The film has been criticized by many historians for a lack clarity on many key issues in Alexander's life. For instance, key battles and sieges were ignored and too much focus was given on Gaugamela. The Persians were depicted as mostly disorganized, but in reality were a formidable, organized that required Alexander's great skill to defeat them. Many of the characters, including Philotas and Darius III, the Persian king, were shown as young, but in reality were older men in their 40s and 50s. Alexander is shown as wounded in the battle at Hydaspes, but in reality he was wounded in another engagement in India. Many generalities are also given regarding Babylon, where imagery showed a combination of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian themes in the mostly Babylonian city that was one of the capitals of the Achaemenid Empire. In fact, imagery of Babylon remind one of the film <i>Intolerance</i> by D.W.Griffith, which was full of a variety of mixed legends. The Indian ruler Porus historically earned the respect of Alexander and was given status as a king even after his defeat to Alexander. This is mostly ignored in the film. Nevertheless, some often less known facts do come through, including the diary that Ptolemy wrote did likely exist and probably did burn in Alexandria centuries later when the famous Great Library burned. This, in fact, probably gave the film some historical leeway.