Was alexander the great bisexual? 

Does it matter? 

by Dr. Craig Johnson

“There is no indisputable evidence for such an attachment between Alexander and Hephaestion.  That evidence does exist is circumstantial only… I do think we must acknowledge that we cannot state with certainty that Alexander and Hephaestion were lovers, either as young men, or continuing throughout their lives.”

            
Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman[i] 

            Dr. Reames-Zimmerman is a rare star in the firmament of most recent discussions of Alexander the Great’s sexuality.  While clear evidence abounds concerning Alexander’s father, Philip II, being an inveterate womanizer and participate in homoerotic affairs, the ancient historians are silent on such matters with reference to Alexander.  For some, the silence has become deafening.   

In current discussions words such as homosexual or gay are now said to be inappropriate terms for antiquity.  Some prefer the term homoerotic.  The question that is on everyone’s mind is whether there is any direct evidence that Alexander the Great was involved in same sex relationships of any kind. 

I was recently reading a review on www.gayheroes.com by Jay Spears concerning Stephen Pressfield’s novel about Alexander entitled The Virtues of War.  Mr. Spears concludes his pro-gay article: 

“To pretend that Alexander is a heterosexual is as eccentric as to portray him as an Italian.  Anyone who did so would, once the laughter subsided, be grilled as to what in the world his ‘agenda’ might be to come up with such a premise.  It mars, deforms, and perverts the character of the man portrayed, not because Italians are perverse, but because some semblance of the truth must reside at the core of any legitimate portrait, even in a novel.”[ii] 

I wholeheartedly agree with the above stated  principle:  “Some semblance of the truth must reside at the core of any legitimate historical portrait, even in a novel.”  My question is similar to many seekers of historical truth: where is the evidence in Alexander’s historical portrait that he was in any way involved sexually with men, boys, whether passively or actively or in any way. The chief focus in all discussions about Alexander’s sexuality seems to be Alexander’s best friend Hephaestion.  

Dr. Reames-Zimmerman points out that the words for homoerotic attachments, erastes, (for the elder lover, pursuer and active participant) and eromenos, (for a younger, beloved, pursued and passive participant) are never used of Alexander and his best friend Hephaestion.  

“Our three Greek historians (Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch) never term him erastes or eromenos, only philos or malista timomenos.   Alexander himself calls him Philalexandros (friend of Alexander).  Curtius and Justin use only amicus, never amans.”[iii] 

In other words, the five basic historians of Alexander’s life and conquests do not address the issue.  

In a recent New York Post article, “Light in the Sandals,” Lou Lumenick quotes the aged Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) in Oliver Stone’s, Alexander, in his narration of the saga saying: “It was said… that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaestion’s thighs.”  The only problem is Ptolemy never said it.  This line of gossip comes from a disreputable and late source, which no Alexander scholars take seriously.  Well, never mind, it’s a movie.  Right?  

Reames-Zimmerman continues: 

“The only implication of a sexual relationship or use of the term eromenos for Hephaestion occurs in late sources or those of dubious authorship (Ael.  VH 12.7, Epic. Dis. 2.12.17-18, Diog. Epistles 24, and Luc. Dial. Dead 397.)[iv]

But who cares?  What does it matter?  That this is a sexual issue doesn’t trouble me. That it is a historical issue, and therefore an issue of truth, that does engage my concern.  As Mr. Spears pointed out at least in principle, if you were to authoritatively portray Alexander as a juggler, a lion tamer, or even a cross dresser, personally, I don’t care.  But some evidence must be provided.  

Oliver Stone told Playboy Magazine, “Alexander lived in a more honest time.”  He further said of his film, “We go into his bisexuality.  It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing.  Pre-Christian morality.”   I hate to be pesky, but when Mr. Stone speaks of “his bisexuality” he assumes what he must at some point prove.   

Jeff Robinov, Warner Brothers president of production, confessed to Entertainment Weekly, “I don’t know how people are going to respond, but I know Oliver didn’t run from who this guy was.”  But wait a minute, how are any of us to know “who this guy was” if we have no primary source material to go by?  It’s not enough to simply be told that homoerotic relationships were the cultural norm. 

Dr. Robert Flaceliere points out, 

“Homosexuality of any kind was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of ancient society.  The masses of peasants and artisans were probably scarcely affected by habits of this kind.  The available texts deal mainly with the leisured nobility of Athens. But they may give the impression that pederasty* was practiced by the entire nation.  The subject, however, of the comedy by Aristophanes entitled Lysistrata suggests that homosexuality was hardly rampant among the people at large.  It would be an error of perspective to think so. Its existence among these peoples was kept more or less secret on account of the discredit which attached to it.”[v]

Homoerotic practices appear to have been introduced into Greece by 11^th Century BC Dorian invaders.  In Plutarch’s Erotikos we read, “Homosexuality resembles a son born late, of parents past their maturity, or a bastard child of darkness seeking to supplant his elder brother, legitimate love.” (571 F) 

Some suggest that Alexander’s grief over Hephaestion’s death in some way constitutes evidence for a bisexual relationship. Reames-Zimmerman again comments concerning Hephaestion’s death, 

“(It) is not proof of a sexual relationship between the two; it only proves, or at least suggests, that Hephaestion occupied the central emotional place in Alexander’s life.”[vi] 

Evidence of Alexander’s sexual preferences, whatever they were, should be seen in light of the historical sources and not through the lens of a current cultural and historical relativism which considers any statement in favor of heterosexuality as a concerted attack against homoeroticism. 

 Historian Paul Doherty, speaking of Alexander’s detractors states: 

“Alexander’s personal relationships, be it as a lover or a comrade, appeared sacred to him: his friendship with his life long friend, Hephaestion, has been the subject of much speculation… whether Alexander regarded Hephaestion as a lover or twin brother has never been decided.”[vii]
 

            Why is this fact so difficult to accept? 

Doherty also points out how Alexander’s mother, Olympias, tried to arrange for Alexander to sleep with a Thesslian courtesan, which he rejected with distain.  “Sex, like sleep,” says Doherty, “was very low on Alexander’s list of priorities: he once remarked that they only reminded him of his own mortality, a fact he liked to ignore.”[viii]
 

            Agnes Savill adds with less tact than some current authors: 

“Like the detractors of ancient times, some modern writers have tried to explain Alexander’s attitude toward women as due to homosexuality.  But when Philoxenes told the king that two beautiful boys had been offered for him, Alexander was furious: ‘What evil has he seen in me that he should purchase for me such shameful creatures?’ he exclaimed.  ‘Tell the dealer to take his wares to hell.’ Here one ought to state that Tarn has proved on what flimsy basis such an accusation was constructed.”[ix]         

Alexander had three wives, Roxane, Statiera, and Parysatis, and perhaps two mistresses, Barsine, and Pankaste/Kampaspe.  Almost every pro-gay publication or website quotes Oxford historian Robin Lane Fox as the chief authority who “proves” that Alexander was bisexual.  They quote from Robin Lane Fox’s re-released book, Alexander the Great, where Fox refers to Alexander as Hephaestion’s “lover”. Yet no one seems to notice that in Lane Fox’s book, The Search for Alexander, he clearly admits that no contemporary historians mentioned anything on the matter. 
 

“Among the pages one name stands out, the Hephaestion with whom later gossip claimed that Alexander had a love affair.  No contemporary history states this, but the facts show that the two men’s friendship was exceptionally deep and close.”[x]
 

Dr. Lane Fox is correct.  No contemporary source whatsoever stated any such things of Alexander.  Such inferences are indeed gossip and at that, very late, and hence disreputable.  Yet despite this admission, Lane Fox then lapses into an unfounded dogmatism which has fueled anyone hungry to believe that evidence exists from the ancient sources confirming Alexander’s bisexuality.  

Historically speaking, I’d like the truth, please.  That’s all.    Surprisingly enough, in another refreshing comment, this time with reference to the Persian eunuch Bagoas, Lane Fox remarks, “Later gossip presumed that Bagoas was Alexander’s lover.  This is uncertain.”[xi] 

 Even Mary Renault, the patron saint of all those who seek to prove Alexander’s bisexuality, clearly acknowledges,   “No historian states plainly whether they were physical lovers.”[xii] 

Aristotle’s dictum still stands: “He who asserts must also prove.”  When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim. 

Let’s ask some clear, practical questions in light of Oliver Stone’s Alexander:  Did Alexander ever kiss a man on the mouth?  No evidence.  Did he ever play a passive or active role in same sex sexual unions?  No evidence.  Did he have sex of any kind with the eunuch Bagoas?  No evidence. Did he ever play footsie with men or boys at a sports bar? No evidence.  Did he have sex with Hephaestion or any other man, young or old?  No evidence.  Was he anything other than a married, heterosexual male with children who chose “power as his supreme mistress”?  The answer in concert with all the primary sources  is again: no evidence!   

Alexander clearly distained his father Philip’s alpha male excesses and was considered something of a prig with regard to sexual matters.  Interestingly enough, no one who knew them both considered Alexander either in character or in conduct to have followed in his father’s licentious  footsteps.  Instead it was said of him that “he gave the strange impression of one whose body was his servant.”  Alexander stated that his true father figure was Aristotle, for although Philip had given him life, Aristotle had taught him how to live.  

What then was Aristotle’s position on such issues. What would Alexander and Hephaestion have learned from their mentor in  three years of study?  In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between what is naturally pleasurable from what is pleasurable without being naturally so. 
 

K. J. Dover explains:

“In this latter category he puts (a) things which are pleasurable because of ‘deficiencies’ or ‘impairments’ and those who find them so, (b) things which become pleasurable through habit, and (c) things which are found pleasurable by bad natures.”[xiii]

Dover cites: 

“Those who are effeminate by nature … are constituted contrary to nature; for, though male, they are so disposed that part of them (sc the rectum) is necessarily defective.  Defect, if complete, causes destruction, but if not, perversion (sc. of one’s nature). … it therefore follows that they must be distorted and have an urge in a place other than (sc. that of) procreative ejaculation.”[xiv] 

Dover concludes Aristotle’s thought:

“The writer’s concept of nature is not difficult to understand: a male who is physically constituted in such a way that he lacks something of the positive characteristics which distinguish male from female, and possesses instead a positively female characteristic, suffers from a constitutional defect contrary to nature, and a male who through habituation behaves in a way which is a positive differentia of females behaves as if he had such a defect.”[xv] 

 
            Non heterosexual relations are contrary to nature. But again, why should anyone care?  Why would Greek lawyers be threatening to sue Oliver Stone and Warner Brothers film studios with an extrajudicial note saying that the movie is fiction and not based on fact?  Is it a Bible-thumping, right-wing conspiracy?  No, I believe it’s only a concern for truth - clear historical facts versus Hollywood “interpra-facts”. Gay activists say that the film soft-pedals Alexander’s sexuality. Terms such as “erotic reality denyers” and “homophobic Keystone Cops” are used of anyone who dares to challenge that Alexander might actually have been just a heterosexual guy.  It is interesting to me that Alexander is not even mentioned in the important studies of homoeroticism in ancient Greece by the likes of Sir Kenneth Dover, (Greek Homosexuality, 1989), John Winkler’s The Constraints of Desire, (1990), and David Halperin’s 100 Years of Homosexuality (1990). 
           

SUMMARY 

In short, regardless of the sexual mores of Alexander’s time, coupled with the clear evidence of homoerotic relationships on the part of his father Philip II, at end the question of whether there is evidence in the ancient historians to suggest that Alexander was homosexual, bisexual, homoerotic, or anything else of the sort, just isn’t there.

Personally, I don’t care.  I am neither angry nor homophobic.   I just appreciate historical evidence when historical claims are made.  Oliver Stone’s film not withstanding, there is none. 

Dr. Craig Johnson is a Fellow of the International Academy in Strasbourg, France.  He is professor in residence at Chalcedon Academy in Agoura Hills, California.  He is author of The Alexander Code: Alexander the Great and the Hidden Prophecies of the Bible. 

© 2004 Bible History Online