Macedonians could be blonde but was Roxanna black? Babylon could look like Susa and Persepolis but was it more important than them?!

The next Iran related historical movie coming out seems to be this one. Lets hope it has a little less prejudice

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430431/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430431/

assyrians was the gratest and the others like persia and the babylonians stole assyrian war tecnincs....and used assyrian generals in their armys,,,

assyrians??  do they still exist?

still the hairs are black  but not the body they are white

WHAT!?!?  Iranians are NOT Arabs!  We have a different language, different language family, different race, different culture...Arabs are semites, Iranians are Indo-Europeans.

There are very, very few Arabs living in Iran other than temporary Iraqi war refugees (yes, Mesopotamians have almost all become Arabs) as unfortunately nobody likes Arabs in Iran.

There are a fair share of Arabicized Iranians, though.

Assyrio-Chaldeans are in Iran as well as Iraq.

That implies that Assyrians were only a fraction of those Persians who employed their ideas

Assyria had a strong military, a really impressive empire you are right.  But their economy could not support it very well, sadly for them.

someone else paid for your tiket  or what?

I read somewhere that Aelxander was actuallya blond. And in a BBC documentary, the narrator said he had red hair. What did Alexander look like?

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

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

Ill tell you what was responsible for the low sales figure, LAAAAAAAME movie, boring presentation!

If anything the bi stuff helped because alot of females I knew wanted to see Colin Farrel make out with a guy!  That was prolly the only reason they went in the first place!

Not so! Alexander's height was around 1.40-1.45 cm.

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

He was shorter than usual, that much we know. But there's no way to know with accuracy. Taking into account (from sceletons of the era) that back then the greeks varied from 1:60 - 1:67 we can say that either:

1. He was a short guy within that range

or 2. He was even shorter!

In my mind I imagine him somewhere like 1:60

Picture:

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.

Originally posted by Aeolus Funny, but it seems shortness seems to be a common feature in military geniouses.

Well, not always.  Cyrus the Great was very tall,  and I believe Charlemagne was 6'4", which for his time was ridiculous.  Peter the Great, Richard the Lionhearted, George Washinnton, etc.  But sorry to deviate.

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

I spent 3,8 euros (low fare ticket) and allmost 3 hours viewing that movie. I still weep about it...

The fighting scenes were nice, though.

Azimuth...

These Semitic guys such as Assyrians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians are your real brothers. Arabs were living and establishing countries before islam man.

And they continue living in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc...

what this has to do with this topic?!!

also ancient Egyptians were not semitic as far as i know

NOt a perfect fit, but MUCH better than the actors they chose.

Sean connery also wouldn't be a bad choice.

Making Roxana black(!) makes about as much sense as making alexander himself black. How about casting Morgan Freeman as the next alexander. Now that, I would like to see. The ancient Bactrians were probably no darker and maybe lighter then those ancient pre-slav Greeks( the region is about -20 for half the year!) For those who say it is a small matter, why is there such a fuss about Alexanders homosexual potrayal from the greek side. It matters bacause it contributes to the underlying subconcious views of people. Those Greeks genuinly interested in real history should protest about this as much as about their own issues, otherwise the visible bias detracts from their arguments a little. Historical revisionism does us all a disservice.

On a seperate issue, Luke Goss! as the persian king in that upcoming movie. Is this the guy from Bros- the pop band!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430431/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430431/

------------------------------------------------------------ ------

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."

DEMOSTHENES

"Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coattails."

CLERENCE DARROW

did anyone else find it hilarious that the Persians spoke English with an accent, but the Greeks spoke perfect fluent English ???

What a sad movie that was.

I hate to think that I wasted my time watching it.

no the movie was highly inaccurate:

1) alexander did not have blonde hair and blue eyes.

2) alexander was not trying to spread democracy and freedom

3) the movie only showed the "good" things alexander did.

the blond hair thing is western propaganda that came up in western films depicting the white man conquering the orients and stuff like that.

most logical people know his hair was black/brown.

no he wasnt, infact, he destroyed democracy in greece before he went on his campaign in Persia.

Originally posted by Digenis 3)like what ?

the good things or the bad things?

lol, accurate with some propaganda and and some classical western bias thrown in.

your source?

he wasnt bringing freedom to anyone, he was conquering them, just like he conquered the greek city states, and savagly kept them under his control.

alexander destroyed democracy in greece, he wasnt a friend to the other greek cities, he was trying to conquer them all, just the same as he was trying to do with persia.

how dare you talk to us about civilisation?

alexander destroyed civilisation, he didnt bring it.

the destruction of countless persian texts and the burning of perspolis.

the movie just made him look like a hero, when in reality there is nothing heroic about him.

if he is a hero than so is ghenghis khan, attila the hun, etc...

i need a source, i can make up a quote without posting a source too. i need proof.

are you kidding me? the sogdian kingdom, the bactrian kingdom, all of these were around even before the achaemenid empire got founded! there was civilisation there!

and how dare you say the selucids brought civilisation. while you europeans were in your caves and mud huts the elamites, persians, medeans, sumerians, etc... were living in cities and palaces.

dont talk to us about civilisation. if anything, alexander should have brought civilisation to europe form the east, because besides greeks, there was no other european civilisation.

both were conqueres were they not? if alexander is a hero for conquering then so should attila.

What I find funny about all of this is Alexander is Macedonian NOT Greek.  Alexander and his Macedonian army fought against Greeks and Persians. 

Macedonians were not/are not Greeks.  They are not today nor were they in ancient times. 

Well,it would be useful,before judging all Alexander had done in his life,to READ omething by the sources,such as Plutarch ,Arrian !

I m sure there are many good libraries in Iran.

Then we can discuss about Alexander in a more serious way.

There was civilization in the East of course-

But u re trying to present Alexander as Attila (!) ,or other nomad warlords that the only thing the y ve done was destroying civilization.

Alexander had commited slaughters-i dont believe in a "ideal Alexander" !- sometimes acting with a programm-in order the other cities to surrunder willingly,sometimes acting like a teenager.

But obviously,Alexanderwas the man who  visioned and in a way founded the Hellenistic civilization -causing a bloom of science and philosophy in the east,strenghten and spread the classical Greece achievements.

I will never stop to fight agaist it.

obviusly you support you opion by basic the term Nation in a gene/blood base. I am sorry but people with such ideas brought too much pain in the world.

 Nations are base in common languadge, religion (when we talk about nations in the past) and a common sense of we are the same.

 Like it or not the macedonias in the historical time that we talk about have: The same languadge with greeks, the same religion andthe same common sense that they are the same with the others greeks. So why aren't greeks????

 I really can't understant some dudes that believe a "scientist' that claim: macedonias wasn't greeks because in their Y chromosom they have a different gene......

 Pure stupinity, isn't it...

Exactly.  But you will never here these Western/Pro-Greek sources telling you this.  According to them, they WERE Greek(which is ridiculous!)

If were not Greeks why then Persians called them Yauna Takabara as called and the rest of the Greeks (Yuana) ?

I actually didnt read the "Celts" part.  I dont agree with that at all.  Greek and Macedonians were different people but Macedonians were not Celtic.  Here is some more proof.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AncientEvidence.html - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AncientEv idence.html

Look, I'm not here to try to pick a fight with Greeks.  Greeks have a great, long history.  But claiming another nation's accomplishments as your own is just not necessary. 

Saying Macedonians are Greek because of the religion they practiced is saying that Persians and Turks are Arabs because they're muslims. 

Your mentioned source is one from the known FYROMIian propagandistic sourse of the web. There are alot of neutral that you can read it and you decide what is wrong and what is right.

One my argyments is why Persians called  Yuana Takabara the Macedonians as called and the rest of the Greeks (Yuana) ? Why ancient Indies called also Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks as Yavana ?

All the "barbarians" knew what and where Macedonians they come from.

first of all, i live in the USA. second of all, if you arent going to post sources for your information than i have no reason to believe them.

and i know a lot about alexander, i also know that all he did in his life was fight, he died too young to do anything else.

so basically, all he was was a conquerer. thats it.

and he was not a blue eyed blonde haired white guy. he looked like average greeks do today (mostly dark haired and dark eyes)

are you kidding me? the sogdian kingdom, the bactrian kingdom, all of these were around even before the achaemenid empire got founded! there was civilisation there!

and how dare you say the selucids brought civilisation. while you europeans were in your caves and mud huts the elamites, persians, medeans, sumerians, etc... were living in cities and palaces.

[/quote]

There was civilization in the East of course-

But u re trying to present Alexander as Attila (!) ,or other nomad warlords that the only thing the y ve done was destroying civilization.

Alexander had commited slaughters-i dont believe in a "ideal Alexander" !- sometimes acting with a programm-in order the other cities to surrunder willingly,sometimes acting like a teenager.

But obviously,Alexanderwas the man who  visioned and in a way founded the Hellenistic civilization -causing a bloom of science and philosophy in the east,strenghten and spread the classical Greece achievements.[/quote]

no, alexander did not establish hellenistic civilisation in the east, his generals did. ALEXANDER DIED BEFORE HE COULD DO ANYTHING.

You are making a mistake.The Macedonians were the northern Greeks
Alexander in his campaign in Asia utilised a fleet of 160 ships,the crew of these ships were Greeks from southern Greece and mostly from Athens.There were also many Greeks from Thessaly,Crete,and from southern Greece in his army.
The fact that over 50.000 Greek mercenaries fought on the Persian side and perished can be explained:
a)By the fact that the Persian king of Kings had the money to pay all thse professional warrior who after the rise of Macedon and the defeat of the anti-macedonian league had lost their jobs.Poverty and overpopulation was the number one problem in Greece at those days.
b)They despised the Macedonian rule,for political reasons
It was not strange for many Greeks who had lost their power in Greece to turn to the Persian King of Kings for support.he had the money afterall

http://www.makedonija.info/propaganda.html - http://www.makedonija.info/propaganda.html

Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek Among Macedonians http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0391042092/103-0251031-3045448?n=283155 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0391042092/103-0251031-3045 448?n=283155

You say my sources are biased.  And you think yours is not?

yazzmode621, except trolling the topic have you got anything useful to add?

The topic if you havent noticed is about the inaccuracies of the movie about Alexander and not another place to bring up more flame wars.

The ethnicity of ancient Macedonians and anything related to the modern dispute about FYR Macedonia is an entirely different issue and part of the blacklisted topics on AE.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10675&PN=1&FID=38&PR=3 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10675&am p;PN=1&FID=38&PR=3

Now everybody get back to the topic.

ummm ... children ...

what's with all the name-calling? come on ... i was reading this thread with great interest when i suddenly noticed the change in eveyone's attitude. Would we all mind putting name calling to one side, not lose our temper, and just carry on with a civilized discussion (hey, we're all forebears of civilization here, aren't we now?). Seriously, everyone's idea is interesting and respectable, as long as it is not offensive or insulting to others.

So, let's just carry on, shall we?

btw ... just for the record : i didn't like the movie one bit !!

(i know i know, i'm new here ... so what??) )

Are we now into the childish "he-started-first" game? Instead of doing that make your self-criticism on your contribution on the topic's issue or the absense of it, and you will get what i meant precisely.

Why avoid answers and continue play a trolling game by present us propagandistic sites and specially the latter that not consern the thread .

I repeat for 3nd time

If were not Greeks why then Persians called them Yauna Takabara as called and the rest of the Greeks (Yauna) ?

I would have to reiterate that the focus of the thread had to do with the movie.  This is not the place to discuss the origin of the Macedonians and Alexander himself.  There are already good threads for that.  Please divert your discussions to those threads, otherwise I will have this thread locked. 

The answer to your question has been addressed sometime before you came to these forums.  Please refer to the "Alexander did not care about Helenism nor Helenization" thread on page 10 of the Ancient Mediterranean and Europe thread.  I cannot tell you where exactly to look but it is there.

Why are you so sensitive with me Sharrukin and not with the others members that gave sourse propagndistic  web sites and un-historical quotes regarding the ancient Greek history ? And when say  we the Greeks  "ancient Greek History"  we mean and the Macedonian history.

the title of this thread has name ALEXANDER, where should I start with the historical inaccuraccies  and one from those are the quotes of the yazzmode621 .

The thread that you gave to read  has only 7 pages. Is tired by you to give the answer in my question to the yazzmode621  dear sharrukin  ?

'Yauna Takabara' or Ionians [Viz. Greeks] with a shield-like hat'

lol so they called macedonians ionians?

the yauna part is right, but why would they call them ionian greeks? macedon was not in ionia.

You are the Iranian  and suppose you know something better why the ancient Persians called the Macedonians as Yauna!!! Ans as I said Yavana called the Greeks  from the ancient Indies. Persians called Saka Haumavarga  the Hauma-drinking Skythians and Saka Tigraxauda  theSaka who wear the pointed hat. The Apadana Foundation inscription (DPe) mentions Ionians(Yauna) of the mainland, Ionians-by-the-sea, and unspecified countries by and beyond the sea, while some inscriptions of Dareios at Susa (DSm, DSe) refer on the one hand to men of Skudra and petasos-wearing Yuana , on the other Skudra and Yauna across the sea.

On the tomb of Dareios at Naksh-i-Rustem 'Skythians beyond the sea' and 'petasos-wearing Yuana' replaced the unspecified 'countries beyond the sea' of DPe. Skythians (Saka) appear in two separate groups.

So all these people (Persians and Indies) called Yuana or Yavana  the ancient Macedonians but today many people forget to mention that. Or and this linguistic historical  event  was a mistake ?

i am asking why the persians classified them as ionians. that is what im asking.

this is ionia (what is now the western coast of turkey):

macedonia was located on mainland greece, not in ionia.

so why did the perisans call them ionian greeks? that is what i am asking.

Now I know where Lesbians come from.  lol.

And now i Know how simply trolling minds understant languadge.

The existence of a satrapy in Europe, called 'Skudra', is known from Persian inscriptions (B44, 58f), 'Lands beyond the sea', that is beyond the waters of Asia Minor from the Persian point of view, were recorded in an inscription on the terrace-wall of Persepolis c. 513 B.C and a satrapy 'Skudra' was mentioned in a egyptian record of c.498-7 B.C and then on a list on Darius' tomb at Naqsh-i Rustam, c.486. The name 'Skudra' was probably Phrygian for the homeland, later called Thrace, which the Phrygians had left in migrating to Asia. The peoples of the satrapy were named c.492 B.C as three: 'Saka Paradraya', meaning 'Sacae (a general name for Scythian-type people) beyong the sea', probably the Getae, who resembled the Scythians in customsand equipment; the 'skudra' themselves, mainly Thracians; and 'Yauna Takabara' or Ionians [Viz. Greeks] with a shield-like hat' The last were mentioned also on glazed bricks at the palace at Susa. Some scholars have supposed that the Sacae 'beyond the sea' were Scythian peoples of the Crimea whom Darius had subjugated, but it seems improbable that Persia did hild that area, and that if she id it was assigned to 'Skudra' rather than to the territories in Georgia, centred on Tbilisi. Envoys from 'Skudra' bringing tribute carried two javelins, a long knife and a small round shield, which were characteristic of Thracian troops later (See Pls. Vol., p1,.40 XIX.
The Greek-speaking people with the shield-like hat were the Macedones, renowned for wearing the sun-hat, as Alexander I did on his fine coins from 478 B.C (look above). The Greek-speaking citizens of the colonial city states on the seaboard were not mentioned; nor did they wear a sun-hat.

Source: Cambridge Ancient History Vol 4

any other question as about the Yauna ?