ATG on The History Channel

[xxx]

To recall the famous line from Fight Club, 'First rule of Fight Club is don't talk about Fight Club,' this one should have been dubbed 'First rule of scholarship is don't make assinine comments.' Bosworth came off best here. Green thinks Alexander was prancingly effeminate which is laughable and when the professor from Florida chimed in that Alexander got the rush from battle rather than from sex, well it could only go up from there.It was overly long and rather boring in places. Several errors, important details ommitted and really cheap looking armor. Did they shop at the Party Bazaar and pick up those outfits?Could they not afford the Clairol to make the guy playing Alexander (fortunately silent) blonde or red/blonde? Philip looked more convincing.Overall ** our of **** for the scenery which was the most valuable part of the piece. Narrator wasn't too bad.What did you guys think?

[beausefaless]

Dear Miss xxx,You are being *too* kind! This whatever came off like a bad fart with the win finally blowing the stench away at the end of the program! Several errors, that's an understatement. I have never seen anyone almost completely distort the battle of Gaugamela so badly I had to restrain myself from throwing my remote at the TV. How could anyone be given an opportunity and let it slip by, the producers should be arrested, thrown in jail with no bale and sent to prison for the rest of their days. Now that I vented *that* out of my system:I think the snake did a better job than Olympias and they made Philip out to be a sadistic stalker, no wonder he lost his eye because of bad karma I was surprised not to see cross-bones on Philip's eye-patch. They could have easily mentioned Alexander's little warm up along the Danube but *no*.The horses appeared ready for the glue factory and from what railroad tracts did they find these clowns to ride em. If Alexander would have approached a spooked Bucephalus as he did there would have been a hoof print on his groin and Alexander would have had a high pitch voice for a while anyway. Your right xxx I don't even want to go into the battle fatigues. You learned more from the paintings of the battles than you did from the narrators.For me Bosworth was Bosworth, Green was closer on his weight to a talent than his physical analysis on Alexander all though I did agree with his description of Parmenio, and the dude from south Florida (Murray) has been through too many hurricanes and not enough shelters.Where did they find the def and dumb idiot to pose as Alexander? Believe me that's all he did!Now there were some decent parts to this whatever, what was it, oh yea, the scenery! After I digested this just short of three hour debauched indigestion I went to the bathroom and shortly after felt much better. I'll let some other good person try and find the needle (positive) in the haystack.

[marcus]

Thank you, Andrew, for making me laugh out loud.I only wish I'd seen the programme, now! (Although, by the sound of it, there are better ways to spend one's time!).CheersMarcus

[amyntoros]

Well, I can only add the comments already made, as I don't disagree with anything said! I found myself falling asleep at the beginning of the third hour and had to struggle to stay awake by looking for distractions. Did you notice that all the soldiers of the phalanx had apparently shaved their legs? :-)And on a par with Marcus' book review in another thread, I'm wondering from which source they found some of their information, as in, (paraphrased) "The Macedonians were extremely upset at Alexander taking a wife, *especially* his lifelong friend Hephaistion." Throwing popcorn at the screen is appropriate at moments like these, though I wish I had a dog to save me the clean-up afterwards.Even Bosworth had his problems. At the end, where he described the Macedonians meeting after Alexander's death in the presence of his armour, Bosworth described it as, "his crown, sceptre, and royal robe." His sceptre?? Good job they saved that for the end or I would have quit watching...Best regards,Linda Ann

[rollsrite]

hi, i know that all disliked the history channel's version and that seems pretty clear to me. me, i was just happy to have atg on t.v. instead of the other fluff. guys listen there are lots of rumors! none of us were there and though there were parts that made my eye balls pop; at least it was something for the populous to look at. and just wait for the movie, does naybody really think it going to get better? accept the things you can not change. tina

[Jim Boudreaux]

One good thing I gleened from the show is why Alexander conquered the east and not the west. By going east Alexander could begin his marches in the morning since Bucephalus' shadow would be behind him. Whereas if he'd gone west he'd have had to wait until afternoon to get started!

[xxx]

Now that's funny!

[amyntoros]

Tina, I think it is wonderful that you are so enthusiastic about Alexander and I'm glad you enjoyed the show. Yes, it did make a nice change to see something about our boy on TV, but you said "accept the things you can not change" regarding the program. Heck no! I know of another five programs on Alexander between now and the opening of the movie. If any of them include ridiculous statements, then I will probably speak up - as likely will many others here. What is the purpose of a forum if you try to silence people's opinions?

[xxx]

Linda, do you not know about Eumene's tricks and the sceptre found in Tomb II at Vergina?One was found in the excavation notes, but it appears to have mysteriously disappeared for reasons unknown...see Borza for more info.

[amyntoros]

All I know is Curtius' account of Alexander's crown, robe, and *arms* being put on public display as a stand-in for Alexander. Is there any mention of the inclusion of a sceptre in the histories? (Diodorus, perhaps? I still don't own the later volumes as I've never followed the Successors that closely, that period not being an area of major interest for me.) If there is, I'll withdraw my comments and stand corrected. :-)If there is no written record and we are down to archeological finds, then someone would have to convince me that sceptre found in the Vergina tomb was used by Alexander during his lifetime - and I imagine it might be a little difficult to prove if it has since disappeared! It seems like such an alien concept for Macedonian kingship during this period that I can't imagine a sceptre being used by Alexander without comment from early historians. But I'm always open to hear other opinions. Do you have the specific citation for Borza's comments?Best regards,Linda Ann

[xxx]

I'd love to give you the citations, but I can't recall them off the top of my head, however, look at the back of the King's coins. What is it that Zeus holds besides the eagle? Yep, it's one of those...

[amyntoros]

Okay, I know that's a sceptre in the hand of Zeus, but now we're veering off into different territory, i.e., is that supposed to be Zeus, or Alexander as Zeus on the back of the coins? And even if it is Alexander as Zeus (unlikely in my opinion) does that mean Alexander carried a sceptre in real life?Back to Bosworth's statement on the show that the Macedonians put Alexander's crown, sceptre, and robe on a chair to represent Alexander. This would mean that Alexander supposedly carried or posed with a sceptre (of Zeus?) often enough for it to be considered part of his regal paraphenaila. Now even Athenaeus doesn't mention a sceptre when he says Alexander sometimes scandalized people by wearing the "purple robe of Ammon." If it is down to archaeological evidence, it seems to run like this (correct me if I'm wrong) - a sceptre was found in a tomb at Vergina - therefore it was Alexander's sceptre - therefore it was used to represent him after his death. That doesn't convince me one bit. I obviously need to find Borza's work on this and find out more of what he has to say. Unless someone else knows the citation for Bosworth, (or a historical source reference for the sceptre) it may take a while. In that case, maybe we can pick up the thread again at another time? :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[xxx]

I mention that as physical evidence a sceptre was associated with kingship in those days. At no time did I say the depiction of Zeus was Alexander, but you can see that a sceptre was part of the pampharanalia of kingship. As for the face of coins clearly the Gods were made to look like the people - Alexander's Herakles or rather Alexander as Herakles for example (and I would speculate his Athena was Hephaistion, but that's just my opinion). Borza speculates the reason they found the sceptre in the Tomb was that Cassander wanted to bury all of the stuff of the Argead kings in Arrhidaeos' tomb to signify the end of their dynasty and the beginning of his. There is also artwork depicting Alexander with a sceptre - the Porus medallion (although I think that could be construed as a spear) and a fresco in Pompeii that I can think of off the top of my head.

[marcus]

Hi Tre,
It's an interesting thought. I would suspect that, if Alexander did indeed carry a sceptre, then it was part of his Medising, rather than a piece of paraphanelia that the Argead kings before him carried. I'm not sure whether I have *any* basis for that, except for my gut feeling .
I think I know the fresco you're talking about, although I think that could also be construed as being a spear; but I'd be surprised if it's meant to be anything other than a spear in the 'Porus medallion'. Of course, the problem with the fresco is that it's Roman, and even if it were a copy it might have been 'doctored' to represent Roman symbols.
All the best
Marcus

[xxx]

The Iliad. Definitely a Greek King kinda thing