I think we ask too much from CVs regarding Sisygambis. Barsine ke Ma behen ke utre huye suicidal shakal dikha diye, humpe upkar kiya. Lets see how the scene plays out on Monday.
Seriously speaking, Sisygambis sounds like a very politically suave queen. She manages to win favour with the conquering king by insulting the fleeing one, secures safety for herself and her daughters and shows some influence with the new king regarding her people. Alexander too was smart to conserve the royal family, they were his sureshot leverage against Darius as well as a means of connecting to the Persian culture and aristocracy. A conqueror needs alliances to establish his kingship especially in a different culture.
I would go along with all this, and this is exactly what one would think of Sisygambis at first sight. But then she died as soon as she heard of Alexander 's death, and it was suicide. So you see, she must have really loved him, beginning from his magnanimous behaviour towards them at Issus.
As for the advantages for Alexander, they are self-evident. That was why Chanakya made Chandragupta marry Dhananand's daughter after he had conquered Magadha, to win over the remaining Nandvansh loyalists.
Coming to our show, why on earth was she not shown there with the other 3 females? Which is why I suspect that they might just axe her, which would be a huge pity. I hope not. If she does appear, of course she will be exactly like Queen Ada of Caria, gone on Alexander in toto.
I think here too the Sony Sisygambis might favour Alexander. Barsine would probably still be lamenting over the victorious darinda while Puru and his gang show up like that team of policemen who are always arriving late to the scene.😆
@bold. It is side-splitting!👏 Do you know that they used to say of the policemen in Manila ? That they were never late at the scene of the crime, as they were already there!😆
Okay here, I might make a prediction (thanks to the half-success of my last one) and state that Barsine will probably grow a new spine and try to stand against Alexander and our mighty king will probably like that and voila! shuru ho gayi love-hate story!
I am by now getting chary of making predictions, but may your winning streak last!
Achha I read that there was another Barsine who was one of Alexander's favourite women? This was before he married anyone. I think CVs will perform character fusion of the widow Barsine and princess Barsine and show a long drawn relationship with Alexander that later ends in marriage. More economical and sensational that way. 😳
The other Barsine was the wife, and then widow, of Memnon, the Greek general who was a key commander in the Persian army. Memnon's family was left behind at Halicarnassus, and this Barsine, who was said to be surpassingly beautiful, became Alexander's mistress, and remained in that position till he fell for and married Roxanne, the Sogdian princess. It is said that Barsine bore Alexander a son called Heracles, or Hercules. He too died, or was murdered, during the succession wars.
The battle was well done though I did burst into laughter at the way Darius made his infamous dash for safety while all the persian and macedonian soldiers stand and stare like someone had done a massscale Stupefy on them all! (The same actor makes a similar dash in his character of Shakuni in Mahabharat - that was even more hilarious if u ever want to see it.😉) He rides backwards behind his man while Alexander gives chase and doesnt even produce an Ah when hit by an arrow. The original horserider is killed (probably to remove extra weight on the horse?) and Darius flies away. Alexander and Bucephalus are no match to a slippery Darius on his fleeing persian ghoda.
I too loved that part, as you would have seen from the post, but while I wrote that Darius did an Usain Bolt, I forgot about his Shakuni in the latest Mahabharata. There, he did not have to struggle with an accent, however, but here his affected delivery is getting worse and worse and downright irritating these days. 😡
Alexander is left to roar in frustration but why he thought the battlefield was the ideal place for an impromptu interrogation on the merits of Bharat is beyond me.
That is why I marked that section with a 😆. It was comical in the extreme. But then Ale xander is here shown as having a Bharat fixation. This bit reminded me of the other sequence when Alexander, in the midst of a "friendly" duel with Philip, loses his concentration when Philip mentions that no foreigner had ever been able to last out in Bharat, and ends up on his back!
The pitiful end of Faroos was quite anticlimatic though. Oh well, goodbye Faras ke Faroos.
Puru took one whole week of episodes to apparate to Faras. Cvs do have some measure of restraint then. I believe the vishkanya borrowed the siblings of Darius's fleeing steed for the job as none other could have been so swift! 😆
Not a bad guess!
Okay, I have to say I liked the poignancy of the bachaa and vishkanya scene after they all manage to get out of the water. A child's heartfelt faith and a man's selfless honour manages to penetrate the resentment festering inside Vishuddhi's heart ever since she was given away as a child. I liked how the woman turned her face away then downwards, curling into herself as she stays silent despite the emerging questions in her head. Vishuddhi has finally met a man who can protect others to his own detriment and a child who can be kind even to the killer of his family as he urges her to reach for goodness. Shame keeps her silent, me thinks, and the urge to reach out for a sliver of the goodness around her has her making a decision against her fellow vishkanyas.
There is no melodrama here, just the subtle scene between the two and then her coming to the rescue of the trapped group.
Yes, my dear, I agree with you in toto about this. I liked that kid very much, and his babyish delivery of his lines above all. It seems to me at times that they have two main scriptwriters, one who does these excellent scenes like the one above and the Alexander-Hephastion one, and the other who does the lousy stuff that is dished out so liberally to us!
Puru, the ever compassionate warrior, allows her to tag along as she can no longer go back to her old life and in the blink of an eye, they are in Persia. I think the vishkanya will probably act as Puru's escape valve when the times comes for them to return to Bharat. She will probably sacrifice herself in some heroic way, redeeming her sins, as she repays her lifedebt to Puru. What do you think of that ?
Nice going! I too think she will die, probably after she tries to kill Alexander. A blending of both your predictions, in fact.
On a lighter note, Puru is now officially The Beast Slayer (akin to Buffy the Vampire Slayer). He and his trust knife have stood against an enraged bear, two deadly snakes and a hungry crocodile. Suffices to say, when Puru is not playing the noble prince out on a mission, we may look for him in the wilderness slaying any number of beasts that need slaying. 🤓
But it is de rigueur for the hero to kill any and all hinsak pashu in his vicinity! The CGI crocodile was awful in the closeups. The bear was better, I thought. The funny thing is that the chap does not betray the slightest sense of exhaustion after these bouts, especially after the one with the bear!
Now the opening scene of Friday's episode did blow me away. Unlike what you have suggested, I shall include all the subtexts and undertones of that scene. Yes, I shall and you will understand why. Hephaestion looks like an admiring lover as he cleans his cousin's back after a grimy battle. Alexander's hold and look towards him are on the other hand mired with deep but platonic love and need. In my opinion, the Cvs are showing a subtle one-sided love story where Hephaestion silently devotes himself to the love of his life. Even in the first scene we see of them both before, the swordfighting one, Hephaestion is openly admiring of Alexander's prowess claiming it as being attractive and his expressions give him away...the words being tumhari har baat etc etc A brother would just be joking and competitive but this was something else.
Again when Alexander asks him to never leave, he says quite tenderly, where would I go without you.
I would have liked to take it as deep platonic love but men who act like brothers are not usually so tender and emotional with their speech to each other. It is therefore not in actions but in speech mainly that we get hints of Hephaestion's heart. What I mean to note, is that this is not just sibling love on his side.The Sony TV ka Hephaestion is clearly in love with Alexander silently( I do not see anything wrong in a man falling in love with another man.) but he also knows that he serves Alexander best as his trusted general and advisor and not as a lover.
Honestly, this is a heartfelt selfless love and I look forward to seeing how Hephaestion evolves with their journey.
This is a very sensitive take on the scene and on their relationship, which is different from mine, and yet acceptable to me. It might not be sibling love, but in India we are familiar with very deep affection between two men, without there being any romantic element to it. It is a recurring theme in our literature as well. In fact, in the Does and Don'ts issued to foreign executives moving to India, there is one warning them that they should not take the hugging between men, and their walking around with one's arm around the other's shoulders, as evidence of an Oscar Wilde style relationship.
You have drawn a very convincing portrait of Hephastion's feelings, though to me, the way in which he was sponging Alexander's back, like the way he was giving him a head massage in an earlier episode, looked more like the way a mother would coddle her child The same kind of protective affection and caring.
To revert, I saw the scene more as revealing Alexander's emotional insecurity and loneliness, and the consequent dependence on the one person he had with him whom he could trust unconditionally and who, like his mother, loved him unconditionally.
By the way, Hephastion was not, so far as I know, Alexander's cousin. He was the son of a Macedonian nobleman, and he was brought up with Alexander.
Okay on the Bharat side, a small note of my cute couple has to be made. They continue to charm me with their consistent drive to keep the other safe. Puru will not have his Laachi returning to a sinking ship and Laachi will jump into dangerous waters to get to her Puru. Hai! Jeete rahe mere bacchon!
PS - is this baby Malay the Malayketu of the future? Or will he grow as a son of Puru and die a martyr on the battlefield? 😲\
No, my dear. That Malayketu was the son of the Raja of Parvatak Pradesh, and a prince. Now there are only 7 years to go between the battles of Issus and of Hydaspes. This kid would be about 6. He would be too young to fight at the battle of the Hydaspes.
Okay on another note, I noticed something interesting. Both our leads continually strive to act according to their name. Purushottam ie purusho mein uttam - In english it translates to excellent amongst men - Puru continues to model as the ideal of men - brave, intelligent, compassionate, loving, humble, patriotic, dutiful, protective and most importantly in tune with his emotional side. Like an ideal man, he is progressive in regarding women as his equal, stepping in before them only when the need calls for it. As a warrior, he seeks to protect - even when he was a common Dasyu, his protective nature supercedes his need to plunder. The rise to Crown Prince hardly changes his nature - if anything, he grows to feel more humble, responsible and compassionate. And it is this need to be a good protector that has him rushing to Persia to see with his own eyes what kind of terrible threat his people shall have to face.
Lord Rama was the original Maryada Purushottam, and he was so one-sided in his concept of duty that he banished his wife to the forest when she was expecting, and that by stealth, without a word to her. I don't see this as being progressive towards women. But then, in this age of political correctness, all the leading men have to be in touch with their emotional side!
As for Puru, I agree with you, except that such an overdose of lilywhite goodness makes me feel queasy. I prefer the Rhett Butlers of literature, but of course that is my own personal taste.
Alexander means - defender of people, warrior, conqueror. Sikander, the name Alex loves so much means a victorious warrior. Alexander strives to be nothing other than his name - the undefeated warrior and conquering king of all the world. He is brave, intelligent, ruthless, cruel at times even, ambitious, proud, egoistic and majestic. Alexander too is a defender of his people, of his men of women but not at all times. He leans more to following the victorious conqueror in his name. To follow that ideal, he gives to the altar of death many sacrifices of men, women and children and does not flinch or reflect on any death he caused - As he declares, he is Zeus ka beta and successor of Achilles - the god of the present and like all gods, it is his right to decide life and death. That is ego at its most supreme when intoxicated by victory. It remains to be seen whether he learns what godship really means for a mortal.
Of course he does not. That is his tragedy. But I prefer the fallibility of an Alexander to the moral perfection of a Puru.
See, in the diversion from their planned voyage due to Laachi's insistence on his being good and a rakshak, Puru is nearly killed. If he had actually died, what would the moral have been? Again, between helping two people in distress and safeguarding his whole country, what should Puru choose? In real life, he would never have had such a neat ending, and an totally unbelievable one, as being transported from the Jhelum to Susa instantly, with a brace of horses to boot!
Purushottam has the glory of a man par excellence, and that is why he can act as a good defender and king. Yet uttam does not mean shresht, does not mean infallible and certainly does not mean a victory.
Alexander has the glory of a conqueror undefeatable, and that is why he is the greatest or shrestha warrior. But shreshta too cannot always mean uttam. Victory does not mean goodness, does not ensure peace, does not even ensure true godhood.
It is a dichotomy of uttam and shresht at work here. Both natures of uttam and shresht can be mutually inclusive but also mutually exclusive. On that note, I shall sign off.
A beautiful play on the words, my dear.👏 I cannot, off the cuff, think of anyone who was both uttam and shresht. Not even in our epics. And I always preferred Lord Krishna to Lord Rama.
Love,
Ankita.
