Year 2004 began with the teaser of Troy, middled with Olypic games in Athens, and now closing with Alexander. A momorable year for Greece. And they got the Euro 2004 cup.
I missed Troy on the screen and going to watch it on video. It’s been much said it contradics the epic in several ways. But I think I should at least watch it to see how they reconstructed the Greek army and one thousand triremes on the sea, the wooden horse, etc. Once you see it and forget the story, you can use the visual impressions for your own imagination when you read the classics thereafter.
Whatever people may say, I’m going to watch Alexander. And we all know Greeks were half homosexual. Though Macedonians might have not been.
This seems to be to be a description of the idealised view of how a Greek should act, rather than an accurate description of common practice. After all, most homosexual Greek men would not have been in the financial position to act as sugar daddies to adolescent Greek boys.
However, that is beside the point, because Hephaistion was below Alexander socially. The eromenos did not have to be as low as a servant-boy or slave. (In fact, with a social gap that large, I’d be surprised if the word eromenos was used at all.) Hephaistion, like Patroclos, was very high up in his society, but that doesn’t mean they were incapable of being eronomoi, because their suspected lovers were princes. The fact that Hephaistion laid a wreath at Patroclos’ tomb while Alexander laid a wreath at Achilles’ all but proves that they were lovers, in my opinion, because regardless of whether Homer intended Achilles and Patroclos to be lovers, they were in popular opinion by then.
I think that in theory, at any rate, the arrangement was supposed to be one of mentor and apprentice rather than the more financial one you seem to be supposing. Indeed, that would lay the younger partner open to suspicion of being a prostitute, which in Athens could lead to loss of civil rights.
The thing is though, did they actually lay the wreaths or is this a later addition to their story? It’s only found in Arrian.
Once again, William is moved to produce Gk. verse. The classics-l crowd was discussing Alexander (of course), as well as pondering what exactly it means to be “conquered by Hephaestion’s thighs.” I sent them this:
I heard the Greeks are gonna carve a huge statue of Alexander the great on a mountain - kinda like Mt Rushmore. Macedonia does not think too kindly of that.
Is (modern, of course) Macedonian very different from Greek?
Actually there’s two types of Macedonian, Slavic Macedonian (Modern) and … Ancient Macedonian which is…? Anyway, Modern Macedonian did not evolve from ancient Macedonian. But then again, someone from Macedonia might refute that statement…
Actually your post probably points to the key to the entire brouhaha. Modern Macedonian is almost indistinquishable from Bulgarian; and THAT is important to bear in mind.
There are plenty of modern Hellenic online sites defending ancient Macedonian as a crude Greek dialect, but Greek nonetheless. As the ancients pretty much defined “Greece”, or being Greek, as any area where Greek was spoken, I have no desire to argue the merits of that point.
After the ancient Macedonians foolishly challenged Rome and thereby lost all of Greece to Rome, the Hellenic region including Macedonia became just another Roman province. Skipping a lot of history…
About 900 years later the Slavic-speakers invade the region (then part of Eastern Empire) including old Macedonia and the rest of the Grecian mainland. They settled among the ‘Romans’ of the area (Greeks and Hellenized other folk). Shortly thereafter the Turkic people -the Bulgars invaded and settled among the “Romans” in an area encompassing Bulgaria of today AND most of what has become the new so-called Republic of Macedonia. The Bulgars culturally became Slavs - language, religion, etc. Their area was as much a polyglot ethnos as Greece was (is).
When the Ottomans conquered the area (we’ll call Ottoman Europe), the entire Balkan pennisula (a modern term not existing prior to 19th Century) became known ethnically as “Rumeli” - Turkish for “Roman”. The inhabitants (Greeks, Slavs, and others) refered to themselves as “Romans” or more usually “Christians”.
Insert here Balkan Wars history …
After WWI, the breakup of Ottoman Europe created Yugoslavia (Serbian portion attained some autonomy earlier). Part of Yugoslavia had been the western section of Bulgaria. In 1943, Tito re-created the region of “Macedonia” using the ancient Greek name. This region was meant to assuage the ethnic tensions created when so many Slavized Bulgars (and “Bulgazied” Slavs) found themselves outside of Bulgaria. The western 25% of this new Macedonia included an ethnic Albanian area (whose population was separated from “Albania”). They agitate today for re-union with Albania - can’t blame them.
My very few Slavic Macedonian friends take great umbrage at this Bulgarian connection. I understand this. The ethnos of the entire region defies nice, neat little map lines.
Back to the beginning…all Slavic languages are similar, but Macedonian and Bulgarian are just too close; close enough in fact to lend credence to my take on history.
As to whether Alexander was “gay”? Well, probably no more so than any other Hellene of the day…(yep).
Actually, some Cynic philosopher wrote this. Unfortunately I didn’t keep the email from the person who hunted down the reference in the TLG, and the list archives on the topic have defeated me.
Heh… this has made me think… if someone just loves this ancient greek thingies, and learns a lot of greek stuff, and read greek books, and likes greek art, and history, and mythology… then he will end up gay?
