#monograph on Hephaistion and Krateros

[jeannereames]

where would i be able to read your monograph? especially about the ‘you are nothing without me’ incident

The Protracted Reality of Writing Academic Shit 😂

First, and assuming the asker means my Hephaistion-Krateros book, the quick answer is: It’s still in process, not even close to being in print. In the meantime, a number of my articles are available on academia-edu.

Now, to explain why the book is “still in process,” let me explain the monograph writing progression. IME, the average person uninvolved in academia is often surprised by the sheer complexity and time involved. (After all, why would you know if you don't need to?)

Below, I talk only about academic monographs, although I’ve also edited academic collections, and of course, have published a number of articles. I started to tackle fiction publishing too, but that quickly devolved into a long-ass post (even for me), so I’m sticking only to the topic the asker requested. It's long enough! Maybe I’ll do fiction later, assuming anybody wants to read that. (If so, put it in an ask.)

To write an academic book in the humanities typically takes years. There are several stages just to produce the initial manuscript, never mind getting it into print. I’ll outline the general process below, using my current project to illustrate the steps. One thing I’ve found consistently among both students and non-academics is utter surprise at just how extensive research/writing is. New grad students often think writing a thesis/dissertation is akin to writing a really long term paper. Oh, no. You will write it, submit it, get critique and feedback, go research some more and revise it, get critique and feedback, go and research yet more and revise it again … rinse and repeat. How long? Until it’s cooked. There’s not a set timeframe. It will always take longer than you expect. Always. I’ve been teaching grad students almost 25 years. I have yet to have any require less time than they first assumed.

Writing a monograph (including the thesis/dissertation, which is a type of monograph) is one of the toughest forms of academic writing. Papers/articles are much easier, and not just because they’re shorter, although that’s some of it. They also generally have a simpler point. They’re proving ONE thing, like a string.

A monograph presents a coherent, complex argument like a rope woven from several strings (the chapters). It’s not an edited collection by multiple authors in a single volume (or two), or even a collection of various essays by a single author. Collections may have a general topic, like, say, Macedonian Legacies (the collection we did for Gene Borza), or the one I’m editing now, Macedon and It’s Influences. Just trying to figure out a decent order for the varied papers can prove a challenge in these. If some of the papers actually do bear on each other … bonus! But the papers aren’t necessarily expected to come together at the end in any cogent way. A monograph’s concluding chapter should, however, bring together the chapters into a solid conclusion, like the arch’s capstone, holding it all together.

Yet the researcher may not know the answer to that until done with much of the research. After reading everything, and considering it, she may wind up in a different place from where she started. Like any good, responsible research, the researcher must be prepared to follow the data and facts, not cram them into a preconceived notion. I’ve changed some of my ideas and goals for my current monograph, as I no longer think I can do the project I originally intended because the nature of the sources get in the way too much. But I have a more interesting project as a result.

The first phase is research: pretty much for any academic field, period. How this progresses, and how quickly, varies with the individual, field, and topic. Furthermore, some of us are planners (that’s me), others are pantsers (e.g., they dive in and figure it out as they go: by the seat of the pants). But we all start with a question or observation, then go out to track down information about it. In history, sometimes we just read the primary sources/archival material and see what we find. Something strikes us, so we go on to read more, which produces either refined questions or entirely new ones.

Right now, I’m finishing up the initial stages of the research. Then I’ll start work on the chapters, which, yes, I’ve outlined as a result of my initial research. But those chapters may (and probably will) morph as I write them. It’s during the writing phase that the other, “attendant” research comes into play: chasing down all the references in other secondary sources for smaller points. Rabbit-hole time.

My initial research tends to be more measured. I read a while, stop to think—sometimes do stuff like write replies to asks on Tumblr while my brain churns. 😉 Then I go back and read some more. But the writing phase is where I can lose all track of time while running down just-one-more-citation-then-I’ll-stop. The last time I looked at a clock it was 3pm and now it’s 9pm, I’m weak with hunger, I really have to pee because I’m drinking too much tea, and the cats are mad because I’ve not fed them in hours. 😆 It’s two really different types of research for me.

Anyway, for the initial (pre-writing) stage, there are really two substages. The first is what I think of as archival work: e.g., getting down and dirty with the original (primary) sources, including digging into the Greek and Latin to see what it actually says, and if there’s something noteworthy in the phrasing. At this point, I may not really know what I’m looking for, except in the broadest sense. For my current project, I collected every single mention of Hephaistion and Krateros in the original sources. For all five ATG bios, I read them front to back, tagging all sorts of things, plus large chunks of important other books (e.g., the first part of book 18 of Diodoros, the extant fragments of Arrian’s After Alexander, plus a couple bios, esp. Plutarch’s Eumenes, etc.) in order to get a FLOW, not just collect things piecemeal. There are some passages that may not name Hephaistion or Krateros specifically, but they would include them. Piecemeal will always be incomplete, like trying to see a clear image in a broken mirror (a mistake I made with my dissertation, in fact, but I was young).

Then I assembled all that collected data on huge sheets, arranged by author for each man, so I can cross-reference and compare. I also did a deep-dive across 4 days, grabbing everything in Brill’s New Jacoby (BNJ), so I can also tag the original (lost) author cited in our surviving sources, where we know who it is. Not actually that many, but it’s useful and can prove significant. I want to see where the same information, or anecdote, crosses sources, and how it changes.

All of that (except adding the BNJ entry #s to my big sheets) is now done. The next step is figuring out what it all means. For that—and where I am right now—involves historiographic reading/rereading of secondary sources on the ancient authors. What is Curtius’s methodology? Arrian’s? Plutarch’s? What are the themes of each? What is the story they’re telling? They’re not just cut-and-pasters from the original (now lost) histories; they have agendas. What are they? How do Hephaistion and Krateros fit into those agendas? How do the sources use them? This is, to me, the really interesting piece.

It's also why this book will not be just a cleaned-up version of my dissertation, but a completely new look at Hephaistion, and now Krateros too. I haven’t even consulted my old dissertation chapters. I started over from scratch. Sure, I remember my main conclusions, and as I write, I’m sure I’ll go back to check things, but the same as I’d check anybody else’s.

I’d hoped to start writing by May, but I’m not quite there yet, in part because, between the Netflix series plus helping to write/edit a grant that I didn’t expect to have to do, I lost virtually all of February. Now, about half of April has been eaten by home repair/yard stuff plus small family crises. That’s just the nature of a sabbatical, especially if you don’t have a spousal unit or SO to take care of everything for you while you just write. 😒

Now I hope to start writing by mid/late May. But as this 9th International ATG Symposium is looming in early September, plus I go back to teaching in the fall, I’ll have to knock off by the end of July, if not sooner. Ergo, not a long writing time. I can do some more during winter break, but I probably won’t have a draft done until next summer. If I’m lucky. It is just not possible, at least for me, to write while teaching! As I do plan to present at least one (startling!) piece of my research as the ATG conference, I have a concrete deadline for a subchapter bit. Ha.

So, what happens after a draft is done? Well, if one is smart, one finds a reader or three. One just to read it for sense, but (if possible) another specialist to start poking holes in the arguments, noting secondary sources one forgot, and to offer general pushback in order to refine it all. This assumes your friends/colleagues actually have time to look at it, as they, also, are teaching and writing their own stuff. (I’ll go after my retired colleagues.) At the same time, one may also begin seeking an academic publisher.

It’s important to match the project to what the publisher is already publishing. It can also help, but isn’t necessary, to have an in: somebody known to/trusted by the editor of one’s broad field (ancient history, in my case) who can vouch for the scholarship. Submitting means writing up a summary of the work, perhaps including letters from colleagues/readers, etc., etc. I’m not even close to this stage yet, so I’m primarily going by the experiences of friends. At this point, it starts to dovetail a bit with fiction publishing. You’re on the hunt and do some of the same homework.

Once a publishing house requests the manuscript, they’ll farm it out to 2-3 readers to evaluate. This is the “refereed” part, as the readers will be specialists in the field. The publisher, who can’t be a specialist in everything, may ask for a list of names for these potential readers.

As with academic papers/book chapters, the book will come back from these readers with a vote on publishability, plus suggestions for improvement. The basic choices range from, “Go back to the drawing board; this has major issues and here they are” (e.g., not ready yet for publication). To, “It’s got good bones but here are improvements on chpts X and X, oh, and go read ___ works you forgot,” (e.g., revise and resubmit). To, “this is pretty solid as-is but could use a few more things” (e.g., revise but ready for a contract). You will NEVER get a “Publish it right now.” 🤣 It’s hard to say how much time this revising phase will take, as it depends entirely on the level of revisions requested. This is why it’s often wise to find a reader or three in advance, to make this phase less lengthy. Yes, books do sometimes get turned down entirely, with no “revise-and-resubmit,” but more often it’s one of the three above. And yes, sometimes an author may be unwilling to make the requested changes, so finds a different publisher, with different readers, hoping for a more positive outcome. Sometimes, with the revising stage, there’s a non-binding contract involved, but this seems to be usefully mostly for younger scholars who need some sort of proof for their RPT (Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure) committees.

Once a publisher gets a manuscript they believe is worthy, the author receives a (real) contract and is provided with in-house editors to fix grammar, sense, etc.: copy- and line-editing. What would (in fiction) be called “developmental editing” is what the refereed part entailed. This is the simple part. Getting TO the contract stage is the tough part.

The publishing house will then schedule the book with a publication date and discuss things like page-proofs, cover art, permissions, formatting, etc., including indexing, which most publishers either don’t do, or charge a high fee for. It’s almost always cheaper to hire an indexer separately. I’ve already got mine lined up for the Hephaistion-Krateros book. But that can’t be done until it’s typeset and through page-proofs as one needs, yeah, the page numbers. Ha. From contract to the book hitting shelves can take a full year, or more.

So, with the exception of those folks who are just writing machines, the average monograph is c. 5+ years, at least in the humanities. This assumes the luck to get a sabbatical, not trying to do it all crammed into summers or breaks.

So yes, I’m still a couple years from this book seeing print. And that assumes there’s not a lengthy revise-and-resubmit process because my readers don’t like my conclusions.

[jeannereames]

The Importance of Space

Sometimes where we work matters. At least it does for me.

When my sabbatical was approved for spring of 2024, I assumed I’d do it where I’d spent most of the pandemic: my couch with a rolling laptop desk, and my kitchen table. I have an office at the uni, yes, but have never worked well there. As a grad student, I got used to research in my home space, and I never successfully transitioned to an office somewhere else. I have colleagues who can't work at home, for whatever reason, but I work best at home (even when my son was young).

For some time, I've planned to renovate my upstairs into an office after my son graduated and moved out, for “when I retire.” In fact, I bought this old (1936) house because it had a lovely open floor plan in the finished attic that just SCREAMS library/office. But it needed a split-AC to better control the temps, and serious updating. I’d even had thoughts of adding a little half-bath. I started saving up for all this as soon as I moved in, but it would cost a lot, so it became what felt like a “unicorn” long-term goal. My work for the ATG Netflix docudrama was to get additional funds towards that renovation sooner than “some day.”

This past summer, I finally had the split-AC done. Nothing else could move forward until that, replacing windows, and the potential half-bath. Yet estimates for the last were out of this world, post-Covid, so I decided to jettison the idea.

THAT meant—around August/September—I realized I might be able to get all the updates done in time for sabbatical.

You have no idea how much this recognition thrilled me. To have My Own Home Office (again), and make it just the way I wanted it (albeit without a half-bath). So, bids commenced. I had a GOAL, and a timeline. My sabbatical would begin January 2nd, 2024. And by golly, I was going to have my office (mostly) ready. That a retrograde Mercury would turn direct the evening of January 1st (my time zone), made me all the more convinced that it was the right date to begin.

Ergo, on top of the crazy teaching load, and editing for the Macedonian collection, I scheduled renovations. I just had to survive through December! It was sometimes anxiety-inducing, and half my library (non-academic) was up there. I had to pack all the books (c.1000+), move them downstairs, then move them BACK. Upside? I’ve been recording them with Library Thing as I unpack and reshelve, so I’ll finally have an accurate list of everything I own, at least at home. I’m also slowly using those same (emptied) boxes to bring home books and files from my uni office, for research. And for Christmas, my dear son made me a pair of custom sized-for-the-wall-space bookshelves, 5 feet by 5 feet. I’m tickled pink.

I even managed to find, after much searching, a desk and office chair that are low enough for a short person (The Struggle Is Real). They arrived just in time to be assembled before Jan. 2nd. It really did feel like FATE.

Oh, yes…best part. My office is inspired by Chefchaouen, Morocco’s famous Blue City, with bi-colored blue walls, white ceiling and accents, and a terra-cotta toned carpet. The various installers thought I was nuts until they actually saw it complete: ‘Oh, yeah, this really works.’ Um, yes. Yes, it does. Sun-yellow cushion and blue-yellow-white sheer scarf curtains complete it. Plus a beautiful blue-and-white bowl a student brought back from Morroco for me—the first décor I set out along with my reproduction of the gold sarcophagus from Royal Tomb II at Vergina that Beth Carney bequeathed me.

Eventually, once all the bookshelves are in place, I’ll decorate with photos from Macedonia. My dining room features photographs I took in Rome + a little Greece, the living room is mostly Greece…but my office? That’ll be Macedonia. Virtually all the pictures in the house (with a couple exceptions) I took myself.

There's still a lot more to do; less than half the books are unpacked. My white board isn't up yet, some furniture is still downstairs, BUT.

Today, I unpacked the Loebs I’d brought home, onto my new desk, and started organizing my research. 😊

[jeannereames]

Hii😄, could you talk about Alexander and hefestion's skills? Whether militarily or diplomatically, I heard that Hephaestion was better at politics, diplomacy and logistics, and that in some ways his and Alexander's skills complemented each other.

I'm always a tad amused when my own research is quoted back to me as a bit of general knowledge. 😂 That's not at all a slam, btw! I'm quite pleased it's escaped out of academia to become part-and-parcel of what people know about Hephaistion. Means I made an impact on rehabbing his career.

But yes, those things are true. I wrote about them first back in 1998, in my dissertation, then published it as part of an academic book chapter in 2010, titled "The Cult of Hephaistion" in Responses to Oliver Stone's Alexander: Film, History, and Cultural Studies, P. Cartledge and F. Greenland, eds. Complete with tables! Follow the link to read it.

I am now, some years later, returning to Hephaistion's career with the current monograph I'm working on. I've altered my opinion about some things (primarily details), and modified my take, but it remains largely the same. I've even convinced a number of my colleagues, so Hephaistion as logistics officer now appears in most summaries about him. Now, if I can just convince them he wasn't either incompetent or the quarrelsome bastard he's often made out to be.

He did have diplomatic assignments too, although he's hardly the only one. Erigyios, Perdikkas, Ptolemy...they were also used for diplomatic purposes. Plutarch (in a long contrast with Krateros) says ATG employed Hephaistion for business with the "barbarians" and Krateros for business with Greeks and Macedonians, because Hephaistion agreed with ATG's "Persianizing" whereas Krateros kept his traditional ways. From Plutarch, that's not necessarily a compliment for Hephaistion. It's also not stated so anywhere else beyond Plutarch. I have some theories I'll be discussing in the book.

IF we can take the disproportionate assignment of logistical/diplomatic assignments as any indicator, it would seem that Hephaistion was more skilled in that realm than in combat command. That isn't to say he was no good at combat command, mind (I've had some read it so, as if "not as good" = "bad" because middle ground apparently isn't permitted).

It also doesn't mean he wasn't a decent fighter. He probably was, as he seems to have been assigned to lead the agema (Royal) unit of the Hypaspists, e.g., the king's personal guard in battle. According to earlier accounts of the origin of this unit, Philip created them to cut across regional divisions, picking the largest men and best fighters. The agema was, if Waldemar Heckel is correct, drawn specifically from the sons of Companions (Hetairoi). That would back up Curtius' description of him as "larger in physique" than Alexander. (That's what the Latin actually says, not simply "taller.") But keep in mind, the best fighters are only occasionally equally good at command. Those are two different skills.

Finally, his choice as Chiliarch may also underscore some of what we've already seen in his assignments. But it's this appointment that leads some scholars to conclude that he rose due to Alexander's favoritism, not actual ability on his part. That, however, seems to me to stem from several (erroneous) assumptions.

IME, competent people surround themselves with other competent people, at least for any length of time. Flatters may be tolerated, but they're not continually advanced. It's dictators who surround themselves with yes-people (and not all of them; they also need competent individuals). Alexander may have been called a "tyrant" by the Greeks, but he wasn't. He was a king. The Greeks/Athenians/Spartans/Others were playing politics. Macedonian kings had to court their courtiers. If Alexander had been manifestly unfair in his appointments, his men would have rebelled against those officers. They rebelled...but not for that reason. They wanted to go home.

For those who regard Alexander (and Philip) as tyrannical, and/or the enemy of (Greek) freedom, and/or megalomaniacs, and lucky rather than competent, then sure. It would follow that ATG would surround himself with asslickers. But if one thinks he was actually good at what he did (which is a different thing from approving of conquest, mind), and a halfway decent politician--then no, it doesn't follow that his top officers were yes-men. Curtius bluntly tells us that Hephaistion was freer than anyone to "upbraid" the king. Doesn't sound like a yes-man to me.

I think Hephaistion was appointed as Chiliarch for two reasons: Alexander trusted him AND he could do the job. Too bad he didn't live long enough for us to see what he might have done with it.

[jeannereames]

Sometimes I'm haunted by the "Without me, you're nothing." phrase. I guess historically there isn't much to say about it that isn't just assumptions, but I'd love to know your opinion on it from the perspective of your Dancing with the lion characters?

Another I'm going to answer very quickly...by not answering.

I am literally working on this for a paper/the monograph on Hephaistion and Krateros. I'll be presenting a preliminary version of my thoughts (for feedback from colleagues) at the Alexander conference exactly 2 weeks from today.

So I'm keeping my cards close to my chest on this one. I'll just say the answer might surprise you. ;-)

[jeannereames]

Welcome new folks!

Hello to the new readers.

If you're new to my blog in the past month, and came here after seeing "Alexander: The Making of a God," or after reading Dancing with the Lion, part 1 (Becoming) and part 2 (Rise) (or are reading them now) ... I would be deeply appreciative if you'd rate both novels on GOODREADS and/or AMAZON when you're finished.

Also, if you haven't already found it and are interested, the books have a website ALEXANDER'S MACEDONIA with a fair bit, including reader guides, cut and extra scenes, vlogs, how to say the names--even a playlist (because of course Alexander would be into heavy metal, donchaknow).

Folks periodically ask if I plan to continue the series...yes, I hope to. But Riptide said they weren't interested in further installments when they initially bought it. So I'll need to find an agent and new publisher. High ratings on Goodreads and/or Amazon do matter. Agents and publishers look at them. So if you'd like to help me publish more books in the series, that's a concrete way to assist.

In the meantime, I'm working on an academic monograph tentatively titled Playing for Keeps: Hephaistion and Krateros at the Court of Alexander of Great. But academic books are sloooow. I'm also writing a 6-book epic fantasy series called Master of Battles (4 books are complete and I'm on book 5). So if you've wondered what I'm currently doing (other than answering Asks, ha), that's it.

[jeannereames]

Prof Reames, I mean to ask this in the most respectful way possible: is Alexander form history, or at least Alexandros from Dancing with the Lion your blorbo?

I love this. But it might surprise you to learn … no, he isn’t. Hephaistion is, at least for history. But sure, Alexander would be a close second.

When it comes to fiction, though, I’ll repeat what a friend of mine said many years back when asked which of her novels (she had quite a few in print by then) was her favorite.

“The one I’m working on next,” she replied.

This isn’t just because you hope to sell it, so you need to talk it up. In order to write something as long as a novel, and especially a whole series, you have to be absorbed. In love with the characters, in love with the world, etc.

So my current (fictional) blorbo is Ision. He’s not the main protagonist in the series (that’s Teo), but he is the secondary protag, and I just adore him. I’m fascinated by truly GOOD people. Not perfect (perfect characters are boring), but I intend him to be one of those people who simply has a kind soul, and charisma in spades too.

It’s all the more interesting because he’s also “Master of Battles” (Damōn Makhēs), which title he got by leading a battle that left 5000 enemy dead on the field…twice. So that’s the internal contradiction of the character, which has been (and remains) fascinating to explore. One of my other favorite characters (Suwatha) really struggles with that: her (adopted) brother, who she loves, is “the bronzehead death-dealer,” the Butcher of Veii. But the series is meant to turn the conquest narrative on its head, and the elevator pitch runs: “When the Master of Battles becomes the Mother of Peace, it remakes their world.”

I’m about midway through book 5 (of a projected 6). The first nearly wrote itself in 4 months. It’s actually an old story I started way back in grad school, then gave up on as I wasn’t sure (then) what I wanted to do with it. I pulled it out again in December of 2019 (yes, right before Covid), as Dancing was finished and in print. I knew Riptide didn’t want any more of the series, so I needed something I thought might net me an agent, who could then help sell the rest of Alexander too. I revamped the whole thing, and it just flowed.

I can hardly wait to share it with the rest of you, but at the molasses-rate publishing takes these days, it’s likely to be some years, even if I were to get lucky and land an agent tomorrow. (And I’m not even, yet, looking.) I want to finish it to ensure continuity.

Plus, I have this OTHER little writing project…. The Hephaistion-Krateros monograph! That’s more likely to see print before Master of Battles.

[jeannereames]

I read DWTL, both Becoming & Rise. Loved it! You've brought Alexander's world to life in such a relatable manner that it doesn't seem it's based on an era dating back more than 2,000 years ago. I really wish you continued the series, telling the story of Alexander after he became King. Is there any account of Alexander's relationship with, or treatment of commoners? I'm a big fan of Alexander. Crush on him! And here's my next question. Would he fall in love with, or marry a commoner?

First, thank you. 😊 I’m glad you both enjoyed the novels and felt they brought that world to life. I do hope to continue the story but Riptide is not (at least at present) interested in publishing the rest, as they aren’t even remotely Romance. (They took the first two, which is really one novel, because it did have a love story even if it’s really a coming-of-age historical.) I’m currently working on a monograph about Hephaistion and Krateros (non-fiction), so that’s eating up a lot of my time.

As for your question…. First, let’s separate “love” from “marriage,” as those two things did not necessarily go (in fact, very rarely went) together. The notion of marrying for love is really quite recent, (almost) all over the world. Marriage was, for Macedonian kings, a deeply political act. So, he wouldn’t marry a woman who didn’t serve a political purpose; 99% of the time, that would be a “royal” or other high-born woman.

Sorry there’s not a more romantic answer to that, but it’s honest.

Love it something different, although there, recall the Greeks recognized different sorts of love, and separated eros (desire) from philia (true love/deep friendship). Eros was assumed not to last, whereas philia of the best sort was long-standing, even lifelong. Greek men generally didn’t assume they’d feel philia for the women for whom they felt eros; that’s typical Greek misogyny of the time. Alexander was somewhat different from other men, in that he did seem to value the opinion of the women around him (certainly the older women from his mother to Ada to Barsine to Sisygambus)…but he still wouldn’t necessarily put them on a level with the men in his life.

Could he learn to? Perhaps. He might be better positioned than most, so I wouldn’t necessarily put it beyond the scope of possibility. Yet it would take a radical realignment of his world, one where he’d be around a woman long enough to learn to respect her enough to feel philia for her, not merely eros.

A time-travel situation is most likely, although the one example of that I’ve seen wasn’t (to me) at all convincing—in part because it put the (modern) woman in the past. Pull Alexander into the present, with Hephaistion already dead, and you might get something more believable ... because that removes two of the biggest problems. First, a world where men interacted very little with women, especially men on military campaign. And second…

Hephaistion.

Whether or not they remained physical lovers, Hephaistion was the dearest person in Alexander’s personal orbit. While certainly Alexander had flings with both women and teens/young men, Hephaistion remained central. I find it unlikely that would change while he was alive.

There have been a few attempts in novels to do an opposite-sex romance with Alexander, and all had to deal with the Hephaistion Problem. 😉 One could argue that even Mary Renault’s The Persian Boy grappled with this, and also had a Hephaistion Problem.

So, the first more recent one, and arguably the most successful, was a trilogy by (Alison) Spedding from the mid/late-80s (The Road and the Hills, A Cloud over Water, and The Streets of the City), wherein Ailixond (Alexander) meets Aleizon Ailix Ayndra (an Alexander-Hephaistion mix). They fall in love and conquer the world, then she takes over after he dies. Despite the way it sounds, it’s a fun read. It’s also not an historical, so she can play with the facts as she wishes.

Another by Jennifer Macaire (Time for Alexander Series) has Ashley, a professional journalist (and essentially a self-insert), time travel from the present into the past to interview Alexander. She falls in love with him, and with Hephaistion too (who’s inexplicably not called Hephaistion, but Plexis). The research is slap-dash with multiple problems from odd spelling choices (what is Seleucos? Seleukos or Seleucus—pick Greek or Latinized, please), to confusion on details. The one plus is more time to some of the women surrounding Alexander.

A late ‘60s trilogy by Helene Moreau (penname), reprinted as one long novel in the early ‘70s (by Playboy, no less), was called Roxana. Although, quite shockingly for the time, she did depict Alexander and Hephaistion as lovers, it's kinda-sorta a Roxana-Alexander love story. Except Roxana doesn’t love Alexander, who’s not a good guy; her true love is a Jewish fellow called Mordechai. Hephaistion, although a “rival” for Alexander, isn’t especially negative even thought he's a problem for Roxana’s plans to bind Alexander to her via desire.

Last, Stephanie Thornton flipped the script in her The Conqueror’s Wife, with the romance being Drypetis and Hephaistion. Alexander is a Bad Guy (as is Roxana, btw). While Thornton also makes ATG and Hephaistion lovers, she inadvertently paints same-sex relationships as negative by framing. (Or at least, I will hope it was inadvertent.) It’s a traditional m/f Romance, so Drypetis will win--and as Alexander is bad/evil, the message is that opposite-sex love “saves” Hephaistion from Alexander. Not sure she actually meant that, but it’s not queer-friendly. (There are no other positive gay people; Roxana's brother is a minx.) I think she used the same-sex affair to appear edgy and hip, but just wound up seeming homophobic.

Anyway, all of these try to foreground a female in Alexander’s life, or in Hephaistion’s—but must then deal with the problem of the Other. Spedding simply makes her main (female) character a Hephaistion analog. Macaire turns it into Threesome; Ashley falls for both men. Moreau and Thronton adopt more traditional love triangles, although Moreau’s is really a quadrilateral with Mordechai; Roxana is only using Alexander. And Thronton has her lead (Drypetis) “win” by making Alexander evil.

I will note that in all the novels I’ve read about Alexander, I have yet to see a woman author portray Hephaistion as evil/the bad guy, even when Alexander is evil/the bad guy. Even Moreau’s Hephaistion is neutral/nice to Roxana. It’s only male writers who depict him negatively. Make of that what you will. 😉

Of these four books, Spedding might be the only one to succeed because it’s epic (quasi-historical) fantasy; she’s not trying to be historical. After that, Thornton’s is perhaps the least inaccurate historically, but that doesn’t make it particularly good.

So, the biggest issue with giving Alexander a true (female) love is … Hephaistion.

I'll add that I don't like love triangles when they involve Alexander and Hephaistion, but not because I ship the two. I just don't like love triangles period. Too often in fiction, they become a quick way to inject drama because the author can't think of something more realistic. *roll of eyes* There are PLENTY of real-life problems that couples face that have nothing to do with a third (human) party. A love triangle can be interesting in a long-standing relationship like a marriage on the rocks (which is where they're most likely to occur in real life). But generally, I find love triangles in Romance (as opposed to lit fic) trite in execution, tbh.

(For the curious, my article on presentations of Alexander and Hephaistion in novels, “Alexander the Great and Hephaistion in Fiction after Stonewall,” is available on academia.edu; I go into more detail there, breaking down how different authors treat the relationship according to when it was published, gender of the author, and genre of the novel. But two of the novels mentioned above are not in that chapter because they fall outside the parameters I set for examination.)

[jeannereames]

Do you believe the whole “you are nothing without me” incident really happened? If so, how do you think Hephaestion got over it (if you believe he did) and was able to forgive Alexander for such a public humiliation? Do you think the relationship was damaged at all from this or they reconciled quickly?

Hi, there!

This was asked a while back, and I answered it there, so I'll just point to that reply. :-) It deals a bit more with the Hephaistion/Krateros feud, but still answers the question.

Alexander, Hephaistion, and Krateros

I'll also be addressing it in my monograph on the two men. I'm going to back off on too much detail here precisely because I'm going to address it there and don't want to show my cards too soon. :-)

[jeannereames]

Playing for Keeps

Sometimes the Writing Bug bites at odd times.

Took a little break in editing to scribble off the first 3.25 pages of the Introduction to the Hephaistion-Krateros monograph, Playing for Keeps (working title). It's been percolating in the back of my head for a while.

Hamilton figures prominently (or rather the finale song: "Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story").

[jeannereames]

Hello! I'm relatively unfamiliar but very interested in Alexander's life and legacy, but unfortunately this interest is pretty new and so I'm a little confused.

I was wondering - during the various stages of her life (as queen of Macedonia during Philip's reign, as the king's mother during Alexander's reign, and in the aftermath of the Successors Wars) how much political power did Olympias wield? I'm guessing it changed depending on the circumstances, so it's confusing when you see people commenting on Olympias as though her power remained constant and unchanged (usually to a destructive potential) throughout her life.

From what I understand, she did not wield any political power during her husband's reign (or rather, in a way that defied convention - her status as the mother of his son & heir would have presumably given her a more dominant position compared to his other wives, and her role in religious rites was one afforded to women, so she seems to have had influence within the confines of her gender during that time); I was reading Elizabeth Carney's book on her and it says "In general, however, namaste evidence intimates that Olympias played a prominent oe important role in her husband's court, at least not until the last two years of his reign". Her power and/or influence (or rather, the influence she's infamous for) seems to have emerged after her son's ascension, like lots of women before her.

I might be totally wrong, tho, so I figured I should ask you :)

No, this is actually correct. I don't need to add much. Besides, Beth Carney is THE Olympias specialist, so I'll just nod along to her.

What you're describing shows proper nuance. One of the issues when we look back is to read into earlier events with our retrospective, or ex post of what would come. Not what they might know at the time. Or, alternatively, to assume someone with great sway later had the same earlier, or later personal quarrels were quarrels all along (a point I'll come back to in my monograph on Hephaistion and Krateros).

It's easy to fall into; I've done it myself enough.

[jeannereames]

Hi Dr.Reames! Hope you are doing well! I've finished reading your novels recently and I really love them. My friends and I all think they are so amazing and belong to the best historical novels we've ever read.

By the way, I found Krateros very interesting as soon as he was introduced in book2, though his plots were not much yet. I can't wait to see him in the following series (although, he's just one of the many things I'm looking forward to LOL). I always sighed about that there aren’t much plots about the Alexander-Hephaistion- Krateros relationship in Alexander-related works. It could have been dramatic in my opinion. (Not in the romantic way ,of course LOL)

I'm also interested in the history figures and I hear you're preparing an academic biography for Hephaistion and Krateros. That's amazing. REALLY looking forward to it

Thank you!!! I'm always delighted when folks enjoy the books, and especially when they like them as both fiction and history.

As for Krateros...yes, I think he's one of the more unappreciated figures at ATG's court, at least among those interested in fiction. Among scholars, he's better known, although I think a bit...beatified, at least by some.

Late this autumn, I was awarded a sabbatical for the spring of 2024. That's when I plan to invest a lot of time working on that monograph about both men, Hephaistion as well as Krateros, and what their interactions might tell us about Alexander's court. So while yes, it's partly biography, at heart, it's really a court study. I'm very much looking forward to (finally!) having time away from service, et al., to work on it.

[jeannereames]

Hi Dr.Reames. So glad to see your blogs. You said that in your novel, Alexander and Hephaistion had ups and downs in their relationship, even though they had always loved each other so much. Given how long the relationship has lasted, I suspect the history might have been the similar,too. I'd like to ask that what do you think (or guess) about the state of their relationship at the time of Hephaistion's death?

First, while not a direct answer to your question, some of the entries below deal with the period of Hephaistion’s death and Alexander’s reaction, or even hypothetical choices.

Has Alexander’s attachment to Hephaistion been played down in recent history?

What happened to Hephaistion’s “stuff,” after he died? https://www.tumblr.com/jeannereames/648950546701713408/this-is-a-bit-tangential-but-do-we-have-any-idea?source=share

What if ATG could choose to keep Hephaistion alive, if he gave up being king? https://www.tumblr.com/jeannereames/664901315661594624/weird-question-imagine-a-magical-hypothetical?source=share

Now, as for their relationship at Hephaistion’s death…. Originally, I had a long discussion about Hephaistion and Krateros, but a lot of it involved material that, honestly, I don’t want to put out in public (yet), because it’s for the monograph. So while I usually like to show y’all, via explanation, my “work,” so to speak—how I come to my conclusions, in order to demonstrate how we do “do” history—in this case, I’m keeping my cards closer to my chest. Some of it is material I’ve published before, but I’ve changed my mind on some things, after examination of texts and more thought.

So this will be much shorter. Some of you may appreciate that. LOL.

At the time of Hephaistion’s death, his relationship with Alexander was “complicated.” Not at odds, mind, but I think enough water had gone under the bridge that part of ATG’s profound reaction to his death involved guilt.

IME of bereavement, couples, siblings, very dear friends, etc. who had a “complicated” relationship at the time of the death of one, often resulted in a more profound mourning by the survivor. What do I mean by “complicated” mourning? Anything that is atypical and may therefore throw an emotional monkey-wrench into the normal mourning process.

For a full discussion of Alexander’s mourning behavior, as well as bereavement studies, see my “The Mourning of Alexander the Great,” Syllecta Classica 12 (2001) 98-145. Yes, that is a very long article, and it’s over 20 years old, but I still stand by it, and consider it one of the more important contributions I’ve made, overall, to ATG studies.

In any case, Hephaistion’s death was automatically “complicated” because it appears to have been unexpected. Although he’d been ill, he was enough on the mend that Alexander left to attend the boys’ events. His crisis came fast and he was dead before Alexander could reach him. That meant no “goodbye,” which is quite important.

So, some of ATG’s “extreme” reactions (which aren’t, in fact, that extreme) owe to the suddenness of it all. Most of Alexander’s behaviors were pretty normal…it’s just he had oodles of money and influence to express his grief unbridled. (For more on this, see the article.)

Yet I do suspect some guilt complicated it further. Not necessarily residual guilt from his dressing-down of Hephaistion in India, as that was 2/2.5 years prior. Given the eventful nature of their lives, even 2 years was a long time. Moreover, ATG had subsequently awarded Hephaistion several significant marks of public honor. But at least one clash (that with Eumenes) was recent, and initially, Alexander had sided with Eumenes. He changed his mind, perhaps once he learned more about the conflict, but it was probably only a few weeks to a month (at most) prior to Hephaistion’s demise.

So, while I don’t think they were at significant odds, in grieving, the smallest oversight can become hugely significant: the classic “mountain out of a molehill.” Why? The impossibility of full resolution. Small things can become Very Big in a sudden-death situation. Ergo, the recentness of the Eumenes conflict probably weighed on ATG’s mind, in addition to the fact he didn’t get to say goodbye.

[jeannereames]

Hello professor! I was wondering if it's possible to audit your classes online, or if you know of any good online courses on Alexander. :-)

Not at this time. My class, "Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Origin" is an in-person only, due to the nature of how it was built. There's in-class group work and other things, so it couldn't go online.

I know there are some courses on ATG out there, but some are not taught by people who actually specialize in Macedonia or Alexander. I believe Ken Harl does the "Great Courses" one, and he does know ATG. He's a numismatics (coin) specialist, in fact.

All that said, I have toyed with the notion of creating an online class that would be different from the in-person class. To do a GOOD online class, however, takes a lot of time and effort, which I just don't have at present. I'm both getting material ready to start (finally) on the monograph about Hephaistion (and Krateros), plus finishing up a book chapter for a collection I'm helping to edit. And I have another project I can't talk about (yet). (No, it's not a novel.) So I won't have time to even consider creating an online class until after 2024.

I DO have an online class about the ANE that was built for Covid, so if/when I offer that again, I'll let folks know.

[jeannereames]

This is pretty macabre, but how exactly would Philotas have been tortured? Was it sort of an intense interrogation, of would he actually have been harmed or mutilated? How do you think it affected Hephaistion and Krateros (also Alexander himself), to have to do that to their friend? Also I heard you have a (non-fiction) biography of Hephaistion coming out? I love your blog and you're amazing xx

First, thank you. I’m glad you enjoy the blog. :-)

Yes, I’ve begun research to write a court study on Hephaistion (and maybe Krateros). Covid totally sidelined that, however, so I’m behind. This will be a MUCH updated version of thesis. I’ve published pieces of that previously, chapters that really don’t belong in a monograph, such as ATG’s mourning, his relationship with Hephaistion, as well as epigraphic speculation on Hephaistion’s origin. That latter is supposed to be out this month, in vol. 3 of Karanos, but I haven’t heard a final date, so it might have been pushed back.

So, torture... First, we have to note that we’re not told by Curtius or any other sources exactly what they did, but it was bad enough Philotas was begging Hephaistion for mercy. I find it interesting that Philotas turned to him. It’s often assumed that was because he led the torturers, but I don’t think we can assume that. Krateros had been gunning for Philotas longer. I suspect all three (including Koinos/Coenus) were involved. It may be he thought Hephaistion would be the soft touch. Dunno.

But we HAVE to remember something crucial: all of these men had seen a lot of battlefields by this point, and hospital tents afterwards. They’d killed men in the heat of the fight, and possibly dispatched those too badly wounded after. Plus, they were used to hearing epics that celebrated fighting. If you’ve sat down with Homer and read through one of his battle scenes...they’re pretty damn graphic.

In addition, they would be a lot more familiar with the ravages of diseases we’ve all but eradicated, and birth defects we correct before an infant ever leaves the hospital.

