ماد و آشور از سقوطِ آشور و نینوا تا پایانِ شاهنشاهیِ آشور
مراد حسین پاپی بالاگریوه
1
(
دانشجوی دکتری تاریخ ایران باستان، گروه تاریخ و باستان‌شناسی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
)
میرزامحمد حسنی
2
(
استادیار گروه تاریخ، واحد شاهرود، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شاهرود، ایران.
)
میرم کلبادی‌نژاد
3
(
استادیار گروه تاریخ و باستان‌شناسی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
)
کلید واژه: ماد, آشور, شهرِ آشور, نینوا, حَرّان, کارکَمیش,
چکیده مقاله :
بنا به روایت سالنامه‌ها و سایر منابع آشوری- به‌ویژه متون مربوط به شَلمَنَصر سوم- ماد(۱۱۰۰-۵۵۰پ.م) و آشور(۲۵۰۰-۶۰۵پ.م) در سال۸۳۷پ.م، به هم رسیدند و مناسبات و روابط بین آنها برقرار گردید که تا براُفتادن شاهنشاهی آشور توسط اتحادیه ماد (۶۰۵پ.م) ادامه داشت. مناسبات سیاسی- نظامی ماد و آشور، در دو بخش به انجام رسیده که بخش نخست از حدود۸۳۷-۶۲۷پ.م و بخش دوم از۶۲۷-۶۰۵پ.م، است و هدف این تحقیق بررسی و تحلیل بخش دوم است که مادها پس از مرگ آشور.بانیپال و ظهورِ ضعف و سُستی پادشاهی آشور، طی جنگ‌های مختلفی با آخرین پادشاهان آن (آشور.اتیل.ایلانی، سین.شار.ایشکون و آشور.اوبالیت دوم)- که حدود۲۰سال به درازا کشید- این دولت و کشور قدرتمند را برانداختند. جنگ شهرِ آشور، جنگِ سقوط نینوا، ویرانی نینوا، مُهرِ پایانی بر ویرانگری‌های آشور، جنگِ نخستِ حَرّان و سقوط این شهر، جنگِ دومِ حَرّان و آخرین پایداریهای شکنندهی آشور و جنگِ کارکَمیش (کارخَمیش) و پایانِ آشور، عناوینی هستند که مناسبات ماد و آشور، درسال‌های پایانی عمرِ این شاهنشاهی را نشان می‌دهند. با این بیان سئوال اصلی تحقیق این است که مناسبات سیاسی- نظامی ماد با آشور در دوره ۲۰ساله آخرین پادشاهان آشور، چگونه ترسیم میشود؟ از آنچه گذشت و بر پایهی روایت‌ها، اسناد و شواهد تاریخی، نتیجه گرفته میشود که مادها(اتحادیه ماد) به رهبری پادشاهِ نامدارِ خویش هووَخشَترَه(کیاکسار)، توانستند به کمک بابل، با کشمکش‌های گوناگون و با تحمیلِ پنج جنگ پیدرپی به آشور(ازحدود۶۲۷-۶۰۵پ.م)، در نهایت انقراض این پادشاهی را به نامِ خویش ثبت نمایند.
چکیده انگلیسی :
According to the annals and other Assyrian sources-especially the texts related to Shalmaneser III-the Medes and the Assyrians came into contact in 837 BCE, establishing relations that continued until the fall of the Assyrian Empire by the Median alliance in 605 BCE. The political–military relations between the Medes and Assyria are divided into two phases: the first from about 837-627 BCE, and the second from 627–605 BCE. The aim of this study is to examine and analyze the second phase, during which, following the death of Ashurbanipal and the emergence of weakness and decline in Assyrian kingship, the Medes engaged in a series of wars with the last Assyrian rulers. Over a period of about twenty years, they brought down this once powerful state and empire.The battles of the city of Ashur, the fall of Nineveh and its destruction-which marked the final seal upon Assyrian devastations-the first battle of Harran and the city’s fall, the second battle of Harran and Assyria’s fragile last resistances, and finally the battle of Carchemish and the end of Assyria, all illustrate the course of Median-Assyrian relations in the final years of that empire. Based on these accounts, documents, and historical evidence, it can be concluded that the Medes under their renowned king Cyaxares, with the support of Babylon, and through a series of five successive wars imposed upon Assyria (from about 627-605 BCE), ultimately inscribed the extinction of this empire in their name.
