Alexander (film)

[shootemindehead]

Well, it's a rumor that's followed him through antiquity to modern day and wouldn't exactly have been out of step with the times he lived in, so I would think leaving Alexander's sexuality as an open matter with the question alluded to subtly would be the best way to go. Can't speak to the movie, as it looked rotten and I haven't found a pole long enough to poke it with yet. I'm glad to hear it's not very 300 in it's approach to action, though. Aye, I but I think it was a rumor that surfaced a long time after he'd kicked the bucket. So, it may have been a bit of political sabotage. Besides, both men ended up marrying women. One is therefore forced to ask, why bother, when the "Greek vice" as it was later disparagingly known, was acceptable? The battle scenes are quite good, but suffer somewhat from the "WTF is going on" syndrome. -- -------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ---------- Except his male lover Bagoas, of course. I'm unaware that Bagoas was anything of the sort. All I know is that it was Bagoas that Alexander accused of murdering his father and used that information to warn King Darius of Persia, who pre-empted him. But, I am no expert on Alexander, or his times.

[EvilNed]

Bagoas was a court eunuch of the persians. Alexander took a fancy to him and kept him around. If Bagoas was ever accused of murdering Philip II's father then I've never heard of it - then again there might have been more than one Bagoas in Alexander's life. Alexander the Great was, and is, somewhat of a hobby of mine. So I'm very bias. EDIT: As for marriage, You cannot compare the marriage of then and the marriage of now. Marriage was solely a political union and love had nothing to do with it. Infact, Alexander even took a non-greek first wife just to show everybody that he wasn't racist. A purely political marriage.

[AcesandEights]

Aye, I but I think it was a rumor that surfaced a long time after he'd kicked the bucket. So, it may have been a bit of political sabotage. I certainly have never read anything definitive, just veiled references and circumstantial stuff. I think if it happened it was just a matter of fact romance of camaraderie...a bromance with benefits, if you will. Not the sort of thing that would pre-empt his political marriage, or his (supposedly) more romantic marriage (he had at least two notable marriages I'm aware of). I'm unaware that Bagoas was anything of the sort. All I know is that it was Bagoas that Alexander accused of murdering his father and used that information to warn King Darius of Persia, who pre-empted him. As far as Bagoas...not sure if it's the same Bagoas that supposedly killed Phillip, but there was a Bagoas Alexander supposedly kissed, but it was in recognition of Bagoas' achievement and at the behest of his men that Alexander supposedly did so. And that is about all I know of Alexander's possible peccadilloes.

[shootemindehead]

The only Bagoas I've read about is the eunuch that Ned mentions. He was on the council of King Darius and had hatched a plot to poison him. Darius made Bagoas drink the poison intended for him. As far as I recall, Alexander was supposed to have told Darius that he had also a hand in the plot to kill his father, whether before of after the event I Don't know. Anyway, there's even less proof that Alexander and Bagoas were lovers, even more than he and Hephaestion as far as I'm concerned. In fact there's just the "kiss" mentioned by Aces. Alexander's men were supposed to have urged him to kiss Bagoas after a successful campaign. Now, whether this kiss was one of homosexual desire, or in the same fashion as Jesus kissing Judas (ie without sexual connotation), I have no idea.

[AcesandEights]

There's also that quote (mind it's a quote ascribed by a third party later in antiquity, iirc), where Alexander compared his relationship with his deceased friend (can't recall his name) with the love Achilles shared with Patrochlis (Sp?), but that falls in to the whole hearsay/open-ended assumptions that I mentioned in my post further up the page. Even if Alexander said it in a filial, fraternal or bromantic way, whose to say there was anything sexual to it. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to include as a possibility in a movie about Alexander...just a question of whether it's a possibility that's alluded to or a full-on part of the film and character's development. Crap, now I may have to watch more than a few passing seconds of this film. Did someone say Rosario Dawson shows some skin in it?

[EvilNed]

In writings of Plutarch and Arrianos, Bagoas (the eunuch) is referred to as Alexander's eromenos. Which is another word for consort, altough with no real social ties other than simply "lover". A quick wikipedia-search implies there were two Bagoas'... One minister and one eunuch. The minister was, as you have correctly deducted, not a lover of Alexander. Possibly therein lies the confusion? According to the wikipedia article, he was implied in the murder of Alexander. I put no value into this article on Bagoas the Minister, but I know of the existance of Bagoas the Eunuch, who was a lover of Alexander the Great. Also, I can tell there people in here seem to think that ancient greeks made a greater distinction between homosexual and heterosexual love. While the english language has to make distinctions between different types of love by the use of adjectives, the ancient greek language has seperate words for different concepts of love. The word most akin to sexual or romantic love would be Eros, which was pretty much a philosophical concept back then, and it was not gender specific in any way.

[shootemindehead]

There's also that quote (mind it's a quote ascribed by a third party later in antiquity, iirc), where Alexander compared his relationship with his deceased friend (can't recall his name) with the love Achilles shared with Patrochlis (Sp?), but that falls in to the whole hearsay/open-ended assumptions that I mentioned in my post further up the page. Even if Alexander said it in a filial, fraternal or bromantic way, whose to say there was anything sexual to it. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to include as a possibility in a movie about Alexander...just a question of whether it's a possibility that's alluded to or a full-on part of the film and character's development. Crap, now I may have to watch more than a few passing seconds of this film. Did someone say Rosario Dawson shows some skin in it? The friend was Hephaestion, who he knew since early childhood and yes it was written hundreds of years after his death and could have many meanings. But, honestly, you don't have to watch the film at all. Really, it's not worth it on any level Aces. -- -------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ---------- In writings of Plutarch and Arrianos, Bagoas (the eunuch) is referred to as Alexander's eromenos. Which is another word for consort, altough with no real social ties other than simply "lover". A quick wikipedia-search implies there were two Bagoas'... One minister and one eunuch. The minister was, as you have correctly deducted, not a lover of Alexander. Possibly therein lies the confusion? According to the wikipedia article, he was implied in the murder of Alexander. I put no value into this article on Bagoas the Minister, but I know of the existance of Bagoas the Eunuch, who was a lover of Alexander the Great. Also, I can tell there people in here seem to think that ancient greeks made a greater distinction between homosexual and heterosexual love. While the english language has to make distinctions between different types of love by the use of adjectives, the ancient greek language has seperate words for different concepts of love. The word most akin to sexual or romantic love would be Eros, which was pretty much a philosophical concept back then, and it was not gender specific in any way. I'm not so sure that they were two completely different people Ned. Either way, one must remember that Plutarch was writing centuries after Alexander had died, so there's much room for manoeuvre. Arrian was writting even later than Plutarch.

[EvilNed]

They could impossibly have been the same Bagoas if one of them was a minister of power who died prior to Darius (drinking his poison, as you mentioned) and the other was a younger eunuch / dancer whom Alexander met during / after the defeat of Darius. I can tell you this much, if Bagoas the Eunuch was in anyway implicated as a murderer of Philip II, then he would have been slain by Alexander or his troops in one way or another. If for no other reason than for Alexander to prove to his men that he had nothing to do with his father's death. As for Plutarch and Arrianos not being credible sources; Well... Say what you will. If you're disputing what they write about Alexander and Bagoas you might as well dispute Alexander's entire existence. To me it's silly to question them on a matter such as this just because "Well, you know, they could have been wrong". There's not a whole lot to back that thought up, except (and dare I say it?) prejudice. We're entering the realm of extreme speculation and I ask you, for what purpose? There are several things pointing toward Bagoas being his lover (him being to referred to as one is the strongest evidence, I suppose) and nothing really to point out toward opposite.

[shootemindehead]

The Bagoas who was on the council of Darius was also a eunuch and had served in Persia for some time before, in a position of great effect. By all accounts he was a very powerful individual and wielded a lot of power and influence over the rulers of the land. He was also a courtesan to previous rulers. If I recall correctly, Bagoas had a history (of sorts) of poisoning those he took a dislike to, before Darius cottoned on to his plan to dispose of him. I think we are talking about the same individual, but I am not sure. As for Plutarch etc, I am not saying that they are (in)credible sources. My knowledge on the subject is far too limited to make such a call. However, I do know that that Plutarch wrote for his audience and tailored his writings to such ends. I don't know a lot about Arrian though. Common sense, however, dictates that the time span between event and writing (over 3 centuries), coupled with the lack of solid contemporary historical record keeping, can only mean that Plutarch (etc) filled in many, many gaps. Perhaps, to the pleasure of his patrons. Whether Bagoas was indeed the murderer of Philip II (his assassin was never named for sure), or whether he had a hand in the plot, I don't know. But, for some reason, I have Bagoas' name linked with Philip's death. Where I read it, I can't say. Perhaps Alexander was accusing both Darius and Bagoas (or "the Persians") of his fathers murder) as pretext for some political move. I'm not sure. Or, maybe, it's all bollocks written by some guy (maybe Plutarch) centuries after the fact. As for disputing Alexander’s entire existence, will then...yes I will. Insomuch as doubting the version presented. I have no doubt that he existed, but who or what he REALLY was is very much open to interpretation, both in 80 AD (at the time of Plutarchs writing) and in 2011AD. "Prejudice" isn't playing a part, but a common sense approach to historical enquiry is. I have nothing to gain from a prejudicial opinion on the life of Alexander the Great. So, I can assure you that isn't even entering into it. However "Extreme speculation", as you put it, is all we have on the lives of the ancients, whether it's on behalf of Plutarch, or "modern day" writers from the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Either way, this discussion has sparked my interest.

[EvilNed]

Well, agreed, it is an interesting discussion, however I strongly disagree with the speculations you suggest. I doubt the two Bagoas' were the same, as their relation to Alexander the Great seem to differ greatly (and one was nonetheless poisoned before the death of Darius, which puts his death relatively early in Alexander's 11 year long campaign). I see no real connection except for the name at this point. If modern historians seperate the two, then so will I until reading on further. Unless you are also suggesting Alexander was a necrophiliac. I also see no real point in questioning Plutarch or Arrianos on everything they write. As I mentioned in my last post, such questioning would be based on on wild speculation and personal opinion - nothing else. Both are things I try to steer clear of when viewing history as it rarely leads to the right answer. They had their sources and now they are our sources on Alexander the Great. Now there are many more unclear aspects of Alexander than his sexuality (which is, compared to some other aspects, rather settled). Such as his death, for instance. Who killed him and why? Did he die of natural causes or was he poisoned? Did Cassander have a hand in it? Or Aristotle?

[shootemindehead]

Aye, a look at dates available on the web would suggest that they are different people. It's strange that both were eunuchs from Persia though. Perhaps Bagoas was a popular name for eunuchs . Darius' minister was poisoned in 336. Alexander didn't start his campaign until 334. Either way, as I said, my knowledge on the times is limited. My historical interests lie more in the conflicts of the first half of the 20th Century and the Roman imperial era, more so than Philip II and Alexander’s time. Again, as for Plutarch etc, I am not dismissing everything that is attributed to him (them). But, I do know (for a fact), that the historian, more so than any other writer, is subject to honest mistake, interpretation, bias, political puppetry and outright lying when documenting a given subject. A healthy doubt and a rigorous cross checking is very much the order of the day. Quite often a pinch of salt is required kit when reading history, especially the history of ancient characters, which more often than not, were written for political purposes. One only has to look at the political pincushion Caligula became a long time after his murder in 41AD. As for Alexander’s sexual orientation (not that it's important in any way), I wouldn't consider it as "settled" as you do. Certainly not based on a few paltry lines written centuries after he died.

[EvilNed]

Well, until further "evidence" (if you see my meaning, written evidence, archaeological evidence, what have you) is uncovered there is really not much substantial up for debate. We can at least settle on that, right? We can of course speculate whether Plutarch and Arrianos were wrong. Although I doubt they both were (but as you say, "Who knows for sure?"). I find the roman period very interesting as well, in fact the entire antiquity period. But Alexander the Great and the following Hellenistic period is my favourite era.

[Legion2213]

Watched a large lump of it last night... What a total mess! Acting all over the shop! Editing all over the shop! It was diabolical at times! What happened!?!? Which version did you watch? Your mention of editing makes me think you watched the hacked to bits theatre version...I own the "Alexander Revisited Final Cut" (213 minute, 2 disc set, with interval etc), It's an ok movie IMO.