An earthquake destroyed Persia some years before Alexander's

[Cyrus]

The first earthquake in Persia recorded in history is that of the fourth century B.C. which devastated the region of Ray (modern Tehran - Capital of Iran). According to Duris of Samos, the author of a history of Greece and Macedonia who flourished about 350 B.C., `Rhagae in Media has received its name because the earth about the Caspian Gates had been rent by earthquakes to such an extent that numerous cities and villages were destroyed, and the reiers underwent changes of various kinds' (Strabo: i.3.19). Poseidonius of Apameia, in his history written in the middle of the second century B.C., adds that in this earthquake `numerous cities and 2000 villages were destroyed' (Strabo: xi.9.1). Later writers, for instance Apollodorus of Artemita who flourished about the middle of the first century B.C., add that Rhagae was rebuilt by Seleucus Nicator (312-280 B.C.), and that it was renamed Europos (Strabo: si.13.6). This major earthquake must have occurred some years before Alexander's passage through Rhagae in 330 B.C..

[stavros]

yeah but, Alexander destroyed the city and the persian empire. never to be called the persian empire again. only in memory.

[jan]

It was only the palace of Xerxes that Alexander destroyed by burning. The entire city was not destroyed at all, according to a source I just read.
Hamilton, I think. The Genius of Alexander.And to introduce Hellenistic culture to the Persian Empire certainly did not destroy it at all, as Alexander chose to become so like the Persians in dress and manners also.I think you need to rethink your conclusion!

[marcus]

Hi Jan,I think the sources (and commentators) are divided on this one. Either Curtius or Arrian (I forget which) certainly has Alexander destroying the city first, and then the palace just before the army leaves Persepolis. As the palace stood on a plateau above the city proper, it is entirely possible that one could be destroyed without impacting on the other. So Hammond might be right when he says the city wasn't destroyed, but equally he might be 'excusing' Alexander, using as an argument the fact that the sources don't all agree.As for the palace itself, it is unlikely that one could isolate the 'palace of Xerxes' from all that was built originally by Darius I, so the whole thing must have gone up in smoke. (Although I assume that, when you say "palace of Xerxes", you mean the entire palace complex.) Considering the size of the plateau and the complex of buildings, it must have been a helluva conflagration!I'd love to know what the archaeology says about it, because that's probably the best way of knowing for sure! You might try to find Mortimer Wheeler's "Flames over Persepolis" if you are interested - I'm sure the book is explicit!All the best and Happy Christmas.Marcus

[stavros]

hi janetmy initial response was meant to be posted under a different thread by Cyrus S. however it kind of goes off the topic anyway. what i was trying to indicate is that the persian empire never regrouped as a power after Alexander conquered it. also alexander acculturating himself to the persian life, customs etc.. is another topic in itself.kind regards and merry christmasstavros

[Babak]

The Persian empire was definitely larger, more powerful and develeopped during the Sassanide time than at the time achemenain. Contrary to what is commonly admitted, it's Greece that Alexander destroyed. Because, Persian people very quickly reconstituted their civilization, but Greece faded all its after the passage of that which is called Alexander "the Great !".

[stavros]

as an empire ther persians were defeated by the greeks, never to be called the persian empire again, as a power.

[beausefaless]

Greek culture (Hellenistic) after Alexander continued and then through Rome. What the Romans also did was learn from other cultures. You might wonder why APHRODITE (Venus), a Greek goddess, was memorialized in a fantastic sculpture in Roman times (and in Egypt, no less!). To their credit, the Romans recognized the richness of Greek art and architecture, and they sought to emulate the Greek masters -- and the Greek styles and themes -- in their own art. To a large degree, it was the Romans who brought Greek (and Hellenistic) culture to world attention. Romans patronized Greek artists and artisans in the glorification of a vast world of their own, Roman creation.

[diogenes1]

My dear friend it is nonsense to discuss the extension of ATG"s conquest and his greatness when we consider human history,it is understandable that the persian descendants may despise ATG,but we are here as history students and experts just to show the facts,we dont want to make ATG's deification,on the other hand,if there is a man in world history who deserves to be called "the great" this one is ATG,sorry if it bothers you!