Rome took a lot of influence and inspiration from the Ancient Greeks, though the Roman Republic was different in a lot of ways from the Greek Democracies they took inspiration from or admired. These differences allowed the Romans to reform and adapt depending on the situation, leading to the empire that laid the groundwork for much of Europe. Meanwhile, the situation was extremely different for the Ancient Greeks, who were extremely xenophobic to anyone who wasn't a member of the city state outside of rare circumstances and they were too unstable for their own good in the case of Athens. The reason why I'm asking a "Athenian/Corinthian/Spartan/Theban" is because those four are the main city states I can think of that could, at least in theory, lay the groundwork for some sort of empire, if proper reforms occurred to them. My question is, which of the four city states mentioned, or unmentioned minor/major one, could have formed something akin to the Roman Republic, when would that be, and what PoDs would be required for this Rome-lite Greek City-State Republic to properly happen?
Best PoD(s) for an Athenian/Corinthian/Spartan/Theban Democracy/Republic Turned Empire?
- Thread starter TheDoofusUser
- Start date
The only one who could’ve done something like that was Athens. The POD would have to be a more egalitarian league with integrationist tendencies of its members vs the OTL Athens and it’s league which exploited its members and mistreated them until they rebelled. Sparta never had enough people not was it ever willing to mediate it’s views and traditions. No sans man, Greek or not would wish to become a Helote under Spartans.
any ideas what PoD this could be and a follow-up to stop Persia from stopping them from becoming the primary power in Greece and creating a "Greek Republic" that is similar to Rome pre-Social War?
like I asked earlier, what would be a good PoD for Athens that treats its league allies better than otl? Maybe Ephialtes lives past his otl 461 assassination and doesn't go with what happened otl with the Delian League, leading it along the path of some kind of equality in the league, with the idea of a League Citizenship, as a second status that isn't semi-slave-like?
Unfortunately, that's getting into the weeds beyond what I actually know from my surface-level knowledge of the period. I think you'd need someone more specialized in classical Greece (like maybe @Hecatee ) to give you some specific PoD for the Delian League.
There's this article on the differences of the concepts and practices of citizenship in Greece and Rome that might help you.
Think you can simplify it a bit better for me since I don't have the attention span to properly take in a long article, even though I'd love to write a TL on this idea as I'm playing AC:Od (which, I know, isn't 100% realistic and truthful, but it does give a good representation of Ancient Greece from a cursory glance).
Hecatee
Donor
Someone summoned me ?
Before we talk empire and Greece we have to look at demographics :
- Thebes never managed to dominate outside of Boeotia, even under Epaminondas when they beat the Spartans : they first managed to gain their autonomy thanks to Athens' support, and then had only a decade of relative dominance thanks to a pair of victories that bled Sparta dry. While Thebes could have relatively powerful forces for the time (in the 10 000 hoplites range), it had little ways to project them away. Once again the period of Epaminondas is an exception, as he was able to go as far as Sparta itself, but the rest of the time they do not manage to send their men outside of Boeotia.
- Corinth had a fleet and managed to create a large number of colonies but its situation in the bottom of two gulfs meant it was easily isolated from its foundations, as proven by the athenian colony at Naupacte for the western side, and the inability of Corinth to challenge Athens at sea in the Egean. Its population was in fact rather limited and a lot of its men were at sea, leaving it with relatively little land forces to defend itself. Thus it always depended on Sparta for its land defense. Its financial revenues, while impressive, were also far inferior to Athens' who had the silver mines of the Laurion to finance its forces, especially its navy. If I recall properly the ship building rate was 1 in Corinth for close to 10 in Athens... Corinth had no chance.
- Argos was a good contender for a Peloponnesian hegemony, with large infantry forces in the 6th and 5th centuries, but here too we are in the 10 000 men range. And they never managed to beat Sparta, even with the aid of the Athenians : they remained confined to their plains of north-east Peloponesus. It would then be overshadowed by other Peloponesian cities, more to the west and south, such as Megalopolis and Messene, cities that were also part of leagues in ways that Argos never managed to create due to its agressive stance against many of its neighbours.
- Sparta : its political system was too restrictive for the demographics to grow in ways allowing empire, and also to actually manage an empire. Agesilaos campaigns' in Asia Minor are a good exemple of that. Add to that the need to keep the hilotes down and the fact their economy was rather undevellopped compared to the other city states (they needed the persian gold to survice the Peloponnesian war) and you see that despite its much larger than average territory and its superb land forces, Sparta was not able to create an empire. The way the Spartan logistics were organized (if we believe Xenophon) was also a system that could not go very far because they brought everything with them : once they had to forage, except when in very rich Attica, they were done. The exception of Brasidas raid against the northern Athenian colonies near Macedonia was even more radical, surprising and unexpected because it went against normal Spartan practices of bringing everything and the kitchen sink with them on campaign. But then Brasidas' force was not made of true Spartans...
