WI Athenians followed Alcibiades advise in 404 BC?

In 404 BC the Athenian fleet sailed to contain Spartan fleet under Lysander who had conquered Lampsacus near Bosporus (Lysander had cut off the grain supplies for Athens that way...)
Athenians made a camp near Lampsacus to keep an eye to the Spartans and waited for Lysander to emerge... The location was less than ideal because of the lack of a harbor and the difficulty of supplying the fleet, but proximity seems to have been the primary concern in the minds of the Athenian generals...
Alcibiades who lived in exile near Sestos approached the Athenian Generals and told them to move the fleet near Sestos which was better defended and had a harbour... He also told them that many Thracian Kings could provide him with an army so if the Generals offered him a share in command he would have used the Thracian army against the Spartans...
Athenian Generals however rejected his proposals and ordered him to leave the camp...
Next day Lysander made a swift attack in the Athenian camp caught the Athenians by surprise and annihilated the Athenian fleet...
WI the Generals had accepted Alcibiades advises? Could they have defeated Lysander?
Any thoughts?
 
Okay, there's really two questions, 1) WI they move the ships and 2) WI they accept Alcibiades' offer of a Thracian army?

At Aegospotamai, Lysander refused to give battle until he could overwhelm the Athenians, whether you take Xenophon's account (in which the Athenians return to the beach to forage for food and Lysander surprises them) or Diodorus' (in which a small force seems to try to lure the Peloponnesians out, but it is overwhelmed, after which the Peloponnesians quickly attack the main body of the Athenian fleet). Accordingly, Lysander's objective by the time of this battle is to destroy the Athenian fleet. Having taken Lampascus, he has forced the Athenians to remain in the Bosporus in order to secure the grain trade.

If the Athenains simply move the ships, then they may make Lysander come to them, rather than falling prey to a surprise attack. If so, they have a decent chance at a victory, but things are fairly even. Lysander's response is not guaranteed, since he might continue to refuse the Athenians battle.

If the Athenians take Alcibiades' offer of a Thracian army, then the Athenians have the chance to surprise Lysander on land. Thracians, IIRC, are light infantry, however. I can't recall the terrain around Lampascus and Sestos, but if it's rough (which I don't think it is) then the Thracian army may pose a threat. If it's flat, then I don't think it would stand up against Spartan (organized) infantry and Persian cavalry. The real coup would be if the Thracians came with a sizeable cavalry contingent, since this could allow the Athenians to mount a mobile campaign against Cyrus and Lysander as the Persians did against Agesilaus in OTL 400. I doubt they would, however, since it does not play to their traditional naval strength. Also, taking Alcibiades' offer and allowing him command represents a significant political shift at Athens. This may only inflame the populus to no purpose rather than inspire victory. Personally, I've never beleived much in Alcibiades' ability as a commander.

However, there is a significant opportunity for Athens if Alcibaides returns to the Athenian cause. Let's say that the Thracian army is somewhat of a myth, but the generals accept Alcibiades as an advisor. They move the fleet and force a stalemated action in the Hellespont. This keeps Athens a going concern just as the Persian Empire breaks into civil war upon Darius II's death and the contest between Cyrus (the Younger) and Artaxerxes II (what became the OTL battle of Cunaxa). Alcibiades can then play Pharnabazus and Tissaphernes off of one another and potentially destroy Lysander's alliance with the Persians, effectively destroying the Peloponnesian fleet without a battle. The outcome of the Peloponnesian war will thus drag on and become an even wider conflict. Perhaps Athens can get on Cyrus' good side (Lysander refuses him troops, but Alcibaides offers Athenian and allied hoplites?), allowing for a potenital Athenian victory. Perhaps the Corinithians question their alleigiance to Sparta, seeing the extent of Lysander's ambitions? Perhaps Sparta recalls Lysander seeing the same? Very interesting possibilities, to say the least!
 
Even if the Thracians only can supply light infantry, then they could be used to harass the Spartans, and force them into a battle that is on the Athenians terms.

On the possible Athenian alliance with the Persians, Athenian participation in the Persian civil war would appear to be a very good move. What was the outcome of the civil war, and was it definite enough that Athenian participation would benefit them? I don't know the context of the Spartan alliance with the Persians in the first place, so I guess I want to know what kind of benefits the Athenians would gain from a Persian alliance.

So if the Athenians are able to carry out everything that Nico has happening, with the victory over the Spartans, the Athenian alliance with the Persians, and the overthrow of Lysander, plus the possible defection of Corinth, does this all translate into an Athenian victory in the Peloponnesian War? What kind of effects would the initial Athenian victory over Sparta have in Athens and Sparta, and what would the Athens and Persians need to do to pull off an alliance?
 
By 404, Sparta had managed to get Persian support, but it was by no means certain. It depended on managing relationships between the various satraps in Asia Minor. Tissaphernes had supported Alcibiades at times, though he seems to have favored neutrality while letting both sides exhaust one another. He was a rival of Pharnabazus, which only increased the tension diplomatically. Lysander's coup was to get the support of Cyrus, one of the sons of the reigning Persian king, Darius II. With Cyrus' support (i.e. gold) Lysander could not only build a navy but could outbid the Athenian navy's pay to rowers. In the naval war of attrition in the 400s, this was a key component of Sparta's victory, OTL. The coup however was not so much the result of Lysander's efforts, but the decision of Darius II himself.

On the death of Darius II in 404 (very late in the year), Cyrus contested his brother's (known as Artaxerxes II) rise to the throne. Persian succession could be very troubled since it usually fell not to the oldest son, but to the oldest son born after the coronation of the king. Cyrus gathered an army under the cover of a dispute with Tissaphernes; the Spartan government (even with Lysander out of favor) back Cyrus only short of declaring war itself. In 401, Cyrus advanced from Sardis with the "Ten thousand," a force of Greek hoplites. Tissaphernes warned Artaxerxes at the last moment and the Great King met Cyrus at the Battle of Cunaxa. Cyrus wanted the Greeks to attack the center, but their commander was disobedient; Cyrus died in the battle, leaving his army headless. Artaxerxes was very skittish and supplied the Greek mercenaries enough to get them out of the heart of the empire. Through the next decades, Artaxerxes and his successor would sometimes side with Sparta, but more often than not they were really playing all the Greeks off each other, finding that they could control Greece without ever conquering the Greeks themselves by brokering international peace deals.

It's very uncertain what Athens can gain if it plays a role in the Persian conflict leading to Cunaxa. Artaxerxes' latter actions suggest he preferred a balance of power in the Greek world, rather than hegemony by any single power; it's not clear whether Sparta's position was overweening enough to merit supporting the Athenians--Persia' perrenial foe in the Aegean. Sparta's support for Cyrus is certainly enough to stop the flow of gold and leave Lysander's fleet open to conquest. (OTL, by 400 Sparta invaded Asia Minor, so outright Persian support for Athens isn't out of the question.)

The question of what happens in Greece is also fairly murky. In 431, any peace which leaves the Athenian Empire intact is a victory for Athens. By 404, much of Ionia has revolted and Athens would have to exert stubstantial effort to reconquer the Empire. It has also lost a good deal of wealth (in the form of materiel and equipment) to Theban raids. And the democracy is shaky after the Revolt of 411. Avoiding the disaster at Aegospotamai, however, also avoids the Tyranny of the Thirty in 404-3 BC. If Alcibiades plays a hand in saving the Athenian fleet and the political situation at Athens is altered, the Socrates likely is not taken to trial in 399 BC. I'd expect the democracy to continue to be restored, but the influence of the moderates might be more pronounced.

If Lysander's naval strategy fails, then someone new comes to power in Sparta. OTL, Lysander argued that Agesilaus should acceed to power, because of the rumor that Leotychides, the son of Agis, was the love-child of Eupolia and Alcibiades. Lysander argued thusly because he thought Agesilaus would be a convient tool for his policies. Without Lysander and Agesialus, Spartan policy is far less agressive than OTL, which may forestall some of the offenses of OTL's Spartan Hegemony. This has the effect, probably, of freeing Corinth and Thebes to pursue their own individual interests. Sparta may make peace, if the conservative traditionalist are back in power and fear the corrupting influence of all this foreign travel and money.

