The Kassite Dynasty had fallen about 1230 B.C., in consequence of an

attack on the part of the Elamites, and a new dynasty which sprang from

Isin took its place, and lasted for 132½ years. Then came a series of

short-lived dynasties, ending with that of Nabu-nasir, the Nabonassar

of classical writers, who ascended the throne of Babylon in 747 B.C.

Assyria was at the time in the throes of a revolution. Civil war and

pestilence were devastating the kingdom, and its northern provinces had

been wrested from it by Ararat (or Van) [Urartu]. In 746 B.C. Calah

rebelled, and on the thirteenth of Airu (April), in the following

year, Pulu or Pul, who took the name of Tiglathpileser III, seized the

throne, and inaugurated a new and vigorous policy.[c]

At this point it seems well to interrupt the story of Babylonia for a

time until we have traced the origins and rise of that Assyrian power

in which the fortunes of Babylon were soon involved and subordinated

until the destruction of Nineveh, when the New Babylonian Empire

emerged into historic prominence.[a]

FOOTNOTES

[19] [Such is the way in which a few Assyriologists read the more

commonly accepted “Shirpurla.” Professor Hommel interprets it

“Sirgulla,” in favour of which there is something to be said.]

[20] [Quoted by permission from “Early Babylonian History,” New York

and London, 1902.]

[21] [The patesi was an official whose office was sacerdotal as well

as administrative. We find him at the head of a state before the ruler

assumes the title of king and also a viceregent when the country has

been conquered by a more powerful nation. The custom seems to have been

in this case for the victorious monarch to reduce the vanquished to the

rank of patesi, and in such capacity he and his successors continue the

local administration.]

CHAPTER III. THE RISE OF ASSYRIA

Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and

with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was

among the thick boughs.

The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her

rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little

rivers unto all the trees of the field.

Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field,

and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long

because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under

his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their

young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches:

for his root was by great waters.--_Ezekiel_ xxxi. 3-7.

The Assyrian Empire is in some respects unique in history. Despite

the proverbial tendency of history to repeat itself, there has been

no duplication of the tragic history of this wonderful body politic.

It rose to be the most powerful of nations; it reached out and gained

the widest empire that had hitherto been seen; its capital, Nineveh,

was for a few centuries the metropolis of the world. But in the very

fulness of its imperial flight it was struck down and utterly destroyed.

Other empires have been subjugated; Nineveh was annihilated. The very

name “Assyrian” became only a memory and a tradition. Late in the

seventh century B.C. Nineveh was the boasted mistress of the world; two

centuries later the mounds that covered her ruins were noted by the

Greek historian Xenophon, who marched past them with the ill-fated Ten

Thousand, merely as the relics of some ancient city of unknown name.

So brief may be the highest fame! Yet the sequel is stranger still.

As we have seen, these forgotten mounds treasured secrets of history

which they have since given up to the explorer, and our own generation

has seen Assyria restored to its place in history. The details of its

career are more fully known to us than those of almost any other nation

of antiquity. Such a phœnix-like regeneration is a fitting sequel to

the fantastic career with its tragic dénouement, which is about to

claim our attention.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 3000-1120 B.C.]]

It must not be supposed that the Assyrian Empire came suddenly to

the height of power just suggested. On the contrary, its rise was

slow, and accomplished by intermittent impulses. Naturally enough,

the growing nation has left us no such exhaustive records of its

history during earlier days as have come to us from its time of might.

Indeed, for some centuries after Assyria began to assume importance,

we have but fragmentary records of its history. Only here and there

a great monarch puts the stamp of his achievements upon an epoch so

indelibly that time itself cannot wipe it out. Such names as Sargon

II, Shalmaneser, and Tiglathpileser were remembered by posterity as

the names of great heroes whose deeds various successors strove to

emulate, and whose names were taken up, sometimes by usurpers of the

throne, sometimes by legitimate descendants of royalty, and thus doubly

perpetuated.

It is not till we are well within the last thousand years of the

pre-Christian era, however, that the monarchs of Assyria come to be

so well known to us as to seem like true historic personages in the

same sense in which these terms would be applied to the Alexanders and

Cæsars of a later period. Such kings as Sargon II, Asshurnazirpal,

Tiglathpileser III, Shalmaneser II and a little later, Sennacherib,

Esarhaddon, and Asshurbanapal, left records so voluminous and so

perfectly authenticated as to bring their authors into the clearest

light of history. Nowhere else outside of Egypt have such full records

been preserved of the deeds of ancient monarchs as in the case of

these Assyrian kings. Naturally enough, the record ceases before the

destruction of Nineveh; there was no Assyrian scribe left to tell of

that tragic event.

But now the scene shifts to Babylon; the kings of that principality

take up the broken record, and for a few generations supply us with

historical documents of the utmost importance. And where the Babylonian

records end, the Persian chronicles begin. These are supplemented in

due course by the reports of the Grecian historians, beginning with

Herodotus, so that the historical sequence is practically unbroken.

We have seen that these Assyrian and Babylonian records were quite

unknown throughout later classical times, and from then on until

restored late in the nineteenth century. A peculiar interest, then,

attaches to the comparison of these records with the traditions of

Babylonian and Assyrian heroes which the classical writers have

preserved. In general, it can hardly be said that the comparison is

flattering to the classical mind. No Assyrian tablet tells us of any

such person as Ninus, the alleged founder of Nineveh. Nor is there any

royal cylinder that tells of the mighty conquests of Queen Semiramis.

There is, indeed, a queen of that name mentioned, but she is the

consort of a late king of Nineveh, and there is nothing recorded to

suggest that her achievements were in any respect noteworthy. We are

forced to conclude, then, that the Greek historians, in recording

the alleged history of Assyria, depended upon verbal traditions.

They appear to have been altogether ignorant of the contents of the

authentic historical documents, many of which were still accessible

in the libraries of Babylonia when Herodotus visited that city. It is

interesting to note, however, that the Greeks had a vivid realisation

of the sometime greatness of Assyria, even though they were unable to

form a clear and correct image of the picture. Semiramis was really

an idealised impersonation of the general conception of the Assyrian

conqueror. Sargon, Tiglathpileser, and their successors were forgotten

in name, but their deeds were vaguely remembered, and out of the

reminiscences of their actual conquests arose the conception of a

mythical ruler, whose name was destined for centuries to supplant the

names of actual heroes. What happened here is but a repetition of what

has happened elsewhere under similar conditions. There is no myth

without its background of fact. Had there never been great conquerors

ruling over Assyria, there would never have arisen the legend of

Semiramis. That “there is no smoke without some fire” is a maxim which

the historian should never overlook; it is a maxim to which the story

of Assyrian history gives peculiar emphasis.

So much has been said about the sources of Assyrian history that only a

word need be added here. We shall have occasion as we proceed, to call

attention in greater detail to the specific records of various kings.

In addition to these, however, there are certain historical documents

of a more general character, which have been largely instrumental in

enabling the modern investigator to reconstruct Babylonian and Assyrian

history. The most important of these are certain Babylonian king-lists

and a so-called Synchronistic History, in which the succession of

rulers in Babylonia and in Assyria is synchronised. These chronological

documents taken together do not enable us fully to reconstruct the

history of the long periods in question, but the gaps are relatively

insignificant, in particular after about the year 1000 B.C.; and for

the later monarchs of Assyria the records are often so voluminous as to

furnish accurate details regarding all the events of importance.

It has already been pointed out that the earliest history of Assyria is

no less obscure than that of early Babylonia. As nearly as the facts

can now be restored to us, it would appear that for some centuries the

people to the north of Babylonia were struggling for supremacy against

the older civilisation of the South. Gradually the northerners--the

Assyrians, as they became known--gained in strength until, finally,

about the beginning of the fourteenth century B.C., under Shalmaneser

I, Asshur obtained a position at least equal to Babylonia. After the

death of this monarch Assyria seems to have weakened for a time, and

it is not until about 1100 B.C. that another great monarch appeared to

put the stamp of his personality upon the epoch. This new ruler was

known as Tiglathpileser I. He has been called the first of the great

Assyrian conquerors, though perhaps this estimate does scant justice to

certain of his predecessors. In any event, he restored the influence

of Assyria, subjugated Babylonia, and is said to have been the first

Assyrian ruler to be crowned as “King of the Four Corners of the

Earth.” It is believed that Nineveh was established as the capital of

the empire in the reign of the son and successor of Tiglathpileser, who

bore the unfamiliar name of Asshur-bel-kala.

[Illustration: AN ASSYRIAN PRINCE]

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 950-825 B.C.]]

It is curious how largely the personality of an individual monarch

dominates the history of an epoch among oriental nations. An

illustration of this familiar fact is shown by antithesis in the

scantiness of the records for about a century after the death of

Tiglathpileser. Imperfect records reappear about 950 B.C., but it is

not till about three-quarters of a century later that Assyria rises

again to a time of might. Then, under Asshurnazirpal, one of the most

enterprising and most cruel of conquerors, the stamp of Assyrian

influence was put upon all surrounding nations. Shalmaneser II largely

sustained the traditions of his father, and the power of Assyria was

upheld, if not extended, by the next rulers, Tiglathpileser III and

Shalmaneser IV.

How fully the deeds of these later Assyrian monarchs are known to us

will appear in the succeeding pages. Monarchs of even greater celebrity

were to come after; yet perhaps the reign of Asshurnazirpal (885-860

B.C.) may not unjustly be regarded as the period when Assyria obtained

its greatest power and its highest civilisation. The bas-reliefs from

the palace of Asshurnazirpal, which were exhumed by Layard and which

are now exhibited in the British Museum, are in some respects the most

perfect examples of Assyrian art that have been preserved. It is true

that the artists of two centuries later had developed a more elaborate

fashion in the matter of details; but the rugged outlines of the

earlier masters tell of art in its creative period. The models produced

in this epoch were never to be altered in their essentials during the

entire course of Assyrian history. Such hunting scenes as that in which

Asshurnazirpal, standing in his chariot, is seen shooting an arrow at

an enraged and wounded lion, were perhaps never quite equalled by any

Assyrian artist of a later epoch. The art of this time shows examples

also of massive sculptures, such as the human-headed bulls and lions,

in relative abundance. A curious feature of the later sculptures is

that they usually present inscriptions written across pedestal and

figure alike. Needless to say, these inscriptions record deeds of the

great conqueror. Unfortunately, many of them are repetitions, but even

so they preserve relatively comprehensive records of the achievements

of the great king.

Even fuller records are preserved of Shalmaneser II. In particular,

the black obelisk on which the deeds of this king are presented, both

in graphic pictures and in extensive inscriptions, is one of the most

famous of Assyrian antiquities. The exact character of this inscription

and of the other records in question will be detailed in the succeeding

pages.[a] Before proceeding to the history proper, let us study the

theatre where the drama was played and the origins of the actors.

LAND AND PEOPLE

The land of Assyria, in the more restricted sense of the term, lies for

the most part on the left bank of the Tigris, and is bounded on the

south by the Lower Zab. Hence, strictly speaking, it would not form

part of Mesopotamia were it not that the capital importance of the

Tigris to the country and the trend of its other rivers make it a kind

of appendage to the alluvial plain, and that the mountain ranges of

the North constitute a boundary which cuts it off from the rest of the

world, and thus naturally assigns it to Mesopotamia. Consequently, as

soon as the Assyrians gained their independence and started on a career

of conquest, it was natural that they should first extend their borders

in that direction.

Mesopotamia consists of a great low-lying plain divided by no physical

barrier. It was natural, therefore, that the policy of all powerful

rulers in that region should have had for its aim the political

unification of all parts of the country, united as they were already by

a common civilisation and economic interdependence. The efforts of the

Assyrians were likewise directed towards this end, though it was long

before they obtained it. In the kingdom of Babylonia, which asserted

its sway over the whole southern portion of the plain and its dependent

provinces, they were at first confronted by an adversary strong enough

to resist them, and all that fell to them for the time being was the

northern half of Mesopotamia, the greater part of which remained under

their dominion, and was merged into an Assyrian empire, just as the

whole of Babylonia had been merged into a Babylonian empire. We shall

see, however, that the memory of the separate existence of the two

component parts of the empire at an earlier stage still subsisted in

certain customs and relics of civil law, just as it did in Babylonia.

