Murderer of Sennacherib, yet Again: The Case against Esarhaddon

TL;DR

This article reopens the question of who killed Sennacherib, arguing that the near-consensus blaming Urad-Mullissu rests too heavily on one broken letter and that Esarhaddon remains a plausible suspect. It assembles six circumstantial arguments for Esarhaddon’s possible involvement but stops short of claiming proof.

Key findings

• Parpola’s influential reading of ABL 1091 made Urad-Mullissu’s guilt seem settled, but Knapp stresses that the letter is fragmentary, with beginnings, ends, and line endings missing, and Urad-Mullissu’s name never fully preserved. He also notes that two alleged co-conspirators, Nabû-šumu-iškun and Ṣillāia, appear to have kept their positions into Esarhaddon’s reign, with Ṣillāia attested as late as 675 BCE.
• Esarhaddon’s Nineveh A apology admits that his brothers slandered him and turned Sennacherib against him, saying his father was compassionate only “deep down,” which Knapp reads as evidence of public estrangement and a possible motive.
• Esarhaddon’s departure from Nineveh is reinterpreted as likely exile or flight rather than a protective measure; an oracle links slander to his removal and describes him as forced to roam the steppe while other sons enjoyed favor.
• Knapp highlights Esarhaddon’s rapid accession: Sennacherib was killed on the 20th of Ṭebētu, and Esarhaddon says he entered Nineveh on the 8th of Addaru, roughly six weeks later in winter. If Esarhaddon was near Harran, Knapp estimates a 600-mile round trip requiring about 15 miles per day, leaving little margin for mobilization or delay.
• The Babylonian dimension is also emphasized: Sennacherib had brutalized Babylon, Esarhaddon had Babylonian backing while still crown prince, and he later reversed Sennacherib’s anti-Babylonian policy. Ashurbanipal’s Prism A further connects Babylonians to the site of Sennacherib’s destruction, though Knapp calls this evidence circumstantial.

Methods

• The paper is a source-critical reexamination of existing evidence, especially ABL 1091, Esarhaddon’s Nineveh A apology, prophetic oracles, Babylonian letters, Ashurbanipal’s Prism A, and prior scholarship.
• Knapp structures the argument as six exhibits: Esarhaddon’s relationship with Sennacherib, his banishment from Nineveh, the status of his brothers, the speed of his accession, his Babylonian ties, and the absence of any mention of the regicide in his inscriptions.
• The analysis is qualitative and historiographical, using a prosecution/defense framing to weigh circumstantial evidence rather than presenting new primary data or statistical tests.

Limitations

• The author explicitly states that the evidence is circumstantial, that there is no conclusive proof, and that Esarhaddon would probably be acquitted if prosecuted; the aim is to create doubt about Urad-Mullissu’s conviction, not to establish Esarhaddon’s guilt.
• The text makes evident that ABL 1091 is broken and decontextualized, that the relevant oracle collection is undated, that Esarhaddon’s hiding place is unknown, and that the size of factions and nature of the fighting remain unclear.
• Knapp also acknowledges reliance on Esarhaddon’s own propagandistic apology and on later biblical and Berossos traditions, and he labels parts of his counternarrative speculative.