If the war ends in some kind of negotiated peace in roughly 400, then Athens has a much stronger base of power (even without some of its Aegean and Ionian posessions) from which to re-build. This may however precipitate a third war down the line, similar to OTL's Corinthian War. Athens' best hope is that the traditionalists in Sparta resume a pacifist policy, which frees Corinth and Thebes (they may form their own League against Athens and for mutual protection). In the peace that follows, they need to revitalize the Empire; the best way to do so is along the lines of OTL's Second Athenian League: Athens promulgates some kind of Charter that protects allies and accords them certain rights and introduces a separate Council (synedrion) for League decisions. This may be the best way to diminish Greek fear of Athens and win back the sympathy of the Aegean islanders. Keys to Athens future sucess abroad are whether it is able to retain the Ionian posessions (and thus not seem to be abandoning them to the Barbarians) and to retake Amphipolis. Both are possible.
 
The analisis of Nicomacheus is great no doubt.

In any case I have my doubts about a possible change of sides of Corinth or Thebas, if I remember well Corinth and Thebas (or Boetian League) was more radical than the spartans in wanting a hard peace for Athens in OTL, so it is logic I think that the prospartan coalition would continue in good state with an athens victory in 404.

Also as mentioned by Nicomacheus the athens situation in 404 was pretty hard, I have my doubts that even with this ATL victory Athens could made another thing that lasts more the war (but naturally we have this persian game initiated in 401 BC), but Athens could made some kind of honourable peace in exchange in losing his old influence and the old possessions or allies (With the possible exception of Samos, that IIRC was an stubborn ally of Athens until the end), a part of the fleet would be maintained, the Long Walls would not be destroyed and some allies could be maintained -probably as I said Samos- this naturally for Athens would not be a victory but it would be a far better situation that in OTL.
 
The reason I think Corinth and Thebes/Boeotia might go their own way is that Sparta will stop leading an anti-Athenian coalition, just as pretty much happenedin 421 OTL. It's not that they break from Sparta, but that Sparta breaks from them.

I agree that Athens is in dire straights in TTL 404, but not as dire as OTL: their colonists will not be forcibly removed and they will not face starvation or anihiliation or political revolution.
 
By 404, Sparta had managed to get Persian support, but it was by no means certain. It depended on managing relationships between the various satraps in Asia Minor. Tissaphernes had supported Alcibiades at times, though he seems to have favored neutrality while letting both sides exhaust one another. He was a rival of Pharnabazus, which only increased the tension diplomatically. Lysander's coup was to get the support of Cyrus, one of the sons of the reigning Persian king, Darius II. With Cyrus' support (i.e. gold) Lysander could not only build a navy but could outbid the Athenian navy's pay to rowers. In the naval war of attrition in the 400s, this was a key component of Sparta's victory, OTL. The coup however was not so much the result of Lysander's efforts, but the decision of Darius II himself.

On the death of Darius II in 404 (very late in the year), Cyrus contested his brother's (known as Artaxerxes II) rise to the throne. Persian succession could be very troubled since it usually fell not to the oldest son, but to the oldest son born after the coronation of the king. Cyrus gathered an army under the cover of a dispute with Tissaphernes; the Spartan government (even with Lysander out of favor) back Cyrus only short of declaring war itself. In 401, Cyrus advanced from Sardis with the "Ten thousand," a force of Greek hoplites. Tissaphernes warned Artaxerxes at the last moment and the Great King met Cyrus at the Battle of Cunaxa. Cyrus wanted the Greeks to attack the center, but their commander was disobedient; Cyrus died in the battle, leaving his army headless. Artaxerxes was very skittish and supplied the Greek mercenaries enough to get them out of the heart of the empire. Through the next decades, Artaxerxes and his successor would sometimes side with Sparta, but more often than not they were really playing all the Greeks off each other, finding that they could control Greece without ever conquering the Greeks themselves by brokering international peace deals.

So the Persians were interested in staying active in Greek politics insofar as they could keep the Greeks fighting one another. Presumably they backed Lysander to weaken Athens and maintain the Greek balance of power?

It's very uncertain what Athens can gain if it plays a role in the Persian conflict leading to Cunaxa. Artaxerxes' latter actions suggest he preferred a balance of power in the Greek world, rather than hegemony by any single power; it's not clear whether Sparta's position was overweening enough to merit supporting the Athenians--Persia' perrenial foe in the Aegean. Sparta's support for Cyrus is certainly enough to stop the flow of gold and leave Lysander's fleet open to conquest. (OTL, by 400 Sparta invaded Asia Minor, so outright Persian support for Athens isn't out of the question.)

If the Spartans were to lose this battle in 404, then would they then intervene in the Persian civil war?

The question of what happens in Greece is also fairly murky. In 431, any peace which leaves the Athenian Empire intact is a victory for Athens. By 404, much of Ionia has revolted and Athens would have to exert stubstantial effort to reconquer the Empire. It has also lost a good deal of wealth (in the form of materiel and equipment) to Theban raids. And the democracy is shaky after the Revolt of 411. Avoiding the disaster at Aegospotamai, however, also avoids the Tyranny of the Thirty in 404-3 BC. If Alcibiades plays a hand in saving the Athenian fleet and the political situation at Athens is altered, the Socrates likely is not taken to trial in 399 BC. I'd expect the democracy to continue to be restored, but the influence of the moderates might be more pronounced.

By the political situation being altered, you mean Alcibiades is allowed to come back from exile after playing a pivotal role in an important Athenian victory?

If Lysander's naval strategy fails, then someone new comes to power in Sparta. OTL, Lysander argued that Agesilaus should acceed to power, because of the rumor that Leotychides, the son of Agis, was the love-child of Eupolia and Alcibiades. Lysander argued thusly because he thought Agesilaus would be a convient tool for his policies. Without Lysander and Agesialus, Spartan policy is far less agressive than OTL, which may forestall some of the offenses of OTL's Spartan Hegemony. This has the effect, probably, of freeing Corinth and Thebes to pursue their own individual interests. Sparta may make peace, if the conservative traditionalist are back in power and fear the corrupting influence of all this foreign travel and money.

So Lysander loses the fleet, then the Spartans' ally Cyrus loses his bid for the Persian throne. I think that is a recipe for this return to power of the traditionalists. It would appear that the Athenians are in bad straits, and would jump at the chance of a light peace, and from the sound of your post the lightest peace they could get with Sparta would be with these traditionalists in power. Is that correct?

If the war ends in some kind of negotiated peace in roughly 400, then Athens has a much stronger base of power (even without some of its Aegean and Ionian posessions) from which to re-build. This may however precipitate a third war down the line, similar to OTL's Corinthian War. Athens' best hope is that the traditionalists in Sparta resume a pacifist policy, which frees Corinth and Thebes (they may form their own League against Athens and for mutual protection).

And here is where the Persians can re-insert themselves into Greek politics. So in the wake of Sparta abandoning the anti-Athens coalition, Corinth and Thebes form their own league to oppose the Athenians. This league seeks and gets support from the Persians, who having lost their Spartan counter-weight to the Athenians, view the C&T League as the new counterweight for Athens.

In the peace that follows, they need to revitalize the Empire; the best way to do so is along the lines of OTL's Second Athenian League: Athens promulgates some kind of Charter that protects allies and accords them certain rights and introduces a separate Council (synedrion) for League decisions. This may be the best way to diminish Greek fear of Athens and win back the sympathy of the Aegean islanders. Keys to Athens future sucess abroad are whether it is able to retain the Ionian posessions (and thus not seem to be abandoning them to the Barbarians) and to retake Amphipolis. Both are possible.

Perhaps following the victory in 404, and then with the Persian civil war on going, the Athenians are able to strengthen their position in Ionia and retake Amphipolis? They don't want to expand to quickly or seem to recover too much however, because then that would probably tip the political balance in Sparta and bring the anti-Athens leaders back into power. Would this less-pressed Athens be able to hold off Corinth and Thebes?
 
So the Persians were interested in staying active in Greek politics insofar as they could keep the Greeks fighting one another. Presumably they backed Lysander to weaken Athens and maintain the Greek balance of power?

