Alexander the Great, gay or not?

I don't see any point in debating whether or not he's still gay.

There's no question about it; yes, he was. This was normal for the time and society he lived in. He had Hephaistion, his Macedonian lover, and Bagoas, his Persian lover, plus his wives too of course.

I agree - to both answers above.

Dunno as I'd categorize him as "Gay"; as mentioned, cultural norms for the times were different. Same-gender recreational sex had nowhere near the present stigma, and was widely practiced - it was more accepted and tolerated than promoted and celebrated, but it was pretty common to "to scratch the itch" in the most-readily convenient-under-the-circumstances manner. Sex in general was a whole different ethico/moral deal back then compared to the baggage it carries today.

But it wasn't just scratch the itch -- there were great intense romantic love affairs, too. Battles were as much (or more) about saving or avenging soldier-lovers as remote objects of desire like Helen.

I'll agree though that it's too simple to say "gay" in our current formulation -- bisexual on the biological/ genetic level, probably, and then affected by cultural norms of the time.

I'm not certain at this distance if we could tell. The contemporaries who wrote about Alexander had agenda's of their own and there are almost no primary documents (letters autobiographies etc). Also I don't think it matters.

Gotta go with ya there. 23 centuries in the grave can do a helluvalotta damage to the current relevance of anyone's personal lifestyle choices and practices.

I don't think it matters negatively, but it can matter positively. "Role model" is quickly entering the realm of hoary cliche, but gay teens are a group that can really use good role models. As in, it can be really beneficial for them to know that this amazing (and super-manly) historical figure was gay (or bi or whatever he was...)

I agree with Acquiunk though that it's probably impossible to KNOW for sure.

I suspect that this is what Oliver Stone's Alexander film was all about -- give the gay community the portrait of a glamourous figure to identify with. Of course, this particular glamorous figure also owned slaves. Did Oliver Stone, who says in interviews that he placed a lot of emphasis on historical accuracy, show that in his movie too? (I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know.) If he did, should the fact give any comfort to America's redneck community, and its inclination to glorify the ante-bellum South? Of course it shouldn't. As Timber says, for encouragement or discouragement, the lifestyle of societies 25 centuries ago doesn't tell us much about what is acceptable behavior today. Alexander's homosexuality, whatever its true extent might have been, is a rounding error in a footnote to a red herring in modern America's debate over homosexuality.

I don't think we can say Alexander was "gay" there was no word like this at his time and morale, philosophy, sexual behavior of people was very different.

We must judge any historical figure placed in his age, not in our. I think everybody already agreed with that, but there's also the reversal: We must not judge our age whit the morale of another one.

The fact that any guy in a past era did something doesn't authorize anybody to shut his brain off, saying "Ipse dixit". Much better to discuss any matter by ourselfs and find our solution, adding our brain to the past man ones, this is the only way to get a real progress.

.... By the way I belive no sexual behavior should be condemned, with the only limitation that the partner must be consentient and no harm should be done... But this is not the right place to discuss this, right?

Here's a post I made on another site:

Calling Alexander the great a 'gay' is blasphemy. It is indeed a reflection of the degradation of the male race that one of its best heroes is being labelled as 'gay' today.

Gay refers to a negative form of 'third gender' --- a result of heterosexualisation of the modern society. Although third gender males (whether they like women or men or other third gender people) are by no means inferior they are certainly different than (straight/ masculine) men. Alexander was the opposite of 'gay'. He was the epitome of masculinity --- an alpha male. Probably, the greatest alpha male that this world has known.

There has always been a 'special' kind of person equivalent of today's homosexual, eversince the Greek times who was extremely feminine and exclusively sought passive anal sex.

No one in the history has ever called Alexander or the Greeks in general 'gay' or 'homosexual'. Indeed the whole concept of 'homosexuality' or even 'sexual orientation' is a recent western phenomenon. The concept of sexual orientation or homosexuality is relevant only if male-male eroticism was something that only a small minority could feel, a condition which is (at least superficially) has been artificially achieved by the western heterosexual society by drastically changing the rules of masculinity.

Of course Alexander loved a man. Additionally he may not have much interest in women. (both are typical male attitudes). However, in the ancient world loving another man was not a wayward, feminine or 'minority' thing that the term 'gay' suggests. On the contrary, it was the most common and natural thing that every straight man took part in. In fact it would have been a wayward thing to bond with a woman. It was something that only third gender males participated in. Straight men did marry after they reached 30, but that was because of the social duty to raise children (an attitude which straight men typically exhibited till recent times). Indeed, men considered women to be dispensable but for procreation. Men in fact hoped that if men could give birth they will not need women at all.

This is in keeping with the nature of the mammalian male. In the wild the mammalian males mate only for reproduction. There is never a bonding or equivalent of love between opposite sexes. Any real intimate and committed bonding takes place only between animals who are not only the same-sex but also the same-gender. The opposite-sex mating takes place only once a year and not all males participate. Alpha males often mate only a few times in their lives or even not mate at all.

The only mammalian males that bond with females are the equivalent of the third gender human males --- as observed in the case of sheep and the sea lion. These males don't live in the 'male' pack but live with and bond with females as one of them.

The heterosexual society is a sham. It is an anti-male society that seeks to break men apart from each other in order to demasculinise them and make them forever subservient to and dependant on women. Straight men are never naturally heterosexual. They only pretend to be heterosexual --- or have been trained to be so by a society that requires heterosexuality as a proof of their manhood (straighthood), is hostile to male-male intimacy and propagates it as a third gender 'homosexual' stuff. Bonding with women does not come naturally to men. Indeed the institution of marriage has always been a pain in the neck for straight men and the society has had to compensate them and threaten them in a number of ways to make them marry women. However, marriage till recently did not mean 'bonding' with women, and most interaction with wives were limited to either sex or 'family' matters. Straight men formed any meaningful bonds only with other straight men. Indeed the idea of love marriage was rare and looked down upon in non-western societies.

The entire heterosexual social order ----- it's institutions, it's concepts, it's values, it's science, media, social categories and even it's language is designed to perpetuate this heterosexual agenda. By making essentially a third gender trait into a compulsory 'straight' thing, the heterosexual society has effectively disempowered, demasculated and subdued men.

The only people to benefit from this unnatural social order (apart from aggressive women) are the heterosexuals (who are actually either feminine or lesser males) and the homosexuals (i.e. feminine males who seek men as females). Heterosexuals, because getting 'manhood' has becomes as easy as ******* or bonding with women (unlike in the past). And homosexuals because it gives them the reign over male-male intimacy. The irony is that both the groups are in a minority. The one's to suffer are the straight men --- who try their best to pass off as heterosexual.


QUOTE: "Us NCOs were EXPECTED to turn in troops we thought were gay."
"I actually don't begrudge anyone their sexuality. If a guy wants to handle his buddies package that's on him, i just have two reasonable requests."

It is ironical that a heterosexual man asks 'gays' (although he uses the word 'gay', he apparently includes straight men who openly desire males) to keep out of the military. Well, of course the true homosexuals (i.e. the feminine males) should stay out of the military. Third gender males will not care much for the military anyways. But, military is where the straight (masculine) men belong. Just as much as loving another man is THE natural thing for them to do. Indeed, if anyone should stay away from the military (apart from the real homosexuals) are the real heterosexuals. Heterosexual men have no appreciation for, understanding or use of masculinity. They should rather be with women, form families and raise children --- something that they are naturally suited for. Military is not a place for them.

In the end it would be apt for me to include a quote from the well known heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:

"If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who affect machismo, ultramasculinity, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go **** each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of "make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds."

Calling a possibly psychotic and definitely sociopathic butcher like Alexander the III of Macedon "the Great" just frosts my cojones . . . who cares who he was diddling.

It is unimportant if he was gay or not.
Regards.
Xavier

?
i dont know about the gay thing i havent heard that but i heard that he wasnt macedonia but who knows.
guess well never find out

You guys have a point.

Under ideal conditions we should not be concerned about who was sleeping with you.

But we don't live under ideal conditions. In a society where men's sexual behviour has been the main target of his oppression, where man is condemned under the heterosexual ideology, where men and women live in mixed gender settings and any sexual desire between normal men is isolated into the queer 'gay' ghetto for persecution -- a society which is hell bent on proving sexual bonds between men as feminine and 'gay' in character --- history becomes extremely important. Afterall, what good is history if we cannot learn from it. And Alexander, great or not, was one of the Alpha males, and he looks the assertion that male-male love is gay or unmanly or feminine, straight in the face.

And one of the few hopes for straight man's liberation under such adverse and hostile social conditions.

Again, while many people may not be concerned about who he slept with, using the word 'gay' or 'homosexuality' in his context, even lightly or even to refer to his love bonds with other men is misleading and derogatory for someone who is long dead.

Maybe so, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. By your reasoning, the example Alexander would support the contention that gays are dangerous sociopaths. Does that in any way affect your confidence in your reasoning? I think it ought to.

For the record, it is foolish to assert that because Alexander was a homicidal sociopath and happens also to have been bi-sexual (or so it appears) that therefore either bi-sexuals or homosexuals are homicidal sociopaths by definition. One can state with a high degree of historical accuracy that Iulius Caesar was bi-sexual, his legionaires used to sing about it when the paraded in the streets of Rome. He was not in the least homicidal or sociopathic, at least in accordance with the record available to us. Giles de Raïs--who started the 15th century fad of dying one's beard, and is therefore known to history as Bluebeard--had by all accounts, a normal and healthy sexual relationship with women. He also like to rape, torture and murder adolescent boys in the keep of his castle. One cannot assume thereby that men who have healthy sexual relationships with women are by definition predatory, homicidal, homosexual pederasts.

And for the record, I agree with that, which is why I was careful to speak in the subjunctive and not to assert anything. I was merely trying to refute Buddha's assumption that Alexander's conduct tells us anything about gays in general, by reducing the assumption to an absurdity.

Good job, Boss . . . i suppressed all mention of Richard, Coeur de Lion, cause that would really have muddied the waters . . .

. . . Damn, now i've let the cat out of the bag . . .

Wait, wait . . . King James, there ya go, now there was a truly religious gay boy . . .