WI: Persians conquer Greece.

Lets say that due to political infighting the Greeks are badly defeated by the Persians. Several cities defect to Persia and the next campaigning season the Persians make their way through the Peloponnese, burn Sparta to the ground, and make the rest of the Greek states Persian vassals. What would happen from this point.
 
Lets say that due to political infighting the Greeks are badly defeated by the Persians. Several cities defect to Persia and the next campaigning season the Persians make their way through the Peloponnese and, Sparta to the ground, and make the rest of the Greek states Persian vassals. What would happen from their.

It's possible that this will be a short term thing, there may be rebellions coming later to throw off the 'persian yoke'. But the cities of modern days Turkey shores may remains persian later...

It'"s complex because it's not an unified nation, but an universe made of small states with diverse make ups and views, so...
 
I wonder if this would be enough of a catalyst for the Greeks to develop something approaching a central government whenever the empire eventually loses control over the area down the road.
 
Interestingly enough, it could look as the situation after the peace of Antalcidas, after that Attic hegemony was broken and that Persia not only took back Ionian coast, but greatly influenced helladic politics up to the point its gold managed to crush or found foes and allies, or even to threaten the formers of invasions.

Basically, you could end with cities and leagues being Persian vassals, with a leading satrap somewhere (probably in Thessalia), keeping some quite large form of autonomy as long they pledged alliegance to the King.

Depending of Persian rulers and satraps skills, the situation could last as Antalcidias' Peace OTL, or break out after a series of rebellions (the latter being less likely as time pass).
Interestingly again, that would certainly mean even more greek influence on Persian military techniques and cultures (Greek fighters being renowed as mercenaries already IOTL and much used by Persian rulers, governors or claimants)
 
I wonder if this would be enough of a catalyst for the Greeks to develop something approaching a central government whenever the empire eventually loses control over the area down the road.

Well, it's possible, specially if a greek is chosen as satrape and all, and when persian hold weaken... breakout state, localisation,. etc...

It tooks more or less Alexander the Great to unite (the core of, the ancient mainland - other states as in Great Greece by example) Greece...
 
Big winners and Losers

Short term I think a few states are going to lose big from something like this. A few others are going to win big.

The losers :
Sparta and Athens. Their cities have been burnt (ITTL possibly razed to the ground.) and in all likely hood they have been reduced to third rate powers of the long term. Sparta is likely going to be down for the count. The helots will likely be freed from Spartan bondage (Even if they are enslaved by someone else) and very few states will be amenable to the crippled Sparta. Athens on the other hand may over a long period recover. The city seems well situated and they may regain control of Attica.

Close allies of Athens and Sparta. See above but to a possibly lesser extent.

States that attempt to resist Persia. See above.

The big winners.

Argos. Argos was a traditional rival of Sparta during this period. A defeat of Sparta will greatly enhance Argon prestige and influence. Not to mention that Argos was neutral during the conflict. So Argos will likely join the war in support of Persia once the conflict heads south. This will probably net the Argon's some nice land in the Peloponnese.

Thebes. Similar to the above. Thebes will likely join the Persians once the conflict heads south and a Persian victory is clear. With its two greatest rivals eliminated, and with land grants from the Persians, Thebes will likely become one of the top powers in Greece.

Other defectors. See above.

Helots. These former Spartan slaves might receive some very generous accommodations from the Persians especially if they revolt against Sparta when the Persian army draws near. Perhaps given land grants from former Spartan territory and possibly given some Spartan slaves the Helots will have greatly improved their situation. If they could stay united into one state they could also theoretically become a major power. If they are freed by Persia they may also be sought after as governors and bureaucrats for the Persians as they will generally be viewed as loyal.
 
Well, it's possible, specially if a greek is chosen as satrape and all, and when persian hold weaken... breakout state, localisation,. etc...
Honestly, Persians and Greeks were as much equally subject to this sort of unstability and roughly in the same proportions.
I would rather see greek city-states aligning with different claimants or rebel governors than doing a stance on their own after some time.

For a greek satrape, I don't see that happening : at the very best a persian-greek metis.

The losers :
Sparta and Athens. Their cities have been burnt (ITTL possibly razed to the ground.) and in all likely hood they have been reduced to third rate powers of the long term.
Possible for Sparta, less for Athens.
At some point, each greek city was allegedly or truly burnt to the ground, but it never prevented them to rise again quickly, and Athens had too much ressources even after a defeat to go down totally. I could see the city representing still a main power *in Hellas* after some time.
 
Possible for Sparta, less for Athens.
At some point, each greek city was allegedly or truly burnt to the ground, but it never prevented them to rise again quickly, and Athens had too much ressources even after a defeat to go down totally. I could see the city representing still a main power *in Hellas* after some time.

I agree. Athens is probably going to make a recovery. My one caveat there is that the Persians may confiscate lands in Attica to reward their allies and punish Athens. However IMO at this point Sparta is truly screwed. Its military mythos has been shattered, some of its people likely sold into slavery, much of its agricultural land has probably been confiscated or rendered useless by lack of Helot slaves, and probably worst of all for Sparta their traditional enemies just became stronger.
 
