Arabia and Israel As The Fourth Assyria

Discuss the world of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
Post Reply
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Arabia and Israel As The Fourth Assyria

Post by yakovzutolmai »

I've been heavily researching the origin of the Arabs. The story isn't very complicated. The camel was introduced to Arabia from Iran (Bactria originally). The direct cause the Neo-Assyrian conquest of Canaan.

Spice trade from Yemen crossed to Ethiopia, up the Nile, to donkey riding nomads from Canaan. With the Assyrian conquest of Canaan, Nile trade was cut off. The causality is unclear, but it's entirely possible that Neo-Assyria themselves directly introduced the camel to Arabia specifically to continue the spice trade via the Red Sea Coast desert. Or, at the very least, this introduction occurred in response to Assyrian hegemony.

After 200 years of development, these new Arab kingdoms rebelled, but Assyria squashed the rebellions and integrated them into Assyrian hegemony. Assyrian rule constituted complete hegemony, with cultural and religious supremacy over these peoples.

When Media and Chaldea besieged the last Assyrian kings at Harran, it was Israelites and Arabs fighting alongside them.

I propose that the elevation of Abdisarres of Adiabene, following the collapse of Seleucid power, by the Arabs was a purposeful continuation of Assyrian rule. That the Arabs were attempting to reestablish Assyrian hegemony in the aftermath of Greek and Persian hegemony. Given the context, I believe the Seleucus who was a younger son of the defeated Antiochus Sidetes was married to the Assyrian princess, and Philip Philadelphus of Selucia was their son.

That Philip was the one and same person as Josephus's Ptolemy Menneus, where Menneus = Manu, being Ma'nu II (maybe also Ma'nu I) of the Edessan kings list. Abdu of that list is Abdissares.

To a certain extent, the Emesene dynasty of Aziz/Sampsiceramus, the Nabatean monarchy, the "lost" Israelite tribes of the Euphrates valley were loyal to the idea of Assyrian hegemony over Roman or Parthian (or Jewish/Herodian) hegemony over the region. At least at first.

So we must understand Philip/Ptolemy, Armenia's Arsham (perhaps Philip II AKA Ma'nu Saflul) as successor to the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the eyes of Arabs and non-Jewish Israelites.

In this light, given the Jewish identity of Adiabene's Izates and Monobazus II, we have a much clearer context for Christianity's emphasis on preaching the gospel to the lost tribes. We have context for the politics of the Jewish Revolt and later Kitos War. We understand what's at stake when Antipas and Herod Agrippa get ambitious.

This is not about the son of David. This is about restoring the Neo-Assyrian hegemony, in spite of Rome, Egypt, Greece, Parthians or Persians.

This same spirit is carried on during the conquests of the Arab Army which became Muslim. The impetus for Arabs to conquer and become hegemons is derived from Neo-Assyria. Christianity is a chapter in that story. The failed Palmyrene Empire might have been. Even Caracalla falls into the same narrative.

The concealment of this, perhaps obvious, historical narrative by Josephus and Eusebius seems to be a direct validation of the idea, and gives weight to the threat a re-awakened Assyria might pose in the ancient world.

And, considering the wars in Syria today, it's almost as if world powers still recognize and fear a pseudo-Assyrian power rising to dominate the Middle East.
Post Reply