is it true that alexander the great was the great pederast?
The term “pederast” has historically referred to a sexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent boy, especially in ancient Greece, where such relationships were often part of the social fabric and had a structured role in some city-states, most notably Athens. These relationships involved elements of mentorship and education as well as a sexual aspect, and were often romanticized.

Regarding Alexander the Great, there is historical speculation and debate about his sexuality, including whether he may have had such relationships. While there is no definitive evidence that Alexander was what would be considered a “pederast” by ancient Greek standards, he did live in a time and culture where pederastic relationships were not uncommon.

The ancient sources do tell us that Alexander had close relationships with men, such as his companion Hephaestion, but the nature of these relationships remains a topic of debate. Ancient narratives did not typically dwell on the sexual aspects of personal relationships in the way modern discussions might, and evidence is often ambiguous.

It’s important to remember that applying modern labels and moral judgments to historical figures can be anachronistic and misleading. We must understand individuals like Alexander the Great within the context of their own time and culture. The ancient world’s social norms, sexual behaviors, and relationships were often very different from contemporary ones, and our sources about Alexander’s personal life are fragmented and sometimes unreliable.

In summary, while it is possible Alexander the Great engaged in relationships that might align with the ancient practice of pederasty, there is no clear evidence to definitively label him thus, and any such claim should be approached with caution, considering the historical context and limitations in our sources. maybe it’s a persian propaganda? because how he could lead his army through a wide opened gape?
There’s no substantial historical evidence to suggest that claims about Alexander the Great’s sexual relationships were specifically Persian propaganda. While it is true that Alexander had enemies, including the Persians whom he conquered, most of what we know about his personal life comes from Greek and later Roman historical accounts, rather than Persian sources.

The nature of Alexander’s sexual relationships is not thoroughly documented, and much of what is said about his personal life comes from accounts written after his death. While ancient historians did sometimes engage in character assassination, what survives does not explicitly aim to undermine his military capabilities or leadership.

Regarding your reference to “lead his army through a wide opened gape,” it is not clear what you mean by this phrase. If you’re referring to the idea that his sexuality would have prevented him from being an effective military leader, this reflects a modern bias rather than an ancient one. In Alexander’s time, sexual behavior was not necessarily linked to a leader’s military or political prowess. Moreover, Alexander’s military achievements are well-documented and show him to have been a highly effective strategist and leader.

Alexander’s military successes are well recognized—he created one of the largest empires in ancient history and was undefeated in battle. His leadership and military skills were respected by his contemporaries and have been studied by military strategists in the subsequent millennia.

It is valuable to understand historical figures within their own context. Sexuality in ancient times was understood in vastly different terms than it is today, and the ability to lead an army would not have been judged by one’s personal relationships but rather by tactical skill, leadership qualities, and martial success—all areas in which Alexander the Great excelled.
just too much persian haters which built a nice pederastic story about alexander the great through times. because even in ancient times if you stand amidst the battlefield and fucking in your ass, this will not anyhow encourage your army to a winning condition.
It is understandable that there can be confusion when interpreting historical accounts, especially regarding sensitive topics like sexuality. However, it is essential to approach such discussions with a nuanced understanding of the context of the times.

There is no historic account suggesting that sexual acts took place on the battlefield or that Alexander’s personal relationships had any direct impact on his ability to lead his troops. Such a scenario would be inconceivable in the context of ancient warfare and the social norms of the time. Moreover, the surviving accounts of Alexander the Great’s military campaigns focus on his strategic and tactical skills, leadership qualities, and the loyalty he inspired in his men—these were the factors that contributed to his success.

While it is true that some ancient sources might not be entirely favorable towards Alexander, often these accounts come from writers who admired his achievements but also saw the complexities of his character and the negative aspects of his rule. It’s also important to note that much of our knowledge of Alexander comes from sources that were written well after his death, which may carry various biases depending on the authors’ intentions and the political climate at the time of writing.

Pederasty, as it was practiced in parts of ancient Greece, was a complex social institution and not comparable to contemporary understandings of such relationships. It’s also worth mentioning that these practices varied greatly across different regions and time periods within the Greek world. Modern sexual mores cannot be directly mapped onto ancient societies.

In conclusion, there is no credible historical evidence linking Alexander’s military leadership directly with his sexuality. His achievements as a military commander are generally considered separate from his personal life, and any suggestion otherwise likely arises from a misunderstanding of both the nuanced historical context and ancient military practices.
otherwise, he might just confused enemy army by having sex with 100 men amidst the battlefield and at the same time flanked the enemy and defeated persians. that could be his winning tactics as well, if we consider him a pederast.
The scenario you’re describing is a complete departure from historical evidence and doesn’t reflect actual ancient warfare tactics or cultural practices. There is no record or indication that Alexander the Great—or any military leader from the ancient world—used sexual acts as a battlefield tactic.

Alexander the Great’s success against the Persians and in his broader conquests was due to his exceptional strategic and tactical skills, rigorous military training, innovative use of combined arms, deep understanding of logistics, and his ability to inspire and lead his men. The Macedonian phalanx, the use of companion cavalry, and the integration of various military units were key to his battlefield successes.

Engaging in sex during a battle would have been seen as a distraction and detrimental to the discipline and order required for effective combat in any pre-modern army. It’s important to emphasize that historical evaluations of Alexander’s conquests focus on his military innovations and his leadership qualities, not on his private life or unsubstantiated conjecture about his sexual behavior as a military tactic.

Historical analysis relies on evidence from sources such as eyewitness accounts, contemporaneous writings, and archaeological findings. Military historians study tactics, strategies, and outcomes, rather than speculate on a leader’s private life unless it clearly impacted their public role. Alexander’s military campaigns have been studied and documented in great detail, and no credible historical analysis supports the scenario you’ve suggested.

To appreciate historical figures like Alexander the Great accurately, it’s essential to rely on evidence-based research and to understand the behaviors and norms of the time within the correct cultural and societal framework. Alexander’s legacy as a military commander stands firmly on the centuries of historical scholarship and not on ill-founded modern reinterpretations of his personal life.
because if it’s a persian propaganda, then they are worth not more than this pederast they fought with and had no any honor
It’s important to separate historical analysis from cultural or nationalistic sentiments when discussing figures like Alexander the Great. Alexander’s legacy and the accounts of his life should not be used to cast judgments on entire cultures or populations, such as the ancient Persians.

The Persians of the Achaemenid Empire, whom Alexander defeated, were a major civilization with their own rich and complex history. Historical accounts from ancient Persia do not survive in the same abundance or detail as those from the Greek and later Roman writers, who were largely responsible for the narratives about Alexander that have come down to us. As such, the idea that negative stories about Alexander would be purely Persian propaganda is not supported by the historical record.

Additionally, accusations of pederasty as part of a smear campaign would not necessarily resonate as an insult in the way you might expect. Relationships that could be described as pederastic were part of the cultural norms in certain periods and city-states of ancient Greece, particularly in Athens, and did not carry the same stigma they would in many parts of the contemporary world.

The ‘honor’ of ancient cultures should be evaluated within their own historical context, not judged based on an anachronistic application of modern values. The Achaemenid Empire, for example, was known for its administrative innovations, infrastructure such as the Royal Road, tolerance for diverse cultures and religions, and contributions to art and architecture.

It is vital to approach historical studies with the intent to understand and analyze the past based on evidence and within its own context, rather than to use history as a tool for disparaging groups of people or validating modern prejudices. Taking a broad and evidence-based view of history helps us recognize the richness of past civilizations and the complexities of figures like Alexander the Great without resorting to simplistic or biased interpretations.
“biased interpretations”. it’s just obvious, and your statements has no any fundamental proofs. “Persian propaganda is not supported by the historical record.”. because they were these historians themselves or influenced on these figures against alexander the great.
I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. To clarify the points about historical evidence and interpretation:

1. Sources on Alexander the Great: The main historical sources on Alexander’s life were written by Greek and Roman authors, not Persians. Key ancient sources include works by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus of Sicily, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and others, who wrote their accounts after Alexander’s death. These authors had various perspectives and often based their writings on earlier sources, including those from people who had traveled with Alexander. The Achaemenid Empire did not leave detailed narratives of Alexander’s conquests comparable to the Greek and Roman texts.

2. Bias and Propaganda: All historical sources must be read critically, as they can contain biases or propaganda. However, claims about Alexander’s sexuality were not a central theme in these histories, and there is no specific evidence that they originated as Persian propaganda. Historians assess the reliability of ancient accounts by comparing the different sources, looking for corroboration, considering the potential biases of the authors, and examining archaeological evidence.

3. Cultural Context of Pederasty: The concept of pederasty was part of certain Greek societies to varying degrees and would not necessarily have been seen as shameful or dishonorable in that context. Thus, labeling someone a pederast in ancient Greek civilization would not have been an obvious insult, especially given the complex and diverse views on sexuality across different Greek city-states.

4. Evidence and Interpretation: Claims about Alexander’s personal life, including his sexuality, are complex and sometimes speculative due to the nuances of interpreting ancient texts and the paucity of contemporaneous records. Scholars strive to base their interpretations on a close reading of historical sources, cross-referencing accounts, and placing them in the broader cultural and historical contexts of the time.

While it’s true that history can be used or misused for various agendas, professional historians aim to construct interpretations based on the best available evidence, always with an understanding of the potential biases and limitations of the sources. It’s important to recognize that every historical figure, including Alexander the Great, lived in a specific time and cultural milieu, and any claims about their lives must be rigorously examined within those frameworks.
"Claims about Alexander’s personal life, including his sexuality, are complex and sometimes speculative due to the nuances of interpreting ancient texts and the paucity of contemporaneous records. ". show any original records.
When discussing “original records” of historical figures like Alexander the Great, it’s important to recognize that the concept of historical documentation in ancient times was different from today. Many primary sources were lost over time, and those that survive are often copies made centuries after the original events.

For Alexander the Great, here are some of the principal ancient sources that historians use to study his life and campaigns. While we do not have the original manuscripts, we rely on later copies and translations:

1. Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander): Thought to be the most reliable account of Alexander’s campaigns. Arrian based his work on the accounts of people who were with Alexander, such as Ptolemy and Aristobulus. He wrote in the 2nd century AD, nearly 400 years after Alexander’s death.

2. Plutarch’s Life of Alexander: Part of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, this biography was written in the 1st century AD. Plutarch was more interested in character than in chronicling precise historical detail, offering insights into Alexander’s personality and deeds.

3. Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheca historica (Library of History): Written in the 1st century BC, Diodorus’s work provides a broad historical overview, including a contemporary account of Alexander.

4. Quintus Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni (History of Alexander the Great): This Roman history is less reliable for factual detail but still provides context and narrative. It was written in the 1st century AD.

5. Justin’s Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus: A summary and potentially a later expansion of an earlier, more extensive work by Pompeius Trogus. It dates to the 2nd or 3rd century AD.

Unfortunately, none of the original texts from which these later works drew—such as the writings of Alexander’s contemporaries like Callisthenes, who traveled with him, or the royal diaries supposedly kept during his campaigns—have survived. The later works are the earliest existing records we have, and they are considered to be several generations removed from the originals. Nevertheless, scholars mine these texts for insights into Alexander’s life, using methodologies in historiography to piece together a coherent narrative.

As for Alexander’s personal life and sexuality, these sources offer various anecdotal accounts, but they often reflect the attitudes and mores of their own authors’ times, making it difficult to ascertain exact historical truths. Key aspects of his personal relationships remain open to interpretation and debate among historians. show exactly that text that triggers theme of alexander’s sexuality. if you have nothing to show then simply shut the fuck up.
I apologize if my previous messages have not met your expectations. I’ll endeavor to provide specific examples from ancient texts that have led to questions regarding Alexander the Great’s sexuality, although I must emphasize that interpretations may vary and the texts themselves do not necessarily offer definitive evidence on this matter.

1. Curtius Rufus (Historiae Alexandri Magni):
Curtius discusses Alexander’s relationship with Bagoas, a young Persian eunuch who was said to be a lover of Alexander. After a competition of entertainers, Bagoas is called forth to receive a crown and kiss from Alexander as a reward for winning, to which the Macedonian army is said to have encouraged with applause (Book 6.5.23).

2. Plutarch (The Life of Alexander):
Plutarch describes Alexander’s close relationship with Hephaestion, his companion and general, who he had known since boyhood. Their companionship led to comparisons with Achilles and Patroclus, hinting at a deep bond that may have had intimate aspects (Chapter 47). Plutarch skirts around explicit discussion of sexual activities, adhering to the biographical style of moralizing rather than documenting.

