Alexander (lots of spoilers)

[Kraxis]

I know this thread quite possibly should be here, but since I want to mention and talk about the historical aspects of the movie I thought it was the most proper place. Don't read on if you haven't watched the movie... It could ruin it for you.






Let me say it outright.
The movie is worth the money you pay, at least for me. It is long (almost 3 hours) and covers his entire life, at the end you don't feel as if important things has been skipped (but they have, though most reasonably). There is a long time where he grows up, where we see Phillip as a rather brutish ruler, quite probably right. ~D
It is interesting and it underlines Alexander's future life, and this without beeing too long.

That we don't see Chareonea, the fight against the Thracians, the crushing of Thebes, Grannicus or Issus was in my mind disappointing, but understandable. All the important things happen at Gaugamela, which btw is one damn impressive battle. So more a few men on a hill, this one was massive and to make certain people get it they (producers) have us following an eagle along the battlelines and it soars on for quite a while, and it is obvious that the Macedonians are very much outnumbered.
The Persians only fire two volleys of arrows, they blacken the skies, true enough but they are far too effective. It was almost like watching Troy over again. If they were that effective why did Darius send in his troops? He could have devastated the pikemen easily like this. Btw, where were the elephants he had?
The chariotcharge is impressive to say the least and it is very very nice to see peltasts and slingers dash out of the lines to do their job and to fill the holes. The Hypaspists are hoplitish, they are equipped like them but they fight far more independantly unless ordered together. A nice combination given we know so little about them really.
When the Persian infantry finally connects with the pikes it is spectacular, they are simply moved down, I think I even saw a guy that got impaled and then slided down the pike towards the wielder (dead of course).
Alexander and his Companions do a nice maneuver and bring out the Persian cavalry, but that was not how I remembered him doing it. Anyway it makes for a spectacular show when they clash with the Persian cavalry and of course infantry. The Companions are indeed equipped correctly, no saddles and no stirrups (though I'm not so certain about the not saddles for real history), the xyston and kopis. Plenty of nice little features.
It was after the cavalry charge things happened at great speed. Darius was chased off (quite nicely) and Alexander had put himself in danger and was only saved by his bodyguards time and again. The famous incident that happened at Grannicus happened here, Glaukos saved Alexander from an axeman after he had recieved a number of hits that had brought him to his knees (for the first time in movies to we see armour actually having an effect, as Alexander is struk repeatedly on the cuirass). A fair enough compromise to save time.
That battle is absolutely bloody... arms flying, blood everywhere, a guy actually beating others with a severed head. It was horrific and yet fascinating.

What I didn't like is how the Parmenion and Philotas rebellion has its seeds set already. Their flank is almost crumbling and they ask for help, and Parmenion talks about treachery to his son. No way! Not already.

That the movie didn't involve many of the interesting stories of Alexander, but had a whole deal about his mother and his relationships with Hephaestion, Roxanna and Boagras, well that left me a little let down. I find it completely ok for them to show that Alexander was very much to both sides, but to me that isn't a big issue and need not get brought up time and again. It is not for his sexuality we remember him, but for his outstanding actions. Make certain the public knows what he was like, but beyond that let it rest.
Oh and let me say Roxanna was quite a woman... Not beautiful, but rather one of those where you think "this is going to be fun", and of course she had a body to match her fiery temper.

Hydaspes is a big jumble and mess. And not quite correct as suddenly the central phalanx is surrounded by elepgants and cavalry, it is in a forest.
It is possibly even better than Gaugamela for its closeup badass action, but it is worse when it comes to scale and impressiveness. But those elephants are nasty! Guys get gored by the tusks, gets trampled, gets thrown around and finally guys are struck flat by the trunk, and there are lots of elephants, all nicely decorated and armoured with big scale mats. When the elephants are struck back it is quite gory, one has its belly slit another its trunk nearly cut off. Nasty once again.
Again the troops are perfectly equipped.
Bucephalos has a major part in the battle and we see why Alexander founds a city in its name though it isn't mentioned.

All in all a great movie, but Alexander himself is only shown as arrogant, not as the hooligan he also was, neither is his paranoia shown. Yes he kills a number of dissenters, but we don't see the decimation of a unit (where the Romans got the idea). We don't see the sack of Tyre or the destruction of Persepolis, which was done in a druken rage.

So what do you guys think?

[Rosacrux redux]

I think I am going to adore it :)

[Blodrast]

actually you give it a much better rating than what I've been reading so far (e.g., imdb)
But you made it sound really nice, and I guess it's also a matter of what one is looking for in a movie...and that might explain some things.

thanks for the review, Kraxis.

