In light of 300 (which hasn't opened here yet), I wonder what could have happened if the Greeks had lost against the Persians? What would have happened to Rome, Carthage and Macedonia? Would we remember the good ol' times of Persia rather than Rome?


Would we have the Holy Persian Empire in Germany? :haw:

I'm not a big history buff, but (I think) Alexander the Great would have been Persian, so they might very well have been Rome before Rome. Europe might have fallen and he might have lived longer to do more.

The west might have later fought the east, and perhaps monothesim might never have worked on a large scale.

If they had survived until the Ottomans came along, it would be interesting to see how that would have changed things, as the Ottomans are the primary cause of the muslim parts of southern Europe. Maybe most of Europe would already be of Persian descent by then and the Ottoman muslims would be liberating forces. Makes you think dunnit.

Quote from: Monster ManuelThe west might have later fought the east, and perhaps monothesim might never have worked on a large scale.

Ahem. Persia until the Arab conquest was monotheist. There's a religion called Zoroastrianism which exists to this day.

Historically, the Persian Empire was greatly weakened by being smacked over by Alexander in 330 BCE. Of course, given a Persian victory in Greece in 480 BCE, that wouldn't happen. So Persia would only have to contend with the Celtic migrations and invasions in Europe around 280 BCE, and other barbarian invasions later on. I don't see it affecting Christianity or Rome, since Italy would be a bit of a far stretch for Persia.

Whether Persia would be stronger or weaker as a result of conquering Greece is harder to say. The history of great powers is that their conquests lead to an increase in military spending, making lots of enemies, and the consequent constant wars and lack of spending on domestic things weakens the heart of the empire, until it collapses from within. So a conquest of Greece could actually shorten the life of Persia, even absent the conquest of Alexander.

One key difference would be for Rome's culture, which historically stole a lot from Greece. They stole much of their writing, their art, their engineering, their gods, their ideals of republic, and their ideals of empire from Greece. A Greece smacked over by Persia would be rather less worth emulating. So Rome might be culturally weaker. Without other ideas to swipe, they might either be original, or just empty. If empty, then Carthage deals with them early on.

Zoroastrianism obviously spread pretty easily, since it went all the way to China. Whether Europeans would have been as welcoming of it is hard to say. I think, probably yes. Europeans accepted another Eastern mystic monotheistic cult, called Christianity, and when the leadership accepted and promoted it, it absorbed Greek ideas of logic and so on, and changed.

The roots of Western civilisation are in Greece. Without that, Europe becomes more "Eastern." It's very hard to imagine what that might plausibly be like.

Quote from: JimBobOzAhem. Persia until the Arab conquest was monotheist.

I guess I considered Zoroastrianism duotheistic- Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (sp?). I was aware of it though.

Quote from: Monster ManuelI guess I considered Zoroastrianism duotheistic- Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (sp?). I was aware of it though.

They don't actually worship That Other Guy He's basically Satan. He's around, and powerful - but they worship the good guy, the one who creates and all that. Yes, Christianity and Judaism stole a lot from Zoroastrianism. This is the sort of discussion we'd need RPGPundit for, it's his historical specialty. Suffice to say, the Persians were officially monotheists, though other religions in the empire flourished, and at most times were tolerated.

Now that I've read the article, I see that they consider the religion monotheistic. My mistake. I now return you to your the cool alternate history thread, already in progress.

Now that that's out of the way; JimBob, you don't think that Alexander the Great would have arisen and conquered in a Persian Greece? I personally think it would result in a fricking awesome world if he was allowed to. Of course, in scenarios like this, accuracy is usually more important than something that just sounds cool.

Quote from: Monster Manuelyou don't think that Alexander the Great would have arisen and conquered in a Persian Greece?

No, I don't think so.

Alexander was only able to go a-conquerin' because Phillip II of Macedon before him had united Macedonia, Thrace and Attica under his leadership.


The League of Cornith had been Phillip's main opposition, but he forced them to submit in 346 BCE, leaving behind only Sparta.

Alexander I of Macedon ("the Great" was Alexander III) actually submitted to the Persians when they showed up. History seems to tell us that he played both sides a bit, openly submitting to Xerxes while trying to help out the Greeks. Given a Persian victory at Salamis, the Macedon royal family would have been subject-kings of the Persians. They could not plausibly build an empire without unifying Greece first, since you need wealth and manpower to go tramping off invading places.

