The Relationship of Alexander and Hephaestion

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

What was Alexander and Hephaestion's relationship?

Very close friends; like brothers.
5
15%
Intimate friends who once enjoyed relations in their youth
12
35%
Lovers for their entire lives (disregard modern labels)
17
50%
 
Total votes: 34

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

Re: Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship

Post by Phoebus »

di wrote:I don't think murdering someone in a drunken rage is the same sort of act as having a long-term longlasting relationship with another man. The Macedonians were known to drink hard and it could be forgiven that someone might get carried away. Alexander also bitterly regretted his actions and this was noted in the sources.
That's not the point. Plutarch (among others) wasn't recording with the perspective of a Macedonian warlord. When he qualifies the wrongness of Cleitus' murder or the ambush of the Indian mercenaries, he does not do so as a person of Macedonian mindset.
I think he had to mention Roxanne as she was the mother of Alexander's child, the heir.
I disagree with this premise. Were this the case, Roxanne should have gotten no more mention than Dareius' daughter, who would have been far more important in a political sense. It wasn't, though; he specifically qualifies her as a love match.
Plutarch is generally thought to have copied Ptolemy and Ptolemy was anxious to protect Alexander's name.
Ptolemy, via Arrian, was in no way averse to mentioning mutinies, conspiracies, attempts at exacting worship, murder, assassinations, etc.
I agree Alexander had grandiose gesutres but ev n so lying ona corpse in a hot country for a day and a night and having to be dragged away is quite exeptional for a friend. Have you heard of others who have done the same for friends?
How about men and women inflicting physical harm on themselves, eating dirt, etc., over a period of days? Not in the ancient sense, but today. How about other archaic societies who went so far as to qualify grief via human sacrifice?
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4846
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England
Has thanked: 6 times

Re: Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship

Post by marcus »

di wrote:Plutarch is generally thought to have copied Ptolemy and Ptolemy was anxious to protect Alexander's name.
Not true. Plutarch did use Ptolemy, but he also used a large number of other historians. There is no evidence that he used Ptolemy in any way as a principal source, or indeed any more than any other of the writers he used.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
di

Alexander and Hephaistion

Post by di »

Just a quick last note - I am not trying to convert others to my point of view. The majority also voted for 3.

Re the Macedonian mindset, surely anyone could see the difference between the murder of Cleitus and a long standing relationship with a coeval. One wouldn't have to have a Macedonian mindset.

Stateira didn't produce an heir.

I don't see how eating dirt etc has anything to do with love. My reference was to suggest love over friendship.

On a similar note, Twentieth Century Hollywood Film Directors and Producers went to great lengths to protect stars' homeosexuality being known eg Rudolph Valentino. James Dean.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Re: Alexander and Hephaistion

Post by Phoebus »

di wrote:Re the Macedonian mindset, surely anyone could see the difference between the murder of Cleitus and a long standing relationship with a coeval. One wouldn't have to have a Macedonian mindset.
I don't see your point. You implied that the relationship wouldn't be mentioned as it would be viewed as a negative. Clearly, negatives were cited, and I find it highly questionable that the ones mentioned (massacres of populations; outright murder; self-worship) somehow trump love between two men.
Stateira didn't produce an heir.
It doesn't matter--you were asserting that Roxanne is mentioned because she was mother to the king's son. My point is that, above and beyond that, she is qualified as a love-match. If there were no true romance or what have you, why not give her the same sort of reference as Stateira--e.g., she was married to give him political influence and, oh by the way, happened to have his kid.
I don't see how eating dirt etc has anything to do with love. My reference was to suggest love over friendship.
You asked who behaves in ways similar to Alexander's during the death of a friend. I pointed out similar examples of behavior. Extreme grief is not limited to those who are in love with one another.
On a similar note, Twentieth Century Hollywood Film Directors and Producers went to great lengths to protect stars' homeosexuality being known eg Rudolph Valentino. James Dean.
That's apples and oranges, though. Those individuals operated in a much more sexually conservative/repressed era--at least where public image was concerned.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Not voting at present, merely a quick comment:
Phoebus wrote: I do find it interesting (and ironic) that the Achilles-Patroclus parallel is used by those who believe the two were romantically involved. Athenean aristocrats themselves projected a romance on those two heroes, despite any verse of Homer's (that I recall) that would have indicated this.
But don't you think that Alexander would have known about the projected romance between Achilles & Patroclus - would have known that by his actions at Troy he would be (or might be) demonstrating the same about himself and Hephaistion?

James' Davidson has some comments about A & P and A and H in latest book, The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece.

I haven't read it yet - I'm still awaiting shipment - but the review at BMCR is very interesting.

All I have time for right now - must rush out as I have tickets for a matinee performance of The National Theatre of Scotland's The Bacchae at Lincoln Center! :D

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

amyntoros wrote:Not voting at present, merely a quick comment:
Phoebus wrote: I do find it interesting (and ironic) that the Achilles-Patroclus parallel is used by those who believe the two were romantically involved. Athenean aristocrats themselves projected a romance on those two heroes, despite any verse of Homer's (that I recall) that would have indicated this.
But don't you think that Alexander would have known about the projected romance between Achilles & Patroclus - would have known that by his actions at Troy he would be (or might be) demonstrating the same about himself and Hephaistion?

James' Davidson has some comments about A & P and A and H in latest book, The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece.

I haven't read it yet - I'm still awaiting shipment - but the review at BMCR is very interesting.

All I have time for right now - must rush out as I have tickets for a matinee performance of The National Theatre of Scotland's The Bacchae at Lincoln Center! :D

Best regards,

Oh Amyntoros! I am so jealous that you get to see that! I read about this production the other day and it sounds fantastic. I'll never see Alan Cumming the same way again. (I'm just getting used to seeing him host Masterpiece on PBS. :P I'm a big fan anyway.)

I hope you'll grace us with a review. :D


As for the Achilles/Patroclus theme, I agree that Alexander would have been very aware of the current Athenian thoughts on it. And knew full well what it implied.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Amyntoros,

Great point! I suppose it all comes down to whether the Macedonian royals' view of such epics paralleled that of the Athenian aristocracy.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

marcus wrote:It isn't often that I disagree with you, Paralus, but on this occasion I do. An "eminence grise" is the one exercising power behind the throne, literally pulling the strings.
Possibly eminence grise is too strong. He did, though, draw much dislike from others in the inner circle. Eumenes had little time for him it seems and he, as chief of the “secretariat”, will have known a bit.
Phoebus wrote: Sure, but even so I find it curious that sources such as Plutarch would qualify a love-match to a princess from a little-known tribe…
Again, as on another thread, I think the position of this girl is underplayed. Her name and that of her father, Oxyartes, are well attested within the Achaemenid line. It is quite likely that Oxyartes was Persian. As well, it is a coincidence too far that we see this same Oxyartes involved in the bringing over of the local nobility to Alexander – after near on two years of bloody guerrilla warfare in which the Macedonians suffered – and then Alexander neatly falling for her at a banquet attended by that same Oxyartes. And this at a time when Alexander is busy adopting (incorporating?) the customs of the Persians he has conquered. The wedding too was celebrated in the “native” fashion and his officers were, ostensibly, encouraged to take similar wives. A neat segue. Possibly too neat.
Phoebus wrote: By the time Hephaestion died, Alexander was more alone than ever. When we look at what is left of his histories, Hephaestion was probably the single individual whom the king could trust unequivocably and call Friend not in terms of status or political appointment, but in the true meaning of the word.
A position he found himself in entirely of his own accord. By this time the old functionalities of the Macedonian court had been largely replaced by some hybridised Achaemenid-Macedonian construct. Those who had been intimate to Philip’s court will have had trouble recognising this court – and its increasingly autocratic king – methinks.
Phoebus wrote:Ptolemy, via Arrian, was in no way averse to mentioning mutinies, conspiracies, attempts at exacting worship, murder, assassinations, etc.
Yes, that is largely true, but it is how Arrian mentions them that is the issue. It would seem that it was obvious to Arrian that the darker material about Alexander was well known. He then could hardly fail to include it whilst tearing strips off others for their poor histories. This, though, does not paint his hero in too good a light. What to do? Generally you’ll find that Arrian will go on a little excursus and mention several negative things out of their time in the narrative. This then allows him to reel off these in a nice little compartmentalised way so as he can then get on with the more heroic aspects unsullied by such.

Even so, it is Clietus’ fault that he got run through with a lonche or sarisa – no matter that Alexander was in a blind alcohol fuelled rage. With the Indian mercenaries he agrees entirely with the “vulgate” tradition in all details except one: the Indians reneged on joining Alexander’s army and so, one assumes, brought their wholesale slaughter upon themselves.

Arrian is not always consistent though. In his closing eulogy, just prior to upbraiding those who would impugn Alexander, he excuses Alexander’s drinking – absolutely – in exactly the same way as the excusatory Plutarch: he spent much time over a cup in conversation. This stands in stark contrast to his disgust at Alexander’s adoption of “barbarian drinking habits” – where he drank and caroused well into the night – immediately prior to relating the story of Clietus’ murder.
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
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

Paralus wrote:
marcus wrote:It isn't often that I disagree with you, Paralus, but on this occasion I do. An "eminence grise" is the one exercising power behind the throne, literally pulling the strings.
Possibly eminence grise is too strong. He did, though, draw much dislike from others in the inner circle. Eumenes had little time for him it seems and he, as chief of the “secretariat”, will have known a bit.
Phoebus wrote: Sure, but even so I find it curious that sources such as Plutarch would qualify a love-match to a princess from a little-known tribe…
Again, as on another thread, I think the position of this girl is underplayed. Her name and that of her father, Oxyartes, are well attested within the Achaemenid line. It is quite likely that Oxyartes was Persian. As well, it is a coincidence too far that we see this same Oxyartes involved in the bringing over of the local nobility to Alexander – after near on two years of bloody guerrilla warfare in which the Macedonians suffered – and then Alexander neatly falling for her at a banquet attended by that same Oxyartes. And this at a time when Alexander is busy adopting (incorporating?) the customs of the Persians he has conquered. The wedding too was celebrated in the “native” fashion and his officers were, ostensibly, encouraged to take similar wives. A neat segue. Possibly too neat.
Phoebus wrote: By the time Hephaestion died, Alexander was more alone than ever. When we look at what is left of his histories, Hephaestion was probably the single individual whom the king could trust unequivocably and call Friend not in terms of status or political appointment, but in the true meaning of the word.
A position he found himself in entirely of his own accord. By this time the old functionalities of the Macedonian court had been largely replaced by some hybridised Achaemenid-Macedonian construct. Those who had been intimate to Philip’s court will have had trouble recognising this court – and its increasingly autocratic king – methinks.
Phoebus wrote:Ptolemy, via Arrian, was in no way averse to mentioning mutinies, conspiracies, attempts at exacting worship, murder, assassinations, etc.
Yes, that is largely true, but it is how Arrian mentions them that is the issue. It would seem that it was obvious to Arrian that the darker material about Alexander was well known. He then could hardly fail to include it whilst tearing strips off others for their poor histories. This, though, does not paint his hero in too good a light. What to do? Generally you’ll find that Arrian will go on a little excursus and mention several negative things out of their time in the narrative. This then allows him to reel off these in a nice little compartmentalised way so as he can then get on with the more heroic aspects unsullied by such.

Even so, it is Clietus’ fault that he got run through with a lonche or sarisa – no matter that Alexander was in a blind alcohol fuelled rage. With the Indian mercenaries he agrees entirely with the “vulgate” tradition in all details except one: the Indians reneged on joining Alexander’s army and so, one assumes, brought their wholesale slaughter upon themselves.

Arrian is not always consistent though. In his closing eulogy, just prior to upbraiding those who would impugn Alexander, he excuses Alexander’s drinking – absolutely – in exactly the same way as the excusatory Plutarch: he spent much time over a cup in conversation. This stands in stark contrast to his disgust at Alexander’s adoption of “barbarian drinking habits” – where he drank and caroused well into the night – immediately prior to relating the story of Clietus’ murder.
Sigh...not to excuse the murder of Cleitus, but it is a certainty that Alexander was not the only one there alcohol feuled...which brings me to the second thing. "Barbarian drinking habits"? Hello...Macedonia, drinking like fish. Alexander didn't have to "adopt" that habit, it followed him on the long campaign and at least anecdotally tripped Philip up on his way to skewer Alexander in Macedonia some years earlier. Plutarch was centuries removed from the old kingdom and strikes me as rather prissy...

