Ashurbanipal II

Ashurbanipal II


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


File:Ashurbanipal II's army attacking Memphis, Egypt, 645-635 BCE, from Nineveh, Iraq. British Museum in London.jpg

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeThumbnailDimensionsUserComment
current20:24, 20 June 20206,016 × 4,016 (17.4 MB) Neuroforever (talk | contribs) Uploaded own work with UploadWizard

You cannot overwrite this file.


Part Two (ii):

Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar,

“Cosmic Tree”

“The emperor is addressed as the one who stretches out and provides shelter for his vassals – similar to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4 …”.

Certain passages in M. H. Henze’s book, The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4 (BRILL, 1999), do no harm whatsoever to my identification, in this series (see also: https://www.academia.edu/33428527/Ashurbanipal_Manasseh_Necho_I-II_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Two_i_Ashurbanipal_as_Nebuchednezzar )

of Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar.

And so we read of the emperor as like a sheltering, cosmic tree (pp. 80-81):

In addition to these more general commonalties in the portraits of the sacred tree throughout the ancient world, there are a number of peculiar details in the description of the cosmic tree in Dan 4 that stand without parallel in the Hebrew Bible, and which therefore demand further attention. One such detail is the literary context of the tree vision. As already observed, the entire story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is cast, at least in the Aramaic version, in the form of an encyclical epistle sent by the king “to all peoples, nations, and tongues” (Dan 3:31). We find the same image of the monarch as a giant tree in the prescript of an Assyrian epistle. It is part of the introductory blessing formulae in a letter sent to the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal by a certain Adad-šum-usur, a prominent diviner (barû) and royal advisor (ummānu) already during the time Ashurbanipal’s father Esarhaddon ….

My comment: According to my neo-Assyrian revision, Esarhaddon was not the father of Ashurbanipal, but was Ashurbanipal, hence was Nebuchednezzar.

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

That would mean that Adad-šum-usur above would not need to be so stretched chronologically as to have to have embraced two reigns (Esarhaddon plus Ashurbanipal). Now, the biblical Ahikar (Achior) was Esarhaddon’s ummānu. And W. van Soden has suggested that Adad-šum-usur might have been the model for Ahikar (see Wisdom in Ancient Israel, p. 43, n. 3).

Returning to M. H. Henze and Adad-šum-usur

… who exercised considerable influence in the court. …. The line in question reads as follows,

zīmīka (MÚŠ-ka) lišmuḫu lirappišu ṣulūlī

(may the gods grant progeny to the king, my lord) may your

countenance flourish (and) make shelter wide ….

The letter, which probably stems from the beginning of Ashurbanipal’s reign around the year 666 BCE [sic], opens with a sequence of blessings. Line 14, the line quoted above, concludes this introductory section of the epistle. The emperor is addressed as the one who stretches out and provides shelter for his vassals – similar to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4 who, in the form of a cosmic tree, has grown large in order to host all the nations of the world (Dan 4:8–9.19). ….


Välde [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

Tidigt välde och de egyptiska kampanjerna [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

Efter Esarhaddons död 669 f.Kr. kröntes Ashurbanipal till Assyriens kung likt hans far planerat. Hans bror Shamash-shum-ukin kröntes våren efter till Babylons konung och lät då återföra statyn av Marduk till staden då hans farfar Sanherib 20 år tidigare tagit statyn som krigsbyte efter att ha bränt ned Babylon. Shamash-shum-ukins 16 år som Babylons konung verkar ha varit fredliga men det är oklart hur mycket makt han egentligen hade [ 3 ] . Trots att han skall ha varit kung över hela Babylonien tyder vissa samtida källor på att guvernörerna i Nippur, Uruk och Ur samt vasallkungarna i Sjölandet (södra Sumer vid persiska viken) ignorerade den babyloniske kungen och istället svor sin trohet direkt till Ashurbanipal [ 3 ] .

Efter att både han och hans bror blivit kungar vände Ashurbanipal sin uppmärksamhet mot Egypten [ 8 ] . Egypten hade erövrats av Esarhaddon som tillfångatagit det egyptiska hovet samt farao Taharkas son och fru. Han hade även placerat lojala guvernörer i riket. Taharka hade dock lyckats fly från Esarhaddons arméer [ 9 ] och vid 669 f.Kr. hade han återvänt till Egypten och lyckats återta riket [ 5 ] . Då erövrandet av Egypten setts som Esarhaddons största bedrift hade han själv varit på väg mot riket med sin armé för att än en gång inta det när han hastigt avled i sviterna av sjukdom [ 5 ] . Ashurbanipal insåg det hot ett fritt Egypten utgjorde mot Assyrien och han beslutade sig därmed för att fullfölja sin fars kampanj. 667 f.Kr. invaderade Ashurbanipal Egypten och han lyckades driva tillbaka den egyptiska armén ända till Thebe som intogs [ 8 ] . Taharka undkom dock än en gång och flydde tillbaka till Nubien där han senare avled och efterträddes av farao Tantamanni.

Ashurbanipal placerade Egypten under en vasallkung vid namn Necho I och gjorde dennes son Psamtik I till kronprins av Egypten. Psamtik I var för tillfället i Nineve och studerade. När Ashurbanipal lämnade Egypten och reste tillbaka till Nineve anfölls riket igen, denna gång av Tantamanni som såg sin chans att återta riket till sin familjs räkning. Vid Memfis mötte han Nechos armé och även om Tantamanni förlorade slaget i sig stupade Necho vilket resulterade i att det egyptiska folket reste sig i uppror mot Assyrien. När Ashurbanipal fick reda på att Egypen än en gång gått förlorat samlade han sin armé och han begav sig åter igen mot riket, denna gång med Psamtik I vid sin sida. Tillsammans lyckades de två besegra Tantamannis arméer och Thebe intogs och plundrades en tredje gång av assyrierna på mindre än ett årtionde. Tantamanni flydde tillbaka till Nubien och skulle inte komma att invadera Egypten igen. [ 8 ]

665 f.Kr. blev Psamtik I assyrisk vasallkung samt farao av Egypten och under de kommande åren skulle Ashurbanipal komma att bli upptagen på annat håll vilket resulterade i att Psamtik I förklarade sig självständigt från Assyrien, denna gång utan att möta repressalier. Assyrierna skulle aldrig inta riket igen. [ 8 ]

Första elamitiska kampanjen. [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

665 f.Kr. utförde kung Urtak av Elam ett överraskningsanfall mot södra Babylonien men han drevs tillbaka av Shamash-shum-ukin och avled strax efter den misslyckade kampanjen. Urtak efterträddes av Teumman som inte var släkt med honom och som genast började rensa ut i det elamitiska hovet. Urtaks tre levande söner lyckades fly till Assyrien där de fick skydd av Ashurbanipal trots påtryckningar av Teumman att överlämna dem [ 10 ] . Innan han kunde gå i krig mot Elam tvingades han dock hantera en serie uppror i södra Babylonein där hövding Bel-iqisha av Gambulierna gjorde uppror efter att han anklagats för att ha stöttat Elam under deras invasion. Inte mycket är känt gällande upproret men ett meddelande från Ashurbanipal till guvernör Nabu-ushabshi av Uruk finns bevarat där Nabu-ushabshi beordras samla en armé och anfalla Gambulistammen. Guvernören svarar i ett annat meddelande att Bel-iqisha bär hela skulden för den elamitiska invasionen [ 3 ] . Bel-iqisha's uppror verkar inte ha skadat det assyriska imperiet nämnvärt och strax efter att upproret påbörjats dödades han av ett vildsvin. Hans son Dunanu underkastade sig sedan Ashurbanipal [ 3 ] .

Vid 653 f.Kr. hade den politiska situationen mellan Elam och Assyrien försämrats till den grad att krig startades mellan rikena. Ashurbanipal inledde en kampanj mot Elam och vann flera segrar samt erövrade flera städer. Det sista avgörande slaget var slaget vid Ulai i närheten av Susa. Slaget slutade i en avgörande assyrisk seger och kung Teumman stupade tillsammans sin son Tammaritu och vasallkung Shutruk-Nahhunte av Hidalu [ 10 ] . Efter slaget placerade Ashurbanipal Urtaks två söner Ummanigash och Tammaritu I som vasallkungar över riket [ 10 ] . Ummanigash blev kung av Madaktu och Susa och Tammaritu I av Hidalu. Ashurbanipal beskriver sin seger som följande:

"Likt en fruktansvärd orkan övermannade jag Elam i sin helhet. Jag högg huvudet av Teumman, deras konung - den högmodige, som smidigt ondska. Oräkneliga krigare dräpte jag. Levandes, med mina bara händer, och jag fyllde fältet kring Susa med deras kroppar som vid baltu och ashagu. Deras blod lät jag flyta ned i floden Ulai som färgades röd likt bomull." [ 11 ]

Dunanu, hövding av Gambulierna hade under kriget gått över på Elams sida och efter den lyckade kampanjen vände Ashurbanipal till Gambuliernas land som han plundrade [ 3 ] . Han lät skriva följande om den erövringen:

"På marschen tillbaka gick jag för att möta Dunanu, kung av Gambulu, som satt sin tilltro till Elam. Shapibel, Gambulus fästning, erövrade jag. Jag gick in i staden och slaktade deras befolkning som lamm. Dunanu och Sam'gunu, som gjort det svårt för mig att utöva min makt i området - i kedjor, fjättrade av järn, bundna av järn, jag band deras händer och fötter. Resten av Bel-iqishas söner, hans familj, hans ätt, alla där och även Nabû-nâ'id och Bêl-êtir, söner till prokonsuln Nabû-shum-êresh, deras fäders ben, tillsammans med folket från Urbi, Tebê och Gambulu, deras kor, får, hästar, åsnor, mulåsnor. Tog jag med mig tillbaka till Assyrien. Shapibel, fästningen, rev jag ned och jag lät översvämma det land den stått på." [ 11 ]

Efter att ha krossat gambuliernas land tillsattes en adelsman vid namn Rimutu som kung av de kvarvarande gambulierna och han gick med på att betala tung tribut till det assyriska riket [ 3 ] .

Vad Ashurbanipal dock inte visste var att hans egen bror Shamash-shum-ukin varit med och uppviglat Elam till att anfalla Assyrien och han hade till och med bildat en hemlig koalition med det elamitiska riket. Shamash-shum-ukin hade tröttnat på att hans lillebror ständigt lade sig i Babyloniens affärer och han hade hoppat på att Elam skulle försvaga Assyrien nog för att han själv skulle kunna erövra riket [ 3 ] .

Problem med Lydien och Kimmererna [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

Kimmerierna var ett nomadiskt indoeuropeiskt folkslag som levde norr om Assyrien i södra Kaukasus och de hade under Esarhaddons tid invaderat Assyrien men drivits tillbaka av den assyriske konungen. De hade då vänt västerut för att invadera Lydien som låg i västra Anatolien. Kung Gyges av Lydien skickade då ett sändebud till Assyrien där han bad Ashurbanipal om hjälp med att möta det kommande kimmeriska hotet. Gyges påstod i meddelandet att han i en dröm mött den assyriske huvudguden Assur som sagt till honom att han måste be assyrierna om hjälp. Assyrien var vid denna tid knappt medvetna om Lydiens existens men Ashurbanipal gick med på att skicka trupper till Lydien och hjälpa riket. Den kimmeriska invasionen besegrades 665 f.Kr. strax innan den elamitiska kampanjen mot Babylon och flera kimmeriska hövdingar togs till fånga och fördes till Nineve. [ 12 ]

Exakt hur många trupper assyrierna skickade till Lydien är okänt men Gyges verkar ha varit missnöjd då han några år efteråt allierade sig med farao Psamtik I som vid denna tid gjort Egypten helt självständigt mot Assyrien. Ashurbanipal förbannade Gyges för hans svekfullhet och när Gyges dog 652 f.Kr. firades det i Assyrien. [ 12 ]

Under den Elamitiska kampanjen 653 f.Kr. invaderades Assyrien av en koalition av medier, perser och kimmerier. Då den assyriska armén var upptagen i Elam tvingades Ashurbanipal kalla på sina skytiska allierade som drev tillbaka hotet. Detta fick kimmerierna att än en gång vända mot Lydien som året därefter nästan erövrades helt. [ 12 ]

Gyges efterträddes av sin son Ardys som än en gång bad Assyrien om hjälp mot kimmerierna. Ardys lät skicka ett meddelande där han skrev "Du förbannade min far och stor olycka följde honom, välsigna mig, din trogne tjänare, och jag skall vara dig trogen" det är okänt om assyrisk hjälp faktiskt sändes till Lydien men riket lyckades driva tillbaka kimmerierna och Lydien blev assyrisk vasall. [ 12 ]

Shamash-shum-ukins babyloniska uppror. [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

På 650-talet f.Kr. hade klyftan mellan Shamash-shum-ukin och Ashurbanipal blivit uppenbar även för det Assyriska rikets vasaller. I ett brev till Ashurbanipal från Zakir, som var hovman vid Shamash-shum-ukins hov, berättar han om att besökare från Sjölandet öppet kritiserat Ashurbanipal i "ord som inte passar sig för en kung". Även om Shamash-shum-ukin blivit arg när han hörde besökarnas uttalanden hade han och hans guvernör Ubaru beslutat sig för att inte straffa besökarna [ 3 ] . Det riktiga upproret skedde dock 652 f.Kr. sannolikt i och med att Shamash-shum-ukin fick bekräftat att Elam skulle stödja Babylon i ett krig mot Assyrien trots att de nyligen besegrats av dem. Han höll ett tal till Babylons folk där han sa att Ashurbanipal skulle "dra skam" över Babylonien om han fortsatte vara Assyriens konung. I och med att Babylon reste sig i uppror reste sig även resten av södra Mesopotamien med honom [ 3 ] . Ashurbanipal skriver som följer:

"I dessa dagar har Shamash-shum-ukin, min trolösa broder, som jag behandlat väl och gjort till kung av Babylon - Allt en kung behöver gav jag honom. Jag har utrustat soldater, hästar, stridsvagnar till honom. Jag har givit honom städer, fält, plantage och människor som kan arbeta på dem, långt mer än vad min far beordrat. Men han har glömt den välvilja jag visat honom och har istället smitt onda planer. Utåt har han med sina läppar sagt vänliga ord medan hans hjärta önskat mord. Babylonierna, som varit lojala till Assyrien och mina trogna vasaller har han bedragit med sina lögner." [ 11 ]

Enligt de assyriska skrifterna skall Shamash-shum-ukin lyckats finna många allierade för sitt uppror mot Assyrien. Assyriska skrifter delar upp dem i tre grupper, den första var Kaldéerna, Araméerna och det babyloniska folket, den andra gruppen utgjordes av det elamitiska riket och den tredje gruppen av kungadömena Gutium, Amurru och Meluhha. Den sista gruppen tros hänvisa till Medierna då inget av dessa riken fortfarande existerade vid tiden för Shamash-shum-ukins uppror men det är oklart. Meluhha kan även ha varit Egypten men inget tyder på att de var aktiva i upproret mot Ashurbanipal. Shamash-shum-ukin hade även skickat gåvor till Elam ("Mutor" enligt Ashurbanipal) vilket fått kung Ummanigash att skicka en stödarmé under general Undashe till babyloniernas hjälp. [ 3 ]

Trots den stora alliansen såg situationen endast två år senare mörk ut för Shamash-shum-ukin. Ashurbanipal hade intagit Sippar, Borsippa och Kutha och han belägrade nu själva Babylon. 648 f.Kr. föll staden slutligen till den assyriska armén efter att de utstått svält och sjukdom i två år och Babylon plundrades av de assyriska styrkorna. Shamash-shum-ukin skall enligt senare texter i och med stadens fall ha tagit sitt eget liv genom att sätta eld på sig och sin familj men de samtida källorna nämner endast att han gick ett grymt öde till mötes och att gudarna "dömt honom till eld och förgjort hans liv" [ 13 ] . Det är därmed möjligt att han avrättades eller omkom i en olycka [ 3 ] . Ashurbanipal beskriver sin hämnd mot Shamash-shum-ukins anhängare med följande skrift:

"Assur, Sin, Shamash, Adad, Bêl, Nabu, Ishtar av Nineve, drottningen av Kidmuri, Ishtar av Erbil, Ninurta, Nergal och Nusku marscherade framför mig och dräpte mina fiender och kastade Shamash-shum-ukin, min fientliga bror, som blivit min fiende, in i de brinnande flammorna och förgjorde honom. De individer som smitt dessa planer åt Shamash-shum-ukin, min fientlige broder, och som legat bakom denna ondska men fruktade döden och värderade sina liv högt, de kastade sig inte in i elden med sin herre utan flydde istället för de mordiska stålknivarna, svälten, nöden och den brinnande elden. De fann en tillflykt . De stora gudarnas nät kan inte undvikas och de togs. Ingen kom undan, inte en enda slank ur mitt grepp. Stridsvagnar, vagnar, bärstolar, deras älskarinnor och deras gods fördes till mig och dessa män med sina vulgära munnar som uttalat sig vulgärt om Assur och planerat ondska mot mig . Jag skar ut deras tungor och levandes vid kolosserna där de huggit ned Sanherib, fader till min fader, skar jag upp dem som en offergåva till hans skugga. Deras kroppsdelar gav jag som mat till hundarna, grisarna, vargarna och örnarna. Till himlens fåglar och djupens fiskar." [ 11 ]

Efter att Shamash-shum-ukin besegrats gavs makten i Babylon till Kandalanu som antingen var Ashurbanipals yngre bror eller en babylonisk adelsman som allierat sig med honom. Kandalanus Babylonien innehöll samma områden som när Shamash-shum-ukin var kung med undantag för Nippur som gjordes till en assyrisk fästning [ 3 ] . Någon egentlig makt hade han dock inte och Babylonien var nu helt i Assyriens grepp [ 14 ] .

Andra kampanjen mot Elam [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

Elamiterna hade under kung Ummanigash allierat sig med Shamash-shum-ukin, delvis för att återta några av de områden som erövrats av Assyrien i den första kampanjen mot Elam. Ummanigash armé besegrades vid Der och som resultat av detta avsattes han i Elam av Tammaritu II som nu blev rikets kung. Ummanigash flydde då till Assyrien där han fick skydd i Ashurbanipals hov. Tammaritu II upplevde tillsammans med den kaldeiske krigsherren Nabu-bel-shumati några segrar mot assyrierna men han avsattes sedan själv i ett uppror 649 f.Kr. och en man vid namn Indabibi blev nu kung av Elam. Indabibi mördades i och med att Ashurbanipal hotade med att invadera Elam igen som hämnd för att de allierat sig med Shamash-shum-ukin och Humban-haltash III blev nu kung av Elam. [ 10 ]

Nabu-bel-shumati fortsatte sitt krig mot Ashurbanipal och han använde sig av utposter i Elam för att vila och förbereda sig för de olika slagen och trots att Humban-haltash var villig att överlämna den kaldeiska hövdingen till Assyrien hade han för många supportrar i Elam för att detta skulle vara möjligt [ 10 ] . Tack vare detta invaderade Assyrien Elam 647 f.Kr. och efter ett kort motstånd flydde Humban-haltash upp i bergen och Tammaritu II återtog den elamitiska tronen igen. Efter att ha plundrat Khuzestan området återvände assyrierna hem och Humban-haltash återvände och tog än en gång över som kung av Elam [ 10 ] .

Ashurbanipal var dock inte klar med riket. 646 f.Kr. invaderade Assyrien Elam än en gång och Humban-haltash flydde åter igen upp i bergen. De assyriska trupperna jagade efter honom och plundrade alla städer i sin väg. Alla större städer i Elam plundrades och de småriken som tidigare betalat tribut till Elam började nu betala tribut till Assyrien istället, där ibland ett litet rike kallat Parsua som kan ha varit föregångarna till det persiska imperiet som skulle uppstå senare. Deras kung Kyros (möjligen farfar till Kyros den store) hade till en början stridigt på Elams sida men efter att hans son Arukku tagits som gisslan hade han gått över till Assyrierna [ 10 ] . Även riken som tidigare varit okända för assyrierna började betala tribut till dem, till exempel Ḫudimiri som "låg bortom Elam" [ 12 ] .

På väg tillbaka mot Assyrien beslutade sig Ashurbanipal för att plundra Susa [ 10 ] och han beskriver plundringen som följande i sina skrifter:

"På en månad och 25 dagars krossade jag Elams provinser, salt och shilu spred jag över dem. Dammet som var kvar av Susa, Madaktu, Haltemash och deras andra städer lät jag samla ihop och föra till Assyrien.. Ljudet av människor, boskap och festligheter utrotade jag från dess fält. Idag vilar vildåsnor, gaseller och andra djur från slätten i deras städer som om de vore hemma." [ 8 ]

Efter kampanjen mot Elam fortsatte riket att existera under en kort period. Humban-haltash III slog sig ned i Madaktu där han sedan styrde riket. Han överlämnade Nabu-bel-shumati till assyrierna men Nabu-bel-shumati tog sitt liv på vägen till Nineve. Kort därefter avsattes Humban-haltash i ett uppror och källorna i omgivande riken slutar därefter att nämna Elam [ 10 ] . Ashurbanipal gjorde aldrig några försök att inkorporera riket till det assyriska imperiet och han lämnade istället området försvarslöst och övergivet. Elams fält och städer låg tomma under årtiondena efter kampanjen fram till dess att perserna begav sig in i området och bosatte sig där [ 8 ] .

Den arabiska kampanjen [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

Ashurbanipals kampanj mot den arabiska halvön uppmärksammas sällan av moderna historiker trots att det är den kampanj varifrån flest källor bevarats. Kampanjens kronologi är dock oklar och det verkar finnas flera versioner av vad som hände. Den första versionen verkar utspela sig 649 f.Kr. och beskriver hur kung Yauta, son till Hazael och kung av de arabiska Qedariterna (som tidigare varit vasaller till Esarhaddon) gjorde uppror mot Ashurbanipal och allierade sig med en annan arabisk kung vid namn Ammuladdin. De två kungarna började sedan plundra det sydvästra assyriska imperiet. Enligt Ashurbanipal skall hans armé tillsammans med kung Kamas-halta av Moab besegrat upprorsmännen och Ammuladdin fördes i kedjor till Assyrien medan Yauta flydde. En lojal krigsherre vid namn Abiyate blev därefter kung av Qedariterna. Skrifterna om kampanjen 649 f.Kr. skiljer sig från Ashurbanipals vanliga skrifter då han inte nämner händelsen som sin kampanj och den fiende kungen lyckas fly istället för att jagas ifatt och tas till fånga. [ 15 ]

Den andra versionen verkar utspela sig 648 f.Kr. beskriver hur Ashurbanipal besegrade Adiya som var en arabisk drottning. Skriften berättar vidare att Yauta därefter flydde till kung Natnu av Nabayye som dock vägrade ta emot honom då Nantu ville förbli lojal till Ashurbanipal. [ 15 ]

En tredje version placerar Yautas uppror ännu tidigare än de två andra versionerna och menar att upproret skedde samtidigt som Shamash-shum-ukins uppror och att de båda kungarna var allierade. den tredje versionen menar även att räderna mot sydvästra Assyrien var menade att dra manskap från de assyriska trupperna i Babylonien. [ 15 ]

Någon gång efter den första kampanjen mot arabiska halvön skall Ashurbanipal enligt den tredje versionen ha utfört ännu en kampanj i området. Texten handlar i stor del om Ashurbanipals marsch genom Syrien för att besegra kung Uiate (Kan vara Yauta men det är oklart) och hans arabiska armé. Enligt texten marscherar den assyriska armén genom Syrien till Damaskus och sedan vidare till Hulhuliti. Därefter intar de Abiyate, Usso och Akko. Ingen anledning till denna kampanj ges och Nabayya som tidigare varit på Assyriens sida listas bland de besegrade. Ingen information ges om varför Nabayya och Assyrien är fiender i den andra kampanjen. [ 15 ]

Den sista och fjärde versionen av den arabiska kampanjen slår samman den tredje versionens två kampanjer till en kampanj och ger mer detaljer kring händelserna. Enligt den skall Abiyate ha ersatt Yauta som kung av Qedariterna och kung Ammuladdin skall ha varit den kung som allierade sig med Shamash-shum-ukin i det babyloniska upproret. Enligt skriften skall det krigsbyte som togs från araberna under kampanjen ha varit så stort att det skapade inflation i Assyrien och svält i arabiska halvön. Den fjärde versionen berättar även att det var Ashurbanipal själv som ledde kampanjen och att kung Uiate tillfångatogs och visades upp i Nineve tillsammans med fångarna från den elamitiska kampanjen. [ 15 ]

Tronföljden [ redigera | redigera wikitext ]

Vart Ashurbanipals tid som kung av Assyrien slutar och där hans son Ashur-etil-ilanis tid tar vid är okänt på grund av bristen av samtida källor. Ashurbanipals egna skrifter som är de huvudsakliga källorna till hans tid som kung upphör vid 636 f.Kr., möjligen då han vid denna period drabbades av sjukdom [ 3 ] . Ashur-etil-ilanis skrifter menar att hans far dog en naturlig död men berättar inte om när detta skedde. Innan 1800-talet e.Kr. då man började utföra arkeologiska utgrävningar i forna Assyrien trodde man att Ashurbanipal var Assyriens sista konung och att han brände sig själv och sin familj levande vid Nineves fall 612 f.Kr. då detta var vad som stod i de grekiska källorna [ 3 ] .

En tidigare teori är att Ashurbanipal avled 627 f.Kr. då det året nämns på en inskription i Harran skriven av den babyloniske konungen Nabonidus mor [ 8 ] . Skrifter skrevs dock hundra år efter datumet och anses därmed inte helt tillförlitlig. Att han skall ha dött 627 f.Kr. motbevisas även av att Harran tillföll Babylon 626 f.Kr. vilket innebär att de skrifter som hittats där från kungarna Ashur-etil-ilani och Sinsharishkun skulle ha varit omöjliga [ 14 ] . Det sista faktiska beviset för att Ashurbanipal är vid liv är ett kontrakt från staden Nippur 631 f.Kr. och det året har därmed blivit det år man tror att Ashurbanipal avled, abdikerade eller avsattes [ 16 ] .

Ett sätt att förklara hur Ashurbanipal skulle ha dött 627 f.Kr. är att han var medregent till sin son Ashur-etil-ilani. Detta har dock aldrig skett tidigare i assyrisk historia och Ashur-etil-ilani skriver själv att han blev kung efter att hans far avlidit. Det är möjligt att förvirringen med år 627 uppstått genom att Ashurbanipal i babyloniska källor berättas ha härskat samtidigt som Shamash-shum-ukin och Kandalanu. Då Kandalanu avled 627 f.Kr. kan det året ha förvirrats till att även markera året för Ashurbanipals död. [ 14 ]

En annan teori framlagd av den polske historikern Stefan Zawadski i hans bok "The Fall of Assyria (1988)" är att Ashurbanipal och Kandalanu var samma person och att Kandalanu helt enkelt var det namn han använde sig av i Babylon. Detta har dock mött kritik på grund av flera anledningar. För det första har ingen assyrisk kung använt sig av ett annat namn i Babylon tidigare i historien, för det andra anges olika regentlängder för kungarna då Ashurbanipals regenttid börjar 668 f.Kr. och Kandalanu's börjar 647 f.Kr.. För det tredje har alla assyriska kungar som härskat över Babylon kallat sig för "kung av Assyren och Babylon" vilket Ashurbanipal inte gör och för det fjärde även kanske viktigaste så verkar de babyloniska källorna hantera kungarna som två olika personer och inga samtida källor nämner att Ashurbanipal skall ha varit kung av Babylon. [ 14 ]

Vad som än stämmer så efterträddes Ashurbanipal av sin son Ashur-etil-ilani som kung av Assyrien medan en annan av hans söner vid namn Sinsharishkun fick staden Nippur i väntan på att Kandalanu skulle dö. Sinsharishkun var därefter planerad att bli kung av Babylon. [ 3 ]


アッシュルバニパル

アッシュルバニパルAssurbanipal [9] 、在位:前668年 [注釈 1] -前631/627年頃)は新アッシリア時代のアッシリア王。アッカド語ではアッシュル・バニ・アプリAššur-bāni-apli [10] 、「アッシュル神は後継者を賜れり」 [11] )と綴られる。父エサルハドンの跡を継いで前669年に王となり、死亡する前631/627年頃まで在位した。一般的にアッシリア最後の偉大な支配者として記憶されている。

年表 編集

年(紀元前) 年齢(*) 出来事
685年頃 0 アッシュルバニパル、誕生
672年 13 エサルハドンによる後継者指名
669年 16 エサルハドン死亡。アッシュルバニパルが王となる
667年 18 エジプト遠征。ネカウ1世をファラオに据える
666年 19 反乱を受け、エジプト再遠征。
665年 20 プサムテク1世をファラオに据える
652年 33 エラム遠征(1回目)。兄のシャマシュ・シュム・ウキン、反乱を起こす
650年 35 バビロンを包囲
648年 37 バビロン陥落。シャマシュ・シュム・ウキン死亡
647年 38 エラム遠征(2回目)
636年 49 アッシュルバニパルの年代記における記述がこの年で終わる
631年 54 死亡?(前631年死亡説)
627年 57 死亡?(前627年死亡説)

