The burning of Persepolis

[jona]

Persian Journal has published a translation of Diodorus's account of the sack of Persepolis (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish ... 4348.shtml ), including two new photos. The name of the translator is unmentioned, but is M.M. Austen.Jona

[rollsrite]

hi, thanks for the site. i really enjoyed seeing what's left to see. alexander was not in the habit of burning, and he certainly was not an arsonist. so goes the saying"war is hell". tina

[jan]

Thanks, Jona, for posting this article and the accompanying pictures. I had already read this article this morning through rogueclassics, and I have decided not to comment. It appears that somehow four months seem to be lumped into a single week! Very confusing to me. I appreciate the pictures and access to the magazine. Jan

[Nicator]

Interesting how little is usually made of the sacking of the Athenian Acropolis isn't it? Also interesting that Thais makes an issue about a woman being the one to start the fire. The reason for this seems obvious enough, and also terrible enough to warrant whatever treatment the Persians received...but virtually nothing is mentioned about the terrible raping and pillaging suffered by the Athenian women and their beautiful Capitol? Why is that? Is this just some kind of perverted western tradition...sort of a "white mans burdon" of ancient times? Certainly, the Persians felt really bad about their Capitol being sacked, but do they feel even the least bit guilty or responsible for what they inflicted upon the Greeks? Is it too easy to blame Alexander; instead of looking at themselves? later Nicator

[jona]

"virtually nothing is mentioned about the terrible raping and pillaging suffered by the Athenian women and their beautiful Capitol"Fortunately, there was less violence against Greek women in this particular case. In 480, the Athenians had evacuated their city before the Persians arrived. Only a couple of defenders remained on the acropolis; according to Herodotus 8.51, priests and some poor deluded men.Of course, this does not mean that Greek women outside Athens were safe. No doubt, women in Thessaly, Malis, and Boeotia have had difficult times.Jona

[Nicator]

I agree, in that they were evacuated. As I recall, both times the Persians came the Acropolis was evacuated leaving the Persians quite frustrated. So I guess I shouldn't have combined the two events in one sentence. It was Thais who made the point of clarifying for us that it should be an Athenian woman to extinguish the Persian empire...Xerxes palace and all. My point here was that little is conjectured as to why she would have said this...simply because it seems obvious. I'd like to hear some commentary on the rest of my post as well. later Nicator

[jona]

"Certainly, the Persians felt really bad about their Capitol being sacked, but do they feel even the least bit guilty or responsible for what they inflicted upon the Greeks?"I guess that from a Persian perspective, the Athenians in 480 got what they deserved. They had offered "earth and water" in 507 but had never behaved like true subjects; on the contrary, in 500/499 they had helped the Ionian rebels and had sacked the temples of Sardes. Punishing those sacrilegers was justifiable, according to Persian standards.On a more general level, I think that in the days of Alexander, Persians hardly remembered the "Greek wars" of 492-479. Greece was periphery. If anyone knew about it, it was that Xerxes' campaign had been more or less successful, and unfortunately, the Babylonian revolt of 479 had prevented a successful follow-up.Jona

[Nicator]

I guess you're either not understanding my post or are intentionally sidestepping the issues described. Try not to be politically correct and instead go for correct alone. I think you'll find it much more interesting to be true the the facts and to yourself.later Nicator

[iskander_32]

Nick HiIm with you all the way on what you said,, Some historians and writers are indeed very selevtive with the way Alexander so called atrocities are writen.The rechid Greek prisoners that Alexander found who had been mutilated,, Alexanders wounded left behind before Issus were also mutilated by Darius,,, As you recall the sacking of Athens,, As Jonah said they were mostly evacuated,,, But ID bet my bottom dollar had the Persians taken them they would have recieved rather harsh treatment.Alexander is forever been attacked for viscious deeds but the evidence is that Alexander was much more cordial and mercyful for those he had beaten.Ok he anhialated Tyre,,, But the guy was put throught some angiush and abuse from those guys for 7 months its obvious some heads were gonna get cracked.The Persians excecuted Besseus in there manner, Porus was treated very well amongst others.Anyway I could go on but as you say writers are very selective when it comes to this type of thing.History and writers have forever condemned the Germans and the Luftwaffer for bombing London,, But the Americans and Alied bombers did there fare share of bombing cirvilian cities in Germany.Bomber Harris I think the instigator of that was called.
Regards
Kenny

[jona]

"I guess you're either not understanding my post"Probably. Would you kindly rephrase it?Jona

[xxx]

Actually the problem is there tends to be a rather rose-colored glasses view of the Persian Empire from across the pond at times Both cultures were repleat with torture and violence and an unpleasant place to be if you were female or a slave. And either would use an excuse to make war. In the case of Alexander, he happened to be farther along the road of being able to conquer at the time than Persia was to repel him.Saying one was better than the other based on this and that is quite a waste of time. All cultures/empires or whatever have their good points and their bad ones. They often differ on the good points, but tend to be predictable on the bad ones.

[jona]

Although I agree with you for 99%, there is 1% of doubt. The Macedonians seem to have exported one particularly nasty thing to the Near East: the "ladder of investigation" - torture at the law courts. Our Babylonian sources don't mention torture during the Achaemenid age, but during the reigns of Antigonus and Seleucus, it's conspicuously present.I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps, or probably, the Babylonians used different types of torture during the Achaemenid age; and perhaps/probably this was so common that they did not need to mention it. On the other hand, I am not aware of any evidence in this direction, and if I say that the Achaemenid Babylonians must have tortured people at court, it is only because I agree with you that cultures tend to be predictable in their bad aspects.Jona