The Assyrian Empire vs. Greece

One intriguing scenario that is rarely considered is, what if the Assyrian Empire had focused more energy on the conquest of Anatolia, and as a result, has ended up in control of the region, by 700 BC. Assyria begins to meddle with the Greek city states of Ionia, who, as they did in OTL when oppressed by Persia, call on their mainland cousins for aid. King Sennacherib of Assyria is thus faced with the same problem faced by Kings Darius I and Xerxes of Persia...what to do with these troublesome Greeks?

The Assyrian army was at the height of it's power at this time, and Assyria is ruled by one of it's most capable rulers. Greece, on the other hand, is a set of small city states, still ruled by kings or oligarchies. Militarily, they are still in transition between the old tactics of the Dark Age period and the Classical phalanx.

What do you think Greece's chances are against the Assyrian juggernaut?

Few to none. But they could flee west. Or simply buckle down and become good Assyrian subjects. I'm sure the King of Kings will gladly accept soldiers of their quality once they're properly subdued.

carlton_bach said:

Few to none. But they could flee west. Or simply buckle down and become good Assyrian subjects. I'm sure the King of Kings will gladly accept soldiers of their quality once they're properly subdued.

Click to expand...

This is true, and it might have some interesting impacts on history. For one thing, it was partly through the use of Greek mercenaries that the Saite Kings were able to re-establish the independence of Egypt from Assyria. If Greece is conquered, probably the Greeks are serving against Egypt rather than for it, and Egypt remains Assyrian for a longer period.

Also, I wonder what would the impact of the addition of Greek troops to the Assyrian armed forces be on the events which lead to the fall of Assyria in OTL? Provided the Greeks stay loyal, could Assyria beat off the Babylonian and Median attacks which lead to it's downfall?

Like all empires the Assyrians could not conquer everything all at once and therefore had to prioritize. With a large army wandering around Anatolia I would think they would make a tempting target for Egypt before it was conquered. Revolts would be more frequent and possibly more successful.

The Greeks copied most of their 'classical' armour and weapons and maybe methods of fighting from the Assyrians. If the latter were successful in taking the Greeks cities, I would imagine the integration of Greek soldiers into the army would be relatively smooth.

MarkA said:

Like all empires the Assyrians could not conquer everything all at once and therefore had to prioritize. With a large army wandering around Anatolia I would think they would make a tempting target for Egypt before it was conquered. Revolts would be more frequent and possibly more successful.

Click to expand...

That's probably true. In order to go after Greece, Assyria probably has to give up any idea of taking Egypt in order to concentrate their forces for the conquests of Anatolia and Greece. However, Egypt during this time period was a pathetic joke, ruled by Nubian Pharoahs whose armies still were armed with bronze weapons. I doubt that Egypt is going to give them much in the way of problems beyond the kinds of irritations it caused in OTL (stirring up revolts in Palestine).

MarkA said:

The Greeks copied most of their 'classical' armour and weapons and maybe methods of fighting from the Assyrians.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see your evidence for that. The evidence I have seen indicates that Greek arms and tactics were an indigenous development, possibly with some influence from the Lydians and Carians of Anatolia, who used very similar arms and tactics and with whom the Greeks had contact from a very early date.

MarkA said:

If the latter were successful in taking the Greeks cities, I would imagine the integration of Greek soldiers into the army would be relatively smooth.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that, even if your foregoing statement about the Greeks copying their arms and tactics from Assyria is not true. The Assyrians routinely integrated the soldiers of conquered nations into their army. There is no reason the Greeks would be any different.

robertp6165 said:

That's probably true. In order to go after Greece, Assyria probably has to give up any idea of taking Egypt in order to concentrate their forces for the conquests of Anatolia and Greece. However, Egypt during this time period was a pathetic joke, ruled by Nubian Pharoahs whose armies still were armed with bronze weapons. I doubt that Egypt is going to give them much in the way of problems beyond the kinds of irritations it caused in OTL (stirring up revolts in Palestine).



I'd like to see your evidence for that. The evidence I have seen indicates that Greek arms and tactics were an indigenous development, possibly with some influence from the Lydians and Carians of Anatolia, who used very similar arms and tactics and with whom the Greeks had contact from a very early date.



I would agree with that, even if your foregoing statement about the Greeks copying their arms and tactics from Assyria is not true. The Assyrians routinely integrated the soldiers of conquered nations into their army. There is no reason the Greeks would be any different.

Click to expand...

