This feat of arms appears to have been of great importance, for no

sooner did it reach Ummanaldash’s ears than he fled from Madaktu

into the mountains. The same course was followed by another prince

(Umbahabua?) who had reigned in Elam for a time, before Ummanaldash,

but, in face of a rebellion, had retreated to Bubilu. He too left

his dwelling, and hid himself in the low-lying districts on the

seacoast. Elam was now open to the Assyrian army, which made use of the

opportunity to march into Shushan and there again consecrate Tammaritu

king. But the latter perceived that it was only as a shadow king that

he had been set up. When the Assyrian troops who had accompanied him

withdrew to their own country with the greater part of the population

as prisoners and an enormous spoil, he was completely undeceived and

sought to prevent this impoverishment of the land by force. But he was

unsuccessful. In the eyes of the Assyrians this was base ingratitude;

he was deposed and again carried off, and before the return march was

finally entered upon, a regular drive was made over the whole of Elam,

during which the chief towns were sacked. But no Assyrian garrison

remained behind in the country, and there is no word of its permanent

annexation. Immediately after the withdrawal of the Assyrian army,

Ummanaldash II came out from his hiding-place and once more obtained

possession of the government.

But Asshurbanapal was not satisfied with this _non possum_, and this

time he sent Tammaritu himself as ambassador with another demand. The

oracle he had asked from the goddess of Erech had enjoined on him to

fetch back the image of the goddess Nana, which had been carried off

to Elam centuries before. It will be remembered that this oracle had

already served as an excuse to draw Ummanigash into a war. It was now

again made use of. But Ummanaldash, no more than his predecessor, could

comply with the demand without setting throne and life at stake. No

other choice remained for him than to try the fortune of war.

The war proceeded as it had the first time, but was conducted with more

energy and certainly lasted longer. Bit-Imbi was again taken, then the

Rashi country and the city of Khamanu with its territory, a conquest

which the Assyrians thought important enough to be perpetuated in a

relief. Although all this was only frontier territory, Ummanaldash

thought it advisable to leave Madaktu, the western capital of his

country, and to retreat to Dur-Undasi, a town on the farther side of

the Ulai, but west of the river Ididi, which formed a strong natural

defence. Thus he abandoned a great part of his country, but even there

he did not feel himself safe and crossed the Ididi that he might range

his troops behind it in order of battle. The Assyrians pursued their

triumphal march, took one town after the other, and at last came to

Dur-Undasi. But here the army refused to go farther, and two days

went by before they could make up their minds to cross the apparently

dangerous river. However, in the nick of time, Ishtar of Arbela, the

warlike goddess, whose priesthood doubtless accompanied the army with a

portable sanctuary or ark, sent one of her seers a dream in which she

promised her help, and this restored the army’s courage. The crossing

was a success, the army of Ummanaldash was beaten, and twelve Elamite

provinces east of the Ididi with fourteen royal cities and a number of

smaller places were abandoned to destruction.

Still there was no intention of taking possession of the country, and

when Ummanaldash with the remnant of his army had gone farther into

the mountains, and consequently there was no longer a dangerous enemy

on the east side of the Ididi to hinder the operations on the west

side, the Assyrians marched back into Shushan. There was the goddess

for whose sake the whole expedition had been undertaken. On former

occasions, when Shushan had been taken, the object of the war was to

set the Elamite pretender on the throne, then the restoration could

hardly be demanded. But now Asshur was in arms against Elam itself,

and consideration need no longer be shown. The goddess was brought

back to Erech to her sanctuary, E-khili-anha, “the house of power in

the heavens,” and the king caused new and permanent sanctuaries to be

erected for her.

To all appearances and contrary to his practice, he had himself come

to Shushan. At least, it is related that he clasped the hands of the

goddess, that is, performed a religious ceremony in her sanctuary and

that he also had the gratification of entering the palace of Shushan

and seating himself on the throne of the hereditary enemy of Assyria.

Elam was one of the oldest and most famous monarchies of Asia, and

Shushan was the sacred city, the seat of the gods and the place of

their oracles. In the treasure chamber of the royal citadel were heaped

up all those valuables which the kings of Elam had collected “down

to the kings of those days,” and which had never yet been touched by

a victorious enemy. No little of the treasure had been taken away by

former Elamite kings from Sumer, Accad, and Kardunyash, and there was

also a collection of valuables and jewels with royal insignia, which

former kings of Accad, down to Shamash-shumukin, had presented to

Elam in exchange for her help. All this, with all the glories of the

royal palace, where a rich and splendour-loving court had resided,

Asshurbanapal took with him to his own states. The very tombs of the

kings were not spared by the conqueror: they were destroyed and exposed

to the light of day; even the corpses were carried off, so that the

shades had to wander about homeless. In order to mortify the enemy as

much as possible, the Assyrian soldiers were allowed to desecrate those

sacred forests, whose precincts no unhallowed foot might ever tread,

and then to burn them.

Whilst the Elamite war was still raging in the west, the Arabs had

again arisen. Abiyate, whom Asshurbanapal had appointed in the place

of Yauta-ben-Hazael as Assyrian vassal-king of Aribi, entered into

negotiations with Natnu, prince of Nabathea, to whom Yauta had formerly

fled, but who had at that time thought it safer to seek the friendship

of Assyria. He now allowed himself to be persuaded to trouble the

borders of the western provinces of Assyria, in conjunction with

Abiyate. Lest the forces in this district should not be strong enough

to face the joint attacks of the Arabs, a powerful army was despatched

from Assyria to quell the rising. Arrived on the 25th Sivan at Khadata,

which probably lay at the eastern extremity of this desert, the army

pursued its way unchallenged to Laribda, a well-watered oasis, where

the camp was fixed, and then marched on to Khurarina, not far from

Yarki and Azalli, still in the same desert, where the first encounter

took place. There the Isamme, the Bedouins, who worship the god

Atarsamain and the Nabatheans, sought to stop the further progress of

the Assyrian army, but were defeated. The victors, having provided

themselves with water from Azalli, marched on to Kurasiti. There again

stood Bedouins who worship Atarsamain, with Yauta-ben-Bir-Dadda and

the men of Kedar, but they too gave way, and not only a rich booty,

but Yauta’s gods and women, with his mother, fell into the Assyrians’

hands and were carried with them to Damascus. On the night of the

3rd Abu, after a rest of about forty days, the Assyrian army marched

to the town of Khulkhuliti, south of Damascus, and in the mountain

region of Khulkurina a battle was fought with the two sons of Te’ri,

namely, the leaders of the rebellion, Abiyate and Aamu. Aamu was taken

alive, chained hand and foot, and sent to Nineveh, where Asshurbanapal

had him flayed. The remainder of the troops sought refuge in the

hiding-places in the mountains; but when the Assyrians set guard in

all the surrounding places and cut off their supplies of water, they

found themselves under the necessity first of killing their camels and

then of surrendering themselves. They, too, were taken to Assyria,

and thus the country was as though “inundated with Arabs and camels.”

Yauta-ben-Bir-Dadda still kept the field with his troops; but when

disease and famine had made terrible havoc among them, they came to

the conclusion that they were no match for the might of the Assyrian

gods, rose against their king, and drove him from them. He was seized

by the enemy and sent to Assyria. There his son was killed before his

eyes by Asshurbanapal’s own hand, and he and his cousin bound with a

dog-chain to Nerib-mashuakti-atuati, the eastern gate of Nineveh. The

king counted it as a favour that he escaped with his life.

Even Ummanaldash was also destined to fall into the Assyrians’ hands.

His own subjects rose against him, perhaps at the instigation of a

certain Ummanigash, a son of Ametirra, and he sought refuge in the

mountains. The Assyrians made use of these disturbances to march into

Elam, fan the fire of rebellion, and lead Ummanaldash in triumph to

their own country. The ancient monarchy, which had so often threatened

Assyria, was now entirely broken. For a time Elam still prolonged a

melancholy existence. She was not annexed to the Assyrian Empire. But

when, within a few years, the latter’s power had disappeared, Elam fell

an easy prey to the Persians, when Prince Sispis, or Teispes, of the

race of the Achæmenidæ, placed himself on the throne of Shushan.

Little dreaming that the hour of Asshur’s downfall was so soon to

strike, Asshurbanapal revelled in the joy of victory. In memory of all

these triumphs, and in order to show his gratitude for the help of

the gods, he built a new sanctuary for the great goddess of Nineveh,

the spouse of Asshur, and when it was ready and he presented himself

in it in order to consecrate it with ceremonial sacrifices, he had

his royal chariot dragged to the gate of the temple by four captive

kings,--Tammaritu, Pa’e, Ummanaldash, and Yauta. This barbarous triumph

was his last, and the last also of the renowned Assyrian army.[b]

FOOTNOTES

[25] [The word is Sib’e, who is possibly Sewe or So, but many scholars

differ as to his identity. See Winckler,[d] Goodspeed,[e] and Budge.[f]]

[26] [Rogers,[g] whose more recent translation differs in some

respects, reads this last line, “like a falcon which dwells in the

clefts they fled alone to inaccessible places.” In Column II he reads

the names Alhzibu, Akko, Tubahal, and Hittites as respectively Ekdippa,

Arko, Ethobal, and West Lands.]

CHAPTER V. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF ASSYRIA

We have followed the fortunes of Assyria through several dynasties of

clearest historical record. But, curiously enough, as we now proceed

the landmarks disappear, and we enter a realm of myth, as if we were

going backward instead of forward in time. Even while Asshurbanapal

lives, the record becomes vague, and after him there is almost nothing

securely known of its details. Even the names of his successors are

somewhat in doubt. The only sure thing is the broad historical fact

that the empire declined in power until it was completely overthrown

by the Scythians and Babylonians about twenty years after the death of

Asshurbanapal--the precise date of this closing scene being, like all

other details of the epoch, more or less in doubt.

Our surprise at this cataclysmic overthrow is the greater in that we

have just seen the Assyrian Empire at such a height of apparent power

under Asshurbanapal. The palaces, libraries, and art treasures of that

king as now known to us convey an irresistible impression of a powerful

monarch. Yet it is held that the decline in Assyrian affairs had begun

even during the life of Asshurbanapal.[a]

Professor Rogers has well summed up an impression as to the cause of

this decline. After noting the glories of the reign in matters of

literature, sciences, and art, and giving Asshurbanapal a full meed of

praise as regards his attainment in this direction, Professor Rogers

continues:

In war only had he failed. But by the sword the kingdom of Assyria

had been founded, by the sword it had added kingdom unto kingdom

until it had become a world-empire. By the sword it had cleared the

way for the advance of its trader, and opened up to civilisation

great territories, some of which, like Urartu, had even adopted its

method of writing. It had held all the vast empire together by the

sword, and not by beneficent and unselfish rule. Even unto this very

reign barbaric treatment of men who yearned for liberty had been the

rule and not the exception. That which had been founded by the sword

and maintained by the sword would not survive if the sword lost its

keenness or the arm which wielded it lost its strength or readiness.

This had happened in the days of Asshurbanapal. He had conquered but

little new territory, made scarcely any advance, as most of the kings

who preceded him had done. He had not only not made distinct advances,

he had actually beaten a retreat, and the empire was smaller. Worse

even than this, he had weakened the borders which remained, and had not

erected fortresses, as had Sargon and Esarhaddon and even Sennacherib,

for the defence of the frontier against aggression. He had gained no

new allies, and had shown no consideration or friendship for any people

who might have been won to join hands with Assyria when the hour of

struggle between the Semites and the Indo-Europeans should come. On

the contrary, his brutality, singularly unsuited to his period and his

position of growing weakness, his bloodthirstiness, his destructive

raids into the territories of his neighbours, had increased the hatred

of Assyria into a passion. All these things threatened the end of

Assyrian prestige, if not the entire collapse of the empire.

The culture which Asshurbanapal had nurtured and disseminated was but

a cloak to cover the nakedness of Assyrian savagery. It never became

a part of the life of the people. It contributed not to national

patriotism, but only to national enervation. Luxury had usurped the

place of simplicity, and weakness had conquered strength. The most

brilliant colour of all Assyrian history was only overlaid on the

palace and temple walls. The shadows were growing long and deep, and

the night of Assyria was approaching.[b]

Whatever our precise estimate of this criticism of Asshurbanapal, it is

clear that the successors of that monarch were unable to sustain the

traditions of their fathers. Assyriologists have recently restored to

us the names of Bel-zakir-ishkun or Asshur-etil-ili, Sin-shar-ishkun,

as the immediate successors of Asshurbanapal, the last named being the

one who is believed to have been the occupant of the throne when the

conquering hosts of Cyaxares finally razed Nineveh to the ground.

It may fairly be presumed that there exist somewhere among the yet

unrecovered treasures of Mesopotamia, inscriptions giving more or

less full accounts of the destruction of Nineveh. But be that as it

may, no such inscription has yet come to light; at least none such

has been deciphered. There is an abundance of material in the various

museums of Europe and America that has not yet been fully investigated.

