# Herodotus and the Empires of the East/History of the Empires of Western Asia

HISTORY OF THE EMPIRES OF WESTERN ASIA.
Semiramis and Nitocris.
Herodotus mentions two queens of Babylonia, Semiramis and Nitocris, whose names he associates with the building of Babylon. Semiramis, he says, ruled over Babylon five generations before Nitocris, and constructed dikes through the plains to prevent the overflowing of the Euphrates. Although this work was very useful, yet Nitocris, the other queen, is spoken of several lines later as the "wiser," συνετωτέρη. (I., 185.) Herodotus is the first Greek writer to mention Semiramis. According to Ctesias (Dioclorus II., 4 fg.) this queen was the wife of the half-mythical Assyrian king Ninos, the legendary builder of Nineveh. After the death of her husband Semiramis built the city of Babylon, and made numerous expeditions into Asia and Egypt. Ctesias brings out prominently, as the special characteristic of this queen, her exceeding profligacy. Berossus, according to Josephus (c. Apion I., 20), opposes the view of Greek writers who make Semiramis the founder of Babylon. Yet, even in his judgment, she is a historical personage, for he mentions her name after the enumeration of the fifth (the fourth so-called historical) dynasty of the Arabians, which represents nine kings and two hundred and forty-five years. (Eusebius, Chron. ed. Schoene I., 26). ​Strabo speaks in three places of the strongholds and towers, mountain roads and aqueducts, bridges and canals, which Semiramis constructed in Asia. (So, 529, 736.) Lucian attributes the old temples of Syria to Semiramis; Polysenus also, and the Armenian Moses of Chorene mention this half-historical queen. It is remarkable that among the Jewish rabbis she figured as the wife of Nebuchadrezar. Even to-day in Armenia two names recall the memory of this Assyrian heroine: Samiramgert (citadel of Semiramis), Samiramsue (canal of Semiramis).
How far can we recognize a historical germ in the legends of Semiramis? We are not quite sure whether Herodotus regarded her as an Assyrian or a Babylonian queen, since, according to I., 184, she might have " ruled over Babylon" from Nineveh. Yet we infer that because Herodotus regarded Nitocris as a Babylonian he would assign the same nationality to Semiramis. The later Greek version, however, regards her as an Assyrian. The statements of Ctesias, that this queen built Babylon, give no evidence as to her date, for the founding of the city dates from the halfhistoric period before Ḫammurabi. Moreover it is impossible that she should have built Babylon and have been, at the same time, the wife of the founder of Nineveh; for the latter was built by Babylonian colonists many centuries after the founding of the former. The worthlessness of the statements of Ctesias concerning Semiramis finds a suitable illustration in the fact that he attributes the Behistan Inscription of Darius to the work of this queen.
Much more definite is the statement of our historian that Semiramis lived five generations before Nitocris. ​Now since the buildings of Nitocris, as we shall show, are to be identified with those of Nebuchadrezar, therefore Seiniramis must have lived about the year 800 B. C. But has there been found in Assyrian or Babylonian history a queen who corresponds with the statements of Herodotus, and who furnishes the solution of the problems contained in the accounts of the Greek writers? In the cuneiform inscriptions we meet an Assyrian queen, Sammuramat. She lived during the reign of King Ramman-nirari III. (812–783), and was either his wife or his mother. One of the most remarkable events of this king's reign was the introduction of the purely Babylonian Nebo cult into Assyria. The inscription on a Nebo statue, prepared by a high Assyrian official, reads: " To him who dwells at Ezida, the great lord, his master, has Bel-tarsi-ilu-ma, the governor of Kalah, etc., erected in the midst of Kalaḫ (this statue), to perpetuate the life of Ramman-nirari, the king of Assyria, his lord, and to perpetuate the life of Sammuramat, the queen of the palace (aššat êkalli), his mistress, in order that he may live long," etc. The government lists show that the Nebo temple at Kalaḫ was begun in the year 789, and was dedicated in 787, the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Ramman-nirari. We know further that the Nebo cult had not hitherto extended into Assyria. This fact, especially when we consider that the women of royal family were not mentioned in the historical documents of the Assyrian kings, compels us to conclude that Sammuramat, the mother or wife of the ruling monarch, was a Babylonian, who possessed such influence as to ​duce the cult of her own home into Assyria. Since Ramman-nirari III., as a genealogical inscription shows, came to the throne in his childhood, we may suppose that Sammuramat was the mother of the king, and administered affairs during his minority. In this way we can explain her remarkable influence. With what energy the Assyrian government was conducted during the minority of the king is shown by the fact that from 812 to 800, the first twelve years of the reign, three expeditions were made against Media, two against Manna (between Media and Armenia), two against the land of the Ḫatti (Hittites), and two against the "west land" (Phœnicia and Palestine). Doubtless the energy of this queen regent was equally manifest in the administration of the internal affairs of the government, as is proved by the introduction of the Nebo cult into Assyria.
The statement of Herodotus that the "queen" contributed to the welfare of her subjects by the construction of dikes corresponds very closely to the picture of Semiramis in the cuneiform documents. A regent who displayed such energy and statesmanship must have lived long in the remembrance of the people. Later centuries not only attribute to this ruler many achievements whose authors were forgotten, but also surround her picture with a wreath of legends. Several of these Semiramis legends, as told by the Greeks, are hard to reconcile with the portrait of the Assyrian ruler. Mythological elements of Semitic origin, as it seems, were united through the free play of poetic fancy with the person of the historical Semiramis.
Ctesias narrates that Semiramis was the daughter of a Syrian and the Derceto who threw herself into the sea ​at Ascalon and later was worshiped as a goddess in that locality. (Diodorus II., 4.) Exposed in infancy, Semiramis was miraculously nurtured by the doves of the goddess Derceto. Through her beauty, wisdom, and energy she attained to the Assyrian throne. Her reign was characterized by uninterrupted victorious expeditions as far as India. She built Babylon, its mighty walls, and its citadels; but her sensual nature forms a striking contrast to her warlike disposition. In her later life she was enamored of all beautiful youth, but finally killed those to whom she had been devoted. Her end was as miraculous as her birth and early years: she was metamorphosed, and took her flight to heaven amid a flock of doves.
Max Duncker has shown that Ctesias drew this story from Medo- Persian sources. We cannot, however, accept his hypothesis that the Medo-Persian bards changed the myth of a goddess, who was worshiped in Assyria and whose service flourished in Syria, into a heroine who founded the Assyrian power. Duncker regards the prehistorical references to Semiramis as a later secondary element. But rather is the reverse true; the historical Semiramis forms the nucleus of the mythical narrative. Of course, as Duncker says, "the Assyrians served Ishtar-Belit, a female divinity, who was goddess of war as well as goddess of love." Ishtar, the goddess of the planet Venus, has a double character: as goddess of the morning star she is a war goddess, for the morning star calls men to activity and battle; as the evening star she is the goddess of sensual love, for the evening ​star invites men to rest. But we are not sure of any identity between Ishtar and the Assyrian goddess Derceto. Duncker's theory is rendered all the more improbable when we consider that Semiramis occurs in the Old Testament as a masculine proper name, (i Chron. xv. 18, 20; xvi. 5; 2 Chron. xvii. 8.)
The wonderful events in the childhood of Semiramis find a parallel in various hero legends—e. g., Cyrus, Romulus and Remus. Bauer has shown from Roman, German, Persian, and Indian analogies that it is customary in the legends of renowned monarchs, particularly founders of new dynasties, to represent them as having enjoyed from childhood especial divine favor. Furthermore, the statements about the excesses of this Assyrian queen can be explained by the desire of the poet to exaggerate her weaknesses.
The following historical facts are assured: (1) That there was an Assyrian ruler by the name of Semiramis; (2) that she played a conspicuous part in political affairs; (3) that the date given to this queen by Herodotus is confirmed by the cuneiform records. Therefore we can conclude that the foundation for the legends of Semiramis is that historical personage called Sammuramat in the cuneiform inscriptions. The successes which were gained in Media in the time of Ramman-nirari III. easily explain why the later Greeks attributed to Semiramis the great works of the Median monarchs, the building of the citadel in Ecbatana, and even the Behistan Inscription. In this great Assyrian queen the Median poets saw a worthy object of glorification. From the Medes and Persians these descriptions reached the Greeks, and Semiramis then became the half-historical, half-mythical portrait ​of all the legendary fortunes, habits, and achievements of the Assyro-Baby Ionian rulers, from Sargon I. and Hammurabi to the fall of Babylon.
The second "Babylonian" queen whom Herodotus mentions is Nitocris. He attributes to her three works: The windings of the Euphrates at Arderikka, the great basin above Babylon for the reception of the water of the Euphrates (probably the Basin of Sippara), and the building at Babylon of a bridge over the Euphrates. The husband and the son of Nitocris are both called Labynetos by Herodotus. It was in the reign of the younger Labynetos that Babylon fell at the hands of Cyrus.