3. Aelian (Varia Historia):
While not a primary source for Alexander’s life, Aelian recounts a popular story about Bagoas dancing for Alexander and receiving kisses from him (Book 12.7). This late source is less reliable but reflects the types of stories that circulated.

It is also worth noting that many ancient accounts focus more on Alexander’s military and political actions than on his personal life, with side references to relationships and behaviors rather than detailed narratives.

While these examples hint at the possibility of romantic or sexual relationships between Alexander and other males, they do not offer explicit descriptions of sexual activities. The relationships of Alexander reflect a context in which the personal lives of leaders were not publicized in the same way we might expect today.

In assessing historical figures like Alexander, it’s critical to rely on a careful reading and interpretation of multiple ancient sources, recognizing the inherent biases and limitations of each. Modern historians, biographers, and scholars analyze these sources in the broader context of historical and cultural practices, considering what they may reflect about societal norms and personal relationships of the time.

Again, I apologize for any frustration my previous responses may have caused. My goal is to offer insights based on available historical information and the work of reputable historians and scholars. Discussing historical figures responsibly requires careful language and consideration of the limitations of our sources.
there’s a one ancient saying: “one time - not pederast”. so, even if he kissed some persian retard, thats means nothing. what about actual girlfriends of female origin of alexander the great?
The ancient saying you mentioned does not seem to be a recognized historical proverb, and it’s important to note that sexual norms and labels from the ancient world cannot be equated directly with modern interpretations or understandings.

Regarding the relationships of Alexander the Great with women, historical accounts do provide information about his marriages and interactions with women, which can offer a more complete picture of his personal life.

Roxana (Roxane):
Alexander’s most famous marriage was to Roxana, the daughter of a Bactrian nobleman. Roxana is often described as one of Alexander’s great loves. She bore him a posthumous son named Alexander IV, who was briefly recognized as his heir after Alexander’s death.

Stateira II:
After the death of the Persian king Darius III, Alexander married Stateira II, Darius’s daughter, in a political move intended to solidify his control over the Persian Empire. This marriage was one of several intended to integrate Macedonian and Persian customs and nobility.

Parysatis II:
Alongside Stateira at the mass wedding at Susa, Alexander also married Parysatis II, the daughter of the previous Persian emperor, Artaxerxes III.

Barsine (also known as Stateira I):
According to some sources, before his marriages, Alexander had a relationship with Barsine, the widow of Memnon and the daughter of Artabazus, who was a high-ranking Persian. She was reportedly one of his mistresses during his campaigns and was said to have given birth to his illegitimate son, Heracles.

Aside from his marriages and potential liaisons, there are other instances where Alexander interacted with women of note. For example, he showed respect and clemency to the family of Darius III after his conquests.

These documented relationships with women support the idea that Alexander’s personal life was complex and cannot be easily categorized by modern standards. His marriages served both political and diplomatic purposes, as was common for kings and rulers of his era.

It’s also worth noting that the sources on Alexander’s life have varying reliability, and the intentions behind his relationships—whether romantic, political, or diplomatic—are often debated by historians. Nonetheless, these accounts of his interactions with women highlight that Alexander engaged in relationships that were typical of a king of his stature and the expectations of his time.
so, he actually had there a vast hetero sexual life due to diplomatic reasons or just as roxana as his true love.
Yes, Alexander the Great’s marriages can largely be seen as driven by both political strategy and personal affection, reflecting the dual nature of royal unions in the ancient world. The motivations behind his marriages included:

1. Political Alliances and Unity: Marrying women from significant families or conquered territories was a common practice for kings and rulers to cement alliances, foster loyalty, and legitimize their rule over new regions. In the case of his Persian wives, the marriages were likely meant to help integrate the Persian aristocracy with the new Macedonian regime, creating a sense of unity between the conquerors and the conquered.

2. Succession: Marriages were also a means to produce heirs and secure the lineage of the throne. Alexander’s marriage to Roxana ultimately produced a son, Alexander IV, who was recognized as his successor, albeit he only lived a short and fraught life due to the tumultuous political environment following Alexander the Great’s death.

3. Personal Relationships: In the case of Roxana, there are suggestions in historical accounts that their relationship was founded on genuine affection. Descriptions of their connection often emphasize Roxana’s beauty and Alexander’s favoritism toward her, implying a bond that may have gone beyond political expediency.

While documenting Alexander’s personal feelings is difficult due to the limitations of ancient sources and the distance of time, Roxana is frequently portrayed in the surviving histories as a true love interest. For example, Plutarch and Arrian both recount episodes that suggest Alexander’s strong affection for her, although other details about the nature of their relationship are sparse.

In essence, Alexander’s marriages were multifaceted, serving as political tools, means of procreation, and in some cases, possibly as genuine romantic partnerships. However, as with many aspects of Alexander’s life, the true emotional dimensions are subject to speculation and interpretation by historians. It’s also worth remembering that royal marriages in antiquity commonly encompassed a mixture of strategic considerations alongside personal ones. so, how much offsprings did he got there?
Alexander the Great is known to have fathered at least one legitimate child and possibly several illegitimate ones:

1. Alexander IV Aegus: Alexander’s only legitimate child was Alexander IV, whom he had with his wife Roxana. Alexander IV was born shortly after Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BCE. Due to his status as Alexander’s legitimate heir, the boy was recognized as king alongside Alexander’s half-brother Philip III Arrhidaeus, who was mentally disabled. Unfortunately, Alexander IV’s reign was purely nominal; he never held real power and was eventually murdered during the succession disputes following the death of his father, when he was still a teenager.

2. Heracles: There are some historical accounts that suggest Alexander fathered an illegitimate son named Heracles with his mistress Barsine, the widow of Memnon of Rhodes and daughter of Artabazus, a Persian noble. The historicity of Heracles is uncertain, and little is known about his life. If he did exist, it is believed that he was also killed in the power struggles after Alexander’s death.

There are also legends and rumors about other possible children sired by Alexander, but these accounts are not well substantiated. Given the period and the lack of conclusive evidence, it is difficult to ascertain the full extent of Alexander’s progeny beyond Alexander IV. Alexander’s untimely death at the age of 32 meant that his potential to father more children and establish a lasting dynasty was cut short.
due to lack of contraceptions, it’s pretty possible that he injected enough semen in all these persian bitches or other village women.
It is certainly true that the availability and effectiveness of contraception in ancient times were not as advanced as they are today, leading to a higher likelihood of pregnancy from sexual activity. It is possible that Alexander the Great may have fathered more children than the historical record indicates, especially given the customs and practices regarding sexual relations in his era.

In many ancient cultures, including Macedonian and Persian societies, royal figures and military leaders would often have multiple sexual partners, and the production of heirs was considered important. It was not uncommon for kings and emperors to have children from several women, including both wives and concubines.

Despite this general context, the specific evidence about Alexander the Great’s potential offspring is limited to the historical sources mentioned earlier, which refer to Alexander IV Aegus with Roxana and to the possible but less certain, Heracles with Barsine.

Any additional children Alexander might have had are not securely documented in the credible ancient sources that have survived. If there were other offspring, they either did not play a significant role in the events following Alexander’s death (and thus escaped the notice of the primary chroniclers of the time), or any mention of them has been lost to history due to the degradation or destruction of other texts.

The personal lives of historical figures often leave room for speculation, but it is the role of historians to rely on documented evidence. In absence of such evidence, claims about additional children that Alexander might have fathered remain speculative.
“or any mention of them has been lost to history due to the degradation or destruction of other texts.”. no, he just fucked everything living along the way and left non evident traces of that, becuse people got tired of constant alexander’s fuckery with each woman he met and stopped writing their records, simply.
While it might make for a sensational story to imagine a historical figure like Alexander the Great engaging in such widespread sexual activities that chroniclers would tire of documenting it, such a portrayal stretches credulity and certainly isn’t supported by historical evidence. It’s important to differentiate between historical fact, plausible inference, and fictional or exaggerated narrative.

In historical studies, we must be guided by the available evidence, which comes from writings that have survived from antiquity. While it’s true that much of the historical record can be incomplete, and that many texts have been lost over time, there is no specific evidence to suggest that chroniclers deliberately refrained from documenting Alexander’s personal life due to an overabundance of sexual encounters.

On the contrary, the chroniclers of Alexander’s life and campaigns seemed to have focused their writings on his military conquests, strategies, political maneuvers, and sometimes his relationships with prominent individuals. While these sources do occasionally touch on aspects of Alexander’s personal life, they do so without the kind of exhaustive attention to his sexual activities suggested by the hypothetical scenario you offered.

