- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 79,406
- Points
- 113
Basically Hokkien Zheng Chenggong the Great acknowledged then Taiwan to belong to China.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
What’s the difference between Hokkien Zheng Chenggong the Great and Alexander the Great?
- Thread starter ginfreely
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 79,406
- Points
- 113
As usual Hokkiens are too kind and too patriotic! Taiwan was founded by Hokkien hero Yan Siqi anyway so actually nothing wrong for Hokkiens to claim Taiwan to belong to Hokkiens in the first place.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,396
- Points
- 113
And both are faggots ..tat is why Taiwan is soo favourable to poofters n other weirdos...it's is after all ah Roy's new homeland
222,575 views|Feb 10, 2011,1:14 pm
Alexander The Great: Gay or Straight?
Bruce UpbinFormer Contributor
BookedContributor Group
I manage our technology coverage.
Thalestris, Queen of the Amazons, visits Alexander
Image via Wikipedia
(One in a series of conversations between historians James Romm [JR] and Paul A. Cartledge [PAC], editor and introduction-author, respectively, of the new Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, published by Pantheon under series editor Robert Strassler. This discussion was created by the Reading Odyssey, a non-profit that aims to reignite curiosity and lifelong learning for adults.
To celebrate the newly published Landmark edition of Arrian’s biography of Alexander the Great, the NYU Center for Ancient Studies and the Reading Odyssey are hosting a conference tonight (Feb 10, 2011) aimed at exploring why the writings of Arrian are central to our understanding of Alexander the Great and how the new Landmark edition will expand our understanding of Arrian. Click here for more info.)
PAUL CARTLEDGE Jamie, one aspect of Alexander’s life that still arouses huge controversy is what nowadays we’d call his sexuality or sexual identity. I remember that a rather conservative Greek lawyer, convinced that his ancient Greek hero must have been as red-bloodedly heterosexual as he, actually threatened to bring an injunction against Oliver Stone’s movie for portraying Alexander as engaging in sex with males. Personally, I think any attempt to categorise Alexander in terms of modern sexual identity is grossly anachronistic, but am I not right that Alexander probably did have sex with at least one male as well as with at least two females?
JAMES ROMM Well, I’m not sure whom you mean by the one male — Bagoas or Hephaestion? I’m guessing the former as the evidence for a sexual relationship is firmer than in the case of Hephaestion (where there is no real evidence, but plenty of assumptions). Even in the case of Bagoas – a eunuch given to Alexander as (dare I say it?) a boy toy by a Persian noble who wished to win his favor — there is some room for doubt, though I would venture to say he “counts” as a male object of Alexander’s sexual interest. As far as the women are concerned, I’d say two is a conservative count, assuming you mean the two women who bore Alexander’s children — Barsine, the half-Persian widow of the mercenary captain Memnon, and Rhoxane, Alexander’s first wife. But then, wouldn’t you say that Alexander’s marriages to Parysatis and Stateira, the second and third of his multiple wives, were also consummated (though how he pulled off the trick of a double wedding night, after wedding both women at the mass marriage ceremony in Susa in 324, is anyone’s guess)?
PC That was a bit of a teaser, I confess – but you got my drift absolutely right, on both sides of the blanket as it were. The evidence for actual sex with Bagoas is firmer than that for anything physical with Hephaestion, who may have been more of a ‘bosom buddy’ as we (used to?) say than a sexual partner. I’ll come back to Hephaestion. The relationship with Bagoas is simply extraordinary, isn’t it? He was a non-Greek non-man (as the Greeks saw it) – we know from Herodotus that ordinary Greeks had a peculiar culturally driven horror of the trade in eunuchs: a Greek slave trader called Panionius (the ‘all-Ionian’!) was into this business, which Herodotus condemned as ‘unholy’. So Alexander, in having an openly acknowledged sexual relationship with him, would have been transgressing all sorts of cultural-political boundaries. I’m inclined to believe he did – and to admire him for it. As for Alexander’s women, I’d also agree that two was a conservative estimate… even not counting the alleged one-night stand with an Amazon! But note again that three of those you mention were oriental – two noble Persian, one (Rhoxane) noble Sogdian, and one (Barsine) half-Persian – and note too that, as in the case of Bagoas, there was politics deeply er embedded with the sex.
JR Well as long as we’re correcting the scoreboard, let me note briefly that the “one-night stand” you refer to was actually thirteen nights – Sex between a world conquering man (Alexander) and an Amazon woman (Thalestris) being presumably more long-lasting and sensational than any ordinary lovemaking. But Arrian and Plutarch both rightly dismissed the tale as a fiction. Speaking of which, I should note, for the benefit of readers of the new Landmark Arrian, that they will not find Bagoas mentioned anywhere in Arrian’s narrative (OUR Bagoas, that is; a different Persian by the same name is mentioned in Book 2). The omission, together with the sensational nature of the stories told by Plutarch and the vulgate sources, prompted at least one modern historian (Sir William Tarn) to dismiss Bagoas as another fiction, as insubstantial as Thalestris. The evidence is carefully reviewed by Daniel Ogden in an article in the volume Alexander the Great: A New History (edd. Heckel and Tritle, 2009) — bearing out the title of the anthology by giving the first-ever in-depth discussion of Alexander’s sex life, that I am aware of. Does anyone today still follow Tarn in questioning Bagoas’ existence? And, to turn in a slightly different direction, what did you think of Oliver Stone’s use of Bagoas, and treatment of Alexander’s sexuality, in the film Alexander?
PC I stand corrected on Alexander’s Amazonian congress (13 nights, precisely, not a ‘one-night stand’, of course) – though with these fabulous tales once can never quite be sure, can we? And I take Oliver Stone’s Alexander movie to be one long fabulous tale, even though he tried to get the facts right, because the facts of Alexander’s life annoyingly just won’t stand up to be counted. In general, he took the Oxford ancient historian and Alexander-specialist Robin Lane Fox as his mentor and guide – but then his (Oliver’s) romantic instincts got the better of him when his Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) descended on Babylon. Yet, to give Stone his due, he was prepared to take on the chin the welter of homophobic criticism he received for depicting his hero in close homoerotic encounter with the Persian eunuch. And not just with him. At the risk of upsetting Hephaestion’s largely female fan-club (I mean the ancient personage Hephaestion, not his filmic avatar, Jared Leto) I’d say Stone was probably also right to imagine that Alexander had had sex with his boon companion Hephaestion, at any rate when they were younger. For ancient Greeks there was no contradiction between youthful homoeroticism and predominantly or wholly heterosexual adult proclivity and activity. It was ‘all so unimaginably different’ then, as Classicist poet Louis Macneice wrote in 1939, and ‘all so long ago’. (Interested readers may care to consult further a book I co-edited with Fiona Greenland, *Responses to Oliver’s Stone’s Alexander* [University of Wisconsin Press, 2010])
JR Whatever he may have got right or wrong about Hephaestion, Stone took some very big liberties in making a jealous Rhoxane responsible for Hephaestion’s death — an idea for which there is no evidence or even speculation in the ancient sources, to my knowledge, although there is a pictorial tradition in which Hephaestion looks on rather scornfully at the moment when Alexander first falls in love with Rhoxane (see the Rotari canvas pictured above). It’s curious that Rhoxane, who seems to have been a rather passive figure historically, has been turned into a Medea by some modern interpreters — a recent book even accuses her of murdering Alexander! But that’s looking ahead to our next blog topic, my current preoccupation: the theories about what caused Alexander’s death.
Bruce Upbin
I'm a managing editor at Forbes, overseeing our technology coverage online and in print. I started as a reporter here in 1995 and worked as Midwest bureau chief before…Read More
Loading ...
Grads of Life BrandVoice: The Best Way To Rejuvenate Rural America? Invest In Rural America.
CONSUMER TECH#iPhoneVsGalaxy
Apple Just Gave 1.4 Billion Users A Reason To Quit Their iPads, iPhones
© 2019 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AdChoicesPrivacy StatementTerms and ConditionsContact UsJobs At ForbesReprints & PermissionsForbes Press RoomAdvertise
222,575 views|Feb 10, 2011,1:14 pm
Alexander The Great: Gay or Straight?
Bruce UpbinFormer Contributor
BookedContributor Group
I manage our technology coverage.
Thalestris, Queen of the Amazons, visits Alexander
Image via Wikipedia
(One in a series of conversations between historians James Romm [JR] and Paul A. Cartledge [PAC], editor and introduction-author, respectively, of the new Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, published by Pantheon under series editor Robert Strassler. This discussion was created by the Reading Odyssey, a non-profit that aims to reignite curiosity and lifelong learning for adults.
To celebrate the newly published Landmark edition of Arrian’s biography of Alexander the Great, the NYU Center for Ancient Studies and the Reading Odyssey are hosting a conference tonight (Feb 10, 2011) aimed at exploring why the writings of Arrian are central to our understanding of Alexander the Great and how the new Landmark edition will expand our understanding of Arrian. Click here for more info.)
PAUL CARTLEDGE Jamie, one aspect of Alexander’s life that still arouses huge controversy is what nowadays we’d call his sexuality or sexual identity. I remember that a rather conservative Greek lawyer, convinced that his ancient Greek hero must have been as red-bloodedly heterosexual as he, actually threatened to bring an injunction against Oliver Stone’s movie for portraying Alexander as engaging in sex with males. Personally, I think any attempt to categorise Alexander in terms of modern sexual identity is grossly anachronistic, but am I not right that Alexander probably did have sex with at least one male as well as with at least two females?
JAMES ROMM Well, I’m not sure whom you mean by the one male — Bagoas or Hephaestion? I’m guessing the former as the evidence for a sexual relationship is firmer than in the case of Hephaestion (where there is no real evidence, but plenty of assumptions). Even in the case of Bagoas – a eunuch given to Alexander as (dare I say it?) a boy toy by a Persian noble who wished to win his favor — there is some room for doubt, though I would venture to say he “counts” as a male object of Alexander’s sexual interest. As far as the women are concerned, I’d say two is a conservative count, assuming you mean the two women who bore Alexander’s children — Barsine, the half-Persian widow of the mercenary captain Memnon, and Rhoxane, Alexander’s first wife. But then, wouldn’t you say that Alexander’s marriages to Parysatis and Stateira, the second and third of his multiple wives, were also consummated (though how he pulled off the trick of a double wedding night, after wedding both women at the mass marriage ceremony in Susa in 324, is anyone’s guess)?
PC That was a bit of a teaser, I confess – but you got my drift absolutely right, on both sides of the blanket as it were. The evidence for actual sex with Bagoas is firmer than that for anything physical with Hephaestion, who may have been more of a ‘bosom buddy’ as we (used to?) say than a sexual partner. I’ll come back to Hephaestion. The relationship with Bagoas is simply extraordinary, isn’t it? He was a non-Greek non-man (as the Greeks saw it) – we know from Herodotus that ordinary Greeks had a peculiar culturally driven horror of the trade in eunuchs: a Greek slave trader called Panionius (the ‘all-Ionian’!) was into this business, which Herodotus condemned as ‘unholy’. So Alexander, in having an openly acknowledged sexual relationship with him, would have been transgressing all sorts of cultural-political boundaries. I’m inclined to believe he did – and to admire him for it. As for Alexander’s women, I’d also agree that two was a conservative estimate… even not counting the alleged one-night stand with an Amazon! But note again that three of those you mention were oriental – two noble Persian, one (Rhoxane) noble Sogdian, and one (Barsine) half-Persian – and note too that, as in the case of Bagoas, there was politics deeply er embedded with the sex.
JR Well as long as we’re correcting the scoreboard, let me note briefly that the “one-night stand” you refer to was actually thirteen nights – Sex between a world conquering man (Alexander) and an Amazon woman (Thalestris) being presumably more long-lasting and sensational than any ordinary lovemaking. But Arrian and Plutarch both rightly dismissed the tale as a fiction. Speaking of which, I should note, for the benefit of readers of the new Landmark Arrian, that they will not find Bagoas mentioned anywhere in Arrian’s narrative (OUR Bagoas, that is; a different Persian by the same name is mentioned in Book 2). The omission, together with the sensational nature of the stories told by Plutarch and the vulgate sources, prompted at least one modern historian (Sir William Tarn) to dismiss Bagoas as another fiction, as insubstantial as Thalestris. The evidence is carefully reviewed by Daniel Ogden in an article in the volume Alexander the Great: A New History (edd. Heckel and Tritle, 2009) — bearing out the title of the anthology by giving the first-ever in-depth discussion of Alexander’s sex life, that I am aware of. Does anyone today still follow Tarn in questioning Bagoas’ existence? And, to turn in a slightly different direction, what did you think of Oliver Stone’s use of Bagoas, and treatment of Alexander’s sexuality, in the film Alexander?
