The Political Role of Hephaestion
Moderator: pothos moderators
-
Sweetmemory41
- Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:07 pm
- Been thanked: 7 times
-
Alexias
- Strategos (general)
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
Thank you for this. It is an essay aimed at schoolchildren, although I wouldn't agree with some of the assertions in it eg that Alexander wasn't interested in the nitty-gritty of being a king and ruling. He did take his responsibilities seriously, for example, calling the satraps to account on his return from India, demolishing the dams on the Euphrates to open up Babylon to international trade, and repositioning another dam which kept collapsing to prevent flooding. Hephaestion's role on the Indus was probably away from the direction of fighting because he was in command of the non-combatants.
I don't think Hephaestion necessarily pre-empted Alexander's needs: it would have been logical to accumulate boats on the Indus for transport, and this might well have been on Alexander's orders. I prefer to think of Hephaestion's role as that of office manager to Alexander's managing director - supplying the support systems to the public face of the business. For example, Alexander appears to have given Hephaestion the task of investigating the behaviour of the satraps on returning from India, hence why Apollodorus, satrap of Babylon, feared Alexander and Hephaestion.
I don't think Hephaestion necessarily pre-empted Alexander's needs: it would have been logical to accumulate boats on the Indus for transport, and this might well have been on Alexander's orders. I prefer to think of Hephaestion's role as that of office manager to Alexander's managing director - supplying the support systems to the public face of the business. For example, Alexander appears to have given Hephaestion the task of investigating the behaviour of the satraps on returning from India, hence why Apollodorus, satrap of Babylon, feared Alexander and Hephaestion.
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
״…He clashed with Alexander on the matter of Philotas’ arrest״
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember a source that states such a thing.
As a supporter of Hephastion, there are many unfounded opinions (or wishful thinking) in this article.
To claim that Alexander loved and valued Hephastion for good reasons would be quite logical (although such a claim could certainly be wrong as well).
To say that Alexander could not have ruled without Hephastion is pure speculation.
By the way, just like Dr. Reames’s opinion which is also mentioned there on Hephastion abilities:
It can be argued from the existing facts that Hephastion’s duties were more logistical than military (compared to what we know about other generals),
On the other hand, to say that Hephastion was so bad that he was deliberately removed from combat command or needed a babysitter would be only a speculation.
After all, one can also always say the opposite: perhaps Hephastion was particularly good in those positions to the point that Alexander preferred to give him exactly such tasks.
(That my first post here and English is not my language so… I hope it readable).
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember a source that states such a thing.
As a supporter of Hephastion, there are many unfounded opinions (or wishful thinking) in this article.
To claim that Alexander loved and valued Hephastion for good reasons would be quite logical (although such a claim could certainly be wrong as well).
To say that Alexander could not have ruled without Hephastion is pure speculation.
By the way, just like Dr. Reames’s opinion which is also mentioned there on Hephastion abilities:
It can be argued from the existing facts that Hephastion’s duties were more logistical than military (compared to what we know about other generals),
On the other hand, to say that Hephastion was so bad that he was deliberately removed from combat command or needed a babysitter would be only a speculation.
After all, one can also always say the opposite: perhaps Hephastion was particularly good in those positions to the point that Alexander preferred to give him exactly such tasks.
(That my first post here and English is not my language so… I hope it readable).
Last edited by Emma on Sun Sep 29, 2024 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Alexias
- Strategos (general)
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
Hi, Emma, and welcome!
One of the issues was that Philotas had command of 6,000 cavalry (and Parmenion had 10,000 men at Ecbatana). If Philotas had rebelled and taken the cavalry with him, that would have put Alexander in serious difficulties. I think it is Arrian who says that as a result of the Philotas affair, Alexander decided not to put too much power in one man's hands again. Hence he decided to split the command of the Companion cavalry into two. It had nothing to do with Hephaestion's supposed inexperience/incompetence or appeasing the old guard. This why Hephaestion and Perdiccas were put in charge of the bulk of the army moving through the Khyber pass, and Hephaestion and Demertios were sent to dealt with the 'other' Porus. In this latter engagement Hephaestion had an army at his command and subdued a large area, but because the sources concentrate on Alexander, we have no details. There was fighting as the army passed through the Khyber pass, and some serious trouble later at Pattala while Alexander was visiting the Ocean, and Hephaestion was in sole charge.
