Editing Nebuchadnezzar II (section)

=== Death and succession ===
Nebuchadnezzar died at Babylon in 562 BC.{{Sfn|Mark|2018|p=}} The last known tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's reign, from Uruk, is dated to the same day, 7 October, as the first known tablet of his successor, [[Amel-Marduk]], from Sippar.{{Sfn|Parker|Dubberstein|1942|p=10}} Amel-Marduk's administrative duties probably began before he became king, during the last few weeks or months of his father's reign when Nebuchadnezzar was ill and dying.{{Sfn|Weiershäuser|Novotny|2020|p=1}} Having ruled for 43 years, Nebuchadnezzar's reign was the longest of his dynasty{{Sfn|Sack|2004|p=2}} and he would be remembered favourably by the Babylonians.{{Sfn|Nielsen|2015|p=63}}

Amel-Marduk's accession does not appear to have gone smoothly.{{Sfn|Ayali-Darshan|2012|p=26}} Amel-Marduk was not the eldest living son of Nebuchadnezzar and the reason why he was picked as crown prince is not known.{{Sfn|Ayali-Darshan|2012|p=27}}{{Sfn|Abraham|2012|p=124}} The choice is especially strange given that some sources suggest that the relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Amel-Marduk was particularly poor, with one surviving text describing both as parties in some form of conspiracy and accusing one of them (the text is too fragmentary to determine which one) of failing in the most important duties of Babylonian kingship through exploiting Babylon's populace and desecrating its temples.{{Sfn|Ayali-Darshan|2012|p=27}} Amel-Marduk also at one point appears to have been imprisoned by his father, possibly on account of the Babylonian aristocracy having proclaimed him as king while Nebuchadnezzar was away.{{Sfn|Weiershäuser|Novotny|2020|p=1}} It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar intended to replace Amel-Marduk as heir with another son, but died before doing so.{{Sfn|Ayali-Darshan|2012|p=29}}

In one of Nebuchadnezzar's late inscriptions, written more than forty years into his reign, he wrote that he had been chosen for the kingship by the gods before he was even born. Mesopotamian rulers typically only stressed divine legitimacy in this fashion when their actual legitimacy was questionable, a method often employed by usurpers. Given that Nebuchadnezzar at this point had been king for several decades and was the legitimate heir of his predecessor, the inscription is very strange, unless it was intended to help legitimize Nebuchadnezzar's successor, Amel-Marduk, who as a younger son and a former conspirator could be seen as politically problematic.{{Sfn|Ayali-Darshan|2012|p=26}}