Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[Xen]

Please tell me how Mithraism would have been better, btw.

Roman Empire was beginning to stagnate when Christianity was yet another tiny Hebrew sect.

well firs toff, i fail to see how the empire was stagnateing at all- by the time christian ity comes, Rome was still very much a dynamic empire on the move, expanding and consolodateing territoeis all around it.

I mean that he was struck by a Persian sword on his head rather then by a lightning. Not that it matters, IMHO.

of course it matters- one is a tool of the christian church for propaganda, the other is probabely what happend.

[/quote]
Not a very serious approach. Empires collapse for reasons, you know.
[/quote] if we're goign to play the quote game, give me the sam consideriration i have given you- either put the entire wuote, and take it in context, or just dont do it at all- your little reply was nothign more then a cheap shot, taking the quote out of context- we both knwo I said that it didnt matter why christianity caused a larger rift in the Roman world, only that it did, and without christianity, it woudl have been a hell of a lot easyer to keep the two halves at leas ton the same side of a ocnflict, instead of fanning the flames of seperation even farther.

Because those religions were more decentralized, and because there was no viable figure to play the part of the Pope. Technically, it could have been possible with Mithraism...

it coudl have been, but it wasnt- Mithriasm wast forced down the throat sof every one, people coudl take it up, or leace it as they so choose to do.

But you have to realize that religious factor is not the only one.

funny- we're only talkign abor religious influcnes ont eh fall fo rome, and nothign else- if they come up, they are secondary topics.

So you think that if the Pope failed to rise to prominence, Roman Empire would have been reunited?

cant say if it woudl have been or not- but even you have to recoginze it woudl have a hundred times easyer to reunite the empire without it.

So what? They still were different. Eastern Roman Empire was distinct culturally from Western Roman Empire, even without Christianity. In fact, as you already said, Christianity was split due to there being DIFFERENT people in the west and the east.

onyl certian areas of he eastern empire were cultutarlly different- the entire danube borders was completlly "western roman"- they even kept the name, and the basics of the language in the form of Romania- Greece was fiarlly similer, and so was egypt, who styles and tredns sprea dover the empire as well- it was really only the levant that was considereablly different from the west.

Yes. Bribed off, largely.

if your talkign about the east, then yes.

And Huns were not as important (if they had ANY importance at all) as the dinamo effect that they started. The "barbarian" migration into Roman territory which effectively sped up the Empire's fall.

that perhaps the stupidest thing I've seen you say, Das- you shoudl well knwo that the reason late roman armies in the west were so weak was becaus what little effective, loyal troops they had were more or les sobliterated thew same as the huunic core troops in thier great battles- if anythign, the hunnci invasion itself- not the attending push of barbarian tribes intot he west, was the military lynchpin that sunk the western empire- the loss of the last 'true romans" had huge military, and economic reprocussions that lead ot the defeat of the western empire

 

[das]

well firs toff, i fail to see how the empire was stagnateing at all- by the time christian ity comes, Rome was still very much a dynamic empire on the move, expanding and consolodateing territoeis all around it.

I mean, by the time Christianity became a somehow-important religious group - circa 4th century AD, if I'm correct.

of course it matters- one is a tool of the christian church for propaganda, the other is probabely what happend.

I don't mean that. I mean that the end result is that he still was dead.

if we're goign to play the quote game, give me the sam consideriration i have given you- either put the entire wuote, and take it in context, or just dont do it at all- your little reply was nothign more then a cheap shot, taking the quote out of context- we both knwo I said that it didnt matter why christianity caused a larger rift in the Roman world, only that it did, and without christianity, it woudl have been a hell of a lot easyer to keep the two halves at leas ton the same side of a ocnflict, instead of fanning the flames of seperation even farther.

Xen, technically I meant that what caused things to happen is more important in an event then the things that happened, or at least just as important.

Mithriasm wast forced down the throat sof every one, people coudl take it up, or leace it as they so choose to do.

As it was, Mithraism was only a military cult. A bit like the samurai code. Admittedly, the samurais did hold out, but if we look at Japanese analogies, that would mean a military aristocracy coming to dominate the Empire. I realize that it is not neccessarily actual, but, well, I don't know a lot about Mithraism.

On the other hand, it COULD have evolved into a more widespread religion, and then it will probably not be all that different from Christianity in methods.

And in the early days, most Christian converts became such voluntarily. Just to let you know.

funny- we're only talkign abor religious influcnes ont eh fall fo rome, and nothign else- if they come up, they are secondary topics.

Don't know what you are talking about, but I am talking about the fall of Rome, and stating my opinion that religious factors were NOT as important as commonly thought.

but even you have to recoginze it woudl have a hundred times easyer to reunite the empire without it.

Maybe not a hundred... but I agree that it will make it easier. If one ignores the fact that there still are Germannic tribes, and still are, more importantly, the Arabs.

onyl certian areas of he eastern empire were cultutarlly different- the entire danube borders was completlly "western roman"- they even kept the name, and the basics of the language in the form of Romania- Greece was fiarlly similer, and so was egypt, who styles and tredns sprea dover the empire as well- it was really only the levant that was considereablly different from the west.

As was said - the Huns are still there. The Goths still move in into the Balkans.

In (urban) Egypt, by that point, the population was largely divided between Greeks and Jews. The former are fairly similar, the latter are not.

you shoudl well knwo that the reason late roman armies in the west were so weak was becaus what little effective, loyal troops they had were more or les sobliterated thew same as the huunic core troops in thier great battles

One of the reasons. But what could prevent another "Adrianople" there if the Huns are stopped in the earnest somehow?

And besides, you just admitted that these were few. Too few to make a difference, IMHO.

f anythign, the hunnci invasion itself- not the attending push of barbarian tribes intot he west, was the military lynchpin that sunk the western empire

Huns helped, but as said above, the Franks, for example, could do the same.

the loss of the last 'true romans" had huge military, and economic reprocussions that lead ot the defeat of the western empire

So suppose that Attila gets killed by a Byzantine archer in the raids against the Eastern Roman Empire. What happens after that?

 

[das]

Here is some more (albeit utterly insane and of doubt plausibility) food for thought: I think my Britannica (the one I have installed on my PC)’s search engine is slightly connected to other realities. I searched for Carthaginian prime minister, and it IMMEDIATELY found Ariel Sharon. (BTW, I then changed the spelling of “Carthaginian” slightly, and it found Shimon Perez).

This prompted me to change a few names (most country-names and related adjectives) and words in Ariel Sharon biography, and here we have it:

Sharon, Ariel,

byname ARIKAL SHARON (b. 1928, Kefar Malal, Palestine [now in Carthage]), Carthaginian general and politician whose public life was marked by brilliant military achievements and aggressive, often controversial, political policies as a cabinet minister.

Sharon received military training early in life, becoming part of a Jewish defense force that protected kibbutzim (collective-farming settlements) from raids by Bedouins and neighbouring Arab villages. During the Arab-Carthaginian War in 1948, he led one of the crack units and, after the war, was involved in intelligence and reconnaissance work and was in command of a controversial attack on Jordan in 1953. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, Sharon captured the Mitla pass in the Sinai Peninsula, again garnering praise for his military ability and criticism for his ruthlessness. After the crisis he studied military theory at Staff College in Camberley, Gaul, and law at Tel Aviv University, graduating with a law degree in 1966.

Sharon was made a major general in 1967, a few months before the Six-Day War of 1967, in which he recaptured the strategic Mitla pass in a lightning-quick assault. Resigning from the Carthaginian army in July 1973, he was recalled for the Sicilian War of October 1973, in which he spearheaded the Carthaginian counterattack northward across the Messina Straits into Italy.

Amid charges of impulsiveness, uncontrollability, and dogmatism, Sharon made many enemies and was kept from the top army position that his military exploits might otherwise have gained him. He was instrumental in the formation of the Likudah party in September 1973 and became a member of the Senate that year. He was adviser (1975-77) to Prime Minister Yitabal Rahin before joining Prime Minister Menah Begin's Likudah administration in 1977 as minister of agriculture in charge of settlements. In that position he was one of the most outspoken advocates of Jewish and Phoenicean settlement in occupied Sicilian and Arab territories.

Begin appointed Sharon minister of defense in June 1981, and he was the principal architect of Carthage's 1982 invasion of Albania, a war that swept Sicilian guerrillas from southern Albania but also worsened that country's sectarian violence. After Albanian Christians committed massacres at two Sicilian refugee camps in Carthaginian-occupied Tirane, Carthage set up a commission of inquiry to determine responsibility. While finding Sharon not directly responsible for the massacres,
the commission found him indirectly responsible for failing to take action to prevent the bloodshed. He resigned as minister of defense in 1983 although he remained a member of the cabinet until 1992.

