The Ancients - Alexander the Great: Through Persian Eyes

Episode Date: September 13, 2020

Conqueror. Destroyer. Convert. Legendary king. It's fair to say that Alexander the Great's relationship with ancient Persia was complicated. Despite conquering the Persian Empire, Alexander admired and adopted many aspects of Persian culture. Despite sacking the prestigious Persian centre of Persepolis, he honoured the great Persian king Cyrus and married a Persian princess. Alexander may have conquered the Persian Empire, but ultimately this conqueror became a willing 'captive' of Persian culture.Alexander was extraordinary - one of the most written about figures in history. But what did the ancient Iranians think of him?I was delighted to be joined by Professor Ali Ansari in this podcast to chat through the complicated history of Alexander the Great in the Persian narrative. A once-hated figure, overtime he was adopted into Iranian legend. This was a fascinating chat. Alexander Romance, Immortals, Persepolis, Persians, Parthians – it has it all.Some definitions from the pod:The Alexander Romance - a legendary account of the life and exploits of Alexander the Great that remained popular into medieval times. Various versions exist (Greek, Syrian, Armenian, French, Jewish, Persian and more).Zoroastrianism - the central religion of the Persian Empire (e.g. the Zoroastrian priests at Persepolis).The Seleucids - one of the Successor kingdoms that emerged in the aftermath of Alexander the Great's death. Named after its founder, Seleucus / Seleukos. Controlled Persia for over 100 years.The Parthians - an Iranian / Hellenistic culture that ruled ancient Persia after the Seleucids. They remain the longest single dynasty to have ruled Iran (c.500 years).The Immortals - the 10,000 strong guard of the Persian Achaemenid King.

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes, and if you would like the Ancient ad-free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. Today it's an Alexander the Great podcast, but one maybe from a slightly unusual angle, because we're going to be looking at Alexander the Great from the Persian perspective. And this was absolutely fascinating how Alexander's perception in Iranian history transforms over time from this hated figure

into this legendary Iranian king. Joining me to talk about this remarkable transformation and Alexander the Great's perception as a whole is Ali Ansari. Ali is a professor from the University of St Andrews and he is one of the leading authorities on the history of Iran. Enjoy. Ali, it's great to have you on the podcast. Thank you. Very good to be here. We are talking about Alexander the Great. He's one of the most complicated figures in history, and this is no less true when looking at him through the Persian perspective.

It is. I mean, it's an interesting encounter the Persians have with Alexander, because if you look at the accounts, contemporary accounts, and certainly the Zoroastrian accounts, there's nothing very great about Alexander. He's really described as Alexander the Destroyer. He's not someone who they have a huge amount of affection for. And it's often quite difficult to convey that to Western audiences who've always been brought up with the notion of Alexander as a sort of a great romantic hero and liberator in some ways. Of course, from the Persian perspective, he's not liberating much at all. But then there's

a second interpretation of Alexander, which which is essentially the alexander romance which is integrated into the great narrative epic uh poem of uh the persian world the book of kings and in there of course in in classically uh co-opted alexander actually becomes a persian prince so so in becoming a persian prince he actually becomes legit i think basically he has a a persian father and a greek i mean obviously they call him greek in the alexander romance um mother and he's basically half persian but as such he does have a claim so it's not so much an invasion there and then of course in the alexander romance which is integrated into that um he does all these heroic things that you see very commonly in other alex Alexander romances that

are popular around the world but initially of course he's seen as someone who's highly destructive and really a destroyer of the Persian empire and civilization even if really in practice from the Greek perspective and Hellenic perspective certainly Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire was a bit of a mixed, shall we say, it wasn't really entirely the conquest of Hellenism over the Persians, because Alexander himself became quite tempted and seduced by all things Persian and started to adopt all sorts of Persian ways. So, you know, in some ways, it's a much, much more complex inheritance than either narrative really gives out. Indeed, of course. I mean, let's start then with the more infamous side of

Alexander in Persian eyes with when Alexander arrives and the conquest. But just before Alexander arrives, the Persian Empire, this is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest empire in the world. Well, for its time, the Persian Empire was the largest contiguous land empire in history. It was obviously for its time, and we have to bear in mind it's very early days in the historical record but it clearly was uh regarded as something of a phenomenon at the time because most near eastern empires at the time occupied parts of the near east either you know the levant mesopotamia you know occasionally anatolia obviously the e the Egyptians obviously stretched a little bit. Here you have an empire that basically combines them all and stretches essentially at its maximum size, which of course with all empires, these are sort of

brief periods, but nonetheless at its maximum extent, it's stretched essentially from the Indus and the Oxus in the East. So covering huge tranches of Central Asia, what we have now, neoxis in the east so covering huge tranches of central asia what we have now central asia through to uh essentially the balkans thrace so you know one stage macedonia was really part of the persian empire actually of course and then through actually to libya so not just egypt but through up the coast of libya so it was vast i mean it was absolutely vast and what's probably more uh interesting about it is the way it was held together. I mean, it was largely held together through administration, government, basically good government. So I think it's excessive to say that, you know, they didn't have a, you know, there wasn't military conquest, of course, there was. And, you know, the Persians were just as good as anyone else at putting down

rebellions. I mean, we don't want to be, you know, silly about it. On the other hand, one of the things the Greeks found, of course, and one of the things the greeks found of course and one of the reasons alexander was encouraged uh in his own gambit to conquer the empire was actually it didn't have a vast standing army in that sense it wasn't like the roman army with legions it it relied on levies it had a sort of a core unit basically the guard and largely the empire was was held together by the idea of you know the justice that the king provided you know you paid tribute to the king so it wasn't a it wasn't a militarized state in that sense uh not as later empires might be um it was far more um based on sort of standards of government justice and so on and so forth and what people

believe. So there was a sort of an interest in some of the subject peoples, interestingly enough, in being part of the empire. But of course, when some elements rebelled, such as the Egyptians, it took an enormous time for the Persians to bring them back under control, if ever. And of course, the Greeks often fought as mercenaries for various groups, particularly with the Egyptians and others. And they soon discovered, really, including in their own defense of their own homeland against the Persian invasions of Darius and Xerxes, that not only could they hold their own, in a sense, and sort of defending what was very mountainous terrain, because, you know, their form of warfare suited, obviously, their terrain. very mountainous terrain because you know their form of warfare suited obviously their terrain um and the persians who are much more mobile in terms of their warfare they couldn't really uh

extend their their grip that much but they soon discovered throughout the uh centuries of pax persica if i can put it that way that as a mercenary as and others and the famous example is xenophon of course so xenophon actually takes his 10,000. He actually goes to a Persian colonist, Cyrus the Younger, hires these 10,000 mercenaries to sort of go and fight for the throne. Of course, they lose. And then these mercenaries have to, you know, the long march back to the sea, basically through Anatolia. And what they discover really is that, goodness, you know, you can get right to the heart of the empire and out of it without really being harassed or anything. I mean, it's, you know, it was a hellish journey, but it could be done. You know, this was the thing.

So in the Greek mindset, the empire was militarily vulnerable. It could be done. And this is what, of course, encouraged Alexander at the end of the day. But the Persians were always used to basically buying off. They always felt that they didn't have anything to worry about the Greeks because the Greeks were too busy beating up each other. you know persian gold would always help to suit one side or the other and in actual fact you know even when you look at the greek and persian wars or as you know as the persians might call it the greek wars they weren't particularly fussed about you know the persian the greek wars i mean basically the end of the day what the

persians did not achieve by military conquest they achieved basically by political and and financial means you know they basically got the spartans to beat up the athenians essentially you know so i mean it was you know it was essentially as long as they keep the divided there wasn't a problem alexander or philip his father's great achievement was to unite the greeks on this great persian venture and of course you know the conquest you know it wasn't quite as easy as people make out I mean it was a longer term thing I mean obviously in the in the long view of history it was it was seen as something really quite dramatic but there were some pretty major battles fought along the way and ultimately what really mattered I suppose on on the on the Greek side and the Macedonian side was both the genius of Alexander himself and his boldness. I mean, he was extremely bold, but also the sophistication, in a sense, or the way in which Greek, you know, the Greek army at the time of the Macedonian army, the phalanx and all that.

the phalanx and all that i mean they they had a different way in warfare that they were able really to outmaneuver really far larger persian armies that were less organized in that sense at that stage i mean this was the problem that's fascinating when you mention how it was they were able to get into the heartlands of the persian empire and in that regard when we look at alexander's campaigns and we look at galgaamela, even the Basar the Persian Gate and his arriving in Mesopotamia and Persia, this is a brutal conquest. I mean, any resistance is snuffed out, as it were. Well, it's not only that. I mean, I think, you know, Alexander basically, I mean, if you look, you know, at his treatment of the Greek mercenaries who were fighting, of course, for the Persians at the time, he wanted to identify this as a sort of a Greek crusade,

