The rise of Assyria

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Which Assyrian ruler was the best of all of the Assyrian kings in terms of territorial expansion and military strength.
I think it is a contest between Tiglath Pileser III and Sargon II.
What was the Assyrian army like and what were the different types of troops.
Also can anyone show me pictures of Assyrian soldiers.

[Ancient Aliens]

Which Assyrian ruler was the best of all of the Assyrian kings in terms of territorial expansion and military strength.
I think it is a contest between Tiglath Pileser III and Sargon II.
What was the Assyrian army like and what were the different types of troops.
Also can anyone show me pictures of Assyrian soldiers.

Which Assyrian Empire are we talking about?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Judging by the kings it's obviously the Neo-Assyrian empire.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Judging by the kings it's obviously the Neo-Assyrian empire.

Yeah Neo Assyria although I do not know why it is called this since it is consequtive in time from the first empire.

[DAVIDE]

Which Assyrian ruler was the best of all of the Assyrian kings in terms of territorial expansion and military strength.
I think it is a contest between Tiglath Pileser III and Sargon II.

No. The maximum extension and military strenght had place under Ashurbanipal. He conquered Egypt, Nubia and he subjugated again Media, Persia, Aramea, Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, Asia Minor, northern Arabia and Cyprus and during his reign, the empire was relatively quiet and peaceful. He was not only a great military leader but also a great lover and promoter of art and culture (he promoted among the other things, the artistical stone making in both the art of sculture and architecture . What we know/have about Assyrians mainly comes from the carthusian dirty job made by Ashurbanipal. In one of his edicts, he ordered scribes, to collect all the written material existing on his empire, including also documents and texts pre flood, to be collected all into a great gigantic library wanted by the same Ashurbanipal and containing something like more than 20,000 documents/texts of every kind. An immense collection, the biggest ever seen for the standards of the time.

What was the Assyrian army like and what were the different types of troops.
Also can anyone show me pictures of Assyrian soldiers.

These may help

http://christiansofiraq.com/assyrian...echnology.html
http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/So...yrianArmy.html
http://www.warandgamemsw.com/blog/49...assyrian-army/

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

No. The maximum extension and military strenght had place under Ashurbanipal. He conquered Egypt, Nubia and he subjugated again Media, Persia, Aramea, Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, Asia Minor, northern Arabia and Cyprus and during his reign, the empire was relatively quiet and peaceful. He was not only a great military leader but also a great lover and promoter of art and culture (he promoted among the other things, the artistical stone making in both the art of sculture and architecture . What we know/have about Assyrians mainly comes from the carthusian dirty job made by Ashurbanipal. In one of his edicts, he ordered scribes, to collect all the written material existing on his empire, including also documents and texts pre flood, to be collected all into a great gigantic library wanted by the same Ashurbanipal and containing something like more than 20,000 documents/texts of every kind. An immense collection, the biggest ever seen for the standards of the time.





These may help

http://christiansofiraq.com/assyrian...echnology.html
http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/So...yrianArmy.html
http://www.warandgamemsw.com/blog/49...assyrian-army/

Did Ashurbanipal command the invasion of Egypt and Nubia as it seems to me that he only sent his generals to do it for him but there is no information that says that he actually went there with an army.

[DAVIDE]

His presence was requested elsewhere

[Roma_Victrix]

I know this is reviving a long dead thread and that I'm a necromancer for doing it, but I have to share this video from HistoryTime on Youtube, because it's a very decent documentary about the Neo-Assyrian Empire that would answer these questions, since it breaks down what happened during the reign of each successive monarch:

[Akar]

Ugh, I got so excited to see Ancient Aliens posting again until I saw the dates.

Shame on you, Roma!

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Assyria is kind of a complicated subject because I don't think there is another empire that had so many resurgences and then ran back to hide in their corner. The original rise of Assyria happened during the 1200's BC as a result of the power vacuum caused by the Mitanni civil war against Tushratta, which also led to the conquest of Mitanni by the Hittite ruler Suppiluliumas.

