Egypt never unites and Mesopotamia doesn't either

Yun-shuno

Banned
So around 3100 BC instead of Egypt uniting Menes is defeated and the country is destabilized and overrun by nomads from east and west and so Egyptian civilization is aborted.

Also the city states of Mesopotamia are never united either Sargon is defeated or some like a drought occurs and torpedos any attempts at unifying the cradle of civilization.

What are the consequences of this? If the two centers of civilization in the ancient near east are torpedoed at birth how does the near east develop?
 
I wouldn't know about Egypt - but if Sargon does'nt unite Mesopatomia, another one will: following the Tigris and Euphrates is the logical way to go for any strong polity of the region.
 
Well for one, I doubt one can truly abort the civilizations in Sumer without also destroying those around it as a result of drought or natural catastrophe. Egypt on the other hand can easily be eliminated without destroying surrounding cultures. However, it could be postulated and would seem likely that another state of people's will inhabit the land of Egypt, however this could be manipulated into a series of crippling wars in which Egypt is just a land of warring chiefs and tribes, with a prehistoric farming base that will be fought over and pillaged.

Who in inhabits such a land is impossible to know, we have little knowledge (at least I do) to what state of affairs the Berbers or Taureg (if they really existed fully at this point) were in. However I would assume the languages of the area would change little, unless Semites invade from the Levant or Punt or alternatively people's arrive by sea. I would find it exceedingly interesting, a Egypt wracked in constant internal warfare, but with large potential. This in effect might keep a more basic Egyptian culture surviving as the people's will not be tied down to a certain state apparatus.

However a no Sargon, would lead to significant changes in the politics of Sumer. However this would not be cataclysmic. The other potential states of this time to rise to prominence is Elam, Hatti and a myriad of other nomad groups in various directions that you could turn into owes by giving a king of some sorts. Further by keeping Sumer without Sargon, we will see perhaps a further entrenching of distinct Sumerian language in terms of not mixing with Semites and a shunning of their culture in general. As well, we could see their states form into coalitions or confederations as a city state mentality develops further, and his look like Ancient Greece in terms of politics with leagues of states forming. This could possibly have effects of creating more liberal types of government, especially if peace can be attained for a time.

This however is assuming they are not conquered by any other Semite tribe out of north Iraq or Syria. Or in most cases an enemy from the Zagros mountains such as the Kassites or Guti. Also without a unifying power in the region Sumer remains insular in terms of war, allowing Syria and Anatolia to develop. Places like Hatti will have a breath of fresh air. That being said we do not fully understand the circumstance of their demise to the Hittites or the relationship with them. It is my feeling that the Hittites arrived with a myriad of indo Europeans from the Pontic steppe which would include the Pala, Greek ancestors, etc... This likely is not stopped. We also do not know of the Kaska of this period or even if they existed.

This could be an enormous boon for Elam who could possibly come to dominate Iraq and extract near infinite tribute from the warring Sumerian states. However Elam will need also to defend itself from invasions to the east and north as it becomes an even greater target due to the lack of political centralization and relative wealth in Sumer.

Of course then you have the Amorites and associated tribes in the Levant, what they do is unknowable. You could do anything with them essentially. Another possibility I thought of is sending the indo Europeans who likely came from the Pontic steppe through Armenia and into Iraq or into Lillubum, as the Cimmerians would do later. I have a feeling that the Hittites and Pala were like this originally but went a different ruote perhaps of fear of Akkad? I would not know.

This is a huge question and you could probably do whatever you please in this scenario.
 
Hard to see that Egypt and Mesopotamia wouldn't have united under one kingdom. These were such areas what someone would want take his control. If Menes and Sargon fail, someone else does that. But then history will be totally unrecognsible.
 
Even today Mesopotamia is not united. You have the Shia in the south, the Sunni in the middle and the Kurds in the north.
And it was the same for much of antiquity. There was Sumer in the south and Akkad in the middle. Then there was Babylon in the south and Assyria in the north. Lastly Assyria was replaced by the Medes. Most of the time since then, when Mesopotamia was united, it was united under a foreign party.
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
Even today Mesopotamia is not united. You have the Shia in the south, the Sunni in the middle and the Kurds in the north.
And it was the same for much of antiquity. There was Sumer in the south and Akkad in the middle. Then there was Babylon in the south and Assyria in the north. Lastly Assyria was replaced by the Medes. Most of the time since then, when Mesopotamia was united, it was united under a foreign party.
Well yes but the idea of Mesopotamian unity crystallized with Sargon and at various times was true. What if you nip the idea and potential in the bud from the get go.
 
Even today Mesopotamia is not united. You have the Shia in the south, the Sunni in the middle and the Kurds in the north.
And it was the same for much of antiquity. There was Sumer in the south and Akkad in the middle. Then there was Babylon in the south and Assyria in the north. Lastly Assyria was replaced by the Medes. Most of the time since then, when Mesopotamia was united, it was united under a foreign party.

Well that has little to do with the time period we are talking about. The situation in Iraq now is intrinsically tied to the Arab conquest and the Abbasid period. The only thing that current Iraq had ties with that of the old is land value and production levels.
 
Mesopotamia wasn't united for very long periods until the cities in the southern part started dwindling, mainly it seems for environmental reasons. The empire of Kish didn't last long and didn't seem to have many long term consequences. Ur created its own empire not long later.

Egypt is a different story, because after Menes the nomes were united under one scepter more often than not, and after about 600 BC the place was always one political unit. However, their record during periods of disunity, and the situation in Mesopotamia, indicate that the urban civilization itself wouldn't have gone away if there was no unity. Given how everything was strung out along one river, its really hard to see how no one ever unites the place.
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
Mesopotamia wasn't united for very long periods until the cities in the southern part started dwindling, mainly it seems for environmental reasons. The empire of Kish didn't last long and didn't seem to have many long term consequences. Ur created its own empire not long later.

Egypt is a different story, because after Menes the nomes were united under one scepter more often than not, and after about 600 BC the place was always one political unit. However, their record during periods of disunity, and the situation in Mesopotamia, indicate that the urban civilization itself wouldn't have gone away if there was no unity. Given how everything was strung out along one river, its really hard to see how no one ever unites the place.
If though for a sustained period of time there was disunity or some sort of calamity how would it affect history?
 
I think, that it is difficult to prevent any unification of Egypt or Mesopotamia in the long term.
I think, that there is some trend to form larger Empires.
It is interesting to see, that from Sargon, to Assyria, to the Neobabylonian Empire to Persia (there are of course many other empires in between) increasingly larger Empires evolved. Still between these empires are often ages of dis-unification and balkanization.
Even if foreign invaders somehow overrun Egypt, after some time, they could adapt to the region. After some time, their states could become unified. The result is maybe not OTL-Ancient-Egypt but still an important power in the region. The same goes for Mesopotamia.
If you use ecological disasters, you need to separate between reversible and irreversible disasters. If there is a massive and really long drought combined with some other disasters, you could probably delay the development of civilization in the region. (And create some sort of collapse for maybe several generations). This could favour some neighbours if they are not affected, but would destroy larger trade networks. The geographical situation still favours the development of civilizations in Mesopotamia. Therefore, I predict some kind of recovery after the end of the disaster.
I don't have an idea right now, but if you create a disaster, which changes the ecologic/climatic/geographical background irreversible and unfavorable for the development of cities, then you could prevent the unification of Mesopotamia, but at the price, that Mesopotamia isn't the "crandle of civilization" anymore.

But I'm not an expert on this time and this region.

If we have many city states close to each other, with a lot of conflicts, it is quite reasonable to assume, that after some time, someone has enough luck to conquer enough city states to form a larger political entity.
If you want to change that, you need to change the basic conditions and reasons which lead often to the formation (and often the fall) of empires.
 
Top