the bulk of his forces to Babylon without a day's more delay than was
absolutely necessary, and the event proved that he had good reason for
such haste. Nebuchadrezzar III. had taken advantage of the few weeks
which had elapsed since his accession, to garrison the same positions
on the right bank of the Tigris, as Nabonidus had endeavoured to defend
against Cyrus at the northern end of the fortifications erected by his
ancestor. A well-equipped flotilla patrolled the river, and his lines
presented so formidable a front that Darius could not venture on a
direct attack. He arranged his troops in two divisions, which he mounted
partly on horses, partly on camels, and eluding the vigilance of his
adversary by attacking him simultaneously on many sides, succeeded in
gaining the opposite bank of the river. The Chaldaeans, striving in vain
to drive him back into the stream, were at length defeated on the 27th
of Athriyadiya, and they retired in good order on Babylon. Six days
later, on the 2nd of Anamaka, they fought a second battle at Zazanu,
on the bank of the Euphrates, and were again totally defeated.
Nebuchadrezzar escaped with a handful of cavalry, and hastened to shut
himself up in his city. Darius soon followed him, but if he cherished a
hope that the Babylonians would open their gates to him without further
resistance, as they had done to Cyrus, he met with a disappointment,
for he was compelled to commence a regular siege and suspend all other
operations, and that, too, at a moment when the provinces were breaking
out into open insurrection on every hand.*

* The account given by Darius seems to imply that no
interval of time elapsed between the second defeat of
Nebuchadrezzar III. and the taking of Babylon, so that
several modern historians have rejected the idea of an
obstinate resistance. Herodotus, however, speaks of the long
siege the city sustained, and the discovery of tablets dated
in the first and even the second year of Nebuchadrezzar III.
shows that the siege was prolonged into the second year of
this usurper, at least until the month of Nisan (March-
April), 520 B.C. No evidence can be drawn from the tablets
dated in the reign of Darius, for the oldest yet discovered,
which is dated in the month Sebat (Jan.-Feb.), in the year
of his accession, and consequently prior to the second year
of Nebuchadrezzar, comes from Abu-habba. On the ot