The Israelis say that the "God of the Old Testament" promised the land to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (not through the lineage of Esau, Jacob's brother-the Assyrians etc..) The Assyrians and Chaldeans wanted to get power so they can rule over the Israelites.
The Israelites themselves asserted that the land belonged to whoever could conquer it. On the basis of exactly the same rule of force, the Assyrians and Chaldean's wanted the land to belong to them.
The Assyrians and Chaldeans wanted to get power so they can rule over the Israelites.
How did the Assyrians and Chaldeans maintain control of their lands.
hi
The Assyrians and Chaldeans wanted to get power so they can rule over the Israelites.
The Assyrians and Chaldeans wanted to get power so they can rule over the Israelites.
The Assyrians and Chaldeans wanted to get power so they can rule over the Israelites.
How did the Assyrians and Chaldeans maintain control of their lands.
How did the Assyrians and Chaldeans maintain control of their lands.
the Assyrians and the Chaldeans
the Chaldeans.
the Chaldeans.
the Assyrians and the Chaldeans
The Chaldeans adopted the Assyrian system of control of conquered peoples, of exchanging aristocraices between different areas, so the ruling aristocracy was unsympathetic to the locals and would not tolerate uprisings. The Assyrians had previously exported the aristocracy of the 10 northern tribes of Israel to Assyria and brought in a new one from there to rule them. Now the same thing happened to the upper classes of Judah and Benjamin in the south - sent by the Chaldeans to rule around Babylon, with a new foreign ruling class moved in to replace them.
They could and they perceived that doing this was their gods' wills that they expand in every direction.Historically, there was the "Right to Conquest" which was a pervasive idea in political thought. The idea was that it was natural for any country or state to grow and control more territory as it grew stronger. This allowed weaker states to dissolve in place of ones that were better run, a bureaucratic version of "survival of the fittest". The "Right to Conquest" prevailed as the dominant theory of nation-building until the mid-1800s when people started bringing up the concept of self-sovereignty and ethnic nationalism, which held the idea that people should govern themselves even if they are not the most powerful in the world. This view of state sovereignty has become dominant today and the Right to Conquest is seen as incorrect.Since the Assyrians and Chaldeans existed well within the Right to Conquest Period, their kings did not have to assert a reason to conquer neighboring territories in Southwest Asia. It was their natural prerogative. That the Israelites happened to be in their crosshairs is a matter of circumstance and the Assyrians and Chaldeans had no particular enmity for the Israelites when compared to other Southwest Asian peoples.
The Chaldeans adopted the Assyrian system of control of conquered peoples, of exchanging aristocraices between different areas, so the ruling aristocracy was unsympathetic to the locals and would not tolerate uprisings. The Assyrians had previously exported the aristocracy of the 10 northern tribes of Israel to Assyria and brought in a new one from there to rule them. Now the same thing happened to the upper classes of Judah and Benjamin in the south - sent by the Chaldeans to rule around Babylon, with a new foreign ruling class moved in to replace them.