The reading of inscriptions in the arrow-head script is an extremely

difficult task; indeed, it has been claimed, perhaps half jestingly,

by one of the greatest of living orientalists, that only four scholars

in the world are competent to read securely Assyrian or Babylonian

texts from the original clay tablet. Doubtless this is an exaggeration,

but it is one full of suggestion as to the difficulties encountered

by the would-be investigator of Mesopotamian history; and at the same

time offering an explanation of the fact that so much material is

awaiting its turn, and must long remain unpublished, notwithstanding

the importance and interest of the historical secrets thus entombed.

Possibly, as has been suggested, the story of the destruction of

Nineveh may be among these secrets, but as to the validity of this

surmise time must decide.

Meanwhile the twentieth-century historian is but little better off than

his predecessor of the times before the advent of modern Assyriology

in regard to this particular problem. Whoever would picture to himself

the destruction of Nineveh has no resource but to turn back to such

classical accounts as that of Diodorus, giving whatever degree of

credence he may choose to the details of the story. One qualification,

however, may be added. We at least are tolerably sure, as our

predecessors could not be, that the last ruler of Nineveh did not bear

the name which classical tradition ascribed to him. Just as there was

no Ninus, founder of Nineveh, so there was no Sardanapalus last ruler

of that famous city. In regard to this detail, tradition was at fault

here as so often elsewhere. None the less will the name of Sardanapalus

long continue to symbolise the idea of the last ruler of Nineveh, whose

effeminate reign and tragic end form so interesting a theme for the

classical writer.[a]

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

In all probability, Asshurbanapal lived until 626, and during the

whole of his reign he remained firmly established in possession of

the Assyrian throne and also of the kingdom of Babylon. Elam had been

rendered powerless, Babylon had been conquered, and the desert dwellers

of the west were too much weakened and impoverished by the severe

lesson taught them, as well as by hunger and disease, to be dangerous.

Media was only in her youth, and Assyria was still strong enough to

resist the first onrush of this new, conquering state. Besides her

northeastern and northern neighbours, the states of Asia Minor and

the inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast had enough to do to defend

themselves against the barbarians who were pressing upon them from the

north and east. Egypt was indeed independent, but could not seriously

think of conquests in Asia. The condition of the Assyrian Empire

resembled the calm before the storm.

[Illustration: ASSYRIAN KING IN SACERDOTAL ROBES]

In his latter years the king doubtless devoted himself by preference

to the works of peace. He had already erected many buildings, even

during the period of his great wars. He had continued and completed

the work on the temples of Assyria and Babylonia, which Esarhaddon had

begun. Unfortunately the inscription which enumerates the principal

structures belonging to the first half of his reign only occasionally

mentions the places in which the temples he erected stood. In the later

years of the king’s reign the walls of Nineveh demanded his attention.

They were loosened by annual rains and the violent showers of Adad,

and had sunk. Asshurbanapal restored them and made them stronger than

before. When he had seen his great campaigns crowned with victory, he

at last undertook an important work in Nineveh, the town of Bel and

Ishtar. Bit-Riduti, the great palace, which Sennacherib had built and

established as a royal dwelling, had fallen to ruins. This king did

nothing without the gods. It was now again a dream which made known to

him their will that he should repair the damage to the palace. This

was done. The forced labour of Assyrian subjects brought the stone in

carts from the spoil of Elam; and the captive Arabian kings, decked out

with appropriate marks of distinction, shared in the labour as workmen.

When the palace was completed to the pinnacles and enlarged, it was

surrounded with noble grounds; and when the victims were slaughtered

at the consecration, the king made his entry carried in a gorgeous

palanquin and with festive rejoicings.

Of all the objects assembled in this palace the king set the highest

value on the library which he had founded and which has now for the

most part been unearthed and brought to Europe. Asshurbanapal was,

without any doubt, an admirer and patron of learning and a prince who

loved art. He did not allow the libraries of Babylonia to be plundered,

but he had the literary treasures which were buried there, including

whole works on philosophical, mythological, and poetic subjects,

copied in Assyrian characters and added to the historical records of

his own predecessors. He even seems to have studied them diligently

himself, and to have encouraged their perusal. The fruit of this study

is shown in his own memorials. In fact these have some literary value,

which cannot be said of the dry chronicles of former kings. He was

not, however, the first to found a library. Not only had the ancient

Babylonian kings--it is said even Sargon I of Agade--preceded him in

this respect, but the Assyrian kings had also set him an example.

This was certainly true of Sennacherib, in whose palace at Nineveh,

according to the calculation made by George Smith, probably twenty

thousand fragments are now awaiting the investigator who can find the

time and means to dig them out and make them accessible to western

learning. But it cannot be denied that Asshurbanapal earned the

gratitude of scholars by rendering so many treasures of the Babylonian

libraries accessible to his compatriots, and also by founding libraries

in other places; as, for example, in Babylon, and that he devoted more

attention to these things than any of his predecessors.

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

The popular tradition of the downfall of the Assyrian Empire, which

took shape in later years and came from the Persians to the Greeks,

represents Sardanapalus (by whom none other than Asshurbanapal can be

meant) as the type of a luxurious, effeminate, oriental despot, who

forgets his kingly duties in the enjoyments of his harem, abandons his

empire to the enemies rising against him on all sides, and finally,

shut up in his capital, delivers himself in despair to the flames

with his wives and all his treasures. We now know how little this

picture agrees with the truth, but from what is historically credible

we can gather how it arose. Asshurbanapal did indeed take pleasure

in filling his women’s palace with the daughters of all the princes

subdued by him, and with those of their nearest relatives; and these

princes knew well what was pleasing to the supreme king. It is true

that this proceeded as much from love of display as from an inclination

to voluptuousness; it is true that policy also had a share in it,

because by this means his supremacy was confirmed and a pledge given

for further submissiveness; it is true that the custom was a usual one

with oriental monarchs; but a king who pursued it to such an extent

must have been easily transformed into a voluptuary in the minds of his

people.

There was also some reason for regarding him as weak and effeminate.

The great Assyrian monarchs, at least during the years of their youth

and vigorous manhood, had themselves frequently led their armies to

victory. It was seldom, if ever, that Asshurbanapal joined in the

fight. His official historians do, indeed, ascribe to him the honour

of all the victories during his reign, but they have not succeeded in

hiding the fact that his generals fought the battles. Yet he was by no

means a weakling. That he was an eager hunter is testified by a number

of hunting inscriptions, some of them accompanied by reliefs. In any

case, a prince who could find pleasure in so manly a pastime was no

effeminate voluptuary, little warlike though he may have shown himself

to be.

The king’s tragic end in the flames of his own palace, of which the

legend speaks, may have been shifted on to him from his brother,

Shamash-shum-ukin, or, still more probably, from the last Ninevite

king. That he, the last great king of Assyria, should have been

supposed to continue reigning until the end of the empire, while the

insignificant kings who really followed him were forgotten, is natural

enough. In short, Asshurbanapal was not a hero who strove to reap

the laurels of the battle-field through difficulty and privations on

distant campaigns. He preferred to linger in his luxurious palace, and

to alternate the delights of the harem and the pursuit of learning with

the royal lion-hunting. He was very pious, and did nothing without

consulting the oracles of his gods or the dreams of his seers. If

he thought the dignity of his empire, and with it the honour of his

gods, insulted by an obstinate rebellion, he would avenge them as his

predecessors had done by punishments of ingenious cruelty, inflicted

both on individuals and on whole countries. The fearful suffering

which the war on Asshur’s enemies wrought in its train, the pestilence

which filled the streets with corpses, the famine which drove parents

to destroy their own children, filled him with transports of joy.

His ruling idea was the unity and vastness of his empire. If he

left the sword in its sheath, the love of pleasure did not make him

neglect his duties as a ruler. He took care that his armies should

always be ready to take the field, which would not have been possible

without good organisation; and they triumphed over almost all his

enemies, maintained his sway against a powerful coalition, crushed the

formidable Elam so severely that she never recovered from the blows

she had received, and, if not during his reign, at least shortly after

it, repelled the advancing Medes. He regularly transmitted his orders

to all the governors in his empire, and was by them kept carefully

informed of anything of importance which happened in their provinces.

No one of his victorious military leaders ever ventured to turn his

arms against him. All, including the governors, recognised him and

honoured him as their king. Such he was in the fullest sense of the

word. In his palace at Nineveh, during two-and-forty years, he held

the reigns of government with a strong hand. And this is all the more

creditable to the influence of his personality, since the empire was

internally weakened by his own political mistakes, in particular by

the removal of the centre of government from Babylon, which Esarhaddon

had made its seat, to Nineveh, and by other causes, so that it went to

pieces a few years after his death.

After him at least two kings ruled over Assyria, who were probably

brothers, for one of them, Bel-zakir-ishkun, was the son of a

king of Assyria, and grandson of a king of Sumer and Accad, and

though their names are missing from the inscriptions, they can have

been none other than Asshurbanapal and Esarhaddon; and the other,

Asshur-etil-ili [who is sometimes known by a lengthened form of his

name, Asshur-etil-ili-ukinni] is expressly called the son and grandson

of these rulers. Probably Bel-zakir-ishkun reigned first, and then the

other.[27] No historical records have been preserved, dealing either

with the fortunes and achievements of these kings or with the fall of

Assyria. Certain texts have led some to conclude that a third king, a

namesake of Esarhaddon, may have swayed the sceptre at this period, but

this has been shown to be extremely questionable.

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

Immediately after Asshurbanapal’s death, or perhaps even in the last

year of his reign, Babylon broke away from the Assyrian rule, and this

time the separation was permanent. The empire was much weakened by it.

The north and northwest, Urartu and the states of Asia Minor, gradually

fell into the power of the ever-advancing Medes. The Assyrian lordship

over the countries on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea now existed

in name only, so that King Josiah of Judah was able to effect his

reform unhindered, and to act as master in the territory of the ancient

kingdom of Israel, which for years had been an Assyrian province. And

in the year 608 Neku II, king of Egypt, was able to think of extending

his empire to the Euphrates, as in days long past, and to take arms

against Assyria with the idea of wresting from her all her western

provinces. The foundation of the new Babylonian Empire and the invasion

of the Egyptians, who could no longer be repelled by the Assyrians,

but were only to give way before the Babylonian arms, are described

elsewhere. Here we only mention them as among the causes which brought

about the fall of the Assyrian Empire. That empire no longer had any

real existence, at least as a ruling power. Thrust back to its old

frontiers, the ancient Assyrian state slowly languished and only

awaited the death-blow.

That blow was to come from the Medes in alliance with the Babylonians,

and was partly hastened, partly stayed, by the great migratory streams

of the Cimmerians and Scythians.[c]

Though Professor Tiele’s admirable history is recent, much new

information concerning the last days of the Assyrian rule at Nineveh

has come to light, and historians are now able to place the conquest

of the city by the Manda in the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun. Without

overlooking a certain Sin-shum-lishir, who is mentioned in several

places as an Assyrian king, and must have ruled about this time, but

whose personality has not yet been unwrapped from the historic gloom,

it is safe to say that this Sin-shar-ishkun was Asshur-etil-ili’s

successor. From contract tablets found at Sippar and Erech we know that

he occupied the Assyrian throne in 612 B.C., and that his dominion

included a part of Babylonia as well. Later records would show him

to be of much stronger character than the man he succeeded. In 610

or 609 he attempted to wrest more of the Babylonian provinces from

Nabopolassar, and the harassed king took the fatal step of appealing

to that people from the north, who for the most part had formed part

of the great Indo-European migration into western Asia. Already these

Scythian hordes, the Manda, had their eye on the rich Mesopotamian

Valley, and therefore Nabopolassar’s appeal did not fall upon unwilling

ears. Sin-shar-ishkun was indeed driven back, but when that happened

the Manda were in the coveted land. The reader will observe that we

have just spoken of the Manda and not the Medes as the assailants of

Nineveh. This is because of the recent clearing up of a historical

error that was our heritage from the Greek historians. They simply

confused the Manda, the nomadic tribes that lived northeast of Assyria

towards the Caspian Sea and were the classical Scythians, with the

Mada, or true Medes. As Professor Sayce says: “It was not until the

discovery of the monuments of Nabonidus and Cyrus that the truth at

last came to light and it was found that the history we had so long

believed was founded upon a philological mistake.” This matter will be

more fully explained in the account of Persia.[a]

Like his father, Cyaxares perceived that it would not be possible for

the Medes to extend and maintain their conquests westward so long as he

had to dread the rivalry of the Assyrian Empire, so lately the mistress

of those regions. Consequently he put into practice the lesson which

his father had received from the Assyrians. The as yet untrained hordes

of Medians were evidently no match for the better military organisation

of the Assyrians and the military skill of the Assyrian generals.

Cyaxares, therefore, began as became a warlike prince with the

remodelling of his army, dividing his troops, after the pattern of the

Assyrians, into the various arms--spearmen, bowmen, and horsemen--and

fortifying his citadel, Ecbatana. Then he again ventured to attack

Assyria, this time with better success. The Assyrian army was beaten

in Nineveh at last, and was surrounded. But an unexpected event came

to the assistance of the hard-pressed Ninevites--the Scythians invaded

Media.

