Exhibition about Carthage in Leiden, Netherlands

In the wake of my visit to Motya in Sicily where I was confronted with a number of Punic artifacts and a Tophet (Punic cemetery), I expected that this exhibition about Carthage at the Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden in Leiden in the Netherlands would be a nice complement. Well, it was not the case, but anyway, I learned a lot more about the Carthaginians who still are shrouded in mystery.

Carthage is advertised as the third city in the Roman Empire after Rome and Alexandria. This grand city was located in northern Africa on the coast of today’s Tunisia and was founded by the Phoenicians (from modern Lebanon) in the 9th century BC. Carthage had a powerful fleet and extended its power all over the Mediterranean Sea, much to the chagrin of the Romans, and led to repeated confrontations. The last so-called Punic War took place in 146 BC from which the Romans emerged victorious. A good century later, thanks to the efforts of Emperor Augustus, the city was rebuilt to become the third largest of the empire. Its glory lasted till 439 AD when Carthage, like so many cities in North Africa, was invaded by the Vandals. From the 7th century onwards it was gradually forgotten, to be rediscovered early in the 19th century. Since then it has been added to the World Heritage List of UNESCO.

The exhibition in Leiden, which is running till 7 May 2015, is divided in two parts: Carthage from 900 to 146 BC and Roman Carthage after 146 BC. The artifacts have been collected from several museums in Tunisia, but also from the Louvre and the British Museum.

Punic art is pretty intriguing, to say the least, for it is not immediately recognizable as for instance Greek or Egyptian art. Their artifacts are always mixed with foreign influences, either from Egypt, Africa, or Syria (their homeland), often with a Greek twist since many artists turned out to be Greek.

A striking example is, for instance, the lady on the marble lid of a sarcophagus from the 4th-3rd century BC found in the Necropolis of Rabs in Carthage. She is presented in Etruscan fashion but with a robe draped in Greek style; of Egyptian influence is her hairdo and the snake on her forehead, as well as the wings folding over her body. She could be a priestess of Isis, but that is not certain. Another noticeable statue is that representing a Goddess with the Head of a Lioness made of terracotta and dated from the first century AD. Although from the Roman era, the statue strongly reminds us of the Punic god Tanir, while she could be identified as the Egyptian Selhmet as well. The head does not really match her body, I’d say, but her robe looks Greek although the feather motives refer to the Middle East. This statue was found at Tinissut and is on loan from the Bardo Museum in Tunis.

There are, of course, many more highlights to be seen, like the Punic steles; the splendid bronze Punic cuirass; the elaborate Phoenician dishes from the 7th century BC; a collection of incense burners on top of terracotta heads that look very Greek and date from the 3rd-2nd century BC; or the unique marble sundial (scaphe) from Carthage dating from the 1st-2nd century AD on loan from the Louvre (see: What about sundials in antiquity?).

The collection from the Roman era is obviously showing an array of Roman men and women among objects for daily use. It is wonderful, however, to see two bronze statues recuperated from a shipwreck discovered off the coast of Tunisia near Mahdia, one representing Eros with the Lamp and the other a Dancing Satyr, both from around 100 BC. 

Absolutely unique is the presence of a Phoenician bronze battering ram that once was mounted at the very bow of a trireme. It looks brand-new and is quite amazing! It was recently discovered near the Egadi Islands, where the remains of at least 11 warships lost during the final naval battle of the First Punic War were uncovered (see also: The Trireme, a Ship to Remember). This battle occurred just off the Western coast of Sicily, near the island of Favignana. The battering ram that is exhibited here seems to be the only Phoenician one among the otherwise Roman examples.

A good number of highlights are illustrated on a special page of the site of Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden and my own highlights can be found in this album, Carthago in Leiden 2015.

The Macedonian Tomb of Agios Athanasios in Thessaloniki

The name “Agios Athanasios” may not say much except to those who visited the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, where it occupies a very privileged room of its own – and rightfully so!

