Rise of Nebuchadrezzar
Fall of Assyria; Rise of Babylon
The recently published Chronicles[1] of the kings of Akkad, ancient Chaldea, waste few words describing the fall of Assyria in 612 B.C.
[In the fourteenth year] the king of Akkad called out his army [and marched to ......] the king of the Umman-manda with the king of Akkad. ............ they met each other. The king of Akkad ............ [Kyaxa]res ...... he made to cross and they marched along the bank of the river Tigris and ...... against Nineveh .... they encamped? From the month of Sivan to the month of Ab three US-[measures ...... they advanced?] A strong attack they made against the city, and in the month of Ab, [the ... th day the city was captured ......] a great defeat of the chief [people] was made. (lines 38-43)The armies of Nabopolassar the king of Akkad - known to the modern world as the Babylonians - and Cyaxares (or Kyaxares) king of Media (the Umman-manda) combined to route the Assyrian army and ransack Nineveh.
On that day Sinsharishkun, the Assyrian king ........ The great spoil of the city and temple they carried off and [turned] the city into a ruin-mound and heaps of debri[s ........] (rev. lines 44,45)Cyaxares, laden with spoil, returned to his homeland. Nabapolassar occupied the ruined city and from this base continued his military assault on Assyrian territory.
In the month of Elul, the twentieth day, Kyaxares and his army returned to his land; the king of Akkad [and his army] marched as far as Nisibin. Booty and slaves (?) ........ and of the land of Rusapu they brought to the presence of the king of Akkad to Nineveh. (lines 47-49a)Sinsharishkun likely died in defence of his capital. The text of BM tablet 21901 quoted above, which records the events of years ten through seventeen of Nabopolassar, is not well preserved. If the Assyrian king was among those who "moved off before [the defeat]" (line 46a), then he certainly died within the year. According to the Chronicle, at the end of the fourteenth year (612/611 B.C.) "Ashuruballit ...... in the city of Harran sat on the throne as king of Assyria." (lines 49b-50a) The remnant of the once powerful Assyrian Empire clung to survival in Harran, a provincial capital near the Euphrates on the extreme western fringe of the kingdom.
The fall of Nineveh was not immediately followed by an assault on Harran. Nabopolassar delayed. For a year and six months he continued to conquer and plunder largely undefended Assyrian territory. According to Wiseman, the modern translator of the Chronicle, the delay implies "an unwillingness to close in on Harran"[2] without the assistance of the Medes. Help was forthcoming only in the latter part of the sixteenth year.
"In the month of Marcheswan the Umman-manda [who?] had come to the help of the king of Akkad ... united their armies and to the city of Harran [after] Ashur-[uball]it who had sat upon the throne in Assyria they marched." (lines 59-61a)Why was Nabopolassar unwilling or unable to pursue the remnant Assyrian army in Harran without support? Why the lengthy delay in renewing the alliance with Media? The Chronicler immediately provides the answer. "As for Ashuruballit and the army of Eg[ypt (?) which had come [to his help,] ..." (line 61b).
Harran was defended by Egyptian as well as by Assyrian forces. The remnant of Ashuruballit's army was augmented by a large and powerful Egyptian force soon after the fall of Nineveh. Nabopolassar and Kyaxares, apparently intimidated by the combined armies of Assyria and Egypt, broke off their attack. Over a year later the greater part of the Egyptian army had returned to its homeland. Only a token defensive force was left in Harran. A renewed alliance of Media and Akkad took advantage of the new situation. Ashuruballit was taken by surprise. The Chronicle for the sixteenth year (610/609 B.C.) documents what happened. Wiseman provides a summary:
The approach of the combined armies was sufficiently impressive to cause Ashuruballit and the Egyptian troops who had come to his aid to withdraw west of the Euphrates, so allowing Nabopolassar and his supporters to move in and plunder the undefended city. ... A Babylonian garrison was established in Harran to take the first shock of any counter-attack by the Egyptian-Assyrian forces, and the Babylonians and the Umman-manda then withdrew to their respective countries.[3]Ashuruballit made one last attempt at retaking Harran. In the seventeenth year (609/608 B.C.) his remaining forces, fortified by the arrival of "a great Egyptian army ...crossed the river (and) marched against the city of Harran to conquer it." (line 67). The garrison of Median and Babylonian troops held the city long enough for Napopolassar to march to its relief. Though critical parts of the text are "broken and uncertain" the Chronicle clearly implies that the Babylonian garrison at Harran repelled the attack. There is no further mention of the Egyptian army. Ashuruballit is never heard from again and is apparently lost to history.[4] When the Chronicle continues the historical record on another tablet (BM 22047) with the eighteenth year of Nabopolassar, the king of Akkad has turned his attention to Urartu.
Babylon and Egypt
Who was the Egyptian pharaoh whose army assisted Ashuballit and whose reputation was sufficient to dissuade two great empires from engaging him in battle? The Chronicler refers to an Egyptian army; he fails to name the Egyptian king.
Historians have filled the void in the Babylonian record from an incident described in the Hebrew Bible. The garrison of Egyptian and Assyrian forces in Harran abandoned the city in the final months of the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar (Feb./March 609 B.C.). The counterattack by Ashuruballit and the "great Egyptian army" which had arrived in the interim took place in the two month period between Tammuz (June/Aug) and Elul (Aug/Sept) of that same year (now the seventeenth of Nabopolassar). In that year according to Jewish historians, Josiah king of Judah had an unfortunate and fatal encounter with an Egyptian army moving northward from Egypt along the Mediterranean coast.
While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. (2 Kings 23:29)[5]Neco was in a hurry when Josiah confronted him on the coastal plain:
But Neco sent messengers to him saying, "What quarrel is there between you and me, O king of Judah? It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me ... (2 Chron. 35: 20,21)The temporary delay at Megiddo had little bearing on subsequent events. Neco was on his way to join Ashuruballit and the survivors of the Babylonian seige of Harran. Together they attempted to retake Harran but within two months of engagement the counterseige was lifted. The attempt had failed. The details are unknown. Neco returned to Egypt. With some certainty we can date the Megiddo encounter and Josiah's death to July, 609 B.C. Three months later Neco returned to Egypt. Passing through Judah he deposed Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, who had assumed the kingship of Judah at his father's death. "He installed as king Eliakim, another son of Josiah, and carried Jehoahaz off to Egypt." (2 Chron. 36:4). Eliakim's name was changed by Neco to Jehoiakim.
Who was Neco, king of Egypt
in 609 B.C., whose reputation awed the combined forces of Media and Babylon,
with whom the Assyrians allied in defense of their country, and who deposed
and established kings in vassal states at will? According
to the currently accepted chronology Egypt was ruled from 664-525 B.C.
by six kings of Sais, a town on the Canopic branch of the Nile in the western
Egyptian delta. A pharaoh named Wahemibre Necao, the second
king of this Saite dynasty, ruled sixteen years from 610-595 B.C.
The time is right. The name is right. Neco the
Egyptian king who killed Josiah and whose army came to assist Ashuruballit
in his struggle with Nabopolassar must have been Wahemibre Necao, king
of Sais and ruler of Egypt. The identity is considered to be
axiomatic. It is unfortunate that Neco left no inscriptional record
of his wars.[6]
Rise of Nubuchadrezzar
The eighteenth year of Nabopolassar not only begins a new tablet (BM 22047) but a new era. Babylon is now in control of all former Assyrian territory east of the Euphrates. The aging king campaigned extensively and successfully that year in the mountains of Urartu and then, in the nineteenth year, divided the army and shared leadership with his son. Nebuchadrezzar[7] enters history.
In the eighteenth year of Nabopolassar, in the month of Elul, the king of Akkad mustered his army and following the bank of the river Tigris went up to the mountainous terrain of Bit-Hanunia which is a district of Urartu; he burned the cities with fire and took booty in great quantity. In the month of Tebet the king of Akkad retured to his own land.Later in the nineteenth year Nabopolassar, flush from victory in the northern mountains, began to challenge Egyptian dominance west of the Euphrates.
In the nineteenth year, in the month of Sivan, the king of Akkad mustered his army and Nebuchadrezzar (nabu-kudur-user), his eldest son, the crown-prince mustered his army and went to the mountains of Za....." (lines 1-5)
The king of Akkad mustered his army and went to Kimuhu which is on the bank of the River Euphrates. He crossed the river and did battle against the city, and seized the city in the month of Kislev. He carried off (prisoners) from it and set within (it) his garrison troops; in the month of Sebat he returned to his own land. (lines 14,15)This advance prompted a response from Neco.
In the twentieth year the army of Egypt came to the city of Kimuhu against the garrison which the king of Akkad had set up within (it) and for four months they did battle against the city and then captured the city. They slew the garrison ... (lines 16-18)Nabopolassar responded in turn.
In the month of Tisri the king of Akkad mustered his army, marched along the bank of the Euphrates and pitched his camp at Quramati which is on the bank of the Euphrates. He sent his troops across the Euphrates and they seized the towns of Shunadiri, Elammu and Dahammu which are in the country across the river. Spoil from them they took. (lines 19-23a)Neco answered back.
The Egyptian army which had crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish came against the Babylonian army which was stationed in Quramati but the Babylonian army withdrew quickly and retreated. (lines 24-26)"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 ..." (lines 27,28) The damaged conclusion to tablet BM 22047 leaves us guessing why the king stayed home and where the prince went with the army. But since Napolopassar died the next year, we can surmise that he was ill.
The Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.)
BM 21946 continues the Chronicle with a terse description of one of the most famous battles of antiquity.
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,Carchemish was strategically located on the eastern bend of the Euphrates. The Egyptian army had apparently taken the city earlier in 605 B.C. The defeat of the Egyptian army later the same year was cause for celebration in Judah. The death of Josiah and the deposition and deportation of Jehoahaz had left the Judaeans with bitter feelings toward Neco. The prophet Jeremiah expressed the sentiments of the nation in a lengthy diatribe:
..... 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 of the Hatti-country.
For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon.
On the 8th day of the month of Ab he died (lit. ‘the fates'); in the month of Elul Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month of Elul he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. ( lines 1-11)
This is the message aginst 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:It is clear that this battle at Carchemish significantly changed history. In the decade that followed Nebuchadrezzar roamed freely throught the Hatti-lands, the Babylonian equivalent of modern Syria & Lebanon, as far south as the border of Egypt. Already "in the ‘accession year' Nebuchadrezzar .... marched unopposed through the Hatti-land" ( line 12). In his first year "all the kings of the Hatti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute. He marched to the city of Askelon and captured it in the month of Kislev." ( line 18) Ashkelon was only a days march from the border of Egypt. Phoenicia and the kingdom of Judah changed allegiance. The Jewish historians note the transition from Egyptian to Babylonian control of their country. "During Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babyolon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years." (2 Kings 24:1) During this time, "the king of Egypt did not march out from his own country again, because the king of Babylon had taken all his territory, from the Wadi of Egypt to the Euphrates River." (2 Kings 24:7).
Prepare your shields, 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, declared the Lord.
The swift cannot flee nor the strong escape
In the north by the River Euphrates they stumble and fall... (Jer. 46:2-5)
Both the Jewish historians and the Bablonian chroniclers agree that this first phase of Babylonian suzerainty ended three years after it began.
In 601 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar mistook Neco's inactivity for weakness. He moved to attack Egypt.
In the fourth year the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to the Hatti-land. In the Hatti-land they marched unopposed.While the Chronicle describes a stand-off battle it is clear that Nebuchadrezzar suffered heavy losses. Judah was lost, falling once again under Neco's control. Jehoiakim withheld tribute from Babylon.
In the month of Kislev he took the lead of his army and marched to Egypt. The king of Egypt heard (it) and mustered his army.
In open battle they smote the breast (of) each other and inflicted great havoc on each other. The king of Akkad and his troops turned back and returned to Babylon. (rev. line 5-7)[8]
The Jewish historians do not describe this battle. They record only the fact that, after three years of paying tribute to the Babylonians, Jehoiakim "changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar." (2 Kings 24:1)
Nebuchadrezzar remained in
Babylon the next year, his fifth, "and gathered together his chariots and
horses in great numbers." (rev. line 8) In years six
and seven, his military strength renewed, he moved to recover what
territory he had lost in his fourth year. First reestablishing his
base in Syria he moved in year seven (598/97 B.C.) to retake Judah.
Jerusalem quickly fell.
The First Jewish Captivity (598/97 B.C.)
