Did A Gay Sensibility Help Alexander the Great Conquer the World?
Dave Muskera, M.A.
June 09, 2009
Alexander the Great died a month short of his 33rd birthday in 323 BCE some 2300 years ago in the conquered city of Babylon not far south of present day Baghdad. While a great deal is known about what he accomplished in his short life, not much indisputable detail about Alexander the man survives. Only bits and pieces here and there now remain that paint a portrait of indefinite outline and color. From other historic sources, it does appear that at least twenty contemporaries wrote of his life and military campaigns in detail. However, the original documents have all been lost or burned-up in the libraries of antiquity, sacked and pillaged by various invading armies. One of those bits of information about Alexander that still causes contention and debate is the nature of his sexuality…..or in today´s language his "sexual orientation".
Alexander the Great was only 20 when he assumed the Kingship of Macedonia after the assassination of his father, King Phillip II. By the time of his death thirteen years later (some speculate of typhoid) he had lead his armies in a string of military victories that made him the undisputed ruler of the known world and brought Greek culture to the four corners of civilization including Egypt and India. It was his influence that lead to the Christian New Testament being written mostly in Greek.
It´s been said Alexander never lost a military battle. He united differing cultures that had never before experienced peace among themselves. He could be brutal and vicious or unexpectedly kind and forgiving. For many students of military history, he is still considered the greatest warrior, soldier, leader, ruler and military strategist the world has ever known. He held back nothing in battle, most often leading his men in impossible charges against impossible odds. He sustained multiple battle wounds, several of which brought him near death. Yet, after a battle, he found the time and the energy to visit and console his wounded and dying men. Some have stated that his greatest need as a leader was first for the love and adulation of his soldiers and secondarily the conquest of the world. If he were a soldier in a today´s army and the "Don´t Ask Don´t Tell Policy" did not exist, his uniform would be covered with so many metals, including purple hearts there would be no room left for more.
Though he eventually married as many as three women, all apparently for the sake of solidifying political alliances and power, history suggests these were passionless relationships. While he was capable of heterosexual functioning and produced at least one legitimate heir (Alexander IV - born after his father´s death and later murdered before he reached his 14th birthday), his strongest emotional attachments and physical loves where with males. History is very clear on this. Alexander´s fundamental homosexuality is only denied or avoided by those simply not willing to consider objective evidence. Even early on as a young boy, his lack of interest in females caused his mother, Queen Olympias, such great concern that she procured a beautiful courtesan for him and begged him, to little avail, to have sex with her.
The Queen need not have worried her son would become "effete" or girlish. Alexander quickly excelled in all the arts of war and battle from taming wild horses to wielding a deadly sword. While it was a Greek custom for boys to find their youthful sexual outlet with other and usually older men, Alexander carried forth into adulthood his childhood relationship with Hephaestion (an age peer) who later became one of his most trusted "generals"(and cavalry/army commanders) and most probably, a lifelong lover.
It is also well documented that Alexander took as a lover the Persian eunuch Bagoas after he was given him as a "gift" following Alexander´s takeover of Babylon and the Persian Kingdom. While he then had available a retinue of 365 concubines left by the fleeing King Darius III, he showed little interest and employed them "rather sparingly" and then mostly to satisfy the expectations of his conquered peoples and to solidify his authority. Bagoas, on the other hand, became his "favorite". He has been described as having been exceptionally "good-looking" and in "the very flower of his youth" when Alexander first saw him at court. He remained with Alexander as his lover and body servant and as an influential person till Alexander´s death years later.
When Hephaestion, his childhood friend and adult lover died unexpectedly of a food induced illness, Alexander was inconsolable. He laid on Hephaestion´s body for a day and a night weeping. In Macedonia, Queen Olympias was said to be happy at the news of Hephasestion´s death as she had always been "fiercely jealous" of her son´s "lover". It is believed that Alexander never got over the loss of Hephaestion. In a little less than a year, he himself would be dead.
It was while doing background research on Alexander that I read somewhere in a book review a comment that the reviewer became "disturbed" whenever encountering a biography of Alexander that left out the facts of his homosexuality. He added that Alexander´s sexual orientation "only mattered" when it was "omitted and ignored" and for "no other reason". It was that notion that started me thinking. I began to wonder how indeed Alexander´s homosexuality or "gayness" (if that term can be applied this far removed from his time and culture) might have been a contributing factor to his phenomenal success as a military strategist, warrior and uniter of diverse cultures. I began to consider how his "gay sensibility" might have been the very quality that set him apart from other warriors and kings (both before and after) – that led him to successfully subdue so many great and supposedly invincible armies. It also lead me to thoughts of how ridicules it is today for homosexuality to be considered a no-no for military service when in fact the world´s greatest soldier was a lover of men. But that thought is for yet another article to pursue.
Alexander saw and did things differently than other men, other Kings, other conquerors. Not only those before him but many after as well. He saw the beauty in cultures and peoples that others from his place and time dismissed as barbarian. He understood how to inspire men to follow him into the bloodiest of battles, how to overcome their fears and how to reward his soldiers as well as his enemies. His surges of testosterone were at times modulated and did not seem to lead him to the kinds of self-defeating brashness and excess often found in heterosexually driven male conquerors who, for the sake of owning one single woman, (can you say Helen of Troy, Queen Guinevere and etc) might upend their own purpose and lose their kingdom for the sake of a sexual liaison. He had an intuitive sense of how to lead people into cooperation across the gulf of language and culture. Yes, he could be and often was violent (by today´s standards) but just as often, his soft and accepting side showed itself - sometimes to the point it worried and alienated some of his top military men. He was a hard drinking, decisive man even in his early 20s but his love and devotion to the few men in his life stands without question even by the most reluctant of objective historians.
So how does all this relate to the idea of a "gay sensibility" and how on this green earth could such a concept even be mentioned in the same breath as the name of the great Alexander? Like many contemporary terms, gay sensibility is not easily defined. It´s certainly beyond the scope of this article to take on the task of totally outlining its parameters in a way that would satisfy all readers. But I think whatever it is, it goes far beyond the notion of camp. It does involve I believe, at its core, a seeking of and appreciation of beauty in all its forms, erotic and otherwise.
One does not have to be gay to have a gay sensibility but having a same-sex orientation does seem to give the concept yet another spin, taking it further outside the box and leading the perceiver to a special sense of what the world is about and an appreciation of fine points that goes beyond (for example) the mere showing of the accoutrements of wealth only for the sake of a statement of power or accumulation. Gay sensibility, at least in the male, exists when a man sees another man as something more than a competitor and when he can behold and savor male beauty for even its erotic implications. It thrives when a man seeks beauty in all things and can see through the confining perceptions that lead many men to view conquest and power as their highest goal. Gay sensibility takes a man beyond a testosterone driven agenda and that without it would only engage him in slaughter (physical or mental) for the sake of slaughter.
Certainly, Alexander demonstrated something emotionally and intellectually different from the average anointed king. His differences drove him ever forward on a 10,000 mile trek across the known world, taking with him an adoring army of men most of whom would have gladly given their lives to protect his person. He thrived on that adoration. He needed it as much as he needed to see the next unknown valley in India, the eastward sea or the next city to which he could lay siege. He only reversed course near the end of a 10 year campaign when his men no longer shared his vision and desperately wanted to return to their homelands. A man without gay sensibility would have lunged ahead dragging a reluctant army to the ends of the world. But Alexander cared about his men above all else. He cared what they thought of him. He cared about them in a way that no totally straight man could approximate.
Alexander the Great changed the way the world looked at itself. He showed the world, if only for a brief time, that civil cooperation and learning to live together was a better path than constant warring. What greater testament to the meaning of a man´s life could there be? Babylon, for one sweat moment, was Alexander´s Camelot.
Twenty three hundred years later, we are still trying to understand and apply his lessons. Maybe the planet needs more gay sensibility rather than less. Or so it seems to this writer.
Alexander the Great was only 20 when he assumed the Kingship of Macedonia after the assassination of his father, King Phillip II. By the time of his death thirteen years later (some speculate of typhoid) he had lead his armies in a string of military victories that made him the undisputed ruler of the known world and brought Greek culture to the four corners of civilization including Egypt and India. It was his influence that lead to the Christian New Testament being written mostly in Greek.
It´s been said Alexander never lost a military battle. He united differing cultures that had never before experienced peace among themselves. He could be brutal and vicious or unexpectedly kind and forgiving. For many students of military history, he is still considered the greatest warrior, soldier, leader, ruler and military strategist the world has ever known. He held back nothing in battle, most often leading his men in impossible charges against impossible odds. He sustained multiple battle wounds, several of which brought him near death. Yet, after a battle, he found the time and the energy to visit and console his wounded and dying men. Some have stated that his greatest need as a leader was first for the love and adulation of his soldiers and secondarily the conquest of the world. If he were a soldier in a today´s army and the "Don´t Ask Don´t Tell Policy" did not exist, his uniform would be covered with so many metals, including purple hearts there would be no room left for more.
Though he eventually married as many as three women, all apparently for the sake of solidifying political alliances and power, history suggests these were passionless relationships. While he was capable of heterosexual functioning and produced at least one legitimate heir (Alexander IV - born after his father´s death and later murdered before he reached his 14th birthday), his strongest emotional attachments and physical loves where with males. History is very clear on this. Alexander´s fundamental homosexuality is only denied or avoided by those simply not willing to consider objective evidence. Even early on as a young boy, his lack of interest in females caused his mother, Queen Olympias, such great concern that she procured a beautiful courtesan for him and begged him, to little avail, to have sex with her.
The Queen need not have worried her son would become "effete" or girlish. Alexander quickly excelled in all the arts of war and battle from taming wild horses to wielding a deadly sword. While it was a Greek custom for boys to find their youthful sexual outlet with other and usually older men, Alexander carried forth into adulthood his childhood relationship with Hephaestion (an age peer) who later became one of his most trusted "generals"(and cavalry/army commanders) and most probably, a lifelong lover.
It is also well documented that Alexander took as a lover the Persian eunuch Bagoas after he was given him as a "gift" following Alexander´s takeover of Babylon and the Persian Kingdom. While he then had available a retinue of 365 concubines left by the fleeing King Darius III, he showed little interest and employed them "rather sparingly" and then mostly to satisfy the expectations of his conquered peoples and to solidify his authority. Bagoas, on the other hand, became his "favorite". He has been described as having been exceptionally "good-looking" and in "the very flower of his youth" when Alexander first saw him at court. He remained with Alexander as his lover and body servant and as an influential person till Alexander´s death years later.
When Hephaestion, his childhood friend and adult lover died unexpectedly of a food induced illness, Alexander was inconsolable. He laid on Hephaestion´s body for a day and a night weeping. In Macedonia, Queen Olympias was said to be happy at the news of Hephasestion´s death as she had always been "fiercely jealous" of her son´s "lover". It is believed that Alexander never got over the loss of Hephaestion. In a little less than a year, he himself would be dead.
It was while doing background research on Alexander that I read somewhere in a book review a comment that the reviewer became "disturbed" whenever encountering a biography of Alexander that left out the facts of his homosexuality. He added that Alexander´s sexual orientation "only mattered" when it was "omitted and ignored" and for "no other reason". It was that notion that started me thinking. I began to wonder how indeed Alexander´s homosexuality or "gayness" (if that term can be applied this far removed from his time and culture) might have been a contributing factor to his phenomenal success as a military strategist, warrior and uniter of diverse cultures. I began to consider how his "gay sensibility" might have been the very quality that set him apart from other warriors and kings (both before and after) – that led him to successfully subdue so many great and supposedly invincible armies. It also lead me to thoughts of how ridicules it is today for homosexuality to be considered a no-no for military service when in fact the world´s greatest soldier was a lover of men. But that thought is for yet another article to pursue.
Alexander saw and did things differently than other men, other Kings, other conquerors. Not only those before him but many after as well. He saw the beauty in cultures and peoples that others from his place and time dismissed as barbarian. He understood how to inspire men to follow him into the bloodiest of battles, how to overcome their fears and how to reward his soldiers as well as his enemies. His surges of testosterone were at times modulated and did not seem to lead him to the kinds of self-defeating brashness and excess often found in heterosexually driven male conquerors who, for the sake of owning one single woman, (can you say Helen of Troy, Queen Guinevere and etc) might upend their own purpose and lose their kingdom for the sake of a sexual liaison. He had an intuitive sense of how to lead people into cooperation across the gulf of language and culture. Yes, he could be and often was violent (by today´s standards) but just as often, his soft and accepting side showed itself - sometimes to the point it worried and alienated some of his top military men. He was a hard drinking, decisive man even in his early 20s but his love and devotion to the few men in his life stands without question even by the most reluctant of objective historians.
So how does all this relate to the idea of a "gay sensibility" and how on this green earth could such a concept even be mentioned in the same breath as the name of the great Alexander? Like many contemporary terms, gay sensibility is not easily defined. It´s certainly beyond the scope of this article to take on the task of totally outlining its parameters in a way that would satisfy all readers. But I think whatever it is, it goes far beyond the notion of camp. It does involve I believe, at its core, a seeking of and appreciation of beauty in all its forms, erotic and otherwise.
One does not have to be gay to have a gay sensibility but having a same-sex orientation does seem to give the concept yet another spin, taking it further outside the box and leading the perceiver to a special sense of what the world is about and an appreciation of fine points that goes beyond (for example) the mere showing of the accoutrements of wealth only for the sake of a statement of power or accumulation. Gay sensibility, at least in the male, exists when a man sees another man as something more than a competitor and when he can behold and savor male beauty for even its erotic implications. It thrives when a man seeks beauty in all things and can see through the confining perceptions that lead many men to view conquest and power as their highest goal. Gay sensibility takes a man beyond a testosterone driven agenda and that without it would only engage him in slaughter (physical or mental) for the sake of slaughter.
Certainly, Alexander demonstrated something emotionally and intellectually different from the average anointed king. His differences drove him ever forward on a 10,000 mile trek across the known world, taking with him an adoring army of men most of whom would have gladly given their lives to protect his person. He thrived on that adoration. He needed it as much as he needed to see the next unknown valley in India, the eastward sea or the next city to which he could lay siege. He only reversed course near the end of a 10 year campaign when his men no longer shared his vision and desperately wanted to return to their homelands. A man without gay sensibility would have lunged ahead dragging a reluctant army to the ends of the world. But Alexander cared about his men above all else. He cared what they thought of him. He cared about them in a way that no totally straight man could approximate.
Alexander the Great changed the way the world looked at itself. He showed the world, if only for a brief time, that civil cooperation and learning to live together was a better path than constant warring. What greater testament to the meaning of a man´s life could there be? Babylon, for one sweat moment, was Alexander´s Camelot.
Twenty three hundred years later, we are still trying to understand and apply his lessons. Maybe the planet needs more gay sensibility rather than less. Or so it seems to this writer.
Print
Email