Herodotus gives the reason for the construction of the works at Arderikka as follows: " Because she (Nitocris) saw how formidable the power of the Medes had grown, and how they were never at peace, but had conquered Ninos, with many other towns, she took every precaution to defend herself against them."
(I., 185.) From the time of Nebuchadrezar the growing might of the Medes was a source of apprehension to the Babylonians. That king constructed fortifications, especially the new east wall, to meet this threatening danger.
The cuneiform records show that the basin at Sippara was begun in the reign of Nebuchadrezar. (E. I. H., VI., 39–46.) The building of the bridge across the Euphrates was probably necessitated by the magnitude and importance of Babylon at this same period. The western portion of the town needed a better connection with the eastern portion; besides, the traffic over the Euphrates was especially great at the festival held ​in honor of the god Nebo at Borsippa. All these facts point to the hypothesis that by Nitocris we must understand Nebuchadrezar. The difficulties which meet this supposition ought not to be overlooked. Nitocris is the mother of Labynetos the younger, in whose reign Cyrus destroyed Babylon. It is universally admitted that this Labynetos is identical with the Nabû-na'id (Nabonidus) of the inscriptions; but the father of this Nabû-na'id is not called Nabû-na'id, as we should infer from Herodotus, but Nabû-balaṭsu-iḳbi. We do not know the name of the wife of this Nabû-balaṭsu-iḳbi. According to Herodotus her name appears as Nitocris. Nabû-balaṭsu-iḳbi was never king, but only a Babylonian officer (Rab-mag); so we are confronted by the new question how Herodotus could call his wife a queen. Among the predecessors of Nabû-na'id, up to Nebuchadrezar, there is no one whose name is compounded with Nabu. The list reads: Nebuchadrezar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, LabasiMarduk, Nabû-na'id. Consequently Herodotus received false statements from his voucher. This can be explained by the fact that the voucher was a Persian, and that the history of the Babylonian kings who followed Nebuchadrezar was very complicated, owing to continual revolutions and to repeated changes in rulers.
The Persian voucher named only the two prominent ​monarchs of that epoch: Nebuchadrezar (presumably under the name Nabû-na'id) and the real Nabû-na'id. In this way we can most easily explain the fact that Herodotus causes a Labynetos to follow that Labynetos in whose reign the great buildings were constructed. It is harder to understand how Herodotus could have given to the wife of Nebuchadrezar, who was called Amytis and was a Mede, the name Nitocris, and have ascribed to her such great buildings. Is Nitocris a corruption of Nabû-kudurri-uṣur (Nebuchadrezar)? In that case the two names Labynetos and Nitocris have a common origin. Nikel regards the situation as follows: Nebuchadrezar's wife exercised a great influence during the reign of her husband. The marriage with the daughter of the Median king was a political event of great importance. It was to please Amytis that Nebuchadrezar, as Berossus relates, built the "hanging gardens." The memory of that influential queen must have lived among the people as did the name of Nebuchadrezar, whose reign lasted forty-three years. While the name of the great king recalled important political events, the name of the queen was associated with those great buildings in whose construction she had taken so prominent a part. Hence we may suppose that the voucher of Herodotus, relying on popular tradition, associated a queen with the erection of the great works of Babylon. The name Nitocris, which does not seem to be of Semitic origin, may be the result of a corruption. Although the etymology of the first part of the word (Nito=Nabû?) is doubtful, yet the third syllable cris may be the mutilation of the second and third members of the compound Nabukudurri-uṣur (Nebuchadrezar), since in making foreign ​names unfamiliar the Greeks were conspicuous. It must be considered very remarkable if, at the time of Herodotus (about 450), the name of Nebuchadrezar, as the builder of such mighty works, had vanished from the memory of the Persians dwelling in Babylon. Hence, in the name Nitocris, there may be preserved a recollection of that great king who made Babylon splendid.
The Duration of the Assyrian Power in Western Asia.
Although Herodotus reserves the discussion of Assyrian history for his work on that subject, yet we find in the first book of his History an account of the beginning and the duration of the Assyrian power: " Five hundred and twenty years the Assyrians ruled Upper Asia. The first to revolt from them were the Medes, . . . after them the other peoples did likewise, and all the tribes of Asia became free and independent; but not for long, since they fell again under a despotic government." (I., 96.) Herodotus goes on to narrate the history of Deïoces, who first united the Median tribes into a confederation (I., 101), and through whose successor the peoples who had just ​become free from Assyrian bondage were brought again under despotic rule. (I., 96.)
It is our task to determine at what date Herodotus places the revolt of the Medes, and how far his figures concerning the Assyrian sovereignty in Western Asia (five hundred and twenty years) agree with the cuneiform documents.
According to the view of Herodotus the revolt of the Medes from Assyrian dominion occurred before the union of the Median races through Deïoces. Since our historian places the reign of this king somewhere within the period 699 to 646, the Assyrian power in Western Asia must have ended in the second half of the eighth century. Inscriptions point to the contrary, for during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III. (745–727) the power of Assyria again became secure. Under this victorious king the empire extended from the Persian Gulf on the southeast to the Mediterranean on the northwest, and from Media and Armenia on the northeast to Egypt on the southwest. Tiglath-Pileser was the first Assyrian king who entered Palestine. Twice he pressed victorious into Armenia. He led his troops into the extreme confines of Elam, as far as Parsua, and added a great part of Media to the Assyrian power. He conquered the land Ḫatti (North Syria), and finally, after a successful expedition against Babylonia, received religious sanction as king of Babylon. Among his successors Sargon II. (722–705) is the only one who deserves to be compared with him in military achievement. This usurper, after ​the conquest of Samaria, made the kingdom of Israel an Assyrian province. He conquered the king of Hamath and his allied towns, Arpad, Simyra, and Damascus. He took the king of Gaza prisoner, conquered the king of the old Hittite town Carchemish, overpowered the Philistine towns Ashdod and Gath, subdued the Elamite borders, and finally, by the expulsion of the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladaii II., reached the zenith of his power. In the Northeast and East he not only protected but extended the boundaries of the empire. It is historically certain that at the end of the eighth century B. C. the Assyrian power reached its greatest extent.
How, then, can we explain the statement of Herodotus that toward the end of the eighth century the Medes, and afterwards the other nations, threw off the Assyrian yoke? Our historian, as we have shown, obtained his information from Persian and Median sources. Moreover, it is quite probable that the Medes, who in the course of the seventh century gained their independence, and in 606 destroyed Nineveh, date the beginning of their freedom from that period in which they fought theirfirst battles to recover political independence. This period is not clearly indicated in Assyrian sources, for the cuneiform inscriptions emphasize rather the positive results of Assyrian expeditions, while the Medes carefully handed down the tradition of the more or less successful course of their own battles. The records of such contests, though carefully preserved by the Medes, appear in the Assyrian documents only when an Assyrian king took the field against the rebels and considered his own achievements worth mentioning.
​It is now certain that the border districts of the Assyrian empire were always inclined to revolt, and were not intimidated by failure. The Median boundaaries were on the extreme east of the empire, and Media is continually designated as " far distant " ($^{Mât}$ Mada-a-a rû-ḳû-ti). From the reports about the Median expeditions of Shalmaneser II. (859–825), Ramman-nirari III. (811–783), Tiglath-Pileser III. (745–727), Sargon II. (722-705), and Sennacherib (705–681), we learn that the Median tribes were always in a state of rebellion, and that scarcely a decade passed without an Assyrian invasion of Media.
The first Assyrian king who subdued certain Median races—e. g., the Amada-a—was Shalmaneser II. (859–825), and after his reign the Medes waged unbroken war against the Assyrians. This continual resistance to foreign intrusion may have contributed to a closer union of the scattered tribes. The Median tradition about the heroic battles for freedom would of course sound entirely different from the Assyrian accounts of the same. If Herodotus derived his statements about Assyrian history chiefly from Medo-Persian sources, we can understand why he puts the beginning of Median independence in the second half of the eighth century, although that period represents nothing but a series of struggles for independence which were finally crowned with success.
It remains to enquire how Herodotus arrives at the five hundred and twenty years of Assyrian sovereignty? If we go back five hundred and twenty years from the year 750, we reach the year 1270 B. C.—i. e.', the ​time immediately after Tiklat-Adar I., who reigned about 1300 and brought the whole of Babylonia under Assyrian power; but Herodotus could not have meant this period, for in 1210 we see Assyria and Babylon again in violent contest.
