Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

  1. #1

    Icon5 Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    I had a long argument over the interent on something and I was just curious on why it happens.

    So I was subscribed to a facebook page with funny content (memes) about the Classical/Hellenistic era and noticed a constant posting of content mocking people who disagree on Achilles/Alexander being homosexual or bisexual. I mean that's fine, some indeed deserve the mocking for what they say, but it seemed like the page was obsessed with this and many of the followers, judging by the comments and likes.

    On a post about Alexander and Hephaistion I decided then to kind of speak about this on a comment saying "Yeah, definitely cousins". I said "well they grew up together, perhaps they did feel like cousins or brothers". And then I got bombarded from the commentator and the person they tagged (sincerely, I didn't notice they had tagged someone when I posted). My point was just that we can't know for sure. The behaviours of the subjects alone are not enough in my opinion to provide conclusive evidence of their sexuality and they can be explained by other emotional states too. Their arguments included the classical era when the bisexuality was the norm, Plato's symposium... and that I am a homophobe.

    I can't really explain why there is such an obsession with portraying Achilles and Alexander this specific way to the point that presenting a different opinion or disagreeing instantly makes you "homophobic". I have no personal motivation to prove anything but why should I accept something as a fact when it's not a fact but a theory? Does it feel to them like I am attacking them?

    If you guys have some explanation or can prove somehow that I am entirely wrong, please let me know. I am sincerely curious right now. The whole situation just doesn't make sense to me right now.
    Thanks.
    Last edited by Athanasios55; January 23, 2021 at 11:03 AM.

  2. #2
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,694
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Hi. I have no knowledge of history, but it occurs to me that the animosity towards those who argue the non-heterosexuality of these characters may be due to the fact that for centuries (until recently?) it was hidden (hidden for homophobic reasons, obviously).

    Edit: When I say hidden I mean, at least hidden from the general public.
    Last edited by mishkin; January 23, 2021 at 11:09 AM.

  3. #3
    Turkafinwë's Avatar The Sick Baby Jester
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    3,802

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Most people there just wish to express their displeasure or ree about things they are upset about in the world without making really a decent argument. Makawa has pointed it out quiet nicely I think. For ages there has been a washing away of homosexuality/bisexuality because it was something to be frowned upon/illegal and some people can't look past the years of injustice that they get fired up so hard that their rational brain just explodes when they see someone arguing against their ideas, even if it is just to beg the question if it is true for the question's sake. My advice would be to stay far away from Facebook page comment sections and not to take much posted there too seriously.

    My personal opinion is that I really don't care. I value people on their merits and deeds not who or what they are attracted to. Besides we'll never know for sure anyway so why bother. I have more pressing matters to wonder about in history than if Alexander the Great would be considered a bisexual to our norms.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    The 2004 Oliver Stone Alexander movie kinda addresses Alexander sexuality. In fact The focus on his relationship with Hephaistion , it might be a bit too much mostly because it doesn't free time to show other things about his life.

    Anyway this is 2004 movie, nobody cared about Alexander sexuality then, nor it was a guarded secret until then. In fact my notion is that the general public has an incorrect view of ancient Greece as accepting of homosexuality in general.
    While in truth, yes it was accepted, in some circles, and in some contexts. To be said it was a generalized accepted thing within all facets of ancient Greek society, it is probably pushing it.

    But anyway i never saw this as any closed guarded secret imo.

    On a post about Alexander and Hephaistion I decided then to kind of speak about this on a comment saying "Yeah, definitely cousins". I said "well they grew up together, perhaps they did feel like cousins or brothers". And then I got bombarded from the commentator and the person they tagged (sincerely, I didn't notice they had tagged someone when I posted). My point was just that we can't know for sure. The behaviours of the subjects alone are not enough in my opinion to provide conclusive evidence of their sexuality and they can be explained by other emotional states too. Their arguments included the classical era when the bisexuality was the norm, Plato's symposium... and that I am a homophobe.
    You are correct there is a lot of assumptions,and conjecture about Alexanders Sexuality. The reality is we dont know for sure. I also think is a mistake to analyze his sexuality by today's standards as well.


