Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

Thalia
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:45 am

Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Thalia »

Hello all,

I've been browsing this wonderful website after having been recently been stirred to reread Renault's trilogy and the Alexander histories I own (Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius)....anyway, some random thoughts about which I was curious to hear some other Alexandrophiles response.

Renault strongly hints Alexander saw the way things went down with his father and mother (the jealousies among Philip's wives, Philip's notorious philandering with anything on two legs, finally culminating in being assassinated by an ex-lover), and just said, "Heck, NO!" That after seeing all that, Alexander intentionally chose to be extremely discreet with his liaisons in order to avoid such scandals ever erupting around Alexander himself. This seems a not implausible idea.

Now, it has occurred to me that extreme discretion would also be the best way to protect Hephaistion's reputation from jibes that Hephaistion had earned his position by his performance in Alexander's bed. Given the mores of Philip's court, that Hephaistion was reputed good-looking, was close to Alexander from their youth, and had an extraordinary elevation in rank by pretty much any measure, an enemy of Hephaistion might naturally have come up with that jibe. And I think if Alexander loved Hephaistion, he would have wanted to do what he could to cut off that kind of gossip. And would be quite careful of how he treated Hephaistion publically, again for Hephaistion's own sake if nothing else. I mean, I think it in most people's nature to want those they love to be thought well of by others, or at the very least, to not be scorned. So my feeling is Hephaistion wouldn't have gotten a racy (?) kiss in front of a bunch of cheering soldiers as Bagoas did because well, firstly, Heph was a high-ranking lord so the soldiers wouldn't have dared (at least not without a lot of unmixed wine), but even if they had dared(!), Alexander wouldn't have done it because it would have placed Hephaistion too much in the role of a mere sexual object. A role which was OK for a eunuch, but completely unacceptable for Alexander's Chiliarch/right hand man. Am I wrong in thinking that by the mores of the society, Hephaistion's social rank would be incompatible with openly acknowledging that they were physically involved at least after a certain age (especially given that Heph would have been seen as the necessarily passive/receptive partner due to difference in social rank)? And jibes about how Hephaistion got to his position would have a lot more punch behind them if Alexander went about flaunting a physical relationship with Hephaistion past the "proper" age. I especially think one would be conscious of how one's lover was perceived if the lover was seen as an extension of one's own self as Alexander gave signs he did in regards Hephaistion.

There are many instances cited in the sources of Alexander giving public signs of favor to Hephaistion: the sacrifices at Troy, the "He too is Alexander" comment to Sisygambis, the story about Alexander touching his ring to Hephaistion's lips in regards to Alexander's letters, Hephiasiton holding the highest military rank and the Chiliarchy both even after all Alex's apparent concern about concentration of power (was he still commander of the bodyguard too? even if just an honorary position an even bigger sign of favor to hold all three), the marriage to Drypetis, the ways Alex honored Heph after Heph's death.

One of the things about most of these signs of favor is that they don't convey to me "Hey this is my lover" as much as rather "Hey, this is my right hand/my number two/my alter ego/my other self/the sharer of my secrets in whom I trust implicitly." Especially the interaction with Sisygambis, the bit about touching the seal to Hephaistion's lips, and the mirroring of Alex's marriage to Stateira in Heph's marriage to Drypetis seem to me to be very much about sending the message that Hephaistion is a "second Alexander." I think the idea that Alex wanted Heph to be viewed in this "He is my other self" way is greatly reinforced by the things done after Heph's death: extinguishing the sacred fire which was only done at the death of the king himself (this to me is perhaps the most poignant and telling tribute Alex gave Heph :( ), the incineration of royal robes on Hephaistion's pyre as if to symbolize Alex himself being immolated, the desire to have Heph deified in which again I see Alex trying to mirror his own deification by raising Heph up to be a god as well. Indeed, the very scale of the mourning seems to have been deliberately designed to propagate the idea that the King himself had died. I mean this was by all accounts a funeral to put all other funerals ever to shame. I have read that the 10,000 talents of gold Alex spent on Hephaistion's funeral is estimated conservatively to be the equivalent of 25 tons of gold equating to a modern day sum of over one billion dollars :!: . And that doesn't even include the cost of the funeral games Alex ordered, the sacrifices made on Heph's behalf, etc. :shock:

Among the public signs of favor Alexander bestowed, the one that mainly stands out to me as conveying a qualitatively different sort of message than the rest is the sacrifice at Troy. Is it perhaps significant that the sacrifice at Troy took place when Alex and Heph were still comparatively young (would they have been early twenties when they first crossed to Asia?) and not so far removed from when a physical component to the relationship would have been socially acceptable? Perhaps, Alexander intentionally moved away from signs that could be interpreted as signaling Heph's status as his favorite for personal reasons and instead towards signs that Heph was "a second Alexander" as the years went by and the potential damage to Heph's reputation became more of a concern? Though of course, when Heph died, Alex did many things to identify them with Achilles/Patroklos (cutting his hair, burning Heph, murdering the Cosseians (sp?) as a sacrifice to Heph's spirit) so perhaps I am all wet with this idea? Or perhaps, if one is a romantic, Alex in his grief just didn't give a fig anymore about being discreet.

What if Alexander had lived to carry out his plans to memorialize Hephaistion? If Alexander had lived to old age? We know Alexander planned to build lasting monuments to Hephaistion. They never came to be as all of Alex's memorial plans were abandoned by Alexander's generals in the succession wars that followed Alex's death. However, the sources give plenty of hints that the monuments planned were as extravagant as only a man who drops twenty-five tons of gold on a funeral can make them.

Plutarch says Alexander wished to employ Stasicrates to design Heph's tomb, and Alex chose Stasicrates because "this artist was famous for his innovations, which combined an exceptional degree of magnificence, audacity, and ostentation." Stasicrates is the same guy who proposed carving a statue of Alex out of Mount Athos and though Alex had declined that offer, after Heph's death, Plutarch says "Alexander...now spent his time with his engineers and architects planning projects which were even more outlandish and extravagant." Plutarch seems to be implying that these projects are related to memorializing Heph.

Then there's the letter to Cleomenes cited in Arrian that indicates Alexander planned two shrines for Hephaistion to be built in Alexandria/Pharos. The shrines were "to be of great size and built regardless of expense." That sounds like it would have been a pretty grand memorial: two shrines no expense spared framing Alexandria's harbor. I think its no accident that Alexander wanted these shrines built in the city Alexander had founded with the intent of it becoming the great port-city of the Mediterranean?

(Side question- does anyone know what happened to Hephaistion's ashes after he was burned? Was it even intended for the ashes to be gathered given how huge the pyre was? If the ashes were never intended to be gathered, does anyone know what was meant to be Hephaistion's symbolic final resting place? Did having a place to visit that contained some part of the deceased person's mortal remains have the same significance to Alexander and contemporaries as it would to modern Westerners?)

Also, Alexander made a effort to get the ritual worship of Hephaistion under way in the months before Alex died, organizing the first sacrifices to Heph as a divine hero, and ordering contracts to be sworn in Hephaistion's name, etc.

It seems to me that if Alexander had lived long enough to see to completion his plans for Hephaistion's memorials, Heph may very well have ended up with gigantic monuments to him scattered all over the world. And if Alexander had lived long enough for his son to grow up and start an dynasty, Alexander may very well have done other things to memorialize Heph that none of the generals who went on to squabble over Alexander's empire had any motive to do.

I feel like Hephaisiton is a mysterious figure in many ways which intrigues me and yet so many people just dismiss him. I mean I guess it's possible that Hephaistion was a fairly regular guy who just happened to have one of the most exceptional (choose your own definition of that word :lol: )people in history fall in love with him. I mean, it happens like that sometimes. We humans aren't wholly rational, predictable creatures.

