Talk:Battle of Opis/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Battle of Opis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ok, despite Kuhrt's unambiguous statement in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period that she retranslated all sources herself, we have one editor saying that she doesn't know Akkadian, so she can't have translated this passage, and another saying that she copied her translation from someone else. According to these editors, Kuhrt is either a liar or a plagiarist; either way, her translation is not to be trusted and is of no account for this article. Both of you are saying that she is a dishonest scholar. This is a remarkable accusation, and unless you have some solid evidence, I would advise you to stop making it--among other things, it strikes me as a violation of BLP.

Let me draw everyone's attention to Kuhrt's article "Nabonidus and the Babylonian priesthood", in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, eds. Mary Beard and John North (Cornell 1990), pp. 117-156. This article covers Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in some detail, and has a 2-page section on the Battle of Opis (longer than Lambert's article). Kuhrt compares translations of the disputed passage by Smith, Oppenheim, and Grayson, and argues that Grayson's interpretation of the text is correct (based on the historical context, rather than textual or linguistic considerations). So the assertion that Lambert is the only scholar to write specifically about this passage is incorrect; Kurht has written about it in more detail than Lambert.

In addition, I observe that this article covers some Akkadian texts in extensive detail, down to the meaning of specific lexical items (e.g. sange, mar bane). Therefore, Nepaheshgar's assertion that Kuhrt is not a scholar of Akkadian is false. I assume that Nepaheshgar made this error because he was unfamiliar with Kuhrt's work, rather than through deliberate omission, but it is not a good idea to make blanket statements about a scholar's work unless you are familiar with everything they've written.

(Another, much more minor problem with Nepaheshgar's statements is that we're not dealing with "Old Akkadian" in this text--this is from a later period, Old Akkadian is from the Bronze Age.) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again as I said, Kuhrt is not a noted Akkadian linguists. I knew she has done analysis on the battle of Opis but she is not a linguistic expert in Akkadian and she does not claim to be one. My claim is based on the notability of her in publishing papers/journals in Akkadian and I called for the other side to provide sources where she has published journals on the Akkadian language. Lambert has the added advantage that he is an Akkadain expert where-as Kuhrt is not. Grayson, Lambert, Oppenheim are Akkadian experts, Kuhrt is a historian but she is not an Akkadian expert and she is not noted in the scholarly community to be an Akkadian expert. That is easily provable if you look at her publication. By "Old Akkadian" I meant Old in the historic sense. I know this is relatively new Akkadian. But sometimes not only me but others have referred to it as "old Akkadian". The Old is to emphasize it is dead/ancient rather than its various stages. And you are misinterpreting our word on Kuhrt. We have said that Kuhrt has referenced Glassner and several others and her translation is exactly like theirs for that line and she has said she based her translation on others. But she is not known as an expert of Akkadian like Lambert or Grayson. Her book has quotes in Old Greek, Old Persian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin but she is not a linguist and not noted for contributing to the linguistic knowledge of any of these old languages. So the accusation of "dishonesty" needs to stop, she has quoted and relied upon several older translations and she is not a noted expert on the level of Lambert. Her translation for the disputed line is exact as her sources which she relies heavily upon (as she noted). Her knowledge on Akkadian is just like her knowledge in Old persian, Hebrew, Aramaic and etc., she is not a noted linguist/philologist in those languages. For example, I know enough again on Old Persian to say that although her book has lots of Old Persian quotes, she has never written journals or made contribution to better linguistic understanding of Old Persian. it is the same with Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Old Greek which are quoted by her book. Sure anyone can use dictionary and Old Persian 101 to tweak it little, but she relies heavily upon all the sources, and she is not a noted linguist/philologist. If I am wrong and she is a noted linguist/philologist of Akkadian and other ancient languages (and her personal webpage does not claim it to be so), then please show us the journals she has conributed to in these old Languages.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue remains the same - the translation depends upon the historical context, and the above is a red herring. Take it to the RSN. Doug Weller (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a referenced sentence in the article which reads > But other historians regard the second part of the account factual, while the first part contains a an earlier timeline, or as most agree Herodotus (based on his accurate description of Babylon) may have ment a two-week semi-siege after Opis.

It is referenced to a page in a book which says:

long attracted interest in terms of its reliability. No doubt elements of folklore infuse the narrative, and the modern historian should retain a healthy skepticism about its details. On the other hand, Herodotus shows a frequent interest in military tactics designed to exploit or overcome river and water barriers and can dismiss those that seem improbable to him (e.g., 1.75). In fact, Herodotus states that Darius I attempted Cyrus's strategy of lowering the Euphrates to capture Babylon, but Babylonian vigilance prevented the success of such an assault on the city (3.152). In any case, the historian should ask whether Herodotus's reconstruction represents merely a colorful tale. He was fairly well informed about defenses and building techniques at Baby-Ion and connects them plausibly to Cyrus's strategy. He offers a detailed description of the construction of the quay walls along the river in his description of the reign of Queen Nitocris. His description rests on precise knowledge about Babylonian building techniques (e.g., 1.186). We know from the inscriptions of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar, and Nabonidus that the Neo-Babylonian kings exerted massive energies in constructing quay walls of baked bricks set in bitumen, particularly along the cast bank of the Euphrates (Cole 1994: 93-95)." The main reason for these construction projects was the high water table at Babylon and the danger that the Euphrates, which bisected the city, would shift out of its channel or erode the fortifications (Ber-gamini 1977: 111-52; Koldewey 1990; Cole 1994). Herodotus also accurately notes the existence of a bridge over the Euphrates, which the German excavations at the city uncovered (Koldewey 1990: 155-57). Herodotus knew that the builders in Babylon had the ability to reduce the water level of the river to construct the quay walls. This too is confirmed by excavations, which reveal that Nabonidus's quay wall "was built almost entirely in the river bed" (Bergamini 1977: 128).

Herodotus then explicitly states that Cyrus adopted the procedure of lowering the river as a prelude to investing Babylon:

he posted his army at the place where the river enters the city, and another part of it where the stream issues from the city, and bade his men enter the city by the channel ot tin- Euphrates when they should see it to be loidable.... He himself marched away ... and when he came to the

1. Herodnius had exact knowledge of the Neo-Babylonians' use of bitumen and reed meshing in the baked brick walls: "using hot bitumen (or cement and interposing layers of wattled reeds at every thirtieth course ot bricks, they built first the border of the fosse and then the wall itself in the same fashion" (1.179). MacGinni* notes i hat the reeds generally were interposed at smaller intervals (1986:75).

I'm not clear how the sentence is derived from the source, or what a 'semi-siege' is. Doug Weller (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the fault of the user who put the two sentences before I put my last sentence, they said Herodotus' description of how Babylon(city) was taken is wrong, I say NOT;

1. Herodotus cannot be proven wrong, because no source says how the CITY of babylon was taken (that is against the description of Herodotus) he is therefore our only source.

2. As said in the book, Herodotus probably went to Babylon himself because he had an accurate perception of it.

3. He does not exactly say the city of Babyon was besieged, so as a counterattack to that wrong sentence I posted the last sentence in the battle section to rebute or neutralize that earlier sentence about Herodotus' description.

4. I will take semi-seige, and replace it with a siege, thanks Doug for pointing out my mistake of a reconciliation phrase to the earlier sentences.

5. I will therefore not let the earlier sentences get away with their treachery.

And that is it.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• Professor. John Huehnergard[1] of Harvard University: I suspect that Prof. Lambert's analysis is preferable; but late Bablyonian is not my area of expertise. You should ask Prof. Paul-Alain Beaulieu of the University of Toronto, who may also be able to supply the email of Prof. Grayson, which is not given in the usual lists of Assyriologists. Or contact Prof. Matthew Stolper at Chicago
• My comments: Two admins were CC'ed. More opinions from recognized Professor's will hopefully be coming.

You are wasting your time and theirs, Nepaheshgar. Unless their views are published in reliable third-party sources - such as a book or journal - they can't be used in this or any other article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The "two admins" who you cc'd would be well advised to tell you this. Also, by your own criteria, you shouldn't be using anyone who isn't "an expert in Akkadian", should you? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not joking! I believe it is very important to see what modern scholars think, irregardless. As per expert, late Akkadian or Babylonian is not the expertise of this Professor. But let us compare the two resumes. "John Huehnergard, Professor of Semitic Philology"His research interests are focused on the historical and comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, especially of their morphology and their dialectology. Among the Semitic languages, he has concentrated primarily on Akkadian, and secondarily on Ugaritic, classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez), ancient Aramaic dialects, and classical Hebrew. He is also interested in the study of modern Semitic languages (especially modern Ethiopian Semitic and Neo-Aramaic), in ancient Egyptian, in the larger Afro-Asiatic language family to which Semitic and Egyptian belong, in theoretical aspects of comparative and historical linguistics, and in the history of writing and literacy. Publications include Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, The Akkadian of Ugarit, A Grammar of Akkadian, and articles such as "Comparative Semitic Linguistics," "Old South Arabian Texts in the Harvard Semitic Museum," "What is Aramaic?," and "Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel." He teaches courses in Semitic linguistics and in various Semitic languages.. Now please compare it to this [2] from Amelie Kuhrt: My areas of expertise lie in the social, cultural and political history of the ancient Middle East (c.3000-100 BC), especially the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Seleucid empires. and just look at the book review mentioned by me and TB above.

:What this exactly proves is that we need people with expertise in Babylonian (very late form of Akkadian). Note the humility of the Professor, with such an impressive CV in semitic languages (he even has a book on Old Akkadian Gammer and Language) and yet refers me to two Professors who are known experts in the field for that era of Akkadian (Babylonian). I believe this point actually helps my case that what counts is expert translators (like Lambert). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer a question whose answer depends upon knowledge of the historical context? From what I've garnered, that's the most important thing. You still don't understand what is involved in translation. But we need reliable sources in any case and it is not up to us to decide which one is best. Doug Weller (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That is correct to an extent and I agree. But please note this statement by Lambert:The brevity of the last sentence is characteristic of the style of these late Babylonian chronicles.. So I think experience in translating Babylonian obviously is important and knowledge of the "style of these late Babylonian chronicles" seems to be important along with historical context.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to make something clear here first, I am going to change the date of the invasion route on the image, not the date of the battle. As the image itself is not trying to show when the battle occurred, but from when the invasion began to the when the battle begin which is for me January-October 539 BC.

And here is why, A.T Olmstead says in his book, The History of the Persian Empire, on a page I can not remember and can not reference because Google Books will not let me see it, but I have the book, and it is a celebrated book, I am sure you have heard about it before. Okay, lets get to the point, under the section of Cyrus's invasion of Babylon he says Cyrus was at the border which is based on the cuneiform evidence and his insight that Cyrus was on the border before the snows of winter 540 BC, meaning (as he explains later) a month before 539 BC. But then he enters the Babylonian lands in January (which then is the month he begins his march to Opis in October and then Babylon) and fights his first battle in February, and below is the evidence for the first battle.

On Livius.org, it has (as you may know many historical articles) the translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle which says sometime in February Cyrus made an attack on the ill prepared troops of Nabonidus, as even Olmstead mentions in his book, that is why I even knew about it. And Olmstead goes further on to say that Nabonidus (after fleeing the battle) transports the Gods he worshipped to other southern cities for protection, and all this happened before Opis. So just remember this last sentence for the rest of your life, that just because not a lot of people know about something does not mean it is not true, like saying more people say this and that, the battle in February is a perfect example that even the best historians on the subject just copy each other and do not do research, therefore they forget to even mention the earlier battle in their books, you know what I mean, thanks. Scroll all the way down and read the tiny line just before the Battle of Opis.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

OK, now I see where you're getting this from. The line in question is very fragmentary, and the translators all seem to disagree on how to approach it.

Date	Translator	Text	Source
1925	Smith	"... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech ... of the sea-land(?) ..."	Babylonian Historical Texts
1950	Oppenheim	"... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..."	Ancient Near Eastern Texts
1975	Grayson	"... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..."	Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
2004	Glassner	"[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s [...]."	Mesopotamian Chronicles
2007	Kuhrt	"[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia(?) ...]"	The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period

So as you can see, none of the translators agree with each other on this line. It's simply not true to say that "the best historians on the subject just copy each other and do not do research" - that's not true generally and not true in this case. Olmstead's book is quite old (1959) and isn't informed by more recent translations or historians - it's unsafe to rely on such an old work without looking at what modern historians and translators say. Because this part of the tablet is so fragmentary, nobody seems to have been able to draw any firm conclusions from it, though several do discuss it speculatively. The only points on which they agree is that it mentions Uruk, it probably mentions the Tigris, it mentions a country (though it's unclear which one) and it mentions some sort of military event. It's unclear whether those separate points are in fact linked, i.e. that there was a Persian attack on Uruk. If you have a look at the last paragraph I wrote in the "Background" section, I've already summarised this: "The chronicle records that prior to the battle, Nabonidus had ordered cult statues from outlying Babylonian cities to be brought into the capital, suggesting that the war had begun possibly in 540 BC; there are possible references to hostile action in the Uruk region in the winter of 540-539, and a possible reference to Persia."

Note also that Uruk is in the far south of Mesopotamia. The map shows Cyrus advancing from the far north from Gutium (per Xenophon), to Opis, Sippar and Babylon (per the Nabonidus Chronicle). Labelling it as the route he took from February is thus not only speculative, since the translators don't agree on that, it's inaccurate. There's no indication that Cyrus's advance from the north took place as early as February - the only date that is attested, as far as I know, is September/October per the Nabonidus Chronicle. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not wrong, but wasn't it ChrisO that disliked the new translation of Lambert over Graysons? And now why would ChrisO like new translations that put Cyrus's first victory against Babylon into a little dispute? I do not get it.

Firstly, I think you are mixing were each translation is coming from, please read below, and do not forget there is a seperate (which I will show near the end) Chronicle which Nabonidus defeats the Sea Country after a short invasion, so it has nothing to do with Cyrus. And the below is from Livius.org.

[Eleventh year (545/544): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month of Nisannu; Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual.]

[large lacuna, containing years #12, #13, #14, #15]

[... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack.]

(Note, the line above can only belong to year #16 which is 540-539 BC, because it comes after lacuna year #15 which is 541 BC, comman sense. And this is what Olmstead says, and probably others that would now agree with him and do (because based on his writings, his students updated the book and finished it for him (because Olmstead died) and his translation of the text is from 1960 which places it right before Grayson's, and all the other translations you put after Grayson say 'Persia made an attack killed or defeated they did', this is what he says in his book, p. 49, line 20+;)

"Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins."

(More evidence of massive support for Cyrus in the Babylon (I can say Babylon and not Babylonia because I can differenciate between city and state), because he brought the statues of the Gods back to their cities, which gained him nearly all the support in Babylon, after he had defeated Nabonidus in Opis. This all happened before the Battle of Opis because someone? (Cyr..) had defeated the Babylonian army in February, and in March Nabonidus desired divine help from Ishtar of Uruk. And then more bad news, a year later (As both Herodotus and Xenophon [Xenophon too talks of other minor battles in Babylon between Cyrus and Nabonidus] agree that Cyrus was diverting and building canals around the Tigris for about a year, so Cyrus was delayed at the Tigris for about a year. Then to make things worse, about six months later in the middle of 539 BC, the Sea Country made a short invasion (Probably from Oman as some historians speculate.)

[Seventeenth year (539/538); Nabû went from Borsippa for the procession of Bêl [lacuna] The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma; in the temple he [lacuna]. The Sea Country made a short invasion. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual [4 April]. In the month of [Âbu?] Lugal-Marada and the other gods of the town Marad, Zabada and the other gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil and the other gods of Hursagkalama visited Babylon. Till the end of the month Ulûlu all the gods of Akkad -those from above and those from below- entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants.]

(Note again, now they are refering to the Persian army as Cyrus's army, because of course Cyrus made himself famous in February, and as most historians and I and probably you know (even the small map shows it), Cyrus began his march from Ecbatana, which according to the distance, give or take a month Cyrus began his march in January, and ended his conquest of Babylonia October (not Babylon [city]) you keep mixing them up. Anyways January-October was the how long the whole thing took, which then make the total time of the from invasion to conquest, about 9 months.)

Conclusion

In all its entirety, Nabonidus, (most) of the translations of the historians, ~Herodotus, and Xenophon all AGREE that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis, and it is further more corraberatated by cuneiform evidence. And I will and know, and have more books to cite by more historians who actually mention the February battle, and the Chronicle I promised to put here is too long, just go on the site and look for it, under "Sea Country" Nabonidus has an entirely different account about them. So finally, if you do not agree, or still want to put the accounts of Cyrus's life which you feel to good to be true, into criticism (because Alexander has been criticized enough, which I actually feel sorry for him). Please go settle your dispute with the countless (I hope) historians who agree with this message, I have cited the best evidence for this event, so for once just say 'okay' and we can finally settle this minor (I hope) dispute, if you still disagree, feel free to comment below, thank you very much from the bottom of my heart. Goodbye and God speed John Glenn.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza And please do not make this like the dispute of the Battle of Opis, thanks...

I'm afraid that timeline of yours isn't corroborated by any source I've seen, and certainly not by any modern sources (again, I repeat - Olmstead's book is nearly 50 years old - it doesn't represent current thinking). It's certainly true that Oppenheim renders the line in question as "The army of the Persians made an attack" but no other translator before or since has accepted this translation. It's simply false to say that "most of the translations of the historians agree that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis." They don't. Look at the table I posted - they refer to some sort of military action, but it's unclear whether this was even in Babylonia or involved the Babylonians. The translators don't even agree that the line refers to the Persians rather than the "Sea Country". No source I've seen refers to a "defeat on the Tigris". Herodotus and Xenophon don't, as far as I know (Xenophon doesn't even mention Opis) - where are you getting those claims from?

I also don't know where you're getting that line you're bolding: "The Sea Country made a short invasion." I've got Oppenheim's original translation in front of me in hard copy and the line doesn't appear anywhere in it. Also, what's this about "Opis [i.e., Baghdad]"? Opis was about 80 km north of modern Baghdad. Frankly, that source is rubbish if it invents lines that aren't even in the translation it's supposed to represent and gets basic geographical details wrong. I'd suggest that you get your own copies of the published translations rather than relying on things you're downloading from the web.

All we can say is essentially what this article currently says - that the events of September/October are clearly described in the Nabonidus Chronicle, but everything before then is very uncertain and that historians don't agree on interpretations. We have to reflect that in the article. As I've said many times before, we can't declare that a particular interpretation is "the truth", especially when the interpretations are so tentative and conflicting. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we have to settle this issue with modern sources, because everything I provided, sources that span 2,500 years APPARENTLY is not good enough for you. Tommorow I will list countless books who mention the February battle. THE line that says the Sea Country made a short invasion was first said by the CHRONICLE, I just made it bold, it is on the site and it is an accepted translation. Secondly you did not look for the Sea Country on the livius.org (as I told you to do) site that has gotten awards for being a good historical site. I do not know why (even when the evidence shows it) you have trouble accepting the that their is a difference between Sea Country and Persia, ChrisO what your telling me is like saying the Native Americans made a short invasion of America while the British made small attack on America, we know that the British made a short invasion not the Native Americans. The translations only differ a little bit, don't you find it funny that all the new translations say the Persians made an attack, and if the Persians were defeated why did Nabonidus (according to Olmstead and others) empty the temples of all their gods, and blame it on Cyrus, as he retired south (he was fleeing from Cyrus), this is history, I do not know why it is hard for you to understand. In the other Chronicle Nabonidus defeats the Sea People, so how could the Sea People be the Persians? Whether the translations differ or not, the month/year (Sixteenth year of Nabonidus) put by the battle (if translated is) February. I do not think that you should criticize me for the location of Opis which has nothing to do with this issue, and I do not think it was even me that put that location for Opis. You are [right] we can not say which translations are true, but "defeated" does appear in the translations you put for me. So check your sources before putting more invalid messages for this issue, WHY don't you pretend your me, and research about the February battle (mostly on the Livius.org which you do not even care to look for in) that is it, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

OK, bring your sources here and we can discuss them. But please remember that (1) we can't declare any particular version to be "the truth", per WP:NPOV; and (2) livius.org appears to be a personal website, so it can't be used as a reliable source, per WP:V#Self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is more sources to come, but I do not get what your proposal is, frankly I am getting tired of your disputes, forget the neutral dogma, it has nothing to do with what you say now. You are discouraging me from contributing to Wikipedia, because of what your saying, is basically denying all the sources, even the translations you put, which reference a battle whether it be the Sea Country or the Persians, A battle did occur, THAT is undeniable. So why not put it on Wikipedia? Historians do not mention that line a lot in NEW books, because it so obscure they do not even bother talking about it, that is WHY it can be only found in old books about Persia. Which if one reads CONTAINS still valuable information not found in NEW books. It is like saying Herodotus is outdated, and then leaving his whole account of a certain battle out, are you kidding me, this is not how Wikipedia works. Your standards and demandes are nearly impossible to say the least. And creating disputes all over the place waists my time and yours. I am sorry to say this, but your reminding me of the rule-book dogmatic strict lady in the newly DVD released Harry Potter film, look for it, and find the new subsitute for the Hogwarts magic school, you cant miss the character, it is too obvious. Finally go to the link below, which other than Olmstead which is newer, the other one of BEST historians on Persia related subjects agrees that Cyrus's invasion of Babylon took a year and half (as said if one compares all the sources, I was wrong it took more than 9 months) RAWLINSON says Cyrus began from Ecbatana (I do not know why you think I get this info out my a..) but then begins his march with fully armed army in winter, and restarts after being delayed at the Tigris for a year in SPRING time, spring time is around February another coincidence? So go to the link below and R E A D from p.67-72. It says what I say here, further proof of Feb, and do not worry more SOURCES that are together and not seperated will be displayed here soon, and your giving undue weight to minor sources, only 2 out of 4 translations, the 5 total here do not show Olmsteads one, but he believed Persians made defeated the Babylonian army in February, which I cited above, so 4/6 translations say together, The Persian army made attack and fought/defeated Baby... in February, thanks. So here it is, remember what to do when you go to this link, [3] thanks.