How much of an impact on OTLs destruction of Assyria did Ashurbanipal IIs supposed extreme cruelty and brutality had? Could a fall of Assyria lacking his reign of terror be less destructive overall to the point where Assyria gets to bounce back again afterwards?
There is no need for an ordinal for Assurbanipal as he was the only monarch with this name.
In general, Assurbanipal is much more merciful than his predecessors. In general, Assyrian kings were extremely fearsome in all manner, harsh, judgmental, zealous and extremely bold. Assyrian kings bragged about extreme acts of punishment and destruction. Take Shalmaneser I, who claimed to ground humans into mush and to have smote millions in tides of fury or Assurnasirpal II who wrote constantly in his inscriptions about setting children on fire in enemy cities and he even goes on to describe the stench of burning humans whom he mass executed in Syrian cities as retribution for their sins. Assyrian punishments were noted as fearsome, even for Bronze Age and Iron age standards, revolving around flaying the skin, setting alight in fire and in then beheading the person as a trophy for Nergal, the god of punishment, looting, flaying, fire and plague. Punishment, annihilation and enslavement of enemy peoples were seen as religious duties and acts made to the Great Gods, who instructed Assyria with the task of completion of Duranki, a complex mission of world conquest and 'rehabilitation' of the world through agriculture and through annihilation, enslavement and conquest of other peoples.
Assyrian kings in the Late Bronze Age still held the notion that the world was generally inhabited by humans represented by Mesopotamia and by so-called half-humans and non-humans. These half-humans and non-humans were to be destroyed, for they were supposedly marks of evil upon the world, symbols of sins made to the Great Gods that brought upon humanity the deluge that swallowed the world. As such, remorse for humans killed in war was essentially non existent or it was at least not mentioned by Assyrian royal propaganda, which touted extermination of different peoples as religious acts of service or masculine empowerment.
By the Early Iron Age, we see the first mentioning of mercy in Assyrian royal propaganda. Assurnasirpal II mentions that after he had burned so many children, women and elderly who had been his enemies, he pittied a group of starved children and ordered them to be enslaved rather than burned. This was touted as an example of his endless power and when he did forgive, the propaganda, framed it as the blessing of Ninhursang or Gula, who had interceded on behalf of the children. Later Assyrian kings would be even more ready to promote a frame of mercy.
Generally, there are three ways in which Assyrian reaction to enemies may be measured. One, extermination, enslavement and physical invasion. This one is obvious and it entails a certain level of necessity to be fearsome. Second, a magical curse. More abstract, Assyrian royal propaganda makes talk of so-called evil magic that they would take hold of and send as curses to destroy enemy armies. This often came when an enemy king died due to a certain reason not related to war and the Assyrian monarchs would claim that the aura of terror had consumed him. In some cases, this goes so far as to say that the Assyrian Great Gods had sent some sort of magical creature to slay enemy kings. In the reign of Assurbanipal, he claims that the Great Gods sent a rat to kill an Arab chief almost as an assassin. The implication is that this was a curse and a vicious one. However, the third is that of mercy. Supposedly upon intercession of Gula, Assyrian monarchs forgive their enemies and instead raise their tribute rates or something of this nature.
Assurbanipal begins his reign fairly young and he is the third son of his great father, with his older siblings being: Sinbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin. In the traditional system of the Dual-monarchy of Assyria, Assyria and Karduniash (Babylonia) were much like Austro-Hungary, a personal union ruled by the family ruling Assyria. One son would be made king of Karduniash and the other of Assyria and the two would rule as an allied bloc, similar to the situation in Merovingian Europe. However, this situation was sometimes nullified by the Assyrian monarch not having a son worthy for the moment and thus placed a eunuch on the throne.
During Assurhadon's reign, we see a true consolidation of Assyrian might and the height of Assyrian power is reached. Of his sons, he appoints the eldest, Sinbanipal as the crown prince of Assyria and then appoints his second son, Shamash-shuma-ukin, as king of Karduniash and he is sent to Babylon as a boy to rule. Meanwhile, his third son, Assurbanipal is made a general and attendant in the army of Assyria, where his performance is, not so great. Assurbanipal was a bookish person it would seem, interested in archives and palace life or study. He was ill fitted for battle. Regardless, he was made crown prince of Assyria when the first son died in campaign against the Scythians and Assurbanipal became the co-king in effect of Assyria, an unexpected reality that Assurhadon sought to protect at all costs. Assurhadon went to great lengths to make sure his sons were assured power.
Assurhadon was unable to live long due to an unknown illness he was afflicted, which some believe to be an early onset of cancer. He was gravely ill from a young age relatively and hence the thrones of his young heirs were in danger. Hence, Assurhadon invaded all of the vassals and tributaries around Assyria and forced them to make oaths of protection of one of his heirs. It went as follows:
Those pledged to Shamash-shuma-ukin:
Qedar
Nabataens
Persia
Elam
any other Arabs
Moab
Judah
supposedly Egypt
Those pledged to Assurbanipal:
Media
Scythians
Cimmerians
Mannaens
Phoenician city states
Assurbanipal ascended the throne as sole-king after his father conquered Egypt. Assurhadon had personally led the invasion and so far, ha had not had peace in twelve years, the rigor of travel and war on his sickly body gave out and he passed away in the southern Levant. Immediately, Egypt rebelled. Instead of going himself, Assurbanipal sent his father's marshal and eunuch to conquer Egypt (which he did). Assurbanipal would then enjoy a peaceful first years aside for Egypt until the great civil war emerged between he and his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin, which engulfed the entire Middle East in fratricide.
