Kings of Kings: Persia is Victorious TL

Interesting TL, but I have a few thoughts.

An Achaemenid army of 200,000 plus is just pure fantasy, I think. A fifth of that would be a very large army for this period. I recommend you revise your numbers downward quite sharply.

I think that "the death of Western Civilisation" is probably much overrated. Quite apart from the surviving Greek colonies to the West, there's no reason Greek culture shouldn't flourish under Persian rule, in the way that the Greeks of Asia Minor did IOTL. Sure, things will look very different, but Europe is still certain to have a good bit of influence from the Greeks.

Megalopolis did not exist at the time of the Achaemenid invasions of Europe- it was founded by the Thebans as a home for former Spartan subjects following their great victory of 371BC over Sparta.

I used this source for the Persian army numbers, altough there seems to be a lot of debate in the exact quantity. Some numbers may be off I admit.

Greeks will have heavy influence in Europe and even the rest of Persia, but they won't be the dominant culture: European civilization will take a whole different path, looking more east if you will.

Thanks for the comment on Megalopolis, I certainly missed that. Correcting.

As for the Spartans (Anyone knowns how to quote multiple posts?) Keep in mind that Xerxes had no diplomatic contact with the Spartans before the battle began. Xerxes' decided to burn down the city only after it became apparent the losses would be too great. Indeed, the Helots and Spartan atrocities had influence in the decision, but even if the Spartans tried to surrender, it would be hard to find someone to surrender the city from/to in the heat of battle and destruction. Individual surrenders would of course exist, but they won't be recorded by chronists. Those who survived, I think, would not want to be called Spartans anymore from fear of persecution from Helots.
 
Last edited:
As for the Spartans (Anyone knowns how to quote multiple posts?) Xerxes' decided to burn down the city only after it became apparent the losses would be too great. Indeed, the Helots and Spartan atrocities had influence in the decision, but even if the Spartans tried to surrender, it would be hard to find someone to surreder the city from/to in the heat of battle and destruction. Individual surrenders would of course exist, but they won't be recorded by chronists.

I just quote them separately and copy/paste, there might be a more efficient method.

And I presume the Spartans don't surrender earlier because they're too stubborn for their own good/Xerxes freeing helots = end of the world/etc.
 
I just quote them separately and copy/paste, there might be a more efficient method.

And I presume the Spartans don't surrender earlier because they're too stubborn for their own good/Xerxes freeing helots = end of the world/etc.

I do that but it doesn't lead to happy posting :p

You are about right. This is the culture that invented "Return with your shield or on it". They would never accept surrendering their way of life; I would presume that anybody who did speak against fighting the Persians would find a quick way into the pits. Desperate individuals may surrender in the battle; they are still humans after all but "We killed most Spartans; some surrendered and went into hidding but that's OK" is not as impressive as "We completely annihilated the barbaric Spartan threat" in a monument. The lack of Greek bias in TTL doesn't mean lack of Persian bias. :D
 
Chapter 3, with a craptastic map!
Chapter 3: Aftermath of the Hellenic Campaign: organizing the territories

pREguxO.png


In early 478 Xerxes divided the European territories of the Empire into the Macedonian Satrapy to the north and the Hellas Satrapy to the south. He appointed his cousin and brother-in-law Marduniya* as the Satrap of Hellas. Marduniya was already well known as the general who solved the Ionian rebellion and led the Persian Navy during the Hellenic Campaign, so he was a natural choice. Vidarna** commander of the Companions*** elite infantry and a general during the invasion of Hellas (and also the son of a prominent satrap of Media with the same name), was appointed Satrap of Macedonia for his services.


Xerxes' established the capital of the Hellas Satrapy in Athens. Despite being damaged by the war, Athens was still Hellas' largest city and an important port and thus the perfect place for a capital. However, Athenians still beared some resentment against the Persians, and were the perfect leaders should a rebellion arise. When Xerxes successor, Artaxerxes I ordered the construction of the Palace of the Satraps in the suburbs near Piraeus, it was to be used not only as a place of government, but also as a base of spies to keep tabs on the Athenians. Despite that, most politicians who spoke against the Persians were ostracized, if only for pragmatic reasons. Some of these politicians would become leaders of the Hellenic Diaspora.


Hellas would prove a difficult place to govern. Marduyina, like most Achaeminid satraps ruled with a light hand over its subjects, but still was a heavy influence on Hellenic politics. Having experience with the Ionian rebellion, he often worked to ostracize or topple down tyrants and replacing them with democratic councils. He was well aware of the fragmented nature of Hellenic city states, so he tried to organize them intro pro-Acheamenind leagues around the two strongest cities after the war: Corinth and Thebes. Having surrendered to the Achaeminids early in the war, they were virtually untouched by it. Marduyina encouraged a “friendly competition” between the two cities, keeping them just at each other's throats to not form an alliance against the Satrap, but making them cooperate enough to let trade flow and help with Persian civil projects.
Corinth was invaded by the Persians, but it being the largest city in the Peloponnese after the destruction of Sparta, was quickly reconstructed.

The city was ruled by a democratic council established after the war, and extended its influence all over the Peloponnese. Its rival, Thebes, ruled all of northern Hellas, and was a steadfast ally of the Achaeminids since the invasion. While they officially were leaders of the Peloponnesian and Boeatian leagues respectively and held influence over most cities, they were in fact an useful construct for the Achaeminids to help with tax collecting and administration over the Satrapy. Instead of having representatives for every Hellene city and town, Marduyina let them answer to their league of choice and collected the tribute directly from them. The Persians only intervened in case of war or when mediation was need, but held a huge influence in councils and courts all over Hellas in order to prevent that. It was a common saying that “The Great King profits from war and peace”, but in truth, peace was a much desired state.


