The burning of Persepolis

[azara]

Hallo, everybody!
This is a cue to the thread “Alexander and music”, but I started another thread as the topic is rather independent. Referring to the burning of Persepolis: I distinctly remember reading somewhere (in an article of a modern historian, but who?) that the palace had been carefullly emptied before the fire and that no remains whatsoever have been found by the archaeologists except a deep layer (more than 50 cm.) of ashes. No trace of metallic parts of furniture, doors etc.
In his book on the Peloponnesian war Victor Davis Hanson writes:
“…[Destroying] buildings required even more work…Houses were built of mud brick with tile roofs. It was not so simple to knock these nonflammable structures down. The only sure method was to torch their interior wooden support beams and hope for collapse. That, too, was a time-consuming challenge…” (A war like no other – pag.55)
Now, in the case of the Persepolis palace, the roof was supported by marble columns and the roof beams were 20 meters above the floor, the height of a six storey house. I think they had to fill the rooms with inflammable material (wood, straw, oil), which implies lengthy preparations and a deliberate, professional burning, due to the enormous symbolic potential of the place.
Therefore the story of the drunken party and Alexander losing control seems improbable; very likely there was a dinner party before liquidating Persepolis and leaving , everybody was more or less drunk and it’s not impossible that Thais asked and obtained permission to throw the first torch… but if the legendary version were true the Apadana would still stand, I think!
My best wishes
Azara
PS. I found the article wich prompted all this lucubration on the web. Has any Pothosian ever come across it? I haven't been able to retrieve it for the life of me.

[marcus]

This is a cue to the thread “Alexander and music”, but I started another thread as the topic is rather independent. Referring to the burning of Persepolis: I distinctly remember reading somewhere (in an article of a modern historian, but who?) that the palace had been carefullly emptied before the fire and that no remains whatsoever have been found by the archaeologists except a deep layer (more than 50 cm.) of ashes. No trace of metallic parts of furniture, doors etc.

Hi Azara,

I don't know of any article off the top of my head, but Plutarch does say:

... and they say that as much coined money was found there as at Susa, and that it took ten thousand pairs of mules and five thousand camels to carry away the other furniture and wealth there. (Alexander 37.2)

Seems to indicate that it was all removed before the fire.

ATB

[amyntoros]

Hi Azara:

Now, in the case of the Persepolis palace, the roof was supported by marble columns and the roof beams were 20 meters above the floor, the height of a six storey house. I think they had to fill the rooms with inflammable material (wood, straw, oil), which implies lengthy preparations and a deliberate, professional burning, due to the enormous symbolic potential of the place.

We know that the roof beams were made of cedar because the first archaeologists found widespread evidence of the burning – "the entire floor of the main hall was covered with a layer of ashes and charcoal, which on microscopic analysis proved to be cedar; that is, carbonized remains of roof beams. Herzfeld states that this layer was from one foot to three feet thick . . . " (From Mortimer Wheeler’s Flames Over Persepolis, page 23.)

Now, Donald Wilber on page 61 of Persepolis: The Archaeology of Parsa, Seat of the Persian Kings, after describing the construction and plastering of the mud brick walls tells us that . . .

Above the dado level <the lower walls> hangings may well have covered all the walls. The book of Esther records a feast held in the court of the king’s palace at Shushan (Susa): “There were hangings of white cloth, of green and blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple.” … According to an inscription of Artaxerxes II, the palace of Darius at Susa was destroyed by fire. With inflammable hangings and wooden roofs fire must also have been a great hazard at Parsa.

It follows then that there wouldn’t have been much, if any, preparation needed to burn down the palace – perhaps a table to stand on to fire the wall hangings, but I think it might have been easy enough to throw flaming torches onto the hangings and watch them flame up, carrying the conflagration to the wooden roof.

PS. I found the article wich prompted all this lucubration on the web. Has any Pothosian ever come across it? I haven't been able to retrieve it for the life of me.

No, sorry, I don’t know of this website, so do let us know if you come across it again.

Best regards,

[smittysmitty]

azara said;

...'that the palace had been carefullly emptied before the fire and that no remains whatsoever have been found by the archaeologists except a deep layer (more than 50 cm.) of ashes. No trace of metallic parts of furniture, doors etc.'

I'm pretty sure that furniture which was built of stone survived as well as a number of other items, such as some coins and small gold and bronze buttons. Numerous arrow, javelin and spear heads predominantly made of bronze as well as some of iron have also beeen found.

I believe most modern scholars are of the opinion that the spontaneous decision to burn Persepolis is rather misleading and the story of an Athenian courtesan leading such a party is little more than 'Cleitarchan' sensationalism. It would seem, the wholesale removal of valuable goods was a premeditated move - judging as you say by the lack of material remains at the site.

cheers!

[marcus]

I believe most modern scholars are of the opinion that the spontaneous decision to burn Persepolis is rather misleading and the story of an Athenian courtesan leading such a party is little more than 'Cleitarchan' sensationalism. It would seem, the wholesale removal of valuable goods was a premeditated move - judging as you say by the lack of material remains at the site.

Couldn't agree more. In my opinion it was a calculated move, and Alexander would have made darned sure that anything of value was already removed.

However, what I do find interesting is that there was some Greek statuary that was not removed, and which was found in the ruins by the archaeologists . Perhaps it was too heavy to move; or perhaps it was a not very good piece; or perhaps the barbaric Macedonians broke it and decided to leave it where it was ...

ATB

[Paralus]

However, what I do find interesting is that there was some Greek statuary that was not removed, and which was found in the ruins by the archaeologists :shock: . Perhaps it was too heavy to move; or perhaps it was a not very good piece; or perhaps the barbaric Macedonians broke it and decided to leave it where it was ...

Won't buy into that last: can't have a buch of Boris Badinov's carousing in Persepolis.

It would come down to what was considered "valuable" eh? Self evidently the bullion and silver and gold artifacts barrowed out on burrows. What of looting which took place earlier?

I often wonder what might have been destroyed and smashed. We're not likely to know though I suppose and I'd imagine anything covered in barbarian script possibly didn't make the average Macedonian's list.

[azara]

Thank you, Amyntoros, for the links to those two books. I've just ordered them on-line, because they have never been published in Italy.
A timid objection from the height of my ignorance: if the palace was stripped of all the valuables, why didn't they take the draperies, which must have been highly prized a booty, easy to carry and to divide?
All the best
Azara

[Lisa]

I'm a "why" person, myself. I truly can't help myself, maybe I should go study human psychology! Assuming that virtually all valuables were removed from the palace and maybe even inventoried by some ancient accountant before the palace was set alight, why was it burned to the ground? Was it a strategic matter, i.e., ATG didn't want some pretender getting in there while he was away and pretending to be the new Great King? Here's a funnier proposition....maybe it was palace envy! Because I think that the Persian palace really made the Macedonian "palace" look like a country estate for a well to do noble.

[keroro]

I'm a "why" person, myself. I truly can't help myself, maybe I should go study human psychology! Assuming that virtually all valuables were removed from the palace and maybe even inventoried by some ancient accountant before the palace was set alight, why was it burned to the ground? Was it a strategic matter, i.e., ATG didn't want some pretender getting in there while he was away and pretending to be the new Great King? Here's a funnier proposition....maybe it was palace envy! Because I think that the Persian palace really made the Macedonian "palace" look like a country estate for a well to do noble.

Or maybe it was Alexander's way of telling the Persians - 'The Archaemenids are dead, I am here to stay.' Or even his way of telling the Greeks/Macedonians 'I have destroyed the heart of the Persian Empire and avenged their wrongs against us.' There are important symbolic reasons for destroying the Palace, though I would have to admit that it does not really fit in with the otherwise fairly respectful way he treated his Persian conquests.

[amyntoros]

Thank you, Amyntoros, for the links to those two books. I've just ordered them on-line, because they have never been published in Italy.

They are fairly old publications, but I think you will appreciate them, especially Wheeler’s Flames Over Persepolis because he moves on to discuss Alexander’s cities in the east.

