#kleitos

[moonlight-dreams912]

Lil break from the charts with the guards official design off armor 😌

Enjoy~

[jeannereames]

If Alexander were furious, would he really kill Hephaestion? and, what would happen after killing him

I honestly don't think he'd be able to, unless he were literally blind with rage or hallucinating. He killed Kleitos, although close to him, because Kleitos pushed him over the edge and both were drunk. It seems there had already been words between them and I imagine Kleitos had been quarreling with him for a while.

Many murders are committed by family members or someone else very close to the victim. I honestly don't think the murder of Kleitos was calculated (although a few have suggested as much). I think it truly was a crime of passion, and Alexander felt genuine remorse.

Yet he doesn't seem to have quarreled with Hephaistion the same way. I just don't see him killing Hephaistion with his own hand, ever. There was that threat in India, but as will become evident when my article on it comes out (probably next year?), I don't think that event happened, or not as Plutarch relates it. And even if it did and there was such a threat, when it came down to following through? No. Especially not in cold blood. As noted, the only way I think it could have happened would be a complete accident as a result of hallucinating or something.

And if he had killed him by his own hand, he'd have immediately tried to kill himself, just as he did when he killed Kleitos. He was stopped, and no doubt he would be in the case of Hephaistion, but then he'd just do it passively by drinking himself to death or something.

[midnight197]

I did a Picture with Timax again, after a long while! And I included Reniei 's Character Kleitos too! The Picture was inspired of this very old Picture I drew like 3 years ago: www.deviantart.com/midnight197… A lot changed during that time x'D But I love seeing my Baby happy again :3 Hope you guys like it!

[moonlight-dreams912]

Our bumble of joy Kleitos!😌💕

As regularly now I’ll spread some info!

Well as you can see my overly protective and diligent boy, regardless of trust or not it’s protective over everyone! (Except the guards cause he trust them and feel like they don’t need protection on regular basis, only when in danger/hurt) he is a good puppy after all

I know I know

“But what about Pyrros!?” He’s there🙂‍↕️ I just need to work more on him, and actually give him more personality than just “I’m grateful and overly protective over my older sister”

But in anycase I might do a bonus chart with Pyrros as well! And use the double arrows!

We’ll see…

Anyway!

I do find cute the detail that I most definitely headcanon him with Hercules (from the Disney movie)’s voice, while Melia has Megara as her voice claim so it’s a cute detail I wanted to add!

Even if in reality, Melia sees him more like a younger brother, cause he’s very much alike to her brothers!

The handsome fella standing next to Kleitos is Tychon, my beloved ladybug guard oc made by @genrihgayne 💕

(Go follow they’re so cool and amazing, plus the art and animation? Peak, absolutely peak.)

[moonlight-dreams912]

Kleitos of Ithaca

(Κλειτός — “renowned, called forth”)

⸻

Spirit Animal:

Molossian Hound

Not merely a war dog, but a guardian of hearth and flock.

Symbolism:

• Protective without cruelty

• Strong yet warm-hearted

• Loud laughter, strong presence — but disciplined in duty

• Loyal to the household above all

⸻

Status in the Palace:

Kleitos entered palace service after Odysseus had already departed for Troy.

With the king absent, Ithaca required reliable men to maintain order beyond the palace walls. Kleitos was not born noble, but he was born free — and in the Mycenaean world, freedom and reputation could open doors.

His family formally presented him to the palace as a man willing to enter royal service. Such arrangements were common: a free household could bind one of its sons to the wanax’s estate in exchange for honor, stability, and protection.

He was accepted not for bloodline, but for proven character.

⸻

Backstory:

Kleitos was born to livestock keepers in the inland hills of Ithaca. His family raised large Molossian-type hounds trained to defend sheep from wolves and raiders.

From childhood, he learned:

• Strength is responsibility.

• Protection is service.

• The strong stand between danger and the vulnerable.

When Odysseus left for Troy, the balance of Ithaca shifted. Without a ruling king present:

• Local disputes grew more frequent.

• Minor feuds escalated.

• Authority became uncertain in rural districts.

Kleitos began stepping in during conflicts — not as an official, but as a respected young man known for fairness and restraint. He broke up fights without bloodshed. He listened before acting.

Word of him reached the palace.

During a time when loyal manpower was needed, Kleitos was brought into service as a palace guard — formally sworn to the royal household.

He became known quietly as “the one who stands between.”

⸻

Kleitos is:

• A free man

• Bound by oath to the royal household

• Likely granted food, equipment, and status in return for service.

He is part of the king’s warrior-retinue — though still young within it.

⸻

Conflict with the Other Guards:

With Odysseus absent:

• The authority to punish noble guests is politically delicate.

• Penelope maintains the household, but cannot openly wage war on visiting aristocrats.

• Guards must tread carefully to avoid civil conflict.

Many older guards understand this. (Like Alkaimos or Pistos)

Kleitos struggles with it.

To him:

• Protection should not depend on politics.

• Disorder within the hall is still disorder.

• A house should not decay while its defenders stand idle.

When told:

“We cannot act without the king.”

He feels the frustration deeply.

But he does not disobey.

His restraint shows maturity beyond his years.

⸻

Personality

• Open smile

• Quick laughter

• Tireless worker

• Direct and honest

• Deep moral clarity

• Protective of servants and common folk

• Genuinely believes in justice

He does not serve out of ambition.

He serves because he believes a household must be defended — even in waiting.

⸻

Strengths:

• Strong defensive fighter

• Excellent shield discipline

• Skilled at de-escalating conflict

• High endurance

• Inspires confidence among rural communities

⸻

Flaws

• Impatient with excessive caution

• Struggles to understand political compromise

• Sometimes visibly frustrated

• Still learning the weight of hierarchy

⸻

Relationship to Telemachus:

Kleitos respects Telemachus not because he is prince — but because he sees him trying to grow into the role.

He may:

• Offer small words of encouragement

• Stand slightly closer when tension rises

• Be the first guard whose posture shifts when a suitor oversteps

He does not treat Telemachus as a boy.

He treats him as a future king.

And that quiet recognition matters.

[jeannereames]

Could the quarrel between Cleitus and Alexander have ended differently—without Cleitus’s death—given that both were intoxicated and the argument took place during a symposium? At that stage of the Asian campaign, and under those specific circumstances, why did Alexander feel entitled to punish Cleitus with death? This incident appears all the more striking considering that Alexander had always sought to project an image of self-control and magnanimity—refusing, for instance, to harm Darius’s family and often conducting himself with measured restraint in politically delicate situations. One might ask: was the killing truly necessary, or was it a tragic failure of temper? Above all, we know that the sources have exaggerated the conflict between Philip and Alexander—so it’s difficult to fully understand Alexander’s reaction.

Could it have ended differently? Almost certainly. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing. I will say, I don’t think he “punished” Kleitos with death intentionally. His immediate reaction to the murder tells us it wasn’t anything so calculated as a deliberate execution. Like much in ATG’s career, we may know what happened, more or less, but not WHY it happened. That’s where the interpretation of our later authors (or the missing contemporary authors) gets in the way.

Some modern historians have even called into question whether it happened at a symposion, seeing the event as part of a later Roman trope of Drunk Alexander. Lord knows, Seneca and others use it as an example of an inability to control one’s passions. Nonetheless, Macedonian drinking parties—albeit exaggerated beginning with the writings of Theopompos on—were a feature of Macedonian royal life. I could see one that ended in such a terrible tragedy.

So, Alexander killed Kleitos, but the circumstances are confused.

The reported argument between Alexander and Kleitos contained in any of our extant sources must, I think, be regarded has highly suspect. Even our so-called “best” historical source, Arrian, places the event out of order in his history to create a narrative about Alexander’s increasing descent into Asian “tyrannical” rule, a part of which includes the proskynesis event which my colleague Hugh Bowden has taken the air out of quite effectively. I no longer believe proskynesis happened.

So, if we reject the Roman-influenced narrative of good ol’ boy Macedonian upset at Alexander’s New Persian Airs, WHAT THE F. HAPPENED??! Why did Alexander and Kleitos fight?

I’m not sure there’s a certain answer. But I do recall that (I think?) Waldemar Heckel pointed out the Kleitos event occurred in the wake of the Marakanda massacre, and the symposion at which ATG speared Kleitos also featured an informal “play” wherein the commanders of the lost troops were spoofed as at fault for their own deaths. It was the worst loss the Macedonians had experienced in Asia. Alexander wasn’t there, and so the loss didn’t technically fall on his tally sheet.

Except it did, because he failed to clarify the chain of command. This apparently resulted in contravening orders from the commanders, and that ended in catastrophic loss. At the symposion, Alexander did not call down as inappropriate those presenting the play.

That infuriated Kleitos, who challenged Alexander, and Alexander replied in a rage.

To me, that actually makes some real sense. The whole Baktria-Sogdiana campaign wasn’t going well and the Marakanda massacre became a very bloody cherry on top. Kleitos dared to call out Alexander for it. Things got really ugly…and just as bloody.

If there was any silver lining, it’s that Alexander had some sense knocked into him. He looked more closely at the conflict. After this event, when he captured the Sogdian Rock and (maybe?) Roxana, he married his way out of the war in Baktria-Sogdiana. I say maybe captured Roxana as it’s unclear if he acquired her there or earlier. Either way, he married her now and was able to leave the region (in peace) about three months later. The Marakanda massacre and murder of Kleitos appear to have been turning points in how ATG assessed his regional strategy.

I am not so cynical about Alexander that I doubt his sincere upset over what he did. That’s part of why I think he (and Kleitos) may really have been drunk. But he appears to have learned something from it.

[jeannereames]

Hello, Dr. Reames! I have the same question about both real Hephaistion and Hephaistion from DWTL. Do you think he feared Alexander? Actually feared that Alexander could execute him or at least that it wasn't impossible? Especially after Cleitus' death.

Short answer: Yes. At least the historical man. After Kleitos's murder, he would have to have questioned.

My Hephaistion doesn’t fear Alexander would execute him while sober, but after Kleitos, he does wonder if Alexander in a rage could kill him. And, seeing Alexander’s reaction to Kleitos’s murder, fears what Alexander might do to himself in his grief, as a result.

Yet the historical man may have enjoyed less certainty of his place than mine. We just don't know. After Kleitos died, I suspect fear was widespread—but perhaps also a sense that “it couldn’t happen to me.” If we can trust the accounts of the incident Kleitos was spoiling for a fight and deliberately provoked Alexander in a way I don’t really see Hephaistion doing. It may have acted as cautionary tale of how far one could--and couldn't--tweak the bear.

[jeannereames]

Two related questions :)

1. We know that over time Hephastion will become an important commander, how will your Hephastion behave as a commander? what will be his main qualities and what are the main differences between him and Alexander in terms of command?

2. I noticed that in the first book Cleitus doesn't get along very well with Hephastion, how do you see them both getting along with joint command of the most prestigious unit in the army?

For other readers, these questions are about Dancing with the Lion, the novels, not the historical people. While my characters are informed by my academic work, I obviously have to flesh them out for the books.

(My) Hephaistion is a reluctant but highly competent commander. I foreshadowed this in Rise when he takes command early in Alexandros’s self-imposed exile. Alexandros is too emotionally numb to do, so Hephaistion steps in. And he’s good at it. That’s the first hint of where he’ll excel: logistics and organization. But as soon as Alexandros is ready to resume leadership, Hephaistion is happy to hand it over. He’s simply not ambitious. People can be good at something without necessarily wanting to do it (regularly).

In the novels, Hephaistion won’t have much in the way of command initially because Alexandros has numerous older commanders who he inherited from Philippos. It wouldn’t be politically astute to just demote or get rid of these men. In his first few years in Asia, he did appoint several to fill satrapies in areas he’d conquered, men such as Antigonos, Balakros…even Nearchos. Nearchos doesn’t become his admiral until much later in the campaign when he’s recalled east from his assignment on the coast (Lycia/Pamphylia). Although in Nearchos’s case, he was there because Alexander (the historical man) trusted him. Alexandros (the character) will assign him there to keep an eye on the other powerful men who Alexandros doesn’t trust as much.

It won’t be until these replacements happen that we’ll see Hephaistion gradually move up. His first big assignment occurs in Sidon (slightly skewed in the novel from the histories, which are presented as a moral tale meant to mimic popular Roman myths of [et al.] Cincinnatus).

In general, he accepts commands because incompetence annoys him. In that, he and Alexandros are much alike. But while Alexandros will charm his way into “helping” you, Hephaistion will just rip whatever it is out of your hands and do it himself…faster. So, I don’t see him as a beloved commander, but do see him as a respected one, at least by the men he commands—who directly benefit from his competence (and fairness).

In terms of his skill-set, it’s the same as the historical man’s: organization/logistics and diplomacy. (My) Hephaistion is not, however, the person Alexandros sends when he wants to charm somebody. But he is the person Alexandros sends when he needs a commander who can effect a quick (and accurate) assessment of interpersonal dynamics and any weaknesses (or strengths) of an opponent. He’s not easy to fool.

Moreover, if he may not be the soul of charm, he also isn’t a bull in a China shop; he can be perfectly polite, if reserved. He can also be sneaky in a butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth way—also not unlike Alexandros. In book 3, King, he’ll function as Alexandros’s spy at one point, precisely because he can convincingly play pretty-but-dumb. This, again, was foreshadowed in book one, Becoming, where he tricks Kassandros at the very beginning by pretending to be what Kassandros took him for: a backwoods bumpkin. (That’s still one of my favorite scenes in book 1, and among the few I wrote way back in 1988/89 that’s still in the published version.)

Anyway, Hephaistion is diplomatic in the sense that he “reads the room” well and doesn’t often lose his cool (or his temper). When he decides to go after somebody, it will be entirely pre-meditated, and usually devastating. In that, he’s completely different from the hot-tempered Alexandros (and most of their friends). But it works well for him in command because the soldiers, and later officers, serving under him can’t easily rile him up. (Krateros is another matter, but more on that later.)

As for the second half of your question: Kleitos and Hephaistion will never be bosom buddies because they’re such different personalities, but over time, Kleitos has revised his opinion of Hephaistion. When the latter first arrived in Pella, Kleitos thought him a spoilt fancy-boy, which drove Hephaistion’s reactionary responses. At that point, he’s still young enough to be triggered. As he ages, and grows in confidence, he’s less easy to provoke. Kleitos also comes to recognize his skill as a fighter. Hephaistion will never be an especially gifted battle commander, nor is he “warm” enough that men will follow him through hell and high water the way the will Alexandros, or Parmenion, or Krateros. But he is a leader rather than a “boss,” which goes a long way. He learned that from Alexandros, and it’s also in his basic nature. He won’t ask people to do what he won’t do himself. But he also won’t chit-chat with you while you’re both doing it. 😆

Thus, Kleitos comes to respect him. At the end of Rise, note that Hephaistion has beaten Kleitos in Single Combat, even if he didn’t win overall first place. That little victory goes some way towards Hephaistion being able to let go of his long-nursed resentment towards Kleitos. He’s proven himself to himself, which matters most.

So yes, they’ll be able to work with each other later.