[CrusaderMan]

Is it really that good? I heard that the battle scenes are not discernible since everything is covered in dust, the camera work is all wrong and the majority of the movie are long, boring or even ridiculous scenes concerning Alexanders (ambiguous) homosexuality. Someone told me that Alexander seems like a pansy througout the film. You make it sound interesting. :dizzy2:

[Kraxis]

Oh, it wasn't a review really, it was more a subject for discussion. I feel I have said too much about the movie for those who haven't seen it.

But yes, the movie is great, and I have a strong feeling that people here will love it, that is why I went here to discuss it.

If there is one thing that says everything that is bad about it is: It tries to portray Alexander the Lover and Alexander the Warlord at the same time, and it doesn't do a superb job at that, either part is great, but together it doesn't fit too well.

Btw, if you haven't seen it you will love when the army digs its heels in and refuses to go on. And those elephants are damned SCARY!

[Kraxis]

Is it really that good? I heard that the battle scenes are not discernible since everything is covered in dust, the camera work is all wrong and the majority of the movie are long, boring or even ridiculous scenes concerning Alexanders (ambiguous) homosexuality. Someone told me that Alexander seems like a pansy througout the film. You make it sound interesting. :dizzy2:

I guess it can be confusing for people who have no idea how battles were back then. But for the people who raom here the battles make sense, they did to me. Of course the shift from Parminion to the center and then to Alexander could be a little confusing.
I guess people just don't like that there aren't the long duels and almost everything is settled with one strike (as it was). Also the cuts are very fast when the phalanx makes contact.
I do agree that there is too much about his sexuality, it is simply not needed, but several times it is woven into the greater plot or simply a smaller story, such as when Glaukos is killed. So I guess it is just something we have to see past. Not needed but it is there. But he is not a pansy as one sees in the battles, he just doesn't like to see his friends die.

[Colovion]

*****
cross posted from the other Alexander thread

*****

ALright, I saw this movie last night.

Wait for it.....


..
I was. NOT. disapointed with the movie (as much as I thought I would be).

I went into the movie basically assuming it would be worse than King Arthur with less true to history than a Simpsons episode. After reading Harold Lamb's biography on Alexander prior to seeing the movie I have to say that I wasn't all that disapointed with the movie. Sure, at Gaugemela the phalanx troops were setup really oddly - like a foot or two of space between each man, but really close to the guy in front. Strangely, later in the movie they had them lock shields and then and only then did the phalanx look as it should. Let's have a general rundown:

*spoilers*

Pros:

1) They got the whole idea of what Alexander wanted correct, how he wanted to have a peaceful commonwealth, with everyone intermingling and in peace - and how he wanted to explore more than he wanted to fight.

2) The battle of Gaugamela was amazing. THe intricacies of how men were fighting was kind of sketchy at times, but it was the largest battle I've seen on the big screen. The camera panned over the whole battlefield from one side ot the other, watching both of the masses of soldiers lining up - it was breathtaking in the dust and the amounts of men that wre depicted. Once the battle began it actually for once showed you just how unconnected from eachother everyone was, and how confusing a battle was back then - especially with all that dust. The basic tactics of the battle was solid and everything that was supposed to happen did happen

3) There were a lot of seemingly small things which happened in the beginning of the movie until Alexander left on his path of conquest that were all basically true - which surprised me that they got some of the smaller things right. It was kind of like watching Lord of the Rings for the first time - amazing when you step back and look at it like a movie, but terrible if you pick it apart, so I dealt on the side of appreciating what they got right, and accepting that it was already 3 hours long as it was.

4) They did show that Alexander was bi-sexual, but his love for Hephaestion and another other men were totally overblown - as if it was his downfall. One part in the movie he kisses some dancer guy and everyone looks at him as if they hadn't just cheered him on to kiss him. It was as if watching him living in our times, instead of in 300BC.

5) They had some great parallels and interesting commentaries about various things imbeded into the plot line and dialogue - so that was pretty interesting. Their usage of Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) as a narrator of the movie 40 years after the fact was a nice touch.

Cons:

1) Phalanx soldiers were spaced with a foot or two between each soldier for most of the movie - until a battle in India when the 'drillmaster' says "lock shields!" and finally they look proper.

2) That battle in India, besides the fact that it was in India, was prettymuch made up - it was in a forest for some reason. They make the battle out to be how it was - though it was supposed to be a river crossing battle with boats involved for transporting Alexander's forces. Also, this is the battle they use for wounding Alexander with that arrow, and killing Bucaphelus, and wounding Hephaestion's thigh. I understand they can't put that all in the right places, but I would've loved to see Alexander's famous last battle climbing up the ladder, jumping into the courtyard, and fighting like a madman with only a couple bodygaurds against the whole garrison. They also don't mention anything about the navy they built, but they did mention the Mekran desert crossing.

3) Alexander calls himself and the army Greek. They totally overlook his Macedonian heritage and simplify it to Greek, and assume that Philip was just a natural king of the Greeks. It's just a nagging annoyance.

4) Once again, Alexander has to come out like every hero of a movie since William Wallace and give a rousing speach to his troops. Yea, it's cheesy, and I winced when he said something like "the glory... OF GREECE!" Also later in the movie when his soldier mutiny, it's a big public spectacle with him yelling at everyone in front of all the soldiers, instead of a private meeting with his veterans and him having a good few days to sulk about it before consenting and not crossing the Beas River.

5) They have this scene where Alexander, his father, and one of the Greek Kinsmen have a big fight, then Philip gets up and falls down because he's so drunk and Alexander says "Here is your King! He's so drunk he can't even move from one couch to the other!" which was suprising that they put in (even in a flashback) because it was basically word for word - the annoying thing is that after that scene they cut to Ptolemy. After briefly saying that Philip was assassinated and Alexander started his conquest into Asia they trace a line through Asia-minor and down the coast to Egypt and then up to Gaugamela... cue the big battle - which has no context for why the soldiers are all excited about Alexander suddenly, when in the last scene he was called a bastard by his father and everything looked pretty grim for him. I was disapointed to not see any of those skirmishes, the battle of Issus, or anything to do with Egypt besides where Ptolemy gives his narrative. I knew it would happen, but I hated to see them cut that much out - at the least they should have shown him gain the acceptance of the troops, instead of just assuming we know why he's all of a sudden loved by all.

Conclusion:

All in all it was a good movie I would say. There was much more correct about the movie than was false, in a story sense. The accents of people were basically all their own - Scottish, Irish - etc.... which was annoying, but once you look over that and things like that Black Cleitus was white - At least they had all of his veterans in the movie. Basically, it's a movie, a story, not a reinactment or a documentary, and it's 3 hours long. For most movies I'd never say to read the background story of the events because it would ruin it - but this time I would, because you'll see things that most people wouldn't appreciate. I recommend seeing this movie, as I enjoyed it more than I thought I would and was pleasantly surprised by certain aspects of it more than I was affornted by their lack of utter perfection that has never been seen before in a historical film.

[Basileus]

im speechless, i expected one of the best movies of this years and of its genre and i got bored while watching it :(, alot of thing may be protraied correctly but even that doesnt help it.

[Kraxis]

Colovion, You are mixing up a few things.

You don't like that the pikes are spaced a bit, well they were. There wasn't room for every pikeman standing shoulder to shoulder as the other pikes had to come out too, so about half a meter is not too much, but it is understandable that they bunch up behind each other. It would be comforting (no bad jokes please) and it would allow more point to come out front.
I believe Polybius mentions the distances they have and the movie fits it well enough.

The troops you see locking shields are in fact the Hypaspists (notice their very large shields and shorter spears compared to the smaller shields of the pikmen), you see them in Gaugamela acting more independantly. And this is very much correct as they were (believed to be) armed like hoplites. Take notice of the commander of them, he commands only them, while good old Antigonus (one-eyed wonder) commands the pikes.

Indeed the showover from the banishement of Alexander to the battle was strange, but I guess Stone wanted to leave the argument for later when we see the murder of Phillip. It didn't go that well.

I believe that Alexander would first have met with the leaders of his men, then he would have tried to talk everybody into it the way he does in the movie, and his rage after it fits very well. A lot of people, including me, believes that the march across the Gedrosian desert was punishment for their insolence, and of course becasue he simply wanted to do something impossible. It wasn't a miscalculation or mistake, it was deliberate, as he could have marched up again and circled around the desert.

Alexander was Macedonian, but he claimed his enterprised was for the greater glory of Hellenes, further he had quite a large number of Greeks in his army, Thessalian cavalry, varius archers and peltasts, plenty of hoplites and finally the 'cultural corps'. With famous exceptions these were all Greeks, and remember that Macedonians had a huge inferiority complex towards the Greeks. They wanted to be seen as Greeks. So this does not put me off at all, especially when his men later on talk about being Macedonians and Macedon. So you see Alexander talking about Greeks and Greek culture and all that, his men talk about Macedonians and Macedon, it fits perfectly with how he turned out (Greek-Persian mix). Alexander embraced the Greeks as he later did with the Persians.
Also the story clearly shows the contempt the Greeks has for Phillip and his countercontempt. So I do not think the movie 'assumes' that Phillip is a natural Greek king, or even let that idea foster.

What I wanted to see:

Issus, Tyre, Gaugamela, the taking of the hillfort (wher he sent around 300 climbers to a mountaintop and got he commander to surrender that way), Hydaspes and the sacking of the fortified town (it wasn't really a fort as where did the population go?) where he was mortally wounded.
As I said, the movied tries to show Alexander the Lover and Alexander the Warlord at the same time.

I have now gone a full 24 hours since watching it and I have a strange feeling I normally get when I sense something epic. It is like my fantasy has been stimulated very much. Only a few times have I experienced this, it is like a sort of joy and constant thinking. So while I can easily see the flaws I can also see the epicness of the movie, I get a feeling that they indeed went to the end of the world and back again. When they had that big showdown at the river it was simply perfect, screw the dialogue, it is the situation...

[Colovion]

I would've loved to see Tyre be taken - loads of seige weapons, ships, attempt at building a land bridge - loads of stuff which took a lot of help from his engineers and Deiades with each new attack struck down and countered only to have a new attack fabricated. That would've been amazing.

[Kraxis]

Well, I doubt that in any case they would have been able to recreate the siege in all its splendor. For each idea to be tested and rejected and then a new one, well we would need perhaps 10 minutes each time. Simply unreasonable for the movie. But of course if they had scaled back all that dialogue with Hephaistion a small segement would have been nice (would still prefer Grannicus and/or Issus and then having a voiceover as we saw the destruction of Tyre).
Did you notice that they only mentioned Gaza, which I destinctly remember to have surrendered as to be spared. Seems they mixed Tyre and Gaza up.

Btw, you do grant me I'm right about my points? :book: ~:cheers:

[Rosacrux redux]

I am tired of saying the obvious, over and over again: The Macedonians were a Greek tribe, distinct from the other Greeks (Hellenes, if you like) like Athenians were distinct to Spartans, Thebans to Thessalians, Epirots to Italiots and so on and so on.

Macedonians spoke Greek and only Greek, worshiped Greek gods, were considered Greeks (albeit uncivilized ones) by their contemporary Greeks and upheld all Greek customs and laws.

They even called themselves Greeks, ferchristsake. ALL of them, not only Alex.

So, please, please, please, stop saying that the Macedonians were not Greeks or else... or else... I'll...

I'll post a huuuuuuge post with hundreds of lines of ample evidence that the Macedonian were indeed Greeks. ~:)

[Colovion]

I am tired of saying the obvious, over and over again: The Macedonians were a Greek tribe, distinct from the other Greeks (Hellenes, if you like) like Athenians were distinct to Spartans, Thebans to Thessalians, Epirots to Italiots and so on and so on.

Macedonians spoke Greek and only Greek, worshiped Greek gods, were considered Greeks (albeit uncivilized ones) by their contemporary Greeks and upheld all Greek customs and laws.

They even called themselves Greeks, ferchristsake. ALL of them, not only Alex.

So, please, please, please, stop saying that the Macedonians were not Greeks or else... or else... I'll...

I'll post a huuuuuuge post with hundreds of lines of ample evidence that the Macedonian were indeed Greeks. ~:)

Um. Ok you're on.

Link One (http://www.macedon.org/anmacs/frame.htm)


Link Two (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/MacedoniansNotGreeks.html)

Macedonians were a people of their own, they simply adopted some practices from the Greeks. At the time, Greek was like English is now - and how Latin was to be in the Roman era.

[Kraxis]

Wether those links are true or not the Macedonians still wanted to be accepted into the big Greek family. If they had not then the conquests under Phillip would not have taken them into Greece which was apparently quite hostile and problematic to hold on to, rather the more resourcerich north would be good.
But I believe the hostility would have come had it been anybody. Had it been Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, any city would have objected and we see plenty of subjected peoples rising up against their masters (the Spartans and the Messinians are the best example). So that argument is not that good.

So the references in the movie is still vwery much acceptable. A point you could make is that the makers of the movie might not have understood the subtle (or not so subtle) differences. But in this case making the right choices for the wrong reasons is still right (unlike in math and moral issues).

[Colovion]

I just feel like the Macedonians are their own culture. There's opinions that go both ways - like Palestine vs Israel just like Macedonia vs Greece. I bet the same debates were around when the Americans became Independant of Britain or with Scotland and England.

[kataphraktoi]

Sparta, Thebes, Athens, etc, had their own distinct cultures but were still considered Greeks. Distinctual contempt and discrimination were not uncommon in that period. Take for example:

The "effeminate" Athenian
The "mischievous and lying" Cretan

The problem with comparative analysis of Macedonia and the rest of the Greek states is predisposition. A historian with a predisposition towards discovering "distinct" national characteristics, indicators, or "red flags" in his research will, in some way or form, "find" what he/she is looking for.

I'm not convinced of either argument but could Macedonia be an estranged black sheep of the Greek world? Situated as they are in the north far from the mainstream of the Greek world and situated as they are near the rough and warlike Thracians, its no surprise they appear as "rough" compared to others. Perhaps Macedonia had simply caught on with the mainstream of Greek world? I use the world "mainstream" to denote the shared characteristics of the southern Greek states (Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, etc, etc)

The Macedonian adapted on par with their environment, naturally, they could not be the same as all Greeks. Which city state was?

[Kraxis]

If we use racial destinction, then the Greeks themselves were not even the same. The Athenians, Euboans and most of the Attic peoples were Ionians while the Spartans, Corinthians and Thebans were Dorians, two destinctly different groups.

Macedonia could very well have been a Greek rock that had been thrown far out to sea. With a more rough landscape, not suitable for massive farming and citybuilding, democracy or oligarchy wouldn't have much of a chance. Only a central figure would be able to connect the villages and small towns, a king in this case. The Greeks on the other hand had long ago thrown out their kings (with a notable exception) and thus considered the Macedonians barbaric (hey the barbarians have kings too would likely be an Athenian's argument).
Remember that the Thessalians were also frowned at because they too were rather uncivilized, but because they were just like Greek farmers (not citizens) they were let into the family.

[kataphraktoi]

I followed the links, the seocnd one was well documents but the evidence was sorely suspect, especially drawing upon Byzantine sources.

Byzantine historical sources should be, by default, viewed from the start with an extra thick magnifying glass. The problem, as the article, shows is its acceptance at face value of Byzantine sources as evidence.

While there is nothing wrong with the evidence, (when one views it in the correct context), its interpretation is wholly thin and superficial.

The Byzantine writers show a fine tradition of indiscriminate ethnic labelling. Like for example, Cumans, Pechenegs, Huns and other steppe peoples in southern Russia have been labelled carelessly, though, understandably, as "Scythians". Byzantine historiography has the following characteristics:

- a tendency to adopt antiquitous labels, names and categories
- a tendency to write through antiquitous lenses (rooted in hellenic writing style)
- a tendency to be anachronistic

In regards to the reference on Macedonians, this is clearly the case. When talking about Macedonians within the vicinity, there is every certainty that references to a specific ethnic Macedonian entity is suspicious. Since the area was in antiquity Macedonian, the inhabitants were labelled regionally rather than ethnically.

The people who wrote the article exhibit just as much blind ethnocentrism than the people they seek to detract, how else could they call Byzantium's Macedonian Dynasty "Macedonian"???

The Macedonian dynasty was far from Macedonian. Basil I was an Armenian by ethnicity. Population shifts were common under the Byzantine Emperors and Basil's family were settled in the Thracian - Macedonian vicinity beofre being carried away and transported by Khan Krum to a region just across the Danube called "Macedonia" (modern Romania). Why was it called "Macedonia", because many captives were from the region, rather than who they wer ethnically. The Middle Ages were a time where nationality and ethnicity were blurred and shaded and, in fact, subjected to religion.

I don't have any vested interests in who the Macedonians are, I just think Balkan nationalism is one big ugly omelette.

[Colovion]

I'm guessing that back then the Greeks were very similar to the Italians under each of their Renaissance's. Both had huge city states which were both hugely competative against one another but also united somewhat under a form of cultural unity. The Macedonains were a part of that unity for the Greeks, but way on the fringes of it and were more unruly than their Greek counterparts. Eventually, they became part of the many hellenized cultures, but were different enough to be called their own culture as well. As a Canadian, many things I do are influenced by America - but I wouldn't call myself American.

[Rosacrux redux]

I'm guessing that back then the Greeks were very similar to the Italians under each of their Renaissance's. Both had huge city states which were both hugely competative against one another but also united somewhat under a form of cultural unity. The Macedonains were a part of that unity for the Greeks, but way on the fringes of it and were more unruly than their Greek counterparts. Eventually, they became part of the many hellenized cultures, but were different enough to be called their own culture as well. As a Canadian, many things I do are influenced by America - but I wouldn't call myself American.
Well, colovion, starting from this point, there is a rather clear distinction: You wouldn't call yourself American, even though you are a Canadian (and thous much closer to the U.S. Americans than anyone else). Likewise a Belgian wouldn't call himself French, nor an Ukrainian Russian or a Vietnamese Chinese or an Albanian Greek.

Why then would the Macedonians collectively call themselves Greek if they weren't? The "political issue" argument doesn't hold any water, even if you don't look into it (but just scratch the surface).

There are several issues here and I am going to address a few of those – after all, I warned you didn’t I? -;)

- Macedonian culture
You are assuming the Macedonian should be warranted their own culture. Besides your assumption, could you point out to some actual evidence on that? I mean, evidence of a distinct, non-Greek culture, blooming in Macedonia and being carried by them to the lands they conquered and they settled in? I would really appreciate such evidence – actually, a host of Slavo-macedonian “historians” (take that definition with a pint of salt) would be eternally gratetfull to you, if you could come up with such evidence, because all they could come up with all these years are a dozen fabrications (most of them are mentioned in the links you posted too – those two links are offered by the Slavic “Macedonians” of today, who wish to pass along as the offspring of Alexandros and the ancient Macedon) two passages from Demosthenes and one passage by Polybius. That is all the “evidence” of the non-Greekness of the Macedonian people.

- Macedonian language.
I am visiting several history sites and I’ve found a rather interesting exchange of ideas about this matter in "All Empires". The site seems down so I'll provide you later with a link for a discussion about "Alexander the Great" and his Macedonians, a discussion between two guys quite knowledgeable and versed in the ways of history.

[EDIT]
The site is online again and here is the link:
Discussion about Macedonian and their language (http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1311&PN=1)

The last reply in this topic shall provide you with a tiny fragment of the huge pile of evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the only language spoken in Macedonia was Greek and that the Greeks considered the Macedonians Greeks. Rough, hardly civilized, but still Greeks.

I think the topic at All Empires shall spare me of the fuss of going extremely deep into it, since it presents ample evidence – by valid sources, not possible to be refuted or even questioned, you could check yourself, they are available online if you google a bit – that nobody in his right mind would even start questioning whether the Macedonian were Greek or not.

Of course, there are those who are operating on an agenda and they will carry on living in constant denial concerning this issue – they wouldn’t accept that the Macedonian were Greek even if Philipos would rise from the grave and start shouting “Hellen eimi” in all possible ways.

But I suppose none of us here has an agenda to press, so we can evaluate the evidence and not carry on stating inaccuracies.

I'll post the link when AE is back online, ok?

Cheers!

edit again: now the link works correctly... stupid me :wiseguy:

[Rosacrux redux]

I The Macedonian dynasty was far from Macedonian. Basil I was an Armenian by ethnicity. Population shifts were common under the Byzantine Emperors and Basil's family were settled in the Thracian - Macedonian vicinity beofre being carried away and transported by Khan Krum to a region just across the Danube called "Macedonia" (modern Romania). Why was it called "Macedonia", because many captives were from the region, rather than who they wer ethnically. The Middle Ages were a time where nationality and ethnicity were blurred and shaded and, in fact, subjected to religion.

I don't have any vested interests in who the Macedonians are, I just think Balkan nationalism is one big ugly omelette.

Two remarks: Basil I's father was half Armenian from descent, but his family was living in the Greek city of Andrianople and even he (not to mention his successors, who formed the dynasty) didn't spoke a single word of Armenian. His family was thoroughly hellenized.

Secondly about "Balkan nationalism". Well, that beast is not resident only to the Balkans, it's speacies roam the whole world. In the Balkans, as in other places as well, it is being fueled by the "Great Powers" of today, who'd rather have a fragmented, non-homogenous, easy to control and to manipulate Balkan peninsule.

It is big and ugly, sure. But nationalism is only the visible part of it. There is much more underneath the surface.

[Colovion]

Macedonians are still around today, not calling themselves Greeks.

http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=260

http://www.macedonia.org/

It seems as if they aren't recognised as a people just as the Palestinians aren't either.... Kurds?... Serbs? ...

[Rosacrux redux]

Colovion, I would highly appreciate if you a)didn't just post random links of a non-existent ethnicity and b)if you took the time to actually read the links you provide. If you knew anything about the case you are defending, you would know that those links belong to a people that speak a Bulgarian tongue and are descendants of the Slavs that came into the Balkans after the 4th century AD.

Unless you are yourself one of the so-called "Macedonians" (and so you are devoted in trying to propagate this ridiculous claim by all means), please refrain from posting irelevant nonsense and try to REPLY to what I am writing, ok?

[CrusaderMan]

I read a reply to something similar to colovions stuff somewhere in this forum (written by a guy named Hellenes). It summarises a lot of REAL evidence neatly. I wont bother to write a good reply myself or find said post, there is no point really.... ~:handball:

[kataphraktoi]

Of course, nationalism is not restricted to the Balkans alone, but its still a crap basket...

Basil I may not have spoken Armenian but it is a curious quirk that his Greek had a strong Armenian accent...you have me intriguied though

Link me up Rosacrux...

Heres a corker:
Were Eastern Romans consciously Greek at all? Language-wise definitely, but in the head and heart? That is a question not easily answered without stepping on landmines.

Is this the same Rosacrux who had a malaysian girlfriend?

[econ21]

Ugh, please not derail this thread into one about the rights and wrongs of the contemporary Greece vs Macedonia dispute over nomenclature. Personally, I find that about as interesting as observing a domestic quarrel in a neighbour's kitchen. More to the point, there's already a vast thread on it in the backroom (sadly interwined with equally tedious posts about Alexander's sexuality). Why don't we leave this thread to focus on the original poster's topic of the impressions of the film, especially for the military history minded audience?

