What if the Persians conquered Greece?

Well, I'm interested in the Achaemenid Empire and it's society (they seemed to be doing quite well before Alexander showed up) and was wondering: What would the consequences be if they won the Greco-Persian wars, say with a POD in the Battle of Marathon? Obviously Philip and Alexander would be butterflied away (and probably most of western civilization, in the far view...) but could they hold Greece? Would this lead to a stronger, longer lived empire? What city-states could raise in rebellion (Sparta comes to mind) and be sucessful?

Also, without an strong greek empire, the persian culture would be dominant, affecting future empires (like Carthage and Rome, if not butterflied away). How far could it expand?
 
If they succeed (which is not impossible, let's say that the Athenians decide to do something else with their silver than build a fleet of wooden walls), then I think you would have a relatively light-handed policy of acclimatization, with taxes and tribute, and political submission, etc. I believe Harry Turtledove wrote a short story about this, with essentially the same POD I mentioned (he butterflied away the discovery of the silver), which saw Athens destroyed (pretty much happened OTL, but as they were considered the leader, he posited it would not be permitted to be rebuilt), and the new satrapy ruled from Piraeus. If a state had both enough clout and the will to raise a revolt, it would be Sparta; given the situation, and the fact that the Persians will already be emplaced, rather than invading (furthermore, not all of the cities will side with Sparta), the Spartans will probably be crushed, their city razed too.

Eventually, they come into conflict with Rome. Romans despised what they saw as the decadent Eastern culture, but were favorable to the Greek philosophers; In fact, Greek in the Roman Empire was often viewed as the language of culture and learning; Without an independent Greece, I could see a more "nativist" Roman culture, so probably a more Latinist-militarist one, even moreso than OTL. Probably a greater military influence, even more than OTL; where OTL, military was the lungs and arms of Rome, powering the Roman state's economy and existence, and serving as its primary governmental arm, here, it would fully dominate the state, serving as Rome's brain as well.
 
Eventually, they come into conflict with Rome. Romans despised what they saw as the decadent Eastern culture, but were favorable to the Greek philosophers; In fact, Greek in the Roman Empire was often viewed as the language of culture and learning; Without an independent Greece, I could see a more "nativist" Roman culture, so probably a more Latinist-militarist one, even moreso than OTL. Probably a greater military influence, even more than OTL; where OTL, military was the lungs and arms of Rome, powering the Roman state's economy and existence, and serving as its primary governmental arm, here, it would fully dominate the state, serving as Rome's brain as well.

You forget Magna Graecia... In fact the Greeks in S. Italy and Sicily were more than in mainland Greece of the time. That means that even if the Persians haad conquered Greece, the Greek civilization would still have a descent core. In fact, I could see a more "hellenized" Rome, in the sense that the Greeks of MG would develop a close cooperation with the Romans in order to face the Persians. In that case, there could be much less snobism by the Greeks towards the Romans and the rest of the Italians.
So, in the case the Greeks of MG, the Romans and the Greeks of Greece proper cooperate and succeed to throw the Persians away, there's the possibility of a dual empire, representing what we today call "Roman-Hellenic" civilization.
 
IMHO, if the Persians conquer Greece, they would be thrown away in a few decades, due to

  • distance from the centre of Persian power
  • the physical morphology of Greece: mountainous with little areas able to feed large armies, lots of bays and sea straits
  • Greeks' inclination to freedom and dissobentience

In fact, in the case of a successful Greek Revolt after some dacades of Persian dominance, on could see the possibility of a faster and more peaceful unification of the Greeks. That means that the Greek offensive against Persia could start 100 years earlier...
 
What implications would the centre of the philosophers having driven the Persians out only by violent revolt after a long period of occupation have on the development of philosophy? (Sorry for the repetition.)
 
The Persians manage to hold Greece until the Romans come. The Romans conquer Greece and the empires are divided at the Bosporus. The Roman empire conquers and assimilates all of continental Europe and the Maghreb. The Persians hold and assimilate the Iranian Plateau, the Caucaus, Anatolia, Central Asia and Syria. Egypt breaks free, conquering Palestine, Nubia and Yemen. . After some wars the Romans begin to admire Persian culture and Roman nobles begin to intermarry with Persian nobles. After some time of Persian Roman cultural exchange, the Romans convert to Zoroastrianism.
 
You forget Magna Graecia... In fact the Greeks in S. Italy and Sicily were more than in mainland Greece of the time. That means that even if the Persians haad conquered Greece, the Greek civilization would still have a descent core. In fact, I could see a more "hellenized" Rome, in the sense that the Greeks of MG would develop a close cooperation with the Romans in order to face the Persians. In that case, there could be much less snobism by the Greeks towards the Romans and the rest of the Italians.
So, in the case the Greeks of MG, the Romans and the Greeks of Greece proper cooperate and succeed to throw the Persians away, there's the possibility of a dual empire, representing what we today call "Roman-Hellenic" civilization.

I had forgotten about the Greek colonies; thanks.

However, I think that nevertheless, since the Persian conquest would predate the greatest developments of Greek philosophy, the level of Hellenization caused by Greco-Roman cooperation would be offset by this.

The Persians manage to hold Greece until the Romans come. The Romans conquer Greece and the empires are divided at the Bosporus. The Roman empire conquers and assimilates all of continental Europe and the Maghreb. The Persians hold and assimilate the Iranian Plateau, the Caucaus, Anatolia, Central Asia and Syria. Egypt breaks free, conquering Palestine, Nubia and Yemen. . After some wars the Romans begin to admire Persian culture and Roman nobles begin to intermarry with Persian nobles. After some time of Persian Roman cultural exchange, the Romans convert to Zoroastrianism.

I doubt this. Where Rome was quite open to Greek culture, despite conquering and holding Anatolia, they held nothing but contempt for the Persians.
 
I had forgotten about the Greek colonies; thanks.

However, I think that nevertheless, since the Persian conquest would predate the greatest developments of Greek philosophy, the level of Hellenization caused by Greco-Roman cooperation would be offset by this.



I doubt this. Where Rome was quite open to Greek culture, despite conquering and holding Anatolia, they held nothing but contempt for the Persians.

First, thats a gross oversimplification of the historical record. Second, were talking about a TL where the Persians conquer Greece. When the Romans first encounter the Persians it is after the conquest of Alexander. There woyld be no conquest ITL and the Persians would be in a much stronger position of power for a couple of centuries by thr time the Romans arrive.
 
Interesting info! I almost forgot about Magna Grecia, but those colonies were quite independent, so I doubt they would help a Greek rebellion. And I'm not a military historian, so: How do you think a roman legion would fare against the persians? The persians weren't a naval power as far as I know, so maybe they could enlist the help of Carthage to invade Magna Grecia/Rome?
 
Uh... yeah, there is actually. First of all, you have relatively advanced settlements propping up in Italy. Italy had a large population for the time. The only real threats are pirate raids from Illyria or possibly North Africa. The Gauls aren't always going to lay waste to the Appenine Peninsula.

Would be interesting to see a Samnite Kingdom developing (seems unlikely, but can anyone think of how to do it?). If the Romans aren't the dominant power in Italy, it seems unlikely any other state (other than Samnium) would use the legion, which was instrumental in Rome's victories.
 
Uh... yeah, there is actually. First of all, you have relatively advanced settlements propping up in Italy. Italy had a large population for the time. The only real threats are pirate raids from Illyria or possibly North Africa. The Gauls aren't always going to lay waste to the Appenine Peninsula.

And . . . so? That doesn't mean you get an Italian polity doing anything of more than local importance - significant within the peninsula, sure, relevant at times to their neighbors outside the peninsula - but Rome of OTL? No.
 
And . . . so? That doesn't mean you get an Italian polity doing anything of more than local importance - significant within the peninsula, sure, relevant at times to their neighbors outside the peninsula - but Rome of OTL? No.

I'm pretty sure that "something will come out of the Italian peninsula in time" wasn't literal. It meant that some state/empire will become powerful in the peninsula, inferring dominance of mainland Italy below Cisalpine Gaul. I did not interpret it as meaning that an Italian state will dominate the Mediterranean, or even the Central/Western Mediterranean.

I agree that a Rome of OTL isn't particularly likely, as it wasn't OTL.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Eventually, they come into conflict with Rome. Romans despised what they saw as the decadent Eastern culture, but were favorable to the Greek philosophers
Which had everything to do with the Romans adopting Hellenism and all of its racist baggage. If the Persians conquer Greece, Persian culture becomes dominant in the Eastern Med. This means that Roman generals will be drooling over cataphracts instead of phalanxes and scholars will be spending less time on Homer and more on the Avestas.

