Plausibility Check/Questions: Persian Victory in the Greco-Persian Wars

[rvbomally]

Here's a scenario I've had in my head for a while. Ancient history is not my forte, so if I'm making any mistakes, please correct me.

The scenario is the Persians win at the Battle of Salamis and the Greco-Persian Wars. The Persians do their thing (Set up some collaborator states, "Pay us tribute, we'll leave you to your own devices"), but many "free" Greeks flee to Magna Graecia. This colony manages to prosper and, once they realize they can't take back Greece proper, just take over the Italian peninsula. After the Persian Empire collapses due to a dynastic struggle a few centuries after the PoD, Greece proper is seen by Magna Graecia as a bunch of traitors and an "eternal" rivalry is born.

So, here are my questions:

• Which Greek city-states are most likely to bow down to the Persians? Which are most likely to run off?
  
• Is it plausible for Magna Graecia to conquer the Italian peninsula? Is it possible for it to become a power in its own right, like Carthage was?
  
• What happens to Carthage? Is it destroyed by the Greeks? Is it bolstered by Greek immigration and prosper?
  
• How will "barbarian" tribes' migrations change? Is it even possible to determine this?
  
• Where will the Persians go after their victory? Will they be emboldened, or will they stop their expansion? If they continue expanding, where?
  
• When is it most likely for the Persians to collapse? Which empires would most likely rise from the ashes to regain the glory that was Persia?
  
• In this world without Alexander and a longer-lasting Achaemenid Empire, how are the Near and Far East affected?

Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[Justinianus Constansious]

As for your PoD, you might want it to be: Themistocles dies at Marathon. Without him there wouldn't be a Salamis because… well the Greek fleet wouldn't exist. Anyway, as for your questions:

1. There isn't really a line between which states in general would or wouldn't flee, it's more about the people. In general though, Sparta would probably be wiped out. Athenians would probably migrate over half of their population since they had already fled Athens, but most of the others would probably remain,
2. It depends on the scope of what you're referring to as "Magna Graecia". That term was used, generally, to refer to the Greeks in Italy and Sicily, but Pyrrhus of Epirus had also been considered a general of Magna Graecia. At any rate, it would require some serious skill for them to conquer Italy - they would have to act fast to take Rome down before she became too powerful, but still build up sufficient forces to do so and defend themselves from the Persians. If they can do that, then Magna Graecia would become a major power a la Carthage.
3. Most likely scenario: Carthage and Magna Graecia engage in a war. The winner will set up further trading posts, using the loser as a stump on which to further their interests. Make of that what you will.
4. In a word: no. The migration patters of the steppe nomads (I assume that's who you're referring to) is next to impossible to predict, and even if we could predict it a PoD regarding Europe and the Middle East won't change the main reasons these groups began to wander (Climate change, Chinese Expansion, being chased off by other nomads).
5. The whole point of the Greco-Persian wars was to punish Athenian support in a revolt against Persian rule, and later to avenge the loss at Marathon. This means that the Persians probably won't expand further into Europe. That said, there is always a chance that they will attack Carthage. They also might follow what the Romans did OTL and invade Armenia, then move into Crimea. However, they probably won't expand much further west. More likely, they will move east - against the Indians.
6. The one point in time OTL would be 632 AD, but that seems a little to far down the road to be realistic. You would probably have to come up with an ATL reason for the Persians falling - Dynastic struggles, foreign invasions, plagues, whatever. As for another empire rising, it would probably be a major city in the Persian empire and their ethnic group - Babylon and the Amorites, Samarkand and the Sogdians, Tyre and the Phoenicians, etc.
7. Why wouldn't there be an Alexander ? If there isn't, then we would see one of two things: major innovation in Persia and maybe an Industrial revolution, or technological stagnation that would cause the Middle East to become a worldwide backwater. The Near east would probably be about as heavily Persian-ized as it is OTL post-1453, China would probably be relatively unaffected, and India would probably face many Persian invasion - and thus be much different.
I like your idea, by the way. Good luck with a TL!

 

[Pachac]

Which Greek city-states are most likely to bow down to the Persians? Which are most likely to run off?

Argos and Thebes were both states wishing to join Persia. The Argives linked themselves to Persia, and the Thebans joined the Persians. The thing with the Thebans is that they were on a flat plain, Boeotia, and had nowhere to run to, so it was only logical that to preserve their state they would join the Persians. Argos had an aristocracy that wanted to join Persia, mainly because of long standing feuds with their rival, the Spartans. Persia was their best chance at regaining their former hegemony. Various other states in Greece would probably capitulate in a Persian victory. I have discussed this with Monopolist and we came to the conclusion that Persia would leave these states mostly alone, perhaps with a system of tribute.

Athens would most likely be dismantled, with its population either resettled in Greece or deported to a land faraway such as Bactria. Sparta would remain untouched, as the Persians would not want to harm the sensibilities of the sons of Heracles or go against the prophecy of Leonidas. If the oracle got something wrong it would most likely make Persia lose the chance to get a firm grip on the Greeks; that is, supporting the Oracle.

Is it plausible for Magna Graecia to conquer the Italian peninsula? Is it possible for it to become a power in its own right, like Carthage was?

Magna Graecia is an ethnic area settled by the Greeks, rather than a state. it is composed of various different city states. They have banded together to fight such threats as the central Italian Lucanians but otherwise they have mainly squabbled with each other. While individual hegemonies over a short period of time seems likely, probably promulgated by the more powerful state such as Tarentum and Croton, I do not see it likely that a larger state will develop. Even in the time of the rise of Rome these states seemed more content to fight with each other rather than Rome. I would think that a way to unification would be a central Italian 'tribe' conquering them and destroying the individual governments of these cities. Sargon of Akkad did that for Sumer, accelerating the rate towards unification in that area.


When it does unify, I expect it to be very powerful, though overshadowed by its neighbor, Sicily. Here, Syracause was a huge power in its own right and if anyone would unify the states of Italy and Sicily it would be them. They utterly dominated most of the states around them in a ruse of defense against the Carthaginians, though at times the 'ruse' was an actual alliance between the Greek cities.

What happens to Carthage? Is it destroyed by the Greeks? Is it bolstered by Greek immigration and prosper?

I really doubt Greek immigration. Greek immigrants would go to Greek cities, where they could find themselves In a familiar, even more prosperous, environment than their home country. Carthage was Carthaginian, and it had few immigrants from Phoenicia after the exodus of them in the 500s BC. Instead, it had to rely on a mercenary force, instead of a civilian army. They simply did not have enough people to support a large civilian military. I expect that it will be a seesaw between Carthage and the Sicilians, until Carthage either gets a population large enough to support its own professional army, or another force is jettisoned into the area like Rome.

How will "barbarian" tribes' migrations change? Is it even possible to determine this?

Scythian migrations into the central Asian area may be stopped or weakened. Otherwise, we may see things such as the migrations of the Cimbri attempting to prey on a weakening Persian empire by taking Greece or something similar. It's really impossible to tell, as you suggest, since the causes of many migrations of people are unknown even today.

Where will the Persians go after their victory? Will they be emboldened, or will they stop their expansion? If they continue expanding, where?

Xerxes may go on some adventures to Albania and take the city of Epidamnus(modern Durrës) but otherwise the Persian empire is at the end of its expansion. Not only are there no valuable nations besides Greece that needed to be subdued, but the Persian empire was nearing the end of its expansion period. It could no longer support anymore nations. I remember a thread where I had a short post on it, explaining why. If you want I can link you to it.

When is it most likely for the Persians to collapse? Which empires would most likely rise from the ashes to regain the glory that was Persia?

The Glory of Persia would stay restricted to Persia. I would say that Persia was a relic of the Near east - As BG put it, it was a state which could not be supported in a world where rivals were all around it. States were developing in such places as India and the Caucasus that threatened its integrity. The time for such empires was, by then, over. Most of the empire outside the plateau would probably breed native dynasties; with no Greek influence supplanting old cultural boundaries, redundant kingdoms feeding on earlier traditions like Babylon and Assyria may rise. On the Iranian plateau, I expect that a more local dynasty would emerge, or the whole thing would be conquered by steppe peoples once the levees that held them back burst. All in all, a world after Persia would be one looking similar to that of the Babylonian empire, but with significant differences and new features.

In this world without Alexander and a longer-lasting Achaemenid Empire, how are the Near and Far East affected?

Aramaic would fully supplant Cuneiform in Mesopotamia, while Old Persian would probably be crafted more to the Aramaic alphabet than Cuneiform. In Egypt, Demotic or Aramaic would be the main script. Aramaic would really be the big dominant language of the region, understood by all, much like Akkadian before or Greek after. Mesopotamian traditions of Marduk and general Mesopotamian tradition would continue to exist. The entire region of the coast would be influenced by the Greeks, with writing systems changed to reflect that, and general culture being shaped by Greek outposts in the area. Tyre would survive as the main base of trade in the area and would probably continue to prosper for many years. Babylon would be abandoned like in our timeline, for the Euphrates was shifting its course. If anything, it would probably be refounded again along the Euphrates, with the ruins of the old site used for the new.

 

[Pachac]

As for your PoD, you might want it to be: Themistocles dies at Marathon. Without him there wouldn't be a Salamis because… well the Greek fleet wouldn't exist.

The Athenian navy had existed in the same form, more or less unchanged, since the time of Solon. I think that the spy who told the Persians that the allies were trapped in the channel of Salamis was not believed, and the Persians were not led into that trap. Waiting would exhaust the allies of the Athenians and they would abandon here, causing the whole war effort to collapse. After that, with support from Argos and the control of the sea, it would be a matter of time for Sparta and her allies to be defeated.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Here's a scenario I've had in my head for a while. Ancient history is not my forte, so if I'm making any mistakes, please correct me.

The scenario is the Persians win at the Battle of Salamis and the Greco-Persian Wars. The Persians do their thing (Set up some collaborator states, "Pay us tribute, we'll leave you to your own devices"), but many "free" Greeks flee to Magna Graecia. This colony manages to prosper and, once they realize they can't take back Greece proper, just take over the Italian peninsula. After the Persian Empire collapses due to a dynastic struggle a few centuries after the PoD, Greece proper is seen by Magna Graecia as a bunch of traitors and an "eternal" rivalry is born.

