Netflix’s Alexander: Making of a God

Posted on by

There is another streaming series I have become a fan of along with Season 2 of Halo on Paramount+. It is Alexander: The Making of a God. I am a fan of time-period pieces, especially about Antiquity through the post-Classical Age and fall of the Roman Empire.

Released on January 31st, 2024, the docudrama series explores a segment of Alexander the Great’s sudden rise to Macedonian power at the ripe age of 20-years old after the assassination of his father Philip II in 336 BCE, followed by his military victories and conquests of the Persian Empire ruled by Darius III. This was all the Netflix directors and producers wanted to cover. Doing more, like his childhood or going into his Western India campaign and his mysterious death back in Babylon, would’ve simply been far too cost prohibitive. Yet, critics blast the series for not covering every single hour of Alexander’s life. Pffft. 🙄🤦‍♂️ And many—surely of the ultra-Conservative persuasion—slam the docudrama series for hinting, or showing that Alexander the Great was not strictly heterosexual. Ridiculous non-sense in my opinion and irrelevant to the important historical context and facts.

Alexander with his closest friend Hephaestion – Netflix

These strictly gender-binary critics, however, demonstrate very, very little knowledge of ancient Greek-Macedonian socio-culture. Ancient Greek-Macedonian society never had any written or verbal differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual persons. What they did have was six (6) different definitions of love. Notice their Athenian context versus our modern Puritan American, binary and restrictive definitions or ‘social boundaries’ today.

  1. Eros — The first kind of love was eros, named after the Greek god of fertility, and represented the idea of sexual passion and desire. But the Greeks didn’t always think of it as something positive, as we tend to today. In fact, eros was viewed as a dangerous, fiery and irrational form of love that could take hold of you and possess you — an attitude shared by many later spiritual thinkers, such as the Christian writer C.S. Lewis. Eros involved a loss of control that frightened the Greeks. Which is odd, because losing control is precisely what many people now seek in a relationship. Don’t we all hope to fall “madly” in love?
  2. Philia — The second variety of love was philia or friendship, which the Greeks valued far more than the base sexuality of eros. Philia concerned the deep comradely friendship that developed between brothers in arms who had fought side by side on the battlefield. It was about showing loyalty to your friends, sacrificing for them, as well as sharing your emotions with them. (Another kind of philia, sometimes called storge, embodied the love between parents and their children.) We can all ask ourselves how much of this comradely philia love we have in our lives. It’s an important question in an age when we attempt to amass “friends” on Facebook or ‘followers’ on Twitter (now X) — achievements that would have hardly impressed the Greeks.
  3. Ludus — This was the Greek’s idea of playful love, which referred to the playful affection between children or young lovers. We’ve all had a taste of it in the flirting and teasing in the early stages of a relationship. But we also live out our ludus when we sit around in a bar bantering and laughing with friends, or when we go out dancing. Dancing with strangers may be the ultimate ludic activity, almost a playful substitute for sex itself. Social norms frown on this kind of adult playful frivolity, but a little more ludus might be just what we need to spice up our love lives.
  4. Agape — The fourth love, and perhaps the most radical, was agape or selfless love. This was a love that you extended to all people, whether family members or distant strangers. Agape was later translated into Latin as caritas, which is the origin of our word charity. Lewis referred to it as “gift love,” the highest form of Christian love. But it also appears in other religious traditions, such as the idea of mettā or “universal loving kindness” in Theravāda Buddhism. There is growing evidence that agape is in a dangerous decline in many countries. Empathy levels in the U.S. have dropped nearly 50 percent over the past 40 years, with the steepest fall occurring in the past decade. We urgently need to revive our capacity to care about strangers.
  5. Praga — Another Greek love was pragma or mature love. This was the deep understanding that developed between long-married couples. It was about making compromises to help the relationship work over time, and showing patience and tolerance. The psychoanalyst Erich Fromm said that we expend too much energy on “falling in love” and need to learn more how to “stand in love.” Pragma is precisely about standing in love — making an effort to give love rather than just receive it. With divorce rates currently running at 50+ percent, the Greeks would surely think we should bring a serious dose of pragma into our relationships today.
  6. Philautia — The final variety of love was philautia or self-love. The clever Greeks realized there were two types. One was an unhealthy variety associated with narcissism, where you became self-obsessed, and focused on gaining personal fame and fortune. A healthier version of philautia enhanced your wider capacity to love. The idea was that if you like yourself and feel secure in yourself, you will have plenty of love to give others (today this is reflected in the Buddhist-inspired concept of “self-compassion”). Or as Aristotle put it, “All friendly feelings for others are an extension of man’s feelings for himself.”