- Athens was something different. While its political system was restrictive, it was not that unstable, in fact it was even rather resilient as shown by the rather rapid restauration of democracy following the 404 events. It had a very large territory, but also a lot of colonies that created a support network that allowed to support the mainland from the sea in ways no one could imitate. The Delos league only amplified those elements. Athens managed to mobilise 10 000 hoplite forces simultaneously with 11 to 22 000 men naval forces, and to pay for it all thanks to the Delos league's budget and its own considerable ressources. Athens also needed less farmers % in its population thanks to imports from the Crimea that allowed for more soldiers, sailors and industrial workers. Athens had also a very different logistical system based on its coinage : the Athenians mostly did not bring their own food with them, but they rather organized temporary markets and the soldiers bought their food from the locals using the cash they received from their officers. All those elements lead Athens to the level it did, wich many do consider as a kind of empire. But Athens was also constrained by the lack of lands and the geography of Greece, much more complex than that of Italy for instance
Someone summoned me ?
Before we talk empire and Greece we have to look at demographics :
- Thebes never managed to dominate outside of Boeotia, even under Epaminondas when they beat the Spartans : they first managed to gain their autonomy thanks to Athens' support, and then had only a decade of relative dominance thanks to a pair of victories that bled Sparta dry. While Thebes could have relatively powerful forces for the time (in the 10 000 hoplites range), it had little ways to project them away. Once again the period of Epaminondas is an exception, as he was able to go as far as Sparta itself, but the rest of the time they do not manage to send their men outside of Boeotia.
- Corinth had a fleet and managed to create a large number of colonies but its situation in the bottom of two gulfs meant it was easily isolated from its foundations, as proven by the athenian colony at Naupacte for the western side, and the inability of Corinth to challenge Athens at sea in the Egean. Its population was in fact rather limited and a lot of its men were at sea, leaving it with relatively little land forces to defend itself. Thus it always depended on Sparta for its land defense. Its financial revenues, while impressive, were also far inferior to Athens' who had the silver mines of the Laurion to finance its forces, especially its navy. If I recall properly the ship building rate was 1 in Corinth for close to 10 in Athens... Corinth had no chance.
- Argos was a good contender for a Peloponnesian hegemony, with large infantry forces in the 6th and 5th centuries, but here too we are in the 10 000 men range. And they never managed to beat Sparta, even with the aid of the Athenians : they remained confined to their plains of north-east Peloponesus. It would then be overshadowed by other Peloponesian cities, more to the west and south, such as Megalopolis and Messene, cities that were also part of leagues in ways that Argos never managed to create due to its agressive stance against many of its neighbours.
- Sparta : its political system was too restrictive for the demographics to grow in ways allowing empire, and also to actually manage an empire. Agesilaos campaigns' in Asia Minor are a good exemple of that. Add to that the need to keep the hilotes down and the fact their economy was rather undevellopped compared to the other city states (they needed the persian gold to survice the Peloponnesian war) and you see that despite its much larger than average territory and its superb land forces, Sparta was not able to create an empire. The way the Spartan logistics were organized (if we believe Xenophon) was also a system that could not go very far because they brought everything with them : once they had to forage, except when in very rich Attica, they were done. The exception of Brasidas raid against the northern Athenian colonies near Macedonia was even more radical, surprising and unexpected because it went against normal Spartan practices of bringing everything and the kitchen sink with them on campaign. But then Brasidas' force was not made of true Spartans...
- Athens was something different. While its political system was restrictive, it was not that unstable, in fact it was even rather resilient as shown by the rather rapid restauration of democracy following the 404 events. It had a very large territory, but also a lot of colonies that created a support network that allowed to support the mainland from the sea in ways no one could imitate. The Delos league only amplified those elements. Athens managed to mobilise 10 000 hoplite forces simultaneously with 11 to 22 000 men naval forces, and to pay for it all thanks to the Delos league's budget and its own considerable ressources. Athens also needed less farmers % in its population thanks to imports from the Crimea that allowed for more soldiers, sailors and industrial workers. Athens had also a very different logistical system based on its coinage : the Athenians mostly did not bring their own food with them, but they rather organized temporary markets and the soldiers bought their food from the locals using the cash they received from their officers. All those elements lead Athens to the level it did, wich many do consider as a kind of empire. But Athens was also constrained by the lack of lands and the geography of Greece, much more complex than that of Italy for instance
Alright, so Athens was probably the best fit for a Greek Empire (which the Delos League was technically one for Athens), however it was restricted by the lack of land outside of Attica and the Geography of Greece being far different to that of Italy. There's the fact that, iirc, Athens treated the League members rather harshly despite them being allies and that the Persians would fund any uprising to keep Greece disunited. So, since the Geography of Greece can't be changed as that would require ASBs, what would you say is required for the Athenians to 1) acquire more land, 2) not treat the League members so poorly, and 3) not have Persia interfering in Greece and funding constant revolts? It seems the Sicillian Expedition was doomed from the start but what about a Cypriot Expedition combined with funding and backing a Native Egyptian Revolt that throws Persia out of Egypt and Cyprus? If that could work, we just need Athens to have more land in some way with a PoD, one preferably during or after the G-P Wars.
