The Relationship of Alexander and Hephaestion

[Paralus]

I agree about Peucestas, but thank you for typing it out for others... :wink: I have wondered if Peucestas and Eumenes already knew Olympias was dead by the time of Gabiene. I see to different years for that battle by scholars I respect 316 and 315. Peucestas certainly chafed under the wily Eumenes...I'm suprised he stayed as long as he did. But sadly, we only have the version of events from Eumenes' "camp".

The date for the battle would be about the winter soltice of317/16. A date in early January or possibly very late December. Paraetecene will have been late in November of 317. It is unlikely that news of Cassander's triumph will have made it east by then. For that to have happened Eumenes' letter from Orontes claiming that Olympias was in power in Macedon and that Polyperchon was crossing Cappadocia with a royal army will have been proven the fiction that it was. The "high chronology" makes more sense to me.

Peucestas had, along with the other satraps, just defeated Peithon in his bid for control of the greater "upper" satrapies and saw the chance to extend both his power and influence. Where he might have wound up had he taken command of the coalition is anyone's guess. By the time of Gabiene it was a case let's preserve what we have. He had no guarantee of that under a triumphant Antigonus - as events would prove - and a better chance under negotiation if he were fought to a standstill. This was the case at Gabiene's end. Had Eumenes' army taken the field in pursuit of its baggage the next day, the tilt at empire by Antigonus will have been brought to an abrupt end.

Craterus...I don't know. Assuming the costume of Alexander, sans the diadem and the huge sculpture at Delphi indicate something a little less than humble to me. Again here, an early death cut short whatever ambitions he had or didn't have...I don't doubt his loyalty to Alexnader, but after that..marrying one of Antipater's daughters (but then who didn't! :lol: ). I just don't assume anything.

It's really a matter of conjecture I suppose. My view was not to suggets he was humble as such, just not an Antigonus. He had the wherewithall in Cilicia to roll his dice and chose to side with Antipater. Then again, there's not much point to a Macedonian Empire with Macedonia. He was surprised and tactically beaten by Eumenes in Anatolia. Had he won, joined Antipater for the reduction of Perdiccas, there then will have been Ptolemy, Antipater, Craterus and Antigonus. Antipater was soon to die and that will then have left Craterus with rather a large royal army.

What might he have done? My guess is transport the Aetolians to the farthest desert of the eastern satrapies and then consider his next move.

[the_accursed]

How many years did it take Philip to "stabilise" just the Balkan Peninsula? Over 20, including some serious missteps. granted he also spent that time transforming Macedonian society (towards,I think, a more oriental form) and the military.

This is not to glorify Alexander, but his chief failure was dying, because we will never know if the empire would have stabilised, as much as any can. They only have a certain life span.. Were Parmenion and Craterus any more capable than Alexander? Wasn't it Parmenion's troops that were cornered in the Troad before Alexander came over with themain army. What great victory did Craterus achieve on his own? Just asking that...I do believe they were very competent men. Alexander, and I think most people realise this, was fortunate that he had good people. Is there any serious person that thinks otherwise?

As for the failure of "orientalising". I think the failure lies with his troops and followers that lacked the imagination to see how it would have been beneficial to empire and hence to themselves. (Again, not saying that empire is a good thing, in the modern world). Though considering how quickly oriental the Diadochi monarchies became and then the Roman and later European ones as well...I think that it was the "orientalising" that won out in the end.

But I realise that you think Alexander an incompetent..certainly by comparing him to Arrhidaeus...I'm sorry, that is just nonsense.

Philip produced a Macedonian heir. Alexander foolishly rejected the advice to do so before leaving for Persia, and this is one of the major reasons why his empire collapsed. But perhaps it was advice from Hephaestion that made him make this mistake?

I think that every position taken in these discussions has its logical consequences, and if they are indeed logical, then they must be accepted, whether they are pleasant or not. If Alexander could not have conquered Persia without Hephaestion, then it certainly sets him apart from the many other conquerors and leaders who accomplished things without the constant guidance of a "soul mate". And it seems reasonable to me to take into account the greatness of the people who tried to educate and advice him, and who served under him during the campaign, when Alexander and his gigantic failure at empire building is being evaluated. He seems to have had more very talented people helping him than perhaps any other leader in world history...and he still failed. To argue that this says nothing about Alexander and his level of competence would, in my opinion, be dishonest.

[athenas owl]

How many years did it take Philip to "stabilise" just the Balkan Peninsula? Over 20, including some serious missteps. granted he also spent that time transforming Macedonian society (towards,I think, a more oriental form) and the military.

This is not to glorify Alexander, but his chief failure was dying, because we will never know if the empire would have stabilised, as much as any can. They only have a certain life span.. Were Parmenion and Craterus any more capable than Alexander? Wasn't it Parmenion's troops that were cornered in the Troad before Alexander came over with themain army. What great victory did Craterus achieve on his own? Just asking that...I do believe they were very competent men. Alexander, and I think most people realise this, was fortunate that he had good people. Is there any serious person that thinks otherwise?

As for the failure of "orientalising". I think the failure lies with his troops and followers that lacked the imagination to see how it would have been beneficial to empire and hence to themselves. (Again, not saying that empire is a good thing, in the modern world). Though considering how quickly oriental the Diadochi monarchies became and then the Roman and later European ones as well...I think that it was the "orientalising" that won out in the end.

But I realise that you think Alexander an incompetent..certainly by comparing him to Arrhidaeus...I'm sorry, that is just nonsense.

Philip produced a Macedonian heir. Alexander foolishly rejected the advice to do so before leaving for Persia, and this is one of the major reasons why his empire collapsed. But perhaps it was advice from Hephaestion that made him make this mistake?

I think that every position taken in these discussions has its logical consequences, and if they are indeed logical, then they must be accepted, whether they are pleasant or not. If Alexander could not have conquered Persia without Hephaestion, then it certainly sets him apart from the many other conquerors and leaders who accomplished things without the constant guidance of a "soul mate". And it seems reasonable to me to take into account the greatness of the people who tried to educate and advice him, and who served under him during the campaign, when Alexander and his gigantic failure at empire building is being evaluated. He seems to have had more very talented people helping him than perhaps any other leader in world history...and he still failed. To argue that this says nothing about Alexander and his level of competence would, in my opinion, be dishonest.

Again...all this failure stems from the fact that he died. Had Philip been killed in one of the many battles where he instead "left a piece of himself on every battlefield" (who said that? I can't remember) leaving an infant Arrhidaeus or Alexander, then he, too, would have been a "failure". Just as Perdiccas, his brother had been a failure for dying before Amyntas could take the throne.

Any child he might have had in Macedonia would be still that..a child, left to the fortunes of the same sharks that were circling the waters at Alexander's death. Because a child would have been 3/4 Macedonian (as Alexander was only half)..that child, assuming it was a boy and survived infancy, would be of a particular Macedonian's family and wich family..there's a whole set of power plays there.... Again, a lot of men had a taste for empire...what could one child(and he would have been one, keep in mind) in Macedonia do to keep the center as events unfolded in Babylon?

Witness Philip's own succession (if it can be called that), how many brothers did he have to kill? Was Perdiccas incompetent to get killed by the Illyrians..or rather was the "throne" up for grabs and Philip emerged the winner?

Yes, dying young is certainly an incompetent thing to do... (Excuse my sarcasm) Just ask Henry VI of England (it was very incompetent of Henry V to die of dysentery). Actually Alexander and the Diadochi sometimes remind me very much of the War of the Roses.

Paralus, I have read arguments for both the early 316 and 315 dates...though I tend towards the upper date myself as well. But it wouldn't suprise me if the lower was true as well.

[amyntoros]

Anyway, back to Hephaistion, which is always nice - yes, I do think it's faint praise to say he may not have been much of a warrior. That's just trotting out Heckel's view of his military abilities, though to be fair, Davidson's brief precluded an exhaustive look at that. But honestly, if he just wanted to mention Hephaistion's career in passing, he'd have got a fairer picture from Wikipedia.

