Two years were required for this undertaking, in which Sargon proceeded

with great caution. Merodach-baladan was ready for the attack. He had

not neglected to make the necessary dispositions and to strengthen

his fortresses. In one of them, Dur-Atkhara, which was probably the

nearest to Assyria, and whose defensive works he had caused to be

raised, he had concentrated the whole military power of the Aramæan

tribe of Gambuli, and had sent to their assistance a portion of his own

choicest troops, six hundred horsemen and four thousand foot. Sargon

directed himself against this fortress, and whilst he was besieging it,

it is probable that another division of his army won several successes

in the east, where it had to keep the Elamite king, Shutur-nakhundi,

occupied, and prevent him from joining hands with his ally. Dur-Atkhara

fell; more than eighteen thousand prisoners and a great booty became

the spoil of the conqueror, and the rest of the defenders hastily

took to flight. The Assyrian king made the town his headquarters; he

subsequently gave it the name of Dur-Nabu, and placed it under an

Assyrian governor. The Khamarani tribe which dwelt on the banks of the

Euphrates, in their terror at the approach of his army, had already

taken refuge in the town of Sippar. At the news of the surrender of

Dur-Atkhara, and the defeat of the Gambuli, the Aramæan tribes of

Rubu, Khindaru, Yatburu, and Puqudu, who dwelt east of the Tigris, and

relied on the protection of Babylon and Elam, withdrew behind the

river Ukni. The Assyrians threw a bridge across the Umlias, a river to

the north of Elam, and took several strongholds there, whereupon some

chiefs of the Aramæans did homage to the king at Dur-Atkhara. They were

assigned to the new government of Gambuli. The remainder were attacked

and defeated in the territory of the Ukni, so that of them also many

submitted, and were made subject to Gambuli. Now the army of Assyria

operating east of the Tigris attacked Elam from Yatburu, subdued all

the surrounding country, the seven principalities of Yatburu, with

which two fortresses conquered from Elam were incorporated, and a

part of the Elamite territory itself. It compelled the forces of the

land of Rash, which belonged to Elam, to retire to a fortress, and

the Elamite king to seek refuge in the high mountains of his country.

Secured against any surprise from this quarter, Sargon himself with

the main body now crossed the Euphrates into the Chaldaic-Babylonian

state of Bit-Dakkuri, whose capital, Dur-Ladinna, henceforth became his

headquarters.

There was now no room for Merodach-baladan in Babylon. Threatened on

three sides, and in danger of being cut off by Sargon from his own

principality, he and his troops left the city during the night and

directed their steps to the Elamite part of Yatburu, whence they might

advance against the enemy in co-operation with Shutur-nakhundi. But,

although he offered the latter the most costly presents, the Elamite

had not yet forgotten the lesson he had received. He declined to expose

himself to new defeats, and so, perhaps, lose both land and people.

Merodach-baladan left Yatburu, having gained nothing, and collected his

army in a stronghold of his own country, called Iqbi-Bel.

Meantime, at Dur-Ladinna, in Bit-Dakkuri, not only did Sargon receive

the submission of the inhabitants and the neighbouring Bit-Amukkani,

but the authorities of Babylon also came in solemn embassy, bringing

an invitation to enter the holy city, with which he immediately

complied. At the great festival of the lord of the gods in the month of

Shabat (January) he was permitted “to clasp the hands” of that great

Bel-Marduk and Nabu, the king of the universe.

But still the south of Babylonia was not yet subjugated, for there

Merodach-baladan was still in arms. He collected all his forces in the

immediate neighbourhood of his capital, and at the same time, for fear

of treachery, led thither the population of the ancient cities of Ur,

Larsa, Kishik, etc. Strong defences were set up and special canals dug,

behind which he entrenched himself with his allies. But the great king

did not shrink before all these obstacles. Scarcely was the campaign

of the year 709 begun, before he marched south, distributed his troops

along the enemy’s whole line of defence, and inflicted on the latter so

terrible a defeat that the trenches appeared as though full of blood,

and the Suti, who had marched from Bit-Yakin to the rescue, did not

venture an attack, but hurriedly retreated. Then Sargon fell on the

auxiliaries and slaughtered them like sheep. Terror now seized on the

Chaldeans’ main army; Merodach-baladan left his camp with all speed and

retreated to his city. But it, too, was soon taken after a short siege,

and with this the power of Merodach-baladan was broken. It is uncertain

whether he himself fell into his enemy’s hands or saved himself by

flight; but probably the latter was the case, for immediately after

Sargon’s death he is again in a position to take action, at least

if the Merodach-baladan, who then revolted against Sennacherib, is

the same who was conquered by Sargon and his son. But for the time

Babylonia was freed from the Aramaic-Chaldean domination, and breathed

again. Sargon restored the ancient rights of the natives which the

oppressors had curtailed in favour of the foreigners. To the towns of

southern Babylonia he gave back their stolen gods; he everywhere showed

himself extremely liberal to the temples and the ancient religion of

the country. In all directions he appeared as deliverer, avenger of

the insulted gods, restorer of the ancestral religion, protector of

the priests and of all the natives of the country. His triumph did not

signalise the commencement of foreign rule, but, on the contrary, it

was he who put an end to it.

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

Sargon’s rejoicings over his victory were still further increased by

the embassies and reports which he received one after the other. Uperi,

the king of the island of Dilmun, in the Persian Sea, did homage to

him while he was still at Bit-Yakin, and gave costly presents. When

he had marched from southern Babylonia to consolidate his dominion in

the conquered countries, still more welcome tidings reached him at

Irma’i. Even his great enemy in the northwest, Mita of Muskhe, who had

stood with Rusas at the head of the confederacy against Asshur, but

who had been overcome by the governor of Que, now sent ambassadors to

Sargon with presents and protestations of homage and devotion. When,

finally, the king had again returned to Babylon, there came envoys from

seven districts of Cyprus, “whose names had never been known to the

kings, his fathers, since the rule of the god Sin,” and who offered

him valuable gifts and kissed his feet. Thus the empire of the mighty

conqueror stretched from the island of Dilmun, in the Persian Gulf, to

the Isle of Cyprus, in the Mediterranean.

Sargon returned to Calah in the beginning of 708, his fourteenth year

as king of Assyria, and third as king of Babylon, after spending

some time in the latter city. Whilst he was at Calah, resting on his

laurels--he did not again, himself, take the field--and from thence

prosecuting the construction of his new residence of Dur-Sharrukin,

not far from Nineveh, his armies had still to conduct two wars, one

in the year 708, the other, perhaps, in the same, but probably in the

following year. Urartu had to a certain extent recovered from the

blows it had suffered in the defeats and death of its king, Rusas; and

the new king, Argistis, began to grow restless, and persuaded Prince

Mutallu of Kummukh to a revolt against the Assyrian domination. Sargon

sent a high official with a powerful army and full royal authority,

who put Mutallu to flight, taking the capital of the province, and so

restoring the Assyrian dominion. The rich booty was sent to Calah to

the king, and the latter placed a very strong garrison at the disposal

of the new viceroy, to prevent any further attempts at risings, and

at the same time to constitute a defence against Argistis. But it was

once more apparent that the Assyrian Empire, as a purely military

power, rested on a tottering foundation, and could only be sustained by

continued wars and victories.

The other war was that for the succession in Ellipi to the north of

Elam. There, after the death of Dalta, who after some resistance had

become a loyal vassal of Assyria, a dispute over the inheritance broke

out between his two sons, Nibe and Ishpabara. The first applied for

help to Shutur-nankhundi of Elam; the second to Sargon. The latter sent

seven of his commanders, who succeeded in defeating Nibe, taking his

capital, Marubishti, and there installing Ishpabara as king.

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

Sargon, who, even in the early years of his reign, in the midst of his

most terrible wars, had not neglected the reconstruction of palaces

and temples at Nineveh and Calah, now devoted himself entirely to the

realisation of a long cherished plan, whose execution he had begun

long ago. A new suburb of Nineveh, called by his name, was to come

into existence as a permanent memorial of his fame and piety, and at

the same time serve as a summer residence. This was Dur-Sharrukin with

its temples to various gods, with its palaces and gardens, whose walls

and gates, like those of a sacred city, looked to the four quarters of

the heavens and were named after the high gods, and whose inhabitants,

selected from the prisoners of war of all the nations whom the king

had conquered and placed under Assyrian magistrates, afforded a living

testimony to his mighty deeds. On the 22nd Tasrit (September) 707, the

gods were solemnly introduced into their temples, and on the 6th Airu

(April) of the following year, the king took possession of the new

residence. He was not permitted to enjoy it long. In the year 705 he

fell by an assassin’s hand. [This is doubted by some authorities, who

believe that he died a natural death.]

Sargon was, without doubt, one of the greatest princes who sat on the

throne of Assyria and Babylon. He was no mere conqueror, who thought

merely of increasing the size of his empire, but also a true king

who occupied himself for its welfare. What chiefly strikes us in him

is the comparative moderation by which he was distinguished from his

predecessors and in particular from his son and successor. The horrors

and devastations of war were the inevitable accompaniment of the

forcible subjugation of the whole of western Asia, and some obstinate

rebels were punished according to the barbarous custom of his age and

race. But in general he contented himself with expelling the conquered

prince or making him prisoner. He also remained faithful to the

policy first pursued by Tiglathpileser III, namely that of furthering

the unity of the empire by transplanting whole populations to other

districts. But in his records it is only now and then that we encounter

the refined cruelties perpetrated by the other Assyrian kings, and he

never dwells on them with so much complacency as they display.[b]

SENNACHERIB

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

Sargon II was succeeded by his son Sin-akhe-erba, the Sennacherib

of the Bible, who reigned long and gloriously. The period now in

question has a double interest. It is a time when Assyria is at the

height of its power; and the interest that attaches to any strong

empire is enhanced by the fact that the Assyrians of this period came

in contact with the people of Israel. Sennacherib, in particular,

bears a name familiar to all succeeding generations because of the

repeated mention of this ruler in the Hebrew scriptures. Until the

records of the Assyrian monuments were brought to light, nothing was

known of him, except what referred to his disastrous campaign against

Jerusalem, together with the brief reference to his murder by his son.

Now, however, an abundance of material is at hand telling of the deeds

of Sennacherib. The most important of these records are contained on

large cylinders of the type which many Assyrian kings employed. These

cylinders tell of various campaigns of the great conqueror, including

several attacks upon Israel. Two or three brief excerpts from the

chronicles of Sennacherib will serve to give an idea of the phraseology

in which these royal documents are couched. The first two excerpts here

selected were translated by George Smith from a cylinder now in the

British Museum.

Column I of this cylinder begins as follows:

“Sennacherib the great king, the powerful king, king of Assyria, king

of the four regions, the appointed ruler, worshipper of the great gods,

guardian of right, lover of justice, maker of peace, going the right

way, preserver of good. The powerful prince, the warlike hero, leader

among kings, giant devouring the enemy, breaker of bonds. Asshur, the

great mountain, an empire unequalled, has committed to me, and over all

who dwell in palaces has exalted my servants. From the upper sea of the

setting sun to the lower sea of the rising sun all the dark races he

has subdued to my feet, and stubborn kings avoided war, their countries

abandoned, and, like Sudinni birds, … fled to desert places.”[26]

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

“In my third expedition to the land of the Hittites I went. Elulæus

king of Sidon, fear of the might of my dominion overwhelmed him, and

to a distance in the midst of the sea he fled, and his country I

took. Great Sidon, Lesser Sidon, Bit-Sitte, Sarepta Machalliba, Ushu

Alhzibu, and Akko his strong cities, fortresses, walled and enclosed,

his castles; the might of the soldiers of Asshur my lord overwhelmed

them, and they submitted to my feet. Tubahal in the throne of the

kingdom over them I seated, and taxes and tribute to my dominion

yearly, unceasing, I fixed upon him. Of Menahem of Samsimuruna, Tubahal

of Sidon, Abdilihiti of Arvad, Urumilki of Gubal (Byblos), Mitinti

of Ashdod, Buduilu of Beth-Ammon, Kammusunadab of Moab, Malikrammu

of Edom, kings of the Hittites, all of them of the coast, the whole,

their presents and furniture, to my presence they carried, and kissed

my feet, and Zidqa, king of Askalon, who did not submit to my yoke;

the gods of the house of his father, himself, his wife, his sons, his

daughters, and his brothers, the seed of the house of his father I

removed, and to Assyria I sent him. Sharruludari, son of Rukipti their

former king, over the people of Askalon I appointed, and the gifts of

taxes due to my dominion I fixed on him, and he performed my pleasure.”

Full of interest is the record of an invasion of Palestine.

Sennacherib, it will be recalled, was the Assyrian that came down like

a wolf on the fold, as recorded in Byron’s stirring lines. The Hebrew

account is from 2 Kings xix. 35:

[Illustration: SENNACHERIB ON HIS THRONE

(Layard)]

“And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out,

and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five

thousand; and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were

all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went

and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was

worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and

Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the

land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.”[a]

It is hardly necessary to state that no such record as this is to

be found on the cylinder before us. The oriental scribe, whether of

Egypt, Assyria, or Persia, rarely made the mistake of putting details

of unfortunate expeditions on record. Doubtless Sennacherib once

invaded western Asia unsuccessfully, and quite likely a plague may have

decimated his hosts, but that particular invasion is not likely to

furnish a favourable theme for the court chronicler.

An invasion of Palestine is, indeed, recorded on the present cylinder,

but it is an invasion with very different results. Listen to the

official account of the conquest of Jerusalem furnished by this

cylinder of Sennacherib, as translated by Dr. Budge. The scribe reports

the king as speaking in the first person:

“I drew nigh to Ekron and I slew the governors and princes who had

transgressed, and I hung upon poles round about the city their dead

bodies; the people of the city who had done wickedly and had committed

offences I counted as spoil, but those who had not done these things

I pardoned. I brought their king, Padi, forth from Jerusalem and I

stablished him upon the throne of dominion over them, and I laid

tribute upon him.

“I then besieged Hezekiah of Judah who had not submitted to my

yoke, and I captured forty-six of his strong cities and fortresses

and innumerable small cities which were round about them, with the

battering of rams and the assault of engines, and the attack of

foot-soldiers, and by mines and breaches (made in the walls). I brought

out therefrom 200,150 people, both small and great, male and female,

and horses, and mules, and asses, and camels, and oxen, and innumerable

sheep I counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird, I shut

up within Jerusalem his royal city. I threw up mounds against him,

and I took vengeance upon any man who came forth from his city. His

cities which I had captured I took from him and gave to Mitinti, king

of Ashdod, and Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and I

reduced his land. I added to their former yearly tribute, and increased

the gifts which they paid unto me. The fear of the majesty of my

sovereignty overwhelmed Hezekiah, and the Urbi and his trusty warriors,

whom he had brought into his royal city of Jerusalem to protect it,

deserted. And he despatched after me his messenger to my royal city

Nineveh to pay tribute and to make submission with thirty talents of

gold, eight hundred talents of silver, precious stones, eye paint …

ivory couches and thrones, hides and tusks, precious woods, and divers

objects, a heavy treasure, together with his daughters, and the women

of his palace, and male and female musicians.”

It must not be supposed, however, that either this record of a

successful invasion or the Hebrew account of that other disastrous one

is altogether false, however much the facts may have been exaggerated,

or however poetical the guise in which they are presented. It is merely

to be understood that the two records refer to different campaigns

or to different portions of the same campaign, as explained later

by Professor Tiele. It is supposed by some modern interpreters that

the destruction of Sennacherib’s hosts actually occurred through the

plague. The king himself, however, escaped to return to Nineveh and

there to continue his rule for many years. He was finally killed by his

own sons, as is recorded on a contemporary Babylonian document. What

would not the Hebrew scholar give, could he find contemporary documents

of these events from the Hebrew standpoint, instead of being obliged

to depend on records handed down, perhaps, by tradition for many

generations, or at best, copied from one hand to another for centuries?

The value of contemporary documents as records of fact may, indeed,

be overestimated, for it is possible to pervert, exaggerate, or

understate the facts even in the day of their occurrence; but in any

event the contemporary document has obvious advantage over documents

of subsequent generations, which can be nothing more than copies,

variously distorted, of earlier records. As for such mere matters of

fact as the dates of ancient kings, and the particular details of

campaigns and conquests, the historic importance of the contemporary

record cannot be questioned; hence the enormous value of these tablets

of Assyria and Babylon. But, questions of historical value aside, a

peculiar charm attaches to whatever is old, and it is nothing less than

fascinating to look at such a document as this cylinder, and feel that

the very lines you scan were once read by Sennacherib himself before

he met his untimely end “on the 20th day of the month Tebet” some

twenty-five centuries ago.[h]

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

It was in the year 705 B.C. that Sennacherib, who was not, perhaps,

entirely guiltless of Sargon’s death, mounted the throne and became

the supreme king both in Babylon and Assyria. To Merodach-baladan,

who may have been either the recognised king of the Sea Lands, or the

son or namesake of the latter, the occasion now seemed favourable for

recovering the throne lost to Sargon. Sennacherib and his army marched

up in all haste, and though it appears that Merodach-baladan had all

the Aramæan and Chaldean tribes on his side, and was moreover supported

by Elamite auxiliaries, he suffered a defeat and so lost his kingdom.

According to the Assyrian narrator, this defeat was so complete that

the Chaldean was forced to take flight in the greatest haste, leaving

behind him his whole baggage-train, as well as his family and court.

He had reigned nine months. The land was heavily scourged, great and

small towns were taken and laid waste, and the inhabitants dragged

into exile. The same fate was meted out to all Arabians, Aramæans, and

Chaldeans who were living in the Babylonian towns.

When the campaign in Chaldea was at an end, the troops were sent

against the Aramæan tribes, which dwelt on the banks of the Tigris

and Euphrates. Here, too, there was devastation and plundering. A

considerable booty, as was to be expected from these nomads, consisting

chiefly of cattle, but also including camels, fell into the hands of

the conquerors, and no less than two hundred thousand men and women

were carried off to Assyria as slaves. It fared still worse with one

small, heroic tribe, the Hirimmi, who offered an obstinate resistance

to the Assyrians. When, finally, the latter succeeded in overcoming

them, of all the rebels they left no prisoner of war alive, and hanged

the corpses on poles upon the wall surrounding the town. Sennacherib

annexed the whole territory to his realm, while he laid on it a very

moderate tax for the benefit of the Assyrian god.

We may assume it as probably certain that the king did not personally

take part in the campaign, but occupied himself the while with the

adjustment of Babylonian state affairs. His policy may be distinctly

followed. It was only toward the Chaldeans and their allies that he

appeared in the character of an enemy. They alone were punished or

carried off. The actual citizens of Babylon, Erech, Nippur, Kish,

and Kharsag-kalama he left unmolested, and to propitiate them still

further, he even gave them a king belonging to the ruling Babylonian

house--namely, the young Bel-ibni, whose father held an important

office, and who had himself been brought up from childhood at the

Assyrian court. Of him Sennacherib might hope that he would be faithful

to Assyria and at the same time not unfriendly to the Babylonians, and

therefore he now bestowed on him the title of “King of Sumer and Accad.”

The establishment of order in Babylon was turned to account by

Sennacherib for the purpose of averting the danger with which his

eastern frontier was threatened by the nomads who wandered there, and

by the mountain people, and also for extending his empire in every

direction. He now attacked the Kasshu and Yasubigallu, by which names

we doubtless have to understand those barbarous Kossæans, and their

allies, whose successors, centuries later, according to Diodorus, still

made the Mesopotamian frontier insecure, and who were related to those

Kassites who had so long reigned over Babylon. Their surest protection

was the inaccessible nature of the country. Steep mountain paths and

thick forests made it difficult for an Assyrian army to advance, while

for vehicles it was impossible.

The king himself led the march, and thus showed himself a worthy

successor of the undaunted heroes who in earlier centuries had founded

the Assyrian power. His chariot had frequently to be carried behind

him, and then he mounted on horseback or performed the journey on

foot at the head of his troops. Sennacherib succeeded in taking their

three strongholds. The smaller places he laid in ashes and the nomads’

tents were burnt. But for greater security he desired to bring the

wild tribes under Assyrian rule, and to force them to settle in fixed

abodes. He selected Bit-Kilamzakh as a centre, fortified it far more

effectually than before, making it a formidable fortress to keep the

inhabitants of the country in check, and peopled it with captives

whom he had carried off in former warlike expeditions. He caused a

tablet inscribed with the history of this campaign to be set up in the

capital, in order that the terror of the Assyrian arms might be kept

perpetually alive. As soon as he had subdued the Kasshu he marched

against Ellipi. Sennacherib fell on the country like a tempest. The two

royal seats Marubishti and Accudu, with all the smaller towns, were

taken by him and given up to be plundered and burnt, whilst all crops

were destroyed and even the cornfields delivered over to the fire. It

was with a certain satisfaction that Sennacherib boasted of having

transformed Ellipi into a desert, and led away the whole population

with its goods and chattels. When these successes became known, a

number of Median princes, dwelling at a more remote distance, hastened

to offer their submission.

Meantime the king’s attention was directed to events in the west. The

elevation of the young and high-spirited Tirhaqa to the throne of

Egypt, probably as husband of King Shabak’s widow, and guardian of

his son who was a minor, had aroused in some princes of the strips of

land along the Mediterranean coast the hope that by an alliance with

him they might shake off the Assyrian yoke. To these belonged Elulæus

(Luli) king of Tyre and Sidon, Zedekiah, (Zidga) king of Askalon, and

above all Hezekiah, the king of Judah. The latter took on himself the

leadership, at least in the southwest.

Sennacherib’s third campaign was directed against this coalition,

and is probably to be assigned to the year 702 B.C. With its usual

promptitude, the Assyrian army marched on Phœnicia, and thus attacked

one of the allies before the rest had a chance to unite their forces.

Elulæus fled in haste to Cyprus, where Citium still belonged to him;

and all his towns on the continent, within a short space of time, fell

into the hands of the Assyrian. All the princes of the other petty

Phœnician states came that they might offer their submission.

[Sidenote: [701 B.C.]]

Sennacherib immediately starts along the seacoast for Askalon,

southernmost of the revolted states, and soon overpowers it. Zedekiah,

the king, suffers the usual fate; with the hereditary gods of his

house, his wife, his sons, daughters, brothers, and his whole family he

is dragged away to Assyria.

Now that the whole coast-line had submitted, Sennacherib turned to

Ekron, which lay farther to the north, but more inland. But in Altaku

[Eltekeh], which lay south of Ekron and belonged to it, he encountered

some resistance, and was at the same time caught by an Egyptian army,

which at last appeared to the rescue of the Philistine towns. According

to the Assyrian account it was very numerous and was composed of the

troops of the king of Musuri, and of the bowmen, chariots, and horses

of the king of Melukhkha. Still, whatever these two names may mean

here, it is certain that neither Tirhaqa himself nor any other Egyptian

king was leading the army, but that it was merely commanded by Egyptian

princes and two generals belonging to the horsemen. These did not show

themselves a match for the powerful Assyrian conqueror. In spite of the

number of their followers they suffered a total defeat, and it does

not say much for their skill and courage that they all, princes and

commanders, fell alive into the enemy’s hands. In consequence of this,

the relieving army appears to have retraced its march to Egypt, so that

nothing now stood in the way of Sennacherib continuing his conquests

in Philistia and Canaan. The ruling high priest and the princes who

had stirred up the rebellion, he caused to be put to death and their

corpses displayed on stakes on the town walls; such of the inhabitants

as had made common cause with the rebels were led away captive; the

innocent, on the contrary, went free.

Now at last came the turn of Hezekiah. The following is the main

outline of what the Assyrians relate concerning the campaign against

Judah. When it became apparent that even after the overthrow of his

allies, Hezekiah was not inclined to give himself up readily to the

mercy of his powerful enemy, the latter marched into his country. Forty

strong towns besides the citadels and countless smaller places were

beleaguered, taken by storm, razed to the ground or burned, and more

than two hundred thousand prisoners, with a great number of horses,

asses, and camels were carried away from them. Hezekiah himself,

Sennacherib shut up in his capital, Jerusalem (Ursalimmu), like “a bird

in its cage.” But the town was in a strong position and provided with a

good garrison. Hezekiah had not only assembled his faithful warriors,

but had also enlisted a number of Arabian soldiers. When these,

however, required pay, and in case of refusal threatened to withdraw,

Hezekiah--the Assyrian says from dread of the glory of Asshur--paid the

heavy tribute which Sennacherib demanded of him--namely, thirty talents

of gold [about £9000 or $45,000] and three hundred talents of silver,

besides precious stones, woods, and other articles, and also sent to

Nineveh his daughters and the women of the palace, accompanied by male

and female slaves together with an envoy, who was at the same time

commissioned to proffer his master’s homage.

From this narrative no one who did not know the official style of the

Assyrian historical writers would guess that Jerusalem was not taken,

and that Sennacherib, with the remainder of his army, was obliged to

quit Judah with all possible speed. But it was not their business

to report failures of this kind. Doubtless in this account of the

course of Sennacherib’s campaign, the main features are correct and

also described in the right chronological order. It is certain that,

after the overthrow of Phœnicia, the king found it advisable first to

reduce the small Philistine states on the seacoast to obedience that

he might then attack the Jewish king, who at last, when he had been

deprived of everything save his capital, and when his own soldiers were

deserting him, saw himself compelled to produce the war-tax demanded.

The assertion that he sent it by an envoy to Nineveh cannot possibly be

correct, and must have been invented for the purpose of rounding off

the narrative without relating the true issue of the affair.

We possess two traditions concerning the close of the war which, though

they may differ from one another in other respects, agree in this, that

an extraordinary event unexpectedly compelled Sennacherib to return

with some precipitation to Assyria. One is the biblical tradition; the

other is the account of Herodotus.[b]

The biblical account, as found in 2 Kings, we have already quoted.

The account of Herodotus relates to a certain king Sethos, a priest

of Vulcan (believed to represent Shabak of the XXVth Dynasty). This

king, says Herodotus, treated the military of Egypt with extreme

contempt, and as if he had no occasion for their services. Among other

indignities he deprived them of their aruræ, or fields of fifty feet

square, which, by way of reward, his predecessors had given to each

soldier; the result was that, when Sennacherib, king of Arabia and

Assyria, attacked Egypt with a mighty army, the warriors whom he had

thus treated refused to assist him. In this perplexity the priest

retired to the shrine of his god, before which he lamented his danger

and misfortunes; here he sunk into a profound sleep, and his deity

promised him, in a dream, that if he marched to meet the Assyrians,

he should experience no injury, for that he would furnish him with

assistance. The vision inspired him with confidence; he put himself

at the head of his adherents and marched to Pelusium, the entrance of

Egypt: not a soldier accompanied the party, which was entirely composed

of tradesmen and artisans. On their arrival at Pelusium, so immense a

number of mice infested by night the enemy’s camp that their quivers

and bows, together with what secured their shields to their arms, were

gnawed in pieces. In the morning the Arabians, finding themselves

without arms, fled in confusion, and lost great numbers of their men.

