Alexander

It wasn't me! I brought it up only to point out that there isn't much shockingly gay about this movie, while the heterosexual part goes much further.

 

Sure! Just try to point the blame at me! :-?

 

Why, of course.

I tried to stop it several times and then went on about it myself. :-?

 

Ah, I see...
do as I say, not as I do, eh!
:lol:

I am currantly trying to persuade my dear girlfriend to come and see Alexander with me. She gave me a funny look when I said I wanted to see it - she probably remembers my reaction to Troy too well...

 

Roel and Christian

It was a joke !! Now make up !! Or else !! :evil:

 

Well, I've seen it!
Long, isn't it...

I agree - it is pretty good. It portrays well the culture (I can see why it would offend the far right), and is an interesting study into what drives 'great men'. In this case mostly a nutty mother...

Now... Personally I subscribe to the view that Alexander killed his dad off, but that's fine. It is not known if he did or not.

Points to grumble about ( ) -

1) they really did not have steel in 323BC - they'd barely discovered iron. (one of the characters uses steel in a metahor, plus most of the weapons seemed to be made of it)
2) when will they learn that they did not use metal shields in battle. Metal shields were an entirely ceremonial/decorative thing. If it was thick enough to withstand damage, it was too heavy to carry...

I'll stop there, because I was actually fairly impressed with most of it - no stirrups, for example. And using accurate 'lances' on horseback. It is a shame that they did not point out that Alexander actually created the first practical 'heavy cavalry' - basically you have your big spear, you charge at your enemy, and just as your spear hits him, you let it go. The spear still contains enough momentum to kill the victim, but you don't get knocked off your horse. Before Alexander, cavalry fought with swords or javelins (light throwing spears).

Ah, the Elephant battle. Now, I must admit to not knowing the history behind that one. However, I do know that in most battles where Elephanys met men with long spears, the elephants did not like being poked & ran away...

However, a good film, but possibly a tad long...

 

Note that these things are small details instead of big principles you are criticizing... How did you persuade your girlfriend anyway?

I don't know anything about metal shields but I would understand that they would be too heavy and especially too expensive for the common soldier to use. Of course Macedonia had a standing army, so the latter probably matters less. Steel indeed was a fantasy, which bothered me much more in Troy (I didn't even notice it in this one). In any case this movie plays about 900 years after the events of the Trojan war (if any) and iron would have been a used material. Possible what you identified as "steel" was supposed to be shiny iron. :-?

The Elephant battle was actually quite a disappointing scene for me, though it did show very well how an exhausted and ill-motivated army fights (or rather, doesn't fight). I refuse to believe that Alexander had no javelin throwers in his army, especially considering the many foreign troops under his command, and if anything will cause an elephant to run back stampeding its own allies it is thrown spears. Also a phalanx, though made up of insignificant men, is quite a formidable and barely movable formation and should have stopped those elephants.

Long, yes. I would vote for the removal of the entire figure of Ptolemaios from the film, as it doesn't seem to have any use except the narrating voice. His wisdom of hindsight isn't very insightful anyway and his conclusions could be drawn by anyone. Note that I still think it is a good movie!

And, Ricky, were you as a decent Englishman shocked by the homosexual tones in the figure of Alexander? I doubt it...

 

She wanted to go!

Metal shields do not work well. Too heavy or too thin - unless you have a small steel shield, which is only really practical when a) you have steel, and b) you have a decent suit of armour that can stop arrows and sword blows. Neither of which were commonly available before the Late Middle Ages. Wood is great for shields, especially when made in a plywood-type construction, where the grain of the slices of wood are at right angles. Try cutting even a thin sheet of plywood with a saw or an axe to see!

Steel - well, it is mentioned as a metaphor, and iron typically isn't that shiney... But yes, it coulf have been. And at least they had Bronze helmets!!

Yes, happily it is all small stuff! One little extra, I am not sure if Alexander would have been happy to be called 'Greek', or to call himself 'Greek'. He was Macedonian. Even today they are seperate. Back then, the Greeks considered Macedonians as barbarians, a point which was made in the film...

Was I shocked? Not really. Almost pleased, because finally people might start to realise that ancient Greek society was not all old men in togas debating logic. It is good that somebody has finally had the nerve to show it.
I also thought that the battle scenes were well done. No glory, lots of horrific. Plus lots of aftermath. And yes, the eagle-eye view was a good idea!

 

If he had a problem with being considered a Greek (which certainly the Macedonians of any age have had) then why would he justify his march against Persia with a motive from Greek history? It is a fact that after the unification of the Greek city states under Philippos II the Macedonian nobility became more and more influenced by their culture. They may have thought of themselves as the New Greeks, the new dominant people with the new best culture, or something along those lines. In any case the times of Alexander are times of spreading of the Hellenistic culture, which was far from Macedonian yet spread in the wake of Alexander's advance.

Iron can be shiny, however wrought iron is not. This is what is more commonly seen.

The eagle eye view was the best way to portray a battle in TW style without losing the idea of being in a movie! It was indeed a smart thing to do. And it showed the phalanxes!

 

How psychopathic and bloodthirsty was he in his empire building - was he any different to many other empire builders?

 

Contrary to some he wasn't concerned at all with state building, just with territorial expansion. This is one of the things that causes people to believe he was driven only by an urge to surpass his father, who had conquered Greece. Alexander would fight and fight until his troops would take absolutely not another step forward, and even then his thoughts would be with future battles. Meanwhile he left the structure of the Persian empire virtually intact, using their system of Satrapes (governors), and he left no serious empire-sustaining will when he died at age 33 from war wounds, illness, alcohol overdose and probably poison.

He was a leader but not a statesman, and so his state was an army with a lot of people instead of a people with an army.