|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
A HISTORY OF BABYLON FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE MONARCHY TO THE PERSIAN CONQUESTCHAPTER VIII
THE historian of ancient Babylonia has reason to be grateful to Shutruk-Nakhkhunte and his son for their raids into the Euphrates valley, since certain of the monuments they carried off as spoil
have been
preserved in the mounds of Susa, until the French expedition brought them again to light. Thanks to Babylon's misfortunes at this time, we have
recovered some of her finest memorials, including the famous Stele of Naram-Sin, Hammurabi's Code of Laws, and an important
series of the Kassite kudurrus, or boundary-stones, which, as we have seen, throw considerable
light upon the
economic condition of the country. These doubtless represent but a small proportion of the booty secured by Elam at this period, but they suffice to
show the manner
in which the great Babylonian cities were denuded of their treasures. Under the earlier kings
of the Fourth
Dynasty it would seem that Elam continued to be a menace, and it was not until the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I that the land was freed from
further danger of Elamite invasion. We possess two interesting memorials of his
successful campaigns, during which he not only regained his own territories, but carried the war into the enemy's country. One is a charter of privileges, which the king conferred upon
Hitti-Marduk, the Captain of his chariots, for signal service against Elam. The text is engraved on a block of calcareous limestone, and on one side of it are a series of
divine symbols,
sculptured in high relief, in order to place the record under the protection of the gods, in
accordance with the custom introduced during the Kassite period.
The campaign in Elam which furnished the occasion
The record describes the subsequent battle in vivid phraseology. "The kings took their stand
round about and offered battle. Fire was kindled in their midst; by their dust was the face of the sun darkened. The hurricane sweeps along, the storm rages; in the
storm of their
battle the warrior in the chariot perceives not the companion at his side". Here again
Ritti-Marduk did good service by leading the attack. "He turned evil against the King of Elam, so that destruction
overtook him; King Nebuchadnezzar triumphed, he captured the land of Elam, he plundered its
possessions". On his return from the campaign Nebuchadnezzar granted the charter to Ritti-Marduk, freeing the towns and villages of Bit-Karziabku, of which he was the headman,
from the jurisdiction of the neighbouring town of Namar. In addition to freedom from all taxation and the corvée, the privileges secured the inhabitants from liability to arrest by imperial soldiers stationed
in the district,
and forbade the billeting of such troops upon them. This portion of the text affords an
interesting glimpse of the military organization of the kingdom.
The second memorial too has a bearing on this war, since it exhibits Nebuchadnezzar as a patron of
Elamite refugees. It is a copy of a deed recording a grant of land and privileges to Shamua and his son Shamaia, priests of the Elamite god Ria, who, in fear of the
Though Nebuchadnezzar restored the fortunes of his country, he was not the founder of his dynasty. Of
his three predecessors, the name of one may now be restored as Marduk-shapik-zerim. His name has been read on a kudurru-fragment in the Yale
Collection, which is dated in the eighth year of Marduk-nadin-akhe, and refers to the twelfth year of
Marduk-shapik-zerim. That he cannot be identified with Marduk- shapik-zer-mati is certain, since we know from the "Synchronistic History" that the latter
succeeded Marduk-nadin-akhe upon the throne of Babylon, the one being the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser I,
the other of
his son Ashur-bel-kala. The close sequence of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar I, Enlil-nadin-apli, and Marduk-nadin-akhe has long been recognized from the occurrence of the same officials on legal
documents of the period. We must therefore place the newly recovered ruler in the gap before Nebuchadnezzar I; he must be one of the first three kings of the
dynasty, possibly its founder, whose name in the Kings' List begins with the divine title Marduk, and who ruled for seventeen years according to the same authority. Another of these missing rulers may perhaps be restored as Ea-nadin-[. . . .], if the royal name
in the broken inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I, to which reference has already been made, is to be read in that way and not identified as that of the last member of the Kassite Dynasty. During the earlier years of the Dynasty of Isin Babylonia must have been
subject to further Elamite aggression, and portions of the country may for a time have acknowledged, the suzerainty
of her rulers.
