How plausible is a revived Assyrian state after the Achaemenid empire? Also how could this come about and how would it fare against the Arab conquests, if they happen?
How possible is a revived Assyrian empire?
- Thread starter John7755 يوحنا
- Start date
Maybe in the wake of the Ottomans slow decline in the 1800's maybe Assyria could be freed instead of Iraq
Deleted member 67076
The Assyrians did make up a large part of the infantry within the Achaemenid military, IIRC, so there's a possibility that should they be united by a strong general during a dynastic collapse northern Iraq could become the stronghold for a small Assyrian principality.
Quite possible. The state we know as Adiabene was dominated by the Assyrian population, and indeed worshipped the God of the Assyrians, Ashur, for quite some time. The problem is, it would have to get a few lucky breaks against the Romans and Parthians, and at best the Empire it could form would resemble the fleeting Empire of Tigranes II rather than the dominant Assyrian Empire of old.
After the Arab conquest, it becomes harder and harder as the Assyrian population is Islamicised and Arabized. By 1914, the Assyrian population of the Ottoman Empire probably numbered no more than 250,000, which made them a pretty small minority in a sea of Arabs and Kurds. The best they could have hoped for was autonomy in this situation, not full independence. However, the Assyrian community made a majority in no sizable area of land, so I'm not sure how even this could be achieved outside of a system resembling the Millet.
After the Arab conquest, it becomes harder and harder as the Assyrian population is Islamicised and Arabized. By 1914, the Assyrian population of the Ottoman Empire probably numbered no more than 250,000, which made them a pretty small minority in a sea of Arabs and Kurds. The best they could have hoped for was autonomy in this situation, not full independence. However, the Assyrian community made a majority in no sizable area of land, so I'm not sure how even this could be achieved outside of a system resembling the Millet.
John7755 [/FONT said:
As we know Assyria had three periods of empire, roughly between 1813–1750 BC, 1365–1020 BC and 911–605 BC.
And these were truly remarkable empires, so I gather the question is: "why no more Assyrian Empires?"
They say every comparison is lame which is definitely true, but nevertheless I'll make a try:
- as you know Carthage had a nice empire, but then it was conquered by Rome. After some time even the city of Carthage was rebuilt.
But people do not usually ask: "How plausible is a revived Carthaginian state?"
That is because everybody knows that the life of this Carthaginian entity was most violently interrupted by the Romans: all the Carthaginian elites were just annihilated, murdered or taken away as slaves; the common folk of Carthage stayed but gradually it even lost it's "Punic" language and started to use local form of African Latin. But language is not that important here, the most important thing is that the local common folk lost it's memory about their great Carthaginian imperial past.
So if there had appeared a revived Carthaginian state that would have had nothing to do with Carthage of old. Except for the name only maybe.
The same with the Assyrian state. It was one of the most violent imperial crashes I know of. First the Assyrians due to their excessive warfare depleted their core Assyrian powerbase so thoroughly that they themselves had to move the Arameans and settle them on the unpopulated historical Assyrian territories. Then the Empire suffered a serious of defeats. Then the fierce civil war followed.
And in the end the enemies of Assyria had a most thorough genocide there.
So after all these 'niceties' there were no Assyrians to speak of left.
No old Assyrian elites - that's for sure.
There was a geographical place name "Assyria", but the peoples who inhabited these lands thought about the former imperial Assyrians as "them".
New "assyrian" population spoke Aramean as opposed to the 'true' old Assyrians speaking Akkadean.
So if there had appeared a "revived" Assyrian state that would have had nothing to do with a glorious Assyria of old. Except for the name only maybe.
I see your point and I figured as much, however I was not necessarily looking for an Akkadean speaking nation, while it would be appealing it is not needed. As you have said there cannot be an Assyrian empire in the old sense except the name, however is it possible for an Aramaen state that adopts many of the aspects of Assyria for a new empire? Or even an invading people's who adopt these aspects and apply them?
While this is common wisdom among the majority of specialist, I've read several scholars holding the opposing view of a substantial continuity of Assyrian ethnic identity after the fall of the Assyrian Empire in 612 BC. Prominently this is argued for by Parpola.
As I previously said every comparison fails, but there goes another one:
- you know that Celtic Britain was conquered by the Romans but after that it became Anglo-Saxon.
Did the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms adopt many of the aspects of these previous Celtic and/or Roman-Celtic entities?
I don't think so.
That was a total (well, close to almost total) change in ethnicity, culture, politics and the like.
You do not call any of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms a "revived Celtic (Romano-Celtic) state", do you?
The same is with "revived Assyrian state".
There might be some borrowings and adaptations but not THAT big to be enough to call it a "revived state".
True, however Assyria had a much stronger written history and martial past than that of the Celts. Culture changes readily, however a martial past and empire is not so easily forgotten. A Syriac speaking nation would call itself Assyria, they did so otl, so can the Syriac speakers of Assyria break free from Persia (whether Achaemenid, Parthian or Sassanid) and create its own empire, perhaps paying homage to the Assyrian past.