Chiliarch

[susa]

Hi
Something i've always wondered about: Hephaistion was appointed Chiliarch by Alexander, right? So how's this that we have little/no information about him that might give more evidence of his relevance within Alexander's schemes?

[marcus]

When you say "relevance within Alexander's schemes" (or whatever it is you say - I can't see the previous message on this forum!) what exactly to do you mean?We do, after all, have a very good idea of the emotional attachment that Alex had with Hephaistion, and he was being promoted to high ranks as early as 330, when he shared the command of the Companion Cavalry with Cleitus after Philotas' execution. The job as chiliarch that he was given in 324 appears to have been an honorary role, very clearly showing his standing, although it is true that we don't know much about what the role entailed... but then, as Hephaistion died so soon afterwards, it's a bit academic...All the bestMarcus

[susa]

I see, Marcus. I was just wondering if Hephaistion's strong attachment to Alexander would be the explanation of his being appointed Grand Vizier later. But i think there will be no clearing up here. Oh well.
Thanks anyway!
Isa

[Linda]

Hi IsaThe fact that Hephaestion was appointed chiliarch was a sign of not just his personal, but his political, closeness to Alexander. As Perdiccas was appointed chiliarch after Hephaestion's death, I think that shows that it was not a purely honorary title, but had some function beyond a relationship to Alexander. Not just the Duke of Edinburgh.. However, what the function was (sartrap of Babylonia, or deputy, or chief advisor, or whatever) I am afraid I don't know.

[marcus]

Actually, I think Hephaestion's appointment to chiliarch was for no reason *other* than his strong attachment to Alexander. Hephaestion had been used for some diplomatic missions (such as that to select and appoint the new king for... darn it, I forget where) but all accounts appear to indicate that diplomacy was not, actually, Hephaestion's strong point. He was a good organiser, though, so perhaps the chiliarchy was some sort of 'high stewardship' where his main duty was ensuring the royal cutlery was cleaned properly (or something like that ). If only he had lived a bit longer, eh? Then we might have a record of what his job actually was!All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

Hi MarcusHmm - I had to answer this...I think that although it is clear that the position of chiliarch was introduced, or adopted, specifically for Hephaestion (when, we don't know - I have seen varying ideas, from at the time of the marriage with Roxanne, to nearly at his death), it carried on afterwards with Pediccas, so it was not just a sop to Hepahestion. Also, Isa asked about the pesonal nature, and I think that the sources make clear (Plutrach, certainly) that although there was a strong personal attachment, Hephaestion also supported Alexander politically. The way things are phrased in the sources, it suggests a genuine sympathy with Alexander's Orientalism, rather than just loyalty, although his loyalty is always stressed. Impossible to disentangle, maybe.Diplomacy - he certainly fought spectacularly with Eumenes and Craterus. Apart from being responsible for appointing the King of Sidon, Alexander also left him with Porus, a very important ally, to presumably solidify relations, as well as clean up a few territories. Alexander might have been fond of him, but he wouldn't have risked upsetting Porus. He also got on well with Persians, so diplomacy with non-Macedonians seems not to have been a problem for him.

[marcus]

Well, Linda, we might have to agree to disagree here! The fact that Perdiccas took on the role after Hephaestion's death does not mean that the role was created for Hephaestion to demonstrate to the world how high he stood in Alexander's favour. I agree that there is an implication, but it ain't proof.I have never disputed that Hephaestion supported Alexander politically - especially in supporting (or at least not having a problem with) the Orientalising. This is one of the key reasons why Hephaestion stood so high in Alexander's regard.I don't agree that Heph got on well with Persians - at least as far as to say that there is no evidence that he did. Likewise, there is no evidence to the contrary. And I must take issue with Heph's being envoy to Porus as being evidence that he was a good diplomat. Again, no evidence to the contrary, but if he couldn't get on with almost anybody else in the Macedonian high command, it hardly bodes well. We also have to remember that Heph's diplomatic mission to Porus will hardly have been fraught with problems - and as all communication will have been through interpreters who will have known how to speak 'correctly' to each other, there was far less chance of a diplomatic incident. I suggest that Hephaestion's value as a 'diplomat' was in his closeness to Alexander - lucky old Porus, eh, to be dealing with Alexander's bosom buddy! Won't that get his enemies green with envy, yadda yadda yadda...?You only have to consider some of the extremely ill-advised comments of the Saudi ambassador to Britain in the past couple of months (about Al Qaeda, terrorism, Israel etc.) to appreciate that not all diplomats are... well, diplomats! All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

Well, ok - agree to disagree. However, I think it is Plutrach who says (darn being at work) that Alexander noticed Craterus was better at dealing with Macedonians, and Hephaestion, the Persians, and so used them in this way to communicate with these groups. This may just have been another way Alexander used to differentiate his two closest allies, but I think it shows that Hephaestion was not *bad* a diplomacy. he may not have been anything out of the ordinary. Fighting with your colleagues is not necessarily a sign of being a bad diplomat - there are different tensions there.

[marcus]

Hi Linda,As you say: "darn being at work" - so I'm prepared to accept that Plutarch says whatever he does. Still, here's me playing devil's advocate... perhaps Heph was "better at dealing with Persians" to the degree that Craterus was *so bad* at dealing with them - after all, Craterus was known as one of the anti-orientalising group.But I don't entirely agree that one's interactions with one's immediate social/racial/political/whatever group bear no relation to one's interactions with members of other groups. Of course, I am no sociologist or psychologist, so I don't have any evidence to back up my assertion - but I bet those people who are so high-handed about "Macedonia for the MAcedonians" on this forum from time to time are not exactly sweetness and light to their own kin-group, either! All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Me again...I suppose the other thing that I should note is that am happy with the idea that Heph was not a *bad* diplomat, but was nothing out of the ordinary. I read back through our messages and realised that, one the one hand I had not acknowledged this point of yours (which was naughty); and on the other, as so often happens in these protracted threads, I become more forceful in one argument in order to make my point.So I end up by asserting that Hephaestion was a bad diplomat, which is not what I meant to say at all. But there is no evidence that he was a good one, and as far as it relates to his chiliarchy... well, we rather got off-track on that one, didn't we? So, back to the chiliarchy... my view is that is was a personal appointment. When Heph died, it became a bit like some directorships in modern companies - a successor was appointed without anyone considering whether the role was actually necessary in the first place. So Perdiccas takes the role, and it conveniently makes him the natural person to take Alexander's ring on the king's deathbed... but it didn't hold much truck with the rest of 'em, did it? All the bestMarcus

[susa]

Hi Linda and Marcus
Thanks for your opinions. I was thinking about what Marcus says about the chiliarch role - "take Alexander's ring on the king's deathbed" and to that i added what Linda said above - "but [Hephaistion] had some [political] function beyond a relationship to Alexander. Not just the Duke of Edinburgh.. However, what the function was (sartrap of Babylonia, or deputy, or chief advisor, or whatever) I am afraid I don't know."
Well, we could think about a possible precaution from Alexander when he appointed Hephaistion as chiliarch, i mean, perhaps Alexander wanted to assure who would get the ring if anything was to happen to him... I know it's too far-fetched, but who knows?Cheers to you both!susa

[Tre]

Hello Marcus:Chiliarch is 'Grand Vizier' the highest administrative post one can hold in the Persian Empire short of being Great King. In fact it was in the past a King making and King Breaking position. He sets the tone of the court and how it is run. What this more than suggests is Hephaistion was very good at diplomacy, politics, watching the King's back and also quite good with the Persians. Before one brings up the quarreling issue, I might remind everyone that was the nature of the court Alexander came from. Only Alexander could force a general peace - after his death the quarreling you didn't read about during the campaign becomes apparent. Fighting for position for the King's attention and diplomacy are not mutually exclusive. The expert on all things Hephaistion is Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman. As most of you probably know she has a good website out there for those with some interest in Hephaistion and for those with a serious interest, a doctoral thesis titled "Hephaistion Amyntoros - Eminence Grise at the Court of Alexander the Great." IMHO, it gives a far more plausible portrait of the King's friend than Heckel's 'Marshalls.'Regards,TreRegards,Tre

[Susa]

Hey Tre, it was just a good ol' idle talk, i'm sure [if i can speak for both Linda and Marcus, ofcourse] - nothing really academic, you know. But thanks anyway for yr opinion.isa

[marcus]

Tre,All well and good, but all that is as much supposition as what I was saying. For a start, who was Chiliarch before Heph was appointed to the role? We all know what the 'Grand Vizier' role was in the Persian Empire, but as far as I can tell there wasn't one in Alexander's administration before Heph was appointed... and then there is no evidence for what Heph's duties comprised (apart from drinking too much and then dying, unfortunately).So, you see, while I am fully aware of what the Grand Vizier was, that don't, I'm afraid, mean that Heph was it...All the best MarcusPS. I hope this makes sense - I'm a bit out of sorts today and I fear I might be rambling more than usual

[ruthaki]

And do you suppose that being married to the second Persian princess, and 'brother-in-law' of Alexander might have had something to do with the appointment?