Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Assyria

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Assyria
    Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 09:44
I was reading on Assyria right now and it seems that this nation and empire was quite different from its neighbours, antecssors or successors. We see the theocratic city-states of Sumer, the mercantislist Babylonian empire or even the so much praised for its tolerance (but not less imperialist) Achaemenid Persia.

Unlike all these, Assyria is defined as an essentially militarist state, where each person belongs to the state as soldier or worker and where the king-commander is clearly more central than the temples of the gods.

In some occasion I had the idea of comparing Assyria to a fascist state, though a comparisson with Sparta, for instance, could be justified as well.

Yet, or maybe because of this, they managed to build a huge empire, comparable to that of Sharrukin or the greatest Babylonian empire but even larger in the sense that it was the first foreign empire to conquer Egypt.


Click here for the expanded map

They don't even resemble (maybe due to their Semitic culture) the other mountain peoples that had appeared before in the history of the Near East, like Kassites or Gutium.

Though I haven't found much on this specific issue they don't just seem very militarist and cruel but they also seem particularly mysoginic.

Your turn: what can you say on this militarist state of SW Asia?

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 17:48

 Assyria,the first  imperial state in the world ( before Persia),Assyria is the region in northern mesopotamia, the historians mark the begining of Assyrian history in 2400 B.C.

Assyrian periods are:-

  1. Old kingdom.
  2. Middle Kingdom.
  3. Neo-kingdom(which you mentioned above).

Assyria controlled by Sumer,Akkad,Sumer again and then Babylon,the Old kingdom founded in city-state Assur and it's around.

the most famous king of old era was Shamshi-Addad I he esablished a strong kingdom in northern Mesopotamia he conquered his neighbours,after this events they faced the Babylonian and became a vassel state.

after Babylonian there were the Kassites who ruled Assyria until the assyrian got their freedom in Assur-Ubalit I (1365-1330 B.C) by Marrige pact with the Kassite king.

after him Calah became the capital of Assyria in Shalmaneser I erahe take the title "king of Sumer and Akkad" he defeated Hittites and Babylonian but after his death Assyria became weak again.

then a great king appeared he was Tiglath-Pileser I the founder of Assurian empire he defeated Babylonian retook the title mentioned above he reache to Mediterranean Sea.

then another dark age began in assyria for two centuries after it the building of the empire continued again Tiglath-pileser III made Assyrian conquest westward in syria and defeated  the  Medes,Hittits and Babylonian he impsed a heavy tribute on kingdom of Israel,he was succeeded by Shalmaneser V who besieged Samaria after King Hoshea of Israel suspended paying tribute he died befor the end of the siege and the Sergonic dynasty was founded.

Sargon was the commander of the army he captured the city bring Israel to an end and the beginning of Diaspora,Sargon was killed in a battle.

Sennacherib his son became a king he destroyed and plundered Babylon,he led undecisive campaign against Elam.

Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon he had Babylon rebuilt,conqured Phoenicia and Egypt and defeated the Medes he died during his second campaign on Egyptthe empire was split between Ashurbanipal and his elder brother Shamash-shum-ukin who later  defeated by Ashurbanipal .

Ashurbanipal faced many other threats Elam,Egypt and the Medes, Elam was completly destroyed and it's Population became a slaves and workers in Assyria but Egypt was break up form the empire.

upon his death the empire come to an end when the Medes and the Chaldean destroy Nineveh 612 B.C.

I think the  reasons of the fall are:-the Assyrian had a long struggle with Elam and Babylon which weakened the empire,Because of the ever-present need for men to fight the incessant battles, agriculture suffered, and ultimately the Assyrians had to import food. The division of society into a fairly rigid three-class system was not unlike that of other early western Asian peoples, but it did not supply a solid base for the overgrown Assyrian state.

they  terrorized the neighbors nations by their cruel ways especially the destroying and ruling out,they forced thier people to serve in the army and convert the big cities to prepared military camps and this due to their limit population but with that they were very advanced in architecture and culture, their palaces in Nineveh,Calah and Nimrud and Assurbanipal's reign saw the Assyrian capital of Nineveh reach the height of its splendor ibn culture. The library of cuneiform tablets he collected ultimately proved to be one of the most important historical sources of antiquity. The magnificent Assyrian bas-reliefs reached their peak. The royal court was luxurious. Assyrian culture owed much to earlier Babylonian civilization, and in religion Assyria seems to have taken much from its southern neighbor and subject



Edited by Ahmed The Fighter
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
YusakuJon3 View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 223
  Quote YusakuJon3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 20:37
Basically, it's what Ahmed wrote above.  Assyria was the bane of ancient Mesopotamia,  finishing off what was left of Sumer and Elam and serverely weakening Babylon so that it fell easily to the later conquerers from Persia and Macedon.  In spite of its military power relative to Egypt and the  Mesopotamians,  they were no match for the horsemen and archers from the Iranian plateau, having fought primarily as infantry supported by charioteers.
"There you go again!"

-- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s)
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 05:19

Assyria was not always militaristic.  This militarism was the result of centuries of dominance by other states.  At the very beginning of its history, it was dominated by Mari, gained its freedom with the help of Ebla (c. 2400 BC), lost it to the Akkadians (c. 2300 BC), regained its freedom (c. 2150 BC), lost it to the Sumerians of Ur (c. 2100 BC), regained it again (Old Assyrian Kingdom, c. 2030-1760 BC), in which time it was noted mostly as a mercantile kingdom before the rise of Shamshi-Adad I.  It lost its independence to the Babylonians, but ultimately regained it (c. 1700 BC).  Lost it again to the Mitanni (c. 1475 BC).  It was probably during the time of the Mitanni that the Assyrians gained an appreciation for the martial spirit of the Mitanni with their chariots and horses, and so when they were able to regain their independence (Middle Assyrian Kingdom, c. 1365-1076 BC) they were able to stand up against the great powers of the time, including both the Mitanni and the Hittites, subjugating the former, and defeating the latter.   The Assyrians were less successful in stemming the tide of the Aramaean migrations and were literally reduced to their home cities, while the Aramaeans owned the land surrounding the cities. 

It was in the New Assyrian Kingdom, c. 930-612 BC, that the Assyrians showed the full potential of their militarism.  At first it was expressed as clearing or pacifying the Aramaeans in Assyria itself; then it was expressed as attacks on potentially dangerous neighbors, including preemptive but decisive attacks on the mountain peoples, as well as breaking the military might of Aramaean tribes and states by the imposition of oppressive tribute to keep them from strengthening their small militaries. 

A new phase occurs during the reign of Ashurnasirpal II.  After he brought the Assyrian borders to their natural limits, he sought to continue to conquer because after some 60 years of continuous victorious campaigning, the Assyrian military machine had a life of its own.  The Assyrians continued to conquer for the sake of conquering.  The Assyrian penchant for demoralizing their neighbors by the most brutal acts of terror gained its most poignant expression during the reign of this king.  The king in his inscriptions boasted to his gods with relish, for instance, of burning alive the children of those peoples subject to his campaigns. 

This earliest phase of Assyrian expansion was concluded by the campaigns of Shalmaneser III, son of Ashurnasirpal.  After this, the Assyrians were faced with crisis at home, and while campaigns were still being conducted, their power was slipping at the fringes of their empire, as weak ruler was succeeded by weak ruler.  It was during this period of relative stasis that Urartu, once a minor mountain kingdom, had since become a power in itself.  It had even invaded Assyrian territory and by the time of the rule of Tiglathpileser III who ushered in the last period of Assyrian greatness, it had conquered Assyrian vassal states. 

A new phase occurred in the reign of Tiglathpileser III.  After consolidating his power at home and driving out the Urartians, he began to abolish troublesome vassal kingdoms in favor of provinces.  This continued into the reigns of his successors.  Much of Syria-Palestine and southern Anatolia were rendered as provinces as further defensive measures against the instigative actions of peripheral powers such as Phrygia in Anatolia, Egypt in Africa, and Urartu in Transcaucasia.  The most noteworthy successful rebellion was that of the Medes, later followed by the Chaldaeans.  It was these latter two, very much influenced by the Assyrian warmachine which brought about the downfall of the Assyrians.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 05:35
According to the Wiki, the Assyrians were not great innovators but they were instrumental in homogenizing the culture of the Near East under a Babylonian frame, being notable in military and engineering. In this sense it would seem like they could be compared with Romans - though maybe Persians are closer to these in their character.

What somehow fascinates me is how they seem the "winners" of the chaos of the late 2nd milennium. Along with the trouble caused by the Sea Peoples, Assyrians were at the same time also marching against the Hittites. In the 13th and 12th centuries they conquer Mitanni, Karkemish and even reach the Mediterranean subjecting Phoenicia and Cilycia. They can't be blamed of Ugarit's destruction (c. 1195) but they may have benefitted of the damage caused by Sea Peoples and Phrygians. Phoenicians, the other "winners" of this chaos, ended under Assyrian rule or at least "protection" at this moment.

It would seem like Phoenician expansion is somehow associated to Assyrian hegemony - thought it is also true that both seem to have benefitted overall of the power vacuum between 1100-700 - the so called (by the Greeks) "Dark Ages".

I wonder if their brutal militarism is a byproduct of their time, if they are just the perfect "species" for such a brutal enviroment of war and destrcution or what...

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 16:45

                                            State and society

 during the time of Tiglath-pileser were not essentially different from those of the 13th century. Collections of laws, drafts, and edicts of the court exist that go back as far as the 14th century BC. Presumably, most of these remained in effect. One tablet defining the marriage laws shows that the social position of women in Assyria was lower than in Babylonia or among the Hittites. A man was allowed to send away his wife at his own pleasure with or without divorce money. In the case of adultery, he was permitted to kill or maim her. Outside her house the woman was forced to observe many restrictions, such as the wearing of a veil. It is not clear whether these regulations carried the weight of law, but they seem to have represented a reaction against practices that were more favourable to women. Two somewhat older marriage contracts, for example, granted equal rights to both partners, even in divorce. The women of the king's harem were subject to severe punishment, including beating, maiming, and death, along with those who guarded and looked after them. The penal laws of the time were generally more severe in Assyria than in other countries of the East. The death penalty was not uncommon. In less serious cases the penalty was forced labour after flogging. In certain cases there was trial by ordeal. One tablet treats the subject of landed property rights. Offenses against the established boundary lines called for extremely severe punishment. A creditor was allowed to force his debtor to work for him, but he could not sell him.

And Maju I think they were just the perfect "species" for such a brutal enviroment of war and destrcution  they invented this cruel and brutal enviroment(early racialist).



Edited by Ahmed The Fighter
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 16:55
Too "perfect". They remind me to Talibans but Nazis wouldn't be far away either.

Do modern Assyrians actually come from that people or are they just called that way due to geography?

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
YusakuJon3 View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 223
  Quote YusakuJon3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 20:06
Assyria doesn't sound that much different from many of the other empires of ancient times.  Capital punishment often meant some sort of physical disfigurement or a violent form of execution.  In the case of Assyria, at least by the times of Sargon and his successors, this was coupled to a reign of terror which left an impression on anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path.

One thing which can be said about Assyria's rise and fall, and that it could be called a precedent for the successive empires of Persia, Alexander's conquests, the Romans and all others up until modern times.  A rapid expansion, perhaps in response to concerns about hostile neighbors, followed by a period of dominance and enrichment, then a gradual decline brought about by over-expansion given the limitations of military technologies and travel routes of the time, followed by loss of territory through rebellions and, finally, the overthrow of the seat of government itself by an internal revolution or foreign conquerors.  In many ways, Assyria resembles more the 11th-Century Mongol expansion in that they adopted existing technologies and practices to their own, save that the Mongols were more expansive by way of their nomadic lifestyle.  Like the Mongols, Assyria spread its influence through widespread terror and militaristic expansion, then collapsed from within even as they were continuing to look outwards.
"There you go again!"

-- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s)
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 23:41

What somehow fascinates me is how they seem the "winners" of the chaos of the late 2nd milennium.

Just barely.  The series of events which enabled the "Sea Peoples" to destroy such powers as the Hittites also unleashed other peoples to dominate Anatolia such as the Phrygians.  While they were still in a tribal form of organization (known to the Assyrians as the Mushki) they began taking the northwesternmost provinces of the Assyrians by about 1165 BC.  In about 1115 BC they were on the move again and when they entered Katmuckhi, they were just within striking distance of Assyria,itself.  Tiglathpileser I defeated them in battle and virtually destroyed both their army and that of their allies.  The situation with the Aramaeans was another matter.  He tried to prevent the Aramaeans from overrunning the Middle Euphrates border of his empire, and even drove southwards into the Syria Desert to defeat them at their stronghold at the Jebel Bishri, but ultimately after his death, and perhaps after that of his son and successor, the floodgates were opened, and the Aramaeans migrated into northern Mesopotamia without much opposition. 

Along with the trouble caused by the Sea Peoples, Assyrians were at the same time also marching against the Hittites.

The "trouble caused by the Sea Peoples" was later than the border clashes between the Assyrians and the Hittites. 

In the 13th and 12th centuries they conquer Mitanni, Karkemish and even reach the Mediterranean subjecting Phoenicia and Cilycia.

They never actually reached the Mediterranean until the time of Tiglathpileser, almost a century after the fall of the Hittite Empire.  During the time between about 1200 and 1115, the Assyrians themselves were experiencing internal troubles which caused the downfall of several Assyrian rulers in succession.  It was during this time of weakness that the Mushkians were able to conquer Assyrian provinces.  This period of Assyrian stasis ended with the reign of Tiglathpileser I.

It was Tiglathpileser I who successfully crossed the Euphrates and subjected the states on the other side to tribute.  Nothing however indicates that he subjected Cilicia to tribute.

They can't be blamed of Ugarit's destruction (c. 1195) but they may have benefitted of the damage caused by Sea Peoples and Phrygians.

The Assyrians could only take advantage of the destruction caused by the Sea Peoples only after they themselves were able to solve their own home problems some 80 years after the destruction of Ugarit. 

Phoenicians, the other "winners" of this chaos, ended under Assyrian rule or at least "protection" at this moment.

The Phoenicians certainly benefited from the Sea Peoples invasions.  Until that time they were really not noted for their seamanship.  It was only after the Sea Peoples invasions passed on that they really took to the sea.  It may have been under Sea People influence that they became the experts in seamanship noted by later writers.  However from the time of the destruction of Ugarit to the brief Assyrian presence under Tiglathpileser I, a period of about 85 years passed before Phoenicia needed any "protection".  Tiglathpileser certainly didn't express anything of the kind when he received Phoenician tribute.   

It would seem like Phoenician expansion is somehow associated to Assyrian hegemony -

Not really.  For most the period from between 1200 and 850 BC, the Phoenicians were independent of the Assyrians.

....thought it is also true that both seem to have benefitted overall of the power vacuum between 1100-700 - the so called (by the Greeks) "Dark Ages".

The Phoenicians earlier than the Assyrians.

I wonder if their brutal militarism is a byproduct of their time, if they are just the perfect "species" for such a brutal enviroment of war and destrcution or what...

We need to point out that they are originally a mercantile kingdom, spreading their economic interests to the greater part of Anatolia, establishing karums (trading communities) among the Anatolian cities, without the militarism we note in later ages, hence, this "species" was no different than any other people.  It was only after their subjugation by the Mitanni that things began to change.

Do modern Assyrians actually come from that people or are they just called that way due to geography?

For the most part, because of the geography.  We note that the modern-day Assyrians speak Aramaic dialects.  This goes back to the time when the greater part of northern Mesopotamia became Aramaicised, by about 1000 BC.  The Assyrians were reduced back to their original territories.  When they regained their strength, the Assyrians instituted a policy of moving defeated enemies from their home territories into Assyria itself.  It became inevitable that as their victories multiplyed especially against the Aramaeans, the defeated Aramaeans were moved into Assyria, and the Assyrians themselves were becoming Aramaicised.  Even the Akkadian language of the Assyrians was showing marked Aramaization. 

Even as the Assyrian Empire fell, the name of "Assyria" itself remained to mark the greater part of northern Mesopotamia.  The Persians called northern Mesopotamia Athura and despite change in regime, the region continued to be called "Assyria" until the Arab conquest.  The Sassanids before the Arabic conquest still called northern Mesopotamia "Asorestan".  The Aramaeans of northern Mesopotamia, either being one-time Assyrian citizens, for the greater part of 250 years identified themselves as "Assyrians" in much the same way that medievel Greeks called themselves "Romans", or identified themselves as "Assyrians" due to living in a land which remained with the name "Assyria". 

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2006 at 04:30
Thanks for your input, Sharrukin. Very intersting.

So we have that Assyrians started as a trading people and only, after suffering the Mittani (worth a topic for themselves surely) became a militarist structure. So in a sense their militarism is indeed a byproduct of the violent frame of the Late Bronze Age.

Nevertheless, the Mitanni soon are subjugated to the Hittites and these even plunder Babylon, leaving no solid competitors for the Assyrians, except themselves. After the Hittite defeat to the Phrygians and other tribes, Assyrians seem to find it easier to move ahead towards an empire, with the only significative opposition of Aramean tribes that dominated the Syrian desert and nearby areas.

We have too a Phoenician nation, consolidated inmediately after the Sea Peoples tide has gone, that manages to remain independent but is forced to pay tribute.

Interesting also is to notice how Wikipedia describes the fall of Assyria:

Ashurbanipal had promoted art and culture, and had a vast library of cuneiform tablets at Nineveh. However, his long struggle with Babylonia and Elam left Assyria maimed and exhausted. It had been drained of wealth and fighting population; the devastated provinces could yield nothing to supply the needs of the imperial exchequer, and it was difficult to find sufficient troops to garrison the conquered populations. Assyria, therefore, was ill-prepared to face the hordes of Scythians and Medes who now began to harass the frontiers to the east; Asia Minor too was infested by the Cimmerians.


It would seem a historical example, repeated so many times: how defeating some rivals may actually make you easy prey for new ones. Or how exausting your resources is never a good idea.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 04:41

Nevertheless, the Mitanni soon are subjugated to the Hittites and these even plunder Babylon, leaving no solid competitors for the Assyrians, except themselves. After the Hittite defeat to the Phrygians and other tribes, Assyrians seem to find it easier to move ahead towards an empire, with the only significative opposition of Aramean tribes that dominated the Syrian desert and nearby areas.

You bunched up a lot of history there, Maju.  The Hittites subjugated the Mitanni about 1360 BC.  The Hittites plunder of Babylon occurred about 1595 BC.  Even as the Assyrians came out of the Mitannian yoke, the Kassite king of Babylon so arrogantly mentioned to the Egyptian pharoah in a letter that the Assyrians were mere "vassals" of his. 

The truth was that although the Babylonians were not as militant as the Assyrians, even the Assyrians had to contend with Babylonian expansion to the north.  Relations were mainly cordial, and the Assyrians built a temple to the Babylonian national god Marduk in Assur, itself, and even paid homage to the Babylonian temples, but the region between Assyria and Babylonia saw an expansion and recession of borders between the two powers.  The Babylonian inscriptions were much more scantier than the Assyrian inscriptions, but even the Assyrian inscriptions give hints to reverses to the Babylonians.  We know of the Assyrians appointing rulers over Babylonia, but there were also a situation, which the Assyrian inscriptions didn't hide, of Babylonian kings actually appointing Assyrian rulers.  The situation changed when the Assyrian kings took direct control of Babylon, appointing themselves as the kings, or appointing others to rule Babylon on their behalf.  Babylon became a vassal kingdom until the time of its final revolt under the Chaldaeans.

Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 671
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 05:53
Sharrukin should not Persian Athura be Syria and Arthura be Assyria? (Arta/Asha.)

For Assyrian records see:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_02_part1. htm
and
Compendium of World History, Herman Hoeh (lost link).
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 08:49
Arthur: Syria is a deformation fo Assyria. This name was never used before teh Assyrian empire. If you want to look for the root of your name, I'd rather look to an archaic European root for bear: artz in Basque, arctos in Greek... even Latin ursus can maybe derivate from this old word.
_____

Sharrukin: sure I messed all up. Handicaps of being lazy... I was actually thinking that Hittites had actually caused the destruction of Babylon, but what they caused was Kassite domination... I just happened to ignore the Kassites, what most people seem to do without problems anyhow...

Then why do you think that Assyrians managed to overcome Kassites prescisely when all the "world order" was collapsing around them? Or did it happen a lot later? Then, why do you think that Kassites managed to survive wile the rest of their world was collapsing?

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 10:58

Sharrukin should not Persian Athura be Syria and Arthura be Assyria? (Arta/Asha.)

No.  At first the Persians did not distinguish "Syria" from another one of their "lands", namely "Babylonia" according to their inscriptions.  The Persians referred to "Babirush" (Babylonia) but according to native Babylonian sources, their Persian-appointed governor was governor of "Babylon and Ebir Nari".  Ebir Nari as you may well know was the Akkadian name of "Syria" during late Assyrian and imperial Babylonian times, and survived into the Achaemenid Empire period (and even after).  Ebir Nari was ultimately detached from the Babylonian satrapy and given a governor of its own.  There was no such region of "Arthura" in the Persian inscriptions.

Then why do you think that Assyrians managed to overcome Kassites prescisely when all the "world order" was collapsing around them? Or did it happen a lot later? Then, why do you think that Kassites managed to survive wile the rest of their world was collapsing?

The Kassites underestimated the resolve of the Assyrians, for one thing.  There was even a time when the Assyrians deposed a Kassite king and appointed several rulers in quick succession.  Like the Assyrians, the Kassites didn't feel the impact of the Sea Peoples, being much more remote from the commotion than the Assyrians who felt it beginning about 30 years after the destruction of Ugarit.  On the other hand, the Kassites not only had to contend with the Assyrians, but also with the Elamites who were quite strong in the period following the invasions of the Sea Peoples.  It was they who ultimately put an end to the Kassite Dynasty of Babylon.  Babylonian fortunes improved with the succeeding 2nd Isin Dynasty which not only defeated the Elamites, but also invaded Assyria itself.  Although the Assyrians gained a defensive victory, it became apparent that they lost territory to the Babylonians, during the time of their internal troubles, before the rise of Tiglathpileser I.

Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 671
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 13:19
Well that's odd because I remember from notes prior to lost in crisis that there was both Athura and Arthura in Persian provinces lists/maps.

The Herman Hoeh link was:
http://cgca.net/coglinks/wcglit/hoehcompendium/hhc1toc.htm
Some of his theories are wrong but the king lists of different cultures are excellent.

(Great so now I've heard 5 derivations/etymologies for name Syria from Suri,  Assyria, Kiuri, Subartu, and another one I recently saw but didn't record & have forgotten (will post it if I find it).) Asshur war god may be Thor.

Edited by Arthur-Robin
"Community Fluoridation" = Communism. It is wrong/evil/slavery for the elite & common majority to force some of us non-rich to eat water with alot of fluoride every meal every day.
Back to Top
SonofAdam View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote SonofAdam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 13:29
Asshur is well known in history as the father of the Assyrians.  The Assyrians occupied a Mesopotamian city on the lower Tigris River called "Kir" and placed captive slaves there (also referenced in 2 Kings 16:9).  The city was populated by the Assyrians for many years, and the inhabitants became known as "Kir-men".  The Assyrian "Kerman" were driven from their land shortly after their fall about 610 B.C.  They migrated into central Europe where they were called "German" or "Germanni", a general name used by the Romans to represent all Assyrian tribes.  The known Assyrian tribes were the Khatti (also Hatti, Hessians)Chatti is still the Hebrew term for German, and Khatti was often used by the Romans to represent Germanic tribes; the Akkadians (Latins called them Quadians); the Kassites (or Cossaei); and the Almani (or Halmani, Allemani was the Latin name).  Today, Germans refer to themselves as the "Deutschen", which is derived from the Saxon word for an "Assyrian".  Their country name is Deutschland.  The Romans referred to the Deutschen as Teutons.  Ancient Hindu literature uses both the word "Asgras" and "Daityas" to refer to the Assyrians.  "Daityas" is a Sanskrit word for "Deutsch"a name applied to the Assyrians over 1500 years before the birth of Christ.
There have been many kings who have sent many a men to die for their bidding....But I know of only one king who sent himself to die so all may live! The king I am referring to is... Jesus Christ
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 15:45
Where did you fall from? 

Germans don't calle themselves Germans: they call themselves Deutsche: Teutons!

Please let's try to be serious: you two are destroying a good topic!

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 15:45
 I want to ask a question why the Hittites retreated from southern Mesopotamia after they sacked Babylon in 1595 B.C?
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 15:52

 I want to know when Ugarit destroyed exactly?who destroyed it?is it a mysterious or what?cause I cant find specific date.

"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2006 at 16:43
A cuneiform tablet found in 1986 shows that Ugarit was destroyed after the death of Merneptah, that is, before 1190, probably in 1195. It is generally agreed that Ugarit had already been destroyed in the 8th year of Ramesses III.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit)

I'm not sure right now why Hittites didn't keep Babylon but it seems they just weren't interested and they turned it to "their Kassite allies". Another possibility is that the Hittite Empire was exausted by this campaign (so far it seems real) and therefore couldn't keep it. Mursil I, the conqueror of babylon was assasinated at his return to Hattussil, so possibly inner problems played a role there.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.