Alexander the Great, gay or not?

Note: Historians believe Shakespeare was bisexual, and Da Vinci gay/bi.

I believe the evidence is that Da Vinci was homosexual, not bisexual. In his diaries, after he had retired to France as a guest of François I, he complains constantly that the young man who was his "assistant" and who lived with him, was stealing from him. He complains for years, but he doesn't get rid of the boy. There are other clues, but i disremember them now--it's never a big deal to me, just interesting details of someone's life.

It's a bit complex. To me the fact that he was brave, strong and a conqueror becomes extremely imortant in a society which denies such qualities to men when they assert their sexual need for other men.

While his cruelty maybe true, but he also had other admirable facets of life. I guess life in those times was pretty different. It was a kings job to extend his territory. All kings in the past did that. That's how empires came into existence. Naturally, they would have been 'cruel' for the people they conquered. I'm from India, one of the lands he conquered. But he made several friends here too, and facilitated a lot of cultural exchange, which was not bad. But I recount a story oft told in India which highlights that he did have some 'kinder' qualities that points at his integrity. E.g. he released the king he captured, when porus told him he should be treated like a king.

If he was cruel, weren't the religious missionaries who went about all over the world and exterminated native cultures less cruel. But religion has a dominant place of pride even in today's society. At least Alexander respected and learned from the cultures that he went to. E.g. he treated Indian gods and goddesses like his own.

And isn't the heterosexual ideology itself cruel. You can kill with a sword. You can make a life worse than death through social oppression.

Therefore, using the positive aspects of a historical figure selectively may not be all that wrong if it is to fight an oppressive ideology. After all no one is perfect.

You mean aspects such as Hitler the road builder, Stalin the child-kisser, Mao the swimmer ...

There was absolutely nothing admirable about Alexander III. His father, Phillip, was the military, political and diplomatic genius who welded Macedonia together, and then attached the exhausted states of the Greeks to that polity. He trained the officers who ran Alexander's armies, who held the garrisons, kept the supply lines running, forwarded the levies of troops, kept a lid on local discontent. When upon the death of Alexander, his "empire" fragmented, it largely was simply divided by the competent commanders in place. The Asiatic expedition was planned, the logistics laid out, the troops raised, equipped, paid and transported by Phillip before his death. Read Arrian's Anabasis sometime, and read it without a prejudicial view that Alexander was great. The boy is out front, slaughtering as many of anyone in his path as he could, and that's all he ever cared about. It took him four years to clean out Afghanistan because he would brook no opposition, and he could continually slake his bloodlust on the tribesmen there who have endlessly fought every invader for more than two thousand years. When he made it into the Indus valley, he did insane things: he charged battle elephants with the horse--that scattered the elephants, who broke the ranks behind them, and it also destroyed his cavalry in the first major engagement on what he planned to make a long campaign. At one insignificant, petty mud-walled town in the Indus valley, he vaulted the wall, and found himself surrounded with his back to that wall. His companions became frantic, the soldiers broke in the gates, and the Greco-Macedonians suffered horrible casualties cutting their way to him. Why? Because the town refused to yield when summoned. It was not long thereafter that his army mutinied, and forced him to abandon his plans to invade the Hind. The Afghan campaign alone required 100,000 replacements to garrison all the necessary strong points on the line of communications and make up the horrible losses his army had suffered.

He created no imperial administration. He made no provision for his succession. He created no military bureaucracy, relying instead upon the faithful officers of his father who fed the bloody maw of his personal ambition. The ancient world called him great, because they made virtues of the madness of slaughter, because they held their views of the world unexamined. When one considers what Phillip likely would have accomplished had he lived, and then compares it to the complete lack of accomplishment of Alexander--unless one considers continual, wanton and wholesale slaughter of people whose only offense was to have been in the path of his ambition--Alexander III can be seen for what he was, a homicidal sociopath with autocratic power. Even the cruelty of someone like Petr Alexeevitch was much mitigated by the vast and lasting accomplishment of his reign--he deserves to be known as Peter the Great. Alexander was a self-absorbed boy who never matured and lived out his petty existence in a crimson haze of murder.

In my never humble opinion, of course.

Likely Alexander's greatest achievement was managing to die before meeting disaster at the hands of a foe, or his own army.

My own favorite book on this is Donald Engels: Alexander and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army University of California Press (1981) It contains everything about Alexander's campaigns except the battles, which allowed the author to concentrate on the interesting parts. The book confirms quite impressively what Setanta says: Alexander didn't conquer those territories with the hair on his chest. Oliver Stone's personality cult is ridiculous.

