ABSTRACT

In the twenty-five years since my article on Agis III a great deal has been written on the subject, as part of the explosion in what one might call the Alexander industry. Here as elsewhere, theories long disproved keep being revived, at best slightly dressed up for cosmetic effect. In particular, Tarn’s statement (quoted in my article) that the burning of the palace area at Persepolis was ‘a sign to Asia that E-sagila … was avenged and Achaemenid rule ended’ keeps reappearing in less naïvely inappropriate forms, although it is not only without the slightest support in any source—indeed, Parmenio’s reported reproach to Alexander makes an excellent case against it—but, as I pointed out, is both contrary to the whole of Alexander’s policy, as he had carefully been developing it in his anabasis from the coast, and meaningless in the political and cultural context of the Achaemenid kingdom. In this restricted space, I shall naturally not be able to consider more than a very few discussions concerning only a few of the points raised in my article. But the points are important in any evaluation of the history of Alexander III of Macedon, and in numerous areas touching upon that history. 1