What kind of man do you think Hephaestion was? I always imagined that he was very similar to Alexander, given how close they were and how much Alexander trusted him, I always thought they must have been very similar people . But who knows, maybe it was an âopposites attractâ sort of thing, as we know so little about Hephaestion and the kind of person he was. Also, do you believe that Hephaestion reciprocated the deep affection and attachment Alexander had for him?
Hephaistion Amyntoros
Answering the second part first, itâs hard to know for sure as we donât have anything weâre certain Hephaistion wrote. Thereâs a letter from him to Olympias, recorded in Diodorus, but itâs problematic. I canât talk about the work Iâm doing on it because, well, Iâm working on it. đ I donât want to show my cards yet.
But in any case, I think the letter is suggestive that Hephaistion saw himself and Alexander as a unit against the enemy of either one (even Alexanderâs own mother). So if the letter is at all genuine, yes, Iâd say he was very loyal to Alexander. As loyal as Alexander to him? Thatâs impossible to say. He died first, so we have Alexanderâs reaction only.
Iâd caution that, when people have been friends as long as they were (assuming theyâd met as boys, at least by Mieza), their relationship would have gone through phases. Long-term friendships, just like long-term marriages, have ups-and-downs. We may get occasional glimpses of this in the historical record (such as the quarrel between Hephaistion and Krateros in India, and Alexanderâs reaction), but we just have NO idea what they thought about each other throughout a 19+-year friendship.
Yet I tend to take their mutual devotion at face value, understanding there were probably periods when Hephaistion was FURIOUS with Alexander (and the reverse). Being angry is a long way from being indifferent, of course. đ
As for Hephaistionâs personality, and Iâll address here the historical man, not my fictional Hephaistion (as I assume thatâs what youâre asking). What we know is piecemeal, and sometimes contradictoryâŚunless you remember that human beings are rarely consistent. We like to THINK we are, but psychological experiments have shown that weâre more likely to respond to circumstance, then try to justify our actions to ourselves later. (People who always act according to internal principle are quite rare.)
But what Iâve been able to glean about Hephaistionâs personality from my own research is as follows:
1) Â Â Heâs described as charming when he wanted to be, and at least some of his assignments involved diplomatic posts that might have involved a need to sweet-talk people. If he was also physically attractive, it wouldnât have hurt. Another thing we may not like to admit, but has been shown to be true: attractive (and tall) people command more immediate attention and authority. There are exceptions (Alexander himself would be one), but on average, it holds true.
2) Â Â Combined with the above, heâs described as exercising his influence over Alexander in such a way that it seemed âgranted by the kingâ rather than âclaimed by himself.â E.g., he wasnât an arrogant little shit. *grin* But heâs also said to have been the one most free to advise (and upbraid) the king.
3) Â Â In contrast to the above, he had a couple recorded personal quarrels, although Iâd like to point out that ALL these guys were quarrelsome, and Hephaistionâs quarrelsomeness tends to be exaggerated, compared to, say, Kraterosâs. But as he advanced, politically, THATâS when we see these emerge. The more power one acquires, the more one attracts competition, especially in a society without clear hierarchy, such as ancient Macedonia. Hierarchy existed, but was at the kingâs pleasure, not formally encoded. Theoretically, all Hetairoi were equal; pragmatically, they certainly werenât. Combined with differences off the field vs. on it, in terms of authority, that could raise hurt feelings involving personal honor (timÄ), which in ancient Greece, was (literally) more important than life itself. Better to die reclaiming timÄ than live without it. So as Hephaistionâs importance rose, of course heâd attract more rivalry.
4) Â Â Last, despite all the above, he doesnât seem to have been as ego aggressive as some of his contemporaries (such as Krateros, or Philotas). While Alexanderâs remark to him in India that amounts to, âI made you,â was probably unduly harsh and spoken in anger, thereâs a leeettle bit of truth to it, in that I wonder if Hephaistion would have cared to rise as high as he did, had he not been Alexanderâs friend and wanted to support the king. This is a bit different from the reading that he was less talented, or an also-ran. But not everybody is ambitious that way.
I have this hunch, from a broad reading, that Hephaistion went to Asia for love of Alexander, not because he was personally ambitious himself. Bette Midlerâs âWind beneath My Wingsâ has always seemed like a pretty good description of what Hephaistion was to Alexander. (Donât kill me for evoking cheesy pop songs, please!) That makes him a bit different from the rest of the lot, and perhaps somewhat untouchable in Alexanderâs trust. Might, in fact, BE the reason for Alexanderâs trust.
But these things aside, we donât know much of what he was like, personality wise. These are bits and pieces that I used, when I constructed my fictional Hephaistion (although of course, I was working with the boy, not the man heâll become, although I tried to seed hints of it). My Hephaistion isnât quite what heâll be, but heâs on the way there, just like Alexander. Theyâre rough on the edges yet. As were we all, at their ages.
A last comment on the âopposites attractââŚthey do, but as the saying goes, they donât always wear well. Rather, I think couples benefit for HOW theyâre âopposite.â If theyâre too opposite in point of view, especially world view, that really doesnât wear well in the long run. Matching ideologies are very important, or at least matching in most ways. No two people will agree on EVERYthing, but itâs key that they (mostly) look out in the same direction. I think itâs also very important, IME, that couples have a MISSION together. It neednât be big or fancy (like conquering Asia!), but there needs to be something they share together, that defines them as a couple. Not who am I and you, but who are WE? Couples who canât answer that? Usually not a long shelf-life there.
But otherwise, I think itâs valuable for couples to have slightly different personalities, so for instance, for one to be the âtalkerâ and the other listens more (guess who that was, with Alexander in the mix). Perhaps for one to be more assertive, fiery, the other more relaxed and easy-going. So again, when I was building my fictional characters, I gave some thought to that. In the book, I tend to frame it in ancient humor or elemental theory. So Alexander is described as fire (sometimes air, sometimes water), while Hephaistion is earth (sometimes water, sometimes air). Alexander has an âexcessâ of blood and yellow bile, while Hephaistion has an âexcessâ of black bile and phlegm. Itâs both era-appropriate, but also useful for thinking about how they compliment each other. All four humors needed to be in balance in a person, so each has âtoo muchâ of what the other needs more of.
