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

jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Ok Honoury title will do.

However I make a request. If Im a member for years and get apropriate posts. Ie Green Shield stamps. Could I attain enough to be amongst the gods.

Kenny
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

I would like to apologise for confusing Camp. With femaninity. Ill accept Alexander may have shown Femininity etc etc. But I cant imaigine Alexander been camp

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

Post by amyntoros »

First of all, thank you, Andrew, for this detailed explanation. Much appreciated.
Taphoi wrote:There is no Euxenippus. It is a modern textual emendation of "excipinon" by Hedicke. It may derive (perhaps corruptly) from the verb excipio and could therefore mean Alexander's Greeter or Welcomer. I have suggested in Alexander's Lovers that it probably refers to Bagoas.
Wasn’t there something on one of the Livejournals about this? A person who also has excellent knowledge of Greek and Latin who questioned your suggestion/conclusion about the name? I believe I know where to find the thread and I could link to it here, but I don’t think that would be proper. Not that I’m saying you are wrong, by the way ... I wouldn't know ... however, there does appear to be room for further discussion amongst those who are more knowledgeable (than me) of the language and of issues such as critical editions.
There's more in the book, if you're really interested.
Yes, yes, Andrew … I know, I know :) … I will get to your book one of these days when my pile of “to be read” books is whittled down somewhat. My resolution was to read a book a week this year so I’ve started with publications that I bought at least two years ago! In the meantime, you did post your comment here which opens the subject to debate. And that is the purpose of the forum, after all. :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
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:Wasn’t there something on one of the Livejournals about this? A person who also has excellent knowledge of Greek and Latin who questioned your suggestion/conclusion about the name?
Yes. But it emerged that she had been confused by a misleading reference in a footnote in one of J E Atkinson's commentaries on Curtius, which seemed to suggest that "Euxenippon" is in the manuscripts of Curtius (which it isn't). Or perhaps she had misread the footnote. Berve, for example, states that "Euxenippos" is an emendation by Hedicke, if you want to check up on it. So do most Latin texts including the Loeb. Heckel, Marshals 291 also notices that "Euxenippos" should be "Excipinus" and he leaves the name out of his Who's Who.

Cordially,

Andrew
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Split thread: Olympias' jealousy

Post by marcus »

As suggested by Amyntoros, I have split this thread so that the discussion that had started on whether the 'jealousy' in Philip's family unit was sexual or political (or, indeed, both) has been split off. It now forms a new thread called "Olympias' jealousy".

I see that Kenny had already started a thread on the same. I haven't merged the two threads yet, but it might be worth doing so - I hope you won't mind, Kenny and Ruthaki?
(Two minutes later: not sure I can do it, actually. There doesn't seem to be provision for it. So I'll leave them separate - at least until I learn how I can merge them.)

ATB
Last edited by marcus on Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

keep it cool marcus :D
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

I have read all the posts, and here is my reply:

First of all the main source of arguments come from Curtius. I have already expressed my oppinion about Curtius, and his credibility. Especially in this matter we cannot consider him a trustworthy source because he was a roman senator, with everything that goes with it. His descriptions, like the one that Andrew gave us, could well be just Curtius' idea about how Alexander should be, or he made him appear like this so that he would be more close to the roman aristocrats' stereotypes, who were keen in orgies and various sexual behaviours.

Of course we cannot dismiss him completely. We just keep in mind that his isnt credible. Furthermore i would doubt that any of the original sources included extracts like this.

Then on to "Hephaestion's thighs". This expression that Diogenis used can be also translated as ironic. Because as we know the Athenians were not fond of Philip's and Alexander's rule. So they would mock them if they had the chance. So that expression could well be a mockery. Diogenis was an opposer to the Macedonian rule. Demosthenes also said many things about Philip. What does this mean? That they were true?

Furthermore, i would like to say once more that it is very hard for me to believe that a whole society could be homosexuals and pedophiles. Even if that was what society demanded from the men, they would have to force it through most of the people. Because as it is natural, a heterosexual man wouldnt like the touch and the kiss of another man. But i dont think that the teenagers were forced to such actions. That would be known, and probably it would be in the sources. And also, I do not think that the Greeks who were intelligent would do that to their youth. Even if they did so, many people even through force still wouldnt like this sexual behaviour. And we would know it.