The length and depth of Alexander's devotion towards Hephaistion tends however to make me think there must have been something exceptional about Hephaistion for Alexander to rate him so highly. I think a large part of my own interest in Hephaistion arises from this mystery to me of what it was that made Alexander so enamored of him. For as much as I love Renault's books, I'm ultimately disappointed with how flat her Hephaistion seems as a character. And I'm also quite disappointed with most modern historians dismissive assessment of him. Most of them that I've read seem outright hostile and I don't get why. I find it hard to believe that Alexander, who seemed so obsessed with excellence, would have publicly held Hephaistion in such high esteem if Alexander himself didn't rate Hephaistion's contributions immensely valuable. I have seen some intriguing stuff that posits Heph may have been involved in persuading Athens to back down from joining Sparta's rebellion against Alexander or that Heph may have been the man responsible for suborning by covert diplomacy the Persian governor of Babylon and arranging for him to turn against Darius at the battle of Gaugamala. (I would be curious for more info about Hephaistion possibly acting as Alexander's cloak-and-dagger/diplomacy guy. Has any historian really explored this idea?)

Not that I really understand where this meme that pops up in a lot of Alexander biographies about "Hephaistion was bad at soldiering" or "an incompetent commander" comes from. Not being as awesome a commander as Crateros is not the at all the same as being incompetent. And nowhere do the sources I've seen (Curtius, Arrian, and Plutarch) even hint to my memory that Hephaistion is a bad commander. I've only ever read the assertion of Hephaistion being a bad commander in modern historians who often seem to take a certain pleasure in tearing Hephaistion down as a sycophant. I do remember Hephaistion was apparently quite successful when Alexander sent him off with Perdiccas to make war in India. As for the soldiering side, there's not a lot of discussion of Heph's soldiering ability in the three ancient historians I've read as I can recall, except Heph is said to be commander of the bodyguards at Gaugamala(?), which to me implies he was fighting in Alexander's proximity. Now, Alexander putting the premium on physical courage and combat prowess that he did, it is difficult for me to believe that Heph was not at least as physically courageous as any of the other close companions and possessing of at least a roughly equivalent level of combat prowess. Alexander just seems like the kind of guy who strove for the best in himself and in those with whom he surrounded himself. I have this gut feeling (beware blatant personal opinion ahead) that attitude of seeking the best would have extended at least unconsciously to the choice of the man Alexander elevated to the status of his "second self." It also strikes me that it's not only stupid to put a bad fighter or incompetent leader in command of your bodyguard, it's potentially suicidal. And even if nepotism inclined you to place your lover among your personal bodyguard, would it incline you to put him in command of it?

I wonder too, in an era that glorified aptitude in warfare, would someone whose greatest contributions were as a diplomat, logistical officer, political advisor, or engineer/architect have gotten much credit, even if he was extraordinarily gifted at it? If Alexander had lived, would he have commissioned a biography or two of his right hand man? Alexander's other generals outlived him, and a goodly number of them went on to write their own propaganda. Hephaistion never had that opportunity. I will always wonder how much the image we have of Hephaistion is intrinsically related to fact that the man who would have the most reason to promote Hephaistion's memory in a unambiguously positive light was too busy going bonkers with grief and then dying himself to leave us more to go on.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:17 pm

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by sikander »

Greetings Thalia and welcome to Pothos.

You have posted some interesting discussion points and I suspect these will generate much debate. Many of the questions or theories you posited have been discussed in other threads, but it has been a while so I look forward to this thread.

I am unable to address this post at the moment as I have people waiting for me, but will return as soon as I can.

Again, welcome!

Regards,
Sikander
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by marcus »

Hi Thalia,

Welcome, as Sikander says.

Wow, there's a huge amount to take in here. Like Sikander, however, I can't put my mind to it at the moment, as I have a bit of a stressful week this week and have to focus on some work-related things until the weekend. But I'm not ignoring you - will jump in with some responses when I'm able.

In the meantime, I'm sure some other Pothosians will wish to make some comments.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Efstathios »

In the meantime, I'm sure some other Pothosians will wish to make some comments.
You got that right!

My own opinion is that there never was an erotic affair between those two. First of all, even pure homosexual people wouldn't engage in a relationship with their childhood best friend that easily. Then, we know that Alexander was not a pure homosexual man, plus we don't even know his true sexuality. We get some remarks for example from Diogenis about Alexander and Hephaestion's thighs, but this seems to be more of Diogenis making fun and mocking Alexander rather than truly suggesting a homosexual relationship. Let's not forget that we use the same kind of mocking today as well. Comments about "gayness" and all that are very common, i don't need to tell you.

Hephaestion was Alexander's best friend, and that's it. That should explain all the titles and ranks that Alexander gave him. There is nothing about this relationship that we wouldn't find nowdays. The whole mystery about Alexander's sexuality comes from the fact that he never really payed much attention to it because his mind was always on the campaign. Of course women were coming and going from Alexander's tent, i think we have accounts for that. We won't really know of course, unless someone discovers a new source that may give light to the matter, but as it seems, there is a big debate about Alexander's sexuality mainly because he was such an important figure in history, and people use that to their own means.

Also, the fact that his father may have chased anything on two legs, does not mean that Alexander followed his footsteps. They are two different and unique people, as all people are.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Paralus »

Efstathios wrote:First of all, even pure homosexual people wouldn't engage in a relationship with their childhood best friend that easily.
An interesting if odd view. You define Hephaestion as his best friend and rule out any sexual relationship on that definition. Clearly heterosexuals can never have a sexual relationship with their "best friend". "Childhood" or otherwise.

Perhaps their relationship wasn't "pure".
Efstathios wrote:The whole mystery about Alexander's sexuality comes from the fact that he never really payed much attention to it because his mind was always on the campaign.
Except when he was drinking, carousing, killing firends, etc...
Efstathios wrote:Of course women were coming and going from Alexander's tent, i think we have accounts for that.


As we do for Bagoas.
Efstathios wrote:Also, the fact that his father may have chased anything on two legs, does not mean that Alexander followed his footsteps.
He was Macedonian and the homo-erotic bonds of the "institutions" seem clear enough.
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
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Alexias »

Paralus wrote:
Efstathios wrote: Of course women were coming and going from Alexander's tent, i think we have accounts for that.


As we do for Bagoas.
As we do for an embarrassed Hephaestion before Issus.

Thalia, not had a chance to disgest your post yet, but it would seem fairly axiomatic that Alexander and Hephaestion did not parade whatever their physical relationship was, or there would not be so much debate about whether they did have a relationship, and we would probably have heard a great deal more about it in the sources if they were overt.

Yet someone once pointed out to me that Alexander lying on Hephaestion's body is the act of a lover, not a friend.
User avatar
spitamenes
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:51 pm
Location: St.Louis, U.S.

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by spitamenes »

Efstathios wrote:but as it seems, there is a big debate about Alexander's sexuality mainly because he was such an important figure in history, and people use that to their own means. .
I absolutely agree with you there. I remember hearing when the Stone film came out that the gay rights organizations were furious with Oliver Stone for not having a love scene between Alex and Heph in the movie. Stones rebuttal was that there was no actual proof that they ever had a sexual relationship in the first place. That subject has seemed to have gone so far in many circles to have become like undisputed fact. I don't care either way to be honest. From what I see, i don't think too many people in Alexanders day did either. Seems more of an issue TODAY than it did then. From what we have to go by anyway.
All the best...
Spitamenes
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Alexias »

Thalia, I've read your post in more detail now and, at least in my case, you are preaching to the converted, and much of what you are saying has already been considered and discussed, although perhaps not so much on this site.

I think Hephaestion's bad press as regards sycophancy and poor soldiering abilities stems from W W Tarn's dismissal of him in the 1940s. This has influenced many subsequent historians and more popularist historians whose works are based on previous generations of historians rather than original thought or research - which is why the opinion is still current today. As far as I know, there is no hint in the sources that Hephaestion was a mere minion, just play-acting at being a soldier because of Alexander's nepotism. Rather, the impression is of a very powerful, very dangerous man, as much to be feared as Alexander.

