Surviving Neo-Assyrian Empire

After months of lurking, I have finally plucked up the courage to post something so, hello everyone!!:D
My whatif is this: what if king Ashurbanipal had a competent successor? This successor does not have to be outstanding, he just has to be able to keep the empire in one piece. What would be the effects of a surviving Neo-Assyrian empire?
 
Interesting. However, would it be enough? The Assyrians had exhausted themselves, and the Cimmerians and Sythians are not gone. Perhaps it might not be as great a collapse, but...
Oh, and welcome! Good to see people interested in antiquity.
 
Goodday! And nice choice for a first post (no, seriously, good job, you wouldn't believe the first post crap we get here... :rolleyes:;))

Hmmm... Well, the problem is Ashurbanipal's successors weren't competent, yeah, but also that after two centuries of conquests, deportations, and massacres, Assyria really didn't have any friends - or even neutrals - on any of their borders. Eventually somebody's going to get enough of them together to take the empire down. That said, in the short term if Assyria can somehow take the Medes and Scythians, it can probably hold out a generation or two longer, although I have trouble seeing pressure relaxing long enough for it to get much bigger (as cool as Assyrian-Ionian Anatolian Seaboard might be...)
 
Thanks for replying Communist Wizard and Zyzzyva! So the empire is pretty much doomed by this point, huh? Perhaps an earlier POD, although I can't think of one at the moment. Any other ideas?
 
After months of lurking, I have finally plucked up the courage to post something so, hello everyone!!:D
My whatif is this: what if king Ashurbanipal had a competent successor? This successor does not have to be outstanding, he just has to be able to keep the empire in one piece. What would be the effects of a surviving Neo-Assyrian empire?

Interesting. However, would it be enough? The Assyrians had exhausted themselves, and the Cimmerians and Sythians are not gone. Perhaps it might not be as great a collapse, but...
Oh, and welcome! Good to see people interested in antiquity.

Goodday! And nice choice for a first post (no, seriously, good job, you wouldn't believe the first post crap we get here... :rolleyes:;))

Hmmm... Well, the problem is Ashurbanipal's successors weren't competent, yeah, but also that after two centuries of conquests, deportations, and massacres, Assyria really didn't have any friends - or even neutrals - on any of their borders. Eventually somebody's going to get enough of them together to take the empire down. That said, in the short term if Assyria can somehow take the Medes and Scythians, it can probably hold out a generation or two longer, although I have trouble seeing pressure relaxing long enough for it to get much bigger (as cool as Assyrian-Ionian Anatolian Seaboard might be...)

Thanks for replying Communist Wizard and Zyzzyva! So the empire is pretty much doomed by this point, huh?

I am going to disagree with the previous posters. Assyria was not quite at the height of it's powers when it fell, but was pretty close to it. The problem was one of leadership. The Assyrians failed to produce a political and military genius when one was needed, and the Babylonians did...two of them, in fact...Nabopolassar and his son, Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonians were the ones who really overthrew Assyria.

If the successor of Ashurbanipal had been of the caliber of Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, or Esarhaddon, I doubt anyone would have seriously challenged him for the throne. As it was, because Ashurbanipal's successor was a weakling, several other contenders stepped forward to claim the throne, not all of them even from the royal family. The Assyrian army took sides and civil war broke out. With the Assyrian army occupied in fighting itself, the Medes and Scythians joined the Babylonians under Nabopolassar. And even so, it took the anti-Assyrian coalition 17 years to finally decisively defeat Assyria...from 627 BC (when Nabopolassar's war began) to the fall of Haran in 610 BC.

Prevent the civil war from breaking out, and the Assyrian army probably defeats the Medes and the Scythians (as it had many times before) when they attempt to raid into the empire on the death of Ashurbanipal. Given those circumstances, Nabopolassar may not rebel against Assyria at all, contenting himself with remaining a loyal vassal. If he does rebel, he likely won't be able to convince the Medes or Scythians to join him, and will be defeated and probably killed.

How long it could last after that, who knows. Assuming that Cyrus of Persia...one of the great military geniuses of history...still comes to exist in this ATL, he might well be the final nail in Assyria's coffin. Or maybe not...it all depends on who is King in Assyria when he rises to power. But that gives Assyria another roughly 70 years at the minimum.
 
I am going to disagree with the previous posters. Assyria was not quite at the height of it's powers when it fell, but was pretty close to it. The problem was one of leadership. The Assyrians failed to produce a political and military genius when one was needed, and the Babylonians did...two of them, in fact...Nabopolassar and his son, Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonians were the ones who really overthrew Assyria.

If the successor of Ashurbanipal had been of the caliber of Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, or Esarhaddon, I doubt anyone would have seriously challenged him for the throne. As it was, because Ashurbanipal's successor was a weakling, several other contenders stepped forward to claim the throne, not all of them even from the royal family. The Assyrian army took sides and civil war broke out. With the Assyrian army occupied in fighting itself, the Medes and Scythians joined the Babylonians under Nabopolassar. And even so, it took the anti-Assyrian coalition 17 years to finally decisively defeat Assyria...from 627 BC (when Nabopolassar's war began) to the fall of Haran in 610 BC.

Prevent the civil war from breaking out, and the Assyrian army probably defeats the Medes and the Scythians (as it had many times before) when they attempt to raid into the empire on the death of Ashurbanipal. Given those circumstances, Nabopolassar may not rebel against Assyria at all, contenting himself with remaining a loyal vassal. If he does rebel, he likely won't be able to convince the Medes or Scythians to join him, and will be defeated and probably killed.

How long it could last after that, who knows. Assuming that Cyrus of Persia...one of the great military geniuses of history...still comes to exist in this ATL, he might well be the final nail in Assyria's coffin. Or maybe not...it all depends on who is King in Assyria when he rises to power. But that gives Assyria another roughly 70 years at the minimum.

I in turn will disagree with you. Babylonia was always restive, and Assyria's borders were always under threat. Assyria was built on fighting a campaign every single year and winning every one. The moment they stop winning everyone is going to pile on.

Notice your big list of great kings there? Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal? Notice something about the regnal dates? With one five-year exception, they reigned consecutively for the last 120 years of the Assyrian Empire (before things fell apart, anyways*). They were all militarily successful kings, sure, but the empire's mere existence was predicated on every single king being so. The moment that stopped being true, everything fell apart. We remember Nabopolassar because he was the man on the spot when Assyria's grip slackened momentarily; he wasn't the first to try. Sure, you can postulate another brilliant successor for Assurbanipal, but that's just putting things off for his lifetime exactly. When he dies, we're back to square one.

The Assyrian Empire was a tremendously strong thing, but its incredible run of luck in kings in the late 8th-early 7th century just bottled up the explosion. It wasn't bad luck that killed Assyria; it was a lack of stupendously good luck.

*I'd also disagree that "the Egyptian-subsidized rabble attempting to regroup at Harran" qualifies as "the Assyrian Empire"; I'd peg it as "Assyrian Remnants".
 
Last edited:
I in turn will disagree with you. Babylonia was always restive, and Assyria's borders were always under threat. Assyria was built on fighting a campaign every single year and winning every one. The moment they stop winning everyone is going to pile on.

Notice your big list of great kings there? Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal? Notice something about the regnal dates? With one five-year exception, they reigned consecutively for the last 120 years of the Assyrian Empire. They were all militarily successful kings, sure, but the empire's mere existence was predicated on every single king being so. The moment that stopped being true, everything fell apart. We remember Nabopolassar because he was the man on the spot when Assyria's grip slackened momentarily; he wasn't the first to try. Sure, you can postulate another brilliant successor for Assurbanipal, but that's just putting things off for his lifetime exactly. When he dies, we're back to square one.

The Assyrian Empire was a tremendously strong thing, but its incredible run of luck in kings in the late 8th-early 7th century just bottled up the explosion. It wasn't bad luck that killed Assyria; it was a lack of stupendously good luck.

You are ignoring the facts of the actual collapse of Assyria. The collapse of Assyria was the result of several things, happening all at once.

1) Ashurbanipal's successor being a very weak ruler.

2) Various other relatives and generals deciding that they could seize the throne, and going for it, resulting in civil war.

3) A brilliant dynasty coming to the throne in Babylon.

It wasn't simply that Ashurbanipal's successor was not as brilliant as his predecessors which caused the problem. It was the fact that he was SO weak that all his brothers plus various and sundry generals from outside the royal family all decided, "I can take the throne," leading to a multi-party civil war which basically left the empire unable to halt the incursion of the Medes and Scythians immediately upon the death of Ashurbanipal, which encouraged Nabopolassar of Babylon to revolt. Nor were they able to put Nabopolassar down at the outset, which gave Nabopolassar the chance to forge his alliance with the Medes and the Scythians.

Put somebody less weak on the throne at Ashurbanipal's death, and the civil war won't occur. No civil war, and you probably have no Babylonian/Mede/Scythian alliance. Assyria survives, at least for a while...which was my point, and the stated OP.

Now, if the OP means the Neo-Assyrian Empire survives much longer than another century, then I will have to agree with you. Not going to happen. But even an extra 50-100 years of Assyrian dominance in the near east could have massive consequences. As uppity as the Jews were, for example, we might well see the Kingdom of Judah finally put to bed, and the Jews treated like the 10 Tribes of Israel had been.
 
