Make Assyria great again
- Thread starter Gukpard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assyria medieval era
Deleted member 97083
It's not impossible. During the Roman era, the entirety of Mesopotamia spoke Aramaic. So the population is there.
There were also several microstates on the border with Rome and Parthia/Sassanid Persia, such as Osroene, with a decent amount of potential. If Rome and Parthia are both weakened, Osroene or another state can fill the vacuum.
There were also several microstates on the border with Rome and Parthia/Sassanid Persia, such as Osroene, with a decent amount of potential. If Rome and Parthia are both weakened, Osroene or another state can fill the vacuum.
Magical123
Banned
Could a Nestorian Empire arise stretching from Western China with a capital at Asshur to the Mediterranean to the border of India and as far north as Ukraine a Christian empire but still with marching under the flag of Asshur and Ashurnibal. Conquering and marching as their ancestors once did while spreading the Christian gospel.
Nestorian Assyrian Empire with pagan and historical iconography and culture would be awesome.
Nestorian Assyrian Empire with pagan and historical iconography and culture would be awesome.
Assyria isn't really the best place to form the base for a long-lasting power. It's between other traditionally powerful regions, and lacks the nice defensive geography of Asia Minor - which was made into a very significant powerbase by the Romans (hence the survival of the Eastern Roman Empire).
If you want a neo-neo-Assyrian Empire, though, one maybe could imagine a timeline in which a strong Assyrian warlord is able to exploit the weakening of Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire that was caused by their brutal wars against one another. If this sounds familiar, it is because this is how the Arabs conquered much of the Middle East and Persia.
If you want a neo-neo-Assyrian Empire, though, one maybe could imagine a timeline in which a strong Assyrian warlord is able to exploit the weakening of Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire that was caused by their brutal wars against one another. If this sounds familiar, it is because this is how the Arabs conquered much of the Middle East and Persia.
What about the Crisis of the Third Century, the Palmyrene empire, and Fars's rebellion against Parthia as a window of opportunity for a satrap of Asoristan to declare himself king of Assur and Babylon?
There is a difference. The Arabian peninsula is both larger than the Syriac world both in Sassanid and Byzantine dominions and has a higher populace. To say that the Assyrian highlands by this point is at the same power as Arabia is not accurate in my opinion. Even sections of Arabia are more equipped for warfare than Assyria and Osroene; Yemen for example.
let's go with the Nestorian assyrian warlord theory
Let's say that the romans, after losing at the Yamourk, they manage to make a last stand battle at sinai and win, with both sides being horribly damaged, and the sassanids fall into civil war, and in this situation, a warlord in assyria decides to make his empire, could he buy support from the byzantines? He could say that he's christian so he can cooperate with the byzantines against both the arabians and the sassanids
Doubtful.
The Byzantines wouldn't want to support a rebel group that could undermine the already receding power Sassanid power in Iraq. Every gain the Arabs make against the Sassanids is a detriment to the Byzantines as it weakens their main advantage against the Arabs, namely a two front war, which the Arabs could quickly be trapped in.
This was the reason the Byzantines had a quasi alliance with the Sassanids. The only reason the alliance failed was the utter weakness and miscalculations by the Sassanids. The Byzantines, would not want to compromise this until after the Sassanids become a lost cause.
If the Sassanids fall and the Byzantines are able to keep its rule on the north of Syria and Anatolia, they could support a Syriac state out of Ninewah. This would also have to be tempered with a strong alliance between Syriacs, Armenians and Kurds to even hope to engage the Arabs in battle.
Mind you, this is part of my opinion that the true super power of this period was the Byzantines. They where the only force that could stand against the Arabs in the Mediterranean. The Sassanids on the other hand, where not a match for the Byzantines and their inefficiencies where throughly exposed by the Arab forces.
Deleted member 97083
If the Byzantines win Yarmouk, or even avoid it for several years allowing Heraclius to build up the Syrian defenses to their prewar levels, it's a bit easier to justify this IMO.
Byzantium needs to be strong to establish rule over Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia will never become Greek, so it doesn't matter how long they hold it, whether its a decade or centuries. The Assyrians can always break off later.
Byzantium needs to be strong to establish rule over Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia will never become Greek, so it doesn't matter how long they hold it, whether its a decade or centuries. The Assyrians can always break off later.
Yea, this may be the best way to do this. Have the Byzantines defeat the Arabs, then begin to pick up the pieces in the absence of Sassanid power in Iraq to create a Syriac state there. This state would have to appeal to the Kurds mind you to actually put up a fight on its own against remaining Arabs in al-Hira and with incursions from remaining Sassanid loyalists in Iran.
