What is collapse, why did ancient Babylon collapse. The Myth of the Fall of Babylon

Fall of Babylon 1 - Come down, sit in the dust, virgin daughter of Babylon a; sit on the ground, not on the throne, daughter of the Babylonians. You will no longer be called gentle and refined. 2 Take the millstone, grind flour; take off your veil. Pick up your skirts, bare your feet, cross the rivers.3 Let him be naked

The Fall of Babylon 1 After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great power; the whole earth was illuminated by his glory. 2 He said with a mighty voice: “The great harlot Babylon has fallen, fallen, and has become a dwelling place for demons, a haven for every unclean thing.”

Fall of Babylon 1 - Come down, sit in the dust, virgin daughter of Babylon a; sit on the ground, not on the throne, daughter of the Chaldeans. You will no longer be called gentle and refined. 2 Take the millstone, grind the flour; take off your veil. Pick up your skirts, bare your feet, cross the rivers.3 Let yours be exposed

Rivers of Babylon Psalm 136 has a clear origin in the period of captivity: Ps. 136: 1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. Babylon is located on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, about forty miles to the east. The exiled Jews, spreading throughout all this

Mythology of Babylon The main plots of Middle Eastern literature come from Sumerian ones. The Akkadians, having conquered the Sumerians, adopted their culture, which then passed through Babylon and Assyria. The myths of the Babylonians and Assyrians are related to their Sumerian prototypes. Two of them - “Descent

XLVIII Fall of Babylon. The situation of the Jews under Cyrus. Manifesto for the release of prisoners. Chronology The ancient eastern monarchies, being based on conquest and oppression, did not have the makings of strength and vitality. They were mostly forcibly united

Babylon, excavated by Koldewey, was the capital of an empire created almost exclusively by the will of one of its last kings, Nebuchadnezzar II. The period of the so-called Neo-Babylonian kingdom lasted from 605 to 538 BC. e., and at the end of it, Babylon from the center of the civilized world turned into a dying provincial city, with few inhabitants, dilapidated and forgotten.

So what is the reason for the fall of the majestic capital?

Part of the answer is that in the age of military despots, states are only strong when their rulers are strong. In the case of Babylon VII-VI centuries. BC e. One can name only two such strong rulers who were able to turn the course of history for the benefit of their people - Nabopolassar (626-605 BC) and his son Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC). The kings of Babylon who ruled before and after them ended up as puppets either in the hands of foreign rulers or local priests.

When Nabopolassar came to power, Babylon, as it had been for the previous two hundred years, was still a vassal state of Assyria. During this time, Assyria conquered almost the entire then known world, taking possession of vast territories and causing the boundless wrath of the conquered peoples. The Medes were especially burdened by the Assyrian yoke, and Nabopolassar made the main bet on them in the struggle for independence. The Medes successfully repelled the attacks of the Assyrians for several centuries and became famous as skilled horsemen and brave warriors. King Cyaxares of Media, to the delight of Nabopolassar, agreed to seal the alliance by marrying his daughter Amytis to the Babylonian prince Nebuchadnezzar.

After this, both kings felt strong enough to wage an all-out war against the hated Assyrians. Apparently, the leading role in this war was played by the Medes, who besieged Nineveh for three years; Having broken through the walls, they were able to achieve their goal - to destroy the Assyrian capital, in which the Babylonians willingly helped them. After the fall of Assyria, Nabopolassar, as an ally of the victorious Indian king, received the southern part of the former empire. Thus, Babylon gained independence and new territories not so much through military action as through the skillful diplomacy and insight of its ruler. Prince Nebuchadnezzar later became famous for his military campaigns, defeating the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish in 604 BC. BC, and then the Jews in the Battle of Jerusalem in 598 BC. e. and the Phoenicians in 586 BC. e.

Thus, thanks to the diplomatic skill of Nabopolassar and the military prowess of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian Empire was created, and its capital became the largest, richest and strong city throughout the then known world. Unfortunately for the subjects of this empire, the successor of its great kings was Amel-Marduk, whom the Babylonian historian Berossus describes as “the unworthy successor of his father (Nebuchadnezzar), unrestrained by law or decency”—a rather curious accusation against an Eastern monarch, especially if you remember all the atrocities of former despots. But we should not forget that the priest accused him of “intemperance,” and it was the priests who conspired to kill the king, after which they transferred power to the commander Nergal-Sharusur, or Neriglissar, who took part in the siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC. e., according to the Book of the prophet Jeremiah (39:1-3):

“In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came with all his army to Jerusalem, and besieged it.

And in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, the city was taken.

And all the princes of the king of Babylon entered into it and sat in the middle gate, Nergal-Sharetzer, Samgar-Nebo, Sarsehim, the chief of the eunuchs, Nergal-Sharetzer, the chief of the magicians, and all the other princes of the king of Babylon.”

It is noteworthy to mention two Nergal-Sha-retzers at once, which is not surprising, since this name means “may Nergal protect the king.” The second of them, the chief of the magicians, was most likely a court official; the first, obviously, was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, whose son, Amel-Marduk, was killed during the uprising. Little is known about this Neriglissar, except that he reigned for only three years (559-556 BC), and his son even less - eleven months. Then the priests placed another of their protege on the throne - Nabonidus, the son of a priest.

Nabonidus seems to have spent the seventeen years of his reign doing nothing but restoring the temples of his country and tracing the ancient history of his people. He traveled throughout the kingdom with a retinue of historians, archaeologists and architects, overseeing the implementation of his building program and not paying much attention to political and military issues. He founded his permanent residence in the Teima oasis, transferring the management of the empire onto the shoulders of his son Bel-Shar-Usur, that is, the biblical Belshazzar. Nabonidus called him “the firstborn, the offspring of my heart.”

As often happens - at least in official versions history - a pious, enlightened and peace-loving monarch, instead of recognition and love, receives contempt and ingratitude from his subjects. What the Babylonians themselves thought about this ruler, whose manners resembled more a professor than an emperor, we do not know. The thoughts and opinions of the ordinary Babylonian never served as a measure of the valor of the rulers ancient Mesopotamia, but we can more or less likely guess that the average person was hardly interested in the history of religion or the restoration of temples in remote provinces. The king, on the contrary, was very interested in this, and especially in the restoration of the temple of Sin, the ancient lunar deity, the son of Enlil, the god of the air, and Ki, the goddess of the earth. He so wanted to rebuild this temple in his hometown Harran that this desire gave rise to discontent among the Babylonian priests and merchants; in other words, they felt that their god and their interests were suffering due to the fault of the very man whom they had nominated for kingship.

