WI: Even Worse Bronze Age Collapse?

Ok, so my knowledge of the Sea Peoples is quite minimal, but it is clear that they posed massive danger to the archaic world with how they conquered Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite Empire. However, their efforts against Egypt and Assyria were not successful. I would like to ask as to the effects on the world of they did conquer Egypt and Mesopotamia, and what this would mean for the Ancient Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Well, for starters, when the New World and Old World make "first contact", it would probably be on more equal terms.
What? How would sea peoples being a bit more successful put old-new world contact on equal footing?

I mean i get the butterflies effect to an extent but just because the societies of the bronze age eastern Mediterranean-Mesopotamia fall doesn't mean the rest of the world is that badly off
 
Short term setback for the region but someone will eventually fill the void. Maybe the Hebrews build a stronger civilization - they still have the olive groves, vineyards, fish, and Dead Sea salt, even with the Levant being less valuable as a trade crossroads.
 
What? How would sea peoples being a bit more successful put old-new world contact on equal footing?

I mean i get the butterflies effect to an extent but just because the societies of the bronze age eastern Mediterranean-Mesopotamia fall doesn't mean the rest of the world is that badly off
I was thinking less "equal terms" and more "conquest is less of a roflstomp".
 
My opinions from what little I know of the time:

- Egypt be like: "Ah shit here we go again". How do you say that with hierogliphs?
- There will be a third intermediary period full of infight between multiple competing dinasties of foreigner and local kings. Either might come on top. Its Hyksos 2: It Came From The Sea
- Possibility: A Kushite conquest of Egypt? Or Kush could fall after that.

- What allowed the ascenssion of Assyria was the Bronze Age Collapse. Egypt managed to tank it out, then fell for a while, while Assyria lost land but survived whole.
- The fall of Assyria means even more dominoes falling. Perhaps we get "Sea Peoples" and Assyrian dominoes falling as far as proto-Persia.

- A good question is: Will the Kassites/Babylonians manage to ride out the devastation of Assyria, or will they fall??
- Hebrews are already around
- Mitanni already conquered, aren't they?

Anyway, I think that a fall of Egypt + Assyria means pretty much a blank slate in the region. I think the new potential players in the region are:

- Kassites, IF they don't get ravaged after the fall of Assyria
- Mitanni, if they manage to become independent somehow
- Urartu, if they are not conquered by Assyria or its sucessors during the time
- Phyrigians
- Hebrews, who are now more or less g etting themselves together
 
What? How would sea peoples being a bit more successful put old-new world contact on equal footing?

I mean i get the butterflies effect to an extent but just because the societies of the bronze age eastern Mediterranean-Mesopotamia fall doesn't mean the rest of the world is that badly off

Actually if you tried it could do so, I was thinking a couple months back about a TL where a stunted Mediterranean Bronze Age+earlier invention of saddles and stirrups means that trade connections between East and West are more secure despite the devastation of the climate change, meaning the "Bronze Age" continues.

Yet the development of trade means inevitably some maritime Mediterranean folks will decide to start up some colonies for controlling trade routes, and this, if it went on for several centuries, could result in an earlier contact with the New World, and less colonization and more "integration into global trade routes".

Hell, the Phoenicians figured out West African ocean currents, that's a hell of a milestone, I think it's plausible.
 
It might give Ancient Greece a head start actually. If the Sea Peoples pillaged Egypt they would bring the wealth, and educated prisoners, back to their bases in Greece.
 
Actually if you tried it could do so, I was thinking a couple months back about a TL where a stunted Mediterranean Bronze Age+earlier invention of saddles and stirrups means that trade connections between East and West are more secure despite the devastation of the climate change, meaning the "Bronze Age" continues.

Yet the development of trade means inevitably some maritime Mediterranean folks will decide to start up some colonies for controlling trade routes, and this, if it went on for several centuries, could result in an earlier contact with the New World, and less colonization and more "integration into global trade routes".

Hell, the Phoenicians figured out West African ocean currents, that's a hell of a milestone, I think it's plausible.
Pretty big leap going on there. One thing to have a maritime trade increase but ships capable of crossing the Atlantic? Its hard to get much earlier unless you have a surge in navigation/ship construction tech. A bigger bronze age collapse is unlikely to do that, if anything you get the reverse as less demand for luxuries if the urban population is smaller and states not as organized.
 
Pretty big leap going on there. One thing to have a maritime trade increase but ships capable of crossing the Atlantic? Its hard to get much earlier unless you have a surge in navigation/ship construction tech. A bigger bronze age collapse is unlikely to do that, if anything you get the reverse as less demand for luxuries if the urban population is smaller and states not as organized.
I was more thinking a way to prolong the Bronze Age.

A prolonged Bronze Age that includes and survives periodic collapses brought on by climate change would be hella interesting. Personally I was more trying to find a way to get a Bronze Age global trade route than anything



Anworse brkbze age collapse needn’t necessarily end the Bronze Age, anyway, it’s possible it could be “quick” enough that folks degrade to rural villages quickly enough that no one even really thinks iron is useful in mass quantities, no?
 
I was more thinking a way to prolong the Bronze Age.
Anworse brkbze age collapse needn’t necessarily end the Bronze Age, anyway, it’s possible it could be “quick” enough that folks degrade to rural villages quickly enough that no one even really thinks iron is useful in mass quantities, no?
No, it's not really possible. See, iron had been used before the Collapse, but it didn't become dominant because palace-produced bronze was still superior. It took centuries of technological development to make iron a good alternative to bronze. So, why did it suddenly took off after the Bronze Age Collapse? Simple: no one could make bronze anymore. The palace economies of the Bronze Age - centralized economies, with a globalized trade network to import tin and copper - weren't around after the Collapse. Iron, though, can be found virtually everywhere in the Fertile Crescent, so when bronze stopped being available, iron working took off. Worsening the Collapse won't make bronze last longer, to the contrary even.
 
No, it's not really possible. See, iron had been used before the Collapse, but it didn't become dominant because palace-produced bronze was still superior. It took centuries of technological development to make iron a good alternative to bronze. So, why did it suddenly took off after the Bronze Age Collapse? Simple: no one could make bronze anymore. The palace economies of the Bronze Age - centralized economies, with a globalized trade network to import tin and copper - weren't around after the Collapse. Iron, though, can be found virtually everywhere in the Fertile Crescent, so when bronze stopped being available, iron working took off. Worsening the Collapse won't make bronze last longer, to the contrary even.
I agree tbh I was just trying to think of some way
 
Top