You are ignoring the facts of the actual collapse of Assyria. The collapse of Assyria was the result of several things, happening all at once.

1) Ashurbanipal's successor being a very weak ruler.

2) Various other relatives and generals deciding that they could seize the throne, and going for it, resulting in civil war.

3) A brilliant dynasty coming to the throne in Babylon.

It wasn't simply that Ashurbanipal's successor was not as brilliant as his predecessors which caused the problem. It was the fact that he was SO weak that all his brothers plus various and sundry generals from outside the royal family all decided, "I can take the throne," leading to a multi-party civil war which basically left the empire unable to halt the incursion of the Medes and Scythians immediately upon the death of Ashurbanipal, which encouraged Nabopolassar of Babylon to revolt. Nor were they able to put Nabopolassar down at the outset, which gave Nabopolassar the chance to forge his alliance with the Medes and the Scythians.

Put somebody less weak on the throne at Ashurbanipal's death, and the civil war won't occur. No civil war, and you probably have no Babylonian/Mede/Scythian alliance. Assyria survives, at least for a while...which was my point, and the stated OP.

Now, if the OP means the Neo-Assyrian Empire survives much longer than another century, then I will have to agree with you. Not going to happen. But even an extra 50-100 years of Assyrian dominance in the near east could have massive consequences. As uppity as the Jews were, for example, we might well see the Kingdom of Judah finally put to bed, and the Jews treated like the 10 Tribes of Israel had been.

You're arguing against a post I never made. I'm not saying that Assyria wasn't a strong nation taken down by a huge conflux of outside forces; I'm just saying that the combination had been building for a long time and Assyria was relying more and more on dynastic luck to stay above water. Look at the chain of events you posted:
  1. Assurbanipal's successor isn't up to snuff so
  2. Everybody and his brother in Assyria takes a swing for the throne, opening the door for
  3. The Medes and Scyths to invade, which encourages
  4. Nabopolassar to raise the standard of revolt in Babyon.
Everything goes down like dominoes! If the new king isn't good enough to have everyone in leash within six months of his predecessor's death, everything comes tumbling down.

Yes, putting Tiglath-Pilesar IV on the throne will help. Yes, if he can have everyone in leash in six months, the Medes and Scyths won't be a threat, and Babylon can always be stomped on (again). But that doesn't solve Assyria's problems, it just puts them off another generation.

To put it bluntly, you're saying "Ashur-etil-ilani was so incompetent! That's what caused all the bad shit that came to pass under his reign!" and I'm saying "He wasn't so much incompetent as not up to the insanely competent standard his predecessors had set and which was necessary for the continuance of the empire by that point!"

...Er, anyways, at the OP: Let's just agree that renaming Ashur-etil-ilani "Tiglath-Pilesar IV" give Assyria another 30 years, right? What happens from there? (Well, besides the inevitable dispersal of the Jews, agreed.)
 

Keenir

Banned
I think the Neo-Assyrian Empire could survive for a bit longer...any span of time will have effects on the neighbors and the neighbors of the neighbors (ie, anything that impacts the Medes will ripple through Anatolia)

I salute you on a fine first post, and welcome you to the forum. I look forwards to more from you.


Now, if the OP means the Neo-Assyrian Empire survives much longer than another century, then I will have to agree with you. Not going to happen. But even an extra 50-100 years of Assyrian dominance in the near east could have massive consequences. As uppity as the Jews were, for example, we might well see the Kingdom of Judah finally put to bed, and the Jews treated like the 10 Tribes of Israel had been.

Could the Kingdom of Judah come to terms with the Neo-Assyrians? (they have a mutual enemy in the Babylonians, after all)....Israel gets at least one large friendly nation bordering it, and the Neo-Assyrians get a secure border and the possibility of tribute.
 
Could the Kingdom of Judah come to terms with the Neo-Assyrians? (they have a mutual enemy in the Babylonians, after all)....Israel gets at least one large friendly nation bordering it, and the Neo-Assyrians get a secure border and the possibility of tribute.

That's always possible...assuming the Judahite kings can act rationally. But the Judahite kings of that period seemed to have a knack for irrational action and always picking the wrong side. The central problem is that the Kings of Judah wanted to be independent, and harbored dreams of rebuilding a significant Hebrew Kingdom in the Promised Land. And, as a result, they intrigued with whichever power (usually Egypt) was challenging the power which held sway over them at a particular time. And the one time when Egypt was powerful enough to possibly protect them, King Josiah sided against it because Egypt was allying itself with Assyria.

Personally, given their propensities, I think Judah was just doomed.
 
Top