Jump to content

Talk:Ashur-uballit II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashur-uballit II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the lede

[edit]

Wikaviani Would be nice if we avoided an edit war here since I nominated this article for GA. I've restored original version of this paragraph with some changes; stating that Neo-Babylon only became "independent" in 612 BC is strange; Nabopolassar was formally crowned as King of Babylon in 626 BC and by 620 BC he had established full control of the Babylonian heartland, which would never again fall into Assyrian hands. The end of Sinsharishkun's reign saw Babylonia and the Assyrian heartland lost to Assyria's enemies with the remaining territories in political turmoil (see; year-names being local rather than empire-wide as they had been in the past, titles being used in ways they previously hadn't), seems pretty "disintegrated" to me; most sources I've seen discuss the geopolitical changes of Sinsharishkun's reing as disastrous and not just "severely weakening". Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: It takes two to edit war and so far, i have not reverted you a single time while you reverted me twice without taking account of any of the arguments i wrote in my edit summaries. I think you're mistaken when you say that Nabopolassar was the king of Babylonia from 626 or, even, from 620. I quote Frahm about the years 627-626 : A companion to Assyria page 191 : "A certain Nabu-Aplu-usur, better known as Nabopolassar, took the lead of those who sought to fight for independence" and later, on page 192 : "In 626, Nabopolassar achieved a crucial breackthrough : in the eight month of that year, a few weeks after Assyrian armies had suffered agonizing defeats against Babylonian forces at Babylon and Uruk, the people of Babylon made him their king. In the following years, Babylonia became the battleground for numerous brutal clashes between Assyrian and Babylonian troops, with cities repeatedly changing possession and the Babylonians slowly but steadily managing to force Sin-Shar-Ishkun's armies out from their territory. It's doubtfull, however, that Nabopolassar would ever have scored a final victory over the hated Assyrian enemy had he not received support from a somewhat unexpected ally : the mountain-dweling Medes in the east". Iranica also states : "In the spring of 613, a revolt against Nabopolassar occurred in Suhu, a region on the middle Euphrates, which later spread to central and southern Babylonia. He was on the verge of losing his power to the Assyrians and was saved from this danger by the Medes (see Zawadzki, p. 111). Finally, after three months of siege, in August of 612, the joined forces of the Medes and Babylonians stormed Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, and took it. The major part in the city’s downfall was played by the Medes." These sources show that Nabopolassar's power was not really independent or solid until the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC since he would have lost his power without the decisive intervention of the Medes and even the fall of Nineveh was mainly the result of the Medes' assault on the city rather than Babylonians. The Medes began attacking the Assyrian Empire about a decade later than Nabopolassar, with the seizure of Arrapha in 615 and, the fall and sack of Assur in 614. Before their assault, neither the Assyrians nor the Babylonians had achieved victory over the other side. I suggest we go with what reliable sources about this topic state. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: I didn't say you were solely to blame for edit-warring. Nabopolassar was formally the King of Babylon from 626 BC, as in having been bestowed the title in the traditional manner in Babylon. As Frahm says in your quote "the people of Babylon made him their king" in 626 BC. Although it can hardly be called an "empire" at that point, this is the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian Empire as a government (as an example, Livius uses Nabopolassar's coronation as "the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian Empire", not the best source but it serves to illustrate my point). Yes, he was forced to fight for independence since the Assyrians obviously wanted to retain control of Babylonia, but applying independence as we understand it today to ancient Mesopotamia isn't really helpful here, Nabopolassar was an independent monarch in 626 BC; he never submitted to an outside ruler after his coronation and there are documents in which Sinsharishkun even acknowledges him as king of Babylon on hopes of retaining control of the Assyrian heartland, obviously before 612 BC.
Regardless, I think the nuances of this conflict and the role the Medes played in it (Nabopolassar almost captured Assur in 615 BC, before the Medes made their attack and before the two powers allied so it seems to me that he was already winning) is better suited for Sinsharishkun's article since he was the main king in the conflict. This article is only intended to have a summary of the political situation at the start of Ashur-uballit's reign, when the Neo-Babylonian Empire had unquestionably been established.
I didn't mean to be hostile here, I'm just trying my best to get the most coherent and supported record of what exactly happened at the end of Assyria and you didn't add any new sources when you originally made your edits. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: Frahm did not say that Nabopolassar was an independent ruler in 626 BC (and none of the sources i have read about this war state that Assyria was disintegrated...), he said that the people of Babylon made him their king, this is not surprising, as Babylonia was ruled by puppet kings at that time. By the way, any revolted leader refuses to submit to an outside ruler, this would go against the purpose of a revolt. I'm not applying modern notion of independence to antiquity, i simply say that a revolted ruer is not an independent ruler. Example, Egypt revolted in 404 BC against Achaemenid rule, but they became effectively independent in 399 BC. Also, although i did not add sources for my edits, i would like to remind you that this paragraph of the led in completely unsourced. More, your above statement about Nabopolassar almost capturing Assur is wrong in my humble opinion, do you have a reliable cite for it or is this your own interpretation ? You're lucky if you can get the most coherent and supported record of what exactly happened at the end of Assyria as even the most prominent experts of the topic say that this period is, unfortunately, not well known and the course of events is very messy. My proposal is to reword this paragraph and add the sources you requested above. I don't mean to be hostile either, but this part of the lead should be reworded according to what reliable soures say in order to awoid WP:OR wording.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: Yes, the lede is unsourced (I believe it's supposed to be since it summarizes the article), but it builds on what is in the article. Maybe "disintegrated" isn't the best word but I don't think "weakened" or "severely weakened" gets across just how dire the situation Assyria faced in Ashur-uballit II's reign was. Maybe we can work out the best way to formulate this together.
Sure, Babylon hade often been ruled by puppet kings (though sometimes the Assyrian kings also held the title of Babylonian king; e.g. Esarhaddon and Sinsharishkun), but Nabopolassar had been selected as king by the Babylonians themselves. I believe 626 BC is the most common date for the founding of Neo-Babylon; I might be wrong there. Of course a revolt-leader isn't the same as a monarch of a stabilized kingdom but if the revolt succeeds I suppose it would be good practice to count the monarch's reign from when he was actually crowned. Regardless, there is probably a way to reword this sentence so that both of us are satisfied. As for Nabopolassar almost capturing Assur in 615 BC, yes I was mistaken - he went on campaign in an attempt to take the city that year but failed (how close he was to taking it isn't stated) - from Lipschits (2005), page 17.
I'm aware that the period is very messy, this was my main incentive to work on these articles (I did Ashur-etil-ilani and Sinsharishkun as well), but I hope that there is a decent way to bring about articles that match what most of the academic sources are saying. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: I would agree with the 626 BC date, as some sources support it (although others don't), but clearly "disintegrated" is irrelevant. While not the best source ever, even the Livius source you posted above says that the Assyrian Empire was weakened, not disintegrated.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: Would "irreversibly weakened" work? Something to that effect? Looking back at the political situation it seems quite apparent that Ashur-uballit didn't stand much of a chance to save his empire. This is an empire which has lost ~2/3 of its territory including its capital and religious center and is going up against an alliance of two pretty strong (and relatively new) kingdoms.Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: "Irreversibly weakened" sounds great to me. I would like to thank you very much for this thread, glad to have discussed with a knowledgeable user like you about this topic. Maybe you had already noticed, this topic is my cup of tea too, and i created several articles about it, like Medo-Babylonian war against Assyrian Empire, Siege of Harran and Fall of Tarbisu. Keep up the good work mate. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: Great! "Irreversibly weakened" is live. I'd like to thank you as well, I love the ancient Mesopotamians (there is something mesmerizing about thousand-year old kingdoms and obscure rulers calling themselves "kings of the universe") so it's nice to see that I'm not the only one eager to bring their history to light. I wish you the best going forward :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ashur-uballit II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 13:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. -- llywrch (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch writes

Sorry for the delay in starting my comments; the last few weeks proved busier than I expected.

Starting with the positives, this article is well-organized & covers the topic quite well & in a neutral tone. (I've done a bit of outside research on this personage, & practically everything that is known about him has been included in this article.) With the fact it is a stable article, most of the criteria for a GA is met. In large part my comments here more address the style of the article -- the part of a GA review I hate -- than any substantive concerns.

Thank you for taking the time to look through Ashur-uballit's article! No need to worry about the delay, I've been quite busy the last few weeks as well so it worked in my favor too. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, this would clench GA status were there any illustrations, which will always be a challenge with any article on ancient history. I had a look over at Commons for any possible material, & if any good picks are there they are buried deep in the uncatagorized pile. For example, I figured there must be some usable photo related to Harran -- it's an ancient city, doubtlessly has been the site of at least a few excavations -- but found myself staring at a photo of the countryside near that city, & admitting the landscape featuring a dirt road could easily be of Arizona as anywhere in Syria or Southern Turkey. A map at that point seemed to be a safe bet -- especially since I found myself pressed to remember where Nineveh, Assur & Harran were in northern Mesopotamia -- but map the best choice I could find, while showing all of the relevant cities, omitted geographical features & wasn't that well drawn. So while I'm not going to hold the lack of any illustrations against my approval, if you want to push this article to FA status, I'd strongly suggest creating a map. Moreover, a good one could be re-used in several related articles.

Yes, it is sad that there really isn't much to work with on the image front. We are unlikely to ever get contemporary artwork depicting Ashur-uballit (as we have for some of his predecessors) since his rule was an incredibly chaotic time. Harran (surely there have been excavations, as you say) seems like the kind of place we will get decent images of some day, so that might be a possibility in the future. If I try to get this to FA later I will definitely try to make some kind of map, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm actually recommending you shorten this article, but I am. The section "Rule at Harran and status" gets too caught up in the details of the tablet from Dur-Katlimmu. You don't need to quote the entire document; at most all you need is the last line -- & you could get away without quoting even that. Further, you tell us three times in this section that Ashur-uballit was not crowned king, but was crown prince: delete one of these mentions, & combine the details why this is important in one sentence. That makes the information easier to find, & the article easier to read.

I've tried to rework the section a bit, see if it's better now. As for the Dur-Katlimmu tablet, I've removed the first line but I think keeping the other two in is important for the rest of the text; the second line identifies the ruler of Assyria as a "crown prince" and not "king" and the last line has a lot of things discussed later in the section. I moved the analysis of the Dur-Katlimmu tablet unrelated to Ashur-uballit himself to the last paragraph on the section, I still feel it is useful for showing the socio-political situation in Ashur-uballit's Assyria. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you wanted to cite as many works as possible, & there weren't that many available, but I find these two prime candidates for removing:

  • Dierk Longe's article. Sorry, any time I see the Donga of Nigeria mentioned in any work that is not an anthropological or sociological study, I immediately think I'm reading the work of a crank. Moreover, his primary topic has nothing to do with Ashur-uballit or Mesopotamian history in general -- he's arguing for his idiosyncratic theory that is not mentioned at all in this article as it stands That you only cite him twice -- once along with another, more reliable source; the second for an uncontroversial fact -- means you can rid yourself of an unhelpful association quite easily. (And if you need a source for that fact, I will help you find a better one.)
  • Kemal Yildirim's article. This took me a several tries to actually find the article to read: the first few times I was convinced the link was to the wrong article. It doesn't help that Yildirim decided to upload the entire issue his article appeared in! After finally finding it, I was disappointed to find everything he had to say about Ashur-uballit consisted of a single paragraph, repeating what other sources said; nothing new or insightful. I'd drop this source too.
You've hit the nail on the head here; I tried to use all the sources mentioning Ashur-uballit I could find. I can see that Lange's article is problematic and I agree Yildirim's one is unnecessary. Removed both. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of footnoting, there is something wrong with your links to M.B. Rowton's article: every time I click on "Rowton, 1951", I am taken to the information about Hussein Bassir's article; when I click on "Bassir 2018", I am taken nowhere. I don't use the {{Sfn}} template, so I can't help you fix it.

My mistake! This should be fixed now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On to less important comments...

