It was declared by Nahum (q. v.) emphatically, at the close of his prophecy, that there should be "no heal- ing of Assyria's bruise" (iii, 19). In accordance with this announcement we find that Assyria never rose again to any importance, nor even succeeded in main- taining a distinct nationality. Once only was revolt attempted, and then in conjunction with Armenia and Media, the latter heading the rebellion. This attempt took place about a century after the Median conquest, during the troubles which followed upon the accession of Darius Hystaspis. It failed signally, and appears never to have been repeated, the Assyrians remaining thenceforth submissive subjects of the Persian empire. They were reckoned in the same satrapy with Baby- lon I Berod. iii. 92; comp. i, 192), and paid an annual tribute of a thousand talents of silver. In the Per- sian armies, which were drawn in great part from the Subject-nations, tiny appear never to have been held of much account, though they fought, in common with the other lcvi.-s, at Thermopylae, at Cunaxa, at Issus,
anil at Arliela.
(s.i General Character of the Empire. — In the first place, like all the early monarchies which attained to any great extent, the Assyrian empire was composed of a number of separate kingdoms. In the East, eon- quest has scarcely ever been followed by amalgama- tion, and in the primitive empires there was not even
anj' attempt at that governmental centralization which we find at a later period in the satrapial system of Per- sia. As Solomon "reigned over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and the border of Egypt," so the Assyrian monarchs bore sway over a number of petty kings — the native rulers of the several countries — through the entire ex- tent of their dominions. These native princes — the sole governors of their own kingdoms — were feudato- ries of the Great Monarch, of whom they held their crown by the double tenure of homage and tribute. Menahem (2 Kings xv, 19), Hoshea (ibid, xvii, 4), Ahaz (ibid, xvi, 8), Hezekiah (ibid, xviii, 14), and Ma- nasseh (2 Chron. xxxiii, 11-13), were certainly in this position, as were many native kings of Babylon, both prior and subsequent to Nahonassar ; and this system (if we may trust the inscriptions) was universal throughout the empire. It naturally involved the frequent recurrence of troubles. Princes circum- stanced as were the Assyrian feudatories would always be looking for an occasion when they might revolt and re-establish their independence. The offer of a foreign alliance would be a bait which they could scarcely resist, and hence the continual warnings given to the Jews to beware of trusting in Egypt. Apart from this, on the occurrence of any imperial misfortune or difficulty, such, for instance, as a disas- trous expedition, a formidable attack, or a sudden death, natural or violent, of the reigning monarch, there would be a strong temptation to throw off the yoke, which would lead, almost of necessity, to a re- bellion. The history of the kings of Israel and Judah sufficiently illustrates the tendency in question', which required to be met by checks and remedies of the se- verest character. ,The deposition of the rebel prince, the Avasting of his country, the plunder of his capital, a considerable increase in the amount of the tribute thenceforth required, were the usual consequences of an unsuccessful revolt ; to which were added, upon oc- casion, still more stringent measures, as the wholesale execution of those chiefly concerned in the attempt, or the transplantation of the rebel nation to a distant locality. The captivity of Israel is only an instance of a practice long previously known to the Assj'rians, and by them handed on to the Babylonian and Persian governments.
It is not quite certain how far Assyria required a religious conformity from the subject people. Her re- ligion wasrn gross and complex polytheism, comprising the worship of thirteen principal and numerous minor divinities, at the head of the whole of whom stood the chief god, Asshur, who seems to be the deified patri- arch of the nation (Gen. x, 22). The inscriptions ap- pear to state that in all countries over which the As- syrians established their supremacy, they set up "the laws of Asshur," and " altars to the Great Gods." It was probably in connection with this Assyrian re- quirement that Ahaz, on his return from Damascus, where he had made his submission to Tiglath-Pileser, incurred the guilt of idolatr}' (2 Kings xvi, 10-18). The history of Hezekiah would seem, however, to show that the rule, if resisted, was not rigidly enforced ; for it cannot be supposed that he would have consented to re-establish the idolatry which he had removed, yet he certainly came to terms with Sennacherib, and re- sumed his position of tributary (2 Kings xviii, 14). In any case it must be understood that the worship which the conquerors introduced was not intended to supersede the religion of the conquered race, but was only required to be superadded as a mark and badge of subjection. — Smith, s. v.
The political constitution of the Assyrian empire was no doubt similar to that of other ancient states of the East, such as Chaldaea and Persia. The mon- arch, called " the great king" (2 Kings xviii, 19; Isa. xxxvi, 4), ruled as a despot, surrounded with his guards, and only accessible to those who were near