Deciphering Alexander's Rhetoric From Ambition

[Krackalackin]

As you all know, Alexander the Great said many things. Some was just out-right rhetoric, others were to cover his ambitions. There are two things that puzzle me about Alexander the Great. One is his vision of the world's people living as one nation united. After reading different historians, trying to get a better perspective on the mind of Alexander (as complex as it was) I've begun to wonder if he ever really wanted all the people to unite as one race. I have two different theories about this.

What separated Alexander's conquest of Persia from all the other conquerors before him was his incessant effort for public legitimacy. He believed the idea of ruling by force as impossible and wanted Darius III to publically confirm him as the true heir to the throne, which Darius, with Alexander's sword in his back, would have relinquished. This makes me think he wanted to continue this method of rhetorical propaganda throughout all his conquests. He did believe without a doubt, you couldn't rule people who didn't like you and thought you were an invader. It is plausible that if he became known as a liberator of nations, wanting everyone to live in peace with one common border, it would have made it possible to conquer practically everyone. In other words, he really didn't think people were going to intermingle and create one race.

My other theory is he really did believe that it would be more sound for people to inter-breed and become one race but I still don't think he really cared about the details if it was really better this way. I think this was also another way to make it easier for him to rule everyone. He could have thought The Macedonian Empire would be easier to manage (especially through his experiences) if all the people were of one single race. They then would be in one perspective indivisible. I don't think however (which the movie portrayed) that he was a socialist, homo-sexual mad-man who thought like a confused child and wanted to Clintonize his kingdom. I don't think it reflects his character at all and I don't think Colin Farrel did either. I also don't think he became more oriental later on because he simply liked the Persian culture than the Hellenic. That's preposterous considereing he did all that work to spread Hellenic culture all the way to India. Some historians believe he love Greek culture until he was fully enveloped in the Persian culture which alienated his subordinates. I don't think that's true either. That would mean in practice, he conquered Persia because he admired its culture more than his own. This in turn would mean he didn't want to conquer the world which he surely did. And it is contrary to the feeling of his less talented subordinates that still favored hellenic culture over Persian (even though they ofcourse did find things they liked about it). And he did know all about Persian culture before his conquest and said nothing to make one suspect he was in awe of the culture, which is why he wanted to conquer it.

 

To be honest, contrary to what he's said, "I consider a good non-greek as good a person as a greek and a bad greek worse than a barbarian." I don't think he respected any culture outside of Greece and Persia nor did he really think all people were equal. He's said statements contrary to that later one anyway.

 

Perhaps we will never know the answer to this because I only think Hephaiston really knew How Alexander felt.

 

Action-wise, evidence claims the former, that Alexander did at the least want to conquer the whole world and culture meant little to him. He killed Cleitus, Philotas and Parmenion: all nationalist people. Either he did this because he believed people were people, whomever or he saw them as a threat to his plans of world-conquest. I tend to think the latter. He was way to conceded and had no concept of being humble let alone think in any nationalist point of view what so ever. I think this is how he truly felt which fits a world conqueror and you can't get more conceded than that! I don't think he was pro-persian or anti-hellenic. I don't think he had any inkling of settling down to pick and admire one culture over another, even his own. I think he truly wanted to conquer the world and thought that any bias to a certain culture or people was a hindrance that would only cloud his thinking. It fits a man who is thought of as a God. In this, I believe many Historians and Screen-writers have got it wrong about Alexander. I also believe this is part of what made him such a complicated person. He was unbiased to culture, but needed friends like anyone even though he was a god, giving him much misery when Hephaiston died. It's a complicated thing. Thoughts?

[DecimusCaesar]

Alexander was made out to be a 'uniter of nations' by the Historian Tarn in the 1940's around the time that the United Nations were being formed. He was trying to find a coonection with Alexander's world and that of his own time by claiming that Alexander at Opis had made the claims that he wanted all the people in his Empire equal, whether they were Greek, Persian or Indian. One of the main reasons Tarn created this perspective for Alexander was that his image had been somewhat tarnished by the Nazis, who often associated him with their ideal of the Superman, an all conquering man devoted to war. By creating this image of Alexander as an enlightened man trying to unite the peoples of the world (like the United Nations) he was trying to rescue his image. Many people wanted to believe Tarn's image, and this idea has become popular ever since.

 

The real truth is different. Alexander's banquet at Opis was not really equal. The Greeks were given the pride of sitting next to the King, while the Persians had to sit in another designated area. Alexander also took to wearing Persian clothes in order to improve his image with the Persian priests after he had destroyed their sacred book, the Avesta. He had realised that to insult the religion of the Persians might cause rebellion in his newly conquered provinces and so he tried to reach a compromise between the Greeks and the Persians by retaining Greek culture while adopting some Persian ways. Later on his megalomania and egotism compelled him to take his image as the Persian King of Kings to heart and he began to order his men to do 'prokynensis' (I hope I spelled that right - to kneel and blow kisses to him).

 

As for murdering some of his generals, I believe that Peter Green's theory that Alexander killed Cleitus on purpose and not in a drunken stupor to be somewhat correct. Alexander felt threatened by some of his generals especially men like Cleitus, who opposed his orientalizing and he had deliberatly decided to rile Cleitus up on the night of his murder, in order for Cleitus, in his anger, to show his true feelings towards Alexander's Persian ways. He killed others like Parmenion because he believed that his own soldiers might rally around Parmenion if he was going to far in his orientalization.

[DecimusCaesar]

As for Alexander been a 'homosexual' because of genetics, I don't believe this to be true. He had many realtionships with women as well as men. Not only did he have three wives, including the Bactrain Princess, Roxane, he also had a mistress called Barsine who was once the wife of Memnon of Rhodes, one of Alexander's greatest opponents.

[Krackalackin]

As for Alexander been a 'homosexual' because of genetics, I don't believe this to be true. He had many realtionships with women as well as men. Not only did he have three wives, including the Bactrain Princess, Roxane, he also had a mistress called Barsine who was once the wife of Memnon of Rhodes, one of Alexander's greatest opponents.

 

There are three reasons why I think Alexander really wasn't gay. First off, back then in Greece, there was no such thing as Homosexuality or no distinction of it. It was then understood that men were attracted to beauty be it man or woman. Secondly, It can be possible the reason he ignored women and preferred the company of men was because he admired strength in character and personality, something few women have. Thirdly, I seriously doubt he would have gotten as far as he did if he was a true homosexual. I don't think his macho-obsessed father would have put so much planning and teaching into a boy with a gay personality and damn well don't think he could have led the Macedonian army, let alone conquer the entire Persian Empire. I can't personally recall any great commander that was gay.

[Ursus]

If you don't mind, I changed the subtitle of your post. When homosexual is shortened to "homo" it usually carries a pejorative connotation. While this isn't a Gay Awareness forum, I personally don't see the need for such things.

[DecimusCaesar]

Thirdly, I seriously doubt he would have gotten as far as he did if he was a true homosexual. I don't think his macho-obsessed father would have put so much planning and teaching into a boy with a gay personality and damn well don't think he could have led the Macedonian army, let alone conquer the entire Persian Empire. I can't personally recall any great commander that was gay.

 

The so-called 'gay personality', that is usually considered to be rather effeminate and flamboyant seems to me to be a product of eighteenth century 'fops' who dressed effeminately and often took on feminine personal traits. Homosexuality in the ancient world was different to that in the modern world - we should not associate it with 'effeminacy' or 'weakness' as it was different. Many of the greatest Greek warriors had realtionships with men and women, Socrates the philosopher (once a Hoplite soldier) and Achilles are just a few exmples.

 

The Macedonians were well known for having bi-sexual lifestyles, one Greek citizen from a city state once said that the Macedonians loved nothing more than 'hunting, wine and a company of a boy or girl'. King Philip himself had relations with men; his assassin Pausanias, was one of them, so he certainly would not have disowned his son from military command because of his sexuality as it was considered acceptable and normal. It was not considered proper on the other hand to just have a realtionship with a member of the same sex, as a Macedonian you would have to have realtions with females as well.

 

Alexander himself did not care much for sexual realtionships, either with men or women, he was once quoted as saying that "only sex and sleep remind me that I am mortal" although he certinaly had flings with both sexes. He had many more relations with women than men it seems, but he had a stronger connection with Hephaistion than any of the others, whether it was Roxane, Barsine, Stateira, Bagoas or anyone else.

Alexander did not consider his sexual realtionships to be important, yet I find it odd that many scholars and historians seem to concentrate on it too much when Alexander himself would not have given it much thought or importance. Conquest, hunting, wine and horses were more important to him.

[Krackalackin]

I mostly agree except I wasn't implying that he couldn't lead if he was gay but if he was effiminately gay. There is no research I'm aware of that confirms or denies this but I personally believe there are two types of homo-sexuals. There's the regular kind that was born with a deficiency in its sexual character. It was a girl that liked girls and vica versa. Then there are the freaky kinds that were born as if with the mind of the opposite sex of the body. This would then explain a man's effemity, a woman's butch, and their lust for the same sex. I personally like you however don't believe Alexander was really either. But you were wrong on one thing. Pausanius did not have a relationship with Philip II. He was savagely raped by him among many others because they thought he was 'girly'. This is why Olympias theoretically approached Pausanius to assassinate Philip.

[DecimusCaesar]

I was mistaken. I believed that Philip did have a realtionship with Pausanias but that he had grown bored with him. Soon afterwards he got rid of him, where he fell into the hands of Attalus who ordered him to be gangraped by his men. Pausanias killed Philip in revenge for this, although like you said, Philip might have raped him as well at one time.

[AEGYPTUS]

As for Alexander been a 'homosexual' because of genetics, I don't believe this to be true. He had many realtionships with women as well as men. Not only did he have three wives, including the Bactrain Princess, Roxane, he also had a mistress called Barsine who was once the wife of Memnon of Rhodes, one of Alexander's greatest opponents.

 

There are three reasons why I think Alexander really wasn't gay. First off, back then in Greece, there was no such thing as Homosexuality or no distinction of it. It was then understood that men were attracted to beauty be it man or woman. Secondly, It can be possible the reason he ignored women and preferred the company of men was because he admired strength in character and personality, something few women have. Thirdly, I seriously doubt he would have gotten as far as he did if he was a true homosexual. I don't think his macho-obsessed father would have put so much planning and teaching into a boy with a gay personality and damn well don't think he could have led the Macedonian army, let alone conquer the entire Persian Empire. I can't personally recall any great commander that was gay.

 

I would disagree with you that Alexander in my opinion showed strong homosexual tendencies. However this was not unusual at the time as you said already. In fact in Sparta it was considered to be of cardinal importance to a soldier training, as if men loved each other on the field they would be less likely to run away as they wished to defend their lovers.

Alexander respected women very highly examples of this would be The story of Timocleia during the looting of Thebes. What you said when you say "It can be possible the reason he ignored women and preferred the company of men was because he admired strength in character and personality" Was Olympia his mother not one of these characters. She cleared his way at court to be King in waiting re alleged poisoning of Arrideus his step brother. Who was intelligent and handsome until he was struck dum!!! Other examples of women whom Alexander respected are Sisgambis Persian Queen mother, Queen Ada restored her to power after Pixodruse's death in her home city the exampels are endless.

Also I think it is important to point out Hephaestion was I think from his description and constant praise he received was more than a friend. Also the fact that Alexander after his death sent embassy to Siwah to see if Hephaestion could be worshiped as a God!! The god s said no but permitted him to be worshiped as a Hero. If he is just a friend to Hephaestion he is certainly being rather obsessive for just a friend.

Alexander's major fault was getting married so late if he wasn't homosexual why did it take him so long to get hitched. It could be argued that this was a major contributor to the break up of his empire as on his death he had no heir. In fact, Alexander apparently refused to takes sexual advantage of any of the tens of thousands of women captured during his travels. He is said to have, for instance, to have walked by the most alluring Persian women as if they "were lifeless images cut out of stone" (Plutarch).

Also in his early years loved to compare himself to Achilles and Hephaestion to Patroculs from his favourite book and most prised possession Homers Iliad. This relationship has been considered by most to be a homosexual relationship.

So to conclude taking all those factors into account I would think Alexander was homosexual for a good chunk of his early years at the very least. Perhaps he was bisexual if that was the case I would say he would have preferred to be lovers with men as he maintained a relationship longer with Haphaestion then with Roxanna his own wife admittedly because he was on campaigns but still why not take a mistress!

 

 

AEGYPTUS

Edited December 13, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[The Augusta]

If you don't mind, I changed the subtitle of your post. When homosexual is shortened to "homo" it usually carries a pejorative connotation. While this isn't a Gay Awareness forum, I personally don't see the need for such things.

 

Well said, Ursus. Nor do I see the need for some posters to be discussing this question so intensely - as though they are trying to 'rescue' their heroes from some kind of taint. Alexander the Great could have slept with his entire army, had his Companions for breakfast and then ravaged Darius' entire harem for all I care. His choice of bed partner makes him no more or no less of a hero than other things - notably his military strategy and willingness to assimilate other cultures into his empire. By all the gods - what does it matter?