The point of all this is that prior to the Philotas affair, the senior commands were occupied by men whom Alexander had no need or reason to demote in order to promote a favourite. And it is notable that he didn't.
As far as I can make out, the anti-Hephaestion rhetoric began with Peter Green and has, to an extent, been perpetuated by Waldemar Heckel. The basis for this appears to be the charge of nepotism. By this time, the army and the non-combatants had grown hugely and Alexander needed someone he could trust to delegate command to. Hephaestion was in sole charge at Pattala, Hephaestion is in sole command of the bulk of the army on the return from Gedrosia, so it would seem that Alexander had quietly dropped his policy of sharing commands. This doesn't mean that Hephaestion was any easier to control than the other commanders - viz. the quarrel with Craterus. But splitting the army going down the Indus had nothing to do with keeping Hephaestion and Craterus apart but was tactical to clear the enemy from both sides of the river and and to prevent an army gathering on the undefended side of the river, which Alexander would have had trouble crossing over the river to deal with quickly.
It is also interesting to note that Hephaestion appears to be given far more commands than any of the other generals (though I would need to check that), and his name appears far more in the sources than any other general which is indicative of his importance in the army.
What they maybe thinking of here is that Alexander was at first inclined to forgive Philotas and dismiss the whole affair until persuaded by his friends otherwise and that it needed taking seriously.״…He clashed with Alexander on the matter of Philotas’ arrest״
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember a source that states such a thing.
One of the issues was that Philotas had command of 6,000 cavalry (and Parmenion had 10,000 men at Ecbatana). If Philotas had rebelled and taken the cavalry with him, that would have put Alexander in serious difficulties. I think it is Arrian who says that as a result of the Philotas affair, Alexander decided not to put too much power in one man's hands again. Hence he decided to split the command of the Companion cavalry into two. It had nothing to do with Hephaestion's supposed inexperience/incompetence or appeasing the old guard. This why Hephaestion and Perdiccas were put in charge of the bulk of the army moving through the Khyber pass, and Hephaestion and Demertios were sent to dealt with the 'other' Porus. In this latter engagement Hephaestion had an army at his command and subdued a large area, but because the sources concentrate on Alexander, we have no details. There was fighting as the army passed through the Khyber pass, and some serious trouble later at Pattala while Alexander was visiting the Ocean, and Hephaestion was in sole charge.
The point of all this is that prior to the Philotas affair, the senior commands were occupied by men whom Alexander had no need or reason to demote in order to promote a favourite. And it is notable that he didn't.
As far as I can make out, the anti-Hephaestion rhetoric began with Peter Green and has, to an extent, been perpetuated by Waldemar Heckel. The basis for this appears to be the charge of nepotism. By this time, the army and the non-combatants had grown hugely and Alexander needed someone he could trust to delegate command to. Hephaestion was in sole charge at Pattala, Hephaestion is in sole command of the bulk of the army on the return from Gedrosia, so it would seem that Alexander had quietly dropped his policy of sharing commands. This doesn't mean that Hephaestion was any easier to control than the other commanders - viz. the quarrel with Craterus. But splitting the army going down the Indus had nothing to do with keeping Hephaestion and Craterus apart but was tactical to clear the enemy from both sides of the river and and to prevent an army gathering on the undefended side of the river, which Alexander would have had trouble crossing over the river to deal with quickly.
It is also interesting to note that Hephaestion appears to be given far more commands than any of the other generals (though I would need to check that), and his name appears far more in the sources than any other general which is indicative of his importance in the army.
-
Jeanne Reames
- Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:44 am
- Been thanked: 6 times
- Contact:
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
There are several things in this article that are directly out of my dissertation (albeit not cited)...including some things I've since changed my mind about. Ha.
Not sure if I've mentioned it here, but I am working on a monograph about both Hephaistion and Krateros. Not sure when it will be out, mind. These take a while to write, but I had a sabbatical last spring to do a fair bit of heavy-lifting research on it. While I've not changed my mind about the broad brushstrokes of what I wrote years ago, even in "The Cult of Hephaistion" article, I've refined a lot. (As one does.)
Not sure if I've mentioned it here, but I am working on a monograph about both Hephaistion and Krateros. Not sure when it will be out, mind. These take a while to write, but I had a sabbatical last spring to do a fair bit of heavy-lifting research on it. While I've not changed my mind about the broad brushstrokes of what I wrote years ago, even in "The Cult of Hephaistion" article, I've refined a lot. (As one does.)
