READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER V

ASHURBANIPAL AND THE FALL OF ASSYRIA

I.

THE WARS OF ASHURBANIPAL

THE high level of Assyrian culture in the time of Ashurbanipal (669—626 B.C.), was due to the fact that Assyrian supremacy had been successfully maintained for a century; nor did there seem in the early years of his reign any likelihood that that supremacy would be successfully attacked. These years were indeed full of important military undertakings, conducted in many different parts of his borders, by the Assyrian king and his generals, but the wars were all of the usual type, and rarely presented any difficult problems. There are very many ‘editions’ of Ashurbanipal’s annals which contain accounts of the campaigns consistent the one with the other save in one respect. The desire of the compilers of the later editions to introduce some literary form into the narrative led to their treating the campaigns in geographical, not in chronological sequence, while using terms which would seem to refer to chronology. Thus the two Egyptian campaigns are placed first, and the account of Ashurbanipal’s relations to Egypt is carried down to the revolt of Psammetichus, as if all these events took place in the first two years of the king’s reign. The fault really lies in a certain clumsiness in dealing with the material: critics who consider this clumsiness deliberate falsification exaggerate the importance of the matter. Nevertheless this failure of the scribes to observe a strict time-sequence is much to be regretted since, though the various accounts date the chief events, many minor points of chronology remain obscure.

The first campaign, in 668, arose out of a border affair of slight importance. The magistrate of the city of Kirbit in the neighbourhood of the Kassites led his followers on several occa­sions into the district of Yamutbal on plundering expeditions. In accordance with Assyrian practice the disorderly ruler was the object of a punitive expedition. Probably quite a small body of troops proved sufficient to besiege and capture the city; the inhabitants were deported during the next campaign to Egypt, where hostilities had commenced.

In Egypt the death of Esarhaddon had been greeted by Tirhakah the Nubian as an opportunity to restore his rule. That monarch accordingly marched north, entered Memphis, and stayed there, sending troops up to the Delta to make a demonstration against the native princes and Assyrian officers in whose hands Esarhaddon had left the government of the country. The Delta princes made no attempt to resist, but apparently fled eastwards, hoping for timely support from Assyria. The Assyrian army appeared in Egypt in 667, after accomplishing a long forced march to save a situation rendered dangerous by inefficiency and cowardice. The two armies engaged in battle at Karbaniti, somewhere in the east of the Delta, with the usual result; Nubians and Egyptians could not withstand the Assyrian assault, and retired in disorder. Tirhakah, on hearing the news, immediately retreated from Memphis to Thebes, an operation easily conducted owing to the delay of the Assyrian army, which awaited reinforcements consisting of contingents sent by the twenty tributary princes of Syria, Cyprus, Phoenicia and Palestine. The Assyrians finally marched to Memphis, which fell after a few days into their hands, and Ashurbanipal or his deputy then engaged in restoring the Egyptian princes who had been driven out by Tirhakah.

This restoration of native rulers seems to show that Ashurbanipal recognized the essential weakness of the Assyrian position in Egypt. Unless the Assyrians could rely on native governors to serve them faithfully, overlordship would not be established in this distant land. Recent experience, however, showed that stronger Assyrian garrisons were required in Egypt than Esarhaddon had thought necessary, and these were accordingly detailed before the return to Nineveh. Even so the departure of the main army was the signal for an attempt at revolt by the very princes recently restored to their nomes. Necho of Memphis and Sai’s joined with Mantimankhi of Thebes and all the other important princes in offering Tirhakah, now once again in Nubia, allegiance, provided he would return to fight the invader. The Assyrian officers were easily able to deal with this conspiracy in 666 and, by seizing the chief plotters in good time, were able to maintain their hold on Egypt without calling on the king for further support. Had Ashurbanipal thought it possible, he would now doubtless have reduced Egypt to an Assyrian province, but he recognized the impossibility of this, and did not deal with the captured princes so severely as the governors in Egypt dealt with the native soldiery. Necho was especially singled out as a recipient of the royal favour, and on the death of Tirhakah, 664, he was already back in Sais, while his son Psammetichus, called by the Assyrians Nabu-Shezibanni, had been appointed governor of Athribis.

Ashurbanipal’s policy bore good fruit, at any rate for a time. Tirhakah was succeeded by his nephew Tandamane (Tenot- [or Tanut- Amon), who made a brave attempt to restore Nubian prestige. After possessing himself of Thebes and Heliopolis, he marched towards the Delta, and besieged the Assyrians in Memphis, believing perhaps that no reinforcements would be sent. But the imperial army marched to Egypt in the early months of 663, and Tandamane hastily retreated to Thebes, while the Assyrian king or his representative was saluted as their liege lord by the tributary princes in Memphis. The Nubian was even unwilling to stand a siege in Thebes, and continued his flight southwards. Thebes fell into the hands of the Assyrian army after a short resistance, and very considerable plunder was carried away from that magnificent city. The Assyrians had finally defeated the attempt to establish a Nubian supremacy in Egypt.

The death of Necho in 663 led to Psammetichus, who succeeded to the governorship of Sais, occupying an unusually powerful position among the tributary princes. For some years he remained loyal to the oaths he had sworn to the Assyrian king; but he availed himself of opportunities afforded him by foreign support to rebel, and between 658 and 651 succeeded in clearing the Assyrian garrisons out of Egypt, with the aid of the Lydian mercenaries sent to him by his ally Gyges. The ease with which this effort of Psammetichus succeeded seems to show that the Assyrian king was indifferent to the loss of Egypt. Possibly the expectations of enormous wealth to be won in Egypt had been disappointed; perhaps the difficulty of holding the country except with larger garrisons than could well be spared induced Ashurbanipal to refrain from attempting any reconquest. The loss of Egypt was in reality no loss to Assyria, and an offensive and defensive alliance was subsequently arranged between the two powers.

The siege of Tyre, which Esarhaddon had been unable to take, continued into Ashurbanipal’s accession year, when it was probably concluded by a treaty between Ashurbanipal and Ba’alu of Tyre on more generous terms than those offered by Esarhaddon. Tyrian princesses were sent to the harem at Nineveh, and Iakhi-Milki, the son of Ba’alu, did obeisance to the suzerain; he was not however detained as a hostage. Though Tyre assisted Ashurbanipal in the Egyptian campaign of 667, Ba’alu would seem to have retained considerable independence. A moderate policy brought further successes in the north. Yakinlu of Arvad (who had not submitted to Esarhaddon), Mugallu of Tabal, Sandasharme of Khilakku, all submitted as vassals; and the reality of the submission is shown by the fact that the Assyrian king nominated Yakinlu’s successor, Aziba’al. The underlying cause for this willingness to accept the Assyrian supremacy, namely, the need for support against the barbarians in the north, is made clear by the action of still another prince, who ruled a land beyond the Assyrian border, Gyges of Lydia.

The wandering hordes of Cimmerians had reached the border of Lydia, shortly after the accession of Gyges, about 687, and there was imminent danger by 660 that the barbarians would overrun the country. The story of Sargon’s battle with these hordes must have been known to Gyges; in any case he judged correctly that the most useful ally he could have under the circumstances was the Assyrian king, since the Assyrians alone were powerful enough to attack the Cimmerians in the rear. He accordingly sent an embassy to Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, with gifts for that monarch, and with orders to do obeisance to him as a suzerain. This gratuitous acknowledgment of the Assyrian power by an important prince far beyond his borders did not fail to flatter Ashurbanipal’s pride; and the Lydian delegates were able to excite his interest with a story well suited to Assyrian taste. Gyges, they said, had heard the voice of his patron god in a dream, commanding him to pay homage to Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, and conquer his enemies in Ashurbanipal’s name. The annals proceed to record that, after his ambassadors had saluted Ashurbanipal, Gyges won a great victory over the Cimmerians, and sent two of his prisoners to Nineveh, with some of the spoil. Modern critics have generally concluded that Ashurbanipal did not in fact take any steps to help Gyges, whose victory they assume to be entirely due to his own effort; their conclusion is based on the fact that there is no mention of a campaign to aid Gyges against the Cimmerians. That such a campaign would be a minor operation conducted by the provincial governor of the north­western district is sufficient explanation of the fact that it is not mentioned; and Gyges’ action in sending tribute after the victory is not easily intelligible if the Assyrians had not actually assisted him. It is quite credible that the Assyrian forces in the north­west actually engaged the Cimmerians in the rear, and so enabled the Lydian prince to inflict a defeat on them.

The liberation of Egypt from the Assyrian rule by Psammetichus caused Gyges to alter his policy, and he signalized his breach with Assyria by sending troops to the Delta to assist the new Pharaoh. This friendship for Psammetichus was doubtless due in part to commercial interest; perhaps also to an undue confidence in the strength of his own position, which subsequent events showed to be unjustified. The Cimmerians, aware of the breach between Lydia and Assyria, and pushed on by other hordes to the north and east, fell on Lydia in 652, and captured Sardes. Gyges fell in the same year that Ashurbanipal undertook his first campaign against his brother, Shamash-Shum-Ukin of Babylon

The success of this exploit emboldened Tugdamme (L[D]ygdamis), the leader of the Cimmerians, to return to Cilicia, with the intention of forcing a passage into Syria. Unless indeed the Cimmerians were themselves to succumb to the Treres, an Indo-European folk who were driving into Asia Minor from the north­west, and to the Scythians, who were gathering force in the east, a break through into the rich broad lands in the south was Tugdamme’s only hope. Unfortunately we have no record of the last great encounter of the Assyrians with the Cimmerians, and the date is quite uncertain; but it was probably about the time of the Babylonian wars. So confused a horde indeed was met in Cilicia on this occasion that the inscription which refers to it in brief terms applies to the enemy the general term of Umman-manda, used elsewhere to describe the various savage folk met in Media, Armenia and Asia Minor at this time. Once again the Assyrians were successful, and Syria was saved. Such a victory, gained, as it probably was, when the main forces of Assyria were involved in a life and death struggle with Elam and Babylon, is a great tribute to Assyrian arms; but the victory itself led to more and greater difficulties than it had settled. The defeat seems to have led to a collapse of the Cimmerians, now under Tugdamme’s son, Sandakhshatra, and they seem to have been dispersed and absorbed, chiefly perhaps by the Scythians.

