Persian invasion of greece
- Thread starter joeyanonymous
- Start date
Hecatee
Donor
Well things are very different if it's during the 1st or the 2nd medic war, because the Persian goals were very different. In the first it was mainly to punish Athens for the help it gave to the rebel cities on the coast. If defeated, Athens could either be forced to bow to the King of Kings (with the tyrant Hippias getting back his throne and a Persian garrison) or be burned in revenge for Miletus (less likely). From there either the Greeks north of Corinth are probably cowed into submission while the Peloponnese (including Corinth) fortify under the leadership (more or less forced upon them) of the Spartans while Hippias might win more influence in the North thanks to Persian support. Many of the laws of democracy are repelled and Athens never choose to become THE maritime power of its day and age, which does also give more power to the Phoenicians who can keep expanding west beyond Carthage, which may loose some independence in the long run, especially if the situation in Greece force many Greeks to flee to Sicily, reinforcing those tyrants and leading to the expulsion of the Carthaginians from the island.
If victory is achieved during the second war, then we have a much different situation because too many cities did align against Persia. In such a scenario Athens is destroyed to the ground and Thebes gets control of the north. Sparta is also destroyed and we might see an earlier Messene founded by the Persians with the freed helots as the new leading power in the Peloponnese, both Messene and Thebes being propped up by Persian subsidies and troops despite a large scale guerrilla against Persian interests in many regions. Phoenicia does not benefit from larger influence on Carthage (due to larger losses of ships) while the situation in Sicily evolves even more quickly in favor of the Greeks. The larger amount of settlers also reinforce the Greek presence in Italy (for the bad luck of the italic tribes such as the Samnites) and might relaunch colonial expansion in western Med, especially in Spain, further curtailing Carthage's ambitions. Etruscans might also loose control of Corsica (and Sardinia might as well fall to the Greeks) because they are already in their wars against Rome and on a downturn. Of course the Etruscans and Carthaginians might attempt to fight against those trend by reinforcing their alliance (cf. the Pyrgi gold tablets, which are roughly contemporary) and making a truce with Rome, Rome and the Etruscans attacking the Greeks in Campania while the Carthaginians and Etruscan fleets attempt to destroy the Greek naval forces.
I base my hypothesis on what happened after the capture of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, such as Phocea, which saw conflicts culminate with the battle of Alalia were a etrusco-carthaginian fleet was destroyed by a Greek fleet that suffered such casualties as to abandon their attempt at colonizing Corsica.
If victory is achieved during the second war, then we have a much different situation because too many cities did align against Persia. In such a scenario Athens is destroyed to the ground and Thebes gets control of the north. Sparta is also destroyed and we might see an earlier Messene founded by the Persians with the freed helots as the new leading power in the Peloponnese, both Messene and Thebes being propped up by Persian subsidies and troops despite a large scale guerrilla against Persian interests in many regions. Phoenicia does not benefit from larger influence on Carthage (due to larger losses of ships) while the situation in Sicily evolves even more quickly in favor of the Greeks. The larger amount of settlers also reinforce the Greek presence in Italy (for the bad luck of the italic tribes such as the Samnites) and might relaunch colonial expansion in western Med, especially in Spain, further curtailing Carthage's ambitions. Etruscans might also loose control of Corsica (and Sardinia might as well fall to the Greeks) because they are already in their wars against Rome and on a downturn. Of course the Etruscans and Carthaginians might attempt to fight against those trend by reinforcing their alliance (cf. the Pyrgi gold tablets, which are roughly contemporary) and making a truce with Rome, Rome and the Etruscans attacking the Greeks in Campania while the Carthaginians and Etruscan fleets attempt to destroy the Greek naval forces.
I base my hypothesis on what happened after the capture of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, such as Phocea, which saw conflicts culminate with the battle of Alalia were a etrusco-carthaginian fleet was destroyed by a Greek fleet that suffered such casualties as to abandon their attempt at colonizing Corsica.
How far would the Persian empire be able to expand if they conquered ancient Greece?
Hecatee
Donor
Logistics was one of the strong points of the Empire, but geography was a constraint. While it was possible to mass supplies on the asian coast of the Egean and support forces in Greece with them, I'm not sure it would have been possible to do so in Greece for intervention in the Balkans, due to a lack of infrastructures (including towns/cities to serve as base, lack of grain production for massive supply effort, and so on). So I'd expect a rather stable border, with negotiations with the Thracian tribes for peace, Macedonia being left to deal with the Illyrian tribes as a vassal state to the Persian empire (which it was more or less during the time of the medic wars).
Idk if Rome is completely butterflied. Unless the Achaemenids conquer Syracuse ( unlikely), if not then perhaps the Greek influence on Rome is kept. Also if successful Whos to say Greece can't break free. Also Carthage is still there and the situation for a dominant Italian state is still there.
If Rome still rises and conquers Italy they will most likely champion the defense of Hellenic culture and will probably defeat the Achaemenids in Greece. We all know that the Achaemenids while the greatest example of effective control of other cultures and subjects and amazing wealth was essentially a paper tiger.
They were anything but a paper tiger. Yes, they perhaps were not as powerful as their size might make one expect, but to call them a paper tiger is a gross exaggeration. They were a serious force to be reckoned with, and, frankly, Rome has to have a good reason to even contemplate invading Greece at any point. The Romans kind of accidentally stumbled upon their empire.The situation in Greece allowed them to have a situation they could take advantage of-a weak and decaying Makedon that was low on manpower, and several other independent states they could play off each other and win control over piecemeal. This is not the case with an Achaemenid Greece.
Is this a good time to mention my ongoing timeline regarding a successful Achaemenid invasion of Greece? I only ask because it seems relevant to the matter at hand 
More seriously, there are a huge number of unknowns regarding the result of a Persian conquest of Greece, let alone one that lasts. There are so many events that it might butterfly away depending on exactly what has happened, but probably not all of them, and which things are butterflied depend very heavily on how you see the initial aftermath playing itself out. In my timeline there's a heavy exodus of Greeks to Italy, which very soon starts to play merry havoc with the development of history on the peninsula. But you could just as easily imagine a mass-settlement of rebellious Hellenes in, I don't know, the Arabian frontier. Or a situation in which Greece successfully rebels against Persia and any number of things play out afterwards. Or a situation where immediately after Persia conquers Greece, Armenia and then Anatolia+Mesopotamia gets invaded by a large number of Scythians in a manner not unlike the Cimmerians a couple of centuries beforehand. The very nature of a PoD in this territory is that it's a huge moment of flux, NOT because the Greeks are the most important thing ever, but because this is a period in which it is very easy for enormous thing to radically alter, and because this then has such huge knock-on-affects across such a wide area.
More seriously, there are a huge number of unknowns regarding the result of a Persian conquest of Greece, let alone one that lasts. There are so many events that it might butterfly away depending on exactly what has happened, but probably not all of them, and which things are butterflied depend very heavily on how you see the initial aftermath playing itself out. In my timeline there's a heavy exodus of Greeks to Italy, which very soon starts to play merry havoc with the development of history on the peninsula. But you could just as easily imagine a mass-settlement of rebellious Hellenes in, I don't know, the Arabian frontier. Or a situation in which Greece successfully rebels against Persia and any number of things play out afterwards. Or a situation where immediately after Persia conquers Greece, Armenia and then Anatolia+Mesopotamia gets invaded by a large number of Scythians in a manner not unlike the Cimmerians a couple of centuries beforehand. The very nature of a PoD in this territory is that it's a huge moment of flux, NOT because the Greeks are the most important thing ever, but because this is a period in which it is very easy for enormous thing to radically alter, and because this then has such huge knock-on-affects across such a wide area.
Forgive me for the exaggeration. However when compared to the Assyrian empire before them, the Achaemenids were more of a economic and diplomatic empire. Thus unlike the Assyrians, their immense size often portrayed a stronger opponent than what was reality. The Achaemenids also were less militaristic than the Sassanids, who were quite militaristic. As well the Achaeminids were very dependent on Greek mercenaries and Greek subjects at least at the end of their reign.
I also do not feel that the Romans stumbled upon empire as you say, just as the Achaeminds did not stumble on theirs. The Roman Empire was an inevitable consequence of the conquest of Italy. After a Latin state United Italy in the time period they will inevitably fight Syracuse and Carthage, thus beginning an imperialistic nation seeking conquest. So in many ways Rome's empire was not by chance, just as the Achaemenids wasn't, whom you are defending.
I wouldn't say the Roman Empire was inevitable from the conquest of Italy. I wouldn't even say a Roman conquest of Sicily at that point was inevitable.
Regardless, even if you believe a Roman empire in the west is inevitable from the conquest of Sicily, there's no reason to believe it was inevitable in Greece. It was a series of very fortuitous circumstances that allowed the Romans to dominate Greece, and these won't be present here. There is little reason for them to go east-the Persians at least appear to be extremely powerful, and can't really project their power much onto Italy to begin with. Likewise, the Romans have far more easy pickings in the west, and without a fractured and disunited Greece, would not have much opportunity to turn east.
Regardless, even if you believe a Roman empire in the west is inevitable from the conquest of Sicily, there's no reason to believe it was inevitable in Greece. It was a series of very fortuitous circumstances that allowed the Romans to dominate Greece, and these won't be present here. There is little reason for them to go east-the Persians at least appear to be extremely powerful, and can't really project their power much onto Italy to begin with. Likewise, the Romans have far more easy pickings in the west, and without a fractured and disunited Greece, would not have much opportunity to turn east.
What happens when Rome finds the west not as rich as they hoped and turns back East?
Just for fun, I have written in the past a little bit about an Achaemenid conquest of Greece. That could lead to a Roman-Carthage alliance.