Well, I just plain have to read the article now.
I've never before encountered anyone who made the bold attempt to lump together the Assyrians, Neo-Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Parthians, and Akkadians all into one grand empire under the Urartu umbrella. I'm surprised he didn't try to include the Medes, the Canaanites, and the Egyptians into it for good measure.
It's as if the author has no concept of the differences between them or the fact that Urartu, while definitively in the region he states, was but a small and relatively backwards part of the area without much widespread influence - kind of like making the bold claim that Appalachia IS America, and controls the whole shebang, or that Wales IS the UK, and runs the entire show there...
But yeah, I gotta read it now, just to see what he's on about.
.
I've never before encountered anyone who made the bold attempt to lump together the Assyrians, Neo-Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Parthians, and Akkadians all into one grand empire under the Urartu umbrella. I'm surprised he didn't try to include the Medes, the Canaanites, and the Egyptians into it for good measure.
It's as if the author has no concept of the differences between them or the fact that Urartu, while definitively in the region he states, was but a small and relatively backwards part of the area without much widespread influence - kind of like making the bold claim that Appalachia IS America, and controls the whole shebang, or that Wales IS the UK, and runs the entire show there...
But yeah, I gotta read it now, just to see what he's on about.
.