CONFLICTS FOR TRADE AND SUPREMACY
Modern Babylonia--History repeating itself--Babylonian Trade Route
in Mesopotamia--Egyptian Supremacy in Syria--Mitanni and
Babylonia--Bandits who plundered Caravans--Arabian Desert Trade
Route opened--Assyrian and Elamite Struggles with Babylonia--Rapid
Extension of Assyrian Empire--Hittites control Western Trade
Routes--Egypt's Nineteenth Dynasty Conquests--Campaigns of Rameses
II--Egyptians and Hittites become Allies--Babylonian Fears of
Assyria--Shalmaneser's Triumphs--Assyria Supreme in
Mesopotamia--Conquest of Babylonia--Fall of a Great King--Civil War
in Assyria--Its Empire goes to pieces--Babylonian Wars with
Elam--Revival of Babylonian Power--Invasions of Assyrians and
Elamites--End of the Kassite Dynasty--Babylonia contrasted with
Assyria.
It is possible that during the present century Babylonia may once
again become one of the great wheat-producing countries of the world.
A scheme of land reclamation has already been inaugurated by the
construction of a great dam to control the distribution of the waters
of the Euphrates, and, if it is energetically promoted on a generous
scale in the years to come, the ancient canals, which are used at
present as caravan roads, may yet be utilized to make the whole
country as fertile and prosperous as it was in ancient days. When that
happy consummation is reached, new cities may grow up and flourish
beside the ruins of the old centres of Babylonian culture.
With the revival of agriculture will come the revival of commerce.
Ancient trade routes will then be reopened, and the slow-travelling
caravans supplanted by speedy trains. A beginning has already been
made in this direction. The first modern commercial highway which is
crossing the threshold of Babylonia's new Age is the German railway
through Asia Minor, North Syria, and Mesopotamia to Baghdad.[407] It
brings the land of Hammurabi into close touch with Europe, and will
solve problems which engaged the attention of many rival monarchs for
long centuries before the world knew aught of "the glory that was
Greece and the grandeur that was Rome".
These sudden and dramatic changes are causing history to repeat
itself. Once again the great World Powers are evincing much concern
regarding their respective "spheres of influence" in Western Asia, and
pressing together around the ancient land of Babylon. On the east,
where the aggressive Elamites and Kassites were followed by the
triumphant Persians and Medes, Russia and Britain have asserted
themselves as protectors of Persian territory, and the influence of
Britain is supreme in the Persian Gulf. Turkey controls the land of
the Hittites, while Russia looms like a giant across the Armenian
highlands; Turkey is also the governing power in Syria and
Mesopotamia, which are being crossed by Germany's Baghdad railway.
France is constructing railways in Syria, and will control the ancient
"way of the Philistines". Britain occupies Cyprus on the Mediterranean
coast, and presides over the destinies of the ancient land of Egypt,
which, during the brilliant Eighteenth Dynasty, extended its sphere of
influence to the borders of Asia Minor. Once again, after the lapse of
many centuries, international politics is being strongly influenced by
the problems connected with the development of trade in Babylonia and
its vicinity.
The history of the ancient rival States, which is being pieced
together by modern excavators, is, in view of present-day political
developments, invested with special interest to us. We have seen
Assyria rising into prominence. It began to be a great Power when
Egypt was supreme in the "Western Land" (the land of the Amorites) as
far north as the frontiers of Cappadocia. Under the Kassite regime
Babylonia's political influence had declined in Mesopotamia, but its
cultural influence remained, for its language and script continued in
use among traders and diplomatists.
At the beginning of the Pharaoh Akhenaton period, the supreme power in
Mesopotamia was Mitanni. As the ally of Egypt it constituted a buffer
state on the borders of North Syria, which prevented the southern
expansion from Asia Minor of the Hittite confederacy and the western
expansion of aggressive Assyria, while it also held in check the
ambitions of Babylonia, which still claimed the "land of the
Amorites". So long as Mitanni was maintained as a powerful kingdom the
Syrian possessions of Egypt were easily held in control, and the
Egyptian merchants enjoyed preferential treatment compared with those
of Babylonia. But when Mitanni was overcome, and its territories were
divided between the Assyrians and the Hittites, the North Syrian
Empire of Egypt went to pieces. A great struggle then ensued between
the nations of western Asia for political supremacy in the "land of
the Amorites".
