Cartledge's Alexander book....

[xxx]

Or properly rephrased, just because you're a historian doesn't mean you should write a book about Alexander :-)When one ponders such a gem of wisdom as (in his deep probe of Alexander's psyche) paraphrased "He loved two dumb brutes the most," referring to Hephaistion and Bucephalus, one suggests he keep his day job and not try to make it as a comedian.

[Halil]

Is that supposed to be an insult to Hephaistion or Bucephalus or both? You're right, xxx, he shouldn't quit his day job.

[marcus]

I thought it was rather funny, myself.Marcus

[xxx]

The point is, it was a careless remark that shows a poor understanding of the source material.Now if we were talking about Dubyah, that'd be a different story

[marcus]

I'm not sure I agree it shows a poor understanding of the source material at all.I'd be prepared to agree that it was a carelessly unnecessary quip, and an untrue one (for all that I'm an anti-Hephaistion person, I'd never describe him as a dumb brute); but I have no doubt that he knew that it was untrue (not least because elsewhere in the book he notes that Hephaistion was far from dumb). He was just making a joke that, clearly, didn't amuse everyone :-)All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

Well, how can it be a joke, if it doesn't have any grain of truth? It is just a slur...maybe the emphasis was on "brute" - for those whos somehow think H was more brtual than say Craterus. I can't see how people can be anti-Hephaestion - there isn't enough about him to make any sort of a judgement...it is all inference, and suspect inference at that.sometimes I think it is jealousy that A loved Hephaestion more than the critic...

[marcus]

I disagree. I think there's enough about Hephaistion's quarrels with others to indicate that he was a difficult person to deal with. There's also enough to indicate that, whatever his talents were, battle leadership wasn't one of his greatest qualities.(Please note that I don't necessarily consider him to have been any more or less quarrelsome than others of the companions - eg. Craterus, with whom he did famously quarrel - I just happen to think, purely subjectively, that on the strength of what we do know he wasn't a particularly nice chap.)All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

So, you don't like any of them? none of them were nice chaps? I fight with people all the time at work and it doesn't mean I or other people aren't "nice" but rather are in competition or have changing responsibilities. Just human beings, in a big story.BUT, here is evidence that others picked quarrels with him - Eumenes by Plutarch mentions Alexander saying this.Still, each to their own.

[marcus]

I'm sure they all had their good points and their bad points, Linda. Hephaistion was reputed to have the ability to be especially charming when he wanted to be - for me, unfortunately, that smacks of unctuousness...I just happen to believe that Hephaistion wasn't a particularly nice piece of work himself, and if I had to choose sides in a playground fight, I'd back Craterus :-)This is entirely personal, of course; but it's probably as much because I like puncturing traditional 'romantic' images of people like Hephaistion. (One of my favourite Arthurian novels is the Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell, as much as anything because he makes Lancelot an arrogant coward - so I don't reserve this point of view just to Alexander studies!).All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

Right, I am going to pin you down here. I understand the reaction to the romantic image of Hephaestion. Opinion on him seems to be split - and I would almost say on gender grounds. Charming when he wanted to be? This must be from Curtius saying that Hephaestion held more charm for Alexander than Euxenippus or whatever his name was. Hasn't that been extrapolated, perhaps by those susceptible women authors and stern male historians both, as a pivotal aspect of his character, which then is made something he turns on and off? rather than just he was more attractive than Euxenippus. Any other quotes which say he was charming (from the sources), gratefully received. Given another possibly fanciful extrapolation, that he must have been some sort of eminence gris, Hephaestion is now some sort of sinister character. But these are all such speculations - and the apologists are as guilty as the critics, I think.But I have to pick you up on a previous post - that he wasn't one of the prime military commanders; that isn't a reason to dislike someone. If we are playing a Top Trumps-style game, perhaps that was a sign of something positive in his character - gentleness, or empathy, or a reflective person, which made him less of a decisive battle commander, but he was useful in other arenas. A *nicer* person, not a *nastier* one. And I am always working on the hypothesis that perhaps being of non-Macedonian origin, as some people seem to think, that this was a factor in the commands he held as well. The troops were less likely to follow him in battle. But I think I need to read my Heckel before I put a score next to him on the Mallian ladder scale of how much your men love you.Linda

