Page 0276


seers. In later times, however, as appears from the distribution of the forces in the army

of Xerxes, the horsemen of Babylonia were less esteemed than the infantry.

The Babylonian infantry was a vast mass of half-disciplined soldiers, made up of natives,

provincials, and foreigners. They were irregular, both in movement and weaponry. Each of

the subject nations sent its own contingent of troops, armed and equipped according to the

manner of the respective countries. It was a courageous host, having an almost fatalistic

contempt of death, inspired by the hope of booty and fired with the lust of conquest. In

marching, the army spread itself over the invaded country, destroying every thing within

reach. The populace was driven before them into the towns. These were besieged and taken

with every accompaniment of violence and barbarity. If the walls were weak, they were soon

leveled with battering-rams. If the ramparts resisted such assault, then mounds of earth

were heaped outside until the fortifications were overtopped, and the infuriated soldiery

poured in to their repast of blood and plunder. Sometimes, when the walls were high and

strong and ably defended, years were consumed in the siege, the vengeance of the besiegers

gathering head to burst with the excess of long-restrained rage upon the fated city. Woe

to the rebellious, and a double woe to them that resisted.

The campaigns of the Babylonians were waged without much regard to political expediency.

The object had in view was rarely, if ever, the national development of the Empire.

Passion was the mainspring of war. When that failed, the priests were called in with their

hocus-pocus to decide what nation should next be invaded In the progress and management of

the invasion the priests were as much relied on as the generals to give direction to the

movements and to explain the failures and successes of the army. The wars, indeed, were

regarded as the avenging bolts of the Babylonian gods, buried against the impudent deities

of other lands. Meanwhile, if a royal indigestion precipitated a bad dream, or if the king

was from any

cause troubled in his cogitations, all must be interpreted and made clear by the clever

gentlemen who wore the robes of the altar. The only compensation to this mutual

superstition was that if the priests failed to satisfy the king's spirit with their

rendering of his troubles, or if they gave advice ending in disaster which could not be

explained away, their gods were rarely able to save them from their master's wrath.

Looking more closely at the priestly profession, not merely in their relations to military

management, but more particularly as to their regular duties in the temples, we find them

as were the priests of Egypt, the possessors of a certain body of learning and traditions.

They had rules and precedents, dogmas and ceremonials. They had methods of purification,

and laws for conducting the sacrifices. They had principles of interpretation, and a canon

of criticism relating to portents and omens. Their wisdom was in high repute. From king to

peasant no one might question the infallibility of their oracles.

It is not certainly known to what extent there was in Babylon a guild of secular scholars

distinct from the priests. There are some reasons for believing that such a class of

persons existed; and the condition of Babylonian learning-a mixture, as we have seen, of

tolerably exact science with gross superstition-seems to warrant the supposition of a

secular as well as a hierarchical brain at work in the problem. The language of

contemporaneous Western writers also, notably the expressions of the prophet Daniel,

indicate quite clearly the existence of several classes of wise men in Nebuchadnezzar's

capital. Some are called simply Chaldasans; some, soothsayers; some, magicians; some,

astrologers. Nor does the language indicate that these are merely different names for the

same group of persons. It could not even be inferred from the recital of Daniel that any

of the classes referred to were priests. Indeed, it would seem clear from the presidency

of Daniel (himself a Hebrew and not a priest) over the Babylonian college that a powerful

non-priestly element existed in the learned body of the city. In all such questions,