by
Damien F.
Mackey
“The very existence of a Median empire, with the emphasis on empire, is
thus
questionable"
(H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "Was there ever a Median Empire?", in
A. Kuhrt,
H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History III. Method and
Theory,
Leiden, 1988, p. 212).
Introduction
Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (University of Bremen) and Emmet Sweeney,
historical revisionists, have, in recent times, arrived at some startling
conclusions about ancient history - some of these warranting further critical
examination, whilst other of their views appear to me to be extreme and well
wide of the mark. In order to account for an apparent lack of due stratigraphy
for, say, the Mitannians, or the neo-Assyrians, or the Medo-Persians, this pair
(not always in perfect agreement) will attempt to merge any one of these with a
far earlier kingdom, for instance, the ancient Akkadians to be merged as one with
the neo-Assyrians. Lester Mitcham, however, was able to expose Sweeney’s
choices for comparisons using firm archaeological data in his article, “Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced” (SIS Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, No 1, May
1988).
The Akkadians and the neo-Assyrians were found to be two quite distinct peoples,
well-separated in time, and speaking and writing quite different languages.
Mitcham demonstrated similarly the archaeological impossibility of
Heinsohn’s and Sweeney’s bold efforts to fuse the Old Babylonian Dynasty of
Hammurabi with the Persians – King Hammurabi supposedly being the same as Darius
the Great.
Once again, different peoples, different geographies, different times.
Heinsohn and Sweeney do, however, have some degree of support for their
argument that the Persian Empire, as classically presented, is seriously lacking
in due archaeological strata. Heinsohn, in his far-reaching “The Restoration of
Ancient History” (http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/heinsohn.txt), refers
to the results of some conferences in the 1980’s pointing to difficulties regarding
the extent of the Medo-Persian empires:
In the 1980's, a series of eight major conferences
brought together the world's finest experts on the history of the Medish and
Persian empires. They reached startling results. The empire of Ninos
[pre-Alexander period (3)] was not even mentioned. Yet, its Medish successors
were extensively dealt with-to no great avail. In 1988, one of the organizers
of the eight conferences, stated the simple absence of an empire of the Medes
[pre-Alexander period (2)]: "A
Median oral tradition as a source for Herodotus III is a hypothesis that solves
some problems, but has otherwise little to recommend it ... This means that not
even in Herodotus' Median history a real empire is safely attested. In Assyrian and Babylonian records and in the
archeological evidence no vestiges of an imperial structure can be found. The
very existence of a Median empire, with the emphasis on empire, is thus questionable"
(H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "Was there ever a Median Empire?", in A.
Kuhrt, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory,
Leiden, 1988, p. 212).
Two years later came the really bewildering
revelation. Humankind's first world
empire of the Persians [Pre-Alexander Period (1)] did not fare much better than
the Medes. Its imperial dimensions had
dryly to be labelled "elusive" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "The
quest for an elusive empire?", in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, eds.,
Achaemenid History IV. Centre and Periphery, Leiden l990, p.
264).
Xerxes something of a ‘Ghost’
This series considers what has worked, and what has
not, in attempts so far to revise Medo-Persian history, by shortening it, so
that it may the better accord with the dearth of archaeological strata.
Introduction
Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (University of Bremen) had put forward a most controversial
‘solution’ to account for the problems of Medo-Persian archaeology by
attempting to identify the Persians with the Old Babylonian Dynasty of
Hammurabi – Darius ‘the Great’ being Hammurabi himself.
More recently (2002) Emmet Sweeney, who has been a supporter of
Heinsohn, has sought to fuse the Persians with the neo-Assyrians and
neo-Babylonians, so that, for instance, Cyrus the Great is to be identified
with Tiglath-pileser III; Xerxes with Sennacherib; and Artaxerxes III with
Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’. In the following passage, in which he claims to
be following Heinsohn, Sweeney refers again to the archaeological problem
associated with the Persian Empire (“Did Artaxerxes III Despoil the Temple in
Jerusalem?”, C and C Review, 2002:2,
p. 15):
A fundamental principle of Gunnar Heinsohn’s work is that the so-called
Neo-Assyrians must be identical to the Persians. Heinsohn was forced to that
conclusion for a very simple reason: Mesopotamia could provide little or no
archaeology for two centuries during which it was part of the Achaemenid
Empire. Indeed the absence of Persian strata is so complete that some modern
scholars, most notably Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg of the Netherlands, have come
to doubt the very existence of a Persian Empire …. This Persian disappearing
act constitutes more or less a ‘dark age’ in the historiography of the ancient
Near East.
[End of quote]
Some of the so-called Persian Kings
were semi-legendary, and composite
The mighty king, Xerxes, favoured
by various commentators to represent “Ahasuerus”, the Great King of the Book of
Esther, is most likely a composite character, a mix of real Assyrian and
Medo-Persian kings. Here, for instance, we consider his likenesses to
Sennacherib as pointed out by Emmet Sweeney.
The name ‘Xerxes’ is thought by
historians to accord extremely well linguistically with “Ahasuerus”, the name
of the Great King of the Book of Esther.
There are several kings “Ahasuerus”
in the (Catholic) Bible: in Tobit; in Esther; in Ezra; and in Daniel.