Be that as it may, it so happened that Babylon, the most impregnable city in the world, in 538 BC. e. yielded almost without bloodshed to the onslaught of the Persian army led by Cyrus the Great. Surely this fact discouraged many contemporaries and some scientists of later times, because in that era the capture of the city was accompanied by streams of blood, destruction of houses, torture of local residents, violence against women and other similar atrocities. This again contradicts what is described in the Bible and predicted in the prophecy of Jeremiah. The story about “king” Belshazzar and the writing on the wall should most likely be considered a fairy tale, for Belshazzar was the son not of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabonidus, and not a king, but a prince. And they killed him not in Babylon, but on the western bank of the Tigris during the battle with the Persian Cyrus. And he did not at all cede his kingdom to “Darius the Mede.”

Likewise, Jeremiah's terrible prophecy that Babylon would become a place of desolation and savagery was ultimately fulfilled not because Yahweh decided to punish the offenders of the Jews, but because of the prolonged wars and conquests that devastated the land over the centuries. Despite all the prophecies, the great city continued to prosper under the rule of Cyrus, whose laudatory inscription partly explains what happened:

“I, Cyrus, king of the world... After I mercifully entered Babylon, with immeasurable joy I made my home in royal palace... My numerous troops peacefully entered Babylon, and I turned my attention to the capital and its colonies, freeing the Babylonians from slavery and oppression. I made their sighs quiet and softened their sorrows.”

This inscription, of course, is in in the best spirit official wartime reports, both ancient and modern, but it gives at least some insight into the siege of Babylon in 539 BC. e. - namely, that Babylon was treacherously surrendered; otherwise Nabonidus' son Belshazzar would not have had to fight outside the city. Additional details of this story are set forth by Herodotus, who may well have heard the story of the capture of the city from an eyewitness. The Greek historian writes that Cyrus besieged the city for quite a long time, but unsuccessfully because of its powerful walls. In the end, the Persians resorted to the traditional trick, taking advantage of the division of the Euphrates into several lateral branches, and the advance troops were able to enter the city along the river bed from the north and south. Herodotus notes that the city was so large that the townspeople living in the center did not know that the enemies had already occupied the outskirts, and continued to dance and have fun on the occasion of the holiday. Thus Babylon was taken.

So Cyrus conquered the city without destroying it, which is ancient history happened extremely rarely. There is no doubt that after the Persian conquest, life in the city and the surrounding lands continued to proceed as before; in the temples they made sacrifices every day and performed the usual rituals that served as the basis public life. Cyrus turned out to be a wise enough ruler not to humiliate his new subjects. He lived in the royal palace, visited the temples, worshiped the national god Marduk, and paid due respect to the priests, who still controlled politics ancient empire. He did not interfere in the trade and commercial activities of the city, and did not impose an unnecessarily heavy tribute on its inhabitants. After all, it was the unfair and burdensome exactions of selfish tax collectors that often served as the cause of uprisings in conquered cities.

This would have continued for quite a long time and the city would have flourished further if not for the ambitious plans of pretenders to the Babylonian throne during the reign of Cyrus' successor Darius (522-486 BC). Two of them claimed to be the sons of Nabonidus, the last of the independent kings of Babylon, although whether this was actually the case is unknown to us. The only mention of them remains in the Behistun inscription, carved by order of Darius. From it we learn that the Persian king defeated the rebels, and executed one of them, Nidintu-Bela, and crucified the other, Arakha, in Babylon. On the relief, Nidintu-Bel is depicted second, and Arakha seventh, in a row of nine conspirators tied to each other by the necks and standing in front of Darius. Nidintu-Bel is depicted as an elderly, possibly gray-bearded man with a large, fleshy nose; Arakha is represented as young and stronger. Persian texts say the following about these rebels:

“A certain Babylonian named Nidintu-Bel, son of Aniri, rebelled in Babylon; he lied to the people, saying, “I am Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus.” Then all the provinces of Babylonia went over to this Nidintu-Bel, and Babylonia rebelled. He seized power in Babylonia.

So says King Darius. Then I went to Babylon, against this Nidintu-Bel, who called himself Nebuchadnezzar. Nidintu-Bel's army held the Tigris. Here they fortified themselves and built ships. Then I divided my army, putting some on camels, others on horses.

Ahuramazda helped me; by the grace of Ahuramazda we crossed the Tigris. Then I completely destroyed the fortifications of Nidintu-Bel. On the twenty-sixth day of the month of Atria (December 18), we entered into battle. So says King Darius. Then I went to Babylon, but before I reached it, this Nidintu-Bel, who called himself Nebuchadnezzar, approached with an army and proposed to fight near the city of Zazana on the banks of the Euphrates... The enemies fled into the water; the water carried them away. Nidintu-Bel then fled with several horsemen to Babylon. With the favor of Ahuramazda I took Babylon and captured this Nidintu-Bel. Then I took his life in Babylon...

So says King Darius. While I was in Persia and Media, the Babylonians raised a second revolt against me. A certain man named Arakha, an Armenian, son of Khaldit, led the uprising. In a place called Dubala, he lied to the people, saying, “I am Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus.” Then the Babylonians rose up against me and went with this Arakha. He captured Babylon; he became king of Babylon.

So says King Darius. Then I sent an army to Babylon. I appointed a Persian named Vindefrana, my servant, as commander, and I spoke to them like this: “Go and defeat this Babylonian enemy who does not recognize me!” Vindefrana then went with an army to Babylon. With the favor of Ahuramazda, Vindefrana overthrew the Babylonians...

On the twenty-second day of the month Markazanash (November 27), this Arakha, who called himself Nebuchadnezzar, and his main followers were captured and chained. Then I proclaimed: “Let Arakha and his chief followers be crucified in Babylon!”

According to Herodotus, who wrote his work just fifty years after these events, the Persian king destroyed the city walls and demolished the gates, although if he stationed his troops in the palaces and houses of the city in winter, he obviously did not destroy everything. True, the matter was not limited to the destruction of the fortifications; he also ordered the crucification of three thousand of the main instigators, which gives some idea of ​​the population of Babylon in 522 BC. e. If these three thousand were representatives of the highest religious and civil leadership - say, one hundredth part of all citizens - then it turns out that the adult population was about 300 thousand, to which should be added about 300 thousand children, slaves, servants, foreigners and other inhabitants . Taking into account the population density of the cities of the Middle East, it can be argued that about a million people lived in Babylon and its environs.

Despite the destruction caused by Darius, the city continued to be the economic center of the Middle East, as it was located at the intersection of routes from north to south and from east to west. However, under the Persians he gradually lost his religious significance. After another uprising, the Persian king Xerxes (486-465 BC) ordered the destruction of not only the remains of walls and fortifications, but also the famous temple of Marduk, and the statue was taken away.

The significance of such an order is especially emphasized by the fact that, according to popular belief in the Middle East, the well-being of a people depended on the well-being of the temple of its main god. Suffice it to recall how quickly Sumerian cities fell into decay after enemies destroyed their temples and stole statues of the gods. According to the unnamed author of “Lament for the Destruction of Ur,” it was the desecration of the statues of the gods that led to such sad consequences. It says nothing about the defeat of the army, poor leadership or economic reasons for the defeat - which our contemporaries would say when discussing the reasons for the defeat. All disasters, according to the author, happened solely because the dwellings of the gods were violated.

The most famous example of the identification of a national deity with the fate of a people is the Old Testament story of the destruction of the Temple and the theft of the Ark, which were the culminating moment of the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. The Ark is not just a shrine to the god Yahweh, it is a kind of symbol comparable to the eagles of the Roman legions (the loss of which was considered equivalent to the cessation of the existence of the legion). A box for storing a stone fetish, possibly from Mount Serbal on the Sinai Peninsula, was identified with the abode of Yahweh when he decided to come down to earth to people. Other Semitic peoples also had similar temples and “arks”. All of them, along with religious ones, also largely performed military functions, so that the Jewish Yahweh and the Babylonian Marduk played a similar role as a military deity. Thus, Yahweh, who in the early books of the Bible is identified with the Ark itself, leads the Israelites in battle, and is glorified in case of victory, but never blamed in case of defeat. Defeat, for example from the Philistines, is explained by the fact that during the battle the Ark was not on the battlefield. The captivity and exile to Babylon is also explained by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar took away the container of Yahweh. Now it was the turn of the Babylonians to suffer when Xerxes destroyed the sanctuary of Esagila and deprived them of the statue of Marduk.

The destruction of the central temple in such a theocratic society as Babylonian inevitably meant the end of the old order, since kings could no longer be crowned kings according to ancient customs at the Akutu festival. This ritual was so important in the state cult that it is mentioned in connection with all the victories of the state. So what was this “akutu” and why was it so necessary for the successful functioning of the Babylonian socio-political system?

First of all, it was a celebration of the New Year, which always played a very important role in ancient societies as a symbolic meeting of spring and a period of renewal of life. On such an important occasion, Marduk left his temple and was carried at the head of a huge procession along the Processional Road. Along the way, he met the gods of distant cities, especially the former rival and now chief guest of Nabu, the patron saint of the city-state of Borsippa. Both gods were brought into the Sacred Chamber or Holy of Holies, where they held council with the other gods regarding the fate of the universe. Such was the divine, or heavenly, meaning of the New Year holiday. The earthly meaning was that God transferred power over the city to his viceroy-king, for until the king “put his hand in the hand of Marduk,” thus symbolizing succession, he could not become the legitimate spiritual and earthly king of Babylon.

In addition, the “akunu” was annual holiday all the gods, as well as their priests, priestesses and temple servants. The ceremonies to celebrate the New Year were so solemn and symbolic that not a single king of Babylon, Assyria, and at first Persia dared to refuse to attend the Assembly of the Gods. Statues of gods, kings, princes, priests and the entire population of the city dressed in special clothes for this occasion; every detail of the ritual had its own religious significance, every action was accompanied by such ceremonies that this holiday could rightfully be called the most solemn and magnificent spectacle in the entire then known world. The number and roles of the participants, the number of victims burned, the processions of ships and chariots, as well as the unusually magnificent rituals represented the quintessence of the entire religious tradition of the Babylonian state. Only by realizing all this can one understand why the desecration of the temple of the main god disrupted the structure of the Babylonian theocracy and weakened vitality society. The theft of the main idol meant that no Babylonian would henceforth be able to join his hand with the hand of Marduk and declare himself an earthly king with a divine right to lead the country, and no Babylonian would be able to see the religious action that depicted the death and resurrection of Marduk.

The destruction of the “soul” of the city, of course, did not mean that it instantly turned into ruins and was abandoned by its inhabitants. Yes, many influential citizens were crucified or tortured to death, and thousands were taken into captivity, becoming slaves or soldiers of the Persian kings who fought against the Greek city-states. But during the time of Herodotus, who visited the city around 450 BC. e., Babylon continued to exist and even flourish, although outwardly it gradually deteriorated, since it no longer had local kings who would take care of the condition of the walls and temples. The Persian rulers had no time for this; they tried to conquer Sparta and Athens, but without success, losing troops and navy. In 311 BC. e. Achaemenid Empire led by Darius III suffered final defeat. Alexander the Great entered Babylon and proclaimed himself its king.

Alexander's contemporaries give an excellent description of Babylon. As some later authors, notably the Greek Flavius ​​Arrian, note, Alexander, wishing to immortalize his exploits for posterity, appointed several of his subordinates as military historians, instructing them to record the events of each day. All records were summarized in single book, which was called “Ephemerides” or “Daily Book”. Thanks to these records, as well as the stories of warriors recorded later by other authors, we have the most complete description of military campaigns, countries, peoples and conquered cities in the entire era of antiquity.

Alexander did not have to take Babylon by storm, since the ruler of the city Mazeus came out to meet him along with his wife, children and mayors. The Macedonian commander, apparently, accepted the capitulation with relief, since he did not really want to besiege this, judging by the description of the contemporary Greek historian, a very fortified city. From this we can conclude that the walls destroyed by Xerxes in 484

BC e., by 331 they were restored. The local population was not at all preparing to repel the attack, but, on the contrary, gathered to greet the Greek conqueror. Officials vied with each other to try not only to point out Darius’ treasury, but also to strew the hero’s path with flowers and garlands, erect silver altars on his way and fumigate them with incense. In short, Alexander, who had not fired a single arrow, was given such honors as were later given only to the most famous Roman generals. The Babylonians, remembering that the capture of a city is usually celebrated with executions or crucifixion of prisoners, hastened to appease the winner by providing him with herds of horses and herds of cows, which the Greek quartermasters favorably accepted. The triumphal procession was led by cages of lions and leopards, followed by priests, soothsayers and musicians; bringing up the rear were Babylonian horsemen, a kind of guard of honor. According to the Greeks, these horsemen “submitted themselves to the demands of luxury rather than utility.” All this luxury surprised and amazed the Greek mercenaries, who were not accustomed to it; after all, their goal was extraction, not conquest of new territories. The Babylonians were superior to these, in their opinion, semi-barbarians in cunning and intelligence. And it is worth noting that in in this case they actually saved the city by escaping battle and making the invaders fall in love with it. This is exactly what the priests, officials and horsemen in magnificent attire sought. Alexander was immediately taken to the royal chambers, showing the treasures and furniture of Darius. Alexander's generals were nearly blinded by the luxury of the accommodations provided to them; ordinary warriors were placed in more modest, but no less comfortable houses, the owners of which tried to please them in everything. As the historian writes:

“Nowhere did the morale of Alexander’s army decline so much as in Babylon. Nothing corrupts more than the customs of this city, nothing excites and awakens dissolute desires. Fathers and husbands allow their daughters and wives to give themselves to guests. Kings and their courtiers willingly organize festive drinking bouts throughout Persia; but the Babylonians were especially strongly attached to wine and devoted to the drunkenness that accompanied it. The women present at these drinking parties are dressed modestly at first, then they take off their clothes one by one and gradually strip off their modesty. And finally - let's say this out of respect for your ears - they throw away the most intimate veils from their bodies. Such shameful behavior is characteristic not only of dissolute women, but also of married mothers and spinsters who consider prostitution a courtesy. At the end of thirty-four days of such intemperance, the army that conquered Asia would undoubtedly weaken in the face of danger if it were suddenly attacked by any enemy ... "

Whether this is true or not, we must remember that these words were written by a Roman of the old school. However, they liked the reception given to Alexander’s soldiers in Babylon so much that they did not destroy the city and commit atrocities usual for that time. The Macedonian king stayed here longer than anywhere else during the entire campaign, and even gave orders to restore buildings and improve appearance capital Cities. Thousands of workers began to clear the rubble from the site of the Temple of Marduk, which was to be rebuilt. Construction continued for ten years and even two years after the death of Alexander in the same Babylon.

He died in 325 BC. e., and the circumstances of his death are quite curious, since it happened due to drinking. From his early youth - despite the upbringing given to him by Aristotle - Alexander was fond of wine and merry feasts. Once, during one such feast, at which, in addition to Alexander, his generals and local courtesans were present, one of those present set fire to the palace in Persepolis, the residence of the Persian kings, destroying in his rampage one of the most beautiful buildings of the Ancient World. Returning to Babylon, Alexander returned to his old ways, but his long binge ended in serious illness. Perhaps the reason it is so premature death became cirrhosis of the liver.

One thing is certain - the short thirteen-year reign of this Macedonian king radically changed the cultural and political situation throughout the then known world, and especially in the Middle East. By that time, these lands had seen the rise and fall of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Medes and Babylonians. Persian Empire also fell under the blows of a small but invincible army consisting of Macedonian cavalry and Greek mercenaries. Almost all the cities from Tire in the west to Ecbatana in the east were razed to the ground, their rulers were tortured and executed, and their inhabitants were slaughtered or sold into slavery. But Babylon managed to avoid destruction this time thanks to the fact that it wisely played on the addiction of the Macedonians and Greeks to wine and women. The great city had to survive and exist for several more centuries before it died of natural causes, from old age.

Alexander was given a traditionally lavish funeral, accompanied by public displays of grief, hair pulling, suicide attempts and predictions of the end of the world, for what kind of future could one talk about after the death of the deified hero? But behind all this solemn façade, generals and politicians had already begun to argue about the inheritance, since Alexander had not appointed his successor and had not left a will. True, he had a legitimate son from the Persian princess Barsina, daughter of Darius III; another heir was expected from his second wife, Roxana, princess of Bactria. Before the body of her late husband had been placed in the grave, Roxana, no doubt instigated by the courtiers, killed her rival Barsina and her young son. But she did not have to take advantage of the fruits of her cunning; Soon she too shared the fate of her rival along with her son Alexander IV. She died at the hands of the same commander Cassander, who had previously killed the mother of Alexander the Great, Queen Olympias. The Oxford Classical Dictionary describes this monster as “a merciless master of his craft,” but this is a rather modest description of a man who killed two queens and a prince in cold blood. However, Alexander’s veterans surprisingly quickly came to terms with the death of Roxana and her son, because they did not want to see a king with “mixed blood” on the throne. The Greeks did not fight for this, they said, to bow to the son of Alexander by a foreigner.

The death of two possible successors, the sons of the Persian Barsina and Roxana from Bactria, opened the way to the throne for all the ambitious commanders who crossed Asia with Alexander and participated in the legendary battles. Ultimately, their rivalry led to internecine wars, which affected Babylon little, as they were fought on the outskirts of the empire.

Therefore, we can assume that the death of Alexander marked the end of the history of Babylon as greatest city peace. The inhabitants themselves hardly mourned the death of the emperor very much - they loved the Greeks no more than the Persians - but Greek conquest At first it held great promise. Alexander declared that he was going to make Babylon his eastern capital and rebuild the temple of Marduk. If his plans had been implemented, Babylon would once again have become the political, commercial and religious capital of the entire East. But Alexander died suddenly, and the most far-sighted inhabitants seemed to immediately understand that last chance hopelessly lost for revival. It was clear to anyone that after the death of the conqueror, chaos reigned for a long time, and yesterday’s close associates of the king squabbled among themselves over the remains of the empire. Various sons, wives, friends and associates of Alexander sought to take possession of Babylon, until finally this city fell to the commander Seleucus Nicator.

During the reign of this Greek warrior, who, like others, was forced to make his way with weapons, the city experienced several years of peace. The new ruler even intended to make it the capital of the Middle East again. The remains of the Temple of Marduk continued to be carefully dismantled, although due to the sheer volume of them, the work was never completed. This in itself was a sign of the decline of Babylon. It seemed that vitality was leaving the city; the inhabitants were overcome by a feeling of hopelessness, and they realized that their city would never regain its former greatness, that they would never rebuild the temple of Marduk, and that constant wars would finally destroy the old way of life. In 305 BC. e. Seleucus also realized the futility of his attempts and decided to found a new city, calling it after himself. Seleucia was built on the banks of the Tigris, 40 miles north of Babylon, still at the crossroads of the east-west routes, but far enough from the old capital that it became its rival. In order to finally put an end to the city that had outlived its age, Seleucus ordered all major officials to leave Babylon and move to Seleucia. Naturally, merchants and traders followed them.

