Xerxes' Legacy

[dean]

Hello,
In the chapter "New year's day in Persepolis" of Olmstead's book- "History of the Persian Empire", one of the first sentences is- "Darius I started the project but Xerxes was the "builder" of Persepolis".As soon as I read that sentence I immediately thought of Alexander and wondered if maybe, ??? that was one of the motivations that fired Alexander to torch Persepolis over, say, Susa or Ecbatana.
I mean supposedly one of the reasons for Alexander's campaign was because of the damage that Xerxes had brought on Greece, especially the profanation of temples that he had burnt down.
So, what do you think guys?
P.S. Olmstead by the way refers to Xerxes' western "campaign" in Greece as a "failure" which kind of clashed with the notion I had of him totally devastating the place.

[agesilaos]

The campaign failed because its aim was conquest rather than chastisment. I led to the loss of Persian influence in Macedonia and Thrace as well as the loss of dominion over the islands. The loss of men and materiel was also significant.I hadn't thought of the link between Persepolis and Xerxes, other than the story of the fallen statue, it is a good point and emphasises the political nature of the conflagration.

[nick]

Hi Companions -I am not quite sure about the next interpretation, but here we go.It was Darius 1 who started building Persepolis, his son Xerxes who 'finished' it. Now Darius 1 and Xerxes were not Achaemenid kings in the same sense as Cyrus the Great and his son Cambyses had been - the orginal Achaemenid dynasty ended more or less with Cambyses and Darius I became king after the 'conspiracy of the Seven'. The 'Seven' allegedly eliminated an imposter who had claimed the throne after the death of Cambyses.Darius I then married himself into the orginal Achaemenid family.Now here we go: one might say that the real Achaemenid dynasty - tracing its roots back to the mythical founder Achaemenes - was more or les 'hi-jacked' by Darius I. Pasargadae had been the original Royal centre of Cyrus the Great - and treated with much more care by Alexander.In theory: by burning Persepolis and restoring Pasargadae Alexander turned the clock back two centuries. Was he posing as the 'savior' of the original line of true Achaemenid kings, destroying what was built by an overall usurper dynasty... ?I don't know - I find the issue quite tricky...Regards -
Nick

[agesilaos]

So much here depends on Alexander's attitude towards the Persians; he treats Darius as the lawful king executing Bessos as a usurper, and Darius was installed as a result of a palace coup. The letter at Arr II 14 iv, which I take to be fake, Alexander's attitude to the legitimacy of the post-Cambyses Achaemenians seems to have been positive; and since there could be little advantage in a Macedonian putting his case for Kingship over Asia as one of legality would be ludicrous; Alexander's case is that might is right and he is the stronger.It is doubtful whether Alexander did see himself as the heir to the Achaemenid throne as has been suggested ;the title 'King of Asia' is not a Persian usage, there was no inauguration ceremony and he is antipathetic to the state religion. Once Darius was out of the way then his attitude towards the Persians warmed, not least because he realised that Macedonian manpower was insufficient to hold his vast empire alone. Restoring Cyrus' tomb, even if the damage was not simply due to decrepitude, may have been a gesture of reconciliation but it also fits with Alexander's propensity for hero-worship. Cyrus was a great man and the founder of an empire, perhaps he felt a link.

[marcus]

However, the fact that Alexander put himself forward as the successor to Darius III was purely in order to paint Bessus as a usurper. Before Darius was king it was expedient to paint him as a usurper, whether he was or not.And these things can be argued as having nothing to do with Alexander treating all the Persian kings from Darius I onwards as usurpers.All the bestMarcus

[agesilaos]

The question of whethet Alexander thought of himself as suceeding to Darius' throne is fully discussed by Ernst Fredericksmeyer in 'Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction' (Alexander and the Kingdom of Asia,pp136-167)to summarise his arguments;Those things that might lead us to suppose Alexander adopted the Achaemenid Kingship are all susceptible to other explanations. He cites,
1. The treatment of Darius' body with royal honours, also his wife which he omits); the torture and execution of Bessus in Persian manner; the royal treatment of Darius Family.
2. Adoption of certain articles of Persian Royal dress
3.Alleged adoption of Darius' signet
4.Alleged adoption of Darius' diadem
he has another eight but these are explicable as being due to his attested magnanimity, rapprochement with the Persian nobility, and in the case of the diadem the model is Dionysus not Darius as the diadem was not a Persian Royal symbol the upright tiara was.Also ther are things that a legitimate Achaemenid had to do to become king and which symbolised that kingship.
1.Adoption of the upright tiara
2.Act of enthronement
3.Assumption of the Royal titles
4.Consecration at Pasargadae and Persepolis
5.The placing of Achaemenid symbols on his coins
6. Keeping faith with the interminable rituals and taboos which surrounded Persian Kingship.
We know that the symbol of Alexander's kingship was the diadem. He never worre the upright tiara.
No acts of consecration or enthronement are mentioned indeed he destrys Ahura-Mazda's sacred city.
Alexander proclaims himself King of Asia, this is not an Achaemenid title it is his own invention to set him apart from the Great King, King of Kings, King of Many Countries etc He is replacing Darius not suceeding him.
On the coins I disagree as some Eastern mints continued to produce lion staters though these are more Babylonian symbols than Achaemenid. on his own issues he stuck with greek symbols.
Fredericksmeyer thinks Alexander would not tolerate the straight jacket of Persian rituals. He seems to have become properly enthroned as Pharaoh and possibly as King of Babylon so it wasn't any aversion to new kingships only the Achaemenid one something akin to Churchill declaring himself Fuhrer, perhaps.

[jan]

That is most interesting as Arthur Weigall suggests the same thing, that Persepolis was burned due to Xerxes. I might add something that struck me in Plutarch's version (the Plutarch of the internet version) that Thais had said. She had said that it was a woman who would seek revenge, that it would be a woman's accomplishment...this was repeated in a terrible French movie called Reverses (and I may have the title incorrect) starring Monica Belluci. If you stay past the horrendous rape scene, the movie moves to a time in which she made me think of Thais. Has anyone of you seen this movie? It is appropriate to compare her marks to those of Thais and the burning of the Persepolis, if you have read Manfredi's book in which he has both Alexander and Hephaestion taking turns with Thais. I believe that she was Ptolemy's mistress. Monica's characters name is Alexandra.

[yiannis]

The film is called "Irreversable".
It's a very good film, not the Hollywood type. It's a very "strong" movie and the rape scene in the beggining is very intense. I suggest those of you who are "sencitive" not to see it...
(there's nothing "erotic" about it either.

[jan]

Thank you for the title of the film as it is no longer showing, and I had forgotten it. I agree that there is nothing erotic about this film, and I must tell you that the ending was so dumbfounding that when I left the movie house I commented on it, and the ticket taker asked me if I like the movie. He said that I should ask for my money back, and so I did ask the manager to refund my $5.00 and as it was so late, he could only give me a free pass to another movie. I then took in Lizzie McGuire and went to Rome with a group of teenagers. What a contrast!Everyone in the movie walked out due to the subtitles at the scene of the rape in the tunnel, and I was the only person left to see the movie.But as I had already read the review on it, I knew that it was being seen backwards, a trick that happened with some of my teenagers when I was advisor to the cheerleaders at GHS. The two go hand in hand in a way.So I sat it out. Now, having seen Nights of Cabiri, I realize the similarities between the movies and the relationship to Olympias and Cabiri.It all makes a lot of sense to me. But I shall stop the explanations now.