A hatchet job on Alexander?

Page

Next Last

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

The screenplay seems now intent on building up Alexander as not just a ruthless conqueror but a bloodthirsty one.

The fascinating complexities in his character- the sudden cold rage that makes him have his defeated enemy dragged by a galloping horse, the evident yearning for the approval of a father figure that was shown in the way his eyes light up when Philip praises him, and even more so in the tenderness with which he looks after the comatose king, his clear sense of right and wrong, his dedication to his duties as Philip's commander in chief, the revulsion with which he learns of Olympia having used black magic to sideline Arridaeus - all that is now gone, swept away on a tide of single-minded ambition. He has become monochrome. I hope this is a passing phase and that the shades in his character will resurface.

As for the family killings, Filina was plotting to kill Alexander, so she was fair game, as was Attalus.The varied and sadistic ways in which the wives are killed are pure Olympia- I still remember her trying to roast a poor man inside an iron bull for the greater good of her unborn son.😡Historically, Arridaeus survived this bloodletting, so he has not been shown at all. But Alexander killing the baby was not only appalling, but also pointless. It is Cleopatra's baby girl, so how on earth would she be a threat to him?

So one can only conclude that it was meant to create revulsion in the mind of the viewer against Alexander, the sabse kroor conqueror the commentary described at the beginning. It is intended to be a contrast to the lily white, oh so good Puru, who can do no wrong, think no wrong, wish no wrong as he sashays across the screen with his long wavy locks like a shampoo ad, mostly in exasperating slo mo.

I only hope they do not fudge the extremely honourable and gentle way in which Alexander treated Darius' womenfolk: his mother Sisygambis. his wife and his two daughters, whom the Persian ruler had abandoned when he ran away from the battlefield. For that would hardly fit in with the current image of him as a baby killer!

An aside. I never understood how Olympia, with her mantra of mere aur Zeus ka beta. justified her laying claim to the Macedonian throne for Alexander. It was thus very interesting to see the stress that Alexander now lays on Philip as his waalid and himself as his aulaad!😉

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Edited by sashashyam - 7 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

Deepthi Venugopal

@daphnejasmine

Explorer

Posted: 7 years ago

Hi I am deepthi a new member here

Very true aunty Olympia saying. Alexander is zeus son automatically nullify Alex claim to throne but couldn't it be just that Alexander being Zeus's son was more meant to give him an aura of invincibility n Divinity so that he would be feared by enemies n respected by people. Indian Kings too traced divine genealogy may be they got idea from Alexander. I always wanted to reply to one of your posts since the time of jodha Akbar I love your analysis on historicals. P.S I think the baby was a boy n not Cleopatra's child it looked like a boy to me. Looking forward to more of your posts I too hope Alex Is not villified too much to glorify puru he should be show just as a rival.he was world Conqueror for god sake

Edited by daphnejasmine - 7 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

Thank you so much, my dear Deepthi, for your response, and I am glad you liked this post and did not become a silent reader as in our Jodha Akbar days! Of late I suffer rather badly from rheumatoid arthritis, and often typing is very difficult, but today was one of my better days, and I was so exasperated by that baby killing that I simply had to do this post.

I do not think the baby is a boy. If Philip had had another son, that would have been tomtommed all over the place. I think it has to be Cleopatra's baby girl, and that baby killing scene was gratuitous, nasty and entirely unnecessary. 😡

I too hope that they do not vilify Alexander wantonly in order to elevate Porus, but I am not too optimistic. Have you seen the classic 1990 Chanakya of Chandraprakash Dwivedi? That was exceptionally well researched, and the Porus there, a much older man, was nothing like this boy wonder. He actually becomes a tributary of Alexander's after his kingdom is restored to him. This one will be a radically different take!

I agree entirely with you about the Zeus ka beta angle. But Olympia seems to mean it literally, and seeing the insults she heaps on Philip from the first day of their marriage, I am only surprised that he did not kill her long ago!😉

Incidentally, the involvement of Alexander in plotting the assassination of Philip - shown here as a dead cert - is an open question, even according to contemporary Greek sources. But of course it is likely, according to the time honoured detection principle of who gains by the act.

It is a great pity that Philip, a great warrior and nation builder, who ascended the throne at 21 and literally saved Macedonia from extinction, has been so shortchanged by this script.

If you are interested in his life, you might might like to see this:

http://googleweblight.com/i?u=http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PhilipofMacedon.html&hl=en-IN

Well, I could manage some typing today, so I responded immediately, for I was so pleased to get back one of my JA readers, but one never knows about tomorrow! However, since you are interested, I will try and do short posts from time to time on my good days.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: daphnejasmine
Hi I am deepthi a new member here
Very true aunty Olympia saying. Alexander is zeus son automatically nullify Alex claim to throne but couldn't it be just that Alexander being Zeus's son was more meant to give him an aura of invincibility n Divinity so that he would be feared by enemies n respected by people. Indian Kings too traced divine genealogy may be they got idea from Alexander. I always wanted to reply to one of your posts since the time of jodha Akbar I love your analysis on historicals. P.S I think the baby was a boy n not Cleopatra's child it looked like a boy to me. Looking forward to more of your posts

Edited by sashashyam - 7 years ago

Quote

Sandy6018

@Sandy6018

Explorer

Posted: 7 years ago

Yes I agree. It was a baby girl. He killed. Philip other family. To get rid of all the threats

Quote

ananda29

@ananda29

Navigator

Posted: 7 years ago

Do continue to send your post aunty, when you are able to, of course, as we love to read your analysis and also the historical background of this story... your wealth of knowledge is indeed appreciated😊

Quote

prithvisky

@prithvisky

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

History has shown that great rulers have always been ruthless before being great. Whether it is Ashoka or Akbar bloodbath for throne is the common theme. Alexander had many people killed to secure his throne. It is not unexpected. Even Ashoka killed his brothers and opponents.

This is documented by Greek historians themselves: "Alexander began his reign by eliminating potential rivals to the throne. He had his cousin, the former Amyntas IV, executed. He also had two Macedonian princes from the region of Lyncestis killed, but spared a third, Alexander Lyncestes. Olympias had Cleopatra Eurydice and Europa, her daughter by Philip, burned alive. Alexander also ordered the murder of Attalus, who was in command of the advance guard of the army in Asia Minor and Cleopatra's uncle. Alexander spared Arrhidaeus, who was by all accounts mentally disabled, possibly as a result of poisoning by Olympias."

So, Philip's daughter was killed by Olympia not by Alexander directly. But the only reason Olympia would kill her is that she may create problems for Alexander in the future or the security of Alexander's throne.

Quote

newtoIF

@newtoIF

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

Alexander killing Cleopatra's baby girl child was actually of sound judgement.Even if it is speculated that Olympia did it.
Alexander did not kill Arrihdeus as he was no challenge to him,being mentally addled.
But as Cleopatra was Phillip's latest and favored queen, and was pure MAcedonian blood, the daughter
could seek legitimate revenge.The child grows up to be a prick, marrying some rival king and becoming a headache, was a possibility in those days.Alexander's step sister does exactly that later.SHe gives her daughter Eurydice to Arrihdeus in marriage(who is actually her step uncle) as Arrihdeus is nominated king after Alexander passes away. Olympia realizes her mirror image in Eurydice, and fears for baby Alexander's safety, and kills Eurydice along with Arrihdeus(which is where she overplayed her hand).

Also, the transformation of Alexander is actually shown well, where he initially trusts he will be treated as the legitimate heir, but then feels betrayed by Phillip on his marriage to Cleopatra,Attalus' insults which makes the plotting a natural conclusion.I liked that Olympia tells Alexander to leave her to do the talking and plotting, because if they were exposed, Alexander cannot be implicated with any witness or evidence.
The show has been very good in keeping to history, and as there are 5 different versions of authenticated sources, they have picked one.

Edited by newtoIF - 7 years ago

Quote

newtoIF

@newtoIF

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

Hey Syamala, sorry to hear about your health issues.
I had posted about Phillip vs Alexander in a different thread,but post it here for your ease.

Philip was no Alexander.Philip was no doubt a significant part of Macedonian history as a nation builder and he created military machine. Even Genghis Khan ruled over vast lands,and was a military machine but was not given the title of Great.Nebuchadnezzar of the hanging gardens fame was not called Great.[BR]But Alexander is considered the first Superstar of the known world.
For with his conquests, military victories and youth, he also brought about a philosophy of his own just like the way Cyrus the Great was known for justice, Asoka the Great was known for truth, Akbar the Great was known for bringing together religions.All those who brought about a change in the way of thinking, inaugurated an era, and these 'Greats' did with a vision far ahead of their times. Alexander believed in the amalgamation of peoples and cultures, but used conquest as his known path to it.For him it not just the land and treasures, but was also about the people. And so he projected himself as a Greek king to the Greeks to take vengeance on their behalf and a Persian king to the Farsis as a benevolent king.
As they say,sab takdeer leke aatey hain,and he brought his destiny with unmatched charisma and ability to style his public image with different audiences differently.
Philip lacked finesse and philosophy that was Alexander moulded by Aristotle.
That the Iranians hate him today is today's nation politics. The Shahnamah, which is a 10th century AD chronicle of Persian kings, actually writes about Alexander(Iskander he was called) as if he had a Persian father ! Such was his impact even 1000 years after passing.

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

I don't know about my "wealth of knowledge". my dear Ananda, but I am interested in history, though I am no scholar of this or indeed any other period. Not that this matters, for scholars never agree on anything!😉😉

I will try my best to do short posts for you and others who are interested, and I hope my fingers will cooperate at least from time to time! In the old days, I used to do 5 pagers very frequently for Jodha Akbar, but those times are gone for me, for RA is unforgiving and tenacious.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: ananda29
Do continue to send your post aunty, when you are able to, of course, as we love to read your analysis and also the historical background of this story... your wealth of knowledge is indeed appreciated😊

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#10

I liked both these posts of yours a lot. And I learnt quite a bit, especially about Olympia's death roll!

I also agree that eliminating all opposition might be sound political judgement. Still,the shot of Alexander decapitating a baby - even if they did not show it in its full gory detail- was very unpleasant. Killing a grown man is one thing, killing a baby - and they showed a smiling baby, raising its face trustingly to Alexander - is quite another. It was deliberate, that shot, on the part of the screenplay, and I am afraid that the demonisation of Alexander has begun. I hope I am wrong, and that the nuances in his character resurface.

One has to remember that earlier, Alexander did not kill Arrihdeus when he could have done so. He was of course then hopeful of getting to the throne by the straight route, and did not want to be seen as usurping the powers of the King, but there was also an aversion to unnecessary bloodshed. As for sisters, step or otherwise, becoming a problem, he could have feared that with Cleopatra as well, but the solution to that, unless you are an Aurangzeb, is not to slaughter all your siblings.

In this case, I think the dirty work would have been done by Olympia.It is straight up her alley. But the neatest way would have been to get the nurse to smother the baby. But no, Alexander had to be shown chopping the poor creature's head off, as if he was the executioner in chief!😡 And without the slightest flinching of the kind they showed during the test by the Oracle of Delphi (? I don't know which Oracle that was, but Delphi was the main one in Greece. However, it is at a height, not at the edge of a bare desert). It will cause only total revulsion, for the TV audience is not attuned to realpolitik.

Yes, Olympia is well done: a monster, but a realistic monster. I wonder what would have happened had Alexander lived longer and broken free of her tutelage.

In general, Alexander gets about 20% of the telecast time. With less than 180 episodes more to go, and the Egyptian sequences ahead besides Persia, I wonder how much screen space he will get in the future. I am surprised that there are only 5 versions of Alexander's life and times😉, but as for Porus, there is next to nothing, so the writers are on a roll putting this boy wonder on a pedestal, with lines like Puru koyi kaam adhura nahin chhodta repeated ad nauseum. I watch Porus, for the most part, only for Alexander, for this Puru bids fair to give me diabetes!😉

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: newtoIF
Alexander killing Cleopatra's baby girl child was actually of sound judgement.Even if it is speculated that Olympia did it.

Alexander did not kill Arrihdeus as he was no challenge to him,being mentally addled.
But as Cleopatra was Phillip's latest and favored queen, and was pure MAcedonian blood, the daughter could seek legitimate revenge.The child grows up to be a prick, marrying some rival king and becoming a headache, was a possibility in those days.Alexander's step sister does exactly that later.SHe gives her daughter Eurydice to Arrihdeus in marriage(who is actually her step uncle) as Arrihdeus is nominated king after Alexander passes away. Olympia realizes her mirror image in Eurydice, and fears for baby Alexander's safety, and kills Eurydice along with Arrihdeus(which is where she overplayed her hand).

Also, the transformation of Alexander is actually shown well, where he initially trusts he will be treated as the legitimate heir, but then feels betrayed by Phillip on his marriage to Cleopatra,Attalus' insults which makes the plotting a natural conclusion.I liked that Olympia tells Alexander to leave her to do the talking and plotting, because if they were exposed, Alexander cannot be implicated with any witness or evidence.

The show has been very good in keeping to history, and as there are 5 different versions of authenticated sources, they have picked one.

Edited by sashashyam - 7 years ago

Quote

1 2

A hatchet job on Alexander?

Related Topics

Explore Topics