DVD: "Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut"

Post here about Alexander in film, TV, radio, other websites, YouTube etc.

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

as opposed to the existence of Bagoas, which you dispute?
I do not dispute the existence of Bagoas. Just his role in some matters. And yes, i think Curtius is at some matters totally unreliable.

I also believe that the "harem" indeed existed, but whether Alexander took them with him or not, it's another story, which we cant know of. Lots of women were following Alexander's army anyway.
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Is Plutarch utterly unreliable too?
...he went to see a prize of dancing contended for, in which his favourite Bagoas, having gained the victory, crossed the theatre in his dancing habit, and sat down close by him, which so pleased the Macedonians that they made loud acclamations for him to kiss Bagoas, and never stopped clapping their hands and shouting till Alexander put his arms round him and kissed him.
I just want to point out how this passage illustrates not only Alexander's intimacy with another male... but how utterly socially acceptible it was.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

To throw a spanner in the works (sort of) Pierre Briant in his From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire says it is possible that a new king did NOT take on the previous king's concubines, and that a new harem was created for him. Sorry but I can't give page reference and actual text because I only had the book on interlibrary loan for a couple of weeks, but it is one line and it is given in the context of information about the "acquisition" of young women by the Persian court.

If (and I stress the IF) his hypothesis is correct, then no doubt Alexander would have been informed of the custom on attaining the Persian throne, making it doubtful that he would have taken on the harem (in the context of sexual relations) or that he would have allowed a new one to be created for himself - the latter a bit too Persian even for Alexander, methinks.

Do we have any French speaking members who feel like writing to Briant and asking him to elaborate for us? :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

amyntoros,

Didn't a wife and daughters (including Parysatis) of Ochus get caught in the Damascus raid of Parmenion right after Issus? They were part of the group that had split away from the the army on it's way to battle Alexander, says Curtius anyway.

I would assume that they were still kept in the household of Darius, perhaps in his "harem", so I don't know that I buy the idea that every Great King started completely fresh. Though perhaps they were too politically valuable to be "put out to pasture" so to speak, and thusly were kept as were Darius' own women by Alexander.


My comp died weeks ago, with ALL the bookmarks and articles, etc. I am most likely going to be an enormous pest trying to rebuild some of it...please bear with me.

edit: I like the "Final cut" most of all. Even with Renaut's Bagoas featured more prominently. The little snippets of dialogue added are most clarifying in all the scenes. Hephaistion's words in the tent after ATG killed Cleitus, in fact the conflict between Cleitus and Hephaistion, as well as on the balcony, fill out his very shadowy role. Not as much as I would have liked, but it wasn't my movie.

The "adventure" of Stone's film is interesting to me. The rushed theatrical cut, the "American" director's cut and then the final one, the one closest to Stone's own heart. The politics (because I can't think of a better word right now) of the film most likely will become a course in film schools some day (so says a friend that actually teaches that kind of thing tells me).
Last edited by athenas owl on Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:Do we have any French speaking members who feel like writing to Briant and asking him to elaborate for us?
I have Briant's Cyrus to Alexander but, unfortunately, I was kicked out of French class in 1970.

It's a bloody good thing mine's the Eisenbrauns' English translation!

I might get time to have a squizz on the weekend (after my son's 11th birthday party). I do recall Briant suggesting that much is unknown of the concubines and that the "royal women", that is princesses and wives, were able to get about reasonably freely - except for whn the Great King was about to get sloshed and enjoy a few "Thais types".

He was, as well, at pains to point out that the view of this institution (as shown, for instance, by Stone) is not correct and a result ofa later "prejudiced" view.

Yes Karen, Plutarch makes the relationship reasonable plain; not in so bald a fashion as Curtius, but plain.

Why does no-one seem to get terribly upset when Xenophn - for instance - describes his panhellenic hero, Agesilaos, falling head over heels and incontinently in love with a Persian noble's son (in Asia Minor) who was "in the flower of his youth and beauty"?

Possibly because he was not Alexander: hetero Hellenic hegemon and civiliser.

I think the unrelability of any source might be in the beliefs of the reader???!!!
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Paralus, I raise you one alliteration.

Hetero Hellenic hegemon and HERO!

