A few words of praise for Oliver Stone’s vision of Alexander

Oliver Stone received loads of criticism for his Alexander movie, revisions, and comments as if he had it all wrong. Well, nobody from Alexander’s lifetime is still alive to contest what’s right or not. 

As said in my earlier blog post about Stone’s book Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander, it is so much easier to point out the shortcomings than to consider the author’s considerable merit. The critics seem to forget that Alexander’s life was far too complex, too active, too magnanimous, and too genial to be told in a movie of three hours for a public largely unacquainted with history or Alexander the Great. 

At the end of his book, Oliver Stone added a highly interesting chapter “Afterward”, an excellent explanation and justification for his vision of Alexander. I can only admire his stamina.  I saved this text from some link back in 2006 and had a fresh look at it today. It is striking to read how, nearly twenty years later, Stone’s approach to Alexander is still so close to the truth! 

His plea for humankind to understand Alexander is worthy of Demosthenes, the great Athenian orator. Here is an excerpt worth reading:

The response is in what Alexander did, and not his motives, which I suspect were something like most of ours: highly ambivalent, at times glorious, at times wretched. I sometimes feel professional historians, generally apart from the human give and take of the marketplace, expect too much from their leaders -- requiring them to act from abstract principles in a world harsh with chaos, greed and infighting. We can certainly say in Alexander’s defense that he kept the expedition marching eastward for 7 more years after Babylon, with a greatness of vision that could motivate a 120,000-man army. By leading from the front and sharing the burdens of his men, he showed himself above the comfort lines of materialism, and as a known foe of official corruption, he set high standards by punishing those found guilty of stealing, raping, plundering (including his school friend Eumenes). From all accounts written of Alexander, we see time and again, his great passion, pain, and self-torture in incidents such as the murder of Cleitus, the burning of Persepolis, the mutiny in India, the kissing of Bagoas in front of his men, and the bestowing of official acceptance on Asian men and womenfolk. There is no ancient ruler, outside of legend, that I have ever heard commit such potentially self-incriminating actions. This is, of course, one of the reasons his name continues to endure – who was ever remotely like him? ‘In the doing, always in the doing’, Alexander. 

Conquest is also a form of evolution. If Alexander had a smaller vision, he would’ve retreated long before to Babylon and consolidated his empire. He would’ve brought his mother, his sister and his entourage to the Persian Court. He would’ve made a stronger, more patient effort to combine Macedonian and Persian custom. This unification of cultures would’ve been the lifetime challenge for any emperor, and would’ve certainly changed the course of history. Why did he not? 

I see Alexander more as an explorer, like many others of such a nature, not quite knowing what’s going to come up on the horizon, yet boldly reaching for the new electrical charge of change. He stayed in motion until the end, and never returned to his Rome, London, Paris, Berlin, or Mongolia, as other conquerors have. He comes across in many ways as a man who was making it up as he went along -- from Babylon through Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and back to Babylon -- where in the end, he remained unsatisfied, dreaming of his expedition to the West. I would call him not an imperialist as present fashion would have it, but rather a ‘proto-man’, an enlightened monarch naturally in search of one land, one world -- the unity, so to speak, of the womb. Given that Alexander might’ve had a longer lifetime to develop this experiment, his empire might’ve yielded perhaps six or seven centers -- such as Babylon, Alexandria, Athens, Carthage, Rome, South Spain, a world with nerve centers that supposes, to a surprising degree, the global world centers we have today – but with one world government, centered on enlightened monarchy, or, barring that, some form of governing body. 

In unconsciously pursuing this ‘one world’ concept, under the guise of a personal quest, the Alexander of the drama we created would have to be a man who believed he was the right force to bring the world into a greater sense of unification and prosperity, that he was a step in the evolutionary process. And given the cataclysms possible, I do think Alexander ruled extraordinarily well for 12 years over men, both noble and bestial, in a social fabric that not only maintained itself, but greatly expanded in terms of culture, scientific discovery, and economic progress. It’s so easy to dismiss this great effort, I think too easy, to declare it broken after 12 years of rule. But can we say it really broke apart? Even if dissolved in four parts, the basic communal energies remained in place, and his creation culminated shortly, within 150 years, in the burgeoning Roman Empire.

I cannot agree more!

A plea in favor of Bagoas

It is obvious that history has not been handling the subject of eunuchs with kindness. The Persians were very familiar with the very concept, and so were the Macedonian kings like Philip II and Alexander the Great. Firstly, there is Hermias, the eunuch and pupil of Aristotle who, with help from King Philip II, became the Persian satrap of Ionia (Asia Minor). Secondly, there is Alexander who held Cyrus the Great of Persia in high esteem and who was influenced by Xenophon’s “Cyropaidia” containing a true praise for eunuchs. This, at least, shows that  Alexander was familiar with eunuchs and could comprehend their promotion to high and important posts in the Persian empire as is documented by Bagoas’ namesake who carried the title of Chiliarch and proclaimed himself Great King by poisoning the incapable ruling King Ochus, better known as Artaxerxes III of Persia.

Writers like the old (and negative) W. Tarn, but also Arrian would have liked to simply leave Bagoas out of their history books, solely because a eunuch did not fit the idealized image of Alexander they wanted to project. Others have tried to create another Bagoas, a kind of Persian prince so that they would not have to accept that a eunuch and loverboy of Alexander could occupy a place among his most prominent and influential courtiers. They preferred the image of a slave and body-servant of the king (as used in the Alexander movie by Oliver Stone). Not only Christians but also the Romans had great prejudices toward the concept of eunuchs and lots of superstitious misunderstandings were circulating. In their endeavor not to damage the image of Alexander, most of the writers contributed to erasing as many traces of Bagoas as they could!

But let’s have a look at “our” Bagoas. He was introduced and presented to Alexander by Nabarzanes, previously one of the Commanders of the Persian King, together with other gifts since he wished to prove his goodwill by surrendering to Alexander after the death of King Darius. According to Curtius, these events happened in Hyrcania in July/August 330 BC. Curtius is very clear about this, while Arrian, who wrote for the Roman patricians of the Antonine period, hardly mentions Bagoas in his otherwise so carefully documented history (we hardly find any trace of him).

I’m convinced that Alexander didn’t take Bagoas only for his good looks or for the fact that he was a eunuch. He had refused handsome young boys and men that were presented to him on previous occasions – whether or not with a certain disgust. Andrew Chugg (see: Alexander’s Lovers) considers that since Bagoas had been the personal attendant to King Darius, he could prove the truthfulness of Nabarzanes’ story. He also assumes that he probably spoke Greek and as such could act as a translator, which was one of the many talents a good eunuch should possess and which may be one of the reasons why he was so easily admitted among Alexander’s entourage. Curtius writes: “… was still young and a favourite of Alexander’s because he was in the flower of his youth, but, though he equalled Hephaistion in handsomeness of form, he did not match him in charm, since he was not at all manly” (proof that Hephaistion definitely was manly, a trait that is often being questioned!). When Curtius speaks of Bagoas, he uses the word “spado”, which matches our word for the eunuch, as opposed to “castrati” (totally castrated).

Andrew Chugg has found Bagoas to be mentioned seven or eight times by ancient writers from four different sources. The best-known story is, of course, the one about the dance and singing competition in Gedrosia where Bagoas turned out to be the winner and was rewarded with a loving kiss by Alexander. Not only Plutarch relates the story, but also Athenaeus referred to Dicaearchus, another pupil of Aristotle - a rather trustworthy source of information.

New to me is learning that in India, Bagoas was listed among the 33 trierarchs (commanders of the triremes, i.e. ships with three rows of oars). This list was composed by nobody less than Nearchus, the fleet commander and one of Alexander’s generals. The title was purely honorific and had nothing to do with actual sailing the ships down the Indus River. Other trierarchs were, for instance, Eumenes, Alexander’s secretary, his doctor Critobulus, his friend Medius of Larissa, etc. But then Waldemar Heckel in his “Who’s who” mentions that this Bagoas might be different from the one close to Alexander and he refers to a Persian satrap of the same name, perhaps from Lycia.

Last but not least, there is the story of Bagoas being involved in the arrest of Orsines when Alexander upon his return to Babylon discovers the mismanagement of several of his Persian satraps. After the death of one of these satraps, Phrasaortes, a certain Orsines took over and exploited his power, murdering his countrymen and stealing the amounts of money from the temple. He is the one who, although indirectly, is being held responsible for the plundering of the tomb of Cyrus the Great. At that time, Bagoas occupied the highest rank at the Persian Court (!). Alexander probably asked him to serve as an interpreter and maybe even asked for his advice to establish if Orsines spoke the truth or was credible. On previous occasions, Alexander had left the condemnation of “criminals” to the local rulers and he could very well have done the same this time by leaving Bagoas in charge.

Finally, there is a short piece of text from the time that Alexander was still underway to Ecbatana in 324 BC which is told by Aelian in his “Varia Historia”:”: “He [Alexander] had dinner on the twenty-seventh [17th October 324 BC] with Bagoas – the distance from the palace to Bagoas’ house was ten stades [+/- 1800 meters] – and on the twenty-eight he slept”. Andrew Chugg concludes that at that time Bagoas was being held in high esteem by Alexander, i.e. seven months before the king’s death and immediately before the death of Hephaistion. Bagoas was rich and independent enough to maintain a household of his own, which doesn’t match at all with the image of an influential courtesan. There is no doubt about Alexander’s generosity towards Bagoas simply because organizing a dinner for the king meant an expense of at least 40 kilograms of silver (Dixit Plutarch).
 

Our historical Bagoas carried out many important diplomatic and governmental obligations like for instance escorting the Sacae (Scythian tribe) and the execution of unfaithful satraps. He must have been very talented, capable, and influential – and then there were his dances, of course.

From all these bits and pieces, I would conclude that Bagoas must have occupied the highest rank after King Alexander and his Chiliarch Hephaistion. We’ll definitely have to welcome him with more consideration and reverence next time we talk about him. To me, he truly is “one of the boys” together with Alexander and Hephaistion!

[pictures of Bagoas taken from Oliver Stone's movie "Alexander"]

The Persian Boy by Mary Renault

After Fire from Heaven, one would automatically expect Mary Renault to write a sequel to the years of young Alexander, and she did, yet in a most unexpected way. Instead of picking up the story of Alexander when he leaves for Asia, she skips over right to the heart of Persia from where his conquests are followed from afar by a eunuch called Bagoas, The Persian Boy (ISBN 0394751019). In fact she starts the book telling Bagoas’ life from the very beginning, making it an interesting reading on castration and the general role of eunuchs in that part of the world.

I know many people read this book for that purpose only or for what we call nowadays a homosexual relation. In ancient Greece neither the word nor the concept were known. Sex was simply sex without the fringes and the constraints that Christianity and other religions brought forward. It may be useful to point out here that in antiquity eunuchs were not only slaves serving the pleasure of their master, but that they also could occupy high placed positions often that of a valuable “contact person”. As a simple example, I’m thinking of another eunuch Bagoas (often mentioned more elegantly as Vizier) who assassinated King Artaxerxes III to rule himself through puppet kings – a proof, if needed, of the power some eunuchs could acquire. If we believe Andrew Chugg in his book Alexander’s Lovers (and there is no reason not to believe him) our Persian Boy may well have acted as special envoy or master of ceremony at Alexander’s Persian Court since he was familiar with all the finesses of the Persian protocol.

Whatever the reader’s opinion on this matter, to me Mary Renault’s book is about Alexander the Great. Bagoas is brought to him as a gift by Nabarzanes who in exchange is hoping to be looked upon mildly by this new ruler since he was closely involved in the murder of King Darius in Parthia in the year 330 BC.

I marvel at Mary’s dexterity in comparing and differentiating Persian customs from the Macedonian ones, as Bagoas discovers this new world around him. In his eyes, the Macedonians are perceived as Barbarians with their lack of respect for the person of the king as initial focal point and their overall lack of social graces. For us Westerners, as we have been raised with the concept that our civilization started in Greece, it comes as a surprise to learn that there is an other version to the story – in this case to history, for here we are looking towards the West from the East. It is quite interesting to witness Alexander’s eagerness to learn, which I think is a very honest and true trait of his character, but also the subtle and styled way in which Bagoas is introducing his master to Persia – a land that must have looked to the new conquerors like the New World to our Pilgrim Fathers setting sail for the Americas.

Unlike in Fire from Heaven, this book is no longer focusing exclusively on Alexander’s relationship with Hephaistion, which by the way takes another dimension as both men become more mature, but as can be expected on his relationship with Bagoas. Yet Mary Renault manages to keep up with Alexander’s campaigns as he marches on over the Hindu Kush to Bactria, crossing India’s wide streams and ultimately the death march through the Gedrosian Desert back to Babylon. The daily events become all very personal and make the reader very much part of life in and around the royal tent. It is fascinating to look on to the battles and the internal conflicts from the sideline where Bagoas keeps himself without losing the context of all the historic events as they occur. Their description is so vivid that you can almost taste the dust and feel the cold!

A true masterpiece, worthy of Mary Renault. I would even add worthy of Alexander the Great.

Also available as e-Book

Alexander's Lovers by Andrew Michael Chugg

Yes, I got all excited reading Alexander's Lovers (ISBN 1411699602), not because of some spicy details about Alexander’s intimate life, but the way Chugg consulted all the available ancient bits and pieces of lost chronicles besides the more complete works of Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, etc, and he also takes the viewpoints and critics of today’s writers in consideration. He is a very analytical writer as I found out reading about his search for The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great and he really can deliver his story.

He starts off with a concise biography of Alexander the Great and concludes with a short epilogue about the fate of his family.

The essence of the book covers all the people Alexander established a personal and private relation with: Hephaistion, Bagoas, Barsine, Roxane, Stateira and Parysatis, even the Queen of Amazons and Massaga. Chugg’s deductions and conclusions are his own, of course, but they shed an entirely new light on the personalities of Hephaistion and Bagoas in particular. We will never know for sure how great a man Alexander’s closest friend and probable lover Hephaistion was, but I am convinced there is more unsaid than told about his personal and professional achievements. As to Bagoas, very little is known about the role eunuchs played in antiquity for the only picture we have is that of harem stories during the Ottoman Empire and even those pictures have been erroneously interpreted.

I read this book from cover to cover, and relished on Chugg’s detailed and thorough research of the available sources. It is absolutely worthwhile and a must for any fan of Alexander the Great!

Also available as an eBook (ASIN: B007OXZU60)

Iskander by Louis Couperus

I finally wrestled through Couperus’ book Iskander, the Persian name for Alexander the Great. It was pure stubbornness and determination that made me read it to the end. I actually read it on the recommendations of a friend who qualified it as delightful reading in a fluent narrative, having read it in a German translation. My book was in the original Dutch of the 1920’s, a very awkward and old fashioned language usage, to say the least.

I found Couperus’ description of the women especially as theatrical as the characters encountered on the set of silent movies. Besides, I missed the action that inevitably should surround Alexander for he was either fulminating in rage or speaking in over-delicate tone to Sisygambis and her grandchildren – his military conquests were put on the backburner.

Although I’m very much aware that this is a novel and that the author is, of course, entitled to his own liberties, I had a hard time accepting Couperus’ constant referrals to Alexander’s greed (oh yes?) and megalomania, his uncontrolled fits of rage and his rough humiliation of Bagoas, whom he literally crushes under his feet! The latest may simply fit the general conception of a eunuch in his days, so I can forgive him for that. I found it rather comical to read that Alexander grew a beard according to the Persian fashion that he adopted after conquering the country. Just imagine what he would have looked like! And then I failed to find anything about his close relationship with Hephaistion, who in the beginning is set at the same level as Philotas - of all people! I have not found him to be “his pillar and his sanity” as one would expect, certainly in a novel. There hardly seems to be any communication between them at all!

The German version may have been an improvement on the original Dutch text. This is rather exceptional for generally books loose their true character in translation. A comparison with Mary Renault to which my friend compared the author, is out of the question as far as I’m concerned. Whereas I can loose myself entirely in Renault’s novels and walk with her through antiquity, Couperus’ story could hardly make it to the local newspaper, to be shredded next day. Sorry. This book will sit on my shelves, a dead weight.

Those who are curious about this story telling will have a hard time finding the book at all since it is out of print since 1995 or so. I got mine second hand, but I’ll gladly pass it on to whoever is interested. Otherwise you can look it up under ISBN 90 254 1403 6.