I'm not sure how common this subject is, but what if some time during the Greco-Persian Wars, Persia is able to subjugate Greece? When would be the most likely time for this to occur? How far could Persia possibly extend and what would be the general effects of the occupation of Greece?
WI: Persia conquers Greece?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
We had a recent thread on it. It may interest you
My personal stance is that it would be really comparable to the Anatolian Greek city-states, being largely autonomous but vassals of the Great King.
Eventually, Persian grasp on Greece may be quite limited, as greek cities could rebel or support rebel claimant as more easily than their continental counter-parts, and the political multiplicity preventing a really total control.
Some cities as Sparta may be minored, but much as Athens, Corinth or Thebes would have too much importance to outright disappear.
Eventually, it may be comparable to Antalcidas' Peace only with a more well established vassality, at least in a first time.
My personal stance is that it would be really comparable to the Anatolian Greek city-states, being largely autonomous but vassals of the Great King.
Eventually, Persian grasp on Greece may be quite limited, as greek cities could rebel or support rebel claimant as more easily than their continental counter-parts, and the political multiplicity preventing a really total control.
Some cities as Sparta may be minored, but much as Athens, Corinth or Thebes would have too much importance to outright disappear.
Eventually, it may be comparable to Antalcidas' Peace only with a more well established vassality, at least in a first time.
Jeez, even the title to the thread is the same as mine. But a question that wasn't asked was how far could/would Persia expand into Europe with Greece under control?
Edit: Actually, just saw on the thread: they didn't want Europe, so that answers that...
Edit: Actually, just saw on the thread: they didn't want Europe, so that answers that...
Honestly, I'd say that controlling Greece was the absolute limit of what Persia could rule. They were already stretching the limit of realistic borders at the time of the Greco-Persian wars, so any more would be very much difficult.
Why would Persia want to expand further into Europe? Theres not much there at that time.
I just said that the very part you quoted.Agreed that Persian suzerainty is going to be loose - they can't have it any other way, Greece being the gigantic rock that it is -, but the butterflies would still be massive. It should be remembered that the Greek states lost a lot of their cultural preeminence when bound by the shackles of vassalage (first under Macedon, then Rome). Moreover, Greek customs have the potential to influence the Achaemenids tremendously, much as the Romans accommodated Greek religious fixtures, political concepts and social quirks within Latin culture. A hybrid Persian-Hellenic state would be fascinating.
Last edited:
On your last sentence, this reminds me of the Hellenistic states (especially the Seleucids), although in a totally different era and circumstances. It could be reverse, a small Persian-Greek elite and a small number of Persian soldiers integrated into the southern Greek culture. We could even see some mixed Greco-Persian dieties. However, because of the fact which others pointed out that the Persians would only loosely exert control in Greece (especially to the south of Mt. Olympus and Thessaly), the cultural synthesizing would be much less significant than OTL. And that's only in the case that they control the place for any meaningful amount of time.
Regarding the mutual culturam influence, I can only agree. I would tend to think, particularly, that it was already the case military with the use of hoplitic mercenaryship by Persian IOTL. We could see relativly important military changes for Persia, with the Great King, satraps and claimants using Greeks more importantly than IOTL, if not Persians equipped Greek-style.
They might not expand there, but they'll definitely have a major effect on the politics of the region.
That said, excepting the odd (and by now largely independent) Greek colony the two halves of the Mediterranean were almost worlds apart until Pyrrhus started poking at Rome, so who knows, perhaps things there will proceed reasonably like OTL.
Of course, if the Cities of Magna Graecia ask the Persians for aid when Rome comes knocking the Republic will have a serious problem on their hands. They can likely do better in individual battles than they did against Pyrrhus (Short of radical reorganization of the Persian Military. A Polybian legion fighting in terrain like Italy would make mincemeat out of a similar-sized Achaemenid army, or a traditional Hoplite army), but the Persians won't have his manpower issues.
I wonder about that : Phoenicians were pretty much autonomous in matters of commercial and cultural interventions in Mediterranean basin, and I don't see why likely more autonomous (if not independent clients) Greek polities would be more.
In fact, you may have enough division between commercial pro-greek and pro-phoenician factions among what regards mediterranean trade (when phoenicians had enough unrivaled inlfuence on their own) to really prevent the appearance of a huge persian influence.
My bet would be on Syracusean hegemony over independent Hellenic states on Italy and Greece (as it was tried IOTL, during the Persian Wars) and having eventually an important influence on Hellas. Little would change for Gallic-Iberic Hellens (being dominated by Massalia).
For Balkanic matters, Celts are going to have a good time, better than IOTL with a Persian suzerainty important enough to prevent the appearance of a strong Hellenic state, but not enough for being really hegemonic there. Maybe the establishment of a Gallic-Illyrian entity in eastern Adriatic (admittedly you had one IOTL, but more on N-E) if not an eastern Gallo-Greek entity in Macedonia-Thessalia.