In fact, Greek in the Roman Empire was often viewed as the language of culture and learning; Without an independent Greece, I could see a more "nativist" Roman culture, so probably a more Latinist-militarist one, even moreso than OTL. Probably a greater military influence, even more than OTL; where OTL, military was the lungs and arms of Rome, powering the Roman state's economy and existence, and serving as its primary governmental arm, here, it would fully dominate the state, serving as Rome's brain as well.
So why wouldn't they love the Persians? Were the Persians not as militant than the Greeks? Why would the Romans just turn inwards if Greeks weren't ruling the Eastern Med? Why wouldn't Persian culture just fill that vacuum? It's just as transmittable, and learning Aramaic will become increasingly important for Roman merchants and the educated. Hellenistic culture won out because its culture dominated the bountiful Eastern Med at the time of Rome's rise--ITTL, the most likely candidate for that role is Persia.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Interesting info! I almost forgot about Magna Grecia, but those colonies were quite independent, so I doubt they would help a Greek rebellion. And I'm not a military historian, so: How do you think a roman legion would fare against the persians? The persians weren't a naval power as far as I know, so maybe they could enlist the help of Carthage to invade Magna Grecia/Rome?
I doubt the Persians would really want to bother with the colonies, though they may make a go of it if Greek pirates out of the Ioanian Sea become particularly troublesome.

I could see a number of Greeks fleeing to the colonies, especially if the Persian conquest is tough. Sicily/Southern Italy may be more heavily Greek than OTL, especially if Syrakousai and Neapolis become some of the few remaining cradles of active Hellenism.
 
I'm pretty sure that "something will come out of the Italian peninsula in time" wasn't literal. It meant that some state/empire will become powerful in the peninsula, inferring dominance of mainland Italy below Cisalpine Gaul. I did not interpret it as meaning that an Italian state will dominate the Mediterranean, or even the Central/Western Mediterranean.

I agree that a Rome of OTL isn't particularly likely, as it wasn't OTL.

What exactly are we disagreeing on, if anything?
 
Last edited:
Which had everything to do with the Romans adopting Hellenism and all of its racist baggage. If the Persians conquer Greece, Persian culture becomes dominant in the Eastern Med.

The Persians had conquered Aeolia, Ionia and Doris and stil the Hellenic culture was dominant there....

[/QUOTE]This means that Roman generals will be drooling over cataphracts instead of phalanxes and scholars will be spending less time on Homer and more on the Avestas.[/QUOTE]

Greek scholars were hoplites, too; Being a scholar in ancient Greece didn't mean that you stayed at home, as the example of Aeschilus, who considered his participation in Salamis as more important than his tragedies, demonstates. Also, why are the persian cataphracts more competent than the Greek phalanx? Actually the phalanx competed the cataphracts succesfully, while the Roman victories over the Greeks were more based on better organisation and the command skills of the Roman generals than on the tactical superiority of the Roman legion over the Greek phalanx.

[/QUOTE]So why wouldn't they love the Persians? Were the Persians not as militant than the Greeks? Why would the Romans just turn inwards if Greeks weren't ruling the Eastern Med? Why wouldn't Persian culture just fill that vacuum?[/QUOTE]

Greek culture was focused on the freedom of the individual (apart from the slaves, of course), the despise of despotism, and democracy (with its variations), and those excactly were the basic virtues of the Roman culture of the Republican Era, along with ambition of personal success (something the Greeks turned down). That was also reflected in religion, with polytheism (of which Greeks and Romans shared an almost identical system) reflecting freedom of thought, while monotheist Zoroastrism was perceived as a religious reflection of despotism. Also the manichaist system of Pure Good against Pure Evil of the Persian religious thought was far too allien of both the Greek and Roman culture. In the latter cultures someone could do something wrong or "bad" without turning himself into an "evil" individual, so people were judged on their deeds than on their nature, and that's another reason for the distance between Greek and Roman culture with the Persian.

[/QUOTE] It's just as transmittable, and learning Aramaic will become increasingly important for Roman merchants and the educated. Hellenistic culture won out because its culture dominated the bountiful Eastern Med at the time of Rome's rise--ITTL, the most likely candidate for that role is Persia.[/QUOTE]

So you imply that the prevailance of the Hellenic culture was entirelly a matter of geopolitics with no qualitative parameters as well? Also, don't you recognise the funtamental link between Roman and Greek cultures?
 
Top