The Art of War

[marcus]

Efstathios,I usually keep well away from this area of discussion, but this morning I thought "what the heck". I've got a couple of minutes to spare.
You said: "But then i will kite too the text from Plutarch where he says about Alexander's raging denial of the young men that they would bring to him."
ThereGÇÖs a vast difference between GÇ£menGÇ¥ and GÇ£boysGÇ¥, Efstathios.
You said: "So most of the men in Macedonia were gay.At least that's what you are saying."
It seems that, however many times itGÇÖs said, calling people in the Graeco-Roman world GÇ£gayGÇ¥ forces too many modern pre-conceptions on the matter. Anyway, if they were, does it matter?
You said: "They only used women in order for their race not to perish.I wont even comment that."
Well, thatGÇÖs not quite what Tre said; but if you want to ignore thousands of years of sociology thatGÇÖs your prerogative.
You said: "But because you mentioned about Ptolemy and Aristovoulos,if homosexuality in Macedonia was so spread and most men were homosexuals,then what was the problem with these two men not writing about Alexander being one as well?What did they want to hide?If things were as you said then they wouldn't be writing anything out of the ordinary that should be kept in the dark."
There are two points here: first, if it isnGÇÖt out of the ordinary, then thereGÇÖs no particular reason for them to write about it GÇô only if it were GÇÿdifferentGÇÖ would it have been worthy of mention. Second, I seem to recall that Ptolemy and Aristobulus were writing about AlexanderGÇÖs campaigns, not about his private life. Or have I missed something GǪ?
All the best
Marcus

[xxx]

For an Athenian, you know precious little about your country's history. You are not at all versed in Ancient Sexuality from your comments regarding males or females - you are confusing it with your modern morality. Guess what? It was not the same, the society was not the same and there was nothing wrong with men sleeping with each other - or have you not heard about the Spartans or the Sacred Band? It was all about the role - whether you were the erastes or the eromenos that mattered. The Macedonians came from a similar warring culture. Curtius is not to be dismissed as a source because you don't like it. And it is not the only souce BTW that suggests Alexander's fondness for his own gender. So get over your own problems and see the ancient world for what it was.Oh and by the way, I am not gay so don't use that pitiful excuse that's why I say Alexander slept with males which I might add, does not make him gay. Nor does sleeping with females make him straight. Alexander's anger at the offer of two boys for his bed had nothing to do with him being straight, but everything to do with the insult he felt that one would think he was could be bought off by such an offer. The reason Ptolemy and Aristobulos did not write about Alexander being gay is because his bisexuality was normal so it would not be a point to mention. He never got himself into trouble with his various lovers so it was not terribly meaty historical stuff. He was not Philip, who was a different character altogether.

[xxx]

Although from a technical standpoint Marcus, we do know Macedonians were not just keeping their beds for boys but also men, hence that little piece about how horrified the Athenians were that men with beards were sleeping with each other in Macedonia. And we know there were lovers of the same age range from the page ranks. So it is different from the Athenian model, which I would suspect was not always followed by the Athenians But the horror! Those barbaroi from the north who drank their wine neat and actually rubbed beards and implied they were somehow Greek

[amyntoros]

***Your oppinion. But kite the text (source) where you got this "fact" from. I would be interested to see it. I bet it is Curtius.***

Not poor Curtius again, please! I feel the urge to jump in once more so here are three quotes that *arenGÇÖt* from Curtius. The third quote isnGÇÖt about any personal relationship of AlexanderGÇÖs, but it does illustrate his attitude towards male/male relationships. And by the way, the sayings of Epictetus were recorded by your good friend Arrian and the word translated as GÇ£loved oneGÇ¥ is eromenos. Now, I wonGÇÖt be at all surprised if you come back and inform us that all the sensitive words and expressions used in the excerpts mean something completely different in the Greek language, but what the heck. It might even be interesting to see how you redefine GÇ£fall in love.GÇ¥Aelian 12.7
GÇ£Note that Alexander laid a wreath on AchillesGÇÖ tomb and Hephaestion on PatroclusGÇÖ, hinting that he was the object of AlexanderGÇÖs love, as Patroclus was of Achilles.GÇ¥Epictetus. Volume I. Book II. XXII. 17 GÇô 18
When, for instance, we think that the gods stand in the way of our attainment of this, we revile even them, cast their statues to the ground, and burn their temples, as Alexander ordered the temples of Asclepius to be burned when his loved one died.PlutarchGÇÖs Moralia. Volume III. 179 D GÇô 181 F. (Sayings of Kings and Commanders) (Alexander)
[20] On another occasion Cassander forced Python, beloved by Evius the flute-player, to kiss him, and Alexander, seeing that Evius was vexed, leapt up in anger against Cassander, exclaiming GÇ£It isnGÇÖt allowable even to fall in love with anybody, because of you and people like you.GÇ¥Just why is the subject of Alexander's sexuality so important to you? I've seen you obsess about it on three different forums lately. Amyntoros

[Efstathios]

Ok,this if is for xxx,Amyntoros,and Marcus I am trying to use arguments in order to show to you that something that you consider as a fact may not be a fact.Because at least xxx is convinced about Alexander's sexuality ,as he considers him a homo -bi or whatever as a fact.This is what drives me insane.You consider something as a fact,when it really isnt.And you might ask "but why isnt it a fact?".Because there are sources that say A and sources that say B. History is not written by only looking at A or B or C but at all of them.And in some cases where it is possible we disregard sources that might be incorrect and we keep those who are most reliable. I do not say disregard Curtius or Aelian e.t.c.Neither plutarch.Curtius may be 100% accurate at what he says.But do you know that as a fact?I do not want to return to the previous discussion about the reliability of the sources.
But i have asked back then to give me information on "the re-examination of Curtius" and i havent gotten any answer yet.From which people is this re-evaluation made e.t.c.If you know about this matter i would be interested. Anyway.I will now reply to some things i have read in the previous posts,about Plutarch's quote and the Spartans e.t.c.Continuation in the next post

[Efstathios]

- Marcus: You mentioned that they would bring boys to Alexander and not men.Actually the text says they were youngsters ( PAIDAS ONIOYS).But are you forgetting that Alexander was a youngster too at that time?He had not even gotten out of teenagehood.These youngsters were close to his age and the incident does not refer to paidofilia. But lets see the original text ( translated by me from the greek one) "Once,Philoxenos, the General of the coast zone wrote to him that he has near him Theodorus from Tarantas that he has for sale two very beautiful youngsters.He also wrote in his letter that if he was interested he could buy them.Alexander then,with raging anger started to shout and asked again and again his friends ,what dirty and sameless things had Philoxenos heard about him (Alexander) and tries to put this kind of same uppon him.Then he wrote a letter to Philoxenos in which he cursed and sweared him and commanded him to send Theodotus along with his " merchandise" to hell.
With the same kind of attitude he replied to young Agnon who wrote to him that he is willing to buy Krovylos who was very famous in Corinth and in order to send him to Alexander." Then Plutarch tells us about ALexanders' behaviour towards the soldiers that abused persian women e.t.c.
So, from this quote one can assume lots of things maybe about Alexander but not that he was a bisexual or that he denied these youngsters because they were too young for him.Rather the opposite,that he considered the lust for the male body a same,as Plutarch said.Because,i say it again, these were not young boys, but youngsters,near his age probably. -XXX : " there was nothing wrong with men sleeping with each other - or have you not heard about the Spartans or the Sacred Band?" About the sacred band Plutarch himself tells us that anyone who thinks that these men had a relationship involving body contact and such is a sameless man.Maybe he was right, maybe he wasnt.In Plato's symposium someone (cant remember now i have to search who it was) mentions about the sacred band and the loving bond that the soldiers had with eachother.But it isnt mentioned if this loving bond was a homosexual one.

In the same way we have many quotes about the Spartans that indicate that the loving bond the boys had with their trainers did not have anything to do with homosexuality or paidofilia,and they escpecially made this clear

[Efstathios]

In the same way we have many quotes about the Spartans that indicate that the loving bond the boys had with their trainers did not have anything to do with homosexuality or paidofilia,and they escpecially made this clear as if they knew that once in the future people would think otherwise..And yes Amyntoros,i will say once more that the word lovers was not used to define the same thing as we use it today.You have said so yourself,we cannot judge from modern times terms.
There you have it: ''Lykourgos in contrary to all this,was giving high credit to the man that was admiring the mental virtue of a child and was trying to be friends with it ,with high bonds, and that because he thought it was the mean for the best education of the child.But if someone desired the body of a child ,and because Lykourgos thought that this was very sameless, he made laws in Sparta indicating that the ''lovers'' should avoid being with children that they desire,as the parents avoid (dont want to be in) sexual relationships with their children or a brother with another brother.''
(Ksenofon, Lakedaimons' state II,13) Ploutarhos also says that: ''The psychic bond between the youngsters has no relation to body contacts and he who tried to bawd ( come in intercourse with another man) was deprived of his political rights by law''
(Lakedaimon 7,237c) And about the Aelian quote: He may have been joking when he replied in this way.He may have not.But the way that i first saw it i got the feeling that Alexander wanted to mock rather than anything else.When you saw this text for the first time and until now the only interpration that you made was that Alexander wanted to express himself in a homosexual way and they did not make him comfortable with this? It's the last time i write about this matter,i am tired.Everyone is entitled in his/her oppinion.I do not have a complete oppinion about this matter that is why i dont present things as a fact.I only argue and quote when i see people present things as a fact when they are not.End of story.

[Efstathios]

Oh i almost forgot: "For an Athenian, you know precious little about your country's history." I was born and raised in Athens.I am half Peloponesian and half Macedonian in origin.I have read many ancient sources to believe for myself that i have a clue on what was going on.At least a clue.But who knows the whole truth anyway?Do you? Since i was a little boy i used to wander around in ancient theatres and places where i felt that there was something there.Before i even heard anything about ancient greeks and ancient greece.Is it in the dna?The genetic herritage?Who knows?Maybe i am just a hopeless dreamer. lets just not put all things in a bag.Not all people were ruthless murderers ,nor homosexuals,nor wise.The greeks had advantages and disadvantages.And i already knew them since i was born.I am carrying some of them,the good and the bad. What do i know?Maybe nothing compared to Amyntoros or you xxx, since i am still young and have many things to learn yet.But i know some things that only i could have known. When any of you visit greece next time, go to Delfoi,or somewhere up Taygetos mountain or even in an isolated little park near the Callimarmaro,somewhere that you will have peace of mind and you'll be alone,and ask the mountain or the tree about what it has to tell you.If you listen carefully you will hear it.If you are perceptive you will feel it. :->

[jan]

HI Jim,
I found a copy of the Complete Art of War by Sun Tzu and Sun Pin. Also a book called Sun Tzu Was A Sissy. And a book entitled The Women of Macedonia and the Monarchy. Also picked up two books by Bosworth on Alexander, and a book on Cyrus the Great written in 1878 by Jacobs. All are very interesting, especially The Women of Macedonia which includes a chapter on the Women of Alexander the Great's time. I had a great day browsing the library, and I must add that a book called I Was Amelia Earhart has me captivated. Amazing point of view about the great navigator in her last and final round the world trip.

[xxx]

So what you're saying is, if you don't agree with it, it can't be a fact. How can you possibly expect to learn anything with an attitude like that? I guess I'm supposed to pretend those Greek vase paintings don't exist too. Jeez, the Sacred Band was composed of lovers - you need to wake up brother.Next thing I'll be reading is Alexander was a Christian therefore he couldn't sleep with men

[amyntoros]