Heaven help him who holds he's homo.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

oops...hit the wrong button... :oops:
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Err, Karen, that was two too many aliterations. Then again, the first may only be an added aliteraion to an extant aliteration and so not considered a full alitorial contibution.

Aggh! I've had several drinks over an extended lunch. I believe my aliterational abilities might thoon be redoothed to anyfing begining with "th".

Thucks. Nothin' theems to typin' wight.

Waiter!!! Another ale...pwonto...

Briant's book, by the way, is a masterpice.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Agesilaos, if he liked the boy sexually, then he still kept a distance. Xenophon says that at a point he denied the boys kiss (which was probably ment for the chick, as there were people in front, see below for the explanation) so as to not let people know about hom much he was fond of the boy.

Xenophon also says that Agesilaos used to stay always in puiblic places, such as temples, as for not even the smallest suspicion would exist that he hang out with boys or men for sexual purposes. And that because he was very carefull about his image.

This shows that for starters, that homosexuality was not so widespread and free, as some people want to indicate. Because otherwise Agesilaos wouldnt have had a problem to even hang out with a boy or a man, and be embarassed. And furthermore he was at Persia, which meant that the laws of Sparta didnt apply there.

So, if indeed he lusted the boy, then he did everything he could to hide it. But still, Xenophon does not indicate if he lusted the boy. He just says that he was very fond of the boy. Which could mean that he was just what the word says, fond of the boy. Either of two, the important thing that we get from this, is that Agesilaos didnt want to be seen with any boy or man alone as to create suspicions about homosexual behaviour, while even he was not in Greece.

What you need to do is to read the Spartan laws, as well as the Athenian ones. It is all well explained there.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Dear, dear Stathi. What a poor defence.

Read Xenophon, Hellenica, IV.1.38-40

Only a start.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Clio

Post by Clio »

I'm curious... what is this Afghan legend about Roxane attacking Alexander with a knife on their wedding night? I figured Stone invented that to er, spice things up a bit. Dagger foreplay, that sort of thing :lol:

Overall, I much prefer A: R over the other versions, as pointed out previously, it's the complete vision. Now things make better sense.This is the film Stone should've released as his "Director's Cut". Should've left in the crying scene though and perhaps added an scene in which Alexander first sees Roxane. And I don't miss Hephaistion flopping about like a landed carp on the bed. :lol:
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Now we've got this thread back on topic, I hope we can keep it that way.

I disagree about the battlefield crying scene, didn't like it at all, because though I liked the sentiment, to me the timing utterly strained plausibility. I can see Alexander having done that on his first battlefield, when he was sixteen or however old he was, certainly in his teens. But by the time Gaugamela came around, he was a seasoned professional, well-hardened to mass death and carnage. He'd seen all kinds of battlefields, including two huge ones, and sacked cities -- even razed one. If he'd cried in front of his men at Gaugamela, they'd have thought he'd gone nuts.

Maybe it's yet another one of Stone's telescopings of history, in which case I get his point... as I said, I like the sentiment. But I'm too much of a stickler for it to work for me.

Warmly,
Karen
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

Clio wrote:I'm curious... what is this Afghan legend about Roxane attacking Alexander with a knife on their wedding night? I figured Stone invented that to er, spice things up a bit. Dagger foreplay, that sort of thing :lol:
Well Clio, I don't know if Stone was inspired by the legend. But according to Micheal Wood in the BBC TV series, the legend goes that Roxana tried to kill Alexander with a knife on their wedding night. Naturally... being the guy conquering her people and all. :)
Clio wrote: Overall, I much prefer A: R over the other versions, as pointed out previously, it's the complete vision. Now things make better sense.This is the film Stone should've released as his "Director's Cut". Should've left in the crying scene though and perhaps added an scene in which Alexander first sees Roxane. And I don't miss Hephaistion flopping about like a landed carp on the bed. :lol:
Agreed on Revisited version being best one (I never bothered to see the Director's cut though). Agree that crying scene should've been left. Also agree on deletion of landed carp... I mean Hephaistion's heart-wrenching death bed convulsions. Must say, I haven't heard that scene described so accurately before. :lol:
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

It is difficult to know just what carnage might have been on display prior to Gaugamela. Certainly Alexander will have lost many more than the Macedonian historians care to acknowledge at Issus. Chaeronea will have resulted in more Greek that Macedonian dead - on the poor preservation of it that we have.