I mean, to use a somewhat anachristic term in this sense, but nonetheless, he wanted it as a sort of a Greek crusade. And with the many Greeks actually fighting for the Persian king, this was not the done thing, so he was pretty ruthless with them. And given, you know, Alexander's rather healthy self-conceit, if I can put that, conceit of himself, you know, he obviously thought he had some sort of divine mission and he really was divine, you know alexander's rather healthy self-conceit if i can put that conceit of himself you know that he obviously thought he had some sort of divine mission and he really was divine you know whatever i mean you know anything goes what's interesting about it i suppose at the end of the

day is as brutal as he was in the conquest and it you know the persians resist i mean this is the interesting thing of course is that the closer you get to the persian hard lands the more the persians really fight i mean then they really realize something's up here but so you know he has to really and of course you've got to bear in mind he's a long way from home you know from a strategic perspective for him you know there's no there's no room for for mistakes at this stage you see i mean the force is fairly small so he also does i think um at the end of the day realize that there has to be an element of political co-option at work you know particularly with elements of the persian aristocracy that are coming over so the defeat of the dynasty means that basically alexander realizes with the modest

forces that he has i mean one of the things that i think people don't often fully grasp is the size of the territory in which we're dealing with i mean if you think of the size of the territory in which we're dealing with. I mean, if you think of the size of the Persian Empire, even in its, you know, the Western reaches of it, you're really talking about the size of Western Europe, at least, you know, so you're fighting, what is Alexander's army, 30, 40,000? I mean, you know, you're not talking about a huge number. So traipsing across this huge territory, in order to secure it there has to be a balance between the military and the political now the problem with some of the political of course and this goes to his sacking of persepolis this is a lot of debate about whether the burning of persepolis was deliberate or not and you know obviously the persians thought it was complete sacrilege and

this whole thing and um you know what he was doing was basically to wipe out you know the memory of the sort of the archimedes i mean the balance of the evidence is probably that it was an accident and that he really regretted it you know he had a bit of a drunken night and uh so on and so forth but you know the argument is on the argument retrospectively given is of course it was revenge for the burning of the acropolis i on balance think that he you know he's the small person i mean alexander having conquered it basically thought that he, you know, he's the small person. I mean, Alexander, having conquered it, basically thought this was his, you know, so there's no point in burning your own, you know, destroying your own fortune. But it's quite clear at the same time that I think certainly among his, what the records say, certainly among his own troops, a lot of them were probably less sympathetic.

I mean, you know, for Alexander, he wanted to build a universal empire and the universal empire required him to sort of build and co-opt with some of the elements he found there. I think some of his senior officers were much more sceptical about this notion that, you know, they should all marry into and sort of buy into the Persian silence. But, you know, there's this argument that Alexander, of course, became very seduced by this whole idea of Persian kingship. And there's a wonderful book by a French historian of the period where he basically argues that Alexander was the last of the Archimedes. I mean, he basically, he was the last of the Persian kings. Now, there's an interesting tale in that, of course, because if you go to the Alexander romance that is then introduced into Persian mythology, in a sense, that's exactly what he is. You know, he basically comes in.

And so in a curious way, the Persian mythology is also no less true if i can put it that way because what it's basically saying is whether he was genetically the son of the persian king or not which obviously he wasn't the fact is he subsumed and became seduced by all this stuff and and really became more persian than the persians in some way much to the disgust of his of his officer call so i think you know there was a huge i mean i think where the the the zoroastrian priesthood in particular take a real dislike to him of course is that whether there is this sort of co-option and whatever there is definitely a hellenization that goes on certainly after alexander's death and that hellenization sees the destruction in some ways of the sort of privileged position obviously that the Zoroastrian

priesthood had and you know like all good societies it's the Zoroastrian priesthood or the priesthood that writes the histories of course so what they're doing is they're writing they're deeply unhappy about Alexander because Alexander isn't a good Zoroastrian I mean he may be a good Persian but he's not a good Zoroastrian but one of the you know one of the things to show his sort of his co-option is there's this wonderful story and you can correct me if i go i think it's an arian where he goes he visits the tomb of cyrus the great and he's apparently deeply moved by it and you know that he orders that the tomb be basically protected and cleared up and whatever and there's this very poignant inscription that they claim is on there where it says you know that cyrus has the inscription on there says you know man I am Cyrus founder of the Persian empire do not

begrudge me this simple monument I mean it's an enormously powerful sort of statement and I think it says that you know Alexander sat there and basically pondered you know the legacy so in that way you know he is in some ways sees himself as the heir funnily enough of cyrus and of course this causes problems with his own with his own forces so you know there's that wonderful phrase that people use i don't know where it gets sort of apocryphal but they've seen a captive persia took prisoner her conquerors well you know alexander is another example of this person who goes out to really cause hell gets there and sort of is seduced by all and then becomes more persian the persians so what you find in the narratives is that the macedonian uh dynasty the seljukids who take over so lucius you know

after alexander's death i mean that dynasty lasts for about i know 100 years a century or so and there is quite a lot of hellenization that goes on obviously in that part of the world the parthians who then succeed restore this sort of iranian narrative uh but it's a distinct iranian narrative it's an eastern iranian narrative the one that feeds the sort of mythology but of course because of the hellenization they then imbue draw in the alexander romance into that it's a marriage of cultures and in some ways then of course the parthians achieve what the macedonians couldn't do and that is the marriage of the two cultures they basically incorporate but whereas under the macedonians they were the hellenized were the top dog with the persians of the lower element now with the parthians you get the iranian stroke persian but they're iranian more properly because they're east from the eastern iranian

lands they become the top dog and then incorporate elements of hellenization within it including that image of alexander who then becomes this rather mythical figure i mean he doesn't really bear much relation to the historical figure uh but then you know as always with these stories all the nasty things he did suddenly get lost you You know, they forget about it. All they concentrate on is heroic. He's heroic. And he becomes a bit of a paladin, actually, in a way. He becomes a sort of a knight errant more than anything else. And that's really the image of Alexander. You get Iskandar. You know, I mean, Iskandar is a very popular name in Persian. And he's seen as entirely legit. He's part of the family. He's part of the family. He's not seen as someone, as something alien at all.

But at the beginning, of course, he was seen as something alien. I mean, he was seen as something very, very destructive. And it's often, as I say, very difficult to get people grown up in Western culture, the Western narratives of the emergence of the West, to actually recognise this, that from a Persian perspective, he was seen as an absolute troublemaker. I mean, you mentioned it earlier, as one of the key examples of him as a troublemaker is at Persepolis. And why in Persian and Iranian history is the sacking of Persepolis so significant? Well, the interesting thing about the narrative, of course that the sake of persepolis is significant because from a zoroastrian perspective and um from an you know

an ancient and authentic if i was to say ancient persian perspective persepolis is the ceremonial capital and i hope one day you'll get the opportunity to go there by the way because it's a magnificent um magnificent ruin if i can put it that way but it's a magnificent sort of setup if you look at persepolis one of the striking things when you go there is that the freezes that you have on the wall for instance are not military seeds if you go to the assyrian you know you just go to the british museum and you have a look at the syrian war freezes it's sieges and murder and slaughter and this sort of thing it's all about the glories of the kings on their wars if you go to persepolis there's not any scene of war fighting there's nothing basically the freezers are you do get the guards so you get the immortals and

others and they're wonderful and you've got to remember i mean one of the striking things about persepolis is that all these freezers a bit like these roman statues that we um we always imagine they're all these you know white marble and in fact they're all painted you know in their origins they're all painted they're all in glorious technicolor and these you know, white marble and blah, blah, blah. In fact, they're all painted. You know, in their origins, they were all painted. They were all in glorious technicolour. And these, you know, long friezes of Persian guards would have looked wonderfully impressive. And then what you have is a series of the subject peoples of the empire coming bearing gifts to the ruler.

You know, there's no one, you know, it's not like they're in chains being taken to things. They're just, you know, and the reason is, is because, of course, you know, Persepolis is a ceremonial capital where the persian new year was celebrated so when it came to the persian new year in march at the beginning of spring the persian king would go and sit himself up and persepolis set himself up and then you know all the various subject people would come and give gifts and tribute and so it had this sort of iconic status really for them and it was seen as phenomenally wealthy i mean it wasn't the most i have to say um important of the cow i don't think there was a single capital in the person

i mean there was various capitals that they used from ekbatana in the north modern hamadan they had susa babylon was actually used uh quite often as a sort of a a. But Persepolis, in a sense, was this, you know, it was the heart, it was the core, it was the heartland. It was where it was almost like, you know, Winchester for the English, if I can put it that way.

You know, it was this idea, this is where it all began. It's not true that's where it all began, but nonetheless, that's where they sort of had this thing. So for Alexander, it was symbolic. I mean, it was enormously symbolic that to destroy Persian power, Persepolis, in a a sense had to go but as i said you know the evidence is unclear about whether

he thought you know this was a deliberate act of vandalism and if it was deliberate then it was an act of vandalism there's no doubt about it but it was um uh you know as i said there are doubts about it i mean the other thing i should say about persepolis which is worth just noting is that the architecture of the city as well was an imperial architecture so one of the striking things of course the iranians don't normally are very grateful for this pointing out but if you look at the marvelous columns and the huge um you know you go through the gateway of nations and you go to the upper dana and this all these were all built by greek masons i mean it's you know it's basically the subject peoples of the empire came and offered their services and built this fantastic cosmopolitan city effectively so it wasn't like you could say this was a persian architecture because persian architecture at this time was basically a

a cosmic you know sort of a melange of all the subject peoples that came in so of course you know what you had in the upper dana and others were essentially in a sense buildings on the greek style but done on a persian scale if i can put it that way so it was far greater than any acropolis could point out uh it was huge uh in terms of a sort of a columned but roofed building supported by these enormous columns. You still see some of them, you know, now in the state of disrepair, obviously. But it was a striking difference. So it was a symbol, really, of Persian power.

And as a consequence, I think that's what the value for Alexander was in getting there. Because actually, by the time he got there, to be perfectly honest, in terms of the physical Persian military martial power, it was finished. I mean, it was done by then as it goes on as Alexander he goes to the far east then he comes back and you mentioned on you touched on it earlier with visiting Cyrus's tomb at Parsagade and all that but do we start seeing him really adopting more and more Persian customs and Persian practices yes I mean that's the thing one thing I one thing if I may just add on the Persepolis thing, is of course, as a ceremonial capital, it wasn't, the other thing to bear in mind, it wasn't a walled city or anything. I mean, it wasn't defended in that sense. It was actually

quite open. So that's also quite interesting. And that also signifies in some ways the sort of empire the Persian Empire was. It didn't need those protections. It was seen as so far in the heartland of the Persian Empire that nobody's going to touch it but yes you're quite right i mean i think alexander takes on more and more of the characteristics of of persian kingship now there's a question mark here with scholars again you know we don't know that particularly on the question of divinity for instance i mean there's a sort of notion that the idea that alexander saw himself as some sort of divine uh king i mean how we understand the question divinity of course in that whether it's divine right or whatever um some people argue that's actually a very hellenic idea it was not a persian idea and that they didn't have this idea of their

kings being quote divine but they did have the notion of the king being divinely legitimized if i can put it that way you know there was a divine order and i think in some ways what um alexander liked about i mean what he it's difficult to say you know it's it's difficult to convey this in some ways to to a modern sort of leadership but of course if you were to divide between the civilization and barbarism for the people of the ancient world and classical world i mean i mean even the greeks obviously thought the macedonians were in some ways somewhat barbarous you know but in their own way but the point was was that the persians were the epitome of civilization i mean they were what constitutes civilization so it seems natural in some ways in those days that the greeks although

they would have in their own conception regarded themselves as civilized, and the others, the non-Greek speakers basically is talking a barbarous tongue. What's difficult for us in some ways to get is when obviously the Greeks are using that language, they're not describing these people as savages. I mean, they're not barbarous is a quite a distinct, there's a distinct understanding to it. But it's also true that you see throughout the 200 years of the Persian Empire, Greek account after Greek account, even Aeschylus, you know, in his play on the Persian

whatever, there's a sort of a annoying respect for the Persians. I mean, they're not free. They're all subject to the king. But there's also something about them that isn't, you know, we're not talking about tribes out in the wild and beyond i mean these are people who are quite uh sophisticated in their own way

