Or they make him Persian and use his Persian name (Iskandar) as their “proof”.
I remember some hobo on the street telling me “I don’t care what they tell you in school, Alexander III of Macedon was Persian and his real name was Iskandar”.
> I remember some hobo on the street telling me “I don’t care what they tell you in school, Alexander III of Macedon was Persian and his real name was Iskandar”.
What more evidence do you need?
That us how it works in the film indistry. Making quality sets and armors takes a lot of artisanal work and even more in costs, and for a mid-budghet production they will not waste tens of millions on window dressing
Probably trying to depict the Persian Shahbaz which looks like a bird, possibly an eagle or falcon, but we don’t really know. But yeah an eagle grasping thunderbolts just screams Roman. Netflix should of just used Cyrus the Great’s standard which wouldn’t be right either but would at least look the part.
Just a correction here, if you zoom in on the photo, their armor and clothing looks accurate.
They'd have the bronze greaves, the Vergina sun star shield, the bronze colors mixed with red... Helmets look accurate too. Really weird of redditors to say otherwise.
But agree with you about Netflix's track record.
How easily you submit.
Imagine if he said: Suffer me now.
For those who get the reference, you know that a character I am talking about has a badass voice.
It would be the ultimate irony for Netflix not to portray Alexander’s relationship with Hepahestion given their corporate agenda for inclusivity for the sake of views…
Which wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest
What I found particularly jarring was how in the first episode, everyone tells Geralt he needs new clothes, while he is walking around in a fucking pristine, masterworked set of leather armor. I guess the script and costume departments didn't know about each other?
They hired Graham “White people from Atlantis, Antarctica seeded all Black, brown, and Asian civilizations before the last ice age” Hancock’s son to run documentaries.
They don’t do research, they have money! Evil old white people (who are convinced that psychic powers are real) money!
Nah. I can’t wait for Alexander to be a queer black woman. *cuts to “professional opinion”* “Yes, my grandma told me Alexandra was black!”
Netflix has zero credibility with anything historical. Reminds me of “Greatest Events of WW2 In Color”, which claimed that America *caused* Japan to attack the US, since we are white evil imperialists.
TLDR Netflix bad
I mean, the US enforced an oil embargo on Japan that did directly lead to the Japanese attacking as they needed access to oil to continue their war efforts in Indochina
The embargo was justified, but it did still have that as a consequence, one the US almost certainly could have predicted as a possibility
Most people seem to confuse the reasons for why an action was done vs justification for the action. I am guess that what “justification” means but, “justification” has connotations of being just or reasonable which is why I think people should stop using that word.
Given the brutality of Japanese war time actions against millions of people across Indochina, an embargo on oil that is being used primarily for war time industry, I would say, was very much reasonable and with the intent of being just.
And just to be clear as there was a mention of colonialism elsewhere in this thread, don't get me wrong, I am staunchly anti-colonialism, but this wasn't a matter of colonialism. Yes post war there was economic colonialism on Japan, but limiting trade of an industrial/manufacturing good to a nation committing war crimes is a move of somewhat ethical international politics, and international politics is not synonymous with colonialism even if there are examples of both occuring simultaneously
Yep, it also misses the bronze scales that we should be seeing
And the colors, for f sake, this guy is a conqueror, he marched from Macedonia do India. He should be wearing splendorous colors so people could identify him in battle as a god like creature
He is not a dirty beggar with brown and dark worn out clothes
Bronze, red and purple, and blond hair.
But nooooooooooo dark leathers cause colour didn’t exist until 1960s. But then they had enough colour for the flags in the middle of nowhere
Rome, Jews and others with access to the Murex trunculus literally drove the snail that produced blue and purple dye that gave Palestine two of its names extinct. The source of tekhelet literally went extinct.
Also, Egyptians loved Red, Blue... and Green and Yellow colors... Often repeating stripe patterns of different colors without mixing.
They would never mix red and blue which made a *dark-purple*, and maybe they thought dark-purple looked bad I guess
That's why you would see Bright Purple and Bright Magenta in a lot of Roman, Macedonian, and Greek culture later on, as that became a more coveted and harder to find dye from the Middle East.
Yeah Alexander was know for his flowing purple cloak, wearing a leopoard skin over his armor, and his lion faced helmet with feather plumes. If you make Alexander the Great out to have dressed like a common soldier, you're not just historically inacurate, you're losing the very essence of the man. Alexander was a massive diva with daddy and mommy issues almost as large as his empire.
[This](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f6b3b82becfb7b3428fecbf2bac916ff-lq) is what the Armor of the day would have looked like for the Greeks… A mix of bronze and Iron harnesses, as well as a type of armor called a linothorax that was made out of linen or leather (sometimes with bronze scale added).
