How long can the Greek Cities last without getting Conquered?

The one failing of the Ancient Greeks was always their disunity. And even after Alexander's Empire fell apart they went back to their bickering, only to be re-conquered by Rome. So, how long can Greece last while still being a group of bickering city-states? The most unified they are allowed to be is some sort of hegemony, there cannot be any actual political union, just domination.
 
The one failing of the Ancient Greeks was always their disunity. And even after Alexander's Empire fell apart they went back to their bickering, only to be re-conquered by Rome. So, how long can Greece last while still being a group of bickering city-states? The most unified they are allowed to be is some sort of hegemony, there cannot be any actual political union, just domination.

As long as there isn't a fresh nearby power, like Rome or Macedon, then the city states are safe. I don't know how long that could last, however
 
The one failing of the Ancient Greeks was always their disunity. And even after Alexander's Empire fell apart they went back to their bickering, only to be re-conquered by Rome. So, how long can Greece last while still being a group of bickering city-states? The most unified they are allowed to be is some sort of hegemony, there cannot be any actual political union, just domination.
You butterfly away Rome and Greek city-states have a good chance to live much(!) longer. Remember there were a lot of Greek city-states all over the Mediterranean. Without the world power like Rome some of them would definitely last for centuries as more or less independent polities.
 
Let's see.

You could change the result of the Peloponnesian War, an Athens left in control and with weakened enemies in the early 4th Century might be left in a position to establish a lasting hegemony. This especially requires the butterflying away of the Oligarchic Revolutions that did so much damage. Interestingly, this also butterflies Socrates' trial and execution away.

You could have a Macedonian-controlled successor state set up shop in mainland Hellas; for as long as they retained control of the most major cities it's unlikely it would be easily threatened by the rest. This could then morph into some kind of quasi-Hellenic union.

Post 280 BCE, I think the cause was pretty much lost. In my timeline there is a quasi-independent polity in Greece but this is essentially a vassal state to a larger Empire, and this was with a PoD in 323. If changes are made, they're most likely to need to occur before Phillip II's reign in Macedon.

Alternatively, you could go for the wild card and try to find a way for Greece to develop differently in the post-Mycaenean collapse. The 'polis' as a real political entity only really developed around the 8th Century BC. The only problem is that there are no histories for this time period, so you'd really be trying to make a Cathedral from copying a ruined church with a gutted interior, fallen in roof and graffiti scrawled all over it.
 

OS fan

Banned
Don't forget that between the times of Macedonian and Roman supremacy, the Celts also invaded.
 
But that seem to imply they will remain more or less disunited... Would there be later, maybe from foreign ideas, influences and all, one day, fataly, a movement to unity at least part of Helas? Greece at least and/or the Great Greece and Sicily?
 

Infinity

Banned
Fear us, for we have Pyrrhus

The one failing of the Ancient Greeks was always their disunity. And even after Alexander's Empire fell apart they went back to their bickering, only to be re-conquered by Rome. So, how long can Greece last while still being a group of bickering city-states? The most unified they are allowed to be is some sort of hegemony, there cannot be any actual political union, just domination.

In 278, Pyrrhus was faced with two choices. Per request of the Macedonians, he could have become king of Macedonia, after King Ceraunus was killed by the Gauls. Instead he chose to protect Greek Sicilians from Carthage, before Rome even surrendered. The Battle of Asculum was just a year before. Pyrrhus' forces suffered heavy casualties at the hands of Rome, and needed time to recover. Trying to take on Rome, and Carthage, back to back, was the wrong decision. Instead, Pyrrhus should have let Carthage take Sicily, become king of Macedonia, and protect the homeland from Gallic invasions. Indeed, a Carthaginian Sicily would make Carthage a closer neighbor of Rome, forcing an earlier confrontation between the two powers. Furthermore, Macedonian king Pyrrhus, having the enthusiastic support of the Macedonians behind him, would be more effective than the OTL in driving back the Gauls. After their defeat, the Gauls would return home, and look for other lands to attack. Perhaps somewhere closer to them, such as Roman territory.
 
People seem not to realise that Greek polis were uniting - at least during Hellenistic period - look at Achaean League, for example.
 
The various leagues and suchlike are mostly far older than the Hellenistic period, and the majority of mainland Greece was controlled by the Macedonians in this period anyway. I wouldn't say there was any historically distinctive unification movement in Greece in this period that I know of.
 

HeWhoIsMe

Banned
People seem not to realise that Greek polis were uniting - at least during Hellenistic period - look at Achaean League, for example.

The leagues usually operated under the leadership of a prominent member/leader who usually possesed the political and military might to wrest control and head the entire League(the Athenians were especially known to be rather heavy-handed in their leadership of the Delian League).

These were hardly unions among equals. Rather forced attempts at creating wider confederations among the fiercely independent city states, usually with the purpose of sticking it to other Greeks rather than defending against common enemies.

The minor members were able to place themselves under the political and military umbrella of the leader while the leader was able to spread his web of power and advance his political and military agenda even further, so it was a win-win situation. Also there were various economic incentives in joining a league but that was about all there was.

The political independence of each member was never questioned, because, quite frankly, under the given historical, political and social circumstances these loose federations of independent states were already the highest level of unity the Greek poleis could have ever achieved.
 
Top