help!!

[Nicator]

Michael,
What somewhat irked me about the Guagamela battle, besides the combining of three battles into one, was the lack of size and scale involved. Also, there was a double phalanx at this battle, Stone shows only one deep. Overall, it was better done than I thought possible. That Hydaspes battle is the one that leaves me with goose bumps every time I see it though. Nicator

[Paralus]

Yes, I think the Hydaspes battle well conveys the sense of imminent disaster that must have engulfed the Macedonians. I'm not at all convinced it was fought in a Thai jungle-like forrest but again, I suppose that makes for easier filming: reduce the scale. Such reduced scale also helped with the sense of just restrained panic.Too pedantic to whingeing about the wounding in said battle? Probably - the demands of movie making would demand Alexander be near killed in one his most amazing set piece battles than some forgotten Indian village of little consequence eh?

[marcus]

I was thinking about this only a little while ago. In some ways I would rather have had Stone include the Mallian siege than the Hydaspes, not least because we didn't see any other sieges. He could have made it much bigger and significant - even made *that* the battle against Porus (he'd already changed the 'facts', so he could easily have changed them in a different way!).Still, I agree with you about how he did the battle - you do get a sense that it was a desperate fight, and Alexander does get into an isolated position when he's wounded, so the spirit, if not the letter of the incident is retained.ATBMarcus

[Nicator]

Agreed,I would add another worthless point, that Stone was overwhelmingly biased by Renault. A point that I can easily relate to, as most of the earliest parts of my book were suffering from the same malady. Last month while writing the sections from Persepolis to India I re-wrote the legend of the meeting with the Amazon queen. This was the first section I wrote (and the inspiration for the book), and hopefully the last Renaultism forced re-write. I'm not slamming her, not by far. I loved her book. She wrote lovingly about her subject, but her historical accuracy bordered on fiction a bit too often.