Literally everything we know about Alexander as a personality is entirely made up, since there isn't even a shred of writings about him surviving, written by people who had any interactions with him.
In his introduction Arrian mentions how since there's no single source for Alexander's life, his story was kind of forgotten by the Romans. Meanwhile, Xenophon was extremely popular until now.
Literally everything we know about Alexander as a personality is entirely made up, since there isn't even a shred of writings about him surviving, written by people who had any interactions with him.
I was always under the assumption that the stuff we got about Alexander knew people who wrote from contemporary sources, is this not the case? Don't bully me
With a lot of Greek stuff, there's usually a single authoritative source who recorded the history either from that same generation or from the following generation. The most famous ones, like Xenophon and Thucydides, took active roles in the event. With Alexander, he didn't have a single member of his cohort that recorded everything into a master narrative.
We have to assume most of what we got from Arrian and Plutarch and the rest were taken from sources that had sources with knowledge at some point, but there's still a lot of mythology that gets worked in.
this makes me really fricking sad, they weren't able to compile stuff from various sources that were contemporaries of Alexander?
3 months ago
Anonymous
There probably were, but they were lost by Arrian's time at least. To me the sad thing isn't that we don't know more about Alexander, it's that there are probably countless episodes like his across the ancient world that we'll never know about at all.
>With Alexander, he didn't have a single member of his cohort that recorded everything into a master narrative.
Ptolemy I Solder, who was also his successor, fellow general and historian. That all the secondary sources use as a primary source for Alexander the Great. Nice, try tho
usually you have to assume 2 things, stories that pass generations via broken telephone oral history or contemporary source was lost in library of alexandria but later sources were working directly off those lost sources
Most of history is like that. The Bible was compiled over a century after the death of Jesus. There was no photographs, no verifiable documents. The Apostles were illiterate. How can anything be trusted? It's all apocrypha.
Almost all of history is like this; even evidence like photographs were manipulated. History is revisionist, not objective. It cannot be objective without a time machine.
Very obviously a labor of love. The starting speach by Hopkins still gives me Goosebumps and conveys understanding a time of greatness they had, but in the moment weren't able to identify, which is mostly normal.
Val Kilmer stole all the scenes.
At the time there was a parallel movie going to be made with DiCaprio and Baz Luhrman directing. I don't think it would've been better than this, but I wish it was made.
>Mostly a character study of Alexander and his close friends >Mommy issues up the ass >Val Kilmer elevating the movie to kino >Has only 2 epic fight scenes
Alexander is pleb filter. People can't comprehend character study because they expected it to be like Gladiator, blatant reason to see blood and violence.
People expected violence than actual character biopic. Alexander came after Gladiator and Troy. They expected epic war movie.
Americans also hated it for the LGBT themes despite Greeks were degenerates. Ironic because Val Kilmer fricked someone in the ass and got killed for it. Based. It wasn't pro-LGBT at all.
>Americans also hated it for the LGBT themes despite Greeks were degenerates
I clearly remember my uncle shitting on the movie because they had "made Alexander a homosexual"
>Americans also hated it for the LGBT themes despite Greeks were degenerates
I clearly remember my uncle shitting on the movie because they had "made Alexander a homosexual"
thing is this hollywood trope that the ancient greeks were gays is pure bs
hearty kek at this insanely underrated bait feelsbad that since eternal summer started the average poster is a sub-100 IQ polBlack person or leftroony who can't appreciate good OC
I get that you've seen a youtube video by a subnormal with a speech impediment and now feel very secure in this belief but you're wrong.
Hundreds of years of scholarship > dribbling sword youtuber
Phillip understood to frick a Greek / Macedonian wife than an Asian mutt like Alexander did. Phillip also knew that they were the superior race than Barbarians. Alexander was evil as King Nimrod.
>Greeks are superior race and creates civilization >Persians and Indians are savages >Marry a Greek wife to improve relations with Macedonia and Greece >Rapes a man for quick fix
>Alexander wants multicultural one world government >Fricks a mutt >Fricks a guy consensually
If this is babby's first war epic/biopic I can see why your shitty pleb opinion is this. But that's all it is. A shitty pleb with pleb taste opinion. It's absolute garbage.
>invective
oh no i've pissed off Cinemaphile's most badass balding 30 something virgin pseud.
well do regal us with your picks oh wise one, we wait with bated breath.
>actually researches ancient armor, clothing and architecture >they actually have chariots, elephants and the Macedonian phalanx >battles aren't just two mobs of idiots without helmets and only armed with swords running into each other
How the frick did this movie get made?
Neither. You're just an idiot with bad taste.
Frick you too.
maybe the new nextflix gay crust """documentary""" is more to your speed
But you dream, Cinemaphile!
It's just bad. Misrepresents Alexander into some mopey cuck.
Literally everything we know about Alexander as a personality is entirely made up, since there isn't even a shred of writings about him surviving, written by people who had any interactions with him.
In his introduction Arrian mentions how since there's no single source for Alexander's life, his story was kind of forgotten by the Romans. Meanwhile, Xenophon was extremely popular until now.
I still need to finish Hellenica.
I was always under the assumption that the stuff we got about Alexander knew people who wrote from contemporary sources, is this not the case? Don't bully me
With a lot of Greek stuff, there's usually a single authoritative source who recorded the history either from that same generation or from the following generation. The most famous ones, like Xenophon and Thucydides, took active roles in the event. With Alexander, he didn't have a single member of his cohort that recorded everything into a master narrative.
We have to assume most of what we got from Arrian and Plutarch and the rest were taken from sources that had sources with knowledge at some point, but there's still a lot of mythology that gets worked in.
this makes me really fricking sad, they weren't able to compile stuff from various sources that were contemporaries of Alexander?
There probably were, but they were lost by Arrian's time at least. To me the sad thing isn't that we don't know more about Alexander, it's that there are probably countless episodes like his across the ancient world that we'll never know about at all.
>With Alexander, he didn't have a single member of his cohort that recorded everything into a master narrative.
Ptolemy I Solder, who was also his successor, fellow general and historian. That all the secondary sources use as a primary source for Alexander the Great. Nice, try tho
usually you have to assume 2 things, stories that pass generations via broken telephone oral history or contemporary source was lost in library of alexandria but later sources were working directly off those lost sources
Most of history is like that. The Bible was compiled over a century after the death of Jesus. There was no photographs, no verifiable documents. The Apostles were illiterate. How can anything be trusted? It's all apocrypha.
Almost all of history is like this; even evidence like photographs were manipulated. History is revisionist, not objective. It cannot be objective without a time machine.
In you and others like you is this... what makes you so much better than them Cassander, better than you really are?
Kino
It Captured the zeitgeist of Greek supremacy fairly well
I believe in Hellenic superiority from the antiquated times.
These days however, not so much.
Massalia is one of my favourite Greek colonies.
oliver stone is a trash director who works for the cia
nah alexander, snowden platoon, jfk and salvador are all solid films. Not amazing but solid.
at least he isn't a one movie wonder hack like tarantino
>tarantula
>one movie
>jackie brown
>reservoir dogs
>pulp fiction
>kill bill
nice try
when Anthony Hopkins talks for half an hour at the end
Very obviously a labor of love. The starting speach by Hopkins still gives me Goosebumps and conveys understanding a time of greatness they had, but in the moment weren't able to identify, which is mostly normal.
Val Kilmer stole all the scenes.
At the time there was a parallel movie going to be made with DiCaprio and Baz Luhrman directing. I don't think it would've been better than this, but I wish it was made.
>Scene where Alexander and Jared Leto confess their love and hug
Greatest love scene, no homo.
>Mostly a character study of Alexander and his close friends
>Mommy issues up the ass
>Val Kilmer elevating the movie to kino
>Has only 2 epic fight scenes
Alexander is pleb filter. People can't comprehend character study because they expected it to be like Gladiator, blatant reason to see blood and violence.
the soundtrack is
>Conquering the world because mommy said so
What a weak cuck Alexander was. kek.
