IV. FOUR GENERATIONS OF ASSYRIAN GREATNESS (722-626 B.C.)…

IV. FOUR GENERATIONS OF ASSYRIAN GREATNESS (722-626 B.C.)

After the death of Shalmaneser IV, the throne of Assyria was taken by a man of doubtful antecedents, who became the founder of a very powerful dynasty. This king, like some previous usurpers, adopted a name famous in Assyrian history. He became known to the world as Sargon II, and Rogers says he was not of royal blood; Tiele, however, from whom we shall quote, thinks differently.[a]

[Sidenote: [722-716 B.C.]]

In the year 722 B.C. Sargon became king in Asshur. He was an Assyrian of royal blood, who seems, however, to have belonged to another branch than that of the dynasty which had ruled before Tiglathpileser III, nor does he appear to have been closely related to the latter and his successor. He boasts that he restored to the ancient seat of government, the city of Asshur, her long usurped rights, and to Kharran, the object of his especial favour, her former liberties, which had also long been curtailed. Evidently, therefore, he appeared to a certain extent in the character of an innovator, or rather as the restorer of the ancient order.

Samaria fell shortly after his accession, and a part of its inhabitants were led away into banishment, to be replaced later on by others. Whether or no Sargon was present in person is not clear, but it is certain that he could not long devote his attention to the western portion of the empire. Scarcely was Shalmaneser IV dead before the Chaldeans revenged themselves for the humiliation they had suffered at the hands of Tiglathpileser. Marduk-baliddin [Merodach-baladan] of Bit-Yakin, at that time the most powerful amongst them, since through his timely submission to the Assyrians his country had been preserved from the miseries of war, had made himself master of the city of Babylon, and now ruled as king over the whole Babylonian country. Sargon marched south, perhaps in the hope of recovering what was lost. But in this he was unsuccessful. He did not venture to attack Babylon itself, but turned his arms against an Aramæan tribe, the Tu’mun, who had surrendered their chief to the Chaldean king. The tribe was subjugated and carried to Syria. Sargon now pressed on as far as the town of Dur-ilu in whose suburb he sustained with Babylon’s ally, the Elamite king Khumbanigash, a hotly contested fight, from which he asserts that he came off victor. This campaign, however, yielded no further advantages. Elam retained its independence and Merodach-baladan possession of Babylon. An indirect result was that the South had learned to know Sargon as a military commander, and, for the future, good care was taken not to molest him.

The danger threatened from another quarter. Syria was up in arms. At the head of the rising was Hamath, where a man of mean origin, Ya-ubidi or Il-ubidi, had seized the government. Arpad, Simirra, Damascus, and Samaria followed his example. He found a support in Hanno (Khanunu) of Gaza, who had resumed his throne, and even in Shabak,[25] the Ethiopian king of Egypt, whom Hoshea’s unhappy fate does not seem to have frightened from endeavouring to measure his strength with the imperial might of Assyria. Even before the allies could unite their forces, Sargon, who probably received early intelligence of what was going on in the countries of the Mediterranean coast, encamped before Qarqar, where Ya-ubidi had fixed his headquarters, stormed and burnt the city, had the ringleader flayed alive and his principal adherents put to death, increased his host with three hundred warriors who fought in chariots, and six hundred horsemen from amongst the conquered, and then marched south against the allied armies of Hanno and Shabak. At Raphia on the Egyptian frontier was fought the decisive battle, which turned out a brilliant victory for the Assyrians. Hanno was taken and carried off to Assyria with nine thousand of his subjects, and Shabak owed his safety only to his precipitate flight in which he was accompanied only by his chief herdsman. Hezekiah seems to have thought it wise not to defy the victor; perhaps he even sent Sargon a present. Tyre also must have been pacified in this year (720).

Meantime the other enemies of the empire were not yet cowed. The whole north, northeast and northwest, longed impatiently to shake off the Assyrian yoke. In this they were supported by Mitatti of Zikirtu, Rusas of Urartu and Mita of Muskhe, who had secretly formed a league over which Sargon was to triumph only after a long and fierce struggle. In the year 719 Mitatti contrived to persuade some towns of the loyal Iranzu of Man to revolt, whilst Rusas brought several other towns under his sway. Sargon proceeded against them with so much energy that the instigators themselves held cautiously aloof, while they beheld their country laid waste and most of its inhabitants carried into the west, especially to Damascus. In the year 718 unrest revealed itself in Tabal, where Kiakki, prince of Sinukhtu, refused to pay his tribute. But he, too, was soon led away captive to Assyria, together with seven thousand of his subjects, and Matti of Atun, a faithful vassal, was invested with Kiakki’s province. In the year 717 Sargon had to suppress a dangerous rising. Pisiris, the Hittite prince of Carchemish, which was one of the keys of the West, attempted, with the support of Mita of Muskhe, to make himself independent. But his city was taken, the majority of his subjects carried off, and an enormous booty stored in Asshurnazirpal’s palace at Calah, which Sargon had restored for himself.

[Sidenote: [716-715 B.C.]]

These disturbances were nothing compared with the war which now, in the year 716, broke out against Sargon and lasted several years. Rusas of Urartu had persuaded the chief men of the Assyrian provinces of Karalla and Man to secede, in which he was supported by Zikirtu and by the mountain region of Umildish, which was governed by a certain Bagdatti. It appears that the rebellion had spread all over the eastern frontier, and the princes of western Media also took arms. Sargon boldly attacked his enemies. He began with the country of Man, which lay nearest, soon got Bagdatti into his power, and had him flayed. The chief men of Man raised Ullusunu, the brother of Aza, whom Bagdatti had murdered, to the throne and compelled him to join Rusas’s party, to which the princes of the Nairi states, Karalla and Allabra, whose names, Asshurli and Itti, denote them as Assyrian deserters, also went over. But scarcely had Sargon set out against them before Ullusunu and his nobles found themselves obliged to offer their submission. Sargon confirmed the former in his kingdom, and compelled his two allies with other petty chiefs to return to their allegiance. The territory of the city of Kisheshim was ruled by a governor, Bel-shar-usur, probably a Babylonian. Sargon gave it the name of Kar-Nergal and made it into an Assyrian province. A like fate befell the west Median town of Kharkhar, which had expelled its sovereign, Kibaba, and solicited support from Dalta of Ellipi; henceforth it was called Kar-Sharrukin [City of Sargon]. On this the governors of other Median towns made their submission.

[Sidenote: [715-711 B.C.]]

But after these isolated successes it was still long before the eastern states were quieted. In the following year (715) Rusas wrested twenty-two towns from Ullusunu, and a certain Daiukku, who is called viceregent of Man, was involved in the affair. Khubushkia, a state of Nairi, and the neighbouring districts, became refractory, and the territory of Kar-Sharrukin, incorporated only the year before, again seceded. At the same time in the west Mita of Muskhe made an invasion into the Assyrian district of Que [in eastern Cilicia] with considerable success. Nevertheless, Sargon succeeded in maintaining the upper hand at all points. He reconquered Kar-Sharrukin, fortified it more strongly than before, and received the homage of the governors of twenty-two Median cities. His general in the west was not content with reconquering the towns taken by Mita, but even pressed southward as far as the Arabian Desert, and transferred the tribes subdued there to Samaria.

Secure of the west, Sargon now felt in a condition to strike at the real authors of all the trouble in the east. After Man and some Median districts had paid their tributes, the next thing was to proceed against Mitatti of Zikirtu. So complete was the overthrow of this prince that, after the burning of his capital, Parda, and the desolation of his country, he with his whole people sought another home. It was a harder task to subdue Rusas, the soul of the confederacy. But this, too, was accomplished by the warlike king. Rusas was defeated among his high hills. His whole royal house, amounting to some 250 persons, fell with his horsemen into the victor’s hands, and he himself only escaped with much difficulty and hid in the mountains. Rusas still built hopes on one of his allies; if he would make a stand all was not yet lost. This was Urzana of Muzazir, a former vassal of Asshur, who had, however, joined Rusas as the chief of a kindred tribe. In his mountain country, protected by its natural strength and almost impenetrable, he believed himself entirely safe. But the dauntless spirit of the ancient Assyrian warriors was not extinct in Sargon. He piously commended himself to the protection of the gods, assembled a carefully selected body of troops, and ventured with them on the almost impossible enterprise. When Urzana understood that the valiant hero was actually approaching with his veterans, he fled, according to the praiseworthy custom of Asiatic despots, with all speed into the higher mountains, leaving his capital and his own family to the mercy of the enemy. Muzazir’s fate was now soon decided; with a large number of prisoners, and an extraordinarily rich booty, including the two great gods of the country, Sargon returned to his own country. This was the death-blow for Rusas. The whole structure so laboriously prepared lay in ruins, and filled with despair he fell upon his sword.

When Sargon had thus secured his empire against the danger threatening from the half-savage barbarians of the north, he re-established order in the northwest and west. Next he turned, not against the chief author of the trouble, Mita of Muskhe himself, but against Tabal, which lay not far and somewhat to the south of Muskhe. Ambaris of Tabal, to whom previously, while his father Khulle was still alive, Sargon had amongst other tokens of favour given one of his daughters to wife, and whose kingdom he had increased by the grant of Cilicia, had been ungrateful enough to join with Rusas and Mita. In the year 713 Sargon punished him as he had deserved, and made his country into an Assyrian province. The same thing happened to Khamman and Melid in the following year. Sargon peopled the country with foreign prisoners of war, and endeavoured by the erection of ten fortresses to secure it against Urartu and Muskhe. Continuing its southward march, the Assyrian army remained for a time in the region of the Amanus, and then, in the year 711, attacked Gurgum in the neighbourhood of Kummukh, which became an Assyrian province.

[Sidenote: [711-709 B.C.]]

It is very doubtful whether Sargon took a personal share in these expeditions. It was during just these years that he was occupied with the construction of his new residence of Dur-Sharrukin. It is certain that the devastation of Ashdod, which concluded the campaign of 711, was effected not under the king’s superintendence, but under that of the king, Akhimiti, whom Sargon had installed there, but who had been expelled, and Yaman, a man of mean origin, raised to the throne by the people. On the approach of the Assyrian army this hero fled to Egypt, but the king of Melukhkha (Egypt), fearing the vengeance of Assyria, sent him back loaded with iron bands. The population of Ashdod was also carried away and replaced by other tribes. Fortified by these triumphs, Sargon could now collect his forces in order to undertake a war which should set the crown to all his achievements. This was the conquest of Babylon, which had been for the last twelve years in the possession of the Chaldean king, Merodach-baladan.

Two years were required for this undertaking, in which Sargon proceeded with great caution. Merodach-baladan was ready for the attack. He had not neglected to make the necessary dispositions and to strengthen his fortresses. In one of them, Dur-Atkhara, which was probably the nearest to Assyria, and whose defensive works he had caused to be raised, he had concentrated the whole military power of the Aramæan tribe of Gambuli, and had sent to their assistance a portion of his own choicest troops, six hundred horsemen and four thousand foot. Sargon directed himself against this fortress, and whilst he was besieging it, it is probable that another division of his army won several successes in the east, where it had to keep the Elamite king, Shutur-nakhundi, occupied, and prevent him from joining hands with his ally. Dur-Atkhara fell; more than eighteen thousand prisoners and a great booty became the spoil of the conqueror, and the rest of the defenders hastily took to flight. The Assyrian king made the town his headquarters; he subsequently gave it the name of Dur-Nabu, and placed it under an Assyrian governor. The Khamarani tribe which dwelt on the banks of the Euphrates, in their terror at the approach of his army, had already taken refuge in the town of Sippar. At the news of the surrender of Dur-Atkhara, and the defeat of the Gambuli, the Aramæan tribes of Rubu, Khindaru, Yatburu, and Puqudu, who dwelt east of the Tigris, and relied on the protection of Babylon and Elam, withdrew behind the river Ukni. The Assyrians threw a bridge across the Umlias, a river to the north of Elam, and took several strongholds there, whereupon some chiefs of the Aramæans did homage to the king at Dur-Atkhara. They were assigned to the new government of Gambuli. The remainder were attacked and defeated in the territory of the Ukni, so that of them also many submitted, and were made subject to Gambuli. Now the army of Assyria operating east of the Tigris attacked Elam from Yatburu, subdued all the surrounding country, the seven principalities of Yatburu, with which two fortresses conquered from Elam were incorporated, and a part of the Elamite territory itself. It compelled the forces of the land of Rash, which belonged to Elam, to retire to a fortress, and the Elamite king to seek refuge in the high mountains of his country. Secured against any surprise from this quarter, Sargon himself with the main body now crossed the Euphrates into the Chaldaic-Babylonian state of Bit-Dakkuri, whose capital, Dur-Ladinna, henceforth became his headquarters.

There was now no room for Merodach-baladan in Babylon. Threatened on three sides, and in danger of being cut off by Sargon from his own principality, he and his troops left the city during the night and directed their steps to the Elamite part of Yatburu, whence they might advance against the enemy in co-operation with Shutur-nakhundi. But, although he offered the latter the most costly presents, the Elamite had not yet forgotten the lesson he had received. He declined to expose himself to new defeats, and so, perhaps, lose both land and people. Merodach-baladan left Yatburu, having gained nothing, and collected his army in a stronghold of his own country, called Iqbi-Bel.

Meantime, at Dur-Ladinna, in Bit-Dakkuri, not only did Sargon receive the submission of the inhabitants and the neighbouring Bit-Amukkani, but the authorities of Babylon also came in solemn embassy, bringing an invitation to enter the holy city, with which he immediately complied. At the great festival of the lord of the gods in the month of Shabat (January) he was permitted “to clasp the hands” of that great Bel-Marduk and Nabu, the king of the universe.

But still the south of Babylonia was not yet subjugated, for there Merodach-baladan was still in arms. He collected all his forces in the immediate neighbourhood of his capital, and at the same time, for fear of treachery, led thither the population of the ancient cities of Ur, Larsa, Kishik, etc. Strong defences were set up and special canals dug, behind which he entrenched himself with his allies. But the great king did not shrink before all these obstacles. Scarcely was the campaign of the year 709 begun, before he marched south, distributed his troops along the enemy’s whole line of defence, and inflicted on the latter so terrible a defeat that the trenches appeared as though full of blood, and the Suti, who had marched from Bit-Yakin to the rescue, did not venture an attack, but hurriedly retreated. Then Sargon fell on the auxiliaries and slaughtered them like sheep. Terror now seized on the Chaldeans’ main army; Merodach-baladan left his camp with all speed and retreated to his city. But it, too, was soon taken after a short siege, and with this the power of Merodach-baladan was broken. It is uncertain whether he himself fell into his enemy’s hands or saved himself by flight; but probably the latter was the case, for immediately after Sargon’s death he is again in a position to take action, at least if the Merodach-baladan, who then revolted against Sennacherib, is the same who was conquered by Sargon and his son. But for the time Babylonia was freed from the Aramaic-Chaldean domination, and breathed again. Sargon restored the ancient rights of the natives which the oppressors had curtailed in favour of the foreigners. To the towns of southern Babylonia he gave back their stolen gods; he everywhere showed himself extremely liberal to the temples and the ancient religion of the country. In all directions he appeared as deliverer, avenger of the insulted gods, restorer of the ancestral religion, protector of the priests and of all the natives of the country. His triumph did not signalise the commencement of foreign rule, but, on the contrary, it was he who put an end to it.

[Sidenote: [709-708 B.C.]]

Sargon’s rejoicings over his victory were still further increased by the embassies and reports which he received one after the other. Uperi, the king of the island of Dilmun, in the Persian Sea, did homage to him while he was still at Bit-Yakin, and gave costly presents. When he had marched from southern Babylonia to consolidate his dominion in the conquered countries, still more welcome tidings reached him at Irma’i. Even his great enemy in the northwest, Mita of Muskhe, who had stood with Rusas at the head of the confederacy against Asshur, but who had been overcome by the governor of Que, now sent ambassadors to Sargon with presents and protestations of homage and devotion. When, finally, the king had again returned to Babylon, there came envoys from seven districts of Cyprus, “whose names had never been known to the kings, his fathers, since the rule of the god Sin,” and who offered him valuable gifts and kissed his feet. Thus the empire of the mighty conqueror stretched from the island of Dilmun, in the Persian Gulf, to the Isle of Cyprus, in the Mediterranean.

Sargon returned to Calah in the beginning of 708, his fourteenth year as king of Assyria, and third as king of Babylon, after spending some time in the latter city. Whilst he was at Calah, resting on his laurels--he did not again, himself, take the field--and from thence prosecuting the construction of his new residence of Dur-Sharrukin, not far from Nineveh, his armies had still to conduct two wars, one in the year 708, the other, perhaps, in the same, but probably in the following year. Urartu had to a certain extent recovered from the blows it had suffered in the defeats and death of its king, Rusas; and the new king, Argistis, began to grow restless, and persuaded Prince Mutallu of Kummukh to a revolt against the Assyrian domination. Sargon sent a high official with a powerful army and full royal authority, who put Mutallu to flight, taking the capital of the province, and so restoring the Assyrian dominion. The rich booty was sent to Calah to the king, and the latter placed a very strong garrison at the disposal of the new viceroy, to prevent any further attempts at risings, and at the same time to constitute a defence against Argistis. But it was once more apparent that the Assyrian Empire, as a purely military power, rested on a tottering foundation, and could only be sustained by continued wars and victories.

The other war was that for the succession in Ellipi to the north of Elam. There, after the death of Dalta, who after some resistance had become a loyal vassal of Assyria, a dispute over the inheritance broke out between his two sons, Nibe and Ishpabara. The first applied for help to Shutur-nankhundi of Elam; the second to Sargon. The latter sent seven of his commanders, who succeeded in defeating Nibe, taking his capital, Marubishti, and there installing Ishpabara as king.

[Sidenote: [708-705 B.C.]]

Sargon, who, even in the early years of his reign, in the midst of his most terrible wars, had not neglected the reconstruction of palaces and temples at Nineveh and Calah, now devoted himself entirely to the realisation of a long cherished plan, whose execution he had begun long ago. A new suburb of Nineveh, called by his name, was to come into existence as a permanent memorial of his fame and piety, and at the same time serve as a summer residence. This was Dur-Sharrukin with its temples to various gods, with its palaces and gardens, whose walls and gates, like those of a sacred city, looked to the four quarters of the heavens and were named after the high gods, and whose inhabitants, selected from the prisoners of war of all the nations whom the king had conquered and placed under Assyrian magistrates, afforded a living testimony to his mighty deeds. On the 22nd Tasrit (September) 707, the gods were solemnly introduced into their temples, and on the 6th Airu (April) of the following year, the king took possession of the new residence. He was not permitted to enjoy it long. In the year 705 he fell by an assassin’s hand. [This is doubted by some authorities, who believe that he died a natural death.]

Sargon was, without doubt, one of the greatest princes who sat on the throne of Assyria and Babylon. He was no mere conqueror, who thought merely of increasing the size of his empire, but also a true king who occupied himself for its welfare. What chiefly strikes us in him is the comparative moderation by which he was distinguished from his predecessors and in particular from his son and successor. The horrors and devastations of war were the inevitable accompaniment of the forcible subjugation of the whole of western Asia, and some obstinate rebels were punished according to the barbarous custom of his age and race. But in general he contented himself with expelling the conquered prince or making him prisoner. He also remained faithful to the policy first pursued by Tiglathpileser III, namely that of furthering the unity of the empire by transplanting whole populations to other districts. But in his records it is only now and then that we encounter the refined cruelties perpetrated by the other Assyrian kings, and he never dwells on them with so much complacency as they display.[b]

SENNACHERIB

[Sidenote: [705-681 B.C.]]

Sargon II was succeeded by his son Sin-akhe-erba, the Sennacherib of the Bible, who reigned long and gloriously. The period now in question has a double interest. It is a time when Assyria is at the height of its power; and the interest that attaches to any strong empire is enhanced by the fact that the Assyrians of this period came in contact with the people of Israel. Sennacherib, in particular, bears a name familiar to all succeeding generations because of the repeated mention of this ruler in the Hebrew scriptures. Until the records of the Assyrian monuments were brought to light, nothing was known of him, except what referred to his disastrous campaign against Jerusalem, together with the brief reference to his murder by his son. Now, however, an abundance of material is at hand telling of the deeds of Sennacherib. The most important of these records are contained on large cylinders of the type which many Assyrian kings employed. These cylinders tell of various campaigns of the great conqueror, including several attacks upon Israel. Two or three brief excerpts from the chronicles of Sennacherib will serve to give an idea of the phraseology in which these royal documents are couched. The first two excerpts here selected were translated by George Smith from a cylinder now in the British Museum.

Column I of this cylinder begins as follows:

“Sennacherib the great king, the powerful king, king of Assyria, king of the four regions, the appointed ruler, worshipper of the great gods, guardian of right, lover of justice, maker of peace, going the right way, preserver of good. The powerful prince, the warlike hero, leader among kings, giant devouring the enemy, breaker of bonds. Asshur, the great mountain, an empire unequalled, has committed to me, and over all who dwell in palaces has exalted my servants. From the upper sea of the setting sun to the lower sea of the rising sun all the dark races he has subdued to my feet, and stubborn kings avoided war, their countries abandoned, and, like Sudinni birds, … fled to desert places.”[26]

Column II contains a record of the campaign against the Hittites:

“In my third expedition to the land of the Hittites I went. Elulæus king of Sidon, fear of the might of my dominion overwhelmed him, and to a distance in the midst of the sea he fled, and his country I took. Great Sidon, Lesser Sidon, Bit-Sitte, Sarepta Machalliba, Ushu Alhzibu, and Akko his strong cities, fortresses, walled and enclosed, his castles; the might of the soldiers of Asshur my lord overwhelmed them, and they submitted to my feet. Tubahal in the throne of the kingdom over them I seated, and taxes and tribute to my dominion yearly, unceasing, I fixed upon him. Of Menahem of Samsimuruna, Tubahal of Sidon, Abdilihiti of Arvad, Urumilki of Gubal (Byblos), Mitinti of Ashdod, Buduilu of Beth-Ammon, Kammusunadab of Moab, Malikrammu of Edom, kings of the Hittites, all of them of the coast, the whole, their presents and furniture, to my presence they carried, and kissed my feet, and Zidqa, king of Askalon, who did not submit to my yoke; the gods of the house of his father, himself, his wife, his sons, his daughters, and his brothers, the seed of the house of his father I removed, and to Assyria I sent him. Sharruludari, son of Rukipti their former king, over the people of Askalon I appointed, and the gifts of taxes due to my dominion I fixed on him, and he performed my pleasure.”

Full of interest is the record of an invasion of Palestine. Sennacherib, it will be recalled, was the Assyrian that came down like a wolf on the fold, as recorded in Byron’s stirring lines. The Hebrew account is from 2 Kings xix. 35:

“And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand; and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.”[a]

It is hardly necessary to state that no such record as this is to be found on the cylinder before us. The oriental scribe, whether of Egypt, Assyria, or Persia, rarely made the mistake of putting details of unfortunate expeditions on record. Doubtless Sennacherib once invaded western Asia unsuccessfully, and quite likely a plague may have decimated his hosts, but that particular invasion is not likely to furnish a favourable theme for the court chronicler.

An invasion of Palestine is, indeed, recorded on the present cylinder, but it is an invasion with very different results. Listen to the official account of the conquest of Jerusalem furnished by this cylinder of Sennacherib, as translated by Dr. Budge. The scribe reports the king as speaking in the first person:

“I drew nigh to Ekron and I slew the governors and princes who had transgressed, and I hung upon poles round about the city their dead bodies; the people of the city who had done wickedly and had committed offences I counted as spoil, but those who had not done these things I pardoned. I brought their king, Padi, forth from Jerusalem and I stablished him upon the throne of dominion over them, and I laid tribute upon him.

“I then besieged Hezekiah of Judah who had not submitted to my yoke, and I captured forty-six of his strong cities and fortresses and innumerable small cities which were round about them, with the battering of rams and the assault of engines, and the attack of foot-soldiers, and by mines and breaches (made in the walls). I brought out therefrom 200,150 people, both small and great, male and female, and horses, and mules, and asses, and camels, and oxen, and innumerable sheep I counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird, I shut up within Jerusalem his royal city. I threw up mounds against him, and I took vengeance upon any man who came forth from his city. His cities which I had captured I took from him and gave to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, and Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and I reduced his land. I added to their former yearly tribute, and increased the gifts which they paid unto me. The fear of the majesty of my sovereignty overwhelmed Hezekiah, and the Urbi and his trusty warriors, whom he had brought into his royal city of Jerusalem to protect it, deserted. And he despatched after me his messenger to my royal city Nineveh to pay tribute and to make submission with thirty talents of gold, eight hundred talents of silver, precious stones, eye paint … ivory couches and thrones, hides and tusks, precious woods, and divers objects, a heavy treasure, together with his daughters, and the women of his palace, and male and female musicians.”

It must not be supposed, however, that either this record of a successful invasion or the Hebrew account of that other disastrous one is altogether false, however much the facts may have been exaggerated, or however poetical the guise in which they are presented. It is merely to be understood that the two records refer to different campaigns or to different portions of the same campaign, as explained later by Professor Tiele. It is supposed by some modern interpreters that the destruction of Sennacherib’s hosts actually occurred through the plague. The king himself, however, escaped to return to Nineveh and there to continue his rule for many years. He was finally killed by his own sons, as is recorded on a contemporary Babylonian document. What would not the Hebrew scholar give, could he find contemporary documents of these events from the Hebrew standpoint, instead of being obliged to depend on records handed down, perhaps, by tradition for many generations, or at best, copied from one hand to another for centuries?

The value of contemporary documents as records of fact may, indeed, be overestimated, for it is possible to pervert, exaggerate, or understate the facts even in the day of their occurrence; but in any event the contemporary document has obvious advantage over documents of subsequent generations, which can be nothing more than copies, variously distorted, of earlier records. As for such mere matters of fact as the dates of ancient kings, and the particular details of campaigns and conquests, the historic importance of the contemporary record cannot be questioned; hence the enormous value of these tablets of Assyria and Babylon. But, questions of historical value aside, a peculiar charm attaches to whatever is old, and it is nothing less than fascinating to look at such a document as this cylinder, and feel that the very lines you scan were once read by Sennacherib himself before he met his untimely end “on the 20th day of the month Tebet” some twenty-five centuries ago.[h]

[Sidenote: [705-702 B.C.]]

It was in the year 705 B.C. that Sennacherib, who was not, perhaps, entirely guiltless of Sargon’s death, mounted the throne and became the supreme king both in Babylon and Assyria. To Merodach-baladan, who may have been either the recognised king of the Sea Lands, or the son or namesake of the latter, the occasion now seemed favourable for recovering the throne lost to Sargon. Sennacherib and his army marched up in all haste, and though it appears that Merodach-baladan had all the Aramæan and Chaldean tribes on his side, and was moreover supported by Elamite auxiliaries, he suffered a defeat and so lost his kingdom. According to the Assyrian narrator, this defeat was so complete that the Chaldean was forced to take flight in the greatest haste, leaving behind him his whole baggage-train, as well as his family and court. He had reigned nine months. The land was heavily scourged, great and small towns were taken and laid waste, and the inhabitants dragged into exile. The same fate was meted out to all Arabians, Aramæans, and Chaldeans who were living in the Babylonian towns.

When the campaign in Chaldea was at an end, the troops were sent against the Aramæan tribes, which dwelt on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. Here, too, there was devastation and plundering. A considerable booty, as was to be expected from these nomads, consisting chiefly of cattle, but also including camels, fell into the hands of the conquerors, and no less than two hundred thousand men and women were carried off to Assyria as slaves. It fared still worse with one small, heroic tribe, the Hirimmi, who offered an obstinate resistance to the Assyrians. When, finally, the latter succeeded in overcoming them, of all the rebels they left no prisoner of war alive, and hanged the corpses on poles upon the wall surrounding the town. Sennacherib annexed the whole territory to his realm, while he laid on it a very moderate tax for the benefit of the Assyrian god.

We may assume it as probably certain that the king did not personally take part in the campaign, but occupied himself the while with the adjustment of Babylonian state affairs. His policy may be distinctly followed. It was only toward the Chaldeans and their allies that he appeared in the character of an enemy. They alone were punished or carried off. The actual citizens of Babylon, Erech, Nippur, Kish, and Kharsag-kalama he left unmolested, and to propitiate them still further, he even gave them a king belonging to the ruling Babylonian house--namely, the young Bel-ibni, whose father held an important office, and who had himself been brought up from childhood at the Assyrian court. Of him Sennacherib might hope that he would be faithful to Assyria and at the same time not unfriendly to the Babylonians, and therefore he now bestowed on him the title of “King of Sumer and Accad.”

The establishment of order in Babylon was turned to account by Sennacherib for the purpose of averting the danger with which his eastern frontier was threatened by the nomads who wandered there, and by the mountain people, and also for extending his empire in every direction. He now attacked the Kasshu and Yasubigallu, by which names we doubtless have to understand those barbarous Kossæans, and their allies, whose successors, centuries later, according to Diodorus, still made the Mesopotamian frontier insecure, and who were related to those Kassites who had so long reigned over Babylon. Their surest protection was the inaccessible nature of the country. Steep mountain paths and thick forests made it difficult for an Assyrian army to advance, while for vehicles it was impossible.

The king himself led the march, and thus showed himself a worthy successor of the undaunted heroes who in earlier centuries had founded the Assyrian power. His chariot had frequently to be carried behind him, and then he mounted on horseback or performed the journey on foot at the head of his troops. Sennacherib succeeded in taking their three strongholds. The smaller places he laid in ashes and the nomads’ tents were burnt. But for greater security he desired to bring the wild tribes under Assyrian rule, and to force them to settle in fixed abodes. He selected Bit-Kilamzakh as a centre, fortified it far more effectually than before, making it a formidable fortress to keep the inhabitants of the country in check, and peopled it with captives whom he had carried off in former warlike expeditions. He caused a tablet inscribed with the history of this campaign to be set up in the capital, in order that the terror of the Assyrian arms might be kept perpetually alive. As soon as he had subdued the Kasshu he marched against Ellipi. Sennacherib fell on the country like a tempest. The two royal seats Marubishti and Accudu, with all the smaller towns, were taken by him and given up to be plundered and burnt, whilst all crops were destroyed and even the cornfields delivered over to the fire. It was with a certain satisfaction that Sennacherib boasted of having transformed Ellipi into a desert, and led away the whole population with its goods and chattels. When these successes became known, a number of Median princes, dwelling at a more remote distance, hastened to offer their submission.

Meantime the king’s attention was directed to events in the west. The elevation of the young and high-spirited Tirhaqa to the throne of Egypt, probably as husband of King Shabak’s widow, and guardian of his son who was a minor, had aroused in some princes of the strips of land along the Mediterranean coast the hope that by an alliance with him they might shake off the Assyrian yoke. To these belonged Elulæus (Luli) king of Tyre and Sidon, Zedekiah, (Zidga) king of Askalon, and above all Hezekiah, the king of Judah. The latter took on himself the leadership, at least in the southwest.

Sennacherib’s third campaign was directed against this coalition, and is probably to be assigned to the year 702 B.C. With its usual promptitude, the Assyrian army marched on Phœnicia, and thus attacked one of the allies before the rest had a chance to unite their forces. Elulæus fled in haste to Cyprus, where Citium still belonged to him; and all his towns on the continent, within a short space of time, fell into the hands of the Assyrian. All the princes of the other petty Phœnician states came that they might offer their submission.

[Sidenote: [701 B.C.]]

Sennacherib immediately starts along the seacoast for Askalon, southernmost of the revolted states, and soon overpowers it. Zedekiah, the king, suffers the usual fate; with the hereditary gods of his house, his wife, his sons, daughters, brothers, and his whole family he is dragged away to Assyria.

Now that the whole coast-line had submitted, Sennacherib turned to Ekron, which lay farther to the north, but more inland. But in Altaku [Eltekeh], which lay south of Ekron and belonged to it, he encountered some resistance, and was at the same time caught by an Egyptian army, which at last appeared to the rescue of the Philistine towns. According to the Assyrian account it was very numerous and was composed of the troops of the king of Musuri, and of the bowmen, chariots, and horses of the king of Melukhkha. Still, whatever these two names may mean here, it is certain that neither Tirhaqa himself nor any other Egyptian king was leading the army, but that it was merely commanded by Egyptian princes and two generals belonging to the horsemen. These did not show themselves a match for the powerful Assyrian conqueror. In spite of the number of their followers they suffered a total defeat, and it does not say much for their skill and courage that they all, princes and commanders, fell alive into the enemy’s hands. In consequence of this, the relieving army appears to have retraced its march to Egypt, so that nothing now stood in the way of Sennacherib continuing his conquests in Philistia and Canaan. The ruling high priest and the princes who had stirred up the rebellion, he caused to be put to death and their corpses displayed on stakes on the town walls; such of the inhabitants as had made common cause with the rebels were led away captive; the innocent, on the contrary, went free.

Now at last came the turn of Hezekiah. The following is the main outline of what the Assyrians relate concerning the campaign against Judah. When it became apparent that even after the overthrow of his allies, Hezekiah was not inclined to give himself up readily to the mercy of his powerful enemy, the latter marched into his country. Forty strong towns besides the citadels and countless smaller places were beleaguered, taken by storm, razed to the ground or burned, and more than two hundred thousand prisoners, with a great number of horses, asses, and camels were carried away from them. Hezekiah himself, Sennacherib shut up in his capital, Jerusalem (Ursalimmu), like “a bird in its cage.” But the town was in a strong position and provided with a good garrison. Hezekiah had not only assembled his faithful warriors, but had also enlisted a number of Arabian soldiers. When these, however, required pay, and in case of refusal threatened to withdraw, Hezekiah--the Assyrian says from dread of the glory of Asshur--paid the heavy tribute which Sennacherib demanded of him--namely, thirty talents of gold [about £9000 or $45,000] and three hundred talents of silver, besides precious stones, woods, and other articles, and also sent to Nineveh his daughters and the women of the palace, accompanied by male and female slaves together with an envoy, who was at the same time commissioned to proffer his master’s homage.

From this narrative no one who did not know the official style of the Assyrian historical writers would guess that Jerusalem was not taken, and that Sennacherib, with the remainder of his army, was obliged to quit Judah with all possible speed. But it was not their business to report failures of this kind. Doubtless in this account of the course of Sennacherib’s campaign, the main features are correct and also described in the right chronological order. It is certain that, after the overthrow of Phœnicia, the king found it advisable first to reduce the small Philistine states on the seacoast to obedience that he might then attack the Jewish king, who at last, when he had been deprived of everything save his capital, and when his own soldiers were deserting him, saw himself compelled to produce the war-tax demanded. The assertion that he sent it by an envoy to Nineveh cannot possibly be correct, and must have been invented for the purpose of rounding off the narrative without relating the true issue of the affair.

We possess two traditions concerning the close of the war which, though they may differ from one another in other respects, agree in this, that an extraordinary event unexpectedly compelled Sennacherib to return with some precipitation to Assyria. One is the biblical tradition; the other is the account of Herodotus.[b]

The biblical account, as found in 2 Kings, we have already quoted. The account of Herodotus relates to a certain king Sethos, a priest of Vulcan (believed to represent Shabak of the XXVth Dynasty). This king, says Herodotus, treated the military of Egypt with extreme contempt, and as if he had no occasion for their services. Among other indignities he deprived them of their aruræ, or fields of fifty feet square, which, by way of reward, his predecessors had given to each soldier; the result was that, when Sennacherib, king of Arabia and Assyria, attacked Egypt with a mighty army, the warriors whom he had thus treated refused to assist him. In this perplexity the priest retired to the shrine of his god, before which he lamented his danger and misfortunes; here he sunk into a profound sleep, and his deity promised him, in a dream, that if he marched to meet the Assyrians, he should experience no injury, for that he would furnish him with assistance. The vision inspired him with confidence; he put himself at the head of his adherents and marched to Pelusium, the entrance of Egypt: not a soldier accompanied the party, which was entirely composed of tradesmen and artisans. On their arrival at Pelusium, so immense a number of mice infested by night the enemy’s camp that their quivers and bows, together with what secured their shields to their arms, were gnawed in pieces. In the morning the Arabians, finding themselves without arms, fled in confusion, and lost great numbers of their men. There is now to be seen in the temple of Vulcan a marble statue of this king, having a mouse in his hand, and with this inscription, “Whoever thou art, learn, from my fortune, to reverence the gods.”[c]

Taking together all the circumstances in which the somewhat contradictory reports are agreed, we may picture the course of events as follows: On the advance of the Assyrian king, Hezekiah collects his picked men, who are reinforced by foreign soldiers, in his capital, and resolves to defend it. Meantime the Assyrian army overruns the whole of Judah, takes one fortified town after another, and all the citadels and smaller places, and Sennacherib has penetrated as far as Libnah, a small town lying in the southwest of the Jewish territory. There he learns that Tirhaqa is approaching with an Egyptian army, to fight against him and liberate Judah. So long as the capital is not yet in his power, and Judah consequently not wholly subdued, he cannot go out against him without losing all the advantages gained. He will therefore try whether he cannot, by threatening Hezekiah, induce him to deliver up the town of his own accord; and he sends him messengers with letters peremptorily calling on him to submit. But with prophetic fire Isaiah pours out his wrath at the insults offered to Jehovah by this servant of Asshur, and vehemently urges steadfast resistance.

[Sidenote: [701-696 B.C.]]

Sennacherib meantime continues his victorious march, and now that he is master of all Judah with the sole exception of the capital, he can detach a part of his army. If Hezekiah will not yield of his own free will he must be compelled to do so. A strong body of troops under the leadership of the Rabshakeh, or generalissimo, marched against the strong fortress and closely beset it on all sides. But it is the Rabshakeh who chiefly figures in the foreground of the affair. The Hebrews tell of his efforts to induce the people and the garrison of Jerusalem to desert their king. He sought to attain this end by means of scornful speeches on the helplessness of Judah.

Hezekiah, perhaps again spurred on by Isaiah, who still continues to trust in a miraculous deliverance, does not give way at once, but defends the city against a superior foe for some time, though it was the only town that remained to him and was as isolated and forsaken “as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers.” But at last, when famine in the town has reached its highest pitch and signs of impatience and discontent manifest themselves among the garrison, he makes up his mind to submission, and sends a messenger to Lachish to inquire the terms of surrender. They are very hard. But there is no longer any choice, and he tenders the Assyrian conquerors the amount required at the hand of the envoy, who subsequently accompanied it to Nineveh. Whether the siege was thereupon immediately raised, or whether it was thought well to keep the town still under observation until the contest with Egypt was decided, we cannot say positively. But, as a great misfortune, either pestilence or some other natural phenomenon, actually did soon after smite the Assyrian army, and the whole of the conqueror’s force, reduced to a miserable handful, quitted Judah and the West, the true believers among the Egyptians and Israelites saw in it a miraculous deliverance which the gods had sent them, and the latter at the same time regarded it as a fulfilment of the prophecies of Isaiah, which at first did not seem to be coming true.

Of course the event had not in reality the importance which the grateful Egyptians and Israelites attributed to it. Although it secured them relief, and Sennacherib’s army was so weakened that he thought it advisable to beat a hasty retreat, yet his supremacy over Phœnicia and Canaan remained for a long time unshaken, and in the following year he was again in the field with a powerful army. Subsequently he appears again to have marched westward and to have made a particular fight against Arabia and Edom. But it does not appear that in this campaign he also made war against Phœnicia, Philistia, and Judah, as he certainly would not have failed to do had traces of insubordination showed themselves. The chastisement had been too severe, and the country was too greatly exhausted.

In the year 700 B.C. Sennacherib’s presence was again required in Babylonia. It was the third and last year of Bel-ibni’s rule at Babylon. Sennacherib had him brought to Assyria, together with his whole family. He had proved unequal to the task which Sennacherib had assigned him.

After the victories, which intimidated even Elam, Sennacherib went to Babylon, and there in place of Bel-ibni, set up his own eldest son Asshur-nadin-shum on the throne as king of Sumer and Accad. His six years’ reign began in the year 700 B.C., and now Sennacherib thought himself safe from the machinations of Chaldean pretenders.

For some years he had really had his hands free in the south. He employed the time in bringing into subjection some of the northwestern neighbours of his empire. This campaign, which the Assyrians reckon as the fifth, and which must have taken place somewhere between 699 and 696, ended with a war in Cilicia. According to Berosus it was occasioned by a Greek invasion, and the Assyrian army obtained the victory only after suffering great loss. Abydenus even speaks of a sea-fight on the Cilician coast, in which the Greek fleet was worsted. Both historians agree in this, that Sennacherib immortalised his famous deeds by the erection of his statue or the setting up of bronze pillars with inscriptions, and that he built the town of Tarsus, which he called Tharsin, so that the Cydnus flowed through it as the Arazanes (Aralshtu) through Babylon. Strange as it may seem, the Assyrians themselves make no mention of the foundation of this important town, but Berosus is too credible a witness for his statement to be rejected.

Even before 694 Sennacherib had busied himself in the preparations of a great plan. Merodach-baladan had sought and found in Nagitu, on the coast of Elam, a refuge and place of security where he believed his deadly enemy could not reach him. After the latter’s expedition against Bit-Yakin in the year 700, the remainder of the population of that territory had found it expedient to take ships with their gods, as their master had done, and cross to the region where the latter had taken up his abode. Sennacherib apparently feared that this new state would prove a source of danger to the province entrusted to his son; all the more since Merodach-baladan had now become a vassal of Elam, Asshur’s ancient and hereditary enemy. The difficulty was great, particularly as Nagitu was not accessible from the land side, without passing through Elamite territory. He had among his captives shipbuilders from Khatti, and he set them to work at Nineveh on the Tigris and Tel-Barsip on the Euphrates. The ships were towed down the Euphrates and the Tigris [or they may have been transported overland by camels]. They were manned by Tyrian, Sidonian, and Ionic seamen, who were also prisoners of war. He, himself, had meantime marched to the Persian Gulf with his army, and had fixed his camp close to the ships. From the description of the voyage it is evident what a deep impression this very unusual expedition made on the Assyrians. Even before they set sail they made an unexpected acquaintance with the sea, which they believed four hours’ distance away; they may perhaps have been aware that, even so far up as Bab-Salimeti, the river was subject to the ebb and flow; but a spring flood, which suddenly laid the camp under water, and even made its way into the royal tent, took them by surprise. They had to seek refuge on the ships and remain on them five days and nights, “as in a great bird-cage,” says Sennacherib. Whether this experience of life on shipboard was enough for the bold monarch, or whether he had no intention of taking part in the maritime expedition, it is certain that he did not leave the shore. The transports were taken to the mouth of the Euphrates; costly sacrifices to Ea, the sea god, among which were a golden ship and a golden fish, were thrown into the rivers to obtain his protection for the fleet, and then it set sail. It is not told how long the voyage lasted, but merely that the country whither they went lay at the mouth of the Eulæus (Ulai), the chief river of Elam. There the great battle was fought, and of course the Assyrians came off the victors. They took possession of various Elamite towns, and carried off the Chaldeans and all the goods from Bit-Yakin, together with a number of Aramæans and captured ships, to Bab-Salimeti, where the king awaited them. Of Merodach-baladan not a word is said. Therefore he did not fall into the hands of the Assyrians, and was not robbed of his sovereignty by the defeat. Thus far, at least, the victory was of no lasting significance for the Assyrians. It appears simply to have destroyed the prosperity of the Chaldean colony for some time, and to have deterred the indefatigable adversary from direct attacks. But this extraordinary and costly expedition shows how greatly he was dreaded and with what implacable hatred his house was pursued by that of Sargon.

[Sidenote: [696-692 B.C.]]

While the Assyrian king was engaged in the seacoast war, Khallus, the king of Elam, instigated by the Babylonians who had left the town in good time with Merodach-baladan and had sought refuge with him, invaded Accad with his army, penetrated as far as Sippar, where he instituted a massacre, and brought Asshur-nadin-shum prisoner to Elam. On the Babylonian throne he set up a Babylonian, Suzub, son of Gakhul. It is a characteristic trait that the Assyrian account is silent as to the unhappy fate which overtook Sennacherib’s oldest son. Suzub, on his accession to the throne, took the name of Negal-ushezib. He is the Regebelos of the Ptolemaic Canon, and must be carefully distinguished from the Chaldean Suzub who did not reign over Babylon till a later date (692) and under another name.

But the new king was lord over only part of the country. The whole South was still in the hands of the Assyrians and had to be conquered by him.

About June, 694 or 693, he succeeded in getting possession of Nippur, but his farther advance was checked by the tidings that the Assyrians had meantime marched as far as Erech. Sennacherib immediately despatched a large force against the king of Elam, whom he rightly regarded as the chief author of all the trouble. Erech fell and was sacked, and, laden with rich booty, including even the chief gods of the sacred city, the Assyrians marched forward. At Nippur, Nergal-ushezib awaited them, and in the battle which followed he remained victor. But his rule was of short duration. As to the end of his reign the Babylonian and Assyrian records are agreed. The former asserts that, after the Assyrians had carried away the gods and inhabitants of Erech, Nergal-ushezib was taken prisoner in the battle at Nippur and conducted to Assyria. According to the second, he was thrown from his horse in the battle, taken prisoner and brought in chains before Sennacherib, who then shut him up in prison at the gate of Nineveh. The two accounts seem to make the story complete.

After the misfortune that had overtaken their king, the Babylonians bestowed the crown on Suzub the Chaldean, who had also fled to Elam. He reigned independently for four years, under the name of Mushezib-Marduk. The Assyrians consequently content themselves with mentioning several advantages won by them over the Elamites, and also relating that they took Suzub prisoner on their march from Erech to Asshur. They themselves practically acknowledged that Babylon did not fall into their hands, when they inform us that, after Suzub’s capture, the Babylonians closed their city gates against the Assyrians and offered an obstinate resistance.

