premjan

Babylon was captured by Cyrus, whose mother was a Mede Mandane.

Larsguy47

This is only according to Herotodus and Xenophon, two historians under attack for being revisionists and compliant with Persian influence (i.e. notice both are focussed on Persian history as much as Greek). But Ktesias claims that Cyrus was the son-in-law of Astyages, simply married to his daughter rather than her son, and Darius the Mede was his uncle-in-law, the half-brother of Astyages. Plus you have the Biblical account. The redating of the eclipse matches the strict Biblical timeline so I side with Ktesias in this case.

Thales eclpise proven and redated


LG47

Larsguy47

Interesting. But it depends on from which angel you're looking at. That's because per the Bible, the Jews were not to be released until the "royalty of Persia" began to rule (2 Chronicles 36:20, 21)

20 Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

Thus since Darius, although a MEDE was also an heir to the Babylonian kingship being also half Babylonian through his mother, the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian empire was not considered, indeed, to technically have ended until Darius the Mede abdicated his throne to Cyrus, willingly. So it's complicated to just make a general statement regarding this.

DARIUS 62 AT FALL OF BABYLON:

Daniel 5:30 "In that very night Bel·shaz´zar the Chal·de´an king was killed 31 and Da·ri´us the Mede himself received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old."

Using the chronology of the VAT4956 for the "relative" comparison, when the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 511BCE his rule begins in 547BCE at which time he was a young man of 18 years of age; being born in 565. If Darius the Mede was 62 years of age at the fall of Babylon in 462 BCE (7 years earlier, that is 1 year before his 6-year rule ending in 455BCE), then he would have been born in 524 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar would have already been 41 years of age, quite old enough to have a daughter from 16-22 years of age to trade in marriage to the king of the Medes. So the chronology works out.

Everything was fulfilled, just as prophesied.

LG47

Sauron

1. Wikipedia is not a source - it's a group blog.

2. As I mentioned above, the relationship is legendary and not historically attested. Britannica:

Akkadian Ishtumegu the last king of the Median empire (reigned 585–550 BC). According to Herodotus, the Achaemenian Cyrus the Great was Astyages' grandson through his daughter Mandane, but this relationship is probably legendary. According to Babylonian inscriptions, Cyrus, king of Anshan (in southwestern Iran), began war against Astyages in 553 BC; in 550 the Median troops rebelled, and Astyages was taken prisoner. Then Cyrus occupied and plundered Ecbatana, the Median capital. A somewhat different account of these events is given by the Greek writer Ctesias.

Sauron

1. The position can be stated emphatically, since we have evidence that shows Persia as the clear senior and the Medes being subjugated by Persia;

2. The bible lists them in BOTH orders; see these two quotation from Esther.

EST 1:3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him:
[…]
EST 1:19 If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.

1. No, "at the least" they were not equals. There was a clear senior power: Persia.

2. Persia didn't "rise" in dominance. Persia *subjugated* the Medes. Maybe you should look that word "subjugate" up.

Already addressed this nonsense above. Repeating it won't help, since you've already been shot down:

1. In the first place, that's a pretty flimsy peg to try and hang your argument upon. Whether someone speaking or writing puts one term before, or after, the other hardly indicates a level of importance. It may refer to any number of things: chronological first contact, for example.

2. In the second place, you've only presented one source that uses both nationality terms together - and that source is the bible. But as indicated, there are mistakes in bible chronology, so trying to use the bible to prove the bible won't work here;

3. In the third place, you're flat-out wrong in your claim that these terms always appear in the order "Medes and Persians" -- and apparently don't know your own bible (see quotes from Esther).

There is zero evidence that Darius the Mede ever existed.

More homemade history from the deranged messiah.

1. The Medes were already subjugated by the time of the Babylonian invasion. They were not allies; they were a conquered people.

2. At the sack of Nineveh in 621 BCE, the Persians played no part. That action was performed by the Medes and the Chaldean (neo-Babylonian) empire.

No evidence for this.

And as likewise noted, the Greeks were making a mistake when they were doing so. That was your own source, backfiring in your face, remember?

Because Media (the land of the Medes) is closer to Greece than Persia, the Greeks confused the Medes and the Persians—Herodotus and most Greeks in his day referred to the Persian Wars as "the Median affair"—which only goes to show how little the Greeks prior to the Classical Age understood of the world around them. Surely, this is part of the impetus that lies behind Herodotus' Histories, the need to find out more about who's out there and why they attack.


Like most fundibots, you repeat claims that have already been shot down, oblivious to the fact that they no longer work. Apparently you think that if you ignore the rebuttals to your claims that somehow they don't matter.

Sauron

A non-existent Mede, you mean.

Also wrong.

1. In the first place, by the time that Babylon fell Nebuchadnezzar had been long gone. The ruler in Babylon at the time was Nabonidus. Right of kingship doesn't travel through bloodlines of former former former kings.

2. In the second place, you are trying to graft the Cyrus legend (where Cyrus is the grandson of Astyages through the Median daughter Mandane) onto the Hebrew legend of a "Darius the Mede". Apparently you feel free to assemble your history by mix-n-match bits of various other legends until you get something that you like.

1. As indicated, there is no evidence that Darius the Mede existed. Therefore, he couldn't have abdicated a toilet seat, much less a throne.

2. The post-conquest administration of Babylon was handled by Persian administrators and military officers, of which two (Gobryas and Ugbaru) are named. Ugbaru died a month after the invasion, while Gobryas went on to become the post-invasion administrator.

3. The Babylonian empire ended in 539 BCE, when Cyrus conquered it bloodlessly and became ruler. The Babylonians even welcomed him. From my paper on the topic:





Not if you actually know history, it isn't.

Nanocyborg

No. The Assyrian Empire was ultimately destroyed by a coalition of Babylonian and Mede forces, when they destroyed Nineveh in 612 BC.

Sauron

"Under attack"? By who, Messiah Larsguy? You and the Jehovah Witnesses?

Can you cite one modern scholar of this material that is attacking Herodotus and Xenophon for what you claim; i.e. "being revisionist and compliant with Persian influence"?

Yes, and Ktesias is widely recognized as being unreliable. We don't even have his books; we only have sections that were quoted by other people. See: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/ctesias/ctesias.htm

Hex

Umm ... Lars, I hate to break it to you, but if you want to use that arguement, computerized astronomy programs have been easily available since the 1980's. If the chronology is -so- outdated, and these things you're pointing out are -so- obvious, why don't we see anything in the archaeological literature about revising the dating of any of these known, datable events?

Doesn't that make you think? Even a little? :huh:




I'd like to see your archaeological evidence that the Bible's version of history is the 'more' accurate! (And don't bother with Kenyon, we've heard your version plenty of times ... )

RED DAVE

It's in the same book where he has evidence of the love affair between Socrates and Aristotle (despite that Ari was born 18 years after Soc died).

RED DAVE