Queering History: Alexander

Item: Entertainment Weekly’s lavish cover story for November 19 claims that Oliver Stone’s new movie, Alexander, about Alexander the Great, is “an honest, fairly explicit treatment of Alexander’s famous bisexuality.” “It wasn’t like Stone had taken historical liberties,” the article continues. “His rendering of Alexander’s life is … more or less in the mainstream of scholarly research. By most accounts Alexander did like men, women, and eunuchs — his best friend Hephaistion was his longtime lover.”

Item: A New York Times article for November 20 entitled, “Breaking Ground With a Gay Movie Hero,” says of Stone’s film: “Historians of antiquity say the picture’s depiction of Alexander is more or less accurate.... They also note that Alexander’s bisexuality was common for his time.”

Correction: The straight population is largely unaware that “gay” and lesbian “scholars” have been busily rewriting and “reclaiming” history, in a fevered effort to confer legitimacy on the “unspeakable vice.” A major part of this effort involves resurrecting famous historical persons as “gay heroes.” According to various homosexual authors and academics, the list of famous sodomites includes Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Achilles, Solon, Cicero, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, King Richard the Lionhearted, William Shakespeare, Florence Nightingale, and many more. In 1999, The Times of London reported that a Professor Stephen Knight had uncovered evidence that Robin Hood and his Merry Men actually were a band of homosexuals. The professor’s “evidence” was pretty thin: a few lines of troubadour ballads that he claimed showed homoerotic overtones!

The historical claims of the homo-revisionists range from the ludicrous to the blasphemous, the worst case of the latter being their repeated references to a homosexual relationship between Jesus Christ and St. John, the “beloved disciple.” Similarly, they find a queer connection in the biblical account of the friendship of David and Jonathan. John Shelby Spong, the retired radical Episcopal Bishop of Newark, claims that St. Paul was a sodomite. Likewise, the Lavender Lobby asserts that virtually all biblical “pairings” are evidence of same-sex relations: Ruth and Naomi, St. Peter and St. Paul, St. Peter and St. Andrew, St. Philip and St. Bartholomew. These claims are usually based on the work of Yale history professor John Boswell, a homosexual activist who died of AIDS in 1994 at age 47.

The point of this revisionist “research,” as many of these radical academics admit, is to establish that homosexuality is normal (or even superior to heterosexuality), since so many famous and talented people were “gay.” This agenda to legitimize perversion should be borne in mind whenever appeals to antiquity are made on behalf of buggery. Which brings us back to Alexander the Great, one of the names that appears frequently on the homosexual activists’ lists of “Famous Queers.”

Is Oliver Stone’s depiction of Alexander “honest” and in “the mainstream of scholarly research,” as Entertainment Weekly asserts, and is there a consensus among historians, as the Times claims, that the movie’s “gay” theme is “more or less accurate”? Dr. Craig Johnson, a Fellow of the International Academy in Strasbourg, France, and professor in residence at Chalcedon Academy in Agoura Hills, California, says of the matter:

Aristotle’s dictum still stands: “He who asserts must also prove.” When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim. Let’s ask some clear, practical questions in light of Oliver Stone’s Alexander: Did Alexander ever kiss a man on the mouth? No evidence. Did he ever play a passive or active role in same sex sexual unions? No evidence. Did he have sex of any kind with the eunuch Bagoas? No evidence. Did he ever play footsie with men or boys at a sports bar? No evidence. Did he have sex with Hephaestion or any other man, young or old? No evidence. Was he anything other than a married, heterosexual male with children who chose “power as his supreme mistress”? The answer in concert with all the primary sources is again: no evidence!

Alexander scholar Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman, professor of history at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, notes that the earliest and most important sources do not describe Hephaistion in terms that support Stone’s “gay” treatment:

Our three Greek historians (Arrian, Diodorus, and Plutarch) never term [Hephaistion] erastes or eromenos, only philos or malista timomenos. Alexander himself calls him philalexandros (friend of Alexander). Curtius and Justin use only amicus, never amans. The only implication of a sexual relationship or use of the term eromenos for Hephaistion occurs in late sources or those of dubious authorship.

Dr. Reames-Zimmerman says that “while we do have evidence that it was possible, in Macedonian society, for young boys of roughly the same age to form attachments to one another which included a sexual expression, there is no indisputable evidence for such an attachment between Alexander and Hephaistion.” (Emphasis in original.) The professor says she personally believes there is circumstantial evidence to support the claim, “but I do think we must acknowledge that we cannot state with certainty that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, either as young men, or continuing throughout their lives.”

“Like the detractors of ancient times,” writes historian Agnes Savill, in her two-volume Alexander the Great and His Time, “some modern writers have tried to explain Alexander’s attitude toward women as due to homosexuality. But when Philoxenes told the king that two beautiful boys had been offered for him, Alexander was furious: ‘What evil has he seen in me that he should purchase for me such shameful creatures?’ he exclaimed. ‘Tell the dealer to take his wares to hell.’”

Savill also notes that Alexander “likewise reprimanded young Agnon, for offering to purchase Crobylus for him, whose beauty was famous in Corinth.”

Suffice to say, these and many other historians who could be cited belie the claims made by Oliver Stone and his media and academia apologists. Mr. Stone is always more propagandist than historian or storyteller. His most notable films — Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Natural Born Killers, Looking for Fidel (a glorification of Fidel Castro) — carry a vicious anti-American and anti-Christian message. “Alexander lived in a more honest time,” Stone told Playboy magazine. “We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality.” Or, rather, pre-Christian amorality.

Bill Leap, a professor of anthropology at American University, praises Stone’s Alexander as a film that will be “good for the gay civil rights movement.” “The more we can talk about how men had sex with men all over the place,” Professor Leap told the New York Post, “the stronger the liberation movement is going to become.” Sounding a similar note, Sean Lund, national news media coordinator for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said: “This is a big-budget epic that is going to move the goal post in terms of what we can expect to see in these movies in the future.”

That’s what Stone’s movie is really about: mainstreaming homosexuality into popular culture, not presenting a historically “mainstream” film depiction of Alexander the Great.

Here's a picture of a real homosexual, Ernst Roehm who was the founder of the SA brownshirts of Nazi Germany. "...like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual..." according to William Shirer in "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." See also Samuel Igra, "Germany's National Vice," Heinz Hoehne, "Order of the Deaths's Head." About every 10th book in my library documents Nazi homosexual activity.

Igra even quotes a former Nazi from Danzig stating that the reason Hitler had former Austrian Cancellor Dollfuss assasinated was because the latter possessed a police dossier on Hitler from when he was a vagabond living in Vienna. The dossier stated that Hitler was a male prostitute. Considering that Roehm and his fellow early Nazis used to meet in a homosexual alcoholic establishment, you might wonder how it came to be that Hitler met this group in said establishment.

Entertainment Weekly is a propaganda organ of TimeWarnerCNN. When they have a liberal premise that's even too ridiculous for Larry King, they put it on the cover of Entertainment Weekly.

Plus if you subscribe now they'll throw in some lame CD that will be clogging up thrift stores in a couple of years featuring artists you'll never hear from again.

Hitler met Roehm through his work reporting on various right wing parties in Bavaria for the German Army, and in his role as an agitator, again (initially) for the Reichwehr. Roehm, known as the "machine gun king" was a liaison officer between various right wing parties and the German Army, andd supplied them (and the Freikorps) with money and weapons. Hitler and Roehm worked together in that context. Roehm headed his own group during the 1923 Putsch. Goering commanded the SA at that time.

Yes and I'm convinced that centuries from now the left wing zealots of that time will be depicting Bubba the Mighty of Little Rock a bisexual hero of Alexander the Great proportion and a film will be made about him by relatives of this wingnut director/idiot...Life does go on and really there ain't all that many suprises when you think about it[particularily political history and the press/media/film industry treatment of their favorite love children]

Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Achilles, Solon, Cicero, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, King Richard the Lionhearted, William Shakespeare, Florence Nightingale,

The odds are quite high that some on the list were gay, and as for others, it is probably idle speculation. I wonder why Frederick the Great is not on the list, since the article seems annoyed about the notion that gays might be involved in pugilistic endeavors?

As concerned as I am about left-wing revisionist history and the attempts by the entertainment industry to mainstream homsexuality, I think Alexander actually was a bisexual. Sexual perversion like that was pretty common back in ancient societies. I'm sure there are plenty of historians that would support what I'm saying. If he wasn't, great, but regardless, he was still a great military leader. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't say if I think the director was trying to use this to further the homo-propaganda the media peddles to us nowadays. But it's an interesting topic to debate for history buffs.

Considering that Roehm and his fellow early Nazis used to meet in a homosexual alcoholic establishment, you might wonder how it came to be that Hitler met this group in said establishment.

Hitler was actually working for the then "illegal" German High Command (The GHC was outlawed under the Treaty of Versailles but continued to exist just not openly) as a spy to infiltrate groups that they felt were subversive to the German nation. Of course what happened was they found out that he agreed with the ideology of the NSDAP.

That aside, it becomes tiresome to hear liberals try to make every famous person in history out to be a homosexual. I was taking a class this last semester while waiting to find out about some graduate applications I've sent out and we had a dumb freshman girl try to convince the class that homosexuals are "good, decent people who have shaped the modern world". According to her, just about every famous person in the last 2000 years including Jesus, Lincoln, Washington, Patton, Napoleon, various other U.S. Presidents, some Founding Fathers, etc. I asked her to backup her statements with proof but all she could say is that "all the historians say this". My reply was to hold up my Aggie Ring and tell her that until she had a degree in history that she should stick to other issues as she obviously had no idea of true history beyond the end of her nose. She proceeded to scream that I was a "Christian, Nazi Bigot, Homophobe..." and the professor had to cut her off and end the debate.

I got to have a little fun with her just before the final. As we were waiting to go into class, I asked her for her phone number. I've never seen anyone turn so many shades of red so quickly. LOL!

Oh, there's a whole coterie of neo-confederates on FR who hold to the "Lincoln was gay" theory. Syphilitic, too.

People like that would believe that Lincoln was also a bug eyed alien from Mars that was scouting out the planet for an invasion. They don't realize that he was probably the best friend the South had and his death caused a lot of unnecessary hardship, anger, and lasting resentment on both sides.

The odds are quite high that some on the list were gay

On the contrary, the odds that most of those on this list were gay are almost zero.

Some of the cases are so laughable as to suggest deliberate strawmen, except that the depths of historical ignorance by the general population (not to mention these sodomite "scholars") is so great that ironically they are not even questioned. For example, we know that it was illegal (upon punishment of death) for homosexuals in Ancient Greece to teach children, hold public office, be present at religious gatherings or sacrifices, or even wear garlands (from Aeschines. "Contra Timarchus,").

In addition, we have much of their own writings. Aristole, for example, wrote so clearly on the subject that his rants against homosexual conduct would be considered hate speech today. Similarly with Alexander; one need only provide greater weight to the REAL evidence (such as his letter to Philoxenus where he calls such activity "vile", etc.) than the made-up stories occurring centuries later which are KNOWN to be forgeries or otherwise historically inaccurate in other details as well.

As for Plato, I will let him speak for himself:

Whether these matters are to be regarded as sport, or as earnest, we must not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust of pleasure. (from Laws I 636)

centuries from now the left wing zealots of that time will be depicting Bubba the Mighty of Little Rock a bisexual hero of Alexander the Great proportion

It's more insidious than that. There's nothing about Alexander The Great that screams "liberal icon". Was he a champion of a woman's right to choose? A living wage? Socialized medicine? Not hardly.

Centuries from now, Clinton will be as obscure as John Tyler. They'll make a movie about Ronald Reagan, but they'll "revise" it to make it seem like he was really a champion of whatever pet political causes are popular at that time.

I think the idea that you think Alexander the Great was "probably bisexual" is interesting and reflects what is often the case in a society based on assumptions fed by a popular culture that thrives on innuendo. Whatever happened to great claims requiring great proof? Now we bend over and assume a "middle ground" posture and accept the otherwise absurd claims of sexually disturbed "girlie men" as historical fact because we don't want to be viewed as mean and intolerant. Sexual perversion may have been common but are we to assume that it was pervasive throughout all levels of culture? Would it be accurate for a future archaeologist digging up San Francisco to assume the general morals of that city or even those of our capital city of Washington DC were the morals of the average American? I think this is a reflection of how little perspective most have of history, history has become a discipline of fools and fakers who blur the line between what is known from accepted fact and what they wish were true based upon their personal agendas and biases.

Yes but calling such behavior "vile" just adds to the "proof" of "hidden" homosexuality for those simple minds that find it behind every word of adoration and loyalty expressed between men. Everyone knows that if someone expresses disgust for broccoli that they must be secretly ingesting it on the side or if someone hates child molesters they must be sampling the kiddies when no one is watching. Such stupidity and ignorance is allowed to masquerade as truth in this society. We can thank the public schools and so called "higher education" for that.

It really was quite common with the ancient Greeks.

Less so than in our current culture (i.e., probably around 1% at the most). That you could possibly believe as you do only indicates that you have blindly accepted the modern revisionist's attempts that are sadly succeeding in re-writing history. What REAL evidence we have from history (surviving comments of the people themselves, etc.) shows that such accusations are almost certainly false. To try to use one or two later Roman anti-greek sources as "proof" to dispute the original sources is as laughable as pointing to a Mary Renault novel or Oliver Stone's movie as evidence.

I am very disappointed in all those Free Republic members who continue to hold these nonsensical beliefs. After seeing the attempts by the modern media and educational system to rewrite even the history of our own times, I would have hoped that you all would be more skeptical of attempts by these same forces to pervert the past, expecially when the evidence to disprove such accusations can be easily obtained merely be reading what survives of the original sources.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.