3 A T A
)0 cavalry,
ships, and
s still, and
where she
vmong the
, an effemi-
he history
ough that
vorld give
o that of
rom Ninus
d to be a
'ty genera-
uxury and
m, Sarda-
, Arbaces,
it impos-
alace, and
>vent took
ve account
arly three
about 605
Scripture.
ion of 520
reconcile
supposed
S supposi-
ver, that
is proved
nes found
f intense
and after-
rmed one
331 B. c.,
\lexander
B: O
lee, whose
vas afters
se capital
mporarily
> Persian
d by the
t to the
5 ArD il
. 1638, at
ans,
historical
certained
e 'We are
t became
f govern-
t), on the
the later
‘ound the
names of
inus and
yventions
king is
e reigns
Of the
orded on
earliest
vered in
, Tiglath-
1 annalg,
h-pileser,
Hercules
art, who
and has
r-righ-ili,
ountries,
Magian
, Wwhom
e wishes
ASSYRIA.
of his heart, and established in strength in the
government of A.—the glorious offspring of Asshur-
dapal-il, who held the sceptre of dominion, and
ruled over the people of Bel, who in all the works
of his hands and the deeds of his life placed his
reliance on the great gods, and thus obtained
a prosperous and long life—the beloved son of
Nin-pala-kura, the king who first organised the
country of A.,” &c.
Tiglathi-nin, thelastof the Kileh-Shergat series, was
succeeded by his son, Asshur-dani-pal, the warlike
Sardanapalus L of the Greeks. He made Calah, the
modern Nimrud, his capital, lying 40 miles further
north, on thedeft bank of the Tigris. His annals are
very complete. Among other conquests, he mentions
that he had taken tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and
other Pheenician cities. He was the founder of the
north-west palace at Nimrud, which, next to that of
Sennacherib at Koyunjik, is the largest and most
magnificent of all the Assyrian edifices. The greater
portion of the sculptures now in the British Museum
are from this building. The palace of Solomon
covered little more than one-tenth of the space
occupied by this palace, and not one-thirtieth of
that covered by the vast building of Sennacherib.
Sardanapalus I. was succeeded by his son Shalman-
ubar, whose deeds are briefly recorded on the black
obelisk now in the British Museum, the full account
being apparently reserved for the colossal bulls,
which seem to have been the usual dedication after
a victory. Of his campaigns, the mostinteresting to
us are those in which he defeated Benhadad of
Damascus, and his murderer and successor Hazael.
According to his own account, Shalmanubar defeated
Hazael, killing 16,000 of his fighting-men, and
capturing more than 1100 chariots (884 B.c.). The
obelisk also records the tribute paid by Yahua, son
of Klwmri, i.e., Jehu, son of Omri, king of Israel
Now Jehu was son of Jehoshaphat, and had done
hig utmost to extirpate the family of Omri; but
probably Jehu, like other usurpers, was anxious to
identify himself with the family which he had dis-
possessed, and of course the Assyrians accepted the
title he gave himself.
Tva-lush, probably the Pul of the Scriptures, is
recorded on a pavement-slab from Nimrud to have
received tribute from Samaria, Tyre, Damascus,
Idumeea, and Palestine, which assertion agrees with
the account given (2 Kings xv.) of the 1000 talents
paid by Menahem. With this king ends the first
dynasty, in which we have 18 monarchs from
Bel-lush to Iva-lush (1273—747 B.c.).
The later Assyrian empire begins with Tiglath-
pileser II. (747), and ends with the destruction of
Nineveh (625). It is plain from Secripture that the
empire was in a flourishing condition during the reigns
of those kings who came in contact with the Hebrews,
and this account exactly accords with the monuments,
but contradicts Herodotus. Probably, on the acces-
sion of Tiglath-pileser II., who, in his inscriptions,
makes no mention of his ancestors, nor even of his
father, and therefore may be considered a usurper,
Babylon had revolted, and this partial rebellion had
reached Herodotus in an exaggerated form. The
annals of this prince exist only in a very fragmentary
state. The name of his successor, Shalmaneser, has
not yet been found on the monuments. The capture
of Samaria is usually ascribed to this prince, but his
successor, Sargon, expressly asserts that Samaria
was taken by himself in his first year. Besides, in
2 Kings xvii. 6, the ‘king of A.’ is not necessarily
the same monarch as the ‘king of A.’ in the preced-
ing verse. It would appear, therefore, that Shal-
maneser died, or was deposed, while Hoshea still held
out. Sargon’s palace at Khorsabad, near Nineveh,
furnished the valuable series of monuments now in
the Louvre. Sargon was succeeded by his son Sen-
nacherib. He fixed the seat of government at
Nineveh, and employed the forced labour of 360,000
men to repair the great palace. Later in his reign,
he built a new and more magnificent edifice, which
he decorated with sculptures representing his various
exploits. This is the palace excavated by Layard.
It contained at least .three spacious halls—one of
them 150 feet by 125, and two long galleries, one of
200, the other of 185 feet, besides innumerable
chambers. The excavated portion covers above eight
acres. The annals of Sennacherib extend only to
his eighth year. He relates at length his successful
attack upon Babylon, his invasion of Judwa, the
submission of Hezekiah, and his deportation of
200,000 Jews. This expedition is not to be con-
founded with the second invasion, in which he failed
ignominiously, and which is not recorded on his
monuments. His agsassination very shortly after
his return to Nineveh, after his second expedition,
readily accounts for this silence.
Esarhaddon, his son and suceessor, held his court
sometimes at Nineveh, sometimes at Babylon. Bricks
bearing his name have been discovered at Hillah,
and a tablet at Babylon dated in his reign. This
explains how Manasseh was brought to him at
Babylon, when he was led captive from Jerusalem
(2 Chron. xxxiii.). No record has as yet been dis-
covered of this expedition against Palestine. His
edifices are not inferior to those of his predecessors.
He employed Greek and Pheenician artists, and to
them probably we owe the beautiful bas-reliefs that
adorn the edifices of his erection. The decline of
the empire probably commenced with Asshur-bani-
pal II. The arts of peace flourished, while the mili-
tary vigour of the nation declined. The sculptures
of this reign are decidedly superior to the earlier in
spirit, delicacy, and freedom from conventionality.
The slabs shew that hunting, not war, was this
king’s favourite pursuit. He was succeeded by his
son Asshur-emit-ili, the last king of whom any
records have yet been discovered. It is uncertain
whether Nineveh was destroyed under him, or under
a successor, the Saracus of Berosus, the effeminate
Sardanapalus of the Greeks. The character usually
given of this last king, as a debauchee throwing off
his indolent habits, and after performing prodigies
of valour, perishing by a glorious death, rather than
surrender, is derived solely from Ctesias. All we
know distinctly is, that Saracus was betrayed by
Nabopolassar, governor of Babylon, who made an
alliance with Cyaxares the Mede, and cemented it by
a marriage which has been alluded to before; that
Saracus, despairing of success, fired his palace with
his own hand, and perished with all belonging to him
in the conflagration.
Government.—The government was despotic, as
suited the character of the people. The empire was
a mere congeries of kingdoms bound to the supreme
authority only by certain obligations of paying
tribute, giving presents, and shewing due respect.
Each kingdom retained its own rulers, laws, and
religion, although we do find some attempts to rule
by satraps and collectors of tribute. Tiglath-pileser
also boasts, in an inscription, of having punished
and crucified the Chaldseans who refused to worship
his gods. In consequence of this imperfect organi-
sation, the empire was exposed to frequent revolts
of the subject nations, when such opportunities
offered as a disputed succession, or want of energy
in the ruling prince. Then the labour of conquest
had to begin anew, and it was sought to diminish
the danger of the central power by inflicting severe
punishments on the rebels. The history of the Jews
has made us familiar with one of these devices—viz.,
the wholesale deportation of the hlhabitants‘lggf the
