This took me a while to get to, due to new book duties. But this is a complex issue with several different pieces all building on each other.

First, Hephaistion died before ATG, and the ancient sources, writing about ATG in his lifetime, tended to gloss over the other figures at the court, like those diamond chips meant to set off the main gemstone. It’s only after Alexander’s death that we get to see the metal they’re made of. Hephaistion didn’t survive to compete in that testing fire.

Second, if my analysis of his career is correct, a lot of his assignments were non-combat, and the ancient sources accorded more glory to combat (something modern historians may unconsciously echo). This leads to a misunderstanding of his importance at the court. I STILL see this with some modern apologists for Hephaistion, who get upset with my observations about his assignments as largely non-military, as if I’m denigrating him, not recognizing that they’re playing into those same biases. Anybody who thinks logistical or diplomatic roles are “denigrating” should try fighting on an empty stomach. ;)  This is all rather silly.

I’d also point out something else that gets overlooked: fighting ability and strategic or tactical ability aren’t the same thing. The fact he was (apparently) a commander of the agema of the Hypaspists at Gaugamela suggests he was both a sizable person, and also probably a pretty decent fighter. That doesn’t mean he was the strongest combat commander, even though he was also, apparently, quite serviceable at it. I’m just tired of people assuming excellent combat command skills are the ultimate test of one’s worth in an army. To quote Napoleon, “An army marches on its stomach.”

Finally, I think there’s a certain amount of discomfort/homophobia with the implications of their relationship. In the Renaissance and earlier, we see a fascination with the romance of their friendship. It’s exulted in paintings, and sometimes in literary mediums. But this was a time more comfortable with emotional ties and expressions between men (sexual or not). I very much doubt some (maybe most) of those Renaissance painters were thinking of A. and H. as lovers. But devoted friends? Absolutely. And in that, perhaps they came closer to the mores of the ancient world. So Hephaistion’s friendship was something of note, worth celebrating–a virtue. Never mind if he was a combat commander.

As time moved on, there was an increase in concern/awareness of male “pathics” (the old term) and too much emotional attachment between men became suspect by the 1800s, certainly later 1800s and early 1900s, in Europe. Notice how Hephaistion drops out of the discussion in those early histories, and art. I think the ultimate erasure is the 1956 Robert Rossen “Alexander the Great” with Richard Burton as Alexander, where Hephaistion is a byline in the credits, not present in the film, and then the 1963 “Alexander the Great” TV pilot with William Shatner as Alexander, where Hephaistion is COMPLETELY erased and replaced with “Cleander” as the best friend played, amusingly to me, by Adam West. So Captain Kirk and Batman conquer Persia. :-)

Anyway, that’s the height of discomfort with Hephaistion because the fabled friendship is now too gay. A similar discomfort is echoed in the scholarship of the time, with several ATG historians barely mentioning Hephaistion and/or defending Alexander from any hint of same-sex attachments (Tarn, albeit mostly about Bagoas). This dismissal of Hephaistion had unfortunate consequences in subsequent historiography (post-’60/’70s).

As I’ve said elsewhere, I know several of the men who’ve written negatively about Hephaistion in the prior generation. Most are liberal, or at least moderate, agnostics/atheists and support women in the academy, etc. In short, those assuming they’re hand-wringing fundamentalist Christian misogynistic homophobes are creating a strawman to unfairly lambast. Yet at the same time, many are products of an earlier era, and may not be too comfortable thinking about what two men do in bed together even if they’ll vote for gay civil rights. It’s a complicated mix, which isn’t to excuse the bias, just don’t make a comic effigy of it. People ARE complicated.

In addition, academia strives to avoid any breath of romanticism, not unfairly. The goal is to be as unbiased as possible. But the end result can undervalue emotional attachment, and emotional motivations. (Something the former counselor in me frequently decries.) So the struggle becomes how to address a highly emotional attachment (which may or may not have had a sexual element) between two historical figures, while not romanticizing it. The allure is to go to extremes. I want to maintain the middle road (ergo, I not infrequently annoy those on the extremes).