While Alexander's ambition and military genius are historical, the film's portrayal leans towards romanticism. The complexities of his personality and motivations are simplified, and some historical events are condensed or altered.

Olympias's political influence and ambition are grounded in history. However, the film's portrayal of her as a ruthless manipulator may be exaggerated for dramatic effect.

He was a brilliant military strategist and laid the foundation for Alexander's conquests. The film depicts Philip as a strong and ambitious ruler, whose death is shrouded in intrigue.

Hephaestion's close relationship with Alexander is factual, but the film's depiction of its nature is open to interpretation. Historians debate the extent of their intimacy, and the film presents a particular viewpoint.

Roxane's marriage to Alexander is historically accurate. However, the film's portrayal of her influence and personality is largely speculative, as historical records provide limited details.

Darius III was the last king of the Achaemenid Empire before Alexander's conquest. The film's depiction of his battles and defeat is consistent with the major historical events.

Plutarch and other ancient writers recount this story. While potentially embellished, the core event is generally accepted.

Ancient sources, though potentially biased, describe Olympias' association with snakes and Dionysian rituals. The film dramatizes this, but the core idea has some basis.

Philip II was indeed assassinated by his bodyguard Pausanias. The film simplifies the complex political motivations, but the core event is accurate.

Historical accounts confirm Hephaestion was Alexander's close friend and general, holding a high position and influence.

Aristotle was indeed Alexander's tutor during his youth.

Ancient sources mention relationships with both men and women, but the modern concept of 'bisexuality' doesn't neatly map onto ancient understandings of sexuality.

Sources suggest Roxane was strong-willed and independent, though the film might exaggerate these traits for narrative purposes.

Ptolemy's memoirs, the film's framing device, are known for bias and self-promotion. Presenting his account as objective is misleading.

The film depicts the battle's scale and key tactics (like the Companion cavalry charge), but compresses events and simplifies the Persian response.

The siege lasted seven months and involved complex engineering feats. The film does not include this event.

Ancient sources disagree on whether the burning was deliberate or accidental. The film mentions it as a drunken act of revenge, which is one interpretation but not universally accepted.

The film shows Alexander reaching India and fighting Porus, but condenses the long campaign and omits key battles and challenges.

While poisoning theories exist, most historians attribute Alexander's death to illness.

The film captures the rough, warrior culture of the Macedonians and their complex relationship with the more 'civilized' Greeks.

While visually impressive, the film's portrayal of the Persians is somewhat stereotypical and doesn't fully capture their cultural and military sophistication.