Talk:Alexander the Great

New sections at bottom, please

Archives

• Jan 2002–Dec 2004
• Jan 2005–Apr 2005
• May 2005–Jun 2005
• July 2005–July 2006
• August 2006–September 2006
• September 14, 2006–September 30, 2006 (First RfC on category related to Alexander's sexuality)

In Popular Culture

The In Popular Culture sections of this article appear to be trivia; as such I plan to delete them when I get home tonight, unless there are struenuous objections, or unless someone is willing to revise as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Miscellaneous content guidelines. UnDeadGoat 16:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following information, becasue it is for the most part trivial, and was only a smattering of facts rather than an integration into meaningful text.02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not see this in time to object; I would have been less sweeping. The list of Alexandrias should exist, here or elsewhere, and be linked to; some of the novels are worth keeping; and some of the rest of this should be See Alsos. JCScaliger 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the Alexandrias is that this article is extremely long, and it's just a list; if there is a paragraph within the text that can be made that talks about him as a city founder, followed by the cities, that would make more sense than just having the cities as part of a collection of stuff people felt important to add to the bottom. Also, if the novels can be coherently incorporated into the "Legacy" material, as opposed to part of a list that also includes every song a Wikipedian likes with Alexander the Great in it, that would be good as well. UnDeadGoat 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Main towns founded by Alexander

Around seventy towns or outposts are claimed to have been founded by Alexander. Some of the main ones are:

• Alexandria, Egypt
• Alexandria Asiana, Iran
• Alexandria in Ariana, Afghanistan
• Alexandria of the Caucasus, Afghanistan
• Alexandria on the Oxus, Afghanistan
• Alexandria of the Arachosians, Afghanistan
• Alexandria on the Indus (Alexandria Bucephalous), Pakistan
• Alexandria Eschate, "The furthest", Tajikistan
• Iskenderun (Alexandretta), Turkey
• Kandahar (Alexandropolis), Afghanistan
• Iskandiriyah(Alexandria),Iraq

Alexander as City-Planner

By selecting the right angle of the streets, Alexander made the city breathe with the etesian winds [the northwestern winds that blow during the summer months], so that as these blow across a great expanse of sea, they cool the air of the town, and so he provided its inhabitants with a moderate climate and good health. Alexander also laid out the walls so that they were at once exceedingly large and marvelously strong.

—Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, volume 8.

In popular culture

Novels

• From 1969 to 1981, Mary Renault wrote a historical fiction trilogy on the life of Alexander: Fire From Heaven (about his early life), The Persian Boy (about his conquest of Persia, his expedition to India, and his death, seen from the viewpoint of Bagoas, a Persian eunuch and Alexander's eromenos), and Funeral Games (about the events following his death). Alexander also appears briefly in Renault's novel The Mask of Apollo, and is alluded to directly in The Last of the Wine and indirectly in The Praise Singer. In addition to the fiction, Renault also wrote a non-fiction biography, The Nature of Alexander.
• French writer Roger Peyrefitte wrote a trilogy about Alexander the great which is regarded as a masterpiece of erudition : La Jeunesse d'Alexandre (1977), Les Conquêtes d'Alexandre (1979) and Alexandre le Grand (1981).
• A further trilogy of novels about Alexander was written in Italian by Valerio Massimo Manfredi and subsequently published in an English translation, entitled Child of a Dream, The Sands of Ammon and The Ends of the Earth.
• David Gemmel's Dark Prince features Alexander as the chosen vessel for a world-destroying demon king. ISBN 0-345-37910-1.
• Steven Pressfield's 2004 book The Virtues of War is told from the first-person perspective of Alexander. Pressfield's novel The Afghan Campaign is told from the point of view of a soldier in Alexander's army. Alexander makes several brief appearances in the novel.
• Rudyard Kipling's story "The Man Who Would Be King" (1888) provides some glimpses of Alexander's legacy. Made into a movie of the same title in 1975, starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine.

TV series

• Alexander the Great (1968), TV series, starring William Shatner as Alexander, directed by Phil Karlson.
• Alexander Senki (1997), Anime / TV series, starring Toshihiko Seki as Alexander, directed by Yoshinori Kanemori, and with character designs by Peter Chung (of Aeon Flux fame). It was based on the novel Alexander Senki by Hiroshi Aramata. Also known as Alexander (International: English title); Reign: The Conqueror (USA). The series (US version, Reign: The Conqueror) debuted on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block variety show in 2003.
• The 1996 miniseries Gulliver's Travels, starring Ted Danson, featured a visit from Alexander the Great.

File:Rogue shield.jpg

The Smallville version of the Cuirass of Alexander the Great, as seen in the first season episode, "Rogue"

• In the Smallville season 1 episode "Rogue", Lex Luthor shows Clark Kent the armor that Alexander the Great wore in battle. The breastplate is gold, with red and blue diamonds (the colors that represent Superman), and a snake shaped like the letter S.
• In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great (1998), mini-series, hosted by Michael Wood, directed by David Wallace.
• Iskandar is briefly mentioned in the visual novel game and anime series Fate/stay night as an example of the Rider-class Servant. It was hinted that he was the most powerful of the characters, but died in a two-versus-one battle.
• In the miniseries Yu-Gi-Oh! Capsule Monsters, Alexander the Great was a character in the Capsule Monster World.

Movies

• Sikander (1941), a Hindi movie directed by Sohrab Modi which depicts Alexander the Great's Indian conquest.
• Alexander the Great (1956) starring Richard Burton as Alexander, directed by Robert Rossen and produced by MGM.
• Sikandar-e-Azam (1965) a Hindi movie directed by Kedar Kapoor starring Dara Singh as Alexandar depicts Alexandar's Indian conquest with Porus.
• Alexander (2004), starring Colin Farrell as Alexander, directed by Oliver Stone. Based on the biography Alexander the Great (ISBN 0-14-008878-4) by Robin Lane Fox. It was released on November 24, 2004.
• Baz Luhrmann had been planning to make a very different film about Alexander, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, but the release of Stone's film eventually persuaded him to abandon the project.
• Alexander the Great (2006)...

Other works

Alexander in the expansion pack Rome: Total War Alexander.

• The 2000 album Born from the string quartet bond, includes a song titled "Alexander the Great".
• The British heavy metal band Iron Maiden had a song entitled "Alexander the Great" on their album Somewhere in Time (1986). The song describes Alexander's life, but contains one inaccuracy: In the song it is stated that Alexander's army would not follow him into India.
• Brazilian musician Caetano Veloso's 1998 album Livro includes an epic song about Alexander called "Alexandre".
• Alexander is a character in the computer games Empire Earth and Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots. He is a civilization leader in the 2005 computer game Sid Meier's Civilization IV , where Alexander is the lone leader of the Greek civilization and has the leader traits "Aggressive" and "Philosophical". In the Rome Total War expansion pack, Alexander, Alexander the Great's conquests are chronicled in a campaign and six battles are modeled on Alexander's early battles. Alexander the Great is also featured in the game called Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War released by Midway games.
• In Alan Moore's Watchmen, one of the main characters, Ozymandias, goes into detail about how he followed in Alexander the Great's footsteps in order to achieve enlightenment.

Robin Lane-Fox

I find it to be a little unbalanced to have Robin Lane-Fox as an authority on Alexander the Great on this page, at least in regards to Alexander's personal life. His own biography stub contains a link in which he made a controversial homophobic remark, which I feel casts some doubt on his assertions about Alexander concerning Haephestion and Bagoas. If there is to be a source that is doubtful of these relationships, it should not be him at the very least.

That is an interesting remark to make given that most people do not consider Robin Lane-Fox a homophob and given as to how he is considered as a "serious scholar" on Alexander, I see no bases for his assertions to be viewed as "doubtful". ~ Mallaccaos 11 October 2006

Robin Lane Fox is one of the foremost Alexander scholars writing in English. I read the linked story, and his remarks don't seem offensive to me (I haven't heard them in context, however). At any rate, I don't see how this casts any doubt on what he says about Alexander, and in fact, if you read the quotes on this talk page, he says that Alexander probably had sexual relationships with men, and that this was normal in ancient Greece. If he were a homophobe, wouldn't he say the opposite? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert abuse over "Greek pederasty" category

Apro, please do not impose your unsupported views on this article. It is not your place to insert you opinion into the commentaries of ancient historians who spoke clearly enough on this topic, as have modern ones, for that matter. I will not follow your example and revert you a third time - hopefully others are paying attention to what you are doing here. Haiduc 02:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to seek some form of dispute resolution. I already tried an RfC on this issue, but that got nowhere because of the rampant sockpuppetry going on at the time. I'm not sure where else to turn. It seems to me that there are a few related issues here (this is my statement of the issues, and not necessarily a neutral one):

1)The "personal life" section in the article is written to make it seem as if no ancient sources or modern scholars think that Alexander had sexual relationships with men, when several ancient sources imply that he did, and at least two modern scholars, Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge, believe that Alexander had same-sex relationships (as was typical then). Both scholars are quoted on this talk page, with references. The article is especially misleading in that it quotes Fox in a way that misrepresents his views.

2)Even though the "personal life" section is written in a biased way, WP readers who are interested in the topic of ancient Greek (homo)sexuality might be interested in reading it. It would be appropriate to have some category in the article to help those readers find the section. Several categories have been proposed: LGBT people from Greece, Greek pederasty, Greek homosexuality. Despite some editors' objections, both Greek pederasty and Greek homosexuality are terms that are widely used in scholarship, and when properly understood are not anachronistic. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for the very good points raised by Apro in his above comments. Placing sexual orientation categories in biographies for ancient peoples, particular when the facts are not clear and disputed, is not warrented since none of the ancients identified with modern LGB categories and nowhere are we told that Alexander participated in pederasty relationships. Mallaccaos 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC, once more

A section of this article, "Personal life", has material on Alexander's sexuality. Should a category, perhaps Category:Greek Pederasty, Category:LGBT people from Greece or Category:Greek homosexuality be in the article, so that WP readers who are interested in this topic can be guided to the article? An RfC has already been conducted on this topic, but no consensus has been reached, and editors are still fighting over whether the category should be included. 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Akhilleus: the previous RfC was filled with sockpuppets, no consensus was found, and a low-grade edit war continues, so another RfC has been filed. The article already has a section on Alexander's sexuality, and mentions the possibility that he had sexual relationships with men. Two scholars, Paul Cartledge and Robin Lane Fox, are quoted above on this talk page to that effect. The current dispute is not about whether the page should contain that material. The dispute is about whether the page should contain a category to help readers interested in the topic of Greek pederasty/homosexuality to find this page.

Previously, some editors have objected to the categories LGBT people from Greece and Greek homosexuality on the grounds that they're anachronistic. It's true that the ancient Greeks didn't label people as "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Nevertheless, many scholars use the term "homosexuality" in reference to the ancient world: K.J. Dover's Greek homosexuality and David Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality are just two books out of a crowded field. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment His relationship with Hephaestion is not pederastic, and needs to be categorized under Category:LGBT history; His relationship with Bagoas is pederastic and needs to be categorized under Category:Greek Pederasty. However, by Wikipedia rules subcategories take precedence and thus Category:Greek Pederasty must appear rather than the LGBT history category. That suggests that Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, which is at the same level as the Greek pederasty category, needs to be represented as well, simply to make sure that individuals doing research in either field have equal access to this information. If we are debating anachronisms, I would concede that the LGBT categories are anachronistic, but there is no ideal solution and not listing this article would be an abdication of responsibility. Haiduc 04:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As pointed by Apro's comments above, none of our ancient sources on Alexander claim he had a sexual relationship with Hephaestion and the Bagoas theory is in dispute even by modern scholars, particularly when contrarary to what the part on his personal life suggest, his sexual relationships make up no more then a few lines and none of them with any suggestion that he had sexual relationships with either man. Also placing modern sexual identies such as Category:LGBT history in this article is not accurate given those are modern identities that ancients such as Alexander did not identify with. If that's the case we might as well place Category:Heterosexual in there too and in every other biographical article there is. Mallaccaos 12 October 2006

• Comment As Mallacaos points out, the issue of categories by sexuality only seems to arise when there's a suggestion labelling a person as "homosexual", "LGBT", "gay", "pederastic", or in general non-heterosexual. There's an obvious double-standard in this thinking that reflects the general double standard of modern society. For this reason I'm somewhat against categorization by sexuality in general, and very much against applying terms like "LGBT" to ancient personages. As for categorization by the nature of a person's relationships (i.e. "pederastic"), this seems rather nonsensical-- I think this becomes more obvious when we suppose categories like "cuckolds", "virgins", "polyamourous persons", or somesuch. siafu 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree with you about the purpose of the category. It's not to label Alexander as "gay" or whatever. It's to say, "if you're interested in the topic of same-sex relationships in the ancient Greek world, you might want to read this section of Alexander the Great." It's beyond obvious that there's a great deal of interest in ancient Greek sexuality; this is one of the most active research topics in classical studies.

At any rate, your objection seems not to be so much about putting a category in this article, but putting categories related to sexuality in any article. It seems to me, though, that if these categories are in use in articles like Pederasty in ancient Greece, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Epaminondas, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and so on, there's no good reason to make Alexander an exception. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't help feeling, in all honesty, that we are making a mountain of a molehill. I can't understand all this passion on categories; wouldn't it be better if all this passion was spent in sourcing the article, instead of fighting futile edit-wars. Is it really so important if we have a category pointing to his pederasty or homosexuality? I honestly doubt this, and tend to agree with Siafu: there is no real need for the reader of this article to classifly by sexuality.--Aldux 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, you're probably right that we're making too big of a deal out of the category. However, the fight over the category is a proxy fight over what should be in the "personal life" section, which is a hodgepodge of different slanted views. The article also misrepresents the views of Robin Lane Fox and selectively quotes from The Search for Alexander. If we can't even get the category straight, I'm not really sure that it's going to be easy to fix the article text, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "making a big deal" out of a category, it is a matter of not politicizing an article or the project. Either we are going to have categories or we are not. They are there so that people interested in a certain topic can have a central location from which they can explore articles that touch on that topic in some fashion. Excluding non-mainstream sexualities from this aspect of the project has the effect of perpetuating the hegemony of certain factions that are invested in obscuring this aspect of history and human sexuality. A little bit of totalitarianism is not a molehill. It is totalitarianism, and its appeasement has led to the predicament which a certain western power finds itself in today. Our only saving grace here is the return to intellectual integrity. In this case the facts are clear: ancient historians have mentioned it, modern historians have mentioned it, it is an aspect of this man's biography, the fact that it is disputed by some is equally grist for this mill and does not reduce but amplifies the strength of the argument that it should be thus categorized. Again, we are not a court of law indicting, we are encyclopaedists indexing. If this does not belong in that index, nothing does. And that is no longer a mole hill. Haiduc 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Politicizing an article on the bases on ones sexuality is not encyclopedia material in my opion. I don't remember Britanic or any other encyclopedias which deal with biographical articles put much emphasis on ones sexuality unless that person played a certain roles in promoting or advocating certain sexual elements that changed history or their sexual life played significant parts in their life, two things that are not true with Alexander. His sexuality did not contribute to who he was and neither did he advocate for certain sexual elements that changed history. Placing a category to "politicize" thise article or others like it on the bases of certain modern ideolism, especially when the biographical individual did not contribute or alter historical events based on the category in question is wrong. I agree with Aldux, siafu and Mallaccaos, placing sexual caterogies on ancient biographical articles, which have been disputed and the ancient sources themselves would never identify as such, is totally misleading. I also have to agree with Siafu that these issues arise when modern society wants to place labels such "homosexual", "LGBT", "gay", "pederastic" on ancient individuals. In the case of Alexander as it was noted above, there is disputed among scholars that he even had such relationships and whatever his supposed sexual personal relationships were they had no effect or influence on his life to warrant categorizing as such. Someone who is interested in learning about Alexander would learn more about his biographical accounts of his accomplishments and not on any supposed "sexual exploits" that might or might not even be true. Also those quotes from Robine Lane Fox are take straight from his novel on Alexander, I do not see how it is selective or misrepresented given that they are Lane's own words from his biographical piece on Alexander. The pages and titles from where those quotes are taken from have been provided. Apro 12 October 2006

