Changes

When he became general of the combined armies, Cyrus was still subject to his temperamental overlord, Cyaxares II. This relationship continued until just after the capture of Babylon in 539 BC by the forces under Cyrus. After affairs were settled in the city, Cyrus went to his uncle in Ecbatana, the Median capital, “and when they had exchanged greetings, the first thing Cyrus told Cyaxares was that a palace had been selected for him in Babylon, and official headquarters, so that he might occupy a residence of his own whenever he came there; and then he also gave him many splendid presents” (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17). Cyaxares responded by offering his daughter as wife to Cyrus, “and with her I offer you all Media as a dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue” (8.5.19). Cyaxares died less than two years after this, at which time the Persians officially became the leaders in the Medo-Persian coalition, even though Cyrus had been the leader of their combined armies for several years before that.

When he became general of the combined armies, Cyrus was still subject to his temperamental overlord, Cyaxares II. This relationship continued until just after the capture of Babylon in 539 BC by the forces under Cyrus. After affairs were settled in the city, Cyrus went to his uncle in Ecbatana, the Median capital, “and when they had exchanged greetings, the first thing Cyrus told Cyaxares was that a palace had been selected for him in Babylon, and official headquarters, so that he might occupy a residence of his own whenever he came there; and then he also gave him many splendid presents” (''Cyropaedia'' 8.5.17). Cyaxares responded by offering his daughter as wife to Cyrus, “and with her I offer you all Media as a dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue” (8.5.19). Cyaxares died less than two years after this, at which time the Persians officially became the leaders in the Medo-Persian coalition, even though Cyrus had been the leader of their combined armies for several years before that.

The problem that the Cyrus Cylinder, when it was found and translated, presented to Xenophon’s account was that there was no mention of Cyaxares II in this or in any of the later cuneiform accounts produced by Cyrus and his successors. Therefore in the late eighteenth century historians decided that the essential features of Herodotus’s story (except the birth narrative) must be true. After seventeen centuries of scholarship, starting with Josephus in the first century, that favored Xenophon’s account over that of Herodotus, the pendulum swung in favor of Herodotus. The verdict: there was no such person as Cyaxares II, son of Astyages, although no one could offer a satisfactory explanation of why Xenophon invented him. The main themes of the ''Cyropaedia''—the education and character of Cyrus, and Xenophon’s digressions on the ideal ruler and military commander—could have been presented without such a person. In that regard there is something of a similarity with the “critical” view of Darius the Mede in the biblical book of Daniel, chapter 6: There was no such person as Daniel’s Darius, even though the book of Daniel could have been written just as well without him. The story of Daniel in the lions’ den would be more acceptable to modern historians if the king who reluctantly allowed this to happen had been Cyrus rather than “Darius the Mede.” And so Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede, both of whom curiously are presented by their respective authors as being the supreme authority over Babylon immediately after the end of the Neo-Babylonian empire in 539 BC, have shared a similar fate: they were consigned to non-existence in the world of historical reality.

The problem that the Cyrus Cylinder, when it was found and translated, presented to Xenophon’s account was that there was no mention of Cyaxares II in this or in any of the later cuneiform accounts produced by Cyrus and his successors. Therefore in the late eighteenth century historians decided that the essential features of Herodotus’s story (except the birth [[narrative]]) must be true. After seventeen centuries of scholarship, starting with Josephus in the first century, that favored Xenophon’s account over that of Herodotus, the pendulum swung in favor of Herodotus. The verdict: there was no such person as Cyaxares II, son of Astyages, although no one could offer a satisfactory explanation of why Xenophon invented him. The main themes of the ''Cyropaedia''—the education and character of Cyrus, and Xenophon’s digressions on the ideal ruler and military commander—could have been presented without such a person. In that regard there is something of a similarity with the “critical” view of Darius the Mede in the biblical book of Daniel, chapter 6: There was no such person as Daniel’s Darius, even though the book of Daniel could have been written just as well without him. The story of Daniel in the lions’ den would be more acceptable to modern historians if the king who reluctantly allowed this to happen had been Cyrus rather than “Darius the Mede.” And so Xenophon’s Cyaxares II and Daniel’s Darius the Mede, both of whom curiously are presented by their respective authors as being the supreme authority over Babylon immediately after the end of the Neo-Babylonian empire in 539 BC, have shared a similar fate: they were consigned to non-existence in the world of historical reality.

 

===Conflict of the Cyrus Cylinder with the “[[Harran Stela]]” of Nabonidus===

===Conflict of the Cyrus Cylinder with the “[[Harran Stela]]” of Nabonidus===

Recent scholarship has recognized that the Cyrus Cylinder, and texts that followed in its genre, must be recognized as propaganda that sought to rewrite the history of the time so that it was favorable to the Persian conquerors while casting the previous Babylonian regime, particularly Nabonidus, in a bad light. Among the cuneiform texts of this type are the “Verse Account” of Nabonidus and the “Dream Text” of Nabonidus; both of these were Persian adaptations of earlier genuine texts of Nabonidus, but which were rewritten to reflect badly on Nabonidus. The previous authentic Babylonian texts were then systematically destroyed. This is all consistent with a passage in the ''Cyropaedia'' in which Cambyses I tells his son Cyrus, who is about to engage in the first conflict with the Babylonians, that a great general or leader of men “must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a robber . . .” (1.6.27). Cyrus apparently followed this advice, so that Steven Hirsch writes, “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.”<ref> 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.</ref> In a similar vein, J. van der Spek: “Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”<ref>R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations,” in ''Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 260.</ref>

Recent scholarship has recognized that the Cyrus Cylinder, and texts that followed in its genre, must be recognized as propaganda that sought to rewrite the history of the time so that it was favorable to the Persian conquerors while casting the previous Babylonian regime, particularly Nabonidus, in a bad light. Among the cuneiform texts of this type are the “Verse Account” of Nabonidus and the “Dream Text” of Nabonidus; both of these were Persian adaptations of earlier genuine texts of Nabonidus, but which were rewritten to reflect badly on Nabonidus. The previous authentic Babylonian texts were then systematically destroyed. This is all consistent with a passage in the ''Cyropaedia'' in which Cambyses I tells his son Cyrus, who is about to engage in the first conflict with the Babylonians, that a great general or leader of men “must be designing and cunning, wily and deceitful, a thief and a robber . . .” (1.6.27). Cyrus apparently followed this advice, so that Steven Hirsch writes, “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.”<ref> 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.</ref> In a similar vein, J. van der Spek: “Cyrus was very successful in his propaganda and modern historiography is still influenced by it.”<ref>R. J. van der Spek, “Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations,” in ''Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper'' (eds. Michael Kozuh et al.; SAOC 68; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 2014), 260.</ref>