Message from @sky daddy
Discord ID: 647936458698653696
<:tickled:619648134561267723>
ok like aratta has nothing to do with babylon
it was part of southern mesopotamia
which babylon was the head of
but its not babylon
Babylon itself took the place of Sumer
southern mesopotamia is often thought of as babylonia
It's literally the replacement
it predates sumeria
cuz u had two major cities in mesopotamia
as a whole
akkad, the capital of northern mesopotamia
and babylon
including this state
babylon
the capital of southern
babylon is post sumer
Babylon? Yeah no. Akkadians took Sumer, and that's when they got the babylonian culture
they transfer ownership to uruk
and only because of this
does babylon and other states
ever get to come into being
but lived long after sumeria
as a mix between Semitic and Sumerian religion
Sumer*** @sky daddy
you say they arent related but
that isnt really
considerate of time
and how things moved within it
or through it
They're related in the sence that Akkadians took Sumer and started calling themselves Babylonians @Dorieus
well its completely off topic to bring up arratt when the original conversation was "zoojew, learn the difference between chaldea and babylon"
what does arratt have anything to do with that
a lot ._.
no it doesnt
if aratta hadnt transfered ownership to uruk there would not be either
the difference between babylon and chaldea is assyrian conquer
nothing to do with arratt
if you say so >.>