Who was Alcibiades?

[Common Soldier]

Well of course not really. The Assembly could and did suspend it (the Pericles Law) when it chose. It had exceptions for Eubeoa (Thebes was added for example as part of alliance with Athens against Philip). It obviously did not apply to places where Athens had an iso-polity like Plateaea or Samos. It could and did enfranchise slaves when it wanted to. Its enforcement was somewhat looser than people think. Take for example Piasion when he married Archippe a metic he if you read the existing law should not have been able to but seemingly she became a citizen for well reasons... She must have else her son Apollodorus should never have been a lawyer or undertaking liturgies (and certainly his rivals would made note of that fact over and over again). Also of course interestingly the mother of Demosthenes did not remarry after his father died but retained control of the family estate herself rather than via a male relative (obviously she loose control of the business operations to D's uncles).

Those exceptions. The fact remains Athenian citizenship was more restrictive and less inclusive than Roman citizenship.

Thing is the Republic was shell game. How many participants in the civil wars were aristocrats who traced their family linage to say Capua (and that citizenship without voting? And oh yes the loyalty thing?). Yes Rome could hand out various kinds of limited citizenship in its growth. About that loyalty - social war ring a bell?

Even if the Roman citizenship was limited, it was better than nothing, which is what of most of the people of Athens, who were not citizens, got.

And no major Roman figure ever turned traitor the way Alcibiadez did. I would say Rome inspired more loyalty than Atens.

Rome to Athens is an defective comparison. Athens was a democracy, Rome an oligarchy. First Rome could and did manipulate the voting system to make Freedmen or newly added citizen votes trapped in few voting tribes (*). Rome also had a whole host not real citizenship grades to hand out. Second Athens was dealing with Greek polis and was a democracy surrounded my aristocratic oligarchies. Carmen's quote makes Athens seem closed but in context its worth remembering Plutarch. He noted that Alexander at first sneered at being offered citizenship at Megara. The leaders of Megara replied he was just the second after Hercules. How many wealthy elites in Delian league really wanted Athenian citizenship? The burden of liturgies, loosing the right to beat non citizens in the street (of their home city), the possibility of being tried in a public court designed to be bribe proof for raping some foreign prostitute? Recall its not anger at not getting Athenian citizenship the elite leaders of Mytilene elaborate but the fear of democracy, oh and of course the bit where that what to be the master of Lesbos while being a small citizen body atop an un armed mass of the poor. The men who lead Mytilene made it very clear that chance to be an Athenians under a democracy was very much not an offer Athens needed make or would be welcomed. The same happened with Corinth and Argos when they implemented an iso-polity during the Corinthian War. Corinth had brief flirtation with some kind moderate democracy which tried merging itself with its ally Argos. Thing is it simply fanned dissent. Even many Corinthian elites in favor of the war and the new somewhat democratic government wanted no part of a more radical democracy and melding with Argos - even at the cost of loosing what would have been a much stronger state. Rome had a much better deal to offer one Elite to another and citizenship that was unlikely to ever impact the wishes of the Roman elite in Rome. The system worked well enough to take of Italy and win the Punic wars. But the tyrants of the late Republic and the Empire never really stood on a well balanced machine again and its ability to defend itself declined because of it.

Ths restrictive naturs of Athenian democracy makes comparison closer than you think. However limited Roman citizenship was, it was still better than the nothing.Athens provid ed most people, who were not citizens of Arhens. The fact Athenz.couldn't even retain the loytynof Alcibiades say a lot again it

Truth is that Roman as a republic lasted longer than Athens as a democracy. The Athenian government wasn't feasible for a larger political entity, while.Republican Rome served as the model foe some modern successful democracies.

Contra Common Soldiers opinion I also don't "Sooner or later Athens would have been conquered, by the Macadonians and Romans, they would not have been able to muster the manpower to resist. " I don't think that would be certain. The second certainly since Macedonia without Athens being ejected from the Strymon area is never a powerful country or least the one able to provided for Philip's ambitions.

