What would have happened if the Etruscans instead of the Franks and Gauls would stopped Persia's expansion? I mean they almost succeeded if it wouldn't have been for Xeres's Macedonian Protgege. And if Egypt's instabillity would have began earlier I'm almost sure it would had even a greater effect against them....
DB: Etruscans vs. Persians
- Thread starter Othniel
- Start date
(Clarification: The Persians won the Pelponesian(sp?) War and expanded until the germanic, and Frankish Barabrins stopped them. Alexzander the Great was brought up as a Persian and is only refered to in history as the Macedonian. He lead the Persians to Victory against the Etrustcans, but was called back to deal with uprisings in the east a few months later. Alexzander died leading troops against a rising Ethopian power.)
I'm having some problems with understanding this.
First, we are assuming that the Persians won their wars with Greece, say Darius is successful, defeating the Greeks, insituting Persian rule over the Balkan Peninsula.
Second, this is on top of a POD that puts the Etruscans in charge of the Italy, including the Romans, Umbrians and other tribes.
Then there is a discussion about Ethiopians and how they broke it (the Persian Empire??) into two pieces.
Finally, you are introducing ideas about India into the mix.
What is the POD we are working with here?
First, we are assuming that the Persians won their wars with Greece, say Darius is successful, defeating the Greeks, insituting Persian rule over the Balkan Peninsula.
Second, this is on top of a POD that puts the Etruscans in charge of the Italy, including the Romans, Umbrians and other tribes.
Then there is a discussion about Ethiopians and how they broke it (the Persian Empire??) into two pieces.
Finally, you are introducing ideas about India into the mix.
What is the POD we are working with here?
Its an assumetion that nothing would be the same if Persia won and continued to win. A drawn anagolie on the Roman Empire. They simplely over extented themselves and a Ethopia that was faring quite well in this time period, made them pay. I'm saying that India also was in open trade with Persia for a bit, and did quite well for themselves later down the line.
Also Etruscans were over the Romans for a long time, even during the rule of Alexzander the great. Therefore it may be easist to assume for them to keep and take power with a common enemy on the horizon.
Also Etruscans were over the Romans for a long time, even during the rule of Alexzander the great. Therefore it may be easist to assume for them to keep and take power with a common enemy on the horizon.
Othniel said:
Then what are the Franks doing there? Their very existance presupposes a lot of history.
Let's assume that the Etruscans rule Italy, then what to the Celtic Gauls do? Etruscan 'Rome' will be a different beast that Roman Rome. Remember that the Celts almost took the romans out, would they be more successful against the Etruscans?
Let's say they aren't, so what happens to Gaul? Do the Etruscans then parallel the Roman Empire?
What about Carthage? They were the primaray competitors with Rome for the Western Mediterranean. Do they compete with the Etruscan Empire?
So who are these Franks?
I always mixed up my germanic and celtic tribes when I first wrote this. (sorry) Roman culture is pretty much based on Etrusican Culture. Eturia dominated the Latins. Carthage at this time was setting up new colonies, I think. The Etrusicans will do no better, because they faced the same Celts the Romans did. I should put anouther person on the Persian throne though, because it will be too late for Xeres to still be ruling.
OK so as I understand what you are suggesting.
Greece lose to Persia (3 - 2 in OT).
Etruscans continue to rule over the more numerous Italic Speaking City-States.
Initial Celtic attacks of Rome are against the Etruscans.
Carthage colonizes as in OTL.
Persia now begins to expand to the West.
Is that it?
Greece lose to Persia (3 - 2 in OT).
Etruscans continue to rule over the more numerous Italic Speaking City-States.
Initial Celtic attacks of Rome are against the Etruscans.
Carthage colonizes as in OTL.
Persia now begins to expand to the West.
Is that it?
Let me think, we know that many of the Indo-Iranian people were still pastoralist at this time. Could we have them attack into the West, kind of an early volkwandrung? Maybe under the titular control of Persia?
If not, then you are stuck with moving a Persian army either by boat or through pretty primitive mountain peoples, such as the Macedonians, who might or might not like it.
I'd go for a maritime based conquest. This might be possible using the now subject Greeks to provide the boats.
Wouldn't this shift the center of the Persian empire pretty significantly? Maybe instead have Persian conquer Greece, beginning a second Persian Kingdom that does the heavy lifting?
If not, then you are stuck with moving a Persian army either by boat or through pretty primitive mountain peoples, such as the Macedonians, who might or might not like it.
I'd go for a maritime based conquest. This might be possible using the now subject Greeks to provide the boats.
Wouldn't this shift the center of the Persian empire pretty significantly? Maybe instead have Persian conquer Greece, beginning a second Persian Kingdom that does the heavy lifting?