The conquest of Egypt by Esar-haddon, though concealed from Herodotus, and not known even to Diodorus, was no secret to the more learned Greeks, who probably found an account of the expedition in the great work of Berosus.  All that we know of its circumstances is derived from an imperfect transcript of the Nahr-el-Kelb tablet, and a short notice in the annals of Esar-haddon’s son and successor, Asshur-bani-pal, who finds it necessary to make an allusion to the former doings of his father in Egypt, in order to render intelligible the state of affairs when he himself invades the country.  According to these notices, it would appear that Esar-haddon, having entered Egypt with a large army, probably in B.C. 670, gained a great battle over the forces of Tirhakah in the lower country, and took Memphis, the city where the Ethiopian held his court, after which he proceeded southwards, and conquered the whole of the Nile valley as far as the southern boundary of the Theban district.  Thebes itself was taken and Tirhakah retreated into Ethiopia.  Esar-haddon thus became master of all Egypt, at least as far as Thebes or Diospolis, the No or No-Amon of scripture.  He then broke up the country into twenty governments, appointing in each town a ruler who bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned at Memphis.  This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamatik I.)—­a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in Herodotus and in the fragments of Manetho.  The remaining rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians:  though in two or three instances the governments appear to have been committed to Assyrian officers.  Esar-haddon, having made these arrangements, and having set up his tablet at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb side by side with that of Rameses II., returned to his own country, and proceeded to introduce sphinxes into the ornamentation of his palaces, while, at the same time, he attached to his former titles an additional clause, in which he declared himself to be “king of the kings of Egypt, and conqueror of Ethiopia.”

The revolt of Manasseh king of Judah may have happened shortly before or shortly after the conquest of Egypt.  It was not regarded as of sufficient importance to call for the personal intervention of the Assyrian monarch.  The “captains of the host of the king of Assyria” were entrusted with the task of Manasseh’s subjection; and, proceeding into Judaea, they “took him, and bound him with chains, and carried him to Babylon,” where Esar-haddon had built himself a palace, and often held his court.  The Great king at first treated his prisoner severely; and the “affliction” which he thus suffered is said to have broken his pride and caused him to humble himself before God, and to repent of all the cruelties and idolatries which had brought this judgment upon him.  Then God “was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him back again to Jerusalem into his kingdom.”  The crime of defection was overlooked by the Assyrian monarch, Manasseh was pardoned, and sent back to Jerusalem:  where he was allowed to resume the reins of government, but on the condition, if we may judge by the usual practice of the Assyrians in such cases, of paying an increased tribute.