Not all cities fell down in this dualism. Athens itself commanded enough population and trade to become a power in its own right outside the leagues; ironically that meant taking more orders from the Achaeminids. Some cities like Argos switched leagues as convenient. A special case were the Aegean Islands: these fell down into Lydian administration [1] , but in most cases (like the Crete Insurrection of 472 [2]) it was the Hellas Satrapy who solved their issues. Another special case were the Helots; despite officially belonging to the Peloponnesian League, they were more loyal to the Persians. This, and the fact that many were Zoroastrian converts [3], made most Hellenes distrustful of them. The Thessalians to the north were between Macedonian and Hellenic influence, but most were loyal to the Achaeminids. Many other independent minor cities and factions added to the confusion. Hellas was not an “straightforward” Satrapy like, for example Media or Egypt: Dagutu reports an anecdotal [4] conversation between Xerxes and Mardiyuna, where the Great King asks his Satrap if Hellas should not be divided into further satrapies. Mardiyuna answers “We should not bother: the Hellenes already did that work for us.”


The greatest issue Hellas was that of slavery. Most of the cities held large slave populations; over half of the population in Athens was composed of them. The Achaeminids were against slavery [5], and the newly freed Helots began to stir the slaves into rebellion. After the Athenian Slave Rebellion of 471, Great King Artaxerxes I proclaimed the Emancipation Edict, which gave all the slaves the right to emancipation under certain circumstances (including conversion to Zoroastrianism). The edict was heavily protested by the Hellenes, and led to the Emancipation Crisis [6] in 468 involving the blockade of Piraeus and the refusal of tribute from several cities, which was solved by granting heavy compensations to slave-owners. The edict was a success for the Persians however, as the freedmen population was a huge asset in their favor.


The Macedonian Satrapy was dominated by the Kingdom of Macedonia: a loyal ally of Xerxes. In reward for the services brought by their phalanxes, he allowed Macedonian king Alexander a great expansion of its territory. Macedonia was considered backwards to the southern Hellens, deprived of most trade from its lack of ports. The Achaeminids extended the Royal Road to Athens during the last years of Xerxes' reign, making it pass trough the capital of Pella. This brought an economic boost to Macedonia, which quickly adopted Hellenic and Persian influence. For now Alexander was content with his kingdom. Later Macedonian kings would be more expansionist, bringing more than headaches to the Achaeminids.
The Hellas administration may seem complicated to modern eyes, but by most historical accounts, it worked. Hellas has not seen such a long period of peace between the cities until the Achaeminid era. The satraps used the tax collects to finance improvements like roads and ports, which would be very difficult in a divided Hellas. Aristophanes, a famous comedian and writer, wrote in The Comedies**** “An Hellene like Heracles could kill an hydra, but only a Persian like Xerxes could make him work”. As the years passed, Hellas became more and more accepting of Achaeminid rule, and an hybrid culture developed, which would had influence in the Empire and beyond.


Not all Hellenes were so receptive to Persian rule. A considerable number decided to carry the torch of Hellenic civilization to their free colonies. The next chapter will explore the fate of the Hellenic Diaspora.


*Persian name for Mardonius.
**Persian name for Hydarnes
***Herodotus mistranslated the name Companions to Inmortals: here it is shown with the proper translation.
****Not a work from OTL: a compilation of his plays.


[1] This decision was probably to prevent Hellenic fleets to control trade: the Persian Navy on Naxos was bolstered on these years.


[2] The Cretan insurrection was officially against the taxes imposed by the Lydian Satrap; modern historians suspect that it was bolstered by outside agents (probably drought). Whichever the case, it was put down by a Hellene/Macedonian contigent that same year.


[3] The Tablets of the Peoples boast that Xerxes converted all Helots to Zoroastrianism; however that is not likely the case; probably only a few thousands converted back then. Evidence of Fire Rituals began a few decades after the Hellenic Campaign, and the Zoroastrians became a sizable minority in Hellas after the Emancipation Edict.


[4] Dagutu, despite being of Babylonian origin, was a big admirer of Hellenic satire. Some of his dialogues may be invented for the benefit of the audience. It is known, however, that even late into the reign of Artaxerxes I, it is was seriously considered to divide the Hellas Satrapy into more manageable parts.


[5] Classical historians show the Hellenes as brutal slave-owners and the Achaeminids as great emancipators, but this is not exactly the case. Hellenes did treat their slaves very well in most cases, and the Achaeminids did have slaves, if in a much more reduced number. The Achaeminid Great Kings did dislike slavery and considered emancipation honourable, but there were more practical reasons for the Emancipation Edict (for a greater discussion, see Slavery in Hellas; A “Classical” Example of Bias by Ivos Starnoski)


[6] The Emancipation Crisis was a surprise at the time, since it was resolved so peacefully. Modern historians have determined that should the negotiations have failed, Athens would likely lead the Hellenic cities into revolt. While the revolt would must likely be crushed, it would to a expense to the Achaeminid armies and a huge disaster to Hellas. It is a testament to Marduyina understanding of the situation and diplomatic abilities that the rebellion did not escalate further. Evidence of Hellenic unrest can be found during the reign of Artaxerxes I, but never into such a scale.


Coming up next: The Hellenic Diaspora
 
I'm subscribed! :) A good dystopia is in the making, it seems. Western Civilization has been butterflied away - let's see what happens next!

Oh, and I couldn't help but think of the Halleluja-choir from "The Messiah" when I read the headline ;)
My only concern, is that you seem to be starting a trend of painting the Persians in a much, much fairer light than can be justified. No, they weren't the ruthless mindless thugs that some make them out to be. But neither were they early examples of paragons of virtue.
 
I'm subscribed! :) A good dystopia is in the making, it seems. Western Civilization has been butterflied away - let's see what happens next!

Oh, and I couldn't help but think of the Halleluja-choir from "The Messiah" when I read the headline ;)
My only concern, is that you seem to be starting a trend of painting the Persians in a much, much fairer light than can be justified. No, they weren't the ruthless mindless thugs that some make them out to be. But neither were they early examples of paragons of virtue.

Dystopia? Far from it. I'll try to show the ups and downs as I progress trought history...

You are completely right in your concern. Keep in mind that this timeline is written in a world were the Persians (and their sucessor civilizations) are dominant, so the bias is part of the story (the notes reflect just that). I'll try to be more neutral; obviously the Achaemenid Empire wasn't an utopia and they certainly didn't roll all sixes in their battles. There will be plenty of injustices, civil wars, crazy kings, etc. to come.

Just like in real life :rolleyes:
 
Firstly, I like the idea of this timeline. My own might be focused on Hellenistic Greek cultures but Achaemenid Persia is a fascinating state and well worth examining.

Secondly, if you find that you're having a problem with maps I would be willing to help in this regard.

Thirdly, I do have a few questions.

1) Athens, whilst an important Greek city to be sure, was not the powerhouse in this period that it would become OTL. OTL Athens only started to become truly potent after the Persian Wars had completed. It's clear that you realise that, as you state that Corinth and Thebes are now the most potent poleis in the post conquest world. However, my question is why the Persians would choose the city for a capital in the first place; Athens did not quite have the cultural or political pull in this period to make it a centre for resistance that I can tell.

2) The satrapy of Macedon appears to be enormous. In addition, Thrace was already its own satrapal territory and I am unclear as to why it has been combined with Macedonia. Whilst I understand that the Royal road now extends through Macedonia, there simply doesn't seem to be the infrastructure to allow a satrap to effectively rule Macedon (and its sub-kingdoms, since in this period the Argeads were simply the most important Kingdom within the region), Epirus, Thrace and parts of what would eventually become Dacia. Hellas, on the other hand, makes total sense to me.

3) How will Greek economies function with slavery being so reduced? I honestly don't see how it's possible; their economic institutions, notions of political governance, and even their social structures assume that slave labour will be the major source of labour. Are these manumitted slaves able to integrate into citizen bodies? I can understand Greece's economy moving away from slavery; after all, many societies transitioned from slave labour to other economic models. But that was after multiple centuries of additional technological development and social evolution; the Persians are attempting to transition the Greeks from one economic model into another before even two decades of their conquest has passed. The instability that this would cause would seem to signal the death of Greece as an economically beneficial region within the Persian Empire, it doesn't possess the natural resources to be intrinsically enriching like Bactria with its gold and jewels, or Egypt with its grain, or the Indus with its gold. This is the only aspect of what you've written so far that seriously troubles me.
 
Firstly, I like the idea of this timeline. My own might be focused on Hellenistic Greek cultures but Achaemenid Persia is a fascinating state and well worth examining.

Secondly, if you find that you're having a problem with maps I would be willing to help in this regard.

Thirdly, I do have a few questions.

1) Athens, whilst an important Greek city to be sure, was not the powerhouse in this period that it would become OTL. OTL Athens only started to become truly potent after the Persian Wars had completed. It's clear that you realise that, as you state that Corinth and Thebes are now the most potent poleis in the post conquest world. However, my question is why the Persians would choose the city for a capital in the first place; Athens did not quite have the cultural or political pull in this period to make it a centre for resistance that I can tell.

2) The satrapy of Macedon appears to be enormous. In addition, Thrace was already its own satrapal territory and I am unclear as to why it has been combined with Macedonia. Whilst I understand that the Royal road now extends through Macedonia, there simply doesn't seem to be the infrastructure to allow a satrap to effectively rule Macedon (and its sub-kingdoms, since in this period the Argeads were simply the most important Kingdom within the region), Epirus, Thrace and parts of what would eventually become Dacia. Hellas, on the other hand, makes total sense to me.

3) How will Greek economies function with slavery being so reduced? I honestly don't see how it's possible; their economic institutions, notions of political governance, and even their social structures assume that slave labour will be the major source of labour. Are these manumitted slaves able to integrate into citizen bodies? I can understand Greece's economy moving away from slavery; after all, many societies transitioned from slave labour to other economic models. But that was after multiple centuries of additional technological development and social evolution; the Persians are attempting to transition the Greeks from one economic model into another before even two decades of their conquest has passed. The instability that this would cause would seem to signal the death of Greece as an economically beneficial region within the Persian Empire, it doesn't possess the natural resources to be intrinsically enriching like Bactria with its gold and jewels, or Egypt with its grain, or the Indus with its gold. This is the only aspect of what you've written so far that seriously troubles me.

Thanks! Your timeline is an awesome read! :D The other side of the coin if you will. As for my problems with maps... it is mostly the difficulty to find good basemaps of Persia and Greece.. if you do know some that would be nice!

As for your questions

1) I choose Athens mainly because it had a very high population compared to other cities of the same period. The cultural flowering did indeed happen after OTL's Persian Wars, but I guessed that Athens would still be an important city if only by its population and trade. The Persians ITTL were indeed worried about a rebellion starting in Athens, but they considered it only one of many potential sparks, thus the capital (I should have added into the notes that they aslo considered Thebes and Argos due to their early loyalty)

2) You are absolutly right, Macedon is enourmous. I don't exactly recall why I did erase the Satrapy of Thrace, but I really should edit it in back. It won't change much in the story I think, after all it already existed in OTL. I do think they would be able to hold Epirus and the Eastern regions, as under Philip II in OTL?