So, here are my questions:

• Which Greek city-states are most likely to bow down to the Persians? Which are most likely to run off?
  
• Is it plausible for Magna Graecia to conquer the Italian peninsula? Is it possible for it to become a power in its own right, like Carthage was?
  
• What happens to Carthage? Is it destroyed by the Greeks? Is it bolstered by Greek immigration and prosper?
  
• How will "barbarian" tribes' migrations change? Is it even possible to determine this?
  
• Where will the Persians go after their victory? Will they be emboldened, or will they stop their expansion? If they continue expanding, where?
  
• When is it most likely for the Persians to collapse? Which empires would most likely rise from the ashes to regain the glory that was Persia?
  
• In this world without Alexander and a longer-lasting Achaemenid Empire, how are the Near and Far East affected?

Many mid-sized city states will be collaborating. Athens will likely be the centre of a new Satrapy, but it will only have a fraction of it's former population. Sparta will be wiped off the face of the earth in an almost genocidal campaign for their 'insolence'. Magna Graecia will experience a population boom but will be the focus of a divide and conquer policy by the Carthaginians, would will use them against each other until they have full control. This will culminate in the capture of Syracuse, leaving Carthage to dominate Sicily and Southern Italy. Greeks will be used as mercenary infantry and Carthage will likely ally with the Samnites and defeat Rome. Magna Graecia will NOT be a power in it's own right, except perhaps culturally, as it is not a unified state. After their victory in Greece, the Persians will stamp out some Greek and Illyrian pirate activity, built some forts to protect against Thracians etc. in the North and then move on India, likely stopping before the deserts in Rajputana. This will likely be the limits of their expansion. The Persians will probably collapse within 100 years, and the Near East will be more Zoroastrian/Persian in character. The victories of Carthage in the West would make "Western" culture (really a rustic, occidentalist Iranian culture, with traces of Germanic elements) unrecognisable to us.

 

[Pachac]

Many mid-sized city states will be collaborating. Athens will likely be the centre of a new Satrapy, but it will only have a fraction of it's former population.

Not likely. The Athenian population will have been captured and Athens would have been razed. Thebes and Argos would be the centers of a Satrapy in those areas.

Sparta will be wiped off the face of the earth in an almost genocidal campaign for their 'insolence'.

Not at all. The Messenes will almost certainly be freed but you seem to be mixing up real Persia and 300 Persia. The two are not the same.

Magna Graecia will experience a population boom but will be the focus of a divide and conquer policy by the Carthaginians, would will use them against each other until they have full control. This will culminate in the capture of Syracuse, leaving Carthage to dominate Sicily and Southern Italy. Greeks will be used as mercenary infantry and Carthage will likely ally with the Samnites and defeat Rome. Magna Graecia will NOT be a power in it's own right, except perhaps culturally, as it is not a unified state.

Time and Time again Carthage has been shown to have failed whenever it has wanted to conquer the states of Sicily. They have often been triumphant in keeping Syracuse contained, though even that failed in the 5th century when one Dionysus landed in Libya and burned his way to Carthage. They would not get the upper hand, at least until they get a stable population of Phoenician citizens.

After their victory in Greece, the Persians will stamp out some Greek and Illyrian pirate activity, built some forts to protect against Thracians etc. in the North and then move on India, likely stopping before the deserts in Rajputana. This will likely be the limits of their expansion.

They will not move to attack India. Already in the time of Xerxes Persian power in India was on the wane, with Gandhara lost at that time. There is nothing for them there that could possibly justify expansion.

The Persians will probably collapse within 100 years, and the Near East will be more Zoroastrian/Persian in character.

Both these have to be assumptions, yet you state them as fact, when it is quite the opposite. Persia will be more stable with no negative Greek influence, but will still probably collapse some time in the early 200s BC due to pressure from around her. Even so, Persia discouraged cultural assimilation which would keep the middle east a bit like it was before they took it over, but with Aramaic as a unifying language, except perhaps in Egypt.

 

[rvbomally]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

If you want I can link you to it.

I would appreciate that very much.

Alright, so a revised situation in Italy: various Greek city-states squabbling among themselves, until some Italians who are up to no good (Rome?) become the "new Persia" and loosely unify them. They don't get to conquer the entire peninsula, but they serve as another player in the struggle between the Carthaginians and the various Italian civilizations. Perhaps increased Hellenization of Carthage and the neighboring civilizations? Perhaps Magna Graecia finally goes down when it gets into conflicts with post-Persia Greece and Carthage/Sicily/someone else takes advantage of the situation. In this situation, would Carthage become a power akin to Rome, or would no such power arise? I certainly think the latter situation is more interesting.

As for Persia itself, it breaks down into many different states that get swamped by nomads. Egypt, Carthage and Greece become the three dominant powers of the eastern Mediterranean. Meanwhile, in South Asia, India takes advantage of the implosion? With no unified empire to maintain it, maybe the Silk Road becomes too dangerous and trade through it is diminished for the moment?

 

[Pachac]

I would appreciate that very much.

