By the seventh century B.C., the technology of the Iron Age was making inroads in Babylonia. In addition to iron tools found at Nippur, there is an increasing number of references in account texts to iron objects: nails, daggers, razors, bedsteads, and pot-stands. There is also the first specific mention in a Babylonian document of an ironsmith, which seems to be a new occupation in the land. At least some of the iron used in Babylonia was imported from Cilicia.
Another topic about which we should like to be better
informed for this period is the Babylonian military. The conquering armies of
Nabopolassar, which in the two decades after 625 B. C. put an end to the
Assyrian empire and then pushed west to win Carchemish and Syria, were not
without their Babylonian forerunners, despite the relative silence of the
texts. Nor should the heavy reliance of the Chaldaeans on Elamite generals,
officers, and soldiery (especially archers) obscure the fact that the
Chaldaeans, Aramaeans, and older Babylonians had troops of their own and
occasionally fought battles without substantial foreign aid. At Dur-Atkhara in
710, Merodach-baladan’s forces are said to have included 600 cavalrymen
(pethallu) and 4,000 garrison soldiers (sabe suluti). In the following year, at
the Assyrian siege of Dur-Yakin, Merodach-baladan’s capital in the south,
Chaldaean forces included a central contingent under the king (kisjr sarruti)
and horses trained for chariot use. Ashurbanipal claimed that he had given
Shamash-shumaukin infantry, cavalry, and chariotry, the three major components
of contemporary armed forces. Babylonian armies by themselves proved capable of
capturing major cities such as Nippur (693) and Cutha (651). Southern
Mesopotamians were apparently not devoid of military skills, since the Assyrian
army in the time of Ashurbanipal included troops recruited from among
Babylonians, Chaldaeans, and Aramaeans; but we have as yet discovered
practically no documentation concerning the Babylonian army itself. Although
the army in the eighth and seventh centuries was generally not a match for the
Assyrian forces and their more advanced techniques, it was able to face the
Assyrians in the field and on several occasions to check Assyrian moves.
Very little is known about the tactics employed during the
Neo-Babylonian Empire, but they were probably similar to those used by the
Assyrians. We know more about the period immediately preceding this due to the
Assyrian records concerning the wars fought against Babylonian rebels. The
Babylonians used the difficulties and natural obstacles of their countryside to
good effect. Large parts of Southern Babylonia were marshland in which fugitives
could hide with their retinues, emerging when Assyrian forces had gone home, or
proceeding to exile in Elam. Merodach-Baladan was once hunted for five days in
these marshes and there are Assyrian reliefs depicting their troops weeding out
resistance in these regions by means of reed boats. Further north, the
countryside was scored by numerous irrigation ditches and canals. Skillful
choice of defensive positions was thus a feature of Babylonian tactics at this
time. At Dur-Papsukal, the Babylonian rebel Marduk-balatsu-ikbi, supported by
Elamites and Chaldeans, took up a position surrounded by an ‘expanse of waters’
which the Assyrians described as difficult to approach. A similar tactic was
used by Merodach-Baladan at Our-Yakin. The Babylonians cut a channel from the Euphrates
200 cubits wide and broke down irrigation ditches in order to flood the fields
with water. They then pitched their camp in the middle of this swamped area and
awaited the Assyrian army. However, the Assyrians were undaunted and sent elite
troops across the defences, while archers shot over the waters into the
Babylonian camp.
The Babylonians may have found it difficult to muster their
troops quickly, for there are two occasions when Babylonian armies turned up
late for a battle, their allies having fought and won it on their own. This
happened at Der, where the Elamites forced an Assyrian retreat, and when Nineveh
fell to the Medes alone. If intentional, this must rank among the most astute
of military tactics!
The period following the reign of Nebuchadrezzar I
(1126-1105 B.C.), who inflicted a major military defeat on the Elamites, is
rather dark and disordered. Several dynasties passed, but few great kings.
Border wars with Assyria continued, and sometimes Assyrian kings, such as
Tukulti-Ninuna II, Sbalmaneser III and Shamshi-Adad V, mounted major campaigns
into Babylonia, extending Assyrian political influence over Babylon, but not
conquering it. During the 11th century B.C. large numbers of Aramaeans settled
in Babylonia, forming tribal districts and becoming a constant source of
disorder in the following centuries. In 728 B.C. the unstable situation in
Babylonia led to Tiglath-Pileser III making himself King of Babylon. Henceforth,
Assyrian kings ruled Babylonia themselves or, as a son of protector, through a
native ruler who met their approval. There were, of course, numerous revolts,
usually involving the anti-Assyrian Aramaean and Chaldean tribes, supported by
Elam. Esarhaddon’s attempt to form a son of dual monarchy of Assyria and
Babylon, ruled by his two sons, Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shuma-ukin, failed
when the latter also rose in rebellion against Assyria.
The Chaldeans
The Chaldeans had been in Babylonia at least since the reign
of Shalmaneser III. Like the Aramaeans, they were also organised into tribal
‘houses’ (bitu), each under a sheikh. These were located in the marshy regions
of Southern Babylonia, near the border with Elam, and comprised the Bil-Dakuri,
Bit-Yakin and Bit-Amukani. The Chaldean sheikhs were powerful enough to seize
the throne of Babylon and rebel against Assyria. One of the most serious
rebellions was that of Metodach-Baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina, 721-710 B.C., and
again in 703 B.C., of the Bit-Yakin tribe. He was a dangerous and persistent
enemy of Assyria. Ashurbanipal became King of Babylon himself (as Kandelanu)
following the revolt of his brother, but in the confusion that followed his
death, another Chaldean, NabopoJassar (Nabu-aplu-usur, 625-605 B.C.) look the
throne of Babylon. The Assyrian Empire collapsed in the face of the combined
attacks of Nabopolassar and his allies, the Medes under Cyaxares.
The Neo-Babylonian Empire at its greatest extent of
power.
The Neo-Babylonian Empire
Under Nebucbadrezzar II (604-562 B.C.) the Babylonians
created an empire that encompassed nearly all of the previous Assyrian empire.
The Egyptians, who had attempted to prevent this and had assisted Assyria, were
pushed back from the Euphrates and as far as their own borders, but attempts to
conquer Egypt were not successful. The Medes had pressed as far as Lydia, and
the Babylonians constructed a wall near Sippar, where the Tigris and Euphrates
flow close to each other, as a defensive measure against them. Nebuchadrezzar
was followed by three kings who ruled amid internal disorder, until Nabonidus
was placed on the throne by a coup d’état. He failed to save his kingdom from
an easy conquest by the Persian king, Cyrus the Great, in 539 B.C.
Military organisation during this period was probably very
similar to that of Neo-Assyria and had probably been extended into Babylonia by
the Assyrians. The ilku obligation existed in some form as it did in Assyria.
Babylonian forces included chariotry, cavalry and infantry, including 5000
quruburi on the Assyrian model, supplemented with light troops, especially archers,
provided by the Aramaeans and Chaldeans. These were available in large numbers
and the Babylonian kings seem to have attempted to improve their effectiveness
by issuing them with shields and spears. The basic unit was the kisri commanded
by the shaknu.
The Assyrians, though greatly respecting Babylonian culture,
seem to have had a low opinion of the general competence of the urbanised
Babylonians; but of course arrogance was an Assyrian national pastime! Assyrian
military supremacy ensured that Babylonian military developments generally
followed those of Assyria, though with some delay. This list covers the armies
of Babylon from the accession of Nabu-nasir, through the creation of the
neo-Babylonian empire under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar II, to the fall of
the city to the Persians in 539 B.C., and the ephemeral but fiercely-fought
revolts of 522-521 B.C. and 482 B.C.. Babylonian armies of this period were
usually fragile coalitions of the numerous socio-political and ethnic groups,
some strongly pro-Assyrian or, later, pro-Persian, resident in Babylonia – but
based principally around the resources of the powerful Chaldean and Aramaean
tribes. The Chaldeans, whose individual tribes were larger and more urbanised
than the Aramaeans, eventually gained political dominance. Their ambitious and
talented ruling elite probably provided the final dynasty of independent
Babylonia, though it is not certain that Nabopolassar actually was a Chaldean
of the Bit-Yakin tribe as is usually supposed.
These then are some of the factors in the transformation of
Babylonia between 747 and 626 B. C. To what at the beginning of this period had
been a sparsely populated, impoverished, and unstable land with rival tribal
and traditional groups, Assyrian military intervention and governance meant
oppression and limited economic exploitation. But the Assyrian presence aroused
local resistance, helped to heal political fragmentation, and led Babylonia to
develop regional alliances with Elam and the Arabs. A series of political
leaders, mostly Chaldaean but culminating in the disaffected Assyrian prince
Shamash-shuma-ukin, organized a series of national and international coalitions
to oppose Assyrian encroachment. Although Babylonian forces inevitably
succumbed in each protracted encounter, their perennial struggles revealed
Assyrian vulnerability at the height of the Late Assyrian empire. The
Babylonian metamorphosis under Assyrian stress was not simply political and
military; its social and economic dimensions were also impressive. With the
eventual stabilization of the Babylonian monarchy under Assyrian domination,
the Babylonian economy showed signs of increasing growth, even after diversion
of goods and services for Assyrian use. Babylonian cities prospered financially
and, under royal or gubernatorial patronage, also architecturally. The older
Babylonian settled population increased in size and, in order to survive in a
world dominated by Assyrians and tribesmen, developed broader kinship-based
groups with a more effective voice than the isolated family unit. The great
families of the urban north west – the Gakhal, the Egibi, the
Arka(t)-ilani-damqa – rose to prominence. Babylonia’s pluralist population with
its long – standing capacity to absorb heterogeneous newcomers, at length,
found its language and, to a lesser extent, its culture giving way under
growing Aramaean influence. In these decades, the shadow of the Assyrian empire
meant compromised independence and a muted political career for Babylonia; but
it also meant relative stability, prosperity, and protection from outside foes.
In the words of Sargon, subject peoples were advised to enjoy the protective
benefits of the pax assyriaca: ‘Eat your bread [and] drink your water [under]
the shadow of the king my lord, [and] be glad.’ Under these conditions,
political and social institutions underwent substantial transformation, and
Babylonia expanded its international horizons. Although thwarted in its
attempts to assert its freedom, Babylonia in the course of its struggle created
new mechanisms that would – in the two decades after 625 B.C. – not only dispel
the Assyrian shadow but eradicate the empire that cast it.
THE ELAMITES
The Elamites are usually credited in contemporary sources
with possessing very large armies, probably numbering tens of thousands, most
of which would be infantry archers. Such forces could be: quite effective in
themselves, but by the 7th century B.C. at the latest, their effectiveness had been
greatly enhanced by means of large, four-horse or mule, chariots, capable of
carrying up to three archers in addition to the driver. The effect of the
missiles discharged by a unit of such chariotry would certainly improve their
shock effect against most opposition. These vehicles dispense: with the
elaboration of other types of chariotry and yet would be capable of taking on
such opponents on equal terms, if their increased shooting capability did not
actually give them superiority. These chariots may be partly accountable for
the great mobility displayed by Elamite armies. Even if these vehicles were
only used to transport the numerous archers, it would be possible to outmaneuver
an enemy army with the Elamite infantry alone. The Elamites also possessed cavalry,
which would have made a good tactical combination with the chariotry,
especially as such heavy, un-maneuverability chariots would benefit from
cavalry protection or their flanks and rear.
The Elamites often fought as allies of Babylonian rebels
against Assyria, and their support could usually be relied upon. If the main
Elamite army itself was not present, there might be forces positioned in
Babylonia under Elamite commanders (in one case, 7,500 men). The Elamites were
quite prepared to meet the Assyrians in pitched set-piece battles
(understandable if they had a superiority in archers, chariots and possibly
cavalry), and the Babylonian chronicle tells us that this strategy often
brought results. Alternatively, forces, such as light troops and cavalry, could
be detached in order to hold up an enemy army, perhaps to create time for a
combined Elamite and Babylonian army to assemble.