Hephaestion's rehabilitation began with Mary Renault's The Nature of Alexander (1975), and has been continued by Jeanne Reames (aka Reames-Zimmerman). I would suggest you take a look at her Livejournal community http://www.livejournal.com/users/megalexandros and perhaps read her doctoral thesis which you can buy from here http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb. Type jeanne reames-zimmerman in the author line and 9915935 in the UMI publication number and you should find it.
Thalia
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:45 am

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Thalia »

Thankyou for the link to the dissertation Alexias- that looks pretty interesting. I will check it out.

I don't really want to get into debating about exactly what physical component the relationship did or didn't entail. I don't think I'm going to convince anyone who is not conviced by the sources. I do think Alexander's sense of discretion has probably obfuscated a great deal about their relationship to us out of concerns for Hephaistion's status, so we just end up with the bits and pieces that made it out past the screen, and those bits are persuasive to me. It doesn't upset me if you disagree, Efstathios. It's true we will never know either way for a certainty.

Thinking about the funeral has made me curious about another thing. Do you suppose if Alexander had lived to a ripe old age and had the opportunity to plan out how/where he wanted himself buried, would Alexander have arranged to be buried with/by Hephaistion as Achilles and Patroclus were? The Alexander sources I've read make it sound like there were two tombs next to each other for the heroes, but I could swear I've read elsewhere that either their ashes were buried together. Do you suppose Alexander's identification with himself and Heph as Achilles/Pactroclus have held up over the years past Heph's death and would it have led Alexander to try to emulate Achilles/Patroclus in this final way? Myself, I can easily see Alexander wanting to make this gesture, but finding his personal wishes trumped by political dynastic concerns about the placement of his tomb.
User avatar
Meg
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Meg »

Hello Thalia,
I find much to agree with in your interesting post. Of course, over the years much discussion has gone on over the nature of the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion, too much coloured by the context of the times of the discussers not of the discussed.
It was a different world and many things were vastly different to modern times. A weak man could not have survived for long so close to the King. Nor could a stupid one. What ever else is true, I do believe this is: these were two men fiercely devoted to one another.
Unfortunately, I am out of time for this post, but would love to discuss this more with you.
Best regards,
Meg
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Paralus »

Alexias wrote:I think Hephaestion's bad press as regards sycophancy and poor soldiering abilities stems from W W Tarn's dismissal of him in the 1940s.
Tarn's view of Hephaestion is a product of his times as is his view of Alexander as the "great unifier of men" and the creator of the "brotherhood of man". Had he been able to say it Tarn might well have described Hephaestion as Alexander's "bum boy" in classic English derogatory slang.

As to "soldiering", unless Diodorus has it totally messed up, Hephaestion commanded the "somatophylakes" at Gaugamela. This, of course, cannot mean the "seven" but refers - as in Arrian's usage - to the agema of the hypaspists or the young sons of the great Macedonian noble clans. If the "Alexander sarcohpagus" is historically accurate in its portrayal, these are the apsis (or "hoplite") armed men depicted in battle.
Alexias wrote: As far as I know, there is no hint in the sources that Hephaestion was a mere minion, just play-acting at being a soldier because of Alexander's nepotism. Rather, the impression is of a very powerful, very dangerous man, as much to be feared as Alexander.
There is, though, far more than a hint that the man was a canine of the femminine variety. Clearly he was not liked and this has as much to do with the politics of Alexander's court as with the abilties or lack thereof of Hephaestion. What happened with Philotas would be mirrored in events after Alexander's death: the few would gang up on the one. Clearly the few also had their issues with Hephaestion. How long he will have lasted had he survived Alexander is a matter of speculation. That it came down to the philoi that each marshal gather and, by extension, Macedonian troops, will not have suited Hephaestion. Who could he count on as his all-important philioi and just how many of the rank and file Macedonians would follow him?

The answer to that is, I fear, not too many. That might tell us plenty.
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
Thalia
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:45 am

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Thalia »

Paralus wrote: There is, though, far more than a hint that the man was a canine of the femminine variety. Clearly he was not liked and this has as much to do with the politics of Alexander's court as with the abilties or lack thereof of Hephaestion. What happened with Philotas would be mirrored in events after Alexander's death: the few would gang up on the one. Clearly the few also had their issues with Hephaestion.
Paralus, what do you see as the evidence that Hephaistion was clearly not liked or particularly nasty in character? I assume the downfall of Philotas and the quarrels with Crateros & Eumenes are a large part of your basis for thinking so, but are there other things too that you see as indicators?

I definitely agree with you that Hephaistion would have engendered great envy simply by virtue of position, even if Hephaistion was a paragon of goodness. But I don't see the conflicts Hephaistion had with Crateros and Eumenes as indicating anything particularly damning about Hephaistion's personality compared to the rest of the guys. They all seemed willing to do whatever they had to maintain their position when it came down to it and though I am generally woefully ignorant about the successors after Alexander's death, what little I know makes all of them seem such a pack of sharks I would never have imagined they used to be called "Companions."

Crateros and Hephaistion were both involved in Philotas's downfall and as far as their conflict, there's just not enough info to me to indicate who "started" it (if it was even that clear-cut), but it takes two parties to make something into a quarrel.

As for Eumenes and Hephaistion, there I think that both men could get nasty about things. I wanted to bring up what I have seen of what Plutarch said of the Hephaistion/Eumenes relations in Life of Eumenes. I italicized the parts that stand out to me as indicating Eumenes was just as "quarrelsome" and "catty" as Hephaistion, and no hapless victim.
Plutarch wrote: 2 However, Eumenes was often in collision with Alexander, and he got himself into danger through Hephaestion. In the first place, for instance, when Hephaestion assigned to Euius the flute-player the quarters which his servants had already taken up for Eumenes, Eumenes, accompanied by Mentor, came in a passion to Alexander and cried out that it was best for him to throw away his arms and be a flute-player or a tragic actor. The immediate result was that Alexander shared his indignation and heaped abuse upon Hephaestion. Soon, however, he changed his mind and was angry with Eumenes, feeling that he had indulged in insolence towards himself more than in bold words against Hephaestion.

...

4 And still again, Eumenes had a quarrel with Hephaestion about a certain gift, and much abusive language passed between them. At the time, indeed, Eumenes was no less in favour than before; but a little while afterwards Hephaestion died, and the king, in his bitter sorrow, dealt harshly and was severe with all who, as he thought, had been jealous of his favourite while he lived and now rejoiced at his death. Eumenes, in particular, he suspected of such feelings, and often reproached him for his former quarrels with Hephaestion and his abusive language towards him. 5 But Eumenes, who was wily and persuasive, tried to make what threatened his ruin conduce to his salvation. He sought refuge, namely, in Alexander's ardent gratitude towards Hephaestion, suggesting honours which were most likely to adorn the memory of the deceased, and contributing money for the construction of his tomb lavishly and readily.
Paralus wrote: How long he will have lasted had he survived Alexander is a matter of speculation. That it came down to the philoi that each marshal gather and, by extension, Macedonian troops, will not have suited Hephaestion. Who could he count on as his all-important philioi and just how many of the rank and file Macedonians would follow him?

The answer to that is, I fear, not too many. That might tell us plenty.
You very well may be right. Though it may be Hephaistion would have surprised us too. I surely would be intrigued to know how an alternate history in which Hephaistion outlived Alexander would have played out. Would Alexander's infant son have found a loyal and capable regent in Hephaistion? Perhaps Perdiccas and Hephaisiton would have allied iniitally, as they worked cooperatively on several occasions during Alexander's conquests? (I also have this vague sense that Hephaistion and Leonnatus were friendly with no idea where it comes from...) Would genuine loyalty to Alexander's son have eventually been Hephaistion's undoing, as the other generals (Perdiccas included) would have seen such as threat to their own ambitions? Or perhaps Hephaisiton have turned out to have the same ambitions as the rest.... :twisted:
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Efstathios »

I think it's only natural that the one that would have been favored by the king, would also have enemies. It's a game of thrones thing. It happened to be Hephaestion. But we really don't know much about him do we? I mean, was he a cheerful person? A leadership figure? A not so leadership figure? A competent fighter? Tactician?

We only know little things, and those from two sides, the royal court, and his "enemies". And as you well know and point out often, history is being mainly written by the victors. I wonder what Ptolemy's view was of Hephaestion, Aristobulous, e.t.c. Were they the "enemies"? Were their accounts partial or impartial?

Anyway, i stand on my view about Hephaestion's relationship with Alexander, we don't really know. The hints that we have about it being more than a friendship are from quotes that can be interpreted either way, for example Diogenis' quote as i pointed out before. Me and my friends sometimes mess around with each other using homosexual examples, that doesn't make us homosexuals, but if a historian of the future found those quotes without having much more knowledge he may have thought that we were once lovers, bisexuals, and we then got married with women just to have children. The truth is that in ancient times they used similar phrases as we do to mess around. We cannot judge only by that what was and what was not the norm. Today we also have a lot of homosexual people, so what is the difference with 2500 years ago? Anyway, i won't get into that futher, as it is a very long discussion.
"Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Sir Winston Churchill, 1941.
User avatar
Meg
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Meg »

Paralus wrote:As to "soldiering", unless Diodorus has it totally messed up, Hephaestion commanded the "somatophylakes" at Gaugamela. This, of course, cannot mean the "seven" but refers - as in Arrian's usage - to the agema of the hypaspists or the young sons of the great Macedonian noble clans. If the "Alexander sarcohpagus" is historically accurate in its portrayal, these are the apsis (or "hoplite") armed men depicted in battle.
This is fascinating - Paralus, may I ask, do you personally like or dislike the idea of Hephaistion? I have found so often that those that dislike or disapprove of the *idea* of him, cannot accept that he could be the leader of the Bodyguards, and yet it makes perfect sense that he would be, so long as one doesn't allow one's own feelings to get in the way. (I say "idea" as we cannot know the real man at this distance.)

I believe the idea that he commanded not the Somatophylakes but the agema, comes from the feelings of the historian himself regarding homosexual partnerships. They have a stereotype in mind and cannot let go of their own biases. As far as the real Hephaistion goes, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't take the statement, "he commanded the somatophylakes" at face value. We don't need to discount this piece of information and substitute it with what makes us feel comfortable. The fiercest fighting was around the King on this day, and that is where the Somatophylakes (the Seven) would have been placed.

In addition, Hephaistion was a cavalry officer not a hoplite commander. Unless I am mistaken, I cannot recall an instance of his being cited as commanding a hoplite division or that he fought as a hoplite. On the Alexander sarcophagus, the image that is often identified as him is shown clearly as a cavalry man, not a hoplite. Also in the Hephaistion "votive" relief, an honorific dedication, he is depicted leading a horse indicating "cavalry" and not with the trappings of a hoplite.

Best regards,

Meg
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

Post by Alexias »

Paralus wrote: Tarn's view of Hephaestion is a product of his times as is his view of Alexander as the "great unifier of men" and the creator of the "brotherhood of man". Had he been able to say it Tarn might well have described Hephaestion as Alexander's "bum boy" in classic English derogatory slang.
The phrase "boon companion rewarded for his dogged devotion" comes to mind - or was that Peter Green? I don't think though that there is any evidence that he was "fundamentally stupid" (Peter Green again?).
Paralus wrote:
There is, though, far more than a hint that the man was a canine of the femminine variety. Clearly he was not liked and this has as much to do with the politics of Alexander's court as with the abilties or lack thereof of Hephaestion. What happened with Philotas would be mirrored in events after Alexander's death: the few would gang up on the one. Clearly the few also had their issues with Hephaestion. How long he will have lasted had he survived Alexander is a matter of speculation. That it came down to the philoi that each marshal gather and, by extension, Macedonian troops, will not have suited Hephaestion. Who could he count on as his all-important philioi and just how many of the rank and file Macedonians would follow him?

