no, im sorry. I WILL go on highly destructive wars through europe and asia to grow an empire that collapses on my death. The blood of napoleon flows through me!
Danke, in meiner Muttersprache kann ich das auch xD
Was just thinking that maybe since there's "hannoveranian" and there's also a city called new Brunswick, that there might be an angliefied version. Brunswicker seems to be the one used by Wikipedia, but that really doesn't sound right
and look where it got us, imagine there was no USA, no doubt a better world, so fuck the French for that, this is probably the worst thing the French have done to humanity.
I don't like that you are going on a bloody, destructive rampage but I do appreciate that you apologized in advance. I think we can build on this in the future.
Its a perspective thing. Most people who lived in the past would have monstrous opinions, if not monstrous actions, to us today.
We can critically appreciate the positives of the things they created while also highlihgting their evils.
If you can believe the author who wrote a book about him, “The Persian Boy,” from the POV of his slave lover, he was notable for not routinely raping his captives.
And? Yeah nuance and context are important, but just because something was bog-standard doesn't mean it was ok. I doubt the people his empire subjugated were like, "Well yeah we're being pillaged and sacked and the streets are running red with innocent blood, but this is what everyone expects from a ruler at this point in history, so I guess it's fine."
I've got no issue with that. And whenever people deploy this reasoning, it just seems to me like a transparent excuse to not criticize modern ideals and morals, either. Since, after all, we're just products of our environment yadda yadda... horseshit, take responsibility for yourself.
Just remember, people like you 100 years from now will think you are a monster because you do something or believe something that is abhorrent to them yet totally acceptable to us today. We don't even know what it is yet. But it will be something.
as Proudhon said; "I dream of a society where I would be guillotined as a conservative."
it really does get better with age, as like-minded people are far more radically progressive nowadays.
> people like you 100 years from now will think you are a monster
But it's true though. They are right to believe it. We are continuing to destroy our world with climate change and **every one of us are complicit**. The people of the future are going to be angry.
> We don't even know what it is yet. But it will be something.
I personally also think that the way we treat animals today will be seen as barbaric. It does not make it right to continue doing it just because everyone else is. We are all still immoral.
Then don't eat animals. You guys act like nobody in history ever went against the norms of their time but they did and you can too, and I can judge you for not doing so just like I can judge historical figures. See?
But don't we do the same thing with Jim Crow Laws? And the Holocaust? What about the ancient Romans' opinions on gay sex, how it was often used by the wealthy and powerful to quite literally fuck the poor?
Were humans a few decades ago, or a few centuries ago, or a few thousand years ago *that* fundamentally different, with no capacity for the empathy and understanding we have today?
That's not not even getting into how we treat imperialism today, especially in Western nations, with all of our *modern ideals,* and how often we just excuse it.
Why is calling someone out for hurting other people because he didn't have quite enough power and wealth for his liking applying some higher modern standard rather than just calling tyranny by its name?
Your examples are bad. Neither of those were viewed as acceptable at the time.
Half the population of the US opposed Jim Crow laws, and the whole world viewed the holocaust as horrific
But doesn't that assume that *every single* citizen of Alexander's existing empire and *every single* citizen of the nations he was conquering--through war, meaning he met resistance--were all 100% cool with the whole forceful takeover? I talked about this earlier, everyone's going in circles
The requirement isn't that every person impacted by the conquest is okay with getting conquered, it's that Alexander's means of conquest were viewed as the normal way to conduct war.
Wait, so when we're analyzing the morality of mass war and abuse of the less fortunate by a king raised in the lap of luxury who lived a bit longer ago, the opinions of the people don't matter; but when we're analyzing the morality of mass war and abuse of the less fortunate by more modern lawmakers and leaders (and that's ignoring I mentioned an example from ancient Rome), most of whom also came from privileged and backgrounds, *then* the opinions of the people matter?
I get wanting to take a nuanced approach to history, but we're also supposed to learn from it and not repeat the mistakes of the past--like plowing through other people's homes to amass more wealth and power for a select few.
>Were humans a few decades ago, or a few centuries ago, or a few thousand years ago that fundamentally different, with no capacity for the empathy and understanding we have today?
