Kitabı oku: «The History of Antiquity, Vol. 3 (of 6)», sayfa 17

"Because Asshur was high of growth," such are the words of Jehovah in the prophet Ezekiel, "and shot up his top, and his heart was lifted up in its height, I have delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the nations that he may deal with him at his pleasure; I have driven him out for his wickedness. And strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him off and cast him away. Upon the mountains and in all vallies his branches are fallen, and his boughs are broken by all the rivers in the land. All the people from the earth are gone down from his shadow and have left him. Upon his fallen trunk the fowls of the heaven remain, and all the beasts of the field shall be upon his branches. I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with those that descend into the pit. In that day I caused a mourning, and restrained the floods round him; the great waters were stayed; I caused Lebanon to mourn for him, and all the trees of the field lamented him. Asshur's grave is made in the depth of the pit, round about are the graves of his host; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, which caused terror in the land of the living."⁵⁶³

Media stood triumphant over the kingdom which had so long ruled over Hither Asia and the western edge of Iran; Babylon was victorious over the branch which had grown up out of her own root, had far surpassed the mother-stem, and had struck home the mother-country in many a tough struggle. Babylon had suffered far more heavily than Media. At last retribution had come. Chalah and Nineveh, which had received the tribute of the nations for so many years, which had seen so many vanquished princes, so many embassies of subjugated lands in their walls, were annihilated. And not the ancient cities only, but the condition of the Assyrian nation must have been severely smitten by this war of annihilation. Often as Babylon had been overthrown by the Assyrians – even though mastered by Cyrus – she still was able to rise repeatedly in stubborn rebellion against the Achæmenids: Elam repeatedly attempted to regain her old independence; but of the native land of Assyria, which after the fall of Nineveh became a part of Media, and passed with Media under the dominion of the Persians, we hear only once that the Assyrians, with the Armenians, rebelled against king Darius. But the picture of Behistun, which mentions the double rebellion of Babylon, the three rebellions of Elam against Darius, and exhibits the conquered leaders of these nations, is silent on the rebellion of the Assyrians and Armenians: it was not of enough importance to be mentioned.

The low ruin heaps of Nineveh (Kuyundshik, Nebbi Yunus, and Khorsabad), of Chalah (Nimrud), and Asshur (Kileh Shergat), washed down as they are by streams of rain, have yet preserved for us the remains of the buildings and palaces of the kings of Asshur, from the days of Samsi-Bin I., Tiglath Pilesar I., Shalmanesar I., down to Assur-idil-ili. Set on fire at the time of destruction, the wooden roofs of the palaces were reduced to cinders, and fell in upon the floor of the chambers, where portions of them are still to be found. The upper parts of the brick-walls were then washed down by wind and rain, and covered the lower part of the rooms. Even where the fire did not spread, the beams of the roofs at length broke down, the upper layers of the bricks on the walls were gradually washed down, and raised the floors of the chambers, as well as the ground immediately surrounding them. By this process the palaces of Nineveh, Chalah, and Dur Sarrukin, were changed into heaps of earth. But while the upper part of the buildings buried the lower in their ruins, the lower part, with all the inscriptions and sculptures contained in it, was saved from further destruction; and these unsightly heaps have preserved to us the civilisation and the characteristics of the Assyrians, as truly as the lofty monuments and rock tombs on the Nile have preserved the picture of ancient Egypt, though they do not present the same breadth, and extend in the same way to every side of life.

CHAPTER XIII.
EGYPT UNDER PSAMMETICHUS AND NECHO

According to the account of Herodotus, a blind man from the city of Anysis, and bearing the same name as his city, ruled over Egypt at the time when Sabakon marched through the country. He retired before the Ethiopians into the marshes, and fled to an island called Elbo. The island measured ten stades in every direction, and thither, in obedience to his command, the Egyptians by turns secretly brought him nourishment. When fifty years had expired from the time that he made himself master of Egypt, Sabakon saw in a dream a man who bade him summon all the priests of Egypt, and cause each to be cut into two pieces. Then Sabakon said that the gods had announced to him by this vision that he would by some evil deed bring upon himself severe punishment from the gods or from men. Such a deed he would not commit: the time had passed which was allotted to him for the rule of Egypt; an oracle in Ethiopia had announced to him that he would rule over Egypt for fifty years. As this period was now completed, Sabakon voluntarily retired from Egypt, the blind man returned from the island of Elbo, and reigned as before. He was followed by the priest Sethos, against whom Sennacherib, the king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched, but the god of Memphis saved him by sending field mice into the camp (p. 141). After the death of Sethos the Egyptians became free, but as they could not live without a king they elected twelve kings, and divided Egypt into twelve parts. These twelve kings contracted family alliances with each other, and agreed that none of the twelve should seek greater possessions than another, or attempt to crush the others, but that all should be on the best terms with each other. They then determined to leave behind a common memorial, and with this object built the labyrinth on Lake Mœris, and ruled with justice. In the course of time it happened that the twelve kings were sacrificing together in the temple – for they came in a body to all sacrifices – and when at the close of the sacrifice they poured libations, the high priest brought only eleven of the golden goblets from which they were wont to pour libations, instead of twelve. The last in the list at this sacrifice was Psammetichus of Sais, whose father Necho had been killed by Sabakon. He had himself fled to Syria, to escape Sabakon, but after the retirement of the Ethiopians he had been brought back by the inhabitants of the canton of Sais. As no goblet was left for him, he took the brazen helmet from his head and poured the libation from that. Then the rest of the princes remembered a prophecy given to them at the very beginning of their reign, – that whosoever among them should pour a libation out of a brazen goblet should be king over all Egypt. Mindful of this oracle the kings were not inclined to punish Psammetichus with death, because they found on inquiry that he had not used his helmet with premeditation; but they took from him the greater part of his power, confined him to the marshes, and bade him not to leave them or trouble himself about the rest of Egypt. Perceiving that injustice was done to him, Psammetichus bethought him how to avenge himself on those who had driven him out; and when he inquired of the oracle of Buto he received the answer, "Vengeance would come from the sea, when the brazen men appeared." Psammetichus did not believe the oracle. But Ionians and Carians, who had taken ship for plunder, were driven out of their course to Egypt. When they got on the shore in their brazen armour, an Egyptian announced to Psammetichus that brazen men who were come from the sea were laying waste the plains. Then Psammetichus saw that the oracle was fulfilled. He received the Ionians and Carians in a friendly manner, and induced them by great promises to stay with him. And with these, and the Egyptians who were on his side to help him, he conquered the rest of the kings, and became lord over all Egypt.⁵⁶⁴

Diodorus gives us a similar account. He celebrates the gentle and wise rule of the Ethiopian Sabakon, and then continues. "His piety is shown by his conduct in consequence of a dream, and his resignation of the throne. The god of Thebes appeared to him in a dream, and said that he could not govern Egypt prosperously and for long unless he collected all the priests and cut each into two parts, and marched between the parts with his body-guard. As this dream appeared frequently, he summoned the priests, and said to them, that he should displease the god if he remained longer in the land, or he would never have advised such an act in a dream. He preferred to retire while pure from that guilt, and leave his future to fortune rather than to rule over all Egypt by outraging the god, and staining his own life by wicked murder. Then he resigned the government of Egypt to the Egyptians, and retired to Ethiopia. But as the people were unquiet, and domestic strife broke out, the most distinguished princes, twelve in number, met at Memphis, and made a league, and swore to remain friendly and faithful to each other, and made themselves kings. In pursuance of this agreement they reigned for fifteen years in harmony, and formed the resolution, that as in their lives they shared equal honours, so after death their bodies should rest in the same place, and that a sepulchre built in common should preserve the common fame of the kings buried there. The size of this structure, for which they selected a site on Lake Mœris, was to surpass the works of all the kings before them. But one of them, Psammetichus of Sais, who was lord of the coast, secured an extensive trade to all merchants, especially to the Phenicians and Greeks. By the sale of the products of his canton and his share in that which the foreigners brought he not only obtained greater resources, but he won the friendship of these nations and their princes. Roused by envy the rest of the kings made war upon Psammetichus, who obtained necessaries from the Ionians and Carians, and conquered in the battle near the city of Momemphis. Of the kings, his opponents, some fell in the battle, others fled to Libya, and were no longer in a position to contest the throne. Thus after fifteen years the sovereignty in Egypt again came into the hands of one man."⁵⁶⁵

