Remembering Zulqarneyn: On the Occasion of Oliver Stone’s “Alexander”

By

Alireza Asgharzadeh

O my son, seek out a kingdom worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.

(Alexander’s Father, General Philip of Macedonia )

Oliver Stone’s latest movie, “Alexander” has all the glitz and glamour of a topnotch Hollywood motion picture: triumph, tragedy, sex, betrayal, and blood--lots and lots of it. The film has generated fresh debates around issues of historical representations, linguistic/cultural appropriations, political relevancies, as well as other technical issues such as accents, sceneries, the acting, etc. As always, the bulk of criticism falls in the area of personal taste and individual preference. Take the issue of “accents,” for instance. Some critics regard it faulty to have a number of differently “faked accents” in “Alexander”: Colin Farrell’s (Alexander) Irish accent, Rosario Dawson’s (Roxana, Alexander’s first wife), East Asian accent; Angelina Jolie’s (Olympias, Alexander’s mother) East European accent, and so on. Is having these diverse accents in a movie like “Alexander” a negative thing, or is it a positive thing?

In my view, having actors with diverse accents is one of the strongest aspects of “Alexander.” In a film of this magnitude, probably it is not possible to have the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Jews, Arabs, Hindus, and others converse in their original tongues. In such a situation, the least an objective producer can do is to present English in various local accents, if only to attest to the presence of varied linguistic communities in the movie. Would not the use of various Englishes be more objective than using a uniform, standard Queen’s English to represent each and every linguistic community from Europe to Central Asia to the Middle East ? Moreover, now that English has virtually become the lingua franca of our increasingly globalizing world, rather than contesting the use of various Englishes, one ought to encourage such an act as a fact of contemporaneous life.

For those of us who spend most of our time reading old books about ancient figures and events, movies like ‘Alexander’ offer a breath of fresh air by taking us away from the dusty pages of books and into thrilling theaters.  Historical sagas like “Alexander” make us reflect on how and why certain figures continue to intrigue our imagination and pique our curiosity. Alexander the Great of Macedonia (356-323 BC) is certainly one such figure. His mythical and factual persona has entered into oral narratives and written literatures of peoples of Central Asia and the Middle East ever since his arrival to the  region in the spring of 334 BC, provoking thoughtful historical, literary, intellectual, and linguistic debates. Take the name of our homeland, ‘ Azerbaijan ,’ for instance. Does this astounding name originate from the name of our ancestors, the Azerler, or is it derived from the name of Atropathena, a general of Alexander’s who became the governor of Azerbaijan after Alexander’s death? Our historians and linguists are still debating this issue.  

Narrated through the voice of Anthony Hopkins (as Greek historian Ptolemy), the film takes us on a journey through  Alexander’s childhood, teens, youth and adulthood by way of some sporadic episodes, reaching its climax when Alexander defeats the Akhaemanian king Darius III in a long bloody battle in 331 BC.   Having beaten the army of what the Greeks referred to as Persia , Alexander and his generals march into Babylonia . With all its splendor and grandeur, even Babylonia cannot contain the wild spirit of this restless figure. He keeps on marching and marching.

It is through Alexander’s encounters with local peoples that we come to witness a phenomenon in the movie that has captured the imagination of generations of historians for centuries: Why is this young conqueror greeted by local peoples throughout the vast Achaemenid Empire as a liberator? Why do we not find any semblance of revolt and revulsion against this man on the part of local peoples and communities? After all, who would want to be conquered and dominated by an outside force? These questions take us back not so much to Alexander’s tolerance and respect for other cultures (which he possessed to an admirable degree) but to the nature of the enemy that he defeats: the warlike tribe of Achaemenians.

Intruders to the Iranian Plateau, the Achaemenians had terrorized the region’s diverse populations for 228 years, from 559 to 331 BCE. The recorded Orientalist historiography tells us very little about this aggressive tribe. The Old Testament describes them as cruel warriors who would emerge from the North and destroy Babylonia :  

“For out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast. They shall hold the bow and the lance: they are cruel, and will not show mercy: their voice shall roar like the sea, and they shall ride upon horses, every one put in array, like a man to the battle, against thee, O daughter of Babylon.” (Jeremiah, 50: 41, 42).

And the Qur’an refers to these ruthless northern tribes as  Ya'jooj va Ma'jooj (Gog and Magog). It is from these tribes that the cruel warriors mentioned in the Old Testament emerge and form the killing machine of a dynasty that becomes known in history as the Achaemenians. According to Herodotus, when Cyrus, the founder of this dynasty, intends to capture the lands of Massagetai north of the Araz River , Tomyris, the Queen of Massagetai advises him to reconsider such decision and return back to his lands without any bloodshed. She also warns Cyrus that if he refuses her offer, “I swear by the sun, the sovereign lord of the Massagetai, bloodthirsty as you are, I will give you your fill of blood." (Herodotus, Histories. I.214). Cyrus pays no heed to Queen Tomyris’s message and wages a losing battle that costs him his life:

“The greater part of the army of the Persians was destroyed and Cyrus himself fell, after reigning nine and twenty years. Search was made among the slain by order of the queen for the body of Cyrus, and when it was found she took a skin, and, filling it full of human blood, she dipped the head of Cyrus in the gore, saying, as she thus insulted the corpse, "I live and have conquered you in fight, and yet by you am I ruined, for you took my son with guile; but thus I make good my threat, and give you your fill of blood." (Herodotus, Histories, I.214).

The Orientalist historiography of the region paints a positive image of the cruel Achaemenid rulers, regarding them amongst the earliest forefathers of a supposedly ‘superior’ Aryan race. It is this Orientalist reconstruction and misrepresentation of these brutal warmongers that gets taken up during the rule of Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1978) in Iran . The Pahlavis take the Orientalist misrepresentations to an exaggerated level and use them to justify their own brutal suppression and repression of non-Persian ethnic groups and languages in the country. Just as the Orientalist historiography accords no space to the region’s rich and diverse cultures and languages in the Pre and post-Achaemenid era; so too the Pahlavi regime uses the Aryanist mumbo-jumbo surrounding this supposedly ‘superior’ Aryan race to deny the existence of difference and diversity in modern Iran . This denial becomes the official policy throughout the Pahlavi era and even after its downfall.

Oliver Stone’s depiction of the Achaemenian kings in “Alexander” is a faithful replica of the Orientalist misrepresentation of these destroyers of other cultures and civilizations. The image of a dignified, distinguished-looking King Darius III and his noble entourage bear no resemblance to the vicious images that historical evidence shows of the Achaemenians. Conversely, Stone’s depiction of Alexander as a humanitarian cosmopolitanist respectful of diverse cultures, ethnicities, and languages seems to confirm the image that both the historical record as well as the collective memory of peoples of the region have of Alexander the Great. However, one must be careful not to glorify and romanticize any act of aggression, conquest, and occupation, including those of Alexander the Great. 

The positive image of Alexander is so deep-rooted in languages and cultures of the Middle East that Iskandar (Alexander) has become a common name throughout the region. Anyone traveling to remote villages in Turkey , Iran , Egypt , Azerbaijan , and other places, would certainly encounter individuals bearing the name Iskandar. The same cannot be said of  Achaemenian kings and their generals. That is to say, we never encounter in the literatures of the region names such as Kambujya, Khshayârshâ, Vishtâspa, and the rest. Even today we do not come across such names in major Iranian towns and cities, and this despite the fact that the short period of Pahlavi rule (1925-1978) in Iran was the heyday of Aryanist racism and aggressive chauvinism. On the other hand, the name of the Macedonian hero who put an end to the rule of the Achaemenian kings has been commonly used by all cultures and communities ever since the arrival of Iskandar the Great to the region.

Referring to Alexander as Zulqarneyn (Zulqarnain), even the Qur’an projects a positive image of Iskandar and his good name in the region; whereas there is no mention of the Achaemenian kings in the Qur’an:

“And they ask you about Zulqarnain. Say: I will recite to you an account of him.
Surely We established him in the land and granted him means of access to every thing.  So he followed a course.” (The Qur’an, Kahf, 18:83-85).
 

Even the Shahnameh of Abulqasim Ferdowsi, a book written around1000 AD to tell the ancient tales of Iran , is completely oblivious to the existence of Achaemenian kings, whereas there are positive references to Iskandar of Macedon in it. The Achaemenians terrorized the region’s diverse populations for 228 years, destroying their cultures, appropriating their arts, and plundering their wealth. Perhaps that was reason enough for the peoples of the Middle East , Eastern and Central Asia to glorify a young hero who put an end to those  intolerable appropriations and pillages.  Perhaps, too, this is a good time for us to deconstruct the Orientalist/Aryanist fabrication of the histories and stories of Iran ’s diverse nationalities and ethnic groups.

A critical interrogation of the Aryanist/Orientalist constructed image of the Achaemenians would be a great starting point to this end. The Iranian historian Naser Poorpirar has already dropped the bombshell by way of his seminal “Investigations into the Foundation of Iran’s History.” The onus now is on younger generations of scholars and historians to follow in the footsteps of Naser Poorpirar and expose the Aryanist historiography of Iran for the lies, deceptions, and misrepresentations that it is. Oliver Stone deserves best of credits for bringing the undying memory of Zulqarneyn to the attention of contemporary generations. He has done a great job in rekindling the old debates and discussions. It is up to us now to carry the discourse to a more humane terrain.   

They said: O Zulqarnain! surely Gog and Magog make mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute on condition that you should raise a barrier between us and them? He said: That in which my Lord has established me is better, therefore you only help me with workers, I will make a fortified barrier between you and them…  (the Qur’an, Kahf, 18: 95-96).