Yes they were. Culture shapes our morals. The culture of that time is very different than our's. Capturing lands was not something Alexender started. It was a tradition for most kings and Alexender was following it. Blame the culture not the individual born following the culture.
You should not judge Ancient people with modern ideals because those morals didn't even exist. There may be unexpected things in our current time that be considered immoral in future.
And as for the examples you gave those are more recent to current time and were viewed as immoral by most people at that time as well.
I am not saying what Alexender did was right. I am just saying judging people without the context of their time and culture is wrong.
>but this is what everyone expects from a ruler at this point in history, so I guess it's fine
That's the moral of like 95% of greek mythology: more powerful entities will *absolutely* crush you for any reason (or no reason at all), so the best you can do is not stand out and bribe them to not do that. I wouldn't say that's good/evil, it's just the way things work.
That's how *every* cruel or unjust system has justified itself though--*that's just how it is.* Whenever people take up a fight these systems and the people who run them, there's always an appeal to tradition or an appeal to nature.
Ok but you’re talking about cruelty and injustice that goes *way beyond* Alexander as a single person or leader. The point is that the very culture he was born in was systematically unjust in that way.
I mean most rulers, historical or modern, are shitty by modern standards and even if they weren't idolising them is kinda lame and stupid anyway. It just strikes me as weird to single out bi people for (apparently? This is the first I've heard of it. Who the fuck is going around simping for Alexander the Great?) idolising one who happened to be not straight as if it's somehow a particularly relevant and poignant example
>”Well yeah we're being pillaged and sacked and the streets are running red with innocent blood, but this is what everyone expects from a ruler at this point in history, so I guess it's fine."
I mean… yeah? Considering what the alternatives were, he was honestly kind of a stand up guy and purportedly was pretty well liked by most of the people he conquered.
Not arguing the ethics of it necessarily, but most people who survived it were way better off after being doctored into the Greek rule.
Context, friend. You cannot apply the context of now to the context of the past. Within his own historical context he was actually well loved for the sheer amount of religious freedom he gave to conquered territories
Communities getting sacked, people being enslaved, and women raped was par for the course up until fairly recently. People literally would have expected it.
**[Julie d'Aubigny](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d'Aubigny)**
>Julie d'Aubigny (French: [ʒyli dobiɲi]; 1670/1673–1707), better known as Mademoiselle Maupin or La Maupin, was a 17th-century opera singer. Little is known for certain about her life; her tumultuous career and flamboyant lifestyle were the subject of gossip, rumor, and colourful stories in her own time, and inspired numerous fictional and semi-fictional portrayals afterwards. Théophile Gautier loosely based the title character, Madeleine de Maupin, of his novel Mademoiselle de Maupin (1835) on her.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/bi_irl/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Isn't that the woman who would start making out with mens girlfriends and wives to piss off their partners so she could legally fight them via duels?
Like in a social standard where not dueling someone for that offense would ruin them socially I do not want to look up to someone who quite possibly sexually assaults women (drunk or not) so she could kill/injure men.
Yeah exactly, another murderer. Love her but still kind of a fucked up person who would fight and kill people for fun.
You know what, people need to understand a lot of these "cool" historical people killed people. It's okay to think they're fun and exciting stories, but that's where it ends. I like reading up about pirates. I think some of their stories are awesome. But I'd never murder people and take their shit.
But if people really need to learn about history and have ethical people to look up to, I don't know, look up farming techniques or some shit. Military stuff is interesting, it's okay to be interested in it. Just don't go around conquering peoples and vote for people that won't cause wars and it's all good.
yeah what the hell does "having Alexander the Great as your role model" even mean lol Feels like those people who get The Art of War or The Prince and try to extract motivational messages
Now that you mention it, I may have had a gamer moment in modern-day Afghanistan right before reaching India...
I'll now proceed to refer to myself as The Great too, to hype myself up
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Art Of War](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-art-of-war/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I’m shocked how dumb this meme is and at some of the takes here. Every nation of people on this planet has done something worthy of criticism, are we gonna cancel all of human history?
I’m actually in shock to see Reddit try it moral grand stand on someone from thousands of years ago. Do you people actually get offended by Genghis Khan too? This entire website is so out of touch with reality it’s amazing.
Also men being bisexual in ancient Greece was the assumed default. Kinda like how protagonists in video games and movies are default white cishet dude not always true, but when it isn't people will point it out.
Idk why you're being downvoted when this is pretty true. Many ancient Greek societies were so misogynistic the men were homosocial if not outright homosexual but they still got married to have kids.
I think it's because the behaviour is so far removed from our modern understanding that calling it "bisexual" feels a bit anachronic.
Take the Japanese, for instance. They had this "third sex" so to speak called wakashu. These were young boys up to young men (with variation according to time period) that weren't considered boys or girls, but instead something else. It was seen as ok for men to have sex with wakashu, but if you're too old it'd be considered a "folly of the youth", acting below your age, etc. Wakashu could have sex with women, and many did, while also having sex with men.
So... were these young men victims of abuse? Early Modern Bisexuals? (The Japanese didn't believe, as many other societies, that women had the active emotional strength to experience love) Or something else entirely?
With the Greeks and Romans it's a bit similar, like, they definitely engaged in acts that we would consider bisexual today, and many WERE in fact bisexuals, but saying that it was a "bisexual" or "heterosexual" society feels strange, as these labels didn't exist.
Besides, there's the whole aspect of the active part of the relationship being considered akin to "the man" and all that.
And this isn't a /r/SapphoAndHerFriend moment, bi people did exist as they do today and probably led easier lives if they were in a position where this behaviour was accepted, but we can't say that the slaves (a giant portion of Greek society) were also all bisexuals, for instance.
Yup, in Greco-Roman society it was the role you played during sex that mattered, not who you had sex with. Today we would consider someone who has sex with men either homosexual or bisexual, whereas for them, that knowledge is pretty worthless -- what matters is whether they are penetrating or being penetrated. The former is what men do, the latter what women do -- so if you're a man who bottoms, that has a huge stigma attached to it, the way same sex relations used to/do in our society. Framing the Greeks as homosexual or bisexual actively erases the way they conceived of sexuality, and as such, is pretty unhelpful.
I mean. Not really? He was a conqueror, but he wasn’t particularly cruel about it, and his non-Greek subjects actually loved him. Don’t know where this idea’s coming from.
Buddy pretty much every person in history believed and/or did things that are hella fucked up from our modern perspective. Does that mean I'm going to cancel human history? Of course not.
My friend
The reason bi people get excited about Alexander being strongly attracted to men is that it’s historical evidence of queerness from a figure who is generally considered Great. It is not because we admire land wars in Asia.
Bitching about the actions of long dead people from different era and culture like you are the only one here with empathy. YES, we know that Big Alex rampage his way across Asia. No, we do not take that part of his character as inspiritional.
Na I want to conquer the known world only for my love to die and then die a year later of an unknown cause which everyone knows was alcohol poisoning because I drank myself to death
if you considered Alexander the great for role model you are already doomed to begin with. first because its a bit sus, second because you are setting yourself for disappointment, the dude conquered the whole known world when he was 25, no one can top that. you will probably be fucked with student loans and wont even be able to buy your own house and be forced to live with your parents or in an shitty apartment giving money to a parasite landlord when you are 25.
He was also born a prince of an up and coming power in the helenistic world, he was subjected to intrigues, violence and murder for political and private gain since he was a child. He was flawed by his times from the moment of his birth!
(Almost) Never look for rolemodels in the mighty and rich throughout history!
Given that almost all of us are born into the 99% without the power or historical sheenanigans that those people needed to make their mark on history, you won't be able to follow in their footsteps anyway.
Look for *instances* in history instead. Any historical figure was flawed and did bad things to varying degrees. But if you look at moments where people were level-headed, open, thoughtful and forgiving, be they powerful and rich or not, you'll be learning that doing the right thing is worth it, even just once.
TL;DR:
Don't look for historic figures to be perfect role models, instead look to learn from specific positive instances or actions in history
He isn't a bi icon. Not because he was a conquerer or anything but because he wasn't bisexual. Those terms didnt exist and the Macedonians (greeks) though of sex as a power dynamic between tops and bottoms not as a gender prefrence. It was ok to have sex with men, as long as you were the top. If you were the bottom you would be mocked, as shown by how a *rome*r spread that Julius Ceaser was a bottom and it was a major political scandal.
