ON SARGON II - A KIND IN 722 BC

On Sargon II - A kind in 722 BC

On Sargon II - A kind in 722 BC

Primary Sources About King Sargon Ii

Sargon II (Akkadian Šarru-kên "legitimate king", reigned 722 - 705 BC) was an Assyrian king. Sargon II became co-regent with Shalmaneser V in 722 BC, and became the sole leader of the kingdom of Assyria in 722 BC after the death of ShalmaneserV. It is not clear if he was the son of Tiglath-Pileser III or a usurper unrelated to the royal family. In his inscriptions, he methods himself as a new man, rarely referring to his predecessors; although he took the name Sharru-kinu ("true king"), after Sargon of Akkad — who had founded the first Semitic Empire in the district some 16 centuries earlier. Sargon is the Biblical form of the name.

Sargon II (721-705 BC) became king of Assyria after the death of Shalmaneser IV. Like Tiglath Pileser III, he was not of royal blood. In no lone passage does he ever assertion descent from any of the preceding kings, neither in any way allude to his parentage. His child, Sennacherib, who did well him, is furthermore quiet concerning the source of Sargon, but his grandson, Esarhaddon, presents him with an artificial genealogy which carries back his line to Bel Bani, an very old monarch of Asshur. It is a striking detail that he was able to put himself so rapidly and so securely on the throne, and it makes one believe that there may have been some understanding before the death of Shalmaneser by which Sargon was made the lawful heir. On the other hand, he may have been a successful general, as we have currently presumed that Tiglath Pileser III was, and so had in his hand a tool for fighting ready to enforce his determined assertions to the throne. Like Tiglath Pileser, also, he must have been well known as a man of force, for there was no uprising against him, and he was at once identified as the lawful king.

Accession Of Sargon

In the year of the accession of Sargon (722 BC) Samaria fell, but it is unlikely that he had anything to do with it in person. He could scarcely have been present so rapidly, departing behind him all the likely dangers to the throne which he had just ascended. It was a most fortunate outcome for his reign that Samaria was taken without a longer siege. Very probably the identical armed detachment which had bought into the city protected furthermore its surrender. Neither the armed detachment neither the inhabitants of Samaria are likely to have renowned any thing of the change of rulers in Assyria. The biblical account does not mention the title of the king of Assyria into whose hands the city dropped, but the pattern of declaration seems to suggest that Shalmaneser was still advised king. Sargon was not yet known in the west as he would later arrive to ...