What if the Persians won the Battle of Marathon and took over Athens in the 'Seige of Athens'. What would of happened next?
AH from AltHist
AH from AltHist
What if the Persians won the Battle of Marathon?
- Thread starter Awesome history 28
- Start date
Saphroneth
Banned
All would be changed, changed utterly.
It's hard to talk about what would be different simply because everything would be. There's nothing unconquerable about Greece - it's hard, but the Greeks don't have a navy and they're comically divided.
The book Persian Fire covers the wars quite nicely, so that's a good place to start.
It's hard to talk about what would be different simply because everything would be. There's nothing unconquerable about Greece - it's hard, but the Greeks don't have a navy and they're comically divided.
The book Persian Fire covers the wars quite nicely, so that's a good place to start.
Dur hur democracy dur hur dystopia dur hur evil Persians
In all seriousness, it is hard to predict. Obviously, something would have to end the Persian Empire, but there really is no real way of telling what. I would say that the culture of the world in General would be decidedly more easternized.
In all seriousness, it is hard to predict. Obviously, something would have to end the Persian Empire, but there really is no real way of telling what. I would say that the culture of the world in General would be decidedly more easternized.
Well for starters, assuming the rest of the campign goes well for the Persians, you'd likely see Greece subjected in some way to Persian rule. Daeres actually wrote a good (well, from what he managed to get through, it seems to be on hiatus) timeline on this subject: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=341001
It's possible for the Persian army to win the battle, yet still lose to the Sparta reinforcements arriving the next day.
Alternatively if that fails there's still the possibility of revolting within a decade in conjunction with the Egyptian revolt. So things might end up actually somewhat similar in the short term. If not, it ends up changing a lot of history of course.
We do know that Darius' war aim was to burn Athens in retaliation for the Ionian Revolt and the capture of the Greek islands (and in the longrun, likely the conquest of all of Greece, because why not, if not for dying in Egypt).
Alternatively if that fails there's still the possibility of revolting within a decade in conjunction with the Egyptian revolt. So things might end up actually somewhat similar in the short term. If not, it ends up changing a lot of history of course.
We do know that Darius' war aim was to burn Athens in retaliation for the Ionian Revolt and the capture of the Greek islands (and in the longrun, likely the conquest of all of Greece, because why not, if not for dying in Egypt).
I don't think history would necessary be changed utterly. The Greeks were militarily superior to the Persians - never in a numerical sense, but in tactics. Greek victories over Persian armies actually happened again and again. I seriously recommend Xenon's Anabasis for a read. It's propaganda, for sure, but the fact that a greek mercenary corps fought deep within the Persian Empire, and managed to retreat through thousands of miles after its Persian benefactors were defeated (while they themselves did well) tells you a lot.
The most likely outcome of a victory of Marathon and a takeover of Athens IMHO is a heroic and largely misrepresented myth until modern times how "brave, free Greeks" defeated a "decadent oriental despot" either at last chance thanks to Sparta after that or in a rebellion a couple of years later. Persia taking over Greece completely over a long time is highly unlikely IMHO: it's too remote with a superior military technology based on citizen soldiers and a great trade network. None of that will vanish short of a major, general campaign of eradicating the Greeks.
This implies that the Greeks would be completely hostile to Persian control. Outside of Athens, which wouldn't exist much longer, and Sparta, which I suspect would have a similar fate, what other Greek states actually seriously opposed Persia in Greece proper? And in any case, it's not like the Persians didn't have experience defeating Greeks before. The Ionian Greeks were a thing, their revolt was suppressed handily.
Thanks everybody,
I was asking this question because I'm quite stuck on what I want to write on this TL on AltHist wiki:
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Persian_Marathon
AH from AltHist
I was asking this question because I'm quite stuck on what I want to write on this TL on AltHist wiki:
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Persian_Marathon
AH from AltHist
Saphroneth
Banned
The Anabasis was decades later and the Persian Empire was well into the stage of overstretch. At 490 it was pretty much on the rise in a big way. (Persian Fire is good for this).
The reason it's important, though, is that Athenian Democracy gained a huge amount of credibility from its victory at Marathon. With democracy instead smashed, it changes things quite a lot.
Anaxagoras
Banned
PODs like this aren't discussed nearly as much was one might expect, because they're so massive that it's hard to overstate the changes that would result. Virtually everything in the modern world has its antecedents in Ancient Greece, so extinguishing that culture (which a Persian conquest certainly would do) changes virtually everything about the rest of history.
This is true, and yes, Persian Fire is a great read for this topic. Xenophon's Anabasis is also a bit over-rated in my opinion. How much the Persians actually desired to destroy the Greeks in the first place is open for debate. Surely Artaxerxes understood that he would need the use of Greek mercenaries, perhaps some of these same mercenaries, in the future. It's not good business practices to slaughter 10,000 potential future customers.
Were the Greeks so unique in this though? The Persians multiculturalism appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, borne out more by pragmatism than anything else. Most empires have to be multi-cultural simply out of necessity. The Romans were hardly welcoming of foreigners, and yet their empire was incredibly multi-cultural because it had to be-they ruled over Greeks, Italians, Iberians, Celts, Thracians, Aramaeans, etc. etc. The same applies to the Greek successor states. You see this with Ptolemaic Egypt and especially with the Seleucids, whose rulers themselves had Asiatic ancestry.
Well the Romans were fans of the Greeks, so were following their influences (though they were both less sexist and less xenophobic). As for unique-ness, the Greeks did seem to take things up a step or two (if I'm remembering right the Greeks had restrictions against women that would make the Saudis blush). As for the Persians doing it out of pragmatism, that doesn't affect the usefullness of it. When you compare the relative rarity of decent multi-culturalism and the extreme sexism Greece brings to the table I think a Persian win would end in a better world (plus it isn't like democracy is a rarity or anything).
I'm not sure how much this was a Greekwide phenomenon though. Athens was indeed incredibly sexist, but then they were much mroeso than the rest of Greece (and I believe your comparisons are mostly only relevant to Athens AFAIK) save Sparta. How much better did Persians treat women though? Honest question, as I do not know.
Saphroneth
Banned
Almost anyone was compared to the Athenians. But the Persians were kind of okay with Artemisia commanding a contingent of the fleet at Salamis.
Which probably had a lot to do with them being her ships, or, rather, the ships of Halicarnassus.