Kraxis's original posts were very interesting, from the hammering the film got in the US reviews, I had dismissed it. But Kraxis makes it sound like one to watch. There was an interesting piece in a UK Sunday newspaper by an Oxford historian who joined the film to advise on its historical accuracy. He got to ride as an extra with the Companions and and enjoyed finding out first hand what the 10 ft Macedonian lance could do (even with a rubber point) and how galloping horses reacted when encountering elephants.

[Kraxis]

Apple, the movie is most likely a good watch for the well versed in history. Meaning they will see all the small details, and will love it. But those that doesn't know all that will either not notice or be confused as that is not how it 'normally' is.
If you can endure long stretches of varying degrees of nothingness, ten the movie is most likely going to be something for you. But again, there is too much Alexander the Lover for it to be a truly great movie. But don't forget that some people have an agenda with the whole homosexuality/bisexuality in the movie, and there are even people who might not be homophobic but are put off by the quite public displays. So one has always to beware when it somes to critics
Personally I don't use them much. For instance I never read a single review of Arthur, but based on the armour he wore and the claim of truth I desided to never watch it in a theater (DVD perhaps).

[Rosacrux redux]

Malaysian? No, I am afraid my only Asian endeavours include an Indian lady and a rather brief encounter with a half-japanese one (half Greek-half Japanese, if you can imagine that). Beyond that, I usually stick to my home-continent products.

Basil I and the Macedonian dynasty... there is not much on Basil I. If you got access to the writings by Psellos, you'll find some data and more gossips. His family lived in Andrianople for quite a long time (a few generations, actually). He was quite a character, having to spend several years in Bulgaria as hostage along with his folks and managing to climb up the social ladder in quite a fascinating way. He managed to become Basileus (co-emperor at first, with Michael) by marrying Michael's mistress (a rather scrupulous Greek lady... it was a common secret in Constantinople that his son Leo, the emperor-to-be, was actually Michael's son. But Basil got his revenge, by having his partner (in power and family) assasinated and ruling all by himself.

He definitely was not a big emperor but quite an interesting one and he even managed to put his name in the annals of history quite remarkably, not only for fathering (or, actually, step-fathering) the most glorious dynasty of Byzantium, but also for his work on the Justinian law (re-codyfying, changing rather large bits here and there and producing an impressive new body-of-law all over).

Greeks in heart and mind? No, not really. As far as I can tell - by the writings of the Byzantine authors - the Empire was hellenized and pretty early too (Heraclius' move was just the cherry on top of the cake, the cake itself was baked even before Justinian) but that doesn't mean that the inhabitants had anything like a Greek national awareness. On the contrary, the were Romans, "Romioi" as they called themselves, not in the sense of being citizen of Rome (that was ancient history even by then) but in the sense of belonging to a greater "whole" of the most glorious empire of all times.

Of course, being a Roman was not mutually exclusive with being a Greek, an Armenian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, a Serbian, a Bulgarian or any other of the hundreds ethnicities that lived under the Roman rule.

Something like a Greek national identity was developed in the 13th century, during the aftermath of the crusaders' sacking of Constantinople. The late Empire wasn't only Greek (the post-Heraclius empire was also) but felt Greek also. Greek-Orthodox, actually. That was a new way to define Greekness by that time.

OK, I think we have hijacked a good thread for too long... I suggest, if you wish to talk further, we can move on and create our own thread... for Byzantinophiles sort of.

[nokhor]

i saw the movie. seems kinda split. it tries to be very historically accurate but also tries to be very dramtatic and entertaining and the two don't mix well.

1. as a drama it attempts to define alexander by the people around him. the struggles between his parents, between his lovers, between him and his companions and between the companions itself. and this may be good movie making and entertaining but is highly unrealistic and bad history.

2. as a history it follows his life and of course it condenses and rearranges incidents. movie guaguamela is a combination of the historic gaugaumela and historic granicus. the indian battle is a combination between the battle against porus and the battle at the malian town. something that porus is reputed to have said, and an incident with darius' mother mistaken hephaestion for alex is coagulated into a scene with statira. and i can see why stone did it for dramatic tension and pacing of the movie.

but for the average movie goer who just basically knows that alex was macedonian king who conquered persia, i could see it being boring and lacking an epic feel. there are tons of named characters like cassander, aristotle, attalos, ptolemy, craterus, philotas, parmenion, bogoas, antipater who are mentioned briefly by name and if you didn't know who they were before hand, it'd be difficult to track them and their interelationships. everybody and their uncle are shouting "by zeus", "by dionysius" "by apollo" in every other sentence and it seems kinda silly. the whole pre-gagaumela 'let's blow up the death star' scene with the pieces on battle map, and the subsequent battle tactics actually used would have been very difficult to comprehend if i didn't already know how what was going on. and there are way too many friggin snakes. of every hue and timber. i expected olympias to have a couple of pythons and maybe see some again in the monsoon scene but phil apparently has one running around the family grotto and alex and roxy have their pets and olympias is a veritable reptile zoo.

overall i think the movie is ok. and i admire that stone was trying to make it accurate and entertaining, but he should have either made an action movie ala gladiator, or a historical documentary. he tries to please both crowds and ends up with a mishmash kinda like a gaming company and a certain game on a certain forum i frequent which shall remain nameless.

