Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
B checklist
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of History.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pauly07.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the Capital of Assyria?[edit]

I came here hoping to find out the capital of assyria, but I can't find it. What's the point of having an encyclopedia with Assyria if it doesn't explain monty python? Answer:

Assyria had different capitals throughout the years. A few of them are Assur, Nineveh, Nimrud to name a few. Chaldean 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A more complete answer: "The four successive capitals of Assyria--Ashur (Qalat Sherqat); Calah (NIMRUD), founded by Ashurnasirpal II; Dur Sharrukin (KHORSABAD), the fortress city of Sargon II; and Nineveh" 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were a few; Assur (Ashur), Kalhu (Calah, Nimrud) Nineveh, Dur Sharrukin, Harran, Shubat Enlil and perhaps even Dur-Katlimmu at the very end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older Discussions[edit]

In the Legacy section, I have an objection to the sentence "The Assyrians themselves were not the yes. I am here too. HAAHAH greatest innovators in science and culture." Can somebody look for a list of Assyrian achievments, I know they are alot and for the author to state that they were not is not right, Until proof is presented I will remove the sentence. -- 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" It was founded in 1700 BC under Bel-kap-kapu, and became an independent and a conquering power, and shook off the yoke of its Babylonian masters. It subdued the whole of Northern Asia."
Now I know the Assyrians walked far and wide, but is it really so they they conquored Siberia? Perhaps the writer was refering to Anatolia

Yes, this must be incorrect. Maybe the writer's perception of "Asia" was limited... Brutannica 01:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The writer also seems to have a very limited view of Assyrian conquests...apparently the only historical importance is how they conquered Israel. Great for some, but he may like to mention some of the more significant battles: Egypt, for instance. Nov 22, '04

Do it! dab 12:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modern Assyrians[edit]

I would like also to know something about modern Assyrians, who they are and whether they relate to historical Assyrians

would you? well, it says "see Assyrian" in the very first line of the article (a hyperlinked encyclopedia is not good enough, you want one that actually fetches the article for you) dab

how could assyira be after babylon if it began during the time of sumer and akkad, which were before babylon?

simple: it didn't. dab ()

Well, Assyria DID exist as a state before Babylon, without doubt. Its king list goes further back, as does its written history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be referring to the Assyrian state beginning during the time of Sumer and Akkad and the Assyrian empire after Babylon. Rome was a monarchy, then a republic, then it was an empire. Something similar could be said for Assyria. --3345345335534 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Assyrian continuity. Modern Assyrians are the descendents of the Ancient Assyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Assyrian continuity, pretty strong evidence that modern Assyrians are descendent of their namesakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Assyrians[edit]

Modern Assyrians are estimated between 3-5 million.They have been persecuted since the fall of their empire (Assyria).They speak Assyrian or "Syriac".It contains two dialects East and West Assyrian.They do relate to the historical Assyrians and the Assyrians have also kept the names of their kings as names of their sons Ashur.Sargon.Nimrod with more.Most Assyrians lives todays in Iraq about 1 million Assyrians lives there and 500.000 in Syria the rest are in diaspora.For more information i suggest to read in Assyrians.--Sargon 10:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Reading the current version, it seems that Assyria established "merchant colonies" in Kültepe 2 centuries before it was founded. Then again, the article doesn't seem to be in chronological order, so maybe I just misunderstood something. Illuvatar 00:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you were quite right, Illuvatar - the chronology IS bad, and the entire article seems to be a composite of two or three parallel accounts, that desperately need to be better synthesized. I will volunteer to work on this; anyone care to help? Codex Sinaiticus 13:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job, you greatly improved the article.Illuvatar 10:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed in here a reference to ishme-dagan that would suggest he took the throne in about 1790 b.c. and was a contemporary of hammurabbi. Chronologically, one or the other of these has to be untrue. Hammurabbi was a contemporary of the hyksos king khyan (as attested by correspondence between the two found at avaris, and gifts found in babylon), which would mean that his reign would fall somewhere in the 1650-1600 time frame (given a date of 1550 for the rise of ahmose, and 40 year reigns for both apophis and khyan). The dates for asshur should be lowered by 100 years. (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi anon, I just looked up both Khyan and Hammurabi articles, but didn't see any reference there to them interacting, or being contemporaries. So if you have a verifiable reference for your archaeological claim and it checks out, that might be a start to updating all of these articles. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assyrian Telescopes[edit]

I removed the "(this is indeed of great interest. Sources?)" parenthetical statement/question from the article proper. Such questions belong in the discussion page, not the article proper. --Venerable Bede 23:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Homage?[edit]

Are all of these references to the OT necessary? Isn't this meant to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a surmising of the Bible? I may be wrong here, and the OT may be our only source of historical knowledge on Assyria (which I sincerely doubt), but this entire page reads a hell of a lot like a paraphrasing of the OT. The following is my biggest bone of contention: "in fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah (10:5–19), Nahum (3:19), and Zephaniah(3:13)." I mean, what the heck is that all about? Is Wikipedia now a Christian apologetics ministry? I am going to remove this at once, and I am sorely tempted to remove the Bible references (and perhaps put them in a separate Sources section at the bottom for reference?). Polocrunch

No, you're right. This article, like many others in wikipedia that touch upon Biblical events, is partly based on an entry in Easton's Bible Dictionary. Pfalstad

"Of the early history of the kingdom of Assyria, little is positively known. According to some Judeo-Christian traditions, the city of Ashur (also spelled Assur or Aššur) was founded by Ashur the son of Shem, who was deified by later generations as the city's patron god."

Does anyone have any information on this? I've never heard that he was deified, nor have I really heard of the process of the deification of mortals in general in Assyrian history. I'd like to know when these "later generations" were. NisabaGray

Modern day creationists who seek to use Old Testament etiology to explain Assyrian history and cultural practices.--Rob117 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be more specific, the author of the line is using a euhemeristic interpretation of Assyrian mythology so as to fit it into the Table of Nations of Genesis 10.--Rob117 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling of Ashur?[edit]

In the Old Assyrian City-State section, the city-state is spelled as "Ashur" and "Ashshur". I assume the latter is a typo, but it's in there twice. 16:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you really want to get technically correct, it's "Aŝŝur"... (ŝ) representing the sh sound... But one will encounter a number of different ways of rendering it in English, and it's not really a big deal... Recently someone has been changing instances of "Ashshur" to "Assur", which is also fine, only it looks like they must have missed a couple, that's all.. Cheers, Codex Sinaiticus 16:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are three main modes of spelling the city/god “A” in the literature:

  • Ashur
  • Aššur
  • Assur

Some odd spellings also occur, such as Ashshur, Asshur, Aschur, and Asur.

The issue is of course how the ancient Assyrian cuneiform sign for the sound š should be written using our modern Latin alphabet. Assyriologists prefer the use of letter š loaned from the Slavic alphabet, but this is not easily recognized by non-experts in the field. Furthermore, the letter š is rarely found on most keyboards.

The sound š is the English sh-sound. Replacing š with sh is the easiest way of dealing with the sound. When double š occur, as in Aššur, one should not double-write sh as shsh, since this would only confuse the reader, implying the existence of an h-sound within the word. There is no difference in the pronounciation between a single or double sh-sound.

Another mode of writing is using s for š, like in Assur. Though easy to write, the pronounciation will not be correct. Furthermore, it does not distinguish between the two sounds s and š. Both occur in the Akkadian language of the Assyrians.

NB. When Hittite names were written in cuneiform, š was pronounced as s in the Hittite language. Contrary to the case of the Assyrian capital Aššur, the Hittite capital Hattuša is better written Hattusa, not Hattusha.

There are also other anomalies in rewriting Assyrian names with Latin letters. However, the most important thing to keep in mind is the consistent use of one mode of spelling. For entries, different variants of the same name should be redirected to a common article, thus avoiding the existence of double articles containing the same information. --JFK 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't think that a reference to Monty Python belongs in a historical article. Comments? Brownsteve 07:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I think its pointless! Are all for deleting "Monty Python"?--Sargon 10:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Oh, you're no fun anymore." --JohnDBuell 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I slightly agree it doesn't have much place here, but it is culturally relevant. Only thing is, I'm curious as to which one the Old Man from Scene 24 was on about; Assur or Nineveh? Nikevs 09:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were Assyrians Arameans?[edit]

Were the Assyrians ethnically Arameans? If not, why did they adopt Aramaic as their official language? It would be useful to have a section about the ethnicity of the Assyrians. RCSB 14:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No the assyrians were not ethnically arameans.The assyrians had the akkadian language before the aramaic became official.They adopted aramaic as the official language in assyria because it was easier to read and write.It was better for business and the population.The myth says that Aram (creator of the arameans) and Ashor (creator of the Assyrians) were brothers.The ancient assyrians origin were akkadian. --Sargon 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, they were and are not. However, they did adopt Imperial Aramaic as the official language of their empire in the 8th century BC, and this East Aramaic language survives to day among Assyrians. In addition, the Assyrians deported many peoples into Assyria; Arameans, Elamites, Persians, Urartians etc, and these peoples were absorbed into the dominant Assyrian population. Much like modern English people have Celtic, Viking, French Huguenot, Norman, Frisian strands within their makeup, but are nonetheless still English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Assyrian military innovated under Ashurnasir-pal, intro cavalry (tho without saddles) and battering ram (which was able to function upward as well as forward). See Dwyer, War, & Dupuy, Evo of Weaps & Warfare. Trekphiler 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Why not write a new paragraph in the aricle about the Assyrian military? --JFK 12:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose dealing with the history of the Assyrian people under the article with that name, and possibly transferring paragraphs concering their ancient state to Assyrian Empire. Having a separate entry on ancient Assyrians seems redundant to me. Big Adamsky 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest with you, I'm not sure getting what your proposing Chaldean 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposition of Big Adamsky is unacceptable, as there's only a mythological link between ancient and modern Assyrians. --Pylambert 11:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yea, not a good idea at all Chaldean 03:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untrue, there is actually pretty good historicalk evidence to support Assyrian continuity from ancient timrs to the present, in fact there is no proof whatsoever to suggest they arent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link between ancient and modern Assyrians; Assyrian continuity, is actually pretty strong, and well supported academically. Assyrians today have a strong a case of continuity from ancient Assyria as modern Englishmen from the Anglo-Saxons, modern French from the Franks and modern Egyptians from Ancient Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were/are Assyrians Arab?[edit]

I was looking up the history of Arabia in the Encarta encyclopedia and I found this piece of information: The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighboring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians.

Is this accurate? --Inahet 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It sounds more like conjecture to me, since no dates from that long ago can be certainly known, and there are absolutely no records indicating that they came from the peninsula. Usually the more classical view we find is that they were migratory Amorite-related tribes who lived between the Jordan and the Euphrates, ie, West, not South, of Mesopotamia, but nowadays there are always those who, for one reason or another, want to push the idea that they migrated from further south. Also, 3500 BC seems like stretching it pretty far back if you ask me, 2500 BC would be much closer the mark. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for responding to my question. I probably misinterpreted the Encarta article on Arabia. The author perhaps used the term "Arabian" geographically (i.e. Assyrians came from the Arabian Peninsula). Because of the way it was phrased (i.e. Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin), I had assumed that the author meant that Assyrians were ethnically Arab. I assume by your response that you understood what the author meant better than I did. Anyway, my knowledge of the history of Semitic-speaking people is very limited. But from what I have read, I can tell you that the scholars who claim Assryians came from South Arabia also claim that Amorites and Canaanites came from there as well. And this theory is based on recent "archaeological exploration." --Inahet 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt if it's based on anything that recent. Some (but not all) of the articles in the 1911 Britannica seemed to be written from the same point of view that seems to want to make the Canaanites come from South Arabia, and it all seemed pretty speculative and based on some rather sketchy linguistic assumptions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether or not the Akkadian/Assyrian/Babylonian Semites originally migrated from what is Now Arabia is irrelevant. They were and are certainly Not Arabs; Utterly different language, different DNA, and they emerged in 3000 BC in Mesopotamia, Arabs did not even enter the pages of history until 850 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was the Assyrians who first mention Arabs in history, during the 9th century BC, so clearly they are not Arabs themselves. The Assyrians have existed long before the Arabs appeared, even today, they speak different languages, and have different DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Future suggestions[edit]

I would like to suggest some improvements of the article Assyria. Comparing with articles written in other Wikipedia languages, I found the present French (français) layout appealing (intelligble even if you don´t speak French).

  • Since "Assyria" refers not only to conquests and wars I suggest a more comprehensive text of Assyrian culture and society to be added.
  • As noted at the top of this page already in Nov 2004: "the only historical importance is how they conquered Israel. Great for some, but he may like to mention some of the more significant battles: Egypt, for instance." The "Assyrian Empire" could benefit from some editing. The battles with Israel was not the main events in the Neo-Assyrian period. Egypt/Nubia, Elam, Phrygia, Urartu and Babylonia in particular was the main concern of Neo-Assyrian foreign policy.
  • A consistent spelling of Assyrian names is desirable. See above and at Talk:List of kings of Babylon.

--JFK 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Biblical references to the history of Assyria is a new headline, where the Old Testament references are now gathered. No pieces of information have been erased in the process.
    • Assyrian Culture is another new headline with a level 3 headline called Astronomy, where the Nimrud lens information was moved.

--JFK 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already undone the Biblical references... Why take everything to do between Assyria and Israel out of chronological order, as if they are in a category by themself? It doesn't make sense... As for the Astronomy section, I'd been meaning to move that out of the chronology myself for a long time, so that is an improvement... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The angel of the Lord is hardly a historical reference. --JFK 16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course not, and the article takes no stand on whether or not it is historical. It inserts it into the chronologically appropriate place, that's all. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see a case being made for a separate section perhaps, but not cutting every single reference to Israel out of the chronological historical section; that's a bit overboard ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not cut any reference to Israel out of the chronological historical section, I cut out the Old Testament citations and chapter references and reduplicated the text. Please read the text before you instantly erase all changes you don´t make yourself! We do not quote the Chronicles of Assyria and Babylonia either, or write how the Assyrians subdued the foreign lands with the help of Assur and Ninurta. --JFK 16:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assur and Ninurta have no widespread following any more (that I know of), otherwise we might! But at any rate, it looked to me like a little too much sourced history did get cut from the history section... like the Assyrian captivity, for instance... if there were a separate Biblical section, it could even be expanded considerably, but should certainly not replace the history section, of course... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article moves from a very good but very short abstract to a volume of low-level detail that can be overwhelming to a person unfamiliar with this period or geography of history. Is it possible to have an overview that is longer (say 3 to 4 screen-pages) than the current abstract but which does not delve into details? Gwlucca 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bible section[edit]

Dear Codex, as expressed in edit summaries, you are, in my opinion, messing up a perfectly good ToC. Biblical references are tangential to the history of the Assyrian Empire. Yes, the Tanakh has something to contribute to the 8th century history of Canaan. But it so happens that Canaan is on the outer fringes of the Assyrian Empire. Biblical stories without confirmation from independent sources are less than reliable. The section is of more interest to Bible studies than to Assyria. Canaan and the kingdom of Judah from the perspective of Assyria, was a moderately interesting province. Conversely, Assyria from the point of view of the kingdom of Judah was highly notable as the region's superpower. dab () 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop reverting. Every major history about the Assyrians that has ever been written about the Assyrians is chock full of Biblical sources; it is only the latest tactic of the revisionist crowd to cut them out as "marginal". The Hebrew sources are every bit as valid as the others. I must ask you to stop undoing all of the grammar corrections I made for the sake of edit warring, and cease edit warring pending discussion; we were on the verge of coming to an agreement here when you did this, that is borderline vandalism to undo improvements just for pushing pov. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what "revisionist" crowd? The Hebrew sources are valuable, and they were a substantial part of people's knowledge about Assyria before the 1850s, when cuneiform was deciphered. This is the 2000s. And no, I will not "edit around" your minor edits. If you mess up the ToC combined with a few minor improvements, it is not my job to pick the good bits from the bad. Please be reasonable. It is perfectly normal to discuss the Biblical references in one place. Whatever can be gathered from them about the actual history of Assyria will appear in the "History" section anyway. It's not like we quote individual cuneiform tablets in the summary, so why should we quote individual Tanakh verses, especially if they are "every bit as valid"? You see revisionism where there is none. The Tanakh is the prime source for the history of Judah and Judaism in the 7th to 6th centuries. It is not a prime source for the Assyrian Empire. dab () 19:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By wholesale reverting, you are obliging me to go through a second time and make all the corrections again, and that's assuming your changes have merit, which is disputable. I didn't mess anything up; this article has been in the older state with references to Israel integrated in the historical text from the beginning. Please be reasonable yourself and actually look at the changes before simply reverting. Surely there can be a Biblical section, but you have already admitted your intention is to marginalize the Bible as any source whatsoever. The Bible was certainly never taken here as a primary source about all of Assyria, it is only used to shed valuable light on Assyria's interactions with Israel. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fine, I don't have the energy to nitpick about this with you. Just try to write a little bit "for the enemy", ok? In general, in my experience, you tend to vastly overestimate the value of the Hebrew Bible as a historical source, I imagine because you have some religious or emotional attachement to it. Yes I agree it is interesting to discuss the interactions of Assyria with Israel, but I don't see why there shouldn't be a section specifically dedicated to this topic. Otherwise you'll do a service neither to the reader interested in Israel (the references are scattered all over the article), nor to the reader interested in Assyria (the history section is spammed with 'Bible cruft' not relevant to Assyria itself). dab () 20:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've touched on such a very important question here, that I feel I should carefully try to find the words to clarify my position... Here goes... While the Bible does claim to contain the word of God that man must live by ("and not by bread alone..."), I feel that this claim is after all a private matter that an individual ought to decide for oneself, and not something that another can decide for someone. Even so, although its making such a claim may well cause some to 'overestimate' its value, at the same time, this claim may cause others to underestimate its value as the wealth of historical information that it is, as a cultural window on the general time and place of its writing, and on neighbouring peoples. In this regard, it may be compared to the testimony of the Vedas or Mahabharata with regard to the very earliest Indian history, as a very complete source that has been mostly carefully preserved for an area where there are relatively few other sources that are as complete or as well preserved. It should be neither overestimated nor underestimated, but if it is possible to match it up with the other records for some kind of synchronicity, this should not be obscured, not giving extra weight to any one testimony. In the Assyrian case this is more possible than in most cases, because there are plenty of records to match them up with. Like with the Vedas, we don't even have to take the other claims of being a handbook for morals into consideration for purposes of historical inquiry, and should not be led to 'minimalize' them on that account any more than we should 'maximalise' them. So that is how I try to adopt a NPOV when I look at it.
Getting to the matter at hand, as I have said, it's not that I object to a Biblical section, but I must say it seems kind of weird to excise Israel from the historical section, when we even have a map showing the route taken by the captives, it almost reminded me of the Egyptian pharaohs at times pretending Israel did not exist and scratching out their names on the hieroglyphs, or like segregating Israelites into their own ghetto or something. Practically no one denies that Israel was a real historical entity, so why should nearly every reference to it be segregated out from the historical section? The obvious solution is to leave a mention of the important historical events that involved Israel in the Historical section, even if there is a dedicated section to Assyria references in the Bible. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you in principle. The Bible, for historical purposes, should be treated no other than any other Iron Age text, i.e. critically, neither more nor less favourably because of its lasting religious significance. The comparison with the Vedas, or Homer, is adequate: No-one would deny that there is a historical nucleus in these texts, but no-one would take the stories contained in these texts as historical truth (see Historicity of the Iliad). The Hebrew Bible is of an age comparable to Homer and to the Indian Brahmanas. It is a very important source for the Iron Age history of Canaan and the kingdom of Judah, which is certainly a historical entity. "why should nearly every reference to [Israel] be segregated out from the historical section?" (a) because this is the Assyria article; its scope is not the history of Israel, and (b) it is a logical fallacy to assume that if Israel is a historical entity, that the biblical stories must therefore be historically accurate. Viz., the Mycenaeans/Achaeans are historical reality, and yet the Iliad is certainly not historically accurate (portions may be, but these have to be scrutinized with extreme care before a judgement can be made. Just because it's in the Bible or in Homer doesn't mean it happened) dab () 17:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but we aren't segregating out all the references to Philistia into a separate section, we aren't segregating all the references to Urartu or Elam into a separate section... But it seems, as usual, Jews are being given a "special treatment"... I wonder why that really is??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no, man, we are not segragating the references to Canaan/Judah, we are segragating Biblical references, i.e. discussion of one particular primary source. How many specific Ugaritic, Mitanni, Urartian or Elamite texts are discussed in detail in this article? Is there a separate section discussing the Byblos tablets or the Ugarit cuneiform archives? The Bible is given special treatment in that it gets more attention than other primary sources. Don't tell me that distinction does not impress itself on you. Of course there can be references to Canaan or Judah in Wikipedia's voice in the summary of the history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Mentioning Judah is not equivalent to a full discussion of all Biblical references to Assyria. dab () 18:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Codex that the biblical sources can and should be used in the historical section because 1) from the 8th century onward they are usually accurate and reflect contemporary sources and 2) they are the most complete record of Assyrian activities we have because they have been preserved. We know more about what Assyria did in Canaan than we know about what it did anywhere else. The mythical and legendary parts of the Hebrew Bible don't have anything to say about Assyria anyway; everything in the Bible about Assyria deals with the Neo-Assyrian period, for which we have plenty of corroborating archaeological evidence.--Rob117 03:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The endless ancient Assyria/ modern Assyrians dispute[edit]

Last posts were from over a decade ago... Start a new section if you have anything useful to discuss
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First, this dispute has nothing to do with the present situation of Assyrians in the Middle East. The Assyrian minority living in these countries are entitled to recognition and human rights, like all people. Should the Assyrians like to incorporate ancient Assyria into their cultural heritage it is a very good thing for the preservation and study of this ancient culture.

Yet there is a missing 700-year-old link from the ancient Assyrians living in Ashur and Nineveh to the early Christian Assyrians living in the Roman province of Assyria. There are no cultural or linguistic continuity between the two groups.

"i will revert every article with European countrys saying that "there are no proof that germans are germans" (user:Assyria 90, 19 April 2006). That is correct, the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany are not direct descendants of the ancient Germanic peoples, like the Goths, neither are the citizens of the French Republic Gauls. Such claims were popular in the early 20th century with catastrophic results for the people of Europe. I don´t see why emphasis of such Rassenlehre would help the contemporary Assyrian people. --JFK 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although your comment was made eight years ago, I have to respond. Which "catastrophical results?" If you are talking about the wars, I must add that they clearly were not fought because of any country's origin. It is furthermore true that not every modern German emanates from ancient Germans. As not every American citizen can trace his ancestry back to the Founding Fathers. Does that mean that modern Americans are not direct descendants of the Americans of the 18th century? Yes, this is what it means. On the individual's level. But on the national level, the American people of the 21st century originates from the American people of the 18th century. And modern Germans (as modern Dutchmen, Danes, Swedes, etc.) originate, as a people, from ancient Germans as there is a linguistic, historical and ethnic continuity which no one can deny. Where is the problem? -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
700-year-old link from the ancient Assyrians living in Ashur and Nineveh to the early Christian Assyrians living in the Roman province of Assyria.
Can you please give me the missing 700 year dates? What time are you talking about? Chaldean 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
609 BC to AD 113. --JFK 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well you obviously are unware of the importance of Assyrians under Persian rule between these times. Assyrians were the Persian empires fronline soldiers in every battle, as Assyria was considered a "satellite-state" to Persia.
You must not be aware of Babylonian king Nabunaid's mother who died in 539 BC, long after the fall of Nineveh, in an inscription mentions the surviving relatives and the officials of the Assyrian kings in Harran whom she accuses of not preforming food offering and libation to the graves of the monarchs who had done so much for them, but she contends that she did. [1]
If the relatives and the officials of the Assyrian kings had survived, there is no reason to believe the rest of the population was wiped out.
Now of course going back to Persian rule of the Assyrians from 547 BC to all the way up to until they were captured by the Romans.
In describing the Persian invasion of Assyria by the Persian king Cyrus; after defeating the Medes he marched north into Assyria in 547 B.C... "Arbela, for so many centuries overshadowed by Ashur and Nineveh, regained its prestige as the new capital of Athura. Cyrus crossed the Tigris below Arbela, and Ashur fell; the gods of Ashur and Nineveh were saved only through refuge behind the walls of Babylon..." [2]
The mid 19th century translation of the Persian inscriptions attest to the existence of Assyria and Assyrians as part of the Persian empire. The Nagshe Rostam inscription by Darius (512-48) which lists the national types of the Persian Empire includes the Assyrians . A reference to them reads as: "Iyam Asuryah", "this is an Assyrian" which is very similar to the term "Suryah" a name christian Assyrians have identified themselves by. [3]
The Behistun inscription of Darius in the beginning of his rule lists 23 countries as part of his empire including: "Persis, Huza (Elam), Babiru (Babylon), Athura (Assyria)...."[4]
Proclaims Xerexes, the king: "By the favor of Ahura Meazda; these are the people/countries of which I was king of....Persia, Media, Elam, Armenia, Drangiana, parhia, Aria, Bactri a, Sogdia, Choresmia, Babylonia, ASSYRIA, Stagydia, Lydia, Egypt...." [5]
In a Trilingual Persepolis inscription Artaxerxes II (436 - 358 BC) Or III (358 BC to 338 BC.) among the twenty throne-bearers of various nationalities Assyrian representative is identified as; '17. This is the Assyrian'. [6]
The fifth century BC Herodotus describes the Assyrian troops as part of the Persian empire's army of king Xerexes (486-465/4): "The Assyrians went to war with helmets upon their head, made of brass, and plated in strange fashion, which is not easy to describe. .... These people, whom Greeks call Syrian, are called Assyrian by the barbarians. Herodotus Barbarians meant the Persians, the Armenians and other none Greek." Assyrians and babylonians together formed the fifth infantry and were led by Otaspes son of Artchaies. [7]
  1. ^ (James B. Prichard, Ed., "Ancient Near Eastern Text Relating to Old Testament", Princeton University Press 1950 p. 312.)
  2. ^ (Olmatead, "History of the Persian Empire" Chicago University Press 1959 p. 39)
  3. ^ (Sukumar Sen, "Old Persian Inscriptions of the Achamenian Emperors," University of Calcutta 1941 p. 107)
  4. ^ )(Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.)
  5. ^ (Josef Wiesehofer, Azizeh Azodi Trans., "Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD, I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1969.)
  6. ^
  7. ^ Andrew Robert Burn, Persia and the Greeks, the Defnse of the west 546-478 B.C., Minerva Press 1962 p. 336.

In conclusion, it is your opinionto think there were no Assyrians during the time you mentioned. There are many historians think the other way thou, backed with historical Persian inscripts. It is disapointing nowhere in wikipedia there is information about how important the Assyrians were to the Persian empire during the times mentioned. Let me know if you have any questions Chaldean 05:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Greek historian Herodotus, writing in the 5th century B.C., considers her the equivalent of Aphrodite:"The Assyrians call Aphrodite Mylitta, the Arabians Alilat, and the Persians Mitra" (Histories I:131)" from Allat - notice the call, not called. Chaldean 06:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assyria was part of the Persian Empire. This is a fact. Have a look [1] Chaldean 17:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Assyria" is a simple toponym at this point. There is no cultural continuity. The cuneiform script had to be painstakingly deciphered in the 19th century, and without such feats, we would know zilch about the ancient Assyrians. dab () 12:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look here please: which explains this so called "gap". There is no evidence to suggest that we are not Ancient Assyrians. There is only a lack of evidence to suggest anything or so it was but now there is plenty of evidence to suggest the gap is false and Assyrians continued. Look here, if any one has any evidence i.e. professors or doctors who have sudied this, not a bloody personal opinion, please tell me so I can enlighten myself!Tourskin 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dab, the Assyians changed their language from cunieform Akkadian to the Semmitc Aramaic which is a more "Efficient" language then cuniform, due to the pressures of outside culture. Tourskin 00:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is no cultural, linguistic, or religious continuity, then the arabised Muslim Arabs of the regions formerly inhabited by the ancient Asyrians would be just as entitled to calling themselves "Assyrians" as the Christian Aramaic speakers of these regions, wouldn't they? Funkynusayri 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong again. The culture continues (oh so definetly!!) and the blood runs in our veins as it did in theirs. Furthermoore there is a religious connection - many assume the Assyians were Pagans but an alternative view was that they were monotheistic and that the numerous smaller Gods and goddesses were only like saints, venerated but not on the same scale as Asshur the only true God the Assyrians believed in. Thats why the Assyrians of Osroene converted to Christianity so quickly because they had a monotheistic background. So in fact there is a cultural and a religious link. The linguistic link exits because the spoken words are not different. Only the writing system used has changed. The cunieform was abandned for the Semitic script. Note that Assyrians did not change their spoken language.Tourskin 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arguments AGAINST Assyrians of today being descendent of Ancient Assyrians are rather weak; After all there are numerous scholarly, historical, written, archaeological, linguistic, genetic and geographical factors supporting an Assyrian continuity, more in fact, than there are for many other ancestral claims that go unquestioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

We all don't keep on questioning modern Iranians links to Persia or modern Greeks link to Ancient Greece, so why keep picking out the modern Assyrians all the time? They've just as much right to claim their heritage as Greeks, Iranians and Egyptians (another people that keep getting picked on and denied). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add language[edit]

Information about their language and language family should be added to the article. Badagnani 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] external link[edit]

This link: Assyrian Reliefs on Exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum was added to the article by the site owner. In keeping with our guidelines could regular editors of this article check out the link and add it back if you think it appropriate. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what happened to all of the information on this page?[edit]

I came to learn about assyrian history and can't find anything!! Is there anyone who knows enough about ancient assyria to edit this page so i can learn more? If so, it would be greatly appreciated. I need to know all about assyrians. Thank you.

Deleted external links[edit]

External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CIAS: Sargon 2 = Sennacherib?[edit]

The California Institute of Ancient Studies has put forward an interesting analysis of the primary records, making the case that Sargon 2 and Sennacherib are in fact one and the same:

Note I am only putting this link here as a resource for future researchers; personally, I am not so convinced; for example, the two kings seemed to have died entirely different deaths.

Til Eulenspiegel 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


this article is about Assyria, 20th to 7th centuries BC. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern Assyrian people, except for the marginal note that in Assyrian nationalism it is very hip to talk about and identify with Ancient Assyria (as we can read every day in about twenty posts on Talk:Assyrian people). We can have this note, but it is perfectly ridiculous to plaster a giant template on this article because of that fact. dab (𒁳) 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then what is the point of having the link in the template? It doesn't make any sense. This is not "Assyrian people" but history of the Assyrian people, which this article is part of. I don't understand the problem. I think if the title of the template was "History of Assyria" you wouldn't be as irritated as you seem, but that would be pushing POV since their is no Assyria country today. Chaldean 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the point of links in a template is linking to an article, it is not an excuse to plaster the template on every page linked. The only thing linking Neo-Aramaic and Old Aramaic is (doh) the Aramaic language. By your logic, we would need to slap a giant {{History of Germany}} on Germanic peoples. This is silly. You may argue about obscure cultural continuity 600 BC to 100 AD, but the history of Assyria ends in 600 BC, and the history of Syriac Christans begins in 100 AD, and it is ridiculous pov-pushing to emphasize the claimed continuity by slapping giant templates on otherwise unrelated articles. I have noticed that Assyrian nationalists are crazy about ancient Assyria. After all, Elias does his best to illustrate that. That's still just a result of the 1850s rediscovery of Assyria, and thus a thoroughly modern thing that can at best be treated under "rediscovery" in this article. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you call yourself "neutral". Dab, seriously, where do you think we come from? Do you think we're Arabs or something who just happened to magically speak Neo-Aramaic languages one day? We do have a history, and it goes back to ancient times, whether you like it or not. Assyrian nationalists are crazy about ancient Assyria. After all, Elias does his best to illustrate that. — So what? I can be as crazy as I want about ancient Assyria, what's it to you? Does that give you a right to neuter Assyria related articles and separate them from the Assyrian people? Why don't you use the same contradicting logic and remove Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar from the Kingdom of Israel article? Stop pestering us with your anti-Nationalism obsession. That's still just a result of the 1850s rediscovery of Assyria, and thus a thoroughly modern thing that can at best be treated under "rediscovery" in this article. — Oh look everyone, Dbachmann subscribes to the fringe theories of John Joseph. If anything, Aramaeanism is a result of Joseph's book from 1961. There was no Aramaean movement before that; the pseudo-Aramaeans took after Joseph's stupid theories. But of course, you're too "neutral" to acknowledge this. — Elias (talk · contribs) 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new "legacy and rediscovery" subsection is very well written, couldn't have done better myself! Good job on that one, dab...! Til Eulenspiegel 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
why, thank you. dab (𒁳) 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dab, Your views on this are dated in the extreme. Are you familiar with the studies of Finnish Assyriologist Prof. Simo Parpola, amongst others?

If Assyrian identity is a "rediscovery", how on earth is it that people such as Tatian and Lucian referred to themselves as Assyrian? Or that the Sassanids retained Assyria as a province until the 7th Century AD and called it Assyria? Or that Assyrians have family trees with distinctly Assyrian names going back centuries before 1850? Or that the Assyrian national god, Ashur, was being worshiped in the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD by people living in Assyria? None of that is POV, its fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The continual existence of Assyrians is pretty relevant. For a start, Achaemenid, Seleucid, Aracsid, Roman and Sassanid Assyria were factual realities, as was the emergence of Syriac language, script, literature and Christianity in Assyria. There is a clear link from the ancient to modern, and it is useful to acknowledge this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Problem with Amarnamap.png[edit]

The link to the Amarnamap.png image doesn't seem to appear as a thumbnail. I'm sure there's an error there somewhere, but I can't identify it. Any thoughts?? JXM 23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this is just a temporary problem. It happens when the servers are overloaded. I've seen it happening more often in recent days. Just try again after a few minutes. dab (𒁳) 09:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

The first of the external links appears to be a course outline from UCLA, with some translated documents attached. This does not agree with the description, which says 'Assyrian Administrative Letters'. Shouldn't the link be as follows? A. Leo Oppenheim, "Letters from the Archives of Ninevah", Letters from Mesopotamia: Official, Business, and Private Letters on Clay Tablets from Two Millennia Chicago (1967) Fconaway (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its long, but I guess its fine. Chaldean (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assyria After The Empire etc[edit]

I added a brief section about Assyria after the empire, as it maintained an identity as an important province of other empires.

I also added information regarding the extent of Assyrian conquests under the Neo Assyrian Empire. How on earth is this POV? All of it is easily referenced.

D Bachmann reverted my changes, stating they were POV, and unreferrenced.

Actually, most WAS referenced, though not all...what was not, im more than happy to reference. Nothing was POV pushing, everything there is factual.

An overview of Assyria and its continuity is useful, because a now rather dated (but still common) view is that Assyria simply disappeared. This view has been largely discredited by modern historians and Assyriologists, and a brief section on Assyria after the empire is useful and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assyrian identity began around two generations after Botta and Layard's excavations in northern Iraq. the earliest mention of modern Assyrians I can find is in newspaper article from 1893. so it didn't begin long before that date. it certainly didn't begin before the 1840's discovery of Assyria; and all the books following that discovery romanticizing the Nestorian Christians as being modern 'Assyrians'. The Assyrian community of today is entirely a modern invention. if they are Assyrians today; they were not aware of it 150 years ago. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

1. The national god of Assyria, Assur, was worshipped well into the middle ages.

2. Assyria was named Assyria and its people as Assyrians by the Achamaenids, Greeks, Parthians, Romans and Sssanids (not to mention in Armenian and Georgian records). After the Arab conquest attemts were made to break the identity of the ancient inhabitants and "arabize" them.

3. Assyrians are actually NOT Nestorians, the Church of the East PREDATES Nestorianism by 400 years! Nestorians were given refuge in Assyria (Athura). Big difference! And importantly Assyrians are members of many different Christian sects (Eastern Rite, Catholic, Orthodox, Jacobite and Protestant) are quite clearly not a religious sect.

4. You seem to forget the use of distinctive Assyrian names such as Sargon, Sinharib, Sharrukin, Ashur, Dadashu and many others which were encountered by western explorers when they met Assyrians in mesopotamia, AND exist in old family trees going back long before the 1850's (including my own). Also the ancient Bit Tiyari tribe - Tiyari being a derivative of Atoriyeh which means Assyrian.

5. The idea that Assyrians ceased to exist after the fall of Nineveh is now largely discounted (and is itself a 19th century view), more recent Assyriologists such as Frye, Parpola, Saggs, Levine, Biggs accept the continuity, as do ethnicists such as Cavalli and Sforza. These people are not Assyrians and their views are in no way biased.

6. Your removal of my edit is purely POV, and i have to say biased, whereas i have provided links to non Assyrian, respected historians.

7. Ending this article with "islamic Arab conquest" leads readers to believe that was the end, when in fact it was not, it also leads people to believe that the Assyrians became Arabs and Muslims, which is perhapss your intention?

8. People such as Tatian and Lucian described themselves as Assyrian in ancient times.

9. The term Syrian and Assyrian confuses people. In the Hellenistic period, the Greeks dropped the As from Assyria, and the two are interchangable during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 12:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have any evidence of an "Assyrian" ethnic group in the millenium prior to 1893, or even prior to 1800, please share it. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you read the studies done by the eminent Scandinavian Assyriologist Simo Parpola (among others)............innaddition, Assyrians should not even have to PROVE they exist! The Greeks dont, nor do the Arabs......its a somewhat racist attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, my initial response provided evidence, with links to the studies and comments made by Non Assyrian Assyriologists and Iranologists, which for some reason, you see as invalid. Their views are impartial, they are not Assyrians themselves. Like all races, the Assyrians should not have their identity continually questioned and denied, as i said, it is somewhat racist. It tends to mirror the views of Arab Nationalists and Baathists, and such views are often politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you read the following study by an eminent Assyriologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you forgetting that Assyria was 'discovered' in the 1840s? how could Assyrians exist when there was no living memory of Assyria? the ancient Assyrians were Aramized, and lost their Sumero-Akkadian culture. and lost it centuries earlier than the Babylonians too. Do you know of any 'Assyrian' literature from 200 years ago? ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, you seem biased here. Ive provided links to studies done by specialists. Assyria was recognised as Assyria until the 7th Century AD, the people simply did not disappear after that! Also, in late antiquity the term Syriac/Syrian did not relate to the modern nation of Syria, but to Assyria. Look at the literature of Tatian and Lucian who both describe themselves as Assyrian, and they go back further than 200 years.

Most literature was Religious, the average Assyrian lived in small villages and communities and were illiterate, persecuted minorities. Do you know any Zulu literature from 200 years ago? No, thought not. Does that mean Zulus didnt exist? No, of course not.

The Ancient Assyrians adopted the Aramaic language, they did NOT lose their Sumero-Akkadian culture, the Arameans who they mixed with were Akkadianized. Hence the survival of Sumero-Akkadian religion well into the Christian era, the naming after Ashur, the Cuneiform script etc, i suggest you read your ancient history. Actually (though the Assyrians and Babylonians are the SAME people) Babylonia lost its old religion and culture far earlier.

There was a living memory of being Assyrian, it never died, details of Assyrian history were lost, but not the identity. Modern Assyriologists have demonstrated this time and again, but i think you have an agenda therefore wish to discount this.

Mind you, even if there was no living memory (which clearly there was!) it would change nothing. How many Aztec villagers of the early 20th century knew details of or had "living memory" of the Aztec Empire? None! Does it mean theyre not Aztecs? Of course not!

Again, your views are out of date, and i feel biased. Did you even read the link i provided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talkcontribs) 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edits about Assyria after the fall of its empire seem fine, quite importantly theyre backed up by good independant source material. Seems to be more than a little Anti Assyrian bias going on here!

Looking at these edits i cant see any evidence at all from the anti Assyrian camp. But those folk that have added the Assyria After The Fall section have put in evidence; Saggs, Frye, Parpola, Roux, Biggs, Saggs, Tsertelli and so forth are pretty good independent sources from what i can see and should be taken very seriously, same with those sources in Armenian, Arab, Russian and Georgian records. I think unless those people who dont like to admit the link between the ancient and modern Assyrian people can provide the same proof or evidence to back their side up, they should back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talkcontribs) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assyria still existed after its empire as Athura, Seleucid Syria, Assuristan, Adiabene etc until around 650 AD.....Herodotus and Srabo talk of Assyrians, so do Tatian and Lucian. As well as that Syrian/Syriac are known to originally mean Assyrian...see Assyrian continuity, Name of Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The continual existence of Assyrians is pretty relevant. For a start, Achaemenid, Seleucid, Aracsid, Roman and Sassanid Assyria were factual realities, as was the emergence of Syriac language, script, literature and Christianity in Assyria. There is a clear link from the ancient to modern, and it is useful to acknowledge this. The Anti brigade seem to be unable to produce any clear evidence, never mind proof, of their argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


No article on Wiki about them! :( Böri (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There certainly ought to be. They are mentioned in the early royal year names, from the very dawn of more detailed record keeping. Let me know if someone starts one before I get around to it; there is a good bit of material. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added some very basic info on them, but I cannot find much information, and the Wiki page dedicated to the is also very basic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Middle Assyrian Period - New Article[edit]

I have just created a former country infobox for the Middle Assyrian Period, but, on behalf of WikiProject Former countries, I suggest the creation of a separate Middle Assyrian Period article for navigation purposes. This way, the article Assyria can receive its own former country infobox with specific reference to the Old Assyrian Period. Xuxalliope (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unnecessary sentence/link at top of article[edit]

It says: "This article is about the former kingdom (obviously; the title is "Assyria"; what else is it going to be about?). For modern-day Assyria (huh? For modern-day Assyria?), see Assyrian people." This line is unnecesary and doesn't make sense, whoever is looking for "Assyrians" will type "Assyrians" or "Assyrian people". I removed this per above reasons and somebody twice put it back without any reason. - Ninevite 20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninevite 20 (talkcontribs) 13:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was me, because the WP:HATNOTE serves a useful navigation function on wikipedia. The primary topic located here at Assyria is the former kingdom of Assyria, so this is correctly formatted. Another meaning of "Assyria" that some people might be looking for could be regions that are known as Assyria today, hence "modern-day Assyria". People looking for information on the region known as Assyria today, could feasibly come here by mistake from typing in "Assyria". What the hatnote does is redirect them to the correct article that has information about that topic, which would be Assyrian people. This is solely to help readers find their way to the correct article, it is not intended to be used to make any kind of political assertions or implications about the geographic region that some people call "Assyria" today, nor about the ethic group who refer to themselves as 'Assyrians". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there is no "modern region known as Assyria today", as you know perfectly well; Assyria is the Greek term for the now-defunct empire, not any speficic region, the territory of the former empire now being spread among a dozen countries in the Middle East. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term Assyria (or variations of) predates the Greeks by some way. Assyria, and other versions of the name, is generally regarded as describing Northern Mesopotamia, or the land that was Assyria Proper where the Assyrians were from (and some still are), rather than the Assyrian Empire. No one would describe Israel, Iran or Egypt as Assyria just because these lands were once ruled by Assyria. The Greeks actually used the old Indo-Anatolian term Syria to describe Assyria, but also confusingly later applied this name to The Levant. Assyria itself roughly corresponds to modern Northern Iraq and small areas of Southeast Turkey and Northwest Syria, and most people understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

overuse of Roux (1964)[edit]

I suppose this source can be used for lack of a more recent or more specific one, but the article relies altogether too much on it, it also fails to given page numbers, and it uses it very naively: you cannot cite things like "c. 2154 BC" from a book, you need to establish which chronology is being used, I am sure that is made clear somewhere in the book, but jumping to a page and copying a year number is not helpful, it is what led to the hopeless confusion of ANE chronology on Wikipedia. Such things should be tagged for revision on sight (but I have kind of given up on it). --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Largely my fault. I have recently tried to add other references, particularly when dating the earlier kings. But perhaps a line mentioning that the chronology is far from exact might be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Horsepuckey. Citing things like dates from RS is precisely what we can, must, and do do. If there's some special procedure needed here because the nature of the Mesopotamian king lists, then you need to create an article policy on it and format it prominently at the head of the talk page. You don't just insult people for not magically understanding the minutiae of an esoteric field. — LlywelynII 04:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wholesale changes by Anon Editor[edit]

I don't know enough about the subject to tell if the changes anon editor is making are correct, but he's made substantial, page-wide, changes to whole blocks of text and dating conventions with no edit descriptions and little (if any) references to back up changes. Is this stuff right? Ckruschke (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply[reply]

That was myself. The chronology did not tie in with the Assyrian King Lists, Limmu Lists or information on the pages dedicated to individual kings, so I synched the chronology and info to tie in with these. The chronology is difficult, because even among experts there is no concensus, and maybe a paragraph explaining this would be useful.
Most of the textual changes are again changed in an attempt to tie in the Assyria page with other Wiki pages on the subject, and the Assyria after the empire section was tidied up. Some changes are referenced, others not, but references and citations can be added for everything if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K - not saying you did anything wrong, but it was alot of changes and you had no edit comments helping me to decipher your reasoning. I had another editor send me a comment on my own Talk that he thought your edits were ok, but again he didn't know enough about the subject to comment on all of them.
Especially since you are an anon IP editor, edit comments help us to know that you aren't some crackpot... Another thought is if you plan on doing more Wiki edits, get yourself a named account. Just my thoughts. Ckruschke (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply[reply]
  • Regarding Limmu lists, some of which were discovered in Kanesh only in the last few years: One scholar who has attempted to reconstruct the complete Assyrian chronology scientifically from this recent data is Gérard Gertoux. I have looked at his Assyrian chronology online here and it looked flawless to me and quite convincing. After he did this, however, he found that the reconstructed Assyrian chronology timeline fits in perfectly with the "Ultra short". Since "Ultra short" isn't what's being pushed nowadays, the dogmatic approach may have caused the actual evidence of the Limmu lists to be set aside. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This anon and User:EddieDrood (probably same user) are known for their POV pushing and misuse of sources. He used bogus references when adding info suggesting that members of the Assyrian Church of the East are genetically different from neighboring Aramaic speaking Christians, I have reverted him several times with warnings but he insists on his vandalism. He inserted claims supposedly made by Roux to this article which support Assyrian continuity, not only Roux never made such claims, ch.25 Death of a Civilization and the Epilogue of his book Ancient Iraq argues for complete discontinuation of ancient Mesopotamian civilization. I suggest given his history all his edits be reverted if not verified by a second user.--Kathovo talk
So the wholesale changes he has made and continues to make on this page are good or not? Your post says "no" so someone has a huge amount of edits to revert... Ckruschke (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply[reply]

Kathovo...No I did NOT state anywhere that members of the Assyrian Church of the East are different from other Assyrians, genetically or otherwise! What I did state (with reference) was that Assyrians are both genetically and linguistically distinct from Levantine Syriacs, which of course they are!

In addition to this, I NEVER stated that Roux supported or refuted Assyrian Cultural Continuity. What I did point out is that Roux mentions Assur flourishing in the 3rd century and national gods being venerated in Assyria during that time. Also, that he mentions Adiabene as a ressurection of Assyria. Would you like me to give page numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talkcontribs) 22:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do...--Kathovo talk 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notion that a particular editor can be singled out and everything he or she contributed summarily stripped whether correct or incorrect, is related to what I referred to above as the "dogmatic approach". In my opinion this approach is the uglier side of what wikipedia has been allowed to become, and it should be resisted. We should be looking at the content sentence by sentence and improving it if possible, not persecuting the editors. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weirdly, I can find at least four academic references that show Assyrian national gods were still followed into the 4th century AD. Also plenty of references to Assyria meaning Assyria, and Assyrians existing. There actually is genetic study that shows Assyrians are different from Leventines as well. Not to mention language and geographic differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paragraph on homosexuality.[edit]

This is to Mann jess, that paragraph as it reads now is purely POV and not appropriate content for a Wikipedia, and was rightly removed. Please stop restoring it. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original justification, here, is not acceptable. Accusing other editors of being gay or promoting homosexuality when removing content is wholly inappropriate. I don't know anything about this article, so can't comment on the larger context, but I can say that several of the sources appear to support at least some of the content. For instance:
  • Gay Rights Or Wrongs: A Christian's Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry, page 12: Homosexuality was indeed present in Assyrian society, but was curiously absent from all Babylonian legal codes. Some ancient Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessing on homosexual relationships, while others suggest that homosexual prostitution was permitted, possibly on a ritualistic basis, and homosexual prostitutes were regular participants in public processionals...homosexual conduct was not always respected in Assyrian culture, and was even considered crimanal in some instances.
  — Jess· Δ 18:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Looking over each source:
  • The Construction of Homosexuality by David F. Greenberg - definitely an RS, but needs a more specific citation than the whole book.
  • Gay Rights Or Wrongs: A Christian's Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry, by Mike Mazzalonga - Not appropriate for a historical topic.
  • The Nature Of Homosexuality, Erik Holland - Self published, but the Reallexikon der Assyriologie is definitely RS and completely appropriate for this. It would be necessary to cite the Reallexicon der Assyriologie itself.
  • "Pritchard, p. 181" - Which Pritchard?
  • "Greenberg, p. 126" - I assume this is Greenburg's Construction of Homosexuality.
  • "Nissinen, p. 25-27; Naphy, p. 19" - Which Nissenen, which Naphy?
  • The Code of the Assura, c. 1075 BCE - primary source based original research, a non-primary source is needed.
The material would need to be improved to be included, but it could ultimately be included. That said, this edit summary was nothing but POV-bigotry that utterly fails WP:AGF and I too would have initially reverted it without checking the content. This edit summary shows that the IP's user has no comprehension of Wikipedia's policies, and has no business editing articles.
Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree with what that IP editor said, but I agree that the form it was in was POV. If it is re-added, it should be toned down and improved, like you said. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)I've been tracing through the sources as best I can - it's tough without links and quotes. I have some concerns about the weight we're allocating to these views, but it looks like at least some of the sources could be useful. I'd agree that some improvement is probably necessary. (Also, at least one of the sources did not seem to verify the content; rewriting the paragraph is probably the best approach.)   — Jess· Δ 18:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


That's cute but no. You have to explain if it's a bibliography of works being used or a further reading section. Roux is used but several of the other's aren't. Since Wikipedia can't helpfully curate lists, WP:Further reading sections are almost always a mistake unless they're providing primary documents. — LlywelynII 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources for article expansion[edit]

These are the unused refugees from the "Lit" section. Kindly reïnclude them once they are being used to verify statements in the running text of the article.

  • Ascalone, Enrico (2007): Mesopotamia: Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians (Dictionaries of Civilizations; 1). Berkeley: University of California Press (paperback, ISBN 0-520-25266-7).
  • Grayson, Albert Kirk (1975): Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (ABC), Locust Valley, N.Y., Augustin; reed. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns (2000).
  • Healy, Mark (1991), The Ancient Assyrians, London: Osprey, ISBN 1-85532-163-7, OCLC 26351868.
  • Leick, Gwendolyn (2002): Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City. Penguin Books.
  • Nardo, Don (1998): The Assyrian Empire. San Diego.
  • Olmstead, A. T. (1923): History of Assyria, Chicago.
  • Oppenheim, A. Leo (1964): Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago.
  • Robert William Rogers (1900). A history of Babylonia and Assyria. - vol.1 and vol.2
  • Schomp, Virginia (2005), Ancient Mesopotamia: The Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, New York: Scholastic Library Pub, ISBN 0-531-16741-0, OCLC 60341786

More info at EB articles as well (and material in the article that needs to be sourced to them), but bear in mind that it may be outdated. — LlywelynII 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assyrians A Semitic People?[edit]

The ancient Assyrians are described as a "Semitic" race. However, there is no definitive description of exactly what that really means. It is known that they spoke Assyria which is a dialect of Akkadian. Conversely, the Akkadian language is a dialect of Aramaic which Wiki describes as an Afroasiatic dialect. If this is the case, why are these Semitic peoples not simply described as an African race or African mixture, since this is who they were at minimum?

The Somalis and Ethiopians also speak Amharic which is the same language or a dialect of Aramaic. They are often mis-described in western definitions of race as an "Asiatic" people, but they are really African nonetheless. It would make sense since the African peoples were the first inhabitants of the Earth and could not have possibly been absent in the early development of Mesopotamian and Nile Valley civilizations. I just find this omission troubling considering the wealth of information available today on the early origins of Man 2602:302:D136:A040:914D:8BDE:D344:9B58 (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article means that the Assyrians spoke a Semitic language, it never says anything about modern imagined social constructs of race. Aramaic is a Northwest Semitic language, while Akkadian is an East Semitic language -- they are not dialects of each other. Semitic languages are a subtype of the Afroasiatic languages. They bear similarities to each other, and they clearly grew from the Afroasiatic languages, but they are still a distinct offshoot from the Afroasiatic family with their own unique features.
To call the Assyrians just African would be as much of a problematic oversimplication as calling Somalis and Ethiopians just Asiatic. Afroasiatic describes where those languages are commonly found: in both Africa and Asia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk) No, we Assyrians are not African. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

talk - 1. AfroAsiatic does not mean African. The clue is in the name. It applies to a broad group of languages spoken in the Middle East, Asia Minor, East Mediterranean, North Africa and Horn of Africa. 2.Assyrians/Akkadians/Babylonians/Arameans/Chaldeans were not (and still are not in the case of the Assyrians) African physically, genetically, geographically or culturally. 3.Semitic languages are a Near Eastern originating branch within the wider Afroasiatic language family, they did not evolve in Africa, they were spread to Horn of Africa from Southern Arabia as late as the 7th century BCE 4.The Akkadian and Aramaic languages both evolved in the Near East, not Africa. 5.Akkadian does not descend from Aramaic, it predates it. 6.Amharic and Tigrean are South Semitic, and not actually dialects of Aramaic in any way, which is Northwest Semitic, nor Akkadian, which was Northeast Semitic. 7. Assyrians still exist (Assyrian continuity), and are clearly Asiatic Caucasoids (as they always were). 8. Akkadian and Aramaic have never been attested in Africa 9. Amharic and Tigrean have never been attested in the Middle East, but are descendants of Old South Arabian 10. Assyrians (both ancient and modern) are genetically distinct from African peoples, and align with other Middle Eastern peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black supremacist rubbish at its most offensive. Stop trying to steal other peoples ancient cultures. Disgraceful. --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:2DE2:ED0B:C489:42FD (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Assyria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to "timeline"= A mess[edit]