If you wish to keep politics out of it you will allow the information to be freely available. Suppressing information is a political act. Haiduc 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is suppressing information in the article nor is not adding this particular category suppressing information. The article talks about the different opinions and views that scholars have regarding his sexuality, that does not mean it warrants a particular caterogy based on his sexuality, in that case as someone has stated above lets also add Category:Heterosexual in there too. Alexander contributed nothing to nor did his sexuality play a major role to warrent a sexual category. Now adding the category because some see it as "suppressing information", then in my opinion, that is politicizing this article. As stated above most encyclopedia biographical articles that I have read do not put emphasis on ones sexuality unless that person was an adovace for or played certain roles in promoting sexual elements that changed history or their sexual life played significant parts in their life, things that are not true with Alexander. Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that Alexander's sexuality is not notable is refuted by its inclusion in texts on the history of sexuality, such as Louis Crompton's "Homosexuality and Civilization."

If it is notable or of any valuable sense, other then putting labels on ancient people who would never identify themselves as such, please provide major events which his sexuality played a contributing part in his accomplishments. Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that "Category:Heterosexuality" should be included is fallacious, since, unlike Greek pederasty or homosexuality, relations with the other sex are a given.

Its similar and as stated above a double standard since it pertains to ones sexuality period. So if you believe that "Category:Homosexuality" should be added then we might as well add "Category:Heterosexuality". Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that including this category puts an emphasis on his sexuality is refuted by the fact that there are twelve other categories appended to the article, many of marginal importance in his life. Thus categories do not have the effect of "emphasizing" a particular aspect, but only of indexing it.

The only two other categories that I questions in belonging there are the Mummies one and the Adoptees, all others have to do with major events in his life time and after it. His sexuality as stated did not contribute to anything important and its disputed. Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that adding a category for his sexual life politicizes the article turns reality on its head. It is the capricious exclusion of a category on sexuality that is eggregious and raises the question, why this category and not any other should be excluded.

Adding a category just to put a label on the individual who the article is about based on what the social climate of today is wrong. As mentioned above the only other two categories that look out of place in this article are the two mentioned and should be removed. All the others pertain to major events during his life and after it. Also as it was stated many times, adding sexual categories in articles which pertain to ancient peoples adds no value and is misleading particularly when said category is disputed to begin with. Apro 12 October 2006

Unfortunately the answer is obvious, and lies in your edits: your misrepresentation of academic discussion of this topic, as well as in your falsely presenting the debate on this page as supporting your arbitrary deletion of an important structural part of the article, repeatedly and in the face of counterarguments by several editors.

I do not see his sexual orientation as being an important structural part of this article especially when its been disputed. If that is the case then it is also pretty obvious that misrepresentation also applies in your defense of trying to add a category that most who have responded to this whole issue agree does not belong in this article. Apro 12 October 2006

This is not a constructive way to engage either this topic or the other editors. Please desist from enforcing your view by force, when you are unable to do it by reson. Haiduc 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I have enforced my views on here to anyone forceably, if I did then I apologize for it, and my posts have reasoning behind them. Also not enforcing personal views onto issues and people should apply both ways. Apro 12 October 2006

Apro, I will answer you here so as not to fragment things too much. First of all, I perceive a lot of your comments as addressing an issue of questionable validity, our "labeling" Alexander the Great a homosexual or a pederast, wherefore your efforts to debunk that misapprehension. First of all, let me say that I personally do not think he was gay. He was however a man of his time, a time when men did not greatly value time spent in the company of women, nor women's affections. To run after women was considered effeminate, to be liked by them was suspicious. But men fell in love with women nonetheless, and they fell in love with other males, older or younger, as the spirit drove them. To call that "gay" is absurd. To call it pederastic, when there was a significant age difference, may be more in keeping with the time - that's where we got the term, after all. But we are not here to "label" anyone anything. When we enter a category, such as "Mummies" or "People with craters of the Moon named after them" we are simply doing a service for people interested in those subjects. So much has been said about Alexander's sexuality with males, for so long, that to veil it from those interested in those subjects is simply indefensible. "Absolute proof" is completely besides the point - it is enough that the topic has received so much play. And as for the hurdle you are placing in front of its "notability," it is contrived. It is notable not because you or I deem it notable, it is so because it has been noted by others, again and again. Haiduc 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my consensus sitll is this category does not belong in this article. Apro 13 October 2006

There is no such thing as a consensus of one. Haiduc 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"...a time when men did not greatly value time spent in the company of women, nor women's affections. To run after women was considered effeminate, to be liked by them was suspicious." This claim requires some backing up, as it flies in the face of the available evidence. siafu 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We are chatting here so the rules of evidence do not apply. A couple of years ago I came across a text (unfortunately I no longer remember which) where it was said of a man, disparagingly, that "he is the kind of man that women like." Perhaps it was about Alcibiades? Maybe someone here, better read and with a better memory, can come up with the reference. Haiduc 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can add the LGBT category when conclusion has not been reached nor a resolution in agreeing to add the Category:LGBT, especially when its still in dispute and the majority of the people who posted on here are in agreement that category does not belong in this article particularly given that its a modern ideology not applied to ancient people like Alexander who never identified with it. I also agree with siafu's comment above. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

Personally, I don't see consensus in either direction. However, I think that it's a violation of the NPOV policy to remove the category, particularly since there's a well-sourced section of the article devoted to A.'s sexuality. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that of four other people as noted by their comments above, myself included, who view the category wrong in being added. As for the "sources" given they do not give a definate answer other then modern interpetations that they base most of their theories that he might have had on what they theorize to be the norm of the time and not on definate writings on Alexander's relationships. I think it violates Wiki policy to add a category that is still being disputed and most people who commented on it are in agreement it does not belong here particulary the Category:LGBT. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

Consensus isn't the same thing as majority rule. Consensus is when a group of people finds a mutually acceptable outcome. That's not happening here. Furthermore, editors cannot override the NPOV policy, so even if there were consensus to eliminate the category I don't think that decision would be correct.

As an ancillary matter, it could be argued that one of the participants in this debate is a single-purpose account. Because of this I'm even less inclined to think that this discussion will result in consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have not yet seen any reliable source that says that Alexander did not have a sexual relationship with Hephaistion or Bagoas. I don't see any evidence that there is a dispute about this, except for editors' personal interpretations of primary sources. I'm sure there are secondary sources that deny that A. had same-sex relationships, but no one has cited one yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late with a possible compromise

Hi. I had not been following this debate closely, but have taken a look at it at the request of Akhilleus. My view is that since there is well-referenced material in the article about Alexander's sexuality, it would be appropriate to have a category reflecting that. However, it is clear that some editors strongly oppose this idea, and the direct inclusion of Alexander in any LGBT category is controversial. Perhaps the answer is to create a category for historical figures whose sexuality is disputed. It could include Alexander and figures like Richard I of England, whose sexuality is also the subject of some academic disagreements. This proposed Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed could be a subcategory of Category:LGBT history, for the purposes of collecting subjects of interest as Akhilleus indicates, but it would avoid directly categorizing Alexander as LGBT, which I admit is problematic due to both the inconclusive historical evidence and the ambiguity over whether the term refers to behaviors or modern-day identities.

What do you regular editors of the article think of this suggestion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me and I believe more accurate with what is written in the article. Thanks, Josia. Regards :)~ Mallaccaos 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, the idea of putting this in a new category has merit. I too feel that avoiding "LGBT" is a plus - "LGBT history" was the least bad alternative. However, a "disputed" category could well become a repository for contentious topics which would be better off in more precise categories. Else we may well be lumping zoophiliacs with pederasts and with heterosexuals. How about Category:History of same-sex relations instead? Haiduc 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:History of same-sex relations sound similar to that of "Category:LGBT history". I believe Joshua's Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed is more insync with what is written in the article particular since this is true. Plus the category Category:LGBT history would not be excluded from being categorized there and anyone interested/finding this matter on Alexander will be able to do so from there. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

Unfortunately it is not in sync, since what is written about him is not that his sexuality is disputed, but that he had love affairs with at least two males. The modern disputatious tempest in a teapot is not notable - everything is disputed these days, if you trawl far enough. Haiduc 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is those supposed "sexual love affairs" which are disputed as it is pointed out in the article, plus the Category:History of same-sex relations sounds like just another re-wording of Category:LGBT history. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

My understanding is that the scholarly consensus is that it is probable but not certain that the relationships with Hephaestion and Bagoas were sexual, or at least romantic in nature. Perhaps we should find a way to indicate that in the category. How about Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations? That would indicate the consensus, while allowing "wiggle room" for the fact that the historical evidence indicates but does not prove that Alexander had same-sex relations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm more partial to the first one I also find Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations as an approriate alternative too. How about Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations? Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

I appreciate this attempt to find a compromise and the constructive tone of this discussion. Category:History of same-sex relations seems good to me. I can't see how Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is different than Category:History of same-sex relations, except that one is wordier than the other.

I can't agree with categorizing Alexander's sexuality as "disputed". I've seen no evidence that reliable sources dispute Alexander's sexuality; so, far, the only people disputing it are WP editors. Furthermore, I think creating a "disputed" category would be a bad precedent; it's not hard to imagine a tendentious editor insisting that other classical figures, like Sappho or Catullus, should be put into this category.----Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This argument for avoiding "disputed" makes sense to me. I agree that Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is wordy, but it does have the virtue of leaving room for the element of uncertainty which the article indicates is present in the case of Alexander. Placing Alexander in Category: History of same-sex relations to me sounds more definite than the article (at the moment) suggests the scholarly consensus is. Also, the "associated" category seems less redundant with Category:LGBT history. But that's just my take. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, I think it's fine to avoid LGBT as an anachronism. But I would like to point out (again) that those editors who object to "homosexuality" as being anachronistic are not taking into account the huge amount of scholarship that deals with sexuality in the ancient Greek (and Roman) world. Scholarship like Dover's Greek Homosexuality, Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, Craig Williams' Roman Homosexuality, T.K.Hubbard's sourcebook Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents in translation are just a few examples. I do not believe that WP editors' opinions of whether a term is anachronistic should trump standard scholarly usage, and it's obvious that scholars use the word "homosexuality" when writing about ancient Greece (and Rome). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that either one of these three, which allow room for the bases that nothing conclusive exists: Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations, are all postive alternatives. Category:History of same-sex relations just sounds like a rewording of other same-sex categories that are already in existance. As far the as the usage of terms LGBT/Homosexuality being "anachronistic", this has less to do with WP editors' opinions and more to do with the fact that not all scholars believe they should used towards ancient societies such as Greece and Rome, i.e. David Halpern, John Winkler & Bruce Thornton; there are scholars out there that do argue that it is wrong to apply/label ancient people with those terms given they are modern identities not ancients. Apro 13 October 2006

Well, Winkler isn't accessible to me at the moment. But I know for a fact that Thornton and Halperin use the term "homosexuality". Here, for instance, is Thornton (Eros: the Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p. 100):

Part of the problem is that homosexuality, contemporary as well as ancient, is no easier for us so-called moderns to understand than it was for the Greeks. One of our difficulties when reading about ancient Greece is that the most common manifestation of homosexuality in the evidence concerns pederasty, the quasi-ritualized, transient, physical and emotional relationship between an older male and a youth, an activity we now view as criminal. Very little, if any, evidence from ancient Greece survives that shows adult males (or females) as "couples" involved in an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which sex with women (or men) is moot and the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships. Thus the evidence from anicent Greece involves either man-youth homosexuality (the idealized social relationship we will discuss in Chapter 8), or the precisely defined passive homosexual or kinaidos, the adult male who perversely enjoys being penetrated by other males and who has sex with women only because of societal pressure.

David Halperin wrote the entry on "homosexuality" for the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which reads in part:

It is not illegitimate to employ modern sexual terms and concepts when interrogating the ancient record, but particular caution must be exercised in order not to import modern, western, sexual categories and ideologies into the interpretation of the ancient evidence. Hence, students of classical antiquity need to be clear about when they intend the term 'homosexual' descriptively--i.e. to denote nothing more than same-sex sexual relations--and when they intend it substantively or normatively--i.e. to denominate a discrete kind of sexual psychology or behaviour, a positive species of sexual being, or a basic compoonent of 'human sexuality'. The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.

Halperin does say that "homosexuality" must be used with caution, and that it can be anachronistic. However, he also says that we can use it descriptively--to refer to activity, but not to identity. This corresponds perfectly to what the article says about Alexander's relationships--that he was not a "homosexual" in the modern sense of the word (and that no ancient Greek male would have thought of himself that way)--but that he also in all probability had sexual relationships with men (and women as well). In that sense, this article is pertinent to the subject of homosexuality in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Its that probability which is in question here and the little issue that there still is no conclusive evidence of it being true, therefore applying "homosexuality" here is very misleading and which is why I believe one of the two categories suggested by Josiah are more approriate. Apro) 13 October 2006

---

Comment: The four contemporary biographers of Alexander the Great never wrote of Alexander being physically attracted to men. The article states that. Robin Lane Fox clearly states that in his biography. Both Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge acknowledge that it is not proven Hephaestion or Bagoas were Alexander’s lovers. Carledge writes that Hephaestion was “Boyhood friend of Alex., like Harpalus, but his developing relationship was of unusual, and probably sexual, intimacy.”(Alexander the Great, The Hunt for a new past, p. 306) The keyword here is probably. Meaning that it is not proven. Regarding Bagoas Robin Lane Fox writes "Later gossip presumed that Bagoas was Alexander’s lover. This is uncertain." (The Search for Alexander ~ Little, Brown and Co. Boston, 1980, p. 67.) Keyword here is uncertain. Regarding Hephaestion, Robin Lan Fox writes "No contemporary history states this, but the facts show that the two men's friendship was exceptionally deep and close." Keywords here are No contemporary history states this Even Cartledge and Fox who, it seems, are beyond a doubt convinced Alexander was a bisexual, are not convinced enough to claim so as if it is a fact. Again it is not proven Alexander was attracted to men. Why should we speculate and add him into that category? Plus the Personal Life section is a joke. It is not even about his personal life, but instead only about his possible homosexual relationships. What about his family relationships? His father, mother? What about his relationship with women? All these would constitute as his personal life. There is practically nothing written about his relationships with women for which we are certain of!! It seems that the personal life section has been written with a great bias and some desire to see Alexander as a bisexual and pederast when you can never prove any of it. I wonder what scholars like Victor Davis Hanson or Peter Green think of this. Whatever the scholarly consensus is, that does not constitute as proof. The amount of opinions don't make something the truth, the truth is the truth. Until you can prove it, I don't see a need for adding a category like this to Alexander. Takidis 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, You might also want to consult David Cohen, "Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens" (Cambridge 1991). In chapter 7 he speaks of Athens as "a culture whose laws expressed a deep rooted anxiety about paederasty while not altogether forbidding it" (p. 201). His chapter reviews "the widely differing attitudes and conflicting norms and practices" of a "complex culture" which "should not be rationalized away" (p. 202). I'm just showing this to show that many different aspects of sexuality in antiquity are debated. By the way, please don't respond to just one of my points. Takidis 00:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The four contemporary biographers of Alexander did not mention either that he breathed air, but we shall not jump to conclusions and postulate he was a fish. That a masculine man would find handsome youths attractive was a given - the only question is how he would manifest that attraction. To extrapolate from these biographers that Alexander expressed modern heterosexual behaviors two and a half millennia ago is an absurdity. No one questions that he loved males, and did so intensely. To his credit, he seems to not have done so abusively, though he was abusive enough in other ways, as they all were (when was the last time you got drunk and killed a good friend?)

Another misunderstanding is the seemingly unshakeable notion among some here that we are sitting in a court of law and trying to find Alexander guilty of "X" beyond any reasonable doubt. That is nothing but a dressed up straw man argument. What we do in the Wikipedia is to index various aspects of each article for the convenience of our readers. The male loves of Alexander, including the wisps of fog which shroud them, are of interest for anyone reading up on ancient sexuality, whether or not there are doubts about their many aspects.

A further misunderstanding is that our opinions matter. We do not even have a place at the table, we are here to report on the ongoing conversation between people who are indeed qualified to have an opinion. The fact that User:Joe Blow disputes something does not make it "disputed," since squabbles between Wikipedia editors are anything but notable.

That being said, I agree with Takidis that in ancient Greece there were currents of misgiving about pederastic affairs (to say nothing about androphilic ones) and the practice ranged from mandated by law to restricted by law to forbidden by law. But that takes us a bit far afield. To return to the categorization argument, I agree with Akhilleus that a category listing his relationships as "disputed" is not appropriate. "Same-sex relations" on the other hand can include various types of relationships, including erotic ones that were not overtly sexual - as per Mr. Fox. Haiduc 00:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that his breathing air is also not mentioned is "fallacious" since that is a given, unlike the claim of his supposed "sexual relationship" with Hephaestion, if it existed, it would have been mentioned by Alexander's main contemporary biographers. The fact that not one of them ever makes mention of Alexander having such sexual relations, particularly with Hephaestion since that relationship, we are told by some who theorize was supposedly "romantic in a homosexual way" was important, is very telling, given that it is on these main contemporary writers that later authors based their work on. Not one of them ever uses the ancient terms which modern scholars associate the meaning "lover in a physical way" to describe Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion. If the two had such a relationship as some claim has existed why no mention of it and why don't our contemporaries use terms which they used with most every other individual who did participate in such relationships? Its not like they were not using these terms with others of that period but curiously enough never with Alexander and yet we are supposed to dismiss this and accept the theories of writers who lived even later then our contemporaries with closed eyes, no questions asked? Apro 13 October 2006

Ask all the questions you like. However, when the interpretation of primary sources is debated, we turn to reliable sources instead of editors' interpretations of what the primary sources say. In fact, editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources are original research, and cannot be used to determine article content. Please support your claims with some secondary sources; until you do, I'm going to stick with the opinions of Paul Cartledge and Robin Lane Fox. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm gathering, from the above, that scholars continue to debate over the nature of Alexander's relationships in terms of the nature of the feelings, emotions, and activities that they encompassed and in how to interpret them, given the millenia that have since passed. That alone seems to me to be reason for an encyclopedia, such as this, to raise this subject; if it's important enough for those who understand the subject to continue to return to it, then we should mention it. And that's probably all we should do: mention it, mention that it's debated, and move on. Regarding categorization, what is the purpose of categorizing Alexander, or not categorizing him? --Badger151 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is categorizing the article, not the man. An elementary point, but it's worth repeating, because it seems like people aren't noticing it. The point of categorizing the article is so that people who are interested in reading about a particular subject can find it. Let's say you're a person who's interested in the topic of ancient Greek sexuality, but you don't know much about Alexander; this category, whatever it ends up being, might help you find this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wiki articles had to have correct categories applied to them and seeing that Alexander's "male relations" are still debated and not confirmed adding categories such as LGBT/Homosexuality, particularly since they are modern labels to begin with, are misleading. Having said that some of the alternative categories such as: Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations, are all possible. Apro 13 October 2006

---

Of the options, it looks to me as if Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations has the widest support. Does anyone object to that phrasing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't, sounds good to me. :) Apro 13 October 2006

I will support that category. It sounds like a subcategory, though, and I'd like to know where it fits in the overall category scheme. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the "associated" tag, as well as with the length of the title. Also, if I might speak for the "other side", "relations" (even though I suggested the term) alludes to actual sexuality. What if we call it Category:History of same-sex love? That would include passionate but chaste relationships, if that is the nature of, say, his love for Bagoas. Also, against the "associated" formulations, here is a significant contribution from Stanford: "For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men."[1] More than mere association, to my eye. Haiduc 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That Stanford statement is misleading. How can Alexander be known as having only exclusive interest in boys and other men when there accounts of his female relations? As for the Category:History of same-sex love is similar to the list of LGBT couples Same Sex Couples. The Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations that Josiah suggested fits better. Apro 13 October 2006

I'm not sure how placing this articel into any of these categories will help a person who is looking into ancient Greek sexuality and knows little about Alexander. If the point is for people who are intested in articles on LGBT subjects to find this article, then that's how the article should be categorized. If the point is to understand Alexander's relationships in the context of his time, then that's something else again, and the categorization should indicate this historical context. --Badger151 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is for the correct category to be placed in the article. Since Alexander's sexual relations are not defined and still suspect placing the LGBT category, especially since this is an article on an ancient individual and that category does not apply, is very misleading. I do agree though that Josiah's Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations sounds more reasonable and anyone who is interested in finding about any supposed "same sex" relations he might have had would still be able to since the category for LGBT will be applied to the Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations or which ever final category is used. Mallaccaos 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation from Robin Lane Fox

The "personal life" section quotes Robin Lane Fox in a way that is misleading. The article currently quotes Fox as someone who questions whether there was a sexual relationship between A. and Hephaistion:

This assertion of a sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaiston is questioned by some historians. Robin Lane Fox writes that while "later gossip claimed that Alexander had a love affair with Hephaestion", no contemporary history states this. However, Fox adds, "the facts show that the two men’s friendship was exceptionally deep and close." Following Hephaestion's death, Alexander mourned him greatly, and did not eat for days.

But here's the full quote from Fox's The Search for Alexander, pp. 67-68: "Among the Pages, one name stands out, the Hephaistion with whom later gossip claimed that Alexander had a love affair. No contemporary history states this, but the facts show that the two men's friendship was exceptionally deep and close. Contemporaries called Hephaistion the Patroclus to Alexander's Achilles, the Homeric friendship which men of Alexander's age assumed to have a sexual element. Later, Alexander planned his court marriages so that Hephaistion's children should be his own nephews, a special honor. When Hephaistion died prematurely, Alexander's grief burst all lesser limits. There is much gossip about his mourning, but a hard core attests its scale. There is no doubting Alexander's normal affairs with women at the same time. It is probably mere rumor that he once refused a woman whom his parents had tried to force on him. Most sane young men, anyway, would have followed suit. But an affair with a man of similar age was quite accepted in Greek society. The topic was viewed with a charming inconsistency. Old or excessive homosexuals were disliked, but young men could love and learn from each other without social disapproval. The custom ran deep in Greek culture, fed, perhaps, by the small role which many fathers played in their young sons' lives. Among Macedonian kings, the love of boys was nothing unusual. But only the contemporary pamphleteer Theopompus claimed mischievously that the whole court at Pella was mad for it, beards and all."

Fox doesn't say that A. had a sexual relationship with Hephaistion, but says that it would have been normal if he had; clearly, he believes that A. and Hephaistion might have been lovers. This opinion is similar to the opinion he expresses in the Archaeology interview, quoted above. In his book Alexander the Great Fox is more definite: "At the age of thirty Alexander was still Hephaistion's lover although most young Greeks would have grown out of the fashion by then and an older man would have given up or turned to a young attraction." Fox has never expressed any serious doubt that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, and in fact has said that they likely were. I'd say that the article's distortion of Fox's views is a good example of suppression of information. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article did not suppress information, it gave accounts on both sides of the issue and showed how uncertain the whole matter is by scholars. It quoted Fox's own words, if anything the article suppresses and takes more of a one sided view now. Fox plainly states that most of this theory is based on late gossip and not with contemporaries accounts, which he follows up with that hint on the matter regarding the "close friendship" comment, as if that is evidence of anything. Fox uses the term assume when he talks about any supposed "Homeric sexual friendship relationship", meaning its still not known for certain. Plus not one of our ancient historians on Alexander ever use the terms eromenos or erastes which some translate to means "lover" to describe either Alexander or Hephaistion. If as some theorizes that such a Homeric "sexual" friendships were the norm of ancient Greece, why would these ancient historians, who's work most late authors base their material on, omitte in adding this little fact if its true as Fox and some other modern historians claim that Alexander's "romatic physical" feeling were so strong for Hephaistion? Fox states very clearly what was written originally in the article and it is by his own admission that he says this, he was not misquoted. What I do find interesting though is the fact that you omitted Fox's own quote of:"No contemporary history states this, but the facts show that the two men's friendship was exceptionally deep and close." for a more one sided view in trying to portray some sort of sexual relationship between the two being is certain when in fact it was not, again its Fox's own words that state this even when he trys to justify some sort of physichal relationship when not contemporary historian ever says this. Apro 12 October 2006

Instead of having 3 different quotes from Fox, I have rephrased the beginning sentence of the paragraph to read: "No contemporary source states that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers." which is equivalent to the quote "No contemporary history states this,..." The last sentence of the paragraph now reads "Alexander and Hephaistion remained, in Fox's words, 'exceptionally deep and close' friends until Hephaestion's untimely death, after which Alexander mourned him greatly, and did not eat for days." This corresponds to the quote "the facts show that the two men's friendship was exceptionally deep and close." Nothing's left out.

If you can find a reliable secondary source that argues that the relationship of Alexander and Hephaistion was definitely not sexual, it should be included in the article. But that's not what Fox thinks. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No that is deliberate omitting and rewording Fox's personal quote to slate the article a certain way and promote one point of view. As it was said above, I find it interesting that the quote which was reworded is one of the ones which points to evidence that Alexander's supposed sexual relation is not clear. If this article is suppose to be fair and balance as it claims then his words should not be omitted. Apro 12 October 2006

Apro, nothing from that quote that you added back in has been omitted. The paragraph begins "No contemporary historian states that Alexander were lovers" and ends "Alexander and Hephaistion remained, in Fox's words, 'exceptionally deep and close' friends". Please read the whole quote from Fox above before alleging that the article is slanting things, because I don't think there's any way you can interpret the passage as arguing against the possiblity that A. and H. had a sexual relationship. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apro, I agree with Akhilleus on this: I've got another book of Lane Fox, his biography Alexander the Great, in which he openly and strongly argues that the Hepaestion-Alexander relation was also sexual. This doesn't mean that Lane Fox's arguments are The Truth™; only that you can't twist his arguments so to make his views seem yours. There are historians who don't agree with Lane Fox; quote from them, opposing their povs to his pov.--Aldux 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)