Nineveh (Assyria); Babylon (Babylonia); Ecbatana (Media); Susa (Elam); and Anshan (Parsua)

Map adapted from the page on King Ashurbanipal of Assyria (668 - ca. 631 BC) in the  ‘New World Encyclopaedia  

Hilary Gopnik (referenced below, at p. 43) discussed a series of surviving Assyrian inscriptions that mentioned the Medes, the earliest of which dated to the reign of King Shalmaneser III (858-824 BC).  The earliest of these records (which also contains the earliest known reference to Parsua) comes from the so-called ‘Black Obelisk’, which is now in the British Museum (BM 118885): in the 24th year of his reign (835 BC) , and after his victory at ‘king Ianzu of Namri’:

1. “I, [Shalmaneser III], received the gifts of 27 kings of the land of Parsua.  I departed from Parsua.  I descended to the lands of Messi and the Mede ... ”, (from the on-line translation of K. C. Hanson).
   

However, Gopnik noted (at p. 44) that:

1. “It is only under the kings Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BC) and his son Sargon II (721-705 BC) that the Assyrians attempted to take direct control of Median territory by founding new Assyrian provinces in the western Zagros [mountains, on their eastern border].”
   

In the inscriptions from this period, both Assyrian kings had bilateral relations with individual Median bēl-ālāni (literally, city rulers), who were required to pay tribute to them and faced retribution if/when they rebelled.  Since there is no archeological evidence of any major Median city from this period, we should probably consider these Median bēl-ālāni to be tribal chieftains.

Gopnik then discussed (at p. 47) the so-called ‘omen texts’ of King Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE), in which he asked the sun god Shamash for advice on a number of military threats, including some from the ma-da-a-a (Medes).  As Muhammad Dandamayev (referenced below) observed, one man in particular, Kashtariti, bēl-āli of Karkashshi in the Central Zagros mountains is featured in some 20 of these queries, sometimes as an ally of the Medes.  One of these queries is particularly illuminating:

1. “Shamash, great lord, give me a firm positive answer to what I am asking you!  Kashtariti, bēl-āli of Karkashshi, who wrote to Mamitiarshu, bēl-āli of of the Medes, as follows:
   

2. ‘Let us act together and break away from Assyria.’
   

Will Mamitiarshu listen to him?  Will he comply?  Will he be pleased?  Will he become hostile to Esarhaddon, king of Assyria this year?  Does your great divinity know it?”, (from Hilary Gopnik, referenced below, at p. 47).

This suggests that the Median bēl-ālāni and their neighbours were beginning to form anti-Assyrian alliances.  However, there is nothing to suggest that the Medians were beginning to coalesce into a single and permanent political entity.  Furthermore, as Gopnik observed (at p. 48), fragments of clay tablets that were found at the Temple of Nabu at the Assyrian city of Nimrud (now in the British Museum) support the view that Esarhaddon maintained bilateral relations with a number of Median bēl-ālāni: the fragments came from eight treaties (examples of the so-called Esarhaddon Vassal Treaties) that had been made in 672 BC with eight separate bēl-ālāni of the Zagros mountains, in which they bilaterally pledged their loyalty to Esarhaddon himself and his crown prince Ashurbanipal (668 - ca. 631 BC).  As John MacGinnis (referenced below, at p. 282) observed:

1. “While it is now appreciated that this oath was administered on an empire-wide basis, the texts [found at Nimrud] relate only to] the treaties imposed upon eastern chieftains, and there can be little doubt that these tablets were [subsequently and] deliberately searched out and destroyed by Medes.”
   

I discuss the circumstances of this destruction below.  For the moment, we should simply note that, in 672 BC, the Assyrians treated at least eight bēl-ālāni on their eastern border as individual vassal states. 

This brings us to the reign Ashurbanipal himself and the last surviving Assyrian ‘royal’ inscription relating to the Medes:

1. “(As for):
   

2. ✴ Birisḫatri, a bēl āli of the Medes; (and)
   

3. ✴ Sarati (and) Pariḫi, two sons of Gagî, a city ruler of the land Saḫi;
   

4. who had thrown off the yoke of my lordship, I [Ashurbanipal] conquered and plundered 75 of their fortified  cities [and] carried off their booty.  I captured them alive (and) brought them to Nineveh, my capital city”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism B’, iii: 92b).
   

Andreas Fuchs (referenced below, at p 719) dated this inscription to the period 663-654 BC. 

Assyrians and Babylonians (652 - 626 BC)

In fact, we know from Assyrian sources that the first serious opposition to Ashurbanipal came not from the Medes, but from Babylon, and was a result of the arrangements that Esarhaddon had made for the succession in 672 BC: he had named Ashurbanipal as the crown prince of Assyria and another of his sons, Shamash-shum-ukin, as:

1. “... the crown prince designate of Babylon, ... [which encompasses] the kingship over the whole of Sumer, Akkad (and) Karduniash”,  (‘Vassal Treaty’, ii: 88, translated by Daniel Wiseman, referenced below, at p. 36).
   

After Esarhaddon’s death, Shamash-shumu-ukin apparently accepted his role as a vassal king, but (as we read in the Babylonian Chronicles) in the 16th year of this reign (652 BC):

1. “...hostilities began between Assyria and Akkad”, (ABC 16: 11).
   

This particular chronicle,which seems to be primarily interested in the celebration of the New Year (Akitu) festivals at Babylon were not celebrated at the start of the next four years (see lines 17-23). 

Another Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 15: 19) records that the siege of Babylon began in 650 BC.  Ashurbanipal then recorded that the Babylonians:  

1. “... who had sided with Shamash-shuma-ukīn (and) plotted evil (deeds, [were approaching starvation.  They ate the flesh of their sons (and) their daughters on account of their hunger; they gnawed on (leather) straps.  The [gods] ... , who march before me (and) kill my foes, consigned Shamaah-ahuma-ukīn, (my) hostile brother, who had started a fight against me, to a raging conflagration and destroyed his life”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism A’, iv: 41-52).
   

As Matt Waters (referenced below, 2000, at p. 68) observed:

1. ✴the last known Babylonian document from the reign of of Shamaah-ahuma-ukīn dated to August 648 BC; and
   

2. ✴Ashurbanipal was certainly in control of Babylon by the end of 648 BC. 
   

However, as John MacGinnis (referenced below, at p. 276) noted: 

1. “Although Ashurbanipal was victorious, Assyria’s moral authority was compromised and the seeds of Babylonian nationalism had been planted.”
   

Assyrians and Elamites

Ashurbanipal then punished the neighbouring Elamites, who had long been a thorn in his flesh and who had supported Shamash-shum-ukin: Ashurbanipal recorded that:

1. “On my sixth campaign [against the Elamites [in ca. 646 BC], ... I mustered my troops (and) I took the direct road against Ummanaldashu (Huban-haltash III), the king of the land Elam”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism F’, iv: 17-20).
   

He defeated Ummanaldashu/ Huban-haltash and:

1. “On my return march, I conquered the [Elamite] city of Susa, a great cult centre, the residence of [the Elamite] gods and the seat of their mysteries”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism F’, iv: 67-70b).
   

(I discuss these events at Elam in my page ... )

The fall of Babylon and the sack of Susa seems to have had a salutary effect on other would-be rebels: Ashurbanipal recorded, at some time thereafter and before 638 BC, that:

1. “[Fear] of my royal majesty overwhelmed [a number of presumably neighbouring peoples], and they sent before m[e their] mounted messenger(s with messages) of goodwill and peace, together with thei[r] substantial audience gift(s).  They asked about the well-being of my royal majesty, kissed my feet, (and) made appeals to my lordly majesty:
   

2. ✴When Cyrus, lugal (king) of the land Parsumash, heard about the might[y] victories that ... I had achieved over the land Elam ... , he sent to Nineveh, my capital city, Arukku, his eldest son, with his payment, to do obeisance, and he made an appeal to my lordly majesty.
   

3. ✴Pislume, lugal (king) of the land Hudimiri, whose location is remote (and) which is situated on the far side of the land Elam, ... [a land that had never submitted to my ancestors], now heard about the mighty victories that ... I had achieved over the land Elam [and] fear of my royal majesty overwhelmed [him .  He sent] to Nineveh, my capital city, his mounted messenger (with a message) of peace, with [his substantial audience gift(s), and] he made an appeal to [my lordly majesty]”, (‘Ashurbanipal, Prism H’, vi: 1-25).
   

