Editing Tiglath-Pileser III (section)

=== Ancestry and rise to the throne ===
[[File:Tiglath-pileser III, an alabaster bas-relief from the king's central palace at Nimrud, Mesopotamia..JPG|thumb|upright=0.8|Tiglath-Pileser III, depicted in a royal chariot in one of the reliefs from the royal palace in [[Nimrud]]]]
There is not enough surviving evidence to conclude how Tiglath-Pileser III came to the throne{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=53}} and the nature of his accession is thus unclear and disputed.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}} Several pieces of evidence indicate that he might have been a usurper. Pointing to this are the facts that there was a revolt in [[Nimrud]], the capital of the Assyrian Empire, in 746/745{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}}{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}} and that numerous officials and governors were replaced after 745.{{Sfn|Radner|2012}} Ancient Assyrian sources give conflicting information in regards to Tiglath-Pileser's lineage. Tiglath-Pileser in inscriptions attributed his rise to the throne solely to divine selection, rather than the more typical practice of Assyrian kings ascribing their rise to both divine selection and his royal ancestry.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}} The ''Assyrian King List'', an ancient Assyrian document listing the kings of Assyria, states that Tiglath-Pileser's father was his immediate predecessor [[Ashur-nirari V]]. Tiglath-Pileser in his own inscriptions claimed that he was the son of [[Adad-nirari III]], making him Ashur-nirari's brother.{{Sfn|Chen|2020|p=|pp=200–201}}

Assyriologists and other historians have overwhelmingly concluded that Tiglath-Pileser was a usurper.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}}{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}}{{Sfn|Brinkman|1968|p=406}}{{Sfn|Grayson|1981|p=73}}{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=54}} The Assyriologist Bradley J. Parker went as far as suggesting that he was not part of the previous royal dynasty at all,'''{{Sfn|Parker|2011|p=367}}''' but per the Assyriologist [[Karen Radner]], his claims of royal descent were probably true, meaning that while he did usurp the throne, he was a legitimate contender for it, having been victorious in an intra-dynastic civil war.{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}} Tiglath-Pileser faced no known resistance or rebellions against his rule after taking the throne.{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}}

If accepted as a royal dynast, uncertainties still exist in whether Tiglath-Pileser was the son of Adad-nirari or Ashur-nirari. The Assyriologists Fei Chen, Albert Kirk Grayson and Shiego Yamada consider it more likely that he was Adad-nirari's son,{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}}{{Sfn|Chen|2020|p=|pp=200–201}}{{Sfn|Yamada|2003|p=270}} with the Assyrian King List's identification of him as the son of Ashur-nirari possibly being a scribal error.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}} The Assyriologist [[Paul Garelli]] considers this unlikely, given that 38 years separate the reign of Adad-nirari from that of Tiglath-Pileser, writing that the possibility of him being Ashur-nirari's son cannot be fully ruled out.{{Sfn|Garelli|1991|p=46}} 

The historian Tracy Davenport holds that "we may never know" whether Tiglath-Pileser was Ashur-nirari's son or brother.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=41}} There are ways to explain Tiglath-Pileser's inscriptions proclaiming him as the son of Adad-nirari despite the 38 years between their two reigns. It is possible that "son" in this context meant "grandson", meaning that Tiglath-Pileser would have been the son of Ashur-nirari or another of Adad-nirari's sons, or that Tiglath-Pileser actually was Adad-nirari's son, but came to the throne when he was already relatively old, possibly aged about 50.{{Sfn|Yamada|Yamada|2017|p=390}}

[[File:Tell Ahmar, mural palacio rey Tiglatpileser audiencia sicglo VIII.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|A wall painting from [[Til Barsip]] depicting Tiglath-Pileser (sitting) holding court. The official closest to him to the right is his son [[Shalmaneser V]].{{Sfn|Radner|2012}}]]
The ''Eponym Chronicle'', a list of [[Eponym dating system|eponyms]], names for the years, typically taken from influential officials, of Assyria confirms there was a revolt in Nimrud the year before Tiglath-Pileser became king. According to the historian [[Stefan Zawadzki]], writing in 1994, the eponyms also provide insight into how the transition from Ashur-nirari to Tiglath-Pileser might have happened. That Tiglath-Pileser took the throne the year after the uprising was interpreted by Zawadzki, and others, as firmly indicating that he took the throne as the result of a ''[[Coup d'état|coup d'etat]]''. Zawadzki believes the Eponym Chronicle further suggests that the rebellion, while not necessarily led by Tiglath-Pileser himself, was started with his knowledge and consent. The chief piece of evidence Zawadzki presents for this is that the revolt of 746 began in Nimrud and the first official appointed as eponym holder by Tiglath-Pileser (in 744) was Bel-dan, the governor of Nimrud.{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=55}} 

Garelli believes the revolt in 746 was instigated by [[Shamshi-ilu]], a prominent official throughout the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser's predecessors, and that the uprising was crushed by Tiglath-Pileser after he legitimately inherited the throne.{{Sfn|Garelli|1991|p=48}} Zawadzki believes Shamshi-ilu may have revolted, as he is no longer recorded in Tiglath-Pileser's reign, but that the uprising in Nimrud was a separate revolt from Shamshu-ilu's supposed uprising and that Tiglath-Pileser or his supporters would have fought both Shamshu-ilu and Ashur-nirari.{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=55}}

In her 2016 PhD thesis, the historian Tracy Davenport advanced the theory that Tiglath-Pileser might have been entirely legitimate and that he could even have co-ruled with Ashur-nirari for some time. Supporting Garelli's idea that Tiglath-Pileser was not responsible for any rebellion and the idea that he was a member of the royal dynasty, Davenport examined the Eponym Chronicle. Notably, the eponyms for Tiglath-Pileser's early reign do not follow the traditional sequence used for Assyrian eponym holders. Typically, the king was eponym holder in his second regnal year, followed by important magnates and then provincial governors.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=|pp=37–41}}

If Tiglath-Pileser became king in 745, the eponym holder of his second regnal year was Bel-dan, not the king himself, who was the eponym holder in 743, his third regnal year. This could be explained by Tiglath-Pileser not having become the sole ruler of Assyria until 744. There are some strange features of the Eponym Chronicle that suggest that Ashur-nirari ruled until 744, together with Tiglath-Pileser 745–744. There are two horizonal lines in this part of the list, one beneath 746, possibly marking Tiglath-Pileser's rise to the throne, and one beneath 744, possibly marking Ashur-nirari's death.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=|pp=37–41}} 

It is unlikely that the second line is an error, since it occurs right after a note that records the end of Ashur-nirari's reign and its length. Both the Eponym Chronicle and the Assyrian King List gives Ashur-nirari a reign length of 10 years, only possible if he ruled until 744, and not 745. If Ashur-nirari did rule until 744, it is unlikely that there was a civil war, since Tiglath-Pileser is recorded to have gone on campaigns against Assyria's foreign enemies in this time, not possible if he was simultaneously involved in internal conflict.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=|pp=37–41}}