During the course of this war Assurbanipal while he engages in bloody retribution, he also forgives more enemies than ever before in Assyrian history. Even at times, those who started war with him and are captured, he sends them back to his post, only for said person to rebel again. Further, Assurbanipal believes essentially everyone in his court. One particular governor in Sumer constantly lies to Assurbanipal and fabricates lies of his loyal colleagues. Despite this and followed by an explicit rebellion by this man, Assurbanipal forgives him originally and then after the man still does not relent, Assurbanipal instead of using physical power to destroy him, sends him a curse that supposedly kills him.
Both the idea of cursing and mercy are overly used in his reign and Assurbanipal does not send a single official campaign into Anatolia to control the Scythians and Cimmerians. His laziness and merciful attitude was completely suffocating the empire and once he was forced into action, he was old and weak and was slew decisively by the Scythians, leaving a mess of an empire filled with rebellious officials and an ongoing invasion for his children to fix. Aside for Shalmaneser IV, he was the worst of the Sargonid monarchs, despite his fame due to his archival wealth (as I said, he was a scholar and thus left for us the best trail of information).
------------------------------
I was initially veering between Ashurbanipal II and Sargon II, but I would like to recieve one of your detailed posts about how a plausible collapse of Assyrian power during that time frame in the reign of the latter, during the early years of his reign, would affect things.
EDIT: When I said Ashurbanipal II, I was talking about an early collapse, or a complete disintegration, unlike what happened OTL late in his reign and after his death, where a momentary weakness caused Assyria to be submerged in a storm of enemies without being able to perform the balancing act it had for hundreds of years.
You mean Assurnasirpal II, correct?
During his reign, if Assyria is to collapse, I suspect we will see a recovery of the Aramaen states once more as they push back east. Assurnasirpal II essentially finished them for good in terms of governing power, Aramaic speaking enemies from thence onward would come from the south, namely the Chaldeans and Piqudu inhabiting Sumer and Elam. So, the way to destroy him and Assyria is to have a recovery of Syrian power and preferably an alliance say with Carchemish and the Neo-Hatti state to defeat Assyria in Haran and thence push east, destroying Assyrian power. However, Assyria will once again recover, as the Aramaens cannot maintain said power over Assyria. Assyria though we could say found its biggest blow in the Aramaen migrations during the later Bronze Age, which destroyed Akkadain integrity and saw the loss of a large portion of demographic power held by Mesopotamia. According to Assur-Dan II, the Aramites had slew and enslaved thousands of Assyrian nationals across the region and had demographically replaced them. He claimed to be rescinding this and avenging Assyria mightily with extermination, enslavement and colonization. Elam would still be in a recovery phase at this point and I am not sure they could capitalize on anything left by Assyria. More likely, without Assyria, Elam will struggle with the Puqudu more than otl, rather than become allies against Assyria.
If the empire collapses with Sargon II, it would be where Urartu manages to slay Sargon II in battle. Once so, Urartu is faced with a huge challenge, as a new state formed only to defeat Assyria, they will have to restore order to the Mid East. Sargon II had already reconquered the Levant and frightened the XXV dynasty of Egypt. Once he is dead, Judah, the Phoenician cities, Moab, Hamath, Aleppo and Carchemish once again become independent. They will all soon be attacked though by Egypt, who was only dissuaded from invading the region by Sargon II. Urartu thus has a choice:
1. Maintain its gains. This means, Uraurtu contents itself with the situation. That being, I suppose, a weak Assyria, perhaps made an Urartu vassal, control over its homelands, ruling up to the Taurus mountain ranges and also having soft power over Colchis and Iberia (Georgia). In the south, Urartu would rule Mari and up to Haran, with the river Euphrates being its border to a newly formed Syrian coalition formed against Urartu and Egypt.
2. Attempt to create hegemony. This means Urartu actively challenges Mardukinapal, the king of Karduniash who is in turn an appointed vassal by Elam. This leads to a great war in Mesopotamia between Urartu and Elam. One that Urartu would have the advantage initially. Elam however, would do as it did often, find unorthodox allies. That ally would come in the Medes and the Zagros hill peoples, who would attack Urartu in the northeast, perhaps securing Elam a soft victory. But how this would go depends, either side could win said conflict. Ultimately, I feel that Elam holds the edge in terms of diplomacy, but Urartu is not to be trifled with, especially on the defensive. Elam also is less pressed by foes, so I would gander to say Elam would win the conflict once it can bring to bear allies.
Egypt in the south will invade and occupy the lands of Judah as vassals and attempt to move into Syria, only to be defeated by the Syrian League formed against it. In the north, Phrygia alongside its Ionian allies/mercenary challenge Urartu in Anatolia along the Halys. Likewise, Phrygia supports the Syrian league against Egypt and provides a sort of western vertical alliance against Urartu and Egypt. Without Assyria, Greeks allied to Phrygia will also be able to conquer Cyprus from the Phoenicians and also conquer Cilicia, all as vassals to Phrygia, who uses the Greeks as their demographic cudgel. Such a cudgel would be shortlived, as the Cimmerians surge into Anatolia later and destroy the Phrygian kingdom and reduce it to a remnant in Ionia and Lydia. Cimmerians then defeat Urartu, who without Assyrian alliance of otl, are defeated, losing their lands outside of the vicinity of Lake Van. Cimmerians establish themselves as the lords over Anatolia and over the lands just north of Assyria and Syria. These Cimmerians break into many states, who invade Syria in alliance with Egypt, conquering much lands and enforcing a Cimmero-Syrian kingdom.
In such mayhem, Elam is ruling all of Mesopotamia south of Assur and is likely also the lord of the Persian Gulf. Elam however will likely face issues with its vassal in Babylon, who will rebel eventually, leading to wars between the two, with Elam winning. This however will give room to breath for Assyria. Assyrian nobles elect a new king and Assyria remilitarizes and allies with the Medes or a Babylonian rebel and begins a reconquest.
