Assyrian Resurgence?

Well we do not need a Syriac source for the knowledge that the Khawarij revolt ravaged the Assyrian homelands and required both Kurds and Abbasids to quell. Further we know that governors and millitant guardians of Ninewah were all Arab or Turkish Muslim of the Abbasid period. A Syriac source is not needed.

It would be better to have the sources for a number of reasons

1) Because it may well be that it wasn't the Khawarij revolt is used as a scapegoat for Abbasid and Kurdish atrocities.
2) Because more information is better, especially information that has more familiarity with the local area than other sources
3) Governors of a separate culture to the people have a different perspective - whilst the Arab/Turkish governor may have seen himself as benevolent (and reported as such), the people he rules may have seen a measure of ignorance of their culture as total disregard for their traditions - if we're to be favorable to the governor. In this case in point - the governor of the region may have chronically underfunded the local guard to embezzle money, but certainly none of that would be reported by the governor - but the people may notice - making the revolt more dangerous than it needed to be.

More sources, especially those that can be confirmed, is always better.

Getting back to the OP - another option that I had missed, is the Byzantines can do something similar to what I was recommending - if they can defeat the Persians, training the Assyrians as a demographic to lean on for local stability is possible. Alternatively, if Yarmouk is a Roman victory, with Persia in a state, and the Romans turning back the Caliphate, Persia may well survive in a state of civil war. The Roman army is still exhausted - but the Roman state is still the wealthiest by far - it could also fund an Assyrian state to be allies with, but it would require a charismatic leader to emerge.

Also, all this talk of the "defeated and pathetic Assyrians" is starting to smack of Martial Races theory. Can we not fall into that rabbit hole?
 
It would be better to have the sources for a number of reasons

1) Because it may well be that it wasn't the Khawarij revolt is used as a scapegoat for Abbasid and Kurdish atrocities.
2) Because more information is better, especially information that has more familiarity with the local area than other sources
3) Governors of a separate culture to the people have a different perspective - whilst the Arab/Turkish governor may have seen himself as benevolent (and reported as such), the people he rules may have seen a measure of ignorance of their culture as total disregard for their traditions - if we're to be favorable to the governor. In this case in point - the governor of the region may have chronically underfunded the local guard to embezzle money, but certainly none of that would be reported by the governor - but the people may notice - making the revolt more dangerous than it needed to be.

More sources, especially those that can be confirmed, is always better.

Getting back to the OP - another option that I had missed, is the Byzantines can do something similar to what I was recommending - if they can defeat the Persians, training the Assyrians as a demographic to lean on for local stability is possible. Alternatively, if Yarmouk is a Roman victory, with Persia in a state, and the Romans turning back the Caliphate, Persia may well survive in a state of civil war. The Roman army is still exhausted - but the Roman state is still the wealthiest by far - it could also fund an Assyrian state to be allies with, but it would require a charismatic leader to emerge.

Also, all this talk of the "defeated and pathetic Assyrians" is starting to smack of Martial Races theory. Can we not fall into that rabbit hole?


Martial race theory? It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the effectiveness of a people in terms of war after being dependent upon the Dhimmi system for several hundred years and further with nearly a 1000 years of rule by subsequent Babylonian and Achaemenid powers. To wave away these things is foolishness in the tenth degree and a new level revisionism.

1. So the Abbasids moved around their political heartland slaughtering their Dhimmi subjects for no reason? Seems plausible.

2. Well in general our sources are all from Iraq and many from Ninewah so it is not a case of some Iranian hermit writing on "Assyrians". More information is fine but it's not needed to see historical facts, if this is the case then we legitimately cannot read history outside of periods where we can interview every peasant in the region and his cousins down the road.

