WI: Assyrians don’t rebuild Babylon

WI: Assyrians don’t rebuild Babylon

Babylon annoyed the Assyrian Empire constantly. In 689 BC, Assyrian King Sennacherib completely destroyed the city, but it was rebuilt by his son Esarhaddon. The reason for it being rebuilt was said to be because of its religious significance and the fact that the Assyrian Kings wanted the title of King of Babylon. The Babylonians would eventually play a role in the sack of Nineveh and the fall of the Assyrian Empire.

My question is what if the Assyrians deported the population of Babylon and permanently destroyed the city. Would the Assyrian Empire last longer? Would there be no Neo- Babylonian Empire? Future implication?
 
My impression is that, while Babylon was a rallying point for local anti-Assyrian forces, the main problem the Assyrian had with putting those under the heel was their "liquid" nature. Basically, they had to face mobile, loosely structured Chaldean tribal confederation with relatively little in the way of urban life. They would make hell with the Assyria regardless, with the only difference being that they would lack a political centre. This would make even more difficult for the Assyrian to claim "victories".
So I don't think the Assyrian empire will survive significantly longer because of this alone. On the other hand, its downfall will play out significantly differently with a less politically structured Mesopotamia. Egypt is likely to regain much leverage in the Levant, while the Medes might try to enforce some sort of hegemony over much of Mesopotamia, at least temporarily. A Chaldean state might emerge anyway, but probably without the power and extent of OTL's Neo-Babylonian empire.
Elam is quite a wild card.
 
:)
My impression is that, while Babylon was a rallying point for local anti-Assyrian forces, the main problem the Assyrian had with putting those under the heel was their "liquid" nature. Basically, they had to face mobile, loosely structured Chaldean tribal confederation with relatively little in the way of urban life. They would make hell with the Assyria regardless, with the only difference being that they would lack a political centre. This would make even more difficult for the Assyrian to claim "victories".
So I don't think the Assyrian empire will survive significantly longer because of this alone. On the other hand, its downfall will play out significantly differently with a less politically structured Mesopotamia. Egypt is likely to regain much leverage in the Levant, while the Medes might try to enforce some sort of hegemony over much of Mesopotamia, at least temporarily. A Chaldean state might emerge anyway, but probably without the power and extent of OTL's Neo-Babylonian empire.
Elam is quite a wild card.

thanks for the imput:)
 
Top