A History of
Babylonia and Assyria
Volume II
Robert William Rogers
Published 1900 A.D.
Assyrian International News Agency
Books Online
www.aina.org
CONTENTS
BOOK III
OF the period when the first settlers of a Semitic race entered Assyria nothing is known, but all things point to their coming from Babylonia. The oldest traditions of the Semitic peoples connect the Assyrians with the Babylonians, and the earliest titles of their rulers point to dependence upon the previous civilization in the south. We are unable to trace the political and social history of Assyria to any point at all approaching the vast antiquity of Babylonia.
There is evidence, as already seen, that the city of Nineveh was in existence at least three thousand years before Christ, but of the men who built it and reigned in it we know absolutely nothing. As in Babylonia, we are confronted in the beginnings of Assyrian history only by a name here and there of some early ruler of whose deeds we have only the simplest note, if indeed we have any at all. The first Assyrian ruler bears the title of Ishakku, which seems to mean priest-prince, and implies subjection to some other ruler elsewhere. These early rulers must have been subject princes of the kings in Babylonia, for there is no evidence yet found to connect them with any other state, while their traditional connections are all with the southern kingdom. The names of several of these Ishakke have come down to us, but are unhappily not able to arrange them in any definite order of chronological sequence. Apparently the first of them are Ishme-Dagan and his son, Shamshi-Adad I. The latter of these built a great temple in the city of Asshur and dedicated it to the gods Anu and Adad. We have no certain indications of the date of these rulers, but we are probably safe in the assertion that they ruled about 1830-1810 B. C.1 After a short interval, probably, there follow two other priest-princes, whose names are Igur-Kapkapu and Shamshi-Adad II.2 The names of two other Ishakke have also come down to us, Khallu and Irishum,3 but their date is unknown.
These six names are all that remain of the history of the early government of Assyria. At this period, about 1800 B. C., the chief city was Asshur, then and long after the residence of the ruler. There is no hint in these early texts of hegemony over other cities; though Nineveh certainly, and other cities probably, were then in existence. The population was probably small, consisting, in its ruling classes at least, of colonists from Babylonia. There may have been earlier settlers among whom the Semitic invaders found home, as there were in Babylonia when the Semites first appeared in that land, but of them we have no certainty. It is an indistinct picture which we get of these times in the temperate northern land, but it is a picture of civilized men who dwelt in cities, and built temples in which to worship their gods, and who carried on some form of government in a tributary or other subject relation to the great culture land which they had left in the south. The later Assyrian people had but faint memory of these times, and to them, as to us, they were ancient days.
At about 1700 B. C. the priest-prince ruling in Asshur was Bel-Kapkapu, according to a statement of Adad-Nirari III (811-783), a later king of Assyria, while Esarhaddon would have us believe that he was himself a direct descendant of a king, Bel-bani, and, though we may put no faith in such genealogical researches, perhaps greater credence may be given the other historical statement with which the name of Bel-bani is followed.4 According to the historiographers of Esarhaddon, Bel-bani was the first Ishakku of Asshur who adopted the title of king, having received the office of king from the god Marduk himself. If there be any truth at all in these statements, we must see in Bel-bani the first king of Assyria, but the fact is empty of real meaning, whether true or not, for we know nothing of the king's personality or works.
After these names of shadowy personalities there comes a great silent period of above two hundred years, in which we hear no sound of any movements in Assyria, nor do we know the name of even one ruler.5 At the very end of this period (about 1490 B. C.) all western Asia was shaken to its foundations by an Egyptian invasion. Thutmosis III,6 freed at last from the restraint of Hatshepsowet, his peace-loving sister or aunt, had swept along the Mediterranean coast to Carmel and over the spur of the hill to the plain of Esdraelon. At Megiddo the allies met him in defense of Syria, if not of all western Asia, and were crushingly defeated. The echo of that victory resounded even in Assyria, and whoever7 it was who then reigned by the Tigris made haste to send a "great stone of real lapis lazuli"8 and other less valuable gifts in token of his submission. It was well for Samaria that Thutmosis was satisfied with those gifts, and led no army across the Euphrates.
Soon after the invasion of Thutmosis III we again learn the name of an Assyrian king, for about 1450 B. C. we find the Kassite king of Babylonia, Karaindash, making a treaty with the king of Assyria, whose name is given as Asshur-bel-nisheshu.9 This latter is the first king of Assyria of whom we may consider that we know anything. He claims a certain territory in Mesopotamia, and makes good his claim to it. Assyria now is clearly acknowledged by the king of Babylonia as an independent kingdom. The independence of the northern kingdom was probably achieved during the two hundred years preceding, through the weakness of the kingdom of Babylonia. It must be remembered that it was in this very period that Babylonia was torn with internal dissension and fell an easy prey to the Kassites. While the Kassites were busy with the establishment of their rule over the newly conquered land the time was auspicious for the firm settling of a new kingdom in Assyria.
Shortly after, though perhaps not immediately, his successor, Puzur-Asshur, came to the throne (about 1420 B. C.). Like his predecessor, he also had dealings with the Babylonians concerning the boundary line; and beyond this fact noted by the Assyrian synchronistic tablet,10 we know nothing of him.
After Puzur-Asshur came Asshur-nadin-akhe (it is Asshur who giveth brothers), a contemporary of Amenophis IV,11 the heretic king of Egypt, with whom he had correspondence.12 A later king also records the fact that he built, or rather perhaps restored, a palace in Asshur. His reign was an era of peace, as these two facts apparently would prove, namely, the correspondence with the far distant land of Egypt, indicating a high state of civilization, and the restoration of a palace, and not, as heretofore, a temple.
He was succeeded by his son, Asshur-uballit (Asshur has given life), about 1370 B. C., and in his reign there were stirring times. His daughter, Muballitat-Sheru'a, was married to Kara-Khardash, the king of Babylon. Herein we meet for the first time, in real form, the Assyrian efforts to gain control in Babylonia. The son of this union, Kadashman-Kharbe I, was soon upon the throne. The Babylonian people must have suspected intrigue, for they rebelled and killed the king. This was a good excuse for Assyrian intervention, for the rebels had killed the grandson of the king of Assyria. The Assyrians invaded the land, and the Babylonians were conquered, and another grandson of Asshur-uballit was placed upon the throne, under the title of Kurigalzu II13 This act made Babylonia at least partially subject to Assyria, but many long years must elapse before any such subjection would be really acknowledged by the proud Babylonians. They were already subject to a foreign people, the Kassites, who had indeed become Babylonians in all respects, but it would be a greater humiliation to acknowledge their own colonists, the Assyrians, a bloodthirsty people, as their masters. Asshur-uballit also made a campaign against the Shubari, a people dwelling east of the Tigris and apparently near the borders of Elam.14
Friendly relations between Assyria and Egypt were continued during his reign, and a letter15 of his to the Egyptian king Amenophis IV has been preserved, in which occur the following sentences "To Napkhuriya16. . . king of Egypt my brother Asshur-uballit, king of Assyria, the great king thy brother. To thyself, to thy house, and to thy country let there be peace. When I saw thy ambassadors I rejoiced greatly . . . A chariot . . . and two white horses, . . . a chariot without harness, and one seal of blue stone I have sent thee as a present. These are presents for the great king." The letter then proceeds to ask very frankly for specific and very large gifts in return, and tells very clearly of the present state of the road between Egypt and Assyria.
In the reign of Asshur-uballit Assyria made a distinct advance in power and dignity, and this development continued during the reign of Asshur-uballit's son and successor, Bel-nirari (Bel-is-my-help)-about 1380 B. C. Of him two facts have come down to us, the mutual relations of which seem to be as follows: Kurigalzu II had been seated on the Babylonian throne by the Assyrians and therefore owed them much gratitude, but to assure the stability of his throne he must needs take the Babylonian rather than the Assyrian side of controversies and difficulties between the peoples. The grandson of Bel-nirari boasts concerning him that he conquered the Kassites17 and in creased the territory of Assyria. By this he must mean not the Kassite rulers of Babylonia, but rather the people from whom they had come-that is, the inhabitants of the neighboring Elamite foothills. This conquest simply carried a little further the acquisition of territory toward the east and south which had been begun by Asshur-uballit's conquest of Shubari. But these Assyrian conquests led to Babylonian jealousy and then to a conflict between Kurigalzu II and Bel-nirari, in which the latter was victorious, and this, in turn, brought about a rearrangement of the boundary line by which the two kings divided between them the disputed territory,18 though it does not appear which was the gainer.
Again the succession to the throne passed from father to son, and Pudi-ilu (about 1360 B. C.) reigned in Asshur. He has left us only brief inscriptions,19 in which he boasts of building at the temple of Shamash, probably that at the capital city. From his son we learn that he was a warrior of no mean achievements, though our geographical knowledge is not sufficient to enable us to follow his movements closely. He is represented as overrunning the lands Turuki and Nigimkhi, and conquering the princes of the land of Gutium.20 Beside these conquests to the north of the city of Asshur he also extended his borders toward the southwest by the conquest of the nomad people the Sutu. From reign to reign we see the little kingdom of Asshur grow. These conquests were probably not much more than raids, nor is it likely that at so early a period a serious effort was made by the Assyrians to govern the territory overrun.21 It was preparatory work; the peoples round about Asshur were gradually being brought to know something of its growing power. They would soon come to regard it as a mistress and consolidation would be easy. It was in similar fashion that the empire of Babylonia had grown to its position of influence.
Pudi-ilu was succeeded by his son, Adad-nirari I (about 1345 B. C.), who has left us two records, the one a bronze sword inscribed with his name and titles,22 the other a considerable inscription,23 carefully dated by the eponym name, the oldest dated Assyrian inscription yet found. The latter is largely devoted to an account of the enlargement of the temple of Asshur in the capital, his wars being but slightly mentioned. In the enumeration of the lands conquered by him the countries already overrun by his predecessors are repeated-Shubari, the Kassite country, and Guti, to which lie adds the land of the Lulumi. The fact that these lands needed so soon to be conquered again shows that the first conquest was little more than a raid. But this time a distinct advance was made; Adad-nirari does more than conquer. He expressly states that he rebuilt cities in this conquered territory24 which had been devastated by the previous conquests. Here is evidence of rule rather than of ruin, and in this incident we may find the real beginnings of the great empire of Assyria. Again there were difficulties with Babylonia, and Adad-nirari fought with Kurigalzu II and with his successor, Nazi-Maruttash (about 1345 B. C.), both of whom he conquered, according to Assyrian accounts,25 though the Babylonian Chronicle would give the victory to the Babylonian king, in the first case at least. In the inscription of the bronze sword Adad-nirari calls himself king of Kishshati, a title which is found earlier in an inscription of Asshur-uballit.26 He does not call himself king of Asshur at all, though this title is given by him to his father and grandfather. Apparently he seems to claim for himself a greater dignity than that of ruler merely over Asshur, else would he certainly have called himself king of Asshur, as did his predecessors. But his own description gives us no means of determining the location or the bounds of the territory which he had conquered or over which he claimed rule. When his reign closed he left Assyria and its dependencies far stronger than when he took the government in his own hands.
His son, Shalmaneser I, was his worthy successor. From his own historiographers very little has come down to us-only two broken tablets,27 from which it is difficult to make out any connected story, but the fame of his great deeds called forth more than one mention from later kings,28 and these will enable us to reconstruct the main portion of his achievements. The general direction of his conquests was toward the northwest. This would seem to imply that the policy of his father had been successful, and that the territory toward the northeast and the southeast was peacefully subject to Assyria. He pushed rather into the great territory of the valley between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and therein established colonies as a bulwark of defense against the nomadic populations of the farther north. Still farther westward the land of Musri was also subjected. This land lay north of Syria, close to Mount Amanus, and hence very near to the great Mediterranean Sea. To reach it Shalmaneser must cross the Euphrates--the first time that Assyrian power had crossed the great river. Subsequent events show that the more westerly parts of the land which he conquered were not really added to the Assyrian state. As in the case of Shubari, so also in this, other invasions would be necessary. But this at least had been gained, the rapidly growing kingdom was firmly established as far as the Balikh, and perhaps even to the Euphrates beyond.