The Babylonian Chronicle is brief and to the point:
In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against (i.e. besieged) the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice (lit. heart), received its heavy tribute and sent (them) to Babylon." (rev lines 11-13)For details of this first siege of Jerusalem we rely on Jewish literature. The assault was not directed against Jehoiakim, who had died three months before it began, but against his eighteen year old son and successor Jehoiakin:
At that time the officers of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were besieging it. Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants, his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him. In the eighth year of the reign of the king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner. (2 Kings 24:10-12)Nebuchadrezzar proceded to remove from Jerusalem to Babylon everything mobile and of value. This included skilled labor for his numerous building projects and conscripts for his army.
... Nebuchadnezzar removed all the treasures from the temple of the Lord. He carried into exile all Jerusalem: all the officers and fighting men, and all the craftsmen and artisans - a total of ten thousand. Only the poorest people of the land were left.The Jewish historian Josephus, a citizen of Rome writing in the first century A.D., informs us that Ezekiel, soon to become a prominent prophetic spokesman within the exiled Jewish community in Babylon, was one of the deportees of this captivity.
Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king's mother, his wives, his officials and the leading men of the land. The king of Babylon also deported to Babylon the entire force of seven thousand fighting men, strong and fit for war, and a thousand craftsmen and artisans. He made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in his place and changed his name to Zedekiah" (2 Kings 24:13-17)
It is important to note the key elements of this invasion. Collectively they constitute a modus operandi repeated with few variations in Nebuchadrezzar's second assault on Jerusalem a decade later (586 B.C.), and his invasion of Egypt three decades removed (564 B.C.) These include extensive physical destruction; the removal of all wealth; the deportation of a majority of the educated elite, including artisans; the removal of the king and replacement by an authority loyal to Babylon; and finally, the bequeathal of the decimated land to a remnant of the poor and illiterate.
The balance of the Babylonian
Chronicle recorded on BM 21946 describes sundry nondescript activities
through the tenth year (595/594 B.C.). Having recovered
the Hatti land in its entirety in year seven, Nebuchadrezzar's army marched
as far as Carchemish in year eight, battled with Elam in year nine, and
for unknown reasons mutinied in year ten. The last we hear
from the Chronicle Nebuchadrezzar is putting down this rebellion.
He "slew many of his own army," and "captured his enemy" (rev. line 22).
The balance of the Chronicle is lost. For the remaining 32
years of Nebuchadrezzar's rule we are almost entirely dependent on information
from Jewish sources.
The Second Jewish Captivity (587/86 B.C.)
For all but the last two years of the rule of Zedekiah in Judah (597-586 B.C.) tribute was routinely paid to Babylon by the destitute remnant. We have details of only the last few years of the kingdom when "Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon". (2 Kings 24:20) In Zedekiah's ninth year (588 B.C.) , "on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built siege works all around it. The city was kept under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah." (2 Kings 25:1,2) After a year and a half of confinement the population of Jerusalem succumbed to famine. Unable to resist any longer the city fell (586 B.C.).
By the ninth day of the fourth month the famine in the city had become so severe that there was no food for the people to eat. Then the city wall was broken through, and the whole army fled at night through the gate between the two walls near the king's garden, though the Babylonians were surrounding the city. They fled toward the Arabah, but the Babylonian army pursued the king and overtook him in the plains of Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him and scattered, and he was captured. He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah, where sentence was pronounced on him. They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. (2 Kings 25:3-7)Four hundred years of continuous occupation by the descendants of king David ended ignominiously. What remained of the Judaean population was removed to Babylon. It is a heart wrenching narrative.
On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He set fire to the temple of the Lord, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down. The whole Babylonian army, under the commander of the imperial guard, broke down the walls around Jerusalem. Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard carried into exile the people who remained in the city, along with the rest of the populace and those who had gone over to the king of Babylon. But the commander left behind some of the poorest people of the land to work the vineyards and fields. (2 Kings 25:8-12)Anything of value was taken as pillage. The Jerusalem temple was stripped of all gold and silver and bronze; anything of significance spared in the destruction of 597 B.C. was now removed.
"So Judah went into captivity, away from her land." (2 Kings 25:21)
Judah After the Invasion
It was not Nebuchadrezzar's policy to leave conquered lands without some regulating authority. A land without administration can pay no taxes. As he had done a decade earlier, Nebuchadnezzar left in place local leadership to regulate the decimated population. In the absence of royal sons he appointed Gedaliah, son of Ahikim, from a prominent Judaean family, as governor. Babylonian officials were left behind with Gedaliah in Mizpah. A military garrison at Riblah served to ensure the allegiance of the Hatti lands, including Judah.
Once again the typical Babylonian pattern of assault has been followed: Extensive physical destruction with looting; deportation of the educated elite; death or deportation of existing royalty; establishment of loyal leadership from within the community with native Babylonian officials to assist; and the resettlement of a largely poor and illiterate remnant.
There is one additional characteristic of this 586 B.C. invasion of Judah worth noting. Shortly after the exit of the Babylonian army, many Judaeans who had left the country before the assault, seeking safe haven in neighboring countries such as Moab and Ammon, returned to the desolate land and ruined cities. A remnant of the army, including several officers who had fled the city with Zedekiah and had not been captured by the Babylonians, also returned. The land was desolate, the cities ruined, the population seriously depleated; but there was a surviving remnant and there were returnees.
The Judean remnant included at least one notable exception to the Babylonian policy of deporting the educated elite, namely Jeremiah, the Judaean prophet whose anti-Egyptian sentiments have already been noted. The invasion which enslaved the nation of Judah gave Jeremiah freedom from temporary imprisonment. His incessant public proclamations urging surrender to the Babylonians had incurred the wrath of Zedekiah, and resulted in his confinement. It is Jeremiah exclusively who provides information on the flight to Egypt which soon followed.
Dependency on Egypt
The rebellion of Zedekiah which precipitated the invasion of Nebuchadrezzar was encouraged by Egypt. Zedekiah was counting on the Egyptian army to discourage any Babylonian advance. His trust was misplaced. Only after the blockade of Jerusalem had begun did Egypt respond. According to Jeremiah, "Pharaoh's army marched out of Egypt, and when the Babylonians who were besieging Jerusalem heard the report about them, they withdrew from Jerusalem" (Jer. 37:5). Jeremiah warned Zedekiah that the reprieve would be short lived. He was correct. For reasons not given, the Egyptian army returned to Egypt and the Babylonian assault resumed.
Ezekiel, writing from Babylon, adds his own perspective on the incident. In a few terse statements he traces Zedekiah's political rise and fall:
The king of Babylon went to Jerusalem and carried off her king and her nobles (597 B.C.), bringing them back with him to Babylon. Then he took a member of the royal family (Zedekiah) and made a treaty with him, putting him under oath. He also carried away the leading men of the land (Ezekiel included), so that the kingdom would be brought low, unable to rise again, surviving only by keeping his treaty. But the king rebelled against him by sending his envoys to Egypt to get horses and a large army. Will he succeed? Will he who does such things escape? Will he break the treaty and yet escape? (Ezek. 17:11-15)The question is merely rhetorical. Ezekiel knows that Zedekiah's dependence on Egypt will be futile: "Pharaoh with his mighty army and great horde will be of no help to him in war, when ramps are built and siege works erected ..." (Ezek. 17:17)
In the traditional history the Egyptian king on whom Zedekiah relied in vain must be the fourth king of the Saite dynasty, Ha'a'ibre Wahibre, known to the Greeks as Apries. According to this history Neco died in 595 B.C., two years after Zedekiah was installed as king, and for the balance of Zedekiah's reign Egypt was ruled by Neco's son Psamtik II (595-589 B.C.) and then by Ha'a'ibre Wahibre (589-570 B.C.). Psamtik II and Apries must have been powerful kings to tempt Zedekiah to withold tribute from Nebuchadrezzar. Sadly they have left no monuments commemorating their struggles with Babylon.[9]
While the Egyptian king was unable to prevent the fall of Jerusalem, he did open Egypt's borders to receive Judean refugees. The available safe harbour in Egypt appealed to the remnant of survivors in Judah. When Gedaliah, soon after his appointment as governor. was murdered by Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, a Judaean of royal blood, one of the king's officers, fear of reprisal from Babylon made an Egyptian sojourn seem even more inviting. Against the advice of Jeremiah the remnant of survivors fled to Egypt. The majority settled in the fortress city of Tahpanhes (tell Defenneh - modern Daphnae) on the eastern edge of the Egyptian delta. It is in this context that we hear for the first time of an impending Babylonian attack on Egypt.