A policy of "fusion"?

[Semiramis]

Marcus! Too quick! You got there before I modified my post regarding the British sharing governance of India with Indians. Response is still the same though. Where's the evidence regarding this assertion?

Regarding mass starvation - no I don't believe Alexander's army made a habit of this. The march back from India is very likely to have left some populations in that state though. My reading of Nearchus' account leaves little room for other conclusions. Story after story of small villages with few resources, which Alexander's men strip bare of dates, grain, fish or meat. Whether the natives tried to placate them with gifts or not, it did not matter. We are talking about the Gedrosian desert here, so food was not easy to come by for Alexander's men and it would not have been so for the locals after they left. Barring miracles, mass starvation seems overwhelmingly likely at least for some of these populations. I believe that the Gedrosian march did not go according to plan. But the benevolent conqueror thesis it does not support. I'll quote just one of the many stories.

Thence about midnight they sailed and came to a harbour Cophas, after a voyage of about four hundred stades; here dwelt fishermen, with small and feeble boats; and they did not row with their oars on a rowlock, as the Greeks do, but as you do in a river, propelling the water on this side or that like labourers digging I the soil. At the harbour was abundant pure water. About the first watch they weighed anchor and arrived at Cyiza, after a passage of eight hundred stades, where there was a desert beach and a heavy surf. Here, therefore, they anchored, and each ship took its own meal. Thence they voyaged five hundred stades and arrived at a small town built near the shore on a hill. Nearchus, who imagined that the district must be tilled, told Archias of Pella, son of Anaxidotus, who was sailing with Nearchus, and was a notable Macedonian, that they must surprise the town, since he had no hope that the natives would give the army provisions of their good-will; while he could not capture the town by force, but this would require a siege and much delay; while they in the meanwhile were short of provisions. But that the land did produce corn he could gather from the straw which they saw lying deep near the beach. When they had come to this resolve, Nearchus bade the fleet in general to get ready as if to go to sea; and Archias, in his place, made all ready for the voyage; but Nearchus himself was left behind with a single ship and went off as if to have a look at the town.

As Nearchus approached the walls, the natives brought him, in a friendly way, gifts from the city; tunny-fish baked in earthen pans; for there dwell the westernmost of the Fish-eating tribes, and were the first whom the Greeks had seen cooking their food; and they brought also a few cakes and dates from the palms. Nearchus said that he accepted these gratefully; and desired to visit the town, and they permitted him to enter. But as soon as he passed inside the gates, he bade two of the archers to occupy the postern, while he and two others, and the interpreter, mounted the wall on this side and signalled to Archias and his men as had been arranged: that Nearchus should signal, and Archias understand and do what had been ordered. On seeing the signal the Macedonians beached their ships with all speed; they leapt in haste into the sea, while the natives, astounded at this manoeuvre, ran to their arms. The interpreter with Nearchus cried out that they should give corn to the army, if they wanted to save their city; and the natives replied that they had none, and at the same time attacked the wall. But the archers with Nearchus shooting from above easily held them up. When, however, the natives saw that their town was already occupied and almost on the way to be enslaved, they begged Nearchus to take what corn they had and retire, but not to destroy the town. Nearchus, however, bade Archias to seize the gates and the neighbouring wall; but he sent with the natives some soldiers to see whether they would without any trick reveal their corn. They showed freely their flour, ground down from the dried fish; but only a small quantity of corn and barley. In fact they used as flour what they got from the fish; and loaves of corn flour they used as a delicacy. When, however, they had shown all they had, the Greeks provisioned themselves from what was there, and put to sea, anchoring by a headland which the inhabitants regarded as sacred to the Sun: the headland was called Bageia.

As for Alexander's motivations to conquer India, it's important to remember that India had much wealth to offer. The Persians had conquered parts of India before Alexander, presumably with a lustful eye towards its jewels, elephants, wood, precious metal etc. Most of the territory Alexander had conquered in India had at some point been under Persian rule, though temporarily. Why are Alexander's motives more likely to be romantic than any of the Achaemenids who had invaded, conquered or ruled India?

[Paralus]

As for Alexander's motivations to conquer India, it's important to remember that India had much wealth to offer. The Persians had conquered parts of India before Alexander, presumably with a lustful eye towards its jewels, elephants, wood, precious metal etc.

The "India" that Alexander conquered was, in fact, the Pakistan of today. Contrary to some views that this was mostly a large collection of villages, it was an urbanised society of some historical provenance – “cities” existed here before linear script B was thought of. The archaeological record indicates a rich trading culture that thrived during Egypt’s Middle Kingdom period. Far from being the “barbarian” Indians that the Greco-Macedonian sources relate, these were communities rich in culture and history – if not the fabled gold dust – and prepared to fight to retain same. I have linked to it before but it would serve to do so again: the Scientific Amercan special edition Mysteries of the Ancient Ones has an excellent piece on the Indus civilisation.

Most of the territory Alexander had conquered in India had at some point been under Persian rule, though temporarily. Why are Alexander's motives more likely to be romantic than any of the Achaemenids who had invaded, conquered or ruled India?

Why indeed? There was as much romanticism about Alexander’s motives for this invasion as there was in the Indian mercenaries and their wives being spitted by sarisae. Any reading of the sources will demonstrate that being butchered – the sick and wounded included – was the price for refusing to acknowledge Alexander as absolute ruler. If that is romantic then India was, indeed, a romantic romp.

[Fiona]

A reading of this adoption of Persian attire and court custom in its context repays the effort. Alexander – in whatever fashion – destroyed the Achaemenid palace in Persepolis. The former Persian ruling elite were fractious at best – very few came to Persepolis to see the new year in with the King - and this massive display of their erstwhile power was not to be allowed to stand; no matter the propagandistic overlays written afterwards. This was the end of the Achaemenids writ in fire as well as the removal of any symbolic standard to rally about.

What are the propagandistic overlays, Arrian's statement that Alexander said it was a punishment for Persians for invading Greece? What then of Curtius, Diodorus and Plutarch, who agree that it was the result of a drunken party? None of the sources, so far as I can see, suggest the deliberate destruction of an Achaemenid symbol as a main motive. It was undeniably a result, though.

Alexander then sets out after Darius and eventually finds him murdered. He is now, if not before, the unchallenged king of Asia. The sources agree that the assumption of the mixed clothing and the appearance at court of a Persian guard (and Oxyarthres, Darius’ brother) all happen at the same time: some six weeks or so after the death of Darius. The Macedonians resented things “oriental” and it is interesting that Alexander adopts these “oriental” trappings at this time. The context is the explanation: rebellion of the Iranian aristocracy and, much more importantly, a contender for the throne in the shape of Bessus.

I don't think Arrian is quite so specific about the timing, is he? But clearly these things did happen round about this time, I'm not arguing about that. It's interesting that we hear that Alexander had heard that Bessus had adopted royal dress, so it makes a lot of sense that Alexander, not to be outdone, would do the same. The references at this stage seem to major on the royal head-dress. I get the impression that he's adopting royal dress, rather than just Persian dress - but the Macedonians still didn't like it.

Alexander, with some 6,000 main phalanx troops on detachment and his Greeks dismissed, is faced with a serious war. He desperately needs to be seen as the legitimate successor to empire rather than a foreign conqueror. So, in the face of rising Macedonian anger, the Persian dress, the Persian Guard, the brother of Darius and others at court and the royal purple to his hetairoi. The image is clear: Alexander is the legitimate King and his is the legitimate court.

I guess it was hard for him to tell, at this stage, quite how much of a threat Bessus was going to be. To decide to be the sort of king Persians wanted, rather than just a foreign conqueror seems very visionary to me. A risky policy, that might have alienated both sides at once, yet he still did it. His behaviour to Darius' brother is very impressive - how many people, in Alexander's position, would quietly have had the man executed?

Diodorus (17.77.7) states that he used this garb "sparingly" so as not "to offend the Macedonians". He is most certainly correct but his implication that it was due to Alexander being tempted by the barbarian extravagance is typical of the "Macedonian view" for want of a better description. All the sources paint it as a failing on Alexander's part whereas it is much more likely that it was adopted for the most pragmatic of reasons. A "political device", as Arrian says, so that Alexander "might not appear altogether alien to them (the Persians)".

Yes, it seems quaintly old-fashioned that anyone thought so badly of it. It seems from a modern perspective an eminently sensible thing to do.

There is no doubt, given the descriptions of Alexander's final year or two, that once sampled it became irresistable.

Perhaps he just liked trousers.

Fiona

[Fiona]

Semiramis,
It is good that Alexander can have credit for intelligence. I’ve got no quarrel with that!
Forgive me for snipping your post, but I’m running out of time, and I did want to respond to some specific things.

We often forget to mention that intricate system of empire that the Persians had built over centuries.

Well, two centuries, isn’t it? Since Cyrus? It wasn’t really an empire before that. It’s a long time, but it doesn’t disappear into the mists of time.

How was Alexander expected to rule over his empire without having people who knew the system? He didn't seem to show any interest in building a new one. Alexander didn't create an empire, he simply took one over. That he appropriated the mechanism and some of the employees who were cogs in the machinery doesn't seem particuarly visionary or enilghtened to me. Intelligent, yes. The Persians who ruled before him were happy to leave local laws, customs and even law-enforcing bodies intact, as long as they got their taxes, levies and quashing of rebellions. Alexander did no more.

I’m not sure the Baylonians would agree. The Chaldean culture really did go back centuries, but Cyrus didn’t leave it alone, he imposed his new-fangled satrapies on them. Certainly both Cyrus and Darius seem to have been more brutal in their takeovers – more executions mentioned – and what about Darius and the Elamites?

In 520 BC, even as Darius’ masons were hard at work in Bisitun, the ever-fractious Elamites rose again in revolt. Darius, infuriated, promptly anathematised them in new and startling terms. ‘Those Elamites were faithless,’ he thundered. ‘They failed to worship Ahura Mazda’. This, the condemnation of a people for a neglect of a religion not their own, was something wholly remarkable.

I think this makes Alexander’s willingness to pay for repairs to a temple of a god not his own, look open-minded and visionary.

What historical evidence is there that Alexander shared his wealth with "junior partners"?

None – I was talking about government, not wealth. Evidence for this, Mazaeus, Oxyartes, Phrataphernes, Artabazus, etc, etc.

What facts can back an assertion like "Alexander spent his wealth locally"? There is enough to show that Alexander took from the local treasury to spend on his entourage and army.

Well yes, that wealth being now his. You agree he spent it on his entourage and army – he paid wages, that the men would likely have spent locally. He gave parties, and the commodities were likely to have been bought and paid for locally, thus stimulating the local economy, and benefiting everyone, by the ‘trickle-down’ effect. If a few people in a community have money, it trickles down as it is spent. So yes, burning beautifully-carved wood does benefit the local population. The wood-seller benefits, and buys from the cloth merchant, who can now afford a dowry for his daughter…the wood-carver benefits, who can now pay for a horse, the horse-seller benefits, and can afford slightly more food for his slave…and so on, and so on. Persian gold did more good to Persia being spent by Alexander than it ever did sitting in coffers.

What evidence is there that Alexander was interested in finding the end of the world? He doesn't appear as the ignorant type who would not look through Achaemenid archives or at least ask the Indians about what lay beyond their land. A man who could plan winning army expeditions thousands of miles across the globe would surely find out if what lay ahead was land or sea or another giant army... I am aware that modern historians focus only on Greek sources such as Aristotle's beliefs about the globe and ignore Persian, Central Asian or Indian knowledge about Asia. But this doesn't necessarily mean that a practical man like Alexander could afford to do the same.

Indeed, surely not. He is recorded as having asked such questions. But what would he have found out? Certainly that the Indian Ocean was not that far off, but I can’t see much chance that anyone would have been able to tell him with any certainty about the size of China. My statement was based on Alexander’s words, the ‘end of the world’, as he’d have seen it, being the east coast of India.
“…the area of country ahead of us, from here to the Ganges and the eastern ocean, is comparatively small. You will undoubtedly find that this ocean is connected with the Hyrcanian Sea, for the great stream of ocean encircles the earth. Moreover I shall prove to you, my friends, that the Indian and Persian gulfs and the Hyrcanian Sea are all three connected and continuous.” (Arrian 5:26)

Last, but not least - what historical evidence is there that the British shared the government of the conquered territory with Indians?

You surprise me, asking this, I thought it was fairly well-known. Here’s some evidence:
Two-fifths of the sub-continent continued to be independently governed by over 560 large and small principalities, some of whose rulers had fought the British during the 'Great Rebellion', but with whom the Raj now entered into treaties of mutual cooperation. (BBC Website)
It wasn’t just the upper classes, either, consider that bastion of meritocracy, the Indian Civil Service. One Satyendranath Tagore was in office as early as 1863.
Fiona

[Semiramis]

Well, two centuries, isn’t it? Since Cyrus? It wasn’t really an empire before that. It’s a long time, but it doesn’t disappear into the mists of time.

I think we will find that the Achaemenid empire did borrow from earlier Elamite foundations. However, I did not intend to imply that the West Asian empires disappeared into the mists of time. My point was that a tested, intricate and finely-tuned system that was at least two centuries old was in place and that Alexander did not tinker with it. It still stands. This makes retaining some pliable Persian satraps to co-rule a reasonable and pragmatic decision. Just the same way Cyrus allowed the Jewish population to retain its own leaders for example (and got some good rep for it ). It is also helpful to remember that early on in the campaign, if a Satrap felt that there was a chance of being re-appointed (as evidenced by an earlier re-appointment), he was more likely to surrender to Alexander without a fight. Many of the satraps were from satrapies that had revolted not too long ago against Achaemenid rule. It was a politically savvy decision for sure. But I fail to connect it to any "universal brotherhood" vision.

I’m not sure the Baylonians would agree. The Chaldean culture really did go back centuries, but Cyrus didn’t leave it alone, he imposed his new-fangled satrapies on them. Certainly both Cyrus and Darius seem to have been more brutal in their takeovers – more executions mentioned – and what about Darius and the Elamites?

In 520 BC, even as Darius’ masons were hard at work in Bisitun, the ever-fractious Elamites rose again in revolt. Darius, infuriated, promptly anathematised them in new and startling terms. ‘Those Elamites were faithless,’ he thundered. ‘They failed to worship Ahura Mazda’. This, the condemnation of a people for a neglect of a religion not their own, was something wholly remarkable.

I think this makes Alexander’s willingness to pay for repairs to a temple of a god not his own, look open-minded and visionary.

[...]

None – I was talking about government, not wealth. Evidence for this, Mazaeus, Oxyartes, Phrataphernes, Artabazus, etc, etc.

The Achamenids did make a point of trying to satisfy the Babylonian priesthood and allowing the Chaldean learning to continue. That the mutually beneficial yet delicately balanced relationship between religion and politics sometimes came out of kilter over the extended period of Achaemenid period is not a surprise. I believe Xerxes managed to anger the Egyptian priesthood as well. With exceptions, overall you will find that Achaemenid practice was generally not concerned with imposing culture, religion or even laws. Certainly no more than Alexander. Almost all Achaemenid Great Kings would have been anointed 'Son of Bel Marduk' in Babylon and 'Pharaoh and son of Ra' in Egypt as well as 'Blessed of Ahura Mazda'. Further, Achaemenids also made a point of paying their respects to local deities like Anahita or the moon, which was held as a symbol of royal power, despite Zoroastrianism technically being monotheistic. In fact, the Zoroastrianism they practiced had such a large element of syncreticism, I imagine Zoroaster would not have been too pleased.

This attitude of the Persian rulers meant that paying for temple restorations was something an Achaemenid Great King was expected to do. When Alexander took over, he would have had to legitimize his rule and placate the priests the same way the Persians did before him. Along with adopting Royal dress and court ceremonies, appropriating the harem, minting coins etc. This is again, no more or less visionary than any other Great King before him.

As for executions during Alexander's reign, don't forget the satrapal purges that replaced many of the Persian satraps with little-known Macedonians. If you're trying to paint Cyrus or Darius as any more violent than Alexander, you will have to cherry pick your sources carefully. For every proclamation about quashing pesky rebellions, there is also propaganda about respecting life and religion. Starting from the Cyrus cylinder to the Behistun inscriptions. Alexander was no less likely to destroy a religion if it got in his way politically, as Zoroastrians will tell you. In fact, one is reminded of Alexander's threats to annihilate a local population for far less - stealing his horse!!!

Well yes, that wealth being now his. You agree he spent it on his entourage and army – he paid wages, that the men would likely have spent locally. He gave parties, and the commodities were likely to have been bought and paid for locally, thus stimulating the local economy, and benefiting everyone, by the ‘trickle-down’ effect. If a few people in a community have money, it trickles down as it is spent. So yes, burning beautifully-carved wood does benefit the local population. The wood-seller benefits, and buys from the cloth merchant, who can now afford a dowry for his daughter…the wood-carver benefits, who can now pay for a horse, the horse-seller benefits, and can afford slightly more food for his slave…and so on, and so on. Persian gold did more good to Persia being spent by Alexander than it ever did sitting in coffers.

Ah... In my books, taking wealth at sarissa point does not really qualify as generosity. Seen that way one can discuss more of a sucking up effect than trickle down one. In any case, is there any reason to suspect that the famed Persian pomp and ceremony was less likely to contain gold inlaid couches etc. etc.? Were the Greeks not perennially disgusted by Persian decadence? But I have to agree with you that Alexander did take the Persian treasury and spend it on further conquests.

Indeed, surely not. He is recorded as having asked such questions. But what would he have found out? Certainly that the Indian Ocean was not that far off, but I can’t see much chance that anyone would have been able to tell him with any certainty about the size of China. My statement was based on Alexander’s words, the ‘end of the world’, as he’d have seen it, being the east coast of India.
“…the area of country ahead of us, from here to the Ganges and the eastern ocean, is comparatively small. You will undoubtedly find that this ocean is connected with the Hyrcanian Sea, for the great stream of ocean encircles the earth. Moreover I shall prove to you, my friends, that the Indian and Persian gulfs and the Hyrcanian Sea are all three connected and continuous.” (Arrian 5:26)

It would be uncharacteristic of Alexander to plan a military expedition with no knowledge. We can deduce that from his undefeated career. As for Asian knowledge about Asia, the silk road had been serving for trade purposes since pre-historic times. The Persian Kings sent out expeditions to gather knowledge for trade and political purposes. I doubt its a coincidence that stretches of the Royal Road coincide with the silk route. There were kingdoms, cities and communities in Central Asia, India and China developed enough to have knowledge about the outside world, often conducting trade. It is a misconception that all of these populations were isolated folk with little knowledge. Think the spread of Buddhism. I managed to get my hands on the 'Scientific American' issue Paralus mentioned in this thread regarding the Indus Valley Civilization. It had a fascinating article focusing on the fact that along with Mesopotamia, Egypt and China this was one of the most ancient urban and trading civilization in history.

You surprise me, asking this, I thought it was fairly well-known. Here’s some evidence:
Two-fifths of the sub-continent continued to be independently governed by over 560 large and small principalities, some of whose rulers had fought the British during the 'Great Rebellion', but with whom the Raj now entered into treaties of mutual cooperation. (BBC Website)
It wasn’t just the upper classes, either, consider that bastion of meritocracy, the Indian Civil Service. One Satyendranath Tagore was in office as early as 1863.
Fiona

What the BBC might describe as "treaties of mutual co-operation" were essentially a system of employing petty nobles to extract "taxes" from the local population. They had no say in decisions about governance. Indians were initially barred from any participation in the British Civil Service. In the later years, some posts in the lower ranks were opened to them, while still being barred from any higher positions. Satyendranath Tagore, for example, started his career as an assistant magistrate and collector and retired a sessions judge. Regarding class, Tagore very definitely belonged to the upper classes. He came from one of the wealthiest families in the region. His grandfather was known as a Prince due to the large amounts of land and many businesses he owned. Of course, whether he would have been considered "upper class" in England is a different story. Indians made up the rank and file of the British Indian Army but were never allowed command positions. The idea that the British shared governance with Indians has no historical evidence to suggest it. I've always seen the British Administration of India as a shocking example of a racist mindset rather that anything visionary or enlightening. At least the Persians had no problem employing Memnon or Mentor as a commander in their Army. I would say that comparing Alexander to the British does him a disservice if anything.

[Paralus]

I don't think Arrian is quite so specific about the timing, is he? But clearly these things did happen round about this time, I'm not arguing about that.

Just a quickie: I've a bar to get to and a cricket match to watch.

The "vulgate" sources are absolutely clear on the timing. Arrian, who also omits the Macedonian "rebellion" after Darius' death, discusses this as a parenthetic aside in what is a dateless discourse ancilliary to his narrative. The vulgate is preferred.

I’m not sure the Baylonians would agree. The Chaldean culture really did go back centuries, but Cyrus didn’t leave it alone, he imposed his new-fangled satrapies on them. Certainly both Cyrus and Darius seem to have been more brutal in their takeovers – more executions mentioned – and what about Darius and the Elamites?

This and some other comments betray something of a lack of understanding of Achaemenid history. The Babylonians did not exactly suffer under the Achaemenids. They rose, on occasion, as peoples do. There is ample evidence of the health of Babylonian society and “business” under Achaemenid rule. As always the priests and temples – the landed gentry – were the focus of much monetary collection and, therefore, taxation.

That last – Darius and the Elamites – is most misleading. What it fails to take account of is the general uprising that followed Darius’ usurpation of the throne. The Elamites, Babylonians and (even) Persian tribes (amongst others) kept Darius busy for the better part of two years. The Elamites, if memory serves, had “revolted” twice – or took two battles to subdue (flying from memory here at the office). Darius and the seven had committed regicide. The Bisitin inscription is Darius’ remaking of both himself and his accomplices. He states that he is the real king. The action had caused great insecurity in the empire and Darius had armies operating in Media, Persis and Babylonia – sometimes at the same time.

The Achaemenids, almost always, allowed – rebellions and their aftermath aside – the local populations to live as they had always done. Achaemenid kings adopted the religious titles of those peoples (as Semiramis has pointed out) so as to appear more locally “friendly”. The local peoples could pretty much do as they always did as long as levies were supplied for the army when needed and money flowed to Persepolis as required.

There was very little new in Alexander’s approach. It was, in fact, the Achaemenid approach.

[dean]

Policy of Fusion,
I suppose by way of summary to this thread we can say that the idea of a theory of fusion is totally erroneous- and there is no evidence to make us believe that in any moment throughout Alexander's life that he desired or showed any interest in one big happy family of man- stemming perhaps from Aristotle's labelling the Persian's "barbarians" there were always to be divisary lines and it is clear that amongst the ranks of the Macedonians and their reaction to Alexander's orientalizing there would never be a harmonious bonding.
I think it would be fascinating to find out what the everyday Persian thought of the Macedonian regime.
What do you think? would an everyday Persian say?
a) who the heck is Alexander?
b) Great, just what we needed! a new Macedonian ruler who doesn't even speak our language!
c) Life is just the same as it ever was- nothing has changed!

d)others?
Best regards,Dean

[marcus]

Persuading a load of hot- and strong-headed Macedonian maidens to travel across Asia to marry a bunch of oiled-up barbarians might have taken much longer than inspiring a load of lads who were eager for glory and loot ...

Here's where I will probably get myself into trouble because, despite the presumption of more independence for the average Macedonian female, I don't see any indication that young Macedonian maidens were free to make their own decisions about marriage. My feelings are that if Alexander should have decided to marry off Macedonian women then the arrangements would have been made with their fathers. Even into the Hellenistic period there's no evidence that I know of (including evidence from Alexandria) of young, "respectable" women deciding who they would and would not marry. But I know I'm nitpicking now and probably leading this thread too far off topic.

Couldn't agree more - and I hope you don't think I was suggesting that said hot- and strong-headed Macedonian maidens would actually have had much say in the matter. On no account do I believe that they would have been allowed to make up their own minds; not, just to confirm, do I believe that Alexander would have considered marrying them off to Persians anyway.

ATB

[amyntoros]

Persuading a load of hot- and strong-headed Macedonian maidens to travel across Asia to marry a bunch of oiled-up barbarians might have taken much longer than inspiring a load of lads who were eager for glory and loot ...

Here's where I will probably get myself into trouble because, despite the presumption of more independence for the average Macedonian female, I don't see any indication that young Macedonian maidens were free to make their own decisions about marriage. My feelings are that if Alexander should have decided to marry off Macedonian women then the arrangements would have been made with their fathers. Even into the Hellenistic period there's no evidence that I know of (including evidence from Alexandria) of young, "respectable" women deciding who they would and would not marry. But I know I'm nitpicking now and probably leading this thread too far off topic.

Couldn't agree more - and I hope you don't think I was suggesting that said hot- and strong-headed Macedonian maidens would actually have had much say in the matter. On no account do I believe that they would have been allowed to make up their own minds; not, just to confirm, do I believe that Alexander would have considered marrying them off to Persians anyway.

Nah, I didn't really think you were suggesting such - I simply saw your light-hearted words as an opportunity to sneak in a comment about the status of women during this period. Not that others on the forum are currently claiming major emancipation of ancient Macedonian or Greek women, but strangely enough I've seen some people leaning that way on other forums.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

What are the propagandistic overlays, Arrian's statement that Alexander said it was a punishment for Persians for invading Greece? What then of Curtius, Diodorus and Plutarch, who agree that it was the result of a drunken party? None of the sources, so far as I can see, suggest the deliberate destruction of an Achaemenid symbol as a main motive.

Alexander had been some four months in Perseplolis by this time. I find it odd that it would take that long for an unfortunate drunken revel to burn the place. Were it for the propagandistic reason stated (revenge for Athens, etc) it might have been better done earlier in the occupation. Alexander had prosecuted a spring campaign in 330 where he reduced many Persian citadels and accepted the surrender of others. He did not have the support of the Persian aristocracy though and nor did he trust them:

He felt bitter enmity to the inhabitants. He did not trust them, and he meant to destroy Persepolis utterly. (Diod. 17.71.3)

Which, of course, he did. Archaeology has shown that the fire began in both the treasury and the audience hall. The days of Achaemenind ascendency were over: there was only one king and that was Alexander. They either accepted it or died.

The references at this stage seem to major on the royal head-dress. I get the impression that he's adopting royal dress, rather than just Persian dress - but the Macedonians still didn't like it.

