Alexander into the bin

[Efstathios]

We pretty much agree on some things. I will comment on this:

Just so's I can be clear - are you rejecting the idea of a general homoerotic aspect to ancient Greek and Macedonian affairs, or are you more specifically rejecting it in reference to Alex and Heph?

I am debating the idea of a general homoerotic aspect to ancient Greek affairs yes. At least in the extent that people nowdays suggest that it was. I tend to believe that not much has really changed at these matters since then.There were homosexuals yes. But not that every teenager was at some point "taught" at homoerotism by a man that his parents usually ordered to be his teacher. And of course this also cannot be explained by biology. You cant have a whole society full of homosexuals. It against human nature. Something like that if had happened must have been forced to the youth, something which i dont believe it did. But this is a big discussion, which has been made some time ago, but if you like to we can discuss it further.

About Alexander and Hephaestion, i am also debating a homosexual relationship between them since we have no real evidence to suggest that, apart from them two being best friends. And as you can understand, the hypothesis that they may have been something more than friends, is based on the whole idea of homoerotic affairs in ancient greece. And since i debate that, i also debate this.At least of being based in a probably false theory.

Did i confuse you?

I agree with you, that it doesnt really matter if they were or were not in such an affair. It matters though when someone bases half of his movie on that, when it is only an assumption. And especially since we are talking about a figure like Alexander.

[marcus]

It matters though when someone bases half of his movie on that, when it is only an assumption. And especially since we are talking about a figure like Alexander.

I was going to keep completely out of this one, but I really have to take issue with this.

You and I must have watched completely different films - half the movie? on something that was never shown or even discussed, beyond that one reference from the old Ptolemy which is directly quoted from an ancient source (irrespective of the reliability of the source)? Come on!

ATB

[rjones2818]

I agree with you, that it doesnt really matter if they were or were not in such an affair. It matters though when someone bases half of his movie on that, when it is only an assumption. And especially since we are talking about a figure like Alexander.

The problem is that your rather vociferous view, if presented as fact, would be based on just as 'flimsy' (imho even flimsier) evidence.

And the film did ~$300million worldwide, which isn't chicken feed.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/reviews/DV ... 50802.html shows the worldwide gross for 'Alexander.'

[Paralus]

... especially since we are talking about a figure like Alexander.

That, Marcus and rjones2818, is the salient point here. You see, one cannot impute such behaviour to the “Great” king of Macedonia. No matter that such homoerotic behaviour was part of the Pages institution where the sons of the nobility were, essentially, taken hostage by and bound to (sometimes literally) the king.

Pausanias, Philip’s murderer leaps to mind. In fact, the details of that story paint such relationships as nothing out of the ordinary. Alexander, though brought up to be king in this environment was, we are asked to believe, totally immune to it and contracted no homoerotic relationships at all.

Interesting that those who so staunchly defend the son from such scurrilous scuttlebut have no problem when it applies to his father, Philip, in whose court Alexander was raised.

He would be, then, the exception that proves the rule? Not in my opinion.

Similarly, one must not highlight behaviour of the benevolent conqueror that belies utterly that image. To incontinently plagiarise myself from another thread:

It was reported to Alexander that a tribe of independent (my italics) Indians known as the Cathaei was, among certain others, preparing resistance in the event of an invasion and calling for the support of its neighbours. Sangala, the town were they were proposing to make their stand, was said to be a strong one, and they themselves were reputed to be excellent soldiers and brave men…The Effect of this report was to put Alexander on the move against the Cathaei without an instant’s delay. (Arr 5.21)

Hmm, look at that: a free people willing to fight if I invade. Says rather a lot that little passage.

By the end of this operation, the conscience plagued Alexander had killed up to 17,000 of these people and then proceeded to capture and kill 500 of the “sick” left behind by the routed Cathaei. Tallied with the 7,000 mercenaries murdered earlier at Massaga, it would seem that this might not be action of a benevolent, altruistic and civilising conqueror.

Possibly that, though, might just be my perverse take on the source material.

[rjones2818]

"ParalusSimilarly, one must not highlight behaviour of the benevolent conqueror that belies utterly that image. To incontinently plagiarise myself from another thread:

It was reported to Alexander that a tribe of independent (my italics) Indians known as the Cathaei was, among certain others, preparing resistance in the event of an invasion and calling for the support of its neighbours. Sangala, the town were they were proposing to make their stand, was said to be a strong one, and they themselves were reputed to be excellent soldiers and brave men…The Effect of this report was to put Alexander on the move against the Cathaei without an instant’s delay. (Arr 5.21)

Hmm, look at that: a free people willing to fight if I invade. Says rather a lot that little passage.

By the end of this operation, the conscience plagued Alexander had killed up to 17,000 of these people and then proceeded to capture and kill 500 of the “sick” left behind by the routed Cathaei. Tallied with the 7,000 mercenaries murdered earlier at Massaga, it would seem that this might not be action of a benevolent, altruistic and civilising conqueror.

Possibly that, though, might just be my perverse take on the source material.

The problem is one, as always, as to how to look at what was written. You take a very dim view of Alexander here (at least it seems to me). I think it's fair to ask what the Cathaei were doing by calling togethera military force to face Alexander, when he hadn't invaded. Could Alexander have seen that as a action that was aimed against him? Had he tried diplomacy with them, or them with him? The great truth, as happens many times with Alexander, is that we don't know. It doesn't keep us from drawing conclusions, and there will be many different conclusions drawn. I don't know if the Cathaei were acting in what would be considered a reasonable manner, perhaps they were. But we don't know, other than the fact that Alexander took action against them, what he felt his forces were faced with. I think this is one of the reasons as to why Alexander studies are so interesting.

[rjones2818]

Hmmm...

the quote thingy didn't seem to work right.

[Paralus]

The problem is one, as always, as to how to look at what was written. You take a very dim view of Alexander here (at least it seems to me). I think it's fair to ask what the Cathaei were doing by calling togethera military force to face Alexander, when he hadn't invaded.

I disagree. It is plain from the text that the Cathaei were organising to defend themselves if it transpired that Alexander invaded. That, given what had ocurred already in this campaign, was the only sensible thing to do.

Prior to this, the 7,000 Indian mercenaries had been butchered at Massaga and the town taken in a rather fierce battle. This town was not on its own.

The question should be, rather, why does a city taking precautions - having heard what's already happened elewhere - in case the invader takes an interest in their dorection bring on a respose akin to poking a funnel web spider with a stick? Further, why the murder of those "sick"?

[Efstathios]

You and I must have watched completely different films - half the movie? on something that was never shown or even discussed

Half the movie was of course an exaggeration. But it didnt have to be shown. It was evident in every scene with Alexander and Hephaestion. And by the way i remember seeing an interview of Farell who admitted that during the making of the movie and those scenes he felt something intimate about the actor that played Hephaestion. Without implying that anything happened between them, he did imply that he felt something for the actor, as Alexander may have felt about Hephaestion. In a not "best friends way though" as the two of them didnt know eachother. Thus alo implying that Collin Farell is bi. This interview was broadcasted in Greek tv while the film was about to launch. So you understand that these scenes are even more realistic.

No matter that such homoerotic behaviour was part of the Pages institution where the sons of the nobility were, essentially, taken hostage by and bound to (sometimes literally) the king.

Where is this written, or implied?

[keroro]

Hmmm...

the quote thingy didn't seem to work right.

You've got

after this. You can easily edit it now.

I must admit that I also do not remember the film dwelling unecessarily on the Alex and Heph relationship. I just remember the meaningful looks between the two. But as I said before, it's a while since I saw it.

We pretty much agree on some things. I will comment on this:

Just so's I can be clear - are you rejecting the idea of a general homoerotic aspect to ancient Greek and Macedonian affairs, or are you more specifically rejecting it in reference to Alex and Heph?

I am debating the idea of a general homoerotic aspect to ancient Greek affairs yes. At least in the extent that people nowdays suggest that it was. I tend to believe that not much has really changed at these matters since then.There were homosexuals yes. But not that every teenager was at some point "taught" at homoerotism by a man that his parents usually ordered to be his teacher. And of course this also cannot be explained by biology. You cant have a whole society full of homosexuals. It against human nature. Something like that if had happened must have been forced to the youth, something which i dont believe it did. But this is a big discussion, which has been made some time ago, but if you like to we can discuss it further.

About Alexander and Hephaestion, i am also debating a homosexual relationship between them since we have no real evidence to suggest that, apart from them two being best friends. And as you can understand, the hypothesis that they may have been something more than friends, is based on the whole idea of homoerotic affairs in ancient greece. And since i debate that, i also debate this.At least of being based in a probably false theory.

Central to my personal belief that Alex and Heph were 'involved' in some way is the assumption that there was a general level of homoeroticism in ancient Greek times. One of the main things that convince me of my view is the matter of fact and entirely unsensational way in which the affairs regarding Pausanias and Philip are reported in, for example, Diodorus or Plutarch.

I acccept your point that a society made up entirely of 'homosexuals' would not last long, but I have never suggested this. My belief is that there was an amount of homoerotic sex, especially amongst younger boys, but that it was expected that when the boys grew up that they should marry and have children with their wives. In my view it was never an either/or thing, which was what I was trying to say when I said that hetero and homosexuality are modern ideas. The ancients would take different kinds of partner at different times of their lives.

One further point - the male form was highly idealised in ancient Greece, in much the same way that the female form is in the media today. It is this difference of idealisation that I think is a big difference between modern times and ancient times. Boys would have been surrounded by images of men and boys, like at the Gymnopaedia or at the games, and would have been aware that this was an ideal of beauty. In such an environment it is my belief that a level of homoeroticism was more likely to develop than not. Societies do not need to directly 'teach' something like homoeroticism to boys, if it is engrained in everyday life then it can be taken up by a kind of cultural osmosis.

Oh, and I'm sure that this theme has been discussed many times. Hope it's not too boring for the Pothosians. Could anyone point to where it has been discussed on the Pothos board in the past?

[rjones2818]

Thanks for the fix info!

Rex

[Efstathios]

Kekoro, i have one remark. Have you read "The last wine" by Marry Renault? It shows the love between 2 men, one teenager and the other of the age of 25, and later on the teenager finds a woman to marry, and in result the relationship between the two men seases. And we see that this annoys them, as they still have a desire for eachother. Of course Mary Renault puts it in a more romantic way throughout the book. But heck, would a society permitt this kind of love between two people, and when the non adult became an adult, or got married, that it had to stop? This doesnt make sense. It would be sadistic. I was reading the book, and what Renault wrote just didnt make sense, if you know what i mean.

I think this whole story is just a wild specculation by some people that saw some things in the fragments of history we have, but couldnt explain them otherwise, so they said that they had to be this way.

Well, there can be other senarios too. More believable.

There are some contradictions, i admitt. for example Plutarch tells us in his " life of Lykourgos" about the "erastis" and "eromenos" in ancient Sparta. And he specificly says that there was no body contact of any kind between them, and whoever broke that was punished by excile from Sparta. "Erastis" was the man that had to instruct a boy and educate him, who was the "eromenos".These two words which now translate to "lovers" were used merely as to indicate the devotion of the instructor to the task he had to do. Nothing guile here, as Plutarch also remarks. And the same happened in Athens too.

On the other hand, Plutarch also tells us in his moralia, about Philosophers that have tasted the masculine love. Ok, this is contradictory. But we dont have all the clues.

And i ask this, if indeed what happended was what you said, and what most of the people believe, wouldnt we have more information? I mean, this homoerotic relationship between young men e.t.c. must have been a main element in the life of Athens for example. But yet none of the works that we have are devoted in such an event. We dont have any tragedies, plays, poems e.t.c. about the love of two men, like Marry Renault's book. Dont you find that strange?

We only have Plato's symposium talking about some kinky Philosophers and a bi-sexual Alciviades. Ok, what does this say?

That's why i am debating this. The usuall evidence like pots and vases that show some homoerotic scenes dont count as proof for me, because for example there have been found 70.000 ancient vazes, and just 80 of them have this kind of context. A homosexual man like Faidon lets say, could have had 20 of them in his house.And the famous vaze that shows a hoplite chasing a Persian soldier with his **** erected, well, we all know what that means exactly. " We Athenians %#$%#$ Persians".

Since we dont have anymore information about these matters, we cannot say what really went on. But i believe that if there was something like this going on, we would have more information about it.

[sikander]

Greetings,

I would like to bring a slightly fresh perspective to this discussion as it relates to cultures and homoeroticism.

First, there are cultures today in which sexual behaviours are governed by cultural or tribal-specific patterns that some people would find uncomfortable.

In one tribal group, youing men are expected to serve/service older men/warriors and then, upon reaching majority, they cease serving and seek out a young man- this in no way prevents marriage and children. It is a constructed social behaviour that *all* the men are expected to participate in, and debate about orientation is moot. I can imagine that, for the young men who *are* homosexual, if they fall in love with their mentor, the custom to cease the relationship upon maturity is painful.. but perhaps not. Perhaps in that culture, the relationship is simply re-defined and they move on. I think we *must* bear in mind that even today, not every culture interprets "love" or sexual relationships the same, nor is love given the same "weight" in every culture.

In other social patterns, young men are free to experiment with each other *so long* as, once they mature, they cease the behaviour, marry and produce children. In still other cultuires, sexual experimentation between same genders is common, *even though* the overall cultural reflects a legal and religious expectation of heterosexuality.

This modern connection is relevant because there 8is* a difference between what a culture expects, what the law allows and what humans do. Sexual behaviour iis a primary driving force; it can be codified but not controlled.

Therefore, as much as we see a diversity in expexted sexual behaviours today, we can assume that same diversity in the past since we are dealing with human nature. The fact that monotheistic religions have instituted not only an expectation but a demand for heterosexuality as the singular acceptable behaviour today does *not* mean it was the singular behaviour in the past, since there were fewer codified laws. Further, we have to accept that behaviours considered anathema by some cultures today are still accepted not only in the past, but in modern other cultures today.

From what we read, there was as much- if not more- diversity of "expected norms" in the past as there are today. If we discuss the possible behaviours of Alexander from his own times and culture, and from the few recorded behaviours of those around him.. in doing this, I can see no way *not* to suspect he was somewhat less rigid, less judgemental and less concerned about sexual behaviour in terms of *who* than many today seem to be. In fact, from what I can ascertain, his concerns were more about *how* a relationship was conducted than with *who*..

Regards,
Sikander

[Efstathios]

You cannot just, unintentionally even compare a tribal society with the ancient Greek one. I dont want to sound like a nationalist here, but this is how it is. For example a tribe that Alexander met uppon (cant remember now which, the Mallians maybe?) killed the old people.(Plutarch). Each society acts accordingly to their cultural level and education. And the Greek one was the highest of the time, and the most correct in some matters.

There are some controversies with this matter of homoerotism in ancient Greece. For example, Plutarch says about the masculine loves that Plato, and other philosophers approved. But wasnt it Plato in his laws that condemned these homosexual behaviours? So was Plutarch misinformed? And if he was, and he didnt know what happened 400 years ago, then how can we know better?

And furthermore, if Plutarch didnt know, then it is possible that such behaviours were not even present in his time , the 1st century a.d. Then when did they cease? I think that at the time Of Plutarch Christianity hadnt been established that well yet in order for the whole society to have changed. And before Plutarch there wasnt any event that could cease homoerotic behaviours.

[sikander]

Greetings,

You said: " You cannot just, unintentionally even compare a tribal society with the ancient Greek one."

I *can* compare societal codes because humans share common responses. A tribal culture is not necessarily more "primitive" or "less civilized" in terms of human behavioural codes than another just because the cities are larger, there is more industrial growth or the legal codes are more numerous.

" And the Greek one was the highest of the time, and the most correct in some matters. "

I would have to argue that, the Greek culture was *perceived* by the Greeks to be the most correct in some matters. Other peoples might debate the definition (smile)

I believe that if we examine the complete texts of written materials availablee from the ancient world, we would find as diverse a system of "approved" behaviour as today. Also, I suspect what we would have to do first is define what constitutes a homoerotic culture... a homoerotic culture does not depend on sexual activity between the same gender to *be* a homoerotic culture..

. From what I recall, the debate seems to center more on *conduct* than on the idea of two men together. Also, bear in mind that I have agreed that *varying* social behaviours related to sex were most liukley present in different cultures; firther, that sexual behaviour was not a focus for many cultures. In fact, I wonder if the control of sexual behaviour was more limited to the upper classes than everyone in general, outside of slaves.

As to homosexual behaviours not being present in the time of Plutarch, I would argue that homosexual orientation , like the sexual continuum, is inherent in the human species as it is in many animal species, and it is unlikely that it did not exist in Plutarch's time..
If variations in orientation did not exist, there would be no laws trying to control sexual behaviours framed around orientation, desire, and drives . The fact that, thoughout history, various societies have found it necessary to create laws governing sexual activity of all sorts between people of both genders and all ages is a fair indication that these behaviours have, and continue, to exist.

I *do* agree that we cannot state anything for certain regarding Alexander's sexuality. All we can do is explore the possibilities based on the sources..

Regards,
Sikander

[Paralus]

There are some contradictions, i admitt. for example Plutarch tells us in his " life of Lykourgos" about the "erastis" and "eromenos" in ancient Sparta. And he specificly says that there was no body contact of any kind between them, and whoever broke that was punished by excile from Sparta. "Erastis" was the man that had to instruct a boy and educate him, who was the "eromenos".These two words which now translate to "lovers" were used merely as to indicate the devotion of the instructor to the task he had to do...

Stathi, I'd suggest that it is taken as read that homoerotic relationships were damn near the norm in the Spartan Agoge. Indeed it fostered such. Lysander and Agesilaos were just one such example.

The usuall evidence like pots and vases that show some homoerotic scenes dont count as proof for me, because for example there have been found 70.000 ancient vazes, and just 80 of them have this kind of context.

And, therein lies the point. I suspect it really wouldn't matter what evidence came to light, it wouldn't suffice. I could just as easily suggest that the existence of the gay mardi gras in Sydney in no way implies hosexuality in Australia. They are only some 20,000 out of 20,000,000 so they don't constitute any proof of homosexuals in Australia to me!

As to your question about the Pages institution, I'll get to you tonight or tomorrow. Right now, I believe I will take my cold ridden head back to bed.