***But i have asked back then to give me information on "the re-examination of Curtius" and i havent gotten any answer yet.***You can begin by reading Elizabeth BaynhamGÇÖs Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius. I answered you with this information the first time you brought it up. ***And yes Amyntoros,i will say once more that the word lovers was not used to define the same thing as we use it today.You have said so yourself,we cannot judge from modern times terms.*** First of all, Efstathios, you have picked the wrong person to accuse of judging from a modern standpoint, but thatGÇÖs really immaterial right now. The truth is, you have absolutely no understanding of the true meaning of particular words used in ancient times (such as erastes or eromenos), or even any recognition that professional translators choose to use certain words to properly convey their original meaning in the text All you have is your own moral conviction that sexual contact between men is wrong, and a compulsion to prove that Alexander and every other GÇ£reputableGÇ¥ ancient Greek was purely heterosexual. This has long since ceased to be about source analysis or a personGÇÖs right to a different opinion - if ever it was - and presents as very thinly veiled homophobia. In trying to support your moral viewpoint you choose to discuss only excerpts that personally offend you and in the course of attacking them have attempted to discredit various sources without a sensible reason, been extremely selective with your quotes (as with Plutarch and the Sacred Band), made your own translations so that the words are more sympathetic to your interpretation (same again with the Sacred Band where your translation/interpretation was particularly irksome), and decided that if you donGÇÖt like it and it canGÇÖt be proved GÇ£as a factGÇ¥ then it must not be true. And when all else fails, you make unreasonable assertions as to the intent of the writer, such as saying Aelian might be joking!! I've hardly ever become involved in these kind of discussions before now and recognize them as mostly futile, but it is your untoward manipulation of the source material that really irritates. If we all did this every time we donGÇÖt agree with someone elseGÇÖs interpretation then the study of Alexander would become a mockery. ***It's the last time i write about this matter*** I really doubt this, but IGÇÖm not going anywhere. . . . Amyntoros

[marcus]

As far as that post relates to me, Alexander was certainly an adult when the supposed incident happened. The implication is certainly that they were boys (that is, not men); hence my original post stands. But Alexander's anger was not because he was being offered males; it was because the offerer was hoping to gain something by sending the males to him - using them as prostitutes, in effect. In the same way that men can be attracted to women but not be interested in visiting prostitutes, it's quite possible for men to have same-sex relationships but to be selective about whom they have a relationship with - hmm, perhaps someone they love, rather than any old chap they meet in a bar. As far as I'm aware, Efstathios, homosexuality is not synonymous with promiscuity.All the bestMarcus

[tino]

Hmm, I do believe Efsthathios point is that the alleged bi-sexuality is not an undisputable fact. There are sources that can be interpretated as pro and there are sources that can be interpretated as anti. It really is to the discretion of each individual to weigh the source and context, and come to their conclusion. In this light, one cannot unequivocally claim that Alexander was either bi or not bi. This is how I certainly view it, and all the evidence I have seen to date has not made it a clear decision. We have no hesitation in not 'touching' the Greek or Macedonian dispute, yet when it comes to sexuality, it seems the same deep set passion and obsitinancy that that topic evokes among many, is duplicated. There seems to be a little hypocricy there if you will.To put an end to this rant, I have to say that everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that the other opinion is 'wrong'.

[xxx]

There aren't any sources that are 'anti' And the vast evidence that he slept with males and females, if you can ignore that, well you can make up anything you want adding and subtracting at will, which leads to bad scholarship and which kind of leads to the infamous Macedonian/Greek debate.The debate itself is fine in my view kept within the ancient contexts, but when modern viewpoints and politics enter into the fray, then it becomes nothing to do with history. However, it is an impossible argument to make solidly either way, since the only view we have of Macedonians is from the Athenian viewpoint which is hardly without prejudice, and outside of the Macedonian Royal family we simply do not know enough about the Macedonian people. There were certainly things that made Macedonians different and unique, but you can say that about the different Greek City States too, but there is no challenge to their Greekness as there is with the Macedonians. And it must be considered from two different perspectives - the biology of bloodlines and what Macedonians thought about themselves. Which viewpoint is the more important? Now that would depend on the individual studying the problem.

[tino]

You see, that is again a subjective opinion. I do believe that there is 'anti' evidence. For example, along with Alexander's renunciation of the proferred boys (I do not agree with the 'prostitute' angle) would point out something like this:"Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life."Plutarch, Custom of the Spartans.Is this conclusive? No. Is this a point that there is evidence to the contrary of a supposed 'bi-sexual' society, and there are indeed 'anti' sources? Yes. Which is the point I was making. As to the Macedonian/Greek 'dispute', you question the legitimacy when modern perspectives are brought into what should be a historical debate. Yet, I would say that these same perspectives are brought into play with the 'bi-sexual' issue. We exist in societies in the West that value 'equality' and 'diversity' and many view their history with these preconceptions in mind. This is the flip side to the more commonly alleged 'anti-homosexual' bend of our post-Christian morally flavoured societies. Something to keep in mind.