Hephaistion in the mosaic?

Discuss the culture of Alexander's world and his image in art

Moderator: pothos moderators

jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Value Thanksme

Post by jan »

Actually, this is a good study. In a sense, I would almost agree, but as art is for the purpose of propaganda, the artist knows usually exactly why he is making his composition . I have always been struck by the fact that King Darius is really the central figure in this portrait since Alexander is portrayed as dashing in from the left.

I did look closely and I do see that it is a plume with a helmet. That is very defined so it is a special person who is in position and I can concur with Fiona's reasoning so that Fiona would think it could be Hephaestion.

The plume is what stands out to me, as only Alexander has ever been portrayed wearing a plume in most portraits that I have seen. Usually, it designates his royal status.

Again, since Alexander is famous for having said at that very battle when meeting with Sisygambis that Hephaestion is also Alexander that Fiona again has a good argument for thinking it may be Hephaestion. But I doubt that bodyguards would have been quite so obvious. I am wondering now at what the original painter is trying to convey in this statement.

I want to point out the big brown horse in the center of the portrait as while watching Big Brown win his two races recently, this horse caught my attention as being very much like Big Brown in appearance. I am hoping that Big Brown will win the triple and I will always associate it with this mosaic. I remember that Fleet Alex won his race recently right after I became a moderator of Alexander-Macedon. The world of horseracing is very superstitious.

Thanks, again, Fiona, for an interesting discussion. I suppose a study of plumes worn by whom on helmets would help to better understand this portrait. And surely, with all the collective body of brilliant Alexander minds here someone will elucidate.

In France, the white plume is the symbol of Royalty and I know that nobody was ever allowed to go out in front of a French king when hunting or in parade or in battle.

But as artwork, Bernini did write that the artist depicts his subjects for his own purposes of information. The artist controls the message. Thus, we have a wide-eyed Alexander and a shocked King Darius. The fallen soldiers also relay a very powerful and strong message. For a fact,the distance between King Darius and Alexander was heightened by all the dead and wounded that lay between them.

I suspect that Alexander's golden locks became brown due to dirt and grime, as that seems to indicate some kind of struggle that cost Alexander his helmet and plume, so it makes it even more interesting to see it on another... Maybe the tiles discolored over time...
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Value Thanksme

Post by amyntoros »

jan wrote:The plume is what stands out to me, as only Alexander has ever been portrayed wearing a plume in most portraits that I have seen. Usually, it designates his royal status. . . .
Alexander is recorded in the sources as having worn a double-plumed helmet; i.e., two tall plumes on either side. This probably made him easier to distinguish during a battle.
Thanks, again, Fiona, for an interesting discussion. I suppose a study of plumes worn by whom on helmets would help to better understand this portrait . . .
Horsehair plumes were ubiquitous in ancient Greece, especially on Corinthian helmets, but I believe these helmets were pretty much out of fashion by Alexander's time (it was difficult to see or hear when wearing one). However many Thracian helmets were also crested, sometimes with horsehair, sometimes with feathers, and sometimes with extra feathers on either side. (The latter according to the Osprey book on Thracians.) Of course it doesn't follow that the figure in front of Alexander is a Thracian and there may be other helmets of the period which also had plumes or crests, but the fact that the figure's helmet bears a plume isn't a means to identification.
... Maybe the tiles discolored over time...
I believe the tessarae are tiny pieces of stone, not colored tiles. :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

When it comes to propaganda, I think folks might be looking a little too much into it.

Even if it was commissioned for Kassandros, reason stands that the audience that would have enjoyed this piece would have enough basic knowledge of warfare to understand that Alexander would not necessarily have been at the forefront of each battle. I doubt that the trouble was taken to shatter a misconception the viewers would not have possessed to begin with. Heck, Ptolemy himself in his own memoirs didn't bother to ofuscate the fact that plenty of men died in the Granicus prior to Alexander's heroic charge.

Similarly, the "Philotas looking over his shoulder" charge seems like a bit grasping at straws. Alexander is the center of the mosaic. The majority of the surviving figures, the charioteer being the most obvious exception, face at Alexander and, as a former art major, I doubt that's an accident. There's the plumed figure whose face is obscured, there is another helmeted hetairos looking back at Alexander and then there is a final helmeted figure whose face if obscured but, due to the lines suggested by the colors, I'd bet money is also glancing 3/4 profile backwards. They are, IMHO, merely adhering to the artist's intent by drawing attention to the focal point of the mural: all eyes on Alexander.

