What if Athens had won the Peloponnesian War?

I still don't understand, how can Greeks (even if they were united) would be able to hold Macedonians with an inferior army...

Well, the superior M[FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]acedoni[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]an milit[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ary org[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]aniz[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ation might be butterflied [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]aw[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ay, due to them being [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]a client st[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ate or simply too we[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ak economic[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ally to build up [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]a superior [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]army. The s[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ariss[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]a-[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]armed ph[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]al[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]anx [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]and [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]c[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]av[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]alry combo would prob[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ably [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]still be developed, just not by the s[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]ame people.[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, times new roman]
[/FONT]
 
Implausible, I'm afraid. Athens lacks the ability to impose herself fully upon Sicily and Magna Graecia, where, in any case, there are various Greek city states, notably Taras and Syracuse who are just as powerful and rich as a post war Athens would be. She can happily scrap with these states for influence in Magna Graecia, but for her to impose full Delian-league status on them is rather unlikely.

Macedon and Epirus as client states is very doable indeed, and is indeed desirable for Athens. If she can then bring the Macedonian heavy cavalry into her own forces and combine it with a traditional hoplite army, Athenian armed forces will be dangerous.

Rome isn't strong enough in c. 400BC to be much of a threat to Athens: remember she was still weak enough to be sacked by a rough and ready group of Gallic raiders in 390BC. Without the shame of that experience (probably butterflied by a POD thirty years or so earlier), Rome's development changes enormously, and there's a fair chance she could become another mercantial republic like Carthage rather than a fiercely martial city state.

War with Persia is likely to happen at some stage, but communications in this era aren't good enough for the Persians to be able to form and co-ordinate an alliance with Carthage, let alone the puny city state that Rome is at this point. The Achaemenid Empire is in any case dead on its feet for much of the fourth century BC, witness how easily it fell apart to Alexander, who did in a decade with a modestly sized army what it took hundreds of thousands of invaders nearly a century to do to the Western Roman Empire. The Achaemenids need to be "reforged" by a man of real ability, as they were under Darius, if they want any hope of long term survival.
I agree. I suspect Athens would concentrate on maintaining geopolitical stability in Greece. The Athenian populists were highly ideologically motivated and anti-aristocrat, and so I suspect I suspect that Athens would maintain control through the support of local populists in the various city-states, using propaganda about Evil Aristocrats scheming to regain control to help keep the cities in line, which would not be THAT much of an exaggeration given how the aristocratic parties were essentially Spartan 5th columns during the war.

Whipping up Anti-Persian sentiment would be going on, too, and I suspect that aiding anti-Persian rebellions and coups in Asia Minor and Egypt would be a major part of Athenian foreign policy. If Athens is strong enough, with cavalry from Macedon and Epirus, it might even start turning the revolting states in Asia Minor into client buffer states.

I essentially see Athens' empire having a ring structure:

1. Athens Proper

2. League members

3. Client States

The League members may evolve into a status similar to the Roman "Citizen without the Vote" status Rome gave to client/allied cities.
 
Alright, so Athens have an empire in Greece and Anatolian coast, Macedon and Epirus become client states...and then what?
 
Athens is probably challenged by repeated rebellions from the more powerful states such as Corinth and Thebes- these may well be financed by the Persians, and perhaps the Western Greeks too. Athens, in turn, retaliates by provoking anti-Persian revolts in Egypt, The 4th century BC becomes an Athenian/Persian cold war, with neither having the strength or will to entirely overthrow the other.

Greek colonisation continues apace. If Egypt breaks off from the Achaemenid Empire permanently, we could see Greek colonies springing up along the Nile and down the Red Sea, bringing in Indian trade to the Mediterranean. Perhaps Graeco-Indian colonisation continues after all? In Europe, the Greeks move up the Don, Dneiper and Danube river valleys, founding colonies in modern Russia and Hungary- perhaps these Greeks could be those fleeing from Athenian overlordship? They'll certainly have to be very martial to hold off the cavalry of the steppes.

Rome still suffers a humiliating defeat sometime in the early 4th century BC, and becomes a powerful state dominating central Italy. By about 300BC, she enters into an alliance with the Delian League against the southern Italian Greeks, and eventually defeats them. By 250BC, she rules all Italy south of the Po, and much of Sicily too, but war with Carthage looms. Elsewhere in Europe, Greek culture is spreading rapidly, with prosperous colonies found from the Russian steppes to the coasts of Britain and Ireland. Rome and Carthage both become extremelly Hellenized. The Achaemenids collapse, and are replaced by Neo-Babylonian and Median states, which also come under Greek influence. Athens establishes client monarchies for herself throughout Anatolia.