A shorter reference to these two submissions to Ashurbanipal is found in the so-called ‘Ishtar Temple Inscription’, lines 114-7, which refers to both Cyrus and Pislume as kings  of remote locations on the far side of the land Elam  (looking from Nineveh).  Thus, it seems that the ‘kings’ Cyrus and Pislume were the rulers of tribes located in the Zagros Mountains.  It is interesting to note that Ashurbanipal referred to them as kings rather than as bēl-ālāni.  I discuss the identity of Cyrus, the king of the land Parsumash below); for the moment, we should simply note that, as late as ca. 640 BC:

1. ✴Cyrus of Parsumach renewed his submission to Ashurbanipal; and
   

2. ✴his more distant neighbour, Pislume of Hudimiri, submitted to him for the first time.
   

(I discuss the identity of Cyrus, king of the land Parsumash below.)

Medes, Babylonians and Assyrians (630 - 610 BC) 

After the death of Ashurbanipal in ca. 631 BC, the political situation in Assyria became very unstable, enabling Nabopolassar, a self-designated ‘son of nobody’ to seize power in southern Babylonia.  [Refer to the Nabopolassar Cylinder]  As Michael Jursa (referenced below, at p. 98) pointed out, he was probably the Assyrian governor of Uruk (a Babylonian city to the south of Babylon).  One of the surviving Babylonian chronicles records that: 

1. “On [the 23rd November, 626 BC], Nabopolassar ascended the throne in Babylon.  [Soon after], Nabopolassar returned to Susa the gods of Susa, whom the Assyrians had carried off [in ca. 646 BC - see above] and settled in Uruk”, (‘Chronicle of the Early Years of Nabopolassar’, lines 14-17). 
   

This event marks the emergence of the so-called Neo-Babylonian Dynasty.  From his base in the city of Babylon, Nabopolassar began the arduous task of driving the Assyrians from the rest of Babylonia:

1. ✴he probably had the support of a number of neighbouring rulers (presumably including the grateful ruler of Susa); but
   

2. ✴the Assyrians had the support of their erstwhile subjects in Egypt.
   

The stalemate persisted until 615 BC, when the Medes entered the fray. 

The events of this crucial period are recorded in the so-called ‘Fall of Nineveh Chronicle’, which was inscribed in Babylonian cuneiform on a clay tablet that Cyril Gadd ‘discovered’ in the British Museum: Gadd (referenced below) translated and published the inscription in 1923.  The text relates to the period 616-609 BC, in the rule of Nabopolassar: he is usually referred to in this text as ‘the king of Akkad’, a phrase that I have replaced by his name in square brackets.  The first two regnal years covered by the chronicle described a series of indecisive battles between the Assyrians and Nabopolassar, ending with a lacunose passage that recorded that, in November 615 BC;

1. “... the Medes went down to Arraphu and [lacuna]”, (‘Fall of Nineveh Chronicle’, Year 11).
   

The other references to the Medes come in three separate regnal years:

1. ✴“In [614 BC], the Medes ... captured Tarbisu, [an Assyrian] city in the district of Nineveh.  They [then] went along the Tigris and camped against [the Assyrian city of] Ashur.  They did battle against [that] city and destroyed it.  They inflicted a terrible defeat upon a great people, plundered and sacked them.  [Nabopolassar] and his army, who had gone to reinforce the Medes, did not reach the battle in time.  The city was taken.  [Nabopolassar] and [the Median] Umakishtar met one another by the city and [formalised their alliance].  Later, Umakishtar and his army went home.  [Nabopolassar] and his army went home”, (‘Fall of Nineveh Chronicle’, Year 12).
   

2. ✴“[In 612 BC], [Nabopolassar] mustered his army and marched to Assyria.  The king of the Umman-manda (Medes) [marched] towards [Nabopolassar]: they met one another ... , marched along the bank of the Tigris ..., [and] camped near Nineveh. ... [For] three months, they subjected the city to a heavy siege, ... [following which], they inflicted a major defeat on a great people.  At that time, Sinsharishkun, king of Assyria, died.  [The victorious Babylonians and Medians] carried off the vast booty of [Nineveh] and [its] temple and turned the city into a ruin heap.  ... On [8th September], Umakishtar and his army went home ...”, (‘Fall of Nineveh Chronicle’, Year 14).
   

3. ✴[In 610 BC], the the Umman-manda, who had come to the help of [Nabopolassar], put their armies together and marched to Harran [in Babylonia, due west of Nineveh], against Aššur-uballit, who had ascended the throne in Assyria.  Fear of the enemy overcame [both] Aššur-uballit and the army of Egypt, which had come to help him.  They abandoned the city and crossed the Euphrates.  [Nabopolassar] reached Harran, fought a battle, and captured the city.  He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple.   In [February, 609 BC], [Nabopolassar] left his troops and their camp, and went home.  The Umman-manda, who had come to help [Nabopolassar], withdrew”, (‘Fall of Nineveh Chronicle’, Year 16). 
   

We might now revisit the claim of John MacGinnis (referenced below, at p. 282) that the ‘Vassal Treaties’ at the Temple of Nabu at the Assyrian city of Nimrud, which had imposed on a number of ‘eastern chieftains’, had been deliberately searched out and destroyed by Medes.  He added that:

1. “Excavation in the palace of Ashurnasirpal at Nimrud made the gruesome discovery of a well filled with the remains of over 100 individuals.  Many of the bones were disarticulated and may have been torn from tombs desecrated in the sack. But other skeletons with shackles still on their hands and feet were of people who had clearly been thrown down alive.”
   

Thus, it seems that Umakishtar’s Median army sacked Nimrud and made a point of destroying the copies of the vassal treaties in the Temple of Nabu there, presumably at around the time of their sacking of Ashur in 614 BC, and that this intervention decisively changed the balance of power in what had been the Assyrian heartland: Nabolopolassar, the king of Akkad and Umakishtar, the king of the Medes signed what seems to have been an ‘equal‘ treaty of alliance and, in 612 BC, combined to sack Nineveh,  This victory effectively brought the ancient Assyrian empire to a sudden, brutal end.  Umakishtar helped Nabopolassar to evict a residual Assyrian army and its Egyptian allies from Harran, at which point the allies went their separate ways: there is no surviving evidence that Umakishtar played any part in the battle at Carchemish in 605 BC, in which Nabopolassar’s son, the crown prince Nebuchadnezzar, opening the way for his conquest of what is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine. 

IN CONSTRUCTION

Herodotus’ Account 

At this point, we should return to Herodotus’ account of the early kings of Media.  As we have seen, he recorded that Deioces, the son of Phraortes, had assumed the kingship at a time when the subjects of the Assyrians were beginning to revolt. Then:

1. “Deioces died, after a reign of 53 years.  His son and successor Phraortes, who was not content to rule only the Medes, made war on the Persians: these were the first people he attacked and the first that he subjected to the Medes.  Then, with these two strong nations under his rule, he subdued one nation of Asia after another, until he marched against the [much weakened] Assyrians who held Ninus (Nineveh). ... Phraortes and the greater part of his army perished [in this battle], after he had reigned for 22 years”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 102).
   

When Phraortes was killed:

1. “... he was succeeded by his son Cyaxares.  He is said to have been a much greater warrior than his fathers: ... Collecting all his subjects, he marched against Nineveh, wishing to avenge his father and to destroy the city.  He defeated the Assyrians in battle but while he was besieging their city, he was attacked by a great army of Scythians   ... These had invaded Asia after they had driven the Cimmerians out of Europe: pursuing them in their flight the Scythians came to the Median country”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 103: 1-3). 
   

This was apparently the prelude to 28 years of anarchy in ‘Asia’, after which, Cyaxares invited many of the invaders to a feast at which they:

1. “... were entertained, made drunk and then killed: and thus the Medes won back their empire and all that they had formerly possessed.   They then took Nineveh (in the manner that I will set out elsewhere), and brought all Assyria except the province of Babylon under their rule.  Afterwards Cyaxares died after a reign of 40 years (among which I count the years of the Scythian domination)”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 106: 1 - 107:1)). 
   

