The Relationship of Alexander and Hephaestion

[Semiramis]

I know modern historians place a lot of importance on a Macedonian heir, but here's my take on this. I think Alexander would have felt that the ideal heir for him would be the son of himself and Barsine/Stateira (Darius and Stateira I's daugher). This would appease the Persian nobles and give Alexander and his son legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the empire in a way no other marriage or heir ever could.

This, though, was hardly why Alexander refused to father an heir before the Persian campaign had even begun. And had he done so, then it could have saved the empire. Philip, in a similar situation, would undoubtedly have produced an heir. But then, Philip was a great leader.

Hi Accursed,

I think Alexander played the powerful factions in Macedonia against each other (as Athena's Owl has stated). Choosing a bride from one family or other and producing an heir would definitely give that family and advantage and the other families might be tempted to make mischief. Olympias had her hands full when he was gone, in any case. If we look at earlier Argead history, there was nothing to stop some ambitious soul from killing Alexander’s son, even if he was a teenager when Alexander died. No one stopped Philip from killing the rightful heir to the throne. Darius left a male heir, but he too conveniently disappears from history.

I’m quite amused at the assumption that Alexander could produce a son at the snap of a finger before the tender age of 20, when he left Macedonia. As amyntoros points out, without very good luck, it can take years, even for superman conquerors. Remember that Roxane’s first pregnancy ended in miscarriage. Let’s not forget that Parmenion was already in Asia when Alexander set off. Also, Macedonia was bankrupt and most likely could not sustain another couple of years of supplying Parmenion while Alexander produces a son by the right woman. Alexander's major advantage over the Thebes was his speedy arrival. It’s not as if the man could make a conquering timetable to suit his heir-siring one.

On the Alexander the failure theme – you’re saying he was a failure because he didn’t “stabilize” his empire. I don’t think his Orientalizing was a “choice” so much as a necessity. He must have realized that the situation was simply not sustainable without the support of the Persian nobles. The machinery that took care of the day to day workings of the empire had to run as it did under the Achaemenids.

Other than that, there’s little to suggest that Alexander paid much attention to the state of the rest of the population. It’s easy to form the opinion that as long as he got his taxes and levies, he could not have cared less. For example, the price of grain in Babylon after Alexander’s takeover shot through the roof. This must have caused serious hardship for the locals. Or worse, think about the populations that were stripped of their harvest or meager source of subsistence such as fish, to feed Alexander and Nearchus’ entourage on their way back from India. It’s most likely that mass starvation followed, even for those who submitted to our glorious conqueror. Neither do I buy the argument that any theaters or temples were built for the benefit of the local population. They were aimed to soothe the loyal troops who had been abandoned in garrison outposts at unimaginable distances from home.

So, if Alexander never paid too much attention to the stabilizing aspect (unlike say the Achaemenids), then can we really say he “failed” in something he never aimed for? Figures like Alexander and Genghis Khan seemed to have devoted themselves to warfare, wealth and power. In that aspect, Genghis is about four times the success Alexander was (if you’re judging by territory). Apparently Khan’s Y Chromosome is the most common in the world! So, here too Genghis wins hands down. As for the "eternal fame and glory" drivel historians cloak their cruelties in - a sex tape can do the job. And without any wars of aggression.

[the_accursed]

Athenas owl:

Philip would have "undoubtedly" done this or that...we do not know what Philip would have done, and if he had died at 32, it is quite likely that his dreams of empire would have crumbled as well, with 2 sons under 7 or 8 and only one of those, most likely, unimpaired, a scramble for regency and outside forces pressing in from ALL sides.

I said Philip in a similar situation – a Philip being in his early twenties, preparing for a campaign somewhere far away from Macedonia and being advised to marry and produce an heir, just in case he'd die during the campaign. Yes, I think it’s pretty certain he would have. Philip, like most kings in history, seems to have understood the importance of producing heirs. Alexander, unlike most kings in history, apparently did not.

Philip, if memory serves, did not knock off the last of his competing brothers until 348 BC when he took Olynthus and razed it to the ground (he was a bit older than Alexander was when he died). These being Menelaos and Arrhidaeus with their various supporters outside Macedonia looking to destabilise the kingdom. Then there would have been the party of young Amyntas vi.

Tell me, whose family should Alexander have allied himself by marriage in Macedonia? Which family's own ambition would not have caused trouble with the other factions? Just curious. You seem to have such a clear understanding the political dynamics in Macedonia in 336/334.

I think there were always political implications to the Macedonian king marrying someone, whether she was Macedonian or not, and that this was in no way unique to the brief period that Alexander was king. He could have found someone had he wanted to - and understood its importance. The choice would not have pleased everyone, but this would always have been the case. To marry and produce an heir has always been one of the most important tasks of any king, and the choice of wife has always carried political implications. This has not, throughout history, prevented kings from marrying.

And no, Amyntoros, he could not have known that the heir would have been a boy, and even if it had been, it would not have guaranteed that the empire would have survived. But it would have increased its chances! A pregnant wife carrying a possible heir in Macedonia would still have been better than no heir at all. And had the first child been a daughter, they could have tried again. In fact – he could even have married more than one woman. So to say that the empire collapsing was the result only of Alexander dying is simply not true. He could have taken precautions by trying to produce a Macedonian heir before the campaign had begun. He chose not to do so.

Though in the end, failure is a relative term and I think an anachronistic one. Was he a failure to his successors? They certainly benefitted hugely by ALexander's leading the conquest and the image of Alexander loomed hugely amongst them in various ways, from his body to his face used on their coins.. And any child he might have had that would have been a bit older would still have been held thrall by these very same men. Alexander himself had cult worship up to the time the Christian Emperor outlawed it over 700 years after his death, and possibly longer in some places.

For “failure” to be an anachronistic term, one must assume that back then, it was not considered important for a king to leave behind a stable kingdom. I don’t think there’s any truth to this claim. Alexander tried to stabilise the empire. He failed to do so. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. And this makes him a failure, if not as conqueror then certainly as king.

Even today, Alexander has one of the most recognisable names in all of world history. And that, for good or bad, is not hyperbole. I think Alexander would view that as success.

And I don’t, as I think Alexander wanted more than “fame” – he wanted to also be thought highly of.

Paris and Achilles were both among the most recognisable names to the ancient Greeks. If you are right and fame is all Alexander wanted, then he would not have cared whether he'd been considered, today, a “new Paris” or a “new Achilles”. I think he would have cared – greatly.

[Fiona]

Amyntoros, thank you for your kind and generous reply. I, too, apologise, for over-reacting. I misunderstood you. I'm sorry, too, that my orginal post seemed condescending to you. I certainly didn't mean it to! It just shows, I think, how very easy it is to misunderstand one another online.
Sometimes, we start a post by responding to a certain person's point, but two paragraphs down the page, we're holding forth to the world at large! Naturally, the person originally quoted thinks it's all aimed at them, when very often, it isn't. This is how lots of misunderstandings start, I think. I expect that's what I was doing in my own post, and I'll try to watch that in future.
Well, I'm going away for the weekend now - going to London to see the Hadrian exhibition - and I'll try to come back next week, refreshed.
Many thanks,
Fiona

[Susa the Great]

OK, here is my very (very) belated participation on one of the Top 5 "most recurrent questions of world history"!

I choose the third one, and my stress is not on the "lovers" thing, but on the "love" thing. As some others believe, I do think that Alexander and Hephaistion were tied together by deep affection (one can only imagine the reasons), a very long one, that *may* have been sexual too. The sexual thingy, I feel, would be just that one cherry of the already magnificent dessert! Oolala, those two did make a partnership, didn't they? Yay to them!