The memory of this stern warrior lived long after his death, holding tribes in subjection and enabling his successors to rule in comparative peace. The greatness of the future kingdom has been attributed in no small measure to the foundations laid by Tiglath-Pileser I.
A period of reaction followed. Tribute, which had been paid only for fear of a strong, well disciplined army, was no longer forthcoming. Babylonia and Assyria have left so few records for these years that they are almost sure to have been years of inaction. On the alluvial bottoms of Babylonia, a new dynasty arose, known as the dynasty of the Sea Lands. Both the rulers and the subjects they governed were comparatively newcomers, who easily gained the upper hand in the decadent state, especially as no interference came from Assyria.
While the inertia of Babylonia allowed the latest comer to rule, so the inaction of Assyria allowed countries on the west—Syria and Palestine—to gain strength. On the north, the Armenians, a nation of traders, extended their territories and their commercial affairs.
In 950 B.C. Tiglath-Pileser II. became king. From this time forward records become more numerous, and we are able to trace the stages of development with greater accuracy. Assyria once more wakened to her possibilities, while Babylonia continued in her helpless, prostrate condition. Nothing of note is chronicled until Asshur-natsirpal III. became king in 885 B.C. He promptly marched against the earlier conquered tribes on the north who no longer paid their tribute. He slaughtered a goodly number at the start, and this report spread like wildfire among the tribes, who hastened to send gifts. For some years he continued to bring countries under tribute, quelling revolts with such severity as only an Assyrian could have directed. One inscription is sufficient to let us understand his customary procedure:
"I drew near to the city of Tela. The city was very strong; three walls surrounded it. The inhabitants trusted to their strong walls and numerous soldiers; they did not come down or embrace my feet. With battle and slaughter I assaulted and took the city. Three thousand warriors I slew in battle. Their booty and possessions, cattle, sheep, I carried away; many captives I burned with fire. Many of their soldiers I took alive; of some I cut off hands and limbs; of others the noses, ears, and arms; of many soldiers I put out the eyes. I reared a column of the living and a column of heads. I hung up on high their heads on trees in the vicinity of their city. Their boys and girls I burned up in the flame. I devastated the city, dug it up, in the fire burned it; I annihilated it."[2]
Babylonia and nations on the east united against the relentless conqueror, but in vain. They were defeated and some of their cities laid waste.
Having carried on campaigns in this fashion for some time, Asshur-natsirpal found himself at the head of a large army, well disciplined, invincible, inured to slaughter and devastation—a menace to the state if kept idle, and if disbanded, removing at a stroke the fear which prompted the payment of tribute.
Something should perhaps be said of tribute, which we find kings demanding of all subjected people. The habit of compelling the payment of tribute was tolerated only in an age when might made right. None of the earliest nations gave anything in exchange for tribute exacted. No effort was made to defend tributary tribes from the attacks of other tribes. Tribute was merely the price paid by a people for the privilege of being in other respects left alone. A king who dreamed of a wide reaching empire, tried to bring as many nations as possible under his tribute. The payment of this tribute was the formal acknowledgment of the emperor's over-lordship. Until the age of Persian dominance, no monarch was able to do much more than compel the annual payment in joining alien territories to his own. Assyria attempted on a smaller scale what Persia effected, but little more than the conception of a great empire was contributed by Assyria; it was given reality by Persian conquerors.
Asshur-natsirpal realized the only course open to him was that of conquest, and to that he now turned. Setting out for the west, his march was a continual triumph. His reputation was so well established, and the strength of his army so well understood that tribes on either side sent gifts as soon as he drew near.
Reaching the Euphrates, he was unable to make any adequate provision for the transportation of his troops. The Assyrians were an inland people and knew nothing of maritime affairs. Each soldier was expected to get himself across the stream, partly swimming, partly buoyed up by inflated skins of animals.