Babylonia had been seriously handicapped by losing control of its
western caravan road. Prior to the Kassite period its influence was
supreme in Mesopotamia and middle Syria; from the days of Sargon of
Akkad and of Naram-Sin until the close of the Hammurabi Age its
merchants had naught to fear from bandits or petty kings between the
banks of the Euphrates and the Mediterranean coast. The city of
Babylon had grown rich and powerful as the commercial metropolis of
Western Asia.
Separated from the Delta frontier by the broad and perilous wastes of
the Arabian desert, Babylonia traded with Egypt by an indirect route.
Its caravan road ran northward along the west bank of the Euphrates
towards Haran, and then southward through Palestine. This was a long
detour, but it was the only possible way.
During the early Kassite Age the caravans from Babylon had to pass
through the area controlled by Mitanni, which was therefore able to
impose heavy duties and fill its coffers with Babylonian gold. Nor did
the situation improve when the influence of Mitanni suffered decline
in southern Mesopotamia. Indeed the difficulties under which traders
operated were then still further increased, for the caravan roads were
infested by plundering bands of "Suti", to whom references are made in
the Tell-el-Amarna letters. These bandits defied all the great powers,
and became so powerful that even the messengers sent from one king to
another were liable to be robbed and murdered without discrimination.
When war broke out between powerful States they harried live stock and
sacked towns in those areas which were left unprotected.
The "Suti" were Arabians of Aramaean stock. What is known as the
"Third Semitic Migration" was in progress during this period. The
nomads gave trouble to Babylonia and Assyria, and, penetrating
Mesopotamia and Syria, sapped the power of Mitanni, until it was
unable to resist the onslaughts of the Assyrians and the Hittites.
The Aramaean tribes are referred to, at various periods and by various
peoples, not only as the "Suti", but also as the "Achlame", the
"Arimi", and the "Khabiri". Ultimately they were designated simply as
"Syrians", and under that name became the hereditary enemies of the
Hebrews, although Jacob was regarded as being of their stock: "A
Syrian ready to perish", runs a Biblical reference, "was my father
(ancestor), and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there with a
few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous".[408]
An heroic attempt was made by one of the Kassite kings of Babylonia to
afford protection to traders by stamping out brigandage between Arabia
and Mesopotamia, and opening up a new and direct caravan road to Egypt
across the Arabian desert. The monarch in question was
Kadashman-Kharbe, the grandson of Ashur-uballit of Assyria. As we have
seen, he combined forces with his distinguished and powerful kinsman,
and laid a heavy hand on the "Suti". Then he dug wells and erected a
chain of fortifications, like "block-houses", so that caravans might
come and go without interruption, and merchants be freed from the
imposts of petty kings whose territory they had to penetrate when
travelling by the Haran route.
This bold scheme, however, was foredoomed to failure. It was shown
scant favour by the Babylonian Kassites. No record survives to
indicate the character of the agreement between Kadashman-Kharbe and
Ashur-uballit, but there can be little doubt that it involved the
abandonment by Babylonia of its historic claim upon Mesopotamia, or
part of it, and the recognition of an Assyrian sphere of influence in
that region. It was probably on account of his pronounced pro-Assyrian
tendencies that the Kassites murdered Kadashman-Kharbe, and set the
pretender, known as "the son of nobody", on the throne for a brief
period.
Kadashman-Kharbe's immediate successors recognized in Assyria a
dangerous and unscrupulous rival, and resumed the struggle for the
possession of Mesopotamia. The trade route across the Arabian desert
had to be abandoned. Probably it required too great a force to keep it
open. Then almost every fresh conquest achieved by Assyria involved it
in war with Babylonia, which appears to have been ever waiting for a
suitable opportunity to cripple its northern rival.
But Assyria was not the only power which Babylonia had to guard itself
against. On its eastern frontier Elam was also panting for expansion.
Its chief caravan roads ran from Susa through Assyria towards Asia
Minor, and through Babylonia towards the Phoenician coast. It was
probably because its commerce was hampered by the growth of Assyrian
power in the north, as Servia's commerce in our own day has been
hampered by Austria, that it cherished dreams of conquering Babylonia.
In fact, as Kassite influence suffered decline, one of the great
problems of international politics was whether Elam or Assyria would
enter into possession of the ancient lands of Sumer and Akkad.
