Sacred Band????? Carthage???

[Wishazu]

i allways thought the Sacred Band were an elite unit from Ancient Greece. is this true? if so, how come only the carthiginians can have them?

[Old Celt]

They both had military units called "Sacred Band", but they aren't the same units. My understanding is the Greeks named one unit the Sacred Band because of heroic deeds they performed in battle. The Carthaginian Sacred Band was a regular unit/branch of the army of Carthage.

[Byzantine Prince]

I still don't understand why they look more like greeks the then any of the greek_cities units.

[Kraxis]

The corinthian helmet is of course wrong, it is not only out of date but out of place. A phrygian helmet (pikeman helmet) or attic helmet (normal hoplite helmet) might have been the helmet of coice for the Sacred Band. But their formation and armour is fitting enough, though it is mentioned to have been polished white metal (it is metal that is at least something). I guess the corinthian helmet is there because the men wouldn't look armoured enough with a lesser helmet.

But these guys most likely fought as hoplites in a phalanx.

Neither these nor the Theban Sacred Band were the only ones, there were Sacred Bands all round the Med. It is just the famous ones we get to know of course.

[metatron]

The Greek (Sacred Band of Thebes) were a completely homosexual unit; The Carthaginian Sacred Band was the only unit allowed inside of Carthage proper, and forbidden to mercenaries. Only Carthaginian citizens could join.

[BeeSting]

Both were elite units. But the Theban Sacred Band of 300 was completely made up of homosexual lovers. I think the Macedonians had a hell of a time butchering every one of them.

[AntiochusIII]

The Theban (Greek) one were created by the great Theban general Epaminondas (sp?) and often led by his close associate Pelopidas. They are the 300 men - homosexual couples are believed to have a very strong morale as their brother-in-arms are their loved ones; fighting as Thebes' elite hoplite force. When they were first created they had the pleasure of defeating Sparta once and again. The last sacred band were destroyed at Chaeronea, however, by Philip II of Macedon.

The Carthaginian Sacred band were the sons of the Carthaginian nobility being offered as sacrifice to the state not as human sacrifice but to train and become Carthage's elite force as property of the temple. (of Astarte, I believe) Some of them are cavalry, which served in Hannibal's campaign, and were some of the finest he had.

I think the Corinthian helmet "resembles" Hoplite superiority so CA just use it to Carthage's elite infantry despite the historical facts that these cool helmets were abandoned long ago...

Though I doubt they look 'that' Greek in real life. Did they use white shields?

[BeeSting]

I think the Corinthian helmet "resembles" Hoplite superiority so CA just use it to Carthage's elite infantry despite the historical facts that these cool helmets were abandoned long ago...

Though I doubt they look 'that' Greek in real life. Did they use white shields?

I think they look horrible in this game!!! Although surviving references are virtually non-existent, the fact that they look like the hoplites of Greek classical period makes me not want to produce them--to avoid the rude awakening that this game is pseudo historical, if that. They should reflect the changes and advances that followed the Greeks suiting the Hellenistic age, and later moving toward the Italian-Greek influence.

Considering that Carthage gave up 100 thousand sets of heavy infantry armor to Rome at their loss of Second Punic War, I would think they would have had the resource to dress their elite units with most up to date armors in the latest fashion and innovation, which I'm sure were mainly of Hellenic influence. So, yes, they did look good…. But very different from how they look good in RTW.

[Aetius the Last Roman]

I'm pretty sure the armor they used was adapted to not only the central and western meditarranean but also to the cultural tastes of the Carthaginians.
I think it was wrong for CA to portray such a Hellenized view of Carthage's most elite unit.

[Wishazu]

im a bit gutted you cant have sacred band when playing as the greeks :(

[Byzantine Prince]

It's too bad Alexander killed them all.

[The Stranger]

Sacred band have the same texture not skin as Armoured hoplites the only difference are the stats

[Thessalos]

[QUOTE=AntiochusIII]The Theban (Greek) one were created by the great Theban general Epaminondas (sp?) and often led by his close associate Pelopidas. They are the 300 men - homosexual couples are believed to have a very strong morale as their brother-in-arms are their loved ones; fighting as Thebes' elite hoplite force. When they were first created they had the pleasure of defeating Sparta once and again.


WHAT??? HOMOSEXUALS??? WHO SAYS THIS CRAP?
Everybody knows that the ancient Greek ithicks did NOT allowed homosexual afairs... Ican't believe how this awful propaganda prevailed and everyone believes that the ancient Greeks (Hellenes) were homosexuals!

==================================================================================================== ===
:rtwno: PAS MI HELLIN VARVAROS :rtwno:

[Watchman]

I thought everyone knew they were. They're downright notorious of that. It's actually been fairly common in warrior cultures, far as I know.

[Thrudvang]

Who cares, really?

[AntiochusIII]

WHAT??? HOMOSEXUALS??? WHO SAYS THIS CRAP?
Everybody knows that the ancient Greek ithicks did NOT allowed homosexual afairs... Ican't believe how this awful propaganda prevailed and everyone believes that the ancient Greeks (Hellenes) were homosexuals!

Hmm... according to people around here they are, and I've read from several sources as well, though I can't remember where...

The Greeks accept homosexuality, according to many sources. Gays aren't freaks, so Greeks aren't freaks because some of them are gays. Though this is not my point here. Well, some easy way to look at it is to look at the Romans, they are tough and manly, no doubt, and yet many of them, Emperors included, several great ones like Trajan, Hadrian, etc, are gays. This could only be Greek influence since no sources claimed that Celts and Phoenicians are gays, or at least, very few of them.

My point, though, is that it creates strong morale and dedication that forms up an elite squad when the time didn't allow that much weapon-based advantage. No tanks to kill horses during those days. It was hoplite vs hoplite, so numbers and dedication means a lot.

[Byzantine Prince]

Thessalos is somewhat right. Homosexuality wasn't allowed in Athens and some other places but the Sacred Band of Thebes were said to have love for eachother. I'm not sure what kind of "love" they were talking about but Im sure it had nothing to do with them having sex. They had sex with eachother simply because they trained all the time and there were no women around. Other then that they would have kids and families.

[Watchman]

Look up those famous old philosophers and you'll find that their take on "love" would probably be a little much for many modern folks to swallow, if only for the element of naked misogyny included...

[conon394]

Thessalos:


WHO SAYS THIS CRAP

Pretty much every ancient author that describes the sacred band.

ByzantinePrince


Thessalos is somewhat right. Homosexuality wasn't allowed in Athens and some other places but the Sacred Band of Thebes were said to have love for eachother. I'm not sure what kind of "love" they were talking about but Im sure it had nothing to do with them having sex. They had sex with eachother simply because they trained all the time and there were no women around. Other then that they would have kids and families.

Homosexuality was not banned at Athens. The sources are fairly clear the Sacred Band were lovers.

Watchman

naked misogyny? Which philosophers are you thinking of…

[Watchman]

Idealization of male love, physical or "platonic", in warrior cultures has always had the annoying tendency of looking down on women just a little but noticeable bit more. And the Greeks weren't exactly egalitarians to begin with.

[Count Belisarius]

Those of you who are amazed and/or outraged by the "homosexuality" that was - dare I say it? - RAMPANT in ancient Greece need to step back and throw off your cultural shackles for a minute. The concept of homosexuality being "bad" or a "sin" is the product (mostly) of your Judeo-Christian-Islamic value system. The Greeks predated widespread knowledge of the Book, and therefore were blissfully unaware that homosexuality was "wrong". Think about that, take a deep breath, and read on.

Fact of the matter is, fellas, the Greeks (and Romans) often engaged in homsexual activity. Not everyone did it, but nobody thought twice about it. 100 years ago, if a woman showed her ankle in public, she was labeled a brazen hussy. Times change, and values do, too.

But the Greeks were less judgmental about it: they did not label people in the same manner as Westerners do today. These days, anyone who engages in homosexual activity is labeled "gay" or a "queer", or something even more unpleasant. Phillip II, a notorious womanizer, had dalliances with men, even periodic "favorites". Today, Phillip would be "bi", and other men (especially in the US) would scoff at his manliness. I'd dare you to say that to his face.

The Greeks had at least three different words that can be roughly translated as "love". Does this tell you something about them? Does this sound like an inhibited culture? Is it a coincidence that ancient Olympic athletes largely competed naked? Personally, I think it'd be great if Women's Beach Volleyball was a nude competition, but I digress.

[conon394]

Watchman

I'm sure it really surprise you to see me type I don't think I agree....

A lot of the actual philosophers and historians from the say the Hellenic era are very much biased toward Sparta, or rather an idealized Sparta. Historians have, I think been unduly influenced by these literary sources.

[BeeSting]

The percentage of homosexuals was probably not more than it is in Greece today, contrary to popular belief. The male-centered culture there now pretty much reflects how it was then.

Just to note: I noticed how male affection is viewed differently in other cultures, outside of US and largely protestant-dominated cultures. Bounds that other cultures cross with physical contacts and show of affection may easily be misread with sexual motives. But they are not! Hence there's a good possibility that modern Westerners may misinterpret what they read in ancient texts about the kind of affections between male friends. Like for example in biblical character of David kissing Jonathan and saying that his love is better than that of a woman's. Some would like to interpret that David and Jonathan, therefore, were homosexual lovers. But they’re looking at this from Western eyes, not knowing that it is not unusual in Middle East for males to hold hands while walking in the streets and kiss each other in public.

My personal opinion is that many Westerners are insecure about their masculinity for whatever deprivation, and confuse the kind of close friendship between males with sexual interests. The friendship between males could be closer than ones with the opposite sex, only because it does not have to be complicated with sexual passions. And the kind of physical contacts need not end up in confused places like in another guy's a-hole.

In regards to whether or not the Sacred Band of Thebes were homosexuals…. I haven't had the chance of looking into Xenophon's choice of Greek word for "lovers". But my guess is that he used the word “eros” (one of many Greek words for love), which pretty much assures their sexual orientation.

[player1]

Wasn't there some greek philosopher said that love between two man is more ideal, because there is no sexual attraction that infuences it (or something like that).

[The Storyteller]

I know the Romans had homosexual practices as well, Sulla, I think was bisexual. However, I don't think they were as understanding as the Greeks about it, and men who wanted to be appointed to high political office had to keep their homosexuality secret (as Sulla did, until he retired)

[Wishazu]

i belive i heard somewhere that there were no actual Theban sources to indicate that the Sacred Band were gay/homosexual or whatever, but that there were plenty of sources from the rest of greece. if thats so then maybe the Thebans never wrote about them being gay etc. because it wasnt a requirement, i dunno. Nice to see my thread spark a lively little debate :book:

[Browning]

Wasn't there some greek philosopher said that love between two man is more ideal, because there is no sexual attraction that infuences it (or something like that).
Platon, daresay. Love between men is closer to the ideal.

[hellenes]

Primary sources in ancient greek proving that the antient Ellines werent homosexuals:

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 decode greek*
the link:
http://www.geocities.com/anaxfiles/forum/homosexual.html

Hellenes

[Kraxis]

Homosexuality as we know it wasn't well thought of. Men loving men with sex and no care for women were despised.
When people found out that the Sacred Band had sexual relations with each other only and loved each other (in effect homosexuals) they were outraged. They wouldn't be outraged if it had been accepted.
The same holds true for the two men that killed a usurper leader at the beginning of Athens democracy (a rebel army was parading after taking Athens and these two men killed a leader). They were discovered to be homosexuals andthat was a major problem for people, for these guys were heroes.

At the same time the mentors did have sex with their pupils at times, and there was sex involved in the symposiums (private parties with music and drinking, no women allowed). But it was most likely not sex as we know it, you know through the rear entrance. Vases depicts the older men satisfying themselves between the legs of the younger men/boys. So sexual acts did happen, but pure homosexuality was as despised as late periods have thought of them.

And yes, we can certainly misinterpret the word 'love'. I love my best friend, and I'm not afraid of saying that, but does that mean I want to have sexual realtions with him? No, not at all. Most men also love their brothers and fathers, does that indicate anything else? No.

[conon394]

Hellenes:

I’m sorry to say my Greek is very, very rusty, so I have only made it part way thought your post.

But right off I see you appear to be suggesting that Aeschines 1 (or Aeschines against Timarchus) provides support the proposition.

Of the key laws Aeschines describes they protect children from abuse, protected anyone in Athens from hybris, and disbar citizens who prostitute themselves from a active role in civic life. As Aeschines argues repeatedly (1.29 most explicitly) is that that someone who sell themselves, cannot be trusted to not also betray or if you will ‘sell’ the state. Timarchus, is not on trial for having sex with another man. More importantly Timarchus, has been 'kept' by at least 3 Athenian citizens, who face no prosecution, nor any censure. Sure Aeschines goes on and on about shameful this and that, but it is no different than the language of Demosthenes in against Neaera, and surly you don’t suggest the Athenians thought sex between men and women was wrong.

Plato’s Laws are a description of an ideal state, not the ancient reality. The passages noted 8.840d – 841, do not, in my opinion, support the ‘no homosexuality’ in ancient Greece position. Rather they are clearly a reaction against actual practices and norms, see for example 840e his suggested sexual norm must be protected from the actual sexual norms that prevail among the Greeks and barbarians.

[metatron]

Wikipedia - Homosexuality in the militaries of Ancient Greece

The importance of these relationships in military formation was not without controversy. According to Xenophon the Spartans abhorred the thought of using the relationships as the basis of unit formation for placing too much significance on sexuality rather than talent. This was due to their founder Lycurgus who attacked lusts on physical beauty regarding it as shameful. Xenophon asserted that in some city-states the lovers would not even have conversations with one another. He said this type of behavior was horrible because it was entirely based on physical attractions:There.

[BeeSting]

What I want to know is: What kind of hard evidence do we have that even Alexander the Great was bisexual?

[Byzantine Prince]

He kissed Bagoas according to Arrian. I'm not sure if this means anything more but he was allowed to do whatever he wanted. When you are the ruler of the world you are allowed a lot of things.

[Kraxis]

No real hard evidence as if we regard everything sceptically then it just looks like Alexander was involved in a lot of conincidences.
But there is a lot of little things.

Even that though will make me believe he was as bisexual as the Alexander of the recent movie. He was most likely 'just' another Greek in this case.

[MAt]

The Greek historians probably would have wanted to portray Alexander as bisexual, it gives him an affiliation with that other most famous conquering Greek warrior hero Achilles, who certainly was bisexual. This would have been a PR exercise if nothing else, getting the citizens of Greek cities to embrace him as their own king and not as a Macedonian invader.

This sort of linking contemporary leaders with the great heroes of the past was a common thing to do in the Greek literary tradition.

As for Greeks and homosexuality, well... symposia anyone? Philosophical and political discussions followed by drinking and same-sex orgies, carried out by men and women. ~:cheers: lets not pretend women werent at it too, after all the word 'lesbian' comes from the fact that Sappho the female poet from Lesbos was a champion of same-sex relations.

And the Spartans... well being kept in barracks with other men, spending most of the time naked for the first 20 - 30 years of your life is going to do funny things to your sex drive... It was more strange not to have a male partner than to have one for a long time in Laconia.

As for the Romans, they weren't quite so keen on the idea. A bit like democracy and philosophy, being gay was 'one of those weird things that Greeks did'. Though obviously every sort of sexual perversion and fetish about nowadays existed then - Sulla had an intense long term relationship with a transvestite, although his wife didn't seem to mind too much.

[BeeSting]

And the Spartans... well being kept in barracks with other men, spending most of the time naked for the first 20 - 30 years of your life is going to do funny things to your sex drive... It was more strange not to have a male partner than to have one for a long time in Laconia.



Speculations!!! Not even based on real life experience. Have you been around naked guys in sweaty barracks for twenty years? Are you telling me then that under the same circumstance, you would have homosexual tendencies? In many cultures, it is common for men to not have physical contact with females until mid 20's, or until they are married. And in these same cultures, men are often put together in places where they are fully naked, like in public baths for one. Do they turn out to be gays? On the contrary, they turn out to have healthy sexual appetite for women.

[Byzantine Prince]

Ok well let's just assume that they didn't have sex, they were still doing pretty deprave things like mutual masturbation(which is not really sex). Now the from what I've read sex through the anus was considered a low thing to do wherever you went in Greece. It was the kind of thing you could only do with a slave and even then it's pertty dispeakable.

I beleave the Spartans had to masturbate eachother quite often when there were no women around but that doens' make them gay at all. It's not really sex.

[BeeSting]

Ok well let's just assume that they didn't have sex, they were still doing pretty deprave things like mutual masturbation(which is not really sex). Now the from what I've read sex through the anus was considered a low thing to do wherever you went in Greece. It was the kind of thing you could only do with a slave and even then it's pertty dispeakable.

I beleave the Spartans had to masturbate eachother quite often when there were no women around but that doens' make them gay at all. It's not really sex.

I don't recall reading anywhere that they masturbated eachother. Another speculation?

[drone]

I beleave the Spartans had to masturbate eachother quite often when there were no women around but that doens' make them gay at all. It's not really sex.
Why did Bill Clinton spring to mind while reading this post? ~D

[HarunTaiwan]

Aghanistan is known for homosexual relations between men..."a woman is for a children, a boy for pleasure." British troops on patrol were accosted by transvestites. In the book "The Interrogators" the author mentions that Afghan laborers would pair off on their lunch hours...

Supposedly this could be related to ancient Greek influence.

Now, could this mean the gay behavior really is behavior and not "genetic?"

[metatron]

Aghanistan is known for homosexual relations between men..."a woman is for a children, a boy for pleasure." British troops on patrol were accosted by transvestites. In the book "The Interrogators" the author mentions that Afghan laborers would pair off on their lunch hours...

Supposedly this could be related to ancient Greek influence.

Now, could this mean the gay behavior really is behavior and not "genetic?"Supposedly alot of the ME is. It's just accepted if you don't make a big thing out of it and have a family.

[Browning]

He kissed Bagoas according to Arrian. I'm not sure if this means anything more but he was allowed to do whatever he wanted. When you are the ruler of the world you are allowed a lot of things.
Brezhniev kissed Honecker many a time. Does this mean any of them was a bi?

[hellenes]

Its very sad to see the Hollywood darkness prevail over hard facts and evidence...

Hellenes

[Wishazu]

about the spartans being naked etc. spartans didnt just spend a few hours a day there to hang out with their buddies, it was their home. they lived their from about the age of 12. If you lived to be 30 you were allowed to take a wife, however you never saw her during the day. you were allowed to see her for a few hours at night then you were off back to barracks, this continued untill you reached retirement age of 55. As you can see when these men are spending so much time around each other and being actively encouraged to see women as objects purely for pro-creation, there was alot of same sex stuff going on. it was just normal behaviour in spartan military society, if 2 guys wanted to do stuff with each other nobody batted an eyelid

[MAt]

about the spartans being naked etc. spartans didnt just spend a few hours a day there to hang out with their buddies, it was their home. they lived their from about the age of 12. If you lived to be 30 you were allowed to take a wife, however you never saw her during the day. you were allowed to see her for a few hours at night then you were off back to barracks, this continued untill you reached retirement age of 55. As you can see when these men are spending so much time around each other and being actively encouraged to see women as objects purely for pro-creation, there was alot of same sex stuff going on. it was just normal behaviour in spartan military society, if 2 guys wanted to do stuff with each other nobody batted an eyelid

Exactly. They lived in a culture that absolutely worshipped the masculine ideal above everything else, they were bound to all turn out a bit strange. Plus I'm pretty sure from what evidence there is (obviously most of it isn't Spartan as they didn't write or make much) that we can say difinitively that homosexual relations were the status quo.

The thing you've got to remember about the ancient world is that a lot of the pro Judeo-christian morality that we have just didn't exist then. And most of it does exist purely to shame people out of pagan pre-Christian practices e.g.

St.Augustine taught masturbation was a sin - St.Augustine was also Egyptian and in ancient Egyptian religion masturbation was actually considered to be a holy act. By condemning it he moved people away from pagan beliefs.

Man I know too many weird facts about the world.... :dizzy2:

[BeeSting]

Exactly. They lived in a culture that absolutely worshipped the masculine ideal above everything else.

I see your point, but only through my modern eyes and limited experience. Hence, I understand how easily one could speculate your claims.... but again, it is only a speculation without fully grasping the Spartan ethos, which not only frowned upon, but made homosexual relationship between comrades illegal. This, we know for a fact--and the rest, unless we happen to come across some recently dug up manuscript written by Spartans themselves stating such hidden practices, we have no right to such claims. And I'll tell you what: You are pissing off a lot Greek nationals for saying that their noble ancestors were bunch of masculine flamers! For which they have every right to be upset about.

[BeeSting]

Aghanistan is known for homosexual relations between men..."a woman is for a children, a boy for pleasure." British troops on patrol were accosted by transvestites. In the book "The Interrogators" the author mentions that Afghan laborers would pair off on their lunch hours...

Supposedly this could be related to ancient Greek influence.

Now, could this mean the gay behavior really is behavior and not "genetic?"

Now, that's FUBAR!!! I'm not saying you are claiming this, but whoever started this fallacy is equally retarded as Discovery channel’s linkage of Roman coins with Roman soldiers in China.

As far as homosexual genes go, this too is not a scientific fact, contrary to popular belief.

[AntiochusIII]

Now, that's FUBAR!!! I'm not saying you are claiming this, but whoever started this fallacy is equally retarded as Discovery channel’s linkage of Roman coins with Roman soldiers in China.

As far as homosexual genes go, this too is not a scientific fact, contrary to popular belief.

I don't think he's claiming it seriously, Beesting. Though, if he does, he can claim about the Greek kingdom of Bactria.

Popular belief about homosexual genes? Is it really popular? I never thought so, nor did anyone I know.

Roman coins in China = Roman troops in China? That's retarded! Isn't there a whole big trading route called Silk Road where money and silk went back and forth between Constantinople and Chang'an? Though I've heard somewhere that the Parthians brought Roman captives from Carrhae to a Bactrian oasis when a Chinese general visited there and hired them. Though the story is amazing and unbelievable. So I don't believe it, just put it here for fun.

The Greek nationals are angry about everything "bad" about Greece being said nowadays. That's plain stupid because their "bad" are based on...Judeo-Christian-Islamic values, which are, very likely, an intentional opposite to the old "classical" values of the Greeks and Romans. I would've been proud to have such a colorful ancestry! ~D

Lol, Wishazu, sorry to turn your thread into a nice little debate with my factual statement from Xenophon...

P.S. Beesting, can I claim that you are speculating that the Ancient Greeks don't accept any form of homosexuality? ~;)

Oh I like this smiley ~;) ~;) ~;) ~;) ~;)

EDIT: For some people who thinks I may get all this from the movie, I'd say I never watched Alexander.

2nd EDIT: ~;) ~;) ~;) I think somebody tried to petition to ban this ~;) because ~;) is annoyingly ~;) to him. It failed, though.

[conon394]

BeeSting:


“You are pissing off a lot Greek nationals for saying that their noble ancestors were bunch of masculine flamers! For which they have every right to be upset about.”

Well if they want to be upset about the facts, that their own lookout, not mine. Setting aside the Spartans for a moment and exactly what they Lycurgus may have outlawed, and what was actual Spartan practice. The original point of departure for homosexuality was the Sacred Band (the Theban one). Here, the ancient sources are pretty unequivocal that in Boeotia and Elis, homosexuality was condoned and allowed.

The problem strikes me as one of trying to assert a single social norm for a 1000 or so independent city states scattered all over the Mediterranean, over a period of 100’s years. Even Plato (who certainly planned to ban homosexual relations along with a lot of other things in his ideal state) admitted that in some Greek cites relations between men were banned (Ionian) in other allowed unashamedly (Boeotia and Elis) and in other the state of affairs was complex (Athens) (Plato, Sym. 182aa. and also Xenophon Sym. 8.34-35, and Xenophon Const of the Lac. 2.12)

[Musashi]

I think it's perfectly fair to say that the Spartans probably had a fair deal of homosexual activity going on. All you have to do is look at any social situation where males are kept from women for long periods of time in any culture to know it's just about inevitable.

Especially when you consider the age from which they were brought into this system... We all know that such institutions as boys' boarding schools and youth prisons tend to have somewhat institutionalized homosexual activities going on, despite what the rules and regulations might be regarding them. That doesn't necessarily make them homosexuals, just pragmatic ;)

[BeeSting]

Antiochus:

Some people think that idiosyncrasies of cultures change as they are occupied or influenced by superimposing nations. But local cultural habits, unless they are completely dispossessed by invading cultures, will largely retain their ethos even under the shadows of their foreign masters. Even at the adoption of a new religion, an indigenous people will form it around the idiosyncrasies their former beliefs. Be it a thousand years past, habits of people are hard to change. So based on this nearly universal aspect of humanity, coupled with lack of hard evidence of homosexual Spartan warriors, I’d bet my left nut that ancient Greeks were no more homosexuals than they are today.

And…. Um… I’m a little uneasy about your many smiley winks toward my direction. *My homophobic tendency rears its ugly head*

[BeeSting]

BeeSting:Well if they want to be upset about the facts, that their own lookout, not mine. Setting aside the Spartans for a moment and exactly what they Lycurgus may have outlawed, and what was actual Spartan practice. The original point of departure for homosexuality was the Sacred Band (the Theban one). Here, the ancient sources are pretty unequivocal that in Boeotia and Elis, homosexuality was condoned and allowed.
Yes, we did drift quite a bit from the original topic, didn't we? But who other than Xenophon mentioned that they were homosexuals? Sorry, I'm not well versed as you are. Please school me.

[AntiochusIII]

Some people think that idiosyncrasies of cultures change as they are occupied or influenced by superimposing nations. But local cultural habits, unless they are completely dispossessed by invading cultures, will largely retain their ethos even under the shadows of their foreign masters. Even at the adoption of a new religion, an indigenous people will form it around the idiosyncrasies their former beliefs. Be it a thousand years past, habits of people are hard to change.

Though your theory seems reasonable in many cases. I think, after thousands of years, the Greeks in this case changed a lot. After all, Constantine's capital is in Byzantium, a Greek city in Thrace, a few days from the heart of Greece. And, contrary to popular belief ( ~;) hehe) Constantine is a ruthless man, and it is a reasonable claim that he enforced his pro-Christian policy stronger in Greece, which is, as has been said, close to his new capital, much more than in Italy, and Conservative Rome.

Besides, the ruthless Theodosius the Great, bane of all non-Christians, ruled from Constantinople.

And to add to all that, the Byzantine Empire is a very Christian empire, intolerant to any traces of ancient values left; and the Ottoman Empire, ruled from Istanbul-Byzantium, is a very Islamic one, as well. And the values in "the books" are very anti-Pagan.

After all that the Greeks must've changed a lot.

[BeeSting]

Though your theory seems reasonable in many cases. I think, after thousands of years, the Greeks in this case changed a lot. After all, Constantine's capital is in Byzantium, a Greek city in Thrace, a few days from the heart of Greece. And, contrary to popular belief ( ~;) hehe) Constantine is a ruthless man, and it is a reasonable claim that he enforced his pro-Christian policy stronger in Greece, which is, as has been said, close to his new capital, much more than in Italy, and Conservative Rome.

Besides, the ruthless Theodosius the Great, bane of all non-Christians, ruled from Constantinople.

And to add to all that, the Byzantine Empire is a very Christian empire, intolerant to any traces of ancient values left; and the Ottoman Empire, ruled from Istanbul-Byzantium, is a very Islamic one, as well. And the values in "the books" are very anti-Pagan.

After all that the Greeks must've changed a lot.


Damn it!!! There you go with that wink again… j/k

By the time of Constantine, Christianity in eastern and western part of the Roman Empire was starting to take two distinctive forms--Greek and Roman. The subtle differences were not only in theology, but also in the light of worship and church polity. And each kept the skeletal traditions of their local pagan religion/culture/government and fused them with this new dominant faith. Examples are numerous as there were many patron deities (now called patron saints) in Greco-Roman world. If you go to Italy, you will still see local pagan traditions that go back well over two millennia, observed nearly in the same manner as in the days of Campanians and Samnites. The Greek and Coptic Orthodox churches likewise can trace much of their present Christian practices and theology to their regional, pagan traditions and thoughts. The same could be observed from those who are of Mayan, Inca, and Aztec ancestry. Must I go on? People are hard to change, and wars were fought to prevent change from happening.

[Wishazu]

This is a fucking great thread. anyways, im going with the argument that homosexual behaviour or whatever you want to call it was allowed/practiced blah blah blah. Basically ive allways heard so much about it going on in ancient greece and allmost no arguments at all that oppose this theory or whatever that to deny it happened seems a little silly to me.

[BeeSting]

This is a fucking great thread. anyways, im going with the argument that homosexual behaviour or whatever you want to call it was allowed/practiced blah blah blah. Basically ive allways heard so much about it going on in ancient greece and allmost no arguments at all that oppose this theory or whatever that to deny it happened seems a little silly to me.

No one is denying it didn't happen. Just not to the extent as some claimed it to have happened.

[AntiochusIII]

No one is denying it didn't happen. Just not to the extent as some claimed it to have happened.

Wait a minute. Did you just think that I believe that every Greek cities in the Ancient World supports - or at least allow - homosexual activities?

Well, my bad. I don't.

Some really don't, but in the case of Thebes, I believe they do.

In Sparta, I think they do, as well. It was...as has been said, a masculine-worshipping society. Warrior societies like that tend to have some sort of homosexual activities...and Sparta is an extreme case considering their laws about man-woman relations. (No seeing each other in daylight til' 55? No humans, not even demi-god Spartans, can stand that without asking for help from their "friends." ~;) - again.)

Though if anyone wants to bring Plato as the source to claim that homosexuality is never accepted I'm going to kill him/her. That is because Plato is the very same guy as some today that always wear black in school and angry at the how the world runs all the time.

[BeeSting]

Wait a minute. Did you just think that I believe that every Greek cities in the Ancient World supports - or at least allow - homosexual activities?

No, our disussion was over Sparta.

[BeeSting]

In Sparta, I think they do, as well. It was...as has been said, a masculine-worshipping society. Warrior societies like that tend to have some sort of homosexual activities...and Sparta is an extreme case considering their laws about man-woman relations. (No seeing each other in daylight til' 55? No humans, not even demi-god Spartans, can stand that without asking for help from their "friends." ~;) - again.)

Again, where are the sources for this claim?

[AntiochusIII]

Damn it!!! There you go with that wink again… j/k

It's funny ~;)


By the time of Constantine, Christianity in eastern and western part of the Roman Empire was starting to take two distinctive forms--Greek and Roman. The subtle differences were not only in theology, but also in the light of worship and church polity. And each kept the skeletal traditions of their local pagan religion/culture/government and fused them with this new dominant faith. Examples are numerous as there were many patron deities (now called patron saints) in Greco-Roman world. If you go to Italy, you will still see local pagan traditions that go back well over two millennia, observed nearly in the same manner as in the days of Campanians and Samnites. The Greek and Coptic Orthodox churches likewise can trace much of their present Christian practices and theology to their regional, pagan traditions and thoughts.

Good point, though I'll stand by my old position that the "New Order" that creates the new ethic values that considers homosexual as "sin" has been shaped as an antagonist to the old Greco-Roman beliefs and values. Thus, homosexual isn't considered "sin" by Greeks, and skepticism about it is not in today's scale. Only individuals and individual city-states were anti-homosexual. A funny thing (don't consider this my serious fact argument) is that Zeus, in mythology, is a bi-sexual at least once when he sees a very beautiful young Trojan boy who became an immortal later on, serving as..cupbearer or something. ~D


The same could be observed from those who are of Mayan, Inca, and Aztec ancestry. Must I go on? People are hard to change, and wars were fought to prevent change from happening.

Interesting point about Mayan, Inca, and Aztec cultural survival. I knew that too, not in-depth but the surface.

Wars are also fought to bring changes, though, and "purging." As I said, by some faithful emperors who unfairly got the name "the Great" for those jobs. Why does Theodosius gets it while Trajan, Hadrian (gays ~;) Mwahaha!) and Marcus Aurelius don't? They were not the champions of the New Values that has been brought by Christianity... and possibly because two of them are gays...just kidding.

[conon394]

“Again, where are the sources for this claim?"

Which Part, BeeSting?

For the general totalitarian nature of Spartan society, the agoage system, etc
The key sources are Xenophon, Plutarch and Aristotle, and the comments of the Attic Orators (Demosthenes etc.). Xenophon is about as close to and actual Spartan source as you are likely to find. He was an ardent laconophile. As for actual Spartan sources there simply are none. What ever else Lycurcus achieved he certainly put Spartan culture (poets, writers, orators etc simply do not exit in Lycuracan Sparta) to death just as swiftly as the less than perfect babies his laws condemned to die on the slopes the Taygetos .

But in particular for if Spartan allowed Homosexual relation, you start to shade into judgment calls.

Depends on what your definition is. For Xenophon, who approved of both ‘Platonic’ pedestry and the supposed laws of Lycurcus (as he presents them), it was fine for a man to love a man as long as no sex was involved. But he denounces the fact that the Spartans no longer hold to the laws of Lycurcus in his own day (chapter 14).
So even in the idealized past Xenophon tends to think what we call homosexuality is fine as long as no sex takes place.

More directly in Plato in Laws (8.836 a-c and 1.636b) when seeking an example of states that reflect his preferred male/female only sexual relations model, is clear that Sparta and Crete do not provide such guidance (contradict it in fact). The cites of Crete being the only other place in Greece that shared with Sparta an agoage like system of segregated sexes. This tends to imply the agoage system encourages or at least enables homosexual activity, in a real physical sence.

[Wishazu]

No one is denying it didn't happen. Just not to the extent as some claimed it to have happened.

Sorry mate, i was just simply making a statement ~;)

[Calmarac]

Good grief, a thread about the Carthaginian Sacred Band turns into a 3 page debate on sexual politics :rolleyes:


Who cares, really?

Exactly, and why does it matter anyway? And if it really does bother you, you should ask yourself why it does.


Do they turn out to be gays? On the contrary, they turn out to have healthy sexual appetite for women.
So any other sexual appetite is unhealthy? That`s a judgemental statement based on morality, which is an individual matter. The period we`re dealing with thought slavery, crucifixion and the Circus were perfectly fine & civilised behaviour. People can accept that happened - but not homosexuality?


*My homophobic tendency rears its ugly head*
Ah. That may have been ironic, but otherwise it`s nothing to be proud of.

Seems to me that some folk go into denial whenever this comes up - "But I just love those big butch Spartans and they look so coooool - don`t go telling me they were Gay else I`ll end up all confused" ~D

[sheelba]

What a great thread. It is uncommon to find a web site were such things can be discussed without it just becoming an insult fest. I obviously need to re-read the Anabasis.

I think now we have sexuality, then they had "the flesh". To put a Roman slant on it all, Homosexual sex was banned between patricians and plebians during the second punic war. However, in "the Golden Ass" by Apulius (c. 120 ce), the hero describes a gay rape as just punishment for adultery. That way one man was punished, the other gain a pleasure appropriate to the crime against him. The hero himself is quite obviously not homosexual. But heterosexual sex with a slave is what leads Isis to abandon him. Transgression of social norms such as sex with those of another station, or associating with beggars (people the Gods had singled out for misery), was a much greater sin than homosexual sex.

If Plato isn't enough try "A History of Sexuality" by Michel Foucault.

For high Roman moral standards try "The Satyricon" (spelling?) by (?) Patronius.

Didn't every house in Athens have phallus on a stand by their front door? Whatever the ancients thought about sex, it was not the way moderns think about sex.

[Kraxis]

So any other sexual appetite is unhealthy? That`s a judgemental statement based on morality, which is an individual matter. The period we`re dealing with thought slavery, crucifixion and the Circus were perfectly fine & civilised behaviour. People can accept that happened - but not homosexuality?

I think you put words into his mouth. It is obvious to me that you can have an unhealthy sexual appetite for women, and you know what that results in. You should have considered that.

[MAt]

You are pissing off a lot Greek nationals for saying that their noble ancestors were bunch of masculine flamers! For which they have every right to be upset about.

That's rediculous. I dont think they really have any right to be upset about it, I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm just saying it happened.

The current Greek national curriculum covers ancient history and the sexual tendancies of their ancestors. I suggest you talk to some Greeks before saying things like that.

Interestingly Greek schoolkids are also taught that Alexander the Great had more in common with Hitler than Achilles (something to do with burning down cities etc... I dunno), and are actually discouraged from seeing him as a national hero.

[Maedhros]

I suspect the biggest challenge for Anthropology is seeing a culture through the eyes of that culture.

Without the lenses of personal experience or cultural experience distorting the light.

Never mind determining which tiny rooms in an ancient ruin were used for what.

[Maedhros]

Oh, and if this topic is still regarding the Sacred Band....

Right helmet or wrong I like them. They are expensive but very effective and reliable infantry. Excellent for taking wall breeches and bridges.

Also good for holding the center. I'm not familiar with any historical accounts of them so I'll not comment on their accuracy. Only their use and effectiveness.

[AntiochusIII]

Interestingly Greek schoolkids are also taught that Alexander the Great had more in common with Hitler than Achilles (something to do with burning down cities etc... I dunno), and are actually discouraged from seeing him as a national hero.

Oh, what a sad news I do recieve from you. How sad too that I can do nothing about this...propaganda.

Evil current Greek government seems to cause trouble everywhere! :embarassed:

One city in Greece - Thebes - burned down, and they say "piss that Macedonian Hitler!" He built much more than he destroys, in my opinion. Besides, that's how wars go. Romans did burn Carthage, and Corinth, after all... and remember Genghis Khan...

(Joke) They must've been very fond of the Sacred Band to call Alexander a Hitler for that! (Joke End)

Back to topic: Yes, the Sacred Band is my favourite infantry for Carthage. I believe they helps with nearby troops' morale as well, because I've seen somewhere in the text files about 'inspiring other units' as a trait or something for that unit, like many of other elite forces. Silver Shields and Spartans, etc.

They are unbeatable in cities and make unbeatable core of the main line, my loyal noble troops!

[Shadar]

If that slandering of Alexander the Great is true, i can't imagine why the Greeks would do that.

After all, even though Alexander the Great was an important part of the Downfall of Greece and its city states, they were already in decline for a long time from their Golden age.

And Alexander the Great is at least one of the most important people in terms of what he eventually did. He spread Greek culture all across and East in the lands he conquered, and i'm sure the world would have been a vastly different place without him being there. What he did though, was weaken Greece fatally by taking so many people and moving the east, but that was the crucial factor to spreading Greek culture all across the Persian Empire.

Without Alexander's conquering.. there wouldn't have been the cities called Alexandrias throughout his empire. Some of these Alexandrias eventually became some of the most important cities in the ancient world, Alexandria in Egypt being one of the best examples.


And i got no clue about how this thread managed to hover from being about the Sacred band to the Thebes to ancient culture.... but to answer about the homosexuality - homosexuality was definitely not viewed as a problem in many ancient cultures like the Greeks or the Romans. However, to be politically correct, the society promoted bisexuality, since many Greeks/Romans were obssessed about continuing the family line etc, so they would (however grudgingly), produce a heir in order to keep their property within the family. It was pretty much socially accepted to be bisexual/homosexual, as long as the men did not display "female" tendencies - i.e. be submissive. I mean look at some records in ancient Rome... beautiful slave boys were 100s times more valuable than beautiful slave girls.

However, all of what was said above would mainly apply to the "citizens" ranking of society, but then most sources available today from those times barely mentioned the lower classes at all, so this is not suprising. We don't have many DETAILED clues about the lower classes, and i haven't looked it up, but whoever got some more information can post it up ~:)

PS. Beware the dangers of Anachronism!

[Craterus]

Alexander The Great's Father supposedly had a gay lover
and its also thought that Hephaestion (Alexander's best friend) was Alexander's gay lover. Homosexuality wasn't a huge issue in aristocracy in those times.

The Sacred Band are one of the best infantries on the game in my opinion.
~:cool:

[conon394]

I think the supposed problem with being submissive, is to a very great extent a creation of modern scholarship (Foucault, in particular). The whole issue of Timarchus at Athens is a good example. If you accept all of Aeschines’ accusations, in the case to have Timarchus disbarred from active citizenship, he was prostitute as both a boy and an adult. Aside from the 3 Athenian citizens he sold himself to, Aeschines ticked off a series of others, foreigners, slaves, metrics, etc. In other words, presumably, Timarchus should have been completely dishonored. Yet he was a leading politician, for several years, closely allied to Demosthenes. Further, he eventually sued to have his citizen status reinstated (and won), even though it's pretty clear that nobody (not even his lawyer Demosthenes) disputed the fact of his 'submissive' role in homosexual sex. The key issue was always did he do for the drachma, or just 'gifts' (and/or showing that it occurred when he was under age, since that would also allow for throwing out the consequences of his actions in the sense of prostitution barring citizenship).

Also we have very, very little if any evidence from Boeotia or Elis, places that the Atheno-centric historians, and Philosophers always cite as places with a very open attitude toward male-male relations.

[MAt]

conon394> Yeah it's being "submissive" which was immoral. One of the vices in RTW is actually being 'submissive to the advances of other men' or something like that.

And a popular rumour/slander about Julius Caesar was that when he was sealing a deal with some king somewhere in the east (I forget which one) he actually clinched the deal by allowing this king to 'enter him from behind' so to speak. Of course Caesar always denied this.

Even in parts of Italy today you are only considered to be gay if you allow yourself to be willingly 'entered', the person 'entering' you isn't thought of as gay at all.

And as for Alexander the Great, I think modern day Greeks' perception of him is shaped more by the fact that they are a profoundly left-wing society that have only recently booted their king out the country. Any autocratic or tyrannical figure, good or bad is going to be talked down and be made to seem like a detriment to the history of Greece because of the current socialist political climate there as much as anything else.

[conon394]

MAt

Without really touching on ancient Rome an area I'm not so well informed on, I still think the submissiveness thing is over done. Anthropologists and Historians are all to ready to telescope current Mediterranean morality backward some 2000 or more years in time. So what if Italians or Arabs today think the penetrating partner is straight and the submissive partner is gay (and thus one is still 'manly' while the other dishonored or effeminate), they are neither of them ancient Greeks or Romans or Phoenicians or Persians etc.

Let me just note my post above, Timarchus was certainly submissive, yet as far as Athens cared the only important fact was whether he was a prostitute or not (and if he was an adult or not).

[Browning]

About Alexander...

If that slandering of Alexander the Great is true, i can't imagine why the Greeks would do that.

He had all the POWs from Tyrus crucified. 5000 brave men who just happened to defend their city somehow effectively.

He became just another eastern Despot, killing one of his best men for not regarding him as a god.

Sorry, I just cannot call him Great.

But I am no Greek.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

[Shadar]

I think that "killing one of his best men for not regarding him as a god" involves the killing in a drunken rage of one of his best friends, Kleitus.

According to both Arrian and Plutarch, who i believe from memory DO mention that event, Kleitus was insulting Alexander in order to start that event (keep in mind that both of them were already fairly drunk at this time, with them drinking large amounts of unwatered wine). Plutarch tries to excuse Alexander by saying Kleitus reentered the room AFTER he was thrown out by Alexander (or he left willingly, whatever way you interpret it).

However, you can't say that Alexander was obstinate in making the Greeks/Macedonians calling him a god (i did a research project on this a while back). Rather, he insisted on the process of Proskynesis, which the Persians and other Eastern cultures did for their king, but what the Greeks/Macedonians only did for their gods. From R.L. Fox's Alexander the Great, and from W.W Tarn's Alexander the Great, among many other eminent Historians on Alexander the Great discussing on this issue, an argument holding fairly large sway within the community was that Alexander was simply enforcing a ritualised custom in the Persian courts among all members of his empire (including the Greeks and Macedonians).

According to Tarn, Proskynesis was a Persian social gesture in which the rank played an important part in, and was used both as a greeting and as a ritual within the Persian court. When it was used as a greeting, equals kissed on the mouth, if one was slightly superior they would kiss on the cheeks, and if one was greatly superior, the inferior would blow a kiss, either in a bowing or prostrating position. Within the Persian court, all Persians performed this gesture to the king. However, the Greeks saw proskynesis as a religious gesture, as they only performed it to the gods.

And according to R.L. Fox, he defines proskynesis as kissing the fingers of the right hand, and perhaps blowing the kiss towards a king or god, while either in a prostrate, bowing, or upright position.

Thus, proskynesis was not "calling" Alexander a god, but was rather a custom that demonstrated reverence and respect for the Great King (the King of Kings, i.e. ruler of the Persian Empire). In fact Alexander did not request anything greater than divine honours (of which there were some precedents) during his lifetime (unless you're inclined to believe Arrian, Plutarch and Quintus Curtius Rufus, all authors of ancient secondary sources on Alexander). He definitely did not want to be called a god, especially by his Hellenistic companions. In fact, if you look at Fox, and his reference to one of the ancient texts concerning an incident of proskynesis between Alexander and his friends, you will see that Alexander did NOT require worship from his close companions. The incident involved was to make his companions pay homage to him by Oriental ways (i.e. by proskynesis), but were THEN restored to their former dignity by a kiss on the cheek from Alexander. Fox also argues that the proskynesis involved in this event did NOT involve anything greater than the blowing of a kiss and bowing to Alexander. I tend to believe Fox, but then i think he was a better writer overall compared to Tarn, Green, Hammond etc, so my view is definitely biased ~D


As for Alexander "the Great", this additional name was added on by the ROMANS centuries after his death. He never called himself "the Great", and most likely the Greeks called him Alexander of Macedon, or something to that degree. What the Romans wanted to do was to emulate Alexander the great and create an empire as large as he did. This was the reason for the many Parthian expeditions in the late republic and early empire. The Romans had conquered the lands around the Mediteranean, so they could call it Mare Nostrum, their own sea, which Alexander never accomplished. If they could defeat the Parthians and thus capture the old Persian empire, they would become GREATER than Alexander..



Now this time its my turn to be sorry for this lengthy digression from the topic ~D but i felt i had to clear a few things up.

[BeeSting]

That's rediculous. I dont think they really have any right to be upset about it, I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm just saying it happened.

The current Greek national curriculum covers ancient history and the sexual tendancies of their ancestors. I suggest you talk to some Greeks before saying things like that.

Interestingly Greek schoolkids are also taught that Alexander the Great had more in common with Hitler than Achilles (something to do with burning down cities etc... I dunno), and are actually discouraged from seeing him as a national hero.

MAt: i thought my voice was a little too strong.... my apologies if it offended you.

But I think you might find this article interesting (if you did not already know about this):

STONE TO BE SUED FOR ALEXANDER
2004-11-22 : 16:38:32

Alexander director Oliver Stone could face legal action from Greek lawyers because Colin Farrell's portrayal of the Greek hero in his latest blockbuster is more Alexander the Gay, than Alexander the Great.

The epic film has been panned in Greece because Farrell portrays the legendary warrior as being openly bisexual and enjoying sexual relations with younger men. Lawyers have now warned Stone and movie producers that a lawsuit will be filed against them if they do not make it apparent that the film is a work of fiction.

An extrajudicial note demanding that audiences be told in the title credits has been issued to studio bosses.

We are not saying that we are against gays. But we are saying that the production company should make it clear that the film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander? Femalefirst quotes Yannis Varnakos, the lawyer leading the campaign as saying.

There is no mention of his alleged homosexuality in any historical document or archive? Varnakos added.

Warner Bros have yet to respond and while Stone admits the film may affront certain cinemagoers, he is sticking to his guns: We go into his bi-sexuality. It may offend people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing.?

**Link Source -- http://www.worldmoviemag.com/index.php?request=News&key=648

[conon394]

The problem I have with following Tarn, or Lane in particular is they are rather over sympathetic to Alexander. If you read Bosworth or Ian Worthington, you certainly will not find the same kind of minimization of either the Kleitus incident or the issue of proskynesis.

I don't really find the ideal that the proskynesis was just being misunderstood by the Greeks (Macedonians inclusive) very persuasive. After all Alexander was Macedonian, not Persian, he would have been completely aware of what connotations the proskynesis would have for the Greeks and Macedonians.

Alexander really had no constitutional basis for such actions. The argument with Kleitius seems to me to be indicative of the fact that the king of Macedon was first among equals within the Macedonian aristocracy, not an oriental despot. For the Greeks he was merely the leader of the league of Corinth (or for Thessaly in particular the elected tagus) and had no legal right (aside from right of force) to demand the proskynesis.

Even Alexander’s paid professional propagandist (Callisthenes), was unwilling to offer the proskynesis, and provided a very public refutation of the whole ideal as irreligious (presumably that is why he was later executed).

[conon394]

BeeSting

A bit of a silly lawsuit

True according to whom? If they don't like Stone's version, I wonder what they would say about a version made a contemporary (allow the fantasy here) say, Demosthenes, or Hyperides...

[BeeSting]

BeeSting

A bit of a silly lawsuit

True according to whom? If they don't like Stone's version, I wonder what they would say about a version made a contemporary (allow the fantasy here) say, Demosthenes, or Hyperides...

i agree... but I am not a Greek.

[Browning]

Yes, but the fact that the movie is a pure fiction cannot be disputed.

[Shadar]

There were no such things as "constitutions" in those days. Thus nothing can be "constitutional" (same old argument. There was only traditions and traditions do change over time)

Unlike the arrogant Greeks and Macedonians, i think that Alexander truly understood the standing of the situation at that time. Being completely outnumbered in both numbers and power if the people living within the Persian empire had revolted against Alexander wouldn't have turned out nicely.

Alexander at least tried to compensate for the probably tension by producing a compromise, something which the Greeks and Macedonians did not understand. The tension was in history, and Alexander probably knew about what happens when a minority attempts to enforce rule over a massive empire - after all, he exploited the tensions between Darius and his Satraps in conquering his great empire.


On Alexander's position as a monarch, he was chosen and acclaimed by the ARMY, not by the nobles of his lands although they were within the army. And remember that Alexander still had support of his army at this time, they didn't revolt until later in his campaigns in India.

[conon394]

There were no such things as "constitutions" in those days. Thus nothing can be "constitutional" (same old argument. There was only traditions and traditions do change over time)

Well I have to disagree, considering we have a huge mass of source material for Athens in particular which suggests that the critics of the democracy were using as one of their key arguments a return to the ancestral constitution. Also the 4th century saw any number of political organizations (Second Athenian League, the Beoetian Federation) that had very clear ‘constitution’ structures.

Historians like maps of a Macedonian empire, but a Philips time of Philip’s death there was no ‘Macedonian Empire’. Philip controlled Macedonian and the surrounding areas as King. He was the Elected Tagus of Thessaly. Macedonian was also the Hegamon of the League of Corinth. That league includes both his free Allies (Messene, Argos, Megalopolis etc, and Former enemies like Athens), but certainly did not allow either interference in their internal affairs or the imposition of a proskynesis to Alexander as ‘King of Asia’


Alexander at least tried to compensate for the probably tension by producing a compromise, something which the Greeks and Macedonians did not understand. The tension was in history, and Alexander probably knew about what happens when a minority attempts to enforce rule over a massive empire - after all, he exploited the tensions between Darius and his Satraps in conquering his great empire.

My point was that Alexander was exceeding his mandate in taking over the rule of Persian, and far exceeding it by forcing his soldiers and Greeks allies to settle in Persia, marry Persians, or accept him as in effect the new Persian Emperor. Why assume he had to rule anyone. Why not enroll the various states and peoples of the Persian Empire into the league of Corinth, all with their autonomy guaranteed by Macedonia? Once the Achaemenid Dynasts were defeated he had in effect done the job he was authorized to by the League.