PERSEPOLIS- REVENGE-POLITICAL-ACCIDENTAL?

[J%hn]

The letter from Alexander that I quoted from is beyond all doubt genuine. The reliable Arrian certainly thinks so, and presented it as follows:"Alexander wrote a reply and sent Thersippus along with Darius' envoys with instructions to deliver the letter, but not to discuss anything with Darius. This is how Alexander's letter runs: 'Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury; I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks...'" - Arrian II.14.4John

[Jay]

I'm glad you brought this point up because it was exactly what I was thinking. I feel it could only have been such a drunken celebration that got out of control that caused this event. The reports that I've read have mentioned Alexander's genuine regret of the incident, at the loss of such treasures that, as you mentioned, belonged to him now. Deliberate destruction and vandalism just didn't seem his style.

[jan]

Hi Jay,I read my internet copy of Plutarch's explanation which confirms what John had said about Thais wanting to prove that the women would prove they were more able to do revenge than the men. But after the inferno starting when Alexander went along with her, he made them put it out. He did not want the conflagration.

[davej]

There is an Article in Antichthon on this very subject. The Article is called Alexander's combat psychology and the burning of Persepolis. The article argues that is was most likely to encourage his troops as there had already been so mutiny within the ranks. The article exams the need to motivate troops to go on and keep fighting when the war is won. i have a copy if you would like to read it.

[D.HATGISTAVROU]

WE HAVE DISSCUSSED HOW ATG FELT, BUT WHAT ABOUT HOW THE GREEK ARMY FELT? COULD THEY HAVE INFLUENCED HIS DECISION? WE KNOW ALEXANDER CARED VERY MUCH FOR HIS TROOPS. MAYBE IT WAS THEM THAT WANTED THE REVENGE, AND ALEXANDER JUST GAVE IN? REGARDS.

[susa]

Hi!I think it was revenge. You know, that thing about the greek people living in Asia by that time -- those that were defaced/mutilated. No? He may have got mad at that, and set fire to the capital city.Could be?susa

[agesilaos]

Alexander considered his troops but only so far as how he could keep them doing his will if you don't believe that vandalism was his style read the accounts of the campaign in India; free incidentally from Kallisthenes' white-washing: it is a catalogue of indiscriminate slaughter. Even though the letters appear in Arrian this does not meam they are accurate, he preserves much that is doubtful and comparison with Curtius shows his paraphrase of Ptolemy is partial. All the later historians accepted the corpus of Alexander letters as genuine, although it is generally accepted now that they represent a late rhetorical compilation.Whilst Alexander did act on impulse this act,two weeks into his stay smacks more of calculation.

[davej]

I think I agree with you Karl. However one thing I do not know and would like to is how was the Persepolis constructed. Was it a marble city or was it like Rome a fire storm waiting to happen. With so many drunk Macedonians in the city, was it a acidental fire that got out of control? Was it another mutiny? Was it macedonians soldiers taking matters into their own hands like at Tyre? was it the Persians trying to trap and kill Alexander in the City? Centuries later when Julian invaded Persia Saphor destroyed vast tracts of land by fire and flooding to contain the Romans. Have we considered these options as well.

[J%hn]

You wrote,"Even though the letters appear in Arrian this does not meam they are accurate, he preserves much that is doubtful and comparison with Curtius shows his paraphrase of Ptolemy is partial."First, why do you keep turning the letter from Alexander I'm quoting from into "letters?"Second, although I find it amusing that you can bash Arrian for a partial paraphrase, Arrian is not paraphrasing Alexander at all in the letter I quoted from; he copied it word for word.Third, Arrian would turn in his grave if he knew his work was being called into question because it didn't match up well with what Curtius wrote.John

[marcus]

"Deliberate destruction and vandalism just didn't seem his style".Although he went along with the deliberate destruction of Thebes and Tyre... and he took pains to remove the treasure from Persepolis before it got burned, and had already turned the city over to his troops for looting.Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that deliberate destruction was very much Alexander's style, when it suited him for political ends.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Dave,The palace at Persepolis (which is all that Alexander burned in this incident) was made of stone, but with ceilings of wood. No doubt there were plenty of other combustibles around as well. So not so much a fire storm waiting to happen, but susceptible to a *deliberate* fire...All the bestMarcus

[agesilaos]

