pirateship1982 said:
I never conclusively stated that Alexander was homosexual, or more properly, bisexual, I simply pointed out that it was possible and there was evidence to suggest he might have been. My point was it has not been conclusively proven that he WASN'T, even if it has not been conclusively proven that he was.
As for homosexuality being illegal, let us examine the below quote:
“When Philoxenos, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a young man in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the young man) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: “You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?” (From Plutarch’s On the Luck and Virtue of Alexander A, 12)
If homosexuality was illegal, then why was Philoxenos only reprimanded? If he had comitted a crime he would have been punished but Alexander only rebuked him. Clearly from your own text citation it appears homosexuality was accepted in Macedonia..
From my point of view the above shows that homosexuality "existed" in ancient times as it exist in modern times. Furthermore it shows, from the reaction of Alexandros, that he condemned homosexuality.
pirateship1982 said:
I do feel it neccessary to point out that what philosophers said and what people did were two different things. Remember that though Greece was democratic, Macedonia, at the time, was a monarchy. The monarch makes the rules and he can break the rules. Monarchs have been known to violate moral standards. This is a trait of the nobility that is universal, whether the monarch is Greek, Macedonian, Roman, English, French, or Chinese. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely..
Here you should be more careful with the use of words...
"Greek, Macedonian, Roman"
The above is not correct...
The Hellenic city-state of Sparta was in war with the Hellenic city-state of Athens...
The Hellenic kingdom of Macedonia was in war with various Hellenic city-states...
The Hellenic League of Deilos (Athenian confederation) was in war with the Hellenic Peloponesian federation (Sparti)...
The Hellenic Aitolian League (
Aitolian koinon) was in war with the Hellenic League of Achaians...
The Hellenic Dynasty of Antigonos in Macedonia was in war with the Hellenic Aitolian League...
PYROS ("Pyric victory"), the king of the Hellenic Epirus was in war with both the Hellenic Macedonians (Demetrius) and the Hellenic Aitolian League...
From the above I want to make clear that it isn't correct to put in a row the Greeks, The Macedonians and the Romans...
It is the same thing if I told you... New York, New Jersey and Honduras.
Both The Hellenic Greek city-states and the Hellenic Kingdom of Macedonia were Hellenes.
you wrote:
"The monarch makes the rules and he can break the rules."
This is not the case in ancient Greece...
The general rule is that Kings follow the rules...just read about the kings in Sparti. The LAW and RELIGION were above kings in ancient Greece.
pirateship1982 said:
In concluding I feel that you have put forth some very good points. My knowledge of ancient texts is second-hand and you are quoting specific sources so I may very well be wrong. But I will end with one last question: What do the texts you quote say of Hephaestion? Was their love one of comradeship or intimacy?
P.S. - The reason I'm pushing this matter is not to be critical of Greece or to say that they were immoral. I'm pushing it because I'm very defensive about rewriting history until something has been conclusively proven.
I want to thank you because your good-willing scepticism gives me the opportunity to present the truth (based on the original ancient sources) concerning these issues.
As for Alexandros-Hephaestion relation, I copy/paste an article from another site, maybe you will find it interesting.
Although I disagree with several points of the author and I find that he fail to give the correct meaning to words like erastis/eromenos or other generalities.
The base for your search should be what the three Greek historians (Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch)say about Alexander and not what the Romans or others add in later times:
Hephaistion
Let us return now to the question of what involvement, if any, Alexander had with his life-long friend, Hephaistion.
Our three Greek historians (Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch) never term him erastes or eromenos, only philos (friend) or malista timomenos (honoured). Alexander himself calls him philalexandros (friend of Alexander).(P.s Achilles: In these few sentences is hidden the most probable truth, as these historians were both Hellenes and lived close to the era of Alexander) Curtius and Justin use only amicus, never amans. The only implication of a sexual relationship or use of the term eromenos for Hephaistion occurs in late sources or those of dubious authorship. [Ael. VH 12.7, Epic. Dis. 2.12.17-18, Diog. Epistles 24, and Luc. Dial. Dead 397.] So while we do have evidence that it was possible, in Macedonian society, for young boys of roughly the same age to form attachments to one another which included a sexual expression
(Achilles: the Author says his opinion, he doesn't present historical facts), there is no indisputable evidence for such an attachment between Alexander and Hephaistion. That evidence does exist is circumstantial only.Personally, I find it convincing
(P.s Achilles: the Author base his opinion not on solid evidence but on personal impression and imagination), but I do think we must acknowledge that we cannot state with certainty that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, either as young men, or continuing throughout their lives.
But let us turn to this circumstantial evidence. First, and perhaps most important, is the literary comparison made between their friendship and that of Achilles and Patroklos, which 4th century Greece assumed to have had a sexual side
.(P.s Achilles:The Author fails to give the correct meaning/translation to the Greek words ERASTES/EROMENOS - these words are not connected with sexual relations but their true meaning indicate ideas as military & social training, companionship, friendship and spiritual guidance; if anyone wish to understand the true meaning of ERASTES/EROMENOS should study the way of combat of the ancient Greek phalanx of hoplites).For mention of Achilles and Patroklos as lovers in material with which Alexander himself was probably familiar, see Pl. Sym. 180a, TGF F135-36 {Aeschylus' Myrmiddons), and Aesch. Tim. 1.141-42.] The problem with this bit of circumstantial evidence is that we cannot be sure when the comparison came about. Was it used in Alexander's own lifetime by Alexander and Hephaistion themselves? Certainly Alexander cast himself as Achilles! But was Hephaistion also cast as Patroklos at the time, or was this done later by the poetasters?
Much depends on what one makes of Arrian's story (1.12.1) that Hephaistion laid a wreath on Patroklos' grave at Troy, as Alexander laid one on Achilles'. Arrian gives this as a logos--a mere story: "They say...." The tale was not, apparently, found in Arrian's chief sources (Ptolemy and Aristobulos). It is difficult what, or how much, to make of it. Did Arrian include it as part of a complicated flattery for his patron, the Roman emperor Hadrian (who, as we recall, loved the youth Antinoos)? Certainly, others in Alexander's train were compared to figures in the Achilles legend (most notably old Lysimakhos as Phoenix). As Cohen has pointed out, these Homeric tales were living reality to the Macedonians. [Ada Cohen, "Alexander and Achilles--Macedonians and 'Mycenaeans,'" The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermule (1995).] So while we need not let skepticism completely overwhelm us, I'm afraid the verdict on the veracity of the Achilles/Patroklos pastiche must remain "unknown."
Perhaps a safer allusive comparison is found in Curtius (7.9.19) wherein a certain young Euxenippos is compared to Hephaistion and found wanting in virility. While Curtius' use of conciliatum does not have to mean "beloved," that seems to be the thrust of the passage (pun intended). Euxenippos was a pretty boy who had caught the king's eye. (Alexander would hardly be the first Macedonian king to have a fling with one of his Pages.) This makes the boy's comparison to Hephaistion particularly suggestive. Has the king's current eromenos been set beside his old flame and come off the worse for the comparison? I believe this passage makes far more sense if we assume a romantic affair at some point between Alexander and Hephaistion.
Finally, Hephaistion's death and Alexander's grief is, itself, an indication of Hephaistion's significance to the conqueror. If Alexander is understood to be mourning a spouse (or spouse-equivalent), the severe nature of his mourning is far more comprehensible--and proves, in fact, not to be abnormal or pathological at all, contrary to much ancient and modern opinion. Yet, again, Alexander's bereavement is not proof of a sexual relationship between the two; it only proves, or at least suggests, that Hephaistion occupied the central emotional place in Alexander's life. We must remember that the two of them had been friends at least nineteen years, if we accept Mieza as the terminus ante quem for their meeting. During much of this, they would have have lived in close quarters on campaign and no doubt seen one another daily when not away on independent missions. Nineteen years is longer than many modern marriages. Whatever the truth of their sexual involvement, their emotional attachment has never been seriously questioned. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks of the true friend as the "second self" (1170b) and postulates there is only one special friend (1171a). At least some of his teachings seem to have made an impression on his student!
Conclusion
Finally, I would like to point out that whatever one chooses to believe about Alexander's sexual relationship with Hephaistion, it would be reductive to characterize it solely in this way. Greek philia included a level of friendship that was particularly intense, one which is sometimes difficult for us now to grasp. In our societies, friendship all too often exists on the boundaries of other relationships--those with our family or lovers. For the Greeks, though, such was not the case, and perhaps they were richer for it. In short, our models of friendship are not consonant with theirs, and in these ancient societies where homoerotic desire was freely
(Achilles: again this is the Author's opinion without any historical facts of it), sometimes emphatically, expressed, intense friendship might well develop a sexual expression even while that expression was not the focus of the friendship, or even thought of as particularly characteristic of it.
Thus, it would be inappropriate to refer to the friend as "lover" except in very specific circumstances, as such would fall short of encompassing the whole. Alexander's choice of philalexandros for Hephaistion said far more about the nature of his affection than calling him merely eromenos.
Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman
The Pennsylvania State University
[Excerpted and abbreviated from: Hephaistion Amyntoros: Éminence Grise at the Court of Alexander the Great, Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman, Diss. Pennsylvania State University, 1998, 152-179. Author retains copyright; Thomas William-Powlett has permission to reproduce.]
P.s Erastis/Eromenos are meanings that we find in the training of the Spartan hoplites.
The problem is that most of historians (including Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman) tried to translate the phenomenon meaning of these words and failed to see the TRUE meaning of these symbolic ideas.
There isn’t anything more sacred than the relation between of Erastis/Eromenos.
To any of you that wish to understand a bit more what is the meaning of companionship for the hoplite of the Hellenic Ancient Greece just think what is the spiritual impact when a FREE man hear from his commander the following words:
I don’t ask you to fight for your GODS,
I don’t ask you to fight for your CITY,
I don’t ask you to fight for your FAMILY,
I JUST ASK YOU TO NOT DISSAPOINT THE PERSON (HOPLITE) NEXT TO YOU…(phalanx of hoplites)
Cheers! :smoke: