Nabopolassar's 21st year / Nebuchadrezzar's Accession year.

        According to the Chronicle, confirmed by Jewish historians, Egypt fought and lost a battle with Babylon in the year 605 B.C.. The encounter took place at or near the town of Carchemish. It is dated by the Chronicler early in Nabopolassar's 21^st year. The Babylonian king was apparently ill, but the defeat at Quramati had to be avenged, so Nebuchadrezzar led the army in his father's stead.

In the twenty-first year the king of Akkad stayed in his own land, Nebuchadrezzar his eldest son, the crown-prince, mustered (the Babylonian army) and took command of his troops; he marched to Carchemish which is on the bank of the Euphrates, and crossed the river (to go) against the Egyptian army which lay in Carchemish, ..... fought with each other and the Egyptian army withdrew before him. He accomplished their defeat and to non-existence [beat?] them. As for the rest of the Egyptian army which had escaped from the defeat (so quickly that) no weapon had reached them, in the district of Hamath the Babylonian troops overtook and defeated them so that not a single man [escaped] to his own country. At that time Nebuchadrezzar conquered the whole area of the Hatti-country. BM 21946 ll. 1-8

For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon. On the 8^th of the month of Ab he died (lit. 'the fates'); in the month of Elul he returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month of Elul he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. ll. 9-11.

        In the Babylonian system of "predating" or "accession year dating" the balance of Nabopolassar's 21^st year is referred to as the 'accession year' of his son Nebuchadrezzar, whose official 1^st year began, as usual for Babylonian kings, in the month of Nisan (March/April) following (thus in 604 B.C.). Nebuchadrezzar spent little time in mourning. He returned quickly to resume his military operations in the Hatti lands, actions which lasted until the month of Shabat (Jan/Feb), early in the year 604 B.C..

In the 'accession year Nebuchadrezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Sebat marched unopposed through the Hatti-land; in the month of Sebat he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon. In the month of Nisan he took the hands of Bel and the son of Bel and celebrated the akitu (New Year) festival. ll. 12-14

        Before we examine the Annals for Menkheperre's 34^th year there is one further source of information that needs to be examined. We mentioned earlier that the Jewish historians had something to say concerning the defeat of the Egyptian army at Carchemish. We recall that Menkheperre Necao (Neco) was responsible for the death of Josiah at Megiddo. Hewas, in consequence, no friend of Israel. Josiah was revered by his Judean subjects. The Egyptian loss at Carchemish was therefore a source of joy in Jerusalem. The text of the 46^th chapter of Jeremiah celebrates the Egyptian defeat in song. It is worth quoting.
 
 

This is the message against the army of Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt, which was defeated at Carchemish on the Euphrates River by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah:
Prepare your shield, both large and small, and march out for battle!
Harness the horses, mount the steeds!
Take your positions with helmets on!
Polish your spears, put on your armor!
What do I see? They are terrified, they are retreating their warriors are defeated.
They flee in haste without looking back, and there is terror on every side, declares the Lord.
The swift cannot flee nor the strong escape.
In the north by the River Euphrates they stumble and fall.
Who is this that rises like the Nile, like rivers of surging waters?
Egypt rises like the Nile, like rivers of surging waters.
She says, 'I will rise and cover the earth; I will destroy cities and their people.'
Charge, O horses! Drive furiously, O charioteers!
March on, O warriors - men of Cush and Put who carry shields, men of Lydia who draw the bow.
But that day belongs to the Lord, the LORD Almighty -- a day of vengeance, for vengeance on his foes.
The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst with blood.
For the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will offer sacrifice in the land of the north by the River Euphrates.
Go up to Gilead and get balm, O Virgin Daughter of Egypt.
But you multiply remedies in vain; there is no healing for you.
The nations will hear of your shame; your cries will fill the earth.
One warrior will stumble over another; both will fall down together. Jer. 46:2-12

        There is no direct indication in the Chronicle that Neco II was himself with the Egyptian army. Indeed the apparent ease with which the Babylonians reached Carchemish through territory where they had been defeated by the Egyptians in the previous year makes it more likely that the Egyptian force consisted in the main of garrison troops. [10]

        It is not just the ease of conquest which suggests that Nebuchadrezzar fought against an inferior force based in Carchemish. The Chronicle states the fact specifically, noting that Nebuchadrezzar crossed the Euphrates and did battle with "the Egyptian army which lay in Carchemish". This is clearly an army of occupation, a garrison of Egyptian troops left to safeguard Egyptian interests in the region of Naharin. The biblical text of Jeremiah echoes these sentiments. Its message is directed explicitly against "the army of Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt." Were Neco himself involved we would expect that fact to be acknowledged.

        We note in passing the ethnological makeup of the Egyptian garrison based at Carchemish. According to the text of Jeremiah it consisted of troops from Cush, Put and Lydia. Native Egyptian troops are noticeably absent. This is a Nubian army, buttressed by troops from other regions dominated by Menkheperre. This ethnic makeup is surprising, to say the least, in an army of occupation from the 15^th century B.C., the time of Egypt's 18^th dynasty Empire, but is totally consistent with our argument that Menkheperre belongs to the 25^th Cushite dynasty of the 7^th century B.C.. We leave the matter there and turn our attention to the Annals. What do they contribute to our understanding of the Battle of Carchemish?.
 

The Menkheppere Annals (Year 34) - the 9^th Campaign.

        It is of interest that Menkheperre, following the year of his greatest triumph, the conquest of the trans-Euphrates region, says no more about Naharin. No military action or visit to this area is recorded in the text of his 34^th year, nor for that matter, in the Annals for any subsequent year. Naharin is not mentioned again until the seventeenth campaign in Menkheperre's 42^nd year, and there the name occurs only because mercenaries from the Naharin area are assisting a rebellion in Syria. This later reference only confirms that Egypt no longer controls the area. More significantly, no mention of tribute from Naharin is ever mentioned by Menkheperre after his 33^rd year. What happened? Of course we know the answer.

        The Annals for the 34^th year do not mention the defeat at Carchemish, a fact consistent with the Annals elsewhere and therefore not unexpected. In the first place, Menkheperre habitually ignores his losses. Secondly, he consistently mentions only the actions of the main army in which he is a participant. And the loss at Carchemish, we have argued, was suffered by a garrison left behind to guard the eastern frontier. It is only from circumstantial evidence that we can verify the loss by Egypt of its Euphrates domains and much of Syria.

        For his 34^th year Menkheperre records only minor skirmishes in the region of Zahi, the Phoenician coastline (see map, figure 1). Perhaps the victories of Nebuchadrezzar had encouraged rebellion in this area which must now be suppressed. It is noteworthy that Egypt did not enter Retenu this year, a fact consistent with the Chronicle which claims that those lands were lost to Nebuchadrezzar. Instead he remained on the coast, securing his Mediterranean base. The Annals describe the fortification of key coastal cities, an action consistent with the looming threat posed by the victories of Nebuchadrezzar. Menkheperre apparently anticipates that Babylon might advance toward the Sea.

        It is true that Menkheperre received tribute this year from Retenu. But we assume that these gifts derived from the Kadesh area which was not overrun by Nebuchadrezzar prior his return to Babylon for his father's funeral. Or possibly this tribute was solicited further north during Nebuchadrezzar's absence. According to the Chronicle it was only later in the year that Nebuchadrezzar extended his conquest further west and south.

        We should pause here to read the Annals for the 9^th campaign. It is not a lengthy entry.

Year 34. Behold, his majesty was in the land of Zahi
----- he surrendered fully to his majesty with [fear]. List of the towns captured in this year: 2 towns, (and) a town which surrendered in the district of Nuges (An-yw-g-sA); total 3. Captives brought to his majesty ----- taken captive 90, those who surrendered, their wives and their children -----; 40 horses; 15 chariots, wrought with silver and gold; ... together with every fine wood of this country.
Tribute of the chiefs of Retenu in this year: (extensive list of tribute follows).
Behold, all the harbors of his majesty were supplied with every good thing of that [which] [his] majesty received [in] Zahi, consisting of Keftyew ships, Byblos ships, and Sektu (Sk-tw) ships of cedar laden with poles, and masts, together with great trees for the [--] of his majesty.
(there follows a concluding list of tribute from Cyprus, Kush, and Wawat).

        For several years following 605 B.C., Menkheperre is apparently confined to the coastal area of Zahi. Egypt made its yearly visits to this Phoenician coastline via the Mediterranean. The increased emphasis on shipping which begins this year is precisely what is anticipated based on the record of the Chronicle. With the loss of tribute from Syria Menkheperre turned his attention to the lucrative Mediterranean market. As long as Egypt controlled the Phoenician coastline there remained access to coastal lumber and the considerable wealth which depended on Phoenician ships. It is significant that in 605-604 B.C. we notice in the Annals for the first time a reference to a fleet of ships and tribute from Cyprus.

        We receive no assistance for this year from Amenemheb's journal, which moves directly from the elephant hunt of the previous year to the renewed conflict with Kadesh in the 42^nd year of Menkheperre. The silence for this year is not entirely unexpected. Amenemheb was an important army officer. He would not be part of the Carchemish garrison which alone did battle with the Babylonians.