Fortunately we are not dependent upon the statements of second or third-hand historians for a description of the fall of Babylon. We have the records both of Nabonidus, the reigning and van quished king, and of Cyrus, the conqueror. Though somewhat fragmentary in some places, they nevertheless furnish us with a reasonably good picture of that momentous event. Naboni dus' own record will be cited first (Nab.-Cyr. Chron. col. i: Rev. 12-24) : "In the month Tam muz (June) Cyrus having fought a battle at Ukhu on (the banks of) the river Zalzallat, against the troops of the land of Accad, the people of the land of Accad arose in revolt. Some persons were killed. On the fourteenth day Sippar was taken without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the six teenth day, Gobryas, governor of the land of Gutium, and the troops of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting. Afterwards, Nabonidus, being shut up in Babylon, was taken. Until the end of the month, the shields of land of Gutium guarded the gates of Esagila. No arms had been stored in Esagila and the sacred precincts, nor had any weapons entered them. In the month Marchesvan (October), on the third day, Cyrus entered Baby lon, the walls submitted before him. Peace for the city he established. Cyrus spake peace to Babylon, to the whole of it. Gobryas his governor lie appointed governor of Babylon. From the month Chislev to the month Adar (November to February), the gods of the land of Accad, whom Nabonidus had carried to Babylon, returned to their own cities. On the ttth day of the month Marchesvan, at night, Gobryas . . . . the king's wife died. From the twenty-seventh of the month Adar to the third of the month Nisan, there was lamentation in Accad; all the people smote their heads." This remarkable piece of the royal an nals astonishes us by recording but one battle In the neighborhood of Babylon. That was fought near Accad, and resulted favorably for Cyrus' troops. Thence the way was open into the city of the empire. The reception of the army is equaled only by the liberty which was announced for the whole city.
Cyrus' own cylinder gives us a no less wonder ful story. This sets out by assuring the reader that Cyrus was thoroughly imbued with the idea that he was the man of destiny (Cyl. 1-19, 22-24) : "He (Merodach) sought for, he found him, yea, he sought out an upright prince, after his own heart, whom he took by his hand, Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan; he called his name: to the sovereignty of the whole world, he called him by name. The land of Qutu and all the Um man-Manda he subjected to his feet the black headed people, whom his hand conquered,—in faithfulness he governed them. Merodach, the great lord, the guardian of his people, beheld with joy the blessed deeds and his upright heart. To his own city Babylon, he•issued orders to march; he bade him also take the road to Babylon; like a friend and helper he marched at his side. His wide-extended troops, whose number like the waters of a river could not be known, in full armor, marched at his side. Without clash or battle he (Mcrodach) made him enter Babylon. His own city Babylon he spared (from disaster) : Nabonidus the king, who had not revered him, he delivered into his hand. The people of Babylon in a body, the whole land of Sumer and Accad, the nobles and the great ones, prostrated them selves before him, kissed his feet, rejoiced at his sovereignty, their countenances shone. The lord (Mcrodach) who by his power had raised the dead, who had freed all from difficulty and dis tress,—they gladly did. him homage, heeded his word. . . . When 1 had entered Babylon peace fully, with rejoicings and great joy, 1 took posses sion of the king's palace as my royal residence. Mcrodach, the great Lord [granted!] me the open heart of the sons (inhabitants) of Babylon; and daily I invoked him. My great army 1 stationed peacefully throughout Babylon."
These two records of the capture of Babylon from two different sources—one might rightfully say from two opposing forces—present a marvel ous harmony. They unite in the statement that the city made no resistance to the entrance of the army of Cyrus. neither was there any objection to his immediate assumption of control, unless, in the Nab.-Cyr. Chron., we interpret the guard about the temple of Esagila as a minor siege. On the other hand, the population of thc city seems to have welcomed their new conqueror, deliverer, and ruler, as a friend and benefactor. The popular prejudice aroused by the faithful devotees of Bel and Nebo against Nabonidus for his neglect of worship, gladly transferred their fealty to one who honored and revered the great gods of Babylon. It had likewise become evident that the sway of Cyrus meant for other lands a renewed and con tinuous political prosperity and a religious liberty unknown in the annals of other rulers. This ar ray of facts freely opened the gates of Babylon to give Cyrus a royal welcome. In view of this direct testimony of two contemporaneous docu ments, we are forced to the conclusion that the story of licrodottis that Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates from its channel and marched in tinder the unguarded gates of the river cannot be true.
(5) The Policy of Cyrus. The policy adopted by Cyrus, and put into effect at once in Babylon. fostered the affectionate favor of the gods and of his subjects. (Cyl. 24-36) : "1 permitted Sumer and Accad to have no gainsayer. In Babylon and in all its cities I was solicitous for the peace of the inhabitants. . . . Their sighing I quieted. I soothed their sorrow. To [do] works Nlerodach, the great lord, gave [me] command. To me Cy rus, the king that reveres him. and to Cambyses, the son, the issue of finyi body.... to the whole of my army he graciously inclined. . . . All time kings who abode in royal palaces, who in all parts of the world from the upper sea to the lower sea abode on dry land, the kings of the West-land. dwellers in tents, all of them brought their rich tribute into Babylon and kissed my feet. From . . . . Asshur . . .. Accad. Abnunak. the city of Zamban. the city of Mi-Turnti. Durili unto the border of Qum, cities on the Tigris whose settle ments were founded from of old.—the gods that abode in them I restored to their place, and settled them in an everlasting abode; all their population I gathered together and restored to their own dwelling-places. And the gods of the land of Sumer and Accad whom Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods (Merodach), had brought into Babylon, by the command of Merodach, the great lord. I made to dwell safely in their own places, according to their desires. May all the gods whom 1 brought into their own cities, daily before Bel (Merodach) and Nebo in tercede for a long life for me! may they speak in my favor, and to Merodach, my lord, let them say: Cyrus the king, who reveres thee, and Cambyses, his son, .. . made them dwell in a quiet habita tion." .... Unfortunately the remaining lines of this notable inscription are almost entirely broken away. What has been quoted gives us the sweep of Cyrus' supremacy and the gist of his beneficent policy. He was the protector and the bounteous promoter of the welfare of his subjects. Their deities and their methods of worship were gra ciously restored, and dignified by elevating them to their former positions. The peoples, too, who had been forcibly deported from their native lands were restored by the king's decree. This gener ous policy, in contrast with that of preceding rulers, gave Cyrus unwonted influence and power over his retainers. It may be that the fact that he was an Aryan, with newer and freer ideas than those that had grown up in Semitic thought and power, threw an added charm about his person ality and policy.