Torching of Persepolis- premeditated or a spontaneous act?

[dean]

Hello,After many months in Persepolis- Alexander decides on having a great party night (fireworks included to round off the evening) and special guest star flown straight in from Athens to be the cherry on the cake- Thais- who really sets the whole things alight.Now what I would like to know is, if you think that the torching of Persepolis, especially the palace of Darius III was an on the spot act of drunken debauchery or if you think that it was used intentionally as a symbol to suggest that there was to be a new beginning and of course an end to the old Achaemenid dynasty?Best regards,
Dean.

[jona]

This is an old question, but the answer is simple. It was a premeditated act; Thais' role was probably just that she provoked the men not to postpone to tomorrow what could be done that night.This solution is not indicated by the sources, but there is archaeological evidence that there was a plan. Even when you look at the ruins today, you can clearly see that only three monuments were really destroyed: the palace of Xerxes, the Apadana, and the Treasury. The other monuments are relatively well-prepared: the Gate of All Nations, the palace of Darius, the so-called Harem.For my book, I discussed this with people of the fire department in Amsterdam, who helped me reconstruct the fire.The explanation of this pattern is that Xerxes's palace needed to be sacked as a symbol of the panhellenic war; the other two buildings were the symbols of the Persian king's power. In the Apadana, he received tribute and gave presents - the gift exchange mechanism that was the Achaemenid equivalent of our "social contract". Torching the Treasury is the logical second step.Finally, it should be noted that marble slabs with inscriptions were taken from the Treasury and placed on the mountain, and were used *as chairs* to watch the fire.Literature:
H. Sancisi, "Alexander and Persepolis" in J. Carlsen (ed.), *Alexander the Great. Reality and Myth* (1993).
A. Shapur Shahbazi, "Iranians and Alexander", *American Journal of Ancient History* n.s. 2 (2003), 5-38, note 71.Jona

[ancientlibrary]

Do we have butt-prints?

[jona]

I confess that I asked myself a similar question when I read this in Shahbazi's article. Yet, we have to trust him: he is a professional archaeologist and used to be the director of the Persepolis excavations. The article was published in a well-known journal. There are limits to scepticism, and in my opinion, here we see one.Jona

[xxx]

While I would agree the burning was planned (and I think also there was an attempt to stop it but it was too late)I would have to agree with Tim here. Because a person is a professional and has an article published, does not necessarily mean they are correct. Scepticism is a very good thing.I would have bought a chair myself...

[jona]

Of course scepticism is a good thing, but where I am unable to control information and see that experts sympathize, I can not but agree. If the doctor tells me I have to use this or that medicine, or when an engineer tells how to build a bridge, I simply am not in the position to check it; and have to trust them.Yet, of course, you are right that the fact that someone is a specialist and that other specialists agree with him, does not make a statement necessarily true. Schliemann, the ultimate amateur, turned out to be right and the skeptics were wrong. On the other hand, the fact that Schliemann was right does not mean that specialists are not in a better position to judge claims.Jona

[ancientlibrary]

Just for the record, I was making a flip joke. I
haven't read the article!.In theory, I support the idea that the person and
his credentials don't mean anything. Of course
academics is about arguments, not people.
.That said, it's striking that in Alexander-studies
almost nothing created by non-academics has
any scholarly value. (I include myself in the lay
category here, and I don't include my website as
a scholarly resource, except insofar as it links to
such resources.) There are some excellent
summaries and popularizations--valuable and
important--but precious little more. Really doing
Classics work takes training, huge amounts of
time, and access to scholarly resources--it
KILLS me to not have a copy of Berve or the
FGrH, for instance. Take two maximal cases:
Renault's bio and Stark's essay on Alexander's
path through Lycia. I at least don't think the
former breaks any new ground, and it dubious
arguments. The latter, as I recall--flying by night
here--is flawed by misreading a Greek text..I once put some texts online, and allowed
anyone to add commentary. The one condition
was that you know what entry is on the OCD2 p.
464? (The OCD3 was just coming out.) I figure
that was the sina qua non of credibility. If you
don't have access to the Oxford Classical
Dictionary you were pretty screwed--Wikipedia
won't do! Of course, nobody ever added
commentary. (I'm sure the response, even
among academics, was "screw you, Tim") But
then again, nobody ever added dumb
commentary.

[yiannis]

I also think it was premediated. Archaological excavations on the site have shown (Of course) evidence that it was destroyed by fire, but amongst the burned material they have failed to find any objects of value which shows that the place has been cleared before it was set ablaze.

[jona]

I agree with you on every aspect, and just single out one.Stark's essay is flawed indeed, but at least she visited the country she was talking about. The problem with many academics is that they either accept topographical information from our sources (e.g., Hammond believing that the hill of Gaza is 6- meters high - it is 25); or that they accept second-hand topographical information. This is all they do. When confronted with people who did actually visit this or that site, they often use the argument "the landscape may have changed" as an excuse.All publications (I mean: all) about the Cilician Gate have ignored the simple fact that breaking through this pass was not the real issue of the battle. The issue was getting from the Gate to Tarsus, and at that point our sources are remarkably unhelpful; nor has the issue been studied by modern scholars. This was something I personally discovered, and I am still trying to find out what really happened. But is strange how easy it is to find holes in well-known accounts, just by visiting a site. Here is a point where non-scholars can do something.Jona