As Cyaxares
The one in Tobit is usually considered to refer to the
Cyaxares who conquered Nineveh. See e.g. my:
“But before [Tobias] died, he heard
of the destruction of Nineveh, which was taken by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus;
and before his death he rejoiced over Nineveh”. (Tobit 14:15)
and:
in which I discuss the name, “Ahasuerus”.
Cyaxares, again, is probably the “Ahasuerus” mentioned as
the father of Darius the Mede in Daniel 9:1: “It was the first year of the
reign of Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who became king of the
Babylonians”.
As Cyrus
The “Ahasuerus” in Esther I have identified as Darius the
Mede/Cyrus:
and, likewise, the “Ahasuerus” in Ezra:
The names, Xerxes, Ahasuerus, Cyaxares and Cyrus are all
fairly compatible.
Comparisons
with Sennacherib
... In Ramessides, Medes and
Persians I outlined detailed reasons for identifying Tiglath-Pileser III with
Cyrus, Shalmaneser V with Cambyses, and Sargon II with Darius I. The striking
correspondences in the lives of all of these, repeated generation for
generation in parallel sequence, made it increasingly unlikely that the
identifications could be mistaken. Yet even one striking mismatch could potentially
invalidate the whole scheme. I then came to the next “pairing” – Sennacherib
with Xerxes. Would these two also show clear-cut and convincing
correspondences?
A random search of the internet
produces the following for Xerxes and Sennacherib: “Like the Persian Xerxes, he
[Sennacherib] was weak and vainglorious, cowardly under reverse, and cruel and
boastful in success.” (WebBible Encyclopedia at www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/sennacherib.html). The writer of these words
did not suspect any connection between the two kings, much less that they were
the same person. Nevertheless, the similarities between them were so compelling
that one apparently brought the other to mind.
The writer’s instincts, I shall
argue, did not betray him. The lives and careers of Xerxes and Sennacherib were
so similar that were the thesis presented in these pages not proffered,
scholars must wonder at the astounding parallels between the two.
One of Xerxes’ first actions as king
was an invasion of Egypt, which had thrown off the Persian yoke shortly after
Darius’ defeat at the hands of the Greeks. This reconquest of Egypt was said to
have taken place in Xerxes’ second year. Similarly, one of the first actions of
Sennacherib was a campaign against Egypt and her Palestinian and Syrian allies.
This war against Egypt took place in Sennacherib’s third year. The Assyrian
inscriptions inform us how Hezekiah of Judah had rebelled and sought the
assistance of the kings of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot (-corps) and the
cavalry of the king of Ethiopia (Meluhha), an army beyond counting — and they
(actually) had come to their assistance. In the plain of Eltekeh (Al-ta-qu-u),
their battle lines were drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons.…
I fought with them and inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the
battle, I personally captured alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir)
princes and (also) the charioteers of the king of Ethiopia. (J. Pritchard,
Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, 1950) pp. 287-8).
Hezekiah was besieged, but not
captured. Nevertheless, the outcome of this campaign was a complete victory for
Sennacherib. Hezekiah sent tribute to the Great King:
Hezekiah himself, whom the
terror-inspiring glamour of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and
elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order
to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly
city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones,
antimony, large cuts of red stone … all kinds of valuable treasures, his (own)
daughters, concubines, male and female musicians. In order to deliver the
tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his (personal) messenger.
Hezekiah would scarcely have sent
this tribute to Sennacherib had his Egyptian allies not been totally defeated,
a circumstance which has made many scholars suspect that he actually entered
Egypt after his defeat of its army on the plain of Eltekeh. (See eg. A. T.
Olmstead, History of Assyria (1923) pp. 308-9). This supposition is supported
by the fact that Sennacherib described himself as “King of the Four Quarters,”
a term which, as stated above, traditionally implied authority over Magan and
Meluhha (Egypt), regarded as the western-most “quarter” or edge of the world.
It is also supported by both classical and Hebrew tradition. Thus Herodotus
spoke of Sennacherib advancing against Egypt with a mighty army and camping at
Pelusium, near the north-eastern frontier (Herodotus, iii, 141), whilst
Berossus, who wrote a history of Chaldea, said that Sennacherib had conducted
an expedition against “all Asia and Egypt.” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities X,
i,4). Jewish tradition goes further and tells of the conquest of Egypt by the
king and of his march towards Ethiopia. “Sennacherib was forced to stop his
campaign against Hezekiah for a short time, as he had to move hurriedly against
Ethiopia. Having conquered this ‘pearl of all countries’ he returned to Judea.”
(L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1920) Vol. VI p. 365).
Talmudic sources also relate that after conquering Egypt, Sennacherib carried
away from there the throne of Solomon. (Ibid. Vol. IV, p. 160)
Sennacherib’s second campaign
against Egypt, not recorded in the Assyrian inscriptions, had, as is
well-known, a much less favorable outcome for the Great King.
The greatest event of Xerxes’ reign
was of course his momentous defeat in Greece. The story of his invasion is
recorded in detail by the Greek authors, most particularly by Herodotus, and it
is clear that Xerxes’ failure to overcome the Hellenes represented the great
watershed in Achaemenid history. From that point on the Persian Empire entered
a period of prolonged decline.
Strange then that of all the wars
waged by Sennacherib, the only opponents who are said to have come near to
defeating him were the Ionian Greeks. In one well-known passage Berossus tells
of a fierce battle between Sennacherib and the Ionians of Cilicia. (H. R. Hall,
The Ancient History of the Near East (London, 1913) p. 487). The Greeks, he
says, were routed after a hard-fought hand-to-hand struggle.
The most important event of Xerxes’
latter years was without doubt his defeat of yet another Babylonian rebellion.
Although our sources are somewhat vague, it would appear that there were in
fact two rebellions in Babylon during the time of Xerxes, the first of which
occurred in his second year, and was led by Bel-shimanni, and the second some
time later led by Shamash-eriba.
How peculiar then that Sennacherib
too should face two major rebellions in Babylon, the first of which came within
three years or so of his succession, and was led by Bel-ibni. (C. H. W. Johns,
Ancient Babylonia (London, 1913) p. 120). Rebellion number two came some years
later and was led by Mushezib-Marduk. This second rebellion, one might guess,
was one of the consequences of the Persian defeat in Greece, and there seems
little doubt that Mushezib-Marduk of the Assyrian records and monuments is
Shamash-eriba of the Persian.
Both Xerxes and Sennacherib were
relatively mild in their treatment of the Babylonians after the first
rebellion. However, after the second insurrection both kings subjected the city
to massive destruction. But the parallels do not end there. Xerxes’ terrible
punishment of Babylon was partly in revenge for the Babylonians’ murder of his
satrap. (Brian Dicks, The Ancient Persians: How they Lived and Worked (1979) p.
46).
Similarly, Sennacherib’s destruction
of Babylon after the second insurrection was largely in vengeance for the
Babylonians’ kidnap and murder of his brother Ashur-nadin-shum, whom he had
made viceroy of the city. (C. H. W. Johns, op cit. pp. 121-2). Xerxes tore down
the walls of Babylon, massacred its citizens, destroyed its temples, and seized
the sacred golden statue of Bel. (Brian Dicks, op cit). In the same way,
Sennacherib razed the city walls and temples, massacred the people, and carried
off the sacred statue of Marduk. (C. H. W. Johns, op cit. p. 122). Bel and
Marduk were one and the same; and the name was often written Bel-Marduk. In
memory of the awful destruction wrought by Sennacherib, the Babylonian
Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon define the eight years that followed as
“kingless.” The city, it is held, suffered no such catastrophe again until the
time of Xerxes, supposedly two centuries later.
Xerxes’ despoliation of Babylon is
generally believed to have been accompanied by his suppression of the
Babylonian gods, and it is assumed that his famous inscription recording the
outlawing of the daevas, or foreign gods, in favor of Ahura Mazda, was part of
the general response to the second Babylonian uprising:
And among these countries (in
rebellion) there was one where, previously, daevas had been worshipped.
Afterward, through Ahura Mazda’s favor, I destroyed this sanctuary of daevas
and proclaimed. “Let daevas not be worshipped!” There, where daevas had
been worshipped before, I worshipped Ahura Mazda.
How peculiar then that Sennacherib
too should be accused of outlawing the Babylonian gods, especially Marduk, in
favor of Ashur as part of his response to a second Babylonian rebellion? “A
political-theological propaganda campaign was launched to explain to the people
that what had taken place [the destruction of Babylon and despoliation of
Bel-Marduk’s shrine] was in accord with the wish of most of the gods. A story
was written in which Marduk, because of a transgression, was captured and
brought before a tribunal. Only a part of the commentary to this botched piece
of literature is extant.”
Nevertheless, it is clear that
Sennacherib tried to “depose” or even “outlaw” Marduk. Thus we find that, “Even
the great poem of the creation of the world, the Enuma elish, was altered: the
god Marduk was replaced by the god Ashur.” (Ibid.)
To summarize, then, consider the following:
SENNACHERIB
|
XERXES
|
Made war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a
bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.
|
Made war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a
bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.
|
Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The
first, in his second year, was led by Bel-Shimanni. The
second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba.
|
Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The
first, in his third year, was led by Bel-ibni. The
second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
|
The Babylonians were well-treated after the first
rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and
murdered Sennacherib’s viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum.
|
The Babylonians were well-treated after the first
rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and
murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
|
After the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred
the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden
stature of Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour
of Ashur, who was made the supreme deity.
|
After the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the
inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden
stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in
favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the supreme deity.
|
The parallels between Xerxes and
Sennacherib are thus among the closest between an Achaemenid and a
Neo-Assyrian. Yet even now we are not finished. There is yet one more striking
comparison between the two monarchs, a comparison so compelling and so
identical in the details that this one alone, even without the others, would be
enough to demand an identification.
Xerxes died after a reign of 21
years (compare with Sennacherib’s 22) in dramatic circumstances, murdered in a
palace conspiracy apparently involving at least one of his sons. Popular
tradition has it that the real murderer of Xerxes was Artabanus, the captain of
his guard, and that this man then put the blame on Darius, eldest son of the
murdered king. Whatever the truth, it is clear that Artaxerxes, the crown
prince, pointed the finger at Darius, who was immediately arrested and executed.
(Percy Sykes, A History of Ancient Persia Vol. 1 (London, 1930) pp. 213-4). It
is said that Artabanus then plotted to murder Artaxerxes, but that the
conspiracy was uncovered by Megabyzus. No sooner had Artabanus been removed
than Hystaspes, another elder brother of Artaxerxes, rose in rebellion. The
young king then led his forces into Bactria and defeated the rebel in two
battles. (Ibid., p. 124)
Of the above information, one
feature is most unusual: the eldest son, Darius, who was not the crown prince,
was accused of the murder by the crown prince Artaxerxes, who then had him
hunted down and killed.
The death of Sennacherib compares
very well with that of Xerxes. He too was murdered in a palace conspiracy
involving some of his sons. But as with the death of Xerxes, there has always
been much rumor and myth, though little solid fact, in evidence. The biblical
Book of Kings names Adrammelech and Sharezer, two of Sennacherib’s sons, as the
killers (2 Kings 19:37). An inscription of Esarhaddon, the crown prince at the
time, clearly puts the blame on his eldest brother, whom he hunted down and
killed. Two other brothers are also named in complicity. (A. T. Olmstead, A
History of Assyria (1923) p. 338).
In spite of Esarhaddon’s clear
statement, there has always been much confusion about the details — so much so
that some have even implicated Esarhaddon himself in the deed. In view of such
a level of confusion, the detailed discussion of the question by Professor Simo
Parpola, in 1980, was sorely needed and long overdue. Employing commendable
reasoning, Parpola demonstrated how a little-understood Babylonian text
revealed the identity of the culprit, Arad-Ninlil. (R. Harper, Assyrian and
Babylonian Letters, Vol. XI (Chicago, 1911) No. 1091). A sentence of the document
reads, “Thy son Arad-Ninlil is going to kill thee.” The latter name should
properly, according to Parpola, be read as Arda-Mulissi (identical to
Adrammelech of 2 Kings). Motivation for the murder, said Parpola, was not
difficult to find. After the capture and probable death at the hands of the
Elamites of Sennacherib’s eldest son and heir-designate, Ashur-nadin-sumi, the
“second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be the next
crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of
Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi
but becomes the favourite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia …
Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince.” (Prof. Simo
Parpola, “Death in Mesopotamia” XXVIeme Rencontre Assyriologique
International,e ed. Prof. Bendt Alster, (Akademisk Forlag, 1980)).
We need hardly go beyond that for a
motive. It is not clear whether Arda-Mulissi personally delivered the death
blow; it seems that one of his captains was responsible.
Of this death then we note the same
unusual feature. The king was murdered by or on the orders of his eldest son,
who was not however the crown prince. The eldest son was then pursued and
executed by a younger son, who was the crown prince. The parallels with the
death of Xerxes are precise. In both cases also a second brother is named in
complicity, as well as various other conspirators. In both cases too the murder
was not actually carried out by the prince but by a fellow conspirator; in the
case of Xerxes by Artabanus, commander of the guard, and in the case of
Sennacherib by a man named Ashur-aha-iddin — a namesake of Esarhaddon. And this
calls attention to yet one more parallel. In both the murder of Xerxes and
Sennacherib, the crown prince himself has repeatedly been named as a suspect.
Thus the Encyclopedia Britannica has Artaxerxes I placed on the throne by
Xerxes’ murderer, Artabanus, (Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 1 (15th ed.) p.
598) whilst Parpola refers to the common suspicion that Esarhaddon had a part
in his father’s death.
Such striking similarities, when
placed along with the multitude of other parallels between the two kings’
lives, leave little doubt that we are on the right track. ....
[End of quote]
This works much better than any
hopeful connection with the dynasty of King Hammurabi of Babylon.
It is necessary to consider ‘Xerxes’
as a ‘ghost’, a made up king based on (at least in part) a real neo-Assyrian
ruler, Sennacherib.
Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’
“By his own efforts and with the aid of such Greek generals as Mentor and
Phocio of Athens, Artaxerxes thus revived the old empire of Darius. The order
of the state was restored, its apparatus reorganized, the central power
strengthened. Artaxerxes was energetic and restless, crafty and strong-minded.
He is called cruel and violent (Diodorus 17.5.3; Plutarch, Artoxerxes 26.1) but also a fair
judge (Diodorus 16.49.6)”.
Introduction
Did Artaxerxes III really ‘revive the old Persian empire’, or was ‘he’, too,
like ‘Xerxes’ (Part Two), a composite
‘ghost’ figure recalling real Mesopotamian/Medo-Persian kings?
The point of this series has been to try to account for the worrying
lack of archaeological strata for the Medo-Persian kingdom, especially in its
relation to the city of Babylon.
Conventionally, the Medo-Persian rule is considered to have endured for
some three centuries:
My opinion, though, is that it was nowhere near that lengthy, and that some
(if not most) of the Medo-Persian kings are duplicates.
Babylon really comes into calculations at the time of Darius the Mede
and Cyrus the Persian. However, if I am correct in - {following other scholars}
- identifying Darius the Mede as Cyrus:
Darius the Mede "Received the Kingdom"
then this would immediately cut out any purely Median archaeology for
Babylon.
But how to account for the lack of Persian stratigraphy?
Well, we have read in this series that Cyrus the Great was known by
various names, apart form Darius, including the names “Ahasuerus” and “Artaxerxes”.
The multiple kings Darius and Artaxerxes will thus need to be reconsidered,
with the possibility of at least some of these being duplicates of Cyrus.
The legendary Xerxes (a name that we found to be compatible with “Ahasuerus”)
is, in part, based upon the powerful neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib, whom I
have also identified as Sargon II:
Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise
Known As Sennacherib
ARTAXERXES III, throne name of Ochus (Gk.
Ôchos, Babylonian Ú-ma-kuš, son of Artaxerxes II and Stateira), Achaemenid king
(r. 359-58 to 338-37 B.C.). About 361 he took part in a campaign against Egypt,
then in rebellion under her king Tachos, and obtained that king’s surrender
(Georgius Syncellus 1.486.20ff. D.). The fact that the Satraps’ Revolt, which
he helped put down, was not quite ended may account for the lack of uniformity regarding
the date of Artaxerxes’ accession. That event is dated to year 390 of the
Babylonian Nabonassar era (beginning in November, 359 B.C.), but Polyaenus
(7.17) states that he concealed his father’s death for 10 months, so that his
official reign may only have begun in 358-57. On becoming king, he did away
with his brothers, sisters, and other possible rivals (Justin 10.3.1; cf.
Curtius Rufus 10.5.23, claiming that 80 brothers were murdered in one day).
Artaxerxes III’s objective was to consolidate royal authority and to
terminate the revolts which threatened to break up the empire. He seems to have
first made war on the rebel Cadusii in Media Atropatene (Justin 10.3.2); in the
hard and successful fighting, Codomannus, the later Darius III, distinguished
himself (Diodorus 17.6.1; Justin 10.3.3-4). Then a major campaign (ca. 356-52)
was directed against such western satraps as Artabazus and Orontes who had
rebelled against his father; these were now commanded to dismiss their Greek
mercenaries (scholium to Demosthenes 4.19). The reconquest of Egypt was also to
be carried through. Details of the campaign are unclear, but some success was
achieved. Orontes was subdued, while Artabazus, banished, sought refuge with
Philip of Macedonia (Diodorus 16.22.1-2, 34.1-2; Demosthenes 14.31). With the
Satraps’ Revolt ended, Persian rule over Asia Minor and Phoenicia was again
consolidated. Artaxerxes had acted resolutely; he obtained by threat of war the
compliance of Athens, whose general, Chares, had first supported Artabazus
(Diodorus 16.34.1). Actual restoration of order was accomplished by the king’s
generals, especially Mentor of Rhodes, while Artaxerxes was preoccupied with
Egypt (Ps.-Aristoteles, Oeconomica 2.2.28; Diodorus 16.52.1-8). For the
generals’ campaign against Egypt had failed; and before the king’s massive new
preparations were completed, a new revolt broke out in Syria, Phoenicia, and
Cyprus in 351 which was aided by the Egyptian King Nectanebus. The rebels, led
by Tennes of Sidon, were fought with indifferent success (Diodorus
16.40.5-42.9) by Idrieus (satrap of Caria), Mazaeus (of Cilicia), and Belesys
(of Syria). Artaxerxes then led a large force from Babylon to Syria and soon
restored matters. The rich Phoenician town of Sidon, the revolt’s center, was
betrayed by King Tennes, and then destroyed by a fire set by the besieged
Sidonians themselves (Diodorus 16.43.1-45.6; Pompeius Trogus, Prologus 10;
Orosius 3.7.8; Georgius Syncellus 1.486.16 D.). Other towns of Phoenicia and
Palestine then submitted. The expeditions of the generals Bagoas and Orophernes
and the deportations of Jews ordered by Artaxerxes (Syncellus 1.486.10ff. D.)
may be combined with the events recorded in the Book of Judith.
About 346-45 B.C. the king marched on Egypt. The citadels of Pelusium
and Bubastis in the Nile delta were taken and by 343 the reconquest had been
achieved, ending 65 years of Egyptian independence. (A seal has been
interpreted as depicting this event; see J. Junge, Saka-Studien,
Leipzig, 1939, pp. 63-64 n. 4.) One Pherendates was appointed satrap (Diodorus
16.46.4-51.3), while Nectanebus fled south to Nubia to maintain an independent
kingdom. The Persians plundered and sacked extensively (Diodorus 16.51.2;
Aelian, Varia historia 4.8, 6.8), and Egyptians were reportedly carried
off to Persia. Consequently the king was vehemently hated by the Egyptians;
they identified him with the ass to which he had sacrificed the Apis Bull
(Aclian, 4.8).
Artaxerxes’ relations with the Greeks and Macedonians varied. Although
there were occasional clashes (especially during the Satraps’ Revolt), the king
sought the friendship of Athens, Sparta, and Macedonia, and he was the object
of both fear and esteem (for Athens, see Demosthenes 14.7, 25, 31). In about
351 B.C. the king invited Athens and Sparta to join in a campaign he planned
against Egypt; both declined but assured him of their friendship (Diodorus
16.44.1); Thebes and the Argives, however, sent him auxiliary troops (ibid.,
44.2, 46.4). The first contact noted between Artaxerxes and Macedonia is a
treaty of friendship with Philip II (Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.2); its
details are not known. The Persian king seems to have observed it, for an
Athenian legation seeking help against Philip returned empty handed
(Demosthenes 9.71 ). Eventually, when Philip attacked the town of Perinthus,
which dominated the Sea of Marmora, Artaxerxes perceived Philip’s real
intention and intervened by sending troops into Thrace (Diodorus 16.75.1;
Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.5). Alexander later pointed to this as a motive
for his campaign of revenge.
By his own efforts and with the aid of such Greek generals as Mentor and
Phocio of Athens, Artaxerxes thus revived the old empire of Darius. The order
of the state was restored, its apparatus reorganized, the central power
strengthened. Artaxerxes was energetic and restless, crafty and strong-minded.
He is called cruel and violent (Diodorus 17.5.3; Plutarch, Artoxerxes
26.1) but also a fair judge (Diodorus 16.49.6). A token of his revival was the
renewed building activity at Persepolis. The king erected a palace on the
southwest part of the terrace, as is attested by his inscription A3Pa
on a stairway (Kent, Old Persian, p. 156; F. H. Weissbach, Die
Keilinsehriften der Achämeniden, Leipzig, 1911, pp. 128-29). An Akkadian
tablet inscription has been found at Susa (“A3Sa,” ed. V. Scheil in MMAP
XXI, 1929, pp. 99-100 no. 30).
Artaxerxes was married to a daughter of his sister (her name is read
conjecturally in Valerius Maximus 9.2., ext. 7; see Justi, Namenbuch, p.
341 b) and to a daughter of Oxathres, brother of the later Darius III (Curtius
Rufus 3.13.13). The latter, with three of Artaxerxes’ daughters, was captured
by Alexander after the battle of Issus. The youngest of these, Parysatis, was
later married to Alexander (Arrian, Annbasis 7.4.4). Also captured in
the course of events was a granddaughter of Artaxerxes, who had been the wife
of Hystaspes (Curtius Rufus 6.2.7-8). Of the king’s sons, only two are known by
name. Arses, the youngest, succeeded his father but survived only for about two
years. Bisthanes came to meet Alexander in 330 (Arrian, Anabasis 3.19.4).
All the others are said to have been murdered by the Egyptian-born chiliarch,
Bagoas, after poisoned the king himself in his palace intrigues (Diodorus
17.5.4; cf. Aelian 6.8 and Syncellus 1.486.14f. D.). Bagoas undoubtedly sought
to be a kingmaker, but the premature death of Artaxerxes was a serious
misfortune for the Persian kingdom. ….
[End of quote]
Emmet
Sweeney has again (as with his Sennacherib = Xerxes) discerned some striking parallels
between a Mesopotamian king, in this case Nebuchednezzar II, and a supposed Persian
king, Artaxerxes III.
Artaxerxes
III and Nebuchadrezzar
In my Ramessides, Medes and Persians (Algora, 2007), I argued in detail
that the rulers known to history as the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians were
in fact Great Kings of the Persians under the guise of Mesopotamians. There I
demonstrated how the Neo-Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser III had to be identified with
Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid line, and that the Neo-Assyrian and
Neo-Babylonian monarchs who followed could be identified, point by point, with
the Achaemenid kings who followed Cyrus. Thus Cambyses, who reigned only six
years and campaigned in the direction of Egypt, sounds like Shalmaneser V, who
reigned just over seven years and similarly campaigned in the direction of
Egypt. Cambyses’ successor, Darius I, was not his son; and with him a new epoch
of the Persian monarchy began. In the same way, Shalmaneser V’s successor
Sargon II was not his son, and with the latter there began a new age of the
Assyrian monarchy. The parallels continue line by line and reign by reign, and may
be schematically represented thus:
Neo-Assyrian and Achaemenid Parallels
TIGLATH-PILESER III
Was the founder of a new dynasty and not the son of the previous king
of Assyria. During his time Assyrian power reached the borders of Egypt.
Ruled Babylon and “took the hand of Bel.”
|
CYRUS
Was the founder of a new dynasty and not the son of the previous king
of Persia. During his time Persian power reached the borders of Egypt. Conquered
Babylon and “took the hand of Bel.”
|
SHALMANESER V
Reigned only six years. Campaigned in the direction of Egypt.
|
CAMBYSES
Reigned seven and a half years. Conquered Egypt.
|
SARGON II
Was a usurper and not the son of the preceding king. Described himself
as King of the Four Quarters, implying rule from Magan (Egypt) to Dilmun
(India). Defeated a major insurrection in Babylon led by Merodach-Baladan
(III). Boasted of expelling the Ionians (Jaman) from their island homes.
|
DARIUS I
Was a usurper and not the son of the preceding king. Described himself
as King of the Four Quarters, ruling from Egypt to India. Defeated a major
insurrection in Babylon led by Nebuchadrezzar (III). Cleared the Ionian
islands of their inhabitants.
|
SENNACHERIB
Reigned 22 years. Defeated two major insurrections in Babylon and
destroyed the city after the second. Thereafter suppressed the Babylonian
deities in favor of Ashur, who was elevated to the position of supreme god.
Was murdered in a palace conspiracy involving at least one of his sons.
|
XERXES
Reigned 21 years. Defeated two major insurrections in Babylon and
destroyed the city after the second. Thereafter suppressed the Babylonian
deities in favor of Ahura Mazda, who was elevated to the position of supreme
god. Was murdered in a palace conspiracy involving at least one of his sons.
|
ESARHADDON
Was not the eldest son of Sennacherib, but was appointed crown-prince
through the influence of his powerful mother Naqia, who dominated her son.
Had to suppress a series of rebellions in Egypt and appointed Egyptian
potentates with names like Necho and Psamtek. Began rebuilding Babylon.
|
ARTAXERXES I
Was not the eldest son of Xerxes, but was appointed crown-prince
through the influence of his powerful mother Amestris, who dominated her son.