As for the wholesale slaughter of the Indians...are these the same Indians that the Mauryas managed to kill in reportedly huge numbers, Asoka the Great in the Kalinga War causing the death of over a 100,000 civilans, not to mention the warriors killed. The slaughter so much that he renounced armed conquest and turned Buddhist..so the story goes anyway. Alexander was a piker when it came to "wholesale" slaughter in India. Asoka's grandfather, Chandragupta and Asoka's father was also quite the conquerors.

Again with the disclaimer: not condoning wholesale slaughter. I think what drives me nuts about the 'Alexander was so mean to the Indians" meme is that it leaves out the bit about the huge Indian armies. There is an implication that the Indians were peace loving innocents not interested in warfare or conquest...the ancient Sanskrit texts should tell you otherwise.

Now, as to the idea that Hephaistion was an "eminence gris", that may not be the correct term. Though I do not think he was a brawny bimbo either. There was very likely great influence though, if not power. Demosthenes thought enough of his influence to send someone to Hephaistioin to mitigate for him fairly early on in the campaign.

I have wondered if Hephaistion's family had come from some place in Asia Minor or the islands (where Hephaistos was greatly venerated, not just Athens) that had a more extensive contact with the Persians, hence his apparent usefulness to Alexander in dealing with the Persians and also his apparant support (or more) for the orientalising trend.

AS for the party of Eumenes not liking Hephaistion, well duh...he was in direct competition with Hephaistion for access to the King. Chares may have been none to pleased either.
Last edited by athenas owl on Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4846
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England
Has thanked: 6 times

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:
marcus wrote:It isn't often that I disagree with you, Paralus, but on this occasion I do. An "eminence grise" is the one exercising power behind the throne, literally pulling the strings.
Possibly eminence grise is too strong. He did, though, draw much dislike from others in the inner circle. Eumenes had little time for him it seems and he, as chief of the “secretariat”, will have known a bit.
Oh indeed, of that there can be no doubt.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

athenas owl wrote: I think what drives me nuts about the 'Alexander was so mean to the Indians" meme is that it leaves out the bit about the huge Indian armies. There is an implication that the Indians were peace loving innocents not interested in warfare or conquest...the ancient Sanskrit texts should tell you otherwise.
It seems I’ve succumbed to a “meme” and, by implication, am indulging a “received” construct not necessarily based in reality?

There is no implication that the Indians were “peace loving innocents not interested in warfare or conquest” in anything that I have read or, I would imagine, anything I had written. The Indians were possibly no more “peace loving” than were the Greeks or the Macedonians. Given that 7,000 mercenaries “from the interior of India” were plying their trade here might seem to indicate that the citizens of these Indian cities were just as capable of killing each other (and hiring others to do it) as were the Greeks who’d been doing so with monotonous regularity for centuries.

That, of course is utterly irrelevant. You see, the Indians did not march across half a continent, cross the Hellespont and vent their martial wrath upon the Macedonians and Greeks. Rather it was Alexander and the Macedonians who crossed the Hellespont, marched half a continent and invaded India with the express desire to conquer it. Strangely enough the Indians, by and large, resisted this invasion. For this, on the whole, they were slaughtered.

Diodorus and Plutarch relate this slaughter in similar terms and most likely from a similar source. Arrian too relates the slaughter in the same terms but adds that the Mercenaries were planning to go back on their word and not take service under Alexander. Diodorus 17.84 1-5:
The mercenaries straightway under the terms of the truce left the city and encamped without interference at a distance of eighty furlongs, without an inkling of what would happen. Alexander, nevertheless, nursed an implacable hostility toward them; he held his forces in readiness, followed them, and falling upon them suddenly wrought a great slaughter. At first they kept shouting that this attack was in contravention of the treaty and they called to witness the gods against whom he had transgressed. Alexander shouted back that he had granted them the right to leave the city but not that of being friends of the Macedonians forever.

