28 



REV. ANDREW CRAIG KOIUNSON^ M.A.^ ON 



Mr. Maunder writes : — 



Mr. Schwartz's objections have force only against Herodotus and 

 Xenophon and the Annalistic Tablet; though I think that their 

 narratives are not those that he really wishes to call in question. 



The Annalistic Tablet tells us that on the night of the 11th of 

 Marchesvan " Gobryas made an assault and slew the king's son " ; 

 and the business contracts make it clear that it was immediately 

 after this date that the city of Babylon recognized its change of 

 masters : for up to that date the contracts are dated in the 17th year 

 of Nabonidus ; after it, in the accession year of Cyrus. The entry 

 of Gobryas into Babylon "without fighting," on the 16th day of 

 Tammuz had not effected any such change ; nor the entry of Cyrus 

 himself on the 3rd day of Marchesvan. Clearl}^, then, the 11th of 

 Marchesvan w^as the date of an event of much higher importance 

 than either, and marks the real "Fall of Babylon." 



Turning to the accounts of Herodotus and Xenophon, both agree 

 in ascribing the capture of Babylon to the lowering of the water 

 in the Euphrates by the diversion of much of it into trenches, 

 so that a river, usually more than 12 feet deep, was rendered 

 easily fordable. The account in Xenophon is well worth considering, 

 for he was one of the ablest soldiers of his time, and an earnest 

 student of military operations. He describes Cyrus as having first 

 attempted an investment of the city, but finding that his forces 

 were unduly weakened by the length of the line over which they 

 were extended, he gradually and most skilfully concentrated them. 

 Herodotus supplies the information that the concentration took 

 place at the two points where the Euphrates entered and left the 

 city. It is manifest that this manoeuvre would have been suicidal 

 unless the city on one side or the other of the Euphrates had been 

 already in the hands of the Persian troops. Incidentally therefore, 

 the Greek accounts confirm the suggestion of the Lecturer that the 

 "Babylon" entered by Gobryas on the 16th of Tammuz, and by 

 Cyrus on the 3rd of Marchesvan, was only the relatively small suburb 

 on the west bank, not the main city. In any case a traveller, like 

 Herodotus, so well acquainted with the Babylon and Euphrates of 

 his day, and a soldier so experienced as Xenophon, have a far 

 higher claim to acceptance than the mere a j^riori objections of 

 those who live 2,300 years later and know nothing personally of 

 the river and country. 



