Is there a map of the world at this time?
Not really. According to Liverani at least, they usually insisted on Akkadian lifestyle as the one and only civilized way at all, and their deportation policies were specifically aimed at deculturation of the subjugated groups, among other things. They were assimilationists through and through.Is this a tendency that they shared in otl?
Not really. According to Liverani at least, they usually insisted on Akkadian lifestyle as the one and only civilized way at all, and their deportation policies were specifically aimed at deculturation of the subjugated groups, among other things. They were assimilationists through and through.
This did not apply, however, to the wider tributary sphere outside the direct Assyrian administrative control (for example, Judah retained its distinctive religious and linguistic culture). Of course, this could work at the core of the empire, but this stuanchly centralist approach would not allow stable control of the wider expanse they have ITTL. There were moves toward relaxation and increased "tolerance" of cultural diversity under the later kings IOTL, specifically in order to accomodate the wider territorial expanse and the more relaxed modes of control required, for example, in the (ultimately unsuccesful) efforts to enforce domination on Egypt.
So the basis for the shift in attitude shown ITTL were there. I would still expect Akkadianization to be promoted as long as possible, as well as what I would call "Akkadian supremacy"; certainly deep rooted cultural attitudes of the Assyrian elites would clash with any notion of equal dignity of the subjugated peoples. However, they seem to be moving a more pluralistic Imperial ideal whereby all peoples have their specificities to be preserved and coordinated by the centre, where the Chosen People dwells, to the Greater Glory of the Gods. This just applies to cultural difference the general Assyrian approach to economic activity and resource extraction.
I find the Assyrian tendency to insist that the various peoples they have conquered retain their own cultures and not act like Assyrians interesting in ttl. They seem very concerned that different peoples preserve their own traditions and not act too like Akkadians. Is this a tendency that they shared in otl? Is in motivated by a desire to preserve a distinction between Akkadians and the rest or some other reason?
That is very old! An mistype?Made in the rare Anatolian hieroglyphic script, it would be the first major written inscription and claim to kingship for Puraykames. It likewise, established himself as a giant and made mention of an important concept; ‘the ax of kingship.’ Puryakames was fostering a sort of warrior-king mentality of himself and asserted the warrior elite of his state as foremost. Yet, the lessening of conflict and the end of the recent years of adventure for his people, had weighed him in years. The king was already 459 years old and his sons readily battled over the throne in displays of courage in attempts at raids. Of his seven sons, three had perished in such courageous raids, one in a raid against Lydia and the other two in an attempt at capturing land from Assyria.
Yes, a mistype, 59 years old.That is very old! An mistype?
Another good update. It would appear that Assyria is getting some pushback. It all seems very divided though. I don't tjink it likely that any of these border nations are likely to really equal it in power although they may force it to engage in a frustrating game of whackamole (then again considering how important victories are to them they may not find it frustrating). It seems that the last of the generation this timeline began with in Assyria are dieing off. It will be interesting to see what the succesors of Dugul-Naboo will do.
Yes, Kadashman-Shamash is his inheritor and is the effective governor of Hatti and and former subordinate of his father. Implied in the Army Reforms recently, was that the family of Dugul-Naboo were to be designated as governors over Hatti. The Field Marshal in turn is the designated commander of the Army of Adad stationed and headquartered in Ankuwa. This means that Kadashman-Shamash will essentially inherit the title of Field Marshal, Governor of Hatti and commandership of the Wing of Adad. This is of course part of the shameful reforms implemented by Maniuqappu most hated by the traditionalist faction in court. Assyrian officials are livid over this breach in monarchical power and of the authoritativeness of Ninveh-Kalhu-Ashur. They too are unhappy about this situation of conceding peace with the Colchis state for the sake of bodily recovery and of the recovery of the seals and artifacts unique to the Field Marshal. Such court divisions are surely to cause problems in the future and the defeat in war will not look good on Sinbanipal. Traditionalists however lack effective power without Ipqu-Aya and thus are for the moment consigned to disgruntled and offensive gestures when compositing their literature.Dugul-Naboo dead. That is a bit of a shock. He must be one of the greatest figures in all Assyria. I wonder if he will get any special funeral. It will be interesting to see if, now he is dead, the semi-autonomous fiefdom he has carved out can survive. Does he have worthy sons to inherit?
I believe I've mentioned several times that I feel that the Assyrian Central goverment might come to regret the power they have given to Dugul-Naboo especially if it comes to set a precedent for the future. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad thing for the Assyrian polity as a whole. As the empire expands decentralisation may be necessary. However, this might prove detrimental to the role of the King. It is concievable that we might end up with a situation like that of the later Abbasid Caliphs or Zhou Dynasty where the Monarch is increasingly sidelined by overmighty subjects. Of course we are as yet a long way away from anything like that. The Assyrian Monarchs are still leading most of their own campaigns and taking a very active role in goverment. (If at some point we get a King who is content to leave warfare entirely to his genrals and nobles that will be a very bad sign. That would give the traditionalists something to really scream about.)What is your opinion on the matter? Do you find Dugul-Naboo to be a hero or a prelude to dangerous precedence? Likewise, I am curious of your and other's view on the matter of Colchis and their Budin allies, if they truly can press the Assyrians further or outlast them in the defense. So far, Sinbanipal's defeats have all been suffered at their hands.
This is suprising frank in its implied criticism of Sinbanipal. Good advice though. Although as the Empire grows larger and fights on more fronts it may become increasingly difficult for the Great King to take a personal role in battle.We might remind the Great King and his illustrious court the same. That the King is to march into war himself, what good is the throne whence it is not foisted upon the tops of a battleground? Who prefers the seat of luxury in the palace, woe to thee whose seat is made in the palace, next to the fountain and whose throne becomes a prison and his children become ravenous with the love of unwarranted comfort. Better than the palace, is the aloft posture in the Vehicle of Destiny, the chariot which carries the kingdom to its destiny! Great King, understand, the failure of the campaign by prior Field Marshal, was one not of his human error, we repent of this mistake, dear Lady Gula! It is a mistake for us, that the Great King was not present, he must venture forth in the chariot of victory.
Sell him into slavery? What did he do to annoy them? It doesn't appear that the traditionalists have much of a concept of rewarding faithful service. This is the man that was willing to make Egypt a Vassal kingdom.Traditionalists advocated that the King of Egypt be sent on his way and or sold to slavery and his wealth confiscated. Deification advocates cared little for either side, only urging the Great King to be strong and decisive. As the traditionalists were not too passionate, the Great King consented to the Palace Herald and gave Wahibre to this custody of the Palace Herald and wished him well.
A positive of the Assyrian monarchical custom, was that court members could critique the king in a veiled sense. Much of this is derived from the still remnant understanding in court that the King is more of a viceroy or governor of the Gods, rather than a king by his own right. He was appointed, but not as an absolute term, but as a humbling process. Traditionalists and Deification wings differ most fundamentally in how they view this question. Traditionalist understanding is that every person in Assyria has a certain role as set by the Great Gods. Their praise is in the completion of their duties and to them, the King's role is frankly, sacrifice in battle as Ilawela did in the creation of mankind. Sargon II was praised so greatly by Assyrian scribes, not only due to his great piety and skill as a ruler/warrior, but also how willingly he put himself in harms way and thus ending ultimately in his death in battle. Death in battle wherein victory was achieved was honored on some level, as was generally the notion that the Great King is sacrificing himself in war.This is suprising frank in its implied criticism of Sinbanipal. Good advice though. Although as the Empire grows larger and fights on more fronts it may become increasingly difficult for the Great King to take a personal role in battle.
Sell him into slavery? What did he do to annoy them? It doesn't appear that the traditionalists have much of a concept of rewarding faithful service. This is the man that was willing to make Egypt a Vassal kingdom.
This is a interesting look at the factions. I think that although the traditionalists have mostly won this round they may grow increasingly frustrated with Assyria going forward. We have seen a great many reforms and I don't see them stopping.
That's difficult to say. The more reform minded factions will certainly be necessary if the empire is to hold its great conquests. The traditionalist faction is, to me at least, too dependent on continous great victories. However, one has to be careful when introducing reforms not to undermine the system that enabled Assyria to rise to where it is. It also seems to me that the traditionalist faction would be utterly unable to stabilize the empire once it reaches its maximum extent (or even conceive of such a situation occuring). Therefore under the control of the traditionalists Assyria has to either be expanding or collapsing. Of course its not like any of the factions are imagining an Assyrian empire reaching its limit at the moment but I imagine the leap would be easier for the other factions to make.Also, Samm, as the most common poster, I would ask, which faction do you find to be the most enjoyable and productive to the cause of Empire? This question is open for any other readers of course! Feedback is greatly helpful to the development of the tl, so do not be shy anyone.
Traditionalists of course arise from the Assyrian tradition wherein Assyria did interact as an hyper-aggressive state that also violently retracted at different times. So you are correct, their model of Empire is very fearsome, yet also chaotic. Ideally, you maintain the spirit of their ideas and their understanding of hierarchy, but leave some of the more chaotic elements. However, they will remain for some time yet, not necessarily always advocating the same ideas completely, but the scribal class is their bastion and to a degree, so is the merchant classes of Assyria proper and its most devout priests and commoners. Their fears though, are justified. Their main goal, is to maintain a consistently aggressive stance of Assyrian geopolitics and for the king to be a battle-king. This is a good influence, in my view within the court, as it may keep the monarch from being in the short term a lazy monarch like Assurbanipal, whose lazy attitude permitted the rise of the Scythians on his border and nearly the destruction of the empire entirely. To function in its positioning, Assyria requires a relatively active diplomacy and militarist agenda, it does not have the luxury of relaxation due to lower demography than many and a central location without natural defenses that some countries in atl have (to discuss one in a faraway land, the Zhou Dynasty comes to mind).That's difficult to say. The more reform minded factions will certainly be necessary if the empire is to hold its great conquests. The traditionalist faction is, to me at least, too dependent on continous great victories. However, one has to be careful when introducing reforms not to undermine the system that enabled Assyria to rise to where it is. It also seems to me that the traditionalist faction would be utterly unable to stabilize the empire once it reaches its maximum extent (or even conceive of such a situation occuring). Therefore under the control of the traditionalists Assyria has to either be expanding or collapsing. Of course its not like any of the factions are imagining an Assyrian empire reaching its limit at the moment but I imagine the leap would be easier for the other factions to make.
I am tempted to say that some sort of alliance between the nobles and the deification faction is likely at least in the long run. They both permit flexibility which may be necessary as the empire expands to unprecedented heights. I'm not sure if a great empire can be run in the long run on the principle of filling in eponyms for those years already outlined in the codex. Of corse the Deification camps emphasis on the power of the Monrch may clash with the nobility but we have seen historically that a monarch can be incredibly exalted in theory and yet leave room for powerful Nobles (indeed it is a common pattern). It would be interesting to see if the traditionalists try to strike back.