ALL that sets a much higher bar for tolerating the pain of other people (not just one’s own). Add to that an apparent general dislike of Philotas due to his haughty personality (so we’re told), and fear and anger on the part of Alexander’s friends (either fear for his safety, or fear for their own, as with Koinos who had ties to the family and needed to prove his loyalty)...

I think that would have made it much easier for them to “do the deed.” I talk a bit about it (including references to Abu Ghraib) my article on Philotas: “Crisis and Opportunity.”

[jeannereames]

How do you think the 'You are nothing without me' incident affected their relationship? Moreover, how would it have affected Hephaistion's public standing, it seems to smack slightly of public humiliation? How would he have recovered, publicly and personally? What do you think Krateros said: I've heard everything from 'You slept your way to the top' 'You're Persianised' 'Alexander's crazy'. I understand it was the cumulation of a longtime factional feud (apparently the Eumenes incident too?)

First, we have to be careful not to back-read later quarrels into earlier periods.

Remember that Krateros AND Hephaistion (and Coenus/Koinos) worked together in the Philotas Affair to put Philotas to the question. We’re told by Plutarch that Krateros had been keeping tabs on Philotas as far back as Egypt. Why? Krateros was sorta Parmenion’s understudy, and Philotas stood in the way of his advancement.

I find the Philotas Affair instructive. Krateros finally got his chance to get rid of Philotas, wrapped in a bow. Note that he’d made an effort before, and Alexander brushed him off. Now, Philotas stepped right in it, and Krateros seized on that. There seems to be a tendency to charge Hephaistion with being the “engineer” of this, because he got command (shared with Kleitos) of the Companions. But that sort of use of “cui bono” is dangerous. Krateros had a better shot at that office than Hephaistion.

And I think Alexander recognized exactly what Krateros was doing. There IS a good reason for Hephaistion to be furious. His best friend might have been murdered. We hear nothing, prior, about a clash between Hephaistion and Philotas. Maybe they didn’t like each other. (I’ve actually worked on building that up in Dancing with the Lion.) But I want to emphasize there’s no prior evidence of any clash between the two men. It wasn’t Hephaistion gunning for Philotas.

(And I should note that Plutarch is not especially kind to Hephaistion, so when he sets up the Philotas Affair by telling us about Krateros’s prior attempts to throw shade on Philotas, it suggests he didn’t have any such evidence for Hephaistion.)

The conflict between Hephaistion and Krateros occurred in India, probably, but as it comes from Plutarch as an anecdote, we don’t actually know when, except after Hephaistion had risen higher at court. We don’t know what they were fighting about, but given how Krateros worked with Philotas, it was probably attempts on Krateros’s part to undermine Alexander’s trust in Hephaistion. The whole “Philobasileus/Philalexandros” sorta suggests as much: “I’m more loyal than he is!”

I’d caution (strongly) against assuming this is a “long-standing” conflict. Maybe it predated the Philotas Affair, but I wouldn’t count on it. Also, don’t assume it had anything to do with Eumenes. Later, Eumenes was on the opposing side from Krateros at the Battle of the Hellespont, where Krateros died. As I just said, we can’t back-insert later conflicts, but at least we can say that, by 321 (two years after Alexander’s death), they were not allies. But to remind how scrambled loyalties could get, Perdikkas (who may have been a friend, or at least ally, of Hephaistion) was allied with Eumenes after A.’s death, although we know Hephaistion and Eumenes quarreled before Hephaistion’s death.

As for the event itself, this is something I’m working on for the monograph, so I’m reluctant to talk about it, as I have a theory I want to put forward in that work. I’ve already published on the Philotas Affair. So while it may feel annoying, I’m going to withhold answering about that incident in India until I can get my thoughts out there in published form. I’ll just point out that Alexander was noted for having a terrible temper, but he also had to be careful of powerful generals at court (which would include Krateros at this point in time).

[jeannereames]

Hi, do you think Hephaistion believed Alexander was dead when he was shot with the arrow? Do you think he would have been as devastated as Alexander was when he believed Hephaistion dead? Will this come up in your books?

This is an interesting question. We’re not told a whole lot about the logistics of what followed Alexander’s wounding. The men at base camp (led by Hephaistion, Nearchos, and Krateros) would have received only a message, and it’s hard to know how the report would have been worded. No doubt, the officers also quizzed the messengers. I’d have to go back and reread the passages in the different sources, but my memory is that this base camp was a couple days’ march from where the fight occurred, and they were in hostile territory.

We’re also told (I forget in which source) that the men in the base camp feared Alexander was dead and they weren’t being told, which was reinforced when ATG came floating downriver on his ship, lying on his back. It wasn’t till he raised a hand, showing he was alive, that they cheered.

So at least some people DID think he was dead. Yet I’d be very surprised if the commanders were as much in the dark. It also wouldn’t surprise me if one (or more) traveled upriver to the battle site to talk to Alexander, or at least see him. We wouldn’t necessarily be told about such a visit in the sources unless there was a reason for them to do so.

So while I’m sure Hephaistion was terrified by the initial report, I also expect he made plans to go and see for himself. But much would depend on what was going on in the base camp. Krateros was also there, his arch-rival. He may not have felt he could leave the camp. All of this is speculation. Again, I’ll have to reread all that material, but yes, this incident will certainly be in the novels when I get to that point. I’ll also be addressing it in my monograph on Hephaistion, as I suspect it’s this event that led Alexander to re-institute the Persian office of Hazarapatish, although how soon after doesn’t appear to be clear. Back in my dissertation, I said I thought it was only in the last year or so, but I’ve changed my mind. I think he got it sooner, and as a result of the Malian fiasco.