On the 12th of October 539 BC, the most powerful city in human history was celebrating. The king was drinking. Golden vessels were being passed among the guests. Music soared and the walls, those legendary walls that led the Greek historian Heroditus to write that no city in the world could rival it, stood guard over everyone in silent pride. But on that very night, a foreign army was walking along the bed of the Euphrates River inside the city, walking slowly in silence, the water reaching no higher than the soldiers mid thighs.
No wall was breached, no arrow was fired, not a single battle took place. And by morning, the ancient world had changed forever. This is not a story of war. This is a story of how empires die from within and how arrogance, not the sword, is the deadliest weapon in history. To understand why the fall of Babylon
was so shocking, you first need to understand what Babylon was. And the best description we have comes from Heroditus, the Greek historian who visited it in the fifth century B.C. shortly after its fall and spoke with residents who had lived through it era of greatness. He wrote in his histories, "Babylon lies in a vast plain and is a city of great size in the form of a square with a perimeter of roughly 90 km surrounded by a wide and deep moat filled with water and behind it a wall 50 cubits wide and 200 cubits high."
When Heroditus wrote this, his contemporaries accused him of exaggeration and fabrication. They thought he was lying. But the German archaeologist Robert Coldway arrived in 1899 and began the largest archaeological excavation in the history of Iraq, digging continuously for 17 years until 1917.
What did he find? He found that Heroditus had been right. The walls Coldway uncovered ranged in thickness from 17 to 22 m. and in height from 12 to 24 meters. Walls wide enough for two war chariots to ride side by side without colliding as documented by the Greek geographer Strao in his geography.
But the walls were not the only marvel. At the heart of the city stood the Ishtar Gate, the main northern gateway of Babylon built by Nebuchadnezzar II.
It was clad in deep lapis blue glazed brick treated with special chemical compounds to reflect sunlight so that anyone approaching from a distance would seem to see turquoise shimmering on the horizon. It was adorned with reliefs of mythological animals in parallel rows, the dragon and the sacred bull repeating in an endless procession. The Germans dismantled this gate in its entirety and transported it to Berlin stone by stone between 1899 and 1914.
It stands today in the Pergamon Museum, a testament before every visitor to the grandeur of what once was. There was also the Ziggurat, the temple of Marduk, the chief god of the Babylonians. It was a tower rising 92 meters high. Herodotus described it as consisting of eight stories stacked one upon another. Some historians have seen in this tower the origin of the story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible. As for the actual tower of Babel, etani as the Babylonians called it, meaning house of the foundation of heaven and earth, it stood on a square base, also 92 m on each side. A man standing at its foot and craning his neck upward could only make out the summit as a thin thread on the horizon. Then there are the anging gardens, counted among the seven wonders of the ancient world and the only wonder whose actual existence some researchers doubt since the archaeological evidence for it is sparse.
Yet the historical descriptions speak of gardens raised on terrace platforms irrigated from bottom to top by a sophisticated hydraulic engineering system as though a mountain itself had been planted. Nebuchadnezzar built them for his wife, the Median Princess Amitus, who longed for the natural landscapes of her mountainous homeland. The city was also biseected by the Euphrates River. The river entered from the north and exited from the south, dividing Babylon into two halves, eastern and western, connected by a massive stone bridge resting on enormous stone peers built earlier by the Babylonian queen Nitto Chris.
Along both banks of the river inside the city stood walls and bronze gates that wereshut at night to prevent any attack coming from the direction of the water. And so the Babylonians had a common saying of their age. The Persians will conquer Babylon when a mule gives birth, meaning never on a day that will never come.
They were wrong. And to understand why, we must turn to the story of the slow collapse that had begun years before the city fell.
After the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 562 BC, he was succeeded by his son Al Marduk. But Al Marduk was assassinated in a conspiracy after only 2 years. Then came Nuriglasar who ruled for 4 years and then died. Then came his son Labashi Marduk, a child who was overthrown within months. In just one decade after Nebuchadnezzar, four kings had sat upon the throne of the greatest empire in the world. Three of them meeting unnatural deaths. That alone was enough to destabilize any state. Then came Nabonidis in 556 BC. Nabonitis or Nabonidamus as he is rendered in Greek sources was a figure unlike any Babylonian king before him. The modern academic historian Paul Elaine Bolu in his 1989 work, The Reign of Navanitis, King of Babylon, 556 to 539 BC, describes him as a man far more interested in archaeology and excavating the inscriptions of past kings than in the politics of the present. He took pleasure in uncovering the records of ancient rulers and ordered that they be preserved and protected. A man living in the past while the present was burning.
But the greater problem was religious. The priests of Marduk despised Nabonidis for his suppression of Marduk's cult and his elevation of the moon god sin. And the matter ran deeper than that. Nabonitis was not purely Babylonian. His mother had been an Assyrian priestess of the moon god at the city of Heron, and he had in all likelihood inherited from her his religious devotion to that deity. But Marduk was the national god of Babylon, bound to the entire Babylonian civilizational identity, and his priesthood represented the most deeply rooted institutions of power in the city. When Nabonidis began elevating sin above Marduk, he was not merely antagonizing the clergy. He was splitting the Babylonian national identity down the middle. This conflict has reached us through two important documents. The first is the Nabonitis Chronicle preserved in the British Museum, a Babylonian clay tablet written in cunia form script recording the events of his reign yearbyear.
The second is the verse account of Nabonitis, a Babylonian document sharper in tone and explicit in its criticism of the king, describing him as religiously disordered and as having violated the rights of the ancestors. The Nabonitis Chronicle records the self-imposed exile Nabonitis inflicted upon himself at the Arabian oasis of Tima and the disruption this caused to the Akitu festival, the New Year celebrations for 10 consecutive years.
This point is extremely important. The Akitu festival was not merely a religious celebration. It was a necessary annual political event in which the king's legitimacy was renewed. During the ceremony, the king would take the hand of the statue of the god Marduk in a grand official procession, an act that symbolically signified that Marduk had accepted the king and renewed him in his position. Without this celebration, the king in the eyes of the Babylonians ruled without divine mandate. And Nabonitis neglected this festival for 10 full years during his absence in Ta. 10 years during which the Babylonians looked upon their king as one who bore no authorization from their gods.
Why did Nabonitis go to TA? The question remains debated among historians to this day. The Iraqi historian Fousy Rashid in his study of Nabonitis argues that the matter had an economic dimension. TMA lies at the center of a fertile plane with a healthy climate at the crossroads of trade routes coming from Yemen, Yathre, Najron and Median Salai. The primary objective of Nabonitis, he contends, was to secure the spice trade route stretching from Yemen to Egypt and Palestine through the Arabian Peninsula. In other words, Nabonitis may have been attempting to build a new Arabian commercial empire rather than tending to this capital which was filling with discontented. But whatever the reasons, the consequences were catastrophic.
He was also held in contempt by the military establishment on account of his obsession with antiquities. He appeared to have left the defense of his kingdom to Belshazzer while occupying himself with pursuits more to his liking, excavating foundation inscriptions of temples and uncovering and dating the periods of their construction. an amateur archaeologist king digging in the dirt while his kingdom burned. The king left his son Belshazzer in effective power in Babylon.
The fifth chapter of the book of Daniel describes Belshazzer as inclined toward banquetss and women. Babylonian and academic sources describe him as a capable soldier but a political failure. He removed the traditional political elite from their positions and replaced them with loyalists, further swelling the ranks of the disaffected within the walls. And so in the final decade before the fall, Babylon was witnessing a crisis that was threedimensional. A religious crisis born of the absence of the Akitu festival and the neglect of Marduk. a political crisis born of the absence o f the legitimate king and the weakness of Belshazzer and a social crisis born of rising resentment among the priests, the military and the merchants alike. All this while the enemy grew larger in the east day by day.
In 559 BC, a young man named Cyrus inherited rule over the kingdom of Anchen, a small vassal Persian state in what is now southwestern Iran. No one expected the world to ever hear his name. But Cyrus possessed something most conquerors do not, a political mind that surpassed even his military genius. In 550 BC, he rose against the Median king Estagis, his maternal grandfather, and most of the Median army's commanders defected to join him. In 546 BC, he defeated Cus, the wealthy king of Lydia, whose fortune was proverbial throughout the ancient world. And by 540 BC, Cyrus ruled an empire stretching from the Mediterranean in the west to Central Asia in the east. All within a single decade of his political life. But what distinguished Cyrus was not the speed of his conquests. What distinguished him was his method of governing what he had conquered. In every city he took, he followed an approach that was revolutionary by the standards of his age. No destruction of temples, no humiliation of local gods, no forced displacement of populations, no systematic plundering of treasuries. Quite the opposite. He would embrace the local religion, return stolen statues to their temples and present himself not as a conqueror but as a liberator sent by the local god himself to rescue the people from their tyrannical king.
This approach has reached us documented in the most important archaeological artifact associated with him, the Cyrus cylinder. The Cyrus cylinder is a historical clay object dating to the 6th century BC discovered by the Iraqi archaeologist Hormuz Rasam in 1879 among the ruins of Babylon. In it, Cyrus speaks of himself as rendered in translation, saying that the god Marduk, the god of the Babylonians, searched all the lands of the earth for a righteous ruler who would restore order and justice, found none but him, and sent him to Babylon to save it from its tyrannical king and enter it without war. This document is remarkable for several reasons. first because it is written in Babylonian cuneaoa form script and in the Babylonian language meaning it was addressed to the Babylonians themselves in their tongue and in the idiom of their religious tradition.
Second because it refutes the narrative of military conquest and replaces it with one of divine liberation. Third, because Cyrus presents himself in it as a servant of Marduk, the very god Nabonitis had neglected, which meant to the furious priests of Marduk that Cyrus was restoring the honor of their god, an irresistible weapon. But before Cyrus could reach Babylon, there were military and diplomatic steps that could not be skipped.The great conquests of history rarely succeed by military force alone. Behind every major fall, you will always find a network of betrayals, defections, and secret alliances. The fall of Babylon was no exception.
Feelings ran deep among the Babylonians. No one had the right to rule over the region until he was formally consecrated by the god Bell and his priests. On that basis, Cyrus assumed the imperial title king of Babylon. He claimed to be the legitimate heir to the Babylonian kings and the avenger of the god Belle Marduk and portrayed himself as the savior chosen by Marduk to restore order and justice. This message found receptive ears inside Babylon before the Persian army had even reached its walls. The most prominent actor in the story of betrayal was a Babylonian military commander named Gubaru or Gobrias as he is rendered in Greek sources of Median Persian origin. The Persians were able to prevail at the battle of Opus thanks to Gubaru, commander of the Babylonian armies, who resolved to side with the Akeminids against Babylon, a man from within the Babylonian military apparatus itself, transferring his loyalty and perhaps opening the way with his intelligence and his movements. Alongside Gubaru, there was another force of even greater influence, the priests of Marduk. The priests of Marduk assumed that Cyrus was insensed by Nabonitis's religious transgressions, and they engaged with the Persian message. These priests who held the threads of the religious and political economy of the city, who oversaw the temples of Marduk, their treasuries, and their affiliated grain stores, constituted a state within the state.
When they saw in Cyrus someone who would restore honor totheir god, they becameat best passive bystanders and at worst active sympathizers with the invader.
In the spring of 539 BC, Nebonitis finally grasped the danger. He returned from Ta after his long absence and ordered all the divine statues from the surrounding regions to be brought into the city for its defense, but to no avail. It was too late. In late September of 539 BC, the Persian armies moved under the field command of Gubaru, who had been waiting for this moment toward the region of Opus on the Tigress River, roughly 80 kilometers northeast of Babylon. The battle of Opus took place in September 539 BC between the Akeminid Persians and the Babylonian Empire. The Persians prevailed and this was due to Gubaru of Median Persian origin who had resolved to stand with the Akeemonids against Babylon. The Neabonitis Chronicle mentions this battle and records the Babylonian reactions to it. The document describes the food stores that Neabonitis had ordered to be assembled near Babylon as though he were preparing for a long siege. But he did not know that the siege would never come. On the 10th of October, Persian forces seized the city of Cippar without a battle, and Nebonidis fled. Cippar, one of the sacred cities of northern Babylonia, fell without a single arrow loosed. The king of Babylon, had fled his sacred city, and the news reached Babylon, "Your king is fleeing." In Babylon, Belshazar was preparing for his feast.
We have reached the heart of the story. On the 12th of October 539 BC, the magnificent ancient city of Babylon fell to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in a single night. that capital of an empire stretching from the banks of the Euphrates to the Mediterranean and from the Taus mountains to the borders of the Arabian Peninsula would become a second rate city for the remainder of its history. That night, Belshazzer was hosting a grand feast in his palace. He wanted to display his arrogance and power. So he ordered that the golden and silver vessels his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar had looted from the temple of Solomon be brought out and used. It was a symbolic act proclaiming that Babylon stood above all things and that no one could touch her. But something strange happened in the banquet hall that night. Fingers writing on the wall. Three Aramaic words men, men, tech, ufaren. Their meaning weighed, weighed found wanting and divided. Whether we take this incident according to its religious account as a supernatural event or according to the interpretation of historians who see in it a secret political message that reached the king on that very night, the sharp irony documented by the sources remains the same. While the king was celebrating and a message of doom was being written for him, the Persian army was at work in the darkness outside the palace.
On the banks of the Euphrates north of the city, Persian engineers were executing the boldest military operation in the history of ancient warfare. Heroditus describes in his histories what took place with unmistakable precision. Cyrus stationed part of his army where the river entered the city and another part where it exited and ordered them to march into the city along the riverbed as soon as the water had become shallow enough to ford. The Persian army then poured through the channel the water reaching no higher than a man's mid thigh and in this way the Persian army entered the city. Xenopon agrees with this account in his Cyropedia book 75 explicitly stating that the combined army entered the city through the diverted channel of the Euphrates and that the city was unprepared because a great festival was being celebrated at the time the festival being Belshazzer's feast. But there is one question. How did the army enter through the riverbed when there were bronze gates on both sides of the river inside the city? Heroditus himself hints at the answer.
The Persian army could not have managed to enter had the bronze gates of the inner walls not been left unlocked. And they were left unlocked on the night of the great feast with the guards and officials occupied with the celebrations. Or perhaps they were left open deliberately by hands from within the city, those who had been waiting for this moment. And so with a simplicity as stunning as it was brilliant, the Persian army walked along thedry or near dry bed of Euphrates inside Babylon, found the gates open, and entered the heart of the city from within. Not a single arrow was fired at the walls. None of the great walls were broken. Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. In a moment that revealed that the city, for all its outward power, had already begun to lose its internal cohesion and had been transformed from a ruling state into a symbol to be seized, not resisted. And on that very same night, Belshazzer, who had been acting as regent for his father Nabonitis as king of Babylon, was killed the night after his great feast, and the Neoabylonian Empire ended at a dining table, not on a battlefield.
On the 3rd of October, roughly a week after his armies had moved, Cyrus himself entered Babylon. And what the Babylonians recounted about his entry is more remarkable than what historians usually report of a conqueror entering an occupied city. The Cyrus cylinder indicates that he was welcomed by the people of Babylon as their new ruler and that he entered the city in peace with the text invoking the god Marduk to protect Cyrus and his son Kambises. Guards were posted at the gates of the great temple of Bell where religious services continued without interruption.
He touched no temple and suspended no religious rights. His first military order was to protect the temples, not to plunder them. As for Nabonitis, the absent king who had fled from Cippar, he returned and surrendered to Cyrus.
Shortly afterward, Nabonitis came back from Boripa and gave himself up. The last king of independent Babylon surrendered quietly. It was all over.
What does this story truly teach us?
The first lesson, walls do not protect cities. Walls protect cities inhabited by united people. When loyalties fracture and institutions lose the trust of the people, walls become nothing but stone. Babylon did not fall because its walls were weak. It fell because many of those behind the walls had no desire to defend it.
The second lesson, absence from responsibility is deadlier than military defeat. Nabonitis was not defeated on the battlefield. He simply absented himself. And when kings and leaders turn away toward their own private interests, whether personal devotion, commerce, or preoccupation with the past, the institution they head begins a slow and silent collapse that no one notices until the collapse is complete.
The third lesson, the effective ruler did not die fighting. Belshazar did not fight the Persians. He died in a banquet hall. And this was the most grievous tragedy that any people's collective memory can record. That their ruler died not on the field of honor but at a table of celebration. The moment of the gravest danger in Babylonian history was met with the grandest feast in the history of the court.
The fourth lesson. Cyrus did not triumph by the sword alone. He triumphed through a deep understanding of what people want. People do not wish to be killed, nor humiliated, nor have their temples desecrated. When they found a conqueror who respected their religion, restored their exiles, and presented himself in their own cultural language, they found in him what they had never found in their own kings. This makes Cyrus a model not in military conquest, but in the governance of what comes after conquest.
Where is Babylon today?
It is a mound of earth in the Iraqi governorate of Babylon 80 km south of Baghdad. The archaeologist Robert Coldway went there in 1899 and transported the Ishtar gate to Berlin
stone by stone. And when the Americans came during the war of 2003, they established a military base on that very site and left the tracks of their heavy vehicles in the same soil that had been walked by the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. In the British Museum in London, the Cyrus cylinder sits in a glass display.
You can stand before it and study the ununiform script carved into its clay.
Thousands of visitors pass it every day. Many of them unaware that this small unassuming cylinder is the last remnant of a single night that altered the course of human civilization. In Jerusalem, the western wall still stands. That wall whose history traces in part to the second temple built by permission of Cyrus in the immediate aftermath of that night.
In Tehran, a replica of the Cyrus cylinder is sometimes placed at the center of the national exhibition halls as a symbol of Persian national identity. And in Washington, in the Library of Congress, you can find a copy of Xenopon Cyropedia, the very book that Thomas Jefferson read and drew inspiration from. The same book, the same story. The 12th of October 539 BC, a city fell, an empire ended, and a new world began.
All in a single night.
No comments:
Post a Comment