Introduction
The political and military interactions between the Medes and the Assyrian Empire in the final decades of Assyria’s existence represent one of the most decisive turning points in the history of the ancient Near East. While earlier encounters between the two powers, beginning around 837 BCE under Shalmaneser III, were marked by Assyrian dominance and intermittent campaigns of conquest and tribute extraction, the late seventh century BCE ushered in a dramatic reversal of roles. The death of Ashurbanipal around 627 BCE created a profound vacuum within the Assyrian administrative and military structure, weakening its central authority and emboldening subject peoples and external rivals. During this transitional period, the Medes, already familiar adversaries of Assyria, were undergoing a process of political consolidation and territorial expansion under the leadership of King Cyaxares (Huvashtar/ Kiaksar). Seeking both retribution for past invasions and an opportunity to assert regional supremacy, the Medes forged alliances, most crucially with the Neo-Babylonian kingdom under Nabopolassar.
The relationship between the two powers during the final two decades, approximately 627–605 BCE, is best understood not in the context of routine frontier conflict, but as a coordinated campaign aimed at dismantling Assyria’s political and symbolic foundations. Major engagements, including the fall of the city of Assur (614 BCE), the decisive siege and destruction of Nineveh (612 BCE), and subsequent battles at Harran and Carchemish, illustrate the systematic military strategy pursued by the Median-Babylonian coalition. These events were not isolated acts of warfare, but milestones in a broader transformation of the political landscape of Western Asia.
The article on which this abstract is based seeks to reconstruct and analyze this crucial twenty-year period through primary Assyrian and Babylonian records, classical accounts, and modern scholarship. It argues that the Medes, in alliance with Babylon, deliberately pursued the collapse of Assyria, and that the rapidity and completeness of this downfall can only be fully understood by examining the sequence of campaigns, the fragmentation of Assyrian leadership, and the strategic collaboration among Assyria’s adversaries.
Methodology
This study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach grounded primarily in textual and historiographical evidence. The research draws extensively on royal annals, cuneiform chronicles, and contemporary accounts, particularly those associated with the reigns of Shalmaneser III, Ashurbanipal, and Nabopolassar. These sources provide relative dating, military descriptions, and geopolitical narratives of the campaigns involving Media and Assyria. To supplement these, classical historians such as Herodotus, Ctesias, and later commentators are used to offer comparative perspectives, especially regarding leadership figures such as Cyaxares and the sequence of conflicts.
In addition to first-millennium BCE inscriptions and Babylonian chronicles, modern secondary literature is incorporated to contextualize economic, strategic, and cultural factors influencing the downfall of Assyria. Where ancient sources present gaps or contradictions, the study applies critical comparison to identify consistent patterns and plausible reconstructions. The methodology also includes interpretive analysis of political alliances, assessing causality between Assyrian internal decline and the rise of coalition warfare. Geographic references, such as Assur, Nineveh, Arapkha, and Harran, are examined through historical atlases and archaeological reports to clarify troop movements and tactical outcomes. Ultimately, the combination of primary documentation and analytical synthesis enables a coherent interpretation of the twenty-year period leading to Assyria’s collapse.
Discussion
- Background of Median–Assyrian Relations
The Medes first emerge in Assyrian records in the late second and early first millennium BCE as loosely organized highland peoples. Throughout the ninth to seventh centuries BCE, Assyrian rulers conducted periodic campaigns into Median territories, often extracting tribute and deporting populations. Earlier confrontations under Shalmaneser III, Shamshi-Adad IV, Tiglath-Pileser III, and Sargon II reflect this asymmetry. While the Medes resisted and occasionally rebelled, they remained fragmented and subject to Assyrian pressure. However, by the time of the later seventh century, Median groups had achieved greater cohesion, aided by common threats and dynastic leadership, notably under Deioces and later Cyaxares.
- The Turning Point After Ashurbanipal
The death of Ashurbanipal marked the beginning of the terminal decline of Assyrian power. His successors—Ashur-etil-ilani, Sin-shar-ishkun, and the final ruler Ashur-uballit II—lacked both the administrative stability and military capacity to manage revolts and external pressure. Internal strife, succession disputes, and the loss of vassal territories weakened the empire’s ability to defend its heartland. During this period, the Medes strengthened their internal structure and intensified military organization, according to both Herodotus and Babylonian sources.
- Formation of the Median–Babylonian Alliance
A decisive factor in Assyria’s downfall was the Median alliance with Nabopolassar of Babylon. Around 626–616 BCE, Nabopolassar expelled Assyrian forces from Babylon, asserting independence and seeking allies against the northern empire. Cyaxares recognized the strategic advantage of cooperation, and sources indicate formal agreements following key battles. The alliance allowed for coordinated offensives from both the east and south, disrupting Assyrian logistics and overwhelming scattered garrisons.
- The Campaign Against Assur (616–614 BCE)
The assault on Assur, the former religious and political capital of Assyria, represented the symbolic beginning of the empire’s end. In 616 BCE, Babylonian forces clashed with Assyrian troops near the upper Euphrates, but initial gains were limited. By 615 BCE, the Medes had entered the theater from the east, capturing Arapkha (modern Kirkuk) and threatening Assur directly. In 614 BCE, Cyaxares led a successful attack on the city, destroying temples and killing large numbers of inhabitants. Nabopolassar arrived too late to participate in the victory but met Cyaxares among the ruins to formalize their alliance. This destruction not only crippled Assyria’s morale and strategic depth but also signaled that the coalition aimed at total eradication, not mere containment.
- The Siege and Fall of Nineveh (612 BCE)
Nineveh, the imperial capital and one of the wealthiest cities of the ancient world, became the next target. In 612 BCE, Median and Babylonian forces converged in the Tigris region. Archaeological evidence and cuneiform fragments indicate a coordinated siege lasting several months, with key engagements occurring between June and August. According to both classical sources and Babylonian chronicles, flooding or artificial diversion of the Khosr River may have weakened the city walls. Sin-shar-ishkun, facing inevitable defeat, is said to have perished amid the destruction. The capture of Nineveh resulted in the massacre of elites and extensive looting, echoed in biblical and classical portrayals of divine justice and retributive vengeance against Assyrian cruelty.
- Aftermath: Harran and Carchemish
Although Assyria attempted to reconstitute itself around Harran under Ashur-uballit II with Egyptian support, the remnants were militarily and politically untenable. In 610 BCE, Harran was besieged and captured by the coalition. Two years later, at Carchemish (605 BCE), the last Assyrian-Egyptian resistance was crushed by the Babylonian forces led by the future king Nebuchadnezzar II, with Median cooperation. This defeat marked the final disappearance of Assyria as an independent power.
- Territorial Division and Legacy
Following the campaigns, the former Assyrian territories were divided between the Medes and the Babylonians. The Medes dominated the Zagros, northern Mesopotamia, and parts of Anatolia, while Babylon controlled the southern plains, including major cities such as Harran. The marriage between Nebuchadnezzar II and Amytis, daughter of a Median king, reinforced diplomatic ties. Although later overshadowed by the Achaemenids, the Medes played a decisive role in reshaping the political order, dissolving one of the most formidable empires of the ancient world.
Conclusion
The final collapse of the Assyrian Empire between 627 and 605 BCE was neither sudden nor accidental. It emerged from the convergence of Assyria’s internal disintegration and the calculated rise of external adversaries, particularly the Medes and Babylonians. The Medes, once subjects and adversaries of Assyria, exploited the post-Ashurbanipal instability with strategic vision under Cyaxares. Their alliance with Nabopolassar created a dual-front offensive that the fragmented Assyrian state could not withstand.
Key battles, the capture of Assur, the destruction of Nineveh, and the defeats at Harran and Carchemish, reduced Assyria’s authority from imperial dominance to extinction. The speed and permanence of this downfall underscore the effectiveness of coalition warfare and the fragility of empires weakened by succession crises and overextension. The Medes did not merely participate in Assyria’s end; they orchestrated much of it, securing both vengeance and territorial expansion. Their gains laid the geopolitical groundwork later inherited by the Achaemenid Persians.
Ultimately, the twenty-year period examined here illustrates how shifting alliances, military innovation, and political fragmentation can rapidly overturn longstanding hegemonies. The Median-Babylonian campaigns against Assyria transformed the ancient Near Eastern world, ending one era and preparing the foundations for the next.
بریان، پی‌یر(1392). امپراتوری هخامنشی جلد1. مترجم ناهید فروغان. تهران: فرزان‌روز، چاپ سوم.
برک، استیون(1394). خاورمیانه باستان: گهواره تمدن. مترجم شهربانو صارمی. تهران: ققنوس، چاپ اول.
بهزادی، رقیه(1383). آریاها و ناآریاها. تهران: طهوری، چاپ اول.
بهمنش، احمد(1374). تاریخ ملل قدیم آسیای غربی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران، چاپ پنجم.
پیوترووسکی، بوریس بوریویچ(1381). اورارتو. مترجم رشید برناک. تهران: اندیشه نو، چاپ اول.
توین‌بی، آرنولد(1394). تاریخ تمدن. مترجم یعقوب آژند. تهران: مولی، چاپ پنجم.
خورنی(خورناتسی)، موسی(1380). تاریخ ارمنیان. مترجم ادیک باغداساریان. تهران: احسان، چاپ اول.
دورانت، ویل(1343). تاریخ تمدن، جلد1. مترجم احمد آرام. تهران: اقبال، چاپ دوم.
دیاکونوف، ایگور میخائیلوویچ(1395). تاریخ ماد. مترجم کریم کشاورز. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی، چاپ هشتم.
زرین‌کوب، عبدالحسین(1390). تاریخ مردم ایران، جلد 1: ایران قبل از اسلام. تهران: امیرکبیر، چاپ سیزدهم.
سیسیلی، دیودوروس(1384). ایران و شرق باستان در کتابخانه تاریخی(حکومت مادها، آشور و سرزمین میانرودان). مترجم حمید بیکس شورکایی- اسماعیل سنگاری. تهران: جامی، چاپ اول.
علی‌یف، اقرار(1392). پادشاهی ماد. مترجم کامبیز میربهاء. تهران: ققنوس، چاپ دوم.
فرای، ریچارد نلسون(1382). تاریخ باستانی ایران. مترجم مسعود رجب‌نیا. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی، چاپ دوم.
کالیکان، ویلیام(1384). باستان‌شناسی و تاریخ هنر در دوران مادی‌ها و پارسی‌ها. مترجم گودرز اسعد بختیار. تهران: پازینه.
کتسیاس(کتزیاس)(1390). پِرسیکا(تاریخ شاهنشاهی پارس به روایت کتزیاس). مترجم فریدون مجلسی. تهران: انتشارات تهران، چاپ اول.
کمرون، جورج گُلن(1387). ایران در سپیده‌دم تاریخ. مترجم حسن انوشه. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی، چاپ پنجم.
کینگ، لئوناردو(1386). تاریخ بابل. مترجم رقیه بهزادی. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی، چاپ دوم.
گرشویچ، ایلیا(1390). تاریخ ایران در دوره ماد: از مجموعه تاریخ کمبریج. مترجم بهرام شالگونی. تهران: جامی.
گزنفون(کسنوفون)(1375). آناباسیس(بازگشت ده هزار نفری). مترجم احمد بیرشک. تهران:کتاب‌سرا، چاپ اول.
گیرشمن، رمان(1383). ایران از آغاز تا اسلام. مترجم محمد معین. تهران: معین، چاپ اول.
ناحوم نبی(1381). عهد عتیق(تورات). انجمن کتاب مقدس. تهران: سُرخدار، چاپ اول.
ناردو، دان(1390). امپراتوری آشور. مترجم مهدی حقیقت‌خواه. تهران: ققنوس، چاپ ششم.
هرتسفلد، ارنست(1381). ایران در شرقِ باستان. مترجم همایون صنعتی‌زاده. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، چاپ اول.
هرودُت(1386). تواریخ. مترجم ع، وحید مازندرانی. تهران: دنیای کتاب، چاپ سوم.
هوار، کلمان(1390). ایران و تمدن ایرانی. مترجم حسن انوشه. تهران: امیرکبیر، چاپ ششم.