More important, however, are the details of the conquest by Cyrus. He must have entered Babylonia on the north-east, and met the Babylonian army at Opis. That the conflict went against the Babylonians may be taken for granted, though it is not stated. Apparently the country was divided into two parties—those for resistance, and those who were probably discontented on account of the king’s reputed unorthodoxy. A conflict between these took place, and there was bloodshed, the result being that no resistance could be offered to the army of Cyrus, who entered Sippar, the seat of the worship of the Sun-god, without fighting. To all appearance Nabonidus was at his post, but recognizing that all was lost, fled. Two days later Gobryas (not Cyrus, be it observed) entered Babylon with the army of Cyrus without fighting, and apparently captured Nabonidus there. This took place about the end of June, and it was October before Cyrus entered the city. Judging from the text, he was well received, and the result of the conference between him and Gobryas was, that the latter “appointed governors in Babylon,” or “in Babylonia,” as the words may be also read. Another stroke of policy was the return to their habitations of the images of the gods which Nabonidus had transferred to other places, thus appeasing the priests. At this point come some very important and difficult phrases. On the night of the 11th of Marcheswan, Gobryas descended (or went) upon or against something, and the king, or the son of the king, died. The combination of these two statements, taken in connection with the record in Daniel v. 30, suggests that the latter reading is the correct one, though the first, which would make it to mean that the king was slain, is not excluded, and would make very little difference in the record, it being possible that Belshazzar, as the successor of Nabonidus, might be meant. An earlier explanation was, that the doubtful group stood for “the wife” of the king, but in this case it would be difficult to explain how it is that the verbal form (which is ideographically written, and may be read either _imât_, “he dies,” _tamât_, “she dies,” or _mêtat_, “she died”) should differ from that used in the case of the king’s mother, where _imtût_, the historical tense of the secondary form of the kal, is the form used. The use of _imât_ for _imût_, “he died,” would be paralleled by the use of _irab_ or _irub_, “he entered,” in other parts of the inscription.