What if the Neo-Babylonian empire never existed?

What if Babylon never rose again after being crushed by the Assyrians? How long to you think the Assyrian Empire would have hung on? Assyria would have lost Egypt but I think the Assyrians would have lasted another 150 or 160 years until being conquered by the rising Persian Empire.
 
The Assyrians were destined to fall when they did. It wasn't just the Neo-Babylonians that took them out, but also the Medians, Scythians, and Egyptians.

Instead of a Babylonian state in Mesopotamia, you might see a stronger Median presence there, reminiscent of the Persian Empire that succeeded it, or possibly a Scythian dynasty that takes over the region. Egypt will reassert control over Canaan, and the Phoenicians will regain independence.
 
The Assyrians were destined to fall when they did. It wasn't just the Neo-Babylonians that took them out, but also the Medians, Scythians, and Egyptians.

Instead of a Babylonian state in Mesopotamia, you might see a stronger Median presence there, reminiscent of the Persian Empire that succeeded it, or possibly a Scythian dynasty that takes over the region. Egypt will reassert control over Canaan, and the Phoenicians will regain independence.


The Kingdom of Judea would still exist and be an ally or vassal of Egypt.
 
The Assyrians were destined to fall when they did. It wasn't just the Neo-Babylonians that took them out, but also the Medians, Scythians, and Egyptians.

Instead of a Babylonian state in Mesopotamia, you might see a stronger Median presence there, reminiscent of the Persian Empire that succeeded it, or possibly a Scythian dynasty that takes over the region. Egypt will reassert control over Canaan, and the Phoenicians will regain independence.
This is the impression I get. The Assyrians never seemed to destroy an enemy without a new one taking its place almost immediately afterward. The Elamites who had been a thorn in the side of Assyria for centuries were destroyed by Ashurbanipal but it only helped pave the rise of the Medes. Egypt proved restless after its conquest, and there were other problems with revolting subjects.
 
This is the impression I get. The Assyrians never seemed to destroy an enemy without a new one taking its place almost immediately afterward. The Elamites who had been a thorn in the side of Assyria for centuries were destroyed by Ashurbanipal but it only helped pave the rise of the Medes. Egypt proved restless after its conquest, and there were other problems with revolting subjects.


How brutal the Assyrians were to their subjects helped to breed new enemies.
 
So, an interesting follow up question might be, what are the affects of a longer lasting Median Empire that has Mesopotamian holdings, thus making it much more reminiscent of the later Persian Empire?

How does this affect history?
 
So, an interesting follow up question might be, what are the affects of a longer lasting Median Empire that has Mesopotamian holdings, thus making it much more reminiscent of the later Persian Empire?

How does this affect history?
That would depend if it tries to carve out more terriotry. No reason why it should not and it ought to be successful. After all, there is little difference between its army and the later Persians.
 
26th Dynasty Egypt was VERY interested in re-establishing the New Kingdom borders in the Levant, and really the main event that prevented them from doing so in OTL was a major defeat at the hands of Neo-Babylonian armies at Carchemish.

The 26th Dynasty Pharaohs were an interesting bunch - ambitious, consummate politicians, far more worldly and open to foreign ideas and influence than their predecessors, and yet also Egyptian "classicists" at heart (26th dynasty art often takes very clear cues from Old and Middle Kingdom styles and conventions). Under their leadership, a world with an aborted Neo-Babylonian Empire could easily see a resurgent Egypt. It would be a different animal from the New Kingdom state the Saite kings sought to recreate, though. For one, I'm not sure it would include Nubia - Psamtjik I invaded Nubia, but doesn't appear to have been able to hold it, and there won't be as much gold there as there was before. It would also be far more mercantile, happily trading and culturally-exchanging with the flowering Greek city-states (Phoenicia and Cyprus would likely be firmly under Egyptian thumbs in this world, along with Judaea). We will likely see a lot of Greek mercenaries in the Egyptian army, influencing Egyptian culture there, and we may see a lot more Egyptian influence on Greek culture. There's an outside Egypt may even come to rule over some peripheral Greek lands, such as Lycia and parts of Ionia, as it had a number of commercial and political interests there in OTL. Competing Greek city states may petition Egypt to bankroll their wars against each other... It could get interesting.
 
26th Dynasty Egypt was VERY interested in re-establishing the New Kingdom borders in the Levant, and really the main event that prevented them from doing so in OTL was a major defeat at the hands of Neo-Babylonian armies at Carchemish.

The 26th Dynasty Pharaohs were an interesting bunch - ambitious, consummate politicians, far more worldly and open to foreign ideas and influence than their predecessors, and yet also Egyptian "classicists" at heart (26th dynasty art often takes very clear cues from Old and Middle Kingdom styles and conventions). Under their leadership, a world with an aborted Neo-Babylonian Empire could easily see a resurgent Egypt. It would be a different animal from the New Kingdom state the Saite kings sought to recreate, though. For one, I'm not sure it would include Nubia - Psamtjik I invaded Nubia, but doesn't appear to have been able to hold it, and there won't be as much gold there as there was before. It would also be far more mercantile, happily trading and culturally-exchanging with the flowering Greek city-states (Phoenicia and Cyprus would likely be firmly under Egyptian thumbs in this world, along with Judaea). We will likely see a lot of Greek mercenaries in the Egyptian army, influencing Egyptian culture there, and we may see a lot more Egyptian influence on Greek culture. There's an outside Egypt may even come to rule over some peripheral Greek lands, such as Lycia and parts of Ionia, as it had a number of commercial and political interests there in OTL. Competing Greek city states may petition Egypt to bankroll their wars against each other... It could get interesting.

This sounds very familiar.... :p

What do you think Egypt's relationship with the Medians would be? At this time they were invading Phrygia and Lydia.
 
What about if we go the other way around this and have the Assyrian Empire collapse earlier; say if the succession struggle after Sennacherib spirals out of control or if Esharhaddon alienates enough people for things to go to pot? At that point, the Elamites are still in good shape and there's less of an obvious contender for power in Babylonia IIRC.
 
This sounds very familiar.... :p

What do you think Egypt's relationship with the Medians would be? At this time they were invading Phrygia and Lydia.

You have good instincts :p

That's an excellent question. It depends what's going on in Syria at the time. Independent Aramaean kingdoms, likely, possibly with some lingering Neo-Hittite influences (though - fun fact - the "Neo-Hittites" are now looking more and more like a mix of Aramaeans and Aramaeanized Sea Peoples who adopted Hittite court culture as a means of expressing authority and Luwian as a prestige language, but I digress...) which could be either under Median or Egyptian influence/vassalage. Do the Medes have designs on Ionia? The Ionian Greeks may turn to Egypt for support, which - if the Medes have similar ambitions to absorb Syria - may turn Egypt and Media into natural rivals. Egypt could prop up Ionians to frustrate the Medes in the west, and keep the Syrian states on looser leashes to keep a buffer between the Egyptian-dominated Levant and the Median Empire proper.
 
Top