Posted on 03/19/2006 5:57:40 PM PST by sit-rep
I refused to go see it at the movies, because of the rumor of the gay thing. Just watched the DVD from blockbuster, and being I swing a hammer for a living, I missed this part of my formal education....Ancient Persia.
Now, there were a couple scenes where "you thought maybe..." or, was there a possible slant in my own mind that they were switch hitters?
IOW, is my bigoted outlook showing me they were indeed pillow biters, or was I seeing true love in friendship back in the day? The came unglued when his Persian wife killed his life long friend? ...or was this another brokeback mountain? Was Alexander the Great a Homo?
BTW... I think Angelina Jolie, even though she was evil in her part, did a fantastic job and should have won an award for it.
sorry... He came unglued...
Supposedly he was happily married ever after.
I didn't particularly like this movie because the directors appeared to have the idea that all the main characters should be portrayed as modern homosexuals who frequent gay bars in lower Manhattan.
I seen the same thing and agree. I would like to know to what extent this movie is flawed, because I was interested in his quest east. I think I'll get a book or two on it and give em a read...
Thanks for the reply...
How could it not?? Especially the scene where that one guy, not his best friend, the other very feminine looking ... ummmmmmm... climbed into bed with him?
I doubt there was any effeminancy in any of them at any time. Definitely rough trade all the way around.
I saw it, and IMHO the gay scenes were subdued; I thought the movie was horrible. Why? Alexander the Great was alledgedly a stratagic genius; but did the movie give a single example of this genius? No.
The 'action' was a blurry, dusty set of short shots that did not give the viewer any sense of order out of the chaos. I had more questions after the movie, than before I saw the movie. This is exactly what makes a movie a failure, as I knew less after seeing the movie.
The Greeks (and Greek speaking barbarians in the region) had done immensely well with the reforms pioneered by Athens ~ credit unions, plantings of olive trees, fostering of new invention to make work easier, etc.
The Persians didn't have a chance!
I liked this from their quote section:)
Ptolemy: "It was said later that Alexander was never defeated in his lifetime, except by Hephaistion's thighs."
I saw on the History Channel awhile back a show or two on ATG, interesting. They replay this stuff all the time.
I tried to watch the 'diector's cut' [played down the homo angle] on HBO. I found the movie damn near incomprehensible, and I'm a student of military history. Almost makes the earlier attempt [with Richard Burton] and the TV series [starring William Shatner] high art. Oliver Stone[d] is an a*shole of staggering proportions...and conceit.
I found the movie damn near incomprehensible
Phew...I thought maybe it was just me. Although the battle against the elephant cavalry was pretty cool. Improbable, but cool. |
Yes, he was. But, it all came about because of the ABSOLUTE POWER he obtained. He ended the life of anyone who vehemently disagreed with him. Philip of Macedon, his father, most notably. Remember the saying, Absolute power, corrupts absolutely...
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Sure, Alexander was a strategic and tactical genius, but Greece had 4 to 5 times the population that Persia controlled.The population of Greece was something under 1 million (circa 800,000) by the time of Alexander. The Persian empire was enormous, and controlled the Fertile Crescent and Egypt, and was much larger than that. But the Persian army was polyglot, and included Greeks from Anatolia; Greek speakers had spread throughout the Persian empire, and that probably helped when it came time to put the hammer down during the Central Asian campaign. But Alexander relied also on native troops of various nationalities, just as the Persians had.
Some estimates run all the way to 30 million people in the core Greek area but I discount them by 50% or thereabouts.
Persia, on the other hand, remained lightly populated with a handful of major cities.
Some estimates run all the way to 30 million people in the core Greek areaJust one that I've seen, and that's yours. The entire and later Roman Empire contained about 50 million people at its peak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.