and i think of course that's what that's what alexander ultimately is seduced about he's seduced by the style the fashion the culture the approach you know the luxury the wealth of it i mean the wealth of it would have blown his mind really i mean it was just something else so i think all these things impressed him and i think you know the the thing is and i'm speculating here to a point but you know you get this impression that he grows up with a certain impression of the persians he then goes there and has has a sort of a conversion and he says actually they're not quite as awful as i thought they were you know i mean they actually do things that are quite interesting so i think that's what you know he bought into and and then what he decides to do effectively as i say is to become a persian king

and this appalls i mean what he wants to do is have a marriage between these two things but it's quite difficult it's a it's an unequal marriage in a cultural terms it's an unequal marriage so it becomes quite difficult for him to sustain. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had he lived. I mean, had he lived, it would have been very interesting to see how he would have managed it. You know, we sort of know that he went, he adopted these practices to an extent because obviously of the opposition that then emerged. You know, obviously his men were happy about it or his generals weren't happy about it so he'd obviously in their view gone too far yes are there any of alexander's generals who really share alexander's well how much how much he adopts

persian culture as it were it's difficult i mean i don't know enough about the sort of successes in that sense i mean i get the impression when you look at the seljuk kids and then you know the ptolemy and the others that they all do actually a fairly good job at adopting the local customs i mean they're not you know even the cell you i mean at the end of the day the cell you kids they have to adopt certain uh manners and mores and others in order to be able to govern for as long as they do and essentially what was an alien land it says something to the strength of helenism of course that they were able to do it for so long but also that they were able to impart and leave a lasting influence of hellenism i mean it's certainly true that there was that and you know greek in a sense becomes

one of the languages of the middle east in that sense so um you see that in some of the inscriptions of course that you have inscriptions that are then in middle persian you know and then you have greek and others um but ultimately it isn't able by sheer weight of demographics and sheer weight of the sort of the i wouldn't want to say they're a drop in the ocean but you know as time goes on they become more and more diluted within this persian ocean don't they say it becomes extremely difficult to sustain it and they become more and more i think going native is too strong but certainly you get that impression and you know if you look at the seljuk kids and the and battles of success, of course, what the Seleucids are doing are basically, you know, in terms of strategic or their own contests and battles are basically what the Persians might have been doing anyway.

Fighting off the Egyptians, fighting off the, you know, basically that's what they're doing. And, of course, the most powerful of the successors is Seleucius, who takes over the heartland of the Persians. I mean, that's where the wealth and power is, in fact. There you go. There you go. And I guess also with the latter years of Alexander's reign, of course, with the majority of the sources that classicists look at today being Greek and Roman, we don't really hear about the Persians as it were. Do we have any idea of how the persians viewed alexander what they thought of alexander in like the last few years when he's showing persian tendencies it's difficult it's difficult to say i mean you're quite right to say that our sources are few and far between

the the sources that do provide basically uh a negative view of him are essentially religious sorastrian sources but of course a lot of those are much later you know they're redacted much later and they're part of a tradition, a tradition which is largely antagonistic. But contemporaneously, it's extremely difficult. I mean, it's extremely difficult. In a sense, what we're doing is we're building a picture with the benefit of hindsight and how things developed. You know, what we do know, as I said, in the literary tradition is that Alexander simply becomes subsumed within that wider Persian-Iranian tradition. literary tradition is that Alexander simply becomes subsumed within that wider Persian-Iranian tradition. The Zoroastrian narratives that come down to us are later, but they obviously incorporate

that tradition that they inherit from people. And, you know, Alexander's very clearly the destroyer. I mean, they're not pulling their punches there. I mean, he's someone who's a great, great evil. So they have no soft spot for him at all. So how does following Alexander's death, how does Alexander transform, as it were, from destroyer to legendary Iranian king, Persian king? I think the process is one that comes with the Parthians. Now, the Parthians are, ironically, in some ways, despite the fact that historically, they're one of the least covered, even in Iranian narratives, dynasties. They as a dynasty, they essentially ruled Iran or what we know as Iran for 500 years. They're the longest, the single longest dynasty, longer than the Sasanians actually who succeed them.

