Marathon reversed

[Revelation]

If the battle of Marathon had gone the other way with the Persian empire taking control of Hellenic world, how do you think modern society would be structured today?

[English assassin]

That is what they call a big question.

Obviously we would lack a fair bit of Greek culture (although presumably a fair few of the Greek cities elsewhere in the Med might still have been founded). Possibly Alexander would not have happened, assuming that the Persians held onto what would have been a distant, poor and unruly part of their empire for hundreds of years and felt alarmed at the rise of Macedonia to the north.

However it seems to me there would have been no impact on the rise of Rome and so the overall shape of Western European culture would be broadly similar.

[kallitheus]

I think this question should be asked regarding the battle of salamis,which is considered a landmark in the history of the West.

Besides that the Persian army at Marathon was a force sent to exact revenge upon the Eretreans and the Athenians for their contribution to the
Ionian revolution,and not to conquer all of Greece,unlike the army and the fleet sent under Xerxe's command.

Ps.Due to lack of time,i may be able to deepen in the subject tomorrow.

[Advo-san]

Dont forget that the rise of Rome began with the conquest of Greece, that Rome's biggest province. What would have happened if Rome had to fight against the Persians in order to make their first step into the East?

Who can tell......

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

Contrary to popular belief, Marathon was not a major battle, not in the magnitude of Salamis anyway.

The Persians were trying to create a buffer between the Greek cities of West Asia Minor and the mainland, especially the aggressive and supportive of rebellions Athens. This was to be achieved by placing Ippias as a tyrant in Athens. The first leg was successful. Naxos, the largest island of the Cyclades was occupied and the Eretrians defeated (showing that the Great King exacted reverge on his enemies). The second part of the operation however was not successful.

If it was successful, then the Persians may have managed to place Ippias as a tyrant in Athens. I say may, because tyranny was not very popular in Athens. Sure there were supporters but in the end the democrats would have prevailed. What would happen after that is pure speculations. Perhaps history would have followed approximately the same path, but with a small delay. Perhaps, Xerxes would still attack Greece and win because the Athenians did not manage to build their fleet. Perhaps the Athenians would recover in time and manage to defeat Xerxes. Who knows.

[caesar44]

Dont forget that the rise of Rome began with the conquest of Greece, that Rome's biggest province. What would have happened if Rome had to fight against the Persians in order to make their first step into the East?

Who can tell......

The rise of rome began when they throw Phirhus out of Italy in 275 bce , and when they defeated the Punics in 241 bce , and again in 202 bce . the conquest of greece was a free tour comparing these major victories

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

The rise of rome began when they throw Phirhus out of Italy

My ex-girlfriend throw me out of Italy!

the conquest of greece was a free tour comparing these major victories

And yes I must admit it was a major victory of her!!!

[caesar44]

But your real name is not phirhus , ha ?

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

But your real name is not phirhus , ha ?

My real name is ΠΥΡΡΟΣΑΝΑΞΜΟΛΟΣΣΩΝ, "PYRROS ANAX MOLOSSON" (Pyrrhus, King of Molossians) if you can read only Latin script

[caesar44]

I meant what name your parents gave you

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

I meant what name your parents gave you

Pyrrhus, Prince of Molossians!!!
j/k
The name Pyrrhus still survive in northern Epirus (southern Albania), among the Greek minority. I suppose my compatriot BP could confirm this

[Hurin_Rules]

A Rome that had no knowledge of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, or Homer, or Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, or Stoicism, or the Pre-Socratics, or Epaminondas, or Alexander, would have been a very different and much impoverished Rome.

[Steppe Merc]

Who is to say other Iranian philosphers wouldn't have risen?

[Byzantine Prince]

Pyrrhus, Prince of Molossians!!!
j/k
The name Pyrrhus still survive in northern Epirus (southern Albania), among the Greek minority. I suppose my compatriot BP could confirm this

Piro Dima the world's weight lifting champion comes to mind. He was born in Albania like me. Then he used his greek background(and athletic skill) to immigrate to Greece. Hell I think all of Greece's weight lifting champion have come from northern epirotes.

Some thing in the water maybe. I don't know, I am very weak in muscle mass.

[English assassin]

Dont forget that the rise of Rome began with the conquest of Greece, that Rome's biggest province. What would have happened if Rome had to fight against the Persians in order to make their first step into the East?

As Ceasar says the rise of Rome really began with the first Punic war and the annexation of Sicilly as the first Roman Province.

Unless the Persian conquest of Greece had affected the rise of Rome then with no disrespect to the Greeks its hard to see it would have had much long term impact. It seems to me that even after such a conquest, history would have been back on "our" track unless the Persian conquest of Greece had somehow stopped Alexander (or really Philip) arising. If Alexander still happened then the Romans would still have had three divided post-alexandrian kingdoms to deal with in the east instead of one unified power.

That in turn would mean Persia holding onto Greece for well over 100 years and then intevening to prevent the rise of Macedonia. IMHO its far too speculative to say whether or not that is likely but my guess, and it is a pure guess, is that the Greeks would have ejected the Persians at some point long before, and therefore nothing much would be changed. Thats assuming the Persians made any attempt to stay, as opposed to looting, placing clients as rulers in the cities, taking hostages, and then retiring gratefully back to somewhere altogether more civilised.

[Watchman]

Persia wasn't exactly the stablest of empires anyway. Didn't they go through at least one full dynasty change (with all the internal troubles and rebellions involved) between Marathon and Alexander, anyway ?

And for that matter, even had they taken over Greece at some point, how's that equal total disappereance of Greek culture ? Like most empire-builders they had a rather hands-off approach to their subjects - so long as the taxes came in regularly and the laws were obeyed in general terms, the natives could do pretty much as they pleased. And when you think about it, Persian overlordship would probably have done a lot to keep the Greeks off each others' throats...

[caesar44]

Persia wasn't exactly the stablest of empires anyway. Didn't they go through at least one full dynasty change (with all the internal troubles and rebellions involved) between Marathon and Alexander, anyway ?

And for that matter, even had they taken over Greece at some point, how's that equal total disappereance of Greek culture ? Like most empire-builders they had a rather hands-off approach to their subjects - so long as the taxes came in regularly and the laws were obeyed in general terms, the natives could do pretty much as they pleased. And when you think about it, Persian overlordship would probably have done a lot to keep the Greeks off each others' throats...

It is hard to belive that Socrates , Plato , Aristotle etc' were as they were , under Persian occupation

[Watchman]

Bluntly put - why ? I don't remember the Persians having a reputation as being overly picky about what the heck their far-flung subject peoples thought up so long as they didn't cause trouble. Few empires ever did - it just wasn't worth all the trouble and rebellions.

[Steppe Merc]

What about other Iranian philisphers? Alexander certaintly liked the Persian culture a lot...
But the Persians probably wouldn't have destroyed Greek culutre. They mainly just allow their subject kingdoms to continue as they were, without destroying their culture or turning them into "Persians".

[caesar44]

You have to realise that all greek philosophy was based on the concept of absolute freedom , because of that , they went to war in 480 . I agree that the Persians were tolerants to others , but still , think about Socrates and his words under persian-oriental-monarchial rule

[Watchman]

So he'd have to drop off the anti-monarchic bits ? Wow, big deal. And it's not like the Greek philosophers were anything of an united front in the issue of freedom, nevermind now having some pretty selective ideas about it in general. Slave-using society, remember ? Ever read Platon's State or whatever it's called ? That's a bloody dystopia by modern standards...

Now look. Imperial nationalism only became the order of the day in the 1800s AD, and then only half because the rulers had to adopt it to keep in the good graces of the (more important) majority segments of their subjects. As a rule of thumb before that they could hardly have cared less so long as their subjects paid their dues and didn't try to buck their overlords; this was particularly the case with "classical" empires of the Persian/Roman/Macedonian type. Even the more religiously monolithic ones were, whatever their rhetoric, usually willing to tolerate odd religious minorities (although only rarely "heretics", however defined; sectarian squabbles being notoriously often more bitter than those between main religions).

It's not like Persian overlordship over Greece wouldn't have resulted in a history different from ours. It's just that there's no real grounds for assuming such a history would automatically have been "worse" solely because the almighty, all-important Greeks didn't get to do their thing the exact same way they actually did.

[caesar44]

So he'd have to drop off the anti-monarchic bits ? Wow, big deal. And it's not like the Greek philosophers were anything of an united front in the issue of freedom, nevermind now having some pretty selective ideas about it in general. Slave-using society, remember ? Ever read Platon's State or whatever it's called ? That's a bloody dystopia by modern standards...