I think your being a bit hard on the boy Set. Alexander was no worse than others of his time, he just had a more literate set of observers.

What bothers me is "his empire". Alexander created no empire. He knocked of the governing lineage (Darius et al) of the Persian Empire and spent the rest of his short life consolidating his control. Once he got out side that empire (India) he was a disaster. If his father built his army, others built his empire, he just took it. The indictment should read not murder but theft.

Well, Acq, i'd certainly be happy to add theft to the indictment. I'm going to stick with murder, though, nor simply for the most obvious incident among his own people, but for his campaigns in general. The Persian conquest might have been justified, based on previous behavior of the Medes and Persians. Once he crossed the Oxus River, though, it was just pure blood lust.

Theft . . . how very clever. I think i may use that in future. Thank you sir.

Thanks for the recommendation, Boss. I should have made clear that that information is not necessarily to be found in Arrian, which is in fact an account of the marches and battles. I did however, place Arrian in my rant in the proper position--prefacing the description of Alexander's behavior, which was my point.

Theft? Well, yeah, but only as part of overwhelminmg ambition. The boy had the idea, he just didn't pack the gear. An empire which fails to outlive its founder is no empire. Had Alexander real substance, there would have been no Diadochi, no conflict among Seleucids, Antigonines, and Ptolemies, and, very likely, no Rome. History saw otherwise.

That boy was a mess--it is alleged that when he and his companions heard of any victory of Phillip, he became enraged, and cursed his father. The point being, he was jealous of his father's accomplishment, and thought that there would be no "glory" left for him.

Alexander great or not!
You guys sometimes have a valid criticism of Alexander.

But many of his put-downs seem to me to be just trivial. Like saying he was 'just' lucky. You can't be lucky unless you have the courage. He may have played politics. But those were the times where men used to be truly masculine. Their training instilled postive masculine qualities in them -- and they depended on their valour and principles rather than using unfair means in war --- like what is acceptable today. Those were entirely different times.

Alexander had his education and training from one of the best philosophers this world has known. He could not have been distanced from the high values of his times.

Well, and tell me which General or Emperor was not cruel towards his enemies. In our peaceful times, can you say that our governments are any less severe with whom they consider their enemies.

In Alexander's times you played with rules and fairness. There was little room for manipulation or politics. And in wars what counted was brutal power, not manipulation.

And everyone has negative points. The best hero figure can be blown apart using his negative side. Unless the criticism is serious, we should not discount a person's achievements.

Maybe, I've heard only good things about Alexander. But can you substantiate his comparison with these figures.

He was only fighting to expand his kingdom -- which in those days was not a 'wrong' thing to do. Aryans too went all over the place, conquered the natives, but then lived peacefully with them --- merging into local populations.

The people you have mentioned have forced their ideologies on others through extreme violence. They belong to a time when human values have fallen to an all time low and humans have come far away from nature.

Thank you for your recommendation too! I have not read Arrian yet, but will do so now based on your description. I would guess the "Alexander the hero" myth can be effectively debunked by any author who actually takes a look at him rather than peddle the popular phantasy. And your description made very clear that Arrian did take a look and objectively described what he saw.

Arrian is an interesting writer. Most biographies before the mid-nineteenth century are panegyrics. Although i believe that Plutarch attempted to write balanced biographical essays, i don't feel he was sufficiently critical of his sources. Arrian--Lucius Flavius Arrianus--was a Greek living in Nicomedia in the first century of this era. He plainly admires Alexander, but he was a disciplined philosopher already known in his own time for careful analyses of other's work, so he was cautious. Although written nearly four centuries after Alexander died, it is the nearest to a comtemporary account we have, as he had access to accounts which have disappeared, or only survive in fragments. Personally, i felt i saw the dynamic of his admiration struggling with the character he had to portrary, as Arrian seems to have been an honest type of philosopher. He has a particularly hard time with the murder of Cleitus, which he cannot ignore and cannot fully explain. It is the closest to a contemporary account which is not fullsome panegyric. I think you might enjoy it.

Since you guys won't stop abusing historical figures, I think I need to go into detail of the whole labelling business and expose hidden agendas.

I'm adding a long essay explaining my contention, and hope it will make things 'straight'. I have two contentions:

1. This labeling thing is not based on facts and is theoretically unsound.

2. The motive for labeling is oppressive. It's part of an anti-man agenda.

Hopefully many more people will read this than are participating in this discussion.

<I look forward to this>

1. This labeling thing is not based on facts and is theoretically unsound.

If there was any such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual in nature humans would have discovered these terms long ago. The fact that no other human civilisation has any word for such things is a clear pointer that the entire concept of sexual orientation is invented by the modern west.

Of course people keep pointing that out even on this board. But there are men with vested interests who will continue to label and isolate men. For them it is their basic duty to further the 'heterosexual agenda'.
(homosexuals, i.e. feminine males who desire males, are also an integral part of this agenda, since they have a lot of power within the homosexual space, which only a heterosexual society will give them)

That men typically have a sexual need for both men and women is not a hidden fact, inspite of the incessant propaganda by the heterosexual world.

For those who insist on proof, there is ample proof in the wild and in our past. Societies that are largely untouched by westernisation even today acknowledge this fact, and sex/ affairs between 'straight' men are quite universal here -- whether openly or behind the scenes.

In a heterosexual society the oppression of sexual bonds between men (particularly straight men) is so intense that is has completely gone under hiding, amongst the mainstream straight male society. And straight men (meaning 'masculine men', not 'heterosexual men') take on an artificial heterosexual identity. But that does not make these identities natural.

In these heterosexual societies, sex between men is confined to the homosexual ghetto (which is populated by feminine, third gender males). Even straight men who have no sexual attraction for women, do not want to pass over to the third gender space and in order to retain their straight status stick to a 'heterosexual' identity by keeping girlfriends (and advertising it) and suppressing their sexual need for men. Of course most straight men still have sex with men but it is very superficial, absolutely quiet, disguised and only when they get a hidden chance, which is rare. (Though in western societies some straight men are now joining the 'gay' space, but they live there like outsiders)

Therefore these identities are not real or natural. They have relevance only in a society, which is as repressive of male sexual bonds as the modern west. Furthermore, such identities have any relevance only in a mixed-gender society. In natural male-only and female-only societies still existing in most of the non-western world, such identities are meaningless.

It is easy for the protagonists of the heterosexual agenda to claim that men are basically heterosexuals, going by what is seen on the surface. In such a society we cannot determine the extent of sexual desire between men by a direct head count. The homosexual identity is not representative of the real bonds between men. It is representative of only a feminine male's desire for men.

By the way, the protagonists of the heterosexual agenda include not only those handful of males who are truly 'heterosexuals' but also the homosexuals (i.e. feminine/ meterosexual males who like males) who are also benefited under this system. The losers are of course the real straight men and the majority of real heterosexuals --- the transgendered males.

In such a scenario, we need to arrive at a realistic estimate through indirect methods. One of the best ways to measure the extent of male sexual need for men and their disinterest in women, is by measuring the pressure exerted by the society to:

1. Force men to bond sexually with women, and
2. Force men not to bond sexually with men

It's a simple logic. If heterosexuality (i.e. male need for long term bonding with women, and an abhorrence for male eroticism) is natural, you don't need any social pressures to bind them into this state. If such as system (of exerting pressure) is present it means that at least some men may not otherwise want to be heterosexual. But if the pressures are intense it is a clear pointer that there is a widespread and strong need amongst men to bond sexually with other men, and the sexual desire for females is not as widespread, strong and long lasting as it is made out to be. And that if this pressure is lifted heterosexuality will disappear.

You only have to look at the kind of social power and masculinity granted when a man proves his interest in women. It's phenomenal. And considering you don't have to do anything - just **** a girl, and the society gives you the 'manhood' status on a platter, something that men have coveted since they got together into societies.

Or look at the extent of hostility prevalent in the west against so-called 'homosexuality', to realise what they are up against. And look at how insecure they get when homosexuals get rights. After all, if it was only a question of a 2% to 10% of the population, those in power need not have been so jittery.

Thus if male sexual need for a male lover is an omnipresent quality, the concept of sexual orientation as well as the labels 'heterosexual', 'homosexual' & 'bisexual' are not only useless but also misleading. (Actually they serve a very important purpose for the heterosexual agenda.)

2. The Motive for labeling and isolating male-male bonds --- the heterosexual agenda

The efforts to bind men into the reproduction process and raising of children are almost as old as the known civilisations. Obviously, the human male, like its animal counterparts isn't as enthusiastic about reproduction (the thrust of the earlier societies was on reproduction and raising of children and not male-female sex by itself) or child rearing, as the society would want. After all, these societies needed to grow fast and outdo each other --- much faster than nature meant them to.

The early civilisations developed a mechanism -- which was obviously oppressive for men (and women), whereby they exerted pressure on men to mate with women. This was done through a mechanism of punishments and rewards. Mating with women was made a 'masculinity' issue, something that was very important for men. They were also enticed by giving them ownership of women and children.

