Newbie question

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

Alita
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:15 pm

Newbie question

Post by Alita »

Hi everyone :D
I'm a newbie to this post. I was wondering if anyone here has seen the documentary on Alexander by Michael Wood, called In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great? If you have, what did you think of it? Did you find it accurate? Fair? I was watching it the other day and thought a lot of the references sounded a bit biased; e.g. Michael seemed to give a lot of credit to the Persian side and not enough to Alexander when Darius delievered his dying message of thanks for his family's safety. And other things like that. Love to hear from you on this.
Ciao from Alita XX
First, be human.
User avatar
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Post by dean »

Hello

I found on the whole the documentary done by Michael Wood was interesting and quite balanced. He covered the terrain and gave a pretty impressive trek around the places Alexander would have visited.I loved the bit that dealt with Siwa and Persepolis.But also he is seen trying to inflate animal skins(and failing dismallly) and covering some quite inhospitable areas- imagine what it must have been like for Alexander and co.

I don't think that Michael Wood will be remembering for his harshness towards the figure of Alexander the great nor will he be remembered for his elavation of the same. I think that on the whole the Alexander found in footsteps is one devoid of too much bias. It is a fascinating odyssey.Enjoy.

Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Disagree

Post by karen »

I felt it was quite slanted against Alexander, following the Peter Green model (Alexander has no emotional motivations whatsoever other than anger and greed -- everything he does that seems to have another motivation is sham and manipulation). There's even an allusion to excessive sex on Alexander's part, despite no evidence whatsoever. When I watch it, I enjoy the scenery, the travels, the ways in which Wood tries to recreate actions of Alexander's (the animal skin raft being a good example) and totally ignore the interpretations. Wood's accompanying book does not have a good reputation as a scholarly work.

IMO...
Karen
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Disagree

Post by Paralus »

karen wrote:I felt it was quite slanted against Alexander, following the Peter Green model (Alexander has no emotional motivations whatsoever other than anger and greed -- everything he does that seems to have another motivation is sham and manipulation).
Ooh, I think that a bit harsh. I think Green - though well in Badian's camp on a number of things (the debunked "brotherhood of man" for instance) - paints quite decent portrait of a fellow that set out to acheive what he envisioned as an heroic conquest (and expansion of the Macedonian imperial footprint and all that meant to the MAcedonian monarchy) and ultimately sank under a swill of alcohol, a tendency (strong by the end) to despotism if not outright megalomania, manipulation and a belief in his own image making.

It's been quite sometime since I've seen the doco though. Perhaps time to run through it again.
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
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Disagree

Post by marcus »

karen wrote:Wood's accompanying book does not have a good reputation as a scholarly work.
Well, it is really a travel book, rather than an academic one. Michael Wood is a historian (not a journalist, as it says in the book review section of Pothos), but he is a medievalist rather than an ancient historian, and he is certainly not an Alexander expert. That said, the programme (and therefore the book, too) never set out to be scholarly, but a travelogue with a basis in history.

Personally, I thought it was great, but it certainly requires numerous caveats attached to it from the academic perspective.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
jasonxx

Paranus You are Indeed an <edited>.

Post by jasonxx »

You know nothing about Alcoholism. And wouldnt know where to begin. Dont give Alexander a label for which you are an <edited>.

Alexander was in no way Alcoholic. :roll:
Divvy
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Paranus You are Indeed an <edited>.

Post by Paralus »

jasonxx wrote:You know nothing about Alcoholism. And wouldnt know where to begin. Dont give Alexander a label for which you are an <edited>.
Thanks for that Kenny.

Where was the word used? Simple question.
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
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Sank Under the swill of alcohol. To quote.

Do u mean a casual swill or habitual swill. No where does the sources say Alexander was even an Habitual drinker. It was all sociable drinking as was the Macedonian way. If so then the whole of Macedonian Culture swilled in Alcohol.

Can you find any written sources that say Alexander was always on the drink and out of his head with Drunken Meglamania. Be more specific before you start deragating characters with such hollow evidence.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

jasonxx wrote:Sank Under the swill of alcohol.
Which is not the same as "was an alcoholic", Kenny.
jasonxx wrote:If so then the whole of Macedonian Culture swilled in Alcohol.


Maybe it did. Certainly the suggestion in the sources is that the Macedonians drank deeply in their symposia which, while generally not daily occurences, seem to have happened with a degree of regularity. And, it has to be said, Alexander appears to have attended a few parties in the days leading up to his illness:
"Not many days later Alexaner offered the gods the customary sacrifices for good fortune as well as some that were enjoined by prophecy and then began feasting with his friends and drinking far into the night. It is said that he also gave the army sacrificial victims and wine by their companies and centuries. Some have recorded that when he was ready to leave the carouse and retire to his bedroom, Medius, one of his most trusted Companions at that time, met him and asked him to come and share his celebration, for it would be a merry party.
The royal journals have this account. He drank and made merry with Medius, and then, after rising and bathing, went to sleep; he afterwards dined with Medius, and again drank till late in the night, and then breaking off from the carouse bathed, and after bathing ate a little and slept just where he was, as he was already in a fever. However, he was carried out on a couch to perform the sacrifices custom prescribed for each day ..."
Arrian 7.24.4-25.2

"But Alexander, after returning from the funeral pyre and assembling many of his friends and officers for supper, proposed a contest in drinking neat wine, the victor to be crowned. Well, then, the one who drank the most, Promachus, got as far as four pitchers; he took the prize, a crown of a talent's worth, but lived only three days afterwards. And of the rest, according to Chares, forty-one died of what they drank, a violent chill having set in after their debauch."
Plutarch, Alexander, 70.1

"Notwithstanding, in consequence of oracular responses regarding Hephaestion which were brought him, he laid aside his grief and betook himself once more to sacrifices and drinking-bouts. He gave a splendid entertainment to Nearchus, and then, although he had taken his customary bath before going to bed, at the request of Medius he went to hold high revel with him; and here, after drinking all the next day, he began to have a fever. This did not come upon him after he had quaffed a 'bowl of Heracles', not after he had been seized with a sudden pain in the back as though smitten with a spear; these particulars certain writers felt obliged to give, and so, as it were, invented in tragic fashion a moving finale for a great action. But Aristobulus says that he had a raging fever, and that when he got very thirsty he drank wine, whereupon he became delirious, and died on the thirtieth day of the month Daesius."
Plutarch, Alexander 75.2-4
kennyxx wrote:Can you find any written sources that say Alexander was always on the drink and out of his head with Drunken Meglamania.
I don't believe the sources say that. Then again, neither did Paralus.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

About Green (not Wood)

Post by karen »

"(Alexander has no emotional motivations whatsoever other than anger and greed -- everything he does that seems to have another motivation is sham and manipulation)."

Ooh, I think that a bit harsh. I think Green - though well in Badian's camp on a number of things (the debunked "brotherhood of man" for instance) - paints quite decent portrait of a fellow...
Tell you what -- if you can find one case in the entire book in which an action of Alexander's is imputed to love, genuine generosity, compassion, friendship, concern for his men, or anything altruistic at all, I'll take it back. I've read it but once -- and I appreciated the thoroughness of citations and other factual aspects -- but I remember the utter emotional one-sidedness of his Alexander was grating.

Warmly,
Karen
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

marcus wrote:
jasonxx wrote:If so then the whole of Macedonian Culture swilled in Alcohol.


Maybe it did. Certainly the suggestion in the sources is that the Macedonians drank deeply in their symposia which, while generally not daily occurences, seem to have happened with a degree of regularity.
And here's another excerpt to add to those given by Marcus - this one on the Macedonians in general.
Athenaeus Book III. 120 d - e
Crowding all the drinks at the beginning is a practice to be avoided, for they render it hard to absorb any additional moisture. But the Macedonians, as Ephippus* of Olynthus observes in his account of the funeral of Alexander and Hephaestion, never understood how to drink in moderation, but rather drank deep at the beginning of the feast. Hence they were drunk while the first courses were still being served and could not enjoy their food.
* Ephippus of Olynthus, one of Alexander the Great’s officers, author of a work on the funeral of Alexander and Hephaestion (last half of the fourth century B.C.)
Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Alita
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:15 pm

Post by Alita »

Well put Karen. 'Grating' is exactly the word I would use to describe Wood's approach to the character of Alexander. Whether he is trying to be objective and shooting too far in the opposite direction, or likes to pop holes in the inflated reputations of heroic ancient figures, I don't know; but it amounts to subtly misleading education all the same.
Alita.
First, be human.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

karen wrote:Tell you what -- if you can find one case in the entire book in which an action of Alexander's is imputed to love, genuine generosity, compassion, friendship, concern for his men, or anything altruistic at all, I'll take it back. I've read it but once -- and I appreciated the thoroughness of citations and other factual aspects -- but I remember the utter emotional one-sidedness of his Alexander was grating.
I don't think so. I'm not Green's publisher. You have every right to find Green's work "grating" or any other word you might choose. I, personally, do not. You might find, for instance, that Alexander’s treatment of the Royal women after Issus utterly chivalrous and indicative of Alexander’s – rather different for the times – treatment of females in general. I’ve no huge argument with that. I further have little argument with the fact that on another, more political and calculating level, he realised thoroughly what had fallen into his grasp and – more to the point – what it was worth.

One might also wonder at the “love” he inspired from his troops and how they would follow him (almost) anywhere. How he cared for those under his command. The material that comes down to us would suggest that is, in large part, correct. But, it should not be forgotten that victorious commanders – especially audacious ones – will naturally inspire this. It is easily forgotten that Philip, his father, was as much hero worshipped by many of those same troops. And, dare I say it, a good tradesman always cares for that which earns him a living: his tools. When those tools no longer serve the purpose as they once did they find themselves at Opis.

I too find things that “grate”. That which currently wears like a shirt of sandpaper is the – seemingly growing – view of Alexander as the “benevolent, civilising conqueror”. This once prevalent idea (particularly early last century) is about as factual as the “Mongol mass-murderer” Alexander who existed only to “hunt men”. Neither of these is correct. Between the two we will all find that which suits our take on the conqueror.

And never forget, conqueror he was, first second and third last. Before last came a good "Greek education". Which education, whilst including Homer and Euripides, significantly also included being raised in "the Macedonian manner". For which read: military training.

The conqueror for whom the betterment of mankind, the civilisation and bringing of culture to those outside his writ forms the basis of his imperial crusade is yet to stride the earth. The closest yet has been the Christian (Catholic) Church. It too has encountered the same human foibles as did Alexander.
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
Alita
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:15 pm

Post by Alita »

Speaking of religion Paralus, Wood also mentions in his video that Alexander is prophesied in the bible as the terrifying beast with iron teeth, which is uninformed. If we look into it closely, we will find that in the book of Daniel, Alexander is actually prophesied as "a shaggy goat with a prominent horn between his eyes" which rushes at the ram (Persia) and destroys him. The bible further explains that this shaggy goat represents "the kingdom of Greece" and that Alexander is "the first king", whose empire is split up into pieces and parcelled to others.

I enjoyed the sojourn of Wood's video as much as everyone else, but his information could have been better-researched. This said, I found Wood's personality to be quite magnetic and definitely entertaining. :)

Alita.
First, be human.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Alita wrote: If we look into it closely, we will find that in the book of Daniel, Alexander is actually prophesied as "a shaggy goat with a prominent horn between his eyes" which rushes at the ram (Persia) and destroys him. The bible further explains that this shaggy goat represents "the kingdom of Greece" and that Alexander is "the first king", whose empire is split up into pieces and parcelled to others.
Ahh yes, the Book of Daniel. The more fundamental Catholics (and similar other Christians) would most probably want to believe that this was written in about the dying years of the seventh century - at the time Daniel was at the Babylonian court. Good Catholic boys - such as myself - though, prefer to render a date of about 180-160 bc. About the time of the Judean struggles with the sputtering remains of the Seleucid empire.

At such a time, a prediction of of a Greek conqueror king - horned or not - to topple the erstwhile Persian Empire was as good a bet as backing yesterdays' Royal Ascot winners with todays' sports results pages in hand!!
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
Post Reply