A policy of "fusion"?

[Paralus]

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

I am referring to the fact that Persepolis and Pasargadae are the political and religious heartbeat of Persia and – a fortiori – the ideological lighthouses of Persian power. Pasargadae, named for the tribe of the Achaemenids, is where the Achaemenind kings were “crowned”; Alexander’s desire to go to Cyrus’ tomb was no expression of incidental hero-worship. Persepolis was the political and economic nerve centre of empire. The Fortification and Treasury tablets – along with the tonnage of coin, silver and gold that the Macedonians took can readily attest to it.

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? …

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.

Iconological and iconographic analysis has shown that, overall, inscriptions and reliefs are intended prima facie to impose and transmit the image of a universal, intangible power. Achaemenind rhetoric is nourished less by administrative realities than by ideological assumptions, which have their own logic. In other words, Persepolitan art is not a simple, quasi-photographic reflection of reality… it relates less to a scenic scenario than to an ideological discourse on royalty and imperial might organised around themes particularly evocative of the power of the Great King…

Pierre Briant, on the art of Persepolis (and this ceremony) in From Cyrus to Alexander. A long way of emphasising that the “it” you refer to (the reliefs I am assuming) are, in fact, politically imbued art: they serve to emphasise the power of the Great King and do so by displaying the nations over which he rules. “Symbolic” as you say but a symbolism redolent of power - if not appropriate dress for any particular time of year.

As you say the debate goes on. In any case the fellow who quite clearly saw himself as King of Asia was in residence at the Persian capital. He felt it necessary to undertake a “silencing” mission come the spring and then torch Persepolis. It will have taken more than some little organisation to torch the palace area. If it indeed was due to the fervid urgings of an amative Athenian courtesan then I’d suggest that some rather alcohol-driven, hot blooded Macedonians were, unsurprisingly, a little premature.

[Paralus]

Interesting- I wasn't aware that Seleucus married no less than the daughter of Spitamenes- Apama

A marriage that served him well in fact.

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.

The words in my copy are “deliberate fusion”. As if no contact had been going on between the two over these years. As if “Greek” and Persian had not intermingled before – were not Memnon and Mentor married into Persian families? A matter of numbers at the one time I suppose. In any case it was, as I’ve said earlier, strictly a one way street designed to implant Greco-Macedonian rulers into existing structures.

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.

Although Lane-Fox is correct in describing that opposition – before and after Alexander – he can’t let his praising of Alexander’s “raising” of these marriages to legitimacy without an aside to the real motive: the children of the camp. These were what Alexander was buying with the dowries – little else. These children – the boys at any rate – will have provided Alexander with what Marcus has described as “spear fodder”. To use Lane-Fox’s words: “bastard children with no one to look to but the king” Count the epigoni, removed from their cultural and regional roots, into that mercenary bargain.

[amyntoros]

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.

Although Lane-Fox is correct in describing that opposition – before and after Alexander – he can’t let his praising of Alexander’s “raising” of these marriages to legitimacy without an aside to the real motive: the children of the camp. These were what Alexander was buying with the dowries – little else. These children – the boys at any rate – will have provided Alexander with what Marcus has described as “spear fodder”. To use Lane-Fox’s words: “bastard children with no one to look to but the king” Count the epigoni, removed from their cultural and regional roots, into that mercenary bargain.

It's Fox's given reason for the marriages which I take to task. The full quote on page 419 says:

"But Alexander did not spend an enormous sum in dowries simply to make his soldier's children legitimate; it would have suited him more, as he soon showed, if the next generation were bastard children, with nobody to look to except their king."

The above can't be claimed without fear of contradiction. Yes, Alexander had a plan for the bastard children, so why also encourage the marriages? Fox claims it was "fusion" but that's because he has summarily dismissed any alternatives. I still feel strongly that the plan was to legitimize the children. With the army away for such a long time the birth rate must have dropped precipitously back home, meaning fewer "Macedonians" in the future. This changed immediately the marriages took place.

No time to write more just now, or to answer other threads. An appointment concerning a root canal beckons!

