Xerxes was clearly modelled on King Sennacherib,
as Emmet Sweeney proves when he writes:
…
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.” (http://www.chn-net.com/timeline/assyria_study.html).
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.
Last modified on Monday, 09 May 2011 12:16
....
No comments:
Post a Comment