But there arent any mentions in the sources about men that were opposed to a forced homosexuality, and were complaining and rebelling. So, it mustnt have happened. Surely if the common practise was that men also touched and kissed and made love to the young boys that they instructed we would have stories about it in the sources. Remember "The last wine" by Renault? Well i have yet to see an ancient story, theatrical play, or historical text that describes something like this, meaning a man who was in love with a young boy e.t.c. There are mentions about homosexual men, like Armodios and Aristogeitonas, or Alcibiades, but have no difference than our society.

The only thing for which i cannot yet find an answer is a passage from Plutarch, in his "children moralia", which though can have more than one interpretation. But maybe we will look to it later.

I wouild be very curious to see a scientific research that uses biological facts about if a whole society could have such sexual behaviours.

Feel free to correct me if i am wrong, i want to hear your oppinions.
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

a gay icon again.

Post by jan »

:) My issue with this came from a military history discussion group where I read a most disparaging remark about Alexander there. There is real discord between gay groups and members of the military who are straight and do not want a Queen to lead them anywhere. So this question of a gay icon is a serious one in my opinion, and deserves to be knocked about a bit. There are people who literally hate Alexander when he is described as having had a relationship that could only be described as sodomy. That is what Mary Renault did in her contribution in literature about the Macedonian leader. She created a book which appears to condone sodomy in Persian Boy.

I don't curse you, Jasonxx, but I do think that you know that this is an inflammatory question, and believe me, men in the military object to gay Queens such as is often said about Alexander. I don't like that description either as no serious male in history has ever emulated him, believing that he was a practicing sodomist.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Now we have another example of exactly why I groan when we are reacquainted with the subject of Alexander’s sexuality. The issue of gays in today’s modern military is not relevant to Alexander’s time and certainly needs no further discussion on this forum. And not once, but twice, the derogatory, discriminatory, and inflammatory term “Queen” is used to describe a person with a particular sexual preference. References to the sources, however, are nary to be seen …

If anyone didn’t understand my previous concern, I hope that they do now.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Amyntoros Hi.

Your upset with Queen is understandable. But myself I have seen Alexander as a Queen nothing to do with Gayness, But quite simply the game of Chess. I have a puta Alexander the Great /Darius chess Set and of course Alexander is the king.

The game of Chess isnt really Alexander as the king is basically a one move weakling to be protected by the rest. The Most powerful piece is of course the Queen. so is why Alexander is the Queen on the chess board.

Kenny
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

By way of explanation

Post by jan »

I had found this post at military history discussion group where it was in reaction to Stone's forthcoming movie at the time it was written. A lot of changes happened at that military history site after I made a response. It has been a long time ago, but it really disgusted me to think that a military man would say such a thing about Alexander, as he was being very cutting...

Yes, the Queen is the dominant and strong one in the game of chess, and the king is the weak one...so I suppose Alexander would be considered queen there more than king, but so it goes...my own inner personal belief is that king and queen in chess are seriously important in the game of life! Good point about chess games...as I am always the king there...won't let me move any old way I want at all, just a little insight into a joke...that old queen, she can move anywhere at will! :D :D :D
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: a gay icon again.

Post by marcus »

jan wrote:I don't like that description either as no serious male in history has ever emulated him, believing that he was a practicing sodomist.
What on earth is that supposed to mean, Jan?

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Beatriki
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:55 pm
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Contact:

Re: a gay icon again.

Post by Beatriki »

marcus wrote:
jan wrote:I don't like that description either as no serious male in history has ever emulated him, believing that he was a practicing sodomist.
What on earth is that supposed to mean, Jan?

ATB
Better not to comment on what that it is supposed to mean, Marcus... shame on her... now she writes homophobic statements :roll:
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

as no serious male in history has ever emulated him
Emulated him no, because it isnt possible to emulate him, but i can start by counting some who tried to, like Julius Caesar, and all the great generals that i can thing of, and kings, and lots of people. For them it didnt matter what his sexual preferences were, just that he was who he was.
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Indeed its right about Great Generals Emulating and trying to copy. And Im pretty sure they didnt give a rats arse about his sex life.

kenny
Post Reply