Small wonder is it that a conqueror of such prowess and an organizer of such ability should deem it necessary to build a new Capital worthy of so great a kingdom. The city of Asshur was old, and its location was far south, too near the old Babylonian border. A kingdom that was growing northward and westward needed a capital more nearly central in location. Shalmaneser I determined to erect his new capital at Calah,29 and so pitched upon a site which remained the capital of his country for centuries, and later became the southern portion of Nineveh itself. In peace as in war a man of foresight and skill, like his father, he left Assyria the greater for his living and ruling.
In the reign of his son and successor, Tukulti-Ninib (about 1290 B. C.), the irresistible progress of the Assyrian arms reached a glorious climax. There had once more arisen trouble between the two states of Assyria and Babylonia. Perhaps it bras the old and vexed boundary question, which Would not down; perhaps the never-forgotten restless ambition of the Assyrians to rule at Babylon. Whatever the cause or excuse Tukulti-Ninib invaded Babylonia with force sufficient to overwhelm its defenders and the imperial capital was taken. After an unexampled career of power and of civilization Babylon had fallen and the Assyrian plunderer was among her ruins. Tukulti-Ninib laid low a part of the city wall, even then massive, killed some of the defenders, and plundered the temple, carrying away into Assyria the image of the great god Marduk. This was no mere raid, but a genuine conquest of the city, which was now governed from Calah. Assyrian officers were stationed both in the north and in the south of the country. Tukulti-Ninib adopts the title of king of Sumer and Accad in addition to his former titles, king of Kishshati and king of Asshur. In his person were now united the latest Assyrian title and one of the most ancient titles in the world. The old and coveted land of Sumer and Accad, the conquest of which by Hammurabi had been the very making of his empire, was now ruled from the far north. A curious evidence of the rule of Tukulti-Ninib in Babylon itself was found by Sennacherib, probably during the second attack upon the city (689 B. C.). Tukulti-Ninib had sent to Babylon a seal inscribed with his name, and this was taken to Assyria.30 For seven years only was this rule over Babylonia maintained. The Babylonians rebelled, drove out the Assyrian conqueror, and set up once more a Babylonian, Adad-shum-usur (about 1268-1239 B. C.), as king over them. When Tukulti-Ninib returned to Assyria after his unsuccessful effort to maintain his authority in the south he found even his own people in rebellion under the leadership of his son. In the civil war that followed he lost his life, and the most brilliant reign in Assyrian history up to that time was closed.
Up to this point the progress of the Assyrians had been steady and rapid. The few Semitic colonists from Babylonia had so completely overwhelmed the original inhabitants of their land that the latter made no impression on Assyrian life or history, and in this alone they had achieved more than the Babylonians, after a much longer history and with greater opportunities. We have seen how the Babylonians were influenced by the Sumerian civilization and by the Sumerian people. Afterward they were first conquered by the Kassites and then so completely amalgamated with them that they ceased to be a pure Semitic race. Thus the influences of Semitism could not be perpetuated and disseminated by the Babylonians, while, on the other hand, the Assyrians suffered no intermixture. The latter had already so gained control of the fine territory which they first invaded as to be absolute masters of it. Under them the land of Assyria had become Semitic. More than this, they had gained sufficient influence by conquest over the older Aramaean peoples toward the southeast, between them and the Kassites and the Babylonians, as to take from the Babylonians the Semitic leadership. Their colonies in the upper Mesopotamian valley were centers of Semitic influence and stood as a great bulwark against the non-Semitic influences on the north. By crossing the Euphrates and conquering the land of Musri they had also threatened the older Semitic civilizations in Syria and Palestine. Would they be able to wrest the power from them, as they had from the eastern Aramaeans and from the Babylonians? If this could be done, the Assyrians would hold in their hands the destinies of the Semitic race. It seemed as though they were to accomplish even this, when they were suddenly checked by the successful rebellion of the Babylonians, by civil war, and by the death of their great leader. This reverse might mean their permanent overthrow if the Babylonian people still had in their veins the courage, the dash, and the rugged independence of the desert Semite. If, however, the intermixture of Sumerian and Kassite blood, not to mention lesser strains, had weakened the Semitic powers of the Babylonians, the check to Assyria might be only temporary. It is a critical day in the history of the race. The severity of the blow to Assyria is evidenced not only by the results in Babylonia, but no less by the fragmentary character of Assyrian annals for a long time. It is, indeed, for a time difficult not only to learn the course of events in Assyria, but even the names and order of the kings. The Babylonian Chronicle31 mentions an Assyrian king, Tukulti-Asshur-Bel, in close connection with the history of Tukulti-Ninib, but in words so obscure that his relation to the history is difficult to understand. It is altogether probable that he reigned as regent32 in Assyria during the seven years in which his father was engaged in the reducing and ruling of Babylon, but of his deeds in these years we have no knowledge.
The successor of Tukulti-Ninib on the throne of Assyria was his son, Asshurnazirpal I, who had led the rebellion against him. In his reign the ruin of Assyrian fortunes which began in his father's defeat and death went rapidly on. The Babylonian king, Adad-shum-usur, felt himself strong enough to follow up the advantage already gained by the restoration of his family to power, and actually attacked Assyria, from which he was only with difficulty repulsed.
The next Assyrian kings were Asshur-narara and Nabu-daian (about 1250 B. C.), of whose reigns we know nothing, although we are able to infer from the sequel that the Assyrian power continued to wane, while the Babylonian increased. The reigns were short, and were soon succeeded by Bel-kudur-usur and Ninib-apal-esharra, in whose clay the Babylonians under the leadership of Meli-Shipak and Marduk-apal-iddina invaded Assyria and stripped the once powerful kingdom of all its southern and part at least of its northern and western conquered territory. Apparently all was lost that the Assyrian kings of the earlier day had won, and the end of Assyrian leadership had come, but the motive force of the Assyrians was not destroyed.
The successor of Ninib-apal-esharra was Asshurdan (about 1210 B. C.), and with him begins the rehabilitation of Assyrian power. He crossed the river Zab, and invading the territory which had been for some time considered Babylonian, restored a small section of it to Assyria. We know little else of his reign, but this is sufficient to mark the turning point and explain what follows. His great-grandson, Tiglathpileser, boasts of him that he reached a great age.33 In his reign the rugged virtues of the Assyrians were preparing for the reawakening which was soon to come. Of the following reign of his son, Mutakkil-Nusku34 (about 1150 B. C.), we have no information, though we are probably safe in the supposition that his father's work was continued, for we find in Babylonian history, as has been seen, no evidence of any weakening of Assyria, but rather the contrary. The gain in the Assyrian progress is shown more clearly by the reign of his son, Asshur-rich-ishi (about 1140 B. C.), who is introduced to us very fittingly as "the powerful king, the conqueror of hostile lands, the subduer of all the evil."35 The beginning of his conquests was made by a successful campaign against the Lulumi and the Kuti, who have found mention more than once before. They must have either become independent, during the period of Assyria's decline, or perhaps have been added to the restored Babylonian empire. Having thus made sure of the territory on the south and east, Asshur-rish-ishi was ready to meet the great and hereditary foe of Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar I was now king in Babylon, and, flushed with recent victory over a portion of Elam, was a dangerous antagonist. The issue between the kings seems to have been joined not in the old land of Babylonia south of Assyria, but in Mesopotamia, and the Assyrians were victorious. Of the other deeds of Asshur-rish-ishi we know nothing save that he restored again the temple of Ishtar in Calah.
Asshur-rish-ishi was succeeded by his son, Tiglathpileser I (Tukulti-pal-esharra, My help is the son of Esharra-that is, My help is the god Ninib). There was therefore no break in the succession and no new dynasty begins. Nevertheless, a new period of Assyrian history really commences with the next king. With Asshur-rish-ishi ends the first period of growth and decay and of renaissance. To his son he left a kingdom almost as great as Assyria had yet possessed. Tiglathpileser begins to reign with the titles of king of Kishshati and king of Asshur; the only title belonging to his ancestors which he did not possess was king of Sumer and Accad. With him we enter upon a wonderful period in the career of the Assyrian people.
TIGLATHPILESER I (about 1120 B. C.) was the grand monarch of western Asia in his day, and the glory of his achievements was held in memory in Assyria for ages after. It is fitting that one who wrought such marvels in peace and war should have caused his deeds to be written down with care and preserved in more than one copy.36 To his gods he ascribed the credit of his works. Their names, a formidable number, stand at the very head of the chief written memorials of his reign. Here are Asshur, the ancient patron deity of his land, "the great lord, the director of the hosts of the gods," and Bel also, and Sin, the moon god; Shamash, the sun god; Adad, the god of the air, of storms, of thunder, and rain; Ninib, "the hero;" and, last of all, the goddess Ishtar, "the firstborn of the gods," whose name was ever to resound and be hallowed in the later history of Nineveh.37 With so great a pantheon had the people of Assyria already enriched themselves.
The annals of the king show that he planned his campaigns well and had a definite aim in each struggle against his enemies. When he ascended the throne Babylonia was too weak to interfere with his labor of building up anew the Assyrian empire, and no immediate campaign southward was therefore necessary. On the other hand, there was a threatening situation in the north and west. The nomadic tribes, established in the hill country above the Mesopotamian valley, northward of Harran, bad never been really subdued, and some fresh effort had to be made to hold them in check or the integrity of the kingdom might be endangered. The tribe that was now most threatening was the Mushke. This people was settled in the territory north of Milid, the modern Malatiyeh, on both sides of the upper waters of the Euphrates. In later times they became famous as the Moschi38 of the Greeks, and the Meshech39 of the Old Testament, being in both cases associated with the Tubal or Tibareni, who at this period lived toward the south and west, inhabiting a portion of the territory later known as Kappadokia. The Mushke had crossed the Euphrates southward and possessed themselves of the districts of Alzi and Purukhumzi about fifty years before, in the period of Assyria's weakness. The Assyrians had once overrun this very territory and claimed presents for the god Asshur from its inhabitants, but it was now fully in the control of the Mushke, and had for these fifty years been paying tribute to them, and not to the Assyrians. Feeling their strength, and unopposed by any other king, the Mushke, to the number of about twenty thousand, in five bands, invaded the land of Kummukh. Here was indeed a dangerous situation for Assyria, for if these people were unchecked, they would not long be satisfied with the possession of this northern part of Kummukh, but would seize it all, and perhaps invade the land of Assyria it. self. Trusting in Asshur, his lord, Tiglathpileser hastily assembled an army and marched against them. He must cross the rough and wild Mount Masius and descend upon his enemies among the head waters of the Tigris. How large a force of men he led in this venture we do not know, but his victory was overwhelming. Of the twenty thousand men who opposed him but six thousand remained alive to surrender and accept Assyrian rule. The others were savagely butchered, their heads cut off, and their blood scattered over the "ditches and heights of the mountains."40 This savagery, so clearly met here for the first time, blackens the whole record of Assyrian history to the end. It was usual in far less degree among the Babylonians, so that the ascendancy of Assyria over Babylonia is, in this light, the triumph of brute force over civilization.
Having thus overwhelmed the advance guard of the Mushke, Tiglathpileser returns to reestablish, by conquest, the Assyrian supremacy over the southern portions of the land of Kummukh. This country was also quickly subdued and its cities wasted with fire, perhaps as centers of possible rebellion. The fleeing inhabitants crossed an arm of the Tigris toward the west and made a stand in the city of Sherishe, which they fortified for defense. The Assyrian king pursued across mountain and river, and carried by assault their stronghold, butchering the fighting men as before. The men of Kummukh had some forces from the land of Qurkhe41 as allies, but these profited little, and the united forces were overwhelmed. Again the Tigris was crossed and the stronghold of Urrakhin-ash laid waste. Rightly appreciating the terrible danger that threatened them, the inhabitants gathered together their possessions, together with their gods, and fled "like birds"42 into the mountain fastnesses that surrounded them. Their king realizing the hopelessness of his state, came forth to meet his conqueror and to seek some mercy at his hand. Tiglathpileser took the members of his family as hostages, and received a rich gift of bronze plates, copper bowls, and trays, and a hundred and twenty slaves, with oxen and sheep. Strangely enough he spared his life, adding complacently to the record the words: "I had compassion on him, (and) granted his life," which hereafter was to be lived under Assyrian suzerainty. By these movements the "broad land of Kummukh" was conquered, and the Assyrian ruled at least as far as, if not beyond, Mount Masius. Great achievements these for the first year of a reign, and the next year was equally successful. It began with an invasion of the land of Shubari, which had been conquered before by Adad-niari I, and had again rebelled, thence the king marched into the countries of Alzi and Purukhumzi, of which we heard in his first campaign, in order to lay upon them anew the old annual tribute so long unpaid to Assyria. The cities of Shubari surrendered without battle on the appearance of Tiglathpileser, and the district north of Mount Masius was all a tribute-paying land. On the return from this campaign the land of Kummukh is again devastated. The exaggeration of the king's annals appears strongly here, for if, in the campaign of the first year, Kummukh had been so thoroughly wasted as the king's words declare, there would certainly have been little left to destroy in the next year. This time there is added at the conclusion one sentence which did not appear before. " The land of Kummukh, in its whole extent, I subjugated and added to the territory of my land."43 Well may such a conqueror continue in the words which immediately follow: "Tiglathpileser, the powerful king, overwhelmer of the disobedient, he who overcomes the opposition of the wicked."44 The control of the great Mesopotamian valley in its northern portion between the Tigris and the Euphrates is safely lodged in Assyrian hands.
The third year of the reign of Tiglathpileser contained no less than three campaigns. The first, against Kharia45 and Qurkhi, we cannot follow in its geographical details, and are therefore unable fully to realize its meaning and importance. It was a mountain campaign, full of toilsome ascents, and carried on with the usual savage accompaniments. In quite a different direction lay the course of the second campaign of this year. In. stead of the north, it was the south that now claimed attention. The king crosses the Lower Zab River, which discharges its waters into the Tigris not far south of the ancient capital, Asshur, and conquers an inaccessible region amid the mountains of its upper courses. A third campaign again carries him to the north against Sugi, in Qurkhi, and results also in a victory, from which no less than twenty-five gods were brought back to Assyria in triumphal subjection to Anu, Adad, and Ishtar.
The great undertaking of the fourth year of the king's reign was a campaign into the lands of the Nairi.46 By this the annals of Tiglathpileser clearly mean the lands about the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates, lying north, west, and south of Lake Van. In this territory there was as yet no Chaldian kingdom, but no less than twenty-three native kings or princes united their forces to oppose the Assyrian. There was more mountain climbing to reach them, and then they were severely punished. The kings were taken alive, and after swearing oaths of fealty to the gods of Assyria were liberated. Chariots and troops of horses, with much treasure of every kind, were taken, and a yearly tribute of twelve hundred horses and two thousand oxen was put upon the inhabitants, who were not removed from their land47 One only of these twenty-three kings--Sini, the king of Daiyaeni48--refusing to surrender as the others, resisted to the last. He was therefore carried in chains to Assyria, where he probably saw reasons for submission, for he was suffered to depart alive. This episode in the king's conquests is concluded with the claim that the whole of the lands of Nairi were subdued, but later history shows clearly that further conquest was necessary. It was a great move forward in Assyria's growth into a world power to have accomplished this much. As a part of the same campaign tribute was collected from the territory about Milid, and another year of activity was ended.
By comparison with the previous four years the fifth seems a year of less result. Aramaean peoples inhabiting the Syrian wastes, west of the upper waters of the Euphrates and south of the city of Carchemish, had crossed the river into Mesopotamia. Tiglathpileser expelled them, and so again strengthened Assyrian supremacy in northern Mesopotamia as far as Carchemish. Following up his easily won victory, the king crossed the Euphrates in pursuit and laid waste six Aramaean cities at the foot of Mount Bishri.
The campaign of the next year was directed against the land of Musri,49 which had already felt the arm of Assyria in the reign of Shalmaneser I. The people of Musri were aided by allies from the land of Qumani,50 and both lands were subjugated and a yearly tribute put upon them, after they had suffered all the horrors of the savage Assyrian method of warfare. In the language of the annals, their heads were cut off like sheep."
The king thus records the results of his five years of campaigns: "In all, forty-two centuries and their kings from beyond the Lower Zab (and) the border of the distant mountains to beyond the Euphrates, to the land of the Hittites and the Upper Sea51 of the setting sun, from the beginning of my sovereignty until my fifth year my hand has conquered. Of one mind I made them all; their hostages I took; tribute and taxes I imposed upon them." With this notice in the annals of Tiglathpileser ends all account of his campaigns. No other word concerning any further raids or ravages is spoken. Were it not for the Synchronistic History we should know nothing more of his prowess. The information which thus comes to us is not so full as are the notes which we have already passed in review, but it supplies what was needful to round out the circle of his marching and conquering. It was improbable that a king who had conquered north, west, and east should not also find cause for attacking the coveted land of Babylonia. From the Synchronistic History52 we learn that he twice invaded the territory of Marduk-nadin-akhe and marched even to Babylon itself, where he was styled king of the Four Quarters of the World. So ends the story of the wars of Tiglathpileser I. He had not only restored the kingdom of Assyria to the position which it held in the days of Shalmaneser and Tukulti-Ninib; be had made it still more great. Never had so many peoples paid tribute to the Assyrians, and never was so large a territory actually ruled from the Assyrian capital.
But Tiglathpileser was no less great in peace than in war He brought back the capital of Assyria from Calah to Asshur and almost rebuilt the city, which had thus again become important. The temples of Ishtar, Adad, and Bel were rebuilt. The palaces which had fallen into ruin during the absence of the court were again restored and beautified. And then into this city thus renewed, and into this land enlarged by conquest, the king brought the wealth of the world as he had gathered it. Goats, fallow deer, and wild sheep were herded into the land. Horses in large numbers taken from conquered lands or received in yearly tribute were added to the peaceful service of agriculture. But not even here did the king rest. He caused trees also to be brought from great distances and planted in the land he loved.53 It is a marvelous story of peaceful achievement, worthy of a place by the side of his overpowering success in war.
In addition to the serious work of war and peace the king found time to cultivate the wiles of a sportsman, and great are his boasts of the birds and the cattle and even the lions which he slew. This passion for sport is commemorated long afterward in an inscription of Asshurnazirpal, in which we are told that Tiglathpileser sailed in ships of Arvad upon the Mediterranean.54 It follows from this that after the six campaigns, enumerated above, the king must have made another which carried him out to the Phoenician coast, where his successors were later to fight great battles and win great triumphs.
Of the conclusion of the reign of Tiglathpileser we know nothing. He probably died in peace, for he was succeeded by his son, Asshur-bel-kala (about 1090 B. C.), and the latter was followed after a short reign by another son of Tiglathpileser, Shamshi-Adad I (about 1080 B. C.). So easy and unbroken a succession makes it a fair presumption that the times were peaceful. The sons were not able to bear the burden which came to them, so that there is speedily a falling off in the power and dignity of the kingdom. When we look back on. the reign of Tiglathpileser and ask what of permanent value for Assyria was achieved by all his wars the answer is disappointing. He might boast that he had conquered from east to west, from the Lower Zab to the Mediterranean, and from the south to the north, from Babylonia to Lake Van, but what were these conquests, for the most part, but raids of intimidation and of plunder? He did not really extend the government of Assyria to such limits, even though in Kummukh he actually appointed Assyrian governors. Over this great territory, however, he made the name of Assyria feared, so that the lesser peoples surrendered at times without striking a blow for freedom, while the greater peoples dared not think of invading Assyrian territory. This insurance against invasion was the great gain which he brought to his country. By carrying savage war to other nations he secured for his own a peace which gave opportunity for progress in the arts. These great temples and palaces required time for their erection and time for the training of men who were skilled in the making of bricks and the working of wood. The very inscription from which we have learned the facts of his reign, a beautiful clay prism with eight hundred and nine lines of writing, bears impressive witness to a high state of civilization and an era of peace.
Of the reigns of the two sons we know almost nothing. Asshur-bel-kala maintained terms of peace with Marduk-shapik-zer-mati (about 1094-1083 B. C.), king of Babylonia, who thereby seemed to be considered an independent monarch and not subject to the Assyrians, as his predecessor bad been. In this reign the capital appears to have been transferred to Nineveh,55 and a word in the only inscription of the king which has come down to us hints at the king's control in the west.56 After a short reign Asshur-bel-kala was succeeded by his brother, Shamshi-Adad, whose only work known to us was the rebuilding of the temple of Ishtar in Nineveh-another proof that the capital was now located at this city and not at Asshur.
After this reign there is another long period of silence in Assyrian history, of which we have no native monumental witnesses; a period of immense importance in the history of mankind, for it was a time not only of silence but of actual decay in the Assyrian commonwealth. As the fortunes of Assyria were at so low an ebb, the time was favorable for the growth and development of peoples elsewhere who were for a time free from the threatening of Assyrian arms. When once more we come upon a period of historical writing and of great deeds in Assyria we shall find the Assyrian conquerors confronting a changed condition of affairs in the world. To the growth of new conditions elsewhere we must now address our thought for a better understanding of Assyrian movements after the silent period.
AFTER the dynasty of Isin had ceased to rule in Babylonia, brought to an end we know not how, there arose a dynasty known to the Babylonian historiographers and chronologists as the dynasty of the Sea Lands. The territory known as the Sea Lands was alluvial land at the estuaries of the Tigris and the Euphrates upon the Persian Gulf. This fertile country, already beginning to show its growing power, was destined at a later period to exercise a great influence upon the history of Babylonia. The dynasty of the Sea Lands numbered only three kings, who reigned together but twenty-one years and five months,57 or, as the Babylonian Chronicle has it, twenty-three years.58 This variation in the time given by the two chief Babylonian authorities is instructive in its showing that the Babylonians themselves did not preserve so accurate a memory of this time as of the earlier and later periods.
The first king of the dynasty was Sibar-shipak (about 1074-1057 B. C.), of whose reign we know only that it ended disastrously, for he was slain and buried in the palace of Sargon.59
The next king was Ea-mukin-zer (about 1057 B. C.), who reigned but five months according to the King List, or three months according to the Chronicle. Of his reign, also, we have no further knowledge.60
The last king was Kasshu-nadin-akhe, son of Sippai, who reigned but three years (about 10561054 B. C.) (Chronicle, six years), whose works are likewise unknown to us.
All of these kings, according to the statement of a later monarch, had labored upon the rebuilding of the Temple of the Sun at Sippar.
Immediately after this dynasty there follows another of three kings, called the dynasty of the house of Bazi, of which we know only the names of the rulers and the somewhat doubtful number of years which they reigned. These kings are
Eulbar-shakin-shum, seventeen years (Chronicle, fifteen) (about 1053-1037 B. C.). Ninib-kudur-usur, three years (Chronicle, two) (1036-1034 B. C.).
Silanim-shukamuna, three months (about 1033 B. C.).
After this dynasty comes another with only one king, whose name is unknown. He is called an Elamite, reigned six years, and was buried in the palace of Sargon (about 1032-1027 B. C.). In his seizing of the throne we are reminded of the former Elamite movements under Eri-Aku.
With these three dynasties we have passed over a period of history in Babylonia of perhaps forty-six years. Our lack of knowledge of the period is of course partly due to absence of original documents, but it is also probably due to the fact that there was little to tell. We have lighted upon degenerate days. The real Babylonian stock had exhausted its vigor, and was now intermixed with Kassite and other foreign blood-a mixture which would later prove stronger than the pure blood which had preceded it, for mixed races have generally been superior to those of pure blood. But there was hardly time yet for a display of its real force. Besides this Babylonia had suffered from invasions from Assyria, from Elam, and from the Sea Lands, at the head of the Persian Gulf. It was not surprising that a period not only of peace but of stagnation had come.
The most noteworthy fact in these forty-six years is the arising from the far south of the so. called dynasty of the Sea Lands. The names of these three kings are chiefly Kassite, and that would seem to imply that the Kassites had also overrun this land as well as the more central parts of Babylonia. However that may be, this is the country which is also called the land of the Kaldi, or, in the later form, the land of Chaldea. This is the period of the growth and development of new states on all sides, as we shall see in the survey to follow, and it is the first appearance of the Chaldeans in Babylonian history. Their subsequent history shows that they were Semites, though perhaps, as above stated, of somewhat mixed blood. It is not known when they first entered the land by the sea, from which they had now invaded Babylonia. It has been suggested that their power in Babylonia was attained not by conquest, but by a slow progress of emigration.61 The view is plausible, perhaps even probable, for they seem to have become kings in a period of profound peace, but there is no sure evidence.
In following the line of Babylonian kings we have now reached another period of extreme difficulty. The native Babylonian King Lists are so badly broken that no names are legible for a long period, and but very few of the numerals which give their years of reign. It is possible, however, from the fragmentary notices of Assyrian kings, from the Synchronistic History, and from certain business documents to recover a few of the names, which will be set down in their approximate order as the story progresses. The next of the kings of Babylonia seems to have been Nabu-ukin-abli,62 who reigned apparently thirty-six years (about 1026-991 B. C.), and whose portrait, accompanied by his titles as king of Kishshati and king of Babylonia, is given on a curious boundary stone. This is all that is known of him or his reign.
While we have been laboriously threading our way though the weary mazes of this obscure succession of dynasties in Babylonia we have left aside a period of silence in Assyria after the reign of Tiglathpileser I and his two sons. We have now seen that during this period there was no display of power and energy in Babylonia, but the people of Chaldea, using perhaps this very opportunity, had been able to establish themselves well in their own land, and even to attain power in Babylonia.
In the west there were movements of still greater importance among the Semitic peoples. Just as the decay of Babylonian power gave opportunity to the Chaldeans, so the decay of Assyrian power and the consequent absence of its threats against the west gave great opportunity to the peoples of Syria and Palestine. As the Assyrian power must soon meet these new foes, as well as old foes in new locations, we must survey this field of the west before we proceed further with the story of Assyria.
Several times before in this history we have met with a people known as the Aramaeans. Like the Assyrians and Babylonians, they were a Semitic people whose original homeland was Arabia, and probably northern Arabia. Whether Aramaeans began to leave Arabia before or after the Babylonians will probably never be known with certainty. As the Mesopotamian valley was so much more desirable a place of dwelling than the lands later occupied by the Aramaeans, it seems reasonable to suppose that this valley was already occupied by the Babylonians when the Aramaeans came out of Arabia and moved northward. They left settlements along the edges of the Babylonian kingdom, some of which were readily absorbed, while others remained to vex their stronger neighbors for centuries. In their migrations toward the north they seemed to follow very nearly the course of the Euphrates, though bodies of them crossed over toward the Tigris and became, as we have seen, thorny neighbors of the Assyrians during the founding of the Assyrian kingdom. At the period which we have now reached their strongest settlements were along the northern Euphrates, in the neighborhood of the river Sajur. Pitru (the biblical Pethor63) and Mutkinu, which had been filled with Assyrian colonists by Tiglathpileser, were now in the hands of the Aramaeans. It is altogether probable, also, that they had silently possessed themselves of territory farther north along the Euphrates, perhaps even as far as Amid, which Tiglathpileser had conquered, but which had to be reconquered, and from the Aramaeans, in a short time. But the greatest achievement of the Aramaeans was not in the upper Mesopotamian valley. They were in force in this valley when the Hittite empire fell to pieces, and to them came the best of what it possessed. Carchemish, at the fords of the Euphrates, had been passed by, and moving westward, they had seized Aleppo and Hamath and then, most glorious and powerful of all, Damascus fell into their hands. Here they founded their greatest kingdom, and centuries must elapse before the Assyrians would be able to break down this formidable barrier to their western progress. But these facts have another significance besides the political. The Aramaeans were essentially traders. The territory which they now possessed was the key to the trade between the east and the west. The products of Assyria and of Babylonia could not cross into Syria and thence in ships over the Mediterranean westward without passing through this Aramaean territory, and so paying tribute. The Aramaeans had become the land traders, as the Phoenicians were the sea traders. Now, the Assyrians were also a commercial people, shrewd, eager, and persevering. It could not be long before the king of Assyria would be pressed by the commercial life of Nineveh to undertake wars for the winning back from the Aramaeans of this territory so valuable in itself, and so important for the development of Assyrian commerce. However the Assyrians, who were never a maritime people, might endure the submission of their commercial ambition to the Phoenicians on the sea, it was not likely that they would yield up the highways of the land to a people less numerous and less strong than themselves. In the period of decay that followed the reign of Tiglathpileser this new power had risen up to bar their progress. We shall see shortly how the difficulty was met.
During the same period another power, not so great, and yet destined to influence strongly the later history of Assyria and soon to excite Assyrian cupidity, had been slowly developing in the land of Palestine south of the Aramaean strongholds. When the Hebrews crossed over the Jordan into Palestine they found a number of disorganized tribes lately freed from Egyptian rule and not yet organized into a confederation sufficiently strong to resist the fresh blood which came on them suddenly from out the desert.64 The Hebrews in their desert sojourn had worn off the feeling of a subject population, and from the desert air had taken in at every breath the freedom which to this very day inspires the desert Arab. It was a resistless force which Joshua led in the desultory campaigns beyond the Jordan. The period of the Judges was a rude and barbaric age, but it was an age in which Israel developed some idea of national life and some power of self-government. If the conquests of Tiglathpileser had continued many years longer, he would surely have been led to invade Palestine, and the Hebrews, without a fixed central government, without a kingly leader, without a standing army, would have fallen an easy prey to his disciplined and victorious troops. But the period of Assyrian weakness which followed his reign gave the needed breathing spell in the west, and the kingdom of Saul and David was established. Herein was established a new center of influence ready to oppose the ambition of Assyrian kings and the commercial cupidity of Assyrian traders.
The political aspect of western Asia had changed considerably in the period 1050-950 B. C. During this century we do not know anything of the life of the Assyrian people. The names of the kings Asshurnazirpal II (about 1050 B. C.), Erba-Adad, and Asshur-nadin-akhe belong in this period, and the last two erected buildings in the city of Asshur, the restoration of which became a care to a later king65 after a lapse of one hundred and fifty years. After these kings there ruled a certain Asshur-erbi, though whether he was their immediate successor or not does not appear. He has left us no accounts of his wars or of his labors. From the allusions of two later Assyrian kings we learn that it was in his reign that the Aramaeans seized Pitru (Pethor) and Mutkinu,66 so that his reign is another evidence of the period of weakness and decay in Assyria. But he seems, on the other hand, to have invaded the far west, for on the Phoenician coast he carved his portrait in relief upon the rocks,67 probably in the rocky gorge of the Nahr-el-Kelb, north of Beirut, a place much used for the same purpose by later Assyrian conquerors.
At about 950 B. C. Tiglathpileser IT began to reign in Assyria, and from his time on to the end of the Assyrian empire we possess an unbroken list of the names of the kings. He is called king of Kishshati and king of Asshur,68 and with his name and his titles our knowledge begins and ends. He was succeeded by his son, Asshur-dan II69 (about 930 B. C.), and he again by his son, Adad-nirari II (911-891 B. C.), in whose reign the old struggles between Assyria and Babylonia began again. Babylonia was now ruled by Shamash-mudammik, and these two monarchs met in battle at the foot of Mount Yalman and the Babylonian was utterly overthrown. We hear no more of him, and his life may have ended in the battle.
The struggle was renewed by his successor, Nabushum-ishkun, who likewise suffered defeat at the hands of Adad-nirari IT, and was compelled to yield some cities to the Assyrians, after which a treaty of peace was made between the two nations. Besides these notices of the relations between the two kingdoms our only record of the times is a short inscription of Adad-nirari II,70 in which his genealogy only is given. His son, Tukulti-Ninib IT (890-885 B. C.), introduces us to the threshold of a new period of Assyrian conquest. He began again the campaigns in the north, which had rested since the days of Tiglathpileser I, over whose course, in part, he marched, piercing the highlands even to the confines of Urartu (Armenia) and extending his ravages from Lake Urumiyeh on the east to the land of Kummukh on the west. At Supnat (Sebeneh-Su) he caused his relief portrait to be set up alongside of that of Tiglathpileser, whose exploits he had been emulating.
In his reign Assyria gives plain indication that the period of decay and of weakness was past. The Babylonians had been partially humbled, and were at least not threatening. The Assyrians were therefore free to begin again to assert the right to tribute in the north and northwest. In the next reign the issue is joined, and a new period of Assyrian progress begins.
WHEN Asshurnazirpal (885-860 B. C.) succeeded his father on the throne of Assyria he inherited opportunities rather than actual possessions. The kingdom over which be ruled from his capital city of Nineveh was comparatively small. Babylonia, while not physically so strong as Assyria, was, nevertheless, entirely independent under the reign of Nabu-apal-iddin (about 880 B. C.), who probably began to reign very shortly after Asshurnazirpal. The countries to the north which bad been conquered by Tiglathpileser I and again overrun by Tukulti-Ninib were only tributary, and not really governed from Nineveh. Furthermore their tribute was not paid voluntarily, but only when an Assyrian army stood ready to collect it by force. The Aramaeans possessed the best lands in the upper Mesopotamian valley, and must be met on the field of battle. The opportunity was great, because none of these peoples were strong enough to oppose Assyria single-handed, and there was no present prospect of any sort of union between them. Asshurnazirpal was in every respect the man for this situation; no king like him bad arisen before in Assyria.
Abundant historical material enables us to follow closely the development of his plans and the course and conduct of his campaigns. His standard inscription upon alabaster71 contains three hundred and eighty-nine lines of writing, and gives, in almost epic grandeur, the story of the truly imperial plans which he had made for Assyria. This longest and best known text is supplemented by no less than eight other texts,72 some shorter originally, some fragmentary. Some of these are repetitions, either in the same or varying phrase, and thus add to the certainty of the text which may be made from their comparison.
In the very first year of the king's reign his campaigns of conquest begin, and it is in the north that he must first tranquilize populations by destruction and savage butchery. The course of his march was first northwestward, apparently following closely the course of the Tigris for a short distance and then striking due north over "impassable roads and trackless mountains" to the land of Nimme, which we are to locate west of Lake Van, about the neighborhood of Mush.73 Here were found strong cities, meaning thereby cities fortified against invasion, which were soon captured, with the loss of many fighting men to the enemy. According to the Assyrian account the remainder of the defenders fled into the mountains, there to hide like birds until, after a three days' march, Asshurnazirpal overtook them "nested" amid the fastnesses and slew two hundred of them. Thence returning again into their country, he threw down the walls of their cities and dug them up, and set fire to the heaps of ruins. There was no reason to doubt that the survivors would pay tribute to Assyria, if indeed anything had been left them wherewith to pay after such a visitation. The memory of such discipline might be expected to abide, while the report of it was sure to spread rapidly, after the fashion of an oriental story, among surrounding tribes who might learn from it the wisdom of surrender and of tribute paying without an attempt at a defense of national or tribal liberty. So it fell out, for when Asshurnazirpal, leaving the waste behind him, went southwestward into the land of Kirruri,74 by the side of Mount Rowandiz, he found ready for his taking a great tribute of oxen, sheep, wine, and a bowl of copper, and an Assyrian governor was easily established over the land, to look rather after its tribute than its worthy governing. And while these events were happening the people of Gozan between the Tigris and Lake Urumiyeh) and the people of Khubushkia,75 who lived west of them and nearer the old limits of Assyria, also sent a voluntary tribute consisting of "horses, silver, gold, lead, copper, and a bowl of copper." From such bloodless successes the king turned southward into the land of Qurkhi of Betani (along the bank of the Tigris eastward of Diarbekir) and fought with a population who only fled to the mountains after a bitter defeat. They also were overtaken, and two hundred and sixty of their heads were built into a pyramid; their cities were wasted and burned, and an Assyrian governor was set to rule them. Bubu, the son of the chief of Nishtum, one of their cities, was flayed in the city of Arbela and his skin spread on the fortress wall.
So stands the sickening record of the first year's campaign.76 This savage beginning augured ill for the new states which had sprung up since the days of Tiglathpileser. What mercy was there to be found in a man of this quality? If years and vigor were his portion, it would be difficult to set a limit to his success as a conqueror, while the early placing of governors over communities which had surrendered seemed to imply that he had also gifts as an administrator. But we follow his story further. In the next year (884 B. C.) the king invaded Kummukh, perhaps to insure payment of the annual tribute, or there may have been signs of rebellion. There was more of conquering to do on the way, and then Kummukh was entered, apparently without a struggle. But before the king's purpose had developed, whatever it may have been, he was summoned to the banks of the Euphrates.
The Aramaean communities along the Euphrates had no central government. They lived under the old forms of city governments, some still independent, some dependencies of Assyria with Assyrian governors. Bit-Khalupe was one of these subject communities located on the Euphrates, about halfway between the Balikh and the Khabur (modern Halebe), and the governor was Khamitai, an Assyrian subject. There was a rebellion here-so ran the intelligence brought to the Assyrians-the Assyrian governor was slain, and his place had been given to a certain Akhiyababa brought from Bit-Adini. It was summons enough. Asshurnazirpal showing thereby the mobility of his army, came southward along the course of the Khabur, halting at Sadikan (or Gardikan, the modern Arban77) to receive tribute from an Aramaean prince, Shulman-khaman-ilani, and again at Shuma to receive like honor from Ilu-Adad, in silver, gold, lead, plates of copper, variegated cloths, and linen vestments. The news of his approach reached Bit-Khalupe, and the faint hearts of the people sank in them. They surrendered, saying as they came from the city gates and took hold of the conqueror's feet, in token of submission, "Thou willest and it is death, thou willest and it is life; the will of thy heart will we perform."78 But even this abject surrender did not avail with such a man as Asshurnazirpal. He attacked the city and compelled the delivering up of all the soldiers who had joined in the rebellion. No mention is made of the treatment of the private soldiers, but their officers' legs were cut off. The nobles who had shared in the uprising were flayed, and their skins stretched over a pyramid erected, and apparently for this very purpose, at the chief gate of the city. Then the city, plundered of all its wealth and beauty,79 was left a monument of ferocity and a warning to conspirators. The unhappy Akhi-yababa was sent off to Nineveh, there to be flayed that his skin might adorn the fortress walls, while his place as Assyrian governor over Bit-Khalupe was taken by Azilu. As in the former year, the story of this punishment went abroad. The rulers of Laqi80 and Khindanu81 hastened to send tribute to the conqueror while he was staying at Suri, while yet another Aramaean people, the Shuhites, sent Ilubani, their ruler, and his sons to carry a costly tribute direct to Nineveh.
Following these events there was a lull in the king's actions, while he stayed at Nineveh, as though there were no more lands to conquer. But news reached him of a revolt among Assyrian colonists planted by Shalmaneser I at Khalzi-lukha,82 under the leadership of one Khula. Again must the king march northward into lands always troubled. On this march the king erected at the sources of the river Supnat a great inscribed portrait of himself by the side of the reliefs of Tiglathpileser I and Tukulti-Ninib. Thence he moved northwestward to the slopes of Mount Masius, where Khula was captured, his men butchered, and his city razed. On the return march, in the country of Nirbi, the lowlands about the modern Diarbekir,83 he took and devastated the chief city, Tela, which was defended by a threefold wall, slaying three thousand of its fighting men. A little farther south the king approached the city of Tuskha,84 in whose site he apparently recognized an important vantage point, for he halted to restore it. The old city wall was changed, and a new wall built in massive strength from foundation to the coping. Within these walls a royal palace was erected, an entirely new structure. A new relief of the king's person, fashioned of white limestone, and inscribed with an account of the king's wars and conquests in the land of Nairi, was set in the city walls, to be studied as a warning by its inhabitants. The city thus rebuilt and restored was peopled by Assyrian colonists and made a storehouse for grain and fodder. The aim, apparently, was to use it as a base of supplies in military operations against the north and west. Some of the inhabitants of the land had fled, but upon payment of homage were allowed to return to their cities and homes, many of these in ruins. A heavy annual tribute was put upon them, and their sons were taken away to Nineveh as hostages.
While engaged in this work of reconstruction much tribute was received from neighboring states. Later in the year another district in the land of Nirbu, near Mount Masius, revolted, and was subdued in the usual manner. On the return journey to Nineveh the people of Qurkhi, the inhabitants about Malatiyeh, and the Hittites paid tribute to the apparently resistless conqueror. The next year (882) witnessed an uprising in the southeast led by Zab-Dadi, a prince of the country of Dagara, to whom the people of Zamua85 also joined themselves. There was thus in revolt a considerable section of territory lying in the mountains east of the Tigris and between the Lower Zab and the Turnat (modern Shirwan) Rivers. Not satisfied with the attempt to escape annual tribute, these daring warriors thought to invade Assyrian soil. The battle with them, fought, out in the lowlands, was an Assyrian victory, and the campaign ended in the receipt of a heavy tribute, and the taking of many cities, which, contrary to former custom, were not destroyed.86 This new method was, however, soon abandoned, for the next year (881) these people refused to pay their tribute, and their country was again invaded. This time savagery had its sway, and the cities were dug up and burned, while blood was poured out like water. It was now safe to advance through the broken land farther into the mountains for more plunder, but we are not able to follow the king's movements in this extended campaign for lack of geographical knowledge.
It is especially noteworthy that, though the usual destructions prevailed, there were again displayed some constructive ideas, for the city of Atlila,87 which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians, was rebuilt and made an Assyrian fortress, with a king's palace, and with the Assyrian name of Dur-Asshur. This completed, for a time at least, the subjugation of the eastern borders of the kingdom, and the king could establish a regular collection of tribute in the north. The wealth poured into Calah year after year in these raids must have been enormous. Herein lies the explanation of the possibility of maintaining a standing army and carrying on conquests of outlying territory. The Assyrian people could not have stood the drain of resources necessary for foreign conquest, nor could the merchants of Nineveh have borne a system of taxation sufficient to maintain armies so constantly on the march. It is noteworthy that nearly every campaign made thus far in this brilliant reign was for tribute gathering. The king was not yet ready for the attempt to add largely to his empire, nor even to extend widely the area of his tribute getting. Time for the training of his army was necessary, and funds had to be accumulated for the payment and equipment of his troops. Undoubtedly many adventurers from among foreign conquered peoples fought in the armies of Asshurnazirpal, and found their compensation in such booty as they were allowed to appropriate. It remains, however, true that the cost of the military establishment must have been great, and the collection of tribute sup. plied this outlay. The king watched closely the collection of tribute, and nonpayment anywhere was the signal for a sudden descent on the offenders. "During the eponymy of Bel-aku (881 B. C.) I was staying in Nineveh when news was brought that Ameka and Arastua had withheld the tribute and dues of Asshur my lord"88--so began this campaign of which we have just spoken, and so began many another. Herein we have an instructive commentary on the whole policy of Assyria for years to come. Let us recall the need of conquering the Aramaeans to secure commercial extension, and the need of the tribute to maintain an army capable of such conquest, and in these two motives, the one depending upon the other, we have the explanation of Assyrian history for this reign, and for not less than six reigns after it.
In the next year (880 B. C.) the king collected in person the tribute of the land of Kummukh, afterward pushing on through the land of Qurkhi, into the fastnesses of Mount Masius, for a like purpose, and finally returning to the fortress of Tushkha to continue his former building operations. That so large a part of the year is occupied with the careful and systematic collection of tribute foreshadows a great campaign of conquest toward which this storing up of supplies of money and material is a necessary preparation. Possibly the traders of Nineveh, profiting by the earlier punishment of the Aram2eaus, were urging the king to wider conquests in the prosperous west, which would result in a still further extension of their trade. However that may be, the year 879 brought matters of immense importance in Assyrian history. The king first marched southwest to the Euphrates and the Khabur. The Aramaeans of Bit-Khalupe had not forgotten their sore discipline, and paid their tribute at once. And in like manner one community after another gave their silver and gold, their horses and cattle, to their suzerain as he moved slowly down the Euphrates to Anat (modern Anath).
All this resembles former campaigns, but now a sudden change appears. Attempting to collect tribute at Suru (another city of the same name as the capital of Bit-Khalupe), Asshurnazirpal finds the Shuhites, whose chief city Suru was, in league with the Kassite Babylonians in their resistance. The Babylonian king at this time was Nabu-apaliddin, who began to reign in his ancient city probably very soon after Asshurnazirpal began to reign in Assyria. He was either a weak man or a man of extraordinary policy, or he would long before this have been in conflict with his northern neighbor. In the discontent of the Shuhites he saw a hopeful opportunity for injuring Assyria without too great risk to his own fortunes. He contributed to the revolt not less than fifty horsemen and three thousand footmen-a considerable contribution in the warfare of that century. For two days the battle raged in and about Suru before the Assyrians obtained the mastery. Asshurnazirpal punished this uprising in his usual way, by utterly wasting the city, slaying many of its inhabitants, and carrying away immense spoil. He is probably narrating only the simple truth when he says that the fear of his sovereignty prevailed as far as Kardunyash and overwhelmed the land of Kaldu. The Babylonian king, though be continued to reign for some time after this, gave no further trouble to Assyria. He was kept busily engaged in his own land in two important enterprises. The Aramaean tribe known as the Sutu, whom we have met in this story in northern Babylonia, had centuries before wrought ruin at the ancient religious city of Sippar, where the worship of the sun god had its especial seat. With the destruction of the temples the worship carried on for so many centuries ended. The former kings belonging to the dynasty of the Sea Lands, Shamashshipak and Kasshu-nadin-akhe, had tried in vain to prevent the total destruction of the temple and to reorganize its worship. Their efforts had completely failed, and the temple had now become a hopeless ruin, covered with sand of the near-by desert. Here was a work for the pious king. Dislodging the Sutu from the city by force of arms, Nabu-apal-iddin began the reconstruction and restoration of the fallen temple, and carried the work to a successful conclusion, setting up again the splendid old ceremonial worship of the sun. The inscription in which he has celebrated these deeds is one of the most beautiful monuments of ancient Babylonia.89 To carry them out fully he seems to have maintained the peace with Asshurnazirpal and his successor.
But if the success and severity of Asshurnazirpal caused the king of Babylon to occupy himself entirely with internal affairs, it had little effect on the hardy and daring Aramaeans, for scarcely had the Assyrian king returned to Calah when he was again called into the field by the revolt of the men of Laqi and Khindanu and of the whole Shuhite people. This time the king was better prepared for the work in hand, for he had boats constructed at Suru, and was therefore able to follow the fugitives to the river islands. The ruin of this campaign seems awful even after the lapse of centuries. The cities were utterly broken down and burned, the inhabitants butchered when they could be taken, and even the standing crops were destroyed that neither man nor beast might eat and live. It was no real compensation for such deeds that two new cities were founded, one on the hither bank of the Euphrates, named Kar-Asshurnazir-pal (that is, fortress of A.), and the other on the far bank, called Nibarti-Asshur90 (that is, the ford of Asshur), for these could only be intended for military purposes, and not as a contribution to civilization or as abiding places for a ruined people. But the king was not satisfied that he had got at the root of the trouble, and the next year followed up his advantage with another campaign apparently intended to cut off any further rebellion at the fountain head. It seems probable that the real source of the energy and enthusiasm which sustained so many rebellions among the Aramaeans was the state of Bit-Adini, on the Euphrates, above the mouth of the Khabur.91 The most powerful Aramaean settlements were here, and the capital city, Kap-rabi92 (great rock), was populous, well fortified, and defiant. If this city were taken, there would be hopes of crushing out completely the spirit of resistance.
In his next campaign (877 B. C.) Asshurnazirpal besieged the city and took it by assault, in which eight hundred of the enemy were killed and two thousand four hundred made prisoners. This was followed by its complete destruction, and an end was therefore made of incitements to rebellion in Bit-Adini. The effect on the remaining Aramaean settlements along the Euphrates was as marked as it was sudden. Others sent their unpaid tribute at once, and there was, during the reign of Asshurnazirpal, no further trouble over the prompt payment of the Aramaean tribute. With this campaign Asshurnazirpal had not indeed ended forever the fitful struggles of the Aramaeans against superior force. These were all renewed again in the very next reign. He had, however, settled the question that there could be no strong Aramaean state in that valley. The Aramaean people must go elsewhere to make their contribution to history and civilization.
The time had come, therefore, when all the lands north, east, and west as far as the Euphrates which had paid tribute to Tiglathpileser I were again paying it regularly to Asshurnazirpal. There were no more of these states left to tranquilize. Most of them had been dealt with cruelly, many had been devastated, and thousands of their inhabitants butchered with all the accompaniments of oriental savagery. These communities had not been added regularly to the empire to be governed by satraps or officers making regular reports to the king in Assyria and receiving instructions from him. If such had been the plan, the peoples who paid tribute would have been receiving some sort of return in social order and royal direction for the heavy tribute paid. They were receiving nothing in return. They had to look to themselves for protection against the forays of barbarians who inhabited the mountain passes about them. Such a status was not likely to be permanent. While their punishment had been too severe for them to venture again to excite the wrath of such a monarch, they might nourish their wrath and hope for a better day. Perhaps the next Assyrian king might be a weak man, and they would be able to throw off the yoke in his day. Meantime, while Asshurnazirpal held the reins of government, it would be well to pay the tribute and give no excuse for a raid. But with this quiescence of the tributary states the employment of his army became a serious question with Asshurnazirpal. He had made a fighting machine such as had not been known before. His men had been trained in adversity, toughened by hard marches, and brutalized by scenes of blood and fire. He could not disband it, for at once the tribute-paying states, unterrified by it, would throw off their dependence and the influx of gold would cease. He could not hold it in idleness, for such an aggregation of brutal passions would inflame the commonwealth and disturb the peace. The army would also soon lose its efficiency if unemployed, for the elaborate modern systems of drill for the conserving of health and the promotion of discipline were unknown. It is plain that these men must fight somewhere; but where should it be, and for what ulterior purpose? Ambition might answer to the king, for conquest and the extension of Assyrian territory, and greed might urge to further tribute getting, and commercial enterprise might clamor for the reopening of old lines of trade to the west through the territory of the Aramaeans. It was this last which prevailed, though the two former ideas had their influence and their share in the decision.
It was in the month of April93 of the year 876 that Asshurnazirpal began the great westward movement in which all his highest endeavors were to culminate. All else had been but preparation. The first part of his march, across the great Mesopotamian valley, was little else than a triumphal progress. Every one of the Aramaean settlements on or near his route to the Euphrates sent costly tribute, consisting of chariots, horses, silver, gold, lead, and copper, most of which must be sent back to Calah, while the king marched on. When the Euphrates was reached it was crossed at its flood, in boats made of the skins of animals, and the city of Carchemish94 was entered. The glory of the city had departed. Once the capital of the great Hittite empire, now broken in power, it was now merely the center of a small state, of which Sangara was ruler. His policy was direct and simple. He was willing to pay down the sum of twenty talents of silver, one hundred talents of copper, two hundred and fifty talents of iron, along with chains and beads of gold and much other treasure, if he were simply let alone. Though deprived of its political influence, Carchemish was now an important commercial city. War could only destroy its commerce, and success against the renowned Assyrian conqueror was doubtful, if not absolutely impossible. National pride counted for nothing. The primary desire was to get the Assyrians out of the country as soon as possible; and well might they pay a heavy tribute to gain so great a boon as that. Neighboring states, fearing invasion and plunder, likewise sent tribute, and the king could move on farther westward. Crossing the river Apre (modern Afrin) after a short march, Asshurnazirpal came into the territory of another small state, called Patin, which was apparently Aramaean or partially so. The capital of the state was Kunulua, and the ruler was Lubarna, whose territory extended from the Apre to the Orontes, and thence over the mountain ridges to the sea near Eleutheros, with northern and Southern limits not now definable.95 It was a rich and fertile country, and might well excite the cupidity of the Assyrian army. Lubarna offered no resistance to the invader, but was anxious only to expedite his progress, with presents truly regal in amount and in magnificence.96 The march was then southward across the Orontes to the city of Aribua,97 located near the Sangura River, which was a southerly outpost of Lubarna. Though Lubarna had so thoroughly submitted to the Assyrians in hope of getting them out of the country, Aribua was made an Assyrian outpost, colonists settled in it, and grain and straw, harvested by force in the lands of the Lukhuti, were stored in it. Whether the town was to become the capital of an Assyrian province or merely a base of supplies for possible hostile operations does not appear. And now there was no one to oppose the king's march north and west into the green slopes of the Lebanon. From beneath the historic cedars an Assyrian king again looked out over the Mediterranean, and with far greater hopes of securing a foothold there than any of his predecessors had ever had, whether Assyrian or Babylonian.
While this invasion was in some measure a raid for booty, it was more powerfully conceived and better disciplined than the others had been. When Sargon I had marched hither he passed through lauds scantily populated with peoples, with whom he had little contact. There was no possibility of making an empire out of Babylonia and a province on the far western sea, with vast uncontrolled territories between. When Tiglathpileser I came out to the same sea he had left great territories and populous communities between him and the homeland, and, like the early Babylonian, there could be no hope of making an empire out of two lands so widely separated. But Asshurnazirpal had measurably changed the situation. He did not, it is true, actually rule the entire territory from the Lower Zab and its overhanging hills to the Lebanon, but he had broken its spirit, and was received as its conqueror. In many places rule was exercised by governors, both native and Assyrian, whom he had appointed. In yet others there were towns peopled by Assyrian colonists, stored with Assyrian provisions, and defended by massive walls of Assyrian construction. The situation was indeed changed, and the result of this invasion might well be different. Asshurnazirpal knew the conditions with which he was confronted, and fully appreciated the opportunity for making a great empire. The Mediterranean was even then the basin upon which touched the greatest empire of the world; and the Egyptians understood the value of their geographical situation. The Phoenicians were already a powerful commercial people. The Hebrews formed an important center of influence in Canaan. What relation should Assyria come to sustain to these powers of antiquity? An augury of the answer to that question came as Asshurnazirpal halted on the Lebanon. The people of Tyre, of Sidon, of Tripolis,98 and of Arvad sent splendid gifts, a fatal blunder, for it was a confession of weakness, which would be noted and remembered by the Assyrians. It was a recognition of the power of the Assyrian arms, of which almost every Assyrian king boasts in the stereotyped phrase: "By the might of the terrible arms;" and the Assyrians would bring forth yet greater daring as they remembered that the commercial rulers of the west feared their power too greatly to test it. And, worst of all, it was a confession to the world that these western peoples, who fronted the Mediterranean cared more for the profits of their commerce than for freedom. We shall see very shortly the results of this sending of gifts to the Assyrian king. Asshurnazirpal had achieved his present purpose in this direction. He did not go down to Tyre or Sidon to look upon the weaklings who paid tribute without seeing his arms, but turned northward into the Amanus mountains on an errand of peace. Here he cut cedar, cypress, and juniper trees and sent the logs off to Assyria. Somewhere else in the same district he cut other trees, called mekhri trees, which seem to have been numerous enough to give their name to the country in which they were found. These were taken back to Nineveh and offered to Ishtar, the lady of Nineveh.
So ended, in the peaceable gathering of building materials, a remarkable campaign. Asshurnazirpal had succeeded brilliantly where his predecessors had failed. But as the look back over the entire campaign we can discern significant silence concerning one western people. There is no allusion to Damascus or to any of its tributary states. They were all left undisturbed, and a glance at the ma<p reveals how carefully the Assyrian army had avoided even their outposts. To have attacked that solidly intrenched state would have been certain disaster, and Asshurnazirpal was wisely instructed in passing it by. Years must elapse before the Assyrians should dare attack it.
The campaign was noteworthy also in that there had been almost no savagery, no butchering of men, scarcely any ruthless destruction of cities. This better state of war was of course due to no change of method on the part of Asshurnazirpal, but simply to the almost entire absence of resistance. The former campaigns had terrified the world, and the fruits of severity were an easy conquest and the development of the peaceful art of building. The burning of cities and the slaughter of men were resumed in 867 in a small campaign through the lands of Kummukh, Qurkhi, and the oft-plundered country about Mount Masius. It was emphatically a campaign of tribute collecting, and the only matters of any political consequence were the appointment of an Assyrian governor over the land of Qurkhi and the carrying of about three thousand captives into Assyria. Such a leavening as that might influence the Assyrian people.
These renewed ravages ended the wars of Asshurnazirpal; the remainder of his reign was devoted to works of peace. But it would be a mistake to suppose that campaigning had occupied his entire attention during his reign, for undoubtedly the two chief works of his reign were executed partially during the very period when he was most busy with tribute collecting. These works were the rebuilding of the city of Calah and the construction of a canal. The former was necessary because the city which Shalmaneser I had built had been deserted during the period when Asshur was again the capital, and a short period of desertion always meant ruin to Assyrian buildings. Only the outer surface of its thick walls was built of burnt brick, the inner filling being composed of unburnt brick merely, so that a trifling leak in the roof transformed this interior into a mass of clay, speedily causing the walls to spring. Judging from the hundreds of references in Assyrian literature to the restoration of walls and buildings, it may justly be thought that the Assyrians were especially bad roof builders. Indeed their advance in constructive skill never kept pace with their progress in the arts of decoration. It is this anomaly which has left us without any standing buildings in Assyria, while vast temples still remain in Egypt. It is, of course, to be observed that Assyrian construction would doubtless have shown a different development had stone been abundant as a building material. As an offset to this, however, it must be remembered that brick is one of the most durable of materials when properly baked and laid, and that the Assyrians knew how to bake properly is evidenced by their clay, books, which have survived fire and breakage and wet during the crash and ruin of the centuries. Besides the general reconstruction of Calah, Asshurnazirpal built himself a great palace, covering a space one hundred and thirty-one yards in length and one hundred and nine in breadth,99 which remained a royal residence for centuries. Its massive ruins have been unearthed at Nimroud, being the northwestern one of the three there discovered. His second great work was the construction, or reconstruction, of an aqueduct to bring an abundant supply of water to the city from the Lower Zab. The river bank was pierced near the modern Negub, and the water first conveyed through a rock tunnel and then by an open canal to the great terrace. Its course was lined with palms, with various fruit trees, and with vineyards, and well was it named Babelat-khigal--the "bringer of fruitfulness."100
In the year 860 B. C. the reign of Asshurnazirpal ended in peace. He had wrought great things for Assyrian power in the world, and the empire as he left it was greater actually and potentially than it had ever been before. Of the man himself the world can have no pleasant memories. No king like him in ferocity had arisen before him, and in Assyria at least be was followed by none altogether his equal. One searches the records of his reign and finds seldom anything more than catalogues of savage and relentless deeds. So rarely indeed does a work of mercy or peace brighten the record that it is a relief to turn the page.
SHALMANESER II (859-825 B. C.), who succeeded his father, Asshurnazirpal, continued his policy without a break, and even extended it. We are even better instructed concerning his reign, for more historical material has come down to us from it. The most important of his inscriptions is a beautiful obelisk of black basalt. The upper parts of the four faces contain beautifully carved figures of various animals which the king had received in tribute and as gifts, each illustration being accompanied by an epigraph explaining its meaning. The lower parts bear inscriptions recounting in chronological order the campaigns of the king. There are no less than one hundred and nine lines of compact writing upon this one monument.101 This story of his wars is supplemented by the fine monolith of the king, containing his portrait in low relief, covered with one hundred and fifty-six lines of text102 And this again, in its turn, is supplemented by fragmentary inscriptions upon bronze plates which once covered massive wooden doors or gates.103 From these three main sources of information we are able to follow in order all the chief events of the king's reign. The accounts, however, are less picturesque and full of life than those of his predecessor. Campaigns are often dismissed in a few colorless words, and the record takes on the nature of a catalogue rather than of a history. We shall therefore present the story of his reign, not in its chronological but rather in its logical order, following the circle of his achievements from country to country. The annalistic style of Asshurnazirpal may stand as the representative of this reign, with the difference, already mentioned, that it possesses greater breadth and richer color.
For twenty-six years Shalmaneser led every campaign in person-an amazing record. His armies were then sent out under the leadership of the Tartan Asshur-dayan. Like his father, Shalmaneser was oppressed by the weight of his own army. It must fight or die, and when there was no excuse for operations of defense there must be a campaign to collect tribute, and when that was not needed fresh conquests must be attempted.
From his father he also inherited the old Aramaean question, which was to consume much of his energy through a considerable part of his reign. We have seen that Asshurnazirpal broke the spirit of the Aramaeans in the Mesopotamian valley and compelled them to pay tribute regularly. But, though this was true, it was to be expected that they would try his successor's mettle at the first opportunity. Of these states Bit-Adini was still the most powerful as well as the most daring. We are not told what act of Akhuni, ruler of Bit-Adini, led to an outbreak of hostilities, but we shall probably not be far wrong if we ascribe it to the ever-vexing tribute. Whatever the difficulty, Shalmaneser invaded the country in 859, the first year of his reign, and captured some of its cities, but apparently did not directly attack the capital. The invasion had to be repeated in 858 and again in 857, and in both years there were displays of savagery after the fashion of Asshurnazirpal. Pyramids of heads were piled up by city gates and the torch applied to ruined cities. But in the latter year the opposition to Assyrian domination was hopelessly broken down. The brave little land was annexed to Assyria, placed under Assyrian government, and colonists from Assyria were settled in it.104
Such success was likely to lead soon to an attack upon the larger and richer Aramaean settlements farther west. The states with which he would have to deal at first were Hamath, Damascus, and Patin, the small but fertile and powerful state between the Afrin and the Orontes, which had given much trouble to his father. Patin was not so powerful as the other two, but could not be left out of account in a western invasion. Hamath was the center of Aramaean influence in northern Syria, and under the leadership of Irkhulina was no mean antagonist. But by far the most powerful and important of the three states was Damascus, whose king at this time was Ben-Hadad II. If an enduring union could be formed between these two states and allies secured in Phoenicia and in Israel, the peoples of the west might defy even the disciplined and victorious armies of Assyria. But the ambition of Damascus to be actual head over all the western territory and mutual jealousies among the other states prevented any real union against the common oppressor. However, the threatened advance of Assyria was sufficient to bury for a time at least their differences and a confederation for mutual defense was formed for a year, during which time it was a powerful factor in the history of western Asia.
Shalmaneser II was ready for the attempt on the west in 854. The campaign of that year is of such great importance that it will be well to set it down in the words of the Monolith inscription, with such further comment as may be necessary to make its meaning clear:
"In the eponymy of Dayan-Asshur, in the month of Airu, on the fourteenth day, from Nineveh I departed; I crossed the Tigris; to the cities of Giammu on the Balikh I approached. The fearfulness of my lordship (and) the splendor of my powerful arms they feared, and with their own arms they slew Giammu, their lord. Kitlala and Til-sha-apli-akhi I entered. My gods, I brought into his temples, I made a feast in his palaces. The treasury I opened, I saw his wealth; his goods and his possessions I carried away; to my city Asshur I brought (them). From Kitlala I departed; to Kar-Shulman-asharid I approached. In boats of sheepskin I crossed the Euphrates for the second time in its flood. The tribute of the kings of that side of the Euphrates, of Saugar of Carchemish, of Kundashpi of Kummukh, of Arame, the son of Gusi; of Lalli, the Melidoean; of Khayani, son of Gabbar; of Kalparuda, the Patiuian; of Kalparuda, the Gurgumeean; silver, gold, lead, copper (and) copper vessels, in the city of Asshur-utir-asbat, on that side of the Euphrates, which (is) on the river Sagur, which (city) the Hittites call Pitru, I received. From the Euphrates I departed, to Khal man I approached. They feared my battle (and) embraced my feet. Silver and gold I received as their tribute. Sacrifices I offered before Adad, the god of Khalman (modern Aleppo). From Khalman I departed; two cities of Irkbulina, the Hamathite, I approached. Adennu, Mashga, Argana, his royal city, I captured; his booty, goods, the possessions of his palaces I brought out (and) set fire to his palaces. From Argana I departed, to Qarqar I approached; Qarqar, his royal city, I wasted, destroyed; burned with fire. One thousand two hundred chariots, 1,200 saddle horses, 20,000 men of Dadda-idri (that is, Ben-Hadad II) of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 saddle horses, 10,000 men of Irkhulina, the Hamathite; 2,000 chariots, 10,000 men of Ahab, the Israelite; 500 men of the Quans;105 1,000 men of Musri; 10 chariots, 10,000 men of the Irkanatians; 200 men of Matinu-Baal, the Arvadite; 200 men of the Usanatians; 30 chariots, 10,000 of Adunu-Baal, the Shianian; 1,000 camels of Gindibu, the Arabian; ... 1,000 men of Baasha, son of Rukhubi, the Ammonite-these twelve kings he took to his assistance; to make battle and war against me they came. With the exalted power which Asshur, the lord, gave me, with the powerful arms which Nergal, who goes before me, had granted me, I fought with them, from Qarqar to Gilzan I accomplished their defeat. Fourteen thousand of their warriors I slew with arms; like Adad, I rained a deluge upon them, I strewed hither and yon their bodies, I filled the face of the ruins with their widespread soldiers, with arms I made their blood flow. The destruction of the district . . .; to kill themselves a great mass fled to their graves. . .without turning back I reached the Orontes. In the midst of this battle their chariots, saddle horses, (and) their yoke horses I took from them."106
By means of this detailed and explicit account it is easy to follow the king's movements and understand the campaign. Shalmaneser leaves Nineveh and makes straight across the valley for the Balikh. He is here received with open arms, and secures great gifts. His next important stop is at Pethor, beyond the Euphrates, where more tribute, brought long distances, even from the land of Kummukh, is received. From Pethor to Aleppo the distance was short and the issue was the same--Aleppo surrendered without a blow. It is interesting to mark that Shalmaneser localizes in Aleppo the worship of the god. Adad, to whom he paid worship. If this statement is correct, we may find in it a proof of early intercourse between Aleppo and Assyria, for we have long since found Adad worshiped in Assyria. This was the end of the unopposed royal progress. As soon as he crossed into the territory of the little kingdom of Hamath he was opposed. Three cities were, however, taken and left behind in ruins. Shalmaneser II then advanced to Qarqar,107 a city located near the Orontes. Here he was met by the allied army collected to defend the west against Assyria. Its composition throws light on the relative power of the states in Syria and Palestine and deserves attention. The main body of the army of defense was contributed by Hamath, Damascus, and Israel. These three states contributed much more than half of the entire army and nearly all of the most powerful part of it, the chariots and horsemen. From the north there came men from Que (eastern Cilicia) and Musri. From the west came detachments contributed by the northern Phoenician cities which were unwilling or unable to send enormous gifts to buy off the conqueror, as 'Pyre and Sidon had done, but were willing to strike a blow for independence. The last section was made up of Ammonites and Arabs. This was a formidable array, and the issue of the battle fought at Qarqar might well be doubted. The Assyrians had, of course, a well-seasoned army to oppose a crowd of raw levies; but the latter had the great advantage of a knowledge of the country as well as the enthusiasm of the fight for home and native land. Of course the records of Shalmaneser claim a great victory. In the Monolith inscription108 the allies killed are set down at 14,000, in another inscription the number given is 20,500,109 while in a third it rises to 25,000.110 The evident uncertainty in the figures makes us doubt somewhat the clearness of the entire result. There is, as usual, no mention of Assyrian losses, but they must have been severe. The claim of a great victory is almost certainly false. A victory for the Assyrians it probably was, for the allies were plainly defeated and their union for defense broken up; but, on the other hand, the Assyrians did not attempt to follow up the victory they claimed, and no word is spoken of tribute or plunder or of any extension of Assyrian territory.111 The alliance had saved the fair land of Hamath for a time and had postponed the day when Israel should be conquered and carried into captivity. It is a sore pity that despite the dread of the Assyrians, voiced so frequently by the Hebrews, and evidently felt by the other allies, mutual jealousy should have prevented the continuance of an alliance which promised to save the shores of the Mediterranean for Hebrew and Aramaean civilization.
Shalmaneser was busied elsewhere, as we shall shortly see, during the years immediately following, and it was not until 849 that he was able to make another assault on the west. The point of attack was again the land of Hamath, and again Ben-Hadad IT of Damascus and Irkhulina of Hamath had the leadership over the twelve allies. This time Shalmaneser claims to have slain ten thousand of his enemies, but he mentions no tribute and no new territory. We may therefore be almost certain that the victory was rather a defeat, and that he was really compelled to withdraw. In 846 Shalmaneser once more determined to attack the foe which had done such wonderful work in opposing the hitherto invincible Assyrian arms. In this campaign he did not trust merely to his usual standing army, but levied contingents from the land of Assyria and with an enormous force, said by him to number 120,000 men, he set out for Hamath. Again he was opposed by Ben-Hadad IT and his allies, and again he "accomplished their defeat." But, as in the previous campaigns and for the same reasons, we are compelled to assert that the Aramaeans had given full proof of their prowess by resisting the immense Assyrian army. The next attempt upon the west was made in 842. In this year Shalmaneser found a very different situation. Ben-Hadad II, who had ruled with a rod of iron and held the neighboring peoples in terror, was now dead,112 and the cruel but weak Hazael reigned in Damascus. Ahab, who was a man of real courage and of great resources, was dead, as was Joram (852-842), his successor; and Jehu, the usurper, was now king in Samaria. He seems to have been a natural coward and did not dare to fight the terrible Assyrians. The other states which had united in defense under Ben-Hadad II were hopelessly discordant, each hoping to throw off the quasi-suzerainty of Damascus. The people of Tyre and Sidon had again returned to their commerce and were ready to send gifts to Shalmaneser that they might not be disturbed at the gates of the seas. Jehu sent costly tribute, apparently in the mad hope of gaining Assyrian aid against the people of Damascus, whom he bated and feared, not reckoning that the Assyrians would seek this tribute year after year until the land should be wasted. This act of Jehu gave the Assyrians their first hold on Israel, and the consequences were far reaching and disastrous. Hazael, noble in comparison with all the former allies of Damascus, determined to resist Shalmaneser alone. In Saniru, or Hermon,113 he fortified himself and awaited the Assyrian onslaught. Six thousand of his soldiers were killed in battle, while one thousand one hundred and twenty-one of his chariots and four hundred and seventy horses with his camp equipage were taken. Hazael fled to Damascus and was pursued and besieged by the Assyrians. But, powerful though he was, Shalmaneser was not able to take Damascus, and had to content himself with a thoroughly characteristic conclusion of the campaign. He cut down the trees about the city, and then marching southward, entered the Hauran, where he wasted and burned the cities.114 So ended another assault on the much-coveted west, and it was still not conquered. No such series of rebuffs had ever been received by Tiglathpileser or by Asshurnazirpal, but Shalmaneser was not deterred from another and last attempt. In 839 he crossed the Euphrates for the twenty-first time and marched against the cities of Hazael. He claims to have captured four of them, but there is no mention of booty, and no word of any impression upon Damascus.115
Shalmaneser had led six campaigns against the west with no result beyond a certain amount of plunder. There was absolutely no recognition of the supremacy of Assyria. There was no glory for the Assyrian arms. There was no greater freedom achieved for Assyrian commerce. And yet some progress had been made toward the great Assyrian ambition. The western states had felt in some measure the strength of Assyria, those certainly who sent gifts rather than fight had shown their dread; while the smoking ruins in the Hauran were a silent object lesson of what might soon happen to the other western powers which had hitherto resisted so gallantly. The Assyrian was beating against the bars set up against his progress, and the outcome was hardly, if at all, doubtful.
Besides his difficulties in the west Shalmaneser had no lack of trouble with the far north. As Damascus had a certain preponderance among the western states, so had Urartu (or Chaldia) among the northern states. There is some reason for believing that at this time, as was true later on, Urartu may have tried to exercise some sort of sovereignty over the land of Nairi. This much, at least, is certain, that the people of Urartu were the mainspring of much of the rebellion among the smaller states in the north and west.
The long series of Assyrian assaults on Urartu had begun in the reign of Tiglathpileser I, who bad crossed over the Arsanias and entered the country. Asshurnazirpal, also, had marched through the southern portion of the district, but had made no attempt to annex it to Assyria. In the very beginning of his reign, 860 B. C.,116 Shalmaneser made the first move which led to this series of campaigns. He entered the land of Nairi and took the capital city of Khubushkia, on Lake Urumiyeh, together with one hundred other towns which belonged to the same country. These were all destroyed by fire. The king of Nairi was then pursued into the mountains and the land of Urartu (Chaldia) invaded. At this time Urartu was ruled by Arame, who seems to have been a man of courage and adroitness. His stronghold of Sugunia was taken and plundered. Shalmaneser did not push on into the country, but withdrew southward by way of Lake Van, contented with his booty or too prudent to risk more. He made no more attempts on Urartu until 857,117 when his campaigning carried him westward and northward to Pethor and thence through Anzitene, which was completely laid waste, and over the Arsanias into Urartu. On this expedition the country of Dayaeni, along the river Arsanias, was first conquered and apparently without much opposition. The way was now open to the capital city, Arzashku. Arame, the king of Urartu, fled further inland and abandoned his capital to the Assyrians, who wasted it as of old, and left it a heap of ruins while they pursued the fleeing king. He was overtaken, and thirty-four hundred of his troops killed, though Arame himself made good his escape. Laden with heavy spoil, Shalmaneser returned southward, and, in his own picturesque phrase, trampled on the country like a wild bull. Pyramids of heads were piled up at the ruined city gates and men were impaled on stakes. On the mountains an inscription, with a great image of the conqueror, was set up. The defeat of Arame seems to have brought his dynasty to an end, for immediately afterward we find Sarduris I, son of Lutipris, building a citadel at Van and founding a new kingdom. Shalmaneser returned to Assyria by way of Arbela. He had therefore completed a half circle in the north, passing from west to east, but had accomplished little more than the collection of tribute.118
In the tenth year of his reign (850 B. C.) Shalmaneser II again invaded Urartu, this time entering the country from the city of Carchemish. The only achievement of the expedition was the taking of the fortified city of Arne and the ravaging of the surrounding country;119 no enduring results were effected. More might, perhaps, have been attempted, but the king was forced to go into the west to meet the people of Damascus, as narrated above. Shalmaneser never again invaded Urartu in person. In the year 833 he sent an army against it under the leadership of his Tartan Dayan-Asshur. In the seventeen years which had elapsed since the last expedition the people of Urartu had been busy. The kingdom of Siduri (Sarduris I) had waxed strong enough to conquer the territories of Sukhme and Dayaeni, which for a time had seemed to belong to Assyria after having been so thoroughly conquered by Shalmaneser II. The account of the campaign ends in the vain boast of having filled the plain with the bodies of his warriors.120 The sequel, however, shows that this campaign and another similar one in 829, under the same leadership, had not really conquered the land of Urartu.121 Instead of growing weaker it continued to grow stronger, and we shall often meet with displays of its power in the later Assyrian history. When the series of campaigns against the north was finally ended for this reign it could only be said that in the north and in the west the Assyrian arms had made little real progress.
In the east also Shalmaneser failed to extend the boundaries of his kingdom. His efforts in this quarter began in 859, when he made a short expedition into the land of Namri,122 which lay on the southwestern border of Media below the Lower Zab River. Not until 844 was the land again disturbed by invasion. At this time it was under the rule of a prince, Marduk-shum-udammiq, whose name points to Babylonian origin. He was driven from the country, and a prince from the country district of Bit-Khamban, by name Yanzu,123 was put in his place.124 This move was not very successful, for the new prince rebelled eight years later and refused the annual tribute. In 836 Shalmaneser crossed the Lower Zab and again invaded Namri. Yauzu fled for his life to the mountains, and his country was laid waste. Shalmaneser, emboldened by this small success, then marched farther north into the territory of Parsua, where he received tribute, and then, turning eastward, entered the land of Media, where several cities were plundered and laid waste. There seems to have been no attempt made to set up anything like Assyrian rule over any portion of Media, but only to secure tribute. On the return by way of the south, near the modern Holwan, Yanzu was taken prisoner and carried to Assyria.125 But the efforts of Shalmaneser to control in the east, and especially the northeast, did not end here. The mountains to the northeast of Assyria had been a thorn in the side of many an Assyrian king. We have already seen how Shalmaneser at the very beginning of his reign ravaged and plundered in Khubushkia, on Lake Urumiyeh, farther north than the land of Namri. In 830 the king himself remained in Calah, sending an expedition to receive the tribute from the land of Khubushkia. It was promptly paid, and Dayan-Asshur, who was in command, led his troops northward into the land of Man,126 which was wasted and burned in the usual fashion. Returning then by the southern shore of Lake Urumiyeh, several smaller states were plundered, and finally tribute was collected again in Parsua.127 In the next year (829) another campaign was directed against Khubushkia to enforce the collection of tribute, and thence the army marched northward through Musasir and Urartu, passing around the northern end of Lake Urumiyeh. Returning southward, Parsua was again harried and the unfortunate land of Namri invaded. The inhabitants fled to the mountains, leaving all behind them. In a manner entirely worthy of his royal master the Tartan laid waste and burned two hundred and fifty villages before he came back by way of Holwan into Assyrian territory.128 It is not too much to say that all these operations in the northeast, east, and southeast were unsuccessful. Shalmaneser had not carried the boundaries of his country beyond those left by Asshurnazirpal in these directions.
In the south alone did Shalmaneser achieve real success. The conditions which prevailed there were exactly fitted to give the Assyrians an opportunity to interfere, and Shalmaneser was quick to seize it. In the earlier part of his reign the Babylonian king was Nabu-aplu-iddin, who after his quarrel with Asshurnazirpal had devoted himself chiefly to the internal affairs of his kingdom. He made a treaty of peace with Shalmaneser,129 and all went well between the two kingdoms until Nabu-aplu-iddin died. His successor was his son, Marduk-nadinshum, against whom his brother, Marduk-bel-usate, revolted. This rebellion was localized in the southern part of the kingdom, comprising the powerful land of Kaldi. The Babylonians had engaged in no war for a long time, and were entirely unable to cope with the hardy warriors of Kaldi, whom Mardukbel-usati had at his command. The lawful king, Marduk-nadin-shum, fearing that Babylon would be overwhelmed by the army which his brother was bringing against it, resolved upon the suicidal course of inviting Assyrian intervention. This was in 852, and no appeal could have been more welcome. Ever since the last period of Assyrian decay the kingdom of Babylonia had been entirely free of all subjection to Assyria. Here was an opportunity for reasserting the old protectorate. Shalmaneser marched into Babylonia in 852, and again in 851, and halted first at Kutha, where he offered sacrifice, and then entered Babylon to sacrifice to the great god Marduk, also visiting Borsippa, where he offered sacrifices to Nabu. It is not to be doubted that by these presentations of sacrifices Shalmaneser intended not only to show his piety and devotion to the gods, but also to display himself as the legitimate overlord of the country. Having paid these honors to the gods, he then marched down into Chaldea and attacked the rebels. He took several cities, and completely overcame Marduk-bel-usate and compelled him to pay tribute. From this time forward until the end of his reign Marduk-nadin-chum ruled peacefully in Babylon under the protectorate of Assyria.130 By this campaign the king of Assyria had once more become the real ruler of Babylonia, the Chaldeans by their inaction acknowledging the hopelessness of any present rebellion.
We have traced in logical rather than in chronological order the campaigns of Shalmaneser from the beginning to the close of the thirty. first year of his reign. At this point all record of his reign breaks off, and for the closing years we are confined to the information derived from the records of his son, Shamshi-Adad IV. There are no more records of Shalmaneser's doings in the last years of his reign, because they were too troubled to give any leisure for the erection of such splendid monuments as those from which our knowledge of his earlier years has been derived. In the year 827 B. C. there was a rebellion led by Shalmaneser's own son, Asshur-danin-apli. We know but little of it, and that little, as already said, derived from the brief notices of it preserved in the inscriptions of Shamshi-Adad IV. We have no direct means of learning even the cause of the outbreak. Neither can we find an explanation of the great strength of the rebels, nor understand its sudden collapse when apparently it was in the ascendant. Wars of succession have always been so common in the Orient that, failing any other explanation, we are probably safe in the suggestion that Shalmaneser had probably provided by will, or decree, that Shamshi-Adad should succeed him. Asshur-danin-apli attempted by rebellion to gain the throne for himself, and the strange thing was that he was followed in his rebellion by the better part of the kingdom. The capital pity, Calah, remained faithful to the king, but Nineveh, Asshur, Arbela, among the older cities and the chief colonies, a total of twenty-seven cities, joined the forces of Asshur-danin-apli. It is difficult to account for the strength of this rebellion, unless, perhaps, t