Comparison Of Herodotus And Cyrus Cylinder

The accounts of the defeat of Babylon from Herodotus and the Cyrus Cylinder are polar opposite, one defeat is through attack while the other is a peaceful take over. Herodotus’ version indicates that Cyrus was led by a need for power, Herodotus writes that after “having subdued the rest of the continent, [Cyrus] turned his attention to Assyria” (78). In Herodotus’ account, after Cyrus spent an entire summer “punishing” a river, he was met with Babylonians awaiting his arrival, and they “attacked him, but they were defeated and forced to retire inside their defences” (83). In order to concur Babylon, Cyrus manipulated Euphrates, allowing his troops to capture the outskirts “without the people in the centre knowing anything about it” (Herodotus 84). Herodotus’ version also states that the people of Babylon were happy before Cyrus invaded the city, they were celebrating during a festival and “continued to dance and enjoy themselves, until they learned the news the hard way” (84). The Cyrus Cylinder, however, indicates that the god Marduk chose Cyrus to replace Nabonidus, the king who “repeatedly did that which was bad for his city” (Kuhrt 71). Cyrus was chosen because of his “good deeds and his righteous heart,” and was led peacefully, without battle, into the city of Babylon

Herodotus’ version also indicates that Cyrus was quick to anger and somewhat vengeful; this is shown when Cyrus’ horse was killed in the river Gyndes, Cyrus became “so furious with the river for daring to do such a thing, that he swore he would punish it” (83). Cyrus proceeded to waste the entire summer “punishing” the river. Conversely, the Cyrus Cylinder portrays Cyrus as being a peaceful, godly man. It implies that Cyrus was chosen by the god to restore justice and peace to Babylon. This version of Cyrus is righteous and fair, he was a king whose “reign was loved…and whose kingship they wanted to please their hearts” (Kuhrt