Now look. Imperial nationalism only became the order of the day in the 1800s AD, and then only half because the rulers had to adopt it to keep in the good graces of the (more important) majority segments of their subjects. As a rule of thumb before that they could hardly have cared less so long as their subjects paid their dues and didn't try to buck their overlords; this was particularly the case with "classical" empires of the Persian/Roman/Macedonian type. Even the more religiously monolithic ones were, whatever their rhetoric, usually willing to tolerate odd religious minorities (although only rarely "heretics", however defined; sectarian squabbles being notoriously often more bitter than those between main religions).

It's not like Persian overlordship over Greece wouldn't have resulted in a history different from ours. It's just that there's no real grounds for assuming such a history would automatically have been "worse" solely because the almighty, all-important Greeks didn't get to do their thing the exact same way they actually did.

Freedom of the state !!! never said Democracy !!!
Read my post again
Slaves were not Citizens (what can we do...) , so they did not played a roll in the state , they were....slaves (sad thing)
Now , again , the greek philo' could write what they wrote just because greece was independent , their views came from one point , the freedom of Helas .
I have read Plato's book , he was a "Fascist" , but what that's got to do with my post ? his Ideas were about a free living society , not under persian rule...
Think about it

[Steppe Merc]

So he might have written a bit differently. Or even more strongly, to protest being part of the Persian Empire. I still think they would have written pretty much the same stuff.

[sharrukin]

It is hard to belive that Socrates , Plato , Aristotle etc' were as they were , under Persian occupation

Now , again , the greek philo' could write what they wrote just because greece was independent , their views came from one point , the freedom of Helas.

Didn't the Greeks make Socrates drink hemlock as a form of execution?

[Steppe Merc]

Perhaps under the Persians he would have lived longer, since they might have kept those quarlesome city states apart from each other...

[conon394]

Considering Socrates was 70 when he was executed, I doubt he could have lived much longer. In any case, the fact he never voluntarily left Athens kind of suggests he didn’t think he have more freedom of speech and inquiry somewhere else. His accusers were very likely not all that interested in Socrates anyway, but the fact that some of his associates had been leading figures in the brutal oligarchy imposed on Athens by Sparta after the Peloponnesian war. His trial was political revenge via proxy. Had Socrates asked for banishment as alternative to execution, the jury almost certainly would have opted for that instead.

[caesar44]

Considering Socrates was 70 when he was executed, I doubt he could have lived much longer. In any case, the fact he never voluntarily left Athens kind of suggests he didn’t think he have more freedom of speech and inquiry somewhere else. His accusers were very likely not all that interested in Socrates anyway, but the fact that some of his associates had been leading figures in the brutal oligarchy imposed on Athens by Sparta after the Peloponnesian war. His trial was political revenge via proxy. Had Socrates asked for banishment as alternative to execution, the jury almost certainly would have opted for that instead.

Agreed !
Socrates could easily escaped his death , but he choose to get killed by his beloved Athens .

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

Agreed !
Socrates could easily escaped his death , but he choose to get killed by his beloved Athens .

This is what we know from Plato's scripts. I'm pretty sure that Plato, as a student of Socrates, prettified his teacher execution, as a result of his high moral principles. See Plato's ideal society.

As for the thread's subject, I have to say that history isn't a straight line. If the Greek cities-states had fell under the persian rule, the history would follow, more or less, a different path.
Greek philosophy, reasoning and rational thinking was based on freedom, democracy and the prosperity of the cities states. Ancient greeks were traders, they have settled all over the Mediterranean Sea, and keep trading relationships with most of the ancient Mediterranean civilizations. Trade led to ideas exchanging and in combination with the weak royal or oligarchic authorities of the tiny states, gave birth to democracy. Democracy provided the philosophy and vice versa. The democratic states, managed to kept their freedom from persians and this led the states to prosper. Democracy, freedom and prosperity attracted all ancient great minds, who were able to study and exchange ideas. If this line -democracy, freedom and prosperity-
was broke, it would definitely led history on another path.
PS
See also the medieval Italian cities-states, Milan, Genoa, Venice, Siena, and Florence the medieval Athens. These state were democracies, and managed to keep their independence for centuries. They attracted all medieval great minds, gave rebirth to philosophy and reasoning, which finally led to Renaissance.

[conon394]

PyrrhusofEpirus

How exactly would you say he 'prettified" the execution?

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

PyrrhusofEpirus

How exactly would you say he 'prettified" the execution?

Actually I want to say that Plato, as a student of Socrates, prettified his teacher actions and speakings, during his trial and the time which Socrates waited to be executed. See Socrates apology. I find it too dramatic.