Well,
Now, the easiest time for the Athenians to become the sole hegemon of Greece is perhaps the overused (?) 464 BC, right after the great earthquake that levelled Sparta. Have the eilots go forward with their decision to storm the city of Sparta in the immediate, and it's likely that it would be game over for Sparta, or that the Spartans would suffer even more damage and deaths. Were the former to happen, with Laconia in turmoil and the neighbouring powers - primarily Argos, jumping into the fray to grab contested territories and settle old scores, I think Athens would be pretty much left as the last man standing: Corinth isn't really in a position to fill the void, Thebes is still in the isolation period and hasn't regained its leading position in Boeotia yet. While Athens would probably not rush to get everyone to join the Delian league, a lack of rivals and a potential second front in the future could allow them perhaps to prosecute the war against Persia more effectively and perhaps manage to end Achaemenid rule over Egypt and make the eastern Mediterranean an Athenian lake.
However, this doesn't mean it's all smooth sailing. If anything, the Athenians did have a tendency to chew more than they could handle, and I think that they could manage to make Egypt resentful towards them. Even if Sparta were to be destroyed, it wouldn't be impossible for the Athenians to overextend and end up in an impossible position trying to deal with a revanchist Persia, an unstable Egypt, resentful city states and more and have their "empire" implode.
The third one, they actually tried it in the 460s - 450s: in 459 - 449 BC, the Athenians were fighting a two - front war against Sparta and Persia and their forces were deployed everywhere from Boeotia to Memphis - it didn't end that well, because the Athenian forces in Egypt were mauled in 454 BC and in 447 - 446 BC, the Athenians lost the major gains of the war in mainland Greece, namely Megara and Boeotia.
Now, the easiest time for the Athenians to become the sole hegemon of Greece is perhaps the overused (?) 464 BC, right after the great earthquake that levelled Sparta. Have the eilots go forward with their decision to storm the city of Sparta in the immediate, and it's likely that it would be game over for Sparta, or that the Spartans would suffer even more damage and deaths. Were the former to happen, with Laconia in turmoil and the neighbouring powers - primarily Argos, jumping into the fray to grab contested territories and settle old scores, I think Athens would be pretty much left as the last man standing: Corinth isn't really in a position to fill the void, Thebes is still in the isolation period and hasn't regained its leading position in Boeotia yet. While Athens would probably not rush to get everyone to join the Delian league, a lack of rivals and a potential second front in the future could allow them perhaps to prosecute the war against Persia more effectively and perhaps manage to end Achaemenid rule over Egypt and make the eastern Mediterranean an Athenian lake.
However, this doesn't mean it's all smooth sailing. If anything, the Athenians did have a tendency to chew more than they could handle, and I think that they could manage to make Egypt resentful towards them. Even if Sparta were to be destroyed, it wouldn't be impossible for the Athenians to overextend and end up in an impossible position trying to deal with a revanchist Persia, an unstable Egypt, resentful city states and more and have their "empire" implode.
Could the Athenians have gone on the move to subjugate Sparta in the aftermath of Lakonia falling into chaos and exerting massive influence over Argosian, Korinthian, and Theban Politics to make them effective puppets they have massive sway over? Finally,for Egypt, I don't see the Athenians wanting to conquer them or make them into a puppet, but an ally and trading partner of sorts would be their best bet. They probably wouldn't care what Egypt does in its own times and it seems the Greeks had at least some sort of respect for Ancient Egypt and basically have a policy of Egypt does what they please and that Athens and Egypt only trade together. From there, the Athenians could put more focus on Persia and specifically Asia Minor and Cyprus, though I wouldn't put it past the Persians to fund Krete, Epiros, and/or Makedonia to go to war against Athens as the sole two powers left that can really challenge Athenian Hegemony in Greece that they don't have significant influence over.