Alexander the womaniser??? Alexander the big ho???

[arysteia]

Okay, still haven't seen Alexander, and yes, still bitter. A friend with evident time on her hands (why, thank you so *much*, K!!!) linked me to the best/worst of various reviews and posts/comments, however. I soon discovered that that way madness lies, via the most egregious mangling of the English language I've ever seen, if not by rampant homophobia.

Anyone who knows me knows that I ship Alexander/Hephaistion past the point of reason and always have done, and possibly also that my OTP fervour extends to the point where I even dislike The Persian Boy, despite the fact that my childhood goddess wrote it. What drives me to comment today, however, is not the deluge of "This film is too fecking gay!!!" posts I've just waded through, but a couple of threads that actually have me more bemused.

Namely: "Alexander was a legendary womaniser!!!"; and "Alexander was every man's woman and every woman's man".

Ummmm... No. In a word, no. Not even. Not remotely.

This offends my classical historian's sensibilities (as opposed to my ingrained liberalism and human decency) *more* than the bigots weeping in the corner crying, "My hero wasn't gay! He wasn't!" Because it's so pathetically, ridiculously *wrong*. At least the homophobes can call the fact that there's no explicit evidence in their defence.

First and foremost, the second quote actually refers to Alcibiades, who *was* an equal opportunity lech, and was killed in the end by the brothers of a girl he'd seduced. It's not remotely applicable to Alexander. We can count the people (of either and neither gender) Alexander probably slept with on both hands. We can count the people we know for sure he slept with on *one* hand. The boy *didn't* get around.

"Sex and sleep remind me that I'm mortal".

To my mind one of the most telling quotes ever attributed to Alexander. Of all this man's obsessions, sex was the least. Love, yes. Affection, yes. Loyalty, camaraderie, hero worship, yes yes yes. He thrived on relationships. But sex? I'm not trying to make him out to be a monk, I can't imagine that he was. But I honestly believe he put the bulk of his massive drive into other things.

As for womanising...

He was married three times.

1) Roxana. Who incidentally was from Bactria/Sogdiana (the Afghanistan/Pakistan border), not Persia (Iran), despite the race war I saw threatening to break out on IMDB over the casting of an actress of colour.

We're told this was a case of love at first sight - that he caught her eye across a crowded room in true romance novel fashion. I'm sure she did catch *his* eye, but I'm also sure it had something to do with the fact that subduing Bactria/Sogdiana had given him far more grief than defeating Persia itself, and her father made a very useful ally in the region.

2) Stateira (Barsine)

Noone *ever* tries to pass this off as a romance. She was the daughter of the defeated Darius III, and a blatant dynastic match. Marrying her made Alexander the legitimate heir to the Achaemaenid dynasty, something which meant a lot to *him*, as well as to his new subjects. Roxana could not confer this legitimacy, because as far as the Persians were concerned she was a barbarian from a subject kingdom.

3) Parysatis

The daughter of Ochos, a previous Persian king (Darius came to the throne under murky circumstances), Alexander is said by some to have married her later on the same day as he married Stateira, in an effort to unite the royal houses. Still all about dynastic unity and stability.

Other than that, we have the *fictional* story (from the Alexander Romance, one of the world's first novels) of the Amazon Queen who felt that since she was the greatest female warrior in the world, only the greatest male warrior in the world was fit to impregnate her, and made a booty call for the purpose; and a couple of anecdotes about artists' models and the like.

Some claim also that he had an affair with a woman named Barsine (possible conflation with Stateira-Barsine above?), the widow of Memnon. I find it very unlikely that Alexander would behave so with the daughter of Artabazos, an eminent and aged friend he respected very much, but that may just be me. The evidence is inconclusive. [Or see the eminent Dr Jeanne below :-D]

To the contrary, we have the fact that he was legendary, even in his own day, for his behaviour toward captured women. A good example would be Stateira (senior), the wife of Darius and mother of his future wife. Acclaimed the most beautiful woman in Asia, the story goes that when he captured the Persian harem, courtiers exhorted him to exercise his droit du seigneur. At which he a) rebuked them for daring to suggest it; and b) refused to ever be in the same room with her. Instead he called on her *mother-in-law*, a proud old lady who became a very dear friend.

Dear God, what a womaniser! What a fiend!

As for the men... There's Hephaistion and... Anyone? No takers? No. Noone else is *ever* mentioned as a lover, in any source, even the most hostile.

And lastly, Bagoas. We don't know much about him at all, and I'll say even less, but he was there.

End of story.

Alexander had flaws certainly, and they're easy to encapsulate. Excessive drinking. A massive ego. A *very* bad temper. Satyromania was not one of them.


ETA: I just can't not talk about Hephaistion, even when I'm trying to make a different point. So I feel compelled to point out, in this essay on women, that he married Drypetis, the sister of Stateira, so that his and Alexander's sons could be cousins. Oh, and when Alexander went to see Sisygambis (Stateira senior's mother-in-law above), Hephaistion went too. It's then that the infamous "He is Alexander too" incident occurred.
I apologise if either of these points were featured in the film, but it sounds like it focused on Roxana, not Stateira.

Comments

[-hiddenwolf-.livejournal.com]

Yes! You're right and uh, are there many people who call him 'womanizer'? I've heard people saying that he had a harem of women dancing for him and he'd choose one of them for the night after the dance. Never figured out on what kind of sources they're based on.

I don't know about his sex-drive, or if he liked having sex or not, but nailing every person that caught his eye, wasn't his sport.

Or do you know the incident with the etaira? His parents realized that he had no interest in women like teenagers his age had, so they sent him a well-paid etaira Kallixeni on his bed, but he rejected her. Talking about a Don Zuan.

But I think that Atheneos call him 'filopais en ekmanos' (mad for young boys). About his male lovers, I think another boy is mentioned in some source (can't remember now, will check) that 'made Alexander's heart sing' or something.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

Well, like I said, I've been trawling some horrible posts. But yes, quite a few seemed to be extolling Alexander's virtues as a sex god. I've seen frequent references to the fabled harem of 365 concubines, with no acknowledgement that it was *Darius's*. I doubt Alexander ever set foot in it.

I remember Kallixeina from Mary Renault, though I didn't realise she appears in the sources. The episode always makes me laugh. As though Philip and Olympias hadn't traumatised their son enough with their own sexual misadventures, setting him up with a whore too was good thinking. :-D

I'll have to check Athenaeus (though I seem to recall reading him with a great deal of skepticism), and as for the last, I'd definitely be interested in the source.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

Kallixena is from the sources, but it's dubious as to whether he slept with her or she was simply purchased by his father and mother (yes, together!), to try to initiate him, because he seemed reluctant.

Of more likelihood are Barsine (daughter of Artabazos) and the somewhat ephemeral Kampaspe. The latter MAY have been his first mistress, though when he took up with her isn't certain. He 'gave her away' to one of his artists who fell in love with her after painting her. Obviously, she didn't have a huge hold on him.

Barsine had spent some time at the Pella court when her father was in exile there. She was a Hellenized Persian and, amusingly, probably remembers the child Alexander piddling on the floor. (G) She was older than him by at least 10 years and maybe more. He took up with her after Issus. After that, we hear of no woman until Roxane. He definitely *didn't* sleep with the Persian women. Bagoas is the only certain historical figure that ATG reputedly consorted with. But Hephaistion is another obvious one, absolute testimony or not. Also a certain Euphraios, probably a Page.

Aside from Roxane his other wives were Statiera and Parysatis, which is almost certain, not dubious -- he needed to consolidate his own line with *both* previous ruling families in Persia. It was a political marriage in both cases. The Macedonians practiced royal polygamy, and 2-3 wives was average. Philip probably topped the Macedonian Argead charts with *seven*! Of these three wives, all had political motivations, even Roxane.

All that said, and given ALL our evidence, even anecdotal bits in Plutarch's Moralia and Athenaeus' Supper Party, I *suspect* that Alexander was what we would call bisexual with a slight preference for women (yes, really). There's a bit more evidence for admiration for women. But he clearly liked both, and in terms of his emotional attachment, no one rivaled Hephaistion. Sexual attraction isn't the same thing as affective attachment, especially not to the Greeks.

All of that is very LITTLE in the way of affairs.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

Bagoas is the only certain historical figure that ATG reputedly consorted with.

Er, sorry, the only certain MALE historical figure (assuming one considers eunuchs male, which I would).

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

Heh. I hit "send" too soon too.

I *suspect* that Alexander was what we would call bisexual with a slight preference for women (yes, really). There's a bit more evidence for admiration for women.

In sexual terms I think you're right, though it never quite occurred to me to put it like that before.

But he clearly liked both, and in terms of his emotional attachment, no one rivaled Hephaistion. Sexual attraction isn't the same thing as affective attachment, especially not to the Greeks.

And this is why I love you. I'm actually a little embarrassed you read this... For all that I was offended as a historian, I think I was reacting as a romantic too.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

In sexual terms I think you're right, though it never quite occurred to me to put it like that before.

There is, to my mind, a difference between the hard evidence from the sources and a general impression that one gets after reading a whole lot of it. So my observation there really is based on an *impression*. I think Alexander basically preferred women, when it came to pure sexual arousal. BUT I think that this had little to do with who he loved.

And this is why I love you. I'm actually a little embarrassed you read this... For all that I was offended as a historian, I think I was reacting as a romantic too.

LOL! Well, historians can be romantics, as well. I first became fascinated by Hephaistion because this man seemed SO important to Alexander, but historians reacted to him so strangely, as if he were not worth mention, or rose only due to ATG's affection.

In any case, I think it *is* hard to separate modern notions of sex from ancient, but it's important to do so, inasmuch as we can. Going back to 'suspicions,' my suspicion is that by the time Alexander invaded Asia, the physical side of his relationship with Hephaistion was largely over. But they remained life-long partners in every way that mattered, emotionally. Thus the death of Hephaistion struck Alexander like the death of a spouse.

IME, human beings form very interesting and often surprising sexual liasons which may or may not reflect emotional attachment. I've known divorced couples who couldn't live under the same roof, but still raised their daughter together and even slept together on a fairly regular basis. Are they 'married' or not? Well, technically, no. But emotional attachment, yeah. I remember one couple who gave each other a divorce for their 47th anniversary, he moved out into a house down the block and still mowed his ex-wife's lawn once a week and ate with her several times during the week. Love and sex and living together don't all necessarily go together -- even now (never mind then).

I'm frankly charmed by Alexander's relationship with Hephaistion because I think few world leaders/conquerors ever had such a frank and loyal friend with so little ambition. That's rare. But I was also honestly annoyed with Stone's feminized Hephaistion. That guy was a shark and one tough cookie. What was with the eye-liner, long hair and flowing robes? It really was feminine, and if the Alexander/Hephaistion relationship somehow had to model a male/female relationship and couldn't simply be different altogether.

Sorry, minor (or not so minor) tangent. :-)

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

*rotflmao*

My grandmother moved back in with my grandfather last week. I'm still in shock. They're 85, and have been separated since they were 80! They split up at the time because he wanted his girlfriend (age 55) to move in with them. I think he was actually telling the truth when he said he wanted her to look after them both, and that she would do all the work and my grandmother could live like a queen!

I think few world leaders/conquerors ever had such a frank and loyal friend with so little ambition. That's rare.

This fascinates me too, and I'm so glad you agree. I've had some major academic fights with colleagues who instead Hephaistion was not only venal, but also incompetent and only rose through nepotism. I just can't get that from the evidence.

[-hiddenwolf-.livejournal.com]

One can assume that Hephaestion was favored by Alexander whenever there was a chance (he gets 'promoted' when someone of a higher rank moves away or gets excecuted). But I don't think Alexander would give a high rank to someone who didn't deserve it, no matter how close they were. But then again I wonder if Hephaestion really deserved the chiliarch position...

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

I should let Jeanne answer this. And in fact I will. Suffice it to say, that the impression I've always gotten is that Hephaistion was *very* good at what he did. Which tended more to logistics than generalship. At some point, when it comes to being 2iC, I think it comes down to being the most *trustworthy* person, and that's not unreasonable.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

I gave an answer to this below, but briefly on the chiliarch position. It appears that what Alexander did was recreate the Persian hazarapatish position, which was largely a civil service position, not a military one. If we break down Hephaistion's known assignments systematically and look at the results, we find that almost 4 to 1 they are diplomatic-logistical in nature. Now, statistics are VERY tricky, especially when working with such a limited number of examples (I believe my final numbers was 28 or 29 total known assignments?). But when we fine such a strong, predominant pattern, I do think it representative of a trend. Alexander used Hephaistion for exactly what his friend was good at. In an even MORE stark affirmation of this, in every case where Hephaistion is in military command of a unit, he's sharing command with another, more experienced officer (Perdikkas, Demetrios, Peithon or Alexander himself). YET, of Alexander's own personal circle, it is Hephaistion who receives and independent commission at the younges age (to find a king for Sidon). It's just that this was diplomatic, not military.

In antiquity, they valued combat command over diplomatic and administrative/logistical. This is something that many modern historians do, as well, consciously or unconsciously (more often). Hephaistion's talents were not for combat command. He seems to have been competent, but that's all. By contrast, he excelled at administration ... and perhaps that's one reason why he and ATG got along. He was no real threat to what Alexander did well himself (like Krateros was). Anyway, that's why he was appointed to be Chiliarch of Asia/Persia. It was an administrative post and he was a gifted administrator. ;>

[mieza.livejournal.com]

That particular view of Hephaistion owes largely to Peter Green and Waldemar Heckel. I don't know if you've read Heckel's chapter on Hephaistion in The Marshal's of Alexander's Empire. Overall, it's a great book, and I really respect Waldemar's scholarship. I just tend to disagree with him, politely, in the final analysis of Hephaistion.

I really hate to too my own horn, but that very negative view of Hephaistion is something that I've gone after in my academic publishing and paper presentations, and have, to some degree, managed to challenge and begin to overturn, at least with specialists. If I can brag a minute, I think I changed both Gene Borza and Beth Carney's minds about his value and competence, and Stan Burnstein heard a paper I did on this subject and complimented me on it. So I think it is (slowly) changing. even Waldemar asked me if I'd read his entry on Hephaistion for the new English-language dictionary he's doing, to replace Berve. I'll be curious to see what tact he takes there. He's still not convinced by my analysis of H.'s career, but the fact he asked me at all (senior scholar to junior scholar) was very kind.

It's a revisionist position, I know, but I think I've got the evidence to back it up, when analyzed systematically. The entire fourth and fifth chapters of my dissertation were on his career and assignments, and relations with others at the court. Like Olympias, I think modern portraits of Hephaistion have been overly negativized. I'm working on a paper now that uses his death to analyze particular threads in the sources. It's still in final revisions and I'm trying to get a friend and Plutarch scholar to take a look at some sections of it, as she has an interesting theory about Plutarch's use of aposition in pairings, but I *hope* that article will be out by next year or the one after. Where and in what, I have no idea. (g)

Hmmm, that sounded a bit much like, "Ooo, look at my research." Sorry. It just happens to be a topic that I've looked at in great depth.

[florachan.livejournal.com]

I'm very glad to know academic's position toward Hephaistion is going to be (slowly) revised...

I've read many of your works about Hephaistion, and it feels good to know all the researches you made and materials you presented, are starting to dig a hole into the stone...^_^

When I read the "Marshall"'s book I was surprised by the differencies about Heckel's conclusions about Hephaistion and the figure who emerged, instead, by your dissertation.
I'm not a scholar so my judgment is surely unimportant, but I'm glad to know people as Borza and Carney have found your work convincing, since I found it *absolutely* convincing...^_^

and since we are talking about Heckel, I would steal this space to ask you a question about the Marshall's book (if Arysteia don't mind^_^):
In his chapters about the royal pages and their connection with the hypaspist's agema and royal bodyguards, he assumes that the Orestid Pausanias was a "pais" when he was abused by Attalus, and that it happened shortly before Philip's assasination. If so, how can it be possible he would be promoted as a somatophylakes at that age? I've always believed he had been abused years before Philip's murdering, then promoted later in the years.

Yet, I find absolutely convincing Heckel's theory that Pausanuas could not have been a somatophylakes at the time of the assassination, but a member of the royal agema of hypaspist and former royal page to Philip. What do you think about this?

Thank you!^^

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

if Arysteia don't mind^_^

Of course I don't mind! I'm happy and proud to host this little symposium.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

The timing of the Pausanias business is tough, as it's not entirely clear in the sources. Myself, I've always assumed the younger boy's death occurred years earlier, but that the actual rape did *not* occur until after Philip had married Kleopatra, and was an example of Attalus thinking he could get away with murder (or at least rape), as 'the king's uncle.'

In Greek, "pais" is an odd term and doesn't necessarily mean "child" in a literal sense of age range. It's used more broadly, and is sometimes applied to men even in their teens. In English, it's closest equivalent might be the colloquial "son." And older man says to a much younger, "I tell you what, son ..." Even if the younger isn't either his son or a child. "My dear" or "hon" (short for "honey") can serve similar functions. So there's a certain colloquial use to it. I don't think that "pais" in reference to Pausanias means a "boy" literally. He was probably in his late teens.

But yes, I do think Heckel is mostly right about Pages graduating into the Hypaspists. The only slight corrective I might add is that they may also have graduated in the agema of the Companion's, at least once Alexander was in charge of it. I'd like to talk to Waldemar about that sometime.

Right now, he's working on a couple of interesting projects, one of which concerns Macedonian military for the Osprey military series.

[florachan.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for the clarification!

The timing of the Pausanias' affair is really confusing, isn't it?
I've never thought about the eventuality the quarrel with the younger Pausanias could have occur years before the actual rape, but Attalus thinking to be able to get away with it after having become Philip's uncle" makes perfect sense (infact I've always wondered how could he have thought to do such a thing to a man of that high position in the court - assuming Pausanias as a royal bodyguard, at the time of his rape).

One thing though: if Pausanias was in his late teens at the time of the rape, and the quarrel with Pausanias-B happened years before, that would made him almost a child, at the time of his affair with Philip?O_o (gosh, quite a young Eromenos for the king, wasn't he?)

The only slight corrective I might add is that they may also have graduated in the agema of the Companion's, at least once Alexander was in charge of it. I'd like to talk to Waldemar about that sometime.


When I read the Heckel's book I was thingink about this; infact if the royal pages' graduation was the Hypaspist's agema, that would mean Alexander's closest friends would be fighting in the Hypaspist ranks at the times of his first campaigns, and that really made no sense to me, since I assumed Alexander would have preferred to have his men under his own command.

So if Hephaistion and co. "graduated" in the cavalry's agema and not in the hypaspist's corps that would explain many things!^^

Thank you!

[mieza.livejournal.com]

At the time of the death of the original boy, I believe Pausanias was an older page, probably edging on 17 or 18. NGL Hammond, some years back, guestimated that the Pages averaged between 14 and 18. They're definitely not "boys" nor "pages" in the medieval sense. More like squires, actually. There may have been some younger boys among the Pages down to 13 or so, but I would agree with Hammond that it's not much younger. These boys are expected to go hunting with the king after dangerous game, and apparently also fought beside him in battle -- as we see with the younger boy throwing himself in front of Philip and taking a mortal wound.

So Pausanias would have been a young man by the time Attalus got to him. From what I can piece together, Attalus was the archon of Pieria, the lowland equivalent of the highland princes. I think that was why Philip married into his family in the first place, to quiet rumblings among lowland families. I've never seen his marriage to Eurydike purely as a midlife crisis, as Plutarch cast it. So Attalus was also very powerful in his own right. But yes, I think he pulled that stunt after he was married into Philip's own family. Philip couldn't really kill him for it, or order him stripped. So Philip did the next best thing -- he kicked him "upstairs" with Parmenion, sending him to Asia. It wasn't as if Parmenion actually needed help on that campaign. The man had been leading Philip's armies since before Alexander was born! Philip was getting him out of town -- away from both Pausanias AND Alexander.

On Hephaistion, it's a bit of a puzzle since we know he fought in the front ranks of the Hypaspists (the king's "Bodyguard" in battle) at Gaugamela, which is where he was wounded. BUT on the Sidon sarcophagus, he's shown at the battle of Issus on horseback. So it's hard to know. Under Philip, the agema of the Hypaspists was the King's Bodyguard (in a battle situation) -- very much like the first rank of the Persian Apple Bearers (Immortals) -- because Philip was an infantryman, himself. Alexander always fought on horseback in a majory battle, and so it makes sense that, at least under him, Pages may have graduated into both units. I'm not sure if there was an "agema" of the Companions before Alexander and Chaironeia, but figuring out the earliest configuration of Philip's army (as opposed to Alexander's) is hard due to lack of sources.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

That particular view of Hephaistion owes largely to Peter Green and Waldemar Heckel.

I knew there was a reason I couldn't stand Green's work! :-p

No, but seriously. I was always confounded as an undergrad (and while I grew in confidence as a post, you still feel like a minnow among leviathans) but the prevailing reading just seemed to be one that I couldn't myself get from what I considered a fair interpretation of the evidence. Maybe the fact I was at law school made me want to yell "Not Proven!" all the time, I don't know... It's why I was so delighted to read some of your papers for the first time, because it made me feel like I *was* entitled to get my interpretation from the text, and it wasn't just a school girl imagining.

Hmmm, that sounded a bit much like, "Ooo, look at my research."

Not at all. I look forward to it. One of the downsides of university here, without denigrating a fine institution and some very fine scholars at all, is that you are largely at the mercy of the staff and what they enjoy and what they think. My Honours supervisor, who I adored, hated Alexander and made my life a misery every time I spoke to him. I had to switch the next year. Anyway, that's a roundabout way of saying I really enjoy hearing what you think, and I'd love to talk more at some point. When the marking's done.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

I knew there was a reason I couldn't stand Green's work!

Well, I think it honestly depends on what it is. Peter DOES make some really good points, even in Alexander of Macedon. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. And he's the best damn editor I've ever had. LOL! He completely vetted my article on ATG's mourning, and turned it into the best piece I've ever had published. Gene Borza is very good; Peter Green is exceptional. :-D

Anyway, the thing to keep in mind about Peter is that he is, at heart, an essayist. That's the form in which he really SHINES. I highly recommend his two collections of essays, In the Shadow of the Parthenon and Classical Bearings. (In the latter, you MUST read his chapter on Macedonia; you'll laugh your head off.) Peter is also an author of historical fiction, did you know? He wrote one novel on Sappho and one on Alcibiades. But all that points to a certain flare, and Peter will sometimes sacrifice precision for a colorful description. I think your reaction as a law student is square on: "Not proven!" He'll give these thumbnail sketches of people and situations and they're almost always colorful and memorable ... but sometimes a bit rash, too.

His articles are usually more careful. An inside tip which you may know already: most of the cutting edge work in classics and ancient history appears in article form, not monographs. This is in contrast to, say, American history where getting out a book is more common. Many ancient historians will have articles by the dozens and only one or two books. Such a prominent historian as Ernst Badian has NO monographs. None. There are collections of his essays and articles, sure, but he's never written a monograph. I don't think he has the patience for it, but he has literally hundreds of articles.

In any case, one should approach Peter's work carefully, but don't ditch it out of hand. For instance, he was one of the first to point out the (what seems to me) obvious point, that Alexander's failure to marry before leaving Macedonia was not foolish, but politically very savy, preventing any single Macedonian family from gaining too much power at a critical point in his reign, when he was just establishing himself. He couldn't afford to marry in those first years.

So Peter's biography is valuable, but I don't necessarily agree with all of it. And ironically, it was Peter's summary of Hephaistion (which I remember to this DAY) as "handsome, spoilt, spiteful and fundamentally stupid" that made the little 'Hephaistion' in my head sit up and reply, "Not hardly!" And everything snowballed from there. :-D

Anyway, enough yattering, but I did want to comment on what I saw to be Peter's virtues, even if I disagree with him on his assessment of Hephaistion. :-)

As for Alexander and historians, I've known historians who either actively disliked him or found him to be boring and over-rated. I think much depends on view. I tend to view Greek history from a northern (Macedonian) lens. Other Greek-focused historians view Macedon from a southern (Greek) lens. That's significant. Because of my perspective, I tend to think Athens is over-rated. Ha! I'm much more interested in the history of non-Athenian Greek city-states, such as Thebes, Corinth, etc., and actively dislike the tendency to equate "Greek" with "Athenian" even if I understand why (we ARE prisoners of our evidence, which is mostly Athenian).

But yeah, feel free to fire off questions in, oh, about a week. (G)

[-hiddenwolf-.livejournal.com]

Lol he did seem quite feminine in the movie, but maybe because we almost only see him in tender and angsty moments with Alexander.

But it was implied that he was tough. He beats Alexander in wrestling when they're young, he hits back and hard when he's annoyed by Cleitus, I think, and we see him beeing a rough fighter, mostly in India. As for the eyeliner, most people in the movie were wearing some I guess :p

[mieza.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is that we were TOLD too much (in too many places) and not SHOWN enough. :-) ("Show, don't tell.") So while we were told he was tough, aside from that one wrestling scene, we never really saw any evidence of it, and thus, it was impossible to quite believe.

The eyeliner was meant, I think, to demonstrate the Orientalization of certain characters.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I was also honestly annoyed with Stone's feminized Hephaistion. That guy was a shark and one tough cookie. What was with the eye-liner, long hair and flowing robes?

Though I frankly loved the movie despite its many flaws, this was the primary the thing I wish had been otherwise. It wasn't that Hephaistion was feminized that bothered me - I wouldn't have put it quite that way - but that he was bland, and that he was largely written out of the story except for the romantic angle. I didn't mind what we saw, if it were only one part of a multifaceted man - but we can only take that on faith. There wasn't much substance to Hephaistion.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. The film focuses VERY strongly on Alexander, and every other character is shown only in relation to him. They have no real personality apart from him. As a result, all characters except Alexander were two- or one-dimensional. That's why the feminization of Hephaistion was so notable. When so little is given, every bit that IS given figures into the forming of character.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I thought some of the secondary characters had a fair amount of chararcter; too bad the young Ptolemy was dwarfed by the older one. Yes, Hephaistion needed much more attention so that he would seem worthy of Alexander; I thought the relationship needed more oomph too. The love was fine, the lust seemed absent - and then it was too much the contrary for Roxana.

My enjoyment of the movie was exteme, but I would have loved it all the more if it had done justice to Hephaistion and a few other incidents in Alexanders life - like the oracle at Siwa, for example.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

Parysatis, which is almost certain, not dubious

I obviously need to take this up with my own thesis supervisor, but I stand corrected!

[mieza.livejournal.com]

There's very little reason to doubt Parysatis, and good reason to believe it. On Macedonian polygamy, look up the work of William Greenwalt and Elizabeth Carney. :-)

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

I don't doubt the polygamy for a moment. I just thought it was a bit much to marry her on the same day. But I guess my sense of the ridiculous is somewhat different...

[mieza.livejournal.com]

Nah -- economizing. Both women were there, may as well do it all in one fell swoop. (g)

[-hiddenwolf-.livejournal.com]

Yes, Euphraios is the name of the possible third male lover of Alexander. I first thought he was an eunuch too, but the source doesn't say so. Maybe he was a page like you said.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

Definitely no eunuch. He's compared (unfavorably) with Hephaistion, which is telling. In that comparison, Hephaistion is called charming but NOT effeminate, while Euphraios is -- though he got ATG's attention by an athletic act. :-)

[mieza.livejournal.com]

That should be "Euphraios is effminate"...

[florachan.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed reading this discussion, I whish all the debate about Alexander' sexuality would be so balanced...

Just out of curiosity, in which source do we find this Euphraios boy?

And that quote about "being every man's woman, and every woman's men" wasn't ascribed to Caesar?
Or was it referred to Alkibiades (as Victoria says), and then resumed for Caesar?

Thank you!^_^

[mieza.livejournal.com]

I've never heard it ascribed to Alkibiades, but then, it's been a while since I've read about his life in detail. Caesar, yes. His troops chanted it (with apparent affection!) when marching in his triumphs!

And whoops. I misremembered the boy's name. It's Euxenippos. The reference is Curt. 7.9.19 (the whole paragraph for context is 7.9.17-19).

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

I did know they said it about Caesar too, but there's definitely something to that effect about good ole Alk as well, though I'd be hard put to tell you where. Teaching young people turns your brain to mush! *sigh*

I fondly remember the poster of Alcibiades and Bill Clinton we had on the wall in the office (it was around *that* time) though the precise ref has abandoned me.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed all your comments here, and agree, though your knowledge of Alexander is greater than mine. (I read as much classical and preclassical history as I can find time for, but my degree is in medieval studies.) And I love The Persian Boy at least as much as I love Hephaistion, but I'm perfectly happy to love them both - and Alexander too - without playing favourites.

With my interest and enthusiasm revived by the movie, let me ask you a question. A perusal of the local public library for material about Alexander was not particularly fruitful. I could use interlibrary loan, but I don't precisely know what to ask for. Can you suggest bibliographical material to me? Specifically:

(1) original sources either in a decent English translation or a dual-language translation

(2) any good recent secondary source or biography, especially one that is well written

And now that I'm thinking of it, (3) I'd like to find a good introductory book about Alcibiades. Is there one?

You probably know that the quote "Alexander was every man's woman and every woman's man"." was applied to Julius Caesar in his time - probably with more justice, though I don't know any proof of it.

I agree with you that Alexander was probably not promiscuous in any way, but I'm not sure about those erroneous websites.... Forgive me if I don't really relish the idea of going to them myself! The offense of course is the untruths about history. And those who try to prove Alexander's heterosexuality by claiming he was promiscuous are giving themselves a very odd case indeed - are they saying that being a male womanizer is okay but being a faithful gay lover is not?

Huh.

[arysteia.livejournal.com]

those who try to prove Alexander's heterosexuality by claiming he was promiscuous are giving themselves a very odd case indeed - are they saying that being a male womanizer is okay but being a faithful gay lover is not?

I really think that says it all!!!

Give me a day or two to get back to you with a reading list! I want to ruminate. :-D

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

By all means ruminate - but I don't want to put you to any trouble! I'm just too full of Alexander enthusiasm to control my desire for more information.