Sikander
I did agree strongly with how you represented sexuality at that time - that behaviour varied, and that you cannot apply sweeping terms. Yes, there is not much about Alexander's private life. It did occur to me, thinking over this discussion, to wonder why we think that Alexander and his circle were discreet. We know about Bagoas, Barsine, and if there had been much more (another significant mistress, say) then someone would have commented on it. Alexander must have been the prime talking point in Greece for many years. Perhaps there wasn't much else to know.
Regards
Linda
Gay or not ?
Moderator: pothos moderators
-
Sikander
Re: Points in Agreement
The sense of discretion is due to the fact that so very
little is known about Alexander's private life- it appears that
those who knew the man personally, and created the original sources
from which the extant sources drew, also accorded him a measure of privacy.
Alexander was a very public King, a very private man- and it appears his
closest circle respected and probably protected this..
so it is very possible that there was little to "gossip" about (though I suspect there *was* gossip among the rank and file) because very little was discussed, witnessed or observed.
I tend to think Alexander was moderate in many things, and public display of private issues was one of them- the few he *did* make public were definitely noted. Does this follow along your own train of thought?
Regards,
Sikander
little is known about Alexander's private life- it appears that
those who knew the man personally, and created the original sources
from which the extant sources drew, also accorded him a measure of privacy.
Alexander was a very public King, a very private man- and it appears his
closest circle respected and probably protected this..
so it is very possible that there was little to "gossip" about (though I suspect there *was* gossip among the rank and file) because very little was discussed, witnessed or observed.
I tend to think Alexander was moderate in many things, and public display of private issues was one of them- the few he *did* make public were definitely noted. Does this follow along your own train of thought?
Regards,
Sikander
-
Dr. Pal
Re: Gay or not ?
Dear LindaThe problem, as I see it, is that painting Alexander gay has great media value. The cinema industry loves it. We have seen similar sexualization in the recent film on Ashoka. Meena Suvari was it who was supposed to play Bagoas the younger? Now there was another Bagoas. I have repeatedly stressed in this forum that DiodorusGÇÖ account of this fiend has to be false but to see that you would have to go to the Sanskrit sources. I think Diodorus gave the Greek view and the Greeks did not know the full truth. This calls for a sea-changes in the interpretation of the post-Hyphasis scenario. I think Alexander was shadowed by this man. That he managed to emerge out of the Gedrosian alive is some kind of a miracle. His execution of many officers is linked to the conspiracy masterminded by Bagoas (Chanakya). And there is another issue that you overlook. AlexanderGÇÖs mission. I think I have shown that he was the first patron of Buddhism which can be seen as a kind of Eastern Hellenism, not Asoka and in this regard Heph. Played a crucial role. We know he and he alone stood by him in this regard but the truth may be stranger. Heph. may have influenced Alexander to lean towards Asvaghosha (Kalanos). You would have to know a little about this man to understand Alexander and Hephaestion. After Heph.'s poisoning Alexander was not only driven by grief but also fear. Even Bosworth realises this. It is easy to give a dog a bad name and hang it.Regards,Dr. Pal
Re: Gay or not ?
Good argument, Linda, although I'm still not sure that I agree about the inferences that can be made. I'm not disputing that Alexander did have strong relationships with men - whether or not I agree that it was homoerotic in the sense that we view things today - but I am not convinced that there is any evidence that he was less interested in women than in men (after all, lack of evidence for one thing doesn't mean evidence for another). Perhaps it is as much a difficulty with the fact that, as a king, Alexander was not able to form relationships with women for purely personal reasons - as you pointed out in another message, medieval kings were expected to marry and have children in spite of homosexual tendencies (although there is still a lot of debate over whether Edward II was, actually, homosexual, but I agree with you in principle), and the same would have been true of Alexander.
As the general leading a large army (necessarily of men) in hostile territory for a period of years, it is perfectly reasonable that he should have formed close attachments with other men, and his exposure to women can only have been limited for long periods of time. There would be no need for the Alexander historians to mention casual, physical affairs, if he had them.
Also, just to throw another log on the fire (or whatever), it is just as likely that the historians don't mention his "interest in women" simply because there was nothing unusual or remarkable to say - ie. it would have been noteworthy only if he *didn't* have an interest...
All the best
Marcus
As the general leading a large army (necessarily of men) in hostile territory for a period of years, it is perfectly reasonable that he should have formed close attachments with other men, and his exposure to women can only have been limited for long periods of time. There would be no need for the Alexander historians to mention casual, physical affairs, if he had them.
Also, just to throw another log on the fire (or whatever), it is just as likely that the historians don't mention his "interest in women" simply because there was nothing unusual or remarkable to say - ie. it would have been noteworthy only if he *didn't* have an interest...
All the best
Marcus
-
tre
Re: Gay or not ?
This is a most interesting thread, but I want to add a couple of points. Bagoas is not a 'fictional' character, except to perhaps Tarn. There is no evidence that Alexander liked men more than he liked women - in fact, if anything, Alexander shows far more interest in women and their own politics than most men of his age. However one has to define 'liked.' One did not have the same relationship with women as one had with men in those days. He is accorded more than one mistress, and if one reads the Moralia and other sources, his interest in women was not purely platonic or political - interest in boys is however fairly plain and normal for a Macedonian King, but rife with political danger - note Curtius hints at a boy who Alexander admired for his looks but he lacked Hephaistion's charm and was effeminate. He got sent away - a son never forgets what happens when a lover is jilted if his father was Philip. Alexander was the great role player - his sexuality, certainly publically, would have been normal - even Curtius, hardly one not to criticize the King, says that his sex life was confined to the fulfillment of natural desire. As for eunuchs, the safest sex imaginable - no worry about heirs, and no worry about the eromenos' political future. And as Sikander says, he was discreet at least as much as was possible - note it is his own men who prod him into kissing Bagoas publically...Very public life, very private person indeed.
-
ina
Re: Points in Agreement
hi, linda, you are so sensible and intelligent in your arguments. may i meet you too? - inasehr@yahoo.com
Re: Gay or not ?
Couldn't agree with you more, Tre!
All the best
Marcus
All the best
Marcus
Re: Gay or not ?
I don't want to labour this point too much - maybe people will always disagree, in the nicest possible way!
Tre said:
"One did not have the same relationship with women as one had with men in those days. He is accorded more than one mistress, and if one reads the Moralia and other sources, his interest in women was not purely platonic or political "
Interest in women's ways and politics is not a sign of sexuality - at the risk of sounding flippant and blowing my whole argument "how gay is that"
I have read the Moralia, and Plutrach does say a few things - that Alexander loved only one woman - Roxanne, and that he restrained himself with women. He does say somethng slightly muddled, which I don't quite understand, which is as follows:
"For he looked at no woman against her will and those he looked at he passed by more readily than those that he didn't look at"
which you could interprete in a number of ways, I think, but basically, he didn't form attachments to women.
Tre said
"- interest in boys is however fairly plain and normal for a Macedonian King, but rife with political danger - note Curtius hints at a boy who Alexander admired for his looks but he lacked Hephaistion's charm and was effeminate.
I am not arguing whether Alexander's behaviour was normal or not. Just what that behaviour was. I don't think that we can look back and say - "they were all (the Kings) interested in boys and women then". Clearly this was not the case. Some were - Philip was, because we know that he chose lovers and mistresses. Alexander did not choose mistresses. They chose him, or he was obliged to take them. And Alexander was not only interested in boys - his primary relationship was with a man his own age, which was more unusual
Tre said:
"One did not have the same relationship with women as one had with men in those days. He is accorded more than one mistress, and if one reads the Moralia and other sources, his interest in women was not purely platonic or political "
Interest in women's ways and politics is not a sign of sexuality - at the risk of sounding flippant and blowing my whole argument "how gay is that"
I have read the Moralia, and Plutrach does say a few things - that Alexander loved only one woman - Roxanne, and that he restrained himself with women. He does say somethng slightly muddled, which I don't quite understand, which is as follows:"For he looked at no woman against her will and those he looked at he passed by more readily than those that he didn't look at"
which you could interprete in a number of ways, I think, but basically, he didn't form attachments to women.
Tre said
"- interest in boys is however fairly plain and normal for a Macedonian King, but rife with political danger - note Curtius hints at a boy who Alexander admired for his looks but he lacked Hephaistion's charm and was effeminate.
