Did Hollywood get Alexander right?

[Colovion]

Yeah, only women are allowed kissing eachother because gay men are gross. EW COOTIES!!!1

go see the movie for yourself, I thought it was great, and that was a surprise - seeing as I'd just finished Alexander's biography the same day.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I didnt know England even existed in 1066. I believe William defeated the Saxons not the English. Arent the real english the welsh, What was the name of those people who came with the Normans?

I believe that the welsh were just an amalgam of many of the remaining Brythonic celtic peoples still living in southwestern Britain. Technically, i guess that they were more closely related to the "Roman" britons than the angles (whom "engl"and is named after) and saxons who arrived in the mid first millenium AD from jutland and northern "germany". "England" had been in existence since the germanic tribes consolidated power and formed little kingdoms all over southern britain. Although threatened by invading scandanavian people later in the first millenium, by 1066 england was a very real and solid kingdom. After deafeating Harald Hardrada (king of Norway) in northumbria and protecting england from further scandanavian domination, King (of england) harold godwinson lost the royal title and kingdom to the Franko-Viking William the Bastard of Normandy. William was nowhere near being an englishman and the people that he brought with him were just northern french landowners and knights

The alexander problem seems very similar to william of normandy and alexander was probably just as "greek" as william was "english"

both, like MOST historical rulers were alien to the country that they ruled and in a sense dropped their place of origin when they attained more glamorous title and land

[Hurin_Rules]

Just saw the movie. Here are my thoughts:

It wasn't as bad as some people are saying. I wouldn't say it was great, but it wasn't the complete catastrophe some are describing it as. Actually made me wonder if homophobia is driving some of the negative reviews.

That being said, the movie did have some major flaws. They concentrated on Alexander's relationship with his mom, dad and lover rather than on his rise to power and his military victories. This I found hard to take; the interesting questions were never asked. At one point, they jump from him being still under Philip's rule to the battle of Guagemala. What? They just skipped what I feel to be some of the most interesting moments in his life: his charge at the battle of Chaeronea; the victories at Issus and Granicus; the Gordian Knot; the siege of Tyre; his entry into Egypt. As a result, there's no tension built for the final battle with Darius and you don't get a sense of the wealth and power of Persia.

I thought the battle of Guagemala was done reasonably well (except for the lack of Peltasts and other skirmishers in front of the phalanx). They tried to show the Macedonian advance in echelon. The chariots were done well.

Overall, I give it a mixed review. If Stone had just concentrated on the rise of ALexander rather than his relationship with mommy, we'd have a much better portrayal of the man. As it is, Colin Farell fails to give his character sufficient gravitas, and Alexander comes off as a pretty boy whiner. Alexander was far more imposing than that. But Babylon and the Macedonian phalanx looked very cool.

[Pindar]

Hurin_Rules,

That being said, the movie did have some major flaws. They concentrated on Alexander's relationship with his mom, dad and lover rather than on his rise to power and his military victories. This I found hard to take; the interesting questions were never asked. At one point, they jump from him being still under Philip's rule to the battle of Guagemala. What? They just skipped what I feel to be some of the most interesting moments in his life: his charge at the battle of Chaeronea; the victories at Issus and Granicus; the Gordian Knot; the siege of Tyre; his entry into Egypt. As a result, there's no tension built for the final battle with Darius and you don't get a sense of the wealth and power of Persia.

How can you say this (much of which I agree with) and not condemn the film as rubbish?

[Hurin_Rules]

How can you say this (much of which I agree with) and not condemn the film as rubbish?

I think because I was expecting it to be so abysmally bad, from the tenor of some of the reviews. It's not great, but it's not Ghost either.

[hellenes]

You want evidence? Thrace was right next to Macedon, as was Illyria. They had good horses, just as the Macedons did. Many Macedonians were Thracians and Illyrians. They also weren't a Greek City state. They were looked down upon by the Greeks. How much more do you want?

Can you hear yourself?
Since when political structure defines a culture?
Military organisation?
The only man who i know that stated that Makedonians werent greek was demosthenes and he hated Fillipos B'
Just make a search on an athenean called Isokratis...
Example of evidence:

On the origin of the Macedonians

The Greek origin of the Macedonians is proven by the vast majority of the ancient historians.
Diodoros of Sicily talks about the links of Alexander to the Greek mythology (Diodoros, Historical Library 17.1.5):


"On his father's side Alexander was a descendant of Heracles and on his mother's he could claim the blood of the Aeacids, so that from his ancestors on both sides he inherited the physical and moral qualities of greatness."
Herodotus confirms that the Macedonians were people of Greek origin (Histories of Herodotus Book 5, paragraph 22.1)


"Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history.That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia. "
And later on (Book 8, paragraph 137.1) he verifies it:


"This Alexander was seventh in descent from Perdiccas, who got for himself the tyranny of Macedonia in the way that I will show. Three brothers of the lineage of Temenus came as banished men from Argos to Illyria, Gauanes and Aeropus and Perdiccas; and from Illyria they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea."
Also in the very first book of his "Histories" (paragraph 56.3 ) Herodotus states about the origin of the the Greek people :


"For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian."
Thoukididis also verifies that the Macedonian kings' origin was from the Greek town of Argos (Book 2, 99.3):


"The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos."
Aristotelis, the teacher of Alexander the Great says about the rivers in Macedonia (Meteorologika, Book I, Par. 13):


"Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope."
Finally Isocratis states (To Philip, paragraph 32):


"Argos is the land of your fathers, and is entitled to as much consideration at your hands as are your own ancestors;"



On the language of the Macedonians

The Macedonians spoke the Greek language as the ancient authors verify. The Roman writer Titus Livius says : (from "The Foundation of the City", Paragraph 31)


"The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day."
Didorus of Sicily (17.67.1) says:


"After this Alexander left Dareius's mother, his daughters, and his son in Susa, providing them with persons to teach them the Greek language, and marching on with his army on the fourth day reached the Tigris River. "



On the religion of the Macedonians

The Macedonians had the same religion as the rest of the Greeks, they worshiped the twelve Olympian Gods.

Two quotes from Plutarch's "Alexander"


"Philip, after this vision, sent Chaeron of Megalopolis to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, by which he was commanded to perform sacrifice, and henceforth pay particular honour, above all other gods, to Zeus;"

"He [Alexander he Great] erected altars, also, to the gods, which the kings of the Praesians even in our time do honour to when they pass the river, and offer sacrifice upon them after the Greek manner."
Diodoros of Sicily also makes clear that the Macedonnians worshiped the twelve Greek Gods:

Histories, Chapter 16, 95.2


"Along with lavish display of every sort, Philip included in the procession statues of the twelve Gods brought with great artistry and adorned with a dazzling show of wealth to strike awe to the beholder, and along with these was conducted a thirteenth statue, suitable for a god, that of Philip himself, so that the king exhibited himself enthroned among the twelve Gods."
Histories, Chapter 16, 91.5-6


"He (King Philip) wanted as many Greeks as possible to take part in the festivities in honour of the gods, and so planned brilliant musical contests and lavish banquets for his friends and guests. Out of all Greece he summoned his personal guest-friends and ordered the members of his court to bring along as many as they could of their acquaintances from abroad."



On the culture of the Macedonians


"Alexandros observed that his soldiers were exhausted with their constant campaigns. ... The hooves of the horses had been worn thin by steady marching. The arms and armour were wearing out, and the Hellenic clothing was quite gone. They had to clothe themselves in materials of the barbarians,..."
(Diodoros of Sicily 17.94.1-2)



On the geography of Macedonian

The great philosopher Aristotelis (Aristotle) considers the rivers in Macedonias as "rivers in the Greek world"


"Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope. ..."
(Aristotelis, Meteorology, Book 1, Par. 13)
and later on he says:


"The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes..."
(Aristotelis, Meteorology, Book 1, Par. 13)



What did the Macedonians think of themselves?

It is very clear from the surviving ancient sources that the Macedonians considered themselves to be Greeks.

In Herodotus (Book 9, paragraph 45.2) Alexander I , king of Macedonia says:


"... I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery ..."
Alexander III (the Great) talking to the king of the Persians says: (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II,14,4)


"Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury [...] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks [...] "
Arrian ("Alexander the Great" 1,16,7) describes the following incident: After winning an important battle in Asia ...
"He [Alexander the Great] sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia"
(Diodoros of Sicily 16.93.1)
"Every seat in the theater was taken when Philip appeared wearing a white cloak and by his express orders his bodyguard held away from him and followed only at a distance, since he wanted to show publicly that he was protected by the goodwill of all the Hellenes, and had no need of a guard of spearmen."

And from Flavious Josephus (11.8.5) we have the following incident where Alexander clearly considers himself a Greek:


"And when the book of Daniel was showed to him (Alexander the Great) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended"



What did the rest of the Greeks think?

The ancient Greek people alwayws considered the Macedonians to be Greek as well. This can be easily proved because the Macedonians were members of all the Greek institutions, such as the Delphic amphictiony:

Pausanias writes in his book "Description of Greece" (10.3.3):

"The Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and in the Greek assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians."
and also in his book "Phokis" (8,2 & 4):
"They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: [...] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race [...] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly [...] "
Aeschines (On the Embassy 2.32) gives evidence of the Macedonian king Amyntas taking part at the congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks:

"For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted".
Isocratis, one of the most impotant orators of ancient Greece says in his speach "To Philip" addressed to King Philip II of Macedonia (Paragaraph 127):


"Therefore, since the others are so lacking in spirit, I think it is opportune for you to head the war against the King; and, while it is only natural for the other descendants of Heracles, and for men who are under the bonds of their polities and laws, to cleave fondly to that state in which they happen to dwell, it is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Greece your fatherland, as did the founder of your race, and to be as ready to brave perils for her sake as for the things about which you are personally most concerned."
The Sicilian historian Diodoros says in his history about King Philip of Macedonia (Diodoros, Historical Library 16.95.1-2)
"Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself a throned companion of the twelve gods. He had ruled twenty-four years. He is known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his claim to a throne won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world, while the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy.
Even the Persians considerd Macedonia a part of Greece! The Persian king Mardonius says : (From the Histories of Herodotus Book 7, Paragraph 9.1-2)

This is evidence...

Hellenes

[Adrian II]

This is evidence...

No, it's not. It's an assortment of isolated quotes copied from a propaganda-site called The truth about Macedonia.... No serious, self-respecting historian, university department or museum director would ever claim to know the truth about an entire country.

Your favourite site has a forum where the standard of discussion is perhaps best illustrated by the way they 'review' Oliver Stone's Alexander movie. I quote from a post by a gentlemen named The Phoenix: 'The average American in particular is an imbecile of the highest order (..) the average American imbecile has no interest or knowledge of history... (..) Secondly, the average American is not only an imbecile but suffers greatly from red neck syndrome and Stone's depiction of the great mans love for young boys, although comforting and erotic for Dimi has turned many others away...'

Another member calling himself John states that the following map, reflecting the Megale Idea I mentioned earlier in this thread, is his favourite:




I am sorry, Hellenes, but your posts do not reflect any sort of scholarship, personal curiosity or respect for the historicity of the facts you refer to.

[Adrian II]

(..) MOST historical rulers were alien to the country that they ruled and in a sense dropped their place of origin when they attained more glamorous title and land

Bravo, finally some attention for the big picture. In Europe, nations and nationalism became an issue by the end of the eighteenth century only, and in many cases national traditions and identities were inventions of the nineteenth century.

Historian Eric Hobsbawm has written a famous book about those inventions and the motives behind them. I quote: 'Attempts to establish objective criteria for nationhood, or to explain why certain groups have become 'nations' and others not, have often been made, based on single criteria such as language or ethnicity or a combination of criteria such as language, common territory, common history, cultural traits or whatever else... All such objective definitions have failed, for the obvious reason that, since only some members of the large class of entities which fit such definitions can at any time be described as 'nations', exceptions can always be found... How indeed could it be otherwise, given that we are trying to fit historically novel, emerging, changing, and, even today, far from universal entities into a framework of permanence and universality?...'

Even in later periods your rule of thumb applies to many cases of fervent or extreme nationalism. Napoleon was Corsican, Stalin was Georgian, Hitler was Austrian, etcetera. When you're looking for explanations of historical phenomena this is the true stuff, Tuff...

[hellenes]

While i wont get drawn into your LABELING practice what are your quotes?
What are your evidence?
If you have any JUST present them..
Otherwise please refer from labelling other people without backing up your arguments with evidence...
And please can you tell me What the following words mean?
Fillipos
Alexandros
Makedonia
Thessaloniki
And in which language are they?
And as i said before when nationalism is useful for someones interests its called patriotism (afganistan-russia war,vietnam Kossovo) otherwise its labelled extremism at the best and nazism at worst..

Hellenes

[Adrian II]

What are your evidence?

You need glasses. You have twice already been pointed to another website that purports to refute all your claims, and you don't even address it.

Anyway, that is not the real issue. You refuse to get the point that claiming Alexander for any particular nation or culture is in and of itself un-historic. And as with all intellectual issues, the real in-depth knowledge about Alexander and his age is not found on the Internet, it is found in books and scientific articles. Historiography is more than an exercise in connecting a bunch of isolated quotes. It involves careful analysis of the available sources and a transparent argument as to how and why the historian gets from A to B to C in his story.

The Internet is a very poor source that should be used with utmost care and distrust. I work with it every day and every day I am more frustrated by the bulk of nonsense accumulating in cyberspace under the misnomers of information and communication. The Web in particular merely provides short-cuts to the real thing and even in that respect, nine out of every ten websites are useless. Take the test. Type your favourite subject into Google - something you are really knowledgeable about, be it football, gardening, Australian business law or late-nineteenth century steam engines - and see what useful links Google comes up with... one in ten, right?

You can find references to books and articles through serious resources like The History Web or this great site that devotes attention to all the controversies surrounding Alexander. Here's what they state as their mission. Read it carefully, Hellenes, for it is about you.

'Alexander's name continues to carry great weight around the world. Greek, Macedonian and Albanian nationalists fight to claim his mantle. Many Indian and Iranian nationalists hate him with equal vigor. Some Christians believe his conquests prepared the world to receive the Gospel. Some Jews believe he worshipped at the temple in Jerusalem. Some Muslims consider him a prophet. Zoroastrians credit him with the destruction of much of their sacred literature. Tiepolo painted his sexual continence. Homosexuals and bisexuals interpret his amours rather differently. Epileptics, left-handers, pederasts, dandruff sufferers... everybody has their claws in him. There are people who think he's buried in Japan. There are people who think it's Illinois. It really gets interesting when the Internet brings these different groups together. Through this site you can drop on a group of Baha'is discussing Alexander's sexuality, drawing on the Koran, Shi'ah allegory, Persian nationalism, the novels of Mary Renault, and western academic scholarship.'

[hellenes]

The site that you point in HAS only ONE quote/source from ancient historitians wich is IMO absurd and provides with NO CREDIBLE ancient source evidence as for the identity of "makedonians"...
Adrian II I dont want to quarrel with you but its you that continiously naming and labelling me...
As i dont believe in labels and sarcastic statements i didnt call you a bulgarian "history thief" or any other label...
And the site is filled with propaganda and nationalistic aggresive statements wich challenege the sovereignity of the greek country...
If you want to think that Alexander and ancient Makedones werent Hellenic its your right but its also my right to express my opinion...
Just tell me what that names mean and the language that they are in...

Hellenes

[Slyspy]

Nobody is denying that Alexander and the land of his birth were influenced by hellenistic culture. They were after all next door to the most civilized area in Europe. However, that does not make Alexander Greek in the terms which you require (ie somehow belonging to modern Greece not the upstart nation of Macedonia or, worse, the Albanians). Am I American because I am influenced by their culture as the dominant force in the West? No.

[Adrian II]

Am I American because I am influenced by their culture as the dominant force in the West? No.

Exactly. Still, our friend's essentialism is at the heart of all modern nationalism, irridentism and the so-called clash of civilizations. If you believe that all people have an immutable ethnic identity (their 'essence'), than there is no discontinuity between our ancient forerunners and ourselves. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as history, because history supposes continuous change, irriversible development and constant assimilation. Of course present-day Greeks couldn't even trace their origin to ancient Greeks (let alone Macedonians) because so many Slav, Avar, Albanian and other immigrants have been absorbed into the population over the centuries. And modern Macedonians can't even reconstruct their 'original' language, even though their propagandists claim it was 'utterly' distinct from ancient Greek. And then there are the Bulgarians who claim that Macedonian is just Bulgarian written in the Serbian alphabet...

Anyway, this is far too tedious to go into.

Here's a refreshing quote from the above-mentioned Hobsbawn. In a 1993 lecture called Inside and Outside History given in Budapest he said: 'The most usual ideological abuse of history is based on anachronism rather than lies. Greek nationalism refused Macedonia even the right to its name on the grounds that all Macedonia is essentially Greek and part of a Greek nation-State, presumably ever since the father of Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, became ruler of the Greek lands on the Balkan peninsula. Like everything about Macedonia, this is a far from a purely academic matter, but it takes a lot of courage for a Greek intellectual to say that; historically speaking, it is nonsense. There was no Greek nation-State or any other single political entity for the Greeks in the fourth century B.C.; the Macedonian empire was nothing like the Greek or any other modern nation-state, and in any case it is highly probable that the ancient Greeks regarded the Macedonian rulers, as they did their later Roman rulers, as barbarians and not as Greeks, though they were doubtless too polite or cautious to say so.
In the same way that it would be questionable for a modern Swiss-German to claim descendence from sixteenth century Dutch seafarers, it is questionable for modern Greeks to claim family affinity with the ancient Macedonians, even if the ethnological purity which such a claim requires could be established. (..) We must resist the formation of national, ethnic and other myths, as they are being formed. It will not make us popular. Thomas Masaryk, founder of the Czechoslovak republic, was not popular when he entered politics as the man who proved, with regret but without hesitation, that the medieval manuscripts on which much of the Czech national myth was based were fakes. But it has to be done, and I hope those of you who are historians will do it.'

[Steppe Merc]

Can you hear yourself?
Since when political structure defines a culture?
Military organisation?

It does for me, at leas partially. The main part of a culture is it's politics and warfare. A group of people may be related, but be of totally different culture. The Macedonians may have Greek blood in them (though it was also mixed with Thracian and other hill and edge of steppe people), but they weren't Greek, because their way of life wasn't at all like that of Greeks. Only later on, did they try and be like the Greeks, but even then, they weren't the same as Greeks. They were Macedonians.

[hellenes]

It does for me, at leas partially. The main part of a culture is it's politics and warfare. A group of people may be related, but be of totally different culture. The Macedonians may have Greek blood in them (though it was also mixed with Thracian and other hill and edge of steppe people), but they weren't Greek, because their way of life wasn't at all like that of Greeks. Only later on, did they try and be like the Greeks, but even then, they weren't the same as Greeks. They were Macedonians.

Now how you can call a "separate" cultural entity that:
Has NO language on its own rather a DIALECT of greek: YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE of Makedonian language...period
Participates in the greatest sports event which was restricted to greeks ONLY and HAD very strict rules...
Has NO architecture on its own...
The place were all the greek gods liven is in their land...
The arcadians and spartans were as "uncivilised" as the thracians and even more but see there is a trick since Arcadians and spartans were inside the whole Athenean civilisation geographically you cannot cut them out of the greek culture no matter how much you want it...
Where the dorians came from hmmm thats a question...
The thing that yoou dont want to understand that you CANNOT convince the other side without evidence and i havent seen ANY credible evidence from you...
What you can do is to call the opposit opinion names label it and generally try to diminish it...

Hellenes

[Adrian II]

(..) i havent seen ANY credible evidence from you...

That's because you refuse to read. We have pointed to literally hundreds of sources that give a balanced, scientifically based account of the issue. The most important difference seems to have been that ancient Macedonia, unlike the Greek city states, was a kingdom. Saying they were one and the same because they spoke Greek is akin to saying that Canada and the UK, or the UK and Nigeria, or Russia and Ukraine are the same for linguistic reasons.

This is really my last word, I'm as bored as Simon Appleton with this nonsense.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There was no Greek nation-State or any other single political entity for the Greeks in the fourth century B.C.;

So when do we start calling people Greek and why? Whats the difference between a spartan and a macedonian as far as greekness goes?

[nokhor]

in the illiad, when homer refers to the greeks [hellenes] he refers specifically to the dorians. the other tribes like the ionians are not considered hellenes. by the time of the persian wars, it included all the civilized city states in the greek peninsula and their colonies all over the mediterranean. definitions of groups change over time. what it meant to be a roman changed from being a latin citizen born in a specific city state, to include other latins, other itialians, other mediterraneans. it is only over the last 500 years with the solidity of the nation states where group identiies have become static and where you are x, if you are born in x-land and speak x-ese.

[Devastatin Dave]

I bought the movie a month ago and enjoyed it. They homosexual stuff wasn't all that bad and I thought it didn't take away or add anything to the movie. Did they get Alexander right, I don't think so, but it was a good flick regardless. That's Dave's movie critique, what's yours'?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No

[Steppe Merc]

No.

[sharrukin]

No.

[Pindar]

Did Hollywood get Alexander right?

Clears throat...No.

I saw the theatrical version and the Director's cut. I tried to give Stone the benefit of the doubt. As I mentioned in another thread: I don't think Stone understood his topic.

[bmolsson]

Did Hollywood get Alexander right?

Clears throat...No.

But you don't really know that, do you ???

[AntiochusIII]

LOL The Ultimate Rebirth of a months-old thread.

By the way, No.