I'm looking to gather some more background, context, sources and opinions, regarding Achashverosh's Jewishness, or lack thereof.
This was inspired by a recent similar question, and, in fact, much of this question's content was copied therefrom.
So, to the issue:
Many well-known midrashim pose Achashverosh (the one in m'gilas Ester) as a gentile leader. I'm sure we all learned these at one point or another. On the other hand, reading the m'gila as a "story", focusing on the p'shat, but taking into account the historical and cultural context (as supplied by Jewish sources) in addition to relevant background added by other books in the Tanach, it would seem that there is no evidence or basis for the "gentile figure" theory, but rather the evidence seems (at least to me) to point in the opposite direction. (I'm not keeping these details close till there are some answers. I'll share them! (a) When he heard Haman's plot, he agreed; but as soon as he heard that the nation in question was the Jews, he relented. Not the mark of a gentile in those days. (b) 10:1 seems irrelevant in a book of Tanach unless it's to communicate the story of a Jewish king. (c) Ester, although she refused any special cosmetics, is not described as having made herself repulsive, as might be expected by a Jewish girl who's being sought by a non-Jewish suitor.)
Now, taking into account the intended ambiguity, which is one of the most fundamental motifs of the m'gila, and the obvious historical distance, I don't expect to find "the one true history"....
But I am interested in hearing, what is the basis for the "gentile leader" theory? Is there evidence for this, or is it "just" midrash* ? What was the original source? (Obviously besides the midrash itself, and the persuant discussions in e.g. g'mara*... ) Or, alternatively (and preferably), sources and explanations for the opposite theory?
(*) I'm not belittling the importance of those midrashim or the discussions in the g'mara, of course, but it is both important and extremely difficult to discern which stories are intended to be accepted literally, as "historical fact", and which not. Hence this question.