Had to suppress a series of rebellion in Egypt and appointed Egyptian
potentates with names like Necho and Psamtek. Began rebuilding Babylon.
|
ASHURBANIPAL
Was not the original crown-prince, but was appointed to rule after the
death of his brother Sin-iddin-apla. Faced rebellions in Egypt, where he
honored a prince named Wenamon. During his time Assyrian control of Egypt
began to weaken.
|
DARIUS II
Was not the original crown-prince, but was appointed to rule after the
death of his brother Xerxes II. Faced rebellions in Egypt, where he honored a
prince named Wenamon. During his time Persian control of Egypt began to
weaken.
|
NABOPOLASSER
Was based in Babylon and associated with that city. Appears to have
been a son of Ashurbanipal, but had to fight for control of the Assyrian
Empire against another son named Sin-shar-ishkun
|
ARTAXERXES II
Was based in Babylon and associated with that city. Son of a
Babylonian mother and a half-Babylonian father. Upon his accession had to
battle for control of the Persian Empire against a younger brother named
Cyrus.
|
NABUCHADREZZAR
Appears to have conquered Egypt, after a second attempt, where he
brought to an end the reign of Necho II. Destroyed Egypt’s ally Judah.
According to the Book of Judith had a servant named Bagoas and a general
named Holofernes. Was known for his savage cruelty.
|
ARTAXERXES III
Conquered Egypt after a second attempt, where he brought to an end the
reign of Nectanebo II. Brought all the nations of Syria/Palestine under his
control. According to Diodorus Siculus had a servant named Bagoas and a
general named Holofernes. Was known for his savage cruelty.
|
NABONIDUS
Was not the son of Nebuchadrezzar, but from a minor branch of the
royal family. Last native Babylonian king.
|
DARIUS III
Was not the son of Artaxerxes III, but from a minor branch of the
royal family. Last native Persian king.
|
In the above table we see some of the most important parallels between the
penultimate Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar and the penultimate Achaemenid
king Artaxerxes III. Yet the similarities between the two kings, like those of
the others, are so detailed that they cannot be adequately described in a
simple table. In the pages to follow I hope to fill out the picture a little
with regard to these two seminally important rulers.
When Artaxerxes II died, in 359 BC, his son Ochus was proclaimed king
under the name of Artaxerxes III. To ensure his succession against any
attempted rebellion, he let all of his brothers and half-brothers, eighty in
number, be killed.
The new Artaxerxes regarded the reconquest of Egypt as one of his chief
tasks, a task which he did eventually accomplish, though not until the
sixteenth year of his reign. We know that Nectanebo I died only a year before
Artaxerxes II, and that he was replaced on the throne by a pharaoh known to the
Greeks as Tachos. Well aware of the ruthless nature of the new occupant of the
Great King’s throne, Tachos made preparations to defend Egypt — part of which
involved the recruitment of the legendary Spartan King Aegesilaus to his cause.
Aegesilaus, by this time a very old man, was apparently delighted at the
opportunity once again to do battle with the Persians. The Spartan veteran had
been promised chief command by Tachos; but when he arrived in Egypt he found
that the fleet had been placed in the hands of the Athenian general Chabrias,
whilst Tachos himself retained overall supreme command. At this stage the
pharaoh was in Syria, part of which had been occupied by him following the
death of Artaxerxes II. In the meantime, a plot to place a nephew of his on the
throne was being hatched. Aegesilaus threw his weight behind the conspirators,
and effectively placed the nephew, known to history as Nectanebo II, on the
throne.
When news of these developments reached Tachos in Palestine he fled
northwards to the Persian king to ask forgiveness. Another two pretenders arose
to challenge Nectanebo II, but these were quickly overcome with the assistance
of Aegesilaus’ hoplites.
Nine years later, which was also the ninth year of the reign of
Artaxerxes III/Ochus (350 BC), the Egyptians met the armies of the Great King
on the borders of Egypt and threw them back towards Mesopotamia. The failure of
this first expedition proved to be a major setback for Artaxerxes III, and his
plan to reincorporate Egypt into the Empire had to wait another seven years
(343 BC) for fruition. Thus Artaxerxes III’s second, and successful expedition
against Egypt occurred in his sixteenth year.
We are told that after this reconquest Ochus plundered the country
mercilessly, repeating the depredations of Cambyses. There was a general
massacre of the population and a violation of the temples and religious
centers, even to the extent of slaying the sacred Apis bull and serving it at a
feast. All of which is believable enough, considering what we know of his
character from other sources. In the words of one commentator, the “chief
characteristic” of Ochus was his “savage cruelty.”1 How then does the life and
military career of Nebuchadrezzar compare with that of Artaxerxes III?
Early in his reign, in his eighth or possibly ninth year, Nebuchadrezzar
campaigned right to the borders of Egypt; it was then that he besieged
Jerusalem, removing its King Jehoiachin and replacing him with Zedekiah. It is
known that this campaign against Judah was actually but a small incident in a
much greater campaign against Egypt and its allies. But if such were the case,
then the campaign was at best indecisive — no conquest of Egypt is recorded.
Nevertheless, it could not have been a complete disaster for the Babylonians,
for Nebuchadrezzar apparently retained control of Judah until Zedekiah’s eighth
year — at which point the people of Judah once again threw off the Babylonian
yoke.
Thus we see that Nebuchadrezzar, like Artaxerxes III, made a first and
apparently largely unsuccessful attack on Egypt in his eighth, or possibly
ninth, year. But the parallels do not end there.
As we have noted, the Book of Chronicles records that in the eighth year
of Zedekiah, and therefore in the sixteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar, the Babylonian
king again moved against Egypt and Judah. Once again, most, if not all, of what
we know of this campaign comes from the Jewish records, which were of course
concerned primarily with the devastation the war brought to their own homeland.
These sources report that on this occasion Nebuchadrezzar utterly destroyed
Jerusalem, pulling down the temple and deporting the entire population to
Babylon.
This must have been part of the campaign against Egypt and its allies
recorded in a much damaged tablet of Nebuchadrezzar. What is still legible has
been translated thus:
The kings, the allies of his power and ... his general and his hired
soldiers ... he spoke unto. To his soldiers ... who were before ... at the way
of ...
In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon ... the king of
Egypt came up to do battle [?] and ... es, the king of Egypt ... and ... of the
city of Putu-Jaman ... far away regions which are in the sea ... numerous which
were in Egypt ... arms and horses ... he called to ... he trusted ...2
The reference to the campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadrezzar’s 37th
year is apparently puzzling, though it is possible, actually probable, that he
was counting from his appointment as King of Babylon, a system he is known to
have actually used. Whatever the case, it is certain that Nebuchadrezzar’s
second campaign against Judah, and Egypt, occurred sometime between his
sixteenth and seventeenth year.
Thus Nebuchadrezzar, like Artaxerxes III, made two assaults upon Egypt.
The first, in the eighth or ninth year of both monarchs, was a failure; and the
second, in the sixteenth or seventeenth year of both rulers, which was a
success.
That Nebuchadrezzar actually conquered Egypt is suggested by a number of
very powerful pieces of evidence. First of all, both Ezekiel and Jeremiah
prophesied that he would do so; and since most of these “prophecies” were
written in retrospect, or at least gained popular currency only after having
been proved correct, we may be fairly certain that the prophesied invasion and
defeat of Egypt actually took place. The conquest is predicted thus by Ezekiel
(29:19-20):
Therefore thus said the Lord God: Behold, I will set Nebuchadnezzar the
king of Babylon in the land of Egypt: and he shall take her multitude, and take
the booty thereof for a prey, and rifle the spoils thereof: and it shall be
wages for his army. And for the service that he hath done me against it, I have
given him the land of Egypt, because he hath labored for me, saith the Lord.
Secondly, the biblical sources say that Nebuchadrezzar was able to
remove the Jewish refugees in Egypt to Babylon. He could not of course have
done so unless he had entered and subjugated the country.
Thirdly, Josephus tells us that he conquered Egypt. We are informed that
four years after the fall of Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar invaded the country and put
its King Uaphris to death, installing a creature of his own upon the vacant
throne.3 Fourthly, and most importantly, artifacts of Nebuchadrezzar have
actually been discovered in Egypt. These are “three cylinders of terra-cotta
bearing an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, an ordinary text referring to his
constructions in Babylon ... These were said to come from the Isthmus of Suez,
and they apparently belong to some place where Nebuchadrezzar had ‘set up his
throne’ and ‘spread his royal pavilion.’ As he only passed along the Syrian
road, and Daphnae would be the only stopping place on that road in the region
of the isthmus, all the inferences point to these having come from Defenneh,
and being the memorials of establishment there.”4
In short, the prophecy of Jeremiah that the king of Babylon would spread
his royal pavilion at the entrance of the pharaoh’s house in Tahpanheth
(Daphnae) was fulfilled. There can be little doubt; Nebuchadrezzar entered and
conquered Egypt.
It is of interest to note here that the cylinders were discovered at
Daphnae, one of the Hellenic centers of the Delta, a garrison settlement of the
pharaoh’s Ionian bodyguard. This corresponds well enough with the contents of Nebuchadrezzar’s
tablet, which speaks of the city of Putu-Jaman. Jaman of course was the
Babylonian for “Ionian.”
Thus in a number of details the life and career of Nebuchadrezzar
provides close parallels with that of Artaxerxes III:
Both kings were rulers of Babylon, who clashed with Egypt.
Artaxerxes III’s first war against Egypt occurred in his eighth year,
and ended in failure. Nebuchadrezzar’s first war against Egypt took place in
his eighth or ninth year and apparently ended in failure.
The Egyptian enemy of Artaxerxes III was known as Nectanebo II. The
Egyptian enemy of Nebuchadrezzar was known as Necho II.
Artaxerxes III’s second campaign against Egypt occurred in his sixteenth
year and was successful. Nebuchadrezzar’s second campaign against Egypt
occurred in his sixteenth or seventeenth year and resulted in the conquest of
the Nile Kingdom.
Artaxerxes III’s Egyptian enemy Nectanebo II used Greek mercenaries
against the Great King. Nebuchadrezzar’s Egyptian enemy Necho II used Greek
mercenaries against him.
It is fairly evident then that here, once again, we find striking
parallels in the lives and careers of two characters supposedly belonging to
two different epochs separated by two centuries.
….
1 G. Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies Vol. 3 (London, 1879) p. 510.
2 S. Langdon, Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Paris,
1905) p. 182.
3 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities x,9,7.
4 F. Petrie, Tanis Pt II. Nebesheh and Defenneh p. 51.
....
