Latest / The Achaemenid Empire: Persia's Golden Age of Power — Fexingo History / The Achaemenid Siege of Babylon: Alexander's Fateful Entry
Transcript
- Lucas: So, Luna, we've talked a lot about how Cyrus took Babylon in 539 BCE—draining the Euphrates and all that. But I think a lot of people don't realize that Babylon fell again, nearly two centuries later, to another conqueror: Alexander the Great. And that story is just as fascinating, but in a completely different way. Luna: Right, because by then the Achaemenid Empire was under Darius III, and Alexander was sweeping through. Lucas: Exactly. After Alexander's victory at Gaugamela in October 331 BCE—a battle he won partly because Darius III fled the field—the road to Babylon lay open. But unlike Cyrus, who had to besiege the city, Alexander was invited in. The satrap of Babylon, a Persian nobleman named Mazaeus, decided to surrender the city without a fight. Luna: Why would he do that? I mean, Mazaeus was a high-ranking Persian official, right? Lucas: He was. And he'd actually fought against Alexander at Gaugamela, commanding the right wing of the Persian army. But after Darius's defeat, Mazaeus saw which way the wind was blowing. He sent envoys to Alexander offering peace. And Alexander, ever the pragmatist, accepted. He rewarded Mazaeus by keeping him as satrap of Babylon—a rare move. Alexander understood that ruling an empire required cooperation from the local elites. Luna: So Mazaeus got to keep his job. That's smart politics. Lucas: Very smart. And it set a pattern. Alexander's entry into Babylon was staged almost like a triumph. The Babylonian priests, the Chaldeans, came out to meet him, offering sacrifices and guiding him through the city. They even had a prophecy that Babylon would be taken by a foreign king—and they saw Alexander as that king. Luna: Herodotus would have loved that. But wait—the Hanging Gardens. Were they still there when Alexander arrived? Lucas: That's a great question. The Hanging Gardens are traditionally associated with Nebuchadnezzar II, centuries earlier. By Alexander's time, they might have been in ruins, or maybe they were still maintained. The ancient sources are silent. But we do know Alexander was deeply impressed by Babylon's grandeur. He ordered the restoration of the Esagila, the temple of Marduk, which had fallen into disrepair under Persian rule. Luna: So he was actively trying to win over the Babylonian population. Lucas: Exactly. And it worked. The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries—a remarkable cuneiform record of celestial observations and historical events—mention Alexander's arrival. They describe a 'king of the world' entering Babylon and making offerings. Those diaries are one of our best sources for this period, actually. They give us a contemporary Babylonian perspective, not just Greek accounts. Luna: That's incredible. So they saw him as a legitimate ruler, not just a foreign conqueror. Lucas: For the most part, yes. But there was tension. Alexander's army included many Greeks and Macedonians who were hostile to Persian customs. And Alexander himself started adopting Persian court protocols—like proskynesis, the ritual prostration before the king. That caused friction. But in Babylon, at least initially, everything went smoothly. Luna: I also remember something about Alexander's death in Babylon. He died in Nebuchadnezzar's palace, didn't he? Lucas: He did. In 323 BCE, just eight years after his entry, Alexander fell ill in Babylon after a bout of heavy drinking—or maybe poison, depending on which account you believe. And he died in the same palace that had once housed the greatest kings of Mesopotamia. So Babylon bookended his conquests in a way: it was the first great eastern capital he took, and it became his final resting place—well, he was supposed to be buried there, but his body ended up in Alexandria. Luna: It's almost poetic. The city that symbolized ancient power became the stage for his last act. Lucas: Absolutely. And speaking of things that keep history alive—this is exactly the kind of story that my listeners help me keep making. A couple of dollars a month on Buy Me a Coffee really adds up; it's what keeps these episodes ad-free and allows me to dive deep into primary sources. If you've gotten something out of these conversations, you can find it at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it's a small way to support something that genuinely enriches your understanding of the past. I'm always amazed at the detail you bring. Lucas: Thanks, Luna. So, back to Babylon: after Alexander's death, his generals fought over the empire. Babylon changed hands multiple times—eventually falling under Seleucid control. But the city never regained its former glory. It was slowly abandoned, its bricks reused for building projects elsewhere. By the time of the Parthian Empire, it was a shadow of its former self. Luna: It's sad to think about, but also a reminder of how even the greatest cities can fade. Lucas: Indeed. And that brings us to something we haven't touched on: the fate of the Babylonian priesthood after Alexander. The Chaldeans had high hopes—they'd been marginalized under the Persians, who favored Zoroastrianism. Alexander seemed like a return to the old ways. But after his death, the political turmoil meant they never got the patronage they expected. Luna: So they lost out twice: first to the Persians, then to the Greeks. Lucas: Exactly. And that's a theme we see across the ancient world: local elites adapting to each new empire, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Mazaeus adapted brilliantly—he died in office as satrap of Babylon, still loyal to Alexander. But his sons, who served under Alexander, were later executed by the Macedonians on suspicion of treason. The story of one family mirrors the larger cycle. Luna: Do we know what happened to Mazaeus's family specifically? Lucas: We have some details. One of his sons, named Antigonus—though that's a Greek name given by later sources—was a cavalry commander under Alexander. After Alexander's death, he got caught up in the Wars of the Diadochi. He was executed by another general, Peithon, around 317 BCE. So the family's fortune was short-lived. Luna: That's a harsh end for a family that had tried to play both sides. Lucas: It was a harsh time. But the surrender of Babylon itself was a masterstroke. It saved the city from destruction. Compare that to Persepolis, which Alexander burned—perhaps in a drunken rage, perhaps deliberately. Babylon was spared because it surrendered. That decision by Mazaeus shaped the city's fate for centuries. Luna: So Babylon lived on under the Seleucids, even if it was diminished. Lucas: It did. And interestingly, the Seleucids founded a new capital nearby, Seleucia on the Tigris, which siphoned off population and trade. Babylon gradually became a ghost town. By the first century BCE, it was mostly ruins. But the name lived on—Babylon as a symbol of decadence and empire, famous in the Bible and classical literature. Luna: It's amazing how a city can have so many layers of history. From Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus to Alexander—each conqueror left a mark. Lucas: And that's what makes Babylon such a rich subject. Every time we think we know the story, there's another angle. The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries, for instance, are still being translated. They contain references to Alexander's death that are more precise than Greek sources. They mention a 'eclipse of the moon' that helps us date events. Luna: I'd love to hear more about those diaries sometime. Lucas: We'll definitely do an episode on them. They're one of the most underappreciated sources for ancient history. But for now, I think we've covered Alexander's Babylon pretty well. Any final thoughts? Luna: Just that it's a reminder of how conquest isn't just about battles—it's about politics, religion, and the choices of local leaders. Lucas: Well said. And that's the Achaemenid Empire for you: even in its final days, it was a stage for world-changing events. Thanks for joining me, Luna.