[Colovion]

Colovion, I would highly appreciate if you a)didn't just post random links of a non-existent ethnicity and b)if you took the time to actually read the links you provide. If you knew anything about the case you are defending, you would know that those links belong to a people that speak a Bulgarian tongue and are descendants of the Slavs that came into the Balkans after the 4th century AD.

Unless you are yourself one of the so-called "Macedonians" (and so you are devoted in trying to propagate this ridiculous claim by all means), please refrain from posting irelevant nonsense and try to REPLY to what I am writing, ok?

No, I'm not Macedonian.

Your argument seems to be pretty similar in approach as the people who argue that the Palestinians don't deserve to be recognized as a people. THat would be like telling me that though I'm Canadian, Canadians don't deserve to be called a culture of their own because we're just decendants of immigrants into this region by Irish, French, British, Chinese... and so on. Just because a culture isn't as ethnically 'pure' as say the French or English doesn't mean that they don't deserve their own particular right to claim their region breeds a culture all their own. Culture comes first from ethnicity, and second from the region inhabitted; which makes it totally possible for the original Macedonians to intermingle with Slavs and still call themselves Macedonian. Why is my argument that they are a culture of their own so absurd? Just because they aren't all of one bloodline doesn't detract from their ability to form one culture.

I'd reply to your words specifically but since you don't believe the Macedonians are a culture in the first place, it's like me trying to explain how a computer works to someone who doesn't believe in electricity.

[Rosacrux redux]

You are a genuine troll after all. Too bad I spend my time in your case, trying to explain in all concrete arguments what is actaully going on.

Should've known better...

[Colovion]

a troll? Well if by troll you mean someone who holds ideas that vary from your own, then yes, I am that troll.

edit - so what would this be then? propeganda? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia) ~:confused:

I find it unfortunate that you believe that in arguing with me that unless I am persuaded by you to believe what your views are then your time was a waste in debating with me. I don't think it's a waste to debate with someone, because usually debates aren't lectures, they're debates. This problem with the Macedonian culture isn't one that we just brought up - it's been around for a while, and there are a lot of different sides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians) to the story. :dizzy2:

[Gregoshi]

That is quite enough of the Macedonian culture issue. This thread is about the movie Alexander. As Rosacrux redux suggested 5 posts ago, please take this dialog to another thread if you wish to "discuss" it further. I'll even be happy to split off the posts pertaining to that issue if you want a starting point...to which I'll also suggest that it be moved to the Backroom since the tone of this off-topic debate seems more befitting to that forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Saracen_Warrior]

I know this thread has been dead for a while, but i was surprissed soemone actually liked Alexander. Its not bad that you liked it. Actually you're smartert than me if you liked it cus i spent 3 hours of my life unentertained while you got you're money's worth.

It's just the movie tried to cover too much. You cant fit 32 years into 3 hours. THey shouldve done what, "the Passion" did. Just focus on a small part in his campagne. Where he fought derius(i dont how to spell it, all i know abouit alexander is from the history channel) so people who dont know a lot about ancient history couldve enjoyed it. I think, if they had been able to show how he defeated a numerically surperior force, people wouldve got that he was a hugely influential figure in our species short history. It was too hard to foloow if you didnt know anything. Im just happy i watched that history channel documentary or i wouldnt have known what was going on. THe movei just showed us Alexaander prefered men, and um didnt really get much else out of it.

[Colovion]

^ true story

I don't think I would've enjoyed it as much if I hadn't read his biography previous to watching it. I've talked to a lot of people and most of them hated the movie. I"m guessing that's probably because it wasn't a great war-movie and it wasn't a great action-movie nor was it a great love-movie..... it was a story of someone's life, and that's very difficult to portray in an exciting way .... even someone with a life as exciting as his was.

[Kraxis]

I guess you are right on that.
Most of the people I have spoken to don't like it either (quite a few couldn't understand all those pikes and wanted more swordfighting, and especially less cavalry fighting). But my history buddies I went in to see it with liked it quite a lot. So if you know what you are looking at then it becomes a much better movie.

So bibliographic movies are never easy.