Gay Icon

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

athenas owl wrote:amyntoros, that would be very appreciated! At your leisure, of course. Thank you for the consideration.
Hi Athenas Owl,

I sent you an email with attachment at about 6 PM Sunday, using the email link at the bottom of your post. Is the email address good? If not, please send me a Private Message or email (using the same links at the bottom of my posts) with your correct email addy and I'll try again. :)
Pekuestas (Pecuestas) is someone I am trying to track down in some depth. Any reccies on a good biography for him would be appreciated (I still have to get Heckel's book). I'm especially curious about any information of his whereabouts after 316 B.C. ... Sorry for the brief hijack.
Paralus would know, but he's on his whirlwind, worldwide vacation right now. :) Still, I'm sure there are many others with good knowledge of the Hellenistic period who will be able to help with recommendations. If not, tell me where Peucestas was in 316 - I'm hopeless at post Alexander chronology - and I'll email you Heckel's references on his later whereabouts.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

G'day Athena's Owl.

Peucestas' whereabouts after Gabiene (317/6) is a matter of conjecture. He survived the battle - as one would when you refuse to engage and watch your commander surrendered to the opposing Diadoch (Antigonus) by those grizzled old buggers the Argyraspids.

It is generally agreed that he found some favour with Demetrius (Antigonus' son) but not ever with old Monopthalmus himself. Not surprising given his failure to commit his cavalry to the fray when it mattered: the Argyraspids had led Eumenes' phalanx to near victory on the field; Peucestas' failure to charge left his commander open to the inevitable round up by the opposing mounted forces. At the time, Eumenes infantry had the field. Were I Monopthamus, I'd have consigned him to "border protection" as he did the split up Argyraspids. Given his near disappearance from the recorded stage, one would think this likely, though he may have been resurrected as one of those "older generals" who helped the tearaway Demetrius at Gaza.

It is interesting that Eumenes, at this stage ostensibly the general of the Royal Army of Argaed house, was not supported by Peucestas. Then again, Eumenes was - after Alexander's death - a barely tolerated Greek.

Heckel, by the way, is the go to. Obviously, over here in Washington, I don't have mine handy: spend the dollars.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

amyntoros, thank you! I hadn't checked my e-mail. :oops: Btw, there are no links at the bottom of anyone's posts here for me. I guess that's why I assumed it would come via PM or something. Again, Thank you, it's a great thing to have for a "quick" reference. Hopefully someday I can return the favour somehow.

Paralus, thank you also, for the information. I do need to get Heckel. I have found references to Peucestas being with Demetrius after 301, but not much more than that.

Peucestas is interesting to me in that he wasn't given "border protection" as you so nicely put it. Or just flat out "disappeared" in some way. I'd love to know what was afoot, what his use was to Antigonus or at least his toleration.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Taphoi wrote:I am very happy to say that both of you seem to be fair-minded individuals with a broad knowledge of the sources
I like to think I'm fair minded, Andrew, so thank you. However, I can assure you that I have much more than a "broad knowledge of the sources". I admit that I don't always have the time to check things, and I often have a need to if I am to respond properly to questions, statements, etc.; but that's a reflection of all the calls on my time and energies, rather than anything else.

:wink:

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

[this :roll:
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 931
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

marcus wrote:I can assure you that I have much more than a "broad knowledge of the sources".
I see that I suggested that you are an "expert" a little further down in the same post, so I hope you can forgive the lapse in its opening sentence :D

I am happy that the tide has come in as it must and that this thread has become a hot topic. It would be a pity if Pothos were to deprecate any legitimate areas of discussion of Alexander on his very own Forum. Apart from anything else, it might place undue strain on the servers for my own website on Alexander's lovers :wink:

Best wishes,

Andrew
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

With Philips put downs of Alexander. Im unsure about where they would be in the sources. Did Philip really mock Alexander as a singer etc. Did Philip view Alexander as a bit of a girl and sissy.

If its claimed then Alexander must have acted manly and more Macho beffiting of Philip as regent at Cheronea.I would guess we have no real details as to tell us Alexanders person. Was he the predominate Alpha male leader of the pack. Not according to the belittling cracks from Philip.

How much of a worry was it to Olympius that Alexander showed relative little interest in girls. Why so when is seemed to be the norm for the men to have Bisexual relations Philip was neted as having them. Pausanius was in some way involved with Philip. Was Alexanders un interest in girls that extreme that his mother showed concern to employ Prostitutes. It must have been odd for it to be mentioned in such a fashion.

If Alexander was efemenate. The shaving and sources mention his sweet aroma.it goes against the steriotypical sweaty beared he man brawling warrior type i guess.Or was he simply refined.

regards

Kenny
User avatar
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Post by dean »

Hello,
Reading the disparate comments on this thread- I find that we have gone off the topic and come back and then gone off once again. I don't understand the harm that it can cause talking about this subject when possibly discussing things in the open is in my opinion healthy.

Are we going to get any nearer to forming an accurate picture of Alexander thanks to it- no I think not.

By the way, I liked the comment of Karen's where she was saying more or less that a military genius doesn't have to be masculine like tarzan and can be homosexual. I am not saying Alexander was homosexual merely that the comment has a lot of insight in it.

Regardless of sexual disposition people can attain their amazing potential, can't they?
By the way, I think it is also only natural that there are recurring themes that like dogs with a bone we refuse to drop- everybody has their own personal bone about Alexander that they won't drop or let go of. So before Christmas I am sure that we will see another one topic coming up along similar lines, as we will about his drinking, his death etc etc. :wink:

Well, just my thoughts anyway,
Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Taphoi wrote:
marcus wrote:I can assure you that I have much more than a "broad knowledge of the sources".
I see that I suggested that you are an "expert" a little further down in the same post, so I hope you can forgive the lapse in its opening sentence :D

I am happy that the tide has come in as it must and that this thread has become a hot topic. It would be a pity if Pothos were to deprecate any legitimate areas of discussion of Alexander on his very own Forum. Apart from anything else, it might place undue strain on the servers for my own website on Alexander's lovers :wink:

Best wishes,

Andrew
Sorry, Andrew, my post wasn't really called-for. But you are more gracious than I, so I hope you will excuse it.

I hardly dare to be cheeky, now ... but I wondered when you'd mention "Alexander's Lovers"! :lol: Did I tell you that I'd read it - I think I did. I enjoyed it, and there were some interesting angles that I hadn't considered before, with regard to a number of the people under discussion.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

jasonxx wrote:With Philips put downs of Alexander. Im unsure about where they would be in the sources. Did Philip really mock Alexander as a singer etc. Did Philip view Alexander as a bit of a girl and sissy. . . .Was he the predominate Alpha male leader of the pack. Not according to the belittling cracks from Philip.
My interpretation? Kings were rulers, and sons of kings were potential heirs to the throne. Musical entertainers at symposiums (when they weren’t slaves or prostitutes) were professionals – often extremely talented competition winners, much honored by the Greeks, but professionals none the less. A king doesn’t take on a career, nor does he exist for the entertainment of others. It’s one thing to learn music and be able to play and sing with some accomplishment; that would have been a prerequisite for a youth’s education. It’s another do it so well that one might be compared with the performers as an artist rather than being judged for one’s skills in warfare and statecraft. The quote from Plutarch’s Pericles says it all:
Antisthenes replied wisely to someone who praised a flute-player: "But still he's a contemptible fellow -- otherwise he would not be such a good flute-player." And King Philip of Macedonia said to his son, Alexander the Great, after he had sung at a banquet like a master of music: "Are you not ashamed, my son, to sing so well?" It is enough for a king to give his time and treasure to encourage the arts, but if a king personally practices such things, whatever skill he may acquire becomes evidence of time wasted that he should have spent at statecraft.
The “slur of effeminacy that must have been intended” by Philip’s remarks are Mary Renault’s own words and opinion. There’s nothing in the sources (that I know of) that equates this incident with an accusation of effeminacy.
jasonxx wrote:How much of a worry was it to Olympius that Alexander showed relative little interest in girls. Why so when is seemed to be the norm for the men to have Bisexual relations Philip was neted as having them. Pausanius was in some way involved with Philip. Was Alexanders un interest in girls that extreme that his mother showed concern to employ Prostitutes. It must have been odd for it to be mentioned in such a fashion.
Yes, Philip was well known to be a great philanderer of both young men and young women and there’s no evidence that it was a problem for anyone except his wives. The issue with Alexander wasn’t, IMO, that he didn’t have an interest in women, but that he didn’t have one YET. I’m sure that both Philip and Olympias were anxious for Alexander to marry and begat a son as soon as was possible. Whether or not Alexander was having sexual relationships with Hephaistion (or any young man, for that matter) may not have been the greatest area of concern. Putting it simply, before Alexander could sire a child he needed to have a sexual interest in women. Now, did Alexander demure because he had no interest in women at that time, or because he thought who he slept with was none of his parents business? Or, perhaps, both?
If Alexander was efemenate. The shaving and sources mention his sweet aroma.it goes against the steriotypical sweaty beared he man brawling warrior type i guess.Or was he simply refined.
Does being refined necessarily equate with effeminacy? Does a failure to stink of stale sweat and other body odors mean the same? Or being clean shaven? I’m not sure why we are discussing effeminacy as if relates to Alexander’s sexual preferences. It is well known that men do not have to appear effeminate in order to have an interest in the same sex, nor do accusations of effeminacy indicate the man’s sexual orientation. Poor Philotas was accused of being effeminate only because he screamed, presumably “like a girl,” under torture. And Philip, whose various sexual predilections you acknowledge, could never be described as effeminate, now could he?

Best regards,
Last edited by amyntoros on Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:It would be a pity if Pothos were to deprecate any legitimate areas of discussion of Alexander on his very own Forum. Apart from anything else, it might place undue strain on the servers for my own website on Alexander's lovers :wink:
Hi Andrew,

I don’t think we’ve ever disparaged any legitimate area of discussion and, as is well attested in this thread, when a problem arises it is because of the approach to the subject matter. Any post which shows evidence of prejudice (of any kind) should not be allowed to pass unchallenged simply because the topic itself may generate interest in other members, nor should such a post be allowed to encourage similarly biased contributions from others.

I certainly encourage anyone interested in Alexander’s sexuality to visit your website and/or read your book. Rather than being a substitute for discussion here it will likely encourage further debate because, after all, your work is an expression of your own opinions and views on Alexander’s intimate relationships. Others may see some of these relationships differently. People don’t come to Pothos just to ask questions, but ofttimes to say “This is my view on … What do the rest of you think?” :)

Best regards,
Last edited by amyntoros on Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

:shock:
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 931
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

amyntoros wrote:Does being refined necessarily equate with effeminacy?
The key issue on "effeminacy" for the ancients was whether the senior male in a sexual relationship with a junior male took the active or passive role. Alexander was socially senior to Hephaistion, so he would have been expected to take the active role. That is why Arrian and Aelian speak of Hephaistion as Alexander's eromenos.

However, there are a couple of coded but still fairly clear references in the ancient literature which suggest that there were suspicions that Hephaistion took the active role (at least sometimes). The first is Athenaeus 10.435a, where Theophrastus is given as the source for the suggestion that his parents worried that Alexander might become a "gynnis". The word is a masculine gender version of "woman" - not far different to "shemale" in its implications. The second is in Curtius 7.9.19, where there is a complicated pun about Hephaistion charming Alexander with his masculinity - it has a secondary meaning that Hephaistion gave Alexander a hare, which was a traditional gift from an erastes to his eromenos.

Cordially,

Andrew
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

:shock:
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:However, there are a couple of coded but still fairly clear references in the ancient literature which suggest that there were suspicions that Hephaistion took the active role (at least sometimes). The first is Athenaeus 10.435a, where Theophrastus is given as the source for the suggestion that his parents worried that Alexander might become a "gynnis". The word is a masculine gender version of "woman" - not far different to "shemale" in its implications.
Interesting, although I presently still hold to my previous comments concerning my belief of where the concerns of Philip and Olympias actually lay. Wouldn’t the masculine gender version of woman equate with effeminate anyway? As the quote stands, I can (perhaps) believe that the actions of Alexander’s parents in this instance were known and thus recorded. However, I am not too sure whether Philip and Olympias would have publicly shared their thoughts under these circumstances, especially a concern that Alexander may be, by implication, a shemale, as you put it. Airing these views would certainly be counterproductive to Olympias’ desire to see Alexander on the throne. Along with this, almost everyone insists that the bulk of ancient evidence indicates that Philip had accepted and/or acknowledged Alexander as his heir. (Discussion of this would be a separate debate.) Would Philip want it known, therefore, that he had such suspicions about Macedonia’s future king? My opinion is that this may be the deduction of the author, Theophrastus, much the same as Renault’s deduction in the affair of Alexander being too musically accomplished.
Taphoi wrote:The second is in Curtius 7.9.19, where there is a complicated pun about Hephaistion charming Alexander with his masculinity - it has a secondary meaning that Hephaistion gave Alexander a hare, which was a traditional gift from an erastes to his eromenos.
Now this is what I call new insight based on the sources! :) I can’t, however, agree (or disagree, really) that Alexander might have been the eromenos of Hephaistion without further discussion and explanation from you. To assist anyone else interested in this discussion, here is the excerpt from Curtius, as translated in the Penguin Edition:
Curtius 7.9.19 [19] So he received the Sacae delegation courteously and gave them Euxenippus as their companion for the return journey. Euxenippus was still very young and a favourite of Alexander’s because he was in the prime of his youth, but though he rivaled Hephaistion in good looks he could not match him in charm, since he was rather effeminate.
And this is Jeanne Reames’ take on the episode in question, from her article on the Pothos site:
Perhaps a safer allusive comparison is found in Curtius (7.9.19) wherein a certain young Euxenippos is compared to Hephaistion and found wanting in virility. While Curtius' use of conciliatum does not have to mean "beloved," that seems to be the thrust of the passage (pun intended). Euxenippos was a pretty boy who had caught the king's eye. (Alexander would hardly be the first Macedonian king to have a fling with one of his Pages.) This makes the boy's comparison to Hephaistion particularly suggestive. Has the king's current eromenos been set beside his old flame and come off the worse for the comparison? I believe this passage makes far more sense if we assume a romantic affair at some point between Alexander and Hephaistion.
Now, I’ve seen other translations which say that Euxenippus was “less masculine” than Hephaistion, but the meaning is much the same. Either way, I’m unconvinced at this point that Hephaistion being referred to as masculine equates with Hephaistion charming Alexander with his masculinity (your words). Where it is believed that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, it is presumed that the affair began when they were younger and in their teens. (And it is often said that it may not have continued when they were older.) As they were coevals, the greater masculinity of one or the other would likely not have had any relevance to the relationship as it would have in the Dover model of a much older and thus more masculine partner and a boy in his mid-teens. Making an aside here - my son is sixteen and has had (and still does) an enormous number of friends, two of whom are gay in modern terms. Both, at one time or another, have expressed without fear of prejudice (because, wonderfully, no one cares about their sexual orientation) an interest in other members of the group. However, neither of them - nor, for that matter, any other member of the group - can be distinguished from the crowd as being less masculine or obviously effeminate. The lines of distinction are not clearly drawn in the mid-teens. So, returning to Alexander, if, as they grew older, Hephaistion MAY have become more masculine than Alexander, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it was this same masculinity that “charmed” Alexander in the first place. Therefore, any active or passive role can not be deduced (from this). And it also doesn’t follow, IMO, that Hephaistion being more masculine than Euxenippus means that Alexander was less masculine than Hephaistion.

I think your reasoning that there are “fairly clear references in the ancient literature which suggest that there were suspicions that Hephaistion took the active role (at least sometimes)” must lie solely in the “complicated pun.” Would please elaborate on this for us, preferably translating as you go along, for I believe that only a few of us have any familiarity with the language. And I am most curious as to why these references should be “coded” in any way, especially the one from Curtius. He’s quite frank about Alexander’s sexual relationship with Bagoas. Why then hide a reference to the A/H relationship in a complicated pun that no historian, including Jeanne, seems to have noticed? :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Post Reply