The First Clash (7 page)

Cyrus was aware of these difficulties and used them to his advantage. Although the evidence is fragmentary, it appears that he began active operations along the Babylonian frontier as early as 541 BC. These attacks may have represented probing for weak points or raids designed to test the effectiveness and loyalty of the Babylonian army. However, it is more likely that they formed part of a coordinated propaganda campaign, which Cyrus began a full year before he was actually prepared to wage all-out war. Each attack provided further proof to the inhabitants of the frontier provinces that Nabonidus was either powerless to protect them or uninterested in doing so. Simultaneously, Cyrus’s agents began reaching out to the discontented groups within Babylon. The Book of Isaiah captures the effectiveness of these activities:

In fact, the Old Testament mentions Cyrus twenty-three times, always with lavish praise. Undoubtedly, Cyrus’s propaganda was equally successful with other transplanted populations and discontented groups. What we do know is that the commander of Babylon’s northern army and Gutium province, Gobryas (also referred to in many histories as Ugbaru), saw which way the tide was running and transferred his loyalty to Cyrus.

By 539 BC all was ready, and Cyrus launched his armies south. At the city of Opis, the Persians, joined by Gobryas and his troops, met the Babylonians and defeated them. Almost immediately, the people of the region rose in revolt against Babylon. But they rose a bit too early and were apparently slaughtered in great numbers by Nabonidus’s retreating forces.
³
Cyrus crossed the Euphrates at Opis, south of the massive Median Wall, which was taken in flank and rear and rendered useless.
⁴
Just as Cyrus made good use of Harpagos after he deserted Astyages, he also put Gobryas to good use. Having split his army in two, Cyrus took command of one portion himself and marched along the rear of the Median Wall, apparently in pursuit of Nabonidus and the remnants of the Babylonian army. After a two-week pursuit, Cyrus appeared before the walls of Sippar, on the east bank of the Euphrates, and the city threw open its gates. Nabonidus, who much to his surprise had found himself barred from entering Sippar, was still unable to meet the Persians in battle on the open plain, so he fled to Babylon.

Gobryas, in command of the other portion of the Persian army, had marched directly on Babylon. Upon arriving well ahead of Nabonidus, he also found the city gates open and marched into a welcoming Babylon without a fight.
⁵
When Nabonidus arrived from Sippar, the city had already fallen, and he was taken captive. The chronicles are silent as to his fate.
⁶

Cyrus’s careful preparations had paid off: The whole of Babylon’s empire had fallen to him after just one battle. Everywhere he was greeted as a liberator, and he apparently worked assiduously to keep his pre-war promises and to maintain his popularity. The Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Gobryas kept his forces in hand and placed a special guard around the
Babylonian temples to prevent looting.
⁷
Two weeks after Gobryas captured the city, Cyrus arrived (October 29). According to the Babylonian Chronicles, his path was lined with green twigs and a “state of peace was imposed upon the city.” The chronicle continues: “Cyrus sent greeting to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed subgovernors throughout Babylon.” Once again, Cyrus wisely placed a trusted Babylonian face on his rule, at least through the critical transition period. Unfortunately, Gobryas died soon after, but by that time the important work was done and Cyrus’s place on the Babylonian throne was secure. As the Nabonidus verse relates: “To the inhabitants of Babylon a joyful heart is now given. They are like prisoners when the prisons are opened. Liberty is restored to those who were surrounded by oppression. All rejoice to look upon him as king!”
⁸
Cyrus immediately reversed Nabonidus’s placement of the moon god, Sin, ahead of the foremost Babylonian god, Marduk. He also ended the former ruler’s other unpopular religious policies, which were responsible for much of the city’s discontent. More famously, he released the Jews from their Babylonian Captivity and ordered his governors in Syria to supply funds to help them rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Although there is no evidence to the fact, this was probably a policy he extended to other transplanted populations as well. Cyrus tarried in Babylon for several months to consolidate his rule before returning to his capital at Ecbatana. Before leaving, he had inscribed on a stone cylinder:

For the next eight years, until 530 BC, there is no further mention of Cyrus in the historical record. There is, however, a story in Arrian’s
Anabasis
(written over six hundred years later) claiming Cyrus lost the bulk of an army while trying to conquer the Indus valley.
¹⁰
If Cyrus did invade India, he would have first had to control Gandhara (modern Kabul), and since the Behistun inscription lists this region as one of the satrapies
Darius inherited from earlier kings, there is at least this confirmation that Cyrus campaigned in the area. However, it is just as likely that the Great King spent the bulk of this period consolidating the massive empire he now ruled. The Behistun inscription, which Darius ordered written after he ascended to the throne almost a decade later, takes it for granted that twenty great satrapies had already been designated prior to the start of Darius’s rule. Each of these areas was ruled by a satrap (
khshathrapavan
, translated literally as “protector of the kingdom”) and linked into a complex administrative system that must have taken considerable time and energy to implement.

The Cyrus Cylinder, produced after Cyrus conquered Babylon, tells of how the former king, Nabonidus, was unfit to rule, and details how Cyrus was pleasing to the Babylonians’ chief god, Marduk. In short, it is an excellent piece of propaganda defending Cyrus’s conquest
. The British Museum

When Cyrus again appears in the historical record, we find him on the empire’s northeastern frontier with his army, either attacking or defending against the Massagetes—probably a Scythian tribe. In typical fashion, Herodotus tells a colorful but probably fanciful story of this encounter.
¹¹
What is certain is that Cyrus was defeated and killed in battle. According to Herodotus, the Massagetae queen (Tomyris) had a wineskin filled with blood and thrust Cyrus’s severed head into it so as to “slake his thirst for blood.”
¹²

In any event, the Persians retrieved Cyrus’s body and took the great conqueror’s remains to Pasargadae, where they buried him with his arms and jewelry in a gold sarcophagus. He left to his son Cambyses the largest empire the world had ever known—an empire that was to last until Alexander the Great two hundred years later.

The Tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae, Iran. It honors Cyrus, the greatest conqueror in the ancient world until the time of Alexander the Great, and the founder of the Persian Empire
. The Art Archive/Alfredo Dagli Orti

THE RISE OF DARIUS

T
he oldest son of Cyrus, Cambyses, remains one of the great enigmas of history. If one believes Herodotus’s account, Cambyses was both cruel and mad. The great historian presents a lengthy list of the king’s transgressions, including the sacrilegious murder of Egypt’s sacred Apis bull, the kicking to death of his pregnant wife, and the scourging and murder of Egyptian priests. The truth is probably somewhat more complex. For instance, Egyptologists have proven that the sacred Apis bull did die soon after Cambyses conquered Egypt, but they have also uncovered a stone tablet showing the bull’s respectful burial.

Herodotus’s account often represents the evidence and opinions offered by persons with a vested interest in presenting Cambyses in the worst possible light. Therefore there is good reason to discount many of the negative stories about Cambyses. Moreover, as Cambyses’ successor, Darius, who had usurped the throne, had no interest in glorifying his predecessor, making the official records of his reign untrustworthy on this matter. For instance, much of what Herodotus tells us comes from Egyptian priests, whom he met almost half a century after Cambyses’ death. Herodotus would have had no way of knowing that these stories were the result of malice engendered by official propaganda and that they had nothing to do with actual cruelty or sacrilege on Cambyses’ part. It is likely that the priests disapproved of Cambyses because he reduced the payments promised them by the pharaoh Amasis, who bought their loyalty with great gifts to the temples. A papyrus at the French Bibliothèque National provides evidence that Cambyses was reducing the official generosity
to which the priests had become accustomed. It details Cambyses’ orders to reduce the taxes (in kind) going to the temples:

The loss of half their revenues and the indignity of having to raise their own poultry is a more likely source of animosity than anything presented by Herodotus.
¹
As for the Behistun inscription, it must be remembered that Cambyses’ successor, Darius, was in all likelihood a usurper with a vested interest in maligning the reputation of his immediate predecessor.
²

Whatever the final truth about Cambyses’ character, his accomplishments and failures are easier to ascertain. Although the events of the first several years of his reign are not recorded, he probably spent most of that time campaigning on the empire’s northeastern frontier. At the very least, it can be assumed that there was unfinished business with the Massagetes, who had killed Cyrus and still required pacification. There was also a significant amount of work required to consolidate all of Cyrus’s new additions to the empire, such as present-day Afghanistan. Moreover, after Cyrus’s death there may have been an extended period of internal instability that consumed much of Cambyses’ attention. Xenophon, in his fictional work the
Cyropaedia
, may have preserved an accurate historical tradition when he states that after Cyrus’s death, “immediately his sons quarreled and cities and nations revolted and everything took a turn for the worse.” The Behistun inscription provides supporting evidence that Cambyses may have faced a challenge to his power. On that inscription, Darius records that Cambyses had his brother, Smerdis, secretly murdered before embarking on his Egyptian campaign.
³
Finally, with the east settled, challengers dead, and the empire stable again, Cambyses turned his attention to a project Cyrus had entertained before his death—the invasion of Egypt.
⁴