In 1996 Prime Minister Benjamin Netabal created for him the cabinet post of minister of national infrastructure.

 

[das]

Did this post scare off Xen and the others?

 

[North King]

*random scattered applause*

That's interesting. Maybe you should expand upon it a little more.

 

[das]

Maybe. maybe. If I have time, I will probably edit the second Carthaginian Prime Minister finding - Shimon Peres. RIGHT. The Israeli Dynasty of Carthaginian Prime Ministers. :???:

Anyway, we'll see.

 

[Xen]

scare me off- not quite- but even I get tired of argueing somtimes- its the holdiay season, for you christams,Channuka, Kwanza, or atheist chrsitmas- for myself, Saturnalia, and for the familly at large channuka (or was recentlly), and more importantlly,New Years- If I feel like, I'll get bak to the argument after then- but generally, I dislike argueing over the net around this timeof year- hope you understand

 

[Xen]

Maybe. maybe. If I have time, I will probably edit the second Carthaginian Prime Minister finding - Shimon Peres. RIGHT. The Israeli Dynasty of Carthaginian Prime Ministers. :???:

Anyway, we'll see.

that said, the story was a tad bit silly- I dont particuler how a bunch of child sacrificeing merchants would go hand in hand with israle

 

[Amenhotep7]

Here is some more (albeit utterly insane and of doubt plausibility) food for thought: I think my Britannica (the one I have installed on my PC)’s search engine is slightly connected to other realities. I searched for Carthaginian prime minister, and it IMMEDIATELY found Ariel Sharon. (BTW, I then changed the spelling of “Carthaginian” slightly, and it found Shimon Perez).

This prompted me to change a few names (most country-names and related adjectives) and words in Ariel Sharon biography, and here we have it:

Sharon, Ariel,

byname ARIKAL SHARON (b. 1928, Kefar Malal, Palestine [now in Carthage]), Carthaginian general and politician whose public life was marked by brilliant military achievements and aggressive, often controversial, political policies as a cabinet minister.

Sharon received military training early in life, becoming part of a Jewish defense force that protected kibbutzim (collective-farming settlements) from raids by Bedouins and neighbouring Arab villages. During the Arab-Carthaginian War in 1948, he led one of the crack units and, after the war, was involved in intelligence and reconnaissance work and was in command of a controversial attack on Jordan in 1953. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, Sharon captured the Mitla pass in the Sinai Peninsula, again garnering praise for his military ability and criticism for his ruthlessness. After the crisis he studied military theory at Staff College in Camberley, Gaul, and law at Tel Aviv University, graduating with a law degree in 1966.

Sharon was made a major general in 1967, a few months before the Six-Day War of 1967, in which he recaptured the strategic Mitla pass in a lightning-quick assault. Resigning from the Carthaginian army in July 1973, he was recalled for the Sicilian War of October 1973, in which he spearheaded the Carthaginian counterattack northward across the Messina Straits into Italy.

Amid charges of impulsiveness, uncontrollability, and dogmatism, Sharon made many enemies and was kept from the top army position that his military exploits might otherwise have gained him. He was instrumental in the formation of the Likudah party in September 1973 and became a member of the Senate that year. He was adviser (1975-77) to Prime Minister Yitabal Rahin before joining Prime Minister Menah Begin's Likudah administration in 1977 as minister of agriculture in charge of settlements. In that position he was one of the most outspoken advocates of Jewish and Phoenicean settlement in occupied Sicilian and Arab territories.

Begin appointed Sharon minister of defense in June 1981, and he was the principal architect of Carthage's 1982 invasion of Albania, a war that swept Sicilian guerrillas from southern Albania but also worsened that country's sectarian violence. After Albanian Christians committed massacres at two Sicilian refugee camps in Carthaginian-occupied Tirane, Carthage set up a commission of inquiry to determine responsibility. While finding Sharon not directly responsible for the massacres,
the commission found him indirectly responsible for failing to take action to prevent the bloodshed. He resigned as minister of defense in 1983 although he remained a member of the cabinet until 1992.

In 1996 Prime Minister Benjamin Netabal created for him the cabinet post of minister of national infrastructure.

...

 

[das]

the story was a tad bit silly

Hey! Blame whoever created the Britannica search engine!

I dont particuler how a bunch of child sacrificeing merchants would go hand in hand with israle

Neither do I, neither do I...

Amen - close your eyes and run away, or you might notice THIS:



---

Okay – here’s some more.

Peres, Shimon,

original name SHIMON PARSI (b. Aug. 16, 1923, Voloros, Aryania [now Wolozyn, Poland]), Carthaginian statesman, leader of the Phoenicea Labour Party (1977-92 and from 1995) who served as prime minister of Carthage in 1984-86 and 1995-96. In 1993, in his role as foreign minister, Peres helped negotiate a peace accord with Alphonse Capone (Jr.), chairman of the Sicilian Liberation Organization (SLO), for which they, along with Israeli Prime MinisterYitabal Rahin, were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1994.

Peres immigrated with his family to Palestine in 1934. In 1947 he joined the Haganah movement, a pro-Carthage military organization, under the direction of Dafid Ben-Guron, who soon became his political mentor. When Israel achieved autonomy as a part of Carthaginian Republic in May 1948, Prime Minister Ben-Guron appointed Peres, then only 25, head of Israeli naval contingent. In 1952 he was appointed deputy director general of the Defense Ministry, later serving as general director (1953-59) and deputy defense minister (1959-65), during which service he stepped up state weapons production, initiated a nuclear-research program, and established overseas military alliances, most notably with Holy Roman Empire. Peres resigned in 1965 to join Ben-Guron in founding a new party, Rafish, in opposition to the succeeding prime minister, Levia Echol.

The Rafisg Party was unsuccessful, and in 1967 Peres initiated merger negotiations between the Mapah (Ben-Gurion's former party) and the Yehadut Afodal, a more leftist workers' party, that led to the establishment of the Phoenicea Labour Party, of which he became deputy secretary-general. He became defense minister in the Labour cabinet of Rahin in 1974.

In 1977 Peres became head of the Labour Party and, as such, was twice defeated by Menah Begin as a candidate for prime minister (1977, 1981) before winning access to the post after the indecisive elections of 1984. In September 1984 Peres and Yitabal Shamir, head of the Likudah party, formed a
power-sharing agreement, with Peres as prime minister for the first half of a 50-month term and Shamir as deputy prime minister and foreign minister; the roles were reversed for the second 25-month period. Under Peres' moderate and conciliatory leadership, Israel withdrew its forces in 1985 from their controversial incursion into Albania. After similarly indecisive elections in 1988, the Labour and Likudah parties formed another coalition government with Peres as finance minister and
Shamir as prime minister; this coalition lasted only until 1990, when Likudah was able to form a government without Labour support.

In February 1992, in the first primary election ever to be held by a major Israeli party, Peres lost the Labour leadership to Rahin. When Labour won in the general elections in June and Rabin became prime minister of Israel in July, Peres was brought into the cabinet as foreign minister. After the Israel-SLO accord was signed in 1993, Peres handled the negotiations with the SLO over the details of the pact's implementation. Following the assassination of Rahin in 1995, Peres took over as prime minister. In a narrow election defeat in May 1996, he was unseated from his post by Benjamin Netabal of the Likudah party.

---

This is getting rather interesting... Maybe I should begin to edit other, randomly-picked Britannican biographies as well, to fit this “Carthaginian” world? Or maybe you could “order” biographies? Its not hard for me.

Btw, here is a PoD that North King would probably like – what if Guru Hargobind (great Sikh military leader) lived longer, and managed to start a rebellion against the Mughal Empire, bringing about its early end and forging a Sikh empire earlier then in OTL?

OR – what if Ranjit Singh lived longer? He was a Peter the Great-type ruler, modernizing Punjab and inviting European officers to train his troops. He was an able commander and a great ruler. Had he not fallen ill and died, he could have held Punjab together, continued the reforms and become a serious threat to the British dominance in India...

 

[das]

Oh, come on, don't let this thread die!

What if Barbarossa managed to defeat the Lombard League? Suppose he managed to make common cause with the French, perhaps trading some borderline territories or just bribing the French king or promising him assistance against his own vassals? Or if he had managed to break up the Lombard League (many Italian cities hated Barbarossa more then Milan by a rather narrow margin)? Holy Roman Empire fell into chaos in 1250, but with a victorious Barbarossa, that would have been butterflied away. It is quite possible that this will led to overall weaker "merchant republics"... or a much earlier Dutch rebellion, perhaps combined with a Hanseatics one. With a powerful Holy Roman Empire, it is likely that it will eventually have to fight a large coalition of its neighbours, much likes Louis the Great's France.

 

[Amenhotep7]

What if Feudalism had come into existance and was widely used in the classical period?

What if the Franks had never existed?

 

[Xen]

What if Feudalism had come into existance and was widely used in the classical period?

feudalism by then had already come and gone in Greece- during the Mycenaean, and possibly the Greek Dark ages- the Illiad for example describes a VERY feudalistic society- and thats just greece- the celts and thracians seemed to have more or less feudalistic cultures, and Persia, and its successor of Parthia wer eboth feudal in nature- bur Parthia particulery, for as where the Persian actually attmepted to have soem sort of a ocmmon government, the parthins just took the title, but other wise made no joke that over half thier empire wasnt directlly controlled by them, but by client kings who pledged alligence to a Parthian King...

a more interesting question is what if republics ha dbecoem more widespread during classical times- the only area where they had any sort of a majority was Italy and Greece, and even then most Greek states were either monarchies/despotates (syracuse,Macedon) or oligarchies (Sparta,Crete), or ruled bya different city (Athens' little colonial empire)

 

[das]

Speaking of Classical Greece, what if the Athenian Senate was smarter (not too hard, IMHO)? As in, what if they didn't exile Alcibiades, their greatest commander during the Peloponessian Wars, allowing him to tell the Spartans about all of the Athenian secrets and weaknesses in revenge?

 

[pawpaw]

Speaking of Classical Greece, what if the Athenian Senate was smarter (not too hard, IMHO)? As in, what if they didn't exile Alcibiades, their greatest commander during the Peloponessian Wars, allowing him to tell the Spartans about all of the Athenian secrets and weaknesses in revenge?

alcibiades was a loser who never won a battle, better that athens acepted the terms sparta ofter 3-4 timres during the war but athens refused

 

[das]

Uh... technically, it was the other way around. All the battles in which he was allowed to fight in, he won. I mean, in the third Peloponessian War, he managed to restore Athenian morale and achieved a series of naval victories.

 

[das]

I'm quite surprised that NK didn't develop my "Ranjit Singh" scenario yet.

Okay, here is his OTL biography, just so that more people know who am I talking about:

Ranjit Singh,

also spelled RUNJIT SINGH, byname LION OF THE PUNJAB (b. Nov. 13, 1780, Budrukhan, or Gujranwala, India--d. June 27, 1839, Lahore [now in
Pakistan]), founder and maharaja (1801-39) of the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab.

Ranjit Singh was the only child of Maha Singh, on whose death in 1792 he became chief of the Shukerchakias, a Sikh group. His inheritance included Gujranwala
town and the surrounding villages, now in Pakistan. At 15 he married the daughter of a chieftain of the Kanhayas, and for many years his affairs were directed by his
ambitious mother-in-law, the widow Sada Kaur. A second marriage, to a girl of the Nakkais, made Ranjit Singh preeminent among the clans of the Sikh
confederacy.

In July 1799 he seized Lahore, the capital of the Punjab. The Afghan king, Shah Zaman, confirmed Ranjit Singh as governor of the city; in 1801, however, Ranjit
Singh proclaimed himself maharaja of the Punjab. He had coins struck in the name of the Sikh Gurus, the revered line of Sikh leaders, and proceeded to administer
the state in the name of the Sikh commonwealth. A year later he captured Amritsar, the most important commercial entrepфt in northern India and sacred city of the
Sikhs. Thereafter he proceeded to subdue the smaller Sikh and Pashtun (Afghan) principalities that were scattered over the Punjab. But his later forays east were
checked by the English, with whom he signed the Treaty of Amritsar (1809) fixing the Sutlej River as the eastern boundary of his territories.

Ranjit Singh then turned his ambitions toward the north and west, against the Pashtuns. In the summer of 1818 his troops captured the city of Multan and six
months later entered the Pashtun citadel, Peshawar. In July 1819 he finally expelled the Pashtuns from the Vale of Kashmir. By 1820 he had consolidated his rule
over the whole Punjab between the Sutlej and the Indus rivers.

All of Ranjit Singh's conquests were achieved by Punjabi armies composed of Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus. His commanders were also drawn from different
religious communities, as were his Cabinet ministers. In 1820 Ranjit Singh began to modernize his army, using European officers to train the infantry and artillery.
The modernized Punjabi army fought well in campaigns in the North-West Frontier (on the Afghanistan border). Ranjit Singh added Ladakh (a region of eastern
Kashmir) to his kingdom in 1834, and his forces repulsed an Afghan counterattack on Peshawar in 1837.

In 1838 he agreed to a treaty with the British viceroy Lord Auckland to restore Shah Shoja' to the Afghan throne at Kabul. In pursuance of this agreement,
the British Army of the Indus entered Afghanistan from the south, while Ranjit Singh's troops went through the Khyber Pass and took part in the victory parade in
Kabul.

Shortly afterward Ranjit Singh was taken ill, and he died at Lahore in June 1839, exactly 40 years after he had entered the city as a conqueror. In little more than
six years after his death, the Sikh state he had created collapsed because of the internecine strife of rival chiefs.

---

So lets suppose he doesn't fall ill, lives longer and consolidates his gains to avoid it collapsing. I think he will intrigue around, avoiding a confrontation with the British before he is ready for it. He will try to gather French and/or Russian support, and will probably want to get the British involved in an European war. Assuming Crimean War and Indian Mutiny still happen, and he (or a capable successor) is still around, the modernized Sikh state could achieve some considerable success against the British. Or, perhaps, he could side with the British in the Indian Mutiny, playing a "loyal ally" and bargaining out more territory, and wait out until the British are weak again. I think the Sikhs could at least keep their independance that way, or maybe, if they side with the Indian Mutiny and it suceeds, they could carve out a Sikh powerhouse in northern India.

 

[North King]

Speaking of Classical Greece, what if the Athenian Senate was smarter (not too hard, IMHO)? As in, what if they didn't exile Alcibiades, their greatest commander during the Peloponessian Wars, allowing him to tell the Spartans about all of the Athenian secrets and weaknesses in revenge?

I imagine they would have won the siege of Saracusyae, and thus Sicily. The Spartans would've had taken a major blow and the Athenian navy would've been left untouched. They could've reinforced their bows opf their triremes after the Sicilian experience, and the Athenian navy would've reigned supreme, probably inflicting several defeats on the combined Peloponesian navy. The stale mate would've continued, sort of, but Spartan allies would've been taken down one by one, until finally some major states would switch sides to Athens, resulting in a tremendous victory and Athens secure in the dominance of all trade and naval, and very strong in army, too. Thebes would've been a challenge, but I imagine she would've been able to organize an alliance to strike them down as well. Macedon enters the scene, and it defeats all of her mainland alliaes, and only the colonies and Athens hold out, until finally, with the Athenians already evacuated to various Ionian (or perhaps italian, restarting the empire in either place) cities, it is sacked.

Now the Macendonians march on Persia a little later, but maybe with Alex dead or at least made much more cautious by the war, so Philip reigns supreme? Oen wonders how that would've changed the conquest of Persia... Meanwhile Athens would've rebuilt its emipire elsewhere, it woul'dve had to flee Ionia, too, so probably Italia. How would Rome have dealt with this? Would the Athenians in revenge have leased a massive hoplite and peltsat force to Persia? would this have stopped the Macedonians?

 

[Xen]

No- if Athens fell, if wouldnt have restarted an empire anywhere except around Athens- non of the itallic Athneian colonies in Italy were really effected by the peoplopensian war, and the league of Thurii (an Athenian colony) was an actual league, and taken because the Oscans and Samnite people of Italy had by far th eupper had when engageing greek armies; but it was taken fo thier own intiative, not an Imperial ambition like old Athens.

that said, even in the era of the pelopoonesian war only ONE city outside attica, which was effectivlly interchangeable with Athens anyway, had actual athenian citizenship- and that was samos-and it was only because Samos, after an intial revolt was crushed by Athens, stuck with Athnes even when the war was clearlly lost for the Athenians- not exactlly enderaing to everyone else in its empire- but it dosenty matter- thier wouldnt have been a resurgent empire, because its only in extraordinay circumstances that such an event happen anyway- and it never happend in greece, because empires were so focused on thier actual home cities- if Athens fell once, either the empire woudl reform around Athens, or it would just had died.

 

[das]

Perhaps. On the other hand, who knows...

Some of the Greek commanders planned to, after taking Syracuse and the rest of Sicily, attack Carthage. Don't ask me why. I've read about it in some book. The way I see it, they planned to do like Nelson and make Carthaginians lend them their fleet. Any chances of that working?

Hmm... Perhaps if Syracuse becomes a direct (sort of) Athenian colony, the Athenians will build a maritime empire based in Sicily? Perhaps Rome and Carthage will fight the "Siciliot Wars" as a coalition against the Syracusean Empire? And as for being focused on their actual home cities... if the Trojans can do it, why can't the Athenians?