I would like to give my thanks to www.youtube.com/@AnimeWins/about for helping me fight the copyright claims in this review. If any of you are content creators and get hit by claims as well and are within fair use, he'll help you fight them and win. Just reach out to him through his business email. He guided me through every step of the process and has won hundreds of claims over the years.
UA-cam have forgotten the reason why so many people switched off mainstream television and turned to UA-cam in the first place. ATTENTION UA-cam: You are slowly turning into the censored, nitpicked, over regulated thing we once loved that fact that YOU WERE NOT. Wake up before it's too late.
I believe that I had a chance to see this movie. I have watched many "historical " movies. I just wonder how accurate they are. I get tired of watching, so I skipped this one. Was Alexander blonde? I just think the lead actor, I think the choice was kinda odd
I made a joke with my friends that Greek people always yell but the topic is either The Greek Debt Clock or Constantinople/Istanbul I always wondered if I am right
There's definitely enough material there. Starting with a pilot episode around Chaeronaea's time, you could easily get a few seasons of exciting content. One of the things that pissed me off most about the movie was how Ptolemy skipped over the entire Anatolia campaign, the Mediterranean sieges and the Egypt adventure in one sentence. There's so much awesome material there they could have used! And even after Alexander's death, the wars of the diadochi are plenty exciting themselves.
the worst thing about the "Oedipus Complex" is that in the story of Oedipus, he marries his mother unknowingly, and the complex named for him is about knowingly desiring your mother. talk about punishing an innocent!
I think they overdid the whole 'Zeus is your father' thing in the movie. It was actually very common for great leaders to claim that they were descended of the gods. Julius Caesar claimed to be descended directly from Aeneas and Aphrodite. All great heroes from mythology were said to be descended from the gods (e.g. Hercules), so thats why a lot of real people from that time did too.
I don’t know, I’ve been listening to a series of lectures on Alexander and it seems that he truly came to believe was a divine being after subjugating Egypt, as opposed to saying it to increase his standing like usual.
In defense of Oedipus from the play, the character the complex was based on, he had absolutely no idea the man he killed was his father and the woman he married his mother and when he found out, he gouged his own eyes out and went to live out the rest of his life as a hermit in exile...so...it wasn't like Oedipus actually even wanted to sleep with his mother.
Wrong, the complex entails an unconscious desire for sex with one’s mother. So it makes sense they would pair Oedipus’s lack of awareness with the psychoanalytic theory’s unconscious desire, both things you aren’t mean to be aware off
Give some credit to his father, he was a rare military genius. He revolutionized warfare with the use of sarisa, a 6 meter spear and a great phalanx formation.
@@deankruse2891 To the best of my knowledge Alexander's military was pretty much inherited lock stock from Phillip II, if he made any changes (prior to the conquest of Persia and taking of eastern recruits) they were minor. Not to disrespect him. Hell Caesar did not invent the Roman military system, but is still a brilliant general. However I have more respect for military leaders like Napoleon or Yi Sun Sin who were not only tactically brilliant, but who also created or revolutionised the military machine they used.
What I was saying was Phillip innovated and used that army to bring the rest of Greece under his hegemony. Phillip was no Alexander though. Napoleon and Caesar both studied Alexander’s strategies, along with the rest of the western world continuing today
Alexander used the cavalry and peltas in stronger and more efficient roles than his father and he also integrated eastern troops later on during his campaign. Alexander also did away with the baggage train that was standard for the Macedonian and Greek armies and made the men carry much of their own kit. Come to think of it, he innovated quite A bit.
@@deankruse2891 As I said, I'm not saying it to disrespect Alexander. It's why I mentioned Caesar. Just because someone didn't invent the military machine they used from the ground up doesn't mean they're not a tactically or strategically brilliant. However as I said I have more respect for leaders who were not only brilliant generals, but who also revolutionised or built their war-machine from the ground up. Especially if their methods (as in Napoleon's case) were only made obsolete by technological change and not because someone else created a better system with the same tools. The changes you're describing don't sound all that major to me, and I acknowledged he did change things, but it was hardly in line with the changes Phillip made, and I mentioned his integration of Eastern recruits in my comment. As for, 'people still study their tactics!' this is a bit of a meme. Military academies like to teach by example, but most of these tactical and strategic ploys were not new. Every competent general understands them. What makes a brilliant general is knowing when to use which. That was Alexander's greatest gift; his sense of timing and ability to read a battlefield, knowing where and when to apply pressure to have the greatest effect. This is a trait found in most great generals, and it's hard to quantify who was better at it. No doubt Alexander was one of the best, but I wouldn't call him the best.
15:00 the reason why he was saying their names wasn’t for us to remember them IMO, it just showed how Alexander appealed to his men by naming them directly and attaching qualities to their names
It was a pretty good morale boost- your own king and general knowing you by name and deed. You weren't just a nobody sent to the meat-grinder to die for his glory- him and you break bread and share wine and all the risks and hardships of war together. Just that speech alone makes them more than willing to fight and die on his behalf
HBO should have continued Rome. And yes, a series on the scale of GoT for Alexander and his campaigns would be epic but it would not draw the same audience that GoT did unfortunately.
LOL I think Oliver Stone used the jungles of 'India' as a cost-cutting decision - I was in Southern Thailand, Krabi when this movie was being filmed. Those are Northern Thai elephants in the scene you showed, not Indian elephants. As an Indian, I love your attention to detail of our geography and commitment to accuracy! BTW, the elephants were sadly killed by local poachers after filming - it made national headlines.
Recent evidence suggests that Porus won He wounded Alexander Killed his favourite horse and forced him to retreat back via a different route than that Alex had taken while coming into India
@@dcmhsotaeh Alexander defeated Porus in the battle and made him a satrap. His army mutinied and that's why he didn't push on across the Hyphases. They'd heard rumours that the Nanda Empire possessed an army 5x greater in number than their own. It does amuse me how it seems to be a trope of online Indian nationalism that people talk about how India repelled Alexander even though India was not a state. Alexander's army conquered a good part of India and multiple tribes including the kingdom of Porus but later turned back. Alexander was not forced by Porus to return a different route. The reasons why he chose it are disputed but Porus is definitely not one of them. And what I find even more amusing is that even when Indians take this turn-back as a sign of repelling the Greeks, most are completely ignorant of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, a successor-splintr of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom which pushed a lot further and conquered a lot more in India than Alexander achieved. So even if there were any verifiable truth to 'India' as a whole defeating Alexander (for which there is none, he never lost a battle), him being 'repelled' becomes immaterial when you consider that a post-Alexandrian Greek state did what he didn't, crossed the Hyphases, and conquered and subjugated a significant part of India.
F V R Y Indian name for Indian subcontinent was Bharath .All Indians right from Porus day’s and even earlier called themselves as Bharathiya ( Indian) All poets writers etc of ancient India always depicted Indian subcontinent as Bharath .There are any number of verses in Sanskrit texts delineating Indian boundaries as to be from Himalayas to Indian Ocean .India is the modern name for a smaller part of Akhand Bharath ie larger India Through there were numerous small and big kingdoms in this larger India called akhand bharath the people of this area were always united under the Hindu religion which was called Sanatan Dharma Most westerners have a half baked knowledge of India and have a brainwashed notion that it was the British who united Indians and created today’s India .This is not true since before the British There were at least seven rulers who ruled entire Indian subcontinent and even beyond . West has achieved much in human history and we in the East admire the rapid rise of pale skinned people (of a small peripheral area of Asian continent )from dark ages to modernity Asians are proud of their past and realise that they had a little slip about 500 years ago and theywent backwards for a few centuries .But that era is over . The influence of asians ie Arabs and Persians was a major factor in European awakening .Europe learnt most of its newer ideas from its contact and even its rule ( Spain under Arabs)under Asians Greece gained more from Persia than it gave to Asia as a whole .westerners should accept that there were more ancient, refined ,cultures marital powerful ,clever races and people before the advent of the Greeks Romans and before renaissance .The west is actually a newcomer on the human achievement scenario .The rapid rise of Japan Korea and recently China ,India, Indonesia is changing the world power balance .Asia is once again the big boss of the world .Why the west even today needs to lie cover up falsify history of other great peoples is still a big question Alexander’s defeat at the hands of Porus in the area bordering Afghanistan (Afghanistan was called Gandharva desh at that time and was part of Indian cultural and historical sphere but inside India)is very reminiscent of Russia’s defeat in Afghanistan and American defeat in Afghanistan The afghan and Punjab people in that area are known to have defeated all invaders over the centuries Alex’s troops being “ tired” “ fatigued” “ giving back “ Kingdom to Porus “mutinied” etc etc are laughable excuses inserted by biased western historians Europeans need to come out of their superiority myth The world is fast changing The need for world citizen is more acute than ever before .Europeans ought to Stop thinking like colonial whites and be proud of human history as a whole including Afro Asian and Amerindian history The era of white skins being an inch better than their Asian and African brothers and counterparts is certainly over.
@@dcmhsotaeh I said a state not a nation. These are different. Greece wasn't a state either for most of its classical history but it had a concept of its own existence. And no none of this has anything to do with Western bias against India. Porus did not defeat Alexander.
fvriovs you wouldn’t believe the spew of historical revisionism from Hindu nationalists I see seriously I saw a comment once where someone actually tried to claim Alexander was killed by poison from a poison tipped arrow which is ridiculous considering he died in all the way in Babylon and unlike what is believed about the circumstances of Alexander’s death he likely wasn’t poisoned by anyone Greek or Indian.
The historical advisor for this film (according to my Greek history lecturer at least) apparently absolutely hero-worshipped Alexander and waived his fee in return for getting to take part in one of the cavalry charges, which may explain the rather sparkling portrayal of Alexander's character in the film
Alexander's deathbed declaration was probably misinterpreted. History records that he said Kratistos "to the Strongest," but in his delirium, he may have intended to say "Krateros" or Crateros - one of Alexander's most reliable and loyal generals. This was the cause for the wars of the Diodochi, as several generals felt that Crateros was the best choice to rule until Roxana gave birth to her child to determine if that child was a male heir, and if so, Crateros would have been the logical choice to serve as Regent. On the flip side, many of Alexander's generals felt they were the "strongest" and therefore felt they should rule, thus plunging the empire into civil war. Imagine you were moments from death suffering from fever and delirium. Do you think you would have the strength to enunciate?
History records three different accounts, one which is presented in the movie (Plutarch's account i believe), but also combined with Arrian's account of him handing his signet ring to Perdiccas. Arrian, Diodorus and Curtius all acknowledge the story of "Toi Kratistoi", and i believe it to be the most accurate, but then again, it is the more interesting. Now consider he actually meant Craterus, why would he? Alexander had no successor by choice, and during his 13 years on the throne, he had ample time to appoint someone. Yet he never did. Not even Hephaestheon was named successor, and there doesn't seem to be anyone in Alexander's court he really cared about enough to find worthy to carry on his legacy. Craterus is also characterized as a staunch traditionalist, someone opposed to Alexanders own pretentions of divinity and persian custom. This is not to say Alexander didn't trust him. No sir! He most likely were sent to Macedon to relieve Antipater of his post and in reality become the new "king" of Macedon. Lastly we need to consider the "Toi Kratistoi" through the lense of historical narrative. Diodorus, who is the main proponent of this view, wrote 300 years after Alexanders death, and he wrote world history (Library of History). My point being that he must have been well aware of how the story of Alexander's successors eventually would turn out, and in this create an interesting point of the origin of the conflict. Either portraying the "toi kratistoi" as a bitter challenge from Alexander, or as an appointment of the one person not in Babylon, the seed of conflict was planted. Diodorus being the earliest of our sources, we cannot know the accounts that already existed from Alexanders death, or if Diodorus created one to make sense of what happend.
It is like the stylists had never seen natural blond hair before, and in some scenes the black regrowth is really obvious and jarring. He needed a violet toner rinse STAT.
There is another theory to why he marched across gedrosia. It's that he wanted to prove his superiorety over the persian Cyrus the Great who lost his army there. I believe it was both.
@@LandersWorkshop yeah, but still he could've marched on the coast. Making the resupply easier when the ships did catch up. Also, you would have a higher chance of meating settlements and if you were about to die of thirst, you had water nearby. It's salty, but if you boil it it's fine. And even then, he didn't need to go through the deassert inland. He could've gone around it to the north. But he didn't want to march back the way he came cause that'd look like a retreat.
@@LandersWorkshop If you ask anyone, they'd take sickness over thirsting to death anytime. Besides, as I said. On the coast they could supply, in the deassert they couldn't. An army doesn't march on it's feet, but on it's stomach after all.
You cannot just simply boil ocean water and drink it... that would remove bacteria and germs but the salt would remain.. desalination is needed to drink ocean water..
What annoys me is the fact that they did not show the burning and looting of Persepolis, by Alexander, nor the fact that he went to Cyrus the Great's tomb and bowed to it in respect, while restoring it after it was looted by some of his troops.
As a historian myself, I have to add to the Gedrosian Desert theory. I do believe Alexander chose that route to punish his men, yes. But ALSO, I believe Alexander chose that route to add just one more impossible feat to his resume. No Army, and no King or Queen (semiramis) ever marched through the Gedrosian Desert, and succeeded. All had fail, Cyrus the Great failed. Alexander wanted to succeed where other great Kings failed. So he pushed through that desert. Did he really go so far as to punish his army and see to the death of 25,000 of his men and more adversity from his Generals? I dont know, its possible but dont forget he had a navy sailing parallel to his march in the gulf, probably exploring and learning for his rumored plans for a future invasion using that route. That naval detachment was well understood to also be a logistics train for the march through Gedrosia, but having Mediterranean sailors navigate Arabian waterways, they were quickly lost and detached from the main marching force. Many men drowned in flash floods in Gedrosia as well, so I dont think it was solely to punish them. Alot of the fatalities were from freak events. But one thing we can never forget is that Alexander had been recruiting and training 40,000 young Persian replacements for his aged veteran Army, a hybrid Macedonian-Greek/Persian force...and maybe, just maybe, the 'perfect' race he saw in his eyes, the Greco-Persian race. Give that a think over.
+Heisenberg now I've always wondered how did he get his navy from the Mediterranean into the Persian gulf? Or did he build a new navy after taking Babylon
apparently there is a story where alexander crossing the desert came to a small oasis that only had enough water to fill one cup. It was given to alexander who poured it out in front of his men to say that he would suffer with his men instead of take the special treatment. May be just a story but I think when it came to his army, Alexander was genuinely honored to lead them and cared for them deeply. I think crossing the desert was more of an ego move to prove that it could be done, only by him. Great vid!!
the old intro is certainly epic and I do believe that it is the better of the two. I don't think anyone is honestly saying that it's absence is destroying the channel. but as viewers it is proper for us to let the creator know our opinions. he may even appreciate it. I suggest a poll/survey.
To be fair Alexander wasn't just naming random cities by his name. He was founding cities and naming them Alexandria, just like every other ruler has done throughout the history. The difference is that he has founded more cities then anyone else.
Although magnificent, Alexander's horse, Bucephalus, is played by a modern day Friesan, a horse from the Netherlands that did not exist during his time. Only a horse person would notice, but it was a huge mistake, because Bucephalus was as famous as his master.
After9Design Well, what breed was Bucephalus?? Because it might not exist anymore. So they just used whatever modern (Freisians are a fairly old breed though; just not THAT old) horse breed they thought would "fit" Alexander. Since, you know, Freisian horses do look rather stunning, almost "regal" in appearance and behaviour. Them being used as mounts by knights in medieval times, probably also helps in using one to portray a warhorse without it seeming too unrealistic (although I doubt that was a main concern for the filmmakers; they probably just focused on how great it looked on screen).
Nekhet, according to Wikipedia "A massive creature with a massive head, Bucephalus is described as having a black coat with a large white star on his brow. He is also supposed to have had a "wall eye" (blue eye), and his breeding was that of the "best Thessalian strain." That means he was Greek.
After9Design Hmm.. That raises the question if any current Greek horse breeds (if there are any left that is) would have any members that would fit those criteria. I can see why they used a Friesian horse though; the black coat (although it lacked the star), the large, somewhat "heavy" build, the fact they were used as warhorses back in the day etc. Still would be interesting to see if the Thessalian breed Bucephalus was of still exists or if there are any breeds who descend from it.
Bucephalus was of Thessalian breed,it was short and strong. The breed still exists,but because it is a purely war breed it is not used. Fun fact:Many of the Mongolian horse breeds are of Thessalian descent,see the video about the Heavenly horses.
Listen closely in the death scene, Alexander whispers something and the generals are trying to decipher what he means. Cratistos meaning “to the strongest” or was he referring to his general Craterus, that he was leaving his empire to him.
@@ethanmatthews4561 If you wanna push your historic revisionism online you can do so elsewhere. Alexander's father himself had to prove his family's ancestry from Argos to be allowed in the Greek-only Olympics. Theres tons of other evidence but if you are unwilling to listen to all the experts and historians that are in agreement about this , this is a waste of time.
Pretty sure it's common to shout when you're angry and arguing with someone, I don't know why this was even brought up in the video...they shout when they are angry and arguing against someone
This movie was never intended to be subtle or comfortable. It's a greek tragedy. it's emotional. The movie focuses on the fantastical rather than the historical, it's about Alexander's desire to join the great heroes and falling into the same desolation they did; betrayal and murder, killing his father and fucking his mother. The film would be entirely pointless without his tailspinning mental deterioration and the 'overacting'. People yell in real life too. The point wasn't to "get" and have a gentle 'a-ha' moment about his oedipal disorder, it was to make you live through it emotionally. And actually there is a deathbed scene in the movie about him whispering 'kratistos', which may have been the name of his general Krateros, but since he wasn't there the others may have chosen to 'mishear'. I did like the video though!
@@meep3035 I'm thinking that start with Philip and Olympia giving birth to Alexander all the way towards his death. probably be 15 seasons of a TV show maybe.
Agree., just like the miniseries Rome. It was really annoyed to see 20 years of Alexander's life being cramped into a movie. Just doesn't do him justice.
Sorry man. It's bad enough the sources on his sotry are mostly anti-Persian propaganda, but this shit? Turning into an HBO pornography? Wow. Now that's next level horseshit.
A word about the accent. Actually it works... here’s why: “Proper” Greek could be analogous to proper British-English. The Macedonians spoke Greek, but with their own dialect and inflection. Much like Irish-English in relation to English-English. To a contemporary person in Athens or Sparta, Alexander and his Macedonians probably sounded similar. Same-same, but different.
+Ricky Marasigan (peepinR) If HBO made a series about Alexander with the same attention to detail and authenticity they had in Rome. I would probably absolutely love it.
also something i forgot to add in my last comment see below, Colin unable to rid himself of his accent, (some say he refused to change) they made sure, all the other Macedonians also had Irish accents, a different part of Greece they gave them scots accents and again for a different part of Greece a different accent, it was to show the different parts of the Greek city states. its really cool in the long run. also also Oedipus never knew his mum was his mum until it was WAY to late
@array s No, jackass. He means the different accents of the actors are to be interpreted as the different regions of Greece of the generals in the film.
In the movie, "Alexander", The Macedonians had Irish accents, The Athenians had English accents, and Olympias being from the Greek Kingdom of Epirus had a Russian accent. It is true, that Greece being a country of mountains and valleys had city states and kingdoms that were isolated from one another and each developed its own distinct dialect and accent, but nevertheless, all were Greek! Macedonia is not a country, its just another Greek Kingdom! The slavs of former Yugoslavia love to be called Macedonians, but are no more Macedonians than Ronald MacDonald!
Hoplite Warlord Macedonians USED to be Greek. They even spoke a dialect of Greek. (All be it a very harsh dialect, but still) They are now Half Slav and Half Greek. They now also speak a Slavic Language.
+VictoryGames Yeah I had to watch it before putting this vid on. Really puts me int he right mood for this video. He did such an amazing job on the intro, it's a shame he caved. If people don't want to watch it they should just skip ahead. It's not that hard.
+VictoryGames The fact is, the short intro is the smart move. It leads to less people clicking away in the first 10-15 seconds, which I cannot believe people are ADD enough to do but stats do not lie. The new intro is more informative about what you're about to watch and introduces Nick in cartoon form from the start. The old intro was awesome but didn't really tell you what you were about to watch, and Nick's cartoon avatar clashed pretty hard with the show's visual theme of "ornate museum" up to that point.
Well yeah I do too but the reality is historic movies often don’t make money. That’s why we don’t get many of them. Honestly I think Oliver Stone could have cut costs a lot and still been able to tell the story he wanted. Many of these scenes border on opulent.
I think that the movie is great. It´s told in the format of the drama and tragedie that carachterized the greeks. Anyone who has read plays, poetry or the such of that time will recognize the tropes: the exaggeration, the loudness, the passion, the storm. Anyway good vid, I enjoyed it very much
@@SnazzyBoBazzy It's to get into the mood of the movie. Nobody can read Greek and a modern day audience will recognize many ancient names in Latin but not Greek.
@@allanmacauley But at some point of the movie Alexander is writing on a piece of paper (papyrus?) with the title "TAX SYSTEM" spelled out in Greek alphabet.
Also is very weird because Colin Farrell is an incredible actor with countless subdued and nuanced performances in his career Must be over dicecting by Ridley Scott Or he was too young and overwhelmed by the role
@@TheJunmengoOr it was just wrong casting. Farrell usually plays his best roles when they are nobodies. It's very hard to play someone so larger than life in a subdues, realistic way.
I would love to see a film adaptation of Valerio Massimo Manfredi’s “Alexander” trilogy. It covers so much more of Alexander’s life than this film does, and it does it in a way that, while containing some historical fiction, it mostly stays true to the tale of Alexander’s life.
LOL! "to the best of my recollection, Alexander the Great was not born in Ireland" To the best of my recollection Alexander the Great didn't speak modern English either... XD what a lousy criticism.
I absolutely love this movie, and this is why. There is a youtuber called Diamanda who said that the past is another country and Alexander makes you bring your passport. Alexander is portrayed as a classic greek hero, someone who lives large, feels, suffers, overcomes more than the average man. In this movie he is cast in the role of Heracles, Odysseus. Thats why all the shouting, all the emotion, all the theatrical language as he praises his men and their attributes. hes not a hero in the modern context but if you were to reserect someone from ancient greece who loved the theatre, once you get past explaining what the hell a television is, he would sit down and watch this movie and and get more out of it than we ever could. In other words the film wasnt made with modern audiences in mind, not in a story sense atleast. It doesnt do what gladiator does and translate the past so it could be understood by the present. It shows the past warts and all. As far as the accents go they were used as short hand to allow the audience to quickly grasp the politics. Each group of people use the same accent as eachother so we can differenciate them form others. Why do people even complain about this? What oliver stone did was recreate the world as seen by ancient Greece in a way that hasnt been done on film, and for that its a pretty epic achievement, and probably deserves another look.
8:33 strongly agree with that point. I'm basically from a town in Jhelum, and the "Hydaspes" river flows less than half a mile from my grandmother's house. All around us, are fields of wheat, and grass. There are not even that many trees. The whole region (Punjab) is agricultural land, same as France in Europe.
17:05 "By Zeus and all of the gods, what makes you so much better than them?" Clears throat and replies in a calm tone. "Well, I will be Henry VIII for a few years after this movie wraps up."
Adam Frazer I’m happy they ended Rome. I’d rather have fewer seasons with more focused writing than 4+ seasons of filler episodes. I think for Alexander, Season 1 should be his early life all the way up to his crossing of the hellespont. Season 2 would continue the story and end at gaugamela (idk how to spell it) Season 3 should show the Indian campaigns and his death and should show his empire breaking up.
I can think of so many times in history that would do great as a Game of Thrones style thing Sengoku Jidai, Era of the three kingdoms, 30 years war, I could go on.
The diadochi wars would be the best of it. The successor kingdoms fighting to claim Alexander's legacy... until the Romans arrived that stopped their petty squabbling.
While Alexander was a military genius in his own right, his father’s reforms to the military is what allowed him to conquer Persia. Alexander was a A+ high school student who was given the keys to his dads Ferrari.
Came back to this review after seeing the movie It hurts. Because THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MASTERPIECE. You had the budget. The pieces were there. Damn damn damn
There are many movies out there that "should" have been masterpieces. They've had it all: Good story, great cast, awesome director, etc. But they still bombed. There are a million different things you have to take into consideration when making a movie, a million things that need to come together in a perfect way to really make a true masterpiece at the end. Just one decision from one of the many, many people involved in the process, can lessen or even ruin the whole thing. Sometimes all it takes are baseless accusations of racism, made by a small but very loud minority that wouldn't even watch the movie to make a great film flop, like "Ghost in the Shell".
The Alamo Troy Valkyrie Marco Polo (Netflix) Band of Brothers (HBO) The Pacific (HBO Black Hawk Down Emperor Apollo 13 Saving Private Ryan Pearl Harbor Midway Hidalgo Also I think you should start saying at the end of each video what the next movie you are going to "review" so if people want they can watch it.
+Moving20 I would put also "All quiet on the western front" on the list, too. It's based on a novel about the horrors of WWI. They were quite faithful to the material, and hired even soldiers who fought in said war. Which isn't that hard, given that the war only happend 15 years prior. But it still moved me deeply.
+Moving20 Glory The Thirteenth Warrior Gettysburg Lincoln The Crucible Gallipoli The Great Debaters Skokie The King's Speech The Revenant The Social Network The Imitation Game Selma The Help 10000 BC Gandhi The Last Legion The Pianist Paths of Glory Spartacus The Fifth Estate 12 Years a Slave The Other Boleyn Girl War Horse Steve Jobs (either Michael Fassbender or Ashton Kutcher) Bridge of Spies Amazing Grace Dunkirk Hawking Turn: Washington's Spies Rome (HBO) Last of the Mohicans The Flowers of War The New World Argo (2012) The Last King of Scotland I'd really like to see more films that aren't about war. Of course, historical war films are good too, but having too many of them gets kind of stale.
Alexander didnt invade "Greece" as his kingdom was already in "Greece" He just capitulated the city states that didnt bow to his kingdom.He actually united all the Greeks from all regions (except Sparta who refused to join him) and invaded the neighboring Persian Empire as "retaliation" for Persia's invasion of Greece.
Keep in mind Nick has to keep his videos somewhat condensed and explaining that the modern idea of nations is a very modern concept would be a whole video itself, so it's easier to just say "Greece" which most the audience will understand rather than trying to quickly explain the idea of city states.
One also has to commend Stone for the scene with Aristotle, it is JAM-PACKED full of all of the great ideas and values of Classical Greece, with obscure references and subtleties, it's my favourite scene from the film, even Aristotle's reference to the Greeks being "frogs" comes from a piece of Classical Athenian Literature. Though you are right, some of the things, particularly Oedipus, are really unsubtle, I still find myself going back and watching a few of the scenes on their own occasionally.
Yup at the time Alexander came out I got pumped by watch a bunch of sword and sandal movies. Halfway though in the theater I thought the same thing. Joaquin would have been perfect. I always imagined Alexander as somewhat like Commodus at least emotionally. Just make him actually be a badass and bam perfect.
For what it’s worth, Alexander features the most awesome realistic depiction of a historical battle ever produced by a wide margin, in stark contrast to likes of ‘more critically acclaimed’ movies like Gladiator, Braveheart etc. The Battle of Gaugamela was reenacted so well, capturing the scale, actual strategy, tactical decisions, formations and maneuvers of both sides, as authentically as we know from records. In stead of the cliche hollywood scenes like soldiers firing burning arrows at each other and then breaking into a million one-on-one melee duels. So I’d expect more praise for this movie from this channel. I also didn’t think it was soo boring, yes if you are not interested in the period and historical characters, it will be a long movie to endure but it was fascinating to watch for real history buffs.
Agree. Oliver Stone has seen combat. His battle scenes were going to be realistic and chaotic. I adored this movie when it first came out and I adore it still
@@benjalucian1515 likewise, I think I watched it like 6-7 times already, including the director's cut and the final revisited cut, and I'll probably watch it again and again, it's my favorite historical/military movie in addition to Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut), cheers!
The point on Alexander's sexual preferences is a good one, but it also a problem for another reason: the plot wastes _so much time_ on it. At some points it feels like half the movie is about throwing hits (which are about as subtle as a brick to the head) on Alexander's tastes.. That, and a lot of other boring, overlenght scenes, gives us a movie about one of the top 5 conquerors in history... that, on over 3 hours, only really shows us 2 battles! Gaugamela was the *end* of a 3 year campaign, which included such epic fights as the Siege of Tyre. And yet, we get a complete dismissal of all of this with just a few seconds of "bla bla bla Gaugamela". It's like watching a WWII movie, that starts by showing the Battle of Berlin in 1945...
João Rita Exactly. They should have focused more on battles rather than minuscule details like his romantic life. Also the acting was just terrible. I have nightmares of the scene where Alexander is crying in the floor after he kills his friend. Such bad acting. "You never go full retarded" I believe is the phrase the actor of Alexander had to follow.
I loved Colin Farrell in this. He's so handsome. This movie had issues, as did Troy, but it's still cool to see cinematic representations of these legendary men
Joe Nelly same! My mom had it when I was a kid and I would always fast forward to the Battle of Gaugamela and watched it from there. These days I watch the whole thing in Netflix.
I love this movie, never fast forward any scene, i was so fascinated with Alexander as a child. The scene when they took over Persia and march in always fascinate me.
I love the movie too. I actually like the dramatic acting xD I can see though that some people feel it's over the top. I love the scene where Alexander says to his army "Because you fall in love with the things that destroy men!" Chills!
I don’t think “to the strongest” was out of bitterness. I think Alexander that who ever is strong enough to lead this army in his place would be the only one deserving to it.
@@Prometheus7272 well the more knowledge gained about Alexander he was a very spiteful man. Especially because he strong sense of destiny about himself and anyone who challenges his world view was a threat to him.
@@Prometheus7272 to the strongest is basically a blessing for civil war. Having a clear line of succession is a very important thing especially great empires such as this where civil war is detrimental.
sander heutink Nah , "bleedin deadly" is very blunt Dublin slang for "great". So people in Ireland took the piss out of the film by calling him "Alexander the bleeding deadly" Like an american kid saying "alexander the sick mannn , yo !"
Yes we bleedin did . It was even slagged of as such on Ray Darcy . I heard of it first when my brother said "Have you seen Alexander the bleedin deadly ?" He then explained it . Look , if your really irish , did you not find his Dublin accent a bit ridiculous ?. I know a country man would , if he said "Oh Be Jeezes , Id be up for a bit of craic in Persia so I would" Or a Londoner if he said " Caww Blimey , we soon sawr off those facking Persians . Gonna get on the dog an bone (phone) an tell de missus "
Sorry cant agreee. Its one of the best movies I have seen. Too much expression in the acting? For god sake - he was 25 years old when he won the Gaugamela battle! How stoic do you expect him to be? Mature people today freak out when they win a million $ and he won the known world. The movie is great and if you expect a man ruling the world to be a robot because it suits us today - your wrong.
Alexander the Great is my favorite historical character, he's the one that inspired me to become a historian. I actually loved this movie due to the historical accuracy, I did not know people hated the acting :
+History Buffs So your opinion is based on some known recognizable standard of training, qualification, and experience. After all you wouldn`t be so ignorant or arrogant to voice an opinion based on nothing more than personal preference, i.e. fresh air now would you?
This was an excellent review. This film is somewhat of a guilty pleasure for me. The music is just so epic. In terms of history however I am bothered by its overreliance on an outdated view on Darius III. There is actually an excellent Dutch history book that shows Darius did not flee from battle, was a brave leader, capable administrator, and a good commander. Also Babylon was not the capital of the Persian Empire.
I have to admit, I love 'Alexander'. But that probably has to do with the fact that I'm a Greek mythology and history buff and I remember that when I was first watching the movie I was blown away by the fact that this director actually really cared for the source material and tried to make a historically accurate film. But I still have to admit that this movie has flaws, especially (as History Buffs pointed out) the dialogue. There are many scenes throughout the film where I was thinking "Come on, no one talks like that!" And just on a side note: It's been a while since I read the Iliad but if I remember correctly (and I think I've also read it somewhere) Achilles and Patroclus are not lovers in the epic. It's never specifically said they aren't but also not that they are. It's just said that they are really close friends. That they are depicted as lovers was an interpretation by later periods (Archaic and Classical Greece). Nothing wrong with that (one of reasons why I love 'Alexander' is exactly because the director didn't shy away from depicting Alexander as a bisexual) but yeah, not in the Iliad (again, as far as I can remember).
Acting her weirdest and offputting yet, all on purpose as her idea of a good performance, is a reason Pitt started avoiding home life and staying stoned through their fallout
I absolutely love it. Sometimes it's hard for people to have a honest opinion, sometimes people go with the trend/flow and say something is good or bad just cause others say it too.
I can not get enough of this channel! I'd like to see a review of HBO's The Pacific in the future. Thanks for all your hardwork in creating these videos, i thoroughly enjoy them.
if you pay attention to Alexander's death scene, you don't hear him say anything, but you hear his generals say something like, "Did he say the strongest?" "No, to Craterus."
You’re absolutely wrong about the commonality of alternative sexualities in Ancient Greece. It was even more verboten then than it is now. They were very based.
Alexander initially had the whole "Father to His Men" cliche down, knowing the names of several of his numerous soldiers, calling out to them even if they were foot-soldiers, etc. Things...spiraled downward later on during his later acts of conquest. As bad as the acting is, and how messy the film is as a whole, this is a more accurate depiction of Alexander as a person (megalomania and all) than that "Marvel's Thor" knock-off in Fate/Zero.
Ah, great to revisit this review, since Alexander is one of my favorite historical personalities. By the way, about the tropical setting in India, Valerio M. Manfredi's trilogy Aléxandros gives the same setting, and elaborates on how the constant rains, fevers, snakes and tropical stuff fed up the army and decided the men to demand Alexander to go back home.
I am no great fan of Oliver Stone, but I think he was done an injustice with all the negative reaction to this movie. I suspect that his reasonably accurate depiction of the characters and particularly the battles (e.g. the discipline of the phalanx) goes against the nonsense "history" the public gets from movies like "Braveheart". I also see a double standard in this channel's treatment of movies. In the review of "Goodfellas" for example, movie-making technique is discounted as irrelevant to whether it's historically accurate. Here, on the other hand, "Alexander" is condemned on account not of accuracy but on style.
He does that a lot. Very inconsistent. His taste is clearly toward more "quiet" and "subtle" i.e. boring movies LOL. He likes Hollywood pap like The Last Samurai which is safely vanilla but doesn't like the intensity and pure cinema of movies like Alexander. He should be more upfront about his personal taste bias.
what discipline? The Persians had discipline too and they decimated the macedonian (horsehit) left by outflanking them. Noone gives that credit to Darius III.
@@saeedvazirian They literally show that in the movie. And no one gives Darius III credit because outflanking a 1/3 of an army that you heavily outnumber is not exactly hard to do, and even less impressive when you still flee and completely lose the battle.
I don’t watch this guys videos, I don’t share his biases. I’m just a guy who likes historical movies. I went into Alexander knowing nothing about the films reception, watched it in one sitting and I was thoroughly disappointed. It’s rare that I will flat out dislike a film ever, I always find redeeming qualities. But with Alexander I didn’t like the film at all, I thought it was grand but poorly made in regards to its story
There’s an “Ultimate Cut,” of “Alexander,” which was released on Blu-ray, back in 2014, for it’s 10th Anniversary. The original, theatrical cut is included.
Which business genius is keeping you from reverting to your old intro? The video is still good, but I'm telling you, that intro is how you keep subscribers. People will associate that epic intro with your channel in an instant, which is exactly the kind of brand recognition you need to get big.
+Petey T The old intro is great, but it's just too long. People who sit through a 1 minute long *intro* on UA-cam are a tiny minority of overall viewers. Even though I'm personally willing to watch it every time, since it's top notch, I can't fault him for switching from a TV-geared intro to a UA-cam-geared intro, since that's the format he's actually on.
+Brett DuVale And who is he getting INTEREST FROM for his professional talented productions stylings?.... TELEVISION PEOPLE WHO PAY AND FUND MORE THAN CHEAP ADHD UA-camr gameboys buying Lootcrate CRAP. You can make cheap change catering to the man-boy internet geeks or make a living and career getting gigs with ACTUAL businesses who want talent like Nick's. HIS original INTRO DID that, he was GETTING BIGGER WITH IT. Only growing numbers of idiot follower sheep fanboys from other channels unable to focus more than 5sec influenced him to make the short Scooby Do silly intro as he's a young man.
+oberstul I kinda feel it might actually be people like me, who find a channel when it already has some 14+ videos and proceed to watch them all in a single day. The old, long intro was really good, but by the seventh time I saw it in an evening I was wishing for a video game -style "skip cut-scene" -button because I just wanted to get to the review already. Which, come to think of it, would be pretty good solution. Now that I've caught up, though? Yeah, I'd prefer the original one. It works when you watch videos at the rate they're uploaded, not at the rate you can click on them.
Historybuff, I enjoy your videos immensely. But I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. IMO "Alexander Revisited" is a great movie which is unfortunately forever dogged by the abysmal reputation of the theatrical version. Oliver Stone managed to transform his huge amount of material into a spellbinding viewing experience, and it is somewhat sad that it was never shown in theaters. This epic version should have been experienced on a big screen. I really do not know what went wrong and why the audience had to make do with the theatrical cut in the first place, but I don't know a lot about the production history of this movie. There have been other epic movies, though, which morphed into vastly superior versions after they have been re-cut. "Kingdom of Heaven" comes to mind. As to "Alexander Revisited": it features some of the most exciting battle scenes of all times. I think it was a good decision to re-assemble the time line, since the start with Alexander's death, followed by a grand battle scene, the viewer's interest is immediately captured, and we become gradually acquainted with Alexander's youth. IMO this is far more interesting to watch than a telling of the story in a strictly chronological order. I also appreciate that the movie - unlike other historical movies ("Gladiator", cough, cough) - has a high degree of historical correctness. I also don't think at all that Colin Farrell was miscast and in "Alexander Revisited" Oliver Stone choose scenes which show Farell's interpretation of the character in a better light, although I think that Stone's overall direction of the actors could've been better. Simply blaming Farell is unfair. I have some problems, though, with the casting of so many blonde and blue eyed Greeks. While Alexander might've been indeed blonde or maybe had light auburn hair, it's highly unlikely that the majority of the Greeks and Macedonians looked like this. The casting of more mediterranean types would've been probably far more realistic. On the whole I think that "Alexander Revisited" is well worth watching, and I regret that your take might prevent many of your viewers from giving this version of the movie a chance :(
@@saschamayer4050 "Alexander Revisited" which this episode is looking into, was a longer edit and not shown in cinemas like "Alexander" was... it is very much the movie title. Infact the full title is "Alexander Revisited: The Final Unrated Cut" ;)
@Rowan Nowicki , thanks :) Right now I am in the house of my mother in a small German village. And I can see two wonderful black horses on a nearby meadow. Since both of them are Frisians they look very much like Alexander´s wonderful horse in the movie.
Everyone loves to hate on this film, mostly unfairly. It suffers from not being "Gladiator", a great but very different movie. Now we have a Netflix series to compare it with...
Just discovered your channel, and now I'm catching up with your old videos. I'm loving them; you did an excellent job. Any chance of you adding Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid and/or Gandhi to your queue?
No point in complaining about what accent it is, he's speaking English, a completely different language than the original person did, so there's no point.
I hate using Wikipedia as a reference but it was one of WB best selling catalog DVDs to the point of getting 3 recuts, I think in time people came to accept and appreciate the artistic direction of Oliver Stone
Take everything said about Alexander's mother with a massive grain of salt. The Greeks always demonized women in their stories, and the idea of historical accuracy was not something yet invented.
Considering the only existing sources on Alexander are secondary sources written hundreds of years after his death take everything with a grain of salt. I would say we have legend and no history.
@@williamspencer1351 Both Gallen and yourself are speaking nonsense. We can know much about Alexander and his campaigns. The secondary sources recount the multiplicity of primary sources, and we can thus reconstruct the accounts of eye witnesses. If we were so cynical about everything there would be nothing to know about anything.
I agree with most of what you say here, however i do have one point to argue with, Alexander and his alleged involvement in his father's death due to his possible removal from the succession line. It is true that Cleopatra was a Macedonian noble woman, and Atalus her father in her wedding feast toasted for a true heir for Macedon, this is the famous fight between Alexander and Philip. However Alexander was not Philip's eldest son, Arrhidaeus had already been passed over in favour of Alexander several years prior. The issue of succession i dont think was ever in question (at least it wasnt for Philip) he had already spent a fortune in the best tutors to educate his son, the most famous being none other than Aristotle. Not to mention the famous story of Bucephalus, for which Philip had spent 13 talents, but no one could tame him, until Alexander claimed he would do it and if he failed he would pay back the sum to his father. I think it was clear that Philip greatly favoured Alexander, grooming him for leadership, giving him his first command in the battle of Chaeronea (Alexander commanded the left wing). I might be wrong, but i believe that the internal conflict for Alexander was between the influence of his parents, like a clash of 2 different personalities. The movie fails completely to portray this, Alexander is little more than a brat, a grown man full of doubts, not the least of which seems to be his sexuality and his relation with Hephaestion. To be honest i completely hate the movie, its boring, long, poorly acted, and fails to represent properly one of the most interesting characters in human history.
Also it is possible that this whole megalomania thing might be just bad publicity after he was named son of ammon (zeus ammon) by the oracle at Siwa. But this had a clear political objective it made him the legitimate Pharaoh of Egypt.
I would like to give my thanks to www.youtube.com/@AnimeWins/about for helping me fight the copyright claims in this review. If any of you are content creators and get hit by claims as well and are within fair use, he'll help you fight them and win. Just reach out to him through his business email. He guided me through every step of the process and has won hundreds of claims over the years.
Happy to have helped Nick! Keep up the amazing work!
Did you really had to blur out Alexander kissing his mom?
UA-cam have forgotten the reason why so many people switched off mainstream television and turned to UA-cam in the first place.
ATTENTION UA-cam: You are slowly turning into the censored, nitpicked, over regulated thing we once loved that fact that YOU WERE NOT. Wake up before it's too late.
I believe that I had a chance to see this movie. I have watched many "historical " movies. I just wonder how accurate they are. I get tired of watching, so I skipped this one. Was Alexander blonde? I just think the lead actor, I think the choice was kinda odd
I understand that he had a son that had some kind of mental disorder that made him unfit to rule
Nick, as a greek man I can inform you that the reason why everyone is yelling in the movie is because greeks yell all the time
True
I can tell by your profile pic
I made a joke with my friends that Greek people always yell but the topic is either The Greek Debt Clock or Constantinople/Istanbul
I always wondered if I am right
As an Irish-American; yeah Greek, Italian, and Spaniard friends yell a lot lmao
Ahh so Greeks and Armenians are identical
HBO should make a TV series out of the life of Alexander the Great. That be the best way to tell his story.
There's definitely enough material there. Starting with a pilot episode around Chaeronaea's time, you could easily get a few seasons of exciting content. One of the things that pissed me off most about the movie was how Ptolemy skipped over the entire Anatolia campaign, the Mediterranean sieges and the Egypt adventure in one sentence. There's so much awesome material there they could have used! And even after Alexander's death, the wars of the diadochi are plenty exciting themselves.
A game of thrones like power struglle between the 4 kingdoms which ends with the invasion of the romans
There is a movie
There is a movie
@Ryan Yeager - I would love that.
the worst thing about the "Oedipus Complex" is that in the story of Oedipus, he marries his mother unknowingly, and the complex named for him is about knowingly desiring your mother. talk about punishing an innocent!
I think it is unconscious too haha
Maybe but does he ever "divorce" his Mother when he finds out the truth?
@@ConnorLonergan He blinds himself with a pin and wanders off into the desert, so in a way, yes he does.
and is not real
@@dariusalexandru9536 And?
I think they overdid the whole 'Zeus is your father' thing in the movie. It was actually very common for great leaders to claim that they were descended of the gods. Julius Caesar claimed to be descended directly from Aeneas and Aphrodite. All great heroes from mythology were said to be descended from the gods (e.g. Hercules), so thats why a lot of real people from that time did too.
Yup.. it was the quickest way to solidify their rule
I don’t know, I’ve been listening to a series of lectures on Alexander and it seems that he truly came to believe was a divine being after subjugating Egypt, as opposed to saying it to increase his standing like usual.
@@throbbingfellow1136 I'm sure that Caesar started buying into his own propaganda after winning the civil war as well.
I think Kanye said he was fathered by Zeus.
I thought Caesar was Venus?
In defense of Oedipus from the play, the character the complex was based on, he had absolutely no idea the man he killed was his father and the woman he married his mother and when he found out, he gouged his own eyes out and went to live out the rest of his life as a hermit in exile...so...it wasn't like Oedipus actually even wanted to sleep with his mother.
Nice summary. The character Oedipus is indeed a tragic figure.
Damn! Oedipus got it so freaking bad.
We had to act this out in drama class
That's why it's called a theory.
Wrong, the complex entails an unconscious desire for sex with one’s mother. So it makes sense they would pair Oedipus’s lack of awareness with the psychoanalytic theory’s unconscious desire, both things you aren’t mean to be aware off
Give some credit to his father, he was a rare military genius. He revolutionized warfare with the use of sarisa, a 6 meter spear and a great phalanx formation.
And he utilized cavalry
HAIL KING PHILIP!!!
@Klaidi Rubiku HAIL!!!
Cavalry Wedge Formation!
@@nulolove yeaaaahhhhh!!!!!!
Alexander didn't revolutionise ancient warfare by himself, you have to give Phillip at least some credit for that.
Phillip ll. Yeah he tamed Greece with his phalanx and sarissas
@@deankruse2891 To the best of my knowledge Alexander's military was pretty much inherited lock stock from Phillip II, if he made any changes (prior to the conquest of Persia and taking of eastern recruits) they were minor. Not to disrespect him. Hell Caesar did not invent the Roman military system, but is still a brilliant general. However I have more respect for military leaders like Napoleon or Yi Sun Sin who were not only tactically brilliant, but who also created or revolutionised the military machine they used.
What I was saying was Phillip innovated and used that army to bring the rest of Greece under his hegemony.
Phillip was no Alexander though.
Napoleon and Caesar both studied Alexander’s strategies, along with the rest of the western world continuing today
Alexander used the cavalry and peltas in stronger and more efficient roles than his father and he also integrated eastern troops later on during his campaign. Alexander also did away with the baggage train that was standard for the Macedonian and Greek armies and made the men carry much of their own kit.
Come to think of it, he innovated quite A bit.
@@deankruse2891 As I said, I'm not saying it to disrespect Alexander. It's why I mentioned Caesar. Just because someone didn't invent the military machine they used from the ground up doesn't mean they're not a tactically or strategically brilliant. However as I said I have more respect for leaders who were not only brilliant generals, but who also revolutionised or built their war-machine from the ground up. Especially if their methods (as in Napoleon's case) were only made obsolete by technological change and not because someone else created a better system with the same tools.
The changes you're describing don't sound all that major to me, and I acknowledged he did change things, but it was hardly in line with the changes Phillip made, and I mentioned his integration of Eastern recruits in my comment.
As for, 'people still study their tactics!' this is a bit of a meme. Military academies like to teach by example, but most of these tactical and strategic ploys were not new. Every competent general understands them. What makes a brilliant general is knowing when to use which. That was Alexander's greatest gift; his sense of timing and ability to read a battlefield, knowing where and when to apply pressure to have the greatest effect. This is a trait found in most great generals, and it's hard to quantify who was better at it. No doubt Alexander was one of the best, but I wouldn't call him the best.
15:00 the reason why he was saying their names wasn’t for us to remember them IMO, it just showed how Alexander appealed to his men by naming them directly and attaching qualities to their names
It was a pretty good morale boost- your own king and general knowing you by name and deed. You weren't just a nobody sent to the meat-grinder to die for his glory- him and you break bread and share wine and all the risks and hardships of war together. Just that speech alone makes them more than willing to fight and die on his behalf
But it still sucks for the audience, who will never remember any of these guys.
@@thekraken1909 The ones with more lines are easy to remember.
Of course he remembers the name of his generals. There is nothing special about it
He made them feel important so they would follow him into battle.
Alexander should be a drama/series like HBO Rome.
Jalal Hussain aye that would be great. just one thing no constant spam of pointless sex scenes like game of thrones.
Could be a prequel to Rome!
First of all they should remake Rome, it was cancelled way to quickly, it was originally supposed to have 5 seasons instead of 2.
Except not terrible in season 2.
HBO should have continued Rome. And yes, a series on the scale of GoT for Alexander and his campaigns would be epic but it would not draw the same audience that GoT did unfortunately.
LOL I think Oliver Stone used the jungles of 'India' as a cost-cutting decision - I was in Southern Thailand, Krabi when this movie was being filmed. Those are Northern Thai elephants in the scene you showed, not Indian elephants. As an Indian, I love your attention to detail of our geography and commitment to accuracy! BTW, the elephants were sadly killed by local poachers after filming - it made national headlines.
Hey a fellow Indian
There is a moment where a trunk is cut in the revisited, but I could not say if it is what I think.
Porus had a porous border is how Alexander defeated him.
Awww poor elephants :( I really dont understand poachers...fucking cunts ,should be skinned halfway and stringed by their testicles.
Holy shit thats sad
“Treat me, Alexander, the way a King treats another King” is probably the most badass surrender in human history.
Recent evidence suggests that Porus won He wounded Alexander Killed his favourite horse and forced him to retreat back via a different route than that Alex had taken while coming into India
@@dcmhsotaeh Alexander defeated Porus in the battle and made him a satrap. His army mutinied and that's why he didn't push on across the Hyphases. They'd heard rumours that the Nanda Empire possessed an army 5x greater in number than their own.
It does amuse me how it seems to be a trope of online Indian nationalism that people talk about how India repelled Alexander even though India was not a state. Alexander's army conquered a good part of India and multiple tribes including the kingdom of Porus but later turned back. Alexander was not forced by Porus to return a different route. The reasons why he chose it are disputed but Porus is definitely not one of them.
And what I find even more amusing is that even when Indians take this turn-back as a sign of repelling the Greeks, most are completely ignorant of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, a successor-splintr of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom which pushed a lot further and conquered a lot more in India than Alexander achieved. So even if there were any verifiable truth to 'India' as a whole defeating Alexander (for which there is none, he never lost a battle), him being 'repelled' becomes immaterial when you consider that a post-Alexandrian Greek state did what he didn't, crossed the Hyphases, and conquered and subjugated a significant part of India.
F V R Y Indian name for Indian subcontinent was Bharath .All Indians right from Porus day’s and even earlier called themselves as Bharathiya ( Indian)
All poets writers etc of ancient India always depicted Indian subcontinent as Bharath .There are any number of verses in Sanskrit texts delineating Indian boundaries as to be from Himalayas to Indian Ocean .India is the modern name for a smaller part of Akhand Bharath ie larger India
Through there were numerous small and big kingdoms in this larger India called akhand bharath the people of this area were always united under the Hindu religion which was called Sanatan Dharma
Most westerners have a half baked knowledge of India and have a brainwashed notion that it was the British who united Indians and created today’s India .This is not true since before the British There were at least seven rulers who ruled entire Indian subcontinent and even beyond .
West has achieved much in human history and we in the East admire the rapid rise of pale skinned people (of a small peripheral area of Asian continent )from
dark ages to modernity Asians are proud of their past and realise that they had a little slip about 500 years ago and theywent backwards for a few centuries .But that era is over .
The influence of asians ie Arabs and Persians was a major factor in European awakening .Europe learnt most of its newer ideas from its contact and even its rule ( Spain under Arabs)under Asians Greece gained more from Persia than it gave to Asia as a whole .westerners should accept that there were more ancient, refined ,cultures marital powerful ,clever races and people before the advent of the Greeks Romans and before renaissance .The west is actually a newcomer on the human achievement scenario .The rapid rise of Japan Korea and recently China ,India, Indonesia is changing the world power balance .Asia is once again the big boss of the world .Why the west even today needs to lie cover up falsify history of other great peoples is still a big question
Alexander’s defeat at the hands of Porus in the area bordering Afghanistan (Afghanistan was called Gandharva desh at that time and was part of Indian cultural and historical sphere but inside India)is very reminiscent of Russia’s defeat in Afghanistan and American defeat in Afghanistan
The afghan and Punjab people in that area are known to have defeated all invaders over the centuries
Alex’s troops being “ tired” “ fatigued” “ giving back “
Kingdom to Porus “mutinied” etc etc are laughable excuses inserted by biased western historians
Europeans need to come out of their superiority myth The world is fast changing The need for world citizen is more acute than ever before .Europeans ought to Stop thinking like colonial whites and be proud of human history as a whole including Afro Asian and Amerindian history
The era of white skins being an inch better than their Asian and African brothers and counterparts is certainly over.
@@dcmhsotaeh I said a state not a nation. These are different. Greece wasn't a state either for most of its classical history but it had a concept of its own existence.
And no none of this has anything to do with Western bias against India.
Porus did not defeat Alexander.
fvriovs you wouldn’t believe the spew of historical revisionism from Hindu nationalists I see seriously I saw a comment once where someone actually tried to claim Alexander was killed by poison from a poison tipped arrow which is ridiculous considering he died in all the way in Babylon and unlike what is believed about the circumstances of Alexander’s death he likely wasn’t poisoned by anyone Greek or Indian.
The historical advisor for this film (according to my Greek history lecturer at least) apparently absolutely hero-worshipped Alexander and waived his fee in return for getting to take part in one of the cavalry charges, which may explain the rather sparkling portrayal of Alexander's character in the film
If Alexander's accent bothers you so should the fact that he's speaking English.
I wish they would do Raiders of the Lost Ark
Exactly
Hahah got em!
No one sparks ancient Macedonian anymore it's a dead language
they should watch the greek language version?? although a good thing would be to have characters from the same place have similar accents
Alexander's deathbed declaration was probably misinterpreted. History records that he said Kratistos "to the Strongest," but in his delirium, he may have intended to say "Krateros" or Crateros - one of Alexander's most reliable and loyal generals. This was the cause for the wars of the Diodochi, as several generals felt that Crateros was the best choice to rule until Roxana gave birth to her child to determine if that child was a male heir, and if so, Crateros would have been the logical choice to serve as Regent. On the flip side, many of Alexander's generals felt they were the "strongest" and therefore felt they should rule, thus plunging the empire into civil war.
Imagine you were moments from death suffering from fever and delirium. Do you think you would have the strength to enunciate?
History records three different accounts, one which is presented in the movie (Plutarch's account i believe), but also combined with Arrian's account of him handing his signet ring to Perdiccas. Arrian, Diodorus and Curtius all acknowledge the story of "Toi Kratistoi", and i believe it to be the most accurate, but then again, it is the more interesting. Now consider he actually meant Craterus, why would he? Alexander had no successor by choice, and during his 13 years on the throne, he had ample time to appoint someone. Yet he never did. Not even Hephaestheon was named successor, and there doesn't seem to be anyone in Alexander's court he really cared about enough to find worthy to carry on his legacy. Craterus is also characterized as a staunch traditionalist, someone opposed to Alexanders own pretentions of divinity and persian custom. This is not to say Alexander didn't trust him. No sir! He most likely were sent to Macedon to relieve Antipater of his post and in reality become the new "king" of Macedon. Lastly we need to consider the "Toi Kratistoi" through the lense of historical narrative. Diodorus, who is the main proponent of this view, wrote 300 years after Alexanders death, and he wrote world history (Library of History). My point being that he must have been well aware of how the story of Alexander's successors eventually would turn out, and in this create an interesting point of the origin of the conflict. Either portraying the "toi kratistoi" as a bitter challenge from Alexander, or as an appointment of the one person not in Babylon, the seed of conflict was planted. Diodorus being the earliest of our sources, we cannot know the accounts that already existed from Alexanders death, or if Diodorus created one to make sense of what happend.
Alexander was kinda a dick obsessed with glory so It isn't really a stretch to assume that he meant the strongest.
Imagine you were moments from death from fever and delirium. Do you think your last words would be a Generals name that fought for you decades ago?
John L Even by Alexander standards plunging his empire into civil war just for the hell of it would be a bit of a dick move
Darth Cronal who expects to die at 30?
One of my biggest problems with this movie was... that it always looked like Alexander was wearing a wig... an 80's-bed-hair-mullet wig
I always thought the same thing.
"Everyone is shouting in this movie"
I mean.... us Greeks are VERy very very loud people... could be historical accuracy lmao
It is like the stylists had never seen natural blond hair before, and in some scenes the black regrowth is really obvious and jarring. He needed a violet toner rinse STAT.
He looks like an Australian cricketer
@@MsLJK85 Maybe its because Alexander used to wash his head with saffron to try to keep his blonde hair. So maybe his wig like hair is accurate too
alexander needed to be a trilogy (his youth, his ascendence, his late years)
Or an HBO show like Rome.
@@elperrodelautumo7511 I'd rather see it on the big screen...
Or just make the whole philip part a prologue and focus on Alexander's conquest of anatolia and the middle east
Not like he had many late years.
There is another theory to why he marched across gedrosia. It's that he wanted to prove his superiorety over the persian Cyrus the Great who lost his army there.
I believe it was both.
Alexander 100% had Cyrus’s legacy on his mind
@@LandersWorkshop yeah, but still he could've marched on the coast. Making the resupply easier when the ships did catch up. Also, you would have a higher chance of meating settlements and if you were about to die of thirst, you had water nearby. It's salty, but if you boil it it's fine. And even then, he didn't need to go through the deassert inland. He could've gone around it to the north. But he didn't want to march back the way he came cause that'd look like a retreat.
@@LandersWorkshop If you ask anyone, they'd take sickness over thirsting to death anytime. Besides, as I said. On the coast they could supply, in the deassert they couldn't. An army doesn't march on it's feet, but on it's stomach after all.
You cannot just simply boil ocean water and drink it... that would remove bacteria and germs but the salt would remain.. desalination is needed to drink ocean water..
What annoys me is the fact that they did not show the burning and looting of Persepolis, by Alexander, nor the fact that he went to Cyrus the Great's tomb and bowed to it in respect, while restoring it after it was looted by some of his troops.
As a historian myself, I have to add to the Gedrosian Desert theory. I do believe Alexander chose that route to punish his men, yes. But ALSO, I believe Alexander chose that route to add just one more impossible feat to his resume. No Army, and no King or Queen (semiramis) ever marched through the Gedrosian Desert, and succeeded. All had fail, Cyrus the Great failed. Alexander wanted to succeed where other great Kings failed. So he pushed through that desert. Did he really go so far as to punish his army and see to the death of 25,000 of his men and more adversity from his Generals? I dont know, its possible but dont forget he had a navy sailing parallel to his march in the gulf, probably exploring and learning for his rumored plans for a future invasion using that route. That naval detachment was well understood to also be a logistics train for the march through Gedrosia, but having Mediterranean sailors navigate Arabian waterways, they were quickly lost and detached from the main marching force. Many men drowned in flash floods in Gedrosia as well, so I dont think it was solely to punish them. Alot of the fatalities were from freak events. But one thing we can never forget is that Alexander had been recruiting and training 40,000 young Persian replacements for his aged veteran Army, a hybrid Macedonian-Greek/Persian force...and maybe, just maybe, the 'perfect' race he saw in his eyes, the Greco-Persian race. Give that a think over.
That's a good possibility.
If that is true this guy have let his Ego take over his mind.......getting so many men killed by heat and sand is really a STUPID move!
Get help or get laid, goodluck
whatever helps your ego
+Heisenberg now I've always wondered how did he get his navy from the Mediterranean into the Persian gulf? Or did he build a new navy after taking Babylon
apparently there is a story where alexander crossing the desert came to a small oasis that only had enough water to fill one cup. It was given to alexander who poured it out in front of his men to say that he would suffer with his men instead of take the special treatment. May be just a story but I think when it came to his army, Alexander was genuinely honored to lead them and cared for them deeply. I think crossing the desert was more of an ego move to prove that it could be done, only by him. Great vid!!
This movie is underrated.
It has the most historic accurate battlescenes. And the music. Oooh the music!!!
But maybe too accurate.
The music was indeed divine!
The music rocks. Vangelis was the *perfect* choice to score it!
The music is divine and enjoyable, but horrendous, I mean, who uses the chariots of fire synths in the BC times?
no this movie is boring and it makes me want to sleep
brings new meaning to "Zeus went to mount Olympias"
Okay that is funny as hell lmao
The new intro is good.
But the old intro was legendary...
#BringBackTheOldIntro
+FOX 12 No, use it as an outro
***** Yep. I even like the new intro. The old one was better.
+FOX 12 Well I watched it one time and than I just skip it. But it was not hard thing to do since it was exactly first 60s.
the old intro is certainly epic and I do believe that it is the better of the two.
I don't think anyone is honestly saying that it's absence is destroying the channel.
but as viewers it is proper for us to let the creator know our opinions.
he may even appreciate it.
I suggest a poll/survey.
To be fair Alexander wasn't just naming random cities by his name. He was founding cities and naming them Alexandria, just like every other ruler has done throughout the history. The difference is that he has founded more cities then anyone else.
Great Dictator Aladin did the same. Do u want to go to Alexandria or to Alexandria?
@@futureisyours3016Aladin💀
@@futureisyours3016he wished his opponents a painful death and fed prisoners sand
There are thousands of places named “Washington” in America. To my knowledge he didn’t name them himself. They were named in is honor after he died.
Although magnificent, Alexander's horse, Bucephalus, is played by a modern day Friesan, a horse from the Netherlands that did not exist during his time. Only a horse person would notice, but it was a huge mistake, because Bucephalus was as famous as his master.
After9Design Well, what breed was Bucephalus?? Because it might not exist anymore. So they just used whatever modern (Freisians are a fairly old breed though; just not THAT old) horse breed they thought would "fit" Alexander. Since, you know, Freisian horses do look rather stunning, almost "regal" in appearance and behaviour.
Them being used as mounts by knights in medieval times, probably also helps in using one to portray a warhorse without it seeming too unrealistic (although I doubt that was a main concern for the filmmakers; they probably just focused on how great it looked on screen).
Nekhet, according to Wikipedia "A massive creature with a massive head, Bucephalus is described as having a black coat with a large white star on his brow. He is also supposed to have had a "wall eye" (blue eye), and his breeding was that of the "best Thessalian strain." That means he was Greek.
After9Design Hmm.. That raises the question if any current Greek horse breeds (if there are any left that is) would have any members that would fit those criteria. I can see why they used a Friesian horse though; the black coat (although it lacked the star), the large, somewhat "heavy" build, the fact they were used as warhorses back in the day etc.
Still would be interesting to see if the Thessalian breed Bucephalus was of still exists or if there are any breeds who descend from it.
Well they cast an Irish man to play a Macedonian, so should they have cast a Macedonian?
Bucephalus was of Thessalian breed,it was short and strong.
The breed still exists,but because it is a purely war breed it is not used.
Fun fact:Many of the Mongolian horse breeds are of Thessalian descent,see the video about the Heavenly horses.
Listen closely in the death scene, Alexander whispers something and the generals are trying to decipher what he means. Cratistos meaning “to the strongest” or was he referring to his general Craterus, that he was leaving his empire to him.
Unlike many stories in this day and age, the life of Alexander the Great deserves a movie trilogy.
"Everyone is shouting in this movie"
I mean.... us Greeks are VERy very very loud people... could be historical accuracy lmao
Yes, but he wasn't greek
@@ethanmatthews4561 If you wanna push your historic revisionism online you can do so elsewhere. Alexander's father himself had to prove his family's ancestry from Argos to be allowed in the Greek-only Olympics. Theres tons of other evidence but if you are unwilling to listen to all the experts and historians that are in agreement about this , this is a waste of time.
well it kind of is.
Macedonians especially were known to be emotional and expressive in this manner.
Pretty sure it's common to shout when you're angry and arguing with someone, I don't know why this was even brought up in the video...they shout when they are angry and arguing against someone
Eyhan Matthews Ancient Macedonians were from Greece.....
This movie was never intended to be subtle or comfortable. It's a greek tragedy. it's emotional. The movie focuses on the fantastical rather than the historical, it's about Alexander's desire to join the great heroes and falling into the same desolation they did; betrayal and murder, killing his father and fucking his mother. The film would be entirely pointless without his tailspinning mental deterioration and the 'overacting'. People yell in real life too.
The point wasn't to "get" and have a gentle 'a-ha' moment about his oedipal disorder, it was to make you live through it emotionally.
And actually there is a deathbed scene in the movie about him whispering 'kratistos', which may have been the name of his general Krateros, but since he wasn't there the others may have chosen to 'mishear'.
I did like the video though!
Well, if your mother looks like Angelina Jolie in her early 30s...
+T2266 You're goddamn right.
absolutely. i’d believe whatever she goddamn told me
I’d b bustin nuts
But in Alexander's defense.......DID YOU SEE HIS MOM???? 👀😳🤔😏
No.
A. Jolie is not that attractive.
I'd tap that. Not going to lie..
@@thepsychicspoon5984 u r goddamn blind
@@thepsychicspoon5984 I think she was very beautiful in this movie
The tale of Alexander is far to large and grand for a simple movie it deserves a TV series
Tv is too low budget he deserves his own movie trilogy
@@meep3035 I'm thinking that start with Philip and Olympia giving birth to Alexander all the way towards his death. probably be 15 seasons of a TV show maybe.
Exactly!
It could of made a great HBO mini series
Agree., just like the miniseries Rome. It was really annoyed to see 20 years of Alexander's life being cramped into a movie. Just doesn't do him justice.
Way too expensive
Sorry man. It's bad enough the sources on his sotry are mostly anti-Persian propaganda, but this shit? Turning into an HBO pornography? Wow. Now that's next level horseshit.
I suppose we should never say never
This movie was quite a while back. Hope they do another one soon. New mini series would be great but leave out all the nonsense
-You've been poisoned!
-Oh, the pain is unbearable!
My stomach is riddled with holes.
-I'm Terrible.
Тhere's no Great that can defeat this Russian!
Killer-Toni what about a flute busting Prussian?
Names fridrich the great, became the first secretairy of state
Olibique attack tactics, ain't exactly straight.
Hard as steel on the field, gentile in the palace!
A word about the accent. Actually it works... here’s why: “Proper” Greek could be analogous to proper British-English. The Macedonians spoke Greek, but with their own dialect and inflection. Much like Irish-English in relation to English-English. To a contemporary person in Athens or Sparta, Alexander and his Macedonians probably sounded similar. Same-same, but different.
Greeks literally called the eleans barbarophonoi for their dialect even though they spoke greek
He didn’t send the entirety of his troops via desert. Some of them were sent by sea through the Persian gulf with general Νέαρχος in charge.
The Story of Alexander deserves it's own drama series.
+Sultan I'd watch it
I agree with you. HBO or Netflix can do it I believe. Violence and sex it would be huge then slyly add in historical facts. It's a win win!
+Ricky Marasigan (peepinR) If HBO made a series about Alexander with the same attention to detail and authenticity they had in Rome. I would probably absolutely love it.
also something i forgot to add in my last comment see below, Colin unable to rid himself of his accent, (some say he refused to change) they made sure, all the other Macedonians also had Irish accents, a different part of Greece they gave them scots accents and again for a different part of Greece a different accent, it was to show the different parts of the Greek city states. its really cool in the long run.
also also Oedipus never knew his mum was his mum until it was WAY to late
@array s No, jackass. He means the different accents of the actors are to be interpreted as the different regions of Greece of the generals in the film.
In the movie, "Alexander", The Macedonians had Irish accents, The Athenians had English accents, and Olympias being from the Greek Kingdom of Epirus had a Russian accent.
It is true, that Greece being a country of mountains and valleys had city states and kingdoms that were isolated from one another and each developed its own distinct dialect and accent, but nevertheless, all were Greek!
Macedonia is not a country, its just another Greek Kingdom!
The slavs of former Yugoslavia love to be called Macedonians, but are no more Macedonians than Ronald MacDonald!
@@HopliteWarlord preach brother!
Saying Macedonia was not Greek is like saying Ionia or even the Peloponnese was not Greek because it wasn’t Attica
Hoplite Warlord Macedonians USED to be Greek. They even spoke a dialect of Greek. (All be it a very harsh dialect, but still) They are now Half Slav and Half Greek. They now also speak a Slavic Language.
Liked the old intro way more
+VictoryGames Yeah I had to watch it before putting this vid on. Really puts me int he right mood for this video. He did such an amazing job on the intro, it's a shame he caved. If people don't want to watch it they should just skip ahead. It's not that hard.
+VictoryGames The fact is, the short intro is the smart move. It leads to less people clicking away in the first 10-15 seconds, which I cannot believe people are ADD enough to do but stats do not lie. The new intro is more informative about what you're about to watch and introduces Nick in cartoon form from the start. The old intro was awesome but didn't really tell you what you were about to watch, and Nick's cartoon avatar clashed pretty hard with the show's visual theme of "ornate museum" up to that point.
REST IN DEATH OLD INTRO!
same
I think you should review the last of Mohicans
I really appreciated this movie don’t care if missed the mark cinematically I wish more film makers took the risk to be more accurate to history
Well yeah I do too but the reality is historic movies often don’t make money. That’s why we don’t get many of them. Honestly I think Oliver Stone could have cut costs a lot and still been able to tell the story he wanted. Many of these scenes border on opulent.
I think that the movie is great. It´s told in the format of the drama and tragedie that carachterized the greeks. Anyone who has read plays, poetry or the such of that time will recognize the tropes: the exaggeration, the loudness, the passion, the storm. Anyway good vid, I enjoyed it very much
One of these days, you need to do an episode on "The Last Emperor".
Yes! The Last Emperor!!
It’ll probably be illegal to watch it in China though lol
YES
Adi Adiani - You're a complete tit for posting this comment more than once.
Me.
It's ironic hearing Ptolemy casually laughing at Alexander becoming Pharaoh.
if alexander was zeus' son, he probably would be busy running and escaping hera's wrath
that's why he wanted to keep going east, to get as far away from her as possible
@@williambenetos5115 lmao
Please review the 1992 movie "The Last of the Mohicans" starring Daniel Day-Lewis.
Right on
Man that's possibly my favorite movie ever.
jason m.
Weirdly, I just watched it. I honestly found it boring.
Jesus Christ yeah
Makes "Dances with Wolves" look pale in comparison.
Why is the map in Greek Alexandria in Latin? The Romans hadn't even beaten Pyrrhus yet.
allanmacauley I would have let English fly by since it’s spoken by the actors but using Latin is just silly.
@Perpetual Motions English uses a slightly modified version of the Latin alphabet, with a couple of exceptions: Latin has no U or W.
@@SnazzyBoBazzy It's to get into the mood of the movie. Nobody can read Greek and a modern day audience will recognize many ancient names in Latin but not Greek.
@@allanmacauley But at some point of the movie Alexander is writing on a piece of paper (papyrus?) with the title "TAX SYSTEM" spelled out in Greek alphabet.
The battle scenes are shot beautifully and I do love some of the sets. It does drag and Colin Farrell is definitely over the top with is acting.
Also is very weird because Colin Farrell is an incredible actor with countless subdued and nuanced performances in his career
Must be over dicecting by Ridley Scott
Or he was too young and overwhelmed by the role
@@TheJunmengoOr it was just wrong casting. Farrell usually plays his best roles when they are nobodies. It's very hard to play someone so larger than life in a subdues, realistic way.
It isn’t Colin Farrell’s fault that’s Oliver Stone’s direction.
I would love to see a film adaptation of Valerio Massimo Manfredi’s “Alexander” trilogy. It covers so much more of Alexander’s life than this film does, and it does it in a way that, while containing some historical fiction, it mostly stays true to the tale of Alexander’s life.
LOL! "to the best of my recollection, Alexander the Great was not born in Ireland"
To the best of my recollection Alexander the Great didn't speak modern English either... XD what a lousy criticism.
They should do a recasting of this movie.
+Bobby Siecker I only listen to Shakespear in the original Klingon.
+MrSingularity44
#KingJamesonly XD
sine moderamine Seriously, the smugness made it so much worse
I absolutely love this movie, and this is why. There is a youtuber called Diamanda who said that the past is another country and Alexander makes you bring your passport. Alexander is portrayed as a classic greek hero, someone who lives large, feels, suffers, overcomes more than the average man. In this movie he is cast in the role of Heracles, Odysseus. Thats why all the shouting, all the emotion, all the theatrical language as he praises his men and their attributes. hes not a hero in the modern context but if you were to reserect someone from ancient greece who loved the theatre, once you get past explaining what the hell a television is, he would sit down and watch this movie and and get more out of it than we ever could. In other words the film wasnt made with modern audiences in mind, not in a story sense atleast. It doesnt do what gladiator does and translate the past so it could be understood by the present. It shows the past warts and all. As far as the accents go they were used as short hand to allow the audience to quickly grasp the politics. Each group of people use the same accent as eachother so we can differenciate them form others. Why do people even complain about this? What oliver stone did was recreate the world as seen by ancient Greece in a way that hasnt been done on film, and for that its a pretty epic achievement, and probably deserves another look.
8:33 strongly agree with that point.
I'm basically from a town in Jhelum, and the "Hydaspes" river flows less than half a mile from my grandmother's house. All around us, are fields of wheat, and grass. There are not even that many trees. The whole region (Punjab) is agricultural land, same as France in Europe.
Angelina Jolie wasn’t acting. That’s how she is in real life
If you believe Jennifer Aniston.
@@sebastianborisjonas ask Brad Pitt.
Dead ☠️ 💀
Too right
Based
Naming city after city the same, marching for years in same general direction... obvious memory problems.
lol good obserbation
Nice one 😂😂😂
Lol. Are we there yet?
17:05 "By Zeus and all of the gods, what makes you so much better than them?"
Clears throat and replies in a calm tone. "Well, I will be Henry VIII for a few years after this movie wraps up."
Daniel Allan bishop heahmund
A game of thrones alexander type show would be great.
Adam Frazer I’m happy they ended Rome. I’d rather have fewer seasons with more focused writing than 4+ seasons of filler episodes.
I think for Alexander,
Season 1 should be his early life all the way up to his crossing of the hellespont.
Season 2 would continue the story and end at gaugamela (idk how to spell it)
Season 3 should show the Indian campaigns and his death and should show his empire breaking up.
@@acceleration4443 I second that, imagine a scene of the Siege of Tyre that would be something to marvel at.
I can think of so many times in history that would do great as a Game of Thrones style thing
Sengoku Jidai, Era of the three kingdoms, 30 years war, I could go on.
The diadochi wars would be the best of it. The successor kingdoms fighting to claim Alexander's legacy... until the Romans arrived that stopped their petty squabbling.
Sounds kinda lame tbh. Its just one guy kicking everyone's ass.
While Alexander was a military genius in his own right, his father’s reforms to the military is what allowed him to conquer Persia. Alexander was a A+ high school student who was given the keys to his dads Ferrari.
Where'd you hear that analogy?
Just A+? How about a gold winning medal champion at international highschool and university competitions in math,arts and sports repeatedly.
Came back to this review after seeing the movie
It hurts. Because THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MASTERPIECE. You had the budget. The pieces were there. Damn damn damn
There are many movies out there that "should" have been masterpieces. They've had it all: Good story, great cast, awesome director, etc. But they still bombed. There are a million different things you have to take into consideration when making a movie, a million things that need to come together in a perfect way to really make a true masterpiece at the end. Just one decision from one of the many, many people involved in the process, can lessen or even ruin the whole thing. Sometimes all it takes are baseless accusations of racism, made by a small but very loud minority that wouldn't even watch the movie to make a great film flop, like "Ghost in the Shell".
I will say that most people don’t know what the lighthouse of Alexandria is
A lighthouse in Alexandria maybe?
I’ve constructed it many times in CIV what are you talking about?
Is it to guide ships safely to port?
I would say many people don't know what Alexandria even is.
The Alamo
Troy
Valkyrie
Marco Polo (Netflix)
Band of Brothers (HBO)
The Pacific (HBO
Black Hawk Down
Emperor
Apollo 13
Saving Private Ryan
Pearl Harbor
Midway
Hidalgo
Also I think you should start saying at the end of each video what the next movie you are going to "review" so if people want they can watch it.
+Moving20 I would put also "All quiet on the western front" on the list, too.
It's based on a novel about the horrors of WWI. They were quite faithful to the material, and hired even soldiers who fought in said war. Which isn't that hard, given that the war only happend 15 years prior. But it still moved me deeply.
+Moving20
Glory
The Thirteenth Warrior
Gettysburg
Lincoln
The Crucible
Gallipoli
The Great Debaters
Skokie
The King's Speech
The Revenant
The Social Network
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Help
10000 BC
Gandhi
The Last Legion
The Pianist
Paths of Glory
Spartacus
The Fifth Estate
12 Years a Slave
The Other Boleyn Girl
War Horse
Steve Jobs (either Michael Fassbender or Ashton Kutcher)
Bridge of Spies
Amazing Grace
Dunkirk
Hawking
Turn: Washington's Spies
Rome (HBO)
Last of the Mohicans
The Flowers of War
The New World
Argo (2012)
The Last King of Scotland
I'd really like to see more films that aren't about war. Of course, historical war films are good too, but having too many of them gets kind of stale.
+Jimmy Yang admiral: roaring currents?
Red Baron?
Alexander didnt invade "Greece" as his kingdom was already in "Greece" He just capitulated the city states that didnt bow to his kingdom.He actually united all the Greeks from all regions (except Sparta who refused to join him) and invaded the neighboring Persian Empire as "retaliation" for Persia's invasion of Greece.
Keep in mind Nick has to keep his videos somewhat condensed and explaining that the modern idea of nations is a very modern concept would be a whole video itself, so it's easier to just say "Greece" which most the audience will understand rather than trying to quickly explain the idea of city states.
Demosthenes would disagree
Phillip united Greece in the league of Corinth not Alexander
@@thedragondemands5186 aeschines would disagree with Demosthenes 😉 what's your point
@@wankawanka3053 Aeschines is a weather vane
One also has to commend Stone for the scene with Aristotle, it is JAM-PACKED full of all of the great ideas and values of Classical Greece, with obscure references and subtleties, it's my favourite scene from the film, even Aristotle's reference to the Greeks being "frogs" comes from a piece of Classical Athenian Literature. Though you are right, some of the things, particularly Oedipus, are really unsubtle, I still find myself going back and watching a few of the scenes on their own occasionally.
Totally agree with you. That Aristotle scene blew me away and I nearly included it but I just didn't have time in the end
+Geordie Walker
Good old Christopher Plummer.
Wolf Strife He has a very nice voice
Geordie Walker
Well, you know Canadians.
I watched Alexander and this reminds me of the 300 and 300 rise of an empire.
i feel as though you should have mentioned the fact that alexander was schooled by aristotle, who described him as loud, ignorant and narcissistic.
Nietzche Preacher loool
Is that description before, during, or after aristotles teaching?
I searched for this claim and couldn’t find anything so I’ll assume your claim is false.
Joaquin Phoenix would have made excellent Alexander.
Agreed! He is a splendid actor
He would make a great Nero if they made a motion picture about him
He already played a Roman Emperor in Gladiator.
Yup at the time Alexander came out I got pumped by watch a bunch of sword and sandal movies. Halfway though in the theater I thought the same thing. Joaquin would have been perfect. I always imagined Alexander as somewhat like Commodus at least emotionally. Just make him actually be a badass and bam perfect.
i see him more as a Ceaser or napoleon
For what it’s worth, Alexander features the most awesome realistic depiction of a historical battle ever produced by a wide margin, in stark contrast to likes of ‘more critically acclaimed’ movies like Gladiator, Braveheart etc. The Battle of Gaugamela was reenacted so well, capturing the scale, actual strategy, tactical decisions, formations and maneuvers of both sides, as authentically as we know from records. In stead of the cliche hollywood scenes like soldiers firing burning arrows at each other and then breaking into a million one-on-one melee duels.
So I’d expect more praise for this movie from this channel. I also didn’t think it was soo boring, yes if you are not interested in the period and historical characters, it will be a long movie to endure but it was fascinating to watch for real history buffs.
Agree. Oliver Stone has seen combat. His battle scenes were going to be realistic and chaotic. I adored this movie when it first came out and I adore it still
@@benjalucian1515 likewise, I think I watched it like 6-7 times already, including the director's cut and the final revisited cut, and I'll probably watch it again and again, it's my favorite historical/military movie in addition to Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut), cheers!
The point on Alexander's sexual preferences is a good one, but it also a problem for another reason: the plot wastes _so much time_ on it. At some points it feels like half the movie is about throwing hits (which are about as subtle as a brick to the head) on Alexander's tastes.. That, and a lot of other boring, overlenght scenes, gives us a movie about one of the top 5 conquerors in history... that, on over 3 hours, only really shows us 2 battles! Gaugamela was the *end* of a 3 year campaign, which included such epic fights as the Siege of Tyre. And yet, we get a complete dismissal of all of this with just a few seconds of "bla bla bla Gaugamela". It's like watching a WWII movie, that starts by showing the Battle of Berlin in 1945...
I enjoy the film but I do miss not seeing the Siege of Tyre. That would have been epic.
you cant do a movie on everything he should make a movie called the campaigns of alexander the great where do we donate ???
João Rita
Exactly. They should have focused more on battles rather than minuscule details like his romantic life. Also the acting was just terrible. I have nightmares of the scene where Alexander is crying in the floor after he kills his friend. Such bad acting. "You never go full retarded" I believe is the phrase the actor of Alexander had to follow.
The only way to do Alexander the Great justice is a HBO series rather than cramping everything into a movie
The battl;e of Gaugamela did not happen int he way shown in the movie.
I loved Colin Farrell in this. He's so handsome. This movie had issues, as did Troy, but it's still cool to see cinematic representations of these legendary men
Troy is so much better than this.
@Ricardo666 No it isn't 😂
I guess I'm in the small few who love this movie. One of my all time favorites.
I did as a kid when I found it in my cousins dvd collection, but I simply fast fowarded to the battle scenes.
Joe Nelly same! My mom had it when I was a kid and I would always fast forward to the Battle of Gaugamela and watched it from there. These days I watch the whole thing in Netflix.
I love this movie, never fast forward any scene, i was so fascinated with Alexander as a child. The scene when they took over Persia and march in always fascinate me.
I love the movie too. I actually like the dramatic acting xD I can see though that some people feel it's over the top. I love the scene where Alexander says to his army "Because you fall in love with the things that destroy men!" Chills!
same!
I don’t think “to the strongest” was out of bitterness. I think Alexander that who ever is strong enough to lead this army in his place would be the only one deserving to it.
I agree. I don't know why people assume with such sureity that it was out of spite.
@@Prometheus7272 well the more knowledge gained about Alexander he was a very spiteful man. Especially because he strong sense of destiny about himself and anyone who challenges his world view was a threat to him.
@@Prometheus7272 to the strongest is basically a blessing for civil war. Having a clear line of succession is a very important thing especially great empires such as this where civil war is detrimental.
@@808INFantry11X What's wrong with having a sense of destiny around you.
@@Prometheus7272Well if it reaches God-like destiny then there is a problem
In Ireland we called it "Alexander the bleedin deadly" because of Colin Farrells Dublin accent
Way better than something generic as "the Great"
we have tons of "Great" people, but who would face someone called "the Bleedin' Deadly"?
sander heutink
Nah , "bleedin deadly" is very blunt Dublin slang for "great".
So people in Ireland took the piss out of the film by calling him "Alexander the bleeding deadly"
Like an american kid saying "alexander the sick mannn , yo !"
Oli Faelaen alexander the lit is my favorite
Oli Faelaen , no we didnt
Yes we bleedin did .
It was even slagged of as such on Ray Darcy .
I heard of it first when my brother said "Have you seen Alexander the bleedin deadly ?"
He then explained it .
Look , if your really irish , did you not find his Dublin accent a bit ridiculous ?.
I know a country man would , if he said "Oh Be Jeezes , Id be up for a bit of craic in Persia so I would"
Or a Londoner if he said " Caww Blimey , we soon sawr off those facking Persians . Gonna get on the dog an bone (phone) an tell de missus "
What you forgot is how great the music was in the movie. Vangelis did a exellent job
Sorry cant agreee.
Its one of the best movies I have seen. Too much expression in the acting? For god sake - he was 25 years old when he won the Gaugamela battle! How stoic do you expect him to be? Mature people today freak out when they win a million $ and he won the known world.
The movie is great and if you expect a man ruling the world to be a robot because it suits us today - your wrong.
+alexnader kolodziej Hey is right in saying that it did not do well. While you may have liked the movie doesn't mean the majority of people did.
All I can say is look at Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator. A very similar character but the subtlety in his performance really sold it
+History Buffs Everybody has the right to their opinion. Thanks for your feedback.
+History Buffs What history movie will you be doing next. Hatfield's vs McCoy's, King Arthur, The Eagle or some other movie?
Lawrence of Arabia :)
Alexander the Great is my favorite historical character, he's the one that inspired me to become a historian. I actually loved this movie due to the historical accuracy, I did not know people hated the acting :
many like it. this channel just nitpicks a lot. so it's expected.
So you choose the scene after his fathers death, and prior to the murder of his childhood friend as two examples where yelling is inappropriate...?
Would you have preferred if I used every shouting scene in the entire film? And I didn't say it was inappropriate just awful acting and directing
+History Buffs So your opinion is based on some known recognizable standard of training, qualification, and experience.
After all you wouldn`t be so ignorant or arrogant to voice an opinion based on nothing more than personal preference, i.e. fresh air now would you?
This was an excellent review. This film is somewhat of a guilty pleasure for me. The music is just so epic. In terms of history however I am bothered by its overreliance on an outdated view on Darius III. There is actually an excellent Dutch history book that shows Darius did not flee from battle, was a brave leader, capable administrator, and a good commander. Also Babylon was not the capital of the Persian Empire.
Who said anything about Babylon being the capital of the Roman Empire?
name of the book please
I have to admit, I love 'Alexander'. But that probably has to do with the fact that I'm a Greek mythology and history buff and I remember that when I was first watching the movie I was blown away by the fact that this director actually really cared for the source material and tried to make a historically accurate film. But I still have to admit that this movie has flaws, especially (as History Buffs pointed out) the dialogue. There are many scenes throughout the film where I was thinking "Come on, no one talks like that!"
And just on a side note: It's been a while since I read the Iliad but if I remember correctly (and I think I've also read it somewhere) Achilles and Patroclus are not lovers in the epic. It's never specifically said they aren't but also not that they are. It's just said that they are really close friends. That they are depicted as lovers was an interpretation by later periods (Archaic and Classical Greece). Nothing wrong with that (one of reasons why I love 'Alexander' is exactly because the director didn't shy away from depicting Alexander as a bisexual) but yeah, not in the Iliad (again, as far as I can remember).
But it's Angelina Jolie dude.
Acting her weirdest and offputting yet, all on purpose as her idea of a good performance, is a reason Pitt started avoiding home life and staying stoned through their fallout
I absolutely love it. Sometimes it's hard for people to have a honest opinion, sometimes people go with the trend/flow and say something is good or bad just cause others say it too.
EXACTLY!!!
I can not get enough of this channel! I'd like to see a review of HBO's The Pacific in the future. Thanks for all your hardwork in creating these videos, i thoroughly enjoy them.
I have to say, Angelina Jolie was a PERFECT cast for Olimpia.
Her accent is strange as fuck.
Alexanderrrr the grrreeat.
Olympia
She's not Albanian.... is she?
BARBATVS 89 What?
if you pay attention to Alexander's death scene, you don't hear him say anything, but you hear his generals say something like, "Did he say the strongest?" "No, to Craterus."
+Garret LeBuis Took the words out of my mouth.
Craterus meant strong in greek
You’re absolutely wrong about the commonality of alternative sexualities in Ancient Greece. It was even more verboten then than it is now. They were very based.
I agree with your description of ancient greece but not so much on your opinion of what is based
No it’s not. That’s ur lies
Fuck that the old into was way more epic. Still love you though.
I've never managed to watch the whole movie straight through without falling asleep.
Alexander initially had the whole "Father to His Men" cliche down, knowing the names of several of his numerous soldiers, calling out to them even if they were foot-soldiers, etc. Things...spiraled downward later on during his later acts of conquest. As bad as the acting is, and how messy the film is as a whole, this is a more accurate depiction of Alexander as a person (megalomania and all) than that "Marvel's Thor" knock-off in Fate/Zero.
Ah, great to revisit this review, since Alexander is one of my favorite historical personalities. By the way, about the tropical setting in India, Valerio M. Manfredi's trilogy Aléxandros gives the same setting, and elaborates on how the constant rains, fevers, snakes and tropical stuff fed up the army and decided the men to demand Alexander to go back home.
You think Alexander wasnt yelling before he murdered Cleitus?
I am no great fan of Oliver Stone, but I think he was done an injustice with all the negative reaction to this movie. I suspect that his reasonably accurate depiction of the characters and particularly the battles (e.g. the discipline of the phalanx) goes against the nonsense "history" the public gets from movies like "Braveheart".
I also see a double standard in this channel's treatment of movies. In the review of "Goodfellas" for example, movie-making technique is discounted as irrelevant to whether it's historically accurate. Here, on the other hand, "Alexander" is condemned on account not of accuracy but on style.
He does that a lot. Very inconsistent. His taste is clearly toward more "quiet" and "subtle" i.e. boring movies LOL. He likes Hollywood pap like The Last Samurai which is safely vanilla but doesn't like the intensity and pure cinema of movies like Alexander. He should be more upfront about his personal taste bias.
what discipline? The Persians had discipline too and they decimated the macedonian (horsehit) left by outflanking them. Noone gives that credit to Darius III.
@@saeedvazirian They literally show that in the movie. And no one gives Darius III credit because outflanking a 1/3 of an army that you heavily outnumber is not exactly hard to do, and even less impressive when you still flee and completely lose the battle.
I don’t watch this guys videos, I don’t share his biases. I’m just a guy who likes historical movies. I went into Alexander knowing nothing about the films reception, watched it in one sitting and I was thoroughly disappointed. It’s rare that I will flat out dislike a film ever, I always find redeeming qualities. But with Alexander I didn’t like the film at all, I thought it was grand but poorly made in regards to its story
Vae Victis lol cut the shit
I adore this film. Especially the longer cut.
I loved the battle scene of the battle of Guagamela. One of my favorite stories was left out the Gordian Knot.
There’s an “Ultimate Cut,” of “Alexander,” which was released on Blu-ray, back in 2014, for it’s 10th Anniversary. The original, theatrical cut is included.
Which business genius is keeping you from reverting to your old intro? The video is still good, but I'm telling you, that intro is how you keep subscribers. People will associate that epic intro with your channel in an instant, which is exactly the kind of brand recognition you need to get big.
+Petey T indeed.
+Petey T The old intro is great, but it's just too long. People who sit through a 1 minute long *intro* on UA-cam are a tiny minority of overall viewers. Even though I'm personally willing to watch it every time, since it's top notch, I can't fault him for switching from a TV-geared intro to a UA-cam-geared intro, since that's the format he's actually on.
+Brett DuVale And who is he getting INTEREST FROM for his professional talented productions stylings?.... TELEVISION PEOPLE WHO PAY AND FUND MORE THAN CHEAP ADHD UA-camr gameboys buying Lootcrate CRAP.
You can make cheap change catering to the man-boy internet geeks or make a living and career getting gigs with ACTUAL businesses who want talent like Nick's. HIS original INTRO DID that, he was GETTING BIGGER WITH IT. Only growing numbers of idiot follower sheep fanboys from other channels unable to focus more than 5sec influenced him to make the short Scooby Do silly intro as he's a young man.
+Petey T People have ADHD, mate. Some geniuses have advised him that he'll loose subs if he doesn't cut the intro short. So here you go!
+oberstul
I kinda feel it might actually be people like me, who find a channel when it already has some 14+ videos and proceed to watch them all in a single day. The old, long intro was really good, but by the seventh time I saw it in an evening I was wishing for a video game -style "skip cut-scene" -button because I just wanted to get to the review already. Which, come to think of it, would be pretty good solution.
Now that I've caught up, though? Yeah, I'd prefer the original one. It works when you watch videos at the rate they're uploaded, not at the rate you can click on them.
Historybuff, I enjoy your videos immensely. But I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. IMO "Alexander Revisited" is a great movie which is unfortunately forever dogged by the abysmal reputation of the theatrical version. Oliver Stone managed to transform his huge amount of material into a spellbinding viewing experience, and it is somewhat sad that it was never shown in theaters. This epic version should have been experienced on a big screen. I really do not know what went wrong and why the audience had to make do with the theatrical cut in the first place, but I don't know a lot about the production history of this movie. There have been other epic movies, though, which morphed into vastly superior versions after they have been re-cut. "Kingdom of Heaven" comes to mind.
As to "Alexander Revisited": it features some of the most exciting battle scenes of all times. I think it was a good decision to re-assemble the time line, since the start with Alexander's death, followed by a grand battle scene, the viewer's interest is immediately captured, and we become gradually acquainted with Alexander's youth. IMO this is far more interesting to watch than a telling of the story in a strictly chronological order.
I also appreciate that the movie - unlike other historical movies ("Gladiator", cough, cough) - has a high degree of historical correctness. I also don't think at all that Colin Farrell was miscast and in "Alexander Revisited" Oliver Stone choose scenes which show Farell's interpretation of the character in a better light, although I think that Stone's overall direction of the actors could've been better. Simply blaming Farell is unfair. I have some problems, though, with the casting of so many blonde and blue eyed Greeks. While Alexander might've been indeed blonde or maybe had light auburn hair, it's highly unlikely that the majority of the Greeks and Macedonians looked like this. The casting of more mediterranean types would've been probably far more realistic.
On the whole I think that "Alexander Revisited" is well worth watching, and I regret that your take might prevent many of your viewers from giving this version of the movie a chance :(
The movie's title is *not* "Alexander Revisited".
It is simply "Alexander". ;)
@@saschamayer4050 "Alexander Revisited" which this episode is looking into, was a longer edit and not shown in cinemas like "Alexander" was... it is very much the movie title. Infact the full title is "Alexander Revisited: The Final Unrated Cut" ;)
@Rowan Nowicki , thanks :) Right now I am in the house of my mother in a small German village. And I can see two wonderful black horses on a nearby meadow. Since both of them are Frisians they look very much like Alexander´s wonderful horse in the movie.
Everyone loves to hate on this film, mostly unfairly. It suffers from not being "Gladiator", a great but very different movie. Now we have a Netflix series to compare it with...
Just discovered your channel, and now I'm catching up with your old videos. I'm loving them; you did an excellent job.
Any chance of you adding Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid and/or Gandhi to your queue?
Oliver Stone basically turned Alexander into the Jim Morrison of antiquity.
TWO LIZARD KINGS?
Fitting, since he directed Val Kilmer as Jim Morrison in 1991.
No point in complaining about what accent it is, he's speaking English, a completely different language than the original person did, so there's no point.
I hate using Wikipedia as a reference but it was one of WB best selling catalog DVDs to the point of getting 3 recuts, I think in time people came to accept and appreciate the artistic direction of Oliver Stone
Take everything said about Alexander's mother with a massive grain of salt. The Greeks always demonized women in their stories, and the idea of historical accuracy was not something yet invented.
Considering the only existing sources on Alexander are secondary sources written hundreds of years after his death take everything with a grain of salt. I would say we have legend and no history.
Except for Sophocles, who made Antigone quite the tragic hero. :) Oh, and Ariadne, who helped Theseus prep to face the Minotaur.
and the statues made by his personal sculptor
@@williamspencer1351 Both Gallen and yourself are speaking nonsense. We can know much about Alexander and his campaigns. The secondary sources recount the multiplicity of primary sources, and we can thus reconstruct the accounts of eye witnesses. If we were so cynical about everything there would be nothing to know about anything.
RagingBlast2Fan the wise man knows that he knows nothing; the fool thinks he knows all.
I remember falling asleep to this movie. You made me want to re-watch it.
I agree with most of what you say here, however i do have one point to argue with, Alexander and his alleged involvement in his father's death due to his possible removal from the succession line. It is true that Cleopatra was a Macedonian noble woman, and Atalus her father in her wedding feast toasted for a true heir for Macedon, this is the famous fight between Alexander and Philip.
However Alexander was not Philip's eldest son, Arrhidaeus had already been passed over in favour of Alexander several years prior. The issue of succession i dont think was ever in question (at least it wasnt for Philip) he had already spent a fortune in the best tutors to educate his son, the most famous being none other than Aristotle. Not to mention the famous story of Bucephalus, for which Philip had spent 13 talents, but no one could tame him, until Alexander claimed he would do it and if he failed he would pay back the sum to his father. I think it was clear that Philip greatly favoured Alexander, grooming him for leadership, giving him his first command in the battle of Chaeronea (Alexander commanded the left wing).
I might be wrong, but i believe that the internal conflict for Alexander was between the influence of his parents, like a clash of 2 different personalities. The movie fails completely to portray this, Alexander is little more than a brat, a grown man full of doubts, not the least of which seems to be his sexuality and his relation with Hephaestion. To be honest i completely hate the movie, its boring, long, poorly acted, and fails to represent properly one of the most interesting characters in human history.
Also it is possible that this whole megalomania thing might be just bad publicity after he was named son of ammon (zeus ammon) by the oracle at Siwa. But this had a clear political objective it made him the legitimate Pharaoh of Egypt.
seyfersnake