The cuirass and helmet of King Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, is a notable example of ancient Macedonian armor, made of bronze and adorned with gold decorations.

Philip II was a key historical figure known for his military innovations and kingdom expansion. In 339 BC, he suffered a severe lance wound to his leg during a battle, which resulted in a permanent limp. Despite this injury, he continued to exert significant influence over his empire. His reign was cut short in 336 BC when he was assassinated by his bodyguard, Pausanias. This assassination, likely driven by political motives, marked a dramatic end to Philip’s impactful leadership and set the stage for Alexander’s legendary conquests.

When do you think we'll get another epic film based on Alexander?

Not sure if this question has been asked here before, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on Oliver Stone’s ‘Alexander’ film?

I personally am a huge fan; I watched the original back in 2004, and own the Final and Ultimate Cuts. While it has its faults, and while it’s trying to cram a much larger narrative into a 2.5-3.5hr film (depending on the version you’re watching), it still has a lot of strengths, and I’ve alway found that Colin Farrell plays a confident Alexander (again in lieu of any faults of the script and/or direction).

Hi everyone. New to this Reddit. 👋

I have been researching the battle of Granicus, and it sort of made me think about the Battle of Pharsalus.

I know that the Persians kept the Greek Mercerneries in reserve and didn't use them out of fear that they might switch sides but I can't help thinking that if they had used them the way Caesar had used his reserve infantry against Pompey's cavalry then the Persians might have smashed Alexander's initial cavalry charge across the river.

https://preview.redd.it/vv7co7y3kizd1.png?width=826&format=png&auto=webp&s=c709f02ba3959ebc31c43bed1588c4da1d57ed8f

In his book The Madness of Alexander the Great [2015], historian Richard A. Gabriel develops the theory that Alexander suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) triggered by a series of injuries and aggravated by his alcoholic, depressive and megalomaniacal tendencies. Was his attitude at the Granicus an early symptom of this illness? Did the young king really take himself for a reincarnation of Achilles? Was his mad bravery, on the contrary, deliberate and intended to galvanize his men at the start of a difficult campaign? If historians are to be believed, Alexander undeniably exposed himself. Recognizable by his helmet decorated with two white crests, he represented a privileged target and yet deliberately sought contact. At the start of the fighting, he broke his lance and demanded another in an attempt to reach Mithridates, Darius' son-in-law. He manages to make him fall before being struck himself by Rhosakes with a violent sword blow on his helmet which is destroyed, while saving his life. Alexander then kills Rhosakes with a spear blow to the chest. During the battle he receives two other impacts on his pectoral and three on his shield, useful accounting for his legend. Who would hesitate to follow this obviously immortal leader?

have had this for about a year now :) done by the amazing @daggersforteeth on instagram

5 million square kilometers!!!

Digital Painting of him, from Sculpture References. Changed his eyes a bit..

So I have seen a lot of discussion through various social media sites about this and apparently this has been in debate for a very long time. Can anyone elaborate on any basis other than the papers that state that the Greeks were not related to the macadonians. That the Greeks are sub-sharahan, Ethiopian people. Somethings that I have read: people that work in the science/genetic field have stated that the ancient macadonians went up and became the Irish. Refute: British people still on a great master plan and they just painted those red headed people on the walls to lay claim to Irish red hair but if Irish people are ancient macadonians/Greeks it's only the dark ones because they are/were black people. 2.Greece and the middle east is actually in the Americans. Greece was actually in s.america and the middle east in n.america.3.Alexander was black because he descended from agamemon (various different ones) one was his actually his father through his daughter and the man was black because he was king of myceane and they were the same as minoans who were black and even portrayed themselves as black and the actual myceane were dark complexion as was alexander. And the British people just created frescos and sculptures and paintings and created historical records of fabricated nonsense to dispute the actual repensantion of Alexander as a black man.4. Alexander was actually Persian and he descended from a mule as his father was r1b1a and the were descended from a horses ass with 3 hooves and referenced by Herodotus. Persian mixed with European. This theory has also been presented by professionals and reposted by other people online.5. Ptolemys father was and African or half African man so he was black and Cleopatra was black as well. The Lagus claim has been made by professionals as well.

And that Porus defeated him and sent him packing home ?

Can it still be seen today?

Playing Assassin's creed origin,exploring Alexandria, and I could swear this is Alexandros, right?

In the post below about the debate on whether Alexander was Greek or Macadonia a picture of coinage was posted. There is a coin depicting his son. His son died estimated at age 13 y.o the person on the front looks much older. Any idea who is actually depicted? Is it just a reimagining of Alexander the great?

Why is Alexander the great refered to as the ox head? All im finding online is his horse had a scar/mark that resembled an ox head but apparently their is a different and deeper meaning concerning the man. The people that have/are referencing him are not open to explaining why. Any interpretation?

Previously shared a book with the above title that I had started reading. I wrote that I should finish it in 3-4 days and I am finished 4 days later. I should have finished it last night but decided not to read. The book is very good read. First book on atg and I would recommend if you are a fan. Don't know that the book really focused on new information as most of what I have seen in articles was written about and some things I had seen on articles that weren't featured. It did elaborate on things that I had seen but did not know the context of such as seeing a comment that Alexander had made stating that his mother and sisters made his clothes. The book elaborated on how that came about when Alexander gave gifts of dyed wool to the queen mother and daughters for weaving that it offended her because it Persian/Iranians culture it was a servants job and was beneath them. It also touched on a woman that was the daughter of an enemy named Apama that was taken captive and later married Seleukos. Did not feature to much on Roxana except to say that when he saw her at a banquet he held an immediate wedding ceremony upon seeing her. It did say that she likey was not ok with this. Did mention the death of a baby at 9 months old and a second pregnancy that bore a son after atg death. If you are a very knowledgeable fan on Alexander then you probably know much that had been written but I would still recommend reading it. I would really like to see a book written (let me know if any exist) not focus on the life and times but of the government practices and implementation that shaped the world for centuries. I have heard that u.s military schools study his battle plans but anything that talkes about how the were applied throughout the ages,and weapons that were designed or built upon through the ages. The book talked about how the boats they used were destroyed by being wrong for the river and that water channels were opened and diverted so how this lead to better understanding of exploration how the knowledge of the land benefited later explorations ECT.

I have had an intense love of history for more than 50 years, but the first book I read about Alexander was "The Nature of Alexander," by Mary Renault. I think she did a great job of explaining the man and his times.

Reading that book, "Funeral Games" and "The Persian Boy," I've always had the impression that she was in love with him, across the centuries. Yes, I know Renault was gay, but I think her writing about Alexander shows an unusual sensitivity and affection.

Is the Alexander the Great trilogy by Valerio Massimo Manfredi histocially acurate or close too?