Discussion : Peripheral Civilisations during the E.Med Bronze Age

In recent threads about the Bronze Age Collapse (or those that have touched on it), once of the solutions, to me at least, was to have a PoD where a peripheral civilisation is able to step in to fill a gap in the system set up in the eastern Mediterranean of the time.

Obviously this isn't Egypt, the Hittites, or Mycenaean civilisations, as they were tightly bound.

But if you have the combination of famine due to climate change, invasion, and (best term) Earthquake Storms - having someone removed from the Earthquake Storms, but able to be an agricultural producer as the climate shifts is an ideal 'saviour' civilisation to come in late in the game and flourish.

So I suppose what I'm asking is whether you agree, and if you do, what you think the best candidates are, and what sort of PoD you'd use to bring them forward.

My choice would be have an Egyptian fort set up roughly on the site of OTL Constantinople - essentially small base from which they can explore and interact with the Thrancians, Getae or Bassarab peoples.
 
Thing is, the Late Bronze Age collapse didn't touch several civilisations and entities while their neighbours went in flames.
Egypt "only" underwent a long decline (sort of Late Empire equivalent), Assyria was fine thanks you, and several coastal humans groups blossomed while their counterparts fallen.

So, if we understand Early Iron Age in Middle-East as a continuation of Late Bronze Age more than in chronology, but also structurally (what Cline calls the rise of non-palatial entrepreneurs IIRC), it does fulfill at least partially your OP, unless I'm mistaken?
 
Thing is, the Late Bronze Age collapse didn't touch several civilisations and entities while their neighbours went in flames.
Egypt "only" underwent a long decline (sort of Late Empire equivalent), Assyria was fine thanks you, and several coastal humans groups blossomed while their counterparts fallen.

So, if we understand Early Iron Age in Middle-East as a continuation of Late Bronze Age more than in chronology, but also structurally (what Cline calls the rise of non-palatial entrepreneurs IIRC), it does fulfill at least partially your OP, unless I'm mistaken?

That analysis is entirely fair, but it isn't what I was intending, I do want to see (more or less), the list of regional destruction bounce back to almost where they were, rather than become Neo-Hittites.

As such, I think there needs to be a new player that is introduced - or a present player taking a different role.

To be fair, Assyrias rise to ascendancy was certainly aided by the status quo being undermined, and AFAIK mostly peripheral to the system - rather than part of it (Which explains why it grew whilst the biggest player in the system, Egypt, majorly suffered).

Whilst I'm not about to argue with Cline - I'm looking to have a new member join/rescue the status quo, rather than change it utterly - so still a powerful Egyptian and Hittite Empires, but someone joining that status quo (via rescuing it), rather than supplanting it.
 
Oh, I see! Sorry for the confusion.
The problem of Late Bronze Age is its large interdependency : as you rightfully mentioned with Myceneans and Egypt (but it's as well true with Myceneans and Hittits), this world was deeply interconnected and while the fall of one of these cultural/social groups didn't have to mean the fall of its neighbours, it represented a significant issue. Egypt, for exemple, beneficied to be on the end of the rope, while Hittits had to deal with social disorder in Greece, Europeans bands, Kaskas and general weariness of previous campaigns (especially in Cyprus), but as well in western Anatolia).

I don't really think everything could be saved, altough saving the Hittits could significantly improve the situation but it's also extremely hard : couldn't we nerf a bit Egypt as a geopolitical power and get rid of a good part of New Kingdom Nubia and replace it with a Late Bronze Age Nubia, that could admittedly not be that much of a wheat producer (even if not neglectible IMO) but as a secondary state (in Collins' definition of primary and secondary state) that would itself provoke some "institutional extension".

