AH: A World Without Cyrus the Great

Hmm. What would the immediate ramifications of Cyrus II of Persia being absent from the documents of history, perhaps killed at the Battle of the Persian Border in 551 BC? According to this map, this would leave Astyages' Media battered and bruised yet intact and victorious over the Persians, who would command his armies to raze Pasargardae to the ground, subjugating the Persians under iron fisted brutality that would make Scythians blush. Perhaps Media could fragment from revolts by less able men than Cyrus...

Meanwhile, Babylon would remain an independent state able to repel the Medes if need be (for the remainder of the century at least), and may or may not keep Nabonidus on the throne, depending upon his leadership and sanity. Somehow I doubt that, given that the Priests of Marduk would be more than happy to depose and execute him, elevating one of their own as regent for the abler Belshazzar to be controlled by (at least during his childhood.) I would like to see further scientific and technological feats performed by Babylon scientists and astronomers occur in the mean time.

In Anatolia, Lydia would also remain independent. Under Croesus' continued hand Lydian wealth and culture would continue to develop and flourish, perhaps rivaling that of Greece's. If the Medians fragment or are at least distracted by revolts and wars, Lydia potentially could unite Anatolia like the Hittites before them...

In Egypt, the 26th Dynasty of Egypt would continue unconquered under Amasis II and his kin. Having just conquered Cyprus and improved relations with the Greeks, Amasis' policies would continue to bring Egypt into new levels of wealth and prosperity not seen since Rameses' time (?). I wonder if he would claim the Throne of Cyrene in the future, or push back the Kushites...

And then there are the Greeks. Boy would their history be significantly altered if the Persian Empire never existed. Where to begin? No Ionian Revolt? No Greco-Persian Wars? Would Democracy be smothered in it's cradle in Athens? Could Sparta dominate in it's place? So many bloody questions...

And I wonder if the PoD could reach Italy, and prevent the founding of The Roman Republic? The butterflies from that point on for the entire history of the World would only increase exponentially from there. But what if we're creative enough to build that world further than 500 BC? Is anyone feeling lucky enough to put on such a great task?

Can this be green-lit for production?
 
You're also rocking Judaism; the Babylonian exile/captivity ending with Cyrus conquering Babylon 538bc.
It might end anyway with Jews just dripping back home over time though the second temple might be postponed building.
 
Hmmmm.....

In the late 7th century BCE, the kingdom of Judah was a client state of the powerful Assyrian empire. In the last decades of the century Assyria was overthrown by Babylon, an Assyrian province with a history of former glory in its own right. Egypt, fearing the sudden rise of the Neo-Babylonian empire, seized control of Assyrian territory up to the Euphrates river in Syria, but Babylon counter-attacked and in the process Josiah, the king of Judah, was killed in a battle at Megiddo, although the circumstances are obscure (609 BCE). Judah became a Babylonian client, but in the following years two parties formed at the court in Jerusalem: one pro-Egyptian and the other pro-Babylonian. In 599 BCE, the pro-Egyptian party was in power and Judah revolted against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, died in 598 BCE with the siege still under way. He was succeeded by his son Jeconiah, aged either eight or eighteen. The city fell about three months later, on 2 Adar (March 16) 597 BCE, and Nebuchadnezzar pillaged Jerusalem and its Temple and took Jeconiah and his court and other prominent citizens (including the prophet Ezekiel) back to Babylon. Jehoiakim's brother Zedekiah was appointed king in his place, but the exiles in Babylon continued to consider Jeconiah as their Exilarch, or rightful ruler. Despite the strong remonstrances of Jeremiah and others of the pro-Babylonian party, Zedekiah revolted against Babylon and entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar returned, defeated the Egyptians, and again besieged Jerusalem. The city fell in 587. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city wall and the Temple, together with the houses of the most important citizens, and Zedekiah was blinded, and taken to Babylon, together with many others. Judah became a Babylonian province, called Yehud Medinata (Yehud being the Babylonian equivalent of the Hebrew Yehuda, or "Judah", and "medinata" the word for province), putting an end to the independent Kingdom of Judah. Rabbinic sources place the date of the destruction of the First Temple to be 3338 HC (423 BCE) or 3358 HC (403 BCE), while modern historical dating is c. 587 BCE. The first governor appointed by Babylon was Gedaliah, a native Judahite; he encouraged the many Jews who had fled to surrounding countries such as Moab, Ammon, Edom, to return, and took steps to return the country to prosperity. Some time afterwards, however – it is not clear when, but possibly 582 BCE – a surviving member of the royal family assassinated Gedaliah and his Babylonian advisors, prompting a rush of refugees seeking safety in Egypt. Thus by the end of the second decade of the 6th century, in addition to those who remained in Yehud (Judah), there were significant Jewish communities in Babylon and in Egypt; this was the beginning of the later numerous Jewish communities living permanently outside Judah in the Jewish Diaspora.
The most likely reason the Jews would be allowed back into Israel would be the work of either a negotiation after some crisis or revolt, or that of a benevolent Babylonian ruler. Or they would thrive in the Kingdom of Edom in what is now Jordan. That is, if the Egyptians, Babylonians or even the Nabateans don't conquer them first. Others could migrate via Phoenicia to the distant lands of Qarthadast...
 
Indeed it would. See if you can get someone to write a quality ATL whenever you can. And keep on giving me suggestions! ;)
 

Deleted member 67076

What is this heresy?:mad: How dare you kill off Cyrus!:mad::p

Alright in all seriousness, an Egypt wank. (Possible Greek screw).

I think Babylon would still get invaded sooner or later.
 
Wasn't media extremely decentralized? I question their ability to defeat the Babylonians in the immediate future.


Also, I still think you could see democracy in Athens. The Greeks always overthrew thier tyrants at some point, and the difference between Athens and the rest of Greece where oligarchies were set up is you already have the basis for democracy thanks to Solon.

Romes rise was never certain so with a pod this far back you can pretty much do whatever you want with tone- though the aristocracy's dissatisfaction with the kings is going to boil over at some point.
 
Wasn't media extremely decentralized? I question their ability to defeat the Babylonians in the immediate future.


Also, I still think you could see democracy in Athens. The Greeks always overthrew thier tyrants at some point, and the difference between Athens and the rest of Greece where oligarchies were set up is you already have the basis for democracy thanks to Solon.

Romes rise was never certain so with a pod this far back you can pretty much do whatever you want with tone- though the aristocracy's dissatisfaction with the kings is going to boil over at some point.
Hmm. Looking at Cyaxares' reign, it seems that his empire was more of a decentralized confederation of various Persian-speaking Tribes dominated by the Medes. The Satrapy system had yet to be invented and Darius' laws would never be written. If Cyrus died in 551 BCE at the Persian Border, Astyages' army would be left battered, weary and tired of his campaigns, as would many of his vassals. If they were to attack Babylon, especially if Nabonidus is deposed and killed as mentioned above and replaced with his more competent son Belshazzar by Marduk Priests, they would probably fail to conquer Babylon. Having not conquered Lydia, and without Cyrus to lead them, it's probable that the disgruntled Median vassals would rise in revolt against their master, following the example of Cyrus' failed rebellion, fragmenting the kingdom. This would buy enough time for Babylon, under an efficient regency, to rebuild their economy, improve relations with Lydia and reform their military to better fight the Median mountaineers, stabilizing the Empire.

