why did alexander burn persepolis

[MAXlMUS]

usually when conquerors choose to let their soldiers sack a newly conquered city, they let them do so right away. so why did he wait months before doing so? was he under pressure, was he drunk and wanted to avenge the burning of the parthenon as some say, or was it just for the lulz?

[Yosemite]

he was just mad

[PointOfViewGun]

I didn't know that he waited months after capturing the city to be looted. What I knew was by the time he captured Persepolis his army consisted mostly of mercenaries and he couldn't risk a rebellion if he didn't let them loot the city for it's riches.

[Mr. Scott]

I didn't know that he waited months after capturing the city to be looted. What I knew was by the time he captured Persepolis his army consisted mostly of mercenaries and he couldn't risk a rebellion if he didn't let them loot the city for it's riches.

reminds me of Napoleon and the city of Milan...

[RomanSoldier9001]

Drunked and was "avenging" what persians did in Athens during the Persian Wars.

[Orko]

usually when conquerors choose to let their soldiers sack a newly conquered city, they let them do so right away. so why did he wait months before doing so? was he under pressure, was he drunk and wanted to avenge the burning of the parthenon as some say, or was it just for the lulz?

Because he didn't.
His troops wanted revenge against the Persians, and Alexander could hold them off from doing so only for a short time.

[conon394]

usually when conquerors choose to let their soldiers sack a newly conquered city, they let them do so right away. so why did he wait months before doing so? was he under pressure, was he drunk and wanted to avenge the burning of the parthenon as some say, or was it just for the lulz?

I'll believe he might have been drunk - but revenge for the burning of Athens and other places - doubtful? Let's remember most of those places had fought Alexander and Philip and but for hostages, and garrisons were hardly his buddies. I imagine Alexander had every intention of making Babylon or some other city (but not a Persian one) his capital and thus Persepolis was a useful tool. It could be sold as some sort of Greek revenge, a warning to Persians and Medes that times were changing,that he was not simply placing a Greek facade over Persian elites, that the Persian empire was over - it was a Macedonian one now.

usually when conquerors choose to let their soldiers sack a newly conquered city, they let them do so right away

Seems to me given the size of the Persian treasury one would need some time to haul away loot before you burn the city. Besides as I recall Alexander did allow his soldiers to rape and pillage the locals - he simply delayed the destruction so that no imperial gains were lost.

[saxdude]

Its debated wether it was an order by him or not, regardless i think the most plausible idea was that the greek soldiers under his command, particularly the athenians wanted revenge on the burning of athens during Xerxes reign.

[DAVIDE]

Revenge for burning Athens.. but this has been already said here

[conon394]

particularly the athenians wanted revenge on the burning of athens during Xerxes reign.

Except aside from the odd Athenian whore its not like he had all that many happy Athenians under his command. Second those who were there why did they need revenge? Remember Athens did that for itself and than signed the peace of Callias. Let's see Xerxes burns Athens 480 BC and now some 150 years later Athens want revenge? That's kind of like saying any crime a GI committed in London ~1943 was revenge for the British burning Washington. If Athens wanted revenge so bad why was it loaded to the gills with anti-Macedonian politicians, and anti Macedonian generals and mercenaries fighting for Persia.

[MAXlMUS]

yea i don't think he was motivated by vengeance or influenced by the athenians, considering that the relatively few of them (the only greeks more or less constantly at war with persia, be it the persian wars, pelopponesian war, expeditions to cyprus and egypt) did not make up a large part of the army, and also considering his ambitions of creating a 'eurasian' empire

Because he didn't.
His troops wanted revenge against the Persians, and Alexander could hold them off from doing so only for a short time.

so his army mutinied in persia? sources?

[Orko]

so his army mutinied in persia? sources?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis#Destruction

After several months Alexander allowed his troops to loot Persepolis. A fire broke out in the eastern palace of Xerxes and spread to the rest of the city. It is not clear if it had been a drunken accident, or a deliberate act of revenge for the burning of the Acropolis of Athens during the Second Hellenic-Persian War. Many historians argue that while Alexander's army celebrated with a symposium they decided to take revenge against Persians. In that case it would be a combination of the two.

[MAXlMUS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis#Destruction

there are no sources in that paragraph...

[MaximiIian]

Let's see Xerxes burns Athens 480 BC and now some 150 years later Athens want revenge?

Ancient Greeks could hold some pretty long, mean-ass grudges. They were kinda dicks like that.

he was just mad

lol but y he mad, tho?

[SigniferOne]

Let's see Xerxes burns Athens 480 BC and now some 150 years later Athens want revenge?

Yeah but you're imposing your own perception on what the Greeks would need to be like. Instead let's look at what they said themselves, and Alex as the champion of Greek honor was very much perceived so by the Greeks themselves, as the very ancient sources themselves tell us.

That's kind of like saying any crime a GI committed in London ~1943 was revenge for the British burning Washington.

Or it could be like, I don't know, visiting the sins of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra through inherited blood-guilt down to Orestes and their innocent descendants in the third generation.

There's a danger in imposing our own preferences and values on people we are fond of.

[saxdude]

Except aside from the odd Athenian whore its not like he had all that many happy Athenians under his command. Second those who were there why did they need revenge? Remember Athens did that for itself and than signed the peace of Callias. Let's see Xerxes burns Athens 480 BC and now some 150 years later Athens want revenge? That's kind of like saying any crime a GI committed in London ~1943 was revenge for the British burning Washington. If Athens wanted revenge so bad why was it loaded to the gills with anti-Macedonian politicians, and anti Macedonian generals and mercenaries fighting for Persia.

General dislike of persians, they didnt like being all "lets get together" with the persians and the burning of athens was a good example they could draw upon, they were under Alexanders command now so its him or the persians they fuel out against.

[SigniferOne]

He was drunk. See Quintus Curtius who is generally more insightful into Alexander's personality and character than the other historians.

[Katsumoto]

I always thought he burned Persepolis to signify the 'official' defeat of Persia.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I think Alexander was alright when he ordered his soldiers to burn the city.
His policy was friendly from the start towards the local population and in every big city he entered (Susa, Babylon etc before Persepolis) he showed respect towards the local governors, the population and the local gods. He was trying to make everyone believe that he was coming to bring peace in Persia and that he was the righteous heir of the ancient Persian Kings.. Unfortunately for him, the local satraps continued to view him distrustfully, and many of them supported Darius or tried to organize new armies for themselves, to take the throne from Darius. As he was moving closer to Persia the local population and the local governors were aggressive and his policy which was welcomed by the Babylonians and he Egyptians was not accepted by the Persian people. It seems that he wanted to give a lesson to the rebellious Persians, so he ordered the destruction of the city, something that it's sure it sparked fear between the Persians. There is something less known about the entrance of Alexander in Persepolis, something that probably contributed to his decision. Near Persepolis, he found a village where Greek prisoners of the Persians were living. Almost all of them had their legs or their hands cut off by the Persians. Alexander cried when he saw these men and he probably felt rage.

[Charontas]

...Near Persepolis, he found a village where Greek prisoners of the Persians were living. Almost all of them had their legs or their hands cut off by the Persians. Alexander cried when he saw these men and he probably felt rage.

I'm intreaged, because as I read this post I got a flashback from my childhood when my parents read me the story of Alexander the Great and in the book they were using depicted the very exact scene described by Manuel.

Now I wonder, is the based on fact or is this scene part of the myth that surrounded Alexander?