Alexander the Great actually despised Homosexuality (events, years, Columbus, USA)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Greek and Helenistic..and Oriental cultures...Women were considered artifacts to bear children, and young men were fun.
In the Roman code, the criminal was the receiver, not the giver. Traditional Rome was very puritan, hence the scandal when they send their children to study in the old world.
There were no gays, it was cultural and implicit.
Yep, accurate on both counts.
The Greeks were not a monolith culture, there were certainly differences - and to complicate it further, Alexander was not strictly speaking a Greek, but part of a different people that embraced Greek culture but still retained some of their own customs / mentality.
That disclaimer aside, from all I read, Greeks generally embraced bisexuality, and even what we now consider pedophilia. A boy from a good family needed a teacher, and it was a commonly held belief that a love relationship between teacher and pupil enhanced the learning. (BTW, this was one of the reasons why the Hebrews and the Greek settlers had so many tensions under the Roman rule). In Thebes, the whole elite unit consisted of pairs of male lovers. Women were basically child-bearing machines with little personal powers, at least in Athens and I believe Sparta as well. So, being anti-homosexual would certainly seem "uncivilized".
And true about Rome, too. The Romans were much less libertine than the Greeks, and very obsessed with masculinity (yet AFAIK their women had more rights). And masculinity meant penetration. It was a great dishonor to be a passive homosexual, yet not dishonorable to be an active one.
So, the libertarian views of the modern academia aside, it's unlikely that Alexander was homophobic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger-f
It was a very violent era to be a gay era. Gays are generally known to be peaceful, so I really doubt Alexander the Great was gay.
Sorry, but this is merely a stereotype. Openly gay people are not aggressive today because they always risk becoming the victims of aggression themselves, and prefer not to provoke. However, gay men are not any less likely to be violent than straight men.
The Greeks were not a monolith culture, there were certainly differences - and to complicate it further, Alexander was not strictly speaking a Greek, but part of a different people that embraced Greek culture but still retained some of their own customs / mentality.
That disclaimer aside, from all I read, Greeks generally embraced bisexuality, and even what we now consider pedophilia. A boy from a good family needed a teacher, and it was a commonly held belief that a love relationship between teacher and pupil enhanced the learning. (BTW, this was one of the reasons why the Hebrews and the Greek settlers had so many tensions under the Roman rule). In Thebes, the whole elite unit consisted of pairs of male lovers. Women were basically child-bearing machines with little personal powers, at least in Athens and I believe Sparta as well. So, being anti-homosexual would certainly seem "uncivilized".
And true about Rome, too. The Romans were much less libertine than the Greeks, and very obsessed with masculinity (yet AFAIK their women had more rights). And masculinity meant penetration. It was a great dishonor to be a passive homosexual, yet not dishonorable to be an active one.
So, the libertarian views of the modern academia aside, it's unlikely that Alexander was homophobic.
Sorry, but this is merely a stereotype. Openly gay people are not aggressive today because they always risk becoming the victims of aggression themselves, and prefer not to provoke. However, gay men are not any less likely to be violent than straight men.
As we have already covered and demonstrated, it is not accurate on either count. You only believe this because:
A) You want to
B) You have not actually read any ancient history.
But then again, you have already said that lying is protected speech, so maybe you don't even believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I fear the same accusation that you level against me and others, is the same that we would level on you. You are reading into the passages what you wish. I stand by my statements, even if one could quibble over a passage here and there. Overall, I don't care about the sexuality of Alexander the Great or any other historical figure (and I don't know anyone else who does either)..
See, you don't get it. It is not "a passage here and there." The FACTS AS WE KNOW THEM ARE:
A) Alexander despised homosexuality
B) Some Greek states celebrated it, but in some, like Sparta and Thessaly, it was illegal
C) Homosexuality in Rome was illegal.
You can "stand by your statement," you just can't PROVE it because it is entirely incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
What I do know is that Hellenistic culture and many ancient cultures in general were a little more "liberal" with their views on sexuality.
And here is where you are going off the rails. Some were, some were not. Rome was astonishigly conservative by any standards, with strict rules about when a man was allowed to have sex even with his wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
It is certainly possible that at some point in their lives men like Alexander and others engaged in such activities.
Again, you just are refusing to understand. THIS IS NOT HOW HISTORY IS DONE. If you want to purport that, then you have to PROVE it. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise. "Possible" is not history. It is your fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
No one can prove it or disprove it and Plutarch's musings on the subjects nearly 400 years later are something I would take with a grain of salt, especially because we know that Plutarch wrote his narratives to fit his hypotheses' and mesh well with the story that he wanted to tell.
We are going to keep repeating this until you get it: History is done by sources. The oldest soure I have found on Alexander seems to suggest tha he despised homosexuality. The idea seems to be entirely a modern contrivance.
Period.
It is not up to me to disprove something for which there is no evidence. What is more, I have found soem EVIDENCE that makes it entirely unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Sources, schmources. History was not recorded in 500 or 1200 the way it is today. There are no sources from the times you are making definitive statements about. Especially about something as arcane as sexuality.
And by the way historians don't deal in fact. They deal in agendas. It's not science, it's art, and more importantly, it's artful.
We see that in the "history" programs at today's universities. Agendas and politics. Cherry-picking cherry-picking cherry-picking.
Maybe 1 in 100 historians are honest and dispassionate. The rest? They agendize, cherry-pick, proselytize, persuade, politicize. And you know that. And I know that.
You have taken yourself conmpletely out of the conversation. You do not matter. History is done by sources, period. It would be like taklking about cars and saying that you do not believe in the internal combustion engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native
If you don't like the empirical evidence support Alexander's homo tendencies you probably won't like having a discussion around Jesus.
There are no "empircal sources." I have challenged several times: Post them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
The magnitude of your ignorance is profound. Yes, Virginia ok, homosexuals don't exist, unless they are of course, obscure, negative caricatures in your imagination. What you have to consider, is that homophobia (of today) was also not this extremely negative, rabid ideal image of what society nowadays indicates as the poster child for all men, of what the teachings say men are not suppose to be! Read: homosexuals are the worst thing a man can be and are never positive.
It seems only natural that historically, charismatic men such as Alexander the Great were most definitely not homosexual, and that historians/authors who write about such historic men, academically, would not, or could not, possibly be homophobic, and if they did write about such individuals, would surely be objective. hmm... It also professes that only masculine heterosexual men could be so heroic, and charismatic.
My spouse was a U.S. Marine for over 20 years, and served in Afghanistan and Iraq. What he mentioned to me about these societies, is he compared their current civilizations equivalent to time of ancient Rome 2000+ years ago. However, while these predominantly Islamic societies do punish homosexuality by death, still have a considerable amount of homosexual (male) relationships in secret amongst their people. Our military forces are often required to provide medical intervention/help for the native people since there is often no medical help available provided by their own. He was amazed how customary it was for a man, whom may have several wives, to also have one or two young attractive teenage or young adult guys on the side--but it was in secret. This is an example of the invisible gay presence within a society, and illustrates, that despite all the discouragement, disdainment, negativity, and severe punitive action that could be taken, homosexuality still thrives--often invisible to the naked eyes of heterosexuals. BTW, my spouse, more than convincingly passed for straight.
And on and on. YOU HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT ALEXANDER.
Nothing.
You have not posted a source. You have said nothing of ANY relevance.
And if you call me ignorant again, I am reporting you to the mods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi
Cachibatches:
I am glad homosexuals have been able to advance here in the USA to a state of basic acceptance. I am all for it just as I am for Women's Rights. I have no agenda for or against either of those two classes of people. I admit to not understanding "transgendered" individuals, but have no agenda against them either, because their brains are apparently wired differently {see also the bold phrase below}.
YOU DO have an agenda you are trying to foster here. "correct history" my -$$, you want to obliterate any reference to {his being} homosexual from, apparently, your favorite male historical figure. Perhaps YOU have "latent homosexual tendencies". Even eye witnesses have been proven WRONG in today's world or CAMERAS everywhere. And two people can see the exact same thing and tell it two different ways!
I agree that I don't find that phrase, alone, to be evidence of him being against homosexuality.
Perhaps he was in the closet, perhaps he hated that guy, perhaps he was jealous of an intended "boy{s}" he was going after, perhaps "he doth protest to much". Perhaps he had a bad day. Off with his head!
There is NO WAY to KNOW for certain WHAT any reported Historical figures did or did not do in bed. Or out of it, or on the lawn, or anywhere. We did NOT , and DO NOT live in that time period, and even if we were, we weren't or aren't there for all of his "private moments".
The PRINTED written word did not come about until the printing press in the 1600s. Before that it was hand written if it was recorded at all.
ANy hand written COPY of ANY manuscript can be SKEWED by the COPIER, not the original it was copied form, and WHO KNOWS if that was correct. Even the first printings could have been skewed by the type setter! AND, furthermore, ANY written form was originated by STORIES AS TOLD VERBALLY.
There is plenty of evidence in art on ancient walls, ancient clay tablets, cuniform writings that HOMOSEXUALITY DID EXIST, and OFTEN was apparently FAR MORE ACCEPTED in ancient societies than it is today, even given the advances that gays have made. WHY OH WHY would any "right minded heterosexual" want to paint a painting of two men, you know, "doing it" if it didn't exist? Look at Pompei, Herculaneum. Oh, GEE did "God" strike them with an erupting volcano to smite them for homosexual behavior?
HOMOSEXUALITY is in the genes, medical and geneticists have proven that over and over, time and time again, STILL people {perhaps like you} don't want to believe it, so it is suppressed OFTEN.Their brains are wired differently, and the genetic code is the root of the cause.
In the animal kingdom, especially amongst our closest "relatives", monkeys, apes, and chimpanzees have been found in the jungles to engage in homosexual activities, as have other species of animals.
Men also have needs. When alone with only the company of men for months, perhaps years on end, Five Finger Freddy gets tired. Who do you think is going to start looking good to those men? Just like bar closing time, when "the girls all look prettier" to heterosexuals{after several drinks of course}?
There are plenty of tribes and societies in the "dense uncharted jungles" and "deserts" relatively untouched by the modern world where homosexuality is allowed. Catch a Nat GEO filming of these tribes, especially in a country such as UK or Europe for example, where sexual suppression OF ANY KIND is NOT as rampant as it is here in USA and you will see evidence of that.
HISTORY is made up of TWO WORDS: HIS and STORY. Who knows if the STORY HE tells is correct or not, for anyone telling it? AND just like the children's game "telephone" where one kid whispers a correct phrase to another, and it gets whispered from child to child until the last child hears and repeats aloud a phrase NOTHING LIKE THE ORIGINAL phrase. The TALE grows taller on down the line. WHo knows if some homosexual FURTHERED his agenda by falsely writing it into HIS copy of the manuscripts???
For the sake of my argument, The tales of Jesus weren't written until 300 years after he supposedly walked the earth, when someone{s} decided they'd best get it written down. Who knows if ANY of IT is correct? AND *poof* he's gone, so we have no evidence he even existed if you really want to get technical about writings of a historical figure!
Yeah, homosexuality is not new news. It has existed probably since the first {or second} aemeba emerged into life form. It also exists in other species.
WHo cares whether good ol' Alex swung on the "lamppost" or dove into the depths of the river of "loveliness"?
Until time travel is REALLY possible, we will never know FOR SURE.
So hang it up. YOU have your thoughts, WHY try to IMPOSE them ON US????
Again, just rambling nonsense saying nothing about Alexander.
IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT ALEXANDER WAS GAY, POST IT. If not, then the best evidence that we have remains:
When Philosexus, his lieutenant on the sea coast, wrote him to know if he would buy two young boys of great beauty, whom one Theodourus, a Tarentine, had to sell, he was so offended that he often expostulated with his friends what baseness Philosexus had ever observed him in that he should ever presume to make him such a reproachful offer. And he immediatley wrote him a sharp lettter telling him that Theodours and his merchandise might go with his goodwill to destruction. Nor was he less severe to Hagnon, who sent him word that he would buy him a Corinthian youth named Crobylus, as a present for him.
And on and on. YOU HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT ALEXANDER.
Nothing.
You have not posted a source. You have said nothing of ANY relevance.
And if you call me ignorant again, I am reporting you to the mods.
And just how much "relevance" or empirical fact do you actually believe exists about a man's sex life who lived 1700 years ago?! Further, I indicated your post was ignorant, not you. Mentioning the fact that many historians are bias, can't know all the facts, and are homophobic, often lack objectivity. Also a reluctance to include anything that could possibly detract from an historic figure is "relevant." BTW, why do you really care about his sex life. This also reminds me of a history teacher I had a Bryant University years ago; he was teaching humanities and the topic involved Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. He alluded little evidence about their sexual orientation. After class, I asked him why he would say that when the orientation of two such figures is well documented, including that da Vince was exiled from Italy for his orientation, which is why his art appears in the Louvre. He agreed with me, and said that students prefer not to hear such things. If it is not mentioned, it doesn't exist. Right?
As we have already covered and demonstrated, it is not accurate on either count. You only believe this because:
A) You want to
B) You have not actually read any ancient history.
Such silliness. Sources. Like a belief in Zeus, you place faith, not logic, not Reason, just faith in some silly thing you call a "source". About an individuals sex life in ancient Greece. Like Galaxy Quest, where there is blind faith in the "historical documents". Silly. Absolutely silly. And then you get all indignant and serious about the silly. So seriously, for just a second, what you really want, as you stare up at us from the riverside, is payment of some kind so that we may cross this bridge? Let me know, it might be worth it to Paypal you so we can get across Silly Bridge and continue on our commute.
And just how much "relevance" or empirical fact do you actually believe exists about a man's sex life who lived 1700 years ago?!
Again, you seem to not understand how history is done. It is done by sources.
The claim is out there that Alexander the Great was bisexual. I was taught this in college. I have found no source to support that claim, and the oldest source that addresses the matter of his sexuality explicilty says that he was not.
This is not hard to understand unless you simply don't want to understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
Further, I indicated your post was ignorant, not you.
Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
Mentioning the fact that many historians are bias, can't know all the facts, and are homophobic, often lack objectivity.
Yes, modern historians who talk about a man's sexuality without any SOURCES are clearly biased.
Are you saying Plutarch is biased? Do you have evidence? Do you know who Plutarch is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
Also a reluctance to include anything that could possibly detract from an historic figure is "relevant."
The people cheering for Alexander to be bi-sexual without any evidence keep purporting the myth that bi-sexuality was universally acceptable in ancient times, so what would Plutarch be hiding? Do you have any idea how stupid this argument is (not saying you're stupid...the argument is stupid).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
BTW, why do you really care about his sex life.
Christ on the cross-I have now explained four spearate times that it is very important to me that history is represented correctly for its own sake.
What is more, this is an inherently hypocritcal and ridiculous question from someone who is in this thread arguing about his sexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
This also reminds me of a history teacher I had a Bryant University years ago; he was teaching humanities and the topic involved Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. He alluded little evidence about their sexual orientation. After class, I asked him why he would say that when the orientation of two such figures is well documented, including that da Vince was exiled from Italy for his orientation, which is why his art appears in the Louvre. He agreed with me, and said that students prefer not to hear such things. If it is not mentioned, it doesn't exist. Right?
This has nothing to do with Alexander the Great and his distate for homosexuality. Nothing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Such silliness. Sources. Like a belief in Zeus, you place faith, not logic, not Reason, just faith in some silly thing you call a "source". About an individuals sex life in ancient Greece. Like Galaxy Quest, where there is blind faith in the "historical documents". Silly. Absolutely silly. And then you get all indignant and serious about the silly. So seriously, for just a second, what you really want, as you stare up at us from the riverside, is payment of some kind so that we may cross this bridge? Let me know, it might be worth it to Paypal you so we can get across Silly Bridge and continue on our commute.
History is done by sources. Period. History is not just something that you made up. All you are doing is revealing that you have no place in this or any other historical conversation.
It is all right to criticize a source, if you have a valid criticism and a better source. What source are you citing? If none, then we are finished.
He was not bi-sexual because that is what you have always heard, that is what you wish to believe, you saw it in a movie, you believe that it was normal for the times, you don't believe in soures or that you don't understand that proof has to come from someone making a claim about Alexander's sexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord
What an odd thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I agree....
Then don't post in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karstic
He was not gay as he was a normal Helenistic Greek, a Macedonian. The same famous philosophers that instructed Alexander had sex with him as a child.
Do you have a source for this, or is it just something that you made up?
My source are books about Greek and Helenistic culture. The relation between teacher and child implied sexual relationships, which caused a big scandal among traditional Romans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