It was Tiglath-Pileser I. (1120–1100 B. C.) who led the Assyrian hosts everywhere victorious, and achieved magnificent results. This king could boast that he had brought under his power forty-two lands in the region extending from the districts beyond the lower Zab on the east and northeast to the land of the Ḫatti (Hittites) and to the "upper sea" on the west.
If we reckon forward five hundred and twenty years from 1120, we come to the year 600, the time of the great catastrophe which shattered the Assyrian power (606). It might seem, then, that the interval between Tiglath-Pileser I. and the Fall of Nineveh (1126–606=520 years) must be the epoch of Assyrian rule over Asia which Herodotus mentions. But, according to our historian, the end of Assyrian supremacy in Western Asia is not coincident with the fall of Nineveh; rather there follows upon the revolt of the Medes and other nations the subjugation of the newly liberated tribes by the Median Phraortes. But Nineveh fell, as Herodotus rightly states, in the time of Cyaxares, the successor of Phraortes. Therefore the series of events, according to I., 95–106, is as follows: (i) The revolt of the Medes from the Assyrian empire; (2) the revolt of the other conquered nations (end of the Assyrian power in Western Asia); (3) subjugation by the Median king, Phraortes, of the Persians and the other tribes which had revolted from Assyria; (4) siege of Nineveh by Cyaxares ( ​interrupted by the Scythian invasion); (5) victory of the Scythians over the Medes; (6) destruction of the Scythians by Cyaxares; (7) conquest of Nineveh by the Medes. Since this table shows that the Assyrian power in Western Asia reached its end many years before the fall of Nineveh, we cannot regard this last event as the terminus ad quem for the five hundred and twenty years. But in the period before 1126 there was no important event by which the Assyrian dominion could have been established over any considerable part of Western Asia. The statement of Herodotus (I., 96), that the Assyrians ruled "Upper Asia" five hundred and twenty years, must therefore be considered inaccurate.
But in order to ascertain how Herodotus reached this estimate let us compare the corresponding accounts of the other Greek writers. Ctesias, who mentions the duration of the reigns of Ninos and Semiramis, names also in his lost work the successors of Ninos from Ninyas to Ashurbanipal; Diodorus, his compiler, however, records only the fall of the Assyrian empire under Sardanapalos (Ashurbanipal), after an existence of more than thirteen hundred years. The sources on which Ctesias relied appear, therefore, to be entirely independent of those which Herodotus used.
Berossus enumerates as follows the several dynasties which ruled Babylon: (a) Dynasty of the Medes (2458–2224 B. C.); (b) dynasty of the Elamites (2224–1976); (c) dynasty of the Chaldeans (1976–1518); (d) dynasty of the Arabians (1518–1273). The next ruler mentioned is Semiramis, who in turn is followed by a dynasty of forty-five kings, who ruled ​for five hundred and twenty-six years. Here then is mentioned an epoch of Assyro-Babylonian history which lasted five hundred and twenty-six years and dated from the year 1273. This period is about the same as that which Herodotus gives for the Assyrian sovereignty over Western Asia. Accordingly we may conjecture a close correspondence between the sources of Herodotus and those of Berossus. From Berossus were derived the statements of Alexander Polyhistor preserved by Eusebius. But it is somewhat remarkable that there exists such a great discrepancy regarding the date of Semiramis. Alexander Polyhistor places her in the thirteenth century, but Herodotus at the end of the eighth century. Doubtless the views of Alexander Polyhistor concerning Semiramis were influenced by the fabulous accounts of the earlier Greek writers, while his chronological statements were based on Berossus.
The Founding and Duration of the Median Empire.
According to Herodotus, the Median races, until the middle of the eighth century B. C., were subject to the Assyrians. After they had gained their independence the Median tribes, which were formerly separated, began to unite. The first chief of the united Medes was Deïoces (699–646). To him Herodotus ascribes the building of Ecbatana. Dei'oces' son, Phraortes (646–624), extended the empire, subdued the Persians and ​the neighboring tribes, and attacked the Assyrians who dwelt at Nineveh; but he fell in battle, with the loss of most of his army. His son, Cyaxares (624–584), succeeded him. He waged war with the Lydians, and extended his power on the northwest as far as the river Halys. To avenge his father he marched against Nineveh. Scarcely had he laid siege to the town when the Scythians, under their king, Madyes, fell upon the Median kingdom, and in a battle the Mecles were defeated and " their supremacy over Asia was lost." The Scythians ruled over Western Asia for twenty-eight years, but were treacherously robbed of their power in the following manner. Cyaxares invited them to a banquet, and, when they were drunk, the Medes fell upon them and slew them. In this way the Medes recovered their former power, and conquered the Assyrian empire, with the exception of Babylonia. After the death of Cyaxares, his "son," Astyages, came to the throne. On the advice of the Magi, he gave his daughter, Mandane, in marriage to a Persian. Of this union was born Cyrus, who freed the Persians from the power of the Medes, conquered Media and Lydia, and finally brought to an end the Babylonian empire. These are, in brief, the statements of Herodotus concerning the history of the Median kingdom, which is said to have existed, in all, one hundred and twenty-eight years. (I., 99–131.) The Assyrian inscriptions make it possible, in part, to confirm the record of Herodotus, but in several essential points to correct and supplement it. Let us review briefly the founding of the Median empire and its history up to the Scythian invasion.
'Media is called in the Assyrian documents $^{Mât}$ Mada-a-a (in Ramman-nirari III., Tiglath-Pileser III., ​Sargon II., Sennacherib, and Esar-haddon). Therefore this must have been the common name for Media among the Assyrians. Only once are the Medes called A-ma-da-a-a—viz., in Shalmaneser II., who, as far as our knowledge goes, first made an expedition into the Median territory. The word Manda (umman-manda)> which several scholars consider the later name of "the Medes of every race," designates those warlike hordes—e. g., the Cimmerians and the Scythians— which, after the time of Esar-haddon, forced their way from the north into the Assyrian and Median countries. Originally Madâ (Mada-a) was the designation among the Assyrians for a particular Median tribe, as were the names, Ellipi, Ḫarhar Ḫubuškia, Patušarra, Partakka, etc.
In descent the Medes did not belong to the Semitic race. That an Aryan population dwelt formerly in Media is also without proof. On the ground of recent research we may to-day conclude that a population related to the Elamites and Kossæsans first inhabited that district. Not until the time of the Sargonidae did the influx of Aryan races into Media begin. Iranian names are first found in the time of Esar-haddon —e. g., Siṭirparna, Êparna, Ramatêja, and Urakazabarna.
The first Assyrian king who pressed victoriously into Median territory was Shalmaneser II. (859–825), who boasts that, in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, he crossed the lower Zab and subdued the lands Hašmar, Namri, Parsua, the country of the Amadâ ​(Medes), as well as the lands Araziaš and Ḫarḫar. The statement of this ruler that twenty-seven kings of Parsua brought him tribute indicates the political condition in those localities. The land was divided into small districts, in which petty chieftains ruled independently. Whether the rulers of Parsua were really tributary, or whether they purchased favor for their country through freewill gifts, is hard to determine. Naturally these gifts were regarded as real tribute (ma-da-tu) by the Assyrian king.
This first subjugation of Median races was of short duration, for in the years 829 and 828 the general of Shalmaneser was compelled to march into their territory to intimidate the rebels. Likewise Shalmaneser's successor, Shamshi-rammân III. (825–812), led his forces to the northeastern and eastern boundaries of his empire. He advanced to the country of the Sunbaeans, the Manasans, the Parsuæans, the Taurlæans, the Misaeans, to the lands Gizilbunda and Arazias as well as to the country of the Matæeans ($^{Mât}$ Ma-ta-a-a).
We may believe that by $^{Mât}$ Ma-ta-a-a, "country of the Matæeans," is meant a Median territory, and that Ma-ta-a-a is simply an unusual spelling for Ma-da-a-a. Shamshi-rammân III. was succeeded by Rammân-ni-râri III. (812–783), in whose reign repeated expeditions were made against Ellipi, Ḫarḫar, Araziaš, Mesu, the country of the Mâda, Gizilbunda, Manna, Parsua, Allabria, Abdadana, Naïri. Several of these lands are surely Median. In the reign of the three ​following kings Median expeditions are not mentioned. The mighty conqueror, Tiglath-Pileser III. (745–727), marched against the eastern border provinces in order to reëstablish the Assyrian power. From a short statement in the inscription from Nimrud (1. 19) we learn that the Median people were defeated at the Biknî mountains, and were made tributary. The Median races dwelling to the east of them were assailed by the Assyrian general Ashur-daninani, but their lands were not incorporated in the Assyrian empire. It is remarkable that the Medes, in a passage in this document, which unfortunately is mutilated, are designated "Mighty" (dannûti). Although this word does not conclusively prove a political union of all Median races, yet it implies that the Medes, contiguous to the Assyrian territory, made a greater resistance to the Assyrians than formerly. This, at least, points to the beginning of a confederation of the Median races that had before been separated, a confederation forced by the need of a stronger defense against a common foe.
Tiglath-Pileser's successor, Shalmaneser IV. (727–722), appears to have waged war only in the west of the empire in Phoenicia and Palestine. Sargon II. (722–705) devoted his attention to making secure the eastern boundaries. In the year 716 a revolution broke out in the east of the empire, at the head of which was Rusâ, the chief of Urardhi, and in which the provinces Karalla and Man took a prominent part. Several neighboring districts, especially those of West Media, also took part in the insurrection. Sargon quickly ​suppressed the movement. He entered Media, conquered the town Ḫarḫar, fortified it, and changed its name to Kar-Sharrukîn (city of Sargon). More than twenty Median governors were subdued, but further trouble began in the following year (715). A three years' war (715–713) ensued; Kar-Sharrukîn revolted, and had to be reconquered. Twenty-two Median governors gave allegiance to Sargon. In the account of this expedition, it is interesting to note that we meet with the name Daiukku. This person, who was evidently a governor of a part of Man, was taken prisoner and exiled to Hamath. We meet this name a second time in the accounts of the expedition of the year 713, where it is stated that Sargon marched against Ellipi, Bît-Daiukki, and Karalla. In the year 708 an Assyrian army again entered West Media. A strife for the throne had arisen in Ellipi which was settled in favor of the pretender (Ishpabara) by the invasion of the Assyrians. The war records show that no other Assyrian king penetrated so far into Media as Sargon. Whether all the Median people who brought gifts to the Assyrian king through their chiefs were really regarded as subjects of Assyria is very doubtful. As long as they brought tribute and remained quiet Sargon did not trouble them. Only Parsua and Ḫarḫar are known to have been put under Assyrian dominion.
How do the accounts in the cuneiform texts of Sargon correspond to the statements of Herodotus? We can scarcely find a direct contradiction. Herodotus says that toward the end of the eighth century (consequently sometime during the reign of Sargon) occurred the " revolt of the Medes," and immediately after this the union of the Median races through Deïoces. ​From the cuneiform inscriptions of Sargon we learn that during his reign only a portion, presumably the smaller portion, of the Median country was subject to the Assyrians, and that the few races paying tribute either felt themselves practically independent or made repeated attempts to throw off the Assyrian yoke. It was at this time that the power of Assyria over Media was at its zenith. Immediately after the death of Sargon the influence of Ashur in Media began to wane as the desire for freedom increased within the tributary provinces. The accounts of Herodotus, which declare that the Medes revolted from the Assyrians at the close of the eighth century, correspond to the cuneiform records.
At that time the desire for unity had made headway among the Medes. This explains why the name Madâ, in the Sargon texts, is used in a broader sense than in the older texts—e. g., we are told that Kar-Sharrukîn was fortified "for the subjugation of Media" (ana šuknuš $^{mât}$ Madâ). Several lines later Sargon speaks of other races, whom he also calls Medes—e. g., the "Medes on the border of the Aribi of the East" (Madâ ša pâti $^{amêl}$ Aribi nipiḫ šamši, 1. 69). Furthermore, Ellipi, which was formerly spoken of as near to the land of the Madâ, is in another place called a part of Media e. g., " Ba'-it-ili, a district of the Medes in Ellipi" (Ba-'-it-ili na-gu-u sa Ma-da-a-a ša mê-ṣir El-li-bi). In the same place mention is made of a people called Mandâ where the ​context clearly shows them to be an entirely different nation from the Medes.
We have observed that the name Daiukku occurs twice in the Sargon texts. What is the relation between Daiukku and the Dei'oces of Herodotus? The first individual of this name was probably a governor of a part of the province Man, and took part in the insurrection of 715. Whether he was in the Assyrian service, or was tributary to the Assyrian monarch, is doubtful. He was sent by Sargon to Hamath, presumably as an exile. This Daiukku is in no wise the Deïoces of Herodotus, since he was not a Mede, but a Mannaean, and dwelt after 715 at Hamath in Syria. The chronological difficulties forbid the supposition that he was later pardoned and after his return found opportunity to work for the union of the Medes; for a man who was banished while governor of a province in 715 could not later have ruled in Media fifty-three years. (699–646).
The second time we meet the name Daiukku is in the phrase Bît-Da-ai-uk-ki (house of Daiukku). This is the name of a locality which Sargon, in the ninth year of his reign (713), entered with his army. Since Bit-Daiukki is between Ellipi and Karalla, we may believe with Winckler that this region is Median. The name implies a prominent Median chief, who made Bît-Daiukki the center of his political activity. Therefore we conclude that Daiukku (Deïoces), the leader of a Median tribe, did not unite all the Medes at once, but through the formation of a well-organized hegemony as a basis of unification, he laid the foundation of the Median power. If our supposition is correct, ​Bît-Daiukki ought not to be identified with the town Ecbatana, but with the district in which this town was situated. Furthermore the geographical situation of Bît-Daiukki, which lay between Ellipi and Karalla, makes this probable. Before it became the capital of the great Median empire Ecbatana was doubtless the political center of that Median tribe which attained supremacy in Media through the efforts of its chief. Whether the chief after whom Bît-Daiukki was named lived in the time of Sargon, or at an earlier epoch, is doubtful. If he lived at an earlier epoch, then the Deioces of Herodotus must be regarded as an eponymous hero of the Median dynasty.
Scarcely had Sargon II. fallen at the assassin's hands before insurrections broke out in many provinces. Ellipi, where Sargon had appointed a native chief as ruler, revolted. Sennacherib boasts that he reconquered Ellipi and subdued a number of remote Median chiefs, of whose lands none of his ancestors had ever heard. Judging from the characteristic speech of Sennacherib, we conclude that this " subjugation " was simply the freewill offering of gifts to avert devastation similar to that which had befallen Ellipi.
Under Esar-haddon (681–668) the cloud of destruction arising in the North began to break over Assyria. In the year 678 the Cimmerians, forced by the pressure of the Scythians, invaded the Assyrian empire under their king, Teušspâ. A battle took place, in which other enemies of Assyria, including the Medes, joined, ​the result of which was favorable to the Assyrians. In two hymns to the sun god (Sm. 2005, K. 2668) Kashtariti and Mamitiarshi, two Median governors, are mentioned among the allies of the Cimmerians. It is generally admitted that this Kashtariti has no connection with the Cyaxares of Herodotus. Esar-haddon's success induced him to press into those regions from which the Cimmerians had come. He reached certain Median tribes, whose chiefs, to judge from their names (Siṭirparna and Êparna) were of Aryan descent. Furthermore the name of the chief, Ramatêja, as well as that of his country (Urakazabarna), is plainly Aryan.
The danger which had threatened the Assyrian empire under Esar-haddon increased in the time of his successor, Ashurbanipal (668–626). The Cimmerians retired to Asia Minor, but the Sacian Scythians poured into Western Asia from the east and northeast. The Medes pressed in and laid waste the land, overflowing Armenia, Assyria, Syria, and Palestine as far as the borders of Egypt. It was this horde which the prophet Jeremiah (v. 15, fg.) describes in such vivid words. The Scythian inroad threw the Assyrian kingdom into great excitement, and in all the provinces was aroused a desire for freedom. It is remarkable that in the numerous texts of Ashurbanipal Media is only once mentioned. Cylinder B. Col. III., 102–IV., 14 shows that in the year 655 a certain Birisḫadri, governor of Mat-a-a (according to many Assyriologists=Media), with two other leaders, governors of ​Saḫi ["Sacians?], revolted, and that seventy-five towns of Birisḫadri were conquered and pillaged by the Assyrians. The fact that this Median chief (if Mat-a-a is Media) had authority over seventy-five towns points to an advanced political union of the Medes. Since Ashurbanipal was more needed in other parts of his great empire than in the northeast, the opportunity was most favorable for the Medes to obtain their independence. And if some decades later in spite of their previous losses at the hands of the Scythians, they were in a condition to destroy the Assyrian power, we must believe that during the reign of Ashurbanipal the political union of the Median tribes was perfected. In the last two decades of the reign of Ashurbanipal Herodotus also puts the founding of the Median power under Phraortes (646–624).
The name of the Median king, Phraortes, the predecessor of Cyaxares, has not yet been found in any cuneiform text. We may explain this fact by the events which happened in the reign of Ashurbanipal. If this monarch was prevented from waging war in the east by trouble in the other provinces of his kingdom, and especially in Babylon, he would have no exploits to record in Media and in other eastern provinces. We need not suppose, as Winckler does, that Phraortes is an unhistorical character.
Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes according to Herodotus, is called, in the Behistan inscription, a legitimate Median king. Says Darius the king: " There was a man Fravartish by name, a Mede; he rose up in Media: thus he said to the people: c I am Khshathrita, of the family of Uvakhshtra' (Cyaxares). Afterwards the Median state, which was in clans, became ​rebellious to me. It went over to that Fravartish; he became king in Media." (Behistan, II., 5.) Winckler argues that if the father of Cyaxares (Uvakhshtra) was really called Phraortes, as Herodotus says, and if that pretender of whom Darius speaks had originally the name Fravartish (Phraortes), then we cannot explain his desire to change this name, since he already bore that of one of the early kings of Media, a circumstance most surely in his favor. We may reply that the pretender had to take the name of a wellknown descendant, a grandson or great-grandson of Cyaxares. Doubtless a grandson of this king was called Khshathrita, and this name was taken by Fravartish. He was presumably a member of the early Median royal house, and the Phraortes of Herodotus was one of his ancestors, for it was the custom to give the children the name of a grandfather or great-grandfather. The Behistan inscription does not deny, but rather confirms, the correctness of the statement of our historian.
It is a significant fact that the usurper, Fravartish, calls himself a descendant of Cyaxares. Consequently Cyaxares must have been the last representative of the national kingdom of Media. For if Astyages, who was conquered and dethroned by Cyrus, had been the sen of Cyaxares, the pretender would have called himself the son of Astyages. Therefore we must believe that Astyages was not the last legitimate king of Media, but belonged to that people who had conquered it —i. e., the Umman-manda (Scythians). Furthermore the cuneiform inscriptions call Astyages, "King of the Scythians"—i. e., Šar $^{amêl}$ umman-manda (compare the great Nabû-na'id cylinder of Abû-habba, Col. I., 32). ​Accordingly Herodotus has erroneously represented Astyages as the son of his predecessor, Cyaxares.
Sennacherib's Expedition against Egypt.
In his presentation of Egyptian history Herodotus mentions an expedition of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, against Egypt. The Assyrian monarch is called " Sennacherib, the king of the Arabians and Assyrians." (II., 141.) According to Herodotus, a strange occurrence compelled the army of Sennacherib to withdraw in the midst of the siege of Pelusium. In the night mice invaded the Assyrian camp and gnawed the quivers and bows and the handles of the shields, so that the soldiers fled in terror on the following day. If Sennacherib was really forced to return, we should not expect the full truth in his report. The Assyrian king speaks of his expedition against Egypt, but he so covers up his misfortune that it is only with the help of the Biblical record (2 Kings xviii. 13–xix. 36) that we can explain the difference between Herodotus and the statements of the inscriptions. In the Taylor cylinder (Col. II., 34 fg.) we are told that an Egyptian army hastening to aid the Philistine towns met at Eltekeh (South of Ekron) the Assyrian king, who in the year 701 had invaded Palestine from the North. Sennacherib "conquered" the Egyptians and took several of their chiefs prisoners. We know, however, that, in spite of his victory, he did not trouble the Egyptians further, but turned against King Hezekiah, of Judah, and by the distribution of his army at Jerusalem shut him in as "a bird in a cage."
Hezekiah defended himself with valor, since he was encouraged by the burning words of Isaiah. ​influenced probably by the report that a new Egyptian army was approaching, Sennacherib pressed the king of Judah to surrender Jerusalem, but Hezekiah trusted in Jehovah and was not disappointed. A pestilence (2 Kings xix. 35) spread such devastation in the Assyrian army that Sennacherib had to return to Assyria. Of course no mention is made of this in the records of the Assyrian monarch. The king boasts that he had forced Hezekiah, through the siege of Jerusalem, to pay tribute; but this is a perversion of fact, since, according to the Biblical account, which sounds entirely impartial, Hezekiah (as well as his predecessor Ahaz) had paid tribute before the siege of Jerusalem. The statement of Herodotus furnishes us confirmation of the Bible record as well as a correction of the cuneiform account. The hasty withdrawal of the Assyrian troops from Egypt after the battle at Eltekeh, the unexpected raising of the siege of Jerusalem, and the speedy return of Sennacherib to Assyria—all this was enough to give rise to the legendary narratives of which Herodotus furnishes us a proof.
The Fall of Nineveh.
We possess no certain records concerning the fall of Nineveh, which must have been one of the greatest catastrophes of ancient history. Cuneiform accounts are entirely wanting. Herodotus simply states (I., 106) that the Medes, after they had thrown off the yoke of Scythian dominion, marched against Ninos under the leadership of Cyaxares, conquered it, and subdued ​Syria, except Babylon and its vicinity. Herodotus promises to give us a further account in his Assyrian history. The other Greek writers bring contradictory reports. According to Berossus, Astyages was that Median king who conquered Nineveh with the aid of the Babylonians. According to Abydenos, the Babylonian king Busalossaros (Nabopolassar) marched alone against Nineveh. Alexander Polyhistor calls the last Assyrian king Sarakos (Sin-šar-iškun). Ctesias calls him Sardanapalos (Ashurbanipal). The Median king who participated in the conquest of Nineveh is called by Ctesias Arbaces, the Babylonian Belesys. (Diodorus, II., 24 fg.). Herodotus states that Phraortes attacked the Assyrians, which attack falls in the first year after the death of Ashurbanipal— i. e., 625 B. C. Phraortes was slain in this battle (624). The statement of some Greek writers that Sardanapalos (Ashurbanipal) lived to see the fall of Nineveh (606 B. C.), and then threw himself into the flames of the burning palace, is untrue. Ashurbanipal was not the last, but the last prominent king of the Assyrians. The weakness which seems to have characterized his successors would be imputed by later writers to Ashurbanipal himself.
Herodotus further states that Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, in order to avenge his father, made a new expedition against Assyria, and besieged Nineveh. The inroad of the Scythians forced him to raise the siege. All this is neither affirmed nor denied by the cuneiform inscriptions, but it seems probable when we remember the confusion in the Assyrian empire.
According to Herodotus the Scythians ruled in Western Asia twenty-eight years. After Cyaxares had ​broken their power he reëstablished the sovereignty of . the Medes, and finally destroyed Ninos. The twenty-eight years of Scythian power do not refer exclusively to the time in which the Medes were under the yoke of the Scythians, for Nineveh fell eighteen years after the accession of Cyaxares to the throne (624–18=606). The Medes must have made strong resistance to the Scythians more than once. Cyaxares attacked the Assyrian empire when it was shaken by the inroad of these Scythians. The Medes appeared before the gates of Nineveh and conquered the town. It may be true that the Babylonians, whose king, Nabopolassar, had procured for his son the hand of the daughter of the Median king, aided the Medes in this siege. Berossus mentions this, but Herodotus does not. Herodotus correctly states that Cyaxares conquered Nineveh, while Berossus and his excerptists refer this conquest to Astyages. Astyages ascended the throne of Media in the year 584, but Nineveh was destroyed about 606. The Assyrian king in whose reign the capital of Assyria fell is called in the inscriptions Sin-šar-iškun, the Sarakos of Alexander Polyhistor.
The Genealogy and the National Descent of Cryus
After the fall of Nineveh the Lydians, Medes, and Babylonians became the most powerful nations in Western Asia. These three kingdoms were destroyed by the Persian, Cyrus, the king of Anshan, who founded the Persian power.
​The cuneiform inscriptions throw light upon the descent of Cyrus, and his relation to the Median kingdom. The statements of the Greek writers respecting his genealogy are explained by comparison with Babylonian and Persian sources. According to Herodotus (L, 107), the Persian Cambyses is called the father of Cyrus the Great. Diodorus and Xenophon agree with Herodotus. Later (VII., n) Herodotus enumerates the ancestors of Xerxes as follows: (1) Achaemenes; (2) Teispes; (3) Cambyses; (4) Cyrus; (5) Teispes; (6) Ariaramnes; (7) Arsames; (8) Hystaspes; (9) Darius; (10) Xerxes.
Darius himself gives his own ancestors in two places in the Behistan inscription. (Bh., I., 2; Bh., a.) The list reads: (1) Achsemenes; (2) Teïspes; (3) Ariaramnes; (4) Arsames; (5) Hystaspes; (6) Darius.
When we compare these two genealogies we find that in the Behistan inscription Teïspes immediately follows the eponymous hero Achæmenes. but in Herodotus there are inserted three names—Teïspes, Cambyses, Cyrus. Furthermore Darius, after the enumeration of his ancestors, goes on to declare (Bh. I. 3, 4):
"Thus says Darius the king: c For this reason we are called Achæmenidæ; from long ago we have been tested. From long ago our family were kings.' Thus says Darius the king: c There are eight of my family who were formerly kings; I am the ninth. From long ago we were kings.' " Darius here states that eight ​of his family were kings, and he himself was the ninth, but mentions (Bh., I., 2; Bh., a) only five of his ancestors. The three omitted ancestors could not precede Achasmenes, since he was the founder of the race, but must be inserted between Achasmenes and Teïspes. Here Herodotus helps us in supplying after Achæmenes, Teïspes I., Cambyses, and Cyrus, and enumerates the ancestors mentioned in the Behistan inscription as Teïspes II., Ariaramnes, Arsames, Hystaspes.
