Why do these monarchs/Nobles Actually have tO make themselves look More attractive in Potraits?

But both bust below looks like the same person though?

Early bust actually looks better, second looks like the medieval version of AI slop.

The first bust still looks really good wdym. The first one looks like an actual man who did the impossible, the second one looks like a boy who did the impossible.

Who’s to say that Alex couldn’t have looked like the bottom left image in his youth?

Charisma to make yourself appear almost like a god-emperor throughout the ages, it definently worked for Alexander the Great

Compared to the man on the left, you could easily convince me the one on the right is the Fate gender bent version of Iskandar.

I feel the left one is still pretty, but in a macho way then a pretty boy way.

Also i imagine the left is a older Alexander after years campaigning, while the right is an younger one that is starting out

Those statues, busts, and paintings were probably the only way most of their subjects would ever know what they look like. It’s a bit difficult to claim divine right when you’re average-looking or ugly. It’s fine if you’re big as a bear or something like some kings were. Many were runty little shits though. They needed all the glow up they could get.

To be fair these sculptures weren’t made by Alexander himself, and most monarchs didn’t do self portraits. Others made art of them and, in order to gain patronage and accolades or curry favor with popular trends, made them look good.

People like attractive people.

There’s an argument that in ancient times, attractiveness was seen as a sign of good health (minimal smallpox scars, sign of not having leprosy, no rotting teeth, etc.) which was key to continuing the line of succession. Also, in the days before photographs, portraits were used in marriage proposals & let’s be honest, most people don’t want to marry a complete stranger who is also ugly.

isn’t it just one is better perserved

Mild reminder that back then the average human life duration wasn’t even half of what we have today.

The romans femboyified Alexander

Alexander specifically seemed to be very difficult to identify in late portraits since he didn’t really have iconography that was exclusively applied to him and not to other historical characters or deities. As in, some of these busts were found in Mithraic shrines so they were most likely meant to represent the god Sol than Alexander (but of course, if the bust was found next to other depictions of rulers, it’d be easy to conclude it’s Alexander). Some other figures also were depicted with similar traits, like Achilles and the Dioskuri.

A relevant quote regarding the weird treatment that Alexander imagery got (Sorry, the book I have cites it as Smith 1988, but no idea what’s the actual name of the source itself):

>The Alexander-like appearance of a head, especially one of evident Roman date, is not a sufficient criterion for detecting an Alexander – not even a Roman Alexander, still less a copy of a fourth-century or Hellenistic Alexander. More of its context and function must be known, but they rarely are. In other words, unless a head has unmistakable portrait features, one can never be sure whether a given Alexander-like head is actually an Alexander or merely a mythological or ideal figure borrowing from the Alexander iconography.

>Why do these monarchs/Nobles Actually have tO make themselves look More attractive in Potraits?

It’s not like Alexander the Great himself commissioned the Roman bust, centuries after his death. For all we know, Alexander might’ve been happy with the original bust.