It is about four years after this, B.C. 664, that we find Baal attacked and punished by the Assyrian monarch.  The subjugation of Egypt had been in the meantime, though not without difficulty, completed.  Asshur-bani-pal’s power extended from the range of Niphates to the First Cataract.  Whether during the course of the four years’ struggle, by which the reconquest of Egypt was effected, the Tyrian prince had given fresh offence to his suzerain, or whether it was the old offence, condoned for a time but never forgiven, that was now avenged, is not made clear by the Assyrian Inscriptions.  Asshur-bani-pal simply tells us that, in his third expedition, he proceeded against Baal, king of Tyre, dwelling in the midst of the sea, who his royal will disregarded, and did not listen to the words of his lips.  “Towers round him,” he says, “I raised, and over his people I strengthened the watch; on sea and land his forts I took; his going out I stopped.  Water and sea-water, to preserve their lives, their mouths drank.  By a strong blockade, which removed not, I besieged them; their works I checked and opposed; to my yoke I made them submissive.  The daughter proceeding from his body, and the daughters of his brothers, for concubines he brought to my presence.  Yahi-milki, his son, the glory of the country, of unsurpassed renown, at once he sent forward, to make obeisance to me.  His daughter, and the daughters of his brothers, with their great dowries, I received.  Favour I granted him, and the son proceeding from his body, I restored, and gave him back."[14172] Thus Baal once more escaped the fate he must have expected.  Asshur-bani-pal, who was far from being of a clement disposition, suffered himself to be appeased by the submission made, restored Baal to his favour, and allowed him to retain possession of his sovereignty.

Another Phoenician monarch also was, about the same time, threatened and pardoned.  This was Yakinlu, the king of Arvad, probably the son and successor of Mattan-Baal, the contemporary of Esarhaddon.[14173] He is accused of having been wanting in submission to Asshur-bani-pal’s fathers;[14174] but we may regard it as probable that his real offence was some failure in his duties towards Asshur-bani-pal himself.  Either he had openly rebelled, and declared himself independent, or he had neglected to pay his tribute, or he had given recent offence in some other way.  The Phoenician island kings were always more neglectful of their duties than others, since it was more difficult to punish them.  Assyria did not even now possess any regular fleet, and could only punish a recalcitrant king of Arvad or Tyre by impressing into her service the ships of some of the Phoenician coast-towns, as Sidon, or Gebal, or Accho.  These towns were not very zealous in such a service, and probably did not maintain strong navies, having little use for them.  Thus Yakinlu may have expected that his neglect, whatever it was, would be overlooked.