Would you mind elaborating on Dr. Reames-Zimmerman's lack of objectivity regarding Hephaistion? I haven't finished reading her thesis yet, but I'm thrilled at the idea that Hephaistion had more to offer than what she states. Any idea why she omits facts about him? Some sort of self-censoring to make herself seem academically objective (i.e., not a rabid Hephaistion fangirl), perhaps? Or is there more known about Hephaistion now than in 1998 when her thesis was published? Thank you!
I donât mind elaborating at all! Unfortunately, I donât have her dissertation right now (I have read it, but the file was lost in the gloriously failed computer siege and in my unsuccessful attempt to find it I answered this question much later than I wanted to), but her other writings are quite consistent with her assessment of Hephaistion in her dissertation. I certainly do not harbor any negative thought towards Zimmerman, since Iâm glad that at least one scholar actually likes Hephaistion. However, I disagree with her analysis and bias when looking at ancient sources. Buckle up everyone, this post is about to get rough.
The main issue is this: Zimmerman falls prey to the general academic failure amongst scholars of myself who ignore Hephaistionâs military contributions, presumably because of their own assumptions about our relationship. Unlike others, Zimmerman does not do this with malice, but her scholarship still is flawed in its view of the ancient sources. I feel that scholars are willfully ignorant when looking at the ancient texts. They especially like to skip over the âHephaistion returned with his army from his mission, having conquered a large part of Indiaâ in Diodorus 93.1.Â
In her article âThe Cult of Hephaistionâ (sadly not about his hero cults, but I digress), Zimmermanâs assessment of Hephaistion in military matters is clear:
âThe evidence suggests that [Hephaistion] was meticulously kept away from combat commandâ (199).
Are you fucking kidding me? Hephaistion was the commander of the goddamn Companion Cavalry, but he was supposedly kept away from combat command? Does Zimmerman realize the huge lack of critical thinking that is needed here to make that leap in logic? And her explaining away Hephaistionâs command to âsubdueâ peoples in Sogdiana as ânot a combat assignment at allâ is laughable at best. Common sense time: Why the hell would I let someone be my second-in-command and be my somatophulax and have the best command in the army if I wanted to keep him away from COMBAT? And she also states that commanding the Companion Cavalry was not a combat command. The cognitive dissonance here is strong.
âOne case does exist where [Hephaistion] commanded singularly in combat, but it was a surprise attackâ (198).
Ah yes, I seem to have forgotten the many independent missions that Hephaistion went on that are actually recorded. You know, when he was in charge of large parts of the army multiple times that specifically involved combat (Arrian 6.6, 4.16.2, etc.)  Or that one time he sieged a city in 30 days (Arrian 4.23). No big deal, right? Also her presumptions about Hephaistion singularly commanding the âsurprise attackâ in Pattala that Zimmerman mentions here are not consistent with her reasoning about other missions. And she assumes that the multiple times Hephaistion led the bulk of the army (Arrian 6.3, 6.28.7, 6.13.1, 6.17.4 and many other instances) involved absolutely no combat at all. /sarcasm. Give me a fucking break.
These standards are not applied to any of my other generals. I have never seen this level of criticism leveled at Krateros or Ptolemy or Perdikkas, since they are usually the only other officers people seem to be aware of. I also donât know why scholars (including Zimmerman) seem to think that commands with more than one officer are somehow not certified combat commandsâą and make the commanding officer a shitty combat commanderâą. If those standards were applied to me then scholars could say, âOh, well, Alexander didnât independently command these combat missions, since he also had Perdikkas or Ptolemy or whoever with him.â I mean, really.
I am so sick and tired of everyone attempting to say that Hephaistion was somehow unskilled, bad at combat, or any of the asinine things that scholars state about him. The ancient sources didnât doubt his fucking skills, I didnât doubt his skills, so why in the fresh hell are modern scholars constantly trying to discredit him?Â
âHephaistionâs talents were supportive, his leadership not particularly notable in combat, and his role in Alexanderâs life most closely mirrored a spouse- but he was not a spouse, at least not formally.â (201)
OH FOR FUCKâS SAKE. This is one of the most stinking pieces of bullshit that Iâve ever read, and Iâve read Paul Cartledge. How did Hephaistion resemble a spouse at all? Did he sit around the womenâs quarters all day weaving and waiting for me to come home from war? Did he birth me a strong male heir? Did his father give me a hefty dowry when we went off to Persia together? NO. NO HE DID NOT. Zimmerman is operating on a flawed modern assumption that projects her own views of relationships onto my friendship with Hephaistion. We are both men. Men did not get married back in our time. Therefore, there is no way that he could âmirror a spouseâ unless viewed entirely from a modern view. And even that is flawed, since modern relationships usually do not include polygamy. So this entire sentence is full of more shit than the Augean stables Herakles had to clean.
This unwillingness to recognize Hephaistionâs contributions can perhaps be traced to the modern view of our relationship and modern issues of sexuality, as Zimmerman just showed so clearly. Hephaistion is frequently feminized in modern media (coughAlexander2004cough), and also in modern scholarship. Zimmerman does this by purposefully omitting Hephaistionâs military contributions and saying that he only was good at the things âseen as a womanâs role.â The same feminization happens with the modern interpretation of Patroklos, just look at Song of Achilles where he is portrayed as a terrible warrior, unlike in the Iliad. Honestly, I donât know why everyone makes such a big deal and gets upset about if Hephaistion and I had a sexual relationship or not- we Macedonians certainly didnât care about that kind of thing back in the day. We werenât as uptight as others *cough*Athenians*cough*. And for the record, Curtius certainly thought Hephaistion was manly. Scholars also (generally) like me and want me to be a shining beacon of greatness that they can all aspire to be yet completely fail to emulate. They donât really want to think that my second-in-command was also brilliant and a badass, since that would somehow make me less amazing in their minds. This is idiotic; Hephaistion is and was glorious. Bridge the Indus and get over it, people.
There is definitely not any more information about Hephaistion now than there was in 1998 to my knowledge, since the information on him comes from ancient sources that were also available back then. Zimmerman is also quite consistent in her scholarship in her views of Hephaistionâs abilities. She has issues with her scholarship in general, as she states that Hephaistion led the Hypaspist agema at Gaugamela (this is unproven and unlikely based on the ancient sources, and I can personally tell you that he did not), and treats assumptions as fact many times in her writing, while also twisting fact into assumption or omitting it. But Zimmerman is still much better and more objective than Peter Green, Paul Cartledge, Robin Lane Fox, and co. I donât trust any modern scholars, especially about military history and Hephaistion. After all, they say Hephaistion is âfundamentally stupid,â yet none of them can string together a coherent or original thought if their lives depended on it. Iâm disgusted by Hephaistionâs abilities, specifically his military abilities, being constantly dismissed or ignored by modern scholars. I didnât die for this bullshit.Â