The history of the Babylonian Empire commences with Nabopolassar,
who appears to have mounted the throne in the year B.C. 625; but to
understand the true character of the kingdom which he set up, its
traditions and its national spirit, we must begin at a far earlier date.
We must examine, in however incomplete and cursory a manner, the middle
period of Babylonian history, the time of obscurity and comparative
insignificance, when the country was as a general rule, subject to
Assyria, or at any rate played but a secondary part in the affairs of
the East. We shall thus prepare the way for our proper subject, while at
the same time we shall link on the history of the Fourth to that of
the First Monarchy, and obtain a second line of continuous narrative,
connecting the brilliant era of Cyaxares and Nebuchadnezzar with the
obscure period of the first Cushite kings.
It has been observed that the original Chaldaean monarchy lasted,
under various dynasties from about B.C. 2400 to B.C. 1300, when it was
destroyed by the Assyrians, who became masters of Babylonia under the
first Tiglathi-Nin, and governed it for a short time from their own
capital. Unable, however, to maintain this unity very long, they appear
to have set up in the country an Assyrian dynasty, over which they
claimed and sometimes exercised a kind of suzerainty, but which was
practically independent and managed both the external and internal
affairs of the kingdom at its pleasure. The first king of this dynasty
concerning whom we have any information is a Nebuchadnezzar, who was
contemporary with the Assyrian monarch Asshur-ris-ilim, and made two
attacks upon his territories. The first of these was by the way of
the Diyaleh and the outlying Zagros hills, the line taken by the great
Persian military road in later times. The second was directly across the
plain. If we are to believe the Assyrian historian who gives an account
of the campaigns, both attacks were repulsed, and after his second
failure the Babylonian monarch fled away into his own country hastily.
We may perhaps suspect that a Babylonian writer would have told a
different story. At any rate Asshur-ris-ilim was content to defend his
own territories and did not attempt to retaliate upon his assailant. It
was not till late in the reign of his son and successor, Tiglath-Pileser
I., that any attempt was made to punish the Babylonians for their
audacity. Then, however, that monarch invaded the southern kingdom,
which had passed into the hands of a king named Merodach-iddin-akhi,
probably a son of Nebuchadnezzar. After two years of fighting, in which
he took Eurri-Galzu (Akkerkuf), the two Sipparas, Opis, and even
Babylon itself, Tiglath-Pileser retired, satisfied apparently with his
victories; but the Babylonian monarch was neither subdued nor daunted.
Hanging on the rear of the retreating force, he harassed it by cutting
off its baggage, and in this way he became possessed of certain Assyrian
idols, which he carried away as trophies to Babylon. War
continued between the two countries during the ensuing reigns of
Merodach-shapik-ziri in Babylon and Asshur-bil-kala in Assyria, but with
no important successes, so far as appears, on either side.
The century during which these wars took place between Assyria and
Babylonia, which corresponds with the period of the later Judges in
Israel, is followed by an obscure interval, during which but little is
known of either country. Assyria seems to have been at this time in
a state of great depression. Babylonia, it may be suspected, was
flourishing; but as our knowledge of its condition comes to us almost
entirely through the records of the sister country, which here fail
us, we can only obtain a dim and indistinct vision of the greatness now
achieved by the southern kingdom. A notice of Asshur-izir-pal’s seems
to imply that Babylon, during the period in question, enlarged her
territories at the expense of Assyria, and another in Macrobius, makes
it probable that she held communications with Egypt. Perhaps these two
powers, fearing the growing strength of Assyria, united against her,
and so checked for a while that development of her resources which they
justly dreaded.
However, after two centuries of comparative depression, Assyria once
more started forward, and Babylonia was among the first of her neighbors
whom she proceeded to chastise and despoil. About the year B.C. 880
Asshur-izir-pal led an expedition to the south-east and recovered the
territory which, had been occupied by the Babylonians during the period
of weakness. Thirty years later, his son, the Black-Obelisk king, made
the power of Assyria still more sensibly felt. Taking advantage of
the circumstance that a civil war was raging in Babylonia between the
legitimate monarch Merodach-sum-adin, and his young brother, he marched
into the country, took a number of the towns, and having defeated and
slain the pretender, was admitted into Babylon itself. From thence he
proceeded to overrun Chaldaea, or the district upon the coast, which
appears at this time to have been independent of Babylon, and governed
by a number of petty kings. The Babylonian monarch probably admitted the
suzerainty of the invader, but was not put to any tribute. The Chaldaean
chiefs, however, had to submit to this indignity. The Assyrian monarch
returned to his capital, having “struck terror as far as the sea.” Thus
Assyrian influence was once more extended over the whole of the southern
country, and Babylonia resumed her position of a secondary power,
dependent on the great monarchy of the north.
But she was not long allowed to retain even the shadow of an autonomous
rule. In or about the year B.C. 821 the son and successor of the
Black-Obelisk king, apparently without any pretext, made a fresh
invasion of the country. Mero-dach-belatzu-ikm, the Babylonian monarch,
boldly met him in the field, but was defeated in two pitched battles (in
the latter of which he had the assistance of powerful allies) and was
forced to submit to his antagonist. Babylon, it is probable, became at
once an Assyrian tributary, and in this condition she remained till
the troubles which came upon Assyria towards the middle of the eighth
century B.C. gave an opportunity for shaking off the hated yoke. Perhaps
the first successes were obtained by Pul, who, taking advantage of
Assyria’s weakness under Asshur-dayan III. (ab. B.C. 770), seems to
have established a dominion over the Euphrates valley and Western
Mesopotamia, from which he proceeded to carry his arms into Syria and
Palestine. Or perhaps Pul’s efforts merely, by still further weakening
Assyria, paved the way for Babylon to revolt, and Nabonassar, who became
king of Babylon in B.C. 747, is to be regarded as the re-establisher
of her independence. In either case it is apparent that the recovery of
independence was accompanied, or rapidly followed, by a disintegration
of the country, which was of evil omen for its future greatness. While
Nabonassar established himself at the head of affairs in Babylon, a
certain Yakin, the father of Merodach-Baladan, became master of the
tract upon the coast; and various princes, Nadina, Zakiru, and others,
at the same time obtained governments, which they administered in their
own name towards the north. The old Babylonian kingdom was broken up;
and the way was prepared for that final subjugation which was ultimately
affected by the Sargonids.
Still, the Babylonians seemed to have looked with complacency on this
period, and they certainly made it an era from which to date their later
history. Perhaps, however, they had not much choice in this matter.
Nabonassar was a man of energy and determination. Bent probably on
obliterating the memory of the preceding period of subjugation, he
“destroyed the acts of the kings who had preceded him;” and the result
was that the war of his accession became almost necessarily the era from
which subsequent events had to be dated.
Nabonassar appears to have lived on friendly terms with Tiglath-Pileser,
the contemporary monarch of Assyria, who early in his reign invaded the
southern country, reduced several princes of the districts about Babylon
to subjection, and forced Merodach-Baladan, who had succeeded his
father, Yakin, in the low region, to become his tributary. No war seems
to have been waged between Tiglath-Pileser and Nabonassar. The king of
Babylon may have seen with satisfaction the humiliation of his immediate
neighbors and rivals, and may have felt that their subjugation rather
improved than weakened his own position. At any rate it tended to place
him before the nation as their only hope and champion--the sole barrier
which protected their country from a return of the old servitude.
Nabonassar held the throne of Babylon for fourteen years, from B.C. 747
to B.C. 733. It has generally been supposed that this period is the same
with that regarded by Herodotus as constituting the reign of Semiramis.
As the wife or as the mother of Nabonassar, that lady (according to
many) directed the affairs of the Babylonian state on behalf of her
husband or her son. The theory is not devoid of a certain plausibility,
and it is no doubt possible that it may be true; but at present it is
a mere conjecture, wholly unconfirmed by the native records; and we may
question whether on the whole it is not more probable that the Semiramis
of Herodotus is misplaced. In a former volume it was shown that a
Semiramis flourished in Assyria towards the end of the ninth and the
beginning of the eighth centuries B.C.---during the period, that is,
of Babylonian subjection to Assyria. She may have been a Babylonian
princess, and have exercised an authority in the southern capital. It
would seem therefore to be more probable that she is the individual whom
Herodotus intends, though he has placed her about half a century too
late, than that there were two persons of the same name within so short
a time, both queens, and both ruling in Mesopotamia.
Nabonassar was succeeded in the year B.C. 733 by a certain Nadius,
who is suspected to have been among the independent princes reduced
to subjection by Tiglath-Pileser in his Babylonian expedition. Nadius
reigned only two years--from B.C. 733 to B.C. 731--when he was succeeded
by Ghinzinus and Porus, two princes whose joint rule lasted from
B.C. 731 to B.C. 726. They were followed by an Elulseus, who has
been identified with the king of that name called by Menander king of
Tyre--the Luliya of the cuneiform inscriptions; but it is in the highest
degree improbable that one and the same monarch should have borne sway
both in Phoenicia and Chaldaea at a time when Assyria was paramount
over the whole of the intervening country. Elulseus therefore must
be assigned to the same class of utterly obscure monarchs with his
predecessors, Porus, Chinzinus, and Nadius; and it is only with
Merodach-Baladan, his successor, that the darkness becomes a little
dispelled, and we once more see the Babylonian throne occupied by a
prince of some reputation and indeed celebrity.
Merodach-Baladan was the son of a monarch, who in the troublous times
that preceded, or closely followed, the era of Nabonassar appears to
have made himself master of the lower Babylonian territory--the true
Chaldaea--and to have there founded a capital city, which he
called after his own name, Bit-Yakin. On the death of his father
Merodach-Baladan inherited this dominion; and it is here that we first
find him, when, during the reign of Nabonassar, the Assyrians under
Tiglath-Pileser II. invade the country. Forced to accept the position
of Assyrian tributary under this monarch, to whom he probably looked
for protection against the Babylonian king, Nabonassar, Merodach-Baladan
patiently bided his time, remaining in comparative obscurity during the
two reigns of Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmaneser his successor, and only
emerging contemporaneously with the troubles which ushered in the
dynasty of the Sargonids. In B.C. 721--the year in which Sargon made
himself master of Nineveh--Merodach-Baladan extended his authority
over the upper country, and was recognized as king of Babylon. Here he
maintained himself for twelve years; and it was probably at some point
of time within this space that he sent embassadors to Hezekiah at
Jerusalem, with orders to inquire into the particulars of the curious
astronomical marvel, or miracle, which had accompanied the sickness and
recovery of that monarch. It is not unlikely that the embassy, whereof
this was the pretext, had a further political object. Morodach-Baladan,
aware of his inability to withstand singly the forces of Assyria, was
probably anxious to form a powerful league against the conquering state,
which threatened to absorb the whole of Western Asia into its dominion.
Hezekiah received his advances favorably, as appears by the fact that he
exhibited to him all his treasures. Egypt, we may presume, was cognizant
of the proceedings, and gave them her support. An alliance, defensive if
not also offensive, was probably concluded between Egypt and Judaea on
the one hand, Babylon, Susiana, and the Aramaean tribes of the middle
Euphrates on the other. The league would have been formidable but for
one circumstance--Assyria lay midway between the allied states, and
could attack either moiety of the confederates separately at her
pleasure. And the Assyrian king was not slow to take advantage of his
situation. In two successive years Sargon marched his troops against
Egypt and against Babylonia, and in both directions carried all before
him. In Egypt he forced Sabaco to sue for peace. In Babylonia (B.C.
710) he gained a great victory over Merodach-Baladan and his allies,
the Aramaeans and Susianians, took Bit-Yakin, into which the defeated
monarch had thrown himself, and gained possession of his treasures and
his person. Upon this the whole country submitted; Merodach-Baladan
was carried away captive into Assyria; and Sargon himself, mounting the
throne, assumed the title-rarely taken by an Assyrian monarch of “King
of Babylon.”
But this state of things did not continue long. Sargon died in the year
B.C. 704, and coincident with his death we find a renewal of troubles in
Babylonia. Assyria’s yoke was shaken off; various pretenders started
up; a son of Sargon and brother of Sennacherib re-established Assyrian
influence for a brief space; but fresh revolts followed. A certain
Hagisa became king of Babylon for a month. Finally, Merodach-Baladan,
again appeared upon the scene, having escaped from his Assyrian prison,
murdered Hagisa, and remounted the throne from which he had been deposed
seven years previously. But the brave effort to recover independence
failed. Sennacherib in his second year, B.C. 703, descended upon
Babylonia, defeated the army which Merodach-Baladan brought against him,
drove that monarch himself into exile, after a reign of six months, and
re-attached his country to the Assyrian crown. From this time to
the revolt of Nabopolassar--a period of above three quarters of a
century--Babylonia with few and brief intervals of revolt, continued
an Assyrian fief. The assyrian kings governed her either by means
of viceroys, such as Belibus, Regibelus, Mesesimordachus, and
Saos-duchinus, or directly in their own persons, as was the case during
the reign of Esarhaddon, and during the later years of Asshur-bani-pal.
The revolts of Babylon during this period have been described at length
in the history of Assyria. Two fall into the reign of Sennacherib,
one into that of Asshur-bani-pal, his grandson. In the former,
Merodach-Baladan, who had not yet given up his pretensions to the lower
country, and a certain Susub, who was acknowledged as king at Babylon,
were the leaders. In the latter, Saos-duchinus, the Assyrian viceroy,
and brother of Asshur-bani-pal, the Assyrian king, seduced from
his allegiance by the hope of making himself independent headed the
insurrection. In each case the struggle was brief, being begun and
ended within the year. The power of Assyria at this time so vastly
preponderated over that of her ancient rival that a single campaign
sufficed on each occasion of revolt to crush the nascent insurrection.
A tabular view of the chronology of this period is appended.
[Illustration: PAGE 237]
Having thus briefly sketched the history of the kingdom of Babylon from
its conquest by Tiglathi-Nin to the close of the long period of Assyrian
predominance in Western Asia, we may proceed to the consideration of the
“Empire.” And first, as to the circumstances of its foundation.
When the Medes first assumed an aggressive attitude towards Assyria,
and threatened the capital with a siege, Babylonia apparently remained
unshaken in her allegiance. When the Scythian hordes spread themselves
over Upper Mesopotamia and wasted with fire and sword the fairest
regions under Assyrian rule, there was still no defection in this
quarter. It was not till the Scythic ravages were over, and the Medes
for the second time poured across Zagros into Adiabene, resuming the
enterprise from which they had desisted at the time of the Scythic
invasion, that the fidelity of the Southern people wavered.
Simultaneously with the advance of the Medes against the Assyrian
capital from the east, we hear of a force threatening it from the south,
a force which can only have consisted of Susianians, of Babylonians,
or of both combined. It is probable that the emissaries of Cyaxares had
been busy in this region for some time before his second attack took
place, and that by a concerted plan while the Medes debouched from the
Zagros passes, the south rose in revolt and sent its hasty levies along
the valley of the Tigris.
In this strait the Assyrian king deemed it necessary to divide his
forces and to send a portion against the enemy which was advancing from
the south, while with the remainder he himself awaited the coming of the
Medes. The troops detached for the former service he placed under the
command of a certain Nabopolassar? (Nabu-pal-uzur), who was probably
an Assyrian nobleman of high rank and known capacity. Nabopolassar had
orders to proceed to Babylon, of which he was probably made viceroy, and
to defend the southern capital against the rebels. We may conclude that
he obeyed these orders so far as to enter Babylon and install himself
in office; but shortly afterwards he seems to have made up his mind
to break faith with his sovereign, and aim at obtaining for himself
an independent kingdom out of the ruins of the Assyrian power. Having
formed this resolve, his first step was to send an embassy to Cyaxares,
and to propose terms of alliance, while at the same time he arranged
a marriage between his own son, Nebuchadnezzar, and Amuhia, or Amyitis
(for the name is written both ways), the daughter of the Median
monarch.
Cyaxares gladly accepted the terms offered; the young persons were
betrothed; and Nabopolassar immediately led, or sent, a contingent of
troops to join the Medes, who took an active part in the great siege
which resulted in the capture and destruction of the Assyrian capital.
A division of the Assyrian Empire between the allied monarchs followed.
While Cyaxares claimed for his own share Assyria Proper and the various
countries dependent on Assyria towards the north and the north-west,
Nabopolassar was rewarded by his timely defection, not merely by
independence but by the transfer to his government of Susiana on the
one hand and of the valley of the Euphrates, Syria, and Palestine on
the other. The transfer appears to have been effected quietly, the
Babylonian yoke being peacefully accepted in lieu of the Assyrian
without the necessity arising for any application of force. Probably
it appeared to the subjects of Assyria, who had been accustomed to a
monarch holding his court alternately at Nineveh and at Babylon, that
the new power was merely a continuation of the old, and the monarch a
legitimate successor of the old line of Ninevite kings.
Of the reign of Nabopolassar the information which has come down to
us is scanty. It appears by the canon of Ptolemy that he dated his
accession to the throne from the year B.C. 625, and that his reign
lasted twenty-one years, from B.C. 625 to B.C. 604. During the greater
portion of this period the history of Babylon is a blank. Apparently the
“golden city” enjoyed her new position at the head of an empire too much
to endanger it by aggression; and, her peaceful attitude provoking no
hostility, she was for a while left unmolested by her neighbors. Media,
bound to her by formal treaty as well as by dynastic interests, could be
relied upon as a firm friend; Persia was too weak, Lydia too remote, to
be formidable; in Egypt alone was there a combination of hostile feeling
with military strength such as might have been expected to lead speedily
to a trial of strength; but Egypt was under the rule of an aged and wary
prince, one trained in the school of adversity, whose years forbade his
engaging in any distant enterprise, and whose prudence led him to think
more of defending his own country than of attacking others. Thus, while
Psammetichus lived, Babylon had little to fear from any quarter, and
could afford to “give herself to pleasures and dwell carelessly.”
The only exertion which she seems to have been called upon to make
during her first eighteen years of empire resulted from the close
connection which had been established between herself and Media.
Cyaxares, as already remarked, proceeded from the capture of Nineveh to
a long series of wars and conquests. In some, if not in all, of these he
appears to have been assisted by the Babylonians, who were perhaps bound
by treaty to furnish a contingent as often as he required it, Either
Nabopolassar himself, or his son Nebuchadnezzar, would lead out the
troops on such occasions; and thus the military spirit of both prince
and people would be pretty constantly exercised.
It was as the leader of such a contingent that Nabopolassar was able
on one occasion to play the important part of peacemaker in one of the
bloodiest of all Cyaxares’ wars. After five years’ desperate fighting
the Medes and Lydians were once more engaged in conflict when an eclipse
of the sun took place. Filled with superstitious dread the two armies
ceased to contend, and showed a disposition for reconciliation, of which
the Babylonian monarch was not slow to take advantage. Having consulted
with Syennesis of Cilicia, the foremost man of the allies on the other
side, and found him well disposed to second his efforts, he proposed
that the sword should be returned to the scabbard, and that a conference
should be held to arrange terms of peace. This timely interference
proved effectual. A peace was concluded between the Lydians and the
Medes, which was cemented by a royal intermarriage: and the result
was to give to Western Asia, where war and ravage had long been almost
perpetual, nearly half a century of tranquillity.
Successful in his mediation, almost beyond his hopes, Nabopolassar
returned from Asia Minor to Babylon. He was now advanced in years,
and would no doubt gladly have spent the remainder of his days in
the enjoyment of that repose which is so dear to those who feel the
infirmities of age creeping upon them. But Providence had
ordained otherwise. In B.C. 610--probably the very year of the
eclipse--Psammetichus died, and was succeeded by his son Neco, who was
in the prime of life and who in disposition was bold and enterprising.
This monarch very shortly after his accession cast a covetous eye upon
Syria, and in the year B.C. 608, having made vast preparations, he
crossed his frontier and invaded the territories of Nabopolassar.
Marching along the usual route, by the _Shephilah_ and the plain of
Esdraelon, he learned, when he neared Megiddo, that a body of troops was
drawn up at that place to oppose him, Josiah, the Jewish king, regarding
himself as bound to resist the passage through his territories of an
army hostile to the monarch of whom he held his crown, had collected his
forces, and, having placed them across the line of the invader’s march,
was calmly awaiting in this position the approach of his master’s enemy.
Neco hereupon sent ambassadors to persuade Josiah to let him pass,
representing that he had no quarrel with the Jews, and claiming a
divine sanction to his undertaking. But nothing could shake the Jewish
monarch’s sense of duty; and Neco was consequently forced to engage with
him, and to drive his troops from their position. Josiah, defeated and
mortally wounded, returned to Jerusalem, where he died. Neco pressed
forward through Syria to the Euphrates; and carrying all before him,
established his dominion over the whole tract lying between Egypt on
the one hand, and the “Great River” upon the other. On his return three
months later he visited Jerusalem, deposed Jehoahaz, a younger son of
Josiah, whom the people had made king, and gave the crown to Jehoiakim,
his elder brother. It was probably about this time that he besieged and
took Gaza, the most important of the Philistine towns next to Ashdod.
The loss of this large and valuable territory did not at once arouse the
Babylonian monarch from his inaction or induce him to make any effort
for its recovery. Neco enjoyed his conquests in quiet for the space
of at least three full years. At length, in the year B.C. 605,
Nabopolassar, who felt himself unequal to the fatigues of a campaign,
resolved to entrust his forces to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and to send
him to contend with the Egyptians. The key of Syria at this time was
Carchemish, a city situated on the right bank of the Euphrates, probably
near the site which was afterwards occupied by Hierapolis. Here
the forces of Neco were drawn up to protect his conquests, and here
Nebuchadnezzar proceeded boldly to attack them. A great battle was
fought in the vicinity of the river, which was utterly disastrous to the
Egyptians, who “fled away” in confusion, and seem not to have ventured
on making a second stand. Nebuchadnezzar rapidly recovered the lost
territory, received the submission of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, restored
the old frontier line, and probably pressed on into Egypt itself, hoping
to cripple or even to crush his presumptuous adversary. But at this
point he was compelled to pause. News arrived from Babylon that
Nabopolassar was dead; and the Babylonian prince, who feared a disputed
succession, having first concluded a hasty arrangement with Neco,
returned at his best speed to his capital.
Arriving probably before he was expected, he discovered that his fears
were groundless. The priests had taken the direction of affairs during
his absence, and the throne had been kept vacant for him by the Chief
Priest, or Head of the Order. No pretender had started up to dispute his
claims. Doubtless his military prestige, and the probability that the
soldiers would adopt his cause, had helped to keep back aspirants; but
perhaps it was the promptness of his return, as much as anything, that
caused the crisis to pass off without difficulty.
Nebuchadnezzar is the great monarch of the Babylonian Empire, which,
lasting only 88 years--from B.C. 625 to B.C. 538--was for nearly half
the time under his sway. Its military glory is due chiefly to him, while
the constructive energy, which constitutes its especial characteristic,
belongs to it still more markedly through his character and genius.
It is scarcely too much to say that, but for Nebuchadnezzar, the
Babylonians would have had no place in history. At any rate, their
actual place is owing almost entirely to this prince, who to the
military talents of an able general added a grandeur of artistic
conception and a skill in construction which place him on a par with the
greatest builders of antiquity.
We have no complete, or even general account of Nebuchadnezzar’s wars.
Our chief, our almost sole, information concerning them is derived from
the Jewish writers. Consequently, those wars only which interested these
writers, in other words those whose scene is Palestine or its immediate
vicinity, admit of being placed before the reader. If Nebuchadnezzar had
quarrels with the Persians, or the Arabians, or the Medes, or the tribes
in Mount Zagros, as is not improbable, nothing is now known of their
course or issue. Until some historical document belonging to his time
shall be discovered, we must be content with a very partial knowledge
of the external history of Babylon during his reign. We have a tolerably
full account of his campaigns against the Jews, and some information
as to the general course of the wars which he carried on with Egypt and
Phoenicia; but beyond these narrow limits we know nothing.
It appears to have been only a few years after Nebuchadnezzar’s
triumphant campaign against Neco that renewed troubles broke out in
Syria. Phoenicia revolted under the leadership of Tyre; and about the
same time Jehoiakim, the Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aid
from the Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventh
year (B.C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into Palestine
at the head of a vast army, composed partly of his allies, the Medes,
partly of his own subjects. He first invested Tyre; but, finding that
city too strong to be taken by assault, he left a portion of his army to
continue the siege, while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem.
On his near approach, Jehoiakim, seeing that the Egyptians did not care
to come to his aid, made his submission; but Nebuchadnezzar punished his
rebellion with death, and, departing from the common Oriental practice,
had his dead body treated with indignity. At first he placed upon the
throne Jehoia-chin, the son of the late monarch, a youth of eighteen;
but three months later, becoming suspicious (probably not without
reason) of this prince’s fidelity, he deposed him and had him brought
a captive to Babylon, substituting in his place his uncle, Zedekiah,
a brother of Jehoiakim and Jehoahaz. Meanwhile the siege of Tyre was
pressed, but with little effect. A blockade is always tedious; and the
blockade of an island city, strong in its navy, by an enemy unaccustomed
to the sea, and therefore forced to depend mainly upon the assistance of
reluctant allies, must have been a task of such extreme difficulty that
one is surprised it was not given up in despair. According to the Tyrian
historians their city resisted all the power of Nebuchadnezzar for
thirteen years. If this statement is to be relied on, Tyre must have
been still uncaptured, when the time came for its sister capital to make
that last effort for freedom in which it perished.
After receiving his crown from Nebuchadnezzar, Zedekiah continued for
eight years to play the part of a faithful vassal. At length, however,
in the ninth year, he fancied he saw a way to independence. A young and
enterprising monarch, Uaphris--the Apries of Herodotus--had recently
mounted the Egyptian throne. If the alliance of this prince could be
secured, there was, Zedekiah thought, a reasonable hope that the yoke
of Babylon might be thrown off and Hebrew autonomy re-established. The
infatuated monarch did not see that, do what he would, his country
had no more than a choice of masters, that by the laws of political
attraction Judaea must gravitate to one or other of the two great
states between which it had the misfortune of lying. Hoping to free his
country, he sent ambassadors to Uaphris, who were to conclude a treaty
and demand the assistance of a powerful contingent, composed of both
foot and horse. Uaphris received the overture favorably; and Zedekiah at
once revolted from Babylon, and made preparations to defend himself with
vigor. It was not long before the Babylonians arrived. Determined to
crush the daring state, which, weak as it was, had yet ventured to
revolt against him now for the fourth time, Nebuchadnezzar came in
person, “he and all his host,” against Jerusalem, and after overcoming
and pillaging the open country, “built forts” and besieged the city.
Uaphris, upon this, learning the danger of his ally, marched out of
Egypt to his relief; and the Babylonian army, receiving intelligence
of his approach, raised the siege and proceeded in quest of their new
enemy. According to Josephus a battle was fought, in which the Egyptians
were defeated; but it is perhaps more probable that they avoided an
engagement by a precipitate retreat into their own country. At any
rate the attempt effectually to relieve Jerusalem failed. After a brief
interval the siege was renewed; a complete blockade was established; and
in a year and a half from the time of the second investment, the city
fell.
Nebuchadnezzar had not waited to witness this success of his arms.
The siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the second
investment of Jerusalem, and the Chaldaean monarch had perhaps thought
that his presence on the borders of Phoenicia was necessary to animate
his troops in that quarter. If this was his motive in withdrawing from
the Jewish capital, the event would seem to have shown that he judged
wisely. Tyre, if it fell at the end of its thirteen years’ siege,
must have been taken in the very year which followed the capture of
Jerusalem, B.C. 585. We may suppose that Nebuchadnezzar, when he quitted
Jerusalem and took up his abode at Eiblah in the Coele-Syrian valley,
turned his main attention to the great Phoenician city, and made
arrangements which caused its capture in the ensuing year.
The recovery of these two important cities secured to the Babylonian
monarch the quiet possession thenceforth of Syria and Palestine. But
still he had not as yet inflicted any chastisement upon Egypt; though
policy, no less than honor, required that the aggressions of this
audacious power should be punished. If we may believe Josephus, however,
the day of vengeance was not very long delayed. Within four years of the
fall of Tyre, B.C. 581, Nebuchadnezzar, he tells us, invaded Egypt, put
Uaphris, the monarch who had succored Zedekiah, to death, and placed
a creature of his own upon the throne. Egyptian history, it is true,
forbids our accepting this statement as correct in all its particulars.
Uaphris appears certainly to have reigned at least as late as B.C.
569, and according to Herodotus, he was put to death, not by a foreign
invader, but by a rebellious subject. Perhaps we may best harmonize the
conflicting statements on the subject by supposing that Josephus has
confounded two distinct invasions of Egypt, one made by Nebuchadnezzar
in his twenty-third year, B.C. 581, which had no very important
consequences, and the other eleven years later, B.C. 570, which
terminated in the deposition of Uaphris, and the establishment on
the throne of a new king, Amasis, who received a nominal royalty from
Chaldaean monarch.
Such--as far as they are known--were the military exploits of this great
king. He defeated Neco, recovered Syria, crushed rebellion in Judaea,
took Tyre, and humiliated Egypt. According to some writers his successes
did not stop here. Megasthenes made him subdue most of Africa, and
thence pass over into Spain and conquer the Iberians. He even went
further, and declared that, on his return from these regions, he settled
his Iberian captives on the shores of the Euxine in the country between
Armenia and the Caucasus! Thus Nebuchadnezzar was made to reign over an
empire extending from the Atlantic to the Caspian, and from the Caucasus
to the Great Sahara.
The victories of Nebuchadnezzar were not without an effect on his home
administration and on the construction of the vast works with which his
name is inseparably associated. It was through them that he obtained
that enormous command of “naked human strength” which enabled him,
without undue oppression of his own people, to carry out on the grandest
scale his schemes for at once beautifying and benefiting his kingdom.
From the time when he first took the field at the head of an army
he adopted the Assyrian system of forcibly removing almost the whole
population of a conquered country, and planting it in a distant part
of his dominions. Crowds of captives--the produce of his various
wars--Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Ammonites, Moabites, were
settled in various parts of Mesopotamia, more especially about Babylon.
From these unfortunates forced labor was as a matter of course required;
and it seems to have been chiefly, if not solely, by their exertions
that the magnificent series of great works was accomplished, which
formed the special glory of the Fourth Monarchy.
The chief works expressly ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar by the ancient
writers are the following: He built the great wall of Babylon, which,
according to the lowest estimate, must have contained more than
500,000,000 square feet of solid masonry, and must have required
three or four times that number of bricks. He constructed a new and
magnificent palace in the neighborhood of the ancient residence of the
kings. He made the celebrated “Hanging Garden” for the gratification of
his wife, Amyitis. He repaired and beautified the great temple of Belus
at Babylon. He dug the huge reservoir near Sippara, said to have been
140 miles in circumference, and 180 feet deep, furnishing it with
flood-gates, through which its water could be drawn off for purposes
of irrigation. He constructed a number of canals, among them the Nahr
Malcha or “Royal River,” a broad and deep channel which connected the
Euphrates with the Tigris. He built quays and breakwaters along the
shores of the Persian Gulf, and he at the same time founded the city of
Diridotis or Teredon in the vicinity of that sea.
To these constructions may be added, on the authority either of
Nebuchadnezzar’s own inscriptions or of the existing remains, the
Birs-i-Nimrud, or great temple of Nebo at Bor-sippa; a vast reservoir
in Babylon itself, called the Yapur-Shapu; an extensive embankment along
the course of the Tigris, near Baghdad; and almost innumerable temples,
walls, and other public buildings at Cutha, Sippara, Borsippa, Babylon,
Chilmad, Bit-Digla, etc. The indefatigable monarch seems to have either
rebuilt, or at least repaired, almost every city and temple throughout
the entire country. There are said to be at least a hundred sites in
the tract immediately about Babylon, which give evidence, by inscribed
bricks bearing his legend, of the marvellous activity and energy of this
king.
We may suspect that among the constructions of Nebuchadnezzar was
another great work, a work second in utility to none of those above
mentioned, and requiring for its completion an enormous amount of labor.
This is the canal called by the Arabs the _Kerek Saideh_, or canal of
Saideh, which they ascribe to a wife of Nebuchadnezzar, a cutting
400 miles in length, which commenced at Hit on the Euphrates, and was
carried along the extreme western edge of the alluvium close to the
Arabian frontier, finally falling into the sea at the head of the Bubian
creek, about twenty miles to the west of the Shat el-Arab. The traces
of this canal which still remain indicate a work of such magnitude
and difficulty that we can scarcely ascribe it with probability to any
monarch who has held the country since Nebuchadnezzar.
The Pallacopas, or canal of Opa (Palga Opa), which left the Euphrates
at Sippara (Mosaib) and ran into a great lake in the neighborhood of
Borsippa, whence the lands in the neighborhood were irrigated, may also
have been one of Nebuchadnezzar’s constructions. It was an old canal,
much out of repair, in the time of Alexander, and was certainly the
work, not of the Persian conquerors, but of some native monarch anterior
to Cyrus. The Arabs, who call it the Nahr Abba, regard it as the oldest
canal in the country.
Some glimpses into the private life and personal character of
Nebuchadnezzar are afforded us by certain of the Old Testament writers.
We see him in the Book of Daniel at the head of a magnificent Court,
surrounded by “princes, governors, and captains, judges, treasurers,
councillors, and sheriffs;” waited on by eunuchs selected with the
greatest care, “well-favored” and carefully educated; attended, whenever
he requires it, by a multitude of astrologers and other “wise men,” who
seek to interpret to him the will of Heaven. He is an absolute monarch,
disposing with a word of the lives and properties of his subjects, even
the highest. All offices are in his gift. He can raise a foreigner
to the second place in the kingdom, and even set him over the entire
priestly order. His wealth is enormous, for he makes of pure gold an
image, or obelisk, ninety feet high and nine feet broad. He is religious
after a sort, but wavers in his faith, sometimes acknowledging the
God of the Jews as the only real deity, sometimes relapsing into an
idolatrous worship, and forcing all his subjects to follow his example.
Even then, however, his polytheism is of a kind which admits of a
special devotion to a particular deity, who is called emphatically “his
god.” In temper he is hasty and violent, but not obstinate; his fierce
resolves are taken suddenly and as suddenly repented of; he is moreover
capable of bursts of gratitude and devotion, no less than of accesses of
fury; like most Orientals, he is vainglorious but he can humble himself
before the chastening hand of the Almighty; in his better moods he shows
a spirit astonishing in one of his country and time--a spirit of real
piety, self-condemnation, and self-abasement, which renders him one of
the most remarkable characters in Scripture.
A few touches of a darker hue must be added to this portrait of the
great Babylonian king from the statements of another contemporary, the
prophet Jeremiah. The execution of Jehoi-akim, and the putting out of
Zedekiah’s eyes, though acts of considerable severity, may perhaps be
regarded as justified by the general practice of the age, and therefore
as not indicating in Nebuchadnezzar any special ferocity of disposition.
But the ill-treatment of Jehoiakim’s dead body, the barbarity
of murdering Zedekiah’s sons before his eyes, and the prolonged
imprisonment both of Zedekiah and of Jehoiachin, though the latter had
only contemplated rebellion, cannot be thus excused. They were unusual
and unnecessary acts, which tell against the monarch who authorized
them, and must be considered to imply a real cruelty of disposition,
such as is observable in Sargon and Asshur-bani-pal. Nebuchadnezzar, it
is plain, was not content with such a measure of severity as was
needed to secure his own interests, but took a pleasure in the wanton
infliction of suffering on those who had provoked his resentment.
On the other hand, we obtain from the native writer, Berosus, one
amiable trait which deserves a cursory mention. Nebuchadnezzar was
fondly attached to the Median princess who had been chosen for him as
a wife by his father from political motives. Not content with ordinary
tokens of affection, he erected, solely for her gratification, the
remarkable structure which the Greeks called the “Hanging Garden.”
A native of a mountainous country, Amyitis disliked the tiresome
uniformity of the level alluvium, and pined for the woods and hills
of Media. It was to satisfy this longing by the best substitute which
circumstances allowed that the celebrated Garden was made. Art strove
to emulate nature with a certain measure of success, and the lofty rocks
and various trees of this wonderful Paradise, if they were not a very
close imitation of Median mountain scenery, were at any rate a pleasant
change from the natural monotony of the Babylonian plain, and must have
formed a grateful retreat for the Babylonian queen, whom they reminded
at once of her husband’s love and of the beauty of her native country.
The most remarkable circumstance in Nebuchadnezzar’s life remains to be
noticed. Towards the close of his reign, when his conquests and probably
most of his great works were completed, in the midst of complete
tranquillity and prosperity, a sudden warning was sent him. He dreamt
a strange dream, and when he sought to know its meaning, the Prophet
Daniel was inspired to tell him that it portended his removal from the
kingly office for the space of seven years, in consequence of a curious
and very unusual kind of madness. This malady, which is not unknown to
physicians, has been termed “Lycanthropy.” It consists in the belief
that one is not a man but a beast, in the disuse of language, the
rejection of all ordinary human food, and sometimes in the loss of the
erect posture and a preference for walking on all fours. Within a year
of the time that he received the warning, Nebuchadnezzar was smitten.
The great king became a wretched maniac. Allowed to indulge in his
distempered fancy, he eschewed human habitations, lived in the open air
night and day, fed on herbs, disused clothing, and became covered with
a rough coat of hair. His subjects generally, it is probable, were not
allowed to know of his condition, although they could not but be aware
that he was suffering from some terrible malady. The queen most likely
held the reins of power, and carried on the government in his name. The
dream had been interpreted to mean that the lycanthropy would not be
permanent; and even the date of recovery had been announced, only with
a certain ambiguity. The Babylonians were thereby encouraged to await
events, without taking any steps that would have involved them in
difficulties if the malady ceased. And their faith and patience met
with a reward. After suffering obscuration for the space of seven years,
suddenly the king’s intellect returned to him. His recovery was received
with joy by his Court. Lords and councillors gathered about him. He once
more took the government into his own hands, issued his proclamations,
and performed the other functions of royalty. He was now an old man, and
his reign does not seem to have been much prolonged; but “the glory of
his kingdon,” his “honor and brightness” returned; his last days were as
brilliant as his first: his sun set in an unclouded sky, shorn of none
of the rays that had given splendor to its noonday. Nebuchadnezzar
expired at Babylon in the forty-fourth year of his reign, B.C. 561,
after an illness of no long duration. He was probably little short of
eighty years old at his death.
The successor of Nebuchadnezzar was his son Evil-Mero-dach, who reigned
only two years, and of whom very little is known. We may expect that the
marvellous events of his father’s life, which are recorded in the Book
of Daniel, had made a deep impression upon him, and that he was thence
inclined to favor the persons, and perhaps the religion, of the Jews.
One of his first acts was to release the unfortunate Jehoiachin from the
imprisonment in which he had languished for thirty-five years, and to
treat him with kindness and respect. He not only recognized his royal
rank, but gave him precedence over all the captive kings resident at
Babylon. Josephus says that he even admitted Jehoiachin into the number
of his most intimate friends. Perhaps he may have designed him some
further advancement, and may in other respects have entertained projects
which seemed strange and alarming to his subjects. At any rate he had
been but two years upon the throne when a conspiracy was formed
against him; he was accused of lawlessness and intemperance; his
own brother-in-law, Neriglissar, the husband of a daughter of
Nebuchadnezzar, headed the malcontents; and Evil-Merodach lost his life
with his crown.
Neriglissar, the successful conspirator, was at once acknowledged
king. He is probably identical with the “Nergal-shar-ezer, Rab-Mag,” of
Jeremiah, who occupied a prominent position among the Babylonian nobles
left to press the siege of Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar retired to
Riblah. The title of “Rab-Mag,” is one that he bears upon his bricks.
It is doubtful what exactly his office was; for we have no reason to
believe that there were at this time any Magi at Babylon; but it was
certainly an ancient and very high dignity of which even kings might
be proud. It is remarkable that Neriglissar calls himself the son of
Bel-sum-iskun, “king of Babylon”--a monarch whose name does not appear
in Ptolemy’s list, but who is probably to be identified with a chieftain
so called, who assumed the royal title in the troubles which preceded
the fall of the Assyrian Empire.
During his short reign of four years, or rather three years and a
few months, Neriglissar had not time to distinguish himself by many
exploits. So far as appears, he was at peace with all his neighbors, and
employed his time principally in the construction of the Western
Palace at Babylon, which was a large building placed at one corner of a
fortified inclosure, directly opposite the ancient royal residence, and
abutting on the Euphrates. If the account which Diodorus gives of this
palace be not a gross exaggeration of the truth, it must have been a
magnificent erection, elaborately ornamented with painting and sculpture
in the best style of Babylonian art, though in size it may have been
inferior to the old residence of the kings on the other side of the
river.
Neriglissar reigned from B.C. 559 to B.C. 556, and dying a natural death
in the last-named year, left his throne to his son, Laborosoarchod,
or Labossoracus. This prince, who was a mere boy, and therefore quite
unequal to the task of governing a great empire in critical times, was
not allowed to retain the crown many months. Accused by those
about him--whether justly or unjustly we cannot say--of giving many
indications of a bad disposition, he was deposed and put to death by
torture. With him power passed from the House of Nabopolassar, which had
held the throne for just seventy years.
On the death of Laborosoarchod the conspirators selected one of their
number, a certain Nabonadius or Nabannidochus, and invested him with the
sovereignty. He was in no way related to the late monarch, and his claim
to succeed must have been derived mainly from the part which he had
played in the conspiracy. But still he was a personage of some rank, for
his father had, like Neriglissar, held the important office of Rab Mag.
It is probable that one of his first steps on ascending the throne was
to connect himself by marriage with the royal house which had preceded
him in the kingdom. Either the mother of the late king Laborosoarchod,
and widow of Neriglissar, or possibly some other daughter of
Nebuchadnezzar, was found willing to unite her fortune with those of the
new sovereign, and share the dangers and the dignity of his position.
Such a union strengthened the hold of the reigning monarch on the
allegiance of his subjects, and tended still more to add stability to
his dynasty. For as the issue of such a marriage would join in one the
claims of both royal houses, he would be sure to receive the support of
all parties in the state. Very shortly after the accession of Nabonadius
(B.C. 555) he received an embassy from the far north-west. An important
revolution had occurred on the eastern frontier of Babylonia three years
before, in the reign of Neriglissar; but its effects only now began to
make themselves felt among the neighboring nations. Had Cyrus, on taking
the crown, adopted the policy of Astyages, the substitution of Persia
for Media as the ruling Arian nation would have been a matter of small
account. But there can be little doubt that he really entered at once
on a career of conquest, Lydia, at any rate, felt herself menaced by the
new power, and seeing the danger which threatened the other monarchies
of the time, if they allowed the great Arian kingdom to attack them
severally with her full force, proposed a league whereby the common
enemy might, she thought, be resisted with success. Ambassadors seem
to have been sent from Sardis to Babylon in the very year in which
Nabonadius became king. He therefore had at once to decide whether he
would embrace the offer made him, and uniting with Lydia and Egypt in
a league against Persia, make that power his enemy, or refuse the
proffered alliance and trust to the gratitude of Cyrus for the future
security of his kingdom. It would be easy to imagine the arguments pro
and contra which presented themselves to his mind at this conjuncture;
but as they would be destitute of a historical foundation, it is perhaps
best to state simply the decision at which he is known to have arrived.
This was an acceptance of the Lydian offer. Nabonadius consented to join
the proposed league; and a treaty was probably soon afterwards concluded
between the three powers whereby they united in an alliance offensive
and defensive against the Persians.
Knowing that he had provoked a powerful enemy by this bold act, and
ignorant how soon he might be called upon to defend his kingdom, from
the entire force of his foe, which might be suddenly hurled against him
almost at any moment, Nabonadius seems to have turned his attention at
once to providing means of defence. The works ascribed by Herodotus to a
queen, Nitocris, whom he makes the mother of Nabonadius (Labynetus)
must be regarded as in reality constructions of that monarch himself,
undertaken with the object of protecting Babylon from Cyrus. They
consisted in part of defences within the city, designed apparently to
secure it against an enemy who should enter by the river, in part of
hydraulic works intended to obstruct the advances of an army by the
usual route. The river had hitherto flowed in its natural bed through
the middle of the town. Nabonadius confined the stream by a brick
embankment carried the whole way along both banks, after which he built
on the top of the embankment a wall of a considerable height, pierced
at intervals by gateways, in which were set gates of bronze. He likewise
made certain cuttings, reservoirs, and sluices at some distance from
Babylon towards the north, which were to be hindrances to an enemy’s
march, though in what way is not very apparent. Some have supposed that
besides these works there was further built at the same time a great
wall which extended entirely across the tract between the two rivers--a
huge barrier a hundred feet high and twenty thick--meant, like the Roman
walls in Britain and the great wall of China, to be insurmountable by an
unskillful foe; but there is ground for suspecting that this belief is
ill-founded, having for its sole basis a misconception of Xenophon’s.
Nabonadius appears to have been allowed ample time to carry out to the
full his system of defences, and to complete all his preparations.
The precipitancy of Croesus, who plunged into a war with Persia
single-handed, asking no aid from his allies, and the promptitude of
Cyrus, who allowed him no opportunity of recovering from his first false
step, had prevented Nabonadius from coming into actual collision with
Persia in the early part of his reign. The defeat of Croesus in the
battle of Pteria, the siege of Sardis, and its capture, followed so
rapidly on the first commencement of hostilities, that whatever his
wishes may have been, Nabonadius had it not in his power to give any
help to his rash ally. Actual war was thus avoided at this time; and
no collision having occurred, Cyrus could defer an attack on the great
kingdom of the south until he had consolidated his power in the north
and the northeast, which he rightly regarded as of the last importance.
Thus fourteen years intervened between the capture of Sardis by the
Persian arms and the commencement of the expedition against Babylon.
When at last it was rumored that the Persian king had quitted Ecbatana
(B.C. 539) and commenced his march to the south-west, Nabonadius
received the tidings with indifference. His defences were completed: his
city was amply provisioned; if the enemy should defeat him in the open
field, he might retire behind his walls, and laugh to scorn all attempts
to reduce his capital either by blockade or storm. It does not appear to
have occurred to him that it was possible to protect his territory. With
a broad, deep, and rapid river directly interposed between him and his
foe, with a network of canals spread far and wide over his country, with
an almost inexhaustible supply of human labor at his command for
the construction of such dikes, walls, or cuttings as he should deem
advisable, Nabonadius might, one would have thought, have aspired to
save his land from invasion, or have disputed inch by inch his enemy’s
advance towards the capital. But such considerations have seldom had
much force with Orientals, whose notions of war and strategy are even
now of the rudest and most primitive description. To measure one’s
strength as quickly as possible with that of one’s foe, to fight one
great pitched battle in order to decide the question of superiority
in the field, and then, if defeated, either to surrender or to retire
behind walls, has been the ordinary conception of a commander’s duties
in the East from the time of the Ramesside kings to our own day. No
special blame therefore attaches to Nabonadius for his neglect. He
followed the traditional policy of Oriental monarchs in the course which
he took. And his subjects had less reason to complain of his resolution
than most others, since the many strongholds in Babylonia must have
afforded them a ready refuge, and the great fortified district within
which Babylon itself stood must have been capable of accommodating with
ease the whole native population of the country.
If we may trust Herodotus, the invader, having made all his preparations
and commenced his march, came to a sudden pause midway between Ecbatana
and Babylon. One of the sacred white horses, which drew the chariot of
Ormazd, had been drowned in crossing a river; and Cyrus had thereupon
desisted from his march, and, declaring that he would revenge himself
on the insolent stream, had set his soldiers to disperse its waters into
360 channels. This work employed him during the whole summer and autumn;
nor was it till another spring had come that he resumed his expedition.
To the Babylonians such a pause must have appeared like irresolution.
They must have suspected that the invader had changed his mind and would
not venture across the Tigris. If the particulars of the story reached
them, they probably laughed at the monarch who vented his rage on
inanimate nature, while he let his enemies escape scot free.
Cyrus, however, had a motive for his proceedings which will appear
in the sequel. Having wintered on the banks of the Gyndes in a mild
climate, where tents would have been quite a sufficient protection to
his army, he put his troops in motion at the commencement of spring,
crossed the Tigris apparently unopposed, and soon came in sight of the
capital. Here he found the Babylonian army drawn out to meet him under
the command of Nabonadius himself, who had resolved to try the chance
of a battle. An engagement ensued, of which we possess no details; our
informants simply tell us that the Babylonian monarch was completely
defeated, and that, while most of his army sought safety within the
walls of the capital, he himself with a small body of troops threw
himself into Borsippa, an important town lying at a short distance from
Babylon towards the south-west. It is not easy to see the exact object
of this movement. Perhaps Nabonadius thought that the enemy would
thereby be obliged to divide his army, which might then more easily be
defeated; perhaps he imagined that by remaining without the walls he
might be able to collect such a force among his subjects and allies as
would compel the beleaguering army to withdraw. Or, possibly, he merely
followed an instinct of self-preservation, and fearing that the soldiers
of Cyrus might enter Babylon with his own, if he fled thither, sought
refuge in another city.
It might have been supposed that his absence would have produced anarchy
and confusion in the capital; but a step which he had recently
taken with the object of giving stability to his throne rendered
the preservation of order tolerably easy. At the earliest possible
moment--probably when he was about fourteen--he had associated with him
in the government his son, Belshazzar, or Bel-shar-uzur, the grandson
of the great Nebuchadnezzar. This step, taken most likely with a view to
none but internal dangers, was now found exceedingly convenient for
the purposes of the war. In his father’s absence Belshazzar took
the direction of affairs within the city, and met and foiled for a
considerable time all the assaults of the Persians. He was young and
inexperienced, but he had the counsels of the queen-mother to guide and
support him, as well as those of the various lords and officers of
the court. So well did he manage the defence that after a while Cyrus
despaired, and as a last resource ventured on a stratagem in which it
was clear that he must either succeed or perish.
Withdrawing the greater part of his army from the vicinity of the city,
and leaving behind him only certain corps of observation, Cyrus marched
away up the course of the Euphrates for a certain distance, and there
proceeded to make a vigorous use of the spade. His soldiers could
now appreciate the value of the experience which they had gained by
dispersing the Gyndes, and perceive that the summer and autumn of the
preceding year had not been wasted. They dug a channel or channels from
the Euphrates, by means of which a great portion of its water would be
drawn off, and hoped in this way to render the natural course of the
river fordable.
When all was prepared, Cyrus determined to wait for the arrival of a
certain festival, during which the whole population were wont to engage
in drinking and revelling, and then silently in the dead of night to
turn the water of the river and make his attack. It fell out as he hoped
and wished. The festival was held with even greater pomp and splendor
than usual; for Belshazzar, with the natural insolence of youth, to
mark his contempt of the besieging army, abandoned himself wholly to the
delights of the season, and himself entertained a thousand lords in his
palace. Elsewhere the rest of the population was occupied in feasting
and dancing. Drunken riot and mad excitement held possession of the
town; the siege was forgotten; ordinary precautions were neglected.
Following the example of their king, the Babylonians gave themselves
up for the night to orgies in which religious frenzy and drunken excess
formed a strange and revolting medley.
Meanwhile, outside the city, in silence and darkness, the Persians
watched at the two points where the Euphrates entered and left the
walls. Anxiously they noted the gradual sinking of the water in the
river-bed; still more anxiously they watched to see if those within
the walls would observe the suspicious circumstance and sound an alarm
through the town. Should such an alarm be given, all their labors would
be lost. If, when they entered the river-bed, they found the river-walls
manned and the river-gates fast-locked, they would be indeed “caught in
a trap.” Enfiladed on both sides by an enemy whom they could neither
see nor reach, they would be overwhelmed and destroyed by his missiles
before they could succeed in making their escape. But, as they watched,
no sounds of alarm reached them--only a confused noise of revel and
riot, which showed that the unhappy townsmen were quite unconscious of
the approach of danger.
At last shadowy forms began to emerge from the obscurity of the deep
river-bed, and on the landing-places opposite the river-gates scattered
clusters of men grew into solid columns--the undefended gateways were
seized--a war-shout was raised--the alarm was taken and spread--and
swift runners started off to “show the King of Babylon that his city was
taken at one end.” In the darkness and confusion of the night a terrible
massacre ensued. The drunken revellers could make no resistance. The
king paralyzed with fear at the awful handwriting upon the wall, which
too late had warned him of his peril, could do nothing even to check
the progress of the assailants, who carried all before them everywhere.
Bursting into the palace, a band of Persians made their way to the
presence of the monarch, and slew him on the scene of his impious
revelry. Other bands carried fire and sword through the town. When
morning came, Cyrus found himself undisputed master of the city, which,
if it had not despised his efforts, might with the greatest ease have
baffled them.
The war, however, was not even yet at an end. Nabonadius still held
Borsippa, and, if allowed to remain unmolested, might have gradually
gathered strength and become once more a formidable foe. Cyrus,
therefore, having first issued his orders that the outer fortifications
of Babylon should be dismantled, proceeded to complete his conquest by
laying siege to the town where he knew that Nabonadius had taken refuge.
That monarch, however, perceiving that resistance would be vain, did
not wait till Borsippa was invested, but on the approach of his enemy
surrendered himself. Cyrus rewarded his submission by kind and liberal
treatment. Not only did he spare his life, but (if we may trust
Abydenus) he conferred on him the government of the important province
of Carmania.
Thus perished the Babylonian empire. If we seek the causes of its fall,
we shall find them partly in its essential military inferiority to
the kingdom that had recently grown up upon its borders, partly in the
accidental circumstance that its ruler at the time of the Persian attack
was a man of no great capacity. Had Nebuchadnezzar himself, or a prince
of his mental calibre, been the contemporary of Cyrus, the issue of the
contest might have been doubtful. Babylonia possessed naturally vast
powers of resistance--powers which, had they been made use of to the
utmost, might have tired out the patience of the Persians. That lively,
active, but not over-persevering people would scarcely have maintained
a siege with the pertinacity of the Babylonians themselves or of
the Egyptians. If the stratagem of Cyrus had failed--and its success
depended wholly on the Babylonians exercising no vigilance--the capture
of the town would have been almost impossible. Babylon was too large to
be blockaded; its walls were too lofty to be scaled, and too massive to
be battered down by the means possessed by the ancients. Mining in the
soft alluvial soil would have been dangerous work, especially as the
town ditch was deep and supplied with abundant water from the Euphrates.
Cyrus, had he failed in his night attack, would probably have at once
raised the siege; and Babylonian independence might perhaps in that case
have been maintained down to the time of Alexander.
Even thus, however, the “Empire” would not have been continued. So soon
as it became evident that the Babylonians were no match for the Persians
in the field, their authority over the subject nations was at an end.
The Susianians, the tribes of the middle Euphrates, the Syrians, the
Phoenicians, the Jews, the Idumseans, the Ammonites and Moabites, would
have gravitated to the stronger power, even if the attack of Cyrus on
Babylon itself had been repulsed. For the conquests of Cyrus in Asia
Minor, the Oxus region, and Afghanistan, had completely destroyed the
balance of power in Western Asia, and given to Persia a preponderance
both in men and in resources against which the cleverest and most
energetic of Babylonian princes would have struggled in vain. Persia
must in any case have absorbed all the tract between Mount Zagros and
the Mediterranean, except Babylonia Proper; and thus the successful
defence of Babylon would merely have deprived the Persian Empire of a
province.
In its general character the Babylonian Empire was little more than
a reproduction of the Assyrian. The same loose organization of the
provinces under native kings rather than satraps almost universally
prevailed, with the same duties on the part of suzerain and subjects and
the same results of ever-recurring revolt and re-conquest. Similar
means were employed under both empires to check and discourage
rebellion--mutilations and executions of chiefs, pillage of the
rebellious region, and wholesale deportation of its population. Babylon,
equally with Assyria, failed to win the affections of the subject
nations, and, as a natural result, received no help from them in her
hour of need. Her system was to exhaust and oppress the conquered
races for the supposed benefit of the conquerors, and to impoverish the
provinces for the adornment and enrichment of the capital. The wisest of
her monarch’s thought it enough to construct works of public utility
in Babylonia Proper, leaving the dependent countries to themselves, and
doing nothing to develop their resources. This selfish system was, like
most selfishness, short-sighted; it alienated those whom it would have
been true policy to conciliate and win. When the time of peril came, the
subject nations were no source of strength to the menaced empire, On
the contrary, it would seem that some even turned against her and made
common cause with the assailants.
Babylonian civilization differed in many respects from Assyrian, to
which however it approached more nearly than to any other known type.
Its advantages over Assyrian were in its greater originality, its
superior literary character, and its comparative width and flexibility.
Babylonia seems to have been the source from which Assyria drew her
learning, such as it was, her architecture, the main ideas of her
mimetic art, her religious notions, her legal forms, and a vast number
of her customs and usages. But Babylonia herself, so far as we know,
drew her stores from no foreign country. Hers was apparently the genius
which excogitated an alphabet--worked out the simpler problems
of arithmetic--invented implements for measuring the lapse of
time--conceived the idea of raising enormous structures with the poorest
of all materials, clay--discovered the art of polishing, boring, and
engraving gems--reproduced with truthfulness the outlines of human and
animal forms--attained to high perfection in textile fabrics--studied
with success the motions of the heavenly bodies--conceived of grammar
as a science--elaborated a system of law--saw the value of an exact
chronology--in almost every branch of science made a beginning, thus
rendering it comparatively easy for other nations to proceed with the
superstructure. To Babylonia, far more than to Egypt, we owe the art
and learning of the Greeks. It was from the East, not from Egypt,
that Greece derived her architecture, her sculpture, her science, her
philosophy, her mathematical knowledge--in a word, her intellectual
life. And Babylon was the source to which the entire stream of Eastern
civilization may be traced. It is scarcely too much to say that, but
for Babylon, real civilization might not even yet have dawned upon the
earth. Mankind might never have advanced beyond that spurious and
false form of it which in Egypt, India, China, Japan, Mexico, and Peru,
contented the aspirations of the species.
APPENDIX.
A. STANDARD INSCRIPTION OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR.
The Inscription begins with the various titles of Nebuchadnezzar. It
then contains prayers and invocations to the Gods, Merodach and Nebo.
The extent of N.’s power is spoken of--it reaches from one sea to the
other.
An account is then given of the wonders of Babylon, viz.:
1. The great temple of Merodach. (The mound of Babil is the tower or
ziggurat of this.)
2. The Borsippa temple (or Birs).
3. Various other temples in Babylon and Borsippa.
The subjoined description of the city follows: “The double inclosure
which Nabopolassar my father had made but not completed, I finished.
Nabopolassar made its ditch. With two long embankments of brick and
mortar he bound its bed. He made the embankment of the Arahha. He lined
the other side of the Euphrates with brick. He made a bridge (?) over
the Euphrates, but did not finish its buttresses (?). From... (the name
of a place) he made with bricks burnt as hard as stones, by the help
of the great Lord Merodach, a way (for) a branch of the Shimat to the
waters of the Yapur-Shapu, the great reservoir of Babylon, opposite to
the gate of Nin.
“The _Ingur-Bel_ and the _Nimiti-Bel_--the great double wall of
Babylon--I finished. With two long embankments of brick and mortar I
built the sides of its ditch. I joined it on with that which my father
had made. I strengthened the city. Across the river to the west I
built the wall of Babylon with brick. The Yapur-Shapu-the reservoir of
Babylon--by the grace of Merodach I filled completely full of water.
With bricks burnt as hard as stones, and with bricks in huge masses like
mountains (?), the Yapur-Shapu, from the gate of Mula as far as Nana,
who is the protectress of her votaries, by the grace of his godship
(i.e. Merodach) I strengthened. With that which my father had made I
joined it. I made the way of Nana, the protectress of her votaries.
The great gates of the Ingur-Bel and the Nimiti-Bel-the reservoir of
Babylon, at the time of the flood (lit. of fulness), inundated them.
These gates I raised. Against the waters their foundations with brick
and mortar I built. [Here follows a description of the gates, with
various architectural details, an account of the decorations, hangings,
etc.] For the delight of mankind I filled the reservoir. Behold! besides
the Ingur-Bel, the impregnable fortification of Babylon. I constructed
inside Babylon on the eastern side of the river a fortification such
as no king had ever made before me, viz., a long rampart, 4000 ammas
square, as an extra defence. I excavated the ditch: with brick and
mortar I bound its bed; a long rampart at its head (?) I strongly built.
I adorned its gates. The folding doors and the pillars I plated with
copper. Against presumptuous enemies, who were hostile to the men of
Babylon, great waters, like the waters of the ocean, I made use of
abundantly. Their depths were like the depths of the vast ocean. I did
not allow the waters to overflow, but the fulness of their floods I
caused to flow on, restraining them with a brick embankment.... Thus I
completely made strong the defences of Babylon. May it last forever!”
[Here follows a similar account of works at Borsippa.] “In Babylon--the
city which is the delight of my eyes, and which I have glorified--when
the waters were in flood, they inundated the foundations of the great
palace called Taprati-nisi, or ‘the Wonder of Mankind;’ (a palace) with
many chambers and lofty towers; the high-place of Royalty; (situated) in
the land of Babylon, and in the middle of Babylon; stretching from the
Ingur-Bel to the bed of the Shebil, the eastern canal, (and) from
the bank of the Sippara river, to the water of the Yapur-Shapu;
which Nabopolassar my father built with brick and raised up; when the
reservoir of Babylon was full, the gates of this palace were flooded.
I raised the mound of brick on which it was built, and made smooth its
platform. I cut off the floods of the water, and the foundations (of
the palace) I protected against the water with bricks and mortar: and I
finished it completely. Long beams I set up to support it: with pillars
and beams plated with copper and strengthened with iron I built up its
gates. Silver and gold, and precious stones whose names were almost
unknown [here follow several unknown names of objects, treasures of the
palace], I stored up inside, and placed there the treasure-house of
my kingdom. Four years (?), the seat of my kingdom in the city...,
which....did not rejoice (my) heart. In all my dominions I did not build
a high-place of power; the precious treasures of my kingdom I did not
lay up. In Babylon, buildings for myself and the honor of my kingdom I
did not lay out. In the worship of Merodach my lord, the joy of my heart
(?), in Babylon, the city of his sovereignty and the seat of my empire,
I did not sing his praises (?), and I did not furnish his altars (i.e.
with victims), nor did I clear out the canals.” [Here follow further
negative clauses.]
“As a further defence in war, at the Ingur-Bel, the impregnable outer
wall, the rampart of the Babylonians--with two strong lines of brick and
mortar I made a strong fort, 400 ammas square inside the Nimiti-Bel,
the inner defence of the Babylonians. Masonry of brick within them (the
lines) I constructed. With the palace of my father I connected it. In a
happy month and on an auspicious day its foundations I laid in the earth
like.... I completely finished its top. In fifteen days I completed it,
and made it the high-place of my kingdom. [Here follows a description of
the ornamentation of the palace.] A strong fort of brick and mortar in
strength I constructed. Inside the brick fortification another great
fortification of long stones, of the size of great mountains, I made.
Like Shedim I raised up its head. And this building I raised for a
wonder; for the defence of the people I constructed it.”
B. ON THE MEANINGS OF BABYLONIAN NAMES.
The names of the Babylonians, like those of the Assyrians, were
significant. Generally, if not always, they were composed of at least
two elements. These might be a noun in the nominative case with a verb
following it, a noun in the nominative with a participle in apposition,
or a word meaning “servant” followed by the name of a god. Under the
first class came such names as “Bel-ipni”--“Bel has made (me)”--from Bel,
[Illustration: PAGE 263]
[Illustration: PAGE 264]
[Illustration: PAGE 265]