Sennacherib’s oldest son triplicated

by Damien F. Mackey I have detected a telling X-NADIN-SHUMI name pattern in connection with the rule of ancient Babylon: 1. Sennacherib would place his oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, upon the throne of Babylon. 2. A Ninurta-nadin-shumi would precede Nebuchednezzar so-called I upon the throne of Babylon. 3. Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I’s contemporary, Enlil-nadin-shumi, would take his place upon the throne of Babylon. So what, one might say! Well, in the context of my revision, this all would be the one and the same historical situation. Allow me to explain. A. First Ramifications 1. Sennacherib, conventionally dated to c. 700 BC, placed upon the throne of Babylon his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, who later dies and is replaced by Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s youngest ‘son’. D. T. Potts writes: “For reasons which are not entirely clear, as heir presumptive following the abduction (and presumably execution) of his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib had chosen his youngest son, Esarhaddon, bypassing three older children (see the discussion in Porter 1993: 16ff.)”. (The Archaeology of Elam, p. 274) 2. Ninurta-nadin-shumi, preceding as he does in the king-lists Nebuchednezzar, known as I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating), on the throne of Babylon, is sometimes wrongly considered to have been the father of this Nebuchednezzar. However, with my identification of: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (4) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, who, in turn, was Esarhaddon (see also my): Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Ninurta-nadin-shumi must merge into Ashur-nadin-shumi, now in c. 700 BC. The sequence in 1. and 2. is consistent: (Sennacherib) X-nadin-shumi Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar) 3. Enlil-nadin-shumi will sit upon the throne of Babylon during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta (c. 1200 BC, conventional dating), whom I have confidently identified as Sennacherib: Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? (5) Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Thus, again, our sequence: Sennacherib (= Tukulti-Ninurta) X-nadin-shumi (Esarhaddon = Nebuchednezzar) C13th/C12th BC Assyro-Babylonia needs to be slid down the time scale and re-located in the C8th BC period. A perfect example of this required chronological adjustment is to be found in the succession of Shutrukid Elamite kings of the supposed C12th BC perfectly paralleling those of the C8th BC, according to what I tabulated in my university thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 180): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (5) Thesis 2: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, consider further these striking parallels between the C12th BC and the neo-Assyrian period, to be developed below: Table 1: Comparison of the C12th BC (conventional) and C8th BC C12th BC • Some time before Nebuchednezzar I, there reigned in Babylon a Merodach-baladan [I]. • The Elamite kings of this era carried names such as Shutruk-Nahhunte and his son, Kudur-Nahhunte. • Nebuchednezzar I fought a hard battle with a ‘Hulteludish’ (Hultelutush-Inshushinak). C8th BC • The Babylonian ruler for king Sargon II’s first twelve years was a Merodach-baladan [II]. • SargonII/Sennacherib fought against the Elamites, Shutur-Nakhkhunte & Kutir-Nakhkhunte. • Sennacherib had trouble also with a ‘Hallushu’ (Halutush-Inshushinak). Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence! B. Second Ramifications D. T. Potts (above) is not too far wrong in referring to “the abduction (and presumably execution) of [Sennacherib’s] eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi …”. For Ashur-nadin-shumi, the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of the Book of Tobit (14:10), was also the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith, the Assyrian Commander-in-chief, who was indeed “executed”: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (5) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, though, we can add some more to this. “Holofernes”/Nadin was, all at once, Enlil-/Ninurta-/Ashur-nadin-shumi, the oldest son of Tukulti-Ninurta/Sennacherib. Upon his execution, this one-time ruler of Babylon (Isaiah 14:3-27) was succeeded on the throne by Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar, with whom there commenced a new dynasty (Chaldean). If Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar is to be looked for in the Book of Judith, he can only be “Bagoas”, second to “Holofernes” himself. On this, see e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (5) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sennacherib’s oldest son may, in fact, have been quadruplicated in the person of the ill-fated Sin-nadin-apli, wrongly thought to have been the oldest son of Esarhaddon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ama%C5%A1-%C5%A1uma-ukin “… the crown prince Sin-nadin-apli. …. Upon the unexpected death of Sin-nadin-apli [the Judith incident?] … the Assyrian court was thrown into upheaval”.

Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “In view of the notoriety of Piankhi [Piye], as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery”. Displaced Dynasties Better not blink or you might miss it. Thus we have, to name a few, those: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and the: Great King Omri missing from Chronicles https://www.academia.edu/42235075/Great_King_Omri_missing_from_Chronicles and, again: Nero’s missing architecture (6) Nero's missing architecture | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Even: Henry VIIIs palaces [are] missing (6) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, of course, there is the Missing Link, still missing and he won’t be missed either (G.K. Chesterton). Or as someone less sensibly put it, “found missing”. The above are just a few of the examples of important, presumably historical, characters, who are either poorly attested (statues, relief depictions, etc.), or not at all. “No monument within Egypt bears [Piankhi’s] name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources”. Displaced Dynasties Reading about the impressive, yet most obscure, pharaoh Piankhi (or Piye), took my mind back to when we used to be intrigued, as children in Tasmania, by the famous Disappearing House. Pauline Conolly tells about it: THE DISAPPEARING HOUSE IN TASMANIA - Pauline Conolly The Disappearing House at “The Corners” Conara Standing at the turnoff to St Marys at Conara, the so-called “Disappearing House” earned its name by the illusion of its sinking into the ground as travellers approached along the main road from Hobart to Launceston, due to the peculiar conformation of the landscape. On the old road the house would “vanish” as you descended one hill, the other seemed to rise up in front of you and the house would “disappear” behind it. Then as you ascended the next small hill, it would miraculously reappear. …. That pharaoh Piankhi qualifies for the first part of this trick, the disappearing bit, comes through most clearly in the Displaced Dynasties article, Volume 2- Piankhi the Chameleon (pp. 12-14): Piankhi: The Traditional View In view of the notoriety of Piankhi, as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery. When the Piankhi stela was first read by scholars it was immediately recognized that the dignitaries named therein belonged to the late 22nd and 23rd dynasties, and that the rebel Tefnakht must be the father of Bocchoris, the sole occupant of Manetho’s 24th dynasty. With confidence early Egyptologists dated the insurrection of Tefnakht and the response by Piankhi to the last quarter of the 8th century B.C. Flinders Petrie, the eminent and influential British Egyptologist, writing at the turn of the 20th century, dated the “invasion” to the year 720 B.C., with the reigns of the 25th dynasty kings Shabaka and Shabataka following closely on its heels. The whole of the 25th dynasty, including most of the reign of Taharka, is of necessity placed between the time of the Tefnakht rebellion and the conquest and occupation of Egypt by the Assyrians, the later event securely dated to the years 671-664 B.C. A century of scholarship has refined Petrie’s dates only slightly. K.A. Kitchen, the foremost living authority on the 3rd Intermediate Period, Piankhi – 618 B.C. … dates the Piankhi incident to 727 B.C. and the most recent analysis by the Egyptologist D.A. Aston … has placed Piankhi’s 21st year only a decade earlier, in the time span 740-735 B.C. If Aston is correct, the median year 738 B.C. cannot be far wrong. The slight difference of opinion on the date of the Piankhi invasion is related to a secondary question of fundamental concern to this revision. How long did Piankhi continue to rule after the rebellion was suppressed late in his 20th year? …. On this issue as well, there is some divergence of opinion. The question takes on added significance if it be admitted that he ruled over Egypt for much of this time. Who is Piankhi, this Nubian king who had, some years before the Tefnakht rebellion, conquered the southern and central portions of Egypt, if not the entire country, and who now scoffed at any challenge to his authority? If we correctly interpret the stela inscription he was a sovereign of long standing in Egypt, not a recent intruder. The stela is dated, as mentioned earlier, to the first month of his 21st year. Based on normal standards of interpretation we should glean from this fact that he had been king of Egypt, or a king within Egypt, for twenty years. That is, however, not the typical interpretation of his great stela. With few exceptions scholars believe that Piankhi had ruled central and southern Egypt for at most a few years before the rebellion, and that his control of the country was lost soon after. When they discuss his dates they are debating only his tenure as king in Nubia, not the length of his sovereignty over Egypt. The explanation for this opinion is related to considerations apart from the stela inscription itself. There is no evidence within Egypt that Piankhi ruled the country for a single year, much less for twenty years, prior to his 21st year. No monument within Egypt bears his name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources. In view of his renown, as evidenced in the narrative of the great stela, this is … D.A. Aston, “Takeloth II - A King of the ‘Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty’?