We saw that the real course of affairs differed widely from the accounts given by the Egyptians, from which come the narratives of Herodotus and Diodorus. Manetho's list, at any rate, does not conceal the fact that after king Bocchoris had succumbed to the incursion of the Ethiopians, three kings of Ethiopia ruled over Egypt in succession. The Hebrew Scriptures and the tablets of the Assyrians then informed us how Israel, trusting in the help of Sabakon, refused payment of tribute to Nineveh, and what misfortunes punished this rebellion in the year 722 B.C. – how Sabakon was defeated two years afterwards at Raphia, in the neighbourhood of Gaza, by Sargon. Afterwards Sargon could boast of receiving tribute from the successor of Sabakon, Sevechus, in the year 716 B.C., and later still could demand and obtain the surrender of a fugitive opponent (711 B.C.). But Tirhaka, the successor of Sevechus, fought with success at Eltekeh in the year 701 against Sennacherib of Assyria, and forced him to raise the siege of Jerusalem. Thirty years afterwards the situation was entirely changed. In order to take from Sidon, Tyre, Judah, and the Syrian States their hopes in Napata and Egypt, which caused their resistance to be constantly bursting into fresh flame, Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, invaded Egypt in the year 672 B.C., and drove Tirhaka back to his native land. Tirhaka's repeated attempts to win Egypt from this position were wrecked like those of his successor, Urdamane: they only brought about the sack and devastation of Thebes and its sanctuaries (663 B.C.).

Hence it was not of their own free will that the Ethiopians retired to their home; the dominion over Egypt which the Ethiopians of Napata, who had long acquired the manners and civilisation of Egypt, had exercised for sixty years, was replaced by another and far heavier foreign dominion – the rule of the kings on the Tigris. The Egyptians did not set up twelve kings after the Ethiopians, who pledged themselves to equality and friendship, as Herodotus supposes, nor did the twelve leading princes make themselves kings as Herodotus supposes. Still less did they rule Egypt in common; least of all could they erect the structure on Lake Mœris, the temple of Amenemha III., for it had already been in existence fifteen centuries (I. 109). It is the twenty vassal princes, whom Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal set up over Egypt – among whom must have been represented some of the dynastic families which rose under the Pharaohs of Bubastis and Tanis – out of whom the Egyptians have constructed the twelve kings.

Among these princes, by means of the Assyrians, Necho and his son Psammetichus rose into power. It was Esarhaddon who entrusted to Necho the government of Memphis and Sais. If Herodotus states that Sabakon put Necho, the father of Psammetichus, to death, the inscriptions of Assurbanipal prove the contrary. It must, therefore, have been the grandfather of Psammetichus, the Nechepsus of Manetho, who suffered this fate, and he must have suffered at the hands of Tirhaka, and not at the hands of Sabakon.⁵⁶⁶ The flight of Psammetichus before Sabakon into Syria, which Herodotus relates, cannot have taken place till Tirhaka's time. In the account given by Herodotus only so much can be regarded as certain as is also clear from Manetho's list —i. e. that Necho and Psammetichus belonged to the district of Sais. Though raised by Esarhaddon, Necho began, after the death of that prince and the first campaign of Assurbanipal to Egypt, to join in a conspiracy with Tirhaka in connection with two of his fellow-vassals. He was taken prisoner and carried to Nineveh, but received pardon, and was, at any rate, again placed over Sais. His son, who had assumed the Assyrian name of Neboshezban, received the canton of Athribis. Necho died towards the year 664 B.C.; his son succeeded him in the administration of the district of Sais. Ten or twelve years afterwards (653 B.C.⁵⁶⁷), apparently availing himself of the dissension which broke out in the royal house of Assyria, the rebellion of Samul-sum-ukin against his brother, he undertook to liberate Egypt from the dominion of the Medes, and at the same time to make himself master of Egypt. As to the manner in which this was done, and the means of doing it, we have no information beyond very scanty facts, suppositions, and conclusions. We saw above, from the inscriptions of Assurbanipal, that Psammetichus acted in concert with Gyges of Lydia, that "Gyges sent his power to aid him in breaking off the yoke of the Assyrians" (p. 170). The Ionians and Carians in brazen armour, in Herodotus, who come up from the sea, were thus the soldiers whom Gyges sent over the sea. He could only send his auxiliaries or Ionian vessels; and that he was in close combination with Carians will be made clear below. This fact does not make it at all impossible that Psammetichus before he revolted did not on his part gain the favour of the Ionians and Phenicians by opening the harbours of his canton, and favouring their trade, as Diodorus states (p. 298). This would give the harbour cities of the Greeks in Asia Minor sufficient reason to support strongly the rising of Psammetichus. For the independent support of Psammetichus by the Ionian cities of Asia Minor we have evidence in a statement of Strabo, according to which thirty ships from Miletus were active in the cause of Psammetichus, and also the position afterwards assigned to the Ionians in Egypt under the reign of Psammetichus. The ships of the Milesians are said to have conquered Inarus, i. e. no doubt one of the princes who opposed the rising of Psammetichus, in a naval engagement on the Nile.⁵⁶⁸

Beyond this we have no further information about the course of the struggle, and its duration. Beside Inarus we have the name of one other opponent of Psammetichus, Tementhes.⁵⁶⁹ We do not know whether all the vassals of Assyria ranged themselves against Psammetichus, or whether some of these princes followed his leadership against Assyria and the dependants of Assyria. We do not know whether he had merely to contend against his own fellow-princes or against Assyrian garrisons also, and Assyrian forces. According to Polyænus the decisive battle took place in the neighbourhood of Memphis, five stadia from the city, near the temple of Isis; Diodorus puts the battle-field at Momemphis in the western Delta, between the Canopic arm of the Nile and the Mareotic Lake. It is remarkable that the decisive battle should have been fought so far to the west, near the border of Libya, but it is not impossible. But we must not overlook the fact, that according to Herodotus, a later decisive battle took place at Momemphis – and from the circumstances it is clear that this battle must have been fought there – so that a confusion between the two is not impossible.

We do not know what claim Psammetichus could make to the sovereignty of Egypt besides the summons to the liberation from Assyria, and the accomplishment of this liberation. His family belonged to the canton of Sais, from which, in previous times, Tnephachtus and Bocchoris had sprung. It would be possible that the house of Necho was in some connection with these princes, that Necho and Psammetichus were successors or descendants of Tnephactus. From this we may explain the story that the blind king, who fled before Sabakon into the marshes, recovered the throne after the retirement of the Ethiopians, and also the persecution which Necho and Psammetichus had to undergo from the Ethiopians. From such a connection we could also explain the fact that Necho took the part of Assyria against Tirhaka in the campaign of Esarhaddon, and received in reward from Esarhaddon the government of Memphis and Sais. The subsequent conspiracy of Necho with Tirhaka, when the latter had been driven back to Napata, would then show that Necho had attempted first to drive out the Ethiopians by the Assyrians, and then the Assyrians by the Ethiopians, and liberate Egypt by using one against the other. However this may be, Psammetichus, when liberating Egypt from Assyria, succeeded also in removing and destroying the dynastic families, which had risen up since the times of the Pharaohs of Bubastis and Tanis, and had maintained themselves under the Ethiopians and Assyrians, though in diminished importance and with a change in the position of their families. Thus Psammetichus accomplished the work which Tnephachtus began and Bocchoris was unable to carry on and maintain. According to the indications of an Egyptian inscription, Psammetichus strengthened his royal position by taking to wife Shabanatep, the heiress of a dynasty of Thebes. She was, apparently, the daughter of a prince Pianchi, who must have governed the canton of Thebes under Sabakon, and of Ameniritis, the sister of Sabakon, whom he gave to Pianchi to wife.⁵⁷⁰

The independence of Egypt was won. After a foreign rule of nearly 80 years (on the lowest calculation the Ethiopians had ruled for 58 years, and the Assyrians nearly 20), Egypt was again her own mistress, and obeyed a king taken from her midst. But every one must have made up his mind to see new armies marching from the Tigris to the Nile, as soon as the rebellion of Samul-sum-ukin was crushed, and Assurbanipal's hands were free. The question was, whether Egypt's power was equal to such a struggle. Psammetichus was not put to this trial. After the capture of Babylon, Assurbanipal turned the full weight of his arms to the subjugation and destruction of Elam. The new conflict must have appeared unavoidable when Assurbanipal, about the year 643 B.C., punished the Arabian tribes on the borders of the Ammonites and Moabites. If he still omitted the attack on Egypt he must have regarded his forces as insufficient for the purpose, or they must have been seriously occupied in another direction. We may assume with tolerable certainty that it was the union of the Median tribes by Phraortes, the son of Deioces, and their combination with the Persians, which drew Assurbanipal back to the East, and kept him there. According to the statement of Herodotus, already considered, Psammetichus on his side advanced to the offensive beyond his own borders towards Syria. This war of Psammetichus in Syria, and the supposed long conflict for Ashdod, can only mean that Psammetichus attempted to bring the cities of the Philistines, and especially those of the desert, into his hands, in order to make the march through the desert, which must commence from this point, impossible, or at any rate difficult, for the Assyrians. Here also we are ignorant whether Psammetichus had to contend with the Philistines alone or with the Assyrian forces also: this only is clear, that he could not besiege Ashdod before Gaza and Ascalon were in his hands. If Psammetichus was really moved to this war by the object we impute to him, we must put the war in the period in which there was still danger to be apprehended from the Tigris: i. e. in the decade from 640 to 630 B.C. According to this, the impossible 29 years which Herodotus allows to the siege of Ashdod must be reduced to nine years, just as we had to cut down the 28 years which he gives for the dominion of the Scythians in Hither Asia to about ten years. But in the advance of these Scythians towards Egypt (in the year 625 B.C.), described by Herodotus, he does not tell us that Ashdod, Ascalon, or Gaza, were subject to Psammetichus; he represents the Scythians as passing beyond the cities of the Philistines to the borders of Egypt, where Psammetichus, by gifts and entreaties, induces them to desist from any further advance, and turn back to Syria. If the war of Psammetichus in Syria is placed after the incursion of the Scythians, i. e. in the last fifteen years of his reign, another event shortly to be mentioned will have also to be placed at the end of his reign, – an event which must certainly have belonged to a previous period. In no case did Psammetichus obtain success in Syria. If his successor had to conquer Gaza, i. e. the city nearest Egypt, it is obvious that Psammetichus maintained none of these border cities, though one or other may have been brought for a time into his power.

Egypt had been liberated and restored, but not by her own power. We saw that even from the times of the later Ramessids the military power of Egypt had been replaced by foreign mercenaries, especially by Libyans; that the house of the Pharaohs of Bubastis owed its rise to the command of these troops. We saw how under these Pharaohs, and those of the succeeding house of Tanis, the leaders of these troops became hereditary lords of the districts – how these dynasties summoned the Ethiopians against Tnephachtus and Bocchoris, and then others, including Necho and Psammetichus, joined Assyria against the Ethiopians. Before the reign of Sabakon it was chiefly Libyans on whom the power of the princes rested; under Sabakon, Sevechus, and Tirhaka it was the Ethiopians who supported the authority of the crown; and in the same way Psammetichus succeeded in breaking loose from Assyria, and establishing his authority in Egypt, and on the throne of the Pharaohs, mainly by strangers and mercenaries, by Ionians and Carians. Psammetichus could not do without them. In his internal administration they were required to keep down the overthrown dynastic families, and he needed them to protect his kingdom from without. His elevation, the foundation of his power, the restoration of Egypt, rested on the attempt to establish Egypt and his own crown, as against Ethiopia and Assyria, on a third external power, the mariners of the north. Psammetichus therefore was compelled to give preference to Ionians and Carians over the native soldiers, the warrior caste, who, under the dominion of the kings of Napata, must obviously have received a considerable addition of Ethiopians from the native land of the kings. In the Syrian war also, as Diodorus tells us, the Ionians and Carians received the place of honour on the right wing, in the order of battle. The Ionians and Carians were entrusted with the protection of the eastern border, the most important border of the kingdom. There they were placed in a standing camp, on the Pelusic arm of the Nile; on one bank was the camp of the Ionians, on the other the camp of the Carians.⁵⁷¹ These Ionians and Carians – their numbers under the successors of Psammetichus reached 30,000 men – received valuable allotments of land, and were so handsomely treated that the prophet Jeremiah compares them to "stall-fed oxen."⁵⁷² They had also to educate Egyptians in their language, their customs, and their mode of war: Psammetichus placed in their hands Egyptian boys for education and training, and caused even his own sons to be instructed in Greek.⁵⁷³ The old warrior caste was limited to the protection of the southern and western borders against Napata and the Libyans, the border service at Elephantine and Marea.

The marked preference shown to the new troops as opposed to the old could not be without an effect on the latter. Jealousy and hatred were unavoidable. But they attempted no rebellion. Curiously enough, a considerable portion of the old warrior caste contented themselves with abandoning Egypt. Herodotus tells us: "The Egyptians who for years had kept guard at Elephantine were not relieved. They consulted together, and unanimously came to the conclusion to revolt from Psammetichus, and retire to Egypt, being in number 240,000. Psammetichus pursued them, and entreated them on many grounds not to desert their wives and children, and the gods of the land. Then one of the soldiers exposed himself, and said, that for men there would be no lack of wives and children. When they arrived in Ethiopia they put themselves at the service of the king, who bade them drive out the Ethiopians with whom he was at variance, and take their land." This was done, and the emigrants dwelt on the Nile, 112 days' journey to the south of Elephantine.⁵⁷⁴ Diodorus tells us: "Displeased at the preference shown to the mercenaries, the Egyptians, more than 200,000 in number, revolted, and marched to Ethiopia with the intention of obtaining there a land for themselves. The king first sent some officers to prevent them: when these availed nothing he hastened after them on ship with his most trusted followers. The soldiers marched up the Nile, and had already crossed the borders of Egypt, when Psammetichus entreated them to alter their minds, and reminded them of their father-land, their wives and children. Then they struck their lances on their shields, and said that so long as they had these they would easily find a father-land, and raising their coats they said that they should have no lack of wives and children. Thus firmly despising what to most men seems of the greatest importance, they took the best part of Ethiopia for their dwelling, allotting large portions of land to each other." According to the evidence of Eratosthenes the land of the emigrants lay above the confluence of the Astaboras and the Nile, on an island south-east of the later Meroe.⁵⁷⁵

The number of the emigrants in this narrative, which is obviously part of the tradition of Egypt, is of course exaggerated. Manetho gives the same number (240,000) for the Hyksos who emigrated from Egypt, and for these emigrants. Even Diodorus found a difficulty in this number; he diminished it, and says, "more than 200,000." Moreover, in any case, a considerable number of the old military order must have remained in Egypt. The successors of Psammetichus, who favoured the Greek mercenaries as much as Psammetichus himself, certainly did not increase the native military order, still less did the Persians after their conquest of the land. Yet Herodotus tells us that about the middle of the fifth century, i. e. more than a century and a half after the emigration, the military order in Egypt numbered more than 400,000. If the number of the emigrants really reached 240,000 men, it is inexplicable why so strong a body did not prefer to make themselves masters of Egypt, rather than go in laborious search of uncertain conquests in distant lands. Herodotus' statement that it was the garrison at Elephantine which emigrated no doubt leads us in the direction of the actual occurrence. This garrison cannot have been 240,000 strong, as his narrative states; we cannot assume that it was stronger than the ordinary border garrison against Syria, i. e. from 30,000 to 40,000 men. It may have been a part of the army, of about this strength, encamped on the southern border, which deserted to the king of Napata, and preferred service with the Ethiopians to service with Psammetichus. To Psammetichus himself it could only appear a desirable thing, if the discontented elements of the old army left the country. But this desertion to the king of Napata added considerably to the fighting strength of the latter, and might entice him even into an attack on Egypt. The emigration could not be hindered by force; it was the garrison in charge of the border who were emigrating. To pursue the emigrants with a force was only to be too late, and kindle war with Napata. It entirely suits this situation that Psammetichus should send after the fugitives, and then go in person, in order to induce them to return by gracious promises. According as the Syrian war of Psammetichus is placed before or after the Scythian invasion, this emigration, which in Diodorus is a consequence of that war, must be placed after the year 630 B.C. or after the year 615 B.C.