opposition. The Babylonians who had accompanied Merodach-baladan into
exile, returned in the train of the Elamites, and, secretly stealing
back to their homes, stirred up a general revolt: Assur-nâdin-shumu,
taken prisoner by his own subjects, was put in chains and despatched to
Susa, his throne being bestowed on a Babylonian named Nergal-ushezîb,*
who at once took the field (694 B.C.).

* This is the prince whom the Assyrian documents name
Shuzub, and whom we might call Shuzub the Babylonian, in
contradistinction to Mushezib-marduk, who is Shuzub the
Kaldu.

His preliminary efforts were successful: he ravaged the frontier along
the Turnât with the help of the Elamites, and took by assault the city
of Nipur, which refused to desert the cause of Sennacherib (693 B.C.).
Meanwhile the Assyrian generals had captured Uruk (Erech) on the 1st of
Tisri, after the retreat of Khalludush; and having sacked the city, were
retreating northwards with their spoil when they were defeated on the
7th near Nipur by Nergal-ushezîb. He had already rescued the statues of
the gods and the treasure, when his horse fell in the midst of the fray,
and he could not disengage himself. His vanquished foes led him captive
to Nineveh, where Sennacherib exposed him in chains at the principal
gateway of his palace: the Babylonians, who owed to him their latest
success, summoned a Kaldu prince, Mushezîb-marduk, son of Gahut, to
take command. He hastened to comply, and with the assistance of Blamite
troops offered such a determined resistance to all attack, that he was
finally left in undisturbed possession of his kingdom (692 B.C.): the
actual result to Assyria, therefore, of the ephemeral victory gained by
the fleet had been the loss of Babylon.