----
Dr. Jeanne Reames
Director, Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Graduate Studies Chair
University of Nebraska, Omaha
287 ASH; 6001 Dodge Street
Omaha NE 68182
http://jeannereames.net/cv.html
Dr. Jeanne Reames
Director, Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Graduate Studies Chair
University of Nebraska, Omaha
287 ASH; 6001 Dodge Street
Omaha NE 68182
http://jeannereames.net/cv.html
-
Alexias
- Strategos (general)
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
That's good to know.Not sure if I've mentioned it here, but I am working on a monograph about both Hephaistion and Krateros.
I meant to mention that Peter Green sadly died a couple of weeks ago. His and Robin Lane Fox's biographies were amongst the first serious books I read about Alexander (after Mary Renault of course) back in the 'eighties. A long time ago!
-
Jeanne Reames
- Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:44 am
- Been thanked: 6 times
- Contact:
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
Peter was a good egg. And the last of that generation to go. His final work, on Herodotus, is being edited by a colleague for eventual publication, I'm pleased to say.
Even if I didn't always agree with him (does any scholar ever always agree with another? LOL), I respected him a good deal. He also gave me the best edit job I've ever had on an academic paper ("The Mourning of Alexander the Great"). After hearing a paper I gave with Gene Borza, he solicited the full dissertation chapter, despite it's absurd length, the personally refereed/vetted it, and edited it. It remains one of the papers I'm proudest of, even still today. (Not necessarily because of Peter, but he certainly made it better than what I submitted as a young scholar.)
Even if I didn't always agree with him (does any scholar ever always agree with another? LOL), I respected him a good deal. He also gave me the best edit job I've ever had on an academic paper ("The Mourning of Alexander the Great"). After hearing a paper I gave with Gene Borza, he solicited the full dissertation chapter, despite it's absurd length, the personally refereed/vetted it, and edited it. It remains one of the papers I'm proudest of, even still today. (Not necessarily because of Peter, but he certainly made it better than what I submitted as a young scholar.)
----
Dr. Jeanne Reames
Director, Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Graduate Studies Chair
University of Nebraska, Omaha
287 ASH; 6001 Dodge Street
Omaha NE 68182
http://jeannereames.net/cv.html
Dr. Jeanne Reames
Director, Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Graduate Studies Chair
University of Nebraska, Omaha
287 ASH; 6001 Dodge Street
Omaha NE 68182
http://jeannereames.net/cv.html
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
Thanks! As a someone that started just a few months ago to read about ATG I found this forum so fascinating.
I realised that it’s quite “dead” in this days, but still it is a treasure trove of knowledge for people looking for information and discussions on ATG.
I don’t have time right now to search for the exact quote, but I do remember that Arrian said that Craterus and Coenus sent to conquer an area together.Alexias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:02 am Hence he decided to split the command of the Companion cavalry into two. It had nothing to do with Hephaestion's supposed inexperience/incompetence or appeasing the old guard. This why Hephaestion and Perdiccas were put in charge of the bulk of the army moving through the Khyber pass, and Hephaestion and Demertios were sent to dealt with the 'other' Porus.
I don’t see people run to determine one of them was incompetent…
Something interesting I noticed, Arrian write at least 2 times that Hephastion takes control on the greater part of the army.Alexias wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:02 am It is also interesting to note that Hephaestion appears to be given far more commands than any of the other generals (though I would need to check that), and his name appears far more in the sources than any other general which is indicative of his importance in the army.
Maybe it’s a subject for a new different discussion, but I wonder what is his attitude about Hephastion.
(I thought he’s neutral, but if he is, then why it’s important to him to mention this fact twice?)
-
Alexias
- Strategos (general)
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: The Political Role of Hephaestion
Arrian Book III, Chapter 18I don’t have time right now to search for the exact quote, but I do remember that Arrian said that Craterus and Coenus sent to conquer an area together.
I don’t see people run to determine one of them was incompetent…
Arrian Book V, Chapter 21He ordered Amyntas, Philotas, and Coenus to lead the rest of the army towards the plain, and to make a bridge over the river which one must cross to go into Persis.
Because Coenus didn't survive into the age of Successors, he doesn't really get the attention he deserves.He traversed the whole country as far as the Hydraotes, leaving garrisons in the most suitable places, in order that Craterus and Coenus might advance with safety, scouring most of the land for forage.