Macedonia is rich in tombs with painted decorations on the inside and outside walls and even on the sarcophagi, but this grave site has very well-preserved frescos. The Tomb of Agios Athanasios is located under an enormous tumulus in the area of Thessaloniki, yet only 15 kilometers away from Pella (click here to watch a wonderfully well-done reconstruction). It has been looted, but the small single chamber offers a unique example of richly decorated walls in surprisingly fresh colors. It dates from the last quarter of the fourth century BC, the Alexander era. Reason enough to stop here for a moment.

As customary, the front of the tomb was entirely painted with golden-winged griffons in the pediment trimmed by alternating dark blue triglyphs and white metopes. Underneath runs the frieze that depicts a symposium, a meeting for men only. This is a rare colored version of the feast where we see the participants comfortably stretched on their couches, enjoying their food and wine, while young women play the guitar and the flute. Further down the frieze is a cortege of young men on foot and on horseback making their way to the event while they are being watched by Macedonian soldiers leaning on their spears and shields. The doorway is guarded by two grieving young men wearing a chlamys. Such a richly decorated tomb supposedly belonged to a renowned Macedonian military, more so since remains of his armor were found inside the nearly destroyed burial chamber.

The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki has put these friezes in the limelight, reworking the panels digitally in order to make them available for everyone on a touch-screen. Using the sliding frame of the reference bar underneath, selections of this fresco can be studied in detail. There is also a large-looking glass that enables the curious visitor to magnify every single corner of the painting. Another program allows the visitor to touch specific personages or details which reverse to their original condition as the scenes were before their wear and tear over time got a hold – they look as colorful as on the day they were painted.

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, we are able to see in detail how the guests behaved, how they were catered with food and wine, and what they wore for such a symposium; that also applies to the military equipment of the infantry standing around.

Alexander’s influence reached all the way to China?

It is high time to look at Alexander’s conquest of Asia in a much wider context than we usually do. By now, his legacy in Central Asia is generally accepted thanks to the many artifacts found in Sogdiana and Bactria (modern Afghanistan). Ai-Khanoum, one of the many cities founded by Alexander and now on the far northern border of Afghanistan, is a clear proof of a new Hellenistic city as illustrated by the travelling exhibition Bactrian Gold, the Hidden Treasures from the Museum of Kabul. Because of this, stating that Greek art has led to the making of the famous Terracotta Army in Xi’an, China does not come as a total surprise.

Looking at the map of Eurasia, Ai-Khanoum’s position is quite central as it is separated from China only by the Pamir Mountains. The passes across that mountain range will not have been crowded with people, but some definitely must have made it across. Alexander’s death occurred hardly one hundred years before the First Emperor of China came to power and built his famous mausoleum. Over the Silk Road and the high mountain passes, people will definitely have moved back and forth, carrying their goods and their ideas between 323 BC, date of Alexander’s death and 221 BC when Emperor Qin came to power.

Several months ago, I saw this documentary on TV about an Achaemenid silver bowl or box with hollow drop motives that was found in China and how an expert from Germany was called in to examine the piece. It was dated 3rd-2nd century BC and I remember how it was established that the box had been casted and not hammered as expected, meaning that this piece was truly made in China and not imported from the west. It was a rather exotic-looking luxury article that only a happy few could afford. Yet, I didn’t think more of it till I attended a lecture entitled “Sculpture and the question of contacts between China and the Hellenistic East" presented by Dr Lukas Nickel from SOAS, University of London. The same silver box was the first piece of evidence presented here as the Nanyue silver box and I learned that about ten more of such unusual treasure boxes were found on different locations throughout China. Dr Nickel has my undivided attention!

From here, he moved to China’s most famous Terracotta Army, stating that it very well could have been inspired by the Greeks living on the eastern border of the Seleucid Empire, the successors of Alexander in Asia. Until that time, no large statues were ever created in China, leading Dr Nickel to think that the making of this army was inspired by ancient Greek artwork.

Emperor Qin was the first to unify the country. He died in 210 or 209 BC after building a huge mausoleum for himself surrounded by scores of life-size terracotta statues of infantrymen, cavalry, archers, charioteers and generals - all meant to protect him in his afterlife. They are the result of mass production, although each figure is apparently showing its own personality, but only in their facial features; the body, arms and legs are lifeless as if made of wood. Although the largest part of this impressive army is still buried, it is estimated that there are over 8,000 soldiers, 130 chariots drawn by 520 horses, and 150 cavalry horses. According to Dr Nickel, it is perfectly possible and very likely that these statues are the result of early contacts between Greece and China.  

Not far from this army, other pits have revealed sculptures of half-naked acrobats, strongmen, dancers and servants, which in turn are very realistic – men of flesh and blood, who were supposed to entertain the emperor in his afterlife. Dr Nickel concludes that the artists who made these statues of people in action must have learned their craft from Greek masters in order to render their bone structure, muscles and skin. This kind of understanding of the human body is typical for the Hellenistic period (the time after Alexander the Great) and Dr Nickel argues that making such realistic statues is not something that could be learned overnight or without practice; after all it took the Greeks several centuries to attain such results.

And then there is the tale about twelve giant statues “clad in foreign robes” that surfaced in Lintao (or in the general area of Lintao), i.e., the most western city of China. This information comes from a text translated by Dr Nickel, which, however, does not mention the origin of the statues or who commissioned them. All we know is that they stood about 38 ft (11.55m) tall with feet that were 4.5 ft long (1.38m) – they must have been colossal and very impressive! Indeed, so much so that the Emperor ordered twelve copies made to be placed in front of his palace. For this purpose, he collected all the bronze weapons that were previously used in war and had them melted. Each duplicated statue received an inscription stating that the original giants appeared in Lintao. This was recorded by a certain Yan Shigu, who lived in the 6th century AD and had access to earlier written sources. These “giants” are long gone as they were destroyed some time after the First Emperor’s death.

Anyway, this translation is one way to prove that a certain contact between ancient China and a Greek kingdom in Central Asia did actually exist, and that their inhabitants had a tradition of making statues.

As I said earlier, I’m not really surprised by this statement since Hellenistic influences have been found in art and architecture in Central Asia (see: Bactrian Gold, the Hidden Treasures from the Museum of Kabul) and also in India (see: Indo-Greek art or the influence of Hellenism on Buddhist art). Although I was aware that the first statues of Buddha appeared only after the death of Alexander the Great, I didn’t know till now that no statues at all were ever made before this time. To take this knowledge to a wider area like China is moving one step further.

In my wildest dreams, I often wondered what would have happened if Alexander the Great and Emperor Qin had met – what is one hundred years after all. I developed this theory already after visiting the wonderful exhibition about the First Emperor at the British Museum in London (see: The First Emperor, China’s Terracotta Army and Alexander the Great).

I wonder why Dr Nickel's revolutionary news didn’t make headlines before. Why is it that we still want to keep West and East separated? Why are we still keeping ourselves so jealously inside our own comfort zone? Alexander would have told us that we can learn from our enemies and I would like to add that we still can learn from people across our borders – our planet earth is not that big after all!

[Picture of the Map and the Terracotta Army are from Live Science; the acrobat is from Megan Mitchell China; the strongmen are from Far East City Shopper]

What if … Alexander had died a few months earlier, before Craterus left with his veterans for Macedonia?

Another interesting point of view for after Hephaistion died one year earlier, Craterus became Alexander’s second-in-command. Craterus was now the most powerful man after Alexander, at least in the east, for Antipater still ruled undisturbed over Macedonia and Greece.

Well, maybe Craterus could have kept his high position and could have shaped a new ruling system, although the empire still needed a king. Roxane’s pregnancy may not yet have been established, in which case the more or less obvious appointment of Arrhidaeus/PhilipIII would have materialized. But simple-minded as he was, he too would need a regent to rule in his place. Would the generals present at Babylon have accepted Craterus’ superiority? Maybe in the immediate future but for the next 18 years till Alexander IV was old enough to be king?

