May 26, 2004, 12:56 a.m. CST
by Bourne GreyElf
May 26, 2004, 12:57 a.m. CST
by Bourne GreyElf
is anyone out there???
May 26, 2004, 12:57 a.m. CST
by Bourne GreyElf
I'm really scared...
May 26, 2004, 12:59 a.m. CST
I need to see more of Alexander because the trailer really didn't do anything for me at all.
May 26, 2004, 1 a.m. CST
by Bourne GreyElf
ok I guess. the movie looks low budget, like troy. Looks like the only good hack n slash armies clashing movies in the past few years have been lotr and gladiator. nobody else is gettin it right. did I mention alexander looks kinda...gay? yes yes, I know he was, but I didn't expect collin farrell to look like such a homo. did I also mention this movie looks really low budget?
May 26, 2004, 1 a.m. CST
by Bourne GreyElf
Good! I was gettin lonely. :)
May 26, 2004, 1:02 a.m. CST
by Filthy Fox
yay! more movie battle scenes involving thousands of people. its not like im completely bored by that concept now... im sure stone has something up his sleeve, but i dont see it in the trailer. i dont really know what he has without his crazy visceral style that he has developed over the last couple of movies...
May 26, 2004, 1:12 a.m. CST
by Wet Soul
...and as trailers go - this stunk.
May 26, 2004, 1:18 a.m. CST
Why must every epic have a bloody speech given by the hero on horseback to excite the troops. I site BRAVEHEART, ROTK and TROY!
May 26, 2004, 1:19 a.m. CST
I thought the "Alexander" trailer was fantastic... look at Babylon, for Christ's sake!! BTW, Stone deliberately DIDN'T use CGI armies in order to maintain realism. From what I've heard, the best thing about this production is the script, and I'm already wowed by the sets (most realistic I've seen of any Hollywood film about this era)... so quit yer bitchin'!
May 26, 2004, 1:21 a.m. CST
by Captain Opus
Love that Alexander trailer! On another note, does anyone else prefer it lately when Quint does a barrage of news items instead of Harry? We get coherent, non political, film related news items. It's so refreshing.
May 26, 2004, 1:22 a.m. CST
The whole reason why Japanese horror flicks are kicking so much ass right now is because it's DIFFERENT from the American trash in-your-face horror flicks prevalent today. That trailer is NOTHING like the movie itself. Ju-On is a creepy thriller, not a slasher adventure. Give me a break.
May 26, 2004, 1:40 a.m. CST
The best epic film I have ever seen is "The Mahabharata", and that thing had a shoe-string budget... but it didn't matter! I was so wrapped up in the characters, that they could have been acting on an empty stage and I wouldn't have cared. "Troy" was horrible because it put all the focus on the flashy bullshit, and forgot the SOUL of the story. I *felt* something when I watched that "Alexander" trailer...
May 26, 2004, 1:42 a.m. CST
didn't I see that last shot in a 1991 sprite ad??
May 26, 2004, 1:54 a.m. CST
Alexander The Great is one of those historical figures that every teenage age puesdo intellectual knows about.
May 26, 2004, 2:11 a.m. CST
Now, I am not so sure. Hollywood still should team-up with Bollywood and find the right filmmaker/international cast to do the ultimate epic. Earlier adaptations: www.imdb.com/title/tt0158417/ www.imdb.com/title/tt0097810/
May 26, 2004, 2:12 a.m. CST
by Cash Bailey
One day a quality actress like Hope Davis will get one of these sweet Japanese remake gigs, which are basically one-woman shows. Instead we get boring planks like Gellar, Jennifer Connelly and Naomi Watts.
May 26, 2004, 2:25 a.m. CST
May 26, 2004, 3:03 a.m. CST
But so did Troy, and that was complete shit. Worst Movie Ever. When i first heard Colin Farell was going to play Alexander i was thinking to myself, does he know that Alexander the Great was a homo? I guessed they'd simply drop hints he was gay but not actually go there with the film. But when this trailer shows him as 'LOVER' and then has him getting it on with a girl all i'm thinking is 'what else have they changed to make this film more appealing to the masses?' If Hollywood is going to make a historical epic they should stick to the fucking facts. Did i happen to mention that Troy was shit?
May 26, 2004, 4:03 a.m. CST
a complete idiot. No seriously you are. There has been a lot of speculation about Alexander's sexuality and a lot of controversy. Why? Because we are not sure whether Alexander was bisexual or not. Now, the part about kissing a woman in the trailer is because Alexander had several Persian wives but I am sure you already knew that. Oh, yea and he also encouraged his men to marry Persian women so Greek Civilization can prevail in Persian Territories. Now for Alexander to have been completely homosexual is a very long stretch. I suggest you start reading a book called the "Generalship of Alexander the Great" that will get you through the major understanding of how his army was formed, the battles, and it covers some material toward the end of his life as well. With regard to his personal matters try not to think about it too much because there is continuous debate with regard to his sexuality but I am sure you know more than the historians since you already called Alexander a homo. Oh, yea with regard to Troy. The movie was well made but the story was very little related to the Illiad. Let me know if you want me to educate you on that too.
May 26, 2004, 4:19 a.m. CST
no "cheets on wife" comments i see
May 26, 2004, 4:41 a.m. CST
Damn, I couldn't agree with you more, Metatron, and Nicko6, teach the masses. It looked wonderful. And aside from the sword-n-sandal aspect, Alexander shouldn't be compared to Troy, at least not film wise. There's already Oscar buzz of it as a contender (hence it's release date in comparison to Troy's) and with its director, the story should hold true. Watch the movie first THEN judge. Rate it for its story, actors, and how it affects you; not cliches, muddled history (though, I'm sure Stone had to change a few things) and sparkly-shining eye candy.
May 26, 2004, 4:45 a.m. CST
AaragorNeo007 -- I couldn't agree with you more.
May 26, 2004, 4:45 a.m. CST
But no thanks, you needn't educate me my friend, i have degree honours in History and i am familiar with the works of Homer, Virgil, Demades and Quintus to name but afew. While your points are valid, his sexual orientation is widely accepted as Homosexual. My point is that i am worried that Colin Farrell, a man who epitomises, or at least thinks he epitomises, hetrosexuality would be uncomfortable playing the role of a man who enjoys the company of other men and the film would suffer as a consequence. As for Troy, if you regard countless shots of Brad Pitt pouting in his helmet then yes i guess it's well made. However nowhere in the Iliad or the Odyssey did it mention that Menelaus boasted an Irish Accent or that Odysseus had a broad Yorkshire accent, 'Lets Go to war Achilles, it'll be proper Bo i tell thee'. As for Brad Pitts accent, well, words fail me to describe it. If you think that film is well done then you need to know a little more about movies. Let me know if you'd like me to educate you on that too.
May 26, 2004, 5:40 a.m. CST
I'm not talking about one shot from "Troy," either. I'm talking about the entire battle scenes. The "Alexander" shot trumps it easily. The sense of space on the battlefield, the detail of other small skirmishes. The thing about "Troy" is there is no nuance whatsoever. Wolfgang is a workmanlike director who hands in average movies that will please tradiotional (read: general) audiences. There's no personal bision in "Troy" so it feels like a Happy Meal, made to order. Stone's films have a stamp of authenticity; they are inherently exciting by pushing audience's buttons (maybe to their liking, maybe not). I hate directors who don't take chances with material. No one can ever claim that Stone played it safe, and I will gladly pay for "Alexander" to see what his crazy fuckin noodle put together.
May 26, 2004, 5:41 a.m. CST
I see where you are coming from. I apologise for using the term Homo. I forget myself sometimes, i should have simply put Gay. Thats what i meant to say. No offence was meant.
May 26, 2004, 5:46 a.m. CST
May 26, 2004, 6:49 a.m. CST
He he. The voice over guy said "Ringyoo". Well the film is over rated anyway.
May 26, 2004, 7:16 a.m. CST
Meaning - like a member of genus Homo? (In other words, for twats who - barely - speak 1 language: "LIKE A HUMAN?")
May 26, 2004, 8:45 a.m. CST
if you had any degrees you should have learned how to spell and of course you could have enjoyed TROY in ancient greek, you sophisticated renaissance man. I guess it was supposed to represent the many different cultures which would later become Greece. That said, I also felt let down by TROY, but it wasn
May 26, 2004, 8:48 a.m. CST
Stone and Farrell have confirmed that Alexander will have relationships with both women AND men in the film. Alexander the Great's helmet was a lion's head with two eagle feathers on the side and a red horse-hair brush - this is TOTALLY accurate. I'm glad they didn't change the sets and costumes for the sake of the "average Joe"... I'll take historical accuracy over a bunch of homophobic fan-boys any day. :-P
May 26, 2004, 8:52 a.m. CST
I own all 4 (yes there are 4) of these movies. It started as a TV show. 2 parts as far as I know, then got two theatrical versions. Screw hollywood. They should not havee touched it. These are THE FUCKING SCARIEST MOVIES I HAVE EVER SEEN! I have seen a lot of Asian horror, and a lot of american "horror". Hands down man. You won't sleep with the covers on ever again. Trust me
May 26, 2004, 9:16 a.m. CST
There is a lot of potential material with Alexander leading Greece against the Persian Empire and conquoring the Middle East and part of India, but I'd like to know what in particular they are going to focus the film on. They need some central thread or it will end up a series of disconjointed battles and episodes.
May 26, 2004, 10:07 a.m. CST
by Julian Wells
HORRIBLE!!! And the blonde streaks gotta go girlfriend. Please let this movie actually deal with his military genius and not exploit his homosexual life.
May 26, 2004, 10:38 a.m. CST
Well done, how proud must you feel to find one spelling mistake in my post? Full marks. While I do my best to ensure that my grammar and spelling is beyond reproach, I am not so anal as to proof read a post on here as though it were my dissertation, (there I go with the degree again), but then obviously you must be a real perfectionist. As for enjoying Troy in ancient Greek, well, I never said I spoke ancient Greek; the crux of my post was meant to imply that I am familiar with the source material and just expected more from the film. Saying that, had they had a better screenwriter the dialogue would still have suffered from Brad Pitt
May 26, 2004, 3:07 p.m. CST
I am not going to argue back and forth with you with regard to Alexander's sexuality. I said to you and read my comment very carefully that we do not know if Alexander was bisexual. You need to visit Greece to understand the cultural differences. Historians over the years have been arguing that although there are several philosophers that we know were bisexual and some strictly homosexual, there is still no conclusive proof that Alexander was bisexual. This is one of the reasons several Historians and some from Greece denied involvement in Stone's movie. Historians always seek the truth. There are 3 different versions of what happened to Helen of Troy for example. So, even the sexual preference of a character becomes important for a historian. As for me I am baffled with your retarded comment about teaching me about movies. I said that the movie Troy was well made, meaning the armor, the weaponry, and the sets including the city of Troy. I did not say anything about acting, or character development. Actually I did say that the story was not in accordance with the Illiad. However, this page is dedicated to Alexander's Trailer so I am really wasting time talking back and forth to you because I really do not think you have read the Illiad and none of the books with regard to Alexander. You really need to study things before you can comment on them. I truly hope they portray the battles of Alexander accurately because they were not only massive but they required a lot of strategic maneuvering during battle in order to win over the Persian Armies which outnumbered Alexander's army greatly. Alexander took the fight to the Persian army because Greece (although it was not Greece back then but unified city states) was always getting attacked by the Persians. Alexander not only won every single battle but he also was one of the few generals who participated in the battles in the front line with his soldiers which almost killed him in one battle but I am not going to ruin the movie for you. Alexander also built a lot of city's and unlike other conquerors he did not conquer and destroy. He also kept the same Persian Government officials of the various city states he conquered and he let them stay in power and continue govern those cities. Even today some of these monuments and one of the main cities still exist and they are unbelievable you will have to see those things to appreciate them. This is not mythology anymore like Troy was based on. This is a real character. Alexander's campaign lasted close to 10 years until his army refused to fight any longer and they returned to Greece after reaching and conquering several parts of India. Now BallAche if you want to claim that Alexander was strictly a homosexual then you must know more than me and all the historians that I have spent time with over the years who only debate that he was either a bisexual or strictly a heterosexual but none of them ever said that he was a homosexual meaning that he slept only with men. If you want to keep going at this you will need to find a crowd of your intelligence level and an IQ of about 60. Now go read and learn something instead of talking out of your ass.
May 26, 2004, 3:35 p.m. CST
WOAH!!!! I hope they get that dude who did the narration on 'The Grudge' trailer to do the voice over for the "MANIMAL" movie! I can totally see it now.... <DEEP VOICE-OVER> "Dr. Jonathan Chase - wealthy, young, handsome. A man with the brightest of futures. A man with the darkest of pasts. From Africa's deepest recesses, to the rarest peaks of Tibet. Heir to his father's legacy and the worlds darkest mysteries...Jonathan Chase, master of the secrets that divide man from animal, animal from man, MANIMAAAALLLLLLLL (grrrr)." <possibly having the end of the word 'Manimal tailing off to sort of like a tigers growl> THAT WOULD BE ACE!!!!
May 26, 2004, 5:03 p.m. CST
At no time is it appropriate to criticize Sean Bean's accent. Ever. Got it?
May 26, 2004, 6:25 p.m. CST
It's too bad I can't watch the trailer because I'm at work but I have faith in it. Colin Farrell has a good chance to do a good job because of Oliver's influence. And if Oliver made the film while smoking weed, the movie will be a masterpiece. Think about it, Oliver stoneD (almost a joke) with his fucked up visual brain and filming battle scenes = TERRIFIC...CHEERS Amigos!
May 26, 2004, 6:55 p.m. CST
So does Colin Farrell's wig. All I see is a bunch of CGI army shots that look just like TROY. And the other stars of the film are nowhere to be found. Farrell still hasn't had a good performance since TIGERLAND. Love that they're release the Japanese version of THE GRUDGE in the U.S. this summer before the crappy Hollywood remake comes out.
May 26, 2004, 7:21 p.m. CST
This movie looks like a joke. I like Farrell ok, I like Angelina Jolie a lot, I don't mind Kilmer, but c'mon. The trailer even bored me, and trailer's are usually good even for crap movies. Plus I can't believe people are really arguing and wondering about whether it will be "historically accurate." Oliver Stone has made some fine movies, but typically "accurate" isn't used to describe them, let alone with "historically" in front of it. I mean, this guy had eyeballs popping out in NFL games. He had Lyndon Johnson, rich millionaires, Castro and the Cubans, the CIA, and about fifteen other people all conspiring to kill Kennedy. "True" history is not the guy's strong point. So far, I have no reason to care at all that this movie is being released.
May 26, 2004, 7:30 p.m. CST
Or should I say the last word I take seriously from you. While you certainly have a great deal of the facts, you have progressed no further in your efforts to prove that Alexander was bisexual or straight. If you know any Historians, (and I find that highly dubious), and debated this issue with them, you would know that scholars of classical history are split on the matter and do not debate if he was Bisexual or Heterosexual but whether he was Gay or Bisexual. Ultimately it boils down to your interpretation of the term 'Bisexual' and were you half as intelligent as you think you are, you would know that our modern idea of Bisexuality does not apply when looking at Greek history. While Alexander did marry, have mistresses and have children there are many that believe these relationships were nothing more than a means to produce an heir and to create stability through mixed blood nobility, (as you pointed out in your first post). Let me put this into really plain English for you 'While he screwed loads of women, what he really liked was screwing loads of men'. When viewed in this context Alexander was as Gay as they come. While your comments came close to being interesting on one or two occasions, I am tired of debating this issue with someone who can barely be described as a halfwit. But still, don
May 26, 2004, 8:22 p.m. CST
Hmm...now you think I did a google search although I post a book for your dumb ass to read and I like the little comment that I don't know any Historians. So all the comments that I wrote you earlier were something I made up. You think you are the first person that I have discussed this material with. Just because not everyone enjoys internet porn as much as you do there are other hobbies that people have and mine has always been Greek History. How many times have you been to Greece? How much research have you done in Greece with others? How many historical sites have you visited in Greece? I would think none. So, don
May 26, 2004, 8:51 p.m. CST
I'll say that as well cloudrider: the Ringu remake sucks. Ringu is the best horror movie of all time.
May 26, 2004, 8:57 p.m. CST
Since, you claim Alexander slept with women, then why did the trailer make you wonder about the lover part? If you already knew that, then you should have put that comment on your first post with regard to being bisexual but you said he was homosexual or as you called him a HOMO. Do not try to call me a halfwit because the only halfwit around here is you. Now do us all a favor and go read the book I told you to read. When you finish with the
May 26, 2004, 9:21 p.m. CST
It was a good match but I must proclaim Nicko6 the winner. Ballache - you got served! Nicko went Academic on your ass. The part where you started clouting your history background is where you pissed me off. Wah, Wah, Wah, I am writing my dissertation. Can it, you Nancy! Stop jacking off onto your keyboard about how smart you are and go do something useful with yourself. Your ethos stinks man. Why don't you get a job where you can make films like Troy better or hell, go make sick children happy. Anything is better than hearing you whine on a talk back. Take your filth elsewhere. Besides, Sean Bean would kick your ass any day of the week like Nicko6 just did.
May 26, 2004, 9:25 p.m. CST
Every time you post something here you make yourself sound even more dim-witted. You want me to suggest a book? I'll go one better, I
May 26, 2004, 9:26 p.m. CST
The consultant for this film is Robin Lane Fox, one of the pre-eminent historians specializing in the life of Alexander the Great. Read this link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7434-1101601,00.html) to see how obessessed Stone was with making even the smallest detail as accurate as possible. You give people an intimate scope, and they say it's "low budget"... you give them sweeping shots, and they say it's "just another Troy/Gladiator". You can't f*cking win with whining, pre-adolescent fanboys.
May 26, 2004, 9:43 p.m. CST
My question regarding the lover side of the trailer was whether or not the film would be accurate and portray him as the man that history records or would the silver screen Alexander be altered to be more appealing to the audiences as so many films based areound truths are these days. If Robin Lane Fox is the consultant on the film, (i quoted her in my last post), and Oliver Stone is indeed keen to make the smallest detail accurate then yes i can say it'll probably be a good movie. As for SirlyMcManhood, well what can i say? I guess i'd like to help sick children but i do history my friend not medicine. I didnt come on here to start this debate, i didnt start out with the 'i'm so clever bullshit' your Amigo Nicko6 did, all i did was set the record straight, and if you honestly believe that Nicko6 has proven to be an equal in anything other than his willingness to debate pointless crap then you are more of a fool than he is.
May 26, 2004, 10:08 p.m. CST
Yeah! that was cool. Agreed the shot of Alex on horseback charging with the spear was the highlight. Now waiting for someone to make: Hannibal Richard the Lionheart Brian Boru Boudiccia Charlemange Charles Martel And the genre will be complete!
May 26, 2004, 10:20 p.m. CST
having said that, the trailer doesn't tell you much about anything. except that david lee roth and michael bolton must also have been considered for the titular role...
May 27, 2004, 12:08 a.m. CST
troy low budget? since when the hell was 170 mill low budget? bloody yanks! :p
May 27, 2004, 12:13 a.m. CST
May 27, 2004, 1:06 a.m. CST
It's useless for any 21st century Western person to try to pigeonhole Alexander's sexuality, because the Greeks (and Romans) of antiquity just didn't see sexual roles the same way we do (which is mostly through the lens of puritanical Christianity). Alexander probably got it on with a whole host of people, because he was young, because he was Macedonian and consorted with a lot of Greek men, and because he was a king and conqueror and knew a thing or two about expedient political alliances. Personally, I don't care who he did it with, although I am sad I won't get to see Farrell buck naked and cavorting with some equally fetching young man, mostly because of small minded, homophobic fan-boys and right wing Christians.
May 27, 2004, 3:18 a.m. CST
So, Ballache, when you quote a popular historian - the least you can do is get his gender right. I guess you may have been too busy digging at Hadrian's Wall to notice it when you read the book. And by read the book I mean "typed in 'alexander the great gay' into Google and selected the first page http://www.gayheroes.com/alex.htm, from whence you got your quote. Good luck, though, as you pursue your fantasy career as an historian.
May 27, 2004, 3:35 a.m. CST
BallAche you really need to slow down when you read. At what part exactly did I say that I debate about Alexander's sexuality? Pay close attention to the question. I think I said Historians still debate about Alexander's sexuality. Did I claim to be a historian? I did however, say that people that I know are historians as well as I have visited Greece numerous times and that I have a great interest in Ancient Greek History. Depending to whose book you read or to whose historian
May 27, 2004, 3:50 a.m. CST
I would like to thank the readers for seeing my point of view as to how confusing and ignorant this guy really is. You can truly see that people always try to establish their level of make belief intelligence by providing false credentials. Point proven by Znosaro and SirlyMcManhood. I will turn this now to the masses. Good luck trying to convince the world how smart you are so far you won the gold in stupidity.
May 27, 2004, 4:04 a.m. CST
By the way we are talking about BallAche in case some of you guys are lost. Znosaro and SirlyMcManhood have so far proven several points of BallAche's level of stupidity. Once, again I would like to thank those readers.
"you must know more than me and all the historians that I have spent time with over the years who only debate that he was either a bisexual or strictly a heterosexual" Your words, not mine. So tell me, how you can debate his heterosexuality? I am still waiting for the book name, author and quote. As for my work at vindolanda, that was 8 years ago when I was studying at University of Newcastle upon Tyne but who cares whether you doubt my acedemic credentials or not. I suppose i have the benefit though living in a region of the world that is steeped in culture and history; i'm not sure if there are Greek or Roman archaeological sites in Atlanta. As for my quote, i never said i read the book, I was merely indicating that there is enough evidence out there to support my stand point. You have yet to show me how anyone who calls himself a scholar can debate Alexanders heterosexuality. Please, forget the 'thank you readers' crap that you keep spouting. Show me the evidence and i will gladly eat my hat. As i said in my previous post our modern definitions of Homo/Bi/Heterosexuality do not apply to that period. AnnoyYou has echoed what i said in my previous post. Now instead of finding friends to come on here and cheer you on, perhaps you can answer the question i set you earlier? I await your answer
May 27, 2004, 8:54 a.m. CST
... is a man.
May 27, 2004, 3:34 p.m. CST
Let me start by saying that I do not know anyone in this site. Now, just because I live in Atlanta it does not mean I never been to Greece since my first 20 years I grew up there and I go there every year now. As for books regarding Alexander's live as well as warfare here are a couple "Alexander the Great" by Arthur Weigall. Since, I got this book from Europe then you should be able to find it. Also look up "Alexander the Great man of action man of spirit". None of those books describes Alexander as sleeping only with men. Finally, the book "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" by J.F.C Fuller states "He was a man entirely wrapped up in his destiny and completely devoted to his task. He cared little for any physical pleasures except hunting. He never had a mistress, nor was he impotent or a homosexual as his detractors try to defame him"(pg 58). There! The quote you have been waiting for. I told you that people like you talk out of their ass. By the way you are-quoting my lines and still you are missing the point. I spent time with historians that does not make me a historian. Since, you are a historian you should have known about those books as well as their content. As for the comment of AnnoyYou..she or he is absolutely right. There were no sexual roles back then but you BallAche started saying that Alexander was strictly Homosexual (go back and read your first post). I simple replied by saying there is a debate (today) for Alexander's sexual preference whether it was both men and women or strictly women. The Gay heroes
May 27, 2004, 6:27 p.m. CST
Firstly, the quote I mentioned came from here: http://www.shotopress.com/titles/golden_vine/hephaestion.html. Secondly, you still haven't answered my question. Someone as well versed as yourself surely does not take what one man says at face value? How did he come to this conclusion? My argument is firmly rooted in historical fact. Why would any historian worth his salts even contemplate that Alexander would defy what was normal sexual behaviour of the time? When he defeated King Darius III of Persia it is RECORDED that one of his most favoured spoils of victory was the youngest of the Kings Eunuchs, Bagoas, ( I admit I got that from a friend of mine who really DOES know his Greek history). Do you think he enjoyed his titillating conversation? Hmm? With so much evidence to suggest that he enjoyed sexual relations with men and boys what other proof is there that warrants a debate Heterosexuality. My only concern is that, while you clearly aren
May 27, 2004, 7:29 p.m. CST
I gave you three books to look up and one of them had a quote of Alexander being a heterosexual and the others describe him as heterosexual or bisexual. What else do I have to show you to make you understand that there is and always will be debate about Alexander's sexuality? Debate means that there is no wrong or right answer. It simple means there are two possible solutions here. 1. Bisexual and 2. Heterosexual not strictly Homosexual. That's it no more no less. Like I said don't take my word for it look up the books that I told you and I even gave you a quote. How am I not answering your question? Do you have a problem admitting to when you are wrong? If you do, then don't bother reading anything just keep talking to your friend. Did you ever think that maybe you can challenge your friend's beliefs and see how did he come to those conclusions you wrote earlier? I suggest you do that. I provided you with enough findings to read upon. If you don't want to read then that's your problem. Now do me us both a favor. Read the information and then you can debate all you want with me. As for me I feel I have proven my point with the proof you have requested and now I am done with you and this topic. Take care of yourself and I hope you find these books helpful. By the way I still think you are being Ignorant because you are Stubborn.
May 27, 2004, 10:10 p.m. CST
Big Oliver Stone fan, but this looks atrociously awful. Colin Farrell with blond hair?
May 28, 2004, 9:33 a.m. CST
From Mary Renault (author of 'The Nature of Alexander' and of the three historical novels detailing his life (Fire from Heaven, The Persian Boy, The Funeral games), all of which are excellent... "The sexual mores of Alexander have been much discussed, his detractors tending to claim he was a homosexual, his admirers to rebut it with indignation. Neither side has much considered how far Alexander would have considered it a dishnonour. In a society which accepted bisexuality as a norm, his three state marriages qualified him for normality...His commitment to Hephastion (his closest friend and possible lover) is among the most certain facts of his life. He displayed an open pride in it. At Troy the honoured together the tombs of Achilles and Patroklos (Achilles's male lover, which (of course) was glossed into 'cousin', in 'Troy' for the American homophobes) Though Homer does not say the heroes were more than friends, it was widely believed in Alexander's day; had he thought the imputation disgraceful, he would not so have courted it" So even if alexander wasn't bisexual or homosexual, he undoubtedly had no problems with intimating that he was in front of his men. Maybe we should be asking why Hollywood likes to edit homosexuality out of it's histories rather than debating history itself.
May 28, 2004, 11:18 a.m. CST
Ballache, didn't you contradict yourself when you said that a man who has sex with other men is by definition NOT HETEROSEXUAL, yet earlier on you claimed that it didn't matter how many women alexander screwed, he was NOT HETEROSEXUAL, and therefore gay/bi. You don't make much sense to me dude. I'm sorry...that other guy wins. No hard feelings ok?
May 28, 2004, 8:56 p.m. CST
I think your comment is very accurate with regard to Hollywood although, they are going to portray Alexander as bisexual in this movie. Mary Renault's books have started great controversy although I am not sure as to why because a historian can present their point of view. To be honest with you I think it is quiet interesting to see all the various debates. I can show you a handful of other historical books that say Alexander was not homosexual like the Fuller book which has excellent quotes from other Historians as well (Way before the time of Mary Renault). I think the main emphasis is that every historian translates the writings of ancient Greek scholars differently. That is why I mentioned earlier that the bible has been re-written and transcribed in various forms. That is why I stated that there is a debate but people have their own beliefs and that is fine. But to draw conclusive evidence as BallAche did is what got me going since there is no clear distinction yet as to which historian is right and which one is wrong with regard to Alexander
May 28, 2004, 10:02 p.m. CST
May 30, 2004, 7:25 p.m. CST
I doubt in Alexander's time that people placed labels on sexuality. It wasn't uncommon to go both ways. I could see many recent (those in the last couple of hundred years) historians ignoring this fact as same-sex relations have been something of a taboo subject for many, many years.
May 31, 2004, 1:48 a.m. CST
I can agree with most of your list but Charlemagne. Growing up in Europe, I heard of many of his exploits, but as with so much of history, you only learn the truth as you get older. Charlemagne and his forced conversions to Christianity should only be looked on as a blight upon Western civilization. This freak was no better than Hitler. Case in point: in one day this idiot killed 4,000 "heretics" for their failure to convert to Catholicism. No movie should be made celebrating this piece of shit!
May 31, 2004, 1:52 a.m. CST
I don't get what the argument is over. It's well accepted that Alexander was bisexual. What is the argument over? It's not like this was abnormal during his timeperiod. It's only when the freakish Christian Church came into power that this behavior was demonized.
May 31, 2004, 3:56 p.m. CST
The argument began when BallAche said that Alexander was strictly homosexual. Since, I have been reading on Alexander the Great for many years now, none of the books claim Alexander was strictly homosexual. The books say that Alexander was either bisexual or heterosexual. This is widely believed but some of the historians that I have met over the years and professors in various history departments claim that there is no substantial evidence with regard to Alexander
June 1, 2004, 1:37 a.m. CST
Although I doubt that you'll see this post (as it has come off of the main page and this site has a poor archive (alright it doesn't have an archive function other than a search engine)) has come off of the main page. I think you're absolutely correct. Alexander, most likely, wasn't ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, this is a modern take - that people are attracted to either one sex or the other. This may not be understood by the majority of the people who read this site (as they suffer from modern, or not so modern stigma), but it's entirely natural for a person to be attracted to another PERSON - be they male or female. This happens all the time. The Greeks and Romans understood this aspect of sexuality completely. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church and its ridiculous, man-made, insecure laws sought to outlaw this type of natural human nature. Sexuality is normal with both sexes. The Catholic Church's insecure policy has made sexual freedom a point of condemnation. I'm rambling... What I put forth is that Alexander's behavior with both sexes is completely natural. It SHOULD NOT BE LABELED and should be accepted on a case by case basis. Was he particularly close to a certain individual? If so, there exists the case that he may have been romantically involved with that person, regardless of their sexuality. In closing, Nicko6 - thank you for your viewpoint - I hold you in the highest regard. WS
July 11, 2004, 11:57 a.m. CST
Thank you for answering my post ballache. I may or may not agree with you, but you have taken the time and effort to write an answer, and in a civil way. Didn't alexander have female lovers on the sideline? Besides the ones he married? I thought he just married one, althoug I'm not sure. Don't know if anybody is going to answer, guess not, it's been a while. Well, anyway, I salute you all!!