Persia Defeats Greece, for keeps

How is history changed: No Plato, Socrates, no Olympics (effects seen in China today) No Parthenon, no noble traditions of early Democracy--and what do we have instead? Were the Persians as evil as history paints them?
 
Some of the remaining Athenians, mostly merchant princess and their crew and families., could try to flee to Western Italy. It would have to be quite a few as they would need at least a few hundred Fighting men to displace native tribes there.

Most Greekswould be subjects of the Medes, and if the Persians know how to deal with them, They could become important partners much as the merging or the Persians and the Phoenicians. Persia could last 1,000 years as a more of less single poltical entity. I would only see china as being a near rival, but for the great distances.

Obcourse if The Greeks were to flee before overwhelming force hits them
They Could well establish themselves out of reach of Persia for many years by eventually migrating their way to the British Isles.
 
No Plato, Socrates,

This is a pretty questionable assertion in so far as it relates to philosophy generally. Why exactly would philosophy cease under a Persian-dominated Greece? Philosophy and general inquiry did pretty well under Hellenistic times, and assuming that the basic social structure of the polis is maintained - and on the face of it I can't see any reason why the Persians would hugely disrupt it - then philosophy would probably continue. It may not be the same sort of philosophy as we know - and it would almost certainly not be Athens which would be the centre of it all - but that may not be a bad thing. I'd trade Plato for someone else anyday to be honest.

no Olympics

Uhm, the Olympics began a few hundred years before the Persians came on the scene. (And continued for pretty much the whole of Antiquity, incidentally.)

Were the Persians as evil as history paints them?

No way. The Persians were pretty enlightened for their times and it's just a shame we don't know more about them.
 
Last edited:
One good thing about Plato is that he, unlike Aristotle, belived that girls/women should be educated...

About the only good thing, really. Well, aside from the fact we'd know jack about Socrates if it hadn't been for him.

We might see philosophy taking off in entirely different directions, though. The Persian-ruled Ionian cities had an early and influential pühilosophical tradition that mainly concerned itself with explaining the world while the Athenian tradition after Socrates was mostly concerned with ethics and personal knowledge. That was partly to do with the degree to which the Sophistic tradition (rhetoric, argument, personal refinement) played a major role in politics. Under Persian rule, no public speaker, no matter how polished, could take the city in a different direction. Therefore, the question of the purpose of argument and the ethics of swaying opinion will take a much less central position. Morality may well remain much more traditional, with an aristocratic, agonistic view and a countervailing Socratesless Socratism that owes more to wisdom literature than epistemology. More philosophical effort might instead go into an understanding of physical phenomena.

And the Greeks will make Persia's finest infantry. Imagine a classical phalanx flanked by Middle Eastern archers instead of psiloi and protected by Persian lancers and Scythian horse archers.
 
One good thing about Plato is that he, unlike Aristotle, belived that girls/women should be educated...

Well, it's worth remembering what context that education would take place in if Plato had his way, and the form that it would take. You might not be too happy if you're a lover of music. (or anything remotely artistic or even pleasurable really.)
 
We might see philosophy taking off in entirely different directions, though. The Persian-ruled Ionian cities had an early and influential pühilosophical tradition that mainly concerned itself with explaining the world while the Athenian tradition after Socrates was mostly concerned with ethics and personal knowledge. That was partly to do with the degree to which the Sophistic tradition (rhetoric, argument, personal refinement) played a major role in politics. Under Persian rule, no public speaker, no matter how polished, could take the city in a different direction. Therefore, the question of the purpose of argument and the ethics of swaying opinion will take a much less central position. Morality may well remain much more traditional, with an aristocratic, agonistic view and a countervailing Socratesless Socratism that owes more to wisdom literature than epistemology. More philosophical effort might instead go into an understanding of physical phenomena.

And the Greeks will make Persia's finest infantry. Imagine a classical phalanx flanked by Middle Eastern archers instead of psiloi and protected by Persian lancers and Scythian horse archers.

smilies-11581.png


:D:D:D:D:D
 

Been there, done that, bought the chiton

(note: low-plausibility, high-gameability setting)

AE THAMISHTYKLA

Prince Datis, Friend of the King of Kings of Iran and non-Iran, looked out
over the plain of Marathon. The rising dust over the bronze ranks of the
enemy confirmed his suspicion - they were attacking. Great Ahura Mazda,
what fools these Hellenes were! Infantry like theirs was not found again in
the world, but to squander it like this . . . it was almost with regret
that he signalled the heavy cavalry to the flanks. The triumphant paian died on the lips of the
charging hoplites, and shouts of dismay told the Persians that the enemy
was breaking. The day was theirs.


The world of Thamishtykla is the nightmare of every oldfashioned classicist
- one where the Persians won at Marathon, Athens was looted and burned and
Greece subjugated as a satrapy. It looks none the worse for it - in fact
some might argue it makes a better place to live than the world the
Hellenes and Romans built.
The beginning could hardly haver been less auspicious to the Hellenes, of
course. After losing the decisive battle at Marathon, Athens was stormed
and sacked by the Persian army. However, the yoke of Persian tyranny proved
easier to bear afterwards than many had anticipated. King Dareios, not one
to lightly squander useful talent, knew leadership when he saw it and chose
the Athenian leader Themistokles (Thamishtykla) for his court, along with
young men from all the cities of Hellas. He was to return later as the
satrap of Hellas, replacing the disgraced Datis. In the first years after
the conquest, the Greek poleis found themselves adjusting to new political
realities, often a painful process. Democratic institutions were wing-
clipped and reliable men appointed to positions of leadership at the whim
of the Persian satrap, and revolts, where they occurred, mercilessly
crushed. The upper classes soon arranged themselves with the conquerors,
however, seeing that the Persian presence guaranteed stability and safety
from popular resentment against the rich. The Persians in their turn were
happy to extend amused tolerance to the oligarchic or plutocratic regimes
of Greek cities as long as they refrained from open rebellion. Free from
the scourge of internecine war and perpetual tension, the Hellene world
experienced unprecedented prosperity and security.
The rule of satrap Thamishtykla (484 - 469 BC) established Athens as the
center of Hellas and reconciled the cities to Persian rule once and for
all. A revolt led by Sparta, horrified at the prospect of an externally
enforced peace, was brutally crushed by an army recruited from the cities
of Hellas, with only nominal Persian participation, and the lands of the
Peloponnese given over to the Messene and Argolid cities. After the last
battle at Amyklai in 476 BC, Hellas was quiescent.
The Hellene cities soon discovered that their submission to a barbarian
power brought with it certain advantages. Most significantly, unrestricted
commercial access to the vast Persian empire, which their merchants and
craftsmen soon exploited successfully. Hellene coinage filled a dire need
in the economy of Persia, Hellene art gained quick acceptance and
widespread admiration, and Hellene heavy infantry in time came to form a
core element of Persian armies. As Persian influence extended further into
the barbarian lands of Europe, the troops and administrators, colonists and
profiteers increasingly came from Hellene cities. Thrace, Illyricum and
eventually Persian Italy became dependencies of the satrapy governed from
Athens.
The eventual decline of the Persian empire at the hands of Parthians and
Massagetes in the years following 300 BC saw the Persian satrapy of Hellas
as the center of a sphere of influence and political domination extending
as far as Massilia, the Bosporan cities, western Asia Minor and the
Cyrenaica. An invasion of Celtic tribes had endangered control over the
Balkans, but eventually the Hellenes prevailed, even pushing further into
the Celtic heartland with the aid of their Italic Latin and Samnite allies.
It was only a short step for the satrap to declare himself a king in his
own right. The weakened center at Persepolis did not object.
The test of the new Hellene empire's mettle came in the conflict with
Carthage, long foreseen and finally breaking out in 284 BC as a Punic army
laid siege to Syracuse, then the last Hellene outpost on long-neglected
Sicily. A series of protracted wars resulted in the eventual conquest of
Carthage and, more importantly, her Spanish and African dependencies. These
once barbarian lands, now rich and thriving, sharpened the Hellene appetite
for a colonising venture. Their eyes fastened on Europe. By AD 50, cities
had been founded as far afield as Ireland and Denmark.
The local present is AD 483, four centuries after the restoration of the
old Persian empire by the Parthian kings. The Hellene basileus still claims
to be the sole successor to the King of Kings, but in effect does not even
control much of the Greek-speaking west. Conflict between the Parthian and
Hellene kings (referring to each other as rebellious satraps) are
occasionally fought, but neither state is too interested in losing the
profits of trade and a burgeoning economy. The long period of peace under
the auspices of the Persian empire eroded away the internal cohesion of the
polis state, allowing a society dominated by complex ties of allegiance,
mutual obligation and family to emerge. To this day, few states coincide
with any concept of nation, nor is anyone's first allegiance expected to be
to government. Rulers are accorded divine honors, but individuals, cities
and provinces readily desert them when their star sinks. Religions is not a
political issue, by and large, though the Manichean sect in Persia and
India is increasingly laying claim to temporal powers. The eastern
satrapies are predominantly Zoroastrian, with strong Buddhist and Jewish
communities. The western realms hold on to their syncretistic polytheism,
though Mithraism and Judaism have made inroads and atheist or agnostic
philosophies are fashionable among the fast set.
The vibrant urban culture of the middle east has brought to an abrupt end
the aristocratic disdain for work and business felt by many Hellenes. The
opportunities offered during the years of peace saw to it that merchants,
bankers and craftsmen came out on top of landowners, and the Persian rulers
were happy to place the government of cities in the hands of people who had
a stake in the empire. To this day, the ruling class of Thamishtykla is
commercial-minded and prefers to leave its limited wars to mercenary
armies. Contacts between the European/African and the Asian side of the
former empire are commonplace and most educated people speak and read
Aramaic as well as Greek. Fashionable luxury goods from the Levantine
cities and Persia make their way into the rough and underdeveloped west,
which provides metals, grain, timber, animals, slaves and mercenaries.
The (nominally still existing) Persian Empire is in regular contact with
China, both through Central Asian intermediaries and by sea trade. Sub-
Saharan Africa is being explored, but has yet to arouse the serious
interest of would-be conquerors. No seafarers have reached America, but the
technical means are there and Hiberniote (Irish) sailors have already
visited Iceland and Greenland. Overall technology is at early TL3, with
some advanced development in metallurgy, seafaring and commerce. Literacy
is common, though neither paper nor printing are known. The heartlands of
civilisation extend from Mesopotamia and Persia through Syria and Asia
Minor to North Africa, Greece, Italy and Southern France. In the rich
cities of these lands, technology and learning are flowering, and neither
the occasionally savage warfare along the borders nor the intermittent
conflicts between its rulers have dented the robust hands-on optimism of
its inhabitants. A Dark Age seems unlikely as of now.
 
At Marathon the Greeks won, the guy ran twenty-six miles back to Athens to inform of their victory.

Actually, he didn't...

He ran to Sparta...

Wikipedia said:
Marathon run
According to Herodotus, an Athenian runner named Pheidippides ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for assistance before the battle. This event was later turned into the popular legend that Pheidippides ran from Marathon to Athens. The traditional story relates that Pheidippides, an Athenian herald, ran the distance between the battlefield by the town of Marathon to Athens to announce the Greek victory over Persia in the Battle of Marathon (490 BC) with the word "Νενικήκαμεν!" (Nenikékamen, We are victorious!) and died on the spot. Most accounts incorrectly attribute this story to the historian Herodotus, who wrote the history of the Persian Wars in his Histories (composed about 440 BC). The story first appears in Plutarch's On the Glory of Athens in the 1st century AD, who quotes from Heracleides of Pontus' lost work, giving the runner's name as either Thersipus of Erchius or Eucles.[85] Lucian of Samosata (2nd century AD) also gives the story but names the runner Philippides (not Pheidippides).[86] It should be noted that in some medieval codices of Herodotus the name of the runner between Athens and Sparta before the battle is given as Philippides and in a few modern editions this name is preferred.[87]
Another point of debate is the path taken by the runner. There are two exits from the battlefields. One is towards the south that follows modern-day Marathonos avenue leading through Pikermi over the pass of Stavros Agias Paraskevis and down modern day Messogeion avenue to Athens, which is 40.8 kilometers (25.3 miles) long—following the ancient roads, the modern road has been lengthened somewhat to accommodate vehicular traffic to and from Mesogeia. The other is towards the north, over the modern village of Vranas, up the relatively high mountain pass towards modern day Dionyssos and the northern suburbs of Athens, which is 34.5 kilometers (21.4 miles) long. It is more likely that the runner followed the safer, shorter but more tiring northern route than the longer but unsafe southern route. For the first modern marathon during the 1896 Olympics, the southern route was chosen probably because it was the main modern route between Marathon and Athens. That event was won by the Greek Spyros Loues who, being a local, knew that he had to conserve energy to pass the Stavros Agias Paraskevis pass, unlike his foreign competitors who were unaware of the terrain and abandoned the race there. The race today is run over a distance of 42.2 kilometers (26.2 miles). This length was set during the 1908 Olympics because the British royal family wanted to see the runners starting from the balcony of Windsor Castle, and to have the end of the race in front of the Royal Box at the Olympic Stadium.
 
Last edited:

bard32

Banned
Interesting. The Persians weren't very effective. In 490 BC, the Athenians defeated them at Marathon with an army of only 192 men, plus their allies, and then ten years later, they defeated the Spartans at Thermopylae, but they
eventually lost. However, if they won, then there wouldn't be any democracy.
The Persians would have had to defeat the Athenian fleet at Salamis. If they
did, then they'd have to defeat the Greeks at Plataea. Could they have done it?
Maybe.
 
Top