There is now to be seen in the temple of Vulcan a marble statue of this

king, having a mouse in his hand, and with this inscription, “Whoever

thou art, learn, from my fortune, to reverence the gods.”[c]

Taking together all the circumstances in which the somewhat

contradictory reports are agreed, we may picture the course of events

as follows: On the advance of the Assyrian king, Hezekiah collects his

picked men, who are reinforced by foreign soldiers, in his capital, and

resolves to defend it. Meantime the Assyrian army overruns the whole

of Judah, takes one fortified town after another, and all the citadels

and smaller places, and Sennacherib has penetrated as far as Libnah,

a small town lying in the southwest of the Jewish territory. There he

learns that Tirhaqa is approaching with an Egyptian army, to fight

against him and liberate Judah. So long as the capital is not yet in

his power, and Judah consequently not wholly subdued, he cannot go out

against him without losing all the advantages gained. He will therefore

try whether he cannot, by threatening Hezekiah, induce him to deliver

up the town of his own accord; and he sends him messengers with letters

peremptorily calling on him to submit. But with prophetic fire Isaiah

pours out his wrath at the insults offered to Jehovah by this servant

of Asshur, and vehemently urges steadfast resistance.

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

Sennacherib meantime continues his victorious march, and now that he

is master of all Judah with the sole exception of the capital, he can

detach a part of his army. If Hezekiah will not yield of his own free

will he must be compelled to do so. A strong body of troops under

the leadership of the Rabshakeh, or generalissimo, marched against

the strong fortress and closely beset it on all sides. But it is the

Rabshakeh who chiefly figures in the foreground of the affair. The

Hebrews tell of his efforts to induce the people and the garrison of

Jerusalem to desert their king. He sought to attain this end by means

of scornful speeches on the helplessness of Judah.

Hezekiah, perhaps again spurred on by Isaiah, who still continues to

trust in a miraculous deliverance, does not give way at once, but

defends the city against a superior foe for some time, though it was

the only town that remained to him and was as isolated and forsaken “as

a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers.” But at

last, when famine in the town has reached its highest pitch and signs

of impatience and discontent manifest themselves among the garrison,

he makes up his mind to submission, and sends a messenger to Lachish

to inquire the terms of surrender. They are very hard. But there is no

longer any choice, and he tenders the Assyrian conquerors the amount

required at the hand of the envoy, who subsequently accompanied it to

Nineveh. Whether the siege was thereupon immediately raised, or whether

it was thought well to keep the town still under observation until the

contest with Egypt was decided, we cannot say positively. But, as a

great misfortune, either pestilence or some other natural phenomenon,

actually did soon after smite the Assyrian army, and the whole of the

conqueror’s force, reduced to a miserable handful, quitted Judah and

the West, the true believers among the Egyptians and Israelites saw

in it a miraculous deliverance which the gods had sent them, and the

latter at the same time regarded it as a fulfilment of the prophecies

of Isaiah, which at first did not seem to be coming true.

Of course the event had not in reality the importance which the

grateful Egyptians and Israelites attributed to it. Although it secured

them relief, and Sennacherib’s army was so weakened that he thought

it advisable to beat a hasty retreat, yet his supremacy over Phœnicia

and Canaan remained for a long time unshaken, and in the following

year he was again in the field with a powerful army. Subsequently he

appears again to have marched westward and to have made a particular

fight against Arabia and Edom. But it does not appear that in this

campaign he also made war against Phœnicia, Philistia, and Judah, as

he certainly would not have failed to do had traces of insubordination

showed themselves. The chastisement had been too severe, and the

country was too greatly exhausted.

In the year 700 B.C. Sennacherib’s presence was again required in

Babylonia. It was the third and last year of Bel-ibni’s rule at

Babylon. Sennacherib had him brought to Assyria, together with his

whole family. He had proved unequal to the task which Sennacherib had

assigned him.

After the victories, which intimidated even Elam, Sennacherib went to

Babylon, and there in place of Bel-ibni, set up his own eldest son

Asshur-nadin-shum on the throne as king of Sumer and Accad. His six

years’ reign began in the year 700 B.C., and now Sennacherib thought

himself safe from the machinations of Chaldean pretenders.

For some years he had really had his hands free in the south. He

employed the time in bringing into subjection some of the northwestern

neighbours of his empire. This campaign, which the Assyrians reckon

as the fifth, and which must have taken place somewhere between 699

and 696, ended with a war in Cilicia. According to Berosus it was

occasioned by a Greek invasion, and the Assyrian army obtained the

victory only after suffering great loss. Abydenus even speaks of a

sea-fight on the Cilician coast, in which the Greek fleet was worsted.

Both historians agree in this, that Sennacherib immortalised his famous

deeds by the erection of his statue or the setting up of bronze pillars

with inscriptions, and that he built the town of Tarsus, which he

called Tharsin, so that the Cydnus flowed through it as the Arazanes

(Aralshtu) through Babylon. Strange as it may seem, the Assyrians

themselves make no mention of the foundation of this important town,

but Berosus is too credible a witness for his statement to be rejected.

Even before 694 Sennacherib had busied himself in the preparations

of a great plan. Merodach-baladan had sought and found in Nagitu, on

the coast of Elam, a refuge and place of security where he believed

his deadly enemy could not reach him. After the latter’s expedition

against Bit-Yakin in the year 700, the remainder of the population of

that territory had found it expedient to take ships with their gods,

as their master had done, and cross to the region where the latter

had taken up his abode. Sennacherib apparently feared that this new

state would prove a source of danger to the province entrusted to

his son; all the more since Merodach-baladan had now become a vassal

of Elam, Asshur’s ancient and hereditary enemy. The difficulty was

great, particularly as Nagitu was not accessible from the land side,

without passing through Elamite territory. He had among his captives

shipbuilders from Khatti, and he set them to work at Nineveh on the

Tigris and Tel-Barsip on the Euphrates. The ships were towed down the

Euphrates and the Tigris [or they may have been transported overland by

camels]. They were manned by Tyrian, Sidonian, and Ionic seamen, who

were also prisoners of war. He, himself, had meantime marched to the

Persian Gulf with his army, and had fixed his camp close to the ships.

From the description of the voyage it is evident what a deep impression

this very unusual expedition made on the Assyrians. Even before they

set sail they made an unexpected acquaintance with the sea, which they

believed four hours’ distance away; they may perhaps have been aware

that, even so far up as Bab-Salimeti, the river was subject to the ebb

and flow; but a spring flood, which suddenly laid the camp under water,

and even made its way into the royal tent, took them by surprise.

They had to seek refuge on the ships and remain on them five days and

nights, “as in a great bird-cage,” says Sennacherib. Whether this

experience of life on shipboard was enough for the bold monarch, or

whether he had no intention of taking part in the maritime expedition,

it is certain that he did not leave the shore. The transports were

taken to the mouth of the Euphrates; costly sacrifices to Ea, the sea

god, among which were a golden ship and a golden fish, were thrown

into the rivers to obtain his protection for the fleet, and then it

set sail. It is not told how long the voyage lasted, but merely that

the country whither they went lay at the mouth of the Eulæus (Ulai),

the chief river of Elam. There the great battle was fought, and of

course the Assyrians came off the victors. They took possession of

various Elamite towns, and carried off the Chaldeans and all the goods

from Bit-Yakin, together with a number of Aramæans and captured ships,

to Bab-Salimeti, where the king awaited them. Of Merodach-baladan

not a word is said. Therefore he did not fall into the hands of the

Assyrians, and was not robbed of his sovereignty by the defeat. Thus

far, at least, the victory was of no lasting significance for the

Assyrians. It appears simply to have destroyed the prosperity of the

Chaldean colony for some time, and to have deterred the indefatigable

adversary from direct attacks. But this extraordinary and costly

expedition shows how greatly he was dreaded and with what implacable

hatred his house was pursued by that of Sargon.

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

While the Assyrian king was engaged in the seacoast war, Khallus, the

king of Elam, instigated by the Babylonians who had left the town in

good time with Merodach-baladan and had sought refuge with him, invaded

Accad with his army, penetrated as far as Sippar, where he instituted

a massacre, and brought Asshur-nadin-shum prisoner to Elam. On the

Babylonian throne he set up a Babylonian, Suzub, son of Gakhul. It is

a characteristic trait that the Assyrian account is silent as to the

unhappy fate which overtook Sennacherib’s oldest son. Suzub, on his

accession to the throne, took the name of Negal-ushezib. He is the

Regebelos of the Ptolemaic Canon, and must be carefully distinguished

from the Chaldean Suzub who did not reign over Babylon till a later

date (692) and under another name.

But the new king was lord over only part of the country. The whole

South was still in the hands of the Assyrians and had to be conquered

by him.

About June, 694 or 693, he succeeded in getting possession of Nippur,

but his farther advance was checked by the tidings that the Assyrians

had meantime marched as far as Erech. Sennacherib immediately

despatched a large force against the king of Elam, whom he rightly

regarded as the chief author of all the trouble. Erech fell and

was sacked, and, laden with rich booty, including even the chief

gods of the sacred city, the Assyrians marched forward. At Nippur,

Nergal-ushezib awaited them, and in the battle which followed he

remained victor. But his rule was of short duration. As to the end

of his reign the Babylonian and Assyrian records are agreed. The

former asserts that, after the Assyrians had carried away the gods and

inhabitants of Erech, Nergal-ushezib was taken prisoner in the battle

at Nippur and conducted to Assyria. According to the second, he was

thrown from his horse in the battle, taken prisoner and brought in

chains before Sennacherib, who then shut him up in prison at the gate

of Nineveh. The two accounts seem to make the story complete.

After the misfortune that had overtaken their king, the Babylonians

bestowed the crown on Suzub the Chaldean, who had also fled to

Elam. He reigned independently for four years, under the name of

Mushezib-Marduk. The Assyrians consequently content themselves with

mentioning several advantages won by them over the Elamites, and also

relating that they took Suzub prisoner on their march from Erech to

Asshur. They themselves practically acknowledged that Babylon did not

fall into their hands, when they inform us that, after Suzub’s capture,

the Babylonians closed their city gates against the Assyrians and

offered an obstinate resistance.

So far as we may judge, the whole of this campaign of Sennacherib’s

was a political blunder, which does not speak well for his sagacity.

There was in fact nothing to be feared from Merodach-baladan; the real

peril, which threatened from Elam, escaped the Assyrian king. The

maritime expedition undertaken at so much labour and expense, was more

adventurous than glorious, and failed in its main object: the arch

enemy, at whom it was aimed, retained his liberty and his kingdom. And

meantime Babylon was left without protection, and Sennacherib’s own son

was bereft of throne and freedom. He had not even provided himself with

sufficient forces to avenge the descent of the Elamites and reconquer

the lost territory. The sole fruit of the campaign (exclusive of booty

and prisoners) was the carrying away of a Babylonian king, whose

place was at once taken by another prince, not less hostile. A poor

compensation for the loss of the capital, the whole territory belonging

to it and of his own son! Under Sennacherib’s government it was

continually apparent that only under compulsion had the Babylonians

submitted to the yoke of the Assyrians, and that they preferred to

unite with Elam rather than again obey a Sargonid.

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

In Elam, meantime, a rising took place against Khallus, possibly

because he had been unsuccessful in his war against Assyria. [He was

killed in the uprising.] Kudur-nankhundi became king in his stead.

Sennacherib thought this a favourable opportunity to attack his old

enemies, the Elamites. It was in 692, probably, that he took advantage

of Elam’s disordered condition to inflict a heavy punishment on

that country. From Rasa to Bit-Burnaki he ravaged and plundered to

his heart’s content. He introduced Assyrian garrisons and placed

the territory under the care of a governor. Besides this, he took

thirty-five fortified towns. Such was the devastation “that the smoke

of the flames covered the face of the wide heaven like a heavy storm,”

and so great was the terror he spread that Kudur-nankhundi left his

residence at Madaktu in all haste, and fled to a town called Khaidala,

which lay far up in the mountains. But nature saved him from the

hands of the Assyrians. Sennacherib did indeed give orders to march

to Madaktu, but he could not carry his intention into effect. It was

winter, and in (Tebet) December an earthquake, coupled with storms of

rain and snow, compelled him to retreat. The mountain streams were

so swollen that no army could now cross them with safety. Only three

months afterwards Kudur-nankhundi died “suddenly, before his time,”

and his own brother Umman-minanu mounted the throne. Scarcely had

Umman-minanu assumed the sceptre of Elam than he allowed himself to be

beguiled into an alliance with Babylon against Asshur. At Babylon now

reigned Suzub II, the Chaldean, Mushezib-Marduk. After his flight from

Sennacherib, in the year 700 or 699, he had returned to Babylon, where,

after the misfortunes that overtook his namesake, he was made king,

no doubt to the great chagrin of the Assyrians. When he sent gold and

silver from the treasury of E-sagila, the great temple of Marduk and

Zarpanit, to the Elamite king, he found the latter prepared to collect

an army at once and march with it to Babylon for a joint attack upon

Asshur. Sennacherib was astounded that the lesson he had imparted to

Elam in the previous year had borne no better fruit. But the Chaldeans

and Elamites had good ground to hope for success. The Assyrian’s latest

victories had not been rich in lasting results. He had not succeeded in

conquering Babylon. He had been obliged to retreat hastily from Elam.

