Would it have made any difference? Would Greece still ultimately have been conquered by Macedon and by Rome?
I sure think so. The Peleponnesian war weakened both sides no matter who won. Besides, that wasn’t really the reason Macedonia conquered Greece - it was that the traditional enmity the Greek city-states had for each other prevented them from uniting as a single front against Philip. Not to mention that Philip was also a brilliant general and had mastered more advanced military technology and tactics than the Greeks had.
But might not a triumphant Athens with its pre-war empire intact have succeeded in uniting the Greek polities under its leadership?
Well, you didn’t ask what would have happened if the Peleponnesian war had never happened in the first place. Even so, if the Spartans (and their allies) could defeat the Athenian empire, the Macedonians definitely could.
Philip II of Macedon organized his army based on his knowledge of the Peloponesian War and the innovations of the Athenian general Iphicrates and the Theban general Epaminondas, as well as the experiences of Xenophon’s army in Asia: i.e. longer spears, use of cavalry and light troops, etc. Whoever was in control of Greece, I’m sure that he would have correctly tailored his army to conquer them. History would have pretty much gone the same way as it did.
Obviously there are a lot of variables, but I’d say that Athens was destined for collapse. Had they won the Pelopponsian War, they might have preserved their empire a little bit longer, but the fundamental fact is that long, intense wars weaken a country regardless of who wins and loses.
First, wars have costs. Athens lost a good-sized number of its male population to death. Presumably many others were severely injured or crippled for life. Damage was inflicted in countless cities. It would have taken extraordinary effort to repair all this and bring the Athenian Empire back to its former glory after a defeat of Sparta.
Second, a war of this sort has a deep psychological effect on the people. When you have a generation raised on nonstop fighting and violence, and on the famine and disease with Athens, it has a certain effect on their outlook on life. Witnessing such violence can harm their faith in humanity; witnessing such destruction can convince them not to value creation. Small wonder that the next generation produced notable Athenians who worked to undermine the basis of Athens, rather than supporting it. That’s a fundamental fact about human history: you can have big armies, strong walls, economic infrastructure, but if you don’t have a population with a strong moral dedication to the state, the state will go downhill.
Wait… you mean Athens didn’t? :smack:
Didn’t seem to work out that way for the Romans. They emerged from the Punic Wars stronger than ever.
The Romans seem to have had a bottomless supply of manpower: in their first three battles with Hannibal they lost a total of over 100,000 men (70,000 at Cannae alone) but they had no trouble raising new armies. I don’t think you could say this of the Athenian empire.
Why is that?
Well, for one thing, look at the tiny size of the Athenian empire , as compared to Rome , which ruled most of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica by the time of Hannibal. By the end of the 2nd Punic war they also had Spain.