Alexander the Gay ??

Was Alexander homo- or bi-sexual ???

All progressive so-called scholars will rush to state “his sexual prefference is of no interest to us”
Interestingly enough they conveniently went around this very statement to support a movie that presented the very notion that is allegedly of “no interest to us” …
Even National Geographic got into the game and conveniently published the Hellenic issue that was related to Alexander and made clear reference to his unproven sexual preference the same time that the reactions for the movie began….

Hypocricy !!!!

Today that we see everyone making claims on Hellenic history, after the Egyptians conveniently claiming that he is the son of Nectanabo, the Jews claiming that the Bible had foreseen his arrival and manipulating facts to present him kneeling before the priests of Solomon’s temple, the Romans making claims of being his inheritors, our beloved Northern neighbors claiming him to be a Slav… well claims from the homosexual community are of no real suprise… (especially after reading the “Gay Manifesto” [see Uncategorized])

But was he really homosexual ???

No true scholar of either ancient nor modern times has provided any ounce of proof for this alleged prefernce. Among hundreds of quotes that could be presented, one of the most interesting comes from Athenaeus of Naucratis and his “The Deipnosophists” (X.45). There we we learn that :

“And Hieronymus. in his “Letters”, says, that Theophrastus says, that Alexander was not open to ‘bodily pleasures’; and accordingly, when Olympian had given him Callixene, a Thessaian courtesan, for a mistress, who was a most beautiful woman, and all this was done with the consent of Philip, {for they were afraid that he would become effeminate } ( ευλαβουντο γαρ μη γυννις ειη) she was constantly obliged to ask him herself to do his duty by her.”

This part of the text clearly indicates several interesting aspects of Alexander’s early life and the public opinion towards homosexuality..
We find his mother and father feared that his continence towards ‘bodily pleasures’ are an indication of an effeminate future.

This quote actually indicates the true norm, which is that homosexuality was viewed upon as a plague that should be treated with, and actually destroys all claims of Phillip’s alleged acceptance (or participation) towards homosexual relations.. It is actually simple logic to note that the ‘preference’ in question was never accepted as the very reference to fear makes this quite clear to us..

But he always continient ???
lets take a look at Alexander’s character as depicted in the texts of Plutarch.

Life of Alexander 21.4 :

“But Alexander, esteeming it more kingly to govern himself than to conquer his enemies, sought no intimacy with any one of them, nor indeed with any other women before marriage”

Life of Alexander 21.5

“But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes.1 And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless statues for display.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander 9

“Thus, in the first place, the very scope and aim of Alexander’s expedition speaks him a philosopher, as one that sought not to gain for himself luxurious splendor or riches, but to establish concord, peace, and mutual community among all men.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander 11

“Therefore we may behold in Alexander a warlike humanity, a meek fortitude, a liberality poised with good husbandry, anger easily appeased, chaste amours, a busy relaxation of mind, and labor not wanting recreation.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander 11

“I know not how to give a greater applause to the actions of Alexander, than by adding the word “philosophically,” for in that word all other things are included. Being ravished with the beauty of Roxana, the daughter of Oxyarthes, dancing among the captive ladies, he never assailed her with injurious lust, but married her philosophically.”

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander II. 2

“I could have wished, said Alexander, rather to have lost a part of my kingdom than to have seen Thessalus vanquished. Yet he neither interceded with the judges nor anywhere disapproved or blamed the judgment; believing it became him to be superior to all others, only to submit to justice.”

We literally could go on and on, presenting quotes that refer to Alexander’s high moral standards..
We must however note that it is at least unfair that this man, a man that was so abstemious, would see his name slandered by a handfull of ignorant self-proclaimed historians that choose some 2000 years after his death, to promote a specific agenda on his shoulders, ..

Some have tried to suggest that the recorded fact of Philoxenus wrtting to Alexander about a young boy is an indication of his sexual preference.
Conveniently all these ‘scholars’ choose to ignore the fact that, while the proposition of the governor that attempted to gain Alexander’s favor by sending the usual gifts he would send to the Persian King is well recorded, but on the other hand, so is the responce Alexander gave in return well recorded..
How could anyone speak of acceptance to such relations when we know that he was literally in outrage asking his men if he had ever done anything so shamefull to justify Philoxenus’ disgracefull proposition and responded by giving him the title of “vilest of men” (Plutarch’s Alexander 22.1) ??

The very record of his responce should have been more than enough to discharge any such thought.. But in this day and age, it seems that clear records of his denouncing the very though of such a relation are not enough to stop the promotion of the specific agenda..

Another little incident that has conveniently used by these ‘progressivists’ to promote the specific agenda, is that of Bagoas. In order to understand this, we’ll compare the conveniently used version as presented by Athenaeus of Naucratis and his “The Deipnosophists” and that presented in Plutarch’s Lives Alexander..

Athenaeus of Naucratis and his “The Deipnosophists” XIII 80

“Alexander the King was also very much in the habbit of giving in to this fashion. Accordingly, Dicarchus, in his treatise on the Sacrifice at Troy, says that lie was so much under the influence of Bagoas the eunuch, that he kissed him in the sight of tho whole theatre; and that when the whole theatre shouted in approval of the action, he repeated it”

Plutarch’s Life of Alexander 67.4

“We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his favourite, Bagoas, won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander’s side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly.”

This is the event that according to these ‘scholars’ proves that Alexander was homosexual.
Of course the quote, indicates nothing remotely close, but rather indicates that after the crowd’s demand, the King rewarded Bagoas with a kiss.

But is the whole kiss (on the cheek) actually so significant or have these specific scholars driven by their agenda overlooked specific facts ??

Is it possible that they ignore the Kallisthenes event and the famous quote “ I am going away only with the loss of a kiss.” ??

While totally foreign to Hellenic customs, Alexander having encompassed in his troops a large number of foreigners, accepted their custom of ‘proskynesis’.. A custom that of course was never enforced on the Hellenes but rather adopted by a partion that saw it as a ideal chance of getting in good graces with Alexander..Of course Kallisthenes as a student of Aristotle would never accept degrading himself by accepting this barbaric custom…
So as Arrian describes

Arrian Anabasis book 4 chap 12 :

“Alexander drank from a golden goblet the health of the circle of guests, and handed it first to those with whom he had concerted the ceremony of prostration. The first who drank from the goblet rose up and performed the act of prostration, and received a kiss from him. This ceremony proceeded from one to another in due order. But when the pledging of health came to the turn of Callisthenes, he rose up and drank from the goblet, and drew near, wishing to kiss the king without performing the act of prostration. Alexander happened then to be conversing with Hephaestion, and consequently did not observe whether Callisthenes performed the ceremony completely or not. But when Callisthenes was approaching to kiss him, Demetrius, son of Pythonax, one of the Companions, said that he was doing so without having prostrated himself. So the king would not permit him to kiss him”

Is the prostation some form of proof that Alexander was probably some kind of raging homosexual that had intercourse with every single member of his court or does this simply indicate the adoption of a foreign custom that some have strongly critisized ??

Obviously the second..

What is highly interesting when readnig these texts is a difference that may not be so appearant in the translated text.
Athenaeus clearly mentions this event and refers to a eunuch Bagoas, while Plutarch that gives a far better description of the event, makes no reference to eunuch but to a favorite..

From what we know, the ‘titles’ of ‘eunuch’ and ‘eromenos’ do not consort together, due to the second’s pedagogic character. But even if we were to accept this ‘title’. Should we actually believe that Alexander,who’s continiency we noted above would chose to ‘take in’ Darius’ personal ‘eunuch’ and present him in public when he wouldn’t even think of having any sort of relations with Roxanne prior to their marriage ??

This is the very same man, that reacted in total outrage and continuously asked those around him if he had ever done anything so shamefull to accept the disgracefull proposition by Philoxenus..
So what could have changed now, is there possibly something we’re missing here ??

Its obvious that everyone eventually gets the reputation that he deserves.. While Atheneus may be quite pleasant to read and has recorded several recepies and everyday habbits, under no condition can he be titled a historian nor a biographer of Alexander, for throughout his entire work, his very names is mentioned some 10 times all in all. Plutarch on the other hand, is considered one of the three authorities (he, Diodorus and Arrian) on Alexander’s life and for a just reason..
While Atheneus passes through the event in only 3 lines, Plutarch gives us a fully detailed representation and thanks to him we know that there were actually 2 individuals named Bagoas.

Plutarch clearly makes reference to 2 Bagoas :

Plutarch Life of Alexander 39:

“To Parmenio, moreover, Alexander gave the house of Bagoas at Susa, in which it is said there was found apparel worth a thousand talents.”

Plutarch “On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander” B’ 5:

“The eunuch Bagoas took up the kingship of Persia and bestowed it upon Oarses and Darius.”

So does Arrian make clear reference B’ 5:

“My father was killed by conspirators whom you instigated5 as you have yourself boasted to all in your letters; and after slaying Arses, as well as Bagoas, and unjustly seizing the throne contrary to the law of the Persians, and ruling your subjects unjustly, you sent unfriendly letters about me to the Greeks, urging them to wage war with me.”

But so does Diodorus in both books 16 and 17. Here we learn that Bagoas was an Egyptian chiliarch and that thank to him was the Egyptian revolt supressed. Artaxerxes takes him into his court and makes a eunuch out of him..
To cut a long story short, he is eventually poisonned by Darius and died..

These events took place well before Alexander’s campaigne had ever begun. So it is more than obvious that Atheneus, who as we said is neither a historian nor his biographer is simply mistaken and that there was no eunuch named Bagoas in the theater..

Is it really possible that these scholars that strive to prove he was either homo- or bisexual have simply missed these facts ???

To my disappointment I’ll have to say deffinitely not