ASSYRIAN, MEDO-PERSIAN AND LYDIAN, AND GREEK AND

ROMAN ORIGINES.

ASSYRIAN ORIGINS.

But in addition to what we have found in Polyhistor or from any other source hitherto concerning Babylon we shall have to give a closer look at Assyria, which situated properly between Mesopotamia and Media is the earliest recorded monarchy. Its history is mainly derived from Ctesias, Herodotus and the Old Testament Scriptures. The discoveries by Layard, Rawlinson and others in the cuneiform inscriptions have drawn much attention to ancient Assyria; but the chronologers differ much in the dates they give to the events of its history.

It has been noticed on page 27 of this treatise that the dynasty of 9 Arabian kings over Babylon gave place to the Assyrians, which means that the government, whose capital was Babylon, at this time passed under the government whose capital was Nineveh, and which was called the Assyrian empire.

This Assyrian dynasty over Babylonia continued 551 years, under kings whose number in succession is given variously at from 41 to 45. Its beginning is put in 1298 and its end in 747 B. C., at which last date the Babylonians in conjunction with the Medes achieved a temporary independence of Assyria; and in 122 years later, on the destruction of Nineveh by the same two nations (625 B. C.), attained to complete independence.

For over six centuries, therefore, from its conquest of Babylon to the destruction of its own capital, Assyria was the dominating power of Southwestern Asia. Even in the time of its greatest power it allowed the conquered nations to retain their laws, religion and even kings, but being required to pay tribute and furnish a military (108)

contingent to the imperial army they were generally ripe for revolt, whenever they thought opportunity offered. Its history, therefore, is the record of an empire often badly broken up and as often restored by some heroic king. Even Sardacus (Sardanapalus, III. ), who had the misfortune to be king when the city of Nineveh was utterly destroyed, although having the reputation of being an effeminate prince, still had the courage or temerity of destroying his life rather than allow himself to fall into the hands of the enemy. It is only a comparatively few of those 45 kings that we know anything about and of those we do know about it is mostly in their connection with Jewish and Grecian history we have knowledge of them.

Tiglathi-Nin has on his signet ring the inscription: "The Conqueror of Babylon," which reasonably connects him with the conquest of Chhaldea in the beginning of this dynasty (1298 B. C).

Tiglath-pileser 1 (1130 B. C.) may be called the religious conqueror or the Assyrian Otho. He built temples, palaces and castles; introduced the cultivation of foreign animals and vegetables, and constructed canals. He multiplied war chariots and extended the Assyrian empire on the east to the mountains of Persia and on the west to Northern Syria. But even he suffered a defeat from the rebellious Babylonians, who carried his idols to their capital, where they were kept for four centuries. A document of some length in which he himself relates some events of his reign has been discovered; but I consider it not of sufficient importance to embody it here.

Asshur-izir-pal (Sardanapulus I.) (886-858 B. C.) advanced the empire in some degree by conquest, but is chiefly to be remembered for the arts which he caused to be cultivated to such a degree as was never before known in Assyria. He caused great improvement in the way of sculpture in his own palace. Being a hunter as well as a warrior and lover of art he kept a zoological garden wherein he had collected from his own and foreign lands all the wild. animals he could procure.

For mention of Pul, king of Assyria, who began to reign, according to Blair, in 777 B. C., see 2 Kings, XV.

Vul-lush III. (810–781) married Sammuramit, heiress of Babylon, who is considered by good critics to be the original of the mythical Semiramis.

Tiglath-pileser (745–727), captured Damascus and brought into his subjection Ahaz, King of Judah (2 Kings, XVI.).

110

Shalmaneser III. (727–721) laid siege to Samaria which was taken by his successor Sargon (721-705), who carried off the inhabitants and supplied their place with people from Cutha, Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim. One of these kings having besieged Tyre five years did not succeed in taking it; but the house of the Sargonidae, which was founded by Sargon, is called the most brilliant of the Assyrian dynasties. These made the neighboring nations to feel the weight of their power. Sargon himself brought Egypt to such a state of subjection that it never after completely recovered its national strength. He also reduced or pacificated Syria, Babylonia, Susiana and a good part of Media.

His son Sennacherib captured the fenced cities of Judah and besieged Jerusalem (710 B. C.); but he afterwards lost 185,000 men, smitten by the angel of the Lord in one night (2 Kings, XIX., Isai. XXXVII.). This was a haughty, overbearing tyrant. On the sculptures we see him standing on his chariot, personally directing the forced labor of his men, who, for this purpose, were mostly captives, bearing their chains and fetters.

