Divided Egypt, united Mesopotamia

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Egypt was a united country throughout most of its ancient history, while Mesopotamia was divided into competing city-states, some of which occasionally managed to gain dominance. Is there any way to have this situation switched?

Let's say that, for some reason or another, the early Egyptian cities stay disunited, while in Mesopotamia they all fall to some proto-Sargon. Then Semitic tribes invade Egypt from wherever they originated (Yemen?), adding further divisions. Or maybe they still invade Mesopotamia but the Sumerians resist them, while the Egyptian cities face successful Nubians, Libyans and/or Hattians (this is the 3rd millennium BC, so we should use nearby populations whose existence we know about), who become assimilated but complicate things even more.

[Keenir]

Egypt was a united country throughout most of its ancient history, while Mesopotamia was divided into competing city-states, some of which occasionally managed to gain dominance. Is there any way to have this situation switched?

Longer-lasting Intermediate Periods.
(there were enough of them in OTL, certainly)

[Michael B]

The problem with this scenario is that it goes against geography. Mesopotamia was fragmented because it was easy for outsiders to invade an then carve themselves out a kingdom. With a constat flux you are not going to get stability, at least until the Assyrians take over most of it (then only until the Babylonians, Medes and Scythians take them down).
In contrast in ancient times Egypt (which was essentially the Nile) could only be invaded from the very north and the very south. The desert protected it on other two borders. Thus all that was required for unification is a power larger than the others to eat its way up and down the river. If powers of equal size met, one decisive battle would be all it would take for one of them to knock the other and then go on and eat up the rest of the Nile.

[abas]

'The problem with this scenario is that it goes against geography. Mesopotamia was fragmented because it was easy for outsiders to invade an then carve themselves out a kingdom. With a constat flux you are not going to get stability, at least until the Assyrians take over most of it (then only until the Babylonians, Medes and Scythians take them down).
In contrast in ancient times Egypt (which was essentially the Nile) could only be invaded from the very north and the very south. The desert protected it on other two borders. Thus all that was required for unification is a power larger than the others to eat its way up and down the river. If powers of equal size met, one decisive battle would be all it would take for one of them to knock the other and then go on and eat up the rest of the Nile.Also in Egypt states had only two neighbours one upstream and the next downstream so they weren't able to make efective alliances. And more likely this is why upper Egypt was more dominant.

[Kidblast]

Egypt itself wasn't that hard to unite. All one had to do was conquer 100 miles of River Valley.

Mesopatamia was a much larger area, and a conqueror would have to conquer much greater distances.

[Smaug]

IMO, Egypt had the Nubians and some other Desert tribes on one side, and the Mediteranean and the Middle East on the other.

Mesopotamia is surrounded by no end of enemies, and others who simply want to get something for nothing. At this time its is the crossroads of civilization. As such, it is a magnet for all other people in the area, who want its collective stuff. It has no natural borders, whereas Egypt has at least the desert and the sea.

I will grant that Egypt obviously wasn't free from foreign disturbance, but it, at least had some idea of which way it was coming from.