The Burning of Persepolis

When Alexander the Great arrived in Persepolis, his men took to looting and pillaging the former home of Xerxes, a Persian who had burnt sacred Greek temples. Persepolis was not a palace, but a complex with palaces, halls, and treasuries contained within it. After three months in Persepolis, Alexander and his men set fire to it. However, it is debated entirely how and why this happened. There are two main stories, that of Arrian, and that of Plutarch. Arrian’s version consists of that of Alexander attempting to exert control over the Persian people, to punish them for destroying Greek temples, and to please the Greeks as a sort of exchange after having sacred temples destroyed. Plutarch’s version is that of a drunken party with a drunk Alexander (unsurprisingly). A Greek prostitute by the name Thais gave a speech, tempting Alexander into setting fire to Persepolis, and regaling how she wanted to punish the Persians for their sacrilege to sacred Greek temples. She said that she herself would start the fire so that history would remember a woman for being responsible for inflicting a greater revenge on the Persians than any general ever had. Alexander, drunk, agreed with her speech and the attendants ran through Persepolis with torches. It is believed in both versions that shortly after starting the fire Alexander changed his mind and ordered to have them put out.

Plutarch's version seems much more plausible. Alexander was known for drunkenness, just as Arrian was known to gloss over any part's of Alexander's story that would make him look bad, and so fabricated a very contradictory version that would make him look better. The story is highly contradictory because Alexander wanted the Greeks and the Persians to get along as they were now both his people, and burning down Persepolis was contradictory to just that. Why hadn't Alexander destroyed Persepolis shortly after he arrived? Or after the pillaging and looting had finished? Why wait an entire three months before consciously burning down something he owned? Additionally, he was beginning to implement his policy of fusion. Why create more tensions between the Greeks and the Persians when he was trying to rule them? Despite the war, he held the Persian people and Persian royalty in high regard, he did not actively seek destruction or massacre after he had won the war. Arrian's version is simply full of too much contradiction to make sense, especially when considering how he was an avid fan of Alexander, which is why I believe Plutarch's version is not only more plausible but far more likely to have been entirely true.