Ashur-uballit's vigorous policy of Assyrian expansion was continued,
as has been shown, by his son Bel-nirari. His grandson, Arik-den-ilu,
conducted several successful campaigns, and penetrated westward as far
as Haran, thus crossing the Babylonian caravan road. He captured great
herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, which were transported to Asshur,
and on one occasion carried away 250,000 prisoners.
Meanwhile Babylonia waged war with Elam. It is related that
Khur-batila, King of Elam, sent a challenge to Kurigalzu III, a
descendant of Kadashman-Kharbe, saying: "Come hither; I will fight
with thee". The Babylonian monarch accepted the challenge, invaded the
territory of his rival, and won a great victory. Deserted by his
troops, the Elamite king was taken prisoner, and did not secure
release until he had ceded a portion of his territory and consented to
pay annual tribute to Babylonia.
Flushed with his success, the Kassite king invaded Assyria when
Adad-nirari I died and his son Arik-den-ilu came to the throne. He
found, however, that the Assyrians were more powerful than the
Elamites, and suffered defeat. His son, Na´zi-mar-ut´tash[409], also
made an unsuccessful attempt to curb the growing power of the northern
Power.
These recurring conflicts were intimately associated with the
Mesopotamian question. Assyria was gradually expanding westward and
shattering the dreams of the Babylonian statesmen and traders who
hoped to recover control of the caravan routes and restore the
prestige of their nation in the west.
Like his father, Adad-nirari I of Assyria had attacked the Aramaean
"Suti" who were settling about Haran. He also acquired a further
portion of the ancient kingdom of Mitanni, with the result that he
exercised sway over part of northern Mesopotamia. After defeating
Na´zi-mar-ut´tash, he fixed the boundaries of the Assyrian and
Babylonian spheres of influence much to the advantage of his own
country.
At home Adad-nirari conducted a vigorous policy. He developed the
resources of the city state of Asshur by constructing a great dam and
quay wall, while he contributed to the prosperity of the priesthood
and the growth of Assyrian culture by extending the temple of the god
Ashur. Ere he died, he assumed the proud title of "Shar Kishshate",
"king of the world", which was also used by his son Shalmaneser I. His
reign extended over a period of thirty years and terminated about 1300
B.C.
Soon after Shalmaneser came to the throne his country suffered greatly
from an earthquake, which threw down Ishtar's temple at Nineveh and
Ashur's temple at Asshur. Fire broke out in the latter building and
destroyed it completely.
These disasters did not dismay the young monarch. Indeed, they appear
to have stimulated him to set out on a career of conquest, to secure
treasure and slaves, so as to carry out the work of reconstructing the
temples without delay. He became as great a builder, and as tireless a
campaigner as Thothmes III of Egypt, and under his guidance Assyria
became the most powerful nation in Western Asia. Ere he died his
armies were so greatly dreaded that the Egyptians and Assyrians drew
their long struggle for supremacy in Syria to a close, and formed an
alliance for mutual protection against their common enemy.
It is necessary at this point to review briefly the history of
Palestine and north Syria after the period of Hittite expansion under
King Subbi-luliuma and the decline of Egyptian power under Akhenaton.
The western part of Mitanni and the most of northern Syria had been
colonized by the Hittites.[410] Farther south, their allies, the
Amorites, formed a buffer State on the borders of Egypt's limited
sphere of influence in southern Palestine, and of Babylonia's sphere
in southern Mesopotamia. Mitanni was governed by a subject king who
was expected to prevent the acquisition by Assyria of territory in the
north-west.
Subbi-luliuma was succeeded on the Hittite throne by his son, King
Mursil, who was known to the Egyptians as "Meraser", or "Maurasar".
The greater part of this monarch's reign appears to have been peaceful
and prosperous. His allies protected his frontiers, and he was able to
devote himself to the work of consolidating his empire in Asia Minor
and North Syria. He erected a great palace at Boghaz Köi, and appears
to have had dreams of imitating the splendours of the royal Courts of
Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.
At this period the Hittite Empire was approaching the zenith of its
power. It controlled the caravan roads of Babylonia and Egypt, and its
rulers appear not only to have had intimate diplomatic relations with
both these countries, but even to have concerned themselves regarding
their internal affairs. When Rameses I came to the Egyptian throne, at
the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty, he sealed an agreement with
the Hittites, and at a later date the Hittite ambassador at Babylon,
who represented Hattusil II, the second son of King Mursil, actually
intervened in a dispute regarding the selection of a successor to the
throne.
