PC: War between Persia and Carthage in Greece/Sicily?

[dandan_noodles]

So if Xerxes' invasion had been successful, Greece probably would have become a Persian satrapy, right? And if the Carthaginians won the Battle of Himera, Syracuse and probably all of Sicily probably would have fallen under their thumb? Carthage and Persia would be by far the most powerful states in the Mediterranean, and would begin to butt up against each other; I definitely could see each sending their 'golden cavalry' to aid Greek rebels in the others' territory, or raising armies from their Greek territories to lead expeditions to galvanize their opponents' subject peoples.

How plausible would a late 5th/early 4th century war between the two empires in Greece, Sicily, or Libya be?

 

[LSCatilina]

So if Xerxes' invasion had been successful, Greece probably would have become a Persian satrapy, right?

Probably...not.

It could have been similar as a mix between the situation of Ionian cities, and the situation in Hellade after the peace of Antalcidas, after that Attic hegemony was broken and that Persia not only took back Ionian coast, but greatly influenced helladic politics up to the point its gold managed to crush or found foes and allies, or even to threaten the formers of invasions.

Basically, you would end with various Greek states (poleis or basilei) ending up as Persian vassals, with maybe a leading satrap being settled somewhere, but certainly with Greece keeping a large form of autonomy as long they pledged alliegance to the Great King.

Depending of what happens, the situation could last more or less long, ending as an Egyptian analogue culturally (with actual Persian influence but mostly superficial) and as Ionian coast politically; possibly breaking out after a series of rebellions, or ending up as a distinct periphery.
Interestingly again, that would certainly mean even more greek influence on Persian military techniques and cultures (Greek fighters being renowed as mercenaries already IOTL and much used by Persian rulers, governors or claimants)

And if the Carthaginians won the Battle of Himera, Syracuse and probably all of Sicily probably would have fallen under their thumb?

I doubt it : wars, until the Roman era, didn't really involved crushing the opposing side (as the Peloponesian War hints), but more about establishing a domination of the victor, preventing the defeated party to raise again.
If we look at the various Sicilian-Punic wars, which interestingly looks at an ancient equivalent of HYW (a bit like Punic Wars), we more or less see two big sphere of influences fighting on, without decisively managing to expel the other. I'd rather expect a similar outcome to the third Greco-Punic war, meaning Carthage as the dominant power in Sicily (interestingly, with a lesser interest on African hinterland, at least for a while.

I'm not even sure if, save Himera, you'd see much territorial changes even if Carthage won the battle : as much as Greeks didn't really wanted to continue the conflict at this point, Carthagian forces poor supply didn't allowed for a full fledged conquest, would have been it planned.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Right; I wasn't seeing it as total domination by the Persians or Carthaginians. After all, the Persians let the Ionian cities keep the democracies supported by the Athenians even after they landed on the revolt like a ton of bricks, and Greece was on the very edge of civilization from their perspective. The poleis would definitely remain self governing, though whether there was a satrap for the region or if the King empowered Sparta to keep the peace as after the end of the Corinthian War could go either way I'd think.

 

[James XI]

I think it would require an entanglement like the Athenians supporting the Ionian revolt and maintaining that antagonistic position thereafter to provoke a conflict like that. And I'm not sure what Carthage would envision gaining from taking such a position. If they stayed out of events in Phoenicia and Egypt, where they really did have interests at stake, I can't see why they'd go to such trouble over events in Greece.

I suppose there's the possibility that a new King of Kings would be looking for a conquest to make his bones, and somehow decide Carthage is it. It would be a poor choice for many reasons, but people do make those.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I suppose there's the possibility that a new King of Kings would be looking for a conquest to make his bones, and somehow decide Carthage is it. It would be a poor choice for many reasons, but people do make those.

I think it was Herodotos claimed Cambyses wanted to conquer Carthage, but could not because the Phoenicians in his fleets refused to sail against their progeny; with an additional source of ably-manned ships to fill in for the Phoenicians, an expedition to Sicily or Tripolitania might be more practicable.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I doubt it : wars, until the Roman era, didn't really involved crushing the opposing side (as the Peloponesian War hints), but more about establishing a domination of the victor, preventing the defeated party to raise again.
If we look at the various Sicilian-Punic wars, which interestingly looks at an ancient equivalent of HYW (a bit like Punic Wars), we more or less see two big sphere of influences fighting on, without decisively managing to expel the other. I'd rather expect a similar outcome to the third Greco-Punic war, meaning Carthage as the dominant power in Sicily (interestingly, with a lesser interest on African hinterland, at least for a while.

I'm not even sure if, save Himera, you'd see much territorial changes even if Carthage won the battle : as much as Greeks didn't really wanted to continue the conflict at this point, Carthagian forces poor supply didn't allowed for a full fledged conquest, would have been it planned.

I mean, the Carthaginians did besiege Syracuse four times during the Greek-Punic Wars; I don't think it's that implausible that the Carthaginians could have installed friendly tyrants over the Greek cities in Sicily with better luck on the battlefield. Basically, interested in a TL where ancient history post ~500 BC isn't dominated by Greeks (and later Latins).

 

[LSCatilina]

I mean, the Carthaginians did besiege Syracuse four times during the Greek-Punic Wars; I don't think it's that implausible that the Carthaginians could have installed friendly tyrants over the Greek cities in Sicily with better luck on the battlefield

It's possible indeed, (altough not systematical), but I'm not sure how likely.
As I stressed above, conflicts between Carthage and Greeks were more on establishing sphere of influence than taking over the ennemy for the kick of it : before the battle of Hemeroskopeion, Carthagian influence was exerced enough in Spain and Gaul, that it was coupled or even bypassing Massalia without this city being taken over by Punic armies.
Now, we could see, for various reasons, Carthage pulling a Sparta and settling in Syracuse a friendly government : I don't think it would last much, giving the political nature of greek poleis, tough.

Mediterranean warfare, for most of it, is exempt of the idea of crushing the opponent, and more focused on preventing it to forge an hegemôn or an archê.

Basically, interested in a TL where ancient history post ~500 BC isn't dominated by Greeks (and later Latins).

Well, Carthagian victories over Greeks in the VIth/Vth century isn't far-fetched at all, and does fit the above model (virtually expelling Massaliote influence out of most of the western mediteranean basin) and curbing down helledic Greek polities trough a "zeroth" Medic War with would pull a gradual integration within the Empire.
It would probably look like a lot conflict in Sicily, as in a series of not that decisive wars with Greeks scoring some victories, but could lead to a local build-up.