IV. A Curious Case: The Kassites

Could Babylonia during the rule of the Kassites be classified as a case of ascension in revisionism? In 1595 the army of King Mursili I of Hatti invaded and sacked the territory of Babylonia, “[…] the ancient political structures vanished and much of the population of Babylonia no longer lived in cities.”[1] In such a situation of total crisis, a political unit formed out of people different from the Babylonians —the Kassites— overthrown the last Babylonian king –Samsu-ditana— and became the dominant political unit of the political system of Babylonia.

The arrival of the Kassite dynasty was possible only because and within the context of the Hittite invasion of Babylonia. As it is argued in the theory of the ascension in revisionism, in the first place, an external stimulus disrupted the order present in the Babylonian political system; in the second place, such an event resulted in the rise of internal challengers who sought to eliminate the prevailing political unit and to become dominant. The weakness of the Babylonian dynasty opened the opportunity for its rivals to defy it and finally establish a Kassite dynastic rule. Following these events, the theory of revisionist ascension fully fits the case; however, a factor is different from what the theory argues: The Hittites invaded but did not stay; almost immediately, they left.

The invasion of Hatti set a favorable environment for rivals to overthrow the ruling political unit; nevertheless, the fact that the Hittites just caused a disruption and that such a stimulus —despite being decisive— was not continuous but just ephemeral affected the result of this case. In order to arise in revisionism, it is fundamental to, once having achieved dominance of the internal political system, have the necessity to stop the disruptive stimulus received from the international system. The ascension has to be driven by the need to change the power relation taking place in the interstate system which leaves the dominant political unit of the internal system in a situation of risk to be overthrown by its rivals. Thus, when the Kassites took over the Babylonian state, the disruptive stimulus had already disappeared. The new dominant political unit did not need to arise nor to revisit its relation with Hatti because the Hittites had already left.

Once in power, the Kassite dynasty sought to restore the former Babylonian empire within its former limits. The Kassites limited themselves to recover what they had inherited and to reestablish political order in the territory; their campaigns rather than being expansionist in character can be classified as expeditions to return the rivals of the Babylonian state —arisen after the Hittite invasion— to their former state of subjection.

The Kassites did not arise; they just recovered the damaged empire they have acquired. The relevance of this case is that it might look like an example of ascension in revisionism but, if analyzed in more detail, it is clear that the circumstances which trigger such an ascension did not take place in this case and, thus, Kassite Babylonia did not arise in revisionism. However, this historical case does not refute the argument of the theory of this essay; it reinforces it. The Babylonian case highlights the fundamental factor of the ascension in revisionism which is the presence of an external disruptive stimulus. When such an element is not present there is no need to revisit and the ascension does not take place. Kassite Babylonia is a case of restoring an inherited empire, not of revisionism.