It does not sound very probable, for meanwhile, Arrhidaeus/Philip III would have picked up momentum together with his wife, the ambitious Adea/Eurydice. The ambition of the generals and their faithful troops is likely to have demanded their share pending the coming of age of Alexander IV. The main difference with what really happened is that Craterus would have been in Babylon with his 10,000 veterans to reinforce the local troops. He had a strong case against Antipater since he had the majority of the troops on his side. This situation could have made the situation more manageable and appeased possible opposition – at least for a while.

On the other hand, however, Craterus could have gained the support of Olympias, but whether that was enough to stop Cassander from working out his devilish plans after Antipater’s death in 319 BC depended entirely on the replacement Craterus had in mind. Polyperchon seems to be an excellent candidate since Alexander himself had sent him along with Craterus in the first place, should anything happen to him, Polyperchon, a highly skilled diplomat, was to take over. Craterus was obviously aware of these plans and could have acted accordingly.

We know that Polyperchon, in the end, played a foul game as he was responsible for the murder of  Heracles and his mother, Barsine. Polyperchon’s dream to rule over Greece had clashed with Cassander’s ambitions time and again, and in 310 BC, Cassander promised him peace and promotion as military governor of the Peloponnese. In exchange, the 75-year-old Polyperchon had to kill Heracles and Barsine. He accepted the deal.

What if...

“What if” is one of those questions that keeps popping up in everybody’s mind, and as I often wonder about Alexander’s life and death, I came up with several “what ifs”:

• What if … he had married before leaving for Asia and had produced a son?
• What if … Hephaistion had still been alive at the time of Alexander’s death in Babylon?
• What if … he had died a few months earlier before Craterus left with his veterans for Macedonia? 
• What if … he had died a few months later after his son with Roxane was born and Craterus had replaced Antipater in Macedonia?
• What if … he had lived a few more years to conquer western Mediterranean?
• What if … he had left his throne to his son from the Persian princess Barsine/Stateira, descended from and protected by Sisygambis?

Pure speculation, of course, but I think it could be interesting to spend some time reflecting on these theories.

First, all members of Alexander’s Bodyguard were in Babylon when he died in 323 BC: Aristonous, Leonnatus, Lysimachus, Peithon, Perdiccas, Peucestas, and Ptolemy. Other powerful men were also present, like Seleucos, one of his principal commanders over the past seven years; Nearchus, the admiral of his fleet; and Eumenes, his secretary and archivist. They all had campaigned at Alexander’s side for over a decade, and I’m confident their world vision had changed considerably since they left Macedonia. As we know, however, the main absentees were Craterus, who was still in Cilicia on his way to replace Antipater as Regent in Macedonia upon Alexander’s instructions, and Antipater himself.

Alexander had not appointed a successor. His wife, Queen Roxane, was expecting a child in a few months, but there was no guarantee this would be a boy. Alexander already had a son, Heracles, by his mistress Barsine, but no attempt was ever made to recognize him, and thus the boy had no right to the throne. The only “available” royal was Alexander’s half-brother, Arrhidaeus, an adult but simple-minded and not fit to rule by himself.

In short, the empty throne had to be occupied, and the vast empire had to be ruled. It was up to this group of faithful men to make the right decisions, although none knew what they were. Alexander had been their king and leader; how could that position be filled or replaced?

The army, according to Macedonian law, could nominate their new king, but most importantly, they were the ones who had to approve the possible candidate; without their blessing, no king could rule. Yet the army was split into three large contingents: approximately 10,000 to 15,000  troops were still in Babylon, 10,000 veterans led by Craterus were in Cilicia, and about the same number of troops were in Greece under the command of Antipater.

This was the situation in June 323 BC when Alexander’s commanders met in the afflicted Royal Palace of Babylon. The assembled generals were all powerful figures and capable leaders. What was going to complicate things was their sense of competition. For the Greeks, competition was part of their nature; it was in their blood and present in every level of daily life, exposing soldier against soldier or, more appropriately, in this case, general against general. Alexander grew up with the very notion of competition, and he unceasingly instigated it in his army by organizing combats among his men or holding theater festivals in which contestants vied for attention. At the Babylon Conference, this meant that none of the generals present was initially ready to make any concession to the other. A tricky situation, to say the least.

What if Alexander had left the throne to his son from the Persian princess Stateira, descended from and protected by Sisygambis?

Actually, this is a thought that was formulated by Robbert Bosschart in his book “All Alexander’s Women” – the most dazzling theory of them all! What if Alexander had died some twenty years later - after all, a king remaining alive until the age of 53 was quite normal then - and had left the empire to his son from the Persian princess Stateira, granddaughter of Queen Mother Sisygambis?

There would have been sufficient time for Alexander to consolidate his empire. Of course, no one could have filled the heartfelt void that Hephaistion left behind, but Peucestas would have become a highly efficient Chiliarch (Prime Minister) by then – after all, he managed to learn the Persian language. With general Craterus as Regent or even Vice-Roy in the West, general Seleucos as Vice-Roy in the East (we know that in the end, he became the founder of the Seleucid dynasty that ruled the East for nearly three hundred years), general Ptolemy at the head of Central Command, and Cassander safely executed for yet another attempt on Alexander's life, the empire would be perfectly stable for a twenty-years-old Crown Prince (called Cyrus, probably) to rule

Following the thoughts of Robbert Bosschart, this powerful dynasty born from Stateira that Alexander and Sisygambis wanted to leave behind would have predated, pre-empted, and outpaced the Roman state by three centuries. Their “Kingdom of all Lands,” and not the Roman Empire, would have become the basic model of our Western society, including feminine values. Alexander’s legacy would also have given us a different way of thinking about the role of men and women in public life (one of the most revealing facts in “All Alexander’s Women” is that in Persia, men and women lived and worked on a level of equality). This, above all, would have changed world history.

But still, Alexander could not have ignored his son by Roxane, Alexander IV, who would have been of the same age as the presumed Cyrus. He would complicate the abovementioned theory. It is evident that Stateira was of a higher royal rank than Roxane, the daughter of a leading Bactrian tribe. The same order of precedence would apply to their respective offspring, and Alexander the Great would have arranged a satisfactory career for Alexander IV as well, depending on his character and his inclinations. He may have grown up at the Persian court where his father and the Queen Mother could have provided for a proper education, or he may have grown up at the Macedonian court under the guidance of Queen Olympias and/or Craterus, or maybe a mixture of both since Alexander’s vision was to unite east and west and melt his empire into one (simply think of the mass-wedding in Susa). Remains the open question of how well young Cyrus and young Alexander would get along together …

The Persian viewpoint is, in many ways, turning our perspectives topsy-turvy, as Alexander’s succession always has been presented as a Macedonian affair. If the Queen Mother or any high Persian official ever had a voice in the crowd of Macedonian officers is not mentioned in ancient sources. Still, these were evidently written by Greeks, and no effort has been made (even by modern authors) to investigate that side of history. There must have been Persian records of the events, but if they have survived is another matter, and even if they do exist, they most probably have not been translated or are still lingering in some obscure museum storage.

Bringing Stateira and her son into play, as Robbert Bosschart has done, would definitely influence my above speculations, especially in the case of Hephaistion surviving Alexander. True to Alexander’s thoughts and wishes, he would have raised young Cyrus as a crown prince and would have treated Sisygambis and Olympias with the appropriate deference to put their stamp on the education of both Alexander’s sons.

All theories are certainly worth pondering, for they are all fascinating and frightening at the same time, especially since each theory automatically raises ever more questions. Yes, what if …?  Only Zeus knows what would have happened and what our modern world would have looked like.

[Picture of Stateira in Babylon is from Oliver Stone's movie "Alexander"]

What if … Alexander had lived a few more years to conquer western Mediterranean?

That is another ball game altogether. Alexander definitely had drawn his plans as contained in his notebooks (hypomnemata). He had already started exploring the coastline of the Arabian peninsula, an expedition cut short because the peninsula turned out to be far larger than expected. His ships went as far as the Strait of Hormuz without knowing they had reached the headland that Nearchus had seen when sailing up from India into the Persian Gulf in 324 BC.

The projects were grand, far beyond the visions of any of Alexander’s successors, and are best documented by Diodorus and Curtius. Instructions had been given to build a thousand warships, triremes up to septiremes in Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, and Cyprus to be eventually sailed into Babylon’s harbor. They would serve in a campaign along the coast of North Africa to conquer the strong Carthaginian realm. Interestingly he planned to build a road along the coast of Libya, as North Africa was named in his days, running all the way to the Pillars of Hercules, i.e., modern Gibraltar. Knowing that the first coastal road through today’s Libya was built by Mussolini in 1937 clearly, shows how daring a project this was. The conquest of the coastal regions, which would also include Iberia (Spain) and Sicily, evidently implied establishing a series of ports and dockyards where the ships could forage on provisions and get repairs done. Curtius even goes so far as to mention that Alexander’s plan was to reach the Alps and return to Epirus via the seacoast of Italy.

Alexander’s visions were not limited to warfare only; they included the arts as well. Six expensive temples were to be built, each costing 1,500 talents, located at Delos, Delphi, and Dodona; one at Dion in his homeland and dedicated to Zeus; one at Amphipolis for Artemis Tauropolus; and finally, a temple in honor of Athena at Cyrnus (modern Corsica). Second to none, a particular temple dedicated to Athena should be constructed at Ilium (Troy) also. To remember his father, Philip II, he intended to erect a tomb as great as the largest pyramid in Egypt. Dinocrates of Rhodes, who had already worked for Alexander in planning the city of Alexandria in Egypt, reconstructing the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, and assembling the massive funeral pyre for Hephaistion, had also drawn plans to carve an immense image of Alexander in the flank of Mount Athos in Greece’s Chalcidice – a plan that may or may not have been taken into account by the king.

These plans prove Alexander’s determination and do not leave room for failure. He would conquer the entire Mediterranean, something the Romans achieved only several centuries later. Still, their empire was not the making of one man and did not take shape in one lifetime. The Greek language, for centuries the lingua franca all over the Middle East, including today’s Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and helping to spread Christianity, would also be spoken and used in our western countries; Latin may not have had a chance beyond a local nucleus. Our world definitely would have looked very different, considering that the knowledge of Greek philosophers, mathematicians, artists, and sailors would have flowed straight through our veins!

Unfortunately, when Perdiccas found these orders after Alexander’s death, he decided that the expenses were far too high. Diodorus mentions that even the Macedonians, when these plans were read out aloud, realized that the projects were excessive and impractical. Well, I would say this is only one way to present the case since there certainly was no shortage of money to sponsor the Successors’ wars for forty years! But, on the other hand, if things had evolved differently with Hephaistion or Craterus at the helm in Babylon instead of Perdiccas, who knows what could have happened to Alexander’s dreams.

What if … Alexander had died a few months later, after his son with Roxane was born and Craterus had replaced Antipater in Macedonia?

It is obvious that there would have been a successor and one recognized by Alexander himself, although it remains to be seen whether the boy would have lived long enough to succeed his father. It would have been logical and more practical to rule Alexander’s empire from Babylon, but I doubt any of his generals saw it that way. For them, Macedonia was still their homeland, with Pella as its heart.

With Craterus as Regent of Macedonia instead of Antipater, there were two centers of power: one in Pella, where the army of some 10,000 was reinforced by the 10,000 veterans Craterus had taken back home, and one in Babylon, where the bulk of Alexander’s army was waiting for new orders. Yet again, all generals were present in Babylon, except Craterus, who, as second-in-command to Alexander, could not be ignored. More than 2,000 km separated both camps, and Craterus could hardly leave Greece for Babylon, unless Polyperchon would or could replace him properly. It all would depend on how stable the situation in Greece was when the news of Alexander’s death reached the Palace of Pella. But could or would the other generals wait for Craterus’ arrival?

