Effects of Athenian victory against Sparta

ben0628

Banned
The year is 425 BC. The Spartan led Peloponnese League is in the midst of fighting the Athenian led Delian League. Although the armies of Sparta and her allies have almost complete control of the mainland, Athens has a trick up her sleeve that could change the outcome of the war. The superior Athenian fleet manages to capture the port of Pylos on the southwestern part of the Peloponnese peninsula. As news of this spreads, helots (slaves) across all of Sparta begin to run away in an attempt to make it to freedom. When they reach Pylos they are given weapons and are told to free their families. Within a year, a massive slave revolt erupts throughout all of Sparta's land. At the same time, A massive Delian League army has assembled in Attica and has begun to march west. Although her soldiers are the best in the world, it is too much for Sparta to bear. Without slaves to run the economy, Spartan society falls apart, famine sweeps across the peninsula, and the Athenian army sacks Sparta in 423 BC. Sparta is destroyed and democratic Athens becomes the dominant power of Greece.

If this scenario occurred, what would the effects of it be? The Peloponnesian War would have ended 19 years earlier and Athens would have ended up on top. I believe that with her mighty navy she and her Delian League allies would have went on to subjugate Sparta's allies in the rest of Greece. Also, because the war ended 19 years earlier, Greece would be much stronger and might have been able to defeat Macedon, thus preventing Alexander the Great from becoming great. From here I could see a Athenian led Greek empire expanding and conquering the entire part of the Balkan peninsula south of the Danube, all of Sicily, and most of Western Anatolia. With Athen's navy she could take on Carthage and by managing to avoid decades upon decades of infighting between the city states (this happened because of a Spartan victory), the Greeks would be powerful enough to take on the Romans, and even maybe be able to conquer all Southern Italy as well.

Is it possible, or do I need alien space bats to make this come true? :)
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I think it is a bit simplistic to say that all the bad stuff happened because of Sparta, but I'll move past that.

One, you still need to take into account the Boetian League - if Athens looks like it is going to completely dominate, they'e the most likely to attack Athens, and most likely to succeed.

If Athens can survive that - and have the "Delian League" survive then it still can't go traipsing off to Anatolia, it still has the challenge of Persia - but only half the forces of Alexander - and without Philip of Macedons military innovations.

Now, if it can take advantage of Macedon, it can be via the sea, and forcing Macedon to remain agrarian.

Now, they could still unite everything, but there is a fundamental difference between the Delian League, and Macedonia under Philip and Alexander - leadership.

Athens leadership can change, and isn't absolute - it needs to either strongarm, or persuade the members of the league to co-operate - especially those members in the Black Sea.

Macedon, the King is absolute - or near enough.

I'm not saying that Athens couldn't, but I think Athens would need to institute Representative Democracy per Demos, so that all City-State members were part of the same body - which I can only imagine will be based in Athens.

Plus, as fundamentally a Federation or Confederation, unless other conquests are given lesser status, all those conquests do is lessen the powers of those within. Short of a strongman, or great leader, the Athenian Federation (as I'll call it now) will likely base itself in Greece.

The only way around that is some rather horrifying (From a democratic perspective) abuse of the Mother-City, Colony relationship - Athens founds a colony, colony does what Athens wants. That way states with excess populations or interest in taking control over foreign resources can believe they will have more political influence, as well as material strength, from colonising the new territories.

So, I see, in the best case - A xenophobic Federal Democractic Athenian Empire - where cities that aren't Greek don't get a voting Representative, but instead a representative that can petition the (Senate? Parliament? Quorum?).

Slow but controlled expansion, with bursts and a steady acceleration.

Eventually you'll have regional voting blocks form, organically if not formally - and as such they'll wield significant influence.

Examples being : Black Sea, Magna Grecia, Asia Minor, Numidia, etc.

Whilst there will be powerful relationships between Mother-cities and colonies, these will disintegrate, or be rendered non-existent in terms of voting priorities.

Frankly, not impossible - but it relies on the fine balance between decentralised power to allow the city states to flourish and act independently in economic terms - but with the right level of control/leeway to allow strong forces that can operate across all frontiers. I say that because we can't forget, with so many city states, with ambitions, that they will get into fights with their neighbours - and that this Empire has a hopelessly poor level of communications once it reaches the scale of fighting in Africa and Gaul, Iberia and Anatolia. They need to be able to raise the "Federation Army in Africa", supported by all the local city states.

I would still genuinely worry about fragmentation, if not dejure, at least defacto - after all, how does Greece hope to enforce the Quorum in Africa, if Africa doesn't want to let them?
 
Greece didn't become weak because Athens was weak - Greece became weak because it kept on fighting internally and not uniting under a single banner.

In OTL Sparta enjoyed a brief hegemony after the Peleponesian war but was brought down by Thebes.

In a TL without Sparta, Thebes is arguably even more likely to challenge Athens on land. Already by 424 BCE the Thebans were strong enough to face off against Athens by themselves.

An external strongman is always going to have a shot at conquering Greece be it from Thessaly, Macedonia or Epirus - these states have the advantage of a relatively centralized leadership against the divided Greeks.

I suppose it just possible to imagine Athens turning into Rome-like oligarchy and extending control over most of Greece through a combination of alliances and client cities but that wouldn't be "democracy" in any shape or form.

Best case for it sans an Alexander or Julius Caesar would be a relatively well organised Aegean state with influence in Southern Italy, Anatolia and Siciliy.

A bit more challenging for Rome to face but ultimately the same result I think.
 

ben0628

Banned
I think it is a bit simplistic to say that all the bad stuff happened because of Sparta, but I'll move past that.

I realize that it is wrong to just soley blame Sparta for all the bad stuff, I just think that bad stuff is less likely to happen if Sparta loses and Athens wins.

I'm not saying that Athens couldn't, but I think Athens would need to institute Representative Democracy per Demos, so that all City-State members were part of the same body - which I can only imagine will be based in Athens.

Couldn't agree more. After the Peloponnesian War, there would have to be drastic reforms. I was thinking that after Sparta is defeated, her allies would be forced to join the Delian League.

After that, the Delian League would become the official name for a large Greek confederation/empire. I was thinking that each city state would have a single representative in a senate based out of Athens. This senate would then vote for five of its members (most likely five most powerful city states) to be on an executive council. Each city state will have complete sovereignty over itself except in matters of foreign policy, which the executive council will have control over. Each city state would also have to provide a certain amount of soldiers/ships that would be stationed at ports and fortresses throughout the confederation.

When it comes to expanding, the confederation must go to war as a whole. No single city state will be allowed to fight someone without the approval of the senate (unless it is in self defense). When a confederation army conquers new land, the existing inhabitants would probably be sold into slavery. the then vacant city would be colonized by Greek settlers (these settlers will be allowed to come from any preexisting city state). After ten years or so of being ruled by the senate, the colony would transition into becoming its own city state and would elect its own leader.

City states would not be allowed to fight each other. All conflicts must be addressed in a confederation court. And to prevent rivalries from turning into conflict, city state's will compete with each other economically or in the Olympics instead of on the battlefield.

If the Delian League can become something like this, I feel that it could slowly expand and truly become a powerful empire. Also with a five person executive council, Alexander the Great or his father could technically get elected to it (this would require Macedon joining the Delian League. I don't know if this would be possible, iv'e been doing some reading but I not entirely sure if Macedonians were accepted as Greeks or not.) and would be able to rule beside Athenian leadership.
 
Last edited:
Not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening.

Athens has just won a major war for hegemony of Greece and you are asking them to give it all back to not only their allies but probably the same people who they just defeated????

A victorious Athens would want the Delian league back on steroids - you are looking at an Athenian controlled navy and standing army funded by tribute from the other "democratic" members of the Delian league. Athenian colonies would multiply and unlike other Greek colonies these would be tied to the home city and aimed at controlling trade and military garrisons
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
Not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening.

Athens has just won a major war for hegemony of Greece and you are asking them to give it all back to not only their allies but probably the same people who they just defeated????

A victorious Athens would want the Delian league back on steroids - you are looking at an Athenian controlled navy and standing army funded by tribute from the other "democratic" members of the Delian league. Athenian colonies would multiply and unlike other Greek colonies these would be tied to the home city and aimed at controlling trade and military garrisons

Athenian Carthage would be interesting, or a better control of the Greek colonies in Italy (or more of a growth as ex-pats go to Italy rather than put up with Athenian rule)
 

ben0628

Banned
Not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening.

Athens has just won a major war for hegemony of Greece and you are asking them to give it all back to not only their allies but probably the same people who they just defeated????

A victorious Athens would want the Delian league back on steroids - you are looking at an Athenian controlled navy and standing army funded by tribute from the other "democratic" members of the Delian league. Athenian colonies would multiply and unlike other Greek colonies these would be tied to the home city and aimed at controlling trade and military garrisons

At first yes, you are right there is no way in hell that Athens would want to give that all up. Yet at the same time, there is no way in hell that all of Greece would allow one city state to rule over it. The Delian League was created to be a unified alliance that would protect Greece against her enemies and Athens was the only member who abused the league's power.

The rest of the city states would see it in their best interests to keep the league alive. Yet at the same time it would be in their best interests to not let Athens have complete control. Greece would eventually force Athens to accept the ultimatum of either being completely destroyed or allow reforms where everyone is treated as allies and equals instead of vassals, like the league was originally intended.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I realize that it is wrong to just soley blame Sparta for all the bad stuff, I just think that bad stuff is less likely to happen if Sparta loses and Athens wins.

No worries, no judgements here.

Couldn't agree more. After the Peloponnesian War, there would have to be drastic reforms. I was thinking that after Sparta is defeated, her allies would be forced to join the Delian League.

This may not be as simple as you might think. The Delian League was fighting the Peloponessean League under the premise of liberating the Greeks from Sparta. If say the people of Elis, Arcadia, Achaea, or Messina decide to form their own League, that entire political discussion has to happen again.

Elis also raises an interesting question - Who does Athens or the Delian League consider Greek? This matters - Stratonicus of Athens certainly considered them the worst barbarians, worse than the Thessalians or Boetians. (yes, some people considered Thebes a barbarian city).

Regarding this then, there is fundamentally three approaches to any conquest by the League, at least as far as ethnicity is considered.

1) Enslavement as Labour - Great for free labour, but there are political ramificiations here "How are we better than Sparta?" Especially if the idea of how "Greek" Elis is still up for debate.

2) Enslavement as Soldiery - Forcing them into troops is a possibility, but then the question remains, who do they serve? The League? Or the city states they are nearby? You'd also want to keep them away from their homeland (which could be difficult strategically if you need to bring them to defend the City of Elis)

3) Citizenship - Fine if they are Greek (still a political question there inevitably, moreso as the League expands). The other political problem is that expansion (as I stated before) reduces the political power of each individual state as part of the League. This could lead to city states insisting that the Macedonians are Barbarians, or that the Boetians are too.

So if we assume success (which I don't think is unreasonable), the question to ask is "What is Greek?" That will be just as much a pattern for their conquests as anything else. If the League is particularly xenophobic, it could rapidly over-enslave, and become a slavocratic society - again, who says that is better than Sparta?

After that, the Delian League would become the official name for a large Greek confederation/empire. I was thinking that each city state would have a single representative in a senate based out of Athens. This senate would then vote for five of its members (most likely five most powerful city states) to be on an executive council. Each city state will have complete sovereignty over itself except in matters of foreign policy, which the executive council will have control over. Each city state would also have to provide a certain amount of soldiers/ships that would be stationed at ports and fortresses throughout the confederation.

I can see many murders of The Big 5 in the future. That number may need to expand with time - if say the Asian Greeks don't have any representative, despite being overall the wealthiest, they'll be infuriated, even if the 5 richest states are in Attica. The Big 5 may work better as the arbitrators of power - defining how certain regions should work together. (i.e. Africa, you have the agreement from the League to create a joint council to govern African actions, primarily defensive actions, or local conflict resolution). Very flexible, and varied rules per region, but it prevents alienation from being a problem.

When it comes to expanding, the confederation must go to war as a whole. No single city state will be allowed to fight someone without the approval of the senate (unless it is in self defense). When a confederation army conquers new land, the existing inhabitants would probably be sold into slavery. the then vacant city would be colonized by Greek settlers (these settlers will be allowed to come from any preexisting city state). After ten years or so of being ruled by the senate, the colony would transition into becoming its own city state and would elect its own leader.

City states would not be allowed to fight each other. All conflicts must be addressed in a confederation court. And to prevent rivalries from turning into conflict, city state's will compete with each other economically or in the Olympics instead of on the battlefield.

If the Delian League can become something like this, I feel that it could slowly expand and truly become a powerful empire. Also with a five person executive council, Alexander the Great or his father could technically get elected to it (this would require Macedon joining the Delian League. I don't know if this would be possible, iv'e been doing some reading but I not entirely sure if Macedonians were excepted as Greeks or not.) and would be able to rule beside Athenian leadership.

I generally agree with this - I think it could expand, but it wouldn't be an Empire as we've ever seen. You'd have the interesting result of a "demographic frontier", where you see the Greek Core expand into the "Frontier", which would be far less Greek, and more redistributed slaves.

I think Macedonia may be the most interesting conundrum. Large, (if butterflies permit) militarily flexible and skillful, but with a common identity - Macedonian, rather than Athenian, if accepted as Greek, they'll make a powerful voting block - they simply will, the King of Pella, or Argeas will fundamentally be recognised as their leader - and dictate huge numbers of votes. If conquered piecemeal? A large, very angry, militarily talented Kingdom wants its land back. The difficulties will come from the strength and unity of the Macedonians, who are already used to jointly choosing their Kings.

After that, you have the Thracians - who threaten the Black Sea food supply for Athens, and again, have a distinct identity from Athens - they may be the first huge influx of Barbarians for even a flexible League.

But yeah - I love the idea and would love to read a timeline based on this - but the reality is that to grow, it will need to institute a flexible structure of governance, to accomodate the difficulties of logistics, communications, and cultural differences.

Also, I'll put my name down for Arbiter of the African Quorum, Lord of Karkhēdōn (Carthage). :p
 
At first yes, you are right there is no way in hell that Athens would want to give that all up. Yet at the same time, there is no way in hell that all of Greece would allow one city state to rule over it. The Delian League was created to be a unified alliance that would protect Greece against her enemies and Athens was the only member who abused the league's power.

The rest of the city states would see it in their best interests to keep the league alive. Yet at the same time it would be in their best interests to not let Athens have complete control. Greece would eventually force Athens to accept the ultimatum of either being completely destroyed or allow reforms where everyone is treated as allies and equals instead of vassals, like the league was originally intended.

Actually Athens was allowed to abuse the Leagues power - all that requires for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Or in this case decide paying a levy was easier than funding an independent standing army and navy.

My point is that Athens has just defeated the most powerful alliance in Greece and controls the half through the League. Yes other city states can restart the war but Athens is going to believe it can win.

And for your concept of an equal alliance - who in Greece, given the opportunity to be Hegemon, is going to settle for an equal share. Athens didn't, Sparta didn't, Thebes didn't and Macedon didn't - egalitarianism is not endemic among the Classical Greeks I'm afraid.
 

ben0628

Banned
Actually Athens was allowed to abuse the Leagues power - all that requires for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Or in this case decide paying a levy was easier than funding an independent standing army and navy.

Throughout the history of the league, there were many revolts against Athenian dominance. They all failed, but that is because it was usually one city state at a time. Eventually all of Greece will rise in revolt against Athens if the Athenians continue to abuse the league's power and I don't see Athens being able to do that.

But this is a made up reality were talking about so it doesn't really matter :)

However I do have a question for you. If you truly do believe Athens can continue to control the league after destroying Sparta, how long do you think it will last, how powerful do you think they will get (in terms of expansion), and how will their empire ultimately fail?

I already came up with an idea of a Greek confederation and now I am in the mood to hear about a possible Athenian empire.
 
Throughout the history of the league, there were many revolts against Athenian dominance. They all failed, but that is because it was usually one city state at a time. Eventually all of Greece will rise in revolt against Athens if the Athenians continue to abuse the league's power and I don't see Athens being able to do that.

But this is a made up reality were talking about so it doesn't really matter :)

However I do have a question for you. If you truly do believe Athens can continue to control the league after destroying Sparta, how long do you think it will last, how powerful do you think they will get (in terms of expansion), and how will their empire ultimately fail?

I already came up with an idea of a Greek confederation and now I am in the mood to hear about a possible Athenian empire.

Actually I don't believe Athens will control the League for long - instead of Sparta finding out the Thebans are actually quite competent at war it will be the Athenians in about the same time frame. So give Athens 30 years in the sun (Acropolis will probably be expanded big time) and the whole Delian League will come crashing down.

The city state concept was dead before the Peleponesian War - however won was doomed to repeat the mistakes of Hegemony. What was needed was to lose the whole concept of democracy (other than a fig leaf for the oligarchs) and move straight to a monarchy or "elected" dictatorship.

Sparta probably had the right political construct - just they ignored the economic realities of empire. Athens had the economic powerhouse but was hamstrung by its love affair with limited democracy.

What you needed was a state which understood the need for strong leadership, was broadly speaking inclusive in its dealings with similar polities and prepared to expand its territories ruthlessly to dominate others.

Step forward Rome and Carthage - Macedon was a bit of an exception that proves the rule having two military genius in 40 years.
 
Top