The Historians' History of the World 01 [Prolegomena; Egypt, Mesopotamia]

An Assyrian Prince

[ca. 950-825 B.C.]

It is curious how largely the personality of an individual monarch dominates the history of an epoch among oriental nations. An illustration of this familiar fact is shown by antithesis in the scantiness of the records for about a century after the death of Tiglathpileser. Imperfect records reappear about 950 B.C., but it is not till about three-quarters of a century later that Assyria rises again to a time of might. Then, under Asshurnazirpal, one of the most enterprising and most cruel of conquerors, the stamp of Assyrian influence was put upon all surrounding nations. Shalmaneser II largely sustained the traditions of his father, and the power of Assyria was upheld, if not extended, by the next rulers, Tiglathpileser III and Shalmaneser IV.

How fully the deeds of these later Assyrian monarchs are known to us will appear in the succeeding pages. Monarchs of even greater celebrity were to come after; yet perhaps the reign of Asshurnazirpal (885-860 B.C.) may not unjustly be regarded as the period when Assyria obtained its greatest power and its highest civilisation. The bas-reliefs from the palace of Asshurnazirpal, which were exhumed by Layard and which are now exhibited in the British Museum, are in some respects the most perfect examples of Assyrian art that have been preserved. It is true that the artists of two centuries later had developed a more elaborate fashion in the matter of details; but the rugged outlines of the earlier masters tell of art in its creative period. The models produced in this epoch were never to be altered in their essentials during the entire course of Assyrian history. Such hunting scenes as that in which Asshurnazirpal, standing in his chariot, is seen shooting an arrow at an enraged and wounded lion, were perhaps never quite equalled by any Assyrian artist of a later epoch. The art of this time shows examples also of massive sculptures, such as the human-headed bulls and lions, in relative abundance. A curious feature of the later sculptures is that they usually present inscriptions written across pedestal and figure alike. Needless to say, these inscriptions record deeds of the great conqueror. Unfortunately, many of them are repetitions, but even so they preserve relatively comprehensive records of the achievements of the great king.

Even fuller records are preserved of Shalmaneser II. In particular, the black obelisk on which the deeds of this king are presented, both in graphic pictures and in extensive inscriptions, is one of the most famous of Assyrian antiquities. The exact character of this inscription and of the other records in question will be detailed in the succeeding pages.a Before proceeding to the history proper, let us study the theatre where the drama was played and the origins of the actors.

LAND AND PEOPLE

The land of Assyria, in the more restricted sense of the term, lies for the most part on the left bank of the Tigris, and is bounded on the south by the Lower Zab. Hence, strictly speaking, it would not form part of Mesopotamia were it not that the capital importance of the Tigris to the country and the trend of its other rivers make it a kind of appendage to the alluvial plain, and that the mountain ranges of the North constitute a boundary which cuts it off from the rest of the world, and thus naturally assigns it to Mesopotamia. Consequently, as soon as the Assyrians gained their independence and started on a career of conquest, it was natural that they should first extend their borders in that direction.

Mesopotamia consists of a great low-lying plain divided by no physical barrier. It was natural, therefore, that the policy of all powerful rulers in that region should have had for its aim the political unification of all parts of the country, united as they were already by a common civilisation and economic interdependence. The efforts of the Assyrians were likewise directed towards this end, though it was long before they obtained it. In the kingdom of Babylonia, which asserted its sway over the whole southern portion of the plain and its dependent provinces, they were at first confronted by an adversary strong enough to resist them, and all that fell to them for the time being was the northern half of Mesopotamia, the greater part of which remained under their dominion, and was merged into an Assyrian empire, just as the whole of Babylonia had been merged into a Babylonian empire. We shall see, however, that the memory of the separate existence of the two component parts of the empire at an earlier stage still subsisted in certain customs and relics of civil law, just as it did in Babylonia.

The Assyrians were a Semitic race, and, but for slight differences of dialect, spoke the same language as the Semitic-Babylonians. The Assyrian branch of the race constituted, in the first instance, an outpost on the left bank of the Tigris, where it developed on somewhat different lines from the Semites who remained in Mesopotamia. We have every reason for assuming that, before the Assyrians made their way into the country, the whole of Mesopotamia, the north no less than the south, was occupied by a Semitic population, distinct from the Aramæans—themselves probably recent immigrants—and united by a common civilisation. This is the race which we have styled Babylonians, as distinguished from the Sumerians, or, more exactly, Semitic-Babylonians, in treating of Babylonia. We are absolutely in the dark as to the extent to which these Semites of the North may have absorbed elements of an elder Sumerian population that may have survived, for in the earliest times concerning which we have any historic testimony the Semites were predominant even in northern Babylonia, much more, therefore, in northern Mesopotamia.

The Assyrians must have developed on independent lines, for in all other respects they differ materially from the Babylonians. In the latter we have made the acquaintance of a people peaceably disposed, nay, actually unwarlike, concerned mainly with the development of their civilisation—qualities which, when we compare them with the Assyrians, we are inclined to set to the account of their Sumerian blood. The latter were probably the most warlike of all the Semitic nations of the East, and maintained the purity of their racial type; for the features of the figures in their sculptures exhibit to a marked degree the characteristics which strike us nowadays as peculiar to the Jewish race. They also differ from the Babylonians in figure, for the latter are usually represented as short and thick-set, while the Assyrians are of somewhat lofty stature and powerful build.

The land of Assyria is very different from Mesopotamia proper. The nearness of the mountain ranges makes the climate cooler, and the soil is probably less productive than that of the lowlands along the river. Nor were the means of transport within its borders as good as in Mesopotamia proper, for the Tigris only constituted the frontier, and the swiftness of its current made it less well adapted for traffic than the Euphrates, which formed the most convenient natural line of communication in the plain of Mesopotamia.

In Babylonia we made the acquaintance of a country which had developed its own civilisation, and one where the inhabitants held in proud and honourable remembrance the various stages of its economic and political development,—a sentiment reflected in the religious cults of the ancient cities, the centres of civilisation. With Assyria it is otherwise. That country began to play its part in Mesopotamian history with the set purpose of appropriating what Babylonia had achieved. The Assyrians had no such gains, hallowed by the associations of thousands of years to boast of in their own country. They were a tardy supplement to the Semitic immigration. They felt themselves an appendage to the Semitic population already settled in Mesopotamia, and consequently regarded its ancient cults as, in a measure, their own. The fact implies an unconscious confession that they had nothing analogous or equivalent to set against the old centres of Babylonian civilisation, and, as a matter of fact, the chief towns of Assyria cannot for a moment be compared in importance with those of Babylonia. The most famous of the former owed their day of splendour to the rise of the Assyrian Empire or even, to some extent, to the fancy of individual kings; and when the Assyrian Empire passed from the stage of history these, its artificial creations, were abolished with it.