Alexander - Great or Not?

[Curtis24]

Do you believe Alexander had good accomplishments, or not?

Personally, I say no. His father would have been able to conquer the Persian empire even if Alexander didn't, and would have done a better job at building up a regime and infrastructure. As we know, Alexander didn't do this, instead battling his way through Asia as fast as possible. The result was a weak occupying administration, which, after his death, his head generals rolled right over. You know the rest... Alexander's empire is wracked by years of civil wars, and eventually splits into three sections, which continually war against each other. Rome goes on to become the great Mediterranean Iron Age power, instead of the Hellenistic world...

[Hess]

Napoleon is better

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

he was 1.55 meter tall, and notoriously homosexual.

[Ibericus]

Yes, he was that great. One of the most succesful military commanders history has ever known.

[Winterwolf]

@Curtis24
Your accusations are rather unfair, first of all he didn't live long enough to fasten his grip on his quickly conquered huge empire. Therefore it collapsed immediately after his death.

On the battle field he wasn’t only a genius, but also a front line war hero and won despite being outnumbered several times.

@Kosovo je Sjrbia
Well, since the whole Greek and Hellenic World was homosexual, you really can't blame him, that he just did, what everyone around him also did. He was socialised this way or shall I say the other way... :D

[Turkophagos]

@Curtis24
Your accusations are rather unfair, first of all he didn't live long enough to fasten his grip on his quickly conquered huge empire. Therefore it collapsed immediately after his death.
Collapsed immediately? Hellenistic world was the product of his conquest and it lasted from 2 to 4 centuries, depenting on the kingdom.


@Kosovo je Sjrbia
Well, since the whole Greek and Hellenic World was homosexual, you really can't blame him, that he just did, what everyone around him also did. He was socialised this way or shall I say the other way... :D

Over two milleniums now and Barbarians still can't tell the difference between erotic and sexual...

[poiuytrewq0987]

The civil wars only happened because Alexander never named a successor. The film Alexander dramatized it quite well.

Alexander was the greatest military commander in the classical period. He went up against impossible odds against the mightiest empire in the period and won. The Persian Empire was expansive and strong but they couldn't stand against Alexander's Hellenic armies led by his masterful tactical thought.

If Alexander had lived longer, he could've conquered all of India and perhaps reach China. Westwards, Rome could've fell to Alexander's armies and Germania, Britannia; permanently cementing Hellenic influence and their position in this world.

[Curtis24]

His empire did initially collapse - the Hellenistic kingdoms were created by his generals, and not Alexander(though, obviously, they contained his conquests). Furthermore, despite its cultural advances, the Hellenistic world was not politically united - which is why it was Rome, and not Greece, which united the Mediterranean.

I believe that the reason the Hellenistic world could not politically unify, was because of the peremptory way that Alexander built up his administration during the war. He did not have an eye to a long-lasting government; he created the occupying force in a way that would maximize the speed with which he could continue his conquests. Even if he did appoint a successor, there wasn't enough of a base to rule. And the Macedonian generals would not have obeyed that successor in a million years, due to the occupying government being so weak.

[Winterwolf]

Collapsed immediately? Hellenistic world was the product of his conquest and it lasted from 2 to 4 centuries, depenting on the kingdom.

Ahem, the Hellenistic world yes, but the Empire collapsed immediately into rivalling Diadochi kingdoms. So I'm right.


Over two milleniums now and Barbarians still can't tell the difference between erotic and sexual...

Oh well, the blonde dyed Greek gets angry. Well, at least we Barbarians don't need to fake our budget statistics in order to become a European Union member and we also don't leech other nations in order to scrape by.

Anyway even the Romans considered homosexuality as an inherent cultural trait among Greeks. And no this was no simple erotic, this was real homosexuality and the ancient Romans who handed it down to us via their historic works surely knew it. :rolleyes:

[Turkophagos]

And am I not right in asserting that there are two goddesses? The elder one, having no mother, who is called the heavenly Aphrodite--she is the daughter of Uranus; the younger, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione --her we call common; and the Love who is her fellow-worker is rightly named common, as the other love is called heavenly. All the gods ought to have praise given to them, but not without distinction of their natures; and therefore I must try to distinguish the characters of the two Loves.


Plato, Symposium

[Winterwolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

In classical antiquity, writers such as Herodotus, Plato, Xenophon, Athenaeus and many others explored aspects of same-sex love in ancient Greece. The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and adolescent boys, known as pederasty. Etc...

[Turkophagos]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LUEnkX4DuIsJ:forums.skadi.net/showthread.php%3Fp%3D1036624+debunking+myth+homose xuality&cd=3&hl=el&ct=clnk&gl=gr&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.gr

[Winterwolf]

Yeah, very academic. A guy on the "skadi" forum tells us that homosexuality among ancient Greeks is a myth. :crazy:

Well, the academic world still considers Greek homosexuality as a given historic fact. It's just too well documented in order to be able to debunk it.

Seriously I don't wish to waste my time any further on this, just because modern time Greeks have a problem with it and are embarassed about this nasty little historic fact.

[Curtis24]

My thread has diverted into talking about gay sex. Yay! (:p)

Anyway, the Greeks definitely did practice homosexuality, but they still upheld masculine virtues. A man who liked sex with men, still had to act like a man. Those gays who acted in a feminine manner, were treated with contempt. Suffice to say, ancient Greek homosexuals would not have supported the idea of "gay rights"

In my opinion, Alexander the Great was indeed gay. His most important emotional connections - Hephaestion, Bagoas - seemed to have been with men. But, like I said, he didn't act the way modern gay men do...

[Turkophagos]

Yeah, very academic. A guy on the "skadi" forum tells us that homosexuality among ancient Greeks is a myth. :crazy:

Well, the academic world still considers Greek homosexuality as a given historic fact. It's just too well documented in order to be able to debunk it.

Seriously I don't wish to waste my time any further on this, just because modern time Greeks have a problem with it and are embarassed about this nasty little historic fact.

The "guy" is me, in a period that I did care what idiots like you think about modern or ancient Greeks.

The academic world had a reason for naming a relationship without sex "platonic", in the pre-pc era at least. The anti-homosexual laws of both Athens and Sparta are still saved and they are printed for those who really are interested on the subject.

As Alexander's "homosexuality":

But when Philoxenus, the governor of the coast-lands of Asia Minor, wrote to Alexander that there was in Ionia a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist, and inquired in his letter whether he should send the young man on to him, Alexander wrote bitterly in reply, "Vilest of men, what deed of this sort have you ever been privy to in my past that now you would flatter me with the offer of such pleasures?"

Plutarch, On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander.

[Curtis24]

Chimo Bayo, refrain from calling anybody "idiots" in my thread. Thanks.

What you have cited still can't square with the fact that Alexander conducted two longterm homosexual affairs, with his childhood friend as well as with a eunuch from Darius' old harem.

[Turkophagos]

In my opinion, Alexander the Great was indeed gay. His most important emotional connections - Hephaestion, Bagoas - seemed to have been with men. But, like I said, he didn't act the way modern gay men do...

Hephaestion was his best friend, they were raised together and he was number 2 of the Macedonian army. His loss was devastating to Alexander since they spend their whole lives together fighting and he was the only person he was fully trusting after the poisoning attempt against him.

Bagoas the Eunuch is not related to Alexander, he died before Alexander invades Persia. He's usually confused with a young man by the same name who won a dance contest and he was congratulated by Alexander, and was given a kiss by him, as wogs still kissing each other at the cheek even today. That's the "proof" of Alexander's homosexuality.

[Hess]

who cares if he was gay? his achievements are his achievements regardless of what he does in his bedroom.

[Turkophagos]

who cares if he was gay?

Those who want him gay out of nothing obviously care.


Back on topic, why Alexander was great:


" But if you examine the results of Alexander's instruction, you will see that he educated the Hyrcanians to respect the marriage bond, and taught the Arachosians to till the soil, and persuaded the Sogdians to support their parents, not to kill them, and the Persians to revere their mothers and not to take them in wedlock. O wondrous power of Philosophic Instruction, that brought the Indians to worship Greek gods, and the Scythians to bury their dead, not to devour them! We admire Carneades' power, which made Cleitomachus,formerly called Hasdrubal, and a Carthaginian by birth, adopt Greek ways. We admire the character of Zeno, which persuaded Diogene the Babylonian to be a philosopher. But when Alexander was civilizing Asia, Homer was commonly read, and the children of the Persians, of the Susianians, and of the Gedrosians learned to chant the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides.And although Socrates, when tried on the charge of introducing foreign deities, lost his cause to the informers who infested Athens, yet through Alexander Bactria and the Caucasus learned to revere the gods of the Greeks. Plato wrote a book on the One Ideal Constitution, ebut because of its forbidding character he could not persuade anyone to adopt it; but Alexander established more than seventy cities among savage tribes, and sowed all Asia with Grecian magistracies, and thus overcame its uncivilized and brutish manner of living. Although few of us read Plato's Laws, yet hundreds of thousands have made use of Alexander's laws, and continue to use them. Those who were vanquished by Alexander are happier than those who escaped his hand; for these had no one to put an end to the wretchedness of their existence, while the victor compelled those others to lead a happy life. Therefore it is even more just to apply Themistocles' saying to the nations conquered by Alexander. For, when Themistocles in exile had obtained great gifts from Artaxerxes, fand had received three cities to pay him tribute, one to supply his bread, another his wine, and a third his meat, he exclaimed, "My children, we should be ruined now, had we not been ruined before." Thus Alexander's new subjects would not have been civilized, had they not been vanquished; Egypt would not have its Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia its Seleuceia, nor Sogdiana its Prophthasia, nor India its Bucephalia, nor the Caucasus a Greek city hard by; for by the founding of cities in these places savagery was extinguished and the worse element, gaining familiarity with the better, changed under its influence. If, then, philosophers take the greatest pride in civilizing and rendering adaptable the intractable and untutored elements in human character, and if Alexander has been shown to have changed the savage natures of countless tribes, it is with good reason that he should be regarded as a very great philosopher."


"On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, Plutarch"



Alexander having a saint-like status in the Quran and he's still worshiped by several eastern tribes till today for a reason.

[Loki]

Alexander the Great was GREAT. 'nuff said.

[Guapo]

he was 1.55 meter tall, and notoriously homosexual.

Yep, typical of Illyrians/Thracians.

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://www.ilike.org.uk/stuff/sweets/us/images/alexander.jpg

[Iron Will]

He was said to of left his empire to the strongest one after his demise...guess that did not turn out well. Anyways, does anybody remember Friedrich The Great "A Prussian Dragon never runs"

[Óttar]

Alexander was the son of Zeus Ammon. He is the true Chakravarti Patha, the Supreme Universal Emperor.

Xaire Alexandros!
Alechendra Maharaja Chakravartin Namostute!

[Curtis24]

Alexander having a saint-like status in the Quran and he's still worshiped by several eastern tribes till today for a reason.


Yeah, has anyone seen "The Man who would be king?" In it, Sean Connery and Michael Cain gain control of an Afghan tribe because they are believed to be descendants of Alexander the Great...


There, the head holy man sets up a re-enactment of the arrow incident, but when Danny flinches, the holy monks grab him & rip open his shirt, in order to pinpoint whether he is a man or a god by seeing if he bleeds or not. Only to be stopped however, by Danny's Masonic Jewel (given to him for luck by fellow Mason Kipling). By coincidence, the symbol on the Jewel matches that of "Sikander" (Alexander the Great), who had passed through many centuries ago and promised to return. The holy men who rule the city are convinced Danny is the reincarnation of Sikander. They hail him as king and lead the two men down to storerooms heaped with treasure that belonged to Sikander, which now belong to Danny.




Not sure how accurate that is(did the Masons borrow symbology from the Greeks?), but its a great movie nonetheless.

[Magister Eckhart]

I admire him as the Cecil Rhodes of antiquity.

[Winterwolf]

The "guy" is me, in a period that I did care what idiots like you think about modern or ancient Greeks.

The academic world had a reason for naming a relationship without sex "platonic", in the pre-pc era at least. The anti-homosexual laws of both Athens and Sparta are still saved and they are printed for those who really are interested on the subject.


Gladly I'm too mature to respond to silly name calling, but it just shows that you lack the intellectual capability to have a serious academic discussion with you.

Oh great, the guy is you, well, that changes everything of course! The world-renowned historian Chimo Bayo aka. Alkman shares his revolutionary insights with us, which are nothing but an old hat, denial of homosexuality in ancient Greece due to modern Chauvinism, and contradicts generations of historians and academic scholars. I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed at all!

No, homosexuality wasn't practiced only in a "platonic" way, it's just that Platon himself refused the sexual act itself. The refusal of the sexual act was considered something special and therefore the word “platonic love” came to existence. You know people create words in order to address something and they wouldn’t have done so, if the majority acted in the same way as Platon.
There are plenty of ancient Greek vases, who show the sexual act between males (an older man usually shown with beard with a younger man or boy) and plenty of ancient Greek authors themselves, who wrote about homosexual love, so it seems to have been very common.

You ignore everything which doesn't fit into your weirdo - it’s all a conspiracy against ancient Greece - world view. The Athenian and Spartan laws weren't against homosexuality, just against citizen who would be the "passive part" in a homosexual relation! That’s a huge difference. It was outlawed between grown-up citizens, but not between a citizen and f.e. a slave, foreigner or prisoner of war.

It was considered shameful when a man with a beard remained the passive partner (pathikos) and it was even worse when a man allowed himself to be penetrated by another grown-up man. The Greeks even had a pejorative expression for these people, whom were called kinaidoi. They were the targets of ridicule by the other citizens, especially comedy writers.
So again the ancient Greeks wouldn't have needed to create a word for such behaviour, if it didn't exist, don't you think?

Homosexuality was a common practice; the evidence is plenty and striking. Your denial is ridiculous. You focus on sources in a very selective way and ignore the majority of others, which contradict you.

Unfortunately I was inconsequent and wasted some more time on this. A mistake I’m not going to do twice.

Here some vase motives as illustration of this common practice:
The erect penises were censored, but every reasonable being can see what's going on.

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/greekorgy-1.jpg

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/images/05-08-sithomo.jpg

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/wikipedia.jpg

http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/lovers3.jpg

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/f/f6/Greek_homosexual_couple.jpg/200px-Greek_homosexual_couple.jpg

[Curtis24]

Chimo Bayo: I must point to Winterwolf's visual examples. Furthermore, there are many documented references to homosexuality and pederasty - for instance, Peisistratos being a pedophile, his making advances to Aristogeiton, Plato's discussion of the beauty of young boys in the Republic, comments about Alcibiades having many male as well as female lovers, etc. etc.

[Turkophagos]

Homosexuals exist(ed) in every past and present society and some modern studies suggest that they always constituted 10% (homos and bisexuals) of the total population. What it is debated here is not if there were homosexuals in ancient Greece but if homosexuality was some type of cultural norm between ancient Greeks. The answer is no.


We have the combination of the need in the Greek world to develop strong, honorable, and physically capable men, coupled with a male aesthetic of the beautiful that was universally admired and sought. Add to this the aforementioned custom of putting the schooling of young boys in the manly arts and virtues into the hands of older men, and one begins to see that such a mix could be potentially explosive. For this reason, although these friendships were encouraged, there were -- according to many sources such as Xenophon, Plutarch, Plato, and others --tough restrictions imposed by custom and law. As an example, an older man (Erastis) might take on the training of a young boy (Eromenos), but under no circumstances was intimate touching allowed. The difference between homo-erotic friendships, and actual homosexual practices (in the modern sense of what it means to be "gay"), was clearly defined. The Greek ideal was a non-physical, purely pedagogical, relationship. That some, if not many, may have strayed, cannot be denied, but what is important here is to understand that those who did risked serious legal penalties such as banishment or death, and that such behavior was most emphatically discouraged and forbidden by custom and law.

Proof of this can be found through an observation of Greek vase paintings having the depiction of Erastis and Eromenos as the subject. The strong ties between the older man and the boy he is training are easily seen. No close bodily contact is ever depicted, however, and one notices that all of the prohibitions regarding these relationships are being strictly observed. Had overt homosexual behavior been considered acceptable, it would most definitely have been shown -- because the Greeks were prone to "letting everything hang out" -- but this is hardly ever the case. Those vase paintings that do depict what might accurately be categorized as homosexual scenes comprise such an insignificant percentage of the total -- something like 30 out of tens of thousands (cf A. Georgiades, Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. 2002. p. 126.), that one is perfectly justified in wondering just what the real purpose is that lies behind the extrapolation of this minute percentage into the absurd charge that they represent the norm. Moreover, a percentage of these 30 or so could have been commissioned by homosexuals, or even by "straight" customers who saw them as a means of ridiculing behavior they disliked or thought to be amusing. (It is important to note that Greek vases were a major export item and have been found from Russia to Gibraltar, as well as throughout Northern and Western Europe. In the province of Attica alone -- where Athens is located -- over 80,000 have been found to date.-- cf Georgiades. p.127.) When one compares this small number to what we see today on TV, in ads, books, magazines, the cinema, etc., one can just imagine what future generations will think of us.

That such behavior was the subject of ridicule can be seen in the disapproval voiced by Socrates, for instance, who, as Xenophon tells us in his Memorobilia, when he found out that Critias loved Euthydemus, tried to restrain him by saying that such a thing was "mean," and that it was "unbecoming" of Critias to ask of Euthydemus "... a favor that it would be wrong to grant." When Critias persisted, Socrates berates him by saying that "Critias seems to have the feelings of a pig [that can't] help rubbing [itself] against stones"( Emphasis added.). And it is Xenophon as well who tells us in his Lacedaemonian Constitution, that Lycurgus, the great Spartan lawgiver, "... banned the [physical] connection [between man and boy] as an abomination; and forbade it no less than parents were forbidden from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other." Spartan life was harsh, and boys from a certain age slept in barracks with other boys as part of their training. This fact has given much cause for sly and cunning conjecture, but upon closer scrutiny the effects of this practice can most accurately be compared to what Evelyn Waugh, the English writer, said about the exclusive, all-boys private schools of his time. He said that though there may have been some homosexual activity, he did not know of one single case where a graduate, of his school for instance, did not go on to marry and raise a family. The same can be said of the Spartans who were expected to give strong children to their country, and who, according to Plutarch, in his "Life of Lycurgus," were severely dealt with if they didn't.


...

[Magister Eckhart]

Homosexuals exist(ed) in every past and present society and some modern studies suggest that they always constituted 10% (homos and bisexuals) of the total population. What it is debated here is not if there were homosexuals in ancient Greece but if homosexuality was some type of cultural norm between ancient Greeks. The answer is no.


We have the combination of the need in the Greek world to develop strong, honorable, and physically capable men, coupled with a male aesthetic of the beautiful that was universally admired and sought. Add to this the aforementioned custom of putting the schooling of young boys in the manly arts and virtues into the hands of older men, and one begins to see that such a mix could be potentially explosive. For this reason, although these friendships were encouraged, there were -- according to many sources such as Xenophon, Plutarch, Plato, and others --tough restrictions imposed by custom and law. As an example, an older man (Erastis) might take on the training of a young boy (Eromenos), but under no circumstances was intimate touching allowed. The difference between homo-erotic friendships, and actual homosexual practices (in the modern sense of what it means to be "gay"), was clearly defined. The Greek ideal was a non-physical, purely pedagogical, relationship. That some, if not many, may have strayed, cannot be denied, but what is important here is to understand that those who did risked serious legal penalties such as banishment or death, and that such behavior was most emphatically discouraged and forbidden by custom and law.

Proof of this can be found through an observation of Greek vase paintings having the depiction of Erastis and Eromenos as the subject. The strong ties between the older man and the boy he is training are easily seen. No close bodily contact is ever depicted, however, and one notices that all of the prohibitions regarding these relationships are being strictly observed. Had overt homosexual behavior been considered acceptable, it would most definitely have been shown -- because the Greeks were prone to "letting everything hang out" -- but this is hardly ever the case. Those vase paintings that do depict what might accurately be categorized as homosexual scenes comprise such an insignificant percentage of the total -- something like 30 out of tens of thousands (cf A. Georgiades, Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. 2002. p. 126.), that one is perfectly justified in wondering just what the real purpose is that lies behind the extrapolation of this minute percentage into the absurd charge that they represent the norm. Moreover, a percentage of these 30 or so could have been commissioned by homosexuals, or even by "straight" customers who saw them as a means of ridiculing behavior they disliked or thought to be amusing. (It is important to note that Greek vases were a major export item and have been found from Russia to Gibraltar, as well as throughout Northern and Western Europe. In the province of Attica alone -- where Athens is located -- over 80,000 have been found to date.-- cf Georgiades. p.127.) When one compares this small number to what we see today on TV, in ads, books, magazines, the cinema, etc., one can just imagine what future generations will think of us.

That such behavior was the subject of ridicule can be seen in the disapproval voiced by Socrates, for instance, who, as Xenophon tells us in his Memorobilia, when he found out that Critias loved Euthydemus, tried to restrain him by saying that such a thing was "mean," and that it was "unbecoming" of Critias to ask of Euthydemus "... a favor that it would be wrong to grant." When Critias persisted, Socrates berates him by saying that "Critias seems to have the feelings of a pig [that can't] help rubbing [itself] against stones"( Emphasis added.). And it is Xenophon as well who tells us in his Lacedaemonian Constitution, that Lycurgus, the great Spartan lawgiver, "... banned the [physical] connection [between man and boy] as an abomination; and forbade it no less than parents were forbidden from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other." Spartan life was harsh, and boys from a certain age slept in barracks with other boys as part of their training. This fact has given much cause for sly and cunning conjecture, but upon closer scrutiny the effects of this practice can most accurately be compared to what Evelyn Waugh, the English writer, said about the exclusive, all-boys private schools of his time. He said that though there may have been some homosexual activity, he did not know of one single case where a graduate, of his school for instance, did not go on to marry and raise a family. The same can be said of the Spartans who were expected to give strong children to their country, and who, according to Plutarch, in his "Life of Lycurgus," were severely dealt with if they didn't.


...

That is interesting. Can I get a source on all of that? I'm always trying to argue against my fiancée that Spartans weren't all sodomites and that Socrates and Plato didn't have sex with little boys. I'd like to direct her to couple of standing books and sources on the topic that should silence her forever on the subject.

[Óttar]

Why is it so hard to believe that homosexuality was a part of ancient Greek culture? Some people are so insecure that they have to go drudging up revisionist history and grasp at little shreds to try to piece together a scenario which is contrary to historical fact. Spartans weren't homosexual? Get real. That's a joke.

In the end, I say, "so what?" Bully for them. After all, what could be more manly than love between men?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/kulturdienst/Kameradschaft2.jpg

[Beorn]

I wonder if in over 2 thousand years, historians will look upon our civilisation and state that ours was a great jamboree of gimp masks and leather trousers, all culminating in the great man what was Ted Heath with his capital set in Soho?


Homosexuality existed in Greece. Great. It was also frowned upon. Great.

Alexander the Great was great. Great.

[Magister Eckhart]

Why is it so hard to believe that homosexuality was a part of ancient Greek culture?

Because it wasn't. "Homosexuality" is a completely modern category invented largely by Michel Foucault. Before the notion of a "gay identity" there was no such thing as homosexuality. There was the sodomite act, which like all sex acts sometimes became habitual. There were no gays in Greece or Rome or Britain for that matter. I think that this is a very important point to make: even if there were what we would call "homosexual" sex acts going on, does not mean there was homosexuality or a gay identity.


Bully for them. After all, what could be more manly than love between men?

Either that's a very bad, very provocative joke or you're a sodomite yourself-- and in any case its so absurd it's not worthy of a full retort.


I wonder if in over 2 thousand years, historians will look upon our civilisation and state that ours was a great jamboree of gimp masks and leather trousers, all culminating in the great man what was Ted Heath with his capital set in Soho?


Homosexuality existed in Greece. Great. It was also frowned upon. Great.

Alexander the Great was great. Great.

I couldn't have said it better.

Everyone is always trying to turn Greece and Rome into this giant Studio 54 all the time, and I think it probably stems from the fact that conservatives consider them great and heroic models to look to as monuments. Since the leftist, the sodomite, the cultural Marxist is always trying to tear down all the monuments they can, suddenly everyone in Ancient Greece becomes a homosexual paedophile and Romans become orgiastic sex fiends. The main reason is because we try to latch onto one thing or the other and make it universal: "there were homosexuals, therefore everyone is homosexual" "homosexuality was condemned, therefore no one was homosexual".

It seems to me that the Greeks would think we were all insane - there was no such thing as "homosexuality" in Greece or anywhere in the ancient world. There was no "gay pride" no "identity" associated with it. It was an act, sometimes habitual. It happened. Many did not like that it happened. This seems to me to be a pretty normal social structure, with sexual norms and rules and people who break those rules and may or may not be punished for it. This is the true history, but because it doesn't serve any political purpose (and especially because it doesn't allow these disgusting hedonists to run around having sex with everything they see) it's not the popular history.

[Loddfafner]

"Homosexuality" is a completely modern category invented largely by Michel Foucault.

WTF? Uh, no. Foucault argued about the inventedness of the category of homosexuality in his History of Sexuality Vol. 1 but he certainly did not invent it!


Before the notion of a "gay identity" there was no such thing as homosexuality. There was the sodomite act, which like all sex acts sometimes became habitual. There were no gays in Greece or Rome or Britain for that matter. I think that this is a very important point to make: even if there were what we would call "homosexual" sex acts going on, does not mean there was homosexuality or a gay identity.
All of this is intensely debated among historians. You sound like one of those smarmy queer theorists here. Queer theory is BS. Period.

[Hess]

That is interesting. Can I get a source on all of that? I'm always trying to argue against my fiancée that Spartans weren't all sodomites and that Socrates and Plato didn't have sex with little boys. I'd like to direct her to couple of standing books and sources on the topic that should silence her forever on the subject.

These are the kinds of things you talk about with your fiancée?

I'd consider myself lucky if the girl I'm taking to prom even knows who Socrates and Plato are :embarrassed

[Magister Eckhart]

These are the kinds of things you talk about with your fiancée?

I'd consider myself lucky if the girl I'm taking to prom even knows who Socrates and Plato are :embarrassed

Most women are unfortunately like that. There are the few rare intelligent ones, but overall no matter how much you try to educate women they remain fundamentally vain, frivolous creatures obsessed with the most superficial nonsense when they're not totally fixated on themselves. Thus has it always been. Unfortunately, recently men have not been significantly better.

My fiancée and I have had some intense debates on the subject, actually. I'm an avid Platonist and devotee of Socratic teaching; she prefers Aristotle and considers Socrates to be a sophist. As I mentioned to you, as well, she's a fan of Aristophanes while I prefer Aeschylus. I have to confess she's the reason I learned Greek - she had read Xenophon's Ἀνάβασις in the original tongue before I had even touched a translation of Herodotus and Thucydides. But then, that's why I'm marrying her. :D

Always remember what Socrates said: "Always wed. If you marry well, you will be happy; if you marry poorly, you will be a philosopher."

[Óttar]

there was no such thing as homosexuality
A most laughable claim. Your argument basically comes down merely to semantics and you know it.

Either that's a very bad, very provocative joke or you're a sodomite yourself--
Talk about a notion that didn't exist to the Greeks. :rolleyes2:

[Turkophagos]

"But Alexander took his breakfast at daybreak seated; he dined late in the evening; he drank only after sacrificing to the gods; he played dice with Medius when he had a fever; he played games while travelling, at the same time also learning to wield a bow and mount a chariot. For himself he married Roxanê, the only woman he ever loved; but Stateira, the daughter of Darius, he married for imperial and political reasons, since the union of the two races was highly advantageous. But as for the other Persian women, he was as much their superior in self-control as in valour he was superior to Persian men. For he looked at no woman against her will and those that he looked at he passed by more readily than those that he did not look at; and although he bore himself humanely toward all other persons, it was toward fair youth alone that he conducted himself haughtily. eHe would not listen to a single word in praise of the beauty of the wife of Darius, who was a very handsome woman; but when she died, he graced her funeral with such a royal pomp and bewailed her death so feelingly that his self-control was questioned amid his display of humanity, and his goodness incurred the charge of wrongdoing. For Darius was disturbed by suspicion of Alexander's power and youth; for he also was still one of those who believed Alexander's victory to be through Fortune. But when he had tested the matter from every angle, and recognized the truth, "Then," said he, "the lot of the Persians is not so utterly wretched, nor will anyone say that we are altogether cowardly or unmanly in that we have been overcome by such a man. But for my part I pray the gods for fair fortune and for might in war, that I may surpass Alexander in bestowing favours; and I am possessed by an ambitious and emulous desire to prove myself more humane than Alexander. But if my power be spent, do thou, O Zeus, ancestral god of the Persians, and ye other gods that guard our kingship, grant that none other than Alexander take his seat upon the throne of Cyrus." This was Darius's way of adopting Alexander, invoking the gods as witnesses.

...