Not daunted at the greatness of their danger, the mercenaries joined ranks and, forming a full circle, placed their children and women in the centre so that they might effectively face those who were attacking from all directions. Filled with desperate courage and fighting stoutly with native toughness and the experience of previous contests, they were opposed by Macedonians anxious not to show themselves inferior to barbarians in fighting ability, so that the battle was a scene of horror. They fought hand to hand, and as the contestants engaged each other every form of death and wounds was to be seen. The Macedonians thrust with their long spears through the light shields of the mercenaries and pressed the iron points on into their lungs, while they in turn flung their javelins into the close ranks of their enemies and could not miss the mark, so near was the target.

As many were wounded and not a few killed, the women caught up the weapons of the fallen and fought beside their men, since the acuteness of the danger and the fierceness of the action forced them to be brave beyond their nature. Some of them, clad in armour, sheltered behind the same shields as their husbands, while others rushed in without armour, grasped the opposing shields, and hindered their use by the enemy. Finally, fighting women and all, they were overborne by numbers and cut down, winning a glorious death in preference to basely saving their lives at any cost.

Women and children. Arrian reduces it to far fewer lines and simply notes that they were “slaughtered”. It is odd – relating to Amyntoros’ post on the “Mind” thread” – that were these decamping under the agreement to join Alexander’s army that the mercenary troop, in all accounts, marches away to a hill and camps at some distance from the Macedonians.
athenas owl wrote: As for the wholesale slaughter of the Indians...are these the same Indians that the Mauryas managed to kill in reportedly huge numbers, Asoka the Great in the Kalinga War causing the death of over a 100,000 civilans, not to mention the warriors killed… Alexander was a piker when it came to "wholesale" slaughter in India. Asoka's grandfather, Chandragupta and Asoka's father was also quite the conquerors.
Sigh…not to excuse these others’ slaughter but comparative religions I have indulged in, comparative slaughter is another subject.
athenas owl wrote: Sigh...not to excuse the murder of Cleitus, but it is a certainty that Alexander was not the only one there alcohol feuled...
Indeed he wasn’t. He was the only one to take a lonche or sarisa to another though.
athenas owl wrote: "Barbarian drinking habits"? Hello...Macedonia, drinking like fish. Alexander didn't have to "adopt" that habit, it followed him on the long campaign and at least anecdotally tripped Philip up on his way to skewer Alexander in Macedonia some years earlier. Plutarch was centuries removed from the old kingdom and strikes me as rather prissy...
It is not Plutarch who remarked on Alexander’s drinking, rather it was Arrian. He notes – amongst other barbarian habits Alexander was adopting – that “in drinking, another innovation, he now tended to barbarian excess”. He is remarking, from his reading of whichever source he is following, that Alexander’s drinking was increasing; that it was like the Persians who drink and feast all night. Further, he chooses to note this just prior to Alexander’s running through of Clietus.
athenas owl wrote:As for the party of Eumenes not liking Hephaistion, well duh...he was in direct competition with Hephaistion for access to the King. Chares may have been none to pleased either.
As were Craterus, Perdiccas and the others.
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
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

I agree with everyone who said there is no way of knowing about the exact nature of their relationship. Saying that, I voted for 3. To go through a process of elimination, I don’t buy 2. The reason why this is suggested is because historians believe that in Athens there was the model of the older man and younger man. Once the younger man had passed a certain age it was inappropriate for him to be in a relationship with an older man. I have my doubts that even the Athenians followed this “moral code” that closely, let alone Macedonians, let alone one particular Macedonian who usually did what he felt like anyway. There have been some implications that any sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion would be seen as a negative in their times. I’m not sure there is enough to suggest that this was how Macedonians would react.

There are some pretty graphic descriptions of Philip’s court suggesting that “bearded men” would openly have sex with each other and this was perfectly acceptable. I’ve read suggestions by modern historians that perhaps the ancient historian who was the eye witness was trying to “slander” Philip. It’s certainly possible. Philip was not popular in those parts. Another possibility is that the modern historian himself/herself is a bit grossed out at the idea of open drunken bisexual orgies and doesn’t want to attribute it to “respectable” Kings and Generals. Take your pick. :)

Why isn’t Alexander’s “romantic” relationship with Hephaistion mentioned in the sources? It’s a really good question. There are other Greek and Roman sources that aren’t shy about spelling these things out. I do have to point out that it’s easy enough to infer from the sources that Hephaistion was emotionally the closest person to Alexander. So, how are we defining “love-match” exactly? Isn’t the question we’re asking simply – did they have sex? Perhaps explicit mention of sex was not necessary, as sex wasn’t the primary form of attachment for these two. Also, maybe the ancients were less hung up on this aspect of the relationship?