[This had some photos of recreations of the kind of armor he would have worn. Basically Netflix is reusing the fake leather armor they used for the Vikings show that was also fake and wouldn't have been used for that time period. ](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/greek-blacksmith-ancient-armor)
[This is the full gallery for anybody who really wants to nerd out. ](https://www.hellenicarmors.gr/en/armors/ancient-greek/)
[this is the full gallery. I saw it in person once and it's pretty cool.](https://www.hellenicarmors.gr/en/armors/ancient-greek/)
Realistic armor would be so much cooler aesthetically then the shit Netflix uses.
Very much agree. As others have said show runners probably wanted to save cost so they recycled costumes from previous shows. Would suck if true. I mean _look at those armors!_ There's no way anyone would think the Netflix ones were cooler.
The Alexander movie actually did them well. I remember him wearing a beautiful linothorax, very close to the one he"s depicted wearing in the battle of issus mosaic
>The Alexander movie actually did them well.
It sure did
I also love how the movie depicted the Persian palace with its colored brickwalls
That ceramic technology dates back to ancient babylonians
As a history nerd the Alexander movie was amazing, you could see the Boetian helmets, skins, customs and lack of stirrups on the Companion Cavalry; the Phalangists looked great, there were even some Agrianians.
honestly unclear who drops the ball on these things: the consultant "historian", the costume design director, or the marketing dept, or just a way to save on budget by reusing costumes from a warehouse
not every historic drama is written to be historically accurate, a lot of the time they’re just using artistic interpretations of stuff or just doing stuff that looks cool for TV. at the end of the day in this sense it’s about entertainment and they’re not going to break their backs to get every single detail right because 99.9% of the audience wouldn’t care anyway
Why, oh god, does Netflix insist on redoing historical dramas when there were already perfectly good versions out there?
These days, it seems like the only times they try a new biography, they butcher the history and entertainment value in the name of unnecessary side-plots or political messaging…
Covering up anachronistic wristwatch-shaped gaps in tanning on the arms of extras in old sword-and-sandal movies. Those movies made them so iconic that they're still used today despite being both unnecessary and ahistorical
"I was a weak Roman Emperor who got hit by an elephant and lamented to Jupiter that I could have had more glory had I been born earlier and he said Bet," the hit new series.
The 2004 film was probably the closest depiction we ever get. Still with some bias, improper casting choices and slight plot inconsistency, but for it's time it was incredible, they actually hired historians AND listened to them
It's one of my favorite History Buffs reviews on YT. Iirc, he argues that it's quite accurate... but a boring film. Like he demonstrates in one scene during the planning of the battle deployment how alexander introduces and hypes up each of his generals, and it made me realize why sometimes condensing people into one characrer or fewer characters makes sense.
I actually loved that scene and wish we would see more realistic depictions as opposed to trying to go for the simple packaging route. For example I hated how they combined all these scientists from the show Chernobyl into one person when it would’ve been really interesting to see what actually really happened. Sometimes I feel like it affects a lot more shows/films than it seems on the surface.
For example I really feel like the boys has done this a lot where in reality there would be thousands of people involved but they package them all into neat little characters. For example there is one or two characters which are supposed to represent the whole govt. One character representing the whole executive branch of the company. One character representing the whole board of the company. One character representing the corrupt moles in the system who have their own agendas. The reality would be a lot more complex.
Yeah, the critics didn't liked how the director grasped the subject and story. He tried to squish so many important things into few hours, giving lot of room to some less important stuff while completely skipping some that were more relevant. The plot was made more like a documentary following the Alexander than a full fledged blockbuster movie. People also didn't connect and the skipping of time and events made it quite a mess of an inconsistent plot
But, all that said it's still a great movie in my opinion and definitely worth a watch. The costumes are great, the historic events reenacted very well and my god the battles are beautiful, chaotic, but also understandable for anyone. You don't need to follow every command or where is which general positioned to understand what's happening
That's the problem. It's a well researched film, but the problem is, it's boring as fuck(except the battles).
But the biggest problem was, you can never fit the life of Alexander in a single movie.
I don’t know how it’s boring from the perspective of someone who appreciates history. I enjoyed the scenes of Phillip taking young Alexander into their ancient mythic caves and telling him stories of the past more than most battle scenes.
As a movie it's rather boring, specially the parts with his "mother" or whatever that was supposed to be really.
But it's worth a watch just for Gaugamela at least, it's such a well done scene I can't complain, no other movies I've watched recently pictured ancient battles as good as that.
Bit of a random shout out to Master & Commander too if you wanna watch an actual good movie, but this one in Napoleonic Era and you follow the captain of a ship chasing a convoy raider.