To unify Greece under Macedonian leadership would require that the southern city-states rebel against Persian rule, and it be reimposed by a Macedonian army (a good possibility, that's the sort of thing that your subject-kings are supposed to do for you, smack over other rebellious subjects), and the Persians in gratitude hand leadership of all Greece to Macedon. With Greece theirs, the Macedonians might then rebel against Persia, and so you get your Alexander the Great as you wish.

Alternately Macedon just plain out rebels against Persia, and the Greek city-states don't help Persia, and the rebellion succeeds because the Persians don't think it worth the trouble to keep the area, or else are busy somewhere else, perhaps in the east. Then the Greek city-states might seek to join with Macedon.

Of course if Macedon becomes Persianised, then Phillip II and Alexander III could become a sort of Hannibal to a Persian Carthage, Generals on the far reaches of the empire who go and cause trouble with their neighbours and drag the whole empire into war. This might in fact be with Carthage; having Greece might make the Persians more interested in sea travel and trade, and Mediterranean colonies; this is what brought Carthage and Rome into conflict, after all.

Quote from: JimBobOzHistorically, the Persian Empire was greatly weakened by being smacked over by Alexander in 330 BCE. Of course, given a Persian victory in Greece in 480 BCE, that wouldn't happen.

One thing for sure, Macedonia would been influenced more by Persia than by the Greeks. Imagine Alexander or his father as satraps, conquering Central Europe for Darius.

QuoteSo Persia would only have to contend with the Celtic migrations and invasions in Europe around 280 BCE, and other barbarian invasions later on. I don't see it affecting Christianity or Rome, since Italy would be a bit of a far stretch for Persia.

I think Christianity as we know it would not exist. It depends a lot on the Roman Empire's treatment of the Jews and foreign religions, from its origins to its spread across the Mediterranean.

QuoteOne key difference would be for Rome's culture, which historically stole a lot from Greece. They stole much of their writing, their art, their engineering, their gods, their ideals of republic, and their ideals of empire from Greece. A Greece smacked over by Persia would be rather less worth emulating. So Rome might be culturally weaker. Without other ideas to swipe, they might either be original, or just empty. If empty, then Carthage deals with them early on.

Something to remember is that, if victorious, the Persians could add the remaining Greek military to their forces. Once in control of Greece, the combined fleet could make a jump to Magna Grecia (Southern Italy) and Sicily. The Romans wouldn't stand a chance.

QuoteThe roots of Western civilisation are in Greece. Without that, Europe becomes more "Eastern." It's very hard to imagine what that might plausibly be like.

Hannibal, Defender of Carthage against the Persians! :keke:

Or not.

Playing Hannibal's army vs. the Greco-Persian army would be so badass.

back on Zorasterism: Zorastor himself never preached anything about 'The other Guy'... that was a comparatively late add on to the faith from 'peasant superstitions' and a relic of previous religious beliefs. In its undiluted original form Zorasterism is very much monotheistic.  

Back to the topic: was Xerxes even a Zoarsterite?  I understand that he had something of a GodKing mentality, but I could be mixing my Media with my History for that one. :confused:

Quote from: SpikeBack to the topic: was Xerxes even a Zoarsterite?  I understand that he had something of a GodKing mentality, but I could be mixing my Media with my History for that one. :confused:

Xerxes, like most "great leaders" worshipped himself more than any actual god  Nonetheless, Zoroastrianism was effectively the religion of the state at that time. Under his successor Artaxerxes I, it became the official religion of the state, and the calendar was established which is used by Zoroastrians to this day. You may want to have a look at the wikipedia article about the Achaemenid dynasty (Xerxes' family), which is a not bad summary of the times.

Persia had a variety of conflicting religions, all sorts of weird eastern decadence, including Kings worshipped as Gods (thats why the Romans mistrusted them so much) and yes, they were majoritarily Zoroastrians. And Zoroastrianism is considered to be firmly rooted in the "monotheist" Camp.

But there was always a crossroad of influences in persia, including (slightly later) a unique brand of persian Buddhism that combined Buddhism with Greek and Persian mythology.

RPGpundit