I came back to this site to find it had dissappeared. It now resembles a 6th grade text book. I noticed that someone moved material into a "timeline of Assyrian history" It had been a FABULOUS article, as Assyria has a pretty continuous 1000 year domination of mesopotamia- gave you a great insight to whole region. How are people going to find this? What is the use of the history section then? I don't think a timeline is a good way to present all this information. Access to information trumps tidiness. (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)CatharReply[reply]

(talk) The article has been utterly messed up. There are now huge gaps. The Neo Assyrian Empire section (for just one example) now begins in 671 BC with the conquest of Egypt. Everything before it has been removed. There is no continuity in it at all. The article as it was a few months ago read very well. There was not too much detail, just a continuation from pre-history onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the original article has been restored. The moving to timeline contributor(s) left the original page a mess which did not read correctly, flow, or even link in chronologically. They simply lifted huge chunks out of this page and deposited them into Timeline or Old, Middle, and Neo periods, with no effort at all to amend this page so that it at least made sense or flowed/linked correctly.

What had been a great page was vandalised and turned into a joke.

Amateurish Article[edit]

The Assyria page now makes no sense. It no longer flows properly. There are huge gaps. The Neo Assyrian Empire section (for just one example) now begins in 671 BC with the conquest of Egypt. Large sections of Assyrian history are now completely absent. No one is saying that the article needs to go into minute detail, but it should at least have a basic continuous flow to it. The specific and deeper details of the Old Assyrian, Middle Assyrian, Neo Assyrian periods and those that fall between these periods do not need to be gone into in huge depth, but surely they should at least be there and flow chronologically. The article is now pretty poor, particularly the Middle and Neo Assyrian periods. A Timeline is far from a good replacement for the former article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assyria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Assyria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is some undesirable repetition in the article.[edit]

I've read through the entire article this morning. I've noticed there's some undesirable repetition. If you go to the article and use your browser's page search functionality [Ctrl-F most likely] and type in "Sprachbund" you should see that you find two instances of that word. If you then read the paragraph each instance of "Sprachbund" appears in you will notice that the two paragraphs are extremely similar. So it would be good if someone confident in editing the article could resolve that.

I did notice another chunk that was repeated too but unfortunately I've lost track of it and can't see how I could find it without reading the entire article again, which I'm afraid I'm not going to do. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assyria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probable problematic edits by[edit]

This is an EddieDrood sock, editor known for falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references. I wouldn't trust their edits. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assyria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awful Old Assyrian Empire section[edit]

This section is appalling, it has huge gaps, repeats info that should be in other sections, and reads terribly. This needs looking at — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old Assyrian Empire section re-added[edit]

The Old Assyrian empire/period section was almost totally gone! Reinstated it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(User Wikaviani) It was me that changed the Old Assyrian Empire section. It is pretty awful in its present form, most of the period is left out, it does not flow or read right at all. It also repeats some things that are in other sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove "assyria"[edit]

I rewrote all of assyrias history from this article on one assyria on assyrians homeland, why have 2 assyria when we can have one? So please, remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talkcontribs) 02:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested merge[edit]

Hi all!

I want to suggest {{merge}} assyria with the article assyrian homeland because as l am an assyrian myself l dont like that there are two assyria article, also if we would have a sort of autonomy or a country in the future assyrian homeland will be the one rewritten.

Discuss....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talkcontribs) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion is at Talk:Assyrian_homeland#Suggested_merge. MarginalCost (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of Assyria[edit]

Hello Bealtainemí, if you use e-version of that book, open its twenty-sixth page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your comment. I find that the wrong book was cited. The phrase in question is not in the Cambridge University Press book Assyria - From the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nineveh, but comes from a 19th-century work republished in various forms, for instance as Ozymandias Press book, The Rise and Fall of the Assyrian Empire, which quotes an 1862 work by Rawlinson (which explains the now quaint comparison with "the German provinces of Prussia or Austria"!). I am therefore making a correction in places where the wrong book was cited. Being unable to check correctness of the page number, I am giving no page number, neither page 3 (as previously indicated) nor page 26 (as you seem to indicate now), but simply indicating the section of chapter I of Zagorin's book that is numbered 3. Bealtainemí (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Hi Puduhepa, what was the problem with my edit? Konli17 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Konli17. I know you were trying to improve the page but I think the previous version was more clear as it gives more specific information regarding the areas which were under the control of the empire. Since the content was not too long or messy, I don't think that it needs to be tidied. The other content has been removed completely, so there's no reason to discuss about it at the moment. Puduḫepa 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Edit by User:Semsûrî[edit]


In your previous edit (, your edit summary stated that the link for Assyrian War of Independence redirected to a different article. Instead of correcting that link, you simply deleted that link. And not only that, but you also deleted information stated before that link.

I'm assuming good faith here, however this seems disruptive, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Next time please correct the redirecting link instead of deleting page content. Thanks.

--Assyriandude (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inaccuracies And Biased Language[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A941:8601:A807:9F72:8F4B:4E2F (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Year Notion to Common Era[edit]

The dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias.

As the Assyrian culture was not dominantly Christian and significantly precedes Christianity, there is no reason for the date notion to be based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord."), making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice to ensure religious objectivity.

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated.[1] Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.

My previous edits reflect this change in date format in the article.

016bells (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please can someone change the BC dates to BCE in the text box or tell me how to do it. I am new here and do not have a much experience in it. Thank you! Armstrong12345 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Hope that i fixed all dates.----

 Done. No that didn't fix all dates and I fixed the remaining to stop religious bias. Cupcake547 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ "For dates in early Egyptian and Mesopotamian history, Julian or Gregorian equivalents are often uncertain. Follow the consensus of reliable sources, or indicate their divergence."

Articles on some Assyrian-related themes[edit]

As I stated elsewhere, it seems that no editors who are contributing to this and other main articles on Assyrian-related themes were invited to take part in recent discussions on proposed deletions (here and here) of articles on the Assyrian Academic Society and Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. Those articles are quite important, and should not be deleted. Unfortunately, some users are claiming that both of those articles are not notable enough to be kept. On the other side, those articles could be improved, and any help in the field of editing would be welcomed. Sorabino (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming and Moving the Article[edit]

Hi, do you think we should move and rename this article from Assyria to Assyrian Empire because Assyria is a region and this article is about an empire. Thanks, Cupcake547 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

No. If anything, the lead section and the infobox could be edited/reorganised. The article as is covers the history of ancient Assyria, the later region, and Assyrians today. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In society section[edit]

I think there should be more elaborate explanation about the society of Assyrian civilization. There were three social category, the terminology for all three of them should be mentioned there. The third social class called Khubsi ( i don't know how you write it), which was also providing the military strength to the Assyrians need a mention, with quality sources. Admantine123 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop reverting edits that are correct[edit]

I change the status of Assyria to an ancient country since if you look up the definition of Assyria according to Oxford Dictionary it says: An ancient country in what is now northern Iraq. From the early part of the 2nd millennium BC, Assyria was the center of a succession of empires. I even put the source in a reference and it’s a reliable source but the Admin Favonian subsequently blocks me and removes the information even though it Is correct and adds more information to the article. Why are you worried about people actually improving an article and not worrying about people who are abusing the edit ability? 2600:4040:13B2:7200:447D:137F:7F30:FBD (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]