What is israel's decline after Jeroboam II?

§-Syllabus dot point

NSWAncient HistorySyllabus dot point

How did the westward expansion of the Neo-Assyrian empire under Tiglath-pileser III destroy the kingdom of Israel, and how far do the biblical and Assyrian sources let us reconstruct the fall of Samaria in 722 BC?

The westward expansion of the Neo-Assyrian empire under Tiglath-pileser III (745 to 727 BC) and its system of vassalage, tribute and mass deportation; the decline of Israel after Jeroboam II, the Syro-Ephraimite War (735 to 732 BC) and Ahaz of Judah's appeal to Assyria; the revolt of Hoshea, the siege and fall of Samaria in 722 to 721 BC (Shalmaneser V and the rival claim of Sargon II), the deportation of the northern tribes and the end of the kingdom of Israel

A focused HSC Ancient History answer on the Levant under Assyrian pressure - Tiglath-pileser III's westward expansion, the system of tribute and deportation, the chaos in Israel after Jeroboam II, the Syro-Ephraimite War and Ahaz's appeal to Assyria, and the siege and fall of Samaria in 722 BC that ended the northern kingdom.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.814 min answerUpdated 2026-07-01

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

The revived Neo-Assyrian empire under Tiglath-pileser III (745 to 727 BC) drove west with a graded system of control: tribute-paying vassalage, then provincial annexation, then mass deportation. Israel, prosperous under Jeroboam II (died c. 746 BC), then collapsed into political chaos, six kings in about twenty-five years, split between paying tribute (Menahem's 1,000 talents, c. 738 BC) and revolt. In the Syro-Ephraimite War (735 to 732 BC), Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel attacked Ahaz of Judah to force him into an anti-Assyrian bloc; Ahaz instead appealed to Assyria (2 Kings 16:7 to 8), and Tiglath-pileser destroyed Damascus (732 BC) and stripped Israel of Galilee and Gilead. The last king, Hoshea, withheld tribute and sought Egyptian help, so Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria for three years; the city fell in 722 BC, ending the kingdom of Israel. Who took it is disputed: 2 Kings and the Babylonian Chronicle credit Shalmaneser V, but Sargon II claims it in his annals (the 27,290 deported), most likely a two-stage conquest completed after a revolt around 720 BC. The northern tribes were deported (Halah, Habor, the cities of the Medes) and Samaria resettled with foreign peoples (2 Kings 17:24), producing the Samaritans and the legend of the "lost tribes". Whether the fall was chiefly Assyrian power or Israelite weakness is best answered by comparing Judah, which submitted and survived: Assyrian power was the sufficient cause, but Israel's chaos and repeated revolt decided that it, not Judah, was destroyed.

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
How to read a source on this topic
Historians on the fall of Israel

What this dot point is asking

This slice of the Levant period covers how the revived Neo-Assyrian empire swallowed the northern kingdom of Israel. You need to explain the westward expansion of Assyria under Tiglath-pileser III (745 to 727 BC) and its imperial system of vassalage, tribute and mass deportation; the political collapse of Israel after the death of Jeroboam II; the Syro-Ephraimite War (735 to 732 BC) and Ahaz of Judah's fateful appeal to Assyria; and the final revolt of Hoshea, the siege and fall of Samaria in 722 BC, and the deportation of the northern tribes that ended the kingdom of Israel. The analytical pay-off is causation and source-work: how far was the fall the product of Assyrian power versus Israel's own weakness, and how do we reconcile the biblical account (2 Kings 17), the Assyrian royal annals and the archaeology, including the dispute over whether Shalmaneser V or Sargon II actually took the city.

In plain English

Picture Israel as a mid-sized business in a region being taken over, one by one, by a ruthless conglomerate (Assyria). The conglomerate offers a deal: keep running your own shop, but pay us a heavy annual fee (tribute) and do as you are told. Refuse, and they take the shop over directly (make it a province). Refuse again, and they close it down and move all your staff to the other end of the country so they can never regroup (deportation). Israel's problem was its own boardroom. After a long, successful boss (Jeroboam II) dies, the company has a run of leaders who keep knifing each other, and they cannot agree whether to pay the fee or fight. One boss (Ahaz of neighbouring Judah) quietly pays and survives. Israel's bosses gamble twice on fighting, first as part of a doomed alliance, then by refusing to pay and begging Egypt for help. Each gamble brings the hammer down harder, until Assyria besieges the head office (Samaria) for three years, closes the company for good, and ships the staff away. The awkward historian's twist is that two rival Assyrian managers (Shalmaneser V and Sargon II) both later claimed credit for the takeover, and the fullest surviving account of the whole affair was written by a religious writer from the rival firm next door (Judah), who says the whole thing was God's punishment.

The answer

The revived Assyrian empire and its imperial system

For a generation Assyria had been weak, but the accession of Tiglath-pileser III in 745 BC transformed it into the most formidable power the Near East had yet seen. He is the "Pul" of 2 Kings 15:19. His reforms were structural: a more professional standing army, and a policy of converting conquered kingdoms into directly governed provinces under Assyrian officials rather than leaving them as loosely held dependencies. The empire then pushed relentlessly west into Syria and the Levant.

The system that bore down on the small kingdoms of the Levant, including Israel and Judah, worked in graded stages of coercion:

Vassalage and tribute. A defeated state kept its own king and identity but became a vassal, paying heavy annual tribute in silver, gold, textiles and horses, and following Assyria's foreign policy. This was cheap, indirect control.
Provincial annexation. A state that resisted or rebelled was stripped of its king and absorbed as a province under an Assyrian governor, its territory taxed directly.
Mass deportation. For serious or repeated revolt, Assyria uprooted the population and resettled it far away, moving other deported peoples in to replace them. This broke local identity and the capacity to rebel, and it is the fate that finally befell Israel.

Israel's decline after Jeroboam II

Under Jeroboam II (died c. 746 BC) the northern kingdom had reached its height in wealth and territory, a prosperity attested by the earlier Samaria ostraca and denounced by the prophets Amos and Hosea. His death opened a period of political chaos. In roughly twenty-five years Israel ran through six kings, four of them murdered by their successors:

Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II, reigned six months before Shallum assassinated him, ending the century-long dynasty of Jehu.
Shallum lasted a month before Menahem killed him. Menahem (c. 745 to 737 BC) bought Assyrian protection with the 1,000-talent tribute to Tiglath-pileser III.
Menahem's son Pekahiah was assassinated by his officer Pekah (c. 735 to 732 BC), who reversed policy and joined the anti-Assyrian bloc.

The throne itself had become a contest between submission to Assyria and revolt against it, and each violent turnover weakened the kingdom that would soon have to face the empire in its final crisis.

The Syro-Ephraimite War and Ahaz's appeal to Assyria

Around 734 BC Rezin of Damascus (Aram) and Pekah of Israel (Ephraim) tried to assemble a coalition to resist Assyrian expansion. When Ahaz of Judah refused to join, they invaded Judah to depose him and replace him with a puppet, the "son of Tabeel" (2 Kings 16:5; Isaiah 7). This is the Syro-Ephraimite War (735 to 732 BC).

Ahaz made the decision that saved Judah and doomed Israel: he appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help, stripping the temple and palace of silver and gold to send as tribute (2 Kings 16:7 to 8). The prophet Isaiah urged him instead to trust God and stay neutral, offering the "Immanuel" sign (Isaiah 7), but Ahaz chose Assyrian protection and became a vassal. Tiglath-pileser responded with overwhelming force in 733 to 732 BC:

He captured Damascus in 732 BC, killed Rezin, and annexed Aram as an Assyrian province.
He stripped Israel of Galilee and Gilead (2 Kings 15:29 lists Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Hazor, Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali), deporting their populations to Assyria and leaving Israel a rump around Samaria.
Pekah was overthrown by Hoshea, whom Tiglath-pileser's annals claim to have installed as a compliant vassal.

The war thus removed Aram entirely and reduced Israel to a shrunken, tributary remnant. Judah survived, but as a dependency of Assyria.

The revolt of Hoshea and the fall of Samaria

Hoshea (c. 732 to 722 BC) was the last king of Israel. He began as an Assyrian vassal, but after Tiglath-pileser III died in 727 BC he gambled on revolt: he withheld tribute and sought help from "So, king of Egypt" (2 Kings 17:4), whose identity remains uncertain. Egypt sent no effective aid. Shalmaneser V (727 to 722 BC) responded by seizing Hoshea and laying siege to Samaria, which held out for three years (2 Kings 17:5) before falling in 722 BC (some reckonings 721 BC).

Here lies the central source problem of the whole topic: who actually took Samaria?

2 Kings 17:6 and the Babylonian Chronicle credit Shalmaneser V, who was besieging the city and died in 722 BC.
Sargon II (722 to 705 BC), who seized the Assyrian throne in that same year, claims the conquest in his own royal annals: "I besieged and conquered Samaria and led away 27,290 of its people."

The most common modern reconstruction is a two-stage conquest: Shalmaneser V captured Samaria in 722 BC at the end of his reign, and Sargon II, after suppressing a wider Levantine revolt around 720 BC, reconquered the city and carried out the major deportation, then claimed the whole achievement as his own in the manner of Assyrian royal propaganda. Some scholars, notably Na'aman, make Sargon's 720 BC campaign the decisive fall. This dispute should be flagged rather than asserted as settled.

The deportation of the northern tribes and the end of Israel

The conquest of Samaria was followed by the classic Assyrian double policy of population exchange. The Israelites of the north were deported to Halah, to Habor by the river of Gozan, and to the cities of the Medes (2 Kings 17:6), scattered across the empire so they could never re-form. In their place Sargon II resettled Samaria with deported peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim (2 Kings 17:24). Over generations these settlers mixed with the Israelites who remained on the land, producing the population later known as the Samaritans, with their own syncretistic religion (2 Kings 17:24 to 41).

The deported northerners never returned as a distinct people, giving rise to the enduring legend of the "ten lost tribes". Politically the result was final: after roughly two centuries the kingdom of Israel ceased to exist. Only Judah in the south survived, a lone Assyrian vassal that would face its own reckoning under Hezekiah and Sennacherib in 701 BC, and would fall in its turn to Babylon in 586 BC.

The biblical historian of 2 Kings 17:7 to 23 closes the account not with politics but with theology: Israel fell because it "sinned against the Lord", worshipped other gods and clung to "the sins of Jeroboam" (the golden calves at Dan and Bethel), so that God used Assyria as the instrument of judgement. This interpretation, not the military narrative, is the point the writer most wants to make, and it is where source-criticism matters most.

How to read a source on this topic

The evidence falls into three bodies, each with a different perspective and a different set of limits, and the strongest answers read them against one another.

First, the Hebrew scriptures, above all 2 Kings 15 to 17. These give the only continuous narrative: the succession of Israelite kings, the tribute, the Syro-Ephraimite War, the siege and the deportations. But they are not a neutral chronicle. On Martin Noth's influential thesis they belong to the Deuteronomistic History, a theological work edited from a Judahite standpoint, whose purpose is to explain catastrophe as deserved punishment and to warn Judah. So the narrative is usable for events and chronology but its causation (divine judgement, the "sins of Jeroboam") is an interpretation, and its perspective is hostile to the north.

Second, the Assyrian royal annals of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II, carved on palace walls and clay prisms. These give the imperial voice and precise administrative detail (tribute lists naming Menahem and Ahaz, the deportation figure of 27,290, the appointment of governors). But they are royal propaganda: they glorify the king, attribute every success to the reigning monarch, and never admit a failure, which is exactly why Sargon can claim a conquest that 2 Kings assigns to Shalmaneser.

Third, the archaeology: destruction layers at northern sites such as Hazor and Megiddo consistent with the 732 BC campaigns, Assyrian palace reliefs depicting siege warfare and lines of deportees, and the earlier Samaria ostraca attesting the kingdom's prosperity. Material evidence is mute on motive and identity, but it can confirm or challenge the written record, and it independently shows how wealthy and organised the northern kingdom had been.

The method for any source here is the standard one: move from content (what it says) to reliability (author, date, genre, interest served) to usefulness (what question it can and cannot answer) to perspective (whose viewpoint, what it omits), and reach a judgement rather than retelling the narrative as fact.

Historians on the fall of Israel

Modern scholarship has worked hard to reconcile the biblical and Assyrian records. Martin Noth's Deuteronomistic History thesis (1943) reframed 2 Kings as edited theological historiography, teaching us to separate its reliable narrative from its interpretive theology. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, in their standard commentary on 2 Kings and Tadmor's edition of Tiglath-pileser III's inscriptions, integrate the Assyrian annals with the Hebrew text to reconstruct the actual sequence of campaigns and tributes. On the disputed conquest, K. Lawson Younger Jr. argues for a two-stage fall (Shalmaneser V in 722 BC, Sargon II reconquering and deporting after the revolt of c. 720 BC) that reconciles the rival claims, while Nadav Na'aman emphasises Sargon's 720 BC campaign as the decisive end of Samaria. Bustenay Oded's study of Neo-Assyrian deportation shows that the uprooting of the northern tribes was not random cruelty but a calculated instrument of imperial control, used systematically across the empire. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman bring the archaeology to bear, arguing that the northern kingdom was in fact the wealthier and more powerful of the two Hebrew states, which sharpens the causal question: Israel did not fall from inherent feebleness, but because it stood in the path of a greater empire and gambled on revolt.

Model exam responses

1. Source-analysis response (using a reconstruction in the style of Sargon II's annals). "A passage in the manner of Sargon II's annals, claiming the conquest of Samaria and the deportation of 27,290 people, is useful and unreliable in different registers. It is unreliable on the central question of who took the city, because Assyrian royal annals are propaganda that credit every success to the reigning king, and here Sargon claims a conquest that 2 Kings 17:6 and the Babylonian Chronicle assign to Shalmaneser V, who died besieging Samaria in 722 BC. Yet the same source is highly useful for imperial method: the specific, plausible deportation figure, the resettlement of the city and the imposition of a governor and tribute give administrative detail the biblical text only summarises, and supply the conqueror's own voice. It is therefore weak evidence for the moment and author of the capture, and strong evidence for how Assyria destroyed and reorganised a defeated kingdom."

Marker's note: markers reward candidates who split the propaganda claim (who conquered) from the reliable administrative detail (how many, how governed) and who name the rival Shalmaneser tradition.

2. Essay paragraph (Assyrian power versus Israelite weakness). "The sharpest test of whether Assyrian power or Israelite weakness destroyed the north is the survival of Judah, which faced the same empire. Both were small Levantine states pressed by Tiglath-pileser III; the difference was decision. Ahaz of Judah, against Isaiah's counsel, paid tribute and accepted vassalage (2 Kings 16:7 to 8), and Judah endured for another century and a third. Israel, under Pekah and then Hoshea, twice gambled on revolt and foreign help, and each gamble drew an Assyrian hammer-blow, the loss of Galilee and Gilead in 732 BC and then the destruction of Samaria in 722 BC. Assyrian power supplied the hammer that only an empire could wield, but Israel's coup-ridden politics kept placing the kingdom beneath it. As Oded shows, deportation was the calculated end-state of that imperial system, and Israel, unlike Judah, provoked it once too often."

Marker's note: this paragraph scores because it uses the Judah comparison to hold both causes together, anchors the argument in dated evidence, and integrates a named historian as argument rather than decoration.

Command words and how to use a source

Command words: "Outline" and "describe" want sequenced points with brief development; "explain" wants a causal mechanism (why Assyria expanded, why Israel fell), not narration; "assess", "evaluate" and "to what extent" demand a sustained JUDGEMENT held throughout. For a 25-mark essay, plan a one-line thesis and three or four argument lines before writing, and keep answering the exact question (here, usually causes of the fall, the imperial system, or the reliability of the sources).
Using a source: Work through content (what it shows), reliability (origin, author, date, genre, interest served), usefulness (what question it can and cannot answer) and perspective (whose viewpoint, what it omits). On this topic that means always asking whether a source is the Judahite, theological 2 Kings, the propagandistic Assyrian annals, or mute archaeology, and correcting each against the others, above all on the disputed captor of Samaria.
Weaving historiography: Use a named position to sharpen a claim, not as decoration: "as Younger argues, a two-stage conquest reconciles Shalmaneser's siege with Sargon's boast, which is why the annals and 2 Kings need not be forced to agree" is far stronger than "Younger also wrote about this."

Common exam traps

Treating 2 Kings as neutral fact: Its narrative is usable, but its causation is Deuteronomistic theology and its perspective is Judahite and hostile to the north. Note the interpretation as interpretation.
Asserting one captor as certain: The Shalmaneser V versus Sargon II dispute is genuinely open. Strong answers present the rival claims (2 Kings and the Babylonian Chronicle for Shalmaneser, the annals for Sargon) and the two-stage reconstruction, rather than flatly naming one.
Collapsing the two Assyrian blows: The 732 BC campaign (Galilee and Gilead annexed after the Syro-Ephraimite War) and the 722 BC siege (the end of the kingdom) are distinct events a decade apart, with different Assyrian kings. Do not merge them.
Ignoring the Judah comparison: Forgetting that Judah faced the same empire and survived by submitting throws away the best evidence on the causation question.
Reciting a narrative instead of arguing: The exam rewards a judgement on causation or source-reliability sustained throughout, not a retelling of the reigns of Israel's last kings.

Practice questions

Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.

foundation4 marksOutline the westward expansion of the Neo-Assyrian empire under Tiglath-pileser III (745 to 727 BC) and the methods it used to control the states of the Levant.

Show worked solution →

A 4-mark "outline" wants several correct, sequenced points with brief development, roughly one mark each.

Point 1: A revived and reformed empire: Tiglath-pileser III (745 to 727 BC), called "Pul" in 2 Kings 15:19, restored Assyrian power after a period of weakness, reforming the army into a more professional standing force and reorganising conquered regions into directly governed provinces under Assyrian governors.
Point 2: A graded system of control: Assyria did not annex everything at once. A defeated state first became a vassal that kept its own king but paid annual tribute; open the throat and it kept its status, resist and it was reduced to a province, revolt again and its leaders and population were deported.
Point 3: Tribute in the Levant: In his western campaigns (from c. 738 BC) Tiglath-pileser exacted tribute from a string of Levantine kings; his own annals list "Menihimmu of Samerina" (Menahem of Israel), which agrees with 2 Kings 15:19 to 20 that Menahem paid 1,000 talents of silver.
Point 4: Deportation as policy: After the campaigns of 733 to 732 BC he stripped Galilee and Gilead from Israel and deported their people to Assyria (2 Kings 15:29), the instrument that would later be used to erase the kingdom entirely.

Markers reward dated, specific detail (the 1,000 talents, the 733 to 732 BC deportations) and the point that Assyria used a graded, deliberate system, not indiscriminate conquest.

foundation3 marksDescribe the political instability in the kingdom of Israel after the death of Jeroboam II (c. 746 BC).

Show worked solution →

A 3-mark "describe" needs several concrete elements with supporting detail.

A collapse into coups: The long, prosperous reign of Jeroboam II ended c. 746 BC, and within about twenty-five years Israel ran through six kings, four of them murdered by their successors. His son Zechariah reigned six months before Shallum assassinated him, ending the dynasty of Jehu (1 mark).
Rival foreign policies: Menahem (c. 745 to 737 BC) bought Assyrian protection with heavy tribute, but the later king Pekah (c. 735 to 732 BC) joined an anti-Assyrian coalition, so the throne itself became a contest between submission to and revolt against Assyria (1 mark).
Terminal weakness: Pekah was overthrown by Hoshea, whom Tiglath-pileser III claims in his annals to have installed as a compliant vassal; the kingdom that faced Assyria in its final crisis was politically exhausted (1 mark).

Marker's note: markers reward concrete instability (named kings, assassinations, the pro- and anti-Assyrian split), not a vague statement that "Israel was weak".

core5 marksSource A: an ExamExplained reconstruction, in the manner of an Assyrian royal annal, records that the king received the tribute of Menahem of Samaria - silver, coloured garments and fine horses - and that Menahem 'fled like a bird, submitted, and I returned him to his place' as a tribute-bearing servant of Assyria. Using Source A and your own knowledge, explain the Assyrian system of vassalage and tribute in the Levant.

Show worked solution →

A 5-mark "explain" using a source needs the source used, the point it reveals, and supporting knowledge.

Use of the source: Source A shows the mechanics of vassalage: a local king (Menahem) submits, is confirmed on his throne ("returned to his place"), and in exchange delivers regular tribute in precious metal, textiles and horses. Assyria keeps a native ruler in place as a cheaper alternative to direct rule (2 marks).
What it reveals: The system was a graded instrument of control. A cooperative vassal retained his kingdom and dynasty; the price was annual tribute and loyalty. This bought Assyria a stable, paying frontier without the cost of garrisoning every state, while the threat of reduction to a province enforced obedience (2 marks).
Supporting knowledge: The reconstruction matches the real evidence: Tiglath-pileser III's annals list Menahem of Samaria among his tributaries, and 2 Kings 15:19 to 20 records Menahem paying "Pul" 1,000 talents of silver, raised by a levy of fifty shekels on each wealthy man. The convergence of an Assyrian record and the biblical account is strong evidence for how the system worked (1 mark).

Marker's note: markers reward candidates who read tribute as a system of indirect control, not mere plunder, and who cite the corroboration between Assyrian annals and 2 Kings.

core6 marksExplain the causes and consequences of the Syro-Ephraimite War (735 to 732 BC) for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark "explain" needs a clear claim, dated evidence, and reasoning that answers the question.

Cause: a forced anti-Assyrian coalition: Rezin of Damascus (Aram) and Pekah of Israel (Ephraim) tried to build a bloc to resist Assyrian expansion. When Ahaz of Judah refused to join, they invaded Judah (c. 734 BC) to depose him and install a puppet, the "son of Tabeel" (2 Kings 16:5; Isaiah 7). This is the war's trigger: coercion of a neutral neighbour (2 marks).
Consequence for Judah: dependence on Assyria: Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help, sending silver and gold from the temple and palace as tribute (2 Kings 16:7 to 8), against the prophet Isaiah's advice to trust God and stay out (Isaiah 7). Judah survived, but as an Assyrian vassal, a dependence that shaped its next two generations (2 marks).
Consequence for Israel and Damascus: destruction: Tiglath-pileser responded in 733 to 732 BC by crushing the coalition: he captured Damascus in 732 BC, killed Rezin and annexed Aram as a province, and stripped Israel of Galilee and Gilead, deporting their populations (2 Kings 15:29). Israel was reduced to little more than Samaria and its hills, and Pekah was overthrown by Hoshea (2 marks).

Marker's note: markers reward the causal chain from coercion to Ahaz's appeal to the Assyrian intervention, with dated evidence (732 BC, the temple tribute) and the point that the war left Israel a rump state ripe for destruction.

core6 marksSource B: an ExamExplained reconstruction, in the style of the annals of Sargon II, proclaims 'I besieged and conquered Samaria and led away 27,290 of its people as booty; I settled others in their place and set my governor over them and imposed on them the tribute of the former king.' Using Source B and your own knowledge, assess the usefulness and reliability of Assyrian royal annals for reconstructing the fall of Samaria.

Show worked solution →

A 6-mark "assess" needs content, reliability, usefulness and a judgement.

Content: Source B, echoing Sargon II's inscriptions, claims the personal conquest of Samaria, the deportation of 27,290 inhabitants, resettlement by other peoples, the appointment of a governor and the imposition of tribute (1 mark).
Reliability: Assyrian royal annals are official propaganda that glorify the king, so they attribute victories to the reigning monarch and never record failure. This is the crux of the fall-of-Samaria problem: Sargon's annals claim the conquest, yet 2 Kings 17 and the Babylonian Chronicle credit Shalmaneser V, who was besieging the city when he died in 722 BC. The annals are therefore unreliable on the question of who actually took the city (2 marks).
Usefulness: They remain very useful for other questions. The specific, plausible deportation figure (27,290, some copies 27,280), the resettlement and the imposition of a governor and tribute give precise detail on Assyrian imperial method that the biblical text summarises only briefly, and they supply the imperial voice absent from the Hebrew account (2 marks).
Judgement: Read critically, Sargon's annals are poor evidence for the exact moment and author of the capture, because propaganda claims credit, but excellent evidence for the scale and administrative method of the conquest, and must be set against 2 Kings and the Babylonian Chronicle (1 mark).

Marker's note: markers reward candidates who separate the propaganda claim (who conquered) from the reliable administrative detail (how many, how governed), and who name the rival source tradition.

exam8 marksSource C: an ExamExplained reconstruction, in the manner of the historian of 2 Kings 17, explains that Samaria fell because the people of Israel 'had sinned against the Lord their God', worshipped other gods and followed 'the sins of Jeroboam', so that God 'removed Israel out of his sight' and gave them into the hand of Assyria. Using Source C and your own knowledge, assess the usefulness and reliability of the biblical account for reconstructing the fall of the northern kingdom.

Show worked solution →

An 8-mark "assess usefulness and reliability" needs content, usefulness, reliability and a judgement.

Content: Source C, in the manner of 2 Kings 17:7 to 23, presents a theological explanation: Israel fell as divine punishment for apostasy and for "the sins of Jeroboam" (the golden calves at Dan and Bethel), Assyria being God's instrument (2 marks).
Usefulness: The biblical account is genuinely useful. It preserves a detailed narrative that the Assyrian sources lack, the internal politics of Israel, the three-year siege of Samaria (2 Kings 17:5), the deportation destinations (Halah, Habor, the cities of the Medes) and the resettlement of Samaria by foreign peoples (17:24). It gives the perspective of the conquered, not the conqueror (3 marks).
Reliability and limitation: It is not a neutral chronicle. It was shaped by the Deuteronomistic Historian, a Judahite theological writer editing long after the events, whose purpose is to explain the disaster as deserved and to warn Judah. It is hostile to the northern kingdom, frames history as moral cause and effect, and is silent on the Shalmaneser-Sargon question. Its dates and details must be checked against the Assyrian record (2 marks).
Judgement: The biblical account is indispensable for narrative, chronology and the human consequences of conquest, but its theological purpose and Judahite bias mean its interpretation of causation must be read critically and cross-checked against the Assyrian annals and archaeology (1 mark).

Marker's note: markers reward candidates who value the account for narrative the Assyrian sources lack, while recognising its Deuteronomistic theological purpose and Judahite perspective as limits on reliability.

exam25 marksTo what extent was the fall of Samaria in 722 BC the result of Assyrian imperial power rather than the internal weakness of the kingdom of Israel? In your response, refer to relevant sources and historians' interpretations.

Show worked solution →

A Band-6 response needs a clear thesis, argument lines tied to dated evidence, engagement with historiography, a model paragraph, and a judgement answering "to what extent".

Thesis: Assyrian imperial power was the sufficient cause of Israel's destruction, but internal weakness determined that Israel, rather than Judah, was the kingdom that fell. The two are not rivals: a revived Assyria under Tiglath-pileser III made subjugation of the Levant inevitable, while Israel's political chaos and fatal choice to revolt turned subjugation into annihilation.
Argument line 1: Assyrian power was the decisive external force: From 745 BC Tiglath-pileser III rebuilt Assyria's army and provincial system and drove west, exacting tribute from Menahem (his annals; 2 Kings 15:19 to 20), annexing Damascus in 732 BC and deporting Galilee and Gilead (2 Kings 15:29). No Levantine state could match this. The fall of Samaria was the endpoint of an irresistible imperial advance.
Argument line 2: internal weakness selected Israel for destruction: After Jeroboam II (died c. 746 BC) Israel suffered six kings in about twenty-five years, four by assassination, split between pro- and anti-Assyrian factions. Pekah's decision to join Rezin's coalition (the Syro-Ephraimite War, 735 to 732 BC) invited the 732 BC devastation, and Hoshea's later revolt (withholding tribute and seeking Egyptian help, 2 Kings 17:4) triggered the final siege. Judah, which submitted under Ahaz, survived.
Argument line 3: the mechanism of the end was deliberate imperial policy: Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria for three years (2 Kings 17:5); the city fell in 722 BC. Whether Shalmaneser or Sargon II completed the conquest, the deportation of the population (27,290 in Sargon's annals) and the resettlement of Samaria by foreign peoples (2 Kings 17:24) were calculated Assyrian methods, on Oded's analysis a systematic imperial instrument, that erased Israel as a political entity.
Historiography: Martin Noth's Deuteronomistic History thesis explains the biblical account as theological historiography, reading the fall as punishment for sin, so its causation must be treated critically. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor integrate the Assyrian annals with 2 Kings to reconstruct the real sequence. K. Lawson Younger Jr. argues for a two-stage conquest reconciling the Shalmaneser and Sargon claims, while Nadav Na'aman stresses Sargon's decisive role in 720 BC. Bustenay Oded shows deportation was calculated policy, not random cruelty, and Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman use archaeology to show the northern kingdom was in fact the wealthier, stronger Hebrew state, which sharpens the point that it fell to a greater power, not to inherent feebleness.
Model paragraph: The clearest way to weigh the two causes is to compare Israel with Judah, which faced the same empire and survived. Both were small Levantine states; both were pressed by Tiglath-pileser III. The difference was choice. Ahaz of Judah, against Isaiah's advice, paid tribute and accepted vassalage (2 Kings 16:7 to 8), and Judah endured for another 136 years. Israel, through Pekah and then Hoshea, twice gambled on revolt and foreign help, and each gamble drew an Assyrian hammer-blow, first the loss of Galilee and Gilead in 732 BC, then the siege and destruction of Samaria itself. Assyrian power supplied the hammer; Israel's divided, coup-ridden politics kept placing the kingdom's head beneath it. Neither cause alone accounts for 722 BC.
Judgement: To a great extent Assyrian imperial power caused the fall, since only Assyria could destroy a kingdom outright, but internal weakness was the necessary second cause: it decided that Israel, not Judah, would be the state that provoked Assyria once too often and was erased.

Marker's note: markers reward a sustained argument on "to what extent" that holds the two causes together rather than choosing one, precise dated evidence (732 BC, the three-year siege, 27,290), the Judah comparison, and named historians used to build the case.