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989) 139-153. ….The Great Stele dateline cites the first month of the first season of the civil calendar in Piankhi’s 21st year. The rebellion is over. We assume it ended several months earlier, time for Piankhi to return to Napate and have the monument inscribed (see figure 4 on page 27). …. Piankhi 618 B.C. a particularly troublesome silence. If he lived in Thebes, wherein he based an army, he has left no evidence of the fact. If he became king in Thebes two decades before the Tefnakht rebellion the lack of inscriptional evidence is difficult, if not impossible to explain. The conclusion follows that his involvement in Egyptian affairs was brief. He came; he conquered; and for reasons unknown, he quickly departed the country. Or so we are told. When Piankhi withdrew from the delta, laden with treasure, he was the uncontested sovereign of all of Egypt. Where did he go and for how long did he continue to rule? According to scholars, if he moved south to Thebes he did not long remain there. His home was Napata and there he lived out his years. But for how long? On this issue academia is divided. The majority believe that he continued to rule for either ten or twenty additional years, a conclusion based on the most fragile of evidence. Were it not for an obscured year date on a bandage, it might be argued that his name vanishes from Egypt entirely within a few years of the rebellion. Kitchen, who believes his reign in total lasted only 30 years, provides a summary of the evidence: The one generally accepted year-date of Piankhy is Year 21 on his great stela. However, a minimum of 31 years is assignable to him on the external evidence which is outlined above (sect. 114). To these factors, a little more can be added. First, there are three documents dated by the reign of ‘Pharaoh Py, Si-Ese Meryamun’ - two papyri of his Years 21 and 22, most probably Theban, and the lesser Dakhla stela of Year 24. There is good reason to view Py as the real reading of Piankhy and to attribute all three documents to Piankhy’s reign. Second, a fragmentary bandage from Western Thebes bears an obscure date of Sneferre Piankhy. The visible traces indicate ‘Regnal Year 20', a patch and trace (the latter compatible with a ‘10'), and a shallow sign perhaps an otiose t. In other words, we here have a date higher than Year 20 of Piankhy, and very possibly Year 30 - which would fit very well with the 31 years’ minimum reign which has been already inferred on independent grounds. …. [End of quotes] This bears out what I wrote about pharaoh Piankhi in my article, quoting Sir Alan Gardiner: The Complete Ramses II (7) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Gardiner has written: It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn. No mention of Piankhi by Manetho? Obviously, then, this great pharaoh is in crying need of his being united with a major alter ego, so that he can, like the Disappearing House, re-emerge again (including in Manetho). And this is the way that Displaced Dynasties will choose to go - though with quite the wrong alter ego connection as far as I am concerned. It is also the way that I chose to go in my Ramses II article (above) in which the reader will find how I was able to fill out the Disappearing Pharaoh, Piankhi.

Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

by Damien F. Mackey “Such representations … are found in the palace of Khorsabad, where the co-regent Sennacherib is facing king Sargon”. Gerard Gertoux A history follower of long-standing from Brazil has enthusiastically embraced my Sargon II as Sennacherib thesis in the context of the drama of the Book of Judith. However, an article by Gerard Gertoux: Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah (5) Dating the Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah | Gerard GERTOUX - Academia.edu has prompted him to raise some questions with me now about the validity of my university thesis (2007) identification. Thus he has written: Dear “Professor” [sic] Mackey, I hope everything is well with you and yours. I recently read a very interesting academic article titled “Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah,” which discusses the possibility of a co-regency between Sargon and Sennacherib, following a synchronization involving other kings from the period of Hezekiah; astrological phenomena; and the analysis of inscriptions and other Assyrian reliefs. All of this adheres to a biblical dating. You might already be aware of this article. However, if it’s not too much trouble, I would greatly appreciate knowing what you think about the article. Is it very or slightly plausible? Your opinion is very important to me. …. He went on to write in his next e-mail (re the Khorsabad and Lachish reliefs): …. Mr. Gertoux … some of his statements made me think: “… Some authors also noted an anomaly (underlined) on line 44 of the inscription: They counted (them) as booty, then one would expect more logically from Sargon the sentence: I have counted (them) as booty (with the co-regency anomaly disappears).” I ask you, how would you explain this anomaly differently? “… On the relief carved (below) representing the siege of Lachish, the central element is the king seated on his throne clearly identified by his tiara and scepter and facing the crown prince. The crown prince was always represented (without exception) on panels or stelae as tall as the king and wearing a diadem with two ribbons behind the head, facing the king wearing the tiara, who also bore the two ribbons behind the head: The identification of the two characters is not a problem because Assyrian art (or Babylonian) is stereotyped: gods, kings, and their subjects are prioritized based on their size, according to conventional representations. When a character next to a king is shown the same size, with a tiara, it is another king and when he is without tiara but with the regalia it is a co-regent, like King Darius (522-486) and Xerxes co-regent (496-475) behind him (below). For example, Shalmaneser III (859-824), king of Assyria, and Marduk-zakir-shumi I (855-819), king of Babylon, shake hands as a sign of alliance and mutual support. On the relief carved of Lachish, the co-regent facing the king, seated on the throne, cannot be Ardu-Mulissu, called Adrammelech in Isaiah 37:58 because the latter has been designated heir only from 698 BCE, 3 years after the new 3rd campaign of Sennacherib as king (not co-regent). Therefore, the king seated on the throne at Lachish is King Sargon facing Sennacherib. On the relief of the siege of Lachish, Sennacherib is on the left and Sargon is on the right as on the relief in the palace of Khorsabad. The epigraph of four lines over Sennacherib (in a label) confirms this identification because it is presented as co-regent (MAN) and not as king (LUGAL) and the other epigraph of three lines over the tent of Sennacherib describes him as king (afterward): The MAN sign, written with 2 nail heads << (like number “20”), later translated sharru “king” into Akkadian, literally means shanû “second”. The usual word used for “king” is not MAN but LUGAL, literally “great man” (both terms are used in Sennacherib’s inscriptions). Sennacherib could not bear the title of king during Sargon’s lifetime, because the latter was considered to be “without rival”, but only the title of viceroy (double or replica of the king). In addition, the term -ma meaning “and” connects one who sits to the one passing booty reviewed (who was King Sargon).” If the character next to Sennacherib was neither Sargon nor Adrammelech, who was it? …. Anyone who reads the entire article will notice numerous other small pieces of evidence. I am not an expert like you, but I trust you and, if possible, I would very much like to hear from you on this matter. My best regards …. My response to these e-mails, in part, was as follows: …. What is to stop him from being Crown Prince and Turtan (general)? Ramses II 'the Great', in my revision, had his talented son, Khaemwaset, as such. Khaemwaset, or Shebitku Khaemwaset, was the “Si’be tartan of Egypt” whom Sargon II chased away in 720 BC (conventional dating). His father was the long-reigning Sabacos, or Psibkhanno Ramses (Ramses II), who gave a gift of horses to Sargon. Sargon called Psibkhanno, "Shilkanni king of Egypt". Historians imagine that this Shilkanni was an Osorkon, but the name fits far better as an Assyrian transliteration of Psibkhanno. We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. This Nadin was the king's oldest son, Ashur nadin shumi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-n%C4%81din-%C5%A1umi .... After defeating uprisings in 700 BC, Sennacherib named his own son, Aššur-nādin-šumi, as the new king of Babylon. Aššur-nādin-šumi was also titled as māru rēštû, a title that could be interpreted either as the "pre-eminent son" or the "firstborn son". His appointment as King of Babylon and the new title suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was being groomed to also follow Sennacherib as the King of Assyria upon his death. Aššur-nādin-šumi being titled as the māru rēštû likely means that he was Sennacherib's crown prince; if it means "pre-eminent" such a title would be befitting only for the crown prince and if it means "firstborn", it also suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was the heir as the Assyrians in most cases followed the principle of primogeniture (the oldest son inherits) .... Gerard Gertoux has, in the Abstract to his article, separated certain characters who I think were the same: Abstract. The traditional date of 701 BCE for Sennacherib's campaign to Judah, with the siege of Lachish and Jerusalem and the Battle of Eltekeh, is accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, the inscription of Sargon II, found at Tang-i Var in 1968, requires to date this famous campaign during his 10th campaign, in 712 BCE, implying a coregency with Sennacherib from 714 BCE. Mackey’s comment: That is a long co-regency considering that Assyriologists do not tend to recognise any co-regency there. If Sargon II was Sennacherib, as I have suggested, then the apparently large overlap of reigns becomes irrelevant. Tangi-i Var is only a problem because of the conventional misalignment of Egyptian chronology. Gerard Gertoux continues: A thorough analysis of the annals and the reliefs of Sargon and Sennacherib shows that there was only one campaign in Judah and not two. Mackey’s comment: A thorough analysis of Isaiah shows that there were two. For, what Isaiah says Sennacherib is not going to do, henceforth (in a failed second effort), the Assyrian king had already done in spades during his 3rd campaign (Isaiah 37:33): “And this is what the LORD says about the king of Assyria: ‘His armies will not enter Jerusalem. They will not even shoot an arrow at it. They will not march outside its gates with their shields nor build banks of earth against its walls’.” Gerard Gertoux continues: The Assyrian assault involved the presence of at least six kings (or similar): 1) taking of Ashdod by the Assyrian king Sargon II in his 10th campaign, 2) taking of Lachish by Sennacherib during his 3rd campaign, 3) siege of Jerusalem dated 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah; 4) battle of Eltekeh led by Nubian co-regent Taharqa; 5) under the leadership of King Shabataka during his 1st year of reign; 6) probable disappearance of the Egyptian king Osorkon IV in his 33rd year of reign. This conclusion agrees exactly with the biblical account that states all these events occurred during the 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah dated 712 BCE (2Kings 18:13-17, 19:9; 2Chronicles 32:9; Isaiah 20:1, 36:1, 37:9). Mackey’s comment: Where are we told that Taharqa was at the battle of Eltekeh? Indeed, Taharqa was co-regent with Shabataka (Shebitku), who, as Shebitku Khaemwaset, was Taharqa’s – as Ramses II – very son, Khaemwaset. Ramses II’s son, Shebitku Khaemwaset of the Tang-i Var document, had been the Turtan, Si’be, but later was co-regent with the great Pharaoh. Osorkon belongs to a later period. Gerard Gertoux will come back to the battle of Eltekeh again, about which he will write: …. the Battle of Eltekeh (Joshua 21:23) which can also be dated in 712 BCE. According to the two stelae of Kawa …after the death of Shabaka, his successor Shabataka immediately summoned an army which he placed under the command of his brother Taharqa, a young son of Piye aged 20, to repel Assyrian attack which was threatening. …. But Piye (Piankhi) was actually, again, Taharqa. For, as I noted in my thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 384. Emphasis added): …. Now Piye, conventionally considered to have been the first major 25th dynasty pharaoh, and whose beginning of reign (revised) must have been very close to 730 BC (given that he reigned for 31 years), and whose 21st year (Stele) fell during the reign of Tefnakht - had also adopted the name of Usermaatre. Thus Grimal: “[Piankhy] identified himself with the two great rulers who were most represented in the Nubian monuments, Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II, and adopted each of their coronation names: Menkheperre and Usermaatra respectively”. In other words, Piye was an eclectic in regard to early Egyptian history; and this fact may provide us with a certain opportunity for manoeuvring, alter ego wise. Fortunately we do not need to guess who Piye was, because there is a scarab that tells us precisely that Snefer-Ra Piankhi was Tirhakah, much to the puzzlement of Petrie. It reads: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Tirhakah, Son of Ra, Piankhi”. …. Piye (Piankhi) Usermaatre was both Taharqa (Tirhakah) and Ramses II Usermaatre. But the mighty Piankhi seriously needs one or more alter egos: The Disappearing Piankhi https://www.academia.edu/108993830/The_Disappearing_Piankhi The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib at Khorsabad and Lachish could be either, or both, of the two to whom I referred in my correspondence (above): We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. And he could also be the Turtan of Sennacherib’s first major campaign against Judah (2 Kings 18:17): “And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem”. The likelihood is, I think, that, given that “Holofernes” and his military deeds were well known to the Bethulian Jews, he had been around for quite a while. For thus Judith will say to the Commander-in-Chief (Judith 11:8): ‘For we have heard of your wisdom and skill, and it is reported throughout the whole world that you alone are the best in the whole kingdom, the most informed and the most astounding in military strategy’. That would put the odds very much in favour of “Holofernes” being the Turtan of Sargon II as early as Isaiah 20:1: “In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it”. And he continued on through Sennacherib’s most successful 3rd campaign, and into the later ill-fated one, when he was slain by the hand of Judith, with the consequence that 185,000 horrified Assyrians were routed. “And the Assyrian will fall by a sword not wielded by a man, And a sword not of man will devour him”. Isaiah 31:8