Nebuchadnezzar's successes against Elam and the neighbouring district of Lulubu no doubt enabled him to offer a more vigorous defence of his northern frontier; and, when Ashur-resh-ishi attempted an invasion of Babylonian territory, he not only drove the
Assyrians back, but followed them up and laid siege to the frontier fortress of Zanki. But Ashur-resh-ishi forced him
to raise the siege
and burn his siege-train; and, on Nebuchadnezzar's return with reinforcements,
the Babylonian army suffered a further defeat, losing its fortified camp together with Karashtu, the general in command of
the army, who
was taken to Assyria as a prisoner of war. Babylon thus proved that, though strong enough to recover and maintain her independence, she was incapable
of a vigorous offensive on a large scale. It is true that Nebuchadnezzar claimed among his titles that of "Conqueror of Amurru", but it is doubtful whether we should regard the term as implying more than a raid into the region of the middle Euphrates.
That within her own borders Babylon maintained an effective administration is clear from a
boundary-stone of the period of Nebuchadnezzar's successor, Enlil- nadin-apli, recording a grant of land in the
district of Edina in Southern Babylonia by E-anna-shum-iddina, a governor of the Sea-Country, who administered that district under the Babylonian king and owed his
appointment to him. But in the reign of Marduk-nadin-akhe, she was to suffer her second great defeat at the hands of Assyria. She fought two campaigns with Tiglath-pileser I, in the latter part of his reign, after
his successes
in the North and West. In the first she met with some success, but on the second occasion Tiglath-pileser completely reversed its result, and followed up his
victory by the capture of Babylon itself with other of the great northern cities, Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar of Shamash, Sippar of Anunitum, and Opis. But Assyria did not then attempt a permanent occupation,
for we find Tiglath-pileser's son, Ashur-bel-kala, on friendly terms with Marduk-shapik-zer-mati; and when the latter, after a prosperous reign, lost his throne to the Aramean usurper Adad-aplu-iddina, he further strengthened the alliance by contracting a marriage with the new king's daughter.
Thus closed the first phase of Babylon's relations with the growing Assyrian power. A state of
alternate conflict and temporary truce had been maintained between them for some three centuries, and now for more than half a century the internal condition of both countries was such as to put an end to any policy of aggression. The cause of Babylon's decline was
the overrunning
of the country by the Sutu, semi-nomad Semitic tribes from beyond the Euphrates, who made their first descent during Adad-aplu-iddina's later years, and, according to a Neo-Babylonian chronicle,
carried off with them the spoil of Sumer and Akkad. This was probably the first of many raids, and we may
see evidence of
the unsettled condition of the country in the ephemeral Babylonian dynasties, which followed one another in quick succession.
The later ruler, Nabn-aplu-iddina, when recording his rebuilding of the great temple of the Sun-god
at Sippar, has left us some details of this troubled time; and the facts he relates of one of the great cities
of Akkad may
be regarded as typical of the general condition of the country. The temple had
been wrecked by the Sutu, doubtless at the time of Adad-aplu-iddina, and it was not until the reign of Simmash-Shipak,
who came from
the Country of the Sea and founded the Fifth Dynasty, that any attempt was made to reestablish the interrupted service of the deity.
His successor,
Ea-mukin-zer, did not retain the throne for more than five months, and in the reign of Kashshu- nadin-akhi, with whom the dynasty closed, the
country suffered further misfortunes, the general distress, occasioned by raids
and civil disturbance, being increased by famine. Thus the service of the temple again
suffered, until under E-ulmash-shakin-shum of Bit-Bazi, who founded the Sixth Dynasty, a partial re-endowment of the temple took place. But its half ruinous condition
continued to attest the poverty of the country and of its rulers, until the more prosperous times
of Nabu-aplu-iddina.
E-ulmash-shakin-shum was succeeded by two members of his own house, Ninib-kudur-usur and Shilanum-Shukamuna; but they reigned between them less than four years, and the throne then
passed for six
years to an Elamite, whose rule is regarded by the later chroniclers as having constituted in
itself the Seventh Babylonian Dynasty.
A stable government was once more established in
It was at the time of the Eighth Dynasty that the renaissance of Assyria took place, which culminated
in the
victories of that ruthless conqueror Ashur-nasir-pal and of his son Shalmaneser III. Its effect was
first felt in Babylon in the reign of Shamash-mudammik, who suffered a serious defeat in the neighborhood of
Mt. Ialman at
the hands of Adad-nirari III, Ashur-nasir-pal's grandfather. Against Nabu-shum-ishkun I, the murderer and successor of Shamash-mudammik, Adad-nirari secured another victory, several Babylonian
cities with much
spoil falling into his hands. But we subsequently find him on friendly terms
with Babylon, and allying himself with Nabu-shum-ishkun, or possibly with his successor, each monarch marrying the
other's daughter. His son Tukulti-Ninib II of Assyria,
Babylon naturally viewed this encroachment on the Euphrates route to the west as a danger to her commercial
connexions, and it is not surprising that Nabu-aplu-iddina should have attempted to oppose Ashur-nasir-pal's advance by allying himself with Shadudu
of Sukhi. But the armed forces he sent to support the people of Sukhi in their resistance were quite
unable to withstand the Assyrian onslaught, and his brother Sabdanu and Bel-aplu-iddin, the Babylonian leader,
fell into
Ashur-nasir-pal's hands. In recording his victory the Assyrian king refers to the Babylonians as the Kassites, a
striking tribute to the fame of the foreign dynasty which had ended more than three centuries before. Nabu-aplu-iddina evidently realized the
futility of attempting further opposition to Assyrian aims, and he was glad to establish relations of a friendly
character, which he continued in the reign of Shalmaneser. He attempted to forget the failure of his military
expedition by repairing the damage inflicted during the numerous Aramean raids upon the ancient cult - centres of Babylonia.
He is the king who restored and re-endowed so richly the temple of Shamash at Sippar, digging in
the ruins of
former structures till he found the ancient
The skill of the Babylonian craftsmen at this period is also attested by a cylinder of lapis lazuli, engraved in low relief with a figure of Marduk and his dragon, which was dedicated in E-sagila at
Babylon by Marduk-zakir-shum, the son and successor of Nabu- aplu-iddina. It was originally coated with gold, and the design and execution of the figure may be compared with those of the Sun-god Tablet, as an additional example of the decorative character of Babylonian stone-engraving in the ninth century.
It was in Marduk-zakir-shum's reign that Assyria capped her conquests of
this period by becoming the suzerain of Babylon. Under Ashur-nasir-pal and
Shalmaneser the military organization of the country had been renewed, and
both made effective use of their
But Syria then learned her lesson, and at the battle of Karkar in 854 B.C. Shalmaneser found
himself opposed by a confederation of the northern kings,
and, though he eventually succeeded in ravaging the
territory of Damascus, the city itself held out. In fact,
the stubborn resistance
of Damascus prevented any further attempt on Assyria's
part at this period to penetrate further into Southern Syria and
Palestine. So Shalmaneser
had to content himself with marching northwards across
Mt. Amanus, subjugating
Cilicia and exacting tribute from districts north of the Taurus. He also conducted a successful campaign in Armenia, from which quarter one of Assyria's most powerful enemies was about to arise. But it was in Babylonia
The occasion for Shalmaneser's intervention in Babylonian affairs was
furnished by internal dissension. When Marduk-bel-usate, the
brother of Marduk-zakir-shum, revolted, and divided the country into two armed
camps, Shalmaneser readily responded to the latter's appeal for help, and
marching southwards succeeded in defeating the rebels and in ravaging the
districts under their control. On a second expedition in the following year he
completed his work by slaying Marduk-bel-usate in battle, and he was then acknowledged by
Marduk-zakir-shum as his suzerain. In this capacity he toured through the principal cities of Akkad, offering
sacrifices in the famous temples of Cuthah, Babylon, and Borsippa. He also led his army into Chaldea, and, after
storming its frontier fortress of Bakani, received the submission of its ruler, Adini, and heavy tribute from him and
from Iakin, the
Chaldean king of the Sea-Country further to the south. In his representation of the campaign
Shalmaneser is portrayed marching through the country,
But Babylon did not long endure the position of a vassal state, and Shalmaneser's son and successor, Shamshi-Adad IV, attempted her reconquest, plundering many cities before he met with serious opposition. Marduk-balatsu-ikbi, the Babylonian king, had meanwhile collected his forces, which included armed levies from Elam, Chaldea, and other districts. The two armies met near the city of Dur-Papsukal, the Babylonians were totally defeated, and a rich booty fell to their conqueror. During a subsequent interregnum Erba-Marduk, the son of Marduk-shakin-shum, secured the throne, owing his election to his success in driving Aramean raiders from the cultivated fields of Babylon and Borsippa. But he did not reign for long, and when Babylon continued to give trouble to Assyria, Adad-nirari IV, the successor of Shamshi-Adad, again subjugated a considerable portion of the country, carrying away Bau-akhi-iddina, the Babylonian king, as a captive to Assyria, together with the treasures of his palace. During the following half-century our knowledge of Babylonian affairs is
a blank, and we have not as yet recovered even the names of the last members of
the Eighth Dynasty. This epoch corresponds to a period of weakness and inaction
in the northern kingdom, such as more than once before had followed a forward
movement on her part. The expansion of Assyria, in fact, took place in a series
of successive waves, and when one had spent itself, a recoil preceded the next
advance. The principal cause of her contraction, after the brilliant reigns of
Shalmaneser III and his father, may undoubtedly be traced to the rise of a new
power in the mountains of Armenia. From their capital on the shore of Lake Van,
the Urartians marched southward and menaced the northern frontier of Assyria
itself. Her kings could no longer dream of further adventures in the West,
which would leave their home territory at the mercy of this new foe. Urartu
became now the principal drag on Assyria's ambitions, a part which was
afterwards so effectively played by Elam in alliance with Babylon.
It is to this period we may probably assign an interesting provincial monument, discovered in Babylon,which illustrates the independent position enjoyed by the rulers of local districts at a time when the central control of either kingdom, and particularly of Assyria, was relaxed. The monument commemorates the principal achievements of Shamash-resh-usur, governor of the lands of Sukhi and Mari on the middle Euphrates. He may have owed his appointment to Assyria, but he speaks like a reigning monarch and dates the record in his thirteenth year. On it he records his suppression of a revolt of the Tu'manu tribe, who threatened his capital Ribanish, while he was holding festival in the neighbouring town of Baka. But he attacked the with the people who were with him, slew three hundred and fifty of them, and the rest submitted. He also records how he dug out the Sukhi Canal, when it had silted up, and how he planted palm-trees in his palace at Ribanish. But his most notable act, according to his own account, was the introduction of bees into Sukhi, which his improved irrigation of the district doubtless rendered possible. " Bees which collect honey," he tells us. "which no man had seen since the time of my fathers and forefathers, nor had brought to the land of Sukhi, I brought down from the mountains of the Khabkha-tribe and I put them in the garden of Gabbari-ibni." The text closes with an interesting little note upon the bees: " They collect honey and wax. The preparing of honey and wax I understand, and the gardeners understand it." And he adds that in days to come a ruler will ask the elders of his land," Is it true that Shamash-resh-usur, governor of Sukhi, brought honey-bees into the land of Sukhi ?" The monument may well have been carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar II., when he incorporated the district within his empire. The subsequent period shows a gradual tightening of Assyria's grasp upon
the southern kingdom, varied by comparatively ineffective struggles and revolts
on Babylon's part to avoid her loss of independence. The temporary decline of
Assyrian power enabled Babylon for a time to regain something of her former
position under Nabu-shum-ishkun II, an early king of the Ninth Dynasty, and
his successor Nabonassar. But the military revolt in Assyria, which in 745 b.c. placed Tiglath-pileser IV
upon
the throne, put a speedy end to Babylon's hopes of any
permanent recovery of power. His
accession marks the beginning of the last period of Assyrian
expansion, and the
administrative policy he inaugurated justifies us in
ascribing the term "empire" to the area conquered by him, and his
successors, in the last
half of the eighth and the first half of the seventh
centuries b.c. But it was an empire which
carried in itself from the outset the seeds of decay. It was based on a policy
of deportation, Assyria's final answer to her pressing problem of how to
administer the wide areas she annexed. Former Assyrian kings had carried away
the conquered into slavery, but Tiglath-pileser IV inaugurated a regular
transference of nations. The policy certainly effected its immediate object: it
kept the subject provinces quiet. But as a permanent method of administration
it was bound to be a failure. While destroying patriotism and love of country,
it put an end at the same time to
all incentives to labour. The subject country's accumulated wealth had
already been drained for
the benefit of Assyrian coffers; and in the hands of its half-starved colonists it
was not likely to prove a
permanent source of strength, or of wealth, to its suzerain.
Tiglath-pileser's first object,
before launching his armies to the north
and west, was to secure his southern frontier, and this he
effected by invading
Babylonia and forcing from Nabonassar an acknowledgment of
Assyrian control.
During the campaign he overran the northern districts, and
applied his policy
of deportation by carrying away many of their inhabitants.
The distress in the
country, due to the Assyrian inroads, was aggravated by
internal dissension.
Sippar repudiated Nabonassar's authority, and the revolt was
subdued only after
a siege of the city. The Ninth Dynasty ended with the
country in
confusion; for Nabu-nadin-zer, Nabopolassar's son, after a
reign of only two
years, was slain in a revolt by Nabu-shum-ukin, the governor
of a province. The dynasty soon came to an end after the latter's
accession. He had not
enjoyed his position for more than a month, when the kingdom
again changed
hands, and Nabu-mukin-zer secured the throne.
From the fall of the Ninth Dynasty, until the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, Babylonia was completely overshadowed by the power of Assyria. She became merely a subject province of the empire, and her Tenth Dynasty is mainly composed of Assyrian rulers or their nominees. Nabu-mukin-zer had reigned only three years when Tiglath-pileser again invaded Babylonia, took him captive, and ascended the throne of Babylon, where he ruled under his name of Pulu. On his death, which occurred two years later, he was succeeded by Shalmaneser V, who, as suzerain of Babylon, adopted the name of Ululai. But Babylonia soon demonstrated her power of hindering Assyrian plans, for, after the close of Shalmaneser's reign, when Sargon's army had secured the capture of Samaria, he was obliged to recall his forces from the West by the menace of his southern province. Merodach-baladan, a Chaldean chief of Bit-Iakin at the head of the Persian Gulf, now laid claim to the throne of Babylon. By himself he would not have been formidable to Assyria, but he was backed by an unexpected and dangerous ally. Elam had not meddled in Babylonian affairs for centuries, but she had gradually become alarmed at the growth of Assyrian power. So Khumbanigash, the Elamite king, allying himself with Merodach-baladan, invaded Babylonia, laid siege to the frontier fortress of Der or Dur-ilu on the Lower Tigris, and defeated Sargon and the Assyrian army before its walls. Merodach-baladan was acknowledged by the Babylonians as their king, and he continued to be a thorn in the side of Assyria. After the defeat of Shabaka and the Egyptians at Raphia, Sargon was
occupied with the final subjugation of Urartu in the north, which had for so
long been a danger to Assyria. But Urartu had to fight, not only the Assyrians,
but also a new enemy, the Cimmerians, who now made their appearance from the
north and east. In fact, Sargon's conquest of Urartu resulted in the
destruction of that people as a buffer state, and laid Assyria open to the
direct attack of the barbarian invaders, though it was not until the reign of
Esarhaddon that their activity began to be formidable. Meanwhile, having
subjugated his other foes. Sargon was able to turn his attention once more to
Babylon, from which he expelled Merodach-baladan. His appearance was welcomed
by the priestly party, and, entering the city in state, he assumed the title of
Governor and for the last seven years of his life he ruled in Babylon virtually
as king. A memorial of his occupation survives today in the quay-wall, which
he
On Sargon's death in 705 B.C. the subject provinces of the empire rebelled. The revolt was led by Babylon,
where Merodach-baladan reappears with Elamite support, while
Hezekiah of Judah headed a confederation of the states of Southern Syria.
Sennacherib was first occupied with Babylon, where he had little difficulty in
defeating Merodach-baladan and his allies. He was then free to deal with Syria
and Palestine; and at Eltekeh, near Ekron, he routed the Egyptian army, which
had come to the support of the rebel states. He then received the submission of
Ekron, and took Lachish after a siege, though Tyre resisted. After his
expulsion from Babylon Merodach-baladan had sought safety by hiding himself in
the Babylonian swamps, where he allied himself with the Chaldean prince
Mushezib-Marduk; and Babylon had been left in charge of Bel-ibni, a young
native Babylonian, who had been brought up at the Assyrian court. A rising,
headed by Mushezib-Marduk, brought Sennacherib again into the country, who,
after defeating the rebels, carried off Bel-ibni and his nobles to Assyria,
leaving his own son Ashur-nadin-shum upon the throne.
The country was in a state of
continual disaffection, and after a few
years a fresh revolt was headed by a Babylonian,
Nergal-ushezib. But he ruled
for little more than a year, being defeated by Sennacherib
and sent in chains
to Nineveh. This took place after the return of the Assyrian
army from Nagitu,
whither it had been conveyed by Sennacherib, across the head
of the Persian
Gulf, against the Chaldeans whom Merodach-baladan had
settled there. Sennacherib then turned his forces against Elam, and,
after plundering
a considerable portion of the country, he was
stopped in his advance into the interior by the setting in of winter. In his absence the Chaldean Mushezib-Marduk seized the throne of Babylon, and allied himself with
Elam. But the
combined armies were defeated at Khalule, and after the death of Umman-menanu, the Elamite king, in 689, Sennacherib seized Babylon. Exasperated at her disaffection, he attempted to put an end for all time to her constant menace by destroying the city. He succeeded in doing an enormous amount of damage, and, by deflecting the course of the Euphrates, wiped out large areas and turned them into swamps. For the last eight years of Sennacherib's reign
the country was given over to a state of anarchy.
In 681 Sennacherib was murdered by his sons, and,
after a struggle for the succession, Esarhaddon secured the throne. His first thought was to reverse completely his
father's Babylonian policy, and by rebuilding the city and restoring its ancient privileges to placate the priestly party, whose support his grandfather, Sargon, had secured the statue of Marduk was restored to its shrine, and Esarhaddon's son, Shamash-shum-ukin, was proclaimed King of Babylon. At the same time Esarhaddon
sought to reconcile the military and aggressive
party in his own capital by crowning Ashur-bani-pal, his
eldest son, as king in Assyria. Babylon was still taught to look upon
Assyria as
hen suzerain,
and the spirit of disaffection was only driven for the moment underground. Esarhaddon's aim had been to retain the territory already incorporated
in the Assyrian
empire, and, had he been able to confine his country's energies within these limits, its
existence as a state might have been prolonged. But he was unable to curb the ambitions of his generals, and, in his
effort to find
employment for the army, he achieved the ultimate object of his father's western campaigns, the conquest of Egypt.
It was soon apparent that Esarhaddon's occupation of that country had
been merely nominal, and it thus fell to his son Ashur-bani-pal to continue the
Egyptian war, and to complete the work his father had left unfinished. And
though he met with far greater success, he too in the end found the task of any
permanent conquest beyond his power. For he soon had his hands full with troubles nearer home, in consequence of
which his hold on Egypt gradually relaxed. Urtaku of Elam, who invaded
Babylonia, does not appear to have followed up his success; and the subsequent
invasion of the country by Teumman was only followed by that ruler's defeat and
death in battle. But the strength of Elam was not broken by this reverse, and,
when Shamash-shum-ukin revolted, he received active Elamite support.
Not only in Elam, but also throughout the territory controlled by
Assyria, Shamash-shum-ukin found support in his rebellion, a fact significant
of the detestation of Assyrian rule in the scattered provinces of the empire,
which continued to be held together only by fear. But the force at
Ashur-bani-pal's disposal was still powerful enough to stamp out the
conflagration and head off disaster for a time. He marched into Babylonia,
besieged and captured Babylon, and his brother Shamash-shum-ukin met his death
in the flames of his palace in 648 b.c.
The Assyrian king then invaded
Elam, andMapturing its cities as he advanced, he laid the country under fire and
sword. Susa was protected by
its river, then in flood, but the Assyrian army effected a crossing, and the
ancient capital lay at the
mercy of the invaders. Having taken the city, Ashur-bani-pal determined to break its
power for ever, after the
manner Sennacherib had dealt with Babylon. He not only stripped the temples and
carried off the treasures of
the palace, but he even desecrated the royal tombs, and completed his work of
destruction by fire. So
Susa was plundered and destroyed, and in Babylon itself Ashur-bani-pal continued to be
supreme until his death.
Babylonia had proved herself no match for the legions of Assyria at the
height of the latter's power; but the industrial and commercial life of her
cities, based ultimately on the rich return her soil yielded to her
agricultural population, enabled her to survive blows which would have
permanently disabled a country less favoured by nature. Moreover, she always
regarded the Assyrians as an upstart people, who had borrowed her culture, and
whose land had been a mere province of her kingdom at a time when her own
political influence had extended from Elam to the borders of Syria. Even in her
darkest hour she was buoyed up by the hope of recovering her ancient glory, and
she let no opportunity slip of striking a blow at the northern kingdom. She was
consequently always a drag on Assyria's advance to the Mediterranean, for, when
the latter's armies marched westward, they left Babylon and Elam in their rear.
In her later dealings with Babylon Assyria had tried the alternative policies of intimidation and indulgence, but with equal want of success; and they reached their climax in the reigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. It is quite possible that either of these policies, if consistently pursued, would have been equally futile in its aim of coercing or placating Babylonia. But their alternation was a far worse blunder, as it only succeeded in revealing to the Babylonians their own power, and in confirming them in their obstinate resistance. To this cause we may trace the long revolt >under Shamash-shum-ukin, when Babylon with Elam at her back struck a succession of blows which helped in a material degree to reduce the power of the Assyrian army, already weakened by the Egyptian campaigns. And in 625 when the Scythians had overrun the Assyrian empire, and her power was on the wane, we find Nabopolassar proclaiming himself king in Babylon and founding a new empire which for nearly seventy years was to survive the city of Nineveh itself.
THE NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE AND THE PERSIAN CONQUEST
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
