Never once said gays could not be 'Great'. The man was "Great" becuase his vanity chose the title, when he wasn't. My point.
But why the homosexual issue is even discussed in this thread? And I didn't even mention your name, Geological-centre-Earth
Hey, one of my pet points- that "gay" is a word with a perfectly good pedigree and history, that has been unfairly hijacked as both a celebratory label and a pejorative label. Give us the word back as it was you bastards.
Frisbinator: Alexander's father was not gay. Maybe he had a boy or two from time to time, but that was not considered gay back then. What WAS considered gay was men whom ONLY fraternized with other men. This was looked down upon and thought to be caused by some sort of disease. Believe it or not, there was some concern when Alexander was an early teenager, cause all that he would do was hang around this one boy, and their relationship entailed kissing. Phillip II (his father) hired a bunch of high class prostitutes to sway his decisions. I got the first part from a book about homosexuals. Got the second part from the history channel special. ************* M*W: I haven't see the movie (I don't even know if it's out yet), but I was in B&N one time and picked up a book titled something like "Gay People in History." It was quite entertaining, but I learned that say in Caesar's time, it was quite common for men to have young boy toys as it was not considered adultery. It was only adultery if they had sex with the opposite sex, someone other than their wives. Anyhoo, those 'marriages' were not made of personal choices but of parental matchmaking, so I doubt there was any real love in those pre-arranged marriages. Marriage was one thing, but sexual pleasure was another. How sad it would have been to be a young boy in those days, but I do not judge. I wish I could remember who else was in that book. You may know the one I'm talking about
I have a problem with the movie, if they show Alexander loving women I’m soo going to be very piss off! Alexander was a homosexual, sure he did have to do several political marriages, but the love of his life was Hephaestion (Alax’s second in command), when Hephaestion died it drove Alax into a drunken stupor and Alax died within that year. Now if the movie making media can’t accept Alax’s homosexuality, it means a serious homophobe problem here when we have to censor history of homosexuality!
To put it correctly Greek culture was bisexual and pedophilic at the time, they accepted and encouraged sex with the same sex and sex with children, at least amongst man, I don’t know what they let women do sexually.
Yes, Alexander did claim to be a god. But whether he decided on the title of 'the Great' is unclear. So how does it matter? Every great man is narcissistic. Nietzche was the epitomy of narcissism. Does that mean he wasn't great? The wisest great men conceal their vanity. I wish you could bring it down to my level and qualify your "point". Or are you too good for that? Great. So if I'm sneaky and lucky enough to murder you out of spite, I would be Great. I hope you're being sarcastic - it has trouble coming through text. Alexander had, like many powerful leaders, the power of life or death over his followers. If your statement is serious, it is irrelevant. History doesn't describe him as a despot, however. If you're serious, my guess is that you read too much Nietzche and take some of his statements too seriously. Nietzche was not God. Think for yourself. As Socrates said, "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".
Bad Christian: Read the thread title. Then the premise. So you're saying here that one can only be wise, powerful, great even if humble enough to keep quiet? That somehow arrogance disqualifies the position. That somehow the type B personality defines power, the way bloodtypes define anantomy. Right? Since you bring him up, and I know why- Freidrich's got chapters titled "Why I am so Wise" and "...so Clever" and "Why I Write Such Good Books" throughout Ecco Homo. Not at all. Stop anyone on the street. Ask them who invented the traffic signal, or the pistons in their engine, or the computer their chubby little fingers type into. None of them know. But say either Hitler or Stalin or Castro. These men were immortalized by fear. That you can do this is not great- beating the neigborhood kids down to submission is harldy great, they're kids. Hitler considered his people like children- now imagine him going around thinking he's great. Imagine the world speaking about him as we do Alexander- that's like saying a mother is great for changing a diaper. That he was or was not a despot is irrelevant- we're discussing here why it is the man was baptized with "The Great". Caligula becomes a household word while Claudius fades in obscurity. Hmmmm.... Foul ball. I read waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to many Steele and Higgins Clarke novels and plus, I'm a hairy lesbo.
You've succeeded in confusing the hell out of me. Which one of us is obtuse? Nope. That's not what I said. I believe that the most powerful don't feel the need to boast. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. One can be proud and boast and still be great, it just reflects insecurity. Isn't that obvious? Nobody takes people who proclaim their own greatness seriously. That doesn't mean they aren't great, powerful people. It just slightly diminishes their greatness. Nope. The greatest lead with respect. Examine the leadership styles of Alexander(the Great), Julius Caesar, Octavius, or any other great leader and you'll find that their followers didn't follow them because they were forced to but because they loved, respected, and trusted them. Comparing Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire to me beating up little kids down the street is pretty terrible. Alexander destroyed an empire larger than his against terrible odds. Can you understand that? Wtf? Caligula is infamous. Alexander is famous. How are you drawing these parrellels? What's wrong with you?
Bad Christian: Simpler sentences, then. People remember the spectacular. This means that in order to make it to the language, so that people like you will remember Caesar or Octavius or Alexander but not Morgan or Babbage a man would (usually) have to forge his reputation not in love or respect but in fear. Spectacle. You used those names like nouns and adjectives- they live through the ages as words not because they brought aqueducts and reform but because people feared them enough to immortalize them. Babbage would have made it to the language if he killed a few people, is my point. Or gotten the spectacular press coverage that Einstein did. You didn't have to say it. A women flexing her cleavage at you doesn't have to say she wants to fuck. Look, I understand what you're saying- he Hellenized a good chunk of the world and enriched it with what it meant to be human years and years before the Humanists, I'm not denying his achievements. My initial post. But these men are "loved" and "respected" and "trusted" the way a lamb would a lion. This is the only relation possible between the powerful and the weak. Get it now? You can be proud and boast all you want- think of a prison. The most powerful men in there are those that have killed or will kill. Let a man accomplish a neat trick for making razors from spoons or something as useful, and he’d still be a pussy and treated as one. But let him “accomplish” the simple act of killing a prison guard and watch him become an elite. Anyone with power over men's lives is infamous, you idiot. That's what makes them infamous. Not their intellect or contributions. Study the word. Had the man not been a tyrant, which he was, he could never have forced the "Great" into the history books.
Going off the History Channel's catch phrase: They Didn't Call Him Alexander the Timid. ---- How far Alexander would have succeeded in the difficult task of coordinating his vast dominions, had he lived, is hard to determine. The only link between the many units that went to make up an empire more disparate than that of the Habsburgs, and far larger, was his own person; and his death came before he could tackle this problem. What had so far held it all together was his own dynamic personality. He combined an iron will and ability to drive himself and his men to the utmost with a supple and flexible mind; he knew when to draw back and change his policy, though he did this reluctantly. He was imaginative and not without romantic impulses; figures like Achilles, Heracles, and Dionysus were often in his mind, and the salutation at the oracle of Amon clearly influenced his thoughts and ambitions ever afterward. He was swift in anger, and under the strain of his long campaigns this side of his character grew more pronounced. Ruthless and self-willed, he had increasing recourse to terror, showing no hesitation in eliminating men whom he had ceased to trust, either with or without the pretense of a fair trial. Years after his death, Cassander, son of Antipater, a regent of the Macedonian Empire under Alexander, could not pass his statue at Delphi without shuddering. Yet he maintained the loyalty of his men, who followed him to the Hyphasis without complaining and continued to believe in him throughout all hardships. Only when his whim would have taken them still farther into unknown India did he fail to get his way. As a general Alexander is among the greatest the world has known. He showed unusual versatility both in the combination of different arms and in adapting his tactics to the challenge of enemies who commanded novel forms of warfare—the Śaka nomads, the Indian hill tribes, or Porus with his elephants. His strategy was skillful and imaginative, and he knew how to exploit the chances that arise in every battle and may be decisive for victory or defeat; he also drew the last advantage from victory by relentless pursuit. His use of cavalry was so effective that he rarely had to fall back upon his infantry to deliver the crushing blow. Alexander's short reign marks a decisive moment in the history of Europe and Asia. His expedition and his own personal interest in scientific investigation brought many advances in the knowledge of geography and natural history. His career led to the moving of the great centres of civilization eastward and initiated the new age of the Greek territorial monarchies; it spread Hellenism in a vast colonizing wave throughout the Middle East and created, if not politically at least economically and culturally, a single world stretching from Gibraltar to the Punjab, open to trade and social intercourse and with a considerable overlay of common civilization and the Greek koinē as a lingua franca. It is not untrue to say that the Roman Empire, the spread of Christianity as a world religion, and the long centuries of Byzantium were all in some degree the fruits of Alexander's achievement. - Encyclopaedia Britannica ------------- ALL THAT before the age of 33. Compare that to your measly lives and bow down.
Alexander was both great and not so great at the same time. He was one of the greatest military leaders in history who's feats will not soon be duplicated. However once he was through fighting he didn't really know what to do with himself, was a drunk and not very good at governing. As for the homosexual tendancies, it was normal for the times. Greek men loved other men and boys. However if woman loved woman it was considered vile and unnatural. A person was not considered homosexual unless they only saught romantic relationships with the same sex. It was fairly normal at the time for a man to be married and still have a man or boy on the side. Men would court boys the same way they would a woman. Men would wait outside of schools, gyms and places the boys would be and scout out the best looking ones. They would go to the father and ask his permission, sometimes persuading him with money if the family had little. He would then shower the boy with lavish gifts and show him how to be successful and show him the ways of Greek men. Greeks were obsessed with perfection in the physical body. The teenage years was when a man was considered to look his best and many of the youths were dumped for younger, better looking men. Such a thing may have led to the death of Phillip of Macedonia. One theory was that his bodyguard was once his lover who had fallen out of favor when Phillip took interest in a younger man causing the bodyguard to kill him in a fit of rage. There were also theories that Alexander and Olympia plotted to kill him after his marriage to Cleopatra and a male heir they had, which would have been king instead of Alexander so there are all sorts of speculation. I really hope they don't show Phillip messing with a man in the movie, that would ruin my fascination with Val Kilmer.
Debating about whether someone is 'great' or not is futile. The definition of 'great' is almost as vague as 'good'. I believe that Alexander was great because of the Greek knowledge that he spread throughout Asia, and all that he accomplished. Gedanken believes that Alexander wasn't great because he killed people and ruled through power, not love(?). He asserted himself and killed people. He was, in some ways, a despot(as most leaders are). Whether or not that is great depends on what you believe shows greatness. I've come to believe that the mark of leadership is the ability to push people to do things they don't want to, whether it's conquering the world, picking up trash, loving all people, or slaughtering millions of Jews. EH? What about Socrates, Cicero, Jesus, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, or hell, Nietzche? Sorry, you're hugely confused. The reason Babbage wasn't rembered was: 1) He didn't influence his followers/readers enough(Nietzche). 2) He didn't gain true, devoted followers(Jesus). 3) He didn't truly accomplish that much(Alexander/Octavius). It has something to do with greatness, but just because you're well-remembered doesn't mean you're great. There is a difference between fame and infamy.
Gendanken, Some men's names become remembered not through fear but through everyday use. John Crapper, for instance.
I think it's interesting that Stone omitted the story of the Gordean Knot from his movie. It kind of pissed me off, since it's one of my favorite stories. You know, whoever can untie this knot will rule the world, and Alexander unties it with one blow from his sword. A simple solution to a complex problem.
Cartoon Network put Alexander into a cartoon sci-fi setting. It sucked. Anyone remember what it is called?
Polrean, Time Squad? madanthonywayne, I don't think they can shove every story about Alaxander the great into a movie.
I've been given a spanking and must repost my origninal post without insluts. *&%^#(*&%^*)&#^%)*&#^(*&%^#)&*(^%)*&#^)*%&^)#*&^%)*&#^)*&%^ Therefore: But we're talking of leadership. Pussy emperors with bad knees that people like him and her and them go around calling 'great' because of the stories prescribed to the scholars. Look at this thing: (He just quoted the Encyclopedia.) To wit- Ivan the Terrible was hardly terrible, Stalin was hardly made of steel. Bad Muslim: Good point. But. Dude. I said fear because I'm being dragged into explaining why it is something like Alexander is considered 'great'. Tad anal, no?
