Most of the cuneiform tablets recognising the rule of Nebuchadnezzar IV are from Babylon itself, but there are further documents mentioning him from other cities like Uruk and Borsippa and he might have been accepted as king in much of middle and southern Babylonia.

The city, owing to its prestigious and ancient history, continued to be an important site, however, with a large population, defensible walls and a functioning local cult for centuries.

Since the new rulers did not rely on Babylon's significance for their continued rule (partly due to two large uprisings centered within the city- see below), the city's prestige had been irreversibly diminished.

[13] The late 520s BC was a tumultuous time in the Achaemenid Empire, with numerous regions rebelling against the newly crowned Darius I.

[16] Following Nebuchadnezzar III's defeat in December 522 BC, Darius stayed in Babylon for some time, stabilising his rule in the city.

[19] With Darius absent, Babylon revolted against his rule again on 25 August 521 BC,[20] just two months after he left the city[17] and less than a year after the defeat of Nebuchadnezzar III.

Likewise, considering the name Arakha itself is a term meaning "crown prince" in Armenian, a land outside of Persian rule with ties to Assyria where any remaining children of Nabonidus would have likely fled to, and given the fact that many rulers of this period would often lie on royal engravings such as the Behistun inscription later transcribed by Darius in order to discredit their opponents, there are questions that remain as to the veracity of his self-purported royal parentage.

[25] Contemporary records, however, write that the revolt began in Ur before spreading north to Babylon,[26] and tablets dated to his reign have also been recovered at Borsippa and Uruk.

[26] The ancient Greek historian Herodotus describes a long siege of Babylon by Darius being resolved through a ruse, involving self-mutilation by the general Zopyrus, and the city's gates and walls being destroyed as retribution.