Lets say that due to political infighting the Greeks are badly defeated by the Persians. Several cities defect to Persia and the next campaigning season the Persians make their way through the Peloponnese, burn Sparta to the ground, and make the rest of the Greek states Persian vassals. What would happen from this point.

ZOMG, death of civilization, evil Asiatics rule the world for all time. :eek:





Alexander et al get butterflied so you probably don't see anything like the OTL Hellenistic Era but Greece and Greek ideas will still continue to be very influential throughout the Mediterranean.
 
Honestly, Persians and Greeks were as much equally subject to this sort of unstability and roughly in the same proportions.
I would rather see greek city-states aligning with different claimants or rebel governors than doing a stance on their own after some time.

For a greek satrape, I don't see that happening : at the very best a persian-greek metis.

I see a - small - possibily for a greek from those regions who went with Persia, Asia Minor and the like..

To be honest, I don't know much on how Persian administrations worked, did they accept satraps and other 'bureaucrats' and such from nations of their empire, minorities as the greeks or jews by example?
 
I see a - small - possibily for a greek from those regions who went with Persia, Asia Minor ansd the like..
Except from coastal cities that had little to do with royal administration, the background of Ionia or Asia Minor wasn't much greek. Most of the local nobility that was maintained during Persian rule as Anatolian.

To be honest, I don't know much on how Persian administrations worked, did they accept satraps and other 'bureaucrats' and such from nations of their empire, minorities as the greeks or jews by example?
They pretty much accepted local native administration, as long they were loyal to the royal authority,.

For satraps, well some were natives but it underlined more a weakening of royal authority rather than a choice : they were supposed being part of the royal court after all.
When it happened, it was mostly on territories that knewn some form of unification before (as in Caria).

In the case of Greece, if or when the royal power would weaken, I would rather see the return to independent city-states or leagues rather than a perso-greek or greek overlord.

ZOMG, death of civilization, evil Asiatics rule the world for all time. :eek:
It's not very dignified attitude from a future dad to try trolling fellow members :D
 
Last edited:
Any idea what's gonna happen with Macedônia, through?




No Flocculencio you are the evil asiatics.:eek:

I would say that Macedonia isn't really affected by this. They will Persian vassals since around 490 B.C I believe. They may become a strong power like in OTL if the Persians are overthrown. They may even lead a revolt against the Persians.
 
Rather than Roman legacy being the dominant cultural hemogeny of the west today, it would be that of Persia.

If you care to do research on the Achaemenid days of Persia, It is actually quite wonderful. So maybe it would be for the better of history in the long term.
 
Rather than Roman legacy being the dominant cultural hemogeny of the west today, it would be that of Persia.

Depsite Persia never showed any sign of being interested in Europe, only intervening in Greece because continental city-states dared support revolts against the King?
Or depsite hellenic presence in Italy, Sicily, Gaul or Spain from a first hand, Carthaginian on the other hand?

I frankly doubt it. I give you that Roman hegemony may be butterflied, of course.
 
Depsite Persia never showed any sign of being interested in Europe, only intervening in Greece because continental city-states dared support revolts against the King?
Or depsite hellenic presence in Italy, Sicily, Gaul or Spain from a first hand, Carthaginian on the other hand?

I frankly doubt it. I give you that Roman hegemony may be butterflied, of course.

I do agree with a certain feeling that think there is a darkening of the legacy of Persia and that a revision of this part of history and area may be in order... the Eurocentrism and glorification of Greece and all.

But it is another (related) subject...
 
I do agree with a certain feeling that think there is a darkening of the legacy of Persia and that a revision of this part of history and area may be in order... the Eurocentrism and glorification of Greece and all.
Bof, the rehabilitation of Achemenids and following dynasties had begun some time ago already.

Granted, these sort of things take time to be fully integrated in massive knowledge (critically about centuries of "Greek civilisation = Everything pure, good and sane", or really disturbing movies as 300), but Persians studies are quite a thing already critically since 60/80's (in western countries. It was quite held in respect in Persia before Europeans scholars began to think there might be something interesting to look there).

But even there, I think Persia's legacy was far less darkened than neighbouring regions or dynasties (Babylon or Assyrians by exemple)
 
For one thing, just take a look at how socially progressive the Persians at the time were in comparison to the Greeks.

We always tend to think of the Greeks as the forefathers of things like Democracy and Human rights. Think again...
 
For one thing, just take a look at how socially progressive the Persians at the time were in comparison to the Greeks.
Your point being?

We always tend to think of the Greeks as the forefathers of things like Democracy and Human rights. Think again...
They were the forefather of Democracy, in an historical meaning : If you search for perfectly respectables ancestors, you can do that a long time.

Whatever we like it or not, the concept of popular power by vote of each citizen, that gave eventually birth to Democracy was we understand it, is issued from Ancient Greek civilisation.

For Human Rights, you may make reference to Cyrus' Cylindre? Well, unless you're using one the false translation with "modernists" points (as abolition of slavery), what we have there is mostly a point on Nabonidus' tyranny and how Darius respect Babylonian religion and inhabitants without real mention of their rights.
 
Top