Alexander the Fake
December 5 2004 at 7:19 PM Anonymous (Login zahak)
Immortal Iran

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

http://www.payvand.com/news/04/dec/1044.html

12/5/04

Alexander the Fake

By Bahman Aghai Diba

Several years ago an Iranian filmmaker had produced a TV serial about a certain period of the Iranian history. His version of the history was full of mistakes and he had moved in and out of the story some of the historical events arbitrarily and without any historical documentation or authentication. When he was confronted with the question that why he had “ distorted” the history and misled the people about the historical facts and added or replaced the historical events, he said: “I was making a film. I did not write history.”

This week when I saw the film Alexander, by Warner Brothers, I was amazed to see the same things happening. Although the film has been considered as a low level, unimportant film by many well-known film critics (including the film critics of the Washington Post and Newsweek), and although it was really low level because of incorrectly showing of the costumes and designs of the concerned period both in Macedonia and Iran, there were numerous points fabricated by the Film.

Some of them were:

1- Unlike the narration of the film, Alexander set fire and destroyed the Royal Palace of the Iranian kings. The Ruins of Persepolis or Takhte Jamshid, near Shiraz in Iran are the clear sign of the Alexander’s “barbarity” in Iran and all of his military campaign.

2- It was the Iranian King, Cyrus the Great (as recorded in the Old and New Testaments) that gave freedom to the territories that he conquered and set the Jews free from Babylon. He helped the Jews to build their temple. Alexander and his remnants in Persia (the Suluki Dynasty) did everything to eradicate the culture of Iran and they failed. The Iranian dynasties after the invasion of Alexander, the Ashkanian and Sasanids, in fact spent sometime to erase all of the imposed Greek cultural things in Iran. Today, there is hardly anything left of the Alexander’s invasion and the Suluki dynasty in Iran except than the ruins of Persepolis that was set to fire by Alexander. The sign of Alexander’s army was “ Owl” and Iranians consider Owl as the harbinger of destruction and a sign of bad omen.


3- Alexander never set foot to India. He and almost all of his soldiers died in the passages of Afghanistan due to the hardships, and natural diseases. Unlike the story of the film, he never retuned to the center of Iran. He was killed and disappeared under unknown circumstances. Even the Greek Historians who were the experts in mis-recording the historical events (this point is attested by the narrator of the film) never mentioned that where he was killed and buried. I am sure if he died in Iran under the circumstances that the film claims, his whereabouts was clear.

4- “Barbarian” was an expression made by the Romans to call the people who were not subject to the Roman law. Therefore, Iranians, and the Greek were both called Barbarians by the Romans. The expression has nothing to do with the Macedonians or the Greeks for calling the Iranians barbarians. In fact the film truly shows that the invading barbaric Macedonians faced a civilized nation out of the scope that they could dream. Just like the Arab invaders in a later juncture. The Macedonian and Greek “barbarians” approach to the Persia was like the behavior of peasants of the Middle Ages entering New York.

5- Alexander was homosexual and he never married an Iranian dancing girl in the north of Iran. Although the Greeks have protested to the Warner Brothers for portraying Alexander as “bisexual”, it seems that the Warner brothers has done a favor to him. Alexander had no wife and no children. By the way, he was from Macedonia, and he and his father had invaded Greece (Athens and Sparta).

6- Alexander and the Iranian army fought several times. The Iranian king did not consider him as serious threat and he did not participate in any war against him personally. He fled the royal palace, after an Iranian General (Ariobarzan) committed treason and showed a strategic way to the Iranian capital to Alexander.

I hope the Iranian experts in history explain these points in a better way.



******************This should be the new logo*****************

You obviously haven't read any of the ancient historians, from Arrian and Plutarch to Livius that's why you're writting all this crap...ur just clueless

This was a poor movie. The way they portrayed Persians was inaccurate and dehumanizing. I remember before the battle scene they showed the Macedonian side looking really cool, and then the first glimpse we get of the Persians is a fly infested army. The film makers actually go out of their way to insert a fly sound-effect at that particular moment. LOL. Why did they do that? There is more to a movie than just a fun time…there is a message or a propaganda if you will. This is one example of the mentality of the creators. Even as a mindless fun movie it fails to perform. I expected better from the director of such films as Natural Born Killers, Platoon, and Doors.

http://www.payvand.com/news/04/dec/1055.html

12/7/04
How are Iranians and Greeks portrayed in the Alexander movie?

By Kaveh Farrokh

Hollywood has just released one of the latest of its epic blockbusters: Alexander the Great. Directed by distinguished director Oliver Stone, the movie endeavours to recreate the events of the Hellenic conquests and the downfall of the first Persian Achaemenid Empire. It is important to note however, that simply because a movie is high budget, casts high profile Hollywood actors and is directed by top ranking directors, does not make it flawless.

Beyond the entertainment value of Oliver Stone's latest project, a number of serious errors do exist in the movie, many which may appear trivial. These "trivial" errors will nevertheless be of consequence to both Iranians and Greeks.

Ironically, it has been my Greek friends and colleagues who bought the flaws of Oliver Stone's "Alexander" picture to my attention. There are a total of five overall errors that will be listed and discussed below:

(1) The Battle of Gaugamela:

Oliver Stone has relied on Professor Robin Lane Fox, one of the world's foremost experts in the area of Alexander and Hellenic Studies. His book is a standard reference text in the area of Alexandrian Studies:

R.L. Fox. Alexander the Great. London: Penguin, 1986 and 1994.
ISBN: 0140088784

Despite excellent reviews of his book by critics and scholars, Dr. Fox does not understand the military of ancient Persia. A typographical shot of the battle of Gaugamela, shows the Greeks advancing in ordered and disciplined ranks. In contrast, the armies of Darius III are shown as little better than an amorphous mob. This is a false image of the Achaemenid army. The Achaemenids used drums and musical instruments to direct the marching tactics of their troops in battle. Second, the Achaemeneans used the decimal system, which was in fact, unknown to the Greeks of the period. Persian units were formed in legions of 10, 100 or 1000 or 10,000. A typical term was "Hezar-Patesh" (roughly equivalent to "leader of a thousand men").

In addition, the Persians had developed a sophisticated system of heraldry and their troops wore standard uniforms. The Greeks were certainly excellent fighters and were thoroughly organized, but this does not mean that the Persians were not. At the time, the Greeks were militarily superior with respect to armaments, tactics and military training.

This military imbalance changed with the coming of the Parthian and Sassanian cavalry. The Iranian Savaran (elite Cavalry) successfully halted and defeated many of the later Greek-Hoplite inspired Roman armies. Many Romans attempted to imitate Alexander and failed against Persia. These include Marcus Lucinius Crassus at Carrhae, Marc Antony at Tabriz (where he failed twice), Gordian III at Mesiche, Phillip the Arab near modern Syria, Valerian at Barbablissos, and Julian the Apostate in Mesopotamia. I personally doubt that Hollywood will recreate these spectacular Roman defeats as these will challenge contemporary western notions of the Alexandrian legacy. In addition, many Iranians today are unaware of the proud legacy of the Parthian and Sassanian Savaran.

Professor Fox's elementary grasp of Iranian militaria should not inspire much confidence with respect to accurate portrayals of Iranians in general. You may wish to read the following books by Professors Sekunda and Head who are experts on the uniforms, dress and equipment of the ancient Greeks and Achaemenid Persians.

N. Sekunda. The Persian Army: 560-330 BC. England. Osprey Men at Arms Elite Series, 1992.
ISBN: 1855322501
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=P2501

D. Head. The Achaemenid Persian Army. England: Montvert Publications, 1992.
ISBN: 1874101000

There are many errors with the uniforms portrayed as "Persian". As you will see in these books, the colors and materials of Achaemenid Persians were invariably bright with a mix of shades of purple, Saffron, red dyes, shades of blue and green, mixed with darker browns (almost Burgundy) and black. These fashions and regalia were resuscitated during the Sassanian dynasty (226-651 AD). Only the Persian archers (and a few guards) are shown with some accuracy; the same cannot be said with respect to the other "Persians" of the movie set.

More puzzling is the "Arabesque" way in which ancient Persians are portrayed in this battle. I was shocked to see Arabian camel riders used to portray one of the vanguards of Darius III's attack on Alexander at the battle scene. Arabs were simply auxiliary units in the Achaemenean army at the time, and were not a major factor. Camel troops were never a major battle order in the armies of Persia. I also noticed that an infantry troop of the Achaemenid advance guard was speaking in Arabic. Persian is not related to Arabic; it is an Indo-European language akin to the languages of Europe and India.

This may be the usual Hollywood habit however of portraying Iranians as Arabs, a topic we will re-visit later in this commentary.

(2) Confusing Persia with Babylon

It is very interesting that Professor Fox does not refer to the Achaemenid capitals in Susa, Maracanda (Samarqand), Media or Persopolis. The destruction of Persopolis by Alexander is a major event - instead the movie shows Alexander entering the city of Babylon, implying that this was the administrative capital of Persia. Babylon was simply another satrapy of the empire; not its capital. Babylon had already been incorporated into the Persian Empire in 539 BC by Cyrus the Great (559-530 BC). Why is Persopolis and its destruction not mentioned? There was also the destruction of the three major Zoroastrian texts by Alexander - also not referred to in the movie.

A possible reason for this may be found in Professor Fox's.interview with the distinguished journal "Archeology Today" (Riding with Alexander) (enter link below into your internet browser):

http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/fox.html

Note the statement below, and how indicative it is of Professor Fox's lack of understanding of Classical Achaemenid Persia:

"We all understood that the separate "parts" of Oliver's drama must be "color-coded" and … which could not totally depart from audiences' expectations of Greek or Babylonian imagery"

Note the statement "Greek or Babylonian imagery". This statement implies that Persia had no real arts worth mentioning, and that Persia is simply an extension of Babylon or at best interchangeable.

As noted previously, Babylon was not a major power at the time of Alexander. Persian arts and architecture were an eclectic synthesis of indigenous (e.g Median, Elamite), Lydian, and Mesopotamian styles, including Babylonian. The city-palace of Persopolis is very distinct and cannot be crudely termed as Babylonian. It is, to put it mildly, shocking, that the treatment of Persian studies is addressed at such a shallow level by Professor Fox.

An important point must be made, especially with respect to the reason why Alexander was so violent in his conquest of Persia. The Greeks were simply taking revenge for the earlier invasion of their country by Darius the Great and his son Xerxes. The Greeks paid a heavy price for their battles at Marathon (490 BC), Thermopylae (17th September, 490 BC), Athens (27th September, 490 BC), Salamis (29th September, 490 BC), and Plataea (479 BC). It is significant that when Xerxes burned Athens, he ordered the sacred statues of the Greek gods to be removed and brought to Persia. The Greeks revered their gods and this Persian act was a national insult to them. Most contemporary Iranians are not aware of these facts. This certainly is not an excuse for what happened at Alexander's time, but it does help put these events in perspective.

Although many Iranians demonize Alexander, the man did come to develop a great deal of respect for Persia. The more Alexander stayed in Persia, the more "Persian" he became, in manners and in dress. Alexander paid his respects at the tomb of Cyrus the Great and indeed saw himself as the heir of Cyrus. The Greeks so admired Cyrus the Great, that they saw his manner of government as a model. You may wish to read the Greek "Cyropedia". If Aristotle made racist statements about the Persians (and this is shown in the movie), it must also be made clear that many Greeks also praised the Persians (see Xenophon or Plutarch in his discussion of the Parthian general Surena). A very positive aspect of the Alexander movie is that Alexander praises the "east" for its architecture and civilization. It is possible that Alexander was poisoned by some of his officers for becoming too "Persian".

(3) The Blondism of Alexander

A very serious concern of the Alexander movie is the promotion of the idea of the "Nordicism" of ancient Greece. Put simply, this is the thesis that ancient Greeks were not only predominantly blonde, but "Nordic", in the manner of present-day Scandinavians and Northern Germans.
Nordicists have long argued, since the late 1700s, that the people of ancient and modern Greece are unrelated. Nordicism argues that the "ancient" Greeks were the "true" Greeks in contrast to the non-Nordic people of Greece today. This view is exemplified by the Austrian Hellenicist, Professor Fallmerayer, in the 1830s, who noted that "not a drop of pure Greek blood runs in the veins of modern Greeks…" To this day, Fallmerayer is recalled with bitterness and derision in Greece. It is worth noting that Fallmerayer never set foot in Greece in his entire lifetime. For further discussion on these issues you may wish to read:

Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's "Guide to Peoples of Europe", especially pages 207-216.
Published in London by Times Books in 1994.
ISBN: 0-7320-0624-5

Fallmerayer's analysis of Greece is not entirely correct. While true that the Ottoman Turks ruled Greece for 400 years and that previous Byzantine rulers (e.g. Emperor Nikopherous) had to import colonists from present day south Italy to help repopulate parts of Greece ravaged by wars, many of these "Italian" colonists were themselves ancient Greek, settled in regions such as Calabria and Southern France since the times of Darius the Great and earlier. In any event, there has always been a strong and predominant Greek element in areas such as the Peloponnesos.

As for the lack of mainstream Nordiscism in modern Greece, this has to do with the history of ancient Greece itself. Mainland Greece was already settled with indigenous Mediterranean peoples, such as the ancient Minoans, before the arrival of the Classical Greeks. Ancient Greece, like today, was a mixture of Mediterranean and "blonde" peoples.


This leads to a very crucial question: why have no Greek actors been selected to portray classical Greeks such as Alexander, Hephaestion, Ptolemy I, Olympias, King Phillip II, Cassander or Antiginous? For a review of the cast, click on the following links (enter links below into your internet browser):

http://www.alexander-the-great.co.uk/

- Israeli actor, Raz Degan who portrays Darius III.

If one were to use Classical Greek works of art (vases and statues specifically) as a standard for prototypical Greek physical appearance, one can then easily find a plethora of modern Greek actors and actresses today who can portray ancient Greeks. It is interesting as to why Oliver Stone did not select Hollywood actors of Greek descent or from mainland Greece.


Oliver Stone goes further however. Colin Farrell, a dark haired Irish actor, who plays Alexander, is portrayed literally, as a bleached blonde. The notion of Alexander being Flaxen-haired or blonde is itself a matter of considerable doubt if not strong dispute. As noted by my friend George Tsonis, a Greek-Canadian and a scholar of Greek, Roman and Persian history, the Greek word for Alexander's complexion is "Xanthenein" (fair). This description simply marks Alexander's complexion as being fairer than the other Greeks of his time. Yes, he was relatively fair, but not necessarily flaxen-blonde in the Nordicist sense. From the Tufts University Lexicon "Xanthenein" is roughly translated as fair or a yellowish-brown color. A related term, "Xanthizo", can also be to "make yellow" or "brown". No wonder there is confusion!

Plutarch, whom most western scholars rely on for their references, does not actually describe Alexander's hair color, only his complexion. This is a quote from Aelian on the hair; below is the Anglisized Greek from Cyrillic and the English translation below that:

"Alexandron de ton Filippou apragmonos oraion legousi genesthai' tin men gar komin anasesyrthai afto, xanthin de einai'"

"Alexander the son of Philip is reported to have possessed a natural beauty: his hair was wavy and fair"

Varia Historae, 12.14

To see the debates raging about Alexander's true appearance see the following discussion panel (enter link below into your internet browser):

http://www.pothos.org/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=16281

A very non-Nordic portrayal of Alexander is evident in the Pompei Mosaic. It is agreed by a majority of scholars that the painting is a faithful rendition of an original Hellenistic painting of the 3rd century BC. As you will witness in the painting below, this Hellenic-Roman version of Alexander is very different from the contemporary Hollywood fantasy interpretation (see photo below):



As you see in the photo, this is a very different Alexander than what many western scholars and Hollywood would have us believe.

This painting appears to refutes the notion of Alexander being blonde. Nevertheless, a number of western scholars remain determined to push forward an image of Alexander that may be false. There are scholars who are actually convinced that the Pompei mosaic is proof of Alexander's Nordic blondeness! Even in allowing for poor reproductions, the mosaic clearly shows a 'brown' haired person with a Mediterranean or modern Iranian profile. Many Greek and Iranian people today have auburn-brown hair, which can appear to be somewhat "blonde" in sunlight.

The point from the Greek perspective however, is not simply whether Alexander was blonde or not. After all, the Dorian Greeks were blonde as a rule, just as the original Persians and Mede settlers of ancient Iran were as well. The issue is that of using the notion of blondeness to project a specifically non-Greek Nordic west European image. Irrespective of whether Alexander was blonde or not, he represented the culture of ancient Greece, which is not necessarily the same as that of modern Western Europe.

Ancient Greece and Rome, as we will note again further below, were Mediterranean empires, very different from the inhabitants of interior and northern Europe. The peoples of western and eastern Europe were very different from the Classical Greeks in culture, language and temperament. To obtain an introduction to the history of the northern Europeans, you may wish to read:

D. Rankin. Celts and the Classical World. London: Routledge, 1996.
ISBN: 0-415-15090-6

A. Ferrill. The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation. Thames & Hudson, 1986.
ISBN: 0500274959

The "Europeans" adopted a great deal of their civilization and identity from the Greeks and the Romans. Even the name "Europe" is derived from the ancient Greek term "Oropia". It may not be an exaggeration to state the following: with their adoption of Greco-Roman culture, west European scholars in particular, have essentially affected a "Nordic makeover" of the ancient Greeks and Romans. As Western culture has adopted the mantle of ancient Greece, it has also adopted Alexander as its own son; to the point that Alexander and ancient Greece are viewed as identical with ancient Western Europe and Scandinavia.

The Nordicising of favourite historical figures does not end with Alexander. Jesus Christ, is frequently portrayed as a slightly built, tall blonde Nordic man. Jesus or Jeshua, was a Jew from West Asia who spoke Aramaic. It is now acknowledged by a number of researchers that much of what we accept as the "appearance" of Jesus is not altogether accurate. Jesus would most likely have resembled a modern Fertile Crescent Arab or Jew from places such as Jerusalem, Amman, Hebron, Damascus or Basra. Scientists have recently reconstructed the image of Christ as he would have most likely appeared in his lifetime in ancient Palestine and Judea (see photo below):



The reconstruction that you witnessed in the attachment is very different from the icons we are used to seeing in the churches and Christian arts of Northwestern Europe. How many images have you seen in North American or Western European churches that show the Aramaic Christ? It would seen that, like Alexander, the "real image" of Jesus has shifted in accordance with politics, ideology, dogma and popular culture over the centuries. Interestingly, many cultures across the world today interpret Jesus' physical appearance in accordance with their own anthropomorphic image (enter link below into your internet browser):

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/jesus/photo/photo.html

It appears that Hollywood has successfully associated a certain physical appearance with modernity, progress, success and rationalism. By implication, that which is not of that "certain look" is in danger of being associated with all that is the antithesis of that. With this logic, historical reality is bent to fit a manufactured reality: a fantasy.

(4) Greek or Macedonian?

This movie contains a number of concerns to Greeks in particular, such as Macedonia being "different" from the rest of Greece, a very contested issue in the Balkans these days. Although not generally reported, the government of Greece, which had originally supported the Alexander picture, withdrew its funding and support for Oliver Stone's project (enter link below into your internet browser):

http://www.hri.org/news/greek/ana/1998/98-11-17.ana.html#19

There was to have been co-operation between Stone and the Greek government, but this was apparently changed when the details of the script became known (see also (4) below).

To be honest, I was left confused as to whether the Macedonians were Greek or not. This may be an attempt to placate those who view Macedonia as "different" from Greece, not unlike those who try to argue that Kurds and Azerbaijanis are not Iranians. The Greeks, like the Iranians today, are now confronted with having to defend their historical heritage against those who have territorial claims against their nation. The Oliver Stone picture, in my opinion, does not clearly define Macedonians as Greeks.

In addition to these concerns, many Greeks are offended by the bisexual portrayal of Alexander. It is also rumoured that many Greek associations may have plans to sue Oliver Stone.

Again, ancient Greek terminology and its translations by western scholars may have played a role in the "bisexual" interpretation of Alexander. We have already seen how the term "Xanthenein" has been stretched to paint a "Scandinavian" Alexander.

(5) The Portrayal of Roxanna and the Perpetuation of the "Hollywood Persian"

My wife Parnian and I, as Iranians, found the portrayal of Roxanna insulting. This portrayal has been defined by the aforementioned Professor Fox, whose has already been noted for his shallow understanding of Persian arts and architecture. Professor Fox's portrayal of Roxanna also indicates that he has very little knowledge of Iran's anthropological history.

The portrayal of ancient Iranians is outright comical, if not insulting. The inaccurate Hollywood portrayal of Iranians is exemplified by the selection of Rosario Dawson ( ), a very talented, beautiful and intelligent black actress, to star as Roxanna, an ancient Iranian queen from Soghdia-Bactria. Roxanna was not black, anymore than Alexander was Scandinavian. Having Rosario Dawson portrayed as Roxanna makes as much sense as having Lucy Liu, an Asian-American, portraying Queen Victoria of Great Britain.

The term Roxanna is derived from Old Iranian "Rokh-shwan" or "face (Ruksh) - fair skinned-shiny (shwan)". Roxanna was related to a North Iranian tribe known later as the Sarmatians, the remnants who survive in the Caucasus and Russia as the Ossetians (ancient Alans or Ard-Alans)

Roman sources such as Pliny repeatedly describe ancient North Iranian peoples such as the Alans and Seres as "…flaxen (blonde) haired blue eyed nomads…" (see Wilcox, p.19). Rosario Dawson does not fit the description of an ancient Iranian woman, especially from Northern Iranian stock. The Ossetians of today, descendants of ancient Northern Iranians, predominantly resemble northern Iranians and Europeans and speak an archaic Iranian language (like the Avesta of the Zoroastrians). Blondism is very common among these descendants of ancient North Iranians in cities such as Beslan and Vladikafkaz. It can be argued that Roxanna was a brunette, however, she was of Northern Iranian stock, which would still make her very different from actress Rosario Dawson.

There are plenty of talented actresses of Iranian descent in North America alone that would well fit the historical Roxanna. Oliver Stone could have just as easily selected an Iranian actress, however he relied on the historical "expertise" of Professor Fox. The question that can be addressed to Professor Fox is this: what makes Rosario Dawson so representative of Iranian women and Roxanna in particular? Is the Professor aware of the anthropology and history of ancient Iran as it was at 333 BC?

More puzzling is the design of Roxanna's costume in the movie. Note the photo showing the marriage of Alexander to Roxanna. Roxanna appears to wear a Burka-like veil constructed of strips of metallic mesh in which the face is partly hidden. See the photo (enter link below into your internet browser):



The headgear is partly correct if we base the costume on the Saka Paradraya Iranian speaking tribes of the present-day Ukraine (8-4th centuries BC). The decorations on the headgear are simply wrong and Iranian queens did not wear face masks of any type. For a discussion of the Saka Paradrya, known in the west as Scythians, consult:

E.V. Cernenko. The Scythians 700-300 BC. London: OspreyPublishing, 1989.
ISBN: 0850454786
See colour plate G.

Once you have consulted Professor's Cernenko's book, it will be evident how flawed the costume design is, not to mention the colors. None of the reconstructions by Professor Gorelik, which Cernenko has consulted, show any type of face masks for ancient Iranian women. Ancient Iranian women, who were found in military, religious and political leadership roles, simply did not wear such attire during courtship, marriage or everyday duties.

It is not clear why Professor Fox has chosen a Burka-like face mask for Roxanna at Alexander's wedding. Variants of this face mask are present in Afghanistan today, mainly the result of former Taliban rule and very conservative Pashtoon tribal society, which very strongly identifies itself with the culture of ancient Arabia.

Even more interesting is the "Arabian Nights" portrayal of an Achaemenid harem. Harems certainly existed in Persia and the later Roman and Byzantine courts, however the specifically "Arabian" appearance accdored to the Achaemenids is simply consistent with the Hollywood tradition of portraying Iranians as Arabs.

Interestingly, the movie portrays the "Persians" with Arabian styles of music and dance. This portrayal is not based on factual information; it is a Hollywood portrayal. From the scant evidence that exists, we do know that one of the Persian styles of dance strongly resembled the dances of the Kurds of today; a style also seen in western Turkey, Greece and the Balkans today. As for music, we have no notes or scales from that period, and "Arab music" as we know it today simply did not exist at that time; it is a much later creation. Arabian music can trace its beginnings to the Bedouin tribes of Arabia - it later borrowing heavily of Sassanian and Greek scales (after the 7th century AD).

These errors are enough to question the historical accuracy of the Alexander picture. It seems that when it comes to Iranians and their identity, history is easily "re-written" for the benefit of popular entertainment. As Professor Fox has duly noted in an interview with Archeology Today (http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/fox.html), the movie "could not totally depart from audiences' expectations". The "audience" undoubtedly has "expectations" as to what Iranians "should" look like.

Given Professor Fox's rudimentary knowledge of Persia's anthropology, you may wish to refer to:

J.P. Mallory. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson, 1989.
ISBN: 0-500-27616-1
Read pages: 9-23, 48-56, 78, 266-272.

An excellent article by Dr. Oric Basirov is posted as well:
http://home.btconnect.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/Oric.Basirov/origin_of_the_iranians.htm

For color reconstructions of ancient Iranians see:

P. Wilcox. Rome's Enemies (3): Parthians and Sassanid Persians. London: OspreyPublishing, 1986.
ISBN: 0850456886

T. Newark. The Barbarians. London: Concord Publications Company, 1998.
ISBN: 9623616341
See Page 7 (the Saka - ancestors of today's Lurs and Seistanis) and 30 (ancestors of the Ard-Alan).

Iran today is very much a genetic tapestry that includes blondism in Northern and Western Iran (e.g. Parsabad, or Talysh), as well as among Iranian peoples such as Lurs, Azeris, Mazandaranis, Kurds and Boyer-Ahmadis. Iran is also home to Arabians in Khuzistan and the Persian Gulf coast, Asiatic Turcomens in the Northeast, as well as the Baluchis near Pakistan, who have a strong Dravidian admixture. You may wish to read the very thorough and precise compendium of Iranian peoples today by:

F. Hole (Editor). The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1987.
ISBN: 0874745268

W. B. Fisher (Editor). The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1, The Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
ISBN: 0521069351

These books (especially the Cambridge History of Iran series) will provide a more informed and less misleading analysis of Iran's anthropological history than that offered by Professor Fox.

As seen in this commentary, Hollywood portrayals of Iranians are in stark contrast to reality. Until the Arabian arrivals in the 7th century AD, the majority of Iranians would have looked no different from the Greeks or Romans. Greek and Roman references to classical Iranians do not refer to them as different in the "physical" sense; differences lay mainly in manner of government, philosophy and to a lesser extent, mythology. The Azadan nobility of the Parthian and Sassanian Savaran (elite cavalry), more than 500 years later than Alexander, are described by Peter Wilcox as "…very similar to the Celts…strikingly similar to Northwest Europeans…" (p.6). There are still many short stories in Southern Italy today which accurately portray the temperament and appearance of the Persians as they would have appeared in antiquity.





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



Despite the powerful historical revisionism of a number of mainly northwest European historians such as Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) or the aforementioned Fallmerayer, the Greco-Roman world and Persia have profoundly influenced each other in areas such as architecture, the arts and crafts, the sciences and medicine, mythology, military and engineering technologies. While true that one can find a number of anti-Persian references in Greco-Roman sources, these were in the context of wars that broke out between these powers. A perfect example of this is how the movie explicitly shows Aristotle deriding the Persians as inferior to the Greeks. Modern Greeks place this in context and see Aristotle as expressing the political climate of his day. Iranians are very well liked and respected in Greece and are seen as the heirs of a great civilization. Alexander himself came to greatly appreciate the Iranians and their culture. It is a shame that the movie did not show Alexander as paying homage to the tomb of Cyrus the Great.

As noted previously, Greco-Roman historians who were prepared to acknowledge and highly praise the Persians (e.g. Xenophon, Plutarch, etc.). Today's popular culture, education systems and movie entertainment industries in particular, seem to be providing a very selective and distorted view of Persia with respect to antiquity. Many are simply not aware (or wish not be aware) of Persia's importance and status in antiquity let alone her major contributions to world civilization.

Ancient Greeks, Romans and Persians had much more in common with each other than with the relatively unsophisticated Celtic and Germanic peoples who were roaming the Northern European forests. For an incisive discussion of these little discussed topics consult:

N. Spatari. Calabria, L'enigma Delle Arti Asittite: Nella Calabria Ultramediterranea. Italy: MUSABA, 2003.
ISBN: 8887935300
As far as I know, this book has still not be translated from Italian to English. Still an excellent read, especially with the illustrations.

P. Kriwaczek. In Search of Zarathustra: The First prophet and the Ideas that Changed the World. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002.
ISBN: 0297646222

I look forward to the day when we will see blockbuster movies of Shapur I (241-272) who defeated three Roman emperors in his lifetime and destroyed a third of Rome's armies. Even more dramatic would be to see movies made of the life and times of figures such as Zarathustra, Aryaman, Shahrbaraz, Mani, Mazdak, Babak, Abu Ali Sina or Omar Khayyam.

Small note:

>“Barbarian” was an expression made by the Romans to call the people who
>were not subject to the Roman law. Therefore, Iranians, and the Greek were
>both called Barbarians by the Romans.

This is wrong. Barbarian is a Greek word for anyone who doesnt speak greek. They made up the word by simply reproducing the sound of non-Greek speach as it sounded to them.

We still have it around: Blah-Blah = Bar-Bar = Barbarian.

Henrik

zahak dont forget our founding father Kurush

******************This should be the new logo*****************

>This is wrong. Barbarian is a Greek word for anyone who doesnt speak greek. They made up the word by simply reproducing the sound of non-Greek speach as it sounded to them.

Yes, I think you are right. I think the first article had some major flaws. For example, regarding point #1 that the author makes, I remember Anthony Hopkins (Ptolemy) briefly mentiones the burning of Persepolis at the beginning of the movie, although it was never included as a scene.

>zahak dont forget our founding father Kurush

LOL. I won't forget...I have a statue of him on my bookshelf.

I have his poster. <big smile>

Bought it at Persepolis with a book about Darius the Great. <bigger smile>

"I AM PRO KASRAVI, THUS I AM ANTI HUMAN"

The Great Alexanders soldiers peed when they just heard of the army of "Nanda Empire" , the Magadh army consistd of 6,00,000 regular infantry, 30,000 horsemen,36,000 men with 9000 elephants and 24000 men with 8000 chariots . Dreamingof the army and they remembered home.
Alexander and his army never touched what can be said as citadel of indian Power. The importance that greek historians attached to poras is laughable for he was king of a district not larger than present day Amritsar. Too much for Great alexander and his epic army.

Henrik:
"This is wrong. Barbarian is a Greek word for anyone who doesnt speak greek. They made up the word by simply reproducing the sound of non-Greek speach as it sounded to them.

We still have it around: Blah-Blah = Bar-Bar = Barbarian."

You are right about Barbarian being derived from Bar-Bar, but Barbar is not derived from Blah-Blah, or something which is not understandable.
I read somewhere that Barbar is a race in Northern Africa (Morocco). They were probably considered uncivilized, and that's why their name Barbar became synonymous with uncivilized people or "Barbarians".

It's like Assassin coming out of "Hashisheen".

To all your Iranians and your attempt to revise history, as things stand the Greeks did fight off your attempted invastion of 490-480 BC convicingly. And a Greek kid, that being Alexander at age 19, did take over your whole empire a hundred years later. A great and exceptional military achievement I would say. And now, you couldn't defeat lowly Iraq after 8 years and yet the Americans defeated Iraq in two wars that amounted to a stroll in the park.

How else do you expect to be portrayed?

But even better, your insistence that the Persians were well organised and and a formidable rival, it only proves the militaty genius of Alexander the the legacy of Greece which lives on today.

Good grief. For someone who is attempting to set things right, he does write a lot of BS.

1- Unlike the narration of the film, Alexander set fire and destroyed the Royal Palace of the Iranian kings. The Ruins of Persepolis or Takhte Jamshid, near Shiraz in Iran are the clear sign of the Alexander’s “barbarity” in Iran and all of his military campaign.

Alexander ordered the destruction of Persepolis as reprisal for the complete destruction of Athens during the second Persian invasion. If you called the destruction of Persepolis barbaric, how do you call the destruction of Athens?

2- It was the Iranian King, Cyrus the Great (as recorded in the Old and New Testaments) that gave freedom to the territories that he conquered and set the Jews free from Babylon. He helped the Jews to build their temple. Alexander and his remnants in Persia (the Suluki Dynasty) did everything to eradicate the culture of Iran and they failed. The Iranian dynasties after the invasion of Alexander, the Ashkanian and Sasanids, in fact spent sometime to erase all of the imposed Greek cultural things in Iran. Today, there is hardly anything left of the Alexander’s invasion and the Suluki dynasty in Iran except than the ruins of Persepolis that was set to fire by Alexander. The sign of Alexander’s army was “ Owl” and Iranians consider Owl as the harbinger of destruction and a sign of bad omen.

Cyrus's actions were indeed admirable but I doubt that he could do otherwise, or else he would be fencing of several rebellions each year. The eastern provinces for example The Ionian cities for example were very rebellious even after Cyrus gave them a relative autonomy. And the mainland Greeks were eager to help them. After all Darius sent an expeditionary force to Greece to punish the Eretrians and the Athenians for sending troops for help the Ionian uprising. And this was about 50 years after Cyrus.

And despite the freedoms granted by Cyrus, the successor of his son Cambyses, Darius had to crush several rebellions by the Egyptians, Lydians, and Babylonians.

As for Alexander destroying Persian culture, think again. Or rather read something on Alexander, his officers and many soldiers marrying Persian women. Alexander himself introduced something unheard of among Greek kings, the proskynesis or kneeling down before a king, a distinctly Persian custom. His officers were pretty mad about it. He retained the satyrapies system and he appointed several Persians as satraps.

The owl was the Athenian symbol. The Macedonians used the Vergina sun.


3- Alexander never set foot to India. He and almost all of his soldiers died in the passages of Afghanistan due to the hardships, and natural diseases. Unlike the story of the film, he never retuned to the center of Iran. He was killed and disappeared under unknown circumstances. Even the Greek Historians who were the experts in mis-recording the historical events (this point is attested by the narrator of the film) never mentioned that where he was killed and buried. I am sure if he died in Iran under the circumstances that the film claims, his whereabouts was clear.

Jeezzus! Alexander conquered what is today's Pakistan and continued towards the kingdom of Magadha. He besieged several cities during this drive and conquered the Mallians, a tribe living between Indus and Hyphasis. Knowing Alexander was never defeated, we can safely say that if his soldiers didn't mutiny, his drive to the southeast would be successful.

I won't even discuss the "he and almost all of his soldiers died in the passages of Afghanistan due to the hardships, and natural diseases" part. It is ludicrous. If he lost all his army there, how did he return through the Gedrosian desert or how do we have all the accounts of him returning and dying in Babylon. That's a curious "article". Alexander's tomb was in Alexandria in Egypt and it was known to the Roman emperor Caracalla for example who took Alexander's golden cuirass and replaced it with his won.

4- “Barbarian” was an expression made by the Romans to call the people who were not subject to the Roman law. Therefore, Iranians, and the Greek were both called Barbarians by the Romans. The expression has nothing to do with the Macedonians or the Greeks for calling the Iranians barbarians. In fact the film truly shows that the invading barbaric Macedonians faced a civilized nation out of the scope that they could dream. Just like the Arab invaders in a later juncture. The Macedonian and Greek “barbarians” approach to the Persia was like the behavior of peasants of the Middle Ages entering New York.

Only one thing can serve to destroy this theory. Barbarian's destroy cities, they don't build new ones. And Alexander built a rather large number of cities. And besides, look at what the Persians did to Leonidas at Thermopylae when they won. They crusified and mutilated him. Alexander not only did not harm Darius' family but he treated them with such kindness, that when Darius' mother learned that Alexander dies, she confined herself in a dark place and she ate no more until she died after 5 days. Also, Alexander gave a state funeral to his archenemy, Darius.


5- Alexander was homosexual and he never married an Iranian dancing girl in the north of Iran. Although the Greeks have protested to the Warner Brothers for portraying Alexander as “bisexual”, it seems that the Warner brothers has done a favor to him. Alexander had no wife and no children. By the way, he was from Macedonia, and he and his father had invaded Greece (Athens and Sparta).

Alexander had not one, but several wifes during his campaigns. Roxanne, Barsine, Statira. As for bisexuality, it can't be proven, but even if it can, it wouldn't be something out of the blue. The Macedonians were Greeks after all.


- Alexander and the Iranian army fought several times. The Iranian king did not consider him as serious threat and he did not participate in any war against him personally. He fled the royal palace, after an Iranian General (Ariobarzan) committed treason and showed a strategic way to the Iranian capital to Alexander.

Wrong. Again. The Persian king as a rule was rarely in direct command of an army. He had various generals to do it for him. He was mainly concerned with governing the empire and being in Persepolis so he could act quickly to any rebellions.



When once you have tasted flight,
you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been,
and there you will always long to return.
Leonardo da Vinci

Jeezzus! Alexander conquered what is today's Pakistan and continued towards the kingdom of Magadha. He besieged several cities during this drive and conquered the Mallians, a tribe living between Indus and Hyphasis. Knowing Alexander was never defeated, we can safely say that if his soldiers didn't mutiny, his drive to the southeast would be successful.


Continued towards kingdom of magadha wait wait wait dont tell this crap. His soldiers and he himself came only till Beas river.the east of which lied loshal and to east of koshal lied the magadh.
Never in their history did greeks heard of such vast army. An army of 690000 men with 9000 war elephants, 8000 chariots and 36000 horses.
It was fear of the army of magadh that led his soldiers to mutiny. Their fear was that if anything happened to him in the journey towards magadh what will happen to them all. He was greviously injured in another battle in a small principality.
It took everything he had to conquer the small kingdom of pouravas(Poras). The soldiers were afraid to the core of the royal army of maghad which was the only to be met had they crossed beas and then koshal. So much for valour of the soldiers. Chrest fallen Alexander had to return and became an alcoholic and died with the dream of conquering the world.

Alexander no doubt was a great conquerer. But this is were the greatness ends his soldiers were barbarians who killed entire towns and butured everybody that came in the way. Had his army balls why didnt they cross Beas. They ran back towards Macedonia.

Ustixuna don't be such flamer all the time.
You should learn from posters like Ashish and Koursaros. Look how they have written such good arguments to proove their points.
They are capable of doing that because obviously they have read some books about this subject, something I recommend you to do.

"Ok first off, Alexander was from Macedonia he invaded Greece, and dont talk about who get defeat who, TURKS CONQUERED U GUYS FOR 500 YEARS AND YOULL DIDNT DO NOTHING, AND WHEN DID YOULL GAIN YUR FREEDOM? JUST 100 YEARS AGO, THEN THE TURKS CONQUERED UR GUYS LAND AGAIN, SO PLEASE BACK OFF, U AINT TOUGHT AT ALL!"

Wow, so what is this? An argument over history or a pissing contest between some Greeks who are defending someone who is considered by everyone EDUCATED in history as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, military commander who has ever lived and some Iranians who can't stand that thought that, at some point in their long history, they lost to the Greeks? Because your completely irrelevant point that you wrote in caps seems to point to the latter.

As to your first point you are once again mistaken. Alexander was the son of Myrtali - the Princess of Epirus, later known as Olympias and King Philip II of Macedon. That would make him half Macedonian and half Greek...as much as that distinction actually exists.

Anyway, here is a good place to start your education on this subject (a resource to which I hope you avail yourself):

http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/