Sure, in a battle a man would be a fool to look back at the moment of impact, but this is art. Alexander would also be a colossal fool to lead his only visible men against a solid spear wall and not the huge gap at the forefront, right? ;)

So why would Kassandros bother to have art that glorified a man he bore no love with? Well, how about the fact that the dead man had transcended personal politics? Ptolemaios would have had no reason to steal the king's body unless it carried some importance. Eumenes' theatrics, a-la Alexander's throne room, the soldiers' mourning when the king died, etc... All those imply on at least some level that Kassandros would have been doing the equivalent of burying his head in the sand if he was going to play at not acknowledging that something great and awesome had been done by the dead king.

Oh, and as far as Macedonian casualties in Asia are concerned? We would do well to remember this: Alexander was a prodigious killer of Greeks, that much is true... but it would be pointless to try to hang on him Macedonian losses via art... at a time when his Successors were so busy setting their armies against one another.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Value Thanksme

Post by Paralus »

jan wrote:I did look closely and I do see that it is a plume with a helmet. That is very defined so it is a special person who is in position and I can concur with Fiona's reasoning so that Fiona would think it could be Hephaestion.

The plume is what stands out to me, as only Alexander has ever been portrayed wearing a plume in most portraits that I have seen. Usually, it designates his royal status.
With respect I don't believe it necessarily indicates anything of the sort. Several phrygian helmets have been unearthed with 'receptacles' for "plumes" of one sort or another. Phoebus is spot on with the view that, at bottom, this is art - not literal fact - and that Alexander is, as is natural, the focal point of the piece. It is he, chargingto his left, that occasions the flight of the Great King. There are inconsistencies in the mosaic which indicate the fact that it has been inaccurately rendered from the original painting or frescoe.

All that aside, the individual may just as easily be the commander of the Royal Squadron, Clietus. He may just as easily be Philotas or any other squadron leader.

Much has also been made of the fellow off Alexander's shoulder. He too has a plume in his helmet and so may be Hephaestion, Philotas, Clietus or another. It is argued by some that he is a hypapspist in amongst the cavalry and is wielding a dory. Given that his head is on a level commensurate with the rearing Beucephalus, tall fellow is all I can say.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Value Thanksme

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:Much has also been made of the fellow off Alexander's shoulder. He too has a plume in his helmet and so may be Hephaestion, Philotas, Clietus or another. It is argued by some that he is a hypapspist in amongst the cavalry and is wielding a dory. Given that his head is on a level commensurate with the rearing Beucephalus, tall fellow is all I can say.
Or he may be Aristander - this according to Paolo Moreno in Apelles: The Alexander Mosaic who makes reference to Plutarch's description of Aristander at Gaugamela:
Plutarch 33.2 Aristander the seer, too, wearing a white mantle and having a crown of gold upon his head, rode along the ranks pointing out to them an eagle which soared above the head of Alexander and directed his flight straight against the enemy, at which sight great courage filled the beholders, and after mutual encouragement and exhortation the cavalry charged at full speed upon the enemy and the phalanx rolled on after them like a flood.
Moreno then draws our attention to the fact that the figure off Alexander's shoulder is wearing a gold crown around his helmet.

I know it's hard to imagine Aristander in the thick of battle, but we probably shouldn't read too much in the way of narrative into this picture. I.e., if the artist wanted to portray Aristander then he had no place else to put him but in the middle of the fighting. Moreno's theory stands above the others, IMO - I can't think who else amongst the Macedonians would be wearing a crown during the battle and/or this early in the campaign. Unless, that is, Cassander had himself inserted into the painting! :lol: :lol:


I was going to recommend that Pothosians who are interested also take a look at Ada Cohen's book on The Alexander Mosaic but it looks like it has gone out of print since I bought it and the used copies now begin at around $118. As Flavor Flav would say .... Wowwwww!

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Value Thanksme

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:I know it's hard to imagine Aristander in the thick of battle, but we probably shouldn't read too much in the way of narrative into this picture. I.e., if the artist wanted to portray Aristander then he had no place else to put him but in the middle of the fighting.
Yes it often pays not to be too literal with art. Particularly a copy.I had wondered at the wreath.

That said, to address Jan's comment above regaring the use of the plume, the frieze in the tomb at Aghios Athanasios includes a wonderfully rendered symposium scene. Part of that scene depicts Macedonian soldiers in the normal attire: leather boots; chlamydes; kausia and starburst shields. Two are neither helmeted nor wearing the kausia. Two others are wearing phrygian lobed helmets - both adorned with plumes either side. They are in the bottom shot of three in the scanned image in this Picasa folder.

I doubt they are royalty on guard.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Thanks, Paralus

Post by jan »

I took a look at the slideshow and saw your two figures. Thanks for that. Very interesting as granted these are depictions of attire at the time so I wonder at how they are described. I found the portraits very small to study well but very interesting to contgemplate. Their sheilds and uniforms were impressive as well. They certainly designate a special status of some kind. Maybe they are bodyguards after all. Somewhere there must be an explanation. Alexander is usually depicted with white plumes also and described as such. Nobody can deny his royal status so I would imagine that to wear a white plume is quite an honor.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Thanks, Paralus

Post by Paralus »

jan wrote: Very interesting as granted these are depictions of attire at the time so I wonder at how they are described... Their sheilds and uniforms were impressive as well. They certainly designate a special status of some kind. Maybe they are bodyguards after all... Alexander is usually depicted with white plumes also and described as such. Nobody can deny his royal status so I would imagine that to wear a white plume is quite an honor.
They are described exactly as what they are: soldiers. They lean on their dorys and carry an aspis-like shileds (the fellow holding his , if he is 180cm tall, has a 75cm shield). The tomb is fairly reliably dated to the last quarter of the fourth century: a gold quarter stater of Philip II in situ helping there). It is not a royal tomb (being in Thessaloniki) and then most likely that of an important Macedonian army officer: someone who has risen to the status of a Craterus, Philotas, Parmenion, Coenus or the like.

The meaning of the plumes is anyone's guess. Officer status has been suggested but it might simply come down to personal whim. As the others are sans helmet or wearing kausias, we do not know if their helmets are likewise plumed.

Either way, it is abundantly clear that such plumes were not reserved to those of "royal" status.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

I have to agree with that. Plumes, horse-hair crests, etc., had long been a staple of various Greco-Roman soldiers (among others), mounted or infantry, of both the richer and more common classes. Such items, IMHO, are not, in and of themselves, necessarily indicative of high status.

I'd pay far more attention to the lavish detail writers like Arrian heap on Alexander's overall panoply. In a description given prior to the battle of Issus, for example, the king's cuirass, jeweled gorget, lavish helmet and prized sword, etc., all stand as much more qualified evidence of what would identify a royal/important person in the field of battle.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Thanks, Paralus

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:Either way, it is abundantly clear that such plumes were not reserved to those of "royal" status.
It is indeed clear. This site has an abundance of ancient portrayals of dual plumed helmets - and some archaeological findings as well. They're all from Italy rather than Greece, but several date close to Alexander's lifetime indicating that their use must have been quite widespread.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

HeThe phaestion

Post by jan »

In Nick Sekunda and John Warry's book, page 60, is the following paragraph. On the opposite page are samples of helmets with and without plumes. I have also ordered Peter Tsouras's book on Alexander due to this discussion.

"The life of Hephaestion was almost coextensive with Alexander's own life, and he retained Alexander's confidence and affection throughout. Yet he was never a distinguished commander in battle, being mentioned mainly in connection with ancillary services, transport, and communications. "

"Parmenio's three sons also served with the Macedonian army under Alexander. Philotas as a dashing young calvary officer, Nicanor in command of infantry, while Hector was still too young for any command."

The plumes on page 61 are quite distinctive and distinguished, showing that the headdress for the chief would be completely different from those of probably other officers.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: HeThe phaestion

Post by Paralus »

jan wrote:In Nick Sekunda and John Warry's book, page 60, is the following paragraph. On the opposite page are samples of helmets with and without plumes. ..

...The plumes on page 61 are quite distinctive and distinguished, showing that the headdress for the chief would be completely different from those of probably other officers.
Forgive me as I can sometimes be dense - especially in the morning - but what do those two lines, dealing with headress, have to with the rest of the post which is about Hephaestion and Parmenio's sons?
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Big Brown and Mosaic

Post by jan »

:roll: Well, Big Brown went bust at the Belmont. I have written a lengthy explanation of what happened at the Belmont in mydeardiary, author's name demeterpersephone, for anyone who is interested in my thoughts about horses and Big Brown. Since I mentioned the resemblance between Big Brown and the horse in the mosaic, which probably will appeal only to Darthajax, anyway, I have to admit that on Belmont Day Big Brown failed to deliver to capture the crown.l

Alexander the Great was mentioned along with a picture of one his busts on ABC t.v that day. I found that interesting to say the least.

So far, the only time horses have won the triple crown is when I am living in the eastern half of the nation, east of the Mississippi as the Marines like to say. I wondered if this would be the year that that oddity would come to an end, but no, once again, no horse has yet been able to win three successive races to capture the crown.

That last paragraph is for Steven Pressfield...
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Hephaistion in the mosaic?

Post by Alexias »

I was trying to figure what this topic was about. Obviously the internet has changed a lot in the last 10 years, so here is a link to the Alexander mosaic from Pompeii https://cosmolearning.org/images_dir/ed ... s/1023.jpg. I'll leave it to you to decide if the figure wearing the white plumed helmet outlined against the tree is meant to be anyone in particular - I think it is just wishful thinking on Fiona's part. Also, the figure is not ahead of Alexander but on a different plane in the background, and was probably just a general figure filling in a compositional gap and representing the crush of battle. The white plume also does not necessarily signify an officer as the horseman just to the left of Alexander also has a white plume. The white plume may have signified Alexander's bodyguard. The figure is also unlikely to be anyone in particular as it is largely obscured by the shield-bearing Persian attacking Alexander, whom the horseman to Alexander's left appears to be about to dispatch with his spear.
User avatar
Susa the Great
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:36 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro

Odd thing about the Mosaic

Post by Susa the Great »

Hello

I was searching for the labrys thingy about the guy to the left in the Stag Hunt mosaic (someone said it is Hephaistion, because of the double-edge ax, which is an attribute for the god Hephaistos -- where this 'Hephaistion' name may have originated from, as the temple to this god is called Hephaisteion and blah blah blah), when I came across the famous Alexander Mosaic in Pompey.

It's a very good resolution one (wiki). So I zoomed in and out.

So, as I was looking at the A mosaic, I thought: why the heck the macedonians are depicted in such a small number, and the spears (a few too) are all down, while the persians are in greater number and the spears are up, and the whole thing focus on them, wth? Also --- the macedonians are smashed against the end of the left side.... So so odd. And Alexander is so so lower than Darius...

I say this because ages ago I had this Art HIstory classes, and the teacher said that, in Art, the winners are depicted with spears or swords up, while the loosers are all dismantled and low crested...

So I was wondering.... Why the pathos on this mosaic is in the persian side? Maybe someone who hated the fact that the victory was all Al's, and nonetheless asked for it to be made, maybe as a "haha, you won that day, but at least in this painting I can make your company look so small and dismantled! Here you win like a third-class warrior, while Darius loses in great style *draculesque laugh* " ( Art can be that magic, mate). After all, wasn't the original painting a comission by Cassander? *large large grin*

Also: do you know that famous 'dying persian' whose image is mirrored in that shield? Doesn't he look like a westerner instead? Look at the persians: they are darker. That one is rosy and whiter....

This mosaic is giving me the creeps! Maybe the mirror guy is the comissioner? :O

Any thoughts?

Ah, and as an afterthought, I don't think Hephaistion would have been in a depiction of that Issos frey because the sources mention him only after, in that visit to the persian tent with the women. I understand nevertheless, I used to be like that too -- wherever Alexander was, Hep was with him. But no Hep in Issos, I think.
Come live forever with me, or transpire / a flame alone on a funeral pire / We'll build an empire if we so desire, travel the world, and set it on fire.
Post Reply