The Persepolis incident

[Efstathios]

Ok we have analysed at some extent Alexander's attitude against Thebes and Tyre.We know that Alexander had outbreaks of passion,anger e.t.c.(but who doesnt?) that sometimes were catastrophic.(Cleitus case) Now i am going to try to analyse why Alexander acted the way that he did regarding Persepolis.He let his troops go into the city and pillage it.What did Alexander think when he stood in front of Persepolis and made such a decision? My guess is that he had this planned in his mind somehow.The official justification for his act (that he did it to get revenge for Athens when the Persians burned it) is not false.We must consider that Alexander admired Athens.He admired loved and respected everything about Athens.The temples,the people,the culture and maybe most of all the fact that Athens was the center of philosophy.I think that even before he started his campaign he might have said to himself that if and when he conquered the Persian empire he would get revenge.Aristotle must have played an important role to this,as he was the man who made Alexander realise,learn and love the greek herritage. So maybe he did not have a particular city in his mind..But i think that he wanted to hurt the empire where it was more painfull,and that was Persepolis,as it was something equivalent to Athens,but only in Wealth.The Persian empire was all about wealth so he wanted to strike in it's essence. It cannot be explained otherwise the fact that Alexander respected all the other cities,like Babylon and when he arrived at persepolis he suddenly changed attitude. Someone could say that maybe it was because he then realised what he had accomplished and all that power feebled his mind and gave this order.But he should have felt this before,at Babylon.While entering Babylon the spectacle surely must have been more glorius than it was with persepolis,but he did not react in this way back then.Alexander just stood there watching Persepolis,the jewel of the Persian empire,being pillaged by his army.If it was a sudden outbreak after it would pass he would give an order to stop.But he didnt.Thus i believe it was planned long ago and the reason must have been revenge. This is just a thought though,no one can really know what was going on in Alexander's mind.
Continuing...

[Efstathios]

The burning of the palace days after Alexander entered Persepolis concurs in this theory.During a big feast in the palace a hetera from Athens set fire deliberately in front of everyone.I think this was set up probably by Alexander because he did not react.He did not do anything to stop the fire.He let the palace burn to the ground.He feasted over the burning palace of the Persian empire. We cannot say that because he did that he was a ruthless man.That only happened in persepolis,nowhere else in the Persian empire.He respected everything else.So it must have been for revenge.Although i think that Alexander must have had his doubts and inner battles in his mind while he was in persepolis.He did not wipe out the entire city and he respected some persian customs. I want to hear your oppinions in this one.

[kenny]

Eftas hailI looked at your post and thought about this issue.Maybe as a gesture of punishment for Athens as you say to even please the Greeks. However I may doubt this with pleasing his people policy. AS we know Alexander did and made desisions that didnt only not honour the Macedonians. He did things that down right pissed them off. I dont go with the people pleaser attitude.Alexander did things to please and justify himself. Numerous examples can be made. Marrying Persian women. Adopting there dress.Returning Persians to power.I have even read in places that it can be proved the pallace wasnt even burned during Alexanders time that there is evidence it still existed after Alexander but maybe Marcus would know more about that.I dont generally disagree with you mate but I think you over emphasise Athens importance to Alexander.I dont think he loved or respected therm because he knew there devious nature. And following Themes i would say Athens was next until he was talked out of it. Also Alexander only ever visited Athens once on political busness so I doubt his fondness for Athens.If they did burn the place I just put it down to one of those moments of madness following a few bears that we may all have had but not to that extreme. WE cant go out on a Saturday night get aled up and set fire to palaces.No excuses from me for Alexander just a crazy night as we know he saw what hed done when sober and probably thought what the hell did we do last night.
Kenny

[Efstathios]

Hail Kennyx

So you are saying that there is a possibility that Alexander didnt actually burn the palace down?That would be interesting.The only source that doesnt reffer to this incident is Arrian,but all the others do.So i guess it couldnt only be a rumor.

I'll have to insist in his love for Athens.And maybe "love" is an exxageration.But he admired what this city represented.Presenting him as wanting to destroy Athens after Thebes is like showing him completely ruthless.But the facts tell us otherwise.If Athens had attacked him then we dont know what he might have done.But the Athenians withdrew from their war preperations and send an embassy to him right away after they heard about Thebes.
And realisticly speaking Alexander knew that had he attacked Athens then it would be difficult for him afterwards to speak about a panhellenic union against the Persians.Even the Spartans when they entered and captured Athens in the end of the pelloponesian war did not harm the city or the civilians.
But this wasnt Alexander's purpose anyway,as it was not entirely his purpose to completely wipe out Thebes in the first place.He gave the Thebeans the chance to make things right but they attacked him. And if Alexander was really that ruthless then he would have punished Sparta too when the Lakedaimonians revolted and were defeated in Megalopolis by Antipatros while Alexander was winning at gaugamela.The Spartans feared that they might have the same fate as Thebes and asked Alexander directly to decide for them and not amfictionia to decide.Therefore we can see that the Spartans knew that if Alexander was to decide by himself of their fate he would probably spare them because he was gentle and not ruthless,while the alliance that decided about Thebes may have done otherwise.The Spartans feared that the Athenians may have wanted revenge and that this was their chance.Of course we dont know what would have happened if amfictionia was to decide about the Spartans but we know that Alexander did not harm them at all.He only demanded that the peoppe that were behind the revolt would be punished.

[Efstathios]

As for Persepolis again, maybe it was a combination of feelings.When Alexander was heading to Persepolis he saw the mutilated greeks and the sources tell us that he even cried before this image.This fact in addition with the exxagerated luxuries that he saw in Persepolis may have triggered the feeling of revenge. To say that this would harm his vision of uniting the people e.t.c so he couldnt have done it just for revenge is pointless.Because he did it.He pillaged Persepolis.If he wanted to maintain his vision unharmed he wouldnt have done it.But he did it. And in my oppinion the most probable reason is the combination that i suggested above.

[jan]

Just got to interject a thought here. You always hear that people objected to Alexander's wearing Persian dress, but those were the Macedonians. HOw did the Persians feel about that? Are there any records of the Persians thoughts on this subject?

[marcus]

Jona is a better person to ask about Persepolis, although he doesn't get much time to visit Pothos at the moment ... perhaps he'll drop in soon to help out.However, from what he's said in the past, I believe it's not so much that it was destroyed *after* Alexander's time, but that the evidence points to less wholesale destruction in 330 BC - so the damage was not that extensive, and therefore might be argued to have been more symbolic than the sources otherwise suggest.As I say, though, that's really one for Jona to clarify.ATBMarcus

[kenny]

Marcus HailI knew you would have more info on that as I was sure I had seen it somewhere.Going on the new evidence throws a whole new light on the subject.On the same token Destruction an vandalism are readioly associated with war and conquests. AS mentioned the Persians burnd and Looted Athens yet the same selective Alexander knockers decide to single him out for so called atrocities.Kenny

[abm]

i don't have the time to go very deep into this, but from Diodorus XIX 22.1 it is clear that in 317 Persepolis was still functionning as capital of Persis.As for the burning of the palace, why not consider the possibility that Alexander simply was so drunk that he didn't realise what he did, as with the Cleitus episode?regards,abm

[smittysmitty]

The city of Persepolis was not burnt down, the palace was partially burnt - that would appear to be the limit of it.

[kenny]

So the basic story is that Alexander again and again gets vilified for burning the palace.And the trueth is we have ne clear evidence that it was burned at all by Alexander and that there is evidence the place was in existence following Alexander.Maybe the record need putting straight.I have no doubts with Thebes, Tyre and Clietus. But The palkace and the Massacre of the Indians is a little less clear to me?Kenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,Certainly Alexander gets vilified for the burning of Persepolis - and, of course, depending on which of the various interpretations, he is or isn't deserving of it. However, I don't think it would be right to say that there's no evidence that he burned it at all. There is sufficient archaeological evidence that at least part of the palace was burned (and, as I said before, Jona is in the best position to clarify this - or Nick W.); and the literary evidence is solid enough (if he *hadn't* burned it, it would have been very difficult for all the sources to say that he did). The argument is only really over the extent of the damage that he did.ATBMarcus

[iranianguy]

Ok guys, about Persepolis by the way the real name of it is Takhte Jamshid (seat of Jamshid) Jamshid is a anciant king in Persian/Aryan fairy tales. Anyway if any of u guys know how big and glorious the compound of Persepolis is you would think that any of the greek Acropolises are like ants in its shadow. I think Alexander burned the Persepolis purposly because of a few reasons 1)Percepolis was the capitol of the Persian Empire and there were numoris statues and Bas reliefs depicting the might and supremicy of the Archamanid Kings, why would Alexander want this huge compound that is a tribute to his defeated enimies to stand. 2) Alexander as i think u all know was known for getting drunk and doing things that were absolutly not necessary and even down right counter productive like killing one of his top generals in a drunken furry. Honestly i got to say it took 160 some years for Persepolis to be bilt, and i dare say Persepolis was more wonderous then all of the wonders of the world except for the pyramids. Liston people we are talking about pillars that were 70 feat high and that means that the buildings were almost 100 feat high, even you greek and greek supporters have to say the destruction of such a beutiful place was a great shame.