Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 23

too many archives?

I want to see what discussion there has been on Sparta vis avis alexander. Is there some way to search the archives? Also, it is pretty annoying having all that content hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.42.81 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I want to have something other than a bunch of Greeks and FYROMulans playing POV Balkan grabass wars. Want to get into the real cool history and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.150.236 (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at the archive list near the top of the page, I have added a search box. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New possible death

In case you this is worth placing into the article: "Alexander the Great Killed by Toxic Bacteria?" My two cents...A.Cython (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Balki Bartokomous?

I just spent hours poring over the archives and am surprised to find no debate on whether to merge this article with Balki Bartokomous of the television comedy Perfect Strangers. There seems to be a lot of wasted thought here on Alexander/Balki's heritage while it's well known that he was born on the small Greek island of Mypos. 98.201.105.130 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)  Not done Nonsense request. TbhotchTalk C. 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Defeated by Porus?

All this talk about Alexander defeating Porus, being impressed with him and magnanimously giving him a larger kingdom to rule than Porus originally had... Seriously... How many "defeated" kings have received similar treatment from Alexander?

There are accounts that actually, Porus defeated Alexander and also neighboring king Ambi, who helped Alexander, which is why Porus ended up with a bigger chunk of land to rule after the war.

I also remember watching a Discovery/History channel documentary on how difficult it would be to actually use Alexander's anti-elephant missiles successfully enough to be of any use in a war. I am surprised these things are not discussed in the article.

This article may be biased and based upon Alexander's historians' versions of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.43.248 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Father of Alexander

The Bible and many ancient texts mention characters born of a union between a god and a female. It is our job to state what the ancient writers say, without getting caught up in our personal wims, views, wishes and opinions, etc. After all we were not there. 20 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.112.152 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If modern writers say that it was an invention of Alexander to make himself look godly, then that's what the article should say. (it's in the "legend" section, under Alexander_the_Great#Legacy) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is INSANE

If the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or not and what kind of language they spoke is an issue that we can discuss.

If the current inhabitants of FYROM are partially (or fully) descended GENETICALLY from some Ancient Macedonians (and their SLavic language and culture is just something they have adopted later, after 600 AD) is an issue that we can discuss.

BUT:

1.There was NO SLAV and certainly NO SLAVIC LANGUAGE in the Balkans before 600 AD, because Slavs CAME TO THE BLAKANS in 600 AD. Ancient Macedonia happened over 900 years EARLIER.

2.The Ancient Kingdom of Macedon's territory overlapped only a very very small part of today's FYROM.

3.Today's Greek culture is much more a result of the Hellenistic culture of Macedon's empire (continued throughout the Roman Empire and perfected I would say into the Byzantine culture) than a result of Ancient Greek culture.

I'm sory Slavs (Macedonian Slavs if you like) but I can't possibly agree with you and keep my sanity if you argue that:

1.There were Slavs in the Balkans before 600 AD. 2.Your present Slavic language is descended from Ancient Macedonian (which, wether Greek or not COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SLAVIC).

You say there's a big conspiracy against you but no scholar can in good conscience agree with these INSANE claims.

Now, ON THE OTHER HAND, people have a right to call themselves what they want. Many empathise with that, many would support you in that if you stopped using communist style propaganda that so blatantly false that not even a hypocryte could agree with it.


Alexander the Great was "Danoi" (Y-Haplogroup) and not "Hellene" (Afro-Semites - greeks) Trojans were no Greeks too (interpreted by some historians) they were all Enedae or Eneti or Veneti/Vends(old Slavs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.138.1 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While not disputing your overall argument could you explain how you know Alexander's DNA type?--Charles (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrous panslavistic and afrocentric theories, popular in FYROM, always know everyone's DNA type! - Sthenel (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In the eyes of Persians

Alexander is a very influential and controversial figure in the historical and literary sources of Persia, and as the article was locked I could not add any information about this. He was at first despised and was called "Gojastak" till the conquest of Persia by Muslims, then underwent a miraculous transformation and became a Persian Hero and supposedly the brother of Darius. Also, a lot of Persian historians give accounts of his life and conquests. Why not add a section about this to the article?07:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The aticle is semi protected which means that you as an established user can make additions. By all means, add your material in the "ancient and modern culture" section and maybe add a "medieval", so that it encompasses all periods you have to mention. We are ready to help and will try to rectify any problem that arises. If your material is very extended, you could produce it here first and then have a discussion about what to add and what not to add. I say go for it. GK (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander gets his own (fairly positive) chapter in the Shahnameh where he is named as Sikander Rumi after the Greeks' ethnonym (Romaioi=Romans) and there is also a book about Alexander titled Sikandernameh IIRC. But yes the main point is that the legend eventually labeled him the son of a Persian Shah and a Greek queen, come back to reclaim his kingdom.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
"There is also an Iranian or Persian account of Alexander the Great in Shahnameh or The Epic of the Kings by Ferdowsi. It is called Eskandarnameh. It speaks of Alexander being the son of Nahid (Lydia) and being sent back to Philip of Macedon because she had bad breath. Later it is mentioned that the name Sekandar was given because the remedy it provided for his mother. Arab historians then referred to him as Al Sekander."

