Alexander was a homosexual megalomaniac, and there's plemty of proof.. Read any Western Civ book, and you'll see.

The Greeks are just too worried there reputation will be lost along with all the money they lost from the olympics ;)

I'm quite sure that Alexander WAS homosexual and bisexual. Homosexuality was a fact of life in the Greek army; same goes for the Chinese army, the Japanese samurai class, etc.

From the books I've read on Alexander, he was gay.

I think the gay/not-gay controversy surrounding this film is off-putting. I wish the executives would leave the movie be, and let Stone tell his story.

Then again, there's no such thing as bad publicity...maybe the film makers are privately delighted by the brouhaha.

Hey, I am greek. I don't really care if Alexander is portrayed as homosexual or not. What I care about is how the movies change my countries history in order to get bigger audiences. Same was with 'troy' which i know is not based on history, but is based in greek mythology and altered it in order to satisfy hollywood execs.

Nobody cares if the film is accurate historically if the film is good.

Mr. Stone knows very well that polemics is convertible to cash... remember Mel Gibson...

I think all films should have a disclaimer saying it is a work of fiction unless they can prove it did happen. In fact more than a disclaimer they should make it known they made it up

Then films like Braveheart, U-571 and King Arthur wouldn’t be thought of as true

Whenever you do a film based on a person's life,
I feel it should be as accurate as historically possible. Even if that includes hot manlove.
(sorry Greece)

I want to know about people that lived fantastic lives, I want to know how they handled what was thrown at them day to day.

Dont you?

I don´t really know. Biopics cannot be too accurate historically really. Consider Oskar Schindler. According to many historians, Spielberg´s movie was false in the depiction of Oskar´s character.

I don´t care. The movie is marvelous. The screenwriter, and the director, must choose a subjective point of view when dealing with a historical figure.

And when u talk about Alexander, even historians contradict each other. Why, of course he was bisexual, and that should appear in the movie (puritanism is but hipocrisy), but he is an ancient figure, and his life is full of voids that a movie must fill somehow. Examples:

-We don´t know how did Alexander´s father die

-We don´t EVEN know how did exactly Alexander die!

Actually, I am more concerned on Angelina Jolie, who looks as young, if not younger, than Colin Farrell. And she is supposed to be his mother! But anyway, if the film is powerful, minor faults can be pardonned.

This excellent article offers a very thorough review of the evidence for Alexander's sexuality. "As typical of his era and culture, Alexander seems to have been comfortably 'bisexual.'"

As far as the movie goes, I'm intrigued - it seems to be going out of its way to square up to I ♥ Huckabees and say "You think you divided critical opinion? Huh? You call that divided? You haven't SEEN divided critical opinion, you existentialist pansy! I be dividin' like a math teacher, fo shizzle."

Or something like that.

The movie is going to be the biggest flop this year... so who really cares anymore.

In response to Andrew E that stated:
"Alexander was a homosexual megalomaniac, and there's plenty of proof.. Read any Western Civ book, and you'll see".

Can you please state me those proofs in detail? Can you give us a name of book and writer? Do you believe all the books you read? Just because someone expresses his opinion, it doesn't mean we have to believe him.

Truth is only based on facts and not in myths or generalisations! There is no historical proof that Aleexander the Great was gay. If there were gays in Greece its another thing. Can someone claim that he has found an accurate HISTORICAL source (like something written from an ancient writer) that claims he was gay? I don't think so.

So, lets face it, thats it is clear that some people wanted to make some money by getting the attention using this 'gay featurette' of Alexander. I accept this, but I pity partially ignorants claiming things without proper proofs.

Finally, Andrew E, regarding your 'ironic' comment about the olympics, I can only feel sorry for you. Apart from the fact that those Olympics are thought (by most) as something special compared to the previous ones, you could only point out a fact that occured in most Olympics anyway. I must inform you to fill your ignorance, that lot of Greeks paid money to help for the greatness of the Olympics and we care least how long we will pay to fix all the expenses problems, compared to what we gave back to all of us.

PROOF THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS NOT GAY

“When Philoxenos, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a young man in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the young man) to be sent over, he (Alexander)responded in a strict and disgusted manner: “You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?” (From Plutarch’s On the Luck and Virtue of Alexander A, 12)

“But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes. And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless images for display.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 21)

“When Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the sea-board, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus, of Tarentum, who had two young men of surpassing beauty to sell, and enquired whether Alexander would buy them, Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever seen in him that he should spend his time in making such disgraceful proposals.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 22, 1)

In light of the evidence above, CONSIDER the following questions and DRAW your own conclusions:

If Alexander was a homosexual, would he have reacted in this manner to Philoxenos’ proposals?

