pothos.org

Dear Nick,
Good to hear from you. You've hit on the great black hole - the paucity of Persian sources for Alexander's invasion. It devolves to speculation. I think that we can be fairly certain that in general most Persians were less than euphoric in their response to an invasion that intermittently left rubble and a landscape pockmarked with the litter of corpses in its wake. Persepolis was the ceremonial capital of the Persian Empire, a showcase, and, as the artifacts testify, the opulent symbolic center of an empire that stretched from the Nile to the Indus and the Jaxartes to the Indian Ocean. Parmenio's pointed objections to its destruction were in part motivated by his concern for the response many Persians might have to an act that must have seemed tantamount to colossal sacrilegious vandalism. Response in Greece? We don't know. This certainly was a blown opportunity for Alexander, ordinarily a master at public relations when it came to the Greek speaking world. If this was thought of as the climax of the invasion, an ironic and grand response to the impious Persian destruction wrought on the Athenian acropolis in 480, and I were Alexander, I would have my entire entourage of poets, historians, painters, sculptors, etc., sitting in front of me as I stood brandishing a torch with the palace complex behind me. Then, I would deliver an artful and eloquent retributive speech that would have left my words indelibly inscribed on the psyche of the Greek mind. Alexander himself regretted what he had done (and/or how it was done) six years later (Arrian) as he walked among the ruins there. How did the Greeks feel about it? We don't know. Again, conjecture. We can be certain, I should think, that they thought the Persians had gotten exactly what they deserved. Did it enhace their respect for Alexander? Doubtful. Athenians, for example, would never forget how a thousand of their men had fallen at Chaeronea. And, they were no doubt grateful that he was wreaking havoc elsewhere and not in Hellas. (cont.)

(cont.)
Aristotle was in all likelihood delighted by the news of Persepolis. He was contemptuous of "the barbarian" and bitter over the crucifixion of his father-in-law Hermias of Atarneus by the Persians -apparently for treasonous correspondence with Philip. Aristotle learned of Hermias' death while teaching Alexander at Mieza and the philosopher wrote a Hymn to Arete at that time placing Hermias in the company of such illustrious figures as Heracles, Achilles, Castor & Polydeuces - all of whom would figure in Alexander's career. In a fragment of a letter of Aristotle to Alexander (believed by many to be genuine), Aristotle advises Alexander to treat the Greeks as a leader (hegemon) and the barbarians as if they were plants or animals. Once again (see my previous communique) Alexander, this time fortunately, ignored Aristotle's advice and did the best he could to galvanize Persian support for his rule (not by burning their ceremonial capital). Aristotle's overall influence on Alexander is another kettle of fish. His encyclopedic intellectual appetite and store of knowledge must have mesmerized young Alexander who had an insatiable curiosity. I was interested in Aristotle's possible training as a physician since his father, Nicomachus, was the court physician to Alexander's paternal grandfather at Pella. Aristotle may well have trained Alexander in the medical arts as well since the king's astuteness in this area is well documented. Alexander may also have been interested in Aristotle's discussion of godlike men in his Politics. Susan (in this thread)deals convincingly with your question on the burning of the sacred books. I too heard this story from a Zoroastrian priest (Dhalla) in Essex, England back in the 80's. Back tomorrow. Best, John

Dear fellow aficionados of the great one,
I've just been reminded of some pressing work with a deadline attached to it. Must disappear sooner than anticipated. I'll be reading the postings when I get a chance, but not writing any for a while. Best to all.
John O'Brien