    However Trolls being trolls on social media. I find social media in general to be very toxic. All it takes is for you to have the "wrong" opinion, or take about something, as mundane as it sounds, and a mob will lash out. I mean there is people on twitter who are branded and called transphobes, and homophobes because they dont put pronouns in their bio. That is the level of gaslighting and lunacy it exists.
    Last edited by Knight of Heaven; January 23, 2021 at 12:03 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Can't say I have noticed any obsession with that issue among classicists. Articles on sexuality seem a bit rare and are almost alwways published in collective tomes, where a section is devoted to topics like gender, women and etc. On the other hand, Alexander's sexuality is a more popular topic among the wider public*, because of the gossip value concerning topics, where our moral and social values differ considerably from those of ancient Greece. The subsequent controversy means that they are liable to attract more visibility and interest in public, Facebook groups. The reaction to scepticism might seem a bit hyperbolic, but that's partly the result of how often denial is inspired purely from bigotry, especially among contemporary nationalists, who may idolise Alexander.

    As for the specific cases of Achilles and Alexander, they don't seem that dubious to me. Achilles is a mythical figure, so there's no point in wondering what his sexual orientation was, but how he was depicted by ancient authors. As far as I understand, Homer does not explicitly state that Patroclus and Achilles were lovers, but, on the other hand, Aeschylus, Plato and others clearly considered as such. Alexander seems simpler, since one of our main primary sources, Quintus Curtius Rufus, explicitly attests his sexual relationship with the eunuch Bagoas.

    *For example, Oliver Stone's film ruffled a few feathers, but scholars (besides Lane Fox) were hardly involved.

  6. #6
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,694
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    there are dozens of films in which the characters of Achilles or Alexander appear, but until the films Troy and Alexander (both from 2004) they had never been presented as non-heterosexual; popularly, they were considered perfectly heterosexual gentlemen. Obviously, I am only speaking from the point of view of popular culture. I am now finding out how this topic was treated in academic fields.

    Edit: Thinking about it, Achilles in the film Troy is presented as heterosexual.
    Last edited by mishkin; January 23, 2021 at 12:33 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasios55 View Post
    Their arguments included the classical era when the bisexuality was the norm, Plato's symposium...
    As you can see, the public debate around such issues is dominated by two factions: one, reactionary conservatives who categorically deny any kind of non-straight behaviour in their favourite historical personalities (usually those from their own ethnicity or country), and two, "activists" who interpret every ambiguous statement in the most "LGBTQXYZ" way possible.
    Both sides are of course projecting their own values into the past and are looking for validation, and thus both arrive at a completely skewed result. In reality, things were more complicated than e.g. "bisexuality was the norm". From what I remember, there was a lot of hypocrisy involved (e.g. free men who took it from behind were not well regarded).


    and that I am a homophobe.
    Ah yes, the usual ad hominem recourse of the midwit, accusing one's opponent of "something-phobia". It's probably best to ignore it.

  8. #8
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,694
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    a community habitually humiliated or ignored will hold on to what it can to reinforce its ego or its fight against humiliation. Sometimes they will fail and make a fool of themselves (black cleopatra) and sometimes in a perfectly justified way they will make a historical character a champion for their cause or for their normalization (gay alexander).

  9. #9
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    ... Alexander seems simpler, since one of our main primary sources, Quintus Curtius Rufus, explicitly attests his sexual relationship with the eunuch Bagoas.

    *For example, Oliver Stone's film ruffled a few feathers, but scholars (besides Lane Fox) were hardly involved.
    As Alexander had no known "bastards" and married as old man in his Thirties (for ancient times), its much more likely he was bisexual.

    Especially when you compare him to Philipp II with his many wifes and children.

    Also his griefing of several days with total denial of food about the death of Hephaiston and the founding of a city with the name of Hephaiston is a strong "proof", that they were lovers.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  10. #10

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    I don't disagree, Alexander being bisexual seems the likeliest scenario. He was viewed as such by ancient authors as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Allegedly Diogenes of Sinope
    If you wish to be beautiful and good, throw away the rag you have in your head and come to us. Yet you will not be able to do so, for you are held fast by Hephaistion's thighs.
    Anyway, homosexuality had after all been very common in the Macedonian court between young nobles (similarly to other societies), as the Page Conspiracy shows. Even for Philip II there are references for homosexual relations, his assassin, since Pausanias of Orestis is supposed to have been ancient lover. Just one minor clarification, Alexander did have one bastard son, Hercules, his mother being Barsine, the daughter of the Persian magnate Artabazus. Poor Hercules didn't prosper, unfortunately. Once he was advanced as a (puppet) pretender for the throne by Polyperchon, Cassander bribed his protector, who had Hercules summarily executed.

  11. #11
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    I didn't know that, but in comparison to Philip II Alexander seems to be quite listless to produce offspring.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  12. #12

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Not sure how reliable Plutarch can be on the matter, but mentions Alexander married Roxana out of both love and politics.

    His marriage to Roxana, whom he saw in her youthful beauty taking part in a dance at a banquet, was a love affair, and yet it was thought to harmonize well with the matters which he had in hand
    Alexander seems to have admired Achilles and this is used a lot in arguments, linking his idol's sexualities with his own. Briseis however, above the corpse of Patroclus, speaks of an arranged marriadge of her with Achilles (Iliad 19.295–300)

    οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδέ μ' ἔασκες, ὅτ' ἄνδρ' ἐμὸν ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεὺς
    ἔκτεινεν, πέρσεν δὲ πόλιν θείοιο Μύνητος,
    κλαίειν, ἀλλά μ' ἔφασκες Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο
    κουριδίην ἄλοχον θήσειν, ἄξειν τ' ἐνὶ νηυσὶν
    ἐς Φθίην, δαίσειν δὲ γάμον μετὰ Μυρμιδόνεσσι.
    τώ σ' ἄμοτον κλαίω τεθνηότα μείλιχον αἰεί.
    /
    And yet you would not let me, when swift Achilleus had cut down
    My husband and sacked the city of godlike Mynes,
    You would not let me sorrow, but said you would make me godlike Achilleus’
    Wedded lawful wife, that you would take me back in the ships
    To Phthia, and formalize my marriage among the Myrmidons.
    Therefore I weep your death without ceasing. You were kind always.
    The above are not meant to prove heterosexuality, obviously, and they can't by themselves, these are only meant to prove that nothing can be certain, that we don't really know the truth and probably never will, unless we could ask the men themselves. And even then we would need to be lucky to get the true answer, if they even knew it. Nobody guarantees us they even knew what their sexual orientation was, how they expressed it, if it had remained unchanged from childhood or if it would change later granted they lived longer.

    It's already tough enough to study the mind of a human being that is alive today, let alone of one that lived more that two millenia ago.

    Edit: sorry, I got a bit sleepy and didn't finish the post well. I would also like to reference Plutarch's Life of Alexander, chapter 22. It has some interesting little bits and pieces, like that he supposedly thought "sex and sleep remind him of his mortality", so perhaps the limited mentions of sexual activities can be explained by his personality itself. Again, all of these various sources just raise more questions than they answer. The main point of this and the initial post was that I just don't see the reason for obsessively enforcing one specific theory as a fact when there is possibly no way to conclude to a final judgement. Why should we, anyway?
    Last edited by Athanasios55; January 24, 2021 at 03:20 AM.

  13. #13
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    No I would take the complete opposite position and argue that there was no evidence that Alexander was a non-heterosexual. Although he does come off as an asexual weirdo who would rather run around killing things than spend time with women, at least in his youth. We know that Alexander had a mistress in his youth which was acquired for him by Philip. During this time Alexander also tried to arrange a marriage between himself and the daughter of the ruler of Caria, which Philip ordered him to cancel. We also know that Alexander was critical of Philip's lifestyle, and in general seems to have been against debauchery whether it was drinking or gambling or whoring. Probably because he was turned into an incel tradcath by Aristotle. Aristotle for his part was also extremely against the vices of whoring and little boys. Alexander also took a mistress when he invaded the Persian Empire. Then later arranged a trad cath monogamous marriage between himself and Roxana of Sogdia. As well as monogamous marriages between his generals and Persian noble women, which they really disapproved of and probably fathered a few bastards with their mistresses during this time. Including having his friend Hephaestion marry one of Darius's daughters, in a clear attempt to set him up as a potential successor to his throne. Alexander also married two more of Darius's daughters, probably as a prestige and legitimacy move. During that time he only fathered two children.

    The claims that Alexander was engaged in manly pederasty with Hephaestion and some of his other friends is only reported in later "gossip" sources. Alexander also couldn't have been poking Bagoas with his sarissa, as Oliver Stone claims, because Bagoas was a palace eunuch of Darius. Naturally no one trusts eunuchs so Darius ordered him to drink poison... before Alexander had even crossed into Asia. Whether Darius was diddling little boys I don't know. I also don't recall rearguard actions with Bagoas being listed among Darius's battles. Unless you mean the other Bagoas, who was also a eunuch, which supposedly "won a dancing contest" and Alexander kissed him because Bagoas demanded it, but this is only mentioned by Plutarch, and Bagoas himself by Quintus Curtius Rufus in passing, who are unreliable sources in general (don't get me started about Plutarch and the Late Republic historiography).

    As for Achilles, that is one of the more commonly cited examples. Although in all of my times in university I don't remember ever hearing specifically that Achilles had a male lover. Now the Greek myth courses in the Classics departments were really long and they tried to drill all sorts of Greek concepts in our heads, like "hamartia" and so on. But I don't remember pederasty actually being mentioned. Other than the BBC Troy I can't say I've heard much about this at all. I mean aside from Achilles being a fictional character of course, so you can only really rely on the Illiad and how ever many versions of it there are.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; January 29, 2021 at 12:47 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  14. #14
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    I think people are interested in the subject because they want to know personal details about famous people. As a person interested in military history it is peripheral subject for me.

    Alexander and Hephaestion were seen as friends in the mode of Achilles and Patroclus, adult male lovers (so not classical pederasty). Achilles and Patroclus had sex with women for pleasure in the Iliad, but in the classical era it was assumed they were lovers as well.

    Both Alexander and Hephaestion fathered children and while their marriages may have had political contexts Alexander certainly fathered a bastard and retained a hetaireia, so according to our sources he was someone who enjoyed sex with men and women. AFAIK he is never accused of pederasty.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  15. #15

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The claims that Alexander was engaged in manly pederasty with Hephaestion and some of his other friends is only reported in later "gossip" sources. Alexander also couldn't have been poking Bagoas with his sarissa, as Oliver Stone claims, because Bagoas was a palace eunuch of Darius. Naturally no one trusts eunuchs so Darius ordered him to drink poison... before Alexander had even crossed into Asia. Whether Darius was diddling little boys I don't know. I also don't recall rearguard actions with Bagoas being listed among Darius's battles. Unless you mean the other Bagoas, who was also a eunuch, which supposedly "won a dancing contest" and Alexander kissed him because Bagoas demanded it, but this is only mentioned by Plutarch, and Bagoas himself by Quintus Curtius Rufus in passing, who are unreliable sources in general (don't get me started about Plutarch and the Late Republic historiography).
    All the marriages you listed had political motives, including most probably Rhoxane. Anyway, I don't think anyone disagrees that Alexander was also attracted to women, only because of Barsine's example, but his homosexual tendancies are also well attested. Plutarch is a very poor source, but dismissing Curtius Rufus is simply wrong. Curtius Rufus mentions Bagoas more than once and he's not an unreliable historian. He inserts moral didacticisms from time to time, but his sources are much wider than Arrian's. In fact, given that Arrian's aim is to present an eulogy to Alexander, similar to what Xenophon did for Cyrus the Younger, he's less reliable than Curtius Rufus in certain regards, Bagoas being one of them. It's not very surprising that Arrian omitted the eunuch, just like he did with several other potentially embarrassing incidents. On the other hand, Curtius Rufus' testimony is more balanced, because he doesn't hesitate to criticise Alexander, when circumstances demand it. Rejecting Bagoas' historicity is like dismissing Jesus' existence. Sure, the evidence isn't flawless, but it's actually much more concrete than the average piece of information concerning the Antiquity. Overall, I believe it's safe to conclude that Alexander was most likely bisexual, a preference that was very common among military professionals and upper-class males, including those of the Macedonian aristocracy and royal dynasty.

  16. #16
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    All the marriages you listed had political motives, including most probably Rhoxane.
    I'm not saying it wasn't. But Roxana should not have been as important as Darius's two daughters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Anyway, I don't think anyone disagrees that Alexander was also attracted to women, only because of Barsine's example, but his homosexual tendancies are also well attested.
    They aren't though. These are mentioned from later sources. There is no reason to obscure this either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Plutarch is a very poor source, but dismissing Curtius Rufus is simply wrong. Curtius Rufus mentions Bagoas more than once and he's not an unreliable historian. He inserts moral didacticisms from time to time, but his sources are much wider than Arrian's.
    Okay what is Curtius Rufus's source?
    If you look in the actual text Curtius Rufus also mentions all sorts of peculiar anecdotes about Bagoas. Curtius Rufus also mentions other anecdotes and events that are not mentioned anywhere else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    In fact, given that Arrian's aim is to present an eulogy to Alexander, similar to what Xenophon did for Cyrus the Younger, he's less reliable than Curtius Rufus in certain regards, Bagoas being one of them. It's not very surprising that Arrian omitted the eunuch, just like he did with several other potentially embarrassing incidents.
    Except that Curtius Rufus is the only source which is cited. If the claim that homosexuality could be presented in a positive fashion is true, then there is no reason for this to not have been mentioned. Moreover Quintus Rufus does not mention the existence of Bagoas negatively, nor even the relationship which he claims to have had with Alexander. In fact in this very narrative Rufus states that Bagoas was popular with the army. He only uses this negatively when referring to Darius and Persian customs, which Rufus derides.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    On the other hand, Curtius Rufus' testimony is more balanced, because he doesn't hesitate to criticise Alexander, when circumstances demand it. Rejecting Bagoas' historicity is like dismissing Jesus' existence. Sure, the evidence isn't flawless, but it's actually much more concrete than the average piece of information concerning the Antiquity.
    It being a "balanced" account doesn't make it true.

    Where does Rufus use Bagoas as a criticism for Greek norms or of Alexander himself?

    I do reject the historicity of Jesus.

    You don't even know what Rufus's source is but you call it concrete. When the most likely origin of this Bagoas was in the earlier vizier Bagoas who supposedly was the power behind the throne, killed two Persian monarchs, and placed Darius III into power. In spite of the fact that this is probably an invention by Diodorus Siculus. Both the vizier Bagoas and the concubine Bagoas are used to slight Darius. Which in my opinion is more telling of why either character exists in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Overall, I believe it's safe to conclude that Alexander was most likely bisexual, a preference that was very common among military professionals and upper-class males, including those of the Macedonian aristocracy and royal dynasty.
    So it was accepted in ancient times but Alexander's biographer had to hide it?
    That isn't really an argument for why a particular individual was a pederast. I'm sure in hundreds of years they will use that as an argument for why everyone in the 21st Century was a pederast, "well you see it was common therefore it was universal".


    EDIT:
    Actually don't get why anyone would say Curtius Rufus is a believable source. You do realize that the majority of the Alexander mythology was based on the writings of Curtius Rufus? Rufus is an absolutely bonkers source.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; February 02, 2021 at 03:54 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  17. #17

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Curtius' sources are Ptolemy, Cleitarchus and maybe Aristobulus or even Diodorus. Not sure why that makes Curtius unreliable or how him being a source for the Romance tradition damages his reputation? Arrian has a habit of silencing information that may have been inappropriate for his moral principles, like the massacre of the Branchidae, while Curtius was more open. To be honest, I'm not sure what you are suggesting. That Curtius or his source (Cleitarchus?) invented Bagoas just for rhetorical purposes or to add some spicey drama? Seems quite far-fetched, especially since Bagoas involvement in court politics is well-attested from the beginning (just after Darius' assassination, during Nabarzanes' surrender) to the end. The argument about Alexander's bisexuality (not pederasty, nobody argued that) does not rely on common practices among Macedonian nobles. That simply provides us with extra corroboration. We have his relationship with Hephaestion, which was actually considered as erotic since Antiquity and not the 20th century and the explicit references to Bagoas. Made by one of the earliest available sources.

    The only counter-argument is that Arrien is silent (he doesn't deny them though), which is based on the arbitrary assumption that Arrian is always more trustworthy. By the way, Bagoas (the chiliarch) wasn't invented by Diodorus. Diodorus can get a bit confused, but he doesn't invent historical figures out of thin air. Besides, the assassination of Arses by an anonymous eunuch is confirmed by a cuneiform source (the Dynastic Prophecy). There's a chance though that Diodorus duplicated the assassination of Arses, by considering Artaxerxes III also one of Bagoas victims, despite the fact that he probably died from natural causes.

  18. #18
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Curtius' sources are Ptolemy, Cleitarchus and maybe Aristobulus or even Diodorus.
    Exactly Diodorus Siculus. His vizier Bagoas is not exactly believable. Nor does Cleitarchus's anecdote about the Persians mistaking Hephaestion for Alexander. The vizier Bagoas is blamed for the deaths of two Persian rulers and suggested to be a possible reason for the assassination of Philip. Wow this Bagoas guy was quite a character, he dominated the court, killed rulers left and right, was himself killed in an absurdly ironic fashion, crowned the false king Darius, and then brought about the demise of the Persians by killing Philip. Did I mention that he was also a eunuch?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Not sure why that makes Curtius unreliable or how him being a source for the Romance tradition damages his reputation?
    Because their source is Curtius. He repeats the same anecdotes like those given by Diodorus Siculus. Curtius also provided plenty of nonsense and dumb anecdotes for these later myths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Arrian has a habit of silencing information that may have been inappropriate for his moral principles, like the massacre of the Branchidae, while Curtius was more open.
    But how do you know that he silenced this particular information? Moreover if these sources felt the need to hide Alexander's homosexual relationships, then it was not actually as accepted as claimed, in which case saying that it was common is not in itself an argument for Alexander's homosexual relations. Which apparently even Curtius Rufus was hiding if he did not refer to Alexander's open and celebrated relationship with Hephaestion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    To be honest, I'm not sure what you are suggesting. That Curtius or his source (Cleitarchus?) invented Bagoas just for rhetorical purposes or to add some spicey drama? Seems quite far-fetched, especially since Bagoas involvement in court politics is well-attested from the beginning (just after Darius' assassination, during Nabarzanes' surrender) to the end. The argument about Alexander's bisexuality (not pederasty, nobody argued that) does not rely on common practices among Macedonian nobles. That simply provides us with extra corroboration.
    I say pederasty because Curtius says that Bagoas was a youth. But in any case the power dynamic is the same.
    If Cleitarchus were the origin of the source then I would have to blame him and not Curtius wouldn't I? I blame Curtius for continuing that claim, and Cleitarchus for inventing it. Cleitarchus is also the great source that claims Alexander took Thalestris the queen of the Amazons as his mistress... Yeah I should believe that guy.

    Your logic there at the end makes no sense. So because Alexander was doing it, then lots of people were doing it, but also everyone is hiding it as well even though it is common?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    We have his relationship with Hephaestion, which was actually considered as erotic since Antiquity and not the 20th century and the explicit references to Bagoas. Made by one of the earliest available sources.
    Never said that it was a 20th Century invention. But that doesn't make it factual. Like I said above, not even Curtius Rufus mentions that relationship with Hephaestion.
    Earliest available is not available enough, apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    The only counter-argument is that Arrien is silent (he doesn't deny them though), which is based on the arbitrary assumption that Arrian is always more trustworthy.
    Well that is rather awkward considering that not even Curtius Rufus says Alexander was in a gay relationship with Hephaestion.
    Curtius Rufus only mentions Bagoas. Specifically that after Alexander conquered Persia he became an Eastern degenerate and gave into harem girls, and for some odd reason was seduced by Bagoas. Apparently Alexander carried out his every whim, which shows how degenerate he was. Then provides several unbelievable anecdotes of Bagoas using his influence over Alexander to commit outrageous acts. But then Rufus makes no mention of any other eunuchs who seduced Alexander or influenced him either. So while he mentions multiple concubines, he oddly only names Bagoas among Alexander's gay relationships, again not even making mention of Hephaestion's supposed relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    By the way, Bagoas (the chiliarch) wasn't invented by Diodorus. Diodorus can get a bit confused, but he doesn't invent historical figures out of thin air. Besides, the assassination of Arses by an anonymous eunuch is confirmed by a cuneiform source (the Dynastic Prophecy). There's a chance though that Diodorus duplicated the assassination of Arses, by considering Artaxerxes III also one of Bagoas victims, despite the fact that he probably died from natural causes.
    There is no evidence that Artaxerxes III was killed by a eunuch. But even if Artaxerxes IV was killed by a eunuch that doesn't prove Diodorus's other claims. For one that the eunuch was named Bagoas. Second that the eunuch named Bagoas, or not named Bagoas, was also the grand vizier. Third, that he put Darius III into power. These claims just sound slanderous. While the other Bagoas is also used to slander Persians.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; February 02, 2021 at 07:23 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  19. #19
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    To sidestep a bit the recent debate. I think one thing missed so far is that Achilles and Alexander one mythic and one historical is that they can potential sell to a wide audience. I have behind me in my collection of books I'm using now 3 biographies or near biographies. Dionysus I, Oliver Hazard Perry and Thrasybulus. Suffice to say their original university press cost and obscurity means they are never going to be at the local book store unless a used one in big college town. But if you want to write a Alexander book even a mostly academic orientated one you have some hope of a wider audience. So why not explore sexuality. It ups the eye candy value and you can do it so many ways - the classical reception, the Hellenistic/Roman one, the one in modern drama and film etc.
    Last edited by conon394; February 03, 2021 at 03:00 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Why are classicists so obsessed with the sexuality of Achilles and Alexander?

    Promoting the idea that famous masculine men of the past.were really homosexuals is.a way to validate homosexuality. Plus it promotes the interest in the subjects.

    Technically, neither Alexander nor Achilles were homosexuals, at best they were bisexuals, especially Achilles. Achilles would not have gotten so upset if he were just homosexual when Agamemnon.took Achilles favorite female slave.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •