In the Bronze Age, the so-called Three periods are defined roughly as the Early, Middle and Late periods. All of which possessed their own political climate and scenario.
The Late Bronze Age extends from 3500-2100 BCE. It comprises the end of the Uruk period in its early part and the decline of a truly ancient Sumero-Akkadian dominated Middle East, which reached its pinnacle around 3600 BCE in the Copper Age. Following it, was a period of fragmentation and city conflict in Mesopotamia and political centralization in Elam and Egypt, corresponding to the Golden Age of the IV Dynasty of Egypt and the Awan recovery phase and Elamite countering the Sumerian states and succeeding by 2600 BCE in Elamizing Susa and the surrounding countryside. The ending phase of the period, we see the rise of more powerful states in Mesoptamia once again and a culture of supremacy, aggression and revanchism. In that sphere, the kingdom of Akkad ascends to uniting Mesopotamia and thenceforth, conquering Syria and Tabal and in its later phases, conquering as far south as Oman, as far east as Media and the conquest of Elam fully. The Late Bronze Bronze Age ends ultimately however with the fall of the Old Kingdom, of Egypt, the X dynasty, the fall of the Akkadian kingdom under Sharlakishari and the division of Elam. This corresponded with large scale droughts and famines in Mesoptamia, Egypt, Syria and Anatolia.
The Middle Bronze Age, succeeded this and lasted from 2100-1531 BCE. This period saw the rapid return of the Akkad styled empire, with the rise of Ur-Nammu in 2047 BCE, which reunited Mesopotamia and his dynasty, the Ur III, would rule the region and become the hegemon of the Middle East for approximately 110 years. The brevity of said empire, was cut short in 1940 BCE, with a series of famines, combined with an Elamite invasion and followed by the rise of an Amorite mercenary phenomena. The fall of Ur III was heralded by the rise of Amorite princes and mercenary across the land, which were hired by Ibbi-Sin to battle the Elamites, they ended up turning on their contractors and battling for supremacy along the Euphrates River. These Amorite invaders in the south consolidated around several major cities, mainly Larsa, while an Akkado-Sumerian loyalist state formed in three distinct cities; Isin, Eshnunna and Ashur. Nevertheless, Amorite invaders continually pushed in, whilst Elamite attacks continued on both realms, while Ashur experienced invasions from the north by Hurrian, Kassite, Lullubi and other northern and eastern folk for the years between 1900-1800 BCE.
In the 18th century BCE, issues became more compacted, as the region was divided into three powers, the Larsa Amorite state, Assyria and Babylon. The Babylonian kingdom, with the assistance, would manage to conquer Larsa, and form a short hegemony over the region and even over Assyria, as Assyria declined in the reign of Ishme-Dagon (1776-1736 BCE). However, the Babylonian dominance was short indeed, for in the 17th and 16th centuries, Babylon lost its hegemony to rebellions across the region and a series of invasions from the northeast, by a group of chariot-riding elites known as Kassites. In culmination, an invasion of the Hittites in 1531 BCE, thus beginning the Late Bronze Age.
This Late Bronze Age, saw the development of a curious situation. In the past periods of the Bronze Age, we could argue, that there was only one true possible hegemony in the entire Middle East, that being the Akkad-Sumerian empire and successors. The other states of the region, generally were simply barricades and or coalitions meant to stop the hegemonic power of these realms. In that sense, there was no real conflict, as Egypt, though a soft-trading power and influence, was not a hegemonic power outside of Africa. Likewise, only at the very tailend of the Middle Bronze Age, was the Hattian states united and able to wage wars of hegemony in the south. What emerged, was a true chessboard of competing, diverse and divergent states. I would personally argue, that at no other time in history, has there been such a diverse civilizational competition in a geopolitical and cultural sense.
These players that emerged in the years following the destruction of Babylon by Hittite king Mursili I (1561-1530 BCE) were the following, described:
1. The New Kingdom of Egypt
The ancient power of Egypt, was one of the oldest at play and certainly the most renowned, yet it was also the newest to the games of northern geopolitics. In the prior Eras of Egypt, the Egyptian state was relatively internally focused in Africa aside from mercantile trade networks. Egyptian monarchs had yet to campaign far from the Nile Valley and the northern reaches of the Middle East were unknown to them. However, Egypt had been forced into recognition of the outside world with the Hyskos Invasion of the Second Intermediate Period and the subsequent sectional conflict in the Nile Delta between the Hyskos and the Theban XVIII Dynasty. Ahmose I of the XVIII Dynasty, would conquer the Hyskos and unite Egypt in 1549 BCE. His son, Amenhotep I would rule thus 1524-1503 BCE, begetting Thutmose I in 1503 BCE, who would shake the world with his campaigns northward.
