A History of Babylonia2.pdf

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

THE HISTORY OF ASSYRIA

CHAPTER I

THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA

CHAPTER II

TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS

CHAPTER III

THE INCREASE OF ASSYRIAN POWER OVER BABYLONIA

CHAPTER IV

THE REIGN OF ASSHURNAZIRPAL

CHAPTER V

SHALMANESER II TO ASSHUR-NIRARI II

CHAPTER VI

THE REIGNS OF TIGLATHPILESER III AND SHALMANESER IV

CHAPTER VII

THE REIGN OF SARGON II

CHAPTER VIII

THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB

CHAPTER IX

THE REIGN OF ESARHADDON

CHAPTER X

THE REIGN OF ASSHURBANAPAL

CHAPTER XI

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA

BOOK IV

THE HISTORY OF THE CHALDEAN EMPIRE

CHAPTER I

THE REIGN OF NABOPOLASSAR

CHAPTER II

THE REIGN OF NEBUCHADREZZAR

CHAPTER III

THE LAST YEARS OF THE CHALDEAN EMPIRE

APPENDIX A

LITERATURE

1. EXCAVATIONS AND DECIPHERMENT

2. HISTORY

APPENDIX B

THE DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIBIS ARMY

APPENDIX C

THE DEFENSES OF BABYLON

FOOTNOTES

BOOK III

THE HISTORY OF ASSYRIA

CHAPTER I

THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA

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 whoever 7 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 II 13 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 letter 15 of

his to the Egyptian king Amenophis IV has been preserved, in which occur the following

sentences "To Napkhuriya 16 . . . 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

Kassites 17 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

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: