“I then besieged Hezekiah of Judah who had not submitted to my yoke, and I captured forty-six of his strong cities and fortresses and innumerable small cities which were round about them, with the battering of rams and the assault of engines, and the attack of foot-soldiers, and by mines and breaches (made in the walls). I brought out therefrom 200,150 people, both small and great, male and female, and horses, and mules, and asses, and camels, and oxen, and innumerable sheep I counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird, I shut up within Jerusalem his royal city. I threw up mounds against him, and I took vengeance upon any man who came forth from his city. His cities which I had captured I took from him and gave to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, and Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and I reduced his land. I added to their former yearly tribute, and increased the gifts which they paid unto me. The fear of the majesty of my sovereignty overwhelmed Hezekiah, and the Urbi and his trusty warriors, whom he had brought into his royal city of Jerusalem to protect it, deserted. And he despatched after me his messenger to my royal city Nineveh to pay tribute and to make submission with thirty talents of gold, eight hundred talents of silver, precious stones, eye paint … ivory couches and thrones, hides and tusks, precious woods, and divers objects, a heavy treasure, together with his daughters, and the women of his palace, and male and female musicians.”
It must not be supposed, however, that either this record of a successful invasion or the Hebrew account of that other disastrous one is altogether false, however much the facts may have been exaggerated, or however poetical the guise in which they are presented. It is merely to be understood that the two records refer to different campaigns or to different portions of the same campaign, as explained later by Professor Tiele. It is supposed by some modern interpreters that the destruction of Sennacherib’s hosts actually occurred through the plague. The king himself, however, escaped to return to Nineveh and there to continue his rule for many years. He was finally killed by his own sons, as is recorded on a contemporary Babylonian document. What would not the Hebrew scholar give, could he find contemporary documents of these events from the Hebrew standpoint, instead of being obliged to depend on records handed down, perhaps, by tradition for many generations, or at best, copied from one hand to another for centuries?
The value of contemporary documents as records of fact may, indeed, be overestimated, for it is possible to pervert, exaggerate, or understate the facts even in the day of their occurrence; but in any event the contemporary document has obvious advantage over documents of subsequent generations, which can be nothing more than copies, variously distorted, of earlier records. As for such mere matters of fact as the dates of ancient kings, and the particular details of campaigns and conquests, the historic importance of the contemporary record cannot be questioned; hence the enormous value of these tablets of Assyria and Babylon. But, questions of historical value aside, a peculiar charm attaches to whatever is old, and it is nothing less than fascinating to look at such a document as this cylinder, and feel that the very lines you scan were once read by Sennacherib himself before he met his untimely end “on the 20th day of the month Tebet” some twenty-five centuries ago.
h
[705-702 B.C.]
It was in the year 705 B.C. that Sennacherib, who was not, perhaps, entirely guiltless of Sargon’s death, mounted the throne and became the supreme king both in Babylon and Assyria. To Merodach-baladan, who may have been either the recognised king of the Sea Lands, or the son or namesake of the latter, the occasion now seemed favourable for recovering the throne lost to Sargon. Sennacherib and his army marched up in all haste, and though it appears that Merodach-baladan had all the Aramæan and Chaldean tribes on his side, and was moreover supported by Elamite auxiliaries, he suffered a defeat and so lost his kingdom. According to the Assyrian narrator, this defeat was so complete that the Chaldean was forced to take flight in the greatest haste, leaving behind him his whole baggage-train, as well as his family and court. He had reigned nine months. The land was heavily scourged, great and small towns were taken and laid waste, and the inhabitants dragged into exile. The same fate was meted out to all Arabians, Aramæans, and Chaldeans who were living in the Babylonian towns.
When the campaign in Chaldea was at an end, the troops were sent against the Aramæan tribes, which dwelt on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. Here, too, there was devastation and plundering. A considerable booty, as was to be expected from these nomads, consisting chiefly of cattle, but also including camels, fell into the hands of the conquerors, and no less than two hundred thousand men and women were carried off to Assyria as slaves. It fared still worse with one small, heroic tribe, the Hirimmi, who offered an obstinate resistance to the Assyrians. When, finally, the latter succeeded in overcoming them, of all the rebels they left no prisoner of war alive, and hanged the corpses on poles upon the wall surrounding the town. Sennacherib annexed the whole territory to his realm, while he laid on it a very moderate tax for the benefit of the Assyrian god.
We may assume it as probably certain that the king did not personally take part in the campaign, but occupied himself the while with the adjustment of Babylonian state affairs. His policy may be distinctly followed. It was only toward the Chaldeans and their allies that he appeared in the character of an enemy. They alone were punished or carried off. The actual citizens of Babylon, Erech, Nippur, Kish, and Kharsag-kalama he left unmolested, and to propitiate them still further, he even gave them a king belonging to the ruling Babylonian house—namely, the young Bel-ibni, whose father held an important office, and who had himself been brought up from childhood at the Assyrian court. Of him Sennacherib might hope that he would be faithful to Assyria and at the same time not unfriendly to the Babylonians, and therefore he now bestowed on him the title of “King of Sumer and Accad.”
The establishment of order in Babylon was turned to account by Sennacherib for the purpose of averting the danger with which his eastern frontier was threatened by the nomads who wandered there, and by the mountain people, and also for extending his empire in every direction. He now attacked the Kasshu and Yasubigallu, by which names we doubtless have to understand those barbarous Kossæans, and their allies, whose successors, centuries later, according to Diodorus, still made the Mesopotamian frontier insecure, and who were related to those Kassites who had so long reigned over Babylon. Their surest protection was the inaccessible nature of the country. Steep mountain paths and thick forests made it difficult for an Assyrian army to advance, while for vehicles it was impossible.