Deleted member 97083
It wouldn't be too hard to get the allegiance of the Kurds if the Byzantines welcome exiled Sassanid and otherwise Iranian nobles, like Theophobos (who was from the Armenian highlands, so perhaps Kurdish).
Yes, however, that was at a later period and Nusayr was not the most loyal subject. After, the loss of Amorium he committed treason against the Empire.
Though, the Kurds would be an effective fighting force especially if they are christianized. A Syriac ruling class and a Kurdish-Armenian warrior class and peasantry.
But I remember reading somewhere that the kurds were hostile towards nestorians, is that true?
That would not matter, the Byzantines were certainly not Nestorian and nor where the majority of Christians in Iraq and in Armenia. Nestorians are essentially extinct by now and mainly in the middle ages where represented in the far east and previously in the Sassanid empire where I doubt they were a majority. The Kurds where certainly more anti Arab and earlier anti Muslim. Which is why, many Kurds joined the Khurramiyyah, Byzantines with Nusayr and the Khawarij revolt against the Abbasids. Syriacs became enemies of the Kurds in the Middle Ages, due to the Syriac support of and dependence upon the Abbasid throne during the 800s AD. In fact, the Khawarij massacred a large portion of the Syriacs in Ninewah for supporting the Abbasid throne; the attack was followed by a sack of the entire province by the Khawarij forces reinforced with Kurdish warriors and opportunists.
Slightly off topic, this is one of the least talked about wars in all of Islamic history. The Khawarij revolt of North Iraq mirrored the Zanj revolt and seriously destroyed the Abbasid tax base which drew a large income from the Christian Syriacs who were ardent supporters intellectually of the Abbasid throne, supporters of the Mihna and happily paid a 15% tax mostly for their protection. This thus created an interesting relationship between the Abbasid throne and the Syriacs, in many cases, the Abbasid throne had better support amongst the Syriac Christians than they did amongst many Arab Sunni.
In a way this speaks to the development of the Syriacs as a people during the times since the fall of Assyria. They almost developed into a people without the will to fight or one simply bereft of them, a people of scholars and merchants. Typically, this breeds fertile grounds for mercenary use as seen in Carthage and Italy, but that is difficult when there is none to hire, especially when Islam creates a hegemony in the region. Syriacs over the years had been greatly weakened and their failure to remove Achaemenid power was perhaps their last chance to create anything beyond a client state of the East or West. By the Abbasid period, Syriacs did not even posses a militia of note and when the Khawarij attacked and assaulted their strongholds, the Arab guards deserted and the Syriacs where defenseless and where utterly massacred and subjugated. It took the Abbasid army to finally push the Khawarij from the area and to stop the Kurdish looting. This sort of weakness is why I doubt the Syriacs can make a truly powerful state; a vassal rump state of the Byzantines that perhaps makes use of Kurds and Armenians and hopefully, Khazar and other types of mercenary to fight the Caliphate assuming Yazid takes power as otl.
In fairness to the Syriacs, I don't think non-Muslims were allowed to fight or bear arms under the Caliphate? So I'm not sure what else could have happened other than them becoming a demilitarised people.
Actually, that gives me an idea for a POD: during some period of instability, a Caliph or governor decides to start recruiting units of Christian Syriacs into his army (reasoning that he needs every man he can get in such troubled times, or whatever). This turns out to be a bad idea when they rebel and overthrow him, setting themselves up as rulers instead. They do well enough to establish a stable state in Syria and northern Mesopotamia, and the heirs of Assyria once more rule over an empire.
Hmm, I might steal this idea at some point for a TL, but hear me out
The army doesn't rebel and Emperor Maurice is still on the throne in 602. Rather than 26 years of war, the Empire sits quite happily sending resources to consolidate* the Caucauses and the Exarchates.
Persia meanwhile isn't having a great time, and destabilises for the same reasons it did (besides the war), leading to some of the Assyrians being able to temporarily take control over Assyria - and Maurice, not wanting to out the Shahanshah he set up, nor expose himself in Assyria, proposes a joint client state in Assyria, which is accepted by Khosrau, as long as they still pay them tribute. Giving the Assyrians a small state that stretched from the Roman border north of the Saokoros, south of the mountains, and hugging those mountains to include territory east of the Tigris, but north of the Little Zab.
This little client state is compelled to provide some troops to assist Khosrau, and it does, giving itself some practical experience at defending itself, whilst being given some resources by the Romans - using it as a proxy to stablise the Sassanids. (Essentially, this is an attempt by Maurice to end the Roman-Persian Wars)
Whilst there is now a little Assyrian Kingdom, when Mohammed comes along, stuff still hits the fan in a bad way, and the Romans, despite being better of that OTL, still lost the Levant, and later Egypt - manage to hold the line near Antioch, creating a joint frontier with the Assyrians, who protected by a joint Roman-Persian Force (i.e. local Persian forces that needed someone to pay them).
This at least CREATES a little Assyrian state that could. But it would certainly come down to how well it can play the politics of the era to survive as a great Kingdom. - I could see it, with a lot of luck, becoming a dominant force in Mesopotamia, but after this point, I have nowt.
The army doesn't rebel and Emperor Maurice is still on the throne in 602. Rather than 26 years of war, the Empire sits quite happily sending resources to consolidate* the Caucauses and the Exarchates.
Persia meanwhile isn't having a great time, and destabilises for the same reasons it did (besides the war), leading to some of the Assyrians being able to temporarily take control over Assyria - and Maurice, not wanting to out the Shahanshah he set up, nor expose himself in Assyria, proposes a joint client state in Assyria, which is accepted by Khosrau, as long as they still pay them tribute. Giving the Assyrians a small state that stretched from the Roman border north of the Saokoros, south of the mountains, and hugging those mountains to include territory east of the Tigris, but north of the Little Zab.
This little client state is compelled to provide some troops to assist Khosrau, and it does, giving itself some practical experience at defending itself, whilst being given some resources by the Romans - using it as a proxy to stablise the Sassanids. (Essentially, this is an attempt by Maurice to end the Roman-Persian Wars)
Whilst there is now a little Assyrian Kingdom, when Mohammed comes along, stuff still hits the fan in a bad way, and the Romans, despite being better of that OTL, still lost the Levant, and later Egypt - manage to hold the line near Antioch, creating a joint frontier with the Assyrians, who protected by a joint Roman-Persian Force (i.e. local Persian forces that needed someone to pay them).
This at least CREATES a little Assyrian state that could. But it would certainly come down to how well it can play the politics of the era to survive as a great Kingdom. - I could see it, with a lot of luck, becoming a dominant force in Mesopotamia, but after this point, I have nowt.
Last edited:
Not this again.
We both know the Syriacs, at least the non-Muslim ones would be Dhimmi and therefore cannot form an armed force. Combine that with the fact that their home wasn't united, was either owned by one of two major powers that would not tolerate (and generally crush) any Syriac rebellion/armed force that ever emerged, and it isn't a surprise that they wouldn't create an army in a flash.
They need to be in a position where they can, and have to, be self-reliant in some manner. (Hence my scenario).
People without the will to fight or bereft my left wrist - it was a people that was a minority in the locale (much like they are now, and modern Kurds). Give them the need, circumstance, and resources, and any people can form a state.
I apologise that this comes across harsh (it isn't meant to), but it ignores circumstance and sounds a hell of a lot like "Martial Races" theory.
Deleted member 97083
Assyrians were the main heavy infantry component of the Achaemenid military and were even employed in the second invasion of Greece. They were still fighters, long after Cyrus and the two failed revolts.
Martial races.....
The Syriacs were not disallowed military, nor where they disallowed entry into the Abbasid army. Let us do some comparisons:
The Kurds at this time where not Muslim nor where they Dhimmi, yet they had the weapons and military expertise to engage in several vicious military campaigns against the Abbasid throne.
The Copts had no military to speak of and were Dhimmis but waged a province wide revolt in Egypt and forced the Abbasid throne more attention to the area.
Armenians were disarmed and not even Dhimmi, they were seen as people to either be enslaved or used against the Byzantines as fodder. Look to the wars of Umar ibn Aqta to see an example of Paulician Armenians used to prosecute the Abbasid wars. Yet the Armenians frequently resisted the Abbasid and were in constant revolt, despite not ever being truly independent.
History has no reason to display equality of peoples. The Syriacs were dealt a terrible hand by being born from an empire utterly crushed by the Achaemenids and then being dependent of several strong empires; Rome, Achaemenids, Seleucids, Arscids, Sassanids, Umayyads and Abbasids and then more after. It has nothing to do with martial races and the like, you simply are reading too deeply into everything, to see that we have the same view.
Either way, it was something that occurred before the Muslims that caused the state of affairs in the Syriac world. I do not really know what that is however.
I think there's definitely something to be said for a lack of martial tradition among the Syriacs after a certain point under the Caliphate. It's tough to create an army out of thin air when you have no precedent for your people even bearing arms.
I don't think you can deny that at times they had the will to rebel. But the odds of it succeeding, I think, are low.
I don't think you can deny that at times they had the will to rebel. But the odds of it succeeding, I think, are low.