This tale is interesting and I have no objections for it to be included in the article, but it should be placed properly, I guess under "Legend", maybe something like "Alexander in Sahanahmeh". GK (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

STOP with pathetic nationalism

Why does the first sentence says Alexander was "Greek" king with link to modern Greek nation?!

Please change it, but not to "Macedonians (ethnic group)" or "Ancient Greeks", but to Ancient Macedonians.

There is no even one article about ancient rulers which refers to modern nations; Ashoka is not listed as "Hindu", Darius I not as "Iranian", Wu as "Han", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.148.59 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians were not of a different culture. They spoke a dialect of greek. For example, Napoleon is French, even if he was born in corsica. 190.31.134.136 (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
If you had opened the article on Napoleon you'd noticed that it nowhere says that he was French, but anyway: You and I may insist on the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians all we like, but fact is that some disagree. According to Wikipedia:NPOV, a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia we cannot then present his Greekness as undisputed. What is undisputed is that he was born in Pella the son of the king of Macedonians. We should probably add the name of his mother (an Epirot princess). Further discussion of the debate surrounding his ancestry is best left for further down in the article Fornadan (t) 10:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
About the unscientific allegations that the ancient Macedonians of Alexander's time were not Greeks please see the opinion of hundreds of international scholars here. A Macedonian (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
And yet for example Edward M. Anson writes in his biography on Eumenes of Cardia (p 202) Macedonians were not commonly viewed as Hellenes in the fifth and fourth centuries so obviously the situation is not as clear cut as you present it. Fornadan (t) 21:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ian Worthington in his "Alexander the Great: A Reader" (p. 21) gives a perfect explanation for this: "To Greek literally writers before the Hellenistic period the Macedonians were 'barbarians'. The term referred to their way of life and their institutions, which were those of the ethne and not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech. We can see this in the case of Epirus. There Thucydides called the tribes 'barbarians'. But inscriptions found in Epirus have shown conclusively that the Epirote tribes in Thucydides' lifetime were speaking Greek and used names which were Greek. In the following century 'barbarian' was only one of the abusive terms applied by Demosthenes to Philip of Macedon and his people." Demosthenes harboured a personal grudge against Philip because of the humiliation he suffered when he lost his power of speech at the Macedonian court (Aischines, On the Embassy 35). Demosthenes called anyone he did not like a barbarian, including fellow Athenians (e.g. 21.150). The word, at least in some uses by Demosthenes and others, should be understood as a generic insult. Thus, for example, in some parts of the USA people are dubious that people from other parts are "real Americans". Francois Chamoux in his "Hellenistic Civilization" (pp. 8,9) states: "Such a glorious ancestry was in the eyes of Greeks the hallmark of the Hellenic persona of the king of Macedon, who could, on the other hand, rely on fidelity of the people from which he had sprung. The Greek cities did not feel that they were allying with a barbarian, since for generations the Macedonian dynasty had been allowed, as Greeks, to take part in the Olympic games, where they won prizes [...] In Greece proper nevertheless, there remained a number of people like Demosthenes, who had in no way renounce their hatred of Macedon." Eugene N. Borza, an expert on Macedon, in his "In The Shadow of Olympus" (pp. 5-6) explains: "Only recently have we begun to clarify these muddy waters by revealing the Demosthenean corpus for what it is: oratory designed to sway public opinion and thereby to formulate public policy. That elusive creature, Truth, is everywhere subordinate to Rhetoric; Demosthenes' pronouncements are no more the true history of the period than are the public statements of politicians in any age." The truth is that for the majority of modern scholars there is "... not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." (Ian Worthington, "Philip II of Macedon", Yale University, 2008). A Macedonian (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Iranian view?

How is Alexander viewed in modern Iran? Maybe the article should say something about that. Wikipedia's article on Attila the Hun mentions that he is considered a hero by Hungarians and certain other people, whereas in western and southern Europe he is viewed as a barbarian invader who destroyed civilization. Is it possible that Iranians now view Alexander in the latter way? Perhaps especially since he was a polytheist invading a nation of Zoroastrian monotheists? (I have the impression that present-day Muslims generally view Zoroaster as a legitimate prophet.) Michael Hardy (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Iranians view Alexander from what has been in Shahnameh or The Kings Book of Kings by Ferdowsi. This is an authentic source and must be referred to in the story of Alexander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimostofi (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that book. Can you possibly elaborate, please? Spartan198 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. A lower section of this page explained further. Spartan198 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic edits