PC I stand corrected on Alexander’s Amazonian congress (13 nights, precisely, not a ‘one-night stand’, of course) – though with these fabulous tales once can never quite be sure, can we? And I take Oliver Stone’s Alexander movie to be one long fabulous tale, even though he tried to get the facts right, because the facts of Alexander’s life annoyingly just won’t stand up to be counted. In general, he took the Oxford ancient historian and Alexander-specialist Robin Lane Fox as his mentor and guide – but then his (Oliver’s) romantic instincts got the better of him when his Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) descended on Babylon. Yet, to give Stone his due, he was prepared to take on the chin the welter of homophobic criticism he received for depicting his hero in close homoerotic encounter with the Persian eunuch. And not just with him. At the risk of upsetting Hephaestion’s largely female fan-club (I mean the ancient personage Hephaestion, not his filmic avatar, Jared Leto) I’d say Stone was probably also right to imagine that Alexander had had sex with his boon companion Hephaestion, at any rate when they were younger. For ancient Greeks there was no contradiction between youthful homoeroticism and predominantly or wholly heterosexual adult proclivity and activity. It was ‘all so unimaginably different’ then, as Classicist poet Louis Macneice wrote in 1939, and ‘all so long ago’. (Interested readers may care to consult further a book I co-edited with Fiona Greenland, *Responses to Oliver’s Stone’s Alexander* [University of Wisconsin Press, 2010])
JR Whatever he may have got right or wrong about Hephaestion, Stone took some very big liberties in making a jealous Rhoxane responsible for Hephaestion’s death — an idea for which there is no evidence or even speculation in the ancient sources, to my knowledge, although there is a pictorial tradition in which Hephaestion looks on rather scornfully at the moment when Alexander first falls in love with Rhoxane (see the Rotari canvas pictured above). It’s curious that Rhoxane, who seems to have been a rather passive figure historically, has been turned into a Medea by some modern interpreters — a recent book even accuses her of murdering Alexander! But that’s looking ahead to our next blog topic, my current preoccupation: the theories about what caused Alexander’s death.
Bruce Upbin
I'm a managing editor at Forbes, overseeing our technology coverage online and in print. I started as a reporter here in 1995 and worked as Midwest bureau chief before…Read More
Loading ...
Grads of Life BrandVoice: The Best Way To Rejuvenate Rural America? Invest In Rural America.
CONSUMER TECH#iPhoneVsGalaxy
Apple Just Gave 1.4 Billion Users A Reason To Quit Their iPads, iPhones
© 2019 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AdChoicesPrivacy StatementTerms and ConditionsContact UsJobs At ForbesReprints & PermissionsForbes Press RoomAdvertise
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 103,107
- Points
- 113
Taiwan didn't belong to the Ming dynasty. In fact, many areas of the People's Republic of China were never under the dominion of the Han Chinese.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,396
- Points
- 113
Well said..ah tiong land should only encompass the boundaries of the Song DynastyTaiwan didn't belong to the Ming dynasty. In fact, many areas of the People's Republic of China were never under the dominion of the Han Chinese.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 79,406
- Points
- 113
No, like I said before in one of my previous threads, Taiwan was founded by Hokkiens and only become part of China from Qing dynasty onwards. However, the Hokkien founder and immigrants to Taiwan then were Ming subjects and obviously they, including Zheng Chenggong, viewed China as fatherland and Taiwan as belonging to China.Taiwan didn't belong to the Ming dynasty. In fact, many areas of the People's Republic of China were never under the dominion of the Han Chinese.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 79,406
- Points
- 113
Actually Zheng Chenggong was more than Ming subject I.e he was Ming loyalist helping to restore Ming dynasty long after it was ended officially.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 79,406
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 79,406
- Points
- 113
UPDATE OF HOKKIEN TRIUMPH TOP AWARDS!
In this 222++ days, Hokkiens have been proven to be TOP loyalist, TOP city founder, TOP creative, TOP warriors, TOP angels, TOP educators, TOP patriots, TOP philanthropists, TOP scholars, TOP traders, TOP war heroes fighting invaders, TOP country/colony founder, TOP university founder, TOP tea producer, TOP catalyst, TOP shipbuilders, TOP world port, TOP canon maker/repairer, TOP non-racist tolerant and welcoming of foreigners, TOP acculturators, TOP influencer, TOP pioneer filmmaker, TOP keeper of native concubines I.e TOP wealthy, TOP businessmen with economic dominance that sparked a riot, TOP achiever that punched above our weight despite our relatively small population!!!
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 79,406
- Points
- 113
Similar threads
