Question about Hephaistion’s marriage

[jan]

A historian who I had read suggested that the blood relationship would creat a bond amongst the heirs to the throne as both Alexander and Hephaestion's children would be officially acceptable to rule the Persian Empire. Don't ask me which historian...have totally forgotten now...

[marcus]

A historian who I had read suggested that the blood relationship would creat a bond amongst the heirs to the throne as both Alexander and Hephaestion's children would be officially acceptable to rule the Persian Empire. Don't ask me which historian...have totally forgotten now...

No idea who it was - but he or she was correct to some extent, inasmuch as both their children would be descended from the Persian kings. Whether, however, Hephaistion's children would have been as acceptable as Alexander's is debatable, because while Alexander was himself the Great King, and was previously a king (albeit of what the Persians no doubt considered a barbaric backwater), Hephaistion was neither a king nor a Great King.

ATB

[Semiramis]

My five and a half cents here ...

The wording of the Penguin translation of Plutarch does imply that alliance played a greater part. Interesting how translations can vary. Although the meaning is much the same, the one makes it clearer than the other.

Plutarch: Alexander 47 His marriage to Roxane was a love match, which began when he first saw her at the height of her youthful beauty taking part in a dance at a banquet, but it also played a great part in furthering his policy of reconciliation. The barbarians were encouraged by the feeling of partnership which their alliance created, and they were completely won over by Alexander’s moderation and courtesy and by the fact that without the sanctity of marriage he would not approach the only woman who had ever conquered his heart.

I'll see you your 5 1/2 cents and raise you another two! Both translations of Plutarch certainly imply that the wedding helped the reconcilliantion policy. In Plutarch's view, love and reconciliation policy weren't mutually exclusive. He's still adamant about Roxane "conquering Alexander's heart" etc.

Look though at Philip's marriages. Comparative social status (between the women) had nothing to do with the marriages themselves which are considered to have been political alliances. Dicaearchus (Athenaeus 13.57 b-e) says that "Philip always married a new wife with each new war he undertook." The lands that Philip conquered lay much closer to home and therefore establishing and maintaining the alliances was of utmost importance. Each marriage, therefore, stood on its own merits and apparently there was no consideration of the suitability of a first wife.

I think any marriage to Stateira II would have been playing to the Persian audience (both nobles and perhaps even subjects) to legitimize his rule, rather than Macedonians. I was thinking of the marriages to Roxane and Stateira from a Persian perspective and trying to consider what little we know about Achaemenid royal succession and marriages.

It seems in the Macedonian royal household, the wives didn't have official rank based on their precedence etc. There was no "queen" along with "lesser wives". Producing an heir was what determined the status of these women, which was subject to change. Olympias was 4th wife but pretty important on account of being Alexander's mother.

However, in the Persian Royal household, Stateira I's position seemed to be explicitly King Darius I's pirncipal consort. It seems that for Alexander, Roxane occupied this position rather than Stateira II. Seeing that Stateira II would have given Alexander and his children more legitimacy in the eyes of the Persians, I find Roxane's unchanged status even after the marriage to Stateira II quite interesting.

I think that one has only to look at the sources for events preceding the marriage to find what amounts to evidence that Alexander truly needed to get himself out of deep water. Frank Holt's Alexander the Great and Bactria is a great resource for an encapsulated explanation of the attempt to do so.

(P.67 - 68 ) It was thus during the winter of 328/327 B.C. that Alexander 'recovered' from the many setbacks of the previous year and a half. What, we may ask, accounts for the apparent change in the king's fortunes? The death of Spitamenes was certainly significant, but not decisive. Conflicts between the Scythians and Alexander continued. It was rather the king's treatment of the remaining Sogdian chieftains which ameliorated the situation. Whereas Ariamazes and his kinfolk had earlier been executed by Alexander, it is notable that Oxyartes and the others were handled differently. Even before Spitamenes was dead, Alexander had softened his stand against the rulers of these remaining 'rocks'. It marked the return of the king to an earlier policy, one which actually brought him back into step with Persian practice and so finally broke the relentless cycle of Sogdian resistance.

Rather than punish the native 'hyparchs' who still opposed him, Alexander actually restored them to their ancestral positions. Their fortresses were not plundered by the winter-weary troops of Alexander; their families (including Spitamenes') were not exterminated; their followers were not enslaved; their lands were not parceled out to other natives who had surrendered long ago. Like the levies of the Persian kings, Alexander naturally siphoned away the soldiers of Bactria-Sogdiana for his own army, and established a future supply (the 'Epigoni') as well. The sons of the nobles, in particular, were kept in Alexander's camp to ensure the good behavior of their pardoned parents, but this was no onerous penalty. Oxyartes delivered all three of his sons to Alexander, though only two were required to serve with the king; one of them, Itanes, became the commander of a special squadron. More importantly, Oxyartes' daughter was wed to Alexander early in 327 B.C. This was a notable step by the king because, while his father Philip had married many times to help secure the frontiers of Macedonia, this was Alexander's first for an empire considerably enlarged beyond the Balkan world. There can be little doubt that the realities of Sogdian disaffection, and not romance, were on Alexander's mind as he married into the native nobility; Roxane was as much a bribe as a bride.

"As much a bribe as a bride." Ouch!

This was my point exactly! As usual you've illustrated it much better. Marriage to Roxane as purely political is a conclusion of modern historians, in contradiction to the anceint sources' insistence on a love match.

Take care

[Fiona]

However, I don't put as much stock on the idea of Alexander and Hephaistion's children being related as a motive. I also have to agree with Marcus that feelings towards the bride would have been the last thing in both Alexander and Hephaistion's minds. A marriage to Darius' daughter would have simply been so beneficial to Alexander.

Granted that it was a cracking idea for Alexander to marry Stateira, surely the motive for Alexander wanting Hephaistion to marry Drypetis has to be the 'chidren being cousins' thing? Arrian specifically says so, and it's too circumstantial, to my mind, not to be true. Why would he mention such a whimsical motive unless he believed it to be fact? It doesn't sound the sort of thing he'd have included unless he was sure of it.
I'm not saying - and nor does Arrian, of course - that this was Alexander's motive for marrying Stateira, but perhaps it made the logical thing to do more palatable.
I wouldn't be at all surprised - and I don't care if this gets howled down as impossibly romantic - if they hadn't thought it all through to the next generation. If a daughter of Hephaistion's were to marry a son of Alexander's, then one day, their grandson would be king.
Fiona

[Paralus]

I wouldn't be at all surprised - and I don't care if this gets howled down as impossibly romantic :D - if they hadn't thought it all through to the next generation. If a daughter of Hephaistion's were to marry a son of Alexander's, then one day, their grandson would be king.

Impossibly romantic? I suppose, philosophically, nothing might be "impossible". This, though, might come close.

Thinking in terms of two generations hence? I doubt it from a man who'd not the least sense of urgency in providing for his own immediate succession. The instability that saw, among a great many other things, the murder of his wife and son are a product of his very own forward thinking in this regard.

[Phoebus]

Semiramis,

Without taking anything away from the "love match" aspect of Alexander and Roxanne's wedding, I (granted, without any real grounds on thinking so) have always kind of thought that her status may have corrolated with the importance the king placed on the troops he recruited from those regions of the world. Was Bactrian heavy cavalry, missile cavalry, etc., from those areas not, IIRC, more heavily recruited than "pure" Persian cavalry and such (for example)?

Paralus,

I'm not sure if lack of forward thinking had so much to do with Alexander's heir's/widow's situation, did it? The man died by all accounts unexpectadly early, age-wise.

[Paralus]

Paralus,

I'm not sure if lack of forward thinking had so much to do with Alexander's heir's/widow's situation, did it? The man died by all accounts unexpectadly early, age-wise.

Yes and no. Certainly compared to Isocrates he died young. Comparing like to like - Macedonian kings to Macedonian kings - he might be considered average or a little worse.

The point was not his age, per se, but his planning. The over-arching perception, to me, is that he never gave a serious thought to his dying as "young" as he did. He was going to carve out the greatest empire the world had ever seen and he was going to survive it all. If he ever did seriously consider that he might depart the Earth terribly unexpectedly he certainly did not concern himself with the survival of his royal house.

Within three to four years of taking the throne (even as "regent") Philip had set about siring an heir. A process he continued, seemingly, with any woman found lying still enough after a campaign!

Alexander, in this regard, is the antitheseis of his father. All this could wait - and it did - the advice of his senior staff notwithstanding. Thus when he did die - as he always was going to - the Argead house was without an heir. Aside, of course, from the infantry's choice of Arrhidaeus.

The line uttered on his death bed , "to the strongest" in answer to who should succeed, is likely apocryphal. It is, though, very apt and presaged utter confusion. While there is no "good time" to die, this was at the worst end of the scale. The lack of a direct heir and the situation of three Macedonian "assemblies" (Babylon, Cilicia and Macedon) ensured the complete mayhem that the kings lack of foresight instigated.

[Semiramis]

Semiramis,

Without taking anything away from the "love match" aspect of Alexander and Roxanne's wedding, I (granted, without any real grounds on thinking so) have always kind of thought that her status may have corrolated with the importance the king placed on the troops he recruited from those regions of the world. Was Bactrian heavy cavalry, missile cavalry, etc., from those areas not, IIRC, more heavily recruited than "pure" Persian cavalry and such (for example)?
"
Paralus,

I'm not sure if lack of forward thinking had so much to do with Alexander's heir's/widow's situation, did it? The man died by all accounts unexpectadly early, age-wise.

Pheobus,

That's an excellent point. I'm quite ignorant on this topic, but did Alexander levy the Bactiran/Sogdian terrotories for troops more than other Great Kings? Otherwise, would the Bactrians expect such special favours like such a close alliance with the new Great King? I tend to operate on the assumption that Persians were the most important "barbarians" to please. The seatings at the mass weddings in Susa, for example, consisted of Macedonians at the center, Persians on the closest inner circle and the rest on the outer circle (from memory). But perhaps the Central Asians were moving up in the world with Alexander's conquests?

Paralus,

I think (maybe for the first time!) we don't have the same view on a topic. About the heir situation, I think Alexander was just unlucky.

This is going to get controversial, but Stateira I, Darius' wife died of childbirth. After having been Alexander's captive for a period of time where Darius could not have been the father. After her death, Alexander was "more in need of consolation than giving it". I'm not sure if the Greeks just misunderstood the idea that Darius' harem was Alexander's harem now and he had to follow the proper rituals. Or if it was a true reflection of Alexander's state of mind. Perhaps at the loss of his first son? At the risk of sounding horribly pragmatic, a half-Achaemenid heir?

I hate to think that my favourite part of the Alexander legend of "never touching Darius' wife" is untrue. But if you take this view, the sources could simply be "protesting too much", when it comes to Alexander's supposed self-control around those Persian torments to his eyes..

Strangely, when Alexander marries Roxane, her beauty is said to be "second to none other than Darius' wife". Was Stateira I so beautiful that the flatterers had to tell the new king that the old king (his enemy) had a better-looking wife? Or were they flattering Alexander that he'd now had the two most beautiful women in Asia?

Roxane lost a baby before she gave birth to Alexander IV. Sources mention that our hero was pretty upset about that. Then it was a fair while before Roxane got pregnant again.

On top of all that, it seems Stateira II may have been too young to marry when she was captured. If he wanted an heir that would please the Persians, perhaps he was forced to wait till she turned 13 (as per Persian custom)?

Barsine's son was apparently not proposed as heir during Alexander's life-time. Not surprising considering that Barsine simply didn't have the pedigree.

Take care

[Paralus]

Yes, we will disagree. The loss of a son by Roxanne is a matter of debate. Statiera is entirely conjecture. Not to mention the fact that there was no "marriage". Heracles' claims might be said to be near as strong. He was, after all, a son of the king.

Either way, Roxanne was wed in 327, years after the climactic battles that might have seen the king dead and after two years of constant fighting in Afghanistan. This was a political marriage. One enforced upon him so as he could decamp and make off for further conquest.

The evidence is reasonably clear: he was in no hurry. More than that, he had - demonstrably - little interest in these things.

It seems to have been a rather large source of annoyance to those senior Macedonians around him. Particulary during the first years of the campaign and for reasons that were entirely borne out by events.

His father, I would think, would have been rather apalled at it all.

[amyntoros]

Darn it. Hard to keep up with this debate when I have so many more important things to do online such as searching through 1,000+ plus baseball caps to find one with the colors that match my son's new t-shirt! Seriously now ... he owns 26 caps to date! (And he matches Nike sneakers as well!) To think when I gave birth to a boy I thought I would miss out on the mother/teenager "fashion" shopping experience.

Roxane lost a baby before she gave birth to Alexander IV. Sources mention that our hero was pretty upset about that. Then it was a fair while before Roxane got pregnant again.

As far as I know, there's only one source for this which tells us nothing about Alexander's feelings, although both he and his army would surely have regretted the loss of the first potential heir to the Macedonian throne.

Metz Epitome 70 There he found the ships which Porus and Taxiles had built, 800 biremes and 300 store-ships, and he put on board crews and provisions. In the meantime, Alexander’s son by Roxane died.

... I'm quite ignorant on this topic, but did Alexander levy the Bactiran/Sogdian terrotories for troops more than other Great Kings? Otherwise, would the Bactrians expect such special favours like such a close alliance with the new Great King? I tend to operate on the assumption that Persians were the most important "barbarians" to please. The seatings at the mass weddings in Susa, for example, consisted of Macedonians at the center, Persians on the closest inner circle and the rest on the outer circle (from memory). But perhaps the Central Asians were moving up in the world with Alexander's conquests?

Seems to me that the Persians were easier to please. Apart from the rebels who fled with Darius those Persians who remained behind in the west of the empire, having been thoroughly defeated, offered no further resistance. On the other hand, the Bactrians, Sogdians and Scythians simply refused to be quelled until Alexander changed his political tactics and formed the alliances that culminated with his marriage to Roxane. These people were definitely of greater importance at that point in time because until things were under control in Bactria/Sogdia, Alexander could not leave and move on to India. Note that the only real defeats of the whole campaign occurred in these eastern territories, with substantial losses to Alexander's forces – around 2,000 in the one battle if I'm remembering correctly.

This is going to get controversial, but Stateira I, Darius' wife died of childbirth. After having been Alexander's captive for a period of time where Darius could not have been the father. After her death, Alexander was "more in need of consolation than giving it". I'm not sure if the Greeks just misunderstood the idea that Darius' harem was Alexander's harem now and he had to follow the proper rituals. Or if it was a true reflection of Alexander's state of mind. Perhaps at the loss of his first son? At the risk of sounding horribly pragmatic, a half-Achaemenid heir?

Only the one source, Plutarch, Alexander 30, states that Stateira died in childbirth. Curtius (4.10.19) who - according to just about everyone here! - didn't miss any opportunity for a good piece of negative gossip about Alexander simply states that she was "exhausted by the unremitting hardships of the journey and her dejected state of mind."

On top of all that, it seems Stateira II may have been too young to marry when she was captured. If he wanted an heir that would please the Persians, perhaps he was forced to wait till she turned 13 (as per Persian custom)?

According to most of the sources Stateira's daughters were of marriageable age. Curtius (3.11.25) calls them "two grown-up but unmarried daughters," and at 3.12.21 describes them as "The unmarried princesses who were extremely beautiful." Plutarch (Alexander 21) also calls them "the two unmarried daughters of Darius" and says that "At any rate Alexander, so it seems, thought it more worthy of a king to subdue his own passions than to conquer his enemies, and so he never came near these women, wife and daughters of Darius." Athenaeus (The Deipnosophists XIII.603b-d) quotes " …passionate as this king was, he was in like measure self-controlled when it came to the observance of decency and the best form. When, for example, he had taken captive the daughters of Darius and his wife as well, a woman of very distinguished beauty, he not only kept his hands off them, but he even refrained from letting them know that they were captives." IMO, all these expressions would be unfitting if the daughters were, indeed, too young to be married. Why would the sources have to state that Alexander had need to subdue his own passions where children are concerned?

So … why didn't Alexander marry the eldest daughter of Darius earlier in the conquests? Probably, IMO, because his original intent was to marry the wife of Darius – something he couldn't legitimately do until Darius was dead. Unfortunately, however, she predeceased her husband, and by the time Darius was found murdered Alexander was already obviously hell-bent on taking control of the eastern part of the empire. I think it very unlikely that it ever crossed his mind to return and marry the daughter and then conquer the rebel territories, but I do think it probable that he began planning the Susa weddings even at this early date. After all, he had been undefeated up to this point and it is doubtful he had any idea just how long he would be spending in Bactria and points east.

Further to the above, Daniel Ogden in Polygamy, Prostitues and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties offers an explanation of why Alexander may have planned to marry Darius' wife.

Pages 44-45 By marrying Barsine-Stateira amid the great weddings that he ordained between Macedonian and Persian nobles at Susa in 324 Alexander claimed to be the successor to the Achaemenids. We have seen that the Agead kings like to assert their claim to the throne via the levirate technique of marrying, where possible, a widow of their predecessor. Archelaus and Ptolemy of Alorus had, it seems, done this. Now Alexander could not marry Stateira, the wife of Darius, for she had died c. 332. Perhaps, therefore, the daughter was married to stand in for or even 'become' the mother. This may explain the difficulty surrounding the bride's name in the sources. In Arrian's official Susa wedding list she is called Barsine, but the vulgate sources refer to her as Stateira. As we have seen, it was quite common for the wives of Macedonian princes to change their names, and we specifically argued above that Philip's first wife Audata may have changed her name to Eurydice on marriage in order to evoke the most 'legitimate' (in Philip’s judgement at any rate) of Amyntas II's wives, Philip's mother Eurydice.

Alongside Stateira, Alexander married Parysatis, the youngest daughter of the previous Persian king Artaxerxes III Ochus, and doubtless for similar reasons. . . . . . . Roxane now had good reason to fret: both of Alexander's new brides were royal Persians, and superior in status to a mere Bactrian noblewoman, should her rivals search for arguments against her and any offspring she should have.

Curiously and conveniently, it was also Achaemenid custom for a new king to legitimate his position by marrying the wives and daughters of previous kings: Darius I had married a number of women in both categories; Cyrus I had married the daughter of the median king Astyages, Amytis/Mandane; according to one account Cambyses claimed the throne of Egypt because his father had married the daughter of the Egyptian king.

Interestingly, Ogden also postulates that in putting Roxane's hand in that of Perdiccas' (on his deathbed), Alexander was encouraging "Perdiccas to take power after his death and to legitimate his position by levirate." Once the wars for the succession began, however, Perdiccas found the offers of marriage to Nicea, daughter of Antipater, and Cleopatra, Alexander’s sister, more useful.

Best regards,

[marcus]

However, in the Persian Royal household, Stateira I's position seemed to be explicitly King Darius I's pirncipal consort. It seems that for Alexander, Roxane occupied this position rather than Stateira II. Seeing that Stateira II would have given Alexander and his children more legitimacy in the eyes of the Persians, I find Roxane's unchanged status even after the marriage to Stateira II quite interesting.

I'm not sure that I agree we can be so certain about this. The sources don't say that Roxane held "Wife number 1" position and, while it is true that Roxane gets much more of a mention than Stateira, it is only inasmuch as the story is told that she helped Alexander back from the Euphrates when he was going to throw himself in (and the truth of that story is debatable); and then she re-appears after Alexander's death only in her capacity as the killer of Stateira (or instigator of S's death) and as the mother of Alexander IV. Both these are adequate reasons to mention her, but I am not sure that in any way means that she was a "more important" wife than Stateira.

If she was, then it might only have been by virtue of the fact that she was carrying Alexander's baby, and there is no evidence that Stateira was even pregnant when she was killed. Had Alexander and Stateira survived, and Stateira had become pregnant, maybe her son would have been raised above his older brother (Roxane's son) in the same way that Alexander had been raised above Arrhidaios.

ATB

[Phoebus]

The point was not his age, per se, but his planning. The over-arching perception, to me, is that he never gave a serious thought to his dying as "young" as he did. He was going to carve out the greatest empire the world had ever seen and he was going to survive it all. If he ever did seriously consider that he might depart the Earth terribly unexpectedly he certainly did not concern himself with the survival of his royal house.

Within three to four years of taking the throne (even as "regent") Philip had set about siring an heir. A process he continued, seemingly, with any woman found lying still enough after a campaign!

Ah, very well--I see your point.

Having said that, though, I do think it should be pointed out that Phillip had the benefit of campaigning within reasonable distance of suitable marital matches for his throne. I suppose Alexander could have tried for an heir prior to departing for Asia, but I wonder if there were political considerations to worry about? Perhaps he feared that, with an underaged heir back home and powerful men on the wings, an assassination would leave the Argead throne to the control of others (like it was two generations prior)?

Eh, either way, it's conjecture, I admit.

Semiramis,
I am currently stateside, without my books. IIRC, Engel's book on the logistics of the Macedonian army breaks down how many reinforcements and levies Alexander received, and it also gives the citations from Arrian/etc. as to where they came from.