>conquers the world in order to NOT see her mom
at least that's what I got from this movie
Both. She said to conquer the world because she killed his "stepather". Zeus conceived her.
Akthschually the director's cut (around 160 min) is the best version.
It was great, I never understood the hate for it.
People expected violence than actual character biopic. Alexander came after Gladiator and Troy. They expected epic war movie.
Americans also hated it for the LGBT themes despite Greeks were degenerates. Ironic because Val Kilmer fricked someone in the ass and got killed for it. Based. It wasn't pro-LGBT at all.
>Americans also hated it for the LGBT themes despite Greeks were degenerates
I clearly remember my uncle shitting on the movie because they had "made Alexander a homosexual"
Tell your uncle to watch King Phillip's death.
thing is this hollywood trope that the ancient greeks were gays is pure bs
Cope
So true bestie
hearty kek at this insanely underrated bait
feelsbad that since eternal summer started the average poster is a sub-100 IQ polBlack person or leftroony who can't appreciate good OC
i think the greeks had the right idea
I get that you've seen a youtube video by a subnormal with a speech impediment and now feel very secure in this belief but you're wrong.
Hundreds of years of scholarship > dribbling sword youtuber
>childhood is idolizing Alexander the Great
>adulthood is realizing Phillip was the bigger chad
Philip laid the foundation
Phillip understood to frick a Greek / Macedonian wife than an Asian mutt like Alexander did. Phillip also knew that they were the superior race than Barbarians. Alexander was evil as King Nimrod.
>Philip laid the foundation
Holy mother of normie take.
He's right. Normies don't even know who Philip is.
>Greeks are superior race and creates civilization
>Persians and Indians are savages
>Marry a Greek wife to improve relations with Macedonia and Greece
>Rapes a man for quick fix
>Alexander wants multicultural one world government
>Fricks a mutt
>Fricks a guy consensually
>Persians are savages
Know nothing about the Persian Empire huh
you are a fricking moron and watching 3 youtube shorts about the ancient greece wont fix it
>Conspiring to murder your husband because getting cucked by a younger Greek harlot
Do women really?
I like the theatrical acting and speeches of Collin Farrel
>Cinemaphile is baiting you into sitting through yet another shit 5 hour movie
Is there more or less gay than the original cut?
Much more
gay
Its..okay. Farrell takes it down though. He's not good for the role at all and altogether wasn't a good actor at this point in his career at least.
persian bussy must have been lit
its alright
You're insane
Yes, it's kino.
Jared Leto kinda drags the movie down
But its a solid 7/10
>Angelina Jolie
>Rosario Dawson
>Jared Leto
>and Sir Anthony Hopkins as Wild Old Man
Chaotic battle scenes, awesome score, a lot of the casting is very strong with great performances. Frick what Cinemaphile thinks.
If this is babby's first war epic/biopic I can see why your shitty pleb opinion is this. But that's all it is. A shitty pleb with pleb taste opinion. It's absolute garbage.
>If this is babby's first war epic/biopic
This is one of the better ones
>invective
oh no i've pissed off Cinemaphile's most badass balding 30 something virgin pseud.
well do regal us with your picks oh wise one, we wait with bated breath.
>actually researches ancient armor, clothing and architecture
>they actually have chariots, elephants and the Macedonian phalanx
>battles aren't just two mobs of idiots without helmets and only armed with swords running into each other
How the frick did this movie get made?
>How the frick did this movie get made?
Lord of the Rings. Same reason they made Troy and Kingdom of Heaven right around the same time.
>Tolkien loves history
>his work inspires multiple historical events to take place on screen
based
But what made Oliver Stone go the extra mile and how did he get away with it? Both Troy and Kingdom of Heaven are slop.
Post the Moot webm it's a good one
You just like the scene where the little boys are all wrestling in diapers. You sick frick. have a nice day metaphorically and physically
How in the actual frick is Troy more well regarded than this
You're probably insane as frick. This is no Braveheart.