5 Takeaways from Netflix’s “Alexander: The Making of a God”
Controversy is swirling around Netflix’s new six episode show Alexander: The Making of a God. I finished watching the six episodes this week and am ready to give my thoughts.
#1: Alexander and Hephaestion - move along, nothing to see here
For thousands of years, there has always been debate about the relationship between Alexander the Great and his lifelong companion, Hephaestion. This show is no exception to the rule. Within the first few minutes, Alexander and Hephaestion are kissing while bathing in a stream.
Although this scene triggered some “anti-woke” commentators, others (even some from conservative outlets) pointed out that this depiction wasn’t necessarily historically inaccurate. As I have written extensively on this site, we don’t know exactly what their relationship was like. The best ancient sources we have stop short of telling us they were lovers. But there are clues that there was romantic attraction (perhaps only in one direction). There is also evidence Alexander took other male lovers, as did his father. It was common practice for Macedonian kings. So, Netflix’s depiction is certainly a plausible one and I don’t think it’s overdone. After that initial scene, there are only a few passing moments where their romantic dynamic is revisited.
My biggest concern with the depiction comes more from the way the history scholars in the show characterize homosexuality in ancient Greece. We are told homosexuality is so common and unremarkable in that time that the Greeks didn’t even have a word for it. They were just “sexual”. This is true, to an extent, although a lifelong romantic relationship between two adult men of roughly the same age (as would be the case with Alexander and Hephaestion) was not necessarily common and may not have been widely accepted, much less embraced.
#2: A refreshing approach to King Darius and Persia
Our sources about Alexander come primarily from the Greek and Roman world, where Alexander was among the greatest heroes. It’s no surprise then that the ruler of the Persian Empire, Darius III, rarely gets a fair treatment. He is usually depicted as little more than a cardboard foil for Alexander - one is the ambitious, brave warrior, the other is an indulgent, cowardly king who flees at the first sign of danger.
But in Netflix’s Alexander, Darius has a refreshing complexity. He probably gets more screen time than any other individuals besides Alexander, and he flees the battlefield not because he is a coward, but because the stability of the entire civilization is on the line. It was also nice to see Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones featured as one of the primary scholars adding commentary. He has been on the podcast (Episode #37) and is one of the top experts on the Persian dynasty that Darius was a part of.
#3: A dive into Alexander’s mind
Ancient warfare buffs may complain that more time is spent delving into the psychology of Alexander than his prowess as a battlefield tactician. For instance, at least an episode is devoted to Alexander’s excursion into the northern African desert to visit the famous oracle at the Siwa Oasis. This is where he was allegedly told he was the son of Zeus-Amon.
The show also emphasized Alexander’s wish to be as great as Achilles, a theme embraced by historian Robin Lane Fox and others. It was fascinating to see the reenactment of Alexander and Hephaestion visiting the Tomb of Achilles at Troy and finding (what they believed was) the legendary warrior’s shield. I have written extensively about Alexander’s personal interest in the Greek heroes. The inner life of a person who lived so long ago is hard to pin down with any confidence, but I find it more interesting than the x’s and o’s of the battles.
#4: Strange inconsistencies
After the Macedonians defeat the Persians at the Battle of Issus and capture Darius’s family, ancient sources tell us that the Persian king’s mother Sisygambis confused Hephaestion for Alexander. This famous scene also happens in Netflix’s Alexander, although for some unknown reason Sisygambis is replaced by Darius’s wife, Stateira. Later, this same Stateira is shown having an affair with Alexander and dies while giving birth to his son. Scholar Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones deduces that only Alexander would have been allowed to impregnate the wife of Darius, but this observation alone is far from definitive evidence they had a relationship. Rather, the ancient sources tell us Alexander actually had a relationship with her daughter (also named Stateira).
It is situations like this that reveal the messiness of this sort of show. If roles can be switched around or combined to better serve the narrative, how can we trust what we’re watching? The answer is we can’t (at least not fully), and that brings me to my last point.
#5: Take it for what it is (not a classic documentary)
It’s important to properly categorize the show, which is listed on Netflix’s website as a documentary. This is sort of correct - it is based on real historical events and it uses a group of scholars and archaeologists to provide commentary. BUT, it also has a full cast of characters reenacting these historical events in ways that don’t always line up with the actual history. The dialogue between them, for the most part, is not found in historical sources. Given that so much centers on these scenes, which are more of an interpretation of the historical sources than a straightforward documentation of them, the show is closer to a “docudrama” than a true documentary. It’s basically a mini-movie about Alexander interspersed with scholars to provide context.
Bottom Line
I thought the show was more entertaining and better-cast than Oliver Stone’s 2004 film Alexander (although perhaps that’s not saying much). The relationships between the various characters are plausible and there is a good attention to detail in many of the scenes. It also falls short in some areas.
Like most cases of history being adapted for popular media, Alexander: The Making of a God is firstly an entertainment product. If you want a purely factual account, there are scores of quality biographies of Alexander, ancient and modern, to choose from. But if you’re looking to see a rare glimpse of these historical figures brought to life, however imperfectly, I believe the show does an admirable job. I give it 3 / 4 stars and am looking forward to the sequel it sets us up for.
