Wednesday, August 19, 2026

Esarhaddon, Cambyses, and the Fall of Egypt’s Memphis capital

 


by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

This catastrophic (for Egypt and the Ramessides) event

has been repeated again and again in the history books.

  

Abridging the ‘Bridge Too Far’ conventional system

 

The fall of the old Egyptian capital of Memphis, now to Esarhaddon (c. 670 BC), now to Ashurbanipal, now (potentially) to Nebuchednezzar, and now to Cambyses (c. 525 BC), is startlingly, in fact, just the one historical event, though spread out by conventional historians over a period of roughly (670-525 =) 150 years.

 

The connecting factor (indeed, there are many of them), from the point of view of Egypt, is the common presence of the Egyptian commander-son of pharaoh Tirhakah (Taharqa), Nes-Anhuret, for Esarhaddon, Usanahuru for Ashurbanipal, and, again, Udjahorresne[t] for Cambyses (and ‘Darius’) – the designated heir and successor of pharaoh Tirhakah and Commander of the Egyptian Fleet.

 

Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru

 

(DOC) Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru

 

He, as Udjahorresne[t], served - but also mentored - Cambyses in Egypt and gave him his royal Egyptian name, Mesuti-Ra:

Udjahorresnet and the Royal Name of Cambyses: The “Derivative Sacrality” of Achaemenids in Egypt - Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections

 

Ivan Ladynin

 

The article deals with a well-known fragment of Udjahorresnet’s autobiography describing his compiling an Egyptian royal titulary for Cambyses after his appearance in Egypt and Udjahorresnet’s elevation at his court. A comparison of Cambyses’ and Darius’ I solar prenomina (Mswty-R and Stwt-R, which can be understood as “the image of Re” and “the likeness of Re”) and an interpretation of the Fayum stela Berlin ÄS 7493 depicting Darius I in the image of the falcon Horus leads one to suspect that the theory finding an excuse to the rule of Achaemenids in Egypt postulated their “deriving” their qualities of sacral ritual rulers from gods incorporated in them. This theory must have been forwarded in Udjahorresnet’s time by his party loyal to the Persian rule.

 

 Cartouche of Cambyses ("Mesuti-Ra Cambyses")

 

Cartouche of Cambyses (“Mesuti-Ra Cambyses”)

Stated differently, Udjahorresne helped Cambyses behave

like a true Egyptian king.

 

Then, typically, the Greeks (Plutarch) got hold of Udjahorresne/Usanahuru and turned him into a Spartan admiral, the famous – though quite fictitious – Lysander:

 

Lysander and Usanhuru

 

(6) Lysander and Usanhuru

 

The radical shortening of the conventional Assyro-Babylonian-Medo-Persian history undertaken here must necessitate a similar condensing of Egyptian dynastic history.

 

That is achieved, in part, by recognising pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’ as, all at once, Tirhakah (for Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal) and Amasis (for Cambyses).

 

See e.g. my article:

 

The Complete Ramses II

 

(6) The Complete Ramses II

 

But there is also an amazing Psammetichus connection, as discussed in my article:

 

Chaldean armies come to Egypt

 

(7) Chaldean armies come to Egypt

 

There I wrote:

 

Psammetichus and other links

 

Psammetichus coincidences

 

We are told that:

 

·       Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus I (c. 664 BC);

·       Nebuchednezzar invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus II (c. 595-589 BC);

·       Cambyses invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus III (c. 526-525 BC).

….

 

Memphis taken

 

This catastrophic (for Egypt and the Ramessides) event has been repeated again and again in the history books.

 

Commencing with Esarhaddon, and working our way through to Cambyses, let us take Nebuchednezzar here as our common denominator. 

Esarhaddon, who was Nebuchednezzar in his building of Babylon and in his paranoïc madness, and who failed in his first assault on Egypt and was driven back – just as was the case with Nebuchednezzar:

Esarhaddon | Assyrian King, Neo-Assyrian Empire Ruler | Britannica

“When Egypt inspired a revolt of the Phoenician city of Tyre, Esarhaddon attacked Egypt (675); he had little success until 671, when he seized Memphis and defeated the Egyptian king Taharqa, who fled south, leaving the entire country to Esarhaddon. For the first time a Mesopotamian ruler included “king of Egypt” among his royal titles”. 

 

Likewise, Nebuchednezzar initially had little success with invading Egypt:

Nebuchadnezzar Fails to Conquer Egypt So Jeremiah’s Prophecy Was Updated - TheTorah.com

Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt in his fourth regnal year (601/600 B.C.E.). Pharaoh Necho II, in anticipation of this attack, had spent considerable resources massively fortifying the eastern entrances to Egypt at Tell el Qedwa and Tell el-Ghaba on the Pelusiac estuary of the Nile, as well as the gate and fortifications of his capital city, Tanis (biblical Zoan). He thus succeeded in stopping the invasion cold, forcing Nebuchadnezzar’s army to retreat. Even the Babylonian Chronicle—which tends to avoid explicitly mentioning a defeat—has trouble spinning this campaign as a success:

 

In the month Kislev he (Nebuchadnezzar) took his army's lead and marched to Egypt. (When) the king of Egypt heard (the news) he m[ustered] his army. They fought one another in the battlefield and both sides suffered severe losses (lit. they inflicted a major defeat upon one another). The king of Akkad and his army turned and [went back] to Babylon.[7] ….

[End of quote]

 

Esarhaddon, later, brilliantly conquered Memphis:

Esarhaddon and the Limits of Empire: From Memphis to Arabia and the Question of a Southern Campaign - Nineveh News

 

The Conquest of Egypt: A Turning Point in Near Eastern History

Esarhaddon’s Egyptian campaign marks one of the most extraordinary military achievements of the ancient world. After an initial invasion in 673 BC, he reorganized and launched a second campaign in 671 BC, culminating in the capture of Memphis, the heart of Egyptian political power.

 

This victory had several profound implications:

 

  • First Assyrian Conquest of Egypt: No previous Assyrian ruler had successfully subdued Egypt. Esarhaddon accomplished what Tiglath-Pileser III and Sennacherib had not.
  • Defeat of Taharqa: The Kushite pharaoh Taharqa was driven south, and his royal family was captured and deported to Nineveh.
  • Imperial Integration: Esarhaddon reorganized Egypt into a vassal system, installing local rulers such as Necho I under Assyrian oversight.
  • Symbolic Domination: His victory stelae, such as those at Zincirli and Nahr el-Kalb, visually proclaimed Assyria’s supremacy over Egypt, even juxtaposing Assyrian and earlier Egyptian imperial legacies.

[End of quote]

 

Ashurbanipal, who was Nebuchednezzar in his (same) 43-year reign, and having a burning fiery furnace, and in his definitive conquest of Egypt (cf. Jeremiah 43:10-13;  Ezekiel 29:19-20), provides for us the entire account of the conquest of Egypt that we do not have from Nebuchednezzar’s (under that name) records.

 

Ashurbanipal brilliantly conquered Memphis:

Assyrian Army Attacking Memphis - World History Encyclopedia

 

Gypsum panel showing the Assyrian army attacking the Egyptian city of Memphis and commemorating the final victory of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal II over the Egyptian king Taharqa in 667 BCE. Panel 17, Room M of the North Palace at Nineveh, Northern Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, Neo-Assyrian Period, 645-635 BCE.

 

This wall slab was originally painted for the interior walls of Ashurbanipal's palace at Nineveh. At the top, the overwhelming wave of the Assyrian army storms the Egyptian fortress, tries to set fire to the gate, and undermines the walls. The Nubian soldiers, recognizable by the single upright feathers on their heads, are being marched off as prisoners. Egyptian civilian prisoners are shown as a group with two children on a donkey. Below is the River Nile with fish and crabs.

 

Cambyses, who was Nebuchednezzar in his name,

 

Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar

 

(8) Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar

 

in his madness, and in his definitive conquest of Egypt, famously conquered Memphis:

How to cite this article: Rickard, J (18 February 2015), Siege of Memphis, early 525 BC , https://www.historyofwar.org/articles/siege_memphis_525.html

 

The siege of Memphis (early 525 BC) was the last recorded resistance to Cambyses II of Persia's invasion of Egypt, and came after the main Egyptian army had been defeated at Pelusium.