I have always thought that Gaugamela - or its retelling - is very confused and patchy. Jona Lendering sums it nicely when he writes that what we have smacks of the Macedonian battle plan (almost in bullet point form) written up after the event. I agree.

This battle was fought on a dry arid plain on what was likely a stinking-hot day. As with the climactic Gabiene (in 316) there would be massive clouds of dust obscuring the view of the field. These clouds will have been started by the chariots and added to in huge amounts by the cavalry actions.

If you remove the agenda carried by the hostile tradition against the army’s top soldier (outside of its king), Parmenio, there is absolutely no doubt that the holding action on the Macedonian left was both desperate and bloody. Only those with him will have known the nature of the life and death struggle in dust turned to bloody mud as they wavered back and forth over the dead and the dying. Certainly those with Alexander will have had little idea until having to turn left to their aid when the results will have been plain enough.

It is often forgotten that the infantry, led rightwards and forwards by the hypaspist corps staying in reasonable contact with their king, opened a gap towards the left which was rooted to the spot in a struggle to the death. Had the Persian cavalry wheeled to take the phalanx in the rear, we might all be speaking Farsi today. Those that poured through this gap - wide adrenaline-charged eyes only for the baggage train and the Royal personages - failed the Achaemenid king miserably.

Such a gap in the Macedonian line must have been an open invitation to any enemy infantry in the vicinity. It will have occasioned considerable casualties.

The carnage of the field is one of the better scenes in the film. There will have been many Macedonian dead – certainly more than our Macedonian sources would ever care to admit. As it stands, what we seem to have is the plan for the battle hatched by the Macedonian king. We hear nowhere near enough of just how the desperate struggle on the stranded Macedonian left went because it was never to be this bad. What we do hear of is the brilliance of Alexander and his cavalry and how a general – whose courage had deserted him due to age – nearly cost his king his crowning glory.

He may well have shed a tear at the mess that his left had become. But, he may not. That’s artistic license.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
smittysmitty
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Australia

Post by smittysmitty »

amyntoros wrote:To throw a spanner in the works (sort of) Pierre Briant in his From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire says it is possible that a new king did NOT take on the previous king's concubines, and that a new harem was created for him. Sorry but I can't give page reference and actual text because I only had the book on interlibrary loan for a couple of weeks, but it is one line and it is given in the context of information about the "acquisition" of young women by the Persian court.


The Great King’s 360 Concubines.


[p.280] A real problem arises with the usual interpretation of certain Classical and Hellenistic texts on the number of royal concubines. Plutarch (Art. 27.1) Diodorus (XVII.77.5), Qintus Curtius (III.3.24; VI.6.8), and Dicaearchus (Athenaeus XIII.557b) mention the existence of 360 concubines for Artaxerxes II and Darius III.
The figure 360 is found several times in Herodotus’ account about the paying of tribute; the third and twelfth nomes pay 360 talents of silver (III.90-92); the twentieth (India) annually sends 360 talents of gold powder (III.94). The figure even appears twice regarding the Cilician nome: out of the total of 500 talents of silver demanded, 140 went to maintain the cavalry permanently stationed in their country, the other 360 being sent to the royal court. Additionally, the country had to supply 360 white horses; Herodotus adds the following detail: “one for each day in the year, “ an expression also found in Diodorus regarding the royal concubines. The comparison of the texts leaves no doubt [p.281] about the existence of an ideal model, but was it Greek or Persian? Or, more precisely, was there any particular preference for the number 360 in Achaemenid thought? If not, we would have to toss out not only the number of concubines of the Great King but also Herodotus’ figures concerning Achaemenid tribute. We would also have to reject Herodotus’ story of the punishment that Cyrus inflicted on the Gyndes River, in which a white horse, which had been dedicated to the Sun, drowned: he divided it into 360 tiny streams and thus crossed it easily (I.189-90). We would also have to question the presence of 365 young men in Darius’ procession, “equal in number to the days of a whole year” (Quintus Curtius III.3.10), as well as the variety (360) of uses the Persians had for the palm tree (Strabo XVI.1.14).
Obviously, this is a symbolic number that is found also in Greek tradition. But it also seems clear that in Persian tradition reference was being made to a solar calendar of 360 days plus 5 epagomenal days that coexisted with the official administrative calendar of the Babylonian lunar type. Some of the texts that include the number 360 (or 365) are situated directly or indirectly in a context of sun worship, especially the horses sacrificed annually during the Mithrakana. It thus becomes apparent that the quantity of 360 concubines attributed to the Great King goes straight back to information from the Achaemenid court (cf. nomos persikos in Diodorus). By settling on the number 360 concubines, they once again gave the Great King the image of a man above men because of a perfect proportionality between his own rhythm and cultic time. Thus, more than anything, it was a number pertaining to the sacred character of Achaemenid kingship.
The privileged status of these 360 women is well illustrated by the ancient authors. Custom has it, Diodorus says, that during the relocations of the court the king was accompanied by women of the Royal House and also by those of the Kinsmen and Friends. (XVII.35.3). In Darius III’s procession, Quintus Curtius mentions only the king’s mother and wife, accompanied by a crowd of mounted women: following were the king’s children and their governesses, as well as a crowd of eunuchs. “Next rode the 365 concubines of the king, regally dressed and adorned” (III.3.24). We also know from Heraclides that the concubines accompanied the Great King on hunts (Athenaeus XII.514c). This reproduces the custom described by Quintus Curtius (VIII.1.28) for the court of the Mauryan king (Strabo states that the concubines participated in hunts; XV.1.55). The 360 royal concubines constituted an integral part of the king’s suite, though definitely at a rank inferior to the blood-related princesses. There can hardly be any doubt, therefore, that out of all whom the ancient authors called “concubines”, the 360 royal concubines constituted a group with greater status than the immense horde of palace pallakai. We may presume, though without absolute proof, that at the king’s death, 360 new concubines were recruited. What became of the earlier group? We know that to humiliate his son Darius, Artaxerxes II banished Aspasia: “he consecrated her priestess of Diana of Ecbatana, whom they name Anaitis, that she might spend the remainder of her days in strict chastity” (Plutarch, Art. 27.4). But it would be too hazardous to take this episode as a specific illustration of a general practice.
Furthermore, we do not know the criteria by which the concubines were selected. They are always characterized by uncommon beauty. This is already mentioned by the composer of the book of Esther, who adds that they were virgins. Diodorus says explicitly that they were beautiful: They were “outstanding in beauty as selected from all the women in Asia” (XVII.77.6). “Selected for their beauty,” comments Plutarch in turn [p282] (Art. 27.2). But this is hardly a distinguishing feature. Timosa and Aspasia are described in the same terms, and so is Amytis, Xerxes’ sister and Megabyzus’s wife: “Anoutis was the most beautiful of all the women in Asia” (Athenaeus XIII.609a). And we recall Alexander’s wondering appreciation of the Iranian women: “jestingly…terrible eyesores” (Plutarch. Alex.21.10)
It is difficult to answer the question of selection criteria because the royal concubines are usually mentioned collectively. We know the names of only three of Artaxerxes I’s concubines, the ones who bore him children. Smerdis had a concubine who was referred to as a Babylonian (Ctesias 14); similarly, Ctesias refers to Artaxerxes I’s concubines as Babylonian, despite the fact that one of them had a good Iranian name, Alogune, which means ‘rose-colored’. If they really were among the 360 royal concubines (which is not certain), we may presume, with Diodorus and the composer of Esther, that they were recruited from the subject peoples and princes of the Empire. It seems unlikely, however, that any of them came from the great Persian aristocratic families, considering the indignant reaction of Spithridates, who broke with Pharnabazus on the grounds that he “intended to take his, Spithridates’, daughter as a concubine” (Xenephon, Ages. 3.3).
,

Pierre Briant. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Eisenbrauns. Indiana. 2002. pp. 280-282


I don't know why thoe 'cool faces' appear in the post - couldn't get rid of them. No matter
Last edited by smittysmitty on Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply