BAGOAS

[Maximilian]

i want to know more about Bagoas. the Persian lover of Alexander.

[kenny]

With RespectThere is nothing in the sources that say definately Alexander had any male lovers let alone Persian eunuck lovers.I believe Alexanders only real love or mistress was as Napoleon once quoted was glory.Kenny

[xxx]

This is not correct Kenny. Read Curtius.What we do know of Bagoas can be found in Curtius, which is little and Curtius is hostile toward him (which Curtius may be picking up from the sources he read). We do know he was the lover of Darius, and therfore was part of the trappings of the Persian court.

[kenny]

tre fair point.darius had many wives,therefore do we assume alexander married them all and made them his wives also?kenny

[xxx]

Kenny, you try too hard to make Alexander what you want him to be, not what he was. When you do that you lose perspective. Curtius explicitly refers to Bagoas as a sexual partner. There is no question about it. Tarn was pretty well roasted in scholarly circles for trying to argue away Bagoas because he didn't 'like' the thought of Alexander, who he portrayed rather like a proper Scottish Gentleman, doing such a thing and therefore translated that idea into a historical 'truth' of his own making. That kind of modernistic thinking destroyed Tarn's credibility, despite the fact that at one time he was 'the' Alexander scholar. Don't fall into the same trap - you will miss much of the color and depth of the tapestry of the ancient world that makes this particular King and the ancient world so fascinating.Regards,Tre

[Lucian]

Don't do with Bagoas what one can do with Hephaistion - argue the possibilities, because Hephaistion HAD other functions. Bagoas had his function in Persian custom, and maintained with Alexander. If he is brought to posterity in the shadow of Alexander, assume that he did to Alexander exactly what he was trained to do - please him. Now if you feel more comfortable, you can say that Bagoas was good at juggling, which apparently he was - switching so quickly from Darius to Alexander.

[kenny]

Lucian HailAS you say Bagoas was basically a comodity,,, Its fairv to say as you said Alexander Hepheastion much more of a relationship whjatever that was.However Bagoas as you said was a tool and Tre said a spoil of war,,, I would doubt Alexander told or shared anything art all with Bagoas.Maybe Tre likes him to be Alexanders lover but Id say that was overstated.Kenny

[xxx]

No, it doesn't matter what Tre likes or doesn't like Kenny - I relate the history as written. Did you read the passages in Curtius yet?

[amyntoros]

For the record here's the passage from Curtius:Curtius, 6.5.22-23
Four days later Alexander returned to camp. He now sent home Artabazus, doubling the honours Darius had conferred on him. Arriving then at the city in Hyrcania where the place of Darius stood, he was met by Nabarzanes, who had been given a safe conduct and who now brought Alexander lavish gifts, [23] including Bagoas, an exceptionally good-looking eunuch in the very flower of his youth. Darius had had a sexual relationship with him and presently Alexander did, too. It was BagoasGÇÖ pleas that did most to influence Alexander to pardon Nabarzanes.Best regards,Linda Ann

[kenny]

Linda TreCan you please iunderline where it says they were lovers.Just a sex toy a I gather for the sexual gratification as for Darius.I guess sometimes you gotta get your noses out of the books and come up for air,,, Sometimes you cant see the wood for the trees.Kenny

[Linda]

From Dictionary.com. See especially 3.2"lov-+er 1. One who loves another, especially one who feels sexual love.
2. lovers A couple in love with each other.
3.
1. A paramour.
2. A sexual partner.
4. One who is fond of or devoted to something: a lover of fine food."You may also like to read the bit in Curtius where the Persian nobleman was reminded that Bagoas, as Alexander's lover, was due a present. Or the bit where Alexander kisses him in public? Linda

[kenny]

So LindaYour saying That Bagoas was a close confidant of Alexander.That Alexanhder shared every part of his lie and his feelings as he would a wife or Hepheastion.I sit and wonder with the life of people that repeatedly quote books script by script.You all remind me of bible bashers sometimes you gotta take a breather and use common sense.Common sense tells us that Bagoas was a male Whore that Alexander inherited his services from Darius.Dont try to sound rediculous and say Bagoas shared an pounce of the closeness Alexander had with Hephastion.

[lucian]

Bagoas was a "pampered" whore. By this I mean, that he had a sexual function to fulfill, but at the same time he was learned, probably educated, we know he danced, and possibly played some sort of instrument. The closest thing to him that I know of would be a greek courtesan. There is a difference between a common whore and a professional, and he was a professional. As such, he required a certain level of respect, and probably had a certain level of pride and dignity, all of which a common soldier would just snip at, but Alexander paid more attention to. The gift might have been a requirement of etiquette, rather than a show of "confidence" and we know Alexander was more often than not careful with local curtesies and etiquette, whenever he could afford to. We also know that Alexander was very free when it came to presents, he gave them away all the time, to pretty much anybody, it didn't mean that Alexander favored them equal to Hephaistion. Did he confide in Bagoas? There are many things a person can confide in another person. It's easier at times to just chat away with someone you're intimate with. And with Alexander, I can see him talking to Bagoas about local customs; critisism might have not come so easielly with a lover, than it would with someone else. Bagoas was not Hephaistion's equal, and that's a given, because Alexander considered Hephaistion his equal,the "other Alexander", a position Bagoas would never have, he was not a free man, he was property. But that doesn't mean Alexander didn't respect him, according to what was expected of him, if not a little more - for sentiment sake.

[Linda]

I didn't say that Baogoas was the same as Hephaestion: - but you said, and I quote"There is nothing in the sources that say definately Alexander had any male lovers let alone Persian eunuck lovers." (sic)And there is. And now you are saying Hephaestion and Bagoas were in a sexual relationship with Alexander. And lover, as defined by the dictionary, is a sexual partner.If you are going to argue by gut insinct then you are not increasing your wisdom. People quote facts because they are facts. It is useless otherwise, and very unintersting

[kenny]

Linda I am sorry you say you are quoting facts.Im sorry you are not noboby in this forum knows the facts.Curtius and Arian dont know the facts.Ptolemy was close to thje facts but I doubt he knew all the facts.All we read are guidelines and mayybe some ar5e facts.
As ittelligent people we look at the evidence and thje so called facts and try to come to an educated conclusion that might have been facts.So as far as quoting anyone of the sources they are guidelines and interpretations not facts.All we can be sure of are them documentations of wars battles sieges etc.But the rest is pure guess work, No one knows who Alexander loved who he hated, Rather than oersistently Reading the sources you move on to other books histories and acoounts and get a much rounder picture.Most people as Linda bsays Alexander barged into peoples frond doors robbed there possesions ets,,,yet we all know the picture is far more complicated.Kenny