down Persepolis to rout Darius, as we see a very practical approach to the Persians. Further
supporting this, is his later purge of the satraps. Only two Macedonian satraps were
removed, the majority were Persians, accused of disloyalty and bad management. 33 Losing
their administrative role in the empire just like Persepolis did, the Persians were replaced by
Macedonians.
The indoctrination of Persian troops was, at face value, obvious. A conqueror must
need a fresh and plentiful supply of troops in order to continue. Alexander ordered 30,000
Persian youths to be trained the Macedonian way, called the Epigonoi , to bolster his army. 34
These recruits were pulled from Persian aristocracy and were part of a policy by Alexander
to limit resistance from Persian nobles, as their children were put under Macedonian
general’s leadership. 35 It was not until 324BC that the extensive integration of Persian troops
entered Alexander’s army. 36 In both politics and military, Alexander wove a careful doctrine
of inclusivity for the Persians, whilst keeping them in check and limiting their power and
authority. He pragmatically walked a tightrope, constantly undermining Persian authority
whilst using them for his own gain, which can be said to mirror his actions at Persepolis. As
aforementioned, Alexander set fire to the royal palace in order to flush out Darius and
undermine his power and that of the Persians. This weakening of Persian power is echoed in
the appointment of noble children into the army and the positioning of Macedonians as
satraps and the purge. Evidently, Persepolis goes far to highlight Alexander’s pragmatic
attitude towards the Persians.
33 A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: the Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 240 – 241 34 Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander , 7.6.1 35 Brosius, p. 175 36 Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander , 7.6.3-5
102
Made with FlippingBook HTML5