Alexander's generals

[S]

Greetings,I realize that being closest means more scrutiny- but I maintain that scrutiny still must be objective. I find that much of the time, he is looked at with a negative view to start with.. a suspicion, if you will..and thus his actions are "coloured" even before the examination begins. It is this I question. Regards,
Sikander

[Linda]

I think there is prejudice to Hephaestion among some historians - perhaps they, like Marcus, are reacting to the romanticisation of the friendship. II don't see any evidence that he was isolated; if he was, it was *because* of his personal friendship - he didn't think - ooo, I'm unpopular - better suck up to the King. He had to be loyal to Alexander, as his close friend/lover, and therefore could not act as a free agent. At Sidon, he is quoted as saying (whether he did or not) that it was a very difficult thing to give up power. He may just have been moralising, or the writer may have been moralising, but if he did say it, then it could imply that he knew what it was like to have another person's ambitions taking the place of your own. Ok, he did pretty well, but always in Alexander's shadow, and Alexander made him feel it - in the fight with Craterus.What I find interesting is how Hephaestion's influence is under-estimated. Because it is assumed that Alexander was infatuated with him, he gets called words like "minion", and written off. It is as if becuase the source of his power was a closeness to the King, he did not have merit. But there is no evidence of this ie no one in the ancient sources says he failed or was weak. The fight with Eumenes was also a territorial one - over a gift. Hephaestion got the bollocking, because he was closest to Alexander; Alexander expected Hephaestion to make things easier for him, not more difficult. I have an image of a King in pain, fed up with petty quarrels, being annoyed at Hephaestion for quarreling and acting in a high-handed manner. Later, he regretted taking Eumenes's side because he said that Eumenes was always troubling Hephaestion. (Plutarch's life of Eumenes).But Hephaestion was seen as a power to be reckoned with, in the latter period. There is a story of a local sartrap being afraid of Alexander and Hephaestion - the story is written without question. Arrian speaks of those who were for and against Hephaestion, and for an against Alexander himself. I don't think it was the case that Hephaestion was isolated - he had his friends, but he was ultimately loyal only to Alexander.ALso, Miguel. Peter Manderson has made a come-back recently...loyalty pays off, soemtimes..

[agesilaos]

Glad you mentioned the casting of horoscopes, Arrian VII 18ff, the source is Aristoboulos, and as you say it is theking and Hephaistion that Apollodoros most fears. Also on the principle of cui bono, after Philotas' execution it is Hephaistion who is advanced; Kleitos is a sop to the Old Guard. Before long Kleitos is to be dumped in Arachosia but ends up dead instead, Hephaistion should benefit but Alexander in fact demotes him. There be conspiracy theory here.Hephaistion had control of the fleet when it sailed down to Tyre, Marcus.As for the army not seeing the Pyramids under Parmenion! It is good to see that the really pernicious ancient propaganda is still so popular. Parmenion's initial task was merely to hold a bridgehead, it was not his fault that Philip died and he had to hold it for two years longer than expected with the same paltry force. It is highly likely that Parmenion played a much greater role in the strategic planning and tactical execution than is generally credited. The differences between the Persian Campaign and the Indian are marked. The ancients were consumed by the cult of Alexander's personality we need not be.

[Linda]

What are the major difference between the Persian and Indian campaigns, Karl? Can they be summarised? /hopeful

[alejandro]

Hi LindaMaybe I am also sort of reacting to the romanticisation of the relationship between A and H, though as I mentioned before, I believe that it (the relationship) began as a rock-solid teen friendship (some may add also sexual attraction), but then evolved into a more adult politically convenient one.Regarding the isolation issue, I meant he was considered to be isolated among the big guys (Krateros, Philotas, Perdikkas). Of course he had lesser figures that supported him (as you mention), but probably was not extremely liked by those among the high ranks (except maybe Perdikkas, who seemed to have teamed with H several times, though it is also argued that the former was usually in charge of the military aspects of the campaign and H of the administrative/logistic/politic ones).About being called names, maybe itGÇÖs a consequence of the propaganda during the Hellenistic years (Kassandros?) and later during Roman times, when A was the GÇ£bad exampleGÇ¥ moralists and philosophers used when criticizing or educating emperors (A was the image of a king who fell for the easy pleasures and the blandness of Orient. Hence, blackening HGÇÖs name was helpful for their final goal of blackening AGÇÖs too).Finally, about Peter Mandelson, youGÇÖre right, loyalty pays off sometimes, and A never forgot to reward it, not only with H (Remember the story of the soldier who was guiding the pack animals loaded with the gold from the treasury of Persepolis: on the way to Ecbatana, one animal passed away, and this soldier carried the sack full of gold himself. Next time the army stopped, A said to him: GÇ£Just a few more steps, towards your tent. ItGÇÖs yoursGÇ¥).RegardsAlejandro