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?
Awesome! I love Alt-Hist discussions! :cool:
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.
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?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 16, 2012, 08:31:38 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2012, 09:23:59 PM
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?
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?
Gerard Butler would be fatter.
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.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 09:37:41 PM
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. :(
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 09:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 16, 2012, 09:45:20 PM
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.
Aristotle.
And if the shahs had wanted Greeks to teach their kids, they had plenty to choose from.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:57:49 AM
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.
Western civilization would not exist, the Persified Greeks would have discovered the steam engine and their masters conquered the world.
Or maybe something completely different.
This entire thread is anti-Iranian propaganda.
Parthia delenda est.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:49:34 AM
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.
Crusade against what?
I doubt there is even the situation to have a rise of Macedon or even a Peloponnesian War, given that the factors for an Athenian economic empire post Persian Wars is not there.
Not a huge impact on Western civilization. Rome had a much bigger impact than Greece on Western civilization and Greek culture would still influence Rome pretty much as it did historically. So what if there's a satrap in Greece.
I'd guess serfdom and slavery would probably have gone on far longer. Those Persians were pretty top-down authoritarian. Probably Islam would have been highly persecuted and maybe never emerged as a serious thing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 17, 2012, 01:51:04 PM
I'd guess serfdom and slavery would probably have gone on far longer. Those Persians were pretty top-down authoritarian. Probably Islam would have been highly persecuted and maybe never emerged as a serious thing.
The rise of Islam was 1000 years later - hard to see any connection between the two. The persian empires had risen and fallen repeatedly during that time.
Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2012, 11:12:09 AM
Not a huge impact on Western civilization. Rome had a much bigger impact than Greece on Western civilization and Greek culture would still influence Rome pretty much as it did historically. So what if there's a satrap in Greece.
Rome took over what had become a Hellenized east. Others have already touched on it but it bears repeating that the main issue would be whether you would still have an Alexander and a Hellenization of the East if the Persians won or indeed if they never invaded.
I don't really consider the Greeks part of Western Civilization.
It would be a dramatic difference. So much of the foundation of Western Civilization started with the Greek Golden Age that started with the Persian Wars. But would it be better or worse? No idea such a dramatic departure from reality such a long time in the past is difficult to speculate on.
I mean how different would the world be if the Samnites had run over the Romans? It would be dramatically different. But it is almost impossible to imagine how.
Quote from: PDH on January 17, 2012, 08:18:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:49:34 AM
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.
Crusade against what?
I doubt there is even the situation to have a rise of Macedon or even a Peloponnesian War, given that the factors for an Athenian economic empire post Persian Wars is not there.
Yeah, the whole reason for the Athenian league disappears - without the concentration of all that wealth and power in Athens what then becomes of Greek culture within even the limited regions Athens controls. And what happens with the Spartans without a strong Athens.
Iran would now be part of the Euro and facing a debt default.
Meanwhile America and the Lebanon would be planning to bomb Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 02:11:11 PM
I don't really consider the Greeks part of Western Civilization.
Given that all the gospels were first written in Greek, there would be less books by Dawkins at the very least. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 17, 2012, 08:18:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:49:34 AM
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.
Crusade against what?
I doubt there is even the situation to have a rise of Macedon or even a Peloponnesian War, given that the factors for an Athenian economic empire post Persian Wars is not there.
Yeah, the whole reason for the Athenian league disappears - without the concentration of all that wealth and power in Athens what then becomes of Greek culture within even the limited regions Athens controls. And what happens with the Spartans without a strong Athens.
OK, fair enough, but does Macedon rely on those events to become a powerful kingdom and begin to interfere in Greek affairs?
(Not a rhetorical question. I may be wrong.)
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 02:22:22 PM
OK, fair enough, but does Macedon rely on those events to become a powerful kingdom and begin to interfere in Greek affairs?
(Not a rhetorical question. I may be wrong.)
Yes. Macedon had been defeated by the Persians during the initial phases of Xerxes' invasion. They would be a satrapy or a client state of some sort if the Greeks had not defeated the Persians.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 02:25:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 02:22:22 PM
OK, fair enough, but does Macedon rely on those events to become a powerful kingdom and begin to interfere in Greek affairs?
(Not a rhetorical question. I may be wrong.)
Yes. Macedon had been defeated by the Persians during the initial phases of Xerxes' invasion. They would be a satrapy or a client state of some sort if the Greeks had not defeated the Persians.
I was responding to the hypothetical PDH gave, in which the Persians didn't invade Greece at all...
Yeah, if the Persians invaded Greece, and achieved victory, they would have dominated Macedon as well.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 17, 2012, 03:23:46 PM
I was responding to the hypothetical PDH gave, in which the Persians didn't invade Greece at all...
Yeah, if the Persians invaded Greece, and achieved victory, they would have dominated Macedon as well.
Oh....well...again it is really hard to say. I mean Macedon's success was sort of dependent on the Greeks ripping each other apart and if they had not defeated the Persians would that have even happened?
As I said, to my mind the hypothetical of Persia not invading is far more tantalizing than they do more damage in their huge raid. Given what problems they caused in northern and central Greece, there were plenty of effects from the expedition as it was.
However, remove the impetus for the Athenians to expand, the Greeks as a whole to gain a mythos of "revenge" which the Macedonians later exploited, and indeed the problems caused by the Peloponnesian War in the form it took...the Persians not doing anything is a better problem I believe.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 02:12:18 PM
I mean how different would the world be if the Samnites had run over the Romans? It would be dramatically different. But it is almost impossible to imagine how.
This is a more interesting question, I think.
A world without Rome.
Imagine the possibilities.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2012, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2012, 11:12:09 AM
Not a huge impact on Western civilization. Rome had a much bigger impact than Greece on Western civilization and Greek culture would still influence Rome pretty much as it did historically. So what if there's a satrap in Greece.
Rome took over what had become a Hellenized east. Others have already touched on it but it bears repeating that the main issue would be whether you would still have an Alexander and a Hellenization of the East if the Persians won or indeed if they never invaded.
Or an Eastern Empire to carry on when the West collapsed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2012, 02:13:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 02:11:11 PM
I don't really consider the Greeks part of Western Civilization.
Given that all the gospels were first written in Greek, there would be less books by Dawkins at the very least. ;)
I don't think of Christianity as uniquely Western.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 08:18:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2012, 02:13:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 02:11:11 PM
I don't really consider the Greeks part of Western Civilization.
Given that all the gospels were first written in Greek, there would be less books by Dawkins at the very least. ;)
I don't think of Christianity as uniquely Western.
That is exactly the point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2012, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2012, 11:12:09 AM
Not a huge impact on Western civilization. Rome had a much bigger impact than Greece on Western civilization and Greek culture would still influence Rome pretty much as it did historically. So what if there's a satrap in Greece.
Rome took over what had become a Hellenized east. Others have already touched on it but it bears repeating that the main issue would be whether you would still have an Alexander and a Hellenization of the East if the Persians won or indeed if they never invaded.
The thread is about Western civilization.
Maybe the Carthaginian Empire would have shaped the West.
Quote from: Siege on January 19, 2012, 09:07:18 PM
Maybe the Carthaginian Empire would have shaped the West.
We would all be sacrificing babies to Ba'al.
Well not Siege. He'd still be a Jew.
A Jew who secretly believes in Ba'al.