Their invasion compelled Cyaxares to evacuate Assyria, and for a time

Nineveh breathed again. But only for a short time. Cyaxares succeeded

in putting an end to the Scythian domination in his kingdom in the

course of a few years.

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

About 609 the Median army under the command of Cyaxares appeared for

the second time at the gates of Nineveh. According to Berosus, the

Babylonian king, whose son Nebuchadrezzar had married the Median king’s

daughter, also took part in this siege. It is easy to understand how

it was that Herodotus knew nothing of this, for the Persians were his

authorities. But he is certainly right in assigning the chief rôle to

the Medes, of whom Abydenus says nothing, for from this time forward

they kept possession of Assyria itself; and he is also right in placing

the taking of Nineveh during the period of Cyaxares’ government, and

not, like Berosus and the authors who follow him, in the time of

Astyages, since the latter did not ascend the throne of Media before

584 B.C. It is sufficient that Nineveh fell, and Assyria passed to the

power of the Medes, who at the same time acquired the dominion over

the North and the countries of Asia Minor as far as the Halys. All

other provinces of the fallen empire as far as the Mediterranean Sea,

including probably that part of ancient Assyria whose capital was the

city of Asshur, and also Kharran and Carchemish, fell to Babylonia.

We have no historical account of the details connected with the fall

of Nineveh. The story of the last Assyrian king, Asshur-etil-ili, or,

as some authorities call him, Saracus,[28] which represents him in his

despair burning himself with his palace and his treasures, is a popular

tale which is not indeed impossible, but probably arose by confusion

with Shamash-shum-ukin’s end. Nineveh was so completely desolated that

when Xenophon passed with the Ten Thousand in the year 401 B.C. he took

the ruins for the remains of Median towns destroyed by the Persians.

Subsequently a fortress, Ninus, seems to have been built there by the

Parthians. Calah also once more rose from its rubbish heaps after

lying desolate for a long time. Arbela remained untouched, and it is

therefore probable that it fell unresisting into the hands of the

conquerors. But the Assyrian monarchy was gone forever.

[Sidenote: [606 B.C.]]

The Assyrian monarchy was gone, but not the empire at whose head the

kings of Asshur had stood. It has been matter of astonishment that

so powerful an empire, to which through a series of centuries the

whole of western Asia had been subdued, could have been so suddenly

overturned by the fall of the capital. But this surprise proceeds from

an incorrect conception of history. Events had long prepared the fall

of Nineveh. The keen eye of Esarhaddon had already perceived that it

would be safer to remove the centre of the empire to Babylon. His son

Asshurbanapal, a less acute statesman than he, but a great king and a

strong administrator, had once more attempted to secure the hegemony

for Assyria. In this he had succeeded, being supported by favourable

circumstances and the influence of his own personality. But when the

sceptre fell from his strong hand, little more was needed to put an

end to the Assyrian dominion, and that end was only a question of

time. However, the empire survived for a few years longer, though not

in its full vigour. The hegemony now passed again to Babylon; but not

unimpaired, for, since Media had conquered Nineveh, the lion’s share

of Assyria itself fell to the Median kingdom, together with those

northern and northwestern provinces which had been lost long before.

But the Assyrian survived in the new Babylonian Empire, which continued

its policy of conquest, and the Greeks, who not long afterwards called

the Babylonians themselves Assyrians, were in this not so very far

from the truth. But the days of the Semitic dominion were hastening to

their end. Even the new monarchy under Babylon’s hegemony could only

be propped up by the force of Nebuchadrezzar’s personality. His feeble

successors were in no condition to prevent the spread of the Median

power nor the rise of the Persian monarchy, which had grown to such

proportions by the conquest of Elam, until the genius of Cyrus founded

a dominion which soon embraced the four ancient empires--the Median,

the Elamite, the Assyrio-Babylonian, and the Egyptian--and gave the

sceptre of western Asia to the Aryans.

The sense of relief which fell on the oppressed nations at the downfall

of the scourge of Asia can be gathered from the rejoicing accents

of the Jewish prophets. What an Isaiah, a Micah, had not dared to

hope, Nahum and Zephaniah saw approach and actually happen. Nahum

is convinced that the fate of Thebes will soon overtake Nineveh.

Her merchants, multiplied as the stars of heaven, her crowned, her

captains, her whole people, they shall be scattered like flying

grasshoppers, and no man shall gather them. “All that hear the bruit

of thee shall clap their hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy

wickedness passed continually?” (Nahum iii. 19.) And Zephaniah (ii.

13-15), his contemporary, sees with satisfaction the desolation of the

proud city, who thought herself so safe and boasted herself to be the

first and the only one, but now had become desolate and a place for

beasts, in whose ruins the bittern and the screech-owl lodge.[c]

FOOTNOTES

[27] [It is now believed that these two kings were one and the same

person. See Professor Hilprecht in _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, Vol.

IV, p. 164 _et seq._ “The name of this king (Asshur-etil-ili),” says

Professor Rogers, “was originally read Bel-zakir-ishkun.”]

[28] [The most recent revelations in Assyrian history incline

the authorities to the belief that Saracus is identical with

Sin-shar-ishkun.]

CHAPTER VI. RENASCENCE AND FALL OF BABYLON

“Belshazzar’s grave is made,

His kingdom passed away,

He, in the balance weighed,

Is light and worthless clay,

The shroud his robe of state,

His canopy the stone;

The Mede is at his gate,

The Persian on his throne.”--BYRON’S “VISION OF BELSHAZZAR.”

Nowhere is there a more striking illustration of national regeneration

than is furnished by the story of the new Babylonian Empire. Freed from

Assyrian thraldom, Babylon, the old, old city, came forward to take the

place of the fallen Nineveh as the world-metropolis.

It has been customary to think and speak of the new Babylonian Empire

as evidencing the rejuvenation of an old people. In one sense this view

has full validity. But it must not be supposed that the new Babylonians

who came to power when Nineveh fell were the _bona fide_ descendants

of the rulers of old Babylonia. New blood had made itself felt in the

old race; indeed, without its influence it is highly improbable that

the rejuvenation could have been effected. The outsiders who made their

influence felt with such potency to restore and rejuvenate the old

empire, are known as the Chaldeans. The precise origin of this people

is in doubt. It is held to be established, however, that they were

Semitic, and hence could claim cousinship with the Babylonians and

Assyrians. They inhabited the Sea Lands to the south of Mesopotamia at

an early date, and have been supposed to come originally from Arabia.

They are heard of from time to time in Babylonian and Assyrian annals

as a half-barbaric and often troublesome people, divided into various

tribes or clans or petty principalities, bearing such unfamiliar names

as Bit-Silani, Bit-Sa’alli, and Bit-Sala.

It is supposed by modern orientalists that the Chaldeans long had their

eyes upon the fertile regions of the North, and even, from time to

time, been presumptuous enough to cross swords with the Babylonians

and Assyrians in the hope of dethroning them. Certain it is that the

rulers of the North had at various times waged war against their less

civilised cousins of the Sea Lands. Yet the evidence does not seem

to be very clear as to the precise share which the Chaldeans took in

the new movement inaugurated in Babylon with the death of the last

really powerful Assyrian king, Asshurbanapal. The name of the new ruler

who now came to power in Babylon was Nabopolassar; but it cannot be

asserted with confidence that he was of Chaldean origin. It is held,

however, that the influences that dominated the kingdom under his

reign were clearly Chaldean; though considering the vagueness that

surrounds the entire subject, it must be admitted that this assertion

is much easier to make than to prove. Still, all that we know about the

degeneration of old nations elsewhere, and the extreme difficulty of

resuscitating a senescent people, except by a mixture of races, tends

to confirm the theory that a race relatively new to civilisation was

chiefly instrumental in working the miracle of Babylonian regeneration.

In any event, the people who for something less than a century

made Babylon a great centre of world-influence were known to their

contemporaries and to succeeding generations as Chaldeans rather than

as Babylonians. Just to what extent the old Babylonian people shared

in the new work, can perhaps never be known; but the question is

relatively unimportant, because in any event it was a people of the

same old Semitic stock that carried on the historic story.

The most brilliant period of the new Babylonian Empire came soon

after the fall of Nineveh, in the reign of the world-famous king,

Nebuchadrezzar, the monarch who built the marvellous wall about the

city and the fabulous hanging gardens; the conqueror who overthrew the

Phœnicians and carried the Israelites into captivity.

A peculiar interest attaches to the period of the immediate successors

of Nebuchadrezzar because the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites

still continued, to which the Hebrew writers made such extended

references. The famous account in the Book of Daniel of the feast of

Belshazzar, with its brief but graphic reference to the alleged tragic

end of the Babylonian king, and the overthrow of Babylon itself at

the hands of “Darius the Mede,” have furnished never-to-be-forgotten

pictures to all subsequent generations. The modern archæologist has

rudely shattered some of these treasured images. Thus the Book of

Daniel makes allusion to the overthrow of Babylon in these words:

“Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords,

and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the

wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father

Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that

the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink

therein.… In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two

years old.” (Daniel v. 1, 2, 30, 31.)

[Sidenote: [555 B.C.]]

But within the past generation inscriptions have come to light

proving, to the amazement of a keenly interested world, that no king

named Belshazzar ever reigned in Babylon; and that the name of the

monarch overthrown by Cyrus the Persian or Elamite--not by “Darius

the Mede”--was Nabonidus. Nabonidus had a son, Belshazzar, but he

never ruled. This Nabonidus was not the son of Nebuchadrezzar or his

immediate successor, three successive rulers after Nebuchadrezzar

having reigned before he came to the throne. It is clear from

inscriptions of Nabonidus and of Cyrus his conqueror that Babylon

was overthrown without a struggle. A cylinder inscription by Cyrus

tells the story: the first part of which, translated by the Rev. C.

J. Ball, is as follows: “The continual offering he made to cease …

he (es)tablished in the cities the worship of Merodach, the King of

the Gods, he exalted (?) His name … by a yoke unrelaxing he ruined

them all. At their lamentation the Lord of the Gods waxed very wroth

… the Gods who dwelt among them forsook Their abode. In wrath because

he brought them into Shu-anna (_i.e._ Babylon), Merodach … He turned

towards all the districts whose dwellings were thrown down. And (to)

the people of Shinar and Accad, who were become as dead, He turned (His

regard?): He showed compassion upon all the lands together. He looked

for, He found him, yea, He sought out an upright Prince, after His own

heart, whom He took by his hand, Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan;

He named his name; to the kingdom of the whole world He called him by

na(me). The land of Qutû (and) all the Umman-Manda he humbled to his

feet; the Blackheaded folk, whom his hands subdued,--in faithfulness

and righteousness he looked after them. Merodach, the great Lord, the

guardian of His people, joyfully beheld his good deeds and his upright

heart. To His own city Babylon his march He commanded; He put them on

the road to Tin-tir (_i.e._ Babylon); like a comrade and helper He

marched at his side. His great hosts, whose number like the waters of a

river could not be known, with their weapons girded on, advanced beside

him. Without skirmish or battle He made him enter Shu-anna. His own

city Babylon He spared from distress; Nabonidus the king, who feared

him not, He delivered up to him. The people of Tin-tir in a body, the

entire land of Shinar and Accad, the nobles and grandees, bowed down

before Him, kissed His feet, rejoiced at His accession; their faces

brightened.”

The accounts given by Nabonidus himself confirm this record of Cyrus.

It would appear, then, that the Hebrew chroniclers, gifted rather

with the poetical imagination than with the calm historical sense,

confused the Babylonian conquest of Cyrus with a later campaign of

his successor, Darius. But no mere substitution of the cold facts of

history can ever rob the world of the beautiful traditional picture

of the feast of Belshazzar. Here, as elsewhere, myth must be allowed

to hold its own as the embodiment of the spirit of history. Myth and

history coincide as to the fact that the old dynasty in new Babylonia

was overthrown. And with that overthrow the sceptre of world-influence

passed from the hands of the Semitic race forever.

CONTEMPORARY CHRONOLOGY

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

The epoch of the new Babylonian Empire covers a period of time from

about 615 to 538 B.C., approximately three-quarters of a century. We

have already, at the beginning of this book, outlined the position of

contemporary civilisations during the entire sweep of Assyrian and

new Babylonian history; but it may be well briefly to recapitulate

the position of other nations during the epoch of new Babylonian

domination, that a clearer picture of the time may be before the eyes

as we view the details of Babylonian history.

While reading of the achievements of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors,

then, it will be well to recall that:

_Egypt_ under the XXVIth Dynasty enjoys a brief period of

rejuvenescence as a world-power; curiously linked in time with the new

awakening of her old-time rival, Babylonia;

In _India_, at about this period, Buddha lives and founds the religion

that is to bear his name;

_Greece_ and _Rome_ are in a relative youth, not yet reckoning time

from a fixed era, and only beginning to make secure records on which

future generations may build. Their civilisation does not compare

in importance with that of Babylon, which is the recognised centre

of culture, looking upon these “new” nations in the west as utter

barbarians;

_Phœnicia_ is far past the zenith of its power; Samaria has fallen;

Jerusalem is to become subject to Babylon itself;

In _Asia Minor_, Sardis, the capital of Lydia, is waxing in power.

But the coming nation of the epoch is _Persia_, which turns the tables

on its fellow, Manda, hitherto the stronger of the half-civilised pair

of nations, and which finally, under Cyrus, captures Babylon itself,

and assumes undisputed sovereignty over the whole of southwestern

Asia.[a]

NABOPOLASSAR AND NEBUCHADREZZAR

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

Nabopolassar (Nabu-apal-usur, _i.e._ “Nabu protect the heir”),

according to the Ptolemaic canon, reigned from 625 B.C. (the date

of his accession thus being 626) until 605 B.C., in which year he

died, shortly before the victory won by his son Nebuchadrezzar

over the Egyptians at Carchemish, having been in ill health before

Nebuchadrezzar started for Syria. We have seen how immediately upon

his accession to the throne of the Pharaohs, Neku II profited by the

impotence of the Assyrian kingdom, which was enfeebled to the last

degree by long years of Scythian incursions, to penetrate into the

Hamath district.

[He encountered the army of Judah at Meggido--the same historical

locality where, a thousand years before, Tehutimes III had vanquished

the combined forces of Syria and Phœnicia. The king of Jerusalem was

slain on the field, and his army, retreating in terror to the capital,

made his young son, Jehoahaz, king, ignoring the claims of Eliakim,

the eldest, probably because he was in favour of submitting to Neku.

Pharaoh now proceeded, unmolested, to Riblah in Cœle-Syria, where he

made his headquarters, and confident in his mastery over Judah, ordered

Jehoahaz to appear before him. When the new king arrived he was thrown

into chains and Eliakim put in his place under the name of Jehoiakim.]

Neku’s ambition was next directed to the conquest of the whole of

northern Syria; a project which he actually accomplished to a great

extent during the years 608 to 606, whilst the Babylonians, with their

Median allies, were besieging Nineveh. He must certainly have advanced

as far as Carchemish, since that was the spot where the Egyptian and

Babylonian forces met in 605. The fate of Syria was sealed thereby; it

became a province of Babylonia even as it had once been a province of

Assyria, and Judah became a vassal kingdom to Babylonia.

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

Thus Nabopolassar, who died in 605, while his son was on the march for

Syria, only just missed the satisfaction of seeing the new kingdom of

Babylonia which he had founded enter upon the heritage of the Assyrian

Empire, out of which the western province could least of all be spared.

He did not see it: instead the news of his father’s death reached the

young Nebuchadrezzar (Nabu-kudur-usur, _i.e._ “Nabu protect the crown”)

shortly after the victory of the Egyptians, which decided the fate of

Syria for the time being; and leaving his generals to follow up the

victory, he had to return to Babylon in hot haste to assume the royal

dignity that awaited him. There he received the crown at the hands of

the great nobles without encountering any obstacles, and for the long

period of his glorious reign, which lasted forty-two years (604-562)

he guided the destinies of his country, extended and strengthened its

borders, and thus made Babylonia a great power, and Babylon one of the

most splendid and illustrious cities of ancient times. If we further

take into consideration that it was he who likewise conquered Syria for

Babylonia, we cannot but acknowledge his claim to be counted the first

ruler who entered upon the full possession of Assyria and consolidated

it.

Amid all the many and sometimes detailed inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar

which have been found in the ruins of Babylon and other cities, not

one contains any account of his campaigns; but from a passage in the

preamble of the great inscription of the kingdom, we see that in spite

of his preference for building and other peaceful labours he was a

mighty warrior. It runs: “Under his mighty protection (_i.e._ that of

the god Marduk) I have passed through far countries, distant mountains,

from the upper sea even to the lower sea (_i.e._ probably from the

Gulf of Issus to the mouth of the Nile) far-reaching ways, closed

paths where my step was stayed and my foot could not stand, a road of

hardships, a way of thirst; the disobedient I subdued and took the

adversaries captive, the land I guided aright, the people I caused to

be seized; I carried away the bad and the good among them, silver and

gold and precious stones, copper, palm wood and cedar wood, whatsoever

was costly, in gorgeous abundance; the products of the mountains and

that which the sea yielded, brought I as a gift of great weight, as a

rich tribute into my city of Babylon before his (the god’s) face.” And

although the different campaigns of which we know are distributed over

almost the whole of his long reign, we find mention of only one short

war against Aahmes of Egypt in the thirty-seventh year of it.

With regard to these wars, most of them aimed at completing the work

begun at the battle of Carchemish, and more particularly at preventing

further interference on the part of Egypt, and at banishing her

influence completely from Babylonian territory, which had now been

extended to her very frontier. It was probably in the third year

after Nebuchadrezzar’s battle (therefore in 602 B.C.) that Syria was

completely incorporated into the Babylonian kingdom, leaving him free

to think of displaying his power in the eyes of Jehoiakim, whom Neku

had set up as king in Jerusalem, by advancing against him with an army.

The desired result promptly followed, and from 601 to 599 Jehoiakim

became tributary to the king of the Chaldeans. In the fourth year, 598,

the king of Judah withheld the tribute, probably at the instigation of

Egypt. When the Babylonians invaded Judah (probably at the beginning

of 587) Jehoiakim was just dead; his son Jehoiachin (known also as

Jeconiah) was besieged at Jerusalem and, seeing further resistance

useless, surrendered to Nebuchadrezzar. He was carried away captive to

Babylon with his family and nearly all the princes, warriors, masons,

and smiths; but, once there, their lot was no hard one, for they

were permitted to settle without molestation and to exercise their

own religion. A great number of them lived thus at Tel-Abib (_i.e._

“heap of ruins”) on the canal Chebar [a canal found near Nippur and

now called Kabaru] as we know from the chronicles of Ezekiel, who was

one of them. Jerusalem was not destroyed, but Jehoiachin’s kinsman,

Mattaniah (another son of Josiah), was set over the few inhabitants

that remained there as a vassal of Babylonia, under the new name of

Zedekiah (595-587). The newly installed sovereign was a weak man, who

by his own good will would have been a loyal vassal; but ultimately

in spite of the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah, who fully realised

the true state of affairs, he threw in his lot with the war party, who

relied on the help of Egypt, and rebelled against Babylonia.

In 589 Psamthek II (Neku’s successor) himself was succeeded by the

young and warlike Uah-ab-Ra (the Hophra of the Bible and the Apries

of the Greeks), who sent a fleet to the assistance of the Phœnicians

in an attempt they made to revolt. Thereupon Nebuchadrezzar marched

his troops into Syria and set up his headquarters at Riblah, the old

headquarters of Neku, so as to operate from thence against Zedekiah,

Tyre, and Pharaoh. How Jerusalem was besieged (589-587) and destroyed,

how in the meantime Uah-ab-Ra’s army was vanquished, and how Tyre

was then invested (the siege lasting thirteen years) and forced to

pay tribute, if no more--all these events are likewise known to us

only from other sources than cuneiform inscriptions, and the detailed

description of them, at least in so far as they relate to the downfall

of the kingdom of Judah, and thus form a part of (not the opening era

of) Jewish history, lies ready to every reader’s hand in the books of

the Bible of which we have given a brief outline. As for Tyre (after

the siege) she remained under the rule of her own kings, though as a

vassal to Babylonia. All the worse was the fate which, in 587, overtook

Judah, whose hopes had been so cruelly deceived, for not only was the

city utterly destroyed (see the moving laments in the so-called Book of

Lamentations), and the king, blinded and fettered, carried away into

captivity after seeing his sons slain before his face; but with the

exception of the poor, the day labourers absolutely necessary for the

cultivation of the soil and vineyards, all who had escaped the previous

deportation were carried away by the Babylonian king to the “waters of

Babylon” (Psalm 137).

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

[While his soldiers were keeping their long and weary station under the

walls of Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar turned his attention to another important

matter. Because the people of Judah and Tyre had looked to Egypt for

assistance, they had given the Babylonian king much trouble. Egypt,

therefore, must suffer for this; so that she would not feel inclined to

repeat her action of sending an army to Zedekiah’s aid. A new Egyptian

campaign was planned.]

A fragment at the beginning of which a prayer (“Thou destroyest

my enemies and makest my heart to rejoice”) was set down, assigns

the above-mentioned campaign in Egypt to the year 568 (_i.e._ the

thirty-seventh year of the reign). The passage which refers to

it,--“Year 37 of Nebuchadrezzar, king of (Babylonia to the land of)

Misir, (_i.e._ Egypt) to give a battle, he marched and (his troops

A-ma)-a-su, the king of Misir assembled and …” leaves no doubt that

Aahmes or Amasu is the king here meant, for only the year before, in

569, Aahmes had revolted against Uah-ab-Ra and forced him to recognise

him (Aahmes) as co-regent. He soon afterward became sole ruler in

Egypt; and, as such, he died in the year 528, shortly before the

conquest of Egypt by the Persians. Nebuchadrezzar meanwhile contented

himself with humbling the pride of Egypt, and refrained from conquering

the country, which even had it been successfully done would but have

raised difficulties for the Babylonian kingdom to cope with. His chief

aim, to keep Syria and Palestine clear of Egyptian influence, was

attained by the campaign.

Of Nebuchadrezzar’s other military expeditions, the one mentioned

(Jeremiah xlix. 28-33) against the Bedouins of Kedar and the Arab

tribes, which had settled to the east of Palestine, leads us again to

the borders of the Occident. The town of Teredon, at the mouth of the

Euphrates, was founded at this time as a bulwark against the Bedouins,

and by reason of its situation became, like Gerrha, on the Persian

Gulf, and Thapsacus, Tiphsah, on the middle Euphrates, a mercantile

station of some importance. Not until the time of the New Kingdom

of Babylonia did a flourishing trade develop along the Euphrates,

with Armenia and the east coast of Arabia for its extreme poles; and

from the reign of Nebuchadrezzar dates the part played by Babylon,

his capital, as the greatest emporium of the ancient world, and the

proverbial meaning which the name of Babylon has retained down to our

times, to signify the worst aspects (luxury and license) of a capital

city.

From Babylon and the mention of her trade it would be a natural

transition to the buildings erected by Nebuchadrezzar, if we were

not first bound to mention the northwest and east, which are of

extreme importance from an historical point of view, and in which

Nebuchadrezzar took the part of a mediator, if no more, between the

Medes and the Lydians.

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

To return to the buildings erected by Nebuchadrezzar, which, up to this

time form the subject of nearly all the inscriptions discovered, the

latter all show his character in a favourable light. In all we find

evidence of the paternal care of a prince zealous for the welfare of

his dominions, and of a sincere and heartfelt piety which by no means

leaves the impression that it is a mere form of speech. We can listen

to his own words prefixed to his account of the buildings he erected

and revealing something of his heart.

“Since the Lord, Marduk, created me, and made fair preparation for

my birth from the womb, from that time forward, when I was born and

created, I have visited the holy places of God, and walked in the ways

of God. To Marduk, my Lord, I prayed; I took up my parable in prayer to

him, the speech of my heart came (before him) to him I spoke: ‘Eternal,

Holy, Lord of all things, for the king, whom thou lovest, whose name

thou callest according to thy good pleasure, guide his name well, lead

(or guard) him in a straight path. I, the prince, who obeyeth thee, am

the work of thy hands, thou didst create me, thou didst commit unto

me the royal dominion over the whole people, according to thy grace,

O Lord which thou sendest forth upon all. Teach me to love thy august

sovereignty, let the fear of thy divinity be in my heart, bestow

(upon me) that which is pleasing unto thee, thou who preparest my

life.’ Thereupon the Highest, the Glorious, the first among the gods,

the august Marduk, heard my supplication and accepted my prayers, he

caused his great majesty to rule favourably, he caused the fear of God

to abide in my heart, I fear his majesty.” And the conclusion runs:

“Babylon, the capital of the land, I established with the hills of the

forest. To Marduk, my lord, I prayed and lifted up my hand: ‘Marduk,

lord, the first of gods, thou mighty prince, thou hast created me, thou

hast committed to me royal dominion over the multitude of the people,

I love the majesty of thy courts as my precious life. Save thy city of

Babylon. I have made me no other capital out of all inhabited places.

As I love the fear of thy divinity and seek thy majesty, so incline

graciously to my supplication (literally, to the raising of my hands),

hear my prayers. I am the King, the Restorer, who delights thy heart,

the zealous ruler, the restorer of all thy cities. At thy command,

O merciful Marduk, may the house which I have built endure to all

eternity, may I satisfy myself in its abundance. May I come to old age

therein, may I satisfy myself with my glory, may I receive the weighty

tribute therein from the kings of all regions of the world and from all

mankind. From the horizon of the heavens unto the meridian and at (?)

the rising sun may I have no enemies nor possess any adversaries (lit.

them that put me in fear). May my posterity bear rule therein over the

black-headed people to all eternity.’”

Nebuchadrezzar, himself, attached the greatest importance to the

restoration of the temples of E-sagila and E-zida, as being the most

ancient sanctuaries of Babylon, and in his briefest inscriptions, the

stamp-marks on bricks, whether used for the building of these two

temples or any other edifice, always had added to his title of king,

that of restorer of the temples of E-sagila and E-zida. Of greater

interest to us, however, since we can still admire the ruins of it,

is a temple which is only briefly referred to in a few words in the

long inscription, but of which we have a detailed account in another,

shorter inscription, namely, the Temple of the Seven Spheres of Heaven

and Earth, which was built in seven stories near (or as a ziggurat of)

E-zida at Borsippa.

But although Nebuchadrezzar devoted most thought to his beloved Babylon

(and to Borsippa) he in nowise neglected other seats of worship of the

country. The temple of the Sun, at Sippar, the temple of a god as yet

unidentified, in the city of Baz (Paszitu), the temple of Idi-Anu (the

Eye of Anu), at Dilbat, the temple of Lugal-Amarda (Marad), E-Anna,

the temple of Ishtar, at Erech, the temple of the Sun, at Larsa, and

the temple of the Moon, at Erech, are enumerated one after another

as having been rebuilt by Nebuchadrezzar. With better right than his

father he calls himself on one of the Abu-Habba cylinders “the ruler of

Sumer and Accad, who laid the foundation of the land” (or as Winckler

translates it, “made fast the foundations of the land”), for in truth

his new creations extended over the whole territory that had been Sumer

and Accad as we are familiar with it in ancient Babylonian history,

from the reigns of Ur-Ba’u of Ur onward. Under him, after a long sleep

(lasting in places for a thousand years) among her ruins, the whole of

Babylonia kept the festival of her resurrection, and joyous sacrificial

hymns resounded through the length and breadth of the land during

Nebuchadrezzar’s long and prosperous reign, as in the days of her

distant prime.

To complete the picture of Nebuchadrezzar’s capital, we must in

conclusion cast a glance at the vast fortifications with which this

king girdled the city he had created, and so insured it against the

most formidable assault. Nebuchadrezzar did not rest satisfied with

completely restoring and enlarging these fortifications (a work

that his father had begun, since they had again been impaired); he

included a strip of arable land some four thousand cubits (about two

to three kilometres) in breadth, on the farther side of the rampart

Nimitti-Bel, within another “mountain high” wall, and made it a part

of the outworks, thus casting a gigantic threefold girdle of ramparts

(or walls) and moats about the city. Nor was that enough: “To quell

the countenance of the enemy that he should not harass the (threefold)

encompassment of Babylon, I surrounded the land with mighty streams,

comparable unto the waters of the sea; to cross them was as it were to

cross the ocean. To render an inundation from their midst (the midst of

these artificial courses) impossible, I heaped up masses of earth, I

set up brick dams round about them.”

And herewith we must take leave of this truly great ruler, and turn to

his successors, who, unhappily, did not resemble him, and of whom the

last, Nabonidus by name, could alone be compared to him in his zeal for

the restoration and adornment of the various temples of the country,

though in all other respects he fell far below the greatness of his

mighty ancestor. This inferiority is the reason that the New Babylonian

Kingdom hurried so swiftly to its unexpected end.

THE FOLLOWERS OF NEBUCHADREZZAR

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

We know from the Ptolemaic canon, Hommel goes on, that after

Nebuchadrezzar’s death (562) Illoarudamos (probably a clerical error

for Illoarudakos, _i.e._ Amil-Marduk), the biblical Evil-Merodach,

ascended the throne and died in the second year of his reign (560).

Berosus calls him a son of Nebuchadrezzar, and describes his short

reign as unjust and licentious, this being the reason why he was

murdered by Neriglissor (Nergal-shar-usur), his sister’s husband, and

thus son-in-law to Nebuchadrezzar. As a matter of fact, in direct

confirmation of the chronological statements of the Ptolemaic canon,

the only contract tablets that have been discovered of the reign of

this king, date from his accession, about July 22, 560 B.C. He is

mentioned in the Old Testament, in the last four verses of the 2nd

Book of Kings; “And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year

of the captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in the twelfth month,

on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-Merodach, king

of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, did lift up the head

of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, out of prison. And he spake kindly to

him and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with

him in Babylon; and changed his prison garments, and he did eat bread

continually before him all the days of his life. And his allowance was

a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every

day, all the days of his life.” It is evident that the Bible here

refers to Amil-Marduk, for on the twenty-seventh Adar 560 this king was

still upon the throne (see the above date, 4th Abu), whilst the first

well-authenticated date of Neriglissor is 25th Marsheshwan, _i.e._

about 10th November of that same year.

From the reign of Amil-Marduk we have no inscription, but we are

in better case as regards his successor, Nergal-shar-usur (the

Nergal-sharezer of the Bible; Berosus, Neriglissor, Ptolemaic

canon, Neriga-solasar). He reigned from 559-556, for there are two

inscriptions on cylinders and a brief inscription on brick which we may

assign to this reign. The subject appears to be some restoration in

the shrine of E-zida at Babylon. Where the inscription again becomes

legible, the king gives an account of the construction of a canal, the

waters of which had gone away and withdrawn, and of palace building.

The following questions are suggested by these inscriptions. Firstly,

who was his father, the Bel-shum-ishkum twice mentioned in them? Let

it suffice here to note the possibility that he may be identical with

a former king of Assyria, the son of Asshurbanapal, who certainly

did not reign more than a few months. The chronology presents no

obstacle to the acceptance of this hypothesis. Let us then assume

that Bel-shum-ishkum was born about 645; he would then be about

twenty years of age at the death of Asshurbanapal, and about forty

at the fall of Nineveh, after which he probably found a refuge at

the Babylonian court. By that time (606) his son Nergal-shar-usur

might very well be about eighteen years old; if we take this for

granted, then the latter was thirty-seven in the year 587, in which

two persons of the same name (Nergal-sharezer, Jeremiah xxxix. 3) are

mentioned among Nebuchadrezzar’s nobles (one among the “princes” in

general, the other amongst the officials of highest rank), sixty-four

at his accession in 560 B.C. and not quite seventy when he died,

which gives a great show of probability to his identity with one or

other of these two Nergal-sharezers. Another question to which it

would be very interesting to find an answer is that of the wars of

Nergal-shar-usur, for, short as his reign was, it is evident from the

two cylinder inscriptions that he did wage wars. Unfortunately we have

no more exact information on the subject; but if we consider that as

early as the year 555, that is, only a year after Nergal-shar-usur’s

death, disorders of such magnitude had broken out in Mesopotamia, due

to the “Manda warriors” under the leadership of their king Ishtuvegu

(Astyages), that is to say, to Median hordes, that the Babylonians

appealed to Kurush (Cyrus), king of Anshan, who did, in fact, succeed

in driving the Medes back, we may be sure that the earliest incursions

of the Manda into Babylonian territory (of which Mesopotamia had

formed a part since the fall of Nineveh) took place in the reign of

Neriglissor. This hypothesis is directly confirmed by the tenor of

Nabonidus’ account of the invasion. In that case Neriglissor’s warlike

enterprises were not crowned with brilliant success, or at all events

did not expel the Manda from Mesopotamia altogether.

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

On the death of Neriglissor in 556, he was succeeded, according to

Berosus, by his son Labassarachos or Labarosoarchodos (in inscriptions

Labashi-Marduk), but it appears that a Babylonian of high rank,

Nabu-naidu (“Nabu is glorious”), the son of Nabu-balatsu-iqbi (“Nabu

hath foretold his life”), was immediately proclaimed king by an

opposition party, and although Labashi-Marduk made head against

Nabu-naidu (or Nabonidus, as he is usually known) for nine months, the

latter dates the beginning of his reign from the death of Neriglissor.

According to Berosus, Labashi-Marduk was a child, and fell victim to a

conspiracy, having already betrayed tokens of a bad disposition.

According to the Ptolemaic canon, Nabonidus reigned seventeen years,

which agrees with the circumstance that the latest of the numerous

contract tablets belonging to his reign up to this time discovered

are dated the 5th of Ulul (the middle of August) in his seventeenth

year. He concerned himself chiefly with the restoration of old temples

elsewhere than in Babylon, as those at Ur, Larsa, Sippar, and even at

Kharran in Mesopotamia, that is, the oldest sanctuaries in the country;

while in Babylon, where he certainly resided, if only at intervals,

he seems to have done nothing except to proceed with the building of

the walls on the river bank.[29] Nabonidus was actuated not merely

by religious motives, but by an interest in history and archæology,

which grew to be an absolute mania with him. His inscriptions give

us minute information as to how he dug and hunted for the foundation

cylinders of these primitive temples, nor does he fail to deal many

a sly hit at his predecessors (Nebuchadrezzar, for example), who had

not always conscientiously done this, and had consequently many a time

built something that was not in the original plan. When, after long

search, Nabonidus found these cylinders, often buried deep down in the

ground, he reproduced the tenor of them exactly, frequently giving the

precise number of years between his own reign and that of the ancient

Babylonian king in question, and so providing us with the most valuable

data for determining the earliest periods of Babylonian history. In

this way we have learned the date of Naram-Sim, the ancient king of

Agade, of Shagarakti-Buriash [sometimes read Shagarakti-Shuriash],

and lastly, as it would appear, of Khammurabi (although in this case

the computation is incorrect), together with many other data of

historical importance. For this reason the reign of Nabonidus is to us

among the most important in Babylonian history, but his passion for

archæology--which seems to have made him forget the world entirely,

and, in particular, overlook the danger with which the victories of

Cyrus menaced Babylonia--was of less service to himself, and ultimately

cost him his throne and liberty.

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

We have already mentioned the fragment of the Babylonian chronicle

treating of the reign of Nabonidus and the conquest of Babylon and the

whole Babylonian empire by Cyrus. We will now regard the public events

of the reign of the last native king of Babylonia in the light of

this text. In the first year mention is made of a military expedition

with the object of subjugating a prince of whose name, unfortunately,

nothing (or at most the termination, _shu’ishshi_) has been preserved,

but whom we should, perhaps, be justified in regarding as the chieftain

of a Median tribe.

From the first section of the cylinder-inscription of Abu-Habba we

see that if, after the deliverance of Kharran, Nabonidus summoned his

troops from the frontier of Egypt and onward to the Gulf of Issus

and the Persian Gulf, to the work of building, or the collection of

building material; these were not military enterprises in the strict

sense of the term (and this is characteristic), but merely expeditions

for peaceful ends, which were all the easier for Nabonidus to achieve,

because, since the reign of Nebuchadrezzar the Babylonians had held

undisputed possession of the “Occident” right up to the Egyptian

frontier. The only exception to this rule seems to be the account of

the beginning of the first year (or the beginning of his reign) given

in the chronicle, where, among other things, it is said, “the king

summoned his warriors.” But this expedition was, in all likelihood,

only the less laborious gleaning left to Nabonidus after the conquest

of the Medes by Cyrus.

The next event narrated in the chronicle is the final defeat of the

Medes by Cyrus, which cannot, therefore, have taken place later than

the sixth year of the reign of Nabonidus, that is, 550 B.C., and may

have been earlier.

The account of the seventh year is difficult to understand, but this

much is plain, that in those years Nabonidus was not present at the

New Year’s celebration at E-sagila, nay, that the festival in question

did not take place at all. We do not know why this was so, but we may

conjecture that the reason was a hierarchical revolution, a kind of

vote of want of confidence in the king, who was pursuing his works

and researches in the temples of Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and other cities,

heedless of the danger that menaced the country from Cyrus.

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

Of greater importance, historically, is the account of the ninth

year (547 B.C.). After repeating the statement concerning the

non-celebration of the feast of Bel, it proceeds: On the 5th of Nisan

the king’s mother died in the fortified camp on the far side (Sha am?

= sha ammat) of the Euphrates above Sippar; for three days mourning

prevailed and lamentation, in the month of Sivan there was mourning

(official) for the queen-mother throughout the (whole) land of Accad.

In the Nisan (of this year) Kurush (Cyrus), king of the land of Parsu,

had summoned his warriors and crossed the Tigris below Arbela, in order

to invade Asia Minor in the following month, Airu, “from the king he

took away his silver and goods, his own children he caused to mount the

[funeral pyre], after his children and the king (he himself, Cyrus?)

were therein.”

We know from Herodotus that an expedition of Cyrus against King

Crœsus of Lydia took place at this very time, and ended with the

siege and reduction of Sardis and the fall of the kingdom of Lydia,

after an indecisive battle had been fought in Cappadocia, near Pteria

(Boghaz-köi), a place since made famous by the discovery of a Hittite

bas-relief. Nabonidus had joined the alliance between Lydia, Sparta and

Aahmes of Egypt, on which Crœsus relied when he began the war against

Cyrus; probably he thought he could make an easy conquest of Media and

Elam after the defeat he expected Cyrus to suffer in Asia Minor. The

Babylonians do not seem to have taken any active part in the struggle

after Cyrus’ speedy victory over the Lydians, but nevertheless with

that victory the fate of Babylonia was practically sealed. For it was

obvious that Cyrus, who had not only ruled over the whole of Media,

since the taking of Ecbatana, but was also undisputed master of Armenia

right up to the western coast of Asia Minor, and thus had really become

emperor (or great king) would take the first opportunity of seizing

upon Babylonia and its wealthy Syrian provinces. Moreover, from this

time forth he had the best of reasons for regarding Nabonidus as a

disloyal neighbour who deserved condign punishment.

In the tenth and eleventh years the chronicle first notes the omission

of the Feast of Bel in exactly the same terms as in the case of

the seventh and ninth years, and when the narration begins we find

ourselves in the seventeenth and last year of the reign of Nabonidus

(539 B.C.). After a series of sentences which are very much defaced

the narrative proceeds: “In the month of Tammuz (June-July, 539),

Kurush [Cyrus] fought a battle at Kish (?) above the canal of Illat

(?) against the warriors of the land of Accad; the people of the land

of Accad rose up against the ranks of soldiers, on the 14th day (of

Tammuz) the city of Sippar was taken without a battle, Nabonidus fled.

On the 17th day (_i.e._ about July 5, 539), Ugbaru (Gobryas), governor

of Guti (_i.e._ the district to the east of Arbela), and the warriors

of Kurush marched into E-ki (Babylon); when Nabonidus thereupon

entrenched himself in E-ki (Babylon) he was taken captive. Even unto

the end of the month the _tukkimi_ (troops?) of the land of Guti

encompassed the gates of E-sagila, yet were not weapons of any sort

laid upon E-sagila and the (other) temples, nor was the embellishment

(_i.e._ the images and vessels of the temple) taken away. On the 3rd

of Marsheshwan (Arakhsamnu, _i.e._ about October 19), Kurush marched

into E-ki, the streets were filled in view of his entry, he established

peace in the city; Kurush proclaimed peace to the whole of Tintir

(Babylon), he set Ugbaru (Gobryas), his vicegerent, as vicegerent over

Babylon, and from the month Kislev even until Adar (November-December,

539--February-March, 538), he caused the gods of the land of Accad,

which Nabonidus had caused to be brought into Babylon, to be carried

back into their own places. In the same (?) month, on the 11th day,

Ugbaru went over and the king dies; from the 27th of the month Adar,

even to the 3rd of Nisan (the end of March, 538), there is mourning in

Accad, all the people loose (lit. cleave) their hair (?); on the 4th,

Kambujiya (Cambyses), the son of Kurush, goes to the temple of the city

(?) of Khadkalamasummu.…” What follows is defaced beyond translation,

and, to judge from the scraps of lines still decipherable, contains

nothing of historic interest; for example, it goes on to speak of the

temple of E-Anna at Erech.

[Sidenote: [538 B.C.]]

Thus we see that Babylon itself received King Cyrus with open arms, and

that, even as the Kossæans had usurped and long maintained the mastery

of Accad, so now the Persians superseded the native dynasty. The event

was therefore no new thing, and, as a matter of fact, Babylonian

history proceeds upon the old lines under Cyrus and his successors,

so that it is hard to see why most narratives should break off at

this point. The national literature and mode of writing continued

to flourish, but the history of Babylonia and Assyria, of which the

short-lived prosperity of the New Babylonian Kingdom was the last

chapter, concluded with the entry of Cyrus into Babylon; the subsequent

history of Babylonia is of local interest only, and has no further

significance for the world.

Lastly, as regards the important original Babylonian inscription of

the reign of Cyrus, which has been referred to before, it most fully

confirms the correctness of the impression made by the narrative of

the chronicle on every unprejudiced reader. The Babylonians, with the

hierarchy of the city of Babylon at their head, were utterly weary of

the feeble rule of Nabonidus, who does not seem even to have been of

the blood-royal, and hailed Cyrus as deliverer. At the bidding of Cyrus

the learned Babylonian scribes were charged to draw up an inscription,

and from its contents and wording (which can hardly have been dictated

by the king of Persia) we can clearly realise the view of the

situation taken by the priestly circles of the country (which governed

the populace). From the very beginning, defaced as it is, we perceive

that Nabonidus is made the scapegoat for everything. He is represented

with having sent forth “to Ur and the other cities oracles that did

not beseem them” (_i.e._ the gods), with “thinking daily upon evil”

(?), with having “caused the daily sacrifice to cease” and grossly

neglected the worship of the god Marduk; further, with having “let the

fortifications of Babylon fall into ruin, so that the lord of the gods

was greatly incensed in lamentation thereat,” as well as “with wrath

that he had brought in (into E-sagila) the gods (of other Babylonian

cities), who were thus constrained to forsake their (former) temples.

Then it came to pass that Marduk “looked upon his friend,” and “laid

hold of his hand, Kurush, king of Anshan, was his name called”; “he

subdued the land of the Kuti and the whole host of the Manda hordes

beneath his feet; he caused the black-headed people to fall into his

hands; in righteousness and justice came he unto them.” The god Marduk

“bade him to go to Babylon and take the road to Tintir, like a friend

and comrade went he at his side, the multitude of his troops, whereof

the number, like unto the waters of a river, was not known, girt on

the weapons and marched at his side; he (Marduk) caused him to enter

Shu-anna (Babylon) without strife or battle; Babylon, his city, he

spared with difficulty; Nabonidus the king, who did not fear him, he

gave over into his (Kurush’s) hands; all the people of Tintir, the

whole multitude of Sumer and Accad, the princes and the ruler who

submitted to his dynasty, kissed his feet and rejoiced in his royal

dominion; their faces shone. The Lord, who (draweth nigh) with succour,

who raiseth the dead to life, who in might bestoweth benefits upon the

whole earth, graciously blesseth him (Cyrus) and hath respect unto his

name. I, Kurush, King of the world, the mighty King, King of Babylon,

King of Sumer and Accad, King of the four quarters of the Earth, son

of Kambujiya, the great King, the King of the city of Anshan, grandson

of Kurush, the great King, the King of the city of Anshan, descendant

(_libbalbal_) of Sispis, the great King, the King of Anshan, the

eternal shoot of royalty, whose government Bel and Nabu love, to do

good unto his heart and for the superabundance of his joy.” Cyrus then

proceeds to lay stress upon his peaceful entry into Babylon and the

gladness and rejoicing amidst which he took up his abode there, on

how his troops occupied the city in peace and he himself visited the

other cities in peace, how he repaired their ruins and loosed their

chains (?), how Marduk was gracious towards him and his son Kambujiya

(Cambyses), and how, “at Marduk’s august bidding all the kings who

dwelt in royal chambers, from all quarters under heaven, from the upper

sea even to the lower sea, and likewise the kings of the Occident who

inhabit [the desert] and they that dwell in tents,” all brought weighty

tribute and kissed his feet at Babylon.

“From … even unto the cities of Asshur and Ishtar-Damiktu (?), the city

of Agade, the land of Ishnunnak, the cities of Zambaru, Mi-Turnu and

Dur-ilu, even unto the region of the land of Kuti, the cities on the

(bank of) Tigris, where their dwelling-place was from of old, I carried

the gods that dwelt there back to their places,” “the gods of Sumer,

and Accad, whom Nabonidus, to the great indignation of the lord of

gods, had caused to be brought into Babylon, I set once more into their

shrines in peace at the command of Marduk.”

Such is practically the tenor (and wording) of the Cyrus inscription,

which, considered in connection with the chronicle which has come down

to us from the reign of Nabonidus, sets this important matter of the

transference of the new Babylonian Empire to Cyrus the Achæmeniad in an

entirely new light. The termination of the political independence of

Babylon came about in quite other guise than the end of Nineveh; there

was no bloodshed, no siege, no judgment with fire and devastation. A

further act of peace was the permission given by Cyrus to the Jews who

dwelt in and about Babylon to return to the Holy Land. This is referred

to in the prophecy of the great unknown prophet of the latter half of

the Babylonian exile, the so-called Second Isaiah (Isaiah xliv. to

the end). “The Lord that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and shall

perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built,

and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord

to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue

nations (the Medes and Lydians) before him; and I will loose the loins

of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall

not be shut.”

The last words involuntarily recall to our minds the gates of Babylon,

which opened of themselves to the clement conqueror. And this prophecy,

no less than the conduct of the Babylonian priests, shows that Cyrus

was preceded by a reputation for clemency; for what would their ready

submission have availed the latter, had Cyrus been a savage conqueror

like other semi-barbaric tribal chiefs? Pillage and many horrors

would then have been the lot of Babylon when she opened her gates to

the foreign king. It seems probable, however, that the Babylonians

nourished the certain hope that Cyrus would spare them.

Thus the history of Babylonia closes peaceably upon the noble figure

of Cyrus, the Achæmeniad prince, who commands our warmest sympathies.

Planted in Babylonian soil at the beginning of time, the primitive

civilisation of the Sumerians was brought to the flower by the

Babylonian Semites, then further developed and transplanted to Asshur

and Nineveh. There the conditions grew ripe under which Assyria became

the ruling power of the world. After the fall of her empire, the

ancient mother-country became for a brief season the centre of the

civilisation which had taken its rise there two thousand years before,

and this civilisation now passed on as a legacy to the Persians,

not to die among them, but to revivify and educate, even as, on the

other hand, it drew fresh strength from the youthful vigour of the

Indo-Germanic race, untutored as yet, but abundantly endowed with all

intellectual gifts.[b]

FOOTNOTES

[29] [The authorities seem to be in dispute as to Nabonidus’ place of

residence. Professor Rogers says (_History of Babylon and Assyria_,

Vol. II, p. 361), “He [Nabonidus] did not reside at Babylon at all, but

at Tema, probably an insignificant place, with no other influence in

history.”]

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF OF EUNUCH WARRIORS IN BATTLE

(Found at Nimrud) (Layard)]

CHAPTER VII. MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF BABYLONIA-ASSYRIA

WAR METHODS

The horseman lifteth up both the bright sword and the glittering

spear: and there is a multitude of slain, and a great number of

carcases; and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon

their corpses.--_Nahum_ iii. 3.

In following the political fortunes of Babylonia and Assyria we have

necessarily caught glimpses from time to time of the conditions of

civilisation which form everywhere the background of the picture.

But it is desirable to view some phases of this civilisation more in

detail, and an attempt will be made in the present book to summarise

these conditions as a whole, and to elaborate certain details in

reference to the more interesting or more important themes. Such an

attempt within the spacial limits necessarily imposed cannot hope to be

altogether satisfactory. In particular it must be borne in mind that we

are dealing, or attempting to deal, with a period of time not less than

three thousand years in extent, even if we consider only the minimum

epoch covered by a tolerably sure chronology.

It is obvious that in such a sweep of time numerous changes must

take place in the manners and customs of the people, and multiform

alterations must be developed in the various phases of civilisation.

This would necessarily be true even if the history of a single people

were involved. But, in point of fact, as we have seen, we have here

to do with four tolerably distinct peoples--the Sumerians, the

Babylonians, the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans. To attempt a brief

exposition of the varied civilisations of these four peoples during

a period of several millenniums within brief bounds, would clearly

be a presumptuous task were full details accessible as to all the

periods involved. But we have already seen that such details are not

accessible. Meagre details have come down to us from the Sumerians,

and only less meagre ones Babylonians; and the reminiscences of the

Chaldeans, notwithstanding their later period in history, are but

slightly less vague. It is the Assyrians that must be looked to chiefly

for data that can afford us, at best, an inferential knowledge of

their predecessors; and we must all along remember that we are to a

certain extent seeing with Assyrian eyes in attempting to view the

Babylonian civilisation. Still, it should be recalled that important

changes in the manners and customs of any people are usually of slow

development everywhere, and that they were perhaps particularly so

here, because we have to do with the most conservative of races. The

Babylonians and Assyrians were own cousins to the Hebrews, and no

doubt partook in full measure of what Goethe styles the “obstinate

persistency” of that race. The main outline of their civilisation,

therefore, probably remained unchanged generation after generation.

On the other hand, it must be understood that the Sumerians, whatever

their precise racial affinities, were a very different people from

the Semitic races that superseded them. There is reason to believe

that they were essentially a creative race, whereas the Semites, and

in particular the Assyrians, were pre-eminently copyists and adapters

rather than originators. It would appear that all the chief features

of the later Assyrian civilisation were adumbrated, if not indeed

fully elaborated, in that early day when the Sumerians were dominant

in southern Babylonia. Even the cuneiform system of writing, with all

its extraordinary complexities, is believed by philologists to give

unequivocal evidence of Sumerian origin. But however correct this view

may be, we are constrained to view the Sumerians solely in the light of

their successors. The monumental remains exhumed from amid the ruins

of the palace of Asshurbanapal supply us with the chief documents for

the interpretation of a civilisation that had passed away something

like three thousand years before this palace itself or its documentary

treasures came into being.

This is somewhat as if one were to study the manners and customs of the

Italians of to-day in order to gain a knowledge of the civilisation of

Rome in the time of the Tarquinians. The parallel is really not quite

so complete as it might at first sight appear, for in many respects

practical civilisation changed more in the nineteenth century than

in all the previous centuries of recorded history. Beyond cavil, the

civilisation of the time of Sargon I had far greater resemblance to

the time of Asshurbanapal than the Rome of the early kings bears

to the Rome of King Victor Emmanuel. Nevertheless, we should bear

this corrective view in mind in the alleged attempt to deal with

Mesopotamian civilisation as a whole.

OUR SOURCES

The sources of our knowledge of Mesopotamian history have been pretty

fully discussed in previous chapters. Beyond the classical traditions,

our sole reliance must be placed upon the monuments. And of these the

sculptures are by far the most important in their bearings upon the

civilisation of the people.

Very little is said, except inferentially, by the written inscriptions,

that throws any definite light upon the manners and customs of the

people. But fortunately the Assyrians in particular were much given

to pictorial presentation of the scenes of at least certain features

of their everyday life; their bas-reliefs, therefore, furnish us with

the clearest index as to their life customs. The interpretation of

these bas-reliefs in this light was first taken up in detail by Sir

Henry Layard, and his expositions remain to this day the most complete

and satisfactory. We shall have occasion to turn frequently to his

pages in the present book, supplementing his accounts with certain

elaborations, in particular with reference to the religious and legal

documents, based on the more recent readings of the inscriptions.

However much the customs of the Babylonians and Assyrians may have

changed in the course of ages, there was one important regard in which

there was probably no conspicuous alteration from first to last.

This was the character of the government. Like other orientals, the

Mesopotamians had no conception of any government except a thoroughly

despotic one. They were ruled by kings whose authority was absolute,

and whose will was accepted as the sole law. A change of government

meant merely the overthrow of one king by some one who, attaining

supreme authority, was himself to be recognised as king.

But the assumption and retention of exclusive power in a body politic

by one individual presupposes a triumph of physical force. Kingship

in its oriental manifestation has its foundation in military power.

We find, therefore, that the Babylonian or Assyrian monarch is able

to make himself felt and remembered just in proportion as he is a

competent military leader. To be a great king he must be a great

conqueror. A record of conquests is substantially the whole story of

the royal annals. It is a very sanguinary and inhuman story as we have

seen.

The texts of the inscriptions deal with results rather than with

methods. We are told the names of peoples against whom warfare was

waged; lists of captives and booty are not forgotten, the idea being of

course to perpetuate the glory of the conqueror. To that end the name

of the conqueror himself is always given, the narrative being usually

told in the first person; but one never hears so much as the name of a

subordinate. It is the king alone to whom credit is to be given.

What the inscriptions lack in the way of reference to details of the

art of warfare is supplied by the Assyrian bas-reliefs. These represent

armies in action and enable us to form a very clear picture of the war

costumes, the weapons, and to a certain extent of the battle methods

of the Assyrians. In particular the details are given of the methods

of assault by which the Assyrians were accustomed to break down the

walls of a rebellious city. Battering-rams and scaling-towers are

depicted in the most realistic manner, and are a favourite subject of

the artist--partly, no doubt, because they lend themselves to pictorial

presentation; partly, perhaps, because the Assyrians excelled in this

particular phase of warfare. But other phases of warfare are by no

means overlooked. Even such details as the beheading or flaying alive

of captives are presented with gruesome realism.

For the reason already stated, our text will have to do chiefly with

the art of war as practised by the Assyrians, rather than by their

predecessors. Whether any of the implements or methods employed in this

relatively late period originated with the Assyrians themselves, we

have no present means of deciding. The presumption is, however, that

the Assyrian king pursued the art of war in much the same way it had

been practised by the old Babylonian kings from time immemorial.[a]

As the Assyrians possessed disciplined and organised troops, it is

probable that they were also acquainted, to a certain extent, with

military tactics, and that their battles were fought upon some kind of

system. We know that such was the case with the Egyptians; and their

monuments show that amongst their enemies, also, there were nations

not unacquainted with the military science. They had bodies of troops

in reserve; they advanced and retreated in rank, and performed various

manœuvres. Although, in the Assyrian sculptures, we have no attempt

at an actual representation of the general plan of a battle, as in

some Egyptian bas-reliefs, yet from the order in which the soldiers

are drawn up before the castle walls, and from the phalanx which they

then appear to form, it seems highly probable that similar means were

adopted, to resist the assaults of the enemy in the open field.

The king himself, attended by his vizier, his eunuchs, and principal

officers of state, was present in battle, and not only commanded, but

took an active part in the affray. Even [the traditional] Sardanapalus,

when called upon to place himself at the head of his armies to meet the

invading [traditional] Medes, showed, a courage equal to the occasion,

and repulsed his enemies. Like the Persian monarchs who succeeded, him

in the dominion of Asia, the Assyrian king was accompanied to the war,

however distant his seat might be, by his wives, his concubines, and

his children, and by an enormous retinue of servants. Even his nobles

were similarly attended. Their couches were of gold and silver, and the

hangings of the richest materials. Vessels of the same precious metals

were used at their tables; their tents were made of the most costly

stuffs, and were even adorned with precious stones. The canopy or tent

of Holofernes was of purple, gold, and emeralds and precious stones;

and every man had gold and silver (vessels) out of the king’s house.

(Judith ii. 18.) This book contains an interesting account of the

luxurious manner of living of the great Assyrian warriors, confirming

what has been said in the text, and showing that the Persians were, in

this respect, as almost in every other, imitators of the Assyrians.

Herodotus (Lib. IX., c. 82 and 83) describes the equipage, furnished

with gold and silver, and with various coloured hangings, and the gold

and silver couches and tables, found in the tents of Mardonius after

the defeat of the Persian army. They had been left by Xerxes when he

fled from Greece. They were also accompanied by musicians, who are

represented in the sculptures as walking before the warriors, on their

triumphant return from battle.

The army was followed by a crowd of sutlers, servants, and grooms; who,

whilst adding to its bulk, acted as an impediment upon its movements,

and carried ruin and desolation into the countries through which it

passed. As this multitude could not depend entirely for supplies upon

the inhabitants, whom they unmercifully pillaged, provisions in great

abundance, as well as live-stock, were carried with them. Holofernes,

in marching from Nineveh with his army, took with him “camels and asses

for their carriage, a very great number, and sheep, and oxen, and goats

without number, for their provision; and plenty of victuals for every

man.”

Quintus Curtius thus describes the march of a Persian army: The signal

was given from the tent of the king, on the top of which, so as to be

seen by all, was placed an image of the sun, in crystal. The holy fire

was borne on altars of silver, surrounded by the priests, chanting

their sacred hymns. They were followed by three hundred and sixty-five

youths, according to the number of the days in the year, dressed in

purple garments. The chariot, dedicated to the supreme deity, or to

the sun, was drawn by snow-white horses, led by grooms wearing white

garments, and carrying golden wands. The horse especially consecrated

to the sun was chosen from its size. It was followed by ten chariots,

embossed with gold and silver, and by the cavalry of twelve nations,

dressed in their various costumes, and carrying their peculiar arms.

Then came the Persian immortals, ten thousand in number, adorned

with golden chains, and wearing robes embroidered with gold, and

long-sleeved tunics, all glittering with precious stones. At a short

interval fifteen thousand nobles, who bore the honourable title of

relations of the king, walked in garments which, in magnificence and

luxury, more resembled those of women than of men. The doryphori (a

chosen company of spearmen) preceded the chariot in which the king

himself sat, high above the surrounding multitude. On either side

of this chariot were effigies of the gods in gold and silver. The

yoke was inlaid with the rarest jewels. From it projected two golden

figures of Ninus and Belus, each a cubit in length. A golden eagle with

outspread wings was placed between them. The king was distinguished,

from all those who surrounded him, by the magnificence of his robes,

and by the cidaris, or mitre, upon his head. By his side walked two

hundred of the most noble of his relations. Ten thousand warriors,

bearing spears whose staffs were of silver and heads of gold, followed

the royal chariot. The king’s led horses, forty in number, and thirty

thousand footmen, concluded the procession. At the distance of one

stadium followed the mother and wife of the king, in chariots. A crowd

of women, the handmaidens and ladies of the queens, accompanied them

on horseback. Fifteen cars, called armamaxæ, carried the children of

the king, their tutors and nurses, and the eunuchs. The king’s three

hundred and sixty concubines, who accompanied him, were adorned with

royal splendour. Six hundred mules and three hundred camels bore the

royal treasury, guarded by the archers. The friends and relations of

the ladies were mingled with a crowd of cooks and servants of all

kinds. The procession was closed by the light-armed troops.

[Illustration: THE ENEMY ASKING QUARTER OF ASSYRIAN HORSEMEN]

The armies were provided with the engines and materials necessary for

the siege of the cities they might meet with in their expedition. If

any natural obstructions impeded the approach to a castle, such as a

forest or a river, they were, if possible, removed. Rivers were turned

out of their courses, if they impeded the operations of the army; and

warriors are frequently represented in the sculptures cutting down

trees which surround a hostile city.

The first step in a siege was probably to advance the battering-ram.

If the castle was built, as in the plains of Assyria and Babylonia,

upon an artificial eminence, an inclined plane, reaching to the summit

of the mound, was formed of earth, stones, or trees, and the besiegers

were then able to bring their engines to the foot of the walls. This

road was not unfrequently covered with bricks, forming a kind of paved

way, up which the ponderous machines could be drawn without much

difficulty.

This mode of reaching the walls of a city is frequently alluded to

by the prophets, and is described by Isaiah: “Thus saith the Lord,

concerning the king of Assyria, he shall not come into this city, nor

shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, _nor cast a

bank against it_.” Similar approaches were used by the Egyptians. They

not only enabled the besiegers to push their battering-rams up to the

castle, but at the same time to escalade the walls, the summit of which

might otherwise have been beyond the reach of their ladders.

The battering-rams were of several kinds. Some were joined to movable

towers which held warriors and armed men. The whole then formed one

great temporary building, the top of which is represented in the

sculptures, as on a level with the walls, and even turrets, of the

besieged city. In some bas-reliefs the battering-ram is without wheels;

it was then perhaps constructed on the spot, and was not intended to

be moved. The movable tower was probably sometimes unprovided with the

ram; but I have not met with it so represented in the sculptures. When

Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem, he “built forts

against it round about.” These forts or towers, if stationary, were

solidly constructed of wood; if movable, they consisted of a light

frame covered with wickerwork. The Jews were forbidden to cut down and

employ, for this purpose, trees which afford sustenance to man. “Only

the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou

shalt destroy and cut them down: and _thou shalt build bulwarks against

the city_ that maketh war with thee until it be subdued.”

When the machine containing the battering-ram consisted of a simple

framework, not forming an artificial tower, a cloth of some kind

of drapery edged with fringes and otherwise ornamented appears to

have been occasionally thrown over it. Sometimes it may have been

covered with hides. It moved either on four or on six wheels, and

was provided with one ram or with two. The mode of working the rams

cannot be determined from the Assyrian sculptures. It may be presumed,

from the representations in the bas-reliefs, that they were partly

suspended by a rope fastened to the outside of the machine, and that

men directed and impelled them from within. Such was the plan adopted

by the Egyptians, in whose paintings the warriors, working the ram,

may be seen through the frame. Sometimes this engine was ornamented by

a carved or painted figure of the presiding divinity, kneeling on one

knee and drawing a bow. The artificial tower was usually occupied by

two warriors: one discharged his arrows against the besieged, whom he

was able from his lofty position to harass more effectually than if he

had been below; the other held up a shield for his companion’s defence.

Warriors are not unfrequently represented as stepping from the machine

to the battlements.

Ezekiel alludes to all these modes of attack. “Lay siege against it,”

he exclaims, speaking of the city of Jerusalem, “and build a fort

against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it,

and set battering-rams against it round about.”

Archers on the walls hurled stones from slings, and discharged their

arrows against the warriors in the artificial towers; whilst the rest

of the besieged were no less active in endeavouring to frustrate the

attempts of the assailants to make breaches in their walls. By dropping

a doubled chain or rope from the battlements, they caught the ram, and

could either destroy its efficacy altogether or break the force of its

blows. Those below, however, by placing hooks over the engine, and

throwing their whole weight upon them, struggled to retain it in its

place.

The besieged, if unable to displace the battering-ram, sought to

destroy it by fire and threw lighted torches or firebrands upon it.

But water was poured upon the flames, through pipes attached to the

artificial tower. Other engines and instruments of war were employed

by the besiegers. With a kind of catapult, apparently consisting

of a light wooden frame covered with canvas or hides, they threw

large stones and darts against the besieged, who, in their turn,

endeavoured to set fire to it by torches. A long staff with an iron

head, resembling a spear, was used to force stones out of the walls.

Mines were also opened, and the assailants sought to enter the castle

through concealed passages. Those who worked on them, or advanced to

the attack, were perhaps protected by the _testudo_, as represented in

the Egyptian paintings; but this defence is not seen in the Assyrian

sculptures. Attempts were made to set fire to the gates of the city by

placing torches against them, or to break them open with axes.

[Illustration: AN ASSYRIAN ARCHER]

Mounting to the assault by ladders was constantly practised, and

appears to have been the most general mode of attacking a castle;

for ladders are found on those bas-reliefs in which neither the

battering-ram nor other engines are introduced. It is remarkable

that the battering-ram is not introduced in the sculptures hitherto

discovered at Kuyunjik, nor, as far as I am aware, in those of

Khorsabad. It would appear, therefore, that at the period of the

building of those edifices it had fallen into disuse. Scaling-ladders

appear in Egyptian sculptures as early as the XIXth Dynasty. Ramses III

is seen taking a city, by their means, at Medinet Habu. They reached to

the top of the battlements, and several persons could ascend them at

the same time. Whilst warriors, armed with the sword and spear, scaled

the walls, archers posted at the foot of the ladders kept the enemy in

check and drove them from the walls.

The troops of the besieging army were ranged in ranks below. The king

was frequently present during the attack. Descending from his chariot,

which remained stationary at a short distance behind him, he discharged

his arrows against the enemy. He was attended by his shield bearer and

eunuchs, one of whom generally held over him the emblem of royalty, the

umbrella, whilst the others bore his arms. He is sometimes represented

in his chariots, superintending the operations, or repulsing a sally.

Warriors of high rank likewise came in chariots, accompanied by their

shield bearers and charioteers. The vizier and the chief of the eunuchs

are frequently seen in the midst of the combatants.

The besieging warriors were protected, as I have already mentioned,

by large shields of wickerwork, sometimes covered with hides, which

concealed the entire person. Three men frequently formed a group; one

held the shield, a second drew the bow, and a third stood ready with a

sword to defend the archer and shield bearer, in case the enemy should

sally from the castle. The besieged manned the battlements with archers

and slingers, who discharged their missiles against the assailants.

Large stones and hot water were also thrown upon those below. A woman

from the battlement of Thebez cast a millstone upon Abimelech’s head,

and broke his skull (Judges ix. 53).

When the battering-ram had made a breach, and the assault had

commenced, the women appeared upon the walls; and, tearing their

hair or stretching out their hands, implored mercy. The men are not

unfrequently represented as joining in asking for quarter. When the

assailants were once masters of the place, an indiscriminate slaughter

appears to have succeeded, and the city was generally given over to

the flames. In the bas-reliefs warriors are seen decapitating the

conquered and plunging swords or daggers into their hearts, holding

them by the hair of their heads. The prisoners were either impaled and

subjected to horrible torments or carried away as slaves. The manner of

impaling, adopted by the Assyrians, appears to have differed from that

still in use in the East. A stake was driven into the body immediately

under the ribs. When Darius took Babylon he impaled three thousand

prisoners (Herod, iii. 159). In a bas-relief discovered at Khorsabad, a

man was represented flaying a prisoner with a semicircular knife. The

Scythians scalped and flayed their enemies, and used their skins as

horse-trappings (Herod, iv. 64).

The women, children, and cattle were led away by the conquerors; and

that it was frequently the custom of the Assyrians to remove the

whole population of the conquered country to some distant part of

their dominions, and to replace it by colonies of their own, we learn

from the treatment of the people of Samaria. Eunuchs and scribes were

appointed to take an inventory of the spoil. They appear to have stood

near the gates, and wrote down with a pen, probably upon rolls of

leather, the number of prisoners, sheep, and oxen, and the amount of

the booty, which issued from the city. The women were sometimes taken

away in bullock carts, and are usually seen in the bas-reliefs bearing

a part of their property with them--either a vase or a sack perhaps

filled with household stuff. They were sometimes accompanied by their

children, and are generally represented as tearing their hair, throwing

dust upon their heads, and bewailing their lot.

After the city had been taken, a throne for the king appears to

have been placed in some conspicuous spot within the walls. He is

represented in the sculptures as sitting upon it, attended by his

eunuchs and principal officers, and receiving the prisoners brought

bound into his presence. The chiefs prostrate themselves before him,

whilst he places his foot upon their necks, as Joshua commanded the

captains of Israel to put their feet upon the necks of the captive

kings. This custom long prevailed in the East. In the rock sculpture

of Behistun, Darius is seen with his foot upon the neck of Gometes,

the rebellious Magian, who declared himself to be Bardius, the son of

Cyrus. When inferior prisoners were captured, their hands were tied

behind, or their arms and feet were bound by iron manacles.

They were urged onward by blows from the spears or swords of the

warriors to whom they were entrusted. In a bas-relief from Khorsabad,

captives are led before the king by a rope fastened to rings passed

through the lip and nose. This sculpture illustrates the passage in 2

Kings xix. 28: “I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy

lips.” The king is represented in the bas-relief as holding a rope

fastened to a ring, which passes through the lips of a prisoner, one of

whose eyes he appears to be piercing with his spear.

In the sculptures of Khorsabad and Kuyunjik, captives are seen bringing

small models of their cities to the victorious king, as a token of

their subjection. Similar models are borne in triumphal processions.

The heads of the slain were generally collected, and brought either to

the king or to an officer appointed to take account of their number.

When Ahab’s seventy sons were killed, their heads were cut off, and

brought in baskets to Jezreel. They were afterwards, laid “in two heaps

at the entering in of the gate” (2 Kings x. 8). The Egyptians generally

counted by hands. This mode of reckoning the loss of the enemy was long

resorted to in the East.

As soon as the soldiers entered the captured city, they began to

plunder, and then hurried away with the spoil. They led off the horses,

carried forth on their shoulders furniture and vessels of gold,

silver, and other metals, and made prisoners of the inhabitants, who,

probably, became the property of those who seized them. The Assyrian

warriors are seen in the sculptures bearing away in triumph the idols

of the conquered nations, or breaking them into pieces, weighing them

in scales, and dividing the fragments. Thus Hosea prophesied that the

calf, the idol of Samaria, should be carried away by the Assyrians.

When the city had been sacked it was usually given up to the flames

and utterly destroyed. The surrounding country was also laid waste. If

it had been a capital--a place of strength and renown--it was seldom

rebuilt on the same spot, which was avoided as unfortunate by those who

survived the catastrophe and returned to the ruins.

ASSYRIAN WAR COSTUMES AND WAR METHODS

The costume of the warriors differed according to their rank and

the nature of the service they had to perform. Those who fought

in chariots, and held the shield for the defence of the king, are

generally seen in coats of scale armour, which descend either to the

knees or to the ankles. A large number of the scales were discovered in

the earliest palace of Nimrud. They were generally of iron, slightly

embossed or raised in the centre, and some were inlaid with copper.

They were probably fastened to a shirt of felt or coarse linen. Such

is the armour always represented in the most ancient sculptures. At

a later period other kinds were used; the scales were larger, and

appear to have been fastened to bands of iron or copper. The armour was

frequently embossed with groups of figures and fanciful ornaments; but

there is no reason to believe that the rich designs on the breasts of

the kings were on metal.

The warriors were frequently dressed in an embroidered tunic, which

was probably made of felt or leather, sufficiently thick to resist the

weapons then in use. On the sculptures of Kuyunjik they are generally

seen in this attire. Their arms were bare from above the elbow, and

their legs from the knees downward, except when they wore shirts of

mail which descended to the ankles. They had sandals on their feet.

The warriors on the later Assyrian monuments, particularly on those

of Khorsabad, are distinguished by a peculiar ornament, somewhat

resembling the Highland phillibeg. It appears to be fastened to the

girdle, and falls below the short tunic.

In the sculptures of Kuyunjik and of monuments of the same period, the

dress of the soldiers appears to vary, according to the manner in which

they are armed. Those with spear and shield wear pointed or crested

helmets, and plain or embroidered tunics, confined at the waist by a

broad girdle. A kind of cross belt passes over the shoulders, and is

ornamented in the centre of the breast by a circular disk, probably

of metal. The slingers are attired in the embroidered tunic, which I

conjecture to be of felt or leather; and wear a pointed helmet, with

metal lappets falling over the ears. Both the spearmen and slingers

have greaves, which appear to have been laced in front.

The archers are dressed in very short embroidered tunics, which

scarcely cover half the thigh, the rest of the leg being left

completely bare. They are chiefly distinguished from other warriors by

the absence of the helmet. A simple band round the temples confines the

hair, which is drawn up in a bunch behind.

[Illustration: COSTUME OF AN ASSYRIAN SPEARMAN]

It is probable that these various costumes indicate people of different

countries, auxiliaries in the Assyrian armies, who used the weapons

most familiar to them, and formed different corps or divisions. Thus,

in the army of Xerxes were marshalled men of many nations, each armed

according to the fashion of his country, and fighting in his own

peculiar way. We may, perhaps, identify, in the Assyrian sculptures,

several of the costumes described by the Greek historian as worn by

those who formed the vast army of the Persian king.

The arms of the early Assyrians were the spear, the bow, the sword, and

the dagger. The sling is not represented in the most ancient monuments

as an Assyrian weapon, although used by a conquered nation; it was,

perhaps, introduced at a later period. The bows were of two kinds: one

long and slightly curved, the other short and almost angular; the two

appear to have been carried at the same time by those who fought in

chariots.

The arrows were probably made of reeds, and were kept in a quiver slung

over the back. The king, however, and the great officers of the state

were followed by attendants, who carried the quivers and supplied their

masters with arrows. The bow was drawn to the cheek or to the ear, as

by the Saxons, and not to the breast, after the fashion of the Greeks.

The barbs were of iron and copper, several of both materials having

been found in the ruins. When in battle it was customary for the archer

to hold two arrows in reserve in his right hand; they were placed

between the fingers, and did not interfere with the motion of the arm

whilst drawing the bow. When marching he usually carried the larger bow

over his shoulders, having first passed his head through it. The bow of

the king was borne by an attendant. The smaller bows were frequently

placed in the quiver, particularly by those who fought in chariots. A

leather or linen guard was fastened by straps to the inside of the left

arm to protect it when the arrow was discharged. The swords were worn

on the left side, and suspended by belts passing over the shoulders

or round the middle; some were short and others long. I have already

alluded to the beauty of the ornaments on the hilt and sheath.

The dagger appears to have been carried by all, both in time of peace

and war; even the priests and divinities are represented with them.

They were worn indifferently on the left and right side, or perhaps on

both at the same time. Generally two, or sometimes three, were inserted

into one sheath, which was passed through the girdle. The handles,

as I have already mentioned, were most elaborately adorned, and were

frequently in the shape of the head of a ram, bull, or horse, being

made of ivory or rare stones. A small chain was sometimes fastened

to the hilt or to the sheath, probably to retain it in its place. A

dagger, resembling in form those of the sculptures, was found amongst

the ruins of Nimrud; it is of copper. The handle is hollowed, either to

receive precious stones, ivory, or enamel.

The spear of the Assyrian footman was short, scarcely exceeding the

height of a man; that of the horseman appears to have been considerably

longer. The iron head of a spear from Nimrud is in the British Museum.

The shaft was probably of some strong wood, and did not consist of

a reed, like that of the modern Arab lance. The large club pointed

with iron, mentioned by Herodotus amongst the weapons carried by the

Assyrians, is not represented in the sculptures; unless, indeed, the

description of the historian applies to the mace, a weapon in very

general use amongst them, and frequently seen in the bas-reliefs.

This weapon consisted of a short handle, probably of wood, to which

was fixed a head, evidently of metal, in the shape of a flower,

rosette, lion, or bull. To the end of the handle was attached a thong,

apparently of leather, through which the hand was passed. I have not

found any representation of warriors using the hatchet, except when

cutting down trees, to clear the country preparatory to a siege. It

is, however, generally seen amongst the weapons of those who fought

in chariots, and was carried in the quiver, with the arrows and short

angular bow.

In the bas-reliefs of Kuyunjik, slingers are frequently represented

amongst the Assyrian troops. The sling appears to have consisted of a

double rope, with a thong, probably of leather, to receive the stone;

it was swung round the head. The slinger held a second stone in his

left hand, and at his feet is generally seen a heap of pebbles ready

for use. That the Persian slingers were exceedingly expert, used very

large stones, and could annoy their enemies whilst out of the reach of

their darts or arrows, we learn from several passages in Xenophon.

The javelin is frequently included amongst the weapons of the Assyrian

charioteers; but the warriors are not represented as using it in

battle. It was carried in the quiver amongst the arrows.

The shields of the Assyrians were of various forms and materials. In

the more ancient bas-reliefs a circular buckler, either of hide or

metal, perhaps in some instances of gold and silver, is most frequently

introduced. King Solomon made three hundred shields of beaten gold,

three pounds of gold to each shield (1 Kings x. 17). The servants of

Hadad-ezer, king of Zobah, carried shields of gold (2 Samuel viii. 7).

The shield of Goliath was of brass. It was held by a handle fixed to

the centre. Light oblong shields of wickerwork, carried in a similar

manner, are also found in the early sculptures; but those of a circular

form appear to have been generally used by the charioteers.