So far as we may judge, the whole of this campaign of Sennacherib’s was a political blunder, which does not speak well for his sagacity. There was in fact nothing to be feared from Merodach-baladan; the real peril, which threatened from Elam, escaped the Assyrian king. The maritime expedition undertaken at so much labour and expense, was more adventurous than glorious, and failed in its main object: the arch enemy, at whom it was aimed, retained his liberty and his kingdom. And meantime Babylon was left without protection, and Sennacherib’s own son was bereft of throne and freedom. He had not even provided himself with sufficient forces to avenge the descent of the Elamites and reconquer the lost territory. The sole fruit of the campaign (exclusive of booty and prisoners) was the carrying away of a Babylonian king, whose place was at once taken by another prince, not less hostile. A poor compensation for the loss of the capital, the whole territory belonging to it and of his own son! Under Sennacherib’s government it was continually apparent that only under compulsion had the Babylonians submitted to the yoke of the Assyrians, and that they preferred to unite with Elam rather than again obey a Sargonid.

[Sidenote: [692-689 B.C.]]

In Elam, meantime, a rising took place against Khallus, possibly because he had been unsuccessful in his war against Assyria. [He was killed in the uprising.] Kudur-nankhundi became king in his stead. Sennacherib thought this a favourable opportunity to attack his old enemies, the Elamites. It was in 692, probably, that he took advantage of Elam’s disordered condition to inflict a heavy punishment on that country. From Rasa to Bit-Burnaki he ravaged and plundered to his heart’s content. He introduced Assyrian garrisons and placed the territory under the care of a governor. Besides this, he took thirty-five fortified towns. Such was the devastation “that the smoke of the flames covered the face of the wide heaven like a heavy storm,” and so great was the terror he spread that Kudur-nankhundi left his residence at Madaktu in all haste, and fled to a town called Khaidala, which lay far up in the mountains. But nature saved him from the hands of the Assyrians. Sennacherib did indeed give orders to march to Madaktu, but he could not carry his intention into effect. It was winter, and in (Tebet) December an earthquake, coupled with storms of rain and snow, compelled him to retreat. The mountain streams were so swollen that no army could now cross them with safety. Only three months afterwards Kudur-nankhundi died “suddenly, before his time,” and his own brother Umman-minanu mounted the throne. Scarcely had Umman-minanu assumed the sceptre of Elam than he allowed himself to be beguiled into an alliance with Babylon against Asshur. At Babylon now reigned Suzub II, the Chaldean, Mushezib-Marduk. After his flight from Sennacherib, in the year 700 or 699, he had returned to Babylon, where, after the misfortunes that overtook his namesake, he was made king, no doubt to the great chagrin of the Assyrians. When he sent gold and silver from the treasury of E-sagila, the great temple of Marduk and Zarpanit, to the Elamite king, he found the latter prepared to collect an army at once and march with it to Babylon for a joint attack upon Asshur. Sennacherib was astounded that the lesson he had imparted to Elam in the previous year had borne no better fruit. But the Chaldeans and Elamites had good ground to hope for success. The Assyrian’s latest victories had not been rich in lasting results. He had not succeeded in conquering Babylon. He had been obliged to retreat hastily from Elam. He had not been able to defend Chaldea. Moreover, the kings of Babylon and Elam could now count on a number of allies. The number of the enemy impressed the Assyrians, who likened them to a swarm of locusts. “Like a violent gale which drives the rain-clouds across the firmament, so rose the cloud of dust at their approach.” But calling on the gods, his heavenly protectors, Sennacherib ventures an attack.

It was a fierce battle; both sides fought with the greatest fury. Sennacherib, himself, was distinguished by his personal courage. With helm and mail, spear and bow, Asshur’s sacred bow, which none but the kings of Assyria carried, he stands in his war chariot like an angry lion, and like a heavy storm from Adad, the god of tempests, he rushes on the enemy, covering the plain with corpses as with grass. His horses wallow in blood; blood and fragments of the slain cleave to the pole of his war chariot. A choice troop of Elamite nobles, equipped with golden daggers and bracelets, are slaughtered like sheep, and the Elamite commander and grand vizier, Khumbanundash, a man of great ability, also falls. Others are taken prisoners. Yet the kings of Elam and Babylon and the Chaldean chiefs got away, according to the Assyrian writer, who delights in depicting their sufferings in a very imaginative fashion, with a loss of tents and baggage and of one hundred and fifty thousand dead left on the battle-field. They were pursued for a distance of some miles, but their capture was not effected. There is something loathsome in the lively colours in which the scene is painted; the pitiless slaughter and horrible mutilation of the slain are described with bloodthirsty complacency. The writer of the Assyrian tablet knew well that his savage, revengeful master based his renown on such inhuman acts. And yet it was no victory for the Assyrians. They may have remained in possession of the field, but the murderous battle was so undecisive that the Elamites and Babylonians could claim the victory as well. The losses on both sides must have been so great that neither of the two parties ventured to continue the war. Both sides assumed the attitude of waiting for a more favourable opportunity. The prevalent idea that after the battle of Khalule Sennacherib immediately conquered Babylon is decidedly false and is contradicted by the true reading of both Assyrian and Babylonian records.

Not till the year 690 or 689 did Sennacherib find a favourable opportunity to risk another attack on Babylon. From Elam there was now nothing more to fear. The power of Umman-minanu was much weakened and he was soon to lose it altogether. The Assyrian king marched on Babylon with the impetuousity which distinguished all his warlike expeditions, and was at times disadvantageous to him; and on this occasion his effort was crowned with the desired success. Now he directed his arms against Mushezib-Marduk’s town, not as his predecessors, including his own father, had done, as a rescuer bringing deliverance from a usurper and therefore striking at the latter and his dependents, and sparing the inhabitants: upon the town which had so long withstood him, so repeatedly and obstinately lifted its head against him, a fearful vengeance was to be taken. It was literally wiped out; nothing was spared; corpses lay piled up in the streets; all its treasures were pillaged and divided amongst the soldiers; the temples were desecrated, and the gods torn from their sanctuaries. Then the whole town was delivered up to the flames; the walls and ramparts, the temples and the ziggurat, (probably the two towers of Babylon and Borsippa), were thrown down and hurled into the Arakhtu or other canals, and the water from the river and the canals was turned on the ruins that they might be flooded. The very place where the sacred town had stood became unrecognisable and was changed into a marsh. Mushezib-Marduk escaped and sought refuge in Elam, but Umman-minanu, fearing Assyrian vengeance, surrendered his ally, and the latter and his family were brought prisoners to Nineveh.

Such a deed may well have spread fear and horror even in Assyria itself. Sennacherib had done what none had even ventured before. Towards the town which many an Assyrian king had treated with respect and which had never been sacked, he had behaved with a relentlessness which hitherto had only been exhibited to foreign rebels. He was now master of Babylon. For the remaining eight years of his life, he was called King of Babylon, even according to the Babylonian list of kings, although the Ptolemaic canon mentions this period as an interim. King Ummanaldash [Khumba-Khaldashu] who (the 7th of Adar 690 or 689?) succeeded Umman-minanu on the throne of Elam, and who reigned eight years, left the Assyrian king in peaceful possession. There are sufficient grounds for the assumption that this supremacy over Babylon of a tyrant embittered by earlier reverses was a reign of terror.

For the last years of Sennacherib’s reign authentic accounts are almost entirely wanting. An expedition to Arabia, against a certain king Hazael (Khazailu), in which the capital of Edom is stormed and the deity of the place falls into his hands, certainly belongs to this period of his reign.

[Sidenote: [695-681 B.C.]]

Like most of the Assyrian princes, Sennacherib, in spite of his unsettled existence, was a great builder. But he bestowed the most care on the re-establishment and embellishment of his beloved Nineveh. In the earlier part of his reign he had also strengthened this town with an outer wall and an inner rampart (duru and shalkhu), and in the year 695 he had built a great palace by the northwest wall, after pulling down a small palace which stood there. The latter had fallen into decay, partly as a result of the overflowings of the canal on which it stood, partly from the heat of the sun. The canal was now diverted, and on its margin was built a new and loftier palace, in which ivory and costly woods were not spared. There the king had a park laid out and irrigated by the waters of the Khushur (Khosr) which were made to flow through it, and it was planted with trees from the Amanus Mountains. At the same time the town was extended and embellished.

Scarcely was this structure completed when Sennacherib caused another palace, which lay farther south of the same wall, to be pulled down. It had served former kings as armoury, magazine, and stables, and had now become not only too small but also decayed. Some fields were added to it and earth brought to raise them, and upon this now rose a palace, not of tiles, but of hewn stone after the fashion of the land of Khatti (Aram). For this also cedars from Amanus and great lion and animal colossi, which had been hewn out of stone in the town of Baladai and then cased in bronze, were employed, and cunning architects disposed them with great care and magnificence. The purpose of the building remained the same; horses and every sort of cattle found stabling, stuffs and weapons were laid up there, but it had now also to serve as a barrack for the national troops. The king’s name is displayed on every wall.

Immediately after the completion of this building on the 20th day of Adar, 691, that is, in the same year in which the battle of Khalule took place, Sennacherib began another and not less important work, which was only completed and inaugurated after the sack of Babylon. This was an undertaking intended to provide the city of Nineveh with good drinking water. A number of canals had to be dug, which served at the same time to fertilise some uncultivated strips of land. In the capital which was thus, as it were, born again, the old warrior now probably rested on his laurels for a few years longer.

In the latter period of his life, Sennacherib appears to have handed over a part of his royal functions to his son Esarhaddon (Asshur-akhe-iddin), if he did not actually make him co-ruler. The latter was not his eldest son, for his name, “Asshur grants brothers, or, a brother,” shows the contrary, but he was perhaps, the second, and therefore direct heir to the throne after the death, or at least in the absence of, the king’s eldest son, Asshur-nadin-shum, who had been carried off by the Elamites. Esarhaddon was certainly destined to the succession by his father, and was the latter’s favourite. Sennacherib issued a decree by which the whole of his booty brought from the Babylonio-Chaldean district of Bit-Amukkani was assigned to him, and his name was at the same time changed to Asshur-etilli-ukinnibal (Asshur, the lord has lent a son)--a name which was more appropriate for one who now took the place of eldest son, but which Esarhaddon himself does not appear to have adopted. His brothers, whether younger or older, were not pleased at this. Two of them at least, Sharezer, whose full name was probably Nergal-shar-usur (or the Nergilus of Berosus), and Adarmalik, disputed the succession, taking advantage of the circumstance that Esarhaddon, at the head of the army, was absent in the northwest, most probably in a war with Armenia. Whilst Sennacherib was praying in a temple, they fell on him and slew him, and Nergal-shar-usur took possession of the throne, [but was at once superseded. Some histories deny his accession]. Thus died Sennacherib, on the 20th Tebet (about December) 681, by the hands of his own sons.

From the official sources, which are the only ones we possess, it is difficult to obtain an idea of the character of the Assyrian sovereign, but the records of Sennacherib’s reign certainly make a far more unfavourable impression than those which Sargon left behind. Both were conquerors, but the one shows more respect for law and justice. Stern, at times to harshness, against uncompromising adversaries, Sargon yet gives place to mildness where mercy can be made to harmonise with the interests of the empire. Sennacherib, on the other hand, takes an obvious delight in scenes of blood and desolation, in inflicting punishments which only awaken disgust at their brutish cruelty. The destruction of Babylon, the burning and blotting out of a town venerable from its age and importance, and so sacred to the pious Assyrians, was indeed a blind vengeance which fixes an indelible blot on the name of the author of the crime. Not less courageous and warlike than his predecessors, he was rash and presumptuous rather than bold, and his plans were rather venturesome than well calculated. Impetuous in attack, he neglected the needful precautions, and attained the immediate goal, often only to lose more than he gained. Whether he was concerned in his father’s murder cannot be determined; that he was, as his name indicates, a younger son, is no certain evidence of this, but it is a suspicious circumstance that he nowhere mentions his celebrated father’s name. If he was guilty, Nemesis overtook him. As a king he was far inferior to Sargon. Nineveh alone had much to thank him for. Babylon, on the contrary, which had called in Sargon as her deliverer, sought to secure her independence of him, and preferred to his yoke the dearly bought protection of Elam. After he died, having reigned something like twenty-four years, it was a long time before the empire was as powerful and flourishing as at the commencement of his rule. In thinking of Sargon and Sennacherib we are involuntarily reminded of Cyrus and Cambyses, who differed from one another in the same way.[b]

ESARHADDON AND ASSHURBANAPAL

[Sidenote: [681-668 B.C.]]

Sennacherib, as we have seen, was murdered by his sons. It appears that this event did not occur at once after the return from the disastrous campaign against the Israelites, as might be inferred from the Hebrew record, but a good many years later. Esarhaddon, who succeeded his father, was obliged to win back the kingdom from the regicides before he could securely occupy the throne of Assyria. He seems to have had no great difficulty in this, however, and for many years he continued in undisputed sway, not merely sustaining but extending the influence that his father had wielded. The greatest glory of his reign was his successful invasion of Egypt. Opinions have differed considerably as to the character of Esarhaddon. Professor Tiele’s verdict, which we give in extenso later, is somewhat less favourable than that of various other authorities. The opinion of Professor Maspero is perhaps worth quoting in some detail. He says:

“Esarhaddon is one of the finest and most attractive characters of Assyrian history. He was as active and resolute as Asshurnazirpal or Tiglathpileser, without being hard on his subjects or cruel to those he conquered, as they were. He delighted in being merciful as much as his predecessors had rejoiced in being merciless, and the accounts of his wars no longer make constant mention of captives being burnt alive, kings impaled on the gates of their cities, or whole populations being burnt out by fire. He took pleasure in restoring the ruins with which his father and grandfather had covered the land, and in the first year of his reign he gave orders for the rebuilding of Babylon, which was commenced on a grand scale.

“All the Chaldean prisoners were set free, and those who liked to work under the architects could do so for payment in oil, wine, honey, and other commodities of life; and when laying the foundation stones of different edifices, he himself wore the special dress of the masons. The temple of Bit-Zaggaton, the seat of Marduk, the protector of the town, issued from the ruins and the walls, and royal castles were raised beyond their former height. Beyond Babylon Esarhaddon consecrated thirty-six temples at Asshur and Agade; and they were lined with shining sheets of gold and silver.

“The palace which he built at Nineveh on the site of an old building surpassed all that had hitherto been seen. The quarries of alabaster in the mountains of Gordyene and the forests of Phœnicia furnished material for the halls; thirty-two Hittite kings on the Mediterranean coast sent great beams of pines, cedars, and cypresses. The roof was made of carved cedar wood, supported by columns of cypress encircled with gold and silver; stone lions and bulls stood at the doorways; the panels of the doors were made of ebony and cypress, encrusted with iron, silver, and ivory. The palace of Babylon was entirely destroyed, and the one commenced at Calah with Egyptian booty was never finished. The conquerors had been much impressed by the long avenues of sphinxes at the entrance of the Memphite temples, and in imitation of the idea Esarhaddon had sphinxes, lions, and bulls at the entrances of his buildings. The construction lasted three years (671-669), and it was only just far enough completed for the decoration to be started, when he fell seriously ill in 669.” Two years later he died.

It will probably be felt by most readers of the records left by Esarhaddon himself--which are, of course, our sole authority in the matter, save for a few chance biblical references--that Professor Maspero’s verdict as just quoted is over-enthusiastic. Nevertheless, it can hardly be doubted that Esarhaddon was in many ways a much more admirable character than his father. The following excerpt from one of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, contained on a hexagonal prism of baked clay found near Nineveh, and now in the British Museum, will suggest something as to the precise interpretation one should place upon the words “attractive” and “merciful” as applied to an Assyrian conqueror:

“Esarhaddon, king of Sumer and Accad, (son of Sennacherib, king of) Assyria, (son of Sargon) king of Assyria, (who in the name of Asshur, Bel,) the Moon, the Sun, Nabu Marduk, Ishtar of Nineveh, and Ishtar of Arbela, the great gods his lords from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun marched victorious without a rival.

“Conqueror of the city of Sidon, which is on the sea, sweeper away of all its villages; its citadel and residence I rooted up, and into the sea I flung them. Its place of justice I destroyed. Abd-milkot its king who away from my arms into the middle of the sea had fled; like a fish from out of the sea I caught him, and cut off his head. His treasure, his goods, gold and silver and precious stones, skins of elephants, teeth of elephants, dan wood, ku wood, cloths, dyed purple and yellow, of every description, and the regalia of his palace I carried off as my spoil. Men and women without number, oxen and sheep and mules, I swept them all off to Assyria. I assembled the kings of Syria and the seacoast, all of them. (The city of Sidon) I built anew, and I called it ‘The City of Esarhaddon.’ Men, captured by my arms, natives of the lands and seas of the East, within it I placed to dwell, and I set my own officers in authority over them.

“And Sanduarri king of Kundu and Sizu, an enemy and heretic, not honouring my majesty, who had abandoned the worship of the gods trusted to his rocky stronghold and Abd-milkot king of Sidon took for his ally. The names of the great gods side by side he wrote and to their power he trusted; but I trusted to Asshur, my lord. Like a bird from out of the mountains I took him, and I cut off his head. I wrought the judgment of Asshur my lord on the men who were criminals. The heads of Sanduarri and Abd-milkot by the side of those of their chiefs I hung up: and with captives young and old, male and female, to the gate of Nineveh I marched.

“Trampler on the heads of the men of Khilakki and Duhuka, who dwell in the mountains, which front the land of Tabal, who trusted to their mountains and from days of old never submitted to my yoke: twenty-one of their strong cities and smaller towns in their neighbourhood I attacked, captured, and carried off the spoil; I ruined, destroyed, and burnt them with fire. The rest of the men, who crimes and murders had not committed, I only placed the yoke of my empire heavily upon them.”

It is notable that the successor of Esarhaddon, his son Asshurbanapal, seems to have placed the same favourable opinion upon the character of his father, as compared with his grandfather Sennacherib, that moderns are disposed to adjudge. This is suggested by the fact that Asshurbanapal in various inscriptions refers to “Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, the father, my begetter,” and never to his grandfather, whom he probably would have mentioned, following custom, had he held him in any particular regard. Asshurbanapal himself was, at least in his earlier years, a warrior of no mean quality; but he was, it would appear, primarily a lover of the arts of peace. There is a marked difference in the tone of his inscriptions, as compared with those of his predecessors, even when describing his conquests. Many times they suggest one who loves the pleasures of life rather than one who gloats over the infliction of death. The following are the words in which he describes the expedition against Egypt and Ethiopia, and against Tyre, as recorded on a cylinder now preserved in the British Museum:

“In my second expedition to Egypt and Ethiopia I directed the march. Tandamani [Tanut-Amen] of the progress of my expedition heard, and that I had crossed over the borders of Egypt. Memphis he abandoned, and to save his life he fled into Thebes. The kings, prefects, and governors, whom in Egypt I had set up, to my presence came, and kissed my feet. After Tandamani the road I took, I went to Thebes the strong city. The approach of my powerful army he saw, and Thebes he abandoned, and fled to Kipkip. That city (Thebes) the whole of it, in the service of Asshur and Ishtar, my hands took; silver, gold, precious stones, the furniture of his palace, all there was, garments of wool and linen, great horses, people male and female, two lofty obelisks covered with beautiful carving, two thousand five hundred talents (over ninety tons) their weight, standing before the gate of a temple, from their places I removed and brought to Assyria. The spoil great and unnumbered, I carried off from the midst of Thebes. Over Egypt and Ethiopia, my soldiers I caused to march, and I acquired glory. With a full hand peacefully I returned to Nineveh, the city of my dominion.

“In my third expedition against Baal, king of Tyre, dwelling in the midst of the sea, I went; who my royal will disregarded, and did not hear the words of my lips. Towers round him I raised, on sea and land his roads I took, their spirits I humbled and caused to melt away, to my yoke I made them submissive. The daughter proceeding from his body and the daughters of his brothers, for concubines he brought to my presence. Yahimelek his son, the glory of the country, of unsurpassed renown, at once he sent forward to make obeisance to me. His daughter and the daughters of his brothers with their great dowries I received. Favour I granted him, and the son proceeding from his body, I restored and gave him. Yakinlu, king of Arvad, dwelling in the midst of the sea, who to the kings my fathers was not submissive, submitted to my yoke. His daughter with many gifts, for a concubine to Nineveh he brought, and kissed my feet. Mukallu, king of Tabal, who against the kings my fathers made attacks, the daughter proceeding from his body, and her great dowry, for a concubine to Nineveh he brought, and kissed my feet. Over Mukallu great horses an annual tribute I fixed upon him. Sandasharme of Cilicia, who to the kings my fathers did not submit, and did not perform their pleasure, the daughter proceeding from his body, with many gifts, for a concubine to Nineveh he brought, and kissed my feet.”

Of Asshurbanapal as patron of art and literature we shall have occasion to speak more fully in a later chapter, in referring to the contents of his famous library. Not less noteworthy than this library was the gallery of art constituting the walls of the great king’s dining room. We turn now to the more detailed consideration of the life-histories of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanapal, as interpreted by a modern authority.[a]

ESARHADDON’S REIGN (681-668 B.C.)

[Sidenote: [681 B.C.]]

Sennacherib’s murderers did not stand alone, but had a considerable following. Asshur-akhe-iddin (Asshur is brother), Esarhaddon, as the Hebrews call him, who had been already destined to the throne by his father, had therefore to conquer the crown assigned him at the point of the sword. Although it was (Tebet) December--Sennacherib, as we have seen, had fallen on the 20th of this month--and consequently the time favourable for warlike operations had gone by, yet he perceived that this was a case for prompt action. He lay with his army in the northwest, but without waiting a single day, without stopping to collect men, horses, chariots, or material, without even supplying himself with provisions, and in spite of snow and tempest, which might be feared at that season, he hurried straight to Nineveh; “like a bird of prey with outstretched wings.” At Khanigalbat, a neighbourhood the position of which is unknown to us, but which must be sought in or near North Aramæa [probably near Melid], the army of the rebels intercepted him. But these were soon defeated and scattered. A great part very probably went over to Esarhaddon. The two chiefs of the rebellion, his brothers, sought safety in flight and were received in Urartu. That one of them, as Abydenus would have us believe, fell in the battle, is not very probable. Still it is certain that they never again attempted to get possession of the government. On the 2nd of Adar (February) the rising was extinguished, and five weeks later, on the 8th of Nisan, that is, the beginning of the year 681 B.C. [Professor Rogers gives the month of Siran, 680, for this date], Esarhaddon mounted the throne of his father.

When his brothers’ rebellion was suppressed, Esarhaddon was indeed in safe possession of the Assyrian throne, but by no means in undisputed enjoyment of the sovereignty over the whole of his father’s empire. He was continually obliged to engage in wars and to quell risings.

The son of that arch-enemy of the Assyrians, Merodach-baladan, who is generally called Nabu-ziru-kinish-lishir (Nabu, guide the true scion!), had naturally taken advantage of the confusion resulting from the murder of Sennacherib and the war of the succession, to repudiate his allegiance, and may perhaps have already thought of reconquering Babylon. From Esarhaddon’s accession he had ceased to send the presents required from a vassal, and had also omitted to appoint an envoy to offer his homage to the new king, and thus to recognise his overlordship. He had evidently overestimated the difficulties with which the king had to contend, and had not anticipated that the latter would so soon repress the rebellion and be in a position to proceed against him with decisive energy. It is uncertain whether he himself risked the attack; it appears, however, that he had already penetrated as far as Ur. Esarhaddon, who was at Nineveh when he received the news of his defection, could certainly not now be spared there. But he ordered the governors of the province bordering on the maritime country to go out against the rebellious Chaldean at the head of an army which was despatched to them, and this proved sufficient. According to the Assyrian accounts Nabu-ziru-kinish-lishir did not await the attack, but fled to Elam. But this realm was no longer what it once had been. Ummanaldash II, who now reigned there, was not inclined to endanger the peace of his kingdom and involve himself in a war with Assyria for a stranger’s sake; the fugitive was seized and put to death. Na’id-Marduk, who accompanied him on his expedition to Elam, feared a like fate. He chose the wiser course; he hastened to Assyria, made his submission, and in reward was invested with the sovereignty of his brother’s kingdom, that is, of the whole seacoast. Henceforth he faithfully paid the annual tribute.

[Sidenote: [677-676 B.C.]]

It was not so easy to put down another movement at another end of the empire. Very soon after Esarhaddon’s accession, perhaps even before, certain kings of the west country planned an attempt to free themselves from the Assyrian yoke. These were the kings of Sidon and of two other cities whose position is uncertain, but is certainly to be sought east of Sidon, namely Kundu and Sizu. Over the two last ruled Sanduarri, whose name proclaims him as one of the Hittites or related to them, and over Sidon, Abd-milkot. They had to bind themselves by an oath to recover their independence with their united forces, and fought with great persistence. This is shown by the fact that they were not subdued till the fourth year of Esarhaddon, and also of the fearful vengeance of the Assyrians, so little in accordance with this king’s customary procedure. In the year 677 Sidon succumbed to the besieging force. The city was plundered, wasted, and depopulated. Town and citadel were “thrown into the sea” and the place where they had stood made unrecognisable. The population was brought to Assyria, with all its goods and cattle and all the treasures of that rich commercial city. But Esarhaddon did not, like his father, take pleasure in mere destruction. A new town rose in the place where the former had stood. He called it by his own name [Kar-Asshur-akhe-iddin], and allowed conquered mountain peoples and inhabitants of the coast of the Persian Gulf to settle there--the old means, devised by Tiglathpileser, for absorbing sentiments of nationality and independence into the unity of the great empire. Abd-milkot had meantime fled, probably to Cyprus; for Esarhaddon says that he “took him out of the sea like a fish.” He was overtaken, made prisoner, and put to death, and in the month Tasrit of the following year, 676, his severed head reached Assyria. It was some time before Sanduarri was conquered in his mountain country, but in the month Adar of the same year he suffered a like fate to that which had overtaken his ally. Then the barbarous triumph took place in Nineveh. All the captured subjects of the defeated kings, with the great and distinguished men at their head, were led through the broad streets of the capital, and two of the noblest carried the severed heads of the rulers round their necks. Revolt against the supreme king, which meant sin against Asshur, the god of the gods, when conducted with much obstinacy as was displayed by these two men, could not be severely enough punished.

If Esarhaddon intended by these severities to spread terror among the kings of the west country, he attained his object. Although according to the wont of the Assyrian annalists, the scribe places the narrative of the war in the king’s own mouth, he took no personal part in it, but remained quietly at Nineveh. Thither now came the ambassadors of some twelve kings, whom the Assyrians called simply Khatti-kings and kings of the seacoast, and with them those of ten kings who ruled in Cyprus, to offer him their homage and presents.

When the ten Cypriote rulers, whose names have for the most part a Greek sound, joined in the homage of the Assyrian, Phœnician, and Canaanite kings, it is obvious that Esarhaddon’s army, when it pursued the flying king to Cyprus, had there re-established the Assyrian rule which had not been exercised since the time of Sargon.

All these princes had to bring him costly material for the building of his great palace at Nineveh. There is an inclination to credit Esarhaddon with a special preference for Babylon, and to assume that he had made that town his headquarters, at least towards the end of his life. Our knowledge of the building he erected is, however, not favourable to this view. He certainly governed directly and not merely by vassal-kings that part of his realm of which Babylon was the capital, and there are good grounds for the assumption that he actually cherished the intention of establishing himself at Babylon; but it is none the less certain that for him, as for his fathers, until the nomination of Asshurbanapal as vassal-king of Assyria, the centre of the dominion was Assyria, and the Assyrian capital was his chief home.

[Sidenote: [676-673 B.C.]]

Although Esarhaddon now imitated his father in his care for the decoration of the Assyrian capital, he did not limit himself to this so exclusively as his predecessors. On the contrary he boasts of having built the temples of the town of Asshur and Accad, and of having adorned them with silver and gold. That he did not neglect Accad or Babylonia is shown by the work, which surpassed all other undertakings, completed in his reign and for which he gave orders in his early years,--the reconstruction of the ruined capital itself.

In Elam it was with disapproving eyes that men regarded this renovation of Babylon by an Assyrian king and with it the re-establishment of the Assyrian rule in that territory. The king of Elam, Ummanaldash II, therefore decided to attack Esarhaddon in this part of the country. In 675, the sixth year of Esarhaddon’s reign, he invaded Babylon with an army, we know not on what pretext, and penetrated as far as Sippar. The misfortune was not, however, a lasting one. In that very year Ummanaldash died in his palace. Perhaps there is some connection between these Elamite disturbances and Esarhaddon’s campaign against the (to us) unknown country of Ruriza which he conquered in Tebet of the year 673. This may be said with certainty of the measures which he took against the Gambuli. That warlike Aramaic-Chaldean race, which had once constituted the vanguard of Merodach-baladan’s army, had then, at least, dwelt in a swampy tract of country where they lived “like fish in the midst of the rivers.” At this time their king was Belbasha (En-basha?), the son of Bananu, and in his impracticable country he had been able to preserve his independence. It was not he and his Gambulians that Esarhaddon now feared, but rather that he might easily be won over to ally himself with his neighbour Elam. Belbasha is pressed to choose and Esarhaddon makes ready to convince him by the unanswerable argument of his arms. But the Aramæan does not wait for the struggle. Knowing well that he has now no help from Elam to look to, he decides of his own accord to attest his submission to Assyria and sends the required presents. Thus Esarhaddon gains his object. The submission is accepted, the country spared, the capital, Shapi-Bel, extraordinarily fortified, the command laid on the prince to furnish it with bowmen and to defend it as “the door which unlocks Elam.” How well Esarhaddon had judged was to be shown later, when his heir had to punish the son and successor of Bel-basha for his intrigues with Elam.

[Sidenote: [673-672 B.C.]]

These few facts, with the circumstance that, in the same year, 673, probably while the court was at Babylon, the queen died, are all that we know concerning the history of the southern realm under the reign of Esarhaddon.

More is known of the king’s warlike expeditions, or at least those of his army, for it is not likely that he himself took part in them all. Some of them are of little importance to history, or were directed against tribes whose locality we can no longer determine. We pass them over in silence here. Attention may, however, be called to an expedition against Teushpa, the king of the Kimmirri or Cimmerians, or more accurately against the Umman-manda, who dwelt at a great distance, and who were afterwards to be the cause of so much trouble to Asshur and Babylon. The Cimmerians are also referred to in other records as the enemies of Assyria in Esarhaddon’s day. According to these they joined in a great coalition which was formed against Asshur; at its head stood Kashtariti of Kar-Kasshi, a Median prince, who evidently dwelt on the borders of Elam, and Mamitiarsu, governor of the Medes, and to which the Manneans also belonged. At the outset, at least, they were successful, took several towns now unknown to us (Khartam, Kishassu, and five others), and so great was the fear which they thus spread through Assyria, that in order to propitiate the gods, the priest (amelu khalti) was commanded to perform sacred rites and celebrate festivals in their honour from 3rd Airu to the 15th Abu--that is, during one hundred days. The issue of the struggle is not given in the Assyrian records, but it appears that the Babylonian chronicle told of the invasion of Assyria by the Kimmirri and of their defeat.

Perhaps this gave Esarhaddon an opportunity to revenge himself on the Medes and to conduct a war against their country with great persistence. He penetrated farther into it than any of his forefathers--namely, to the land of Patusharra (Patiskhoria?) which lay deep in Median territory, in the neighbourhood of the Bikni Mountains, where so much crystal was found. There ruled Shitir-parna and Eparna, two powerful princes whose names appear to be Iranian. They were subdued by the Assyrians and carried to Assyria with a rich booty, consisting chiefly of cattle, horses, and chariots. This visitation had the result that other princes from farther Media, who had not hitherto acknowledged the Assyrian supremacy, came of their own accord and tendered their submission.

At the other extremity of his empire, Esarhaddon maintained his sovereignty in the same fashion. The means by which Assyria had made herself, and remained during many centuries, the mistress of western Asia, was the pursuit of a traditional policy whose principles the impulsive Sennacherib had forsaken in the most deplorable fashion, but which distinguished Esarhaddon, as well as his grandfather Sargon. By a judicious blending of gracious forgiveness on the one hand and severe punishment on the other, he managed not only to confirm Assyrian sovereignty in the northern regions of Arabia, but also to extend it. Faithful to the rule by which those who had submitted of their own accord must be at once taken in favour, and admitted as allies, he listened to the petition of King Hazael (Khazailu) of Kedar when the latter came to Nineveh and requested that the images of the gods which had been carried thither, might be given back. Esarhaddon had them restored, caused his name and his famous deeds to be inscribed on them, and gave them back to Hazael. But on this king’s death he took care that the latter’s son Ya’lu, whom he raised to be king in his father’s stead, should be still more closely bound to Assyria and pay higher tribute. Under the same condition he restored to another tribe, together with the gods of which they had been previously despoiled, a certain princess Tabua who had been carried away from their midst and had grown up in the royal palace at Nineveh, and thus reinstated her in her position. It was soon evident that he had an object in these tokens of favour. He wished by this means to smooth himself a path to some Arabian tribes beyond, which were still independent and therefore dangerous to the frontiers, and who roamed about in the land of Bazu and in the mountains of Khazu. The march thither was very difficult, 180 kashbu kakkar (double hours) through an arid desert full of snakes and scorpions, so that it appeared almost advisable to secure a safe retreat. If the expedition against these remote tribes had failed, we should have learned nothing of it, at least from Assyrian sources; but it was successful. Six Arabian kings and two queens were defeated and probably put to death, and their treasures, gods, and subjects were then carried to Assyria; so many of the latter, at least, that the remainder were unable to defend themselves.

[Sidenote: [672-671 B.C.]]

The glory of Esarhaddon’s reign is the conquest of Egypt, for which the Arabian campaign, just described, no doubt served as a preparation. A decisive contest with Egypt was sooner or later unavoidable, especially since Tirhaqa had just brought the divided kingdom into a certain unity and was evidently striving again to raise it to the position of a great power.

In the year 672 Egypt took the first step. As usual, the prize was the overlordship of the West. Tirhaqa managed to persuade Baal, the king of Tyre, to break with Assyria, and thus threatened to draw the whole of the Mediterranean coast into rebellion. Prompt measures were taken, and in Nisan of 671 a powerful Assyrian army marched westward. The immediate goal is Tyre. It is surrounded and the water-supply cut off. Without waiting for the town to fall, Esarhaddon now proceeds south and halts at Aphek, not far from Samaria, thence within fifteen days, with a certain caution and perhaps not without encountering resistance, he leads his army to Rapikhu [Raphia] on the Egyptian stream which forms the boundary between that country and Canaan. Unfortunately the text breaks off abruptly where the narrative of the actual struggle with Egypt begins. But we learn from other sources that the object was attained and Egypt conquered. On the 3rd, 16th, and 18th Tammuz (June) three battles were fought, in which the Assyrians remained victorious. Memphis was taken on the 12th of the month, and although Tirhaqa succeeded in fleeing to his own land of Ethiopia, his son and his brother’s sons were taken prisoners.

[Sidenote: [671-668 B.C.]]

Esarhaddon was now actually king over Egypt, and here again shows himself to be a prudent ruler. He was content with the title of dignity of “King of the Kings of Egypt”--that is, with the overlordship of the country. Had he incorporated it into Assyria, he would have weakened rather than strengthened his empire. His sole aim was to keep it disunited and consequently weak, and by the expulsion of the Ethiopian to put an end to the latter’s dangerous intrigues in the west. Therefore he did not put in his own generals, courtiers, or governors, but sought to bind the provincial princes to him by granting them a certain measure of independence. The sole danger for him lay in a united Egypt under the warlike king on whose assistance the ever restless kings of Phœnicia, Philistia, and Canaan might reckon; and he therefore contented himself with obtaining from the provincial princes an oath of fidelity to Assyria. Only the supremacy of Asshur must be distinctly apparent, so the Egyptian name of the northern capital, Saïs, was altered to the Assyrian one of Kar-bel-matati (fortress of the lord of the lands), and that of Neku’s son into Nabu-shezib-anni (Nabu preserved me!). After this Esarhaddon went back to Assyria, and on his homeward march he gave orders to carve his royal image and the account of his conquest of Egypt on the rocks by the Dog River (Nahr-el-Kelb) at Beirut, where, besides inscriptions and images of various Egyptian kings, some of his forefathers had caused theirs also to be cut.

The conquest of Egypt is the last great undertaking of Esarhaddon’s reign, which was to last only two or three years longer. In the year 670 he was occupied with Assyrian affairs, all details of which are, however, wanting. But by the following year it had become manifest that conditions in Egypt were not permanently settled. It was evident that a new expedition to the valley of the Nile was imperative. Esarhaddon assembled his forces and proposed to head his troops himself, to assert upholding the Assyrian domination in Egypt. Yet first--perhaps because he already had a presentiment of his approaching end, or because he did not trust the aspect of internal affairs--he appointed his eldest son, Asshurbanapal, as co-ruler in Assyria; if we are not to assume, what is also possible, that this was done before the campaign of the year 671. The expedition came to nothing. On the 10th of the month Arakhsamnu (Marsheshwan, about October), of the year 668, in the twelfth year of his reign, the king died, either in Egypt or, as it is probable, before he reached it.

As the great king of a mighty empire Esarhaddon indeed stands very high; for although he was not more soft hearted, or, indeed, where insubordination had to be punished, less harsh than his predecessor, yet he did not act in obedience to ungoverned passion, but with deliberation, and this foresighted policy allowed him always to choose the golden mean between needless severity and dangerous indulgence. In a few years he strengthened the foundations of the Assyrian rule, and considerably extended it; he erected magnificent buildings, and made desolated Babylon rise again from her rubbish-heaps. By raising his son, Asshurbanapal, to the throne during his own lifetime, he made a struggle for the possession of the crown such as that with which his own reign had begun an impossibility, while by his wise and firm government he had laid the foundations for his son’s long, and, at least in the beginning, brilliant and glorious reign. Sennacherib had little in common with his great father; Esarhaddon was worthy to be the grandson of Sargon.

ASSHURBANAPAL’S EARLY YEARS (668-652 B.C.)

We have already seen that Esarhaddon made his son Asshurbanapal vassal-king of Assyria during his own lifetime. With festive display the young prince entered the royal palace which his grandfather Sennacherib had built, where his father Esarhaddon was born, and grown to manhood and had since held his court, and where he himself, as a friend of learning and science, now began to collect that extensive library which, after centuries had passed, was to make his deeds and the traditions of his nation known to the learning of the West. There in the presence of his father and his brothers, of the princes, captains, and great men of Assyria, he received the oath of fealty from the dependent kings and courtiers, calling on the name of the gods and binding themselves to obedience to his commands, and the maintenance of the ancient laws and institutions. It was an important step on the part of the old king. He did not indeed resign the government of Assyria. He remained king over this part of his kingdom as well as of the others, and the dignity to which he raised his son was only the petty or vassal-kingship, a filial government under his own still existing supremacy, whilst he was himself apart from this primarily king of Babylon, Sumer, and Accad, as well as king of the kings of the Egyptian countries. But for this very reason the appointment of the crown-prince as vassal-king of Assyria, in reality implied the transformation of that country, hitherto the centre of the empire, and whose capital had been the seat of the central government, into a kingdom occupying merely a secondary position, whilst Babylon became the seat of the chief rule and assumed the first place. It had become manifest that the true centre of the empire had shifted to Babylon, and that the latter now possessed more vital energy than Assyria.

[Sidenote: [668-664 B.C.]]

Esarhaddon’s death had opened up to the Ethiopian the prospect of a reconquest of his lost territory. It was to be expected that Tirhaqa would take advantage of an opportunity so favourable to him, and soon, no doubt as early as the year 668, there came a messenger to Nineveh with the announcement that the king of Cush had marched into Egypt and not only overrun the whole south of the country, but had even made a triumphant entry into Memphis, the town which Esarhaddon had included in Assyria. The governors whom the last Assyrian king had set up had not indeed gone over to the enemy, but neither had they ventured to resist him. On his advance they had deserted their chief towns and retired with their armed forces to the desert. Asshurbanapal recognised the gravity of the event, for it endangered the peace of the coast districts along the Mediterranean. He did not himself take the field, but he immediately sent a considerable force into the west under the leadership of the Tartan and other captains. The latter proceeded to Egypt by those forced marches for which the Assyrian army was distinguished, and hastened to the assistance of the governors who were hard pressed by Tirhaqa. At Karbanit, or Karbana, a town which lay west of the Canopic branch of the Nile, near its mouth, the armies joined battle. The defeat of the Egyptians was so complete that Tirhaqa thought it advisable to evacuate Memphis without giving himself time to break up his camp. This and all the Ethiopians’ armed river-boats fell into the hands of the Assyrians. Tirhaqa withdrew to Thebes and entrenched himself there.

Asshurbanapal, who had been informed of these successes of his army, decided to attack the enemy in Thebes. But as the Tartan’s army had also greatly suffered, he ordered the Rabshakeh, who apparently commanded the garrisons of the West, to collect a new army from the soldiers and auxiliaries under his command belonging to all governors and vassal-kings west of the Euphrates. Impressed by the defeat which Tirhaqa had sustained, the twenty-two kings of the seacoast, the plain, and the island of Cyprus hastened to obey this command, and not only to furnish soldiers, but also on demand of the supreme king to supply ships for the purpose of blockading the coast and prevent possible attempts at risings on the part of the maritime states on the banks of the Mediterranean, and perhaps also for sailing up the Nile. This army pushed on to join that of the Tartan and the troops of the loyal Egyptian vassals, and the united forces then marched against Thebes, which was reached a month and ten days later.

Meanwhile Tirhaqa had abandoned the town itself while it was still time, and had entrenched himself on the other bank of the river in the city of the tombs. Besides this, he had persuaded three of the principal vassal-kings to desert from the Assyrian and go over to his side. These were Sharludari, prince of Pelusium (Si’nu), Pakruru, ruler of Pisept in Egyptian Arabia, and no less a person than Neku himself, the king whom Esarhaddon had placed at the head of all. They even seem to have taken the initiative, because they preferred to have a ruler of kindred race as overlord, rather than obey a foreigner. So they offered to conclude an alliance with the Ethiopian, by which his supremacy was recognised, and they undertook the defence of Lower Egypt. Had their design succeeded, the Assyrian army would also have had a hostile power in its rear and have seen its retreat cut off. But fortunately for the Assyrians the conspiracy was discovered. Their messengers were seized, the letters intercepted, and their cunning plans thus cunningly frustrated.

But first Asshurbanapal had followed the example of his father and pardoned Neku. After he had exacted from him an oath of fealty to Asshur, and laid him under heavier burdens than before, he again put upon him the royal purple and furnished him with the symbols of his office: golden rings on hands and feet, a carved sword in a golden sheath, horses, and chariots; and so he sent him back to Egypt, that he might rule it as chief of the other vassals in Asshur’s name. He himself was again invested with Kar-bel-matati,--that is, Saïs,--and his son, Nabu-shezib-anni, received the principality of Athribis in Lower Egypt, to which also a significant Assyrian name, Limir-shakku-Asshur (let the governor of Asshur beware) was given. The other kings also renewed their alliance with Assyria. But Asshurbanapal did not omit to strengthen the garrisons, and to give those whom he had pardoned Assyrian officers intended to keep a watchful eye upon them.

For a time Egypt enjoyed peace under Neku’s sway and Assyria’s lordship. But after the death of Tirhaqa, Tamut-Amen, too, began to think of a reconquest of Egypt. He set out with his army, and like the former Ethiopian king, is hailed with delight in Elephantine and Thebes as a deliverer; then after he has fortified the southern capital, he continues his march to Memphis, where he first encounters resistance. But the rebels, as the king calls them--these were of course the Assyrian garrison with the troops of Neku who ruled over Memphis and Saïs--were so thoroughly beaten in a desperate sally, that they evacuated Memphis and retired to the strongholds of the Delta. Some princes headed by that Pa-Kerer (Pakruru) of Pisept, who had always borne the Assyrian yoke with reluctance, came to offer their submission, which was graciously accepted. This was the last time that an Assyrian army undertook a campaign against Egypt.

While Asshurbanapal had restored his supremacy in Egypt for a certain time, for the present at least, it was unshaken in the northern provinces of the West. The most important event mentioned by the Assyrian record of these days (evidently about 664) is the accession of Lydia. Asshurbanapal relates that the Lydian king, prompted by a dream which revealed to him the magnanimity of Asshur, sent his ambassadors to Nineveh to request the alliance and protection of the great ruler. For the deity had said to him that by the renown of this name he should overcome his enemies. He did in fact succeed in doing so. The Cimmerians were beaten by him. It may be assumed, though it is not stated, that Gyges received other help from the Assyrians besides the recognition as their ally. However that may be, he conquered, and, on the successful termination of the war, sent two Cimmerian rebels with a great present to Nineveh. There they were no little flattered at this homage, but also no little embarrassed to make themselves understood by the newcomers, or to understand them; for even at a court where, as the Assyrian writer says, the languages of East and West were met together, there was no one acquainted with the speech of these barbarians.

Probably for the same reason as Gyges, Mukallu of Tabal, his eastern neighbour, and Yakinlu of Arvad, with perhaps also Sandasharme, of Cilicia, placed themselves under the protecting wing of Assyria. Knowing the tastes of the great ruler of nations, each of them sent him a daughter for his harem, with a rich present, and it appears that this was the custom. Some even, that they might exhibit the more zeal, sent him, besides their own daughters, those of their brothers and other relatives.

In the east, too, Asshurbanapal manifested the still unbroken superiority of his arms. There, shortly after or at the same time as the Egyptian campaigns, he had already chastised a mountain people whose raids had greatly distressed the inhabitants of Yamudbal [E-mutbal], on the borders of Elam, so that the chiefs of the town of Dur-ilu had made complaints concerning them. He had sent a force which subdued the tribe, brought the chieftain Tandai alive to Assyria and carried off a great number of captives. The king had them taken to Egypt and in their place peopled the wasted country with prisoners of war from other regions.

