is Alexander's greatness just past?

[susa]

JohnYou know, Alexander did have other women - lovers, i mean. Well, at least is what i hear. And as for the gay thing, i don't think the Olympias theory would explain it. I think he only felt attracted to the men he met, for many reasons [his reasons, you know, and we may never know what those were], but i don't see any Freudian [or whatever] explanation for that... Only stark affinity, physical and of mind --- like that passage in the 'Iliad' about, i think, Diomedes and his groom - about whom Homer says: 'the one among his [Diomede's] other companions whose mind and thoughts came the closest to Diomede's.' - something like that.susa

[John]

Linda,No, I wasn't saying Alexander's mother made him gay (I don't even think he WAS gay). I was saying the intense love Olympias had for Alexander made it difficult for any other female to compete for his affections. And since Alexander wasn't into rape, there was only a shakey middle ground - until Roxanne broke him out of his shell, maybe. Or was it Barsine?John

[John]

Susa,Maybe you're saying he thought he was the pinnacle of perfection, so what would be the point?John

[susa]

The point of being the pinnacle of perfection? Or the point that he wasn't particularly interested in passing on his genes?Well - he thought he was the pinnacle of perfection, no? And then this would mean he should pass on his genes. Well, he did, you know. But they got the offsprings killed. Poor kids. As things were, he wasn't very interested in knowing what would have happened to the empire after his death - with or without heirs. He wouldn't be there to watch, no? Thank God he didn't see the awful business at all!susa

[John]

Well, you just got me thinking Why wouldn't Alexander have wanted to pass on his genes? Maybe because he considered himself the Pinnacle of Perfection; evolution ended with him. Why bother with offspring, when they would only be pathetic shadows of his own great Self.Then, again, maybe the opposite was the case; maybe he didn't want to produce a superman offspring that would overshadow his glory, the way Alexander totally overshadowed Philip.Or maybe he just never found his true soul mate. Or maybe he found his true soulmate, but they would have to wait till their next reincarnation to successfully produce offspring that would survive. Or maybe thier offspring had to wait till he was reincarnated to live his adult years.Yeah, that's it. Now I can make sense of that movie, "The Man Who Would be King," where Sean Connery plays Alexander's reincarnated son, who finds out who he is after travelling to 20th century Afghanistan.John

[ruthaki]

That old 'gay' question again. Don't put today's morality on what was going on back then. Sex between men was considered 'normal' (so long as it didn't include kids). And most of those men also had wives or were going to have wives. Alexander 'did it' at least twice with Roxane as she had a miscarriage in India and later got pregnant with Alexander IV. And Stateira was pregnant by him when she was murdered. So what's the big deal? He loved Hephaestion best -- well, men were supposed to have strong attachments to other men in those days. It was the 'manly' thing to do. (And i think if his mother had her way he'd have been married off to a Macedonian girl before he had chance to run off to conquor Persia.) Re Barsine, yes I believe she 'taught' him what he needed to know and hadn't had the chance to experience with a woman. Good for her! Maybe he should have married her instead of Roxane (or besides Roxane) However, it was all controlled by politics, not 'love'.

[marcus]

Hi John,A couple of weeks ago I watched "The Man Who Would be King" again and I was interested that, in fact, Dravot and Carnahan pass *through* Afghanistan into a more northerly Asian kingdom (can't remember what they call it). This means that they must have gone to the very far reaches of Alexander's empire, fairly near the Jaxartes (and therefore ancient Sogdia). I must go back and re-read the original Kipling story to see exactly what it says - although the film is very true to the book so I assume they will tally on these details!All the bestMarcus

[John]

Marcus,No wonder I never really understood that strange movie; I should have read Kipling's book it was based on.It's funny. My grandfather owned Kipling's entire collection, some sort of special limited edition - but my brother got away with it. I'm not so interested in fiction, anyway. I have enough trouble just keeping the facts together.John

[marcus]

John,It's worth it. I haven't read a huge amount of Kipling's work, but I have enjoyed all that I have read. It's a while since I read "TOAFK" but I thought it was great (and it's quite short - a novella rather than a novel).I always remember the old joke:
"Do you like Kipling?"
"I don't know: I've never been Kipled."Boom boom!All the bestMarcus

[susa]

Sorry MarcusBut what does the joke mean? I couldn't find the word 'kipled' in the dictionary.susa

[John]

Marcus,Looks like I falsely accused my brother; those Kipling books are still sitting on a shelf at Mom's house. Still, they're not for me. I looked at "The Man Who Would be King." Even though it's short, I couldn't force myself to read through it.I think Kipling was over-seduced by the Afghanistan opium. Really. I just looked at a web-site that said he used to "dabble with opium." My head actually started clouding up when I tried to read his stuff.John

[marcus]

Hi Susa,Oh dear, I'm not sure how easy it is to explain, but I'll try..."Do you like Kipling?" in this context means "do you like the works of Rudyard Kipling?" but the joke operates on the fact that it could mean "do you like the act of kipling?". Kipling in this case would derive from the verb "to kiple". There is no such word, but the joke is all based on that misunderstanding of the meaning of the question.It's not really that funny, particularly not when one tries to analyse it (like most humour). But it always makes me laugh. Perhaps, unfortunately, it's one that only works for native English speakers...
:-)All the bestMarcus

[susa]

Marcus :)I know i was risking your joke when i asked you to explain it for me :)But, you know, the thing is so very absurd that i laughed at it anyway .... :DThank you very much!susa

[Linda]

Just as a matter of interst, what *is* today's morality?Anyway - perhaps we have all said all we can and need to say on this...Linda

[barry]

Knowledge is power Franx - History is a snap shot for us to absorb and learn from. There is nothing new and old which appears to be your perception ... Life is a continuation ... If someone has a positive influence on you past or present then you should be able to answer your own question.Posted by: Franx
Posted on: Saturday, 26th October 2002 Message:
Do you think that Alexander the Great is actual as historical figure, or now all his aspects are obsolete, old and all we can recive from studying him is just the knowledge of an historical process, or fashination, but nothing else?Thanks......ps, about me is still the Greatest!