Why no Macedon?
Iirc the King of Macedon was a Persian vassal at this time, and would likely have become their "Satrap" in Hellas post victory. As Persia declines, he likely becomes more independent, so perhaps we get "Alexandr" a century earlier.
Most Overrated Battles (as PoDs)?
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
Why no Macedon?
Iirc the King of Macedon was a Persian vassal at this time, and would likely have become their "Satrap" in Hellas post victory. As Persia declines, he likely becomes more independent, so perhaps we get "Alexandr" a century earlier.
At the time the Persians were specifically trying to put Hippias back in as tyrant and the size of force they had leaves that and not much else.
But as a POD on these boards - dont think I have seen one.
Most POD these days seem to come from politics or technology.
But as a POD on these boards - dont think I have seen one.
Most POD these days seem to come from politics or technology.
No. Macadonian dominence was partly because of their isolation and independence. By luring them into the persian sphear would leave it vulnerable to eperus, illyirans and danubian tribesman once centeral authoraty fell.
Very odd- considering marathon is in every single " great or decisive battles" book ever written. I think a great oppotunity is being missed. Maybe the butterflies would be too complicated?
Why would that be more of an issue for a Macedon that's part of the Persian empire than the OTL Macedon that "merely" had a civil war every time a king died?
Land in England almost unopposed despite Churchill's histrionics that "we will fight in the beaches..."
I'd recommend you check out Philip II's reign, his victories against those neighbours and marriages to Epirote, Thessalian and Illyrian ladies.
But would philip II or any man like him arise in a persian influenced state? Philip was very much a man of his background and culture. In a persian puppet state? he might be very different.......
and before philip, its worth noting that pretty much all of macadons neibours succesfully raided their lands and crushed thae macadonian army.
Persian influence is going to be rather modest - the Persian Empire's rule was as empires go very light/decentralized.
As for the raids, if Macedon's neighbors were that overwhelming, there wouldn't be a Macedon at this point - yes, there were plenty of raids and defeats, but let's not treat it as if it existed in name only.
The macadonians came to prominence because there was a niche due to the catastrophic wars between sparta, thebes and athens. If athens was out of the picture and other cities under the heel of persia? less war and a more centralised authority would be the result. The persian wars made the greek cities and lay the foundation ultamatly for their fal;ling out and decline.
after all, before marathon, who would ever have seen macadon as a threat?
and during Xerxes invasion, the macadonian king submitted to him ( yes they turned on him later, but that was AFTER the battle of salamais and platea.)
Your saying macadon was a centralised state? The " kingdom" for large parts of its history was dominated by powerful hill tribes, fueding candidates for the throne and ambitios " lowlanders" who ruled the farmlands and towns. Many macadonian kings found themselves assasinated or betrayed. Its not really untill Philip came along that a true, powerful, centralised state existed.
"Under the heel?"
Must . . . not . . .rant . . about . . . stuff . . .
In any case, yes, the Macedonians came to prominence because there were opportunities to be seized and a king able to seize them (uncannily like Prussia).
But that doesn't make it more vulnerable than it was OTL, given that the issue of its vulnerabilities exists for reasons that are unrelated to it being part of a larger state or not.
Until Philip, as you noted below, who would have seen Macedon as a threat in the first place?
But Persia isn't going to influence that.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that Macedon's neighbors weren't so overwhelming as to constantly defeat the kingdom.
It was probably the best example of a "barbarian" (in the sense that term has taken on in the modern world) kingdom that we can actually think of - very underdeveloped commercially and in terms of urbanization (speaking in the context of the era, not the present), and held together by the strength of the king alone rather than institutions of even the most rudimentary sort.
But it had those powerful hill tribes as part of Macedon rather than one of them holding the area and it being something else because it was capable of winning battles - not always, but enough.
"Under the heel?"
Must . . . not . . .rant . . about . . . stuff . . .
In any case, yes, the Macedonians came to prominence because there were opportunities to be seized and a king able to seize them (uncannily like Prussia).
But that doesn't make it more vulnerable than it was OTL, given that the issue of its vulnerabilities exists for reasons that are unrelated to it being part of a larger state or not.
Until Philip, as you noted below, who would have seen Macedon as a threat in the first place?
But Persia isn't going to influence that.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that Macedon's neighbors weren't so overwhelming as to constantly defeat the kingdom.
It was probably the best example of a "barbarian" (in the sense that term has taken on in the modern world) kingdom that we can actually think of - very underdeveloped commercially and in terms of urbanization (speaking in the context of the era, not the present), and held together by the strength of the king alone rather than institutions of even the most rudimentary sort.
But it had those powerful hill tribes as part of Macedon rather than one of them holding the area and it being something else because it was capable of winning battles - not always, but enough.
I'm trying not to rant either- and believe me, i'm prone to ranting.
The fact that macadonia was left very isolated from rest of greece, while at the sdame time being drip fed its cilture, influencing its army and making it thirst more for conquereing greence was what made macadon macadon. If it was more persian-we would not have this influence from greece but from persia-so when this went, it would leave a lasting imprint in the macadonian psychi and character, thus changing it from a semi-barbarian state waiting to expand, to a more cvilised state suddenly finding itself without its backer and surrounded by hostile tribes. This is not to say persia made them " soft"-rather it would make them relient on persia at it grew to embrace its cultuure,
We see somthing similer happening when britain left its african colonies- very soon, they fell into civil war, economic collapse and dictatorships.
On the bottom of the sea in the most part,like it happened in Crete or with Repulse and its escort in South seas;WWII was very much a war of armour and airforce and the aircraft carriers dominated the open seas;
The Luftwaffe had no reason to fight RAF over England.If one wants to land an army in England,one has to dominate the air over the channel where the landings will take place not the sky over England.This is the predominant opinion between the European staff of various armies and depicted in "Armoured Warfare" by Eric Mauraise writing for the Swiss Directorate of Military and Historical Studies(Neufshatel-1958),the reason being simple enough:the Luftwaffe would have met the RAF over the Channel on equal terms and not by escorting the bombers for 10' due to inadequate range.
Over the Channel the bombers would have had a single mission:sink the ships and the fighters with superiority 2:1 would have destroyed the fighter command;that would enable the landings to go virtually unopposed
since the BEF had left its heavy equipment on the French beaches,and what was left in England was inadequate for a proper defence of the country.
How is it being made more Persian by acceptance of a very distant overlord? Persia did little to "Persianize" its territories in this period.
Or reliant? Again, Persia is far away - how is it relying on Persia for anything?
Lastly, a more civilized state would be a more coherent state, fixing the main problem with the OTL state.
Wait...there's some one on AH.com who actually thinks sealion is POSSIBLE?!?
They planned to use river boats for god's sake man! RIVER BOATS!!!
Given the kind of instability we're looking at, having something more sophisticated and developed than the "dependent on the king's strength and personality alone" government is going to make it less likely that there's a civil war every time a king dies.