civilization would have been decimated and there would have been no Alexander the great, no Roman empire (because all the scientists and elites would have been killed or exiled to Persia), no British empire and thus no 'MURICA
shareYes.
The Cold Winds Are Rising.
I am not quite sure why you would address this question specifically at white people, but I'll play along.
I think it's highly unlikely that Western civilization would have been 'decimated' if the Greeks had lost at Salamis. It might have developed differently. Maybe a lot different, maybe not that much different at all. I think you make a lot of debatable assumptions.
It's not like the Persians were barbarians or anything. Yes, western civilization would have developed differently but not necessarily be any less advanced.
shareIt might not even have developed that much differently. Losing at Salamis is not the same as losing the war. After all, the Persians also hadn't lost the war (yet) after Salamis. And the Greeks had lost battles before. So there is no reason to assume that a Persian victory at Salamis would have automatically meant that all of Greece would have been decisively beaten.
shareYou're making impossible leaps. Greece was important to Western Civilization, but it's absurd to pretend that Italy and England would never have developed impressive societies were it not for Greece. Those cultures wouldn't look the exact same, but there is a good chance they would still have existed.
shareI think everyone on here has misunderstood the original poster. Basically what he is trying to say is not that the Greek influence would have been less or more or non existent etc. rather than had the Greeks not stopped the Persians dead in their tracks at Salamis (and not necessarily having lost the war) the Persians would have continued on westwards with little or no resistance whatsoever! Completely changing Europe!
shareNeither the Greeks nor the Persians had any interest in conquering any lands to the west of Greece. Even Rome was a relative backwater in the 5th century BC, let alone the rest of Europe. If Alexander had no interest in Western Europe, then there's no reason to believe the Persians would either.
"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"
According to Diodorus Siculus, who got his information from Hieronymus of Cardia who was a friend of Eumenes (Alexander's secretary) and apparently had access to Alexander's personal records, it seems that Alexander the Great did have plans for Europe but these plans failed to materialise due to his unexpected death and his successors figured out that these expeditions would not be worth the money and effort without Alexander as their leader. Those plans included attacking Carthage and key locations in the Western Mediterranean, building a road from Libya to Gibraltar, building new ports along the way and exchange of populations between Europe and Asia. This is not undeniable proof that this is what Alexander would have ultimately done had he lived longer but it is an indication of what he may have intended to do. If Alexander the Great had such aspirations, then at least one Persian king before him might have wished to do the same if they had succeeded in conquering Greece. Therefore, in a way, yes, I do agree with the original post. Losing Salamis does not mean that the Greeks would have lost the war and if, they did, the Persians may not have thought it wise to proceed any further to the west and even if that had happened, they may have been eventually stopped. But fact is that Salamis was a crucial battle and there is good chance that it may have been a turning point in human history as it is hard to predict what may have happened otherwise. If the Persians had conquered all of Europe or even if they had only conquered just the Greek states, Western civilisation may have still developed as well or even better than now but it may have also been a turn for the worst. For a start, there is a possibility that monarchy may have replaced democracy (which was still in its infancy) in Athens and thus the concept of democracy may have been entirely forgotten and it is doubtful if and when it would be rediscovered. And the entire Golden Age of Athens may never have happened meaning that its impact on Western civilization would have been non-existent eg Socrates may never have been known as a philosopher, Greek playwrights such as Euripides may never have written their famous plays (which would be quite a blow on the development of theatre in centuries to come, Herodotus may never have left any historical records and so on. So indeed, while nothing is guaranteed and all this is merely speculation, there is always a chance that the world nowadays might have been different if the Greeks had not won at Salamis.
The Persians never had the population base, technology, or infrastructure to conquer all of Europe, and there wouldn't have been any reason for them to try. Europe has always been cold, difficult to farm, and teeming with warring tribes that are impossible to keep under control for long. Conquering Europe would have just meant more mouths for the Persians to feed, with constant riots, rebellions, and border skirmishes for their trouble. The East has always been richer in natural resources and land, and it has better weather too.
The Romans never even controlled all of Europe; they spent centuries cutting down the Germanic hordes to the north and they just kept coming back until the Empire was exhausted. There were always parts of Iberia and Britain that weren't under Roman control. The Byzantines shrugged at the fall of the West and went on for another thousand years after casting off the dead weight. Ask Charlemagne, Napoleon or Hitler -- conquering Europe is more trouble than it's worth.
Never stops anyone from trying to conquer the world.
shareYou can't say that this would have made it impossible for Macedonia to rise to greatness. Alexander didn't come around until years later and his father Philip II spent his life fighting other Greeks to plan the invasion of persia. Macedonia probably would have been fine even if the Persians won. Alexander even considered the Persians and Greeks to be like one people and integrated their culture as his empire expanded.
shareMacedonia probably would have been fine even if the Persians won.Exactly. They were on Persia's side during the invasion. Not with unreserved enthusiasm, but enough to have been fine if the Persians had won. share
True. Alexander even claimed himself to be the son of an Egyptian god, thus proclaiming himself as a rightful Egyptian Pharaoh. He also proclaimed himself the Persian Shahanshah ("King of Kings"), identifying his empire as a successor to the Achaemenid Persian Empire.
"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"
Alexander did identify himself with (or claimed lineage from) more than one deity but he primarily considered himself to be the descendant of the Greek superhero Hercules (when it comes to paternal ancestry) and thus he believed himself to be directly descended from Zeus (king of greek gods and father of Hercules)since King Caranus ,who founded the Macedonian kingdom and Alexander's dynasty, was said to be a descendant of Hercules himself. On the maternal side, Alexander believed himself to be a descendant of the Greek hero Achilleus who was from Epirus (home of Alexander's mother). Achilleus in mythology was the son of the Greek goddess Thetis so that's two Greek heroes and two Greek deities that Alexander claimed to have in his family tree.
shareIt wasn't the British empire that discovered 'MURICA, it was the Spanish Empire.
shareThat's irrelevant to his argument as most all of European society at that time came from the same western influence.
shareThe Greek society was not exactly isolated from the other societies in the area. In fact, there was a lot of inter-change between what is now called western and eastern society.
Furthermore, it is kind of relevant since losing Salamis does not necessarily mean the end of western civilization. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Persians would have won the war. And even if they did, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would have significantly altered the Greek society (they usually didn't in other conquered territories). And even if they did, it doesn't necessarily mean that Alexander the Great wouldn't have emerged. Or that the Romans wouldn't be able to develop into a strong society without Greek influences. And if they didn't, it doesn't mean that western civilization wouldn't develop under influence of another dominant society at one stage or another (Carthagians, Celts, Germanic tribes).
In other words: Even if the Greeks hadn't existed, it is likely that some other society would have been a dominant influence on the development of western civilization.
In the opening post there are simply too many assumptions that are not necessarily true or even plausible.
Oh yeah I'm right there with you. I think a better question of a turn point in ancient history is what if Carthage had beat the Roman republic? Would half of us be speaking language deriving from punic?
shareGood question. If Hannibal had won the Second Punic War and conquered Rome, I believe that would have had a bigger impact on Western history than if the Persians had conquered Greece.
Unlike the Greeks and Persians, the Phoenicians actually had a strong presence in Western Europe, ruling much of Spain along with colonies in Italy and trading posts as far as Britain. If the Carthaginians/Phoenicians defeated the Romans, they very well may have expanded across Europe like Rome did.
"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"
[deleted]
It wasn't the British empire that discovered 'MURICA, it was the Spanish Empire.
I do believe that the hundreds of millions of human beings who had lived there for at least 10 000 years and the hundreds of millions who lived there when the Vikings came to visit, or when Columbus and his gang of greedy rapist imperialist pillagers landed were the true discoverers of America.
Or, should I go home to your place, rape the females and decimate your family and then claim the house and property for my own based on me DISCOVERING it, despite the fact that you people already lived there?!
Bloody Eurocentric, white-supremascist way of thinking.
Jesus Christ dude, then move to a land that has never seen an invasion or empire building. By all means, leave and take your computer with you and find your own wifi.
But you see that didn't set well with Alexander's generals, when he integrate Greek cultures with other lands that he had conquered, which is why they plotted to kill him.
You ask any Greek they'll say that the Italians (Roman) stole their culture,architecture and such from them, Greeks also to this day claim that Turkey belongs to them.
It wasn't the British empire that discovered 'MURICA, it was the Spanish Empire.
I do believe that the hundreds of millions of human beings who had lived there for at lest 10 000 years and the hundreds of millions who lived there when the Vikings came to visit, or when Columbus and his gang of greedy rapist imperialist pillagers landed were the true discoverers of America.
Or, should I go home to your place, rape the females and decimate your family and then claim the house and property for my own based on me DISCOVERING it, despite the fact that you people already lived there?!
Bloody Eurocentric, white-supremascist way of thinking.
The Persians were Caucasian, just like the Greeks. They also of so-called Aryan descent. In fact, Iran means land of Aryans. So they were as white as the Greeks.
share