Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
What if...
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Rule Britannia (U5742007) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
I don't visit this board often enought, but anyway.
Nice little what if for you all, and it's local.
What if Greece had fallen in the wars against persia (we'll go for the second one)?
Any theories?
R_B -
Message 2
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 10th May 2007
That's an interesting one.
I suspect that, overall for Europe, things might be pretty much the same. Greek colonists were already in Italy, Sicily and France by that time and were spreading their cultural influence. Even cities in Asia Minor which were controlled by Persia retained elements of Greek culture (that's what started th ewhole thing off isn't it?). Athens may have been destroyed but the Athenians would have gone elsewhere and other cities would probably have remained intrinsically Greek.
Rome would still have come to prominence, perhaps with less Greek influence on art and architecture, although that may have depended on where Athenian exiles ended up.
I suspect it largely depends on whether Macedonia would have been allowed to become the power it did some centuries later. -
Message 3
Posted by Rule Britannia (U5742007) on Sunday, 13th May 2007
How inportant was Macedonias influence on the west, or east?
-
Message 4
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007
Greece would hve been decimated, pillaged and then democracy, although starting elsewhere, would have essentially wiped out.Persians believed in the slave system and even though greeks did deny the vote to woman and younger people... etc etc.. democracy some argue could never have taken place.
cheers
LT -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007
Rule Britannia, the question "How important was Macedonian influence in the west" is almost in the sphere of imagination but then the same imaginative is the question "How important was Athenian influence in the west".
The west was mainly influenced by the numerous Greek colonies out of which only the South Italic peninsula ones gathered more Greek population than the whole of Greek peninsula itself (thus the term "Magna Grecia" i.e. Greater Greece). Athens had little influence - I can only remember Roman patricians referring to Athens for their legislation in the 5th century but then that was a one-off since Roman patricians anyway loved anything that was cool in the Greek world (perhaps some of them in a reminiscence of their descendance from greek famimlies, e.g. the Gaius and Graechii ones). Anyway what good could do Athens when you had the likes of Syracuse a city of the size of Athens and Sparta together that could also probably beat both Sparta and Athens in war if that happened? It is just that Syracuse had always its nemesis Carthagen on the other side thus took no initiatives elsewhere!
Athens of course had greatly influenced the Greek world and thus indirectly had influenced the west but other than that there was no great direct influence. The reality was that Athens was not the place where ideas and sciences were born (the first epicenter had been Minor Asia then moved to... South Italy and then for some time to Athens), nor it gave any great number of philosophers and scientists apart Socrates,Plato, Iktinos and Kalikratis while it gave an average to good number of artists.
Macedonia similarly had not any huge direct influence on the west, mostly created impressions of its extraordinarty expansion in the east; it had also created a fear for its armies considered as unbeatable. However in terms of art and science it is not exactly possible to state since by Hellenistic times you cannot indicate who was Macedonian by descendance since the heart of scientific production was in Alexandria. Unless we are so idiotic as to imagine that Hellenistic kingdoms were populated by... Athenians or Spartans, a good deal of Greek scientists and philosophers in the Hellenistic kingdoms were of Macedonian descendance.
However (and in a semi-direct way than athens) it influenced the west by having accelerated the rythm of integration of at least the eastern part of the Mediterranean, having created the Hellenised world that was 100% Alexander's project (had it been some Spartan king that would be 1-2 battles and off back home to play in the Olympics, who cares about barbarians).
On the other hand do not forget that it was not so much Athens itself during its heyday but the fact that in Roman times Athens became "Athens", being used as a prime example by later civiliastions in Europe while Macedonia during Roman times was a thing not to mention so often for obvious political reasons!!! No wonder why during Roman times most of Macedonia (apart Thessaloniki which was necessary fue to its position) was reduced more or less to a sum of provinces while Athens continued for long to be the spoilt city with brand new theaters and public buildings etc. -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007
Now in the question "what if Persia would win over the Greek alliance"?