The Romans defeated the Ptolemies, the Carheginans, Seuclids, and MacadonianS, all.which commanded more.manpower than Athens ever did. Athen excluisve nature of its citizenship would have prevented it from becoming something as powerful as the Roman Republic. Athens could not even defeat its fellow city state Sparta. You are living in a fantasy if younthinknit could have defeated Rome.

I think my point was clear. The Republic killed itself. It did absorb Italy but with much war and a social war. And over a longer time than the democracy the opportunity to have. Say what will but but circa 338 if Rome had the misfortune to be sitting next to Macedonian of Philip and Alexander I don't think it would be anything but a vague memory.

Athens couldn't defeat.ita neighbors, and couldn't even retain.the loyalty of its leading citizens like Alcibiades. The Athenian democracy was not very stable, and was repeatesly overthrown by oligarchs as in the Coup of 411. The very nature of Arhenian democracy made it ill suited for a large politic entity. The Roman Republic, on the other hand, successfully served as rhe model for the government.

My point was had Pericles stepped away from the war Athens would have had the time and space to develop the Arche. Who knows maybe the succession war ~402 in Persia or an Evagoras would have seen the opportunity to dismember the Persian empire. But like I said above as a democracy Athens always had a more difficult road than the Roman aristocratic oligarchy.

The Athen style democracy just was not a feasible government for.a large political entity, it was just too impractical.. The Roman Republic government was feasible for a large political entity. The Republic had created most of what would be the empire, and the US was heavily modeled after the Roman Republic.

[Cyclops]

Those exceptions. The fact remains Athenian citizenship was more restrictive and less inclusive than Roman citizenship.

Even if the Roman citizenship was limited, it was better than nothing, which is what of most of the people of Athens, who were not citizens, got.

Fair enough. The Athenians were a volatile lot, prone to tinkering with the constitution. they morphed from a monarchy (sometime in the Archaic period) to an oligarchy, but within the historical era they did evolve (lurch?) rapidly from oligarchy to isonomy to full blown (virulent) democracy and back t oligrachy again a few times.

And no major Roman figure ever turned traitor the way Alcibiadez did. I would say Rome inspired more loyalty than Atens.

Coriolanus went further than Alcibiades, Sertorius was as much a traitor, I'd argue Sulla attacked Rome, certainly Gaius Julius Caesar overthrew the Roman state, ditto Octavius, although they did so to take Rome for themselves (perhaps Alcibiades aim?). I can;'t agree here, Rome produced many rebels some of whom aimed at the destruction of Rome.

The Athen style democracy just was not a feasible government for.a large political entity, it was just too impractical.. The Roman Republic government was feasible for a large political entity. The Republic had created most of what would be the empire, and the US was heavily modeled after the Roman Republic.

The US is based on a 18th century imagining of Rome: there's a senate and umm....

Technology, education, religion, law, domestic customs (such as race based-ideas of slavery) were all very different in the 13 colonies from Latium. Rome was never a federation of states entering into a Union, it may have begun as a union of a Sabine and a Latin tribe under an Etruscan King but in the historical it was a classic poleis with an extremely porous and absorbent citizenship law: the US was a federal state based on post-Westphalian notions of sovereignty and territory.

[PanDemon]

One of the biggest "what if" of history, if Alcibiades was killed or not existed... His significance in the downfall of Athens cannot be overstated.
The key point is what if Alcibiades was not present in the Athens Sicily campaign.
while there are a great variety of "what if" question marks in world history it is never clear what would happen.It is a chance of the fist question and dillema ,followed by a number of lesser difficulty iffs and questions.but still...
In Sicily campaign, at lest in my opinion, the case is clear enough: with out that scoundrel Athens would have won the campaign. And then the consequences are enormous and pretty straightforward. i ll tell what I believe after i post a summary why i think Athens was doomed to win,if repeated bad lack and Alcibiades had not been intervened.
But why? We have to delve into the sicilian campaign:

Athenians had already tried at that time tow minor expeditions in 427bc and 425bc. Sicily was mainly doric ,and a source of food supply for Sparta and its peloponese Allies. With that in mind ,and seeking riches and plunder the Athenians decided to go to war against Syracuse.
Athens assembled 134 triremes ,a bigger number of support ships and transports.
Total manpower including the ships crews was 5100 hoplites,25000 peltasts ,archers and skirmishers and 30 horsemen.
Most of the hoplites if not all were veterans of the previous Athens wars. Many of the auxiliaries were experienced aswell or seasoned mercenaries.
Athenians appointed three commanders,two politicians and one military. Nikias and Alcibiades were politicians ,while Lamachus was a general.
Prior to arrival at sicily the three proposed each his suggested method of action;

