World without Sea People migration/diaspora

The Sea People migration/diaspora destroyed or rendered instable many Bronze Age Civilizations, what if that didn't happen?
 
It's... hard to say. Obviously the Phoenicians and thus Carthaginians don't happen, which at a minimum means we will be writing in a different script (same goes for Cyrillic). Beyond that, it's difficult. The main question here is, in a world without the Sea Peoples raiding across the Easter Med, does the Bronze Age Collapse and ensuing dark age still occur? Personally, I think that without the coinciding barbarian invasions the Bronze age collapse would not have occurred (at least not when and how it did) but I am not certain that the Sea Peoples themselves were integral to that, they weren't the only barbarians in town after all.
 
It's... hard to say. Obviously the Phoenicians and thus Carthaginians don't happen, which at a minimum means we will be writing in a different script (same goes for Cyrillic). Beyond that, it's difficult. The main question here is, in a world without the Sea Peoples raiding across the Easter Med, does the Bronze Age Collapse and ensuing dark age still occur? Personally, I think that without the coinciding barbarian invasions the Bronze age collapse would not have occurred (at least not when and how it did) but I am not certain that the Sea Peoples themselves were integral to that, they weren't the only barbarians in town after all.
It's the Aramaeans that are going to probably still be a catalyst for some sort of collapse in Mesopotamia at least. Though I'm not sure what this will mean for Egypt and Mycenean Greece.
 
Well, I think that the Hittite civilization would probably have lasted quite a bit longer. I read somewhere the Hittites had quite abit of influence on Mycenean Greece, if Mycenean Greece still collapses, and the familiar Greek city states still come into existence later they would have a closer powerful neighbor to deal with in the Hittites.

Egypt may have done better with the Hittites still around, they were allies against Assyria, without the Sea Peoples the Hittites would still be there to balance out the power of Assyria.

Where this could get interesting is what that means for later civilizations. I would assume that Persia would still eventually arrive in the area. Would a check on Assyria power by the continued existence of the Hittites prevent the Assyrians from being conquered later, and would that mean Persia would have to conquer Assyria themselves instead of taking their former territory? Or would Assyria be stronger and able to resist conquest?

This could prevent the Greeks from as influencial, if the Phoenicians are connected with the Sea People, then they would not be around to trade with the Greeks and others. Would Alexander even arise in such a timeline?

Without Alexander there would be a huge impact on the Far East, India being the most obvious. Instead you could have a Persian conquest of India and perhaps then a much larger following of Persian religion. Maybe a sect of Zoroastrianism would arise that absorbed some teachings of Buddha..who knows.
 
Top