Is it at all possible that the Athenians, if pushed to the extreme, would accept a Carthaginian invitation to to settle in the City and empire?
PoD: Athenians abandon Attica in 480
- Thread starter Forum Lurker
- Start date
If pushed to the extreme and given that invitation, it's possible. On the other hand, I can't imagine why the Carthaginians, allies of the Persians and a rival seafaring nation, would extend such an invitation against an opponent pushed to the extreme, where simply sacking their cities and eliminating a dangerous rival for good would be simpler and easier.
Forum Lurker said:
Hang on, are you basing your assesment of Athens on their resources in Attica, or New Athens based in Southern Italy? Now if it's the latter, I can't agree here. New Athens, which I gather has 50 years to establish itself & expand before the Persians arrive, will have more than enough resources to expand its fleet to defeat anyone.
As for Salamis - the Athenians used their brains as they did at Marathon. I'd imagine they'd do the same in any conflict against Carthage. So I would by no means right off the Athenians new or old. They're very cunning those Greeks. Democracy furthers their cunning skills
Forum Lurker said:
This I 100% agree with.
Forum Lurker said:
Now I don't over disagree here, but I can't see the Persians leaving Greece without a mighty push. And the Greeks themselves can't do that as you've more or less pointed out. That push instead will come from the Athenian-Roman League. And once this League takes over, from the Persians in Greece, I don't see them leaving. The rule will be different, however, probably somewhat akin to the OTL Delian League.
Forum Lurker said:
You know what's to stop Athens & Syracuse from being allies? Considering the Perisan invasion, they could put their differences aside & become allies as part of this Athenian-Roman League. It's not as if Greek city states haven't done such things in the past. One only has to look at OTL Sparta & Athens. Besides, Syracuse has probably more to fear from Carthage &/or the Persian than Athens.
DMA said:
I was assuming a fairly hostile Syracuse; the Greek city-states seldom cooperated save in extremity, and while this is extremity, it's a possibility that Syracuse would view the Athenians as cowards and even traitors to Hellas for their flight. If that's the case, then the resources Athens would otherwise have put towards a stronger fleet would be consumed in conflict with Syracuse. Having now actually looked at what was going on in Sicily in 480, I see that there was a Carthaginian invasion under Hamilcar; clearly, the Athenians and Syracusans would ally against this threat. How long that alliance would last is dependent on how much they view the Persians as a persistent danger; the more worried they are by the Persians, the less they'll fight each other.
As far as Persian abandonment of Greece, remember that it's just finished an exhausting war in Italy, and not only Greece but Egypt and India are in full-scale revolt. The Persians simply don't have the resources to retain their conquests, so within a few decades they'll have withdrawn their troops to protect their home provinces.
Forum Lurker said:
Well I understand what you mean about Greek state co-operating, but at this point in time Syracuse is looking at an emergency. Furthermore, I'd doubt very much whether they'd see the Athenians as cowards after knowing full well that the rest of Greece was occupied even after strong resistance. And changing sides is nothing new. Just look at the history of Thebes!
Besides, aren't you basing this almost hatred, if I may summarise your view of Athens/ Syracuse relations based on the events of the Peloponnesian War? If so, then they're out of place in the pre-Peloponnesian War period. As far as I understood, prior to the Peloponnesian War, Athens & Syracuse were on at least amicable relations with each other. I can't see how, then, such relations deteriorate to such a decree whilst the Persians are on the move & are set on conquest & the destruction of the Greek world.
Forum Lurker said:
Yeah, but there's pride & arrogance involved. Furthermore, it wouldn't be the first time that Persians used traitor/mercenary Greeks to keep other Greeks under their rule. They'd probably do the same thing here. I still think, in the end, it'll need a push to ensure that the Persians finally leave. I can't see them just giving Greece away without being forced.
DMA said:
As I said, having actually looked at Syracusan history, I see that the Athenian attack in the Peloponnesian war was a fluke. Not only was there a good reason for them to ally (Hamilcar's army), but Syracuse was apparently democratic up until 485, and reinstated it afterwards, making the citizens likely more sympathetic to the Athenian cause. Given that Syracuse also allied with Rome in OTL (up until the Second Punic War, where they swapped sides and were sacked for their troubles), it'd make a logical ally.
So, what we're likely looking at is something like this:
480: Athenian arrival in Italy, alliance with Syracuse, crushing defeat of Hamilcar (the Athenian hoplites don't need to add much to the battle, but the extra ten-score triremes allow the Greeks to utterly prevent the Carthaginians from flight). This will lead to considerable animosity between the Greeks and Carthaginians, in addition to that caused by imperial competition.
~450: Having reduced Greece, and installed Pausanias as puppet-king of the Peloponnesus and Attica, the Persians move on Italy. They make great initial advances, shattering the Etrurians. Rome accepts Greek assistance and evacuates its civilian population to Corsica.
~435: The Persians have eliminated all serious resistance on the Italian mainland. Many of their forces are returned home to deal with insurrections in Egypt, Thrace, and India.
~425: The combined forces of Rome and Sicily land in the Italian mainland, sweeping aside the Persian garrisons who are already weak from guerilla warfare and severe logistical strain. By 415, Italy is entirely Graeco-Roman.
~420: The Helots start a revolt against Pausanias, which quickly spreads throughout the Peloponnesus. All of the Persian forces which can be spared are moved in, basing themselves out of Boeotia.
~410: Seeing the Persians occupied in Greece, the Sicilians launch a fleet; the Persian supply line is cut by naval forces, while a substantial force of Italian hoplites lands near Laurium. This land force initially plunders the silver mines, then marches north, trapping the Persian forces on the Corinthian isthmus. With numerical parity, the hoplites shatter the Persian forces.
~400-320: Graeco-Roman Empire consolidates its holdings on both sides of the Ionian. The Persians abandon all claims to anything northwest of the Hellespont, and the Graeco-Romans quickly dominate the Aegean as well.
During this period, Carthage has been expanding in Iberia and North Africa.
Forum Lurker said:
I think that as soon as it becomes apparent that Greece will not be a threat no longer, and Persia is the Colosus possesing most of the Classical world, it wont be hard for the Carthagians to become a little more than wary.
Good TL though.
What if its the Carthagians? They could just continue expanding into Spain, France and England, while keeping their west North African Base.
Justin Green said:
That's possible. Although I'd say the fact that the Gauls & Celts are already in those locations will make it hard for the Carthagians. Plus it will also ensure that any conflict with the Greeco-Roman League a non-starter, as the two empires will be busy with two completely different regions
Forum Lurker said:
Great Scenario start for a Great Timeline Forum Luker, most Plausible(I would like to see it be more events taking place, Like Events in Carthage and Persia in the real thing...Maps To).
Okay...I think we have explained the Military allainces between Syracuse and the Graeco Latins(Romans isn't the Proper term since there were other citites in Latium that allied with Rome against ther Etruscans).
So, Is New Athens ruled by an Archon, with elements of the Roman Senate? Would Themosticles establish an long "Dynasty of Archons" in Italy? How Did the Graeco Latins far against the Etruscans?(Never Explained that)
I'll get to internal events, and the rise of Carthage's Iberian empire, today, now that I've gotten a little work and such out of the way. The Graeco-Latin government is going to end up as some kind of bizarre mishmash of Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism. It's a good question as to how long the Graeco-Latins (need a shorter name for them, by the way) and Carthaginians will be able to stay off each other's backs; it's possible that the Punic Wars will be less total than in our world. Miitary developments will also have to be addressed, since at the moment they're using hoplites, and the way that changes will be of crucial importance to the development of the three empires (Persia's down, but not out yet).
Forum Lurker said:
You're forgetting that this is OTL. During the 2nd Persian War (against Xerxes), they DID abandon Attica (or at least Athens) and fled to Salamis. If Salamis had been a disaster, they would've surely fled further, as you suggested.
If this happened, I'd envision the following:
A) By 480 BC, southern Italy was already pretty filled up with Greek colonies (the age of colonization was long since over by then). I'd imagine that some would resettle in Italy while others went to Provence or even Spain. This means that Roman conquest continues on schedule until they encounter the Persian giant in the east.
B) Macedon is stillborn. At the time, Macedonia was already a virtual Persian client state, and in all likelihood, would persist this way.
C) The Persian Empire will probably decline as well. In OTL, it declined due to poor leadership and dynastic intrigues and disputes. I'd envision a loss of the eastern frontier to the Indians in the 300's BC, and a final collapse by 250 BC to the Parthian hordes.
The postulate is that the Athenians flee before Salamis, unconvinced by Themistocles that the "wooden wall" prophecied by Delphi means using their fleet as a defense; instead, they take it to mean using the fleet to flee.
While the mainland of Italy was fairly heavily populated, Sicily was only inhabited by Greeks on the coast; there's room for the Athenians to land, albeit uncomfortably for a bit, and spread into the interior. This isn't the entire Athenian population, by any means; they leave behind the metics (some 40,000 in number), most of the slaves (150,000 or thereabouts), and much of the outlying population.
While normally I'd expect the Persians to stop in Greece, it occurred to me that with A) the flight of the Athenians, and B) a defection of the Spartan general Pausanias (planned but not executed in OTL), the Persian conquest of Greece would be so easy that they might very well go on to attempt Italy in the same fashion, knowing that the last remnants of Greece remained there. Given that Rome was relatively newborn at the time, I postulated that they'd not be able to withstand the numerically vastly superior Persians; for the sake of making things interesting as much as for realism, I allowed for an alliance with the similarly-governed Athenians (who did, in OTL, take democracy seriously enough as an ideal to make such an alliance plausible despite other cultural barriers).
As noted, Macedon isn't going to become a major player in this period. Persia will likely fall, barring a major revitalization, along the suggested time period.
More on Graeco-Roman government to come. If someone can show me how to make maps, I'll give those a shot.
While the mainland of Italy was fairly heavily populated, Sicily was only inhabited by Greeks on the coast; there's room for the Athenians to land, albeit uncomfortably for a bit, and spread into the interior. This isn't the entire Athenian population, by any means; they leave behind the metics (some 40,000 in number), most of the slaves (150,000 or thereabouts), and much of the outlying population.
While normally I'd expect the Persians to stop in Greece, it occurred to me that with A) the flight of the Athenians, and B) a defection of the Spartan general Pausanias (planned but not executed in OTL), the Persian conquest of Greece would be so easy that they might very well go on to attempt Italy in the same fashion, knowing that the last remnants of Greece remained there. Given that Rome was relatively newborn at the time, I postulated that they'd not be able to withstand the numerically vastly superior Persians; for the sake of making things interesting as much as for realism, I allowed for an alliance with the similarly-governed Athenians (who did, in OTL, take democracy seriously enough as an ideal to make such an alliance plausible despite other cultural barriers).
As noted, Macedon isn't going to become a major player in this period. Persia will likely fall, barring a major revitalization, along the suggested time period.
More on Graeco-Roman government to come. If someone can show me how to make maps, I'll give those a shot.
Alright, initial musings on government:
Before the mutual assimiation, Athenian government is done by periodically elected council. Roman government is done by periodically elected officials and a Senate composed of those who've been elected before. Both have popular assemblies of citizens which wield some, but not primary, power. Somewhere in here, we need to find a compromise that makes the Roman patricians happy, keeps the Athenians content, and functions well to rule an empire which is, at present, spread over two peninsulae and a number of different city-states.
The radical proposal put forth is this: there should be a single governing body which rules the entire empire, independent of and superior to the governments of the cities. This proposal naturally meets with a great deal of opposition at first, but in time is accepted as the only way; extensive measures are taken to attempt to limit as much as possible the power wielded by this governing body, as none of the Sicilian Greeks or Latins wish to give too much power to foreigners (as they are yet too young to consider each other anything else).
The conclusion is as follows: there will be a single assembly, drawn from member cities. The senators will be elected indefinitely (a compromise between the Roman life terms and the Greeks, who demand some form of recall). The number of senators each city sends is set initially at this convention (New Athens, Syracuse, and Rome naturally have the largest totals, and many of the Boeotian cities which had Medized are not given any representation "until such time as they have demonstrated their loyalty to the league"), and the Senate is the body responsible for determining new allocations, nominally in proportion to the military resources contributed by the member city. The senate stands at 400 members. It is responsible for allocating military spending, and for collecting the resources this requires from the member cities; it also appoints the strategoi who actually carry out the war. While given power to arbitrate any dispute between member cities, this is only when one city asks for intervention; it possesses no power to regulate the trade of a member save when another city asks for intervention, and then only on the basis that such trade or other activity would constitute a threat to the safety of the league as a whole.
By 318, this institution is widely, though not universally, accepted.
Next: I figure out what the Persians have been doing all this time.
EDIT: Just kidding about those Persians. It looks like they've had their day.
Really next this time: the Gauls go east.
Before the mutual assimiation, Athenian government is done by periodically elected council. Roman government is done by periodically elected officials and a Senate composed of those who've been elected before. Both have popular assemblies of citizens which wield some, but not primary, power. Somewhere in here, we need to find a compromise that makes the Roman patricians happy, keeps the Athenians content, and functions well to rule an empire which is, at present, spread over two peninsulae and a number of different city-states.
The radical proposal put forth is this: there should be a single governing body which rules the entire empire, independent of and superior to the governments of the cities. This proposal naturally meets with a great deal of opposition at first, but in time is accepted as the only way; extensive measures are taken to attempt to limit as much as possible the power wielded by this governing body, as none of the Sicilian Greeks or Latins wish to give too much power to foreigners (as they are yet too young to consider each other anything else).
The conclusion is as follows: there will be a single assembly, drawn from member cities. The senators will be elected indefinitely (a compromise between the Roman life terms and the Greeks, who demand some form of recall). The number of senators each city sends is set initially at this convention (New Athens, Syracuse, and Rome naturally have the largest totals, and many of the Boeotian cities which had Medized are not given any representation "until such time as they have demonstrated their loyalty to the league"), and the Senate is the body responsible for determining new allocations, nominally in proportion to the military resources contributed by the member city. The senate stands at 400 members. It is responsible for allocating military spending, and for collecting the resources this requires from the member cities; it also appoints the strategoi who actually carry out the war. While given power to arbitrate any dispute between member cities, this is only when one city asks for intervention; it possesses no power to regulate the trade of a member save when another city asks for intervention, and then only on the basis that such trade or other activity would constitute a threat to the safety of the league as a whole.
By 318, this institution is widely, though not universally, accepted.
Next: I figure out what the Persians have been doing all this time.
EDIT: Just kidding about those Persians. It looks like they've had their day.
Really next this time: the Gauls go east.
Last edited:
Tentative events, subject to alteration if they seem implausible:
388: A Gallic tribe under Brennus invades northern Iberia, sacking as he goes. The Carthaginian governor in the region, lacking troops with which to oppose Brennus, hires a second tribe of Gauls as mercenaries. With their assistance, he is able to defeat Brennus' army; by this point, forces from southern Iberia have arrived, primarily a large cavalry contingent. Using this mobile force, he is able to mop up both tribes of Gauls, slaughtering the men and taking the rest as slaves. The Carthaginians consider this a great success; the Gauls take note.
343-341: Prince Bas of Bythnia, a rebel against Persian control in the region immediately east of the Sea Marmara, invites a force of Gauls across the Bosphorus from Thrace to assist him. This sparks a lengthy migration as tribe after tribe presses into the rich, seemingly defenseless lands of Persia. Though superior in tactics and technology, the Persians are considerably outnumbered and severely divided by internal disputes and unceasing revolt; with the death of Darius III, the Persian Empire is considered to have collapsed.
388: A Gallic tribe under Brennus invades northern Iberia, sacking as he goes. The Carthaginian governor in the region, lacking troops with which to oppose Brennus, hires a second tribe of Gauls as mercenaries. With their assistance, he is able to defeat Brennus' army; by this point, forces from southern Iberia have arrived, primarily a large cavalry contingent. Using this mobile force, he is able to mop up both tribes of Gauls, slaughtering the men and taking the rest as slaves. The Carthaginians consider this a great success; the Gauls take note.
343-341: Prince Bas of Bythnia, a rebel against Persian control in the region immediately east of the Sea Marmara, invites a force of Gauls across the Bosphorus from Thrace to assist him. This sparks a lengthy migration as tribe after tribe presses into the rich, seemingly defenseless lands of Persia. Though superior in tactics and technology, the Persians are considerably outnumbered and severely divided by internal disputes and unceasing revolt; with the death of Darius III, the Persian Empire is considered to have collapsed.