3. What does this have to do with the historical facts of the matter, that the Khawarij cut a swath through them, both Arab and the Assyrians they were guarding. Also wouldn't it be odd that the governor with his Arab and Turkish troops would just lessen the guard also doesn't that prove our points? The Assyrians required protection from foreign entities, they were Dhimmis. The other groups of Iraq were heavily armed and fiercely independent and able to defend themselves, case the Shi'i who fought off the Khawarij in their lands and the Kurds who continued resisting the Abbasid and fought both Saffarid and Khawarij under the Khurramiyyah guise.
 
if they can defeat the Persians
They did defeat the Sasanians in the great war of 602-628. The terms of the Roman-Persian treaty of 628 was essentially dictated by Heraclius on Kavadh II. Heraclius himself seems to have considered the war a clear Christian victory, given the pompousness of the restoration of the True Cross and other relics to Jerusalem in 630, and centuries later Theophanes the Confessor remarks that "the emperor, who had defeated Persia in six years, made peace in the seventh year and returned to Constantinople with great joy."

If you mean that Heraclius annexes northern Mesopotamia, what reason would they really have to expend their already feeble resources to continue the war against Persia (since the Sasanians would likely have to be chastised more to surrender northern Mesopotamia) and subjugate a large population of heretical Arameans who have been accustomed to living under the Sasanians for centuries, when many historically Roman areas were already fatally undermanned? Iraq was an area where the Sasanians and not the Byzantines held a very large amount of legitimacy. To quote Fred Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests,
When the first Islamic armies appeared on the fringes of Iraq in AH 12/AD 633, then, they faced a Persian empire that was financially and physically exhausted by years of war, [...] that was just emerging from a period of factional strife in the royal house, that had seen important agricultural districts ravaged by Byzantine armies or by massive floods, and that had, finally, severed its ties with its main agents of stability on the desert frontier. The most surprising aspect of the Islamic conquest of Iraq is not that it succeeded, but that under these circumstances the Sasanians could put up very stiff resistance to the invading Muslims; it suggests the degree to which the Sasanian claim to legitimacy had struck deep roots in the minds of many groups in Iraq.
training the Assyrians as a demographic to lean on for local stability is possible.
But why? The vast majority of 'Assyrians' in Sasanian lands were Nestorian Christians, i.e. heretics. The second largest religious community in the area was Jewish. The Assyrians also happily served both Zoroastrian Sasanian and Muslim Arab rulers, while the Sasanians played a major role in selecting their katholikos by the late 6th century. There is really little real reason the Byzantines would "train" heretical and formerly loyal subjects of their archenemies.

Persia may well survive in a state of civil war.
The Sasanian civil war ended in 632 with the coronation of Yazdegird III, so I'm not sure what you mean by "survive in a state of civil war" - the civil war was already four years over by the Battle of Yarmuk. And despite the weaknesses incurred by decades of war and natural calamities, the Sasanian regime retained enough vigor and unity to win the Battle of the Bridge and put up a good fight at Qadisiyyah. Yazdegird survived until 651, mind you.

having their view is meaningless.
Eh, I get your point (sort of) but I don't believe there is any "meaningless" viewpoint in historical study.
 
They did defeat the Sasanians in the great war of 602-628. The terms of the Roman-Persian treaty of 628 was essentially dictated by Heraclius on Kavadh II. Heraclius himself seems to have considered the war a clear Christian victory, given the pompousness of the restoration of the True Cross and other relics to Jerusalem in 630, and centuries later Theophanes the Confessor remarks that "the emperor, who had defeated Persia in six years, made peace in the seventh year and returned to Constantinople with great joy."

If you mean that Heraclius annexes northern Mesopotamia, what reason would they really have to expend their already feeble resources to continue the war against Persia (since the Sasanians would likely have to be chastised more to surrender northern Mesopotamia) and subjugate a large population of heretical Arameans who have been accustomed to living under the Sasanians for centuries, when many historically Roman areas were already fatally undermanned? Iraq was an area where the Sasanians and not the Byzantines held a very large amount of legitimacy. To quote Fred Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests,
When the first Islamic armies appeared on the fringes of Iraq in AH 12/AD 633, then, they faced a Persian empire that was financially and physically exhausted by years of war, [...] that was just emerging from a period of factional strife in the royal house, that had seen important agricultural districts ravaged by Byzantine armies or by massive floods, and that had, finally, severed its ties with its main agents of stability on the desert frontier. The most surprising aspect of the Islamic conquest of Iraq is not that it succeeded, but that under these circumstances the Sasanians could put up very stiff resistance to the invading Muslims; it suggests the degree to which the Sasanian claim to legitimacy had struck deep roots in the minds of many groups in Iraq.

But why? The vast majority of 'Assyrians' in Sasanian lands were Nestorian Christians, i.e. heretics. The second largest religious community in the area was Jewish. The Assyrians also happily served both Zoroastrian Sasanian and Muslim Arab rulers, while the Sasanians played a major role in selecting their katholikos by the late 6th century. There is really little real reason the Byzantines would "train" heretical and formerly loyal subjects of their archenemies.


The Sasanian civil war ended in 632 with the coronation of Yazdegird III, so I'm not sure what you mean by "survive in a state of civil war" - the civil war was already four years over by the Battle of Yarmuk. And despite the weaknesses incurred by decades of war and natural calamities, the Sasanian regime retained enough vigor and unity to win the Battle of the Bridge and put up a good fight at Qadisiyyah. Yazdegird survived until 651, mind you.


Eh, I get your point (sort of) but I don't believe there is any "meaningless" viewpoint in historical study.

Not a meaningless viewpoint but let's say unecessary for what we are talking about.
 
As far as a Syriac empire, that canbe done by some state operating as a early Roman breakaway in Syria. It would, however, not be Assyrian and just be a overarching Syriac state.

Palmyra -> Syriac Empire WHEN?

also

Again a meaningless thing to need.

Found the Muslim, guys! (duh---I get the point, at the time it would have been pointless information, but now it might be interesting; just like it's interesting to hear from modern Christians in Syria, who are still somehow alive despite centuries of wanton slaughter by their Muslim '''''betters''''')
 
Martial race theory? It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the effectiveness of a people in terms of war after being dependent upon the Dhimmi system for several hundred years and further with nearly a 1000 years of rule by subsequent Babylonian and Achaemenid powers. To wave away these things is foolishness in the tenth degree and a new level revisionism.

See, that is a better way to put it rather than calling, or endorsing the labelling of an entire people as "Pathetic". Hence the "smacks of" rather than an outright accusation. I'm not waving anything away, but if you're going to say something, be accurate rather than dismissive. I'd also avoid using the term "Dependent" when referring to the Dhimmi system.

1. So the Abbasids moved around their political heartland slaughtering their Dhimmi subjects for no reason? Seems plausible.
I'm assuming that is sarcasm (bloody internet). It isn't implausible, a mistaken belief that Assyrian villages were assisting the revolt, covered up. After all the Ummayads were pretty brutal with their Dhimmi. I'm mainly arguing why the addition of further sources is useful hypothetically - in this case because it COULD directly contradict the dominant theory.

2. Well in general our sources are all from Iraq and many from Ninewah so it is not a case of some Iranian hermit writing on "Assyrians". More information is fine but it's not needed to see historical facts, if this is the case then we legitimately cannot read history outside of periods where we can interview every peasant in the region and his cousins down the road.
Again, it'd be better because we could see whether or not the Assyrian view contradicts the administrations. With that ad absurdum I fear you've missed my point. We can read history, but we can read it BETTER with more information.

3. What does this have to do with the historical facts of the matter, that the Khawarij cut a swath through them, both Arab and the Assyrians they were guarding. Also wouldn't it be odd that the governor with his Arab and Turkish troops would just lessen the guard also doesn't that prove our points? The Assyrians required protection from foreign entities, they were Dhimmis. The other groups of Iraq were heavily armed and fiercely independent and able to defend themselves, case the Shi'i who fought off the Khawarij in their lands and the Kurds who continued resisting the Abbasid and fought both Saffarid and Khawarij under the Khurramiyyah guise.