Yes, we could see Democracy in Athens, but it wouldn't be as popular without the famous battles of Marathon and Salamis to test it's government's worth. Oligarchies and Tyrannies would still be seen as more favorable as a result. As for Lydia being able to conquer Greece, I am most skeptical. How would Lydia be able to expand politically, militarily and economically that it could take on the formidible Greek City-States? Pick them off one by one through makeshift alliances that end up like the Starks and Freys? I would like to know. Egypt probably will get wanked in the meantime under Amasis II as mentioned above. The nobles of Rome could just as likely have replaced Tarquinius with some other Etruscan King, so bye bye Roman Republic... :p

@Errnge: I would most definitely love to myself, but you see, I'm in the middle of Summer College in an upper-class course (even though I'm a freshman), and I simply will never have the time. Besides, I can only conjure up with my imagination what happens to the World by 500 BCE, but no further. So I leave it to someone else willing to try. ;)
 
Well the Roman nobles will have no reason to replace the overthrown king with another one-they were dissatisfied with the kings in general, Tarquinius Superbus was just the tipping point.

Also, I don't think Lydia has much reason to look at conquering Greece-Anatolia is far more important, and they will have their hands full in the middle east. Athenian democracy doeosn't necessarily need a victory over the Persians to be popular-the Greeks were always fighting themselves, so that would provide ample opportunity to show off their democracy. IIRC, democracy wasn't really popular outside of the Athenian Empire until during the Peloponnesian War anyway, though I could be wrong.
 
I'll echo some of the prevailing sentiments:

- Saïte Egypt continues to kick assorted kinds of ass.
- Lydia does better.
- The Medes do better.
- Egypt and Media most likely grow at the expense of Chaldaean Babylon.

Also, political development in India may be delayed, and the Axial Age (as we know it) will not occur.
 
If Cyrus had died in 551 BC, the balance of power between Lydia, Media, Babylon, and Egypt would have continued in the Near East. In OTL, Lydia was allied with Sparta against Cyrus. In TTL, I see no reason why the alliance between Sparta and Lydia wouldn’t continue. Sparta would likely remain the dominant state in Greece and Lydia would probably focus their resources on conquering Anatolia. Without Cyrus, Saite Egypt would have the opportunity to expand south into Nubia and/or west into Cyrene. Egypt would possibly come into conflict with Babylon over Phoenicia and Syria. Egypt could use its wealth in TTL to hire Greek mercenaries for its expansion wars or to defend against the other powers in the Near East.

In TTL, I could see Babylon remaining a formidable power under component leadership. In OTL, Nebuchadnezzar made the city of Babylon into the world’s mightiest fortress. Under even an average king, but with the support of a formidable army and the assistance of other powers in the Near East, Babylon would be able to withstand a siege from any enemy. If Media were to attempt to conquer Babylon in TTL, they would have to contend with Lydia and/or Egypt. Of course, Media might form a coalition with Lydia and Egypt to partition the Babylonian Empire, but I suspect Lydia and Egypt would never be comfortable with Media controlling the city of. Babylon.

Media would likely be the focus of a coalition of Lydia, Egypt, and Babylon in TTL, with Lydia conquering Cappadocia and Babylon conquering Assyria and/or Armenia. In TTL, I doubt any Median king is going to reform his empire in any way similar to the way Cyrus and Darius reformed the Persian Empire in OTL. Without such reforms, Media is going to have a hard time maintaining their empire against revolts. I could see the other powers in the Near East taking advantage of the turmoil in the Median Empire to destroy it.
 
If Cyrus had died in 551 BC, the balance of power between Lydia, Media, Babylon, and Egypt would have continued in the Near East. In OTL, Lydia was allied with Sparta against Cyrus. In TTL, I see no reason why the alliance between Sparta and Lydia wouldn’t continue. Sparta would likely remain the dominant state in Greece

At this time (and really into the Peloponnesian Wars) Sparta was extremely hesitant of ever moving their army outside of the Peloponnese in fear of a Helot revolt (possibly supported by the Argives).
 
Is there anyone here who thinks they can initiate an ATL off of this PoD? It feels like all the creativity of interesting ATLS like this one have been depleted as of late.
 
Top