Text from 1911 Britannica[edit]

was a successful general who usurped the Assyrian throne on the 13th of Iyyar 745 B~C., after the fall of the older dynasty, and changed his name of Pulu (Pul) to that of the famous conqueroi~ of earlier times. In Babylonia, however, he continued to be known as Pulu. He was a man of great ability, both military and adniinistrative, and initiated a new system of policy in Assyria which he aimed at making the head of a centralized empire, bound together by a bureaucracy who derived their power from the king. The empire was supported by a standing army and an elaborate system of finance. The first task of Tiglath-Pileser was to reduce the Aramaean tribes to order, and so win the gratitude of the Baby- lonian priests. Then he struck terror into the wild tribes on the eastern frontiers of the ki~gdom by a campa~gn which ex tended into the remotest parts of Media. Next came the defeat of a northern coalition headed by Sar-duris of Ararat, no fCwer than 72,950 of the enemy being captured along with the city of Arpad, where the Assyrian king received the homage of various Syrian princes. Arpad revolted soon afterwards, but after a siege was taken in 740 B.c. The following year Azari~h of Judah appears among the enemies of Tiglath-Pileser, who had overthrown his Hamathite allies and annexed the nineteen districts of Hamath. The conquered populations were now transported to distant parts of theempire. In 737 B.c. Tiglath-Pileser again marched into Media, and in 735 he invaded Ararat and -wasted the country round the capital Van to a distance of 450 miles. In 734 n.e. he was called to the help of Yahu-khazi (Ahaz) of Judah, who had been attacked by Pekah of Israel and Rezon (Rasun) of Damascus. Rezon, defeated in battle, fled to his capital which was at once invested by the Assyrians, while with another portion of his army Tiglath-Pileser ravaged Syria and overran the kingdom of Samaria. Ammon, Moab, Edom and the queen of Sheba sent tribute, and Teima in northern Arabia was captured by the Assyrian troops. In 732 B.C. Damascus fell; Rezon was put to death, and an Assyrian satrap appointed in his stead. Tyre also was made tributary. The next year Tiglath-Pileser entered Babylonia, but it was not until 729 B.c. that the Cha]daean prince Ukin-zer (Chinzirus) was driven from Babylon and Tiglath-Pileser acknowledged as its legitimate ruler. In the early part of Tebet 727 B.C. he died, after having built two palaces, one at Nineveh, the other at Calah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs)

Thanks, but please note that the 1911 Britannica is nearly a century out of date! -- ChrisO 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Map[edit]

The map shows areas in green supposedly conquered by Tiglath-Pileser; it includes Juda as well as the area up to the Persian Gulf. Is this correct? I thought, Juda was never actually conquered by the Assyrians, but only later by the Babylonians. --Proofreader (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there is actually another map available, showing the detail you mentioned, that Judah was spared from being incorporated into the Assyrian Empire (compare below). --HYC (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is true, Juda was never officially conquered by the Assyrians. I'll change the map to the appropriate one. Thanks for bringing this up, Proofreader. --Šarukinu (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does "officially" mean in this context? What citation is there for this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.197.251 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon reviewing this map, I just noticed that it doesn't exactly deal with the time of Tiglath-Pileser III. We need a map that is more specific to his reign. Let us leave the map that is there for now, and we'll substitute it with a more appropriate candidate once it is found. --Šarukinu (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to provide a very important update on the captivity of Judah with regard to these comments above. You are all wrong, most of Judah WAS taken captive by Assyria and ONLY Jerusalem itself was spared. However, this captivity was NOT under Tiglath-Pileser, but rather a different Assyrian king (king Sennacherib). This is outlined clearly in the Hebrew Bible if you read 2 Kings 18:13 "Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." These verses go on to explain that only Jerusalem itself could not be defeated. Therefore the 10 tribes of Israel in the north, as well as MOST of the tribe of Judah in the region of Judea in the south (excluding Jerusalem, the capital) was taken by Assyria. Jerusalem itself was taken some time later by Babylon.--105.237.247.201 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistent name[edit]

The person whom this article is about should be referred to by a consistent name. Or, if he changed his name at some point, this should be explained.

At present, the fourth paragraph in this article tells the history of someone named "Pulu", but there is no indication who this person is. I'm guessing it's an alternate name for Tiglath-Pileser?

The sixth paragraph indicates that Tiglath-Pileser assumed the name Pulu when he was crowned king. This contradicts the fourth paragraph, which discusses a person who was already named Pulu before he seized the throne.

I don't want to try to fix it myself because I don't know what the actual story is. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First standing army?[edit]

The article tells us that he created the first professional standing army in history. Yet on the wiki page about standing armies, where there is a short history of them, the Assyrians are not even mentioned. It tells us the first one was in Sumer in the 3rd millennium BC, then jumps right to the Ottomans. One of the two articles needs amending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.79.41 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sumer was probably the first. I've amended this one and sourced it. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiglath-Pileser III. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hebrew Template[edit]

Any idea why the lang-he-n template is forcing a line break in the middle of the lead? Furius (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiglath-Pileser III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'll pick this one up. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Yes; I mentioned in the edit summary that much of this was written in my userspace before the other reviews so that's why it was like this again. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well whad'ya know :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I know. I wanted to vary the types of images a bit (they are a bit more dynamic than the maps and reliefs) and noticed that similar much much later artwork is used in articles such as Alexander the Great and Cleopatra. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I'll push for FA at some point but done in any case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done; also added a part of the title that was missing from Garelli. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not an unreliable source since Karen Radner is a quite respected Assyriologist, but yes if I push for FA I'll find a higher quality source to supplant it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far addressed all the comments up until this point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Thank you very much for reading through this and reviewing. I believe I've addressed all the comments above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories