Alexander realism....

[PROMETHEUS]

Hi guys I was just looking at the battle scene of Alexander and the armours etc , I found them very well described and reproduced , I am not a great expert of Macedonian stuff but looks like a great improvement in a holliwood movie .....

[Catiline]

Equipment wise alexander was very good. THere are some issues, and you can debate how colouful you want your Macedonians, but in the absence of other photographic guides of decent reconstructed kit - there aren't nearly so many Macedonians reenactors as Roman after all - still from alexander ad a bad guide at all.

Plus it hasthe best ancient battle seen ever

[eadingas]

Yeah, I loved the movie, it was much better than any Hollywood 'ancient' production recently. That's what you get when you have a real director behind the camera :) And it made want to fight those phalanx vs elephants battles again :)

[Urnamma]

That movie was a terrible, ahistorical, shameful mess.

[Zanderpants]

Thank you Urnamma. ~:cheers:

[Meneldil]

Well, it looks like half the people hate it, and half the people love it.
I don't have much knowledge about Alexander's army/era, but I liked the movie.

PS: Yeah, yeah, who cares about my opinion anyway ~D

[Parmenio]

Haven't seen it yet, but the stills looked good.

[Spino]

Yes, the production design, art and props dept. for Alexander were top notch. Don't mean to nitpick but for some stupid reason I picked up on the sarissas, their diameter anyway. The actors playing Macedonian phalangites looked like they could barely wrap their hands completely around it. Perhaps they only seemed too large because the wood they used to make them was so light in color?

Anyway given the efforts of the art and props department it's a pity the rest of the movie wasn't up to the same standards.

[eadingas]

I thought sarissas were too short, weren't they? But then, I thought that modern stuntsmen probably wouldn't hold a proper length sarissa :)

[khelvan]

They could if it were weighted properly - I doubt a modern prop maker would know how to weight them so that the stuntmen could use them properly. ~:)

[Sheep]

The one (one!?) major battle scene was great. The rest of the movie was horrible. I wanted to walk out but it there was the whole cliched car wreck factor: I couldn't look away. Besides, by the end of the movie, the whole audience (what was left of it) was laughing hysterically and it was kind of a fun bonding experience. Especially the one scene where Colin Farrell talks for like 5 minutes only to turn around and find Hephaistion dead... the whole theater was rolling in the aisles for that one.

[Dead Moroz]

Roxana wasn't negress.

[Sheep]

Roxana wasn't negress.

Alexander wasn't Irish either. They're actors.

[Spino]

Alexander wasn't Irish either. They're actors.

Exactly, they're both terrible actors and they looked completely out of place.

[Seydlitz]

yeah, the movie was missing something. It would have also been better if it had a better soundtrack and some of the scenery didn't look so fake. I'm telling you, those statues and paintings! Jeeze. The battle scenes where pretty cool, and probably as realistic as Hollywood will ever get. But the movie wasn't really captivating. Could have been a whole lot better. Like if the Gladiator director directed it ~D That was a kick ass movie!

[eadingas]

The soundtrack was terrible, I agree, but I've enjoyed most of the movie.
Perhaps we should have a poll ;)

[hellenes]

Firts of all i ve attempted to see the movie on dvd and i turned off the tv at the moment that they put their perversed raped version of Aristoteles sayings on the relations of two men...
The whole homosexuality issue is by far the most twisted changed and pervrerted of the whole ancient life... Based on vaguely represented 30 vases depictions out of 80000 that have been discovered around the globe...
Anal heterosexual contacts depicted as "proof" (if you had an anal sex with a woman does that make you homosexual?) and satyrs' depiction who were the NEGATIVE examples...
Homosexuality was SEVERELY critisized and punished sometimes with death (in sparta mainly) and in athens Aishinis speeches against Timarchos who was homosexual and Aishines proved that BY LAW Timarchos didnt have ANY right to aaccuse him...
They couldnt vote
They couldnt trade
If they tried to contact someone in their lifestyle they were SEVERELY punished...

Sources Homosexuality in ancient Greece Adonis A. Georgiadis

Hellenes

[eadingas]

Uhum. Yeah. And Alexander and Hephaistion were just 'good friends', sure.
I knew it would get to this... all the debates about 'Alexander' come to this in the end...
It was not homosexuality that was criticized in Greece, it was anal intercourse, which was regarded as 'unmanly', and getting yourself into a role of a woman. Read some Plato, dude.
And here's the final proof:
http://www.squidge.org/praxisters/babylon.html
;)

EDIT: It always amuses and irritates me at the same time, how people don't mind Alexander being a slaughterer, murderer, and overall weirdo, yet they go all crazy when he's 'accused' of having a romance with a man.
(note: I'm a great fan of Alexander personally, so don't take my words to mean that I want to start another "Alexander was Ancient Hitler" debate)

[hellenes]

Uhum. Yeah. And Alexander and Hephaistion were just 'good friends', sure.
I knew it would get to this... all the debates about 'Alexander' come to this in the end...
It was not homosexuality that was criticized in Greece, it was anal intercourse, which was regarded as 'unmanly', and getting yourself into a role of a woman. Read some Plato, dude.
And here's the final proof:
http://www.squidge.org/praxisters/babylon.html
;)

EDIT: It always amuses and irritates me at the same time, how people don't mind Alexander being a slaughterer, murderer, and overall weirdo, yet they go all crazy when he's 'accused' of having a romance with a man.
(note: I'm a great fan of Alexander personally, so don't take my words to mean that I want to start another "Alexander was Ancient Hitler" debate)

Provide some evidence and not just vague assumptions...
Any ancient sources saying that Alexander was murderer? Weirdo?
How about the fact that Abraham was a pimp who was pimping his own sister/wife? But none would dare to make such a movie just see what happened to Mel Gibsons film... The whole thing boils down to the fact that we all know that the world is under the fear and the dictatorship of one sided sencorship and suppression and we know that to speak against the standardised version of the things triggers the severe punishment...
History is written by the WINNERS...after 1945...

Hellenes

[eadingas]

Uh..what's that bullshit ?
Whatever, man.

[Sarcasm]

What do you mean? winners? 1945? wha? :dizzy2:

[Gangstaman590]

What do you mean? winners? 1945? wha? :dizzy2:

WW2... :charge:

[QwertyMIDX]

Hellenes, Eadingas is right, homosexuality wasn’t frowned on, but anal intercourse (especially for the one being penetrated) was looked down upon, it is right there in Plato. Male/Male romance was considered completely natural and ok, it was only when anal sex was involved that it became an issue (especially between citizens, if you wanted to bugger a slave no one really cared). If you want to know more about it read Greek Homosexuality
by K.J. Dover.

[Sarcasm]

1945, WW2? Really? Didn´t relate them with each other....:rolleyes:



...by the way, that was sarcasm.

[Gangstaman590]

1945, WW2? Really? Didn´t relate them with each other....:rolleyes:



...by the way, that was sarcasm.


lol, should have payed more attention to your name.

[hellenes]

Hellenes, Eadingas is right, homosexuality wasn’t frowned on, but anal intercourse (especially for the one being penetrated) was looked down upon, it is right there in Plato. Male/Male romance was considered completely natural and ok, it was only when anal sex was involved that it became an issue (especially between citizens, if you wanted to bugger a slave no one really cared). If you want to know more about it read Greek Homosexuality
by K.J. Dover.

Dover's "work" is narrowminded as hell he struggles to "prove" that homosexuality was natural BUT his basing his assumption ONLY on 30 vases out of 80000 that were found and they display SATYRS who were NEGATIVE examples...
Platos statements were in many cases defamatory for his oponnents which he called "KINAIDOI" which means CURSED and HOMOSEXUAL...
Now if you read the ancient texts in the sence of ERASTIS=PUPIL EROMENOS=TEACHER the whole thing starts to make sence...
The whole legal status on KINAIDOI is displayed in the speech of ASHINOS against TIMARCHOS where Timarchos accused Aishinos that he was payed by Phillip II to betray Athens. Aishinos instaed of reply revealed that Timarchos was a "KINAIDOS" and thus had no right to sue an Athenean citizen, Timarchos out of shame committed suicide. Just read the sources and the bottom line is that you cannot base your ASSUMPTIONS on exceptions...

Hellenes

[eadingas]

Yeah, cool, except you can't read 'Erastis' and 'Eromenos' as anything else because of what these words MEAN. You have to stretch your argument quite a lot to deal with the presence of the words 'eros' and 'erasteio' in them.
The vases don't display Satyrs, but old and young men in sexual positions just like described in literary sources.
Theban Sacred Band was made of homosexual soldiers.
Whatever, man. I've heard that Greeks protested about 'Alexander' and homo (bi, to be precise)sexuality shown in it, but I thought it was a joke.
And using caps lock doesn't make you right.

[caesar44]

hi
the bottom line
great battle
few battles
very good begining
bad ending
homo's not homo's who cares

if i to direrct such movie
i will do it differently

:book:

[Big_John]

And using caps lock doesn't make you right.ah.. but does it make you wrong??

but dont' strain your brain trying to navigate the labyrinthine profundity of such reconditry!

[Byzantine Prince]

Uhhh, Hellenes is confused with his own examples. Yes Plato does condemn homosexuality between men of equal statues. But that does not mean that Macedonians had to listen to any of that. Macedonia was very different in society then the southern greeks. Macedonians were polygamists while the southern greeks weren't. So what is there to stop Alexander from having sex with anyone he wants? As far as I saw in the movie it was pretty realistic. It didn't show any more then the ancient writers described.

The depictions are not all Satyrs. If you still don't beleave me then look:
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/000Free/000Erotic/image/7311.jpg

[hellenes]

Uhhh, Hellenes is confused with his own examples. Yes Plato does condemn homosexuality between men of equal statues. But that does not mean that Macedonians had to listen to any of that. Macedonia was very different in society then the southern greeks. Macedonians were polygamists while the southern greeks weren't. So what is there to stop Alexander from having sex with anyone he wants? As far as I saw in the movie it was pretty realistic. It didn't show any more then the ancient writers described.

The depictions are not all Satyrs. If you still don't beleave me then look:
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/000Free/000Erotic/image/7311.jpg

I dont want to be drawn into this pointless debate about things that cannot be proved (ANY evidence on Alexander's homosexuality? Sources? Quotes?) That vase is quite vague to assume that homosexuality was wide spread or accepted... Just think about it: if a future archeologist discovers a gay porn magazine will he assume that homosexuality is accepten in our time?
One vase proves nothing the point is to provide evidence of legislation and quotes that prove the acceptance of homosexuality in ancient Greece.
Any comments on ASHINOS and Timarchos example?

Hellenes

[eadingas]

Just think about it: if a future archeologist discovers a gay porn magazine will he assume that homosexuality is accepten in our time?

Isn't it?

[hellenes]

Just think about it: if a future archeologist discovers a gay porn magazine will he assume that homosexuality is accepten in our time?

Isn't it?

Well you just have to ask for the ordinary persons intimate and PERSONAL opinion if it would concern his own family the sencere and honest reply is very far from what he will will tell you...

Hellenes

[PROMETHEUS]

Theban Sacred Band was made of homosexual soldiers.

Lol and when they won battles what? Gay Pride?
LOL

[hellenes]

:laugh: :laugh: ~:joker: ~:joker:
Lol and when they won battles what? Gay Pride?
LOL

~D ~D ~D ~D ~D lol Prometheus the best responce ....

The funniest thing though is the fact that people say things without any quotes any references just because the say it it must be true....

Hellenes

[Meneldil]

"For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love is never to be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another."

Plutarch

The whole wikipedia article is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_band)
You can argue that Wikipedia is crap, but until you show me a quotation that says 'Theban sacred band member weren't homosexuals' I bet I'll have to believe what I've read at Wikipedia, there (http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/bios1/sacr1.html) and there (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1373/is_n11_v44/ai_15901325)

[eadingas]

These are all well known facts. As you can see from the articles Meneldil posted, you have Plutarch, Plato, Aristotle, Alcibiades, Xenophon, Teognis of Megara, Alcaeus, Anacreon, Pindar, Aeschylus, Zeno of Citium, etc. etc. You have poems, dialogues, paintings, vases. You have words like 'erastes' and 'eromenos' which mean nothing else but 'he who loves' and 'he who is loved', but you want to read them as 'teacher and pupil' for no other reason than your prejudiced view of things. You have word of many historians and researchers, and I will take the word of my university's ancient history professor over yours anytime.
You take homosexual behaviours that were believed wrong - anal intercourse, taking money for sex, etc. - and try to use them as proof that all homosexuality was believed wrong. "Kinaidos" means someone who takes a role of a female in relationship, or who allows himself to be penetrated by a man. So it's a specific case, not general. Not to mention you're mixing up layers of society. Sure, common mob will always be prejudiced, but we're talking about philosophers, poets, leaders, generals. Alexander was a king and leader of the mightiest army in the world, he could've shagged sheeps in his tent daily and nobody would mind.
As for Alexander:

" "... Bagoas, a eunuch exceptional in beauty and in the very flower of boyhood, with whom Darius was intimate and with whom Alexander would later be intimate," Curtius, VI.5.23
"As soon as he came to the royal palace of Gedrosia, he again refreshed and feasted his army; and one day after he had drunk pretty hard, it is said, he went to see a prize of dancing contended for, in which his favorite Bagoas, having gained the victory, crossed the theater in his dancing habit, and sat down close by him, which so pleased the Macedonians, that they made loud acclamations for him to kiss Bagoas, and never stopped clapping their hands and shouting till Alexander put his arms round him and kissed him."
" At this misfortune [Hephaistion's death], Alexander was so beyond all reason transported, that to express his sorrow, he immediately ordered the manes and tails of all his horses and mules to be cut, and threw down the battlements of the neighboring cities. The poor physician he crucified, and forbade playing on the flute, or any other musical instrument in the camp a great while, till directions came from the oracle of Ammon, and enjoined him to honor Hephaestion, and sacrifice to him as to a hero."
Plutarch, "Alexander"


I'm sure that settles it, and if you don't agree with Plutarch and Curtius, well then, I guess you're on your own.

[hellenes]

These are all well known facts. As you can see from the articles Meneldil posted, you have Plutarch, Plato, Aristotle, Alcibiades, Xenophon, Teognis of Megara, Alcaeus, Anacreon, Pindar, Aeschylus, Zeno of Citium, etc. etc. You have poems, dialogues, paintings, vases. You have words like 'erastes' and 'eromenos' which mean nothing else but 'he who loves' and 'he who is loved', but you want to read them as 'teacher and pupil' for no other reason than your prejudiced view of things. You have word of many historians and researchers, and I will take the word of my university's ancient history professor over yours anytime.
You take homosexual behaviours that were believed wrong - anal intercourse, taking money for sex, etc. - and try to use them as proof that all homosexuality was believed wrong. "Kinaidos" means someone who takes a role of a female in relationship, or who allows himself to be penetrated by a man. So it's a specific case, not general. Not to mention you're mixing up layers of society. Sure, common mob will always be prejudiced, but we're talking about philosophers, poets, leaders, generals. Alexander was a king and leader of the mightiest army in the world, he could've shagged sheeps in his tent daily and nobody would mind.
As for Alexander:

" "... Bagoas, a eunuch exceptional in beauty and in the very flower of boyhood, with whom Darius was intimate and with whom Alexander would later be intimate," Curtius, VI.5.23
"As soon as he came to the royal palace of Gedrosia, he again refreshed and feasted his army; and one day after he had drunk pretty hard, it is said, he went to see a prize of dancing contended for, in which his favorite Bagoas, having gained the victory, crossed the theater in his dancing habit, and sat down close by him, which so pleased the Macedonians, that they made loud acclamations for him to kiss Bagoas, and never stopped clapping their hands and shouting till Alexander put his arms round him and kissed him."
" At this misfortune [Hephaistion's death], Alexander was so beyond all reason transported, that to express his sorrow, he immediately ordered the manes and tails of all his horses and mules to be cut, and threw down the battlements of the neighboring cities. The poor physician he crucified, and forbade playing on the flute, or any other musical instrument in the camp a great while, till directions came from the oracle of Ammon, and enjoined him to honor Hephaestion, and sacrifice to him as to a hero."
Plutarch, "Alexander"


I'm sure that settles it, and if you don't agree with Plutarch and Curtius, well then, I guess you're on your own.

Well i asked for prototype quotes not some versions of "translation", anything stating that Alexander had male "lovers" as for the matter of prejudice one is biased in the same way as the opposit side that he tries to prove wrong if he sees things one dimensional and generalises his assumptions...

Hellenes

[Big_John]

this thread is a little long in the tooth..

[Meneldil]

Heh Hellenes, no real point in arguing with you. You asked for quotes. Both Eadingas and I posted some quotes here, about Alexander' homosexuality or related to the Sacred Band, and yet you're not happy with it.

[hellenes]

Hereby i present this link http://www.geocities.com/anaxfiles/forum/homosexual.html
which unfortunately is in greek but ill try to translate it in english later for now its available to all greek readers...

Hellenes

[eadingas]

You're clutching at straws. That Plutarch translation is by John Dryden, who was XVIIth century catholic poet. If you think that's biased, you're mad. You can find the original quotes on your own, Plutarch's Alexander is not long.
EDIT: Okay, I'll make it easier for you: Plutarch 67,8
And as for links to some articles on the web, I can give you links to articles claiming things you wouldn't dream of, all with quotes from sources, etc.
As I said,I'll rather believe my university professor than you, especially if she has sources to back her up, so case closed.

[hellenes]

If you have such confidence to your proffessor just ask her about AIshinis and Timarchos case...
And as for some quotes this is original and not "translations":

Πλουτάρχου, Περί Αλεξάνδρου Τύχης ή Αρετής Λόγος Α' 12

"Αλέξανδρος δε, Φιλοξένου του της παραλίας υπάρχου γράψαντος, ότι παίς εν Ιωνία γέγονεν οίος ουκ άλλος ώραν και είδος, και πυνθανομένου δια των γραμμάτων ει αναπέμψη, πικρώς αντέγραψεν ω κάκιστ' ανθρώπων, τι μοι πώποτε τοιούτο συνέγνως, ίνα τοιαύταις με κολακεύσης ηδοναίς;"

"Και ο Αλέξανδρος, όταν του έγραψε ο Φιλόξενος, ο κυβερνήτης της παραλίας ότι υπάρχει στην Ιωνία ένα παιδί που, όμοιο στην ομορφιά του δεν ξανάγινε ποτέ, και ζητούσε να πληροφορηθή με γράμμα, αν ήθελε να του το στείλη, ο Αλέξανδρος του έγραψε απαντώντας αυστηρά: "Ω πιο κακέ απ' όλους τους ανθρώπους, με ξέρεις ανακατεμένο, ποτέ, με τέτοιες βρωμοδουλειές, για να με κολακεύσης με τέτοιου είδους απολαύσεις;".



Aισχύνου, Kατά Tιμάρχου § 21

"Eάν κάποιος Aθηναίος εκδίδεται ως παθητικός ομοφυλόφιλος, να μην επιτρέπεται σ' αυτόν να εκλέγεται ως ένας εκ των εννέα αρχόντων, ούτε να αναλαμβάνει το αξίωμα του ιερέως, ούτε να γίνεται σύνδικος του δήμου, ούτε να αναλαμβάνει κανένα απολύτως αξίωμα ούτε στο εσωτερικό, ούτε στο εξωτερικό, ούτε κληρωτό, ούτε αιρετό, ούτε να αποστέλεται σε διπλωματική αποστολή, ούτε να εκφέρει τη γνώμη του, ούτε να εισέρχεται στα δημόσια ιερά, ούτε να έχει δικαίωμα να φέρει στεφάνι στις Eορτές που συνηθίζεται αυτό, ούτε να πηγαίνει στα περιαντήρια που βρίσκονται μέσα στην αγορά. EAν δε κάποιος κάνει κάτι από αυτά και εφόσον αυτό αποδειχθεί δικαστικώς, τότε να τιμωρείται με θάνατο".



Δημοσθένους, Kατά Aνδροτίωνος § 21

"Δεν επιτρέπεται στους ομοφυλοφίλους ούτε να ομιλούν, ούτε να γράφουν".



Aιλιανού, Ποικίλη Iστορία III 12

"O Σπαρτιατικός έρωτας δεν είχε καμία σχέση με αισχρότητες. Eάν ποτέ κάποιος έφηβος τολμούσε να ανεχθεί ασέλγεια εις βάρος του ή εάν κάποιος άλλος έφηβος επιχειρούσε να ασελγήσει εις βάρος κάποιου άλλου, δεν συνέφερε κανέναν απ' τους δύο να καταντροπιάσουν την Σπάρτη, αφού σε τέτοια περίπτωση ή εξοριζόντουσαν εφ' όρου ζωής από την Σπάρτη ή έχαναν την ζωή τους".



Πλουτάρχου, Λακεδαιμονίων Eπιτηδεύματα 7,237c
Mάξιμος Tύριος, 20,8d,e

"O ψυχικός δεσμός μεταξύ των νέων δεν έχει καμία σχέση με σωματικές επαφές. Όποιος νέος επιχειρήσει να ασελγήσει εις βάρος άλλου θα στερηθεί διά βίου τα πολιτικά του δικαιώματα".



Ξενοφώντος Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία ΙΙ, 13

"Ο δε Λυκούργος
Εναντία και τούτοις πάσι γνούς, ει μεν τις αυτός ων οίον δει αγασθείς ψυχήν παιδός πειρώτο άμεμπτον φίλον αποτελέσασθαι και συν-είναι, επήνει και καλλίστην παιδείαν ταύτην ενόμιζεν.
Ει δε τις παιδός σώματος ορεγόμενος φανείη, αίσχιστον τούτο θείς εποίησεν εν Λακεδαίμονι μηδέν ήττον εραστάς παιδικών απέχεσθαι ή γονείς παίδων ή και αδελφοί αδελφών εις αφροδίσια απέχοντα".

"Ο Λυκούργος όμως, αντιθέτως προς όλα ταύτα πιστεύων, επεδοκίμαζε μόνον το εάν σημαίνων άνθρωπος, θαυμάσας την ψυχική αρετήν του παιδίου, προσεπάθη να κάμη αυτόν φίλον με δεσμούς αναμεταξύ των αμέμπτους και να τον συναναστρέφεται, διότι τούτο ενόμιζε μέσον καλλίστης ανατροφής. Εάν όμως επαρουσιάζετο κανείς επιθυμών το παιδικόν σώμα, επειδή ο Λυκούργος εθεώρη τούτο πολύ αναίσχυντον, ενομοθέτησεν εις την Σπάρτην να απέχουν οι ερασταί από τα αγαπώμενα παιδιά, όπως αποφεύγουν εις αφροδισίους (ερωτικάς) σχέσεις οι γονείς από τα τέκνα των και οι αδελφοί από τους αδελφούς των".



Πλουτάρχου Βίοι Παράλληλοι, Λυκούργος ΧVII

" Λακεδαιμόνιοι δε οι νομίζοντες, εάν και ορεχθή τις σώματος, μηδενός αν έτι καλού καγαθού τούτον τύχειν, ούτω τελέως τους ερωμένους αγαθούς απεργάζονται ως και μετά ξένων καν μη εν τη αυτή [πόλει] ταχθώσι τω εραστή, ομοίως αιδούνται τους παρόντας απολείπειν. Θεάν γάρ ου την Αναίδειαν αλλά την Αιδώ νομίζους"ι.

"Οι Λακεδαιμόνιοι, αντιθέτως, που πιστεύουν ότι το μόνο αν επιθυμήση κανείς το σώμα νέου, αυτός δεν είναι δυνατόν πια να επιτύχη τίποτε το ωραίο και το αγαθό, καθιστούν τους ερωμένους τόσον τελείους αγαθούς, ώστε και αν ακόμη ταχθούν στην μάχη μεταξύ ξένων και όχι στην ίδια πόλι με τον εραστή, εξ ίσου από αιδώ δεν εγκαταλείπουν τους συμπολεμιστές των. Γιατί πιστεύουν ως θεά όχι την Αναίδεια, αλλά την Αιδώ".

"Εκοινώνουν δε οι ερασταί τοις παισί της δόξης επ' αμφότερα και λέγεταί ποτε παιδός εν των μάχεσθαι φωνήν αγεννή προεμένου ζημιωθήναι τον εραστήν υπό των αρχόντων. Ούτω δε του εράν εγκεκριμένου παρ' αυτοίς, ώστε και των παρθένων εράν τας καλάς και αγαθάς γυναίκας, το αντεράν ούκ ην, αλλά μάλλον αρχήν εποιούντο φιλίας προς αλλήλους οι των αυτώ ερασθέντες, και διετέλουν κοινή σπουδάζοντες, όπως άριστον απεργάσαιντο τον ερώμενον".

"Οι ερασταί δε των παίδων μετείχον της φήμης αυτών και εις τάς δύο περιπτώσεις (δηλαδή = της φήμης και επί καλώ και επί κακώ). Και διηγούνται σχετικώς ότι, όταν κάποτε εις παίς εξεφώνησε κατά την διάρκειαν της μάχης μίαν απρεπή κραυγήν, οι άρχοντες ετιμώρησαν δια τούτο τον εραστήν του παιδός. Ενω δε ο έρως επεδοκιμάζετο κατ' αυτόν τον τρόπον υπό των Σπαρτιατών, ώστε και αι αγαθαί και ευγενείς γυναίκες να τρέφουν έρωτα προς τας παρθένους, δεν υπήρχεν όμως αντιζηλία εις τας ερωτικάς των σχέσεις, αλλά μάλλον εύρισκον αφορμήν να συνάψουν μεταξύ των στενήν φιλίαν εκείνοι , οι οποίοι είχον αγαπήσει τους ιδίους παίδας, και κατέβαλλον από κοινού, συνεχείς φροντίδας, δια να εξεύρουν τον καλύτερον τρόπον, με τον οποίον θα ήτο δυνατόν να γίνη άριστος ο υπ' αυτών αγαπώμενος νέος".



Πλάτωνος Νόμοι 636c

"Εννοητέον ότι τη θηλεία και τη των αρρένων φύσει εις κοινωνίαν ιούση της γεννήσεως ή περί ταύτα ηδονή κατά φύσιν αποδεδόσθαι δοκεί, αρρένων δε προς άρρενας ή θηλέων προς θηλείας παρά φύσιν."

"Είναι λοιπόν κατανοητό ότι η φύσις ωθεί τα θηλυκά να είναι σε επαφή με τα αρσενικά από την γέννησί τους, και η ηδονή σε αυτά είναι φανερό ότι έχει δοθή σύμφωνα με την φύσιν, ενώ (η επαφή ενν.) των αρσενικών με τα αρσενικά και θηλυκών με τα θηλυκά ενάντια στην φύσιν (παρά φύσιν). "



Πλάτωνος Νόμοι 836c-e

"...ει γάρ τις ακολουθών τη φύσει θήσει τον προ του Λαίου νόμον, λέγων ως ορθώς είχεν το αρρένων και νέων μη κοινωνείν καθάπερ θηλειών προς μίξειν αφροδισίων, μάρτυρα παραγόμενος την θηρίων φύσιν και δεικνύς προς τα τοιαύτα ουχ απτόμενον άρρενα άρρενος δια το μη φύσει τούτο είναι, ταχ' αν χρώτο πιθανώ λόγω...

"Όποιος, υπακούοντας στην φύσι, προτείνει την επανακαθιέρωσι του νόμου, όπως ήταν πριν από τον Λάιο-(ο οποίος εθεωρείτο ο μυθικός εφευρέτης της ομοφυλοφιλίας, με τον βιασμό του Χρυσίππου, για τον οποίο και τιμωρήθηκε από την μοίρα με το να δολοφονηθή από τον ίδιο του τον γιό) και διακηρύσσει ότι δεν είναι σωστό να έρχεσαι σε σεξουαλική επαφή με άνδρες και αγόρια, όπως με τις γυναίκες, και προσάγει ως απόδειξι γι' αυτό, την φύση των Ζώων και επισημαίνει ότι (ενν. Αναμεσά τους) το αρσενικό δεν αγγίζει αρσενικό με σεξουαλικό σκοπό, αφού αυτό δεν είναι φυσικό, βρίσκεται, νομίζω, σε πολύ ισχυρή θέσι..."



Πλάτωνος Νόμοι 840de

"...ως ου χείρους ημίν είναι τους πολίτας ορνίθων και άλλων θηρίων πολλών, οι κατά μεγάλας αγέλας γεννηθέντες, μέχρι μεν παιδογονίας η ίθεοι και ακήρατοι γάμων τε αγνοί ζώσιν, όταν δ' εις τούτο ηλικίας έλθωσι, συνδυασθέντες άρρην θηλεία κατά χάριν και θήλεια άρρενι, τον λοιπόν χρόνον οσίων και δικαίως ζώσιν, εμμένοντες βεβαίως ταίς πρώταις της φιλίας ομολογίαις δειν δη θηρίων γε αυτούς αμείνους είναι."

"Οι πολίτες μας δεν πρέπει να είναι κατώτεροι από τα πουλιά και πολλά άλλα είδη ζώων, που γεννιούνται σε αγέλες και ζουν αζευγάρωτα, ως την ηλικία της τεκνοποιίας, αγνά και αμόλυντα από τον γάμο, αλλά, όταν φτάσουν σ' εκείνη την ηλικία, ζευγαρώνουν αρσενικό με θηλυκό και θηλυκό με αρσενικό σύμφωνα με τις διαθέσεις τους και για το υπόλοιπο της ζωής τους ζουν με ευλάβεια και είναι νομοταγή, μένοντας πιστά στις συμφωνίες που ήταν η αρχή της σχέσεώς τους. Πρέπει λοιπόν αυτοί (δηλ οι πολίτες) να είναι ακόμη καλύτεροι από τα θηρία".



Πλάτωνος Νόμοι 841d

"Ή μηδένα τολμάν μηδενός άπτεσθαι των γενναίων άμα και ελευθέρων πλην γαμέτης εαυτού γυναικός, άθυτα δε παλλακών σπέρματα και νόθα μη σπείρειν, μηδέ άγονα αρρένων παρά φύσιν ή το μέν των αρρένων πάμπαν αφελοίμθ'άν.."

"Ή κανένας να μην τολμά να έρχεται σε επαφή με τους γενναίους και ελευθέρους εκτός από την ίδια τους την γυναίκα, ούτε να επιτρέπεται να σπείρουν νόθα σπέρματα στις παλλακίδες, είτε σε άνδρες άγονα παρά φύσιν ή μάλλον καλύτερα την μεταξύ ανδρών επαφή να την απαγορεύσουμε εντελώς".



Ξενοφώντος Απομνημονεύματα Α,ΙΙ30

"Κριτίαν μεν τοίνυν αισθανόμενος ερώντα Ευθυδήμου και πειρώντα χρήσθαι, καθάπερ οι προς τ' αφροδίσια των σωμάτων απολαύοντες, απέτρεπε φάσκων ανελεύθερόν τε είναι και ου πρέπον ανδρί καλώ καυγαθώ τον ερώμενον, ω βούλεται πολλού άξιος φαίνεσθαι, προσαιτείν ώσπερ τους πτωχούς ικετεύοντα και δόμενον προσδούναι, και τύτα μηδενός αγαθού του δε Κριτίου τοις τοιούτοις ουχ υπακούοντος ουδέ αποτρεπομένου, λέγεται τον Σωκράτην άλλων τε πολλών παρόντων και του Ευθυδήμου ειπείν ότι υιικόν αυτώ δοκοίη πάσχειν ο Κριτίας, επιθυμών Ευθυδήμω προσκνήσθαι ώστπερ τα ύιια τοις λίθοις, εξ ων δη και εμίσει τον Σωκράτην ο Κριτίας".

"Αντιθέτως όμως, όταν αντιλήφθηκε πως ο Κριτίας ήταν ερωτευμένος με τον Ευθύδημο και επροσπαθούσε να τον χρησιμοποιήση καθώς εκείνοι που απολαμβάνουν τα σώματα αφροδιασικά, τον απέτρεπεν ο Σωκράτης λέγοντας ότι και ανάξιο για ελεύθερον άνθρωπο είναι και ανάρμοστο για έναν άνδρα μορφωμένον ενάρετα, εκείνον που αγαπά, χάριν του οποίου θέλει να φαίνεται πως αξίζει πολύ, να τον ζητιανεύη, ικετεύοντας και παρακαλώντας να του στέρξη σε κάτι, που μάλιστα κάθε άλλο παρά αγαθό είναι. Επειδή δε ο Κριτίας δεν άκουσε αυτά τα λόγια και δεν απομακρυνόταν από τον σκοπό του, λέγεται ότι ο Σωκράτης, παρουσία και πολλών άλλων και του Ευθύδημου, είπεν ότι του φαίνεται πως ο Κριτίας υποφέρει από κάτι που παθαίνουν οι χοίροι, αφού επιθυμεί να τρίβεται επάνω στον Ευθύδημο, όπως ακριβώς τρίβονται τα χοιρίδια στις πέτρες. Εξ αιτίας αυτών ακριβώς ο Κριτίας εμισούσε τον Σωκράτη".



Αισχίνου Κατά Τιμάρχου 72:

"Ου γαρ έγωγε υπολαμβάνω ούτως υμάς επιλήσμονας είναι, ώστε ασχημονείν ων ολίγω πρότερον ηκούσατε αναγιγνωσκομένων νόμων, εν οις γέγραπται, εάν τις μισθώσηται τινα Αθηναίων επί ταύτην την πράξιν, ή εάν τις εαυτόν μισθώση ένοχον είναι τοις μεγίστοις και τοις ίσοις επιτιμίοις".

"Εγώ τουλάχιστον, δεν νομίζω πως ξεχνάτε τόσο εύκολα, ώστε να μη θυμάστε αυτά που ακούσατε προηγουμένως, όταν γινόταν η ανάγνωσι των νόμων. Θυμάστε ασφαλώς, ότι οι νόμοι αναφέρανε ότι, όποιος πληρώσει άλλον άνδρα γι΄ αυτή τη δουλειά, ή πληρωθή για να ικανοποιήση τέτοιες επιθυμίες, και στις δύο περιπτώσεις η τιμωρία είναι ίδια και μάλιστα από τις πιο βαριές".



Ειδικώτερα δε για τον Ιερό Λόχο των Θηβαίων φαίνεται ότι στην αρχαιότητα κάποιοι θιασώτες της ομοφυλοφιλίας είχαν προσπαθήσει να συσχετίσουν αυτά τα ζευγάρια των εραστών και ερωμένων με ζευγάρια που είχαν σαρκικές σχέσεις, γι' αυτό ο Πλούταρχος, ο οποίος βέβαια γράφει τον 2ο μ.Χ. αιώνα, άρα έχει περάσει ολόκληρη την Ρωμαϊκή εποχή της πλήρους διαστροφής και διαφθοράς των ηθών, βάζει μετά την μάχη της Χαιρωνείας στο στόμα του νικητού της μάχης, Φιλίππου τα εξής συνταρακτικά λόγια:

Πλουτάρχου, Βίοι Παράλληλοι

"ας έχουν κακό τέλος εκείνοι που τόλμησαν να υπονοήσουν ότι κάτι αισχρό συνέβαινε μεταξύ αυτών των (πολεμικών) ζευγαριών"



Ξενοφώντος Συμπόσιον VIII, 28-32

"?επιθυμώ δε σοι, έφη, ω Καλλία, και μυθολογήσαι ως ου μόνον άνθρωποι αλλά και θεοί και ήρωες την της ψυχής φιλίαν περί πλείονος ή την του σώματος χρήσιν ποιούνται. Ζεύς τε γάρ όσων μεν θνητών ουσών μορφής ηράσθη, συγγενόμενος εία αυτάς θνητάς είναι όσων δε ψυχαίς αγαθαίς αγασθείη, αθανάτους τούτους εποίει ων Ηρακλής μεν και Διόσκουροί είσι, λέγονται δε και άλλοι και εγω δε φημι και Γανυμήδην ου σώματος αλλά ψυχής ένεκα υπό Διός εις ΅Ολυμπον ανενεχθήναι, μαρτυρεί δε και τούνομα αυτού έστι μεν γάρ δήπου και Ομήρω γάνυται δε τ'ακούων, τούτο δε φράζει ότι ήδεται δε τ'ακούων έστι δε και αλλοθί που πυκινά φρεσί μήδεα ειδώς τούτο δ' αυ λέγει σοφά φρεσί βουλεύματα ειδώς, εξ ούν συναμφοτέρων τούτων ουχ ηδυσώματος ονομασθείς ο Γανυμήδης αλλ' ηδυγνώμων εν θεοίς τετίμηται αλλά μην, ω Νικήρατε, και Αχιλλεύς Ομήρω πεποίηται ουχ ως παιδικοίς Πατρόκλω αλλ' ως εταίρω αποθανόντι εκπρεπέστατα τιμωρήσαι και Ορέστης δε και Πυλάδης και Θησεύς και Πειρίθους και άλλοι δε πολλοί των ημιθέων οι άριστοι υμνούνται ου διά το συγκαθεύδειν αλλά δια το άγασθαι αλλήλους τα μέγιστα και κάλλιστα κοινή διαπεπράχθαι, τι δε, τα νυν καλά έργα ου παντ' αν εύροι τις ένεκα επαίνου υπο των και πονείν και κινδυνεύειν εθελόντων πραττόμενα μάλλον ή υπό των εθιζομένων ηδονήν αντ' ευκλείας αιρείσθαι;"

"?28. Επιθυμώ τέλος, Καλλία, εξηκολούθησεν ο Σωκράτης, να σου αποδείξω και με την μυθολογία ότι όχι μόνο οι άνθρωποι αλλά και οι θεοί και οι ήρωες προτιμούν περισσότερο την φιλία της ψυχής παρά την χρησιμοποίησι του σώματος. 29. Ο Ζεύς, ως γνωστόν, όσες γυναίκες θνητές ερωτεύθηκε για τη σωματική τους ομορφιά, αφού συναντιώταν μαζί τους, τις άφηνε να μένουν θνητές όσους όμως αγάπησε για την ομορφιά της ψυχής τους, αυτούς τους καθιστούσε αθάνατους. Ανάμεσα σ' αυτούς είναι ο Ηρακλής, οι Διόσκουροι και άλλοι.
30. Εγώ επίσης υποστηρίζω ότι και ο Γανυμήδης μεταφέρθηκε στον ΅Ολυμπον επάνω όχι για την ομορφιά του σώματός του, αλλά για την ομορφιά της ψυχής του. Επιβεβαιώνει δε την γνώμη μου και το όνομά του, διότι και σε κάποιο χωρίον του Ομήρου υπάρχει γάνυται δε τ' ακούων τούτο δε σημαίνει "ευχαριστείται να τον ακούη" υπάρχει επίσης και κάποιο άλλο χωρίον του Ομήρου: πυκίνα φρεσί μήδεα ειδώς κι' αυτό πάλι λέγει "αυτός που είχε σοφές σκέψεις". Απ' αυτά τα δύο λοιπόν ο Γανυμήδης αφού πήρε τ' όνομα όχι ηδυσώματος αλλά ηδυγνώμων έχει τιμηθή μεταξύ των θεών.
31. Αλλ' επίσης και ο Αχιλλεύς, Νικήρατε, έχει παρασταθή από τον Όμηρον ότι περιφανέστατα εκδικήθηκε τον θάνατο του Πατρόκλου όχι ως ερωμένου του, αλλ' ως φίλου του. Και επίσης ο Ορέστης και ο Πυλάδης και ο Θησεύς και ο Περίθους και άλλοι πολλοί απο τους ημιθέους οι άριστοι εξυμνούνται, όχι γιατί εκοιμούντο μαζί, αλλά γιατί εθαύμαζε ο ένας τον άλλον και από κοινού έχουν κάμει μέγιστα και ωραιότατα κατορθώματα. 32. Και ως προς τ' σύγχρονα έργα τι γνώμην έχεις; ΅Ολα δεν θα εύρισκε κανείς ότι γίνονται από εκείνους που συνηθίζουν να προτιμούν αντί της δόξας την ηδονή;"



Ξενοφώντος, Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία II 13

"Eάν κάποιος επιθυμούσε το σώμα μικρού παιδιού, αυτό εθεωρείτο τόσο αισχρό όσο και το να επιθυμεί κάποιος αδελφός το σώμα του αδελφού του 'ή κάποιος γονέας το σώμα του παιδιού του".



Ξενοφώντος, Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία

"Λεκτέον δε μοι δοκεί είναι και περί των παιδικών ερώτων έστι γαρ τι και τούτο πρός παιδείαν"

"Μου φαίνεται και περί παιδεραστίας πρέπει να ομιλήσω, διότι και τούτο είναι κάτι, το οποίον έχει σχέσι με την αγωγήν".

(Παιδεραστία: O Nοητικός Έρως του Διδασκάλου προς τον Mαθητή, ανάλογον του σημερινού "Oι εκπαιδευτικοί πρέπει να αγαπούν τα παιδιά".)



Ξενοφώντος Κύρου Ανάβασις II,VI28

"Αριαίω δε βαρβάρω όντι, ότι μειρακίοις καλοίς ήδετο..."

"στον Αριαίο εξ άλλου, που ήταν βάρβαρος, διότι ευχαριστιόταν με όμορφα παιδιά"



Aισχύνου, Nόμος Aττικού Δικαίου - Kατά Tιμάρχου 12

"Oι διδάσκαλοι να μην ανοίγουν τα σχολεία πρίν ανατείλει ο ήλιος και να τα κλείνουν πριν από την δύση του. Nα μην επιτρέπεται σε όσους έχουν μεγαλύτερη ηλικία από τα παιδιά να εισέρχονται στα σχολεία, όταν υπάρχουν μέσα παιδιά, εκτός αν πρόκειται για τον υιό, τον αδελφό 'ή τον γαμπρό του διδασκάλου. Eάν κάποιος παραβεί αυτή την απαγόρευση και εισέλθει στο σχολείο, θα τιμωρείται με την ποινή του θανάτου. Eπίσης οι επί κεφαλής της παλαίστρας να μην επιτρέπουν, επ' ουδενί λόγο, σε κανέναν ενήλικο να κάθεται μαζί με τα παιδιά στις Eορτές του Eρμή. Eάν κάτι τέτοιO συμβεί ο επί κεφαλής της παλαίστρας είναι ένοχος παραβάσεως του νόμου περί διαφθοράς των ελευθέρων παίδων".



Aισχύνου, Nόμος Σόλωνος - Kατά Tιμάρχου 16

"Eάν κάποιος ωθήσει σε ασέλγεια ελεύθερο παίδα, να καταγγέλεται ενώπιον των θεσμοθετών από εκείνον που έχει την κηδεμονίαν του παιδός, αφού προηγουμένως αναγράψει στην μήνυση την ποινή που θεωρεί άξια για τον δράστη. Aν δε ο μηνυθείς καταδικασθεί, να παραδωθεί στους ένδεκα και να θανατωθεί αυθημερόν".



Αισχίνου Κατά Τιμάρχου 13

"εάν τινά εκμισθώσει εταιρείν πατήρ ή αδελφός ή θείος ή επίτροπος ή όλως των κυρίων τις, κατ' αυτού μεν του παιδός ουκ εά γραφήν είναι, κατά δε του μισθώσαντος και του μισθωσαμένου, του μεν ότι εξεμίσθωσε, του δε ότι, φησίν εμισθώσατο"

"εάν κάποιος ή πατέρας είναι αυτός ή αδελφός ή θείος ή κηδεμόνας ή τέλος πάντων ένας που έχει κάποια εξουσία πάνω στο παιδί, παραχωρήσει για χρήματα ένα παιδί, στην περίπτωσι αυτή, εναντίον του παιδιού δεν ασκείται ποινική δίωξι, ασκείται όμως εναντίον εκείνου που πλήρωσε και εκείνου που το παραχώρησε"



Δημοσθένους, Nόμος Σόλωνος - Kατά Mηδείου § 47

"Όποιος παρακινεί σε ακολασία παιδί 'ή γυναίκα 'ή άνδρα ελεύθερο 'ή δούλο 'ή παρανομεί εις βάρος κάποιου απ' αυτούς, να καταγγέλεται από οποιονδήποτε Aθηναίο έχει το επίτιμο δικαίωμα, στους θεσμοθέτες. Oι δε θεσμοθέτες μέσα σε τριάντα ημέρες από την καταγγελία να εισάγουν προς δίκη τον κατηγορούμενο ενωπίον της Hλιαίας εφόσον οι δημόσιες ασχολίες το επιτρέπουν. Σε αντίθετη περίπτωση να δικαστεί με την πρώτη ευκαιρία. Aφότου δικαστεί από την Hλιαία και αν κριθεί ένοχος, καταδικάζεται σε φυλάκιση 'ή πρόστιμο. Eάν το αδίκημα όμως είναι σοβαρό τότε να παραδωθεί στους ένδεκα και να θανατωθεί αυθημερόν".



Αισχίνου Κατά Τιμάρχου 16

"¶ν τις Αθηναίων ελεύθερον παίδα υβρίση, γραφέσθω ο κύριος του παιδός προς τους θεσμοθέτας, τίμημα επιγραψάμενος ου δ' άν το δικαστήριον καταψηφίσηται, παραδοθείς τοις ένδεκα τεθνάτω αυθημερόν, εάν δε εις αργύριον καταψηφισθή, αποτισάτω εν ένδεκα ημέραις μετά την δίκην, εάν μη παραχρήμα δύνηται αποτίνειν έως δε του αποτίσαι ειρχθήτω ένοχοι δε έστωσαν ταίσδε ταίς αιτίαις και οι εις τα οικετικά σώματα εξαμαρτάνοντες.]

"Αν κάποιος Αθηναίος προσβάλει έναν ελεύθερο νέο, να καταθέση γραφή (μήνυση) ο κηδεμών προς τους θεσμοθέτες (εισαγγελείς) και να ζητάει την τιμωρία του. Εάν το δικαστήριο τον καταδικάσει, τότε να παραδοθεί στους ένδεκα δημίους και να εκτελεσθή την ίδια ημέρα. Εάν καταδικασθή σε χρηματικό πρόστιμο να το εξοφλήση μέσα σε διάστημα ένδεκα ημερών από την καταδίκη του, εάν δεν έχει την δυνατότητα να το εξοφλήση αμέσως και μέχρι να το εξοφλήση να είναι σε κάθειρξη, ένοχοι δε για τις ίδιες πράξεις να είναι και όσοι τις κάνουν προς τους δούλους.



Αισχίνου Κατά Τιμάρχου 136

"Εγώ δε ούτε έρωτα δίκαιον ψέγω, ούτε τους κάλλει διαφέροντας φημί πεπορνεύσθαι, ούτε αυτός εξαρνούμαι μη ου γεγονέναι ερωτικός και έτικαι νυν είναι? Ορίζομαι δ' είναι το μεν εράν των καλών και σωφρόνων φιλανθρώπου πάθος και ευγνώμονος ψυχής, το δε ασελγαίνειν αργυρίου τινά μισθούμενον υβριστού και απαιδεύτου ανδρός έργον είναι ηγούμαι. Και το μεν αδιαφθόρως εράσθαι φημί καλόν είναι, το δ' επαρθέντα μισθώ πεπορνεύσθαι αισχρόν?Οι γαρ πατέρες ημών, οθ' υπέρ των επιτηδευμάτων και των εκ φύσεως αναγκαίων ενομοθέτουν, α τοις ελευθέροις ηγούντο είναι πρακτέα, ταύτα τοις δούλοις απείπον μη ποιείν?.''δούλον ελευθέρου παιδός μητ' εράν μητ' επακολουθείν, ή τύπτεσθαι τη δημοσία μάστιγι πεντήκοντα πληγάς'' αλλά ου τον ελεύθερον εκώλυσεν εράν και ακολουθείν, ουδέ βλάβην τω παιδί, αλλά μαρτυρίαν σωφροσύνης ηγήσατο συμβαίνειν?το δ' επακολουθείν και εφοράν φρουράν και φυλακήν σωφροσύνης ηγήσατο είναι μεγίστην".

"Αλλά εγώ, κύριοι δικασταί, δεν κατηγορώ τον όμορφο έρωτα. Ούτε λέω ότι είναι πόρνος όποιος είναι όμορφος. Ούτε αρνούμαι, ότι έχω αγαπήσει, και αγαπώ τα παιδιά?.Και σας διευκρινίζω, ότι το να ερωτεύεται κανείς τα παιδιά τα όμορφα και με ανατροφή, αυτό είναι μια αδυναμία που χαρακτηρίζει ανθρώπους ανωτέρους. Αλλά το να ασελγή κάποιος πληρώνοντας, αυτό νομίζω είναι χαρακτηριστικό κακού και αμορφώτου ανθρώπου. Υποστηρίζω ακόμη ότι το να αγαπηθή ένας νέος με σκοπούς ανιδιοτελείς (αδιαφθόρως), είναι κάτι το ηθικό και όμορφο?Οι πρόγονοί μας κύροι δικασταί, όταν θεσπίζανε νόμους για τις ασχολίες μας και τις ανάγκες της ανθρωπίνης φύσεως, όσα, κατά την γνώμη τους, αρμόζουν σε ελευθέρους ανθρώπους, αυτά τα απαγόρευαν στους δούλους?.Ο νόμος λέει ο δούλος απαγορεύεται να γίνεται εραστής ελευθέρου παιδιού, ή να το παίρνη από κοντά γι' αυτό τον σκοπό. Ο παραβάτης δε να μαστιγώνεται δημόσια με πενήντα κτυπήματα. Τον ελεύθερο άνθρωπο όμως, κύριοι δικασταί, δεν τον εμπόδισε να γίνεται εραστής του παιδιού, ούτε τον εμπόδισε να το παρακολουθή. Και δεν νόμισε πως αυτό είναι ζημιά για το παιδί, παρά απόδειξη καλής ανατροφής?Πάντως το να συνοδεύει κανείς παιδιά και να εποπτεύη τις πράξεις τους, αυτό ο νομοθέτης το θεώρησε σαν πολύ σπουδαίο τρόπο περιφρουρήσεως της καλής ανατροφής του παιδιού"

Right click and decode greek windows to see the fonts just copy the ancient quotes and present them to your professor....

Hellenes

[eadingas]

I've already answered about Timarchos case. The accusation was of being effeminate, not of being homosexual.
Same goes for your first quote: the offense, both in case of Phyloxenus and of Hagnon, a verse later, was _buying_ boys for sex. This was always considered a bad thing. In next verse, Alexander punishes Timotheus for abuse of women - using your argumentation that would mean Alexander wasn't heterosexual, either.
The quote from Lycurgus is well known - as a proof that homosexuality was accepted in Sparta, so I don't know what's your point. The third quote from Plutarch doesn't have any contex, so I don't know what it means.
I've checked only Plutarch quotes. I don't have time to read the rest, I'm not fluent in ancient Greek enough. "Translation" has nothing to do with it, the quotes from Plutarch you give say exactly the same thing in English translation, so there's no point in me making all this effort when I can learn the same thing from a translation. Besides, ancient Greek is not my native language - neither is it yours - so even reading direct quotes I have to _translate_ them in my head. You want to prove your point, use common language. Or better yet, stop spamming this forum.

[Valuk]

You guys fight over everything but i think that Prom started this thread over the quite accurate depiction of Macedonian armor in the movie and the possibility of using it as help for your Macedon skins and models AND not was Alexander gay or not, but if im correct there is a place for this kind of discusions on this forum ~:cheers: now shake hands and make up ~:cheers:

[eadingas]

Indeed. I'm not going to argue this anymore. I don't have time, and this has wasted too much of it. Go to General forum, and talk to people there.
We're not having Theban Sacred Band in EB, and homosexuals are only given as ancillaries here (with negative traits, too), so it doesn't have any real relevance. If you continue, I'll ask Khelvan to lock this thread.

[Byzantine Prince]

Again, Hellenes, just because they condemned something in one city-state doesn't mean they condemn in Macedonia. Polygamy is a good example.

I don't need quotes to prove that southern greeks 'might' have been practicing some homosexual deeds, all I need is the fact that for example Spartans weren't allowed to get married till the age of 30. Now be honest; who in the world can not have sex for THAT long?

The fact that Alexander loves Hephaistion doesn't mean that he's gay. The movie doesn't even hint that he's gay(you can only tell if you are greek and open minded). IT just portrays them as being lovers of eachother which is totally fine by me. They 'might' have had sex. So what? I'de rather him having sex with Hephaistion then with some dirty whore. Alexander still got married like 3 times. He definetly not gay.

Sure Alxander didn't accept young boy-slaves but he also for sure had sex with Bagoas. I don't really mind that either. But if I hear one more person call him gay Im gonna scream!!! Alexander is my hero and nothing, and no one can take anything away from what he did. If you Hellenes are a true descendent of Alexander then you should agree.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Indeed. I'm not going to argue this anymore. I don't have time, and this has wasted too much of it. Go to General forum, and talk to people there.
We're not having Theban Sacred Band in EB, and homosexuals are only given as ancillaries here (with negative traits, too), so it doesn't have any real relevance. If you continue, I'll ask Khelvan to lock this thread.
I would heartily concur, especially since this is one of the public faces of EB.

[Colovion]

Homosexuals should have a positive trait. Theban Sacred Band was probably more effective than the average unit simply because the homosexual tendacies of the unit brought it closer together and allowed the teamwork become less about JUST the unit and brotherly in arms and takes the existing companionship soldiers get and bind it with a sexual and emotional tie. This deffintely would create more of a healthy relationship between soldiers as they wouldn't only look after their partner in line because they were their friend and comrade but because they were your lover. Wouldn't you fight that much more vigorously if you were fighting with your lover at your side?

Regardless, I saw the movie the day I finished Alexander's Biography. Relating to that, the movie didn't falter all that often, the only problems I saw were mostly the battles or the lack of having more battles and character building. If I nit-picked at it I could find more problems but on the whole the movie treated me pretty good.

[eadingas]

They have negative traits in the same way as other 'lover/companion' ancillaries - they distract from duties, and can be used to get closer access to your general (bribe, threat, whatever). I think that's pretty accurate. Besides, this would only work for Greece, and only in a specific time period. Other factoins were nowhere near that tolerant.

[Byzantine Prince]

HAHA, I think every place in the world suffered from some sort of perverted form of homosexuality. I don't find it that repulsive except when it's effiminate. That disturbs me. The sex itself is pretty normal in my opinion.

[khelvan]

I don't mind discussions about ancient history, even if the topic is so emotionally charged that people feel the need to defend someone in a personal way, even though that person lived two and a half millenia ago. However, when those emotions lead to personal attacks, I will shut this down immediately. Discuss this in a dispassionate manner, or not at all.

[Colovion]

I don't mind discussions about ancient history, even if the topic is so emotionally charged that people feel the need to defend someone in a personal way, even though that person lived two and a half millenia ago. However, when those emotions lead to personal attacks, I will shut this down immediately. Discuss this in a dispassionate manner, or not at all.

~:confused:

isn't that what we're doing?

[Steppe Merc]

I think Colovion he's talking about some of the less mature posts.

[khelvan]

There have been calls to have this locked. I am simply stating what will cause the post to be locked, and that I don't think the point has been reached, yet. Consider it a warning, and a "no" to those people who think the thread should be locked right now.

[Goatsong]

Grimly trying to hang on to the original subject of the thread here, but also thought that the equipment (armour, spears etc) in the film looked pretty good (for a big budget epic).

One thing I would love to see in EB was the markings (paint/dye) on the elephants in the Hydaspes battle scene near the end. I assume these are authentic because you still see elephants decorated like this in Hindu festivals today.

Would such elephant 'warpaint' be appropriate for the seleucids etc?

[Idomeneas]

Indeed. I'm not going to argue this anymore. I don't have time, and this has wasted too much of it. Go to General forum, and talk to people there.
We're not having Theban Sacred Band in EB, and homosexuals are only given as ancillaries here (with negative traits, too), so it doesn't have any real relevance. If you continue, I'll ask Khelvan to lock this thread.

Good evening to all..
Hey eadingas. What kind of answer is this? When you run out of arguments you threat that you ll ask Khelvan to lock the thread? Is this the way to conduct a dialogue?
Im not trying to support Hellenes cause im also greek but cause im fed up to see people make conclusins about ancient greek society without even having read the prototype texts!!! Ancient greek is a language that is extremely compact. For one word we maybe need 5 modern words some time and still we re just close to the original meaning. That stands for modern greek that still include the most ancient words grammar and sound. Imaging with other languages that have less words less expressions less grammar less meanings.. Am i still not making a point? Oh! and this isnt just a so called nationalistic outburst. Its just facts. These texts you reffer are ''translations'' bring my some proves of your points reffering to ancient text analyse the grammar and etymology of the words and if youre right I ll salute you. Argues of the type ''i dont have time to learn greek/its not my language" ''i ll call Khelvan to lock the thread" are just for kids. Either engage with serious proofs or not at all.
Hommosexuals existed in all periods nobody denies this. In ancient greece also but it wasnt something acceptable. There were laws for this wich even extended to the abuse of slaves by their masters. The name ''KINAIDOI" is not without reason. AIDOS=shame KINO= I move, in free translation the one who moves(provokes) the shame.
It makes me wonder why some people find so hard to accept proves and facts about one of the biggest lies in history when on the other hand try to prove the ''technological and social advance'' of cultures that the equivalent word for philosophy, dialektiki, medical science, astronomy etc, would be ''GRRRRR''

[Gangstaman590]

Forget this post.

[Gangstaman590]

Back then it wasn't thought of being gay or being a "homo". A man and a man having sex was nothing big, they just did it like a normal thing, you have to remember things were alot different back then. Kind of weird how things are so different now huh. :dizzy2:

[Sarcasm]

Seems to me like, nowadays, 2 men having sex is nothing big, and viewed as a normal thing (or at least acceptable). Times havent changed.

[eadingas]

It's an answer of somebody who's tired with this debate. It leads nowhere if you have your own definitions of words, different than those used by respected historians worldwide, it leads nowhere if you use specific examples, which are well known (I have a whole chapter about Timarchos' case in my history book, so it's not something that's hidden from the world by some 'international gay historians conspiracy'), to counter statements that speak about different aspects of the matter. Of somebody who's forced to go through original texts because translations are not accepted, even if those translations are equal to what I can come up with myself, because I also have to translate these text to my own language to understand them, so what's the point?
And in the end, it doesn't really matter. You won't be convinced, I won't be convinced. You have your books, I have mine, you have your evidence, I have mine, and usually it's the same evidence, just different interpretation. There's no point in this debate, really.

[Idomeneas]

I wonder you found the facts for what you say on your own or somebody said it or wrote it and you just accept as fact? Even if homosexuality was a fact as in all periods, it wasnt something to be displayed openly and certainly not something to be proud of. If it was there wouldnt be laws to prevent it. In this point im saying that i do not want to attack gay people its their right to do what they want with themselves but im against in spreading propaganda theories in order to create argues like ''they did it in greece also''. There is not even one report of Alexander being gay but there is one of him being furious with a man who tries to offer him a boy saying by what right he offends him in that way. Many people comfuse the deep love between friends with the one between lovers. In greek there are different words for these kinds of love. The spirituall and sexual. Anyway Im not trying to be sovinistic nationalistic or anything but since some people do whatever they can to promote cultures wich the only things they offered were the dark ages i think i have the right to defend my heritage. And please god.. No more Hollywood ''epic'' pictures with greek themes. We will forget even the things we know...( see TROY) I dont know guys but lately i see that this kind of media propaganda is trying to distort or even rewrite history. You ll think that im saying stupid things. You see before 50 years some nice people in an X Yougoslavia state called Skopja started declaring that they were the true Macedonians and Alexander descendants (they ''forgot'' the fact that they are Slavs) and started spreading propaganda material, editing their own school books etc. Everybody in Greece were laughing saying that this was just some joke. Guess what the right propaganda and interests made USA legalize their name as MACEDONIA. They teach their kids now that they are the good guys that were wronged by the nasty greeks who stole their ''History''. They are comfusing their people with reformed school books.
So you see even little things even a wrong opinion being established in 50 year maybe will distort history. Thats why im so sensitive in that matters

[Gangstaman590]

Seems to me like, nowadays, 2 men having sex is nothing big, and viewed as a normal thing (or at least acceptable). Times havent changed.

I wonder if thats sarcasm?

Why do you think all that protesting went on for gay rights and stuff, because people wouldn't allow it. Gays weren't allowed to get married legally until a year ago? To me two men having sex is kind of odd, let them do what they wanna do just get me or any member of my family in that nonsense.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Even the most conservative members of any non-religious academic ancient-studies department in the U.S. (and I really only limit that to four or five hard core nearly fundamentalist ones) would hardly spend more than twenty minutes of their time trying to convince someone that the ancient greeks had different social customs, which allowed for homosexual relations given certain restrictions. It is not an issue. It does not mean anyone today from Greece must be gay or must approve of 'gayness'. It has nothing to do with today. They also were cool with slavery. That doesn't mean they were evil or that today's Greeks must in some way pay for this. The social custom had virtually no similarities to what people think of today when they think of 'homosexuality'. This is ridiculous to waste further time on. It has nothing to do with today.

[Idomeneas]

Even the most conservative members of any non-religious academic ancient-studies department in the U.S. (and I really only limit that to four or five hard core nearly fundamentalist ones) would hardly spend more than twenty minutes of their time trying to convince someone that the ancient greeks had different social customs, which allowed for homosexual relations given certain restrictions. It is not an issue. It does not mean anyone today from Greece must be gay or must approve of 'gayness'. It has nothing to do with today. They also were cool with slavery. That doesn't mean they were evil or that today's Greeks must in some way pay for this. The social custom had virtually no similarities to what people think of today when they think of 'homosexuality'. This is ridiculous to waste further time on. It has nothing to do with today.

I never said that im offended cause i m afraid that people would categorize today greeks as gay. Im offended cause some people (and yes even scholars can create ''grey'' areas) use ancient greek society to support and justify what they do in their personal lives or other interests. I clear that im not implying anything for the members here but im against the people who put those ''facts'' in their minds. Call them professors, books, sites or whatever.

About slavery issue yes greek was cool with that but slaves were not treated as animals but rather as servants who belonged to the house. Therefore was laws protecting them also from abuse. Unlike many societies n at the dawn of 20th century. Acts of cruelty were not recorded except Helots in Sparta (population control) who belong in a different category and some times war prisoners like the Athenians captured in Syracuses(acts of vengeance)
In normal conditions, if there can be such an expression for slavery, slaves were treated as todays gardeners, batlers or workers in fields with the exception that they had no civil rights.

[Byzantine Prince]

The fact remains that homosexuality is a recent term and does not apply to ancient greeks. Period.

IF someone calls Alexander gay then that's a mistake but I saw not such thing in the movie.

What the movie shows is exactly what was written historically. IT hints at some man on man sex but it doesn't go anywhere near showing it. That kiss between Alexander and Bagoas doesn't mean they had sex or that they are going to have sex. Also Alexander saying that he loves Hephaestion doesn't mean that either.

[Sheep]

Seems to me like, nowadays, 2 men having sex is nothing big, and viewed as a normal thing (or at least acceptable). Times havent changed.

Or rather, they did change, and now they are changing back somewhat.

[Goatsong]

Anyone round here want to talk about EB....units, factions, map etc?

[hellenes]

I never said that im offended cause i m afraid that people would categorize today greeks as gay. Im offended cause some people (and yes even scholars can create ''grey'' areas) use ancient greek society to support and justify what they do in their personal lives or other interests. I clear that im not implying anything for the members here but im against the people who put those ''facts'' in their minds. Call them professors, books, sites or whatever.

About slavery issue yes greek was cool with that but slaves were not treated as animals but rather as servants who belonged to the house. Therefore was laws protecting them also from abuse. Unlike many societies n at the dawn of 20th century. Acts of cruelty were not recorded except Helots in Sparta (population control) who belong in a different category and some times war prisoners like the Athenians captured in Syracuses(acts of vengeance)
In normal conditions, if there can be such an expression for slavery, slaves were treated as todays gardeners, batlers or workers in fields with the exception that they had no civil rights.

ΙΔΩΜΕΝΕΑ

There is no point of arguing about something that the other side is not willing to accept and has been taught in a certain way...
This is the link about the whole issue which is unfortunately in greek...

http://www.geocities.com/anaxfiles/forum/homosexual.html

Hellenes

[Byzantine Prince]

There is no point of arguing about something that the other side is not willing to accept and has been taught in a certain way...

ΑΥΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ. ΕΑΝ ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΕΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΣΧΟΛΕΙΑ ΔΕΝ ΜΠΩΡΕΙΣ ΝΑ ΑΛΛΑΧΕΙΣ ΜΟΝΟ ΕΠΕΙΔΗ ΚΑΠΟΙΟΣ ΣΟΥ ΛΕΕΙ ΚΑΤΙ. ΓΙΑΥΤΟ ΘΑ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΥΝ ΠΑΝΤΟ ΙΔΙΩΤΕΣ.

I hadn't written in greek in a long time. Oh well that was good practice. It's good to keep the language alive. I think you agree.

[hellenes]

ΑΥΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ. ΕΑΝ ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΕΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΣΧΟΛΕΙΑ ΔΕΝ ΜΠΩΡΕΙΣ ΝΑ ΑΛΛΑΧΕΙΣ ΜΟΝΟ ΕΠΕΙΔΗ ΚΑΠΟΙΟΣ ΣΟΥ ΛΕΕΙ ΚΑΤΙ. ΓΙΑΥΤΟ ΘΑ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΥΝ ΠΑΝΤΟ ΙΔΙΩΤΕΣ.

I hadn't written in greek in a long time. Oh well that was good practice. It's good to keep the language alive. I think you agree.

ΚΑΛΑ ΛΕΩ ΝΑ ΜΙΛΗΣΟΥΜΕ ΑΓΓΛΙΚΑ ΑΦΟΥ ΟΙ ΑΛΛΟΙ ΔΕΝ ΚΑΤΑΛΑΒΑΙΝΟΥΝ
I believe we should post in English since nobody else understands...
The wholespread position was alawys that homosexuality was established in Ancient Greece and was even supported while this is far from the truth Its pointless to try to change that since it serves the now established order of acceptance and multiculturalism and multisexualism...

Hellenes

[Colovion]

Hey you guys - where did you learn that? I'd like to as well. In my grad year I learned Anglo-Saxon Runes and me and my gf at the time wrote notes back and forth without the need to be secretive... I mean people would find the notes and couldn't read them anyway. Goood times.

Anyway, a few months ago when Alexander was released a magazine had an article in their newspaper concerning the Greek lawyers getting upset that Alexander was portrayed as less heterosexual as they assumed he was. Much to the rancour of some members on the forum I wrote the editor and got my letter published:


He wasn’t even from Greece
In regards to the article “Was Alexander Gay?” (Dec. 2, the Martlet) I’d just like to point out something that should interest those Greek lawyers: Alexander was not Greek, he was Macedonian. He was born and raised in a Macedonian culture, looked down upon by the Greeks as barbarians from the north.
Their culture was undeniably influenced by the Greeks, but in ways largely similar to our American neighbours to the south. We wouldn’t call ourselves Americans, would we? And how would we like to be called American thousands of years in the future? I’m sure that the Macedonians of today don’t really enjoy having their main cultural hero being claimed by some other southern state. It’s unfortunate that the movie didn’t portray this properly either.
Garrett McNeill
Copyright © 2005 by Martlet Publishing Society
Last update: January 5th, 2005

[Byzantine Prince]

Hey you guys - where did you learn that?
I grew up in Greece so I learned at school. I don't recommend you start now. It's very difficult. I don't think I would have learned if I didn't live there for so long.


In regards to the article “Was Alexander Gay?” (Dec. 2, the Martlet) I’d just like to point out something that should interest those Greek lawyers: Alexander was not Greek, he was Macedonian. He was born and raised in a Macedonian culture, looked down upon by the Greeks as barbarians from the north.

What ignorance! Colovion don't take any of that with a grain of attention. It's not worth anything. Macedonians are greek.

If you look at the architecture, language, religion, it's all 100% greek. Also their naems are greek. Alexander, Kassander. Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lisimachus. They all mean something in Greek.


I’m sure that the Macedonians of today don’t really enjoy having their main cultural hero being claimed by some other southern state.

No I guess the Slavs are better at being Macedonian then actual Greeks. Please Colovion, please don't take this guy seriously. He doesn't crap about greece.


On a different note. The Dorians came from what is now the Greek side of Macedon. So in a way all greeks are Macedonian from teh dawn of history.

[QwertyMIDX]

If only all Greeks were Dorian...

[Mouzafphaerre]

-

I don't recommend you start now. It's very difficult.
I learnt it in a couple months and can fluently read and write now. But for what? I don't know the language -- yet. ~;)
-

[Byzantine Prince]

Good for you Mouzafphaerre. It's a great language to know. In my humble opinion the best language.

Hehe I never noticed this before but your name means "visitor" in Albanian. That's a funny coincidence. Or maybe not...


If only all Greeks were Dorian...'
The Dorian tribe conqured all of southern greece and even some Islands. It's safe to say all greeks have Dorian blood.

Oh and the Spartans were Dorian. The Helots (or slaves) were the Achaians the original tribe of the Peloponese

[Idomeneas]

ΙΔΩΜΕΝΕΑ

There is no point of arguing about something that the other side is not willing to accept and has been taught in a certain way...
This is the link about the whole issue which is unfortunately in greek...

http://www.geocities.com/anaxfiles/forum/homosexual.html

Hellenes
Έλληνας είμαι φίλε

[Byzantine Prince]

Εχουμε πολους Ελληνες σε αυτο το ουμπσαιτ. Εχουμε και ενα απο την Κρητη και ενα απο την Θεσσαλονικι. Εγω ζουσα στην Αθηνα οταν ειμουνα μικρος. Τωρα ομως ζω στον Καναδα. Εχω νοσταλγια για την Αθηνα. Ειναι πολυ ομορφη πολυ.

Sorry if i sound choppy but i haven't spoken in greek in a long time.

[Meneldil]

Please, if you want to write in greek, do it through PM.

[Big_John]

lol, why should it be a PM? there are apparently several greek readers/writers in this thread already, is every post that's a direct reply supposed to be a PM? unless, of course, the mods specify that all posting should be in english. but that would be rather silly, imo.

[Idomeneas]

Guys I think i have to say few things about Macedonians
1 Macedonians were Greeks. They belonged to the Dorian tribe wich called themselves sons of Hercules. Ancient Greeks didnt reffered to Dorian expansion as invasion but as RETURN of the sons of Hercules. [There are theories that Hercules wasnt a man as we think but an office. There are tales of Hercules traveling all over the world, if we accept that there is some fragments of truth in mythology then the reasonable explaination is that Hercules were many people. The name comes from Hera and Cleos=glory].
The ancient greeks as known were divided in Dorians Aiolians and Ionians/Achaians. Macedonians were Greek tribe but leaving upnorth they were cut out from the rest and were not so advanced. That doesnt make them another race. In scotland highlanders were considered less scotish than lowlanders? The reason why all these misunderstandings occur is the localistic mania of Greeks wich never stopped tearing them apart till nowdays. Our worst enemies are ourselves. Athenians vs Spartans, Spartans vs Argives, Phoceans vs Thebans etc. Macedonians were dorians and spoke greek. A local dialect of Greek. Like Spartans and all others. Offcourse many ''clever'' scholars who propably were taking ''packages'' under the table found an argument and said that a proof that Macedonians were not greek was that they were speaking another dialect. BOINGGG!!!! :dizzy2: Guys i dare any of you who knows greek to visit Crete, Ionian islands, Cyprus and villages in Aitoloakarnania. If you understand what the locals are saying to you I ll buy you beers until you drop down. Im from Athens and spend 14 months as soldiers in Cyprus and still dont understand them when they use their local expressions.
If they were not greek show me one plate with writing in this Macedonian Language these people reffer to.
Another proof of great importance is the incident before the battle of Platea. Long before Alexander the great. [by the way the name means invicted by men]. The king of the Macedonians Alexander the night before the battle secretely reached the Greek camp and warned them for the movements of the persians. He justified this risky act by saying that he had no choice but to collaborate with the persians since his open land didnt gave him the chance to defend it against the vast persian armies, but his heart hurts for his brother greeks cause he is greek also from ancient generation.

Thats the facts guys and its in Herodotus histories. All the names of Macedonians were Greek and all mean something if some people like to see few different expressions and grammar rules as different language then can they please answer why they do not think the same for Attic and Dorian dialect? For the grammar differences and letter substitutions like ''i'' for ''a''? for example Ή ΤΑΝ Ή ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ = Ή ΤΗΝ Ή ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ
By the time of Alexander Greece was under Macedonian hegemony why did they spreaded greek culture and language wherever they go they and their descendents? They owed any obligation to Greeks (if they were another race)
Why Alexander slaughtered the greek mercenaries who fought him against helping the persians as traitors of their race when he was spearring the lives of foreighners?

And one last thing. Greeks didnt look upon Macedonians as barbarians(strangers) . That was a propaganda set from the athenian Demosthenes who hated Phillip and was trying to do anything to unite southern greeks against him. You must understand that greeks were extremely localists. Thats why Rome conquered them so easy. Half of them was collaborating with romans to overwhelm the other half and reverse. As an example of ''closer'' times see the conquest of Ireland by the English. Divide and conquer. Ypo think if greeks had the national feeling high the romans would ever stand a chance? They were close to face destruction with Carthage and king Pyros, imaging if they were facing a unite greek world :charge:

Now as for some people who so desperately try to steal history scraps from other nations just to justify their existance and guide their peoples minds away from the poverty and difficulties they are facing every day, i pitty them. They should be proud for what THEY have and if they have nothing great they should think how to create. They should be ungry with the goverments that are telling them stories just for propaganda reasons. Russians are slavs, Polish are slavs, Serbs are slavs and nobody can say that they are not great people with great offer in world culture. Why people from Skopje try to denie their origin i can not understand, but this identity crisis is not healthy. They should read more, paint more, write more, sing more, create more. Thats how history is made. Not by stealing from others. The worst thing from being a thief is to be a bad thief.

[eadingas]

Aaaaaargh!!!!
Where do you guys all come from?? Are you in a group of some kind that comes infesting all the forums about ancient history and strategic games with your Macedon vs Greeks feuds, or do Greeks and Macedons just wander at random around the internet? You had five posts at .org total, and you've already managed to find this thread. Nobody cares about your little quarrels except you and FYROMs. I was hoping that idiotic topic would stay away from EB forums, but it seems I was wrong.
It's guys like you who make it impossible to find any information about Macedonia on the web! WHO CARES? NOBODY. Have a war or something, just stop those pointless discussions!
Sorry, I'm normally a very peaceful and moderate person, but some things just throw me in a mad rage. It's like that 'were Dacians Thracians or were Thracians Dacians' debate. GAH.

Khel, if you feel this post is inappropriate, you can delete it.

[Meneldil]

Big_John, apparently, you haven't read that (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=39009)

Apart from that, it's a simple question of being polite and nice to other people. If you can't speak english and prefer to speak greek, then find a Greek RTW forum and don't bother us.

[Idomeneas]

Aaaaaargh!!!!
Where do you guys all come from?? Are you in a group of some kind that comes infesting all the forums about ancient history and strategic games with your Macedon vs Greeks feuds, or do Greeks and Macedons just wander at random around the internet? You had five posts at .org total, and you've already managed to find this thread. Nobody cares about your little quarrels except you and FYROMs. I was hoping that idiotic topic would stay away from EB forums, but it seems I was wrong.
It's guys like you who make it impossible to find any information about Macedonia on the web! WHO CARES? NOBODY. Have a war or something, just stop those pointless discussions!
Sorry, I'm normally a very peaceful and moderate person, but some things just throw me in a mad rage. It's like that 'were Dacians Thracians or were Thracians Dacians' debate. GAH.

Khel, if you feel this post is inappropriate, you can delete it.

And you are ''wandering historian''? Look man this is whats the name of the thread ''Alexander realism....'' its a discussion thread not stricly about the mod technical stuff. Since when we need conversation police? If you think you dont like the things were discussing then quote with real argues or dont quote at all. Infest the forum? whats this? we should say only what you like ?or send the mail first to you to censor it? Since were talking history here its not bad to set few things in their place.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

And you are ''wandering historian''? Look man this is whats the name of the thread ''Alexander realism....'' its a discussion thread not stricly about the mod technical stuff. Since when we need conversation police? If you think you dont like the things were discussing then quote with real argues or dont quote at all. Infest the forum? whats this? we should say only what you like ?or send the mail first to you to censor it? Since were talking history here its not bad to set few things in their place.It is the EB forum. Conversations that have nothing to do with EB (whether they start out that way or not) have relatively little reason to take place here.

[khelvan]

As I have said before, I welcome historical discussion. I do not welcome the introduction of political issues. It is beyond me why some people refuse to allow the people of another nation to come to their own conclusions about their past. I do not know why what someone else believes matters.

Regardless, conversations that turn heated over political issues will be shut down.

This was a discussion about Alexander: the Movie, and how it portrayed Alexander. There was no reason to bring the ethnicity of Macedonians in general into this, and no reason to continue this discussion. Kindly grind your axe elsewhere.

[Idomeneas]

As I have said before, I welcome historical discussion. I do not welcome the introduction of political issues. It is beyond me why some people refuse to allow the people of another nation to come to their own conclusions about their past. I do not know why what someone else believes matters.

Regardless, conversations that turn heated over political issues will be shut down.

This was a discussion about Alexander: the Movie, and how it portrayed Alexander. There was no reason to bring the ethnicity of Macedonians in general into this, and no reason to continue this discussion. Kindly grind your axe elsewhere.

I ll finish the issue here. I ll just say this. I agree that this is not the place for political discussions but i feel that i have to answer when somebody brings arguements with ahistorical basis. Maybe i got alittle carried away but im bored to be bombared from all media with these issues. Since i believe that this is a forum of people who not only love a pc game but also history, im extra sensitive when I read ahistorical things here. By the way im not completely new to this forum i just forgot my previous password, and certainly dont try to pass any kind of propaganda. Just the truth
thanks

[Byzantine Prince]

Ιδωμενεα, ολο που πρεπει να κανεις ειναι να posts spam και μετα θα γινεις full member και θα μπορεις να ποστς στο backroom. Εκει μπορεις να μηλησεις γ'αυτα τα πραγματα. Για τωρα ομως πρεπει υρεμισουμε.

Η Μακεδονια ειναι ελληνικη. Οποιος δεν θελει να το αναγνορισει ειναι ιδιοτης.

[Big_John]

Big_John, apparently, you haven't read that (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=39009)

Apart from that, it's a simple question of being polite and nice to other people. If you can't speak english and prefer to speak greek, then find a Greek RTW forum and don't bother us.
i have read "that", and it regards the default forum language, and says nothing about non-english posting restrictions, clearly. why is it not "nice" to others to post in non-english? and how is it bothering you? obviously, that poster wasn't speaking to you, or me, or anyone else that can't read that script (and even if he were, the bother would be his, as he'd get no reply). it's just silly for that to get under one's skin imo. but whatever floats your boat man, take it easy.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Ιδωμενεα, ολο που πρεπει να κανεις ειναι να posts spam και μετα θα γινεις full member και θα μπορεις να ποστς στο backroom. Εκει μπορεις να μηλησεις γ'αυτα τα πραγματα. Για τωρα ομως πρεπει υρεμισουμε.

Η Μακεδονια ειναι ελληνικη. Οποιος δεν θελει να το αναγνορισει ειναι ιδιοτης.Well, the least you could do, when bad-mouthing anyone who disagrees with your point of view, and doing it in another language where they don't understand, is to use a derogatory word that doesn't sound exactly like the english word. That was priceless! It's too bad BigJohn posted right after that post too, saying it's silly to let things like folks posting in other languages get under your skin, with a terrific example of why it is uncool right above. :laugh: I knew there was a reason to keep this thread unlocked: Entertainment value. :laugh:

[Big_John]

It's too bad BigJohn posted right after that post too, saying it's silly to let things like folks posting in other languages get under your skin, with a terrific example of why it is uncool right above.regardless, it shouldn't matter that it's not in english. the reason it's "uncool" is because he's bad-mouthing other forum members, not b/c it's not in english. if people are bad-mouthing me on an internet forum but i can't understand what they're posting, why would i care?

[Idomeneas]

regardless, it shouldn't matter that it's not in english. the reason it's "uncool" is because he's bad-mouthing other forum members, not b/c it's not in english. if people are bad-mouthing me on an internet forum but i can't understand what they're posting, why would i care?
Hi I just wanna speak on behalf of Byzantine Prince. Guys he is not badmouthing anybody in the forum. I understand that its not nice to speak in another language but the meaning of what he wrote is that we should cool down and that we can discuss these matters elsewhere. Relax. He used a general expression and didnt turned against you or anyone here. The only reason I wrote in previous mail that Im greek is for Hellenes to understand cause he gave that link and said unfortunally is in greek. I wanted him to know that i understand. Ok? no more Greek, just relax this is not the issue. ~:cheers:

[Byzantine Prince]

I agree no more greek. Too many people are jelous. ~;)

Back to Alexander. I think the battle scene in India is the best looking battle ever in cinema. The camera movements are beatifully suerved to show the incredible force of the elephants versus the phallanx. It was magnificent.

[Big_John]

Too many people are jelous. ~;)lol, that's as good a reason as i've heard so far :cheers:

so the question is, should i go see the movie on the big screen or wait to rent it on dvd? i'm pretty lazy...

[Sarcasm]

What´s wrong with multiculturalism and multisexism? (not quite sure on the exact definition of these terms..... :book: )

[Gangstaman590]

lol, that's as good a reason as i've heard so far :cheers:

so the question is, should i go see the movie on the big screen or wait to rent it on dvd? i'm pretty lazy...

DVD! Or television, well thats what I do. I'm lazy too. ~:cheers:

[khelvan]

A note on foreign languages. If I were sitting at a dinner table among friends talking about this and that, and I knew a language that only one other person knew, and we decided to begin conversing in it, if we said a few words and switched back to English, there would be no problem, and no one would think anything of it. However, if we decided to carry on our conversation in this second language, it would be considered very rude. There is no "rule" about it, there is nothing wrong with speaking in one's own native tongue, or conversing in a tongue one has learned.

However, etiquette suggests that when sharing a conversation among people that know a common language (and no other), everyone should speak that language. Otherwise, they should take their leave and converse in that language privately elsewhere, or in an area (read: thread) specifically for that. Again, there is no rule, this is simple common courtesy.

[Big_John]

yeah, that's the common idea khelvan, but for me an internet game forum is a very different setting from a dinner table, and the same rules of etiquette do not apply. no big deal for me, just find it funny to what some people take offense. à chacun son goût.

anyway, i'll check the movie out on dvd, you know they'll edit the crap out of it when it goes on tv.

[Byzantine Prince]

Definatly buy the DVD. The movie is not in theaters anymore. Not where I live anyway. If you want to see the amazing battlescenes as they were meant to be seen then you should watch it at the thaeter if you can. Otherwise just rent the DVD, but I have a good guess you'll like it so much you'll want to buy it like I will as soon as it comes out. ~D

[eadingas]

Well, the least you could do, when bad-mouthing anyone who disagrees with your point of view, and doing it in another language where they don't understand, is to use a derogatory word that doesn't sound exactly like the english word. That was priceless! It's too bad BigJohn posted right after that post too, saying it's silly to let things like folks posting in other languages get under your skin, with a terrific example of why it is uncool right above. :laugh: I knew there was a reason to keep this thread unlocked: Entertainment value. :laugh:

AFAIK 'idiotes' is not even a derogatory term in classic greek, it only means somebody who doesn't participate in democracy, so that sentence doesn't really make sense...

[Idomeneas]

AFAIK 'idiotes' is not even a derogatory term in classic greek, it only means somebody who doesn't participate in democracy, so that sentence doesn't really make sense...
Relax professor. He meant it in the post ancient term. Byzantine prince from what i understand is of greek origin and leaving abroad for many years. He does his best with the language there are people that forgot it at all (i know such people). We dont even use too much this term anymore, and he makes spelling errors. So what? if i dont mind and understand his difficulty why shouldnt you?
Just to set few things in place. By the way I dont think yourself know more greek than him so hold your horses. ~;)

[Legionario]

Apart from the "entertaining" part in this thread about "homosexuality" in the ancient world ( not only in Greece,but even Romans tolerated it...so...) back to the movie,i ripped the DVD and i thank myself for that,otherwise I would have spent in vane my money going to the theatre,the Film is not up to the Director's skills,he made better things,about what is of the most interest to us,the military stuff,well it looks I would say 50%/50% , sometimes the Macedonian army look like a bunch of peasants goin' around,with wasted equipment from random places,a bit too much I'll say... ~:confused:
the battles are nothin' special to be remembered.....
the first 20 minutes of "The Gladiator" ,apart from the catapultes,are still the best depiction of ancient warfare yet.....both technically speaking than emotionally.....
the Woad warriors and in general the Roman Army of 4th Century AD, and the Saxons in "King Arthur" are another very good depiction.......
with these examples in mind,I would not recommend Alexander to a friend of mine wich has an interest in ancient history in Films.....
I've been a good boy here not talkin' about Troy...... ~;) ( actually I felt ashamed for Wolfgang Petersen.....he was a good Director,at least...before that!)
Sayonara.... :bow:

[eadingas]

Well, Petersen was the director, but he didn't give the money for the movie, US producers did, so... I'm sure (at least I hope) if Petersen had a free hand, he would do a movie as realistic as Das Boot... which is pretty much as realistic as a movie can be :)

[Byzantine Prince]

sometimes the Macedonian army look like a bunch of peasants goin' around,with wasted equipment from random places,a bit too much I'll say... ~:confused: [quote]

They were peasants. What is your point? The soldiers themselves were nothing special. Most wear no armor bout just have a small shield and a really long pike. It was Alexander that made all the difference. Oh and the sarissa.

[QUOTE]the battles are nothin' special to be remembered.....
the first 20 minutes of "The Gladiator" ,apart from the catapultes,are still the best depiction of ancient warfare yet.....both technically speaking than emotionally.....

Watch that scene(gladiator) again. It's really really poorly made. The music drones on, and the director uses ennying slow motion to enhance the pathetic action. Also look at what they fight with. Romans didn't use pilii for hand to hand battle for christ's sake, lol! In Gladiator they DO!

Whatch the scene in India(Alexander) again. It's 100 times better. Gladiator looks like an amateur movie compared to Alexander. The India scene alone makes Alexander better then 99% of all movies out there. It's technical perfection. The camera movement is beautiful and the scenery is mesmerizing.


actually I felt ashamed for Wolfgang Petersen.....he was a good Director,at least...before that!
Sayonara.... :bow:
You are hillarious my friend. So basically you thought these movies were good?

# The Perfect Storm (2000)
... aka Sturm, Der (Germany)

# Air Force One (1997)
... aka AFO
# Outbreak (1995)
# In the Line of Fire (1993)
# Shattered (1991)

# Enemy Mine (1985)
# Unendliche Geschichte, Die (1984)
... aka The NeverEnding Story (UK) (USA)
# "Boot, Das" (1981) (mini) TV Series
... aka The Boat
# Boot, Das (1981)
... aka The Boat (USA: dubbed version)

The only one that is actualy held in high regard is Das Boot. I haven't seen it so I can't comment on it. BUT!, I'll let other people decide if they agree with you taste.

[eadingas]

Well if you haven't seen Das Boot, you can't really comment on Petersen :) He should have made only that one movie and stop there, the best war movie in history of cinema...(be sure to watch the tv series, not the movie) Although I remember I did thoroughly enjoy Neverending Story and Enemy Mine, too. Not bad movies, those. Something wrong happened to Petersen when he moved to US...

(correct the quoting, there's someting messed up)

[Idomeneas]

Watch that scene(gladiator) again. It's really really poorly made. The music drones on, and the director uses ennying slow motion to enhance the pathetic action. Also look at what they fight with. Romans didn't use pilii for hand to hand battle for christ's sake, lol! In Gladiator they DO!

Whatch the scene in India(Alexander) again. It's 100 times better. Gladiator looks like an amateur movie compared to Alexander. The India scene alone makes Alexander better then 99% of all movies out there. It's technical perfection. The camera movement is beautiful and the scenery is mesmerizing.


You are hillarious my friend. So basically you thought these movies were good?

# The Perfect Storm (2000)
... aka Sturm, Der (Germany)

# Air Force One (1997)
... aka AFO
# Outbreak (1995)
# In the Line of Fire (1993)
# Shattered (1991)

# Enemy Mine (1985)
# Unendliche Geschichte, Die (1984)
... aka The NeverEnding Story (UK) (USA)
# "Boot, Das" (1981) (mini) TV Series
... aka The Boat
# Boot, Das (1981)
... aka The Boat (USA: dubbed version)

The only one that is actualy held in high regard is Das Boot. I haven't seen it so I can't comment on it. BUT!, I'll let other people decide if they agree with you taste.
well i kinda like gladiator better. And those ''stop carέ'' scenes i think they have stylistic value reminding alittle of comic book. At least thats how i see it as graphic designer. Plus its a 100% fictional scenario so there can be no arguements like the ones for Alexander. I think that its very difficult to do biographical films of well established popular heroes. If you do it just like the books some will say ''so what''. But if you intend to change some things you better have some damn clever answers when you will be asked for.
As for the films above i can say that i ve seen all and like only ''enemy mine'' wich has allitle cult value. The others are just american stuff as we say here.
Just face it hollywood cares first for box offices and second to pass through some ideas according to the foreign policy of US in certain times. You know, bad indians, then bad russians, then bad iraquis, bad serbians,bad somalians, bad iraquis again and terrorists of all kinds. Only good American heros ~:) but again its their movies, maybe european cinema should be more productive. The good thing is that especially french commercial movies the late years are extremely well made. Maybe its good to a point that american directors are not so bound with history and what people will say but again its a double edged knife isnt it ~;)

[eadingas]

You sound like you might want to read (or have read? :) this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971394253/

It has several chapters on the topic of why US movies suck :)

[Big_John]

uh... remember, not all US movies are made in "hollywood". many great movies of are produced/directed by americans.

[Idomeneas]

You sound like you might want to read (or have read? :) this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971394253/

It has several chapters on the topic of why US movies suck :)
Hmmm... interesting.... You know sometimes i wonder do other people of ancient times had the same feelings about Greeks, Romans or in generally the great empires as we today have for US goverments?(not against people) I dont think that its so much matter of plain jealousy for their power. Anyway thats another topic. ~D
I believe that in nowdays people are more exposed to movies and grey propaganda but also more ''trained''. Alexander isnt the first ahistorical historical movie. But its the first people reacted so much against. For example in late 60s italian cinecita(not sure for spelling) studios produced loads of "epic" ahistorical films with greater mistakes but people were accepting them. My father still finds them fun. Maybe people could feel that these films were more innocent and the unaccuracies were only for better story plot and fun unlike these in nowdays where you can feel speculations and secret interests behind them. For example Troy made greeks looking completely jerks! Homer was Greek and was more objective. He praises equally the deeds of Achaians and Trojans. If a greek poet before 3000 years could be objective how a nowdays director cannot? whats behind that? ~:confused:

[Idomeneas]

nobody said ALL american movies are bad but you must admit that european movies lack big production usually but have more feeling and class

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I believe that in nowdays people are more exposed to movies and grey propaganda but also more ''trained''. Alexander isnt the first ahistorical historical movie. But its the first people reacted so much against. For example in late 60s italian cinecita(not sure for spelling) studios produced loads of "epic" ahistorical films with greater mistakes but people were accepting them. My father still finds them fun. Maybe people could feel that these films were more innocent and the unaccuracies were only for better story plot and fun unlike these in nowdays where you can feel speculations and secret interests behind them. For example Troy made greeks looking completely jerks! Homer was Greek and was more objective. He praises equally the deeds of Achaians and Trojans. If a greek poet before 3000 years could be objective how a nowdays director cannot? whats behind that? ~:confused:Oh, I was ten times more upset with Troy than I was with Alexander (and I wasn't particularly fond of Alexander either but can at least handle the "historicity" a little better). There were so many huge problems with anachronisms and religion and characters and plot and everything. Even the music was awful (the director had a score and abruptly did away with the whole thing a few weeks before the release of the film) compared to the earlier music recorded. And so much more disappointing given the importance of the story, the money invested, and the extremely high quality of the actors involved. But, it makes for a great discussion when teaching a myth class. Students love talking about how it was different and picking out the problems with it. So I guess the idea of 'any publicity is good publicity' is sorta true. Even if it stinks, it can get folks interested if they see it and want to find out more.

[Byzantine Prince]

Alexander is not an american film. It was produced by german and french banks. Also I like it way more because of it. It's not lame like Gladiator. Gladiator is too "family values" for me to like anyways. Not mention legionairs don't fight hand to hand with pilii!

[Big_John]

nobody said ALL american movies are bad but you must admit that european movies lack big production usually but have more feeling and classonly because of the volume that hollywood puts out. for every 'classy' and 'heartfelt' european movie that is made, there are several american movies just as good, if not better (there are several that are much worse too, of course). don't get me wrong, i like a lot of non-american (including euro) cinema. but america makes great movies as much as any other country, and other countries make their fair share of crap.

[eadingas]

Hey, I enjoy a plenty of US-made movies. The problems appear with movies like Troy, Alexander (though Byzantine is right, Alexander was much more 'European' in that aspect, with much more respect to the story and characters than usual) or even Lord of the Rings or Ringu, that come from the fact that US filmmakers take bits of other peoples' culture and do horrible - from our point of view - things to them. This is what the chapters in the book I quoted were about. I mean, just look at what Disney did to Winnie the Pooh...
Of course that's not only the case with US, Japanese for example also like to do that a lot, adaptations are what art sometimes is all about, but somehow, they do it with more style and class...

[Byzantine Prince]

There's nothing that says Hollywood makes bad movies. Hollywood churns out a very respectable mount of art movies every year. A good example is the movie Closer, which in my opinion is a masterpeace. Also let's not forget the masters Stanley Kubrick, Quintin Tarantino, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese and Brian dePalma. All Hollywood fimmakers. That's not to say there's no more but those are the most recognizable. It's not Hollywood that's the problem, it's the idiotic majority Amercan public who don't know crap about good cinema. Oh and let's not forget the idiotis European public. Europeans eat up bad movies as well.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

...Alexander (though Byzantine is right, Alexander was much more 'European' in that aspect, with much more respect to the story and characters than usual)Ah! What story? His battles, conquests, adventures, "divinity"? I guess that's the problem with a "biography" type movie. They're never that satisfying since they lack a true plot. Even one that dealt with his madness/desires and mother/father/divinity issues in depth can hardly excuse itself for leaving out his crazy trip to Siwah and Zeus Ammon where he almost died. Leaving out Gordion in that respect too is very strange. And more focus should have been placed on the decisions and effects of crossing Gedrosia to the detriment of his army than the movie showed. Anyway, so many problems. When was the last excellent "ancient" movie anyway? It sure wasn't "Druids/Vercingetorix"!! Maybe it was "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum". I can find very little to complain about in that movie and much to praise!

Everyone just keep your fingers crossed for the HBO/BBC series "Rome" this fall or next year. It has extreme potential at the least...

[eadingas]

The movie lasted over 3 hours! Of course it should have more stuff, but then they would have to make it at least a LotR-sized trilogy.
Last excellent ancient thing with moving pictures was of course I,Claudius, but it was a tv series, not a movie... If the series you mention were only made by BBC, I would hope for the best, but I'm kinda worried about what HBO participation can do with it

[Sarcasm]

I for one loved brothers in arms from HBO. Let´s not be pessimistic and cross our fingers.

Hopefully....It will have half of the quality BIA had.

[Legionario]

:-) Dear Byzantine Prince,you just keep your ideas,I do not want you to like the same things I do,I would be worried than...


They were peasants. What is your point? The soldiers themselves were nothing special. Most wear no armor bout just have a small shield and a really long pike. It was Alexander that made all the difference. Oh and the sarissa.

yes Alexander was a great general,but a great general with only a bunch of peasants ,as you say, would not go anywhere....now can you show me pictures of actully those period Macedonian soldiers?
I'm afraid not, so don't be so sure...;-)
In all the miltary revues and historical magazines the Macedonian army is treated as a nearly perfect war machine...and you are sayin' it was a bunch of peasants.... :dizzy2: ~:handball: well......


Romans didn't use pilii for hand to hand battle for christ's sake, lol! In Gladiator they DO!

again here,are you so sure about that? I have readings wich say they did...in some situations,against Pyrrus they were stripped of pilae and swords and were given long spears...you know sometimes it can happen... ~:cheers:
adapt to the battlefield...that's how it is called.... ~;)
and please be a little bit cooler with your comments,we are not tryin' to make a war between who likes it and who dislikes it,just thoughts.... ~:cool:
OK?

[CrownOfSwords]

As far as the Gladiator thing, its interesting on how the barbarians countered the Roman tactics there, they used their archers to force the legionnaries to go into a quick testudo and charged nearly at the same time to prevent the legionnaires from throwing their pilae, I dont believe they were marching into the battle intending on fighting hand to hand with them, but whatever happens.. happens.

[Byzantine Prince]

:-) yes Alexander was a great general,but a great general with only a bunch of peasants ,as you say, would not go anywhere....now can you show me pictures of actully those period Macedonian soldiers?

What about Atilla. He drove a bunch wild horsemen of the steppes to the heart of Europe. That would NOT have hapened without his leadership. Granted, he wasn't really a strategist, but then again he didn't need to be. And you see where Im going with this?

Macedonia's army was already drilled and well-experienced before Alexander even became King. Without his vision and talent though, nothing would have hapened.

So you see just because they were experienced and perfectly drilled by Phillip doesn't make them any more then what they were... goat-hearders and peasants.


again here,are you so sure about that? I have readings wich say they did...in some situations,against Pyrrus they were stripped of pilae and swords and were given long spears...you know sometimes it can happen... ~:cheers:
adapt to the battlefield...that's how it is called.... ~;)
and please be a little bit cooler with your comments,we are not tryin' to make a war between who likes it and who dislikes it,just thoughts.... ~:cool:
OK?

Pilae are not long spears. So I don't follow... sorry.

[eadingas]

Hey guys, if you complain about Stone's Alexander, read here about how the movie could've looked like:
http://members.aol.com/shockcin/alex.html
;)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Also let's not forget the masters Stanley Kubrick, Quintin Tarantino, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese and Brian dePalma. All Hollywood fimmakers.Sorry, but you're mistaken. Stanley Kubrick wasn't a Hollywood filmmaker. He was born in America but he made all his great works in England (many at Pinewood Studios) were he lived most of his life.


That's not to say there's no more but those are the most recognizable. It's not Hollywood that's the problem, it's the idiotic majority Amercan public who don't know crap about good cinema. Oh and let's not forget the idiotis European public. Europeans eat up bad movies as well.You're correct up to a point. There are however additional problems. Hollywood producers are responsible to steer films in a particular direction, namelly in to politically correct or brainless films. The projection of their films "educates" the population, like it or not. The problem is not the really great directors. They usually make interesting films because they have the power to impose their vision, but those common directors that sell themselves, as a way to get public notoriety, making crap films that are just fireworks without substance. The anything-for-money approach.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Hey guys, if you complain about Stone's Alexander, read here about how the movie could've looked like:
http://members.aol.com/shockcin/alex.html
;)Dude. I have this. ~D It is sooooo bad. Even the best copies today have lost all their coloring. But Shatner is Shatner, so it's interesting.

[Legionario]

Aymar you got it quite right about this


There are however additional problems. Hollywood producers are responsible to steer films in a particular direction, namelly in to politically correct or brainless films. The projection of their films "educates" the population, like it or not. The problem is not the really great directors. They usually make interesting films because they have the power to impose their vision, but those common directors that sell themselves, as a way to get public notoriety, making crap films that are just fireworks without substance. The anything-for-money approach.

Usually people don't like to admit this....
that's why I was so disappointed after Troy,at least Petersen is not a Rookie, so it should had a major hold on the script..... :embarassed:

For Byz...
as I told you a general,never mind how good he is, don't make for a useless army,also it's important who your enemies are.....so please look more carefull at history and battles,and you'll know why Alex and Attila got where they went....(Persian army at Gaugamela was a shamble of useless people,and Darius played it completely wrong) Attila never been confronted by an organised drilled army, and when it happened ..he lost..... ~:)
look at what you say here:


So you see just because they were experienced and perfectly drilled by Phillip doesn't make them any more then what they were... goat-hearders and peasants.

so they were "experienced and perfectly drilled by Philip" this make them VERY GOOD SOLDIERS in my opinion....it's your words.....
then
"any more then what they were... goat-hearders and peasants"...well Republican Roman Army before Marius,was recruited year by year,for when they were needed,they were mainly "farmers"..that means they were any good? So all the historians depicting them as the best organized army ever, are all that dumb? ~:)

if you don't understand this...no point in carrying it on... ~;)
enough.... ~:cheers:

[Byzantine Prince]

Sorry, but you're mistaken. Stanley Kubrick wasn't a Hollywood filmmaker. He was born in America but he made all his great works in England (many at Pinewood Studios) were he lived most of his life.

All of Kubrick's famous films are made by Warner Brothers, and I have the DVDs to prove it. So Im a fraid you're mistaken.


Hollywood producers are responsible to steer films in a particular direction, namelly in to politically correct or brainless films.

They do that because they make more money that way. When a movie has controversy it becomes too risky. So you see the people are to blame for not taking shances. How else do you explain Meet the Fockers making over 200 million dollars? It's the mainstream that's to blame.


so they were "experienced and perfectly drilled by Philip" this make them VERY GOOD SOLDIERS in my opinion....it's your words.....
then
"any more then what they were... goat-hearders and peasants"...well Republican Roman Army before Marius,was recruited year by year,for when they were needed,they were mainly "farmers"..that means they were any good? So all the historians depicting them as the best organized army ever, are all that dumb?

The problem I have with what you said is that you said they didn't look like great soldiers in the film. They looked like peasants because that's what they were. How else are they gonna look different? Were you expecting them to get color specific suits or something? Only few of them were well equiped and were the ones that were soldiers all the times.

No historians are not dumb, lol. Historians say they are the best organized army ever because they were so well drilled not because they looked cool as you want them to.

[hellenes]

For the Alexander movie I have to say only that the side to blame about this insult to the Hellenic heritage, is the modern Hellenic state and the people of Hellas who voted them...
Oliver Stone met E.Venizelos the culture minister and asked him to fund the movie, he of course denied because his (E.Venizeloses) mission (as the mission of all the administrations of the last 20 years) is to erase the Hellenic identity and neglect the cultural spirit of the people of modern Hellas...
So mr Stone went to the well known funders in Hollywood who spat on Alexanders memory and achieved the total humiliation of the ancient strategist in the eyes of the whole globe...
I just wonder whether ANYONE in Hollywood would dare to make a movie about Abraham whith the REAL story of incest and pimping his own sister/wife...
The case of the movie the Passion of Christ shows who has the power on this planet and whos not...

Hellenes

[eadingas]

You still on about it?
What was the humiliation exactly? How did the fact that Alexander kissed a guy on a banquet make him a lesser leader and conqueror? There is nothing in the movies that is not in the historical sources, and you know it. The relationship with Hephaistion is only slightly hinted at, no more than in the sources, and the kiss with Bagoas scene is straight from Plutarch.
The only thing that gets humiliated by this movie is puritanism, hypocrisy and homophobia of some of the viewers in the eyes of more civilized parts of the globe.

[Idomeneas]

For the Alexander movie I have to say only that the side to blame about this insult to the Hellenic heritage, is the modern Hellenic state and the people of Hellas who voted them...
Oliver Stone met E.Venizelos the culture minister and asked him to fund the movie, he of course denied because his (E.Venizeloses) mission (as the mission of all the administrations of the last 20 years) is to erase the Hellenic identity and neglect the cultural spirit of the people of modern Hellas...
So mr Stone went to the well known funders in Hollywood who spat on Alexanders memory and achieved the total humiliation of the ancient strategist in the eyes of the whole globe...
I just wonder whether ANYONE in Hollywood would dare to make a movie about Abraham whith the REAL story of incest and pimping his own sister/wife...
The case of the movie the Passion of Christ shows who has the power on this planet and whos not...

Hellenes
Youre right about that. Its true. They said to Stone that they cannot afford to fund him but i guess they can afford to fund their own pockets. And also be sure that it cant be such a movie as you said for Abraham cause it would hurt the religious ideas of the people who actually fund the movie industry. Mel Gibson tried to make an accurate film of the period (the only he forgot is that people back then spoke aramaic and greek not lso much latin) and they tried to eat him alive! Its cool to screw everybodies history(not only greek) but not theirs. I believe that in future movies, games and other multimedia stuff will be able to redefine and even rewrite history. Thats why i think that its very important the effort for this mod to be done as close to the facts as possible.

[Idomeneas]

You still on about it?
What was the humiliation exactly? How did the fact that Alexander kissed a guy on a banquet make him a lesser leader and conqueror? There is nothing in the movies that is not in the historical sources, and you know it. The relationship with Hephaistion is only slightly hinted at, no more than in the sources, and the kiss with Bagoas scene is straight from Plutarch.
The only thing that gets humiliated by this movie is puritanism, hypocrisy and homophobia of some of the viewers in the eyes of more civilized parts of the globe.

You mean that the fact that Alexander and Hephaistion look each other like lovebirds isnt strong enough as picture as an erotic scene? Yeah great Stone didnt said it he implied it... Thats the same for me. Its not about homophobia puritanism and bla bla bla its about truth. About what it is and what its not. What you expected? Alexander in red dress swinging his purse and shout '' hey boyyysssssss...''?

[khelvan]

Ok, this forum is not an area where people should be allowed to air their personal grievances against people of sexual orientation, gender, race, or nationality. If you don't want such discussions locked in the future, try talking about them dispassionately. Kindly stay away from bigoted bullshit. Thanks.