I’d think that a few misconceptions need to be cleaned up here. First off, we need to make it clear that Persia would not expand anymore. Persia was already at the threshold of its power under Darius; under Xerxes some of the outer provinces such as Gandhara were lost, a sign of dwindling power. The Persian Empire at this point was already wearing out. Though there were competent leaders after Xerxes the fact that they lost Egypt and the whole lot so easily should be a sign. Run like a decentralized occupation rather than an actual nation the satrapies of the Persian Empire enjoyed virtual autonomy, and the system with which the armies were drawn from relied on the massive pool of levies. This can be attested to the fact that within the vast area of the Empire they used Median cavalrymen, Ethiopian spearmen, Phrygian peltists, and so on. While such a system is fine for a single war or two it is easy to see how it falls apart when the empire has more and more frontiers to deal with. Though the problem of logistics was temporarily solved by the Persian Royal road this only lessened the problem, not fixed it. The fact of the matter still remains that as a Land-based empire the Persians had a lot of difficulty moving infantry from place to place. With no easily navigable body of water such as the Mediterranean the travel of an army is made agonizingly slow. The Persians managed to solve the problem of running it by making something so decentralized but even then it was at the military and geographical limits of its power, both in the opinions of the Persian Shahs and in simple fact.

Regarding how they were militarily at the limit of their power, one needs to look no further than Persian campaigns in such areas as Nubia, Thracia, and Central Asia. In Nubia Persian expeditions were either repulsed by the Nubians or found nothing of use; this is because Nubia is a very poor country without much to give to Persia. In Thracia Persian expansion was checked in the Danube by Scythians and had it not been for the heroic efforts of the Ionian levies Darius would have likely been killed. Central Asia is the most difficult of the frontiers. This great expanse is naturally shielded by the Karakum desert but where the string of oases laid the Scythians plunder, often venturing into the Persian Empire. This has caused the forced defense of the area, of course, in order to defend the valuable resources of Bactria. It had taken the life of the Great Cyrus when he battled the nomads.

Regarding geographical factors, the Thar Desert in the east, the mountainous desolate Balkans, the Caucasus, the Arabian Desert, and the Egyptian coastal strip where nothing except a few Greek towns specializing in creating dyes laid all limited Persian expansion. Besides the obvious danger of overextension there was simply the fact that none of these areas were appealing. Even Carthage had not grown to the apex of her power, not nearly as strong as she would later become.
With this in mind and the fact that Persian ‘rule’ in Greece would mean a few satrapies and the dismantling of Athens and Sparta, perhaps with taxes every now and then, we can see why Persia would not expand any longer. However, it does make the Persian empire easier to rule with the Greeks gone. The two most rebellious areas of the empire, Ionia, and Egypt, have now been simultaneously pacified due to the fact that Greek funding is now gone.

The Greeks were funding these two areas to rebel against the Persians, particularly the former. While the former was easier to control the revolt of the latter was much, much harder and that is why the area became such a pressure point for Persian destabilization. Without Greek funding the Egyptian problem is not nearly as prevalent.

Alright, so a revised situation in Italy: various Greek city-states squabbling among themselves, until some Italians who are up to no good (Rome?) become the "new Persia" and loosely unify them. They don't get to conquer the entire peninsula, but they serve as another player in the struggle between the Carthaginians and the various Italian civilizations. Perhaps increased Hellenization of Carthage and the neighboring civilizations? Perhaps Magna Graecia finally goes down when it gets into conflicts with post-Persia Greece and Carthage/Sicily/someone else takes advantage of the situation. In this situation, would Carthage become a power akin to Rome, or would no such power arise? I certainly think the latter situation is more interesting.

I would say some Central Italian tribe with a weaker grasp on power is a good idea. A New Persia seems unlikely as the idea of Persia was unique to the middle east. Most likely the sort of thing you would see is a small empire being forged, then collapsing when the city states put too much pressure on it. I'm sure Monopolist could quite ably point out that Carthage is not in a position similar to Rome. It wants to dominate trade, not to conquer. Besides central Spain for its mines, and Sicily to beat its competitors, it will have no likely goals for conquest in the future, nor can it succeed in any goals such as those.

As for Persia itself, it breaks down into many different states that get swamped by nomads. Egypt, Carthage and Greece become the three dominant powers of the eastern Mediterranean. Meanwhile, in South Asia, India takes advantage of the implosion? With no unified empire to maintain it, maybe the Silk Road becomes too dangerous and trade through it is diminished for the moment?

I would think that mainland Greece would remain a fairly backwards area though the Anatolian Greek may expand. Egypt is a bronze age Anachronism in a world moving away from her; she cannot stay very powerful after the power vacuum caused by the Persian collapse disappears. Mesopotamia would probably be unified by either the Assyrians or Babylonians with kingdoms in Syria and Palestine vying for control over each other. Every now and then a kingdom may rise and conquer the area, further moving the entire area towards unification.

Be careful when you say 'silk road'. It's a bit anachronistic as before the Xiongnu(huns) were defeated during the Han the area was very lightly traveled. India was more important at this time and I'm sure it could benefit from trade. Most likely Magahda or a similar state picks up the pieces in the Indus valley where the Persians collapsed.

