#bagos

The emotional triangle people take from that book isn’t coming from the sources. The famous reference to Bagoas in connection with Alexander is from Plutarch: a public moment where the army cheers and he kisses him. That’s it. No ongoing relationship described, no emotional arc, no evidence that Bagoas ever became some central figure in Alexander’s inner life.

Meanwhile, the pattern we actually see with Hephaestion never changes. He’s the closest companion, the “other self,” the man at Alexander’s side in command and in life. And when Hephaestion dies, Alexander doesn’t redirect his emotional world somewhere else. He collapses. The grief is extreme even by ancient standards and it reshapes everything that follows. Whatever else shifts in his life, that core attachment doesn’t.

So when a story pushes Hephaestion aside to make room for a new emotional center, that’s not a bold interpretation. It’s a complete fabrication of the emotional structure of his life.

And honestly, what gets me isn’t even just the history. It’s how mean the book feels to Hephaestion. There’s this wedge driven between them, this quiet sidelining, this sense that he’s somehow replaceable. But the sources point in the opposite direction. He wasn’t someone Alexander moved past. He was the person he never recovered from losing.

And no, this isn’t me defending my “blorbos.” I promise I am capable of historical objectivity. This is me being tired of an incoherent, abusive, and historically inaccurate reading getting repeated, and then presented as if it’s a serious historical argument. That part is exhausting.

And look, I know people love this book. You’re allowed. I am trying very hard to be normal about it. Enjoy the prose. Enjoy the story. Live your life. I will try not to start a fight. (No promises.)