Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon were now in league with Judah and Egyptian aid was promised. The war party in Jerusalem went about shouting that Jehovah was with them--no matter, seemingly, what folly they undertook.
In 587 B.C. the Babylonian army besieged Jerusalem, intending to starve the city into submission. The siege was raised when Egyptian reinforcements drew near, long enough to defeat them and send them home in confusion. Then it went on again. In 586 B.C. the Babylonians broke through the walls of Jerusalem and the city was destroyed. The king who had broken faith was taken to Babylon and blinded, while his sons were slain. Such punishments as these had not been common with the old Babylonians, and they show that the Chaldeans were not of the ancient temperament,--merciful and kind. The best citizens of Jerusalem were taken captives, while the poorer ones were left to cultivate the soil.
The great prophet Jeremiah was thought to be friendly to the government of Babylon, and was given permission to go where he would. He remained with the stricken band of Hebrews, who soon after journeyed into Egypt.
Tyre, as an ally, was besieged but here the problem of cutting the city off from outside communication again arose. The siege lasted for thirteen years and in the end the city paid tribute. In 567 B.C.
Nebuchadnezzar"s army invaded Egypt, but it was merely a raid to terrorize the Egyptians and put an end to Egyptian interference.
The king was now free to give his energy to internal affairs, and his attention was chiefly centered in building and beautifying Babylon.
Notable among his undertakings were the walls of the city--counted among the seven wonders of the world. They were so well constructed that had they been defended, the city could never have been taken save by treachery inside the capital itself. In 562 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar died--the last great king of an ancient nation.
Of the following reign little is known, the king being a.s.sa.s.sinated in the second year of his rule. Two other uneventful reigns followed, and then Nabonidus ascended the throne. This man was a student--not a king.
He did one good service for future ages; being devoted to rebuilding the temples of the G.o.ds, he had his workmen excavate deep down into the old foundations of the temple of the sun-G.o.d in Sippar, which he says had not been seen for 3200 years, for the record-tablet, always placed in the corner. Then he caused a new tablet to be inserted, repeating the history of the temple and enumerating his repairs. Modern excavators have been greatly aided by these tablets of Nabonidus. While he was thus absorbed, his country was fast plunging on to ruin. His was an age when the mere existence of a nation depended upon its aggressive policy.
While the entire resources of the country were being expended upon shrines sacred to the G.o.ds, there was neither time nor money for the maintenance of an army. Matters were allowed to take their own course for awhile, and later the king"s son, Belshar-usur, or Belshazzar, was left to manage government concerns. For this reason, the Hebrews recorded him as the last Babylonian king, while in truth his father bore the kingly t.i.tle.
Even when danger threatened the state to such an extent that the scholar-king himself, poking around among his ancient record-tablets, was finally forced to take notice of it, he gave no thought to his kingdom or his subjects, but was simply alarmed for the safety of his statue-deities. These he had hurried into the capital from all parts of the land. So occupied was he lest perchance a G.o.d or two might some way escape him, that he had no time to prepare the city for attack, and in the end Babylon, the pride of its age, came into the hands of the conqueror without a blow!
The fact was that there were many within the kingdom who would gladly welcome outside interference. The Hebrews had settled down in their quarter and had become the leading people of commerce and loaners of money. One commercial firm alone--Egibi & Sons--filled a place for that age not unlike the modern Rothschilds. These people, who may have been of Jewish descent, hated the king who had destroyed their city of Jerusalem and his descendants, and would willingly help any one who might rob Babylonian kings of their empire. It has been surmised that for aid rendered they were allowed to go back to their own country and rebuild Jerusalem on its early site.
Not only were the Hebrews an element to be reckoned with; the priests of the Babylonian G.o.ds had been repeatedly offended by Nabonidus, and they too joined the opposition, beyond doubt.
So great a city as Babylon had never before existed. No city since has had so long a history, and yet, without a blow struck in its defense, it pa.s.sed into the possession of a people just taking on the ways of civilized life. It was little wonder that it fell shortly into ruins, soon to be gra.s.s-covered and like Nineveh, forgotten!
Since 606 B.C. the Medes, conquerors of a.s.syria, had been extending their territory. They were now a people of strength, united under King Astyages.
In the land earlier called Elam, now Persia, a great conqueror appeared--Cyrus the Great. He defeated the Medes under Astyages, and so rapidly did his empire come into being, that all civilized nations were roused to the danger of a world-conqueror. In 546 B.C. Egypt, Babylonia, Lydia and Sparta arrayed their forces against Cyrus, to check his power, but his camels put their cavalry to flight, and he won the decisive battle. Having annexed Asia Minor, he turned to Babylon. As we have seen, the city of Babylon might have held out indefinitely against attack, but when Belshazzar led an army against a detachment of Persian troops, none were left to defend the capital. The old tale of Herodotus that Cyrus turned the Euphrates out of its course and entered the city through its channel, is mere fiction. Such exertion was unnecessary, for the city gates swung open wide to the conqueror.
And thus we come to the end of the political history of the Tigris-Euphrates states--a mere skeleton of framework, which we can now fill out with some account of their social, industrial and religious life.
[Ill.u.s.tration: a.s.sYRIAN PALACE AT NINEVEH.]
CHAPTER X.
THE BABYLONIAN AND a.s.sYRIAN COMPARED.
To understand the Babylonian, we must take into consideration both the nature of his country and the origin of his race. Apart from these two important factors, the marked differences between himself and his a.s.syrian brother would not be clear.
We have found that Babylonia was an alluvial plain, sloping gently to the Persian Gulf, and made fertile by the annual overflow and deposits of two rivers. As in Egypt, so here remarkable yields of grain rewarded the sower if he but supplied necessary moisture by maintaining a system of well-regulated ca.n.a.ls. Regarding the origin of the Babylonians, we found that they sprang from a union of Semitics with the earlier Turanian settlers of the country, receiving later infusion of blood from the Ka.s.sites and Elamites. This intermingling of races and peoples resulted in a nation whose characteristics differed widely from the purer Semitic stock that peopled a.s.syria.
"The Babylonian was a stout, thick-set man, somewhat short, with straight nose, wide nostrils, and square face. The a.s.syrian, on the other hand, was tall and muscular, his nose was slightly hooked, his lips were full, his eyes dark and piercing. His head and face showed an abundance of black curly hair....
"The Babylonian was essentially an irrigator and cultivator of the ground. The cuneiform texts are full of references to the gardens of Babylonia, and the ca.n.a.ls by which they were watered. It was a land which brought forth abundantly all that was entrusted to its bosom....
But the fear of floods and the reclamation of the marsh lands demanded constant care and labor, the result being that the country population of Babylonia was, like the country population of Egypt, an industrious peasantry, wholly devoted to agricultural work, and disinclined to war and military operations. In the towns, where the Semitic element was stronger, a considerable amount of trade and commerce was carried on, and the cities on the sea-coast built ships and sent their merchantmen to distant lands....
"The character of the a.s.syrian was altogether different from that of the Babylonian. He was a warrior, a trader, and an administrator. The peaceful pursuits of the agricultural population of Babylonia suited him but little. His two pa.s.sions were fighting and trading. But his wars, at all events in the later days of the a.s.syrian Empire, were conducted with a commercial object.... It was to destroy the trade of the Phoenician cities and to divert it into a.s.syrian hands, that the a.s.syrian kings marched their armies to the west; it was to secure the chief highways of commerce that campaigns were made into the heart of Arabia and a.s.syrian satraps were appointed in the cities of Syria. The a.s.syrian was indeed irresistible as a soldier, but the motive that inspired him was as much the interest of the trader as the desire for conquest."[1]
Side by side with the Babylonian"s farming concerns, grew his love for study and his development of the peaceful arts. An elementary education was general in Babylonia. As industry and commerce brought wealth and created thus a leisure cla.s.s, education and learning flourished in Babylonian cities. Schools grew into prominence, and in the realm of astronomy and certain of the sciences, some advance was made by which the Greeks later profited. Quite the reverse was true in a.s.syria. A feverish desire for commercial gain and for military conquest prevented progress in the arts of peace. Learning was confined to a few--professional scribes supplied secretaries for the state and even wrote private letters for private citizens. When the luxuries of the ancient world could be won as tribute, the a.s.syrian scorned to produce them for himself. With blood unmixed with any peace-loving people, he retained the characteristics of his earlier Arabian home. He left the cultivation of the country to slaves and dwelt in cities, when war and trade left him intermittent periods at home.
Both Babylonian and a.s.syrian were religious, but here again we find differences due to environment. The Babylonian, inheriting the conjuring and magic of the earlier Chaldean, possessed a religion which held him in constant dread of demons. The greatest aid and solace his religion afforded was to a.s.sist him in driving away foes which a.s.sailed him at every turn. The a.s.syrian on the contrary, showed the same proud bearing in his religious concerns as in other aspects of life. a.s.shur was his mighty G.o.d, strong in battle and unequaled in courage. Firm in his conviction that a.s.shur would give him victory, he went forth, like his Hebrew brother, to overcome all others and destroy other G.o.ds which offended the true G.o.d.
In origin and traditions alike, the a.s.syrian and the Hebrew in early times present many similarities, and the religion of the one is comparable at many points with that of the other.
HOUSES.
It is supposed that in earliest times the dwellers in the Euphrates valley built their huts of reeds which grew in profusion along the river and the ca.n.a.ls. These in time were replaced by huts of sun-dried brick.
We have already learned that the low level plains of Babylonia afforded little or no stone for building purposes. Oven-dried brick was the most substantial building material known and this was so costly, on account of the scarcity of fuel, that only the temples, kings" palaces, and homes of the wealthy were made of it. The great majority of houses then, were constructed of clay mud, shaped in bricks and dried in the sun.
The more pretentious dwellings of n.o.bles and kings were placed on artificially constructed heights--huge piles of brickwork, in order to raise them above the gnats and the malaria-breeding fogs of the marshes.
The huts of the poor were located wherever opportunity offered. While these contained but one or two rooms with small apertures in the clay walls for windows, and had no floor save the ground, the houses of the wealthy were frequently several stories high, the upper floors being reached by outside stairways. The use of the arch was known in Babylonia from 4000 B.C., a perfect keystone example having been found at Nippur by the University of Pennsylvania expedition. Windows were furnished with tapestries to exclude the storms and intense heat of noonday. Flat roofs supplied a place for the women to perform many household duties, or, if these were performed by slaves elsewhere, they sat here to embroider their tapestries and to chat with their friends. Here too, on hot nights, mattresses were thrown down for the hours of sleep.
Wherever possible a garden surrounded the house. The pride of the Babylonian, as of the Egyptian, was his carefully tended garden, whether it was a tiny plot of land or a vast overhanging terrace like that of Babylon"s queen.
Streets were narrow and exceedingly dirty, for into them all refuse and rubbish from the houses acc.u.mulated. We learn that sometimes the entire street would be filled up to the very doors of the dwellings, and then, instead of clearing them out, an upper story was added to the houses, new doors provided, and the occupants started anew on a fresh elevation.
In homes of the wealthy the furniture was simple, and in the huts of the poor it was scanty indeed. Chairs, stools, and tables were in use; a mat often const.i.tuted the bed, although pictures of most uncomfortable looking bedsteads have been preserved, these being possessed only by the wealthy.
The a.s.syrians who went from Babylonia into their northern land, took with them the habits and customs there acquired. While stone was plentiful, they used it only for foundations, or for the less important portion of their buildings, continuing to make mud brick for the rest, as they had done before. While hills and elevations were now available on every hand, they still erected huge piles of brick or stone and crowned these by their buildings. The a.s.syrian blood, unmixed with other tribes or peoples, produced no ingenuity, no inventive genius. The a.s.syrian remained an imitator--never a creator. For this reason, we find close similarity between the houses of the two countries.
Certain features which became inseparable with later architecture had their beginnings in Babylonia. In early times the roof which covered the mud hut was supported by dried palm stems; gradually a more substantial support was subst.i.tuted, and in this way the column had its origin and was adopted and improved upon by the Greeks. Again, interior house decoration may be traced back to these Babylonian houses built of brick.
In houses of the well-to-do, the unsightly bricks were covered by a coating of stucco and upon this were painted various scenes and ornamentations. In a.s.syria, slabs of soft lime-stone were used instead of the stucco, and figures of horses and men, hunting scenes and battles, were carved in bas-relief upon them. Indeed much of our knowledge concerning the life of the people has been gained from a study of the reliefs discovered in buried palaces.
Regarding the daily lives of those who dwelt within these mud brick houses, we have less detailed information than concerning the ancient Egyptian. Fewer scenes of ordinary life were painted in the Tigris-Euphrates valleys, and whatever was entrusted to the clay stood far greater chance of being destroyed than that committed to Egyptian stone.
FAMILY LIFE.
In considering the family life, the position accorded to woman and the marriage laws and regulations are of first importance.
In early times in Babylonia, a man received a dowry with his wife.
Polygamy was not infrequent but a strong check was placed upon it by requiring the husband, in case of divorce, to return the wife"s dowry to her and allow her to return home or maintain her own establishment. The income from the dowry was enjoyed by both husband and wife, but it remained the portion of the wife and could be willed according to her pleasure. In case of a woman"s second marriage, her first dowry belonged to her, subject to the claim of her children for one-half of its value.
In both Babylonia and a.s.syria married women enjoyed many liberties. They might carry on business enterprises, borrow or loan, manage their own property and dispose of it at their will. They could seek justice in the courts, and if they belonged to the middle cla.s.ses, could come and go at pleasure. The women of n.o.ble families were more carefully guarded, and seldom appeared unattended in public.
Girls who were not provided with dowries might be purchased and so become superior slaves of their husbands. Children might be sold by their parents and brothers might sell their sisters, but in these countries, slaves were not despised as inferiors and inhumanly treated.
They were often adopted into families, and since those of n.o.ble birth were not infrequently taken captives in war, the slave might be superior to the owner. However, this last was not so common in Mesopotamia as it was later in Rome. The fact which alone a.s.sured slaves of good treatment was that there was generally no race difference to engender feeling between slave and master. Indeed one case is cited in those days of quickly reversed fortunes, where the slave in a few years became the master and his former owner became his property!
Marriage was both a civil and a religious ceremony, and the contract was signed in the presence of a priest. In a code of Babylonian laws compiled about 2250 B.C., a law provided that "If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage-contract, that woman is not a wife."
Another provided for one who is helpless: "If a man has married a wife and a disease has seized her, if he is determined to marry a second wife, he shall marry her. He shall not divorce the wife whom the disease has seized. In the home they made together she shall dwell and he shall maintain her as long as she lives."[2]
Both sons and daughters could inherit property, and according to Babylonian law, whosoever possessed property, could will it, or dispose of it, with certain well established restrictions. In case there were no children to inherit an estate, it was a common practice to adopt them.
Thus families were prevented from dying out.
Children were cared for, sent to school, taught trades or professions, and probably a certain amount of family life was enjoyed while they were growing up. The rights of each member of the family were definitely recognized by law. Home life as we today understand the phrase, was unknown in antiquity.