父親であるエサルハドンには多数の息子がいたと見られ、アッシュルバニパルは恐らく4番目の息子であった。兄に王太子 シン・ナディン・アプリ (英語版) およびシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンと シャマシュ・メトゥ・ウバリト (英語版) がおり [13] [14] 、姉にシェルア・エテラトがいた [15] 。王太子シン・ナディン・アプリは前674年に急死した。自らが非常に困難な王位継承争いの末に即位したエサルハドンは同じ問題を発生させないことを切望しており、すぐに新しい王位継承計画を策定し始めた [16] 。エサルハドンはこの王位継承の計画において3番目の息子シャマシュ・メトゥ・ウバリトを完全に除外しているが、これは恐らく彼が健康に恵まれなかったためであろう [17] 。

前672年5月、アッシュルバニパルはエサルハドンによってアッシリアの後継者に指名された。また、シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンもバビロニア(当時アッシリアの支配下にあった)の継承者に指名された [9] 。両者は共にアッシリアの首都ニネヴェに赴き、外国使節・アッシリア貴族・兵士たちの祝賀を受けた [18] 。過去数十年にわたり、アッシリア王は同時にバビロニア王を兼任しており、息子のうちの1人をアッシリア王に、別の1人をバビロニア王にするというのは新機軸であった [19] 。

エサルハドンはこの王位継承の取り決めを全アッシリアの人々や属国に遵守させるため誓約を結ばせた [14] 。この誓約の本文はアッシリアの旧都カルフ(ニムルド)と現在のトルコ南部にあるテル・タイナト遺跡から発見されている [14] 。継承に関わる誓約の内容は、エサルハドンが2人の息子の関係をどのようなものと意図していたのか幾分不明瞭なものとなっている。アッシュルバニパルの称号には多くの場合「偉大な」という形容詞が付加される一方で、シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンにはそれがなく、アッシュルバニパルが帝国の第一の相続人であることは明確であったが、別の部位ではアッシュルバニパルがシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの管轄に干渉しないことも明記されており、これはより平等と言える立場を示している [20] 。

エサルハドンは頻繁に病を患っており、恐らくは膠原病の一種である全身性エリテマトーデスに罹患していたことから [21] 、その治世の最後の数年間はアッシリア帝国の行政的義務の大半がアッシュルバニパルとシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンによって担われた [19] [14] 。エサルハドンがエジプト遠征に出発すると、アッシュルバニパルは宮廷の一切を取り仕切り、前669年にエサルハドンが死亡すると、アッシュルバニパルの元に全権が円滑に移行した [9] 。

治世初期とエジプト遠征 編集

前669年末にエサルハドンが死亡した後、彼が建てた王位継承計画のとおりにアッシュルバニパルがアッシリアの王となった。翌年の春、シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンが バビロン王 (英語版) に即位し、20年前にセンナケリブ王(アッシュルバニパルの祖父)が奪い取っていた ベール像 (英語版) (マルドゥク、バビロンの守護神)をバビロンに戻した。シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンは以降16年間バビロンを統治し、治世の大部分においてアッシュルバニパルと平和的な関係を維持していたが、シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの領地の正確な範囲を巡って両者は繰り返し意見を違えた [6] 。エサルハドンの碑文はシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンがバビロニア全ての支配権を与えられるべきことを示唆しているが、同時代史料によって確実に証明されているのはシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンがバビロンとその周辺を保持していたことだけである。ニップルやウルク、ウルのようなバビロニアの都市の総督たちや「海の国」(ペルシア湾岸に近い南シュメールの湿地帯)の支配者たちの全てがバビロン王の存在を無視し、アッシュルバニパルを自分たちの君主とみなした [22] 。

前669年、タハルカは南から再び姿を現し、エジプトを揺り動かしてエサルハドンの支配を覆そうとした [24] 。エサルハドンは反乱の報告を受け取り、彼が任命したエジプトの総督たちすらも貢納を停止して反乱に参加したことを知ると [23] 、反乱を鎮圧するためエジプトに進軍したが、国境に到着する前に死去した [24] 。代わって反乱を鎮圧するため、アッシュルバニパルは前667年頃にエジプトに侵攻した。アッシリア軍は遥か南にあるエジプトの古都の1つテーベにまで到達し、反乱に参加した数多くの都市を攻撃・略奪した。反乱を鎮圧したアッシュルバニパルはエジプトに属王としてネカウ1世(ネコ1世)を据えた。彼はサイスの町の王であった人物であり、その息子プサムテク1世(プサメティコス1世)はエサルハドンの治世にアッシリアの首都ニネヴェで教育を受けていた [4] 。

一度目のエラム遠征 編集

前665年、エラムの王 ウルタク (英語版) はアッシリア支配下のバビロニアに突如攻撃を仕掛けたが、失敗してエラムに後退し、その後まもなく死亡した。ウルタクのエラム王位は テウマン (英語版) に引き継がれた。この人物はそれまでの君主家系と繋がりを持っておらず、政敵を殺害することで支配を安定させていた。エラム王位を巡って主に争っていた相手であるウルタクの息子たちのうち3人がアッシリアに逃亡した。テウマンが彼らの引き渡しを要求したにも関わらず、アッシュルバニパルは彼らを庇護した [25] 。

エラムに対する勝利の後、アッシュルバニパルは領内の一連の反乱に対処しなければならなかった。バビロニアにおけるガンブル族(アラム人の部族)の首長ベール・イキシャ(Bel-iqisha)はエラム人の侵攻を支持していたと疑われており、権限の一部を手放すことを強要され、その後に反乱を起こした。この反乱についてはほとんど何もわかっていないが、アッシュルバニパルがウルクの総督ナブー・ウシャブシ(Nabu-ushabshi)にベール・イキシャ攻撃を命じたことが現存する当時の書簡によって知られている。これはアッシュルバニパルの攻撃命令に対するナブー・ウシャブシからの返信であり [26] 、ナブー・ウシャブシはアッシュルバニパルに対してベール・イキシャが反乱を起こしエラム人を引き込んだと述べている [26] 。ナブー・ウシャブシはアッカドの地の全域から兵を動員することを請け合っているが、ベール・イキシャの反乱が大きな被害を出した形跡はなく、年代記では言及されていない [26] 。彼は間もなく殺害され、前663年にはベール・イキシャの息子ドゥナヌがアッシュルバニパルに降伏した [22] 。

シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンは前653年までにはアッシュルバニパルの支配にうんざりしていたように思われる。バビロンで発見された碑文によって、アッシュルバニパルがシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの業務を管理し、本質的には自らの指示に従わせていたことが示されている。シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンはエラム王テウマンに使者を送りアッシュルバニパルの支配を揺るがすためにエラム軍を利用しようとした。アッシュルバニパルはシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンが関与していることを知らなかったようであるが、前652年にエラム人を打ち破り、その都市や国家自体を破壊した [4] 。このエラム遠征における最後の戦いはエラムの首都スーサの近郊で行われ、アッシリアの決定的な勝利に終わった。この結果の原因の一部はエラム軍部隊が逃亡したことによる。テウマン王はこの戦いで死亡した。この勝利の余波の中で、アッシュルバニパルはウルタクの息子のうち2人、 ウンマニガシュ (英語版) を マダクトゥ (英語版) (エラムの王宮があった都市、正確な位置は知られていない)とスーサの王に据え、 タンマリトゥ1世 (英語版) をヒダルの王とした [25] 。アッシュルバニパルは自身の碑文においてこの勝利を次のように描写している。

リュディアとキンメリア人の処理 編集

アッシュルバニパルが残した年代記によれば、彼の治世第3年(前665年)、ルッディ(Luddi)の王グッグ(Guggu)がギミライ(Gimirrai)の攻撃を受けた際、アッシュル神がグッグに対してアッシリアに助けを求めるよう、夢の中で神託を与えた。グッグはそれに従ってアッシュルバニパルに使者を送り、アッシュル神とイシュタル神の力を得てギミライを撃破して、捕らえたギミライの首長二人を貢物と共にアッシリアに送り届けたという [30] 。この碑文に登場するルッディは、ヘロドトスなど古代ギリシアの著作家が記録に残している西アナトリアの国家リュディアに対応すると考えられる [30] 。同じくグッグはリュディアの伝説的な王 ギュゲス (英語版) 、ギミライはギュゲス王の時にリュディアを席捲したことが知られるキンメリア人に対応する [30] 。キンメリア人はアッシリアの北、カフカス南部に居住していたインド・ヨーロッパ語を話す遊牧民で、アッシュルバニパルの父エサルハドンの時代にアッシリアを侵略したが撃退され、その後矛先をリュディアへと変えていた。

この年代記の記録に依れば、ギュゲスはキンメリア人を撃退した後にアッシリアとの通交を打ち切り、その代わりにエジプトの王プシャミルキ(Pušamilki、プサムテク1世)との同盟を計画した。これを聞きつけたアッシュルバニパルはアッシュル神に祈ってギュゲスを呪詛し、逆にキンメリア人の側に立った。この結果としてリュディアは前652年から前650年頃にかけて再びキンメリア人に制圧されたという [30] [11] 。ギュゲスの死後、リュディアの王位を継いだ息子(ヘロドトスによればアルデュス [31] )は再びアッシュルバニパルの支援を求めた。この時、彼は使者を通じて「あなたは、神々が見(恵み)給える王である。あなたは私の父を呪った。悪事はかれを見舞った。私は、あなたを畏れる奴隷であり、私に恵みをたれ給う。私があなたの軛を負うように」と述べたと、アッシュルバニパルの年代記は伝えている [32] 。

アッシリアにとってリュディアとの接触は新しい事態であり、アッシュルバニパルの年代記においてルッディ(リュディア)は「父祖である諸王がその名をきいたことのない遠隔の地」と描写されている [30] 。キンメリア人のリュディア侵入についてのこの年代記の記録は概ねヘロドトスが著書『歴史』で記録している内容と一致しているが、ヘロドトスの記録にはアッシリアの動向についての言及はなく、キンメリア人のリュディア侵入はスキタイ人によって彼らが原住地を追われたためであるとされている [31] 。キンメリア人とリュディアの戦いにおいて、アッシュルバニパルが実際にどのように関与したのかは不明である [11] 。ヘロドトスによればリュディアはアルデュスの孫アリュアッテス王の治世になってようやく完全にキンメリア人を撃退した [33] 。

シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの反乱 編集

シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンは前652年にアッシュルバニパルに対して反旗を翻した。この内戦はその後3年間続くことになる [6] 。シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンは反乱に際してアッシュルバニパルに対する何等かの中傷をバビロンの人々に向けて行ったと見られ、アッシュルバニパルがバビロン市民に向けて、シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの言葉を信じることのないように促し、また、反乱に加担したことの罪に対して温情をもって対応すると述べて自分の側に帰参するように呼び掛けた書簡が現存している [36] 。この中で彼は「この(我が)兄弟でない者がお前たちに話した(根拠のない)風の(ような)言葉、我に関し語られたすべての言葉を我は聞いた。だがそれは風である。彼を信じてはならない」と始めている。シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンに言及するアッシュルバニパルの碑文には次のようなものがある。

一見強力に見えるこの同盟であったが、シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの状況は前650年までには厳しいものとなった。アッシュルバニパルの軍勢はシッパル、ボルシッパ、 クタ (英語版) 、そしてバビロン自体をも包囲下に置いた。包囲の中、バビロンは飢えと疫病に耐えたが、ついに前648年5月頃に陥落し、アッシュルバニパルによって略奪された。シャマシュ・シュム・ウキンは宮殿で自分と家族に火をかけ自殺した [40] [6] [41] 。アッシュルバニパルは彼の勝利とシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの支持者に対する復讐を碑文で次のように述べている。

二度目のエラム遠征 編集

ウンマニガシュ統治下のエラムはシャマシュ・シュム・ウキンの側に立って反乱に参加し、アッシュルバニパルによってアッシリア帝国に組み込まれていたエラムの一部地方に対する支配権を部分的に回復していた。しかし、ウンマニガシュの軍勢は デール (英語版) 市の近郊で撃破され、その結果として彼は タンマリトゥ2世 (英語版) によってエラムから追放された。これによってタンマリトゥ2世がエラムの王となった。ウンマニガシュはアッシリアの宮廷に逃げ込みアッシュルバニパルの庇護を受けた。タンマリトゥ2世の統治は短期間であり、カルデア人の将軍ナブー・ベール・シュマティと協力して幾度かの戦闘で勝利を収めたにもかかわらず前649年の別の反乱で追放された。新たなエラム王 インダビビ (英語版) の治世も非常に短く、アッシュルバニパルが自らの敵国に対してエラムが支援を行っていることを理由にエラムに侵攻するという脅しを行った後に殺害された [44] 。

インダビビに代わって フンバン・ハルタシュ3世 (英語版) がエラム王となった。ナブー・ベール・シュマティはエラム内の前線基地からアッシュルバニパルに対する戦いを続けた。フンバン・ハルタシュ3世はナブー・ベール・シュマティへの支援を放棄しようとしていたが、ナブー・ベール・シュマティは無視するのが不可能なほどエラム内に非常に多くの支持者を持っていた。このような情勢の中で、アッシュルバニパルは前647年に再びエラムに侵攻した。フンバン・ハルタシュ3世は短期間の抵抗を試みて失敗した後、マダクトゥ(Madaktu)の玉座を放棄して山岳地帯へ逃げ去った [44] 。フンバン・ハルタシュ3世はタンマリトゥ2世によって王位から退けられ、タンマリトゥ2世が復位した。アッシリア軍がフーゼスターン地方を略奪した後に帰国すると、フンバン・ハルタシュ3世もエラムに戻りさらに王位を奪還した [45] 。

アッシュルバニパルが前646年にエラムに戻ったため、フンバン・ハルタシュ3世は再びマダクトゥを放棄し、まずドゥル・ウンタシュに逃げ、さらにエラム東方の山岳地帯へ逃げ込んだ。アッシュルバニパルの軍はその途上にある都市を略奪し破壊しながらフンバン・ハルタシュ3世を追撃した。エラムにある全ての政治的中心地が破壊され、それまではエラム王に貢納していた周辺の首長たちや小王国がアッシュルバニパルに貢納するようになった。こうした小王国の中には恐らく1世紀後にハカーマニシュ朝(アケメネス朝)によって作り上げられる帝国の前身であるパルスア(ペルシア)があった [45] 。パルスアの王クル(恐らくは大王クル2世/キュロス2世の祖父クル1世/キュロス1世と同一人物)は元々、アッシュルバニパルの遠征が始まった時点ではエラム側に立っていた。そのため息子の アルック (英語版) を人質として差し出すことを余儀なくされた。Ḫudimiriと呼ばれる王によって統治されていた「エラムの向こうに広がる」王国のように、それまでアッシリアと接触を持ったことのなかった国々も、初めてアッシリアに貢納するようになった [11] 。

アラビア遠征 編集

アラビア半島の諸部族に対するアッシュールバニパルの遠征について、現代の学者たちは比較的小さな関心しか払っていないが、彼が残した年代記の最後の版(A版)において最も長い記録がある軍事遠征である [47] 。ただし、アッシュールバニパルの年代記の記録は時系列が不確かであり、構成も複雑で史実の読み取りには多くの困難がある。編年に関する問題は歴史学者Israel Eph'Alの研究によって大部分解決されたものの [47] 、同じエピソードが複数回登場したり、文法上の誤りがあるなどの問題のほか、登場人物が物語の個々のエピソードで異なる立場を与えられているという問題もある [47] 。

また、年代記の各版の作成時に記載されたアラビア遠征の物語は、その都度いくらかの改変が行われている。アラブ人 [注釈 4] に対する遠征についてのアッシュールバニパルの最初の記録は前649年に作成され、 ケダル人 (英語版) の王であるハザエルの子ヤウタ(Yauta)がAmmuladdinという他のアラブの王と共にアッシュールバニパルに反乱を起こし、アッシリア帝国の西方領土を略奪したことについて記述している(ハザエルはアッシュールバニパルの父エサルハドンに貢納を行っていた)。アッシュールバニパルの記録によれば、彼の軍はモアブの王 カマス・ハルタ (英語版) の軍と共に反乱軍を打ち破った。Ammuladdinは捕らえられ鎖に繋がれてアッシリアに送られ、ヤウタは逃亡した。ヤウタに代わって、アビヤテ(Abiyate)というアッシリアに忠実なアラブ人の将軍がケダル人の王とされた。上に示したこの遠征についての最も古い記録は、「余のn番目の遠征」というフレーズが欠如し、敵対した人物を破ったとも述べず、敵の王が捕らえられて処刑されることもなく生き延びて逃亡しているという点において他の大部分のアッシュールバニパルの軍事記録と異なっている [47] 。

王位継承と編年 編集

アッシュールバニパルの治世の終わりと、その後継者アッシュール・エティル・イラニの治世の始まりは史料の欠乏によって謎に包まれている。アッシュールバニパルが保存していた年代記は彼の治世の主たる史料であるが、恐らくは彼の病のために前636年で終わっている。アッシュール・エティル・イラニの碑文ではアッシュールバニパルが自然死したことが示されているが、その死が正確にいつのことであったかを明らかなものとはしていない [52] 。考古学的な発掘と発見が行われる前の1800年代、アッシュールバニパルは古代ギリシアの著作から サルダナパロス (英語版) という名前で知られており、アッシリア最後の王と誤認識されていた。彼の死について人気のあった物語として、前612年のニネヴェの陥落の時(実際にはアッシュールバニパルの死のほぼ20年後の出来事である)、サルダナパロスが宮殿もろとも自分自身と生き残っていた側女および下僕を焼いたというものがある [3] 。

アッシュールバニパルの最後の年を前627年とする見解が繰り返されているが [9] [4] 、これは1世紀近く後の新バビロニアの王ナボニドゥスの母親がハッラーン市に作らせた碑文に基づいている。アッシュールバニパルが生きて王として統治していたことを示す最後の同時代史料は前631年に作られたニップル市の契約書である [53] 。アッシュールバニパルの後継者たちの統治期間と整合させるため、アッシュールバニパルはこの前631年に死亡したか、退位したか、あるいは追放されたということが一般的に合意されている [54] 。通常は前631年が彼の死亡年とされている [6] 。もし、アッシュールバニパルの治世が前627年に終わったとすれば、バビロンから発掘された、彼の後継者であるアッシュール・エティル・イラニとシン・シャル・イシュクンの碑文の内容とつじつまが合わなくなる。バビロンは前626年にナボポラッサルによって占領され、その後再びアッシリアの手に戻ることはなかった [55] 。

アッシュールバニパルの治世が前627年まで続いたとする、かつて支持を集めた別の説は、アッシュールバニパルとカンダラヌが同一人物であり、「カンダラヌ(Kandalanu)」は単にアッシュールバニパルがバビロンで使用した即位名であるというものである。この見解を擁護するものには、例えばポーランドの歴史学者 シュテファン・ザワドスキ (英語版) の著書『The Fall of Assyria』(1988年)がある。これは複数の理由からあり得そうもないと考えられている。それまでのアッシリア王の中にバビロンにおいて別名を使用していた王は知られていない。バビロニアから発見された碑文でもまた、アッシュールバニパルとカンダラヌの治世期間の長さは異なっており、アッシュールバニパルの治世は彼が年間を通して王であった最初の年(前668年)を起点とし、カンダラヌの治世はやはり彼が年間を通して王であった最初の年(前647年)を起点として数えられている。個人としてバビロンを統治していた全てのアッシリア王が「バビロンの王」という称号を自らの碑文で用いているが、アッシュールバニパルの碑文では前648年以降に作られたものでさえこの称号は使用されていない。最も重要なことは、バビロニアの史料がアッシュールバニパルとカンダラヌを2人の別の人物として取り扱っていることである。同時代のバビロニア史料も、アッシュールバニパルをバビロンの王として描写していない [57] 。

アッシュールバニパルの王妃の名はリッバリ・シャラト [58] (アッカド語:Libbali-šarrat [59] [注釈 5] )である。彼女についてはあまりよくわかっていないが、アッシュールバニパルが王となった時には既に結婚していた。結婚の時期は前673年頃、エサルハドンの妻エシャラ・ハンマト(Esharra-hammat)が死亡した頃のことであったとも考えられる [62] 。

  • アッシュール・エティル・イラニ(アッカド語:Aššur-etil-ilāni[63] ):前631年から前627年までアッシリア王として統治した [2] 。
  • シン・シャル・イシュクン(アッカド語:Sîn-šar-iškun[64] ):前627年から前612年までアッシリア王として統治した [2] 。
  • ニヌルタ・シャル・ウツル(アッカド語:Ninurta-šarru-uṣur[65] ):下位の王妃(リッバリ・シャラトではない)の息子。政治的な役割は果たしていなかったと思われる [65] 。

アッシリアが前612年から前609年にかけて滅亡した後、アッシュールバニパルの血脈はメソポタミアの権力の座に舞い戻った可能性もある。新バビロニア最後の王ナボニドゥス(在位:前556年-前539年)の母はハッラーン出身であり、アッシリア人の祖先を持っていた。この女性、 アッダゴッペ (英語版) は、彼女自身の碑文によればアッシュールバニパルの統治第20年(前648年、アッシュールバニパルが通年で王であった最初の年を起点とする)に生まれたという。イギリスの学者ステファニー・ダリーは、ナボニドゥスがアッシュールバニパルの系譜に連なるという彼女の碑文の主張に基づいて、「ほぼ確実に」アッダゴッペがアッシュールバニパルの娘であったと考えている [67] 。アメリカの聖書研究者マイケル・B・ディック(Michael B. Dick)はこれに反論し、ナボニドゥスはかなりの期間をかけて古いアッシリアのシンボルを復活させ(例えば、彼は自分自身の姿を外套にくるまれた姿で描かせている。このような描写は他の新バビロニア王のものには存在しないが、アッシリアの芸術作品には登場する)、アッシリアの サルゴン王朝 (英語版) と自分自身を関連付けようとしてはいるものの、「ナボニドゥスがサルゴン王朝と関係があったという何らの証拠も存在しない」と述べている [68] 。

アッシュールバニパルの図書館 編集

アッシュールバニパルの図書館は世界で初めて体系的に組織された図書館であった [3] [9] 。この図書館はアッシュールバニパルの最も良く知られた業績であり、この王自身も自らの最も偉大な業績であると考えていた [4] 。この図書館はアッシュールバニパルの命令によって整備され、各地の神殿の図書館からあらゆる種類とジャンルの文書を収集し複写するために帝国全土に書記が派遣された。集められた文書の大半は出来事の前兆の観察文書、人物や動物の詳細な行動記録、天体観測文書などであった。またこの図書館には、シュメール語とアッカド語やその他の言語の辞書、儀式、寓話、祈祷、呪文のような多くの宗教的文書もあった [9] 。

『ギルガメシュ叙事詩』『エヌマ・エリシュ』(バビロニアの創世神話)『 エッラ (英語版) 』、『エタナ物語』、『アンズー鳥の物語』のような、今日知られている伝統的なメソポタミアの物語の大半は、アッシュールバニパルの図書館に収蔵されていたことによって現代に残されたものである。この図書館はアッシュールバニパルの文学的関心の全てを網羅し、民話(『千夜一夜物語』の前身の一つである『 ニップルの貧者 (英語版) 』など)、手引書、そして科学的文書も収蔵していた [9] 。

歴史学者による評価 編集

アッシュールバニパルの治世においてアッシリアは世界史上最大の帝国であり、首都ニネヴェは約120,000人の住民を持ち [69] 、恐らくは世界最大の都市であった [3] 。その治世の間、アッシリア帝国は領土拡大を続けつつも経済的に繁栄した [9] 。アッシュールバニパルはしばしばアッシリア最後の偉大な王であるとみなされ [9] [11] [4] 、前王エサルハドン、さらにその前の王センナケリブと共に、最も偉大なアッシリア王の一人であると認識されている [70] 。

アッシュールバニパルは時に狂信者という評価を与えられている。彼は帝国全土において主要な神殿の大部分を再建・修復し、その治世の間にとった行動の多くが、彼が強い関心を持っていた前兆の報告を受けてのものであった [9] 。彼は二人の弟、 アッシュール・ムキン・パレヤ (英語版) と アッシュール・エテル・シャメ・エルセティ・ムバッリッス (英語版) をそれぞれアッシュール市とハッラーン市の神官に任命した [71] 。彼はまた、ニネヴェにある自身の宮殿内にその長い治世の間に起きた重要な出来事を描いた多くの彫刻とレリーフを作らせたため、芸術の庇護者とも見られる。これらの芸術作品で用いられた様式は、彼の前任者たちの下で作成された芸術作品と異なり、「叙事的性格」を備えている [9] 。

アッシュールバニパルに対する評価は、単に肯定的なものだけとは限らない。前639年、アッシュールバニパルは その年の名前 (英語版) を、楽士の長であったBulluṭuにちなんで命名した(年名は一般的に古代アッシリアの人々、しばしば軍関係者にちなんで名付けられた)。これを、アッシリア学者ジュリアン・E・リーズ(Julian E. Reade)は「無責任かつ自分に甘い」王の行動であると評した [54] 。アッシリアはアッシュールバニパルの支配の下でその力の頂点に達したが、彼の死後急速に崩壊した。アッシュールバニパルがアッシリアの没落の責任の一部を負うかどうかについては議論の中にある。『エンサイクロペディア・イラニカ』におけるこの王の記事を書いたJ・A・ドロネー(J. A. Delaunay)は、その記事の中で、アッシリア帝国はアッシュールバニパルの下で既に「差し迫った混乱と凋落の明らかな兆しを示し」始めていたと記している [11] 。一方で ドナルド・ジョン・ワイズマン (英語版) は『エンサイクロペディア・ブリタニカ』のこの王の記事に「これは彼の死後20年以内にアッシリア帝国が崩壊したことについて、彼の支配を告発するものではない。その崩壊は内紛ではなく、外部からの圧力によるものである」としている [9] 。

芸術と大衆文化 編集

芸術作品におけるアッシュールバニパルの描写は彼の治世から今日まで生き残っている。アッシュールバニパルの宮殿から見つかった一式の 宮廷彫刻 (英語版) である アッシュールバニパルの獅子狩り (英語版) は、ロンドンの大英博物館で見ることができる。これらの彫刻にはメソポタミアライオンを狩って殺すアッシュールバニパルが描かれている [72] 。アッシリアの王はしばしば「羊飼い」として自らの民を庇護する義務を負っていた。この庇護には外敵に対する防衛と、危険な野生動物から市民を守ることが含まれた。あらゆる野生動物の中で最も危険なものはライオンであり、(外国の脅威と同様に)その攻撃的な性質から、混沌と無秩序の象徴とされた。自分たちが支配者として相応しいことを証明し、有能な庇護者であることを示すため、アッシリアの王は 獅子狩り (英語版) の儀式を行った。獅子狩りはアッシリア王室にのみ許されたものであり、アッシリアの都市周辺か庭園で開催された公的行事であった [73] 。

アッシュールバニパルは現代の芸術作品の主題でもある。1958年、シュルレアリストの画家レオノーラ・キャリントンはイスラエル博物館のキャンバスに『Assurbanipal Abluting Harpies』と題する油絵を描いた。これは人間のような顔を持つ鳩に似た生き物の頭に白い物を注ぐアッシュールバニパルを描いている [74] 。1988年には フレッド・パーハード (英語版) が アッシュールバニパル (英語版) と呼ばれる同王の像を作り、これはサンフランシスコ市庁舎そばの通りに設置された。この像の値段は100,000ドルで、「初めてのアッシュールバニパルの巨大な銅像(first sizable bronze statue of Ashurbanipal)」と形容された。フレッド・パーハードは現代アッシリア人の祖先を持っており、この像は1988年5月29日に現代アッシリア人からの贈り物としてサンフランシスコ市へ贈与された。現地在住のアッシリア人からは、この像は実際のアッシュールバニパルに似せられている以上に、メソポタミアの伝説的な英雄であるギルガメシュの方に似ているという懸念を表明する人もいた。パーハードはこの像はアッシュールバニパルを象ったものだと弁明したが、いくらかの芸術的表現を用いたとも説明している [75] [76] 。

アッシュールバニパルはまた、様々なメディアで大衆文化の中に時折登場している。ロバート・E・ハワードは『The Fire of Asshurbanipal』と題する短編小説を書いた。これは『ウィアード・テイルズ』誌の1936年12月号で初めて出版されたもので、「ギリシア人がサルダナパロスと呼び、セム系の人々がアッシュールバニパルと呼んだ遠い昔の王に属する呪われた宝石」についての話である [77] 。ゼイ・マイト・ビー・ジャイアンツの2007年の歌、『The Mesopotamians』はギルガメシュ、サルゴン、ハンムラビと共にアッシュールバニパルに言及している [78] 。また、シミュレーションゲームのシヴィライゼーションVではアッシリアの支配者としてアッシュールバニパルが採用されている [79] 。


Nineveh

NINEVEH (Heb. נִינְוֶה Akk. Ninua, Ninâ in Mari Ninuwa Ar. Ninawa), the capital of the Assyrian empire from Sennacherib's time on, situated about 1 mi. (about 1½ km.) E. of the Tigris, opposite modern Mosul. Since the cuneiform for Nineveh (Ninâ) is a fish within a house, it has been suggested that the name of the city was derived from that of a goddess associated with fish, but it seems that it is of Hurrian origin. From the Akkadian period on, the city was dedicated to the "Ishtar of Nineveh."

