[Cyaxares II. viceroy at Pabvloii, " Darius the Mede" .r,3S_T,36]
Cyrus, king of Babylon and of nations [530-529] 538-529
Cainliysos the Persian 529-522
NIdintabel, pMndn-NYl.iichadnezzar. son of Nabonid 522-518
Darius, son of Ilystiispcs the Persian, takes Babylon the first time 513
Arakhu, pseiido-Nebuehadnez/.ar 517-516
Darius the Persian takes Babylon the second time 516
Nabiiimtuk renders himself independent, and reigns with his son Bclsarussur, about 50js_4SS Complete submission of the Chuldaans to the Persians 4SS
0-704 Deioces, kin
710-4557
704]
Phraortes,
657-035 Acha?menes submits, 650
Cyaxares
SUSIANA.
Kingdom of Su- siana.
[ta. Sntruk Nakhun-
Kutir- Nakhun- ta, son of the preceding.
Tarhak, brother of the preceding, llumbanigas vanquished by
Tiumman con- quered by Sar- danapalus V.
Astyagea 595-500
AcrtiEMENiAN Dynasty.
Cyrus, king of Persia . . . 500-529
Cambyses 529-522
Gomates the Magian,
pseudo-Smerdis 522
Darius, son of llystaspes 521-486
Xerxes I, Ahasuerus of the Jews (Esther, 473 [479]) 4S0-465
ASSYRIA
495
ASSYRIA
(a.) Establishment of the Lower Dynasty.— It seems to be certain that at or near the accession of Pul a great change of some kind or other occurred in Assyria. Berosus is said to have brought his grand dynasty of forty-rive kings in 526 years to a close at the reign of Pul (Polyhist. ap. Euseb. 1. c), and to have made him the first king of a new series. By the synchronism of Menahem (2 Kings xv, 19), the date of Pul may be determined to about B.C. 770. It was only twenty- three years later, as we find by the Canon of Ptolemy, that the Babylonians considered their independence to have commenced (B.C. 747). Herodotus probably in- tended to assign nearly to this same era the great com- motion which (according to him) broke up the Assyri- an empire into a number of fragments, out of which were formed the Median and other kingdoms. These traditions may none of them be altogether trustwor- thy ; but their coincidence is at least remarkable, and seems to show that about the middle of the eighth cen- tury B.C. there must have been a break in the line of Assyrian kings — a revolution, foreign or domestic — and a consequent weakening or dissolution of the bonds which united the conquered nations with their conquerors.
It was related by Bion and Polyhistor (Agathias, ii, 25), that the original dynasty of Assyrian kings ended with a certain Belochus or Beleus, who was succeeded by a usurper (called by them Beletaras or Balatorus), in whose family the crown continued until the destruc- tion of Nineveh. The general character of the cir- cumstances narrated, combined with a certain degree of resemblance in the names — for Belochus is close upon Phaloch, and Beletaras may represent the second element in Tiglath-P/few (who in the inscriptions is called uTiglath-.Patos/'ra") — induce a suspicion that probably the Pul or Phaloch of Scripture was really the last king of the old monarchy, and that Tiglath- Pileser II, his successor, was the founder of what has been called the "Lower Empire." It maybe suspect- ed that Derosus really gave this account, and that Poly- histor, who repeated it, has been misreported by Euse- bius. The synchronism between the revolution in As- syria and the era of Babylonian independence is thus brought almost to exactness, for Tiglath-Pileser is known to have been upon the throne about B.C. 740 (Clinton, Fast. Hell, i, 278), and may well have as- cended it in B.C. 747.
(6.) Supposed Loss of the Empire at this Period. — Many writers of repute — among them Clinton and Nie- buhr — have been inclined to accept the statement of Herodotus with respect to the breaking up of the whole empire at this period. It is evident, however, both from Scripture and from the monuments, that the shock sustained through the domestic revolution has been greatly exaggerated. Niebuhr himself observes ( Vor- triirje iiber alte Geschichte, i, 38) that, after the revolu- tion, Assyria soon "recovered herself, and displayed the most extraordinary energy." It is plain, from Scripture, that in the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser, Shal- maneser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, As- syria was as great as at any former era. These kings all warred successfully in Palestine and its neighbor- hood ; some attacked Egypt (Isa. xx. 4) ; one appears as master of Media (:} Kings xvii, 6) ; while another has authority over Babylon, Susiana, and Elymais (2 Kings xvii, 24; Ezra iv, 0). So far from our observ- ing symptoms of weakness and curtailed dominion, it is clear that at no time were the Assyrian arms push- ed farther, or their efforts more sustained and vigorous. The Ass3"rian annals for the period are in the most complete accordance with these representations. The}' exhibit to us the above-mentioned monarchs as extend- ing their dominions farther than any of their predeces- sors. The empire is continually rising under them, and reaches its culminating point in the reign of Esar- haddon. The statements of the inscriptions on these subjects are fully borne out by the indications of great-
ness to be traced in the architectural monuments. No palace of the old monarchy equalled, either in size or splendor, that of Sennacherib at Nineveh. No series of kings belonging to it left buildings at all to be com- pared with those which were erected by Sargon, his son, and his grandson. The magnificent remains at Kouyunjik and Khorsabad belong entirely to these later kings, while those at Nimrud are about equally divided between them and their predecessors. It is farther noticeable that the writers who may be presumed to have drawn from Berosus, as Polyhistor and Abyde- nus, particularly expatiated upon the glories of these later kings. Polyhistor said (ap. Euseb. i, 5) that Sen- nacherib conquered Babylon, defeated a Greek army in Cilicia, and built there Tarsus, the capital. Abyde- nus related the same facts, except that he substituted for the Greek army of Polyhistor a Greek fleet; and added that Esarhaddon (his Axerdis) conquered Lower Syria and Egypt (ibid, i, 9). Similarly Menander, the Tyrian historian, assigned to Shalmaneser an expedi- tion to Cyprus (ap. Joseph. Ant. ix, 14), and Herodotus himself admitted that Sennacherib invaded Egypt (ii, 141). On everj' ground it seems necessary to con- clude that the second Assyrian kingdom was really greater and more glorious than the first ; that under it the limits of the empire reached their fullest extent, and the internal prosperity was at the highest.