History of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 4 (of 12)Maspero, G. (Gaston)
History
History of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 4 (of 12)
Maspero, G. (Gaston)
Civilization, Ancient; Egypt -- History -- To 640 A.D.; History, Ancient; Middle East -- History
After his victory over Kudur-lagamar, Khammurabi assumed the title of
King of Martu,* which we find still borne by Ammisatana sixty years
later.** We see repeated here almost exactly what took place in Ethiopia
at the time of its conquest by Egypt: merchants had prepared the way for
military occupation, and the civilization of Babylon had taken hold
on the people long before its kings had become sufficiently powerful
to claim them as vassals. The empire may be said to have been virtually
established from the day when the states of the Middle and Lower
Euphrates formed but one kingdom in the hands of a single ruler. We must
not, however, imagine it to have been a compact territory, divided into
provinces under military occupation, ruled by a uniform code of laws
and statutes, and administered throughout by functionaries of various
grades, who received their orders from Babylon or Susa, according as
the chances of war favoured the ascendency of Chaldaea or Elam. It was
in reality a motley assemblage of tribes and principalities, whose sole
bond of union was subjection to a common yoke.
* It is, indeed, the sole title which he attributes to
himself on a stone tablet now in the British Museum.
** In an inscription by this prince, copied probably about
the time of Nabonidus by the scribe Belushallim, he is
called "king of the vast land of Martu."
They were under obligation to pay tribute, and furnish military
contingents and show other external marks of obedience, but their
particular constitution, customs, and religion were alike respected:
they had to purchase, at the cost of a periodical ransom, the right to
live in their own country after their own fashion, and the head of the
empire forbore all interference in their affairs, except in cases where
the internecine quarrels and dissensions threatened the security of his
suzerainty. Their subordination lasted as best it could, sometimes for a
year or for ten years, at the end of which period they would neglect
the obligations of their vassalage, or openly refuse to fulfil them:
a revolt would then break out at one point or another, and it was
necessary to suppress it without delay to prevent the bad example
from spreading far and wide. The empire was maintained by perpetual
re-conquests, and its extent varied with the energy shown by its chiefs,
or with the resources which were for the moment available.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account