"Emperor of Hellas"

With a PoD in 500 BC would it of ever been possible for some guy to declare himself the emperor of Greece and make his justification because he's the great grandson of Zeus or Apollo, similar to the Empeor of Japan in Japan? and possibly his monarchy surviving at least until the medieval ages?
 
It was notoriously difficult to unite the greek city states at this time, so I'm doubtful. Also sons and grandsons of Zeus were dime a dozen in the ancient world.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
With a POD that early, of course it's possible. But though the POD may be that early, the creation of the empire will probably take place later. You can set events in motion that lead to an earier degradation of the old system of competing (leages of) city-states, or you can have some ATL war with the Persians cause the Greeks to unite under a single power which then stays in place and eventually grows into a true empire.

This is all possible. The chances are, however, that you'll see an empire later on. Why? Because the prevailing political conditions of the period of competing (leages of) city-states made it inherently difficult for any one of them to attain true hegemony over all the others. But in the period that these old structures were in decline, avenues were opened up for ambitious conquerors and unifiers. We see this in OTL. Philippos II subdued the decaying order of Greece with a finality the city-state Greeks had not been able to imagine beforehand. And his famous son Alexander was a true imperialist. Theirs was the era wherein the foundation of a true Hellenic Empire really became a likely outcome.

Some possibilities include Jason of Pherae succeeding in his ambitions to create a hegemony over all the Greeks, with Thessaly taking the place that Macedon later would in OTL (under Philippos II). Jason, or one of his heirs, could then take on a title that woyuld be equivalent to 'Emperor'. Similarly, we could see Philippos II himself living longer, winning a war against Persia, but accepting a peace offer where he gets Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt (the same offer that Alexander rejected in OTL). This would settle the issue, and assuming Philippos can make his real stable, this would give him and his heirs control over a "greater Hellenic sphere", without all of Persia involved. The whole area could be gradually Hellenised and integrated, slowly coalescing into a true Hellenic Empire. There is also the option of a slightly more cautious/reasonable ATL version of Alexander himself, who accepts the peace offer and then does the exact same thing as I just described his dad doing.

All these options could lead to a Hellenic Empire. It's not strange that they are clustered so closely together. The time was right for such developments. In OTL, it of course led to the Hellenic Period with its warring kingdoms. But there lies another option that I see leading to a Hellenic Empire: the Greek kingdoms of the era were going through a war of attrition, not unlike the Warring States Period of Chinese history. In OTL, Rome swooped in and established hegemony. In an ATL where Rome gets screwed early on, I fully expect the "Hellenic Warring States Period" to end with one of them winning out over the others, and establishing an Empire.

So, the short anwer: it is possible with a POD in 500 BC or so, but it is way, way more likely with a later POD.
 
I wonder what title would be used...Basileus, later used as an Imperial title, generally meant "king" during the period IIRC. If you have a progression vaguely similar to the late Res Publica, Archon is probably the most similar title linguistically and culturally to Imperator. Otherwise, I'd expect a new, grandiose title to be created--Androkrator, perhaps?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I wonder what title would be used...Basileus, later used as an Imperial title, generally meant "king" during the period IIRC. If you have a progression vaguely similar to the late Res Publica, Archon is probably the most similar title linguistically and culturally to Imperator. Otherwise, I'd expect a new, grandiose title to be created--Androkrator, perhaps?

The classical title for "king of kings" was "wanax" (also rendered "vanax" and "anax", depending on period and dialect). It's the title that Agamemnon uses in the Iliad, demonstrating that while others on the expedition are kings of their own peoples, he is the supreme leader and commands the loyalty of them all (at least for the duration of the war).

Mind you, the title was archaic, and may be completely overlooked. I fancy the idea of Alexander using it in an ATL where he lives longer and unifies his conquests, though, on the grounds that he was a total fanboy of all the Homeric stuff and always kept a copy of the Iliad with him (the copy annotated by Aristotle, no less).
 
The classical title for "king of kings" was "wanax" (also rendered "vanax" and "anax", depending on period and dialect). It's the title that Agamemnon uses in the Iliad, demonstrating that while others on the expedition are kings of their own peoples, he is the supreme leader and commands the loyalty of them all (at least for the duration of the war).

Mind you, the title was archaic, and may be completely overlooked. I fancy the idea of Alexander using it in an ATL where he lives longer and unifies his conquests, though, on the grounds that he was a total fanboy of all the Homeric stuff and always kept a copy of the Iliad with him (the copy annotated by Aristotle, no less).
So, Alexandros hAnax-Androon?
 
I wonder what title would be used...Basileus, later used as an Imperial title, generally meant "king" during the period IIRC. If you have a progression vaguely similar to the late Res Publica, Archon is probably the most similar title linguistically and culturally to Imperator. Otherwise, I'd expect a new, grandiose title to be created--Androkrator, perhaps?

The classical title for "king of kings" was "wanax" (also rendered "vanax" and "anax", depending on period and dialect). It's the title that Agamemnon uses in the Iliad, demonstrating that while others on the expedition are kings of their own peoples, he is the supreme leader and commands the loyalty of them all (at least for the duration of the war).

I don't think "Anax" was ever used as a title, even by Alexander, who was a big Homer fan and had an enormous ego (so if anybody were to adopt a title given to Homeric heroes, it'd be him...).

IIRC Philip and Alexander were given the title "Hegemon" (Ἡγεμών), so that would probably be the most likely title IOTL. Strategos would also be an option if the ruler wanted to emphasise the military aspect of the Grecian state (and could go a similar evolution to "Imperator", which also started as a military title). Basileus would also be a possibility, particularly if the king wanted to emulate the trappings of the Persian monarchy.
 

Kaze

Banned
Some legends place Alexander the Great as the bastard child of Zeus....so... he could in theory run with it.
 
Some legends place Alexander the Great as the bastard child of Zeus....so... he could in theory run with it.
He did run with it. As did all of his successors. Ascribing divine origins to a king was very common. The only problem was that by the Hellenistic era, a king's legitimacy depended on his ability to conquer. A king that couldn't take spear-won land would not remain king for very long. Compare this to the Japanese Emperors, who often did literally nothing and were still revered.

It is possible for the Emperor to be thought of as inherently divine like the Japanese Emperors, rather than to be revered based on his achievement like IOTL. It would only require time. The first Roman Emperors, for example, always had to qualify their existence and considered themselves simply to be the first among equals. By the late Empire, however, most could not imagine there not being an Emperor. If a Greek king conquers all of Greece and his successors stay in power long enough, the office of Emperor (or whatever Greek equivalent it may be) would become universally accepted. After all, (Byzantine) Emperors did end up ruling the Greek world for over 1,000 years, and it didn't seem to occur to anyone that a change in government was needed.
 
Last edited:

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
He did run with it. As did all of his successors. Ascribing divine origins to a king was very common. The only problem was that by the Hellenistic era, a king's legitimacy depended on his ability to conquer. A king that couldn't take spear-won land would not remain king for very long. Compare this to the Japanese Emperors, who often did literally nothing and were still revered.

It is possible for the Emperor to be thought of as inherently divine like the Japanese Emperors, rather than to be revered based on his achievement like IOTL. It would only require time. The first Roman Emperors, for example, always had to qualify their existence and considered themselves simply to be the first among equals. By the late Empire, however, most could not imagine there not being an Emperor. If a Greek king conquers all of Greece and his successors stay in power long enough, the office of Emperor (or whatever Greek equivalent it may be) would become universally accepted. After all, (Byzantine) Emperors did end up ruling the Greek world for over 1,000 years, and it didn't seem to occur to anyone that a change in government was needed.
Problem was that Alexander wasn't satisfied with just being the son of Zeus - he stretched it to include syncretic beliefs that Amun (and by extension Amun Ra) were also his father. Some what confusing and difficult to make Emperor of Hellas a nationalistic religion like the Japanese did with their emperor.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I don't think "Anax" was ever used as a title, even by Alexander, who was a big Homer fan and had an enormous ego (so if anybody were to adopt a title given to Homeric heroes, it'd be him...).

Indeed, but as Derek notes (quoted below), Alexander -- during his life -- assumed titles wherever he went. Thus, he was Basileus in Macedon, Hegemon in Greece, Pharaoh in Egypt and Shahanshah in Persia.

My idea was more that if he had lived longer, he might have assumed a more universal title, in line with his aims of forging his empire into a united entity. Naturally, that's all speculation.


Problem was that Alexander wasn't satisfied with just being the son of Zeus - he stretched it to include syncretic beliefs that Amun (and by extension Amun Ra) were also his father. Some what confusing and difficult to make Emperor of Hellas a nationalistic religion like the Japanese did with their emperor.

True! With Alexander (as he was in OTL), even living longer, you wouldn't end up with a Hellenic Empire, that's for sure. I see potential for a very impressive "God-Emperor"-like position for him and his ATL heirs, but it would be a universal "ruler of the known world" kind of title, rather than "Emperor of the Greeks".
 
Problem was that Alexander wasn't satisfied with just being the son of Zeus - he stretched it to include syncretic beliefs that Amun (and by extension Amun Ra) were also his father. Some what confusing and difficult to make Emperor of Hellas a nationalistic religion like the Japanese did with their emperor.

The Greeks commonly equated foreign gods with their own, so I should think that they probably just considered Amun a foreign name for Zeus.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Yes but that wasn't why Alexander did it. He didn't want to be Emperor of the Hellenes - we wanted to be King of Kings, Son of God to the world. Even in the Indian campaign he encouraged the belief of local rulers that he was an avatar of Vishnu. So he wasn't particular about Zeus, son of every God was just fine and king of all.
 
The Greeks commonly equated foreign gods with their own, so I should think that they probably just considered Amun a foreign name for Zeus.

Heck, they considered HaShem a name of Dionysus. It wasn't syncretism in the sense of combining beliefs the way Sikhism combines Hindu and Muslim ideas (for example) it was henotheistically shoehorning almost everyone else into their pantheon.
 
Heck, they considered HaShem a name of Dionysus. It wasn't syncretism in the sense of combining beliefs the way Sikhism combines Hindu and Muslim ideas (for example) it was henotheistically shoehorning almost everyone else into their pantheon.

A practice that the Romans would later adopt.
 
Top