These fluid socio-sexual norms in ancient Greece-Macedonia are very well recorded and reflect just how open-minded Alexander’s compatriots were. It is wholly unfair for modern Puritan America, that often is oppressively rigid, gender-binary only, and impose their own personal antichronistic beliefs upon ancient Greece and Macedonia, especially upon an iconic figure as Alexander the Great. That position is completely unfounded and severely lacks any supporting evidence.

Nevertheless, the legends of Alexander the Great are held very dear and close to the heart of traditional, conservative, gender-binary populous. They are easily offended by any suggestion that Alexander was not strictly heterosexual.

Alexander the Great is often glorified in “manosphere” circles as a hyper-masculine figure to aspire to, the semi-legendary conqueror famous for his ambition and military accomplishments. […]

Alexander’s sexuality has been the subject of debate among historians, but it is largely accepted that the great conqueror wasn’t strictly heterosexual.

— forbes.com, Dani Di Placido accessed 2/11/2024 at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/02/07/netflixs-alexander-the-great-controversy-explained/?sh=291c075f3760

Is this unnecessary, ridiculous homophobia and paranoia? I think so. What does it matter today, that 3rd-century BCE culture and social norms some how effects our sexuality today?

Ironically, many “anti-woke” influencers have a shallow understanding of history, and tend to fetishize time periods they don’t fully understand — they often refuse to acknowledge clashing cultural norms and assume that anything outside of heterosexual monogamy is some kind of modern deviation.

— forbes.com, Dani Di Placido accessed 2/11/2024 at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/02/07/netflixs-alexander-the-great-controversy-explained/?sh=291c075f3760

So… what say you? Do you think it makes any difference whatsoever that Alexander the Great might have been or probably was at least bisexual, like many great men of the Greek-Macedonian empire? If so, why? Explain in detail how his intimate personal life would change anything about his military and phenomenal cultural advancements for the entire world.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

The Professor’s Convatorium © 2023 by Professor Taboo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 

11 thoughts on “Netflix’s Alexander: Making of a God”

  1. I haven’t watched the show yet but I plan to when I get the time. I did hear about the usual suspects clutching at their pearls and getting the vapors over how his sexuality was portrayed.

    To answer your question, his sexuality doesn’t make any difference at all. He did what he did, basically becoming the ruler of a large part of the known world at the time.

    Frankly this obsession that some people have with other people’s sexual activities is not healthy.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • I agree … but the multi-letter crowd can’t seem to help themselves in making sure EVERYONE agrees with their perspective. I get accused of being “stuck in the 50’s” because I don’t fawn all over the idea, but from my perspective … who cares? Do what you have to do … just don’t make it a public issue.

      Which, it seems, no one did as related to Alexander. If he did/was, it certainly wasn’t carried down through history on PAGE ONE.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • Hear hear Grouchy! 👍

      Men are disturbed not by things,
      but by the view which they take of them.

      — Epictetus, c. 55 – 135 CE

      Back in October 2012 I wrote a post called Hyper-Social Anxiety Over Sex. In that post I quoted an article from The Washington Post that was written in May 2011. It too was covering sociocultural and/or religious beliefs about sexuality or its perceived norms or abnormalities. The WP reporter-editor referenced an Egyptian author named Alaa Al Aswany and his book “On the State of Egypt.” In it is an essay entitled Why Are Religious Fanatics Obsessed with Women’s Bodies? As I read the article, I couldn’t help but realize that this type of hyper-social anxiety is not limited to extreme Islam or just one religion or culture. Many denominations of Christianity, and various sects of Judaism also have hyper-sensitized religious laws regarding women and sexuality. Or homosexuality as well. Excerpts from that post:

      Aswany decries an incident in Somalia in which extremists arrested a woman and whipped her in public for wearing a bra. To the fanatics, wearing a bra is un-Islamic and a form of fraud and deception. Why? Because wearing a bra presents a false image of a woman’s breasts.

      An apt comparison, Aswany says, is an accusation of fraud against a merchant for concealing defects in his goods or for making false claims about their quality in order to make a sale.

      “The idea here,” Aswany writes, “is that a woman who accentuates her breasts by using a bra gives a false impression of the goods (her body), which is seen as fraud and deception by the buyer (the man) who might buy (marry) her for her ample breasts and later discover that they were ample because of the bra and not by nature.” Not the least of the disconcerting aspects of this case, Aswany says, is how the extremists found the grounds to arrest the woman when she was fully covered.

      Aswany’s point is very well taken and it applies equally to homosexuality, today or in the 3rd-century BCE. Aswany doesn’t mince any words criticizing religious extremism in his country or the Muslim world. Being an Egyptian Muslim he points out four reasons for this hyper-anxiety over sexuality:

      First, among Islamic fanatics, women exist only as bodies and instruments, that is, for men’s pleasure or temptation and for producing children. In fairness, he notes that the commodification of women’s bodies also occurs in the West in porn and prostitution markets.

      Second, in the extremist view, women are “the source of temptation and the prime cause of sin,” Aswany writes. Though men and women commit sin together, it is the woman who is held primarily responsible.

      Third, religious fanatics insist on strictly requiring women to cover their bodies which, Aswany contends, allows them to focus their attention on women and their bodies rather than on the facts of despotism, corruption and religious hypocrisy.

      Fourth, Aswany condemns fanatical religious ideology that, he says, assumes “humans are a group of wild beasts completely incapable of controlling their instincts.” A little will-power and ethics will go a long way, he points out.

      And again, this hyper-anxiety over sexual orientation is not limited only to religious extremists. It applies culturally and politically. Furthermore, Does any ideology or organization own exclusive rights to healthy sexuality? Of course not. Never did in all of human history and it never will.

      Thanks Grouchy for your feedback. 🙂

      Like

      Reply ↓

  2. Of course it doesn’t matter, if you are a free-thinking individual who is more concerned how you live your own life, and ignoring how other people live their live — but unfortunately a big chunk of the population of this earth is hellbent on controlling how other people live to care about their own Philautia. The main reason: they cannot stand being themselves!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  3. Does not matter a jot. Consider ‘Ganymede’, renowned for his beauty and taken ‘up’ to be the cup-bearer of Zeus. As you have pointed out in your excellent analysis of the culture of the time, views and perceptions were quite different.
    Actually when you see the movement in todays social norms regrading sexuality there seems to be a trend back to those times.

    Actually I don’t know why the right-wingers are getting all so fired up about one little matter, other than that they would have loved the culture:
    Aggressive wars of expansion.
    Ruthless backstabbing (literally)
    AND most important:
    Slavery
    Women not allowed in any public office or the army.
    Geez guys what’s there not for you to like here?
    (Heck if Alexandra was to hit on you, you’d just close your eyes and think of the rewards- that’s what you’re doing anyone, willingly let Trump butt**** you)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • You are SO right Roger. 👏 It is a case of “Much Ado About Nothing,” eh? At least in the sense that Claudio, Hero, Beatrice, and Benedick all live happily ever after… just as ANY human can with whom they are deeply in love and committed to. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • Yep. Love and commitment. It’s a tough call and hard work, but worth it!

        Tip for today: Annoy a pro-Trump commentator on public media. Post up that even after all the hype has died down ‘Barbie’ is still a great film and is a keeper.
        Then when all their followers start allowing at you just reply to each one:
        ‘Don’t care’

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply ↓

  4. Re “It is wholly unfair for modern Puritan America, that often is oppressively rigid, gender-binary only, and impose their own personal antichronistic beliefs upon ancient Greece and Macedonia, especially upon an iconic figure as Alexander the Great.”

    Unfair? It is their right to be unfair. And they can choose to be wrong. But trying to prevent others from learning what history we can cobble together is inexcusable. Or lying to make up some history that is acceptable to them, ditto. They should peddle their ignorance elsewhere.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • Unfair? It is their right to be unfair. And they can choose to be wrong [or ignorant?].

      😂😂😂 So very true Steve.

      But trying to prevent others from learning what history we can cobble together is inexcusable. Or lying to make up some history that is acceptable to them, ditto.

      HEAR HEAR Steve!!! 👏🍻 And on “lying” and fabricating, hijacking, or rewriting history, two case and points:

      • the Texas 1836 Project, and…

      • The 1619 Project.

      As you stated, it is wholly “inexcusable” as well as despicably dishonorable for one’s integrity and dignity… if you want to be taken serious.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

Go Ahead, Start the Discussion!