The last film you watched....

[Robert Vermaat]

And yesterday, my students invited me for Oliver Stone's Alexander. Even after five years, it's still terribly bad.

As a historian, I quite agree with your review. As a re-enactor though I think it's one of the best ever made. :wink:

[Jona Lendering]

As a re-enactor though I think it's one of the best ever made. :wink:

Uhm, I'm not sure. The saddles are too clearly visible in the Gaugamela scene, and I'm not convinced that Alex's enemies looked like this. Still, I loved seeing that marching phalanx and the charging cavalry.

[M. Demetrius]

Was there anything in Alexander that gave an indication why the Indian elephants retreated? From what I remember, it looked like they were giving the Macedonians a beating, then they retreated, and there was no pursuit. I didn't/don't get it. Seems kind of unlike what I know of combat in those days.

I don't mean to sidetrack the thread.

[Robert Vermaat]

Uhm, I'm not sure. The saddles are too clearly visible in the Gaugamela scene, and I'm not convinced that Alex's enemies looked like this.

Just the saddles and maybe the enemies - go figure! If this were Gladiator, the list would be a good deal longer.... :twisted: Which is why this movie, while admittedly not perfect, ranks for me as numero uno.

[Paullus Scipio]

Was there anything in Alexander that gave an indication why the Indian elephants retreated? From what I remember, it looked like they were giving the Macedonians a beating, then they retreated, and there was no pursuit. I didn't/don't get it. Seems kind of unlike what I know of combat in those days.

I don't mean to sidetrack the thread.

I'd agree - the movie didn't get what happened across at all....but, the answers are in our sources - Arrian V.17-18; Curtius VIII.14-30.
It should be remembered that elephants are not some sort of ancient"tank" (though often described as such).They are living, intelligent creatures. Their most famous effect was that horses unused to them would not go near them - making them very useful in a strung out line to prevent cavalry attacks. Against infantry, their effect is largely psychological ( as anyone who has seen an elephant charge, even on T.V. can vouch), though physically they take some stopping ! Nor can they just 'steamroll' over formed infantry, but have to resort to short rushes in, then backing out etc. ....and of course, even Alexander had been informed of how they would often, in pain, rage, and fear, as easily trample back on their own side..... as Curtius reports Alexander telling his men;"It is a doubtful kind of strength, and rages more violently against its own men; for it is driven against the enemy by coaxing and command, but against its own men by fear"

In this case, Alexander made careful preparations to deal with the beasts....
The Indian cavalry were not up to the standards of Alexander's elite Macedonian and Persian cavalry, and were driven in, by accident or deliberately sheltering, on the elephants on the flanks. Those in the centre were attacked by the line of light infantry ahead of the phalanx - Agriainians and Thracians - showers of javelins were hurled into the elephants and at their drivers. Nevertheless the trumpeting of the elephants "caused great terror, and their trumpeting not only threw into confusion the horses, animals fearful of everything, but also terrorising men in the ranks.." Curtius VIII.23

Some, getting too close were picked up in the trunks of the beasts and then hurled down to be trampled or passed up to the drivers for slaughter....this combat continued for some time, the light tropps dodging the elephants. The elephants were gradually driven back and in on their own troops, where they caused great destruction. They grew weak from loss of blood, their charges feebler, and as a bull's strength is drained before the kill in the bull-ring, so the hordes of Macedonian Light troops harassed the elephants.
"The Macedonians could deal with these maddened creatures comfortably enough....whereas the unfortunate Indians, in close order, and jammed up as they attemped to get away, found them to be a more dangerous enemy than the Macedonians.." Arrian V.17-18

The elephants began to back away, hooting feebly as elephants in distress do, many of them driverless, and the Agrianes and Thracians, having exhausted their javelins, moved in with axes and kopides(machete like curved swords, like a large Ghurka kukri) with which they had been specially issued. These they used to hamstring the animals and to hack at their trunks and feet.... Porus himself, mounted on the largest elephant, suffered nine wounds in his back and chest, despite armour and lost so much blood he was too weak to throw his javelins. His driver/mahout tried to get the King away to no avail....there was no confrontation between Alexander and Porus.....the movie scene was inspired by the coins Alexander issued later, showing him mounted, rearing up and confronting Porus on his elephant.

[Jona Lendering]

ranks for me as numero uno.

Where's Spartacus on that list?

[Paralus]

Those in the centre were attacked by the line of light infantry ahead of the phalanx - Agriainians and Thracians - showers of javelins were hurled into the elephants and at their drivers.

Not to forget the sarisa. Both Diodorus and Curtius mention this weapon and its advantages explicitly:

Diod. 17.88.1-2
Nevertheless the Macedonians faced the frightening experience manfully. They used their long spears - tais sarisais - to good effect against the Indians stationed beside the elephants, and kept the battle even.

Curtius (8.14.16) adds the salient detail which seems altogether logical:

...they (sarisae) can never serve us better than against these elephants and their drivers...

Whilst it seems logical that the Agrianes and archers (Curtius may well have the "Thracians" mislplaced here they are last attested on satrapal detachment) preceeded the phalanx, Arrian (5.13) explicitly states otherwise:

Near these he placed the royal foot-guard, and next to these the other shield-bearing guards, as each happened at the time to have the right of precedence. On each side, at the extremities of the phalanx, his archers, Agrianians and javelin-throwers were posted.

Arrian has hopelessly confused the royal and regular hypaspists and the the two taxeis of phalanx but the arrangement is clear. Diodorus gives us nothing and Curtius, in near enough terms, reproduces Arrian's "battle plan". Curtius gives the detail that after the phalanx had succeeded in "bursting through the Indian centre in a single charge" Alexander then:

...sent the Agrianes and the Thracian light-armed against the elephants, for they were better at skirmishing than at fighting at close quarters.

Difficult to imagine if the phalanx had already "burst through the Indian centre". Also difficult to do from Arrian's wings.

The "Alexander" movie, of Stone, remains a large disappointment. Conflation of battles and timelines for Hollywood is par for the course but this was something else. My wife bought me the Director's cut DVD and once the silly soliloquy in Babylon begins the stop button is pushed - if not before. Troy was somewhat worse.

Right from left field, I watched the Star Trek film on Saturday. This works and was quite entertaining.

For God's sake Jim, I'm an historian not a fitter and turner!

[Jona Lendering]

I watched the Star Trek film on Saturday. This works and was quite entertaining.

Ha, we're back off topic again. I just read a note in which someone pointed at the parallel between the Star Trek movie and the Epic of Gilgamesh. For a moment I thought he was raving mad, but on second thoughts, yes, it may be so.

[Paralus]

Possibly with Zeppelin's Kashmir as a soundtrack?

[Robert Vermaat]

ranks for me as numero uno.

Where's Spartacus on that list?

My list of historical material-correct movies? Which one? But neither ranks especially high, I fear. Or maybe I haven't seen the one you refer to?

[Jona Lendering]

There's no excuse needed to watch a movie that is set in Rome. Roman Holiday, Only You, or any other movie set in Rome: it's all fine with me. Today I watched Angels and Demons, which left me with mixed feelings. Fortunately, the tempo's sufficiently high to ignore the ridiculous story (based on a novel by Dan Brown). The discussion on the relation between faith and science is also ridiculous, and unnessary. Still, any story set in Rome is always a pleasure to watch.

[Narukami]

There's no excuse needed to watch a movie that is set in Rome.
Still, any story set in Rome is always a pleasure to watch.

Jona, you are a true Roman.

:wink:

Narukami

[Jona Lendering]

Sunshine Cleaning. A bit sentimental, but I was in a bit sentimal mood, so I appreciated this story about ordinary people - a story without vilains, but full of normal people who try to make a living, care for their kids, try to do what they believe is good.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Last movie I watched (just about 10 minutes ago)... "My Bloody Valentine". What utter, absolute, GARBAGE. Possibly one of the worst movies I ever watched in my life. It was most definitely made as a 3D movie or drive-in style 80's flick... one you'd take that jumpy girl to so that she'd cling to you.

Before that (last night) was Valkyre, and Paul Blart Mall Cop. The German flick... not too bad. Paul Blart as expected was a goofy movie. It was worth a laugh here and there but that's about it.

[Narukami]

At the Cinema: Terminator Salvation

This seemed like the same story as before -- The Future is saved by the very forces trying to destroy it. Did we not see that in Terminator 2...?

Perhaps it is a sign of my age, but for me Shakespeare said it best (to paraphrase):

'A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.'

Oh well -- at least the popcorn was good.

:?

Narukami