Talk:Hephaestion

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). Template:AncientEgyptBanner Iran B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Greece B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

In many cultures of the world men hug and even kiss when they greet each other. No one goes around thinking "homosexuality". It is among cultures that adopt this filth, called "homosexuality", that such things get interpreted as such. I myself faced a similar dilemma when I came to North America. I had a close friend whom I spent much time with, and some disgusting fellow asked if we "slept together". What decaying minds! Men here seem afraid to even sit next to each other! Listen, it is as someone once said, those who do not know speak loudly, and those who know do not speak. Unfortunately nowadays, even if knowledge is spoken, it is, like an Asian fellow once put it, like throwing pearls before swine. Even though you did not say it explicitly, I agree with you; it is sad to see history distorted as well.--99.246.101.166 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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