Fiction on Alexander (your opinion )

[Efstathios]

Tyre was his most famous siege, but, I doubt that the slaughter of some 6,000 after the city was taken and the crucifixion of two thousand Tyreans (along with the selling into slavery of the rest) will have done much for the cultural/brotherhood of man thesis.

I dont think Stone would have had a problem to show Tyr, the siege and all. The reason why he didnt was because he had to make the film being 2-3 hours long, and of course because in his oppinion the flirting of Hephaestion with Alexander was more important in order to dedicate time to it.

We have discussed about Tyr.If it was at his intentions to liberate, and spread culture among conquering, he surely didnt set forth doing that with a cross in his hand.He was a conqueror.And no matter how good will he may have had at some occassions, it would have been very difficult to keep his soldiers or himself of not crushing Tyr after many months of siege and the way that the Tyrians provoked him at the process.

And of course we cannot judge by our ways and time, or without being in his place.I think that what he did to Tyr and Thebes was way more lighter than what other people did to other cities.Like the Caesars, the Khan, and others.

[pankration]

Paralus said, "Tyre was his most famous siege, but, I doubt that the slaughter of some 6,000 after the city was taken and the crucifixion of two thousand Tyreans (along with the selling into slavery of the rest) will have done much for the cultural/brotherhood of man thesis." I agree. Alexander had a universal vision but let's not forget he CONQUERED Asia. That meant a myriad of wars where victory was far more important than creating a "brotherhood".
As for portraying a seige, other directors have done it well in other films. Michael Mann in Last of the Mohicans, Peter Jackson in the Rings trilogy, Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven and others. Maybe Stone didn't have the directorial talent to do it right. I am quite critical of his battle scenes too (although they were good in Platoon).
Efstathios has a good point too. I would gladly have given up the 15 minutes of Alexander staring at Hephaestion and Bagoas for a seige. Paralus is right on this count too; you really can only show defining moments in a film like Alexander. I happen to think the seige of Tyre was one of them.

[dean]

Hello,

I agree that the Siege of Tyre showed the Greeks at the height of their ingenuity(and the Tyrians too) in the course of the invasion.(they showed more ingenuity here than at Troy)

Well, such comments as the above about the amount of dead after Tyre really does settle the argument of the brotherhood of man idea.(more like lays it to rest if you ask me)

Best regards,
Dean

[jasonxx]

With the Seige of Tyre I look foreward to the Programe Andrew has mentioned about the siege. This with other sieges has just about put Alexander at the top of siegcraft Commanders. Pir Sar. The Sogdian Rock. Above all it proves his tenacity and himself imposing his will on the situation.

If we want to be romantic we can believe Alexander wanted to enter the City to pay homage to the gods. Feable excuse. And to there own misjudgement the Tyrians showed him 2 fingers. If Tyre came later in Alexanders campaigns and they knew his tenacity and the lengths he would go to I doubt they would have felt secure as indeed they must have. They were an Island fortress supplied by sea. Most commanders would have felt reasonably safe.And indeed they did give Alexander a run for his money sometimes been just as clever.

I guess Alexanders success was due to him sticking at the job no matter what the time or cost. Im sure Caesar would have opted for entrenchment and cutting it off.If i was throwing boiling oil and sand over war hardened Macedonians I would expect some stiff treatment.

Lets be totally honest had the capitulated it would have been hunky dory as far as you did as Alexander expected. The Siege of Tyre alone would take a good hour of any movie. it was full of incident twists and turns. THe Rings movoe the Return of the King was basically a siege movie that lasted over 3 hours. Fair enough the Hobbits journey etc.

I gotta sak one question about those 2 Hobbits. Sam was the real hero and Frodo got on my bloody nerves. Kinda like the Lone Ranger used to get all the praise but tonto was the real hero.

Kenny

[Paralus]

I dont think Stone would have had a problem to show Tyr, the siege and all. The reason why he didnt was because he had to make the film being 2-3 hours long, and of course because in his oppinion the flirting of Hephaestion with Alexander was more important in order to dedicate time to it.

I"m a little more cynical than that nowadays. The attitude evinced by the speech of Alexander in Babylon, outlining his brotherhood of man for east and west in the new cities, will not have been served by such.

He could have shown Gaza but, there too, the slaughter of the defenders and the treatment of Batis, which surely would be too Hollywood to leave out, would set that image back considerably.

It's interesting that Egypt, shown only in Ptolmaic times, is entirely left out. That would be because it does little for the narrative. Actions concerning the nature of the conquest and Alexander's attitudes – central to the film and its narrative – are selectively included though. The marriages, the raising of the resultant "bastard" east/west children as "citizens" of the new world order and the cultural edification and education of the Asian population all get a run. As does Alexander's caring attitudes to the Iranian royalty and his conquered peoples. His marriage to Rhoxanne too is down to love rather than the political expediency that it was after near three years of guerrilla warfare in her father's part of the world.

We are, though, spared in instructive manner both sieges and the resultant slaughter; the destruction of Thebes (save a Ptolemaic mention); the slaughter that defined the "Indian" campaign and by conflating the first three set pieces, the slaughter of the Greek mercenaries in Persian service.

By taking, for no good narrative reason, Monophthalmos on campaign (all the way to India), we are spared also the near two years of fierce resistance put up by the peoples of Asia Minor that One Eye and his commanders were left to reduce behind the ever eastward departing Alexander. Evidently these peoples did not realise their "inclusivity" in the new world.

None of this will have suited the sharing, caring progenitor of Hellenic virtue and culture that the soliloquy in Babylon serves to underline.

Lane Fox should have, like Sir John Gielgud before him (the atrocious Caligula), asked for his name (as historical consultant) to be removed. But, you take the money, you sell your rights.

[Efstathios]

Paralus has a book of Badian glued to his hand.Cannot be explaned otherwise

There is middle point in some things.What you all seem to forget is that Alexander had no reason whatsoever to do things that he would gain political advantages from them ,like marrying Roxanne.He didnt have to gain political advantages from the people he had already conquered, or could conquer with just a node.He had probably something to gain by letting cities in Asia Minor keeping democracy, but from marrying Roxanne? No.

He had no reason to talk about a united world in his speech because he had the position of power.He didnt need a confirmation.Whatever he said he probably believed it.

Try not to judge by our modern stadards.You are the ones that usually say this.Alexander did some bad things yes.But there is no logic at war.The Tyrians crusified the Macedonian diplomats, and the Macedonians went berserk.

[amyntoros]

Lane Fox should have, like Sir John Gielgud before him (the atrocious Caligula), asked for his name (as historical consultant) to be removed. But, you take the money, you sell your rights.

I believe that, to all intents and purposes, Lane Fox liked what was done with the move! At least I haven't seen any interviews or anything written by him where he objects to Stone's treatment of Alexander or regrets his own involvement with the film. Now, if there's something out there to the contrary, I'm sure Pothosians will point it out. Until then . . .

Best regards,

[Paralus]

I believe that, to all intents and purposes, Lane Fox liked what was done with the move! At least I haven't seen any interviews or anything written by him where he objects to Stone's treatment of Alexander or regrets his own involvement with the film.

Yes, yes, I know. It was just too tempting a line to leave out...when on a roll...you know. I agree. I think he sees nothing untoward in Stone's portrayal. Which is why my comments on another thread regarding his book.

Paralus has a book of Badian glued to his hand.Cannot be explaned otherwise

Not quite. More Bosworth I’d suspect. Either way, a more realistic assessment of the actions with little truck for the caring, sharing benign conqueror gloss.

Try not to judge by our modern stadards.You are the ones that usually say this.

Well he was – judging by the apologetic tones of Plutarch and the glossing over, if not silences of, Arrian – considered somewhat “excessive” in his own age. Certainly there seemed little “in-between” with the fellow: ostentatious generosity or murderous retribution. The latter becoming more and more prevalent as time wore on.

He didnt have to gain political advantages from the people he had already conquered, or could conquer with just a node.He had probably something to gain by letting cities in Asia Minor keeping democracy, but from marrying Roxanne? No..

Like his father before him, he most certainly did. It is the reason for conquered Persians being confirmed in their positions; the courting of Iranian nobles with positions of power and influence.

As for Roxanne, the gain was in not having to re-conquer the area for the third, fourth or fifth time. Of course there was political gain in this union and it will have been the major reason for the marriage. Something Alexander had demonstrated a studied disinterest in up until this time.

[amyntoros]

He didnt have to gain political advantages from the people he had already conquered, or could conquer with just a node.He had probably something to gain by letting cities in Asia Minor keeping democracy, but from marrying Roxanne? No..

I'm surprised that you think the region (Bactria/Sogdia) was conquered, or could be "with just a node." (Not quite sure what that last means, btw.) You seem to be saying that, had Alexander not married Roxane, he still considered the region to have been defeated and could have moved on happily to India without any expectation of reprisals or uprisings after he left. I would beg to disagree.

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Ok, maybe it's an exaggeration (could conquer with just a node, meaning with just a movement of his hand, meaning it would be easy, it is a deliberate exaggeration).Surely Bactriani had it's difficulties, but there was not any organized army, just seperate tribes which posed resistance.And Alexander proved that he was good at this kind of warfare too.

Surely it would suit him good to have an ally there, thus marrying his daughter, but he didnt do that in other places too, where there were similar situations and tribes, and resistance.So this situation must have had something unique.Love maybe?

[Paralus]

Surely it would suit him good to have an ally there, thus marrying his daughter, but he didnt do that in other places too, where there were similar situations and tribes, and resistance.So this situation must have had something unique.Love maybe?

In my view, what is unique here is the marriage. If there's one thing that rings clearly down the millennia, it is that Alexander was as much interested in marriage as he was in exploring teetotalism. When he married it was for a reason - as did his father (by and large). In fact, his father appeared to covert to matrimony any convenient dalliance at the drop of an alliance. Alexander, in stark contrast, appeared to eschew the idea. It is one area in which he demonstrated no enthusiasm in bettering the old man.

One is almost tempted to see Alexander's Opis marriage in the light of his "not a part of me that does not bear the scars", leading from the front rhetoric. In fact, one does, near enough.

In "other places" other arrangements were in place. In Asia Minor Antigonus held the fort. In Hellespontine Phrygia well, Eumenes could look after that when I'm gone. In India it was just easier to accede to reality and give it back to the Indians – after a fashion. Those north-eastern satrapies though, they tasked him. Best do a Philip and tie it up with a dynastic marriage.

[amyntoros]

Surely Bactriani had it's difficulties, but there was not any organized army, just seperate tribes which posed resistance.And Alexander proved that he was good at this kind of warfare too.

Difficulties? Difficulties? Efstathios, the marriage took place two years after Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush, and almost three years after he dismissed the allies and continued eastwards! In the beginning he had little conception of the kind of enemy he was up against. No matter how good Alexander's army was the natives refused to quit fighting or remain "conquered", yet after the marriage to Roxane he was able to pack up and leave almost immediately! One might say it was a little late in the day, but I suggest that the geography of the region and the nature of the peoples might have precluded him taking this course of action earlier. As he had always done, he attempted to prove his military superiority first and foremost. Unfortunately, it wasn't as successful against guerilla warfare as it had been in traditional battles. In this region, no matter how many battles he won, no matter how many people he killed, no matter how many natives he rounded up and relocated, there were always others over the next rise, refusing to admit defeat.

All in all, the marriage is such a striking example of political acumen (perfected by Philip, as Paralus has noted) that I find myself continuing to be surprised that anyone would believe it was an accident of "love" that enabled Alexander to move on to India.

Yes, yes, I know. It was just too tempting a line to leave out...when on a roll...you know.

Ah, but when you are on a roll you must always remember Sisyphus!

Best regards,

[pankration]

Alexander had great success defeating vast armies. But no conqueror ever really wins a guerrilla war. Alexander had to use diplomacy to control Bactria. Maybe Roxanne was the solution.