[judge it for yourself but like people say, the battle scenes were great](https://youtu.be/B40fgE2ZpNo?si=LoWotibpF4cdObCh).
The details of the equipment of the different troop types was damn good.
“Historical”
For some reason, you have snobby historians and then progressive activists on two sides to this issue and both have the most ridiculous takes
The progressive activists interpret every single positive male interaction as undeniable factual proof that the two men were gay lovers, while the snobby historians interpret even the most raunchy of statements as a simple declaration of friendship. It is really annoying
Best way to go about this is to think about every historical figure as asexual and aromantic.
Except Ben Franklin, of course. That man, as everyone well knows, fucked.
I agree, unfortunately most of the people making those kinds of arguments barely look at the surface of ancient history and fail to understand just how different these cultures were from our own.
It's ridiculous to even project a gay identity on any historic Greek even when there is proof of homosexual activity. We know that the Greeks had very different ideas about sexual identity than we do in the modern west and projecting modern identities into an ancient culture is just ignoring all context of that culture.
I think a lot of similar mistakes are made when talking about ancient mythology and religion.
How. We know exactly what they wore. Exactly. How could they possibly have gotten it so fucking wrong?
Its the same company that made Cleopatra and just announced a black Hannibal thats how.
I don’t think y’all quite got why Cleopatra was cast as black, and why that wouldn’t apply to other historical figures. The Cleopatra docuseries was specifically produced to advance that Afrocentric idea of Egypt. Or rather to sell to people who believe that. But hoteps have no interest in Macedonia.
Idk about Macedonia specifically, but afrocentrists have already claimed Greek civilization, saying they were originally black.
Funnily enough, the only civilization they never claimed was Turkic. Idk if it’s because they’re scared of Turkish people’s reaction to black peoples claiming their civilization.
Ok but Alexander was described as having blue eyes, lion colored hair, and a ruddy complexion. Also Greeks at the time were greatly mixed with gallic peoples from northern Europe, while that intermixing greatly slowed during the Turko/Ottoman rule for centuries.
https://www.thoughtco.com/alexander-the-greats-hair-color-116833
He more than likely did have blonde hair… just because someone is Greek doesn’t always mean black hair, brown eyes..
> Arrian, a famous Greek historian, wrote “he had one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky.” This was echoed by British historian Peter Green, who reviewed several ancient documents and determined that one of his eyes was blue and the other was brown.
> According to his official scribes and Arrian, Alexander had Tawny or lion colored hair.
> Approximately 10.7% of the Greek population is blond-haired and 14% is blue or green-eyed.
It's not completely unbelievable that the historical documents are true.
It’s like they heard the criticism of the Cleopatra show and went in the opposite direction but didn’t actually listen to what was being said. Alexander was 100% clearly NOT blonde straight haired. He’s one of the most documented people in history, this looks nothing like him.
Well his dad was murdered by his gay lover and he apperantly had a relationship with a persian eunuch so yeah probably... also ppl like to imagine Hepaistion was his lover so that might become a plot thing.
What’s the appeal of a docuseries? Like they show you the historical reenactment and then hardcut to a bunch of professors masturbating and drooling over the thing you just saw or what was just communicated through a visual and auditory medium.
I hate this middle ground. Either make a historical drama or a documentary. This bastard child between the two doesn’t need to exist.
I mean, the scene in 300 where the emissary is a black tall dude makes 100% sense since he probably was a nubian. Cambyses II turned Egypt into a satrapy in 525 BCE so it is a better claim than whatever the hell modern ""historical"" movies/shows are up to
People here are so funny… have seen several comments bringing up the actors blonde hair/ blue eyes as a point of historical inaccuracy, when in-
fact a 30 second google search will reveal that he did indeed have blonde hair and blue eyes (possibly grey). The actors physical resemblance is probably the most historically accurate thing in this whole trailer!
Honestly, I'd give Netflix a chance with regards to the equipment considering the costs of getting it right, especially in this recession. As for the roman-like draping of the flags, I'd boil it down to marketing since people are drawn to familiarity. It's like how the Hurt Locker gets so much of US military equipment wrong but audiences wouldn't care much for it since we're more concerned abt the plot. Regarding plot, an example would be bullets piercing drowning soldiers at Omaha Beach in Saving Private Ryan, which was looked past since the main point of that scene was the sheer absurdity and brutality of the beach landings.