Early in 525 Cambyses led his army across the Sinai and defeated the armies of Pharaoh Psamtik III at Pelusium. In the aftermath of the battle the Pharaoh retreated to Memphis, and prepared to defend the city.

Cambyses sent a Persian herald on a Mytilenean ship up the Nile to Memphis to suggest a truce. The defenders of Memphis reacted by attacking the ship, killing the crew and bringing the smashed remains of the ship into the city.

Cambyses reacted by laying siege to Memphis. Herodotus doesn’t say how long the siege lasted, but implies that it was long enough for the Libyans and the Greeks of Cyrene to sent tribute to him.

Eventually the city fell and Psamtik III was captured. Herodotus records a story about Cambyses's attempts to humiliate the former Pharaoh by forcing his daughter to carry out menial tasks and killing his son. As is typical in this sort of story Psamtik impressed Cambyses with his responses, and was taken into honourable captivity instead of being executed. He committed suicide a few years later, after being caught in a plot against the Persians.

Cambyses established a new 27th Dynasty, and appears to have been accepted in Egypt. Herodotus claimed that he was an unpopular ruler, but contemporary Egyptian records suggest otherwise. He remained in Egypt for most of the rest of his reign, only setting off for home when a revolt broke out in the heart of the Persian Empire.

 

Wednesday, July 8, 2026

Neriglissar replacing Amel-Marduk must be Darius the Mede replacing King Belshazzar

 



by 

Damien F. Mackey

  

Introduction

 

Neriglissar was a King of Babylon who reigned for some years (Flavius Josephus gives an incredible “40 years”) after the demise of Nebuchednezzar’s evil son, Amēl-Marduk.

 

Yet there do not appear to be any statues or depictions of Neriglissar qua Neriglissar.

 

Thus he joins my growing list of those whom I have called ‘camera-shy’ rulers:

 

More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates

 

(9) More 'camera-shy' ancient potentates

 

in need of one or more alter egos.

 

In this article I shall be suggesting a few such alternative identities for King Neriglissar.

 

That King Amēl-Marduk of Babylon was the same as King Belshazzar of Babylon has hopefully become fully apparent from certain compelling parallels that I have been able to draw in this connection in my recent article:

 

Sixty-two years of Darius, who was Cyrus ‘the Great’

 

(9) Sixty-two years of Darius, who was Cyrus 'the Great'

 

in which I also re-state my view that Darius the Mede, so relevant to this present paper, was the same as King Cyrus ‘the Great’.

 

Now we know from Daniel 5:30-31 that Darius the Mede directly replaced – {the biblical text does not go so far as to say that Darius personally killed him} - the assassinated Chaldean king, Belshazzar, son-successor of Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.

 

That would mean that Neriglissar, who replaced (killed?) Amēl-Marduk, was Darius, and must therefore have been by birth a Mede (cf. Daniel 5:31).

 

How does that work?

 

Median influence at court of Babylon?

 

The Medes and their kingdom have been very difficult to pin down.

One reason why is because:

 

Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology

 

(4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology

 

Not entirely surprising, that, because we have been looking for Medo-Persia in quite the wrong part of the ancient world.

 

We should actually have been scouring Anatolia for the right location of Media, according to Richard Erickson (2020):

 

A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

(4) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

Figure 8 – Elamite Regions and Associated States

 

and not east of the Tigris River where we have been accustomed to looking for Media.

 

The Book of Tobit precisifies for us where lay the land of Media:

 

Geography of the Book of Tobit presents a fascinating challenge

 

(4) Geography of the Book of Tobit presents a fascinating challenge

 

The Book of Daniel, for its part, introduces us to one “Ashpenaz, who was in charge of [King Nebuchednezzar’s] court officials”, and who figures prominently in Daniel 1. According to the following explanation, Ashpenaz may have been an “Iranian” name – meaning Medo-Persian, but see the above geographical corrections.