Lydia recovered somewhat from the disaster of 652 under Gyges’ son, Ardys, but suffered another severe blow about 646, when the Treres marched into Sardes, and Ardys was compelled to offer a desperate resistance from his citadel. Possibly it was the dire straits to which Ardys was reduced at this time that induced him to imitate the conduct of his father. Ashurbanipal, at the height of his power after his conquests in Elam, once again received ambassadors from distant Lydia, and accepted their homage. Finally Ardys recovered, and gradually cleared his kingdom of enemies. It is once again possible that the activities of the Assyrian governors in the north-west assisted Lydia, for though not a word of fighting in these districts occurs in the inscriptions, the situation of affairs in Asia Minor renders it certain that throughout this period the Assyrian garrisons were engaged in incessant hostilities.

The annals are silent as to events in Urartu and the north; only two embassies of greeting sent by Rusas II (about 680—645) and Sarduris III (IV) (about 645—620) are mentioned, that from Rusas belonging to the year 654, and that from Sarduris some time after 639. Such peaceful relations between the two states of Urartu and Assyria arouse surprise in view of previous history and can only be accounted for by the assumption that their borders were no longer contiguous. The irruption of the Scythians in the time of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon had curtailed the Urartian territories very considerably, and Assyrian influence in the Nairi country had quite disappeared. Probably the friendly relations Esarhaddon had established with the Scythians were maintained by his son, who accordingly seems to have considered the Tur ‘Abdin his boundary in the north. This is illustrated by events in 658; for in that year Andaria the governor of Lubdi, a former Urartian province, attacked the Assyrian districts Uppumu and Kullimmeri. It is certain, from enquiries put to the oracle of Shamash with regard to this event, that the attacking force was not Urartian, but a mixed barbarian force. Andaria was most probably a Scythian leader, acting independently, in contravention of the general understanding between his people and the Assyrians. The Assyrian garrison in Kullimmeri defeated and slew Andaria, and sent his head to their king in Nineveh. This is the only occasion during the first half of the reign in which Assyrian troops came into conflict with the Scythians, who observed a friendly and correct attitude in more debatable territory to the south. The kingdom of the Mannai, always troublesome, had become increasingly daring owing to the support Akhsheri, their king, received from certain independent Median princes. The necessity of dealing with this incipient danger led to the dispatch of the general Nabu-Shar-Usur against Akhsheri in 659. Plundering and burning as they marched, the Assyrian troops hunted Akhsheri from his capital, Izirtu, to the fortress of Ishtatti. There an oracle of Ishtar was fulfilled. Akhsheri and his family fell at the hands of his own people. His surviving son, Ualli, immediately surrendered to the Assyrian suzerain, and gave hostages for his good behaviour. The borders of Mannai were withdrawn considerably, so that several important townships now fell under the rule of Assyrian governors.

The intervention of the Medes in the affairs of Mannai led to a punitive campaign against certain of their princelings in the same year, 659. The Assyrians attacked and defeated Biriskhadri, Sarati and Parikhia, and captured seventy-five townships. This is the only occasion in the early years of Ashurbanipal when the Medes were met in the field. The summary account of the campaign leaves much to be desired, but it would seem that at this time there was still no semblance of unity amongst the various tribes immediately in contact with Assyria. This point, however, cannot be pressed; it may well be that already the tribes farther east recognized one king of Media, to whom the tribes farther west were shortly to submit.

The peaceful relations of Assyria with Elam established by Esarhaddon were welcomed and continued by Ashurbanipal. The supplies of food sent to relieve the famine which at that time afflicted the Elamite districts on the Babylonian border, first sent by Esarhaddon, were continued in the next reign; and the Assyrian king may well have felt that Urtaku, the king of Elam, would prove, if not an ally, at least a well-disposed neutral in any trouble that might arise on his southern border. The position of affairs in his own country would seem to have prevented Urtaku following so wise a policy. Elam had suffered much since the days when Merodach-Baladan had induced the eastern kingdom once again to interfere in the affairs of Babylonia. The wars with Assyria had necessarily proved a drain on the army; and it seems likely that the eastern provinces had been considerably curtailed by incoming tribes of Indo-European race. By the time of Ashurbanipal there is every sign of a tendency to disruption in Elam. The prince of Khidalu, for instance, occupied a semi­independent position. District governors joined in the family feuds which continually threatened the reigning sovereign, and even those who were not of the royal blood aimed at the supreme power. Above all, the people of the border, unable to appreciate the risks they incurred, persisted in the practice of raiding Babylonia, though it was unlikely that the Elamites would be able to face the Assyrians with success on the field of battle.

Urtaku was driven into dispatching a raiding expedition across the Tigris while the Assyrian army was engaging Tirhakah in Egypt. Doubtless the Chaldeans were engaged in this enterprise to some extent, but this energetic people was at the time handicapped in that the different tribes recognized no common leader, and the assistance of the Aramaeans, always readily given, was of slight military importance. The Elamites, after a preliminary success due to surprise, were defeated and driven back by a force consisting of troops drawn from the Assyrian garrisons in Babylonia. The principal interest of this campaign lies in the fact that it shows the Assyrians had established a complete supremacy in the southern kingdom, and that they were able to defend it even though the main imperial army was engaged in a different arena. This supremacy was unquestionably due in part to the curious form of diarchy actually in force in Babylonia owing to the dispositions of Esarhaddon.

II.

THE BABYLONIAN WAR

Ashurbanipal had actually installed his brother, according to Esarhaddon’s arrangement, as king in Babylon, in 668, and it would appear most probable that Shamash-Shum-Ukin was recog­nized as the legal king throughout the country. The local governors were however appointed by Ashurbanipal, and recognized themselves as directly responsible, especially in military matters, to him. Now, over a long course of years, such a system would clearly result in constant friction. The legal and religious administration at Babylon would continually find that orders were neglected or thwarted by the Assyrian governors in pursuance of a policy directed from Nineveh. At first, however, such friction did not arise, and while Babylon and Nineveh were still in harmony the occasion arose for Ashurbanipal to deal Elam a blow from which that kingdom did not recover.

Urtaku died shortly after the return of the unsuccessful expedition, perhaps by the hand of an assassin. He was succeeded by a younger brother, Teumman, about 664—663, who had pre­sumably plotted Urtaku’s death. The principal remaining members of the royal family immediately fled from Elam to avoid the fate always liable to befall possible rivals of a usurper, and made their way to Nineveh, sure apparently of finding safety with the only monarch powerful enough to protect them. These refugees became the subject of correspondence between Teumman and Ashurbanipal, and the Elamite, when his demand for their surrender was refused, provoked a war by his insults. Teumman was able to count on the usual allies: Shumai, of the princely house of Bit Yakin, was active on his behalf, Dananu of Gambulu brought no inconsiderable forces to his aid, and Ishtar-Nandi, the independent prince of Khidalu in Elam, also joined in the war. Nevertheless the advance of the Assyrians in caused Teumman’s immediate retirement towards Susa, to cover which city he occupied a position along the river Ulai. The Assyrians won a signal victory in this battle, of which the dramatic incidents are depicted on the frieze recovered from Ashurbanipal’s palace. Both Teumman and his son were killed, and the Elamite resistance completely broken. The Assyrians entered Madaktu and Susa, the two ‘royal’ cities, and stayed there till Ummanigash, one of the sons of Urtaku who had fled to Nineveh, had been duly installed on the throne. Another son of Urtaku was appointed prince of Khidalu in place of the dead Ishtar-Nandi. Elam was thus practically reduced to a dependent state.

Shamash-Shum-Ukin accepted his brother’s overlordship in Babylonia quite loyally for many years; but the constant friction which must have arisen from the diarchy proved too severe a test of his good faith. It must also be remembered that the Chaldeans, the only vigorous people in Babylonia at this period, had gradually become a majority even in the cities of northern Babylonia, and that the only way to become truly king in Babylonia was to secure their adherence by a steadfast opposition to Assyria. Furthermore, a general movement towards rebellion throughout the Assyrian provinces had assumed proportions which necessitated an immediate decision on the part of Shamash-Shum-Ukin. If he remained true to his brother, he would certainly lose his throne in Babylon, at any rate for a time, and would only regain it by his brother’s help, then to occupy a more subordinate position than ever; or if he broke faith with Assyria, the military experience and ability of his own immediate adherents might be sufficient to turn the scale for the rebels against his own people, in which case he would occupy a position not to be challenged by any prince in western Asia. It is not surprising that Shamash-Shum-Ukin secretly allied himself, about 654—653, with Ummanigash of Elam, Nabu-Bel-Shumati of Bit Yakin, Ea-Zer-Ikisha of Bit Amukkani, Mannu-ki-Babili of Bit Dakkuri, the Aramaeans, the Aribi, several princes of Palestine, and Necho of Egypt.

The war which Shamash-Shum-Ukin was now pledged to undertake may be regarded in two ways. The alliance which had been formed was not novel: Merodach-Baladan in the time of Sargon and Sennacherib had shown the importance of forming these combinations, and it would seem at first that this war, too, was simply a rising of tributary nations against the imperial power, that in character it was not distinguishable from former wars of the kind. This is of course true, but is not the whole truth. It is clear that this so-called ‘brothers’ war’ was fought on the Babylonian side with a determination and courage quite unusual in the history of that country’s many encounters with Assyria. Further, the prolonged resistance which Nabu-Bel-Shumati and his Chaldean tribesmen were able to offer on the Elamite border shows that the same influence was at work amongst the southern peoples also; the tribal levies were turned into armies. It seems a fairly safe inference, therefore, that the new factor which was to make the ‘brothers’ war’ the most severe and prolonged struggle on which the Assyrian army had engaged for many decades, lay in the military preparations and skill in leadership of Shamash-Shum-Ukin himself and his Assyrian supporters. To this extent the war may be regarded as a civil war. The Assyrian army was met for the first time by leaders trained in its own school.