See 'Early Greece' by Oswyn Murray. Fontana,1980. Herodotus also claims the Carians were responsible and they may have been the intermediares between Greece and Assyria. The initial designs were Assyrian and the Greeks developed them further.

See 'Early Greece' by Oswyn Murray. Fontana,1980. Herodotus also claims the Carians were responsible and they may have been the intermediares between Greece and Assyria. The initial designs were Assyrian and the Greeks developed them further.

Click to expand...

Weapons and armour maybe BUT the concept of heavy infantry fighting in a phalanx is exclusivly a Greek developed concept.

robertp6165 said:

One intriguing scenario that is rarely considered is, what if the Assyrian Empire had focused more energy on the conquest of Anatolia, and as a result, has ended up in control of the region, by 700 BC. Assyria begins to meddle with the Greek city states of Ionia, who, as they did in OTL when oppressed by Persia, call on their mainland cousins for aid. King Sennacherib of Assyria is thus faced with the same problem faced by Kings Darius I and Xerxes of Persia...what to do with these troublesome Greeks?

The Assyrian army was at the height of it's power at this time, and Assyria is ruled by one of it's most capable rulers. Greece, on the other hand, is a set of small city states, still ruled by kings or oligarchies. Militarily, they are still in transition between the old tactics of the Dark Age period and the Classical phalanx.

What do you think Greece's chances are against the Assyrian juggernaut?

Click to expand...

Well Robert, this is an rather interesting Scenario...But with Assyria focusing more on Anatolia and the Greece Mainlaind, what of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah...Do they still fall under the might of Great Assyria? Will the Greeks be simply deported to other parts of the Assyrian Empire, destroying the foundation of Western Thought and science in the process?


Maybe Kush could maintain an stronger hold on Egypt without Assyria on their backs? What would be the consequences of having an stronger rulled Kush? Does Carthage become crushed in it's infacy as well?


What about the Celts...How would an Strong Assyrian presence deflect their migration patterns?

MarkA said:

See 'Early Greece' by Oswyn Murray. Fontana,1980. Herodotus also claims the Carians were responsible and they may have been the intermediares between Greece and Assyria. The initial designs were Assyrian and the Greeks developed them further.

Click to expand...

I don't know where Mr. Murray comes up with his theory, but it doesn't make sense that Greek armor was developed from Assyrian armor. Assyrian armor and Greek armor were two completely different animals. Assyrian armor was scale armor. Early Greek hoplite armor was plate armor. It's two completely different things and they bear absolutely no resemblance to each other. Nor do the helmet styles bear any resemblance. Greek Hoplites never wore pointed bronze helmets, which was the standard Assyrian type.

A far better resource on this subject is Anthony M. Snodgrass, ARMS AND ARMOR OF THE GREEKS. This is a specialist work, and sometimes makes for dry reading, but you won't find a better discussion of the evidence for the development of Greek arms and armor anywhere.

One thing that Mr. Snodgrass's work shows is that Greek Hoplite armor developed indigenously. There are antecedents to it present in Greece leading back to the Mycenaean age.

Cockroach said:

Weapons and armour maybe BUT the concept of heavy infantry fighting in a phalanx is exclusivly a Greek developed concept.

Click to expand...

That's not completely true. There is evidence of phalanx-like formations being used as far back as Sumerian times. It is a natural formation for spear-armed infantry to fight in. Where the Greeks differed was in combining the phalanx formation with very good armor and in being very disciplined (the Spartans even marched in cadence, to the music of flutes).

Historico said:

Well Robert, this is an rather interesting Scenario...But with Assyria focusing more on Anatolia and the Greece Mainlaind, what of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah...Do they still fall under the might of Great Assyria?

Click to expand...

Israel fell in 722 BC, so under this scenario, it has already fallen. Judah is still independent, but tributary. Where a difference might creep in is the rebellion of King Hezekiah, who in OTL was besieged by Sennacherib in Jerusalem in 701 BC. Sennacherib also took several Judahite cities and destroyed them, including, famously, Lachish. In this scenario Sennacherib is busy in Anatolia and with the Greeks, so perhaps Hezekiah is successful, at least until Sennacherib finishes chewing up the Greeks and can return to deal with the Palestinian rebels.

Historico said:

Will the Greeks be simply deported to other parts of the Assyrian Empire, destroying the foundation of Western Thought and science in the process?

Click to expand...

It depends on whether they submit or fight. If they fight, Sennacherib will certainly destroy their cities and deport large segments of the population. That was the standard Assyrian policy.