[Halil]

Hello MarcusIt's courageous of you to admit that it's personal prejudice against romanticized figures that has given you negative feelings about Hephaistion and not really the little that is known about Hephaistion himself. I've noticed this in many historians' writings - those who mistrust or dislike the idea of (romantic or friendship-based) love as a male-motivator are very negative to Hephaistion. Krateros, on the other hand, they applaud and yet we are told (by Alexander) that love is also Krateros's prime motivator. But it is love (fialty?) for the position of the King and not love of the person of the King. This seems to make all the difference in people's responses to Hephaistion and to Krateros. With those in the anti-Hephaistion camp, is it a deep personal mistrust in themselves that is being exposed here? That they themselves cannot believe men are truly capable of (romantic/friendship-based) love of a person and that a man who is overtly exhibiting such a motivator is merely pretending such a love in order to exploit a situation to gain power that they could not arrive at by more "manly" (in their eyes) methods? Or are they merely responding to the pressures in their society that causes them to reject such friendships? It would be an interesting study to discover what is really happening here, if the investigators could shed their own prejudices for long enough, that is.Over the years, I've noticed that people who are comfortable with the idea of strong, loving relationships between men don't have a problem with Hephaistion. The idea of "mateship" is deeply rooted in frontier-dwelling men. It was an accepted principle that without a "mate" (Australian) or "pardner" (American West), a man was as good as dead. However, once civilization starts to creep in, "mates" become suspect and men are less inclined to admit to having strong friendships for one another.In the USA today, we can see an extreme example of the rejection of the frontier-values of mateship. In the civilizing of America, you can witness the slow eradication by the ruling societal power (which is not necessarily the visible political one) of the acceptablility of men from forming "mateship" bonds. Personal friendships between men are strongly discouraged unless these also have a financial (power) gain component. This can also be seen in the British public school system of Empire days, where it was understood that men must form bonds in order to become financially

[Halil]

This can also be seen in the British public school system of Empire days, where it was understood that men must form bonds in order to become financially successful and yet deep personal friendships were constantly monitored to ensure no "unhealthy" emotional elements crept in. So that today, we have the strong selfishly-motived individual being promoted as the hero and the romantically-motivated or the philanthropist being seen as suspect or promoted as a "loser". Interestingly, movies that have a strong love interest are promoted as movies for women, and yet in Alexander's day - in the Macedonian frontier culture at least - tales of strong bonds between men were popular.I could post more on this topic, but I won't (laughing)Cheers
Halil

[beausefaless]

Dude! Heavy, man!

[Linda]

HalilI am not really qualified to comment on much of what you say, but I think that perhaps Hollwood has shied away from buddy-buddy films, in case of the "gay" tag. Some of the greatest films/stories have explored male (or female) friendship in all it complexity and ambiguity. But aren't they filming Brokeback Mountain?I thought it was interesting in Robin Lane Fox's description of the film that they decided not to make sex the core aspect of Hephaestion and A's relationship. Well, duh. In how many long-term relationships is this the case? Just shows how scared and skewed interpretations of same sex relationships are in main stream films.Actually, the way he replied made me wonder if they are going to show that aspect at all- it sounded a bit as if they were going to tick that box via Bagoas. But maybe I will be surprised.

[Halil]

Hello L&ndaFrom your post:"I think that perhaps Hollywood has shied away from buddy-buddy films, in case of the "gay" tag."Exactly. This is how the societal pressure against strong male friendship is being applied - by making men fear being labelled "gay", they are being robbed of a very necessary and enriching emotional element of their lives. (As an aside, this pressure is also applied to women, but that's not what we're discussing here.)As an example of the effect of this fear on normal human behaviour, (this is something I've witnessed in the US but not elsewhere yet): generally, if two men go to watch a movie together, they will leave at least one seat empty between them so that people will not think they are sitting together and therefore might be "guilty" of having a close friendship which might be thought of as "gay". It's funny to watch but sad at the same time.However, this is a very complex topic as we're looking at a phenomenon that we (humankind) exist inside of. BTW, L&nda, I think your posts on this thread are right on the nail.CheersHalil