Talk:Neo-Assyrian Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


References to the bible[edit]

It seems that far too much is made of biblical references in this section. Surely a book which contains so much fiction can hardly be referenced as a reliable and/or academic source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.126.162 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bible happens to be one of our main sources of historical data for this period that is outside of Assyrian records -- which some also suspect of including plenty of "fiction". If you took away all the primary sources on grounds they may be inaccurate, there would be nothing left. So what we do as an encyclopedia is try to include multiple perspectives whenever possible, and note where they corroborate each other, and where they do not. (We also try to avoid directly opining that major religious works followed today such as the Bible or Koran etc. are "fiction", on account of our neutrality policy!) Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
While I generally agree with most of that, from the section Tiglath-Pileser III, 744-727 BC onwards this reads like it's sourced solely from the bible. That's very not cool for an article purporting to be historic. 150.203.35.193 (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Map[edit]

The current map in use is a redrawn version of this map. It seems to be a good map, but the original is filled with more details. Not sure about how accurate the borders are. Is there a map from academic sources available? I don't know how reliable these maps actually are, since they all come with different borders. Though the original version of this map, seems to be, at a fast glance, pretty accurate. Any opinions on this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:30 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

all these borders are approximations. The original map is from 'Atlas of the Bible Lands' - C S Hammond & Co - 1959 ISBN 9780843709414 and as such copyrighted. dab (𒁳) 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems so.[1]EliasAlucard|Talk 19:31 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is one major error with the map: the Assyrian empire didn't encompass the Arabian desert - its people were subservient, in that they paid tribute, but the concept of Mat Ashur never incorporated the Arabian desert. Furthermore, Assyria was not able to fully conquer the Arabs due to logistical reasons. --Šarukinu 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
So, what should we do about this? We must use accurate maps. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:54 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
have you considered sitting down with a graphics editor? But be sure to produce something that matches the graphical quality of Image:Map_of_Assyria.png (which im my book is perfectly satisfactory). --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a good map, dab, but as I stated before, the Arabian desert was never conquered by the Assyrians. Perhaps we can just use this map but edit out the Arabian desert? --Šarukinu 12:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've never played around with graphic editors. There's always a first time though. Any recommendations? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:41 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I have editted a number of maps but I don't know how to keep its svg type file - I can only upload it as a JPEG or PNG file. Also, tell me exactly how much of the desert i should get rid of.Man of Bravery!! 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sections[edit]

I wanna break the main body of text into more sections. That means that I will be making "Sargonid dynasty" a heading rather than a subheading. Tourskin 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made more sections so it will be easier to expand this article. Then when I have finished expanding, I;ll see what refereces can be added.Tourskin 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Assyria after the fall[edit]

Section consists of bold statements without any sources. The continuous existence of Assyrian culture is a disputed matter. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE

Its not actually disputed by modern Assyriologists. I have added links to support this, and am prepared to add further non POV links if necessary.

Its pretty much accepted that the name Assyria continued to be used after the fall, by the Achamaenids, Greeks, Parthians, Romans and Sassanids. Not to mention in Armenian and Georgian references.

Likewise Native Mesopotamian religion, which is known to have survived well into the Christian era.

People have designated themselves as Assyrian for many centuries.

Of course, the culture changed, even at the time of the Empire Aramaic was replacing Akkadian, and Manicheanism and Christianity replaced Ashurism, that is true of all ancient cultures, including the Greeks.

The view that Assyria was completely devastated and its people literally wiped off the face of the earth is dated, and now largely discredited by more modern Assyriologists, Archaeologists, Ethnologists and Historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that Akkadian language, cuneiform script, and Sumero-Akkadian religion/culture all survived for much longer in Babylonia than in Assyria. The 1st century AD 'youngest' Akkadian cuneiform tablet is from Babylonia. It is well understood that Babylonia was the Sumero-Akkadian mother country, and that Assyria; for most of the time outside the Neo-Assyrian period, a rebellious northern province of Sumer and Akkad. Babylonia was actually called "Sumer and Akkad" and not the modern name Babylonia. Assyrians revered Babylonia as a much older twin-culture. All these things have been forgotten/ignored by modern 'Assyrians'. and Assyria adopted Aramaic-ways long before Babylonia adopted Arabic-ways.. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the disputed section. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, but i have re added it. Your comments are little more than naked RACISM, backed up by nothing, whereas i have provided NON BIASED links to studies by modern Assyriologists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 02:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


There are valid links on the subject, which are non personal POV, whereas you are simply posting what i can only describe as racially motivated (by Arab nationalism?) comments, supported by nothing. If you wish to dispute the existence of a land specifically known of as Assyria until the 7th Century, and the existance of Assyrians after the 7th century, then do so...but relevant links have been provided, and with those, you should not attempt to delete the section.

Actually, worship of Akkadian gods survived in Ashur until at the very least the 3rd Century AD, and in Harran until the 18th century...links were provided for this also. However your comments regarding where akkadian culture survived longest are utterly irrelevant to the section anyway. As for Babylonians adopting "arab ways"...i would suggest that those with a true cultural link are those that retained Aramaic as a spoken tongue and rejected Arabic and Islam anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 03:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The national god of Assyria, Assur, was worshipped well into the middle ages.

2. Assyria was named Assyria and its people as Assyrians by the Achamaenids, Greeks, Parthians, Romans and Sssanids (not to mention in Armenian and Georgian records). After the Arab conquest attemts were made to break the identity of the ancient inhabitants and "arabize" them.

3. Assyrians are actually NOT Nestorians, the Church of the East PREDATES Nestorianism by 400 years! Nestorians were given refuge in Assyria (Athura). Big difference! And importantly Assyrians are members of many different Christian sects (Eastern Rite, Catholic, Orthodox, Jacobite and Protestant)...so are quite clearly not a religious sect.

4. You seem to forget the use of distinctive Assyrian names such as Sargon, Sinharib, Sharrukin, Ashur, Dadashu and many others which were encountered by western explorers when they met Assyrians in mesopotamia, AND exist in old family trees going back long before the 1850's (including my own). Also the ancient Bit Tiyari tribe - Tiyari being a derivative of Atoriyeh which means Assyrian.

5. The idea that Assyrians ceased to exist after the fall of Nineveh is now largely discounted (and is itself a 19th century view), more recent Assyriologists such as Frye, Parpola, Saggs, Levine, Biggs accept the continuity, as do ethnicists such as Cavalli and Sforza. These people are not Assyrians and their views are in no way biased.

6. Your removal of my edit is purely POV, and i have to say biased, whereas i have provided links to non Assyrian, respected historians.

7. Ending this article with "islamic Arab conquest" leads readers to believe that was the end, when in fact it was not, it also leads people to believe that the Assyrians became Arabs and Muslims, which is perhapss your intention?

8. People such as Tatian and Lucian described themselves as Assyrian in ancient times.

9. The term Syrian and Assyrian confuses people. In the Hellenistic period, the Greeks dropped the As from Assyria, and the two are interchangable during this period —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 03:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the studies done by the eminent Scandinavian Assyriologist Simo Parpola (among others)............innaddition, Assyrians should not even have to PROVE they exist! The Greeks dont, nor do the Arabs......its a somewhat racist attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.129 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, my initial response provided evidence, with links to the studies and comments made by Non Assyrian Assyriologists and Iranologists, which for some reason, you see as invalid. Their views are impartial, they are not Assyrians themselves. Like all races, the Assyrians should not have their identity continually questioned and denied, as i said, it is somewhat racist. It tends to mirror the views of Arab Nationalists and Baathists, and such views are often politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.129 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the following study by an eminent Assyriologist http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits about Assyria after the fall of its empire seem fine, quite importantly theyre backed up by good independant source material. Seems to be more than a little Anti Assyrian bias going on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talkcontribs) 18:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at these edits i cant see any evidence at all from the anti Assyrian camp. But those folk that have added the Assyria After The Fall section have put in evidence; Saggs, Frye, Parpola, Roux, Biggs, Saggs, Tsertelli and so forth are pretty good independent sources from what i can see and should be taken very seriously, same with those sources in Armenian, Arab, Russian and Georgian records. I think unless those people who dont like to admit the link between the ancient and modern Assyrian people can provide the same proof or evidence to back their side up, they should back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Establishment date[edit]

The article currently has 934 BC as the start date, however the britannica article on Ashurnasirpal II says:

king of Assyria 883–859 bc, whose major accomplishment was the consolidation of the conquests of his father, Tukulti-Ninurta II, leading to the establishment of the New Assyrian Empire.

New Assyrian Empire is hyperlinked to Neo-Assyrian Empire, where it says:

The Neo-Assyrian Empire (746–609)

Is 934 BC as the date correct? it seems too early from this. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This Google Books search shows that several kings are credited as the founder, but Tiglath-Pileser III's name turns up most often. He ruled c. 745 BC -. So 934 might not be the date to use in this article. SamEV (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Most experts go from Adad Nirari in the late 10th century, as he seems to have been the one that reasserted Assyrian power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talkcontribs) 11:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Most Powerful Nation on Earth[edit]

I changed 'nation' to 'state' as most historians regard the word 'nation' as denoting an "imagined community" of the type that did not exist before the 18th century. I'm more interested however in the general claim that "Assyria assumed a position as the most powerful nation on earth." This claims seems fascinating but somewhat difficult to verify historically. It would require a comparison between ancient Middle Eastern empires and those found in the ancient Far East and elsewhere. I've never seen such a comparison so I would love to know where this claim came from.

Whenever I see the phrase "most historians regard ____" I know I'm in for a good laugh at someone's POV pushing. Historians in every country have rarely ever agreed unanimously on ANYTHING. So now, "most historians" agree that the word "nation" means something that didn't exist before 1700 AD. Just accept it, don't question it - after all, you sure don't want to run afoul of "most historians". Strangely enough, without being a nation, they had a code of laws, they had a government, they had a language... but no nation, obviously - for they lived before 1700 AD, so how could they be a nation? Didn't we just "TELL" you that the unanimous verdict of historians is that there were no nations before 1700? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You sound both defensive and ignorant. The fact is, historians do agree on things. I didn't say anything about unanimous agreement. You used it in order to set up a straw man argument. I'm sure you've used that line many times, but you should make sure it fits before you're deploying it. If historians didn't agree on anything, we wouldn't be able to write history because we couldn't understand each other. One of the things we agree on is the precise meaning of certain words. As used in historical jargon, the term "nation" does not denote a political organization with laws. That is a "state." Historians use the term "nation" to denote self-aware cultural communities. So no, Ancient Assyria was not a "nation," as historians of the Ancient Middle East would understand the term. Before you reply to straightforward and sincere arguments in the future, make sure you actually read what the person said. Then reply to the argument they are presenting, not the one you made up for them. That is another thing most historians advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.71.123 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, does anyone have an answer to my previous question? How did we decide that Assyria was the most powerful empire on earth? This may very well be true. I would just like to know what it's based on.

At the time, it is considered that neither China nor any of the steppe-confederacies could project armed force in the way Assyria could - which is why some historians make such claims. China was not yet organized enough as a state, with many internal troubles yet to resolve. Now, NATION - does not mean STATE. "Nation" means ethnicity - not "citizenship," usually determined by the language that people speak and have spoken for centuries or more - this breaks down in areas such as the Balkans, where the subtle differences between Serbs and Croats - who speak different dialects of the same language but are divided by religion more than anything else, results in two separate nationalities. When a state is composed primarily of one people/nation, the term for it is "nation-state" - like Germany or France. We could not call Austria a nation-state as the Austrian citizens are made up of Germans, Swiss and Italians to much more than a minor degree, even if the German language predominates there politically. Now this is a tricky business because sometimes the issue isn't always so black and white. At what point does the percentage of a minority ethnicity in a state (country) rise to the level of making said country a multi-ethnic state? The debates can be quite passionate. I am English, but now also an American that lives in America and as an American I cringe every time someone says "this nation" - it is pure imagination to hope that all these melting pot "nations" are fused into "one nation" - American - but that's the historian in me. But it is an example of where the confusion comes from the technical definition of what nationality is and what the popular idea of what it is comes from. When reading scholarly texts, identify nation=ethnicity and state=country and you'll be on the correct path. Cheers! HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The correct answer is, it's easy for anyone at all to come on here and make hypothetical, grandiose claims pitting the Assyrians against the Chinese. If anyone has any reliable sources where scholars have actually engaged in a peer-reviewed discussion of who would win between the Assyrians and the Chinese Empires, then I suppose it might be fair game for inclusion here, given due weight. Otherwise, why are we talking about it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics of Assyrian rule[edit]

The Assyrian empire was brutal and militaristic even by the standards of its own time. Colin McEvedy says in his Penguin Atlas of Ancient History: "The continual revolts that plagued the Assyrian Empire imply a harshness that the inscriptions of their monarchs amply confirm: they habitually make a boast of terrorism. Considering the over-extension of Assyrian resources, this seems short-sighted as well as unattractive." Similarly, the Bible contains passages rejoicing at the downfall of Nineveh, etc. There should be something about this on the article page... AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)