A timid objection from the height of my ignorance: if the palace was stripped of all the valuables, why didn't they take the draperies, which must have been highly prized a booty, easy to carry and to divide?

A good question, Azara, and one certainly not made from ignorance. Perhaps because of the tremendous amount of treasure found at Persepolis the wall hangings would have held little interest for Alexander? The fabric of the draperies must have been woven specifically for the purpose, and would probably have been unsuitable (too heavy?) for clothing or any other use by the common soldier and therefore of little value to anyone concerned.

Best regards,

[amyntoros]

There are important symbolic reasons for destroying the Palace, though I would have to admit that it does not really fit in with the otherwise fairly respectful way he treated his Persian conquests.

Following that train of thought, Peter Green has some intriguing words about Alexander’s time at Persepolis and the reason for the destruction.

Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, pages 318-19.

There was only one motive that could possibly have kept him in Persepolis until April and beyond: the Persian New Year festival. He had shown his Iranian subjects that he was not a man to be trifled with: the sacking of Persepolis proved that. But the vandalism of the Macedonian army had been most carefully controlled. The palaces and temples, the great apadana or audience hall, the whole complex of buildings which formed the city’s spiritual center, on that vast, stage-like terrace backed by the Kuh-i-Rahmet mountains – none of these had been touched. In other words, the New Year Festival could still be held. Perhaps after such a lesson, Alexander argued, these proud nobles and priests might change their minds. Perhaps even common sense would prevail, and he, Alexander, be acclaimed, with all due ceremonial, as Ahura Mazda’s representative on earth. The psychological effect produced by such an act of recognition would be incalculable. Its impact would reach the remotest corners of the earth.

But more was at stake here than mere political propaganda. Alexander found himself up against a people who took their religion (including the divinity that hedged the Great King) very seriously indeed. If negotiations were ever opened on this tricky subject, they soon broke down. March passed into April, and soon it became clear that Persepolis would see no procession that year, no ritual renewal of kingship. About 20 April Alexander finally gave up hope. While deciding what his next step would be he took an expeditionary force up into the mountains . . .

Alexander returned to Persepolis in late May, his mind finally made up. The city must be destroyed. It symbolized centuries of Achaemenid rule: once Alexander moved on eastward it would form an obvious rallying point, both religious and political, for any nationalist resistance movement. Its great friezes and palaces and fire altars embodied something to which the Macedonian conqueror had no effective answer: a purely spiritual and ideological opposition. . .

. . . Nor was he likely to impress the Iranians by mere conquest and destruction. Since Alexander had failed to impress them in any other way, he could only reiterate that burning Persepolis would avenge Xerxes’ similar destruction of the Greek temples. ‘My own view,’ says Arrian, stung into voicing a personal opinion for once, ‘is that this was bad policy.’ Scholars down the ages have echoed Arrian’s verdict (generally throwing in a charge of gross vandalism as well), though they sometimes differ as to the king’s motivation. What remains indisputable is that such an act finally destroyed any chance Alexander might have had of a legitimizing himself as an Achaemenid by peaceful means. It also provoked a last-ditch stand in the eastern provinces. Because of this, many have been tempted to see the burning of the palaces as an accident, suggested during a drunken orgy, and regretted immediately afterwards.

Here Green, in his inimitable style, presents his opinion as if fact, but I must say that this is the only reason that would, IMO, also justify Alexander’s burning of the Zoroastrian holy book, the Avesta – that is to say, the unbreakable bond between the Persian religion and their kingship and a demonstrated unwillingness to openly acknowledge Alexander as king and earthly representative of Ahura Mazda. Yes, I know that Alexander’s own religion and politics were inseparable, but he did show the greatest respect for the religion of others – except in this one instance, if it is to be believed. Jona Lendering on Livius presents doubts that there were any extensive written texts to be destroyed. He does, however, acknowledge that “Probably, Alexander did indeed try to destroy what was at that moment an 'oral Avesta' by executing the Magians, the keepers of the (oral) traditions of Zoroastrianism.” That too is difficult to accept – that Alexander would have executed priests who served another god. As a polytheist he would not have wanted to risk angering said god, and as a politician he would not normally have wanted to enrage the population. However, if Green’s conclusion about the burning of Persepolis is correct, then a concurrent attempted destruction of the Zoroastrian religion finally makes sense ... to me, anyway.

