Talk:Hephaestion

Untitled

Did Alexander shave the maNes of all the army horses, or did he shave all of the maRes? I think it must be difficult in the extreme to give even one mare a whole-body shave.

You're right Patrick!! Funny typo, though... Muriel Gottrop 09:10, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This was my first wikipedia article. Muriel G 14:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

How much of Plutarch was used for this article? I could be wrong, but isn't the historical accuracy of Plutarch often called into question? My history teacher usually spoke of him as someone who could tell a ripping good story but embelished like it was going out of style. Lizzie 05:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Enough and combined with Lane Fox's recent biography. Is there any sentence or part of the article that you consider inacurate? [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 23:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lover quotes

I think the two quote at the bottom--one lengthy and one short--are a bit heavy handed on the whole "alexander and hephaestion were lovers" argument. I think something so disputed shouldn't be shown as being so definitively correct.

--Commander Cool, part deux 08:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Whether or not that is true, it has been proven that Alexander set great store by Hephaestion, and some would say treated him better than a brother. They might not have been lovers, but could have been in love none the same.

Do not be so naive. Read the full measure of Alexander's quotes and you know it's very clear they were homosexual lovers. It might be uncomfortable for the religious right to consolidate Alexander with their image of leadership, but this does the historical record evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.39.181 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander and Hephastion's joint sacrifice to Achilles and Patroclus, respectively, is pretty telling. Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship in the Illiad is an ambiguous mix of traits that you could ascribe to a lover or a close friend, but a level hand would read it as some of both. Bisexuality in greek culture was pretty common, not that they thought of it in modern terms, and neither Phillip the II nor Alexander practiced monogamy. Alexander and Hephastions' relationship strikes me as very similar to that of their heroes, i.e. it probably had sexual elements, but definetley wasn't the only aspect of their relationship. Alexander's reaction to Hephastions' death also seems telling, anecdotally Alexander wept and clung to Hephastion's corpse until his officers dragged him off of it. I don't know how true that ancedote is, but Hephastion's elaborate funeral seems like concrete evidence that Alexander loved him dearly. I don't really see how they couldn't have been lovers. Heilingetorix (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Important question

File:Shir-sangi.jpg

Hephaestion's tomb??

Where did his body actually end up for burial? I have a source (Persian book) from Iran's National Heritage Organization saying that this (and another destroyed twin lion statue standing opposite to this one) were built by the orders of Alexander in Hamedan in remembrance of Hephaestion, when being buried.

Can anybody verify this?--Zereshk 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.liminalityland.com/arrian.htm Hephaestion was cremated. What was the custom back then? To bury the ashes or to scatter them to the four quarters of the world? According to the website above, he was cremated at Babylon. P0M 06:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then that makes this lion just a monument I guess.--Zereshk 02:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the ashes were taken closer to home to be buried, the lions might have marked the spot.P0M 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So is Hephaestion's tomb in Babylon? It's kind of confusing. I wonder if the lion is just a monument like what Zereshk said. XEclipsex 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Most likely the Lion's of Hamedan are merely the first of many monuments that were said to have been comissioned by Alexander at Hephaistion's death. Alexander himself died only eight months after Hephaistion so all other commisions were most likely cancelled, including the funeral games, which we are not sure ever took place. Only one Lion remains now but the entertaining thing is that to this day, the women of the region still smear jellies on the lion in hopes of bearing children and Hephaistion has "finished his life as a symbol of fertility" as Robin Lane Fox addresses in his biography.MDMORGA (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The lover question

This article slightly tiptoes around and at other parts completely ignores the question if Alexander the Great and Hephaestion were lovers. I think it should be at least considered even if left slightly open-ended for those that dont want to hear the truth. Gayheroes.com gives citations about Alexander and Hephaestion's relationships from the same sources used in this article. Which leads me to believe someone didn't want to honor the possible truth. Never edited an article before but would be willing if more qualified individuals don't.

I see that someone has already altered the introductory text to include your question. I would move that the citation requirement be dismissed as this statement "perhaps also the lover of" does not imply finality, it merely addresses a wide-spread speculation. Hulamoth 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite what you believe, Hulamoth, if the controversy exist, it should be added at least as a controversy, not censored into oblivion because you and certain historians believe its speculation. 190.161.198.196 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite what the gay community wants to fabricate, there's still no conclusive evidence that Alexander or Hephaestion were homosexuals. - jag7211

The question of Alexander's homosexuality is not a classical discussion, merely a more recent fascination of modern historians. However, homoeroticism was very common in Greek and Macedonian culture, though most men had grown out of this shortly after reaching eighteen years. Many of Alexander's generals and confidants have been accredited to having male lovers. Therefore, I believe that while we do not have any concrete evidence of sexual consumation in a relationship between Hephaistion and Alexander you can not rightly dismiss this issue altogether. It seems unjustified to not mention this theory in the article, not tip toeing around, but seriously discussing the topic. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman has written several accounts to this and how Hephaistion's death affected Alexander and most likely the conquerors own death. I commend the author of the article for the outstanding amount of information presented here, but since Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman is cited so frequently, I suggest you re-read her work and give serious consideration to expanding on the subject of a possible homoerotic relationship between the two. Again, this is not a cry for more recognition on this subject on behalf of the 'gay community' as I am very straight in my sexual orientation, I only wish that you explore ALL areas when you have already expanded on so much of Hephaistion's life. MDMORGA (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank the writer for interesting comments, but I wonder where you get the idea that Reames-Zimmerman is cited frequently in the text, as she is not cited at all in the new version of the article - published since late November 2007? Unlesss you mean that since she is not quoted at all, I should re-read AND add her ideas to this article? As it is, I think Hephaistiosn's and Alexander's possible homosexual relationship have already been explored and suggested by using more primary sources than Reames-Zimmerman - as well as been related in the text. I'm not sure how this could be expanded in any sensible way without using late, second- or third-hand sources? It would be interesting to discuss this, though. Did you have anything special in mind, considering expanding the article? - AlexandersArmy (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)EaCalendula on behalf of AlexandersArmy

I am wondering if MDMORGA is talking about the first version of this page, and not the new one? Because the new one considers in great depth the 'possible homoerotic relationship' between the two. If MDMORGA scrolls down to Section 3, 'Relationships', she will see it. As her comments are dated 19th February 2008, it may be thought that she is talking about the new version - published November 2007, as EaCalendula says - and with regard to the new version, her comments simply don't make sense. Not only is the relationship covered in depth, it considers the differences between Athens and Macedon, and does not fall into the 'most men had grown out of it' -type generalisation. Furthermore, Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman is not cited or quoted at all in the new version - although she had been in the old version - the new one prefers to use the ancient sources as much as possible. To say "It seems unjustified to not mention this theory in the article, not tip toeing around, but seriously discussing the topic." when about a quarter of the article discusses this very topic, seems rather unjustified in itself. 80.229.177.2 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Fiona Courtney, Alexander's Army

I have something to say about Alexander, the Great. His story with Hephaestion is extremely similar to that of the Jewish king, David, and his companion in trust and love, Johnathan. I believe in such a trust and love between men, and I sincerely believe that the love between these two men was platonic, more as a brotherhood than a sexual union. That sort of love resides today; men still have "best friends" and "buddies". These are those (in some cases) that you tell your secrets and dreams. Alexander was a great king, and Hephaestion was a great general and loyal friend. I would weep bitterly for the loss of my longest friend also. Such a man that would not should see himself as callous. Jathrop on behalf of Alexander and Hephastion.

I take issue with the assertion that Hephaestion as a sexual partner was white-washed from the main extant sources. Plutarch, who wrote roughly the same time as Arrian, had no problem discussing men and their lovers--see Lysander, Agesilaus, etc. His portrayal of such relationships is hardly negative, and I struggle to see how one would arrive at the conclusion the article presents. Moreover, Quintus Curtius Rufus, also writing around the same time, mentions Bagoas the eunuch as Alexander's lover (though he is alone in doing so). Clearly he didn't feel it was taboo to write of such things, either. Neither did Aelian, a century or so later.

Finally, I question the citations of Robin Lane Fox's works. I enjoy RLF's style and prose, but I question his veracity in many counts--in his works about Alexander and of the Greeks and Romans in general. First, extremely broad statements like "Dorians were expected to be openly homosexual" fail on several different levels. The first, and most obvious, is the exclusivity that "homosexual" implies: a person that engaged in, and enjoys, sexual consummation with both sexes can hardly be called homosexual--just like a person who willingly engages in, and enjoys, sexual consummation with both sexes can hardly be called heterosexual.

Secondly, saying anything about the "Dorians" as a whole community ignores the fact that the Dorian people were socially and culturally diverse at least since the purported "return of the Heracleidae", whom they allegedly served under. Argives, Lacedaemonians and Messenians hardly conformed to the same model of state or custom, much like Macedon itself was in many ways at odds with not just Greeks in general, but other Dorians as well. In that sense, it is a stretch indeed to pigeon-hole Macedonians according to customs attributed by Plato on Cretans, who themselves different from other Dorians, due to some perceived socio-cultural Doric solidarity.

I would strongly urge that the article's primary contributors re-think the argument behind Hephaestion's relationship with Alexander--or, at the very least, re-think the approach they use for arguing it.

Respectfully, Phoebus Americanos (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to use the term "homosexual" in the context of Ancient Greece. Sexual relationships between men were an accepted and ordinary part of that culture and were in no way in opposition to marriage to a woman (which was expected of high ranking men). Men who were not attracted to men were considered odd. There is no doubt among scholars that Alexander (and other elite men) would have had sex with men and that their emotional attachment to such friends—often called brothers—were of more consequence than their attachment to wives. Women were seen as incapable of providing such a relationship, as they were not believed to be men's equals in capability, education, or training.

(Bringing David and Jonathan into the discussion only makes the problem worse and the argument less persuasive.)

As it stands, the discussion of Alexander's sexuality in this article is unscholarly, based on personal belief and 21st-century attitudes. Support for those opinions comes from a cherry-picked source that is an outlier, not mainstream scholarship. If the article is to provide reliable information, as an encyclopedia article should, it must be changed. As it stands, it's obviously misleading and of little use.

The author clearly cares about the subject and has put a lot of work into writing the article. I urge the author to correct these errors about sexuality so as to make that care and hard work result in a solid Wikipedia entry. KC 02:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

I attempted to edit out some of the more egregious "discussion of Alexander's sexuality in this article is unscholarly, based on personal belief and 21st-century attitudes." I think it is a step in the right direction, however the whole section needs a rewrite and that's beyond me atm.

General article changes

I, and a few others, who are interested in Alexander the Great and his times, and thus also in Hephaistion, noticed this article, and found it interesting and informative. We also thought that by using a broader range of sources, it would be possible to expand it and provide a more in-depth portrait of Hephaistion. So we found it worthwhile, some time ago, to start putting together a refurbished article, which we propose to publish here in a few weeks. It will incorporate almost all of what is already mentioned, but will also be longer and contain more detail. We've strived to utilise a variety of sources and to be as historically accurate as possible. We hope that it will live up to our intentions; namely to provide more information about an interesting historical figure, and we hope it will be well recieved.

Ea,

on behalf of AlexandersArmy 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So, it took a few months reather than a few weeks, but here it is at last. It wasn't possible to keep the original headers in a meaningful way, but I hope it doesn't break any links. As for now I only out-commented the old text (as recommended for major changes), but it will be removed in a few days.

AlexandersArmy (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely done. Gingervlad (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Very nice of you to say so :)

AlexandersArmy (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I'm a little perplexed here, so maybe somebody can help me out. I notice over at the bottom of Alexander The Great's page, there is no category for his sexuality like there is for Hephaestion here - "LGBT people from Greece." Since there isn't one on Alexander's page, I take that to mean that he was not "LGBT," but "Straight." Doesn't Alexander deserve a category for his sexuality as well? He should have one - something like, "Straight people from Greece." Oh, but wait a minute.... if he wasn't "Gay," then how could Hephaestion have been "Gay?" You can see the resulting confusion people might have when viewing both pages. If Alexander the Great isn't considered to have been "Gay," then Hephaestion should probably be marked with the same category name. You'll admit that the way it is now is very conflicting? HaarFager (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect anybody would respond to this. HaarFager (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You expected wrong, my friend! I'm not too keen on using modern terminology to describe sex practices from another culture and era. The greeks never classified themselves as 'gay' or 'straight' depending on the sex of their partners. If I'm going to go off Aristophanes (and I shall) then Greek sexuality is a continuum from receptive to penetrative. This scale of receptive vs. penetrative is also a scale of feminine vs. masculine - basically women are going to be the most receptive (and womanish) partners and gay tops are going to be the most penetrative (and manly) partners. It's homoerotiscism, yeah, but I'd resist the urge to slap modern acronyms on it. Heilingetorix (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tanais or Iaxartes?

The river Tanais is referred to in the article as being in Sogdiana. As Tanais is the ancient name of Don River (which is in European Russia), there must be an error, the correct river being possibly Iaxartes (Syr Darya).--Jeanambr (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hephaestion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201104158/http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html to http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hephaestion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622213938/http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~mreames/Hephaistion/dissabst.html to http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~mreames/Hephaistion/dissabst.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511123604/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Hephaestion to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Hephaestion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The marble head of Hephaestion

User @Étienne de Saint Germain: insists on restoring the photo of two marble heads exhibited side by side in the Getty Museum and allegedly representing Alexander and Hephaestion. The same head of Hephaestion is already shown in the foreground at the very beginning of the article. If the two heads were part of a single work of art showing Alexander and Hephaestion alone intent on doing anything together, the reproduction of both photos might make sense with reference to their special friendship. But this is not the case: for, according to the Getty Museum, the "head of Hephaistion, broken from a full-length statue, was originally part of a multi-figured group, which might have depicted a sacrificial scene" (cf here). This being so, the double reproduction of the same head of Hephaestion seems to me only a pretext to expose this caption, recently edited by the same user, which reads: "(left) Alexander and (right) Hephaestion: Both were connected by a tight man-to-man friendship". Considering that the entire article and in particular the section on 'Relationships' where the photo is shown, already treat in detail and from all points of view the much questioned friendship between the two, without even omitting "Alexander's yielding to Hephaestion's thighs" when referred to by ancient sources, in my view such a caption would much better fit a scandalmongering popular history booklet than an encyclopaedia as Wikipedia is supposed to be.--Jeanambr (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I did not receive any answer, I have removed the photo.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Too much repeating

This article repeats information a lot, making everything overly bloated, so I'll try to generally reorganize and keep things concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagabondo (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Following the above, User:Bagabondo has repeatedly edited the article. In some cases he/she improved it, for example by highlighting the spurious nature of a quote from Diogenes of Sinope (previously only alluded to). In other cases, however, he/she removed sourced information, basing his edits on such arguments as:
- "Aelian is quoted for support to a historical claim while Aelian was not a historian. Also, Fox's quote on the Dorians appears to be purely speculative conjecture, I cannot find any corroborating statements that such expectations were common among the Dorians beyond some historians believing them to be the source of later Hellenic rites, but even then that is conjecture ...";
- "I removed the part from Chugg on the death of Hephaestion, since its only his interpretation of an event, not any additional historical information ..."

In my opinion, these are obviously personal speculations (or, in Wikipedian terms, original research) which cannot support the deletion of sourced citations. I have consequently intervened as follows:
1. I restored all sourced information;
2. I added, when necessary, further sources;
3. I moved the spurious Diogenes quotation further below in the section from its previous "first place", thus following the appropriate suggestion Bagabondo made in one of his/her edit summaries.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. I made a lot of revisions based on how dismayed I was first reading the article - it appeared/appears to be phrased more like an argumentative essay rather than a neutral article. Maybe it’s just a matter of how the information is organized rather than excising sourced citations. In any case, thank you for reining in my initial edits. Bagabondo (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to you too! Both for your edits and for your friendly attitude. Cheers. --Jeanambr (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Assumptions on the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion

User:37.245.46.162 and User:2.48.57.58 have twice removed some statements (which I hadn't originally entered myself and which had remained in the article for almost 15 years), claiming that it is "stuff which fails verification" and that "none of this is sourced".

The removed statements report the existence of two historical assumptions about the characteristics of the possible sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion: whether it was a simple teenage love soon dropped, or the typical short-lived Athenian-style same-sex relationship between an older person and a younger.

Immediately below, the article states that "the former assumption" is shared by writers of fiction such as Mary Renault and the film director Oliver Stone, and in particular by the modern historian Paul Cartledge, of whom a textual quotation is reported, with the precise bibliographic reference.

Regarding the latter assumption, the article reports a passage from Aelian (and then, in the footnote, also refers to a slightly different passage from Plato), also in this case with precise bibliographic references.

The anonymous users removed all the initial part about the double assumption, then tampered with the quote from Cartledge making it meaningless, and finally also removed the quotes from Aelian and Plato altogether. What remains seems to me to lack logical coherence with what precedes and what follows.

I therefore suggest that the anonymous users' edits should be reverted or, if absolutely necessary, that the whole question of the two assumptions be reformulated in a logically coherent way, avoiding tampering with or deleting the textual quotations already present, unless proven inauthentic. Jeanambr (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on facts

The part that mentions Alexander referring to Hephastion as "He too is Alexander" Arrian claims he has doubts about its authenticity I do wonder if it's worthwhile including that for better clarification that it may be literary fiction. Finnders2207 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)