Author Topic: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian  (Read 6165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ASHOOR

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 30203
  • Gender: Male
  • www.AssyrianVoice.net
    • Assyrian Voice
Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« on: October 16, 2014, 10:48:59 AM »
Some people make the mistake of calling chaldeans 'Babylonians' . While that is not completely inaccurate, there is an important and easy distinction between the two.

Babylon was an Akkadian city and later city-state, which came to be ruled by various groups and nations, including the Assyrians.

Chaldeans (or Kaldeans to some) also ruled it for just around one century (around 629 - 539 BC) . That is not to say they weren't there before. They were there as far back as 10th century BC, having migrated from the Levant as tribes (Syria today).

But Babylon doesn't necessarily mean 'chaldean' . The city came to be ruled by more than one nation and group, including Assyrians. In fact, I have seen Assyrians themselves refer to themselves as being 'Assyrian-Babylonian' , and while that is not inaccurate, it doesn't give the full picture. If a chaldean is going to call himself Babylonian, a place he ruled briefly for just under one century, then Assyrians who ruled Babylon for longer (overall) can probably claim the same thing as well (if we temporarily ignore the fact that we are essentially one nation ) .

Assyrians had Babylon under their rule for close to 300 years (Neo-Assyrian empire) , interrupted by various revolts here and there. In other words, Assyrians ruled Babylon for much longer, and way before the chaldean tribes.That being the case, Assyrians then can easily refer to themselves as 'Babylonians' but that would be a bit inaccurate like I already stated.

Finally, it is also important to note that there is no such thing as a true chaldean empire, as much as some are tempted to say that word. You can call it a 'chaldean dynasty' (lasting about 100 years) but that is about it. You can't call a group of tribes (chaldeans)-whose name meant 'astronomers'-an empire or associate them with a city-state (Babylon) which came to be ruled by the Amorites, Akkadians etc., as far back as 2000 BC (old Babylonian period) . But there is something called 'Babylonian Empire' , just like the 'Assyrian Empire' , both ruling and lasting for over 1,000 years. Kings in the Old-Babylonian empire never referred to themselves as 'chaldeans' , well, because they weren't! The term chaldean only came around much later and dominated the city of Babylon for 100 years. And as already mentioned, these Chaldean tribes came from the west (Syria) so it is not like they were there already.

While chaldean may mean Babylonian (at least for 100 years) , the reverse is not necessarily true, since other empires came to rule the city, including the Amorites, Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks etc.

The term 'Babylon' or 'Babylonian' is much more broad and covers well over one millinium of important contributions and dominance in the ancient world, compared to 'chaldean' which was like a drop in the sea compared to the dominance of Babylon as a city and city-state.




ASHOOR
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 08:50:35 AM by ASHOOR »


-Like Assyrian Voice? Want to post here? then join us NOW!

-Booking a hotel anytime soon? Assyrian Voice has an affiliate with Hotels.com : please book through the link below and AssyrianVoice gets a commission from each booking: http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-2932820-10443216-1426796392000

Offline Asshur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Gender: Male
Re: Imortant distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2014, 12:28:17 PM »
Some people make the mistake of calling chaldeans 'Babylonians' . While that is not completely wrong, there is an important and easy distinction between the two.

Babylon was an Akkadian city and later city-state, which came to be ruled by various groups and nations, including the Assyrians.

Chaldeans also ruled it for just around one century (Around 629 - 539 BC) . That is not to say they weren't there before. They were there as far back as 10th century BC, having migrated from the Levant as tribes (Syria today).

But Babylon doesn't necessarily mean 'chaldean' . The city came to be ruled by more than one nation and group, including Assyrians. In fact, I have seen Assyrians themselves refer to themselves as being 'Assyrian-Babylonian' , and while that is a bit accurate, it doesn't give the full picture. If a chaldean is going to call himself Babylonian, a place he ruled briefly for just under one century, then Assyrians who ruled Babylon for longer (overall) can probably claim the same thing as well (if we temporarily ignore the fact that we are essentially one nation ) .

Assyrians had Babylon under their rule for close to 300 years (Neo-Assyrian empire) , interrupted by various revolts here and there. In other words, Assyrians ruled Babylon for much longer, and way before the chaldean tribes.That being the case, Assyrians then can easily refer to themselves as 'Babylonians' but that would be a bit inaccurate like I already stated.

Finally, it is also important to note that there is no such thing as a true chaldean empire, as much as some are tempted to say that word. You can call it a 'chaldean dynasty' (lasting about 100 years) but that is about it. You can't call a group of tribes (chaldeans), whose name meant 'astronomers' as an empire or associate them with a city-state (Babylon) which came to be ruled by the Amorites, Akkadians etc., as far back as 2000 BC (old Babylonian period) . But there is something called 'Babylonian Empire' , just like the 'Assyrian Empire' , both ruling and lasting for over 1,000 years. Kings in the Old-Babylonian empire never referred to themselves as 'chaldeans' , well, because they weren't! The term chaldean only came around much later and dominated the city of babylon for 100 years. And as already mentioned, these Chaldean tribes came from the west (Syria) so it is not like they were there already.

