alternatehistory.com

I found an interesting question about the second Greco-Persian War that no one seems to have answered-it's about the Greeks choosing a different location for their last stand to buy time for the evacuation of Athens.....

Rather than necroing the thread I reposted it here. Here it is....

So this is essentially a geographic-military question:

OTL, The initial war-plans by the Spartan-Athenioan alliance/Hellenic league/League of Corinth was to stop the Persian advance at the Thessalian-Macedonian border, well north of the Greece proper.

Specifically, they aimed at holding the Persians at the Tempe pass, at the foot of Mount Olympus. Athenes and Sparta sent 10,000 first class hoplites (as opposed to the 7000 or so odds and sods sent to Thermopylae) to hold the pass with Thessalian cooperation.

There are no contemporary sources as to Thessalian military rosters at the time, but a century later Jason of Pherae employed 20,000-25,000 citzen soldiers in his armies as well as 6,000 mercenaries in 380 BCE. accordingly, 10,000 or so troops, of whom many would be cavalry, in 480 seems realistic.

In the event, The Macedonians (who were playing a double game as not very eager Persian vassals) warned the Sprtan-Athenian command that the vale of Tempe could be outflanked via the Sarantoporo Pass to West.

Absent a strong personality to insist on holding the vale, Themistocles of Athenes ended up pushing for a defense at Thermopylae. This decision, whatever it's purely military merits, was a political catastrophe for the league.

Thessaly, with it's cavalry, pastures and grain stores was forced to vassalize itself to Persia, many of the Northern Greek Polis defected, Thebes, which was best positioned to contrbiute to the defense of Thermopylae, moved to definitive neautrality and the argives all but jumped into bed with Persia.

Since the Persian invasion coincided with the Carnea, and since Leonidas was discredited by the failure of the League at Tempe, the Spartan main army was not commited to Thermopylae, the league force lacked the manpower to block the secondary passes (Leonidas could only spare 1,000 second class Phocian troops to the task) and the battle ended in a massacre of over half the Greek force, and the ravaging of Boeotia, Attica and Euboea.

OTOH, fate and the weather ended up favoring the Greeks at sea, and following Salamis the Persian army found themselves over-extended, unable to maintain most of their forces in central Greece and vulnerable to the Spartan led counter attack in Platea in 479.

However, with the death of Leonidas, the isolationist faction in Sparta eventually gained ascendence, and following the scandal of of the Persian bribery of Pausanias Sparta essentially withdrew from the war in Asia.

Athens, which emerged from the war with it's fleet intact, seemed positioned to benefit most from "liberating" The Islands of the Aegean and the Ionian cities from Persian rule- a goal which Sparta eventually found itself opposing.

An insufficient resource base and rivalry with Sparta and Thebes ended the Athenian empire, and the long period of fraticidal wars which followed failed to establish a single hegemonic power. Rather, the peripherial states (Epirus, Thessaly and Macedon) used that century to consolidate, develop and modernize until Phillip succesfully established Hegamony over Greece.


But what if the Greek expeditionary force has a more forceful and stubborn leadership in Tempe? Say, if Leonidas is appointed commander rather than staying in Sparta? With greater and better manpower could he hold both Tempe and Sarantoporo? Could a stalemate at both land and sea develop which would leave Persia as a common enemy for a generation or more?

If the Second Greek-Persian war ends with Persia still ensconced in Macedon, with Thebes, Argos and other would be fence sitting Greek cities dragooned into the league, would the league be transformed from a short lived alliance to a longer lived federation with durable institutions? WHat prospects would such a Federation have in the post Achamenid world (assuming the Persian empire goes into terminal decline as it did OTL)

Putting aside the political speculations- is the scenario millitarily plausible?

The question can be parsed down into three components:
1. Can the Tempe Vale be held?
2. Does the League expeditionary force+Thessaly have sufficient manpower to hold the Sarantoporo pass as well Vs whatever force the Persians are capable of supplying through that route?
3. Can the Persians outflank the Greeks by sea? If yes, where, and can the Greeks repulse them as they did at Marathon?

Regarding the first two questions, I've hiked both passes and they seem to me eminently defensible, more so, in many ways, than the Phocian passes. Furthermore, a holding action at Tempe holds several advantages for the Hellenes:
1. More and better troops.
2. Better prospects of reinforcements (pre Carnea, Northern Polis less demoralized and pro-Persian factions weaker)
3. Sarantoporo route requires more of a detour than the pass the Persians used to outflank Thermopylae.
4. More time to fortify both passes.

OTOH, the Tempe is much further away from the League power base and much closer to the Persian supply sources than Thermopylae. Still, all other things being equal, I think it is at least plausible that the Greeks can hold the Persians back by land, and inflict unendurable casualties if they try to break through.

The problem is by sea. OTL the Greek fleet was essentially attrited to defeat in the Battle of Artemisium by the time the Persians outflanked Thermopylae. The Greek, essentially Athenian, fleet was green and was outnumbered 3:1.

Better technique, motivation, supplies and leadership enabled it to inflict slightly more casualties on the Persian fleet, but given the initial force ratio numbers this must be judged a near catastrophic defeat. It is only the storms, which sank 2-3 times as many Persian ships as the Greek Trieremes did, which evened the odds and rendered it a tactical stalemate.

TTL, the naval battle will be fought in nearly the same place as OTLs battle of Artemisium. Why? because the Persians can't land and supply a flanking force anywhere north of Pagasetic gulf. The beaches are two narrow and exposed to storms, the mountains separating the beaches from the Thessalian plain too high, and the trails across the mountains too few and narrow.


Still, the naval battle likely ends in a Greek-Athenian defeat. It will likely be fought a month or two earlier than OTL which means fewer storms, and the Athenian fleet is even Greener than it was OTL. So unless Poseidon lends a trident, The Greek fleet is probably forced to withdraw with even fewer ships than OTL. There probably isn't enough of a fleet in being left to pull off a Salamis, even putting aside the incredible fluke it was OTL.

But it's fair to expect that the Persian fleet will be battered as hell, especially if it ends up engaging in a battle to the death with the Greek fleet, rather than inflicting sufficient casualties to force them into withdrawing.

Still, the Persian fleet now dominates the Agean and has a number of options-
0. one of those options is NOT a close flanking manuver against the Greek force at Tempe and assaulting them from both North and south. The Pagasetic Gulf is too far away for that.
1. But they could land at the Pagasetic Gulf and march on Pherae and Larissa, seeking to strip enough Thessalian and Greek forces away from the Northern passes to enable a breakthrough.
2. or they could march on Thermopylae, and isolate Thessaly from Gree proper. Under these conditions the Thessalians might well capitulate.
3. Alternately they might try for a repeat of Marathon and invade Attica to force Athenes out of the war.
4. Or decide the Spartans are the real threat and invade Lacademon.
5. Or else they can seek to support Greek allies- the most accesible and embittered seems to be Argos. And if they land there they may well march on Corinth and seek to Isolate Sparta from Athens.
6. alternately they may avoid pitched battle and just raid the coasts until league members begin defecting.

So the fate of Hellas essentially rests on which option the Persian fleet chooses to pursue and whether the Greek states prove capable of ejecting any beachead which they form and/or preventing defections and preserving political cohesion long enough for Xerxes to grow tired of the campaign and settle for a statues quo ante peace.

It's also worth while noting that the Persian fleet can operate in effectively for maybe two months until storms render large scale transport of men and provisions between the Persian bases in Macedonia and Asia minor and whatever beachead they establish in mainland Greece very costly.

Thoughts?

So, what do you guys think?
Top