WI: Cyrus the Great drowns in the Tigris river in 539 BC?

[SunKing105]

In October 539 BC, when Cyrus the Great conquered the Neo-Babylonian empire, he faced surprisingly little resistance, for which various explanations have been found, suggesting the unpopularity the favoritism the previous Babylonian monarch Nabonidus had for the god Sin over Babylon's traditional patron deity Marduk and his stays in Timna, an oasis in Arabia and parts of Sumer, and Harran, the cult center of Sin and a prominent Assyrian city. It is believed that after some resistance, a battle was fought near Opis, and Cyrus captured Sippar. The Nabonidus Chronicle claims Babylon was taken without battle, while Greek historians claim otherwise. Whatever the case, one stratagem used to capture Babylon, was that Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates so that he could more easily take the city. Herodotus mentions an incident in which one of the sacred white horses drowned while trying to cross a stream, that was a tributary of the Tigris river. What if Cyrus himself accidentally drowned there and died? His empire is quite recent and the Medes and Lydians have only been recently subjugated, this is about a generation before the administrative reforms of Darius, but I don't follow up my what if with a Persian collapse. Is there a chance for the Achaemenids to keep the gains they've already made? Who would be regent for Cambyses, or is he old enough to rule on his own, assuming there aren't any sons we don't know about? Would Babylon still fall, considering how unpopular Nabonidus was, or would the army retreat back to Persia? If Babylon still falls, does Nabonidus, or his son Belshazzar, or any of his relatives and generals try to continue resistance in the north, in Assyria and the Levant? Does Amasis II take advantage of the chaos to absorb more territory in the Levant and Syria? Would the inevitable rebellions that would come succeed, or would they eventually be crushed? More importantly, do the Achaemenids manage to survive the crisis, or do they collapse or face a general retention of their power, or get dethroned entirely, with either a retention to a pre-Achaemenid geopolitical framework or an altered post-Achaemenid geopolitical situation? If they do manage to survive, how does this affect the development of Achaemenid governance and ideology, and the development of Zoroastrianism? What would be the effect of no conspiracy of the seven and no Darius, and with Bardiya still alive and no Gaumata conspiracy(yes, I'm aware it's entirely possible he was the real brother of Cambyses)? And how does this affect the Greco-Persian wars, do the cities of Ionia rebel, or are the campaigns of Harpagus and Mazares too recent? And what would the situation on the steppe look like? I am unsure if Astyages, the deposed Median leader, is still around, but there are plenty of figureheads for a renewed Mede revolt that, if it takes longer and more effort to crush it than the rebellions after the accession of Darius, could it end their important role in the new Achaemenid elite? And how capable is the younger Cambyses and his advisors in this situation? What would happen in mainland Greece, and would men like Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, be able to expand their power? Also, how would the Jews be affected? Would a similar ceremonial capital like Persepolis still get founded? Would Cyrus' body get recovered? What would be the effect on India?

 

[SunKing105]

Does nobody know enough to comment? Or am I being too impatient?

 

[Ridcully]

Does nobody know enough to comment? Or am I being too impatient?

I really have no idea, are there really enough good sources from around the time period to even really speculate as to what could happen?

 

[Deleted member 116192]

In October 539 BC, when Cyrus the Great conquered the Neo-Babylonian empire, he faced surprisingly little resistance, for which various explanations have been found, suggesting the unpopularity the favoritism the previous Babylonian monarch Nabonidus had for the god Sin over Babylon's traditional patron deity Marduk and his stays in Timna, an oasis in Arabia and parts of Sumer, and Harran, the cult center of Sin and a prominent Assyrian city. It is believed that after some resistance, a battle was fought near Opis, and Cyrus captured Sippar. The Nabonidus Chronicle claims Babylon was taken without battle, while Greek historians claim otherwise. Whatever the case, one stratagem used to capture Babylon, was that Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates so that he could more easily take the city. Herodotus mentions an incident in which one of the sacred white horses drowned while trying to cross a stream, that was a tributary of the Tigris river. What if Cyrus himself accidentally drowned there and died? His empire is quite recent and the Medes and Lydians have only been recently subjugated, this is about a generation before the administrative reforms of Darius, but I don't follow up my what if with a Persian collapse. Is there a chance for the Achaemenids to keep the gains they've already made? Who would be regent for Cambyses, or is he old enough to rule on his own, assuming there aren't any sons we don't know about? Would Babylon still fall, considering how unpopular Nabonidus was, or would the army retreat back to Persia? If Babylon still falls, does Nabonidus, or his son Belshazzar, or any of his relatives and generals try to continue resistance in the north, in Assyria and the Levant? Does Amasis II take advantage of the chaos to absorb more territory in the Levant and Syria? Would the inevitable rebellions that would come succeed, or would they eventually be crushed? More importantly, do the Achaemenids manage to survive the crisis, or do they collapse or face a general retention of their power, or get dethroned entirely, with either a retention to a pre-Achaemenid geopolitical framework or an altered post-Achaemenid geopolitical situation? If they do manage to survive, how does this affect the development of Achaemenid governance and ideology, and the development of Zoroastrianism? What would be the effect of no conspiracy of the seven and no Darius, and with Bardiya still alive and no Gaumata conspiracy(yes, I'm aware it's entirely possible he was the real brother of Cambyses)? And how does this affect the Greco-Persian wars, do the cities of Ionia rebel, or are the campaigns of Harpagus and Mazares too recent? And what would the situation on the steppe look like? I am unsure if Astyages, the deposed Median leader, is still around, but there are plenty of figureheads for a renewed Mede revolt that, if it takes longer and more effort to crush it than the rebellions after the accession of Darius, could it end their important role in the new Achaemenid elite? And how capable is the younger Cambyses and his advisors in this situation? What would happen in mainland Greece, and would men like Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos, be able to expand their power? Also, how would the Jews be affected? Would a similar ceremonial capital like Persepolis still get founded? Would Cyrus' body get recovered? What would be the effect on India?

Not a criticism. You have too many ideas on Achaemenid era. I have followed some of your threads. Why don't you make a Achaemenid era timeline? I am pretty sure it will be a great one given your knowledge on the subject matter

 

[Don Corleone]

I can try to address the Jews.

From a Biblical perspective, YHWH used Nebuchadnezzar to punish Judah and Cyrus to redeem them, so the same would have been the case with a different Persian king.

From a secular viewpoint, allowing the return from exile was the smart move. The Levant was largely deserted, and was very valuable land. Trade crossroads, vineyards, olive groves, Dead Sea salt. The Jews could get the most out of that land, and (from the perspective of a pagan 2500 years ago), they knew how to properly worship the god(s) of that land.

Another advantage for the Persians is that unlike the Babylonians, who saw the Jews as troublemakers, the Persians had no adverse history. Judah would be grateful to them for ending the exile. Persia would leave them alone as long as they received a cut of the money.

Cyrus isn't the only possible leader who could have seen that opportunity.

 

[SandroPertini98]

Well, Cambyses was surely old enough to govern: it’s demonstrated by the fact that Cyrus nominated (briefly) him as governor of Babylon immediately after the conquest. So, the first consequence would be Cambyses becoming King of Kings almost a decade earlier. I think probably he would momentarily retire to consolidate his power, reorganise the army and study a new strategy, but after some times he would March against Babylon and conquer it to vindicate his father. It’s possible the conquest could be more brutal (because Babylon offers more resistance under a different ruler or the tending to violence Cambyses has no place for mercy for the city that costs the life of his father). A more damaged and “damned” Babylon could not grew to become one of the four capitals of Persian Empire. I agree in principle with Landmass Wave about Jews’ fate: Cambyses could be a little more cruel then Cyrus, but at the end he or his successor would free and allow them to return to Palestine. An interesting alternative (that has no historical basis, so it’s totally hypothetical) would be exchanging freedom with a period of military service in incoming campaign against near Egypt, something Cambyses greatly promoted. Cambyses’ heart could be not use to mercy but the Pharaoh is an primordial villain for Jewish culture and some more men could be useful. This could be possibly led also to a larger Jewish community in Egypt, if some of them accept land and positions in the conquered country.
But the main consequence of this POD could be about the fate of the same Cambyses. I think he could die earlier and I imagine two scenarios:
- in the first he attacks the Messagetae like Cyrus. Although the sources don’t agree on how Cyrus died, the traditional version is he died defeated by Messagetae Queen Tormys. Cambyses doesn’t sound like a best leader then Cyrus so he could be defeated and killed instead him.
- in the second scenario Cambyses ignored the Messagetae to focus against Egypt. The Persian Army conquers the country earlier but they were unable to achieve a total victory. Cambyses died shortly after apparently due gangrene caused by a wound. For some historians that was caused by a suicide attempt by the same Cambyses who tried to take his life when realise his success was impossible. So it’s possible an earlier failure to pacify quickly Egypt leads Cambyses to kill himself earlier.
In both scenarios this would occur before Cambyses allegedly kill his brother Bardiya/Smerdis. Since there are not historical proves of a Darius’ plot to paint Bardiya as an imposter called Gaumata, we have to assume the man Darius killed was really an imposter. ITTL this would mean the legitimate heir Bardiya is now on the throne and there is not reason to depose him. Then Bardiya had not sons, only a daughter (Parmys): without uncle or cousins, the spouse of Paramus would become the next King of Kings but I have not enough knowledge of Persian history to determine who could marry her (but I could suppose one of the Seven, although not Darius himself, because he, as personal lancer of Cambyses, had to be close to the former King while it’s clear Bardiya had not a so good relationship with his brother who IOTL ordered his assassination).

 

[SunKing105]

I really have no idea, are there really enough good sources from around the time period to even really speculate as to what could happen?

Considering we've had threads asking if Indo-Europeans didn't exist or didn't leave their homeland, and the gigantic question mark pre-IE Europe is, I don't consider it too great an obstacle for an era that, while admittedly we still don't have that much info on, is firmly into the historical period.

 

[SunKing105]

I can try to address the Jews.

From a Biblical perspective, YHWH used Nebuchadnezzar to punish Judah and Cyrus to redeem them, so the same would have been the case with a different Persian king.

From a secular viewpoint, allowing the return from exile was the smart move. The Levant was largely deserted, and was very valuable land. Trade crossroads, vineyards, olive groves, Dead Sea salt. The Jews could get the most out of that land, and (from the perspective of a pagan 2500 years ago), they knew how to properly worship the god(s) of that land.

Another advantage for the Persians is that unlike the Babylonians, who saw the Jews as troublemakers, the Persians had no adverse history. Judah would be grateful to them for ending the exile. Persia would leave them alone as long as they received a cut of the money.

Cyrus isn't the only possible leader who could have seen that opportunity.

First, we need to determine if Babylon still falls ITTL. I guess it depends on if Nabonidus is captured or not, and even if he is captured, his son Belshazzar, in the aftermath of Cyrus' death, would be able to continue resistance in a rump state near the north, near Assyria and the city of Harran, that also happens to include most of the Levant. In that case there could be a number of scenarios, such as the Jews helping to repulse Cyrus, and Nabonidus, in his desperation, agrees to undo the exile, or they rebel themselves and attempt to hand over the city to the Persians, either successfully, or in failure, which would probably lead to their population being reduced or them even facing genocide. Then again, I don't recall them as an especially numerous or important group, many of these scenarios are a bit of a stretch. Or they could march on their own back to Judea.

Well, Cambyses was surely old enough to govern: it’s demonstrated by the fact that Cyrus nominated (briefly) him as governor of Babylon immediately after the conquest. So, the first consequence would be Cambyses becoming King of Kings almost a decade earlier. I think probably he would momentarily retire to consolidate his power, reorganise the army and study a new strategy, but after some times he would March against Babylon and conquer it to vindicate his father. It’s possible the conquest could be more brutal (because Babylon offers more resistance under a different ruler or the tending to violence Cambyses has no place for mercy for the city that costs the life of his father). A more damaged and “damned” Babylon could not grew to become one of the four capitals of Persian Empire. I agree in principle with Landmass Wave about Jews’ fate: Cambyses could be a little more cruel then Cyrus, but at the end he or his successor would free and allow them to return to Palestine. An interesting alternative (that has no historical basis, so it’s totally hypothetical) would be exchanging freedom with a period of military service in incoming campaign against near Egypt, something Cambyses greatly promoted. Cambyses’ heart could be not use to mercy but the Pharaoh is an primordial villain for Jewish culture and some more men could be useful. This could be possibly led also to a larger Jewish community in Egypt, if some of them accept land and positions in the conquered country.
But the main consequence of this POD could be about the fate of the same Cambyses. I think he could die earlier and I imagine two scenarios:
- in the first he attacks the Messagetae like Cyrus. Although the sources don’t agree on how Cyrus died, the traditional version is he died defeated by Messagetae Queen Tormys. Cambyses doesn’t sound like a best leader then Cyrus so he could be defeated and killed instead him.
- in the second scenario Cambyses ignored the Messagetae to focus against Egypt. The Persian Army conquers the country earlier but they were unable to achieve a total victory. Cambyses died shortly after apparently due gangrene caused by a wound. For some historians that was caused by a suicide attempt by the same Cambyses who tried to take his life when realise his success was impossible. So it’s possible an earlier failure to pacify quickly Egypt leads Cambyses to kill himself earlier.
In both scenarios this would occur before Cambyses allegedly kill his brother Bardiya/Smerdis. Since there are not historical proves of a Darius’ plot to paint Bardiya as an imposter called Gaumata, we have to assume the man Darius killed was really an imposter. ITTL this would mean the legitimate heir Bardiya is now on the throne and there is not reason to depose him. Then Bardiya had not sons, only a daughter (Parmys): without uncle or cousins, the spouse of Paramus would become the next King of Kings but I have not enough knowledge of Persian history to determine who could marry her (but I could suppose one of the Seven, although not Darius himself, because he, as personal lancer of Cambyses, had to be close to the former King while it’s clear Bardiya had not a so good relationship with his brother who IOTL ordered his assassination).

He is definitely old enough, but is he experienced enough? Assuming that he successfully consolidates his power and reasserts his control over the Medes and other peoples in his empire, I'm not sure that if they didn't manage to capture Babylon under Cyrus, that they would do so under Cambyses, because the Babylonians have been alerted of the danger and Babylon's world famous fortifications would present a formidable challenge for any invader, especially under a more popular Babylonian ruler, and assistance from other enemies of the Achaemenids. And Babylon did suffer damage in later fruitless revolts against the Achaemenids, to which in response Xerxes defiled the statue of Marduk in the Esagila, and dropped or used less frequently Babylonian titles, despite this, it's central position, strategic location, and sheer wealth and population made it a too good location for one of the capitals of the Achaemenids. I already mentioned the Jews in an earlier post, but about Egypt, I'm not sure Cambyses will be able to conquer it. Egypt is still under the rule of the reasonably competent Amasis II, who will not make the mistakes Psamtik III made in the prelude to the invasion, and most likely have an altered strategic situation that would work in his favor in the Levant and Syria. Plus, the seven conspirators rose in large part because of their plot against Smerdis and in favor of Darius, in a situation where the real Smerdis is alive, assuming that is true, would they even be in high-enough favor or considered important enough to marry into the main Achaemenid line?

 

[Don Corleone]

First, we need to determine if Babylon still falls ITTL. I guess it depends on if Nabonidus is captured or not, and even if he is captured, his son Belshazzar, in the aftermath of Cyrus' death, would be able to continue resistance in a rump state near the north, near Assyria and the city of Harran, that also happens to include most of the Levant. In that case there could be a number of scenarios, such as the Jews helping to repulse Cyrus, and Nabonidus, in his desperation, agrees to undo the exile,

That sounds like an awesome timeline.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Instead of Cyrus the Great we get Cyrus the Nearly Great.