The burning of Persepolis

[Efstathios]

Or perhaps Alex realised that the only God that Polytheism cannot incorporate is a lone, monotheistic God

On the contrary. As it has been discussed in previous threads, Zeus was concieved as the creator of all by some people. It is unclear whether this was a common belief, as the worship of the Olympian gods in Greece varied from place to place, but generally Zeus was the leader of gods, and more powerfull. So generally there was also a monotheistic approach to his worsip. Some philosophers like Socrates talked about the one God creator of all.

Alexander respected foreign religions. That's what we get from the sources. Although it is said that the letters from Alexander to Jeremiah and vice versa that Jossipus quoted might have been his own invention, nevertheless we get a picture as to his behaviour towards the religions that he saw during the campaign. The burning of the palace at Percepolis does not relate to any of this.

[azara]

Peter Green’s theory, quoted by Amyntoros, is very interesting; his is one of the books that scowl at me from my library, looking forward to being read. Still I have some doubts about his scenery:
- Were the Persians of Persepolis in such a position as to deny Alexander what looks like a sort of “coronation” festival, if he had wished to have one?
- If the people of Persis was so ideologically hostile to Macedonian sovereignty, why did they become so attached to Peucestas few years later?
- Wasn’it too early, both for the Persians and for the Macedonians? How would they have reacted to such a feast? Mind, it was not a Roman triumph, which put on a big show of the vanquished’s humiliation; such a festival, instead, with the arrival of representatives from all the corners of the empire, could have given back to the Persians their national pride, but also favoured scheming and plotting, and this with Darius still alive. I suspect that Alexander had already programmed the great festival of the new empire, which would have taken place in Susa in two or three years, royal nuptials included, if the eastern campaign hadn’t lasted so long.
With my best regards
Azara

[smittysmitty]

I recall reading an article by N.G.L. Hammond (not one of my favourite's) who proposed the burning of Persepolis coincided chronologically with a period of unrest back in Macedon. Antipater was having to deal with some troublesome Greeks at the time - the burning of Persepolis was a statement made by Alexander for the benefit of those Greeks and in so doing releiving any undue tension back home.

[Paralus]

- If the people of Persis was so ideologically hostile to Macedonian sovereignty, why did they become so attached to Peucestas few years later?

That would be several years later and I think it more the other way around: he became "one of them" in a way no other Macedonian did.

[keroro]

Or perhaps Alex realised that the only God that Polytheism cannot incorporate is a lone, monotheistic God

On the contrary. As it has been discussed in previous threads, Zeus was concieved as the creator of all by some people. It is unclear whether this was a common belief, as the worship of the Olympian gods in Greece varied from place to place, but generally Zeus was the leader of gods, and more powerfull. So generally there was also a monotheistic approach to his worsip. Some philosophers like Socrates talked about the one God creator of all.

Your point is well taken Efstathios. I would rephrase by saying that Zeus does not appear to have been a God that excluded other Gods, while Ahuru Mazda does not.

In any case, it is interesting (though perhaps not that constructive ) to muse on motivations of Alexander in this case.