What exactly was the connection between babylonians and assyrians?

What exactly was the connection between babylonians and assyrians?

There was first sumer, then the akkadian empire, then a babylonian state, then an assyrian empire, then a neo-babylonian empire, then it was under persia, then rome and various persian dynasties fought over the area, then the arabs invaded and that leads to the modern world

But who were really the babylonians and assyrians ethnically/culturally/linguistically/etc? I'm seeing some things about akkadian and aramean languages, I don't know really how that all fits together. And who can claim true cultural heritage from the old world? I mean like, I know how things work today, I know who the cultural and ethinic groups are and their histories, but the ancient world is so alien.

>But who were really the babylonians and assyrians ethnically/culturally/linguistically/etc?

I'm no expert, but I believe they were originally Semitic. Later they became Indo-European, yet still operated under the previous names

Sumer is the oldest of these, which is often regarded as the first "true" civilization in the world. I put true in quotes, because that's still up for debate, as there were other people groups around this time doing the same things, but not as much as the Sumerians.

Sumerians were the start of the Bronze Age. Bronze was first smelted in Europe, and then arrived into Sumeria by trade. They were also Semetic and lived in southern Mesopotamia. Sumerians were peacefully absorbed by the Akkadians, a larger Semitic tribe. This is called the Akkadian Empire, and the world's first "empire". This was around 2400 BC.


Akkadia starts expanding under Sargon. Keep in mind that southern Mesopotamia was still the main focus of the Empire. Well, Akkadia collapses from economic and environmental strain. There are also this weird people group called the Gutian, who are described as having blonde hair and blue eyes, coming from the north, who also destroy the last remnants of the Akkadians.


In 2100 BC, the Akkadians split into two parts: Babylon in the south, and Assyrian in the north. These are called the Old Kingdoms. They were somewhat similar culturally up until the the year 1000BC.

Around 1800, the Hittites show up from the North West. The Hittites were Indo-European nomads resembling modern Europeans. The Hittites had one major advantage: chariots. Various other Indo-Europeans started migrating into the Levant/Iran during this time, like the Hurrians or Mitannis, who formed minor kingdoms and often warred with the Old Assyrians and Old Babylonians. However, the Hittites were the dominate kingdom until the rise of Middle Assyria.

Around 1500, Old Babylonia falls to the Kassites, an Indo-European tribe, and last until around 1000BC

part two

Around 1200BC, the Bronze Age Collapse happens. Basically, everything in the region goes to shit. All of these kingdoms pretty much collapse. Indo-Europeans like the Medes, Persians and Parthians begin moving into the north and west (The Indo-Europeans migrated into Central Asian, and then into North India, and then into Iran). Semitic people like the West Semitic peoples such as the Arameans, Chaldeans and Suteans begin migrating into the south. The Hebrews were fighting other Semitic tribes and the Philistines. The Egyptians were in a civil war.

Now we are in the Iron Age.

Around 1000 BC,the major kingdoms that emerge are the Scythians (Indo-European) in the north-west. The Medes (Indo-European) in the West. The Egyptians. The Neo-Assyrians in the middle. The Chaldean-Babylonians (Semitic) in the South. Israel (Semitic) in the East.

These guys war until about 600BC. The Medians, Scythians, the Israelites, and the Babylonians form and alliance to destroy the Assyrians. That's the end of the Assyrians for the rest of history. The empire is split between Chaldeans-Babylonians (now called Neo-Babylonias), Scythians, and Medes.

Neo-Babylonia becomes the dominate state during the 600s, under guys like Nebuchadnezzar.

But...the Babylonians realized that, without the Assyrians, they were exposed now from all sides.

Well, around 500BC, there was a Persian by the named Cyrus, who was living in the tiny Persian kingdom. After many successful military campaigns, he conquers the Medes first, and then the now very weak Babylonians. This is the Achaemenid Empire.

By the year 400BC, the Scythians kind of went off to did their own thing. They scattered to different areas and were just absorbed into the local populations of Europe and Central Asia. The Egyptians are also weak and do their own thing.

The Achaemenid Empire dominated the entire Middle-East until 300BC.

part three


300BC is when the Greeks start invading. Alexander the Great conquered the entire Achaemenid Empire.

After Alexander died, the Ptolemaic Kingdom (Greek) and Seleucid Empire (also Greek),a nd also the Parthian Empire (Persian) ruled the Middle East. Then the Romans came and then the rise of Islam. The rest is history.

>But who were really the babylonians and assyrians ethnically/culturally/linguistically/etc?
I wonder this too OP. Why did the Assyrians survive as an ethnic group but the Babylonians didn't?

>23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.

>24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:

>25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Because Deus Vult.

You should fact check yourself friend. Sumerians wern't semites and their language is an isolate not linked to any other modern language.

It was replaced by Akkadian over time. Also Sumeria was not "peaceful absorbed" it was conquered by Sargon of Akkad.

Really, I stopped reading there because I assume I can't trust anything else you've written.

>Achaemenid Empire map
What ridiculously generous blobbing you have there.
>by The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies
Oh well that explains the dishonesty.

Made a timeline

>8 posts
>only 6 unique posters
>these two post mysteriously similar


The tears do not change history

Wasn't the Bronze Age Collapse closer to 1500-1450 BCE?

posts
>>only 6 unique posters
>makes a three part post
Gee I wonder why.
>these two post mysteriously similar
In literally what way? Are you retarded?
>posts a map contradicting his previous map
Yep, you're retarded.

>In literally what way? Are you retarded?
Passive aggressiveness, snide, etc.

Nice try. I'm not attacking you man. But, the Sumerians wern't semites, it's well established historical fact.

Also Sargon of Akkad is a big figure. I just don't know what you're trying to prove?

You used a dubious map and I called you out on it plain and simple. No one was butthurt until you decided to post this

nope, he's right on the timeline

>Sumerians wern't semites, it's well established historical fact.

Depends how you define it.....Sumerians and Akkadians were nearly one in the same.

>can't even correctly differentiate between east and west
>getting all butthurt when people call you patently false statements
Are you a child?

What are the false statements?

Not at first, general cultural exchange led eventually led to more common bilingualism and the eventual abandoning of the Sumerian language.

So you could say they were absorbed into a semetic culture by the late half of the 2000's. Much like the Arabs would do to peoples 3000 years later.

You are rude. I simply asked a question.
Isn't the aftermath of Santorini what caused the Bronze Age Collapse?

>tfw trying to make a time line of Mesopotamia starting from prehistory through to 0AD

There's too much

Did the peoples of Mesopotamia trade with india, or were they mostly getting their Indian food through intermediaries like the elamites? Were the Sumerians, Babylonians, or Akkadians mariners? If not, when did the region start seeing sea trade?

Fringe very for-fun question: where was the flood? Was it the Persian gulf filling in? Had there been civilization there, it might have influenced the nearby civs to change their ways based on their perception of the flooded peoples' sins?

Or was the flood merely a myth from one origin that eventually grew into all the religions/histories we know it from today?

Thanks, you helped clear a lot up