Diodorus, 17.77.1-6:

It seemed to Alexander that he had accomplished his objective and now held his kingdom without contest, and he began to imitate the Persian luxury and the extravagant display of the kings of Asia. First he installed ushers of Asiatic race in his court, and then he ordered the most distinguished persons to act as his guards; among these was Dareius' brother Oxathres. Then he put on the Persian diadem and dressed himself in the white robe and the Persian sash and everything else except the trousers and the long-sleeved upper garment. He distributed to his companions cloaks with purple borders and dressed the horses in Persian harness. In addition to all this, he added concubines to his retinue in the manner of Dareius, in number not less than the days of the year and outstanding in beauty as selected from all the women of Asia.

There is broad agreement in the sources on this matter: it was Persian royal regalia. He mixed so as to walk the line between angering the Macedonians and mollifying the Persians.

[marcus]

He felt bitter enmity to the inhabitants. He did not trust them, and he meant to destroy Persepolis utterly. (Diod. 17.71.3)

Which, of course, he did. Archaeology has shown that the fire began in both the treasury and the audience hall. The days of Achaemenind ascendency were over: there was only one king and that was Alexander. They either accepted it or died.

Even more to the point, though - it is believed now that the original fire might have been started in the centre of Xerxes' Palace at Persepolis. Whether or not it was a bit late to be destroying the city out of revenge for 480BC, to start the first fires in the palace of the king who had had Athens destroyed was a clear statement of intent.

If the fire had started in the Apadana, or the 100-columned Hall, where one might expect the party to have taken place, it might be easier to consider it to have been an accident. Xerxes' Palace and the Treasury are what make it deliberate.

ATB

[athenas owl]

What are the propagandistic overlays, Arrian's statement that Alexander said it was a punishment for Persians for invading Greece? What then of Curtius, Diodorus and Plutarch, who agree that it was the result of a drunken party? None of the sources, so far as I can see, suggest the deliberate destruction of an Achaemenid symbol as a main motive.

Alexander had been some four months in Perseplolis by this time. I find it odd that it would take that long for an unfortunate drunken revel to burn the place. Were it for the propagandistic reason stated (revenge for Athens, etc) it might have been better done earlier in the occupation. Alexander had prosecuted a spring campaign in 330 where he reduced many Persian citadels and accepted the surrender of others. He did not have the support of the Persian aristocracy though and nor did he trust them:

He felt bitter enmity to the inhabitants. He did not trust them, and he meant to destroy Persepolis utterly. (Diod. 17.71.3)

Which, of course, he did. Archaeology has shown that the fire began in both the treasury and the audience hall. The days of Achaemenind ascendency were over: there was only one king and that was Alexander. They either accepted it or died.

.

Why burn the Palaces when you are wintering in them? Why not wait till the passes clear and then torch the place? Makes sense to me. The macedonian troops get the winter to deface sculpture and in general mess the place up. the loot can be moved, or at least packed up to be moved...so by the spring thaw, when the place is pretty empty and all the defacing is done...then torch it. As Marcus notes, the fire may have been started in Xerxes own...

I want to know, a bit off topic, where Peucestas had his seat..later, when he became Satrap. Was he in the vicinity of Persepolis?

[Paralus]

I want to know, a bit off topic, where Peucestas had his seat..later, when he became Satrap. Was he in the vicinity of Persepolis?

While it is nowhere baldly stated, Peucestas will have ceratinly seated himself in Persepolis. During the final stage of the war between Antigonus and Eumenes Diodorus twice refers to the city. The first in in the context of the feast that Peucestas provides for the satrapal coalition (19.21.2 & 22.1):

Leaving the Pasitigris, accordingly, they proceeded to Persepolis, the capital of Persia…

When they had arrived in Persepolis, the capital, Peucestas, who was general of this land…

And he later repeats the above when Antigonus marches triumphantly into the city (19.46.6):

…(Antigonus) then led the army into Persia, the march to the capital, which is called Persepolis, lasting about twenty days.

I’d think it more than reasonable to assume that Persepolis will have been Peucestas’ seat of satrapal governance.

Why burn the Palaces when you are wintering in them? Why not wait till the passes clear and then torch the place? Makes sense to me. The macedonian troops get the winter to deface sculpture and in general mess the place up. the loot can be moved, or at least packed up to be moved...so by the spring thaw, when the place is pretty empty and all the defacing is done...then torch it. As Marcus notes, the fire may have been started in Xerxes own...

I don’t necessarily disagree with the use of the palaces whilst in Persepolis. The propagandised version of the event that comes down to us is that Alexander was always going to destroy the palaces, if not the city, as it was the “hateful” of Persian cities. This view is propounded prior to the entry and sack of the city. If it indeed happened that way I would have expected the Palaces to be torched immediately after they were emptied.

I prefer to see it in the context of other actions happening around it. It is clear that there was a campaign at some remove after Persepolis had been occupied. Plutarch, Diodorus and Curtius all refer to it; all with associated dating problems Plutarch – as so often – provides little in the way of dating context. Either Alexander marched off as soon as the looting was done or at some months after. The latter makes the more sense – a spring campaign (rain and snow etc) given that the Persian nobility had snubbed the new king of Asia for the new year.

Plutarch (Al.37.3) notes:

During the advance across Persis, the Greeks massacred great numbers of their prisones, and Alexander has himself recorded that he gave that he gave orders for the Persians to be slaughtered because he thought that such an example would help his cause.

This does not gel with the advance on Persepolis but it does gel with both Diodorus (17.73.1) and Curtius (5.6.11-20 with the ethnographic and geographic descriptions culled for length) :

Alexander visited the cities of Persis, capturing some by storm and winning over others by his own fair dealing.


Alexander left there [Persepolis] a large section of his army and the baggage, under the command of Parmenion and Craterus, while he himself made for the interior of Persia with 1,000 cavalry and a detachment of light-armed infantry. This was at the time of the Pleiades, and though hindered by heavy rains and almost unbearable weather, he nevertheless pressed on towards his goal … After ravaging Persian territory and bringing several villages into his power, Alexander reached the Mardians … On the thirtieth day after setting out from Persepolis, he returned to it, and then awarded his friends and the other men gifts proportionate to their individual merit, distributing virtually everything he had taken in the city.

It would seem then that Alexander set out to deal with those Persian cities or citadels which had not yet acknowledged him. Seems he “took no prisoners” to borrow the phrase. On his return, and before setting out after the primary Achaemenid lightening rod, Darius, he burns the other remaining lightening rods of Achaemenid power: the Palaces of Persepolis. Elsewhere, including Pasargadae, Alexander was at pains to ingratiate himself with the locals.

Whilst the “revenge for Athens” motif might play well at home with Agis and his Spartans making trouble, Alexander was making a point much closer to his current abode.

[athenas owl]

The latter makes the more sense – a spring campaign (rain and snow etc) given that the Persian nobility had snubbed the new king of Asia for the new year.

You are refering to the idea that Persepolis was the site of some annual New' Year's festival that included the entire empire.

Is there any concrete evidence that that actually occurred, or was it a theory or assumption? And then some clever fellow took that unproven idea and ran with it. And it adds that nice bit of vinegar to the minimalists...but there is no proof that Persepolis even saw this kind of event, certainly by the time of Darius III. If there is, i'd like to see it. There is debate certainly....

If it is a representation of the Nowrouz, those Indians in their light cotton and the Egyptians, too...they must have been freezing. And those carrying lotus blossoms...when did the lotus bloom in Persia? Here, mine don't bloom till much later and I live in a more pleasant climate, I baby them in an old bathtub in my garden and they don't bloom til the summer.. Certainly not Persepolis in March.

So if it is symbolic..becase ti is unlikely that the subjects from the warmer climes, represented in their "national dress" were actually that lightly dressed in late March and carrying a flower that wouldn't have been blooming yet...perhaps the whole series of reliefs is also symbolic.

So we "know" that the Persian nobility "snubbed" ATG?

Again, I know that the Iranian/Persian New Year is now certainly a big deal, and predates Islam...(I always think of it when I see goldfish.. ). The Sassanids had a festival there...but did the Achaemenids, some 500 years or more before have the same festival?

[dean]

Hello
Was just flicking through my copy of Lane Fox's "Alexander the Great" and reading his treatment of the weddings at Susa- Interesting- I wasn't aware that Seleucus married no less than the daughter of Spitamenes- Apama
One thing that I also found interesting was his observation that the Iranian women whose relationships with Macedonian soldiers was "legitimized" so to speak, were raised in status and became citizens- something he says that had been strenously opposed in previuos years.
Lane Fox mentions that the previous situation had given rise to men marrying their sisters or grandaughters so as not to share anything with their "native" wives.

Lane Fox is quite positive about the weddings, stating that,

after two centuries of discord between Greece and Persia, this "fusion" was unprecedented.

speech marks my own- chapter 29- p.416.