3) Yes, I knew that this was going to be the most implausible thing so far. First I should have clarified that the Emancipation Edict does not free the slaves, it only provides them with ways to freedom than didn't exist in OTL's Greece (if relatively easy ones like converting to Zoroastrianism). It is a situation most like Ancient Rome (I assume, at least), a Slave can buy its way to freedom, and his descendants would be free too. Freedmen would be almost in the same social class than slaves, but could not be sold or mistreated. However, as more slaves become free, the Greeks will have to adapt and give them citizenship, and indeed this edict will have far reaching consequences. For now, however the cities are trying to get back to normal after the war, and they'll accept the edict while few slaves can be freed. Greece isn't in as much trouble than if all slaves were freed from a sudden, but the option of emancipation will bring several consequences.

(Yes... I'll admit that me writing that Hellas was now in peace was a bit misleading... though I said only between the cities, not inside them :p)

As for the lack of resources, you're right. However (and please correct me if I'm wrong, as you can see I'm not a big expert in ancient economies), the main income for Hellas would be it being the trade station between Europe, Africa and the rest of the Empire.
 
Subscribed.

I find the slavery issue interesting. And yay for freeing the helots. I'm not sure, thought, the helots would identify closely with those more usually enslaved. Their circumstances were a bit different.

(Thanks for warning us about the pro-Persian bias. Perhaps, to compensate, the occasional pov of someone else, maybe a foreigner?)

Hope this is a long timeline.
 
Not that it would mean much but this is more relating to the question of Bactria and why it had such a prominent Greek presence compared to regions far closer to the Hellenic homeland; the Genocide cites a reference to Herodotus alluding to Bactria being the province where uppity Greeks from Ionia were at occasion deported to so there might be some Hellenic presence, though not obviously to the extent it was during the Hellenistic era.
 
I know of the reference, but it's considered to be baseless; there's absolutely no indication of Greek presence in Bactria prior to Alexander's lifetime, *except* for Herodotos' reference to it. As someone who primarily studies Bactria, you are right to point out Herodotos' reference but I must point out it's likely incorrect.
 
Thanks! Your timeline is an awesome read! :D The other side of the coin if you will. As for my problems with maps... it is mostly the difficulty to find good basemaps of Persia and Greece.. if you do know some that would be nice!

As for your questions

1) I choose Athens mainly because it had a very high population compared to other cities of the same period. The cultural flowering did indeed happen after OTL's Persian Wars, but I guessed that Athens would still be an important city if only by its population and trade. The Persians ITTL were indeed worried about a rebellion starting in Athens, but they considered it only one of many potential sparks, thus the capital (I should have added into the notes that they aslo considered Thebes and Argos due to their early loyalty)

2) You are absolutly right, Macedon is enourmous. I don't exactly recall why I did erase the Satrapy of Thrace, but I really should edit it in back. It won't change much in the story I think, after all it already existed in OTL. I do think they would be able to hold Epirus and the Eastern regions, as under Philip II in OTL?

3) Yes, I knew that this was going to be the most implausible thing so far. First I should have clarified that the Emancipation Edict does not free the slaves, it only provides them with ways to freedom than didn't exist in OTL's Greece (if relatively easy ones like converting to Zoroastrianism). It is a situation most like Ancient Rome (I assume, at least), a Slave can buy its way to freedom, and his descendants would be free too. Freedmen would be almost in the same social class than slaves, but could not be sold or mistreated. However, as more slaves become free, the Greeks will have to adapt and give them citizenship, and indeed this edict will have far reaching consequences. For now, however the cities are trying to get back to normal after the war, and they'll accept the edict while few slaves can be freed. Greece isn't in as much trouble than if all slaves were freed from a sudden, but the option of emancipation will bring several consequences.

(Yes... I'll admit that me writing that Hellas was now in peace was a bit misleading... though I said only between the cities, not inside them :p)

As for the lack of resources, you're right. However (and please correct me if I'm wrong, as you can see I'm not a big expert in ancient economies), the main income for Hellas would be it being the trade station between Europe, Africa and the rest of the Empire.

Aha, now we're getting into trade secrets!

In all seriousness, I'd be glad to help. When it comes to a Mediterranean view concentrating on Anatolia/Greece, I use http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/li...um0.png?id=blank_map_directory:eastern_europe.

I usually crop out the parts I don't need, get rid of the red border lines, and then get to work.

As an example of what can be done with this basemap, voila. This isn't a shill for my own timeline, it's just that's what I exclusively produce maps for...

As for Persia, do you mean the Empire as a whole or do you mean Persia itself? If the former, then you may have to take one of the maps like this one http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/blank_map_directory/europeasaf.png?cache= which does just reach the Indus regions that formed Persia's easternmost borders. If you want Persia specifically, I haven't done a map focusing on that region before but I might recommend cropping that same base map, as it does include the whole of the Iranian plateau.

Greece can potentially be lucrative for the Persians if it functions as a trade nexus, but that does rely on the partners to its West; Italy, Iberia, Carthage et al. It'll also mean that the Persians will probably have to police the trade routes going West, as neighbourhoods like Illyria were rather prone to piracy and it was a common problem in the Mediterranean in areas not monopolised by potent states and Empires.
 
I'm going to agree with Daeres, and say I find it difficult to understand how any ancient economy is going to function without slave labour. Can you show me some sources that talk about the Achaemenids being generally against slavery? I've certainly not come across any.

Also, why is Zoroastrianism mentioned here? The idea of Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic faith almost certainly did not exist at any point in the Achaemenid period.
 
I'm going to agree with Daeres, and say I find it difficult to understand how any ancient economy is going to function without slave labour. Can you show me some sources that talk about the Achaemenids being generally against slavery? I've certainly not come across any.

Also, why is Zoroastrianism mentioned here? The idea of Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic faith almost certainly did not exist at any point in the Achaemenid period.

The Achaeminids were not against slavery in principle: Xerxes used the liberation of the Helots and the Emancipation Edict for his purproses (namely, having a base population who is supportive of Persian rule). There are antecedents for this (see for example Cyrus' liberation of the Jews in Babylon, but... see below). The writer of this timeline exalts the Achaeminids as emancipators much as modern historians may exalt the ancient Greeks as "fathers of democracy". I did found some sources claiming that Achaeminids were against slavery, but they're Iranian, so they may be not the best sources (based in the Cyrus_cylinder fiasco. The Achaeminids may have been more tolerant than many ancient civilizations, but they still had imperialistic reasons at heart and certainly did not share modern ideals of liberty and equality).

I'm going to dedicate the fifth chapter to the Helots and slavery, and hopefully clear up some things. It's true that all ancient civilizations had slavery, but Romans and others, for example, allowed emancipation given enough money/assimilation, while the Greeks (from my research) seldom allowed it, and their understanding was that all other peoples were fit for slavery (see Aristotle). The big change in TTL is that the Achaeminids allow slaves to be emancipated, not than them free slaves themselves; that only happened with the Helots. The economy of Greece WILL change, but for now only a trickle of slaves are being emancipated. But all slaves are being affected by the news that the Helots are now free and now they can also be freed; conflict was only retarted by the edict.

I used this source http://www.livius.org/ag-ai/ahuramazda/ahuramazda.html for the Zoroastrian claims. The thing with Ancient Persia is that we have few sources apart from the Greeks and ruined tablets, so most details remain unclear. I choose to write that the Achaeminids were already Zoroastrians, and their kings did try to follow its precepts. The rethoric of Xerxes was takenly very seriously by some Helots (you can see they already call Ahuramazda "Father of Liberty" and "Tyrannicide" in chapter 2. The Persians and Hellenes just go with the glow for now.). And most polytheistic faiths do have a main God, in this case Ahuramadza. That doesn't mean they don't worship the other ones. But (ITTL) the Zoroastrian faith is in the road to monotheism.

Sorry if that sounded too rambling! But in short: Xerxes freed the Helots not only by its dislike of Spartans, but to have a population loyal to the Persians. Some Helots interpreted this as a religious duty of Zoroastrianism, and started to stir trouble (of the "Hey, your master is mistreating you? Mine did too. You know what Ahuramadza did? He sent the King of Kings to kick his ass" kind). The trouble led to a slave rebellion (which I REALLY should have detailed more!) and to prevent further rebellions (and increase their influence) the Persians decided to gave emancipation rights to the slaves (with enough benefits so slave-owners wouldn't complain... for now). The Edict is not inclusive enough to affect the slaves right now, but will have consequences in a few decades

The main plothole is why the Greeks let the Persians do that? Well, they are still shocked by the war, and an armed resistance would lead to disaster. Some slave-owners may grumble, but an economic disaster is still far away. Also, Mardonius' diplomacy was quite convincing. Those Greeks who insist that is REALLY, COMPLETELY necessary to held slaves migrate to the colonies, will be covered in the next chapter.

Aha, now we're getting into trade secrets!

In all seriousness, I'd be glad to help. When it comes to a Mediterranean view concentrating on Anatolia/Greece, I use http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/lib/exe/detail.php/blank_map_directory/byzantium0.png?id=blank_map_directory%3Aeastern_europe.

I usually crop out the parts I don't need, get rid of the red border lines, and then get to work.

As an example of what can be done with this basemap, voila. This isn't a shill for my own timeline, it's just that's what I exclusively produce maps for...

As for Persia, do you mean the Empire as a whole or do you mean Persia itself? If the former, then you may have to take one of the maps like this one http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/blank_map_directory/europeasaf.png?cache= which does just reach the Indus regions that formed Persia's easternmost borders. If you want Persia specifically, I haven't done a map focusing on that region before but I might recommend cropping that same base map, as it does include the whole of the Iranian plateau.

Greece can potentially be lucrative for the Persians if it functions as a trade nexus, but that does rely on the partners to its West; Italy, Iberia, Carthage et al. It'll also mean that the Persians will probably have to police the trade routes going West, as neighbourhoods like Illyria were rather prone to piracy and it was a common problem in the Mediterranean in areas not monopolised by potent states and Empires.

First: Those maps are AWESOME! Thanks! I shall redo the current map when I have time.
About the trade routes... Piracy will be a problem of course... but I think the Persian fleets can take care of that. Keeping parternship with the other powers will be a whole other thing however, and will be explored in the next chapters.

Subscribed.

I find the slavery issue interesting. And yay for freeing the helots. I'm not sure, thought, the helots would identify closely with those more usually enslaved. Their circumstances were a bit different.

(Thanks for warning us about the pro-Persian bias. Perhaps, to compensate, the occasional pov of someone else, maybe a foreigner?)

Hope this is a long timeline.

Thanks! It is not all the Helots who stir the slaves, just the Zoroastrian ones (who think it is their religious duty). I'll try to clear up things in chapter 5, when I do more research

Yes, there will be some foreign voices ITTL and other surprises! I would love to continue this timeline to at least the Industrial Revolution, we'll see how it goes

Not that it would mean much but this is more relating to the question of Bactria and why it had such a prominent Greek presence compared to regions far closer to the Hellenic homeland; the Genocide cites a reference to Herodotus alluding to Bactria being the province where uppity Greeks from Ionia were at occasion deported to so there might be some Hellenic presence, though not obviously to the extent it was during the Hellenistic era.

I know of the reference, but it's considered to be baseless; there's absolutely no indication of Greek presence in Bactria prior to Alexander's lifetime, *except* for Herodotos' reference to it. As someone who primarily studies Bactria, you are right to point out Herodotos' reference but I must point out it's likely incorrect.

Never heard of that... Herodotus was known for its bias but usually it was based in facts. I'll prefer to err in the side of caution and not include it. But yes, deportations may happen...
 
Last edited:
What happened with this?

Finals happened :p If I was studying ancient history instead of biology, maybe I'll have an excuse to research about King Artaxerxes rather than DNA transcription. :D

But I'm still writing next chapter, and I certainly haven't forgot this TL! Here's a brief interlude in the meantime. It is set in an undetermined number of centuries in the future, after the scientific revolution, at least. Didn't want to spoil too much, specially since I haven't the far future of this TL calculated yet. But here you go!

1st Interlude : A historical debate
The following is an extract of Persian historian Ardasi Susayaior* Rise and Fall of the Achaeminids**. Rise and Fall used mostly original Achaeminid sources. Despite evident errors in translation, it is still a landmark work. The 12 volume work encompasses most of the history, culture and religion of the Achaeminid era, and is still considered one of the prime reference books on the matter. In the final volumes, Ardasi turns his focus into historical debates, with such prominent historians of the time such as Artamardis*** and Kitepep*** being featured in long dialogues. One refers to the Hellenic Campaigns, where Ardasi exposes the “classical” view of Hellenic culture:


Volume 11, page 124
[...] And even if the Hellenes were at the par of Achaeminid population and industry, would they even be able of command that unlikely power of theirs to build an empire as encompassing as the Achaeminid Empire? Do we need to be reminded that they called “savages****” to anyone who didn't speak Hellene? Who viewed every other nation fit only as slaves? What kind of world empire could rise from such a narrow mentality? Certainly not a long lived one. As I see it, the only kind of empire that a hypothetical Hellene superpower could build are only an empire were every other nation but Hellenes are enslaved to them, which is utterly ludicrous; or an empire composed only of Hellenes, which, while possible, would be as implausible due to the political quarrels between the Hellenic cities and even inside them.
KITEPEP: -Certainly, a strong enough leader could unite the Hellenic cities long enough to consolidate an empire.
ARDASI: -That “strong leader” existed, and was Great King Xerxes. Could a small city conquer all others, without any resistance and then evade invasion by the Achaeminids or other power?Doubtful.
KITEPEP: -The Battle of Marathon proved that the Hellenic Phalanx was strong enough to repel the armies of the time. It is certainly no wonder that later Great Kings adopted the model into their armies. An united Hellas could field a formidable force.
ARDASI: -Against even the power of an empire such as the Achaeminids or the Carthaginians? Or even against the Macedonians? My friend, the population gap is simply too great, and cannot be surpassed by admittedly superior tactics.
ARTAMARDIS: - Indeed and the population gap is even more great if we only consider free Hellenes. Slaves would inevitably flare up in an united Hellas: need we remember the Helot Rebellions? If the Hellenes remained independent and united they surely would become a backwater, held down by their own quarrels and their narrow mindset. If anything, the Hellenic campaigns helped to break that mindset and bring forth the ideal of unification. The cities held nothing in common but religion and language and certainly held even less in common with other nations […]


The traditionalist worldview of Hellenic and Balkan history suffered a huge backlash with the rise of Pan-Hellenism and other political movements. Several historians started to view the Hellenic Campaigns in other light. Hellenic historian Ivos Starnoski, a noted supporter of Pan-Hellenism and writer of A “Classical” Example of Bias wrote the history of the Hellenic Campaigns from the Hellene perspective based on contemporary writtings. In a dissertation on the University of Thebes, he spoke:


[…] and still in this day and age, the Hellenic Campaigns matter. It was the birth of Hellenism as a truly global culture. And yes, I do say global, for the footprints of Hellenic advancements are everywhere in the road of history. Before the Indian confederations, Athens already had a full democracy. Before the scientific revolution, Thales of Miletus had invented the basic of the Scientific method. There would be no comedy, nor drama, nor film neither animation if it wasn't for Hellene theaters. Ancient Hellenes were not the quarrelsome barbarians and slave-owners that stereotypes have so perpetuated; stereotypes often enforced by Persians who did exactly the same things. What ancient culture didn't have the abhorrent practice of slavery?. Were the Persians right in imposing their "enlightened" culture upon the free cities of Hellas*****? Only in these modern times historians like me and my colleagues have started to translate and recover the lost writings of the Hellenes, so long buried under the dust of history and the apathy of other languages. And what we have discovered is a vibrant, beautiful culture, whose philosophers, artists and politicians were nothing like the racists, chauvinists and tyrants we held them to be. For too long, our history has been written from the cylinders stored in the ancient palaces of Susa and Persepolis. It's about time we rediscovered our culture, our lost past, and the lost past of the entire world. Mark my words: history, and the world, have a huge unpaid debt to Hellenic culture. […]



Political movements such as Pan-Hellenism have complicated the work of modern historians who are ever more pressed to paint a neutral and balanced picture of history. However, as scrolls, writings and archeological sites from every culture are being unearthed, and those findings are being integrated into the classical model of history, we can hope to describe a way more balanced view of ancient history and culture, and all civilizations properly represented with their own voices.


*"Ardasi" is just a random Persian-sounding name. Susayaior means "lives in Susa". Language has evolved a lot since ancient times, and is virtually unrecognzible from OTL.

**Not related to OTL's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire... due to the fact (SPOILER!) that there aren't Romans...

***Random Persian-Sounding-Guy 2 and Random Egyptian-Sounding-Guy 1

****"Savages" means barbarians in the original sense of the word: all people's who didn't spoke Greek. The "fact" that Greeks tried to enslave all those people is of course Persian bias.

*****Greek bias too! Kings of Kings: now with 50% more politically blurred history!
 
Okay, FINALLY I found time between my finals, and finished this chapter before getting to study for ANOTHER final. And it's a long one! I put some pictures to make it easier on the eyes while I work in new maps. Enjoy! (yes, I know it starts a bit silly)

Chapter 4: The Hellenic Diaspora



The term Diaspora (derived from the ancient Hellene for “dispersion”) refers to both Hellenic colonies established before the Persian invasion of Hellas and those established after it: thus it is somewhat misleading.
As other maritime civilizations like the Phoenicians, the Hellenes established several colonies along the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. These colonies operated independently from the cities that spawned them, with only cultural and commercial links with their motherlands, in most cases.
When news of the Hellenic Campaign reached the colonies, the reaction was mixed.

