WI Athenian Democracy Rules Classical World

[John Fredrick Parker]

Suppose that Athens avoids the Sicilian Expedition, thus prevailing with its Delian League intact following a shorter Peloponnesian War; that in later years is only overshadowed as a maritime power by a polis adopting a similar government; and that this democratic hegemony lasts at least four centuries following the PoD (or to the end of OTL's "BCE") -- and JTBC, I'm only looking at the effects of this, not the how (there are threads and TLs on that).

What would the Mediterranean (and surrounding) societies and polities look like in this time -- would it remain more balkanized into polis', or could larger proto-states emerge? What are the chances that any of the powerful full-fledged democracies (Athens, Syracuse, if it survives, etc) might expand their rolls of voting citizens, be they with the metics, the citizen women, or what have you? How would political (and perhaps general) philosophy be altered? And how else might western civilization be fundamentally changed?

 

[willbell]

Suppose that Athens avoids the Sicilian Expedition, thus prevailing with its Delian League intact following a shorter Peloponnesian War; that in later years is only overshadowed as a maritime power by a polis adopting a similar government; and that this democratic hegemony lasts at least four centuries following the PoD (or to the end of OTL's "BCE") -- and JTBC, I'm only looking at the effects of this, not the how (there are threads and TLs on that).

What would the Mediterranean (and surrounding) societies and polities look like in this time -- would it remain more balkanized into polis', or could larger proto-states emerge? What are the chances that any of the powerful full-fledged democracies (Athens, Syracuse, if it survives, etc) might expand their rolls of voting citizens, be they with the metics, the citizen women, or what have you? How would political (and perhaps general) philosophy be altered? And how else might western civilization be fundamentally changed?

First, the Sicilian Expedition is not a free ticket to victory, they were already on difficult times before the expedition.
They may have a limited form of democracy but it wasn't the same as what we have today, and their imperialistic tendencies were preparing themselves for a an ambitious king to take over.
By the time of Athens you already had larger states, the Persian Empire for example, and Carthage, while Rome was already off to a good start. The best you could hope for is a unification of Greece polis' in the area of the Aegean and the lands of the former Peloponnesian League. However the Athenian Empire was very delicate, I would imagine them suffering a defeat in a war similar to OTL's Corinthian War.
I doubt they would have expanded the definition of citizen to include women or other categories.
Syracuse would probably eventually fall to Carthage, if Rome doesn't get there first. Eventually Rome would become an Empire and most likely would prevail over Carthage as per OTL.
If the Athenian Empire did manage to survive this long they may have done okay after the now almost inevitable balkanization of Persia. Athenian Democracy is probably gone and the empire would probably be in decline. I would imagine that they would be ripe pickings for ATL Rome and it might see Roman influence spread faster considering they can eat up Greece in one bite, and then they got a good chunk of territory in Asia as well. Then all they have left as competitors are any barbarians to the North, Babylonians (or whatever empire forms in the wake of Persian collapse) to the East, and possibly an Egyptian Empire (which would be a fairly easy and desirable target for the Romans).
If anything this is going to be a Rome wank eventually ending in a similar fashion with the Romans declining and falling apart.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Hm, so the OP is just plain implausible then? Ok then, forget the PoD, but also try to just forget the how altogether -- what does a more (Athens style) democratic classical world look like?

 

[willbell]

This seems to be along the lines of your goal. However that timeline has its fair share of critics.

 

[carlton_bach]

I think the problem is that for most cities and non-Greek peoples, it didn't make much of a difference whether government was by a hegemonic democracy of a tyranny or king. Living in Athens was probably better than living in Syracuse or Sparta, but being ruled by Athens was not appreciably different. That means democratic poleis don't really enjoy any advantage over nondemocratic ones, and then sooner or later the bigger resources of ethnic kingdoms are going to tell. If not Persia or Macedon, then maybe Thrace, Epirus or Bithynia.

Now, there is nothing inherenntly improbable about a more-or-less democratic city state building an empire. There's Syracuse, Carthage and of course, Rome. The Macedonian conquest of Greece and the formation of the Hellenistic kingdoms was not foreordained. but you need a mechanism to integrate rather than just rule other cities, and classical Athenian democracy doesn't really have that. What I would consider is something like the city leagues of the Hellenistic era. They were small fish by the standards of their time, surrounded by the kingdoms of Macedonia, the Seleucids, Pergamon and Epirus, but by the standards of the classical age, they would have been formidable, and they were much more stable and resilient than the Delian and Corinthian Leagues. Or, you could build up a tiered system of alliances, like the Romans did. Athens could theoretically have done that, though I doubt they would have had the resources to stabilise it or the willingness to expand the franchise. But had it worked, that would be a good way. The Athenian poleis are, of course, all directly based on the Athenian model. The allied cities can be anything they want, but most will end up democracies of some sort, just as they did in the Roman system. The system can integrate tribal structures and kingdoms by considering them allies without endangering its foundations, but its core remains city democracy. Of course, it would also be unabashedly imperial.

 

[cimon]

First, the Sicilian Expedition is not a free ticket to victory, they were already on difficult times before the expedition.
They may have a limited form of democracy but it wasn't the same as what we have today, and their imperialistic tendencies were preparing themselves for a an ambitious king to take over.
By the time of Athens you already had larger states, the Persian Empire for example, and Carthage, while Rome was already off to a good start. The best you could hope for is a unification of Greece polis' in the area of the Aegean and the lands of the former Peloponnesian League. However the Athenian Empire was very delicate, I would imagine them suffering a defeat in a war similar to OTL's Corinthian War.
I doubt they would have expanded the definition of citizen to include women or other categories.
Syracuse would probably eventually fall to Carthage, if Rome doesn't get there first. Eventually Rome would become an Empire and most likely would prevail over Carthage as per OTL.
If the Athenian Empire did manage to survive this long they may have done okay after the now almost inevitable balkanization of Persia. Athenian Democracy is probably gone and the empire would probably be in decline. I would imagine that they would be ripe pickings for ATL Rome and it might see Roman influence spread faster considering they can eat up Greece in one bite, and then they got a good chunk of territory in Asia as well. Then all they have left as competitors are any barbarians to the North, Babylonians (or whatever empire forms in the wake of Persian collapse) to the East, and possibly an Egyptian Empire (which would be a fairly easy and desirable target for the Romans).
If anything this is going to be a Rome wank eventually ending in a similar fashion with the Romans declining and falling apart.

Willbell you are wrong in your assumptions,facts and projections.

Actually,the Sicilian expedition was the ticket to victory since the Peloponnesians would lose their principal corn supplier and they would have to request peace negotiations or starve;it may mean not much to you,but in military theory and strategy,to seat astride your enemy line of communication and supply is an aspiration of every general who commands an army or armies;it was the brainchild of the genius named Alcibiades(read Thucidides "The Peloponnesian War"-speach of Alkibiades in Pnyx,Athens),and it was applied again only after 2300 years by Napoleon.
About the recall of Alkibiades and generally the expedition Thucidides analysis is illuminating.

Neither the Persian empire nor Carthage were at that point on level with Athens and her empire;
The Athenian Empire consisted(at the eve of the Peloponnesian War) of 178 city states-the last one was Semeli in Cilicia-with 20000000 people.
(See Bury&Meiggs "Ancient History of Greece to 323 BC).
Athens started the Peloponnesian War with 9500-10000 talents of gold(approximately over the war budget of England in WWI)
It is important to note that Alexander,when he entered Susa,the capital of the Persian Empire he captured the Imperial treasury with 14000 talents and fpor an empire from India to the Mediterranean and from Hindu Kush to the Indian Ocean-Athens was richer and more compact;The Persian Wars were too much for the Persian empire;when Athens as leader of the Delian League passed in the offensive there followed 20 years of defeat upon defeat for the Persians resulting in their losing Ionia,the total destruction of the Phoenician navy by Cimon and the exclusion of the Persian ships from the Aegean until Cyprus.(See A.R.Burn "Persia and The Greeks" about the humiliating for the Persians Peace of Callias).Persians just tried to chew a piece bigger than themselves this time...

With Sicily in their hands the Athenian empire would exterminate the Phoenicians who were not as developed as in the third century with the conquest of Spain.Only simple comparison of Athenian fleets and dexterity,doubled in manpower
by the Sicilian and Southern Italian cities against resources of Carthage which was still strangling against local squables with one or another Sicilian city...
Democracy?the Athenians had more than they could handle;don't fall to the same trap like most students do,to critisise
Athenian democracy with twentieth century standards;women became citizens in Europe or America in the twentieth century;that as a reminder...

Don't talk about Romans since at that time they were nothing to pay attention to and on top they were in first class terms with the Athenians whose law they had adapted to suit Roman needs and created the Law of the Twelve Tables only 35 years before(451 BC).

Finally what does the Corinthian war have to do with it?

 

[willbell]

Willbell you are wrong in your assumptions,facts and projections.

Actually,the Sicilian expedition was the ticket to victory since the Peloponnesians would lose their principal corn supplier and they would have to request peace negotiations or starve;it may mean not much to you,but in military theory and strategy,to seat astride your enemy line of communication and supply is an aspiration of every general who commands an army or armies;it was the brainchild of the genius named Alcibiades(read Thucidides "The Peloponnesian War"-speach of Alkibiades in Pnyx,Athens),and it was applied again only after 2300 years by Napoleon.
About the recall of Alkibiades and generally the expedition Thucidides analysis is illuminating.

I am saying that if they had not gone after Sicily, the Peloponnesian War wasn't necessarily an Athenian victory which is pretty accurate. I am not totally sure what you are saying, especially considering that the old world didn't have corn, do you mean grain? I think you are saying that grain came from Sicily an went to Sparta and her allies, and therefore the Sicilian expedition was important. This may be true, however it isn't the basis for my comment I was saying that not having the expedition was not a free ticket to victory because the OP is asking about not having it at all. This is simply a misunderstanding (however I personally would disagree with separate point you are making).

Neither the Persian empire nor Carthage were at that point on level with Athens and her empire;
The Athenian Empire consisted(at the eve of the Peloponnesian War) of 178 city states-the last one was Semeli in Cilicia-with 20000000 people.
(See Bury&Meiggs "Ancient History of Greece to 323 BC).
Athens started the Peloponnesian War with 9500-10000 talents of gold(approximately over the war budget of England in WWI)
It is important to note that Alexander,when he entered Susa,the capital of the Persian Empire he captured the Imperial treasury with 14000 talents and fpor an empire from India to the Mediterranean and from Hindu Kush to the Indian Ocean-Athens was richer and more compact;The Persian Wars were too much for the Persian empire;when Athens as leader of the Delian League passed in the offensive there followed 20 years of defeat upon defeat for the Persians resulting in their losing Ionia,the total destruction of the Phoenician navy by Cimon and the exclusion of the Persian ships from the Aegean until Cyprus.

I said in my post that Persia was inevitably leading towards balkanization, so really I am agreeing with you on the issue of Persia.
On Carthage I said they would be capable of conquering Sicily eventually, not Athens who they wouldn't want to conquer because of the distance.

Both of your objections are completely inaccurate or based on a misunderstanding of my projections (due in part to unfortunate semantics on my part).

 

[cimon]

I am saying that if they had not gone after Sicily, the Peloponnesian War wasn't necessarily an Athenian victory which is pretty accurate. I am not totally sure what you are saying, especially considering that the old world didn't have corn, do you mean grain? I think you are saying that grain came from Sicily an went to Sparta and her allies, and therefore the Sicilian expedition was important. This may be true, however it isn't the basis for my comment I was saying that not having the expedition was not a free ticket to victory because the OP is asking about not having it at all. This is simply a misunderstanding (however I personally would disagree with separate point you are making).

I said in my post that Persia was inevitably leading towards balkanization, so really I am agreeing with you on the issue of Persia.
On Carthage I said they would be capable of conquering Sicily eventually, not Athens who they wouldn't want to conquer because of the distance.

Both of your objections are completely inaccurate or based on a misunderstanding of my projections (due in part to unfortunate semantics on my part).

On the contrary they are all accurate:read the analysis of Thucidides on the expedition!I referred you to it!
Persia was at it greatest extent with great income and armies that had basically conquered Asia:that is to enable you to grasp the extent of Athenian power against Carthage and Rome at that time;fourth century Athens was the strongest power in the world gaining the title from the holder,Persia.
A small detail:Sicily fed Rome until Egypt was conquered;whether it was corn or wheat is immaterial;it shows the importance of Sicily to the Peloponnesian alliance that without Sicelian supplies the huge land armies of the alliance could not be sustained and without great land armies the Spartans could not maintain an equilibrium with the Athenians;those supplies were that Alkibiades wanted to stop,Sparta didn't have money to buy from another source.
Pericles high strategy and strategic objectives were excellent until Cleon turned that first period of war into a peripheral one.Alkibiades brilliance was in that he wanted Sparta nutrualised and in the negotiation table;his plan would succeed that and if Athens had not undertaken the Sicilian expedition Sparta would have been unable to carry out a war of attrition(Pericles plan).
If peace was achieved,again Sicily would be the next target as the principal Peloponnesian supplier.Athens was the master of Eastern Mediterranean and new that it needed Sicily to become the master of the west.Simple strategy dictated by rules of geography.

I observed something else:you make allegations unsupported by any authorites;naturally one's logic is his private one and of course lacks objectivity.Sources say otherwise.Check them,there are others as well,so unless you can refute the sum total of military and historical authority drop the argument.

 

[willbell]

I think you fail to understand one factor, we are arguing over a point that is off topic to the thread, I may disagree with you but the thread is coming out like this:

OP: If there was no Sicilian Expedition, Athens would have won. (and some how becomes a utopia)

Me: If there was no Sicilian Expedition, Athens wouldn't necessarily won. Persia was going to collapse inevitably, they were in decline. (and wouldn't necessarily be a utopia with Athenian victory)

You: The Sicilian Expedition was inevitable if Athens had a chance of winning. Persia was long past its prime, Athens was far superior.

Me: Our points aren't mutually exclusive.

You: The Sicilian Expedition was inevitable if Athens had a chance of winning. Persia was long past its prime, Athens was far superior.

 

[Max Sinister]

Sparta imposed the rule of the Thirty Tyrants over Athens after the Peloponnensian War. Did Athens never try to introduce democracy in other Greek states? If no, WI they had tried?

 

[cimon]

Sparta imposed the rule of the Thirty Tyrants over Athens after the Peloponnensian War. Did Athens never try to introduce democracy in other Greek states? If no, WI they had tried?

All cities of the Delian/Athenian alliance had or ended up with democratic systems,Athens forcing the change since they didn't trust oligarchic systems of government.

 

[carlton_bach]

Sparta imposed the rule of the Thirty Tyrants over Athens after the Peloponnensian War. Did Athens never try to introduce democracy in other Greek states? If no, WI they had tried?

They did, but effectively they were saying: You must democratically decide every issue we will allow you to decide. Not a great advertisement for democracy.

 

[cimon]

Suppose that Athens avoids the Sicilian Expedition, thus prevailing with its Delian League intact following a shorter Peloponnesian War; that in later years is only overshadowed as a maritime power by a polis adopting a similar government; and that this democratic hegemony lasts at least four centuries following the PoD (or to the end of OTL's "BCE") -- and JTBC, I'm only looking at the effects of this, not the how (there are threads and TLs on that).

What would the Mediterranean (and surrounding) societies and polities look like in this time -- would it remain more balkanized into polis', or could larger proto-states emerge? What are the chances that any of the powerful full-fledged democracies (Athens, Syracuse, if it survives, etc) might expand their rolls of voting citizens, be they with the metics, the citizen women, or what have you? How would political (and perhaps general) philosophy be altered? And how else might western civilization be fundamentally changed?

J.F.Parker,

The Sicilian expedition was the only way to shorten the war;in any war involving a sea power and a land power the sea power is the winner in the end if it can effectively blockade the land based power(example:England-Germany).Sparta would carry the war for a long time unless its life line(the supplies from Syracusae and its allies) was cut off(the best solution).
Thucidides affirms that the expedition was so well planned that there was no chance of failure given the superiority of Athens on land and sea.

The Spartans would not have turned the tables but for the Sicilian catastrophe that encouraged Persia to get involved(with gold);had it not been for the destruction in Sicily(your point of divergence),the Persians would never have got involved,since they had a bitter experience from the 460-450 war outcome while Athens emerged victorious on a three-front war against the Peloponnesian alliance,central Greece(Beotean Federation),and Persia;although they managed to repel the Athenians in the Egyptian revolt
their fleets were utterly destroyed by Cimon and their presence in the southern Mediterranean pivot island of Cyprus successfully contested.
As a result intact Athenian armies and fleets would bar Persian involvement from fear of Athenian reprisals for breach of the peace of Callias(449 BC) and no chance of Spartan navy in the Aegean and attrition
that did not favour the Spartans(no commercial activity for Peloponnese-Corinth-Megara,Aegina destroyed by the Athenians,no wherewithal for continuation of the war).
The question was one only:in both cases one person would decide the war:Alkibiades.
If Alkibiades stabilised his position in Athens,regarding his enemies who were waiting for his departure to accuse him impiety(case with the cutting off the heads of the Hermae) the Sicilian expedition would have had one end only after the defeat of the Syracusan army by the Athenians:the fall of Syracusae and the domination of Athens in Sicily.
If the expedition didn't take place,and Alkibiades had the free hand in the Aegean,the war might or might not last longer,but with the same inevitable result.

Extension of citizenship: since it has been mentioned in this thread,the Athenians had already started that,first with the Plataeans and second with their staunchest ally in the Aegean,the island of Samos;others would follow for certain...

Someone mentioned Rome as a democratic state: far from it!someone has to study the role of the comitias in Rome and their legal powers especially that of the Comitia Centuriata and the manner of voting and counting votes in that Comitia;the reference is not in history,but in Law.
see Lee:"Roman Law",also Buckland:"Institutions of Rome" and Roman History.

 

[Max Sinister]

I see. So, would Athens have done better if they had been less dominating?

 

[cimon]

I see. So, would Athens have done better if they had been less dominating?

Bravo Max,excellent question!but I will reply to that later;just bear in mind that the...allies were responsible for everything!Not the Athenians...but later please,I am in the office....

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Why do people assume Persia at the end of the fifth century was headed towards imperial collapse, exactly? The Achaemenids, rather, were stable and powerful, defeating numerous revolts, and establishing themselves as the dominant power in Greece. It's not a coincidence that the contemporary Macedonian monarchs were modelling their courts on that of the Persians.

 

[mikegold]

Sparta imposed the rule of the Thirty Tyrants over Athens after the Peloponnensian War. Did Athens never try to introduce democracy in other Greek states? If no, WI they had tried?

Surprisingly enough, your best POD for a Greek democratic hegemony may be under Thebes, with a more successful Epaminondas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epaminondas

 

[cimon]

Why do people assume Persia at the end of the fifth century was headed towards imperial collapse, exactly? The Achaemenids, rather, were stable and powerful, defeating numerous revolts, and establishing themselves as the dominant power in Greece. It's not a coincidence that the contemporary Macedonian monarchs were modelling their courts on that of the Persians.

What did you say BG?"establishing themselves as the dominant power in Greece"? will I be impolite if I say "balderdash" in what history is that based of?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I think [Cimon] fails to understand one factor, we are arguing over a point that is off topic to the thread, I may disagree with [him] but the thread is coming out like this:

OP: If there was no Sicilian Expedition, Athens would have won. (and some how becomes a utopia)

I made the mistake of taking what I thought was a common Athenian Victory PoD, and taking it as a given; the intent remains to talk about the effects of such a victory (or simply "flourishing" if you'd rather) of Athens and its style of government, not how such a victory might come about.

Oh, and JTBC -- the OP didn't state that Athens "becomes a utopia", it asked if Athens or any of the other democratic poleis stood a chance of expanding their franchises; you clearly believe they did not, and that's a fine answer as far as it goes, but don't confuse asking with saying.

 

[OS fan]

It seems to be the fate of every civilization that the states closer to her center will fight among each other for so long until they're all exhausted, and a more marginal state will take the spoils. Like Rome in the classical world.