Historical Accuracy in Alexander? bisexuality
 

Alexander the Great...as we know this film highlights Alexander's bisexuality, and apparently some people (especially Greece0 are up in arms about it.)
http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/en...089694400.html

Now, obviously people aren't just making this up for this movie, there are those who say he was bisexual, and those who say he was not. Now, I don't know my history too well on this, so hopefully you history buffs can fill me in. What are the arguments for or against this? There's obviously no right or wrong answer thqat we're going to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but hopefully some of you guys can shed some more light on the history behind this.

Note: mods, I thought this warranted another thread. Of course, this is more about history than movie itself so if this isn't the right forum feel free to move it.

Alexander grew up in a culture where, for adult aristocratic men, women were for childbearing, and youths and sometimes older men were often for pleasure. Doesn't really align with our concepts of sexuality at all.

So yes, the "greatest General in history" took it in the poop chute. If you got a problem with this please skip Alexander so those of us who dont give a shit can watch the movie without the snickering and laughs in the theatre.

Very well known fact that he was gay. Guess the movie making him bi is a little bit more acceptable.

Eh, I surmise that this movie will face that problem, as that sort of childish behavior seems to be present in lots of reviews I read on this.

I'm just curious if it's historically accurate since some seem to dismiss it outright and claim there's no historical evidence of it. Since they're willing to sue over it (not sure how that would work) obviously Greece disagrees (quite possibly homophobia since I don't see why it even matters).

well known fact that he was gay? His relationship with Hephaistion is pure speculation. I don't believe it can ever be proven either way, and it definitely isn't "fact".

I think it is being "controversial" on purpose so that it will get more press coverage (and topics like this)

A lof of what is known about Alexander is speculation. Most of the information about Alexander comes from sources that were written decades after his life.

I do think it's funny that the Greeks are so pissed off about this moving when buggery is so commonplace among Greek men (plus, Alexander was Macedonian!). I know I'm generalizing, but for many Greek heterosexual men, it's OK to have sex with a man as long as you're on the top. The guys on the bottom are the ones who are gay.

Why did I bring this up? I don't know. It's not really relevant to the movie at all.

Alexander may or not have been gay, but it is well known that homosexual relations in ancient Greek times were not taboo.

Spartan culture forced young boys who joined the military to be a 'companion' to the professional soldiers that trained them. They were free to marry women when they were considered an adult. I imagine some did and some didn't.

I think nearly everyone at that time was bi, nothing out of the ordinary. They had a completely diffrent view on sexuality.

Just curious .... do you have a whole catalog of derogatory euphimisms to use when also discussing African-Americans, the handicapped, people of Italian descent, Hispanics etc, - or is it only when discussing gay people that you feel it's acceptable to do this?

Puh-leeze. Rivero is obviously mocking the righteous indignation and mockery of the general Bible-thumping middle-American public, who will scream in horror at the sight of the great historic leader engaging in what most of America still considers contra natura.

And I'd add: euphemism in that context is a malapropism, as an euphemism is by definition milder than the original word. The word you were looking for is epithet.

I don't think the Greeks' problem with the film is not so much the alleged bisexuality but the idea of Hollywood rewriting their history. They love Alexander and don't want their image of him changed. That's understandable, even if I don't support it.


Marty, calm down. Everyone else got what Rivero was saying.

But Funky... yes, yes you are generalizing. A lot. That's borderline offensive right there.

I believe it was Alexander the Great who first coined the famed military term "Never leave your buddy's behind."

I hope people give the same treatment to Stone about historical accuracies as they did to Moore.

It's just so weird to see Oliver Stone be criticized for lack of historical accuracy in his films. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

Yeah, I know I was generalizing, but I'm not off-base by saying a lot of men in Greece say they detest homosexuals when they themselves indulge. This observation isn't from personal experience, as I've never been to Greece. But I have Greek relatives from marriage, and from what they describe many Greek men have a screwed-up view of homesexuality. Heck, homosexuality in modern-day Greece was even discussed in my textbook for a college course I took on human sexuality.

I don't think what I originally said was offensive (OK the buggery part was), but I do agree that it's really irrelevant to this movie.

Where there is smoke...there's fire. Perception is reality ...a lot of people think Alexander was "sly" nothing wrong with that.

NO! You obviously have NO IDEA why people bash Moore!! Oliver Stone is not trying to pass off his movies as DOCUMENTARIES! There were more facts in JFK than Fahrenheit 9/11 but at least Stone had the smarts enough to call it FICTION. People like you, People like you.

And Achilles from Greek Mythology was supposedly bi-sexual as well. But they still Hollywoodized it.

People like me? All Moore did was connect the dots. It's not like that's a hard thing to do with this administration! It's ain't me bro, it's people like you who obey w/o question. ;) Anyway, regarding Stone, I don't see any problem with it. If people are going for the straight truth, they should pick up a book. It's the same with Moore. It's not all 100% true, but there is enough information (and connecting the dots) that it should be looked at further. Neither is be-all-end-all, but their truths shouldn't discount their merit.

I thought Alexander was supposed to be considered gay. Now he's bi. Which one is it?

Well, the simple truth is it is fact that he married women and had children, so on some level he was bisexual. Granted, one could argue he just did it for a son, or for show, or whatever, but nonetheless he definately was with women.

Now, more than likely he was with men also. Of course, even in this thread people are saying yes it was true, and Oliver Stone is just mucking with the facts. More than likely considering the time this sort of thing happened, but the film relies heavily supposedly on a male companion (the Jared Leto character) so there must be some source that gave rise to this. It's not like Oliver Stone just came up with the idea that Alexander would be bisexual or gay, this is a topic that has existed. Perhaps it is just speculation from writings after his death, what about the relationships he had with specific men? Where did that history come from?

Has anyone ever considered a Hollywood movie to be factually accurate about anything? No movie is 100% truthful, even those based on recent events. Maybe Alexander was, maybe he wasn't. The movie certainly is 100% accurate about everything else he did. So you can either view it artisic license if you want. Who cares?

Ha, in terms of enjoying the movie, yeah it's no big deal and I'll watch the movie either way. But as somebody who is quite fond of learning about history, I do care cause well...it's interesting and it's part of history. While nobody should watch a movie and see it as a history lesson, one thing Hollywood movies do for history is spurn interest in actually learning about it. That, I would think, is a good thing. I'll probably check out some reading material on it, but I figure someone must have a good background on the real history here.