The Assyrians were a Semitic race, and, but for slight differences

of dialect, spoke the same language as the Semitic-Babylonians. The

Assyrian branch of the race constituted, in the first instance, an

outpost on the left bank of the Tigris, where it developed on somewhat

different lines from the Semites who remained in Mesopotamia. We

have every reason for assuming that, before the Assyrians made their

way into the country, the whole of Mesopotamia, the north no less

than the south, was occupied by a Semitic population, distinct from

the Aramæans--themselves probably recent immigrants--and united

by a common civilisation. This is the race which we have styled

Babylonians, as distinguished from the Sumerians, or, more exactly,

Semitic-Babylonians, in treating of Babylonia. We are absolutely in

the dark as to the extent to which these Semites of the North may

have absorbed elements of an elder Sumerian population that may have

survived, for in the earliest times concerning which we have any

historic testimony the Semites were predominant even in northern

Babylonia, much more, therefore, in northern Mesopotamia.

The Assyrians must have developed on independent lines, for in all

other respects they differ materially from the Babylonians. In the

latter we have made the acquaintance of a people peaceably disposed,

nay, actually unwarlike, concerned mainly with the development of their

civilisation--qualities which, when we compare them with the Assyrians,

we are inclined to set to the account of their Sumerian blood. The

latter were probably the most warlike of all the Semitic nations of

the East, and maintained the purity of their racial type; for the

features of the figures in their sculptures exhibit to a marked degree

the characteristics which strike us nowadays as peculiar to the Jewish

race. They also differ from the Babylonians in figure, for the latter

are usually represented as short and thick-set, while the Assyrians are

of somewhat lofty stature and powerful build.

The land of Assyria is very different from Mesopotamia proper. The

nearness of the mountain ranges makes the climate cooler, and the

soil is probably less productive than that of the lowlands along the

river. Nor were the means of transport within its borders as good as

in Mesopotamia proper, for the Tigris only constituted the frontier,

and the swiftness of its current made it less well adapted for traffic

than the Euphrates, which formed the most convenient natural line of

communication in the plain of Mesopotamia.

In Babylonia we made the acquaintance of a country which had developed

its own civilisation, and one where the inhabitants held in proud

and honourable remembrance the various stages of its economic and

political development,--a sentiment reflected in the religious cults

of the ancient cities, the centres of civilisation. With Assyria it is

otherwise. That country began to play its part in Mesopotamian history

with the set purpose of appropriating what Babylonia had achieved. The

Assyrians had no such gains, hallowed by the associations of thousands

of years to boast of in their own country. They were a tardy supplement

to the Semitic immigration. They felt themselves an appendage to the

Semitic population already settled in Mesopotamia, and consequently

regarded its ancient cults as, in a measure, their own. The fact

implies an unconscious confession that they had nothing analogous or

equivalent to set against the old centres of Babylonian civilisation,

and, as a matter of fact, the chief towns of Assyria cannot for a

moment be compared in importance with those of Babylonia. The most

famous of the former owed their day of splendour to the rise of the

Assyrian Empire or even, to some extent, to the fancy of individual

kings; and when the Assyrian Empire passed from the stage of history

these, its artificial creations, were abolished with it.

Babylonia rose again after every fresh blow, because her rise to the

position she held had its root in a vital need of the peoples of

anterior Asia; while soon after the fall of the Assyrian Empire the

very names of the great cities of Assyria had passed from the memory

of the dwellers in the land. The case is different with the cities

of northern Mesopotamia, which belonged to the Assyrian Empire,

but existed before its rise, and survived its fall. The only other

exception among the large Assyrian cities is Arbela, which, being

situate at the junction of the trade routes to northern Mesopotamia,

Armenia, and Media, had probably been in existence before the time of

the Assyrian Empire, and likewise retained its importance to a later

period.

ASSYRIAN CAPITALS: ASSHUR AND NINEVEH

The oldest capital of Assyria was Asshur, situated on the right

bank of the Tigris, on the site of the present Kalah Sherghat. It

was originally the seat of rulers called patesis, who were probably

subjects of the Babylonian monarchy. In the first half of the second

millennium B.C. these rulers extended their sway over the district

which they styled “the land of the city of Asshur,” and assumed the

title of “king.” Asshur was always held in honour as the ancient

capital, but it lay so far to the south (being, in fact, almost beyond

the borders of the country), that it soon became imperative for the

“kings of Assyria” to transfer the centre of government to a more

convenient place. Shalmaneser I (_circa_ 1300) accordingly chose Calah

for his residence. The natural result was the decline of the importance

of Asshur, since its situation was not such as to assure it a leading

position. In later times it subsisted mainly upon its old reputation,

and enjoyed special privileges, which were confirmed even by Sargon.

It was the seat of Asshur, the chief national divinity. The kings

of Assyria, from Shalmaneser I to Sargon, held their court at Calah

(Nimrud). Its consequence seems to have declined after the reign of

Tiglathpileser I, for his son, Asshur-bel-kala removed to Nineveh,

which remained the royal residence till the reign of Asshurnazirpal.

The latter rebuilt Calah and so improved it that it remained the

capital until Sargon chose Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), which in turn

Nineveh replaced as capital.

Nineveh (Ninua), situated above Calah, on the left bank of the Tigris,

and opposite the present town of Mosul, is now represented by the two

mounds of Kuyunjik and Neby-Yunus. It was one of the oldest and most

important cities of the province of Assyria, and was highly esteemed

from the very earliest times of the Assyrian Empire as being the seat

of a cult of an Ishtar known as “Ishtar of Ninua,” to distinguish

her from the Ishtar of Arbela. We must therefore look upon it as a

city which originally stood on an equal footing with Asshur, and was

subjugated by the patesi of the latter city. It became the royal

residence in the reign of Asshur-bel-kala, the son of Tiglathpileser

(or even earlier), and remained so until the reign of Asshurnazirpal.

But it really owed its fame as the capital and chief city of Assyria,

which it represented in the eyes of other nations, to Sennacherib.

He built an entirely new Nineveh, which was to show forth worthily

the power and glory of the Assyrian Empire. His successors continued

to reside there, and contributed to its splendour. Esarhaddon and

Asshurbanapal built palaces there, and Nineveh formed the last bulwark

of the Assyrian Empire.

In the Euphrates Valley, and mainly on the right bank, between the bank

where the river turns towards the southwest and Babylonia, various

states had come into being which, by the force of their natural

connection with Babylonia, inclined towards that kingdom rather than

towards Assyria and northern Mesopotamia. There are Laqi, Khindanu,

and (east of the latter) Sukhi, or Shuhi, which last extended from

somewhere near the mouth of the Khabur to Babylonia, and was under

Babylonian ascendency down to a late period. These states had probably

in the first instance been dependencies of the Babylonian Empire, but

had enjoyed virtual independence from the time of the fall of Babylonia

and the rise of Assyria. Asshurnazirpal was the first to subjugate

these “governors,” who, up to this time, had “paid no tribute” to the

Assyrian kings, and who were supported by Babylonia in their struggle

with Assyria. The population of these states was composed of the same

elements as that of Mesopotamia. The original Semitic-Babylonian

settlers had been ousted by Aramæan immigrants. This was most evident

in Laqi, the westernmost, which was not a homogeneous body politic in

the reign of Asshurnazirpal, but was governed by various sheikhs. And,

generally speaking, these states were semi-nomadic commonwealths.

THE RISE OF ASSYRIA

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1741-1300 B.C.]]

The city of Asshur was originally a patesi-ship. The situation of

Asshur seems to point to a close connection with Babylonia rather than

with northern Mesopotamia, and for the present, at least, it seems

most likely that we ought to regard it as a vassal state to Babylonia

or the Kingdom of the Four Quarters of the World. Nor must we ignore

the possibility that it may have formed part of the realm of the

“Kishshati.”

A record left by an Assyrian king enables us to determine one point

of time, at least, when Asshur was still a dependency and ruled by

a patesi. Tiglathpileser I built that part of the great temple of

Asshur which was intended for the worship of the gods Anu and Ramman

(Adad), and in the record he has left he observes that this temple was

built by the patesi Shamshi-Adad, the son of Ishme-Dagan, patesi of

Asshur, six hundred and forty-one years before the reign of his own

great-grandfather Asshur-dan, sixty years earlier. Accordingly Asshur

must have been ruled by patesis sixty plus six hundred and forty-one

years before 1100, when Tiglathpileser was on the throne, and its

exaltation to the rank of a kingdom must have taken place later than

that. The names of two patesis of Asshur and those of their fathers are

known to us from inscriptions of their own. One of them, Shamshi-Adad,

and his father, Igur-Kapkapu, we may place before or after Shamshi,

the son of Ishme-Dagan, with equal probability, while the form of

the other two names, Irishum and his father Khallu, being simple and

exhibiting nothing of the compound character of later Assyrian names,

leads us to conjecture that they belong to an earlier period.

The names of these six patesis and their work in the building of the

temple of Asshur represent our whole stock of knowledge concerning

Asshur before it rose to be a royal city. The first king of Assyria of

whom we know anything is Asshur-bel-nish-eshu, who is introduced to

us by the Synchronistic History as a contemporary of the Kossæan[22]

king Karaindash of Babylon. As this monarch reigned some time about

the first half of the fifteenth century B.C., there is an interval of

over three hundred years between him and the patesi Shamshi-Adad, an

interval of which we know nothing except that the rise of Asshur and

the establishment of the kingdom of Assyria must fall within it. Of

the circumstances and conditions under which these events took place

we know nothing in detail, but an explanation naturally suggests

itself from the state of Babylonia. During this same period Babylonia

had sunk to such a depth of decrepitude that her own strength was no

longer adequate to secure her against hordes of invaders, and she could

continue to exist only under the protection of the Kossæan kings and

their armies. These disorders, which inevitably attend such a state

of things, served, as they invariably do in the East, to promote the

formation of new states under energetic and enterprising leaders, and

to these circumstances the kingdom of Asshur probably owed its rise.

From the reign of Shalmaneser I (_circa_ 1300) onwards the kings of

Assyria bear the title of “Shar Kishshati” and even place it before

that of “King of Asshur.” “Shar Kishshati” means “King of the World,”

and the title is thus formed in the same fashion as the Babylonian

“King of the Four Quarters of the World.” And the Assyrian title, like

the Babylonian, was not merely general in scope, but was bound up with

the possession of a particular district and particular cities.

It is doubtful whether Assyria subdued the kingdom of the Kishshati

from the outset, or gained possession of it at a later period.

According to the scanty records at present open to us, the latter

hypothesis seems the more probable. The first Assyrian king to bear the

title of “Shar Kishshati” is Shalmaneser I (about 1300), and he gives

it to his father, Adad-nirari I (or Ramman-nirari), although the latter

does not assume it in his own inscription. Shalmaneser attaches so much

weight to this title that on a couple of bricks, which date from his

reign, he actually styles himself “King of Kishshati” alone, and omits

the royal title of Assyria; and we therefore may conclude that the

union of northern Mesopotamia and Assyria was the work of Adad-nirari

and of Shalmaneser.

This would be at least one fixed point in the earliest history of

Assyria from which to trace the development of the empire. Before

Shalmaneser we have to do only with the little kingdom of Asshur,

which was chiefly engaged in struggles with Babylonia and its eastern

neighbours, and after his time with the united dominions of Assyria and

northern Mesopotamia, the leading power of Mesopotamian civilisation

against the West and the attacks of barbarians on every side. The

Synchronistic History is our principal guide to Assyrian history, as

it was to the history of Babylonia before it came into touch with

Assyria. We have but few inscriptions of the kings of this early stage

of Assyria’s existence, and only by the aid of the above-mentioned

document can we more or less connectedly trace the course of history.

Before the reign of Asshur-bel-nish-eshu, at which the chronicle now

begins, we can be sure of nothing but a great blank.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1450-1325 B.C.]]

With Asshur-bel-nish-eshu, who reigned in the first half of the

fifteenth century, begins a line of kings with a certain degree of

continuity. Of himself we only know what is told in the Synchronistic

History, namely, that he concluded an alliance with Karaindash of

Babylon by which they guaranteed one another in possession of their

dominions. He was presently--though perhaps not immediately--succeeded

by Puzur-Asshur [probably about 1420 B.C.] of whom we are told the same

thing. He entered into friendly alliance with Burna-buriash.

Of his supposed successor, Asshur-nadin-akhe, we know, from the

letters of his son Asshur-uballit to Amenhotep IV, that he, like his

Babylonian contemporary, held communication with the kings of Egypt. In

an inscription of a later king mention is made of a building of his,

the foundation of a palace at Asshur. For the rest, it is by no means

impossible that he may have reigned before Puzur-Asshur, and that the

latter, as well as Asshur-uballit, was his son.

We possess a letter written by Asshur-uballit to Amenhotep IV of Egypt.

It gives an account of presents made to the king of Egypt--a war

chariot yoked to two white horses, and a seal cylinder--makes excuse

for the tardy return of Egyptian ambassadors on the plea that they had

been stopped by the (nomadic) Sutu, and contains the usual importunate

requests for richer presents in return. In Babylonia, Asshur-uballit

succeeded in making a way for Assyrian interference, and thus came

a step nearer to the goal all kings of Assyria longed to reach, the

suzerainty of Babylon. Apart from the attempt of Asshur-narara and

Nabu-daian, which presumably came to nothing, the little kingdom

of Assyria had been on friendly terms with Babylonia, and had made

alliance which probably contributed more to her own security than that

of the other party. Internal troubles were the pretext which first

rendered feasible his successful interference in Babylonian affairs.

The assassination of the Babylonian king by the malcontent Kossæans,

and the elevation of Nazibugash to the throne, gave Asshur-uballit

an admirable pretext for restoring “order” in Babylonia and placing

Kurigalzu, his other grandson, on the throne. Adad-nirari mentions

another expedition of his against the Shubari. His successor,

Bel-nirari I [about 1370 B.C.], boasts in his inscription that he

conquered the Kasshu (Kossæans) and enlarged the borders of the land.

This probably refers to a distinct campaign against the Kasshu, and not

to the war with Kurigalzu II, in which he was likewise victorious. The

latter enterprise also resulted in territorial expansion, which does

not necessarily seem to have been made permanent.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1325-1275 B.C.]]

Pudi-ilu (about 1350), the son and successor of Bel-nirari, waged war,

we are told by his son, Adad-nirari, against the otherwise unknown

Turuki and Nigimkhi, who probably dwelt somewhere in the direction of

Armenia, and extended the Assyrian frontier to the north (Gutium).

Adad-nirari I (about 1325) has left an inscription which has been

discovered at Kalah Shergat (Asshur). According to it, he, like his

predecessors, waged most of his wars on the northeastern frontier

of his kingdom, and endeavoured, by building cities, to revive the

prosperity of the region occupied by the Shubari, Lulumi, Guti,

and Kasshu of the northeast, which had been laid waste by previous

wars. His inscription relates mainly to the buildings he erected in

connection with the temple of Asshur. It is the first from Assyria

with a definite date. It was indited in the limmu (_i.e._ the year of

office) of Shulman-kharradu.

His son, Shalmaneser I (about 1300), was one of the mightiest Assyrian

kings, and probably the first who raised Asshur to a position equal, if

not superior, to that of Babylonia. We do not know much about him from

inscriptions left by himself, and are therefore obliged to depend on

occasional statements of succeeding kings. He ruled over Mesopotamia

westward to the Balikh at least, if not to the Euphrates, and assured

to Assyria the possession of the northern tract between the Euphrates

and Tigris, which was afterward the provinces of Gumathene and Sophene.

He founded colonies there, and planted them with Assyrian settlers

to form a bulwark to Mesopotamia against the tribes of the North.

Afterwards, when the power of Assyria was impaired, these colonies were

in great straits, but they held their own, and were then reinforced

by Asshurnazirpal, to whom they served as a welcome basis for the new

Assyrian province of Tuskhan which he established there.

With the extension of the kingdom and the inclusion of northern

Mesopotamia, the need of another capital than Asshur, which lay too

far to the south, made itself felt. The city Shalmaneser chose for

this purpose was Calah, which remained the capital down to the time

of Sargon, except during the period of decline which followed upon

the reign of Tiglathpileser I. His object in this change of residence

was clearly to give expression to the altered state of things which

had come about in Assyria and Mesopotamia. Assyria was not to be the

privileged kingdom, but the two political organisations, Asshur and the

Kingdom of the Kishshati, were to be equal members of the new empire,

each retaining its own centre in Asshur and Kharran respectively, while

the king founded his own capital for himself, to avoid giving the

preference to either.

Shalmaneser’s son, Tukulti-Ninib I (about 1275) [but probably somewhat

earlier] was no less fortunate in his enterprises than his father. He

was the first to achieve the object of every king in Assyria--dominion

over Babylon. Adad-nirari III, in his list of his ancestors, styles him

“King of Sumer and Accad,” from which we may certainly conclude that

he held the same sort of position toward the whole of Babylonia, and

the kingdom of Babylon more particularly, as was afterward attained by

Shalmaneser II--that is to say, he must have ruled over the several

provinces of all Babylonia and exercised a kind of suzerainty over

Babylon.

The rapid rise of Assyria seems to have been followed by equally rapid

decline. For a hundred years we have hardly any information concerning

it, and do not even know the names of the kings who reigned during that

period. The lack of inscriptions, or, at any rate, of vaunting records

in the reigns of later kings, seems in itself to indicate a time of

humiliation, while the conditions which we find prevailing when our

sources of information become more copious, show that soon after the

reign of Tukulti-Ninib, and therefore probably before the end of the

thirteenth century B.C., the power of Assyria must have been seriously

curtailed and exposed to grievous shocks. Whence they arose we shall

presently see.[b]

There is scarcely a year in which additional information concerning

this obscure period does not come to light. A recently deciphered

fragment of the Babylonian Chronicle mentions an Assyrian king,

Tukulti-Asshur-Bel, contemporaneous with Tukulti-Ninib, but of the

relation of the two kings nothing is stated. Professor Winckler in

_Altorientalische Forschungen_, suggests that the former was the

latter’s son, and co-regent while he was engaged in ruling and reducing

Babylon. Professor Rogers sums up the end of Tukulti-Ninib’s life: “For

seven years was this rule over Babylonia maintained. The Babylonians

rebelled, drove out the Assyrian conquerors, and set up once more a

Babylonian, Adad-shum-usur (about 1268-1239 B.C.), over them. When

Tukulti-Ninib returned to Assyria he found even his own people in

rebellion under the leadership of his son. In the civil war that

followed he lost his life, and the most brilliant reign in Assyrian

history up to that time was closed.”

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1275-1235 B.C.]]

This rebellious son was not the above mentioned Tulkulti-Asshur-Bel,

but Asshurnazirpal I. His reign continues the period of decline, and in

it it is believed that Adad-shum-usur actually attacked Assyria. Next

come two kings, Asshur-narara and Nabu-daian, whose reigns seem to have

been contemporaneous (about 1250 B.C.). A fragment of a clay tablet

was found containing a letter from Adad-shum-usur to these two kings,

in which he remonstrates on their folly in taking up arms against him,

which shows that Babylon’s power was still waxing.[a]

We do not know how it came to pass that Assyria lost the ascendancy

she had gained over Babylonia under Tukulti-Ninib, but it is certain

that some fifty years later Bel-kudur-usur found himself relegated to

Assyria proper, and was obliged to fight for the possession of his

capital. [According to Professor Rogers, Meli-Shipak (about 1238) and

Marduk-apal-iddin (about 1223-1211) were the Babylonian kings in this

war. He places Adad-shum-iddin’s death at 1269, and Adad-shum-usur’s at

1238 B.C., basing these dates on some recent illuminative suggestions

of Professor Hommel.] The Synchronistic History, which is incomplete at

this point, states that Ninib-apal-esharra (who was probably the son

of Bel-kudur-usur) was forced to retreat. The Babylonians appear to

have pursued and besieged him in his own capital of Asshur, and there

a battle was fought, in which, according to the apparent purport of

the Synchronistic History, the Assyrians were beaten. But the victory,

if victory it were, cannot have been decisive, for after the battle

the Babylonians withdrew without making any further attempt to invade

the remoter parts of the country. The defeat of the Assyrians must,

therefore, have been more like a successful defence of their city.

Slight as this clew is, it makes it evident that for a while Assyria

had to fight for her life against Babylon, and that she held her own

with difficulty. The development of this state of things must be sought

in the great hiatus made by the reign of Bel-kudur-usur. The titles of

the Babylonian kings of the period also go to prove that at this time

Babylonia had actually repossessed herself of northern Mesopotamia.

Since we find Tiglathpileser in possession of much the same

dominions as Tukulti-Ninib (though Sumer and Accad did not belong

to him), the course of events during all the twelfth century, from

Ninib-apal-esharra to Asshur-rish-ishi, is self-evident. The business

in hand was the reconquest of what had been lost, and at it the

succeeding rulers steadily and successfully laboured.

Of Ninib-apal-esharra, the Synchronistic History says nothing except

that he successfully withstood the Babylonian attack, nor does

Tiglathpileser mention any other deeds of his. The latter, however,

expressly gives him the character of a capable commander, “who led the

troops of Asshur aright,” presumably with reference to his retreat

after the death of Bel-kudur-usur and the repulse of the Babylonian

king.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1200-1116 B.C.]]

His son and successor, Asshur-dan (about 1200 B.C.), won some

victories over Babylon and reconquered some parts beyond the Zab from

Samana-shum-iddin (king of Babylonia). Tiglathpileser lays stress upon

the fact that he lived to a great age (to about 1150 B.C.). Of his son,

Mutakkil-Nusku, no particulars are known. He probably carried on the

work of his predecessors, for Assyria gradually regained all she had

lost.

Then Asshur-rish-ishi (about 1140 B.C.), the father of Tiglathpileser

I, reports that he had reconquered the Lulumi and Kuti, whom

Adad-nirari had formerly subjugated, and who had either fallen under

the sway of Babylon or made themselves independent; and that he had

repulsed the nomads, whom Adad-nirari had likewise driven back, and who

had naturally taken advantage of Assyria’s weakness to press forward

again. His war with Nebuchadrezzar I, king of Babylon, seems to have

been waged mainly for the possession of Mesopotamia, which the defeat

of the nomads was also intended to secure. It is most probable that he

gained his end, the evacuation of the kingdom of Kishshati, of which

Nebuchadrezzar styles himself king in one of his inscriptions.[b]

THE FIRST GREAT ASSYRIAN CONQUEROR

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1116-1050 B.C.]]

Asshur-rish-ishi’s son, Tiglathpileser I (Tu-kulti-apal-esharra,

meaning “My help is the son of Esharra,” _i.e._ the god Ninib), is the

first of the great Assyrian conquerors. Directly after his accession

to the throne he marched against the Mushke (Mushkaya) to conquer the

districts previously taken by them. The Mushke (the Meshech of the

Old Testament, and the Moschi of the Greeks) were defeated, as well

as the people of Kummukh and the mountainous races of the Kharia and

Qurkhi country stretching from the north of the Tigris to the Upper

Zab. In the next campaign the same district was traversed, but the

king then crossed the Lower Zab, and thence proceeded northward into

the mountains. The whole mountainous district was then incorporated

with the Assyrian kingdom, and Tiglathpileser was then able to proceed

to the subjugation of the lands of western Armenia and Pontis, never

before entered by the Assyrian rulers.

[Illustration: AN ASSYRIAN KING]

He crossed sixteen mountains, reached (what he calls the land of the

Nairi) the upper Euphrates, which he crossed, and defeated in a great

battle twenty-five kings [twenty-three according to others], who

encountered him with their troops and war chariots. The enemies were

pursued as far as the banks of the Black Sea, when all the princes

swore fealty and bound themselves to pay tribute. On the return march

the town Milidia, _i.e._ Melitene on the Euphrates, was taken and

forced to pay tribute.

The next, the fourth campaign of the king was directed against the

Aramæans, of the North Mesopotamian steppe; he penetrated as far

as the Euphrates, and conquered several places in the vicinity of

Carchemish. Then followed an expedition to the east against [the Musri

and] the then unknown race of the Qumani. In later years Tiglathpileser

undertook campaigns in the west. An inscription at the source of the

Supnat, the first easterly tributary of the Tigris, tells us that he

traversed the country of Nairi (Armenia) three times, and that he

subjugated all the country “from the great sea of the west country to

the sea of Nairi.” In particular we learn that he made a voyage in

ships from Arvad (Aradus) on the Mediterranean Sea, that he hunted in

Lebanon (he was a passionate hunter), and that the kings of Egypt sent

him some rare sea fishes as a present. It is very probable that one

of the mutilated inscriptions which the Assyrian kings had put up on

the Dog River (the Nahr-el-Kelb, north of Beirut), quite close to the

victory monuments of Ramses II, related to Tiglathpileser. He also made

war against Marduk-nadin-akhe of Babylon, but with no success; at least

we learn that the Babylonian king, in the year 1110 B.C., carried off

images of gods from an Assyrian city. [According to Professor Rogers,

Tiglathpileser marched to Babylon and was there acknowledged King of

the Four Quarters of the World.]

However, Tiglathpileser in a second campaign was completely victorious

in a battle of the Lower Zab, and took all the capitals of the northern

half of Accad: Dur-Kurigalzu, the double town Sippar, Babylon, and Upi.

The steppe district on the western bank of the Euphrates (the land of

the Shuhi or Sukhi) was also subjugated by him. Thus did Tiglathpileser

create a great kingdom, which included the whole district of the

Euphrates and Tigris, as far as Babylon, as well as the mountainous

country of western Armenia and eastern Asia Minor, as far as Pontis;

and his supremacy was also recognised by northern Syria.

Of the organisation of the kingdom, we only know that the contiguous

districts, such as the valley of the Khabur, eastern Kummukh, and

Qurkhe were incorporated with the state, and governed by Assyrian

ministers, whilst the more distant countries retained their native

rulers, and were only bound to the payment of tribute. The kingdom

has no enduring position. We hear that Asshur-bel-kala (about 1090

B.C.), the son of Tiglathpileser, lived in the greatest peace with

Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, the Babylonian king. When, after the latter’s

fall, Adad-apal-iddin, the son of Esagila-shaduni, was raised to the

throne, Asshur-bel-kala married his daughter and brought her home to

Assyria, with many presents. [In this reign, according to Rogers, the

seat of empire was probably established at Nineveh.]

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1050-884 B.C.]]

Babylonia had evidently regained her complete independence, though the

Assyrian chronicles fail to relate the means whereby it was achieved.

Asshur-bel-kala was succeeded by his brother Shamshi-Adad (about 1080

B.C.), of whom we know nothing further; and then follows a great gap in

the line of kings. [Here may be inserted the names of Asshurnazirpal II

about 1050 B.C., Erba-Adad, and Asshur-nadin-akhe.]

Of King Asshur-erbi it is only mentioned that under him the districts

conquered by Tiglathpileser, namely, the country Pitru on the Sagur

near Carchemish, and the city of Mutkinu, east of the Euphrates, were

taken by the Aramæan king. This was evidently the king of the country

of Bit-Adini, whose chief dominion lay east of the Euphrates, the

capital being Tel-Barsip, which is probably Birejik, opposite the

Zeugma of the Greeks. At the beginning of the ninth century we again

have more accurate information about Assyria, and so find that, beyond

a part of the mountainous district east and southeast of Nineveh, the

kings now have only the country on the upper Tigris (around Amida),

Kummukh, and a great part of the cultivated land of Mesopotamia.

The district on the Euphrates, opposite Carchemish, is independent

and split up into several princedoms (Bit-Adini, Nila, Bit-Bachiani,

and farther north, Tel-Abnai), the exact boundaries of which it has

hitherto been impossible to determine. The country on the Balikh seems

to have remained Assyrian; it is very remarkable that the city of

Kharran is not mentioned in any of the later campaigns. The district

farther east, Nisibis and the neighbouring Gozan, the fruitful valleys

of the Khabur and its tributaries, even the city of Suru in the land of

Bit-Khalupe on the Euphrates (Sura, east of Thapsachos), were governed

by Assyrian ministers. The government of Assyrian ministers in the

lower valley of the Khabur is of special interest to us.

The whole district of this river, as well as the land of Sangara

farther east, is full of heaps and ruins, which mark the localities

of old and later times. The most important are the ruins at the place

now called Arban on the Khabur. Here are the remains of an ancient

palace, built in the Assyrian style, with four winged oxen, with men’s

heads, an open-mouthed lion, the portrait in relief of a warrior,

etc. The oxen bear the inscription “Palace of the Mushesh-Ninib.”

The possibility of getting at a satisfactory date for this palace is

unfortunately not yet apparent. That scarabs of Tehutimes III and

Amenhotep III have been found in Arban and Calah, is no sufficient

clew. As King Asshurnazirpal III of Assyria went down the Khabur in

the year 884 B.C., Shulman-khaman-ilani of Sadikkan and Ilu-Adad of

Shuma brought him heavy tribute. Doubtless one of these two places

is the Arban of to-day, and their governors were semi-independent

Assyrian ministers, known as the Mushesh-Ninib, for the names, writing,

and style of art show us that we have not here to do with a native

government. The population of the valley of the Khabur was doubtless

Aramæan, like that of Kharran and Nisibis.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1090-885 B.C.]]

The eleventh and tenth centuries B.C. confirmed the complete freedom

of the local government of the countries of Western Asia. Whilst the

kingdom of the Pharaohs was decaying from age, a new nation was rising

in Syria and evolving an active intelligent life of its own.

The Phœnician merchants circulated the products of the civilisation

of Syria along all the coasts of the Mediterranean, and the dwellers

on the Ægean Sea having already entered the circle of cultured races,

competing with the Phœnicians in trade and the traverse of the sea,

took possession of the coasts one after another and thereby developed

a complete political and intellectual life. The fate of Western Asia

was determined by the evolution of Syria’s culture not taking a

wide-reaching, powerful, political form, but rather hindering it. Since

the days of the Kheta kingdom’s glory, there has been no great power

in Syria. So when a conquering, military state was now formed on the

Tigris, under a fearless, warlike prince, it met with no sustained

resistance.

The success of Assyria was due to her military organisation. Little

as we know of its particulars, there can be no doubt that the whole

race regarded war and conquest as the real aims of existence, and

the more successful they were, the more they ignored all other sides

of life; whereas the little states of Syria made tillage, trade, and

industry the chief occupations of their life, albeit every inhabitant

was presumably bound, like the Israelites, to take up arms in case of

need, in the defence of his country. The sole great military power

was Egypt, but her warrior caste was composed of foreign mercenaries

who exploited the country, although from a military point of view they

evidently did not benefit it more than the generality of their class in

similar cases.

The outcome of events was thus a foregone conclusion. The Assyrian

campaigns of two centuries ended in the political and national fall

of the races of Syria. The progress of events then led further to the

annihilation of nationality in the whole of Western Asia. The kingdom

of Tiglathpileser I fell, soon after his death, and there now ensues

a little later a gap of more than a century in our information about

Assyria. The very scanty notices commence about 950 B.C. Asshur-dan II,

mentioned as “the maker of a canal,” reigned at that time. [A recently

discovered inscription of Adad-nirari II speaks of his grandfather

Tiglathpileser. Therefore, a new Tiglathpileser, the second of his

name, is now reckoned in the list of kings, and the approximate dates

950-930 B.C. assigned to his reign. Nothing is known of him except

that he is called “King of Kishshati and King of Asshur.” Asshur-dan

II’s reign is now put down as beginning 930 B.C., and Adad-nirari

II’s at 911.] Asshur-dan’s successor, Adad-nirari II, mentioned with

the building at the “Gate of the Tigris” (890 B.C.), conquers King

Shamash-mudammik of Babylon in a battle on Mount Yalman, and made war

against his successor, Nabu-shum-ishkun [who was also defeated and

yielded certain cities]. In the peace made by an alliance, the boundary

was fixed near the city of Tel-Bari, south of the Lower Zab.

The next king, Tukulti-Ninib II (890-885 B.C.), fought in the northwest

mountains, and at the source of Supnat, the first tributary of the

Tigris, he had his statue (stele) erected near that of Tiglathpileser.

In spite of repeated attacks, the mountainous districts on the east as

far as the lake of Van, the chief part of the land of Qurkhi, retained

essentially their independence. The warlike efforts of these rulers had

been hitherto directed against the races of the mountains of Kasjar

(Masius), the south of the Tigris, and close to Aramæan Mesopotamia,

which, in spite of numerous campaigns, had never been subjugated. If

Nisibis, Gozan, and the valley of the Khabur, and apparently also

Kharran, belonged to the Assyrians under Asshurnazirpal, they either

remained independent after the twelfth century, or were subjugated

by the kings of this period. In the east, the mountainous races of

Khubushkia and Kirruri (on the Upper Zab, and as far as the lake

of Urumiyeh) are tributary, and on the Lower Zab, we find under

Asshurnazirpal, an Assyrian governor of Dagara, in the land of the

Euphrates, whose fortified citadels were mostly situated on the banks

of the river, or like Anat, on an island, paid tribute. Tukulti-Ninib’s

son, Asshurnazirpal III (885 to 860), entered on fresh conquests

directly after his accession to the throne.[c]

THE REIGN AND CRUELTY OF ASSHURNAZIRPAL

[Sidenote: [885-880 B.C.]]

Tiglathpileser’s work of conquest was to be begun over again;

Asshurnazirpal felt the full force of the mission, and he accomplished

it with a cruelty worthy of the hero he took for pattern, and his

successors applied themselves, as did he, to avenge, arms in hand,

Asshur’s temporary humiliation.

Scarcely was Asshurnazirpal seated on the throne, when he turned

attention to his armies,--his war chariots and armed men were numerous

and well equipped; they were ready to take the march. It was the land

of Numme which received the first blow. Accustomed to prolonged and

uninterrupted peace, the inhabitants had never even thought of measures

for defence, and they fled to the mountains at the approach of the

Assyrians, who made bloodless captures of the towns of Libe, Surra,

Abuku, Arura, and Arubi, situated at the base of Mounts Rime, Aruni,

and Etini. “These majestic peaks,” relates Asshurnazirpal, “rise up

like daggers’ blades, and only the birds of the sky in their flight

can reach their summits. The natives entrenched themselves among them

as though in eagles’ nests. None of the kings, my fathers, had ever

penetrated so far. In three days I reached those heights; I brought

terror in the midst of their hiding places, I shook their nests; two

hundred defenders perished by the sword, and I seized their flock and

a rich booty. Their corpses strewed the mountains like leaves from

the trees, and those who escaped had to take refuge in caves.” These

proceedings terrified the peaceful inhabitants of the Kirruri district,

who hastened from Simirra, Ulmania, Adanit, Khargai, and Kharasi, to

throw themselves at the conqueror’s feet and offered all that he was

wont to seize--horses, oxen, sheep, and brazen vessels. They were given

an Assyrian governor. Such was the fright throughout the whole of

Nairi that while he still lingered in Kirruri, Asshurnazirpal received

ambassadors from the people of Gozan and Khubushkia who came from far

to the east, bringing presents asking for the chains of slavery.

[Illustration: ASSHURNAZIRPAL

(Based on Sculptures in the British Museum)]

From Kirruri the Assyrian king went a little to the east into the

district of Qurkhi, pillaging in turn at least a dozen towns and

finally arrived at the borders of Urartu. The only serious resistance

he encountered was under the walls of Nishtum, which paid dear for

its courage. These beginnings were a forecast of the future, and

Asshurnazirpal did not even wait for the following year to recommence.

While still wearing the dignity of “limmu,” on the 24th day of the

month Abu (July-August), he set out to lay waste the country now

called the Bohtan district, between the Tigris and the western spurs

of the Judi Mountains. Here were the districts of Nippur and Pazati,

comprising more than twenty important towns, among which Atkun and

Pilazi were burned. Asshurnazirpal then crossed the Tigris and invaded

Kummukh to claim the annual tribute it had forgotten to furnish. [It is

possible that he went for the purpose of quelling a rebellion.]

At the moment he was thinking of going on to the Moschi, more to

the northwest, a messenger brought him a letter which contained the

following news: “The city of Suru (Surieh of the present day), which

is subject to Bit-Khalupe, is in revolt; the inhabitants have put

Khamitai, their governor, to death, and have proclaimed Akhi-yababa,

son of Lamaman, whom they have brought from Bit-Adini, as their king.”

Furious at this information, Asshurnazirpal invoked Asshur and Adad,

counted his chariots and soldiers, and flew to the seat of trouble by

descending the course of the Khabur. His progress was hampered by the

arrival of many persons, their hands filled with presents and their

mouths with protestations of fidelity. There were Shulman-khaman-ilani

of Sadikkan, Ilu-Adad of Shuma, and a hundred others.

The city of Suru took fright, and the rebels came out to meet

him, bringing the keys of the citadel. They kissed his feet, but

Asshurnazirpal was inflexible. “I killed one out of every two of

them,” he says, and one-half of the remainder was reduced to slavery.

Akhi-yababa, a prisoner, witnessed the pillage of his palace, he saw

his wives, sons, and daughters in chains, and his tutelary gods, his

chariot, his armour, and his treasure carried off. He saw all his

ministers flayed alive as well as the leaders of the rebellion. A

pyramid erected at the city gate was covered with their skins; some

were walled up in the masonry, others were crucified and exposed on

stakes along the side of the pyramid. One would hesitate to believe

all this and would willingly take the Assyrian monarchs for boasters

of their cruelty, if the bas-reliefs with which they decorated their

palace walls, and which to-day ornament our museums, did not speak to

our eyes or their accompanying inscriptions speak to our intelligence.

We must tax our wits to imagine more refinement of torture or of

methods of execution.

Before Asshurnazirpal returned to Nineveh, he made a military tour

of the regions about the junction on the Khabur and Euphrates, which

formed the country of Laqi. All the petty dynasties of this land

brought their tribute. Then he advanced as far as Khindanu, on the

Euphrates, the frontier of the Shuhi country. On returning to his

capital the king was followed by an endless file of slaves, horses,

oxen, sheep, chariots laden with stuffs of wool and linen, ingots of

gold, bronze and iron, copper and leaden vessels, and wooden framework;

the booty, he says, was as numberless as the stars of the sky. The

soldiers had laid hold of every manner of object, and in the division a

use was found for everything.

At Nineveh the king occupied himself with embellishing his palace

while he waited for the spring. In one of the inner courts he erected

a statue to himself of colossal size, and the history of his recent

conquests was engraved on the palace gates. He was daily obliged

to receive the homage of ambassadors who arrived from all parts to

acknowledge his suzerainty, offer presents, and claim the sad honour of

serving such a master, for they had learned by experience that it was

too late for a city to offer its submission when the king was at its

gates.

[Sidenote: [880-876 B.C.]]

It happened that Asshurnazirpal was _en pleine fête_ surrounded by

his court when news came of a rebellion in the region situated around

the sources of the Tigris. The leader of this insurrection was an

Assyrian, Khula by name, whom in former days Shalmaneser had appointed

governor of Darudamusa and Khalzilukha. The king set out at once, and,

arriving at the sources of the Tigris, he sought out the steles which

his predecessors, Tiglathpileser and Tukulti-Ninib, had erected, and

by their side set up one for himself. On the way he stopped to levy

tribute on the country of Izalla and took by assault the cities of

Kinabu, Mariru, and Tela. After a bloody contest under the walls of the

last place he put out the eyes and cut off the noses and ears of the

prisoners whose lives he spared. Khula was flayed alive.

There stood in this region, within the land of Nirbu, a city which

bore the name of Asshur and had probably been built by Tiglathpileser

in order to control the surrounding country. Since this town had also

taken part in the rebellion, Asshurnazirpal caused it to be razed to

its foundations as well as the city of Tushka, upon whose ruins he

built a pyramid surmounted by his statue and bearing an inscription

which related the conquest of the land of Nairi. Here he received

tribute of the kings of Nairi. The districts of Urumi and Bituni

also brought their gifts. But scarcely had Asshurnazirpal turned his

back when all the tribes of Nairi revolted, and he had to return and

prosecute a regular man-hunt among the mountains.

The year had been very full, and it was easy to foresee that the

disasters following the reign of Tiglathpileser would soon be repaired.

In three campaigns Asshurnazirpal had carried the torch over a portion

of the land of Nairi, to the south and east of Lake Van, to the sources

of the Tigris, through the Khabur Valley, and down the Euphrates. But

like the effect of a tempest which passes and devours everything,

the Assyrian domination founded only in fear was fatally ephemeral

and became shaky just as soon as the chastising arm was observed to

withdraw.

[Sidenote: [876-854 B.C.]]

Feeling secure in the direction of Nairi, which he had treated so

harshly, Asshurnazirpal turned his attention to the fertile slopes

along the left bank of the Tigris. He risked encountering the

Babylonians, but these latter had no longer any fear for him, and

the weakened, scattered Kassite (or Kossæan) tribes could scarcely

be called formidable. Babitu, Dagara, Bara, Kakzi, and twenty other

places underwent the fate reserved for cities taken by assault; one

hundred and fifty towns were pillaged and burnt, and the whole land

of Nishir was devastated. The rainy season suspended hostilities, and

Asshurnazirpal returned to winter quarters at Nineveh, but as soon as

the weather permitted on the first of Sivan (May) he returned to Zamua.

The capital of Zamua was Zamri, and there King Amikha resided, in no

condition to resist. He fled to the mountains where Asshurnazirpal

dared not pursue him, and contented himself with laying hands on the

riches of the palace. All the surrounding districts hastened to offer

their submission with the exception of the city of Mizu, which was

taken by assault.

The following year was consumed in military expeditions to the sources

of the Tigris, in the lands of Kummukh, Qurkhi, and Kashiari, where

certain cities like Mattiate and Irisia had neglected to pay tribute or

manifested symptoms of rebellion. Asshurnazirpal experienced no serious

or well-organised resistance except beneath the walls of Bit-Ura in the

land of Dirra. “The city,” he says, “crowns a height, is surrounded

by a strong double enceinte and lifts itself like a great thumb above

the mountain. With the help of Asshur--my lord--I attacked it with my

valorous soldiers, and besieged it for two days from the side of the

rising sun. Arrows fell upon it like the hail of the god Adad. Finally,

my warriors, whose zeal I had encouraged, fell upon the city like

vultures. I took the citadel, I put eight hundred men to the sword,

and I cut off their heads. I made a mound with their corpses before

the city gate; the prisoners were beheaded and I put seven hundred of

them to the cross. The city was pillaged and destroyed; I transformed

it into a heap of ruins.” Passing thence into the land of Qurkhi,

Asshurnazirpal committed the same atrocities: two hundred captives had

their heads cut off, and two thousand others were reduced to slavery.

One of the kinglets of the land who had succeeded in winning the king’s

good graces from the time of the first war, Ammibaal, by name, son of

Zamani, had become odious to his people, because of his friendship for

the tyrant, and he was put to death by his own officers. The king of

Assyria hastened to avenge his faithful vassal. When the culprits saw

the storm advancing, they tried to ward it off by offering all they

possessed to the invader, and for once he remained satisfied.

He had under his authority all the regions between the source of the

Supnat and the borders of the land of Shabitani on one side; between

the land of Kirruri and that of Kilzani on the other, from the banks of

the Zab to the city of Tel-Bari which is above Zaban from Tel-Sa-abtan

to Tel-Sa-zabtan; besides this he annexed to his empire the cities of

Kimiru and Kuratu, the land of Birut and of Kardunyash, and he imposed

tribute upon the whole of Nairi.

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEFS SHOWING ASSYRIANS TORTURING PRISONERS

(After Layard)]

What was to be done with so much wealth constantly accumulating in the

storehouses of Nineveh, and for whom was this gold, these jewels, this

bronze, these rich stuffs? To what use could he put these thousands

of slaves who ran the risk of becoming so many idle mouths to feed?

Asshurnazirpal had the idea of building a palace which would surpass

the wildest dreams of his predecessors, and he fixed its location in

the city of Calah, which was particularly _the_ city of his dynasty.

British archæologists, who have made a special study of the ruins of

Calah, astonished at the treasures they found buried under the mound

Nimrud, have attempted to reconstruct from their own imaginations and

the recovered documents the general aspect of the city in the days of

Asshurnazirpal, who has left his name and inscriptions in every corner

of it. “In a strong and healthy position,” says George Rawlinson, “on

a low spur of the Jebel Maklub, protected on either side by a deep

river, the new capital grew to greatness. Palace after palace rose on

its lofty platforms, rich with carved woodwork, gilding, painting,

sculpture, and enamel, each aiming to outshine its predecessors; while

stone lions, sphinxes, obelisks, shrines, and temple towers embellished

the scene, breaking its monotonous sameness by variety. The lofty

ziggurat (pyramid) attached to the temple of Ninib, dominating over the

whole, gave unity to the vast mass of palatial and sacred edifices. The

Tigris, skirting the entire western base of the mound, glossed in its

waves, and, doubling the apparent height, rendered less observable the

chief weakness of the architecture. When the setting sun lighted up the

whole with the gorgeous lines seen only under an eastern sky, Calah

must have seemed to the traveller who beheld it for the first time like

a vision of fairyland.”

From the pyramid of the temple of Ninib the Assyrian priests observed

the motions of the heavens, calculated the return of eclipses, and

questioned the future. In the temple searched by Layard traces were

everywhere found of Asshurnazirpal and what he himself calls “the

glory of his name.” His portrait has been found repeated a dozen times

on the bas-reliefs; he has all the features of a corrupt and cruel

monarch. His low, retreating forehead lacks nobility; the eyes are

unusually large; the cheekbones stand out prominently; the nostrils of

the round, aquiline nose are too large; the clipped moustache, brushed

and curled at the ends, reveals thick, sensual lips, while the chin

and face are covered with that heavy false beard which falls upon the

breast in symmetrical twists, and was worn by all the kings. The thick,

short neck, the broad shoulders and thick-set body, gave the king a

robust, vigorous aspect. His statue in the British Museum represents

him standing. In one hand he holds a scythe, in the other a sceptre.

On his breast is written, “Asshurnazirpal, great king, powerful king,

king of legions, king of Assyria, son of Tukulti-Ninib (?), great king,

powerful king, king of legions, king of Assyria, son of Adad-nirari,

great king, powerful king, king of Assyria. He possesses lands from

the shores of the Tigris as far as Labana [Lebanon]; he has subjected

to his power the great sea, and all the lands from the rising to the

setting of the sun.”

Several years after this statue was erected Asshurnazirpal would not

have fixed the Lebanon range as the western limit of his empire, for

the fortunes of war still smiled upon him. The last portion of his

reign is filled with two great expeditions in which he covered himself

with glory. The definite submission of the middle and lower Euphrates

region, including the land of Kardunyash, and the conquest of a part

of Syria and Phœnicia. A revolt in the lands of Laqi and Shuhi, on

the Middle Euphrates, was an excellent pretext for recommencing the

war interrupted by the work of embellishing Calah. [He marched upon

Suru, levying tribute at every step.] For a long time this little land

of Shuhi had been warring with the Assyrians, and though unceasingly

beaten and ransomed, it nevertheless managed to hold up its head, and

had been able hitherto to maintain its independence. Its sovereigns

appear to have had continual friendly relations with their neighbours

the kings of Babylon, at least on the occasions when it was necessary

to resist the men of the North.

This time the Shuhites again appealed to the Chaldeans, whom the

inscription, through tradition, doubtless, still calls the Kassites or

Kossæans. [Suru was taken, and among the prisoners were the brother and

the general of Nabu-apal-iddin, king of Babylon.]

Then terror seized the soul of the weak Nabu-apal-iddin, king of

Babylon, and all Chaldea trembled. Unfortunate wars and intestine

quarrels had put Babylon out of condition to fight against the

all-pervading Assyrian superiority. Nevertheless Asshurnazirpal

does not say that he entered Babylonia, which he even seems to have

prudently respected. He contents himself with telling us that he

erected his statue in the city of Suru, and spread terror throughout

Chaldea and all the lands watered by the Euphrates.

The following year he was compelled to suppress a revolt of the

mountaineers inhabiting the southern slopes of Mount Masius in the very

heart of Mesopotamia. This was the state of Bit-Adini, whose principal

cities were Kaprabi and Tel-Aban. Asshurnazirpal scattered an army of

eight thousand horsemen, and brought back to Calah two thousand four

hundred slaves to work at the embellishment of his capital.

In spite of the peace which ruled in the Tigris and Euphrates basins,

whose resources were, moreover, completely exhausted, Asshurnazirpal

now resolved to strike a great blow on their western side, which would

be a field for rapine in which no Assyrian had ever yet set foot.

The occasion seemed favourable, for on the west of the Euphrates the

Hittites were in no condition to wage war; they had not yet recovered

from the terrible blows dealt them by Tiglathpileser, and their

resistance in any case would not be very great.

Asshurnazirpal went right ahead [starting on the 8th day of Airu

(April), 876.--ROGERS], traversing the states of Bit-Bahian, Amila,

and Bit-Adini as far as the Euphrates, which he crossed on floats in

sight of Carchemish. Into the city he made a bloodless entry, receiving

the homage and tribute of King Sangara. A Hittite prince, Lubarna, who

ruled in the valley of the river Apre (modern Afrin) [in a state called

Patin] and possessed places of considerable importance such as Hazaz

and Kunulua (the capital). Lubarna made preparations to oppose the

march of the invader, but on seeing him approach fell on his knees and

stripped himself of all he possessed for offerings. He was soon master

of both slopes of the Lebanon, and he could see the great Phœnician

Sea (Mediterranean). There, in astonishment, and grateful to the gods

for all their blessings, he offered them a sacrifice of thanks on a

wave-washed rock. “I received,” he says, “the tribute of the kings of

the land of the sea, the people of Tyre, Sidon, Byblus, Makhallat,

Maiz, Kaiz,[23] Akharri, and of Arvad, which is situated full on the

sea; they brought me silver, gold, tin, iron, iron utensils, garments

of wool and linen, ‘pagut,’ large and small, of sandal and ebony wood,

skins of marine animals, and they kissed my feet.”

Asshurnazirpal, protected by Ninib and Nergal, the gods of strength,

embarked on a vessel which he captured in the harbour of Arvad and took

a sea trip, during which he killed a dolphin. Several days later he

hunted among the steep gorges of Lebanon, killed buffaloes and boars,

capturing a number of them alive, which he sent to Assyria. He boasts

of having killed one hundred and twenty lions himself, and claims

that these animals succumbed to fright before his almightiness. He

further enumerates troops of wild animals which he drove back to their

lairs,--antelopes, deer, ibexes, gazelles, tigers, foxes, leopards;

he also killed some eagles and vultures. Among these mountains this

true son of Nimrod quite forgot himself until the king of Egypt, whom

the fame of his deeds had reached, sent a congratulatory embassy

asking for his friendship. When later the kings of Egypt and Assyria

met on the shore of the Mediterranean, it was by no means for mutual

congratulation and the exchange of presents.

After this, Asshurnazirpal turned northward into the Amanus Mountains,

where he cut down cedar, pine, and cypress trees for his great

buildings in Calah. No one will ever know how much effort, nor the

lives of how many slaves it cost, to transport those gigantic logs cut

in the Amanus forests over the mountainous and trackless country to the

banks of the Tigris.

Asshurnazirpal never revisited the shores of the Mediterranean, and

like Moses he but caught a glimpse of the promised land which his

successors were destined to conquer, and whose inexhaustible riches

they so long exploited. What we know of the remainder of his reign is

the story of unimportant expeditions, principally for the collection

of tribute in the north of Mesopotamia and around the sources of the

Tigris. The district of Khipani and its capital, Khuzirina, as well as

the states of Assa, Qurkhi, and Adini, underwent new trials; the city

of Amida, the modern Diarbekir, witnessed a pyramid of human skulls

rising before its walls, and three thousand slaves--those whose eyes

were not put out or who were not crucified--were sent to Nineveh, where

they were employed in digging a great irrigation canal to make use of

the waters of the Upper Zab, the borders of which were planted with

trees torn from the forests of Syria.

The last eight years of his life seem to have been more peaceful than

their predecessors, although we can scarcely suppose that he passed

them in profound peace, which would be as hard to reconcile with his

turbulent and sanguinary nature as with the terrible condition of

the lands he had conquered, all of which were trying to regain their

freedom. At all events, he left his successors an immense empire, an

unbroken frontier, and an Assyrian domination recognised from the

Zagros to the Amanus Mountains, and from the sources of the Euphrates

to the gates of Babylon.[d]

SHALMANESER II AND HIS SUCCESSORS

Aside from the ruthlessness of his conquests, Asshurnazirpal was

chiefly remarkable for rebuilding the city of Calah, constructing a

canal, erecting himself a wonderful palace, whose ruins have been found

at Nimrud, and the building or rebuilding of a great aqueduct. He, who

had butchered and battled so liberally, died in 860 B.C. in peace.

His son, Shalmaneser II (Shulman-asharid) (860-824 B.C.) commenced

warlike operations at once. After a campaign eastward (860) he entered

upon a systematic conquest of the western countries. After several

campaigns (859-856) Akhuni’s district of Bit-Adini, on both sides

of the Euphrates, was completely subjugated, incorporated with the

kingdom, and peopled with Assyrian colonists, and Tel-Barship on the

Euphrates was changed into an Assyrian residence city under the name

of Kar-Shulman-asharid (City of Shalmaneser). Finally he succeeded

in capturing the prince who had fled across the Euphrates into the

mountains. Next followed the campaigns on the west of the Euphrates. In

the year 859 he twice defeated a coalition of North Syrian princes, the

rulers of Carchemish, Patin, Sama’al, etc., joined by the kings of Que,

and Khilukha; then he subjugated the Amanus district and the district

on the lower Orontes (the country of Patin). In the following year, the

annual tribute of all the North Syrian states was definitely settled.

[Sidenote: [854-829 B.C.]]

In the year 854 B.C. Shalmaneser advanced farther south. Khalman

made submission, but a strong coalition was formed against him in

the district of Hamath by Hadad-ezer, or Ben-Hadad II, of Damascus,

Irkhulina of Hamath, and Ahab of Israel. The adjacent smaller states

of the princes, Matinu-Baal of Arvad (Aradus), Baasha of Ammon, etc.,

followed suit.

The Syrian states evidently recognised the full extent of the danger

threatening them; Ahab of Israel probably made peace with Damascus

so as to be able to withstand the Assyrians. Only the Phœnician

cities were obdurate; whilst the Arabian prince, Gindibu, sent a

thousand camel riders, and even the Egyptian king sent one thousand

men. A battle took place at Qarqar in the vicinity of the Orontes.

Shalmaneser boasts of a complete victory. [His inscription says:

“Fourteen thousand of their warriors I slew with arms; like Adad I

rained a deluge upon them, I strewed hither and yon their bodies, I

filled the face of the ruins with their widespread soldiers; chariots,

saddle-horses, and yoke-horses I took from them.”]

But he attained no further successes, and his power was limited to

northern Syria. In the years 850, 849, and 846, Shalmaneser renewed

his attacks upon central Syria, the last time with one hundred and

twenty thousand men, but without great success. Their tribute money

was not much safeguard to the North Syrian princes, the places in the

district of Carchemish and in the Amanus Mountains were again and again

plundered and burned, and the inhabitants massacred. Only the king of

Patin, who was farthest away, and therefore the most powerful of the

vassals, seems to have been better treated.

The fifth campaign, in 842, was more successful, but in the meanwhile

the revolutions in Damascus and Samaria overthrew the old dynasties,

and Hazael and Jehu ascended the throne. In a battle at the foot

of Mount Lebanon, Hazael was conquered and shut up in his capital;

but Damascus was not taken. Shalmaneser laid waste the Hauran, then

repaired to the coast, where Tyre and Sidon, and also Jehu of Israel,

paid him tribute. The tribute payment of the latter (gold, lead,

vessels, etc.) is depicted on Shalmaneser’s black obelisk. In the year

839 the campaign was repeated without any far-reaching success; and

Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus paid tribute. When the people of Patin slew

their king, the Assyrian general, Asshur-daian (or Dan-Asshur), took

fearful revenge for the death of the faithful vassal. But Shalmaneser

extended his dominion in this district northward only. In the years 838

and 837, twenty-four kings of Tabal (in Cappadocia), as well as the

king of Milid (Melitene), were compelled to pay tribute; and in 835 and

834, King Kati of Que; _i.e._ East Cilicia west of Mount Amanus, was

vanquished, and the town Tarzi (_i.e._ in all probability Tarsus), was

taken and given to his brother Kirri.

Shalmaneser II had the same success in the east and north of his

kingdom. After the mountainous district on the Tigris had been

conquered, the Assyrians came into direct contact with the powerful

race of the Alarodians, whose territory extended on both sides of the

Lake of Van, from the source of the Euphrates to the land of Garzan,

or Gozan, on Lake Urumiyeh. After making a fearful visitation to

Khubushkia and its vicinity, Shalmaneser had already attacked their

king, Arame, on the east in 860. In 857 he invaded his district

on the west, after crossing the Arsanias. In 845 he penetrated as

far as the source of the Euphrates, and in 833 Asshur-daian, his

commander-in-chief, repeated the same campaign. It seems that Arame

and his successor, Siduri (or Sarduris), in the year 833, made, on the

whole, a valiant defence.

Much greater success attended the campaigns against the southeasterly

mountainous races of Urartu on the “sea of the land of the Nairi,”

_i.e._ the lake of Urumiyeh, and the districts of Manna, Parsua,

Amada[24] (Media), etc., at the south and east of the same as well

as that against the land of Namri southeast of the Zab. In the years

844, 836, 830, and 829 the campaigns in these districts were conducted

sometimes by the king himself, and sometimes by his commander-in-chief.

[Illustration: THE OBELISK OF SHALMANESER II]

The famous representations on Shalmaneser’s black obelisk show how King

Sua of Gozan and the Lord of Musri (_i.e._ the eastern mountainous

district) sent him a collection of wonderful animals, double-humped

camels, apes, a rhinoceros, an elephant, and a yak, besides gold,

silver, bronze vessels, and horses.

Between the great campaigns there were a few smaller struggles; in 855

in the Masius Mountains, in 853 against the kings of Tel-Abnai, and in

847 against the town of Ishtarat and the country of Yati, districts

south of the source of the Tigris; in 848 against the unknown land of

Paqarakhubuni, west of the Euphrates, and finally in 831 against the

Qurkhi. The black obelisk records that the desert district of Sukhi,

on the other side of the Euphrates, subjected by Asshurnazirpal,

remained dependent, and Marduk-bel-usur of Sukhi brings to the king as

tribute silver and gold, elephants’ teeth, garments, and also stags

and lions. In the years 852 and 851 Shalmaneser advanced to Babylon.

The king of Babylon, Nabu-apal-iddin, had just died, and his brother

Marduk-bel-usate had taken up arms against Marduk-nadin-shum, the

son of Nabu-apal-iddin. Shalmaneser went to the assistance of the

rightful king, defeated the rebels in two expeditions, and presented

rich gifts in the sacred cities of Babylon, Borsippa, and Kutha to the

chief gods enthroned there. Then repairing farther southward into the

land of Chaldea proper, he vanquished the kings of Bit-Adini and of

Bit-Dakkuri, and exacted tribute from Mussallim-Marduk and Yakin, who

was ruler of the sea country, which was subsequently called Bit-Yakin

after him.

We see that the unity of the kingdoms of Sumer and Accad was now no

more; but that south of Kardunyash, the district of Babylon, there

arose a line of smaller states. Perhaps the South was always separated

from Kardunyash after the Kossæan conquest.

[Sidenote: [829-783 B.C.]]

In the last years of Shalmaneser’s reign his son Asshur-danin-apli

rebelled against him with a great portion of the kingdom, including

Asshur, Arbela, the town of Imgur-Bel, founded by Asshurnazirpal,

Amido, and Tel-Abnai, on the upper Tigris, Zaban on the Zab, etc. But

another son, Shamshi-Adad IV, quelled the insurrection [and it took him

four years of hard fighting to dissipate the opposition] and succeeded

his father on the throne. The first campaigns of the new ruler were

directed against the Nairi countries, the mountains on the north and

east of the Tigris, and his general, Mushaqqil-Asshur, penetrated

as far as the “Sea of the Sunset,” which means as far as the Black

Sea. Then the king attacked Babylonia; a line of frontier places was

taken, and [in the battle of Dur-Papsukal, in northern Babylonia] King

Marduk-balatsu-iqbi, who had been supported by the rulers of Chaldea,

Elam, Namri, and the Aramæan races of eastern Babylonia, was slain.

This expedition was repeated in the years 813 and 812; and other wars

the king mentioned, in shorter notices, cannot be more accurately

localised. He made no attempt of any encroachment of Syria’s rights.

[Sidenote: [806-774 B.C.]]

The successes of [his son] Adad-nirari III (811-783 B.C.) are of

greater importance. In the North and South all the races hitherto

subjugated, including the Medes, the people of Parsua, etc., were

kept in subjection. Frequent mention is made of expeditions against

Manna, Khubushkia, Namri, and Aa. The king says that his kingdom was

extended as far as the coasts of the “great Sea of the Sunrise,”

_i.e._ the Caspian Sea. In 803 mention was made of an expedition “to

the sea coasts” (_i.e._ Babylonia, not Syria). As in Shalmaneser’s

time, all the kings of the land of Kaldi (Chaldea) paid tribute; in

the chief cities of Babylonia the king offers sacrifice, gains rich

booty, and fixes boundaries. Many expeditions were moreover made

against the Aramæan race of Itu’a which dwelt in Babylonia, and these

were repeated in subsequent reigns. “On the west of the Euphrates,”

says Adad-nirari, “I subjugated the land of Khatti, the whole land of

Akharri, Phœnicia, Tyre, Sidon, the kingdom of Israel (Bit-Khumri),

Edom and Philistia as far as the coasts of the West Sea, and imposed

taxes and tribute upon them.” He makes special mention of an expedition

against Mari, king of Damascus, who was besieged in his capital and

forced to capitulate, and pay 2300 talents of silver, 20 talents of

gold, 300 talents of bronze, 5000 talents of iron, so that the loot

of the Assyrian king was very considerable. These events cannot be

accurately fixed, chronologically. The chronological lists mention

campaigns in 806, 805, and 797, against Arpad, Khazaz, and Mansuate

in northern Syria. The war against Damascus was included in one of

them, for it led to the payment of tribute by the Phœnician cities

and the southern states (Israel, Edom, and Philistia). [There exists

an inscription of this reign referring to Sammuramat as “Lady of

the Palace and its Mistress.” There is some reason for conjecturing

that this might have been the woman round whose name and undoubted

prestige in so glorious a reign, clustered the legends of Semiramis. No

previous Assyrian king ruled over so great a territory, or collected

so much tribute as Adad-nirari III, or, as it is sometimes written,

Ramman-nirari III. After him came a period of decline in which there

are no royal inscriptions, and of which our knowledge comes from brief

notes in the Eponym lists.]

[Sidenote: [774-745 B.C.]]

The next king Shalmaneser III (782-773) also went to Syria and made war

against Damascus, 773, the land of Khatarikka, 772, and the land of

Lebanon.

His successor Asshur-dan III (772-754) also made war against Lebanon

in the years 767 and 755, and against Arpad in the year 754. The

subjugation of Hamath probably occurred in one of these expeditions.

Battles are mentioned against Babylonia (in the district of the Aramæan

race, Itu’a and the city of Gannanat) in 777, 771, 769, and 767, in

which the city of Kalneh was presumably taken. But Shalmaneser III

was chiefly concerned in the subjugation of the land of Urartu, the

Alarodians. He is mentioned not less than six times as taking the field

against them (781-778, 776, 774); but his efforts met with no, or at

least no enduring, success.

In all probability the formation of a great Armenian kingdom with

the city of Van (Thuspa of the Greeks) as the central point dates

from this period. Its founder was Sarduris, the son of Litipris,

who was probably identical with the king Sarduris who was conquered

in 833 by Shalmaneser. In two inscriptions written in Assyrian, he

calls himself “King of the land of Nairi.” His successors (Ispuinish,

Minuas, Argistis I, Sarduris II) then utilised the Assyrian writing for

inscribing the language of their country. For in the same record they

call their kingdom Biaina, whilst it is called Urartu by the Assyrians.

The inscriptions of the rulers are rather numerous and written quite

in the Assyrian style. They record the buildings of the kings in Van

itself, where a citadel was built by Argistis, sacrifices and gifts

to Khaldi and the numerous other deities of the Armenian Pantheon,

campaigns and conquests.

When still co-regent with Ispuinish, his father, Minuas erected

monuments in the two high passes south of Lake Urumiyeh which record

his conquests, and other inscriptions also relate his successes against

the land of Manna and its vicinity. These battles presumably occurred

in the latter time of Adad-nirari III, and are the continuation of his

campaigns in the eastern mountains. Minuas also fought against the land

of Alzi, against the king of the city of Milid (Melitene), and against

the Kheta. An inscription on a wall of rock on the Arsanias below an

old castle (near Palu) records among others his successes in this

direction. In the north he penetrated to and beyond the Araxes; one of

his inscriptions is to be found on the right bank of the river opposite

Armavir, and two others, written by his son Argistis, north of Eriwan.

The latter seems to have been the most powerful ruler of Urartu. A long

inscription on the rock of the citadel of Van records his successes in

the land of Manna, which he seems to have subjugated, and also in the

west, against Melitene, the land of Khatti (Kheta), etc.

Repeated victories over the Assyrians are mentioned, which were

evidently won against Shalmaneser III and Asshurdan III, or their

generals. Sarduris II, the son of Argistis, was also very successful

in both districts. For it appears from his inscriptions, confirmed by

later events, that Melitene, Kummukh, Gurgum, and other princedoms

on the Amanus, became feudal states of the kingdom of Urartu, which

included the whole Armenian plateau from the sources of the Euphrates

and Araxes across Lake Urumiyeh. How Sarduris II succumbed to the

Assyrian will be shown later.

The reign of Asshur-dan III seems to have been much more peaceful than

the preceding ones, for the short chronicle of this period repeatedly

records that the king remained “in the land,” and therefore undertook

no campaign.

The successes of Argistis were of great importance. Insurrections also

broke out in the interior in the years 763 to 758, first in the city of

Asshur, then in Arrapachitis (Arpakha), a city situated in the vicinity

of the Upper Zab, east of Nineveh, and finally in Guzanu, in the

Khabur country. After its subjugation, Asshur-dan, as already related,

repaired twice more to Syria (755 and 754), but it was not possible

with the increasing extension of the Armenian power in this direction

to retain supremacy over the smaller states of Syria.

[Sidenote: [747-740 B.C.]]

The next reign, that of Asshur-nirari II (754-745) was still less

eventful. He took the field only in the years 749 and 748 against the

mountainous country of Namri, in the southeast [and in 754 against

Arpad]. Otherwise, he remained “in the land.” In the last year of

his reign the chronicle mentions an insurrection in Calah. The fact

doubtless was that in the spring of the following year (746) the throne

was ascended by a usurper who called himself after the first of the

great Assyrian conquerors, Tiglathpileser.

The overthrown dynasty, which went back to Ishme-dagan and Shamshi-Adad

and the ancient Bel-kap-kapu, had held the throne in uninterrupted

succession for more than a thousand years.[c]

TIGLATHPILESER III (745-727 B.C.)

The eminent Dutch historian Tiele calls the new monarch Tiglathpileser

II, but a recently discovered inscription of Adad-nirari II speaks of

his grandfather, Tiglathpileser, and so the latter, of whom nothing

is known beyond his name, is now denoted the second ruler of his

name. Therefore the subject of the present chapter is here called

Tiglathpileser III.

Tiglathpileser III mounted the throne of Assyria on the 13th Airu

(about April) of the year 745 B.C., and resided, says Tiele, during

the greater part of his reign at Calah and Nineveh, where he built

palaces. He was without any doubt an Assyrian, and not a Chaldean, as

has been supposed. Whether he was the rightful heir, or whether he was

even of royal blood, remains undecided. His real name was Pulu (Pul,

Poros), and there is reason to suppose that he was either a military

commander or a younger son of the king, who took advantage of the

confusion during the last years of the reign of Asshurnirari II to put

the crown on his own head. He assumed the name of the great conqueror,

Tiglathpileser.

He may have employed the first months of his reign in restoring quiet

in the country and establishing himself securely on the throne. It

is only in September of the year 745 (month Tasrit) that he marches

into the field and turns his arms against Babylonia. Nabonassar

(Nabu-nasir) had ruled at Babylon since 747, but nothing else is known

of him, though he seems to have been the founder of a new method of

reckoning time. Tiglathpileser’s first campaign was not, however,

directed against him, at least not immediately; his first object was

to destroy the Aramæans’ and Chaldeans’ ever-increasing power in that

country. After he had won possession of the city of Sippar, which

lay between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and perhaps even of Nippur

also, and had conquered Dur-Kurigalzu, together with some other less

important strongholds of Kardunyash, as far as the Ukni, he subdued

the nomadic Aramæans east of the Tigris, reorganised the government of

the conquered territory, dividing it into four provinces, over which

Assyrian governors were placed, founded two cities [Kar-Asshur was one

and probably Dur-Tukulti-apal-esharra the other] as administrative

centres to preserve the allegiance of the new territory, and peopled

the new settlements with the prisoners of war. The priesthood of

Babylon, Borsippa, and Kutha brought gifts from the temples of their

gods into the king’s headquarters, and thus averted the danger which

threatened their towns also. For the time Tiglathpileser contented

himself with the successes gained. It was not at present his intention

to subdue all Babylonia, or perhaps he was not yet strong enough to do

so. Apparently all he desired was to secure the southern frontiers of

Assyria against the invasions of the Aramæans and Chaldeans, who were

becoming more and more audacious, before he ventured farther afield.

The security of the eastern border was of scarcely less importance. In

the year 744 he marched against the ever turbulent Namri which lay in

this direction; here, too, he compelled all to bow to his victorious

arms, even penetrated the western portion of the future Media, and

exacted tribute from all the Median princes as far as the eastern

mountains of Biknu. He did not proceed in person to further conquests,

but entrusted the punishment of those Medians who dwelt farther east to

his general, Asshur-daninani, who returned victorious, bringing with

him rich booty, especially in horses. However, this country was not

incorporated in the empire.

His hand was now free for the re-establishment of the weakened power

of Assyria in the west. But one of his most powerful enemies who had,

perhaps, already stirred up Namri to resistance, namely Sarduris II of

Urartu, or Chaldia, sought to prevent this. When Tiglathpileser had

reached Arpad in Syria, he found his flank, and when he would have

marched still farther, his rear, threatened by a considerable army

at whose head was Sarduris, and which besides the latter’s troops

consisted of those of the northern Hittite states of Melid, Gurgum,

Kummukh, and Agusi. The defeat of the allies was complete. Sarduris

had to abandon his camp and seek refuge in flight. About seventy-three

thousand prisoners fell into the Assyrians’ hands.

[Sidenote: [740-732 B.C.]]

The three following years were not fortunate. When Tiglathpileser

marched against Kummukh he does not appear to have left an adequate

garrison behind him in Arpad, for in the year 742 the town, and with

it the key of the west country, was in the power of his enemies, and

he found himself obliged to besiege it for three years. Not till the

year 740 did he take it, and thither came Kushtashpi of Kummukh, Rezin

of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre, Uriakki of Que, Pisiris of Carchemish, and

Tarkhulara of Gurgum, to offer him rich presents. One of the Hittite

princes, Tutammu of Unqi, a district between the Orontes and the Afrin,

refused his submission. His capital, Kinalia, was taken for the second

time and the whole country placed under an Assyrian governor. In the

year 739 Tiglathpileser continued his conquest northeast of Arpad,

devastated Kilkhi, a district belonging to Nairi, and conquered Ulluba,

where he founded an Assyrian capital under the name of Asshuriqisha.

But it was long before the land of the Khatti (Syria) was pacified.

Between 740 and 738 no less than nineteen districts belonging to the

Syrian kingdom of Hamath, and some other adjacent districts, broke

away from Assyria, and from some mutilated parts of the inscriptions

it is believed we may conclude that they asked for help from Azariah

[Uzziah], the warlike king of Judah. At all events, the latter at

that time ventured to defy the power of Assyria, and Tiglathpileser

connected this hostile attitude with the rising of the people of

Hamath. About 738 Azariah was defeated and the country of Hamath

added to Assyria. Then the king had recourse to his favourite means

for the suppression of the sentiment of nationality--namely, the

transplantation of prisoners of war in the most extensive fashion.

Whilst all princes of any consideration and even an Arabian queen

now offered the conqueror their submission and presents, he received

the joyful tidings of important successes won by his generals on the

other frontiers of the empire. The eastern Aramæans had shaken off the

Assyrian yoke and advanced to the Zab, but were driven back, though

with some difficulty. At the same time the governor of Lullume was

harassing the Babylonians, whilst the governor of Nairi held in check

the populations on the northern frontier. Booty and prisoners were sent

to the king in the land of the Khatti.

The three following years (737-735) he was occupied with expeditions

in the east and northeast. Some districts of Media were then under

the Babylonian rule, and now passed to that of the Assyrians. But

the most important event of this year was the march to Turushpa,

the capital of Urartu [Chaldia], the residence of Sarduris, on the

Lake of Van. No Assyrian conqueror had penetrated so far as this,

nor did Tiglathpileser succeed in taking the town in which Sarduris

had fortified himself after his first defeat; but the power of this

dangerous rival was broken for a long time.

[Sidenote: [732-731 B.C.]]

Tiglathpileser now determined to bring the west under his yoke, and did

not rest until he had brought all the Hittite and Semitic countries

to the coast of the Mediterranean and the frontiers of Egypt, except

some Arabian districts, under his sway. This took him three years, from

734-732. The immediate inducement to this expedition was probably that

Ahaz of Judah, threatened by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel,

called in the aid of Assyria. Moreover, the last two had probably paid

no tribute, and, generally speaking, Assyria needed little persuasion

to fish in troubled waters. The first attack was directed against

Rezin. Beaten in the open field, he was compelled to retreat to his

capital. Here Tiglathpileser shut him in “like a bird in its cage”;

he conquered all the towns round about, including the important city

of Sam’ala, and marched on, after having destroyed, according to his

wont, all crops around Damascus, and thus increased the difficulty

of transporting the means of existence. He marched into Israel

(Bit-Khumri), wasting whole districts, some of which he added to his

empire,--for the present, however, leaving the capital undisturbed.

The immediate goal was now the Philistine Gaza, whose king, Hanno

(Khanunu), probably trusting in Damascus and Israel, had at first

renounced his allegiance, but now on the approach of the Assyrian army

fled to Egypt. The town was taken, and a rich booty fell into the hands

of the victors. Askalon, whose prince Mitinti had made an attempt at

rebellion, was punished--though probably not till later--and Rukipti,

Mitinti’s son, raised to the throne. Shamshi, “the queen of Arabia in

the land of Sheba,” also offered resistance, but was likewise utterly

defeated and with difficulty escaped with bare life. Her country,

which is certainly not to be confounded with the Sheba of the South,

became an Assyrian province. Other Arab tribes submitted voluntarily,

and amongst them the well-known Tema; and Tiglathpileser appointed

the powerful tribe of the Idibi’il, as being nearest to Egypt, to be

wardens of the marches at the gates of that still mighty empire. Now

came the turn of Samaria, the only city of Israel which the conqueror

had not yet reduced. He appears, indeed, to have visited it, but not

to have besieged and taken it, yet he raised Hoshea, who had meantime

slain Pekah, to the throne, or confirmed him in its possession. It was

longer before Damascus fell. It continued to hold out for two years

more. That it was then taken is probable.

Of all the kingdoms of the West there now remained only Tyre and Tabal,

which latter lay much farther north. The king did not go in person

against either of these towns, but he sent Rabshakeh, who subdued

them and changed the government in Tabal, while on Tyre he imposed a

tax of not less than one hundred and fifty talents [about £60,000, or

$300,000]. Whether this took place now or later, cannot be said with

certainty.

[Sidenote: [731-726 B.C.]]

Victorious over all rebellious subjects in his colossal empire,

and dreaded by all his neighbours, Tiglathpileser now felt himself

strong enough to make a direct attack on the Aramæans and Chaldeans

of Babylonia, and to conquer the holy city itself. In the year 731

he ventured and accomplished this act of daring. In Babylonia itself

no one seems to have resisted him, and the population seem rather to

have received him as a deliverer. He entered Sippar, Nippur, Babylon,

Borsippa, Kutha, Kish, Dilbat, and Erech, each in their turn, and

received the protection of the great gods, by offering them sacrifices.

Then he fell on the Aramaic-Chaldean tribe of Pekud (Pekod), subdued

it as far as the frontiers of Elam, continued his victorious march

through the Chaldean states of Bit-Silani and Bit-Sha’alli, which

soon succumbed to his arms. Nabu-ushabshi, the king of the former

state, was impaled before the gate of his capital, Sarrabani, and

the town levelled with the ground; Zakiru of Sha’alli was sent to

Assyria in chains, and the capital, which still offered resistance,

was starved into surrender. Bit-Amukkani, whose king, Ukinzer

(Chinziros), who appears to have been at that time the leading chief

of the Chaldeans, and consequently regarded as king of Babylon, was

not so easily overcome. It is true that the whole country was ravaged

and the king shut up in his capital of Sapia; that a sortie of the

garrison miscarried; that in fear of the overwhelming strength of

Assyria, Balasu of Bit-Dakkuri, Nadin of Larak (Bit-Shala), and even

Marduk-bal-iddin [Merodoch-baladan] of Bit-Yakin on the seacoast, the

man who was later to become so terrible an enemy to Assyria, came here

to offer their costly gifts and their submission; but Sapia was not

taken and Ukinzer not conquered, so that nominally he shared the rule

over Babylon for yet another year. Still, from this time forward it was

not without reason that Tiglathpileser styled himself king or overlord

of Babylon, king of Sumer and Accad; he might boast that he ruled from

the Persian Gulf to the far East, over the coasts of the Mediterranean

as far as Egypt, and that he had extended his kingdom farther than

any of his predecessors. He reigned for three years more, for the most

part in peace, as far as we know. Of his last two years it is reported

that he clasped the hands of Bel; that is, that he received the highest

religious consecration as king of Babylon. In the year 727 Shalmaneser

IV succeeded him on the throne. The latter only ruled for five years,

and of his short reign little is known.

SHALMANESER IV

[Illustration: ASSYRIAN KING IN HIS WAR CHARIOT]

In the list of the Babylonian kings for these five years, there

stands, not his name, but that of Ulule, who was neither, as has been

believed hitherto, an independent prince nor a viceroy appointed

by Shalmaneser, but none other than Shalmaneser himself, who also

probably resided at Babylon. Perhaps his expedition against Phœnicia

and Israel falls as early as the year of his accession. The occasion

of the war against Tyre, whose king, Elulæus, at that time stood at

the head of the Phœnician towns, is said to have been an expedition

undertaken by the latter against the Khittim of Cyprus. It is more

probable that the Tyrian king, like Hoshea of Israel, had taken

advantage of Tiglathpileser’s death to renounce his allegiance to

Assyria. Shalmaneser again subdued Hoshea and raised tribute from

him. At the same time he sent into Phœnicia a part of his army, which

devastated the whole country, and once more made it tributary. After

this the whole empire seems to have quieted down, for the following

year (726) was a year of peace. But the calm was not of long duration.

Scarcely had the Assyrian troops marched away, when Hoshea turned to

the Egyptian king, in the hope that with his aid he might free himself

from the yoke of Assyria, and from thenceforward once more refused the

tribute.

We have here probably a great conspiracy, in which Elulæus was also

concerned, for Shalmaneser now marched against both kings. He took

Hoshea prisoner, evidently after a struggle, wasted the whole land of

Israel, but at Samaria, whose population may very likely have incited

the king to revolt, he encountered an obstinate resistance. Meantime

the whole Phœnician mainland, either from fear or under pressure from

the superior force of Assyria, hastened to desert from Elulæus and

to submit to Shalmaneser. The Tyrian king found himself under the

necessity of retreating to his fortress on the island of Tyre, where he

was at once besieged. It was only under Shalmaneser’s successor that

Samaria was taken after a three years’ siege, and Tyre after one of

five years. We cannot but experience a feeling of respect for these

two cities, which ventured unaided--for the help from Egypt failed, as

usual, to appear--to defy the gigantic power of Assyria.

[It is by no means undisputed that Shalmaneser marched against both

Elulæus and Hoshea, as Professor Tiele states. Some of the historians

believe that no action was taken against the king of Tyre, and that

since there are no allusions to the five years’ siege in any of

the inscriptions, Josephus, the sole authority, made a mistake in

attributing to Shalmaneser an attack on Tyre that was really made by

Sennacherib.]

The scanty records of Shalmaneser’s reign bear witness to material

prosperity. That he was, as has been thought, a feeble ruler, under

whose administration the empire declined, is entirely unproved.

His early death prevented him from acquiring the same glory as his

predecessor, and if, immediately after his decease, the vassals of

the empire raised the standards of rebellion in every direction, this

speaks rather for than against the influence of his personality.[e]

FOOTNOTES

[22] [It is so uncertain that Karaindash, etc., were actually Kossæans

that the word Kassite or Kasshite is kept by some scholars, as

Hilprecht,[f] Goodspeed,[g] McCurdy,[h] and Rogers.[i]]

[23] [According to the best authority Makhallat, Maiz, and Kaiz formed

Tripolis.]

[24] [Also written “Mada” in a later inscription of Adad-nirari III.

This is the true land of Media, which the Greeks confused with that of

Manda.]

CHAPTER 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.