It would seem that the Egyptian understanding of expansion, was purely one of protection and assertion of harmony of an interior. Thus, rather than any sort of true expansionist sentiment, Egypt expanded to establish a series of tributaries and buffer zones. All of which payed nothing to Egypt, aside from a tribute and an agreement to not rebel. Egypt gave said states no protection and afforded them meagre trading rights. Nevertheless, Egyptian sovereignty was not to be trifled with. Thutmose I (1503-1493 BCE) proved his intention to establish Egyptian authority outside of the Nile Valley, when his armies surged north into Canaan.
There, Egypt defeated hundreds of small disorganized Canaanite city states and drove forth remaining Amorite tribal realms along the frontier. Egyptian expansion saw too the conquest of Damascus and afterwards, Thutmose I reached the Euphrates river, yet asserted his authority nowhere beyond the river Euphrates. This conquest phase was ephemeral however, as after the demise of Thutmose I, much of the region erupted into a rebellion, that was not contested until Thutmose III (1479-1425 BCE). In the midst of Egyptian hegemony, a new power however was forming that beckoned to Egypt as a great foe and challenged the old empire to a decisive geopolitical struggle series.
Egypt, with its age and learned secrets, was the largest of the states involved in terms of pure territorial extent and the most well-removed from the conflicts. Much of the warring woudl and could not be felt by the average Egyptian. Further, the Egyptian society, heavy in grandiose splendor and celebration, was ruled by a Divine King, who could not be defeated; the country would thus remain enthusiastic. However, could Egypt, unaccustomed to such distant wars be able to sustain and dominate the kingdoms oft he north to form a hegemony? Or will their insular nature get the better of them?
2. The Mitanni kingdom
In the destruction of Babylon, by the Hittites, a new series of people emerged from the north. Kassites from the northeast and the Mitanni from the true north. Both of these peoples migrated into Mesopotamia, each with distinct chariot-styled forces. Both too, were rather than a collective people, seemingly an elite caste of warriors whose skill and renown was solely chariot warfare and horse raising. The Mitanni, a seemingly Indo-European group of elites from the region north of Lake Van, possibly from beyond Trasncaucasia conquered the vast collective of the Hurrian cities and tribes around the Upper Euphrates and assimilated to them, residing in a city called Washukanni.
The Mitanni state formed under a king named Kirta sometime in the years of 1530-1499 BCE. The kingdom emerged after the demise of Thutmose I in 1493 BCE, as an emerging hegemony. With a seeming alliance with the great king of Karduniash, Agum III, the kingdom of Mitanni under Kirta and his son Parshatatar, would create a hegemony in the Upper Euphrates and Syria.
This Mitanni hegemony is noteworthy specifically for its model of rule. Namely the Mitanni using its chariot elites and possibly a rapid scene of conquests, would establish what recent papers describe as a checkpoint empire. The Mitanni, rather than rule territorial holdings, instead ruled only particular checkpoints and then vassalised all areas in between as 'allies.' Thus, the Mitanni state at its height, would have appeared on a map as a series of frankly, hundreds of subsject kings and vassals, with dots of Mitanni held chekpoints interspersed among these hundreds of vassals. According to Egyptian annals, the Mitanni in 1455 BCE, ruled over 330+ vassal kings in Syria and the Upper Euphrates. Alongside the formation of these checkpoints, was the establishment of a warrior-caste elite called Maryanu, which were exported to every checkpoint as the royal caste of each checkpoint and to subject states as their warrior elite. Recent discoveries suggest that these elites were all entirely from the Mitanni upper class and amounted to the ultra-elite charioteer class of the people.
This patchwork checkpoint hegemony, was seemingly very powerful and it perfectly respected the diversity and decentralized nature of Bronze Age Canaan and the Upper Euphrates. However, the Mitanni were squished between many different entities and would struggle to maintain its hegemony. Likewise, could a hyper-elite military caste and a swarm of vassals be enough to overcome the chessboard surrounding the Mitanni?