Historico said:

Maybe Kush could maintain an stronger hold on Egypt without Assyria on their backs? What would be the consequences of having an stronger rulled Kush?

Click to expand...

Kush would undoubtedly continue to rule Egypt for some time in the absence of an Assyrian invasion. But it all depends on how long it takes the Assyrians to chew up and digest the Greeks. The Assyrian invasion of Egypt didn't happen in OTL until 670 BC under King Esarhaddon. By that time, the Greeks are probably well-conquered and dispersed. So the invasion of Egypt might not be delayed at all...especially if the Nubian kings had continued their policy of meddling in Palestine, which, with Assyria occupied in Anatolia and Greece, they certainly would have done.

Historico said:

Does Carthage become crushed in it's infacy as well?

Click to expand...

I doubt the Assyrians will go that far afield.

Historico said:

What about the Celts...How would an Strong Assyrian presence deflect their migration patterns?

Click to expand...

Probably not at all. The Celtic migrations didn't really begin until about 500 BC. By that time the Assyrians are probably gone from the scene.

Where we might see some impact is in Italy, with the early history of Rome. There will likely be a mass exodus of Greeks from the mainland to Magna Graecia as a result of the Assyrian invasion, once it becomes clear that nothing can stop the Assyrian juggernaut. This huge influx of population would likely give Italy a much more pronounced Greek flavor, and we might even see Greeks take over Rome itself. The Etruscans certainly have a much harder time, much earlier, with the Greeks than in OTL. And the Carthaginians will have much bigger problems holding onto their bases in Sicily.

Greek arms and armour certainly had a Middle Eastern ancestory. Look at any carvings of Assyrian soldiers and the similarity to Greek hoplites is apparent. All the ancient sources talk of hoplite tactics and armour being derived from Anatolian predecessors via the Greeks in Asia Minor.

Homer's description of Mycenean arms and armour is nothing like the classical period at all. Archeological evidence in the main supports Homer's descriptions and that too does not show any link. Boars' tusks helmets and the Dardana panoply are not ancestorial to hoplite equipment.

Dark Age arms and armour do show the development of Near Eastern types into the distinctive Greek hoplite panoply. Migrations to the Greek mainland from the Middle East and visa versa are attested by the ancient sources, not to mention the Greek cities in Asia Minor.

MarkA said:

Greek arms and armour certainly had a Middle Eastern ancestory. Look at any carvings of Assyrian soldiers and the similarity to Greek hoplites is apparent.

Click to expand...

I disagree. There is very little similarity. The Assyrians are wearing scale armor. Early Greek Hoplites wore plate armor. If the Greeks were copying Assyrian armor, there would be some evidence, somewhere, that at some point in the early development of Greek armor, Greeks were manufacturing scale armor. There is no such evidence.

MarkA said:

All the ancient sources talk of hoplite tactics and armour being derived from Anatolian predecessors via the Greeks in Asia Minor.

Click to expand...

I already said that the Greeks were influenced by contacts with Lydia and Caria, where plate armor was in use from an early period. "Anatolian predecessors" are NOT Assyrians.

MarkA said:

Homer's description of Mycenean arms and armour is nothing like the classical period at all. Archeological evidence in the main supports Homer's descriptions and that too does not show any link. Boars' tusks helmets and the Dardana panoply are not ancestorial to hoplite equipment.

Click to expand...

Boars tusk helmets, certainly not. The Dendra panoply, however, can be considered ancestral in that it is PLATE armor. There is also a very early bronze helmet, dating the late Mycenaean period (I cannot now remember exactly where it was found), which is clearly ancestral to the later Greek designs. Boar's tusk helmets were not the only type the Mycenaeans wore.

MarkA said:

Dark Age arms and armour do show the development of Near Eastern types into the distinctive Greek hoplite panoply. Migrations to the Greek mainland from the Middle East and visa versa are attested by the ancient sources, not to mention the Greek cities in Asia Minor.

Click to expand...

I do not deny that there is ANATOLIAN influence. But you do not make a convincing case for ASSYRIAN influence. The Assyrians made nothing remotely resembling hoplite armor. The Lydians and Carians did. If there was an influence, Assyria was not it.

robertp6165 said:

I disagree. There is very little similarity. The Assyrians are wearing scale armor. Early Greek Hoplites wore plate armor. If the Greeks were copying Assyrian armor, there would be some evidence, somewhere, that at some point in the early development of Greek armor, Greeks were manufacturing scale armor. There is no such evidence.