He had not been able to defend Chaldea. Moreover, the kings of Babylon

and Elam could now count on a number of allies. The number of the enemy

impressed the Assyrians, who likened them to a swarm of locusts. “Like

a violent gale which drives the rain-clouds across the firmament, so

rose the cloud of dust at their approach.” But calling on the gods, his

heavenly protectors, Sennacherib ventures an attack.

It was a fierce battle; both sides fought with the greatest fury.

Sennacherib, himself, was distinguished by his personal courage. With

helm and mail, spear and bow, Asshur’s sacred bow, which none but the

kings of Assyria carried, he stands in his war chariot like an angry

lion, and like a heavy storm from Adad, the god of tempests, he rushes

on the enemy, covering the plain with corpses as with grass. His horses

wallow in blood; blood and fragments of the slain cleave to the pole of

his war chariot. A choice troop of Elamite nobles, equipped with golden

daggers and bracelets, are slaughtered like sheep, and the Elamite

commander and grand vizier, Khumbanundash, a man of great ability, also

falls. Others are taken prisoners. Yet the kings of Elam and Babylon

and the Chaldean chiefs got away, according to the Assyrian writer, who

delights in depicting their sufferings in a very imaginative fashion,

with a loss of tents and baggage and of one hundred and fifty thousand

dead left on the battle-field. They were pursued for a distance of

some miles, but their capture was not effected. There is something

loathsome in the lively colours in which the scene is painted; the

pitiless slaughter and horrible mutilation of the slain are described

with bloodthirsty complacency. The writer of the Assyrian tablet knew

well that his savage, revengeful master based his renown on such

inhuman acts. And yet it was no victory for the Assyrians. They may

have remained in possession of the field, but the murderous battle was

so undecisive that the Elamites and Babylonians could claim the victory

as well. The losses on both sides must have been so great that neither

of the two parties ventured to continue the war. Both sides assumed the

attitude of waiting for a more favourable opportunity. The prevalent

idea that after the battle of Khalule Sennacherib immediately conquered

Babylon is decidedly false and is contradicted by the true reading of

both Assyrian and Babylonian records.

Not till the year 690 or 689 did Sennacherib find a favourable

opportunity to risk another attack on Babylon. From Elam there was now

nothing more to fear. The power of Umman-minanu was much weakened and

he was soon to lose it altogether. The Assyrian king marched on Babylon

with the impetuousity which distinguished all his warlike expeditions,

and was at times disadvantageous to him; and on this occasion his

effort was crowned with the desired success. Now he directed his arms

against Mushezib-Marduk’s town, not as his predecessors, including

his own father, had done, as a rescuer bringing deliverance from a

usurper and therefore striking at the latter and his dependents, and

sparing the inhabitants: upon the town which had so long withstood him,

so repeatedly and obstinately lifted its head against him, a fearful

vengeance was to be taken. It was literally wiped out; nothing was

spared; corpses lay piled up in the streets; all its treasures were

pillaged and divided amongst the soldiers; the temples were desecrated,

and the gods torn from their sanctuaries. Then the whole town was

delivered up to the flames; the walls and ramparts, the temples and

the ziggurat, (probably the two towers of Babylon and Borsippa),

were thrown down and hurled into the Arakhtu or other canals, and

the water from the river and the canals was turned on the ruins that

they might be flooded. The very place where the sacred town had stood

became unrecognisable and was changed into a marsh. Mushezib-Marduk

escaped and sought refuge in Elam, but Umman-minanu, fearing Assyrian

vengeance, surrendered his ally, and the latter and his family were

brought prisoners to Nineveh.

Such a deed may well have spread fear and horror even in Assyria

itself. Sennacherib had done what none had even ventured before.

Towards the town which many an Assyrian king had treated with respect

and which had never been sacked, he had behaved with a relentlessness

which hitherto had only been exhibited to foreign rebels. He was now

master of Babylon. For the remaining eight years of his life, he

was called King of Babylon, even according to the Babylonian list

of kings, although the Ptolemaic canon mentions this period as an

interim. King Ummanaldash [Khumba-Khaldashu] who (the 7th of Adar 690

or 689?) succeeded Umman-minanu on the throne of Elam, and who reigned

eight years, left the Assyrian king in peaceful possession. There are

sufficient grounds for the assumption that this supremacy over Babylon

of a tyrant embittered by earlier reverses was a reign of terror.

For the last years of Sennacherib’s reign authentic accounts are

almost entirely wanting. An expedition to Arabia, against a certain

king Hazael (Khazailu), in which the capital of Edom is stormed and

the deity of the place falls into his hands, certainly belongs to this

period of his reign.

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

Like most of the Assyrian princes, Sennacherib, in spite of his

unsettled existence, was a great builder. But he bestowed the most

care on the re-establishment and embellishment of his beloved Nineveh.

In the earlier part of his reign he had also strengthened this town

with an outer wall and an inner rampart (_duru_ and _shalkhu_), and

in the year 695 he had built a great palace by the northwest wall,

after pulling down a small palace which stood there. The latter had

fallen into decay, partly as a result of the overflowings of the canal

on which it stood, partly from the heat of the sun. The canal was now

diverted, and on its margin was built a new and loftier palace, in

which ivory and costly woods were not spared. There the king had a park

laid out and irrigated by the waters of the Khushur (Khosr) which were

made to flow through it, and it was planted with trees from the Amanus

Mountains. At the same time the town was extended and embellished.

Scarcely was this structure completed when Sennacherib caused another

palace, which lay farther south of the same wall, to be pulled down. It

had served former kings as armoury, magazine, and stables, and had now

become not only too small but also decayed. Some fields were added to

it and earth brought to raise them, and upon this now rose a palace,

not of tiles, but of hewn stone after the fashion of the land of Khatti

(Aram). For this also cedars from Amanus and great lion and animal

colossi, which had been hewn out of stone in the town of Baladai and

then cased in bronze, were employed, and cunning architects disposed

them with great care and magnificence. The purpose of the building

remained the same; horses and every sort of cattle found stabling,

stuffs and weapons were laid up there, but it had now also to serve

as a barrack for the national troops. The king’s name is displayed on

every wall.

Immediately after the completion of this building on the 20th day of

Adar, 691, that is, in the same year in which the battle of Khalule

took place, Sennacherib began another and not less important work,

which was only completed and inaugurated after the sack of Babylon.

This was an undertaking intended to provide the city of Nineveh with

good drinking water. A number of canals had to be dug, which served at

the same time to fertilise some uncultivated strips of land. In the

capital which was thus, as it were, born again, the old warrior now

probably rested on his laurels for a few years longer.

In the latter period of his life, Sennacherib appears to have

handed over a part of his royal functions to his son Esarhaddon

(Asshur-akhe-iddin), if he did not actually make him co-ruler. The

latter was not his eldest son, for his name, “Asshur grants brothers,

or, a brother,” shows the contrary, but he was perhaps, the second, and

therefore direct heir to the throne after the death, or at least in

the absence of, the king’s eldest son, Asshur-nadin-shum, who had been

carried off by the Elamites. Esarhaddon was certainly destined to the

succession by his father, and was the latter’s favourite. Sennacherib

issued a decree by which the whole of his booty brought from the

Babylonio-Chaldean district of Bit-Amukkani was assigned to him, and

his name was at the same time changed to Asshur-etilli-ukinnibal

(Asshur, the lord has lent a son)--a name which was more appropriate

for one who now took the place of eldest son, but which Esarhaddon

himself does not appear to have adopted. His brothers, whether younger

or older, were not pleased at this. Two of them at least, Sharezer,

whose full name was probably Nergal-shar-usur (or the Nergilus of

Berosus), and Adarmalik, disputed the succession, taking advantage

of the circumstance that Esarhaddon, at the head of the army, was

absent in the northwest, most probably in a war with Armenia. Whilst

Sennacherib was praying in a temple, they fell on him and slew him,

and Nergal-shar-usur took possession of the throne, [but was at once

superseded. Some histories deny his accession]. Thus died Sennacherib,

on the 20th Tebet (about December) 681, by the hands of his own sons.

From the official sources, which are the only ones we possess, it is

difficult to obtain an idea of the character of the Assyrian sovereign,

but the records of Sennacherib’s reign certainly make a far more

unfavourable impression than those which Sargon left behind. Both were

conquerors, but the one shows more respect for law and justice. Stern,

at times to harshness, against uncompromising adversaries, Sargon yet

gives place to mildness where mercy can be made to harmonise with

the interests of the empire. Sennacherib, on the other hand, takes

an obvious delight in scenes of blood and desolation, in inflicting

punishments which only awaken disgust at their brutish cruelty.

The destruction of Babylon, the burning and blotting out of a town

venerable from its age and importance, and so sacred to the pious

Assyrians, was indeed a blind vengeance which fixes an indelible blot

on the name of the author of the crime. Not less courageous and warlike

than his predecessors, he was rash and presumptuous rather than bold,

and his plans were rather venturesome than well calculated. Impetuous

in attack, he neglected the needful precautions, and attained the

immediate goal, often only to lose more than he gained. Whether he was

concerned in his father’s murder cannot be determined; that he was, as

his name indicates, a younger son, is no certain evidence of this, but

it is a suspicious circumstance that he nowhere mentions his celebrated

father’s name. If he was guilty, Nemesis overtook him. As a king he

was far inferior to Sargon. Nineveh alone had much to thank him for.

Babylon, on the contrary, which had called in Sargon as her deliverer,

sought to secure her independence of him, and preferred to his yoke

the dearly bought protection of Elam. After he died, having reigned

something like twenty-four years, it was a long time before the empire

was as powerful and flourishing as at the commencement of his rule. In

thinking of Sargon and Sennacherib we are involuntarily reminded of

Cyrus and Cambyses, who differed from one another in the same way.[b]

ESARHADDON AND ASSHURBANAPAL

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

Sennacherib, as we have seen, was murdered by his sons. It appears that

this event did not occur at once after the return from the disastrous

campaign against the Israelites, as might be inferred from the Hebrew

record, but a good many years later. Esarhaddon, who succeeded his

father, was obliged to win back the kingdom from the regicides before

he could securely occupy the throne of Assyria. He seems to have had

no great difficulty in this, however, and for many years he continued

in undisputed sway, not merely sustaining but extending the influence

that his father had wielded. The greatest glory of his reign was his

successful invasion of Egypt. Opinions have differed considerably as to

the character of Esarhaddon. Professor Tiele’s verdict, which we give

_in extenso_ later, is somewhat less favourable than that of various

other authorities. The opinion of Professor Maspero is perhaps worth

quoting in some detail. He says:

“Esarhaddon is one of the finest and most attractive characters of

Assyrian history. He was as active and resolute as Asshurnazirpal or

Tiglathpileser, without being hard on his subjects or cruel to those

he conquered, as they were. He delighted in being merciful as much as

his predecessors had rejoiced in being merciless, and the accounts of

his wars no longer make constant mention of captives being burnt alive,

kings impaled on the gates of their cities, or whole populations being

burnt out by fire. He took pleasure in restoring the ruins with which

his father and grandfather had covered the land, and in the first year

of his reign he gave orders for the rebuilding of Babylon, which was

commenced on a grand scale.

“All the Chaldean prisoners were set free, and those who liked to work

under the architects could do so for payment in oil, wine, honey, and

other commodities of life; and when laying the foundation stones of

different edifices, he himself wore the special dress of the masons.

The temple of Bit-Zaggaton, the seat of Marduk, the protector of

the town, issued from the ruins and the walls, and royal castles

were raised beyond their former height. Beyond Babylon Esarhaddon

consecrated thirty-six temples at Asshur and Agade; and they were lined

with shining sheets of gold and silver.

“The palace which he built at Nineveh on the site of an old building

surpassed all that had hitherto been seen. The quarries of alabaster

in the mountains of Gordyene and the forests of Phœnicia furnished

material for the halls; thirty-two Hittite kings on the Mediterranean

coast sent great beams of pines, cedars, and cypresses. The roof was

made of carved cedar wood, supported by columns of cypress encircled

with gold and silver; stone lions and bulls stood at the doorways; the

panels of the doors were made of ebony and cypress, encrusted with

iron, silver, and ivory. The palace of Babylon was entirely destroyed,

and the one commenced at Calah with Egyptian booty was never finished.

The conquerors had been much impressed by the long avenues of sphinxes

at the entrance of the Memphite temples, and in imitation of the idea

Esarhaddon had sphinxes, lions, and bulls at the entrances of his

buildings. The construction lasted three years (671-669), and it was

only just far enough completed for the decoration to be started, when

he fell seriously ill in 669.” Two years later he died.

It will probably be felt by most readers of the records left by

Esarhaddon himself--which are, of course, our sole authority in the

matter, save for a few chance biblical references--that Professor

Maspero’s verdict as just quoted is over-enthusiastic. Nevertheless,

it can hardly be doubted that Esarhaddon was in many ways a much more

admirable character than his father. The following excerpt from one

of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, contained on a hexagonal prism of baked

clay found near Nineveh, and now in the British Museum, will suggest

something as to the precise interpretation one should place upon the

words “attractive” and “merciful” as applied to an Assyrian conqueror:

“Esarhaddon, king of Sumer and Accad, (son of Sennacherib, king of)

Assyria, (son of Sargon) king of Assyria, (who in the name of Asshur,

Bel,) the Moon, the Sun, Nabu Marduk, Ishtar of Nineveh, and Ishtar

of Arbela, the great gods his lords from the rising of the sun to the

setting of the sun marched victorious without a rival.

“Conqueror of the city of Sidon, which is on the sea, sweeper away of

all its villages; its citadel and residence I rooted up, and into the

sea I flung them. Its place of justice I destroyed. Abd-milkot its king

who away from my arms into the middle of the sea had fled; like a fish

from out of the sea I caught him, and cut off his head. His treasure,

his goods, gold and silver and precious stones, skins of elephants,

teeth of elephants, dan wood, ku wood, cloths, dyed purple and yellow,

of every description, and the regalia of his palace I carried off as

my spoil. Men and women without number, oxen and sheep and mules, I

swept them all off to Assyria. I assembled the kings of Syria and the

seacoast, all of them. (The city of Sidon) I built anew, and I called

it ‘The City of Esarhaddon.’ Men, captured by my arms, natives of the

lands and seas of the East, within it I placed to dwell, and I set my

own officers in authority over them.

“And Sanduarri king of Kundu and Sizu, an enemy and heretic, not

honouring my majesty, who had abandoned the worship of the gods trusted

to his rocky stronghold and Abd-milkot king of Sidon took for his ally.

The names of the great gods side by side he wrote and to their power he

trusted; but I trusted to Asshur, my lord. Like a bird from out of the

mountains I took him, and I cut off his head. I wrought the judgment of

Asshur my lord on the men who were criminals. The heads of Sanduarri

and Abd-milkot by the side of those of their chiefs I hung up: and

with captives young and old, male and female, to the gate of Nineveh I

marched.

“Trampler on the heads of the men of Khilakki and Duhuka, who dwell

in the mountains, which front the land of Tabal, who trusted to their

mountains and from days of old never submitted to my yoke: twenty-one

of their strong cities and smaller towns in their neighbourhood I

attacked, captured, and carried off the spoil; I ruined, destroyed, and

burnt them with fire. The rest of the men, who crimes and murders had

not committed, I only placed the yoke of my empire heavily upon them.”

It is notable that the successor of Esarhaddon, his son Asshurbanapal,

seems to have placed the same favourable opinion upon the character

of his father, as compared with his grandfather Sennacherib, that

moderns are disposed to adjudge. This is suggested by the fact that

Asshurbanapal in various inscriptions refers to “Esarhaddon, king of

Assyria, the father, my begetter,” and never to his grandfather, whom

he probably would have mentioned, following custom, had he held him

in any particular regard. Asshurbanapal himself was, at least in his

earlier years, a warrior of no mean quality; but he was, it would

appear, primarily a lover of the arts of peace. There is a marked

difference in the tone of his inscriptions, as compared with those of

his predecessors, even when describing his conquests. Many times they

suggest one who loves the pleasures of life rather than one who gloats

over the infliction of death. The following are the words in which he

describes the expedition against Egypt and Ethiopia, and against Tyre,

as recorded on a cylinder now preserved in the British Museum:

“In my second expedition to Egypt and Ethiopia I directed the march.

Tandamani [Tanut-Amen] of the progress of my expedition heard, and that

I had crossed over the borders of Egypt. Memphis he abandoned, and to

save his life he fled into Thebes. The kings, prefects, and governors,

whom in Egypt I had set up, to my presence came, and kissed my feet.

After Tandamani the road I took, I went to Thebes the strong city.

The approach of my powerful army he saw, and Thebes he abandoned, and

fled to Kipkip. That city (Thebes) the whole of it, in the service of

Asshur and Ishtar, my hands took; silver, gold, precious stones, the

furniture of his palace, all there was, garments of wool and linen,

great horses, people male and female, two lofty obelisks covered with

beautiful carving, two thousand five hundred talents (over ninety tons)

their weight, standing before the gate of a temple, from their places

I removed and brought to Assyria. The spoil great and unnumbered, I

carried off from the midst of Thebes. Over Egypt and Ethiopia, my

soldiers I caused to march, and I acquired glory. With a full hand

peacefully I returned to Nineveh, the city of my dominion.

“In my third expedition against Baal, king of Tyre, dwelling in the

midst of the sea, I went; who my royal will disregarded, and did not

hear the words of my lips. Towers round him I raised, on sea and land

his roads I took, their spirits I humbled and caused to melt away, to

my yoke I made them submissive. The daughter proceeding from his body

and the daughters of his brothers, for concubines he brought to my

presence. Yahimelek his son, the glory of the country, of unsurpassed

renown, at once he sent forward to make obeisance to me. His daughter

and the daughters of his brothers with their great dowries I received.

Favour I granted him, and the son proceeding from his body, I restored

and gave him. Yakinlu, king of Arvad, dwelling in the midst of the sea,

who to the kings my fathers was not submissive, submitted to my yoke.

His daughter with many gifts, for a concubine to Nineveh he brought,

and kissed my feet. Mukallu, king of Tabal, who against the kings my

fathers made attacks, the daughter proceeding from his body, and her

great dowry, for a concubine to Nineveh he brought, and kissed my

feet. Over Mukallu great horses an annual tribute I fixed upon him.

Sandasharme of Cilicia, who to the kings my fathers did not submit, and

did not perform their pleasure, the daughter proceeding from his body,

with many gifts, for a concubine to Nineveh he brought, and kissed my

feet.”

[Illustration: ASSYRIANS CROSSING RIVER BY MEANS OF AIR BAGS]

Of Asshurbanapal as patron of art and literature we shall have occasion

to speak more fully in a later chapter, in referring to the contents

of his famous library. Not less noteworthy than this library was the

gallery of art constituting the walls of the great king’s dining room.

We turn now to the more detailed consideration of the life-histories of

Esarhaddon and Asshurbanapal, as interpreted by a modern authority.[a]

ESARHADDON’S REIGN (681-668 B.C.)

[Sidenote: [681 B.C.]]

Sennacherib’s murderers did not stand alone, but had a considerable

following. Asshur-akhe-iddin (Asshur is brother), Esarhaddon, as the

Hebrews call him, who had been already destined to the throne by his

father, had therefore to conquer the crown assigned him at the point

of the sword. Although it was (Tebet) December--Sennacherib, as we

have seen, had fallen on the 20th of this month--and consequently the

time favourable for warlike operations had gone by, yet he perceived

that this was a case for prompt action. He lay with his army in the

northwest, but without waiting a single day, without stopping to

collect men, horses, chariots, or material, without even supplying

himself with provisions, and in spite of snow and tempest, which might

be feared at that season, he hurried straight to Nineveh; “like a bird

of prey with outstretched wings.” At Khanigalbat, a neighbourhood the

position of which is unknown to us, but which must be sought in or near

North Aramæa [probably near Melid], the army of the rebels intercepted

him. But these were soon defeated and scattered. A great part very

probably went over to Esarhaddon. The two chiefs of the rebellion, his

brothers, sought safety in flight and were received in Urartu. That

one of them, as Abydenus would have us believe, fell in the battle, is

not very probable. Still it is certain that they never again attempted

to get possession of the government. On the 2nd of Adar (February) the

rising was extinguished, and five weeks later, on the 8th of Nisan,

that is, the beginning of the year 681 B.C. [Professor Rogers gives the

month of Siran, 680, for this date], Esarhaddon mounted the throne of

his father.

When his brothers’ rebellion was suppressed, Esarhaddon was indeed in

safe possession of the Assyrian throne, but by no means in undisputed

enjoyment of the sovereignty over the whole of his father’s empire. He

was continually obliged to engage in wars and to quell risings.

The son of that arch-enemy of the Assyrians, Merodach-baladan, who

is generally called Nabu-ziru-kinish-lishir (Nabu, guide the true

scion!), had naturally taken advantage of the confusion resulting from

the murder of Sennacherib and the war of the succession, to repudiate

his allegiance, and may perhaps have already thought of reconquering

Babylon. From Esarhaddon’s accession he had ceased to send the

presents required from a vassal, and had also omitted to appoint an

envoy to offer his homage to the new king, and thus to recognise his

overlordship. He had evidently overestimated the difficulties with

which the king had to contend, and had not anticipated that the latter

would so soon repress the rebellion and be in a position to proceed

against him with decisive energy. It is uncertain whether he himself

risked the attack; it appears, however, that he had already penetrated

as far as Ur. Esarhaddon, who was at Nineveh when he received the news

of his defection, could certainly not now be spared there. But he

ordered the governors of the province bordering on the maritime country

to go out against the rebellious Chaldean at the head of an army which

was despatched to them, and this proved sufficient. According to the

Assyrian accounts Nabu-ziru-kinish-lishir did not await the attack,

but fled to Elam. But this realm was no longer what it once had been.

Ummanaldash II, who now reigned there, was not inclined to endanger

the peace of his kingdom and involve himself in a war with Assyria

for a stranger’s sake; the fugitive was seized and put to death.

Na’id-Marduk, who accompanied him on his expedition to Elam, feared

a like fate. He chose the wiser course; he hastened to Assyria, made

his submission, and in reward was invested with the sovereignty of

his brother’s kingdom, that is, of the whole seacoast. Henceforth he

faithfully paid the annual tribute.

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

It was not so easy to put down another movement at another end of the

empire. Very soon after Esarhaddon’s accession, perhaps even before,

certain kings of the west country planned an attempt to free themselves

from the Assyrian yoke. These were the kings of Sidon and of two other

cities whose position is uncertain, but is certainly to be sought east

of Sidon, namely Kundu and Sizu. Over the two last ruled Sanduarri,

whose name proclaims him as one of the Hittites or related to them,

and over Sidon, Abd-milkot. They had to bind themselves by an oath

to recover their independence with their united forces, and fought

with great persistence. This is shown by the fact that they were not

subdued till the fourth year of Esarhaddon, and also of the fearful

vengeance of the Assyrians, so little in accordance with this king’s

customary procedure. In the year 677 Sidon succumbed to the besieging

force. The city was plundered, wasted, and depopulated. Town and

citadel were “thrown into the sea” and the place where they had stood

made unrecognisable. The population was brought to Assyria, with all

its goods and cattle and all the treasures of that rich commercial

city. But Esarhaddon did not, like his father, take pleasure in mere

destruction. A new town rose in the place where the former had stood.

He called it by his own name [Kar-Asshur-akhe-iddin], and allowed

conquered mountain peoples and inhabitants of the coast of the Persian

Gulf to settle there--the old means, devised by Tiglathpileser, for

absorbing sentiments of nationality and independence into the unity of

the great empire. Abd-milkot had meantime fled, probably to Cyprus; for

Esarhaddon says that he “took him out of the sea like a fish.” He was

overtaken, made prisoner, and put to death, and in the month Tasrit of

the following year, 676, his severed head reached Assyria. It was some

time before Sanduarri was conquered in his mountain country, but in the

month Adar of the same year he suffered a like fate to that which had

overtaken his ally. Then the barbarous triumph took place in Nineveh.

All the captured subjects of the defeated kings, with the great and

distinguished men at their head, were led through the broad streets

of the capital, and two of the noblest carried the severed heads of

the rulers round their necks. Revolt against the supreme king, which

meant sin against Asshur, the god of the gods, when conducted with much

obstinacy as was displayed by these two men, could not be severely

enough punished.

If Esarhaddon intended by these severities to spread terror among the

kings of the west country, he attained his object. Although according

to the wont of the Assyrian annalists, the scribe places the narrative

of the war in the king’s own mouth, he took no personal part in it, but

remained quietly at Nineveh. Thither now came the ambassadors of some

twelve kings, whom the Assyrians called simply Khatti-kings and kings

of the seacoast, and with them those of ten kings who ruled in Cyprus,

to offer him their homage and presents.

When the ten Cypriote rulers, whose names have for the most part a

Greek sound, joined in the homage of the Assyrian, Phœnician, and

Canaanite kings, it is obvious that Esarhaddon’s army, when it pursued

the flying king to Cyprus, had there re-established the Assyrian rule

which had not been exercised since the time of Sargon.

All these princes had to bring him costly material for the building

of his great palace at Nineveh. There is an inclination to credit

Esarhaddon with a special preference for Babylon, and to assume that

he had made that town his headquarters, at least towards the end

of his life. Our knowledge of the building he erected is, however,

not favourable to this view. He certainly governed directly and not

merely by vassal-kings that part of his realm of which Babylon was the

capital, and there are good grounds for the assumption that he actually

cherished the intention of establishing himself at Babylon; but it

is none the less certain that for him, as for his fathers, until the

nomination of Asshurbanapal as vassal-king of Assyria, the centre of

the dominion was Assyria, and the Assyrian capital was his chief home.

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

Although Esarhaddon now imitated his father in his care for the

decoration of the Assyrian capital, he did not limit himself to this so

exclusively as his predecessors. On the contrary he boasts of having

built the temples of the town of Asshur and Accad, and of having

adorned them with silver and gold. That he did not neglect Accad or

Babylonia is shown by the work, which surpassed all other undertakings,

completed in his reign and for which he gave orders in his early

years,--the reconstruction of the ruined capital itself.

In Elam it was with disapproving eyes that men regarded this renovation

of Babylon by an Assyrian king and with it the re-establishment of the

Assyrian rule in that territory. The king of Elam, Ummanaldash II,

therefore decided to attack Esarhaddon in this part of the country.

In 675, the sixth year of Esarhaddon’s reign, he invaded Babylon

with an army, we know not on what pretext, and penetrated as far as

Sippar. The misfortune was not, however, a lasting one. In that very

year Ummanaldash died in his palace. Perhaps there is some connection

between these Elamite disturbances and Esarhaddon’s campaign against

the (to us) unknown country of Ruriza which he conquered in Tebet of

the year 673. This may be said with certainty of the measures which he

took against the Gambuli. That warlike Aramaic-Chaldean race, which

had once constituted the vanguard of Merodach-baladan’s army, had

then, at least, dwelt in a swampy tract of country where they lived

“like fish in the midst of the rivers.” At this time their king was

Belbasha (En-basha?), the son of Bananu, and in his impracticable

country he had been able to preserve his independence. It was not he

and his Gambulians that Esarhaddon now feared, but rather that he might

easily be won over to ally himself with his neighbour Elam. Belbasha

is pressed to choose and Esarhaddon makes ready to convince him by the

unanswerable argument of his arms. But the Aramæan does not wait for

the struggle. Knowing well that he has now no help from Elam to look

to, he decides of his own accord to attest his submission to Assyria

and sends the required presents. Thus Esarhaddon gains his object. The

submission is accepted, the country spared, the capital, Shapi-Bel,

extraordinarily fortified, the command laid on the prince to furnish

it with bowmen and to defend it as “the door which unlocks Elam.” How

well Esarhaddon had judged was to be shown later, when his heir had to

punish the son and successor of Bel-basha for his intrigues with Elam.

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

These few facts, with the circumstance that, in the same year, 673,

probably while the court was at Babylon, the queen died, are all that

we know concerning the history of the southern realm under the reign of

Esarhaddon.

More is known of the king’s warlike expeditions, or at least those of

his army, for it is not likely that he himself took part in them all.

Some of them are of little importance to history, or were directed

against tribes whose locality we can no longer determine. We pass

them over in silence here. Attention may, however, be called to an

expedition against Teushpa, the king of the Kimmirri or Cimmerians, or

more accurately against the Umman-manda, who dwelt at a great distance,

and who were afterwards to be the cause of so much trouble to Asshur

and Babylon. The Cimmerians are also referred to in other records as

the enemies of Assyria in Esarhaddon’s day. According to these they

joined in a great coalition which was formed against Asshur; at its

head stood Kashtariti of Kar-Kasshi, a Median prince, who evidently

dwelt on the borders of Elam, and Mamitiarsu, governor of the Medes,

and to which the Manneans also belonged. At the outset, at least,

they were successful, took several towns now unknown to us (Khartam,

Kishassu, and five others), and so great was the fear which they thus

spread through Assyria, that in order to propitiate the gods, the

priest (_amelu khalti_) was commanded to perform sacred rites and

celebrate festivals in their honour from 3rd Airu to the 15th Abu--that

is, during one hundred days. The issue of the struggle is not given in

the Assyrian records, but it appears that the Babylonian chronicle told

of the invasion of Assyria by the Kimmirri and of their defeat.

Perhaps this gave Esarhaddon an opportunity to revenge himself

on the Medes and to conduct a war against their country with

great persistence. He penetrated farther into it than any of his

forefathers--namely, to the land of Patusharra (Patiskhoria?) which lay

deep in Median territory, in the neighbourhood of the Bikni Mountains,

where so much crystal was found. There ruled Shitir-parna and Eparna,

two powerful princes whose names appear to be Iranian. They were

subdued by the Assyrians and carried to Assyria with a rich booty,

consisting chiefly of cattle, horses, and chariots. This visitation had

the result that other princes from farther Media, who had not hitherto

acknowledged the Assyrian supremacy, came of their own accord and

tendered their submission.

At the other extremity of his empire, Esarhaddon maintained his

sovereignty in the same fashion. The means by which Assyria had made

herself, and remained during many centuries, the mistress of western

Asia, was the pursuit of a traditional policy whose principles the

impulsive Sennacherib had forsaken in the most deplorable fashion, but

which distinguished Esarhaddon, as well as his grandfather Sargon.

By a judicious blending of gracious forgiveness on the one hand and

severe punishment on the other, he managed not only to confirm Assyrian

sovereignty in the northern regions of Arabia, but also to extend

it. Faithful to the rule by which those who had submitted of their

own accord must be at once taken in favour, and admitted as allies,

he listened to the petition of King Hazael (Khazailu) of Kedar when

the latter came to Nineveh and requested that the images of the gods

which had been carried thither, might be given back. Esarhaddon had

them restored, caused his name and his famous deeds to be inscribed on

them, and gave them back to Hazael. But on this king’s death he took

care that the latter’s son Ya’lu, whom he raised to be king in his

father’s stead, should be still more closely bound to Assyria and pay

higher tribute. Under the same condition he restored to another tribe,

together with the gods of which they had been previously despoiled, a

certain princess Tabua who had been carried away from their midst and

had grown up in the royal palace at Nineveh, and thus reinstated her

in her position. It was soon evident that he had an object in these

tokens of favour. He wished by this means to smooth himself a path to

some Arabian tribes beyond, which were still independent and therefore

dangerous to the frontiers, and who roamed about in the land of Bazu

and in the mountains of Khazu. The march thither was very difficult,

180 _kashbu kakkar_ (double hours) through an arid desert full of

snakes and scorpions, so that it appeared almost advisable to secure a

safe retreat. If the expedition against these remote tribes had failed,

we should have learned nothing of it, at least from Assyrian sources;

but it was successful. Six Arabian kings and two queens were defeated

and probably put to death, and their treasures, gods, and subjects were

then carried to Assyria; so many of the latter, at least, that the

remainder were unable to defend themselves.

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

The glory of Esarhaddon’s reign is the conquest of Egypt, for

which the Arabian campaign, just described, no doubt served as

a preparation. A decisive contest with Egypt was sooner or later

unavoidable, especially since Tirhaqa had just brought the divided

kingdom into a certain unity and was evidently striving again to raise

it to the position of a great power.

In the year 672 Egypt took the first step. As usual, the prize was the

overlordship of the West. Tirhaqa managed to persuade Baal, the king

of Tyre, to break with Assyria, and thus threatened to draw the whole

of the Mediterranean coast into rebellion. Prompt measures were taken,

and in Nisan of 671 a powerful Assyrian army marched westward. The

immediate goal is Tyre. It is surrounded and the water-supply cut off.

Without waiting for the town to fall, Esarhaddon now proceeds south

and halts at Aphek, not far from Samaria, thence within fifteen days,

with a certain caution and perhaps not without encountering resistance,

he leads his army to Rapikhu [Raphia] on the Egyptian stream which

forms the boundary between that country and Canaan. Unfortunately the

text breaks off abruptly where the narrative of the actual struggle

with Egypt begins. But we learn from other sources that the object was

attained and Egypt conquered. On the 3rd, 16th, and 18th Tammuz (June)

three battles were fought, in which the Assyrians remained victorious.

Memphis was taken on the 12th of the month, and although Tirhaqa

succeeded in fleeing to his own land of Ethiopia, his son and his

brother’s sons were taken prisoners.

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

Esarhaddon was now actually king over Egypt, and here again shows

himself to be a prudent ruler. He was content with the title of dignity

of “King of the Kings of Egypt”--that is, with the overlordship of

the country. Had he incorporated it into Assyria, he would have

weakened rather than strengthened his empire. His sole aim was to

keep it disunited and consequently weak, and by the expulsion of the

Ethiopian to put an end to the latter’s dangerous intrigues in the

west. Therefore he did not put in his own generals, courtiers, or

governors, but sought to bind the provincial princes to him by granting

them a certain measure of independence. The sole danger for him lay

in a united Egypt under the warlike king on whose assistance the ever

restless kings of Phœnicia, Philistia, and Canaan might reckon; and he

therefore contented himself with obtaining from the provincial princes

an oath of fidelity to Assyria. Only the supremacy of Asshur must be

distinctly apparent, so the Egyptian name of the northern capital,

Saïs, was altered to the Assyrian one of Kar-bel-matati (fortress of

the lord of the lands), and that of Neku’s son into Nabu-shezib-anni

(Nabu preserved me!). After this Esarhaddon went back to Assyria, and

on his homeward march he gave orders to carve his royal image and

the account of his conquest of Egypt on the rocks by the Dog River

(Nahr-el-Kelb) at Beirut, where, besides inscriptions and images of

various Egyptian kings, some of his forefathers had caused theirs also

to be cut.

[Illustration: THE PRISMS OF SENNACHERIB, ESARHADDON AND ASSHURBANAPAL]

The conquest of Egypt is the last great undertaking of Esarhaddon’s

reign, which was to last only two or three years longer. In the year

670 he was occupied with Assyrian affairs, all details of which are,

however, wanting. But by the following year it had become manifest that

conditions in Egypt were not permanently settled. It was evident that

a new expedition to the valley of the Nile was imperative. Esarhaddon

assembled his forces and proposed to head his troops himself, to assert

upholding the Assyrian domination in Egypt. Yet first--perhaps because

he already had a presentiment of his approaching end, or because he

did not trust the aspect of internal affairs--he appointed his eldest

son, Asshurbanapal, as co-ruler in Assyria; if we are not to assume,

what is also possible, that this was done before the campaign of

the year 671. The expedition came to nothing. On the 10th of the month

Arakhsamnu (Marsheshwan, about October), of the year 668, in the

twelfth year of his reign, the king died, either in Egypt or, as it is

probable, before he reached it.

As the great king of a mighty empire Esarhaddon indeed stands very

high; for although he was not more soft hearted, or, indeed, where

insubordination had to be punished, less harsh than his predecessor,

yet he did not act in obedience to ungoverned passion, but with

deliberation, and this foresighted policy allowed him always to choose

the golden mean between needless severity and dangerous indulgence.

In a few years he strengthened the foundations of the Assyrian rule,

and considerably extended it; he erected magnificent buildings, and

made desolated Babylon rise again from her rubbish-heaps. By raising

his son, Asshurbanapal, to the throne during his own lifetime, he made

a struggle for the possession of the crown such as that with which

his own reign had begun an impossibility, while by his wise and firm

government he had laid the foundations for his son’s long, and, at

least in the beginning, brilliant and glorious reign. Sennacherib had

little in common with his great father; Esarhaddon was worthy to be the

grandson of Sargon.

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

We have already seen that Esarhaddon made his son Asshurbanapal

vassal-king of Assyria during his own lifetime. With festive display

the young prince entered the royal palace which his grandfather

Sennacherib had built, where his father Esarhaddon was born, and grown

to manhood and had since held his court, and where he himself, as a

friend of learning and science, now began to collect that extensive

library which, after centuries had passed, was to make his deeds

and the traditions of his nation known to the learning of the West.

There in the presence of his father and his brothers, of the princes,

captains, and great men of Assyria, he received the oath of fealty from

the dependent kings and courtiers, calling on the name of the gods and

binding themselves to obedience to his commands, and the maintenance of

the ancient laws and institutions. It was an important step on the part

of the old king. He did not indeed resign the government of Assyria.

He remained king over this part of his kingdom as well as of the

others, and the dignity to which he raised his son was only the petty

or vassal-kingship, a filial government under his own still existing

supremacy, whilst he was himself apart from this primarily king of

Babylon, Sumer, and Accad, as well as king of the kings of the Egyptian

countries. But for this very reason the appointment of the crown-prince

as vassal-king of Assyria, in reality implied the transformation of

that country, hitherto the centre of the empire, and whose capital

had been the seat of the central government, into a kingdom occupying

merely a secondary position, whilst Babylon became the seat of the

chief rule and assumed the first place. It had become manifest that the

true centre of the empire had shifted to Babylon, and that the latter

now possessed more vital energy than Assyria.

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

Esarhaddon’s death had opened up to the Ethiopian the prospect of a

reconquest of his lost territory. It was to be expected that Tirhaqa

would take advantage of an opportunity so favourable to him, and soon,

no doubt as early as the year 668, there came a messenger to Nineveh

with the announcement that the king of Cush had marched into Egypt

and not only overrun the whole south of the country, but had even

made a triumphant entry into Memphis, the town which Esarhaddon had

included in Assyria. The governors whom the last Assyrian king had

set up had not indeed gone over to the enemy, but neither had they

ventured to resist him. On his advance they had deserted their chief

towns and retired with their armed forces to the desert. Asshurbanapal

recognised the gravity of the event, for it endangered the peace of

the coast districts along the Mediterranean. He did not himself take

the field, but he immediately sent a considerable force into the west

under the leadership of the Tartan and other captains. The latter

proceeded to Egypt by those forced marches for which the Assyrian army

was distinguished, and hastened to the assistance of the governors who

were hard pressed by Tirhaqa. At Karbanit, or Karbana, a town which

lay west of the Canopic branch of the Nile, near its mouth, the armies

joined battle. The defeat of the Egyptians was so complete that Tirhaqa

thought it advisable to evacuate Memphis without giving himself time

to break up his camp. This and all the Ethiopians’ armed river-boats

fell into the hands of the Assyrians. Tirhaqa withdrew to Thebes and

entrenched himself there.

Asshurbanapal, who had been informed of these successes of his army,

decided to attack the enemy in Thebes. But as the Tartan’s army had

also greatly suffered, he ordered the Rabshakeh, who apparently

commanded the garrisons of the West, to collect a new army from the

soldiers and auxiliaries under his command belonging to all governors

and vassal-kings west of the Euphrates. Impressed by the defeat which

Tirhaqa had sustained, the twenty-two kings of the seacoast, the plain,

and the island of Cyprus hastened to obey this command, and not only

to furnish soldiers, but also on demand of the supreme king to supply

ships for the purpose of blockading the coast and prevent possible

attempts at risings on the part of the maritime states on the banks

of the Mediterranean, and perhaps also for sailing up the Nile. This

army pushed on to join that of the Tartan and the troops of the loyal

Egyptian vassals, and the united forces then marched against Thebes,

which was reached a month and ten days later.

Meanwhile Tirhaqa had abandoned the town itself while it was still

time, and had entrenched himself on the other bank of the river in

the city of the tombs. Besides this, he had persuaded three of the

principal vassal-kings to desert from the Assyrian and go over to his

side. These were Sharludari, prince of Pelusium (Si’nu), Pakruru, ruler

of Pisept in Egyptian Arabia, and no less a person than Neku himself,

the king whom Esarhaddon had placed at the head of all. They even seem

to have taken the initiative, because they preferred to have a ruler of

kindred race as overlord, rather than obey a foreigner. So they offered

to conclude an alliance with the Ethiopian, by which his supremacy was

recognised, and they undertook the defence of Lower Egypt. Had their

design succeeded, the Assyrian army would also have had a hostile

power in its rear and have seen its retreat cut off. But fortunately

for the Assyrians the conspiracy was discovered. Their messengers were

seized, the letters intercepted, and their cunning plans thus cunningly

frustrated.

But first Asshurbanapal had followed the example of his father and

pardoned Neku. After he had exacted from him an oath of fealty to

Asshur, and laid him under heavier burdens than before, he again put

upon him the royal purple and furnished him with the symbols of his

office: golden rings on hands and feet, a carved sword in a golden

sheath, horses, and chariots; and so he sent him back to Egypt,

that he might rule it as chief of the other vassals in Asshur’s

name. He himself was again invested with Kar-bel-matati,--that is,

Saïs,--and his son, Nabu-shezib-anni, received the principality of

Athribis in Lower Egypt, to which also a significant Assyrian name,

Limir-shakku-Asshur (let the governor of Asshur beware) was given. The

other kings also renewed their alliance with Assyria. But Asshurbanapal

did not omit to strengthen the garrisons, and to give those whom he had

pardoned Assyrian officers intended to keep a watchful eye upon them.

For a time Egypt enjoyed peace under Neku’s sway and Assyria’s

lordship. But after the death of Tirhaqa, Tamut-Amen, too, began to

think of a reconquest of Egypt. He set out with his army, and like

the former Ethiopian king, is hailed with delight in Elephantine

and Thebes as a deliverer; then after he has fortified the southern

capital, he continues his march to Memphis, where he first encounters

resistance. But the rebels, as the king calls them--these were of

course the Assyrian garrison with the troops of Neku who ruled over

Memphis and Saïs--were so thoroughly beaten in a desperate sally, that

they evacuated Memphis and retired to the strongholds of the Delta.

Some princes headed by that Pa-Kerer (Pakruru) of Pisept, who had

always borne the Assyrian yoke with reluctance, came to offer their

submission, which was graciously accepted. This was the last time that

an Assyrian army undertook a campaign against Egypt.

While Asshurbanapal had restored his supremacy in Egypt for a certain

time, for the present at least, it was unshaken in the northern

provinces of the West. The most important event mentioned by the

Assyrian record of these days (evidently about 664) is the accession of

Lydia. Asshurbanapal relates that the Lydian king, prompted by a dream

which revealed to him the magnanimity of Asshur, sent his ambassadors

to Nineveh to request the alliance and protection of the great ruler.

For the deity had said to him that by the renown of this name he

should overcome his enemies. He did in fact succeed in doing so. The

Cimmerians were beaten by him. It may be assumed, though it is not

stated, that Gyges received other help from the Assyrians besides the

recognition as their ally. However that may be, he conquered, and, on

the successful termination of the war, sent two Cimmerian rebels with a

great present to Nineveh. There they were no little flattered at this

homage, but also no little embarrassed to make themselves understood by

the newcomers, or to understand them; for even at a court where, as the

Assyrian writer says, the languages of East and West were met together,

there was no one acquainted with the speech of these barbarians.

Probably for the same reason as Gyges, Mukallu of Tabal, his eastern

neighbour, and Yakinlu of Arvad, with perhaps also Sandasharme, of

Cilicia, placed themselves under the protecting wing of Assyria.

Knowing the tastes of the great ruler of nations, each of them sent him

a daughter for his harem, with a rich present, and it appears that this

was the custom. Some even, that they might exhibit the more zeal, sent

him, besides their own daughters, those of their brothers and other

relatives.

In the east, too, Asshurbanapal manifested the still unbroken

superiority of his arms. There, shortly after or at the same time as

the Egyptian campaigns, he had already chastised a mountain people

whose raids had greatly distressed the inhabitants of Yamudbal

[E-mutbal], on the borders of Elam, so that the chiefs of the town of

Dur-ilu had made complaints concerning them. He had sent a force which

subdued the tribe, brought the chieftain Tandai alive to Assyria and

carried off a great number of captives. The king had them taken to

Egypt and in their place peopled the wasted country with prisoners of

war from other regions.

[Sidenote: [664 B.C.]]

Of far greater importance was the campaign against Man. The cause is

not stated, but may well have been that the king of Man, Akhsheri,

declared himself independent, or had shown an evident disposition

to attack Assyria. If this were so, he had been over-hasty in his

proceedings. However little of the warrior there may have been in

Asshurbanapal’s nature, the Assyrian army, in the early periods of his

reign at least, was yet too fearless and its commanders too valiant for

any man to be able to defy the powerful monarchy. Akhsheri attempted

a night surprise of the troops sent against him, before they had

even crossed his frontiers; but in this he was not successful. The

Manneans were defeated in a bloody battle, and for a distance of six

leagues round their dead covered the battle-field. Nothing retarded

the victorious army from entering Man, where it laid waste eight great

towns whose position is unknown to us, as well as a crowd of small

places, and so reached the domain of the capital, Izirtu. It was

surrounded, together with the towns of Urbija and Armijate, and after

the inhabitants, driven to the last extremity, had surrendered, they

were led away and their whole territory conquered and laid waste.

But the object was attained. The frightful misery of the war which had

visited that unhappy country had embittered the population against the

man to whom they ascribed its guilt, namely, their old king, Akhsheri.

In any case, he had shown his incapacity to defend his country. With

all his brothers and his father and family, he was put to death, and

so great was the nation’s fury that they would not even concede him an

honourable tomb, but threw the corpse on to the streets of his city.

His son Ualli, himself already a middle-aged man, was raised to the

throne, and he hastened to acknowledge Assyria’s supreme authority. He

sent his young son to Nineveh, to kiss the monarch’s feet, and did not

neglect to send his daughter also, to add to Asshurbanapal’s crowd of

women. His submission was of course accepted, but his annual tribute

was raised by some thirty horses. Other attempts at rebellion in the

northeast were soon suppressed.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 664-648 B.C.]]

But whilst these disturbances in the northeast were suppressed without

much difficulty, in the southeast signs soon appeared which gave

warning of that great storm which in a few years was to be raised there

and to threaten the empire with destruction. The throne of Elam was

still occupied by Urtaki, who had always preserved a friendship with

Esarhaddon, and had received from him repeated tokens of good will.

Asshurbanapal had followed up this policy of his father and treated

Urtaki as an ally, and when Elam was suffering from a severe famine

after a prolonged drought he had not even refrained from extending

a helping hand. He sent grain into the afflicted country, and not

only permitted those of Urtaki’s subjects who fled to his country to

settle there, but also allowed them to return to their native land,

unhindered, when the rains had again appeared and a sufficient harvest

secured. If in this he was prompted by motives of policy it was at

least an intelligent and peaceable one. In a proclamation to the

Elamite tribe of the Rash, and the tribes of the Sea Lands, he could

appeal with truth to these tokens of neighbourliness. But they did not

prevent Urtaki from taking arms against him and invading Babylonia.

It seems that Asshurbanapal could scarcely believe the news which he

received. Instead of hurrying to the spot to avert the danger, as had

been the custom of his warlike father, he sent a messenger to inquire

into the state of affairs and to report to him upon it. The latter

returned with the tidings that the Elamites had poured themselves over

Accad like a swarm of locusts, and had even set up a fortified camp

in sight of the city of Babylon. He now hastily collected an army

which drove the invaders from Accad, and even inflicted a defeat on

them on the frontier. It is with a certain unction that the Assyrian

scribe recounts the melancholy fate which soon after overtook all these

enemies of his king. In the year which followed these events they all

died: Bel-basha, as it seems, from a poisonous bite; Nabu-shum-eresh in

a flood; Urtaki and his generals, in their despair, by their own hands

in each other’s presence. Whether the narrator learned this on good

authority or had only heard it from rumour, can scarcely be determined;

but that in reality they all died soon after is certain; for in the

subsequent war with Elam, sons or successors are found in their places.

The crown of Elam fell to Teumman, brother of the two previous kings,

who was “like a devil,” says our Assyrian informant. That he was a

tyrant who would shrink from no means of preserving his power, was

also the conviction of the relatives of Ummanaldash and Urtaki, the

last two kings of Elam. The one had left two sons, Kudurru and Paru,

the other three, Ummanigash, Ummanappa, and Tammaritu. Well aware that

their uncle was determined to remove them from his path, with all that

belonged to them, in order to secure the succession to his own son,

they abandoned their country with a great following, among which were

included sixty members of the royal family and a bodyguard of bowmen,

and sought shelter and protection with Asshurbanapal.

Naturally Teumman could not let this pass unnoticed. He therefore

hastened to despatch two ambassadors to Nineveh, Umbadara, an Elamite,

and a Chaldean, Nabu-dammik, and to demand through them the surrender

of the fugitives. But Asshurbanapal, encouraged by favourable omens,

dreams of his seers, and oracles of the gods; in other words, incited

by his priesthood to whose guidance he always submitted in pious zeal,

steadfastly refused to comply with Teumman’s demand and assembled an

army. In the month of Ulul it was ready to march. He did not himself

take the field, for in fact his army, led by one of his generals, had

merely to support the Elamite force of Ummanigash, his brothers and

cousins. Ummanigash himself was generalissimo, if only in name. The

Assyrian general was empowered to set Ummanigash on the throne of Elam

in the name of the Assyrian supreme king, after the conquest of the

country.

Teumman was also in the field with an army. But when he learned that

the troops of his rival and of the Assyrians had already marched

into the towns of Dur-ilu, which lay not far from the frontier of

his country, and several times therefore had been the scene of a

struggle between the two powers, he turned back, abandoning the western

provinces of his kingdom, and entrenched himself in his capital,

Shushan [Susa], which lay on the eastern bank of the river Ulai [modern

Karun]. Meanwhile the allied Assyrians and Elamites entered the royal

city of Mataktu, which lay to the west of that river, and there

Ummanigash is crowned king. Teumman, indeed, makes one more effort;

owing to the damage which the text had undergone it is not exactly

shown of what kind, but from the context it is plain that he sent out

an army in vain to hinder the advance of his enemies. The latter, once

more encouraged by a dream, cross the river after Teumman’s troops have

suffered a defeat at Tul-Liz, and now attack Shushan itself. There the

decisive battle takes place. It ends with the complete defeat of the

Elamites: a great massacre begins, the river is filled with corpses,

and innumerable women wander about the neighbourhood lamenting. Many

distinguished and a large number of lesser prisoners fall into the

hands of the Assyrians. All seek safety in flight. One of Teumman’s

sons, who had advised him against the war and had foretold the issue,

rends his clothes in his despair. The eldest son, Tammaritu, follows

his father in his flight to the forest, and when the king’s chariot

breaks down there, they are overtaken and both slain. The king’s head

is sent as a trophy to Assyria, where it was set up on the great gate

of Nineveh, an eloquent witness to the nation of the might of Asshur

and Ishtar. His son-in-law, Urtaki, himself begged an Assyrian to cut

off his head and send it as good tidings to Asshurbanapal. Yet others

of the great men of the kingdom come of their own accord and make

their submission. The chief magistrates of the province of Khidali

behead their own prince, Ishtarnandi, and one of them himself brings

his master’s severed head into the Assyrian camp. Tammaritu, the third

brother of Ummanigash, entrusts the government of this principality to

the Assyrian generals, and Ummanigash himself now makes his entry into

Shushan, and is there crowned as a vassal of Assyria. As pledge of his

loyalty he delivers a grandson of Marduk-bal-iddin, better known by the

Hebrew appellation Merodach-baladan, probably the author of the whole

resistance to the Assyrian king, to the latter’s representatives.

But the war was not ended with the punishment of Elam. Dunanu, the son

of Bel-basha, prince of Gambul, was now to be taught what it was to

side with the enemy. The army, on its return from Elam, breaks into

his territory, conquers the capital Shapi-Bel, carries away from it

all who have not fallen by the sword, lays the whole place waste, and

flings the ruins into the waters of the stream which flows around it;

whereupon a motley crew of human beings are raked together and brought

there to re-people the desolate country.

It was a grim revenge that was taken on all enemies, even when they

were already dead, on their corpses. At the triumphal entry of the

army into Nineveh, Dunanu was compelled to carry the head of his ally,

Teumman, round his neck. When Teumman’s ambassadors, who had remained

in Nineveh, saw this, one of them tore out his beard in his despair,

and the other plunged a dagger into his own heart. Dunanu was placed on

the rack in Arbela and died in tortures. All his brothers, including

Samgunu, as well as Merodach-baladan’s grandson and his brothers,

were also put to death; the chiefs of the Gambuli were even flayed,

after they had had their tongues torn out as blasphemers of the high

gods, after which all corpses were cut in pieces, and were then sent

all over the empire, in token of the overlordship of Assyria. With

a refinement of cruelty Asshurbanapal even caused the corpse of his

old opponent, the Tigenna Nabu-shum-eresh, which he had had brought

to Assyria from Gambul for the purpose, to be disfigured in the great

gate of Nineveh by the latter’s own sons. Even before all this was

brought to a conclusion, Sarduris III of Urartu, perhaps because he

was already threatened by the Iranian enemies, who were soon to put

an end to the Kingdom of Van, and was anxious to obtain the help

of his powerful neighbour, despatched an ambassador to the latter.

Asshurbanapal did not omit to make use of the occasion to bring

Teumman’s ambassadors before the newcomers, in order to inspire the

former with a consciousness of his greatness, and to give the latter a

warning example in case their sovereign also should prove unfaithful.

Thus the greatest danger that had hitherto threatened the empire seemed

permanently averted, and if ever a pitiless revenge was qualified

to deprive the conquered nations of the desire to fight for their

independence, this must certainly have been the case after such a

sanguinary judgment. But it was soon to be manifested that it had

availed nothing. Assyria had only succeeded in making herself more

detested than before, and had only stirred up princes and peoples alike

to resist everything rather than any longer endure the yoke of the

hangman of Asia.

THE BROTHERS’ WAR (652-648 B.C.)

About the year 652 a formidable war broke out against Assyria. It

had, perhaps, long been secretly preparing before Asshurbanapal had

any suspicion of the danger which threatened him. He believed that

his conciliatory policy had secured the permanent attachment of the

Babylonians. He had invested his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, with

the royal dignity, raised him to be lord of all Sumer and Accad, and

had placed an army of foot-soldiers, horses, and chariots at his

disposal. Those of the inhabitants of towns, plains, and farms who had

left the country during the period of anarchy, or had been carried

off, he had permitted to return. As for the Babylonians who had

settled in Assyria, he did not merely place them on a level with his

own immediate subjects, but treated them with especial distinction,

continued the privileges which Esarhaddon had granted them, and raised

them to important offices, and they even moved about his royal court

unmolested, clad in magnificent garments with golden ornaments. They

still continued to protest their submission to the Assyrian domination,

yet all the time they were conspiring with Shamash-shum-ukin against

the king.

[Illustration: AN ASSYRIAN BOWMAN]

The first intimation of this conspiracy came to the king from Kudur,

the governor of Erech. This faithful servant had received from

Sin-tabni-usur, the governor of Ur, information to the effect that

envoys from the king of Babylon had been there and that some of the

people had already risen. Sin-tabni-usur had no mind to give ear to the

proposals from Babylon, and had consequently requested reinforcements.

Kudur sent him five hundred men, who, at his request, were afterwards

increased by troops belonging to the governor of Arpakha and Amida.

But it seems that Sin-tabni-usur was unable to maintain himself until

these supports came up, and even before their arrival found himself

constrained to go over to the party of the rebels.

Asshurbanapal was soon to learn with horror that the movement, the soul

of which was his disloyal brother, had spread with great swiftness,

and that Kudur’s anxiety was not without foundation. Shamash-shum-ukin

sent messengers in all directions, and they did not work in vain. All

Accad and Chaldea, all the Aramæans of Babylonia, all the inhabitants

of the Sea Lands joined with him. His chief ally in this district was:

Nabu-bel-shume, grandson of Merodach-baladan, that irreconcilable

enemy of Assyria, who was now king of Chaldea; Mannuki-Babili,

prince of Bit-Dakkuri; Ea-shum-basha, prince of Bit-Amukkani, and

Nadan of Puqudu. Ummanigash, king of Elam, who owed his throne to

Asshurbanapal, was also gained over by Shamash-shum-ukin. Asshurbanapal

had fancied that he might venture to impose on the Elamite, who owed

him so much, conditions which the latter could certainly only fulfil

with great difficulty. He had demanded the restoration of the goddess

Nana of Erech, which had been in the possession of Elam for centuries,

and whose worship had become so popular that the kings still sent

their gifts to the goddess of Erech. Ummanigash could not comply with

this demand without exciting universal discontent in his kingdom, and,

doubtless, in consequence of this, was all the more inclined to listen

to the proposals of the Babylonian prince. They were supported by a

rich gift, for which the temple treasures of Bel-Marduk in Babylon,

of Nabu in Borsippa, and of Nergal in Kutha had been plundered.

Ummanigash immediately sent auxiliaries to Chaldea. The Guti nomads

on the Assyrio-Babylonian frontier, the kings of the West, with Baal

of Tyre at their head, and the king of Melukhkha, by whom Psamthek is

here doubtless meant; these, too, Shamash-shum-ukin found prepared to

join him in a rising against Assyria. The secession of Gyges, king of

Lydia, who had previously concluded an alliance with the Egyptian king,

probably also belongs to this time, and it is certain that various

Egyptian sheikhs also sided with Babylon. Only the peoples of the

northeast and north of the empire appear to have taken no part in the

movement. They were held in check by the energetic governors of Amida

and Arpakha, the last of whom even prevented the north of Elam from

rising against the supreme king.

There was need of energy and wisdom to exorcise the storm, which was

approaching from so many sides at once. Asshurbanapal, with whom

religion occupied so prominent a place, of course turned first to his

gods. But he did not neglect active measures. Yet it is not clear or

probable that he himself took up arms. When Tammaritu came to him in

the year 650, he was at Nineveh. But in the preceding years he had

sent out various armies to attack the allies at different points. As

soon as the news from Babylon reached him, he issued a proclamation

to the Babylonians, in which he denounced his brother’s treachery as

ingratitude and exhorted those whom he had so favoured not to join

Shamash-shum-ukin. It is true that these words found no echo amongst

the nobility of Babylon, but they were not perhaps without influence

on the temper of the nation. At any rate, the latter finally turned

against their king. When Ummanigash’s troops invaded Chaldea and

Kardunyash, in the year 657, they encountered an Assyrian force. At the

head of the Elamites was the son of Teumman, that Elamite king whom

Asshurbanapal had put to death, and who had been chosen by Ummanigash

as his general, because he had the death of his father to revenge on

the Assyrians. With him came the governors of Billate and Khilmu,

Zazaz and Paru; Attumetu, the captain of the bowmen, Neshu the Elamite

commander, and a Babylonian division joined them. The account of the

battle is too much damaged for us to form any conclusion about it. But

it is evident that the Assyrians obtained some success, to which the

severed head of Attumetu, which was sent to Asshurbanapal at Nineveh,

bore witness.

It was not so easy to coerce the chief author of the war.

Shamash-shum-ukin’s first measure was to close all the gates of

Babylon, Borsippa, and Sippar, to place garrisons in all places of any

importance, and make himself master of all the towns in Babylonia. As a

sign that he renounced his allegiance, he caused all the sacrifices to

the highest gods, which Asshurbanapal had instituted, to be suspended,

and appropriated all the gifts assigned to them, a measure which

excited the indignation of the supreme king more than anything else.

This happened in the year 650, for it must have been in the April of

that year that Bel-ibni was appointed governor of the lands on the

coast. Chaldea and the surrounding territories were now also subdued.

These had revolted in the previous year after Shamash-shum-ukin had

raised the standard of rebellion in the year 652. On the 4th Nisan 651,

Merodach-baladan’s grandson, Nabu-bel-shume, had collected an army

of Accadians, Chaldeans, and Kardunyashu (the men of the coast) in

which he had included the Assyrians whom Asshurbanapal had sent him as

auxiliaries or garrison. Between the 22nd Tammuz and 22nd Abu of the

same year, Sin-tabni-usur, the governor, had joined them, and between

7th Abu and the 7th Ulul the Elamite auxiliaries had also marched up.

But in the end the Assyrian army had defeated them all and compelled

the Elamites to retreat. Nabu-bel-shume had followed them with his

troops to Elam. The Assyrians, on whom he could not depend, he had

previously sent under a reliable commander in the same direction, very

probably under pretence of letting them march against Elam, and thus

had delivered into the hands of Indabigash. Perhaps this defeat was the

cause of Tammaritu’s fall. It must have at least followed soon after.

The south of Babylonia was certainly again brought under the Assyrian

dominion towards the end of year 651.

Asshurbanapal could now turn his thoughts to attacking the arch-rebel

in his own territory. It seems that the latter had again entered

into relations with Elam, and either now went there in person or

sent messengers. But on the 17th Arakhsamnu (Marsheshwan) 651,

Asshurbanapal’s warriors advanced against his brother. In the year 650

they stormed in fearful fashion through northern Babylonia, instituted

a formidable massacre of Shamash-shum-ukin’s subjects in town and

country, made themselves masters of the canals, and finally surrounded

Sippar, Babylon, and Borsippa, which the Babylonian king had fortified.

The siege must have lasted a year or two, for it was not till 648 that

the capital was taken.

And it would not have fallen then--so obstinately was it defended--had

not the misery within the walls reached the acme. The famine was so

dreadful that the besieged fed on the flesh of their own children,

and famine was followed by plague. The gods themselves fought for

the Assyrians, as the historian remarks. Then despair fell upon the

people. In their fury they laid hold on Shamash-shum-ukin, and threw

him, doubtless together with some of his satellites, into the fire. The

town was then, of course, handed over to the enemy, and thus escaped

the fate which Sennacherib had already inflicted on it. A strict trial

was held. Those who had been concerned in the rebellion, such of them

as had escaped the sword, hunger, and plague, who had saved themselves

betimes during the rising and so could not be burnt with their master,

were dragged from the hiding-place where they had concealed themselves

into the light of day, and slain without grace or mercy, so that not

one of them escaped. Those who had incited to rebellion and defamed

Asshur had their tongues torn out of their mouths before they were

sent to death. But the heaviest punishment overtook those who had

already been punished as rebels by the king’s grandfather, Sennacherib,

and whose severed limbs were now thrown to the dogs and all kinds of

beasts of prey. The corpses of those who had been destroyed by disease,

hunger, and wretchedness, and which filled the streets of Babylon,

Sippar, Kutha, and the surrounding country, were dragged away and piled

up in heaps, and the insulted gods and angry goddesses were appeased

by the care which was now bestowed upon their sanctuaries and altars.

All fugitives were pardoned and granted life; they were permitted to

settle in Babylon. Nor was the town plundered in any way. Asshurbanapal

contented himself with the spoil from the palace of his rebellious

brother, with his harem, household chariots, munitions of war, and the

tokens of his royal dignity, and all this he had carried to Assyria

with the captured warriors.

[Sidenote: [648 B.C.]

In the south of the country the ferment seems to have lasted longer.

The Accadians, Chaldeans, Aramæans, and inhabitants of the coast,

who had formerly served Shamash-shum-ukin and then submitted to the

Assyrian governor, Bel-ibni, had now of their own accord once more

risen against Asshurbanapal; but the Assyrian army, now the army of

Babylon, marched into their territory, and soon brought the whole

country back to the Assyrian dominion. Governors and princes appointed

by the king reintroduced the Assyrian laws, and saw that the yearly

tribute was henceforth paid regularly.

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

As before related, Merodach-baladan’s grandson, Nabu-bel-shume, had

delivered those troops which Asshurbanapal had sent him for the defence

of his country against the Elamites and insurgent Babylonians into

Indabigash’s hand. Even before Babylon was taken, the Assyrian king

had sent an envoy to the latter to demand the release of these men.

Indabigash had answered with proposals for peace. He does not seem

to have dared to risk a struggle with Assyria, nor yet to have been

prepared to comply with Asshurbanapal’s request; the party of the

Chaldeans and their friends was probably too powerful in Elam for

this. After Babylon had fallen, the Assyrian sent a fresh messenger,

supported by a numerous army, with a vigorous ultimatum to Elam. “If

thou restorest not these men,” so ran the message, “then will I come

and destroy thy cities, carry away the people of Shushan, Madaktu, and

Khidalu, thrust thee from thy royal throne, and put another in thy

place. As formerly I destroyed Teumman, so will I destroy thee.” But

the envoy had not yet got so far as Deri, when the war party killed

Indabigash from a natural fear lest he should yield, and had made

Ummanaldash, the son of Attumetu, king.

[Illustration]

Of course the latter refused Asshurbanapal’s request, and the war broke

out afresh. Asshurbanapal now intended to establish Tammaritu for

the second time in the government of Elam, a policy which again was

destined not to be realised. A powerful army, led by this claimant,

marched into the enemy’s country, and several border-towns immediately

submitted through fear, and came to offer their men and cattle. The

first resistance was encountered at Bit-Imbi, once a royal city of

Elam, “which shut in the front of Elam like a great bulwark,” and had

been conquered by Sennacherib and razed to the ground. But a later

Elamite king had built a new Bit-Imbi opposite the old town and

surrounded it with a strong wall and outworks. This town defended

itself obstinately, but it was conquered, and those who would not

submit were beheaded and their lips sent to Assyria as trophies of

victory. The captain of the bowmen, Imbappi, who was a son-in-law of

the Elamite king and had commanded in the city, fell alive into the

enemy’s hands, together with the harem, the sons of the former king

Teumman, and the rest of the population, and was led away to Assyria.