Persian Conquest of Greece. What would have been the real impact on Western Civ?

[Darth Wagtaros]

How catastrophic would a Persian victory over the Greeks have been to the development of Western Civilization, and how would things have looked by the year 500 AD?

[Siege]

Awesome! I love Alt-Hist discussions! 

[Siege]

I think conquering and holding Greece was stretching Persian logistics. I don't think they had a chance.
However, "if", then Rome would still survive and thrive and evntually conquer Greece and Persia.

No major changes to the development of western civilization. Greek colonies in Magna Graeci and Massilia would have effected exactly the same cultural influence they did in our timeline.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Long term Conquest would undoubtedly have been a stretch, but how bout say, devastation to Athens and other city states. Would it have impacted the rise of Alexander of Macedon?

[grumbler]

Long term Conquest would undoubtedly have been a stretch, but how bout say, devastation to Athens and other city states. Would it have impacted the rise of Alexander of Macedon?

Yeah, I am thinking that long-term occupation was beyond the Persians.

Given a more inward-looking Greece as it rebuilt, though, I don't think a Hellenized Macedonia would necessarily have arisen, and so maybe no Alexander, as history knew him.  To whom would the Persian Empire have fallen, and when?  It wasn't like it was stable and lacking civil strife in those days.

[Neil]

I'm not entirely sure that it would make all that big a difference.  After all, the yoke of Achaemenid Persia was pretty light that far west.

[grumbler]

I'm not entirely sure that it would make all that big a difference.  After all, the yoke of Achaemenid Persia was pretty light that far west.

An interesting thought, actually; had Alexander not conquered the vastly more advanced (it seems to me, with admittedly limited knowledge) Ionian Greeks, what would they have come up with in a continued Pax Persia?

[PDH]

Here is a twist.  What would have been the outcome had Greece not been invaded, had the Ionian Revolt been put down and then no Marathon expedition, no later march around the Hellespont, no Salamis...no long term story embedding itself in the Greek mythos about revenge against the Persians?

[Jaron]

Gerard Butler would be fatter.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Without the Hellenization of the Near East how would Rome have fared during their expansion?

The Persian Invasion was punative in nature wasn't it? Meant to stomp on the Greeks for their support of the Ionians, not necessarily meant to conquer. Correct me if I'm wrong.  So a successful Persian invasion could have been the reduction or outright ruin of many city states rather than occupation.

[Martinus]

Here is a twist.  What would have been the outcome had Greece not been invaded, had the Ionian Revolt been put down and then no Marathon expedition, no later march around the Hellespont, no Salamis...no long term story embedding itself in the Greek mythos about revenge against the Persians?

If there were no Salamis, we would have to eat German sausages.

[Ideologue]

Here is a twist.  What would have been the outcome had Greece not been invaded, had the Ionian Revolt been put down and then no Marathon expedition, no later march around the Hellespont, no Salamis...no long term story embedding itself in the Greek mythos about revenge against the Persians?

I dunno.  Possibly the same result.  I mean, iirc, it's not like Alexander relied very heavily on actual Greeks.  He could even still frame it as a crusade, on behalf of the Ionians.

[Martinus]

Without the Hellenization of the Near East how would Rome have fared during their expansion?

The Persian Invasion was punative in nature wasn't it? Meant to stomp on the Greeks for their support of the Ionians, not necessarily meant to conquer. Correct me if I'm wrong.  So a successful Persian invasion could have been the reduction or outright ruin of many city states rather than occupation.

Not sure about the second part of your post, but assuming the Greek civilization wouldn't be destroyed, I think there would be a good chance of Hellenization happening anyway, only within the Persian empire. It's not unheard of for conquerors to adopt a conquered people's culture, and after all it's not like Alexander was, strictly speaking, raised in the Greek culture either (although he was schooled by Socrates, so I guess he had an early influence there). All you would need is really one Persian Shah, who was raised by a Greek teacher, and you could have a wholesale Hellenization of the Middle East.

You probably wouldn't have Christianity, but Zoroastrianism, Mithraicism or something similar as an emergent religion though, as Hellenic philosophy would merge/influence Persian, rather than Hebrew, religion instead.

[Ideologue]

Aristotle.

And if the shahs had wanted Greeks to teach their kids, they had plenty to choose from.

[Martinus]

Aristotle.

And if the shahs had wanted Greeks to teach their kids, they had plenty to choose from.

Yeah Aristotle, sorry. And that's not the same. Having an educated caste/nation within one empire is different than having to get these people from outside. There would simply be a lot of Greeks in the Persian administration.