Whilst absent on this expedition, however, the Elamites seem to have been again plotting against the Assyrians in Babylonia. This being the case, Sennacherib went in “ships of the land of Ḫatti” to the place where Merodach-baladan(112) had taken refuge, namely, “Nagitu of Elam.”(113) On this occasion, he claims to have captured Šûzubu (otherwise Nergal-ušêzib), and carried him in chains to Assyria. This led to reprisals on the part of the Elamites, who invaded Babylonia, carried Aššur-nadin-šum, the king, Sennacherib’s son, prisoner, and set on the throne Nergal-ušêzib, who, if he be the Šûzubu referred to by Sennacherib, must have escaped from the custody of the Assyrians. This was in 693 B.C. Nergal-ušêzib only ruled for a year or eighteen months, and was captured (? again) by the Assyrians. The Assyrian king now ravaged Elam “from Râš to Bît-Burnaki,” but his army would have been better employed in watching over affairs in Babylonia, where another pretender, Mušêzib-Marduk, sat on the throne, and ruled for four years. During this time he, too, found that his seat was not altogether a bed of roses, for Menanu, king of Elam, after a battle with the Assyrians,(114) captured Mušêzib-Marduk with an army composed of Elamites and Babylonians, and delivered him to the Assyrians. Sennacherib now again (688 B.C.) became king of Babylonia, and it is thought that, on taking possession of the capital again, out of revenge for the loss of his son, and on account of the trouble he had had in consequence of the Babylonians running after the many pretenders, with which the land seems to have teemed, he destroyed the city of Babylon, committing such cruelties that they were remembered to the end, and sowed the seeds of that hatred which were to bring forth for Assyria that deadliest of all fruit—her own destruction. In the eight years which passed between his assuming the reins of power in Babylonia and his death, must be placed that expedition to Egypt spoken of by Berosus and Herodotus. The version of the former, which refers principally to the siege of Jerusalem, is quoted above (p. 378); the following is the account of the latter—