Well, certain things would have changed and the absence of democracy is the least - after all non-democratic cities produced same if not larger number of philosophers and scientists (down to the basics, the likes of Syracuse under tyrans often offered more freedom of thought than democratic Athens).
First, under Persian control you would have 3 powers rising in the Greek peninsula: Thebans, Thessalians and Macedonians (note 3 greek states without an emphasis in shipping industry). More probably, Persian or no Persian empire you would have the possibility of a civil war among these in case that Persians left things unattended. Persians, so near their target of controlling the Mediterranean (it was not actually theirs but that of Phoenicians that were the main shipping force for Persians, do not forget that Mardonius was not Persian but Phoenician and start wondering why on earth when he asked the help of Carthagenians, the later said yes and attacked... Syracuse!!!!). So certainly after a bit of consolidation a final attack that would be against Magna Grecia. In front of a combined Perso-carthagenian attack I would see the efforts of Syracuse to unite as many as possible greek cities of the western Mediterranean but also as many as possible foreign cities, Rome included. This time most Greek cities would unite since most of them were dependent on shipping and it would be clear that Carthagenians so near their target of total control would not tolerate other shipping industries thus unlike Thessalians or Thebans there would be absolutely no interest in allying with the other side, even if they did, destruction was not ruled out! Now if Rome would ally to Carthagenians I do not know, I think they would indeed but would also try to play a double game that they would not give but only a small force. Given the fact that Carthagenians had already a bad name for acts of cruelty in many places in the western Mediterranean in comparison to Greeks that were more popular in cultural terms and the fact that Persians were people from far away thus intrinsically mistrusted, many tribes (but not all) in the Iberian peninsula and in Gaul would ally to Syracuse and its western alliance. The war would be largely played in the sea.
In that war, Persian troops from Asia would play little role as the bulk of action would be between Carthagenians and Syracusians each followed by his allies. It would be largely played in the sea. In the 5th and 4th century however, Carthagenian military navy and armies while not without value presented several weaknesses, most important the lack of organised training: most Carthagenian armies had been actually a horde of mercenaries recruit at any place possible (do not forget that Carthagen started threatening seriously Syracuse only after long and serious training by Greek strategists. Of course, Syracusians would have to face also forces from mainland Greece but due to Persian control there and the fact that in general Persians would not allow citizens to train in arms in the old sense, then these would be of reduced value in comparison to the earlier armies.
Now, Syracuse having won the war at a great cost would certainly go on and get its money back by destroying the whole Carthagenian army and then possibly the city (Roman style). having reached this point, forget about Rome, it would simply remain a city in the fringes of the greek world. The empowered Syracuse would certainly go on what Macedonians had done in the east and Romans had done in the west, i.e. eastablish the Mediterranean as the lake of Syracuseans. They would turn naturally on mainland Greece throwing out the Persians (with the aid of local insurgents) moving into Minor Asia while Syracusian armies from modern day Tynisia would enter Egypt. After what you would have would be an Empire much like Rome (without Gaul) but with a very strong emphasis on the greek dorian side salted by a bit of Egyptian exotiscism but not so much influenced by middle east as was the Hellenistic kingdoms and Roman empire.
In that sense, there would be no time and place for democracy to be born but then sciences and philosophy would go on just fine. A monotheistic religion could as well prevail at some point under the will of some Emperor (like what happened in Egypt under Akenaton). The end of the Syracusean Empire would be, what else, by civil wars (we are talking about greeks!) and repeated raids of increasingly dangerous tribes from the north and east (germanic and mongolic ones). From there on, history could be more or less similar, instead we would all talk about the Syracusian Empire while the likes of Attica, Laekedemon and Macedonia would had been just provinces of the greeks' ancestral land with varying degrees of progress. However after the fall of the empire these could go on independent or in some short of federation or possibly a kingdom much like the Byzantine Empire while another one could remain in South Italy. From there on things could take any road... today most probably Spain and the whole of Italy would talk greek related languages, (latin would be extinct) as much as much of America in the case that Iberic peninsula's kingdoms decided to send ships in the west Colombus' style but then there is no point to continue it... -
Message 7
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007
Persians believed in the slave system and even though greeks did deny the vote to woman and younger people... etc etc.. democracy some argue could never have taken place.Β
You may be surprised to hear this but the Greeks believed in the 'slave system' as well!
The common idea that the Greek victory over Persia saved the West for democracy is questionable at best. Firstly because Greek democracy was very different to ours (eg the point already made about slavery); secondly because by Alexander the Great's time this Greek version of democracy was in any case effectively dead.
Greek (or rather Athenian) democracy was an important precursor of our own system but the links between the 2 systems are anything but direct. -
Message 8
Posted by bravomk (U8345794) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007
Is it right to say that Macedonians(not Greeks)with Alexander the Great saved the democracy by crushing the Persians? What would have happened if Alexander didn't die that young? Shell I also say that Philip the Macedon actually saved the Greeks to destroy each other by unifing them in Corinth? Macedonian role in saving the democracy is bigger than we think as Philip and Alexander could have easily wipe the Greeks out from the face of earth and at the end of the day they weren't barbarians as it's claimed by Greeks nowadays. There is lot more light to be shread over the Macedonian history if this country is alowed to exist on the map. Maybe that is what Greeks are afraid from and on every single mention of word Macedonia they are going mad. I had very unpleasnt experience on Athens airport but about that on some other ocasion..
-
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
bravomk Macedonians were Russians, don't you know that? Chinese, Indians, Eskimos and Apachi Indians who met them in social functions, confirm this. That is why their 150% Macedonian descendants king Samuel spoke Khoesian.
-
Message 10
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
I missed the Eurovision Song Contest.
Was everything in order.
Did Greece give 12 votes for Cyprus? And Cyprus give 12 votes for Greece? -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
I think one year Greece had given 10 points to Cyprus. What happened that year is unknown to me "mais Γ§a c'est grave!", it must had been a large scale civil war or something!
-
Message 12
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
I noticed the Turks gave some votes to Greece but didnt get any in return
-
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007
Oh yes, afterall crap songs are produced both in Greece and Turkey; they also exchange them with great pleasure, well at least better than fighting.
-
Message 14
Posted by bravomk (U8345794) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
Nick, I hope that was joke(macedonians being Russians)
. As I said before(please don't be offended, in case you're Greek) Macedonia is up and coming and you must go and see what are these people like to understand that they are separate ethnical group..I visited all countries in the region, Greece is beutiful but there is so unknown about Republic of Macedonia...Why Greeks hate them so much, I didn't see same hatred in Macedonia against Greeks...? -
Message 15
Posted by VaudinCaesar (U8374567) on Thursday, 17th May 2007
Good question and in fact a hard one!
At this time the Greek empire wasn't just in Greece it ws in Italy, Cicily and parts of Africa as well so it would have been very difficult for any emeny to erradicate all traces of the once great nation. I think Greece was just to civilized for them to lose in a war like that so the Greeks will always survive!!!! -
Message 16
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Monday, 21st May 2007
Greece as we are talking about it here is a state of mind, it doesn't belong to any geographical location in the way, for example, Englishness does. As a result, I think that the legacy of Greek thought would easily have carried on despite Persian occupation of the Greek mainland.
-
Message 17
Posted by Rule Britannia (U5742007) on Sunday, 27th May 2007
E_Nikolaos_E
Wow, impressive theory, what was suprising was that sycriouse became the ane mpire, because when Athens sent the expedition to take the city i assumed it was'nt that strong (i know athens failed but with spartan help and athenian incompetence, another debate perhaps, what saved Sycriouse from athens?
So we generaly agree that not much would have changed overall, i might be wrong, better re-read all the posts...
Thx
R_B
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.