# Talk:Tiglath-Pileser III

was a successful general who usurped the Assyrian throne on the 13th of Iyyar 745 B~C., after the fall of the older dynasty, and changed his name of Pulu (Pul) to that of the famous conqueroi~ of earlier times. In Babylonia, however, he continued to be known as Pulu. He was a man of great ability, both military and adniinistrative, and initiated a new system of policy in Assyria which he aimed at making the head of a centralized empire, bound together by a bureaucracy who derived their power from the king. The empire was supported by a standing army and an elaborate system of finance. The first task of Tiglath-Pileser was to reduce the Aramaean tribes to order, and so win the gratitude of the Baby- lonian priests. Then he struck terror into the wild tribes on the eastern frontiers of the ki~gdom by a campa~gn which ex tended into the remotest parts of Media. Next came the defeat of a northern coalition headed by Sar-duris of Ararat, no fCwer than 72,950 of the enemy being captured along with the city of Arpad, where the Assyrian king received the homage of various Syrian princes. Arpad revolted soon afterwards, but after a siege was taken in 740 B.c. The following year Azari~h of Judah appears among the enemies of Tiglath-Pileser, who had overthrown his Hamathite allies and annexed the nineteen districts of Hamath. The conquered populations were now transported to distant parts of theempire. In 737 B.c. Tiglath-Pileser again marched into Media, and in 735 he invaded Ararat and -wasted the country round the capital Van to a distance of 450 miles. In 734 n.e. he was called to the help of Yahu-khazi (Ahaz) of Judah, who had been attacked by Pekah of Israel and Rezon (Rasun) of Damascus. Rezon, defeated in battle, fled to his capital which was at once invested by the Assyrians, while with another portion of his army Tiglath-Pileser ravaged Syria and overran the kingdom of Samaria. Ammon, Moab, Edom and the queen of Sheba sent tribute, and Teima in northern Arabia was captured by the Assyrian troops. In 732 B.C. Damascus fell; Rezon was put to death, and an Assyrian satrap appointed in his stead. Tyre also was made tributary. The next year Tiglath-Pileser entered Babylonia, but it was not until 729 B.c. that the Cha]daean prince Ukin-zer (Chinzirus) was driven from Babylon and Tiglath-Pileser acknowledged as its legitimate ruler. In the early part of Tebet 727 B.C. he died, after having built two palaces, one at Nineveh, the other at Calah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 

Thanks, but please note that the 1911 Britannica is nearly a century out of date! -- ChrisO 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The map shows areas in green supposedly conquered by Tiglath-Pileser; it includes Juda as well as the area up to the Persian Gulf. Is this correct? I thought, Juda was never actually conquered by the Assyrians, but only later by the Babylonians. --Proofreader (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is actually another map available, showing the detail you mentioned, that Judah was spared from being incorporated into the Assyrian Empire (compare below).  --HYC (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is true, Juda was never officially conquered by the Assyrians. I'll change the map to the appropriate one. Thanks for bringing this up, Proofreader. --Šarukinu (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What does "officially" mean in this context? What citation is there for this claim?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.197.251 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) 

Upon reviewing this map, I just noticed that it doesn't exactly deal with the time of Tiglath-Pileser III. We need a map that is more specific to his reign. Let us leave the map that is there for now, and we'll substitute it with a more appropriate candidate once it is found. --Šarukinu (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to provide a very important update on the captivity of Judah with regard to these comments above. You are all wrong, most of Judah WAS taken captive by Assyria and ONLY Jerusalem itself was spared. However, this captivity was NOT under Tiglath-Pileser, but rather a different Assyrian king (king Sennacherib). This is outlined clearly in the Hebrew Bible if you read 2 Kings 18:13  "Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." These verses go on to explain that only Jerusalem itself could not be defeated. Therefore the 10 tribes of Israel in the north, as well as MOST of the tribe of Judah in the region of Judea in the south (excluding Jerusalem, the capital) was taken by Assyria. Jerusalem itself was taken some time later by Babylon.--105.237.247.201 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The person whom this article is about should be referred to by a consistent name.  Or, if he changed his name at some point, this should be explained.  
At present, the fourth paragraph in this article tells the history of someone named "Pulu", but there is no indication who this person is.  I'm guessing it's an alternate name for Tiglath-Pileser?  
The sixth paragraph indicates that Tiglath-Pileser assumed the name Pulu when he was crowned king.  This contradicts the fourth paragraph, which discusses a person who was already named Pulu before he seized the throne.
I don't want to try to fix it myself because I don't know what the actual story is. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The article tells us that he created the first professional standing army in history. Yet on the wiki page about standing armies, where there is a short history of them, the Assyrians are not even mentioned. It tells us the first one was in Sumer in the 3rd millennium BC, then jumps right to the Ottomans. One of the two articles needs amending.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.79.41 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 

Sumer was probably the first. I've amended this one and sourced it. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tiglath-Pileser III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080127120239/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Babylonia_and_Assyria to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Babylonia_and_Assyria
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Any idea why the lang-he-n template is forcing a line break in the middle of the lead? Furius (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiglath-Pileser III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation - the three that are over 10% all are flagging up long titles in the refs or simple phrases like "born in"
General - I started the BC-whacking - generally doing BC on the first date in the paragraph should be sufficient to avoid the redundant/repetitive feel of using it all the time. I'll let you do the rest...
Yes; I mentioned in the edit summary that much of this was written in my userspace before the other reviews so that's why it was like this again. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Images:
Oh, hey ... lookie File:Britishmuseumassyrianreliefhorsemannimrud.jpg ... there's ME!
Well whad'ya know :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Not required, but the two 1915 illustrations are "eh" ... they don't really help the narrative much, and are likely pretty "imaginative". Won't make you take them out but they aren't great either.
Yeah, I know. I wanted to vary the types of images a bit (they are a bit more dynamic than the maps and reliefs) and noticed that similar much much later artwork is used in articles such as Alexander the Great and Cleopatra. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Refs:
Not requred for GA, but if you're thinking FA - put the page numbers in for the entries in the A Companion to Assyria
Not sure I'll push for FA at some point but done in any case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Also not required for GA, but for FA - you'll want ISBN/OCLC for Damerji, Muayyad Said; Garelli, Paul;
Done; also added a part of the title that was missing from Garelli. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Again - for FA - https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/kings/tiglatpileseriii/ is going to be not quite as high quality as you'd want.
It's not an unreliable source since Karen Radner is a quite respected Assyriologist, but yes if I push for FA I'll find a higher quality source to supplant it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Lead:
"Because ancient Assyrian sources give conflicting accounts concerning Tiglath-Pileser's lineage and there being records of a revolt at around the time of his accession," clunky - consider "Because ancient Assyrian sources give conflicting accounts concerning Tiglath-Pileser's lineage and there are records of a revolt at around the time of his accession,"
"who seized the throne from his predecessor Ashur-nirari V, either his brother or his father" suggest putting a "who was" before "either"
"had up until this point for a brief time equalled Assyrian power" clunky - suggest either "had up until this point equalled Assyrian power" or "had for a brief time equalled Assyrian power"
Ancestry:
"There is not enough surviving evidence to come to a certain conclusion to how Tiglath-Pileser III came to the throne" clunky - suggest "There is not enough surviving evidence to conclude how Tiglath-Pileser III came to the throne"
"Several pieces of evidence, including that there was a revolt in Nimrud, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, in 746/745 BC,[6][7] that ancient Assyrian sources give conflicting information in regards to Tiglath-Pileser's lineage, that Tiglath-Pileser in his inscriptions attributes his rise to the throne solely to divine selection rather than both divine selection and his royal ancestry (typically done by Assyrian kings),[6] and that numerous officials and governors were replaced after 745 BC,[2] indicate that he might have been a usurper." That's one MASSIVE sentence - suggest "Several pieces of evidence, indicate that he might have been a usurper. Pointing to this are the facts that there was a revolt in Nimrud, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, in 746/745 and that numerous officials and governors were replaced after 745. Also, ancient Assyrian sources give conflicting information in regards to Tiglath-Pileser's lineage and that Tiglath-Pileser in inscriptions attributes his rise to the throne solely to divine selection rather than the more typical practice of Assyrian kings ascribing his rise to both divine selection and his royal ancestry."
Italics or quotes for Assyrian King List? Likewise Eponym Chronicle?
Name:
"Some, such as the Assyriologists Eckart Frahm and Paul-Alain Beaulieu, have speculated" some ... what? Historians? Scholars?
Assyria before:
I'd just say "reconquest" rather than "reconquista", which at least to this medievalist sounds like you're invoking the Iberian Reconquista.
"The most important issues beginning in Shalmaneser's late reign was the rise of the kingdom of Urartu in the north and the increasing political authority and influence of the "magnates" clunky - suggest "The most important problems facing Shalmaneser late in his reign were the rise of the kingdom of Urartu in the north and the increasing political authority and influence of the "magnates"... gotta make "issues" agree with the verb - so "were" is correct.
"The reigns of Tiglath-Pileser's three predecessors Shalmaneser IV (r. 783–773 BC), Ashur-dan III (r. 773–755 BC) and Ashur-nirari V was the low point of Assyrian royal power;" same problem with subject-verb agreement here - needs to be "were" instead of "was"
Reforms and policies:
"The division of the large provinces previously governed by the magnates into smaller units, placed under royally appointed provincial governors." is a sentence fragment - needs a verb.
"Some historical prominent officials" do you mean "Some historically prominent officials"
"With these reforms, the power of the magnates was virtually eliminated." I suspect what is meant is that "With these reforms, the power of the magnates to challenge the king was virtually eliminated"? I suspect they still had LOTS of power over the peasants...
"from an army of only conscripts active in the summer months" is it that the army was only conscripts or that it was only active in the summer months? It reads a bit ambiguous.
So far addressed all the comments up until this point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Conquest:
"He waited with attacking the strongholds of the Levantine states and first subdued smaller kingdoms through fast and wide-ranging attacks." I'm not clear on what this sentence is supposed to mean - did you mean "Instead of attacking the strongholds of the larger states, he first subdued smaller kingdoms through fast and wide-ranging attacks."?
"Hama was spared full annexation, with the kingdom's remaining territories being allowed to remain somewhat independent as a vassal state." Clunky - suggest "Hama was spared full annexation, with the kingdom being allowed to remain somewhat independent as a vassal state."
"Tiglath-Pileser marched on the Levant for the fifth time in 734. In this campaign, the Assyrians marched as far south as the border of Egypt." clunky - suggest "Tiglath-Pileser marched on the Levant for the fifth time in 734, reaching as far south as the border of Egypt."
"This campaign resulted in the conquest of Gaza and the submission of numerous states, effectively bringing the entire Levant under direct or indirect Assyrian rule.[51] The conquests resulted in Assyria and Egypt sharing a border for the first time in history." suggest "This campaign resulted in the conquest of Gaza and the submission of numerous states, effectively bringing the entire Levant under direct or indirect Assyrian rule;[51]  Assyria and Egypt also shared a border for the first time in history."
"Some time previously, Tiglath-Pileser had cut down numerous trees in the vicinity of Damascus." This reads ... odd... is there a reason we need to mention this? I'm not sure why cutting down the trees would result in loss of food supplies?
Conquest of Babylonia:
"Though Babylonians governed most of the prominent southern cities, such as Babylon, Kish, Ur, Uruk, Borsippa and Nippur, Chaldean tribes led by chieftains who often squabbled with each other dominated most of the southernmost land and Arameans lived on the fringes of settled land and were notorious for plundering surrounding territories." This needs breaking up somehow... it's very ... difficult to parse
Legacy:
"attained by Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser is further frequently seen as turning the Neo-Assyrian Empire" either "attained by Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser is further seen as turning the Neo-Assyrian Empire" or "attained by Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser is frequently seen as turning the Neo-Assyrian Empire" ... both are redundant
I did some hefty copyediting - please double check that I've not inadvertantly changed meaning or messed up sourcing.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Thank you very much for reading through this and reviewing. I believe I've addressed all the comments above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)