If Alexander was a homosexual, would he have ruthlessly and disgustingly dismissed Philoxenus?

If Alexander was a homosexual, would he have “drooled” over Persian women who were “torments to the eyes”?

A NEW BOOK WHICH DEMOLISHE STHE MYTH THAT HOMOSEXUALITY WAS ACCEPTED BY ANCIENT GREEKS

Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece BY ADONIS GEORGIADES

http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm

Proof that Homosexuality was UNNATURAL by Ancient Greeks:

“And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but it is AGAINST nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.” Plato Laws 1.636c

“If we were to follow in nature's steps and enact that law which held good before the days of Laius, declaring that it is right to refrain from indulging in the same kind of intercourse with men and boys as with women, and adducing as evidence thereof the nature of wild beasts, and pointing out how male does not touch male for this purpose, since it is unnatural,--in all this we would probably be using an argument neither convincing nor in any way consonant with your States.” Plato Laws 8.836c

“I maintain that our regulation on this head must go forward and proclaim that our citizens must not be worse than fowls and many other animals which are produced in large broods, and which live chaste and celibate lives without sexual intercourse until they arrive at the age for breeding; and when they reach this age they pair off, as instinct moves them, male with female and female with male;” Plato Laws 8.840d

“We might forcibly effect one of two things in this matter of sex-relations,--either that no one should venture to touch any of the noble and freeborn save his own wedded wife, nor sow any unholy and bastard seed in fornication, nor any unnatural and barren seed in sodomy,--or else we should entirely abolish love for males” Plato Laws 8.841d

“When Zeus created humans and their other soul properties, he ingrained them in every human being. However, he left SHAME out. Since he didn’t know where to insert it, he commanded that it (shame) be inserted in the anus. Shame, however, complained about this and was very upset. Since shame was profusely complaining, shame said: “I will only agree to be inserted this way (i.e., in the anus) and whoever is inserted after me, I will come out.” From this day on, may every sexually inclined person who chooses this method be SHAMEFUL!” Aesop’s Fables, Zeus and Aeschyne (Shame)

Nice try, but homosexuality is not a charge that must be defended against, so stop behaving like such imbeciles over the very probable notions of Alexander the Great's taste for women AND men. The majority of Greek historians have concluded that Alexander and Hephaesrtion were indeed lovers and that even after the time at which Greeks were told they should put homosexual dalliances to rest and wed women, Hephaestion was kept in Alexander's employ, despite the fact that people like Craterus and Permenion were better commanders, and Peucestas and Eumenes were better with language than Hephaestion. Yet Hephaestion was kept closest by Alexander throughout his life, and given some plum assignments by Alexander, despite a lack of experience. It has been acknowledged that Alexander shared his deepest feelings with Hephaestion above all others, and that they shared what was Alexander's most fulfilling relationship in life. Why should we assume, then, that they NEVER had sex, and that Alexander was THOROUGHLY heterosexual? Because you people are uncomfortable with homoeroticism? THAT'S a reason we should ignore history? History shows that they DID have a relationship that was far more than mere friendship, and the time and era was marked by a freedom from stigma of any kind over the taking of sexual partners of any gender. If this movie's depiction of Alexander's love-life were painting Alexander as a notorious ladykiller who had threesomes every night, and impregnated women all over the world without supporting them, I highly doubt that anyone would be defending Alexander against charges of immorality, or proclaiming disgust over historical inaccuracies. So stop cloaking your homophobia with a desire for historical accuracy, because it's wholly transparent.

Frankly, I wish those who are uncomfortable with depicting homosexuality on screen, would just stay away from any movies where they endeavor to depict the lives of people, fictional or real, whose sexual taste was, or incorporated, homosexuality, until they can do so without fear of recrimination and backlash. Because otherwise, their tiptoe-ing around the sexuality of the character, or flat-out erasing of it in many cases, is insulting to gay people, and I would rather see filmmakers free from these strictures make such movies. Really, it's like making a movie about Ella Fitzgerald, and changing her into a white woman because you feel that racists won't embrace the film.

The very fact that you resort to personal attacks and name-calling constitutes a lack of argumentation and quite frankly class on your part. Apparently you can not argue on a scholarly level and civilized manner and that is why throughout your response, you present NO evidence from Primary sources and No arguments.
How can you assume that by my asserting (through evidence from original Greek sources) that homosexuality was NOT a common practice nor the norm in Ancient Greece and that Alexander the Great was not a homosexual, that I am a racist and homophobic? The very fact that you chose this method (personal attacks/labelling) and not a scholarly venue says a lot about you. I will not dwell on this any further. You have done a wonderful job at discrediting yourself by a lack of scholarship and of self-esteem. Claiming that historians say this and that without furnishing solid evidence from the original sources and without engaging in a historical research of the past yourself (this will require you to be able to read the original Greek corpus) BUT resorting to personal attacks, does NOT constitute an educated response. I suggest you stop assuming that others are racists and homophobic because they question (with evidence) certain assertions because we all know what happens when we ASS_U_ME. Furthermore, if you can not sustain a scholarly discussin within the boundaries and paraneters of a civilized and academic atmosphere, I really do not want anything to with you nor your ideas. If you want to open your mind and look at the other side as well, I challenge you to read the following book:

Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

BY ADONIS GEORGIADES

http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm

After reading it, you can back and we can discuss it civily and academically.

Excellent and very impressively intellectual response from SoothSayer, I 'congrats' you.

Please let me point out to all people out there, that there is a big difference of trying to discover and defend the truth of a great man, like Alexander the Great, from assuming people that they are racist, homophobics or whatever label you want to put.

You see, I start to believe that gay people see Alexander as an idol only because they like to think he was gay, so there is no shame or something like it. But indeed, there is no shame, you have nothing to prove to the rest, BUT you can't change history cause it is simply disrepectfull.

You see for some us, Alexander the Great is very important since he set the future of our country and even still plays important role for our future and political international issues we face, but that's another story.

I think everyone already knows that Hollywood does not portray history correctly. When we go to see movies we aren't there for a history lesson. Personally I think it would be great to have movies directed as accurately as possible, but then again I love learning about history and not everyone does. So if the movie industry makes a historical movie it doesn't really matter if it's "true" or not. People will go to see it for the actors (Colin Ferrell!) or the story, not the history (except if your like me). But if the movie inspires someone to go and learn more, then it is doing more then Hollywood bargained for, which was just to entertain an audience.
So relax people and enjoy the lighter side of life.
Like Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Curiosity must be kept alive…" So if the movie ignites even the smallest spark of curiosity about history, then it is a success.

U r all a bunch of WESTERN IGNORAAANTS ... who do u think knows better the GREEKS or some dumb ass "WESTERN" historian... if the Greeks say one of their heroes was not gay or bi-sexual...then he wasn't so just stay out of it n ad the damn comments about the fiction at the beginning of the movie.....ALTHOUGHT THE WEST HAS A REALLY GOOD WAY OF CHANGING HISTORY THROUGHT HOLLYWOOD LETS NOT LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.....hint hint "BEHIND ENEMY LINES" ....hint hint nudge nudge.... :D

PEACE

hehe althought collin ferrels appearance does make him look like a ferry.....hahaha fuckin HOMO

The Greeks celebrated love between males. You have to be really blind, bigoted and a western/Christian/wimpy heterosexual not to believe that.
All accounts of Greek life that hint at male love being 'against nature' have been written several centuries after the demise of the Greek culture by Christian enthusiasts determined to show male-male love in bad life.
It is possible though that amongst the Greeks, the 'catamite', i.e., an exclusively passive feminine third gender male was looked down upon. But I don't believe that the Greeks had any such word as 'unnatural'. It is a purely Christian invention.

Here's a post I made on another site:

Calling Alexander the great a 'gay' is blasphemy. It is indeed a reflection of the degradation of the male race that one of its best heroes is being labelled as 'gay' today.

Gay refers to a negative form of 'third gender' --- a result of heterosexualisation of the modern society. Although third gender males (whether they like women or men or other third gender people) are by no means inferior they are certainly different than (straight/ masculine) men. Alexander was the opposite of 'gay'. He was the epitome of masculinity --- an alpha male. Probably, the greatest alpha male that this world has known.

There has always been a 'special' kind of person equivalent of today's homosexual, eversince the Greek times who was extremely feminine and exclusively sought passive anal sex.

No one in the history has ever called Alexander or the Greeks in general 'gay' or 'homosexual'. Indeed the whole concept of 'homosexuality' or even 'sexual orientation' is a recent western phenomenon. The concept of sexual orientation or homosexuality is relevant only if male-male eroticism was something that only a small minority could feel, a condition which is (at least superficially) has been artificially achieved by the western heterosexual society by drastically changing the rules of masculinity.

Of course Alexander loved a man. Additionally he may not have much interest in women. (both are typical male attitudes). However, in the ancient world loving another man was not a wayward, feminine or 'minority' thing that the term 'gay' suggests. On the contrary, it was the most common and natural thing that every straight man took part in. In fact it would have been a wayward thing to bond with a woman. It was something that only third gender males participated in. Straight men did marry after they reached 30, but that was because of the social duty to raise children (an attitude which straight men typically exhibited till recent times). Indeed, men considered women to be dispensable but for procreation. Men in fact hoped that if men could give birth they will not need women at all.

This is in keeping with the nature of the mammalian male. In the wild the mammalian males mate only for reproduction. There is never a bonding or equivalent of love between opposite sexes. Any real intimate and committed bonding takes place only between animals who are not only the same-sex but also the same-gender. The opposite-sex mating takes place only once a year and not all males participate. Alpha males often mate only a few times in their lives or even not mate at all.

The only mammalian males that bond with females are the equivalent of the third gender human males --- as observed in the case of sheep and the sea lion. These males don't live in the 'male' pack but live with and bond with females as one of them.

The heterosexual society is a sham. It is an anti-male society that seeks to break men apart from each other in order to demasculinise them and make them forever subservient to and dependant on women. Straight men are never naturally heterosexual. They only pretend to be heterosexual --- or have been trained to be so by a society that requires heterosexuality as a proof of their manhood (straighthood), is hostile to male-male intimacy and propagates it as a third gender 'homosexual' stuff. Bonding with women does not come naturally to men. Indeed the institution of marriage has always been a pain in the neck for straight men and the society has had to compensate them and threaten them in a number of ways to make them marry women. However, marriage till recently did not mean 'bonding' with women, and most interaction with wives were limited to either sex or 'family' matters. Straight men formed any meaningful bonds only with other straight men. Indeed the idea of love marriage was rare and looked down upon in non-western societies.

The entire heterosexual social order ----- it's institutions, it's concepts, it's values, it's science, media, social categories and even it's language is designed to perpetuate this heterosexual agenda. By making essentially a third gender trait into a compulsory 'straight' thing, the heterosexual society has effectively disempowered, demasculated and subdued men.

The only people to benefit from this unnatural social order (apart from aggressive women) are the heterosexuals (who are actually either feminine or lesser males) and the homosexuals (i.e. feminine males who seek men as females). Heterosexuals, because getting 'manhood' has becomes as easy as fucking or bonding with women (unlike in the past). And homosexuals because it gives them the reign over male-male intimacy. The irony is that both the groups are in a minority. The one's to suffer are the straight men --- who try their best to pass off as heterosexual.

QUOTE: "Us NCOs were EXPECTED to turn in troops we thought were gay."
"I actually don't begrudge anyone their sexuality. If a guy wants to handle his buddies package that's on him, i just have two reasonable requests."

It is ironical that a heterosexual man asks 'gays' (although he uses the word 'gay', he apparently includes straight men who openly desire males) to keep out of the military. Well, of course the true homosexuals (i.e. the feminine males) should stay out of the military. Third gender males will not care much for the military anyways. But, military is where the straight (masculine) men belong. Just as much as loving another man is THE natural thing for them to do. Indeed, if anyone should stay away from the military (apart from the real homosexuals) are the real heterosexuals. Heterosexual men have no appreciation for, understanding or use of masculinity. They should rather be with women, form families and raise children --- something that they are naturally suited for. Military is not a place for them.

In the end it would be apt for me to include a quote from the well known heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:

"If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who affect machismo, ultramasculinity, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go fuck each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of "make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds."

The ancient Greeks and other men who have bonded sexually with male lovers in traditional societies were vastly different than the 'wimpy' gay idea of male-male love.
They were masculine, straight, and their bonds showed that too. They would die for each other, fight battles for each other, were virtuous, brave and manly.

well to be honest----the study of history is not of history itself but an intowven fabric of motives---to depict greeks as stereotypical gay appeals to inferiority complexes of people who feel inadequate ab out their male hood

To portray Greeks as 'stereotypical gay' is part of the heteroseuxal agenda -- when they failed to destroy the evidences of acceptance of masculine love amongst the greeks.

A minority of men (lesser males) who tend to amass a lot of social power because of heteroseuxal norms of manhood, have an inherent interest in showcasing sexual bonding between men as feminine and queer. These males --- who are not in the least 'straight' (meaning masculine, not heterosexual)just don't have a chance to be 'men' in a society that tests the real manhood of men. Their power is solely dependant upon a social criteria of manhood that equals satisfying women with masculinity.

The society had put down this criteria to force men into the procreation process, at a time when few men participated in it on a regular basis. The society needed to grow its population much faster than nature allowed it to, in order to survive as new civilisations. The true heterosexuals (a rare minority and an inferior species) who led inferior lives in societies that lived close to nature, were disproportionately empowered by this development, and this has reached its pinnacle in today's heterosexual society.

But after you reach the pinnacle you can only go down.