The ancient citadel of Nineveh was situated on a hill known today as Quyunjiq ("Little Lamb") and located near the center of the western region of the city. On the hill there were also the Assyrian royal palaces and the temples. South of this citadel is a smaller tell, called Nebi Yūnis ("the Prophet Jonah"), where, according to Islamic tradition, the prophet Jonah is buried, and on which is a large mosque. The city, however, extended over a much larger area.

Archaeological excavations were conducted in the city for about a century, mainly by the British (beginning in 1842). The excavations of 1932 (by M.E.L. Mallowan) laid the foundations for the study of the prehistory of northern Mesopotamia, the city thus becoming a key site for a knowledge and understanding of the prehistoric period.

History

The investigation made during the 1932 excavations of Quyunjiq down to its virgin soil uncovered the tell's earliest stratum, which contains remnants of the Hassuna culture and has been assigned to about 5000� B.C.E.

One of the earliest pieces of written evidence is an inscription of Narâm-Sin of the Akkadian dynasty (2291� B.C.E.). Hammurapi king of Babylonia mentions the city in the introduction to his code of laws as the site of a temple of Ishtar. At the beginning of the 14 th century B.C.E. Nineveh belonged to Mitanni. Tushratta king of Mitanni sent the image of "Ishtar of Nineveh" (identified with the Hurrian goddess ᘊuška) twice to Egypt to heal Amenophis III, his ally and in-law. Subsequently, Nineveh reverted to Assyrian rule, since the Assyrian king Ashur-uballiṭ (1364� B.C.E.) stated that he rebuilt the temple of Ishtar which, according to indications, was renovated a number of times between the 13 th and ninth centuries B.C.E. Individual bricks, inscribed with the builders' names and with dedicatory inscriptions that have been brought to light, attest to the existence of several palaces built during these centuries. The earliest palace of which actual remains have been uncovered is that of Ashurnaṣirpal II (883� B.C.E.).

The city reached its zenith toward the end of the eighth century B.C.E., when it was in effect reconstructed during the reign of Sennacherib (705� B.C.E.) and became the capital of the Assyrian empire. Near the city – and in fact within its limits – Sennacherib planted a botanical garden with trees from all parts of the empire, among them vines and fruit-bearing trees. Magnificent spacious palaces were erected in the city. In the southwestern corner of the site, Sennacherib built a new palace to replace the earlier smaller one that had been there, and called it "the palace which has no equal." Today it is known as "the southwestern palace." On most of the walls of the halls, reliefs have been found depicting scenes from the building of the palace as well as war scenes, including the siege of *Lachish (found in Hall XXXVI). In the disorders that broke out upon the death of Sennacherib, part of his palace was apparently burned down and left in ruins for about 40 years. On the smaller tell (Nebi Yūnis), Esarhaddon (681� B.C.E.) built himself a palace. Ashurbanipal (668� B.C.E.) reestablished his residence on the main tell (Quyunjiq). Not content with merely renovating and embellishing the palace of Sennacherib, his grandfather, he built his own palace at the extremity of the tell. It was explored in the course of the excavation of Quyunjik, 1853�, and reliefs portraying scenes from various battles and representing Assyrian art at its zenith were uncovered. Ashurbanipal's greatest achievement was the establishment of a vast royal library in the city, containing several thousand cuneiform documents in the fields of literature and ritual, science and mythology, lexicography, astronomy, and history, as well as economic documents, letters, and state contracts.

At the end of Ashurbanipal's reign, the royal residence was apparently transferred from Nineveh and established, according to one view, in Harran. Nineveh was captured, plundered, and destroyed in the summer of 612 B.C.E. by the forces of the Median and Babylonian empires, and became a desolate heap. The site itself was later occupied again until the Mongol invasion of the 14 th century.

In the Bible

According to the Table of the Nations, Nineveh was established – together with other principal centers in Mesopotamia – in the days of *Nimrod (Gen. 10:10�). In the Book of Jonah (3:3) it is referred to as Ȫn exceedingly great city, three days' journey" (from one end to the other). A subsequent verse (4:11) tells that its infant population alone numbered "more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons." Even if this is somewhat exaggerated, it is probable that the number of Nineveh's inhabitants at the pinnacle of its greatness in the seventh century B C.E. was indeed extremely large (see *Jonah ).

In II Kings 19:36� (and in the parallel passage in Isa. 37:37�), Nineveh is mentioned as the city to which Sennacherib returned after his failure to capture Jerusalem, and in which he was murdered by his sons.

Two contemporary prophets, *Zephaniah (2:13ff.) and *Nahum , prophesied the destruction of Nineveh.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

A.H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains (1849) idem, Nineveh and Babylon (1967) H. Rassam, Ashur and the Land of Nimrod (1897) R. Buka, Die Topographie Nínewes (1915) Luckenbill, Records, 2 (1926), 417� R.C. Thompson and R.W. Hutchinson, A Century of Excavation at Nineveh (1929) R. Dhorme, in: RHR, 110 (1934), 140� C.J. Gadd, The Stones of Assyria (1936) A. Parrot, Nineveh et lɺncien Testament (1955) R.W. Ehrich, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (1965), index. IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, 4 (1913), 250� (1928), 350𠄲 E. Urbach, in: Tarbiz, 20 (1950), 118�.

Sources: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.


Parsa

The Persian migration into Elamite lands of Anshan culminated during in the reign of Hakhamanishah / Achaemenes's son Chishpish (also spelt Chispish, Cishpish and Cishpaish), known to the west as Teispes. Around 653 BCE, the Medes briefly came under the domination of the Scythians from the north and it would appear that at this time the remaining Persian groups in the northern areas migrated south to join their compatriots. (The Medians with the help of the Persians liberated themselves from Scythian domination in 626 BCE.)

While amongst the Persians and the Medes, the Achaemenians called their new lands Parsa, for the rest of the nations in the area, they used the better known name of Anshan as the name of their country. Chishpish/ Teispes referred to himself as 'king of the city of Anshan' and the Persian kings continued this practice up to the time of Cyrus II (the Great).

Teispes / Chishpishconsolidated the Parsumash lands north of Susa with Anshan and Parsa as the new Persian lands. The extent of Persian lands under the Achaemenian lands extended southeast from Susa across the river Idide (now known as Ab-e-Diz or Dizful) along the Zagros and Bakhtiyari foothills up to the Karmania (Kerman) plains in the east.

Eventually, the Persians would concentrate in the lands around Parsa - the future Pars or Persia. While there would be setbacks along the way, the foundation on which to build a nation and empire had been laid.

According to Cameron (1936: 212 and 223ff) and Hinz (1971b: col. 1024), Chishpish/ Teispes divided his new and substantial kingdom into Parsumash (the region north of Susa) and Parsa (the area south-east of Susa), each to be ruled by one of his two sons. The north-western area of Parsumash was ruled his son Kurush I / Cyrus I, while the south-eastern area of Parsa was to be ruled by his son Ariyaramna / Ariaramnes, apparently, the younger of the two brothers. This division between the two brothers resulted in the early Achaemenid dynasty consisting of two lines of kings.


The 300 Greatest Commanders of History

Seven months ago I posted the first incarnation of this list (well, my first public incarnation) on this subreddit. I mentioned then that I had thoughts of working this list into book form. Well, those thoughts have become a partial manuscript, extensive research, and long nights telling my wife I just want to finish this one biography or one chapter…plus I work a rather more than 40 hour job, so this is all done in the cracks and gaps in my real life.

This list is my best stab at the Top 300 Commanders in history (originally 100) Plus 200 Other Cool Dudes. I've always been fascinated by leadership and personality in military history, and how much it can swing historical events one way or another. After much refining, research, interesting little threads and eddies that took me into some very obscure history, I think I've come up with a list.

The following are my ten criteria:

Personal Leadership (Personal example, in the thick of the fighting, respect and love of the soldiers) - Julius Caesar, in multiple instances, fits this example.

Tactical Ability (The ability to plan, act, react, and gain success on the battlefield - where metal meets metal) - Hannibal is an excellent example, since the Romans developed an entire strategy revolving around winning the war by not fighting him in battle.

Operational Art (The art of campaign, gaining success in maneuver, and making the battles count on the broader scale) - Napoleon was a master of this. One only has to look at Italy, or Ulm, or Jena-Auerstadt, or Bavaria in 1809.

Strategic Planning (The art of winning a war on a broad front - for ancient generals this translates to conquest, for more modern soldiers it translates to Grand Strategy) - Genghis Khan/Temujin is a great example from the pre-modern era. For the modern era, someone like Eisenhower, Zhukov or Von Moltke might be a better example.

Logistics & Organization (Keeping the troops fed and supplied against all odds, the importance of guns and butter) - this one tends to be trickier, and far less flashier than the examples above, but no less vital. Some of the truly great commanders, like Caesar, succeeded in spite of the shoestring logistics they operated on, but since this is partly their fault it's not a point in their favor. Good examples for this criteria are the Duke of Wellington and Helmuth von Moltke.

Innovation/Creativity in Tactics/Strategy (new ways of battle, new methods and counter-methods) - for those commanders that mastered the unexpected, or harnessed new tricks on the battlefield. Good examples would include, on land, Jan Zizka, or on the water Horatio Nelson. This doesn't necessarily mean they invented the tactic, but that certainly helps - it may just mean they put it to best use for the first time.

Innovation/creativity in Organization/Theory (reorganizing the army, new ideas in war, the intellectual side) - compared to #6, this is for the great reorganizers, reformers, disciplinarians, and theorists. This alone is not enough to make someone great (probably why Sun Tzu is so low on this list), but coupled with success in the field it's impressive as hell. A good example would be Gaius Marius or Heinz Guderian.

Difficulty of their Task (strength/skill of opponents, limitations on the home front/betrayal of allies, constraints on the commander's resources) - this shouldn't be understated. Many modern generals, like most Americans post-WWI, have had the full weight of resources, momentum, and planning on their side before the fight even started, only a little of which was their doing, while some have had to overcome enormous obstacles. Here's to the underdog, like Skanderbeg, or someone fighting with both hands tied behind his back, like Belisarius.

Success (winning!) - As great as all of the above is, it's irrelevant if it doesn't yield results. Did these folks win their battles, no matter how smart or clever they were? Did they win their war? If they weren't in control of the war effort, it won't count against them - but it's the main reason Napoleon is #3, and not #1, and the reason Cyrus the Great has edged over time into the top 20. The ultimate success of each commander's sum total is a major factor in determining their placement.

Influence - Did their reforms and their innovations shake the world? Did they build a great empire? Do other generals centuries later cite their battles or speak their names in reverence? If so, this is the criteria for them. The admiration of latter-day Chinese for Han Xin, or Napoleon for Turenne and Eugene, or modern-day logisticians for Wallenstein, doesn't mean anything concrete - but it means these folks warrant a second, or third look.

With my criteria in place, what follows is my list. I will fully admit it's subjective, based on my studies and examination of these generals. If you feel that someone deserves a little more – or a little less – credit, feel free to let me know! I am always open to suggestions. (Sorry guys, the top four is pretty darn locked into place, and Grant and Lee both belong in the top 100 they are not mutually exclusive.)

The Top 100 Commanders of All Time

Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon I)

Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus)

John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough

Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger “Scipio Africanus”

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov

Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba “El Gran Capitan”

Maurice de Saxe, Count of Saxony

Louis II de Bourbon, Prince of Conde

Shivaji Bhonsle (Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj)

Babur (Zahir-ud-Din Muhammad)

Stephen III of Moldavia “the Great” (Stefan cel Mare)

George Castriot “Skanderbeg”

Bayinnaung Kyawhtin Nawrahta

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck

Roger of Lauria (Ruggiero de Lauria)

Li Shi-Min (Taizong of Tang)

Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma (Alexander Farnese)

Claude Louis Hector de Villars

Thomas Jonathan Jackson “Stonewall”

James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose

Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius von Wallenstein

Francois Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville, duc de Luxembourg

Taizu of Jin (Wanyan Aguda)

Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim

William J. Slim, 1st Viscount Slim

Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby

Alvaro de Bazan, 1st Marquis of Santa Cruz

Zhu Yuanzhang (Hongwu of Ming)

Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen

Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban

Ambrogio Spinola, 1st Marquis of the Balbases

Luis Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias

Louis Joseph, Duke of Vendome

Marcus Claudius Marcellus

George Brydges Rodney, 1st Baron Rodney

George Catlett Marshall Jr.

Michael the Brave (Mihai Viteazu)

Joseph Radetzky von Radetz

Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery

Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell

James Fitzjames, 1st Duke of Berwick

George Anson, 1st Baron Anson

Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher

Henry IV of France (Henry of Navarre)

Nzinga of Ndongo & Matamba

Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar “El Cid”

Leonhard Graf von Blumenthal

Anne Hilarion de Tourville

Antigonus I Monophthalmus

Louis William, Margrave of Baden-Baden

Garnet Wolseley, 1st Viscount Wolseley

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham

Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet “Bomber Harris”

The “Alpha List” is the next 100, unsorted. They are arranged by date of death. Most of these are my candidates for the ranked list, or people I have dropped off the ranked list for one reason or another.

• Thutmose I • Muwatalli II • David • Harpagus • Darius I • Wu Zixu • Cimon • Demosthenes • Lysimachus • Lian Po • Li Mu • Manius Curius Dentatus • Quintus Fabius Maximus “Cunctator” • Lucius Aemilius Paullus “Macedonicus” • Spartacus • Mithridates VI • Surena • Vercingetorix • Ma Yuan • Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo

• Marcus Aurelius • Zhang Liao • Daowu (Tuoba Gui) • Totila • Ashina She’er • Uqba ibn Nafi • Tariq ibn Zayid • Abu Muslim Khorasani • Mihira Bhoja I • Abaoji (Taizu of Liao) • Otto I • Anawrahta • Vladimir II Monomakh • Nur ad-Din Zengi (Nuraddin) • Taira no Kiyomori • Frederick I Barbarossa • Minamoto no Yoritomo • Muqali • Bayan of the Baarin • Stefan IV Uros Dusan

• Ashikaga Takauji • Xu Da • Bayezid I • Deva Raya I • Yongle of Ming (Zhu Di) • Bartolomeo Colleoni • Muhammad Shaybani • Huayna Capac • Askia Mohammad I of Songhai • Herluf Trolle • Setthathirath • Man Singh I • Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly • Bernard of Saxe-Weimar • Johan Baner • Abraham Duquesne • Aurangzeb • Philips van Almonde • Nicolas Catinat • Fyodor Apraksin

• James Wolfe • Count Leopold Joseph von Daun • Edward Hawke, 1st Baron Hawke • Jassa Singh Ahluwalia • Jean-Jacques Dessalines • Pyotr Bagration • Little Turtle • Pyotr Rumyantsev • Tecumseh • Michel Ney • Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly • Antonio Jose de Sucre • Andrew Jackson • Thomas Cochrane • Colin Campbell, 1st Baron Clyde • Moshoeshoe • David Glasgow Farragut • George Henry Thomas • Wilhelm von Tegetthoff • Cochise

• Crazy Horse • Mikhail Skobelev • Eduard Totleben • Piet Joubert • Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener • Oyama Iwao • Erich von Falkenhayn • Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig • Joseph Joffre • John Monash • Louis Franchet d’Esperey • Nikolai Fyodorovich Vatutin • August von Mackensen • John J. Pershing • Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke • Li Zongren • Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding • Peng Dehuai • Omar Bradley • Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.

The “Beta List” is the final 100 out of 500, also unranked. There’s room for movement between the A, B, and bottom 100 of the ranked list.

• Naram-Sin of Akkad • Mursili I • Joshua • Tiglath-Pileser I • Sargon II • Nebuchadnezzar II • Miltiades • Dionysius I of Syracuse • Agesilaus II • Iphicrates • Craterus • Xanthippus of Carthage • Gaius Duilius • Meng Tian • Antiochus III • Zhang Liang • Titus Quinctius Flamininus • Zhao Tuo • Quintus Caecilius Metellus “Macedonicus” • Tigranes the Great

• Germanicus Julius Caesar • Boudicca • Vespasian • Gnaeus Julius Agricola • Ardashir I • Odaenathus • Ran Min • Alaric I • Clovis I • Maurice (Byzantine Emperor) • Halfdan Ragnarsson • John Kourkouas • Sviatoslav I of Kiev • Roger I of Sicily • Bohemond I of Antioch • Imad ad-Din Zengi • Alfonso VIII of Castile • Guo Kan • William Wallace • Dmitry Donskoy

• Kusunoki Masanori • Gazi Evrenos • Braccio da Montone • Arthur III, Duke of Brittany • Vlad III of Wallachia “Dracul” • Federico da Montefeltro • Georg von Frundsberg • Pedro Navarro, Count of Oliveto • Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba • William I, Prince of Orange (William the Silent) • Antonio de Oquendo • Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of Austria • Koxinga (Zheng Chenggong) • Stefan Czarniecki • Prince Rupert of the Rhine • Cornelis Tromp • Jean Bart • Menno van Coehoorn • Peter Tordenskjold • Jai Singh II

• Edward Boscawen • Francois Joseph Paul de Grasse • Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel • Anthony Wayne • Jeffrey Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst • Toussaint L’Ouverture • Alexei Grigoryevich Orlov • Sir John Moore • Isaac Brock • Friedrich William Freiherr von Bulow • Tadeusz Kosciuszko • Manuel Belgrano • Tomas de Zumalacarregui • Rowland Hill, 1st Viscount Hill • Charles James Napier • Sam Houston • Hong Xiuquan • Albrecht von Roon • Charles George Gordon • Osman Nuri Pasha

• Svetozar Boroevic • Michael Collins • Mikhail Frunze • Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia • Herbert Plumer, 1st Viscount Plumer • Leon Trotsky • Orde Wingate • Jan Smuts • Philippe Petain • Richmond Kelly Turner • Raizo Tanaka • Andrey Yeryomenko • Chesty Puller • Francisco Franco • Haim Bar-Lev • Abdul Harris Nasution • Sam Manekshaw • David Petraeus

That’s what I have. I encourage you to Google or Wiki someone you’re not familiar with – or just ask, I’d love to talk about it.

I would live to hear from anyone who has something to contribute, hate on, praise, whine about, critique. I'm always looking to refine, edit, and tinker with this list, and I fully admit that, like anyone, there are serious gaps in my knowledge, so I'll always be ready to listen (though if you try to argue that so-and-so homeboy of yours should be ahead of Alexander, Hannibal, and Temujin, I may have to give a gentle but firm "negative" on that. Please let me know what you think!


ARCHEOLOGY ii. Median and Achaemenid

Median archeology. The rise of the Medes and the Achaemenids was in part a product of changes that took place far beyond the bounds of the ancient kingdoms of the Near East. The establishment of Indo-European populations on the steppe lands west of the Tien Shan, followed by the emergence of pastoral economies based on horse riding, served to bring successive waves of invaders into more fertile lands to the south. At least as early as 2000 B.C. the long-established Bronze Age settlements located southeast of the Caspian Sea became subject to external attack, and anywhere from five hundred to a thousand years later the main body of the Iranian tribes can be presumed to have established themselves on the upland plateau that today bears their name. Among such invaders it was the Medes, close cousins of the Persians, who assumed the dominant role in the early 1st millennium B.C.

Unfortunately many of the details that contributed to this pattern of events may never be known to us. While the Medes were likely to have been present in Iran well before the Assyrians first encountered them in 835 B.C., it remains unclear how the earliest Medes, let alone the early Iranians as a whole, should be distinguished in the archeological record. Even during the next two to three hundred years&mdashyears that saw the eventual integration of Median and non-Median elements in the Median kingdom of Cyaxares (ca. 625-585 B.C.)&mdashthe firm identification of one or another site as specifically &ldquoMedian&rdquo is necessarily hazardous. Any search for a strictly Median component in the material culture of western Iran in the Iron III period (ca. 800-550 B.C.) should probably concentrate on evidence from sites not too distant from the Median capital of Ecbatana, now the city of Hamadān.

It is striking to observe that, within these boundaries of time and space, virtually nothing was known of Median material culture prior to the mid-1960s. The French excavations of C. Virolleaud and C. Fossey, begun at Hamadān in 1914, were never resumed, and in the absence of any other major investigation in the immediate area for more than half a century, all but the most recent general studies focus on the late Achaemenid or post-Achaemenid rock-cut tombs of the western Zagros as the most tangible reflection of Media&rsquos once prominent place in Asian history.

During the past twenty years the search for the Medes on the ground has been largely concentrated within the &ldquoMedian triangle,&rdquo the region bounded by Hamadān, Malāyer and Kangāvar. At Godīn Tepe, located 13 km east of Kangāvar on the left bank of the Gamas Āb, it is evident that a substantial Bronze Age site was reoccupied after an interval of about five hundred years, close to the beginning of the Iron III period. Here the excavations of T. C. Young, Jr., begun in 1965, have exposed the remains of a series of monumental mud-brick buildings presumed to be part of a single, eventually quite substantial, local ruler&rsquos residence (T. C. Young and L. D. Levine, Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report, 1974, p. 35).

The two main halls of this Godīn II settlement (Figure 6) exhibit contrasting proportions. While the smaller hall, at the western edge of the surviving plan, is emphatically rectangular in shape and once possessed two rows of four columns, the larger, older, almost square reception hall originally contained five rows of six columns. This last structure is distinguished by several fixed installations: a bench marks the side and rear walls and is complemented, at the back of the hall, by a raised square hearth set approximately opposite an elevated seat and footstool.

The northeastern corner of the extant plan at Godīn Tepe includes a building of quite a different character. Its ground plan is taken up by two opposed ranges of six narrow storerooms, each of which probably had a vaulted ceiling. Directly outside the southwest corner, rather than within the building itself, a broad staircase provided access to an upper story. The external north wall of the building, which was erected in two separate stages, also served to extend the fortified perimeter wall that ran along the precipitous north limit of the site.

The parallels that can be adduced for the Godīn halls are not without interest. From Ḥasanlū IV, within the Iron II period (ca. 1100-800 B.C.), there is abundant evidence for rectangular columned halls with two rows of four freestanding columns. The Ḥasanlū halls also exhibit permanent internal fixtures akin to those found in the larger hall at Godīn. Nevertheless the Godīn halls are by no means carbon copies of those from Ḥasanlū, nor indeed of the late Iron II columned hall of Bābā Jān III, which has itself been claimed as Median (cf. C. Goff, &ldquoExcavations at Baba Jan: Pottery and Metal from Levels III and II,&rdquo Iran 16, 1978, pp. 40f. cf. also Art in Iran i). Unlike these earlier partly residential halls, the two Godīn halls may have been reserved for purposes of reception alone. Moreover, the spacious plan of the larger hall can be compared to one substantially later monument, Palace P at Pasargadae, which dates to the second half of the 6th century B.C. (D. Stronach, Pasargadae, Oxford, 1978, pp. 78f.). At the same time, most of the close parallels for the architecture and the pottery of Godīn II come, not surprisingly, from the adjacent and partly contemporary site of Tepe Nush-i Jan (Nū&scaron-e Jān (ca. 750-550 B.C.).

The excavations at Nush-i Jan, located 14 km west of Malāyer, have uncovered most of a compact settlement (Figure 7) that appears to have been at least partly religious in character. The site&rsquos four principal buildings consist of the central temple, the western temple, the fort, and the columned hall they were probably constructed in that order and predate the squatter occupation of the first half of the 6th century B.C.

The tower-like central temple, built on what was at first a bare, steep-sided rock outcrop, occupies a commanding position more than 30 m above the level of the surrounding plain. The internal plan includes a single narrow entrance, an antechamber, a ramp leading to an upper room, and a stepped triangular sanctuary, 11 x 7 m 2 in area, which once rose to the full height of the building. The altar, which stands within the western bay of the sanctuary, is 85 cm high with four projecting steps and a shallow hemispherical fire bowl at the center of its broad fiat top (Plate III). The western temple, which for a time faced the central temple across an open court, is distinguished by a different orientation and an oddly asymmetrical plan. Nevertheless it contains a similar set of rooms: an antechamber, a spiral ramp leading to a room above, and an inner cella with the possible remains of a further altar. The so-called fort, a two-story structure that seems to have combined the functions of a storehouse and a residential unit, is the largest of the buildings found at Nush-i Jan. The well-preserved ground-floor plan includes a single entrance, a guardroom, a ramp-staircase of some size (which may have taken two complete revolutions to reach the level of the upper, now-vanished residential story), and four narrow storage magazines, each of which once stood nearly 6 m in height. The fourth major structure, the columned hall, is an irregularly shaped building approaching 20 x 15 m 2 in area. Its flat roof originally rested on three rows of four wooden columns, and its only fixed furnishing consisted of a low mud-brick platform set close to the south wall. The height of the hall may have reached 8 or 9 m. In sum, the main impact of this architecture came from soaring buttressed, recessed, and no doubt crenellated, mud-brick walls. Narrow window openings and tall arrow slots also marked many external walls, while the stark design of one imposing structure&mdashthe central temple at Tepe Nush-i Jan&mdashprovides a notable, if mute, expression of religious belief and practice.

Mud brick was the outstanding medium of construction, although wooden door lintels complement the obviously extensive use of wood in each columned hall. The standard mud brick, at least at Tepe Nush-i Jan, measured 40 x 25 x 13 cm, while the curved vault struts, such as were used in pairs to span distances of up to 2.35 m were often 1.18 m in length. Somewhat against expectation&mdashparticularly since large stone column bases can be seen at Ziwiyeh (Zīwīya)&mdashworked stone was hardly employed instead the Median brickmason was often prepared to make unexpected, even daring use of the malleable properties of brick and plaster. This determination to build wherever possible with mud-brick elements, including curved vault struts, recalls a similar inclination in the less forested regions of the east Iranian world. The architecture of the Medes came to combine the extensive dependence on mud-brick and plaster that was to remain a fixed feature in the arid zones of the East with the interest in wooden columnar construction that took a strong hold in the northern Zagros from the beginning of the Iron Age onward.

The family of ceramics represented in the Median levels at Tepe Nush-i Jan seems to be associated with the moment that the Medes consolidated their power in the vicinity of Hamadān in the second half of the 7th century B.C. Four separate wares are recognized. &ldquoCommon ware&rdquo vessels are buff, cream, or light red in color, often with a distinctive gold or silver mica temper they include bowls with horizontal handles, small jars with single or opposed vertical handles, a few larger types of jar, and, largest of all, a form of elegant ribbed pithoi. Only smaller, often more elaborate vessels were produced in &ldquogrey ware,&rdquo and these frequently display a carefully smoothed, even burnished surface. &ldquoCooking ware&rdquo is represented by a single form: a wide-mouthed cooking pot, handmade with a heavy concentration of quartz or mica in the temper. &ldquoCrumbly ware&rdquo is also represented by a single handmade product: a tray-like dish with flakes of gold-colored mica in the temper.

Pottery of this kind is well represented in the Malāyer plain. Apart from its general resemblance to that found in Godīn II and Bābā Jān II, its distribution suggests that the monumental administrative and religious centers of the Medes were matched by modest but nonetheless permanent villages (cf. R. Howell, &ldquoSurvey of the Malayer Plains,&rdquo Iran 17, 1979, pp. 156-57). If the plant remains recovered in part from the squatter settlement at Tepe Nush-i Jan may be used as a guide, the economy of these villages was based on such crops as two-row and six-row hulled barley, emmer, bread wheat, peas, lentils, and grapes. The still generously forested mountains provided an extensive range of game, but animal husbandry remained prime the domestic bone sample at Nush-i Jan included nine species, the most common of which were sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle. There are also indications, entirely in keeping with the age-old repute of the grasslands of Media, that horse breeding already played a significant role.

Our knowledge of the Median occupation at Hamadān itself remains slight. For the moment we not only lack any evidence for stone reliefs or other worked stone elements such as would substantiate the existence of a former &ldquocourt school&rdquo of Median stone carving intermediate between that of Ashurbanipal and that of Cyrus, for instance, but the chance and clandestine excavations that have inevitably taken place in Hamadān over the years have failed to reveal any Median goldwork. If, however, the latest gold vessels from Mārlīk can be ascribed to a date near 700 B.C. (O. W. Muscarella, &ldquoFibulae and Chronology, Marlik and Assur,&rdquo Journal of Field Archaeology 11/4, 1984, p. 417), Median art promises to provide an almost direct link between the vigor of earlier Iranian art forms and the measured refinement of Achaemenid art.

Achaemenid archeology. Patterns of discovery. While outside Iran the Bible, the Histories of Herodotus, and a host of other early sources served to preserve a knowledge of the conquests of Cyrus and Darius, in Iran itself all accurate memory of Achaemenid achievement was lost for many centuries. From 1474 onward, early travelers to Iran reported (and on occasion took leave to doubt) the popular belief that the still-intact fabric of Cyrus&rsquos tomb represented the &ldquotomb of the mother of Solomon&rdquo (A. Gabriel, Die Erforschung Persiens, Vienna, 1952, pp. 49f.). There matters largely stood until 1802, when G. F. Grotefend, working from the first accurate copies of the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis, was able to identify them as records left by the Achaemenid kings (cf. C. F. C. Hoeck, Veteris Mediae et Persiae monumenta, Göttingen, 1818, p. 56.). Similarly, as late as 1818 R. Ker Porter found the relief of Darius at Bīsotūn to depict a &ldquoking of Assyria and the Medes&rdquo before captive &ldquorepresentatives of the Ten Tribes&rdquo (Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia . . . during the Years 1817, 1818, 1819, and 1820 I, London, 1821, pp. 507f.). H. C. Rawlinson was the first to reach the relief and to begin to copy its adjacent trilingual inscriptions&mdashsomething only accomplished with the aid of ropes&mdashin 1835. But from this moment onward progress was rapid: Barely ten years were to pass before Rawlinson had completed his translation of most of the Old Persian version of Darius&rsquos inscription (H. C. Rawlinson, &ldquoThe Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, Decyphered and Translated.. ,&rdquo JRAS 10, 1847-48, pp. xxvii-xxxix).

The earliest photographic record of the major sites in Fārs is owed to F. Stolze and F. C. Andreas (Persepolis. 2 vols., Berlin, 1882), whose journeys in the region began in 1874. Ten years later M. Dieulafoy, the first in a long line of French excavators, initiated the first major excavations at Susa. In three successive seasons he explored the Achaemenid city wall and uncovered much of the Apadāna. This last work was also rewarded by the discovery of the famous glazed-brick frieze of the &ldquoroyal archers&rdquo of Darius I (M. Dieulafoy, L&rsquoAcropole de Suse d&rsquoaprès les fouilles executées en 1884-86, Paris, 1893). The last 19th-century traveler of interest was Lord Curzon, whose still-standard work, Persia and the Persian Question, includes a meticulous description of the early sites he visited (cf. G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question II, London, 1982, pp. 115-96). The arguments he marshaled to support the now-accepted identity of both the site of Pasargadae and its principal monument, the tomb of Cyrus, still command respect, as do his summaries of prior scholarship.

E. Herzfeld made his first visit to Pasargadae in 1905 and published his dissertation on the site three years later (E. Herzfeld, &ldquoPasargadae. Untersuchungen zur persischen Archäologie,&rdquo Klio 8, 1908, pp. 1-68). In his subsequent excavations at Cyrus&rsquos capital, Herzfeld opened trenches at three of the main structures: Gate R, Palace S, and Palace P in so doing he provided a new starting point for the study of monumental construction in the Achaemenid period (E. Herzfeld, &ldquoBericht über die Ausgrabungen von Pasargadae, 1928,&rdquo AMI 1, 1929-30, pp. 4-16). In 1931 Herzfeld was called upon to direct the Oriental Institute of Chicago&rsquos excavations at Persepolis over the next four years these brought to light the reliefs on the north side of the Apadāna, the gold and silver foundation plaques from the same great audience hall, and the great body of Elamite cuneiform tablets now known as the Persepolis fortification texts. E. Schmidt, Herzfeld&rsquos successor at Persepolis from 1935 to 1939, conducted painstaking excavations in the Treasury and revealed the impressive audience reliefs that had formerly formed part of the relief façade of the Apadāna, a further collection of clay tablets (the great bulk of which were again written in Elamite), and a wealth of other objects, including bronzes, glassware, and stone tableware. Schmidt also unearthed the floor plan of the severely burnt throne hall, exposed the entire height of the tower-like Kaʿba ye Zardo&scaront at Naq&scaron-e Rostam, and secured, through his pioneering use of aerial photography, a memorable record of the monuments of the Persepolis region as seen from the air.

When the French Archeological Mission began its work under J. de Morgan in 1897, new attention was at once given to Susa&deltas earlier levels. A major find proved, nevertheless, to be that of a rich Achaemenid coffin burial containing jewelry of great quality (J. de Morgan, &ldquoDécouverte d&rsquoune sépulture achéménide à Suse,&rdquo Mémoires de la délégation en Perse, 1905, pp. 29-58). In the subsequent years of R. de Mecquenem&rsquos directorship isolated Achaemenid finds continued to be made, most notably in the vicinity of the &ldquoDonjon&rdquo at the southern limit of the Ville Royale. Finally&mdashwith reference to all but the most recent work at Susa&mdashR. Ghirshman&rsquos long stewardship was most closely connected with his deep excavation on the Ville Royale, which revealed a succession of Elamite strata stretching through most of the 2nd millennium B.C. His work on the western flank of the Ville des Artisans also revealed one part of an extramural satellite township, dated possibly between 625 and 250 B.C. (cf. D. Stronach, &ldquoAchaemenid Village I at Susa and the Persian Migration to Fars,&rdquo Iraq 26, 1974, pp. 244-45).

More recently, the German Archeological Institute, founded in 1960, was occupied for several years with the study and documentation of Darius&rsquos great relief at Bīsotūn (cf. H. Luschey, &ldquoStudien zu dem Darius-Relief von Bisitun,&rdquo AMI, N.S. 1, 1968, pp. 63-94), not to mention the excavation of a small Achaemenid settlement at Taḵt-e Solaymān. The British Institute of Persian Studies, founded one year later, also turned to a major site, Pasargadae. In a three-year program of work that in many ways represented a continuation of the earlier campaigns of Herzfeld and ʿA. Sāmī (Pasargadae, the Oldest Imperial Capital of Iran, Shiraz, 1956), the Institute sought to reexamine the history of each of the main monuments, as well as to carry out extensive excavations on the elevated Tall-e Taḵt and in the partly preserved gardens of the palace area. This last work, despite the limited depth of deposit, led to the discovery of a hoard of fine jewelry and other objects (Plate IV), which may have been buried close to the middle years of the 4th century B.C.

Two of the main concerns of J. Perrot, who was appointed to lead the French Archeological Mission in 1968, were to establish a secure stratigraphic sequence at Susa and to provide a more complete picture of the Susian Apadāna. The work of the 1970s also saw the recovery of two marble foundation tablets from the adjacent residential quarters of Darius&rsquos palace the identification and excavation of the &ldquoChaour Palace,&rdquo (once the paradayadām or &ldquopleasant retreat&rdquo) of Artaxerxes II and perhaps most gratifying, the discovery of a larger-than-life-size statue of Darius I that had been transported from Egypt to flank one of the doorways of the great gateway leading to the Apadāna.

In the past few years Achaemenid levels have been recognized at such widely distributed sites as Choga Mish (Čoḡa Mī&scaron), Bābā Jān Tepe, Ḥasanlū, Yānek Tepe, Tūrang Tepe, Dahan-i Ghulaman (Dahān-e Ḡolāmān), and Tepe Yaḥyā, while with reference to other recent research, the surveys of L. Vanden Berghe in southwestern Iran have revealed the existence of the Buzpar tomb (&ldquoLe tombeau achéménide de Buzpar,&rdquo Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Festschrift A. Moortgat, Berlin, 1964, pp. 243-58) the perceptive observations of C. Nylander have provided new directions for the study of Achaemenid masonry and M. Roaf&rsquos penetrating examination of the reliefs from Persepolis (Sculptures and Sculptors at Persepolis, Iran 2l, 1983) has done much to define the organization of the sculptors&rsquo work. A special debt is due to the meticulous surveys of G. and A. B. Tilia which have thrown new light, for example, on early Achaemenid construction in the Persepolis plain, on the original location of the &ldquoTreasury reliefs,&rdquo on the use of color at Persepolis, and on the surviving remains of a monumental stairway façade of Artaxerxes I (A. B. Tilia, Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites of Fars I and II, IsMEO Reports and Memoirs XVI and XVIII, Rome, 1972 and 1978). Last but not least, the suggestion put forward by J. Hansman, and subsequently confirmed on the basis of textual evidence by E. Reiner, that the large site of Mālyān, located some 50 km to the west of Persepolis, could represent the ruins of the city of Anshan (An&scaronān) (J. Hansman, &ldquoElamite, Achaemenians and Anshan,&rdquo Iran 10, 1972, pp. 101ff. E. Reiner, in RA 67, 1973, pp. 57ff.) has triggered many new developments. In particular, it has served to clarify certain of the basic realities of Achaemenid geography, which can now begin to be integrated with the ample data contained in the Persepolis fortification texts.

Problems in chronology. Only twenty years ago the uncertain date of many of the uninscribed stone monuments of southern Iran allowed such prominent sites as Masǰed-e Solaymān and the Tall-e Taḵt at Pasargadae to be assigned respectively to the early 7th and the early 6th century B.C. (R. Ghirshman, Persia. From the Origins to Alexander the Great, London, 1964, pp. 129-31). By extension, the last stages of the Persian migration to Fārs were assumed to have taken a rather unlikely course from the foothills of Ḵūzestān to the plain of Pasargadae and on the basis of the specific character of the two sites just mentioned, the Persians were further presumed to have demonstrated a familiarity with large stone construction well before the accession of Cyrus the Great (559-530 B.C.).

This reading of the archeological evidence was called into question when it became apparent that neither site could be said to predate the reign of Cyrus (D. Stronach, Iraq 36, 1974, pp. 246f.). It has also become apparent that there is no compelling reason to suppose that Kudur Nahunte (693-692 B.C.) was the last Elamite king to exercise control over Anshan (cf. G. G. Cameron, History of Early Iran, Chicago, 1936, pp. 164-65 and 179-80). From hints found in the surviving titles and protocols of the period it is likely that Elamite dominion in Anshan only came to an end close to the time of Ashurbanipal&rsquos conquest of Susa in 646 B.C. (see F. W. König, Die elamischen Königsinschriften, Archiv für Orientforschung, Supplement l6, 1965, p. 172). In short, the Persians did not necessarily arrive in Fārs as a conquering force, at once capable of driving the Elamites to the west. Instead, these newcomers from the north may have entered their eventual homeland in a peaceful fashion, perhaps over a surprisingly long time, and, following a period of increasing acquaintance with the literate world of Elam, and took steps to acquire direct political control of Fārs only in the wake of the severe dislocations occasioned by Ashurbanipal&rsquos assault on Susa.

A richly furnished tomb of the late 7th or early 6th century B.C. from the vicinity of Behbahān may well lend a measure of support to certain of the developments just described. First, this newly discovered tomb, which appears to have been that of a certain Kidin Hutrun, an Elamite of rank (F. Vallat, &ldquoKidin Hutrun et l&rsquoépoque néo-élamite,&rdquo Akkadica 37, 1984, pp. 1-17), may show that the boundary between the reduced Neo-Elamite kingdom of Susa and the new Persian rulers of Anshan lay somewhere to the east of Behbahān. Second, a quite exceptional gold object from the tomb, with a pair of confronted griffins on each of its two disc-like finials (F. Tawḥīdī and A. M. Ḵalīlīān, &ldquoA Report on the Investigation of the Objects from the Tomb of Arraǰān (Behbahān),&rdquo Āṯār 7-9, 1361 &Scaron./1983, pp. 232-86, in Persian) is arguably representative of the blend of Elamite and Persian artistic skills which could be expected at this specific moment of transition.

Material culture of Achaemenid Iran. The Persian delight in gold and silver tableware, or in many other objects of personal finery, ranging from parade weapons to elegant jewelry and cosmetic articles (see Art in Iran iii), only rarely extended to earthenware vessels. In contrast to the Assyrians, who seem to have had a particular regard for their own palace wares, the Persians did little to export or reproduce their ceramics elsewhere. One of the very few forms that appears to have had a wide distribution throughout much of the empire in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. is a small drinking bowl with a rounded body and everted rim directly imitating those of a long-lived metal type. There is no uniform ceramic specific to the Achaemenid dynasty the archeological record in Iran has only revealed &ldquopottery of the Achaemenid period,&rdquo from some nine different ceramic zones (Figure 8). Each of these zones has a separate history of change or interaction that persisted, in surprisingly similar terms, down to the end of the Parthian period (cf. E. Haerinck, La céramique de la période parthe, Gent, 1983, fig. 1).

In zone I, a group of fine monochrome bowls from Čoḡā Mī&scaron in southwestern Iran is possibly representative of the often ill-defined border between the Iron III period (800-550 B.C.) and the Iron IV period, a division that conveniently subsumes both the Achaemenid period (550-330 B.C.) and the brief Seleucid or post-Achaemenid period (330-250 B.C.). In zone II, in western Iran, there are indications from Jameh Shuran (Jāma &Scaronūrān) in the Mahi Dasht (Māhī Da&scaront), not to mention Ziwiye (Zīwīya) in upland Kurdistan, that the plain buff wares of the late Iron III period gave way to painted &ldquotriangle wares,&rdquo also well known from sites in southern and eastern Azerbaijan. Furthermore, the important and still not published pottery sequence from Jameh Shuran shows (L. Levine, personal communication) that, at least in the Mahi Dasht, the local triangle wares gave way to painted buff wares of the type found in quantity at Pasargadae, where they were seemingly most at home in late or even post-Achaemenid loci.

Without a full &ldquogrammar&rdquo of the evolving pottery styles of the Iron IV period, any attempt to define Achaemenid settlement patterns throughout Iran is unlikely to be definitive, yet W. Sumner&rsquos recent survey in central Fārs has shown that a beginning can be made: The independent testimony of the Persepolis fortification texts (which refer in all to some 400 geographic names) is taken to support certain strictly archeological indications for the presence of between 100 and 150 Achaemenid settlements within the bounds of the Persepolis plain alone (W. Sumner, &ldquoAchaemenid Settlement in the Persepolis Plain,&rdquo AJA, forthcoming). The &ldquoSpring Cemetery&rdquo near Persepolis is presumably representative of the many cemeteries that must have complemented such local villages. In this late 4th-century (or later) cemetery the dead lay in extended positions, in slipper coffins. The majority of the grave goods consist of simple pottery vessels (E. Schmidt, Persepolis II, 1957, pl. 89). Richer graves, such as may have been associated with the country estates referred to in the fortification tablets, have not been encountered to date. Notwithstanding the recent excavation of Achaemenid levels at more than a dozen different sites in Iran, the great mass of objects from controlled contexts still comes from three sites: Pasargadae, Susa, and Persepolis. Pasargadae and Susa are obvious points of reference for any study of jewelry. Fine stone vessels are well represented at Persepolis, though the looting of the site before it was burned in 330 B.C. must clearly account for the absence of any examples of Achaemenid gold and silver plate. Persepolis has also yielded handsome horse-bits and, among various weapons, thousands of barbless trilobate bronze arrowheads that seem from examples recovered from Cyprus, Palestine, and the early 5th-century battlegrounds of Greece to have represented a standard issue within the Achaemenid army. For seals and seal impressions it is again appropriate to look to the rich material from Persepolis, particularly since the many sealings from the fortification tablets promise to reveal much about the beginnings of Achaemenid iconography (cf. R. L. Zettler, &ldquoOn the Chronological Range of Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Seals,&rdquo JNES 3, 1979, pp. 257f.). In addition, certain recently discovered seal impressions from Persepolis (A. Tadjvidi, Iran 13, 1970, p. 187) no longer depict the once-canonical scene of a &ldquoroyal hero&rdquo dominating animals and therefore call attention to changes in seal design that took place during the Achaemenid period.

Evidence for those two special Persian luxury items, cut glass and gold plate, is rare indeed. Fine glass was recovered from Persepolis (Schmidt, Persepolis II, pl. 67), but sumptuous gold vessels of the kind that accompanied the Persian king both at home and on the march are today known only from a number of examples reportedly found during clandestine excavations at Hamadān, and not all of these &ldquocourt style&rdquo vessels have been accepted as genuine. (Cf. O. W. Muscarella, &ldquoExcavated and Unexcavated Achaemenian Art,&rdquo D. Schmandt-Besserat, ed., Ancient Persia: The Art of an Empire, Undena, 1980, pp. 23f.) Finally, no gold darics or silver sigloi like those minted in Anatolia in order to meet the needs, in part, of an existing coin economy, have been found so far within the limits of Iran. Unless new evidence is forthcoming, the home economy can be seen to have been based, down to the time of Alexander, on a currency consisting of cut and weighed silver, a type of currency that was present in Iran at least from Median times (cf. A. D. H. Bivar, &ldquoA Hoard of Ingot-Currency of the Median Period from Nush-i Jan, near Malayir,&rdquo Iran 9, 1971, pp. 97-111).

Material traces of Achaemenid rule from beyond Iran. It has never been easy to assess the influence that the Achaemenid empire came to exert on the indigenous cultures within its wide bounds. Wherever detailed regional information is available, the precise forms of Persian authority&mdashand Persian investment&mdashcan be seen to have varied not only from one region to the next, but often from one district to another.

No exhaustive treatment of the archeology of Mesopotamia in the Persian period has yet been attempted. Such a study could profitably combine the disparate evidence recovered from such major centers as Babylon, Kī&scaron, Ur, and Nippur with the results of several relatively recent field surveys and &ldquorescue excavations.&rdquo

In north Syria the 5th-4th century B.C. inhumation cemetery at Deve Hüyük can be associated with the presence of a permanent Persian garrison to the west of one of the more important crossings on the upper Euphrates. This cemetery, Deve Hüyük II (P. R. S. Moorey, &ldquoCemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük,&rdquo in British Archaeological Reports 87, 1980, pp. 7f.), provides evidence for such characteristic Achaemenid objects as zoomorphic rhyta (here in pottery, not metal) bronze phialai, or drinking bowls alabastra with small lug handles and, among iron weapons, tanged javelin heads, socketed spearheads, and examples of the Persian short sword&mdashthe akinakes of Herodotus&rsquos account (7.54). Bronze horse bits, bracelets, and fibulae are also complemented by relatively simple silver earrings and by cylinder seals which here appear, probably in deference to local taste, in glass.

In Palestine the free passage of goods from one part of the country to another seems to have offset the region&rsquos very varied mixture of peoples and its diverse forms of government so as to create a distinctive, more or less uniform material culture. As has been recently demonstrated in E. Stern&rsquos survey (Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, Jerusalem, 1982, p. 229), Persian authority operated effectively wherever its sole prerogative was to be expected: in the construction of palaces and fortresses, in the provision of support services for the army, and in its seemingly exclusive right to issue all the more valuable forms of coinage. The presence of a Persian elite also finds a very probable reflection in the recovery of typical Achaemenid jewelry from such sites as Gezer and Ashdod (ibid., figs. 253-54) still more remarkably, elements of a bronze throne were found in clandestine excavations at Samaria, the capital of the province (cf. M. Tadmor, &ldquoFragments of an Achaemenid Throne from Samaria,&rdquo Israel Exploration Journal 24, 1974, pp. 37f.).

The part of the empire that left the largest imprint on its Persian occupants was almost certainly Anatolia. In the Achaemenid period, it is not always easy to distinguish a Persian of rank from an Anatolian dignitary with a taste for the trappings of Achaemenid protocol. While the difficulties are manifest, and the Achaemenids are seldom very visible in the archeological record save for their royal (and subsequently satrapal) coinage or their seals and sealings, J. Cook has offered a persuasive picture of the mechanics of local Persian government and of the role of the Iranian landed gentry who so often sought a landscape, and a way of life, that contained echoes of their homeland (J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, 1983, p. 180). Also, certain finds from western Anatolia, such as the gold jewelry discovered by the first archeological expedition to Sardis (C. D. Curtis, Sardis XIII, Leiden, 1925, passim), the silver incense burners and other objects of precious metal of Achaemenid design recovered from the tombs at Ikiztepe in eastern Lydia (B. Tezcan, VIII Türk Tarih Kongresi, 1979, pp. 391-97), and the wall paintings found on the interior walls of the stone tomb at Karaburun in Lycia (M. J. Mellink, &ldquoExcavations at Karataṣ-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1971,&rdquo AJA 74-80, 1970-1976, pp. 265-69) could each be taken as partial reflections of high dynastic fashions set by the distant court at Susa. Nevertheless, as the finds from these and other sites demonstrate, the idioms of Greek art made an increasingly strong appeal from the early 5th century onward. Greek, Persian, and Anatolian influences are to be found in varying measure in the &ldquoGreco-Persian&rdquo stamp seals of western Anatolia (cf. J. Boardman, &ldquoPyramidal Stamp Seals in the Persian Empire,&rdquo Iran 8, 1970, pp. 19f.), while each of these influences, combined with strong hints of a north Syrian or Apamean (Aramean) style, is to be seen in the distinctive funerary stelae of local officials from the region of Daskyleion, close to the Troad. (See most recently R. Altheim-Stiehl, D. Metzler, and E. Schwertheim, &ldquoEine neue Gräko-Persische Grabstele aus Sultaniye Köy und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte und Topographie von Daskyleion,&rdquo Epigraphica Anatolica 1, 1983, pp. 1f.).

In contrast to each of the regions just described (as well as Egypt, another seat of ancient and foreign culture), the satrapies to the east of Iran were chiefly inhabited by Iranian peoples. Yet for all the linguistic, religious, and cultural ties that presumably linked the east Iranians to the Medes and Persians, there are strong archeological indications that they possessed a vigorous material culture of their own. Most of the

pottery of the northeastern provinces, for example, is utterly different from any in contemporary Iran. It is distinguished, as E. E. Kuz&rsquomina (&ldquoThe "Bactrian Mirage" and the Archaeological Reality. On the Problems of the Formation of North Bactrian Culture,&rdquo East and West 16, 1976, pp. 111-31) and A. Cattenat and J. C. Gardin (&ldquoDiffusion comparée de quelques genres de poterie caractéristique de l&rsquoépoque achéménide sur le Plateau Iranien et en Asie Centrale,&rdquo in J. Deshayes, ed., Le Plateau Iranien et l&rsquoAsie Centrale des origines à la conquête Islamique, Paris, 1977, pp. 225-48) have lately shown, by wheel-made cylindrical-conical jars such as begin to appear in the region around 600 B.C. Pottery with clear western finks is not in evidence before the late 4th and 3rd centuries B.C., when it is tempting to associate its appearance with the new political conditions imposed by Alexander.

Direct echoes of Persian rule, such as the fragment of an Achaemenid Elamite tablet found at Qandahār (S. W. Helms, &ldquoExcavations at "The City and the Famous Fortress of Kandahar, the Foremost Place in All of Asia",&rdquo Afghan Studies 3/4, 1982, p. 13) are, for the present, all too rare on Afghan sites. But if the relevance of both the 4th-century funerary furnishings from tomb V at Pazyryk (S. I. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs of Siberia. The Pazyryk Burials of Iron Age Horsemen, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970) and the late Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid objects for the so called Oxus treasure (see O. M. Dalton, The Treasure of the Oxus with other Examples of Early Oriental Metal Work, 3rd ed., R. D. Barnett, ed., London, 1964) should be admitted, it can not be questioned that Achaemenid motifs and Achaemenid tastes eventually traveled a long road eastward.

Much work still remains to document the material remains of Median and Persian rule, both inside and outside the boundaries of Iran. In regions beyond Iran in particular, the Achaemenid period is often one of the least archeologically explored and understood. This condition appears to derive in part from the nature of Persian dominion: Persian rulers preferred on the whole to adopt and to modify those institutions they encountered rather than to impose a single imperial pattern on their possessions. Nevertheless, detailed research into the once far-flung Persian presence constitutes a prime historical and cultural requirement. Only new archeological discoveries can serve to supplement those literary records that at present most largely illuminate the internal workings of the empire (cf. J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, pp. 167-82), and only a thorough knowledge of the sources of the Achaemenid court style, and of the diffusion of that style through some thirty satrapies, can be used to account for the subsequent appearance of time-honored Near Eastern themes deep in Europe and well across the breadth of Asia.

Median archeology: The regional ceramic sequences in Iron Age Iran are now best summarized in L. D. Levine, &ldquoThe Iron Age,&rdquo in F. Hole, ed., Archaeological Perspectives on Iran, from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, forthcoming.

For the excavations at Godīn Tepe, see especially T. C. Young, Jr., Excavations at Godin Tepe. First Progress Report, Royal Ontario Museum, Occasional Paper 17, 1969 T. C. Young, Jr. and L. D. Levine, Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report, ibid., 26, 1974.

Among reports on Tepe Nush-i Jan, see D. Stronach, M. Roaf, R. Stronach, and S. Bokonyi, &ldquoExcavations at Tepe Nush-i Jan . . .&rdquo Iran 16, 1978, pp. 1-28 M. A. Kyllo and R. N. L. B. Hubbard, &ldquoMedian and Parthian Plant Remains from Tepe Nush-i Jan,&rdquo Iran 19, 1981, pp. 91-100 and J. E. Curtis, Tepe Nush-i Jan III:The Small Finds, London, 1984.

Note also C. Goff, &ldquoExcavations at Baba Jan: The Pottery and Metal from Levels III and II,&rdquo Iran 16, 1978, pp. 29-66 idem, &ldquoExcavations at Baba Jan: The Architecture and Pottery of Level I,&rdquo Iran 23, 1985, pp. 1-20.

On the early history of the Medes, see most recently P. R. Helm, &ldquoHerodotus&rsquo Mêdikos Logos and Median History,&rdquo Iran 19, 1981, pp. 85-89.

For 19th-century records of freestanding Achaemenid monuments see also E. Flandin and P. Coste, Voyage en Perse IV, Paris, 1854, pls. 194f.

For relevant accounts left by early European visitors as a whole, see G. N. Curzon&rsquos Persia and the Persian Question A. Gabrial, Die Erforschung Persiens. Die Entwicklung der abendländischen Kenntnis der Geograhie Persiens, Vienna, 1952 and G. Herrmann, The Iranian Revival, Phaidon, Oxford, 1977, pp. 10f.

For general accounts of Achaemenid art and archeology based on excavations conducted between 1930 and 1961, see also Survey of Persian Art I, pp. 309f. E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East, London, 1941, pp. 221-74 H. Frankfort, Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Harmondsworth, 1954, pp. 348-78. More recent treatments include E. Porada, The Art of Ancient Iran, New York, 1965, pp. 142-78 C. Nylander, &ldquoThe Achaemenid Empire,&rdquo Expedition 13, 1971, pp. 50f. E. Porada, &ldquoAchaemenid Art, Monumental and Minute,&rdquo Highlights of Persian Art, ed. R. Ettinghausen and E. Yarshater, Boulder, Colorado, 1979, pp. 57-94 M. C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire, Acta Iranica 19, 1979.

Note also the bibliographies dealing with the pre-Achaemenid period and the Achaemenid period in L. Vanden Berghe, Bibliographie analytique de l&rsquoarchéologie de l&rsquoIran ancien, Leiden, 1979, pp. 233-55, and in L. Vanden Berghe and E. Haerinck, Bibliographie analytique de l&rsquoarchéologie de l&rsquoIran ancien, Supplément 1: 1978-1980, Leiden, 1981, pp. 72-80. Separate reports on Pasargadae, (Achaemenid) Susa and Persepolis are frequently weighted towards the study of architectural remains (for which see Art in Iran iii). Brief listings for each site may nevertheless include the following: For Pasargadae: C. Nylander, Ionians in Pasargadae: Studies in Old Persian Architecture, Uppsala, 1970 D. Stronach, Pasargadae. A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963, Oxford, 1978. For Susa: R. de Mecquenem, &ldquoContribution à l&rsquoétude du palais achéménide à Suse,&rdquo Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 30, 1947, pp. 1-119 R. Ghirshman, &ldquoSusa. Village perse-achéménide,&rdquo Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran 36, 1954 P. Amiet, &ldquoLes ivoires achéménides de Suse,&rdquo Syria 49, 1972, pp. 167-91 D. Stronach, &ldquoLa statue de Darius le Grand découverte à Suse,&rdquo Cahiers de la délégation archéologique française en Iran 4, 1974, pp. 61-72 M. Roaf, &ldquoThe Subject Peoples on the Base of the Statue of Darius,&rdquo ibid., pp. 73-160 F. Vallat, &ldquoLes textes cunéiformes de la statue de Darius,&rdquo ibid., pp. 161-70 J. Perrot, &ldquoL&rsquoarchitecture militaire palatiale des achéménides à Suse,&rdquo 150 Jahre Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1829-1979, Mainz, 1981, pp. 79-94.

For Persepolis: M. Dieulafoy, L&rsquoart antique de la Perse II, Paris, 1884-89, pp. 2-74 F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, Iranische Felsreliefs, Berlin, 1910, pp. 100-46 E. Schmidt, Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, Chicago, 1953 idem, Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries, Chicago, 1957 idem, Persepolis III: The Royal Tombs and Other Monuments, Chicago, 1970 M. C. Root, &ldquoThe Persepolis Perplex: Some Prospects Borne of Retrospect,&rdquo Ancient Persia: The Art of an Empire, ed. D. Schmandt Besserat, Undena, 1980. For tablets inscribed in Elamite from Persepolis see especially, G. G. Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets, Chicago, 1948 and R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago, 1969.

For archeological materials of Achaemenid date from beyond Iran, see in particular the recent survey in P. R. S. Moorey&rsquos Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. which not only includes a concise overview for Mesopotamia and the Levant, but also treats of other regions within and without the borders of the Persian empire.

For Mesopotamia, see also C. L. Woolley, Ur Excavations IX: The Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods, London, 1962.

For Palestine, see especially E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, London, 1982.

For Anatolia, see also E. S. G. Robinson, &ldquoThe Beginnings of Achaemenid Coinage,&rdquo NC, 1958, pp. 187f. E. Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens: von Homer bis Alexander, Berlin, 1961, pp. 167-74 A. Sh. Shahbazi, The Irano-Lycian Monuments, Tehran, 1975 G. M. A. Hanfmann et al., Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times, Cambridge, Mass., 1983, pp. 100-06.

For the East, see, apart from Rudenko&rsquos and Dalton&rsquos major works, and the article by E. E. Kuz&rsquomina, already mentioned, W. J. Vogelsang &ldquoEarly Historical Arachosia in South-East Afghanistan. Meeting-place between East and West,&rdquo Iranica Antiqua 20, 1985, pp. 55-99.


New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.


Watch the video: The rise and fall of the Assyrian Empire - Marian H Feldman