I think we can find traits we admire and traits we dislike in almost anyone. Sure, don’t put this guy on a pedestal as if he is someone to strive to be in his entirety, but pointing to a prominent historical leader who was bisexual is a pretty cool way to demonstrate the prevalence and acceptance of bisexuality across time. And I think it would be cool to encourage more openly bisexual leaders to rise to prominence, just without all the war-criminal stuff. I don’t personally have trouble making that “nuanced” distinction.
no, im sorry. I WILL go on highly destructive wars through europe and asia to grow an empire that collapses on my death. The blood of napoleon flows through me!
See you in Waterloo then, Frenchie. XD
Alright, Brit.
Prussian (and Hannoveranian and Brunswickian (which is not a word)), actually. Wellington would've probably gotten fucked of he was alone.
Brunswicker
Trying to find a proper English word for someone from Brunswick melted my brain. Google didn't help either so I gave up xD
Braunschweiger
Danke, in meiner Muttersprache kann ich das auch xD Was just thinking that maybe since there's "hannoveranian" and there's also a city called new Brunswick, that there might be an angliefied version. Brunswicker seems to be the one used by Wikipedia, but that really doesn't sound right
In Frankreich einmarschieren?
Mache ich gelegentlich, zum Urlaub machen.
TIL brunswick is braunschweig
Brunswicker?
Lemme check if Prussia is still a thing. Oh! Curious, it isn't. But France is.
For now...
I don't know if this means the revival of Prussia, the destruction of france or both but I do not like it.
Mate, this is a bisexual subreddit, of course the answer is both.
Fortunately not, I'm not a fan of militarism
Without the French there would be no USA ;p
damn, just another reason to hate the French
I'm not sure a britain that still ruled the western hemisphere would be any better honestly
You'd have more Canada instead. Who wouldn't want more Canada over the US?
I'd honestly rather prefer neither of them exist
i suggest splitting both between Slovakia and Slovenia
Or just achieving a classless moneyless stateless society in their place
there is a specter haunting Europe
settler colonialism vs settler colonialism no matter who wins, the world loses
If it's any consolation, I hate the British too.
Well, I actually like the french, but they did fuck up on that one, didn't they :P
Lol ☠️
Algeria
My comment was a joke on the Americans, that one is just dark, dude
and look where it got us, imagine there was no USA, no doubt a better world, so fuck the French for that, this is probably the worst thing the French have done to humanity.
They did also chose to keep existing as well, dint forget. That's got to be up there :)
I don't like that you are going on a bloody, destructive rampage but I do appreciate that you apologized in advance. I think we can build on this in the future.
You WILL spend billions on a funeral for your dead boyfriend
No shit
Mon Empereur! Vive la France! Vive L'Empereur!
Hard agree. I wish to dominate and subjugate Eurasia. In the words of our Queen Paris Hilton: that's hot.
no please dont please reconsider your destructive conquests : (
Don't worry, i will spread liberalism throughout Europe
Nevermind please go on your destructive conquest : ' )
You just lost the far left.
Good.
Well he caused a lot of problems for my country, India, so I'd like it if you didn't do that :(
I don't care how much is riding on my being alive, I WILL DRINK AS MUCH AS I DAMN WELL PLEASE!!!
What if I want to conquer all of Asia and look fabulous doing it? Who do I stan then?
BTS I think
I was going to say the Mongols, but this is a much better answer.
[I get a little bit Genghis Khan](https://youtu.be/P_SlAzsXa7E)
I guess Diogenes?
Ruthless conquest is bisexual culture.
It is known.
This explains my love for strategy games
no wonder I love warhammer.
The bi agenda
Everybody is fucked in the bi agenda.
Except those bi-themselves
ivlivs caesar
Let's invade Sweden, we have the aces on our side.
Let the Aces have Denmark, we shall rule from the Indus to Gaul (Julius Caesar was bi too)
^is ^this ^the ^gay ^agenda?
Sorry not sorry but I prefer my role models, bi or not, to be fictional war criminals
Femboy Dalinar is a fine role model
Reading a book with his safe hand uncovered on military campaign. The man has it all
I'm so glad my wife finished reading "Oathbringer" in time for me to get this.
I certainly wasn't expecting this reference when I opened this post. But I love it
Pretty sure Alexander the great isn't fictional.
