That reminds me of how some tried to suggest David and Jonathan were really lovers. Re-writing history based on trivial, absent or incomplete facts seems really insulting both to the legacy of historical figures and to our intelligence.

Oliver Stone isn't known for portraying history as anything other than fiction, so I'm not surprised even as I'm disappointed in him.

For that reason, I don't plan to see the movie.

One important point made in the article that Josh links to here is that, in discussing sexual preferences in past periods of history, it's important to note that categories like "homosexual", "heterosexual", or "bisexual" just don't necessarily extend to other cultures very well.

Given (i) that the movie doesn't particularly seem intended to be anything more than a work of historical fiction, and (ii) that the suggestions of sexual relations between Alexander and Hephaiston are sufficiently extant to license developing the story in this way, I just don't think that this is an automatic bad-making feature of the movie. The idea that Alexander may have had sex with another man is not of itself particularly interesting -- what I'll be more interested to see is what Stone does with this idea.

Aw, man, I just clicked through to the site, and found out that Anthony Hopkins is playing Ptolemy, not Aristotle (which is what I had inferred from a preview). I was going to see the movie just for the sake of seeing someone as awesome as Hopkins play a philosopher. But now, since I absolutely loathed the JFK movie, perhaps I should share at least some of Joel's skepticism. :-(

Josh--

I hope you will not take this as nitpicking, but here is a quote from your source:

"...there is no indisputable evidence for such an attachment between Alexander and Hephaistion. That evidence does exist is circumstantial only. Personally, I find it convincing, 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."

In other words, your source for saying that there "is no evidence" of a sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaiston is someone who actually discusses SOME evidence for that relationship--and who even finds this evidence convincing.

Jason, I don't see how that's inconsistent with what I wrote. I think I made it pretty clear throughout that the only evidence is circumstantial (ie what was normal and accepted at the time). Just as t heauthor said there is no "indisputable evidence" and it's circumstantial, I said "...other than the possibility given Greek culture, there is simply no evidence to support the claim" and "...direct and explicit proof of his sexuality is nonexistent." I think I accurately portrayed the findings of that scholar and others.

There are at least two ways that you did not accurately portray his findings. First, you certainly do write the things that you have just quoted. But you also wrote "there is no evidence," which presumably excludes all evidence of any sort at all. Second, the author you cite finds the circumstantial evidence to be convincing, and you take no note of his conclusions here, which would be necessary for an accurate portrayal both of his findings and (as I understand it) of the field at large.

I feel I gave fair enough weight to the circumstantial evidence, which is simply that it was common for people such as Alexander. But your take is fari enough.

I still think it is a great and unfounded leap to say that the atmosphere and environment of the time is circumstancial evidence for a particular and specific relationship. What I see is in the analyses is far more conjecture and speculation than evidence.

It is common for today's political leaders to cheat on their spouses. Is that circumstancial evidence that a particular political leader is so cheating? Most of the couples who come to me seeking to be wed are living together. However, that isn't circumstancial evidence that any particular couple is so living together.

There are a lot of people my age in my wealth bracket that do a lot of things I don't do, and I hope biographers don't automatically conclude I do them as well simply because other similarly situated people do.

Joel, your comment might be generalized as such:

"[Hollywood] isn't known for portraying history as anything other than fiction, ..."

So, unless you're watching a documentary (a real one, not a politically motivated one), you might not be happy with a lot of historical films out there.

Wulong,

Yes, but Oliver Stone seems a cut below the worst. "JFK" was meant as more than entertainment. It implied that it had answers to assassination mysteries. Too many people came away from the theater believing they had learned history.

There is no "arguab"ility as to whether his marriages were politically motivated: they were. Roxanne was the daughter of an Afghan warlord whose allegiance was vital to secure that border of his empire before his Indian campaign while his other wife, Stateira, was the daughter of Darayashuvawa (later romanized as Darius) and legitimized his claim to the throne while at the same time uniting him familially with Hepheastion (who was married the same day to her sister). The fact that Roxanne was pregnant by him at least three times indicates that he didn't see sex with her as a total bore, of course, and tradition has it (though there is no proof) that both widows were pregnant upon his death. (Roxanne had the much higher born Stateira murdered.)
As for there being only "circumstantial evidence" of his bisexuality, pretty much all that is known of him other than when he lived, his genealogy and his military might is circumstantial. The oldest surviving biographies of him were written well over a century after his death by men who literally would have had no concept of objectivity in reporting even if they hadn't been legitimately afraid for their life by maligning a general who was also a king and a god (remember: to malign Alexander was literally blasphemous in some lands as he was accepted as a mortal incarnation of Zeus Ammon). It is highly doubtful that a general who never lost a major battle (as the official record relates) would have made the odd maneuvers he left or willingly marched his men into a desert (in which 1/3 of them died whilst Niarchos had even worse luck at sea)- it's a much better bet that he got his butt kicked by aligned chieftains and tropical diseases in India and retreated, but this didn't make for good hagiographic copy.
OTOH, there is absolutely no contemporary mention of any details of Jesus's life and those which exist differ sharply in the details, yet it is commonly accepted that he was bearded, celibate, a descendant of David and thirty-three at the time of his death in spite of absolutely no evidence of any of these claims, and he lived 300 years more recently than Alexander. And of course as a law student you're familiar that circumstantial evidence in and of itself can be enough for a conviction. (Of course whether Alex was straighter than the road to hell or gayer than Elton John on half-price day at the Ikea I think the Greek lawyers need to read their first edition Plato's on "Life, the getting of one".)

PS- the son of Barsine was almost certainly not the son of Alexander but an imposter. Short version: Alex died without a capable heir and his generals each vied for supremacy and to establish their legitmacy, Ptolemy actually hijacking Alex's actual mummified remains (and claiming to be his half brother) Antigonus claiming to rule as regent for Alex's posthumous son Alex IV who was in his custody (and whom he later murdered) and Seleucis (in some ways the most capable, though others would argue Ptolemy [who was certainly no slouch but I personally credit his d... another time]), having very little other than Babylon to connect him to Alex, basically "remembers" that by Zeus, Alex just happens to have another son that he never did one time mention by this woman Barsina whose father Artabazos (who in addition to being one of the most powerful men in Persia was a father figure to Alexander) evidently never minded that Alex dishonored his girl and in fact fought loyally for him after Gaugamela. Basically, like Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel in English history, Heraklias is generally perceived as a pretender (whose name was most likely devised to capitalize on Alexander's descent from Heracles, whose image he wore on his armor and his shield).

Please pardon one more post on the subject: in the post Dr. Zimmerman mentions Alexander's bereavement over Hepheastion's death, but not the particulars. He had the doctor who treated Hn. during his final illness tortured and vivisected, then ordered the largest tallest structure then in the world for Hn.s bier (it took months to build, by which time Alex was still in mourning and gnashing teeth and drinking heavily) and days to burn. This is not the treatment usually afforded a platonic friend- Alex certainly did nothing like this for Cassandros or Kleiteros or for his father or any of his siblings who predeceased him.
As for Bagoas, all of the surviving ancient biographies mention this incident (though Zimmerman does not) that followed a dance contest:

"[Alexander's] favourite eunuch Bagoas, having gained the victory, crossed the theatre in his dancing habit, and sat down close by him, which so pleased the Macedonians that they made loud acclamations for him to kiss Bagoas, and never stopped clapping their hands and shouting till Alexander put his arms round him and kissed him."

The verb for kiss used in the Greek of the above refers specifically to kissing on the lips. This would imply that the Macedonians knew it wouldn't terribly irk Alex to do so, and more than a few macho kings then and today simply could not have been goaded into it.

(As for the David & Jonathan comment above, I agree that I find this one ridiculous when cited as a gay relationship, though it is not impossible that the writers of Samuel, who lived after the Illiad was first recorded, did intentionally attempt a parallel with the portrayal of Achilles/Patroklos or with other famous warrior couplings of the legends and literature of other cultures which did have sexual connotations. David's life, however, would probably have been happier if he HAD been gay.

How could a thread about homosexuality have gone on this long without Seymour commenting on it? Is he not feeling well? He usually gets absolutely obsessive when the topic of homosexuality comes up.

Very interesting read! I am surprised the Greeks are in arms about this though, considering homosexuality/bisexuality was something looked on as good in ancient Greece.

No matter what positive influences creative minds such as Oliver Stone portray there will always be an angry little bigeot hater that will raise his oppressive hand and rally his scum companions to shoot homosexuals down.

It's a movie, enjoy it as such. Maybe Alexander was gay, maybe he was straight, maybe he was bisexual. To those who enjoyed the movie (be your gay or not), I'm happy for you. To those of you idiots who made comments in the theaters or walked out, or agreed with these Greek geeks who are raising a stink about this...

"*BLEEP* you're just a bunch of *BLEEP* *BLEEP* tawdry *BLEEP* *BLEEP* spiteful *BLEEPS*. I'll be waving at you all from my gay cloud one day in the afterlife!"

Peace!