It would be odd, if it was noted - again, it was a hypothetical, not an accusation. But "The Assyrians required protection"? They couldn't protect themselves because the law is that Dhimmi must be disarmed. http://www.davekopel.org/Religion/Dhimmitude-and-Disarmament.pdf The laws of the land made them vulnerable. This is why perspective is important. We could have lost sources that point out the Assyrians were outraged that they couldn't adequately defend themselves, because as Dhimmis, to arm themselves was ILLEGAL. You can use this to make a solid point - the Assyrians were only slaughtered by the Khawarjj as a direct result of the law that the Dhimmi couldn't arm themselves - making the Abbasids, and I'd go as far as the Ummah, culpable. The fact that I needed to understand the details on the Dhimmi to understand this, rather than directly from a source, is another reason those sources are valuable, as it makes this more visible. I'd happily bet any survivors cursed the Abbasids as much as the Revolts for the deaths of their families.

This is again, why you would need to train them and provide weapons if you wanted to create an Assyrian state, as next to no Assyrians who were Christian, would be able to fight, because they had previously been prohibited from doing so.

They did defeat the Sasanians in the great war of 602-628. The terms of the Roman-Persian treaty of 628 was essentially dictated by Heraclius on Kavadh II. Heraclius himself seems to have considered the war a clear Christian victory, given the pompousness of the restoration of the True Cross and other relics to Jerusalem in 630, and centuries later Theophanes the Confessor remarks that "the emperor, who had defeated Persia in six years, made peace in the seventh year and returned to Constantinople with great joy."

If you mean that Heraclius annexes northern Mesopotamia, what reason would they really have to expend their already feeble resources to continue the war against Persia (since the Sasanians would likely have to be chastised more to surrender northern Mesopotamia) and subjugate a large population of heretical Arameans who have been accustomed to living under the Sasanians for centuries, when many historically Roman areas were already fatally undermanned? Iraq was an area where the Sasanians and not the Byzantines held a very large amount of legitimacy. To quote Fred Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests,
When the first Islamic armies appeared on the fringes of Iraq in AH 12/AD 633, then, they faced a Persian empire that was financially and physically exhausted by years of war, [...] that was just emerging from a period of factional strife in the royal house, that had seen important agricultural districts ravaged by Byzantine armies or by massive floods, and that had, finally, severed its ties with its main agents of stability on the desert frontier. The most surprising aspect of the Islamic conquest of Iraq is not that it succeeded, but that under these circumstances the Sasanians could put up very stiff resistance to the invading Muslims; it suggests the degree to which the Sasanian claim to legitimacy had struck deep roots in the minds of many groups in Iraq.​
I know they HAD won. It was more the preceding requirement for what I was suggesting. It doesn't have to be annexation either - it could be as a client state, or an ally that the Romans throw money and expertise at, so that in future wars, less Romans die, and in this circumstance more Nestorian Assyrians.

But why? The vast majority of 'Assyrians' in Sasanian lands were Nestorian Christians, i.e. heretics. The second largest religious community in the area was Jewish. The Assyrians also happily served both Zoroastrian Sasanian and Muslim Arab rulers, while the Sasanians played a major role in selecting their katholikos by the late 6th century. There is really little real reason the Byzantines would "train" heretical and formerly loyal subjects of their archenemies.

Numerous - potential ally in the region, especially if the Emperor decides against expanding into Mesopotamia in the long term, instead only to make the border friendly. Whilst unorthodox, create (for lack of a better term) a Nestorian "Theme" could be an idea to solve any issues with Nestorians, whilst bringing them onside politically if not theologically - You live by your beliefs there, on the frontier, where for purposes your equal to Orthodox Romans, but you must fight, and we'll let you defend yourself. More relevant after being reduced to Dhimmi (I don't know the Sassanid approach to armed minorities to say if that could work in their favour), as a way to turn Nestorians from hated enemy, to friend.


The Sasanian civil war ended in 632 with the coronation of Yazdegird III, so I'm not sure what you mean by "survive in a state of civil war" - the civil war was already four years over by the Battle of Yarmuk. And despite the weaknesses incurred by decades of war and natural calamities, the Sasanian regime retained enough vigor and unity to win the Battle of the Bridge and put up a good fight at Qadisiyyah. Yazdegird survived until 651, mind you.

I mis-remembered some dates, apologies there. Although I think I meant to posit an extension of the civil war, or a return to it (very likely if Yazdegird dies after only a few years of rule).
 
Palmyra -> Syriac Empire WHEN?

also



Found the Muslim, guys! (duh---I get the point, at the time it would have been pointless information, but now it might be interesting; just like it's interesting to hear from modern Christians in Syria, who are still somehow alive despite centuries of wanton slaughter by their Muslim '''''betters''''')

Excuse me? When did I say "betters"? However, this does not require my time, I prefer to engage with more interesting posters who actually contribute to middle eastern history.


Palmyra was an empire during the Roman period and was not "Assyrian" it was an Arabo-Syriac realm with Roman laws and customs. Basic mistake, sir.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Also the Assyrian warrior spirit was utterly broken at this point. They were a defeated and pathetic people.

They are still being exterminated like Lambs today.
I see my previous warning was overly specific. Allow me to correct.

DO NOT drag current political commentary into the "main" Forums. That is what Chat is for.

You are rapidly building up a pile of kindling under your bridge. I strongly suggest you cease and desist.
 
See, that is a better way to put it rather than calling, or endorsing the labelling of an entire people as "Pathetic". Hence the "smacks of" rather than an outright accusation. I'm not waving anything away, but if you're going to say something, be accurate rather than dismissive. I'd also avoid using the term "Dependent" when referring to the Dhimmi system.

I'm assuming that is sarcasm (bloody internet). It isn't implausible, a mistaken belief that Assyrian villages were assisting the revolt, covered up. After all the Ummayads were pretty brutal with their Dhimmi. I'm mainly arguing why the addition of further sources is useful hypothetically - in this case because it COULD directly contradict the dominant theory.

Again, it'd be better because we could see whether or not the Assyrian view contradicts the administrations. With that ad absurdum I fear you've missed my point. We can read history, but we can read it BETTER with more information.



It would be odd, if it was noted - again, it was a hypothetical, not an accusation. But "The Assyrians required protection"? They couldn't protect themselves because the law is that Dhimmi must be disarmed. http://www.davekopel.org/Religion/Dhimmitude-and-Disarmament.pdf The laws of the land made them vulnerable. This is why perspective is important. We could have lost sources that point out the Assyrians were outraged that they couldn't adequately defend themselves, because as Dhimmis, to arm themselves was ILLEGAL. You can use this to make a solid point - the Assyrians were only slaughtered by the Khawarjj as a direct result of the law that the Dhimmi couldn't arm themselves - making the Abbasids, and I'd go as far as the Ummah, culpable. The fact that I needed to understand the details on the Dhimmi to understand this, rather than directly from a source, is another reason those sources are valuable, as it makes this more visible. I'd happily bet any survivors cursed the Abbasids as much as the Revolts for the deaths of their families.

This is again, why you would need to train them and provide weapons if you wanted to create an Assyrian state, as next to no Assyrians who were Christian, would be able to fight, because they had previously been prohibited from doing so.


I know they HAD won. It was more the preceding requirement for what I was suggesting. It doesn't have to be annexation either - it could be as a client state, or an ally that the Romans throw money and expertise at, so that in future wars, less Romans die, and in this circumstance more Nestorian Assyrians.



Numerous - potential ally in the region, especially if the Emperor decides against expanding into Mesopotamia in the long term, instead only to make the border friendly. Whilst unorthodox, create (for lack of a better term) a Nestorian "Theme" could be an idea to solve any issues with Nestorians, whilst bringing them onside politically if not theologically - You live by your beliefs there, on the frontier, where for purposes your equal to Orthodox Romans, but you must fight, and we'll let you defend yourself. More relevant after being reduced to Dhimmi (I don't know the Sassanid approach to armed minorities to say if that could work in their favour), as a way to turn Nestorians from hated enemy, to friend.




I mis-remembered some dates, apologies there. Although I think I meant to posit an extension of the civil war, or a return to it (very likely if Yazdegird dies after only a few years of rule).

3. Of course it is the Shar'i opinion that the Dhimmi must've disarmed. However, the Shar'i opinion generally is that Shi'i are also to be disarmed, yet they had weapons and frequently resisted the Abbasid rule. The reason for this is that the Shi'i groups in Iraq were the descendants of Arab tribes who assisted on the conquest of the Sassanids or they were city dwellers of the Sassanid empire. The Assyrians on the other hand were disarmed by the Sassanids and Parthians centuries before the Abbasids and were frankly found in the relatively disarmed and anti militaristic (I don't know a word to use for that, but masalim but not pacifist completely, sort of pacifist by necessity).

Further it makes me wonder, it would be characteristic of the Umayyad to allow the Assyrians to be attacked by Khawarij (not by the Khazars as they defended the city of Mosul from them and according to the blood pact freed Assyrian slaves from the Khazars). However it is not the characteristic of the Abbasids. The Abbasid period saw the greatest empowerment of the Assyrian people in terms of intellectualism as for one they were a loyal tax base and early supporters of the Abbasid, they also were exempted from the Mihna of the Mu'Tazila. Therefore I doubt the Abbasids did not exert upmost effort, further at the time of the revolt the capital was in Samarra and thus on the frontline, it is quite clear to me on the circumstance that the Abbasid for a time was simply beset by utter and complete decline and for the first time in a century unable to defend the Assyrians. For instance during the revolt of Musawir you had a Abbasid realm essentially dead and with its dying breath quelled both the rebellion in Ninewah, the Zanj in the Sawadh and its greatest opponent Ya'qub bin Layth al-Saffarid.

I also cannot enunciate the brutality of Iraq in this timeframe. The utter massacre of the major cities was common place such as the complete looting of Basra and Ahvaz, which was brutal even for this time period. Then the campaigns of the Khawarij were Musawir occupies Mosul with little resistance and depopulated Hulwan. My essential theory is the brutality of these rebellions was the built up anger and repression of the people against the overbearing Mu'Tazila clique in Baghdad and hatred of the Mamluk. Quite an interesting subject I must say, one rarely covered even within Arab sources.


2. That's fair enough. I will look to find a Syriac source on this issue, perhaps translated to Arabic.

1. This was not the Umayyad period. The Kharijite rebellion of al-Haditha was the fixture of northern Iraq in the late Abbasid period following the Anarchy of Samarra. I would follow the opinion that we need Assyrian sources for this if it was the Umayyads, but the Abbasid in general kept Syriac records and were greatly favored by Assyrians, especially during the early period. The reasons for this is that to gain power, the Abbasids used minorities to overpower the Sunni Arab elite and during the Mihna put many of them including Sunni and Shi'i scholars to death to promote the Mu'Tazila sect, in many ways the Assyrians were the Abbasid's favorite tool as they served as spies against the Umayyad and assisted in translation.

Therefore I do not take the allegations seriously.
 
I see my previous warning was overly specific. Allow me to correct.

DO NOT drag current political commentary into the "main" Forums. That is what Chat is for.

You are rapidly building up a pile of kindling under your bridge. I strongly suggest you cease and desist.


I take responsibility for the rhetoric. I suggest we all clarify what we mean by submissive as a disarmed people as opposed to the easily construed general terms he and I have wrongly used.
 
Wouldn't most of these sources be those of the Assyrian church, or churches, more precisely? All in Aramaic, of course.

Found the Muslim, guys! (duh---I get the point, at the time it would have been pointless information, but now it might be interesting; just like it's interesting to hear from modern Christians in Syria, who are still somehow alive despite centuries of wanton slaughter by their Muslim '''''betters''''')

I don't see how hard it is to believe that the Assyrians went "underground" for all that time as mostly just peasants and churchmen. I'm Finnish by descent, and Finns also were nothing but peasants ruled over by Swedes and Russians for a thousand years until the 19th century. But I know the Finns survived. I don't see how my ancestral culture differs much from the Assyrians. I suspect that the reason the Assyrians survived was because of their strong religious faith in their well-organised church. Other groups like the Punics and Gauls didn't have this powerful regional church, hence why their language died out in Late Antiquity as opposed to the Early Modern Era (as with Coptic) or beyond (Aramaic languages).

But yes, it's clearly obvious your Roman era, late Antiquity Assyrians were not the same guys conquering the Near East as they were a millennia ago. I think a true revival of the Assyrians will have to wait until the era of nationalism. But however, it's interesting that 19th century Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire seem to have frequently used the names of certain kings of old Assyria in naming of their sons, almost to the extent they did Christian saints as far as I'm aware. And this includes Assyrian rulers not portrayed well in the Bible like Sennacherib, or "Sankheriv" in 19th century neo-Aramaic.
 
I think a true revival of the Assyrians will have to wait until the era of nationalism. But however, it's interesting that 19th century Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire seem to have frequently used the names of certain kings of old Assyria in naming of their sons, almost to the extent they did Christian saints as far as I'm aware. And this includes Assyrian rulers not portrayed well in the Bible like Sennacherib, or "Sankheriv" in 19th century neo-Aramaic.

That's a good point.
 
Wouldn't most of these sources be those of the Assyrian church, or churches, more precisely? All in Aramaic, of course.



I don't see how hard it is to believe that the Assyrians went "underground" for all that time as mostly just peasants and churchmen. I'm Finnish by descent, and Finns also were nothing but peasants ruled over by Swedes and Russians for a thousand years until the 19th century. But I know the Finns survived. I don't see how my ancestral culture differs much from the Assyrians. I suspect that the reason the Assyrians survived was because of their strong religious faith in their well-organised church. Other groups like the Punics and Gauls didn't have this powerful regional church, hence why their language died out in Late Antiquity as opposed to the Early Modern Era (as with Coptic) or beyond (Aramaic languages).

But yes, it's clearly obvious your Roman era, late Antiquity Assyrians were not the same guys conquering the Near East as they were a millennia ago. I think a true revival of the Assyrians will have to wait until the era of nationalism. But however, it's interesting that 19th century Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire seem to have frequently used the names of certain kings of old Assyria in naming of their sons, almost to the extent they did Christian saints as far as I'm aware. And this includes Assyrian rulers not portrayed well in the Bible like Sennacherib, or "Sankheriv" in 19th century neo-Aramaic.

One interesting thing to note is that Aramaic was not the native tongue of the Assyrians, it was a Syrian language and the administrative language of the Achaemenid empire. So you would be hard pressed to say that the Assyrians kept their language alive, especially since Syriac was such a powerful language in periods after the Assyrians.
 
One interesting thing to note is that Aramaic was not the native tongue of the Assyrians, it was a Syrian language and the administrative language of the Achaemenid empire. So you would be hard pressed to say that the Assyrians kept their language alive, especially since Syriac was such a powerful language in periods after the Assyrians.

That's true, but the Akkadian language died as well. So what happened to all these Akkadian-speakers? I'd assume most ended up speaking Aramaic. A pretty interesting case of the lingua franca dominating the original language, including, evidently, amongst the very ethnic group who spoke it--sure, the Persians helped, since they too adopted Aramaic. Which probably says a lot about the city-states which originally spoke Aramaic
 
That's true, but the Akkadian language died as well. So what happened to all these Akkadian-speakers? I'd assume most ended up speaking Aramaic. A pretty interesting case of the lingua franca dominating the original language,

Akkadian itself was a lingua franca as well, long after it superseded Sumerian as a local language.
 
Top