A few words of praise for Oliver Stone’s vision of Alexander

Oliver Stone received loads of criticism for his Alexander movie, revisions, and comments as if he had it all wrong. Well, nobody from Alexander’s lifetime is still alive to contest what’s right or not. 

As said in my earlier blog post about Stone’s book Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander, it is so much easier to point out the shortcomings than to consider the author’s considerable merit. The critics seem to forget that Alexander’s life was far too complex, too active, too magnanimous, and too genial to be told in a movie of three hours for a public largely unacquainted with history or Alexander the Great. 

At the end of his book, Oliver Stone added a highly interesting chapter “Afterward”, an excellent explanation and justification for his vision of Alexander. I can only admire his stamina.  I saved this text from some link back in 2006 and had a fresh look at it today. It is striking to read how, nearly twenty years later, Stone’s approach to Alexander is still so close to the truth! 

His plea for humankind to understand Alexander is worthy of Demosthenes, the great Athenian orator. Here is an excerpt worth reading:

The response is in what Alexander did, and not his motives, which I suspect were something like most of ours: highly ambivalent, at times glorious, at times wretched. I sometimes feel professional historians, generally apart from the human give and take of the marketplace, expect too much from their leaders -- requiring them to act from abstract principles in a world harsh with chaos, greed and infighting. We can certainly say in Alexander’s defense that he kept the expedition marching eastward for 7 more years after Babylon, with a greatness of vision that could motivate a 120,000-man army. By leading from the front and sharing the burdens of his men, he showed himself above the comfort lines of materialism, and as a known foe of official corruption, he set high standards by punishing those found guilty of stealing, raping, plundering (including his school friend Eumenes). From all accounts written of Alexander, we see time and again, his great passion, pain, and self-torture in incidents such as the murder of Cleitus, the burning of Persepolis, the mutiny in India, the kissing of Bagoas in front of his men, and the bestowing of official acceptance on Asian men and womenfolk. There is no ancient ruler, outside of legend, that I have ever heard commit such potentially self-incriminating actions. This is, of course, one of the reasons his name continues to endure – who was ever remotely like him? ‘In the doing, always in the doing’, Alexander. 

Conquest is also a form of evolution. If Alexander had a smaller vision, he would’ve retreated long before to Babylon and consolidated his empire. He would’ve brought his mother, his sister and his entourage to the Persian Court. He would’ve made a stronger, more patient effort to combine Macedonian and Persian custom. This unification of cultures would’ve been the lifetime challenge for any emperor, and would’ve certainly changed the course of history. Why did he not? 

I see Alexander more as an explorer, like many others of such a nature, not quite knowing what’s going to come up on the horizon, yet boldly reaching for the new electrical charge of change. He stayed in motion until the end, and never returned to his Rome, London, Paris, Berlin, or Mongolia, as other conquerors have. He comes across in many ways as a man who was making it up as he went along -- from Babylon through Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and back to Babylon -- where in the end, he remained unsatisfied, dreaming of his expedition to the West. I would call him not an imperialist as present fashion would have it, but rather a ‘proto-man’, an enlightened monarch naturally in search of one land, one world -- the unity, so to speak, of the womb. Given that Alexander might’ve had a longer lifetime to develop this experiment, his empire might’ve yielded perhaps six or seven centers -- such as Babylon, Alexandria, Athens, Carthage, Rome, South Spain, a world with nerve centers that supposes, to a surprising degree, the global world centers we have today – but with one world government, centered on enlightened monarchy, or, barring that, some form of governing body. 

In unconsciously pursuing this ‘one world’ concept, under the guise of a personal quest, the Alexander of the drama we created would have to be a man who believed he was the right force to bring the world into a greater sense of unification and prosperity, that he was a step in the evolutionary process. And given the cataclysms possible, I do think Alexander ruled extraordinarily well for 12 years over men, both noble and bestial, in a social fabric that not only maintained itself, but greatly expanded in terms of culture, scientific discovery, and economic progress. It’s so easy to dismiss this great effort, I think too easy, to declare it broken after 12 years of rule. But can we say it really broke apart? Even if dissolved in four parts, the basic communal energies remained in place, and his creation culminated shortly, within 150 years, in the burgeoning Roman Empire.

I cannot agree more!

Behind the screen of the Alexander movie

We all tend to think that playing a role in a movie is about glamour and competition to be the best, the most appealing, the most successful, and the sexiest. Most actors will aim to reach that high status because it is very profitable. 

However, under certain circumstances, some performers will really embody their screen personage to bring them back to life. That realm is reserved for only a few of them. At this level and beyond their talent, they are exposed to fiercer critics and jealousy, which they must withstand. 

Well, the world of Hollywood and the like is a privileged one, which I don’t want to discuss. The reason for tackling the subject is the Alexander movie by Oliver Stone (yes, once again!). 

Like Alexander’s actual life and heritage, the movie has been criticized ad nauseam. Too many arguments, comments, and opinions have been formulated in endless theories developed in live discussions on TV, YouTube, and other digital media. 

It is precisely one such YouTube exposé that caught my eye: 

Colin Farrell, chosen to play the role of Alexander, received the brunt of the critics. Nothing less than what Alexander endured in his lifetime and after his death 2,300 years ago. May this be a noble consolation to Colin! 

Few know that Colin worked for six months to prepare for his role. He had to learn to fight in close combat using spears and kopis as a foot soldier and cavalryman. He had to know how to ride bareback and underwent rough physical training in martial arts. Colin had to be proficient in these fields before joining the boot camp Oliver Stone had planned for all the “generals” and other leaders. Colin had to somehow copy Alexander to project the same self-assurance, charisma, and authority as the king did (see: The power of Alexander, his generalship, charisma, or both?) Commanding the phalanx (played by Moroccan soldiers) was another major challenge. 

There are so many aspects of which the critical moviegoer is unaware. The above YouTube provides us a brilliant insight into the genius of Oliver Stone and Colin Farrell worth sharing. Nothing short of Alexander's.

Wreaths and crowns of leaves or gold

Exploring the rooms of an archaeological museum, one inevitably comes across a concentration of gold and silver jewelry. Among them, the gold crowns with their quivering leaves call for our attention. 

The gold wreaths and crowns originated in ancient times when leaves and flowers were commonly used to mark festive occasions like processions or special dinners. Golden crowns were the privilege reserved for honors on behalf of the community or as funerary reverence. 

Wreaths of leaves were recognized as prizes for those victorious at competition games, marking a moment of triumph for the athlete. The most famous event was the Olympic Games, where the winner received a crown of olive leaves. Variants are laurel, Apollo’s sacred tree, at Delphi, dried celery at the Isthmian games, and green celery at the Nemean games. 

However, they were also appropriate on many other occasions. Those attending a Symposium would wear wreaths made of roses, violets, or myrtle leaves. Such wreaths appear clearly in Oliver Stone's movie Alexander in the wedding scene of King Philip.

They were also a sign of exceptional merit and military conduct and were worn by orators and priests as they performed their sacrifices. The Maenads and other followers of Dionysus wore wreaths of ivy or vine leaves, and so did the Chorus in ancient Greek theater. 

The ritual of crowning even extended to altars, statues, and temples. Wreaths were also part of funerary practices as the deceased would be crowned; the urns containing their ashes had a wreath, or the wreath was placed inside the tomb. 

Many such examples made in gold have reached us and found their way to the museums. For instance, the crown of oak leaves and acorns discovered in the tomb of King Philip in Aegae and the silver funerary urn from an unspecified Macedonian tomb are at the Museum of Vergina. 

However, most of the finds are on display at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (see: Exploring the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki). The wreaths come, for instance, from Cassandreia, Apollonia, Sedes, Aenea, and the greater area around Thessaloniki and ancient Aegae. These precious grave goods may be the legacy of Alexander’s conquests and the wealth Macedonia amassed in his wake. 

