Talk:Ashur-uballit II

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209121827/http://www.chronosynchro.net:80/ to http://chronosynchro.net

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

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

The second paragraph of the lede
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)


 * 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 |Eckart 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". |Encyclopedia 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * "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)
 * 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)