ALEXANDER, where should I start with the

muhaha, Stone is an idiot. It opens today in London and he is blaming the movie's failure in the US on
"raging fundamentalism in morality".

Perhaps it was you butchering history and using bad actors?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050105/ennew_ afp/afplifestylebritain_050105233953

i think he had a light brown hair

and he was between 160 cm to 170 cm in height

the only statues shows his real look are the once made when he was alive but those were destroyed and there are some Copies of these statues made by the Romans 100s of years after Alexander's death so i guess those are the closer ones shows how he looked like

and there is some coins showing his face and those are made during his life time and after

but they are not very good at telling how he looked like

 

Originally posted by Tobodai At least they had the guts to show him as bi but even that was actually downplayed.

Apparently Stone is planning to cut some of that for the DVD release thinking that was the factor that contributed to the very low sales figure. He seems to still be in denial

It made me feel ashamed at being to a Persian. : (

yes i read that somewhere

but that is too short and i think it was based on something to do with militery equipments they think it belonged to alexander

i guess it is more than 145 cm based on some of his statues

 

Originally posted by azimuth yes i read that somewhere but that is too short and i think it was based on something to do with militery equipments they think it belonged to alexander i guess it is more than 145 cm based on some of his statues

Yep, we can tell precisely that Phillip's height was 1.60. This is because of his armour which was discovered some decades ago from a greek archeologist in Vergina-Greece. We do know from ancient sources that Alexander was reaching Phillip's shoulders.

Funny, but it seems shortness seems to be a common feature in military geniouses.

 

Meh, there still are, and were Blonds in ancient Greece, and people back then also occasioanly belached their hair. I should thing that whining about hair colour should be very very low on the list of percieved inaccuracies, but usualy its the first one to get any attention.

According to Plutarch and Appian Alexander was described to have an athletic frame, not taller than the common, and a white and ruddy complexion. The expression of his eyes had something liquid and melting and the hair which stood up over his forehead gave the suggestion of a lion.
This might actually have nothing to do with color, since we know that he was oftenly depicted as Heracles with a lion on his head, a probable reference to his devine origin. We know that according to the myth he laid heavy emphasis on his descent from the Homeric heroes, And that in other occasions he claimed to be the son of Dias and demanded to be called so.

>>people back then also occasioanly belached their hair<<

Actually there is alot of evidence in literature and artifacts that prove that "blonds" did exist in ancient Hellas but were acually concidered  as an "illness" and neither were the predominant "color" thus proving the "Nordic theory" to be false.

The author of Aristotelis Physiognomica claims that both excessive paleness and excessive swarthiness are indicative of cowardice. Aristotle in the Eudemian Ethics mentions that "some men are blue eyed (glaukoi) and others black eyed (melanommatoi) because a particular part of them is of a particular quality" without assigning any moral superiority on either of the types. In the same passage, he continues that the blue-eyed man (glaukos) does not see clearly, an error which illustrates that he did not believe in a superiority of blue-eyed individuals. Indeed, the Greeks in general were somewhat repulsed by blue eyes, because of their rarity and association with disease (cataract and glaucoma), as Maxwell-Stuart, P.G., 1981, Studies in Greek colour terminology, vol.1 "Glaukos", Leiden : Brill in a complete study of all the uses of the adjective (glaukos) shows: Instinctive fear of blindness must be very strong among all sighted human beings, so their immediate reaction to such an eye will manifest itself in a repulsive frisson. Men will wish to ward off a similar fate from themselves.

Healthy eyes of that colour therefore have something unnatural about them, and their relative infrequence in Greece proper (and, indeed, in Crete), will have aroused a similar instinctive hostility. Fear of the unknown and of the unusual would contribute to the notion that possessors of such eyes must be malign; hence the long association of blue and the Evil Eye which has lasted in Greece and the surrounding area until modern times. Not surprisingly, these feelings of hostility would be strengthened by knowledge that foreigners from the cold North - those dangerous, incursive, un-Greek people - had blue eyes. The author of Aristotle's On Colours mentions that infants are born with light-colored hair but their hair turns to black as they grow up. Hence, unlike Nordics who retain (to some degree) the paedomorphic trait of blondness, Hellenes appear to possess mostly dark hair in adult life. There are a number of references in the Greek authors in the practice of women dyeing their hair blond (e.g., in Euripides) or using artificial means (white lead) to lighten their complexion.

The document that proves the theory to be false:

Since the image can't be seen visit:

http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/nazigermany/

Edited by Hellinas

Why is haircolor that important?

Why is haircolor that important?

portraying characters in a historical movie is one of the most important issues that MUST be studied in detail. Stone wrote the screenplay based on his image of Alexander, who was his childhood hero. Stone found the most legendary story about the man and tried to portray him the way he always pictured.

In my opinion, besides the obvious mistakes Stone made in creating a "true" film, the movie itself didn't carry much weight of its title. the cinematography was horrible. the directing was not as expected esp. in the war scene with Persians there was a scene where blood shed from a wrong place! He even didn�t put Persepolis in the movie � maybe he didn�t even know what persepolis was � burning down Persepolis is one of the key parts of Alexander�s story and he even didn�t bother mentioning it. I only liked two things about the movie, one was Val Kilmer's performance, and the other was the music; Vangelis is my second favorite composer.

Edited by ramin