Customer Reviews

National Geographic - Beyond the Movie - Alexander

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

First I'd like to reply to the previous reviewer: The quote simply means that Alexander was complex--from what we know of him, he encompassed all these things, but a *lot* of what we know about him is built-up myth, hence "and perhaps none." It's an obvious statement, but it's a good segue for people who don't know about Alexander.

Secondly, yes, this film reeks of "cheesy" historical documentary, but it's entertaining and informative. The intent was to give people a "true" (from what we know) history behind the Hollywood-driven movie (which flopped anyway--I'll be interested to see Baz Luhrman's movie if he's still going to do it), and it did that. It explores psychological motives, military strategy, and even major characters influenced by Alexander as late as George Patton. There's also a decent short on the influence of the Iliad on Alexander. That one's not quite as interesting, in that it's basically an overview of the Iliad. It's also clear that they were targeting the movie-going audience by referring to "Troy" rather than Homer's Iliad.

All in all, I enjoyed this video. Alexander comes through in all his complexity here, and this is only a tiny scratch in the scholarship on him.

Those interested in Robin Lane Fox's work might want to take a look, as he is interviewed in this video. Other scholars interviewed are: Paul Cartledge, John Maxwell O'Brien, Joseph Scholten, Colonel Lance Betros, David Byers Millers, Partha Bose, and Andrew Chugg.

I am no specialist in anything about antiquity. I am also not a military history buff. I often pick up random documentaries about historical topics, to supplement my lack of background in western civ.

I study comparative literature, so historical references, especially those of the classics, constantly come up all the time.

I would fully recommend this documentary to the wide audience it is meant for.

It is too basic for you if you are one of those guys whose mind is like a file-cabinet of historical data, both useful and otherwise.

However, it is great for the non-expert who doesn't have the luxury of time and concentration to dedicate to Alexander the Great. This documentary is more than informative.

Excellent programme, smartly produced holding one's attention throughout. Another first for National Geographic. Quickly despatched.

Although I did not watch Oliver Stone's Flop(what Stone or "stoned" movie does not flop?)I found myself fascinated by this(even Though Nat.Geo And History are not always Right when it comes to Some Histories),Overall However I don't know what To make Of the So-called "Alexander The Great" and what was so great?Yes He Conquered,was revered by Most People,The Romans,and even Made a Pharaoh and went as Far as Persia(Can't stand those Persians) And India,But I believe he like most in Pre-Jesus Christ Years Had such Egos thinking they were Gods much less Gods or King of Kings or Princes on Earth that most met unpleasant Downfalls anyway.(Of course a Counter Argument Can be made that the Pagans were Before Jesus,etcera and so fourth and the contributions made by the Greeks,etc.)An interesting Look at a Flawed Egotistical and Fruity(like most of the Era sadly,hence the end of such Immoral Civilizations)Leader,Good in Battle but nothing else.

Recently I was watching the national geographic episode on Alexander the "great". Alexander invades till Afghanistan and goes back to Greece for celebrating. His megalomania hits the point where he kills his best friend for suggesting his father was behind or the starting point of his sucess. Then he comes back for the ultimate prize of them all -India. I was hooked on the narrative and then the narrative goes like this - Alexander defeated the Hindu king and then surprisingly gives the kingdom back to the king seeing his valor. He also for unexplained reasons took a circuitous route back to Greece through deserts. As proof of the national geographic narrative they put on a historian from India, Partha Bose, who comes in a suit for a second and says something like " Alexander's invasion influenced Indian gods who were sculpted modelled on greek gods from then on". What an absurd statement?

This historian would say anything to appear on a national geographic spot. His suit says it all.

Alexander's abrupt return from India and the fact that the kingdom was later ruled by the Hindu king and also the fact that he ran away using a hidden route casts serious doubts on the "historian's" theory that Alexander in fact defeated the Hindu King. It defies all logic. Maybe historian's don't think logically. I did some research online and found out the inspiring story of King Puruva. The only proof they have of him being defeated is written by a Greek historian 300 years after the battle. They also point to some painting in a temple as proof that Alexander defeated Puruva. Thats it. Zip. Nothing else and the whole world claims Alexander defeated Puruva when the logical facts points clearly that Puruva was victorious and Alexander couldn't make any impression on India.

India maybe the only country which allows it's history to be said and written by foreigners. The national geographic narrative had a white caucasian historian and appeared to be a mumbling fool. They seem to be the ones etching out Indian history.

King Puruva's story is an inspirational story of how our ancestors would give everything to protect the Bharat Dharma. King Puruva's success against Alexander was attributed to the elephants in his army. This also teaches us the fact that in a war whoever possesses the better weapon has the edge. The overpowering Indian Army back then led to the golden period in Indian history till 5th century AD. India's History has been mostly written by the British or Nehru mold Indians. We should have better historians narrating these stories not just for us to feel good about, But could also teach us valuable lessons for the future.

It was good, but I thought it would add much more to what I've already known. Basically, what I know about Alexander the great is a little general knowledge in addition to more detailed things that I've learned from the movie. From the title of the documentary, I though it would compare the information mentioned in the movie with the actual facts, which in the end will give me a richer and more acurate knowledge that clarifies the myth from the truth, but what I've got was not that much. In the end, I'd recommend it to someone who'd like to get general knowledge about Alexander the great.

What utter nonsense ! Dreadful drech; one example : at the start an American ( so-called scholar) declaims " He was a wise man and a murderer ; a genius and a psychopath . He was all these things and perhaps none of them ." What the hell is THAT supposed to mean ???!!!!!!!!!It's all down hill from there.

The "documentary" begins and implies that both Alexander the Great and his father Philip of Macedonia, were gay-ish...
A gay or bi-sexual person (as the documentary more or less characterises Alexander and Philip) could not and cannot conquer the world. A person who cannot recognize reality from myth or fiction, can not lead troops and win battles one after another, like Alexander did. A psychopath or crazy person could not unite all Greek states (who first discovered democracy)and go on freeing the rest of the known world from the Persian ruler.
Those who try to stick adjectives like crazy, gay, or anything else but a natural leader and strategy genious, should consider the above. The rest of us should try to exercise some critical thinking to what is served to us and not take as granted everything we watch on the television.