PERSEPOLIS- REVENGE-POLITICAL-ACCIDENTAL?

[D.HATGISTAVROU]

WHICH ONE OF THE ABOVE BESTS DESCRIBES THE REASON FOR THE BURNING? I BELIEVE IT WAS REVENGE FOR THE BURNING OF THE ACROPOLIS IN 488B.C. ALL THE BEST! DIMITRIOS.

[J%hn]

Since Alexander's whole stated reason for overthrowing the Persian Empire was because Persia had launched not one, but two major unprovoked attacks against the Greeks - once under Darius I; then, 10 years later, under his successor Xerxes - and since the "point of origin" of these Persian attacks was considered to be the palace of Persepolis, I could see Alexander purposely burning it down as a culminating act of revenge. (I don't think it happened because some drunk prostitute (Thais) conned him into it on a whim.)John

[agesilaos]

I think it was a calculated act symbolising at once the culmination of the Pan-Hellenic Crusade and the overthrow of Achaemenid authority, which passes by right of conquest to Alexander. I dare say the troops welcomed the sack as a fitting conclusion to the campaign and that it 'got their blood up' for the continuation of the campaign.Neither Darius' nor Xerxes invasions were unprovoked; the Athenians had aided the Ionian rebels and had burned Sardis.

[J%hn]

The Athenians WERE Ionians.John

[agesilaos]

Ethnographically, yes, which is why they aided their cousins but politically they were a seperate entity from the Greeks of Asia Minor the subjects of the Great King, who rose in revolt and therfore their intervention was a hostile act justifiably punished.

[marcus]

I totally agree.My view is that is was a cold, calculated act. The introduction of Thais as agent provocateur is almost certainly a later addition - and at least we know that she did exist and was Ptolemy's mistress.I'm not even sure Alexander and his companions were drunk when the palace was burned - unless they needed a bit of Dutch courage in order to commit the act.All the bestMarcus

[J%hn]

Allow me to quote Alexander himself. This is from a letter of his to Darius, explaining why he is attacking him. The first sentence:"Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury."John

[marcus]

Hi John,Although, of course, Macedonia submitted to Darius before he crossed the Hellespont, and so it is arguable whether the Persians, technically, "invaded" Macedonia. All the bestMarcus

[J%hn]

Alexander I was king of Macedonia at that time. I thought it went something like this:The Persians said to Alexander, "We are coming through your land. Would you like us to come as friends or enemies?"King Alexander thought about it for a while, then replied, "Friends."Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Alexander warned the Greeks about what was coming, and did what he could to help throw the invaders out.John

[D.HATGISTAVROU]

I AGREE THAT IT WAS MOSTLY AN ACT OF REVENGE BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE POLITICAL SIDE OF IT? DID ALEXANDER WANT TO LEAVE BEHIND THE CAPITAL OF PERSIA TO RISE UP AGAIN WHILE HE WENT EAST? I THINK NOT. I BELEIVE THAT HE DID NOT WANT ANYTHING SYMBOLIZING THE PERSIAN EMPIRE WHILE HE WAS AWAY. ALL THE BEST.

[marcus]

Exactly, so technically, as Alexander had already said they should come as friends, it wasn't an "invasion"...But I seem to remember, from Herodotus, anyway, that the submission happened a while before Darius mounted his invasion. Anyway, I don't think Alexander did much to warn/help the Greeks until quite late in the campaign, when Mardonius was left in charge and Alex alerted the Greeks to his movements, which helped the Greeks to win at Plataea.But I might be mistaken...All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

There's probably some truth to your hypothesis, but I wonder what made Persepolis worthy of destruction, but not Susa, Pasargadae or Ecbatana, all of which contained palaces of the Persian kings?I suppose it could just have been that Persepolis was the *main* residence, and it was also in the Persian homeland, while the others were actually in other 'countries'... but I'm not sure where Pasargadae was, so I don't know how correct that might be.All the bestMarcus

[J%hn]

The mistake would be to draw technical conclusions from Herodotus. Thucydides? OK. Herodotus? No.Anyway, to use the Spartans way of reasoning: If Alexander wants it to be an invasion, let it be an invasion.John

[agesilaos]

The purported letters are in all liklihood later rhetorical fictions and thus not a sound basis for argument, but even if it were genuine the first casulty in war is Truth and we should not be surprised if Alexander overstates his case ; the causes of Graeco-Persian conflict are analysed by Herodotos and he puts the blame on the Greeks.Nor do I concur with the negative opinion of Herodotos expressed by John, naturally he must be used with caution but the same is true of Thucydides, whose detailed history is contradicted by several inscriptions; the problem with all ancient history is that we can rarely moderate our sources. For my part I find Herodotos an honest reporter, although his chronology is at times confused he reflects his sources honestly even when they contradict eachother, compare his account of Xerxes' invasion with Ephoros's preserved in Diodoros and it is clear that he would be greatly missed had his work not survived.Marcus I think that Persepolis was singled out as this was the centre where the tribute was collected and of course it is Persepolis the ciy of the Persians, just as Hitler became obsessed with Stalingrad, names have power.

[jan]

Accidental! Why would Alexander who is so impressed with the tent and exclaims to himself somewhat thoughtfully, "So this is what it means to be a King? choose to willfully destroy this great palace. He has traveled hard and long to finally arrive at his adversary's home. It is now his. He believes that he is truly King of Asia since proving his status at the Gordian Knot. It no longer belongs to Darius. It seems strange to destroy one's own inheritance! Even for revenge.