Nikias wanted a peacefull show of force ,followed by diplomatic alliances, containment of Syracuse and return to Attica.
Alcibiades proposed a show of force, diplomatic alliances, isolation of Syracuse. After that they would conquer the city of Messini to use it as a safe base.With a base secured and taking their time ,they would wage war against Syracuse and won.
Lamachos proposed a direct attack against Syracuse while the city had no allies and still was mustering its army.The Athenians would disempark at Yvlaia Megara and from there they would invade the country side , crush the Syracusan army in open battle and then lay a siege and storm the city.

The balanced plan of Alkibiades was adopted.Katani and (sicilian) Naxos formed an alliance with Athens. At that time the ship "Salaminia" reached Sicily bringing the message of Alkibiades arrest and transport to Athens to be judged for sacriledge. Alkibiades escaped and went straight to Sparta.There using his great charisma barely managed to convince the conservative spartans to send aid to Syracuse. Spartans send an experienced general, Gylippos plus korinthian triremes.Later peloponessian troops plus thebans would arrive aswell.
While these were happening ,the Athenians won a great victory outside of Syracuse proving that the main syracusan army was no match for the athenian phalanxes. After that the athenians started building a wall to block and circle around the city.Nikias had the command and did little in the coming winter. He did not stormed the city and just waited. Lamachus was killed in a skirmish while fighting in first line.
At that point the pelloponesians arrived at sicily.Nikias failed to block the disembark and also with out a good reason did not finished the wall while he had sufficient time.
in the coming clashes the peloponesians were the ones that clould bleed the athenian hoplites and the korinthian triremes that blocked the athenian ships inside the harbor. If they would not have been there ,the syracusan defeat would be almost quarenteed.

An athenian victory in sicilian campaign ,the overthrow of old political families in syracuse and the rise of popoulous democracy , would make Athenian State to have direct control over the most more noumerous in population and resources two cities of the greek world. Plus key trade routes and a supply pool of worthy mercenaries. Sparta would had to find food elsewehere ,also to fight Athens at a direct financial and noumerical disadvantage while Athens would had almost complete control of the seas. spartan defeat would seem certain no matter how much time it would get.
After that the end result would be an Athenian Hegemony over greek world ,having populist support from the masses, rich resources and almost unlimited manpower ,plus a technological edge.

Macedon would never rise up,since it was the weakening of thessaly and chalkidiki federation that gave them room. macedon would probably stayed a vassal client state of Athens ,while chalkidiki would be annexed.
From there we do not know; But Carthage would have to be extremely cautious ,although a direct confrontation was neither in its side interests.
Rome's expansion would be checked the moment it would threaten the maritime and trade monopoly of the Athenian state.Worst case when Rome legions would approach the greek cities of Magna Graecia.
The Greek roman wars would be on the reverse :
Greeks would had a unified state ,while rome a far smaller number of non trusted allies. Greeks would easily dispose far more men on the field ,would had secure bases in italy, ample gold to stir up rebelions and to buy allies in the north of Italy. While at the same time Athens would be governed by demagogue probably that would stir up the masses for war at the slightest opportunity, offering the prize of gold slaves easy life and lands in cleruchiae.

In that content I think rome would never rise up beyond Samnites land and the gallic migrations in the north would go unchecked or pushed back and fourth.from there it would be anyones quess.
philips military revolution would never take place ,hoplites would continue to exist with far more advanced armor in quantity and quality. Armored thyreoforoi would be the most noumerous troop type and athenian triremes would dominate the seas.
But to the most crucial point at hand,which i want to repeat cause of its significance ; (in my opinion)
Would Rome become an empire ,if Athens won the Sicily campaign? No. How Athens would win Sicily campaign? Just put Alkibiades out of picture.exile ,prison or execution.
What would happen in the world? No christianity,no greek religion syncretism, no greek campaings in Asia beyond Asia minor ,no persian collapse.No celtic retreat in front of the germanic tribes, no thracian subjugation.
When the Huns would arrive would find balcan peninsula inhabited by noumerous warlike ferocious thracian federations ,states, celts dominating western and central europe in a state of civilization far more advanced that they ever achieved.
in the south of the peninsula would meet a mediterannean empire with fortified cities ,advanced technology and weapons ,and disciplined armored formations to boot...

All these are objective of course thanks for reading the long post ,and for my english!

[Common Soldier]

Fair enough. The Athenians were a volatile lot, prone to tinkering with the constitution. they morphed from a monarchy (sometime in the Archaic period) to an oligarchy, but within the historical era they did evolve (lurch?) rapidly from oligarchy to isonomy to full blown (virulent) democracy and back t oligrachy again a few times.

The switching back and forth from democracy shows how unstable and unworkable Athenian democracry.

Coriolanus went further than Alcibiades, Sertorius was as much a traitor, I'd argue Sulla attacked Rome, certainly Gaius Julius Caesar overthrew the Roman state, ditto Octavius, although they did so to take Rome for themselves (perhaps Alcibiades aim?). I can;'t agree here, Rome produced many rebels some of whom aimed at the destruction of Rome.

Coriolanua is a semi-legendary, Sertorius never joined an active enemy of Rome the way Alciabes did, nor did Sulla join an active enemy of Rome. Overthrowing the existng social order is not the same as joining an traditional enemy as Alciabes did. If you can point to a Roman allying themselves with Carthage, or Persia, please point that out.

The US is based on a 18th century imagining of Rome: there's a senate and umm....

Technology, education, religion, law, domestic customs (such as race based-ideas of slavery) were all very different in the 13 colonies from Latium. Rome was never a federation of states entering into a Union, it may have begun as a union of a Sabine and a Latin tribe under an Etruscan King but in the historical it was a classic poleis with an extremely porous and absorbent citizenship law: the US was a federal state based on post-Westphalian notions of sovereignty and territory.

Yet many of the elements of the Roman Republic were adopted by the US - set term limits, specific and different qualifications for different offices, different assembly bodies that have different functions and rights, Assembly of Tribes and the Senate. While Republcan Roke did eventually fall, it endured longer and ruled a larger boxy than Athenian democracy ever achieved.

[Kyriakos]

It should also be noted, of course, that Rome was pretty much nothing in science, math or art. Quite telling about the negative traits next to the greek world. In the end, Justinian even banned the schools of philosophy (and of course his western campaigns allowed the Danube to be breached as well).
But it isn't that needed to focus on Athens when it comes to Rome expanding. If any of the greek diadochoi empires bothered to help Hannibal, Rome might have fallen at that time too (?). Or helped Pyrrhos, for that matter.

[Morifea]

Coriolanua is a semi-legendary, Sertorius never joined an active enemy of Rome the way Alciabes did, nor did Sulla join an active enemy of Rome. Overthrowing the existng social order is not the same as joining an traditional enemy as Alciabes did. If you can point to a Roman allying themselves with Carthage, or Persia, please point that out.

Sertorius had Spain, he didn`t need to join anyone. Furthermore did he make an Alliance with Mithridates in 74 v. Chr.
If I remember correctly, most Treaties with other nations included the Point, that those have to deliever all Roman Traitors and Deserters back to Rome.
Especially in the Dacian wars (out of rebuplican timeframe, I know) it must have been a thing, because it is noted that the fortifications and warmachines of the Dacians were build by roman deserters.

[conon394]

@Carmen Sylva - had a long reply lost it but it will take time to reconstruct.

------------

Athens couldn't defeat.ita neighbors, and couldn't even retain.the loyalty of its leading citizens like Alcibiades. The Athenian democracy was not very stable, and was repeatesly overthrown by oligarchs as in the Coup of 411. The very nature of Arhenian democracy made it ill suited for a large politic entity. The Roman Republic, on the other hand, successfully served as rhe model for the government.

One coup - not repeatedly. And of course it was not really successful since the Democracy simply reconstituted itself on Samos. Let's see now Triumvirate one and two, Oh and of course Octavian and his final plan not to mention who were Sulla and Marius loyal too again. Who was Caesar loyal too in crossing the Rubicon? Oh hey popular legal reform under Tiberius Gracchus ah yes that ended in such an organized fashion as the Optimates fought a political rear guard actions but acquiesced to what was legal - oh wait I guess I forgot the bit where they clubbed him to death, Social War...

Also speculation but its interesting to think about how Rome would have done if all its rivals had the option of Persian money. Rome was lucky that Carthage more or less was meh about it as it grew. Had Persia been equally disinterested it pretty clear Sparta could not have won the War and even with plague and the defeat at Syracuse. The settlement at Samos opened the way for similar democrat Iso polities more less something like Romes imposition of citizenship without voting. The Demos had already suspended the law of Pericles and as Thrasybulus was demonstrably in favor of block grants of citizenship There is no reason to assume Athens was bound to a path had it won the war or least reached a new peace out of stalemate.

Also let's be clear the Republic of the framers was idealized just as their view of Athens was the mirror darkly of its critics over the centuries.

The Romans defeated the Ptolemies, the Carheginans, Seuclids, and MacadonianS, all.which commanded more.manpower than Athens ever did

Well really only Carthage the rest were thin monarchies and light on actual loyal manpower.

Athen excluisve nature of its citizenship would have prevented it from becoming something as powerful as the Roman Republic. Athens could not even defeat its fellow city state Sparta. You are living in a fantasy if younthinknit could have defeated Rome.

I don't quite recall saying that. I believe I said that the rise of Macedonian was possible because Athens lost it hold on and control in Thrace and thus the ideal that Athens would loose to Macedonia as inevitable is not a truism. The exclusive nature of citizenship was not some vast age old thing. Before and after Pericles it was different and could easily changed. The demos had created iso-polity relations that amounted to federalism. It had leaders who were in favor of more inclusive models. The inclusively (by force of necessity) of Rome that survived the social war was not the same that existed three or four centuries earlier. Given more time and no empire ready to bank role any and all your enemies I not sure how Athens would have turned out but there was lots of scope for means of expansion. Besides how is being a citizen without voting a hundred miles from Rome imposed by conquest any different than being a citizen of you own polis inside the Arche?

[Kyriakos]

There was also the isopolity between Thebes and Megara: two states, one voice ( )

[Cyclops]

There was also the isopolity between Thebes and Megara: two states, one voice ( )

I think this touches on an interesting point about Hellenic state extension.

Athens established a larger version of itself through synoikos, binding the attic plain into the Polis of Athena (seen as a victory for the demos over the aristoi in traditional historiography). IIRC Thebes briefly imposed something similar on Boeotia in their all too brief hegemony.

I suspect Argos had imposed something similar in at least part of the Argolid as it was such a wealthy and powerful state until repeatedly kicked down by Sparta-there's a link between states conducting a Synoikism and a move to democracy (along with the rise of the hoplite) so possibly it was undertaken by the populist anti-oligarchic Tyrant-King Pheidon?

Sparta conversely imposed direct rule by the Spartiates on the perioiki, and together on the Messenians probably representing a victory of a military faction of old farme-soldiers over the royalty, oligarchy and demos alike.

Both models proved to be local powerhouses capable of regional importance at times (Athens Argos Thebes and Sparta all had their moment in the sun) but none was able to impose lasting hegemony over a substantial portion of Hellas.

This contrasts with the monarchies of Makedon and Persia, based on the King as nexus of personal loyalties, justice and military leadership. Persia established long term rule over many Hellenic city states in Ionia, and was able to decisively interfere in Hellas proper (eg supporting Sparta to victory over Athens): their one significant foray deep into Hellas saw many locals swear allegiance and they were only defeated by an unusual combination of traditional enemies and some pretty strong leadership. The Persian model sustained an extensive empire outside Hellas that was reasonably stable for a couple of centuries.

Makedon as also able to impose rule over much of Hellas proper for several centuries and dominate the rest through the "fetters of Greece". Famously Alexander III exported the Makedonian monarchic model to the Persian Empire where it was less stable and supported smaller fractions of territory than the Great King had typically ruled.

This model was sustained by the ability of its monarch more than anything else: I would argue only Alexander I and Philip II imposed seriously persistent institutions that persisted beyond their deaths. Typically infants or incompetent kings were killed and able relatives (or later just generals) took power in the state. I think state persistence was tied in Makedon to the traditional aristocracy (in Makedon proper, typically they chose the king from among their number) and the army (which came to choose the kings especially the first generation of diadochi).

The Persian monarchy was sustained by Median warrior culture (similar to but on a much larger scale to Makedonian aristocratic warrior culture) and existing Mesopotamian Imperial appartus like the Aramaic speaking administrative class. I think the diadochi were also supported by a wider Hellenic educated culture as well, surely the Mouseion and other libraries supported a literate administrative elite.

Perhaps there was a moment in the archaic period when successful synoikic states could have spread their model further but AFAIK these movements never jumped dialect lines (Argives and Korinthians were both Doric, all the other synoikists were of the same language group too).

This archaic model worked very well for the Romans and they seem to have just continued to use it, albeit less discriminatingly. As a Hellenised city state they were exposed to ideas like Synoikos both second hand through the Hellenophile Etruscans and directly through their Campanian neighbours like Neapolis. However Roma was formed (three tribes? or a fusion of Latin and Sabine villages?) for some reason they decided to continue the synoikic process.

Its possible that like so much of the Roman political inheritance it was imposed by an Etruscan conqueror. I favour the theory that Rome was "made" when the last of the Tarquins was defeated by Lars Porsena who imposed the rule of several (three?) Praetors (local Quislings retconned as anti-monarchic Consuls by Livy) and he may have extended their power over a wider portion of Latium. When Porsenna as defeated by the Latin league the new Roman establishment clung to power, resisting a return to royal rule or surrendering annexed territory; of course that's all imagination, the real events are lost to us.

However it happened Rome started with more than one "domestic culture" so uniting with Latin and Sabine communities was possible: there was also elite Etruscan elements in the city from its earliest days as well. There was no seal of purity (that is to say obstinate chauvinism) preventing other cultures joining as well. It seems to have allowed for both communities and individuals to become Roman: this is demonstrated well by the naturalisation in the 5th century of the Oscan Attius Clausus as Appius Claudius, ancestor of the Claudian gens and the family that returned Rome to Monarchy.

The nexus of isonomy and elected magistrates and synoikos is found in Rome as in Athens. perhaps the availability of access to mpower increases a general level of competence, as well as satisfaction? Whatever the case, it worked.

I 'd argue the mixed (and less than elite) culture of Rome's original population made Borging others easier. The Attic plain, the Argolid and the valley of the Eurotas proved the true boundaries of their respective polities, whereas the Tiber eventually flowed from windswept Prytain to hoary Kemet, and lapped the shores of Iberia and...umm...Iberia...

[Common Soldier]

@Carmen Sylva - had a long reply lost it but it will take time to reconstruct.

------------



One coup - not repeatedly. And of course it was not really successful since the Democracy simply reconstituted itself on Samos. Let's see now Triumvirate one and two, Oh and of course Octavian and his final plan not to mention who were Sulla and Marius loyal too again. Who was Caesar loyal too in crossing the Rubicon? Oh hey popular legal reform under Tiberius Gracchus ah yes that ended in such an organized fashion as the Optimates fought a political rear guard actions but acquiesced to what was legal - oh wait I guess I forgot the bit where they clubbed him to death, Social War...

Atehenian democracy didn't really begin until 508 BC wirh Cleisthenes, and a mere 100 years late you had a coup. Less than. 100 years after that democracy was effectively dead in Athens.. In contrast, the Roman Republic had been around for several centuries before the first triumverate arose in Rome.

Also speculation but its interesting to think about how Rome would have done if all its rivals had the option of Persian money. Rome was lucky that Carthage more or less was meh about it as it grew. Had Persia been equally disinterested it pretty clear Sparta could not have won the War and even with plague and the defeat at Syracuse. The settlement at Samos opened the way for similar democrat Iso polities more less something like Romes imposition of citizenship without voting. The Demos had already suspended the law of Pericles and as Thrasybulus was demonstrably in favor of block grants of citizenship There is no reason to assume Athens was bound to a path had it won the war or least reached a new peace out of stalemate.

If Rome's allies didn't desert her during all the years Hannibal was roaming the Italian countryside, it is most unlikely mere Persian money would have made a difference. If there ever was a time for.Roe's allies desert Rome, it was during Hannibal's successes.

Also let's be clear the Republic of the framers was idealized just as their view of Athens was the mirror darkly of its critics over the centuries.

Also let's be clear, Rome as a republic lasted far longer than Athens as a democracy. Direct democracy would not be a practical political organization for a large political entity, which is why you don't see it used in large democracy. Only Switzerland really applies direct democracy regulaly, and it is a small, unique state.

Well really only Carthage the rest were thin monarchies and light on actual loyal manpower.

Hannibal's troops were loyal to him. Ir wasn't lack of manpower on Rome's enemies, but that Rome could sustain losses that others could not and still win. Rome's losses at Cannae would have knocked Athens out of any war.

I don't quite recall saying that. I believe I said that the rise of Macedonian was possible because Athens lost it hold on and control in Thrace and thus the ideal that Athens would loose to Macedonia as inevitable is not a truism. The exclusive nature of citizenship was not some vast age old thing. Before and after Pericles it was different and could easily changed. The demos had created iso-polity relations that amounted to federalism. It had leaders who were in favor of more inclusive models. The inclusively (by force of necessity) of Rome that survived the social war was not the same that existed three or four centuries earlier. Given more time and no empire ready to bank role any and all your enemies I not sure how Athens would have turned out but there was lots of scope for means of expansion. Besides how is being a citizen without voting a hundred miles from Rome imposed by conquest any different than being a citizen of you own polis inside the Arche?

It is questionable whether Athens could have defeated Macedonia in any case. Athens could reliably depend on just he population of the city of Athens and its surrnding countryside, while Macadnia could rely on the entire country of Macedonia. The individualistic nature of Greek cities would havw made it unlikely that Athens would have ever commanded rhe kind of loyalty that Rome inspired by its allies. I see no real evidence that Athens would have extended its identity in the way Rome did.

[Kyriakos]

You can even guide Socrates away from Attica, as long as you carry some interesting book/scroll to lure him with. At least this is what Plato writes.

Alternatively, he will exit Attica during the peloponnesian war, where apparently he did pretty well as a hoplite. Certainly far better than Demosthenes did at Chaeronia

edit: btw, in Plato's "Protagoras", Alciviades is presented as a rude brat.

[conon394]

Certainly far better than Demosthenes did at Chaeronia

Not true. They both survived a route. Neither had the command. If Demosthenes had truly been a coward he would never had gotten tapped for new jobs and delivering a eulogy. The Demos did not give Nicias a name on the public burial it would not have rearward Demosthenes with trust after the supposed actions of later slander.

[Kyriakos]

According to Plato, Socrates was something of a hero in the athenian disastrous loss to Thebes (iirc the battle from where they retreated to their wooden fort, which supposedly was torched by a kind of fire-spewing machine )

[conon394]

According to Plato, Socrates was something of a hero in the athenian disastrous loss to Thebes (iirc the battle from where they retreated to their wooden fort, which supposedly was torched by a kind of fire-spewing machine )

Fire machine was at the siege of Plataea, not the defeat at Delium. That is where according to Plato, Socrates did retreat with grace. But retreat none the less after a battle he was never in command of. So as period evidence holds no worse or better than Demosthenes.

[Kyriakos]

Yes, I just thought they retreated to the fort in Plataea (?) after the lost battle at Delium. Apparently not?

[conon394]

Delium was later. It was part of a convoluted plan of a sort of asymmetric warfare plan designed to try drive Boeotia out of the war. It went sideways critically some conspirators in cities that were supposed to open the gates turned and so Thebes was not distracted by multiple threats. The Athenians who lost at Delium were trying to build a fort but they were supposed to unopposed or face only a fraction of the enemy. But the actual break out from Plataea is one of the best tense reads in T. You can really tell he was in government and had a lot first hand interview resources.