The closing years of King Mursil's reign were disturbed by the
military conquests of Egypt, which had renewed its strength under
Rameses I. Seti I, the son of Rameses I, and the third Pharaoh of the
powerful Nineteenth Dynasty, took advantage of the inactivity of the
Hittite ruler by invading southern Syria. He had first to grapple with
the Amorites, whom he successfully defeated. Then he pressed northward
as far as Tunip, and won a decisive victory over a Hittite army, which
secured to Egypt for a period the control of Palestine as far north as
Phoenicia.
When Mursil died he was succeeded on the Hittite throne by his son
Mutallu, whom the Egyptians referred to as "Metella" or "Mautinel". He
was a vigorous and aggressive monarch, and appears to have lost no
time in compelling the Amorites to throw off their allegiance to Egypt
and recognize him as their overlord. As a result, when Rameses II
ascended the Egyptian throne he had to undertake the task of winning
back the Asiatic possessions of his father.
The preliminary operations conducted by Rameses on the Palestinian
coast were attended with much success. Then, in his fifth year, he
marched northward with a great army, with purpose, it would appear, to
emulate the achievements of Thothmes III and win fame as a mighty
conqueror. But he underestimated the strength of his rival and
narrowly escaped disaster. Advancing impetuously, with but two of his
four divisions, he suddenly found himself surrounded by the army of
the wily Hittite, King Mutallu, in the vicinity of the city of Kadesh,
on the Orontes. His first division remained intact, but his second was
put to flight by an intervening force of the enemy. From this perilous
position Rameses extricated himself by leading a daring charge against
the Hittite lines on the river bank, which proved successful. Thrown
into confusion, his enemies sought refuge in the city, but the Pharaoh
refrained from attacking them there.
Although Rameses boasted on his return home of having achieved a great
victory, there is nothing more certain than that this campaign proved
a dismal failure. He was unable to win back for Egypt the northern
territories which had acknowledged the suzerainty of Egypt during the
Eighteenth Dynasty. Subsequently he was kept fully engaged in
maintaining his prestige in northern Palestine and the vicinity of
Phoenicia. Then his Asiatic military operations, which extended
altogether over a period of about twenty years, were brought to a
close in a dramatic and unexpected manner. The Hittite king Mutallu
had died in battle, or by the hand of an assassin, and was succeeded
by his brother Hattusil II (Khetasar), who sealed a treaty of peace
with the great Rameses.
An Egyptian copy of this interesting document can still be read on the
walls of a Theban temple, but it is lacking in certain details which
interest present-day historians. No reference, for instance, is made
to the boundaries of the Egyptian Empire in Syria, so that it is
impossible to estimate the degree of success which attended the
campaigns of Rameses. An interesting light, however, is thrown on the
purport of the treaty by a tablet letter which has been discovered by
Professor Hugo Winckler at Boghaz Köi. It is a copy of a communication
addressed by Hattusil II to the King of Babylonia, who had made an
enquiry regarding it. "I will inform my brother," wrote the Hittite
monarch; "the King of Egypt and I have made an alliance, and made
ourselves brothers. Brothers we are and will [unite against] a common
foe, and with friends in common."[411] The common foe could have been
no other than Assyria, and the Hittite king's letter appears to convey
a hint to Kadashman-turgu of Babylon that he should make common cause
with Rameses II and Hattusil.
Shalmaneser I of Assyria was pursuing a determined policy of western
and northern expansion. He struck boldly at the eastern Hittite States
and conquered Malatia, where he secured great treasure for the god
Ashur. He even founded colonies within the Hittite sphere of influence
on the borders of Armenia. Shalmaneser's second campaign was conducted
against the portion of ancient Mitanni which was under Hittite
control. The vassal king, Sattuari, apparently a descendant of
Tushratta's, endeavoured to resist the Assyrians with the aid of
Hittites and Aramaeans, but his army of allies was put to flight. The
victorious Shalmaneser was afterwards able to penetrate as far
westward as Carchemish on the Euphrates.
Having thus secured the whole of Mitanni, the Assyrian conqueror
attacked the Aramaean hordes which were keeping the territory round
Haran in a continuous state of unrest, and forced them to recognize
him as their overlord.
Shalmaneser thus, it would appear, gained control of northern
Mesopotamia and consequently of the Babylonian caravan route to Haran.
As a result Hittite prestige must have suffered decline in Babylon.
For a generation the Hittites had had the Babylonian merchants at
their mercy, and apparently compelled them to pay heavy duties.
Winckler has found among the Boghaz Köi tablets several letters from
the king of Babylon, who made complaints regarding robberies committed
by Amoritic bandits, and requested that they should be punished and
kept in control. Such a communication is a clear indication that he
was entitled, in lieu of payment, to have an existing agreement
fulfilled.
Shalmaneser found that Asshur, the ancient capital, was unsuitable for
the administration of his extended empire, so he built a great city at
Kalkhi (Nimrud), the Biblical Calah, which was strategically situated
amidst fertile meadows on the angle of land formed by the Tigris and
the Upper Zab. Thither to a new palace he transferred his brilliant
Court.
He was succeeded by his son, Tukulti-Ninip I, who was the most
powerful of the Assyrian monarchs of the Old Empire. He made great
conquests in the north and east, extended and strengthened Assyrian
influence in Mesopotamia, and penetrated into Hittite territory,
bringing into subjection no fewer than forty kings, whom he compelled
to pay annual tribute. It was inevitable that he should be drawn into
conflict with the Babylonian king, who was plotting with the Hittites
against him. One of the tablet letters found by Winckler at Boghaz Köi
is of special interest in this connection. Hattusil advises the young
monarch of Babylonia to "go and plunder the land of the foe".
Apparently he sought to be freed from the harassing attention of the
Assyrian conqueror by prevailing on his Babylonian royal friend to act
as a "cat's paw".
It is uncertain whether or not Kashtiliash II of Babylonia invaded
Assyria with purpose to cripple his rival. At any rate war broke out
between the two countries, and Tukulti-Ninip proved irresistible in
battle. He marched into Babylonia, and not only defeated Kashtiliash,
but captured him and carried him off to Asshur, where he was presented
in chains to the god Ashur.
The city of Babylon was captured, its wall was demolished, and many of
its inhabitants were put to the sword. Tukulti-Ninip was evidently
waging a war of conquest, for he pillaged E-sagila, "the temple of the
high head", and removed the golden statue of the god Merodach to
Assyria, where it remained for about sixteen years. He subdued the
whole of Babylonia as far south as the Persian Gulf, and ruled it
through viceroys.
Tukulti-Ninip, however, was not a popular emperor even in his own
country. He offended national susceptibilities by showing preference
for Babylonia, and founding a new city which has not been located.
There he built a great palace and a temple for Ashur and his pantheon.
He called the city after himself, Kar-Tukulti-Ninip[412].
Seven years after the conquest of Babylonia revolts broke out against
the emperor in Assyria and Babylonia, and he was murdered in his
palace, which had been besieged and captured by an army headed by his
own son, Ashur-natsir-pal I, who succeeded him. The Babylonian nobles
meantime drove the Assyrian garrisons from their cities, and set on
the throne the Kassite prince Adad-shum-utsur.
Thus in a brief space went to pieces the old Assyrian Empire, which,
at the close of Tukulti-Ninip's thirty years' reign, embraced the
whole Tigro-Euphrates valley from the borders of Armenia to the
Persian Gulf. An obscure century followed, during which Assyria was
raided by its enemies and broken up into petty States.
The Elamites were not slow to take advantage of the state of anarchy
which prevailed in Babylonia during the closing years of Assyrian
rule. They overran a part of ancient Sumer, and captured Nippur, where
they slew a large number of inhabitants and captured many prisoners.
On a subsequent occasion they pillaged Isin. When, however, the
Babylonian king had cleared his country of the Assyrians, he attacked
the Elamites and drove them across the frontier.
Nothing is known regarding the reign of the parricide Ashur-natsir-pal
I of Assyria. He was succeeded by Ninip-Tukulti-Ashur and
Adad-shum-lishir, who either reigned concurrently or were father and
son. After a brief period these were displaced by another two rulers,
Ashur-nirari III and Nabu-dan.
It is not clear why Ninip-Tukulti-Ashur was deposed. Perhaps he was an
ally of Adad-shum-utsur, the Babylonian king, and was unpopular on
that account. He journeyed to Babylon on one occasion, carrying with
him the statue of Merodach, but did not return. Perhaps he fled from
the rebels. At any rate Adad-shum-utsur was asked to send him back, by
an Assyrian dignitary who was probably Ashur-nirari III. The king of
Babylon refused this request, nor would he give official recognition
to the new ruler or rulers.
Soon afterwards another usurper, Bel-kudur-utsur, led an Assyrian army
against the Babylonians, but was slain in battle. He was succeeded by
Ninip-apil-esharia, who led his forces back to Asshur, followed by
Adad-shum-utsur. The city was besieged but not captured by the
Babylonian army.
Under Adad-shum-utsur, who reigned for thirty years, Babylonia
recovered much of its ancient splendour. It held Elam in check and
laid a heavy hand on Assyria, which had been paralysed by civil war.
Once again it possessed Mesopotamia and controlled its caravan road to
Haran and Phoenicia, and apparently its relations with the Hittites
and Syrians were of a cordial character. The next king, Meli-shipak,
assumed the Assyrian title "Shar Kishshati", "king of the world", and
had a prosperous reign of fifteen years. He was succeeded by
Marduk-aplu-iddin I, who presided over the destinies of Babylonia for
about thirteen years. Thereafter the glory of the Kassite Dynasty
passed away. King Zamama-shum-iddin followed with a twelvemonth's
reign, during which his kingdom was successfully invaded from the
north by the Assyrians under King Ashur-dan I, and from the east by
the Elamites under a king whose name has not been traced. Several
towns were captured and pillaged, and rich booty was carried off to
Asshur and Susa.
Bel-shum-iddin succeeded Zamama-shum-iddin, but three years afterwards
he was deposed by a king of Isin. So ended the Kassite Dynasty of
Babylonia, which had endured for a period of 576 years and nine
months.
Babylonia was called Karduniash during the Kassite Dynasty. This name
was originally applied to the district at the river mouths, where the
alien rulers appear to have first achieved ascendancy. Apparently they
were strongly supported by the non-Semitic elements in the population,
and represented a popular revolt against the political supremacy of
the city of Babylon and its god Merodach. It is significant to find in
this connection that the early Kassite kings showed a preference for
Nippur as their capital and promoted the worship of Enlil, the elder
Bel, who was probably identified with their own god of fertility and
battle. Their sun god, Sachi, appears to have been merged in Shamash.
In time, however, the kings followed the example of Hammurabi by
exalting Merodach.
The Kassite language added to the "Babel of tongues" among the common
people, but was never used in inscriptions. At an early period the
alien rulers became thoroughly Babylonianized, and as they held sway
for nearly six centuries it cannot be assumed that they were
unpopular. They allowed their mountain homeland, or earliest area of
settlement in the east, to be seized and governed by Assyria, and
probably maintained as slight a connection with it after settlement in
Babylonia as did the Saxons of England with their Continental area of
origin.
Although Babylonia was not so great a world power under the Kassites
as it had been during the Hammurabi Dynasty, it prospered greatly as
an industrial, agricultural, and trading country. The Babylonian
language was used throughout western Asia as the language of diplomacy
and commerce, and the city of Babylon was the most important
commercial metropolis of the ancient world. Its merchants traded
directly and indirectly with far-distant countries. They imported
cobalt--which was used for colouring glass a vivid blue--from China,
and may have occasionally met Chinese traders who came westward with
their caravans, while a brisk trade in marble and limestone was
conducted with and through Elam. Egypt was the chief source of the
gold supply, which was obtained from the Nubian mines; and in exchange
for this precious metal the Babylonians supplied the Nilotic merchants
with lapis-lazuli from Bactria, enamel, and their own wonderful
coloured glass, which was not unlike the later Venetian, as well as
chariots and horses. The Kassites were great horse breeders, and the
battle steeds from the Babylonian province of Namar were everywhere in
great demand. They also promoted the cattle trade. Cattle rearing was
confined chiefly to the marshy districts at the head of the Persian
Gulf, and the extensive steppes on the borders of the Arabian desert,
so well known to Abraham and his ancestors, which provided excellent
grazing. Agriculture also flourished; as in Egypt it constituted the
basis of national and commercial prosperity.
It is evident that great wealth accumulated in Karduniash during the
Kassite period. When the images of Merodach and Zerpanituᵐ were taken
back to Babylon, from Assyria, they were clad, as has been recorded,
in garments embroidered with gold and sparkling with gems, while
E-sagila was redecorated on a lavish scale with priceless works of
art.
Assyria presented a sharp contrast to Babylonia, the mother land, from
which its culture was derived. As a separate kingdom it had to develop
along different lines. In fact, it was unable to exist as a world
power without the enforced co-operation of neighbouring States.
Babylonia, on the other hand, could have flourished in comparative
isolation, like Egypt during the Old Kingdom period, because it was
able to feed itself and maintain a large population so long as its
rich alluvial plain was irrigated during its dry season, which
extended over about eight months in the year.
The region north of Baghdad was of different geographical formation to
the southern plain, and therefore less suitable for the birth and
growth of a great independent civilization. Assyria embraced a chalk
plateau of the later Mesozoic period, with tertiary deposits, and had
an extremely limited area suitable for agricultural pursuits. Its
original inhabitants were nomadic pastoral and hunting tribes, and
there appears to be little doubt that agriculture was introduced along
the banks of the Tigris by colonists from Babylonia, who formed city
States which owed allegiance to the kings of Sumer and Akkad.
After the Hammurabi period Assyria rose into prominence as a predatory
power, which depended for its stability upon those productive
countries which it was able to conquer and hold in sway. It never had
a numerous peasantry, and such as it had ultimately vanished, for the
kings pursued the short-sighted policy of colonizing districts on the
borders of their empire with their loyal subjects, and settling aliens
in the heart of the homeland, where they were controlled by the
military. In this manner they built up an artificial empire, which
suffered at critical periods in its history because it lacked the
great driving and sustaining force of a population welded together by
immemorial native traditions and the love of country which is the
essence of true patriotism. National sentiment was chiefly confined to
the military aristocracy and the priests; the enslaved and uncultured
masses of aliens were concerned mainly with their daily duties, and no
doubt included communities, like the Israelites in captivity, who
longed to return to their native lands.
Assyria had to maintain a standing army, which grew from an alliance
of brigands who first enslaved the native population, and ultimately
extended their sway over neighbouring States. The successes of the
army made Assyria powerful. Conquering kings accumulated rich booty by
pillaging alien cities, and grew more and more wealthy as they were
able to impose annual tribute on those States which came under their
sway. They even regarded Babylonia with avaricious eyes. It was to
achieve the conquest of the fertile and prosperous mother State that
the early Assyrian emperors conducted military operations in the
north-west and laid hands on Mesopotamia. There was no surer way of
strangling it than by securing control of its trade routes. What the
command of the sea is to Great Britain at the present day, the command
of the caravan roads was to ancient Babylonia.
Babylonia suffered less than Assyria by defeat in battle; its natural
resources gave it great recuperative powers, and the native population
was ever so intensely patriotic that centuries of alien sway could not
obliterate their national aspirations. A conqueror of Babylon had to
become a Babylonian. The Amorites and Kassites had in turn to adopt
the modes of life and modes of thought of the native population. Like
the Egyptians, the Babylonians ever achieved the intellectual conquest
of their conquerors.
The Assyrian Empire, on the other hand, collapsed like a house of
cards when its army of mercenaries suffered a succession of disasters.
The kings, as we have indicated, depended on the tribute of subject
States to pay their soldiers and maintain the priesthood; they were
faced with national bankruptcy when their vassals successfully
revolted against them.
The history of Assyria as a world power is divided into three periods:
(1) the Old Empire; (2) the Middle Empire; (3) the New or Last Empire.
We have followed the rise and growth of the Old Empire from the days
of Ashur-uballit until the reign of Tukulti-Ninip, when it flourished
in great splendour and suddenly went to pieces. Thereafter, until the
second period of the Old Empire, Assyria comprised but a few city
States which had agricultural resources and were trading centres. Of
these the most enterprising was Asshur. When a ruler of Asshur was
able, by conserving his revenues, to command sufficient capital with
purpose to raise a strong army of mercenaries as a business
speculation, he set forth to build up a new empire on the ruins of the
old. In its early stages, of course, this process was slow and
difficult. It necessitated the adoption of a military career by native
Assyrians, who officered the troops, and these troops had to be
trained and disciplined by engaging in brigandage, which also brought
them rich rewards for their services. Babylonia became powerful by
developing the arts of peace; Assyria became powerful by developing
the science of warfare.