Alexander, the movie.

**The Persian Cataphract** · 10-18-2008, 02:14

Yeah, I know. There was actually no such thing as a "sheik", neither as a title nor as a clothing stereotype (Dishdasha-tunics, ighal-fillets et al.) to begin with at this time. The earliest depictions even remotely looking like the commonwealth Arabian noble dress originated in late-Parthian to early Sassanian times at best through a bas-relief depicting actual Arabs. It was a completely unnecessary addition to the film, serving as a "precedent" to Alexander's ambition to conquer "Arabia" (Which is a gross over-simplification to a national entity with no formal existence at the time).

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 10-18-2008, 08:30

Now..

No matter what you think of the film, how awful or good it was, the Hollywood producers did what they had planned.. They made you want to see the movie!
I personally found the movie entertaining and I think it was supposed to be that way. It's not historically accurate but it's not that inaccurate as well. They at least knew the names of Alexanders generals!

**Poppis** · 10-18-2008, 09:01

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Guys, its just a movie, movies are to entertain.

I agree.

And despite the many historical inaccuracies, with only one more battle scene as good as Gaugamela it would've been a great movie. Now it's just a little blaah.

**The Persian Cataphract** · 10-18-2008, 17:06

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

Now..

No matter what you think of the film, how awful or good it was, the Hollywood producers did what they had planned.. They made you want to see the movie!
I personally found the movie entertaining and I think it was supposed to be that way. It's not historically accurate but it's not that inaccurate as well. They at least knew the names of Alexanders generals!

I disagree; I believe the film was deliberately selective in its depiction of the cultures therein, further emphasized by the employment of one of the world-class authorities on the Graeco-Macedonian culture and Hellenistic era, Robin Lane Fox who was readily sacrificing his credit into the movie to "partake in Alexander's cavalry charge at Gaugamela". It was a 155 million dollar exercise, and apparently for the Persians as far as accuracy must have cost, notwithstanding Babylon, it apparently costs nothing.

155 millions of taxpayer-dollars, and we hear Pharnaces yell "Yalla!" to his troops. 155 millions of taxpayer-dollars, and apparently Alexander and Hephaistion dressed up as sheiks during their childhood. To me, there is no credible excuse anymore.

**HunGeneral** · 10-18-2008, 17:36

Well. I personaly I have only seen Gaugamela out of the movie - and I must say I watched it with mixed feelings. It did show the Phalanx quite accuratly and also showed the wast number of persians (there deciption was truly inaccurate - agree with TPc. It realy didn't seem like there was any order among the persian troops although they were masters of cordinating troop-movement of large armies on the battlefield, no Elephants no sign of a succesful flanking manouver by the persian cavalry..)

About the rest I coudn't say anything since I didn't see it. As much as I heard that argument betwen Philippos and Alexandros was relativly accurate - it showed how bad there relation had become (but did the film tell what happaned to that General whos daughter was married by Philippos?

)

I would also like to ask a question from TPC since he seems to know more info about eastern history the me: did Dareios flee at the battle of Gaugamela? I know he fled at Issus - (leaving his whole family behind)and was killed by his Generals some time after Gaugamela since he didn't want to retreat anymore...

Oh yeah one more thing: did the film depict that Alexandros admyred the Archemanid Persian Empire and its rulers and mostly conquered it to become as great (or greater) then them?

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 10-18-2008, 19:22

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I believe the film was deliberately selective in its depiction of the cultures therein,

That's true. I have read some books about Alexander and I waited him to fight against the greek mercenaries(I have forgot their commanders name) and the big 'mob' of want-to-be soldiers surprised me as well.
But then again, average people in America or Europe don't know much about the real Alexander and it was easier for the producers to make Alexander as the great European hero and the Persians as .. well .. what they were in film.
But just like I said.. this film was meant to be entertaining and not historically accurate one. Like all films.

**The Persian Cataphract** · 10-18-2008, 20:34

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

I would also like to ask a question from TPC since he seems to know more info about eastern history the me: did Dareios flee at the battle of Gaugamela? I know he fled at Issus - (leaving his whole family behind)and was killed by his Generals some time after Gaugamela since he didn't want to retreat anymore...

There is no consensus; Some would contend that the Greek sources were sufficient, in spite of propagandistic sensationalism, but not all of them are contemporary panoramas of the event. Others, including myself would usually refer to a specific Babylonian astronomical diary, which in particular addresses a notorious event; a moon eclipse. The last time we hear of anything even similar is at the battle of Halys between the Medean High King Cyaxares and Lydian King Alyattes, where the battle was aborted due to the gravity of the omen. The diary pursues to explicitly describe how Darius' troops had abandoned him, and how Darius must therefore have pursued his troops in order to rally them back into position. In addition to Bessus' premature retreat of the battle, who certainly must have viewed the omen of the moon eclipse to have been favourable for his own personal agenda, the gravity of the omen, as indicated by contemporary astronomers was huge:

On the thirteenth day of the month of Ulûlu in the fifth year of Darius there was an eclipse of the moon, which was entirely darkened as Jupiter set. Saturn was four fingers distant. As the eclipse became total, a westerly wind was blowing; as the moon became visible again, an easterly wind. During the eclipse there were deaths and plagues.

This is of vast importance: If there was indeed a moon eclipse, let alone during the setting of Jupiter, it would usually be an omen pertaining to the king himself (Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Histories 7.37.3). With the western wind blowing against the east, there would have been no question, even to the troops who were mostly laity, in their superstition that Darius was going to lose.

On the morning of the twenty-fourth of the month of Ulûlu, the king of the world [Alexander] raised his standard [lacuna]. The armies engaged each other and the king’s soldiers suffered a heavy defeat. The troops abandoned their king [Darius] and headed back to their cities. They fled to the lands in the east. Astronomical Diaries, -330, obv.15-18

You can read more here: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html

As for Issus, there was simply too much to risk at the time, but with the disorderly retreat, Darius also made his greatest blunder. The most important lesson he had learned from Issus was to bring a large number of heavy horse, faciliate an envelopment through formation overlapping and numerous other strategic considerations.

**Ibrahim** · 10-18-2008, 22:40

well, at least the guy didn't exit the battle on a mare-the babylonians would have had a laugh at that.

**Red_Russian13** · 10-19-2008, 05:11

I thought the movie was as ENTERTAINING as "300." Which is to say, I did not enjoy it from a historical perspective. Like "300" I have to just pretend that "Alexander" was a movie based on, say, a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Great stuff, to be sure, but not historically accurate. I guess it would be sort of like "The Lord of the Rings" if the that movie was extremely loosely based on real events.

**tigger_t** · 10-19-2008, 05:22

a movie about one of histories greatest military commanders and only had two battles. and both were poorly done historically and just poorly shot. its seems to me like the movie was geared to making alexander a anti war statement. constantly making references to him being a tyrant and as far as we know rumors about whether he was gay or not.a unbelievable let down.

**Cullhwch** · 10-19-2008, 05:27

Originally Posted by Red_Russian13

I thought the movie was as ENTERTAINING as "300." Which is to say, I did not enjoy it from a historical perspective. Like "300" I have to just pretend that "Alexander" was a movie based on, say, a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Great stuff, to be sure, but not historically accurate. I guess it would be sort of like "The Lord of the Rings" if the that movie was extremely loosely based on real events.

It might have been. Pelennor definitely has elements of Chalons and the 1683 Siege of Vienna, and the marshes that led to Mordor were heavily influenced by Tolkien's experiences in The Great War.

**gran_guitarra** · 10-19-2008, 05:28

I liked the move quite a bit. Though I will say that I was severely disappointed by the way that the movie focused on Alexander's sexual orientation more than his military genius or incredible daring. Even so, it is a very entertaining movie.

On a totally unrelated note:
Jared Leto, the guy who played Hephaistion (is that how it's spelled?), is apparently the lead singer/back-up guitarrist of a band called 30 Seconds to Mars. Worth checking out if you are into rock (I've only heard their acoustic songs, so I wouldn't really know if the standard versions are good, but I imagine they are).