3. The Kingdom of Karduniash
As the Mitanni elites ruled the Hurrians, another charioteer elites arrived into the ancient lands of Sumer and Akkad. They arrived upon a rich and ancient land, teeming with peoples, powerful gods and a society of aggressive warfare and high culture. Yet, these peoples, were divided and broken. The fall of the Babylonian kingdom in 1531 BCE, led to the rise of a weak Sealand Dynasty in Sumer, which was no match for the Kassite king Agum III, whose father Ulambuariash conquered them in 1479 BCE and Agum III finished the state by conquering Dilmun in Arabia in the year 1465 BCE.
This new Kassite kingdom was called in Akkadian, Karduniash and it was centred in Babylon, Sippar, Borsippa and Galzu, all of whom were within a short distance from each other on the Euphrates River. This realm came to resemble otl's Manchu period or the Qing dynasty of China, that being a foreign people and caste ruling a more ancient and large society-populace, yet as a result of this, took great lengths to assimilate and assert said culture. The Kassites of the region asserted more than anything, a distinctly Akkadian mode of governance, law, religion and a very pristine and clear Akkadian language, with additions from Kassite. Likewise, they added horse-drawn-chariots to the Akkadian military model and reasserted the legacy of the Akkadian emperors, by claiming grandiose titles such as 'King of the Universe' 'Lord of the Lands' and 'Governor of the Great Gods.'
The Kassite realm in the year 1455 BCE, was possibly the most populous, wealthiest and most financially stable of the powers at play in the Late Bronze Age. It also possessed one of the most proficient chariot-based armies of the period, alongside the largest city of the world. However, despite the grandiose titles and relation to the Akkadian culture of old, the royalty of the Kassites lessened the supremacist tones of Akkadian cosmological opinions when it came to geopoltics. Permitting the Kassite kings to make long lasting political alliances, cede territory, build fortifications and so forth. However, it also perhaps blunted the militaristic edge in diplomacy that the older realms of the region once held. It was a question of what was most proficient in the creation of empire, war-making and aggression or stable diplomacy, cultural progress and economic prosperity?
4. Assyrian kingdom
The Assyrian kingdom, the most northern outpost of Sumero-Akkadian society, was the only one of the Sumerian states after 1940 BCE, to break the Amorite yoke and assert a nativist Akkadian political agenda. It was thus, the northern extent of Sumero-Akkadian civilization, centered on the Tigris River and close to invasions from the north and east. As such, the Assyrian state developed a hyper-militaristic mentality for defensive and offensive reasons. Necessity to resist invading hill-folk from the north and east, led to a custom of annual and constant wars within Assyrian society.
To entertain this, the Assyrian state operated as a large government controlled by a clique of nobles, merchants and eunuchs. Nobles ruled the lands and gathered levies and fought on the frontlines. Eunuchs commanded the armies in the field in service of the King and acted as field marshals. Merchants acted as military logistic heads and spies for the Assyrian military. If Prussia could be called an Army with a Government, Assyria would be an Army with a Society and Civilization. Merchants, farmers and so forth were all seen as military assets and every farmer available would be drafted by the state for the annual campaign. Likewise, the Assyrian king, asserted a series of state monopolies over military goods and strategic items. Merchants, especially those sent abroad, were counted as military bureaucrats and even the lowest farmer was seen as tools for military subjugation of those around them.
All of this radical militarization was found in a single aggressive cosmological point. While the Karduniash kingdom of the south softened its outward aggressive cosmological opinions, Assyria only hardened them and fastened them to an aggressive military agenda. This agenda was the 'completion of Duranki' or the Completion of Creation, whereby Assyria, the state endowed with the duty of world conquest by the Great Gods, was instructed to subjugate and annihilate all pretense of rebellion against the Great Gods. This meant that Assyria made little to no alliances and acted a hyper-aggressive entity, viewing often all around it, aside from Karduniash, to be sinners and or non-humans/half-humans.
Despite that aggressive tone, Assyria in 1455 BCE, is a small state. It is the smallest of all the states around it, the weakest economy and the least expansive in resources. How can a state so small compete in the river with those much larger and prosperous?
5. The United Kingdom of Elam
Elam was an ancient land, a land cursed by war and troubles, one that learned firsthand the devastation wrought by the Akkado-Sumerians. Their great salvation for years was their mountains and their resilience. For every invasion, Elam retreated into the hills and returned stronger-ever-more. Likewise, Elam in the Early Bronze Age, commanded the southwestern stop of the Eurasian trade network, gaining great wealth from its connection to the Oxus Civilization and the Indus Valley peoples. Yet, Elam would decline and the great state would break into pieces after the XVIII century BCE. These pieces were Anshan in the east and Susana in the west.
In the year 1464 BCE, the Elamite realms were reunited under the Kidunids and the Idelhakids of Anshan. These Anshani kings, were of a steppe origin, most likely Kassite, yet they adopted the customs of Elam. Anshan conquered Susa and asserted the unity of the two kingdoms. From there, Elam would exist as the fringe of the Western Bronze Age world. It would be an eclectic realm, connecting its power north and east through trade connections and a series of Elamite colonizing efforts in the mountains and plains of the Iranian Plateau.
Elamite interests while gaining peacefully in the east, were buttressed by the understanding and memory of fear from the east. Elam represented thus a patient power on the east, that promoted a seeming realpolitck. Allying states for its own purposes, supporting migratory groups, supporting rebellion and checking hegemonies as the ally of small states. All the while biding its time until it could make a hegemonic gamble of its own. Elam was described as lessers who 'hide in mountains' by the Akkadians of the day... no better word could describe how the Elamite geopolitical approach operated in this period.
6. The Hittite Kingdom
In the Middle Bronze age, a series of migrations from the region of Thrace and Bithynia caused changes in Anatolia. an unknown set of ancient folk were replaced by a series of Indo-European peoples who formed into distinct groups across the region. In the west, these were the Arzawa, in the north the Pala, in the southwest the Lukka, in the direct south/east the Kizzuwatna and in the central the Hittites. The Hittites were the first of these to form into a large kingdom uniting the direct east of the Halys River and building a fortress city called Hattusha in the XVII century BCE.
This Hittite state became a known power in the region, with deep ties to the south through trade and a growing internal economic and martial power. Subjugating the Pala and enforcing tribute from the Arzawa, the Hittite kingdom was growing rapidly in the 1500s BCE. This culminated in an invasion and destruction of Babylon in 1531 BCE. However, subsequent rebellion in Syria, the rise of Mitanni and the invasion by the Kaska, led to the Hittite hegemony to break and decline.
Yet, the Hittite kingdom by the year 1455 BCE is in a relatively isolated phase of rule after the demise of Telepinus in 1456 BCE, yet the ruling dynasty remained strong and the Hittite kingdom maintained a hegemony in Central Anatolia. This Hittite kingdom could be described as the most advanced in terms of treaties, vassalage and the most extensive in terms of dealing with divergent cultures. The Hittites were called 'the people of 1000 gods' for a reason, that they were viewed as a people exceptionally tolerant of other gods and other sub-kings. Hittite monarchical rule is described as a feudal realm, wherein the Hittite monarchy possessed a sufficiently large corpus of legal content and complex oath-making to where vassals possessed a reason to be attached to the Hittite capitol. Likewise, Hittite vassals were not only settled people, but semi-sedentary folks and tribes, whom the Hittites diplomatically made alliances and treaties with according to their custom, making the Hittites the most complex and nuanced in their approach to non-settled farming folk in the region.
Unlike the Mitanni, who commanded vassals in a sort of network of allies and derived local elites or the subjugated tributary vassals of Egypt, the Hittites commanded vassals as if they were integral parts of their realm, similar to medieval France. The King was the 'Great King' who granted titles and lands to his allies, vassals and distributed rewards to those who supported him. Likewise, his country was united not by Hittite military power, but by law and legal precedence, which was a Hittite innovation of sorts.
Despite these advantages, the Hittites are also placed precariously close to Thracia and the Eurasian steppe, where invasions could occur. Likewise, could law and legal bindings be enough to bind states together when the military fails?
After reading all of this; the question for the reader, is without knowledge of what occurred in history, which states of those mentioned, would you have assumed to be most likely to gain a hegemonic presence in the region from Iran in the east, to Transcaucasia in the North, to Egypt and Arabia in the south and the Mediterranean Sea in the west?
The Late Bronze Age extends from 3500-2100 BCE. It comprises the end of the Uruk period in its early part and the decline of a truly ancient Sumero-Akkadian dominated Middle East, which reached its pinnacle around 3600 BCE in the Copper Age. Following it, was a period of fragmentation and city conflict in Mesopotamia and political centralization in Elam and Egypt, corresponding to the Golden Age of the IV Dynasty of Egypt and the Awan recovery phase and Elamite countering the Sumerian states and succeeding by 2600 BCE in Elamizing Susa and the surrounding countryside. The ending phase of the period, we see the rise of more powerful states in Mesoptamia once again and a culture of supremacy, aggression and revanchism. In that sphere, the kingdom of Akkad ascends to uniting Mesopotamia and thenceforth, conquering Syria and Tabal and in its later phases, conquering as far south as Oman, as far east as Media and the conquest of Elam fully. The Late Bronze Bronze Age ends ultimately however with the fall of the Old Kingdom, of Egypt, the X dynasty, the fall of the Akkadian kingdom under Sharlakishari and the division of Elam. This corresponded with large scale droughts and famines in Mesoptamia, Egypt, Syria and Anatolia.
The Middle Bronze Age, succeeded this and lasted from 2100-1531 BCE. This period saw the rapid return of the Akkad styled empire, with the rise of Ur-Nammu in 2047 BCE, which reunited Mesopotamia and his dynasty, the Ur III, would rule the region and become the hegemon of the Middle East for approximately 110 years. The brevity of said empire, was cut short in 1940 BCE, with a series of famines, combined with an Elamite invasion and followed by the rise of an Amorite mercenary phenomena. The fall of Ur III was heralded by the rise of Amorite princes and mercenary across the land, which were hired by Ibbi-Sin to battle the Elamites, they ended up turning on their contractors and battling for supremacy along the Euphrates River. These Amorite invaders in the south consolidated around several major cities, mainly Larsa, while an Akkado-Sumerian loyalist state formed in three distinct cities; Isin, Eshnunna and Ashur. Nevertheless, Amorite invaders continually pushed in, whilst Elamite attacks continued on both realms, while Ashur experienced invasions from the north by Hurrian, Kassite, Lullubi and other northern and eastern folk for the years between 1900-1800 BCE.
In the 18th century BCE, issues became more compacted, as the region was divided into three powers, the Larsa Amorite state, Assyria and Babylon. The Babylonian kingdom, with the assistance, would manage to conquer Larsa, and form a short hegemony over the region and even over Assyria, as Assyria declined in the reign of Ishme-Dagon (1776-1736 BCE). However, the Babylonian dominance was short indeed, for in the 17th and 16th centuries, Babylon lost its hegemony to rebellions across the region and a series of invasions from the northeast, by a group of chariot-riding elites known as Kassites. In culmination, an invasion of the Hittites in 1531 BCE, thus beginning the Late Bronze Age.
This Late Bronze Age, saw the development of a curious situation. In the past periods of the Bronze Age, we could argue, that there was only one true possible hegemony in the entire Middle East, that being the Akkad-Sumerian empire and successors. The other states of the region, generally were simply barricades and or coalitions meant to stop the hegemonic power of these realms. In that sense, there was no real conflict, as Egypt, though a soft-trading power and influence, was not a hegemonic power outside of Africa. Likewise, only at the very tailend of the Middle Bronze Age, was the Hattian states united and able to wage wars of hegemony in the south. What emerged, was a true chessboard of competing, diverse and divergent states. I would personally argue, that at no other time in history, has there been such a diverse civilizational competition in a geopolitical and cultural sense.
These players that emerged in the years following the destruction of Babylon by Hittite king Mursili I (1561-1530 BCE) were the following, described:
1. The New Kingdom of Egypt
The ancient power of Egypt, was one of the oldest at play and certainly the most renowned, yet it was also the newest to the games of northern geopolitics. In the prior Eras of Egypt, the Egyptian state was relatively internally focused in Africa aside from mercantile trade networks. Egyptian monarchs had yet to campaign far from the Nile Valley and the northern reaches of the Middle East were unknown to them. However, Egypt had been forced into recognition of the outside world with the Hyskos Invasion of the Second Intermediate Period and the subsequent sectional conflict in the Nile Delta between the Hyskos and the Theban XVIII Dynasty. Ahmose I of the XVIII Dynasty, would conquer the Hyskos and unite Egypt in 1549 BCE. His son, Amenhotep I would rule thus 1524-1503 BCE, begetting Thutmose I in 1503 BCE, who would shake the world with his campaigns northward.
It would seem that the Egyptian understanding of expansion, was purely one of protection and assertion of harmony of an interior. Thus, rather than any sort of true expansionist sentiment, Egypt expanded to establish a series of tributaries and buffer zones. All of which payed nothing to Egypt, aside from a tribute and an agreement to not rebel. Egypt gave said states no protection and afforded them meagre trading rights. Nevertheless, Egyptian sovereignty was not to be trifled with. Thutmose I (1503-1493 BCE) proved his intention to establish Egyptian authority outside of the Nile Valley, when his armies surged north into Canaan.
There, Egypt defeated hundreds of small disorganized Canaanite city states and drove forth remaining Amorite tribal realms along the frontier. Egyptian expansion saw too the conquest of Damascus and afterwards, Thutmose I reached the Euphrates river, yet asserted his authority nowhere beyond the river Euphrates. This conquest phase was ephemeral however, as after the demise of Thutmose I, much of the region erupted into a rebellion, that was not contested until Thutmose III (1479-1425 BCE). In the midst of Egyptian hegemony, a new power however was forming that beckoned to Egypt as a great foe and challenged the old empire to a decisive geopolitical struggle series.
Egypt, with its age and learned secrets, was the largest of the states involved in terms of pure territorial extent and the most well-removed from the conflicts. Much of the warring woudl and could not be felt by the average Egyptian. Further, the Egyptian society, heavy in grandiose splendor and celebration, was ruled by a Divine King, who could not be defeated; the country would thus remain enthusiastic. However, could Egypt, unaccustomed to such distant wars be able to sustain and dominate the kingdoms oft he north to form a hegemony? Or will their insular nature get the better of them?
2. The Mitanni kingdom
In the destruction of Babylon, by the Hittites, a new series of people emerged from the north. Kassites from the northeast and the Mitanni from the true north. Both of these peoples migrated into Mesopotamia, each with distinct chariot-styled forces. Both too, were rather than a collective people, seemingly an elite caste of warriors whose skill and renown was solely chariot warfare and horse raising. The Mitanni, a seemingly Indo-European group of elites from the region north of Lake Van, possibly from beyond Trasncaucasia conquered the vast collective of the Hurrian cities and tribes around the Upper Euphrates and assimilated to them, residing in a city called Washukanni.
The Mitanni state formed under a king named Kirta sometime in the years of 1530-1499 BCE. The kingdom emerged after the demise of Thutmose I in 1493 BCE, as an emerging hegemony. With a seeming alliance with the great king of Karduniash, Agum III, the kingdom of Mitanni under Kirta and his son Parshatatar, would create a hegemony in the Upper Euphrates and Syria.
This Mitanni hegemony is noteworthy specifically for its model of rule. Namely the Mitanni using its chariot elites and possibly a rapid scene of conquests, would establish what recent papers describe as a checkpoint empire. The Mitanni, rather than rule territorial holdings, instead ruled only particular checkpoints and then vassalised all areas in between as 'allies.' Thus, the Mitanni state at its height, would have appeared on a map as a series of frankly, hundreds of subsject kings and vassals, with dots of Mitanni held chekpoints interspersed among these hundreds of vassals. According to Egyptian annals, the Mitanni in 1455 BCE, ruled over 330+ vassal kings in Syria and the Upper Euphrates. Alongside the formation of these checkpoints, was the establishment of a warrior-caste elite called Maryanu, which were exported to every checkpoint as the royal caste of each checkpoint and to subject states as their warrior elite. Recent discoveries suggest that these elites were all entirely from the Mitanni upper class and amounted to the ultra-elite charioteer class of the people.
This patchwork checkpoint hegemony, was seemingly very powerful and it perfectly respected the diversity and decentralized nature of Bronze Age Canaan and the Upper Euphrates. However, the Mitanni were squished between many different entities and would struggle to maintain its hegemony. Likewise, could a hyper-elite military caste and a swarm of vassals be enough to overcome the chessboard surrounding the Mitanni?
3. The Kingdom of Karduniash
As the Mitanni elites ruled the Hurrians, another charioteer elites arrived into the ancient lands of Sumer and Akkad. They arrived upon a rich and ancient land, teeming with peoples, powerful gods and a society of aggressive warfare and high culture. Yet, these peoples, were divided and broken. The fall of the Babylonian kingdom in 1531 BCE, led to the rise of a weak Sealand Dynasty in Sumer, which was no match for the Kassite king Agum III, whose father Ulambuariash conquered them in 1479 BCE and Agum III finished the state by conquering Dilmun in Arabia in the year 1465 BCE.
This new Kassite kingdom was called in Akkadian, Karduniash and it was centred in Babylon, Sippar, Borsippa and Galzu, all of whom were within a short distance from each other on the Euphrates River. This realm came to resemble otl's Manchu period or the Qing dynasty of China, that being a foreign people and caste ruling a more ancient and large society-populace, yet as a result of this, took great lengths to assimilate and assert said culture. The Kassites of the region asserted more than anything, a distinctly Akkadian mode of governance, law, religion and a very pristine and clear Akkadian language, with additions from Kassite. Likewise, they added horse-drawn-chariots to the Akkadian military model and reasserted the legacy of the Akkadian emperors, by claiming grandiose titles such as 'King of the Universe' 'Lord of the Lands' and 'Governor of the Great Gods.'
The Kassite realm in the year 1455 BCE, was possibly the most populous, wealthiest and most financially stable of the powers at play in the Late Bronze Age. It also possessed one of the most proficient chariot-based armies of the period, alongside the largest city of the world. However, despite the grandiose titles and relation to the Akkadian culture of old, the royalty of the Kassites lessened the supremacist tones of Akkadian cosmological opinions when it came to geopoltics. Permitting the Kassite kings to make long lasting political alliances, cede territory, build fortifications and so forth. However, it also perhaps blunted the militaristic edge in diplomacy that the older realms of the region once held. It was a question of what was most proficient in the creation of empire, war-making and aggression or stable diplomacy, cultural progress and economic prosperity?
4. Assyrian kingdom
The Assyrian kingdom, the most northern outpost of Sumero-Akkadian society, was the only one of the Sumerian states after 1940 BCE, to break the Amorite yoke and assert a nativist Akkadian political agenda. It was thus, the northern extent of Sumero-Akkadian civilization, centered on the Tigris River and close to invasions from the north and east. As such, the Assyrian state developed a hyper-militaristic mentality for defensive and offensive reasons. Necessity to resist invading hill-folk from the north and east, led to a custom of annual and constant wars within Assyrian society.
To entertain this, the Assyrian state operated as a large government controlled by a clique of nobles, merchants and eunuchs. Nobles ruled the lands and gathered levies and fought on the frontlines. Eunuchs commanded the armies in the field in service of the King and acted as field marshals. Merchants acted as military logistic heads and spies for the Assyrian military. If Prussia could be called an Army with a Government, Assyria would be an Army with a Society and Civilization. Merchants, farmers and so forth were all seen as military assets and every farmer available would be drafted by the state for the annual campaign. Likewise, the Assyrian king, asserted a series of state monopolies over military goods and strategic items. Merchants, especially those sent abroad, were counted as military bureaucrats and even the lowest farmer was seen as tools for military subjugation of those around them.
All of this radical militarization was found in a single aggressive cosmological point. While the Karduniash kingdom of the south softened its outward aggressive cosmological opinions, Assyria only hardened them and fastened them to an aggressive military agenda. This agenda was the 'completion of Duranki' or the Completion of Creation, whereby Assyria, the state endowed with the duty of world conquest by the Great Gods, was instructed to subjugate and annihilate all pretense of rebellion against the Great Gods. This meant that Assyria made little to no alliances and acted a hyper-aggressive entity, viewing often all around it, aside from Karduniash, to be sinners and or non-humans/half-humans.
Despite that aggressive tone, Assyria in 1455 BCE, is a small state. It is the smallest of all the states around it, the weakest economy and the least expansive in resources. How can a state so small compete in the river with those much larger and prosperous?
5. The United Kingdom of Elam
Elam was an ancient land, a land cursed by war and troubles, one that learned firsthand the devastation wrought by the Akkado-Sumerians. Their great salvation for years was their mountains and their resilience. For every invasion, Elam retreated into the hills and returned stronger-ever-more. Likewise, Elam in the Early Bronze Age, commanded the southwestern stop of the Eurasian trade network, gaining great wealth from its connection to the Oxus Civilization and the Indus Valley peoples. Yet, Elam would decline and the great state would break into pieces after the XVIII century BCE. These pieces were Anshan in the east and Susana in the west.
In the year 1464 BCE, the Elamite realms were reunited under the Kidunids and the Idelhakids of Anshan. These Anshani kings, were of a steppe origin, most likely Kassite, yet they adopted the customs of Elam. Anshan conquered Susa and asserted the unity of the two kingdoms. From there, Elam would exist as the fringe of the Western Bronze Age world. It would be an eclectic realm, connecting its power north and east through trade connections and a series of Elamite colonizing efforts in the mountains and plains of the Iranian Plateau.
Elamite interests while gaining peacefully in the east, were buttressed by the understanding and memory of fear from the east. Elam represented thus a patient power on the east, that promoted a seeming realpolitck. Allying states for its own purposes, supporting migratory groups, supporting rebellion and checking hegemonies as the ally of small states. All the while biding its time until it could make a hegemonic gamble of its own. Elam was described as lessers who 'hide in mountains' by the Akkadians of the day... no better word could describe how the Elamite geopolitical approach operated in this period.
6. The Hittite Kingdom
In the Middle Bronze age, a series of migrations from the region of Thrace and Bithynia caused changes in Anatolia. an unknown set of ancient folk were replaced by a series of Indo-European peoples who formed into distinct groups across the region. In the west, these were the Arzawa, in the north the Pala, in the southwest the Lukka, in the direct south/east the Kizzuwatna and in the central the Hittites. The Hittites were the first of these to form into a large kingdom uniting the direct east of the Halys River and building a fortress city called Hattusha in the XVII century BCE.
This Hittite state became a known power in the region, with deep ties to the south through trade and a growing internal economic and martial power. Subjugating the Pala and enforcing tribute from the Arzawa, the Hittite kingdom was growing rapidly in the 1500s BCE. This culminated in an invasion and destruction of Babylon in 1531 BCE. However, subsequent rebellion in Syria, the rise of Mitanni and the invasion by the Kaska, led to the Hittite hegemony to break and decline.
Yet, the Hittite kingdom by the year 1455 BCE is in a relatively isolated phase of rule after the demise of Telepinus in 1456 BCE, yet the ruling dynasty remained strong and the Hittite kingdom maintained a hegemony in Central Anatolia. This Hittite kingdom could be described as the most advanced in terms of treaties, vassalage and the most extensive in terms of dealing with divergent cultures. The Hittites were called 'the people of 1000 gods' for a reason, that they were viewed as a people exceptionally tolerant of other gods and other sub-kings. Hittite monarchical rule is described as a feudal realm, wherein the Hittite monarchy possessed a sufficiently large corpus of legal content and complex oath-making to where vassals possessed a reason to be attached to the Hittite capitol. Likewise, Hittite vassals were not only settled people, but semi-sedentary folks and tribes, whom the Hittites diplomatically made alliances and treaties with according to their custom, making the Hittites the most complex and nuanced in their approach to non-settled farming folk in the region.
Unlike the Mitanni, who commanded vassals in a sort of network of allies and derived local elites or the subjugated tributary vassals of Egypt, the Hittites commanded vassals as if they were integral parts of their realm, similar to medieval France. The King was the 'Great King' who granted titles and lands to his allies, vassals and distributed rewards to those who supported him. Likewise, his country was united not by Hittite military power, but by law and legal precedence, which was a Hittite innovation of sorts.
Despite these advantages, the Hittites are also placed precariously close to Thracia and the Eurasian steppe, where invasions could occur. Likewise, could law and legal bindings be enough to bind states together when the military fails?
After reading all of this; the question for the reader, is without knowledge of what occurred in history, which states of those mentioned, would you have assumed to be most likely to gain a hegemonic presence in the region from Iran in the east, to Transcaucasia in the North, to Egypt and Arabia in the south and the Mediterranean Sea in the west?