Why did Alexander burn Persepolis?

The question of why Alexander burned Persepolis is keeping historians busy for many centuries. Even the otherwise so meticulous Arrian offers no actual response, while Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch, in their elaborate recount, do not provide any satisfactory answer either.

The subject was treated recently by Anthony Wright in an article published by academia.eu. Few historians have indeed scrutinized the site of Persepolis. Maybe because archaeological excavations have not provided conclusive elements or because the study of the site has not been as thorough as it should have been.

So far, they have established that some buildings, such as the Apadana, the Hall of the One Hundred Columns, and the Treasury, show extensive evidence of fire, while others – like the small Tripylon that connects the Apadana to the Hall of 100 Columns -, carry no signs of being burned. Since the fire would be concentrated on those palaces built by Xerxes, it seems evident that Alexander meant to take revenge for Xerxes’ burning of the Acropolis in Athens some 150 years earlier. 

Research had shown that the Apadana, the Hall of 100 Columns, and the Treasury had been filled with flammable material before the fire was ignited. In the Apadana, for instance, they found charcoaled remains of ignitable material over a length of eight meters by one and a half meters, 60 cm deep. This discovery would imply that the fire was meant to destroy the contents of the palaces rather than the structure itself.

The next question is whether the fire of Persepolis was premeditated. We know that Parmenion advised against it, which would lead us to believe that the fire was lit on purpose. But what is the value of Parmenion’s opinion in this matter? Would Alexander truly have listened (here and on other occasions) to his general’s counsel? On the other hand, the auteur assumes that if Alexander repented immediately, the fire must result from a drunken revelry – led or not by Thais (see: Fire over Persepolis). Whatever the case, it seems we still have no clear-cut answer to the motive of the fire or Alexander’s repentance. Who knows, after all, Alexander may not have repented at all. 

The general consensus is still that the fire and the sack of Persepolis were meant to avenge the Persian destruction of Athens. This opinion is indeed formulated in most of our Greek sources. What happened to the Persian sources, I wonder? Our history is still being told based on our Western literature, while the Persians most certainly kept their own records. The Cyrus cylinder is the most striking example (see: The Cyrus cylinder and ancient Persia: a new beginning). Another significant clay tablet is the one recounting the Persian version of the Battle of Gaugamela (see: The troops of the king deserted him). Like so many others, this tablet belongs to the Astronomical Diaries that were kept in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk. Over the past two centuries, millions of clay tablets have surfaced from all over Mesopotamia, and the majority still need to be deciphered, leaving us with wide lacunas. A significant number of them are still resting in the vaults of museums all over the world, but scholars capable of reading and/or deciphering the cuneiform tablets are limited. Consequently, significant texts from these tablets only surface piecemeal.

Some scholars believe that Alexander intended to send a clear message to King Darius (who was still on the run) and the Persians in general that the days of the Achaemenids were over. The fire was an unmistakable message, but I cannot believe it was meant to signal the end of the Achaemenids as such. When Alexander finally caught up with Darius, killed by his own kinsman Bessus, he covered the king’s body with his own cloak – a real sign of respect. He then instructed to take Darius’ remains to Queen Sisygambis for a proper burial (see: Alexander in hot pursuit of Bessus). 

Treating the body of King Darius with such reverence does not fit the message Alexander would have sent from Persepolis to signal that the days of the Achaemenids were over. Besides, Alexander incorporated the Achaemenid empire into the new world he planned to create as part of his plan to unite East and West, sealed during the Mass Wedding in Susa in 324 BC. Both Arrian and Curtius see the destruction of Persepolis as a demonstration of Alexander’s new power, although they may not have understood his true vision.

However, the article does not question why Alexander stayed in Persepolis for four months. All we know is that he led a short campaign into the interior of Persia proper to reduce all the villagers to his power, devastating their fields. He returned about 30 days later. What happened during the remaining three months is everyone’s guess.

In the end, there is no clear answer to why Alexander did burn Persepolis. The Greek allies and our Greek sources would have seen it as the completion of their Pan-Hellenic crusade to avenge Xerxes. But that view may be too simplistic considering that Alexander’s behavior also had widespread repercussions on his own future. He was only at the beginning of his conquest of Asia, with many more years of campaigning ahead to forge his new empire.