The answer to that is, I fear, not too many. That might tell us plenty.
The Eumenes quarrel over the housing of the musician Evius clearly shows that Hephaestion got at Alexander in private and made him change his mind. However, I don't think this necessarily shows the stereotypical, hysterical bitchiness associated with homosexual 'queens' (please excuse the bluntness). You don't necessarily have to be gay to use your influence to get your own way.

True, though, the quarrel being about a musician (arty stuff rather than real soldiers' stuff as Eumenes points out) doesn't help, but we don't know the full circumstances of the quarrel and whether Hephaestion was within his rights to priotitize the allocation of quarters. Quite how Hephaestion convinced Alexander that Eumenes was being disrespectful to the king we can't know, but it shows persuasiveness if nothing else. It may not have been dificult if Alexander was already annoyed with Eumenes' apparent rudeness to himself in implying that Hephaestion, and by extension Alexander, valued artists above soldiers, something Alexander, who valued his soldiers highly, would not have appreciated. It probably annoyed Hephaestion too.

Here are a couple of online translations of the passage from Plutarch:

"However, Eumenes was often in collision with Alexander, and he got himself into danger through Hephaestion. In the first place, for instance, when Hephaestion assigned to Euius the flute-player the quarters which his servants had already taken up for Eumenes, Eumenes, accompanied by Mentor, came in a passion to Alexander and cried out that it was best for him to throw away his arms and be a flute-player or a tragic actor. The immediate result was that Alexander shared his indignation and heaped abuse upon Hephaestion. Soon, however, he changed his mind and was angry with Eumenes, feeling that he had indulged in insolence towards himself more than in bold words against Hephaestion. "


"Notwithstanding, he frequently incurred Alexander's displeasure, and put himself into some danger, through Hephaestion. The quarters that had been taken up for Eumenes, Hephaestion assigned to Euius, the flute-player. Upon which, in great anger, Eumenes and Mentor came to Alexander and loudly complained, saying that the way to be regarded was to throw away their arms and turn flute-players or tragedians; so much so that Alexander took their part and chid Hephaestion; but soon after changed his mind again, and was angry with Eumenes, and accounted the freedom he had taken to be rather an affront to the king than a reflection upon Hephaestion. "

The point that often gets overlooked here is that Alexander didn't like Eumenes and quarreled with him frequently, so Hephaestion was not the only one who was quarrelsome and capable of making enemies, as is so often stated. Hephaestion may have been more prone to pick a quarrel with him simply because Alexander disliked the man.

What is interesting of course is how closely associated being insolent to Hephaestion was to being insolent to Alexander. Obviously a very thin dividing line, and perhaps indicative that Hephaestion's influence and power grew with time, if the incident took place after the return from India.

The Philotas trial again shows Hephaestion influencing Alexander, who was originally minded to forgive Philotas. But Hephaestion was not the only one who saw a chance to get rid of Philotas (also allegedly unpopular) and break Parmenion's stranglehold on the top jobs, so any 'cattiness' is maybe a small part of the equation here. Opportunism, yes, but that would appear to be a general male characteristic.

Jeanne Reames has suggested that Hephaestion may have run into conflict with Eumenes, the royal secretary, and the royal chamberlain Chares, both of whose spheres of influence he would have encroached upon in his role as Chiliarch. This is possible, but how much it would have influenced what we know about him from the sources is dubious.

Yet I am unsure that there was evidence that he was disliked. Certainly feared enough for a Babylonian soothsayer to take augeries for his and Alexander's lives, but do we have any real evidence for his unpopularity with the Macedonians and Greeks? He certainly had enough friends to draw swords against Craterus and his friends, although this is no indication of his popularity with the rank and file, or as Paralus has pointed out, with high-ranking Macedonians. If I am not mistaken, the only high-ranking Macedonian we know to have been popular with his troops was Craterus (and maybe Ptolemy). Perdiccas wasn't at any rate.

Would Hephaestion have survived for long if Alexander had died before him? Maybe not, because none of the top dogs wanted to be friends with each other anyway, but we'll never know!
Post Reply