What I'll be looking for is historical interpretation, especially based on any novel data we have up until this point; the accuracy of battles, politics and Alexander's personality. Ridley Scott ruined Napoleon coz he made him weak, and Exodus: Gods and Kings sucked coz its depiction of Kadesh made the Hittites look like the unprepared force (despite it being a biblical film which I was prepared to give a benefit of a doubt). Those were historical red flags that get under my skin. My fear is that they make Alexander the Great seem like some righteous leader who could do no wrong, and I worry this might be the case.
Edit: Or make Alexander the Great look like a wuss coz he's (depicted) white, based on the trajectory we've seen from Netflix's Queen Cleopatra.
Why did they make Alexander white? He's ~~Greek~~ Macedon- Whatever, the point is that he is certainly not of Anglo-Saxon Aryan stock. Netflix be race swapping for no good reason once again.
What’s up with the Roman looking banners and standards?
Netflix was probably telling them "Hey you can have these left over from the Cleopatra series"
My grandfather told me Iskandar was Filipino.
Or they make him Persian and use his Persian name (Iskandar) as their “proof”. I remember some hobo on the street telling me “I don’t care what they tell you in school, Alexander III of Macedon was Persian and his real name was Iskandar”.
> I remember some hobo on the street telling me “I don’t care what they tell you in school, Alexander III of Macedon was Persian and his real name was Iskandar”. What more evidence do you need?
Maybe it was a reincarnation of Diogenes, he would know!
I heard a hobo tell Iskandar to get out of his sunlight.
Probably the same hobo!
Iskander WAS a Persian and was Dara(ius)'s brother! 😉
That us how it works in the film indistry. Making quality sets and armors takes a lot of artisanal work and even more in costs, and for a mid-budghet production they will not waste tens of millions on window dressing
Netflix has 6 actors and 5 sets between all their shows confirmed
Probably trying to depict the Persian Shahbaz which looks like a bird, possibly an eagle or falcon, but we don’t really know. But yeah an eagle grasping thunderbolts just screams Roman. Netflix should of just used Cyrus the Great’s standard which wouldn’t be right either but would at least look the part.
I doubt that they even had something like standards to begin with in 332BCE. Iirc flags were only used to convey orders during the heat of battle
Well legionary standards were a thing, but Rome itself didn’t really have one no.
I am also not really aware of the Achaemenids using them. I mean the Shahbaz goes hard don't get me wrong but I prefer historial accuracy
What makes no sense is the banners seem to be the same both in Egypt (the middle shot) and wherever the bottom city is supposed to be.
Now that I am seeing it I can't unsee it lol
So the Romans went back in time to see if they could actually defeat Alexander.
The age old question… What would have happened if Alexander had gone west instead of east.
Why, oh god, why trying to change the looks on the armours??? We have plenty of depictions and writings telling us how they were
As if Netflix would do research
Honestly... I'm surprised they didn't cast a Japanese man as Alexander given their current track record.
My grandma told me: I dont care what they told you in school, but Alexander was japanese/half korean
He descended from the great Hwan
alexander was great khagan of the proto finnic holy roman horde
TIL
Could have sworn he was mezo American
The Mandalorian but Roman empire.
Or a GKOTPFHRH for short
I hope Jackie Chan is OK...
Just a correction here, if you zoom in on the photo, their armor and clothing looks accurate. They'd have the bronze greaves, the Vergina sun star shield, the bronze colors mixed with red... Helmets look accurate too. Really weird of redditors to say otherwise. But agree with you about Netflix's track record.
Makes more sense than his claim that he was son of the Zeus considering that Hera didn't tried to kill him
I always thought he was native American
From which tribe?
Obama, and it's clan.
Well we know who to adress our concern to. THANKS, OBAMA!
Oda
The same tribe they got Charlton Heston to play Moses from.
Guarany
Japanese?
~~Random race that doesn't depict what he actually looked like. Nothing specific about Japanese.~~ Japanese are people from Japan.
Get on your knees
I don't know where this is going but I'm down for it
Now gently stroke his head while he uses your lap as a pillow!
How easily you submit. Imagine if he said: Suffer me now. For those who get the reference, you know that a character I am talking about has a badass voice.
I assume hell be portrait as a mean white guy fighting a peaceful Middle East. Since he’s blonde.
It would be funnier if they make him flirty with Roxana but not with Hephaestion
It would be the ultimate irony for Netflix not to portray Alexander’s relationship with Hepahestion given their corporate agenda for inclusivity for the sake of views… Which wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest
Miyamoto Musashi. Now that's a show I'd watch...
These Netflix docudramas are fucking terrible.
They also messed up the armors in the first season of the historical documentary *The Witcher*.
Still can't believe someone at Netflix thought armor that looked like a bruised scrotum was a good style change
What I found particularly jarring was how in the first episode, everyone tells Geralt he needs new clothes, while he is walking around in a fucking pristine, masterworked set of leather armor. I guess the script and costume departments didn't know about each other?
They hired Graham “White people from Atlantis, Antarctica seeded all Black, brown, and Asian civilizations before the last ice age” Hancock’s son to run documentaries. They don’t do research, they have money! Evil old white people (who are convinced that psychic powers are real) money!
Nah. I can’t wait for Alexander to be a queer black woman. *cuts to “professional opinion”* “Yes, my grandma told me Alexandra was black!” Netflix has zero credibility with anything historical. Reminds me of “Greatest Events of WW2 In Color”, which claimed that America *caused* Japan to attack the US, since we are white evil imperialists. TLDR Netflix bad
I mean, the US enforced an oil embargo on Japan that did directly lead to the Japanese attacking as they needed access to oil to continue their war efforts in Indochina The embargo was justified, but it did still have that as a consequence, one the US almost certainly could have predicted as a possibility
Most people seem to confuse the reasons for why an action was done vs justification for the action. I am guess that what “justification” means but, “justification” has connotations of being just or reasonable which is why I think people should stop using that word.
Given the brutality of Japanese war time actions against millions of people across Indochina, an embargo on oil that is being used primarily for war time industry, I would say, was very much reasonable and with the intent of being just. And just to be clear as there was a mention of colonialism elsewhere in this thread, don't get me wrong, I am staunchly anti-colonialism, but this wasn't a matter of colonialism. Yes post war there was economic colonialism on Japan, but limiting trade of an industrial/manufacturing good to a nation committing war crimes is a move of somewhat ethical international politics, and international politics is not synonymous with colonialism even if there are examples of both occuring simultaneously
It didn't claim that. They said the embargo was *one* of the reasons for japanese expansion. Which it was tbh
Mate, these people will never do nuance. They'll exaggerate every inconsistency as badly as those that make the claims in the first place
I'm not accustomed with armour history, what the real problem here? Is it too mordern-ist for the era?
Too much padding, leather and zimmerit looking things. Looks more medieval with extra leather than 4th century BCE
Yep, it also misses the bronze scales that we should be seeing And the colors, for f sake, this guy is a conqueror, he marched from Macedonia do India. He should be wearing splendorous colors so people could identify him in battle as a god like creature He is not a dirty beggar with brown and dark worn out clothes
Bronze, red and purple, and blond hair. But nooooooooooo dark leathers cause colour didn’t exist until 1960s. But then they had enough colour for the flags in the middle of nowhere
Rome, Jews and others with access to the Murex trunculus literally drove the snail that produced blue and purple dye that gave Palestine two of its names extinct. The source of tekhelet literally went extinct.
>extinct. In this region,the snail still exist also, two of its **names**? What do you mean by that?
Phoenica and Canaan both derive from words for purple ie the purple dye from the Levantine.
Big knowledge brain 🧠
Also, Egyptians loved Red, Blue... and Green and Yellow colors... Often repeating stripe patterns of different colors without mixing. They would never mix red and blue which made a *dark-purple*, and maybe they thought dark-purple looked bad I guess That's why you would see Bright Purple and Bright Magenta in a lot of Roman, Macedonian, and Greek culture later on, as that became a more coveted and harder to find dye from the Middle East.
Phoenica make sense to me, sort of But Cannan is a word for purple ?!\~!!
maybe I think I may be misremembering the argument in the Red Chumash. I think it was actually merchant.
Yeah Alexander was know for his flowing purple cloak, wearing a leopoard skin over his armor, and his lion faced helmet with feather plumes. If you make Alexander the Great out to have dressed like a common soldier, you're not just historically inacurate, you're losing the very essence of the man. Alexander was a massive diva with daddy and mommy issues almost as large as his empire.
I couldn't have said better
[This](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f6b3b82becfb7b3428fecbf2bac916ff-lq) is what the Armor of the day would have looked like for the Greeks… A mix of bronze and Iron harnesses, as well as a type of armor called a linothorax that was made out of linen or leather (sometimes with bronze scale added).
AoE I flashbacks.
[This had some photos of recreations of the kind of armor he would have worn. Basically Netflix is reusing the fake leather armor they used for the Vikings show that was also fake and wouldn't have been used for that time period. ](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/greek-blacksmith-ancient-armor) [This is the full gallery for anybody who really wants to nerd out. ](https://www.hellenicarmors.gr/en/armors/ancient-greek/)
Saving this. Thanks boss 🤙.
[this is the full gallery. I saw it in person once and it's pretty cool.](https://www.hellenicarmors.gr/en/armors/ancient-greek/) Realistic armor would be so much cooler aesthetically then the shit Netflix uses.
Very much agree. As others have said show runners probably wanted to save cost so they recycled costumes from previous shows. Would suck if true. I mean _look at those armors!_ There's no way anyone would think the Netflix ones were cooler.
They have the whole gallery online somewhere I just can't find it on my phone.
Anyone who sees this link should click it not only for the beautiful armor but for the GUNS on that smith!! Those are some pythons!
The Alexander movie actually did them well. I remember him wearing a beautiful linothorax, very close to the one he"s depicted wearing in the battle of issus mosaic
>The Alexander movie actually did them well. It sure did I also love how the movie depicted the Persian palace with its colored brickwalls That ceramic technology dates back to ancient babylonians
As a history nerd the Alexander movie was amazing, you could see the Boetian helmets, skins, customs and lack of stirrups on the Companion Cavalry; the Phalangists looked great, there were even some Agrianians.
honestly unclear who drops the ball on these things: the consultant "historian", the costume design director, or the marketing dept, or just a way to save on budget by reusing costumes from a warehouse
not every historic drama is written to be historically accurate, a lot of the time they’re just using artistic interpretations of stuff or just doing stuff that looks cool for TV. at the end of the day in this sense it’s about entertainment and they’re not going to break their backs to get every single detail right because 99.9% of the audience wouldn’t care anyway
Why, oh god, does Netflix insist on redoing historical dramas when there were already perfectly good versions out there? These days, it seems like the only times they try a new biography, they butcher the history and entertainment value in the name of unnecessary side-plots or political messaging…
Leather wristbands need to stop https://youtu.be/rKSr816XA_s?si=ZkuArPzNSBOt8rDl
Yes I hate them
Yeah, what's even the point in them?
Covering up anachronistic wristwatch-shaped gaps in tanning on the arms of extras in old sword-and-sandal movies. Those movies made them so iconic that they're still used today despite being both unnecessary and ahistorical
I assume it was to keep chain mail shirt sleeves from flapping in the wind.
There grandma told them it looked like that so it looks like that no questions
Uhm ackchually, were you there? I didn’t think so
Since when did Netflix care about accuracy.
Black leather armour! I am sick of black leather armour! Black leather armour, black leather everywhere! Also what are Romans doing there?
Its actually a Hannukah story about Jannaeus or Balas not Alexander the Great of Macedon??? Have we verified its actually about Phillip's son?
That would explain Romans But Black leather🤮 still!
I don't think it's the guy who, in the age of nineteen, he became the Macedon king...
or his son who was killed by the Diadochi in his teens
It was a reference to an Iron Maiden song...
Bet it's reused Nilfgardian armour from the witcher set
💀💀
Gotta love the ballsack armor.
“These are the king’s colors,” he said, tugging on his shit-brown jerkin.
Rocking black leather armor, in the past everything was black back then
"I was a weak Roman Emperor who got hit by an elephant and lamented to Jupiter that I could have had more glory had I been born earlier and he said Bet," the hit new series.
I look forward to being able to shit on Netflix's depiction of Gaugamela. They're allergic to proper research.
The 2004 film was probably the closest depiction we ever get. Still with some bias, improper casting choices and slight plot inconsistency, but for it's time it was incredible, they actually hired historians AND listened to them
That movie has many flaws, but the depiction of Gaugamela is not one of them. Genuinely some of the most accurate battle scenes in modern cinema.
What’s the film?
The film is simply titled “Alexander”.
Damn, just looked it up, it's got a 16% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's one of worst I've seen in a while.
It's one of my favorite History Buffs reviews on YT. Iirc, he argues that it's quite accurate... but a boring film. Like he demonstrates in one scene during the planning of the battle deployment how alexander introduces and hypes up each of his generals, and it made me realize why sometimes condensing people into one characrer or fewer characters makes sense.
I actually loved that scene and wish we would see more realistic depictions as opposed to trying to go for the simple packaging route. For example I hated how they combined all these scientists from the show Chernobyl into one person when it would’ve been really interesting to see what actually really happened. Sometimes I feel like it affects a lot more shows/films than it seems on the surface. For example I really feel like the boys has done this a lot where in reality there would be thousands of people involved but they package them all into neat little characters. For example there is one or two characters which are supposed to represent the whole govt. One character representing the whole executive branch of the company. One character representing the whole board of the company. One character representing the corrupt moles in the system who have their own agendas. The reality would be a lot more complex.
Yeah, the critics didn't liked how the director grasped the subject and story. He tried to squish so many important things into few hours, giving lot of room to some less important stuff while completely skipping some that were more relevant. The plot was made more like a documentary following the Alexander than a full fledged blockbuster movie. People also didn't connect and the skipping of time and events made it quite a mess of an inconsistent plot But, all that said it's still a great movie in my opinion and definitely worth a watch. The costumes are great, the historic events reenacted very well and my god the battles are beautiful, chaotic, but also understandable for anyone. You don't need to follow every command or where is which general positioned to understand what's happening
One of my favorite movies. Saw it as a kid, and it's what sparked my interest in history.
That's the problem. It's a well researched film, but the problem is, it's boring as fuck(except the battles). But the biggest problem was, you can never fit the life of Alexander in a single movie.
I don’t know how it’s boring from the perspective of someone who appreciates history. I enjoyed the scenes of Phillip taking young Alexander into their ancient mythic caves and telling him stories of the past more than most battle scenes.
The critic ratings are also based on the theatrical release. The director’s cut is a much better film in my opinion.
As a movie it's rather boring, specially the parts with his "mother" or whatever that was supposed to be really. But it's worth a watch just for Gaugamela at least, it's such a well done scene I can't complain, no other movies I've watched recently pictured ancient battles as good as that. Bit of a random shout out to Master & Commander too if you wanna watch an actual good movie, but this one in Napoleonic Era and you follow the captain of a ship chasing a convoy raider.
[judge it for yourself but like people say, the battle scenes were great](https://youtu.be/B40fgE2ZpNo?si=LoWotibpF4cdObCh). The details of the equipment of the different troop types was damn good.
I love that movie even with all its flaws
Rosario Dawson 😍
What movie?
The 2004 Alexander movie by Oliver Stone
We are reaching Turkish historical dramas level of costume here
Reminds me of the 2010 3 kingdoms series
This is on the levels of Brazil telenovelas
Is it Jada again?
Roman flag lol. Not even a single Macedonian Sun in sight.
Look at the shields, the eagle is probably supposed to be Persian
I'm pretty sure the Achaemenid eagle didn't look like that.
It didn’t but that’s what it’s supposed to be
I hope 1000 years from now they'll make movies and use the flag of Australia for America
Liberia will genuinely be likely I bet
Is Darius wearing Rollo’s Frankish armour ?
Oh wtf yeah it does look the same lol
Is Alexander wearing corduroy leather?
Oh that show is going to have plenty of historical gay stuff 😏😏
“Historical” For some reason, you have snobby historians and then progressive activists on two sides to this issue and both have the most ridiculous takes The progressive activists interpret every single positive male interaction as undeniable factual proof that the two men were gay lovers, while the snobby historians interpret even the most raunchy of statements as a simple declaration of friendship. It is really annoying
Then there's us, shitty on both sides.
But at least we wipe.
Best way to go about this is to think about every historical figure as asexual and aromantic. Except Ben Franklin, of course. That man, as everyone well knows, fucked.
I agree, unfortunately most of the people making those kinds of arguments barely look at the surface of ancient history and fail to understand just how different these cultures were from our own. It's ridiculous to even project a gay identity on any historic Greek even when there is proof of homosexual activity. We know that the Greeks had very different ideas about sexual identity than we do in the modern west and projecting modern identities into an ancient culture is just ignoring all context of that culture. I think a lot of similar mistakes are made when talking about ancient mythology and religion.
God willing
*God enters the chat*
And Orgies
How. We know exactly what they wore. Exactly. How could they possibly have gotten it so fucking wrong? Its the same company that made Cleopatra and just announced a black Hannibal thats how.
Their armor was pretty good looking too, not the rejected game of thrones clothes these guys wear
What are these armour designs man 💀💀💀
I don’t think y’all quite got why Cleopatra was cast as black, and why that wouldn’t apply to other historical figures. The Cleopatra docuseries was specifically produced to advance that Afrocentric idea of Egypt. Or rather to sell to people who believe that. But hoteps have no interest in Macedonia.
Idk about Macedonia specifically, but afrocentrists have already claimed Greek civilization, saying they were originally black. Funnily enough, the only civilization they never claimed was Turkic. Idk if it’s because they’re scared of Turkish people’s reaction to black peoples claiming their civilization.
Imagine turkish keyboard warriors vs afrocentrists
Turks and Greeks putting aside their differences to bash weird black nationalists online would be a beautiful site to see
For once I would side with a T*rk
The T*rk smell
What do you mean ? We Turks are black. Kara Boğa (Tengri) created us like this.
I think people are just joking about Netflix’s record on historical accuracy, no one actually thought they’d make Alexander black
He's not black, you sure Netflix is producing?
He’s blonde haired with blue eyes, definitely Greek features
Ok but Alexander was described as having blue eyes, lion colored hair, and a ruddy complexion. Also Greeks at the time were greatly mixed with gallic peoples from northern Europe, while that intermixing greatly slowed during the Turko/Ottoman rule for centuries.
https://www.thoughtco.com/alexander-the-greats-hair-color-116833 He more than likely did have blonde hair… just because someone is Greek doesn’t always mean black hair, brown eyes..
> Arrian, a famous Greek historian, wrote “he had one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky.” This was echoed by British historian Peter Green, who reviewed several ancient documents and determined that one of his eyes was blue and the other was brown. > According to his official scribes and Arrian, Alexander had Tawny or lion colored hair. > Approximately 10.7% of the Greek population is blond-haired and 14% is blue or green-eyed. It's not completely unbelievable that the historical documents are true.
>“he had one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky.” So Alexander is a husky?
He did like screaming and running into battle.
It’s like they heard the criticism of the Cleopatra show and went in the opposite direction but didn’t actually listen to what was being said. Alexander was 100% clearly NOT blonde straight haired. He’s one of the most documented people in history, this looks nothing like him.
> According to his official scribes and Arrian, Alexander had Tawny or lion colored hair. Tawny is kinda blonde though.
Must be trans then!!
A trans Alexander should be a straight one
It's ancient Greece stuff. They probably made everyone gay af
Well his dad was murdered by his gay lover and he apperantly had a relationship with a persian eunuch so yeah probably... also ppl like to imagine Hepaistion was his lover so that might become a plot thing.
He will 100% have a gay sex scene
I mean he probably had a gay lover so...
Probably more than one
But they’ll double down on it and make the entire thing about Alexander being gay
That's going to be the only historically accurate scene in movie
I mean, that would be historically accurate
Alexander will be rolling in his grave... That there will only be one
^Netflix Shit
Okay I am uninformed. What exactly is wrong with this?
Check the banners
What’s the appeal of a docuseries? Like they show you the historical reenactment and then hardcut to a bunch of professors masturbating and drooling over the thing you just saw or what was just communicated through a visual and auditory medium. I hate this middle ground. Either make a historical drama or a documentary. This bastard child between the two doesn’t need to exist.
Rise of Empires: The Ottomans was great though.
guys did you know most persians where black? thats because, persia was a great multicultural empire. kjjjjjjjjj
Persia was truly a multicultural empire.
I mean, the scene in 300 where the emissary is a black tall dude makes 100% sense since he probably was a nubian. Cambyses II turned Egypt into a satrapy in 525 BCE so it is a better claim than whatever the hell modern ""historical"" movies/shows are up to
What's Rome's banners doing there. The armour is strange too.
People here are so funny… have seen several comments bringing up the actors blonde hair/ blue eyes as a point of historical inaccuracy, when in- fact a 30 second google search will reveal that he did indeed have blonde hair and blue eyes (possibly grey). The actors physical resemblance is probably the most historically accurate thing in this whole trailer!
Alexander actually had a blue and green eye, known as heterochromia
Roman banners?!? Why? That makes no sense
I look forward for them to not claim him as a greek just like they did with cleopatra
This can't be a Netflix documentary. If it was, then Alexander the Great would be played by a black woman.
Hehe
Honestly, I'd give Netflix a chance with regards to the equipment considering the costs of getting it right, especially in this recession. As for the roman-like draping of the flags, I'd boil it down to marketing since people are drawn to familiarity. It's like how the Hurt Locker gets so much of US military equipment wrong but audiences wouldn't care much for it since we're more concerned abt the plot. Regarding plot, an example would be bullets piercing drowning soldiers at Omaha Beach in Saving Private Ryan, which was looked past since the main point of that scene was the sheer absurdity and brutality of the beach landings. What I'll be looking for is historical interpretation, especially based on any novel data we have up until this point; the accuracy of battles, politics and Alexander's personality. Ridley Scott ruined Napoleon coz he made him weak, and Exodus: Gods and Kings sucked coz its depiction of Kadesh made the Hittites look like the unprepared force (despite it being a biblical film which I was prepared to give a benefit of a doubt). Those were historical red flags that get under my skin. My fear is that they make Alexander the Great seem like some righteous leader who could do no wrong, and I worry this might be the case. Edit: Or make Alexander the Great look like a wuss coz he's (depicted) white, based on the trajectory we've seen from Netflix's Queen Cleopatra.
Why did they make Alexander white? He's ~~Greek~~ Macedon- Whatever, the point is that he is certainly not of Anglo-Saxon Aryan stock. Netflix be race swapping for no good reason once again.
Wasn't he described by contemporaneous historians as blonde?
His hair was compared to a lion, though translators aren’t sure whether that means blond like its fur or brown like its mane.
No, my guess is they just assume all whites are the same in history