Marathon reversed

[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...