If to Fortune, as to a human being, one might present Frankness in Alexander's behalf, would she not say, "When and where did you ever vouchsafe a way for the exploits of Alexander? What fortress did he ever capture by your help without the shedding of blood? What city unguarded or what regiment unarmed did you deliver into his hands? What king was found to be indolent, or what general negligent, or what watchman asleep at the gate? But no river was easy to cross, no storm was moderate, no summer's heat was without torment. Betake yourself to Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, or to Artaxerxes, the brother of Cyrus; depart to Ptolemy Philadelphus! Their fathers, while yet alive, proclaimed them kings; they won battles that did not cost a tear; they made merry all their lives in processions and theatres; and every one of them, because of good fortune, grew old upon the throne.

"But in the case of Alexander, though I were to mention nothing else, behold his body gashed with wounds tip to toe, bruised all over, smitten at the hands of his enemies. Now with the spear, now the sword, now with mighty masses of boulders.
On the banks of the Granicus his helmet was cleft through to his scalp by a sword; at Gaza his shoulder was wounded by a missile; at Maracanda his shin was so torn by an arrow that by the force of the blow the larger bone was broken and extruded. Somewhere in Hyrcania his sight was dimmed, and for many days he was haunted by the fear of blindness. Among the Assacenians his ankle was wounded by an Indian arrow; that was the time when he smilingly said to his flatterers, 'this that you see is blood, not Ichor, that which flows from the wounds of the blessed immortals.'
At Issus he was wounded in the thigh with a sword, as Charesstates, by Darius the king, who had come into hand-to‑hand conflict with him. Alexander himself wrote of this simply, and with complete truth, in a letter to Antipater: 'I myself happened,' he writes, 'to be wounded in the thigh by a dagger. But nothing untoward resulted from the blow either immediately or later.' Among the Mallians he was wounded in the breast by an arrow three feet long, which penetrated his breastplate, and someone rode up under him, and struck him in the neck, as Aristobulus relates. When he had crossed the Tanaïs against the Scythians and had routed them, he pursued them on horseback an hundred and fifty stades, though he was grievously distressed with diarrhoea.

"Well done, Fortune! You exalt Alexander and make him great by running him through from every side, by making him lose his footing, dby laying open every portion of his body. Not like Athena before Menelaüs did you guide the missile to the stoutest parts of his armour, and by breastplate, belt, and kilt take away the intensity of the blow, which only grazed his body with force enough to cause blood to flow; but you exposed to the missiles the vital portions of Alexander's body unprotected, you drove home the blows through his very bones, you circled around his body, you laid siege to his eyes and his feet, you hindered him in pursuing his foes, you endeavoured to strip him of his victories, you upset his expectations."



"On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, Plutarch"

[Smeagol]

In my opinion, Alexander was great, and actually one of the greatest men of classical antiquity, and definitely it's greatest General. Alexander's short reign of conquest was so brilliant, that he would be remembered as a legendary figure down the ages, and provide a setting for the widest expansion of classical Greek culture.

In every one of his battles, he was his own best soldier,(and he was frequently wounded in battle) and remained undefeated throughout all of his campaigns from Asia Minor to India. He came close to conquering the known world, but had to turn back at the Punjab, only because his army refused to go any further. Alexander's conquests prove his genius for sure.

Alexander was also something of a visionary, and with great intelligence, and reckless bravery, he sought glory, and to emulate Achilles, the greatest (arguably) of the Greek heroes who he believed was his ancestor through his mother, and he succeeded in this mostly.

The problem was, he died too early to ensure the unity of his empire, which was the biggest the known world had yet seen, or to prove that he could have even held it together much longer, but I believe he would have just have gone further in his conquests, as he was already planning to campaign in Arabia, and against the Carthaginians. What he did manage to to though, in the time he was alive, besides the brilliant conquests, was founding new cities in the conquered lands, that were keys to the Asian land routes.

Alexander also tried to kind of bring the east, and west together, I mean for example, ruling through Persian officials in the conquered territories, and marrying a Persian Princess, and even arranging a mass wedding of Macedonians, and Persians, a marriage of east, and west, although, his men seemed to be resent these things eventually.

Alexander's impact was of course, mainly in the East, and in spreading western civilization to the oriental world, initiating the Hellenistic period, and this was his greatest accomplishment of all in my opinion. I think if he lived long enough he would have proved to have been able to keep his empire together, and prosperous.