[Sidenote: [664 B.C.]]

Of far greater importance was the campaign against Man. The cause is not stated, but may well have been that the king of Man, Akhsheri, declared himself independent, or had shown an evident disposition to attack Assyria. If this were so, he had been over-hasty in his proceedings. However little of the warrior there may have been in Asshurbanapal’s nature, the Assyrian army, in the early periods of his reign at least, was yet too fearless and its commanders too valiant for any man to be able to defy the powerful monarchy. Akhsheri attempted a night surprise of the troops sent against him, before they had even crossed his frontiers; but in this he was not successful. The Manneans were defeated in a bloody battle, and for a distance of six leagues round their dead covered the battle-field. Nothing retarded the victorious army from entering Man, where it laid waste eight great towns whose position is unknown to us, as well as a crowd of small places, and so reached the domain of the capital, Izirtu. It was surrounded, together with the towns of Urbija and Armijate, and after the inhabitants, driven to the last extremity, had surrendered, they were led away and their whole territory conquered and laid waste.

But the object was attained. The frightful misery of the war which had visited that unhappy country had embittered the population against the man to whom they ascribed its guilt, namely, their old king, Akhsheri. In any case, he had shown his incapacity to defend his country. With all his brothers and his father and family, he was put to death, and so great was the nation’s fury that they would not even concede him an honourable tomb, but threw the corpse on to the streets of his city. His son Ualli, himself already a middle-aged man, was raised to the throne, and he hastened to acknowledge Assyria’s supreme authority. He sent his young son to Nineveh, to kiss the monarch’s feet, and did not neglect to send his daughter also, to add to Asshurbanapal’s crowd of women. His submission was of course accepted, but his annual tribute was raised by some thirty horses. Other attempts at rebellion in the northeast were soon suppressed.

[Sidenote: [ca. 664-648 B.C.]]

But whilst these disturbances in the northeast were suppressed without much difficulty, in the southeast signs soon appeared which gave warning of that great storm which in a few years was to be raised there and to threaten the empire with destruction. The throne of Elam was still occupied by Urtaki, who had always preserved a friendship with Esarhaddon, and had received from him repeated tokens of good will. Asshurbanapal had followed up this policy of his father and treated Urtaki as an ally, and when Elam was suffering from a severe famine after a prolonged drought he had not even refrained from extending a helping hand. He sent grain into the afflicted country, and not only permitted those of Urtaki’s subjects who fled to his country to settle there, but also allowed them to return to their native land, unhindered, when the rains had again appeared and a sufficient harvest secured. If in this he was prompted by motives of policy it was at least an intelligent and peaceable one. In a proclamation to the Elamite tribe of the Rash, and the tribes of the Sea Lands, he could appeal with truth to these tokens of neighbourliness. But they did not prevent Urtaki from taking arms against him and invading Babylonia.

It seems that Asshurbanapal could scarcely believe the news which he received. Instead of hurrying to the spot to avert the danger, as had been the custom of his warlike father, he sent a messenger to inquire into the state of affairs and to report to him upon it. The latter returned with the tidings that the Elamites had poured themselves over Accad like a swarm of locusts, and had even set up a fortified camp in sight of the city of Babylon. He now hastily collected an army which drove the invaders from Accad, and even inflicted a defeat on them on the frontier. It is with a certain unction that the Assyrian scribe recounts the melancholy fate which soon after overtook all these enemies of his king. In the year which followed these events they all died: Bel-basha, as it seems, from a poisonous bite; Nabu-shum-eresh in a flood; Urtaki and his generals, in their despair, by their own hands in each other’s presence. Whether the narrator learned this on good authority or had only heard it from rumour, can scarcely be determined; but that in reality they all died soon after is certain; for in the subsequent war with Elam, sons or successors are found in their places.

The crown of Elam fell to Teumman, brother of the two previous kings, who was “like a devil,” says our Assyrian informant. That he was a tyrant who would shrink from no means of preserving his power, was also the conviction of the relatives of Ummanaldash and Urtaki, the last two kings of Elam. The one had left two sons, Kudurru and Paru, the other three, Ummanigash, Ummanappa, and Tammaritu. Well aware that their uncle was determined to remove them from his path, with all that belonged to them, in order to secure the succession to his own son, they abandoned their country with a great following, among which were included sixty members of the royal family and a bodyguard of bowmen, and sought shelter and protection with Asshurbanapal.

Naturally Teumman could not let this pass unnoticed. He therefore hastened to despatch two ambassadors to Nineveh, Umbadara, an Elamite, and a Chaldean, Nabu-dammik, and to demand through them the surrender of the fugitives. But Asshurbanapal, encouraged by favourable omens, dreams of his seers, and oracles of the gods; in other words, incited by his priesthood to whose guidance he always submitted in pious zeal, steadfastly refused to comply with Teumman’s demand and assembled an army. In the month of Ulul it was ready to march. He did not himself take the field, for in fact his army, led by one of his generals, had merely to support the Elamite force of Ummanigash, his brothers and cousins. Ummanigash himself was generalissimo, if only in name. The Assyrian general was empowered to set Ummanigash on the throne of Elam in the name of the Assyrian supreme king, after the conquest of the country.

Teumman was also in the field with an army. But when he learned that the troops of his rival and of the Assyrians had already marched into the towns of Dur-ilu, which lay not far from the frontier of his country, and several times therefore had been the scene of a struggle between the two powers, he turned back, abandoning the western provinces of his kingdom, and entrenched himself in his capital, Shushan [Susa], which lay on the eastern bank of the river Ulai [modern Karun]. Meanwhile the allied Assyrians and Elamites entered the royal city of Mataktu, which lay to the west of that river, and there Ummanigash is crowned king. Teumman, indeed, makes one more effort; owing to the damage which the text had undergone it is not exactly shown of what kind, but from the context it is plain that he sent out an army in vain to hinder the advance of his enemies. The latter, once more encouraged by a dream, cross the river after Teumman’s troops have suffered a defeat at Tul-Liz, and now attack Shushan itself. There the decisive battle takes place. It ends with the complete defeat of the Elamites: a great massacre begins, the river is filled with corpses, and innumerable women wander about the neighbourhood lamenting. Many distinguished and a large number of lesser prisoners fall into the hands of the Assyrians. All seek safety in flight. One of Teumman’s sons, who had advised him against the war and had foretold the issue, rends his clothes in his despair. The eldest son, Tammaritu, follows his father in his flight to the forest, and when the king’s chariot breaks down there, they are overtaken and both slain. The king’s head is sent as a trophy to Assyria, where it was set up on the great gate of Nineveh, an eloquent witness to the nation of the might of Asshur and Ishtar. His son-in-law, Urtaki, himself begged an Assyrian to cut off his head and send it as good tidings to Asshurbanapal. Yet others of the great men of the kingdom come of their own accord and make their submission. The chief magistrates of the province of Khidali behead their own prince, Ishtarnandi, and one of them himself brings his master’s severed head into the Assyrian camp. Tammaritu, the third brother of Ummanigash, entrusts the government of this principality to the Assyrian generals, and Ummanigash himself now makes his entry into Shushan, and is there crowned as a vassal of Assyria. As pledge of his loyalty he delivers a grandson of Marduk-bal-iddin, better known by the Hebrew appellation Merodach-baladan, probably the author of the whole resistance to the Assyrian king, to the latter’s representatives.

But the war was not ended with the punishment of Elam. Dunanu, the son of Bel-basha, prince of Gambul, was now to be taught what it was to side with the enemy. The army, on its return from Elam, breaks into his territory, conquers the capital Shapi-Bel, carries away from it all who have not fallen by the sword, lays the whole place waste, and flings the ruins into the waters of the stream which flows around it; whereupon a motley crew of human beings are raked together and brought there to re-people the desolate country.

It was a grim revenge that was taken on all enemies, even when they were already dead, on their corpses. At the triumphal entry of the army into Nineveh, Dunanu was compelled to carry the head of his ally, Teumman, round his neck. When Teumman’s ambassadors, who had remained in Nineveh, saw this, one of them tore out his beard in his despair, and the other plunged a dagger into his own heart. Dunanu was placed on the rack in Arbela and died in tortures. All his brothers, including Samgunu, as well as Merodach-baladan’s grandson and his brothers, were also put to death; the chiefs of the Gambuli were even flayed, after they had had their tongues torn out as blasphemers of the high gods, after which all corpses were cut in pieces, and were then sent all over the empire, in token of the overlordship of Assyria. With a refinement of cruelty Asshurbanapal even caused the corpse of his old opponent, the Tigenna Nabu-shum-eresh, which he had had brought to Assyria from Gambul for the purpose, to be disfigured in the great gate of Nineveh by the latter’s own sons. Even before all this was brought to a conclusion, Sarduris III of Urartu, perhaps because he was already threatened by the Iranian enemies, who were soon to put an end to the Kingdom of Van, and was anxious to obtain the help of his powerful neighbour, despatched an ambassador to the latter. Asshurbanapal did not omit to make use of the occasion to bring Teumman’s ambassadors before the newcomers, in order to inspire the former with a consciousness of his greatness, and to give the latter a warning example in case their sovereign also should prove unfaithful.

Thus the greatest danger that had hitherto threatened the empire seemed permanently averted, and if ever a pitiless revenge was qualified to deprive the conquered nations of the desire to fight for their independence, this must certainly have been the case after such a sanguinary judgment. But it was soon to be manifested that it had availed nothing. Assyria had only succeeded in making herself more detested than before, and had only stirred up princes and peoples alike to resist everything rather than any longer endure the yoke of the hangman of Asia.

THE BROTHERS’ WAR (652-648 B.C.)

About the year 652 a formidable war broke out against Assyria. It had, perhaps, long been secretly preparing before Asshurbanapal had any suspicion of the danger which threatened him. He believed that his conciliatory policy had secured the permanent attachment of the Babylonians. He had invested his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, with the royal dignity, raised him to be lord of all Sumer and Accad, and had placed an army of foot-soldiers, horses, and chariots at his disposal. Those of the inhabitants of towns, plains, and farms who had left the country during the period of anarchy, or had been carried off, he had permitted to return. As for the Babylonians who had settled in Assyria, he did not merely place them on a level with his own immediate subjects, but treated them with especial distinction, continued the privileges which Esarhaddon had granted them, and raised them to important offices, and they even moved about his royal court unmolested, clad in magnificent garments with golden ornaments. They still continued to protest their submission to the Assyrian domination, yet all the time they were conspiring with Shamash-shum-ukin against the king.

The first intimation of this conspiracy came to the king from Kudur, the governor of Erech. This faithful servant had received from Sin-tabni-usur, the governor of Ur, information to the effect that envoys from the king of Babylon had been there and that some of the people had already risen. Sin-tabni-usur had no mind to give ear to the proposals from Babylon, and had consequently requested reinforcements. Kudur sent him five hundred men, who, at his request, were afterwards increased by troops belonging to the governor of Arpakha and Amida. But it seems that Sin-tabni-usur was unable to maintain himself until these supports came up, and even before their arrival found himself constrained to go over to the party of the rebels.

Asshurbanapal was soon to learn with horror that the movement, the soul of which was his disloyal brother, had spread with great swiftness, and that Kudur’s anxiety was not without foundation. Shamash-shum-ukin sent messengers in all directions, and they did not work in vain. All Accad and Chaldea, all the Aramæans of Babylonia, all the inhabitants of the Sea Lands joined with him. His chief ally in this district was: Nabu-bel-shume, grandson of Merodach-baladan, that irreconcilable enemy of Assyria, who was now king of Chaldea; Mannuki-Babili, prince of Bit-Dakkuri; Ea-shum-basha, prince of Bit-Amukkani, and Nadan of Puqudu. Ummanigash, king of Elam, who owed his throne to Asshurbanapal, was also gained over by Shamash-shum-ukin. Asshurbanapal had fancied that he might venture to impose on the Elamite, who owed him so much, conditions which the latter could certainly only fulfil with great difficulty. He had demanded the restoration of the goddess Nana of Erech, which had been in the possession of Elam for centuries, and whose worship had become so popular that the kings still sent their gifts to the goddess of Erech. Ummanigash could not comply with this demand without exciting universal discontent in his kingdom, and, doubtless, in consequence of this, was all the more inclined to listen to the proposals of the Babylonian prince. They were supported by a rich gift, for which the temple treasures of Bel-Marduk in Babylon, of Nabu in Borsippa, and of Nergal in Kutha had been plundered. Ummanigash immediately sent auxiliaries to Chaldea. The Guti nomads on the Assyrio-Babylonian frontier, the kings of the West, with Baal of Tyre at their head, and the king of Melukhkha, by whom Psamthek is here doubtless meant; these, too, Shamash-shum-ukin found prepared to join him in a rising against Assyria. The secession of Gyges, king of Lydia, who had previously concluded an alliance with the Egyptian king, probably also belongs to this time, and it is certain that various Egyptian sheikhs also sided with Babylon. Only the peoples of the northeast and north of the empire appear to have taken no part in the movement. They were held in check by the energetic governors of Amida and Arpakha, the last of whom even prevented the north of Elam from rising against the supreme king.

There was need of energy and wisdom to exorcise the storm, which was approaching from so many sides at once. Asshurbanapal, with whom religion occupied so prominent a place, of course turned first to his gods. But he did not neglect active measures. Yet it is not clear or probable that he himself took up arms. When Tammaritu came to him in the year 650, he was at Nineveh. But in the preceding years he had sent out various armies to attack the allies at different points. As soon as the news from Babylon reached him, he issued a proclamation to the Babylonians, in which he denounced his brother’s treachery as ingratitude and exhorted those whom he had so favoured not to join Shamash-shum-ukin. It is true that these words found no echo amongst the nobility of Babylon, but they were not perhaps without influence on the temper of the nation. At any rate, the latter finally turned against their king. When Ummanigash’s troops invaded Chaldea and Kardunyash, in the year 657, they encountered an Assyrian force. At the head of the Elamites was the son of Teumman, that Elamite king whom Asshurbanapal had put to death, and who had been chosen by Ummanigash as his general, because he had the death of his father to revenge on the Assyrians. With him came the governors of Billate and Khilmu, Zazaz and Paru; Attumetu, the captain of the bowmen, Neshu the Elamite commander, and a Babylonian division joined them. The account of the battle is too much damaged for us to form any conclusion about it. But it is evident that the Assyrians obtained some success, to which the severed head of Attumetu, which was sent to Asshurbanapal at Nineveh, bore witness.

It was not so easy to coerce the chief author of the war. Shamash-shum-ukin’s first measure was to close all the gates of Babylon, Borsippa, and Sippar, to place garrisons in all places of any importance, and make himself master of all the towns in Babylonia. As a sign that he renounced his allegiance, he caused all the sacrifices to the highest gods, which Asshurbanapal had instituted, to be suspended, and appropriated all the gifts assigned to them, a measure which excited the indignation of the supreme king more than anything else.

This happened in the year 650, for it must have been in the April of that year that Bel-ibni was appointed governor of the lands on the coast. Chaldea and the surrounding territories were now also subdued. These had revolted in the previous year after Shamash-shum-ukin had raised the standard of rebellion in the year 652. On the 4th Nisan 651, Merodach-baladan’s grandson, Nabu-bel-shume, had collected an army of Accadians, Chaldeans, and Kardunyashu (the men of the coast) in which he had included the Assyrians whom Asshurbanapal had sent him as auxiliaries or garrison. Between the 22nd Tammuz and 22nd Abu of the same year, Sin-tabni-usur, the governor, had joined them, and between 7th Abu and the 7th Ulul the Elamite auxiliaries had also marched up. But in the end the Assyrian army had defeated them all and compelled the Elamites to retreat. Nabu-bel-shume had followed them with his troops to Elam. The Assyrians, on whom he could not depend, he had previously sent under a reliable commander in the same direction, very probably under pretence of letting them march against Elam, and thus had delivered into the hands of Indabigash. Perhaps this defeat was the cause of Tammaritu’s fall. It must have at least followed soon after. The south of Babylonia was certainly again brought under the Assyrian dominion towards the end of year 651.

Asshurbanapal could now turn his thoughts to attacking the arch-rebel in his own territory. It seems that the latter had again entered into relations with Elam, and either now went there in person or sent messengers. But on the 17th Arakhsamnu (Marsheshwan) 651, Asshurbanapal’s warriors advanced against his brother. In the year 650 they stormed in fearful fashion through northern Babylonia, instituted a formidable massacre of Shamash-shum-ukin’s subjects in town and country, made themselves masters of the canals, and finally surrounded Sippar, Babylon, and Borsippa, which the Babylonian king had fortified. The siege must have lasted a year or two, for it was not till 648 that the capital was taken.

And it would not have fallen then--so obstinately was it defended--had not the misery within the walls reached the acme. The famine was so dreadful that the besieged fed on the flesh of their own children, and famine was followed by plague. The gods themselves fought for the Assyrians, as the historian remarks. Then despair fell upon the people. In their fury they laid hold on Shamash-shum-ukin, and threw him, doubtless together with some of his satellites, into the fire. The town was then, of course, handed over to the enemy, and thus escaped the fate which Sennacherib had already inflicted on it. A strict trial was held. Those who had been concerned in the rebellion, such of them as had escaped the sword, hunger, and plague, who had saved themselves betimes during the rising and so could not be burnt with their master, were dragged from the hiding-place where they had concealed themselves into the light of day, and slain without grace or mercy, so that not one of them escaped. Those who had incited to rebellion and defamed Asshur had their tongues torn out of their mouths before they were sent to death. But the heaviest punishment overtook those who had already been punished as rebels by the king’s grandfather, Sennacherib, and whose severed limbs were now thrown to the dogs and all kinds of beasts of prey. The corpses of those who had been destroyed by disease, hunger, and wretchedness, and which filled the streets of Babylon, Sippar, Kutha, and the surrounding country, were dragged away and piled up in heaps, and the insulted gods and angry goddesses were appeased by the care which was now bestowed upon their sanctuaries and altars. All fugitives were pardoned and granted life; they were permitted to settle in Babylon. Nor was the town plundered in any way. Asshurbanapal contented himself with the spoil from the palace of his rebellious brother, with his harem, household chariots, munitions of war, and the tokens of his royal dignity, and all this he had carried to Assyria with the captured warriors.

[Sidenote: [648 B.C.]

In the south of the country the ferment seems to have lasted longer. The Accadians, Chaldeans, Aramæans, and inhabitants of the coast, who had formerly served Shamash-shum-ukin and then submitted to the Assyrian governor, Bel-ibni, had now of their own accord once more risen against Asshurbanapal; but the Assyrian army, now the army of Babylon, marched into their territory, and soon brought the whole country back to the Assyrian dominion. Governors and princes appointed by the king reintroduced the Assyrian laws, and saw that the yearly tribute was henceforth paid regularly.

THE LAST WARS OF ASSHURBANAPAL (648-626 B.C.)

As before related, Merodach-baladan’s grandson, Nabu-bel-shume, had delivered those troops which Asshurbanapal had sent him for the defence of his country against the Elamites and insurgent Babylonians into Indabigash’s hand. Even before Babylon was taken, the Assyrian king had sent an envoy to the latter to demand the release of these men. Indabigash had answered with proposals for peace. He does not seem to have dared to risk a struggle with Assyria, nor yet to have been prepared to comply with Asshurbanapal’s request; the party of the Chaldeans and their friends was probably too powerful in Elam for this. After Babylon had fallen, the Assyrian sent a fresh messenger, supported by a numerous army, with a vigorous ultimatum to Elam. “If thou restorest not these men,” so ran the message, “then will I come and destroy thy cities, carry away the people of Shushan, Madaktu, and Khidalu, thrust thee from thy royal throne, and put another in thy place. As formerly I destroyed Teumman, so will I destroy thee.” But the envoy had not yet got so far as Deri, when the war party killed Indabigash from a natural fear lest he should yield, and had made Ummanaldash, the son of Attumetu, king.

Of course the latter refused Asshurbanapal’s request, and the war broke out afresh. Asshurbanapal now intended to establish Tammaritu for the second time in the government of Elam, a policy which again was destined not to be realised. A powerful army, led by this claimant, marched into the enemy’s country, and several border-towns immediately submitted through fear, and came to offer their men and cattle. The first resistance was encountered at Bit-Imbi, once a royal city of Elam, “which shut in the front of Elam like a great bulwark,” and had been conquered by Sennacherib and razed to the ground. But a later Elamite king had built a new Bit-Imbi opposite the old town and surrounded it with a strong wall and outworks. This town defended itself obstinately, but it was conquered, and those who would not submit were beheaded and their lips sent to Assyria as trophies of victory. The captain of the bowmen, Imbappi, who was a son-in-law of the Elamite king and had commanded in the city, fell alive into the enemy’s hands, together with the harem, the sons of the former king Teumman, and the rest of the population, and was led away to Assyria.

This feat of arms appears to have been of great importance, for no sooner did it reach Ummanaldash’s ears than he fled from Madaktu into the mountains. The same course was followed by another prince (Umbahabua?) who had reigned in Elam for a time, before Ummanaldash, but, in face of a rebellion, had retreated to Bubilu. He too left his dwelling, and hid himself in the low-lying districts on the seacoast. Elam was now open to the Assyrian army, which made use of the opportunity to march into Shushan and there again consecrate Tammaritu king. But the latter perceived that it was only as a shadow king that he had been set up. When the Assyrian troops who had accompanied him withdrew to their own country with the greater part of the population as prisoners and an enormous spoil, he was completely undeceived and sought to prevent this impoverishment of the land by force. But he was unsuccessful. In the eyes of the Assyrians this was base ingratitude; he was deposed and again carried off, and before the return march was finally entered upon, a regular drive was made over the whole of Elam, during which the chief towns were sacked. But no Assyrian garrison remained behind in the country, and there is no word of its permanent annexation. Immediately after the withdrawal of the Assyrian army, Ummanaldash II came out from his hiding-place and once more obtained possession of the government.

But Asshurbanapal was not satisfied with this non possum, and this time he sent Tammaritu himself as ambassador with another demand. The oracle he had asked from the goddess of Erech had enjoined on him to fetch back the image of the goddess Nana, which had been carried off to Elam centuries before. It will be remembered that this oracle had already served as an excuse to draw Ummanigash into a war. It was now again made use of. But Ummanaldash, no more than his predecessor, could comply with the demand without setting throne and life at stake. No other choice remained for him than to try the fortune of war.

