[Middle East AH] - Aramean Syria and Assyrian Iraq?

See above. Suppose the Christian communities in Greater Syria and Iraq committed to a revival of their historical ethno-cultural identities instead of adhering or being marginalized by an Arab identity from the 1600s onwards. Could this revival be sustained enough to lead to cohesive concepts of nationhood and even independent nations? Or would the above conjectures be veering to much into ASB?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
With a POD from the 1600s onward, there can conceivably be great enough numbers to create viable polities. The first problem is that if they somehow gain control of entire Iraq and Syria, they indeed remain a minority-in-charge, and eventually get run over by the majority. The second problem is that even if they carve out their own smaller states in the region, keeping those alive while surrounded by presumably hostile states will be difficult no matter what.

The Maronite Christians in Lebanon enjoyed French backing, and afterwards got a constitution that gave them considerable advantages. If the French had carved out a fully Christian statelet in the region, and continued backing it (unlike OTL Lebanon, this Christian state would no doubt welcome that), it could have survived. The same goes for these other hypothetical statelets: creating separate polities (to prevent them being outnumbered from within) and giving them coninued backing from Europe or Russia (to prevent them being overrun from without) seem like the key points to me.
 
Last edited:
From what I've been reading, the Levantine provinces were very much underpopulated in comparison to the Anatolian Ottoman provinces during the entire period of the Ottoman empire, and were also significantly more diverse than they became post-Ottoman. Turkmen, Kurds, Assyrians, Armenians, Levantine Arabs, Bedouin Arabs all existed together without a distinct majority beyond Muslim-Christian. It was only with the Russian explusions of Muslims who fled southwards to the Ottomans that that religious balance was upset and many provinces in the south were repopulated. Jordan for example has the highest concentration of Circassians and Chechens outside of Russia. Lebanon integrated a sizeable Armenian population over time.

Add in the massive population explosion Muslims enjoyed from the 1900s onwards and I don't think it would be out of order to at some point that there be the possibility of Aramean and Assyrian-dominant states, if not so large as to replace the whole of Syria and Iraq. And even if the Arameans and Assyrians I postulate manage to take control of something resembling those countries, you're forgetting the examples of the Alawites and Sunnis in maintaining control over both populations for significant periods of time.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
From what I've been reading, the Levantine provinces were very much underpopulated in comparison to the Anatolian Ottoman provinces during the entire period of the Ottoman empire, and were also significantly more diverse than they became post-Ottoman. Turkmen, Kurds, Assyrians, Armenians, Levantine Arabs, Bedouin Arabs all existed together without a distinct majority beyond Muslim-Christian. It was only with the Russian explusions of Muslims who fled southwards to the Ottomans that that religious balance was upset and many provinces in the south were repopulated. Jordan for example has the highest concentration of Circassians and Chechens outside of Russia. Lebanon integrated a sizeable Armenian population over time.

Add in the massive population explosion Muslims enjoyed from the 1900s onwards and I don't think it would be out of order to at some point that there be the possibility of Aramean and Assyrian-dominant states, if not so large as to replace the whole of Syria and Iraq. And even if the Arameans and Assyrians I postulate manage to take control of something resembling those countries, you're forgetting the examples of the Alawites and Sunnis in maintaining control over both populations for significant periods of time.

As far as I'm aware - although I'm not a specialist on the subject - the demographics of the region indeed leaned far less in favour of a Muslim majority, but I get the impression Muslims were still a plurality. Moreover, the non-Muslim groups were also mutually opposed in a regular basis. (For instance, see the Christian-Druze conflict in Lebanon, which notably flared up to great excesses around 1860.) We also see, for instance, that in 1850, the Muslim majority in Aleppo were quite capable of slaughtering the Christian minority-- and besides able, willing. That last factor is important: as far as I expect, Muslims might just tolerate Alewites in a position of power, but tolerating Christian rule is another matter. (That's not even going into just how lasting or fleeting the Alewite power in Syria might turn out to be. It's a post-Ottoman state of affaire, less than a century old. Historically speaking, that's nothing.)

In short, I think there are options and perspectives, but based on what I know about the relevant matters, I think it's not as easy to get done as you portray it just there. Or rather: it's not as easy to create a stable situation that is not under constant pressure (be it internal or external).
 
As far as I'm aware - although I'm not a specialist on the subject - the demographics of the region indeed leaned far less in favour of a Muslim majority, but I get the impression Muslims were still a plurality. Moreover, the non-Muslim groups were also mutually opposed in a regular basis. (For instance, see the Christian-Druze conflict in Lebanon, which notably flared up to great excesses around 1860.) We also see, for instance, that in 1850, the Muslim majority in Aleppo were quite capable of slaughtering the Christian minority-- and besides able, willing. That last factor is important: as far as I expect, Muslims might just tolerate Alewites in a position of power, but tolerating Christian rule is another matter. (That's not even going into just how lasting or fleeting the Alewite power in Syria might turn out to be. It's a post-Ottoman state of affaire, less than a century old. Historically speaking, that's nothing.)

In short, I think there are options and perspectives, but based on what I know about the relevant matters, I think it's not as easy to get done as you portray it just there. Or rather: it's not as easy to create a stable situation that is not under constant pressure (be it internal or external).

I fully acknowledge it wouldn't be easy at all. Some of the conflicts you refer to involve larger issues relating to foreign powers like the British and French, and it ought to be noted that the Christian community in the region wasn't exactly blameless from sectarian conflict (notably the Damascus arrests which introduced the concept of Jewish blood libel to Muslim communities via European missionaries).

Add in the Christian rule over Lebanon (The Shihabs as a family pretty much were involved in every religious sect you could think of and several Emirs were Christian and tolerant of their Druze vassals) and the examples of minority rule elsewhere (Albanians in Iraq, etc...) along with multi-sectarian coalitions (notably in Lebanon and Palestine), I think that it can be possible, if somewhat difficult to effect and Aram and Assyria, given the starting point I'm suggesting.

After all, the Ottomans didn't have an easy go of things from 1800 onwards and nearly lost the Levant on several occasions. And as for the Alewites, you'd be surprised how few Muslims accept them, let alone that they themselves suffered Ottoman repression and attacks on several occasions.
 
Top