The outbreak of Shamash-Shum-Ukin’s rebellion in 652 B.C. was marked by great military activity on the part of the rebels. Ummanigash of Elam sent a very considerable army to northern Babylonia under the command of one of Teumann’s sons, Undashu, to whom apparently the role of covering the border was assigned while Shamash-Shum-Ukin attacked those Assyrian governors who remained faithful to Ashurbanipal. Neither Shamash-Shum-Ukin nor Undashu was in the end successful. The former moved against Ur and Uruk, but was able to do no more than threaten danger to those well-fortified cities; while Undashu was defeated by the main Assyrian army. This defeat was followed by mutiny in the Elamite army, led by Tammaritu, a cousin of Ummanigash. The army returned to Susa, and in the civil war which ensued in 651, Ummanigash lost his life. Tammaritu then seized the Elamite throne, and himself undertook the command against Assyria. This affair in Elam must have weakened Shamash-Shum-Ukin’s position very considerably, since the Elamite army did not share in the early part of the campaign of 651. The advance of the Assyrians, who captured Babsame and Sippar, at once cut direct communication between Elam and Babylon, and threatened the capital city itself. In the south Ashurbanipal’s energetic officers made the Sea-land untenable for Nabu-Bel-Shumati, who was forced to take refuge in the hills of Elam; but carried off with him a number of important, hostages, to recover whom became a point of honour for the Assyrians. The attack on the combined forces of Nabu-Bel-Shumati and Tammaritu on the border proved unsuccessful, but this reverse does not seem to have improved the position of Shamash-Shum-Ukin, for he contemplated flight from Babylonia in the autumn of 651, and nar­rowly escaped capture in the attempt to execute his plan.

The campaign of 650 opened with the Assyrians in a very strong position. Ashurbanipal’s officers had cleared southern Babylonia of the rebel forces; Bel-Ibni, the Assyrian governor of the Sea-land, was holding Nabu-Bel-Shumati and the Elamites in check, and Babylon and Borsippa were invested in the north. If the position was to be saved for Shamash-Shum-Ukin it was imperative that the Aribi, hitherto engaged in pursuing their own interests on the borders of Palestine, should engage the Assyrian besiegers. Uaite’ I accordingly sent an army into Akkad under Abi-Iate’ and Aimu, with the intention of breaking the investing forces, but the effort failed. The Aribi were defeated in the field, and the main body was forced to take refuge in Babylon. Since famine had already commenced to weaken the defending troops in that city, Shamash-Shum-Ukin’s difficulties were sensibly increased by this addition to the number of mouths he had to feed, and it may be that it was at his instigation that the Aribi made a desperate effort to break through. In this attempt they suffered severely, and Abi-Iate’ himself, cut off from the desert, fled straight to Nineveh, there to be pardoned by Ashurbanipal. The efforts of the Aribi were no more successful in the west. Ammu- Iadin, a prince of Kedar, who led the attacks on the Assyrian garrisons on the Palestinian border, was defeated and captured by Kamash-khalta, king of Moab, to whom Adia, the wife of Uaite’, also fell a prisoner.

Babylon and Borsippa still held out, but events in Elam in 649 rendered Shamash-Shum-Ukin’s cause hopeless. That land of discord was once again plunged into civil war, the result of which was that Indabigash, an official, drove Tammaritu to flee from Susa into southern Babylonia, and assumed the royal title himself. Tammaritu and his adherents fell into the hands of the Assyrian general Marduk-Shar-Usur, who sent them at Bel-Ibni’s command to Nineveh. There Tammaritu was subjected to a humiliating ceremony of submission, and then treated with the same favour that had been accorded to Abi-Iate’; and a similar intention may be assigned to Ashurbanipal in each case. At this time, too, Shuma, the nephew of Tammaritu, fled to the nomad tribe of the Takhkha’, and allied himself with the Assyrians. The position of Indabigash in Elam was so weak that he attempted to treat with Ashurbanipal, and as a first step towards establishing friendly relations released the hostages carried off to Elam by Nabu-Bel-Shumati. Ashurbanipal proceeded to demand the surrender of Nabu-Bel-Shumati himself, and would doubtless have received satisfaction in this matter also, had not a new turn of affairs in Elam brought about the fall of Indabigash. The anti-Assyrian party was now led by Ummanaldash, who succeeded in defeating and slaying Indabigash early in 648, and ascended the throne in Susa as Ummanaldash III. This meant a renewal of war with Assyria.

Elam, torn by faction, was now powerless to aid Shamash-Shum-Ukin effectively, and he himself was no longer able to defend Babylon. That city had now been besieged for nearly two years. For the first and only time in history the famous city had been defended in a manner worthy of the strength of the fortifications; it was not to the Assyrian assault that the troops of Shamash-Shum-Ykin succumbed, but to famine. The king of Babylon himself did not submit to defeat, but threw himself into a fire intended to consume his palace, in the way attributed by legend to Sardanapalus. In the end, the Assyrian army had little to do but march into an already devastated town, which they did in 648; but Shamash-Shum-Ukin’s legal reign really ceased in 650 B.C. according to the reckoning of some. Thus legal documents found at Ur were dated in ‘the 19th year of Ashurbanipa’. Babylon was not sacked by the Assyrians; booty was of course taken from Shamash-Shum-Ukin’s palace, and the leaders of the anti-Assyrian party in Babylon were slain as an offering to the manes of Sennacherib, but Ashurbanipal’s attention was immediately devoted to cleansing and restoring the capital. He himself seems to have occupied the throne in Babylon only for the year 648; he then reverted to the arrangement which had proved convenient for the greater part of his reign. A titular king named Kandalanu (the Kineladan of the Ptolemaic canon) was installed in Babylon in 647, there to reign for twenty years under the same conditions as previously applied to Shamash-Shum-Ukin. Ashurbanipal was to have no further trouble in Babylonia proper.

The rebellion of Shamash-Shum-Ukin was over, but Arabia and Elam still remained to be dealt with before the war was finished. The Aribi were not in a position to offer serious resistance. Uaite’ I was driven out by his people, exasperated by his ill-success in the war and by an outbreak of famine. He fled for safety to Natnu of Nabaite1, and attempted to induce that important monarch to declare war on Assyria. Natnu was not misled; he voluntarily paid homage to Ashurbanipal, sent an embassy with tribute to Nineveh, and perhaps surrendered the former king of the Aribi to his overlord. These events probably all belong to the year 648. The tribes of the desert were now subjected to a stricter government than any that had yet been imposed upon them, though unfortunately nothing is known as to the measures the government took. The leaders of the tribes at this time were Abi-Iate’, who owed his authority in Kedar to Ashurbanipal, and Uaite’ II, son of Bir-Dadda, who succeeded his cousin, Uaite’ I, son of Hazailu. These two determined after a short time to rid themselves of the Assyrian yoke; Natnu of Nabaite allied himself with them. The first attack of the combined tribes was, as usual, delivered on the western frontier. A strong Assyrian army, dispatched to the west between 641 and 638, was engaged in a series of battles which seem to have centred about Damascene. The tribes Isamme’ and Nabaite were defeated between Iarki and Azalia, the men of Kedar and ‘the bands of Atarsamain’ at Kurasiti, while the forces of Abi-Iate’ and Aimu were dispersed at Khukkurina, the two leaders being captured. Uaite’ II seems to have avoided an engagement, but famine and pestilence aided the Assyrians. Uaite’ was driven out by his own people, and probably fled to Natnu in distant Nabaite, whither the Assyrians did not follow him. Ashurbanipal had amply punished the Aribi for their alliance with Shamash-Shum-Ukin. A punitive raid on Ushu (Palaetyrus) and Akku (‘Akko, Acre) concluded the campaign.

The last struggles of Elam were a more desperate affair than might have been expected in a country exhausted by rebellions and a long and unsuccessful war. On the accession of Umman-Aldash, Ashurbanipal renewed his demand for the surrender of Nabu-Bel-Shumati, which was refused. The Assyrian army accordingly marched to Susa in 646, and set Tammaritu II once again upon the throne. The Assyrian nominee was, however, not disposed to act as a puppet king, and actually attacked the troops which had driven his rival Umman-Aldash from Susa. His attempt at independence speedily ended in his defeat and capture. During this campaign the Assyrians secured the principal fortresses on the border, thus obtaining great advantages in any campaign they might subsequently have to wage. The attempt of Umbakhabua to establish himself in southern Elam was also defeated; but finally the retirement of the Assyrians from Susa gave Umman-Aldash the opportunity to return to his capital. He was, however, no longer strong enough to assert his authority even in those districts in which there were no Assyrian garrisons, for a certain Pa’e ruled some cities while he himself reigned at Susa. This position of affairs continued, and was probably only brought to an end by the activities of Nabu-Bel-Shumati on the border of the Sea­land. This restless prince retained sufficient influence with his Chaldean tribesmen to cause the Assyrian governors considerable anxiety, and it was, no doubt, the refusal of Umman-Aldash to surrender him which led to the last campaign against Elam. This campaign consisted of a series of military successes on the part of the Assyrians in all the habitable parts of Elam, ending in the capture of Susa. On this occasion the city was very thoroughly sacked; large quantities of Babylonian treasure, captured in war or received as bribes, were returned to Babylon, and all the striking artistic monuments were carried off to Nineveh. Even the bones of dead kings were removed from the grave and sent to Ashurbanipal to signalize this final victory over Assyria’s most important rival. It is impossible exactly to date this campaign, which marks the end of the native kingdom of Elam, but it must belong to the period 642—639.

Successful as the campaign had been, Umman-Aldash himself had not been captured, but had retired to inaccessible hills. On the return of the Assyrian army to Nineveh, he came down from the hills to Madaktu, since Susa was now uninhabitable. He was now little more than the prince of a single city, and was bound to obey Ashurbanipal in every particular. His own people, under the leadership of one Umman-Igash, drove him out of Madaktu, whence he fled northward, only to fall into the hands of Assyrian troops some time in 639. With that event our information as to the history of Elam ceases; when the same lands once again play an important part in history, some eighty years later, in the time of Cyrus, prince of Anshan, a new ruling people, the Persians, are established in Susa, among the remnants of the ancient people, and circumstances have changed in a manner as yet unknown. Ashurbanipal’s wars in Elam were the prelude to the most important event in the history of the late seventh and early sixth century, the rise of Persia, and it would be interesting to know if and how the forces of the old empire came into contact with that which was to arise within a century.

III.

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA

With the year 639 B.C. the sources for the reign of Ashurbanipal close, though the king reigned till 626. For thirty years, therefore, of the forty-two during which he sat on the Assyrian throne, he ruled the empire successfully. Egypt was lost, it is true, but subsequent events show that the loss was finally a gain to Assyria, since a willing ally was thereby won; peace and good order were established in Palestine, Phoenicia and Syria, and an important friend had been secured in Lydia. The king was on good terms with the Scythians in the north, and with his own nominee on the throne of Babylonia. Elam was crushed to rise no more; the Medes could make no headway against the imperial troops. In all the important cities of the empire, Assyrians, some of them members of the royal family, were engaged in maintaining efficiency and securing order. Ashur-Etil-Shame-Irsiti-Uballitsu, the king’s youngest brother, was the high-priest of Sin at Harran; Sin-Balatsu-Ikbi, the governor of the Sea-land, rebuilt a shrine in the temple of the moon-god at Ur. Well might Ashurbanipal boast of the peace of his empire, and the good order established in his cities—and then suddenly, we know not how, both king and kingdom fell on evil days. In a striking passage Ashurbanipal speaks of his last unhappy years:

“The rules for making offerings to the dead and libations to the ghosts of the kings my ancestors, which had not been practised, I reintroduced. I did well unto god and man, to dead and living. Why have sickness, ill-health, misery and misfortune befallen me? I cannot away with the strife in my country and the dissensions in my family. Disturbing scandals oppress me always. Misery of mind and of flesh bow me down; with cries of woe I bring my days to an end. On the day of the city-god, the day of the festival, I am wretched; death is seizing hold on me and bears me down. With lamentation and mourning I wail day and night, I groan, ‘O god, grant even to one who is impious that he may see thy light. How long, O god, wilt thou deal thus with me? Even as one who hath not feared god and goddess am I reckoned”.

What the physical complaints that befell the now aged king may have been we do not know; but the reference to disturbance and strife in his family and kingdom are clear enough.

Troubles concerning the succession had arisen, and when Ashurbanipal died, Ashur-Etil-Ilani, his chosen son, had to fight an usurper before he succeeded to the throne, and was then only successful owing to the support of an official named Sin-Shum-Lishir. The struggle was presumably a long and strenuous one, for the Assyrian empire suffered considerably under the strain. Southern Babylonia, controlled by Kandalanu until Ashurbanipal’s death in 626, broke away from Ashur-Etil-Ilani under Nabopolassar, the chosen leader of the Chaldeans, who commenced hostilities immediately on his accession in 625. Palestine broke away from its bondage about the same time, and Phoenicia ceased to obey the Assyrian writs. Media, now united under a single monarch, was lost, once for all, to the empire. It is indeed surprising that during the short reign of Ashur-Etil-Ilani, from 626 to 621—619 (?), more provinces were not lost to Assyria, for it will be seen that the west and north remained true to the government at Nineveh.

Ashur-Etil-Ilani’s reign ended in disorder as it had begun. Sin-Shum-Lishir seized the throne for a few months on his master’s death, but was driven out by another son of Ashurbanipal, Sin-Shar-Ishkun. These events took place some time in the years 621—619 (?), during the prolonged struggle with Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, and Cyaxares of Media, who were now allied for the purpose of destroying Assyria. Sin-Shar-Ishkun was an able monarch, and in more fortunate circumstances would doubtless have been able to face even this alliance with success, for though many of the former contingents to the Assyrian army could not now be levied, he had powerful allies; Psammetichus of Egypt and the Scythians were prepared to support him, and even the Mannai, hereditary enemies of the Assyrians, sent contingents to his help. The civil wars of the preceding years, however, seem to have seriously affected the fighting strength of the Assyrian army, and the Babylonians and Medes were now fighting under generals not inferior in ability to those of the Assyrians.

The plan of the allies was sound; gradually the fighting forces of Assyria were hemmed into the fortified quadrilateral which comprised the home-land of Assyria, from Kalat Sherkat to Karkuk, thence up to Irbil, and back to Khorsabad. In 616 Nabopolassar was able to march up the Euphrates through the territories of the Sukhu and Khindanu without opposition, and signally defeated the Assyrian army which faced him at Kablinu; he was even able to send a flying column up to the river Balikh, but Egyptian troops arrived to help the Assyrians, and Nabopolassar was forced to retire hastily on Babylon. The Babylonian troops met with greater success in Arrapkha (the district near Karkuk), where an Assyrian column was routed and thrown back across the Zab. Possibly the division of the Assyrian troops was responsible for this defeat at one corner of the home defences, for when Nabopolassar attempted to attack Ashur in 615 he was defeated and forced to retreat to Takrit, where he successfully defended the fortress, owing to a diversion caused by an attack on Arrapkha by Cyaxares. This intervention of the Medes placed a greater strain on the defensive resources of Assyria than Sin-Shar-Ishkun could withstand, probably owing to failing man­power. In 614 Cyaxares marched almost up to Nineveh itself, took Tarbis (Sharif-Khan), and then turned south against Ashur to make sure of effecting a junction with Nabopolassar. Then, for the first time so far as is known in the history of Assyria, the ancient capital fell, to be sacked with a savagery revealed by modern excavations. Nabopolassar—a typical Babylonian general on this occasion—arrived too late for the battle, but the opportunity served to cement his alliance with Cyaxares. The two might well view the future with complacency.