I am not arguing whether Alexander's behaviour was normal or not. Just what that behaviour was. I don't think that we can look back and say - "they were all (the Kings) interested in boys and women then". Clearly this was not the case. Some were - Philip was, because we know that he chose lovers and mistresses. Alexander did not choose mistresses. They chose him, or he was obliged to take them. And Alexander was not only interested in boys - his primary relationship was with a man his own age, which was more unusual
Re: Gay or not ?
Also, I feel there are some suppositions I don't quite see the evidence for although I am, as always, willing to be instructed - firstly that heirs were a problem. Kings have had bastard children throughout time - the boys could fight for their father, the girls used to marry off to allies. It was inevitable in those times.
Secondly, that the different nature of relationships between men and women in that time to ours would affect taking a mistress. Ptolomy, Philotas took mistresses on campaign, and even though men and women would not have been friends as they are now, and not spent so much time together - the basic urges were still indulged one way or the other. The King should not have been different?
Alexander was admired for his restraint, meaning that his behaviour was considered unusual, although not odd.
I do agree that he was modest. This is shown by refusing to kiss a boy in public, and by his attitude to captives in general. However, the main reason I can see for his being discreet is not just temperament (as he did take a mistress, lover - publically known) but that his main lover was Hephaestion, and although his partiality for Hephaestion was well-known, the actual mechanics of the relationship were more hidden - perhaps from most people, as even Craterus's friends had to ask why the King needed Hephaestion's love. This was perhaps to protect Hephaestion's political status, (see Pausinas) or perhaps not to upset group dynamics in the command hierarchy.
I feel what I am trying to do is look at the evidence - not all men, in that time as in ours, were interested in women. I cannot see any instances of Alexander taking an active interest in forming attachments to women, as he did with men - romantic attachments. That he may have and we didn't know about it is, of course possible but not inevitable. That he was expected to is evident in the writings, but he didn't to any significant degree. However, there is one exception - Roxanne. It is fairly universally reported that he fell in love with her, and although this is explained as a political marriage, I think he must have been attached to her. However, this is not quite enough to convince me that he was very interested in women - a passing interest, perhaps.
Secondly, that the different nature of relationships between men and women in that time to ours would affect taking a mistress. Ptolomy, Philotas took mistresses on campaign, and even though men and women would not have been friends as they are now, and not spent so much time together - the basic urges were still indulged one way or the other.
The King should not have been different? Alexander was admired for his restraint, meaning that his behaviour was considered unusual, although not odd.
I do agree that he was modest. This is shown by refusing to kiss a boy in public, and by his attitude to captives in general. However, the main reason I can see for his being discreet is not just temperament (as he did take a mistress, lover - publically known) but that his main lover was Hephaestion, and although his partiality for Hephaestion was well-known, the actual mechanics of the relationship were more hidden - perhaps from most people, as even Craterus's friends had to ask why the King needed Hephaestion's love. This was perhaps to protect Hephaestion's political status, (see Pausinas) or perhaps not to upset group dynamics in the command hierarchy.
I feel what I am trying to do is look at the evidence - not all men, in that time as in ours, were interested in women. I cannot see any instances of Alexander taking an active interest in forming attachments to women, as he did with men - romantic attachments. That he may have and we didn't know about it is, of course possible but not inevitable. That he was expected to is evident in the writings, but he didn't to any significant degree. However, there is one exception - Roxanne. It is fairly universally reported that he fell in love with her, and although this is explained as a political marriage, I think he must have been attached to her. However, this is not quite enough to convince me that he was very interested in women - a passing interest, perhaps.
Re: Points in Agreement
Sikander
I think there are a few problems with Alexander - firstly that we want to know so much about him - there is never enough! Secondly, what his "biographers" considered interesting to readers. Arrian was interested in his military prowess, Curtius was more gossipy and liked a good yarn, and Plutarch was primarily interested in the virtues of great men. The primary sources would be concerned with their own reputations or interests.
Most of his life would have been public, and what went on behind closed doors would have remained hidden except to the chosen few, who are silent.
But I wonder what else we could know? In the absence of letters he will remain an enigma, as those give the best indication of a person's soul. But we know his lovers, what he ate, how he ate, the books he read, what he thought about his mother, his health, his looks and the name of his dog.
I believe that he was known for keeping things close to his chest - military decisions, (the start of the Philotas affair, which he didn't divulge even to Hephaestion), so perhaps this carried onto other things.
I think the things we would want to know are things he perhaps couldn't answer - why he did what he did. He might of just said "Because it was there..."
In Macedonian.
I think there are a few problems with Alexander - firstly that we want to know so much about him - there is never enough! Secondly, what his "biographers" considered interesting to readers. Arrian was interested in his military prowess, Curtius was more gossipy and liked a good yarn, and Plutarch was primarily interested in the virtues of great men. The primary sources would be concerned with their own reputations or interests.
Most of his life would have been public, and what went on behind closed doors would have remained hidden except to the chosen few, who are silent.
But I wonder what else we could know? In the absence of letters he will remain an enigma, as those give the best indication of a person's soul. But we know his lovers, what he ate, how he ate, the books he read, what he thought about his mother, his health, his looks and the name of his dog.
I believe that he was known for keeping things close to his chest - military decisions, (the start of the Philotas affair, which he didn't divulge even to Hephaestion), so perhaps this carried onto other things.
I think the things we would want to know are things he perhaps couldn't answer - why he did what he did. He might of just said "Because it was there..."
In Macedonian.
-
Sikander
Re: Points in Agreement
Hello Linda-
I would agree on your observations of the sources- as I said, they not
only reflected their biases or areas of interest, but were working from
sources that did the same.
Apart from surface knowledge, there is very little known about Alexander.
I think this is part of the fascination for many people. And only a few things are known regarding his likes and dislikes, his mother, etc.. though certainly much has been
supposed, assumed, created, and interpreted.
I find the interpretations interesting, since they reveal so much about the
interpreter rather than the man studied..
Be that as it may, I believe we are on agreement in several areas, and
would have more to debate in others. I enjoy your postings.
Regards,
Sikander
I would agree on your observations of the sources- as I said, they not
only reflected their biases or areas of interest, but were working from
sources that did the same.
Apart from surface knowledge, there is very little known about Alexander.
I think this is part of the fascination for many people. And only a few things are known regarding his likes and dislikes, his mother, etc.. though certainly much has been
supposed, assumed, created, and interpreted.
I find the interpretations interesting, since they reveal so much about the
interpreter rather than the man studied..
Be that as it may, I believe we are on agreement in several areas, and
would have more to debate in others. I enjoy your postings.
Regards,
Sikander
Re: Gay or not ?
Linda,
>>even Craterus's friends had to ask why the King needed Hephaestion's love. This was perhaps to protect Hephaestion's political status, (see Pausinas) or perhaps not to upset group dynamics in the command hierarchy.<<
This is an interesting point, which perhaps ought to move to a different thread. It is pretty well attested that (a) Hephaestion got people's backs up (Eumenes had a major bust up with him shortly before Hephaestion died) and that (b) in particular, Hephaestion and Craterus didn't get on. I suggest that (b) is the main reason why Craterus's friends would have challenged why Alexander needed Hephaestion's love.
Alexander promoted Hephaestion pretty rapidly in 330 - he only really had the opportunity to do so once Philotas was out of the way. Admittedly, he had given H some independent commands before then, but they were not anything like the hipparchy of the Companions. So, politically, H was already pretty secure. The problem was that he was also not very well liked by his contemporaries, so the group dynamics were already somewhat up the spout - it required Alexander's force of character, after all, to separate H and Craterus when they came to blows, and he had to threaten them both with dire consequences if they did it again.
Look at that! You can tell it's Friday afternoon, because I'm rabbiting on and I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say. I think I'm saying that Hephaestion needed Alexander's 'love' in order to secure his position, because he was so disliked by most (?) of the other commanders that he wouldn't have lasted five minutes had Alexander repudiated him in any way. Do you know - I have *no* idea if I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you? <g> I think it's time to go home!
All the best
Marcus
>>even Craterus's friends had to ask why the King needed Hephaestion's love. This was perhaps to protect Hephaestion's political status, (see Pausinas) or perhaps not to upset group dynamics in the command hierarchy.<<
This is an interesting point, which perhaps ought to move to a different thread. It is pretty well attested that (a) Hephaestion got people's backs up (Eumenes had a major bust up with him shortly before Hephaestion died) and that (b) in particular, Hephaestion and Craterus didn't get on. I suggest that (b) is the main reason why Craterus's friends would have challenged why Alexander needed Hephaestion's love.
Alexander promoted Hephaestion pretty rapidly in 330 - he only really had the opportunity to do so once Philotas was out of the way. Admittedly, he had given H some independent commands before then, but they were not anything like the hipparchy of the Companions. So, politically, H was already pretty secure. The problem was that he was also not very well liked by his contemporaries, so the group dynamics were already somewhat up the spout - it required Alexander's force of character, after all, to separate H and Craterus when they came to blows, and he had to threaten them both with dire consequences if they did it again.
Look at that! You can tell it's Friday afternoon, because I'm rabbiting on and I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say. I think I'm saying that Hephaestion needed Alexander's 'love' in order to secure his position, because he was so disliked by most (?) of the other commanders that he wouldn't have lasted five minutes had Alexander repudiated him in any way. Do you know - I have *no* idea if I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you? <g> I think it's time to go home!
All the best
Marcus
-
Tre
Re: Gay or not ?
I'm not going to bore anyone further with my own musings on ancient sexuality (which I am BTW quite well-versed and well aware of the differences between the Dover Model, what is written and what is practiced, and Macedonian Homoeroticism and it's differences from same). However, you need to revisit Plutarch's Moralia 180f = 760c the conversation with Antipatrides. Expand on that and what it tells you about Plutarch's view of Alexander's relationship with women as he portrays it in his 'Lives.' Always be quite careful of what a source uses to illustrate a point when in fact, what he writes at other times tells us something quite different. Ditto Plin, HN 35.86:, Ael. VH 7.34 re Kampaspe, another mistress, and the liklihood Alexander's first successful female sexual encounter was Barsine.
Re: Gay or not ?
Hi Tre
This is not fair! Saying you won't take part and then flinging some references at me! You aren't a teacher by any chance?
I am afraid I don't really see the need for models of sexuality. Why compartmentalise this and separate it from other behaviour. Describe but don't prescribe. I suspect that a lot of these stem from the time when sexuality was seen as a social constructs, and you could say that people acted in a particular way only because of the society they live in - this may be the case, but I believe that there also predispositions - and this links people throughout history. I believe with Alexander it is fairly clear what that predisposition was, but one ahould never stop learning so I'll head to that library..
But I do know you have to be aware of context. For example, the word "favourite". There was a tv programme on Prince Charles (of UK) in which an equerry was described as "the Prince's favourite" by the other members of his staff. Now, no-one in their right mind would think they were, you know, at it. But in two thousand years time somebody might say "hmm". On the other hand polite shorthand for the Duke of Buckingham, James I's lover, was "favourite". I feel that if Helpaistion had not pre-deceased Alexander, we may have had a different view of his sexuality. The grief was so overwhelming.
I am also still interested in the view that Alexander was a private person. Which writer was the first to say this? I will do some re-reading, but if anyone has a ref.?
This is not fair! Saying you won't take part and then flinging some references at me! You aren't a teacher by any chance?
I am afraid I don't really see the need for models of sexuality. Why compartmentalise this and separate it from other behaviour. Describe but don't prescribe. I suspect that a lot of these stem from the time when sexuality was seen as a social constructs, and you could say that people acted in a particular way only because of the society they live in - this may be the case, but I believe that there also predispositions - and this links people throughout history. I believe with Alexander it is fairly clear what that predisposition was, but one ahould never stop learning so I'll head to that library..
But I do know you have to be aware of context. For example, the word "favourite". There was a tv programme on Prince Charles (of UK) in which an equerry was described as "the Prince's favourite" by the other members of his staff. Now, no-one in their right mind would think they were, you know, at it. But in two thousand years time somebody might say "hmm". On the other hand polite shorthand for the Duke of Buckingham, James I's lover, was "favourite". I feel that if Helpaistion had not pre-deceased Alexander, we may have had a different view of his sexuality. The grief was so overwhelming.
I am also still interested in the view that Alexander was a private person. Which writer was the first to say this? I will do some re-reading, but if anyone has a ref.?