Alexander The Great Hollywood Vs History
Alexander The Great: Hollywood Vs. History Emma Watson
Filmed historical movies have become a prime source of knowledge about the past. Historians can not deny that, but they can find glitches and certain details or events that Hollywood has tweaked that give viewers a different perception sometimes. Watching ‘Alexander’ and researching true facts about Alexander the Great has given me a clearer view on how history portrayed though Hollywood films can sometimes be misleading with details. In the movie, it is shown to seem like Alexander was solely responsible for his strength in military and that he had imagined and successfully assembled an army all on his own without help or much experience due to his age when he
started to rule. However, Alexander's father, Philip II, developed the phalanx, which is a box formation for infantry soldiers from 8 to 36 men deep. Alexander was the one who exploited it. His father had much military experience and had even exposed Alexander to fighting and battles during his time in rule. Aristotle as his teacher, and his father Phillip as an example of a ruler and military leader, were huge factors on Alexander’s success. Although he was a highly intelligent and incredible conquorer and leader, I think the movie showed all of the credit towards him from the start, where it should have shown more of the people in his life behind it all. Also, in the movie it shows his army appearing massive over huge spaces of land and looking vast and threatening to opponents. Even though this is true of his army’s size, he actually was an expert at organizing his units for complex battle maneuvers, hiding the true numbers that made up his forces. With that he wanted opponents to be taken aback and take some of their confidence away when they finally realized how large of an army he was traveling with.
Filmed historical movies have become a prime source of knowledge about the past. Historians can not deny that, but they can find glitches and certain details or events that Hollywood has tweaked that give viewers a different perception sometimes. Watching ‘Alexander’ and researching true facts about Alexander the Great has given me a clearer view on how history portrayed though Hollywood films can sometimes be misleading with details. In the movie, it is shown to seem like Alexander was solely responsible for his strength in military and that he had imagined and successfully assembled an army all on his own without help or much experience due to his age when he
started to rule. However, Alexander's father, Philip II, developed the phalanx, which is a box formation for infantry soldiers from 8 to 36 men deep. Alexander was the one who exploited it. His father had much military experience and had even exposed Alexander to fighting and battles during his time in rule. Aristotle as his teacher, and his father Phillip as an example of a ruler and military leader, were huge factors on Alexander’s success. Although he was a highly intelligent and incredible conquorer and leader, I think the movie showed all of the credit towards him from the start, where it should have shown more of the people in his life behind it all. Also, in the movie it shows his army appearing massive over huge spaces of land and looking vast and threatening to opponents. Even though this is true of his army’s size, he actually was an expert at organizing his units for complex battle maneuvers, hiding the true numbers that made up his forces. With that he wanted opponents to be taken aback and take some of their confidence away when they finally realized how large of an army he was traveling with.