#tyrannical Alexander the Great

[jeannereames]

Hero Alexander vs. The Real Alexander

Moving to the second half of a recent question:

And if I'm not wrong, you mention at one place that you don't "heroize" Alexander. That's interesting, since he's often worshiped as a mythical hero. Why did you move away from that?

As a writer (and a reader), I’ve always been intrigued by the challenge of humanizing the “inhuman” (which can also include the ridiculously talented).

When I fell in love with Tolkien as a girl, I wanted to know what it would be like to be an elf, to have magic, to live that long, etcetera. Maybe that’s also why I always preferred Marvel superheroes over DC. Their hallmark was to make the fantastic (mutants, etc.) more human.

Now, I love me some traditional mythopoetic fantasy, but I’m no good at producing it myself. What is mythopoetic style? Peter Beagle, Patricia McKillip, Nancy Springer, C.J. Cherryh’s sidhe novels, my friend Meredith Ann Pierce … and of course Tolkien himself, where magic is real and magical creatures are…well, magical. Inhuman. Elves … not hobbits. Like a fairy tale��a myth (hence “mythopoetic”).

Anyway, I love reading that, but can’t write it to save my soul. When I write epic/historical fantasy (and I do see SFF as my home genre), it’s closer to anthro SF than to any mythopoetic style. My current MIP (monster-in-progress) is a 6-book series set on a secondary world where two branches of humanity survived, one of which, the Aphê, have super-convenient prehensile tails. 😊 The character journey for one of the protags across the first three novels is to recognize the Aphê as human and fallible rather than as a “noble savage” wise people. (Yes, questions of “What does it mean to be ‘civilized’?” are among the series themes.)

When it comes to historical fiction, I take the same tack. Alexander is interesting to me because he was a real person who accomplished extraordinary things.* What might he have been like in real life?

Making him too perfect—good at everything, no/few mistakes (just misunderstood), always honorable, etc., bores me. That’s the Alexander of his own marketing campaign. (laugh) It was adopted and refined by some later historians such as Arrian, and Plutarch in his rhetorical pieces (less in the Life but still there). That’s why I’m not a huge fan of Renault’s Alexander, and generally prefer her other Greek novels. Manfredi and (sorta) Pressfield do the same. Tarr and Graham also keep him deliberately at a distance to allow him to remain heroized, but it bothers me less because he’s at a distance. (Btw, I do not dislike Renault's ATG novels; they're just not among my favorites, either on Alexander, or of hers.)

Yet I’m not a fan of the other approach, either: to “humanize” him by taking him down a notch—making him NOT all that, just lucky (Lucian, and Nick Nicastro). Or by upending the heroic narrative altogether and turning him into a megalomaniacal “wicked tyrant” ala Pompeius Trogus/Justin or Seneca (and Chris Cameron).

I want something (and someone) more relatable, even while letting him remain truly astonishing. To humanize the “inhuman.” I realize that’s a challenge as, the moment we do humanize him, it removes him from the realm of the hero, which in turn makes it harder to allow him to be “all that.” For some, any fault is “too much”—the proverbial clay feet—because they’re desperate to have an idol, a hero…not a person. So the haters come out when, for instance, Simone Biles pulled out of the Olympics for mental health and the Twisties. How dare she!

I’m interested in the person. Even if Alexander wanted to be Herakles Take II, he wasn’t inhuman (divine). He was just a guy, and for me, the fact he was “just a guy,” yet still accomplished all those extraordinary things, is the most remarkable part.

I’ll conclude with what I wrote at the end of the author’s note in the back of Dancing with the Lion: Rise (also available on the website):

In the end, whatever approach one takes to Alexander, whatever theories one subscribes to, more or less hostile to the conqueror, we are left with the man himself in all his complexity and contradiction. The phenomenon called “Alexander the Great” has evoked vastly different interpretations from his era to ours. It’s tempting to seek internal consistency for his behavior, or to force it when it can’t be found. Yet no one is consistent. Even more, history itself is distorted by those recording it in order to serve their unique political narratives, whether then or now. Conflicting politics create competing narratives, and histories of Alexander were (and are) especially prone to such distortions. That, in turn, brings us back to where we began: history (like historical fiction) is about who we are now, and what it’s possible for us to become. So Alexander was neither demon nor god, whatever he wanted to believe about himself. He was a man, capable of cruelty and sympathy, brilliance and blindness, paranoia and an open-handed generosity. As remarkable as he was, he was human. And that's what makes him interesting.

--------------------

* That some of these extraordinary things would be—and should be—reviled by modern standards is part of the uncomfortable contradiction, and legacy, of the ancient world. This is something I also try to depict in the novel. So there is never a “simple win” in a battle. There’s something ugly shown in or as a result of every single one. On purpose. Battle is, and should be, deeply disturbing.

[camisoledadparis]

THIS DAY IN GAY HISTORY

based on: The White Crane Institute's 'Gay Wisdom', Gay Birthdays, Gay For Today, Famous GLBT, glbt-Gay Encylopedia, Today in Gay History, Wikipedia, and more … January 24

41 AD – Roman Emperor Caligula is assassinated at the Palatine Games by his own officers after a reign of only four years. He was noted for his madness and cruelty including arbitrary murder and arbitrary sex encounters with men, women, and animals, including forcing his officers into regular sex bouts.

Hadrian and Antinous

76 AD – The Roman Emperor, Stoic and Epicurean philosopher Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus or as he has come down to us, Hadrian was born in Spain. Hadrian was the third of the "Five Good Emperors". His reign had a faltering beginning, a glorious middle, and a tragic conclusion.

He is considered by many historians as the most versatile of all the Roman Emperors. He liked to display knowledge of all intellectual and artistic fields. Above all, Hadrian patronized the arts: Hadrian's Villa at Tibur (Tivoli) was the greatest Roman example of an Alexandrian garden, recreating a sacred landscape, lost in large part to the despoliation of the ruins by the Cardinal d'Este who had much of the marble removed to build Villa d'Este. In Rome, the Pantheon, originally built by Agrippa but destroyed by fire in 80, was rebuilt under Hadrian in the domed form it retains to this day. It is among the best preserved of Rome's ancient buildings and was highly influential to a many of the great architects of the Italian Renaissance and Baroque periods.

Today we recall his abiding love of Antinous, his eromenos (boy lover), who he honored so greatly in death. It was while visiting Claudiopolis that Hadrian espied the beautiful Antinous, a young boy who was destined to become the emperor's eromenos — his beloved. Sources say nothing about when Hadrian met Antinous, however, there are depictions of Antinous that shows him as a young man of twenty or so. They became inseparable companions and carried out one of the most storied love affairs of history.

Hadrian and Antinous in Egypt

In October 130 AD, while Hadrian and his entourage were sailing on the Nile, Antinous drowned, for unknown reasons. though accident, suicide, murder or religious sacrifice have all been postulated. After Antinous' death, Hadrian's grief knew no bounds, causing the most extravagant respect to be paid to his memory. Cities were founded in his name, medals struck with his effigy, and statues erected to him in all parts of the empire.

Following the example of Alexander (who sought divine honors for his lover, Hephaistion, when he died), Hadrian had Antinous proclaimed a god. Temples were built for his worship in Bithynia, Mantineia in Arcadia, and Athens, festivals celebrated in his honour and oracles delivered in his name. The city of Antinopolis or Antinoe was founded on the ruins of Besa where he died. One of Hadrian's attempts at extravagant remembrance failed, when the proposal to create a constellation of Antinous being lifted to heaven by an eagle (the constellation Aquila) failed of adoption. Legend was that his likeness was placed over the face of the Moon.

Hadrian died in 138 on the tenth day of July, in his villa at Baiae at age 62.

Frederick II & Voltaire

1712 – The Prussian King Frederick II, aka Frederick the Great, was born. (d.1786) Interested primarily in the arts during his youth, Frederick unsuccessfully attempted to flee from his authoritarian father, the "Soldier-King" Frederick William I. Young Frederick persuaded his lover, Hans von Katte, a Lieutenant in the Royal Guard, to help him flee the king's ruthless domination. They were captured and von Katte was sentenced to death. The prince was ordered to be present at von Katte's execution by sword.

For another ten years Frederick had to live under the yoke of his tyrannical father and accept his arrangements for a marriage that was probably never consummated. (Upon his father's death in 1740, Frederick immediately separated from his wife, Elizabeth Christine of Brunswick.)

Frederick was a proponent of enlightened absolutism. For years he was a correspondent of Voltaire, with whom the king had a turbulent friendship. Voltaire was later to write a book exposing Frederick's homosexuality, but it was published only in 1784, six years after its author's death. In his correspondence with Voltaire, Frederick early on evinced a great interest in what we would today call gay culture. In an astonishingly open fashion, this interest was encouraged by Voltaire.

It was not only through literature that Frederick extolled homosexuality. He collected ancient artwork, notably ancient carved gemstones picturing nude athletes and the Adoring Youth, a Hellenistic bronze that had previously belonged to another famous homosexual general, Prince Eugene of Savoy, which he placed in view of his library window. He commissioned frescoes of Ganymede for his palaces; and, in 1768, inspired by Voltaire's poem bearing that title, had a Temple of Friendship built in his garden at Potsdam, inscribed with the names of lovers and friends of antiquity, such as Orestes and Pylades and Nisus and Euryalus.

Apart from Katte, a few of Frederick's great loves are known: Fredersdorf, the handsome guard assigned to him after his escape, who eventually became his Majordomo; Count Algarotti, the seductive Italian writer; and the abbé Bastiani, a Venetian who was made Canon of Breslaw (Wroclaw) Cathedral and who did not hesitate to show his compatriot Casanova the love letters he had received from the king.

Close to him also, but showing the same tastes in a more outrageous manner, was his brother Prince Henry. Voltaire called him a Potsdamite (that is, a Sodomite), and he was reputed to recruit only homosexuals in his regiments.

The philosopher Diderot, well informed and not prone to exaggeration, wrote in March 1760 a note on Frederick in which he says: "The only one thing that this admirable flute player was missing was a mouthpiece that should have been a little cleaner." He also penned a poem entitled Parallèle between Caesar and Frederick (undated) that includes the statement: "Caesar was generous, Frederick is miserly. When I compare them I see but one point in common, namely that they were both buggers. But there wasn't a Roman lady who was worthwhile with whom Caesar did not sleep, whereas His Prussian Majesty never touched a woman, not even his own wife."

The works of Niccolò Machiavelli, such as "The Prince," were considered a guideline for the behavior of a king in Frederick's age. In 1749, Frederick finished his Anti-Machiavel — an idealistic writing in which he opposes Machiavelli. It was published anonymously in 1740, but Voltaire distributed it in Amsterdam to great popularity. Under Frederick, Immanuel Kant published religious writings in Berlin which would have been censored elsewhere in Europe.

Frederick had famous buildings constructed in his capital, Berlin, most of which still exist today, such as the Berlin State Opera, the Royal Library, St. Hedwig's Cathedral, the French and German Cathedrals on the Gendarmenmarkt, and Prince Henry's Palace (now the site of Humboldt University). However, the king preferred spending his time in his summer residence Potsdam, where he built the palace of Sanssouci, the most important work of Northern German rococo. Sanssouci, which translates from French as "carefree" or "without worry", was a refuge for Frederick, where he surrounded himself with freethinking men—no women were allowed—many of whom, such as Count Algarotti or the philosopher La Mettrie, were homosexual. Voltaire describes the utter freedom of their suppers there (for instance, discussing Plato's theory of the Androgynes) and the exact way in which Frederick would pick handsome soldiers for his sexual "schoolboy games."

Near the end of his life Frederick grew increasingly solitary. His circle of male friends at Sanssouci gradually died off without replacements, and Frederick became increasingly critical and arbitrary, to the frustration of the civil service and officer corps. The populace of Berlin always cheered the king when he returned to the city from provincial tours or military reviews, but Frederick took no pleasure from his popularity with the common folk, preferring instead the company of his pet Italian greyhounds, whom he referred to as his 'marquises de Pompadour' as a jibe at the French royal mistress. Frederick died in an armchair in his study in the palace of Sanssouci on 17 August 1786.

1746 – Gustav III was King of Sweden from 1771 until his death. (d.1792) He was the eldest son of King Adolph Frederick and Louisa Ulrika of Prussia, she a sister of Frederick the Great of Prussia. (See above)

Gustav was educated under the care of two governors who were amongst the most eminent Swedish statesmen of the day, Carl Gustaf Tessin and Carl Fredrik Scheffer; but he owed most perhaps to the poet and historian Olof von Dalin. His education was far more liberal than that of his uncle, Frederick the Great.

On the whole, Gustav cannot be said to have been well educated, but he read very widely; there was scarcely a French author of his day with whose works he was not intimately acquainted;and his enthusiasm for the new French ideas of enlightenment was sincere.

A vocal opponent of abuses by the nobility, he seized power from the government in a coup d'état in 1772, ending the Age of Liberty and venturing into a campaign to restore royal autocracy. As a bulwark of enlightened despotism, his expenditure of considerable public funds on cultural ventures contributed to his controversial rule. Attempts to seize first Norway through Russian aid, then to recapture the Baltic provinces through a war against Russia were unsuccessful, although much of Sweden's former military might was restored. An admirer of Voltaire, Gustav legalized Catholic and Jewish presence in the realm and enacted wide-ranging reforms aimed at economic liberalism, social reform and the abolishment of torture and capital punishment (although freedom of the press was curtailed).

A patron of the arts and benefactor of arts and literature, Gustav founded several academies, among them the Swedish Academy, created a National Costume and had the Royal Swedish Opera built. In 1772 he founded the Royal Order of Vasa to acknowledge and reward those Swedes who had helped to advance process in the fields of agriculture, mining and commerce.

By proxy in Christiansborg Palace, Copenhagen, on 1 October 1766 and in person in Stockholm on 4 November 1766, Gustav married Princess Sophia Magdalena, daughter of King Frederick V of Denmark. The match was not a happy one, owing partly to an incompatibility of temper; but still more to the interference of the jealous Queen Mother. The marriage produced two children: Crown Prince Gustav Adolf , and Prince Carl Gustav, Duke of Småland. For the consummation of the marriage, the king requested the assistance of Adolf Munck, reportedly because of anatomical problems both spouses possessed. Gustav's mother supported rumors that he was not the father of his first son and heir. It was rumored at the time that Gustav indulged in homosexuality. The close personal relationships he formed with two of his courtiers, Count Axel von Fersen and Baron Gustav Armfelt, were alluded to in that regard. His sister-in-law implied as much in a diary.

Gustav was assassinated at a masked ball by a conspiracy of noblemen claiming only to commit tyrannicide, although later research has revealed more personal motives.

1928 – Heterosexual actor Michel Serrault (d.2007) was a French stage actor and film star who appeared from 1954 until (and including) 2007 in more than 150 films. He was best known for his role as Zaza in La cage aux folles.

Although he wanted to be a circus clown, Serrault's parents sent him to a seminary to study for the priesthood. He spent only a few months there before taking-up acting. His first professional job was in a touring production in Germany of Molière's Les Fourberies de Scapin. After military service in Dijon, he returned to Paris and joined Robert Dhéry's burlesque troupe and appeared in their second hit show, Dugudu.

In 1948, he began his career in the theatre with Robert Dhéry in Les Branquignols. His first film was Ah! Les belles bacchantes, starring Robert Dhéry, Colette Brosset (Dhéry's then-wife), and Louis de Funès in 1954. Serrault played in the 1955 suspense thriller Les diaboliques, starring Simone Signoret and directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot.

He met and worked with Jean Poiret in the early 1950s, which led to a song and comedy cabaret act and their playing together in 18 films from 1956 to 1984, and in a number of plays written by Poiret. The films they worked together in included Cette sacrée gamine (1956), with Brigitte Bardot, and Sacha Guitry's last film, Assassins et voleurs (1957).

From February 1973 through 1978, he portrayed the role of Albin/Zaza opposite Jean Poiret in the play La cage aux folles, written by Poiret. He recreated the role for the film version of the play, which was released in 1978. Serrault died from relapsing polychondritis at his home in Équemauville on 29 July 2007 at age 79.

1944 – German performance artist and counter-tenor Klaus Nomi was born in Immenstadt, Germany (d.1983). Nomi is remembered for bizarrely theatrical live performances, heavy make-up, unusual costumes, and a highly stylized signature hairdo which flaunted a receding hairline. His songs were equally unusual, ranging from synthesizer-laden interpretations of classic opera to covers of 1960s pop standards like Chubby Checker's "The Twist" and Lou Christie's "Lightnin' Strikes."

Born Klaus Sperber in Immenstadt, Germany, in Nomi's youth in the 1960s, he worked as an usher at the Deutsche Opera in West Berlin where he would sing on stage in front of the fire curtain after the shows for the other ushers and maintenance crew. Around that time he also sang operatic arias at a Berlin Gay club called Kleist Casino. Nomi moved from Germany to New York City in the mid-1970s. He began his involvement with the art scene based in the East Village. Nomi died on August 6, 1983 in New York City, one of the first celebrities to die of an illness complicated by AIDS. His ashes were scattered over New York City.

1951 – Michael Cohen (d.1997) was an American singer-songwriter from New York City. He released three albums in the 1970s which were among the first to deal with explicitly gay themes.

Cohen was licensed as a cab driver in New York City in 1972.

Cohen self-released his first album, eponymously titled Mike Cohen, in 1972. This was followed by two albums on Folkways Records, "What Did You Expect: Songs about the Experiences of Being Gay" (1973) and "Some of Us Had to Live" (1976). The latter two are available from Smithsonian Folkways.

Cohen was influenced by James Taylor and Leonard Cohen (no relation) and his music is very much in the folk rock style.

"What Did You Expect: Songs about the Experiences of Being Gay" consisted of nine songs that recounted Cohen's coming-out experience, ballads about his lover and a cover of a song by Leonard Cohen (no relation).

"The Last Angry Young Man", which opens What did You Expect?, deals with the misconceptions around homosexuality of the older generation while "Gone", from the same album, deals sensitively with the death of a gay friend. Frieze Magazine describes Cohen's "Bitterfeast" from the same album as a "raw and chokingly emotional" ballad based on a poem by Leonard Cohen.

After releasing a third album on a small label, Cohen "dropped off the radar" until his death in 1997.

You can read some of his lyrics in his own hand here: Queer Music Heritage

1975 – Norman Lear's trail-blazing, groundbreaking, though, alas, short-lived series "Hot L Baltimore" premiered on this date. The television situation comedy series was adapted from the hit off-Broadway play by Lanford Wilson and took place in the "Hotel Baltimore" in Baltimore, Maryland and drew its title from the cheap establishment's neon marquee, which had a burned-out letter "e" that had never been replaced. The half-hour series premiered January 24, 1975 and was produced by Norman Lear for ABC. (It was, in fact the first Norman Lear property to air on ABC.) The cast included Conchata Ferrell, James Cromwell, Richard Masur, Al Freeman, Jr., Gloria LeRoy, Jeannie Linero, and Charlotte Rae.

The series had several controversial elements, including two primary characters who were prostitutes (one of whom was an illegal immigrant) and one of the first gay couples to be depicted on an American television series. George (Lee Bergere) and Gordon (Henry Calvert) were middle-aged gay lovers in their fifties. Because of the story lines the show was the first network television show to have a warning at its opening, cautioning viewers about mature themes. The network supported the show and gave it a full publicity campaign, but it failed to win an audience and was canceled after thirteen episodes; its last telecast was June 6, 1975.

1983 – Frank James Michael Grande Marchione , usually credited as Frankie Grande, is an American musical theatre actor, producer and YouTube personality.

Grande was born in New York City. He grew up in Englewood, New Jersey and moved with his mother to Boca Raton, Florida, at age 10. His half-sister is singer and actress Ariana Grande. He graduated from Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania in 2005, having triple-majored in biology, theatre and dance. Grande is openly gay.

He began his acting career in 2007, appearing as Boots the Monkey in a national tour of Dora the Explorer Live! (Dora's Pirate Adventure) and in regional theatre productions including the title role in George M!, Mike Costa in A Chorus Line and Lewis in Pippin, among others. Later in 2007, he joined the Broadway cast of the musical Mamma Mia!, in the ensemble and as understudy for Eddie, in which he performed for three years. Grande was named "Mr. Broadway" in the "Mr. Broadway 2007" charity benefit. He co-founded the non-profit arts organization "Broadway in South Africa", travelling to South Africa to work with disadvantaged youth for seven years, before it merged with buildOn. Grande also helped buildOn to build a school in a rural village in Malawi, and in 2014 buildOn honored him for his efforts with its Global Impact Award.

Grande has produced shows on and off Broadway, including Broadway productions of Hamlet (2009) starring Jude Law, La Bête (2010–11) starring David Hyde Pierce, and Born Yesterday (2011) starring Jim Belushi. He also produced Brooke Shields' one-woman cabaret show in 2011. Grande has performed in cabaret acts in New York City, including at Birdland Jazz Club and 54 Below.

In 2012, Grande established a YouTube channel and has also been building a following on Twitter and Instagram. Earlier in 2014, he was a contestant on the reality television series Big Brother 16. His philanthropic work includes co-founding the non-profit arts organization "Broadway in South Africa" and work for buildOn.

[th3sungod]

Seeing Marvel as a Political Cartoon

bucky's alias being 'the winter soldier' means so much to me actually, being someone who is fascinated by historic political cartoons. cause it isn't just surface level, and there's definitely so much that went into it, and it's a way to inform people of what happened while not being direct. ( Granted, you can say this about a lot of marvel media types )

not only is it in reference to the real winter soldier investigation, war crimes committed by united states soldiers in which military police -- supposed personnel representing the government -- forced the hand of hundreds. ( Using Alexander Pierce/SHISLD as a way to show this ) Doing these things left the untied states in violation of the Geneva convention, while ultimately media had decided this was in full fault of the officers in charged and not the people they forced orders upon since they count back out.

plus, the whole reference to thomas paine's whole thing, like the original investigation, leaves the idea that Steve should then be the Winter Patriot. He wanted to do everything for his country, running headfirst into the fight, while Bucky was drafted and therefore making him a solider instead of a True Patriot. ( The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country. -Thomas Paine, 1776. )

and, soonafter The Winter Solider was first named in comics, the original documentary was re-released in theatres, further preserving and informing readers of the real history and effects. ( there's no doubt in my mind the timing wasn't related, since it hadn't been shown for a while at that point )

political cartoons have so much effect on people and half the time you don't even really realize it. especially since a good amount of them are shown to children/younger generations to implant ideas without being harsh ( Ex. The Butter Battle Book, by Dr Seuss, which references the Cold War and inadvertently explains the term 'total warfare' )

I think marvel does a great job at pointing out the possibilities of fascist and/or tyrannical governments manipulating people into thinking they're doing the right thing by portraying others as bad ( shown as well with the mutants, inhibitor collars, and the superhuman registration act ) while also littering in enough superheroes to make it fun enough for people to enjoy and use as a reference for their own actions.

______

anyways that's all. i don't really have a lot to add i simply am always fascinated how modern media works stuff like this out and im a totally history buff so it makes me rlly amazed to see the preservation of history in less harsh ways

[broken-clover]

(Over)Analyzing the Cards in Johnny’s Joker Trick (Part 1)

New character, new minute details to overly scrutinize and pretend have meaning!

As of Strive, Johnny’s Joker Trick Instant Kill has been retooled into an Overdrive, and with it, everyone now has a unique card taken from existing card suites. Are they randomly assigned? Or do they fit into some symbolic meaning? Let’s pretend its the latter!

Due to the sheer amount of characters and limited number of face cards, a handful of them overlap. It’s a little surprising that there’s no numeral cards or aces included, as those do have some symbolism based on the numbers, but maybe that in itself is already symbolic, that he views his opponents with relative seriousness, or just that he doesn’t both doing anything less than off the highest caliber.

Also to be noted that a lot of card symbolism is looser than something like tarot and doesn’t necessarily have as much concrete meaning, so I’m not gonna pretend this isn’t anything other than speculation and fiddling around. We’re bringing in some Cartomancy and a lot of the info I found could be a little muddled, if not contradictory

For the sake of cleanliness and coherency, let’s go by hierarchy. I’m also gonna be breaking this into two halves for the sake of length and not having a million character tags

-

The Joker- solely belongs to Happy Chaos. Batman jokes aside, this makes for an obvious one. Happy is the wild card, the unpredictable element. Though it was originally designed to be a trump card for Euchre, not it performs a variety of functions based on the game being played. It can be the highest-ranking, lowest-ranking, or serve some other technical function in a game. The value and usage of a joker card varies wildly based on the context, which fits Happy well (interestingly, Johnny doesn’t use the Joker card despite the design being based on himself)

-

Kings

King of Clubs- Shared between Ky Kiske and Zato-1. Contemporary King of Clubs cards are designed after Alexander the Great, which fits well for both the reigning monarch of Illyria and the former puppetmaster of the Assassin’s Guild. A lot of the symbolism I found involved leadership qualities such as intuition and determination. The suit itself is generally associated with nature, thanks to it being interpreted as a clover or as acorns, which may draw in some motifs about growth and change, which may also have some relevance with Ky’s ascent to the throne and subsequent abdication, and the dissolution of the Guild.

King of Diamonds- Held solely by Leo. In contemporary design this one is based of of Caesar, and while the man hopefully has little to do with the tyrannical behavior or assassination, there may be a form of connection in terms of battle prowess. It tends to be shown a little more negatively, either in terms of his domineering power or his sense of haughtiness. There’s also an association with wealth, which while not necessarily specific to Leo, it may fit in him being a powerful king and his association with the color yellow/gold

King of Hearts- Curiously, shared between Potemkin and Johnny. Johnny’s is an obvious choice, he sees himself as a king of romance and chivalry. Potemkin, however, has never been shown in a romantic light, unless it pertains to his patriotic love for his nation. Generally, the card has motifs of kindness, benevolence, and consideration, and both are shown as relatively mature gentleman-types, who care much for others. In an interesting bit of trivia, the King of Hearts is also sometimes called the ‘suicide king’ as it appears to be driving the sword into his own head. Fittingly, both Johnny and Potemkin both die trying to protect others in non-canonical endings, Johnny being murdered by Testament after trying to protect Dizzy in XX and in the drama CD, and Potemkin getting in the way of an attempted assassination in AC

King of Spades- Shared between Chipp and Bedman/Delilah. Design-wise, the most well-known iteration is based off of the biblical King David, known for his act of singlehandedly slaying the goliath with a stone. Though the two of them aren’t on the same end of the moral spectrum, both Chipp and Bedman are characterized by fighting difficult odds for their own sake and the sake of helping others. The spade suit more generally has an association with violence, as it can be interpreted as a blade (in addition to a leaf or a trowel), and both are known for their usage of blades and get into a lot of physical altercations. Interestingly, Bedman is the only King card who hasn’t held any canonical position of authority. Likewise, Chipp’s is self-bestowed

[50books50movies]

Suffs

Suffs (2024, The Music Box Theatre): I don’t know if the comparisons to Hamilton that have thrown around in reviews have done the show any favors. It’s an easy comparison to make:

-award-winning musicals that transitioned from off-Broadway to Broadway runs

-helmed by a singular vision

-inspired by a book that the creator read about a moment in American history

-where characters are played by actors who look and speak differently than their historical counterparts.

Obviously, these two works must be paired in conversation. And since the 1776 revival flopped on Broadway after trying some of the same casting tactics as Hamilton (casting all female, transgender, and non-binary actors as the American Founding Fathers), it fell on Suffs, at least to the public, critics, and producers, to prove that Hamilton wasn’t a singular event and that you could make a commercially and critically successful musical based on American history with ahistorical casting. (As I said, the comparison is superficial.) (Furthering the narrative, Phillipa Soo was original cast in Hamilton and in the off-Broadway cast in Suffs.)

Digging below the surface, one can see similar bones upholding Hamilton and Suffs inherited from ancestors like Les Miserables. The story is mostly focused on the brash Alice Paul/Alexander Hamilton, who is contrasted against her more conservative colleague, Carrie Chapman Catt/Aaron Burr. Paul is buoyed by her three friends: Doris Stevens, Inez Milholland, and Ruza Wenclawska/John Laurens, Hercules Mulligan, and the Marquis de Lafayette. Their uphill struggle to gain women the vote is opposed by the tyrannical President Woodrow Wilson/King George III, who has a signature solo in each act. Paul and her colleagues encourage each other to finish the fight/not throw away their shot, and the musical is as much an exhortation to the present and future as much as it is a walk through the past.

And yes, we thus have the setup for easy, smirking barbs about how the one credited to a man about a man’s story is one of the most successful, critically acclaimed musicals in history while the one credited to a woman about women just won two Tony Awards and won’t see any productions in other cities, much less other countries, any time soon.

Beyond that jab, however, is the follow-up uppercut that Hamilton is just a better musical than Suffs. Many actors are making their Broadway debut in Suffs, and you can feel the rawness in the simple choreography (likely affected by the period-appropriate costuming). The play launches jarringly with the ensemble number “Let Mother Vote;” there wasn’t even a reminder to the audience to silence their cell phones to prime the audience, and so of course a phone rang in the second act. The pace fails to give the audience a moment to cheer for the first Woodrow Wilson solo, “Ladies;” instead, the scene transitions right into “A Meeting With President Wilson.”

If we fall into the compare and contrast game, then one might hold Suffs wanting in its lack of songs that stick and work outside of its context; there are no displays of verbal gymnastics like “Satisfied” or “What’d I Miss.” I struggle to hum a melody from Suffs the morning after; I would say that it’s surprising that Suffs won the Tony Award for Best Original Score, but that is also dictated by the level of competition this year.

That’s not to say Suffs is a bad musical; the house was packed for the performance I attended, and I was moved by the story and songs. The American suffrage movement presents fewer moments of bombast compared to the American Revolution and the country’s founding; there’s no Battle of Yorktown to provide a first act closing number. Instead, we have a great and fiery number in the second act focused on the Silent Sentinels, who protest Wilson’s unwillingness to publicly support suffrage and decision to incarcerate Paul, Smith, Burns, and Wenclawska at Occoquan Workhouse.

The cast is strong across the board; standouts were Hannah Cruz, who embodies Inez Milholland’s magnetic personality; Jenn Colella, who gives needed nuance to Carrie Chapman Catt, Grace McLean, who delights in chauvinism and convenient ignorance; Emily Skinner, who lights up the stage as socialite Alva Belmont; and Lucy Bonino who lends a quiet strength and anchor to the show as Paul’s closest friend, Lucy Burns.

And then there is Nikki M. James, who is incredible as Ida B. Wells. Wells is the focal point of Suffs’ departure from comparisons with Hamilton, as how the show directly challenges how the suffrage movement justified compromises to placate southern members at the cost of Black activists seems to be in conversation with how Hamilton tried to make the slave-owning George Washington an abolitionist in “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)” by having him answer Laurens’s question:

Laurens: Black and white soldiers wonder alike if this really means freedom

Washington: Not. Yet.

Though Paul is Suffs’s protagonist, Suffs also shows how Paul’s story intersects with Wells’s. The play sides with Wells when she directly criticizes Paul and friends for asking Black activists to wait their turn on racial justice without resolving their hypocrisy. The suffragists who demand that the men who control their political and economic lives stop deferring to hear their call for suffrage because tariffs, war, and campaigning for re-election take priority then tell the Black activists that actually enforcing Black men’s suffrage and stopping lynchings must wait until women’s suffrage has been won. However, Suffs has a refrain on this as well: it’s important to remember who the actual enemy is and not to succumb to these divisions that only benefit conservative forces that want to preserve the status quo.

The play mostly handles these transitions in focus with deftness, and James is able to balance steely resolution, doubt, righteous indignation, sorrow at the future, and hope for the best in her limited time on stage. The play would be greatly diminished if James’ Wells, Anastacia McCleskey’s Mary Church Terrell, and Laila Erica Drew’s Phyllis Terrell had been excised so the focus could be solely on Paul’s story.

Similarly, the play reminds us of how little we know and see about the larger story of the suffrage movement and intersectional need for change by dropping a last moment revelation that Catt was queer and romantically involved with Molly Hay. It might seem like a random point to include in “If We Were Married (reprise),” but it reinforces the point that suffrage is just one direction of necessary change and that our focus on Paul limits what we know about the other activists’ motivations and struggles.

Given the high cost of Broadway tickets (our seats were in the theater’s penultimate upper tier row, and they were still more than $100), we have to be very selective in what we see. Recommendations from Helen Shaw of New York magazine haven’t steered us wrong yet, and we’re glad that we saw Suffs on her advice. If nothing else, it’s led me to teaching myself about the suffrage movement, since my formal schooling was woefully inadequate on this subject.

[beyond-crusading]

Highlights from the divorce trial of Louis XII

In 1498, King of France Louis XII launched a trial against his wife so he could divorce her, and secure a much more valuable marriage with Anne, duchess of Brittany. Divorce trials for Kings were settled by the Papacy, and, thankfully for Louis, he had just allied himself with the current Pope, Alexander VI Borgia...

Some highlights:

- 27 witnesses testified for the King, and only 3 - selected by the King himself - for his wife Jeanne.

- The King's prosecutor tried to prove Louis and Jeanne's union was incestuous, because Jeanne's father was Louis' godfather, making Louis and Jeanne spiritual siblings.

- The King's men tried to convince the judges that Jeanne's father, Louis XI, forces Louis to marry his daughter, rendering the marriage illegal. To prove this point, a witness testified that the tyrannical Louis XI terrified "not only the men of his kingdom, but also the trees" (??)

- To further emphasize that this marriage was forced upon Louis, the prosecutor insisted on Jeanne's ugliness. He explained that when Louis' mother met Jeanne for the first time, she was so taken aback that she fainted on the spot.

- Unfortunately for Louis, canonical law didn't recognize ugliness as a valid cause for divorce (only as a valid reason to break off a betrothal)

- Witnesses claimed Louis XI had hated Louis since he was a baby, because when baby Louis was being baptized, he pissed on the King's hand, which the superstitious Louis XI interpreted as a sign of a inherent rebellious nature

Louis XII DID manage to divorce his wife. Something French Kings had often tried to do, rarely with success. Not a great win for fair and ethical trials though...

[themfp1]

Alexander Hamilton and The Right to Fight the Government

By: Mark Lewis “When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense—to fight the government.”—Alexander Hamilton This is a great quote from Hamilton and something all Americans used to know. It is one of the founding principles of the United States and is exactly why the current…

[wubwubnparmaham]

how do you think the world would react to immortality and what would be the reaction of historians and people overall of alexander still being around and not only him but of other historical figures

In like a literal sense? If you mean our world, how would we react, the first thing I would see happening (depending on how this knowledge came to be in the open) is a lot of divisive conclusions about the validity of it. I can see people hopping onto forums and calling it fake news to the ends of the earth, so there would need to be some substantial proof for the non-believers to not just assume it was some scare tactic on the government's part, or like a distraction, similar to those UFO documents from the CIA coming out during other global crises that needed the public's attention there instead (Ukraine, Palestine, etc). Since the government has a habit of doing that kind of shit, I think even I would be skeptical at first.

Considering the eventual reality that it is confirmed and believed by all, then a lot of other shit might happen.

I think scientists and the government would be quick to lull the public into saying they were "looking into" and "dealing with it" and "not to worry", but secretly the government would probably be panicking, preparing the military for defensive action and rallying the national guard, and I think if they could manage it, scientists would absolutely capture one and try to figure out what the fuck was going on physically.

Over time, if immortals weren't keen on fighting a war against humans and no real violence ever came, people's mindsets would shift to desire instead, wanting to become immortal themselves to escape the ever-encroaching death day in their futures.

I think that would divide society even further. People would be separated into "human purists" and "sympathizers", and the former would have some moral high ground standpoint against the latter, calling immortals and all who wanted to be them abominations against our species.

Tensions would probably rise in the public as those warring mindsets duked it out, and a lot of people would get more and more nervous about the fact that billionaires were already or were becoming immortal, corporations and their execs, government bodies, and global leaders were now unstoppable. Even I hate the thought of that.

If the world is ever proven to be run entirely by people (potentially tyrannical people) who WILL NEVER DIE, the indomitable human spirit would win out and we would fight back heavily, good odds or not. Likely, by becoming immortal ourselves, to be able to stand a chance against them. The more hesitant people in the earlier stages might jump at the chance to become immortal too, similar to how I would think many anti-gun people wouldnt think twice about running off and securing as many guns as humanly possible if the government / military ever actually started attacking us (but thats a whole different can of worms).

Warfare would be absolutely inevitable, and it would likely rip nations apart. I'm not sure HOW it would end, really, but there would be a lot of death before any kind of resolution.

When it comes right down to it, I don't think the historical figures aspect would mean much in the end. I think at first, that concept would be gripping, and if anyone ever got a chance to hear from them, they wouldn't even blink as they listened closely to their stories on television or social media. But given that the historical figures may not be the ones in power, the attention would naturally shift to who was immortal and in power at the same time, because that would be the biggest threat, and a very valid threat at that.

As far as my reaction to that historical figure aspect goes, if I ever heard that Alexander the Great was an immortal, I would simply shrug and say "I know." 😂

And would I become immortal? Yes. And maybe in this hypothetical world of ours, I already was one the whole time, and Love Endless was just a subtle tell-all before the world knew the truth. But if I hadn't been, I would become so happily, and the 1%ers would absolutely be my first target.

[misterghostreads]

Dawn: God's United Reich

By: D. Alexander★★★★ Oppressed by a tyrannical theocracy and the Divine Leader’s military force (the NiBorrs), Leon Grady must overcome his trepidation and fear to live his true life and take the leap towards true love.Leon is a star baseball player on his high school team, he has a great girlfriend and a goofy (but excellent) best friend. He should be happy. However its all a lie and he…

[hcc-wismunvii-2023]

A Press Release by Alexander Hamilton

"People of America, it is my honor to announce to all of you that all troops have secured full control over Pennsylvania. This victory is the one that many that we will continue to achieve. We are ambitious that we will gain full independence from the cynical and tyrannical British empire that has continuously harassed the Americans. To return the rights to the Americans and to make America great. With this being our homeland and the land of free that we need to protect, we don’t want a bad relationship with the British, but to gain independence from them. With the help of Spain and France during this war, it is evident that people from across the globe are joining hands with America, freeing us from this torture. This is your time to support America!"

[indiejones]

FEW EXAMPLES ON INDIA'S GREAT (WIDELY PROPAGANDIZED YET) HISTORICAL LIES.

Just 3 accounts that will turn history on its head, or atleast make you realize that there's much more research & historical truth available, over & above the truth of history you've been taught all your life!

Here's an alternate version, from another truly eminent scholar & historian.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RYu1Mp7YG4 - Alexander the so-called Great conqueror of the world, was perhaps not so at all. And Porus perhaps just a small border chieftain, who infact beat Alexander due to his superior elephant power, in their only battle, a battle in which Alexander suffered grave injuries that caused him to turn back home where he died.

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJH-1X0HTqQ - Ashoka had already converted to Buddhism, way before his massacring wars with all & sundry, incl his half-brother for the throne. And the so-called pacifist face was merely a (age-old) political ploy to keep kingdoms on the west of his Mauryan empire quiet & ignorantly happy.

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN9XgwVHvK4 - The Great Tyrant, Genghis Khan, perhaps wasn't so tyrannous at all, & perhaps a most measured fair-for-his-job ruler of the times, who can well be regarded as one of India's greatest friends, as turned down the chance to conquer, plunder & rule India, when chased down the Islamic aggressor Jalaluddin from Mongolia right upto India's border, a chance (given his comparative military power) almost given to him on a platter, yet that chose to walk away from, perhaps also because of a inner affinity to the Hindu faith, being quiet similar to his Buddhist ideology.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Graeme Wood

Published: Mar 31, 2022

On February 7, 2016, Musa Cerantonio told a friend that his fame as Australia’s best-known ISIS supporter had become a burden. Fellow ISIS supporters felt mysteriously compelled to email or call him before committing crimes. “Why,” Cerantonio lamented, “does everyone, before they do stupid shit, get in contact with me?” In this case, the doer of stupid shit was Alo-Bridget Namoa, the “Bonnie” half of the terror couple she herself had dubbed “the jihadi Bonnie and Clyde.” She and Clyde, a.k.a. Sameh Bayda, were both later convicted of terror offenses. Namoa had contacted Cerantonio, the Australian authorities tapping his phone later revealed, because she needed to know where to get an ISIS flag in Sydney. ISIS supporters were treating him like a jihadist help desk. If you see her, Cerantonio told his friend, “slap her for me.” Later that year, Cerantonio was arrested for trying to travel by boat from Australia to ISIS territory in the southern Philippines. He has been in prison ever since, and he has 13 months left on his sentence.

But if you try dialing the help desk in 13 months, you might not get the encouragement you’d expect. Last year, Cerantonio wrote to me from Port Phillip Prison, in Melbourne, and told me that he had renounced ISIS.

In block letters—the Arabic transcriptions neatly bedecked with diacritical marks, all in the right places—he explained his journey back from jihad. “I have been wrong these last 17 years,” he wrote. “Seeing individuals dedicate themselves to tyrannical death cults led by suicidal maniacs is bad enough. Knowing that I may have contributed to their choices is terrible.” Perhaps he should be returned to the help desk before his sentence is up. “I hope that my experiences may be of help in drawing others away from the same mistakes.”

His rehabilitation, which he narrated in detail, is as bizarre as his career as an ISIS propagandist was. Born in 1985 to a middle-class Italian Australian family outside Melbourne, Cerantonio converted to Islam as a teenager. He showed an unusual inclination for linguistics and Islamic history, and within a few years a Saudi-funded satellite-TV channel, Iqraa, had hired him to preach on air, on subjects including Arabic philology and Islamic readings of The Wizard of Oz. Eventually his message grew too political and the channel fired him and, he said, attempted to administer a beating as part of his severance. When ISIS arose, this neofundamentalist autodidact had both the knowledge and the on-camera charisma necessary to influence thousands of fellow Muslims and help persuade many to immigrate to Syria and Iraq in order to fight and die for the new caliphate. If you seek out English translations of early ISIS documents, you may find his handiwork.

In prison, he began to study the Quran in greater detail, and focused on the aspects that most puzzled him. Among these was the figure called Dhu-l Qarnayn, “the two-horned one,” who appears in the Quran’s 18th chapter and is believed by many to refer to Alexander the Great. Cerantonio did not see a resemblance between Dhu-l Qarnayn and the Alexander of history—but he noted similarities between Dhu-l Qarnayn and a heavily fabulized version of Alexander’s story written in Aramaic. He considered that the Aramaic version may have plagiarized the Quran, but after acquiring a copy of the Aramaic and translating it for himself, he determined that the reverse was more likely. (“I always knew that being proficient in Aramaic would one day prove useful.”)

“Realizing that Dhu-l Qarnayn was not at all a real person but was rather based on a fictional account of Alexander the Great instantly left me with only one possible conclusion: The Quran was not divinely inspired,” he wrote. It had taken Alexander the Great fan fiction as fact. “Of course I would have preferred to have discovered all that 17 years ago and avoided much trouble.” He has therefore abandoned not only ISIS but Islam and religion as a whole. He is an atheist and admires the God Delusion author Richard Dawkins.

After the first letter, we traded correspondence and spoke by Skype. He now goes by his birth name, Robert, but when pressed on subjects related to ISIS doctrine will sometimes “answer your question as ‘Musa,’” channeling his former self to explain the ISIS view before recovering his “Rob” identity and speaking as his current self. He said he had been reluctant to go public about his apostasy—less because he feared being murdered by jihadists (apostasy is a capital offense in Islam) than because his detractors will say he’s just trying to get out of prison early.

He said his conversion was “not making my time any easier in here.” And if he wanted to feign rehabilitation, he would have done so years ago, at sentencing, and not in this roundabout and arcane way involving Syriac texts and Hellenistic historiography. I asked him why the Alexander stuff had convinced him that ISIS was wrong, whereas the group’s practices of mass murder and sex slavery had never tipped him off. He said the latter were consistent with the religion, while the Alexander plagiarism failed intellectual tests on their own terms.

Whenever a prominent member of a terror group leaves it, he inspires a great deal of curiosity about how he was cured of his evil beliefs—which seem so durable when they are held that they may lead to violent death. So much of Cerantonio’s story is idiosyncratic that I am not sure what, if anything, can be used to deprogram others. Most ISIS supporters care little about the historical and linguistic minutiae that motivated Cerantonio. Teaching jihadists Aramaic is not a cure easily scaled up. Moreover, a rehab program that encourages patients to give up Islam (a religion practiced benignly by nearly all Muslims) instead of merely giving up terrorism is bound to be controversial.

Cerantonio himself said that the programs in prisons, in Australia and abroad, are almost all rubbish. They raise objections to jihadism that the jihadists can easily refute. He called the suggestion that jihadists be exposed to “true Islam,” such as the more moderate texts of medieval theologians, “idiotic.” “It doesn’t work,” he told me. “It has failed miserably time after time.” But he is equally withering about Dawkins’s polemics against Islam, even though he now shares Dawkins’s zero-calorie theology. “I’m no longer a Muslim,” he said, “but I still object to the things he’s saying. When he writes about Islam, he gets things wrong.” Dawkins quotes a scripture that claims martyrs will be given 72 virgins in paradise. “That hadith is not authentic!” Cerantonio said with frustration. “Dawkins! You’re smart. You do so much research. Why couldn’t you do just a little research on this?” Opponents of ISIS, even smart ones, suddenly make themselves stupid when combatting jihadism and assume—wrongly—that the jihadists themselves are stupid.

When Cerantonio now meets jihadists—he told me they are numerous, and unrepentant, in Australian prisons—he experiments with different approaches. “I can actually speak to hard-core jihadists on a level that they understand,” he said. At times, the approach that has worked is not even a coherent one. He described convincing two jihadists by explaining to them the mechanisms of evolution. In effect, he told me, he just “went at them hard” and outlined, without condescension, how a world without a divine Creator might look, how it made sense, and how it might be an alternative to their current beliefs.

“Both of them have drastically changed their lives,” he claimed. “They now denounce everything they were standing for before. I mean, they were planning to carry out a terrorist attack here in Melbourne—blow themselves up in a public square!” Now, he said, they’re not religious at all. “I thought, wow, I mean, surely, it can’t always be that easy. But who knows? Maybe it is.”

Last year in Saudi Arabia, I visited a prison that purported to deprogram jihadists by turning them into productive employees of a small business—complete with a CEO (himself a prisoner), an HR department, and a comptroller. I couldn’t tell how successful the prison’s strategy would be. All of the prisoners were still in jail, and subject to who knows what punishment if they lapsed. Beyond any doubt, however, is the failure of virtually every previous attempt to deprogram jihadists. So far, nothing seems to have worked better than defeating ISIS on the battlefield, reducing its caliphate to rubble, and inviting its followers to consider whether God might be sending them a message in the form of U.S. aerial bombardment. But drone strikes are expensive. Maybe Aramaic is worth a try.

==

I bet he was never a true Muslim, though, amirite?

"I asked him why the Alexander stuff had convinced him that ISIS was wrong, whereas the group’s practices of mass murder and sex slavery had never tipped him off. He said the latter were consistent with the religion, while the Alexander plagiarism failed intellectual tests on their own terms."

This is completely consistent with what I keep hearing from ex-Muslims. You can't temper Islam. You can't smooth over the (purported) literal word of god. You can't tell believers you're just going to massage out the pointy bits into a smoother shape... but it's still "perfect."

When a political-religious ideology sits atop the notion of the perfect word of a god, and the perfection of its human emissary, not to mention 1400 years of exegesis, the idea that maybe this god means something different and nicer and more akin to 21st century secular values isn't going to fly. Especially when he clearly doesn't.

You can't make it nicer. But maybe you can show that it's false.

[jeannereames]

Hi Dr. Reames, I’ve become unsure about what to believe when reading about Alexander with all the various interpretations of him and how he’s been presented in literature. The first thing I ever read featuring him was Renault’s trilogy. So, maybe a little naively, for a while I believed he was very compassionate and obsessed with friendship now I’m not quite so sure. For example, was he actually upset when Darius’s wife died or did one of the historians make that up? Thanks!

Alexander the Invincible & Clemency (not Compassion)

Many years ago now, in the forward to a new translation of Ulrich Wilcken’s biography, Alexander the Great, my academic father, Eugene N. Borza, wrote, "It is enough to say that there are many Alexanders, perhaps as many as there are those who profess a serious interest in him."

That quote perfectly summarizes the problem with determining what Alexander was like.

The disagreement goes back even into our original sources (those still surviving and those lost), that reflect differences in opinion. Was Alexander a good person, a bad person, a tyrannical megalomaniac, a vicious invader, a valorous fighter, a noble world civilizer….?

All those opinions were held by people in his own day.

(Much like, if you walked out into your local town square and started polling people on what they thought of Joe Biden, or Donald Trump, you’d get a wide variety of replies.)

To complicate matters, Alexander was masterful at marketing himself by the heroic ideals of his day, literally staging his own actions. Today, we’d call that propaganda, but we live in a more cynical age, one that assumes the use of propaganda implies self-serving purposes with no belief in the message conveyed…which is absolutely wrong in Alexander’s case. The guy BELIEVED his own hype and apparently tried to live up to it.

I find it interesting that even his ancient detractors never really accuse him of cowardice in battle or not leading the charge. He earned all his wounds. That said, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we ought to be glorifying that sort of all-out battle. Nonetheless, from the ancient point of view, they saw nothing wrong with it, and viewed actively seeking out war as a noble aspiration.

Alexander could be absolutely brutal. Ask Thebes. Ask Tyre. Ask most of the Indian nations along the Indus River or the Baktrians and Sogdians, or any of a thousand other villages and people who he sometimes attacked just because he could—he wanted another “win.” Even in Arrian’s rather positive history, he sometimes just does shit to do it.

In one case, Arrian (3.24.1-3) mentions that he was successful against a group of mountainous people (Mardians) who didn’t expect him to attack them because 1) nobody had in ages due to where they lived (difficult terrain), and 2) he’d already gone past them. But no, dude doubles back to attack them anyway. WHY? I mean, really? They don’t seem to have attacked his army until he started killing them. Some resisted, most fled, and he chased them and didn’t stop until they surrendered.

“Invincible” is very much part of Alexander’s own image creation. Alexandros Aniketos! (Unconquered*) You can’t say “no” to him, or it means you “beat” him.

Yet part of the expectation for heroic kings and commanders included clemency.

While rage might drive a warrior, the best battles didn’t involve rage, but a “pure” contest of men to prove their aretē, or personal excellence. That helps to explain Alexander’s response to Poros. Poros was protecting his kingdom, Alexander invaded it. Alexander won, Poros surrendered and faced Alexander after, asking to be treated as a king…. It wasn’t personal. Alexander wasn’t angry with Poros. (And we know he could get mad at the drop of a hat.)

But that “encounter” ticked all the heroic boxes, so after the battle, Alexander extended clemency.

Clemency isn’t quite the same as compassion. Compassion is more wide-ranging. It can be offered by anyone, to anyone, e.g., a slave can show compassion to his or her owner just the same as the reverse.

But clemency has a distinct “top-down” aspect. One can only offer clemency to those in one’s power—as Alexander offered to Porus after the Battle of the Hydaspes. Or as he showed to Darius’s family. Or to Timokleia after the razing of Thebes.

Chivalrous Alexander is a thread throughout the sources, a tradition Renault picked up on. I’m of mixed mind as to how much of it’s true. Some of my colleagues think it entirely fictional, a product of later literary traditions intent on using Alexander as a moral model, the “Philosopher in Armor.” The problem with seeing it entirely as literary is that Alexander himself cast himself in heroic models. So where do we draw the line between later literary invention vs. Alexander’s own conscious self-presentation? That’s the problem. (This is addressed in a recent, very good collection of papers in The Legitimization of Conquest: Monarchial Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great, eds., Kai Trampedach and Alexander Meeus. Good stuff in there if you can get the book via ILL.)

Anyway, Alexander certainly wanted to be seen as clement. We witness it over and over. If you surrender to him, he’s generous in return…because you acknowledged that he’s above you/better than you. Arrian states it bluntly, “[Mousikanos] acknowledged that he had done wong, which was actually the surest way, where Alexander was concerned, for anyone to obtain what he wanted” (6.15.6). But if you’re a hill tribe who just wants to be left alone? Oh, hell no! He’ll come after you and keep coming until you surrender. Then…he’s fine. (As long as you didn’t do anything too terrible leading up to the surrender and, especially, if he’s in a hurry to be somewhere else.)

This is sometimes presented as if he’s a three-year-old who can’t stand to be told, “No,” because he’s a spoiled brat.

I think this misunderstands, or at least filters ancient attitudes through modern perceptions. We can understand what Alexander was doing without necessarily approving of it. As I noted above, the ancient mindset glorified invasion, conquest, and war “just because” for fame. I most certainly do not approve, but I recognize that if one is raised with that as a valid, admirable goal, moderns critiquing that individual for holding a common cultural view is a bit petty, or at least silly. “Grow up, Alexander, and think like a 21st century man!”

Similarly here. Alexander emulates Herakles, and must be even more invincible (aniketos). If you challenge that, you have challenged something very deep and fundamental to his understanding of himself. Yet he also can’t stand it if somebody loses TO him: that makes his victory hollow. This is why he fights Poros…and then honors him by returning his kingdom and a bunch more besides. Poros tried to win, but failed. That made Alexander’s victory (nike) honest. Poros then did the honorable thing and asked for clemency without surrendering his honor (“Treat me like a king”). That made him Alexander’s new BFF.

Why should Alexander get to be The Best? He’s royal, descendent of gods (and heroes). That’s why he constantly pits himself against Herakles (NOT Achilles, drop-kick that popular mirage please). Herakles is the epitome of Greek heroes. So Alexander is truly the “bestest” if he’s even better than Herakles.

So anyway, to answer the last question about whether Alexander truly mourned for Darius’s wife, I expect he did. It would fit with the public image he wanted to present.

But that sure didn’t stop him from getting her pregnant in the first place with the child that killed her in its delivery. He may have been lamenting the death of the child as much as the death of his mistress. (For more on this, see my prior response to an ask about Statiera’s pregnancy.)

—————-

*a-nike-tos…think about shoes. Ha. Nikē = victory: a-nike-tos…one who is un-victoried-over, e.g., undefeated.

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading: Monday, December 26, 2022

december 26_december 13

ST. HERMAN, WONDERWORKER OF ALASKA (1836) 

St. Herman, while he lived on earth, was a simple monk who came from his beloved Valaam Monastery in Russia to the shores of Alaska in the year 1794.

In the previous year, Metropolitan Gabriel of St. Petersburg asked Abbot Nazarius of Valaam to gather a small group of monks to form a missionary team that would travel across Russia and Siberia to Alaska (at that time a Russian possession) to bring the Gospel of Christ to the native people. Those monks were Archimandrite Joasaph, Hieromonks Juvenaly, Macarius, Athanasius, Stephen and Nectarius, Hierodeacons Nectarius and Stephen, and Monks Joasaph and Herman. This trek over land and water took more than a year (the longest recorded single missionary journey in the history of the church)!

Upon reaching the end of their journey they arrived at Kodiak Island aboard the ship Three Hierarchs on September 24, 1794. Immediately, the monks began to fan out across Alaska, while St. Herman remained at the home base in Kodiak at the newly built Holy Resurrection Church to administer the overall mission and newly established school. The mission was a thriving one, received with great enthusiasm by most of the native people and resulting in thousands of Baptisms. Schools were started, churches built, many sacramental marriages were performed; all through the grace-filled efforts of 10 monks who labored in the midst of harsh and primitive conditions.

Often they did not enjoy the support of the Russian American Company, which was the local Russian authority in the area. Alexander Baranov was in charge of the company and proved to be a tyrannical and self-serving leader who considered the natives to be little more than slave laborers. Father Herman and the other monks labored mightily to protect them and intercede on their behalf with the higher authorities in Russia.

After about 15 years St. Herman moved to Spruce Island, which is a small densely wooded island about 1 mile off the coast of Kodiak, to pursue a more hermit-like life. He brought his whole monastic spiritual formation, rich experience and Orthodox inheritance to bear upon this new life. He built a church and a cell, planted a garden and in a short time started an orphanage and school for the people on the island.

With burning love and compassion he began to deposit within the hearts of all who came, something of the wondrous Christian treasure that had been entrusted to him. He labored for the most part alone at this stage of his life, pressing forward with great patience and humility. He chanted the church services, contemplated the Scripture, the writings of the Philokalia and other writings of the Saints which he had brought to the New World and pursued an intense life of interior prayer.

O Blessed Father Herman of Alaska, North Star of Christ’s Holy Church.

The light of your holy life and great deeds guides those who follow the Orthodox way.

Together we lift high the Holy Cross you planted firmly in America.

Let all behold and glorify Jesus Christ, singing His Holy Resurrection.

— Troparion to St. Herman, 

He was once asked, “How do you live alone in the forest, Fr. Herman, don’t you become bored and lonely?” He replied, “No! I am not alone here. God is here, as God is everywhere. Holy angels are here. Can one become bored with them? With whom is converse better and more pleasant, with men or with angels? Of course, with angels!”

Much more could be said about the life and miracles of St. Herman, both while he lived on earth and after his repose on November 15, 1836, but they will not fit into this short Hagiographical sketch. He foresaw the time of his earthly departure, and when the time came, he was surrounded by his beloved orphans and spiritual children who were reading the Acts of the Apostles by his bedside. At that moment they recorded that his face suddenly began to shine and the cell was filled with a divine fragrance and they knew that their elder was dead.

That same evening, others in the village of Katani on Afognak Island recorded that they saw an unusually bright column of light rising in the air above Spruce Island. The Creole Gerasim Vologdin said, “It looks as though Fr. Herman has left us” and they all began to pray to God.

On March 11, 1969, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America proclaimed that Fr. Herman would be glorified as a Saint for having faithfully toiled in the “spiritual work of apostolic service among the natives whom he illumined by the light of the truth of Gospel.” On August 9, 1970, Bishops, Priests and faithful from the entire Orthodox world assembled at the Church of the Resurrection in Kodiak to witness the Glorification upon earth of St. Herman, the first Orthodox Saint of North America. His holy relics remain in that church to this day.

Ask almost anyone in the regions around Kodiak and many people in all parts of Alaska, even to this day, if they know of the blessed Saint of Alaska, Fr. Herman, and you will probably receive a reverent and knowing “nod of the head.” Perhaps you will hear a personal story about how he has helped someone in need or inspired another upon the ancient, yet ever new heavenly path upon which he walked.

We, who now strive to walk upon this same path two hundred years later, give thanks to God “who is wondrous in His Saints,” and who allowed such a one to walk in our midst.

Holy St. Herman, pray to God for us!

MATTHEW 10:16-22 

16 Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. 18 You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. 21 Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

EPHESIANS 6:10-17 

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

Commentary of the Church Fathers 

John Cassian AD 435: This is the sword that for our health spills the noxious blood that animates the matter of our sins, cutting out and excising whatever it finds in our soul that is carnal or earthly and, once it has made us dead to vices, causing us to live to God and flourish in spiritual virtues. .

John Chrysostom AD 407: And take the helmet, he continues, of salvation, that is, of your salvation. For he is casing them in armor. And the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. He either means the Spirit, or else, the spiritual sword: for by this all things are severed, by this all things are cleft asunder, by this we cut off even the serpent's head.

[infinitebutterlogjam]

George Alexander, 1858-1918

Actor, manager and producer, George Alexander was born in Reading, Berkshire, England, to a Scottish traveling peddler, William, and his first wife, Mary Ann. Despite his father’s strong opposition, Alexander was drawn to the theater early on, and at age 21 abandoned his clerking position in a drapery business, changed his surname (from “Sansom”), then joined a theatrical touring company. Alexander made his debut on the London stage in 1881, and began playing mostly juvenile leads. Established actor/manager Henry Irving, noting Alexander’s promise, took him under his wing, casting him in more notable roles. Although Alexander later recalled the older legend as somewhat tyrannical, Irving gave the younger actor a range of parts and experiences that became useful, particularly as he ventured further in his career as manager/producer. Particularly noted for his own willingness to nurture new performers and playwrights, Alexander helped start the careers of several emerging talents. Among the new plays which Alexander presented as producer at The St. James theater, were Oscar Wilde’s “Lady Windermere’s Fan,” and “The Importance of Being Earnest,” both of which Alexander also appeared in as actor. Unfortunately the run of the latter play was interrupted just weeks after it’s successful opening by Wilde’s arrest on a charge of committing homosexual acts. Although Alexander removed Wilde’s name from the publicity notices and playbills, the notoriety was too great, forcing the play to close after 83 performances. Despite their closeness, Alexander did not post bail for Wilde, although he did voluntarily send the banished playwright a sum of money each month for the rest of his life, as well as bequeath the rights to “Windermere’s Fan,” and “Importance” to Wilde’s sons. During the course of his career, Alexander performed on stage for three British monarchs (Victoria, Edward VII, and George V), and was knighted in 1911. George Alexander died of tuberculosis and diabetes at his Hertfordshire country home in 1918.

[jamesshawgames]

Character Profile: Dietrich Paulus

Time at last for a long-overdue new Character Profile! We’re staying with villains (and indeed violent psychopaths!) this time, by drilling into the back-story of Dietrich Paulus, the sinister Gestapo investigator who is one of the three main villains of the first book. 

Content Warning: references to (non-sexual) child abuse (i.e. violence against children).

Name: Dietrich Otto Paulus

Place of Birth: Darmstadt, Germany

Date of Birth: 16 May 1899

Appearance: Very tall, extremely thin, wears delicate spectacles. His clothing is always formal and immaculate, but his wild, straw-colored hair refuses to be tamed. His overall appearance often suggests the image of a scarecrow.

Bio: Paulus grew up in a lower middle class household in the southern German city of Darmstadt. His childhood was dominated by his father Alexander, a constantly-enraged sadist who justified his sadism with appeals to religious bigotry. Like his mother Beate, young Dietrich soon got accustomed to the feel of his father’s fists. He learned nothing from the tyrannical Alexander except how to inspire fear and unease - and how to enjoy inspiring those emotions in others. At school, he was both withdrawn and unsettling, and he struggled to make friends. Instead, he threw himself into his studies and became a very intelligent student. In particular, he came to see himself as “civilized”, and spent his free time reading works of classic literature in several languages, and cultivating an appreciation of fine art and classical music. But Dietrich’s “civilization” was only ever skin-deep, a thin veneer covering up impulses and inclinations which only got darker as he got older.

At age eleven, driven by morbid curiosity, he captured a frog and dissected it alive. Within a few months, he’d graduated to the neighborhood stray cats…

At the age of fourteen, his mother died in an incident which was written up as an accident, but which was actually the result of a particularly frenzied beating from Alexander. Two years later, at age sixteen, Dietrich found himself an orphan. The viciously-mutilated body of his father was found in an area of woodland close to the family home, a crime which shocked all Darmstadt. The perpetrator was never found.

Dietrich’s stellar grades saw him get a scholarship to university, where he majored in the burgeoning science of psychology. His excellent final result meant that he was accepted into the local police academy, where he applied himself diligently to the study of investigative techniques. He soon showed himself to be a very gifted detective, one of the finest in the Hessen State Police, but his colleagues had some concerns about his ethics. Twice he was reprimanded for his brutal treatment of detainees. The word at the station was that he’d be ejected from the force before long. He just didn’t seem able to restrain his darker impulses, and his tendency to cross the line would cost him one of these days.

But then 1933 happened. When the new government took over in Germany, one of its first acts was the creation of nationwide police agencies, and the new approach to police ethics was much closer to Dietrich’s than the old system. Though never particularly interested in politics, he eagerly signed up as a Nazi Party member, since this would enable him to transfer directly into the newly-created Gestapo. He did this happily, entering at the rank of Kriminalinspektor and, finally free to indulge his dubious methods of policing as much as he wanted, he showed himself to be an extremely talented asset. In early 1934, Paulus led an operation which unmasked a Communist cell in the city of Frankfurt, and his work led to the arrest and execution of eighteen people. This great success brought him to the personal attention of Heinrich Himmler who was, at the time, putting together an SS operation involving tracking down a series of ancient relics around the globe. Himmler knew that military expertise alone would not be enough: he needed specialists in investigation and interrogation, too, and Paulus was an obvious choice.

Soon, he was an integral member of Operation Lyngvi, free to ply his trade around the world, far beyond his native Germany, though he was unpopular with his colleagues. His enjoyment of causing fear and discomfort extended not only to suspects and enemies, but also to his allies, and he often enjoyed trying to unsettle his commanding officer Schneider and (particularly) the operation’s archaeological consultant, Dr. María García Pérez. The Operation saw him deployed in Palestine, Tibet and Hong Kong, before he met an uncertain fate on a small, obscure island in the South China Sea…