While chaldean may mean Babylonian (at least for 100 years) , the reverse is not necessarily true, since other empires came to rule the city, including the Amorites, Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks etc.


ASHOOR
Powerfull man, thank you for the info again, this blew my mind I never knew it was like this... :mfr_lol:
I am Ashurbanipal, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters of the world; offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad; grandson of Sennacherib, king of the universe, king of Assyria.

Offline toronto-girl

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: Imortant distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2014, 02:22:38 PM »
so nice to know this, thanks Ashoor!
will make sure to show it to my family and friends (they call themself chaldean) :P


Assyrian Voice Forum

Re: Imortant distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2014, 02:22:38 PM »

Offline Assyrian Nationalist

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2982
  • Gender: Male
  • hurr durr
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2014, 04:30:36 PM »
The picture is so bootiful <3

Offline Asshur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Gender: Male
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2014, 09:51:45 PM »
I am confused right now, are Babylonians ****ign Amorites or akkadians like us Assyrians?
I am Ashurbanipal, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters of the world; offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad; grandson of Sennacherib, king of the universe, king of Assyria.

Offline AshurayaPlasha

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 398
  • Gender: Male
  • Iraqi Assyria
    • NPDF
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2014, 10:11:11 PM »
Babylonian State descended from the Akkadian Empire (Same as Assyria)

There were Amorites living in Babylonia, and Hammurabi, who was part of the Amorite minority in Babylon, took kingship of Babylonia.
https://ninevehplaindefensefund.org/support-now/ - Support the Assyrian NPU

Even after the fall of Nineveh (612BC) The Assyrians lived under their own law, they had their own autonomy under the different names such as Athura, Adiabene and Asuristan. It lasted till the 7th century AD.

Sennacherib II(2), was an Assyrian Governor or 'king' of northern Asuristan in 372 AD.

Offline Asshur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Gender: Male
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2014, 01:29:10 PM »
Babylonian State descended from the Akkadian Empire (Same as Assyria)

There were Amorites living in Babylonia, and Hammurabi, who was part of the Amorite minority in Babylon, took kingship of Babylonia.
kinda found out about Hammurabi the day I posted this comment, which is really sad , I thought for a long time he was an Akkadian babylonian
I am Ashurbanipal, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters of the world; offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad; grandson of Sennacherib, king of the universe, king of Assyria.

Offline ASHOOR

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 30203
  • Gender: Male
  • www.AssyrianVoice.net
    • Assyrian Voice
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2014, 02:09:29 PM »
I am confused right now, are Babylonians ****ign Amorites or akkadians like us Assyrians?

AshurayaPalasha summed it up best, but the important distinction is that the ancient chaldeans weren't always in Babylon. They were tribes (more specifically associated with astronomy) who migrated to Babylon from Syria and made a name for themselves there. Their significant was for one century, when they ruled Babylon, and that was about it. Not much significance before and certainly nothing after.

Babylon and Babylonians on the other hand is a different story. They are Akkadians like the Assyrians and are close cousins with them. 

You have some misguided Kaldeans today who speak of the greatness of the ancient chaldeans and even dare to say "they had a better empire than the Assyrians" LOL!!!!

First of all, Chaldeans were never an empire. They did rule over the Babylonian empire but weren't an empire themselves. You can call them a dynasty but not an empire. Not even close. Furthermore, Assyria was an empire that lasted for over a millinia, dominating the region for close to 500 years or so. How can you even compare that to a chaldean dynasty that ruled for about 100 years and even that was with the help of the Medes (Persians)

Again, how can you compare the Assyrian empire, spanning well over 1000 years, with a group of tribes that migrated from the west and ruled Babylon for some 100 years?

And we all know that today's chaldeans have nothing to do with the chaldeans that ruled Babylon for 100 years ago, in 540 BC or so. Today's chaldeans are Assyrians who were convinced by the Vatican to become catholics and give them this new name 'chaldeans' to distinguish them from their origin 'Assyrians'



ASHOOR
-Like Assyrian Voice? Want to post here? then join us NOW!

-Booking a hotel anytime soon? Assyrian Voice has an affiliate with Hotels.com : please book through the link below and AssyrianVoice gets a commission from each booking: http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-2932820-10443216-1426796392000

Offline Shahin

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 318
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2014, 04:35:49 PM »
(You can add forced to convert (for a large number!) to Catholicism  (source : The remains of Nineveh, Sir Austen Henry Layard.))

Not to mention that, during the Chaldean dynasty, there was a revival of the Old-Babylonian language (Standard Akkadian, and even Sumerian) and Babylonian/Mesopotamian culture, their literature became standardized and there classics were rewritten.
They were already well Akkadianized and absorbed into the Babylonian society/culture. They just gave their name a dynasty.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 04:39:44 PM by Shahin »
ܚܢܢ ܟܠܢ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܡܢ ܐܫܘܪ
We are all Assyrians !

Offline Asshur

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Gender: Male
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2014, 03:56:17 AM »
AshurayaPalasha summed it up best, but the important distinction is that the ancient chaldeans weren't always in Babylon. They were tribes (more specifically associated with astronomy) who migrated to Babylon from Syria and made a name for themselves there. Their significant was for one century, when they ruled Babylon, and that was about it. Not much significance before and certainly nothing after.

Babylon and Babylonians on the other hand is a different story. They are Akkadians like the Assyrians and are close cousins with them. 

You have some misguided Kaldeans today who speak of the greatness of the ancient chaldeans and even dare to say "they had a better empire than the Assyrians" LOL!!!!

First of all, Chaldeans were never an empire. They did rule over the Babylonian empire but weren't an empire themselves. You can call them a dynasty but not an empire. Not even close. Furthermore, Assyria was an empire that lasted for over a millinia, dominating the region for close to 500 years or so. How can you even compare that to a chaldean dynasty that ruled for about 100 years and even that was with the help of the Medes (Persians)

Again, how can you compare the Assyrian empire, spanning well over 1000 years, with a group of tribes that migrated from the west and ruled Babylon for some 100 years?

And we all know that today's chaldeans have nothing to do with the chaldeans that ruled Babylon for 100 years ago, in 540 BC or so. Today's chaldeans are Assyrians who were convinced by the Vatican to become catholics and give them this new name 'chaldeans' to distinguish them from their origin 'Assyrians'



ASHOOR
Yes thanks for explaining that once again, but as far as I am concerned , Assyrians and Babylonians are the Akkadian population who migrated from the southern part of Mesopotamia after the Akkadian empire fell, to the northen part of it which was later known as Babel and Assur   :loool:
I am Ashurbanipal, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters of the world; offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad; grandson of Sennacherib, king of the universe, king of Assyria.

Offline Cascade

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
  • Many waters cannot quench love.
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2016, 02:53:13 AM »
Chaldeans are no more Babylonians than we are. And they also have nothing to do with Chaldea - Not sure why they adopted that name. It seemed very random and out of the blue.
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin

Offline Neta1991

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 356
  • Gender: Male
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2016, 08:25:44 PM »
Amorites were the old babylonians and Chaldeans the new babylonians. I study history on university.

Offline Assyrian Nationalist

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2982
  • Gender: Male
  • hurr durr
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2016, 12:50:23 AM »
That picture makes me want to go back in time.  :yeah:

Offline Cascade

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
  • Many waters cannot quench love.
Re: Important distinction: Chaldean vs. Babylonian
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2017, 04:05:40 AM »
Amorites were the old babylonians and Chaldeans the new babylonians. I study history on university.
Chaldeans are NOT Babylonians. Nature actually disagrees with that.

Look at how fair-skinned and blonde some Chaldeans can be. Babel is situated in a hot desert with scorching summers and mild winters. It's impossible to look like Janan Sawa if you originate there (how many Chaldeans seem to look). You would look like Osama Bin Laden if you're native in the southern parts of Iraq.

Chaldeans, like Assyrians, originate in Northern Iraq, where winters are cool and cloudy, allowing them to be fairer than the Arab.
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin

 

What is the difference between Babylonian and Chaldean?

Started by Assyrian NationalistBoard Serious Topics and Discussions

Replies: 2
Views: 611
Last post November 02, 2014, 12:37:15 PM
by ASHOOR
a song i posted on chaldean chat loool

Started by J-ROKBoard Chit Chat

Replies: 7
Views: 1161
Last post January 02, 2006, 01:07:41 PM
by Assyrian G Fo Lyfe
Important: level headed people read this...

Started by sydneydudeBoard Culture & History

Replies: 19
Views: 2485
Last post January 09, 2006, 04:46:30 AM
by RadRides
CHICAGO - DEMOSTRATION - IMPORTANT! - STICKY!

Started by rumrumBoard Chit Chat

Replies: 7
Views: 785
Last post February 22, 2006, 11:35:28 AM
by Sweet19Life
Very Important Message: Please read...

Started by Sheik Abdul Bin FallafelBoard Chit Chat

Replies: 17
Views: 1397
Last post October 26, 2005, 10:00:27 PM
by L33tKevin