I’m well aware of the “anti-Hephaestion” theme that is attributed to Heckel. Whereas, in the offending chapter, Heckel might make somewhat too much of Hephaestion’s conniving to advance himself (he was not alone), that does not detract from his assessment of his military abilities.
To me the sources paint an Hephaestion well suited to the administrative and logistical tasks to which Alexander so evidently assigned him. Whilst he is given commands (and I’m in no position to go look through them over lunch at the office) they were almost always ancillary to major operations. Mopping up is a term that comes to mind. It is Craterus, Coenus and Perdiccas that seem to bear the sharp end of the fighting. Hephaestion (and sometimes Perdiccas) share in the synoecisms and bridge building.
Whilst I’m not about to argue the facts of Hephaestion’s command of one half of the Companion Cavalry, I do find it odd that – from memory – Hephaestion’s name only occurs once at the Hydaspes; then only in terms of his “brigade” or some such. He was, by now, the senior cavalry commander yet he, himself, rates no mention. Ditto the war in Bactria and Sogdia where he is rarely mentioned. Where he is mentioned is in association with synoecisms, bridge building, escorting of prisoners and logistics such as the organising of supplies. The conclusion seems inescapable: his command abilities – whatever they were – were well bettered by his administrative and organisational abilities.
athenas owl wrote:...I think it's pretty remarkable that Hephaistion was not given the same treatment that Perdiccas was by Ptolemy, when he could no longer defend himself. Or the Eumenes "camp" in their view of Peucestas being "cowardly" at Gabiene.
He may not have been as it was unnecessary. He was not a rival for power in the utter power vacuum created by Alexander’s death. All in all that might well have been a good thing. Perdiccas, with respect to Ptolemy, demonstrably was. There was little need of the effort.
The “cowardly” Peucestas at Gabiene is a creature of Plutarch. This derives from a source tradition vehemently hostile to Peucestas and could possibly be Hieronymus. It may be Duris of Samos. From memory Diodorus does not lay the coward tag at Peucestas door: simply letting his actions hang until addressed by the angry Argyraspids.
It needs to be born in mind that Peucestas was involved in an ongoing tussle with Eumenes over the command of the satrapal coalition and, feasting and feting of the army by Peucestas aside, the Macedonians – for which read the
Argyraspids – chose Eumenes. Case, almost, closed.
Plutarch is at pains to paint the satraps – including Antigenes which is rather difficult to sustain – as waiting to deliver Eumenes up at any propitious moment. Indeed Peucestas proposes that the coalition retreat prior to Gabiene and, essentially, fight a guerilla war protecting their own domains. He even goes so far as to claim that the army refused its general’s orders and decamped into winter quarters of their own choosing through insolence and lack of discipline. This, like Peucestas’ “cowardice”, is all melodrama of the highest order and needs to be taken with a pound of that salt dust which caked the battlefield at Gabiene.
It seems rather odd that the man who leapt into an Indian village – near alone – to protect Alexander would blanche at facing an army that had recently been beaten in the field (Antigonus’ dodgy claiming of the “victory” aside) by the very forces he was a general of. Far more likely is the notion of an arrangement whereby these seditious satraps would parlay with Antigonus after, as was likely and did in fact happen, his infantry was once again destroyed on the field. A neatly timed betrayal of the Greek from Cardia might aid that plan. That the other satraps (Eudamus aside) decamped with him is telling.
athenas owl wrote:There was no good reason for the successors to tell Hephaistion's story. The negative bits we do have […] were rather nicely traced, I think, by Jeanne Reames. Lesser lights that would have been impacted by Hephaistion's power and access to Alexander.
For simplicity I’ve cut the bracketed description of Craterus who, by the way, I believe to have had rather more
limited ambitions. I’m wondering if I understand that correctly; that the Diadochoi were “lesser lights”? Whilst Alexander lived Hephaestion enjoyed a privileged access. I don’t think that lessens the contribution of the others though, several of whom were also
somatophylakes. After Alexander’s death, had Hephaestion survived, I believe he will have lived only long enough only to meet one of those lesser lights on the field of battle and be to run through rather as Eumenes, ostensibly, did to Neoptolemus. As I say, all in all likelyhood a good thing he did not survive to become a “successor”.
)
Alexander's first, and giving him a chance to produce an heir. Something that almost happened before the miscarriage and after he died. So, if Plutarch was discussing the marriage, he would have to discuss the motivations for the marriage, where the word love crops up. Whereas for Hephaistion, the narrative doesn't run that way, which is why you wouldn't expect any specific mention of a "love match" with Hephaistion. 
I just want to truth of it. In all it's complexity...of course our histories of Alexander are like Rashomon... 