I think one has to consider all the letters in Arrian together. The first, from Darius is at II 14 ii GÇÿ.Philip had been at peace and alliance with Artaxerxes, and when Arses son of Artaxerxes became King, Philip first did wrong to King Arses, although he had sustained no injury from the Persians.From the time Darius had been King of Persia, Alexander had sent no envoy to confirm the ancient friendship, but had crossed with an army into Asia and had done great harm to the Persians. That was why Darius had come down to defend his country and rescue his ancestral dominion. The battle had been decided as some god willed ; but as a king he begged a king to restore his captive mother, wife and children; and he was ready to make friendship and an alliance with Alexander, and for these arrangements he thought it fitting that Alexander should send to him along with Meniscus and Arsimes (the envoys from Persia) persons appointed to exchange pledges.GÇÖThere is no report of an alliance between Philip and Artaxerxes, which makes the rest of this passage irrelevant, indeed had there been the circumstances of Arses accession would have rendered it void. I donGÇÖt think the Persians would call their Empire Asia. The verb GÇÿto come downGÇÖ is kataballein the opposite of anaballein the root of anabasis, a Greek usage and allusion. The term for GÇÿhis countryGÇÖ is khora which is the Hellenistic term for Royal Lands not a Persian one. GÇÿThe battle had been decided by some GodGÇÖ is strange in the mouth of a monotheist. Also this is the only appearance of Meniscus. All in all a bogus letter.Next comes AlexanderGÇÖs reply, which you quotedGÇÿYour ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury; I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks, and invaded Asia in the desire to take vengeance on persia for your aggressions. For you assisted Perinthos, which wronged my father, and Ochus sent a force into Thrace, which was under our rule. My father was murdered by conspirators whom you Persians organised, as you yourselves boasted in your letters to all the world; you assassinated Arses with the help of Bagoas, and seized the throne unjustly and in actual contravention ofPersian Law, doing wrong to the Persians; you sent unfriendly letters to the Greeks about me, urging them to make war on meGǪGÇÖ etcAside fom the initial claim of aggression against Macedonia, which submitted and benefitted from Persian overlordship, there

[karen]

Hi all:I think it's quite possible that most if not many of the reasons we're postulating here were factors for Alexander also; did he not often do things for multiple reasons? Here we are divided in our minds -- is it not plausible to think that he was too?My personal feeling is that he was undecided himself. He had no particular use for the place and it had been emptied of everything valuable when he'd allowed the army to loot it, and moved the treasury to Susa, earlier. He'd hoped that enough Persians would accept him as Great King that they'd show up as usual for the traditional festival -- New Year's, I think it was? -- of homage from all the satrapies, but they stayed away, proving to him that he'd have to catch Dareios to be accepted King, which meant it was time to move. I think Plutarch portrays that indecision nicely, recounting Alexander considering the fallen statue of Xerxes. So, he was undecided what to do with the place -- and it was Thais, plus all the other guests who agreed loudly with her, who persuaded him to do it. And everyone present was well into that drunken state in which extreme ideas seem like good ones.I think the question of whether it was out of character for Alexander to wantonly destroy something like this, at least in this part of his career, is settled easily by the fact that Makedonians were trying to put out the fire before they realized it had been deliberately set. His own men didn't expect this of him, as they would if he were in the habit.Revenge would have been a factor; pleasing the Greeks whose ancestors had suffered at Persian hands would have been a factor (Thais was Athenian). Pleasing his own Makedonians, I think, would not have been a factor; he'd already let them loot to their heart's content the richest palace in the world, which I think would have satisfied them. I think even Thais's given argument that women deserved a chance at revenge, for a change, would have been a factor, appealing to Alexander's sympathy for them. I imagine plain old pyromania on a grand scale might have been a factor -- haven't we all looked at something, wondered how big a fire it would make, and secretly wished we could do it?But I think that the biggest factor is a quintessentially cultural one, with Alexander's particular individual stamp of grandeur on it. As Parmenion said, why destroy the Palace when it was his own property? Well, people of the time destroyed their own property for one reason

[karen]

...Well, people of the time destroyed their own property for one reason only: as a sacrifice. Thais was talking revenge, but I suspect Alexander was most seized with the idea of offering the Palace up to the Gods as the biggest sacrifice ever -- in gratitude for his victories, and in seeking favour for more. He believed firmly that sacrifices should be as generous as possible, and he liked to outdo everyone previous. In drinking he had entered the Dionysian "if it feels good do it" mental state, rather than the more rational and calculating Apollonian mindframe which would enable him to realize it was a political blunder. Plutarch writes, "the king... with a chaplet of flowers on his head and a lighted torch in his hand, led them the way, while they went after him in a riotous manner, dancing and making loud cries" -- all marks of a Dionysian procession, in which everyone would have fallen into place quite instinctively, from practice. Burning was a standard sacrificial method. I think it was even traditional to regret afterwards what Dionysos inspired one to do.I doubt Alexander would have begrudged the Gods the sacrifice afterwards, because that would offend them; I suspect what he regretted was that in a way the Palace had never been his property, in the sense that it was Persians, not him, who had built it. Or perhaps expressing regret was a political gesture to the Persians, whom he genuinely regretted offending.My humble opinion anyway...Love & peace,
Karen

[maciek]

I believe it was revenge for Acropolis but made for political reasons - to gain the task of the Corinthian League and after capturing the Darius (finally Darius was killed) he wanted to perform his own aimsMaciek M