I already said that the Greeks were influenced by contacts with Lydia and Caria, where plate armor was in use from an early period. "Anatolian predecessors" are NOT Assyrians.



Boars tusk helmets, certainly not. The Dendra panoply, however, can be considered ancestral in that it is PLATE armor. There is also a very early bronze helmet, dating the late Mycenaean period (I cannot now remember exactly where it was found), which is clearly ancestral to the later Greek designs. Boar's tusk helmets were not the only type the Mycenaeans wore.



I do not deny that there is ANATOLIAN influence. But you do not make a convincing case for ASSYRIAN influence. The Assyrians made nothing remotely resembling hoplite armor. The Lydians and Carians did. If there was an influence, Assyria was not it.

Click to expand...

I do not really understand what you are talking about. Assyrian infantry are shown on nearly every carving wearing what can only be described as plate armour. There is no hatching to indicate scales. They carry a round hoplite-like shield and spear. Their helmets bear a crest almost exactly like dark age Greek examples. See the Argos Panoply (circa 750 BCE) for a helmet matching Assyrian types. They march and fight in what can be described as a phalanx but probably not like the later classical Greek one although we cannot be sure. The archers almost always wear scale armour.

The Dendra panoply is unlike later Greek armour at all. It was designed for chariot fighting. No infantryman could possibly fight in anything like that.

Anatolian arms and armour were influenced by Middle Eastern prototypes. It is more likely the Carians copied the weapons and armour of the pre-eminent military power of the time, Assyria, rather than anyone else.

MarkA said:

I do not really understand what you are talking about. Assyrian infantry are shown on nearly every carving wearing what can only be described as plate armour. There is no hatching to indicate scales.

Click to expand...

Not true. Most Assyrian infantry are shown as unarmored. Those that are armored are wearing scale armor. See the attached picture, based on the carvings and archaeological finds. It shows an Assyrian heavy archer (right), an Assyrian light spearman (center), and an Assyrian heavy spearman (left). The heavy archer and the heavy spearman are both wearing scale armor. The light spearman is unarmored.

MarkA said:

They carry a round hoplite-like shield and spear.

Click to expand...

Most Assyrian infantry did not carry round shields. They carried rectangular shields, often made of wicker. There were some that did carry round shields, but Assyrian round shields are not "hoplite-like" except in that they are ROUND. They are usually not as big as hoplite shields and the handles inside were arranged completely differently (the evidence is that they were grasped by a single handle in the center of the shield, which is completely different from the Greek hoplon). And yes, they did carry a spear. But so did most troops in the ancient world. The Assyrian spear was different from the Greek spear, being about 2 feet shorter, however.

MarkA said:

Their helmets bear a crest almost exactly like dark age Greek examples. See the Argos Panoply (circa 750 BCE) for a helmet matching Assyrian types.

Click to expand...

There is a superficial resemblance, but the Argos Panoply actually much more closely resembled Lydian and Carian models than it does Assyrian models.

MarkA said:

They march and fight in what can be described as a phalanx but probably not like the later classical Greek one although we cannot be sure.

Click to expand...

As I said to another poster, most ancient spearmen fought in phalanx-like formations. It is a natural formation for spearmen to fight in. That also does not prove Assyrian influence.

MarkA said:

The archers almost always wear scale armour.

Click to expand...

The light archers...which were the most numerous, are shown unarmored. The heavy archers wear scale armor...as do the rest of the heavy infantry.

MarkA said:

The Dendra panoply is unlike later Greek armour at all. It was designed for chariot fighting. No infantryman could possibly fight in anything like that.

Click to expand...

The Dendra panoply marks the beginning of the development of plate armor in Greece. Yes, it was intended for a chariot warrior. But it was PLATE ARMOR, and this is what the Greeks continued to produce throughout their history (evidence from the Dark Ages, such as we have, also indicates plate armor, where armor is worn at all).

MarkA said:

Anatolian arms and armour were influenced by Middle Eastern prototypes. It is more likely the Carians copied the weapons and armour of the pre-eminent military power of the time, Assyria, rather than anyone else.

Click to expand...

That is of course possible. Except that the Assyrians didn't use plate armor. The Carians, Lydians, and Greeks did.

The Assyrian troops, like most ancient soldiers, were probably not uniformly armoured but rather mixed and matched the equipment that was available.

The modern drawing you posted of an interpretation of what the Assyrian soldiers wore is interesting. But it is still not evidence, it is an interpretation of the evidence. Its validity should be measured against the primary sources.

See the carvings from the Palace of Sennacherib where the infantry are clearly shown with helmets exactly like the Argos example I listed, down to the same crest design. They grasp their large, round shields at the edge not in the middle. Beaters attending the king on his lion hunt carry their small round shields in the middle as you say.

The infantry armour is not scale in any of the examples. The archers either have scale armour or what appears to be none. The archers also wear conical helmets obviously to give them a better all round view and because they do not need as much protection.

I do not consider the Greeks took the Assyrian arms and armour completely over but they obviously derived their equipment from Assyrian prototypes. The indiginous development of these protypes into the classical hoplite panoply is obvious.

The Dendra Panoply is segmented plate. It is not the ancester of hoplite armour. It was not intended for infantry use and it has no Dark Age decendents, nor is it mentioned by Homer (except for the boars teeth helmet which was worn by Odysseus) The helmet does have classical descendents probably because it could be adapted to infantry use.

MarkA said:

The Assyrian troops, like most ancient soldiers, were probably not uniformly armoured but rather mixed and matched the equipment that was available.

The modern drawing you posted of an interpretation of what the Assyrian soldiers wore is interesting. But it is still not evidence, it is an interpretation of the evidence. Its validity should be measured against the primary sources.

See the carvings from the Palace of Sennacherib where the infantry are clearly shown with helmets exactly like the Argos example I listed, down to the same crest design. They grasp their large, round shields at the edge not in the middle. Beaters attending the king on his lion hunt carry their small round shields in the middle as you say.

The infantry armour is not scale in any of the examples. The archers either have scale armour or what appears to be none. The archers also wear conical helmets obviously to give them a better all round view and because they do not need as much protection.

I do not consider the Greeks took the Assyrian arms and armour completely over but they obviously derived their equipment from Assyrian prototypes. The indiginous development of these protypes into the classical hoplite panoply is obvious.

The Dendra Panoply is segmented plate. It is not the ancester of hoplite armour. It was not intended for infantry use and it has no Dark Age decendents, nor is it mentioned by Homer (except for the boars teeth helmet which was worn by Odysseus) The helmet does have classical descendents probably because it could be adapted to infantry use.

Click to expand...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I have studied the Assyrian reliefs in detail, and there is nothing in Assyrian equipment, with the possible exception of the helmet you mention (which actually has closer parallels in the equipment of Lydia and Caria).

What about the Assyrians adancing into the Bosphorus Region, and conquering the Greek settlements there? Would the Rescources in that region be eough to maybe keep the Assyrian empire intact? What cities in Magna Graecia would most likeley become the Athens and Sparta for the Western Medeterranien? What are the chances of Kush to look westward to Carthage instead of Palestine?

Historico said:

What about the Assyrians adancing into the Bosphorus Region, and conquering the Greek settlements there? Would the Rescources in that region be eough to maybe keep the Assyrian empire intact?

They could possibly do that, but I doubt that they would. More likely, if they do a campaign in that region, it will be against the Scythians rather than the Greeks (the Greek cities in the area would probably ally themselves with the Assyrians against the Scythians). There were not a great deal of resources in that region at this time in history, so I doubt it would help to maintain the empire. More likely the strain of placing garrisons there would hasten the fall of the empire.

What cities in Magna Graecia would most likeley become the Athens and Sparta for the Western Medeterranien?

Click to expand...

Hmmm...possibly Syracuse and Tarentum?

Historico said:

What are the chances of Kush to look westward to Carthage instead of Palestine?

Click to expand...

Virtually none. There is a big expanse of desert between Egypt/Kush and Carthage. Palestine is temptingly close. They are going for Palestine, if they go anywhere.

I could easily be wrong, but it doesn't seem that likely for the Assyrians to put a lot of energy into expanding through Asia Minor and beyond into Greece when there were lots of other rivals closer to home. Assyrian expansion seemed to focus mostly on the "Fertile Cresent" area, with some expansion into the more mountainous areas to the north and west. It doesn't seem likely that they would push all the way through Asia Minor and end up attacking the Greeks unless they had managed to pretty much eliminate all serious opposition from Babylon, Elam, Media, Urartu, Egypt, Judea, and several other potential rivals. For that to happen, you would have to have a much bigger Assyrian Empire, perhaps approaching the size of the later Persian Empire.

If they were able to go through Asia Minor and reach the Greeks, though, I wouldn't give the Greeks much chance. At this pre-classical period they were even more divided then they would be in later eras, not as wealthy, and I don't think they had fully adopted their hoplite phalanx tactics yet.