I am a history nerd. Much of my pleasure reading is of ancient history, some of it in quite academic works. Last night I read a new article by Prof. Kazuko Watanabe, one of the finest interpreters of Neo-Assyrian cuneiform tablets. The article attempts to translate and explain an important document for which multiple fragmented copies of the clay tablets have been found in three Assyrian cities. The document was apparently widely disseminated and there may be more copies eventually discovered in additional locations.

What is important here is that Watanabe clearly states in two sentences something that I’ve seen more obliquely mentioned by others in academic articles.

1) Assyrian kings had exclusive access to many women and produced a great many children. I’ve seen references to 100+ children. In order to reduce in-fighting and competition to become the next king, a number of the sons of the king were castrated so that they could continue on in various administrative tasks within the kingdom without being possible claimants to the throne. I’ve seen brief reference to the treasurer during one reign as a nephew of the king and the head of the royal bodyguards during another as a cousin of the king. Both of those positions were held exclusively by eunuchs and it was implied, though not clearly stated that those two individuals were, despite being members of the royal family.

2) Watanabe states that the eunuch entourage surrounding the king might include some of his brothers.

+++++++

To become a eunuch might be supposed to have guaranteed a life as an official or courtier for a large number of the sons of the Neo-Assyrian kings. It is also possible to assume that Urdu-Mullissi, as a crown prince, had his eunuch(s), regardless of whether or not they were his brothers. (p.242)

_______

Watanabe, Kazuko. (2019). Aššurbanipal and His Brothers Considered from the References in Esarhaddon’s Succession Oath Documents. Orient, Supplement I, 237-257.

What an interesting trade-off, I wonder who decided which offspring would serve in which roles? Thank you for posting.

I have just come across an old article by Laura Betzig, an anthropologist who has written quite a bit about human reproductive variance. In this article she pulls together some relevant information.

According to her research, the Mesopotamian kings, from early through the Assyrians and Persians, produced an average of over 100 children each. For example, King Artaxerxes II (reigned 404–358 BCE) is recorded as having 118 sons who survived to adulthood. His successor, Artaxerxes III, killed all of his uncastrated brothers upon his succession to the throne.

If left intact, 100+ children could mean over 50 sons competing for the throne. It would make sense for the Assyrians to castrate a majority of the king’s sons to reduce the potential for warfare at the time of succession. It would seem logical for the crown prince’s entourage of eunuchs to include some of his brothers.

Urdu-Mullissi, who’s referenced in Post #1, was a son of Sennacherib (reigned 705-681 BCE). He was defeated in the war of succession by his younger brother Esarhaddon (reigned 681–669). Urdu-Mullissi was aided in his war to gain the throne by his eunuch younger brother Nabu-shar-usur, who had served as governor of Marqasi. Esarhaddon, on his victory, killed all of his surviving brothers and their families who had not fled the kingdom.

Betzig points out that Ashoka, the 3rd Mauryan Emperor (reigned c. 268–232 BCE) is noted in Indian records as having killed 100 of his brothers in the internecine war of succession. The Hindu emperors of India also produced an average of over 100 sons each, although they did not castrate the surplus boys, leaving them to war for the throne.

_______

Betzig, Laura. 2012. Means, variances, and ranges in reproductive success: comparative evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 33, pp. 309–317.

Very interesting history that you never hear mentioned. You wonder if the brothers were offered the choice of castration or death. Most men would choose castration when facing death.

But eunuch brothers helping intact brothers gain thrones, tells you that castration did not always stop ambitions for power. Maybe once men reached adulthood, castration was thought to be too late to change their ambitions and remove their future desires for revenge if they were forcibly castrated as grown men ?

I’m in the midst of a major project, so a very quick response (without checking for references or footnotes).

From all the historians specializing in Persian and Assyrian history, court eunuchs seem to have all been castrated before puberty. A boy of 10 or 11 (or younger) would not really have the choice of castration or death. There is also some evidence of castration at an even earlier age. There are a number of different words in Assyrian for ‘castration.’ One of them is derived from the verb for ‘to crush.’ It’s assumed by historians that the testicles of infants or very young children were crushed until the body reabsorbed them.

Boys sent from subject peoples or captured in warfare would, of course, have been older than infants and would have been surgically castrated. Evidence is that boys at or before puberty would have been sent. One historian (I can’t immediately remember who) wrote that the inner court would include as residents, boys who had been sent to serve the king, but who were still awaiting castration.

From a later period, when we have better sources, Paulus Aegineta (7th century Byzantium) in his compendium of medicine described castration both surgically and by crushing the testicles. He much preferred the surgery as more effective.

Philetaerus, the founder of the Attalid Dynasty (282-129 BCE) that ruled Pergamon was a eunuch whose testicles were destroyed by crushing (supposedly by his nursemaid). He was succeeded as king by his nephew. One of the prominent eunuchs of the Byzantine Empire (I can’t immediately remember which of the great many) was castrated by his mother crushing his testicles in infancy to prepare him for imperial service.

Surgery does seem to have been far more common, however. We don’t have many details before Paulus Aegineta, but we do read of eunuchs castrated at a quite young age. For example, John the Orphanotrophos (11th century Byzantium) was one of five brothers and two sisters. He was castrated by his father at the age of 8 or 9, as were his younger brothers Constantine and George. All three were sent to the capital where they all rose in service to the emperor. When Emperor Romanos III (r. 1028-1034) died without children, John arranged for the empress to marry one of his uncastrated brothers. When that brother, Michael IV (r. 1034-1041) died without having produced an heir, John arranged for the empress to adopt the son of his other uncastrated brother, who became Emperor Michael V.

[This is what happens when my mind wanders through the wilderness of all my readings and I don't take time to edit....]