At least Arrhidaeus was redundant. But how safe would Roxane and her young son have been? She is accused of having murdered Alexander’s latest wives, the two daughters of King Darius, poisoned, apparently, with the help of Perdiccas. The next question is, would Perdiccas have dared to assist Roxane if Craterus had been controlling Macedonia? Would or could Roxane have murdered the two princesses on her own? Nothing is certain, of course.

Another important factor is that with Craterus firmly installed in Macedonia, Cassander had little or no chance to spread his wings. This means that the murders of Alexander IV, Roxane, Heracles, Barsine, and Olympias would not have taken place. Even Arrhidaeus may have come out alive of the Successors’ War, and there would have been no need for him to marry Adea/Eurydice either.

In the end, and to cut my speculations short, the Successors would have been fighting all the same, although the odds were slightly different since Cassander had not come to power and Alexander IV might have lived long enough to become the next Great King of Asia – who knows…

What if … Hephaistion had still been alive at the time of Alexander’s death in Babylon?

We can state beyond doubt that Hephaistion was Alexander’s closest friend; he was his confidant and probably his lover. He undoubtedly occupied an exceptional place in Alexander’s life. One example is when, after the Battle of Issus, King Darius’ family falls into Macedonian hands. Together with Hephaistion, Alexander visits Queen Sisygambis, the Queen Mother, and she did obeisance before Hephaistion since he was the tallest and most handsome of the two. Alexander comes to her rescue by saying, “he too is Alexander” – a statement he would not have made about anyone else. Another example can be found during the famous Susa wedding when Alexander gives princess Drypetis, the sister of his new bride Stateira, to Hephaistion since he wanted their mutual children to grow up as they had. A last example is that Alexander wanted his dead friend to be worshipped as a god so that they could meet again in heaven, for which he asked permission from the oracle of Siwah, who granted him the status of hero instead.

Hephaistion was one of Alexander’s Seven Bodyguards from the early days onward, with Aristonous, Leonnatus, Lysimachus, Peithon, Perdiccas, and Ptolemy, but appears as “Commander of the Bodyguards” at the actual Battle of Gaugamela. In light of his more intimate relationship with Alexander, he would protect Alexander more fiercely and convincingly than anyone else. This same attitude may percolate through the trial of Philotas, who was accused of conspiracy several years later, and where we see Hephaistion as a most determined defender of Alexander’s security and safety.

Besides his role as Bodyguard and commander of the troops entrusted to him, it is clear that Hephaistion had many other tasks and responsibilities that do not jump out immediately but transpire through the accounts of Arrian and Plutarch. The historian Hieronymos affirms that Alexander reinstated the Persian post of Chiliarch (Prime Minister) solely for Hephaistion. His unique position is further disclosed and discussed by Andrew Chugg in his book “Alexander’s Lovers.”

I think we should see Hephaistion as a great diplomat functioning as a buffer between all the personages whirling around the royal tent, from the simple pages to the highest general and Alexander himself. As early as Tyre, he was assigned to find a leader/king for the newly conquered city. Another crucial moment was the orchestration of the Proskynesis, a general practice at the Persian court that the Greeks and the Macedonians considered abhorrent, but where Hephaistion set the example. The attempt to put Persians and Greeks on the same line did not work out as Alexander wished because his vision was larger than his army's – yet he certainly had Hephaistion’s support.

There is a theory that Alexander has been poisoned or maybe unknowingly poisoned himself by taking too high a dose of the hellebore plant, a common remedy in antiquity for many ailments. I am convinced that Hephaistion would have looked closely after his dearest friend and could have avoided the poisoning orchestrated by an outsider, or could have talked sense into Alexander’s mind about a more prudent dosage of his remedy (provided Alexander died of poisoning, that is)

Had Hephaistion still been alive in Babylon in his function of Chiliarch, he probably would have had precedence over all the other commanders despite his earlier quarrel with Craterus. This happened when Alexander invaded India - a conflict in which the king settled true to Salomon by stating that Craterus loved the king (philobasileus) and Hephaistion loved Alexander (philalexandros). This is evidence that they both had a seniority position over the other commanders. We may safely assume they would respect their mutual position and unconditional devotion to Alexander.

Yet, in the current theory, Craterus was underway to bring the veterans back home and take over regency from Antipater (assuming, however, that he would agree to give up his important position even upon Alexander’s order, which he had ignored before when the king summoned him to Babylon), leaving Hephaistion in charge of the east. It is evident that Hephaistion would have spoken in Craterus’  name and acted with his approval.

It may have been possible for Hephaistion to “rule” over the other commanders pending the birth of Roxane’s child, who came into this world as Alexander IV. This child needed a regent pending his coming of age. I seriously doubt that the other generals would have tolerated Hephaistion’s leadership till that time (at least 18 years), but he may have avoided the kingship of Arrhideus/Philip III. 

Each of the commanders was a wealthy man by now, some keeping a court of their own, and they were powerful figures in the eyes of their troops, who only wanted more fights and more booty. Alexander’s empire had to be divided one way or another. Maybe most of the violence and continuous Wars of the Successors could have been avoided, but not all. As pointed out above, in 323 BC, we must reckon with twelve powerful men, i.e., the Bodyguards and Seleucos, Nearchus, and Eumenes – in the absence of Craterus and Antipater. In fact, they were simply too many to make a decent and peaceful split. Hephaistion probably would have had the time and the opportunity to organize and streamline the management of the many satrapies with some form of agreement with Craterus in Macedonia. The succession of Alexander would not have dragged on for forty years, when each general could have been assigned a part of the empire to rule pending the takeover by Alexander IV. In the end, the Romans may have had a more challenging time conquering Asia, and those eastern provinces would have been annexed only many centuries later than what happened now.

On the other hand, Hephaistion would undoubtedly have protected Roxane and young Alexander with his life, for in his eyes, they were part of Alexander in many ways. There would have been no case for Roxane to poison the Persian princesses were it only because Hephaistion would have watched over all of them as his family.

[Picture of Alexander and Hephaistion is from Oliver Stone's movie "Alexander"]

What if … Alexander had married before leaving for Asia and had produced a son?

It is often said that Alexander should have married before leaving for Asia in order to secure his posterity, but this seems a rather simplistic way to look at the succession problem his generals encountered at their king's untimely death.

Let's assume he had married and produced a son in Macedonia. The boy would have been eleven or twelve years old, still a minor and too young to rule his father's empire. We may also wonder what kind of boy he would have been, being raised by a Macedonian mother and probably with a lot of interference from Queen Olympias, Alexander's mother. Would he have grown up as a mammy boy? Would he have been interested in his father's campaigns and the army? We know that in his youth, Alexander was in part formed by his father's constant battles and was well-trained, for that matter, since he was allowed to lead Philip's cavalry at Thebes as an 18-year-old boy. Where and how would this son of Alexander have acquired his military experience? Sure, Antipater, as Regent of Macedonia, could have taken charge, but based on his relationship with Olympias, this sounds very improbable. Maybe the boy's mother was a fierce and proud Macedonian in the style of Adea/Eurydice, who later married Arrhidaeus/Philip III. In that case, the boy would have had a chance to grow up among Antipater's soldiers and hence be prepared to follow in his father's footsteps.

The matter of succession upon Alexander's death is questionable. The boy would have been made king, alright, and the Successors had one worry less, but who would rule in his name pending his coming of age? Since he presumably lived in Pella, it seems evident that his mother or Antipater would rule in his name. Can we eliminate the interference of powerful Olympias? I'm afraid not.

So how could east meet west in this case? Even if the army truly accepted the regency by the boy's mother, I fail to see how she could have commanded that group of weathered generals in Asia. Even highly skilled and seasoned Antipater, who had not participated in any of his king's campaigns in Asia and had never been there, had only a slim chance. Each of Alexander's generals in Babylon would stake his claim, meaning that the Succession War could not have been avoided after all. It might only be shortened since young Alexander IV would have come of age in six years or so.