It is a pure pleasure to wander through the museum’s rich collections to find, for instance, two myrtle wreaths, one splendidly executed with colored flowers, and another funerary one with bronze gilt leaves and clay gilt fruit (Aenea) from 350-325 BC. Two olive crowns, one from Tomb A and another very elaborated one with the knot of Heracles from Cassandreia (3rd century BC). The gold ivy wreath was found in Apollonia and dated 350-325 BC. The gold oak crown, very typical for the Macedonian court, was also unearthed in Cassandreia and carried the fascinating knot of Heracles as well. 

Although Athens holds far fewer examples, they may be kept in their reserves. The National Archaeological Museum exhibits a myrtle wreath with berries from the 4th century BC. The lesser-known Benaki Museum displays an oak leaves crown from the late 2nd/early 1st century BC found in Alexandria and another crown with gold ivy and flowers from Macedonia, 1st century BC. 

Eventually, wreaths appeared on funerary monuments or were painted on their walls. In time, a wreath might be carved on the tomb to mark the site. 

It is noteworthy that wreaths were sacred objects. It was a sacrilege to wear somebody else’s crown without authorization. It was also forbidden to remove a wreath or dispose of it if you were not supposed to touch it. 

Crowns were not a privilege of Greece. Earlier Thracian gold wreaths were found in Bulgaria and are now at the Museum of Sofia. 

A most striking and uncommon crown surfaced at Tillya-Tepe in northern Afghanistan (see: Bactrian Gold, the Hidden Treasures from the Museum of Kabul). The burial site belongs to some steppe people. It has been dated to the first century AD revealing a true mixture of art from the steppes (possibly Scythian art), Greek, Indian, and Chinese art. The princess’ crown is a travel crown with gold spangles and flowers. It can be taken apart as it consists of five separate pieces mounted around a tiny stem holding flattened branches that fit into the band of the crown itself. The spangles are gently shaking as people walk by, so imagine this crown out in the open steppe where the wind can play freely with every tiny detail! A true gem! 

How many more such treasures remain hidden, waiting for us to discover them?

[Picture from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander. The crown from Tillya Tepe is from the Australian]

A mental reconstruction of Alexander’s triumphal march into Babylon

For obvious reasons, I have not visited Babylon. Still, I am terribly happy to have at least been able to see the next best thing, the city’s imposing reconstructions at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

In a way, it may just be as well that I had not seen the remains of Babylon, located less than 100 kilometers south of modern Baghdad in Iraq, simply because this historical site has been so intensively damaged during the Iraqi War when the American army used the place as a military camp, destroying a part of the city in the process (see also: Babylon, victim of war). The old paved roads leading to the different city gates have crumbled under the weight of heavy tanks. Much of the rubble (often precious archaeological material) has been used in constructing airfields for helicopters and parking lots. Smaller archaeological material was also used to fill sandbags. The scanty remains of the Ishtar Gate have also suffered. To be fair, we cannot ignore that under Saddam Hussein, Babylon has not been treated with much consideration either, for in 1983, he started building a city of his own on top of the fragile ruins of the dried brick walls.

He inscribed his name on the bricks, just as Nebuchadnezzar had done 2,500 years before him, and he made serious plans to erect a palace of his own atop the ruins. The outbreak of the Gulf War put an end to these damaging plans, but since then, the modern bricks and mortar of Saddam’s megalomania have dangerously undermined the fragile ruins.

Peace has not returned yet. For several years, villagers, invading armies, and fortune seekers plundered whatever they could. An ever-increasing number of people settled in new villages on top of the ruins, and rising groundwater threatened the ancient walls even further. To make matters worse, the Iraqi oil business is spoiling the precious grounds of this wondrous city, tearing up the soil to lay down their pipelines 1.7 meters deep right next to two other pipelines that were dug under Saddam Hussein. The Ministry of Oil ignored their Iraqi archaeologists' pleas, stating that they didn’t find any artifacts during their digging works – as if they were experts in the matter!

Historians tell us that Alexander entered Babylon through the Ishtar Gate and proceeded over the Procession Way from where the Royal Palace, the Temple of Marduk, and the Ziggurat came into full view. This is the first grand city Alexander encountered, and as he approached it from the dusty Mesopotamian plain, he must have been awed and impressed by the deep blue glazed brick walls rising amidst the lush green grasses on the banks of the Euphrates River.

Over the centuries, Babylon has seen many conquerors enter through its gates. This is where King Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) wrote the very first laws etched in stone, now one of the proud possessions of the Louvre Museum. It also is the city where King Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC), out of love for his homesick wife, built the famous hanging gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Last but not least, this is where the biblical and historical Tower of Babel ruled over the sacred complex, including the Temple of Ishtar. Less obvious is that from the sixth century BC onwards, the Achaemenid kings occupied the luxurious palace rooms of Babylon, their most westerly capital.

The Pergamon Museum has done a great job in rendering the imposing Ishtar Gate, repositioning the original dragons and aurochs (symbolizing the gods Marduk and Adad) in alternating rows and filling up the background with modern blue glazed bricks that blend in very well. Even the original building inscription by Nebuchadnezzar has been artfully inserted. The entire wall is framed with a tasteful mix of original and contemporary yellow bands and sunflowers embossed glazed bricks.

After passing this monumental gate, one arrives on the Procession Way, reproduced over 30 meters and eight meters wide. Initially, this avenue was 250 meters long and 20-24 meters wide, and it is not easy to mentally multiply the length by seven and the width by three to catch the actual immense proportions – a tall order in this confined space. Yet the walls have been faithfully covered with some of the 120 striding lions, dragons, and bulls, including the yellow and black trimmings at the bottom and top with flower motives symbolizing the goddess Ishtar.

Standing here, it is obvious how close Oliver Stone has come to reality when creating Alexander’s triumphal march into Babylon. The Macedonians must have taken the utmost pride in polishing their shields and outfits to look their smartest on this occasion, as they must have been very much aware of what their victory over the Persian Empire meant.

However, although Babylon was firmly in Alexander’s hands, Darius was still on the run further east. This meant that Alexander could not yet take the title of King of Kings, and he settled instead for King of Asia, as he was called throughout the rest of his reign.

Indeed, I praise myself as lucky to have seen the precious remains of Babylon in Berlin and those exhibited at the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, although much less impressive.

[Bottom picture is from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]

The power of Alexander, his generalship, his charisma or both?

Why did the mighty Persian Empire lose the battle against Alexander the Great? How did Alexander do it? He was not meant to win against the powerful army of King Darius, the King of Kings, a fight that can be compared to that of David against Goliath. But he was victorious - not once but twice!

How come Porus lost his battle against Alexander in spite of putting up such a fierce fight? Porus fought as a true soldier, proud, unafraid, and in total command of his troops. Darius was all the opposite, except maybe for his pride.

 [Surrender of Porus by Alonzo Chappel, 1865]

In Porus’ case, Alexander responded with great magnanimity. What would have happened had he caught Darius remains an open question, but he may have shown the same magnanimity as in the case of Porus; who knows? After all, he had treated the Persian royal family with great reverence and nobility, and this alone leads us to believe that he had no reason to treat Darius differently.

These thoughts surfaced while reading up on the Battle of Issus. Arrian, otherwise a rather practical man of few words, fills almost two pages with the speech Alexander held after he received the news that Darius’ troops were close by, ready to engage in a major confrontation. As Alexander addressed his troops, he enumerated their upcoming battle's advantages and pointed out the rewards of victory. The flower of the Medes and Persians was waiting for them under the leadership of their Great King, and once the battle was over, all of Asia would be theirs for the take. 

There is clearly no doubt in Alexander's mind that he would be victorious! He reminds his Macedonians of their previous battles, how bravely they fought and how brilliant their victories had been. Alexander used Xenophon as an example and singled out each and every battalion under his command, foreign and native, cavalry and infantry, archers and slingers. After that, he allowed his men to eat and rest - no army can fight on an empty stomach. The timing for Alexander’s speech may have been chosen on purpose. Now, his soldiers could sit down and discuss the upcoming battle among themselves and draw courage from their king’s words.

And this is not all! After having crossed the Pillars of Jonah into open terrain, Alexander starts spreading out his troops, putting one formation after the other into place, keeping them all in an uninterrupted line facing Darius. And here I quote Arrian: "The two armies were now almost within striking distance. Alexander rode from one end of his line to the other with words of encouragement for all, addressing by name, with proper mention of rank and distinctions, not the officers of highest rank only but the captains of squadrons and companies; even the mercenaries were not forgotten, where any distinction or act of courage called for the mention of a name,...". This is the short version of Alexander’s encouragement for Curtius provides us with pages and pages of such pep talk!

Alexander knew at least one thousand of his men by name; although this may sound exaggerated, Arrian's text leaves no room for doubt. He knew how to reach his men in their very soul, knew what made them tick, and knew how to make them feel invincible. Many modern commanders would envy Alexander for this talent! He had managed to gear up his entire army and turn their spirits into fighting mode. Imagine having the king speaking to your company or to you personally, praising your previous exploits and accomplishments; what better incentive could there be?

Now Darius, although at the head of a much larger army, merely used his men and pawns in a game of chess. They fought because they were ordered to, but there was no personal reward; they were not talked into being unafraid and invincible as Alexander's troops. In the end, the Macedonians' determination, thirst for glory, and recognition by their king, combined with the prospect of rich booty awaiting them, kept them going and led them to victory time and again!

As to Porus, it is not known whether or not he gave his men a pep talk like Alexander, but he was clearly in command from the height of the largest elephant. It is easy to imagine that the Indians seeing their Raja in such a towering position all during the fight, however fierce and bloody it may have been, inspired them and encouraged them to keep on fighting, following the example set by Porus himself! This is what struck Alexander and why he treated him as a king, simply because he did not give up or flee like Darius did but faced his opponent. The Indian army, it seems, was at least trained to follow their Raja to the end, and they did just that.

After all, the scene of Alexander riding up and down his troops and addressing them directly, as depicted by Oliver Stone is much closer to reality than one would expect at first sight, even if he placed the event in the context of Gaugamela. The key quotation may be the words spoken by old Ptolemy in this movie, “When Alexander looked you in the eyes you could do anything.” How true!

[Picture of Darius from Wikipedia]

Libraries in antiquity, a short overview

Talking about a library in antiquity, we automatically have – be it abstract – visions of the famous Library of Alexandria, Egypt. The library was, of course, not a Greek invention. However, they all kept legal and administrative documents. It is here that philosophers and occasional orators held lectures.

The oldest library (2500-2250 BC) was the one discovered in Ebla, Syria, containing a vast number of clay tablets. Of more recent dates were the clay tablets found at Mari (1900 BC) and Ugarit (1200 BC), both in Syria. As shown at Hattusa, Turkey, the Hittites were not behind, with some 30,000 tablets going back to 1900-1190 BC.

One of Turkey's more recently constructed libraries was The Royal Library of Antioch (today’s Antakya) founded in the third century BC under Antioch III.

Next comes the Library of Pergamon (modern Bergama), established by the Attalid kings between 197 and 159 BC. With its 200,000 volumes, it is second only to the Library of Alexandria. When the Ptolemies blocked the import of papyrus from Egypt, Pergamon started to use fine calfskin as alternative writing support, creating the first parchment or pergamum. The Library of Celsus in Ephesus was built in 135 AD and had close ties with Alexandria and Pergamon.

Aristotle founded the oldest Greek library in Athens in the fourth century BC, which contributed widely to the later collection in Alexandria. Next came the libraries of Cos and Rhodes and the Library of Hadrian in Athens, all dating from the first/second century AD.

The Library of Alexandria has not survived, and the few descriptions that reached us leave a lot to our imagination. Among the best-preserved and/or best-restored, we note the Library of Celsus in Ephesus and the Library of Hadrian in Athens, which will help us to recreate an overall image of these fascinating structures.

The Library of Celsus in Ephesus is an inevitable landmark to every tourist who walks down Curetus Street and is beckoning him from the onset. It is indeed an imposing building with a carefully reconstructed façade, yet it is consistent with the grandeur and wealth of Ephesus. The high Corinthian columns support richly decorated ceiling caissons and frame the statues of four goddesses on their high pedestal, i.e., Sofia (wisdom), Arete (virtue), Ennoia (intelligence), and Episteme (knowledge). Consul Gaius Julius Aquila built this Library around 105-107 AD for his father, a worthy present, no doubt. Initially, the inside walls were covered with colored marble, and they still vaguely show traces of the niches meant to hold the papyrus scrolls in partitioned wooden cupboards (armaria). The room is quite grand, measuring 11 x 17 meters, and reminds me of Ptolemy’s library, as shown in Oliver Stone’s movie Alexander.

Hadrian built his Library of Hadrian in Athens circa 132-134 AD as part of his ambitious plans for the city. He erected it close to the Roman Agora and served as a repository for the city’s official archives besides its books. The peristyle-shaped building measured 122 x 82 meters, and today it is still accessible through an impressive propylon with Corinthian columns of Karystos marble. One hundred columns of Phrygian marble surrounded the large courtyard, interrupted by several semi-circular seating spaces. A garden and a decorative pool once occupied the center. Today, we see the ruins of several basilicas from the 7th and 12th centuries. Opposite the entrance propylon and at the far end of the courtyard lies the library itself. It was composed of a central reading room flanked by an auditorium with curved seating resembling a theatre. Of additional interest are the remains of the small Agios Asomatos sta Skalia church dedicated to the Archangel Michael, built in between the Corinthian columns at the entrance and still showing traces of a Byzantine fresco.

With its high surrounding walls, this Library must have been awe-inspiring – an excellent example to imagine other libraries elsewhere since the remains are often too scant to prove it.

[Picture of Pergamon is from Eduscapes]

Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander

Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander, film, history and cultural studies, edited by Paul Cartledge and Fiona Rose Greenland (ISBN 978-029923284-9), what can I say? So much has been said about the Alexander movie – mostly critics in the sense of finding fault – that I fail to see the purpose of this book.

It was recommended to me by an Alexander fan as “quite interesting”. Mmmm, maybe it is just that and nothing more. The many authors contributing to this book have all their own vision, generally their own reasons or arguments for tearing down the movie. It is so easy to find fault and to point out the shortcomings that little or no room is left for what Oliver Stone has accomplished.

Renowned and lesser-known authors have joined forces here to submit the Alexander movie to close scrutiny. The people contributing to this book are the following:

Joanna Paul, Oliver Stone’s Alexander and the Cinematic Epic Tradition

Jon Solomon, The Popular Reception of Alexander

Robin Lane Fox, Alexander on Stage: A Critical Appraisal of Rattigan’s Adventure Story

Kim Shahabudin, The Appearance of History: Robert Rossen’s Alexander the Great

Marilyn B. Skinner, Alexander and Ancient Greek Sexuality: Some Theoretical Considerations

Elizabeth D. Carney, Olympias and Oliver: Sex, Sexual Stereotyping, and Women in Oliver Stone’s Alexander

Monica Silveira Cyrino, Fortune Favors the Blond: Colin Farrell in Alexander

Jeanne Harrison, The Cult of Hephaestion

Thomas Harrison, Oliver Stone, Alexander, and the Unity of Mankind

Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, “Help me, Aphrodite!” Depicting the Royal Women of Persia in Alexander

Verity Platt, Viewing the Pas: Cinematic Exegesis in the Caverns of Macedon

John F. Cherry, Blockbuster! Museum Responses to Alexander the Great

Oliver Stone, Afterword

Is this book adding anything to the historical Alexander? No. Is this book helping to understand the Alexander movie? No. Is this book bringing some new elements? No. Except for individual contemplations and practical/ financial/ theatrical elements, I fail to see the purpose of putting this book together. The best part is still Oliver Stone’s own Afterword, although it is far too long as everything is being said halfway through this chapter.

For me, personally, the Alexander movie is the best picture ever made about Alexander the Great. Most people seem to ignore that for once we have here an “entire” image of Alexander, in spite of the historical misrepresentations and incoherencies. One of these, and which is not mentioned by any of the critics, is the fact that the Battle of the Hydaspes is set in the jungle instead of the river banks; another discrepancy is the presence of Cassander through the entire campaign although he remained in Macedonia. Yet, I immediately recognized each and every one of his Companions and was “pulled” into the story from the beginning. The entire “spirit” of Alexander was present although many have expressed complaints about missing parts or aspects. The critics seem to forget that Alexander’s life was far too complex, too active, too magnanimous, and too genial to be told in three hours time for a public largely unacquainted with history or with Alexander the Great.

So, for all intents and purposes, I want to stress that I do NOT want to start any discussion about the movie, not here, not now, not later. In the end, it all comes down to our own love/hate relation with the figure of Alexander - one that is going on for 2,500 years and still continues to this very day.

The grandeur of Ephesos

It is quite unusual that after so many years and so many visits, I never put anything in writing about beautiful Ephesos, the number one excursion for any tourist to the west coast of Turkey.

The first time I visited the site was during my very first tour of Turkey, and it must be said, with an incompetent guide who claimed he knew it all and treated us as little children. So I gave up listening to his incorrect explanations and drifted off into my own world. He took us to Ephesos in the morning, when huge crowds of visitors were spilling out of the many buses on what seemed like a large parking lot. I remembered my lack of breathing space, the loud talking of the many guides in different languages, and how a solid mass of people pushed me and carried me through the streets of old Ephesos – my greatest apprehension when I visited an antique site. Useless to point out that these circumstances were far from ideal and that my perception of this old city did not match any of the many photographs I had seen over the years with near-empty streets to tempt vast crowds of visitors.

Luckily, this unfortunate experience was soon obliterated by my next visit with Peter Sommer during his tour In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great. To my greatest surprise, the parking lot turned out to be much smaller than what I remembered, hardly filled by a handful of cars and maybe two or three buses. The streets of antique Ephesos seemed deserted this late in the afternoon, and the different buildings now truly showed at their best – the true way to look at the city from Alexander’s point of view. Only now did I see how beautiful this site really was! What a relief!

Ephesos, the Turkish Efes, has a magical ring that may go back to antiquity. I always saw it as the ideal Greek city in Asia Minor, where Alexander and so many other great men from times past had written history. So it was no surprise that my heart was skipping a beat! My first steps over the old pavement were insecure, for my legs were shaking, and my knees felt weak. How many sandals had stridden over these polished stones? How many people through the ages had walked here, all carrying their own burdens and having their own dreams? I ran my hands over the columns and walls, just to make sure they were real – and maybe, just maybe, they had something to tell me? I know this sounds crazy, but I can’t help it. At last, I was face to face with the past; it was so palpable, so very much alive!

Before heading to the main street, I followed the water supply system to a rather large round construction where the water was collected based on Archimedes’ laws. From here, and thanks to an ingenious system of earthen pipes, the water was distributed all over the lower city of Ephesos.

As I stroll down further, my imagination is taking wings! Past the Temple of Domitian lies the Odeon from 150 AD with beautifully preserved arches, originally used as a Bouleuterion with enough seating for 1400 officials. Like so often, the Odeon could be entirely shaded from the sun or the rain if needed. Behind me are the Baths of Varius, now richly decorated with bright red poppies. I marvel at the well-preserved and perfectly connected terracotta water drains all over the city.

At the Gate of Hercules, the passage suddenly narrows to open up again into Curetes Street. It seems that originally this 4th-century gate had an upper floor and was decorated with winged goddesses of victory. Curetus Street runs downhill, straight to the Library of Celsus, and is lined with columns on both sides from where wealthy and powerful citizens once looked down on me. Behind these columns runs a mosaic-paved sidewalk giving access to the cool vaulted shops and some official buildings. These are mere marble skeletons with drafty doorways and gaping windows that once must have created a feeling of safety and a certain complacency. Wooden doors with copper and bronze fittings would have locked out the street noise. The houses had no windows on the street side, only on the inside looking out onto the Atrium or the Peristyle. In summer, these spaces were shaded to keep out the sun and the heat, while in the colder winter months, the rooms were comfortably refurbished and enhanced with floor heating. This luxurious main street, I am told, was lit at night with torches – how I envy those days!

Further down the street, I pass the large Fountain of Trajan, once showing the emperor’s stately statue, and in its shade stands the marble Temple of Hadrian. The friezes from the entrance walls are copies of the originals now visible at the local museum of Selçuk. Yet it is great to have works of art, even copies, back in place to give an idea of what it must have looked like. With nobody walking in my way, I can step back for a better look, and the low sun adds just enough to the atmosphere to drift back in time. Behind this Temple of Hadrian, the Romans built their Baths in the fourth century AD, without forgetting the basic need for latrines, the public toilets in an adjacent room. They are simple cozy seats next to one another, where you sit above your own hole to do what you have to do. The underlying ditch is at least one meter deep and runs downhill like the main street. I just hope the water will run fast enough to keep the air clean. In front of the seats, there is a gutter through which water would be flowing and where you could dip the sponge on a stick to clean yourself.

Across the street from Hadrian’s Temple, I notice two spiraled columns, definitely marking a special entrance. For many years, archaeologists have been working hard to restore two of the seven villas of the rich and famous, generally called the Terrace Houses (see: Ephesos and its Terrace Houses). Two houses may not seem much, but they do total 78 rooms, no small residences dating generally from the first to the third century. The elegant frescos and marble or mosaic floors have nothing to envy to Pompeii or Herculaneum, they are simply superb. Many tourists skip this corner of Ephesos simply because a separate entrance fee is requested, but I think this is entirely unjustified. The glass walkways and stairs lead the visitors through the premises without obstructing the panoramic view. The colors are as fresh as if they were applied just yesterday, unbelievable! If there is one place to get a true feeling of the Roman lifestyle, this is the place!

With or without the stop at the villas, the visitor now reaches the Library of Celsus, which has been beckoning from the onset. It is indeed an impressive building with a carefully reconstructed façade, yet it is consistent with the grandeur and wealth of Ephesos. The high Corinthian columns support richly decorated ceiling caissons and frame the statues of four goddesses on their high pedestal, i.e., Sofia (wisdom), Arete (virtue), Ennoia (intelligence), and Episteme (knowledge). It was Consul Gaius Julius Aquila who built this Library around 105-107 AD for his father, a worthy present, I would say. The inside walls were once covered with colored marble and still vaguely show traces of the niches where the papyrus scrolls were kept. The space is quite grand, measuring 11 x 17 meters, and inevitably, I am reminded of Ptolemy’s library as shown in Oliver Stone’s movie Alexander. How I would have loved to roam here in those days!

Behind me is a strange, round structure that seemed unidentified at the time of my visit, but I recently heard that this could be the tomb of Arsinoe, Queen Cleopatra’s sister.

Through the three arches of the adjacent Gate of Commerce (first century AD), I reach the Agora, the marketplace that was surrounded by an impressive Stoa with Corinthian columns. This huge Agora covers a surface of 110x110 meters – quite incredible. The road from here to the connection with the road to the harbor shows deep ruts in the pavement, testifying to the heavy traffic that must have passed through. Excavations towards the harbor are still underway, and the area is not accessible yet. At the landside end of that street lies the huge theater, originally a Greek construction, masterfully nestled against the slopes of Mount Pion, that was renovated and enlarged by the Romans to offer seating for no less than 25,000 spectators. From one of the top rows, I have a sweeping view over the entire city, all the way to the green marshes now covering the ancient harbor. It is wonderful to sit here for a while to take in the scenery and imagine the hustle and bustle of antiquity.

Alexander saw, of course, a different city with different buildings, but the location and probably the layout of Ephesos were very much the same. For more about this, see Alexander’s presence in Ephesos.