WiI: Necho III victorious at Carchemish (605 BCE)

The Battle of Carchemish (once mentioned in the bible) was a crucial battle between the forces of Necho III, pharaoh of Egypt, and his neo-assyrian allies against the forces of Nebuchadnezzar II of the neo-babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar II ended up crushing Necho's forces and attaining control of Syria and the levant, forcing Necho III to abandon his plans of restoring the borders of the egyptian New Kingdom.
But what if the egyptians had won the battle? What would this mean for the egyptian and neo-babylonian empires? Could Necho gain an empire in the middle east?
 
Finally some people into the Neo-Assyrian Empire!

He would probably annex Canaan, I mean, it was Egyptian to them. Maybe more.

As for Assyria, he would probably restore their empire as a puppet state. He would probably (I say probably too much, but who cares?) annex Babylon and other areas back into it, to increase his standing with the Assyrian people and all. Didn't some Egyptian rulers have problems with the Hittites? Maybe, with the Levant and probably Mesopotamia firmly in his grasp, he would launch an Anatolian campaign against Lydia.

Totally not ASB possibility: Achaemenid Empire based in Memphis!
 
On a possibly small note, Judah doesn't fall to the Babylonians, meaning we don't get the long exile or the destruction of the first temple.

Just so you know...

Ah, I was busy with other things a month ago (Long Turkish War), so I didn't catch that. I also had to write a dystopian 2 to 5-page narrative for school, which I made about the Siege of Vienna from the viewpoint of a Tyrolean nobleman, so that was a distraction as well. Good thing the whole 5-page thing took me just 3 hours.
 

Deleted member 97083

Finally some people into the Neo-Assyrian Empire!

He would probably annex Canaan, I mean, it was Egyptian to them. Maybe more.

As for Assyria, he would probably restore their empire as a puppet state. He would probably (I say probably too much, but who cares?) annex Babylon and other areas back into it, to increase his standing with the Assyrian people and all. Didn't some Egyptian rulers have problems with the Hittites? Maybe, with the Levant and probably Mesopotamia firmly in his grasp, he would launch an Anatolian campaign against Lydia.

Totally not ASB possibility: Achaemenid Empire based in Memphis!
Annexing Babylon into Assyria again, at least immediately, would probably be impossible, it was always the most difficult region for the Assyrians to control. Assyria would probably be a puppet state consisting of Syria proper, Assyria proper (in its reduced post classical definition), and the Aramaic parts of the Levant coast, without the bulk of Mesopotamia.
 
Annexing Babylon into Assyria again, at least immediately, would probably be impossible, it was always the most difficult region for the Assyrians to control. Assyria would probably be a puppet state consisting of Syria proper, Assyria proper (in its reduced post classical definition), and the Aramaic parts of the Levant coast, without the bulk of Mesopotamia.

Did someone say ethnic cleansing?
 

Deleted member 97083

Egypt can help.
Egyptians had never set foot in Babylon before, let alone invaded it. Logistically they probably couldn't have done much more than sacking the city and taking slaves. Ideologically there would be no reason for them to try and destroy, rather than vassalize, the Babylonians.

It's not cleansing if there are rebels blending into the general population and pretending to be civilians.
That's only really an issue in the early modern to modern era.

Mesopotamian elites of any kind wouldn't be caught dead blending into the general population, who were tenant farmers, basically serfs. It probably wouldn't have been believable anyway.

Instead, rebellious elites feigned compliance to the king until they could organize an uprising. However they were still extravagant nobles the entire time.

The bulk of the population of course, subsistence farmers, couldn't afford to participate in any kind of "insurgency" unless they were being compensated for that military service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Egyptians had never set foot in Babylon before, let alone invaded it. Logistically they probably couldn't have done much more than sacking the city and taking slaves. Ideologically there would be no reason for them to try and destroy, rather than vassalize, the Babylonians.


That's only really an issue in the early modern to modern era.

Mesopotamian elites of any kind wouldn't be caught dead blending into the general population, who were tenant farmers, basically serfs. It probably wouldn't have been believable anyway.

Instead, rebellious elites feigned compliance to the king until they could organize an uprising. However they were still extravagant nobles the entire time.

The bulk of the population of course, subsistence farmers, couldn't afford to participate in any kind of "insurgency" unless they were being compensated for that military service.

Egypt just destroyed the Babylonian Army. Babylon will hate them too just like Assyria. They'd be very disloyal vassal, probably staging various rebellions involving themselves, the Jews, Lydia, and the Medians against Egypt and Assyria. Not really the type of thing you'd want to keep around.
 

Deleted member 97083

Egypt just destroyed the Babylonian Army. Babylon will hate them too just like Assyria. They'd be very disloyal vassal, probably staging various rebellions involving themselves, the Jews, Lydia, and the Medians against Egypt and Assyria. Not really the type of thing you'd want to keep around.
Well, by vassalize, I meant that Egypt would force Babylon to pay tribute for a few years, without actually taking control over the territory (which is very expensive). This was a common result of invasion during that time, especially during the previous Neo Assyrian era.

When the defeated state stopped paying tribute, sometimes it led to a war to enforce the tributary relationship, sometimes it didn't.
 
Well, by vassalize, I meant that Egypt would force Babylon to pay tribute for a few years, without actually taking control over the territory (which is very expensive). This was a common result of invasion during that time, especially during the previous Neo Assyrian era.

When the defeated state stopped paying tribute, sometimes it led to a war to enforce the tributary relationship, sometimes it didn't.

Tigris and Euphrates? Or just the Nile? I mean, the more productivity, the better, eh?
 
On a possibly small note, Judah doesn't fall to the Babylonians, meaning we don't get the long exile or the destruction of the first temple.

Just so you know...

Unless Necho does it instead of Nebuchadnezzar. He did take King Jehoahaz into captivity.

That could mean the return from exile happens due to a later pharaoh, instead of the Persians taking out the Babylonians. Or the Assyrians and Egyptians have a falling out 70 years later, and the Assyrians sack Egypt...then decide to let Judah come home and rebuild the temple. Judah is grateful to the Assyrians and will be loyal, and they serve as a buffer between Assyria and Egypt if Egypt recovers in the future. The Levant is valuable land due to fishing, salt, olives, and vineyards, and is a trade crossroads, so controlling it through vassalage is a major victory.

Theologically, there would be symbolic value in a second return from captivity in Egypt, and Zerubbabel would be viewed as a second Moses.
 
Unless the Egyptians have steady access to Iron, they simply don't have the military logistics to maintain a firm grip on the Levant. All it takes is one subpar ruler and the whole house of cards will collapse (Babylon will be financing Levantine revolts in order to undermine the Egyptians).
 
Top