Assyria was not strong in the 1300's BC but as vassals of Mitanni they helped prop up the rebel regime of Artatama II and Shuttarna III. When the Hittites crossed the Euphrates, the Assyrians (ruled by Ashur-uballit I) were not willing to fight them and they made a strategic withdrawal towards the Tigris. Suppiluliumas put Shattiwaza into power as his vassal. Even after the death of Suppiluliumas and his sons, the younger son Mursili II inherited the throne and he was able to defeat an incursion of the Assyrians against Carchemish, despite being hard pressed by the Luwians and Kaskans in Anatolia.

In the 1200's BC the Hittites were hard pressed due to domestic troubles as well as wars with all of their neighbors. In particular the incursions by the northern Kaska tribes, the Egyptians of the 19th Dynasty, the Ahhiyawans of the west, the Luwian coalition against the Hittites. During the reigns of Muwatallis II and his brother Hattusili II the Assyrians under Adad Nirari I invaded Mitanni. Although it appears that Adad Nirari was not strong enough to actually fight the Hittites, he was able to take most of Mitanni while the Hittites were busy fighting in other places. Adad Nirari kept the Mitanni king Shattuara as a vassal.

However when Wasashatta become king he rebelled against the Assyrians and was quickly put down by Adad Nirari. For whatever reason the Hittites did not give support to Wasashatta, who was likely put to death. When Adad Nirari was succeeded in Assyria by Shalmaneser I, the Mitanni rebelled again, this time under a new leader who called himself Shattuara II. Shalmaneser defeated Mitanni and apparently annexed that kingdom into Assyria, thus ending the Kingdom of Mitanni.

It was also in the reign of Shalmaneser that Hattusili II and Ramesses II signed a peace treaty and eventually an alliance. Part of the treaty focused on containing Assyria and not allowing them to expand past the Euphrates. Both Adad Nirari and Shalmaneser had called themselves "Great King" and lobbied the Hittites and the Egyptians to be recognized as such. The four recognized great powers at the time were Egypt, Babylon, Mitanni, and Hatti, it is interesting that in the 1200's BC both the rulers of "Ahhiyawa" and the Assyrians wished to be recognized as "Great Kings" and were therefore considered rogue states for waging wars and upsetting the balance. Shalmaneser had gone so far as to defeat the Hittite army in battle, a major defeat for the hard pressed Hittite Empire of Tudhaliya IV.

Within the century it seems that Ahhiyawa (Mycenaean Greece?), the Hittite Empire, and the Kassite Dynasty of Babylon had all fallen. Egypt had survived under the 20th Dynasty but after the death of Ramesses III that empire had begun to stagnate. Tukulti Ninurta I succeeded Shalmaneser I and he managed to defeat the Kassite Dynasty in Babylon, temporarily seizing control of the south of Mesopotamia and even campaigning in the Gulf against Elam. However over the next 30 years it looks as if the Assyrians stagnated and many kings came to power one after another.

During that time the Elamites somehow managed to take control of Babylon. They even marched up the Tigris as far as Arrapha and threatened the capital of Ashur itself. Ahur-Dan I was able to push the Elamites back into Babylon, he also spent much of his reign campaigning to secure cities in Upper Mesopotamia. After his death there was conflict between his sons, until the succession of his grandson Ashur-resh-ishi I.

During the reign of this king the Assyrians were faced by an invasion of Ahlamu barbarians from the Western desert, which the Assyrians managed to defeat. Although the invasion must have been sufficiently shocking that Ashur-resh-ishi ordered the the walls of Ashur to be rebuilt. Ashur-resh-ishi also campaigned in Babylonia and in the Zagros mountains to the east against the Babylonian Isin Dynasty which had managed to chase out the Elamites. The Assyrian campaigns against Ninurta-nadin-shuma and Nebuchadnezzar I were not conclusive.

Ahur-resh-ishi was succeeded by his son Tiglath-Pileser I. This king ruled from 1114 BC to 1076 BC. In his time he campaigned in Eastern Anatolia at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates. He also invaded Anatolia as far as Cappadocia and Cilicia, picking off Anatolian tribes and some of the Neo-Hittite states. He is also recorded to have invaded Syria and taken the coastal cities of Arvad, Sidon and Byblos. The rest of his rule saw him fighting off Aramean tribes which had invaded the Euphrates from the Syrian desert. It does appear that by this time the Hittite Empire had collapsed and only the Neo-Hittite city states remained in southern Anatolia and northern Syria.

Not long after the death of Tiglath Pileser I his other son Ashur-bel-kala gained the throne (he ruled 1074 BC to 1056 BC). It was this king who made a peace treaty with Babylon. He spent his early reign campaigning against Urartu and in the Euphrates against the cities there, who had joined the rebel official Tukulti Mer. These rebels also accepted the aid of the Aramean tribes in the west, whose hordes crossed the Euphrates and overran Upper Mesopotamia as far as the Khabur River. Ashur-bel-kala was forced to campaign against them and push them across the Euphrates, reclaiming cities such as Carchemish.

The end of the Middle Assyrian Period is generally considered to be with Ashur-bel-kala or later with Tiglath Pileser II (after 934 BC).

[Roma_Victrix]

Ugh, I got so excited to see Ancient Aliens posting again until I saw the dates.

Shame on you, Roma!

Officer Farva from Super Troopers (2001): "I got you good, you er!"

I do miss our dear Ancient Aliens, who was always making humorous posts and quality history ones too. I remember talking to him on this site like it was yesterday and yet that dude hasn't been around since 2012. I totally forgot that I had left a message on his account page back in 2015 asking why he left us and where he went. You were already making comments about him going AWOL in 2012. Hope the dude is still alive at least.

Assyria is kind of a complicated subject because I don't think there is another empire that had so many resurgences and then ran back to hide in their corner. The original rise of Assyria happened during the 1200's BC as a result of the power vacuum caused by the Mitanni civil war against Tushratta, which also led to the conquest of Mitanni by the Hittite ruler Suppiluliumas.

Assyria was not strong in the 1300's BC but as vassals of Mitanni they helped prop up the rebel regime of Artatama II and Shuttarna III. When the Hittites crossed the Euphrates, the Assyrians (ruled by Ashur-uballit I) were not willing to fight them and they made a strategic withdrawal towards the Tigris. Suppiluliumas put Shattiwaza into power as his vassal. Even after the death of Suppiluliumas and his sons, the younger son Mursili II inherited the throne and he was able to defeat an incursion of the Assyrians against Carchemish, despite being hard pressed by the Luwians and Kaskans in Anatolia.

In the 1200's BC the Hittites were hard pressed due to domestic troubles as well as wars with all of their neighbors. In particular the incursions by the northern Kaska tribes, the Egyptians of the 19th Dynasty, the Ahhiyawans of the west, the Luwian coalition against the Hittites. During the reigns of Muwatallis II and his brother Hattusili II the Assyrians under Adad Nirari I invaded Mitanni. Although it appears that Adad Nirari was not strong enough to actually fight the Hittites, he was able to take most of Mitanni while the Hittites were busy fighting in other places. Adad Nirari kept the Mitanni king Shattuara as a vassal.

However when Wasashatta become king he rebelled against the Assyrians and was quickly put down by Adad Nirari. For whatever reason the Hittites did not give support to Wasashatta, who was likely put to death. When Adad Nirari was succeeded in Assyria by Shalmaneser I, the Mitanni rebelled again, this time under a new leader who called himself Shattuara II. Shalmaneser defeated Mitanni and apparently annex that kingdom into Assyria, thus ending the Kingdom of Mitanni.

It was also in the reign of Shalmaneser that Hattusili II and Ramesses II signed a peace treaty and eventually and alliance. Part of the treaty focused on containing Assyria and not allowing them to expand past the Euphrates. Both Adad Nirari and Shalmaneser had called themselves "Great King" and lobbied the Hittites and the Egyptians to be recognized as such. The four recognized great powers at the time were Egypt, Babylon, Mitanni, and Hatti, it is interesting that in the 1200's BC both of the rulers of "Ahhiyawa" and the Assyrians wished to be recognized as great kings and were therefore considered rogue states for waging wars and upsetting the balance. Shalmaneser had gone so far as to defeat the Hittites army in battle, a major defeat for the hard pressed Hittite Empire of Tudhaliya IV.

Within the century it seems that Ahhiyawa (Mycenaean Greece?), the Hittite Empire, and the Kassite Dynasty of Babylon had all fallen. Egypt had survived under the 20th Dynasty but after the death of Ramesses III that empire had begun to stagnate. Tukulti Ninurta I succeeded Shalmaneser I and he managed to defeat the Kassite Dynasty in Babylon, temporarily seizing control of the south of Mesopotamia and even campaigning in the Gulf against Elam. However over the next 30 years it looks as if the Assyrians stagnated and many kings came to power one after another.

During that time the Elamites somehow managed to take control of Babylon. They even marched up the Tigris as far as Arrapha and threatened the capital of Ashur itself. Ahur-Dan I was able to push the Elamites back into Babylon, he also spent much of his reign campaigning to secure cities in Upper Mesopotamia. After his death there was conflict between his sons, until the succession of his grandson Ashur-resh-ishi I.

During the reign of this king the Assyrians were faced by an invasion of Ahlamu barbarians from the Western desert, which the Assyrians managed to defeat. Although the invasion must have been sufficiently shocking that Ashur-resh-ishi ordered the the walls of Ashur to be rebuilt. Ashur-resh-ishi also campaigned in Babylonia and in the Zagros mountains to the east against the Babylonian Isin Dynasty which had managed to chase out the Elamites. The Assyrian campaigns against Ninurta-nadin-shuma and Nebuchadnezzar I were not conclusive.

Ahur-resh-ishi was succeeded by his son Tiglath-Pileser I. This king ruled from 1114 BC to 1076 BC. In his time he campaigned in Eastern Anatolia at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates. He also invaded Anatolia as far as Cappadocia and Cilicia, picking off Anatolian tribes and some of the Neo-Hittite states. He is also recorded to have invaded Syria and taken the coastal cities of Arvad, Sidon and Byblos. The rest of his rule saw him fighting off Aramean tribes which had invaded the Euphrates from the Syrian desert.

Not long after the death of Tiglath Pileser I his other son Ashur-bel-kala gained the throne (he ruled 1074 BC to 1056 BC). It was this king who made a peace treaty with Babylon. He spent his early reign campaigning against Urartu and in the Euphrates against the cities there, who had joined the rebel official Tukulti Mer. These rebels also accepted the aid of the Aramean tribes in the west, those hordes crossed the Euphrates and overran Upper Mesopotamia as far as the Khabur River. Ashur-bel-kala was forced to campaign against them and push them across the Euphrates, reclaiming cities such as Carchemish.

The end of the Middle Assyrian Period is generally considered to be with Ashur-bel-kala or later with Tiglath Pileser II (after 934 BC).

Fantastic work as always, Oda Nobunaga!

It's amazing that we now know so much about the Hittites and their interactions with Egypt, Mittani and Assyria, and yet we basically didn't know much about their existence at all until the early 20th century thanks to archaeology. It amazes me how for centuries scholars had little more than the Hebrew Bible in terms of understanding a lot of these Bronze Age civilizations, a rather imperfect vehicle and more than imprecise document for that considering the supernatural and mythological nature of biblical texts. Hell, it wasn't even until the 19th and 20th centuries that archaeology was able to confirm the existence of Mycenaean Greece and the site of Troy in Homer's epics. I think it's clear enough to me that the "Ahhiyawa" mentioned above were the Mycenaean Greeks, for that matter. A good thing documents like the Rosetta Stone exist, otherwise we'd still be lacking the ancient native Egyptian perspective on things as well, without the much later Classical and Hellenistic Greek filter (and yet we still don't even know the full extent of what Manetho wrote about).

As usual, I can't rep you for this post now because TWC doesn't allow me to rep you fifty times in a row like I should be able to do since it's the great Oda we're talking about here (loved what you did over 400 years ago in the Sengoku period, big fan of your work there, pal).

[Akar]

Oh don't worry, I repped him. That was a fantastic post and a perfect example of why he's about to get awarded (by unanimous vote) the Phalera.

[sumskilz]

I know this is reviving a long dead thread and that I'm a necromancer for doing it, but I have to share this video from HistoryTime on Youtube, because it's a very decent documentary about the Neo-Assyrian Empire that would answer these questions, since it breaks down what happened during the reign of each successive monarch:

That guy's attempts at pronouncing the Akkadian names would have been dramatically improved by about five minutes of study. As a pedant, I would have liked to have heard Ḥizqîyāhū poorly pronounced as well. I think you'd be more likely to find a Hezekiah in the backwoods of Tennessee than locked up in his royal city like a caged bird.

One thing he got wrong, and this is a common misconception, is the nature of the Assyrian deportations. They weren't death marches off into slavery, and the people weren't generally replaced with Assyrians, but with people of similar status from opposite ends of the empire. It wasn't even necessarily a punishment, actual punishments were brutal. It was more an act of mercy bestowed on those deemed valuable, the best they could hope for under the circumstances. Those deported were local elites, artisans, skilled administrators, scholars, etc. Rather than being killed, they would be put to use as skilled labor elsewhere in the empire in service of the king, and they would benefit economically. In exchange for this mercy, they were expected to become loyal subjects, and the fact that they were now foreigners in a far off land dependent on the king would help reinforce that, while at the same time removing them from their homeland would breakup old alliances and breakdown local allegiances.

A couple of administrative letters from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III:

"As for the Aramaeans about whom the king my lord has written to me: 'Prepare them for their journey!' I shall give them their food supplies, clothes, a waterskin, a pair of shoes and oil. I do not have my donkeys yet, but once they are available, I will dispatch my convoy." (NL 25 = SAA 19 17)

"As for the Aramaeans about whom the king my lord has said: 'They are to have wives!' We found numerous suitable women but their fathers refuse to give them in marriage, claiming: 'We will not consent unless they can pay the bride price.' Let them be paid so that the Aramaeans can get married." (NL 26 = SAA 19 18)

A family being deported from Lachish (note the wagon and supplies they've been given):



This is also how the Assyrian surrender terms are depicted in 2 Kings 18 during the siege of Jerusalem:

"Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to me. Then each of you will eat fruit from your own vine and fig tree and drink water from your own cistern, until I come and take you to a land like your own—a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey. Choose life and not death."

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

At least they were more human as the old Israelites with the canaanite cities.

They seem in reality to have been less holy warriors in the name of Assur than well planing empire builders.

If i remember correctly there is strong linguistic evidence, that the Hyksos were semitic with a hurrian/ indo-aryan upperclass, as most used forenames were semitic.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I didn't watch the video.

Not done Assyria posting yet.

But there is no real consensus as to when the Middle Assyrian period ends and where the Neo-Assyrian period begins. It isn't even clear whether the Middle Assyrian period starts with Ashur Uballit removing the Mitannian yoke or if it starts with his father deciding to support the two claimants which rebelled against Tushratta. Some consider Middle Assyria to end with Ashur-bel-kala or with the death of Tiglath Pileser II 122 years later. There is also no definite consensus on the start of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Various rulers are given credit for the Neo-Assyrian resurgence. Ashur Dan II is given credit, as is Adad Nirari II, so is Ashurnasirpal II, same with Shalmaneser III. The next few kings had rather stagnant reigns, so some of them are passed over but eventually Tiglath Pileser III gains the throne and he too is considered a contender for ushering in the Neo-Assyrian period.

[sumskilz]

At least they were more human as the old Israelites with the canaanite cities.

They seem in reality to have been less holy warriors in the name of Assur than well planing empire builders.

Well, the Book of Joshua isn't historical, Israel wasn't really distinct from Canaan, but the concept of ḥērem existed. That is the idea of devoting something to a deity through destruction, which was a part of Canaanite religion, although whether there was anything particularly unique about this is unclear. Incidentally, it is from the same verbal root as the Arabic words ḥarīm and ḥarām.

This language might sound familiar:

"And Chemosh said to me, Go take Nebo against Israel, and I went in the night and I fought against it from the break of day till noon, and I took it: and I killed in all seven thousand men, but I did not kill the women and maidens, for I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh; and I took from it the vessels of Yahweh, and offered them before Chemosh."

If i remember correctly there is strong linguistic evidence, that the Hyksos were semitic with a hurrian/ indo-aryan upperclass, as most used forenames were semitic.

Ah, this just recently came up in the Troy thread also. Here is the older thread I started on it: Hyksos Origins & Culture

There is no evidence of a Hyksos Hurrian or Indo-Aryan upper class, but there was Hurrian influence in Canaan after the Hyksos period.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Well at least some use Hyksos kings use hurrian names, this is at least some kind of evidence, if it was not completely because of "fashion".

[sumskilz]

Well at least some use Hyksos kings use hurrian names

No, they didn't. I'm sure you read that somewhere because someone obviously unfamiliar with the Canaanite language tried to make that case, but it's not correct. I go over all the Hyksos kings' names in the first post of that thread.

There were however some Canaanite kings with Hurrian names in the Amarna period. Hurrian influence came in after the Hyksos collapse. Which makes sense in relation to the political situation just to the north.

[Roma_Victrix]

That guy's attempts at pronouncing the Akkadian names would have been dramatically improved by about five minutes of study. As a pedant, I would have liked to have heard Ḥizqîyāhū poorly pronounced as well. I think you'd be more likely to find a Hezekiah in the backwoods of Tennessee than locked up in his royal city like a caged bird.

One thing he got wrong, and this is a common misconception, is the nature of the Assyrian deportations. They weren't death marches off into slavery, and the people weren't generally replaced with Assyrians, but with people of similar status from opposite ends of the empire. It wasn't even necessarily a punishment, actual punishments were brutal. It was more an act of mercy bestowed on those deemed valuable, the best they could hope for under the circumstances. Those deported were local elites, artisans, skilled administrators, scholars, etc. Rather than being killed, they would be put to use as skilled labor elsewhere in the empire in service of the king, and they would benefit economically. In exchange for this mercy, they were expected to become loyal subjects, and the fact that they were now foreigners in a far off land dependent on the king would help reinforce that, while at the same time removing them from their homeland would breakup old alliances and breakdown local allegiances.

Thanks for the corrections!

That's exceedingly well-organized for an Iron Age society, and you can see how the Achaemenid Persians could have been largely indebted to the Assyrians when it came to state planning.

It makes you wonder how much continuation there was in terms of centralized states copying older models of population control instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, or if these things come naturally to rulers and autocrats regardless of the time or culture. I say this because this is strikingly similar to how the Turko-Mongol ruler Timur the Lame would have operated in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, killing and punishing cities that disobeyed him but forcefully moving artisans and scholars from Syria and Anatolia back to his home base in Central Asia. I'm also reminded of Stalin moving thousands of ethnic Germans of Russia/Ukraine to Central Asia instead to keep them away from the German war front, leading to the creation of little German villages in Kyrgyztan which I saw firsthand as a Peace Corps volunteer (LOL, I even ran into an old white woman who spoke German to me there and refused to leave or go to Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall). Other civilizations like the Roman Empire opted for different measures from what I recall, using the bestowal of exclusionary Roman citizenship as a reward for allies or tool of pacification of unruly northern Celtic/Germanic tribes. The contemporary ancient Chinese of the Han dynasty resettled subjugated Xianbei, Xiongnu, and even Vietnamese peoples while shifting around ethnic Han Chinese settlers to various areas to make sure they were quelled, and used Mongolic tribes to fight other northern nomads. This was similar to how the Romans used Foederati tribes to serve as frontier buffers for foreign invasion.

In that case I guess the more things change the more they stay the same, and this kind of state policy of population control by the Assyrians could be applied even to a medieval and/or modern context. I'll have to read about this more. Perhaps we should pester "HistoryTime" to make a video about it.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@sumskillz: I guess you are right.