Helleno-wank! :D
 
Athens is probably challenged by repeated rebellions from the more powerful states such as Corinth and Thebes- these may well be financed by the Persians, and perhaps the Western Greeks too. Athens, in turn, retaliates by provoking anti-Persian revolts in Egypt, The 4th century BC becomes an Athenian/Persian cold war, with neither having the strength or will to entirely overthrow the other.

Greek colonisation continues apace. If Egypt breaks off from the Achaemenid Empire permanently, we could see Greek colonies springing up along the Nile and down the Red Sea, bringing in Indian trade to the Mediterranean. Perhaps Graeco-Indian colonisation continues after all? In Europe, the Greeks move up the Don, Dneiper and Danube river valleys, founding colonies in modern Russia and Hungary- perhaps these Greeks could be those fleeing from Athenian overlordship? They'll certainly have to be very martial to hold off the cavalry of the steppes.

Rome still suffers a humiliating defeat sometime in the early 4th century BC, and becomes a powerful state dominating central Italy. By about 300BC, she enters into an alliance with the Delian League against the southern Italian Greeks, and eventually defeats them. By 250BC, she rules all Italy south of the Po, and much of Sicily too, but war with Carthage looms. Elsewhere in Europe, Greek culture is spreading rapidly, with prosperous colonies found from the Russian steppes to the coasts of Britain and Ireland. Rome and Carthage both become extremelly Hellenized. The Achaemenids collapse, and are replaced by Neo-Babylonian and Median states, which also come under Greek influence. Athens establishes client monarchies for herself throughout Anatolia.

Helleno-wank! :D

Now that's interesting enough for me...
But weren't the Parthians coming around in 3rd century BC?
I don't think any Median, Neo-Babylonian, or whatever states that popped up in Persia after Achaemenid's collapse would be able to oppose them...
And IIRC many people in this board say that the war between Rome and Carthage was inevitable, so...
 
Parthia was part of the Achaemenid Empire, and is unlikely to rise to a position of prominence with a POD two hundred years beforehand.

Rome and Carthage probably will fight wars, yes.
 
Athens is probably challenged by repeated rebellions from the more powerful states such as Corinth and Thebes- these may well be financed by the Persians, and perhaps the Western Greeks too. Athens, in turn, retaliates by provoking anti-Persian revolts in Egypt, The 4th century BC becomes an Athenian/Persian cold war, with neither having the strength or will to entirely overthrow the other.

Greek colonisation continues apace. If Egypt breaks off from the Achaemenid Empire permanently, we could see Greek colonies springing up along the Nile and down the Red Sea, bringing in Indian trade to the Mediterranean. Perhaps Graeco-Indian colonisation continues after all? In Europe, the Greeks move up the Don, Dneiper and Danube river valleys, founding colonies in modern Russia and Hungary- perhaps these Greeks could be those fleeing from Athenian overlordship? They'll certainly have to be very martial to hold off the cavalry of the steppes.

Rome still suffers a humiliating defeat sometime in the early 4th century BC, and becomes a powerful state dominating central Italy. By about 300BC, she enters into an alliance with the Delian League against the southern Italian Greeks, and eventually defeats them. By 250BC, she rules all Italy south of the Po, and much of Sicily too, but war with Carthage looms. Elsewhere in Europe, Greek culture is spreading rapidly, with prosperous colonies found from the Russian steppes to the coasts of Britain and Ireland. Rome and Carthage both become extremelly Hellenized. The Achaemenids collapse, and are replaced by Neo-Babylonian and Median states, which also come under Greek influence. Athens establishes client monarchies for herself throughout Anatolia.

Helleno-wank! :D
Heh! It's not necessarily wankish, after all, who would of thought a little also-ran town in Italy would come to dominate the Mediterranean?

I doubt Egypt would let Greeks settle in the Nile Valley, but I could see them inviting the Greeks to start a few settlements on the Red Sea. I also doubt the Greeks would get very far up the rivers of Eastern Europe, but their influence will be quite strong. Also, remember that the Gauls are expanding at this time and would be a threat to northern Greece.
 
Heh! It's not necessarily wankish, after all, who would of thought a little also-ran town in Italy would come to dominate the Mediterranean?

I doubt Egypt would let Greeks settle in the Nile Valley, but I could see them inviting the Greeks to start a few settlements on the Red Sea. I also doubt the Greeks would get very far up the rivers of Eastern Europe, but their influence will be quite strong. Also, remember that the Gauls are expanding at this time and would be a threat to northern Greece.

I'm pretty certain the Greeks had a colony in the Delta for a while...Naucratis, or something like that?
 
I'm pretty certain the Greeks had a colony in the Delta for a while...Naucratis, or something like that?
Yeah, but that was a one-off thing near the coast. And it was more of a trading post than a true colony, IIRC. There is really no reason Egypt would want Greeks settling land on the Nile already full of Egyptians used to traditional Ancient Middle Eastern Despotism.
 
Top