zoastrian scribes

[alexandersdesciple]

Companions I write to ask imput to the story Alexander destroyed the Zoastrian scribes.This issue is quite new to me but Ajax brought it to my attention,It seems to me to be very much out of character and I feel we mustgive Alexander the benefit of the doubt on this atrocity.None of us can deny Tyre,Persepolis,Thebes,Clietus,Parmenio and the Indian massacre,which although atrocotal were fundamentally reasoned. Be it a drunken row with clietus or drunken frenzy with persepolis.
Tyre was retribution for months of trial and Tribulation and Thebes was meant as a warning.
Even the indian massacre had something to do with superstition.But the scribes were fundamentally different throughout all his life he worshiped paid homage and respected all religion, I feel Alexanderfelt akin to the gods any gods and im sure he felt they were with him in all forms from ancient greek Zeus to Egyptian Ammon, I feel that in his head the gods were really the only thing that concerned him.His track record showed unbelievable tollerance of race and religion than any other ruler in the history of man.Companions u may have writings and histories to varify it but im afraid I dont believe it,its too muck out of character.Regards Alexes Desciple

[neneh]

To say that Alexander burnt the holy texts of the zoroastrians presumes that the "Avesta" was actually written down by the time Alexander was around. It's not impossible to assume that the "Avesta" around 300-400 BC was nothing more than oral tradition. Not to be underestimated, but the point being that you can't set fire to oral tradition. Having said that though, Alexander might very well have tried to set fire to whatever written texts the zoroastrians had. He is mentioned in the Arda Viraf, which was written a few hundred years later but which makes references to holy writing at the time Alexander supposidly burnt them. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you, but this is the way the zoroastrians refer to the great Alexander. This is from the book of Arda Viraf;"They say that, once upon a time, the pious Zarathustra made the religion, which he had received, current in the world; and till the completion of three hundred years, the religion was in purity, and men were without doubts. But afterward, the accursed Evil Spirit, the Wicked One, in order to make men doubtful of this religion, instigated the accursed Alexander, the westerner who was dwelling in Egypt, so that he came to the country of Iran with severe cruelty and war and devastation; he also slew the ruler of Iran, and destroyed the metropolis and empire, and made them desolate.
And this religion, namely, all the Avesta and Zand, written upon prepared cow-skins, and with gold ink, was deposited in the archives, in Stakhar Papakan, and the hostility of the evil-destined,
wicked Ashemok, the evil-doer, brought onward Alexander, the westerner, who was dwelling in Egypt, and he burned them up. And he killed several high priests and judges and priests and the masters of the Magians and upholders of the religion, and the competent and wise of the country of Iran. And he cast hatred and strife, one with the other, amongst the nobles and householders of the country of Iran; and self-destroyed, he fled to hell." Regards,Neneh

[S]

Greetings,Thank you for the information, Neneh.As to history, I agree it is fascinating how much can change or be lost or be re-interpreted over a short span of time. I maintain history is a best guess fiction *because* it is always written with a bias, no matter who writes it, and because so much is lost. Modern history is a clear, living example of how different people interpret and promote what happens around them, depending on who holds the economic power, who has the most fire power and each person's perception of a "right" to whatever each person is promoting (and of course that old and most dangerous bogeyman, whose side "god" is on). If modern history can be so skewed, with each of us living in it, how much more so can history be skewed, altered, in error, changed when written down decades or centuries after, using biased sources, oral legends and folktales!The most difficult things to discover, in our quest for human history, are the facts and the truth. One reason I would like to see more financial support for, and international support/agreements on, archeology.. the more we can "dig up" the past, the more we can learn (still, unfortunately, subject to interpretation of course, but the more information we have the better!). But trying to overlay modern arguments is pointless when exploring the past.Again, thanks for the information! Enjoy your posts.
Regards,
Sikander

[childofhistory]

I doubt that Alexander would have commited such a crime against any religion. There have been many examples supporting my claim-
1.Thebes- Alexander destroyed the city but spared the temples and home of the poet Pindar
2.Egypt-going the the temple of Ammon
3.Post Gaugamela-spared the mother,wife, and childern of DariusThese show that Alexander would not anger any religions gods or beliefs. But it is true that Alexander did do some dare i say amazing things while drunk. I have to say that this goes completely against Alexanders character as an honorable soldier. So i agree with you alexadersdisciple we should give him the benifit of the doubt because its been shown before destroying the zoastrian scribes is contrary to everything that weve observed about Alexander.