I rather agree with Alain Testart when he argues that European peoples were historically rather defiant with a complex institutions where the great/big men would have too much power over redistribution function : he postulate a cultural weakness of the "aristocratic" part of primitive societies in the region, maybe in reaction to the presence of state or statelets. I'm then not entierly sure that the answer you search is in Europe, altough I could see an extension of Eastern Bronze Age societies in central Mediterranean (Nuraghe Sardinia, Nuraghe-like Sicily?)

The structuration of Mediteranean Europe isn't, tough, a satisfying answer : after all, it's much probably that part of the Sea Peoples came from desorganized ensembles as Mycenean or Hittit spheres or even cores. But the appearance of chiefdoms and complex chiefdoms (agains, Collins' definition) could be enough to divert a bit of the heat and to divide it (basically, Egypt takes more, Hittits a bit less). The clear opportunity, tough, if we search a mix between this idea and yours is to have something arising in modern Tunisia.
It would ask for a really early change in Bronze Age history, and I'm not sure how to gain it (maybe trough native population mostly? But then why didn't it happened?) but it could serve as one more social/cultural center which might be useful into peripherising secondary or third ensemble beyond.

I do not think, tough, that everything (regardless of the formal aspect) would be really salvagable : interdependency in the face of global threats is a real problem.
 
@LSCatilina you've got my point exactly. It is a major problem - but alt.history would be dull if we didn't TRY and fix the unfixable!

Tunisia is an interesting choice, I wasn't sure that it was the best idea. Although somewhere in the Tunisia/Sicily/S.Italy region works as a westernmost 'member'. I was honestly looking towards the Black Sea. It depends on where you think the Sea Peoples came from. If they were Italian, a PoD there could well butterfly that entire aspect. If they came from S.Europe (i.e. north of Mycenae) then the Sea Peoples could be butterflied by a PoD in Thrace, or simply cut off anyone new.

It seems like unfortunately untouched potential PoD fodder.
 
It depends on where you think the Sea Peoples came from.
It's rather complex : while it seems you had a demographic disorder (wars and migrations) in Northern and Central Europe that echo-ed mostly in South-East and Balkans (but possibly, while less so, South-West), it's relatively similar to events as Great Invasions : groups move, push others and then mix with groups they meet or raid, forming new and original groups which carry either result of social disorder (possibly revoltees like Bagaudae in Romania) as could be found among likely Myceneans after palatial collapses, for exemple) together with already formed groups (as Kaskas in Anatolia). In the end, it was probably a mix of various origin, forming an original more or less banded together group labelled with a name (sometimes prestigious : it's possible some borrowed the name of the mercenary guard of Ramses II for exemple).

It does makes your OP rather difficult, indeed : putting civilization as shield might not work and even have the adverse effect : but it could arguably divide the population movement and the various self-identification and organisation, less tied up to Balkans and Near East.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
There was a flourishing civilization on Cyprus, but they were dependent on trade with the other civilizations, so they fell because all trade stopped (and of course there are signs that either the Sea People or the Mycenean remnants or both raided the Island at this time).
 
There was a flourishing civilization on Cyprus, but they were dependent on trade with the other civilizations, so they fell because all trade stopped (and of course there are signs that either the Sea People or the Mycenean remnants or both raided the Island at this time).
The regular Hittits campaigns on the islands certainly did as much (if not more) than Sea Peoples tough.
It seems that what we tought being Mycenean refugees at first, were more local populations getting some material inspiration : Cline proposes an interesting analysis on this regard on his "the year civilization collapsed".
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The regular Hittits campaigns on the islands certainly did as much (if not more) than Sea Peoples tough.
It seems that what we tought being Mycenean refugees at first, were more local populations getting some material inspiration : Cline proposes an interesting analysis on this regard on his "the year civilization collapsed".
That's a book I plan procure, is it good?
 
That's a book I plan procure, is it good?
It is good, with some caveats : it's a bit too catastrophist in my sense, putting a good deal of focus on the "perfect storm", and a bit less on social-political events (altough it's true there's not much material, I'd have liked his piece of mind)

It also focuses a lot on Late Bronze Age society, which is not a bad thing as he explains their interdepenency and the role of periphery, but arguably not so much on the collapse itself and nearly not enough on Sea Peoples (Cline does stress their overuse as scapegoats of the collapse, but theories about them would have been welcomed, especially with the new evidences in European Bronze Age).

Overall, tough, it's extremely informative and while it's not perfect, it's a should-read would it be only to nuance some parts eventually, but Cline have a very good point as explaining the collapse not trough outer threat and metaphysical happenance, but as well and greatly, on the weaknesses and structural issues of LBA societies.
 
Extra History is currently doing a series on the Bronze Age Collapse that might be of interest here. Nothing new to me so far, but it's still a decent overview of the issues involved in figuring out what happened.


 
I think the OP is misinformed on the Sea Peoples; they were not one coherent group, but rather unrelated groups who picked up and went because of famine or displacement. Moreover, there isn't really any place in the Eastern European that was completely safe during the Bronze Age Collapse. The suggested Egyptian colony on OTL Constantinople would certainly by destroyed by the Phrygians, if not by Thracians; and that's assuming Egyptian colonists could even reach there while the sea is infested with pirates, even less so in Tunisia.

JVns0Lo.jpg


Perhaps the Hittites could defeat the invading Phrygians and save the capital, but slowly lose the rest of their empire to the south, gradually becoming a rump state. After a sort of dark age, a resurgent Hittite Empire could conquer the western portions of Anatolia and serve as a bastion against the Neo-Assyrians.
 
Were the effects of the collapse felt in say Britannia or Ethiopia or was it simply a near eastern crisis?
Don't hold me to this but I'm not Sure Ethiopia existed as anything resembling a nation-state at this point. Egypt if I remember correctly stretched or had trade relations with Makuria and Nubia which which I imagine Egypts slow decline affected, and Brittania would have been full of Celts, I'm not entirely sure they would have traded to far as the Mediterranean, and were left to their own devises.
 
I think the OP is misinformed on the Sea Peoples; they were not one coherent group, but rather unrelated groups who picked up and went because of famine or displacement. Moreover, there isn't really any place in the Eastern European that was completely safe during the Bronze Age Collapse. The suggested Egyptian colony on OTL Constantinople would certainly by destroyed by the Phrygians, if not by Thracians; and that's assuming Egyptian colonists could even reach there while the sea is infested with pirates, even less so in Tunisia.

Perhaps the Hittites could defeat the invading Phrygians and save the capital, but slowly lose the rest of their empire to the south, gradually becoming a rump state. After a sort of dark age, a resurgent Hittite Empire could conquer the western portions of Anatolia and serve as a bastion against the Neo-Assyrians.

Le Ouch. To be fair, the 'Constantinople Colony' idea is a little more far fetched - as it would require Egypt going and making the effort to defend/clientelise the Thracians, which seems difficult to me. (Not impossible mind).

I did know they were disparate groups. My statements still stand, even if they only impact parts of the whole called Sea Peoples - the problem is that we don't know who all of them were.

I do like that idea for the Hittites though.

Also @Mongo ... that may have inspired this thread. The second video led me to an idea that really benefits Egypt rather than anyone else. The rise of a Somalian Kingdom around its modern tin mines. (I have NO idea if they could have the tech to do so). It is known there was trade between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia - why not the Indus Valley, Somalia and Egypt? That could be a lifeline to import tin and food when times get bad, in exchange for gold. It could provide the societal stability required to hold firm rather than falter during the LBAC. Heck. Sadly Somalia might be a bit doomed if Egypt transitions to iron weaponry in the future, but they could still survive as a trading kingdom.

With a source of food and tin needed to make bronze, Egypt could weather the storm - and if one of the problems is a drop in agricultural yields, forcibly resettle Egyptians to newly conquered farmland. That might mitigate any overpopulation problems (for Egypt) slightly.
 
Top