The war proceeded as it had the first time, but was conducted with more energy and certainly lasted longer. Bit-Imbi was again taken, then the Rashi country and the city of Khamanu with its territory, a conquest which the Assyrians thought important enough to be perpetuated in a relief. Although all this was only frontier territory, Ummanaldash thought it advisable to leave Madaktu, the western capital of his country, and to retreat to Dur-Undasi, a town on the farther side of the Ulai, but west of the river Ididi, which formed a strong natural defence. Thus he abandoned a great part of his country, but even there he did not feel himself safe and crossed the Ididi that he might range his troops behind it in order of battle. The Assyrians pursued their triumphal march, took one town after the other, and at last came to Dur-Undasi. But here the army refused to go farther, and two days went by before they could make up their minds to cross the apparently dangerous river. However, in the nick of time, Ishtar of Arbela, the warlike goddess, whose priesthood doubtless accompanied the army with a portable sanctuary or ark, sent one of her seers a dream in which she promised her help, and this restored the army’s courage. The crossing was a success, the army of Ummanaldash was beaten, and twelve Elamite provinces east of the Ididi with fourteen royal cities and a number of smaller places were abandoned to destruction.

Still there was no intention of taking possession of the country, and when Ummanaldash with the remnant of his army had gone farther into the mountains, and consequently there was no longer a dangerous enemy on the east side of the Ididi to hinder the operations on the west side, the Assyrians marched back into Shushan. There was the goddess for whose sake the whole expedition had been undertaken. On former occasions, when Shushan had been taken, the object of the war was to set the Elamite pretender on the throne, then the restoration could hardly be demanded. But now Asshur was in arms against Elam itself, and consideration need no longer be shown. The goddess was brought back to Erech to her sanctuary, E-khili-anha, “the house of power in the heavens,” and the king caused new and permanent sanctuaries to be erected for her.

To all appearances and contrary to his practice, he had himself come to Shushan. At least, it is related that he clasped the hands of the goddess, that is, performed a religious ceremony in her sanctuary and that he also had the gratification of entering the palace of Shushan and seating himself on the throne of the hereditary enemy of Assyria. Elam was one of the oldest and most famous monarchies of Asia, and Shushan was the sacred city, the seat of the gods and the place of their oracles. In the treasure chamber of the royal citadel were heaped up all those valuables which the kings of Elam had collected “down to the kings of those days,” and which had never yet been touched by a victorious enemy. No little of the treasure had been taken away by former Elamite kings from Sumer, Accad, and Kardunyash, and there was also a collection of valuables and jewels with royal insignia, which former kings of Accad, down to Shamash-shumukin, had presented to Elam in exchange for her help. All this, with all the glories of the royal palace, where a rich and splendour-loving court had resided, Asshurbanapal took with him to his own states. The very tombs of the kings were not spared by the conqueror: they were destroyed and exposed to the light of day; even the corpses were carried off, so that the shades had to wander about homeless. In order to mortify the enemy as much as possible, the Assyrian soldiers were allowed to desecrate those sacred forests, whose precincts no unhallowed foot might ever tread, and then to burn them.

Whilst the Elamite war was still raging in the west, the Arabs had again arisen. Abiyate, whom Asshurbanapal had appointed in the place of Yauta-ben-Hazael as Assyrian vassal-king of Aribi, entered into negotiations with Natnu, prince of Nabathea, to whom Yauta had formerly fled, but who had at that time thought it safer to seek the friendship of Assyria. He now allowed himself to be persuaded to trouble the borders of the western provinces of Assyria, in conjunction with Abiyate. Lest the forces in this district should not be strong enough to face the joint attacks of the Arabs, a powerful army was despatched from Assyria to quell the rising. Arrived on the 25th Sivan at Khadata, which probably lay at the eastern extremity of this desert, the army pursued its way unchallenged to Laribda, a well-watered oasis, where the camp was fixed, and then marched on to Khurarina, not far from Yarki and Azalli, still in the same desert, where the first encounter took place. There the Isamme, the Bedouins, who worship the god Atarsamain and the Nabatheans, sought to stop the further progress of the Assyrian army, but were defeated. The victors, having provided themselves with water from Azalli, marched on to Kurasiti. There again stood Bedouins who worship Atarsamain, with Yauta-ben-Bir-Dadda and the men of Kedar, but they too gave way, and not only a rich booty, but Yauta’s gods and women, with his mother, fell into the Assyrians’ hands and were carried with them to Damascus. On the night of the 3rd Abu, after a rest of about forty days, the Assyrian army marched to the town of Khulkhuliti, south of Damascus, and in the mountain region of Khulkurina a battle was fought with the two sons of Te’ri, namely, the leaders of the rebellion, Abiyate and Aamu. Aamu was taken alive, chained hand and foot, and sent to Nineveh, where Asshurbanapal had him flayed. The remainder of the troops sought refuge in the hiding-places in the mountains; but when the Assyrians set guard in all the surrounding places and cut off their supplies of water, they found themselves under the necessity first of killing their camels and then of surrendering themselves. They, too, were taken to Assyria, and thus the country was as though “inundated with Arabs and camels.” Yauta-ben-Bir-Dadda still kept the field with his troops; but when disease and famine had made terrible havoc among them, they came to the conclusion that they were no match for the might of the Assyrian gods, rose against their king, and drove him from them. He was seized by the enemy and sent to Assyria. There his son was killed before his eyes by Asshurbanapal’s own hand, and he and his cousin bound with a dog-chain to Nerib-mashuakti-atuati, the eastern gate of Nineveh. The king counted it as a favour that he escaped with his life.

Even Ummanaldash was also destined to fall into the Assyrians’ hands. His own subjects rose against him, perhaps at the instigation of a certain Ummanigash, a son of Ametirra, and he sought refuge in the mountains. The Assyrians made use of these disturbances to march into Elam, fan the fire of rebellion, and lead Ummanaldash in triumph to their own country. The ancient monarchy, which had so often threatened Assyria, was now entirely broken. For a time Elam still prolonged a melancholy existence. She was not annexed to the Assyrian Empire. But when, within a few years, the latter’s power had disappeared, Elam fell an easy prey to the Persians, when Prince Sispis, or Teispes, of the race of the Achæmenidæ, placed himself on the throne of Shushan.

Little dreaming that the hour of Asshur’s downfall was so soon to strike, Asshurbanapal revelled in the joy of victory. In memory of all these triumphs, and in order to show his gratitude for the help of the gods, he built a new sanctuary for the great goddess of Nineveh, the spouse of Asshur, and when it was ready and he presented himself in it in order to consecrate it with ceremonial sacrifices, he had his royal chariot dragged to the gate of the temple by four captive kings,--Tammaritu, Pa’e, Ummanaldash, and Yauta. This barbarous triumph was his last, and the last also of the renowned Assyrian army.[b]

FOOTNOTES

[25] [The word is Sib’e, who is possibly Sewe or So, but many scholars differ as to his identity. See Winckler,[d] Goodspeed,[e] and Budge.[f]]

[26] [Rogers,[g] whose more recent translation differs in some respects, reads this last line, “like a falcon which dwells in the clefts they fled alone to inaccessible places.” In Column II he reads the names Alhzibu, Akko, Tubahal, and Hittites as respectively Ekdippa, Arko, Ethobal, and West Lands.]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

V. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF ASSYRIA

We have followed the fortunes of Assyria through several dynasties of clearest historical record. But, curiously enough, as we now proceed the landmarks disappear, and we enter a realm of myth, as if we were going backward instead of forward in time. Even while Asshurbanapal lives, the record becomes vague, and after him there is almost nothing securely known of its details. Even the names of his successors are somewhat in doubt. The only sure thing is the broad historical fact that the empire declined in power until it was completely overthrown by the Scythians and Babylonians about twenty years after the death of Asshurbanapal--the precise date of this closing scene being, like all other details of the epoch, more or less in doubt.

Our surprise at this cataclysmic overthrow is the greater in that we have just seen the Assyrian Empire at such a height of apparent power under Asshurbanapal. The palaces, libraries, and art treasures of that king as now known to us convey an irresistible impression of a powerful monarch. Yet it is held that the decline in Assyrian affairs had begun even during the life of Asshurbanapal.[a]

Professor Rogers has well summed up an impression as to the cause of this decline. After noting the glories of the reign in matters of literature, sciences, and art, and giving Asshurbanapal a full meed of praise as regards his attainment in this direction, Professor Rogers continues:

In war only had he failed. But by the sword the kingdom of Assyria had been founded, by the sword it had added kingdom unto kingdom until it had become a world-empire. By the sword it had cleared the way for the advance of its trader, and opened up to civilisation great territories, some of which, like Urartu, had even adopted its method of writing. It had held all the vast empire together by the sword, and not by beneficent and unselfish rule. Even unto this very reign barbaric treatment of men who yearned for liberty had been the rule and not the exception. That which had been founded by the sword and maintained by the sword would not survive if the sword lost its keenness or the arm which wielded it lost its strength or readiness. This had happened in the days of Asshurbanapal. He had conquered but little new territory, made scarcely any advance, as most of the kings who preceded him had done. He had not only not made distinct advances, he had actually beaten a retreat, and the empire was smaller. Worse even than this, he had weakened the borders which remained, and had not erected fortresses, as had Sargon and Esarhaddon and even Sennacherib, for the defence of the frontier against aggression. He had gained no new allies, and had shown no consideration or friendship for any people who might have been won to join hands with Assyria when the hour of struggle between the Semites and the Indo-Europeans should come. On the contrary, his brutality, singularly unsuited to his period and his position of growing weakness, his bloodthirstiness, his destructive raids into the territories of his neighbours, had increased the hatred of Assyria into a passion. All these things threatened the end of Assyrian prestige, if not the entire collapse of the empire.

The culture which Asshurbanapal had nurtured and disseminated was but a cloak to cover the nakedness of Assyrian savagery. It never became a part of the life of the people. It contributed not to national patriotism, but only to national enervation. Luxury had usurped the place of simplicity, and weakness had conquered strength. The most brilliant colour of all Assyrian history was only overlaid on the palace and temple walls. The shadows were growing long and deep, and the night of Assyria was approaching.[b]

Whatever our precise estimate of this criticism of Asshurbanapal, it is clear that the successors of that monarch were unable to sustain the traditions of their fathers. Assyriologists have recently restored to us the names of Bel-zakir-ishkun or Asshur-etil-ili, Sin-shar-ishkun, as the immediate successors of Asshurbanapal, the last named being the one who is believed to have been the occupant of the throne when the conquering hosts of Cyaxares finally razed Nineveh to the ground.

It may fairly be presumed that there exist somewhere among the yet unrecovered treasures of Mesopotamia, inscriptions giving more or less full accounts of the destruction of Nineveh. But be that as it may, no such inscription has yet come to light; at least none such has been deciphered. There is an abundance of material in the various museums of Europe and America that has not yet been fully investigated. The reading of inscriptions in the arrow-head script is an extremely difficult task; indeed, it has been claimed, perhaps half jestingly, by one of the greatest of living orientalists, that only four scholars in the world are competent to read securely Assyrian or Babylonian texts from the original clay tablet. Doubtless this is an exaggeration, but it is one full of suggestion as to the difficulties encountered by the would-be investigator of Mesopotamian history; and at the same time offering an explanation of the fact that so much material is awaiting its turn, and must long remain unpublished, notwithstanding the importance and interest of the historical secrets thus entombed. Possibly, as has been suggested, the story of the destruction of Nineveh may be among these secrets, but as to the validity of this surmise time must decide.

Meanwhile the twentieth-century historian is but little better off than his predecessor of the times before the advent of modern Assyriology in regard to this particular problem. Whoever would picture to himself the destruction of Nineveh has no resource but to turn back to such classical accounts as that of Diodorus, giving whatever degree of credence he may choose to the details of the story. One qualification, however, may be added. We at least are tolerably sure, as our predecessors could not be, that the last ruler of Nineveh did not bear the name which classical tradition ascribed to him. Just as there was no Ninus, founder of Nineveh, so there was no Sardanapalus last ruler of that famous city. In regard to this detail, tradition was at fault here as so often elsewhere. None the less will the name of Sardanapalus long continue to symbolise the idea of the last ruler of Nineveh, whose effeminate reign and tragic end form so interesting a theme for the classical writer.[a]

LAST YEARS AND FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (626-609 B.C.)

In all probability, Asshurbanapal lived until 626, and during the whole of his reign he remained firmly established in possession of the Assyrian throne and also of the kingdom of Babylon. Elam had been rendered powerless, Babylon had been conquered, and the desert dwellers of the west were too much weakened and impoverished by the severe lesson taught them, as well as by hunger and disease, to be dangerous. Media was only in her youth, and Assyria was still strong enough to resist the first onrush of this new, conquering state. Besides her northeastern and northern neighbours, the states of Asia Minor and the inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast had enough to do to defend themselves against the barbarians who were pressing upon them from the north and east. Egypt was indeed independent, but could not seriously think of conquests in Asia. The condition of the Assyrian Empire resembled the calm before the storm.

In his latter years the king doubtless devoted himself by preference to the works of peace. He had already erected many buildings, even during the period of his great wars. He had continued and completed the work on the temples of Assyria and Babylonia, which Esarhaddon had begun. Unfortunately the inscription which enumerates the principal structures belonging to the first half of his reign only occasionally mentions the places in which the temples he erected stood. In the later years of the king’s reign the walls of Nineveh demanded his attention. They were loosened by annual rains and the violent showers of Adad, and had sunk. Asshurbanapal restored them and made them stronger than before. When he had seen his great campaigns crowned with victory, he at last undertook an important work in Nineveh, the town of Bel and Ishtar. Bit-Riduti, the great palace, which Sennacherib had built and established as a royal dwelling, had fallen to ruins. This king did nothing without the gods. It was now again a dream which made known to him their will that he should repair the damage to the palace. This was done. The forced labour of Assyrian subjects brought the stone in carts from the spoil of Elam; and the captive Arabian kings, decked out with appropriate marks of distinction, shared in the labour as workmen. When the palace was completed to the pinnacles and enlarged, it was surrounded with noble grounds; and when the victims were slaughtered at the consecration, the king made his entry carried in a gorgeous palanquin and with festive rejoicings.

Of all the objects assembled in this palace the king set the highest value on the library which he had founded and which has now for the most part been unearthed and brought to Europe. Asshurbanapal was, without any doubt, an admirer and patron of learning and a prince who loved art. He did not allow the libraries of Babylonia to be plundered, but he had the literary treasures which were buried there, including whole works on philosophical, mythological, and poetic subjects, copied in Assyrian characters and added to the historical records of his own predecessors. He even seems to have studied them diligently himself, and to have encouraged their perusal. The fruit of this study is shown in his own memorials. In fact these have some literary value, which cannot be said of the dry chronicles of former kings. He was not, however, the first to found a library. Not only had the ancient Babylonian kings--it is said even Sargon I of Agade--preceded him in this respect, but the Assyrian kings had also set him an example. This was certainly true of Sennacherib, in whose palace at Nineveh, according to the calculation made by George Smith, probably twenty thousand fragments are now awaiting the investigator who can find the time and means to dig them out and make them accessible to western learning. But it cannot be denied that Asshurbanapal earned the gratitude of scholars by rendering so many treasures of the Babylonian libraries accessible to his compatriots, and also by founding libraries in other places; as, for example, in Babylon, and that he devoted more attention to these things than any of his predecessors.

[Sidenote: [626-609 B.C.]]

The popular tradition of the downfall of the Assyrian Empire, which took shape in later years and came from the Persians to the Greeks, represents Sardanapalus (by whom none other than Asshurbanapal can be meant) as the type of a luxurious, effeminate, oriental despot, who forgets his kingly duties in the enjoyments of his harem, abandons his empire to the enemies rising against him on all sides, and finally, shut up in his capital, delivers himself in despair to the flames with his wives and all his treasures. We now know how little this picture agrees with the truth, but from what is historically credible we can gather how it arose. Asshurbanapal did indeed take pleasure in filling his women’s palace with the daughters of all the princes subdued by him, and with those of their nearest relatives; and these princes knew well what was pleasing to the supreme king. It is true that this proceeded as much from love of display as from an inclination to voluptuousness; it is true that policy also had a share in it, because by this means his supremacy was confirmed and a pledge given for further submissiveness; it is true that the custom was a usual one with oriental monarchs; but a king who pursued it to such an extent must have been easily transformed into a voluptuary in the minds of his people.

There was also some reason for regarding him as weak and effeminate. The great Assyrian monarchs, at least during the years of their youth and vigorous manhood, had themselves frequently led their armies to victory. It was seldom, if ever, that Asshurbanapal joined in the fight. His official historians do, indeed, ascribe to him the honour of all the victories during his reign, but they have not succeeded in hiding the fact that his generals fought the battles. Yet he was by no means a weakling. That he was an eager hunter is testified by a number of hunting inscriptions, some of them accompanied by reliefs. In any case, a prince who could find pleasure in so manly a pastime was no effeminate voluptuary, little warlike though he may have shown himself to be.

The king’s tragic end in the flames of his own palace, of which the legend speaks, may have been shifted on to him from his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, or, still more probably, from the last Ninevite king. That he, the last great king of Assyria, should have been supposed to continue reigning until the end of the empire, while the insignificant kings who really followed him were forgotten, is natural enough. In short, Asshurbanapal was not a hero who strove to reap the laurels of the battle-field through difficulty and privations on distant campaigns. He preferred to linger in his luxurious palace, and to alternate the delights of the harem and the pursuit of learning with the royal lion-hunting. He was very pious, and did nothing without consulting the oracles of his gods or the dreams of his seers. If he thought the dignity of his empire, and with it the honour of his gods, insulted by an obstinate rebellion, he would avenge them as his predecessors had done by punishments of ingenious cruelty, inflicted both on individuals and on whole countries. The fearful suffering which the war on Asshur’s enemies wrought in its train, the pestilence which filled the streets with corpses, the famine which drove parents to destroy their own children, filled him with transports of joy. His ruling idea was the unity and vastness of his empire. If he left the sword in its sheath, the love of pleasure did not make him neglect his duties as a ruler. He took care that his armies should always be ready to take the field, which would not have been possible without good organisation; and they triumphed over almost all his enemies, maintained his sway against a powerful coalition, crushed the formidable Elam so severely that she never recovered from the blows she had received, and, if not during his reign, at least shortly after it, repelled the advancing Medes. He regularly transmitted his orders to all the governors in his empire, and was by them kept carefully informed of anything of importance which happened in their provinces. No one of his victorious military leaders ever ventured to turn his arms against him. All, including the governors, recognised him and honoured him as their king. Such he was in the fullest sense of the word. In his palace at Nineveh, during two-and-forty years, he held the reigns of government with a strong hand. And this is all the more creditable to the influence of his personality, since the empire was internally weakened by his own political mistakes, in particular by the removal of the centre of government from Babylon, which Esarhaddon had made its seat, to Nineveh, and by other causes, so that it went to pieces a few years after his death.

After him at least two kings ruled over Assyria, who were probably brothers, for one of them, Bel-zakir-ishkun, was the son of a king of Assyria, and grandson of a king of Sumer and Accad, and though their names are missing from the inscriptions, they can have been none other than Asshurbanapal and Esarhaddon; and the other, Asshur-etil-ili [who is sometimes known by a lengthened form of his name, Asshur-etil-ili-ukinni] is expressly called the son and grandson of these rulers. Probably Bel-zakir-ishkun reigned first, and then the other.[27] No historical records have been preserved, dealing either with the fortunes and achievements of these kings or with the fall of Assyria. Certain texts have led some to conclude that a third king, a namesake of Esarhaddon, may have swayed the sceptre at this period, but this has been shown to be extremely questionable.

[Sidenote: [612-609 B.C.]]

Immediately after Asshurbanapal’s death, or perhaps even in the last year of his reign, Babylon broke away from the Assyrian rule, and this time the separation was permanent. The empire was much weakened by it. The north and northwest, Urartu and the states of Asia Minor, gradually fell into the power of the ever-advancing Medes. The Assyrian lordship over the countries on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea now existed in name only, so that King Josiah of Judah was able to effect his reform unhindered, and to act as master in the territory of the ancient kingdom of Israel, which for years had been an Assyrian province. And in the year 608 Neku II, king of Egypt, was able to think of extending his empire to the Euphrates, as in days long past, and to take arms against Assyria with the idea of wresting from her all her western provinces. The foundation of the new Babylonian Empire and the invasion of the Egyptians, who could no longer be repelled by the Assyrians, but were only to give way before the Babylonian arms, are described elsewhere. Here we only mention them as among the causes which brought about the fall of the Assyrian Empire. That empire no longer had any real existence, at least as a ruling power. Thrust back to its old frontiers, the ancient Assyrian state slowly languished and only awaited the death-blow.

That blow was to come from the Medes in alliance with the Babylonians, and was partly hastened, partly stayed, by the great migratory streams of the Cimmerians and Scythians.[c]

Though Professor Tiele’s admirable history is recent, much new information concerning the last days of the Assyrian rule at Nineveh has come to light, and historians are now able to place the conquest of the city by the Manda in the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun. Without overlooking a certain Sin-shum-lishir, who is mentioned in several places as an Assyrian king, and must have ruled about this time, but whose personality has not yet been unwrapped from the historic gloom, it is safe to say that this Sin-shar-ishkun was Asshur-etil-ili’s successor. From contract tablets found at Sippar and Erech we know that he occupied the Assyrian throne in 612 B.C., and that his dominion included a part of Babylonia as well. Later records would show him to be of much stronger character than the man he succeeded. In 610 or 609 he attempted to wrest more of the Babylonian provinces from Nabopolassar, and the harassed king took the fatal step of appealing to that people from the north, who for the most part had formed part of the great Indo-European migration into western Asia. Already these Scythian hordes, the Manda, had their eye on the rich Mesopotamian Valley, and therefore Nabopolassar’s appeal did not fall upon unwilling ears. Sin-shar-ishkun was indeed driven back, but when that happened the Manda were in the coveted land. The reader will observe that we have just spoken of the Manda and not the Medes as the assailants of Nineveh. This is because of the recent clearing up of a historical error that was our heritage from the Greek historians. They simply confused the Manda, the nomadic tribes that lived northeast of Assyria towards the Caspian Sea and were the classical Scythians, with the Mada, or true Medes. As Professor Sayce says: “It was not until the discovery of the monuments of Nabonidus and Cyrus that the truth at last came to light and it was found that the history we had so long believed was founded upon a philological mistake.” This matter will be more fully explained in the account of Persia.[a]

Like his father, Cyaxares perceived that it would not be possible for the Medes to extend and maintain their conquests westward so long as he had to dread the rivalry of the Assyrian Empire, so lately the mistress of those regions. Consequently he put into practice the lesson which his father had received from the Assyrians. The as yet untrained hordes of Medians were evidently no match for the better military organisation of the Assyrians and the military skill of the Assyrian generals. Cyaxares, therefore, began as became a warlike prince with the remodelling of his army, dividing his troops, after the pattern of the Assyrians, into the various arms--spearmen, bowmen, and horsemen--and fortifying his citadel, Ecbatana. Then he again ventured to attack Assyria, this time with better success. The Assyrian army was beaten in Nineveh at last, and was surrounded. But an unexpected event came to the assistance of the hard-pressed Ninevites--the Scythians invaded Media.

Their invasion compelled Cyaxares to evacuate Assyria, and for a time Nineveh breathed again. But only for a short time. Cyaxares succeeded in putting an end to the Scythian domination in his kingdom in the course of a few years.

[Sidenote: [609-401 B.C.]]

About 609 the Median army under the command of Cyaxares appeared for the second time at the gates of Nineveh. According to Berosus, the Babylonian king, whose son Nebuchadrezzar had married the Median king’s daughter, also took part in this siege. It is easy to understand how it was that Herodotus knew nothing of this, for the Persians were his authorities. But he is certainly right in assigning the chief rôle to the Medes, of whom Abydenus says nothing, for from this time forward they kept possession of Assyria itself; and he is also right in placing the taking of Nineveh during the period of Cyaxares’ government, and not, like Berosus and the authors who follow him, in the time of Astyages, since the latter did not ascend the throne of Media before 584 B.C. It is sufficient that Nineveh fell, and Assyria passed to the power of the Medes, who at the same time acquired the dominion over the North and the countries of Asia Minor as far as the Halys. All other provinces of the fallen empire as far as the Mediterranean Sea, including probably that part of ancient Assyria whose capital was the city of Asshur, and also Kharran and Carchemish, fell to Babylonia.

We have no historical account of the details connected with the fall of Nineveh. The story of the last Assyrian king, Asshur-etil-ili, or, as some authorities call him, Saracus,[28] which represents him in his despair burning himself with his palace and his treasures, is a popular tale which is not indeed impossible, but probably arose by confusion with Shamash-shum-ukin’s end. Nineveh was so completely desolated that when Xenophon passed with the Ten Thousand in the year 401 B.C. he took the ruins for the remains of Median towns destroyed by the Persians. Subsequently a fortress, Ninus, seems to have been built there by the Parthians. Calah also once more rose from its rubbish heaps after lying desolate for a long time. Arbela remained untouched, and it is therefore probable that it fell unresisting into the hands of the conquerors. But the Assyrian monarchy was gone forever.

[Sidenote: [606 B.C.]]

The Assyrian monarchy was gone, but not the empire at whose head the kings of Asshur had stood. It has been matter of astonishment that so powerful an empire, to which through a series of centuries the whole of western Asia had been subdued, could have been so suddenly overturned by the fall of the capital. But this surprise proceeds from an incorrect conception of history. Events had long prepared the fall of Nineveh. The keen eye of Esarhaddon had already perceived that it would be safer to remove the centre of the empire to Babylon. His son Asshurbanapal, a less acute statesman than he, but a great king and a strong administrator, had once more attempted to secure the hegemony for Assyria. In this he had succeeded, being supported by favourable circumstances and the influence of his own personality. But when the sceptre fell from his strong hand, little more was needed to put an end to the Assyrian dominion, and that end was only a question of time. However, the empire survived for a few years longer, though not in its full vigour. The hegemony now passed again to Babylon; but not unimpaired, for, since Media had conquered Nineveh, the lion’s share of Assyria itself fell to the Median kingdom, together with those northern and northwestern provinces which had been lost long before. But the Assyrian survived in the new Babylonian Empire, which continued its policy of conquest, and the Greeks, who not long afterwards called the Babylonians themselves Assyrians, were in this not so very far from the truth. But the days of the Semitic dominion were hastening to their end. Even the new monarchy under Babylon’s hegemony could only be propped up by the force of Nebuchadrezzar’s personality. His feeble successors were in no condition to prevent the spread of the Median power nor the rise of the Persian monarchy, which had grown to such proportions by the conquest of Elam, until the genius of Cyrus founded a dominion which soon embraced the four ancient empires--the Median, the Elamite, the Assyrio-Babylonian, and the Egyptian--and gave the sceptre of western Asia to the Aryans.

The sense of relief which fell on the oppressed nations at the downfall of the scourge of Asia can be gathered from the rejoicing accents of the Jewish prophets. What an Isaiah, a Micah, had not dared to hope, Nahum and Zephaniah saw approach and actually happen. Nahum is convinced that the fate of Thebes will soon overtake Nineveh. Her merchants, multiplied as the stars of heaven, her crowned, her captains, her whole people, they shall be scattered like flying grasshoppers, and no man shall gather them. “All that hear the bruit of thee shall clap their hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?” (Nahum iii. 19.) And Zephaniah (ii. 13-15), his contemporary, sees with satisfaction the desolation of the proud city, who thought herself so safe and boasted herself to be the first and the only one, but now had become desolate and a place for beasts, in whose ruins the bittern and the screech-owl lodge.[c]

FOOTNOTES

[27] [It is now believed that these two kings were one and the same person. See Professor Hilprecht in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Vol. IV, p. 164 et seq. “The name of this king (Asshur-etil-ili),” says Professor Rogers, “was originally read Bel-zakir-ishkun.”]

[28] [The most recent revelations in Assyrian history incline the authorities to the belief that Saracus is identical with Sin-shar-ishkun.]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VI. RENASCENCE AND FALL OF BABYLON

“Belshazzar’s grave is made, His kingdom passed away, He, in the balance weighed, Is light and worthless clay, The shroud his robe of state, His canopy the stone; The Mede is at his gate, The Persian on his throne.”--BYRON’S “VISION OF BELSHAZZAR.”

Nowhere is there a more striking illustration of national regeneration than is furnished by the story of the new Babylonian Empire. Freed from Assyrian thraldom, Babylon, the old, old city, came forward to take the place of the fallen Nineveh as the world-metropolis.

It has been customary to think and speak of the new Babylonian Empire as evidencing the rejuvenation of an old people. In one sense this view has full validity. But it must not be supposed that the new Babylonians who came to power when Nineveh fell were the bona fide descendants of the rulers of old Babylonia. New blood had made itself felt in the old race; indeed, without its influence it is highly improbable that the rejuvenation could have been effected. The outsiders who made their influence felt with such potency to restore and rejuvenate the old empire, are known as the Chaldeans. The precise origin of this people is in doubt. It is held to be established, however, that they were Semitic, and hence could claim cousinship with the Babylonians and Assyrians. They inhabited the Sea Lands to the south of Mesopotamia at an early date, and have been supposed to come originally from Arabia. They are heard of from time to time in Babylonian and Assyrian annals as a half-barbaric and often troublesome people, divided into various tribes or clans or petty principalities, bearing such unfamiliar names as Bit-Silani, Bit-Sa’alli, and Bit-Sala.

It is supposed by modern orientalists that the Chaldeans long had their eyes upon the fertile regions of the North, and even, from time to time, been presumptuous enough to cross swords with the Babylonians and Assyrians in the hope of dethroning them. Certain it is that the rulers of the North had at various times waged war against their less civilised cousins of the Sea Lands. Yet the evidence does not seem to be very clear as to the precise share which the Chaldeans took in the new movement inaugurated in Babylon with the death of the last really powerful Assyrian king, Asshurbanapal. The name of the new ruler who now came to power in Babylon was Nabopolassar; but it cannot be asserted with confidence that he was of Chaldean origin. It is held, however, that the influences that dominated the kingdom under his reign were clearly Chaldean; though considering the vagueness that surrounds the entire subject, it must be admitted that this assertion is much easier to make than to prove. Still, all that we know about the degeneration of old nations elsewhere, and the extreme difficulty of resuscitating a senescent people, except by a mixture of races, tends to confirm the theory that a race relatively new to civilisation was chiefly instrumental in working the miracle of Babylonian regeneration.

In any event, the people who for something less than a century made Babylon a great centre of world-influence were known to their contemporaries and to succeeding generations as Chaldeans rather than as Babylonians. Just to what extent the old Babylonian people shared in the new work, can perhaps never be known; but the question is relatively unimportant, because in any event it was a people of the same old Semitic stock that carried on the historic story.

The most brilliant period of the new Babylonian Empire came soon after the fall of Nineveh, in the reign of the world-famous king, Nebuchadrezzar, the monarch who built the marvellous wall about the city and the fabulous hanging gardens; the conqueror who overthrew the Phœnicians and carried the Israelites into captivity.

A peculiar interest attaches to the period of the immediate successors of Nebuchadrezzar because the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites still continued, to which the Hebrew writers made such extended references. The famous account in the Book of Daniel of the feast of Belshazzar, with its brief but graphic reference to the alleged tragic end of the Babylonian king, and the overthrow of Babylon itself at the hands of “Darius the Mede,” have furnished never-to-be-forgotten pictures to all subsequent generations. The modern archæologist has rudely shattered some of these treasured images. Thus the Book of Daniel makes allusion to the overthrow of Babylon in these words: “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.… In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” (Daniel v. 1, 2, 30, 31.)

[Sidenote: [555 B.C.]]

But within the past generation inscriptions have come to light proving, to the amazement of a keenly interested world, that no king named Belshazzar ever reigned in Babylon; and that the name of the monarch overthrown by Cyrus the Persian or Elamite--not by “Darius the Mede”--was Nabonidus. Nabonidus had a son, Belshazzar, but he never ruled. This Nabonidus was not the son of Nebuchadrezzar or his immediate successor, three successive rulers after Nebuchadrezzar having reigned before he came to the throne. It is clear from inscriptions of Nabonidus and of Cyrus his conqueror that Babylon was overthrown without a struggle. A cylinder inscription by Cyrus tells the story: the first part of which, translated by the Rev. C. J. Ball, is as follows: “The continual offering he made to cease … he (es)tablished in the cities the worship of Merodach, the King of the Gods, he exalted (?) His name … by a yoke unrelaxing he ruined them all. At their lamentation the Lord of the Gods waxed very wroth … the Gods who dwelt among them forsook Their abode. In wrath because he brought them into Shu-anna (i.e. Babylon), Merodach … He turned towards all the districts whose dwellings were thrown down. And (to) the people of Shinar and Accad, who were become as dead, He turned (His regard?): He showed compassion upon all the lands together. He looked for, He found him, yea, He sought out an upright Prince, after His own heart, whom He took by his hand, Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan; He named his name; to the kingdom of the whole world He called him by na(me). The land of Qutû (and) all the Umman-Manda he humbled to his feet; the Blackheaded folk, whom his hands subdued,--in faithfulness and righteousness he looked after them. Merodach, the great Lord, the guardian of His people, joyfully beheld his good deeds and his upright heart. To His own city Babylon his march He commanded; He put them on the road to Tin-tir (i.e. Babylon); like a comrade and helper He marched at his side. His great hosts, whose number like the waters of a river could not be known, with their weapons girded on, advanced beside him. Without skirmish or battle He made him enter Shu-anna. His own city Babylon He spared from distress; Nabonidus the king, who feared him not, He delivered up to him. The people of Tin-tir in a body, the entire land of Shinar and Accad, the nobles and grandees, bowed down before Him, kissed His feet, rejoiced at His accession; their faces brightened.”

The accounts given by Nabonidus himself confirm this record of Cyrus. It would appear, then, that the Hebrew chroniclers, gifted rather with the poetical imagination than with the calm historical sense, confused the Babylonian conquest of Cyrus with a later campaign of his successor, Darius. But no mere substitution of the cold facts of history can ever rob the world of the beautiful traditional picture of the feast of Belshazzar. Here, as elsewhere, myth must be allowed to hold its own as the embodiment of the spirit of history. Myth and history coincide as to the fact that the old dynasty in new Babylonia was overthrown. And with that overthrow the sceptre of world-influence passed from the hands of the Semitic race forever.

CONTEMPORARY CHRONOLOGY

[Sidenote: [615-538 B.C.]]

The epoch of the new Babylonian Empire covers a period of time from about 615 to 538 B.C., approximately three-quarters of a century. We have already, at the beginning of this book, outlined the position of contemporary civilisations during the entire sweep of Assyrian and new Babylonian history; but it may be well briefly to recapitulate the position of other nations during the epoch of new Babylonian domination, that a clearer picture of the time may be before the eyes as we view the details of Babylonian history.

While reading of the achievements of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors, then, it will be well to recall that:

Egypt under the XXVIth Dynasty enjoys a brief period of rejuvenescence as a world-power; curiously linked in time with the new awakening of her old-time rival, Babylonia;

In India, at about this period, Buddha lives and founds the religion that is to bear his name;

Greece and Rome are in a relative youth, not yet reckoning time from a fixed era, and only beginning to make secure records on which future generations may build. Their civilisation does not compare in importance with that of Babylon, which is the recognised centre of culture, looking upon these “new” nations in the west as utter barbarians;

Phœnicia is far past the zenith of its power; Samaria has fallen; Jerusalem is to become subject to Babylon itself;

In Asia Minor, Sardis, the capital of Lydia, is waxing in power.

But the coming nation of the epoch is Persia, which turns the tables on its fellow, Manda, hitherto the stronger of the half-civilised pair of nations, and which finally, under Cyrus, captures Babylon itself, and assumes undisputed sovereignty over the whole of southwestern Asia.[a]

NABOPOLASSAR AND NEBUCHADREZZAR

[Sidenote: [626-562 B.C.]]

Nabopolassar (Nabu-apal-usur, i.e. “Nabu protect the heir”), according to the Ptolemaic canon, reigned from 625 B.C. (the date of his accession thus being 626) until 605 B.C., in which year he died, shortly before the victory won by his son Nebuchadrezzar over the Egyptians at Carchemish, having been in ill health before Nebuchadrezzar started for Syria. We have seen how immediately upon his accession to the throne of the Pharaohs, Neku II profited by the impotence of the Assyrian kingdom, which was enfeebled to the last degree by long years of Scythian incursions, to penetrate into the Hamath district.

[He encountered the army of Judah at Meggido--the same historical locality where, a thousand years before, Tehutimes III had vanquished the combined forces of Syria and Phœnicia. The king of Jerusalem was slain on the field, and his army, retreating in terror to the capital, made his young son, Jehoahaz, king, ignoring the claims of Eliakim, the eldest, probably because he was in favour of submitting to Neku. Pharaoh now proceeded, unmolested, to Riblah in Cœle-Syria, where he made his headquarters, and confident in his mastery over Judah, ordered Jehoahaz to appear before him. When the new king arrived he was thrown into chains and Eliakim put in his place under the name of Jehoiakim.]

Neku’s ambition was next directed to the conquest of the whole of northern Syria; a project which he actually accomplished to a great extent during the years 608 to 606, whilst the Babylonians, with their Median allies, were besieging Nineveh. He must certainly have advanced as far as Carchemish, since that was the spot where the Egyptian and Babylonian forces met in 605. The fate of Syria was sealed thereby; it became a province of Babylonia even as it had once been a province of Assyria, and Judah became a vassal kingdom to Babylonia.

[Sidenote: [602-587 B.C.]]

Thus Nabopolassar, who died in 605, while his son was on the march for Syria, only just missed the satisfaction of seeing the new kingdom of Babylonia which he had founded enter upon the heritage of the Assyrian Empire, out of which the western province could least of all be spared. He did not see it: instead the news of his father’s death reached the young Nebuchadrezzar (Nabu-kudur-usur, i.e. “Nabu protect the crown”) shortly after the victory of the Egyptians, which decided the fate of Syria for the time being; and leaving his generals to follow up the victory, he had to return to Babylon in hot haste to assume the royal dignity that awaited him. There he received the crown at the hands of the great nobles without encountering any obstacles, and for the long period of his glorious reign, which lasted forty-two years (604-562) he guided the destinies of his country, extended and strengthened its borders, and thus made Babylonia a great power, and Babylon one of the most splendid and illustrious cities of ancient times. If we further take into consideration that it was he who likewise conquered Syria for Babylonia, we cannot but acknowledge his claim to be counted the first ruler who entered upon the full possession of Assyria and consolidated it.

Amid all the many and sometimes detailed inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar which have been found in the ruins of Babylon and other cities, not one contains any account of his campaigns; but from a passage in the preamble of the great inscription of the kingdom, we see that in spite of his preference for building and other peaceful labours he was a mighty warrior. It runs: “Under his mighty protection (i.e. that of the god Marduk) I have passed through far countries, distant mountains, from the upper sea even to the lower sea (i.e. probably from the Gulf of Issus to the mouth of the Nile) far-reaching ways, closed paths where my step was stayed and my foot could not stand, a road of hardships, a way of thirst; the disobedient I subdued and took the adversaries captive, the land I guided aright, the people I caused to be seized; I carried away the bad and the good among them, silver and gold and precious stones, copper, palm wood and cedar wood, whatsoever was costly, in gorgeous abundance; the products of the mountains and that which the sea yielded, brought I as a gift of great weight, as a rich tribute into my city of Babylon before his (the god’s) face.” And although the different campaigns of which we know are distributed over almost the whole of his long reign, we find mention of only one short war against Aahmes of Egypt in the thirty-seventh year of it.

With regard to these wars, most of them aimed at completing the work begun at the battle of Carchemish, and more particularly at preventing further interference on the part of Egypt, and at banishing her influence completely from Babylonian territory, which had now been extended to her very frontier. It was probably in the third year after Nebuchadrezzar’s battle (therefore in 602 B.C.) that Syria was completely incorporated into the Babylonian kingdom, leaving him free to think of displaying his power in the eyes of Jehoiakim, whom Neku had set up as king in Jerusalem, by advancing against him with an army. The desired result promptly followed, and from 601 to 599 Jehoiakim became tributary to the king of the Chaldeans. In the fourth year, 598, the king of Judah withheld the tribute, probably at the instigation of Egypt. When the Babylonians invaded Judah (probably at the beginning of 587) Jehoiakim was just dead; his son Jehoiachin (known also as Jeconiah) was besieged at Jerusalem and, seeing further resistance useless, surrendered to Nebuchadrezzar. He was carried away captive to Babylon with his family and nearly all the princes, warriors, masons, and smiths; but, once there, their lot was no hard one, for they were permitted to settle without molestation and to exercise their own religion. A great number of them lived thus at Tel-Abib (i.e. “heap of ruins”) on the canal Chebar [a canal found near Nippur and now called Kabaru] as we know from the chronicles of Ezekiel, who was one of them. Jerusalem was not destroyed, but Jehoiachin’s kinsman, Mattaniah (another son of Josiah), was set over the few inhabitants that remained there as a vassal of Babylonia, under the new name of Zedekiah (595-587). The newly installed sovereign was a weak man, who by his own good will would have been a loyal vassal; but ultimately in spite of the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah, who fully realised the true state of affairs, he threw in his lot with the war party, who relied on the help of Egypt, and rebelled against Babylonia.

In 589 Psamthek II (Neku’s successor) himself was succeeded by the young and warlike Uah-ab-Ra (the Hophra of the Bible and the Apries of the Greeks), who sent a fleet to the assistance of the Phœnicians in an attempt they made to revolt. Thereupon Nebuchadrezzar marched his troops into Syria and set up his headquarters at Riblah, the old headquarters of Neku, so as to operate from thence against Zedekiah, Tyre, and Pharaoh. How Jerusalem was besieged (589-587) and destroyed, how in the meantime Uah-ab-Ra’s army was vanquished, and how Tyre was then invested (the siege lasting thirteen years) and forced to pay tribute, if no more--all these events are likewise known to us only from other sources than cuneiform inscriptions, and the detailed description of them, at least in so far as they relate to the downfall of the kingdom of Judah, and thus form a part of (not the opening era of) Jewish history, lies ready to every reader’s hand in the books of the Bible of which we have given a brief outline. As for Tyre (after the siege) she remained under the rule of her own kings, though as a vassal to Babylonia. All the worse was the fate which, in 587, overtook Judah, whose hopes had been so cruelly deceived, for not only was the city utterly destroyed (see the moving laments in the so-called Book of Lamentations), and the king, blinded and fettered, carried away into captivity after seeing his sons slain before his face; but with the exception of the poor, the day labourers absolutely necessary for the cultivation of the soil and vineyards, all who had escaped the previous deportation were carried away by the Babylonian king to the “waters of Babylon” (Psalm 137).

[Sidenote: [587-568 B.C.]]

[While his soldiers were keeping their long and weary station under the walls of Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar turned his attention to another important matter. Because the people of Judah and Tyre had looked to Egypt for assistance, they had given the Babylonian king much trouble. Egypt, therefore, must suffer for this; so that she would not feel inclined to repeat her action of sending an army to Zedekiah’s aid. A new Egyptian campaign was planned.]

A fragment at the beginning of which a prayer (“Thou destroyest my enemies and makest my heart to rejoice”) was set down, assigns the above-mentioned campaign in Egypt to the year 568 (i.e. the thirty-seventh year of the reign). The passage which refers to it,--“Year 37 of Nebuchadrezzar, king of (Babylonia to the land of) Misir, (i.e. Egypt) to give a battle, he marched and (his troops A-ma)-a-su, the king of Misir assembled and …” leaves no doubt that Aahmes or Amasu is the king here meant, for only the year before, in 569, Aahmes had revolted against Uah-ab-Ra and forced him to recognise him (Aahmes) as co-regent. He soon afterward became sole ruler in Egypt; and, as such, he died in the year 528, shortly before the conquest of Egypt by the Persians. Nebuchadrezzar meanwhile contented himself with humbling the pride of Egypt, and refrained from conquering the country, which even had it been successfully done would but have raised difficulties for the Babylonian kingdom to cope with. His chief aim, to keep Syria and Palestine clear of Egyptian influence, was attained by the campaign.

Of Nebuchadrezzar’s other military expeditions, the one mentioned (Jeremiah xlix. 28-33) against the Bedouins of Kedar and the Arab tribes, which had settled to the east of Palestine, leads us again to the borders of the Occident. The town of Teredon, at the mouth of the Euphrates, was founded at this time as a bulwark against the Bedouins, and by reason of its situation became, like Gerrha, on the Persian Gulf, and Thapsacus, Tiphsah, on the middle Euphrates, a mercantile station of some importance. Not until the time of the New Kingdom of Babylonia did a flourishing trade develop along the Euphrates, with Armenia and the east coast of Arabia for its extreme poles; and from the reign of Nebuchadrezzar dates the part played by Babylon, his capital, as the greatest emporium of the ancient world, and the proverbial meaning which the name of Babylon has retained down to our times, to signify the worst aspects (luxury and license) of a capital city.

From Babylon and the mention of her trade it would be a natural transition to the buildings erected by Nebuchadrezzar, if we were not first bound to mention the northwest and east, which are of extreme importance from an historical point of view, and in which Nebuchadrezzar took the part of a mediator, if no more, between the Medes and the Lydians.

[Sidenote: [604-560 B.C.]]

To return to the buildings erected by Nebuchadrezzar, which, up to this time form the subject of nearly all the inscriptions discovered, the latter all show his character in a favourable light. In all we find evidence of the paternal care of a prince zealous for the welfare of his dominions, and of a sincere and heartfelt piety which by no means leaves the impression that it is a mere form of speech. We can listen to his own words prefixed to his account of the buildings he erected and revealing something of his heart.

“Since the Lord, Marduk, created me, and made fair preparation for my birth from the womb, from that time forward, when I was born and created, I have visited the holy places of God, and walked in the ways of God. To Marduk, my Lord, I prayed; I took up my parable in prayer to him, the speech of my heart came (before him) to him I spoke: ‘Eternal, Holy, Lord of all things, for the king, whom thou lovest, whose name thou callest according to thy good pleasure, guide his name well, lead (or guard) him in a straight path. I, the prince, who obeyeth thee, am the work of thy hands, thou didst create me, thou didst commit unto me the royal dominion over the whole people, according to thy grace, O Lord which thou sendest forth upon all. Teach me to love thy august sovereignty, let the fear of thy divinity be in my heart, bestow (upon me) that which is pleasing unto thee, thou who preparest my life.’ Thereupon the Highest, the Glorious, the first among the gods, the august Marduk, heard my supplication and accepted my prayers, he caused his great majesty to rule favourably, he caused the fear of God to abide in my heart, I fear his majesty.” And the conclusion runs: “Babylon, the capital of the land, I established with the hills of the forest. To Marduk, my lord, I prayed and lifted up my hand: ‘Marduk, lord, the first of gods, thou mighty prince, thou hast created me, thou hast committed to me royal dominion over the multitude of the people, I love the majesty of thy courts as my precious life. Save thy city of Babylon. I have made me no other capital out of all inhabited places. As I love the fear of thy divinity and seek thy majesty, so incline graciously to my supplication (literally, to the raising of my hands), hear my prayers. I am the King, the Restorer, who delights thy heart, the zealous ruler, the restorer of all thy cities. At thy command, O merciful Marduk, may the house which I have built endure to all eternity, may I satisfy myself in its abundance. May I come to old age therein, may I satisfy myself with my glory, may I receive the weighty tribute therein from the kings of all regions of the world and from all mankind. From the horizon of the heavens unto the meridian and at (?) the rising sun may I have no enemies nor possess any adversaries (lit. them that put me in fear). May my posterity bear rule therein over the black-headed people to all eternity.’”

Nebuchadrezzar, himself, attached the greatest importance to the restoration of the temples of E-sagila and E-zida, as being the most ancient sanctuaries of Babylon, and in his briefest inscriptions, the stamp-marks on bricks, whether used for the building of these two temples or any other edifice, always had added to his title of king, that of restorer of the temples of E-sagila and E-zida. Of greater interest to us, however, since we can still admire the ruins of it, is a temple which is only briefly referred to in a few words in the long inscription, but of which we have a detailed account in another, shorter inscription, namely, the Temple of the Seven Spheres of Heaven and Earth, which was built in seven stories near (or as a ziggurat of) E-zida at Borsippa.

But although Nebuchadrezzar devoted most thought to his beloved Babylon (and to Borsippa) he in nowise neglected other seats of worship of the country. The temple of the Sun, at Sippar, the temple of a god as yet unidentified, in the city of Baz (Paszitu), the temple of Idi-Anu (the Eye of Anu), at Dilbat, the temple of Lugal-Amarda (Marad), E-Anna, the temple of Ishtar, at Erech, the temple of the Sun, at Larsa, and the temple of the Moon, at Erech, are enumerated one after another as having been rebuilt by Nebuchadrezzar. With better right than his father he calls himself on one of the Abu-Habba cylinders “the ruler of Sumer and Accad, who laid the foundation of the land” (or as Winckler translates it, “made fast the foundations of the land”), for in truth his new creations extended over the whole territory that had been Sumer and Accad as we are familiar with it in ancient Babylonian history, from the reigns of Ur-Ba’u of Ur onward. Under him, after a long sleep (lasting in places for a thousand years) among her ruins, the whole of Babylonia kept the festival of her resurrection, and joyous sacrificial hymns resounded through the length and breadth of the land during Nebuchadrezzar’s long and prosperous reign, as in the days of her distant prime.

To complete the picture of Nebuchadrezzar’s capital, we must in conclusion cast a glance at the vast fortifications with which this king girdled the city he had created, and so insured it against the most formidable assault. Nebuchadrezzar did not rest satisfied with completely restoring and enlarging these fortifications (a work that his father had begun, since they had again been impaired); he included a strip of arable land some four thousand cubits (about two to three kilometres) in breadth, on the farther side of the rampart Nimitti-Bel, within another “mountain high” wall, and made it a part of the outworks, thus casting a gigantic threefold girdle of ramparts (or walls) and moats about the city. Nor was that enough: “To quell the countenance of the enemy that he should not harass the (threefold) encompassment of Babylon, I surrounded the land with mighty streams, comparable unto the waters of the sea; to cross them was as it were to cross the ocean. To render an inundation from their midst (the midst of these artificial courses) impossible, I heaped up masses of earth, I set up brick dams round about them.”

And herewith we must take leave of this truly great ruler, and turn to his successors, who, unhappily, did not resemble him, and of whom the last, Nabonidus by name, could alone be compared to him in his zeal for the restoration and adornment of the various temples of the country, though in all other respects he fell far below the greatness of his mighty ancestor. This inferiority is the reason that the New Babylonian Kingdom hurried so swiftly to its unexpected end.

THE FOLLOWERS OF NEBUCHADREZZAR

[Sidenote: [560-555 B.C.]]

We know from the Ptolemaic canon, Hommel goes on, that after Nebuchadrezzar’s death (562) Illoarudamos (probably a clerical error for Illoarudakos, i.e. Amil-Marduk), the biblical Evil-Merodach, ascended the throne and died in the second year of his reign (560). Berosus calls him a son of Nebuchadrezzar, and describes his short reign as unjust and licentious, this being the reason why he was murdered by Neriglissor (Nergal-shar-usur), his sister’s husband, and thus son-in-law to Nebuchadrezzar. As a matter of fact, in direct confirmation of the chronological statements of the Ptolemaic canon, the only contract tablets that have been discovered of the reign of this king, date from his accession, about July 22, 560 B.C. He is mentioned in the Old Testament, in the last four verses of the 2nd Book of Kings; “And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-Merodach, king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, did lift up the head of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, out of prison. And he spake kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; and changed his prison garments, and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life. And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life.” It is evident that the Bible here refers to Amil-Marduk, for on the twenty-seventh Adar 560 this king was still upon the throne (see the above date, 4th Abu), whilst the first well-authenticated date of Neriglissor is 25th Marsheshwan, i.e. about 10th November of that same year.

From the reign of Amil-Marduk we have no inscription, but we are in better case as regards his successor, Nergal-shar-usur (the Nergal-sharezer of the Bible; Berosus, Neriglissor, Ptolemaic canon, Neriga-solasar). He reigned from 559-556, for there are two inscriptions on cylinders and a brief inscription on brick which we may assign to this reign. The subject appears to be some restoration in the shrine of E-zida at Babylon. Where the inscription again becomes legible, the king gives an account of the construction of a canal, the waters of which had gone away and withdrawn, and of palace building.

The following questions are suggested by these inscriptions. Firstly, who was his father, the Bel-shum-ishkum twice mentioned in them? Let it suffice here to note the possibility that he may be identical with a former king of Assyria, the son of Asshurbanapal, who certainly did not reign more than a few months. The chronology presents no obstacle to the acceptance of this hypothesis. Let us then assume that Bel-shum-ishkum was born about 645; he would then be about twenty years of age at the death of Asshurbanapal, and about forty at the fall of Nineveh, after which he probably found a refuge at the Babylonian court. By that time (606) his son Nergal-shar-usur might very well be about eighteen years old; if we take this for granted, then the latter was thirty-seven in the year 587, in which two persons of the same name (Nergal-sharezer, Jeremiah xxxix. 3) are mentioned among Nebuchadrezzar’s nobles (one among the “princes” in general, the other amongst the officials of highest rank), sixty-four at his accession in 560 B.C. and not quite seventy when he died, which gives a great show of probability to his identity with one or other of these two Nergal-sharezers. Another question to which it would be very interesting to find an answer is that of the wars of Nergal-shar-usur, for, short as his reign was, it is evident from the two cylinder inscriptions that he did wage wars. Unfortunately we have no more exact information on the subject; but if we consider that as early as the year 555, that is, only a year after Nergal-shar-usur’s death, disorders of such magnitude had broken out in Mesopotamia, due to the “Manda warriors” under the leadership of their king Ishtuvegu (Astyages), that is to say, to Median hordes, that the Babylonians appealed to Kurush (Cyrus), king of Anshan, who did, in fact, succeed in driving the Medes back, we may be sure that the earliest incursions of the Manda into Babylonian territory (of which Mesopotamia had formed a part since the fall of Nineveh) took place in the reign of Neriglissor. This hypothesis is directly confirmed by the tenor of Nabonidus’ account of the invasion. In that case Neriglissor’s warlike enterprises were not crowned with brilliant success, or at all events did not expel the Manda from Mesopotamia altogether.

THE REIGN OF NABONIDUS (556-538 B.C.)

On the death of Neriglissor in 556, he was succeeded, according to Berosus, by his son Labassarachos or Labarosoarchodos (in inscriptions Labashi-Marduk), but it appears that a Babylonian of high rank, Nabu-naidu (“Nabu is glorious”), the son of Nabu-balatsu-iqbi (“Nabu hath foretold his life”), was immediately proclaimed king by an opposition party, and although Labashi-Marduk made head against Nabu-naidu (or Nabonidus, as he is usually known) for nine months, the latter dates the beginning of his reign from the death of Neriglissor. According to Berosus, Labashi-Marduk was a child, and fell victim to a conspiracy, having already betrayed tokens of a bad disposition.

According to the Ptolemaic canon, Nabonidus reigned seventeen years, which agrees with the circumstance that the latest of the numerous contract tablets belonging to his reign up to this time discovered are dated the 5th of Ulul (the middle of August) in his seventeenth year. He concerned himself chiefly with the restoration of old temples elsewhere than in Babylon, as those at Ur, Larsa, Sippar, and even at Kharran in Mesopotamia, that is, the oldest sanctuaries in the country; while in Babylon, where he certainly resided, if only at intervals, he seems to have done nothing except to proceed with the building of the walls on the river bank.[29] Nabonidus was actuated not merely by religious motives, but by an interest in history and archæology, which grew to be an absolute mania with him. His inscriptions give us minute information as to how he dug and hunted for the foundation cylinders of these primitive temples, nor does he fail to deal many a sly hit at his predecessors (Nebuchadrezzar, for example), who had not always conscientiously done this, and had consequently many a time built something that was not in the original plan. When, after long search, Nabonidus found these cylinders, often buried deep down in the ground, he reproduced the tenor of them exactly, frequently giving the precise number of years between his own reign and that of the ancient Babylonian king in question, and so providing us with the most valuable data for determining the earliest periods of Babylonian history. In this way we have learned the date of Naram-Sim, the ancient king of Agade, of Shagarakti-Buriash [sometimes read Shagarakti-Shuriash], and lastly, as it would appear, of Khammurabi (although in this case the computation is incorrect), together with many other data of historical importance. For this reason the reign of Nabonidus is to us among the most important in Babylonian history, but his passion for archæology--which seems to have made him forget the world entirely, and, in particular, overlook the danger with which the victories of Cyrus menaced Babylonia--was of less service to himself, and ultimately cost him his throne and liberty.

[Sidenote: [555-547 B.C.]]

We have already mentioned the fragment of the Babylonian chronicle treating of the reign of Nabonidus and the conquest of Babylon and the whole Babylonian empire by Cyrus. We will now regard the public events of the reign of the last native king of Babylonia in the light of this text. In the first year mention is made of a military expedition with the object of subjugating a prince of whose name, unfortunately, nothing (or at most the termination, shu’ishshi) has been preserved, but whom we should, perhaps, be justified in regarding as the chieftain of a Median tribe.

From the first section of the cylinder-inscription of Abu-Habba we see that if, after the deliverance of Kharran, Nabonidus summoned his troops from the frontier of Egypt and onward to the Gulf of Issus and the Persian Gulf, to the work of building, or the collection of building material; these were not military enterprises in the strict sense of the term (and this is characteristic), but merely expeditions for peaceful ends, which were all the easier for Nabonidus to achieve, because, since the reign of Nebuchadrezzar the Babylonians had held undisputed possession of the “Occident” right up to the Egyptian frontier. The only exception to this rule seems to be the account of the beginning of the first year (or the beginning of his reign) given in the chronicle, where, among other things, it is said, “the king summoned his warriors.” But this expedition was, in all likelihood, only the less laborious gleaning left to Nabonidus after the conquest of the Medes by Cyrus.

The next event narrated in the chronicle is the final defeat of the Medes by Cyrus, which cannot, therefore, have taken place later than the sixth year of the reign of Nabonidus, that is, 550 B.C., and may have been earlier.

The account of the seventh year is difficult to understand, but this much is plain, that in those years Nabonidus was not present at the New Year’s celebration at E-sagila, nay, that the festival in question did not take place at all. We do not know why this was so, but we may conjecture that the reason was a hierarchical revolution, a kind of vote of want of confidence in the king, who was pursuing his works and researches in the temples of Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and other cities, heedless of the danger that menaced the country from Cyrus.

[Sidenote: [547-538 B.C.]]

Of greater importance, historically, is the account of the ninth year (547 B.C.). After repeating the statement concerning the non-celebration of the feast of Bel, it proceeds: On the 5th of Nisan the king’s mother died in the fortified camp on the far side (Sha am? = sha ammat) of the Euphrates above Sippar; for three days mourning prevailed and lamentation, in the month of Sivan there was mourning (official) for the queen-mother throughout the (whole) land of Accad. In the Nisan (of this year) Kurush (Cyrus), king of the land of Parsu, had summoned his warriors and crossed the Tigris below Arbela, in order to invade Asia Minor in the following month, Airu, “from the king he took away his silver and goods, his own children he caused to mount the [funeral pyre], after his children and the king (he himself, Cyrus?) were therein.”

We know from Herodotus that an expedition of Cyrus against King Crœsus of Lydia took place at this very time, and ended with the siege and reduction of Sardis and the fall of the kingdom of Lydia, after an indecisive battle had been fought in Cappadocia, near Pteria (Boghaz-köi), a place since made famous by the discovery of a Hittite bas-relief. Nabonidus had joined the alliance between Lydia, Sparta and Aahmes of Egypt, on which Crœsus relied when he began the war against Cyrus; probably he thought he could make an easy conquest of Media and Elam after the defeat he expected Cyrus to suffer in Asia Minor. The Babylonians do not seem to have taken any active part in the struggle after Cyrus’ speedy victory over the Lydians, but nevertheless with that victory the fate of Babylonia was practically sealed. For it was obvious that Cyrus, who had not only ruled over the whole of Media, since the taking of Ecbatana, but was also undisputed master of Armenia right up to the western coast of Asia Minor, and thus had really become emperor (or great king) would take the first opportunity of seizing upon Babylonia and its wealthy Syrian provinces. Moreover, from this time forth he had the best of reasons for regarding Nabonidus as a disloyal neighbour who deserved condign punishment.

In the tenth and eleventh years the chronicle first notes the omission of the Feast of Bel in exactly the same terms as in the case of the seventh and ninth years, and when the narration begins we find ourselves in the seventeenth and last year of the reign of Nabonidus (539 B.C.). After a series of sentences which are very much defaced the narrative proceeds: “In the month of Tammuz (June-July, 539), Kurush [Cyrus] fought a battle at Kish (?) above the canal of Illat (?) against the warriors of the land of Accad; the people of the land of Accad rose up against the ranks of soldiers, on the 14th day (of Tammuz) the city of Sippar was taken without a battle, Nabonidus fled. On the 17th day (i.e. about July 5, 539), Ugbaru (Gobryas), governor of Guti (i.e. the district to the east of Arbela), and the warriors of Kurush marched into E-ki (Babylon); when Nabonidus thereupon entrenched himself in E-ki (Babylon) he was taken captive. Even unto the end of the month the tukkimi (troops?) of the land of Guti encompassed the gates of E-sagila, yet were not weapons of any sort laid upon E-sagila and the (other) temples, nor was the embellishment (i.e. the images and vessels of the temple) taken away. On the 3rd of Marsheshwan (Arakhsamnu, i.e. about October 19), Kurush marched into E-ki, the streets were filled in view of his entry, he established peace in the city; Kurush proclaimed peace to the whole of Tintir (Babylon), he set Ugbaru (Gobryas), his vicegerent, as vicegerent over Babylon, and from the month Kislev even until Adar (November-December, 539--February-March, 538), he caused the gods of the land of Accad, which Nabonidus had caused to be brought into Babylon, to be carried back into their own places. In the same (?) month, on the 11th day, Ugbaru went over and the king dies; from the 27th of the month Adar, even to the 3rd of Nisan (the end of March, 538), there is mourning in Accad, all the people loose (lit. cleave) their hair (?); on the 4th, Kambujiya (Cambyses), the son of Kurush, goes to the temple of the city (?) of Khadkalamasummu.…” What follows is defaced beyond translation, and, to judge from the scraps of lines still decipherable, contains nothing of historic interest; for example, it goes on to speak of the temple of E-Anna at Erech.

[Sidenote: [538 B.C.]]

Thus we see that Babylon itself received King Cyrus with open arms, and that, even as the Kossæans had usurped and long maintained the mastery of Accad, so now the Persians superseded the native dynasty. The event was therefore no new thing, and, as a matter of fact, Babylonian history proceeds upon the old lines under Cyrus and his successors, so that it is hard to see why most narratives should break off at this point. The national literature and mode of writing continued to flourish, but the history of Babylonia and Assyria, of which the short-lived prosperity of the New Babylonian Kingdom was the last chapter, concluded with the entry of Cyrus into Babylon; the subsequent history of Babylonia is of local interest only, and has no further significance for the world.

Lastly, as regards the important original Babylonian inscription of the reign of Cyrus, which has been referred to before, it most fully confirms the correctness of the impression made by the narrative of the chronicle on every unprejudiced reader. The Babylonians, with the hierarchy of the city of Babylon at their head, were utterly weary of the feeble rule of Nabonidus, who does not seem even to have been of the blood-royal, and hailed Cyrus as deliverer. At the bidding of Cyrus the learned Babylonian scribes were charged to draw up an inscription, and from its contents and wording (which can hardly have been dictated by the king of Persia) we can clearly realise the view of the situation taken by the priestly circles of the country (which governed the populace). From the very beginning, defaced as it is, we perceive that Nabonidus is made the scapegoat for everything. He is represented with having sent forth “to Ur and the other cities oracles that did not beseem them” (i.e. the gods), with “thinking daily upon evil” (?), with having “caused the daily sacrifice to cease” and grossly neglected the worship of the god Marduk; further, with having “let the fortifications of Babylon fall into ruin, so that the lord of the gods was greatly incensed in lamentation thereat,” as well as “with wrath that he had brought in (into E-sagila) the gods (of other Babylonian cities), who were thus constrained to forsake their (former) temples.

Then it came to pass that Marduk “looked upon his friend,” and “laid hold of his hand, Kurush, king of Anshan, was his name called”; “he subdued the land of the Kuti and the whole host of the Manda hordes beneath his feet; he caused the black-headed people to fall into his hands; in righteousness and justice came he unto them.” The god Marduk “bade him to go to Babylon and take the road to Tintir, like a friend and comrade went he at his side, the multitude of his troops, whereof the number, like unto the waters of a river, was not known, girt on the weapons and marched at his side; he (Marduk) caused him to enter Shu-anna (Babylon) without strife or battle; Babylon, his city, he spared with difficulty; Nabonidus the king, who did not fear him, he gave over into his (Kurush’s) hands; all the people of Tintir, the whole multitude of Sumer and Accad, the princes and the ruler who submitted to his dynasty, kissed his feet and rejoiced in his royal dominion; their faces shone. The Lord, who (draweth nigh) with succour, who raiseth the dead to life, who in might bestoweth benefits upon the whole earth, graciously blesseth him (Cyrus) and hath respect unto his name. I, Kurush, King of the world, the mighty King, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Accad, King of the four quarters of the Earth, son of Kambujiya, the great King, the King of the city of Anshan, grandson of Kurush, the great King, the King of the city of Anshan, descendant (libbalbal) of Sispis, the great King, the King of Anshan, the eternal shoot of royalty, whose government Bel and Nabu love, to do good unto his heart and for the superabundance of his joy.” Cyrus then proceeds to lay stress upon his peaceful entry into Babylon and the gladness and rejoicing amidst which he took up his abode there, on how his troops occupied the city in peace and he himself visited the other cities in peace, how he repaired their ruins and loosed their chains (?), how Marduk was gracious towards him and his son Kambujiya (Cambyses), and how, “at Marduk’s august bidding all the kings who dwelt in royal chambers, from all quarters under heaven, from the upper sea even to the lower sea, and likewise the kings of the Occident who inhabit [the desert] and they that dwell in tents,” all brought weighty tribute and kissed his feet at Babylon.

“From … even unto the cities of Asshur and Ishtar-Damiktu (?), the city of Agade, the land of Ishnunnak, the cities of Zambaru, Mi-Turnu and Dur-ilu, even unto the region of the land of Kuti, the cities on the (bank of) Tigris, where their dwelling-place was from of old, I carried the gods that dwelt there back to their places,” “the gods of Sumer, and Accad, whom Nabonidus, to the great indignation of the lord of gods, had caused to be brought into Babylon, I set once more into their shrines in peace at the command of Marduk.”

Such is practically the tenor (and wording) of the Cyrus inscription, which, considered in connection with the chronicle which has come down to us from the reign of Nabonidus, sets this important matter of the transference of the new Babylonian Empire to Cyrus the Achæmeniad in an entirely new light. The termination of the political independence of Babylon came about in quite other guise than the end of Nineveh; there was no bloodshed, no siege, no judgment with fire and devastation. A further act of peace was the permission given by Cyrus to the Jews who dwelt in and about Babylon to return to the Holy Land. This is referred to in the prophecy of the great unknown prophet of the latter half of the Babylonian exile, the so-called Second Isaiah (Isaiah xliv. to the end). “The Lord that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations (the Medes and Lydians) before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.”

The last words involuntarily recall to our minds the gates of Babylon, which opened of themselves to the clement conqueror. And this prophecy, no less than the conduct of the Babylonian priests, shows that Cyrus was preceded by a reputation for clemency; for what would their ready submission have availed the latter, had Cyrus been a savage conqueror like other semi-barbaric tribal chiefs? Pillage and many horrors would then have been the lot of Babylon when she opened her gates to the foreign king. It seems probable, however, that the Babylonians nourished the certain hope that Cyrus would spare them.

Thus the history of Babylonia closes peaceably upon the noble figure of Cyrus, the Achæmeniad prince, who commands our warmest sympathies. Planted in Babylonian soil at the beginning of time, the primitive civilisation of the Sumerians was brought to the flower by the Babylonian Semites, then further developed and transplanted to Asshur and Nineveh. There the conditions grew ripe under which Assyria became the ruling power of the world. After the fall of her empire, the ancient mother-country became for a brief season the centre of the civilisation which had taken its rise there two thousand years before, and this civilisation now passed on as a legacy to the Persians, not to die among them, but to revivify and educate, even as, on the other hand, it drew fresh strength from the youthful vigour of the Indo-Germanic race, untutored as yet, but abundantly endowed with all intellectual gifts.[b]

FOOTNOTES

[29] [The authorities seem to be in dispute as to Nabonidus’ place of residence. Professor Rogers says (History of Babylon and Assyria, Vol. II, p. 361), “He [Nabonidus] did not reside at Babylon at all, but at Tema, probably an insignificant place, with no other influence in history.”]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us