GURPS: Infinite Worlds - Mesopotamian Survival Question.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've seen it pointed out that the Babylonians were good conquerors but bad rulers, They would come in and pillage a town, make it swear allegiance, perhaps destroy it if the town had been particularly difficult or ticked off the king, but they never generated loyalty in anyone other than Babylonians.

That's a good point. Babylon maybe could have generated successors which kept the identity if the Babylonians had done a better job of incorporating those they conquered.

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

That's a good point. Babylon maybe could have generated successors which kept the identity if the Babylonians had done a better job of incorporating those they conquered.

Hm. That's an excellent point. Maybe all I need to do to keep them around is change the way they deal with people politically, to generate some more goodwill .. maybe they can mitigate the demographic collapse you mentioned?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Rowan

Hm. That's an excellent point. Maybe all I need to do to keep them around is change the way they deal with people politically, to generate some more goodwill .. maybe they can mitigate the demographic collapse you mentioned?

If they can extend their reach to the Nile (and IIRC they did a few times IRL) and actually keep it, that's two extremely fertile river floodplains they'll control, and they'll have significantly less pressure to overfarm their home region. Presuming shipping by sea sufficient to get it back home of course. That's what the Romans did with Egypt, only presumably your Babylonians would do it much earlier.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Rowan

David, when you suggest conquering it earlier, do you have something in mind? Currently I was playing around with the whole Cyrus time period. Are you saying earlier as in a completely earlier age, or simply having events that happened with Cyrus happen earlier?

Hunh. OK, in 620, the Babylonians rebel against the Assyrians and make an alliance with the Medes/Persians that pushes the Assyrians off the brink. 80 years later Cyrus crowns himself king of Babylon greatly assisted by the fact that the last Babylonian king had undermined himself by pulling an Akhenaton (without even being an ethnic Babylonian) and otherwise had a seriously misplaced sense of priorities.

A competent dynasty could have held off the Persians long enough for the Greeks to start putting pressure on them from the west. Eventually some kind of Greek or Roman empire could knock over the Persians but find Babylon just a bit beyond their administrative reach. The result is a neo-Babylonian empire which remains secure until that western empire falls and decentralizes.

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Hunh. OK, in 620, the Babylonians rebel against the Assyrians and make an alliance with the Medes/Persians that pushes the Assyrians off the brink. 80 years later Cyrus crowns himself king of Babylon greatly assisted by the fact that the last Babylonian king had undermined himself by pulling an Akhenaton (without even being an ethnic Babylonian) and otherwise had a seriously misplaced sense of priorities.

A competent dynasty could have held off the Persians long enough for the Greeks to start putting pressure on them from the west. Eventually some kind of Greek or Roman empire could knock over the Persians but find Babylon just a bit beyond their administrative reach. The result is a neo-Babylonian empire which remains secure until that western empire falls and decentralizes.

I think I follow what you're saying. You're talking about a competent dynasty holding off the Persians towards our historical end of the neo-babylonians? As in say, in 521 BC when the city rebelled after the murder of Bardiya by Darius? They held for about a year under Nebuchadnezzar III, before the Persian's stormed the city? Then their second rebellion under 514 BC when they declared independence under Armenian king Arakha, before the Persians came in and took the city back again?

So you're talking about them holding out against Persian's retaking their city until 332 when alexander's empire rolls up and destroys the Achaemenid Empire, leaving Babylon as a continuing free empire again, then they just ride things out until the western empire decentralizes?

Is that the scenario you're talking about or am I missing something?

Thanks for the help in any case. :) Sorry I'm a bit dense. :D