But of course, like all dynasties, you know, the succeeding dynasty also always does its best to erase the memory of the previous one. And the Parthians, in a sense, succ sense succumb to that effectively they suffered from that but what seems to be the the sort of process that takes place is that Parthians come in from the east when they overthrow the last of the Seleucids in the third century BC and gradually take over they start you know they're quite Hellenized they take over and they they they adopt certain practices of the the greeks that were there but they also bring with them from the east in the eastern iranian lands basically what would you know now be eastern iran afghanistan that's what central asian turkmenistan those areas they bring with them this corpus of a sort of an iranian narrative myth which actually becomes the basis of the mythological history, the Book of Kings that the Iranians then adopt. The Archimedes become basically

shoved to the margins. I mean, that's one of the great curiosities of Iranian historical writing, is that even through the medieval period, by the way, when you were sort of looking at Iranian history, the Archimedes themselves, even the key ones, Cyrus and all that, are forgotten effectively. I don't want to over want to over egg that but certainly their names are largely forgotten the persepolis for instance becomes renamed i mean persepolis becomes the throne of jamshid and jamshid is a mythological king because a lot of the iranians that go there look at this monumental thing and they say who the hell could have built this well not any normal person it had to be a sort of a great you know wise law you know from from mythical past and giants must have

brought in and others and supernatural beings must have built this platform so you get this mythological history basically displaces what is the western iranian narrative of the archimedes and others and within that i think because of that merger, essentially, between the Parthians and the Hellenic, the Seleucids that they essentially subsume, you know, part of the peace process, if I can put it that way, is to incorporate an Alexander romance within their own narrative. And in a curious way, of course, it has a very good political purpose, because what you're doing is you're incorporating a hellenized elite and by actually making alexander a persian prince everyone's happy you know everyone's happy so you know then the alexander

romance becomes embellished as you go through and i mean of course it in by the middle ages it becomes much more flourishing but ironically you, Xerxes and Darius and Cyrus are all largely sort of like relegated to the margins. I mean, Cyrus does turn up in certain areas, but not as this great conquering king. I mean, he's relegated to the status of a sub-king and nobody really knows who he is. It's only much, much later in the 19th century

when the archaeologists start to decipher this stuff. So what has always baffled historians of ancient Iran is, of course, because Greek and Hebrew would have been known, is obviously the Greeks did talk about Cyrus. You know, the Hebrews, of course, talked about Cyrus in the Bible. about so it is in the bible and yet somehow the iranians chose i think deliberately chose uh to ignore it and actually chose this much more mythical inheritance that they had because it was just much more fantastical and much much more exciting this book of kings you know because it's really a creationist and that's what they that's what they adopted that's absolutely fascinating that there was an iranian alexander romance yeah yeah no i mean it's basically adopted i think from western alexander romance as they just incorporated there i have to say i mean i'm

speculating as to how it happens because you know we don't know how these narratives displace each other but it seems to me that it happened during the parthian period and then it's absorbed into the sassanian period and it becomes part of that and it's part of this interesting you know that the way that the iranians define it i mean this is uh if i may I sort of, in a sense, conclude with this, but it's an interesting. So whereas in the Western narratives, you have the Greek and Persian wars and you have this sort of East and West. In the Iranian narratives, it's actually an inter-family dispute. So the way they look at it is they say there's a king of the world and this king of the world has three sons. of the world and this king of the world has three sons and of the three sons one of them takes the east i.e china or what basically becomes the turks in the east one of them takes rome because they

always called the west rome by this stage right they become the greeks or the romans but there's no room but the plum the best one goes to the youngest son and that's the plum and that's iran you see so he gets it now what happens is the two older brothers are jealous of um the younger son and they murder him and of course it's that fratricidal war that in that way that's how the iranians explain this sort of east west or you know center east west conflict this this this is a fratricidal war and on the one hand it explains why it's so bitter but on the other hand i think it's a wonderful explanatory way of saying well actually it's a family dispute isn't it so we should all be able to we should ultimately recognize that and get on absolutely you know i mean it's it's it's it's it's a much more i think nuanced and interesting

explanatory tool rather than the sort of Herodotus notion of... East versus West, yes. And Herodotus, by the way, you know, Herodotus being a Persian subject, of course, but, you know, we shan't mention that. But the, you know, this East-West dichotomy, which really is a much later thing, actually, to be honest. It's a much later thing that comes out really from, I think you will know better than me on this, but, you know, from the Roman period. I mean, the Alexander, the myth of Alexander really becomes, you know, exaggeration is not the right term, but it really becomes part of a sort of a narrative epic under the Romans who want to sort of emphasise, you know, their own East-West conflict. You're absolutely right. They do. And for their own reasons, too. Exactly.

Ali, that was fantastic. Thank you for coming on the show thank you well anytime