The policy of fusion has remained a debate in Alexander tradition for a long time. If
encouraged, then Persepolis would be a stark contrast in Alexander’s attitude and policy.
However, I will argue that this is a weak point and that the evidence often falls back into his
pragmatic approach. At the forefront of this argument is Tarn, attesting that his subjects
could live ‘in unity of heart and mind’. 37 Apart from historians such as Baldry, many scholars
see Tarn’s theory of unity as incorrect and unreasonable, stating that throughout his
campaign, positions of real power were almost always Macedonian. 38
The Achaemenid Empire befo re Alexander was a place of unity. Inscriptions like ‘King
of countries containing all kind of men’, including ‘the lands of other tongues’ are
corroborated by the fact that the empire had stood for centuries without large scale issues. 39
Ancient sources de clare Alexander’s openness for unity as well. In chapter 18 of Diodorus,
detailing Alexander’s last plans, he writes that he advocated for the migration of Asia and
Europe. 40 There is much debate about the authenticity of this, both Bosworth and Badian
asse rt its truth, stating that because of Macedonia’s lack of working men and mainland
Greece’s overpopulation, this would have been a solution. 41 Once again, this could be seen
as a pragmatic policy by Alexander instead of an idealistic one. Plutarch also presents
Alexander as a civiliser of the Persians, but this is more reflective of the stereotypes the East
had when Plutarch was writing. 42
37 William Woodthorpe Tarn, Alexander the Great: Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), p. 116 38 H. C. Baldry, The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) 39 ‘Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions’ 40 Diodorus, Book XVIII , 4.4-5 41 Badien, pp. 425 – 444 42 Plutarch, Lives. Alexander , 1.5; Eran Almagor, ‘Plutarch and the Persians’, Electrum , 24 (2017), pp. 123 – 170 (p. 133)
103
Made with FlippingBook HTML5