 

(2) An Iranian in the Court of King Nebuchadnezzar | Alan Millard – Academia.edu

“In his essay, ‘Achaemenid History and the Book Of Daniel … Terence commented on the man to whom Nebuchadnezzar entrusted Daniel and his friends after they were deported from Jerusalem. This man bore the title rab sārîsîm, traditionally rendered ‘chief eunuch’, by most English translations, but now to be understood as ‘chief of court officials’ (rab ša rēši) from the evidence of extensive Babylonian sources. …. In the ‘ration lists’ from Nebuchadnezzar’s palace … a ša rēši is responsible for issues to foreigners, while among the recipients are foreign ša rēšis. The highest officer was given the responsibility for the selected Hebrew youths.

Daniel 1B gives the officer’s name as Ashpenaz. That, Terence wrote, ‘seems to be an Iranian name, which would be unusual in the sixth century BC’.” 

 

We read about this Ashpenaz as follows (Daniel 1:3-20):

 

The king commanded Ashpenaz, who was in charge of his court officials, to choose some of the Israelites who were of royal and noble descent— young men in whom there was no physical defect and who were handsome, well versed in all kinds of wisdom, well educated and having keen insight, and who were capable of entering the king’s royal service—and to teach them the literature and language of the Babylonians. So the king assigned them a daily ration from his royal delicacies and from the wine he himself drank. They were to be trained for the next three years. At the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. As it turned out, among these young men were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. But the overseer of the court officials renamed them.

 

He gave Daniel the name Belteshazzar, Hananiah he named Shadrach, Mishael he named Meshach, and Azariah he named Abednego.

 

But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the royal delicacies or the royal wine. He therefore asked the overseer of the court officials for permission not to defile himself. Then God made the overseer of the court officials sympathetic to Daniel. But he responded to Daniel, ‘I fear my master the king. He is the one who has decided your food and drink. What would happen if he saw that you looked malnourished in comparison to the other young men your age? If that happened, you would endanger my life with the king!’ Daniel then spoke to the warden whom the overseer of the court officials had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: ‘Please test your servants for ten days by providing us with some vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who are eating the royal delicacies; deal with us in light of what you see’. So the warden agreed to their proposal and tested them for ten days.

 

At the end of the ten days their appearance was better and their bodies were healthier than all the young men who had been eating the royal delicacies. So the warden removed the delicacies and the wine from their diet and gave them a diet of vegetables instead. Now as for these four young men, God endowed them with knowledge and skill in all sorts of literature and wisdom—and Daniel had insight into all kinds of visions and dreams.

 

When the time appointed by the king arrived, the overseer of the court officials brought them into Nebuchadnezzar’s presence. When the king spoke with them, he did not find among the entire group anyone like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, or Azariah. So they entered the king’s service. In every matter of wisdom and insight the king asked them about, he found them to be ten times better than any of the magicians and astrologers that were in his entire empire.

 

The name Ashpenaz is very much like, I would suggest, the name of the Urartian king, and foe of the Assyrians, Ishpuinas (or Ishpuini), who must have been a contemporary of Sargon II (Sennacherib), who was also, as I have argued, Shamsi-Adad IV/V:

 

The C8th BC Shamsi-Adad

 

(2) The C8th BC Shamsi-Adad

 

Biography of Ishpuini of Urartu

 

Who is Ishpuini of Urartu?

 

Ishpuini was king of Urartu. He succeeded his father, Sarduri I, who moved the capital to Tushpa. Ishpuini conquered the Mannaean city of Musasir, which was then made the religious center of the empire. The main temple for the war god Haldi was in Musasir. Ishpuinis and his nation were then attacked by the forces Assyrian King Shamshi-Adad V. Ishpuinis fought and defeated Shamshi-Adad. Ishpuini was so confident in his power that he began using names meaning everlasting glory, including, "King of the land of Nairi", "Glorious King", and "King of the Universe".

 

Ishpuini was succeeded by his son, Menua”.

 

Brock Heathcotte may have cleverly succeeded in connecting the Urartians with the Mitannians:

 

Mitanni and Urartu the same place: Heathcotte

 

(2) Mitanni and Urartu the same place: Heathcotte

 

It remains to be determined whether or not these - especially the Mitannians whom some revisionists have identified with the Medes - can be fused together, and Ishpuinas (Ashpenaz?) be found to have been a Mitannian/Median name.

 

It is most unlikely, though, that Daniel 1’s Ashpenaz could be another name for our foreign (in Babylonia) Darius the Mede, because, estimating from my article (above), “Sixty-two years …”, Darius (Neriglissar) would have been only a teenager at the time, and so hardly old enough, one would think, for King Nebuchednezzar to have entrusted him with the responsibility of being “in charge of his court officials”.

 

Another thought is that Ashpenaz was Astyages, the Median predecessor of (Darius) Cyrus according to Daniel 14:1 (Bel and the Dragon). Possible – though it would not appear to accord with what tradition tells us about Astyages as King of the Medes.

 

Neriglissar serving King Nebuchednezzar

 

Thanks to - presuming that it is accurate - my recent article:

 

Adding Adad Nirari to Shalmaneser as Assyrian kings needing to be re shuffled

 

(2) Adding Adad Nirari to Shalmaneser as Assyrian kings needing to be re shuffled

 

we have now yet another alter ego for the mighty Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar, as Adad-Nirari, and, thereby, another potential opportunity for identifying the king’s understudy, Neriglissar.

 

He emerges there, I think, in the records of Adad-Nirari so called III, as Nergal-ēreš.

Karen Radner refers to this Nergal-ēreš in relation to:

The Stele of Adad-nērārī III and Nergal-ēreš from Dūr-Katlimmu (Tell Šai amad)

 

The Stele of Adad-nērārī III and Nergal-ēreš from Dūr-Katlimmu

(Tell Šai amad)

 

December 2012

Altorientalische Forschungen 39(2):265-277

 

“A Neo-Assyrian royal stele from Dūr-Katlimmu, modern Tell Šai amad in Syria, bears two cuneiform inscriptions, one in the name of Adad-nērārī III of Assyria (r. 810783 BC), the other in the name of Nergal-ēreš, governor of the Assyrian province of Raappa. Both inscriptions concern the god Salmānu and his temple at Dūr-Katlimmu for whose reconstruction and refurbishment Adad-nērārī and Nergal-ēreš take credit”.

 

Here, Nergal-ēreš is called the “governor of the Assyrian province of Raappa”, generally considered to be the biblical Rezeph (Isaiah 37:12), the present day Reāfa/ Ruāfa.

 

This, apparently, was a substantial territory:

(1) The Location of Raappa

According to Simo Parpola, “The Location of Raappa” ((1) The Location of Raappa) (p. 398): “Nergal-ereš” identifes himself as “governor of Raappa, Lāqê, indānu, Anat, Sūu and Aššur-abat, and then lists a total of 331 towns and settlements founded by him at the behest of Adad-nerari III in middle Euphrates, lower Khabur and Sinjar”.

 

Now, switching to the historical Old Testament, and to the bureaucracy of Nebuchednezzar, we most likely find the highly influential Nergal-ēreš in Nebuchednezzar’s governor, Nergal-sharezer.

He is designated there, in Jeremiah 39:3, as “governor of Sinmagir”:

 

Julius A. Bewer wrote on this for Union Theological Seminary, NY, in 1907:

Nergalsharezer Samgar in Jer. 39:3 on JSTOR

 

NERGALSHAREZER SAMGAR IN JER. 39:3

 

In the inscription of Nebuchadrezzar II, published by Eckhard Unger in the Theologische Literaturzeitung 50, No. 21 (Oct. 17, 1925), we find the name of the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan who carried the Jews into captivity in 586 B.C. (Jer. 39:9, 11, 40:1; II Kings 25:8, 10ff.) = Nabuzêriddinam with his title rab nutimmu, “chief baker”, corresponding to רַב־ טַבָּחִ֛ים in the Bible at the head of the list of the high-court officials (mašennum).

 

This is in itself an item of such historical importance that it makes the inscription very valuable for the Old Testament student.

There is, however, another name mentioned in the list which not only authenticates an Old Testament name but solves an old crux interpretum in Jer 39:3. Nergalšarriuur, one of the rabûti šar mât Akkadim, “the great ones of the land of Akkad”, is the same as the Nergalsharezer in Jer. 39:3 who is there described as  one of the שָׂרֵי מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל, “the princes of the king of Babylon”. After his name the Hebrew text reads סַמְגַּר-נְבוּ שַׂר-סְכִים רַב-סָרִיס. The first word סַמְגַּר has hitherto been quite unknown. Giesebrecht1 saw that it did not belong to the following name, which is to be corrected in accordance with Jer. 39:13 to נְבוּשַׁזְבָּן, but to the preceding נֵרְגַל שַׂרְאֶצֶר. He assumed that there was a textual corruption in סַמְגַּר and changed it to רַב-מָג, because he regarded Nergalsharezer rab mag, who follows immediately upon Nabushazban in Jer. 39:3 (as restored) and 39:13 as a parallel reading of Nergalsharezer samgar.

 

We now know that סַמְגַּר is quite correct, it is Sinmagir, the name of the city of Akkad of which Nergalsharezer was governor, for the Nebuchadrezzar inscription has in the list of the rabûti šar mât Akkadim as the second official: Nergal-šarri-uur amêlu Sinmagir. סַמְגַּר is clearly the Hebrew equivalent of Sinmagir. The vowels are, of course, to be disregarded, because the later Jews did not know how to pronounce the name ….

Are Nergalsharezer of Sinmagir and Nergalsharezer rab mag the same or different persons? Since only one Nergalsharezer is mentioned in Jer. 39:13, it seems most reasonable to assume that there was originally only one in Jer. 39:3 also, i.e., Nergalsharezer of Sinmagir, who was rab mag at this time. The original reading was then נֵרְגַל שַׂרְאֶצֶר סַמְגַּר to which the parallel reading intended to attach the title רַב-מָג  ….

[End of article]

 

Whether or not Sinmagir is compatible with the province of Rasappa cannot, at this stage, be determined, because the location of Sinmagir does not appear to be clearly known.

 

Neriglissar as king

 

A typical account of King Neriglissar would go as follows:

Neriglissar Explained

 

Neriglissar (akk-x-neobabyl|{{cuneiform|12| or, meaning "Nergal, protect the king") was the fourth [sic] king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, ruling from his usurpation of the throne in 560 BC to his death in 556 BC. Though unrelated to previous Babylonian kings, possibly being of Aramean ancestry, Neriglissar was a prominent official and general in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BC) and became even more influential through marrying one of Nebuchadnezzar's daughters, possibly Kashshaya.

 

Nebuchadnezzar was initially succeeded by his son, Amel-Marduk, but Amel-Marduk's reign only lasted for two years before Neriglissar usurped the Babylonian throne and put him to death.

 

Through his marriage to Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, possibly significantly older than any of the old king's sons, Neriglissar might have represented a less legitimate but more wealthy and well-established faction of the royal family, even if he himself was not part of this family.

 

The most well documented event of Neriglissar's reign is his successful 557–556 BC campaign in Anatolia against Appuwashu, king of a small kingdom in Cilicia. Neriglissar successfully captured Appuwashu's capital, Ura, as well as another city, Kirshu, before conducting an amphibious attack against a nearby island and then laying waste to mountain passes on the western border to Lydia. Shortly after returning home to Babylonia victorious, Neriglissar died in April 556 BC. He was succeeded as king by his son, Labashi-Marduk, whose reign would only last for two or three months before being deposed and killed in favour of Nabonidus”.

 

After the passing of the Chaldean dynasty constituting Nebuchednezzar and Amēl-Marduk (Belshazzar), assassinated, Darius the Mede (Cyrus ‘the Great’) - who can now only be the Neriglissar who succeeded the assassinated Chaldean king, Amēl-Marduk - took the throne at the age of 62 (Daniel 5:30, 31).

 

Neriglissar is somewhat poorly known in his capacity as King of Babylon, and it took me a long time to work out how he fitted in to the whole scheme of things.

 

He fits in perfectly, I would now suggest, as Darius the Mede.