If the Persians had razed Athens, could they recover?

So, the Persians win at Marathon, occupy Attica and raze Athens. The Spartans and them stalemate, with neither the Spartans able to force their way to Attica nor the Persians able to cross into the Peloponnese. Afterwards the Persians retreat to their original borders (in Macedonia I think they were), but leave a small (but not too small) force in Attica to keep in check the Spartans and make sure that they don't go and conquer the rest of Greece now that Athens is gone.
So, the question is: in this scenario, how long would take for Athens to recover? Would the Persians restore it to serve as a center for their new Satrapy of Attica, would they just build a city from scratch or would they use another city as an administrative center? If the answer is the last one, which cities in Atrica could replace Athens?
 
The Persians did occupy and raze Athens in 480.

After Marathon, I suppose the Athenians just wait until the Persians leave and go back to their city and rebuild.
 
The Persians did occupy and raze Athens in 480.

After Marathon, I suppose the Athenians just wait until the Persians leave and go back to their city and rebuild.
But the point is that the Persians stay. Would they rebuild Athens or just make another city the administrative center?
 
But the point is that the Persians stay. Would they rebuild Athens or just make another city the administrative center?

Why would they stay? The expedition is just a punitive expedition to punish Athens for supporting the Ionian Revolt. There was never any intention to occupy Attica long term.

Athens merely had to just give the Persians earth and water, and Persia would happily accept this "submission" and leave.
 
But the point is that the Persians stay. Would they rebuild Athens or just make another city the administrative center?

I feel that it is too far for them to reasonably hold for long, due to a lack of the Panama canal, and the difficulty of communication during that period.
 
Why would they stay? The expedition is just a punitive expedition to punish Athens for supporting the Ionian Revolt. There was never any intention to occupy Attica long term.

Athens merely had to just give the Persians earth and water, and Persia would happily accept this "submission" and leave.
The thing is that, in this course of events Athens is so thoroughly destroyed that Spartan dominance over Greece is all but assured (and is bound to last at least some decades). The Persians had just fought a costly war due to one city state meddling in their affairs, and don't want a potentially united Greece under a city of warrior-citizens trained from their infancy to fight to be capable of doing that. With that in mind they decide to occupy Attica to block any possible Spartan influence up north. And with that in mind, they need a city from wich govern Attica (that is the question).
I'm not sure it is absolutely plausible, but it doesn't seem so illogical to me.
 
The thing is that, in this course of events Athens is so thoroughly destroyed that Spartan dominance over Greece is all but assured (and is bound to last at least some decades). The Persians had just fought a costly war due to one city state meddling in their affairs, and don't want a potentially united Greece under a city of warrior-citizens trained from their infancy to fight to be capable of doing that. With that in mind they decide to occupy Attica to block any possible Spartan influence up north. And with that in mind, they need a city from wich govern Attica (that is the question).
I'm not sure it is absolutely plausible, but it doesn't seem so illogical to me.

Why would Athens be so thoroughly destroyed? Athens wasn't when it was actually razed and occupied ten years later, and even entered a golden age afterwards? If the army was destroyed in Marathon, then I'm sure the population would leave and come back when the Persians are gone, or just offer earth and water to signify "submission". In either case, the Persians would leave since it's purpose, to punish the Athenians, was fulfilled.

Remember, there was no plan to actually occupy Attica. Darius just wanted to punish the Athenians.

In your scenario, he did punish the Athenians. So there's no reason to actually leave a garrison.
 
Why would Athens be so thoroughly destroyed? Athens wasn't when it was actually razed and occupied ten years later, and even entered a golden age afterwards? If the army was destroyed in Marathon, then I'm sure the population would leave and come back when the Persians are gone, or just offer earth and water to signify "submission". In either case, the Persians would leave since it's purpose, to punish the Athenians, was fulfilled.

Remember, there was no plan to actually occupy Attica. Darius just wanted to punish the Athenians.

In your scenario, he did punish the Athenians. So there's no reason to actually leave a garrison.
And how could he have a change of mind and leave an occupation force? It doesn't have to be that big, just enough to occupy Athens and it's surroundings and block any attempt of Spartan conquest beyond the Peloponnese (or delay it 'till the cavalry arrives).
 
Top