#ancient macedonia

[llitchilitchi]

the right side

[illustratus]

Alexander the Great Threatened by His Father by Donato Creti

[maggie44paint]

Alexander and his generals!

(at least the ones I actually remember by their name, sorry Cleitus💀)

Edit: Huge thanks to everyone who respectfully explained the topic of skintones in Ancient Macedonia to me, I truly appreciate it 🙏

[d-a-redwing]

THE STATE OF HISTORICAL FICTION AND THE SANITIZATION OF HISTORICAL FIGURES - RANT

I think the problem @moonlady101 described in the post linked below is due to the same reason authors of historical fiction nowadays feel the need to sanitise their work and apply modern morality and social dynamics in order to make it acceptable for the public and avoid being “cancelled.”

(This is coming from someone who loves ancient history, especially the time of Alexander’s conquests and the Diadochi wars, and has a WiP based on it.)

There are two main concerns for authors and media creators today:

1. Fear of being accused of romanticising or condoning "problematic" historical figures or tropes (e.g. conquest, sexism, slavery, dictatorship, etc.).

Disclaimer: Sensitivity readers are absolutely necessary in the industry, especially when it comes to representing marginalised groups.

That said, we’ve reached a point where we often have to distort historical reality in order to make it palatable and less offensive to modern audiences. There's increasing pressure to sanitise the past and soften portrayals of historical figures, even when such portrayals are unfaithful to their time periods (unfortunately, authors often face harassment for depicting these realities as they were.)

Take Alexander, for example. We don’t have any evidence from sources linking him personally to sexual violence, he’s actually shown to be quite delicate with the women he encounters, but it’s almost certain that his army committed such atrocities during the campaign.

And let’s be honest: would he have cared about the rape of Timoclea if she hadn’t been a noblewoman? Would he have shown such respect toward Darius’s family if he didn’t need them for his PR campaign and to legitimise his rule over Persia? Was Roxana truly so beautiful that he fell in love at first sight, or was she just politically important for pacifying eastern Persian tribes?

We also know that Barsine, the wife of the Greek mercenary Memnon who served in Darius’s army, became Alexander’s concubine and bore him a son, Heracles. Looking at the timeline, between the Battle of Issus, when Darius’s wife Stateira I was taken hostage, and her death in childbirth, it’s also possible the child was Alexander’s. Did he force them to sleep with him? I don’t think so. But the truth is, they would have felt obligated to do so, regardless of their feelings, in order to maintain their status and ensure their protection.

What’s frustrating is that the same people who demand male historical figures be whitewashed to justify their interest in them, often have no problem with historical women being demonised or misrepresented.

Just look at the constant mistreatment of Olympias, she's often portrayed as an obsessive, jealous, and nasty witch of a wife to Philip II. Or Cleopatra, who can’t be shown for what she really was: an ambitious, ruthless, and brilliant politician who used her sexuality to gain power and protect her kingdom in a world ruled by men and military strength. Now she has to be a fighter in a literal sense, and the morally questionable things she did to stay in power (like murdering her younger brother) are reinterpreted as accidents, never her fault. Because God forbid a woman ruler uses the same methods to cement power as the men in her dynasty had done for generations.

2. In today’s era, where all media has to be exciting, there's also a push to "spice things up" for a broader audience.

Let’s break down a few things here:

Alexander and Hephaestion in an open homosexual relationship:

They might have continued a romantic relationship into adulthood, but it would not have been open, because that simply wasn’t socially acceptable. In ancient Greece, homosexual relationships usually involved an older man (erastes - ἐραστής) and a younger one (eromenos - ἐρώμενος), with a mentor-student dynamic. Or they occurred between two boys. Once the younger man reached adulthood, the relationship typically shifted to something more platonic. In their case, Alexander was a king (so automatically of a higher status), and even if Hephaestion was younger than him (which I don't think he was), an open, public relationship when they both became adult men would have been extremely humiliating and emasculating for Hephaestion.

Polyamory:

Could it have happened? I think it could. Famously, Ptolemy’s concubine, Thaïs, an Athenian hetaira whom he later married, is sometimes mentioned as also having had a sexual relationship with Alexander. But she was a courtesan (hetaira - ἑταίρα), possibly a concubine (pallakē - παλλακή). That kind of arrangement would NEVER have happened with "proper women" like wives, Roxana, Stateira II, and so on.

Alexander’s relationship with Bagoas:

For an ancient Greek man, Bagoas might have represented the ultimate humiliation - loss of masculinity, so it's rather unlikely that he would have been seen as “sexually desirable” in the Greek context. But besides that, Bagoas would undoubtedly be useful to Alexander. He would have been knowledgeable about Persian court customs (serving under Darius III) and could have been a talented performer (some sources mention his famous dance at one of the banquets), which would not be uncommon for male artisans like music players or actors to perform on such occasions.

In short, we do a disservice to both history and literature when we flatten complex figures into modern archetypes just to make them more digestible. The past was brutal, morally alien, and often uncomfortable by today’s standards, and that’s exactly why it’s worth exploring honestly. Showing the darkness of history does not equate to endorsing it, portraying real, flawed people does not equate to glorifying them. And powerful historical women don’t need to be morally whitewashed or "yasified" to be palatable or admirable. If we can’t engage with history on its own terms, then what exactly are we learning from it?

Post by @moonlady101 · 1 image

💬 3  🔁 1  ❤️ 5 · I went to the theatre last night, but, unfortunately, the play was not exactly what I had expected it to be. First of all,

[not-ester]

It felt...right.

[wisdom-devotee]

Me when hyperfixation on Ancient Greeks. I should be doing college work. My copy of The Odyssey was just delivered. And instead of focusing on any of that I’m obsessing over Hephaestion. Please send help. And maybe some fun facts of anyone knows any

[facts-i-just-made-up]

Ancient Law Unearthed From 5000 BC

Though the Code of Hammurabi is often cited as the first legal text, a much older stele dating to 5750 BC is thought to have held an earlier code of law, specifically dealing with mineral sales and metals of the proto-bronze age. The stele only has one law remaining intact but may have held over 20 total.

Unearthed from an ancient tin mine in Serbia, the Stele of Cassander The Nameless is a solid granite block measuring about 3 meters tall, engraved with Ancient Macedonian letters and mostly broken apart by time and mining activity.

Most of the laws on the stele are unreadable, but law 7 is fully intact and details the ownership rights of tin ingots, stating that it was not the miner nor the owner of the mine who had the right to sell the tin, but rather whoever participated in the smelting and reduction into the metal's pure form. Because of the past tense writing of ancient Hellenistic dialects, the first law recorded in human civilization translates exactly to, "He who smelt it dealt it."

[capelin356]

Spring mood Alexander