Org Mobile Site
Thread: history fact
if im not allowed to say this word in the monastery than im sorry, here's the fact.
Recently i saw a movie, and it showed a fact i never knew before, alexander the great was gay.............yes it is true
heres a roman military fact, the gold crown or leaf crown(somthing like that???) was given to a infantry man who was first up a enemy wall and survived the battle.
Recently i saw a movie, and it showed a fact i never knew before, alexander the great was gay.............yes it is true
heres a roman military fact, the gold crown or leaf crown(somthing like that???) was given to a infantry man who was first up a enemy wall and survived the battle.
http://www.unrv.com/military/legionary-decorations.php
Check that site for more info on military decorations of Rome. The one you're talking about is the Corona Muralis (wall crown, when getting first in a besieged city) or Vallaris (when assaulting a fort).
As for Alexander... He lived 2300 years ago, had no heir, two (maybe three) wives, and a lifelong companion in the form of Hephaestion. It's a bit difficult in my opinion to declare whether he was homosexual or not. And it's a bad idea to trust a movie (I assume it's not a documentary you saw) upon these matters. Which movie was it?
Also, does it matter? I think it's more his achievements that matter.
Check that site for more info on military decorations of Rome. The one you're talking about is the Corona Muralis (wall crown, when getting first in a besieged city) or Vallaris (when assaulting a fort).
As for Alexander... He lived 2300 years ago, had no heir, two (maybe three) wives, and a lifelong companion in the form of Hephaestion. It's a bit difficult in my opinion to declare whether he was homosexual or not. And it's a bad idea to trust a movie (I assume it's not a documentary you saw) upon these matters. Which movie was it?
Also, does it matter? I think it's more his achievements that matter.
More over, the concept of homosexuality as it's currently understood in our civilization did not exist in the time of Alexander. It's a little bit like calling him a war criminal; certainly his actions would match the definition but no one from his period would even understand what you meant or see the purpose in describing him so.
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus:
http://www.unrv.com/military/legionary-decorations.php
Check that site for more info on military decorations of Rome. The one you're talking about is the Corona Muralis (wall crown, when getting first in a besieged city) or Vallaris (when assaulting a fort).
As for Alexander... He lived 2300 years ago, had no heir, two (maybe three) wives, and a lifelong companion in the form of Hephaestion. It's a bit difficult in my opinion to declare whether he was homosexual or not. And it's a bad idea to trust a movie (I assume it's not a documentary you saw) upon these matters. Which movie was it?
Also, does it matter? I think it's more his achievements that matter.
http://www.unrv.com/military/legionary-decorations.php
Check that site for more info on military decorations of Rome. The one you're talking about is the Corona Muralis (wall crown, when getting first in a besieged city) or Vallaris (when assaulting a fort).
As for Alexander... He lived 2300 years ago, had no heir, two (maybe three) wives, and a lifelong companion in the form of Hephaestion. It's a bit difficult in my opinion to declare whether he was homosexual or not. And it's a bad idea to trust a movie (I assume it's not a documentary you saw) upon these matters. Which movie was it?
Also, does it matter? I think it's more his achievements that matter.
Actually he had a heir, when he died his wife Roxanne was pregnant. The boy was murdered along with his mother by Cassander, at the age of twelve.
About the gay business, i am not putting myself into the debate. Just wanting to say that homosexuals in antiquity were not like we see them today.
Sulla got a grass crown, I think, from his legions. Was it during his campaign against Italia? I'm not sure.
The Greeks of antiquity did not regard homosexuality with the taboo we do today-- one of the theories about the death of Phillip II revolves around a jealous male former lover, for example.
So by your reckoning, the Crusades never happened, the Mongol Empire was a fiction invented by fanciful Mongolian nationalists, and George Washington didn't really fight against the British, is that it?
It certainly seems so, from your posts. An amount of skepticism is always welcome, nay, essential to the study of history, but I find your superior sneering at everything very condescending.
The Greeks of antiquity did not regard homosexuality with the taboo we do today-- one of the theories about the death of Phillip II revolves around a jealous male former lover, for example.
So by your reckoning, the Crusades never happened, the Mongol Empire was a fiction invented by fanciful Mongolian nationalists, and George Washington didn't really fight against the British, is that it?
It certainly seems so, from your posts. An amount of skepticism is always welcome, nay, essential to the study of history, but I find your superior sneering at everything very condescending.
Originally Posted by Quirinus:
So by your reckoning, the Crusades never happened, the Mongol Empire was a fiction invented by fanciful Mongolian nationalists, and George Washington didn't really fight against the British, is that it?
It certainly seems so, from your posts. An amount of skepticism is always welcome, nay, essential to the study of history, but I find your superior sneering at everything very condescending.
Now, you did bother to read the "facts" in the OP, did you?So by your reckoning, the Crusades never happened, the Mongol Empire was a fiction invented by fanciful Mongolian nationalists, and George Washington didn't really fight against the British, is that it?
It certainly seems so, from your posts. An amount of skepticism is always welcome, nay, essential to the study of history, but I find your superior sneering at everything very condescending.
Alexander was probably 'gay' in the factual sense that he slept with men (probably younger men), but he wasn't gay in the normative usage of the word. It wasn't until Victorian times that homosexuality became such a social taboo. So while Alexander slept with men, he wasn't a homosexual in the way that we would look at it. Many historical figures took male (as well as female) lovers. Edward II immediately springs to mind.
Alexander wasn't homosexual, he was bisexual.
Surely it depends how you class 'bisexual'?
If it's 'sleeps with men and women' then i graciously concede. If it's 'finds men and women sexually attractive' that's much harder to prove. I don't know enough to say whether Alexander 'was sexually attracted to' Hepthasion, but from what I can gather they were close friends who 'happened' to have sex, they weren't 'lovers' in the sense we (I) would use the phrase.
If it's 'sleeps with men and women' then i graciously concede. If it's 'finds men and women sexually attractive' that's much harder to prove. I don't know enough to say whether Alexander 'was sexually attracted to' Hepthasion, but from what I can gather they were close friends who 'happened' to have sex, they weren't 'lovers' in the sense we (I) would use the phrase.
OMG it is so discover. It is well known that Alexander likes boys and he got wife because he need son.
Or maybe he married Roxanne because he loved her?
Seriously, for the mightiest man in the world, she wasn't really a perfect bride, love's a viable option for his marriage (and don't forget he married other wom(a)en as well.)
I'd rate him as bisexual in a sense that most Greek men of his time were.
Seriously, for the mightiest man in the world, she wasn't really a perfect bride, love's a viable option for his marriage (and don't forget he married other wom(a)en as well.)
I'd rate him as bisexual in a sense that most Greek men of his time were.
Alexander also married Darius' daughter....
Eh, old man Philip already had a wife for about each finger; typically ranking aristocrats from the families of assorted clients and allies.
And that would just be the formal mates.
A perfectly normal way to do politics those days. Until very recently marriage was, after all, nigh universally a socio-economic-political arrangement between families - if the partners actually liked one another, that was a bonus. Alex's spouses rather stick to the pattern, especially when you consider the politics he was dealing with - marrying into the old Achaemenid line gave him at least a veneer of legit claim to High Kinghship and helped align diverse Persian aristocratic houses with him, and ditto for Roxanne (after Bessus was dealt with the remaining Persian resistance was centered in the eastern provinces of the empire, and led by a Bactrian nobleman; establishing concrete dynastic links with suitable potentates of the region was an obvious way to help pacify the area and earn some degree of loyalty).
And that would just be the formal mates.
A perfectly normal way to do politics those days. Until very recently marriage was, after all, nigh universally a socio-economic-political arrangement between families - if the partners actually liked one another, that was a bonus. Alex's spouses rather stick to the pattern, especially when you consider the politics he was dealing with - marrying into the old Achaemenid line gave him at least a veneer of legit claim to High Kinghship and helped align diverse Persian aristocratic houses with him, and ditto for Roxanne (after Bessus was dealt with the remaining Persian resistance was centered in the eastern provinces of the empire, and led by a Bactrian nobleman; establishing concrete dynastic links with suitable potentates of the region was an obvious way to help pacify the area and earn some degree of loyalty).
Originally Posted by Watchman:
Eh, old man Philip already had a wife for about each finger; typically ranking aristocrats from the families of assorted clients and allies.
And that would just be the formal mates.
He,he Philip indeed had too many wives...Eh, old man Philip already had a wife for about each finger; typically ranking aristocrats from the families of assorted clients and allies.
And that would just be the formal mates.
Alexander's male lover was Hephaestion. The saying goes that Alexander was only ever defeated by Hephaestion's thighs. 
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on:
Alexander's male lover was Hephaestion. The saying goes that Alexander was only ever defeated by Hephaestion's thighs.
I would suggest people not to judge other based on oneselves...Alexander's male lover was Hephaestion. The saying goes that Alexander was only ever defeated by Hephaestion's thighs.
Μηδε κρινεις εξ ιδιων τα αλλοτρια...
If that was a veiled insult regarding my sexuality, I'm not really impressed.
And if it wasn't, then I must regretfully admit I was unable to make sense out of your post.
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on:
If that was a veiled insult regarding my sexuality, I'm not really impressed.
And if it wasn't, then I must regretfully admit I was unable to make sense out of your post.
It was a mere antient Greek proverb...anyone draws his own conclusions.... If that was a veiled insult regarding my sexuality, I'm not really impressed.
And if it wasn't, then I must regretfully admit I was unable to make sense out of your post.
"Do you not approve of friendship between men ?" 
...you're neither being very convincing nor making much of an impression you know, "h" old boy.
...you're neither being very convincing nor making much of an impression you know, "h" old boy.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO