Persian Victory at Salamis and Subsequent Conquest of Greece

Monopolist

We've had this discussion before, I know - I've participated. However I feel like it can be good to rehash debate if it's been a while since the last time it's been brought up, which in this case I think it has. New members, new opinions and all of that. I have my own opinions but I'm interested in hearing yours.

Anyways, what are the effects of a Persian victory at Salamis and, presumably from there, conquest of Greece? How do the Persians administrate Greece; how many satrapies does Xerxes form and where are they based? How long can the Persians hold Greece, and would the Persians look to expand further if the Greeks can be pacified? Does a successful conquest of Greece have a positive or negative effect on the stability of Achaemenid rule? And what are the effects on both Greek and Persian culture?
 

NotYetRegistered

Eh, I don't know. They might expand into Italy, but I don't see them expanding to the north because there's not much of value there. Even though, I have to imagine Persian supply lines would end at one point so I don't think they can expand much farther.
 

Lalli

Probably Persia form Hellenic satrape. But it not be easy keep Greeks under Persian regime. Persia was already quiet large even before invasion to Greek city states. So Greeks might get independence when Persia become instable country. But I don't know would be that one Hellenic state or would there be multiple city states.
 

Monopolist

Lalli said:
Probably Persia form Hellenic satrape. But it not be easy keep Greeks under Persian regime. Persia was already quiet large even before invasion to Greek city states. So Greeks might get independence when Persia become instable country. But I don't know would be that one Hellenic state or would there be multiple city states.
Click to expand...

There is the theory, that a theoretical Persian conquest would help create a unified Greek state post-Persia, due to the experience of being under the rule of a single state (and likely another common experience in "throwing off the Persian yoke". This makes sense to me in theory, but I have a hard time seeing who would be the leading state, and I can't see a monarch rising unless the Greeks were conquered by a Greek-ish foreign monarch afterwards a la the Macedonians, which IMO is unlikely.
 

Lalli

Monopolist said:
There is the theory, that a theoretical Persian conquest would help create a unified Greek state post-Persia, due to the experience of being under the rule of a single state (and likely another common experience in "throwing off the Persian yoke". This makes sense to me in theory, but I have a hard time seeing who would be the leading state, and I can't see a monarch rising unless the Greeks were conquered by a Greek-ish foreign monarch afterwards a la the Macedonians, which IMO is unlikely.
Click to expand...

It might be bit difficult to create Hellenic union when even OTL Hellenic defense and economy alliance didn't last very long. And despite common language and belief there was much differences on city states. There should be someone who could unite Greeks and keep them together. Of course it could be someone who not be exist in OTL.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Monopolist said:
There is the theory, that a theoretical Persian conquest would help create a unified Greek state post-Persia, due to the experience of being under the rule of a single state (and likely another common experience in "throwing off the Persian yoke". This makes sense to me in theory, but I have a hard time seeing who would be the leading state, and I can't see a monarch rising unless the Greeks were conquered by a Greek-ish foreign monarch afterwards a la the Macedonians, which IMO is unlikely.
Click to expand...

What about a satrap? I'm pretty sure when Achaemenid Persia dissolves do to internal pressure, a Hellenic satrap could serve as a monarch of an independent Greek Kingdom, perhaps someone like Artimisia of Caria's descendents.
 

Lalli

Razgriz 2K9 said:
What about a satrap? I'm pretty sure when Achaemenid Persia dissolves do to internal pressure, a Hellenic satrap could serve as a monarch of an independent Greek Kingdom, perhaps someone like Artimisia of Caria's descendents.
Click to expand...

Could Greeks accept someone Persian as their king? Or could satrap be Greek origin?
 

chr92

A stronger Magna Graecia? Probably, for a few generations anyway, fanatically anti-Persian. More trade to the west?

In Greece, freed helot populations might be loyal subjects of the King of Kings.
 

Monopolist

chr92 said:
A stronger Magna Graecia? Probably, for a few generations anyway, fanatically anti-Persian. More trade to the west?

In Greece, freed helot populations might be loyal subjects of the King of Kings.
Click to expand...

I've felt this too, that one of the big effects might be that the Persians would free the helots in order to weaken the Spartans and gain a very strong ally in the Peloponnese. I could see Magna Graecia also becoming stronger out of this, and more focused on the west.
 

Malta

Basically what would happen the Persians would get a bunch of local stooges to rule as "Shah" of the Greeks, perhaps plant a few Persian settlements that their stooges can draw troops from, and some taxes and what not.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Lalli said:
Could Greeks accept someone Persian as their king? Or could satrap be Greek origin?
Click to expand...
Just implement the Macedonian solution: put together a Hellenic League, force everyone to join, and use that as the structure to govern Greece.

Yes, a satrap can be Greek.
 

Monopolist

The Persians historically don't seem to have appointed many non-Persians to rule as satrap though. There was generally room for local autonomy but the man physically in charge of the satrap was always Persian, at least in every case I can think of.
 

Basileus Giorgios

I wonder if there'd be a satrap appointed at all: Macedonia certainly didn't have satraps, and I don't think Thrace did either. Generally, my understanding is that the Achaemenids preferred to govern outlying regions simply through accepting tribute and notional submission to Persian overlordship rather than formally bringing them into the kingdom: never forget that Achaemenid Persia was an empire centred on Mesopotamia and Elam with only peripheral interest in Europe, a place that looks important only with hindsight.

Obviously, a Persian victory at Salamis will have massive butterflies, but in the short and medium term I doubt Greek culture will look massively different: it was already heavily influenced by the East as it was. There'll still be democracies, oligarchies and tyrannies, there'll still be philosophers, and there'll still be grumblings and mumblings against Persian power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top