Best regards,

[Semiramis]

Pierre Briant, on the art of Persepolis (and this ceremony) in From Cyrus to Alexander. A long way of emphasising that the “it” you refer to (the reliefs I am assuming) are, in fact, politically imbued art: they serve to emphasise the power of the Great King and do so by displaying the nations over which he rules. “Symbolic” as you say but a symbolism redolent of power - if not appropriate dress for any particular time of year.

With regard to the symbolic value of Achaemenid art, people's sizes are drawn according to their level of importance. The Great King is usually towering over his subjects - not to be taken literally of course.

If it indeed was due to the fervid urgings of an amative Athenian courtesan then I’d suggest that some rather alcohol-driven, hot blooded Macedonians were, unsurprisingly, a little premature.

I'm sure you wrote this innocently but I laughed heartily.

[Paralus]

]If it indeed was due to the fervid urgings of an amative Athenian courtesan then I’d suggest that some rather alcohol-driven, hot blooded Macedonians were, unsurprisingly, a little premature.

I'm sure you wrote this innocently but I laughed heartily. :lol:

It has been remarked, on occasion, that I write well; it has been remarked that I write poorly. It has also been remarked, more than occasionally, that I write as a "minimalist" (definition any one?). I can say, without doubt, that I rarely - if ever - write innocently.

[marcus]

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.

I was at Persepolis a week after the New Year celebrations last year. While I would hardly say it was "hot", I would have been perfectly happy to have worn a cotton robe. Having said that, the so-called tribute delegations on the stairs of the Apadana are shown in their usual, local dress - which helps to distinguish them (or helped the Persians to distinguish them) - but it doesn't rule out their wearing more layers if necessary, of course, when they actually visited!

ATB

[marcus]

]If it indeed was due to the fervid urgings of an amative Athenian courtesan then I’d suggest that some rather alcohol-driven, hot blooded Macedonians were, unsurprisingly, a little premature.

I'm sure you wrote this innocently but I laughed heartily.

It has been remarked, on occasion, that I write well; it has been remarked that I write poorly. It has also been remarked, more than occasionally, that I write as a "minimalist" (definition any one?). I can say, without doubt, that I rarely - if ever - write innocently.

I sooooo wanted to make a comment, but fear that propriety and blushes must prevent me from doing so ...

ATB

[Paralus]

I sooooo wanted to make a comment, but fear that propriety and blushes must prevent me from doing so ...

Blush away my good fellow: share.

God knows Tony Stephens is in full blush over at the Times after the Twickenham belting by the Springboks. And he is still to get over the Wallabies' manhandling of the English scrum.

[marcus]

I sooooo wanted to make a comment, but fear that propriety and blushes must prevent me from doing so ...

Blush away my good fellow: share.

Aww, the moment has passed!

ATB

[dean]

Hello,
Sorry due to work I am unable to write much on the forum, or at least half as much as I would like...
Looking at the major academics opinions,, on the subject.
Tarn- seems to be the academic who leads on the theme that Alexander was interested in one big "brotherhood of man". I don't have Tarn's work so I can't read on the resons why he believes Alexander was trying to integrate nations but it would be interesting to find out. Bosworth seems to be of exactly the same opinion as ourselves- reading John O Brien's "Invisible Enemy" he`puts on the table the major opinions of Hamilton, Bosworth and Tarn- adding that Alexander would have replaced the rank and file with his compatriots had they been available rather than draft in Iranian counterparts.
What is mentioned, pg.199 ch 4. is extremely engaging quoting Arrian, 7.6.5---7.6.2

"thought that Alexander was going utterly barbarian at heart and treating Macedonian customs and Macedonians themselves without respect."

The idea is mentioned that Alexander didn't correctly estimate the resentment present amongst the Macedonian ranks- and it was perhaps a miscalculation that cost him dearly-
and that his adopting Median dress only made things worse.

O'Brien says Alexander was,

"fostering a division that encouraged a climate of competition." p.199., ch 4.

At this particular moment I don't think that the Macedonians were so interested in striving so hard anymore for a man who didn't seem to be the king they had fought so hard for.
Best regards,
Dean

[Semiramis]

Hey Dean,

You bring out some great quotes. Most of Alexander's actions that have been held up as proof for some "brotherhood of man" vision, can be more easily explained in terms of military and practical need. However, this does not rule out the idea that he "liked" the Persians and some of their customs (as Renault put it). Those quotes are very suggestive of that, aren't they?