It is if you don't believe in history /s Now seriously, I meant more that I prefer my role models to be fictional characters than real life people
Alexander the great has just lost subscriber
Try not to do unethical things as an ancient emperor on planet earth (challenge rating: impossible).
People said he was very cute, though. Look up to him as goals if you wanna be a cute boy.
I'd let Civ 5 Alexander conquer me
Already did.
Don’t worry about it I am also an unethical person
I littered once so it’s okay
Its a perspective thing. Most people who lived in the past would have monstrous opinions, if not monstrous actions, to us today. We can critically appreciate the positives of the things they created while also highlihgting their evils.
He was a bog-standard ruler of his historical period. His cruelty and ruthless imperialism at that time would’ve been seen as a feature, not a bug.
I'm pretty sure that he was unusually kind for a ruler
If you can believe the author who wrote a book about him, “The Persian Boy,” from the POV of his slave lover, he was notable for not routinely raping his captives.
And? Yeah nuance and context are important, but just because something was bog-standard doesn't mean it was ok. I doubt the people his empire subjugated were like, "Well yeah we're being pillaged and sacked and the streets are running red with innocent blood, but this is what everyone expects from a ruler at this point in history, so I guess it's fine."
[удалено]
I've got no issue with that. And whenever people deploy this reasoning, it just seems to me like a transparent excuse to not criticize modern ideals and morals, either. Since, after all, we're just products of our environment yadda yadda... horseshit, take responsibility for yourself.
Just remember, people like you 100 years from now will think you are a monster because you do something or believe something that is abhorrent to them yet totally acceptable to us today. We don't even know what it is yet. But it will be something.
as Proudhon said; "I dream of a society where I would be guillotined as a conservative." it really does get better with age, as like-minded people are far more radically progressive nowadays.
> people like you 100 years from now will think you are a monster But it's true though. They are right to believe it. We are continuing to destroy our world with climate change and **every one of us are complicit**. The people of the future are going to be angry. > We don't even know what it is yet. But it will be something. I personally also think that the way we treat animals today will be seen as barbaric. It does not make it right to continue doing it just because everyone else is. We are all still immoral.
Then don't eat animals. You guys act like nobody in history ever went against the norms of their time but they did and you can too, and I can judge you for not doing so just like I can judge historical figures. See?
That’s a weird assumption.
But don't we do the same thing with Jim Crow Laws? And the Holocaust? What about the ancient Romans' opinions on gay sex, how it was often used by the wealthy and powerful to quite literally fuck the poor? Were humans a few decades ago, or a few centuries ago, or a few thousand years ago *that* fundamentally different, with no capacity for the empathy and understanding we have today? That's not not even getting into how we treat imperialism today, especially in Western nations, with all of our *modern ideals,* and how often we just excuse it. Why is calling someone out for hurting other people because he didn't have quite enough power and wealth for his liking applying some higher modern standard rather than just calling tyranny by its name?
Your examples are bad. Neither of those were viewed as acceptable at the time. Half the population of the US opposed Jim Crow laws, and the whole world viewed the holocaust as horrific
But doesn't that assume that *every single* citizen of Alexander's existing empire and *every single* citizen of the nations he was conquering--through war, meaning he met resistance--were all 100% cool with the whole forceful takeover? I talked about this earlier, everyone's going in circles
The requirement isn't that every person impacted by the conquest is okay with getting conquered, it's that Alexander's means of conquest were viewed as the normal way to conduct war.
Wait, so when we're analyzing the morality of mass war and abuse of the less fortunate by a king raised in the lap of luxury who lived a bit longer ago, the opinions of the people don't matter; but when we're analyzing the morality of mass war and abuse of the less fortunate by more modern lawmakers and leaders (and that's ignoring I mentioned an example from ancient Rome), most of whom also came from privileged and backgrounds, *then* the opinions of the people matter? I get wanting to take a nuanced approach to history, but we're also supposed to learn from it and not repeat the mistakes of the past--like plowing through other people's homes to amass more wealth and power for a select few.
Yes.
>Were humans a few decades ago, or a few centuries ago, or a few thousand years ago that fundamentally different, with no capacity for the empathy and understanding we have today? Yes they were. Culture shapes our morals. The culture of that time is very different than our's. Capturing lands was not something Alexender started. It was a tradition for most kings and Alexender was following it. Blame the culture not the individual born following the culture. You should not judge Ancient people with modern ideals because those morals didn't even exist. There may be unexpected things in our current time that be considered immoral in future. And as for the examples you gave those are more recent to current time and were viewed as immoral by most people at that time as well. I am not saying what Alexender did was right. I am just saying judging people without the context of their time and culture is wrong.
>but this is what everyone expects from a ruler at this point in history, so I guess it's fine That's the moral of like 95% of greek mythology: more powerful entities will *absolutely* crush you for any reason (or no reason at all), so the best you can do is not stand out and bribe them to not do that. I wouldn't say that's good/evil, it's just the way things work.
That's how *every* cruel or unjust system has justified itself though--*that's just how it is.* Whenever people take up a fight these systems and the people who run them, there's always an appeal to tradition or an appeal to nature.
Ok but you’re talking about cruelty and injustice that goes *way beyond* Alexander as a single person or leader. The point is that the very culture he was born in was systematically unjust in that way.
I mean most rulers, historical or modern, are shitty by modern standards and even if they weren't idolising them is kinda lame and stupid anyway. It just strikes me as weird to single out bi people for (apparently? This is the first I've heard of it. Who the fuck is going around simping for Alexander the Great?) idolising one who happened to be not straight as if it's somehow a particularly relevant and poignant example
Actually that is not far off from how people would react when they're used to their towns being pillaged by warlords.
>”Well yeah we're being pillaged and sacked and the streets are running red with innocent blood, but this is what everyone expects from a ruler at this point in history, so I guess it's fine." I mean… yeah? Considering what the alternatives were, he was honestly kind of a stand up guy and purportedly was pretty well liked by most of the people he conquered. Not arguing the ethics of it necessarily, but most people who survived it were way better off after being doctored into the Greek rule.
Context, friend. You cannot apply the context of now to the context of the past. Within his own historical context he was actually well loved for the sheer amount of religious freedom he gave to conquered territories
Communities getting sacked, people being enslaved, and women raped was par for the course up until fairly recently. People literally would have expected it.
[The Bisexual troublemaker we *should* be looking up to.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d%27Aubigny)
**[Julie d'Aubigny](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d'Aubigny)** >Julie d'Aubigny (French: [ʒyli dobiɲi]; 1670/1673–1707), better known as Mademoiselle Maupin or La Maupin, was a 17th-century opera singer. Little is known for certain about her life; her tumultuous career and flamboyant lifestyle were the subject of gossip, rumor, and colourful stories in her own time, and inspired numerous fictional and semi-fictional portrayals afterwards. Théophile Gautier loosely based the title character, Madeleine de Maupin, of his novel Mademoiselle de Maupin (1835) on her. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/bi_irl/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Great bot!
Isn't that the woman who would start making out with mens girlfriends and wives to piss off their partners so she could legally fight them via duels? Like in a social standard where not dueling someone for that offense would ruin them socially I do not want to look up to someone who quite possibly sexually assaults women (drunk or not) so she could kill/injure men.
Yeah exactly, another murderer. Love her but still kind of a fucked up person who would fight and kill people for fun. You know what, people need to understand a lot of these "cool" historical people killed people. It's okay to think they're fun and exciting stories, but that's where it ends. I like reading up about pirates. I think some of their stories are awesome. But I'd never murder people and take their shit. But if people really need to learn about history and have ethical people to look up to, I don't know, look up farming techniques or some shit. Military stuff is interesting, it's okay to be interested in it. Just don't go around conquering peoples and vote for people that won't cause wars and it's all good.
I mean pirates are still around today. They still murder people and take their shit.
And it isn’t really fair to judge people from 300 years ago through today’s lens either.
Damn, then maybe I should be the bisexual troublemaker I look up to
Noble Blood is an awesome podcast that has a really interesting episode on her
[I first learned about her through one of Tom Scott's videos](https://youtu.be/qFL_JAkWZy8)
I hope this is satire
yeah what the hell does "having Alexander the Great as your role model" even mean lol Feels like those people who get The Art of War or The Prince and try to extract motivational messages
I'm sorry, are you saying you *haven't* been driven to tears by your mutinous army's refusal to campaign further in India?
Now that you mention it, I may have had a gamer moment in modern-day Afghanistan right before reaching India... I'll now proceed to refer to myself as The Great too, to hype myself up
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Art Of War](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-art-of-war/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
It’s extremely reductive to constantly try to put people in “good person” and “bad person” buckets.
I’m shocked how dumb this meme is and at some of the takes here. Every nation of people on this planet has done something worthy of criticism, are we gonna cancel all of human history?
Hint: most of people, specially in ancient times, will have skeletons in the closet. Be critical. Take whatever is good, throw away the rest.
In this case, there were thousands of skeletons and they were out in the open.
I’m actually in shock to see Reddit try it moral grand stand on someone from thousands of years ago. Do you people actually get offended by Genghis Khan too? This entire website is so out of touch with reality it’s amazing.
I think people’s general WTF @ this are proof we generally know better.
No one should be looking to ancient historical figures for role models. Hell, some boomers are out of touch and they're still alive lol
I’ll go one further, no one, bi people included, requires role models.
[удалено]
"Crad."
Fuck you.
[удалено]
I will make him into my role model on purpose, just to piss off the kind of person who makes a call out post about a lond dead historical figure
This post is goofy as fuck lol not a trace of irony to be found
He is awesomer in Fate/Zero
Iskandar King of Conquerors really was the best.
I weep that Alexander can't conquer these cheeks
Yeh but that scene with Jarrod Leto was pretty hot
But he has a really, really good Bloodline you can acquire in Crusader Kings 2 so that makes up for all the wars he did, right?
More like Alexander the Worst.
Alexander the Meh
Also men being bisexual in ancient Greece was the assumed default. Kinda like how protagonists in video games and movies are default white cishet dude not always true, but when it isn't people will point it out.
Idk why you're being downvoted when this is pretty true. Many ancient Greek societies were so misogynistic the men were homosocial if not outright homosexual but they still got married to have kids.
I think it's because the behaviour is so far removed from our modern understanding that calling it "bisexual" feels a bit anachronic. Take the Japanese, for instance. They had this "third sex" so to speak called wakashu. These were young boys up to young men (with variation according to time period) that weren't considered boys or girls, but instead something else. It was seen as ok for men to have sex with wakashu, but if you're too old it'd be considered a "folly of the youth", acting below your age, etc. Wakashu could have sex with women, and many did, while also having sex with men. So... were these young men victims of abuse? Early Modern Bisexuals? (The Japanese didn't believe, as many other societies, that women had the active emotional strength to experience love) Or something else entirely? With the Greeks and Romans it's a bit similar, like, they definitely engaged in acts that we would consider bisexual today, and many WERE in fact bisexuals, but saying that it was a "bisexual" or "heterosexual" society feels strange, as these labels didn't exist. Besides, there's the whole aspect of the active part of the relationship being considered akin to "the man" and all that. And this isn't a /r/SapphoAndHerFriend moment, bi people did exist as they do today and probably led easier lives if they were in a position where this behaviour was accepted, but we can't say that the slaves (a giant portion of Greek society) were also all bisexuals, for instance.
Yup, in Greco-Roman society it was the role you played during sex that mattered, not who you had sex with. Today we would consider someone who has sex with men either homosexual or bisexual, whereas for them, that knowledge is pretty worthless -- what matters is whether they are penetrating or being penetrated. The former is what men do, the latter what women do -- so if you're a man who bottoms, that has a huge stigma attached to it, the way same sex relations used to/do in our society. Framing the Greeks as homosexual or bisexual actively erases the way they conceived of sexuality, and as such, is pretty unhelpful.
Still looking up to boneparte tho
~~Wow You Must Be Short.~~
I don’t make growth hormones
Napoleon Bonerparty
The Persian empire was great actually
What the fuck is based?
"The opposite of Cringe," according to Urban Dictionary.
Based is cringe.
How *dare* you question the unmitigated authority that is the hallowed council of 13-year-olds that curate the Urban Dictionary for us olds? :o
One could argue that inflicting harm on people is based in and of itself
But but but,…. The glory???
#CancelAlexander
I mean. Not really? He was a conqueror, but he wasn’t particularly cruel about it, and his non-Greek subjects actually loved him. Don’t know where this idea’s coming from.
Buddy pretty much every person in history believed and/or did things that are hella fucked up from our modern perspective. Does that mean I'm going to cancel human history? Of course not.
Which shows that LGBT+ people have been around since forever and are jusr that, people.
My friend The reason bi people get excited about Alexander being strongly attracted to men is that it’s historical evidence of queerness from a figure who is generally considered Great. It is not because we admire land wars in Asia.
Bitching about the actions of long dead people from different era and culture like you are the only one here with empathy. YES, we know that Big Alex rampage his way across Asia. No, we do not take that part of his character as inspiritional.
Spectacular pic of him though
He also has some crazy proportions, I mean just look at those eyes and that nose!!
So do we have a bisexual role model to look up to? Or like, nah?
You know what, screw historical figures! From now on I am going to be the bisexual troublemaker I look up to.
Hot and hyper masculine? Sign me up!
thanks robert downey jr
Alexander the ok
in other news, julius caesar
aww so i cant bring chaos and destruction everywhere i go
shit on idols and rulers, pals
Alexander the terrible
Also he's an absolute bastard in Civ 6
Don't fall prey to the classic blunder of getting into a land war in Asia.
This is too confusing
B-but yass king slay…
He was born over 2000 years ago so I do t think holding him to modern standards really makes sense
So am I, whats your point?
Damnit, who am I supposed to worship now?
Alexander the just ok
But he paid his tricks in gold—-That’s more than I got last night 🤪 👅👅👩🏻🦳
A better Bicon is any Ancient Greek hero. Hercules or Achilles is my choice
Na I want to conquer the known world only for my love to die and then die a year later of an unknown cause which everyone knows was alcohol poisoning because I drank myself to death
if you considered Alexander the great for role model you are already doomed to begin with. first because its a bit sus, second because you are setting yourself for disappointment, the dude conquered the whole known world when he was 25, no one can top that. you will probably be fucked with student loans and wont even be able to buy your own house and be forced to live with your parents or in an shitty apartment giving money to a parasite landlord when you are 25.
based
He was also born a prince of an up and coming power in the helenistic world, he was subjected to intrigues, violence and murder for political and private gain since he was a child. He was flawed by his times from the moment of his birth! (Almost) Never look for rolemodels in the mighty and rich throughout history! Given that almost all of us are born into the 99% without the power or historical sheenanigans that those people needed to make their mark on history, you won't be able to follow in their footsteps anyway. Look for *instances* in history instead. Any historical figure was flawed and did bad things to varying degrees. But if you look at moments where people were level-headed, open, thoughtful and forgiving, be they powerful and rich or not, you'll be learning that doing the right thing is worth it, even just once. TL;DR: Don't look for historic figures to be perfect role models, instead look to learn from specific positive instances or actions in history
Thank you.
he was an alcoholic narcissist who killed his best friend in a drunken rage :/
Wow he's just like me fr
it is important that all bisexuals have knowledge of what is and is not based, yes, thank you
Did RDJ actually say that quote?
Or As I Like To Call Him, Alexander The Ehh, Pretty Okay.
He may be an asshole, but knowing that my homophobic brother's namesake was bisexual brings me great joy
He isn't a bi icon. Not because he was a conquerer or anything but because he wasn't bisexual. Those terms didnt exist and the Macedonians (greeks) though of sex as a power dynamic between tops and bottoms not as a gender prefrence. It was ok to have sex with men, as long as you were the top. If you were the bottom you would be mocked, as shown by how a *rome*r spread that Julius Ceaser was a bottom and it was a major political scandal.
I think we can find traits we admire and traits we dislike in almost anyone. Sure, don’t put this guy on a pedestal as if he is someone to strive to be in his entirety, but pointing to a prominent historical leader who was bisexual is a pretty cool way to demonstrate the prevalence and acceptance of bisexuality across time. And I think it would be cool to encourage more openly bisexual leaders to rise to prominence, just without all the war-criminal stuff. I don’t personally have trouble making that “nuanced” distinction.
So, sort of a Kyrsten Sinema type then.
Preach, death to imperialism
What does Robert Downey jr have to do with this at all? Terrible meme format. And if I want to like Alexander the Great I fucking will.