The Persian Empire Conquers Greece and all its territories

Faeelin

meninwhite said:
If Persia had defeated the greeks and conquerd Greece what would be there next target?
Click to expand...

Probably nothing. Taking Greece was enough of a feat for the Persians, and they only attempted it once.

IMO, this could be pretty interesting. What happens when Socrates and Plato can witness how the Achaemenid Empire is run?
 

wkwillis

I think the more usefull concept is what are the Greeks going to do? Send mercenaries and pirates to attack the Persians in their wars with the next target? Does Egypt need some spare troops or ships? Does Carthage or Tyre?
 

Bulgaroktonos

I'm reasonably certain that the Greeks would have a difficult time losing in the first place, provided they don't some how get steamrolled before the Pelopennese can fully mobilize. Argos and Sparta had some of the best troops going for them, and the Persians would be hard pressed to find better soldiers than Spartan and Argive hoplites outside of Greece.

Further, the Greeks are unlikely to sit and take it. Persian control would be tenuous at best, as no satrap is going to be secure, and Persia doesn't have an army of occupation. I'd say that even if Greece is conquered, the Persians will lose control within a decade or so......
 

JHPier

Bulgaroktonos said:
I'm reasonably certain that the Greeks would have a difficult time losing in the first place, provided they don't some how get steamrolled before the Pelopennese can fully mobilize. Argos and Sparta had some of the best troops going for them, and the Persians would be hard pressed to find better soldiers than Spartan and Argive hoplites outside of Greece.

Further, the Greeks are unlikely to sit and take it. Persian control would be tenuous at best, as no satrap is going to be secure, and Persia doesn't have an army of occupation. I'd say that even if Greece is conquered, the Persians will lose control within a decade or so......
Click to expand...
Argos and Sparta weren't going to fight together. You aren't going to find Sparta and Argos fighting at the same side until well in the Hellenistic Age. In fact Argos was just waiting for the Persians to land in the Peloponnese to follow Thebes' example and join the Persians.

The only reason the Greeks won is that the Athenians decided to use their Laurion silver mines windfall for building a fleet. Sparta alone isn't going to cut it.

As long as they keep their allies happy I don't see why the Persian satraps shouldn't manage fine. They did so elsewhere in the empire where there were equally unruly tribes.
 

JHPier

wkwillis said:
I think the more usefull concept is what are the Greeks going to do? Send mercenaries and pirates to attack the Persians in their wars with the next target? Does Egypt need some spare troops or ships? Does Carthage or Tyre?
Click to expand...
Egypt and Tyre were already part of the Persian empire and Carthage was allied, having timed its Sicilian attack to coincide with Xerxes' invasion.
 

JHPier

Faeelin said:
Probably nothing. Taking Greece was enough of a feat for the Persians, and they only attempted it once.
Click to expand...
Thrice actually. But I agree they're unlikely to go further. The Persians only targeted Greece because some of them had helped the Ionians in their revolt.

Faeelin said:
IMO, this could be pretty interesting. What happens when Socrates and Plato can witness how the Achaemenid Empire is run?
Click to expand...
Considering that the Persians' intention was to wipe out the Athenians it's rather unlikely hter will be a Sokrates or a Plato in this TL - or for that matter an Aristophanes, Sofokles, Euripides or Aischylos.
 

hexicus

Faeelin said:
Probably nothing. Taking Greece was enough of a feat for the Persians, and they only attempted it once.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be twice (Darius and Xerxes)? I think the Greeks would have adapted to life under Persians quite well - like the Ionians - and would probably end up taking over the administrative side of the Persian empire just like they did to the Romans later on. If that happened then then we would probably be discussing this in Aramaic or Greek.

As for where the empire would go next, I imagine that with the availability of Greek infantry the Persian empire would be exapanding all its borders.
 

President Ledyard

Greece was really one of the last areas in striking range worth conquering.

I suppose they could round out the Empire by gobbling up a bit more of the Caucasus or Arabia and possibly Crimea, but I don't see Persia going much farther into the Med., as it would involve naval build-up in a Satrapy that could potentially be used to shield itself from an attack from the Persian heartland. It stands to reason that Persians would be less concerned about Tyre and company on the Levant building up a navy as it couldn't be used to shield themselves from an overland attack as effectively ships in Greece.
 

Faeelin

hexicus said:
Shouldn't that be twice (Darius and Xerxes)? I think the Greeks would have adapted to life under Persians quite well - like the Ionians - and would probably end up taking over the administrative side of the Persian empire just like they did to the Romans later on. If that happened then then we would probably be discussing this in Aramaic or Greek.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm not so sure I agree with that. I mean, the Ionians didn't take over the Empire.

As for where the empire would go next, I imagine that with the availability of Greek infantry the Persian empire would be exapanding all its borders.
Click to expand...

Of course, the Greeks served the persians as mercenaries in OTL.
 

Faeelin

JHPier said:
As long as they keep their allies happy I don't see why the Persian satraps shouldn't manage fine. They did so elsewhere in the empire where there were equally unruly tribes.
Click to expand...

And, of course, the Persians might even keep democracy in Athens. It's not guaranteed, and depends on what happens at Salamis. But they tolerated some democracies in Anatolia, didn't they?

(Sorry about forgetting Darius).

Then, of course, there's southern Italy.
 

JHPier

Faeelin said:
And, of course, the Persians might even keep democracy in Athens. It's not guaranteed, and depends on what happens at Salamis. But they tolerated some democracies in Anatolia, didn't they?
Click to expand...
Athens surviving is unlikely. The Persians were really, really unhappy about the Athenian aid to the Ionian rebellion
 

Forum Lurker

In OTL, the Persians sacked Athens when they reached it in 480. I can't imagine they'd hold back if they'd already shattered the Athenians in battle.

Simple departure which allows Persian victory: Themistocles does not live past childhood, and so the monies from the Laurion mines are spent on civic improvements instead of a fleet. When the Persians arrive in 480, the Athenians are unable to convince the Peloponnesians to join them, and are defeated by a Persian/Theban force while the Corinthians build a wall across the Isthmus. The Corinthian force is trapped against this wall by the Argives, who Medize in return for promises of supremacy over Sparta. Lacking any kind of defensive wall, the Spartans are unable to hold off the Persians after Corinth falls.

Given the trouble the Persians were already having with their Indian and Egyptian provinces, it's unlikely that they'll go on to be world-conquerers; instead, the Greeks may form the backbone of one successor-state, which uses Persian administrative techniques and Hellenic heavy infantry tactics to carve a substantial empire out of the northern Mediterranean.
 

blysas

Banned
What would happen after the victory at Salamis, is up for debate. However, greece get conqured we can say, then afterwrds we have a final stand off between a expanding roman empire, carthage and the great persian empire.


Thoughts ?
 

Paul Spring

The city states that cut a deal with the Persians, like Thebes, are probably going to be the new centers of power in the satrapy of Hellas.

There might be a lot of refugees fleeing to the remaining independent Greek city states in Sicily, Italy, Cyrene, Massilia, etc. Those cities might get added strength, allowing them to hold off Carthage or other powers.

Perhaps the Persians end up taking most of the Balkans up to the Danube. Of course, they were overstretched already. I think the idea of a Greco-Persian breakaway kingdom makes sense, but it might be more like a Greek-Persian-Macedonian-Thracian-Illyrian kingdom.
 
Last edited:

meninwhite

The Persian Empire would have expanded from The Danube River to the Indus River but they would want more,more land more peoples loyal and and subebety to Persia,The Persians wanted to ruel the entire known world Xeres dream was to conquer all.The Persians were almost like The Romans.
 

Faeelin

Forum Lurker said:
In OTL, the Persians sacked Athens when they reached it in 480. I can't imagine they'd hold back if they'd already shattered the Athenians in battle.
Click to expand...

Plenty of cities have been sacked and recovered.

Besides, what were the Athenian exiles that sacrificed in Athens after the city was taken doing, if it was going to be abandoned?

And more importantly: The reason the battle of Salamis took place was because themistocles sent a slave to the Persian camp, telling them that the Athenians wished for a Persian victory, and that if the Persians entered the straits, the Athenians might even change sides.

Meaning, of course, that the Persians view their victory at Salamis as being due to the, err, Athenians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top