Alexander's Discretion & Hephaistion

[chris_taylor]

Now, it has occurred to me that extreme discretion would also be the best way to protect Hephaistion's reputation from jibes that Hephaistion had earned his position by his performance in Alexander's bed.

the word "discretion" doesn't seem to fit to what Alexander actually did:

in 334, he & Hephaistion ran naked around Achilles tomb in front of part of his army.
Eleven years later, they marry the worlds most royal sister-act, with more pomp & fanfare than the world had ever seen.

Qualitatively, both actions are the same: the first one is that of a young king with homeric ideals publicly acknowledging his Patroclus. The second one is that of the Lord of Asia, acknowledging his second in command.

None of the ancient writers comment that either was unexpected or in any way out of character. There is little reason to assume he was any more "discreet" in the intervening years.

As to jibes from the army: there is no recorded instance where Alexander had to bail out his army because Hephaistion screwed up.

Hephaistion commanded the fleet while Alexander marched through Sinai, ie quite early in the campaign. In practice, that meant that the survival of an army on a desert march was dependant on a man who had no documented experience of commanding a fleet. For anyone hostile to Alexander, that would have been an ideal opportunity to pin ill-judged favouritism on him, or make Parmenio complain to Alexander that he is losing touch with reality.

Yet they don't. Instead, they just skim over it.

Chris.

[lysis56]

Hi to everyone,

Something in Chris' post really caught my eye. I've wondered where exactly, and how did Hephaistion garner such an unpopular image? We know of his troubles with Krateros, Eummenes, Chares, but otherwise there is no mention of him doing anything really terrible. Alexander trusted him enough to care for Roxshanna, to lead campaigns along with Perdikkas in India, etc., so where along the lines did Hephaisiton get this reputation that he was a real screw up or if not screw-up, the reputation that he was nothing more than a "pretty face", etc.

I know he isn't terribly popular with Heckels, whose work is, of course, impeccable, or Paul Doughtry who likened him along the lines of Bokephalus, but even there, why the hostility? Is it due to Tarn and his dislike or inability to accept that Alexander might have preferred men sexually on occassion? Can it be that Alexander might actually have had an attraction to this man be the cause of this hosility? It's a curiousity which I find fascinating. I'm really glad Dr. Jeanne Reammes was astute enough in her work to begin to turn the wheel, so to speak in the other direction, but with excellent research and thought.

Alexander was no idiot, he wasn't someone to be taken in by anything or anyone, at least that's my impression of the historical man as I have come to know him, so why would he make Hephaistion so powerful if the man were little more than a fool, physical appearance notwithstanding? Anyway, just wanted to add my 2 cents.


Thank you,

Lysis

[marcus]

I know he isn't terribly popular with Heckels, whose work is, of course, impeccable, or Paul Doughtry who likened him along the lines of Bokephalus, but even there, why the hostility? Is it due to Tarn and his dislike or inability to accept that Alexander might have preferred men sexually on occassion? Can it be that Alexander might actually have had an attraction to this man be the cause of this hosility? It's a curiousity which I find fascinating. I'm really glad Dr. Jeanne Reammes was astute enough in her work to begin to turn the wheel, so to speak in the other direction, but with excellent research and thought.

Generally speaking, it's the problems with Eumenes, et al, that gave rise to the feeling that he wasn't such a popular person, along with the suggestion that Hephaestion was one of the key manipulators of the downfall of Philotas and Parmenion. I think we can be pretty certain that Heckel, and others, were not particularly influenced by Tarn - Tarn's reason for disliking him were different from the more historically rigorous reasons cited by more recent academics to distrust Hephaestion.

I wouldn't put much store by what Paul Doherty thinks or says, by the way. He should in no way be used as a serious reference point for much to do with Alexander.

While I'm not knocking Jeanne Reammes in any respect, your use of the word "astute" suggests where your bias lies. That's fine, but remember that Reammes' views of Hephaestion are just another view, based on her reading of the same sources that the others have used. Both are valid points of view, so long as those proposing them can justify their assertions.

ATB

[agesilaos]

Let us also not forget that it is Aristoboulos who tells us that the two men most feared by Pythagoras the seer's brother were Alexander and Hephaistion, book VII somewhere, we are talking Hitler and Himmler, Stalin and Beria not Elton John and Bernie Torpin; although the image of Alexander and H sharing a romantic stroll, hand in hand beneath the writhing crucifixions outside Tyre... evil loves company and when it falls hatred springs forth.

As for Doherty, anyone who confuses the Thracian Maedoi with the Medes and Lucian of Samogusta with Lucan is really beneath contempt.

[marcus]

As for Doherty, anyone who confuses the Thracian Maedoi with the Medes and Lucian of Samogusta with Lucan is really beneath contempt.

The least of his crimes!

[Paralus]

Generally speaking, it's the problems with Eumenes, et al, that gave rise to the feeling that he wasn't such a popular person, along with the suggestion that Hephaestion was one of the key manipulators of the downfall of Philotas and Parmenion. I think we can be pretty certain that Heckel, and others, were not particularly influenced by Tarn - Tarn's reason for disliking him were different from the more historically rigorous reasons cited by more recent academics to distrust Hephaestion.

The "mobile court" altered in the wake of the defeat of Darius. Such indicators as the advancement of officers on "merit" rather than ethnic ties and the make-over of the Companion cavalry point to an atmosphere of competition. This was not limited to positions in the army. What we read of the court (especially the Philtoas "trial") and its machinations shows a cadre of companions conniving at influence with their master. Alexander had broken the hold on both army and court of the "old men" and the world they represented. Division of command and influence - the ever more suspicious conqueror's "new way" - resulted in competition amongst the "new men". They contended with each other for position and influence within the court and for their king's ear. Hephaestion, having far more than his king's ear and influence in abundance, would logically act as something of a lighting rod for the jealousy and hatred that such competition inevitably engendered.

This environment of competition irrevocably laid the ground work for the ambitious contention that filled the utter vacuum the conqueror left in the wake of his death. Speculation, of course, but I doubt Hephaestion will have survived his benefactor long had he not died before him.

[chris_taylor]

Hi to everyone,

Something in Chris' post really caught my eye. I've wondered where exactly, and how did Hephaistion garner such an unpopular image?

Indeed.

One reason is homosexuality. The moral attitude to homosexuality changed, but the fascination with Alexander remained, so he had to be airbrushed out of history. That wasn't easy, so the next best thing was character assassination.

The second reason is fear & envy.

Assuming it is true that even Demosthenes petitioned Alexander via Hephaistion, every influential politician around the known world must have been aware that if you can't convince Alexander of something, your last chance is Hephaistion. Given that he married Dypretis on his return from India, it is reasonable to assume that his influence at court remained essentially unchanged throughout his life.

Yet despite his enormous power, secondary sources only mention 3 incidences, where his actions could be construed as questionable: torturing Philotas (who concealed an assassination attempt on his lover), sanctioning Parmenio's killing (who posed an unknowable threat to an army of 50,000 in Central Asia) and a quarrel with Eumenes.

Not a lot for someone who, for 11 years commanded the devotion of the most powerful man in the world, accompanying him through a period of mind-boggling political, cultural and financial change. No records of logistics or military failures. No known murders of perceived or real rivals to his position. No evidence of intrigue, betrayal or double-crossing a faction. No stories of greed or desire for wealth. No gossip about scandals or excesses.

Powerful, skilled and incorruptible.

Truly a man to fear.

And to those who preach moral standards by criticizing the dead, he is an unpleasant reminder of their own shortcomings.

Chris.

[jan]

Thank you, Alexias, for providing the information about megalexandros.livejournal and about where to obtain a copy of Jeanne-Reames Zimmerman's dissertation. I sincerely appreciate that.

I have acquired a sense of humility about this business of Alexander as I began to write my own draft of a potential book about him. Each one of us has our own interpretation of Alexander's illustrious history due to our own ability to read and study the various history books available on the topic. But while reading Memnon by Scott Oden I became firmly convinced at how much there is to learn and know about any given subject to make a novel as rich and interesting as is Scott's novel. I wrote my own thoughts, and to the extent that i did not research anything for this effort, but did rely upon the books which I have acquired over time, I drafted my version of Alexander's youthful years as a teaching device for young adolescents to become acquainted with him.

In my opinion, there is evidence enough to show that Alexander and Hephaestion are fast friends whose fideltiy and loyalty to one another is unmistakeable. Trying to read more into it than there is is vanity on anyone's part. Each person again shall project his own sense of interpretation of simple historical data. The fact is that after Parmenio and Philotas are removed from the army, Hephaestion and Craterus alike were elevated. Prior to that, Alexander was in fact probably under the mantle of Parmenio's years with his father who liked Parmenio as the one general to emulate.

Someone mentioned that a person who is just a friend would not lie on top his friend's body. I disagree with that notion as I believe that Alexander's love of Hephaestion was such that he wanted to atone for his own neglect which would be normal and natural when performing duties. Guilt and frustration as well as love and devotion would cause such a reaction. As said, each person will satisfy his own individual vanity regarding that, but logically, Alexander wanted to keep Hephaestion's person as close to him as he could and embracing a friend in such fashion is common even today. I did nearly the same with my mother upon her death and my dad asked me what was I doing...I do not see it as anything but natural.

I find that any time someone tries to cast their own views and opinions upon a historical figure that it is due to some need within themselves to identify with that person for some reason or other. Odd that a man of Alexander's character would attract so many who try to structure him to their needs and desires. He is a very interesting and complex character, but frankly, his relationship with his generals, his friends, and his family is among the least imortant of his attributes. His intense will to compete with the gods is the most singular important aspect of his being in my opinion. Maybe like Icarus, he strived too hard to become one of the gods whom he admired so much but who he also had to be better than...I suspect as Icarus fell from the sky is the cause and reason that Alexander fell in the desert...he strived to be one of the gods and to be better than any other who had preceded him.

However, just as I have said that his relationship to his friends and family is maybe the least important aspect of his character, it is those very friends and family who make him appear to be nearly human. I don't really believe he thought of himself as merely human at all, and that is why his drive to excell everyone and everybody, including myths in legend, is so fascinating. It is easy to ask if he is demon or god?

[sikander]

Greetings,

Interesting discussion..

Good line, this: "Powerful, skilled and incorruptible. Truly a man to fear." And says much about the man in the context of his time and place.

These men, and their interrelationships, are not difficult to understand when you consider they were powerful men of the ruling class, in high position, with the hope of obtaining more power, more position, and surviving within a system with a history of inter-family and inter"clan" struggles. They were no more, or less, than other men in their position (past present and probably future) without an international court of opinion to weigh in on their actions.

As to people "interpreting history", I know of few who do not (though some interpret it with more rational clarity than others)and fewer still who "cast their own views or opinions upon a historical figure due to some need within themselves.." I would guess most are trying to interpret/understand/develop a new perspective on historical figures because they have a thesis, presentation or book chapter due and it has to be something "fresh" compared to the many others being put forth <chuckling>.

This has been a most enjoyable thread.

Regards,
Sikander

[marcus]

One reason is homosexuality. The moral attitude to homosexuality changed, but the fascination with Alexander remained, so he had to be airbrushed out of history. That wasn't easy, so the next best thing was character assassination.

Although homosexuality has not been a reason for serious people to take against Hephaestion since the 1940s. No serious writer on Alexander has used that as an excuse since Tarn.

ATB

[Paralus]

Yet despite his enormous power, secondary sources only mention 3 incidences, where his actions could be construed as questionable: torturing Philotas (who concealed an assassination attempt on his lover), sanctioning Parmenio's killing (who posed an unknowable threat to an army of 50,000 in Central Asia) and a quarrel with Eumenes.

And the barney with Krateros where Hephaestion was admonished publicly as being nothing without Alexander. Krateros was "dressed down" in private. If the story is historically accurate Alexander felt it better that the one was not cut down to size before the troops.

Philotas, displaying a distinct lack of judgement, didn't bother to report what he thought to be an unlikely plot. Perhaps he secretly wished for its success but we do not know that (and who replaces the king... his father? Himself? Most unlikely). To state that he "concealed" it is to adjudge the man totally complicit. Hephaestion - like Krateros and Koinos - was clearly a prime mover against Philotas and his father. All stood to gain and did so (Koinos in the basest form by utter repudiation of his brother and father-in-law).

No records of logistics or military failures.

Logistics Hephaestion was clearly good at.

No known murders of perceived or real rivals to his position. No evidence of intrigue, betrayal or double-crossing a faction. No stories of greed or desire for wealth. No gossip about scandals or excesses.

And we might say the same of all the other marshals: how many did Craterus murder? Perdiccas? Ptolemy? The "trial" of Philotas seemingly does not count as "intrigue" which resulted in "murders"?

[agesilaos]

"Powerful, skilled and incorruptible. Truly a man to fear."

The problem with this interpretation is that we have precious little evidence one way or the other; that hephaistion had influence is a given but how much that equates to power is moot in his conflicts with the other marshals Alexander seems to have supported them over him. His skills are likewise hidden as we have few explicit missions ascribed to his command and most of them in tandem with Perdikkas. As for corruption we do not know how decisions were taken to appoint higher commands and I cannot recall any story of bribery other than the Iasian millionaire Gorgos offering to arm an expedition against Attica, Athenaeus 538b.

[chris_taylor]

On murdering rivals:

And we might say the same of all the other marshals: how many did Craterus murder? Perdiccas? Ptolemy?

By the looks of it very few, if any. Always thought that was an intriguing factlet.

The "trial" of Philotas seemingly does not count as "intrigue" which resulted in "murders"?

Correct.

If Leon Panetta gets to know about an asssassination plot on Obama, but decides not to mention it, that's intrigue. To haul him in front of a court and convict him of treason for it, is not.

At least not in my book. YMMV.

And it's easy for historians to pronounce Parmenio's killing as murder. We only know what didn't happen: if Parmenio had used the Persian wealth, his men and his geographical advantage to cut Alexander's supply lines, the same historians would condemn Alexander as a fool who didn't see the obvious coming.

No, I don't think Alexander was a saint. I'm arguing against those who, under the cloak of scholarship, pass moral judgement on others.

Chris.

[marcus]

The "trial" of Philotas seemingly does not count as "intrigue" which resulted in "murders"?

Correct.

If Leon Panetta gets to know about an asssassination plot on Obama, but decides not to mention it, that's intrigue. To haul him in front of a court and convict him of treason for it, is not.

What about the background scheming and machinations that lead to the victim being hauled in front of a court in order to convict him of something there's no evidence of him actually doing?

[48.3] Moreover, for a very long time accusations against him had been brought to Alexander himself. For when Dareius had been defeated in Cilicia and the wealth of Damascus was taken, among the many prisoners brought into the camp there was found a young woman, born in Pydna, and comely to look upon; her name was Antigone. [4] This woman Philotas got; and as a young man will often talk freely in vaunting and martial strain to his mistress and in his cups, he used to tell her that the greatest achievements were performed by himself and his father, and would call Alexander a stripling who through their efforts enjoyed the title of ruler. [5] These words the woman would report to one of her acquaintances, and he, as was natural, to somebody else, until the story came round to Craterus, who took the girl and brought her secretly to Alexander. He, on hearing her story, ordered her to continue her meetings with Philotas and to come and report to him whatever she learned from her lover. [49.1] Now, Philotas was ignorant of the plot thus laid against him, and in his frequent interviews with Antigone would utter many angry and boastful speeches and many improper words against the king. [2] But Alexander, although strong testimony against Philotas came to his ears, endured in silence and restrained himself either because he had confidence in Parmenio's good will towards him, or because he feared the reputation and power of father and son.

(My italics, by the way.)

And then:

[5] And since he felt bitter towards Philotas he drew to himself those who had long hated the man, and they now said openly that the king took things too easily when he supposed that Limnus, a man of Chalaestra, had set his hand to a deed of so great daring on his own account; nay, they said, he was only an assistant, or rather an instrument sent forth by a higher power, and enquiry into the plot should be made in those quarters where there was most interest in having it concealed. [6] After the king had once given ear to such speeches and suspicions, the enemies of Philotas brought up countless accusations against him. Consequently he was arrested and put to the question, the companions of the king standing by at the torture, while Alexander himself listened behind a stretch of tapestry. Here, as we are told, on hearing Philotas beset Hephaestion with abject and pitiful cries and supplications, he said: “So faint-hearted as thou art, Philotas, and so unmanly, couldst thou have set hand to so great an undertaking?”

(Again, my italics)

Sounds like intrigue to me!

ATB

[Alexias]

Thank you, Alexias, for providing the information about megalexandros.livejournal and about where to obtain a copy of Jeanne-Reames Zimmerman's dissertation.

J Reames updated her thesis in her essay entitled The Cult of Hephaestion in ‘Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander’. Her principle points are that she doesn’t think Hephaestion became one of Alexander’s Bodyguards until the weddings at Susa, or when he became Chiliarch. It seems to be more widely accepted that he became a Bodyguard after the death of one of Philip’s old Bodyguards at Halicarnassus (I think). She also believes that the column Hephaestion commanded in Bactria was not engaged in military activity but in resettling the populace into towns after the actions of the other 4 columns.

However, some of what J Reames says may need a little caution. On her website http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~mreames/Hepha ... stion.html she says:

“There's a funny story that, on the morning of the battle, Alexander's officers had come to his tent to receive last minute orders when Hephaistion showed up, saying, "Health to you," instead of "Joy to you." That's like saying, "Good bye" or "Good evening" instead of "hello" or "Good morning." The officers interpreted it as a bad omen (the Greeks were superstitious). They thought it meant Alexander would die. Alexander re-interpreted it, saying that wishing him health meant he'd live. Quick thinking. But the odd thing about the story is that Hephaistion wasn't alarmed by his slip of the tongue. He was embarrassed. My own take on it is that he was leaving the king's tent, not arriving.”

Because of her influence, it has now become a generally accepted ‘fact’ – which I believed too -that Hephaestion spent the night before Issus with Alexander. Yet the original text seems to quite plainly say that Hephaestion was entering the tent, not leaving it:

Lucian ‘A Slip of the tongue in salutation’:

"Eumenes of Cardia, writing to Antipater, states that just before the battle of Issus, Hephaestion came at dawn into Alexander's tent. Either in absence of mind and confusion like mine, or else under a divine impulse, he gave the evening salutation like me--'Hail, sire; ’tis time we were at our posts.' All present were confounded at the irregularity, and Hephaestion himself was like to die of shame, when Alexander said, 'I take the omen; it is a promise that we shall come back safe from battle.'"

There are plenty of reasons why Hephaestion might have made the slip (other things on his mind, half-asleep), and ample reason for his embarrassment (making a fool of himself in front of the high command as well as bringing back luck on Alexander) without inventing another reason. If he were one of Alexander’s Bodyguards at this point, he certainly wouldn’t be leaving the final briefing before the battle but would be joining it.

I had an argument with someone about this recently, and I am quite happy to be proven wrong, if someone can show me that there is room for doubt in translating the verb in the opening sentence. Unfortunately I can’t find a copy of the original text on the web.