legend and history

[Ariadne]

A great historian (H.I Marrou) said that in fact we never really know the past and its characters, we only imagine them with more or less knnowledge (I don't know if you understand me, my english is very bad.)Even in the best books, Alexander is still seen in the prisma of a particular author, we'll never be allowed to know him like he really was, we could only speak about this legendary Alexander historians and writers gave us. I think Alexander became one of the greatest (maybe the greatest) characters in history because writers on ancient and modern times give him the most popular occidental values : charisma, force, will, youth, beauty, culture, and at least the occidental will to give freedom and civilisation to these poor, poor, barbarian peoples (doesn't remind something to you ?)
Then, he died young, at the top of his glory (to become a god you must die 33 !), and young dead people are still popular (think about James Dean, JFK and many others.)Why? It's a very good question, maybe can you reply for me ?In fact i'm usually very sceptic on the "ocidental values" and symbols, and normally I must hate this story of young handsome blond-haired conqueror riding in the sun, etc, but he's the perfect legend for me ...Maybe I shall see a psychoanalyser for this...Bye bye ! Ariadne

[marcus]

Hi Ariadne,It's very interesting, and there's probably some truth in what you say.I think the biggest difference between Alexander's untimely death and those of James Dean and JFK (and probably others, too), is that Dean and JFK achieved cult status largely because of unfulfilled promise. James Dean had the *potential* to be a great actor (hey, compare with River Phoenix); JFK was actually quite dangerous, and my understanding is that he took the superpowers closer to a real nuclear war than at any time in the Cold War. On the other hand, he was young (for a president), attractive and charismatic. So these other cult symbols achieved their status largely due to what "might have been" rather than what "was".Alexander, of course, conquered a significant part of the known world in about 8 years - he didn't have the potential to be a great conqueror... he *was* a great conqueror! :-)All the bestMarcus

[Ariadne]

Hi ! Of course, Alexander was a great conqueror ! But I mean he has a special attraction, more and differently than Napoleon, or Carolus Magnus,and all the others...Not just "be a great warrior and king, and rule the world ", but also "Go to the places nobody went before you (I've forgotten this in my first post), be goodlooking, passionated and dangerous, and die young, that's the way to be an eternal hero !"These values belong also to a long list of characters in art and history, and I am far to know them all(the great french poet Arthur Rimbaud is part of them) , some have accomplished their will, some others no...This non-accomplishment feeling is present with Alexander to : we don't know what he would have done if he went further (that's the word in english ?), and if he had time to govern his empire.

These men have a special attract for many people,in fact you can say it with one word : romanticism... Here were're all looking for romanticism, aren't we ? (Maybe except for the students who are i nthis forum because they work about the period... I did an university work about ancient Greece, but not on Alexander ! )The problem is in the case of Alexander I'm ashame of finding romanticism in war, violence and will of domination...In an other point of view, the novelist Milan Kundera says that we always give great virtues to the past, because of nostalgy about what will not happen anymore. He tells his own experience, looking at photographs of the 2th World War, and being nostalgic, because this horrible period was also time of his childwood...
He speaks about the myth of eternal return : if passed wars and conquest would happen in the future again and again, "there will be no remission to their stupidity", we wouldn't admire people like Alexander, and on the contrary fear and hate them. But the past won't come back, and Alexander is such a magnificent hero...
Kundera says that with other exemples, and these are beautifull pages I'm not able unfortunatly to translate in english...

But I'm pleased you share part of my point of view, and understang my very bad english...Let's talk !Ariadne.

[S]

Greetings Ariadne,And welcome to the Forum!Yes, it is important to remember that history will always remain a "best guess" based on the limited, known facts and a "best desire" based on the writers personal interpretation, personality and ethnicity, culture and nature.And because history is written by the victors, and because for too long the "known history" has been dominated by the west, we have a particular version of Alexander that appeals easily to the western philosophy and personality.. I appreciate what you stated regarding the western view versus the eastern. However, as more studies from the eastern side are brought into general knowledge, a more balanced view may arise, the romanticism of Alexander may diminish slightly and then a more human and honest vision of the man may be developed, complete with virtues and flaws. Alexander will be neither demon tyrant or god-like unifier, but a man like any other of his calibre and given his position, family and background, with the same flaws and promises that all men and women bring to their lives. That said, Alexander, like few other historical figures, touches something in many people. There could be numerous reasons for this- and while some feel a connection to his ambitions (which appeal to a certain sort who dream of world empire and being "king of the world") I think most people respond to an inner need for a "charismatic leader" (human tribal nature at its most primal?)- someone they can follow because he or she touches something within the core of the person- and this hunger for a leader- or the imagining of oneself as such a person- is what feeds Alexander's popularity. Though I have to add that I believe that many who admire the image of Alexander they have created would find themselves *not* as attracted to the real person were he to appear to them today. We admire the image of the man, not the real man- as modern politics can make clear all too often, too!On the more practical side, Alexander, *because* he plays well to something deep within most people, the inner person, is good market- and a hot topic for historians, scholars, novelists and movies. Thus, his appeal is that he can become "all things to all people", unlike some historical figures who have a similar appeal but are mired in religious overtones. Of course, some folks prefer to make Alexander a god, but that is more about their own nature than Alexander.Regards,
Sikander

[beausefaless]

Greetings Sikander,I agree when you say Alexander is a hot topic for historians, scholars, novelists and movies but I believe it's ironic that there has been only a few movies done on Alexander compared to Caesar even though these movies have covered circumstance surrounding Caesar's death and hardly have anything to do with his battles. It's funny to me how much easier it is not to do long periods of battle scenes compared to the drama as shown in the production with Burton.Regards, Andrew

[S]

Greetings Andrew,I tend to agree with you. I wonder if that is because battle scenes tend to create a nightmare of insurance, logistics, animal control and payroll? Of course, I suspect computer graphisc will begin to remove most of those barriers, so perhaps in future more "sword and sandal" epics will be filmed. On the other hand, it might also be that the movie makers assume most folks would rather see a human interest element? They might not realize the human response, in certain souls, to that first heady rush of a charge? Or do people used to mechanized armies still get a similar response to a horse charge? I would be interested in hearing your analysis of this, since I believe you have served in the military yourself?Regards
Sikander

[beausefaless]

Greetings Sikander,Oh yes, my good old military days, they seem so long ago.Speaking on the human interest element the movie Platoon (Oliver Stone) centered all around the main characters of a platoon showing how a reckless gung-ho sergeant who is an effective killing machine in the field also can put his outfit in danger. Stone used three separate stories and blended them together to produce one heck of a movie. Another good example was Full Metal Jacket, this movie followed a man through boot-camp into the rigors of war in Viet Nam.Believe me, the foot soldier and all mechanized branches of the military get one hell of a adrenalin rush (rushes) that would be similar to a horse charge. The military does not care to take individuals with too high of a blood pressure for panic will get you killed and maybe the rest of your out-fit.
This is why I like the words (Alexander movie trailer) * conquer your fear, and I promise you will conquer death*. There was no major requirements to join most of the armies in antiquity so this would have been a good pep of words for a commander to bark out to his soldiers except Farrell sounds like he's got bad flare-up of hemorrhoids especially sitting on his horse. I think he could have practice that pep talk a bit better, I hope there's more dialog with that part, maybe it will fit better.Regards, Andrew

[ruthaki]

Yes, that line was rather stirring although he sounded like he had a frog in his throat. (Perhaps too many takes shouting it???) I also think the fact that Alexander wouldn't ask his men to do anything he wouldn't do (and usually led the action) that encouraged them to follow.