New Page 1

Ethnic and confessional aspects of the Assyrian issue have come to the foreground now. We will never be able to find any solution to the problems unless we come to grips with both of them altogether. It is noteworthy that the ethnic-confessional identity of the nation has repeatedly been hard put to .endless trials and strives over centuries. 'Ethnic strives and disintegration trends inside one nation obviously have very deep historical roots. Most ferocious strives happened to be between Assyria and Babylonia. As a matter of fact, both eventually perished. The strives apparently stemmed from the peculiarities of the Assyrian development which, according to A. Leo Oppenheim1* always sought self-identity in terms of a regular state and society alike while it tried to carryon in the frontline of the whole Mesopotamian civilization. This tendency brought about many contradictions in the political, religious and intellectual life of Assyria.

The strives between Assyria and Babylonia have been in the focus of many writers. In A. Oppenheim's monograph again "North is always in opposition to South as it is rendered in al- most every source that has come to us from the past. Moreover, this opposition is either put for- ward in the source anyway, or like in Assyria, is camouflaged with Babylonian civilization."

This tendency is also emphasized in an excellent popular science book by Vitali Belyavski, en- titled as "Babylon of the legend vs. Babylon of the past". 60000 copies of this 319-page book were printed by "Mysl Publishers" in Moscow in 1971. 'Here below we offer to your kind attention excerpts from the first two chapters of the book on the fall of Nineveh and the rise of new Babylon.

Unlike other conquered nations the Assyrians of Babylonia never felt it strange or alien.. Babylonians and Assyrians were like brothers. Actually they had one origin, one historical path, one religion, similar culture and customs. They used very similar dialects of the Akkadian language and one literary form. Babylon was highly popular among Assyrians. It was a sacred city for them anyway. The Babylonian aristocracy supported and collaborated with its weaker Assyrian counterparts in its struggle with Assyrian Kings to keep their privileges.

As a matter of fact the noble Assyrians stayed free from many state duties including taxation and military service. The most important privilege they had was the right to self-governing. These privileges were a common occurrence in the cities of Babylonia and Assyria alike.

In Assyria there were two powerful parties. The parties came to exist spontaneously indeed. Despite the instability of the rank and file numbers the parties gathered the people with common interests anyway. In the relevant science both parties were attributed to either Assyrian or Babylonian. The Assyrian party incorporated the democratic layers of the society. It was supported by the army which stood up for the king's power in its striving to annex lands and to set up dictator- ship. The Babylonian party was apolitical group of the Babylon-based Assyrian aristocracy. This party did not oppose the metropolitan policy of lawlessness and plunder in the annexed lands but on the other hand, the aristocracy did not want to lose their privileges. By this cause again they fought against the king's despotic dictatorship.

Open clashes between the two parties started in the reign of the Assyrian king Sal- manasar V (727 to 722 BC), a son to Tiglat- palasar III. Salmanasar V, a Babylonian king, who had the name of Ululai, encroached upon the privileges of the aristocracy. As a result, he fell victim to a plot. The Assyrian throne was taken by Sargon II (722 to 705 BC).

The Assyrian king Sinakherib (705 to 680 BC), a son to Sargon II, made another attempt to set up a military dictatorship. There- fore the struggle between the Assyrian and Babylonian parties became hardest. Babylon was again in the principle opposition to the Assyrian king. In 703 Babylon revolted against him and called. Marduk-apla-iddin II to .throne. During 14 years Sinakherib waged a ferocious war with unsteady success against Babylon and Chaldeans who collaborated with Elam. Finally in December 689 BC the Assyrian army took the rebellious city by storm.

The enraged Sinakherib ordered that Babylon and its people should be destroyed. So it happened, the city was demolished. As the Euphrates channel was blocked up with fragments of buildings, the waters rushed into the demolished city. The place where Babylon was became a curse for the following 70 years. Many Babylonians and aristocrats above all were killed, some fled to neighboring lands, the rest were taken captive and then sold into slavery. The statue of Bel-Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, was captured as trophy and forwarded to the town of Ashur, the ancient metropolitan Assyria. Babylon ceased to exist. As regards the Assyrian aristocracy, as it was in the permanent opposition to the despotic policy of Sinakherib, they only saw the proof of their own fears in the destruction of Babylon. Sinakherib destroyed Babylon, but it broke him, too. In the years before his death he made a fast change in his policy as he tried to find a way out.

The tension of the moment in Assyria manifested itself in the struggle over the throne inside the king's family. After long hesitation Sinakherib had to give up to the Babylonian party. In between 682 and 681 BC he assigned a heir title to Asarkhaddon, one of his youngest sons. Queen Zakutu, the beloved wife to Sinakherib and mother to Asarkhaddon, contributed much to this decision2.

Still under Sinakherib the Babylonian party placed its hope in Asarkhaddon on the path towards restoration of Babylon eventually. Coming to power the young king began to restore it. This very radical step in the policy was to be justified before the Assyrian public so that the name of Sinakherib should not be diminished and yet keep the Assyrian party satisfied. That was a hard deal to do, for only nine years had passed since the fall of Babylon.

Babylon was only forgiven but not rehabilitated. The king apparently called on all his heavenly power added by his earthly supporters in order to influence the public and to overcome the Assyrian opposition in the way of the cursed Babylon.

Best king's architects were sent to work on restoration of Babylon. The main labor was done by the residents of Babylonia and prisoners gathered in all the corners of the Empire. Restoration work continued over twenty years. And now it is time to question, why Asarkhaddon and his aristocratic supporters wanted to restore Babylon and its citizenship hostile to Assyria? For this policy resulted in the fall of Assyria at the hand of the renewed Babylon. Or Asarkhaddon and his party were so short-seeing that they brought up with their own hands the gravedigger of their homeland? Most perceiving representatives of the Assyrian top leaders saw the only chance to survive in collaboration with this brotherly people. Assyria could escape from catastrophe only in case of collaboration with Babylonia. Duality of the Assyro-Babylonian power was the result from attempts of the Assyrian top leaders to escape the fall of the country. This is actually the motivation for the Babylonian restoration anyway.

However, this policy was opposed by the Assyrian party, namely, the top military leaders who were the most blood-thirsty and short-seeing part of the ruling elite. The military at the top wanted to playa big part in the government and, if so, they were suspicious about the conception of Assyro-Babylonian dualism, as they rightly saw strong competition in the Babylonian citizenship.

The Babylonian issue remained along while the contents of the domestic political disputes in Assyria. That is why Asarkhaddon restrained himself from a firm decision to re- store Babylon. Actually he did not give back autonomy to it. Therefore the statue of the god Bel-Marduk as a symbol of the Babylonian statehood was still in the hands of the Assyrians, in Ashur where it had been since Sinakherib. Babylon knew no king but the king of Assyria so it remained a province with some privileges though. As the things stood there, no dualism could ever be possible.

The plans of Asarkhaddon were to fail. The Assyrian party gained the upper hand in the long run. The debates upon the heir to throne again ended in a fierce fight between the parties. The Assyrian party was a strong opposition to the nomination of Shamash- Shum-Ukin, the oldest son to Asarkhaddon. The Assyrians put forward Ashurbanipal, the second son to the king. Taking the king at his disadvantage after the unhappy campaign in Egypt in 673 BC they made him call Ashurbanipal the heir to throne.

In 671 BC Asarkhaddon conquered Egypt at last. The military success and plenty of trophies built up his prestige after years of uncertainty. The Assyrian party soon became humble. In May 670 BC the king assigned Shamash-Shum-Ukin the heir to the Babylonian throne in the similar rank with Ashurbanipal, the heir to the Assyrian throne.

In 669 BC Egypt revolted against its conqueror. Asarkhaddon went on a campaign but fell ill and died in early November. The riot was suppressed two years later. The same fate was met by rebels in 664 BC, but ten years later Egypt under pharao Psammetik I broke the Assyrian yoke once and for all.

In the course of elections Shamash-Shum- Ukin became the king of Babylon on 13th of May (or 12th of June) in 668 BC. Babylon regained its statehood. Both kings seemed to be on good terms. They called one another "brothers by blood". Ashurbanipal even refused to carry the title of "King of Shumer and Akkad" in favor of his brother Shamash-Shum-Ukin, this title once given to Asarkhaddon. But anyway he never missed the chance of showing his authority over Babylon. Shamash as well as all Babylonians felt very much insulted.

Shamash felt lack of authority very hard indeed. He could not forgive Ashurbanipal the loss of the Assyrian throne and infringement on his rights as the king of Babylon. Shamash pretended to stay loyal while he hated his younger brother and longed for revenge. He continued his links with his sup- porters in Assyria, and his letters were repeatedly intercepted by his enemy. But Shamash was very cautious as he knew all Assyrian ways like the back of his hand.

In the spring of 652 BC Shamash sent an ambassadorial mission to Nineveh to pay honors to Ashurbanipal. Under this pretext he ordered the leaders of the pro-Assyrian party be sent out of Babylon. While the ambassadors of Babylon and Ashurbanipal joined in to exchange honors and gifts, Shamash launched a riot. His brother never expected it to happen. He was taken by surprise.

In April of 651 BC the Assyrian army came in under Babylon. Cruel fighting began in and around the city. The Assyrians held a victory so Shamash along with the residents of Babylon retreated inside the walls. In the spring of 650 BC the agony of the rebels began. Assyrians laid siege to Babylon, Barsippa, Sippar and Kutu.

Shamash and Babylonians were utterly isolated. Only Arabs hurried to rescue them. A squad of Bedouins under sheik Abiyate broke through the Assyrian blockade to Babylon and stood along with Babylonians to defend the city to the last.

The Assyrian army under Babylon and other towns was led by the Babylonian Mar- duk-Apla-Iddin. He first took Kutu protecting his camps from the rear. Babylon was turned into a stronghold by Assyrians who had built the walls. And now the Assyrian soldiers had been making futile work outside for over two years already. Meanwhile: Marduk-Apla-Iddin was gathering more soldiers around the city hoping that the Babylonians would surrender at last.

The situation inside Babylon had become hopeless by the autumn 648 BC. The city had no resources to hold out. Ashurbanipal asked of the oracle for the god of Shamash several times if the latter would flee from Babylon. Meanwhile Shamash was tormented with the necessity to face the end. Just not to be captured alive by the soldiers of Ashurbanipal, he set fire to the king's palace and threw him- self into the fire. His wife and close friends followed him.

The citizens of Babylon were terrorized. However Ashurbanipal did not destroy the city. Moreover, some citizens were not victimized. Only active supporters of Shamash- Shum-Ukin, that is the aristocracy, who had survived the massacre of 689 BC. Ashurbanipal held this aristocracy the only organizer of the rebellion it was to be destroyed almost completely. The remains of Shamash and his wife by the order of Ashurbanipal were buried in a special vault.

Shortly after the fall of Babylon Ashurbanipal resumed the war with Elam. Chaldean-born turtan Bel-Ibni was the best warrior in action. Assyrians toppled down Indabigash and gave throne to Tammarit from Nineveh. But when he took to secret plotting, he was to end up. The citizens of Elam made him flee, so he gave up himself to Ashurbanipal. Chaos seized Elam then. Taking the chance Assyrians came to capture its capital Suza and sacked it in 646 BC.. The war was over the following year wlten Elam was completely destroyed and three antagonistic kings Ummanigash III, Pae and Um-manaldash III were captured. Nabu-Bel-Shumate, the Chaldean king of the sea-land killed himself as he tried to escape. His head was placed in salt to be sent to Nineveh. In 644 BC Assyrians suppressed the Arab riot as well.

That was the end of Shamash-Shum-Ukin's revolting. On this occasion Ashurbanipal decided to give himself and his warriors a lavish feast to celebrate his victory. He just ordered five captured kings, Elamite Tam-maritu, Ummanigash III, Pae and Um- manaldash III and also, the Arab Uaite, be put to the chariot to carry him to Emashmash, the main temple of Nineveh. No other king before or after Ashurbanipal ever had such a pompous procession. In the procession there was Nabu-Kat-Zabat, the best fellow- campaigner to Shamash. Actually he was drawn along with the salted head of Nabu- Bel-Shumate hanging on his neck. All neigh- boring kings and peoples were to bow their heads down to Ashurbanipal. The power of Assyria was triumphant indeed. No enemy seemed to dare to fight Assyrian excellent soldiers. But one would think...

In the chronicles Ashurbanipal bore the image of a very cruel despotic leader of the oriental type, wallowed in luxury and sins. Ancient Greeks knew him by the name of Sardanapal. So this name was carved out on the world historical map. However in the middle of the 19th century when archaeologists excavated the buried city of Nineveh. According to the findings, the king Ashurbanipal was pictured as a brave warrior, skilful horse rider, good hunter, connoisseur of art, and compiler of the largest Nineveh library in the East. Besides, during the close examination of the old manuscripts of Babylon, compiled a hundred years after Ashurbanipal, it was discovered that his name was exceptionally popular in Babylon. Meanwhile it was its citizens who above others suffered much from his cruelty. All three opinions do not coincide at all, but every opinion seems true in its own way. It is mainly due to the versatility of the king's character as well as the complexity of Assyria in its last decades of existence.

Ashurbanipal, the leader of the most powerful kingdom in his time was a brilliant personality. He could come and fight a lion alone, browsed among books in his library between his orgies, marveled at the bareliefs of the Nineveh palaces built by the best architects in the world at the time. His capital Nineveh was called the city lair of lions. At its gates of the East called "The entrance of peoples’ hoards " there were captured kings on a chain in the cage like dogs pounding their ancestors' bones taken out of the grave. Towers and walls of Nineveh were covered with the skin stripped off the enemies of Ashurpanipal. On the Assyrian market places the captured Arabs and his camels were used as money equivalence to bargain for wine, bricks and even to pay the gardener .

Ashurbanipal was more concerned with the domestic things in his land. He was well aware of the importance of the army in his kingdom but the army was multinational already. Ashurbanipal himself had to man the ranks of his army with captured Elamite soldiers after the Elamite troops were defeated. How long would Assyria hold out then? Assyrians with perception, and above the rest king Ashurbanipal, saw the coming catastrophe. They all were aware that Assyria was much hated in the world. How could this ring of hatred be broken?

The only solution Ashurbanipal saw in restoration of Babylon. He had failed to pre- vent Babylonians from a riot, but after he defeated them without having the city destroyed, the king tried once again to implement the idea of Assyro-Babylonian dualism. The fate of Assyria would depend on this decision.

Shortly after the fall of Babylon Ashurbanipal addressed his citizens calling them "privileged men". He attributed all his successful deeds to god Marduk and goddess Tsarpanit, in the name of them he forgave the Babylonians. In Babylon, Barsipp, Kutta and Sippar streets were cleared of corpses, and temples were cleaned and renovated. Preparations were taken to see the New Year and to give an honorable welcome to Ashurbanipal. In 647 BC on the New Year day Ashurbanipal "took the hand of the god Bel" and became the king of Babylon under the name of Kandalanu. The Babylonian kingdom kept its autonomy inside Assyria. However its territory had become less than it was in the reign of Shamash-Shum-Ukin, for Uruk remained under the power of Babylon, and Nippur was annexed to the Assyrian kingdom and turned into a stronghold to dominate over Babylonia.

Ashurbanipal also was as much concerned about Chaldeans in the south. In his own expression he "trampled down Chaldea and put the yoke of god Ashur on it". After 648 BC all Chaldean principalities in Babylon were banished. In the south Ashurbanipal imposed Assyrian provincial authority headed by turtan Bel-Ibni. The ethnic name "Chaldean" came out of use in Babylonia. Therefore the ethnic barrier between Chaldeans and Babylonians was overcome. Babylonianized Chaldeans were in the majority. That is why the citizens of Babylonia were called Chaldeans in the neighboring countries.

This situation became possible only after destruction of the Babylonian aristocracy and the Chaldean noblemen who tried to keep to their privileges preventing Babylonians from unity, and furthermore from unification with Assyrians. This put an end to separation works in Babylonian towns and Chaldean principalities. Rivalry and counteraction were in the past.

Ashurbanipal introduced a multitude of Babylonians into the ranks of the Assyrian authoritative elite. Even in the war with Sha-mash-Shum-Ukin and his allies the Chaldean Bel-Ibni and the Babylonians Marduc-Sharru-Uzur and Marduk-Aplu-Iddin led the Assyrian armies. Ashurbanipal pursued one goal in Babylonia. It was the implementation of the idea of Assyro-Babylonian dual- ism. However this idea was not to be translated to life. Ashurbanipal failed to create a strong point in Babylon. He made the grave digger for Assyria instead.

The Assyrian king's activity again and this time ultimately was disrupted by the military top leaders. In 630s BC the raids were abolished. Assyria turned to defensive. But its demoralized army wanted more trophies. Ashurbanipal's Babylonianism acted on the Assyrian army brass heads like a red rag to a bull. They resented the idea of sharing their power with anybody else, nor with the arising Babylon. They regarded Babylonia as only the land they conquered and a trophy to gain. Anything beyond this never inspired them.

A dispute over the heir to the Assyrian throne was a prerequisite for a military coup. In 630 BC the militarists dismissed Ashurbanipal and led general Sin-Shum-Lishir to take the throne. However, the coup was strongly opposed, and the new king had to sit beside him Sin-Sharru-Ishkun, one of the sons to Ashurbanipal. By this cause Sin-Sharru assumed a throne name Ashur-Etel-Ilani ("God Ashur is a warrior of gods").

The opposition did not lay down its arms anyway. Its home ground was Ashur and Babylon. Assyria split into two parts, and a civil war began. The military brass gained the upper hand though they had to make some concessions to the defeated enemy. Sin- Sharru-Ishkun kept the throne of Assyria to himself, while the old Ashurbanipal still held control in Babylon.

Ashurbanipal had no strength, nor desires to struggle any more. He suffered from his dashed plans, as he said, "I have done only good to God and people both dead and living. Why have I been afflicted with disease, heartache, calamity or self-destruction'? The war is on, and there is only discord in my house. Confusion and malice hold together against me. A bad spirit, my aching body makes me bent. I only have been sighing these days. I was even upset on the day of City god's feast. I must die. I feel depressed. I have been crying over my fate by day and night. I sigh and wish God would give it to my enemies. Let me see the light, my God! Please, won't you do it for me before I'm dead? I have become a poor worshipper my- self."

The upheaval reflected on the fate of Southern Babylonia. Its governor Bel-Ibni did not make it in time to express his loyalty to Sin-Sharru-Ishkun and Sin-Shum-Lishir. For this he was deprived of his power. The Chaldean born Nabu-Aplu-Utsur (or Nabopalasar) was assigned to rule the land of sea.

In May 627 BC Ashurbanipal (or Kanda- lanu) passed away. Sin-Sharru-Ishkun and Sin-Shum-Lishir hurried to capture the leaderless Babylon. One night in May they brought the troops into the city. But the citizens never expected anything good from the military leaders and were not going to bear it anyway. Several days later at night they attacked the Assyrian soldiers and ousted them out of town. Babylon rose against Assyria.

Some time before, as soon as the news of Ashurbanipal's death was spread about, Nabopalasar revolted in the south in an at- tempt to win the kingdom of Babylon. He promptly seized Uruk and in May 627 BC sieged Nippur, an Assyrian stronghold in Babylonia.

Assyrians hurried to defend Nippur. Its loss to the enemy would have put them out of Babylonia. In August 627 BC their advancing troops crossed the border, and burned down the town of Shaznaku. In September the major forces came to fight. The Gods statues in Kisha that was in the way of the invasion were lifted and rushed to Babylon. But Assyrians were on their way to Nippur. On their approaching N abopalasar backed down hastily to the south without launching combat. Assyrians caught up and .sieged him at Uruk, but failed to capture the town. Nabopalasar defeated them in the sally and made them run.

Therefore Assyrians failed to crush the rebellion in the bud. Now they had to fight very hard instead for a better fate for their kingdom. Anyway the kingdom had already begun to decay. Elam destroyed in 647 to 645 BC had split with Assyria. In the west Joshia, the king of the Jews, not only refused to pay his duties but also started to annex Assyrian provinces in Palestine. The pharaoh of Egypt, Psammetikh I took a siege of Ashdod, earlier subjected to Assyria.

The loss of Babylon in this circumstance would mean the end of the kingdom. Assyrians were aware of this danger and were pre- paring a new campaign. They started it in May 626 BC after the crops were to be harvested in Babylonia. All through the summer the Assyrian army devastated the land, and advanced toward Babylon in autumn. But the citizens made sallies outside the city. In October 10, 626 BC they came out to face the foe and destroyed it in a close fight taking the entire trophy the Assyrians had gathered.

Politically this defeat of Assyrians under Babylon caused a lot of trouble to them. Until then there were two isolated and thus mistrusted seats of rebellion, Babylon and the south where Nabopalasar found his strong- hold. After Ashurbanipal Babylon knew no king, and certain circles of the society (the rich top leaders, who controlled temples and their clientele) wanted to see no king either. However the military solution was not in favor. Assyria remained a foe to Babylon that probably would not be able to stand alone. Therefore Babylonians had to look to Nabopalasar who was fighting the common enemy.

Yet in September 626 BC Sippar, one of the largest cities in the land, recognized Nabopalasar as the king of Babylon. The rich top leaders had to yield. In November 23, 626 BC Nabopalasar was officially announced to be the king of Babylon. The forces that revolted in Babylon united.

Taking the throne of Babylon Nabopalasar started to look for allies. Soon he found them in Midians, who were the first people to overthrow the Assyrian yoke in 674 to 672 BC. By the middle of the 7th century they had united under the arm of king Deyoka (700-647 BC). His son and heir Fraort (647- 625 BC) had annexed some lands in Iran including the Persian territory and made Midia a powerful century. And now he wanted to challenge Assyria in a hard fight.

On 9th of April 625 BC news had reached Babylon, namely, Assyrians set out in a campaign. They were marching down the Euphrates valley unlike they did before. The first victims of the invasion were the idols and the citizens of the border town Shapazzu who had arrived in Babylon the day before. On 12 of May the god statuettes from Sippar were delivered to Babylon. The next day Assyrians sacked the town of Shallat only in a one or two days walking distance from Sippar.

However Assyrians failed to continue this successfully launched campaign. The king of Midia Fraort invaded into Assyria. Leaving a strong garrison in Shallat the Assyrian army turned against Midians. Nabopalasar failed on July 29, 625 BC to win Shallat again beating down Assyrians. Although Fraort was slain when he lost a ferocious fight to Assyrians. Assyria sustained and gained. But its losses were so tremendous that its army would be able to resume the war in Babylon after 15 months. .

In August 624 BC as soon as the tide went out in the Euphrates, Assyrians entered Babylonia and encamped themselves around the canal Nar-Banitu. Having the water edge behind them in the north and the loyal Nippur in the rear they took a siege of Uruk. Nabopalasar could not defend it so Uruk fell. This big victory ended the whole campaign so Assyrians should return home. Nabopalasar tried to take revenge and two months later his soldiers fell on Nippur, but he suffered a defeat again. The fate turned its back on Babylonians. Assyrians had captured the Middle Babylonia and closed Babylon in a ring. They were gaining more strength day by day.

The turning point in the war happened in 623 BC. Nabopalasar managed to rise people in the Assyrian province Der (in the north- east of Babylonia) and therefore to break the Assyrian ring to secure a connection with Midia. In August Babylonians sieged Uruk, and in September the king Sin-Sharru-Ishkun came to lead the army. But alas, Assyrians gained no success. They only strengthened the garrison of Nippur. They first had to fight Arabs who had arrived to help Babylon. But then came the news about the armed intervention by Midians in Assyria.

The Midian king Kiaksar (625 to 585 BC), the son and the heir to the perished Fraort, derived some good lessons from his father's defeat. In a short time he reorganized his army converting very simple tribal guards into militia troops who were consequently turned into different squods by the type of arms. They seemed to be highly capable of fighting Assyrians. In 623 BC Kiaksar moved to Nineveh and took a siege there. Assyria was threatened, but its complete destruction was yet to come.

In the course of the war conflict there appeared a new force on the scene, the brutal nomadic tribes who allied with Madij at the helm and fell on Midians and destroyed them.

Assyria was saved, but its lands were utterly devastated. Overcoming Midians the savage tribes cut across Mesopotamia, Syria like a hurricane. They went as far as Egypt. Pharaoh Psammetikh I and Palestine had to pay a large contribution to them to keep his lands intact. The nations of the region were in panic. "Here a people is coming from a northern land, and a great people are arising in the corners of the world", Jeremiah, the prophet of Jews said of these ferocious tribes, "They hold a spear and an' arrow in theirhands. They can be brutal and savage. They roar like a lion. And they gallop on their horses across fields in the solid line as one just to challenge you, the daughter of Lion."

Those nomadic tribes came to rule the lands during the following 28 years (623/22 to 595/94). The richest countries of the world lay under the hooves of their horses. The nomads came to sack and get trophies and contributions. They never cared about the internal life and links between the conquered peoples. The nomads just wanted more contributions and recruits.

Assyria could not sustain a Midian blow and nomadic "support". Taking this advantage Nabopalasar turned to the siege of Uruk and took it. In the summer of 621 BC Assyrians failed to get Uruk back. Soon Nabopalasar captured Nippur and drove the enemy out of Babylonia eventually.

The nomadic invasion compelled Assyria to look for allies. They found them in the north, in the lands of Urartu and Manna, which were endangered they. Egypt joined this coalition, though it was a foe to Assyrians before. This time pharaoh Psam-metikh I saw Assyria was a natural barrier to nomads. The struggle of Babylonia for its in- dependence was brought to a world scale. Fighting happened across the Near East. Northern Mesopotamia became along with the essential Assyria the main war theatre.

In April 616 BC Nabopalasar led his troops up the valley of the Euphrates River. Assyrian provinces of Sukhu and Khindanu gave him their contributions without delay. On 23rd of July Babylonians defeated Assyrians and their allies in the battle of Kablinu, and then they sacked Assyrian lands in the basin of Balikh, a tributary of the Euphrates. Heavy with trophies and prisoners Nabopalasar returned to Babylon in August 616 BC, but two months later Egyptians came to rescue Assyrians in the valley. The allies went on to Kablinu but did not venture to enter Babylonia. Then Nabopalasar after a short rest moved to Assyria in March 615 BC. He defeated Assyrians on the Zaban River outside Assyria. Capturing the prisoners and trophies Babylonians took a way back home easily by the right side of the Tiger river.

In May 615 BC Nabopalasar launched an- other campaign. This time the objective was the town of Ashur, the ancient Metropolitan of Assyria. But he never captured it promptly, as he tried. In June the Assyrian army headed by Sin-Sharru-Ishkun augmented the defenders of Ashur. Babylo-nians were made to fly. Their foes were on a close run after them. The danger was lifted as they reached the fortress of Takritain on the right bank of the Tiger River. Assyrians at- tacked this fortress during 10 days, but the Babylonian garrison warded them off boldly. Nabopalasar managed to take off in the pursuit. Having sustained great losses in Takritain Assyrians backed down at least.

Meanwhile, Midians regained their strength after the nomadic intervention and resumed military operations against Assyria. In November 615 BC they threw themselves into Arrapkh, an Assyrian province. The war theatre was brought closely to the outskirts of the Assyrian natural territory. That was the beginning of agony.

In July 614 BC Midians appeared on the outskirts of Nineveh and seized its suburb, Tarbiz. Then they went across the Tiger River and down its flow. This way they took Ashur in August. The town was sacked and destroyed. Its citizens were mercilessly killed in some numbers; others were taken prisoners and taken away. When it was allover, Nabopalasar arrived under Ashur bringing all of his army. He had certainly made a plan to arrive late to rescue Midians. Ashur was the town of a big foe to Midians. Therefore they just wanted it to be destroyed. Babylonians had a different opinion. Fighting Assyrians they always remembered the links between them both. Ancient Ashur and its temples were sacred as much for Babylonians as well. So Nabopalasar was to arrive late anyway. He just was not in a position to stop Midians and to save Ashur, but he had no intention to participate in the destruction.

Babylonians met Midians on the smoking ruins of Ashur in late August 614 BC. Nabopalasar and Midian king Kiaksar signed an alley treaty supported by marriage of Midian princess Amiitis (Amuhean) to the son of Nabopalasar, a prince Navukhodonosor.

Assyrians attempted to get their foes off the borders. In May 613 BC they arose people in the province of Sukhu, which was annexed by Babylonians three years before. Nabopalasar set out on a campaign promptly and took the town of Rachila in June 10th. But then the fate betrayed him. 'Yet the fortress of Anatu situated on a small island in the middle of the Euphrates sustained a heavy attack from Babylonians. The approaching of the main Assyrian forces compelled Nabopalasar to fly. But nevertheless Assyria was not to be saved.

The catastrophe broke out in 612 BC. Nabopalasar and Kiaksar unanimously set out toward Nineveh. This time nomads reappeared on the scene. Now the fate of this campaign largely depended on the nomads, namely, what side they would want to take. Kiaksar saved the situation promptly. He went to the nomadic camps in the little company of his men; He wanted to see the collector of his contributions, the nomadic king Madij, He persuaded this king to join in the destruction of Nineveh. The perspective of a great trophy overcame the nomadic king anyway, and the barbarians moved along to reach the Assyrian capital.

They went on after leaving the city in ruins Nineveh was destroyed. The same fate was met in Ashur, Kalkha, Arbella, Dur- Sharukhin and other Assyrian cities. Those Assyrians who survived this ordeal were captured and taken away or went scattered. That was the decision of those who conquered anyway.

The fall of Nineveh made a tremendous impact on the whole world indeed. The peoples who were suffering under Assyria were happy about it. "Where is the lair of lions? Where is the pasture for their cubs? Where did lion, lioness and their cubs go walking peacefully, unsacred? And where is the lion which tonnents some flesh to feed its cubs and lionesses and strangles some more to store it up in the cave?", exclaims Naum the prophet and gives the answer himself, "There sleep your clergy " the king of Ashur, and your warriors; and your own people went scattered in the hills, and there is nobody who can gather them. And there is no cure to your wounds, and your wounds are mortal. All who could hear this news of you will applaud for you have hurt everyone in the world."

In September 14, 612 BC Kiaksar ordered his troops leave the ruins of Nineveh with a load of trophies and prisoners. While Midians left, Babylonians stayed to sack the Assyrian provinces of Nazibinu and Ruzapu in Northern Mesopotamia and then left for home as well. The territory of Assyria and a larger part of the trophy were in the hands of the nomads, the leading force in the Fore Asia at the time. But the Assyrian power was still going. The part of the army and gentry were on the defensive anyway. They had gathered at Harran in the north-west of Mesopotamia. There they chose Ashur-uballit the king of Assyria. He was the young brother to Ashur- banipal as well as the high priest at Eihul-hulla, a temple to Sin, a god of the Moon in Harran. Assyrians had expected Egypt to come and help, as they tried to halt nomads, Midians and Babylonians outside their land.

In 611 BC Babylonians launched operations in around Harran and soon took the town of Rugguliti at the confluence of Euphrates and Sagur. Harran became a hot seat the following year. N abopalasar alongside Babylonians set out in a campaign again in May 610 BC. They devastated some areas of Harran till November, when nomads came to join them. Then they all set themselves forth toward Harran. Assyrians and Egyptians left the town and flew in fear beyond the Euphrates. Harran was sacked, and nomads destroyed its famous temple Eihulhulla. In March 609 BC the allies left for their homes. Babylonians still kept a garrison in Harran.

Egyptians were very concerned about the loss, of Harran. Pharao Neho, the son and heir to Psammetikh I who passed away in 611 BC, headed his army in the campaign of 609 BC. His army was halted at Megiddo by Joshia, the king of the Jews. The pharao's demand that he should be allowed to come to the Euphrates was rejected. And the battle began. At its initial stage Joshia was killed in the throat with an arrow, so the Jews fled. His son Joahasa was put on the throne. Meanwhile Egyptians were marching to the north.

Strengthened by the Assyrian king Ashur- uballit, pharao Neho crossed the Euphrates and fell on Harran. Fierce fighting went on through out the summer. Babylonian garrison sustained in a close fight all the attacks from Egyptians and Assyrians and kept the city. In September 609 BC Nabopalasar gained more strength from Midians and went off to res- cue the garrison in Harran. Pharao Neho knew it and lifting the siege backed down beyond the Euphrates. Babylonians regained full control in Harran. In 609 BC Assyrians and their king Ashur-uballit came into oblivion.

Babylonians gained a tremendous victory ever happened in their history. But in vain if we try to find any description of this triumph in the chronicles. Nabopalasar only mentioned the victory over Subarum that was the ancient name of Northern Mesopotamia. In some other chronicle he said, " And Assyrians who ruled in many lands around bringing a considerable damage to my people as well (namely to Babylon), I am who is weak and humble, and respecting the god of all gods with all might I gain from the gods Nabu and Marduk, my lords indeed, it's me again who have turned them back and abolished their yoke." But the king Nabonid, one of the heirs to Nabopalasar, pointed out against the truth that Babylonians avoided participation in the destruction of Assyrian cities, and that it was only nomads who did it alone. According to Nabonid, Nabopalasar was only saying a prayer to gods again and again while sleeping on the ground with a sign of sorrow.

Overcoming Assyria was a success, which Babylon was obviously ashamed off. In the end a brotherly people who once became a foe to Babylon only in the certain circum- stances was to be destroyed. Therefore Babylonians were sorry for what they did. They realized that they should owe their victory to barbarians, midians and nomads in- stead who were to be a fierce foe to Babylon in the future.

REFERENCES

3. Contenau G. Contrats et lettres d'Assyrie et de Babylonie. Paris, 1926 (Musee du Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Orientales. Textes Cuneiformes, IX).

5. Harper R. F. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the Kouyujik Collection of the British Museum. VoiI-XIV .London, 189Z.1914. 6. Keiser C. E. Letters and Contracts from Erech. New Haven, 1918.

7. King L. W. Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum. London, 1912, pis. 6-10, p. 70-75. 8. Langdon S. Die neubabylonischen Konigsinschriften. Leipzig, 1912. 9. Olmstead A. T. E. History of Assyria. New York-London.1923.

11. Streck M. Assurbanial und die letzten Assyrischen Konige bis zum Unterergange Niniveh's. Leipzig. 1916.

12. Wiseman D.J. Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. London, 1956

1 A. Oppenheim. Ancient Mesopotamia. The portrait of a fallen civilization M., Science Publishers, 1990

2 She was Syrian-born where she was called Nakia (“clean” in Aramaic), translated into Assyrian as Zakutu.