Talk:Hephaestion

message: Did Alexander shave the maNes of all the army horses, or did he shave all of the maRes?  I think it must be difficult in the extreme to give even one mare a whole-body shave.
You're right Patrick!! Funny typo, though... Muriel Gottrop 09:10, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I think the two quote at the bottom--one lengthy and one short--are a bit heavy handed on the whole "alexander and hephaestion were lovers" argument.  I think something so disputed shouldn't be shown as being so definitively correct.
--Commander Cool, part deux 08:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lover quotes 

message: Where did his body actually end up for burial? I have a source (Persian book) from Iran's National Heritage Organization saying that this (and another destroyed twin lion statue standing opposite to this one) were built by the orders of Alexander in Hamedan in remembrance of Hephaestion, when being buried.
Can anybody verify this?--Zereshk 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.liminalityland.com/arrian.htm   Hephaestion was cremated. What was the custom back then? To bury the ashes or to scatter them to the four quarters of the world?  According to the website above, he was cremated at Babylon. P0M 06:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that makes this lion just a monument I guess.--Zereshk 02:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. If the ashes were taken closer to home to be buried, the lions might have marked the spot.P0M 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Most likely the Lion's of Hamedan are merely the first of many monuments that were said to have been comissioned by Alexander at Hephaistion's death.  Alexander himself died only eight months after Hephaistion so all other commisions were most likely cancelled, including the funeral games, which we are not sure ever took place.  Only one Lion remains now but the entertaining thing is that to this day, the women of the region still smear jellies on the lion in hopes of bearing children and Hephaistion has "finished his life as a symbol of fertility" as Robin Lane Fox addresses in his biography.MDMORGA (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Important question

message: I, and a few others, who are interested in Alexander the Great and his times, and thus also in Hephaistion, noticed this article, and found it interesting and informative. We also thought that by using a broader range of sources, it would be possible to expand it and provide a more in-depth portrait of Hephaistion. So we found it worthwhile, some time ago, to start putting together a refurbished article, which we propose to publish here in a few weeks. It will incorporate almost all of what is already mentioned, but will also be longer and contain more detail. We've strived to utilise a variety of sources and to be as historically accurate as possible. We hope that it will live up to our intentions; namely to provide more information about an interesting historical figure, and we hope it will be well recieved.
Ea,
on behalf of AlexandersArmy 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General article changes 

message: I'm a little perplexed here, so maybe somebody can help me out.  I notice over at the bottom of Alexander The Great's page, there is no category for his sexuality like there is for Hephaestion here - "LGBT people from Greece."  Since there isn't one on Alexander's page, I take that to mean that he was not "LGBT," but "Straight."  Doesn't Alexander deserve a category for his sexuality as well?  He should have one - something like, "Straight people from Greece."  Oh, but wait a minute.... if he wasn't "Gay," then how could Hephaestion have been "Gay?"  You can see the resulting confusion people might have when viewing both pages.  If Alexander the Great isn't considered to have been "Gay," then Hephaestion should probably be marked with the same category name.  You'll admit that the way it is now is very conflicting?  HaarFager (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't expect anybody would respond to this.  HaarFager (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You expected wrong, my friend! I'm not too keen on using modern terminology to describe sex practices from another culture and era. The greeks never classified themselves as 'gay' or 'straight' depending on the sex of their partners. If I'm going to go off Aristophanes (and I shall) then Greek sexuality is a continuum from receptive to penetrative. This scale of receptive vs. penetrative is also a scale of feminine vs. masculine - basically women are going to be the most receptive (and womanish) partners and gay tops are going to be the most penetrative (and manly) partners. It's homoerotiscism, yeah, but I'd resist the urge to slap modern acronyms on it. Heilingetorix (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The river Tanais is referred to in the article as being in Sogdiana. As Tanais is the ancient name of Don River (which is in European Russia), there must be an error, the correct river being possibly Iaxartes (Syr Darya).--Jeanambr (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanais or Iaxartes? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hephaestion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201104158/http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html to http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hephaestion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622213938/http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~mreames/Hephaistion/dissabst.html to http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~mreames/Hephaistion/dissabst.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511123604/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Hephaestion to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Hephaestion
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User  insists on restoring the photo of two marble heads exhibited side by side in the Getty Museum and allegedly representing Alexander and Hephaestion. The same head of Hephaestion is already shown in the foreground at the very beginning of the article. If the two heads were part of a single work of art showing Alexander and Hephaestion alone intent on doing anything together, the reproduction of both photos might make sense with reference to their special friendship. But this is not the case: for, according to the Getty Museum, the "head of Hephaistion, broken from a full-length statue, was originally part of a multi-figured group, which might have depicted a sacrificial scene" (cf here). This being so, the double reproduction of the same head of Hephaestion seems to me only a pretext to expose this caption, recently edited by the same user, which reads: "(left) Alexander and (right) Hephaestion: Both were connected by a tight man-to-man friendship". Considering that the entire article and in particular the section on 'Relationships' where the photo is shown, already treat in detail and from all points of view the much questioned friendship between the two, without even omitting "Alexander's yielding to Hephaestion's thighs" when referred to by ancient sources, in my view such a caption would much better fit a scandalmongering popular history booklet than an encyclopaedia as Wikipedia is supposed to be.--Jeanambr (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I did not receive any answer, I have removed the photo.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The marble head of Hephaestion 

message: User:37.245.46.162 and User:2.48.57.58 have twice removed some statements (which I hadn't originally entered myself and which had remained in the article for almost 15 years), claiming that it is "stuff which fails verification" and that "none of this is sourced".
The removed statements report the existence of two historical assumptions about the characteristics of the possible sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion: whether it was a simple teenage love soon dropped, or the typical short-lived Athenian-style same-sex relationship between an older person and a younger.
Immediately below, the article states that "the former assumption" is shared by writers of fiction such as Mary Renault and the film director Oliver Stone, and in particular by the modern historian Paul Cartledge, of whom a textual quotation is reported, with the precise bibliographic reference.
Regarding the latter assumption, the article reports a passage from Aelian (and then, in the footnote, also refers to a slightly different passage from Plato), also in this case with precise bibliographic references.
The anonymous users removed all the initial part about the double assumption, then tampered with the quote from Cartledge making it meaningless, and finally also removed the quotes from Aelian and Plato altogether. What remains seems to me to lack logical coherence with what precedes and what follows.
I therefore suggest that the anonymous users' edits should be reverted or, if absolutely necessary, that the whole question of the two assumptions be reformulated in a logically coherent way, avoiding tampering with or deleting the textual quotations already present, unless proven inauthentic. Jeanambr (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumptions on the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion 

message: The part that mentions Alexander referring to Hephastion as "He too is Alexander" Arrian claims he has doubts about its authenticity I do wonder if it's worthwhile including that for better clarification that it may be literary fiction.  Finnders2207 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on facts