pothos.org

I love the theatrical release of the Alexander movie so much. I even had to get the DVD and watch it again and again. Now I also own the DVD of the Final (Revisited) version. Didn't notice that the crying after Gaugamela was missing, Marcus! No!!! That was awesome! Did notice the added Bagoas scenes. And Ptolemy spelling out that Hephaistion and Bagoas were Alexander's lovers.

The second version is longer but better edited IMHO, especially because it starts with battle scenes, which is what Alexander is known for after all. No one would've been interested in his relationships with mummy and daddy and lovers had it not been for the conquerer part.

Turns out all the bits I was really enthused about, other people hated.

- the totally human, weak, flawed and needy Alexander compared to the god or hero. He cries, he's a mamma's boy, he reveres Homer's poetry... And then he conquers the world. Such a refreshing change from the modern western strong silent boring macho ideal.
- the balls it must've taken to show the ultimate alpha male in a loving relationship with another man and a eunuch (I agree that Bagoas' character was totally based on Renault)
- the ambiguous noble romantic best friend relationship with Haphaistion. Including and especially the "mushy scenes"
- the "real quotes" in the dialogue and narration from "Hephaistion's thighs" to whatnot
- the not to be messed with Olympias - true to Plutarch.
- the obsessive attention to some details that would probably make no sense unless you were "in the know", say the lunar eclipse the night before battle
- the eye liner and jewellery! Our conqueror certainly seemed to be more Persianized than any Persians Hellenized. There was more mash of civilizations than clash of civilizations in that movie.
- The Graeco-Macedonian rivalry in Phillip's time.
- The total blase attitude to male-male relationships. Phillip's boyfriends. Cleitus shouting "what about our boys?" when Alexander announces dowries for the soldiers' women.
- the much maligned wedding night sex scene with Roxanne, which actually has some basis in Afghan legend about Roxanne trying to kill Alexander with a knife on their wedding night.
- All the Macedonia vs Asia debates, Greek vs barbarian ideals showing a strong parallel to modern-day ideas about race (perhaps highlighted by the casting of Rosario Dawson as Roxana, who looks nothing like modern day Central Asians) .
- Those battle scenes with their balance between the general's point of view and the messy, bloody, dusty, confusing, anarchic and mindnumbingly violent soldier's point of view. Perhaps Stone's experiences in Vietnam contributed to those war scenes being shot that way.
- For a movie meant to glorify the ultimate conqueror, it sure made war look like hell. Alexander himself crying at the site of his great victory while the vultures and crows peck out the eyes of the dead. he euthanazing of the young soldier who Alexander tells to think of home. The pointless, mucky deaths without glory in India. The heartwrenching plea of Crateros on behalf of his men to just go home.

Of course, some details could've been worked on. The Persian units at Gaugamela could've been standing their usual units of 10 etc, instead of looking like a bunch clueless farmers who didn't realise they're going to actually participate in the action. Camels in Gaugamela? 100 million dollar budget and no one told Mr. Stone that Persians didn't speak Arabic?

But overall, the movie made me think about a lot of things like modern ideas about sex, violence, gender, masculinity, femininity, friendship, east, west, race, civilization etc. About how different these "absolutes" were for the ancients. How many movies try to challenge so many concepts in the space of three hours? I'll stop gushing now...

I recall reading it to Guy Mclean Rogers' book, and in one of the ancient sources. I will try to find which source it was. It wasnt a harem. It was 355 women of them most beautifull from all of the empire which were for the Persian King for every night of the year. It doesnt of course means necessarily sex every night. Alexander supposedely adopted this custom as many of the other Persian customs.

Greetings,

First a note on the emovie:

"- the much maligned wedding night sex scene with Roxanne, which actually has some basis in Afghan legend about Roxanne trying to kill Alexander with a knife on their wedding night."

I think most people would not have responded so negatively to this scene if the couple had merely fought.. It was the snarling and acting like cats that made audiences laugh out loud. I know it happened in the theatre when I was there <smile>

Regarding Alexander's concubines:

I believe the quote is from Diodorus Siculus:" "Then he put on the Persian diadem and dressed himself in the white robe and the Persian sash and everything else except the trousers and the long-sleeved upper garment. He distributed to his companions cloaks with purple borders and dressed the horses in Persian harness. In addition to all this, he added concubines to his retinue in the manner of Darius, in number not less than the days of the year and outstanding in beauty as selected from all the women of Asia. Each night these paraded about the couch of the king so that he might select the one with whom he would lie that night. Alexander, as a matter of fact, employed these customs rather sparingly and kept for the most part to his accustomed routine, not wishing to offend the Macedonians".... however, there are other sources that do not mention this at all and the idea is in dispute. The image of Alexander transporting 350 women along his battle route, over mountain and desert, so he, notorius for his *lack* of sexual activity, could select a woman for each night almost becomes comical.

Again, the word harem (the Persian saraay) refers to simply the enclosed courts where the females lived. If Darius *had* had such a number of concubines,they would have resided here. The fantasy of collections of nubile young women or concubines is an orientalist fantasy.

Regards,
Sikander

sikander wrote:Regarding Alexander's concubines:

I believe the quote is from Diodorus Siculus:" "Then he put on the Persian diadem and dressed himself in the white robe and the Persian sash and everything else except the trousers and the long-sleeved upper garment. He distributed to his companions cloaks with purple borders and dressed the horses in Persian harness. In addition to all this, he added concubines to his retinue in the manner of Darius, in number not less than the days of the year and outstanding in beauty as selected from all the women of Asia. Each night these paraded about the couch of the king so that he might select the one with whom he would lie that night. Alexander, as a matter of fact, employed these customs rather sparingly and kept for the most part to his accustomed routine, not wishing to offend the Macedonians"....

I'm absolutely convinced it's in Curtius, as well - which means it's probably in all the vulgate sources. I've moved all my books to the other end of the house, and I'm too lazy at this point in time to go and find the reference; but if nobody else supplies the reference sooner, I'll come back later and provide it.

ATB

marcus wrote:I'm absolutely convinced it's in Curtius, as well - which means it's probably in all the vulgate sources. I've moved all my books to the other end of the house, and I'm too lazy at this point in time to go and find the reference; but if nobody else supplies the reference sooner, I'll come back later and provide it.

Yep, and in Justin to boot.

Curtius 6.6.7-9 [7] He had also forced Persian clothing on his friends and on the cavalry, the elite of the troops. They found it distasteful, but did not dare refuse to wear it. [8] The royal quarters had a complement of 365 concubines, the number Darius had possessed, and along with them were hordes of eunuchs practiced in playing the woman's part.
[9] Towards all this, smacking as it did of extravagance and foreign habits, the veterans of Philip, a group inexperienced in sensuality, displayed open revulsion. Throughout the camp one sentiment and one view found expression, that they had lost more by victory than they had gained by war.


Justin XIII. Soon after, Alexander assumed the attire of the Persian monarchs, as well as the diadem, which was unknown to the kings of Macedonia, as if he gave himself up to the customs of those whom he had conquered. And lest such innovations should be viewed with dislike, if adopted by himself alone, he desired his friends also to wear the long robe of gold and purple. That he might imitate the luxury too, as well as the dress of the Persians, he spent his nights among troops of the king’s concubines of eminent beauty and birth. To these extravagances he added vast magnificence in feasting; and lest his entertainments should seem jejune and parsimonious, he accompanied his banquets, according to the ostentation of the eastern monarchs, with games; being utterly unmindful that power is accustomed to be lost, not gained, by such practices.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:

marcus wrote:I'm absolutely convinced it's in Curtius, as well - which means it's probably in all the vulgate sources. I've moved all my books to the other end of the house, and I'm too lazy at this point in time to go and find the reference; but if nobody else supplies the reference sooner, I'll come back later and provide it.

Yep, and in Justin to boot.

Curtius 6.6.7-9 [7] He had also forced Persian clothing on his friends and on the cavalry, the elite of the troops. They found it distasteful, but did not dare refuse to wear it. [8] The royal quarters had a complement of 365 concubines, the number Darius had possessed, and along with them were hordes of eunuchs practiced in playing the woman's part.
[9] Towards all this, smacking as it did of extravagance and foreign habits, the veterans of Philip, a group inexperienced in sensuality, displayed open revulsion. Throughout the camp one sentiment and one view found expression, that they had lost more by victory than they had gained by war.


Justin XIII. Soon after, Alexander assumed the attire of the Persian monarchs, as well as the diadem, which was unknown to the kings of Macedonia, as if he gave himself up to the customs of those whom he had conquered. And lest such innovations should be viewed with dislike, if adopted by himself alone, he desired his friends also to wear the long robe of gold and purple. That he might imitate the luxury too, as well as the dress of the Persians, he spent his nights among troops of the king’s concubines of eminent beauty and birth. To these extravagances he added vast magnificence in feasting; and lest his entertainments should seem jejune and parsimonious, he accompanied his banquets, according to the ostentation of the eastern monarchs, with games; being utterly unmindful that power is accustomed to be lost, not gained, by such practices.

Best regards,

Thanks, Amyntoros - saved me from having to go upstairs! It's all of 14 stairs, you know ...

ATB

Greetings,

<Laughing> Of course, one wonders just how much, after a time, the story would grow in the telling.. soldiers are soldiers, then and now . So is propaganda and ethonocentrism.

What is interesting is that those concubines are seldom mentioned after, yet it would have been difficult to palm off over 300 women. You cannot "give them away" or turn them out without political repurcussions, since many of them would have been
1) elderly women
2) children
3) females of high position given over to seal treaties

So I wonder how much the story grew in the telling,whether some of these women were married to the Makedonian army and what would have happened to them after, what would have happened to the elderly women and the children.

As to the eunuchs, if I recall, they would have been quartered near, but not *in*, the women's area. The ancients, having knowledge of the reality of eunuchs, would have known that not all eunuchs are incapable of sexual activity..

When I obtain some of the recent discussion on this issue, I will try to get permission to post some of it.

Regards,
Sikander

Greetings,

<Laughing> Of course, one wonders just how much, after a time, the story would grow in the telling.. soldiers are soldiers, then and now . So is propaganda and ethonocentrism.

What is interesting is that those concubines are seldom mentioned after, yet it would have been difficult to palm off over 300 women. You cannot "give them away" or turn them out without political repurcussions, since many of them would have been
1) elderly women
2) children
3) females of high position given over to seal treaties

So I wonder how much the story grew in the telling,whether some of these women were married to the Makedonian army and what would have happened to them after, what would have happened to the elderly women and the children.

As to the eunuchs, if I recall, they would have been quartered near, but not *in*, the women's area. The ancients, having knowledge of the reality of eunuchs, would have known that not all eunuchs are incapable of sexual activity..

When I obtain some of the recent discussion on this issue, I will try to get permission to post some of it.

Regards,
Sikander

sikander wrote:Greetings,

First a note on the emovie:

"- the much maligned wedding night sex scene with Roxanne, which actually has some basis in Afghan legend about Roxanne trying to kill Alexander with a knife on their wedding night."

I think most people would not have responded so negatively to this scene if the couple had merely fought.. It was the snarling and acting like cats that made audiences laugh out loud. I know it happened in the theatre when I was there <smile>

Hey Sikander,

Did you miss out on Roxanne's animal-like eyes when she's dancing for Alexander? Even with the obvious-as-hell cut to the caged animal and then back to her contact-laden cloudy eyes? In the wedding night scene our blond lion-like Alexander is in the process of conquering the exotic animal... I mean female. Snarling and growling is to be expected.

Why're you spoiling these poor men's harem fantasies with tales of elderly women and sexy eunuchs? *tsk*!

Semiramis

sikander wrote:What is interesting is that those concubines are seldom mentioned after, yet it would have been difficult to palm off over 300 women. You cannot "give them away" or turn them out without political repurcussions, since many of them would have been
1) elderly women
2) children
3) females of high position given over to seal treaties

That's true, and it gets even worse, because it is quite clear from the vulgate sources that there were 365 nubile concubines, disporting themselves before Alexander in the hope that he would choose them to ... well ... cubare con him. But that means that the elderly ladies and the children were in addition to those 365 ...

No wonder Alexander didn't avail himself of what was offered very often - spoiled for choice!

ATB

I believe that this was not the case. These women were of exceptional beauty from all over the empire. The other women you are talking about were not included among them. Do you believe they would also bring older women to the king of Persia?

Furthemore, Alexander chose not to overdo it with all the Persian customs, meaning that of course he didnt have a woman every night in his tent, at least for sexual pleasure, but he probably had several of them for several nights. Not that he completely rejected this custom. Of course there is no way of knowing what really happened.

Hmmmm... I notice that in Curtius at least that the story of the concubines comes shortly after the story of the Amazons, whose validity most people reject out of hand, even though it is told just as earnestly. It also comes accompanied with such lines as "the veterans of Philip, a group inexperienced in sensuality," which apparently Curtius wrote with a straight face.

My feeling is that all three vulgate authors picked the concubine story up from Cleitarchus, due to its sheer salaciousness. All three versions contain the same elements in addition to the concubines -- the moralistic tone, decrying Persian decadence, and Alexander taking on Persian dress and making his friends do likewise -- which to me is clear indication they were all paraphrased from the same passage.

Do any of the sources say where and when Alexander acquired the 365 women? Curtius just says he found them in "the royal quarters," which could be either a tent or a palace. Were they at Issos, captured along with Darius' kinswomen? Were they at Persepolis? Babylon? Are they mentioned anywhere other than in the three quotes above?

Seems to me that if he did indeed capture a harem, Alexander would have installed them in Susa and left them behind, as he did Sisygambis and crew, so as to pare down the army for campaigning further east. A guy who burns his treasure-wagons isn't going to drag along 365 women and "hordes of eunuchs."

Now if anyone asks, why do I disbelieve Curtius about the concubines, but believe him about Bagoas? Simple: Bagoas is mentioned elsewhere in Curtius, doing something unrelated to his supposed sex-toy role, but still very much with Alexander, as well as in Plutarch who refers to Bagoas as Alexander's "favourite" and gives an account of the dancing contest and the kiss. (I can't find a reference to him in Arrian.)

Warmly,
Karen

karen wrote: (I can't find a reference to him in Arrian.)

And the fact that you are looking is my fault. It was, indeed, Plutarch that I was thinking of.

Bagoas is mentioned in Arrian - Indica, not Anabasis. It is not certain that he is referring to the same Bagoas. Just the same, the relationship is plain enough if the material is approached sans prejudice.

Sikander has dealt with the 365 women quite well. It really doesn't need much discussion.

You are right on the fact that Alexander was not about to cart around such a troublesome load. He had a distinct disinterest in the entaglements of the female sex. This was not his interest.

The next campaign was though. As were other aspects of the Persian court which gain a wider historical currency.

Efstathios wrote:I believe that this was not the case. These women were of exceptional beauty from all over the empire. The other women you are talking about were not included among them. Do you believe they would also bring older women to the king of Persia?

Furthemore, Alexander chose not to overdo it with all the Persian customs, meaning that of course he didnt have a woman every night in his tent, at least for sexual pleasure, but he probably had several of them for several nights. Not that he completely rejected this custom. Of course there is no way of knowing what really happened.

Just to clarify, Efstathios - are you maintaining that the existence of this large group of concubines is true, as opposed to the existence of Bagoas, which you dispute?

I'm now confused as to whether you give the concubine story credence or not.

ATB

Or whether Curtius is unreliable.....or not.