistake the Persian made in addition of a good amount of pure luck (the storm wrecking the Persian fleet)

Themistocles was the man who managed to held the Greek coalition together after the battle of the Thermopylae. Had he died at Artemisium, or be defeated at Salamis, the coalition would have shattered and it would have been every city for its own, each trying to negotiate a separate peace deal. Several of them were already on the fence (like Argos or Corinth) ready to switch side... The most stubborn would rally around Sparta, but I think even the Spartans would have tried to cut a deal rather than fight to the bitter end. Because while pop-culture gave them unshakable righteousness, actually they weren't stranger to compromise.

Persian rule would have been pretty much hands-off: a yearly tribute of gold and warriors and that's all. The Empire was already overstretched, and the Greeks would have probably easily revolted after Xerxes' death. Would they have conserved independence or be invaded again, that's another story.

 

[bernardz]

but the best bet for governance is what the Persians actually had in mind: install a Greek collaborator as vassal king. Steer it so that he's more or less able to stay in power, but only thanks to the implicit guarantee of Persian backing. That would keep him loyal.

If Greece is unified earlier and integrated into the Persian Empire, it is an immediate danger to the Persian Empire.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Personally, I feel that both Darius' and Xerxes' invasions could have ended in Persian victory. Let's start off with Darius' invasion. Make it so Datis is able to win the Battle of Marathon in 490 against the Athenians and Plataeans and then conquers Athens, barricading himself in the city for the Spartans to arrive. Athens, one of the most powerful city-states in Greece, being defeated by the Persians would be devastating to Greek morale and would probably make many of the other cities consider Persian overlordship to save their own skin. Anyway, the Spartans then besiege him so Mardonius can perform a pincer movement by moving from Macedonia through Thessaly and Boeotia, all 3 of which are Persian ally states that could provide Mardonius with substantial numbers of hoplites, into Attica. Then, the Spartan army is either destroyed here by Datis and Mardonius or withdraws into the Peloponnese, leaving the Persians in control of Central Greece. Then, the two Persian generals invade the Peloponnese, where, with the assistance of Moreans opposed to Sparta such as the Argives, Arcadians, Messenians, and Achaeans, Sparta is besieged and conquered by a massive Persian force, and dominance is achieved over Greece.

According to Herodotus the Spartan reinforcements on their way to Marathon numbered about 2,000 or so, so probably they'd beat a hasty retreat once they heard that Athens had been defeated. Mardonius' march over land had already been abandoned by this time after he got ambushed by the Brygi. Most likely the Persians would stay in Attica and use it as a springboard to subdue the cities of central Greece before mounting an invasion of the Peloponnese.

 

[dandan_noodles]

If Greece is unified earlier and integrated into the Persian Empire, it is an immediate danger to the Persian Empire.

Depends on how they actually go about it. After the Corinthian War, all Greek leagues [except the Pelopnnesian league] were formally disbanded according to the King's Peace, and the Spartans were essentially the agents of the Persians. Persia has an assload of money, and they can always just do what they did in the Greek Hegemonic Wars and just dump money and ships on whoever they want to win.

 

[Seleukeia]

Depends on how they actually go about it. After the Corinthian War, all Greek leagues [except the Pelopnnesian league] were formally disbanded according to the King's Peace, and the Spartans were essentially the agents of the Persians. Persia has an assload of money, and they can always just do what they did in the Greek Hegemonic Wars and just dump money and ships on whoever they want to win.

I think you’re misunderstanding his point. It’s a relationship similar to the Neo-Assyrian Empire and their Egyptian puppet, as in, a vassal, not a collection of independent states for the Persians to play against each other, aka the status quo before the invasion. That doesn’t benefit Persia at all. IMO it’s most likely that Persia creates the Satrapy of Yauna, directly integrated into the Persian Empire albeit with some autonomy, and a variety of individual districts to prevent Greek unity, all under the rule of a governor from the Iranian Plateau.

 

[bernardz]

it’s most likely that Persia creates the Satrapy of Yauna, directly integrated into the Persian Empire albeit with some autonomy, and a variety of individual districts to prevent Greek unity, all under the rule of a governor from the Iranian Plateau.

The Satrapy did sometimes go to war with each other plus there were conflicts for the throne eg the march of the 10,000. A united Greece even a Satrapy would be a serious threat to the Persian empire.

 

[Seleukeia]

The Satrapy did sometimes go to war with each other plus there were conflicts for the throne eg the march of the 10,000. A united Greece even a Satrapy would be a serious threat to the Persian empire.

That’s why I said they would be separated into different districts, like a Thessaly, an Epirus, an Attica-Boeotia, An Achaea-Argolis, and an Arcadia-Lacadaemonia, as well as a few for the islands, to prevent them from being united.

 

[bernardz]

That’s why I said they would be separated into different districts, like a Thessaly, an Epirus, an Attica-Boeotia, An Achaea-Argolis, and an Arcadia-Lacadaemonia, as well as a few for the islands, to prevent them from being united.

This is not the way the Persian did it, a Satrapy is a large chunk of land.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-15b4ada529852d12a411eb43e6152bf2.webp

 

[dandan_noodles]

This is not the way the Persian did it, a Satrapy is a large chunk of land.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-15b4ada529852d12a411eb43e6152bf2.webp

Yes, but they were generally subdivided into districts, and most polities were left intact; in Persian controlled Ionia, most cities were left independent under democratic governments as long as they provided tribute, so it would be difficult for any Greek city to exert useful control, especially if the Persians break up the Peloponnesian league during their invasion.

 

[bernardz]

Yes, but they were generally subdivided into districts, and most polities were left intact; in Persian controlled Ionia, most cities were left independent under democratic governments as long as they provided tribute, so it would be difficult for any Greek city to exert useful control, especially if the Persians break up the Peloponnesian league during their invasion.

I see the problem more that large numbers of hoplite phalanx are now in the Persian Empire no longer fighting between themselves.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ten_Thousand

Thee people came from many different cities in Greece.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Yeah, no matter how you paint it, uniting Greece into a Satrapy is a dangerous move for the Persians. It makes sense for loads of the other conquests Persia had because, well, they were kingdoms originally. However, the Greek Satrapy very much wouldn't have been, and unlike a lot of Persia, has the potential for not just a densely packed and high population, but a roaring economy comparable only to Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and Egypt because of how easy it would be to trade goods by sea.

Organising and standardising that in any way is terrifying.

Now, as mentioned it was offered to Sparta, but if I was Xerxes I'd suggest someone weaker, less historically a leader, and strategiclaly placed in a position both vulnerable to another Satrap, but also economically vital to Greece. This could be Perinthus or Byzantion. I personally like Byzantion for both sentimental reasons, but also because it means that Byzantion as the leader of the Satrapy is evidently beholden to Persia, is threatened by Persia, and therefore more under Persias thumb. It might also rely more on Persian support, but that is a value as well as cost.

However, no matter who you choose, that leader will become powerful unlike any in Greece, and considering that other Satraps were willing to rebel against Persia, it is likely this one would as well.

A united Greek Satrapy rebelling against Persia may well do BETTER than Macedonia if it wanted to (and had the same sort of army) simply because it was already involved in Persian politics, and could ally with other Satraps to disrupt Persia.

 

[Seleukeia]

I see the problem more that large numbers of hoplite phalanx are now in the Persian Empire no longer fighting between themselves.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ten_Thousand

Thee people came from many different cities in Greece.

The way I see it, Xerxes could execute a plan similar to Alexander the Great and ethnically mix his empire, moving large numbers of Greeks across his Asian holdings and replacing them with Persians, Medes and Assyrians in his European holdings.

 

[bernardz]

The way I see it, Xerxes could execute a plan similar to Alexander the Great and ethnically mix his empire, moving large numbers of Greeks across his Asian holdings and replacing them with Persians, Medes and Assyrians in his European holdings.

He did have large numbers of Greeks under his control even before his invasion of Greece and he had many afterwards and he did not do this. Overall this is not the Persian way. What he needs to do is integrate into his army these hoplites which the Persians never did even though they could have even before the invasion of Greece.

A united Greek Satrapy rebelling against Persia may well do BETTER than Macedonia if it wanted to (and had the same sort of army) simply because it was already involved in Persian politics, and could ally with other Satraps to disrupt Persia.

Yes, a large Greek army with Persian cavalry and possibly led by a person of enormous influence in the Persian Empire.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Yes, a large Greek army with Persian cavalry and possibly led by a person of enormous influence in the Persian Empire.

Don't forget Thracians and potentially Scythians and Getae too. It isn't unreasonable for the Greek Satrap to defend other Greek cities and unite them under Persia. Which means Olbia, the Bosporans, and maybe even Magna Grecia or Sicily (or Iberia for that matter but that's a bit mental). It's justifiable at the very least. It's all dependent on the limits on a Satraps authority, but justifiable under the idea of how colonies related to their home cities. Being Satrap of the home city effectively means you can claim responsibility and jurisdiction over colonies.

Which is a bit mental. I expect Persia would divide the Satrapy on Geographic grounds (I.e. Sicily and Magna Grecia may become independent Satraps, The Bosporans and Greek Scythia too. Iberia for sure if that was ever pulled off.)

If all that happened you have almost an Empire inside an Empire. Especially if forcible Greek unit created a sort of Cross Hellenic consciousness.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I see the problem more that large numbers of hoplite phalanx are now in the Persian Empire no longer fighting between themselves.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ten_Thousand

Thee people came from many different cities in Greece.

Huge numbers of hoplites were already in the empire in Ionia, Karia, Lykia, Cyprus etc, and the Persians were able to crush their revolts relatively easily; when Agesilaos campaigned in Asia Minor, he had to take great efforts to secure a warlike cavalry force to protect his 'worthless hoplites', and he wouldn't have to 'make war by running away.' Persia really just needs a garrison in Athens to keep a friendly harbor as an advanced base; if the Greeks act up, they can quickly build up a sizable field army and overwhelmingly powerful fleet in Attika from their Anatolian resources.

 

[piratedude]

Don't forget Thracians and potentially Scythians and Getae too. It isn't unreasonable for the Greek Satrap to defend other Greek cities and unite them under Persia. Which means Olbia, the Bosporans, and maybe even Magna Grecia or Sicily (or Iberia for that matter but that's a bit mental). It's justifiable at the very least. It's all dependent on the limits on a Satraps authority, but justifiable under the idea of how colonies related to their home cities. Being Satrap of the home city effectively means you can claim responsibility and jurisdiction over colonies.

Sure they can claim that, but Persian and even Greek authority over magna gracia would be nominal at best. Maybe they can work out some suzerainity agreement, but the Greek colonies are more likely to ignore it than not. Especially when there are closer regional powers they could turn to

 

[Historyman 14]

Can they? Yes. It was Persian pride and arrogance that doom them just as much as it was superior Greek weapons and genius generals and leadership, plus an ton of luck, that saved Hellas.

But next comes this: Conquering is easy, it is ruling that is the hard part. The Persian Empire was weakening for generations before Alexander show up in OTL, more and more they were dependent on mercenaries to fight their wars (Mainly Greek mercenaries at that), their dynastic politics were absolutely toxic and the satraps were growing increasingly independent-minded, and there'd been a series of major revolts already.

Conquering the Greeks would just be another drain on the Persian Empire. The Achaemenids may have another generation, or two in them, at least, but you very likely see Egypt, Greece, Anatolia and the Satrpas in the East revolt and gain their freedom while a new dynasty takes over.

The irony is in OTL, the Greeks victory help created an united Greek identity. An Greek Satrap could very well do the same thing, unite the other Greeks and throw off Persian rule and influence while the Achaemenids find themselves out of the Empire.