Assyria, as has been said, was without doubt weak at this date, that is,
she was confined to the proper territory of her own agricultural
Semites. This state of things, whenever existent throughout her history,
seems to have implied priestly predominance, in which Babylonian
influence went for much. The Semitic tendency to super-Monotheism, which
has already been noticed, constantly showed itself among the eastern
Semites (when comparatively free from military tyranny) in a reversion
of their spiritual allegiance to one supreme god enthroned at Babylon,
the original seat of east Semitic theocracy. And even when this city had
little military strength the priests of Marduk appear often to have
succeeded in keeping a controlling hand on the affairs of stronger
Assyria. We shall see later how much prestige great Ninevite war-lords
could gain even among their own countrymen by Marduk's formal
acknowledgment of their sovereignty, and how much they lost by
disregarding him and doing injury to his local habitation. At their very
strongest the Assyrian kings were never credited with the natural right
to rule Semitic Asia which belonged to kings of Babylon. If they desired
the favour of Marduk they must needs claim it at the sword's point, and
when that point was lowered, his favour was always withdrawn. From first
to last they had perforce to remain military tyrants, who relied on no
acknowledged legitimacy but on the spears of conscript peasants, and at
the last of mercenaries. No dynasty lasted long in Assyria, where
popular generals, even while serving on distant campaigns, were often
elevated to the throne--in anticipation of the imperial history of Rome.

It appears then that our traveller would have found Babylonia, rather
than Assyria, the leading East Semitic power in 1000 B.C.; but at the
same time not a strong power, for she had no imperial dominion outside
lower Mesopotamia. Since a dynasty, whose history is obscure--the