WI Persian victory in the Persian wars

Is a victory in the Persian wars possible? A victory at Salamis would pretty much take the Athenians out of the picture, but what of the 'Corinthian wall' Sparta was planning to build? Would the Persians be able to subdue the entire area of Greece?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
A Persian victory was not only possible, but 90% likely to happen. If Salamis had resulted in a Persian victory, then the wall at Corinth wouldn't have been worth anything, since the Persians could have used their naval superiority to simply outflank it by landing anywhere along the coast.

The victory of the Greeks is one of the great miracles of history.
 
Yes, Persian victory is possible. The Persians were winning most of the land battles. The Athenian victory at sea gave the greeks a navel advantage, which made it very difficult for the Persians to resupply their ground forces. If something prevented the greeks from winning the key navel battles, the Persian armies would have remained well supplied and Persia would have won the war.
 
Yes, Persian victory is possible. The Persians were winning most of the land battles. The Athenian victory at sea gave the greeks a navel advantage, which made it very difficult for the Persians to resupply their ground forces. If something prevented the greeks from winning the key navel battles, the Persian armies would have remained well supplied and Persia would have won the war.

Well, after the war, what would have Persia done? Persia had been checked in the danube by the Scythians and in Central Asia as well. I feel that they were at the outer reach of their empire. Would a province such as Greece cost the Empire more than it was worth, much like Britain for Rome?

Keep in mind that the Persians usually appealed to a powerful group within a people, like the priests with the Jews. AFAIK, they had severe problems with the Ionians as they had no clear group to support which could the populace's support.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Well, after the war, what would have Persia done? Persia had been checked in the danube by the Scythians and in Central Asia as well. I feel that they were at the outer reach of their empire. Would a province such as Greece cost the Empire more than it was worth, much like Britain for Rome?

Keep in mind that the Persians usually appealed to a powerful group within a people, like the priests with the Jews. AFAIK, they had severe problems with the Ionians as they had no clear group to support which could the populace's support.

If Persia had taken control of Greece, they would not have lacked for collaborators. Indeed, many cities threw open their doors to the Persian rather than risk their wrath, and others were waiting for the first sign of weakness from Athens and Sparta to switch sides. Macedonia and Thessely were active Persian supporters, don't forget.

If Persia had succeeded, most local administration would have remained in Greek hands, with a Persian satrap in overall control and a few Persian garrisons in the most important cities and at strategic points. It would probably have been rather like Mesopotamia was under Persian rule.
 
Persia's victory was far more likely than its defeat. It had at this point captured Athens and a naval victory at Salamis for them is surprisingly simple as far as that goes. However if they conquer Greece and Macedon the result is that the policies they adopted to Ionian Greeks get exported further west and eventually the Achaemenid Empire disintegrates for the same reasons the Seleucids would do later: it was too large to maintain with the technology of the time.
 
Well, after the war, what would have Persia done? Persia had been checked in the danube by the Scythians and in Central Asia as well. I feel that they were at the outer reach of their empire. Would a province such as Greece cost the Empire more than it was worth, much like Britain for Rome?

Keep in mind that the Persians usually appealed to a powerful group within a people, like the priests with the Jews. AFAIK, they had severe problems with the Ionians as they had no clear group to support which could the populace's support.

My guess is that the satrapy principle would have moved further West and all of Greece turns into something more like Ionia. At least part of the issues with the Ionians were that the Greeks in Greece were helping to spur their fights against the Persians, if all Greece and Macedon are now Persian satrapies then there's nobody to really do that. Meaning the Achaemenids would ultimately fall apart due to having a gigantic empire to maintain and the likelihood of Overmighty Subjects who in any other empire would be respectable monarchs in their own right.
 
Persia's victory was far more likely than its defeat. It had at this point captured Athens and a naval victory at Salamis for them is surprisingly simple as far as that goes. However if they conquer Greece and Macedon the result is that the policies they adopted to Ionian Greeks get exported further west and eventually the Achaemenid Empire disintegrates for the same reasons the Seleucids would do later: it was too large to maintain with the technology of the time.

Re: the bolded part...Actually I'd have to disagree with you on that. The Achaemenids did quite well for over 200 years, a long time for any empire. The only real problem area they had, in terms of keeping control, was Egypt, and that was largely because the Greeks were actively destabilizing Egypt and supporting any rebels who happened to pop up there (there were other minor rebellions in other places...Assyria rebelled at one point, for example...but they never amounted to anything significant). Had it not been for Alexander coming along, it could have survived for quite a long time more.

In an ATL where Greece and Macedonia have been reduced to satrapies, they'll have even less problems holding onto their subject peoples, most of whom were actually quite content to be ruled by the Persians, who were, for the time, a rather tolerant and enlightened people.
 
Re: the bolded part...Actually I'd have to disagree with you on that. The Achaemenids did quite well for over 200 years, a long time for any empire. The only real problem area they had, in terms of keeping control, was Egypt, and that was largely because the Greeks were actively destabilizing Egypt and supporting any rebels who happened to pop up there (there were other minor rebellions in other places...Assyria rebelled at one point, for example...but they never amounted to anything significant). Had it not been for Alexander coming along, it could have survived for quite a long time more.

In an ATL where Greece and Macedonia have been reduced to satrapies, they'll have even less problems holding onto their subject peoples, most of whom were actually quite content to be ruled by the Persians, who were, for the time, a rather tolerant and enlightened people.

I didn't say that the process would be quick. I do think that with a rapid victory over the Greeks that you're right, the Achamaenids could last a very long time. In some way that TL might be a more positive place to live in as far as that timeframe is concerned than ours was.
 
Top