Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

[Paralus]

This is fascinating - Paralus, may I ask, do you personally like or dislike the idea of Hephaistion?

Neither actually Meg. I do think he owed much to his position as "boon companion" though. That and the fact that, if Alexander could trust anyone, he could trust Hephaestion.

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.

I have no idea what "homosexual partnerships" has to do with which command Hephaestion held on the day. My view is not based on any stereotype.

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.

The fiercest fighting was indeed about the king. This is precisely where we find the agema of the hypaspists. The battle order of Gaugamela makes it absolutely plain that this unit is immediately next to Alexander and the Companion cavalry (Arr 3.11.9). These are then part of the phalanx - the integral part - that Alexander, along with the Companion cavalry, makes a wedge of to attack the Persian line:

Arr. 3.14.2
"Alexander then wheeled about opposite the gap, arrayed the Companion cavalry and the nearby portion of the phalanx in a wedge formation..."

Thus the agema leads the infantry in a combined arms attack on the enemy - right alongside and, I strongly suspect, within the cavalry melee (see the infantryman whose head appears behind Alexander on the eponymous mosaic). Clearly then the agema's commander is in this attack and, as noted, is wounded. These are the same men that Alexander leads at Tyre into the breach in the wall from the assault ships. Here Arrian calls them "hetairoi":

Arr.2.23.2; 23.4-6:
The shield bearing guards occupied one of these vessels, which he had put under the command of Admetus; and the other was occupied by the regiment of Coenus, called the asthetairoi. Alexander himself, with the shield-bearing guards, intended to scale the wall where it might be practicable [...] When Alexander's ships drew close to the city and the bridges were thrown from them upon the wall, the shield-bearing guards mounted valiantly along these upon the wall; for their captain, Admetus, proved himself brave on that occasion, and Alexander accompanied them [...] The first part of the wall that was captured was where Alexander had posted himself [...] Admetus was the first to mount the wall; but while cheering on his men to mount, he was struck with a spear and died on the spot. After him, Alexander with the hetairoi got possession of the wall.

Here the man - Admetos - commanding the agema dies fighting. That these were the hypaspists is later made clear by Arrian (4.26.6):

On the third day he led the phalanx near again, and throwing a bridge from a military engine over to the part of the wall where the breach had been made, by this he led up the shield-bearing guards, who had captured Tyre for him in a similar way.

At 1.24.1 Alexander sends the recently married troops home to Macedon under one "Ptolemaios son of Seleukus, one of the royal bodyguards (somatophylaken ton basilikon)" This fellow returned and died at Issos commanding a taxis of pezhetairoi. Arrian means that he is one the agema of the hypaspists as to come back to an infantry command would mean demotion. At 4.30.3 Alexander takes "700 of the somatophylakes and the shield bearers". Thus Arrian refers to the agema of the hypaspists as "somatophylakes".

The "seven" were the most influential nobles of the kingdom: they were the closest of the king's companions and his "general staff" or advisors. They were, ostensibly, equals and will have fought for the the ear of the king who stood above them as the literary tradition (and this thread) shows. Such a group did not have a "commander". If Hephaestion commanded any "somatophylakes", he comannded the agema of the hypaspists - the king's own infantry guard whose raison d'etre was protecting the life of the king in battle and in camp.

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.

As were Seleukos, Perdikkas, Koinos, Krateros, etc. That did not preclude them leading infantry - they are well attested doing so. Alexander also "relaxed" the tradition that his personal seven somatophylakes could not exercise separate commands - such happened more and more as the invasion went on.

As to the hoplite panoply, if the representation on the sarcophagus is accurate and the artist is not reflecting more traditional Greek mores or tradition (the hoplite as the warrior), my view is that these are the agema of the hypaspists. As the (18-20 year old+) sons of the important Macedonian nobility they likely reflected that status with the armour and arms of the top Greek warrior.

The sarcophagus depicts several scenes one of which is a battle scene. The identity of the battle is open to question and it may be a generic composition rather than particular. If it is for Abdolonymus - as many suggest - then he was, as far as we know, nowhere near Gaugamela and has no reason to have this battle depicted upon his sarcophagus.

[marcus]

The point that often gets overlooked here is that Alexander didn't like Eumenes and quarreled with him frequently ...

I think it's a bit of a leap to take the phrases "Eumenes was often in collision with Alexander" and "he frequently incurred Alexander's displeasure" and infer from them that "Alexander didn't like Eumenes". Alexander was the king and commander in chief of the army, and due to the 'primus inter pares' nature of Macedonian kingship must have found his decisions and orders questioned frequently. But it does not follow that he "disliked" the people who challenged him.

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.

For Perdiccas I assume you are talking about his assassination at the Nile? That was carried out by a group of officers, who seemed to feel that Perdiccas was leading his army to defeat at the hands of Ptolemy. Ptolemy, by this time, had Alexander's body, and those officers might well have considered an attack on Ptolemy as an attack on Alexander ('s memory). I'm not sure that their assassination of Perdiccas means that he had always been disliked; and it certainly doesn't indicate that he was unpopular with his rank-and-file troops.

You have also forgotten Parmenion, who appears to have been extremely popular with the troops under his command. Also Alexander of Lyncestis - wasn't his arrest carefully planned in order that his Thessalian troops were unaware and unable to resist? (This is off the top of my head - written in haste and no-where near my references.)

ATB

[marcus]

As were Seleukos, Perdikkas, Koinos, Krateros, etc. That did not preclude them leading infantry - they are well attested doing so. Alexander also "relaxed" the tradition that his personal seven somatophylakes could not exercise separate commands - such happened more and more as the invasion went on.

In fact, one only has to look at the jobs Hephaestion was given, especially after 327BC, to see that he was given what we might call brigade or divisional commands, leading combined forces - such as when he goes off with Perdiccas to bridge the Indus, and when he commands the entire corps marching down one bank of the Indus; and, indeed, when he goes off to massacre various Indian tribes on his own(!). At this point Hephaestion is not commanding "infantry" or "cavalry", but effectively entire armies.

The sarcophagus depicts several scenes one of which is a battle scene. The identity of the battle is open to question and it may be a generic composition rather than particular. If it is for Abdolonymus - as many suggest - then he was, as far as we know, nowhere near Gaugamela and has no reason to have this battle depicted upon his sarcophagus.

And, whether the battle depicted is Gaugamela, Issus or any other, the fact that Hephaestion is shown on horseback could be for a number of reasons. First, it emphasises him in the relief; second, if it is Abdalonymus' sarcophagus, then he would have wanted to flatter the memory of Hephaestion because it was thanks to Hephaestion that he became King of Sidon in the first place; and also, whether Hephaestion commanded cavalry or infantry, it is very likely he would have spent at least some, if not all, of the battle on horseback anyway.

ATB

[Meg]

Thank you, Paralus, for your explanation. The details of your reasoning are very helpful.

[Thalia]

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?).

Me either, Alexias. As for me, I don't dispute Alexander may have been influenced by personal regard for Hephaistion, but it doesn't follow that personal regard was the only factor or even the primary factor in Hephaisiton's rise. Yes, the "fundamentally stupid" statement was Green. Green asserts that Hephaistion was "Tall, handsome, spoilt, spiteful, overbearing and fundamentally stupid...a competent enough regimental officer but quite incapable of supporting great authority."

I first read my dad's copies of Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius as a teenager before I read any of the historical biographies of Alexander. Perhaps that's why I'm baffled by Green (and some other historians) portraying Hephaistion as a contemptible, incompetent idiot. The only parts of Green's statement that are supported by definite statements in the ancient historians are the tall and handsome bit, the rest is just . The "spoilt, spiteful, overbearing" is stated as if that was the unequivocal accepted opinion of Heph's contemporaries when no such thing is true as far as I can see. And Green honestly thinks Hephaistion was "fundamentally stupid" and "incapable of supporting great authority" despite Hephaistion having a regular correspondence with Aristotle and successfully completing every task of great authority (commanding in the thick of the battle at Gaugamala, bridging the Indus, bringing the fleet to Tyre, subduing a chunk of India, etc.) that Alexander assigned to him? Indeed, why would Alexander, who was above all a capable leader with high standards of excellence, have continued granting Hephaistion great authority if Alexander thought Heph unworthy to the task?

I don't think Plutarch's words indicate Alexander disliked Eumenes though. Imagine how annoying it would be to deal with someone you disliked constantly on a day-to-day basis. Yet Alexander did keep Eumenes as his secretary. I'd even guess Alexander must have liked Eumenes quite a lot given that Eumenes was still around when he got on so poorly with the beloved Hephaistion.

The point I would make is why should Hephaistion be the only one who gets slapped with the charge of being a catty SOB due to conflicts with Eumenes and Crateros? Plutarch's phrasing indicates to me that between Heph and Eumenes, either they were at least equally guilty of fanning the flames or Eumenes was the slightly more aggressively quarrelsome. Plutarch says Eumenes often came into collision with Alexander indicating EUmenes may have been generally argumentative. Plutarch also doesn't say something neutral like "Heph and Eumenes often came into conflict," he says Eumenes got himself into danger implying to me that Eumenes was the initiator of the quarrels more often than not. Eumenes is also described as wily and persuasive and apparently adept at court politics (Plutarch's saying how Eumenes changed what might have been his ruin into his salvation after Heph's death). Heck, maybe the reason Heph and Eumenes got on so poorly is cuz they both were wily, persuasive and adept at court politics and neither one of them much liked the reflection of himself that he saw in the other man. Anyway, I take Plutarch's descriptors to mean Eumenes knew how to use his tongue, probably including how to bait and incite. Additionally Plutarch says Alexander himself suspected Eumenes behaviour as being motivated by jealousy of Heph and ...he[Alexander] often reproached him [Eumenes] for his former quarrels with Hephaestion and his abusive language towards him[Hephaistion].

As for Crateros we have no idea what initiated the quarrel between the two of them. We do know that Alexander eventually sent Crateros not Hephaistion away. Crateros being sent away could be interpreted in a myriad of ways, of which one possibility is that Alexander felt Crateros was the instigator of the conflicts between him and Heph. Heph and Craterus were also "natural" rivals as the highest two officers competing for Alexander's favour in a cutthroat court, and any two men in their respective positions would have likely been prickly towards each other. Still, Craterus and Heph were pragmatic enough to set aside their personal differences to drag Philotas down together....

Hey, maybe Craterus and Heph would have been the ultimate regent power-team for Alexander's infant son! Heph had a knack for dealing with the "barbarians" (Persians, Indians, etc.) and Craterus had the loyalty of the old-school Macedonians. Heph and Craterus did become civil to each other after their near-duel for the sake of their shared loyalty to Alexander- imagine how Crat and Heph might have pawned in the succession wars if they had allied out of a loyalty to Alexander's son/legacy and united their considerable talents in Alexander IV's cause!

The other thing to consider is that maybe the quarrels between Heph & Eumenes, Heph & Craterus got recorded because they were conflicts involving Alexander's no. 2 and 3 men? Maybe the other officers had just as many catfights, but we don't know about it because it didn't merit the same importance to historians as any conflict that involved Hephaistion (top overall deputy) or Crateros (top general).

[agesilaos]

There is yet another possibiity for 'the leader of the somatophylakes' in Diodoros; it is clear from Curtius (VI 10; VII 2; X 2) that his Greek sources used somatophylax to refer to the basilike ile or cavalry Guard. It would not be beyond Diodoros to retroject and confuse Hephaistion's later joint command of the Companions That would have him where we might expect in the mounted charge not lugging a sarissa.

[Paralus]

It would not be beyond Diodoros to retroject and confuse Hephaistion's later joint command of the Companions That would have him where we might expect in the mounted charge not lugging a sarissa.

Always possible but hardly probable. Though the Sicilian anachronistically refers to the hypaspists and the argyraspides, he clearly describes the cavalry order of battle with the ile described by commander and the basiliken eilen listed under Cleitus' command. Yes the fellow could confuse things but, clearly, his source used the "regular" ile basilikoi for this troop at Gaugamela. Thus when Diodorus says Heph commanded the "somatophylakes" he means the personal foot guard: the agema of the hypaspists.

At least to me but, then again, I'm in the dying stages of trying to explain that philoi were xystophoroi who fought in the cavalry agema in the wars of the Diadochoi. This when they weren't ambassadors, governors, strategoi or, in Demetrius' case at Gaza, dead. And they didn't carry sarisae like the infantry.

Oh dear... hear comes Minor M Markle.....

[agesilaos]

57 On the right wing Alexander stationed the royal squadron under the command of Cleitus the Black (as he was called), and next to this the other Friends under the command of Parmenion's son Philotas, then in succession the other seven squadrons under the same commander. 2 Behind these was stationed the infantry battalion of the Silver Shields, distinguished for the brilliance of their armour and the valour of the men; they were led by Nicanor, the son of Parmenion. Next to them was the battalion from Elimiotis, as it was called, under the command of Coenus; next he stationed the battalion of the Orestae and the Lyncestae, of which Perdiccas held the command. Meleager commanded the next battalion and Polyperchon the one after that, the people called Stymphaeans being under him. 3 Philip the son of Balacrus held the next command and, after him, Craterus. As for the cavalry, the line of the squadrons which I have mentioned was continued with the combined Peloponnesian and Achaean horse, then cavalry from Phthiotis and Malis, then Locrians and Phocians, all under the command of Erigyius of Mitylenê. 4 Next were posted the Thessalians who had Philip as their commander; they were far superior to the rest in their fighting qualities and in their horsemanship. And next to these he stationed the Cretan archers and the mercenaries from Achaia.

It would seem here that, if we take the Friends to be the Seven that they were commanded by Philotas and that Diodoros by his use of 'other' is joining the basilike ile in the somatophylakia; he also has the Thessalians under Philip whereas later it is Parmenion commanding them, that may be due to his overall command of the left-wing of course but it is hard to believe that his source would not have divided the commands of the infantry guard as he had the cavalry if so important a figure as Hephaistion was commanding it (naturally our careful author may have left that out). Either way it seems that there is some error here it just comes down to where you put it; and let's not forget the possibility of a lacuna, they are a popular explanation

[Paralus]

It would seem here that, if we take the Friends to be the Seven that they were commanded by Philotas and that Diodoros by his use of 'other' is joining the basilike ile in the somatophylakia;

Right throughout book 17 Diodorus refers to "Friends": where he uses philoi Arrian uses hetairoi and it seems clear that Diodorus - or his source - used that Hellenistic term for the king' s hetairoi: philoi. Thus, at 17.32.1, Diodorus describes Alexander Lycestis - no somatophylax - as one "who accompanied the king in the group of Friends" something he also calls Leonnatus at 37.3: "sent Leonnatus, one of his friends (philon)" (compare Arrian "he sent Leonnatus, one of his Companions [hetairon]).Confirmation comes at 54.3 when Alexander summons "all his friends to a council" to discuss Darius' offer - something terribly familiar to readers of books 18-20. Here Parmenion - no somatophylax - offers his advice. The "Friends" in Diodorus 17 are the companions.

The seven somatophylakes , one assumes, will have fought about the king in the ile basilikoi unless given a separate command.

...it is hard to believe that his source would not have divided the commands of the infantry guard as he had the cavalry if so important a figure as Hephaistion was commanding it (naturally our careful author may have left that out). Either way it seems that there is some error here it just comes down to where you put it; and let's not forget the possibility of a lacuna, they are a popular explanation

Not that hard. After all, he calls the regular hypaspists "argyraspides". Diodorus leaves much out and is often quite capricious - the infantry at Gaza seemingly played tiddlywinks with their shields and sarisae. He might have chosen to note that Hephaestion was wounded and added whilst leading the "somatophylakes" so as to explain his position on the field in one sentence as he'd left that snippet out earlier. It's worth noting that none of our sources are terribly forthcoming with commanders of the foot agema - even when the two units are clearly delineated in descriptions.

[Meg]

Judging by your collective conflicting arguments, it sounds altogether plausible that many mistakes were made on who commanded what and when and who fought where and why - just like the confusion in modern war correspondence. And I wonder (playfully) how and in what manner Cleitus commanded the Royal Squadron which was being led by Alexander himself?

[agesilaos]

There is a certain degree of confusion but it would be a mistake to over state it; otherwise you end up with a carte rase and freedom to invent; the main problem with Alexander history is that they are all secondary, ie. based on lost written work. The problem with Diodoros is that he is compressing his source material by a factor of about ten and it is impossible to decide where in the original he found each 'fact' - in this instance he may have found a note to the effect that Hephaistion had been wounded at Gaugamela when he source recorded his promotion to the leadership of the Companion cavalry, Diodoros notes both facts but then chooses to report the wound when it happened carelessly transcribing his rank in the process. What was I saying about the freedom to invent?

Add to this the ancient authors' lack of technical precision and desire for variety of language and there is scope for plenty of interesting discussion, as well as much less interesting waffle

Kleitos would have commanded by example striving to keep up with his King and keep him alive, as at Granikos; hard work with a crashing hangover!

[Efstathios]

I wouldn't say that mistakes were made on who commanded what since the army still won every fight.

[spitamenes]

I believe the reference was to the sources giving accidentally or purposefully, inaccurate accounts of who commanded what. Not of the commands themselves being mistakes.

[lysis56]

Hello, I saw this subject and it's is one I have spent a lot of time with myself due to a novel I'm resarchingon both Alexander and Hefestion. I tend to see them in the light of Plato and Dion, the nephew of Dionysis of Syrucse. (My computer is really slow so my spelling may be off, forgive me.) I think they were as close as two individuals could be. My personal take is that they were probably lovers when younger, and as they becamed older their public roles changed they adapted accordingly. That doesn't mean that they might not have occassionally have had a private moment now and then, but I think they were both very aware and incredbilty astute as to what would and would not have been accepted as appropriate behavior for adult males past the age of youth. I tend to see Alexander's "adoption" of Bagoas into his service was partly for sexual service, (I have my own views on the purposes of Bagoas as chosen by Alexander, and I'll post them at some point as I'm curious as to other's opinions of what I am considering as to why Alexander took him into service.) Anyway, the culture they grew up while it might be certanly more open today sexually than ours. However, to truly have Hefestion as only a bedmate and continue to allow him to be seen in that manner would have been an insult to Hefestion who as the son of Macedonian nobility was due better treatment. Alexander might have seen a relationship with Hefestion to be allowed to be viewed as such as insulting to both of them. After all he did explain to the Persian Queen Mother, Sissygambris, that he too was Alexander. The truth of their relationship is I think shown by their actions. Hefestion was a man who had traits that Alexander valued enough to trust him to chose a king for Sidon, to bridge rivers for him, which is no small feat and for any military an absolute necessity and this is something good generals recognize and value. He entrusted him wtih the personal safety of Roxshanna (although Perdikkas also got part of thatjob too.) Alexander's ultimate response to Hefestion's imporatnce to him was in marrying him to his wife-to-be sister's sister so their children could be related by marriage and grow up together. by making him his Chillarch, but perhaps most telling by his response to his death.

Clearly this is a topic for many books and years of debate, but I always believe that actions speak louder than words. I tend to think, and this is only my view, that without Hefestion, Alexander would have been lost.

Great subject!

[sikander]

Greetings, lysis56

You've posted some ideas that have been discussed in great detail in the past; this is, like its modern counterparts, always a topic that drives much debate.

Though I cannot post at the moment, I hope to return to this thread and see what it generates. And I look forward to your book, also!

Regards,
Sikander