  • In the lead the last paragraph starts "Ashur-uballit II rallied what remained of the Assyrian army at Harran" -- I'd include some indication of time, such as "After the loss of these cities, Ashur-uballit II rallied what remained of the Assyrian army at Harran".
Added "After the loss of these cities and the death of Sinsharishkun". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "what little subjects" appears in the section "Rule at Harran and status". I don't think Assyrians were little; so I changed that to "the few subjects", since you obviously meant to refer to little in numbers.
Haha, yes "few" was the intended meaning here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mannea are described as a leading power. Considering that until I read this article I had never heard of the Mannea -- I wondered if you meant Mitanni -- I wouldn't lump them with Egypt as a major power.
Mannea is correct here, but yes, it would be wrong to refer to them as a leading power on the same level as Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and the Medes. I've rephrased so that the "leading power" part only applies to Egypt. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Fate", Ashur-uballit's ultimate end is discussed. We really don't know if he died soon after his unsuccessful siege of Harran, or maybe eked out a life as a brigand somewhere in Syria, or joined the circus. (Maybe not the last.) You cite Rowton as saying Ashur-uballit may have died in 608 BC, but Rowton actually says he might have lived until 606 BC. You get Rowton's general point -- Ashur-uballit disappears from history after his defeat in 609 BC -- but make the mistake of stating it as a certainty because he is not mentioned in the battle of 608, rather than as an inference because neither he nor the Assyrians are mentioned. (The written records are very terse, & it is possible the author might have simply forgotten to include them.) Unless the primary sources state facts clearly, we can't be sure expert deductions are correct. But we can state the fact that Rowton suggests or deduces this.
I've managed to lose access to Rowton's article, I've changed the phrasing a bit, changing "likely died in 608 BC" to "possible died in 608 BC" and noted that he could have lived to 606 BC.
  • Ashur-uballit is stated as making his "final stand" at Harran, which is clearly taken from Radner. Radner was not choosing her words carefully here, since Ashur-uballit didn't stand & fight at Harran: when the Babylonian army appeared, he fled. After a lengthy siege (I can't calculate exactly how much time passed between "Winter 610 BC" & "the beginning of 609 BC"), the city fell, so some soldiers must have remained behind. I'd use different words to indicate that the Assyrian Empire came to an end at Harran -- which it definitely did end when Ashut-uballit failed to recapture it in the Summer of 609 BC.
Yeah, you're right. He really didn't do a final stand. I changed it to "Ashur-uballit's rule at Harran composes the final years of the Assyrian Empire", not sure how good that sounds. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(A digression: why did Ashur-uballit not make a last stand at Harran? Would the ancient Assyrians have seen such an act as heroic -- or foolish? Was the alternative of being a brigand a serious possibility? I know this treads the line of original research, but one has to wonder why he abandoned his claim as a king so quickly: some people would rather die than lose their status as royalty. If you were to take this to FA, done carefully as a discussion of what an ancient Assyrian would consider doing in his place would be appropriate. Done badly, & you might as well argue that Ashur-uballit did invent the first travelling circus & ended his days as a ringmaster.)

The answer, as you may have anticipated, is of course "we don't know". Maybe Ashur-uballit just wasn't cut out for it? To be fair to him, he did try to recapture Harran, so he was obviously interested in retaining power. His father (?) Sinsharishkun is assumed to have died fighting in the defense of the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, so final stands were obviously a thing of sorts. Since the king was Ashur's representative on Earth it might have seemed appropriate for him to do everything in his power to save Ashur's realm (Assyria). Ashur-uballit (as crown prince) never became Ashur's representative on Earth so maybe that wouldn't have mattered as much for him. As the sole known living member of the Assyrian royal family at this point in time (as far as I know), maybe it was more important that Ashur-uballit lived to fight another day? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help you polish this diamond in the rough. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: That's everything responded to, did my best to address your comments. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator:, I made a few copy-edits, most importantly mentioning Rowton explicitly as suggesting Ashur-uballit may have lived until 606 BC. That was the point I tried to make up above, but I must have Unless you strongly object to the latter (it doesn't matter if you revert my other c/e), I'll pass this as soon as I hear from you. (I may just pass it anyway if you want to take time to discuss that edit.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywrch: Copy-edits look fine to me! Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashur-uballit_II&oldid=1200378746"