Hephaestion's death a conspiracy?

[Monica]

I've been wondering;how come the king never suspected that Hephaistion's death was planned?I mean what better way to get to Alexander and then afterwards someone -½has-+ to be named vizier?I mean,I get that Alexander was in a too horrible state to even think of such a thing but how come no one else did?What do you guys think?Monica

[Tre]

Because of course, Hephaistion died from natural causes - there was no reason to investigate his death.

[smittysmitty]

I agree with Tre, although it is rather strange someone as ill would have such an apetite as to consume a boiled foul and top it of with some unmixed wine! just my thoughts.
cheers!

[Tre]

No doubt a hostile Greek exaggeration. However, on source analysis one must remember that it is Plutarch who relates mostly bad things about Hephaistion, but that his source was likely Chares who was knocked down a peg and put under Hephaistion when he got the office of Vizier. There may well have been an intention to cast Hephaistion poorly on Chares' part. Contrast it with Curtius, who speaks highly of Hephaistion. Food for thought.Regards,Tre

[Linda]

There was a pamphlet, or equivalent, circulated after Alexander's death on the exact matter - were Hephaestion and Alexander poisoned? Both their deaths were also foretold (after Hephaestion's and before Alexander's).Probably the court was very keen to blame Hephaestion for his own death, so as to avoid Alexander suspecting anyone...."he ate a whole chicken and chilled wine, his own fault, fat pig" However, he would, I read somewhere, have been on gruel for a week, and apparantly chickens were much smaller in those days..

[romaneyes]

Could he had been better? or felt better? I mean when I get over anything bad as soon as I feel better I need to go eat, live you know? And boiled chicken, god that doesn't even sound good, but i'm sure after all the crap he had been trying to eat (but probably couldn't) that it sounded mighty fine. I'm in agreement that it was a conspiracy, a little to outthere and too out of a sudden for it not to be, can't just be bad luck. Alexander wasn't even around Hephaistion, which was convinient. As for Alexander not thinking it a conspiracy, I think he just thought it was human error, one he would not forgive. I don't think he blamed it on Hephaistion but on the doctors that apparently were supposed to be there, but weren't? Either way the doctors got it bad afterwards, and that he probably thought was the end of that. Then again, had Alexander always been utterly paranoid of assassination? not really...I think he was too trusting, and even after Philotas' little incident he must have calmed down.

[Tre]

He was sick for a week before he died - that's hardly sudden. No evidence whatsoever for a conspiracy of any kind.

[amyntoros]

Well, I had been guilty myself for posting on another forum that Hephaistion might have been poisoned at the end of his illness - and I put forward Roxane as a possible culprit! Only later did I realize that it was a suggestion from Mary Renault that had stayed in my subconcious for years.Just today I rediscovered an article from The Ancient History Bulletin which is causing me to seriously revise my opinion. The article, by Frank L. Holt of the University of Houston, concerns the death of Coenus. However, Holt has some interesting points regarding illness in general amongst the Macedonians. He says, in part:"Of course, I cannot name the specific disease that killed Coenus, any more than I or anyone else can now identify diseases which most certainly killed other such prominent contemporaries as Nicanor, Arybbas, Memnon, Demaratus, Hephaistion, or Alexander himself. Nor can anyone diagnose the specific diseases suffered at various times by Cleitus, Peucestas, Craterus or Calanus. Are all of these cases suspicious simply because our sources do not *name* each illness, or because our sources report disease in a random rather than systematic fashion? These cases appear "unique", of course, because our sources are prone to mention only individual cases of some special interest; surely the vast majority of illnesses simply were not - indeed could not - be listed, just as our sources tell us about only a few of the battle injuries suffered from time to time by the most prominent companions. Only in unusual circumstances do our sources mention the anonymous mass of sick soldiers who were a constant during Alexander's campaigns, for example, the hospitalized at Issus, the ill companion calvrymen at Bactra and the sick-rolls to which one man tried illegally to add his name. There can be no doubt that diseases of various types afflicted the king, his companions, and common soldiers throughout the march to India and back; not surprisingly, at least one modern study suggests that Alexander lost substantially more men to disease than to battle."The study he cites is: J.R. Ruffin, "The Efficacy of Medicine during the Campaigns of Alexander the Great" - Military Medicine 157 (1992). Holt also mentions the medicine weighing 3 tons (or worth that weight in silver) that was sent from Greece and was not stockpiled, but distributed to the men when Alexander was preparing the Indus flotila. I had printed the article some time ago, and unfortunately th

[ruthaki]

I read somewhere that modern doctors diagnose his death as the result of something like typhoid. However I'm still inclined to wonder if perhaps, like Alexander, his death wasn't hastened by a malicious antagonist. Who will ever know for sure?

[marcus]

If I recall correctly, that article of Holt's was in response to one by Bosworth which argued (surprise, surprise) that Alexander had Coenus done away with after he spoke up for the soldiers at the Hyphasis.It's similar to the discussion we had a week or so ago about Memnon, and it is the same as the (natural) deaths of so many others: such and such character is mentioned as dying, so let's find a conspiracy or something nefarious behind it; which seems to forget that, hey, people die, and sometimes they die at inopportune times!Oh yeah, Amyntas son of Andromenes is another one who's had that treatment - he is tried with his brothers in the aftermath of the Philotas conspiracy, and is acquitted. But a short time later he dies in battle. Hmmm, something very suspicious going on there, muses the fusty professor in his Ivory Tower... ... or, perhaps, he just died in battle? it happens, y'know! :-)All the best (sorry, getting carried away, there)Marcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi Marcus,There's no disaggreement with you that people die from illness, but I suppose what makes Amyntas and Coenus' deaths more intriguing is they happen shortly after critical events in the histories.Bound to make people speculate! and rightfully so I may add Presumably in modern times, people who are vocal or implicated in power struggles tend to have 'accidents' rather than die of fever lol!
Perhaps the terminology is all that has changed.Odd also that Hephs fever lasted nearly as long as Al's, whether that means anything or not? but I tend to believe his death was genuine due to illness, or there would have been some recourse from Al, even if it had been hinted there was 'foul' play
just my thoughts
cheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,Yes, you are quite right, which is why the conspiracy theorists get all excited, of course.However, as far as Amyntas is concerned, he did die in battle, which could have happened to anyone. And as far as Coenus is concerned, I think another thing Holt points out in his article is that it isn't specified how long (or soon) after the return from the Hyphasis he actually dies. In the histories, when some critical 'thing' has happened that involve the people concerned, it seems sort of natural that mention would be made of their deaths.(Actually, when one thinks of most of the Roman histories, it is surprising that more is not made of their deaths and that more accusations of foul play are not made, irrespective of whether any was involved.)All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Quite agree with you Marcus,It's been a while since reading Holts article, but I thought it was well presented at the time, and regarding Amyntas' death, I'd say that due to his brother Attalus continuing to be a batallion comander to the end of ATG's life,clearly supports Amyntas' role in any conspiracy theory.cheers

[smittysmitty]

clearly supports his innocence that is!

[marcus]

I guessed you meant that! :-)Good point about Attalos - he was also tried, along with Amyntas, so if Alexander had wanted to get rid of the sons of Andromenes he would have 'arranged' for Attalos to die in battle, too!All the bestMarcus