It’s unfair to compare the lack of mention of a “love-match” between Alexander and Hephaistion to the mention of Roxane. Plutarch was describing Alexander falling in love with an inconsequential woman, with whom the attachment would have been based mostly on her beauty after a fleeting encounter, which led to a very important marriage. It’s part of a simple narrative. With Hephaistion, we’re already aware that he is the most important person in Alexander’s life. In fact, sources only mention Alexander having sexual interest in anybody if it’s relevant to some other story. I’m pretty sure Alexander had women/men/girls/boys/eunuchs during at least some of his famous drunken parties and no one thought to mention it because it was totally normal and unimportant.

That brings me to something interesting I read on a Hephaistion website. Curtius compares one of Alexander’s love interests, a young Greek boy, to Hephaistion. It was apparently said that Euxenippus was as handsome as Hephaistion but not as masculine. Now, why compare him to Hephaistion? :) I think it’s kind of suggestive and as close as you’re going to get to any indication of Alexander having sexual interest in Hephaistion. And of course, we should not forget the quote about Hephaistion's famous conquering thighs.

As for the running around naked in Troy – it could just be a story, as Arrian introduces it with a bit of cynicism. I guess whether we take it as in indication of the nature of the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion, depends on how Alexander himself interpreted the Iliad. I’m inclined to lean towards Amyntoros that he would’ve been aware of the Athenian view of the text. So, overall I thought 3 looked the most likely out of the lot.

On the other hand, I totally agree with Phoebus’ assessment of Alexander’s grieving after Hephaistion’s death. It doesn’t really strengthen the case that Alexander and Hephaistion had a sexual aspect to their relationship. One doesn’t have to be sexually interested in a person to be thoroughly devastated by their departure. And Alexander had the means and desire to do funerals, games, theatres etc. in a grandiose way. On top of that, the ancient Greek notion of friendship appears to be particularly intense. Some sources seem to indicate a level of emotional intimacy that was acceptable back then between men that would be considered unusual or even frowned upon now. So, maybe 1 would've been the more sensible choice... :)
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

athenas owl wrote:As for the wholesale slaughter of the Indians...are these the same Indians that the Mauryas managed to kill in reportedly huge numbers, Asoka the Great in the Kalinga War causing the death of over a 100,000 civilans, not to mention the warriors killed. The slaughter so much that he renounced armed conquest and turned Buddhist..so the story goes anyway. Alexander was a piker when it came to "wholesale" slaughter in India. Asoka's grandfather, Chandragupta and Asoka's father was also quite the conquerors.

Again with the disclaimer: not condoning wholesale slaughter. I think what drives me nuts about the 'Alexander was so mean to the Indians" meme is that it leaves out the bit about the huge Indian armies. There is an implication that the Indians were peace loving innocents not interested in warfare or conquest...the ancient Sanskrit texts should tell you otherwise.
I’ve mentioned Asoka in another thread too to counter any idea that Indians were incapable of violence. I'm not even sure why anyone would make this suggestion in the first place. The rest of my argument went – why should an entire population have to qualify as “peace-loving innocents not interested in warfare and conquest”? Is that the prerequisite before their massacre is truly unpalatable? Why are we apparently judging the moral righteousness of the victims? Surely it should not have any impact on how much discomfort we feel about their treatment?

I’m not really sure why either Alexander or Asoka should be excused for their slaughters by being compared to each other. I wouldn’t call either Alexander or Asoka a “piker” when it comes to wholesale slaughter. They were both truly "Great" conquerors.
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Post by athenas owl »

Alright it was Arrian...but whoever the writer that serious drinking is a barbarian habit is looking for an excuse for whatever Alexander's perceived increase was. The Macedonians didn't have to become "barbaric" if heavy drinking is considered barbaric..they already were. My point there that the writer, Arrian or Plutarch (I post here from memory..sadly my books are on another floor) were looking back several centuries from their time and being anachronistic. The Macedonia they knew was not the Macedonia of Alexander's time.

As for the fact that Alexander marched across the Hellespont and half a continent, well yes, yes he did. That the Indians did not might have something to do with the fact that they had a whole sub-continent to go for first.

Well, I do think of it as a meme (perhaps a very ancient one, but newly revived in the last century to counteract the extremely positive Tarn and his fellows and also I think a response to the post colonial modern world and the horror of the WW2). How can one study an ancient conqueror and not think of the recent empire builders. Not to mention the European Colonialism before that. Historiography of Alexander needed a fresh approach certainly, but in doing so the new historians were just as guilty as the old in letting their own world views cloud their work. Frankly I think it actually gets in the way of actual scholarship.

The one I was educated with actually, if we are talking about our first impressions of Alexander was the murderous drunk rampaging across the known world...like he was an exception to the rule of gentile conquerors in antiquity. He was far more complex and interesting and in some ways humane than I ever learned in my "World History" survey courses as a Freshman in college. Then I actually started reading about him. A far more interesting person and the times that followed. American universities, at least, tend to glide right past the Hellenistic age in survey courses. Something like "Alexander died..oh look! It's the Romans!."

As for marching across the Hellespont, there were Indian soldiers in the army of Xerxes that did exactly that and fought at Gaugamela as well. It wasn't as though the Indians were an isolated population unaffected by the power plays to the west before Alexander barged in over the Hindu Kush. Or how much of the Indian resistence was to Alexander himself or to his Indian allies as well. The relationship of Taxila and Porus. Remember also Porus at Sagala and his assistence in that very bloody battle.

Further south Musicanus and the Brahmins. I wonder if the the cultural coup the Brahmins had been complete by Alexander's time and some of the conflicts were still within that struggle for dominance between them and the Kshatriyas and even religion (how prominent was Buddhism in the NW before Asoka? and wasn;t Buddha himslef from the Kshatriyas?). The warrior caste may have found Alexander more inviting than rule by the priests.

Reducing complex internal rivalries and how they played to "Alexander vs, the Indians" is again in some ways demeaning to the Indians.

Should Alexander have invaded India or even crossed the Hellespont? Should the Achaemenids have crossed the Hellespont and invaded India? Should Kyrus have begun his empire building, why don't we hear more about the brave Tomyris fighting the bellicose Kyrus? Should any ancient conqueror have stayed home and been a good boy by our modern standards? Well yes, certainly...by our modern standards. Or those of Roman era writers using Alexander as a thinly disguised jab at their own crazed rulers. Or propaganda in the power struggles of the Diadochi. Or even bitter Athenian writers wearing "Remember Callisthenes" t-shirts... :P I just want to truth of it. In all it's complexity...of course our histories of Alexander are like Rashomon... :)

Seems everyone writing about Alexander had some axe to grind or at least to polish. And it continues to this day. Thing is, I don't even especially like Alexander. But I am not grinding my "W is an imperialist jackass" axe at ATG's expense. 2300 years ago, the world did things differently.

And speaking as a woman, if I applied my modern perspective on the ancient world I spend most of my time condemning pretty much the whole lot of them! Especially the Cathaeans and their practice of suttee (at least this is the first it is mentioned in the Alexander histories I think). That I find truly "unpalatable", but I just can't find myself condemning it occurring 2300 years ago. That it still continues today...unpalatable is an understatement.

Did Hephaistion and Perdiccas come into conflict? Have I missed something there? Again he did not survive to tell his story, Perdiccas that is. Though I would Love to know what the fight between Craterus and Hephaistion was about. It must have been a beaut, to pick up their swords and go at each other, their followers behind each man egging them on.
Last edited by athenas owl on Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4846
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England
Has thanked: 6 times

Post by marcus »

Semiramis wrote: Saying that, I voted for 3. To go through a process of elimination, I don’t buy 2.
Ah, now, I didn't vote at all, because there weren't enough other options to choose what I really think ... :) It's too easy to fall into the direct marketing trick of expecting you to choose an option, even though none of the available options actually reflects what you think/feel. I have invalidated a fair few market research questionnaires by refusing to give an answer that I do not agree with ... I'm a pain, aren't I? :oops:

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply