2007-12-02 05:13:49 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I believe that Alexander was bisexual. He had wives and mistresses but he also had "boy toys" as well. One in question was a guy named Hephastion (if you see Oliver Stone's crapfest "Alexander," you'll know what I'm talking about).
2007-12-02 05:17:32 · answer #1 · answered by chrstnwrtr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None, really. You can never know another person's preferences. It was (and often is) common practice for soldiers in the field for months and years at a time to shack up with each other or teenage males often brought along for the purpose (Sal Mineo's character in "Exodus", e.g.), but that doesn't mean anything about who they'd rather be with. And since homosexuality wasn't a social issue in Alexander's time, there would be no reason for historians of the time to bother commenting on it either way.
2007-12-02 07:41:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The problem is with the terminology. The Greeks didn't think in terms of homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Most men married women (they needed children) and had relations with members of the same sex. It was just something that they did - it was a whole institution. The Greeks didn't problematize sex in the way that we do now (monogamy, with member of the opposite sex), they problematized it in terms of self-control, moderation, and who was performing the action and who was receiving the action. Alexander the Great couldn't have been a homosexual or bisexual because such terms would've meant nothing to the Greeks and Macedonians. We know he married Roxana and we know he had great affection for Hephaestion - it would've been perfectly normal at that time.
2007-12-02 05:36:59 · answer #3 · answered by Jessica 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
And to that i would be very sparkling. I remember analyzing final week some pedophile who had served 21 years in detention center for the kidnapping and rape of his step daughter, she replaced into aged10. 5 years after being released he married yet another women people who has her grand babies together with her. next we've Adam & Steve. A loving couple who because of the fact they are comparable intercourse, can not marry. they are elderly 28 and 27. the two carry down sturdy jobs and neither has led to themes of their community, in certainty Adam is common for his help of the disabled and Steve coaches his nephews soccer team. the two additionally help their elderly neighbour as she isn't able to do minor maintenance around the living house like fixing a broken gate lock or trimming a huge tree. so which you tell me, why is the guy who has rapes babies is seen as proper to marry however the boys who help others isn't. You tell me, is there any heterosexual who's excluded from marriage, be them murderers, drug sellers, kidnappers, rapist, drink drivers or maybe men who offend against babies are all proper to marry on your eyes, i understand they are as I even have not seen you at here pushing the thought such human beings should not be allowed to marry. individually in case you want to exclude human beings from marriage how approximately going for people who have not got any admire for others.
2016-12-10 10:07:46 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since he had a queen and did his royal duty by her, he had to be at least bisexual.
It's really not important, though. The morals of that day and age were quite different from ours and we do not have the right to judge him by our standards.
That is unless you are willing for future generations to judge you by theirs.
2007-12-02 05:34:55 · answer #5 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He was probablly bisexual, most people were then
2007-12-02 05:18:01 · answer #6 · answered by sweetwatersd 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
At this point in time, does it really matter?
2007-12-02 05:21:45 · answer #7 · answered by Shortstuff13 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
who cares
2007-12-02 05:21:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