Are there any one of the Greek city-states which can pull off what Rome did in OTL? And what are the best PODs for it to happen?
PC: Greek city-states pulling a Rome
- Thread starter The Forty-Eighth Rōnin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- city-state empire greek rome
He did specified city-states, and not ethnic states tough.
I think the city that had the best chances to pull a Rome, although within Greek social-institutional features (meaning not a Roman Empire look-alike), was the Athenian-led League of Delos. Athens basically ended up as one of the stronger hegemons of the pre-Hellenistic history, and with a Spartan defeat (Sparta never really had both the political mindset and the strategical projection to be a viable hegemon, and it required Persians subsides to make it so for a longer time), and a sound political ground, Athens could really dominate a large part of the Aegean Sea and uses it as a starting ground.
The main obstacles would certainly be the really independent mind-set of the Greek city-states and their fierce refusal of a lasting hegemon, something that would be fueled by Persian subsides that would clearly see the danger of a too powerful Greek hegemony, as IOTL. Another issue would be Greek war philosophy : Rome never really hesitated to crush a city up to destroying it, as for Carthage. But Greek and Hellenistic warfare was more about cutting down polities and making them either nonthreatening, or subservient (you do have exceptions, as Alexander utterly plundering Thebes, but they are remarkable because of their relative rarity). Athens as a victorious hegemon would probably require some really shocking action for "neutral" Greeks and its foes alike, risking a stronger coalition against them.
But with an important crisis in the Achemenid Empire, and some good leadership it's technically possible IMO to see Athens arising as the lead of a de-facto confederation that it would led.
What about Syracuse? Unfortunately I don't know a lot about this period, but it is my understanding that Syracuse at its height was a considerable force. If it would be able to consolidate and keep a string of successful tyrants it might be able to pull it off.
Starting points for such a pod could either be the first tyrant dynasty of the Deinomenids Dynasty.
Gelon I being a very interesting figure (IMO) a change could be a succesion of Gelon's sons (unsure if he had any.) instead of his younger brothers (first Heiro I, and later Thrasybulus which was deposed)
the other option would likely be the second tyrant dynasty of the Dionysii Dynasty
Unlike Gelon I, the founder of the Dionysii dynasty: Dionysius the Elder managed to hand over the the throne to his son, though said son, Dionysius the younger was not taught how to rule, and was eventually exiled by his uncle and a series of advicers became tyrants in succesion until Dionysius regained power 10 years after he was exiled. but that was not to last.
I think using a pod of either Gelon I (being my favourite for some reason) or Dionysius the Elder could lead to something akin to a hegemony.
Starting points for such a pod could either be the first tyrant dynasty of the Deinomenids Dynasty.
Gelon I being a very interesting figure (IMO) a change could be a succesion of Gelon's sons (unsure if he had any.) instead of his younger brothers (first Heiro I, and later Thrasybulus which was deposed)
the other option would likely be the second tyrant dynasty of the Dionysii Dynasty
Unlike Gelon I, the founder of the Dionysii dynasty: Dionysius the Elder managed to hand over the the throne to his son, though said son, Dionysius the younger was not taught how to rule, and was eventually exiled by his uncle and a series of advicers became tyrants in succesion until Dionysius regained power 10 years after he was exiled. but that was not to last.
I think using a pod of either Gelon I (being my favourite for some reason) or Dionysius the Elder could lead to something akin to a hegemony.
Hecatee
Donor
The Greek mindset is the main issue here, especially on the topic of citizenship. Rome was incredibly inclusive for the period, and Greek cities incredibly not. The situation was less dire in Sicily, and one could see an independent unified Sicily under Syracuse, and maybe going for a limited thalassocracy over the western Med', but the island does not have enough manpower or resources (wood for ships, ...) for much more.
In the mainland one of the big advantages of Athens was that it was midway to almost everywhere. Should it expend its direct control over the Isthmus and Boeotia then it should be able to hold on all of Greece and project power through its fleet, but the Persians are still there and seem impossible to beat in a decisive, Alexander-like way : maybe localized defeats in Egypt (but the region won't stand against new invasions and won't stay Greek) and Cyprus, but impossible to take Anatolia or Phoenicia and hold it. In the West Athens is on the wrong side to project its power (despite OTL Sicily's invasion) and would have a difficult time taking Italy... Also given its view on citizenship Athens would soon lack citizens for clerouchia (citizens' colonies) and without clerouchia would have no way to maintain power over the land it took...
In the mainland one of the big advantages of Athens was that it was midway to almost everywhere. Should it expend its direct control over the Isthmus and Boeotia then it should be able to hold on all of Greece and project power through its fleet, but the Persians are still there and seem impossible to beat in a decisive, Alexander-like way : maybe localized defeats in Egypt (but the region won't stand against new invasions and won't stay Greek) and Cyprus, but impossible to take Anatolia or Phoenicia and hold it. In the West Athens is on the wrong side to project its power (despite OTL Sicily's invasion) and would have a difficult time taking Italy... Also given its view on citizenship Athens would soon lack citizens for clerouchia (citizens' colonies) and without clerouchia would have no way to maintain power over the land it took...
I'm deffo on Team Athens for this. Whilst there are other options (Pherae for example), but Athens could likely survive if they could replace Alcibiades with a Reformer of some sort, limiting the size of the Syracuse Expedition, which can instead be directed to efforts in Greece itself.
Without the Syracuse disaster, you're less likely to see the post-expedition dogpile, potentially even a move to capture Corinth and effectively split their opponents into 3 parts in the Peloponnese, Boetia and Macedonia, where their naval dominance combined with fortification should allow them to deal with the three of them one at a time.
It still needs reform, perhaps Athens is the host of representatives for the leading cities of each District, which get 80% of the district contribution, with 20% going to Athens, who can have some powers if they can achieve unanimity within themselves, but Athens with a Boetian and Argolid District added to the Empire, and some reforms to stop angering their subject cities has a good chance IMO of dominating entirely, even becoming the alternative to Macedonia (which itself could become a district in time). That way the districts have had the idea of being stripped for cash addressed somewhat, and if Athens is ignoring the districts, they have a way to change this without resorting to war.
Without the Syracuse disaster, you're less likely to see the post-expedition dogpile, potentially even a move to capture Corinth and effectively split their opponents into 3 parts in the Peloponnese, Boetia and Macedonia, where their naval dominance combined with fortification should allow them to deal with the three of them one at a time.
It still needs reform, perhaps Athens is the host of representatives for the leading cities of each District, which get 80% of the district contribution, with 20% going to Athens, who can have some powers if they can achieve unanimity within themselves, but Athens with a Boetian and Argolid District added to the Empire, and some reforms to stop angering their subject cities has a good chance IMO of dominating entirely, even becoming the alternative to Macedonia (which itself could become a district in time). That way the districts have had the idea of being stripped for cash addressed somewhat, and if Athens is ignoring the districts, they have a way to change this without resorting to war.
How would a continued Athenian hegemony fare against Macedonia? It'll be the first big challenge for Athens.
Macedonia, with an Athenian hegemony being set up in the Vth/early IVth century isn't this much of an issue. You'd certainly have a conflict with Macedonia about Chalcidice at some point, but maybe not immediatly : in fact, Macedonia could rather be, as a peripheral part of the Greek world, as much as a temporary ally for Athens than its foes as it was IOTL during the Pelopponesian War.
Nay, the real challenge for Arhens would be to fend off Persian dominance, less military-wise (at least directly) than Persians funding anti-Athenians coalitions with the monetary restraint of a drunk business man in a strip club.
All of the Greek states in those days were city states, though.
Maybe a Greek city state outside the Greek peninsula could do so? Does that count?
I know we're looking at Modern Romania for this, but in theory Athens could simply say "Ok, keep the money they gave you, just stay" Legalise the acceptance of bribes from foreign states, so long that they don't act on the money. Maybe ask for a 5% cut.
On one hand it discourages Persia because "Athens may just keep it all", and is complete leniency by Athens to its member cities, especially the peripheral ones who can become VERY rich taking Persian gold for inaction.
Athens still needs to make it more worthwhile to face Persia in battle rather than joining them for gold, but at least this way the potential of foreign-backed rebellion is reduced.
Most of North-Western Greece was structurated along ethnic states : Macedonia, of course, but also Thessalia, Aetolia, Epirus...
I was rather thinking about how Persia funded external foes of Greek hegemons : Sparta against Athens, Athens and Thebes against Sparta, etc. Not unlike Britain throw its money to anyone remotely hostile to Nappie.
I'm not sure the money was thrown at states, but rather at persons or factions. Which makes less possible a cut on rebellious parties and personalities, IMO.
Not that the "normalisation" of bribes and popular redistribution isn't a good idea (I could see it being barely disguised as "spoils of war that we didn't needed to get at war to spoil") : it's basically what existed at Carthage or in Gaul, but it really favoured factionalism, and would certainly give Persia a huge influence on Athenian politics, something that may go in the sense of an Athenian "imperium".
I think it might oddly be beneficial for Athens in the long run. The idea of Persia influencing Athens, or being able to, could well be seen as preferable to having to go to war. It isn't a bad place for a satellite state of Persia, and if Athens recognises this, then it could go a long way to building a working relationship, if potentially friendly (but I wouldn't count on that).
What it does though, is it gives Athens TIME. Time to unify the greeks into the Greeks. Time to get wealthier through trade, continuing the colonial war with Phoenicia, conquer Sicily whilst Athens has no immediate rivals, etc.
Plus, it isn't implausible to have more "The Ten Thousands" in this scenario. There is nothing ideological or political that prevents Athenians/Greeks from working as mercenaries in Persia. Heavy Infantry is something the Athenians now have (it may not be Spartiates, but its still Hoplites - who still have a leg up on light infantry in close quarters.)
I'm not sure what would break the working relationship - Persia seeking to outright command Athens, Athens interfering in Persia, backing the wrong side in a civil war, or flat out animosity emerging, but it could be interesting to see Athens use Persian gold to unite Greece independently.
Grey Wolf
Donor
I'd forgotten about them. They would have to decide what to do about the Gauls - do they try to conquer them, or to assimilate them [as allies?] or is there a third choice?
Well, they did, in the form of Celto-Ligurian coalitions.
Most of the coastal control Massalia directly had in Gaul reached its apogee in the Vth century BC, thanks to a network of outposts and small establishments (most of them probably indigenous) as Rhoudanousia and Thélinè (Arles). It formed an ensemble called Poleis Massalias (the cities of Massalia) which were less a chora than a political network dominated by Massalia and made of the city, its immediate phouroi and establishment, and surrounding indigenous (allies or submitted).
Essentially, it was lost in the IVth and IIIrd centuries, due to Celtic and Celto-Ligurian recover and advance on the hinterland (notable Salues, Cauares and Volcae), limiting Massalia to a coastal band (and by drawing a continuous coastal control of Massalian influence, not control, I choose to take the maximalist approach even if it's not implausible). It is possible that some changes are to be tied to Carthaginian presences with Hannibal and his Gaul allies before crossing the Alps.
It doesn't help that Massalia only had a faint dominance on most of the phocean cities : mostly on religious features (Massalia being the new Phocea) or economical. Some phocean cities as Emporion seems to have been essentially independent from the network.
In addition to Celtic and Celto-Ligurian pressure (a very, very real one, as it forced Massalia to invite Rome in Gaul), you had the obvious Carthagian presence that wouldn't have looked kindly on a Massaliote dominance in Gaul (one could make the supposition that the peoples of the Elisuces were more or less tied to Carthage, hence why some of their oppidum were burned down in the late IIIrd century, and remaining ones apparently passing under Volcae dominance)
The third choice being how to manage to survive as a relevant political power in Gaul, without calling Rome to help and before going in a conquering rampagne, how to hold Celto-Ligurian advance.
Considering the success of the Greek cities before Rome was even an idea perhaps it ought to be called pulling a Greece.
Well, you did have the idea of a roughly unified hellenic bodies, but it was more a cultural and political concept than geopolitical : its borders were blurry at best (sometimes it included Thessalia or even Macedonia, sometimes Beotia was its northern limit or even excluded)
. Eventually, it depended, to be greek, to participate in pan-hellenic assemblies and events : games, Delphi, a display of common ancestry (pretty much the case for colonies).
EDIT : Sorry, I read your post completly wrong, as "did Greeks had an idea of Greece". No idea why.
