Is an Ancient Athenian Super Power plausible?

I mean, on a scale similar to that of the Roman Empire? One ran from Athens itself, that is, rather than an Empire that just happens to include Athens.
 
Alcibiades succeeds in the Sicilian expedition and then launces a Peloponesian invasion that forces Sparta to terms. Alcibiades unites most of Greece into an Athenian-dominated league, then invades Persia a couple generations early and becomes King of Kings. Marching back from the East with hundreds of thousands of armed Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Lydians, Alcibiades obliterates the remaining rights of the Greek cities.

Of course, this Empire would probably be ruled from Babylon or some such... Maybe in the long run, the Empire launches expeditions that conquer Italy and Carthage. The Empire splits into a Mediterranean (Athens) and an Asiatic (Babylon) component.

Plausible?
 
So...yes...if they manage to find a military/political leader as successful as Alexander the Great....and somehow replicate the military reforms of the Macedonian Phalanx (much easier to train/equip) and the Companion Calvary...

Of course...this could be said of any Greek state...Macedon wasnt exactly the richest/most civilized area of Greece at the time...
 
So...yes...if they manage to find a military/political leader as successful as Alexander the Great....and somehow replicate the military reforms of the Macedonian Phalanx (much easier to train/equip) and the Companion Calvary...

Of course...this could be said of any Greek state...Macedon wasnt exactly the richest/most civilized area of Greece at the time...

Praeses is dead on about Macedonia. It was still very much up in the air about their destiny.

Athens DID however enact the Iphicratian reforms of their army's in the pre Macedonian period. If you get some good military cookies into the Council of 12 Admirals, along with the Iphicratian Military system (which was simply a force based on pikeman and peltasts rather than Hoplites), there is massive military potential. The Iphicratian army was even able to whip the Spartan and Theban armies in their time (ca. 387-373 BC).

Here's the issue: Iphicrates, an Athenian general, betrayed Athens in favor of his father-in-law (and former enemy) Cotys when Athens attempted to capture the Gallipoli Peninsula. He was able to defeat Athens and keep her from dominating the region, although he did return to duty there after his victory in a diminished social position. If he were to support Athens and conquere the Gallipoli Peninsula, the Athenian Empire would be in FAR better position to eliminate Byzantium, which leads to...

The Athenian Social War (357-355 BC).
As Athens was becoming Hegemon of the Aegean, several of her client states (particularly Chios, Rhodos, and Chios) with the assistance of the then-independent City-state of Byzantium and the then-unimportant Phillip II of Macedon. Without the Byzantine assisstance getting past the dardenelles (due to the increased Athenian presence in Thrace and Asia Minior caused by the POD), the rogue states would be forced to rely on the Macedonian forces, who were hated by the Greeks even more than the Athenians. Phillip's characteristic aggression would likely cause those Greek cities NOT in favor of Athens to swing to the Athenian cause. After all, at least the Athenians(being good, logical, Greeks) offered Federation rather than Macedonian (being cruel, sheep effing barbarians) Absolutism.

The Athenians and the Greek allies win a rapid war against the Macedonians, and aren't forced to plunder Persian ships (which lead to Persia threatening war on Athens). For good measure, the Athenian Politicians force federal Hegemony on the Greek Poleis, declaring that they'd occupy Macedon in order to prevent that country's threat. In exchange for their participation as a member state (and giving their remaining military to Athens) the Macedonian nobility (save the dead Phillip) are allowed to enter Athenian society. In a few years, the Macedonian Alexandros may or may not join the Athenian army...and may or may not go on to spread the Empire ;).

So, in conclusion,you have a sated (but wary) Persia, and an Athenian Empire that successfully achieved Greek Hegemony which has no competition from Macedonia (reduced to a territory by the failures of a foolhardy and aggressive King Phillip II ;)).

Based on the above, Athens would have a cohesive (if less than solidified) empire stretching from the southern tip of illyria to Asia Minor (covering more or less the area in blue on the attached map) at circa 350BC. Definitely not a bad start for an empire.

Is that what you're looking for? I hope my post helped.

Atenas.png
 

Hecatee

Donor
the main obstacle to that is the fact that the athenian (and most greek cities) were based upon a concept of citizenship far more restrictive than anything that existed in Rome. Thus they could not include as many new citizens in their state and increase their manpower base, leading to their power resting on unequal federations where the "allied" cities felt cheated and where individual citizens felt frustrated from any possibility to go up the social scale by becoming athenian, except for a very few among them who might get adopted into the Athenian citizenship by the athenian assembly...
 
the main obstacle to that is the fact that the athenian (and most greek cities) were based upon a concept of citizenship far more restrictive than anything that existed in Rome. Thus they could not include as many new citizens in their state and increase their manpower base, leading to their power resting on unequal federations where the "allied" cities felt cheated and where individual citizens felt frustrated from any possibility to go up the social scale by becoming athenian, except for a very few among them who might get adopted into the Athenian citizenship by the athenian assembly...

The Romans had a practice in their early years of "citizenship without being able to vote in Rome..." - could the Athenians have developed some sort of half-way house towards full assimilation? Or perhaps the Roman pratice of removing the population of a conquered city and resettling them as new citizens on territory already controlled by Rome? (Just looking on line, seems the Aventine Hill may have been settled by displaced conquered peoples in that fashion).

Bruce
 
The Romans had a practice in their early years of "citizenship without being able to vote in Rome..." - could the Athenians have developed some sort of half-way house towards full assimilation? Or perhaps the Roman pratice of removing the population of a conquered city and resettling them as new citizens on territory already controlled by Rome? (Just looking on line, seems the Aventine Hill may have been settled by displaced conquered peoples in that fashion).

Bruce

Agreed. Until the Roman social war (circa 93-88BC) the Roman Empire was a bunch of semi-independent states...the Roman method was to break the Italics' skulls in once they got rowdy. Perhaps the Athenians will respond in a different way (displacing various peoples or giving some form of representation). Or, they could bash their allies' faces in once they rebel and solidify their empire. Either way, centralization is definitely possible.
 
I think so

I think that, yes, Athens could've been the center of a great power. Somebody recently posted a surprisingly plausible timeline in which exactly that happened.

Now, Athens did need some major reforms to get there - it needed checks and balances. Imagine if California had to deal with foreign policy with its state-failing referendum system, and you'll get the picture. An unchecked democracy is better than an unchecked monarchy, but neither are going to take over the world, just as Rome went from long growth to long shrinkage a century or two after it went monarchic.

My favorite way is, along Dathi's lines, if the Delian League had acquired an opposition party. It was the world's first representative democracy, but it largely rubberstamped Athenian decisions. Imagine what state our democracy would've been in if our Congress had simply agreed with agreed with everything Presidents wanted for our first thirty years. The Athenian-superpower thread had internal reforms that created extra checks.

Democracies are pretty good at self-reform, and I believe they eventually would've done something about the citizenship problem.
 
the main obstacle to that is the fact that the athenian (and most greek cities) were based upon a concept of citizenship far more restrictive than anything that existed in Rome. Thus they could not include as many new citizens in their state and increase their manpower base, leading to their power resting on unequal federations where the "allied" cities felt cheated and where individual citizens felt frustrated from any possibility to go up the social scale by becoming athenian, except for a very few among them who might get adopted into the Athenian citizenship by the athenian assembly...

On the other hand, the Greeks were aware of the idea of a federal league. It was in its infancy, but it did develop. Could that go somewhere?
 
On the other hand, the Greeks were aware of the idea of a federal league. It was in its infancy, but it did develop. Could that go somewhere?

Surely. Without the monarchist yoke of Phillipos, the Athenians will likely apprach the issue of uniting these groups pragmatically in the 350's, they were approaching that kind of system otl anyway.

Either way, Athens' issue is going to be Thebes and Persia (which will not be whacked by Alexander).

I look forawrd to seeing this TL!
 
Last edited:
One thing, Greek federations were not groupings of equal city-states. A federation in ancient Greece was 1 powerful city-state with the weaker city-states it dominated in 'alliance'. When these weaker city-states got stronger, or thought that the leader of their league was weak enough, they broke away and tried to create leagues of their own. Just look at Thebes and how it left the Peloponnesan League after Sparta had worn itself out and founded its own league.

Athens could not create an empire on the scale of the Romans. The Greeks were simply too limiting on what a 'citizen' was (Athens tightened citizenship requirements during its golden age) and too short sighted when it came to forging international alliances.

These two facts are what gave Rome its greatest strength. Most of the kings of Rome absorbed neighboring tribes into Rome with the same rights as the Romans living in the city at that time. This made the Romans more open to granting citizenship to 'foreigners' than most peoples of this time.

That openness in turn worked its way into Roman foreign policy. Up until the Punic Wars the Romans always bound their defeated foes to them by sharing the victory with them. This lead to the 'Latin Rights' of the various Italian city-states under Rome. Those rights locked the Italians into see the good of Rome and the good of their city-state as being one in the same. The strength of this bond as demonstrated in the 2 Punic War is something that never existed in a league of Greek city-states.

I respect and admire ancient Athens. At the same time, I don't see how the Athenians could expand the Delian League much further and still control their empire. What made Athens so great culturally and militarily in Greece also limited it to being only a regional power. The region that I speak of is the Aegean Sea. Athens simply could not become a world power like Rome and still be 'Athens'.
 
The various 5th century Leagues, however, aren't where Greek Federalism reached its height. It was actually the 3rd century where that happened, and they were real Federations where individual member states had more or less equal rights within the Federation. The Aetolian and Achaean Leagues are the best examples.
 
I will take your word for it Jaded Railman because 3rd century Greek federalism is not my strong point. I have a good understanding of Greek federalism in the 5th and 4th centuries.

I would like to point something out. It was in the 5th and early half of the 4th centuries BC that the city-states of Greece were 'major' powers. After that, Greece was eclipsed militarily by the Hellenistic kingdoms which was later joined by Rome. The Greek city-states remained independent for as long as they did in the Hellenistic era because the Secludes and Ptolemies were more interested in each other's domain. Furthermore, the Greek city-states only had to deal with the weakest and generally most unstable successor state Macedonia.

Now, given the thread's original question: Could Athens create an empire to rival Rome, my points show that Athens could not. At their height the Athenians didn't understand federalism well enough to cross the political boundary between city-state and a full nation-state if you will. When they DID understand in the 3rd century, Athens had become a non-entity from a military point of view.
 
They were weak in the 3rd century because of their disunity. The Aegean was still the most densely populated, wealthiest area in western Eurasia right through the end of antiquity. Get some unity amongst the Aegean Greek city states and they could take on virtually any other polity of the time in terms of numbers. I think the only exception would be Rome itself, because once Rome controlled both Italy and North Africa it was more or less unstoppable.
 
Top