The artificially created city grew quickly, satisfying the vanity of Seleucus Nicator rather than the needs of the surrounding area. Most of population moved from Babylon, and bricks and other building materials were transported from Babylon. With the support of the ruler, Seleucia quickly overtook Babylon, and in a very short time its population exceeded half a million. The agricultural lands around the new capital were quite fertile and were irrigated by water from a canal connecting the Tigris and Euphrates. The same channel also served as an additional trade route, so it is not surprising that two hundred years after its founding, Seleucia was considered the largest transit point in the East. Wars in that region raged almost continuously, and the city was constantly captured and plundered, until in 165 AD. e. it was not completely destroyed by the Romans. After this, the ancient Babylonian bricks were transported again and used to build the city of Ctesiphon, which in turn was sacked and destroyed during the Eastern wars.

For a long time, Babylon continued to exist next to its prosperous neighbor as a second capital and as a center of religious worship, which by that time had already become significantly outdated. The rulers of the city supported the temples of the gods, which during the Hellenistic period had fewer and fewer admirers. To the new generation of Greek philosophers, scientists, writers and artists - representatives of the elite of the civilized world - all the old gods, like Marduk and the rest of the gods of the Sumerian-Babylonian pantheon, seemed absurd and funny, like the bestial gods of Egypt. Possibly by the 2nd century. BC e. Babylon was already almost deserted, and it was visited only by lovers of antiquities, who were accidentally brought to these parts; Apart from services in temples, little happened here. The officials and merchants, having left the old capital, left behind only the priests, who continued to maintain the appearance of activity in the sanctuary of Marduk, praying for the prosperity of the ruling king and his family. The more enlightened of them probably continued to observe the planets for the purpose of predicting the future, since astrology was considered a more reliable method of divination than others, such as divination by the entrails of animals. The reputation of the Chaldean magicians was also high in Roman times, as can be seen, for example, from the Gospel of Matthew, which tells about the “magi from the East” who came to worship the born Christ. The great Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria praises Babylonian mathematicians and astrologers for their research into the nature of the universe, calling them “true magicians.”

Whether the priests of the last days of Babylon deserved such a flattering description from Philo, and at the same time from Cicero, is a moot point, for at the beginning of our era in the West they knew only one name “the greatest city the world has ever seen.” In the East, the special privileges that Babylon enjoyed made it a kind of “open city” in an era of constant wars between the various conquerors of Mesopotamia - the Greeks, Parthians, Elamites and Romans. His authority remained so great that even the most insignificant leader of a detachment who managed to temporarily capture the city considered it his duty to call himself “King of Babylon,” patronize temples and gods, dedicate gifts to them and, probably, even “put his hand in the hand of Marduk.” ", confirming his divine right to the kingdom. Whether these later monarchs believed in Marduk or not is not important, because all the pagan gods completely replaced each other. Marduk could be identified with Olympian Zeus or Jupiter-Bel - the names changed depending on the language and nationality. The main thing was considered to be the maintenance of the earthly dwelling of God in good condition so that he has somewhere to go down to meet people; as long as the cult of Marduk retained some significance and the corps of priests performed services, Babylon continued to exist.

However, in 50 BC. e. the historian Diodorus Siculus wrote that the great temple of Marduk lay in ruins again. He states: “In essence, only a small part of the city is now inhabited, and the larger space within the walls is given over to agriculture.” But even during this period, in many ancient cities of Mesopotamia, in many dilapidated temples, services were held to the old gods - just as a thousand years later, after the Arab conquest, Christ continued to be worshiped in Egypt. The Arab historian El-Bekri gives a vivid description of the Christian rituals performed in the city of Menas, located in Libyan desert. Although this is not the place and time we are considering, approximately the same could be said about Babylon.

“Mina (i.e. Menas) is easily identified by its buildings, which still stand today. You can also see fortified walls around these beautiful buildings and palaces. They are mostly in the form of a covered colonnade, and some are inhabited by monks. There are several wells preserved there, but their water supply is insufficient. Next you can see the Cathedral of Saint Menas, a huge building decorated with statues and beautiful mosaics. There are lamps burning inside day and night. At one end of the church there is a huge marble tomb with two camels, and above it a statue of a man standing on these camels. The dome of the church is covered with drawings that, judging by the stories, depict angels. The entire area around the city is occupied by fruit trees, which produce excellent fruit; there are also many grapes from which wine is made.”

If we replace the cathedral of St. Menas with the temple of Marduk, and the statue of the Christian saint with the dragons of Marduk, we get a description of the last days of the Babylonian sanctuary.

One inscription from the late period records a visit by a local ruler to the ruined temple of Marduk, where he sacrificed a bull and four lambs “at the gates.” Perhaps we are talking about the Ishtar Gate - excavated by Koldewey grandiose building, decorated with images of bulls and dragons. Time has been kind to it, and it still stands in its place, rising almost 40 feet. One bull and four lambs are a hundredth part of what was sacrificed to the gods in former times, when the kings marched along the Processional Road to the shouts of thousands of crowds.

The Greek historian and geographer Strabo (69 BC - 19 AD), a native of Pontus, may have received first-hand information about Babylon from travelers. In his Geography, he wrote that Babylon was “mostly devastated,” the ziggurat of Marduk was destroyed, and only the huge walls, one of the seven wonders of the world, testify to the former greatness of the city. Strabo's detailed testimony, for example, he gives exact dimensions city ​​walls, contradicts the too general notes of Pliny the Elder, who in his “ Natural history", written around 50 AD. e., claimed that the temple of Marduk (Pliny calls it Jupiter-Bel) still stands, although the rest of the city is half destroyed and devastated. True, the Roman historian cannot always be trusted, since he often took nothing on faith. confirmed facts. On the other hand, as an aristocrat and official, he occupied a fairly high position in society and could learn about many things first-hand. For example, during the Jewish War of 70 AD. e. he was part of the retinue of Emperor Titus and could personally talk with people who had visited Babylon. But since Strabo's statement about the state of the great ziggurat contradicts the testimony of Pliny, it remains a mystery to what extent Babylon remained a “living” city at that time. However, judging by the fact that Roman sources are mostly silent about it, we can conclude that this city no longer had absolutely no significance. The only mention of it occurs later in Pausanias (c. 150 AD), who wrote about the Middle East mainly based on his own observations; the reliability of his information is repeatedly confirmed by archaeological finds. Pausanias categorically states that the temple of Bel is still standing, although only the walls remain of Babylon itself.

Some modern historians find it difficult to agree with Pliny or Pausanias, although clay tablets found in Babylon indicate that worship and sacrifice were carried out during at least the first two decades of the Christian era. Moreover, in nearby Borsippa the pagan cult persisted until the 4th century. n. e. In other words, the ancient gods were in no hurry to die, especially among the conservative Babylonians, whose children were raised by the priests of Marduk. Beginning with the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC. e. Representatives of the Jewish community lived side by side with them, many of whom converted to the new, Nazarene faith. If this was indeed the case, then the mention in one of the letters of St. Peter about the “Church of Babylon” acquires a certain ambiguity - after all, it could be not so much an image of pagan Rome, but rather a real-life Jewish community, from among those that flourished throughout the Roman Empire, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. Nothing similar to this was found in the ruins of Babylon. Christian Church, but none of the archaeologists hoped for this. In any case, the early Christians did not have special church buildings; they met in houses or in fields and groves outside the city walls.

On the other hand, German archaeologists excavating Ctesiphon in 1928 discovered the remains of an early Christian temple (circa 5th century AD), built on the foundations of an ancient sanctuary. Thus, if in Ctesiphon before its destruction by the Arabs in 636 AD. e. If there was a Christian community, there must have been other communities scattered throughout Mesopotamia. Among them could well be the “church of Babylon”, which Peter welcomed. There is evidence that during the apostolic ministry of Peter there was no Christian community even in Rome, while in the “two Babylons” of that time - an Egyptian fortress near modern Cairo and the ancient Mesopotamian metropolis - there were Jewish communities.

At first glance, it seems strange that a new religion could exist next to the most ancient cults. But in the pagan tradition such tolerance was in the order of things. The pagans accepted the existence of other religions as long as they did not pose a threat to their own gods. Middle and Middle East gave birth to so many religions that against their background Christianity looked like just another cult. And this was a serious mistake by the religious and secular authorities of the pagan world, since it soon became clear that Christians, like their Jewish predecessors, sharply contrasted themselves with the rest of the world. And in fact, such opposition, which at first seemed like weakness, turned into strength. Proof of this is the fact that under the Muslims, Jews and Christians survived, and the cult of Marduk finally died out.

About whether there was a Christian community in Babylon in 363 AD. e., when Julian the Apostate, having gone to fight the Persian Shah Shapur I, invaded Mesopotamia, official historians they don't tell us. But Julian was an opponent of Christianity, advocated the restoration of old temples and tried to revive paganism throughout the Roman Empire. If Marduk's ziggurat had continued to stand by that time, the emperor, on the road to Ctesiphon, would no doubt have ordered his warriors to turn towards it in order to maintain their morale. The fact that Julian's biographers do not even mention the name of Babylon indirectly indicates the complete decline of the city and the fact that all its inhabitants abandoned it. Biographers only report that on the way to Ctesiphon, Julian passed by some huge walls of the ancient city, behind which there was a park and a menagerie of the Persian rulers.

“Omne in medio spatium solitudo est,” states St. Jerome (345-420 AD) in a passage on the grim fate of Babylon. “The entire space between the walls is inhabited by a variety of wild animals.” So spoke one Christian from Elam, who visited the royal reserve on the way to the Jerusalem monastery. The great empire perished forever and irrevocably, which Christians and Jews accepted with satisfaction - after all, for them Babylon was a symbol of the wrath of the Lord.

Historians believe that Babylon became a victim of the natural laws of social development; after a thousand years of political, cultural and religious supremacy, the Babylonians had to worship new gods, in whose name invincible armies marched against them. The inhabitants of the ancient capital, with all their desire, could not have put up an army of equal value against them, and therefore Babylon fell. But he did not perish like Sodom and Gomorrah, who disappeared in fire and ashes; it simply faded away, like so many other beautiful cities in the Middle East. It seems that cities and civilizations, like everything in this world, have their beginning and their end.

Fall of Babylon

Babylon fell in 536 BC. even before that. how other nations were able to feel the effect of the “Mosaic Law”. But his fall served as a model for the development of events many centuries later, in our twentieth century.

The fall of Babylon and the events of our day after the two world wars are so strikingly similar to each other that this similarity cannot be explained by mere chance and, on the contrary, it is not difficult to show that these events were deliberately directed. In the twentieth century, the peoples of the West, consciously or unconsciously, were not subject to their own law, but to that of the Jews, governed by the power that directed their governments.

The arrangement of characters and the final results in all three cases are exactly the same. On one side is a foreign ruler, allegedly an insulter and oppressor of the Jews (or, in our time, the Jews): in Babylon it was King Belshazzar, during the First World War - the Russian Tsar, in time the second - Hitler. The opponent of this “persecutor” is another foreign ruler, the “liberator.” In Babylon it was the Persian king Cyrus, in the second case - Lord Balfour and Co., in the third - President Truman, or any other nominal ruler of the United States.

Between both opponents stands the all-conquering prophet of Jehovah, great man and the wise adviser to the king, predicting the disaster that will befall the “persecutor” and his country, while he himself safely escapes unpleasant consequences. In Babylon it was Daniel, during the first and second world wars it was Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist prophet under foreign governments. These are characters. The denouement comes in the form of Jehovah's vengeance on the "Gentiles" and Jewish triumph in the form of a symbolic "restoration." King Belshazzar learned from Daniel about the fate that threatened him and was killed “that same night,” and his kingdom went to his enemies. At the end of the First World War, Jewish security officers killed the Russian Tsar and his entire family, recording their deed with lines “inscribed on the wall” of the basement where the murder took place. After World War II, the Nazi leaders were hanged on October 16, 1946, the Jewish “day of atonement.” In other words, the outcome of the two world wars of this century exactly followed the Levitical description of the Babylonian-Persian War in the Old Testament.

There is no doubt that the peoples who fought in ancient times fought for something greater than the fate of a small Jewish tribe, and that they had their own interests and goals. However, in the narrative that has come down to our time, all this was thrown out. Only one thing mattered - the vengeance of Jehovah and the triumph of the Jews, and only this was enshrined in the memory of the peoples, and the two world wars of our century obediently followed this pattern.

In history, King Belshazzar was preserved only as a symbolic “persecutor” of the Jews: despite the fact that Jehovah himself gave the Jews into captivity as punishment for their misdeeds, the king is portrayed as their “persecutor” and is subject to brutal destruction. In the same way, the Persian king Cyrus is only an instrument in the hands of Jehovah, who promised the Jews that “all these curses” will be transferred “to your enemies” as soon as their role as “oppressors” is played out. Therefore, in himself, he is neither an oppressor nor a liberator; in fact, he is no better than Belshazzar, and his dynasty, in turn, will also be exterminated.

True history, unlike legends, presents us with Cyrus as an enlightened ruler and founder of an empire that covered the entire Western Asia. As stated in the encyclopedias, “he left the conquered peoples freedom of religion and the right of self-government,” which allowed the Jews to take advantage of the benefits of the policy impartially extended by Cyrus to all the peoples subject to him. If King Cyrus had returned to earth in our time, he would have been quite surprised to read that his only merit was the return of several thousand Jews to Jerusalem. If, however, he had attached to this event the significance which the politicians of the twentieth century apparently attach to it, he would have been flattered to see that he thereby had a greater influence on the next 2500 years of human history than any other ruler of all times and peoples. No other event of antiquity has had such serious and, moreover, such easily ascertainable consequences in our time. For two generations of Western politicians of the 20th century, currying favor with the Jews, they have been following in the footsteps of the Persian king Cyrus. As a result, the two reconciled wars had only two significant and significant consequences: Jehovah’s revenge on the symbolic “persecutors” and a new “restoration” as the triumph of Jewry. So the legend about the Babylonian events became in the twentieth century the highest “law”, subordinating everything else, turning into a historical reality.

In itself, this legend is two-thirds a lie and today it would be called propaganda. Even Belshazzar, according to all data, was invented by the Levites. The book telling about the fall of Babylon was compiled several centuries after the event itself and was attributed to a certain “Daniel”. He was supposedly a Jewish captive in Babylon who reached high position at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, thanks to his ability to interpret dreams; He also explained to King Belshazzar the “writing on the wall.” “Belteshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar” is described as an insulter to the Jews, who used “gold and silver vessels” taken by his father from the Jerusalem temple at a feast with his princes, wives and concubines. appears on the wall human hand writing words; “mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.” Daniel, called to clarify, says: “This is the meaning of the words: God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it; you are weighed on the scales and found very light; your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” King Belshazzar is killed “that same night,” and the Persian conqueror comes to Siena, destined to “restore” the Jews. So the death of the king and the whole kingdom is directly caused by the insult of Judea and is presented as Jehovah’s retribution and Jewish revenge. It doesn't matter that neither Daniel nor Belshazzar ever really existed; their inclusion in the Levitical writings gives the legend the character of a legal precedent. When the Russian Tsar, his wife, four daughters and a son were killed in 1918, the words scrawled on the blood-splattered wall directly linked this murder with the Babylonian legend, and those who made this inscription openly admitted who the murderers were and declared their “legitimate "The right to kill.

If an ancient legend is capable of doing such things twenty-five centuries later, then it does not matter that it is fiction and not truth, and there is no point in proving it: both politicians and the masses they govern live more by legends than by truth. From three main characters in the described version of the fall of Babylon, there was undoubtedly only one king, Cyrus. Both Belshazzar and Daniel are products of Levitical fantasy. The Jewish Encyclopedia writes that King Nebuchadnezzar did not have a son named Belshazzar, and that during Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon there was no king Belshazzar there either. stating that “at author of the book of Daniel there was no exact data at hand,” in other words, not believing that Daniel actually wrote Daniel. And in fact, if an influential Jewish favorite at court, named Daniel, really wrote this book, then he would at least know the name of the king whose death he predicted, and therefore would have “accurate data.”

Therefore, there is no doubt that the book of Daniel, like the books of the “Law” attributed to Moses, were composed by Levitical scribes who worked hard on history, adjusting it to the “Law” they had already composed. If it was possible to invent King Belshazzar for illustration and in order to create a precedent, then obviously it was also possible to invent the prophet Daniel. To today's Zionist zealots this apparently mythical Daniel is the most popular of all the prophets, and they enthusiastically quote the story of the writing on the wall, which foretold the vengeance of the Jews and their victory, seeing in it a confirmation of their "legal" right to act in the same way in all future times. The history of the present century, more than the history of any other century, strengthens their faith, and for them Daniel with his "interpretation" carried out "that same night" is a convincing and irrefutable answer to the ancient Israelite prophets with their vision of a loving God for all mankind. The fall of Babylon (in the Levitical version) serves for them practical confirmation the truth and power of the “Mosaic” Law.

This whole story, however, would have ended in nothing if not for King Cyrus, the only truly real of the three main characters in the legend, who allowed several thousand Jews to return to Jerusalem (or forced them to do so). At this point, the Levitical political theory, aimed at seizing power by influencing foreign rulers, was tested in practice and seemed successful. The Persian king was the first in a long line of non-Jewish puppets directed by the ruling Jewish sect; on it they showed how you can first get into foreign governments and then subjugate them. By the twentieth century, this control over governments had become so powerful that they all, to a large extent, stand under one, supreme authority, and their actions ultimately always serve her interests. At the end of the book we will show how these non-Jewish puppets are controlled, how enmity between peoples is incited and how conflicts are created to achieve a certain “super-national” goal.

The reader will, however, have to look within himself to understand, if he can, why these puppets, that is, his own political leaders, so obediently submit to the will of others. The first of them was King Cyrus. Without his help, the sect that ruled the Jews would never have been able to re-establish themselves in Jerusalem, convincing the incredulous Jewish masses scattered throughout the vast expanses of the world that the racial law was strong and will completed before last letter. A straight and clear line of cause and effect stretches from the fall of Babylon to the events of our century; After a series of successive catastrophes, the declining West can blame the first non-Jewish puppet, Cyrus, even more than the cunning and resourceful Levitical priests who guided it. Eduard Meyer (see bibliography) writes: “Judaism arose at the behest of the Persian king and with the help of his empire, with the result that the Achaemenid empire extends its influence with greater force than any other immediately to our time.” The correctness of the conclusion of this indisputable authority is difficult to deny.

500 years before the very concept of Europe appeared, the Levites established their “Law”, and King Cyrus created a precedent, showing how the destruction and death of this then unknown continent would proceed. At the time of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon, the five books of the Law had not yet been completed. The Levitical sect was still hard at work in Babylon, composing a history which, through such examples as the episode of "King Belshazzar," would give credence to the incredible and set a precedent for barbaric acts twenty-five centuries later. The masses of Jews, although they were already accustomed to religious intolerance, did not yet know anything about the law of racial intolerance that was being prepared for them. The Levitical sect was to complete the “Law” and apply it to its own people. This happened in 458 BC. during the reign of another Persian king, and since then the “dispute about Zion” has inexorably pitted the Jewish people against the rest of humanity. The umbilical cord connecting him to the outside world was completely severed. This isolated people, before whom its priests carried the legend of the fall of Babylon as a banner, was sent into the future as a compact force among foreign peoples, the destruction of which was dictated by its Law.

Who destroyed Babylon?

Ten years after the 2nd Crusade, in 1159, Mesopotamia was visited by the Spanish Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (Tudela - now Navarre in Spain), who compiled the work “Guide” based on the results of his visit. His goal was simple: to search for new routes and markets for trade, although it is officially believed that he was looking for the homeland of his biblical ancestors. Other authors of that time also wrote about Mesopotamia.

Travelers report very interesting things. Thus, according to some descriptions, the Tigris River goes around Assyria and flows into the Dead Sea; according to others, the Tigris and Euphrates flow into the Mediterranean Sea. And other pilgrims “directed” these rivers to the Red Sea and even to the Indian Ocean, despite the fact that in fact they flow into the Persian Gulf. That is, even in the 12th century, Europeans failed to sail along them to the end. Even in the Middle Ages, they did not know at all the geography of these places, and yet the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates were known, as traditional history says, back in the 4th century BC. e., since they were conquered by Alexander the Great, whose campaigns were supposedly known to everyone!

Twelfth-century travelers report the enormous walls of Babylon. In general, there were two Babylons at that time: New and Old. The new one is Cairo. Old Babylon, writes Rabbi Benjamin, “as we know from reliable people from overseas countries, is currently partially inhabited and is called Baldach.” Could this be Baghdad? It stands on the Tigris River, and historical Babylon stands on the Euphrates. But Benjamin says that Baghdad and Baldakh (supposedly Old Babylon) are two different cities and the distance between them is three days' travel, which seems to be true if Baldakh is our historical Babylon. Benjamin was not advised to visit Baldach (Babylon) because it was dangerous there.

This means that Babylon, which historians believe was destroyed in the 6th century BC. e. (line no. 4), 1700 years before Benjamin, in the 12th century (line no. 4), during the times of the Crusaders it still stood on the surface of the earth and could be visited.

So when was it destroyed?

Historical Babylon (Bab-Ilu, Gate of God) was located in a place very convenient for trade: where the Euphrates and Tigris come together, and numerous channels separate from the main channel of the Euphrates. It is traditionally believed that it became a city in 2000 BC. e. (line No. 1–2), when these lands were captured by nomadic pastoralists, that is, there was no talk of trade. Agriculture was also in complete desolation. Apparently, the city was built “for the future” for the future, and for good reason: after 200 years its “unprecedented rise” began. From 1800 BC. e. (line No. 2–3) Mesopotamia (Mesopotamia) under the control of Babylon turns into a blooming garden, and only in 1595 BC. e. (line number 4) The Old Babylonian kingdom was destroyed by the invading Hittites and Kassites. They then ruled for 400 years, but Babylon survived and again showed unprecedented growth. For several more centuries it was the cultural and scientific center of Western Asia.

In 689 BC. e. (line No. 3) the city was completely (as they say: completely) destroyed by the Assyrians. But it was rebuilt again, and it became more beautiful than before. Around 600 BC. e. At least two hundred thousand people lived in it! - an unprecedented rise.

From 586 to 539 (line No. 4), the “Babylonian captivity” of Jews who were forcibly relocated here from Jerusalem, captured by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, took place here.

And in 539 BC. e. the most beautiful, richest, most cultured city surrendered to the Persian (Iranian) king Cyrus without resistance. Why?!

Here is an explanation for schoolchildren, given in the World History Encyclopedia for Children: “The point was not that the Iranians seemed to the cunning Babylonian merchants to be better masters than their own kings. Babylon could afford not to measure strength with kings; he was already destined for glory throughout the centuries.”... This is, in our opinion, a rather naive idea of ​​​​the life of human communities and the course of history.

Do you think Babylon is now completely destroyed? No. It is not known what was in him from King Cyrus to the Nativity of Christ, but, one must assume, he again showed an unprecedented rise. Only at the turn of the old and new eras, as K. Keram writes, “the desolation of Babylon began, the buildings were destroyed. By the time of the Sassanid rule (by the 3rd century AD), where palaces had once stood, only a few houses remained, and by the time of the Arab Middle Ages, by the 12th century, only isolated huts remained.”

Everything you have read above is the traditional understanding of the history of Babylon. The basis for such a “story” was the clay cuneiform tablets of Mesopotamia and the texts of the Bible, the geography and chronology of which are completely unclear. As a result, everything here is turned upside down. In an exceptionally convenient place for trade, pastoralists, who need trade and cities like a housewife needs a tractor, are building Babylon. And in the 12th century, when Europeans and Asians established a world market here, when goods flowed from all over the world, “separate huts” stood on the site of the richest trading city.

But Gervasius of Tilbury and Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, residents of the 12th century, testify otherwise.

Benjamin writes about Baghdad that there lives in it the high priest of the Persians, who is called “Caliph” and who is “the same to these pagans as the Pope is to Christians.” Wow, a forgotten city! But the most surprising thing: the traveler reports the presence of another powerful ruler, endowed with power over all Jewish communities throughout the eastern Muslim world. His title is “Head of the Babylonian Captivity”! So, along the same line No. 4 we find two “Babylonian captivities” of the Jews!

And now the times are getting closer. Persians of the 6th century BC e. - contemporaries of the Seljuk Turks of the 12th century AD. e. Babylon stands under the Crusaders. Jerusalem is disappearing from antiquity. Nebuchadnezzar turns out to be a Latin prince.

And Babylon, in the end, was not destroyed by anyone. In the 16th century (line no. 8), after the navigator Vasco da Gama discovered sea ​​route to India, overland trade lost its importance; trading cities were no longer needed; they became depopulated. What should a merchant do in the city if there is no goods?... Here are the “few houses” that remained here during the reign of the Sassanids, “by the 3rd century AD.” e.”, line No. 8. Perhaps an earthquake shook the walls, a flood covered the ruins with clay, and there is no great Babylon. How many such cities stand all over Asia, from Baghdad to China, covered with sand and overgrown with earth! And can't be counted.

8. Babylon Babylon Ancient, p. 79. Today it is believed that he was in Mesopotamia. Babylon New - Cairo, modern city in Egypt, p. 79.Melnikova reports: “Babylon is mentioned twice: once in the list of toponyms associated with the Middle East and Mesopotamia, the second