|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jul 22, 2024 5:01:40 GMT
The PoD is that the Sicilian Expedition instead of being a massive failure, is a resounding success. This gives Athens access to a very rich and populous island and Athens defeats Sparta.
What does it mean for Greece and the wider world.
Just initial thoughts:
1. The Peloponnesian League would be greatly weakened or even disbanded. Athens would be the hegemon of Greece.
2. Athenian democracy would be strengthened.
3. The Golden Age of Athens would last longer and be even more pronounced.
4. No rise of Macedon. Philip II is likely not even born due to butterflies.
5. There would be an impact on the Italian Peninsula. With a more trade based entity st the helm of Greece, there should be more trade with Italy and thus, more Greek cultural influence in the Peninsula.
Would Athens led Greece be willing to take on Persia? Would they be able to with no phalanx?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 22, 2024 13:00:26 GMT
The PoD is that the Sicilian Expedition instead of being a massive failure, is a resounding success. This gives Athens access to a very rich and populous island and Athens defeats Sparta. What does it mean for Greece and the wider world. Just initial thoughts: 1. The Peloponnesian League would be greatly weakened or even disbanded. Athens would be the hegemon of Greece. 2. Athenian democracy would be strengthened. 3. The Golden Age of Athens would last longer and be even more pronounced. 4. No rise of Macedon. Philip II is likely not even born due to butterflies. 5. There would be an impact on the Italian Peninsula. With a more trade based entity st the helm of Greece, there should be more trade with Italy and thus, more Greek cultural influence in the Peninsula. Would Athens led Greece be willing to take on Persia? Would they be able to with no phalanx?
It gives greater access to a rich island but it will only initially control the city, which depending on how the siege ends could be knocked about somewhat. A good chunk of the island was under control of the dynasty ruling in Syracuse but how friendly or not would be a question. Also while Rome is still a regional power in central Italy Carthage is already established in the west of Sicily. Furthermore the Greek colonies in south Italy are unlikely to be friendly to the Athenian empire.
1) As long as the Athenian empire gets a net gain of resources from control of Syracuse - i.e. the costs of controlling it are less than the revenue or other resources extracted from it then Athens will be materially stronger. However the Peloponnese League will still resist and the stronger Athens gets the more the Persian empire is going to support its opponents and they have a hell of a lot of money. Also the plague had already occurred and devastated much of the city. It could however be that such a success would prompt Athens to secure a peace if they so decide rather than to continue the war.
Also the conversion of the Delian League into an Athenian empire caused great strain with its former allies who were now effectively captives.
2) With the stresses of the war, possibly especially with victory of some sort which could require garrisons based across the empire, most especially in distant Sicily would be both an economic and social burden. As such I doubt that democracy would be strengthened. You could see an impact similar to the 2nd Punic War on Rome with power increasingly switching from the ordinary citizen to the powerful and wealthy elites. This could also have an impact on the level of cultural development.
4) Definitely Philip II would be butterflied. The rise of Thebes or a revival of Sparta or possibly some other Greek state to challenge Athenian dominance may not be. Also quite possibly at some time Macedonia or some other state beyond Greece would rise to dominance as Macedonia did OTL. One problem the Greek states had was that because of their strong identities they weren't easily able to open themselves up to non-citizens which limited their appeal to other Greeks, let alone non-Greeks so the total manpower available for military, economic or other facilities were strictly limited.
5) I can't see an Athenian empire, without changes to remove the problem mentioned in 4) above having the manpower or interests in such a massive expansion. Possibly an attempt to drive the Persians from the Greek speaking Ionian region but I doubt more. the Greek hopilite wasn't as powerful as the Macedonian phalanx but it was generally superior to the infantry available to the Persian empire if well led. However Greek tended to be weak in cavalry, which is something that Macedonia rectified with their own cavalry. Furthermore a long campaign as with Alexander's conquests really needs an overwhelmingly powerful ruler who can command such forces and also maintain that control while away from the home country for several years without discontent if not rebellion at home. Also it was always a mercantile and naval state and your not going to see such a power marching as far as Mesopotamia, let along through Persian into Bactria and the borders of India.
|
|