CONE%2BTHE%2BBAR%2B02.bmp


The symbol of Conatus the Cimmerian: Two Snakes Facing Each Other.

The colonies of the Black Sea suddenly found themselves suddenly isolated. Mostly of Milesian descent, they were already under a deep economic crisis with the crushing of Miletus during the Ionian Revolt, which severed most of their trade routes. Many colonies held little love for the Persians, and a small population of Milesian refugees with the memories of the Revolt fresh in their minds only exacerbated tensions. The Achaeminid invasion of Hellas meant a permanent Persian control of both sides of the Bosporus. Thus the cities of the Black sea formed the Euxeinos League* in 481 to foment trade and defense between themselves. The cities of the Black Sea were constantly raided by Scythian war-bands who were apparently aware of the situation in Ionia and took their chances to plunder the cities' wealth. In one of these raids, a chieftain named Conatus the Cimmerian [1] invaded the city of Olbia and proclaimed it capital of Cimmeria, with himself as king. The Euxeinos League's reaction was delayed by trade disputes between Olbia and other cities [2]. Some refugees of Olbia asked Miletus for help, and Miletus agreed to send a fleet in 477... under Persian leadership. The league was torn. They already were debating to send a fleet by themselves; but the Milesian/Persian contingent was to be much larger.

Some members argued that Olbia had the right to petition for help. Others acussed the Olbian refugees of selling their city to the Persians, and demanded the immediate expulsion of the city from the league. During their deliberations, the fleet reached Olbia and overthrew Conatus, who escaped with many of his followers inland. As expected, Olbia's government was replaced with a pro-Persian one. Olbia requested to rejoin the league: many members disagreed. Some even argued to retake the city by force; this was never seriously considered due to the size of the Persian fleet and the possibility of retribution. The league was never dissolved, but most members left and by 461 it only remained as a loose alliance of the cities in Taurica**. Southern colonies became part of the Satrapy of Thrace.

20070505_141327_CarthageGalley.jpg


Model of a Carthaginian ship. Carthaginian pirates were often equipped as the fleet itself

The situation was hardly better for Italia and Sicily. The colonies there had a larger population than others in the Hellenic world, but they confronted the rising power of Carthage on their doorstep. Suddenly the cities of Manga Graecia found themselves economically isolated and harassed by Carthage, the Etruscans and local tribes such as the Sammnites; it seemed that everybody knew about the situation of Hellas (due in no small part to Carthaginian influence) The Etruscans in particular tried to expand to the southern Hellenic colonies. Aristodemus of Cumae confronted the Rasna League's fleet in 474; the Battle of Cumae was a stalemate***. While the Etruscans did not manage to conquer the city they cemented their dominion over the Latin city-states and tribes across the Tiber, and their trade monopoly in Northern Italy for a longer while. Carthage's intentions of increasing influence on Italia were very clear. In Sicily, the cities quickly rallied around the largest colony of Syracuse, which was the largest and amongst the richest of Hellene colonies. The northern colonies of Ionian origin had certain issues about the league, but after the rise of Carthaginian piracy and harrasment, and the Battle of Cumae, they decided that a certain measure of unification was necessary. The Magna League, was a meeting of all the leaders of the cities forming part of it every 3 months. The meetings were mostly symbolic at first. However, that all changed when Themistocles arrived in Syracuse in 470. [3]

Themistocles, probably based on his experience during the Hellenic Campaings [4] realized that a divided Sicily had no chances of standing to Carthage's might. He passionately pleaded for the reform and centralization of the League. He was elected as Archon of Syracuse in 468 (3 years after his arrival, and after a heated political campaign [4]). His voice quickly became the loudest of the league, not only because of the prestige and wealth that his city commanded, but by the the charisma and political wit of his person. During his rule, Themistocles made the League's council permanent: he established a treasure paid by every member to provide to common defense: the fleet of Syracuse tripled its size during the administration of Themistocles, and other cities also built up their military. His most controversial achievement was to proclaim a League Charter that could overrule the cities' current constitutions: this led to a huge backlash and his famous assassination attempt by Thilesipus**** in 464 [6].

tumblr_m04jxbOYw51qeu6ilo1_400.jpg


Themistocles Strategos” a bust recovered from the wreck of an ancient Syracusian ship.

The assassination attempt only made Themistocles more popular. His reforms became bolder and bolder. He upgraded Syracuse's and other cities' defenses. He encouraged immigrants from Hellas to come to Magna Graecia and help with its industry and defense. He promoted Magna Greacia, and Syracuse in particular, as the last great bastion of Hellenic civilization, and at the same time petitioned Persian satraps for diplomatic and economic help. Under Themistocles' rule, the Magna League expanded, covering all Hellene Sicily, and most cities of Magna Graecia. Several cities such as Neapolis, Cumae, Massilia and Taras had close links to it, despite forming no part of it. In effect, joining the League was to join a rising centralized state, something virtually unknown in Hellenic colonies. Carthage was of course not oblivious to the Magna League's rise; while never directly confronting them, it financed its rivals, promoted piracy, and threatened military actions at a last resource. Despite Themistocles' passionate personality, the wounds of his assassination never healed and he died in 461, leaving the young Itosphanes in command. Itosphanes, descendant of a Corinthian family, was a huge admirer of Themistocles, and he continued his reforms keeping a harsh line against Carthage and promoting the ideal of Syracuse and the Magna League as the last bastions of Hellenism. Despite flashpoints in Sicily and Italia, the true test of the League would come later, when Carthage attempted to expand its influence over Taras, starting the Italian Wars.

