Cyaxares II

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cyaxares II,
King of Media
predecessorAstyages
successorCyrus II the Great
birthc.600 BC
deathDec. 538 BC
spouseunknown
fatherAstyages
motherunknown

Cyaxares II, who is claimed by some to also be known as Darius the Mede, is the alleged son and successor of the legendary Ahasuerus, "King of Kings", Astyages, King of the Medes in Ecbatana who reigned from 561 to 536 BC according to Barnes’ Notes,[1] but for whom a better ending date might be late 538 BC (see below).

Since Cyaxares II does not appear in either the known imperfect Uruk King List or the Canon of Ptolemy, the generally accepted narrative supported by the 'known-to-be' questionable Herodotus, is that Cyaxares II is fictional and that the the throne of Media passed straight from Astyages to Cyrus the Great.

Original Sources

The son of Astyages, Cyaxares II (not to be confused with Cyaxares I, father of Astyages) does not specifically exist in any surviving or currently available extant cuniform tablets or the likes; but he does possibly exist with a potential dual reference in the absolutely monumental bas-relief Behistun Inscription (see below).

Meanwhile the strongest specific literary evidence for his existence lies within the pages Xenohon's crowning work, the Cyropaedia, who as a Greek military commander served in Cyrus the Younger's army. This work was so highly prized by Alexander the Great, that he made it his perpetual study;[2] by extension it was obviously also recommended to him by his mentor and tutor Aristotle,[3]. Likewise did Julius Caesar.[4] Meanwhile Scipio Africanus is reported to have carried it with him everywhere.[5] This combined with a possible identity match with Josephus' Darius, King of Media,[6] "the son of Astyages, [who] had another name among the Greeks"[7] creates a good case. Compoundingly, two of the rebels listed in Darius I's Behistun Inscription claimed "to be of the family of Cyaxares": which has naturally created debate if these are references to Cyaxares I or to the possible Cyaxares II. Finally those who accept the Book of Daniel to be true, note that it was Darius the Mede who officially seized the kingdom,[8] which happily correlates all three of these literary sources to their reasoning.

Alternatively, Cyaxares II does not appear in Ptolemy's Canon[9] or the Uruk King List.[10] But neither of these feature Belshazzar who became effective king of Babylon after his father Nabonidas capture now confirmed to us by the Nabonidus Cylinder (from Ur).[11][12] Similarly Ptolemy does not list Nerglissar's son Labasi-Marduk while the Uruk does.

Meanwhile Cyaxares II existence is further called into question when the Nabonidus Chronicle openly states that: 1. Cyrus the Great attacked Astyages and that the army betrayed Astyages[13] thereby 2. denying Astyages throne passed to Cyaxares II at all. This account is in harmony with Herodotus' narrative which may be derived from the Chronicle or another common source.

Clearly, legitimate debate over these sources does exist. Therefore in the following sections we shall examine these sources in more detail.

In the Book of Daniel

If one accepts that Cyaxares II and Darius the Mede are the same individual, then what is known in this cannonical book is that:

  • as the kingdom of Babylon officially falls, Cyaxares II recevies the title of King of Babylon, after Cyrus II the Great's conquest
  • the angle "strengthened" Cyaxares II in that "first year" as king of Babylon
  • the story of Daniel and the Lions Den has every indication of happening very soon after the conquest of Babylon.
  • Darius is noted as being the son of "the great king" of the Medes (which can only refer to Astyages as there isn't another candidate)
  • Darius was "made" king and "took" the kingdom of Babylon, not conquered it for himself.

Therefore we must note that all of these statements are in harmony with the statements of Xenophon, Josephus, Megasthenes, the implications of the Behistun Inscription and the habit of Ptolemy's Canon to exclude kings who do not reign for less than one calander year.

In the works of Xenophon

According to Xenophon, Cyaxares II ruled as king after the natural death of Astyages and sought to defended Media from Assyrian/Babylonian aggression, promoting his yet unascended nephew Cyrus as General/leader of the allied forces. Furthermore, Xenophon in great detail records the history of Cyrus' pre-emptive strike and campaigns with Cyaxares II, the first battle of which the king of Babylon (probably Neriglissar) was decisively defeated and slain. During the plunder of this battle Cyaxares II and Cyrus were separated and Cyrus continued to campaign alone with Cyaxares II eventually returning to Ecbatana. The volume records how Cyrus fused the alliance of nations under his banner until after several years Cyrus stands at the very gates of Babylon itself. Xenophon then very significantly records how after the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus travelled to Ecbatana wherein he met Cyaxares II, gifting him a palace in Babylon and accepted the hand of his daughter with the Kingdom of Media as her dowry. Xenophon then records how Cyrus travelled to Persia after the death of his father Cambyses I to receive his father's office.

This record stands in direct contrast regarding the existence of Cyaxares II with the Nabonidus Chronicle,[14] Herodotus and Ctesias accounts, Ptolemy's Canon[15] and the Uruk King List[16] on the one side. But on the other, it alone offers a satisfactory reason as to why the authoritative Behistun Inscription twice has rebels claiming to be "of the family of Cyaxares"[17][18] and not "of the family of Astyages" (being the last monarch of Media if the likes of the Nabonidus Chronicle are true); while it must also be noted that if these rebels were referring to Astyages father Cyaxares I, then claims to the throne that are over a hundred years old does not make for a strong case! It must also be noted that this inscription is the dictate of Darius I himself, who in turn is the son of one Cyrus' right hand men who lived these events. Now when one considers the Book of Daniel's claim that Darius the Mede "received the kingdom" (rather than the Cyrus) despite known physical history, this claim is harmonized when Josephus records that "Darius the Mede" "was the son of Astyages" but "known to the Greeks by another name".

Herein, historians are forced to make a choice between the account of Xenophon's Cyropaedia, backed by the immensely authoritative Behistun Inscription, or these contrary works.

In the works of Megasthenes

In this account, Megasthenes claims that moments before Nebuchadnezzar II's death, the gods possessed him and he uttered: "A Persian mule shall come, [and] shall impose upon you the yoke of slavery: the author of which sall be a Mede." While this is of a very differnt nature to the contents of Xenophon, the story is consitent with Xerophon's contents.

In the works of Josephus

Josephus does not use the title of "Cyaxares", but rather names Darius the Mede as the son of Astyages, simply acknowledging that Darius the Mede is known by another name among the Greeks. Considering the possible candidates at the time, this has led many to comment on this convergence and conclude that Josephus' Darius the Mede, son of Astyages is Cyaxares II.

In the Behistun Inscription

The Behistun Inscription details the nine self-proclaimed kings who rebelled in Darius Hystspes' first year of power whom he subdued. Two of those rebels claimed to be "of the family Cyaxares,"[19][20] of whom the former claimed a false identity while the latter may well have been legitimate (but a rebel none the less). Regardless, this gives rise to the debate if they are referring to Cyaxares I, father of Astyages or to Astyages' possible son and successor Cyaxares II.

It must be noted that Phraortes claimed "I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares"[21] as did Tritantaechmes.[22] If they refer to Cyaxares I over a hundred years prior, then their legitimate claim to the throne would be extremely small. But if they refer to a potential Cyaxares II two generations later, then a much more legitimate claim could be substantiated.

When did Cyaxares II die?

Since Cyaxares II does not appear in official records that were compiled after his death, and which official records were used by later sources such as Ptolemy’s Canon in setting forth the sequence of kings, there are no known direct sources that can be used to specify exactly the years of his reign (assuming that he really did reign as king of Media as Xenophon relates). There are, however, some sources from which estimates can be made of the time of his death. The first of these is the statement in the Cyropaedia (8.6.22) that, after the capture of Babylon, Cyrus shared his time between three capitals: Babylon, Susa the capital of Persia, and Ecbatana the capital of Media. Cyropaedia 8.7.1 says that his last trip to Persia was in the seventh year of his reign. Cyrus died in August of 530 BC,[23] implying that, in the source used by Xenophon, his full reign began in about 537 BC. He would only be reckoning Ecbatana, traditional capital of the Medians, as one of his capitals after the death of Cyaxares. This information from the Cyropaedia therefore suggests that in the period from 539 to late 538 or early 537 BC, Cyaxares was still alive and reigning.

Another means of estimating the time that Cyaxares was still alive and ruling after the capture of Babylon comes from contract texts. William Shea did an extensive study of Babylonian contract texts which dated the contract to a year of Cyrus.[24] He examined several texts that named the reigning king as Cyrus, the first of which was dated to the 23rd day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the “accession year” of Cyrus, that is the year in which he was recognized as king in Babylon. This agrees with the statement in the Nabonidus Chronicle that Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus in the seventh month, causing the Babylonians to revolt (possibly Persian propaganda) and Nabonidus to flee. Shea found three texts dated to this seventh month of Cyrus’s accession year. In all of them Cyrus was called “King of Lands” and also “King of Babylon.” This is followed by 29 contract texts dating from the eighth month of Cyrus’s accession year to the ninth month of his year one (Kislev, Nov/Dec 538 BC) the title “King of Lands” is retained, but the title “King of Babylon” is dropped for Cyrus, returning in contract texts dated to the tenth month, year one (December 538/January 537 BC). Shea surmised that the reason for the puzzling omission of “King of Babylon” as a titulary for Cyrus for 14 months was because someone else was honored with that title during this time, and he conjectured that that person was Gubaru, leader of the Gutians (Xenophon’s Gobryas), an identification that is not feasible, because, among other reasons, the Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Gubaru died only 25 days after the conquest of Babylon. If, however, Cyrus let it be known that the people should give Cyaxares the title “King of Babylon” in deference to his uncle (a deference that appears at critical places in the Cyropaedia), then this information could be used to date the death of Cyaxares to the time when the title “King of Babylon” reverted back to Cyrus, i.e. to some time just before year one of Cyrus, month ten, day 16 (December 23, 538 BC), the earliest date after the 13-month hiatus in giving this title to Cyrus. This would place the death of Cyaxares just shortly before that time, i.e. probably sometime in December, 538, in good agreement with Xenophon’s statement that Cyrus made use of all three capitals, including Ecbatana, in the last seven years of his reign, 537 to 530 BC. This date for the death of Cyaxares is in agreement with the book of Daniel, where the references to “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 5:31, 6:28, 9:1, 10:1, and 11:1 imply that his length of reign in Babylon was not long before he was superseded by Cyrus.

Similarities between Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede

  • Both were kings of Media in the sixth century BC.
  • Both were contemporaries of Cyrus, king of Persia.
  • Both were the highest rulers in the empire, having authority over Cyrus right after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (Cyropaedia 8.5.17, 20; Daniel 6:6–9).
  • Both were given to fits of immoderate anger (Cyropaedia 4.5.9: Cyaxares had a “reputation for being violent and unreasonable”; Daniel 6:24: families of plotters against Daniel were thrown to the lions, not just the plotters).
  • Both were vainglorious, i.e. the praise and adulation of the people were so important to them that they took actions to receive that praise that were not in their best interests (Cyropaedia 4.5.51–53, 5.5.1–2, 38–40; 8.5.17; Daniel 6:6–9).

Why is Cyaxares II Not Mentioned in Herodotus?

Historical Details in the Cyropaedia

In various details, Xenophon shows that he is a more accurate historian regarding events and people of the time than Herodotus. Although a consensus of scholarship has favored Herodotus for many years, more recent research has cast doubt on this judgment. Steven Hirsch writes of “several instances in which the chance survival of outside evidence guarantees that the authority of Xenophon is to be preferred to that of Herodotus . . . Critics are especially quick to pounce whenever Xenophon contradicts the “historical” tradition found Herodotus. Yet there are occasions when it can be confirmed from Oriental evidence that Xenophon is correct where Herodotus is wrong or lacks information.”[25].

Examples of events, circumstances, or people where Xenophon’s history has proven more accurate than that of Herodotus include the following.

  • Herodotus has a clearly fabulous story of the birth and early upbringing of Cyrus and says his father Cambyses was a commoner, not a king. Xenophon, as verified by the Cyrus Cylinder and other cuneiform documents, correctly says his father was Cambyses, king of Persia, and presents details of Cyrus’s upbringing that are consistent with his status as son of a king.
  • Herodotus knows nothing of Belshazzar, whereas he plays an important role in the Cyropaedia, in which he is referred to as “this young fellow who has just come to the throne” (5.2.27).
  • The Cyropaedia correctly refers to Belshazzar as a king (4.6.3; 5.2.27; 5.4.12, 24, 26, 33; 7.5.29) as does the book of Daniel (5:31, 6:6, 8, 9, etc.) and a cuneiform text called “The Verse Account of Nabonidus.”[26] Despite these independent demonstrations that Belshazzar was a king, critical scholars, in their attempt to discredit the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel, maintain that the Bible is mistaken in calling Belshazzar a king. Collins: “The fact remains that there is no evidence to corroborate the claim of Daniel 5 that Belshazzar was king in any sense at the time of the fall of Babylon.”[27]
  • Gobryas (cuneiform Gubaru) plays a significant role in the Cyropaedia, where he is governor of Gutium and one of the two generals leading the forces into Babylon on the night it fell, a role that is confirmed in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Herodotus has no mention of this important figure. Steven Anderson concludes: “It is highly unlikely that Xenophon would correctly report historical details concerning such then-obscure persons as Belshazzar and Gubaru, in contrast to Herodotus, and yet miss the major fact of the conquest of the Medes by Cyrus.”[28]

A Motive for Removing Cyaxares II from History

The various reasons for accepting Xenophon’s history of the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, rather than that of Herodotus, as explained just above, still does not account for the fact that it is not only Herodotus, but also other ancient historians such as Ptolemy lack any reference to Cyaxares II. Most of these historians, especially Ptolemy, derived their list of kings from the court records of the Persian conquerors of Babylon. History is written by the victors, and there was an adequate motive for the victorious Persians to downplay or remove altogether the personage of Cyaxares II from their history if that history was as portrayed in the Cyropaedia.

If the Cyropaedia is right about the existence of Cyaxares II, then the problem confronting Cyrus immediately after the capture of Babylon was that his uncle Cyaxares II was a Mede. The Medes were hated by the Babylonians; they regarded them as a chief enemy, as shown by the Harran Stela inscription of Nabonidus, written just three years or less before the capture of Babylon. In the propaganda of the Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus is at pains to portray himself as the one chosen by Marduk to restore the proper worship of Marduk to Babylon, for which it was necessary to defeat and replace Nabonidus, who was not giving Marduk his due homage. Since Cyrus was the one who entered Babylon “peacefully” (Cyrus Cylinder) and was recognized by the Babylonians as general of the armies and their conqueror, and he was known as the king of Persia, it would be to his advantage to remove himself as far as possible from any association with the hated Medes. Because of the various evidences that Cyaxares II died less than two years after the capture of Babylon, after his departure it would have been convenient to omit him from the history of the time as written by the Persian conquerors. The official history then, as consulted by Ptolemy and other respected historians, would have no reference to Cyaxares II.

The case of Belshazzar shows that that the Persian propaganda effort could successfully remove an important king from history. In the Cyrus Cylinder and other Persian texts we find no mention of this king’s name, even though he was reigning in Babylon as coregent with his father Nabonidus in 539 BC. Because the Persians not only wrote their own version of history, but also systematically erased many of their enemies’ inscriptions, Belshazzar was only known in the book of Daniel and works derived from it for many centuries. This led skeptics to say Daniel’s Belshazzar was fiction, or that Belshazzar was just another name for Nabonidus. This changed when, starting in the 1860s, inscriptions were found with Belshazzar’s name, also showing that he was coregent with his father and king in Babylon.

Why then was Belshazzar omitted from history as written by the Persians? In the Persian version of history, Marduk gave Babylon to Cyrus because Nabonidus was not a faithful worshipper of Marduk. However, that was not true of Belshazzar, his faithful devotee. Since this inconvenient fact did not fit the Persian party line, the solution was to simply omit Belshazzar from official histories. As Steven Hirsch comments, “The real Cyrus was a master of propaganda, as can be seen from the Cyrus Cylinder, the Babylonian verse chronicle of Nabonidus’ fall, and the stories of Cyrus’ merciful treatment of conquered kings, all no doubt propagated with Cyrus’ encouragement or active participation.”[29] For many centuries, that propaganda was successful in removing Belshazzar from history, except in the Bible. It has been more successful with Cyaxares II, who is still not accepted as a real person by most historians, despite the lack of any reason for Xenophon to invent him, and also despite his close resemblance to Daniel’s “Darius the Mede.”

The Achaemid Family Tree showing the merging of the royal houses of the Medes and the Persians to create the Medo-Persian Empire.

Resources

  • [1]Steven D. Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014).
  • [2]Translation of the Cyrus Cylinder.
  • [3]Xenophon, Cyropaedia: the education of Cyrus, translated by Henry Graham Dakyns and revised by F.M. Stawell.

References

  1. ↑ Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel 9:1.[4]
  2. ↑ Xenophon, Cyropaedia, Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK
  3. ↑ Quintus Curtius Rufus History of Alexander, 1.9
  4. ↑ Xenophon, Cyropaedia Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK
  5. ↑ Xenophon, 'Cyropaedia, Introduction, Delphi Classics, 2013, Hastings, UK
  6. ↑ Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 10.11.2.[5]
  7. ↑ Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 10.11.4.[6]
  8. ↑ Daniel 5:31
  9. ↑ Livius, Ptolemy's Canon. [7]
  10. ↑ Livius, Uruk King List.[8]
  11. ↑ Livius, Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur.[9]
  12. ↑ Livius, ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle), Column iii.16.[10]
  13. ↑ Livius, ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle), Column ii. [11]
  14. ↑ Nabonidus Chronicle, Column ii.1-4, [12]
  15. ↑ Ptolemy's Canon, [13]
  16. ↑ Uruk King List.[14]
  17. ↑ Darius I, Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Phraortes.[15]
  18. ↑ Darius I, Behistun Inscription, Rebellion of Tritantaechmes. [16]
  19. ↑ Darius I, Behistun Inscription. [17]
  20. ↑ Darius I, Behistun Inscription.[18]
  21. ↑ Darius I, Behistun Inscription.[19]
  22. ↑ Darius I, Behistun Inscription. [20]
  23. ↑ Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A. D. 75 (Providence: Brown Univ. Press, 1956), 14.
  24. ↑ William H. Shea, “An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period II,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 9 (1997): 99–128.
  25. ↑ Steven W. Hirsch, “1001 Iranian Nights: History and Fiction in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia,” in The Greek Historians: Literature and History. Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek (ed. M. Jameson; Saratoga, CA: ANMA Libri, 1985), 73, 80.
  26. ↑ Verse Account: “He [Nabonidus] entrusted the “Camp” to his oldest (son), the first-born . . . He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him.” J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), 313b.
  27. ↑ John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 32, 33.
  28. ↑ [21] Steven D. Anderson, Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (Steven D. Anderson: Grand Rapids, 2014), 34.
  29. ↑ Steven W. Hirsch, The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1985), 177, n. 69.
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cyaxares_II&oldid=1941965"