 

[rvbomally]

I would say some Central Italian tribe with a weaker grasp on power is a good idea. A New Persia seems unlikely as the idea of Persia was unique to the middle east.

I meant "new Persia" in the sense that it's another threat to rally around. And I'll try to butterfly Rome's successes away, because I find it more interesting to have no Rome-esque power in Europe (at least for now). I have no idea how such a Europe would develop, which makes the scenario all the more interesting IMO. Of course, if plausibility dictates otherwise, I will let Rome rise.

Most likely the sort of thing you would see is a small empire being forged, then collapsing when the city states put too much pressure on it. I'm sure Monopolist could quite ably point out that Carthage is not in a position similar to Rome. It wants to dominate trade, not to conquer. Besides central Spain for its mines, and Sicily to beat its competitors, it will have no likely goals for conquest in the future, nor can it succeed in any goals such as those.

So Carthage won't be an alternate Rome. Okay, it's good to know plausibility is on my side.

I would think that mainland Greece would remain a fairly backwards area though the Anatolian Greek may expand. Egypt is a bronze age Anachronism in a world moving away from her; she cannot stay very powerful after the power vacuum caused by the Persian collapse disappears. Mesopotamia would probably be unified by either the Assyrians or Babylonians with kingdoms in Syria and Palestine vying for control over each other. Every now and then a kingdom may rise and conquer the area, further moving the entire area towards unification.

Perhaps a great conqueror could arise from one of these civilizations? I don't know how to go about placing Genghis Khans and Alexander the Greats, although I think the only system I could use is my preference.

Be careful when you say 'silk road'. It's a bit anachronistic as before the Xiongnu(huns) were defeated during the Han the area was very lightly traveled. India was more important at this time and I'm sure it could benefit from trade.

Ah, will do.

Most likely Magahda or a similar state picks up the pieces in the Indus valley where the Persians collapsed.

So with the Mediterranean and the Middle East in a mess, India is one of the more powerful states on the planet. Of course, this wouldn't last more than a few centuries.

 

[Monopolist]

I'll try and add my own spin on your initial questions (except the last one, as I don't have anything really worth adding with that), if you don't mind, though it looks like you've gotten some pretty good and quite thorough answers.

The scenario is the Persians win at the Battle of Salamis and the Greco-Persian Wars. The Persians do their thing (Set up some collaborator states, "Pay us tribute, we'll leave you to your own devices"), but many "free" Greeks flee to Magna Graecia. This colony manages to prosper and, once they realize they can't take back Greece proper, just take over the Italian peninsula. After the Persian Empire collapses due to a dynastic struggle a few centuries after the PoD, Greece proper is seen by Magna Graecia as a bunch of traitors and an "eternal" rivalry is born.

The idea of the Greeks flipping out and fleeing to the west to escape Persia is simply probably not going to happen - I'll admit that I've thought that too, but the idea that Herodotus instills, that all the Greeks would get up and leave rather than just live in a Persian occupied Greece because they're "slaves" of Xerxes now instead of "free men" is simply not likely. Most Greeks wouldn't care - and many might even find it to be a golden age, as, after all, there wouldn't be any fighting between the cities, farmers wouldn't have to be carted off to tedious skirmishes, and there'd be more access for Greek merchants with the rest of the world, being yet another part of Persia's empire.

For instance, while some Greeks, notably the Spartans, Thebans, and Demosthenes, weren't big fans of Philip and Alexander's League of Corinth, most were perfectly fine with it, and life went as it did before, except without any real wars which had been almost an annual thing for everyone prior to the League. I wouldn't go as far as to say the League of Corinth was a sort of "Golden Age" in Greece, as Alexander's campaigns demanded a lot of people and there were some rather violent episodes, but life was peaceful and money flowed as well as ever for the merchants, and I'd imagine life under Persia would be about the same, if not better, and so most Greeks would probably accept that as time went on. With Athens gone, I'd imagine that only the Spartans would find Persian occupation absolutely miserable.

Which Greek city-states are most likely to bow down to the Persians? Which are most likely to run off?

Argos is going to be your guaranteed satrapy - it's rich, important, populous, has a ton of religious/historical connections (with the Iliad, various legends, etc.), and - most importantly - actively sought Persia's friendship. In fact, the Argives and Persians decided that they were related through the Argive hero Perseus - the guy who slew Medusa and all that stuff - because Perseus sounds similar to Persia/Parsis/Persians and whatnot.

Thebes and Larissa (the main state of Thessaly) were also not closed to the idea of a Persian takeover, and could be satrapies. It depends on how you want to break up Greece.

Other cities that could bow down... probably none with any real importance. Athens is the main reason for the wars; Sparta's Sparta and has a lot more to lose then most cities with a Persian takeover; Corinth is tied to Sparta via the early Peloponnesian League. Most cities did bow down to the Persians, just not most of the big important ones.

Is it plausible for Magna Graecia to conquer the Italian peninsula? Is it possible for it to become a power in its own right, like Carthage was?

I'm afraid it's not really probable that Magna Graecia unites, let alone it conquering Italy. While I'm not aware of many action packed wars between say Croton and Taras, they were mostly just a bunch of squabbling cities trying to make money and not get taken over by Italians, not active world conquerers - there are no Syracuses there.

What happens to Carthage? Is it destroyed by the Greeks? Is it bolstered by Greek immigration and prosper?

Carthage is just going to keep fighting against Syracuse in Sicily, likely never actually prevailing over them, if OTL is a good indicator. As Impi says, Carthage was always able to just keep Syracuse at bay, never able to conquer it - largely because of how few Carthaginians there were compared to how many Greeks. A good analog is the French and the British, the British being the Greeks and the French the Carthaginians, right down to the simplified view that Carthaginians having more native allies then the Greeks, and the French more native allies (at least I'm pretty sure they did) then the British - though Carthage did view Sicily as more important then what the French did North America.

You could have Carthage be more lucky in its wars with Syracuse - the Battle of Himera (which incidentally was perhaps the greatest "forgotten" battle of the ancient world, and was fought in the same year as Xerxes' invasion) is an interesting PoD - but it'll be tough to actually get Carthage to conquer Greek Sicily. Similarly, while it's not as hard for the Greeks to conquer Punic Sicily, it'll be hard for them to conquer north Africa unless they have a better leader then Agathocles, which is kind of hard with how Syracuse worked IOTL - tyrants/mercenary captains make for good commanders, not really conquerers. Carthage might have a bit more success then they had IOTL, given that there's probably less chance that figures like Timoleon come over from Greece Proper to disrupt Sicilian wars, but not anything too drastic.

How will "barbarian" tribes' migrations change? Is it even possible to determine this?

I wouldn't worry too much about them... however, as most tribes migrated due to food crises and the like, I'd imagine that'd you see roughly the same tribes migrating.

Where will the Persians go after their victory? Will they be emboldened, or will they stop their expansion? If they continue expanding, where?

See Impi's answer; Herodotus' Xerxes talks of conquering the whole west or something like that, but I've been convinced that Persia's not going to try and conquer somewhere like Greece again - campaigns against some tribes and wars to keep the boundaries where they are, yes, but no real further expansion.

When is it most likely for the Persians to collapse? Which empires would most likely rise from the ashes to regain the glory that was Persia?

With the Greeks out, it's possible Persia makes it a century past Alexander's conquests IOTL, maybe more, but probably less. Its core could last a fairly long time, the core being its territories east of the Euphrates - those are the territories that Persia considered its home provinces, whereas the western stuff are nice additions. For an example IOTL, Darius III (the guy Alexander the Great fought) offered him after Issus all his western territories (and his eldest daughter, I believe) mostly as a way to bribe Alex to just be done with the war.

The western territories will likely just drift away from Persian rule with weaker kings, as what was happening IOTL with Darius and the couple kings before him - they don't necessarily mean the end of the empire though. It's what happens with uber-decentralized empires, like Persia. The core could fall any number of ways - perhaps someone like the Parthians comes along and establishes a Parthian dynasty; perhaps a Western "Alexander" figure comes and destroys the Achaemenids; perhaps they're just overthrown at some point and numerous kingdoms rule the middle east. Who knows?

If you want an "expiration date", if you will, for Persia, I'll say somewhere between 250 and 200 BC - it'd be a Persia without the west, but I can see even a string of incompetent kings lasting with the Iran-Mesopotamia core for a little while.



Hope this helps, and good luck with the timeline!

 

[rvbomally]

The idea of the Greeks flipping out and fleeing to the west to escape Persia is simply probably not going to happen - I'll admit that I've thought that too, but the idea that Herodotus instills, that all the Greeks would get up and leave rather than just live in a Persian occupied Greece because they're "slaves" of Xerxes now instead of "free men" is simply not likely. Most Greeks wouldn't care - and many might even find it to be a golden age, as, after all, there wouldn't be any fighting between the cities, farmers wouldn't have to be carted off to tedious skirmishes, and there'd be more access for Greek merchants with the rest of the world, being yet another part of Persia's empire.

For instance, while some Greeks, notably the Spartans, Thebans, and Demosthenes, weren't big fans of Philip and Alexander's League of Corinth, most were perfectly fine with it, and life went as it did before, except without any real wars which had been almost an annual thing for everyone prior to the League. I wouldn't go as far as to say the League of Corinth was a sort of "Golden Age" in Greece, as Alexander's campaigns demanded a lot of people and there were some rather violent episodes, but life was peaceful and money flowed as well as ever for the merchants, and I'd imagine life under Persia would be about the same, if not better, and so most Greeks would probably accept that as time went on. With Athens gone, I'd imagine that only the Spartans would find Persian occupation absolutely miserable.

My idea was the Greeks evacuating once they realized the war was over for them. Essentially, an evacuation fueled by fear of the Persians. Of course, if this is in itself implausible, I will toss it out.

I'm afraid it's not really probable that Magna Graecia unites, let alone it conquering Italy. While I'm not aware of many action packed wars between say Croton and Taras, they were mostly just a bunch of squabbling cities trying to make money and not get taken over by Italians, not active world conquerers - there are no Syracuses there.

Hm, if the "mass evacuation" point is thrown out, then this won't be an issue. Hopefully Magna Graecia becomes enough of a spanner in the works to seriously mess with Italy.

You could have Carthage be more lucky in its wars with Syracuse - the Battle of Himera (which incidentally was perhaps the greatest "forgotten" battle of the ancient world, and was fought in the same year as Xerxes' invasion) is an interesting PoD - but it'll be tough to actually get Carthage to conquer Greek Sicily. Similarly, while it's not as hard for the Greeks to conquer Punic Sicily, it'll be hard for them to conquer north Africa unless they have a better leader then Agathocles, which is kind of hard with how Syracuse worked IOTL - tyrants/mercenary captains make for good commanders, not really conquerers. Carthage might have a bit more success then they had IOTL, given that there's probably less chance that figures like Timoleon come over from Greece Proper to disrupt Sicilian wars, but not anything too drastic.

I think I'll keep the Carthaginians' luck the same, at least for now. I would like them to survive longer than IOTL, or at least not have Rome dominate the area just as in OTL.

With the Greeks out, it's possible Persia makes it a century past Alexander's conquests IOTL, maybe more, but probably less. Its core could last a fairly long time, the core being its territories east of the Euphrates - those are the territories that Persia considered its home provinces, whereas the western stuff are nice additions. For an example IOTL, Darius III (the guy Alexander the Great fought) offered him after Issus all his western territories (and his eldest daughter, I believe) mostly as a way to bribe Alex to just be done with the war.

The western territories will likely just drift away from Persian rule with weaker kings, as what was happening IOTL with Darius and the couple kings before him - they don't necessarily mean the end of the empire though. It's what happens with uber-decentralized empires, like Persia. The core could fall any number of ways - perhaps someone like the Parthians comes along and establishes a Parthian dynasty; perhaps a Western "Alexander" figure comes and destroys the Achaemenids; perhaps they're just overthrown at some point and numerous kingdoms rule the middle east. Who knows?

If you want an "expiration date", if you will, for Persia, I'll say somewhere between 250 and 200 BC - it'd be a Persia without the west, but I can see even a string of incompetent kings lasting with the Iran-Mesopotamia core for a little while.

Alright, how's this for a post-"collapse" scenario in between 250 and 200 BC: an independent Greece and Egypt (later going down itself), a Mesopotamia that's split between the Assyrians, Babylonians and a Persian "core," the Caucasian and Central Asian periphery of the old empire are settled by nomads, and the eastern areas have significant Indian influence.

Hope this helps, and good luck with the timeline!

It has. Thanks!

 

[Monopolist]

Alright, so a revised situation in Italy: various Greek city-states squabbling among themselves, until some Italians who are up to no good (Rome?) become the "new Persia" and loosely unify them. They don't get to conquer the entire peninsula, but they serve as another player in the struggle between the Carthaginians and the various Italian civilizations. Perhaps increased Hellenization of Carthage and the neighboring civilizations? Perhaps Magna Graecia finally goes down when it gets into conflicts with post-Persia Greece and Carthage/Sicily/someone else takes advantage of the situation. In this situation, would Carthage become a power akin to Rome, or would no such power arise? I certainly think the latter situation is more interesting.

I would say some Central Italian tribe with a weaker grasp on power is a good idea. A New Persia seems unlikely as the idea of Persia was unique to the middle east. Most likely the sort of thing you would see is a small empire being forged, then collapsing when the city states put too much pressure on it.

I meant "new Persia" in the sense that it's another threat to rally around. And I'll try to butterfly Rome's successes away, because I find it more interesting to have no Rome-esque power in Europe (at least for now). I have no idea how such a Europe would develop, which makes the scenario all the more interesting IMO. Of course, if plausibility dictates otherwise, I will let Rome rise.

Why not the Samnites for this Central Italian power? If you want someone that's not Rome to get the Magna Graecians to fear enough to unite against, the Samnites are probably your best chance, being Rome's greatest enemy in its conquest of the Italian tribes - though Magna Graecia would probably fear these Samnites (who would likely have Latium and Campania under its control) enough to send for help from the Greek satrapy, doing something similar to what Tarentum did with Alexander I of Epirus and Pyrrhus, and wouldn't really need to totally and permanantly unite against them to defeat them. You could create a plausible scenario where they created a sort of "League of Taras" or something, I just think that Tarentum or somebody sending for help from the mainland is more likely then a unified league emerging at the treat of Italian powers.

 

[rvbomally]

Derp, simultaneous post.

Why not the Samnites for this Central Italian power? If you want someone that's not Rome to get the Magna Graecians to fear enough to unite against, the Samnites are probably your best chance, being Rome's greatest enemy in its conquest of the Italian tribes - though Magna Graecia would probably fear these Samnites (who would likely have Latium and Campania under its control) enough to send for help from the Greek satrapy, doing something similar to what Tarentum did with Alexander I of Epirus and Pyrrhus, and wouldn't really need to totally and permanantly unite against them to defeat them. You could create a plausible scenario where they created a sort of "League of Taras" or something, I just think that Tarentum or somebody sending for help from the mainland is more likely then a unified league emerging at the treat of Italian powers.

That works too. The original idea I had was Magna Graecia becoming a much weaker pseudo-Rome, but a Greek area there causing trouble is much more interesting.

 

[kasumigenx]

I would want to see a timeline where in Persia defeats Greece, I think that would be good because I had not seen a timeline like that

 

[Monopolist]

Alright, how's this for a post-"collapse" scenario in between 250 and 200 BC: an independent Greece and Egypt (later going down itself), a Mesopotamia that's split between the Assyrians, Babylonians and a Persian "core," the Caucasian and Central Asian periphery of the old empire are settled by nomads, and the eastern areas have significant Indian influence.

Seems reasonable enough to me, though I'd imagine that Mesopotamia would eventually get unified by some power - its been unified for too long at this point to be divided between Babylonians and Assyrians.

I would want to see a timeline where in Persia defeats Greece, I think that would be good because I had not seen a timeline like that

It is kind of strange, given how often there are what ifs on this... I don't remember a TL on a Persian victory ever being made since I've joined. You'd think there would be, but there aren't. People just don't make many ancient greece related timelines, unfortunately.

 

[rvbomally]

Seems reasonable enough to me, though I'd imagine that Mesopotamia would eventually get unified by some power - its been unified for too long at this point to be divided between Babylonians and Assyrians.

I think I'll go for the Babylonians, but I'm open to other suggestions.

It is kind of strange, given how often there are what ifs on this... I don't remember a TL on a Persian victory ever being made since I've joined. You'd think there would be, but there aren't. People just don't make many ancient greece related timelines, unfortunately.

It's one reason I'm tackling this, even if my knowledge base is WWII and beyond. I could do a "WI Hitler woke up on the left side of the bed before Barbarossa" but I'm tired of WWII.

 

[aktarian]

[*]Which Greek city-states are most likely to bow down to the Persians? Which are most likely to run off?

In OTL states that Medized were ones lying in direct path of advancing Persians and ones who hoped to change the ballance with Persian help. Former can be described as cowardly but makes sense. If they thought Greece as a culture will loose anyway why fight when you can make a better deal? Later had some old grievances to settle and would likely be top dogs in new regime. I see Athens and Sparta being reduced to status of low tier powers if not outright wiped out as far as Greece is concerned.

Athenians would likely try to establish themselves elsewhere, if they could, that is if enough fleet and people survive/escape to establish a viable new homeland elsewhere. I think Sparta would go down fighting, Germany 1945 style.

 

[kasumigenx]

I think I'll go for the Babylonians, but I'm open to other suggestions.



It's one reason I'm tackling this, even if my knowledge base is WWII and beyond. I could do a "WI Hitler woke up on the left side of the bed before Barbarossa" but I'm tired of WWII.

I was thinking if there was no Alexander the Great, Persia can invade Greece.

 

[Monopolist]

I was thinking if there was no Alexander the Great, Persia can invade Greece.

What?

I think Sparta would go down fighting, Germany 1945 style.

I'm not really getting the "Sparta's going to kill itself fighting Persia"/"Persia's going to obliterate Sparta" talk. Sure, Sparta's got a bigger ego than the other Greek cities, but Persia wouldn't do anything more then free the Messenians (their quarrel was with Athens, not Sparta, but Sparta's power would need to be broken, it being the strongest Greek city at the time), and the 300-esque we will never surrender thing is simply not history's Sparta - Spartans knew when peace was better then war, they were trained to live and fight when they needed to fight, not when victory was hopeless. They refused to fight against Epaminondas and his massive army after his invasion a year after Leuctra, instead protecting the city, and allowed the Thebans to free the Messenians - it's not like they felt sacrificing the city was worth making a point to Thebes, despite the humiliation of so quickly losing its hegemony, a large part of its territory, and many of its slaves.

It's one reason I'm tackling this, even if my knowledge base is WWII and beyond. I could do a "WI Hitler woke up on the left side of the bed before Barbarossa" but I'm tired of WWII.

Good, you should be, ancient history is much better than WWII!

 

[aktarian]

I'm not really getting the "Sparta's going to kill itself fighting Persia"/"Persia's going to obliterate Sparta" talk. Sure, Sparta's got a bigger ego than the other Greek cities, but Persia wouldn't do anything more then free the Messenians (their quarrel was with Athens, not Sparta, but Sparta's power would need to be broken, it being the strongest Greek city at the time), and the 300-esque we will never surrender thing is simply not history's Sparta - Spartans knew when peace was better then war, they were trained to live and fight when they needed to fight, not when victory was hopeless. They refused to fight against Epaminondas and his massive army after his invasion a year after Leuctra, instead protecting the city, and allowed the Thebans to free the Messenians - it's not like they felt sacrificing the city was worth making a point to Thebes, despite the humiliation of so quickly losing its hegemony, a large part of its territory, and many of its slaves.

Sparta accepted humiliating terms and begged for peace when they felt they had to preserve their military elite troops to fight later. Against Persia this wouldn't apply as Persia would be determined to destroy Sparta one way or the other. It would be the end of Sparta as they knew it, not just loss of status or even Helots.

So I think they'd throw everything they had at Persians, likely loose (specially if they adopt the Corinthian istmus strategy) then see Laconia razed, same way as Athens. Other Greeks were not interested in destroying Sparta, merely put them in their proper place.