to correct this mistake, and to bring down the date of the
taking of Babylon to 689 B.C.

Mushezîb-marduk shut himself up in Babylon, not doubting that the
Elamites would hasten to his succour as soon as they should hear of his
distress; but his expectation was not fulfilled. Ummân-minânu was struck
down by apoplexy, on the 15th of Nisân, and though his illness did not
at once terminate fatally, he was left paralysed with distorted mouth,
and loss of speech, incapable of action, and almost unfit to govern.
His seizure put a stop to his warlike preparations: and his ministers,
preoccupied with the urgent question of the succession to the throne,
had no desire to provoke a conflict with Assyria, the issue of which
could not be foretold: they therefore left their ally to defend his own
interests as best he might. Babylon, reduced to rely entirely on its
own resources, does not seem to have held out long, and perhaps the
remembrance of the treatment it had received on former occasions may
account for the very slight resistance it now offered. The Assyrian
kings who had from time to time conquered Babylon, had always treated
it with great consideration. They had looked upon it as a sacred city,
whose caprices and outbreaks must always be pardoned; it was only with
infinite precautions that they had imposed their commands upon it, and
even when they had felt that severity was desirable, they had restrained
themselves in using it, and humoured the idiosyncrasies of the
inhabitants. Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V., and Sargon had all
preferred to be legally crowned as sovereigns of Babylon instead
of remaining merely its masters by right of conquest, and though
Sennacherib had refused compliance with the traditions by which his
predecessors had submitted to be bound, he had behaved with unwonted
lenity after quelling the two previous revolts. He now recognised that
his clemency had been shown in vain, and his small stock of patience was