Alexander was King of the ancient Greek city state Macedon and widely considered to be one of history's greatest and most successful military commanders. By the age of 30 he had created one ... Read allAlexander was King of the ancient Greek city state Macedon and widely considered to be one of history's greatest and most successful military commanders. By the age of 30 he had created one of the largest empires in history.Alexander was King of the ancient Greek city state Macedon and widely considered to be one of history's greatest and most successful military commanders. By the age of 30 he had created one of the largest empires in history.
Browse episodes
5.613.5K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Summary
Reviewers say 'Alexander the Great: Hero or Conqueror' offers an engaging narrative with impressive visuals and strong performances, particularly in portraying Alexander and Darius. However, it faces criticism for historical inaccuracies, poor acting, and its hybrid format. Some viewers value its entertainment and artistic liberties, while others find it misleading and shallow. The depiction of Alexander's personal life sparks debate, making it an ambitious yet flawed series.
Featured reviews
NETFLIX's inaccuracies about Alexander the Great The Netflix series is rife with historical inaccuracies or omissions of important facts and information.
1. When Alexander defeated the troops of Darius at the river Issus (in 333 BC), the latter abandoned his family and fled. Darius' mother Sysigambis, the wife of Stateira II and the daughter of Stateira III mourn, believing that Darius has been killed in battle. Alexander sends a messenger, Leonnatus, to tell them that the Persian king is alive. When Alexander appears on the royal stage with Hephaestion, according to the ancient sources, it is Darius' mother who falls at his feet, not his wife, as is wrongly shown in the series scene. According to Plutarch, Alexander refuses to see Darius' wife again so as not to offend his rival.
No source testifies that Stateira II gave birth to Alexander's child. This was the daughter of Darius, Stateira III, whom Alexander married in the context of political marriages, performed in order to legitimize the conquests in the eyes of the native populations. When Sisygambis learned of Alexander's death, she committed suicide out of grief. Particularly interesting is his attitude towards the women of his opponents, characterized by absolute respect and a willingness to protect (he is known to have even imposed the death penalty on members of his army who, disobeying orders, committed rape). This phenomenon has always been an exception to war morals and indicates his intentions and the policy of the unification of nations/races.
2. After the conquest of Egypt, Alexander is shown in the series fighting in Egyptian garb. This never happened. Alexander always fought as a Macedonian, with the armament of the Macedonians. The series overemphasizes the influence of Egyptian culture on Alexander, a fact not assumed by the sources. Alexander, according to ancient literature, however, accepted the titles of each people he conquered, in order to legitimize himself as their leader.
3. The episode with the Gordian link is downgraded in the series. Alexander traveled kilometers in order to reach the port of Gordius and in front of a crowd of people to cut the Gordian bond. It was yet another genius political move by the great soldier to establish his reputation and power to foes and friends alike.
4. When Professor Jennifer Finn, of Loyola University Chicago, correctly states that Alexander was surrounded by a circle of close friends, who supported him throughout his journey, such as Hephaestion and Ptolemy, she does not make even the slightest mention of his studies next to Aristotle, in the teaching of the philosopher and in the concept of the proverbial Aristotelian friendship.
5. Distinguished Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones of Cardiff University in Wales, a scholar of Persian culture, describes Babylon as a center of culture, which it undoubtedly was. But there is no mention in the Netflix series about Greek culture, about its fundamental values, democracy and philosophy. Why did Alexander campaign in Asia Minor? To free the city-states of the region from the tyranny of the Persians. This was the wish and burning desire of Isocrates, Philip II, the soldier himself. Alexander liberates the Greek cities - the cradle of philosophy - and restores their democratic function. This is not mentioned anywhere in the series.
6. The relationship of the Palace of the Goats, as presented in the series, has absolutely nothing to do with the form and architecture of the palace complex that has been excavated and restored by the competent department of the Ministry of Culture.
No source testifies that Stateira II gave birth to Alexander's child. This was the daughter of Darius, Stateira III, whom Alexander married in the context of political marriages, performed in order to legitimize the conquests in the eyes of the native populations. When Sisygambis learned of Alexander's death, she committed suicide out of grief. Particularly interesting is his attitude towards the women of his opponents, characterized by absolute respect and a willingness to protect (he is known to have even imposed the death penalty on members of his army who, disobeying orders, committed rape). This phenomenon has always been an exception to war morals and indicates his intentions and the policy of the unification of nations/races.
2. After the conquest of Egypt, Alexander is shown in the series fighting in Egyptian garb. This never happened. Alexander always fought as a Macedonian, with the armament of the Macedonians. The series overemphasizes the influence of Egyptian culture on Alexander, a fact not assumed by the sources. Alexander, according to ancient literature, however, accepted the titles of each people he conquered, in order to legitimize himself as their leader.