We turn now to the testimony of the Cyrus cylinder. Here Cyrus the Great (20 fg.) gives his genealogy thus: " I am Cyrus, the king of all things, the great king, the powerful king, the king of Babylon, the king of Shumer and Akkad, the king of the four quarters of heaven; son of Cambyses, the great king, the king of Anshan; grandson of Cyrus, the great king, the king of Anshan; descendant of Teïspes, the great king, the king of Anshan, of the ancient royal blood." Moreover in this document (1. 14) Cyrus the Great is himself called king of Anshan.
Now Darius after the death of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, claimed the throne in virtue of nearest kinship to the royal race; hence those eight kings, which he speaks of in the Behistan inscription, were doubtless the ancestors of his predecessor. Cyrus was the first to establish the glory of the race of the Achaemenidae. To him and to his ancestors, the kings of Anshan, and to his son Cambyses, Darius could refer, if he wished to extol the glory of his family. He was warranted in doing this because the ancestors of Cyrus were in part his own ancestors; for if Darius was the nearest relative of Cambyses, there must have been to ​them both a common progenitor. This progenitor was that Teïspes who in the Behistan inscription appears as the father of Ariaramnes and in the Cyrus cylinder as the father of the elder Cyrus, grandfather of Cyrus the Great. The relationship between Darius and his predecessor Cambyses is shown by a comparison of the Behistan inscription and the Cyrus cylinder:
| | | | | | | 1. Achæmenes. | 1. Achæmenes. | 1. Achæmenes. | 1. Achæmenes. | 1. Achæmenes. | 1. Achæmenes. |
| | | | | | | 2. Teïspes. | 2. Teïspes. | 2. Teïspes. | 2. Teïspes. | 2. Teïspes. | 2. Teïspes. | | | | | | | | |
| 3. Cyrus. | 3. Cyrus. | 3. Cyrus. | 3. Cyrus. | 3. Cyrus. | 3. Cyrus. | | | | | | | | | 4. Ariaramnes. | 4. Ariaramnes. | 4. Ariaramnes. | 4. Ariaramnes. | 4. Ariaramnes. | 4. Ariaramnes. |
| 5. Cambyses. | 5. Cambyses. | 5. Cambyses. | 5. Cambyses. | 5. Cambyses. | 5. Cambyses. | | | | | | | | | 6. Arsames. | 6. Arsames. | 6. Arsames. | 6. Arsames. | 6. Arsames. | 6. Arsames. |
| 7. Cyrus the Great. | 7. Cyrus the Great. | 7. Cyrus the Great. | 7. Cyrus the Great. | 7. Cyrus the Great. | 7. Cyrus the Great. | | | | | | | | | 8. Hystaspes. | 8. Hystaspes. | 8. Hystaspes. | 8. Hystaspes. | 8. Hystaspes. | 8. Hystaspes. |
| 9. Cambyses. | 9. Cambyses. | 9. Cambyses. | 9. Cambyses. | 9. Cambyses. | 9. Cambyses. | | | | | | | 10. Darius. | 10. Darius. | 10. Darius. | 10. Darius. | 10. Darius. | 10. Darius. | | |
We now ask, who are the eight kings of the family of the Achæmenidæ who were kings before Darius? In the table just given nine names appear besides that of Darius. It has been assumed that there were two lines of kings, one of which ruled in Anshan and the other in some other country, but such assumption has no warrant. Hystaspes, the father of Darius, according to Herodotus (III., 70), was not a king, but only a governor in some part of Persia.
In the second place it appears that the name of Achæmenes, as the eponymous hero, should be stricken from the list of kings; for the dynasty of the Achæmenidæ, like that of the Ejjubidæ and Sassanidæ, is ​named not after the first king, but after the ancestors of the same.
Finally, we have the genealogy contained in Herodotus (VII., ii) according to which Achæmenes is not the father of the Teïspes mentioned in the Cyrus cylinder and the Behistan inscription, but his remote ancestor. As mentioned before, Herodotus inserts between Achæmenes and this Teïspes the three names, Teïspes I., Cambyses, and Cyrus.
Combining now the genealogy of Herodotus with those of the Cyrus cylinder and the Behistan inscription, we obtain the following complete table:
​Cambyses III., the last representative of the ruling family, died childless. Darius ascended the throne on account of his relationship to Cambyses through Teïspes II. Since we have no evidence of a double line of kings, the immediate ancestors of Darius—i. e., Hystaspes, Arsames, Ariaramnes, must not be reckoned as kings. Leaving out Achaemenes, as eponymous hero, from the list we have those eight kings of the family of Darius which he himself mentions in his own inscription. Accordingly their names must read: Teïspes I., Cambyses I., Cyrus I., Teïspes II., Cyrus II., Cambyses II., Cyrus the Great, Cambyses III.
The statement of Herodotus that Cyrus was of Persian descent is correct. Sayce's view, which identifies Anshan with Elam and makes Cyrus an Elamite and consequently a polytheist, is unreliable. Anshan, to be sure, was an Elamite province, but had long ago been overrun and possessed by Aryan peoples. Cyrus was of Aryan descent, and a Persian; but his ancestors, since the establishment of the great Median kingdom, were under Median dominion. When the Scythians invaded and destroyed the national kingdom of the Medes, Cyrus became a "small vassal" of the Scythian king Astyages.
The account of the childhood of Cyrus is entirely legendary. Herodotus (I., 95) shows that various stories clustered about the person of the great founder of the Persian empire. Through a comparison of similar legends e. g., the account of the childhood of Sargon I., the story of Romulus and Remus, etc.— ​Bruno Bauer comes to the conclusion that the germ of the Cyrus story is found with like significance among different peoples of antiquity, and that the rise of the founder of a kingdom out of obscurity is kept in remembrance by such legendary recitals. There is no historical basis for the statement of Herodotus that Cyrus was the son of a Persian man and a Median woman. If we accept the answer which the Delphic oracle gave to Crœsus (Hdt. I., 55) as a legendary vaticinium post eventum, we can explain in the same way the popular tradition which would make Cyrus a blood relation of the dynasty of Astyages.
The Decline of the Median Power.
After the destruction of Nineveh, as many of the Assyrian provinces as did not become independent fell to the Medes and Babylonians. The Medes took those countries that lay to the north and the east of the Tigris. The Babylonians laid claim to the lands of the Semites, especially Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine. Through further conquest the Median empire was so augmented that the Halys became the western boundary, while in the East all the regions possessed by the Aryan peoples as far as Persia became subject to Media. But that dynasty which had founded this mighty empire was soon destroyed. Herodotus correctly states that in the time of Cyaxares the Scythians invaded the kingdom of the Medes. "For twenty-eight years the Scythians ruled Asia, and every land was waste and ​desolate in consequence of their licentiousness and insolence. Besides levying tribute upon every nation, they made inroads into the countries and plundered the inhabitants, until Cyaxares and the Medes invited a number of them to a banquet, made them drunk, and slew them. . . . After this—i. e., the conquest of Nineveh—Cyaxares died. He had reigned forty years, including the time of Scythian dominion, and was succeeded by his son Astyages." (Hdt. I., 106.)
We infer from the statement of Herodotus that the Medes, under Cyaxares, threw off the Scythian yoke; and that Astyages, as son of his predecessor, is a national Median king. But in the cuneiform inscriptions we find Astyages residing in Ecbatana, and designated king of the Scythians. We cannot assume, in order to justify the statements of Herodotus, that the Babylonian writer, after the Scythians had invaded Media, reckoned the Median king among the Scythians (Umman-manda). Later events count against such an inference, especially the behavior of the troops of Astyages in the battle against Cyrus. The annals of Nabû-na'id read: " From Astyages his army revolted, and gave him bound to Cyrus." In another place we are told that Cyrus, with a small number of troops, conquered a great Scythian host which was under the command of Astyages. "But Merodach spoke to me (Nabû-na'id); the Scythian (Umman-manda), of whom ​thou speakest, his land and the kings, his helpers, are no more. In the third year they destroyed him in war, and Cyrus, the king of Ansan (=Anshan), his small vassal, scattered with his few troops the extended hosts of the Scythians. Astyages, the king of the Scythians, he seized and brought bound to his own land." From this account we conclude that Cyrus did not march as a conqueror against the Medes, but to free the Medes and Persians from a foreign power. The national Median troops of Astyages went over in the battle to this king, who was hailed with joy by the Median population. Cyrus therefore had no occasion, after he had taken Astyages prisoner, to conquer the Median kingdom further, for it became his through the fortunes of war. He marched to Ecbatana, took away all the treasures that had been seized by the Scythians, and brought them to his native city, Anshan. From that time on he adds to his other titles not that of king of Media, but styles himself king of Persia. By doing this he emphasizes his national descent.
The Fall of Babylon.
The increasing power of Cyrus roused the distrust of the Babylonian kings; Lydia and Egypt also appreciated the danger which threatened them from Persia. In consequence of this feeling, as Herodotus (I., 77) states, the Lydians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and the Lacedæmonians, entered into an alliance. Cyrus resolved to strike his adversaries individually; consequently he planned to attack Croesus, the king of the ​Lydians, before the allied forces could join themselves to the Lydian army.
Herodotus gives correctly the name of that Babylonian king who was to meet the opposing armies of Cyrus. In his own inscription we read his name Nabû-na'id, which appears in Herodotus in the form Labynetos. As regards the circumstances which surround the fall of Babylon the statements of our historian seem to differ materially from those of the cuneiform inscriptions. But if we examine both accounts more minutely, we shall find that the historical germ, at least, is the same. In Herodotus (I., 190) we are told that the Babylonians, when Cyrus approached their city, marched out to meet him, and were defeated. They collected their forces within the walls, having already supplied themselves with provision for many years. After a long siege, Cyrus finally took the town by means of the following device: He dug canals which conducted the water of the Euphrates into the lake basin. When the water had subsided to such an extent that the stream was fordable, the Persian troops entered the town through those openings in the wall by which the river had once made its entrance and exit. To insure the success of this device Cyrus waited until a great feast day of the Babylonians: hence the unsuspecting inhabitants were surprised by the Persian hosts in the midst of their dancing and feasting.
The account in the annals of Nabû-na'id reads somewhat differently. In the sixth year of the rule of Nabû-na'id (549) Astyages was taken prisoner. From the seventh until the ninth year of his reign Nabuna'id was in the city Tema, while his eldest son and the army were at Akkad. In Nisan (March–April) of ​the ninth year of the reign of Nabû-na'id, Cyrus collected his army, crossed the Tigris at Arbela, and invaded a small, independent kingdom, situated between the Tigris and Euphrates, the name of which is unknown owing to a mutilation in the text of the inscription. In the seventeenth year of Nabû-na'id (538) destruction came to Babylon.
Cyrus, after the conquest of Akkad, entered Babylonia. Sippara, the famous city of the God Shamash, was taken without a blow on the fourteenth of the month Tammuz (June–July) after Cyrus had defeated the Babylonian army at Opis (Upê). This is the battle mentioned by Herodotus. Nabû-na'id fled to Babylon. On the sixteenth day of the month Tammuz Gubaru (Gobryas), the governor of Gutium, entered Babylon without fighting. Nabû-na'id was taken prisoner in Babylon. On the third day of the month Marcheshvan (October–November) the son of the king who led the Babylonian troops was slain, if we can trust a rather mutilated portion of the text of the inscription which seems to warrant this statement. This crown prince is called Bêl-šar-uṣur, as we learn from the inscription on the clay cylinders found in the corners of the Sin ternpie at Ur. In the book of Daniel this prince is called Belshazzar. In another place (Dan. v. 30) it is stated that Belshazzar was slain by the entering Persians on a night which followed a great feast in the royal palace. Herodotus (I., 191) speaks also of the same feast.
From the Biblical narrative we conclude that the Babylonians were surprised by the Persians in the midst of their drunken revel. This unforeseen entry ​points strongly to some device practiced by the Persians, presumably the same of which Herodotus speaks. Moreover the statement in the Nabû-na'id annals that Gobryas entered Babylon "without fighting" (bala saltum) is in perfect accord with such an inference.
Herodotus represents the motive which actuated the Persian king to seize Babylon as desire for conquest. (I., 178.) According to his account, the Babylonians put forth their strongest efforts to repulse the Persian king. From the cuneiform inscriptions, however, we get the impression that the Babylonians, or at least a great part of them, hailed the advent of Cyrus with joy. This is most plainly declared in the so-called Cyrus cylinder. This inscription, it is generally supposed, was compiled at the command of Cyrus by a priest of Merodach, the tutelary god of Babylon. The first part of the document discusses the defects of the reign of Nabû-na'id. These defects consist in the neglect of the daily sacrifice, the derogation of the honor of Merodach, the introduction of foreign gods into Babylon, and the oppression of the inhabitants. The inscription goes on to say that Merodach is implored for help; the god hears the prayer and looks for another, a righteous king; such a king he finds in Cyrus, the king of Anshan. To him Merodach gives the sovereignty over Babylonia and the Eastern lands, and finally allows him to enter Babylon in triumph.
In the second part of the inscription Cyrus gives an account of his previous doings. He mentions the friendly reception which was accorded him by the population of Babylon, and expresses his anxiety to promote the well-being of his new subjects. He thanks Merodach for the blessings which he has bestowed upon him, the ​king, and upon his son, Cambyses. Furthermore, he states how he brought back to their old sanctuaries the images of the gods which had been removed from the different cities of the empire by Nabû-na'id; and, finally prays all these divinities to intercede for him and his son, Cambyses, before Merodach and Nebo, the tutelary gods of Babylon and Borsippa.
This whole account is in fullest accord with that Oriental despotism which refers all its doings to the councils of the Almighty, and considers itself as the instrument of Providence. The real motive which induced Cyrus was, doubtless, the instinct of self-preservation. When he saw Babylon, Lydia, Egypt, and Lacedæmon in alliance, and knew that an attack by the Babylonians would sooner or later be made against the Elamite provinces, the Persian king had to fight for his own existence.
Owing to the discordant elements in Babylon it is not unlikely that Cyrus was hailed by a part of the population as a deliverer from Babylonian servitude. The belief that Cyrus was a special factor in the hand of God to punish proud Babylon is repeatedly met with in the prophets of the Old Testament. (Isa. xli. 2 fg.; xliv. 28; xlv. i; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22; Jer. xxv. 11.) Furthermore, the reproaches in the Cyrus cylinder directed against Nabû-na'id are clearly traceable to great dissatisfaction on the part of the Babylonians, especially on the part of the priesthood of Merodach. We are uncertain as to what was the "oppression" of the people referred to in this inscription. (1. 8.) Probably the king had laid heavy burdens upon them in order to indulge his fancy for building. That he should give over a part of his kingdom to his son ​while the enemy threatened the land could not have inspired admiration for him. It is wrong to suppose that Nabuû-na'id had neglected to construct temples and fortifications for his capital. Nabû-na'id speaks of himself, as well as of his predecessor, as the "restorer of Esagila and Ezida;" and the bricks which bear his name show that he expended great care upon the fortifications of Babylon.
Darius.
The statements of Herodotus concerning the history of Darius are confirmed in all essential particulars by the great inscription of Behistan, which was compiled in three languages—Persian, Median-Elamite, and Babylonian that it might be understood all over the empire.
The chief events which come to our notice are the murder of Smerdis by his brother, Cambyses; the reign of the false Smerdis; the accession of Darius to the throne; the rebellions in the Persian empire, especially at Babylon; and the conquest of Babylon. After the death of Cyrus, Cambyses, the elder of his two sons, ascended the throne. Before his invasion of Egypt he had his younger brother, Smerdis, murdered. No one knew of his death except two magi, who ​were brothers. One of them, Gaumāta, resembled the dead Smerdis. While Cambyses was in Egypt this Gaumāta, with the help of his brother, passed himself off for Smerdis, and had himself proclaimed king. As soon as Cambyses heard of this rebellion he hastened home, but died in Syria on his return, according to Herodotus, in consequence of an accident; but according to the Behistan inscription by a self-imposed death.
Gaumata was recognized at the beginning of the eighth month. Seven noble Persians, among them Darius, son of Hystaspes, determined to remove the usurper from the throne. They forced their way into the palace of the king, which was in the country of Nisa ​(Persian, Nisaya; Babylonian, Ni-is-sa-a-a), at a place called in the Persian Sikayauvatish (in the Babylonian, Siḫiubati), and murdered Gaumāta on the 10th of April, 521.
Darius now ascends the throne, but immediately rebellions break out in all the provinces of the empire, the suppression of which is described in the Behistan inscription. On this great rock of Behistan Darius is represented with his foot on the Magian Gaumāta, while in front stand, bound together, the nine rebels whom Darius and his generals have met in battle. Small inscriptions serve to identify each rebel as follows. Under the prostrate form: " This is Gaumata the Magian; he lied; thus he said: I am Bardiya (Smerdis; Babylonian, Barzia), the son of Cyrus; I am king." Over the first upright figure: " This is Atrina (Babylonian, Ašina); he lied; thus he said: I am king at Uvaja (Elam)." Over the second figure:
"This is Nadi(n)tabira (Babylonian, Nidintubêl); he lied; thus he said: I am Nebuchadrezar ( Persian, Nabuk(u)dracara; Babylonian, Nabû-kudurri-usur), the son of Nabû-na'id (Persian, Nabunaita); I am king of Babylon." Upon the dress of the third figure:
"This is Fravartish (Babylonian, Parumartiš); he lied; thus he said: I am Khshathrita (Babylonian, Ḫaša-trîti), of the family of Cyaxares (Persian, Uvakhshtra; Babylonian, Umakuištar)." Over the fourth figure:
"This is Martiya; he lied; thus he said: I am Imanish, king of Elam." Over the fifth figure: " This is Citra(n)takhma (Babylonian, Šitrantaḫmu); he lied; ​thus he said: I am king in Sagartia, of the family of Cyaxares." Over the sixth figure: " This is Vahyazdāta (Babylonian, Umizdatu); he lied; thus he said: I am Smerdis, the son of Cyrus; I am king." Over the seventh figure: "This is Arakha (Babylonian, Araḫu); he lied; thus he said: I am Nebuchadrezar, the son of Nabû-na'id; I am king in Babylon." Over the eighth figure: " This is Frāda (Babylonian, Parada); he lied; thus he said: I am king in Margu." Over the ninth figure: "This is Sku(n)ka the Sacian." All these revolts are minutely described in the four long columns of the inscription.
Of a special interest is the subjugation of the Babylonians, who, according to the Behistan inscription, rebelled twice: first under Nadi(n)tabira; and later under Arakha, an Armenian. Both rebels called themselves Nebuchadrezar.
Herodotus speaks of only one revolt, which ended in the conquest of Babylon by Darius. According to the Behistan inscription Darius smote the army of Nadi(n)tabira near the Tigris (Behistan I., 18). Later he utterly destroyed this army at a town Zāzāna, on the Euphrates (Behistan I., 19), and then took Babylon.
When the second insurrection had broken out under Arakha, Darius sent a general, Vi(n)dafrā by name, who conquered the town a second time, and restored peace. (Behistan III., 13, 14.)
The circumstances attending the subjugation of Babylon, as Herodotus describes them, impress one as somewhat legendary. The statement (III., 159) that Darius had to tear down the walls of Babylon seems credible when we think of the repeated attempts at rebellion on the part of the Babylonians.
* ↑ Post quos annos etiam ipsam Semiramidem in Assyrios dominatam esse tradit.
* ↑ !I. R. 35, No. 2, 7–10.
* ↑ "Geschichte des Altertums," 5 Aufl., Leipzig, 1878, II., p. 13 fg.
* ↑ Sargon II., 722–705, had connected Babylon and Borsippa by a new canal, which should serve as a festal way for Nebo.
* ↑ Tiele ("Babylonish-Assyrische Geschichte," I., p. 454) says that the Nitocris of Herodotus, whose works must be ascribed to Nebuchadrezar, owes her origin solely to a blunder. Duncker (II., 545) believes that by Nitocris Herodotus meant Amytis, the wife of Nebuchadrezar.
* ↑ The theory of Tiele (I., 423) that, besides Amytis, Nebuchadrezar might have had an Egyptian wife, Neit-aker (Nitocris), lacks historical support.
* ↑ The change in the dynasties may have occasioned the omission of Nebuchadrezar by Herodotus. In marked contrast the book of Daniel represents Nebuchadrezar as proudly boasting: "Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling place by the might of my power, and for the glory of my majesty?" (Dan. iv. 30.)
* ↑ By another reckoning this Tiglath-Pileser is the second of his name among the Assyrian kings—e. g.in Tïele.
* ↑ Sargon II. (722–705) pressed farther into Media than any other Assyrian monarch.
* ↑ Post quos annos etiam ipsam Semiramidem in Assyrios dominatam esse tradit. Atque iterum minute enumerat nomina regum XLV. adsignans illis annos DXXVI. (Eusebius, Chron. ed. Schoene, I., 26.)
* ↑ Tiele, " Babylonish-Assyrische Geschichte," I., 334.
* ↑ Shalmaneser II., Obelisk, 121.
* ↑ Shalmaneser II., Obelisk, 110–126.
* ↑ Shamshi-rammân III., Col. II., 34–III., 44.
* ↑ 8 Inscription from Kalaḫ, I. R., 35, No. I, 1. 6–9.
* ↑ Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser from Nimrud, l. 42.
* ↑ Sargon, 1. 65.
* ↑ Annals, 159 fg.
* ↑ In the cuneiform inscriptions they are called Gimmira", whom Esar-haddon designates "people dwelling far away." (Esar., II., 7.)
* ↑ Babyl. Chron., IV., 2.
* ↑ For opposite view cf. Sayce, Hdt, I., 98, note.
* ↑ Reference is frequently made to 1 Samuel vi. 4, 5, to show that the mouse was a symbol for pestilence in the East.
* ↑ There was no general destruction of the Scythians, since invading hordes, whose leader was Astyages, finally overthrew the national Median dynasty.
* ↑ The Persian word duvitātarnam was interpreted by Oppert "en deux branches." Weissbach and Bang render "In'zwei Reihen." Such an interpretation seems to be at variance with the corresponding word of the Elamite text. Compare Winckler "Untersuchungen zur altoriental. Geschichte," p. 127.
* ↑ Compare the Nabû-na'id cylinder of Abû-Habba, Col. I., 29.
* ↑ Die Kyrossage und Verwandtes. Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos-histor. Klasse, 1882, 100 Bd. p. 497 fg.
* ↑ Agamtanu âlu šarrutu. Cf. the annals of Nabû-na'id (Na-bû-na'id-Cyrus Chronicle), Obv. II., 3.
* ↑ Ištumêgu šar $^{amêl}$ umman-manda. Cf. the Nabû-na'id cylinder of Abft-Habba, Col. I., 32.
* ↑ Nabû-na: id-Cyrus Chronicle, Obv., Col. II., 2,
* ↑ Cf. the Nabû-na'id cylinder of Abû-Habba, Col. I., 26 fg.
* ↑ Kuraš̄ šar $^{mât}$ Parsu; Nabû-na'id-Cyrus Chronicle, Obv., II., 15.
* ↑ Nabû-na'id-Cyrus Chronicles, Rev. Col. I., 12 fg.
* ↑ The Persian text is published in "Die alt-persischen Keilinschriften," von Fr. Spiegel, 1882; "Old Persian Inscriptions," by Herbert Gushing Tolman, American Book Co., 1892; "Die alt-persischen Keilinschriften," von F. H. Weissbach und W. Bang, 1893-94. The Median-Elamite in " Die Achaemeniden-inschriften Zweiter Art," von F. H. Weissbach, 1890. The Babylonian in "Die Achaemeniden-inschriften," von Carl Bezold.
* ↑ Hdt, III., 30. Behistan, I., 10: "Afterwards Cambyses slew that Bardiya (Smerdis)," etc.
* ↑ Hdt, III., 61. Behistan, I., n. "(Gaumãta) thus deceived the state: 'I am Bardiya (Smerdis), the son of Cyrus, brother of Cambyses,'" etc.
* ↑ Hdt., III., 64. Behistan, I. n. Persian, Ka(m)bujiya uvā-marshiyush amariyatā. Babylonian, Kambuzia mitûtu ramâ-niš̄u mîti.
* ↑ Hdt, III., 67-69.
* ↑ Herodotus enumerates the six associates of Darius in the slaying of Gaumāta, or the false Smerdis, as follows: Otanes, Intaphernes, Gobryas, Megabysus, Aspathines, Hydarnes. The Behistan inscription (IV., 18) reads: "Says Darius the king, 'These are the men who were there when I slew Gaumāta the Magian, who called himself Bardiya (Smerdis). Then these men coöperated as my allies: Vindafranā (Intaphernes), the son of Vayaspāra, a Persian; Utāna (Otanes), son of Thukhra, a Persian; Gaubaruva (Gobryas), son of Marduniya (Mardonius, cf. Hdt., VI., 43), a Persian; Vidarna (Hydarnes), son of Bagā-bigna, a Persian; Bagabukhsha (Megabysus), son of Dāduhya, a Persian; Ardumanish, son of Vahuka, a Persian.'" The name of Aspachanā (perhaps Aspathines) is mentioned on the Naqshi-Rustam inscription as the quiver bearer of King Darius. (N R d.)
* ↑ Hdt, III., 78. Behistan, I., 12–14. "On the 10th day of the month Bāgayādish I, with a few men, slew Gaumāta the Magian and his foremost allies," etc.