The statement of Herodotus is not, however, with- out a basis of truth. It is certain that Babylon, about the time of Tiglath-Pileser's accession, ventured upon a revolt, which she seems afterward to have reckoned the commencement of her independence. See Baby- lon. The knowledge of this fact may have led He- rodotus into his error ; for he would naturally suppose that, when Babylon became free, there was a general dissolution of the empire. It has been shown that this is far from th3 truth ; and it may farther be observed that, even as regards Babylon, the Assyrian loss was not permanent. Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhad- don all exercised full authority over that country, which appears to have been still an Assyrian fiof at the close of the kingdom.
(5.) Successors of Esarhaddon. — By the end of the reign of Esarhaddon the triumph of the Assyrian arms had been so complete that scarcely an enemy was left who could cause her serious anxiety. The kingdoms of Hamath, of Damascus, and of Samaria had been suc- cessively absorbed ; Phoenicia had been conquered ; Judaea had been made a feudatory ; Philistia and Idu- maea had been subjected, Egypt chastised, Babylon re- covered, cities planted in Media. Unless in Armenia and Susiana there was no foe left to reduce, and the consequence appears to have been that a time of pro- found peace succeeded to the long and bloody wars of Sargon and his immediate successors. In Scripture it is remarkable that we hear nothing of Assyria after the reign of Esarhaddon, and profane history is equal- ly silent until the attacks begin which brought about her downfall. The monuments show that the son of Esarhaddon, who was called Sardanapalus by Abyde- nus (ap. Euseb. i, 9), made scarcely any military ex- peditions, but occupied almost his whole time in the enjoyment of the pleasures of the chase. Instead of adorning his residence — as his predecessors had been accustomed to do — with a record and representation of his conquests, Sardanapalus II covered the walls of his palace at Nineveh with sculptures exhibiting his skill and prowess as a hunter. No doubt the military spirit rapidly decayed under such a ruler; and the ad- vent of fresh enemies, synchronizing with this decline, produced the ruin of a power which had for six cen- turies been dominant in Western Asia.
(6.) Fall of Assyria.— -The fate of Assyria, long pre- viously prop'hesied by Isaiah (x, 5-19), was effected (humanly speaking) by the growing strength and boldness* of the Medes. If we may trust Herodotus, the first Median attack on Nineveh took place about the
ASSYRIA
496
ASSYRIA
year B.C. 633. By what circumstances this people, who had so long been engaged in contests with the Assyrians, and had hitherto shown themselves so ut- terly unable to resist them, became suddenly strong enough to assume an aggressive attitude, and to force the Ninevites to submit to a siege, can only be conjec- tured. Whether mere natural increase, or whether fresh immigrations from the east had raised the Medi- an nation at this time so far above its former condi- tion, it is impossible to determine. We can only say that soon after the middle of the seventh century they began to press upon the Assyrians, and that, gradually increasing in strength, they proceeded, about the year B.C. 633, to attempt the conquest of the country. For some time their efforts were unsuccessful ; but after a while, having won over the Babylonians to their side, they became superior to the Assyrians in the field, and about B.C. 625, or a little earlier, laid final siege to the capital. See Media. Saracus, the last king— prob- ably the grandson of Esarhaddon — made a stout and prolonged defence, but at length, finding resistance vaiir, he collected his wives and his treasures in his palace, and with his own hand setting fire to the build- ing, perished in the flames. This account is given in brief by Abydenus, who probably follows Berosus ; and its outline so far agrees with Ctesias (ap. Diod. ii, 27) as to give an important value to that writer's de- tails of the siege. See Nineveh. In the general fact that Assyria was overcome, and Nineveh captured and destroyed by a combined attack of Medes and Babylonians, Josephus (Ant. x, 5) and the book of Tobit (xiv, 15) are agreed. Polyhistor also implies it (ap. Euseb. i, 5) ; and these authorities must be re- garded as outweighing the silence of Herodotus, who mentions only the Medes in connection with the cap- ture (i, 106), and says nothing of the Babylonians.
(7.) Fulfilment of Prophecy. — The prophecies of Na- hum and Zephaniah (ii, 13-5) against Assyria were probably delivered shortly before the catastrophe. The date of Nahum is very doubtful, but it is not un- likely that he wrote about B.C. 718, or at the close of the reign of Ilosea. Zephaniah is even later, since lie prophesied under Josiah, who reigned from B.C. 639 to 609. If B.C. 625 be the date of the destruction of Nineveh, we may place Zephaniah's prophecy about B.C. 635. Ezekiel, writing in B.C. 588, bears wit ness historically to the complete destruction which had come upon the Assyrians, using the example as a warning to Pkaraoh-Hophra and the Egyptians (ch. xxxi).