Well, they back the Spartans in two phases, really. Previous to Lysander's alliance with Cyrus, there was a weaker affiliation with Tissaphernes and other satraps. However, as of about 412, Darius II had issued instructions to back Athens, but Alcibiades managed to convince Tissaphernes that favoring Sparta completely did not support a balance of power (because it left Sparta pre-emenient)...and of course that it would be better to prey upon Tissaphernes' rival, Pharnabazus. I suspect Tissaphernes may have been more motivated by the later (i.e. greed), but the former point is not without merit: after the Sicilian Expedition, the Oligarchic Revoltution of 411, and the widespread revolt of Ionia in 412, Athens is on the ropes. The constant naval campains between 411 and 404 pretty well demonstrate that the two were evenly matched; hence, if the Persians overly favored either power, they would themselves upset a balance of power.


If the Spartans were to lose this battle in 404, then would they then intervene in the Persian civil war?

Good question. I think so. I do not think the battle would have itself been pivotal: it does not eliminate Cyrus' finances and it does not re-conquer Ionia for Athens. Furthermore, Lysander's (and Sparta's) reliance on Cyrus only increases, if they still want to fight Athens. What may happen, however, is that Lysander's loss (or lack of victory) turns opinion against him in Sparta such that when the Spartans learn of his meddling, both with Cyrus against Perisa and in the interal affairs of the Ionian cities, they may act to undercut his authority, further complicating things. The Spartans also don't have to outright support Cyrus for a Persain civil war to impact the fighting: if Lysander decides not to help Cyrus recruit Greek mercenaries, then perhaps Alcibiades might do so instead (or intriuge with Tissaphernes to prevent Cyrus' action). The best bet for Athens may be the latter, since this would leave Artaxerxes in Athens' debt and perhaps get the Persians to stop supporting Sparta.

By the political situation being altered, you mean Alcibiades is allowed to come back from exile after playing a pivotal role in an important Athenian victory?

By 404, Alcibiades is only in exile because he "chooses" to be. Alcibiades had left after the Battle of Notium if 406 (just before the victory at Arginusae), in which the Spartans decimated the Athenian navy (largely because of the incompotence of Alcibiades' lieutenant), necessitating radical measures (freeing slaves for rowers) to raise a new fleet. Alcibiades was not exiled as a punishment, he simply didn't go home. Most likely, he kept away because he had only returned when he had been able to deliver victories (and thus keep his enemies from trying to prosecute him and thus condemn him to die). After a victory that's pretty much his fault, the same logic dictates staying away. Hence, this would be the second time Alcibiades had returned from ignominy. The political ramifactions are two-fold: first, the change in sentiment at Athens about Alcibiades (do they still love him or can they see through the hype?) and the factional ambitions of the commanders making the gesture. Unfortunately, I can't remember who was at Aegospotamai to be making the gesture and Wikipedia doesn't say, but it will greatly affect the fortunes of Theramenes and Thrasybulus who are on their way to being influential (though things have been greatly muddled by the trial of the generals and the revolt of 411). The remaining oligarchs may be even more suspiscous of Alcibiades after the generals' trial, but so too may the people at large be looking for any kind of preeminent leader.

So Lysander loses the fleet, then the Spartans' ally Cyrus loses his bid for the Persian throne. I think that is a recipe for this return to power of the traditionalists. It would appear that the Athenians are in bad straits, and would jump at the chance of a light peace, and from the sound of your post the lightest peace they could get with Sparta would be with these traditionalists in power. Is that correct?

Yes. The Athenians are hard-pressed; how hard-pressed is hard to say, since Athens seems to be fairly resilient, but even the most die-hard pro-Athenian admits that things were tough in 404. It's the equivalent of France asking Germany for a negotiated settlement in 1918, the day before the Germans are about to do likewise. They could probably stand to fight on a few more years, depending on what their opponents are doing against them.

And here is where the Persians can re-insert themselves into Greek politics. So in the wake of Sparta abandoning the anti-Athens coalition, Corinth and Thebes form their own league to oppose the Athenians. This league seeks and gets support from the Persians, who having lost their Spartan counter-weight to the Athenians, view the C&T League as the new counterweight for Athens.

That's actually a possibility I hadn't considered, but it is could easily happen. It might be difficult for Thebes and Corinth to continue the Peloponnesian War itself. I'd expect that they refuse to recognize the peace, then organize a League, and then make overtures to Persia. This might result in a war around 395 or so, which would make a parallel of OTL's Corinithian War (Persia supporting Athens, Corinth, Thebes, and Argos, against Sparta).

Perhaps following the victory in 404, and then with the Persian civil war on going, the Athenians are able to strengthen their position in Ionia and retake Amphipolis? They don't want to expand to quickly or seem to recover too much however, because then that would probably tip the political balance in Sparta and bring the anti-Athens leaders back into power. Would this less-pressed Athens be able to hold off Corinth and Thebes?

I agree that some restraint will be needed. This is why I suggest some kind of Bill of Rights for the allies. It seems to have worked later on OTL in the fourth century, so maybe it allays some fears here. Retaking Ionia and Amphipolis is a lot for Athens to manage in 404. I'd expect that Ionia is independent, under terms of autonomy similar to OTL's King Peace of 386. The Aegean states are Athens' allies but with new guarantees and a new structure for the alliance. Amphipolis won't be easy to take, but it's not impossible. Another priority may be fortifications around Attica to prevent another Decelea (the fort Agis built in Attica to contiunously raid the countryside); OTL at some point in the 4th Century Athens built a fairly extensive network of such outposts. Since Athens keeps its fleet and its walls, it's in pretty good shape, regardless.

The outcome of the *Corinthian War depends on many things. First, does Athens have Amphipolis or is constantly diverting resources to try and take it? Next, is Argos a beligerent? OTL Argos joined the Corinithian war against Sparta and did fairly well. If Argos fights on Athens' side, then Sparta may begin to get nervous: Argos borders Laconia itself, though protected by mountains IIRC. However, Athenian cooperation with Argos itself doesn't necessarily provoke aggression if the traditionalists at Sparta are strong. I'd expect the events which force Sparta's pull out to leave the traditionalists in power, with a few rampant hawks. The combination, however, only leads to expeditions against Sparta's nearest neighbors, particularly Mantinea, Tegea, and other Arcadia (those most accessible to it and on which its security most depends). The degree of Sparta's isolation is thus a crucial factor. Lastly, what is the status of Megara (between Corinth, Thebes and Athens)? Megara may be declared autonomous, like the Ionian cities; it seems to have been neutral OTL in the Corinthian War. If so, all sorts of armies will be marching through it. This may be the issue that starts the war (not unlike the first Peloponnesian War in the 460s/50s).

All told, I could see Sparta's actions against her northern neighbors beginning to pull it into the war, but perhaps on the Athenian side! Sparta has few real quarrels with Athens if her prestige does not depend on protecting Thebes and Corinth. Indeed, hawks may want to punish the two upstarts for betraying the Peloponnesian League. All-out alliance with Athens may be bit much (may, remember the alliance of 421 happened even after the Archidamnian War). Corinth seems to have ripe for revolution in the 390s, probably due to the economic exigencies of decades of warfare and of Athenian attacks on her commerce. OTL, Corinth's narrow oligarchy fell to be replaced by a radical democracy and then formed an union with Argos (or Argive democrats tried to seize Corinth, depending on your take on events). Thebes will be the tough nut to crack, since it has immense infantry potential; the problem is that this wasn't realized until much later and under much more radical leaders than will be leading the Boeotian Confederacy.

If Sparta can be kept out of the conflict, then Athens' odds are pretty good. Yes, Persia's support is potentially huge, but OTL the support was pretty light (compared say to 470). I'd guess that Persia will build Corinth a fleet like it did Athens OTL. This fleet might be dangerous since Corinth may have the help of Syracuse, who seems to have pioneered new forms of triremes in the end of the Peloponnesian War. However, Syracuse will probably neutralized by tensions with Carthage in Sicily. The naval contest may give Athens a chance to re-tool, however, and re-prove its supremacy. Athens commanders are probably Alcibiades and Thrasybulus. It makes most sense for Alcibiades to be sent off to Amphipolis or to talk with the Persians while Thrasybulus does most of the fighting. If so, Athens probably wins: OTL, Thrasybulus managed to conquer most of Athens' old empire between 391 and 388. With more resources and with more strategic assets intact (Long Walls), it's only easier for him to do so.
 
Top