I simply don't know what Hephaistion's military abilites were...that they weren't mentioned very much at all does not mean that he was not competent. There was no reason to write down his accomplishments, as he and ATG were dead. All glory to the survivors, in their own versions of events. That being my point about Perdiccas. He didn't make it beyond a few years, but Ptolemy obviously did not care for him at all. Aside from the court functionaries and the very curious fight with Craterus, none of the "bigger lights" seem to have gone after Hephaistion. I just find it curious. I do think that he was possibly more capable in administration...hence his appointment as chilliarch. His own tales of glory are lost to us, because no one surviving (as far as we know anyway) cared to detail his career.

I’m in agreement with both of you (except for the Wikipedia statement ) Davidson's actual words are "Hephaestion may have been no great warrior, but Alexander was warrior enough". This is not to say that Hephaistion wasn't competent – just that he wasn't "great". I don't think this can be proven, however, because Hephaistion had less opportunity than others to demonstrate whether he was great on the battlefield or not. The fact that Alexander gave mostly administrative duties to Hephaistion doesn't mean, IMO, that Hephaistion was better at administration than fighting – just that he was the best man for the former. Alexander had more than enough great warriors, but it's obvious he needed people with other strengths as well. Having excellent abilities in one particular field does not necessarily preclude being equally skillful in another. It's the same as with Eumenes whose primary function during Alexander's lifetime was as Secretary. Again, Eumenes was the best man for the job, but it doesn't follow that he was also no great warrior. As it happens, events after Alexander's death proved that Eumenes could hold his own on the battlefield, his death being ultimately due to politics and not lack of skill in warfare. Unfortunately for our argument, Hephaistion didn't live long enough to prove himself in the wars for the Succession, although I'm inclined to share Paralus' belief that he would have been killed anyway in the feeding frenzy which followed Alexander's death. His closeness to Alexander would likely have meant that there was a huge target on his back.

Best regards,

[the_accursed]

Again...all this failure stems from the fact that he died. Had Philip been killed in one of the many battles where he instead "left a piece of himself on every battlefield" (who said that? I can't remember) leaving an infant Arrhidaeus or Alexander, then he, too, would have been a "failure". Just as Perdiccas, his brother had been a failure for dying before Amyntas could take the throne.

No, the failure wasn't the consequence only of Alexander dying. It was the consequence of Alexander dying without having produced a Macedonian heir - something he could have done but chose not to do, even though he was advised to do so. Philip actually tried to produce Macedonian heirs. Alexander didn't.

And no, a Macedonian heir, perhaps 11 or 12 years old, would not have guaranteed that the empire would have lasted...but it would have increased its chances.

[Fiona]

Myself I think that, as usual, it's only the credit for the things that worked that people feel need to be distributed. But what about the Gedrosian disaster? Alexander's “orientalisation"? Alexander murdering Parmenion and Philotas? Not to mention Alexander's complete failure to stabilize the empire? Surely Hephaestion, then, must also have been partly responsible for these and the many other of "Alexander's" mistakes?

Absolutely. No question about it. Hephaistion even did the torturing.

Still, regarding the claim that Alexander could not have conquered Persia without Hephaestion, it at least seems to me like a step in the right direction. Considering that Alexander's attempt at building an empire was a rather gigantic failure, what does it say about him and his "arete" that he failed in spite of having had Philip and Olympias as parents, Hephaestion as best friend (and, apparently, "soul mate"), Aristotle as teacher, the best army in the world and and countless of world class generals (such as Parmenion and Craterus)?

Doesn't it indicate that he was a rather less than capable person, ultimately rather more a Arrhidaeus than a Philip II?

That's assuming that building an empire was what he was trying to do. I would suggest that the acquisition of an empire was a side-effect of his real aim, ie, undying fame.
He did not say, "Is it not a glorious thing to live a sensible life, and die leaving a stabilised empire?"
What he really wanted was for people still to be talking about him hundreds of years later. I trust you're not suggesting he failed in that?
Fiona

[Fiona]

I’m in agreement with both of you (except for the Wikipedia statement ) Davidson's actual words are "Hephaestion may have been no great warrior, but Alexander was warrior enough". This is not to say that Hephaistion wasn't competent – just that he wasn't "great". I don't think this can be proven, however, because Hephaistion had less opportunity than others to demonstrate whether he was great on the battlefield or not. The fact that Alexander gave mostly administrative duties to Hephaistion doesn't mean, IMO, that Hephaistion was better at administration than fighting – just that he was the best man for the former. Alexander had more than enough great warriors, but it's obvious he needed people with other strengths as well. Having excellent abilities in one particular field does not necessarily preclude being equally skillful in another.

I agree, and I think it's a good point. And even if Hephaistion was 'great', Alexander was 'greater'. And being good at something else is what you'd expect of him - with 'soulmates' (if you'll excuse the term!) like these two, they usually match in opinions, aims, and vision of life, but are opposites in abilities.
So much do people expect this, in fact, that Hephaistion has acquired this reputation of being good at administration. Yet where does it come from? I agree it's what you'd expect, and being talented at administration is a good thing to be, but it just doesn't fit the facts as we have them.
Leaving aside actual battles, and concentrating on various tasks and missions Hephaistion was given, this is what we find:

1 fleet command
1 (possibly 2) diplomatic missions
2 jobs concerning reconciliation with Persians
1 torture
1 sole command of a section
1 organising of supplies
1 establishing of settlements
1 joint command with Perdiccas
1 (possibly 2) bridges
1 siege
1 command of half the army
1 command of a third of the army
1 command of ‘the greater part’ of the army
1 construction of a fortress
1 construction of a harbour
1 base camp command
1 founding of a city

Now in that, I see much engineering, but only one instance of logistics, and no administration. (Though it depends what you mean by administration - I'd take it to mean lists and organising and paperwork)
Those are roughly in order, and I see Alexander's growing reliance on Hephaistion's abilities as he takes on more and more.
Most interesting is the orders he and Perdiccas were given as Alexander went up the Swat valley, and they went through the Khyber pass - 'take over either by force or agreement all places on their march, and on reaching the Indus to make suitable preparations for crossing'.
They didn't know much about where they were going, or what they would encounter. It's notable that here, Alexander entrusts command to Hephaistion, because he's the one he can rely on to do what he would have done himself, without needing orders.
It's true that other commanders were often given sole command of quite large sections, but like Craterus a few weeks before this, when he had to subdue the last two Bactrian rebels, this tended to happen when the objectives were clear-cut.
When Alexander needed someone who could think what to do and do it, he sent Hephaistion.
None of this proves that Hephaistion was talented on the battle-field. We just don't know. It may be, as Athena's Owl pointed out, that there was just no incentive for the first writers to tell Hephaistion's story. It may be, as Paralus pointed out, that it's a bit suspicious that he doesn't get mentioned more, particularly by Hydaspes.
What it does prove, I think, is that Hephaistion was talented in many ways, and was resourceful and adaptable. Administrative abilities don't come into it - they make him sound like a bit of a pen-pusher. More practical than that, I think. The sort of man who could put shelves up and they wouldn't fall down. And clever too.
Fiona

[Semiramis]

Hi Accursed,

I agree with you in that Alexander did precious little to "build" an empire. But the way I see it, he was interested only in taking over the Achaemenid empire with its complex system already in place. He was happy to follow the pre-existing network of satrapies, taxes, tributes, royal protocol, treasury, harem, secret service etc. Other than changing those at the very top of this system, most importantly the Great King, the only other aspect Alexander seemed to have been passionate about restructuring was the army. In terms of total territory, Alexander didn't venture too far away from lands the Achaemenids had previously conquered. If reports of his plans to conquer new lands are accurate, there is still no reason to think he would've ventured too far from the Achaemenid system of rule.

I know modern historians place a lot of importance on a Macedonian heir, but here's my take on this. I think Alexander would have felt that the ideal heir for him would be the son of himself and Barsine/Stateira (Darius and Stateira I's daugher). This would appease the Persian nobles and give Alexander and his son legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the empire in a way no other marriage or heir ever could. What is often left out of the discussion is the importance of the mother's line in Persian royal custom. Darius I, for example, had dubious ancestry, to say the least, but quickly married the queen of the previous Great King (whom he had murdered before taking the throne) to solidify his position. As a result, no one seems to have questioned Xerxes' blood line.

I imagine that once Alexander had seen the power and splendor of Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana, Macedonia started to look like a glorified village. It must have started to slip further and further down his agenda of important things. When Alexander left for further east from the Persian heartlands, Darius' daughters were most likely not of marriagable age according to Persian custom (13 from memory). The fact that he arranged for Greek education for them indicates that he was already planning for future marriages to these girls for himself and Hephaistion. Beautiful, supremely clever plans, save one flaw - both men died too young to produce those precious heirs with royal Achaemenid blood in their veins.

[amyntoros]

Now in that, I see much engineering, but only one instance of logistics, and no administration. (Though it depends what you mean by administration - I'd take it to mean lists and organising and paperwork)

A very quick response right now (a little short of time) on my use of the word "administration". I use it in the sense of "administering" a government or an insitution ... or a mobile army cutting a swathe across everyone's lands! In Hephaistion's case it meant being in charge of things which didn't always involve actual warfare but which were necessary to support Alexander and further the campaign. Am pretty certain that any writer who uses the term doesn't see Hephaistion as a "paper-pusher" either. They, like me, will also have read the sources.


Best regards,

[the_accursed]

Fiona:

That's assuming that building an empire was what he was trying to do. I would suggest that the acquisition of an empire was a side-effect of his real aim, ie, undying fame.
He did not say, "Is it not a glorious thing to live a sensible life, and die leaving a stabilised empire?"
What he really wanted was for people still to be talking about him hundreds of years later. I trust you're not suggesting he failed in that?
Fiona

I don't think there can be any doubt that he tried to stabilise the empire. Tried and failed. The "orientalisation", which caused him so many problems, was intended to do exactly that. He didn't bring all these problems upon himself for fun. Nor to give you something to talk about 2300 years later. And the fact that he wanted to both conquer all of India and later Arabia, and most likely also Europe, shows that he indeed wanted to "build".

Alexander didn't just want to be "talked about". Paris Hilton is "talked about". He wanted to be thought of highly. Instead, he's one of the greatest failures in world history. I very much doubt that that's what he had in mind. There's no conflict between becoming a famous conqueror and also leaving behind a stabilised empire. And I'm pretty sure Alexander knew that if he would fail to stabilise the empire, then this would reflect very poorly upon him. And it has.

[the_accursed]

Semiramis:

I know modern historians place a lot of importance on a Macedonian heir, but here's my take on this. I think Alexander would have felt that the ideal heir for him would be the son of himself and Barsine/Stateira (Darius and Stateira I's daugher). This would appease the Persian nobles and give Alexander and his son legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the empire in a way no other marriage or heir ever could.

This, though, was hardly why Alexander refused to father an heir before the Persian campaign had even begun. And had he done so, then it could have saved the empire. Philip, in a similar situation, would undoubtedly have produced an heir. But then, Philip was a great leader.

[athenas owl]

Semiramis:

I know modern historians place a lot of importance on a Macedonian heir, but here's my take on this. I think Alexander would have felt that the ideal heir for him would be the son of himself and Barsine/Stateira (Darius and Stateira I's daugher). This would appease the Persian nobles and give Alexander and his son legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the empire in a way no other marriage or heir ever could.

This, though, was hardly why Alexander refused to father an heir before the Persian campaign had even begun. And had he done so, then it could have saved the empire. Philip, in a similar situation, would undoubtedly have produced an heir. But then, Philip was a great leader.

I see you must be a great fan of Grainger's book, Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire You certainly have the zeal of a new convert.

Philip would have "undoubtedly" done this or that...we do not know what Philip would have done, and if he had died at 32, it is quite likely that his dreams of empire would have crumbled as well, with 2 sons under 7 or 8 and only one of those, most likely, unimpaired, a scramble for regency and outside forces pressing in from ALL sides.

Philip, if memory serves, did not knock off the last of his competing brothers until 348 BC when he took Olynthus and razed it to the ground (he was a bit older than Alexander was when he died). These being Menelaos and Arrhidaeus with their various supporters outside Macedonia looking to destabilise the kingdom. Then there would have been the party of young Amyntas vi.

Tell me, whose family should Alexander have allied himself by marriage in Macedonia? Which family's own ambition would not have caused trouble with the other factions? Just curious. You seem to have such a clear understanding the political dynamics in Macedonia in 336/334.

Though in the end, failure is a relative term and I think an anachronistic one. Was he a failure to his successors? They certainly benefitted hugely by ALexander's leading the conquest and the image of Alexander loomed hugely amongst them in various ways, from his body to his face used on their coins.. And any child he might have had that would have been a bit older would still have been held thrall by these very same men. Alexander himself had cult worship up to the time the Christian Emperor outlawed it over 700 years after his death, and possibly longer in some places.

Even today, Alexander has one of the most recognisable names in all of world history. And that, for good or bad, is not hyperbole. I think Alexander would view that as success.

It is what it is..and though I find Alexander and his time and people fascinating, I don't know that I would want any other world than the one I have now...Had Alexander been "successful" in his dream of "world" empire, our world would for good or ill have been a much different place.

[amyntoros]

Just responding to the "Alexander as Failure" theme and I must say that I don't see it myself - at least not when the failure is related to producing offspring at an earlier age. I mean, I agree that things would have been different had Alexander fathered a child before he left for Asia, but we will never know if the effect on the Empire would have been better, worse, or much the same. A son (if he'd been lucky enough to father a son at first shot) would have been between the ages of 11 and 13 when he died, and would have been back home with Antipater and/or Olympias whilst the rest of the now incredibly ambitious Friends remained far away in Babylon or elsewhere in Asia. I can't say for sure what would have happened - that's the stuff of alternate reality fiction - but nothing that we know about the Successors is indicative of them ALL lying down, submitting to Antipater as regent, and going on as before. Things had changed too much for them since they last saw Macedon, IMO. As I said at the beginning – things would have been different but I don't see any guarantee of the success of the Empire as opposed to the failure that's being suggested here.

One final thought about Alexander's "refusing" to sire a son before leaving for Asia. Had he married the daughter of one of the elite Macedonians there was no guarantee of immediate progeny - it took several years, for instance, before Alexander's relationship with Barsine resulted in a child. There was no guarantee of producing a son at first try as opposed to a daughter. In fact, no guarantee of producing a child at all! (Some of Philip's wives appear to have been barren.) And to top it all, there was no guarantee that a child would survive birth or infancy. Alexander would have known this. How could he not? Which means that it could have been years rather than months before Alexander would have been able to take his army into Persia. Seriously - YEARS. Certainly long enough for Darius to get his act together and possibly long enough for the whole face of history to have been changed. No event happens in isolation and it is impossible to give the assurance that if this had happened then this would definitely have followed. Grainger, however, seems to think otherwise.

Best regards,

[Fiona]

A very quick response right now (a little short of time) on my use of the word "administration". I use it in the sense of "administering" a government or an insitution ... or a mobile army cutting a swathe across everyone's lands! In Hephaistion's case it meant being in charge of things which didn't always involve actual warfare but which were necessary to support Alexander and further the campaign. Am pretty certain that any writer who uses the term doesn't see Hephaistion as a "paper-pusher" either.

But such a writer would need to think what the reader would understand by the term used. When military abilities are under discussion, the word will be understood in its military context. Ask any soldier what s/he understands by 'administration', and I bet you'd get the answer, 'desk job'.
Even so, accepting the meaning you give here, the whole point of my post was to illustrate that the greater part of the jobs assigned to Hephaistion did in fact include actual warfare, and fighting - just not in a classic battlefield situation.

They, like me, will also have read the sources.

You're implying that I was suggesting that you had not? Why would I be so rude - and silly - as to do that? I was trying to make a serious point, and one that I considered a valid contribution to the discussion - no less than a re-assessment of the evidence, and a challenge to commonly-held interpretations. To do that, I had to list the evidence under consideration. A person should be able to do that without feeling accused of trying to teach her betters. To add a smiley to such a cutting remark only makes it smack further of condescension.
Perhaps it is only 'writers' - or professors - who are permitted to formulate new ideas. In any case, it doesn't matter. I'm too disheartened to continue.
Fiona

[amyntoros]

A very quick response right now (a little short of time) on my use of the word "administration". I use it in the sense of "administering" a government or an insitution ... or a mobile army cutting a swathe across everyone's lands! In Hephaistion's case it meant being in charge of things which didn't always involve actual warfare but which were necessary to support Alexander and further the campaign. Am pretty certain that any writer who uses the term doesn't see Hephaistion as a "paper-pusher" either.

But such a writer would need to think what the reader would understand by the term used. When military abilities are under discussion, the word will be understood in its military context. Ask any soldier what s/he understands by 'administration', and I bet you'd get the answer, 'desk job'.
Even so, accepting the meaning you give here, the whole point of my post was to illustrate that the greater part of the jobs assigned to Hephaistion did in fact include actual warfare, and fighting - just not in a classic battlefield situation.

They, like me, will also have read the sources.

You're implying that I was suggesting that you had not? Why would I be so rude - and silly - as to do that? I was trying to make a serious point, and one that I considered a valid contribution to the discussion - no less than a re-assessment of the evidence, and a challenge to commonly-held interpretations. To do that, I had to list the evidence under consideration. A person should be able to do that without feeling accused of trying to teach her betters. To add a smiley to such a cutting remark only makes it smack further of condescension.
Perhaps it is only 'writers' - or professors - who are permitted to formulate new ideas. In any case, it doesn't matter. I'm too disheartened to continue.
Fiona

Fiona, I sincerely had no intention of being rude or making you disheartened. My remark was prompted because you had implied that I was referring to Hephaistion as a paper-pusher. You said that "being talented at administration is a good thing to be, but it just doesn't fit the facts as we have them", and "Now in that, I see much engineering, but only one instance of logistics, and no administration. (Though it depends what you mean by administration - I'd take it to mean lists and organising and paperwork)." You also said "Administrative abilities don't come into it - they make him sound like a bit of a pen-pusher." Have to admit that I was flummoxed as to why you would think that this is what I meant. Because … well, because - and I couldn't think of any other way to put it at the time - I have read the sources and there's no evidence of Hephaistion making lists and organizing and paperwork! I couldn't imagine why you would believe that by my saying he was a good administrator I was talking about such tasks. It probably all boils down to my poor choice of word, but to be honest my vocabulary is not what it used to be and I couldn't/can't think of a better word than "administrator" to use. So I explained what I meant by the use of the word and tagged on that last line as more of an afterthought in response to how you seemed to think of me rather than how I think of you.

For the record, I find your arguments well-constructed and often original and thought provoking, and I value your contributions greatly. My hurried reply was not an accusation of you trying to teach your betters but more a defense of myself. I wasn't offended (and that's why I included the smiley) but I was definitely taken aback that you seemed to think I could be so misguided as to completely misinterpret Hephaistion in such a manner. I wasn't invalidating your contribution to the debate but attempting to hurriedly point out that I had been misunderstood. I hesitate to use the word "condescension" because you got that impression from my response, but at the time parts of your post felt that way to me also. Looking at it now, I'm not sure why I felt that way. I think perhaps I should not have rushed off a response - and definitely not that last line having seen how it made you feel - but I had to hurry out because the mother of a close friend is dying and the taxi was due to take us to the hospital. No, that's not an excuse or a sympathy play because I haven't seen his mother in a long time, but I was shaken by the sudden turn of events and likely a little over-emotional at the time. I do most sincerely apologize for having made you feel this way and I don't want you to feel disheartened. You are an asset to the forum. Truly.

And one final thing. No, I don't think that only professors and writers are permitted to formulate new ideas. In fact I think that some of them might actually benefit from reading the contributions made by all the members on this forum.

Best regards,