Talk:Alexander the Great

Alexander and slavery

I have read that Alexander the Great was against slavery. Is this true? Was Alexander a liberator of men rather then conqueror? Is this subject adequately addressed in the article? Source: Alexander the Great: a reader, (2003), p. 206. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From my reading of the source, it doesn't quite explicitly state that Alexander was against slavery, but it is an excellent source (Worthington), and I will try to add some of what it says to the article. Thank you for bringing it up. Athenean (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Athenean. From reading Green's (1991) Alexander of Macedon, Alexander enslaved thousands of his captures whom he viewed as disloyal to the Greeks (pp. 180, 262). He did spare the Lydians from enslavement (p. 185). I take it then that Alexander used slavery as a punishment for the peoples he conquered. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, the source is in fact W. W. Tarn, not Worthington. Tarn is a bit dated and rather notorious for painting a highly idealized portrait of Alexander. He should be used with caution, if at all. Athenean (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Athenean. I believe the subject deserves mention in the article. Green tends to give a realistic view of Alexander in terms of enslaving or not enslaving people. Tarn may be good for a counter viewpoint. Manumission in Athens was practiced during Alexander's time. Harrill (1995), The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity p. 166. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander the Great/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 11:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'll be starting the review shortly. For reference: Good article criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening comments: either fix or remove the dead file link. Also consider the worth of the battle diagrams to the revelant sections: what do they tell us? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks really good. There are a few typographical errors in the bibliography (particularly spaces) and it would be nice ifyou could have a look at these, but it isn't vital. However, I do think the article tries to say too much in "(Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, from the Greek word Άλεξ - Alex meaning protector and Άνδρας - Andras meaning man (protector of man), Aléxandros o Mégas )" because we lose the reader here. I suggest either simplifying it to "(Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, from the Greek word Άλεξ - Alex meaning "protector" and Άνδρας - Andras meaning "man", Aléxandros o Mégas)", I'm not quite sure on the MOS but I think this is fine. The other option is a note where the grammar can be spelt out in full so to speak. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Image check:

• File:AlexanderConquestsInIndia.jpg lakcs the source for the underlying map - it seems to me that the named author merely overlaid the route. This is circumspect and should be credited as appropriate.
• File:Mid-nineteenth century reconstruction of Alexander's catafalque based on the description by Diodorus.jpg Mid 19C is asserted but no date or source (the magazine or book, for example) so the sourcing's all a bit vague. Really needs to be better.
• File:Diadochen1.png preferably needs an English description - not that this is particularly difficult.
• File:AlexanderAndLion.jpg has no licence
• File:AlexanderTheGreat Bust.jpg is a little confusing but I think we can give it the benefit of the doubt
• File:Alexander and Aristotle.jpg should be PD-ART
• File:Mappa di Eratostene.jpg - the death date of Sir Edward Herbert Bunbury, 9th Baronet (1895) should be added to substantiate the claim the original is in the public domain
• File:Iskandar.jpg has no source information

The referencing is a little inconsistent but in itself satisfactory.

I shall solicit further opinion, I suggest the image problems should be dealt with first.

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review this. Not sure what you mean by "fix or remove the broken file link". Which one? I fixed the etymology in the introduction, shortened it. Athenean (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The file link has since been fixed (as I recall, by you) - no action required. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the images:

• File:AlexanderConquestsInIndia.jpg Not sure what you mean by "credited as appropriate". Where and how?
• File:Mid-nineteenth century reconstruction of Alexander's catafalque based on the description by Diodorus.jpg That's going to be real tough to address - I have no idea where it's from. As a last resort we can remove the image, though I would prefer it stay.
• File:Diadochen1.png Y Done
• File:AlexanderAndLion.jpg Replaced it with this [1] image, which does have a license.
• File:Alexander and Aristotle.jpg Not sure what you mean. Is that a license? Can I just add it to the file?
• File:Mappa di Eratostene.jpg Y Done
• File:Iskandar.jpg Not sure what to do about this.

Regarding the battle diagrams, I think this one [2], from the Battle of Gaugamela, might be useful to the reader: It show the staggered infantry formation that was a trademark of Alexander's, and also Alexander leading the charge, which is also one of his hallmarks. I have an excellent source on Alexander as a general, I can add one or two paragraphs in the "Generalship" section regarding his infantry formations and leading of the charge. In that case, the image would fit in nicely with the text. Athenean (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

On #1 image problem, if you examine it, it looks almost certain that the route and details have been overlaid on a basic topological map. It would be rare for the author to have made this map himself. It may well be in the public domain, we just don't know.

On #2, I've asked the author to clarify. Hopefully he or she can enlighten us.

On #5, I've added it myself. (You may wish to notice the difference for future reference.)

On #7, is File:Nushabe Iskander.jpga suitable replacement?

On the battle diagrams, I suggest that they are limited to the Generalship section. At the moment it supports two - whichever you think are most appropriate. If it were longer, it could support more. Further comments to come. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review: one source (I've placed a tag) needs replacing. Plutarch references don't seem to support what they are supposed to. They should match up to this book but they don't for some reason. Could you examine. Also, over the date of birth, the non-Plutarch source says that a definitive date is impossible and so it should be phrased much better in the article to reflect this. I suggest using the Greek date definitively and then expressing doubt about the English equivalent. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #1, you are almost certainly right. What to do about this though? Contact the author? Regarding #7, there already is a Persian miniature in the article, I think a statue of Alexander in his youth would be better. Agree about the battle diagrams. I will expand the generalship section anyway. The Plutarch refs are indeed problematic. Since Plutarch is not the most reliable of sources, I am of the opinion he should be removed altogether. Most of the cites to Plutarch are redundant anyway, and he will have to be removed if the article is to make to FA. Athenean (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've solved #1 myself - I found which one has been used and now it's all sorted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Evening - as requested at the Military History project, some quick comments on the bibliography and footnotes.

• There are some glitches - see fn 126, or fn 139, for example
• Some of the sources aren't fully referenced - e.g. "The end of Persia". www.livius.org. Retrieved 16 November 2009. - no author given, although its available on the website.
• There are some slight inconsistencies to iron out. The formatting of sources vary slightly, e.g.

• McCarty, Nick (2004). Alexander the Great. Penguin. ISBN 0670042684. : Publisher, no location, ISBN no.
• Hammond, N.G.L. (1997). The Genius of Alexander the Great. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. : Publisher and location, no ISBN.
• Paul McKechnie (1989). Outsiders in the Greek cities in the fourth century B.C.. Taylor & Francis. p. 54. ISBN 0415003407. Retrieved 28 December 2010. : note the stray page number.
• Some ISBNs are hyphenated (e.g. ISBN 0-415-96930-1), some aren't.
• Some titles are correctly capitalised, others drop into lower case.

• I'd recommend going through and ensuring that these are consistent: there are several possible styles, but the preferred style needs to be consistently applied. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Also, worth checking how accurate the bibliography is. Are Fawcett, Fischer etc. actually used? Has each volume of Hammond listed been used a reference in the text? I think there may be quite a few unused volumes etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Y Done --Dianna (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the images, I have added source information to #7, so that only leaves #2 with outstanding issues. I have also begun removing or replacing Plutarch, and fixed the date of birth issue. Athenean (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have figured out the problem with the Plutarch refs - they are sourced to the wrong work. Rather than Plutarch's Caesar, it should be Plutarch's Alexander. I will fix those cites that I can, remove those that I can't. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done All Plutarch refs have now been fixed. This leaves only (1) image with outstanding issues, and the ref formatting mentioned by Hchc2009. While I certainly appreciate the importance of ref formatting, is it that crucial to the article making it to GA? Athenean (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the reviewer's call, not mine. I'd note though that one of the GA criterion is that article "provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;" the guide to layout links to the guidance that "a consistent style should be used within any given article" for references and the bibliography. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be preferable, but I don't think it's necessary. Clearly, I think a suitable system is necessary, but I'd say consistency was more a FAC thing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy's views

I believe a section on slavery would be good. Alexander used slavery as a punishment for people he viewed as disloyal. He spared the Lydians from being sold into slavery because he viewed them as loyal. In Athens under Alexander, slaves could purchase their freedom. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about Alexander's views on slavery, nor do sources on him devote that much space to this topic. Most likely, because we don't know what his views were. That he sold into slavery those who resisted and whom he defeated was standard practice for the time: Everyone did it: The Persians, the Romans, his father Philip II, everyone. Slaves could purchase their freedom in Athens throughout ancient history. It was that way before Alexander, and after him. Alexander has nothing to do with, and had minimal impact on Athenian laws. That said, you are welcome to create a draft of such a section if you feel it is necessary. Unless you want others to do the work for you. Not me though. Athenean (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm this is not a GACR requirement (coverage gets off rather lightly, in my opinion). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Summing up

Are there any things currently open from those above? If not, I'll give the article a final check. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a final check would be fine at this point. Athenean (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, references need tidying. Hopefully you can see what's wrong with each, mostly filling out and tidying in various fashions:

• #2 Y Done Athenean
• #31 Y Done Athenean
• #55 Y Done I assume you meant #56, which I moved to the bibliography. Athenean
• #81 Re: I remove the citation as non-reliable; it is a book for religious purposes, namely not a scholarly work and not GA-level work. If you think that the primary source needs backing, then another secondary source should be found.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• #84 - the EB should be avoided Y Done Yannismarou
• #115 - remove Y Done Yannismarou
• #124 (which Worthington?) Y Done Yannismarou
• #140 Q: What is the problem exactly here?--Yannismarou (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

erroneous ".html". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be working. Athenean

The link works - my point was that the ".html" shouldn't be in the title (i.e. visible) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed --Dianna (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• #145 "s"? - and what's this Cawthorn? Re: (1) "S" = "σελίδα". Why? Isn't it obvious?!!! (2) I first thought that Cawthorne is "Cawthorne: The Sex Lives of the Great Dictators", which would have been very very interesting. Unfortunately, I then realized that it is "Cawthorne: Alexander the Great". Y Done --Yannismarou (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• #146 - author Y Done --Dianna (talk)
• #147 and #150 with proper titles Y Done --Dianna (talk)
• #153 needs something else preferably Y Done removed it as it is redundant Athenean
• #165 Y Done --Dianna (talk)
• #166 Y Done --Dianna (talk)
• #169 Y Done --Dianna (talk)
• #190 Y Done --Dianna (talk)
• #193 - proper title and a better name for the website Y Done -- Dianna (talk)
• #199.Y Done --Dianna (talk)

Hold extended. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have done some clean-up on the citations, and found a couple more that need resolving:

• Cite #1: There is no book by Yenne in the bibliography. Y Done Athenean (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Cite #221: gives a year and a page, but does not say which book. Re: It's obviously Fisher; I thus remove him from further reading and restore him as secondary source Y Done --Yannismarou (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Cite #229: says Barnett 2007, but the only book by Barnett is from 1997.

• Since the citation is about the comparisons with Alexander that Bonaparte encouraged, I am pretty sure it is Barnett 1997. Y Done --Yannismarou (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cite #50 says Fox, p 72, but does not specify which book. --Dianna (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• #50 has already two other citations. I don't think that Fox is necessary.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to work on the citations over the following days. I have already fixed Cite #1 by adding Yenne in bibliography, and also adding a page number. Athenean (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, since there are now two Yenne citations, the cites have been re-numbered. You will have to look at an old version of the page to know which cites need work. --Dianna (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to remove the unused sources into a "Further reading" section. The unused books are revealed by the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. --Dianna (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't trust the script! It lies! :))--Yannismarou (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation 140 has no page. Can anybody verify it and add it, or it should be replaced? By the way, at the end of the year I will have access to my library, which among others includes a publication of Droysen's history, edited and revised by the Apostolidis father and sons, which I had read in its entirety, and I remember that it includes an extremely valuable volume of information and bibliography. So, if this review is extended until ... after the New Year's Eve (!), I might be able to assist.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

But I see that most issues are resolves, and therefore I am not sure that my books are needed!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation 140 should not need a page number, as it is a five-page journal article. I have moved the second Worthington book down to Further Reading, and my concerns have now been addressed. Thanks --Dianna (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed a few more cites. The only ones that still don't have a page number are #138 and #213. I can't fix those easily because I don't have the books and they aren't viewable online to me. If someone could fix those two that would be great. But other than that the cites seem to OK. Athenean (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

They have to be fixed or replaced, alongside the remaining citation needed tag. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Citation 138: Although it is clear in all Fox's bibliography that he opposes the poisoning theory, and the text is there in Google book ("If Alexander had been poisoned, he should surely have been given a massive dose which was absolutely certain to kill him at once. And yet Diaries, pamphlets and official calendars insist that twelve days elapsed between Medius's fateful ..."), I could not find the damn page. I thus downloaded from Amazon the kindle edition of Fox's "Alexander the Great", and cited it. I put the chapter, because in kindle edition there are no pages. But is this the issue here? The page? Is there any issue here? I'll come back to that.
2. Citation 213: Again I could not find the same book, but I cited another article of the same author, where he treats in detail Alexander Romance and its revisions. However, I really don't see why is the page of this citation so important for the GA Review. I explain myself: We have a short sentence, which is already heavily cited (3 citations: two with pages, and one without). The sources are thus already there. What (real) difference does it make the lack of page in one of these three citation, when all the three are obviously about the same thing (Alexander Romance was repeatedly revised and contains dubious stories).

My point for both citations and Grandiose's opinion that they have to be fixed or replaced is that IMO they don't have to. Of course, I am not the GA reviewer, but as both an editor and a reader I really want to say a few words here. For almost two years, I am mainly inactive in WP. However, some time ago, I reviewed this article in a previous review, and I was basically disappointed by the whole procedure. And after more than two months since the last time I saw it, I accidentally checked the article one week ago, and I was impressed: I saw a phantastic article. I don't know if it was Athenean alone or Athenean and other users, who accomplished this achievement, but whoever did it transformed a "hopeless" article into a high quality work. Is it FA status? I don't know. Probably not, but it is close. Is there room for improvement? Sure. Are there defeciencies? I am sure there are. But is it GA status? IMO, 100%. It's not two citations lacking pages in a total of 200+, which will make me say "Mmmmm ... You know ... It's great, but, ok, you have to find these pages, because, otherwise, although it is great, I can not declare it GA". It makes no sense to me. And, if this is how we think here, I am afraid we take the wrong direction in this review. For example, in the "Death" section, it's not the main issue whether the poison theory is cited with the x or the z source (while there are already a,b,c and d sources), but if the topic is covered comprehensively. "Alexander's Death" is an exciting topic; with an enormous bibliography. While searching for the page, I found this and Hammond, and other arguments (not only those articulated by Fox's, but also other arguments by Engels and Heckel) for and against the poison and the drinking theory etc. etc. And then I thought "could this section be even better"? I believe it could, and this is a substantial issue: how can we make an already good section better (having the next stage in our mind, because I repeat that IMO both this section and the whole article is GA, and by far one of the best GAs in Wikipedia). To conclude, my point is: Do we have any substantial issues — besides a couple of lacking pages in citations — to discuss in this review? If yes, let's discuss them, and make this article even better. If not, let's not lose our time (and I do believe that I lost 5 hours of my life today, searching for two pages for an already impressively sourced article), recognize that this is a GA article, and go celebrate Christmas. I'm sorry for my babble; I know that with what I wrote probable most editors don't agree (and I did not intend to offend anybody), but I really felt I had to express my thoughts(and I almost don't believe that I wrote what I wrote, since I was one of the first who insisted on page citations in FA, but I am no longer sure we are on the right track). Finally, I want to make clear that I am ready and eager to assist for any further substantial issues in this article; I want to help, but I don't feel I help if I search for hours or days a page. I don't feel I make this article any better this way.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for fixing those two cites, I was having real trouble with them. It's really good timing you decided to come back when you did. And yes, I did put in a lot of work in the article (I am now the top contributor), and my eventual goal is to eventually send it to become an FA, which I think is definitely feasible. That said, it can still use a lot of improvement, and I plan to work on it over the coming weeks/months, whenever I have time. I also agree that we shouldn't nitpick too much here. There is now only on cn tag left (regarding Arrian's description of Alexander's appearance), but I don't think that should be grounds for failing the article or delaying the process even more. Worst comes to worst I can just remove the passage, but I'm still holding out. Athenean (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through Anabasis both in the original text and the English one (quickly I must say, using key words), but I couldn't find this passage or a similar one. So, I cannot verify it, since I can't find it either in secondary sources. It may thus be better to remove it, at least for the time being, though it is nice. It may be from a later text. If you want to write something about Alexander's eyes alleged heterochromia, there is a very interesting text here rich in primary sources as well. After all, the "Appearance" section is one of those, where there is obviously room for further improvement (Personally, I would like some more text, maybe shorter quotations, and secondary sources supporting the primary ones).--Yannismarou (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was all ready to say more or less the same thing. Would you rather use yours or the version I just put in? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's everything, so I'll give you time to change to your source if you want, and then I'll pass the article. I suggest a thorough copyedit before taking the article further, although it's satisfactory for GA standards. Well done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm ok. I though about reordering a bit the section, so that it reads better, and adding the following sourced sentence [[Julius Valerius]] and [[John Tzetzes]] subscribed to Pseydo-Callisthenes' tradition, while in modern scholarship there are different approaches on Alexander's alleged heterochromia.<ref>{{harvnb| Maxwell-Stuart|1981|pp.=170–172}}</ref>, but then I though that I may do more damage than good (with the current structure of the section), and that it is better first Athenean to think about how he wants the section. After all, there is no reason to hurry. Maybe it should be discussed whether this addition is necessary or now, within the framework of a broader overhauling and rewriting the whole section. I hope that the article continues its great journey! Well done Athenean!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Grandiose for being such a great reviewer, and thank you Yanni for your invaluable help with the citations. I will eventually re-organize the physical appearance section and maybe re-write it from scratch before sending it to FAC, and I agree that we need less quotes. But I need to think a little bit about how to go about it, so it may take a while. I would also like to reduce if not eliminate all the ancient sources and stick only to modern scholarship. Onwards to FA! Athenean (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources (Arrian, Diodoruss)

There are some obvious inconsistencies in the way primary sources, and especially Arrian and Diodorus, are cited. Compare for instance cite#58 with cite#126. And, for some reason, although cited, Diodorus is also in further reading (?).--Yannismarou (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Y Done Yannismarou

Book of Daniel Anachronism

In the Section 'Egypt', the article quotes Josephus to apparently document Alexander being welcomed into Jerusalem and shown the Book of Daniel, as a prophecy of a great Greek conqueror. BUT...the modern consensus is that the Book of Daniel was not written until around 165 BC; if this is true, then the episode could not have taken place, as Alexander could not have been shown a book that did not yet exist. At any rate, this interesting bit should be kept in, but reworded and qualified.

why "o" and not "ho"?

Hey,

why o and not "ho". ὁ is a spiritus asper and aspirated! -- 92.73.140.232 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

The coin described as showing Alexander with the horns of Zeus-Ammon does not. In the coin shown he is wearing the lion scalp of Herakles, what might be misconstrued as a horn is part of the lion's lower jaw. Coins definitely showing Alexander with horns exist, but this in not one of them.Urselius (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

Section: "Hellenisation". Location: World Map Caption

The caption reads "Alexander's empire was the largest state of its time, covering apporixamtely 5.2 million square km."

TYPO should read "approximately".

Ben Ranson (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks for pointing that out. Athenean (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)