Early societies realised that they needed to put some restrictions on male-male bonds, for men seemed to be much more enthusiastic about them than bonding with women (just like in the wild), but these societies were never hostile to such bonds. The early men would never have left their male bonds for anything in the world.

By the time the ancient Greek civilisation came along male sexual bonds were still institutionalised, but it was compulsory to get married to women to procreate, especially for the common man, after men reached 30 years of age.

Christianity attacked sexual bonds between men with full force -- (after all it was quite an ambitious religion and wanted to grow in numbers as fast as possible). It just could not afford to lose male sexual energy for non-procreation purposes. Of course it brought in 'God' into the whole mess, to declare sex between men a sin of all sins. For centuries afterwards a bloody persecution of male sexual desire for men followed (and not only of the homosexuals). And thus sexual bonds between men went underground.

By the time the modern era started, the field was clear for 'heterosexuality' to assert itself. There was one class of people (both male and female) which although was in a minority, and definitely not the best specimen of men, which tended to gain from the social mechanism meant to oppress men elaborated above. These men got enormous social powers and easy manhood (which they did not deserve) --- even over those men that were naturally superior to and more masculine than them. They wanted to consolidate and enhance their power and so a heterosexualisation of the western society started to take place. The heterosexual agenda was to 'banish' sexual bonds with men from the mainstream straight community and restrict into a feminine ghetto, and thus consolidate for eternity the 'supremacy' of the heterosexual identity.

There were still several hindrances though. For one thing, even though the society had for ages applied pressure on men to control men's sexual behaviour and force them to mate with women, the thrust of the society was on reproduction and male-female relationships by themselves were discouraged. In fact non-marital male-female relationship was disdained much more and faced much more hostility than did male-male relationships.

Secondly, women who were openly sexual with men were held in contempt and labeled as 'whores'. The heterosexual agenda needed to work that out. Because these women were crucial for a heterosexual society.

Third the society was still divided into male and female. And for heterosexuality to take root, they needed to break this pattern and merge the two groups. This merging would take the pressure to mate with women to its extremity. Because here the earlier 'whore' became powerful and the ideal woman, and women who for long had been the source of men's social masculinity --- had direct control over men. Men were now truly subjugated.

These vested interests also found an extremely effective way to contain male-male bonds within the mainstream male community. They knew very well that such bonds operated strictly behind scenes. The surest way to kill such bonds were to talk about them, to acknowledge them. The society on the surface was extremely disapproving of such relationships. The protagonists of the heterosexual agenda knew that the moment such desires were brought out in the open, even slightly, the strongest such desires would seem to evaporate into thin air (actually, go into hiding!). Therefore, in the name of openness, they snatched men's 'purdah' (a sheet of cloth behind which something is hidden). They had already intensified the pressure in this 'open society' by a new mechanism of labeling and isolating the remnant of male-male bonds that survived this forced outing. It was called 'sexual orientation'. Male bonds were now isolated into the earlier third gender category, which was in earlier times, reserved for feminine and lesser males. They named this category 'homosexual' (later gay).

This 'homosexual' category basically belonged to transgendered males. The traditional societies disapproved bonds between men but they accepted relationships between transgendered males (today's homosexuals) and men. Meterosexual males who liked men too took to this new homosexual identity gladly and were at home with it. And the vested interests soon took control of the society to propagate this space as transgendered, unmanly space and equated male sexual desire for men with this label. Science has been a tool all along in this heterosexual agenda.

While, earlier societies had made sex with women a masculinity issue, the heterosexual agenda made bonding with women a 'masculine' character. Quite against all traditional notions of masculinity that held bonding with women an extremely unmanly characteristic. Thus now, masculinity or the new word for it, 'straight hood' was associated with heterosexuality.

The heterosexual agenda hijacked the ancient mechanism to control male sexual behaviour. As mentioned earlier, the ancient mechanism was meant to help in reproduction and child rearing. That is why they had empowered male-female sex so profoundly. Heterosexuality is basically about treating male-female sex as casual. It seeks to break male-female sex from the social responsibility and natural burden of children, by making male-female sex an end in itself. Thus it completely thwarts the original purpose of why they were empowered in the first place.

True, the world no longer needs more babies. But then why continue to oppress mainstream men and women just for the benefit of a handful of people. But those in power will not give up power easily.

The vested interests have sounded their own death knell by trying to consolidate their power in this way. Because they have driven men to a wall. And when they strike back -- one day it will happen -- the fear is that male-female bonds may come into fire for a long time to come.