WI Neo-Assyrian Empire Empire Survives (a little longer) (2.0)

[John Fredrick Parker]

So just revisiting an old idea of mine -- what if (1) the Neo-Babylonian Revolt of 627 BCE was put down by a more competent successor to Ashurbanipal, and (2) the Assyrian Empire endures more or less at its then strength for about another century?

The Achaemenids brought a decent lot of very much needed peace, integration and security to a depleted, violence-torn Western Asia. Cyrus policies were on the kind side. His successors were on average less gentle, but still usually kept an enourmous empire reasonably peaceful without much bloodshed, and tendeded to refrain from such things as genocide, mass deportation and the like.
The Assyrians were a nastier bunch. Bloodthirsty imperialists whose emperors made a point of terrorizing subjects and enemies alike with accurate reportages of how their military campaigns used to turn into extermination wars and mass-enslavement enterprise. They exaggerated to scare them, of course, but their still showed an unambiguous pride in mass murder.
Their wars of conquest had depopulated large parts of Syria and Mesopotamia and their tributes had almost starved what was left. Of course, if they had remained in charge for a century, the battlegrounds would have moved elsewhere, probably in western Iran, Egypt and Asia Minor, so that Syria and other areas may have recovered.

Additional ideas from linked TL -- Lydia will likely have greater influence in emerging Greek civilization, while Cilicia has the opportunity to emerge as a regional power, conquering the Levant and Syria (founding a sort of Neo-Neo-Hittite Empire).

CONSOLIDATE: One thing I'm still unsure about when imagining this prospective TL is how religion in Mesopotamia could be altered -- OTL, the establishment of a religiously tolerant empire topped by Zoroastrianism would essentially define the face of religion in the Middle East for over a millenium. I imagine whoever succeeds the longer lasting Assyrians TTL won't be nearly so tolerant, which means depending on who they are, Mesopotamian religion could be completely upended.

 

[Ameck16]

Liked the old TL, lets see how you'll improve it.

Count me as a subscriber.

 

[Russian]

One thing I'm still unsure about when imagining this prospective TL is how religion in Mesopotamia could be altered -- OTL, the establishment of a religiously tolerant empire topped by Zoroastrianism would essentially define the face of religion in the Middle East for over a millenium. I imagine whoever succeeds the longer lasting Assyrians TTL won't be nearly so tolerant, which means depending on who they are, Mesopotamian religion could be completely upended.

It seems to me that in this region at this time religious toleration was the norm (before Christianity and Islam took root).
With a few minor exceptions.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@Russian Didn't the Assyrians make it a point to, when devastating a city or people, establish that their gods had abandoned them? And even before the Assyrians, Mesopotamian empires liked to make a point that the gods of the "winners" were "clearly" superior to the gods of the defeated peoples? (Even if the mythology of said gods tended to blend together such that they effectively became the same, such as Ashur borrowing heavily from the Enlil...)

 

[Russian]

@Russian Didn't the Assyrians make it a point to, when devastating a city or people, establish that their gods had abandoned them?

I've never heard about it.
But loosing to the Assyrians is definitely truly bad, so the idea that the local gods fucked up is quite natural.
But from all I know the Assyrians did not impose their gods over the conquered. What for?

And even before the Assyrians, Mesopotamian empires liked to make a point that the gods of the "winners" were "clearly" superior to the gods of the defeated peoples? (Even if the mythology of said gods tended to blend together such that they effectively became the same, such as Ashur borrowing heavily from the Enlil...)

The idea of the winning gods being stronger the gods of the losers being weaker is far from religious intolerance, I think.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

But from all I know the Assyrians did not impose their gods over the conquered.

Well no, unless you count taking an entire nation and scattering them to the wind; we all know what happened to Israel, and IIRC, many Phoenician cities were devastated as well. The Elamites were also devastated beyond repair; obviously Persian culture as a whole managed a comeback, but AIUI the religion of Elam was no more after Assyria was done with them. It's quite possible that, given more time, the nations worshipping Baal and Yahweh would have been lost to history.

Then again, it should certainly be remembered that these are exceptions; Assyria wasn't utterly genocidal to every nation under their influence or control. That said, the major religions remaining are fellow Mesopotamian pantheons, which as mentioned, liberally "borrowed" from each other (Ashur is basically the same as Enlil, much the same as the Roman and Greek gods are the same); so even if there's no specific policy of "religious intolerance", that doesn't mean there's no difference between how religious diversity developed under the Acheamenids and how a longer Assyrian and subsequent "worse" empire would develop.

The idea of the winning gods being stronger the gods of the losers being weaker is far from religious intolerance, I think.

It is very different from Achaemenid religious policy, which was the point I was making.

 

[The Professor]

Could there be a deliberate attempt to standardise theology for the empire here?

 

[Russian]

Could there be a deliberate attempt to standardise theology for the empire here?

That happened all the time for the periods and regions mentioned - a king favored some god(s) more than others. But I don't think that qualifies as standardization of the theology.

Such things like Atenism were an exception.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Maybe we should take a step back; who is most likely to take over the Assyrian holdings after they fall a century later? I mentioned Cilicia possibly being able to sweep up the Levant and Syria, but what of Mesopotamia? Would the Chaladeans still be the lead candidates for founding a Neo-Babylonian Empire; and if so, would it have a better chance of long term survival TTL? If no to either, who reunites the land between the rivers instead; Scythians, other Persians, someone else?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Maybe we should take a step back; who is most likely to take over the Assyrian holdings after they fall a century later?

Cyrus, if he still exists.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Cyrus, if he still exists.

He very well may not TTL; as others have pointed out before, an Assyria which lasts an extra century will be using that time to keep Elam down and make frequent raids into Persia. And even if some Persian army decides to take advantage of Assyria's fall, they may be religiously different from OTL, while likely finding a somewhat more semi-homogenous empire to conquer; in other words, we definitely won't get anything like OTL's Achaemenid Empire.

In this scenario, Cyrus probably does not arise in the East, because Assyria would have been pursuing its policy of frequent raids into Iran to keep the tribes there weak. Assuming Zoroaster lives at all, he probably won't have a strong royal booster for quite some time.

 

[Crying]

Maybe we should take a step back; who is most likely to take over the Assyrian holdings after they fall a century later?

Were the Nabateans around yet? They might be able to do something in the Levant.

I mentioned Cilicia possibly being able to sweep up the Levant and Syria, but what of Mesopotamia? Would the Chaladeans still be the lead candidates for founding a Neo-Babylonian Empire; and if so, would it have a better chance of long term survival TTL? If no to either, who reunites the land between the rivers instead; Scythians, other Persians, someone else?

Well, I'd like to see Elam do something but in this scenario it seems unlikely. If some sort of Temujin/Cyrus kind of figure united the Scythians they should have been capable of sweeping in and dominating the Middle East but I'm not sure how long such an empire would last. Hmm... perhaps Egypt, without a Persia to conquer them, could reclaim their position as the dominant power and take over the Assyrian remnants. Finally, maybe the Arabs could have come to dominate the ME a couple thousand years early ITTL?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Were the Nabateans around yet? They might be able to do something in the Levant... Finally, maybe the Arabs could have come to dominate the ME a couple thousand years early ITTL?

Six one, half dozen of the other. That said, the Nabatean Kingdom didn't even exist yet, so I'd say this one, intriguingly ironic as it might be, is unlikely.

Hmm... perhaps Egypt, without a Persia to conquer them, could reclaim their position as the dominant power and take over the Assyrian remnants.

That's a pretty big empire for Egypt; I'd say at most they manage more or less the largest extent of OTL's Ptolemaics managed -- which is mainly what I've been imagining for an apt Cilician State (Levant, Syria, etc). In either case, that still leaves Mesopotamia, etc.

If some sort of Temujin/Cyrus kind of figure united the Scythians they should have been capable of sweeping in and dominating the Middle East but I'm not sure how long such an empire would last.

Agreed they'd at best be short lived, in which case we're right back to who inherits their empire.

In any case, it seems the western portions of the Assyrian Empire (Syria, the Levant, Cilicia, etc) have a few options here, but east of that things become less clear. So I'm going to say that, for Mesopotamia at least, our most likely longer term successor to the Assyrians is a new Chaledean Empire (what the Neo-Babylonians were OTL, only much longer lasting). Thoughts?

 

[Gortian]

When the Assyrians conquered cities they read proclamations declaring that their deities had abandoned them or never existed and they had fallen before the might of Assur.

Nations fell to "The Terrifying Radiance of Assur" and rivers of blood flowed through their lands. All would cower before Him. The Assyrian Kings spoke of their coronation as Ashur appearing before them and Laying in their arms "A Merciless Weapon of Unrelenting Cruelty" (you have to capitalise to get across the language they were going for).

The terror they inflicted upon the nations of Mesopotamia was unique to each nation. Not arbitrary, but calculated and truly awful. A city that venerated its ancestors was forced to dig up their ancestors tombs and grind their bones to dust. A proud King had an iron rod rammed through his jaw, he was leashed by it and forced to live in the Royal Kennels among the dogs for the rest of his days. Shattered city walls decorated in the flayed skins of its people. It goes on...

The Assyrians practiced religious dominance similar to the Incas and the Roman practice of Evocatio (the theft of a deity) by kidnapping Idols of gods from their various Holy of Holies and taking them to Assur (or wherever the capital was during that reign) to be placed in a subordinate position to their god. The Babylonians were gifted Marduks idol back after the son of the King who sacked the city became superstitious.

They did not force anyone to worship Him as due to their conquest of those people he had already assured his primacy above their feeble gods. Assur was Their God.

More importantly the Assyrian Empire was ideologically tied to the ideals of Empire and the infliction of terror upon those who defied the Will of Assur, the King, who was the personification of Law on Earth. They were told that the Kings rule was the only thing holding reality together. That the balance of the world was in peril by every minor rebellion. That is why they could react with such brutality, rebels were bringing the fate of the world into question by refusing the rule of Law.

Those who had not yet come under the rule of the king were not seen as entirely human and as such could suffer without repurcussion.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Another cool thing to inagine -- how Greek Civilization is altered by the continued thriving of Lydia.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

When the Assyrians conquered cities they read proclamations declaring that their deities had abandoned them or never existed and they had fallen before the might of Assur.

Nations fell to "The Terrifying Radiance of Assur" and rivers of blood flowed through their lands. All would cower before Him. The Assyrian Kings spoke of their coronation as Ashur appearing before them and Laying in their arms "A Merciless Weapon of Unrelenting Cruelty" (you have to capitalise to get across the language they were going for).

The terror they inflicted upon the nations of Mesopotamia was unique to each nation. Not arbitrary, but calculated and truly awful. A city that venerated its ancestors was forced to dig up their ancestors tombs and grind their bones to dust. A proud King had an iron rod rammed through his jaw, he was leashed by it and forced to live in the Royal Kennels among the dogs for the rest of his days. Shattered city walls decorated in the flayed skins of its people. It goes on...

The Assyrians practiced religious dominance similar to the Incas and the Roman practice of Evocatio (the theft of a deity) by kidnapping Idols of gods from their various Holy of Holies and taking them to Assur (or wherever the capital was during that reign) to be placed in a subordinate position to their god. The Babylonians were gifted Marduks idol back after the son of the King who sacked the city became superstitious.

They did not force anyone to worship Him as due to their conquest of those people he had already assured his primacy above their feeble gods. Assur was Their God.

More importantly the Assyrian Empire was ideologically tied to the ideals of Empire and the infliction of terror upon those who defied the Will of Assur, the King, who was the personification of Law on Earth. They were told that the Kings rule was the only thing holding reality together. That the balance of the world was in peril by every minor rebellion. That is why they could react with such brutality, rebels were bringing the fate of the world into question by refusing the rule of Law.

Those who had not yet come under the rule of the king were not seen as entirely human and as such could suffer without repurcussion.

I see someone else has read Aššur is King! Aššur is King!: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

Another cool thing to inagine -- how Greek Civilization is altered by the continued thriving of Lydia.

Unless Lydia gets attacked by Assyria enough times that it is sent into permanent decline.

 

[Roger II]

I'm sort of skeptical with some of the takes in here. Especially with Elam and the general "Assyria was uniquely brutal" thing.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Unless Lydia gets attacked by Assyria enough times that it is sent into permanent decline.

Would Lydia be Assyria's primary targets? I'd think they'd be more focused on Egypt, the Persians, and of course rebellions.

I'm sort of skeptical with some of the takes in here. Especially with... the general "Assyria was uniquely brutal" thing.

Not really sure how to respond to this; I mean, as @Gordius noted earlier, Assyrian brutality is pretty damn well documented.

 

[Gortian]

I'm sort of skeptical with some of the takes in here. Especially with Elam and the general "Assyria was uniquely brutal" thing.

Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling.

Early Empires practiced a variety of ways to maintain control. Terror and cruelty is usually an early method. The Assyrians, the Qin and the Aztecs maintained their power through brutality, only for a moment of weakness results in them being utterly destroyed by their neighbours and subjects who grow to loath and fear their rulers.

Eventually other rulers of successor states learn from their mistakes and try the carrot rather than the stick such as Cyrus of the Achaemenids or the Han dynasty discarding the Legalism of Shang Yang.

Ultimately, it is difficult to dispute the cruelty of the Neo-Assyrians when their entire regime required they advertise every one of their acts of terror upon their subjects.

There was a letter that always stuck in my mind from Shalmaneser to one of his district governors which read:

"I am building a new palace. Send 300 timber beams in 30 days or you and you're entire family line will be killed.

Yours truly Shalmaneser."

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Early Empires practiced a variety of ways to maintain control. Terror and cruelty is usually an early method. The Assyrians, the Qin and the Aztecs maintained their power through brutality, only for a moment of weakness results in them being utterly destroyed by their neighbours and subjects who grow to loath and fear their rulers.

Eventually other rulers of successor states learn from their mistakes and try the carrot rather than the stick such as Cyrus of the Achaemenids or the Han dynasty discarding the Legalism of Shang Yang.

Ultimately, it is difficult to dispute the cruelty of the Neo-Assyrians when their entire regime required they advertise every one of their acts of terror upon their subjects.

There was a letter that always stuck in my mind from Shalmaneser to one of his district governors which read:

"I am building a new palace. Send 300 timber beams in 30 days or you and you're entire family line will be killed.

Yours truly Shalmaneser."

You are very correct on this. This tends to be a trend among a minority of states throughout pre-modern history. The Neo-Assyrians, Aztecs, Early Mongol Empire, etc... are examples of this trend.

This fact, that you have enunciated well, should be realized as this discussion continues.