3. The episode with the Gordian link is downgraded in the series. Alexander traveled kilometers in order to reach the port of Gordius and in front of a crowd of people to cut the Gordian bond. It was yet another genius political move by the great soldier to establish his reputation and power to foes and friends alike.
4. When Professor Jennifer Finn, of Loyola University Chicago, correctly states that Alexander was surrounded by a circle of close friends, who supported him throughout his journey, such as Hephaestion and Ptolemy, she does not make even the slightest mention of his studies next to Aristotle, in the teaching of the philosopher and in the concept of the proverbial Aristotelian friendship.
5. Distinguished Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones of Cardiff University in Wales, a scholar of Persian culture, describes Babylon as a center of culture, which it undoubtedly was. But there is no mention in the Netflix series about Greek culture, about its fundamental values, democracy and philosophy. Why did Alexander campaign in Asia Minor? To free the city-states of the region from the tyranny of the Persians. This was the wish and burning desire of Isocrates, Philip II, the soldier himself. Alexander liberates the Greek cities - the cradle of philosophy - and restores their democratic function. This is not mentioned anywhere in the series.
6. The relationship of the Palace of the Goats, as presented in the series, has absolutely nothing to do with the form and architecture of the palace complex that has been excavated and restored by the competent department of the Ministry of Culture.
Another Netflix/Hollywood Docu-Nonsense
I'll keep this short. Hollywood still can't make anything remotely accurate about Alexander the Great. It makes me sick. When I was a kid we had that Oliver Stone mess with Colin Farrell and honestly I didn't think it could get worse. I was wrong.
This Netflix garbage is intentionally inaccurate. I don't understand it. I've studied Alexander and ancient Macedon for years and when I tell you they are intentionally changing or misleading very well known historical details, please know I'm not kidding. All for entertainment purposes I guess but here's the problem - the truth is so much more interesting!
Just skip it. There are YouTube documentaries that are far far far better than whatever this garbage is.
I suppose it's better than that Jada Pinkett Smith "Cleopatra was Black" nonsense.
This Netflix garbage is intentionally inaccurate. I don't understand it. I've studied Alexander and ancient Macedon for years and when I tell you they are intentionally changing or misleading very well known historical details, please know I'm not kidding. All for entertainment purposes I guess but here's the problem - the truth is so much more interesting!
Just skip it. There are YouTube documentaries that are far far far better than whatever this garbage is.
I suppose it's better than that Jada Pinkett Smith "Cleopatra was Black" nonsense.
Sick of this
Yet again, Netflix makes the same mistakes, making everything feel like a joke.
This feels like a cheap soap opera instead of a documentary. The inaccuracy of the historical events are insane, the acting is very sad and forced. Nothing is explained about Alexander's life, they only induced fake drama which makes no sense at all.
This is a shame, Alexander has always been one of my favourite rulers from the past and I was hoping for some new information or at least a good interpretation of the ones all of us know.
This is another Netflix fail, do not waste your time if you are a history nerd, all you will end up on with is being sad and frustrated.
This feels like a cheap soap opera instead of a documentary. The inaccuracy of the historical events are insane, the acting is very sad and forced. Nothing is explained about Alexander's life, they only induced fake drama which makes no sense at all.
This is a shame, Alexander has always been one of my favourite rulers from the past and I was hoping for some new information or at least a good interpretation of the ones all of us know.
This is another Netflix fail, do not waste your time if you are a history nerd, all you will end up on with is being sad and frustrated.
Very inaccurate
I found the documentary disappointing due to its inaccurate portrayal of historical figures, particularly Darius. The depiction of Darius with a turban and eyeliner seemed more akin to a caricature than a respectful representation of the Persian Emperor, who was a significant figure in establishing human rights. Persia was the cradle of art and architecture at the time and at its highest. This portrayal of Darius felt more like a misrepresentation, leaning towards an 'Arabic snake dancer' stereotype rather than a dignified leader of the largest empire of the time. It seemed as though the documentary was more a tribute to Alexander rather than an objective historical account, failing to accurately represent the facts and events of that era. This was a letdown, as I expected a documentary to offer a factual and unbiased view.
Was this made by a child?
Alexander: The Making of A God" arrived on Netflix, and as someone perpetually on the lookout for hidden gems in historical dramas, I stumbled upon this series with a mix of curiosity and hopeful anticipation. The prospect of uncovering a captivating portrayal of Alexander the Great, one of my top historical figures, was a promising prospect. However, what I discovered within the first few minutes of the series left me with a sense of disillusionment, prompting an abrupt halt to my viewing experience.
Unlike the eager anticipation often associated with highly anticipated releases, my eagerness was more akin to a quest for a hidden treasure. Unfortunately, the treasure proved elusive, as the series failed to meet even the modest expectations I had set for an engaging historical drama.
The initial disappointment stemmed from the lackluster acting that permeated the series. The characters, including the pivotal role of Alexander himself, felt like mere shadows of their historical counterparts. The performances lacked the depth and authenticity required to bring these historical figures to life, leaving the audience with a detached and unengaging experience. In contrast to my initial hope for a diamond in the rough, the cast's inability to convey the complexities of their characters left me feeling as though I had stumbled upon fool's gold.
Compounding the issue was the uninspired direction that failed to salvage the lackluster performances. The series stumbled through crucial events in Alexander's life without allowing the narrative to breathe or the characters to evolve. The pacing felt disjointed, resulting in a narrative that lacked cohesion and emotional resonance. It was a missed opportunity to explore the intricate relationships and political intrigue surrounding Alexander, turning what could have been an exciting historical drama into a forgettable and uninspiring series.
My decision to pause the first episode and navigate away from Netflix was not driven by a sense of betrayal or dashed expectations but rather by the realization that my quest for a hidden gem had led me astray. The show, rather than being an unpolished masterpiece waiting to be discovered, turned out to be a lackluster addition to the historical drama genre.
It's worth noting that this unexpected disappointment came as a surprise, especially considering Netflix's track record of delivering quality original content. While every streaming platform has its hits and misses, "Alexander: The Making of A God" stands out as an unfortunate misstep in a sea of otherwise commendable productions. It raises questions about the curation process and quality control mechanisms in place for Netflix originals, leaving viewers like myself wondering how such a lackluster series made its way onto the platform.
In conclusion, my eagerness to uncover a hidden gem in historical drama led me to "Alexander: The Making of A God," only to be met with a series that failed to deliver on its potential. The combination of subpar acting and uninspired direction diminished the allure of exploring Alexander the Great's story, leaving me with a sense of missed opportunity rather than the triumphant discovery I had hoped for. For those seeking engaging historical dramas, this series may not be the treasure trove they are looking for.
It was so bad, so fast, that I put it down instantly.
Unlike the eager anticipation often associated with highly anticipated releases, my eagerness was more akin to a quest for a hidden treasure. Unfortunately, the treasure proved elusive, as the series failed to meet even the modest expectations I had set for an engaging historical drama.
The initial disappointment stemmed from the lackluster acting that permeated the series. The characters, including the pivotal role of Alexander himself, felt like mere shadows of their historical counterparts. The performances lacked the depth and authenticity required to bring these historical figures to life, leaving the audience with a detached and unengaging experience. In contrast to my initial hope for a diamond in the rough, the cast's inability to convey the complexities of their characters left me feeling as though I had stumbled upon fool's gold.
Compounding the issue was the uninspired direction that failed to salvage the lackluster performances. The series stumbled through crucial events in Alexander's life without allowing the narrative to breathe or the characters to evolve. The pacing felt disjointed, resulting in a narrative that lacked cohesion and emotional resonance. It was a missed opportunity to explore the intricate relationships and political intrigue surrounding Alexander, turning what could have been an exciting historical drama into a forgettable and uninspiring series.
My decision to pause the first episode and navigate away from Netflix was not driven by a sense of betrayal or dashed expectations but rather by the realization that my quest for a hidden gem had led me astray. The show, rather than being an unpolished masterpiece waiting to be discovered, turned out to be a lackluster addition to the historical drama genre.
It's worth noting that this unexpected disappointment came as a surprise, especially considering Netflix's track record of delivering quality original content. While every streaming platform has its hits and misses, "Alexander: The Making of A God" stands out as an unfortunate misstep in a sea of otherwise commendable productions. It raises questions about the curation process and quality control mechanisms in place for Netflix originals, leaving viewers like myself wondering how such a lackluster series made its way onto the platform.
In conclusion, my eagerness to uncover a hidden gem in historical drama led me to "Alexander: The Making of A God," only to be met with a series that failed to deliver on its potential. The combination of subpar acting and uninspired direction diminished the allure of exploring Alexander the Great's story, leaving me with a sense of missed opportunity rather than the triumphant discovery I had hoped for. For those seeking engaging historical dramas, this series may not be the treasure trove they are looking for.
It was so bad, so fast, that I put it down instantly.
Did you know
- TriviaThere's an anachronism when Alexander says they must move on and "turn the page". Books with pages weren't invented for another 200 years - about the time of Julius Caesar. In Alexander's time they rolled up paper in long scrolls.
- ConnectionsReferenced in La Réserve: Faut-il voir la série ALEXANDRE LE GRAND sur Netflix? (2024)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Büyük İskender: Nasıl Büyük Oldu?
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 45m
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 16:9 HD
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content





