Most interesting Ancient/Medieval Scenario?

Which of these timeline ideas do you like the best?

  • Go West, Great Ashur (Neo-Assyrian Empire survives, invades the Greeks)

    Votes: 34 37.8%
  • Iustinianus, Restitutor Orbis (Smarter Justinian, Hellenism survives)

    Votes: 34 37.8%
  • Umayyad Constantinople/Great Mediterranean War (Umayyads conquer Constantinople)

    Votes: 20 22.2%
  • Constantine's Redemption (Constantine IV defeats the Bulgars)

    Votes: 12 13.3%
  • Fires of Varna (Hunyadi wins the Crusade of Varna)

    Votes: 35 38.9%

  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .

Deleted member 97083

Which of these Ancient/Medieval TLs sounds most interesting? Any criticism is welcome.

Go West, Great Ashur: King Ashurbanipal lives five more years, crushing the Scythian-Median invasion that his sons faced and recruiting the northern barbarians as mercenaries. After Ashurbanipal’s death, Ashur-etil-ilani becomes sole King, consolidating the empire by suppressing the Chaldean revolt in Babylon. Now, with all of his ‘allies’ busy and all his enemies divided, the King can reverse the fate of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Hearing of a wealthy land of trading states beyond Phrygia, Ashur-etil-ilani sets on a great expedition to conquer Greece, bringing the brutal dominion of Ashur to the edges of the earth.

Iustinianus, Restitutor Orbis: Credit to @Magnum for the idea. Belisarius wins a crushing victory at the Battle of Callinicum, and Persia pays tribute to Byzantium rather than the other way around in the so-called “Eternal Peace”. This triumph increases Justinian’s popularity, preventing the Nika Riots and their destruction. And without the threat to his life, the Emperor is much less paranoid, leading to him trusting Belisarius and making better decisions in the West. After the untimely death of Theodora, Justinian marries Amalasuntha of the Goths, leading to a swifter conquest of Italy by the Eastern Roman Empire. Ultimately, Justinian’s better footing allows him to truly restore the Roman Empire and preserve the Hellenistic world for a future age. Not without challenges, as the population of Germania, Avaria, and Arabia still steadily grow, creating future enemies of Constantinople.

Umayyad Constantinople, or Great Mediterranean War: Kallinikos, the inventor of Greek Fire, converts to Islam and defects to the Umayyad navy, providing a crucial advantage against the Romans. The Umayyads succeed in taking Constantinople in the 674-678 siege, destroying the Byzantine Empire save for a few poor western fragments. Muslim captains also take naval superiority across the Mediterranean. But for the Umayyads, there are many trials ahead: civil wars, Avar-Bulgar barbarians, and the eventual Abbasid Revolution. Meanwhile, an exodus of Greeks goes west and east, bolstering the Slavs and Khazars and assuring years of warfare across the Mediterranean. But long-term, the future is bright for Islam in Anatolia.

Constantine’s Redemption: Credit to @General_Finley for the idea. Constantine IV's gout doesn't flair up before the Battle of Ongal so he doesn't leave the battlefield which caused panic in his troops as they feared the Emperor had abandoned them to die. Victory at the Battle of Ongal either fractures the the Seven Slavic tribes making them much more manageable preventing the creation of the Bulgarian Empire before it could even form, or results in them pushing into the Pannonian Plain like the Magyars and menacing Central Europe rather than the Roman Empire. This likely butterflies away the circumstances that led to him him contracting dysentery five years later. Seeing as he was only 33 at the time of his death, he had the potential to rule for at least another decade if not two. This means no terror of Justinian (or at least a very different one), no Twenty Years of Anarchy, and no rise of the Isaurians and their Iconoclastic ideology, i.e. it means preventing three of the worst things to happen to the Roman Empire since the fall of Egypt and Syria.

Fires of Varna: During the Crusade of Varna, Murad II’s harebrained plan to burn down Sofia goes incredibly wrong. Kasim Pasha, Turahan Bey, and Murad II become aware of Hunyadi’s army too late, setting fire to the city under the nose of the attacking army, and are trapped in the city as it burns, leaving Rumelia Eyalet and the Ottoman Empire without leadership. The Empire falls into civil war between the legitimate heir Mehmed II who is not old enough to rule, the Byzantine puppet Şehzade Orhan Çelebi, and other noble pretenders. The Karamanids, having a good chance at dislodging the Ottomans, are bolstered by Mamluk allies instead of invading alone. Ultimately, the Crusade of Varna is victorious, and the Byzantine Empire is given one last breath of life, able to slowly rise again.
 
I've always been partial to John Hunyadi, so I feel a TL on the Varna Crusade would be neat. Runner-up is Muslim Rum with the Ummayads.
 
That Justinian scenario, since I have a huge interest in the pre-Islamic Mediterranean since it directly inherits so much of Antiquity, culturally, linguistically, etc., but also allowing a transition to a newer era, especially in Europe.
 
Go West Young Asher is my favorite. I wish there were more ancient tl and genuinely never being attracted to Byzantine or Roman alt history (weren't they wanked enough otl). That being said, I don't think it is the one you should do; it being different from the Byzantine era stuff you know and appears to be your strength.
 
Last edited:
Go West, Great Ashur is the most unique to me. While the research might be hard the AH potential is enormous. A timeline where the Assyrians manage to deport rebel Greeks or at least influence their warrior culture would have far ranging implications.

If the invasion proves unsuccessful, there's always the next best option, Assyrians vs. Macedonians. It's perhaps the greatest AH showdown that never was...
 
Ugh, I have to say I don't want to see Ashur do better, but I'd probably read it out of morbid fascination.

The ummayad one is oft disussed but rarely done. The others seem like Byzantinewanks or remove Kebab, which are overdone, imo.
 
Isn't there already timeline on this site called "The Assyrian Came Down" or something like that where Assyria conquers Greece?
 

Deleted member 97083

Go West, Great Ashur is the most unique to me. While the research might be hard the AH potential is enormous. A timeline where the Assyrians manage to deport rebel Greeks or at least influence their warrior culture would have far ranging implications.
Well, the golden age of Classical and Hellenistic Greece had yet to occur. Other than urban colonization and trade, there's not much more the Assyrians can learn from the Archaic Greeks that they couldn't already learn from the Babylonians, for example.

However, a longer lasting Neo-Assyrian Empire with its brutal rule does have far reaching implications for religious pantheons and future translatio imperii in the area.

Also, a late Neo-Assyrian TL is just about the only way that a Mesopotamian Empire, dynastic Egypt, and independent Hebrew kingdoms can exist at the same time as Carthage, Rome, and Magna Graecia.

http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php?id=timelines:assyrian_came_down_the Yep, it's linked on this site's wiki. However, it doesn't seem like it was a full fledged timeline. Still worth a look.
Interesting, though the POD for that one is much earlier.
 
Well, the golden age of Classical and Hellenistic Greece had yet to occur. Other than urban colonization and trade, there's not much more the Assyrians can learn from the Archaic Greeks that they couldn't already learn from the Babylonians, for example.

However, a longer lasting Neo-Assyrian Empire with its brutal rule does have far reaching implications for religious pantheons and future translatio imperii in the area.

Also, a late Neo-Assyrian TL is just about the only way that a Mesopotamian Empire, dynastic Egypt, and independent Hebrew kingdoms can exist at the same time as Carthage, Rome, and Magna Graecia.
I was actually referring to the Archaic Greeks being influenced by Neo Assyrian warfare and empire building. I'm pretty much in agreement with everything else you said.

A random thought bouncing around my head was some sort of combined arms developing further within the multi-ethnic Neo Assyrian army and filtering into the regions of the Near East that they ruled. When the empire implodes, the successors in the Fertile Crescent expand on these tactics and are on a more even playing field, military wise, with the rising powers surrounding it as a result (not sure how correct this assumption is though).

Of course the Assyrians wouldn't hold Greece for any lengthy time frame, and the Assyrians getting there in the first place stretches plausibility quite a bit (or at least in the Neo Assyrian incarnation). I'd personally be willing to look the other way just to see someone's take on it. But it's really one of those ideas that one would play with as a thought experiment/TLIAW.
 

Deleted member 97083

I was actually referring to the Archaic Greeks being influenced by Neo Assyrian warfare and empire building. I'm pretty much in agreement with everything else you said.

A random thought bouncing around my head was some sort of combined arms developing further within the multi-ethnic Neo Assyrian army and filtering into the regions of the Near East that they ruled. When the empire implodes, the successors in the Fertile Crescent expand on these tactics and are on a more even playing field, military wise, with the rising powers surrounding it as a result (not sure how correct this assumption is though).

Of course the Assyrians wouldn't hold Greece for any lengthy time frame, and the Assyrians getting there in the first place stretches plausibility quite a bit (or at least in the Neo Assyrian incarnation). I'd personally be willing to look the other way just to see someone's take on it. But it's really one of those ideas that one would play with as a thought experiment/TLIAW.
Well, Assyrian control over Greece proper will most likely be fleeting. But I don't think the total collapse of the Neo-Assyrian Empire is a foregone conclusion. Assyria's long, brutal collapse after Ashurbanipal's death was largely caused by crises that occurred immediately after he died.

If Ashurbanipal lived long enough to dispel general Sin-shumu-lishir's rebellion, it would establish his son, co-regent and successor Ashur-etil-ilani as a strong King on the throne, securing several years of internal peace and preventing the rapid succession of kings. Then there's the Scythian-Median invasion to deal with at around the same time. If Assyria was not in civil war, and Ashurbanipal was on the throne, that invasion could have been defeated just like the myriad of invasions that occurred during Ashurbanipal's reign. We don't know how skilled Ashur-etil-ilani was as a military leader because he was assassinated so quickly, but I think it's plausible that by fighting alongside a longer-lived Ashurbanipal he would become an effective warlord, if he wasn't already.

Sure, Assyria is surrounded by enemies, but if all the enemies are distracted fighting each other (as the Medes would be fighting the Scyths, the Lydians would be fighting Cimmerians, and Lower Egypt would be fighting against the Kushites) then there's no reason for the empire to start collapsing.

Admittedly, there were some hints of decline in wealth and manpower before Ashurbanipal's death. However, there are simple solutions for many of those issues. Assyria proper was reportedly overpopulated, and Babylon underpopulated. If another wave of Assyrian colonists were sent to the outskirts and rebellious corners of the Empire, then that would certainly help the economy and logistics of controlling those territories. Invading Anatolia and Greece would also bring a lot of gold, captives, and conscripts into the Neo-Assyrian Empire, strengthening the imperial treasury and increasing the population.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, Assyrian control over Greece proper will most likely be fleeting. But I don't think the total collapse of the Neo-Assyrian Empire is a foregone conclusion. Assyria's long, brutal collapse after Ashurbanipal's death was largely caused by crises that occurred immediately after he died.

If Ashurbanipal lived long enough to dispel general Sin-shumu-lishir's rebellion, it would establish his son, co-regent and successor Ashur-etil-ilani as a strong King on the throne, securing several years of internal peace and preventing the rapid succession of kings. Then there's the Scythian-Median invasion to deal with at around the same time. If Assyria was not in civil war, and Ashurbanipal was on the throne, that invasion could have been defeated just like the myriad of invasions that occurred during Ashurbanipal's reign. We don't know how skilled Ashur-etil-ilani was as a military leader because he was assassinated so quickly, but I think it's plausible that by fighting alongside a longer-lived Ashurbanipal he would become an effective warlord, if he wasn't already.

Sure, Assyria is surrounded by enemies, but if all the enemies are distracted fighting each other (as the Medes would be fighting the Scyths, the Lydians would be fighting Cimmerians, and Lower Egypt would be fighting against the Kushites) then there's no reason for the empire to start collapsing.

Admittedly, there were some hints of decline in wealth and manpower before Ashurbanipal's death. However, there are simple solutions for many of those issues. Assyria proper was reportedly overpopulated, and Babylon underpopulated. If another wave of Assyrian colonists were sent to the outskirts and rebellious corners of the Empire, then that would certainly help the economy and logistics of controlling those territories. Invading Anatolia and Greece would also bring a lot of gold, captives, and conscripts into the Neo-Assyrian Empire, strengthening the imperial treasury and increasing the population.
Do you happen to have any more information on this supposed population disparity between Assyria and Babylonia at this time? In the back of my head I'm thinking that if this were the case, then how were the Babylonians able to sustain near constant rebellions throughout the Neo Assyrian period (and ultimately succeed in them). Granted they did receive aid from Assyria's enemies but I suspect it was the Babylonians that were doing most of the heavy lifting. Either way the info would be of great use for me.
 

Deleted member 97083

Do you happen to have any more information on this supposed population disparity between Assyria and Babylonia at this time? In the back of my head I'm thinking that if this were the case, then how were the Babylonians able to sustain near constant rebellions throughout the Neo Assyrian period (and ultimately succeed in them). Granted they did receive aid from Assyria's enemies but I suspect it was the Babylonians that were doing most of the heavy lifting. Either way the info would be of great use for me.
Can't find source for Babylon having low population. For Assyria being overpopulated: “No harvest was reaped”: demographic and climatic factors in the decline of the Neo-Assyrian Empire says that the increase of the population of the Assyrian heartland in the early 7th century made it susceptible to drought, and that there was a period of severe drought in the mid 7th century.

Actually I was not aware of the drought detail so I may have to revise the scenario. Then again, based on the figures they provide, a humid period started again around 625 BC, at least in Turkey, so if the Assyrians survive an extra decade in unity they should be fine.
 
My impression was that on fact the Assyrians suffered from several main issues interconnected :
- overextention
- the deep hate of the conquered populations due to their brutal treatment and deportation
- the "colonial" type of exploitation of the conquered lands for the benefit of Metropole
- the dispersal of the loyal native Assyrian population trough the Empire
- the increasing population in Assyrian land which was alien, diverse and held no loyalty to Assyria/do not identify themselves as Assyrians. This was cause of deportations.
- the lack of efficiently assimilate the elites of the conquered countries and of their populations
- not an emphasis on converting people to Assyrian religion
- the decrease of the military base of recruitment.
- passing from militia type to a professional standing army tremendously improved the Assyrian successes but if one or two armies are lost then it became terribly exposed.
- reliance on very strong leaders
- way too many enemies and 0 allies
- bad luck at the end
 
Last edited:
I voted for Ashur and Justinian, the first being in an often neglected period and area and the second being simply interesting.

That said, the Crusade of Varna spiked my interest as butterflies would certainly affect Poland. The Battle of Varna doesn't happen, so Władysław Warneńczyk stays alive, and isn't even known as Warneńczyk (=of Varna).
 
Can't find source for Babylon having low population. For Assyria being overpopulated: “No harvest was reaped”: demographic and climatic factors in the decline of the Neo-Assyrian Empire says that the increase of the population of the Assyrian heartland in the early 7th century made it susceptible to drought, and that there was a period of severe drought in the mid 7th century.

Actually I was not aware of the drought detail so I may have to revise the scenario. Then again, based on the figures they provide, a humid period started again around 625 BC, at least in Turkey, so if the Assyrians survive an extra decade in unity they should be fine.
Ahh, thank you, this is just what I was looking for. Kind of rings a bit like the 4.2 kiloyear event that took out the Akkadians more than a millennium earlier.
 

Deleted member 67076

2,3, and 4 are my favorites. Would love to see 3 especially simply for the drastic changes it would bring.
 
Top