pothos.org

Conversations in History: Arrian and Herodotus, Parmenio and Alexander by Jane D. Chaplin, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Vol 51, No 4 (2011).

The article can be read online here.

All the best

Intriguing article. Thank you for the link, Marcus!

I always did think Arrian's account of Persepolis was peculiar.

I have to confess that I haven't actually read the article yet. I intend to do so soon, though

Thank you for the link to the article. It was well worth reading. The "issues" between Paremenio and Alexander are indeed fascinating. One cannot help but wonder, taking the issues of Persepolis out of the picture for the moment, how early on in his career Alexander would have put up with Paremenio if there might have been an alternative. Still, Alexander was one to quickly grasp and exploit the skills of his officers, situations, etc., so Parmenio was clearly valuable, regardless of their personal issues. It would seem that Alexander would have recognized and needed Parmenio's immense skills and command of those troops loyal to him early on in the campaign. I've always been curious about the Philotas issue and whether it might have been an excuse to get rid of Parmenio. One wonders if by that time, Alexander might have felt Parmenio might have reached the limit of his "usefulness" and become a greater thorn in his side than he felt he was willing to tolerate.

Thank you,

Lysis

Ever since I first read Arrian, it has always seemed to me that the alleged conversations between Alexander and Parmenio are a 'topos', inserted after the events by various historians. In each case, by and large, Parmenio is portrayed as a lesser 'foil' for Alexander to be able to reject the 'advice' of Philip's most able general, and prove himself superior by emerging triumphant from having rejected that advice.

For Alexander historians generally, who were close to contemporary shortly after his death, they could conveniently use this device to 'kill several birds with one stone' :

1. With Parmenio and his line extinct, he makes the perfect 'foil' in the topoi/anecdotes - unlike others close to Alexander who were still extant, and might deny the truth of such anecdotes....or take offence ( no-one wanted to share Kallisthenes fate )

2. Portraying Alexander as 'superior' to Parmenio, both in rejecting his advice and doing something else, and at the same time , scoring points in witticism, enhances the 'Alexander Legend' by putting Alexander in a superior light. This is the more especially so if in reality the advice of the experienced General actually played a part in the youthful Alexander's victories, as might seem logical. With the 'traitor' dead, and his family with him, history could have a different spin put on it to give Alexander ALL the credit...

Arete wrote:Intriguing article. Thank you for the link, Marcus!

I always did think Arrian's account of Persepolis was peculiar.

I have to admit, I don't understand what that articles is actually trying to say.

I thought the issue over what happened at Persepolis has largely been settled by archeology and as nobody writing post-humously can possibly be quoting conversations or speeches verbatim, it is understood by all that such insertions are there to express a philosophical truth and not literal one.

Chris.

True to a certain extent.

All the surviving histories are post Alexander's death, but those historians drew on earlier ones - Ptolemy, Kallisthenes, Nearchus, Aristobulus, Anaximenes, Onesicritus, Hieronymous, Androsthenes, Chares, Epihippus and Medius are all historians believed to have been contemporaneous with Alexander and to have accompanied him on his 'anabasis'......and it is also believed there were 'official' diary type documents, and other records too. Hence it is possible that many of the 'words of Alexander' were recorded, accurately or otherwise.

My point was that the exchanges recorded between Alexander and Parmenio are invariably favourable to Alexander, and to my eyes at least, read more like fiction intended to build up the 'Alexander Legend/Myth/ Romance' than real conversations. Some of the above contemporary historians at least were regarded as 'flatterers' of Alexander.

Hi,

I think that the article raises an interesting issue- certainly bearing in mind the torching would be seen as a culmination of the panhellenic crusade and retribution for Xerxes burning a temple in Athens.

Curtius more than touches on the episode. He certainly dedicates a few paragraphs to Thais of Athens and her convincing the drunken Alexander to torch the palace. Plutarch does more of the same with Thais in the headlines.

It hadn´t occurred to me up to now but of course, Thais´ appearance or prominence in most accounts of the conflagaration would have been heavily due to Ptolemy´s narrative, although her being from Athens ties wonderfully in with the revenge theme for the burning of the temple of Athena.

Reading Arrian´s paragraph on the torching of Persepolis it does seem surprisingly short- especially bearing in mind that Ptolemy was his main source but Arrian did have much more of an interest in all things military so it simply might not have been something he was interested in including in his anabasis.

Best wishes,
Dean.

dean wrote:Hi,

I think that the article raises an interesting issue- certainly bearing in mind the torching would be seen as a culmination of the panhellenic crusade and retribution for Xerxes burning a temple in Athens.

Curtius more than touches on the episode. He certainly dedicates a few paragraphs to Thais of Athens and her convincing the drunken Alexander to torch the palace. Plutarch does more of the same with Thais in the headlines.

It hadn´t occurred to me up to now but of course, Thais´ appearance or prominence in most accounts of the conflagaration would have been heavily due to Ptolemy´s narrative, although her being from Athens ties wonderfully in with the revenge theme for the burning of the temple of Athena.

Reading Arrian´s paragraph on the torching of Persepolis it does seem surprisingly short- especially bearing in mind that Ptolemy was his main source but Arrian did have much more of an interest in all things military so it simply might not have been something he was interested in including in his anabasis.

Best wishes,
Dean.

Hi Dean,
I appreciate that it might seem logical that it was Ptolemy who wrote about his paramour Thais, but actually it comes from Cleitarchus. This is unambiguously stated by Athenaeus 576DE. That's why it's in Curtius and Diodorus (in matching versions), but Arrian disdains to mention it and tries rather unconvincingly to rationalise the destruction. Arrian also applies his usual principles of economy with the truth in failing to explain that Alexander spent several months based at Persepolis and only burnt the palace at the end of that period. Curtius (Cleitarchus) provides far more detail and a much more credible account of events.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Taphoi wrote:Arrian also applies his usual principles of economy with the truth in failing to explain that Alexander spent several months based at Persepolis and only burnt the palace at the end of that period. Curtius (Cleitarchus) provides far more detail and a much more credible account of events.
Best wishes,
Andrew

I personally prefer Arrian's account precisely because it is so short - and because I like him as a character. His personality leaps off his pages: the facts-and-figures mindset of a soldier who is economical to the point of never stating what he thinks is barn-door-obvious, but who has a charming blind spot for subtle human thngs like symbolism - something Alexander excelled at.

Alexander couldn't follow Darius north through the Zagros Mountains in the middle of winter. That's obivous, no need to dwell on it.

Unable to do what he really wanted - take possession of Persia by dealing with Darius personally - Alexander made maximum use of what he did have to achieve the same goal symbolically: he took Persepolis and made it home for his army for 4 months.

At the first sign of spring, he broke camp with a closing ceremony that summed up th essense of his presence in Persia: he set fire to the Apadana, the treasury and the palace of Xerxes.

http://rambambashi.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... ersepolis/

And he planned it well in advance. He had benches built so people could watch. They're still there.

Chris.

chris_taylor wrote:And he planned it well in advance. He had benches built so people could watch. They're still there.

Where? I never saw them.

It is interesting that, in the museum at Persepolis, which is housed in the building usually referred to as the "harem", there are fragments of burned materials from Xerxes' palace, which are almost certainly debris from the destruction in 330BC.
All the best

Thanks Taphoi for the clarification on the source material.

I had understood things completely the wrong way round- by thinking that Ptolemy if anything would have wanted, as a tribute to his wife, give her lasting fame as histories greatest "firebug" of all time!
It seems moreoever that he actually may have wanted to omit her having anything to do with it.

Yet after reading an interesting article by Brian Bosworth, he raises the excellent question as to why would Cleitharcus attribute a role to Thais she never played?

Best regards
Dean.

dean wrote:I had understood things completely the wrong way round- by thinking that Ptolemy if anything would have wanted, as a tribute to his wife, give her lasting fame as histories greatest "firebug" of all time!
It seems moreoever that he actually may have wanted to omit her having anything to do with it.

Yet after reading an interesting article by Brian Bosworth, he raises the excellent question as to why would Cleitharcus attribute a role to Thais she never played?

Yes, exactly!

In the Cleitarchan account, the destruction of Persepolis takes place in two totally distinct phases.

Firstly, Alexander meets the mutilated Greek slaves from the workshops of Persepolis on the road as he approaches the city. He is horrified. This stimulates him to remember all the ills done to the Greeks by the Persians. He takes a very deliberate decision to sack the city whilst camped before it, when it had already been abandoned by its defenders (so was effectively already in his hands). He announced this to a council of his senior commanders. This is a very likely occasion for the objections of Parmenion as recorded by Arrian. However, Alexander also explicitly ordered that the palace itself should be excluded from the sack on this occasion.

Secondly, after Alexander had been based in the palace for several months, and had actually spent a month campaigning through the nearby mountains probably to the south of the city during this period, he celebrated the successful campaign with partying in the palace, whilst planning to resume the pursuit of Darius. It was in this drunken and spontaneous context that Thais initiated the incineration of the palace itself.

This is probably a reasonable version of the actual history. Therefore the suspicion arises that Arrian has taken an objection voiced by Parmenion at the council prior to the initial sack and transposed it into an attempt to rationalise the spontaneous palace burning. If so, it is a flagrant distortion of the history. Arrian must have been aware of the role of Thais, but it certainly did not fit his view of Alexander as a model Roman patrician (I mean "Roman" in the inclusive 2nd century AD sense, where the emperor was a Spanish "Roman" and Arrian himself was a Bithynian Greek "Roman").

It will be interesting to read the evidence for the spectator seating allegedly constructed by Alexander to facilitate viewing of the Persepolis conflagration, although I think Marcus may be right to detect a whiff of furry brown rodent emanating from this.

Best wishes,
Andrew

Taphoi wrote:It will be interesting to read the evidence for the spectator seating allegedly constructed by Alexander to facilitate viewing of the Persepolis conflagration, although I think Marcus may be right to detect a whiff of furry brown rodent emanating from this.

Nicely put, Andrew!

I was at Persepolis in 2008. The Palace of Darius was closed to visitors, but all other parts of the complex were open. I walked through the Palace of Xerxes, as well as the Apadana. I don't remember seeing anything that could be construed as being spectator seating, and there is certainly nothing outside the palace complex itself (except for all the stuff erected by the Shah in 1972). So I would like to hear more - it is perfectly possible that I missed it, but I doubt it, simply because there is so relatively little there!

ATB

I too have never read of a set of stands at Persepolis, given the unliklihood of wood surviving this long evidence might be problematic.

One thing that is not, however, is the clearly directed destruction; of twelve buildings only three were burned; nor have excavations in the commoner's quarters thrown up evidence of the initial sack, to date. Arrian's picture seems confirmed by the archaeology and must be distinguished from rather than melded with the 'Vulgate'. There are times for synthesis but this is not one of them.

So why does Thais get damned as a drunken whore and lauded as the avenger of Athens? Well, since this version is unhistorical it must serve other purposes, moralistic, rhetorical, and/or propagandist. Thais, despite Athenaios, was never Ptolemy's wife, though his bastards by her were recognised and used in the dynastic marriage game.

The tone is certainly 'moral' Alexander allows his troops to sack city which has yielded, gets drunk and permits prostitutes to cavort with the troops and one of them causes the destruction of the Palaces. Curtius certainly milks the scene for all it is worth rhetorically, surely exaggerating the lowliness of Thais; such insults would not sit happily under a Ptolemy. For my own part I see Demetrios Poliorketes in this Alexander.