Male paramours in antiquity

[Marilyn]

Jan, you said:"Alexander is coupled with women more than men: Barsine, Roxanne, Cleophis, Queen of Amazon, and according to Prevas, even the 365 concubines. so it goes. One can twist and turn statistics anyway one chooses."
You seem to do this a lot yourself. I've been reading the archive posts and its clear that there's no proof that this Amazon queen existed, in fact, someone pointed out that one of Alexander's own generals denied it. Someone else posted a bit on the fact that these harems WEREN'T nubile women but were inherited, and had a LOT of older women, too. From what I could gather, harems were a closed universe once the women were brought in; they couldn't be "sent home"; so they lived there till they died. The only sure women we absolutely KNOW were coupled with Alexander were Roxanne, Statiera and - I forget- was it Parysatis?
The others YOU mention are only gossip passed along by writers some years after Alexander, using mixed sources, some accurate some not. Even Heracles was not supported by the army.Despite evidence regarding Bagoas and impled evidence of Hephaestion, you toss that out. And YOU twist information to try to equate pedophilia with homosexuality, which, as Linda pointed out, is nonsense, while you try to use THAT as "proof' that Alexander was straight. Why weren't the male lovers mentioned as much? Why WOULD they be? The MARRIAGES were worthy of mention because they played important POLITICAL roles in the system. The male lovers, outside of having private influence, would have little political impact on the social structures. It seems so obvious- and I DO think I might have read that on this archive somewhere. Someone here (Tre? Marcus? Sikander? Linda? Amyntos? ) made the best argument: you can't impose your own values and beliefs about sexuality on the ancient world. It doesn't equate, so it's time to accept that things WERE different in many cases and move on.While some people keep trying to claim the gays have some "agenda" trying to make Alexander "gay", it seems like the most paniced voices are people trying to "prove" he was straight- not because there's any "proof" but because THEY need him to be. Isn't THAT an agenda?I think its most fair just to say that Alexander slept with who he wanted to sleep with, for whatever reasons, in the manner of his world which seems to have been much more relaxed about sex than today
Heck, even some of their gods, goddesses and heroes played both sides o

[rollsrite]

marcus, where are you? why let this crap get out of hand? tina rollrite

[Linda]

MarilynJust to say, I think this is a great post. Very sensible and eloquent.Linda

[jan]

Thank you. That was very interesting. I don't mix or confuse pedophilia with homosexuality. On page 210 of Agnes Savill's work she explains the reference to the Persian women. Until you told me otherwise,I had not realized that they had been considered prostitutes.In all fairness, I do not impose my values onto Alexander or the Greeks. I am not either pro gay or anti gay. I just study the evidence as indicated in the sources, and draw my own conclusions. I am not really trying to portray Alexander as anything sexual one way or the other. Like everyone else, I can only read what the Romans and later historians wrote, and decide if that source was accurate, fair, or unfair.My attitude about sexuality then is the same as sexuality now. It existed. It is generally a private matter, and I believe should be kept that way.The concerns of mine about Alexander are not so much about his sexuality but more about his godlike qualities which he prized so much. His intellect, his compassion, his fairness, his terror, his determination, his ability to be a friend. I just don't believe that pandering to a group is the best way to market films, books, or history. I believe in historical honesty, accuracy, and creative originality. I hope that a lot of great books, films, and poetry comes from these discussions.

[marcus]

I don't have the power to delete threads. I just hide behind my hayrick and hope they go away ...ATBMarcus

[Marilyn]

Hi Jan, > Until you told me otherwise,I had not realized that they had been considered prostitutes. Until you told me otherwise,I had not realized that they had been considered prostitutes. Until you told me otherwise,I had not realized that they had been considered prostitutes.I didn't say they were prostitutes.>In all fairness, I do not impose my values onto Alexander or the Greeks. I am not either pro gay or anti gay.In all fairness, I do not impose my values onto Alexander or the Greeks. I am not either pro gay or anti gay.In all fairness, I do not impose my values onto Alexander or the Greeks. I am not either pro gay or anti gay.I'd say that from comments you've made here in the past, you definitely slant towards believing some nonsense about gays! And I really DO think you impose your values- most people do!!>I just study the evidence as indicated in the sources, and draw my own conclusions. Like everyone else, I can only read what the Romans and later historians wrote, and decide if that source was accurate, fair, or unfair.I just study the evidence as indicated in the sources, and draw my own conclusions. Like everyone else, I can only read what the Romans and later historians wrote, and decide if that source was accurate, fair, or unfair.I just study the evidence as indicated in the sources, and draw my own conclusions. Like everyone else, I can only read what the Romans and later historians wrote, and decide if that source was accurate, fair, or unfair.But you seem to "decide' in favor of your own slant, Jan, a lot of times. All anyone can do is study the evidence, but you seem to always- and I mean always- discard whatever you don't agree with!>My attitude about sexuality then is the same as sexuality now. It existed. It is generally a private matter, and I believe should be kept that way.My attitude about sexuality then is the same as sexuality now. It existed. It is generally a private matter, and I believe should be kept that way.My attitude about sexuality then is the same as sexuality now. It existed. It is generally a private matter, and I believe should be kept that way.Yet it's a past of him, just like it is of anyone else, and it DOES impact behavior, like with anyone else, as well as decisions, reactions to people, motivations, and such>The concerns of mine about Alexander are not so much about his sexuality but more about his godlike qualities which he prized so much. His intellect, his compassion, his fairness, his terror, his determination, his ability to be a friend.The concerns of mine about Alexander are not so much about his sexuality but more about his godlike qualities which he prized so much. His intellect, his compassion, his fairness, his terror, his determination, his ability to be a friend.The concerns of mine about Alexander are not so much about his sexuality but more about his godlike qualities which he prized so much. His intellect, his compassion, his fairness, his terror, his determination, his ability to be a friend.Uhm, we ALL have those qualities, and from the EVIDENCE, I'd say his was no grater than most peoples. Someone here mentioned his access to opportunities compared to other people- I'd say that has more to do with Alexander and what he achieved.>I just don't believe that pandering to a group is the best way to market films, books, or history. I believe in historical honesty, accuracy, and creative originality. I hope that a lot of great books, films, and poetry comes from these discussions.I just don't believe that pandering to a group is the best way to market films, books, or history. I believe in historical honesty, accuracy, and creative originality. I hope that a lot of great books, films, and poetry comes from these discussions.I just don't believe that pandering to a group is the best way to market films, books, or history. I believe in historical honesty, accuracy, and creative originality. I hope that a lot of great books, films, and poetry comes from these discussions.But Jan, if we look at it HONESTLY, we have to admit that we "pander" to heterosexuality ALL the time as a base for movies and books. So that's not a real argument!Anyway, that's just my opinion!!!

[jan]

HI Marilyn, On pp. 308 and 309 of Arthur Weigall's biography is some great material: I will quote some of it.Paragraph 2, p. 309 Quote:"No one, surely, who has studied his hard and violent life would feel justified in classing him definitely as homosexual, in spite of his languishing eyes, his carefully shaven face, his love of splendour, his usual indifference to women, his ong intimacy with Hephaestion, his warm emotions, his pious mysticism, and much else besides; but he does not represent by any means a consistently or blatantly masculine type. Yet the recognition of these inconsistencies which are observable in him because we only know him as a plastic young man not fujlly moulded into final shape, is essential to the appraisement of his character; and I can find no justification for ignoring them as the historian usually ignores them in his process of simplification. We have to recognize, for instance, that he was both abstemious in general and a hard drinker on occasion; both onccupiscent and continent; both arrogant and easy-mannered; both self-controlled and uncontrolled; both cultured and barbaric; both fond of Macdonian simplicity and enthralled by Oriental splendor; and so forth."On p. 308, I want to quote this statement also: "In behaving in this savage mannner, however, he did not reveal an aspect of himself new to his subjects, and there is nothing to support the usual view that he was now insane or bordering on insanity; the Alexander who killed Oxathres is obviously the same who killed Kleitos; the Alexander who threw Abulites to the horses is the same who dragged the dying governor of Gaza tied by the heels to his chariot, or who ordered Bessos to be torn asunder. There had always been this strain of cruelty and savagery in his nature.Side by side, however, these with this cave-man ferocity there were certain feminine traits in his character which might have led him into habitually effeminate ways had not his ambitions obliged him to the play the man so continuously that the tendenies could seldom be indulged. At this time he was verey fond of a eunuch named Bagoas; and once when, excited by wine, he was applauding a dance performed by this Bagoas before the Comopanions, he puthis arms around him and kissed him - to the amused delight of the whole company, who clapped their hands and shouted their approval. It was at the instigations of Bagoas, by the way, that one of the viceroys was sentenced to death, so Curtius dec

[jan]

Part 2, to Marilyn,
Continuing the quotation from Arthur Weigall's great book, and please forgive typos, as I see I have made some.As Curtius declares, and the condemned man is said to have made the bitter remark that the empire was ruled by this eunuch. Plutarch adds that not only Bagoas, but three others- Agnon, Agesias, and Demetrios-were always around him, flattering him, administering to his every need, and adoring him as a god; but the suggestion is not made that there is anything morally unpleasant in this connection."Weigall is the first intro to Alexander, and imo, still the best in his presentation. I find his study to be very fair and honest, as he uses his sources well.First of all, as far as my own personal attitudes towards Alexander, I base that upon my inner experiences which have come to light and I share those very carefully. I am convinced that Alexander is bigger than most authors can describe him, that only a few really can comprehend his largesse, as his intellect is much more complex and greater than even genius. He is so extraordinary that few will be able to do him justice.

[jan]

None of this is crap at all, Tina, if you will continue to read and use the dates as guides!

[jan]

Oh, and I apologize for confusing you with L&nda. No, you did not say that, but it is a part of the message board. Hope you will read the posts written today as I think that the quotations are very important.

[jan]

Well, Marcus, I have a wild and bawdy side which occasionally surfaces, and I have had to admit that this post did extract too much from me. Sorry I got out of control, but my additions from Arthur Weigall are valuable nonetheless.

[amyntoros]

Jan, IGÇÖm not meaning to get involved in the subject matter of this thread, but I do want to say that the quotes you give here are interesting, but they are not in any way GÇ£important.GÇ¥ Weigall is simply a writer whose version of Alexander compares with your own. In other words you like what he says. However, quotes from Weigall do not prove anything one way or the other here. Someone could come along and quote from Badian, but what would be the point? It would just show that historians can have extremely disparate views of the same man! (And I now have the vision of some kind of Alexander-historian Celebrity Deathmatch stuck in my head!) If you want to try and effectively support your own opinions in this instance, you need to use the Alexander sources, any related source information on the culture or the times, archaeological evidence, and so forth.Best regards,Amyntoros

[marcus]

Hi Janet,Valuable or not, I'm just not getting involved in this thread. :-)ATBMarcus

[jan]

One final shot: Just as the Michael Jackson case is winding down, at least Michael has stood trial. He is accused, and only will be acquitted if there is reasonable doubt.Alexander has never stood trial but has only been accused. There is only a verdict in the minds of those who choose to render one. The only accusation that I know of is the one that I quoted earlier by the viceroy mentioned in Weigall's book. Curtius implies that the eunuch was sinister in his behaviour. Again, there is reasonable doubt in any hearsay evidence.Alexander remains a mystery, and I believe that is enough to say. He is acquitted in my mind also.

[Marilyn]

Hi Jan and Linda,I was just about to say the same thing! That Weigall is no more important than any other modern writer except in that he writes what appeals to you, Jan.
I mean, there are modern writers who DO say he was homosexual- or at least had sex with men- its just opinions!Weigal has, through the standards and acceptable views of his OWN time and culture, decided that being gay was somehow "wrong" or "immoral" - a decidedly biased view and one not shared by every culture or age.
It's kind of like the politicians who wrongly compare gays to pedophiles and terorrists or whatever the hell it is they're doing- they're espousing a particular VIEW but they aren't right by any means. They get away with it BECAUSE of prejudice, not because its true.I still think Alexander probably slept with whoever he felt like sleeping with, and I still think the marriages only got mentioned because of their political importance not cuz they indicated any special big love, necessarily. So we're still in disagreement, but I enjoy your sharing your ideas.