In fact, Herodotus never did return to the fall of Nineveh, at least as far as we know.  As we shall see, a case can be made for 585 BC as the date of Cyaxares’ death: if this is accepted,the Herodotus’ Median king list can be expressed as follows:

1. ✴Deioces: 700-647 BC
   

2. ✴Phraortes: 647--625 BC
   

3. ✴Cyaxares: 625-585 BC
   

Herodotus gives a quite different picture of the Medes’ political structure and their relations with the Assyrians at the start of his so-called ‘Median Logos’: 

1. “When the Assyrians had ruled Upper Asia [i.e., Asia east of the Halys] for 520 years, their subjects began to revolt, starting with the Medes.  These, it would seem, proved their valour in fighting for freedom against the Assyrians; they cast off their slavery and won freedom.  Afterwards, the other subject nations acted as the Medes had done.  All of those on the mainland were now free; but they came once more to be ruled by kings ... [Among] the Medians, a clever man called Deioces, the son of Phraortes, who was enamoured of [the idea of] sovereignty, ... [easily convinced the Medians that they needed a king], and every man was loud in putting Deioces forward [for the role]. ... Having secured the kingship, Deioces ordered the Medes to build a single great city for his capital ..., [and] surrounded this city, now called Ecbatana, with a series of massive concentric walls”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 95:2 - 98:3).
   

As Hilary Gopnik (referenced below, at p. 48) observed, although the inscriptions discussed above suggest that:

1. “... by the mid-7th century BC, the Median bēl-ālāni threatened to form alliances that would create a coalition of the willing against the Assyrians, there is no hint [from Assyrian sources] that the basic political organisation of the Medes as independent bēl-ālāni was in flux [in the way that] Herodotus’s story of Deioces’ rise would suggest.”
   

In other words, if Herodotus’ Deioces really did become the first king of Media, he must have reigned after ca. 650 BC. (I will return to Herodotus’ account of the kingship of Media below).

On the face of things, Herodotus’ account flies in the face of the Assyrian and Babylonian evidence discussed above.  However, there may be at least one point of contact between these two bodies of evidence: in 1907, Leonard King and Reginald Thompson (referenced below, at p. lvi) equated Herodotus’ King Cyaxares with the the man that the Babylonians knew as King Umakishtar of the Umman-manda, and this is still generally accepted.  Thus, we can at least compare:

1. ✴Herodotus’ record of the conquest of ‘all Assyria except the province of Babylon’ by Cyaxares, the third king of the Medes; and
   

2. ✴the Babylonian record of the conquest of Assyria by King Nabopolassar of Akkad and King Umakishtar of the Medes in 614-610 BC. 
   

Unfortunately, this does not take us very far: as Amélie Kuhrt (referenced below, at p. 21) observed:

1. “Despite the important information of the [‘Fall of Nineveh Chronicle’], several fundamental questions about the Medes remain unresolved: for example:
   

2. ✴How and when did this powerful new Median kingship emerge?
   

3. ✴What kind of  political structure did the Medes have?
   

4. ✴What was the outcome of the fall of Assyria for the Medes in terms of their territorial expansion?”
   

Furthermore, since the Babylonians seem to have acquired most of the territory taken from the Assyrians, opening the way for the formation of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 BC), we do not know what (if anything) the Medes gained from Cyaxares’ involvement in the Assyrians’ downfall (apart from a presumably significant share of the spoils).   

According to Herodorus, before Cyaxares defeated the Assyrians at Nineveh, he:

1. “... fought against [King Alyattes of Lydia, the father of Croesus - see above] on  the day that was turned to night [by an eclipse of the sun], and who united under his dominion all Asia that is beyond the river Halys”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 103: 2). 
   

Herodotus had already described this battle: after 5 years of war, Alyattes and Cyaxares fought a final battle (presumably near the Halys)m but, when they were both shaken by the eclipse: 

1. “... they ceased from fighting and were eager to make  peace.  Those who reconciled them were Syennesis the Cilician and Labynetus the Babylonian”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 74).
   

This was the basis of Herodotus’ claim (discussed above) that: 

1. “... the Halys formed the ‘border between] the Median and Lydian empires”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 72: 2).
   

According to Herodotus, after his settlement with Alyattes, Cyarxes:

1. “... marched against Nineveh, wishing to avenge his father and to destroy the city.  He defeated the Assyrians in battle; but while he was besieging [Nineveh], he was attacked by a great army of Scythians ...”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 103: 2-3).  
   