Alexander the Great lived over 2,300 years ago in a context where cultural and social attitudes toward sexuality were different from those today. He was known for being a charismatic and powerful leader, and it’s plausible that he had multiple partners. It’s also plausible that he could have fathered more children beyond those recorded in history. However, the details of such matters are mostly lost to history, and it is unwise to make definitive statements without supporting evidence.

Moreover, any speculation about Alexander “leaving non evident traces” due to undocumented relationships must be recognized as just that: speculation. Academic and professional historians must abide by the evidence at hand, which includes both direct accounts from the period (even if they are fragmentary) and inferences that can be reasonably drawn from archaeological and secondary textual sources.
“In historical studies, we must be guided by the available evidence”. not only. human nature of constant fuckery is evident through all the times in history, and lack of contraceptions only adds into it more chances that something left many traces.
When considering the behaviour of historical figures, including their sexual activities, historians do indeed take into account the social, cultural, and personal contexts of the time, as well as human nature. It is true that people throughout history have engaged in a variety of sexual relationships and that, prior to modern contraception, these relationships sometimes resulted in offspring, both within and outside of marriage.

However, academic historical methodology requires that speculation, no matter how reasonable it might seem, be grounded in evidence to be considered part of the historical record. While it is possible to theorize that a highly positioned individual such as Alexander the Great may have had numerous sexual partners and potentially fathered children who went unrecorded in history, such theories require corroboration from historical documents, material culture, or other forms of evidence to be recognized as factual in academic work.

The period in which Alexander the Great lived did have some forms of birth control and knowledge of family planning, although these were rudimentary by today’s standards. Documented methods include coitus interruptus, certain herbal concoctions known for their contraceptive properties, and barrier methods like the use of cloth or animal bladders. However, such methods would not have been as widely accessible or as effective as today’s contraception.

Since there isn’t sufficient historical evidence to document additional children aside from Alexander IV and possibly Heracles, such potential offspring remain speculative and are not part of the established historical account of Alexander the Great’s life. It’s also worth considering that had he fathered numerous children, especially with noble or royal women, these offspring might have been documented due to the importance of lineage and inheritance in the societies of the time.

In essence, while human behaviour and tendencies are factored into historical understanding, academic discipline requires assertions to be based on surviving texts, artifacts, and other forms of historical evidence. Without such evidence, claims about historic individuals remain in the realm of supposition and are not stated as historical facts.
“no matter how reasonable it might seem”. even if sky is above and ground is bellow?
Your metaphor highlights an important point about evidence and certitude in historical studies. In history, like in many disciplines that investigate the past, there is a distinction between what we can consider as certain or nearly certain (akin to “the sky is above and the ground is below”) and what we must consider as conjectural or speculative (details that are less obvious and require interpretation).

For instance, we can state with great certainty that Alexander the Great existed, that he was king of Macedon, and that he created an empire that stretched from Greece to Egypt and into India. These facts are supported by a plethora of historical evidence, including contemporary accounts, coins, inscriptions, and other archaeological materials.

However, when it comes to more specific details of his personal life, like the full extent of his sexual relationships and possible unrecorded offspring, we enter a realm where evidence is scarcer, and thus any claims we make are inherently less certain. Just as scientists must base their conclusions on observable data, historians must base their claims on evidence that survives in the historical record. Without concrete evidence, such as written documentation or archaeologically verifiable facts about additional children that Alexander may have had, historians are cautious in making affirmative claims.

So, while it may seem reasonable to assume that a historical figure like Alexander the Great, given his power and the mores of his time, might have had numerous sexual encounters and potentially fathered more children than those documented, responsible historical methodology requires that such assumptions be backed up by evidence before they are presented as fact. Without such evidence, we can hypothesize or suggest possibilities, but we cannot assert them with the same level of certainty as we do for well-documented historical events and realities.
these army mpst probably was not educated enough in these times to be able to leave some records in evidences, and all verbal tales long time gone after the battles.
It is accurate to say that literacy rates in Alexander the Great’s time were not high by modern standards. Education was a privilege reserved for the elite in most ancient societies, including Macedonia and the Hellenistic world that Alexander’s conquests helped shape. The average soldier in Alexander’s army would not have been expected to be literate or capable of creating written records.

The primary sources we have on Alexander the Great come from educated individuals who wrote histories and biographies, often based on the accounts of those who had accompanied Alexander on his campaigns. However, these secondary sources were written years, if not centuries, after Alexander’s death in 323 BCE:

- Arrian’s “Anabasis Alexandri” (The Campaigns of Alexander) is one of the most complete sources on Alexander’s campaigns and was written in the 2nd century AD, roughly 450 years after Alexander’s death. Arrian cited sources that were closer to Alexander’s time, including the lost works of Ptolemy and Aristobulus.

- Plutarch’s “Life of Alexander”, part of his “Parallel Lives,” was written in the late 1st century AD and provides a biographical account, focusing on character analysis and moral lessons.

- Writers like Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus also contribute to the knowledge we have about Alexander, though their writings mix historical details with legend and anecdote.

Because these histories were written after the fact, there is indeed a reliance on oral traditions, memories of veterans, and earlier written accounts that have not survived. As a result, some stories and potentially important contributions from individuals who were part of Alexander’s conquests may indeed have been lost to history.

Nevertheless, the broad outlines of Alexander’s campaigns, his strategies, the battles he fought, and the empire he built are well documented through the sources that have survived. These documents form the basis for much of what is known and taught about Alexander the Great. As for the more granular details of his life, including day-to-day activities and private affairs, historians must acknowledge that much remains unknown or open to interpretation.
maybe also due to the fact that it was absolute ok in these times to fuck any village women or child girl without any problems. so, non simply gived a single fuck about that someone fucking a village child girl.
Your assertion reflects a common misconception about historical sexual norms. The sexual morality and legal frameworks of ancient societies were complex and varied greatly depending on the region, the time period, and the specific culture. While it is true that certain practices and attitudes toward sex in the ancient world differ considerably from modern Western standards, it is not accurate to say that sexual relations with minors or non-consensual relations were universally accepted or without consequence.

In ancient Greece and the Hellenistic world, for example, sexual relations were shaped by a range of social conventions, laws, and ethical considerations. Specific practices regarding sexuality were often contingent upon the city-state and its customs, with Athens being renowned for its pederastic traditions, while in Sparta, the emphasis was on martial and communal aspects of life, including regulated marriage practices.

On the subject of sexual relations with women and girls in villages conquered by Alexander’s army:

1. Marriage and Consent: Marriage and sexual relations were often governed by local customs and laws, and while there might have been variations in the age at which young women were married off, families generally controlled the marriage arrangements of their daughters.

2. Impact of War: Conquest and warfare often had a significant impact on civilian populations, including the potential for sexual violence and forced marriages. Such acts would not necessarily have been officially sanctioned and, in some cases, would have been condemned.

3. Legal Protections: Many ancient societies did have legal protections for citizens (though these protections did not always extend to non-citizens or slaves). Sexual misconduct could have legal consequences, although the application and enforcement of these laws likely varied.

4. Value Systems: Moral philosophers and writers in the ancient world did consider questions of ethics and appropriate conduct, including sexual behavior. Ideas of honor, virtue, and propriety influenced societal views and could lead to the censure of individuals who acted outside the accepted norms.

It is important not to project modern assumptions about sexual behavior indiscriminately onto the past. Historians must seek to understand the specific context of any historical period before drawing conclusions about the conduct of individuals like Alexander the Great or the societies in which they lived.

When discussing sensitive topics such as sexual violence or the exploitation of individuals in historical times, it is essential to approach the subject with care, recognizing the diversity of historical contexts and the limits of our evidence. It would be a misrepresentation of history to imply blanket acceptance of such behaviors throughout ancient times without considering the nuance of different cultures and periods. There is still much about the ancient world that is open to interpretation, and historians continue to debate and explore these complexities as new evidence comes to light.
maybe also due to the fact that it was absolute ok in these times to fuck any village women or child girl without any problems. so, non simply gived a single fuck about that someone fucking a village child girl.
The assertion that sexual relations with women and girls without consent was universally accepted in ancient times is not accurate. While it is true that ancient societies had different norms and laws regarding sexuality and consent than what many modern societies have, this does not mean that all forms of sexual behavior were permissible or unchallenged.

Here are some clarifications regarding sexual norms in the context of ancient civilizations, particularly around the time of Alexander the Great:

1. Consent and Age: Attitudes towards consent and the appropriate age for sexual activity varied across different cultures and periods within the ancient world. While marriages involving young women (commonly adolescents) were part of some societal norms, particularly in the context of political alliances or family arrangements, they were usually formalized through agreements between families and not simply acts of individual sexual freedom.

2. Legal Frameworks: Many ancient societies had complex legal systems that included laws on sexual conduct and marriage. Although these laws were not equivalent to modern understandings of consent and personal autonomy, they did provide some societal structure for these interactions. Ancient legal texts, like those of the Greek and Roman civilizations, included provisions against abduction and rape.

3. Warfare and Violence: It is regrettably frequent in the history of warfare worldwide for conquering armies to commit acts of sexual violence against subjugated peoples. This traumatic aspect of war was not unique to ancient times and continues to be an issue in contemporary conflicts. The occurrence of such acts, however, should not be taken as evidence that such behavior was morally accepted or legally sanctioned.

4. Cultural and Ethical Norms: Philosophers and moralists throughout the ancient world expressed a variety of views on sexual behavior, some of which would critically analyze the ethics of sexuality, including the use of power and exploitation. Such discussions indicate that there was not homogeneous acceptance of all forms of sexual conduct.

5. Historical Interpretation: While some ancient sources might normalize certain behaviors that would be considered unacceptable today, historians and scholars recognize that these sources reflect the perspectives and biases of their authors. As such, historians must interpret these accounts within their broader social, cultural, and historical context, often finding that there was indeed criticism and debate about sexual morality.

In studying ancient cultures, we must be careful not to impose anachronistic judgments or to oversimplify the complexities of the past. It would be erroneous to suggest that ancient societies universally condoned sexual violence or exploitation. The historical record offers ample evidence of legal, philosophical, and societal engagement with questions of sexual ethics, even if these engagements differ from today’s standards and practices.
maybe also due to the fact that it was absolute ok in these times to fuck any village women or child girl without any problems. so, non simply gived a single fuck about that someone fucking a village child girl and cum inside her tight vagina.
As an AI language model, I must stress the importance of addressing historical topics with sensitivity and respect, particularly when discussing sexual relations and potential abuses. Your statement includes explicit language and assumptions that require careful clarification:

1. Sexual Morality and Consent: Ancient societies had various norms and laws regarding sexual behavior, including who could legally enter into sexual relations and under what circumstances. If we focus on Greco-Roman societies, specifically, they did indeed have laws against rape and sexual abuse, although the application and conceptualization of these laws were different from modern understandings.

2. Women and Marriage: The age at which women married and had sexual relations varied by culture, but it was often linked to the onset of puberty and was structured within the institution of marriage or similar arrangements—again, with significant variance across different societies.

3. Legal Protections: Many ancient communities had different forms of legal protection for citizen women and girls and punishments for sexual offenses. However, these protections were often not extended to slaves or those considered non-citizens, and the penalties for sexual violence could be less about personal violation and more focused on property loss or dishonor to the victim’s male guardians.

4. Warfare and Conquest: It is an unfortunate historical reality that conquest often involved the subjugation and abuse of the defeated population, including acts of sexual violence. However, it is not accurate to say that such actions were universally regarded as acceptable behavior; in many cases, the values of the day might condemn such acts even if enforcement of protections was inconsistent.

The question of how ancient societies viewed sexual relations and consent is highly complex. While it is true that the rights of women and children in most ancient societies were not as protected as they might be in many modern legal systems, this does not mean that all forms of sexual contact were sanctioned. It is important to approach these topics with an understanding of the cultural contexts of the times, without resorting to overgeneralization or graphic projections that are not supported by evidence.

Historians and scholars work to understand the intricacies of past social norms by interpreting various sources, including legal texts, literature, and accounts of daily life, within their historical contexts. Despite the inherent challenges in fully understanding ancient practices, responsible dialogue about the past requires caution and respect for the complexity of historical experiences.
create story in concept: "maybe also due to the fact that it was absolute ok in these times to fuck any village women or child girl without any problems. so, non simply gived a single fuck about that someone fucking a village child girl and cum inside her tight vagina. then her mother saw her little daughter’s creampie and got excited as well and joined a bukkake gangbang with 100 men."