Though affairs were in a well-nigh desperate state in Assyria proper, the empire had not fallen to pieces; it had been too well and wisely administered for a century to do that. If the Greek accounts be correct, Sin-Shar-Ishkun in 613 implored help from the Scythians, who were to engage the Medes while he himself faced the Babylonians. On the Euphrates the Sukhu, now fearful of Nabopolassar’s intentions, came openly into the field on behalf of the Assyrians, and though the Babylonians met with some initial successes, the Assyrian army drove Nabopolassar away from ‘Anah, if not in rout, at least in retreat. Everything now depended for Sin-Shar-Ishkun on the faithfulness of the Scythians, and they betrayed him. Possibly by the promise of rich plunder in Assyria and Syria Cyaxares induced the barbarian hordes to unite with him, for in 612 the leader of the Scythians joined Cyaxares and Nabopolassar in the final assault on Nineveh itself. Between Siwan and Ab (May to July), the allies delivered three unsuccessful assaults on the city which was a proverb for riches and power throughout the nearer East; but in the end it fell before a coalition of powers which had been trained in siege­warfare by Assyrian kings. The brief words of the Babylonian chronicle, ‘a great havoc of the people and the nobles took place ... they carried off the booty of the city, a quantity beyond reckoning, they turned the city into ruined mounds,’ are the counterpart of the picturesque description of Assyria’s downfall by the Israelite prophet Nahum. Sin-Shar-Ishkun himself perished, perhaps, as the Greeks reported, by throwing himself into the fire he himself had kindled, as Shamash-Shum-Ukin perished before him; but it was the end of a soldier and an Assyrian king, not of the Sybarite the Greeks pictured as Sardanapalus. The fall of Nineveh closes the history of Assyria proper; the land which had been compelled to fight for centuries, first to exist and then to win an empire, fell irrevocably when at last no part of the homeland was defensible.

Yet even so the few Assyrians who managed to escape from Nineveh struggled on. Driven westwards by force of circumstances, they took refuge in Harran, the fortress from which they had dominated Syria almost continuously since the time of Ashur-Nasir-Pal. While Nabopolassar was engaged in subduing Nisibis and the immediately adjoining districts, and Cyaxares and the Scythians turned home with their booty, Ashur-Uballit, perhaps that brother of Ashurbanipal who had been made high-priest of Sin, was appointed king of Assyria in Harran. Unable to prevent the ravaging of the old home provinces which was continued throughout 611, Ashur-Uballit could but await attack in Harran, hoping that the Egyptians might be in time to help him to withstand the enemy. Nabopolassar did not underestimate the task before him; not until the Medes and Scythians joined him in 610 did he march against Harran. Desirous of keeping his army in the field, Ashur-uballit left his city, which fell into the hands of an enemy who devastated it as the cities of Assyria had been devastated. At last the troops of Necho arrived, and effected a junction with Ashur-Uballit; the Babylonian army was besieged in Harran, but timely aid arrived from Babylonia, and Ashur-Uballit and his Egyptian allies were defeated in the field. Presumably the weary struggle lasted on until 605, when Necho’s defeat at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish settled for a time the question of the ascendancy in Syria. The Assyrian nation, as such, passed away in Syria.

The disappearance of the Assyrian people will always remain an unique and striking phenomenon in ancient history. Other, similar, kingdoms and empires have indeed passed away, but the people have lived on. Recent discoveries have, it is true, shown that poverty-stricken communities perpetuated the old Assyrian names at various places, for instance on the ruined site of Ashur, for many centuries, but the essential truth remains the same. A nation which had existed two thousand years and had ruled a wide area, lost its independent character. To account for this two considerations may be urged. First, even in lands where, as Gibbon has remarked, the people are of a libidinous complexion, the Assyrians seem to have been unduly devoted to practices which can only end in racial suicide; the last years of their history can only be explained by a loss of man-power not entirely accounted for by civil wars. Secondly, it is certain that the Medes carried off into their own country large numbers of the ummane, the craftsmen who worked in metal and stone. Many of the glories of Persepolis and Ecbatana were wrought by workmen trained by the guilds of Nineveh; the art of seal-cutting was taught to their masters by Assyrian slaves. No other land seems to have been sacked and pillaged so completely as was Assyria; no other people, unless it be Israel, was ever so completely enslaved.

In another way the fall of Assyria is unique, in that after centuries of military domination in Mesopotamia, and after decades of imperial power, it is almost impossible for the modern historian surely to trace any lasting Assyrian influence on the history of succeeding ages. Yet it must not be too hastily assumed that this impossibility is due to anything but ignorance; if we had some knowledge of the history of the Medes, a fuller acquaintance with the development of Persia, a more precise account of the origins of Zoroastrianism, it is conceivable that the continuity of history could be proved decisively. Politically, it may even now be affirmed, the Assyrian empire lived on in the greater Persian empire that succeeded it, and was the original of the abiding type of polity known as ‘the Oriental Monarchy’. Fuller information may yet show that Assyrian civilization left a more decided impress on Syria and other provinces than has yet been realized; of Sargonid rulers especially it would probably be inaccurate to say ‘they make a solitude and they call it peace’. In Harran for instance there subsisted until the time of the Abbasid Caliphate a form of heathendom which in some of its principal features closely resembled Assyrian religion. But above all the justification for the existence of the Assyrian empire is to be found in the fact that the might of Assyrian arms enabled Babylonian civilization to survive during centuries when Babylon was no longer a cultural centre, until at last the Chaldean dynasty which wrought the fall of Nineveh was able to take on the task of preserving civilization in one of its earliest cradles.

CHAPTER VI

THE HITTITES OF SYRIA