Herodotus subsequently recorded that Deioces was the father of [another] Phraortes and the grandfather of Cyaxares (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 73: 3).  Thus, Herodotus believed that:

1. ✴the Assyrian hold over the Medians and their neighbours had disintegrated in the time of Cyaxares’ grandfather, (the otherwise unknown) Deioces; and
   

2. ✴Deioces had subsequently persuaded the newly-liberated communities
   

3. •to accept him as their king; and
   

4. •to build his new capital city of Ecbatana.
   

However in the light of the Mesopotamian evidence set out above, we can reasonably discount almost all of this account: we know that:

1. ✴a number of individual Median ‘city rulers’ maintained bilateral relations with their overlord, King Ashurbanipal (669 - ca. 631 BC) at least until ca. 650 BC;
   

2. ✴Nabopolassar liberated the city of Babylon from the Assyrians (and made himself King of Babylon) in 626 BC, but was initially unable to recover the rest of Babylonia; 
   

3. ✴Nabopolassar:
   

4. •recognised Cyaxares as the King of the Medes in 614 BC;
   

5. •arrived too late to take part in the battle of this year in which Cyaxares destroyed the important Assyrian city of Ashur; and
   

6. •subsequently formalised an anti-Assyrian alliance with him; and
   

7. ✴this alliance was pivotal in the destruction of the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, in 612 BC and nearby Harran in 610 BC.
   

Herodotus was correct in naming Ecbatana as the capital of Media: as we shall see, it fell to Cyrus when he defeated Cyazares’ son, Astyages, in 550 BC

The problems with Herodotus’ claim - that Cyrus acquired his empire from the Medians, who had themselves acquired it from the Assyrians - are addressed in the collection of papers in the book ‘Continuity of Empire(?): Assyria, Media, Persia’ edited by Giovanni Lanfranchi et al. (referenced below): this book is now hard to find, but it is discussed in some detail by Matt Waters (referenced below, 2005). 

Medes and Lydians

Herodotus’  location of the ‘Battle of the Eclipse (585 BC): image adapted from ‘Aretshe Iran‘  

See Kevin Leloux (referenced below, at pp. 42-3 for the usual identification of the ancient Halys with the modern Kizilirmak river and Herodotus’ assumption that it instead crossed the entire Anatolian peninsula 

Note that none of our surviving sources locate the battle precisely on the Halys 

The surviving epigraphic record contains nothing more about the Medes until ca. 553 BC (see below), which leaves us largely reliant on Herodotus but, unfortunately, the reliability of his so-called ‘Median logos’ (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 95:2 -107:1) is open to question.

1. “[From 560 BC, King Croesus of Lydia] subdued almost all the nations west of the Halys and held them in subjection, except only the Cilicians and Lycians: the rest ... were subdued and became subjects of Croesus, ... and Sardis was at the height of its wealth”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 28).
   

2. “Now the Cappadocians  ... were subjects of the Medes ... : for the boundary of the Median and Lydian empires was the river Halys. ... [which forms the boundary of] almost the whole of the [western] part of Asia, from the Cyprian to the Euxine sea.”, ... , (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 72: 1-2).
   

3. “... there was war between the Lydians [under Alyattes] and the Medes [under Cyaxares] for 5 years; each won many victories over the other, and once they fought a battle by night.  They were still warring with equal success, when it chanced, during a battle that took place during the 6th year [probably 585 BC - see below],  ... the day was suddenly turned to night.  (Thales of Miletus had foretold this [imminent eclipse] to the Ionians, fixing it within the year in which the change did indeed happen).  So, when the Lydians and Medes saw the day turned to night, they ceased from fighting ... [and made] peace. Those who reconciled them were Syennesis the Cilician and Labynetus [i.e., Nabonidus] the Babylonian”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 74: 1-3).
   

4. “[The Medes] had ruled all Asia [east] the Halys for 128 years ... [when] Cyrus and the Persians rose in revolt against them and, from this time, ruled [this part of] Asia.  ... [Thereafter, he] defeated Croesus ... and, after this victory he, became sovereign of all Asia”, (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 130).
   

5. 
   

There is no reason to doubt his assertion (at ‘Persian Wars’, 1: 107: 1) that Astyages had inherited the throne from his father, Cyaxares.   In the final passage of this account, he claimed that: 

“... Astyages was deposed from his sovereignty after a reign of 35 years”. (‘Persian Wars’, 1: 130: 1).