Why Did Babylon Die - Alternative View

Why Did Babylon Die - Alternative View
Why Did Babylon Die - Alternative View

Video: Why Did Babylon Die - Alternative View

Video: Why Did Babylon Die - Alternative View
Video: Rise of Babylon and Hammurabi - Ancient Mesopotamia DOCUMENTARY 2024, May
Anonim

Many people think that the Tower of Babel never really existed, and that this is just a biblical legend, the main message of which is that people should know their place and not strive to be equal to the gods.

In fact, what the Bible calls the Tower of Babel is a ziggurat, the temple of the god Marduk, a seven-step pyramid 90 meters high, built in Babylon. It is known that its ruins were seen by Alexander the Great, who conquered Babylon. He ordered the demolition of the remains of the "tower" in order to rebuild on this site the main sanctuary of the empire, which he tirelessly created throughout his short life.

There is a legend that all the conquerors who destroyed Babylon and kidnapped the golden statue of Marduk from their temple died a violent death.

The greatest military leader of antiquity did not escape this fate. Although the statue of Marduk was stolen long before Alexander, but death overtook him shortly after, on his orders, the remains of the ziggurat were dismantled.

One can treat such legends in different ways, but aren't there too many coincidences?

Here are at least two examples from the relatively recent past.

Example One: "The Curse of the Pharaohs"

On November 26, 1922, the British archaeologist Howard Carter, while opening the famous tomb of Tutankhamun, discovered a plaque with an inscription that read: "Death spreads its wings over those who disturb the peace of the Pharaoh." In the age of rationalism, no one paid much attention to this tablet and the warning contained in it. They remembered them only when in the following years, one after another, everyone involved in the opening of the tomb and the study of the mummy found in it began to die.

Promotional video:

However, I will definitely write in more detail about the curse of the pharaohs in a separate post, since everything is not so simple there.

Example two: "Curse of the Iron Lame"

Since the 15th century in Central Asia, a legend was widely known that if someone ever disturbed the peace of probably the most bloodthirsty conqueror in the history of the entire Middle Ages, Timur, better known by his nickname distorted in Europe - Tamerlane, then the most terrible war would begin, which humanity has never seen before.

But Soviet scientists, of course, did not pay attention to such "fairy tales", and Timur's tomb was opened in Samarkand. The famous Soviet anthropologist M. M. Gerasimov wanted to restore the appearance of Tamerlane from the skull using his own method, which had already proven its effectiveness.

On a massive stone slab covering the sarcophagus, it was written in Arabic: “Do not open! Otherwise, human blood will be shed again - more than in the time of Timur. Nevertheless, the sarcophagus was opened.

This happened on June 22, 1941.

From the memoirs of M. M. Gerasimov himself:

“When we received permission to open the grave of Tamerlane, we came across a massive stone slab that covered his sarcophagus on top. We could not lift or move it, and although it was Sunday, I went to look for a crane. Came back with a crane, moved the stove. I immediately rushed to the feet of the skeleton. After all, it is known that Tamerlane was lame, and I wanted to be convinced of this. I see that one leg is really shorter than the other. And at this moment they shout to me from above: “Michal Mikhalych! Get out! Molotov is speaking on the radio, war!"

But back to BABYLON.

The question of what caused the death of this city, which was the cultural and economic capital of the Middle East for one and a half thousand years, is still controversial. The main blame usually lies with the conquerors. Of course, their role is very significant, but still, it is not the main one.

Babylon was founded by the Amorites in the 19th century BC. e. At the beginning of the 7th century BC. e. it was conquered by the Assyrians, and after a while - in 612 BC. e., having defeated Assyria, the Chaldeans became the masters of Babylon. By this time, the population of the city reached about a million inhabitants, although among them there were already very few descendants of the ancient Babylonians. And despite all the conquests, the culture and economy of the greatest metropolis of antiquity continued to function as it was conceived centuries ago.

However, in the VI century BC. e. everything has changed. L. N. Gumilev writes about how this happened:

»The economy of Babylonia was based on an irrigation system between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and excess water was discharged into the sea through the Tigris. This was reasonable, since the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris during floods carry a lot of suspended matter from the Armenian Highlands, and clogging of the fertile soil with gravel and sand is inappropriate. But in 582 BC. e. Nebuchadnezzar sealed the world with Egypt by marrying the princess Nitocris, who later passed on to his successor Nabonidus. Together with the princess, her retinue from educated Egyptians arrived in Babylon. Niktoris suggested to her husband, apparently not without consulting her confidants, to build a new canal and increase the irrigated area. The Chaldean Tsar accepted the project of the Egyptian queen, and in the 60s of the 6th century, the Pallukat Canal was built, starting above Babylon and irrigating large tracts of land beyond the river floodplains. What came of this?

The Euphrates began to flow more slowly, and the alluvium settled in the irrigation canals. This increased the labor costs of maintaining the irrigation system in its previous state. Water from Pallucat, which passed through dry areas, caused soil salinization. Agriculture ceased to be profitable, but this process dragged on for a long time. In 324 BC. e. Babylon was still such a large city that the romantic Alexander the Great wanted to make it his capital. But the more sober Seleucus Nicator, who conquered Babylon in 312 BC, preferred Seleucia on the Tigris and Antioch on Orontes. Babylon was emptied and in 129 BC. e. became the prey of the Parthians. By the beginning of our era, ruins remained from it, in which a small settlement of Jews huddled. Then it disappeared too."

It would not be entirely fair to blame only the capricious queen for the death of a huge city and a prosperous country. Most likely, her role was far from decisive. After all, her offer could have been rejected, and, probably, if a local resident, who understood the land reclamation system so important for the country, had been king in Babylon, it would have happened.

However, as L. N. Gumilyov writes: “… the king was a Chaldean, his army was made up of Arabs, his advisers were Jews, and they all did not even think about the geography of the conquered and bloodless country. Egyptian engineers transferred their land reclamation techniques from the Nile to the Euphrates After all, the Nile carries fertile silt during the flood, and the sand of the Libyan desert drains any amount of water, so there is no danger of soil salinization in Egypt. The most dangerous thing is not even a mistake, but the absence of raising the question where it is necessary to put it. who replaced the killed and dispersed Babylonians, everything seemed so clear that I didn’t want to think. But the consequences of another “victory over nature” ruined their descendants, who also did not build the city, but simply settled in it."

Perhaps LN Gumilyov, who is highly respected by me, as is often the case in his works, is too categorical in his conclusions. No wonder the historian and geographer L. N. Gumilyov was considered by contemporary scientists to be primarily a geographer, and geographers, respectively, a historian (I did not invent this phrase, but heard it back in 1988 from one of my Teachers - V. B. Kobrin). The more I read the works of L. N. Gumilyov, the more I became convinced that this is true. Specializing in the history of our country in the most difficult times for it - the XIII-XIV centuries, I can in no way disagree with the general concept of Gumilyov about the "symbiosis of Russia and the Horde", too many reliable facts for the sake of the concept are ignored, but others suddenly become unreasonably the main ones for arguing this notorious "symbiosis".