Esarhaddon, Sargon's grandson, divided Egypt into small states; he is said also to have planted more colonies in Samaria, drawn from the Assyrian countries. It was either he or his father (Sennacherib) who took Manasseh, king of Judah, captive to Babylon. Asshur-bani-pal (Sardanapalus II., 667-647), Sargon's great grandson, was a famous warrior and builder as well as patron of At Nineveh he erected a magnificent palace in which he established an extensive library.

art.

His son, Asshur-emed-ilin (Sardanapalus III., or Sardacus as he was called by the Greek writers) was the last of the Assyrian kings, he having destroyed himself on the capture of Nineveh in 625 B. C.

It is seen, therefore, from the foregoing that on the partial independence of Babylon and Media from Assyria in 747 B. C., which is called the era of Nabonassar, there arose three governments instead of one, that of the Assyrians of Babylon, that of the Assyrians of Nineveh, and that of the Medes. This was the general condition for 122 years, when there came to be two governments, that of Media and Babylon. For 88 years this state of two governments continued, until in 538 B. C. all became merged in the one Medo-Persian empire.

MEDO-PERSIAN ORIGINS.

The kingdom of the Medes I am to speak of here is of later existence than that spoken of on page 102 of this treatise, and is only mentioned separately as preliminary to its connection with Persia. In what I say about these two nations separately before their union under Cyrus or about the Medo-Persian empire after Cyrus I will have in general to follow Xenophon aud Herodotus as did Rollin.

The kingdom of the Medes I am now to speak of arose on the ruins of the Assyrian empire. Of the conspiracy against Sardan which resulted in the dismemberment of that empire, Arbaces, the general of the Median army, was one of the chief authors. This was in the year 747 B. C., and some writers say that he then assumed the title of king of Media, as he became master of that as well as of other provinces. With this opinion, however, Herodotus does not agree. The following is a concensus of his thought expressed on this subject:

The Assyrians, who had for many ages held the government of Asia, began to decline in their power by the revolt of several nations. The Medes first threw off their yoke and maintained for some time the liberty they had acquired by their valor; but this liberty degenerated into licentiousness, and their government, not being well established, they fell into a kind of anarchy worse than their former subjection. Injustice, violence and rapine prevailed everywhere, because there was nobody that had either power enough to restrain or authority enough to punish the offenders. But all these disorders at length induced the people to settle a form of government which rendered the State more flourishing than it ever was before.

The nation of the Medes was then divided into six tribes, and almost all the people dwelt in villages, when Dejoces, the son of Phraartes, a Mede by birth, erected the state into a monarchy. This man, observing the great disorders that prevailed throughout Media, resolved to take advantage of those troubles and make them serve to exalt him to the royal dignity. In his own country he had a good reputation and passed for a man who was not only regular in his own conduct but possessed of all the prudence and equity necessary to govern others.

As soon as he had formed the design of obtaining the throne he labored to make the good qualities which had been observed in him more conspicuous than ever; and in this he succeeded so well that the inhabitants of the village in which he lived made him their judge. In this office he acquitted himself with great prudence, and his cares had all the success that had been expected from them, for he brought the people of that village to a sober and regular manner of life. The inhabitants of other villages, whom perpetual discord suffered not to live in quiet, observing the good order Dejoces had introduced in the place, began to apply to him and make him arbitrator of their differences. The fame of his equity increased daily; all such as had any affair of consequence brought it before him, expecting to find that equity in Dejoces which they could not meet with anywhere else.

Finding himself thus far advanced in his design he judged it a proper time to set his last engine to work in order to compass his object. He therefore retired from business, pretending to be overfatigued with the multitude of people that resorted to him from all quarters; and would not exercise the office of judging any longer notwithstanding the persistent importunity of such as wished well to the public tranquillity. Whenever any person addressed themselves to him he told them his own domestic affairs did not give him leisure to attend to those of other people.

The licentiousness which had been for some time restrained by the judicious management of Dejoces began now to prevail more than ever on his withdrawal from public life; and the evil increased to such a degree that the Medes were obliged to assemble and deliberate upon the means of putting a stop to the public disorder.

Dejoces observing all this and that things were succeeding to his wishes sent his emissaries to their assembly, first having instructed them in the part they were to act. When expedients for repressive and substitutionary measures in regard to the public disorder came to be proposed, these emissaries, speaking in their turn, represented that unless the republic were entirely changed their country would become uninhabitable; that the only way to remedy the present discord was to elect a king, who should have authority to restrain violence and make laws for the government of the nation: That then every man could prosecute his own affairs in peace and safety; whereas the injustice which now reigned in those parts would have the effect sooner or later, of desolating the country.

This opinion was generally adopted, the assembly being convinced