The Assyrian Empire vs. Greece

[Tom_B]

One possibility is that the Assyrians push into Greece but find themselves overextended, soon have more serious problems closer to home and withdraw. Maybe they keep a reinvograted Troy as their outpost?

 

[robertp6165]

One intriguing scenario that is rarely considered is, what if the Assyrian Empire had focused more energy on the conquest of Anatolia, and as a result, has ended up in control of the region, by 700 BC. Assyria begins to meddle with the Greek city states of Ionia, who, as they did in OTL when oppressed by Persia, call on their mainland cousins for aid. King Sennacherib of Assyria is thus faced with the same problem faced by Kings Darius I and Xerxes of Persia...what to do with these troublesome Greeks?

The Assyrian army was at the height of it's power at this time, and Assyria is ruled by one of it's most capable rulers. Greece, on the other hand, is a set of small city states, still ruled by kings or oligarchies. Militarily, they are still in transition between the old tactics of the Dark Age period and the Classical phalanx.

What do you think Greece's chances are against the Assyrian juggernaut?

Here's a suggested timeline of the Assyrian conquest.

721 BC--King Shalmaneser V of Assyria is assassinated while besieging the Israelite capital at Samaria. One of his generals usurps the throne. He rules as King Sargon II. Sargon completes the successful siege of Samaria, destroys the city, and deports approximately 30,000 Israelites. The Kingdom of Israel is no more. Also in this year, Marduk-apal-iddina, a Chaldean Chieftain, in alliance with Elamite King Ummanigash, takes Babylon and establishes himself there as King.

720 BC--Sargon II moves against Elam, but is defeated at the Battle of Der. However, the victory is very costly to the Elamites, who will remain quiet for some time to come. Later that same year, he defeats a Syrian coalition at Qarqar, gaining control of Arpad, Simirra, and Damascus. He then moves against Palestine again, where an alliance with the Philistines and Egyptians is attacking King Ahaz of Judah, who is allied to Assyria. Sargon defeats the enemy coalition and destroys the Philistine cities of Gaza and Raphia. Assyrian rule is firmly established over all of Palestine. Also at about this time, the Cimmerians, an Indo-European tribe living in the region of the Crimea, are defeated by the Scythians and begin to migrate south through the Caucasus Mountains into Anatolia, where they attack the kingdom of Urartu. The Urartians, Assyria's most powerful enemy, will be sorely beset by these tribesmen for some time to come.

717 BC--Sargon II of Assyria takes Carchemish, the last major independent Hittite city, located on the upper Euphrates.

717-715 BC--Sargon II campaigns in Iran. Among the tribes he subjugates are the Medes and the Parsuash, ancestors of the Persians, who at the time lived near Lake Urmia.

715 BC--King Ahaz of Judah dies. His son, Hezekiah, is not content to be an Assyrian vassal, and begins scheming with the Egyptians and other surrounding states.

714 BC--The Cimmerians inflict a major defeat on the forces of Urartu, capturing and burning the city of Mushashir. King Sargon II of Assyria, taking advantage of the overthrow of Assyria's great enemy, invades Urartu. He decisively defeats the Urartian army at Lake Urmia, killing King Rusas I. Urartian power is completely broken, although the kingdom will survive until it is finally destroyed by the Scythians and Medes in 612 BC.

713-709 BC--In 713 BC, having learned of illicit aid by King Midas III of Phrygia given to King Rusas I of Urartu during the recent campaign, Sargon II leads the Assyrian army into Anatolia in the first of several yearly campaigns. During these campaigns he conquers the last of the independent Hittite cities, destroys Phrygia, as well as decisively defeating the Cimmerians, who had settled in the bend of the Halys River. King Midas III commits suicide as his capital city, Gordium, falls to the Assyrians in 709 BC. Thousands of Hittites, Phrygians, and Cimmerians are deported to Assyria, and thousands of other conquered peoples are transported to Anatolia. The Assyrians grant independence to the Phrygian vassal state of Lydia, whose king, Gyges, had allied himself with Assyria against his Phrygian overlord.

711 BC--A Palestinian coalition, consisting of the Philistine King of Ashdod, King Hezekiah of Judah, and the kings of Moab and Edom, rises in rebellion against Assyria. This coalition has the support of Shabaka, the Kushite Pharaoh of Egypt. An Assyrian army (commanded by one of his generals, as King Sargon himself is in Anatolia) defeats the coalition outside of Ashdod. The rebels surrender and once again swear allegiance to Assyria.

710 BC--With the conquest of Phrygia virtually complete, King Sargon II of Assyria returns to Assyria, where he begins planning a new campaign against his arch-enemies, Babylonia and Elam. One Assyrian army moves against Elamite King Shutruk-Nahunte II and another moves against King Marduk-apal-iddina of Babylon. Sargon lays siege to Babylon, which surrenders later that year. Marduk-apal-iddina flees the city, but is captured and executed. Sargon is proclaimed King of Babylonia. Meanwhile, his army also inflicts a major defeat on the Elamites, who sue for peace and will not threaten Assyria for many years. Also in this year, the city-states of Cyprus submit to Assyria, and Cyprus is incorporated into the Assyrian Empire.

705 BC--King Sargon II of Assyria is killed in battle with the Cimmerians, who had rebelled against Assyrian rule. His son, Sennacherib, takes the throne.

704 BC--The son of the Babylonian king who had been captured and executed by Sargon, siezes the throne of Babylon, where he rules as King Marduk-apal-iddina II.

703-702 BC--King Sennacherib of Assyria marches against Babylon and it's ally, the King of Elam, defeating them and capturing Marduk-apal-iddina of Babylon, who he has flayed alive. Sennacherib installs another Chaldean prince, Bel-Ibni, on the throne of Babylon. 208,000 Babylonians and Chaldeans are deported.

701 BC--King Hezekiah of Judah forms an alliance with Pharoah Shebitku of Egypt and the kings of various other Phoenician and Palestinian states. King Sennacherib of Assyria defeats the combined forces of the coalition at the Battle of Eltekeh in Syria. He then advances into Palestine, where he sacks several of the cities of Judah and places Jerusalem under siege. Fortunately for Hezekiah, he had foreseen this eventuality and had a 533 meter long tunnel dug through solid rock so as to give Jerusalem access to the Spring of Gihon, thus ensuring a safe water supply for the city. He then ordered the springs outside the city poisoned, so that the besieging Assyrians would have no water. Nevertheless, the Assyrians press the siege, and seeing impending doom, King Hezekiah offers Sennacherib a huge tribute of 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold. Sennacherib accepts Hezekiah's submission...and the tribute...and retires, leaving Hezekiah still on his throne.

699 BC--King Sennacherib of Assyria, suspecting King Hezekiah (probably rightly) of once again plotting with the Egyptians, invades Judah. Once again he sacks several Judahite cities and besieges Jerusalem. But a plague strikes his army, forcing him to abandon the siege. King Hezekiah celebrates the miracle, claiming it as the intervention of the Lord, but he clearly knows he has had a close call. He does not rise against Assyria again.

694-692 BC--King Gyges of Lydia begins raiding the Greek cities along the coast of Anatolia. The sorely pressed Greeks call on their mainland brethren for aid. King Eryxias of Athens, King Pheidon of Argos, and the aristocratic oligarchy ruling Corinth all respond to this request with troops and ships. They defeat the Lydians, and lay siege to the capital of King Gyges at Sardis. Gyges appeals to his Assyrian allies for aid, but King Sennacherib, heavily involved in a war against the Elamites and the Babylonians, sends his regrets, but no aid. Sardis falls in 692 BC, and Gyges flees to the court of Sennacherib.

694-689 BC--King Bel Ibni of Babylon, in alliance with the Elamites, declares the independence of Babylonia in 694 BC. King Sennacherib invades, and in
691 BC, defeats the Babylonians and Elamites at the Battle of Hallulina. The war goes on, however, and finally Sennacherib lays siege to Babylon itself, which he captures and destroys in 689 BC. Sennacherib deports thousands of Babylonians and carries god Marduk off to Assyria.

689 BC--Having finally dealt a crushing blow to the Elamites and destroyed Babylon, Assyria's southern frontier is secure, and Sennacherib can now spare a glance toward his Anatolian frontier, where Greek pirates are now raiding the cities on the coast and a Greek army controls Lydia, in a position to threaten the Assyrian provinces in Phrygia and Cilicia. On the pretext of restoring his ally, Gyges, to the throne of Lydia, King Sennacherib declares war on the Greeks.

688-682 BC--The Greek Campaigns: In 688 BC, having gathered a huge army and secured the services of a powerful fleet of Phoenician and Cypriot ships, King Sennacherib moves against the troublesome Greeks. He first advances into Lydia, where he defeats the Greek armies encamped there, and then he besieges and takes the Greek cities on the Ionian coast. Using these cities as a base, he then transports an army by sea to Athens. Landing on the plain of Marathon in 685 BC, he defeats the Athenian army and lays siege to the city, which falls by the end of the year. Sennacherib destroys the city and deports most of the population to Babylonia and Palestine. In the following years, he takes and destroys the cities of Thebes, Corinth, Argos, and Sparta, deporting large portions their populations as he did that of Athens. Forbidden to rebuild their homes, most of the remaining populations of the destroyed cities take ship to the west, where they settle in the budding cities of Magna Graecia (Sicily and southern Italy). The other Greek cities, seeing the Assyrian coming down on them "like the wolf on the fold," sue for peace and submit to Assyrian rule. Assyrian governors are installed, and the process of integrating the newly conquered territory into the Assyrian empire begins.

681 BC--While offering prayers of thanks for the recent victory over the Greeks to the god Ninurta in Nineveh, Sennacherib is assassinated by his sons, Adramelech and Sharezer. These two are soon forced to flee by their younger brother, who assumes the throne as King Esarhaddon.

 

[Historico]

Great Start, Robert... The most intriguing concept of this time is how the West will operate without the foundations of Greek Democracy and such.

1. Is it possible that we might see Assyria take an more naval approach, to the empire Military forces?

2. Do The Assyrian's move northward to sack wealthy proviences of Thrace, Dacia, Macedon of the Greek City States of the Bosphorus? What are some of the postive and negative consequences for the Assyrians to control that much Territory?

3. Is it probable that maybe an Assyran Successor State could emerge by the end of this century in Greece?

4.With an larger influx of Greeks into Itallia, do the Etruscans simply absorb more and more of the culture untill the two are unrecognizable apart? How Might Rome develop with and Stronger Magna Graceia to the South.

5. How much more focus will be put on Palestine with these more northern terrirtories? What would it take for Carthage to get involved in the Phoenician Homelan and possible wage war against the Assyrians.

6. Could The Kings of Kush find ready Allies in Carthage or Sheba perhaps to retain their control over egypt?

 

[robertp6165]

Great Start, Robert... The most intriguing concept of this time is how the West will operate without the foundations of Greek Democracy and such.

That is an interesting question. Of course, I think it is an error to say that democracy...or to be more accurate, republicanism, because that is what we really have in the modern sense...would not develop. The Roman Republic will likely still develop, as it developed in OTL without being influenced by Greek (i.e. Athenian) democracy. And later western "democracies" are really modeled on Rome, not on Athens. Where we would likely see great differences is in our outlook on the world, which is heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. In a Greece crushed beneath the boot of Assyria, the development of philosophy would be dramatically different. That is not to say it won't develop in some form. The cities of Magna Graecia will likely carry the flame, even if the mainland Greek cities cannot.

1. Is it possible that we might see Assyria take an more naval approach, to the empire Military forces?

Probably not. Events closer to home would soon draw their attention back.

2. Do The Assyrian's move northward to sack wealthy proviences of Thrace, Dacia, Macedon of the Greek City States of the Bosphorus?

Probably they take everything up to the Danube...i.e. Thrace and Macedon...and then stop, like the Persians did, as this gives them a defensible northern border. As for the Bosphorus, the Greek cities of that region did not as yet exist when the Assyrians invaded mainland Greece, or if they did, were very, very new and insignificant. They were definitely not the rich places they later became in OTL. So it is unlikely Assyria will be attracted there. This area might also get an infusion of manpower from Greeks fleeing the destruction of the mainland cities, along with Magna Graecia.

3. Is it probable that maybe an Assyran Successor State could emerge by the end of this century in Greece?

It's likely that Assyria will not be able to maintain control of the region for the entire century, especially when it become involved in Egypt later on. The Babylonians and Elamites are going to continue to be troublesome, there will be rebellions in Phoenicia and elsewhere, and Assyrian resources will be stretched.

4.With an larger influx of Greeks into Itallia, do the Etruscans simply absorb more and more of the culture untill the two are unrecognizable apart?

I don't think they absorb more Greek culture, as they pretty much soaked it up like a sponge in OTL anyway, but they definitely have a more difficult time in their wars with the Greeks in the upcoming centuries.

How Might Rome develop with and Stronger Magna Graceia to the South.

I am not really sure about that. There would likely be more Greek influence, especially if, as in OTL, Rome allies itself with the Greeks against the Etruscans early in it's history.

5. How much more focus will be put on Palestine with these more northern terrirtories?

Palestine is considered a very important region by the King of Assyria, because it is a crossroads of trade and thus very lucrative to own. The northern territories would be important too, resource and manpower-wise, but if push came to shove, I think Assyria would abandon them if it meant keeping Palestine.

What would it take for Carthage to get involved in the Phoenician Homeland and possible wage war against the Assyrians.

Not going to happen. Carthage at this point is still a relatively small and weak colony of Tyre. They do not have the military power to stand up to Assyria.

6. Could The Kings of Kush find ready Allies in Carthage or Sheba perhaps to retain their control over egypt?

The King of Kush might find an ally in Sheba, but it is not likely. In OTL the Kings of Sheba paid tribute to Assyria, because they didn't want Assyria to come down there and stomp on them. Carthage, as I said earlier, lacks the military power to be a viable ally of Egypt/Kush. I think the Kushites are still going to get kicked out of Egypt because they can't resist meddling in Palestine. And as I said above, Palestine is very, very important to the King of Assyria.

Here is a map of the region, as of the accession of Esarhaddon to the throne in 681 BC.

 

[Tom_B]

This is a very interesting TL too. I will reiterate my hypothesis that the Assyrians will withdraw from Greece as a classic overextension problem.

Cultural ramifications are very important in this TL.

1] If and when Assyria withdraws what will the people left in Greece be like. Is DeHellenization ireversible?

2] What is the culture of the Greek Diaspora? Can it preserve the Greek impulses or will it simply go native with a few colorful stories to tell?

3] Is philisophy stillborn? I would think at least the whole Socratic stream.

4] Moving beyond the Greeks conquest of the Phrygians might cause the bizarre Cybele Cult to spread earlier then OTL.

Tom

 

[robertp6165]

This is a very interesting TL too. I will reiterate my hypothesis that the Assyrians will withdraw from Greece as a classic overextension problem.

I agree that a long-term occupation is probably not realistic.

Cultural ramifications are very important in this TL.

1] If and when Assyria withdraws what will the people left in Greece be like. Is DeHellenization ireversible?

Interestingly, we are about to get into the reign of Esarhaddon, who was probably the most "enlightened" of Assyrian rulers. Unlike Sennacherib and others, he did not engage in widespread deportations, he rebuilt Babylon and respected the Babylonian culture and the cultures of other conquered peoples. He still brutally suppressed rebellion, but did not engage in the sort of atrocities that characterized earlier Assyrian rulers. Basically he was a ruler along the model that the later Achaemenid Persians adopted. So Greek culture might actually survive relatively intact.

2] What is the culture of the Greek Diaspora? Can it preserve the Greek impulses or will it simply go native with a few colorful stories to tell?

I think that it will follow closely the OTL, where in some places it remains mostly Greek (Sicily, Southern Italy), but in others it becomes mixed with local native cultures (Massilia, the Bosphorus cities, Cyrene...assuming these are still founded in this timeline). I think it likely that we might see a "New Athens," "New Corinth," and "New Sparta" founded somewhere in the western Mediterranean by the survivors of the Assyrian conquest, with the people there attempting to maintain some kind of continuity between their old lives and their new ones.

3] Is philisophy stillborn? I would think at least the whole Socratic stream.

I don't think it is stillborn, but it certainly is different. And definitely, there is no Socrates (although someone else might broach similar ideas).

4] Moving beyond the Greeks conquest of the Phrygians might cause the bizarre Cybele Cult to spread earlier then OTL.

That's possible, although the Assyrian model was more to impose the worship of Ashur on conquered peoples rather than to spread the worship of the deities of the conquered around the empire. Although large numbers of Phrygians were deported to other regions, they would, like the Lost Tribes of Israel, have been spread in small groups around the empire and not allowed to maintain any kind of community life which would preserve their own culture and traditions. So it is unlikely their religion would spread because of that.

 

[Historico]

That is an interesting question. Of course, I think it is an error to say that democracy...or to be more accurate, republicanism, because that is what we really have in the modern sense...would not develop. The Roman Republic will likely still develop, as it developed in OTL without being influenced by Greek (i.e. Athenian) democracy. And later western "democracies" are really modeled on Rome, not on Athens. Where we would likely see great differences is in our outlook on the world, which is heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. In a Greece crushed beneath the boot of Assyria, the development of philosophy would be dramatically different. That is not to say it won't develop in some form. The cities of Magna Graecia will likely carry the flame, even if the mainland Greek cities cannot.

I think it would remain interesting if democracy never does flourish at all in TTL. The Magna Gracean Tyrants remain an strong hold over their peoples. What we definatley could see is more unity of Greek Peoples with resentment toward Assyria, making them stornger in the first place. The Richer and Less Mountainous area of Italy would make an great place for the Greeks(especially this early in history) to take away their differences and unite.

Probably they take everything up to the Danube...i.e. Thrace and Macedon...and then stop, like the Persians did, as this gives them a defensible northern border. As for the Bosphorus, the Greek cities of that region did not as yet exist when the Assyrians invaded mainland Greece, or if they did, were very, very new and insignificant. They were definitely not the rich places they later became in OTL. So it is unlikely Assyria will be attracted there. This area might also get an infusion of manpower from Greeks fleeing the destruction of the mainland cities, along with Magna Graecia.

O'k.. but maybe the campains to the Danube might plundge Assyria into an massive Quagmire, and not be able to stop Kush's meddling in Palestinen affairs?

It's likely that Assyria will not be able to maintain control of the region for the entire century, especially when it become involved in Egypt later on. The Babylonians and Elamites are going to continue to be troublesome, there will be rebellions in Phoenicia and elsewhere, and Assyrian resources will be stretched.

Actually, after doing some Research I found that Esarhaddon had an son by the name of Shamash-shumi-ukin who was placed in charge of babylon in 669 BC. His brother let him have an lot of control over the city and appears it became an semi=seperate state under his reign. But What If Shamash-shumi-ukin, was put in chare of the Balkan Territory of the north and maintains an stronger flow of Assyrian culture to the newley assigned lands.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

On an interesting side note, medical science would probably suffer somewhat if Greece fell to the Assyrians. It was fairly advanced in most of the places the Assyrians conquered, but the Assyrians tossed all the local medical research in favor of chants, incantations, and superstition. Would modern medicine be slowed down somewhat, or even reduced to the point where the proper treatment for a broken arm is to chant until it stops hurting?

 

[Historico]

Robert, do plan on continuing this into an full fledged timeline?

 

[robertp6165]

Robert, do plan on continuing this into an full fledged timeline?

Probably in the future. But I don't want to get into ANOTHER timeline right at this moment, when I am actively working on FOUR of them already. Probably when the Hittites and the Tawantinsuya are laid to rest, I will consider taking this up and carrying it on.

 

[robertp6165]

On an interesting side note, medical science would probably suffer somewhat if Greece fell to the Assyrians. It was fairly advanced in most of the places the Assyrians conquered, but the Assyrians tossed all the local medical research in favor of chants, incantations, and superstition. Would modern medicine be slowed down somewhat, or even reduced to the point where the proper treatment for a broken arm is to chant until it stops hurting?

Actually, the sources I have read indicate quite the contrary. The Assyrians collected Babylonian and other medical texts in their libraries, for example...which is why we know anything of Babylonian medicine today. They certainly didn't "toss all the local medical research" in the regions they conquered. As for actual medical practice, Assyrian medicine was basically the same as Babylonian medicine and was quite advanced for it's day (at this time, probably only the Egyptians had more advanced medicine than the Babylonians). They actually had 2 kinds of "doctor." They had the "witch doctor," so to speak, who would come in and chant spells and prayers over the sick. And there was another doctor whose specialty was herbal medicine and who could also perform basic first aid (setting broken limbs) and even some primitive surgery. The two doctors worked together for the common good of the patient.

 

[Historico]

I think it would remain interesting if democracy never does flourish at all in TTL. The Magna Gracean Tyrants remain an strong hold over their peoples. What we definatley could see is more unity of Greek Peoples with resentment toward Assyria, making them stornger in the first place. The Richer and Less Mountainous area of Italy would make an great place for the Greeks(especially this early in history) to take away their differences and unite.

O'k.. but maybe the campains to the Danube might plundge Assyria into an massive Quagmire, and not be able to stop Kush's meddling in Palestinen affairs?



Actually, after doing some Research I found that Esarhaddon had an son by the name of Shamash-shumi-ukin who was placed in charge of babylon in 669 BC. His brother let him have an lot of control over the city and appears it became an semi=seperate state under his reign. But What If Shamash-shumi-ukin, was put in chare of the Balkan Territory of the north and maintains an stronger flow of Assyrian culture to the newley assigned lands.

 

[Historico]

I think it would remain interesting if democracy never does flourish at all in TTL. The Magna Gracean Tyrants remain an strong hold over their peoples. What we definatley could see is more unity of Greek Peoples with resentment toward Assyria, making them stornger in the first place. The Richer and Less Mountainous area of Italy would make an great place for the Greeks(especially this early in history) to take away their differences and unite.

O'k.. but maybe the campains to the Danube might plundge Assyria into an massive Quagmire, and not be able to stop Kush's meddling in Palestinen affairs?



Actually, after doing some Research I found that Esarhaddon had an son by the name of Shamash-shumi-ukin who was placed in charge of babylon in 669 BC. His brother let him have an lot of control over the city and appears it became an semi=seperate state under his reign. But What If Shamash-shumi-ukin, was put in chare of the Balkan Territory of the north and maintains an stronger flow of Assyrian culture to the newley assigned lands.

Hey Rob, U think U could answer these questions I came up with a while back...I think it may help u out with the tl

 

[Umbric Man]

Holy old topic revival, Batman!

 

[robertp6165]

Holy old topic revival, Batman!

LOL. Yes...but I had told Historico that I was planning to post a new installment of this in the near future. I had, at the time I originally wrote this, been working on no less than four major timelines at once, so I did not want to become deeply involved in another. I have put one of those to bed completely, and several others on hold, since then, so I thought I would take this up again.

 

[robertp6165]

I think it would remain interesting if democracy never does flourish at all in TTL. The Magna Gracean Tyrants remain an strong hold over their peoples.

That might be interesting, too. I will have to think about that.

What we definatley could see is more unity of Greek Peoples with resentment toward Assyria, making them stornger in the first place. The Richer and Less Mountainous area of Italy would make an great place for the Greeks(especially this early in history) to take away their differences and unite.

That's true as well, although in OTL, the cities of Magna Graecia never did unite, any more than their brethren in mainland Greece. I have to wonder if it was something more than just the divided geography of Greece which caused Greek political culture to develop this way.

O'k.. but maybe the campains to the Danube might plundge Assyria into an massive Quagmire, and not be able to stop Kush's meddling in Palestinen affairs?

I have been thinking a lot about that particular issue of late, having read a recent article in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC about the Kushite Pharaohs, which inspired me to delve more deeply into their history through additional research. Apparently the Kushites kicked Assyria's ass in several major battles before they were finally defeated, and the Assyrian conquest of Egypt was a much more near-run thing than I had earlier believed. So I think that in the ATL, the scenario you describe might be very possible.

Actually, after doing some Research I found that Esarhaddon had an son by the name of Shamash-shumi-ukin who was placed in charge of babylon in 669 BC. His brother let him have an lot of control over the city and appears it became an semi=seperate state under his reign. But What If Shamash-shumi-ukin, was put in chare of the Balkan Territory of the north and maintains an stronger flow of Assyrian culture to the newley assigned lands.

That's a possibility as well. I will have to consider that idea.

 

[Historico]

Thanks for the replies Rob, I just wanted tobring those questions back up since we recently found out that your planning on continuing the TL...I am really looking forward to the Installment and as always Keep it comming...

 

[V-J]

Christ on a bike. That was one hell of a hiatus!

 

[robertp6165]

Christ on a bike. That was one hell of a hiatus!

LOL. My readers know that I tend to do that. My BRITONS TRIUMPHANT timeline had lain dormant for a couple of years before I picked it back up, too.

But there is an old saying...Good things come to those who wait.

 

[V-J]

I am watching this, btw. I've always been rather partial to the Assyrians.