Thoughts anyone?

[marcus]

A timid objection from the height of my ignorance: if the palace was stripped of all the valuables, why didn't they take the draperies, which must have been highly prized a booty, easy to carry and to divide?

A good question, Azara, and one certainly not made from ignorance. Perhaps because of the tremendous amount of treasure found at Persepolis the wall hangings would have held little interest for Alexander? The fabric of the draperies must have been woven specifically for the purpose, and would probably have been unsuitable (too heavy?) for clothing or any other use by the common soldier and therefore of little value to anyone concerned.

Ahem ... We don't know that they didn't take the wall hangings - that was merely speculation from a modern author, and we need to be careful about taking it as read. It wouldn't have been necessary for wall hangings to be in situ for a fire to catch - there was plenty of cedar wood around already. (It might have made it easier, but it certainly wasn't necessary.)

ATB

[marcus]

I often wonder what might have been destroyed and smashed. We're not likely to know though I suppose and I'd imagine anything covered in barbarian script possibly didn't make the average Macedonian's list.

I am thinking of a specific piece, which (if I recall correctly) was a Greek statue of Persephone, taken by the Persians from one of the Ionian cities. It was discovered in Persepolis minus its head - can't remember if the head was ever found, but if it was, then it wasn't in the Treasury, where the trunk was found.

Because of the destruction, it seems clear that the statue was broken shortly before, or during, the destruction of the palace.

I'm recalling this from Olmsted's "Ancient Persia" book, which I don't have with me and so can't be more specific. Anyway, the point is that it was Greek statuary that was destroyed and not removed from Persepolis (and which didn't have cuneiform script all over it, either! ).

ATB

[athenas owl]

Two things...and I can't remember where i read the first, but did the New Year's Procession at Pesepolis actually continue into the late empire? Is there anything anywhere that states thus? As for staying into early spring, well, going to Hamadan in the winter might not have had that much appeal either, waiting to see what Darius would do, etc.. And perhaps it did take that long to strip the palace (hangings and all )

And secondly, when did the idea that the Avesta, et al was destroyed by ATG first come up? Wasn't that later as well? Were the Archaemenids as tied to their religion as say the Sassanians? I do not think so. Did ATG execute the Magi as a group wholesale?

Seems to me that ATG was canny enough if he expected people to come to a celebration in Persepolis, he would not have allowed any looting to take place. He may not have understood the workings of Zoroastrianism, but it certainly wasn't his style to go destroying it. Though I know he wasn't really hepped up about the exposure of the dead. I can see wanting to break the ties of the Persian kings, however..and deliberatley burning down the stripped palaces would say that. Lastly here, weren't some of the wall reliefs defaced before they were burned? Seems to me, that again shows a disdain for the place..not someone planning a national celebration.

Not apologising for Alexander here, just asking.

[keroro]

@ Amyntoros.

The Avesta destruction has always made me puzzle since it didn't seem to fit in with the other actions Alex took in relation to religions. Interesting that you mention the fact that Alex was a polytheist - Zoroastrianism is (from what I understand) a monotheistic system, so perhaps this is where the problem occurred. If I can be forgiven some hypothesising - perhaps the Magians refused to recognise Alex unless he renounced the other Gods he worshipped? Or perhaps Alex realised that the only God that Polytheism cannot incorporate is a lone, monotheistic God.

The idea that Alex was trying to destroy the whole Zoroastrian religion - well, only he could have attempted it. Perhaps he thought of it as just a further battle. After all, he had vanquished the zoroastrians in mortal battles, and had been declared Pharoah and son of Zeus Ammon, maybe he planned, as a God, to continue the battle into the immortal realm? It is a bit far fetched, though just about possible.

An interesting topic.