While some cities of Italia (Syracuse prominently) had sent their loyalty to the Great King during the Hellenic Campaigns, it was a half-hearted gesture at best: the Persians had no interest in enforcing tribute by now, and Italia was even farther than Hellas. However, they did have trade interests in the Mediterranean. The Carthaginians now controlled a big part of it, and a monopoly by them would be economically dangerous to Persia. Thus Persia found itself in the awkward situation of keeping warm trade relations with Carthage, while at the same time encouraging its rivals to prevent their monopoly. They were as of yet free of compromise, aiding Carthage, Syracuse and Eturia as convenient, but the satraps were aware of the tangling net of alliances developing.

Other colonies had different destinies. The colonies on North Africa and Iberia were absorbed by Carthage during the next century. Massilia and other colonies in southern Gallia prospered after strengthening their relations with the local Gauls and Celts despite Etruscan and Carthaginian influence. Over time, they became more and more Celticized, but the tribes of southern Gallia also had a large Hellenic influence even as far as Aquitaine.

dubrovnik12.jpg


City of Philadelphia. Unlike inland cities with Illyrian influence, Hellenes can be clearly seen as the primary source of the architectures of the Adriatic sea.

It is difficult to estimate how many Hellenes emigrated after the Hellenic campaigns. Dagutu puts the figure as low as 100.000 during Xerxes' and Artaxerxes' reign. Modern historians estimate it to be much larger. It is also difficult to say if Persians encouraged or curtailed this emigration: perhaps the most accurate way to put is that they encourage the “inconvenient” emigrants, but few records are kept from Hellenic migrations. Most of these emigrants went to Magna Graecia. Few did establish new cities, preferring to join the already existing ones. Others established colonies in the Adriatic sea, across the coast of Illyria and Italia; cities such as Philadelphia, Adriapolis, Aristopolis, Venetia***** and others. Few new colonies were established elsewhere. However the Persian satraps encouraged Hellene merchants to establish trading outposts and ports under the Satrap's administration. Some of these ports eventually grew to become cities of their own [7].

Also of note are the Hellenic immigrants to Persia. Mostly merchants, they established themselves in cities all over the Achaeminid empire; some in Ionia, others as sea merchants across Phoenicia and Egypt, and a few others overland in Babylon, Susa and even as far as Bactria. The “micropoleis”: Hellenic communities became sizable in Persian cities during Artaxerxes' reign. Hellene luminaries such as Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Phemistos and Esmanoxos****** lived across the empire and debated their ideas with contemporary Persian magians and philosophers. Some even formed part of the Great King's court: Aristophanes is known to have lived in Susa for several years (surely inspiring his play The Silver Cup) and even today he is considered the man who introduced the theater to Persia.


[1] Conatus prided himself to be the descendant of the last kings of the Cimmerians, a culture who invaded the Assyrians and the Lydians in the 7th century BCE, before dissapearing, apparently driven to Anatolia by the Scythians. Very few records are known of them, and it seems that Conatus' tribe adopted that history after its union under him during a clan war. The Scythian of the region apparently considered Cimmerians to be a legend at this point. Most records point him to by Scythian: Dagutu writes of him as a “...giant, black haired with sullen eyes, wearing naught but fur, his golden crown and a formidable sword, crushing the treasures and skulls of the kings of Earth under his sandalled feet”. Historical Cimmerians probably settled Katpatuka and mixed with the local population; Some are know to live near Thrace at this period, but they are probably unrelated to the original who invaded Lydia. Hellene settlers may have confused both.

[2] Caused by several reasons, among them the economic depression due to Hellas conquest and increasing piracy meant fewer income to the cities. Some members felt that the money was misspent in the richest cities of the league; amongst those members was Olbia.

[3] After his exile, Themistocles lived in Argos a few years before moving to Corinth, where he became an influential speaker, despite never holding the title of Citizen. He is most famously feature in the comedy The Silver Cup, where the two brothers who owned said cup confront him in Corinth, and he responds with the famous monologue: “Well, you should have voted for the other guy”.

[4] Themistocles lead the fleet at the Battle of Chalcis, and was present in many negotiations between Persians and Hellenes. It is said that he was an acquittance of Mardiyuna himself during his years in Corinth.

[5] The campaign was mostly focused on Themistocles' status as a foreigner. Themistocles had the support of many Syracusian families and the new inmigrants to Syracuse from Hellas. His famous “Stars on the night” speech, where he compared all Hellenes to be stars on the night of barbarism, is considered to be one of the first examples of Pan-Hellenism.

[6] Thilesipus was a merchant from Syracuse, who claimed that immigrants were leading the city to ruin, and Themistocles was selling it to the Persians. He attempted a coup against Themistocles with his hired mercenaries: Themistocles confronted them and was hurt in the lower chest, famously still cursing and lecturing his adversaries even lying on the floor. Thilesipus was reduced, judged and later executed.

[7] Evidence of Hellenic architecture is found as far away as northern Gallia, but wherever they actually made colonies that far is unknown. Strangely for the Achaeminids, they kept few records of Hellene Colonies.

*From the Greek name for the Black Sea: Euxenios Pontos, the Hospitable Sea. Named after Greek colonization; before that it was the Inhospitable Sea. :rolleyes:
**Crimea
*** In OTL, the Battle of Cumae was a decisive victory for the Greeks. Syracuse did not intervene due to Carthaginian piracy and butterflies, so the Etruscans will keep their dominance... for now.
****Not a person from OTL
*****OTL cities of Dubvronik, Zadar, Ravenna, and well, Venice.
******The last two are not from our OTL, and will be detailed later. Also, sorry for all the asterisks :D


Well, it has been certainly fun detailing the lives of some historical personages! I hope to add more details in the next updates; unfortunately Persian history is sorely lacking on personal anecdotes.
 
Last edited:
Top