pothos.org

Our friend Nick posted a link to a site which had some pics about a Palace in Alexander movie from a French studio magazine, I have posted some of them here: http://www.louvre.fr/anglais/collec/ao/ ... ao_f.htmAt first I thought it is Palace of Darius the Great in Persepolis whereas it is obviously his palace in Susa (Capital of Persian Empire, near Persepolis in south-west Iran).If you observe the first pic carefully, you can find these things there:Capital of a column of Apadana Palace (Louvre Museum in Paris): http://www.louvre.fr/anglais/collec/ao/ ... .htmGlazed brick relief panel of Apadana Palace (The British Museum in London): http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compa ... maryDarius the Great in Apadana Palace (Persepolis): http://www.livius.org/a/1/iran/proskynesis.jpg

Sorry, for the British Museum this one is better:
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compa ... id=OBJ1611

Hi Cyrus -However, the French text says this is supposed to be the Achaemenid Royal palace in Babylon. As you and I know the Achaemenid court traveled the route between Ecbatana - Susa - Babylon on a repetitive year round schedule, and perhaps visiting Persepolis for certain special occasions.I can understand the idea of the film makers: the names of Ecbatana and Susa do not ring any bell with the present day movie audience. Babylon does! Perhaps does Persepolis, but then again the movie would need Persepolis only for the infamous fire.I'm sorry, but that is 'popular culture', isn't it?Regards -
Nick

Surely they will burn the palace of Persepolis in the movie.

Sorry, It is the first time that I hear something about an Achaemenid Royal palace in Babylon!!! The city which was always in rebellion against Achaemenids!!! Do you know anything about it?

Hi Cyrus -E.g. P. Briant, History of the Persian Empire, page 169/170:"The promotion of Susa and Persepolis dit not entail the disappearance of the earlier capitals of Pasagadae, Babylon and Ecbatana. But we are ill informend about Darius's [Darius I the Great; NW] building activities in those locations. [ ... ] We also know that the king had a new palace built at Babylon."I can not find evidence for your statement that Babylon was always in revolt. My sources all list Babylon as one of the traditional capitals of the empire - not built by the Achaemenians, but 'incoporated' into the circle of capitals just like the Mede capital Ecbatana was.Regards -
Nick

Inscription of Darius the Great on Behistun Relief:"A Babylonian, named Nidintu-Bel, son of Ainaira, he rose up in Babylon; thus he deceived the people: "I am Nebuchadrezzar the son of Nabonidus." Afterwards the Babylonian people all went over to that Nidintu-Bel; Babylonia became rebellious; he seized the kingdom in Babylon.
Darius the King says: After that I went off to Babylon, against that Nidintu-Bel who called himself Nebuchadrezzar. The army of Nidintu-Bel held the Tigris; there it took its stand, and on account of the waters (the Tigris) was unfordable. Thereupon (some of) my army I supported on (inflated) skins, others I made camel-borne, for others I brought horses. Ahuramazda bore me aid; by the favor of Ahuramazda we got across the Tigris. There I smote that army of Nidintu-Bel exceedingly; of the month Asiyadiya 26 days were past, then we fought the battle.
Darius the King says: After that I went off to Babylon. When I had not arrived at Babylon, a town named Zazana, beside the Euphrates -- there this Nidintu-Bel who called himself Nebuchadrezzar came with an army against me, to deliver battle. Thereupon we Joined battle; Ahuramazda bore me aid; by the favor of Ahuramazda I smote that army of Nidintu-Bel exceedingly. The rest was thrown into the water, (and) the water carried it away. Of the month Anamaka 2 days were past, then we fought the battle.
Darius the King says: After that, Nidintu-Bel with a few horsemen fled; he went off to Babylon. Thereupon I went to Babylon. By the favor of Ahuramazda both I seized Babylon and I took that Nidintu-Bel prisoner. After that, I slew that Nidintu-Bel at Babylon....Darius the King says: While I was in Persia and Media, again a second time the Babylonians became rebellious from me. One man named Arkha, an Armenian, son of Haldita -- he rose up in Babylon. A district named Dubala -- from there he thus lied to the people: "I am Nebuchadrezzar the son of Nabonidus." Thereupon the Babylonian people became rebellious from me, (and) went over to that Arkha. He seized Babylon; he became king in Babylon.
Darius the King says: Thereupon I sent forth an army to Babylon. A Persian named Intaphernes, my subject -- him I made chief of them. Thus I said to them: "Go forth; that Babylonian army smite, which shall not call itself mine!" Thereupon Intaphernes with the army marched off to Babylon. Ahuramazda bore me aid; by the favor of Ahuramazda Intaphernes smote the Babylonians and led them in bonds;

Hi Cyrus -But the Behistun inscription refers only to the difficult period Darius I had when he claimed the throne of Persia after the demise of Cambyses. As the original line of Achaemenids had stopped with Cambyses, Darius I and the Seven virtually had to reconquer the entire empire (almost). I think Behistuns mentions 19 battles fought by Darius in his first year or first few years as a king. I would refer to this as a sort of 'civil war' or in any case 'giant turnmoil in the empire', rather than a Babylonian revolt. After Darius I was firmly in the saddle, around 521 BC, I can not recall any major revolt by Babylon or Babylonians. Internal conflicts after Darius I were nearly always family disputes: brothers of the king claiming the throne and such. (With a few major exceptions, of course: the Egyptians, the Cadusians...)Your translation of Behistun is quite interesting. It is a little different from the one I am familiar with:http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/be ... .htmlWhere does your translation come from? What is the source?Best regards -
Nick

Don't forget, also, that Mazaeus, who was a Persian, was so acceptible to the Babylonians that Alexander left him in charge. Admittedly, Mazaeus had married a Babylonian and his sons had Babylonian names... but he was still a Persian, and there had been no indication of revolt about his rule.All the bestMarcus