I have reverted the latest addition by User:Dr. Persi as un-encyclopedic [1] and tendentious. First, language such as "savage orgy" is highly non-neutral and inflammatory. One could just as easily write about the "savage orgy" of the destruction of Athens by the Persians, but we don't do that in this encyclopedia. Second, this is an instance of misuse of sources. There is nothing in the source to suggest that the destruction of Persepolis was due to a lack of judgment rather than a deliberate, calculated move on Alexander's part (as retaliation for the Persians' destruction of Athens). In fact, that is the general consensus. Whatever the case, this has nothing to do with Alexander's personality and as such the addition is completely off-topic. The destruction of Persepolis is moreover already mentioned elsewhere in the article. Lastly, language such as "Ironically,..." carries an editorial tone, which is again un-encyclopedic and in fact this article suffers quite a bit from. It's been 23 centuries now, can we let things go? Athenean (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue has long been resolved between me and Athenean. I just saw this after months. The original text was word for word from the textbook that was cited. That the text is used word for word is mentioned in Athenean's page. I also spoke with him which he came to realize, as we both agreed that I am going to let him deal with the "editting" even though what I saw was essentially word for word quoted text. You can follow our discussion on his own page. At any point, the discussion is mute at this point, in case anybody ready this now would assume we are actively involved, which we are not. In fact, Athenean and I have maintained a rather peaceful relationshp with plenty of compromise and good faith. So yes, I gave this up to him, not because I was not allowed or justified in use of "cited" and verifiable text, but because I am not that well read in Alexander and so I left it to him. I however did not know of the existence of this so just saykng this issue is fully resolved. Cheers ! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Q.R.Mareuse, 3 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Alexander the great was born in 356 BC, not 336 BC as stated on the factfile. I request the date to be changed to the correct one. Thank you.

Q.R.Mareuse (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I think you've misread the article. It says that his reign began in 336 BC. His year of birth is given correctly as 356 BC in the text as well as the infobox. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On the need for a Greek Identifier in the lead.... The consensus in Academia is that Alexander was Greek

The consensus in Academia is that Alexander was Greek. So then why do we need to state the Alexander was a Greek King in the lead?

I know it might seem superfluous to state that "Alexander was a Greek King", but I will explain why this is not the case, and why it is vitally important that this article be revered back to what it has been for the past few YEARS. (Stating that Alexander was a Greek Kind in the lead)

While many of us Academics and Historians know that Alexander was a Greek King, unfortunately today the masses do not... They mistakenly believe he is of the Modern Macedonian ethnos (i.e Related culturally to the modern country called the 'Republic of Macedonia', which shares the same name as Alexanders Kingdom, but that is all they have in common.) The difference here is that modern-day nationalists from RoM (Republic of Macedonia) attempt to discount the Greekness of Alexander and the Ancient Macedonians due to some attempts to trace their lineage back to these peoples. Why they would want to identify themselves with a completely different culture and people to which they have no connection with, I do not know. However, I can say that this is a growing problem, and should be addressed.

Over 350 classical scholars, who are considered the authority on this matter, (as they are professors and PhD's from the leading universities of the world), unequivocally hold the view that Alexander the Greak, and the Ancient Macedonians, are part of the Greek ethnos and culture. See http://macedonia-evidence.org/ for the list...

While it might be 'obvious' to SilkTork, Yannismarou, and others editing this page that Alexander the Great was Greek, it is (sadly) no longer obvious to the lay person.

There is a reason this article has included this identifier in the lead for years, and to come and remove it shows a lack of respect to editors who have been maintaining this page, and the thousands of hours (literally) of discussion that has gone into this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the matter is significant, and should be mentioned. However, there are various reasons why it is inappropriate to call him a Greek king of Macedonia, part of which is that it sets up a dissonance between Alexander's ethnicity with that of Macedonia. We don't normally state a ruler's ethnicity in the opening statement, and doing so draws attention to it - it can make it appear as though Alexander was a Greek conqueror of Macedonia. The situation regarding Alexander's ethnic, cultural, and political affiliation with what we term "Greek" is important, and should be mentioned - though not in an unexplained statement that he was a Greek. It is more appropriate and helpful to have a fuller explanation. We have some of that already in Alexander_the_Great#Lineage_and_childhood, and I think it would be helpful and appropriate to have a further section dealing precisely with Alexander's relationship with matters Greek. At that point, I agree, it would also be helpful to make a mention in the lead on the Greek matter, but as we don't yet have a section on Alexander's Greekness, or his relationship with matters Greek, it maybe a bit early. I think a statement in the lead that Alexander was a Greek, though the issue of Alexander's relationship with the Greek states has been discussed over the years, would be appropriate - though not that he is a "Greek King of Macedonia". I'll be looking to make some edits to the article shortly, and the Greek matter is one to which I hope we can find an appropriate solution which people will be content with. SilkTork *YES! 11:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Well said. A Macedonian (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it might also be worth noting that as well as being Greek he was also Macedonian. In the same way, perhaps, that Robert the Bruce could be called Scottish and British and French. Nationality can sometimes be a bit awkward - James VI and I was of both Scottish and English decent and that made his rule of both England and Scotland possible. I would rather we followed Wikipedia convention of not stating ethnicity or nationality of rulers, and of being neutral and cautious in regard to contentious issues. Let us proceed with care. SilkTork *YES! 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Not really a good comparison to make, but yes the ethnicity of the ruler in *most cases* is irrelevant. This however is a special topic, due to the fact that there is a modern country today that shares the name of the ancient kingdom. The easiest way to separate the two to prevent confusion is to identify Alexander or the Macedonians as a Greek people, rather then saying in the lead "Alexander and the Ancient Macedonians are not to be confused with Modern 'Macedonians', who are not their ancestors, nor share a cultural or ethnic background'. This is extremely important. I cannot stress it enough. If I am a school boy researching Alexander and I see this article call him 'Macedonian', and make no mention of the Greek cultural or ethnic identifier, I would think he is an Ancestor of Modern-day Macedonians (who are slavic), Rather then the Greeks. This would be a grave error to make, and to spread such mis-informaion is totally against the spirit of wikipedia. Many Admins and others who try to look at this page objectively may not understand the current political and nationalist context that makes this so important. I also urge you to see this page http://macedonia-evidence.org/ for a list of over 390 scholars from schools such as Harvard University, University of Cambridge (UK), Oxford (UK), Columbia University (USA), Brown University (USA), and more; who unequivocally state that the ancient Macedonians are Greek, ethnically, and culturally. This identifier has been in the lead for years on this page, and, as I said, is the result of thousands of hours of discussion with editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Independently of its factual correctness, the older version "a Greek king of Macedon" is grammatically and pragmatically awkward, because it mixes up a definitorial statement ("a king of what?") with an additional statement of an accidental property. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not pragmatically awkward at all, it has been that way for years, and because of thousands of hours of editor discussion on this page. Your agenda pushing and POV editing is well known on macedonian-related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant. It is indeed awkward grammatically, and the fact that it was that way for years does not prove anything. Any further remarks about the article and the GA process, or your sole interest is a word in the lede, without which we have little or no change in the meaning of the sentence? What are your proposals for the rest of the article?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant. The fact that it was that way for years does prove something. Namely, that it was the result of thousands of hours of discussions by editors, who found it important enough to be there. If you are ignorant to the reasons, please spend some time reviewing talk page archives, though I warn you it will take you quite a while. At this time I do not have anything else to add to the article or the GA process, and in general I would add that you are doing a good job with the contributions I read above. What I am most concerned with however, is respecting other editors who have put thousands of combined hours of work into this article. The Greek identifier from alexander was removed almost immediately after your suggestion in the GA process without much further discussion. I am new here, so my guess is that either your word is gospel in the Wikipedia community, or the other editors who have been part of this article over the years have not yet come out of the woodwork to protest such an important change. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi all! If I may step out of the shadows for a bit just to say a few words. Dear anonymous, you can put your trust to long time editor Yannis to be on the right track, I'm assured. It seems to me that finally there is going to be some serious work on this article. Regarding your well explained thesis, while correct, you must understand that the workings of the interwebs might be a bit different from standard educational practice. My personal opinion is that we must not treat the lay reader as a non intelligent person but simply as a person seeking information. While we shouldn't hide the Greekness fact, and of course the lead is important. Surely, it is best to convey knowledge through a well written narrative than from single words with contrived gramar or tabular infoboxes with quick and often misleading information (those are elsewhere). Think about it, is it better to have the word Greek king, followed by a dozen [citations]? Wouldn't that cause the reader to question that inclusion even more than if it wasn't there at all? Would it be better if the factual essence of that word be delivered through the whole lead & rest of the article? It just has to be done elegantly. I'll also have to agree to Future only on the part of the awkwardness of the previous version
Not to mention the endless bickering of certain others... And about the hours spent on discussions, you know and understand that in the Wiki this is unavoidable, and in the end all that remains is a few contributors' sympathy and your own personal satisfaction of adding to the cause of the Wiki, and the Net in general. But don't let me scare you off. Feel free to make an account and assist in essential ways you deem appropriate to this or other articles. Cheers! Shadowmorph ^"^ 10:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish my word was a gospel, but, unfortunately, this is not case, because, if this was the case, many articles would have different titles now! But they don't! Thanks Shadow for the good words. I hope somebody is really interested in working on this article. I personally cannot undertake this task for the time being, but I promise I'll be here to support any serious effort.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not interested with another tangle with the wielders of vintage 1974 Greek high school textbooks. If this is going to be another episode in the perpetual struggle with "FYROM", to hell with it. Tag it, close this review - and wait for the Greek educational system to grow out of the Parson Weems and cherry-tree stage. That will be a while, probably until funding it gets more votes than buncombe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Off topic, but I just have to note, the problem with the Greek educational system is not a lack of funds, but a misuse of them. Otherwise, I fully agree with the comment above - Greeks are ever eager to point out Macedonian (or other) nationalist agendas, but are conveniently blinded to Greek nationalism - most likely because it permeates Greek society on every level and to astounding depth. What in other countries would be termed nationalism in Greece is par for the course, and what in Greece is termed nationalism, in other countries is called grounds for involuntary commitment. Druworos (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Good afternoon. Just found a simple solution acceptable to both parties. Since the consensus in Academia is that Alexander was Greek, it is indeed a superfluity to mention that he was a Greek king. I inroduced a simple phrase stating that he is one of the most famous Greeks of all time. I guess everyone shall be satisfied. Thanks, best regards. Denpap (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Most famous?

Claiming that he is the most famous Greek seems a bit like puffery (WP:W2W) to me. That's the reason I put in the "citation needed" tag. Regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i never stated that he is the "most famous" which is indeed a puffery. If you go through my edit you can see that i wrote "one of the most famous". I hardly believe that someone shall say he is not placed amongst the most famous. Thanks, best regards.Denpap (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a WP:reliable source, see self reference. In any case this addition is poor quality, and we praise Alexander as commander already. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree that this addition is simple but it is important nonetheless. Since it is accepted that he was Greek, then what is needed is to find the sources stating that he is placed amongst the most famous Greeks? (which in my opinion is self-evident, considering the extensive analysis through the last 23 centuries as well as the extent of the relevant article in WP). Another question: Would similar sources be needed if it was stated that Jules Caesar is placed amongst the most famous Romans? Best regards. Denpap (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears Denpap misunderstands Wikipedia editing process. Editors should not engage in original research or base their edits on the WP:TRUTH they know, see Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Hope it helps, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Also note that there have been 3 other editors who do not agree with you that this should be included. And at this point you have violated WP:3RR. I don't think anyone would want to be banned for a time over an edit such as this one? --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to seriously argue that Alexander the Great isn't one of the most famous Greeks (unless you take the line that Macedonia wasn't Greek), but I don't see what it adds to the article. That he is considered one of the most successful military leaders shows that he was martially important, but what is significant about fame on its own? The lead already covers his impact ("He became the measure against which generals, even to this day, compare themselves and military academies throughout the world still teach his tactical exploits.") so I don't think the statement that he is famous adds anything. I'm in favour of removing it. Nev1 (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
as above, he may be famous, but this is a grown up publication, not a Ladybird Book. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Demanding a citation for Alexander being famous is ludicrously dogmatic considering it's so obviously the case, but it's probably not worth including in the article at all, regardless of veracity. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexander in India

Hi, It is rather awkward to deal with history when dealing with two sides with different understanding. This topic is perhaps one this type, perhaps not. I have had the idea of Porus defeating Alexander as an open secret as mentioned at many places, referring to Syrian, Turkish and even Russian sources though no one bothered to look at these or to read its translation. It is therefore tough to get a copy of the translation, or however you put it, there are rare chances to prove that Porus defeated Alexander. However, I did come across this source where someone has actually put translated source to prove a related point on a website, the website being immense repute and very valuable to me personally. I therefore have put it on Wikipedia, hoping that someone will find more sources and put forth such information taking this as an example, for better understanding of history. From source | here and | copy - The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus...

From the same source

In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Budge (about | Budge) has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom". Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief- stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said, "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."

Some more here --Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, fringe unreliable sources. Online forums do not meet the requirements for reliable sourcing. I also sincerely hope that this is not retaliation for this [2]. Athenean (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I am hoping against hope that someone will open the book, scan the relevant pages and put it online for people to see. About retaliation - it does not matter who retaliates when how much etc. What matters is what is on the side of truth and presented in responsible fashion. --Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
What matters is the analysis that secondary reliable sources make of the text. We can summarize what they say about the origin of the text, the bias of the author, the historical context, the writing conventions of that time, if the narrated facts are actual historical facts or made-up legends, compare the texts against texts that make different claims, and a long etcetera of other stuff.
Making your own interpretation of the original text is doing Original Research (OR).
And once you find a proper secondary source, you are supposed to evaluate it against the interpretations made by other secondary sources, then look at how much weight each theory gets in the literature. Then, we you write the article, you dedicate space to each theory in proportion to how accepted they are in secondary sources (it's explained better at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view, and you can find a thorough explanation at WP:UNDUE).
This article already has a lot of secondary sources, and it already reflects many facts. So, editing the article to insert new stuff can be very challenging. You need to know the topic relatively well, and you need to read some of the references that appear in the paragraphs that you want to change. This is a problem that happens with all well-developed articles that are well-referenced. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
In this online source and here, the battle looks completely one sided against Alexander. Accordingly, the soldiers revolted and Alexander put down arms, called the king Porus to one-on-one battle (to avoid deaths of soldiers, and the king agreed), then behold shockingly - cheated to kill the chivalrous King Porus. This got Indians into rage and they attacked Alexanders army again, to which then Alexander offered gifts to opposite army and pacified them, appointed satraps and left. This does not look like in any way victory but a defeat, cheat and kill chivalrous King Porus, pacify raging opponents and cut losses and run.
If at all, Alexander was Alexander the Great CHEATER who hit chivalrous King on his back after defeat.
Alexanders battle with Porus may just go the way of Aryan invasion theory, where "experts of all kind" kept on discussing the theory for 200 years or so before taking it back. Welcome to the world of this kind of history, this time with technology! Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Errrrr.... it appears that King_Porus survived the Battle_of_the_Hydaspes_River? And out of the two accounts, the first one contradicts the second one, and it doesn't say anything about Alexander cheating, just about Alexander taking advance of a distraction of Porus? Also, these are translations of primary sources, didn't I just advice you to use secondary sources?? Secondary sources are written by historians and other scholars, who have expertise to say whether the accounts are accurate; we have no idea if those ethiopean accounts are historically accurate or not.
I mean, how do you know that these accounts are more accurate than Justin's account (the account cited at the article of the battle, which, by the way, should use instead a secondary source). I mean, look at modern secondary sources like this one [3], there is no duel mentioned anywhere, and it says that the battle was an overwhelming Indian defeat due to brilliant Alexander's strategy. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
How is this source considered reliable? In fact the source The life and exploits of Alexander the Great looks more reliable and researched than a lot of other reliable sources to me. Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
David J. Lonsdale is a researcher in Strategic Theory and Military History, and his book was published by Routledge. He is presenting his conclusions about the battles.
The life and exploits book is reliable, but what you are not citing are not the conclusions of the author. You are citing directly the translation of a primary source. The conclusions of the author have been cited by editor Saddhiyama in his comment right below. The author concludes that the translated stories do not reflect historical facts. And, in spite of that, you want to use those stories to source historical facts. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as presenting sources are concerned, the book The life and exploits of Alexander the Great sites much more sources in detail than source, which I think refers to some sources already referred by others. As such it is as credible as its own sources and not whether the Author is researcher of repute and printed by reputed publisher. Its credibility therefore lies in sources which are presented sparsely in the book perhaps, perhaps not. As far as the Author is concerned, in my understanding, he himself suggested that the story of Alexander that originated from Egypt should be considered more authentic than others ( reasons given as ..it is hardly likely that their writers and scribes would hasten to record his history, whereby they would also incidentally describe their own national defeat; to these countries, then, we must not look for the original Alexander story. Similarly, we must not look to the states of Greece for it, because at the death of Alexander the memory of their subjugation and the victorious deeds which he wrought for the glory of Macedon would be too fresh in the minds of their peoples. One country only could be the birthplace of the Alexander story, and that country was Egypt..). I am not sure if the general discussion is driven by this very idea i.e. keeping the Alexander story from Egypt as authentic (which the scholarship of the author has indeed explained so well along with origin of other sources, especially ones from Greece that perhaps dominate current understanding). This according to me, forms one of the essence of the Alexander story, and I hope someone clarifies which story is the Egypt story in the said book which I myself is unsure for I don't have that experience and skill to tell out the exact parts off Egypt origins. At the most I can only hope that someone will research into the Alexander story from Egypt, and not his fanboy fantasies from Greece, to put forth a credible understanding if not already done. Then perhaps someone can put up that as reliable secondary source on the internet and can be referred to here. Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)Your comments seems to show that you are not completely unbiased when it comes to this subject. Perhaps you should consider editing different topics in order to avoid POV-transgressions?
Also, if you read the preface and the introduction, as well as the chapter entitled "The Origin of the Alexander story", in the book you linked, you will see that Budge is fully aware that the stories he has translated are "invented" to become "a means, not only of instruction, but also of edification for the reader". Which is also why scholars are very wary, and preferably avoids, using any of the legends as sources for historical and biographical details on the life of Alexander. Anyway, as has been stated, to use primary sources as citations for the battle in Wikipedia would be in violation of WP:OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
About reliable sources, this from the |author of The life and exploits of Alexander the Great  :-
"The object of this work is to present to students and lovers of the legendary history of Alexander the Great the various histories of this marvellous man which are extant in the Ethiopia language, together with English translations of the same and some necessary notes...."
"texts here printed for the first time consists of the Ethiopia version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes; the Ethiopia versions of the Arabic histories of Alexander by Al-Makin and Abu Shaker; the Ethiopia version of the Hebrew history of Alexander by Joseph ben-Gorion; ...."
"The object of this work is to present to students and lovers of the legendary history of Alexander the Great the various histories of this marvelous man which are extant in the Ethiopic language, together with English translations of the same and some necessary notes..."
"Never was heathen king or profane history so thoroughly transformed. As the various Oriental versions of the legendary history of Alexander become available for general study, it will be possible to separate fact from fiction, to harmonize differences, and also to classify the various legends and trace them to their respective sources...."
"..two important works on the Alexander story by Prof. Noeldeke and Dr. Ausfeld have appeared.."
"..that the actual deeds and events of his life should, very soon after his death, become overlaid by a mass of fictitious statements of every degree of wildness, is only what was to be expected..."
"..it is hardly likely that their writers and scribes would hasten to record his history, whereby they would also incidentally describe their own national defeat; to these countries, then, we must not look for the original Alexander story. Similarly, we must not look to the states of Greece for it, because at the death of Alexander the memory of their subjugation and the victorious deeds which he wrought for the glory of Macedon would be too fresh in the minds of their peoples. One country only could be the birthplace of the Alexander story, and that country was Egypt..."
"From these considerations it seems clear that the Alexander story is of Egyptian origin. But, besides these, there is a mass of internal evidence in the work which shews that the author was more versed in Egyptian matters than any foreigner could well be, and these must be briefly noticed..."
The author goes on to detail origin of the story and various other versions across regions. The author has given a detailed and marvelous description to his understanding of various versions of the story, along with its origins and reasons. It is indeed an interesting read.
It is important to note that the author was indeed a scholar and this source can be taken as a reliable secondary source, noting how the author has himself translated and commented at various places.
I would still insist that this information be added to Wikipedia with notion of understanding from a reliable secondary a source.Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not a secondary source but a primary source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not think there is much point in engaging Thisthat2011 anymore. I will just note that "Alexander-did-not-invade-India!" type disruption is third only to the Greekness/Macedonian-ness and sexuality issues in the amount of time wasted on the talkpage, as can be seen from the archives. Athenean (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out that this is the most detailed discussion with lots of links and scholarship of author on the topic. It is as such difficult to compare but I would like to say that the "accepted version" may not be too correct either. I would like to point out that it is better that both sides of the story are present in Wikipedia when it is accepted that there is a dispute. Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the author doesn't appear to say anywhere that the duel actually happened, I think too that there is no more point in engaging Thisthat2011 anymore.
While discussing this sort of stuff is mildly entertaining and educative, wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article, and the discussions in talk pages should be restricted mostly to discussion on how to change the article (WP:TALK). (Discussions that have a real chance of causing an actual change in the article, not discussions about stuff that will never make into the article because the SECONDARY AND RELIABLE sources don't support the changes). Thisthat2011 needs to find good secondary sources that actually and directly support his proposed changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
All I can say is that it is better to refer to sources other than Plutarch etc. considering how these are more or less exercise in praise to detail glory, not defeats. As I said earlier, the logic being ..it is hardly likely that their writers and scribes would hasten to record his history, whereby they would also incidentally describe their own national defeat; to these countries, then, we must not look for the original Alexander story. Similarly, we must not look to the states of Greece for it, because at the death of Alexander the memory of their subjugation and the victorious deeds which he wrought for the glory of Macedon would be too fresh in the minds of their peoples. One country only could be the birthplace of the Alexander story, and that country was Egypt..(as mentioned by the Author himself).
In anyway, for all sources, a fact remains that at the river Indus the soldiers and their generals simply refused to follow their commander any further. It was a turning point in Alexander’s career, and he himself regarded it as a major defeat for the wide gap between king and soldiers and the serious lack of support for his politics had become obvious. Alexander was forced to give up his plans of a further invasion, in other words an invader was forced to stop invasions, a defeat of enormous proportions that would reverberate in history forever. The defeat is conspicuous by its absence for what is an invader who could not invade. Confucius said that the greatest of warriors never have to fight for they make battles unwinnable. The Kings of Magadha and Gangapradesh(Gangaridai) were therefore much greater kings then the invader who was self proclaimed son of God and king of kings. Not to mention his brutalities and massacres of populations who all surrendered - the behavior that suits no king, let alone an emperor. His brutalities are far too many to count, I would still mention that he murdered most atrociously many like Basus of Bactria, entire population of Malli, Massaga and Ora as well as Indian soldiers who were returning from Masanga, etc, who defend the freedom of respective motherland. These were indeed crimes even in those times and some were considered inauspicious even by his own soldiers who grumbled that it was not good to attack Indians who had never invaded and troubled them in anyway. He perhaps even pillaged a city of ascetic Brahmans thinly protected by armed Brahmin warriors and found nothing inside. Many Persian generals, Kalasthenese a nephew of Aristotle, his friend Clytus, his father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian were all murdered by Alexander. This may be brushed aside as a biased opinion, but all of this is absent on this page which itself speaks of all so many fans of his legend, perhaps Alexander himself and perhaps not. As far as I am concerned, I think that he was no more than a bloodthirsty warmonger to Indians who showed his true colors when cornered and feigned good behavior otherwise, and inherited a disciplined army. His battle with Porus itself, the topic here, is too confusing, considering how he ignored his own partner in battle Ambhi and added to land and treasury of king Porus! In the end, all I can say is that this may be ignored and complained about, but some people even complain about Gandhi. I am fan of Gandhi in the sense that I do consider understanding of truth as it is as good and work for it. It is indeed strange but those who love invaders may just don't understand Gandhi who had no weapons other than a stick, truth and -shockingly- nonviolence! Nonviolence is an anathema for weapons, but only if you consider Imperialism as just and civilized to those who were conquered. This is something similar i.e. to Indians, Alexander was no more than a warmongering invader fighting for more glory who thankfully couldn't run all over the place and kill even more and then into China and repeat this routine for even more glory. Chinese should thank Emperor Chandragupta indirectly who stonewalled invaders, reconquered all land till Hindukush again and defeated successor of Alexander so badly(the details of which are completely missing from all these reliable sources and fanboy histories) that Greeks never invaded India again. He also gave 500 elephants to the successor of Alexander - these proving valuable later and show how powerful the kings in Hindusthan were, who never invaded the Greeks. Thisthat2011 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alexander's physical appearance?

While the perception of Alexander as a blonde-haired, fair-skinned and blue-eyed was how Plutarch depicted him, he was born much later than Alexander and that he probably just depicted him through his observation of Alexander's bust made by Lysippos and The mosaic of Alexander from Pompeii depicted him as tan-skinned, brown-haired and brown eyes. User016608 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Alexander Mosaic is dated around 100 BC, which is over 200 years after Alexander's death. It was a work of art from rich house in Pompeii, not done by historian, so it is probably as reliable as Plutarch description. Also it is pretty hard to depict on the mosaic shaids of skin and hair, so it is looks like the artist just used same pebbles for all people hear and skin of the mosaic. Being a reputable historian Plutarch most likely studied manuscripts and pictures from people who knew Alexander personaly, which many of that documents were available at his time but lost now. Innab (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is it widely noted that Alexander had 2 blue eyes and not one brown eye and one blue eye? Has the later not been the accepted description, and the most widely proven. There seems to be competing sentences in the main article on this. I believe it would be more acceptable to list the true description of his appearance and not one that puts him in conformity. I ask that someone who can edit the article remove the source stating that Alexander had both blues eyes, the source for that seems to be off kilter. It is a online article riddled with fantasy competing with Green's well established research book. Historical articles on wikipedia should be more confined to written writing than online sources. The subject was studied a long time before the internet and already has established facts from the hard work of literary researchers. The above discussion is also questioning the legitimacy of same source article for these erroneousness physical appearance descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindplague (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added citation of Arrian's description of Alexander's eyes (one brown one blue). Also, Greek biographer Plutarch (ca. 45–120 AD) usually considered as a very reputable and reliable ancient historian, there plenty of references to his work in historical science. Now-living historians like Peter Green only can study the ancient documents which survived from historians like Plutarch.Innab (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.174.54.168, 16 June 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raksha_Bandhan#Alexander_the_Great_and_King_Puru

Alexander the Great and King Puru

According to one legendary narrative, when Alexander the Great invaded India in 326 BC, Roxana (or Roshanak, his wife) sent a sacred thread to Porus, asking him not to harm her husband in battle. In accordance with tradition, Porus gave full respect to the rakhi. On the battlefield, when Porus was about to deliver a final blow to Alexander, he saw the rakhi on his own wrist and restrained himself from attacking Alexander personally.[16]

122.174.54.168 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia ain't a source for itself. GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The macedonian pronounce of Alexander III of Macedon

I want to ask the people who have the rights to edit this article to put this (Macedonian: Александар III Македонски) because the greek pronounce of him is in so why don't the macedonian too? Cheers --Vasil123 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps because the Slavs were around only 1000 years later? A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vasil123, 20 June 2011

i want to write the macedonian pronounce of alexander the great like: (Macedonian: Александар III Македонски) which means Alexander III of Macedon

Vasil123 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GaneshBhakt (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vasil123, 20 June 2011

i want to write the macedonian pronounce of alexander the great like: (Macedonian: Александар III Македонски) which means Alexander III of Macedon

Vasil123 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GaneshBhakt (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Invalid Sources

"He developed a fever, which grew steadily worse, until he was unable to speak, and the common soldiers, anxious about his health, demanded and were granted the right to file past him as he silently waved at them.[143][144][145]"

Right under the "Death and Succession" section, I checked all three sources. 143 leads to this blank page, 144 leads to this blank page, and 145 leads to another Wikipedia page. --LimitOfCalm (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Will try to fix it, thanks for pointing it out. Athenean (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done Athenean (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Megalopolis

The Battle of Megalopolis was a battle that took place between Sparta and Macedon in 331 BC, it was a Macedonian victory that led to the final pacification of all of greece. Yet, on the map of Alexander's empire, we see that the Pelopenesian peninsula, or however you spell it, has a section, that is still not, so to speak, under his sceptre. In spite of this however, India is clearly highlighted, in addition to the entirety of Persia. Something should be done about this. The picture should accurately reflect the extent of the Empire. It is for this reason that this article is not a GA article. SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean File:MacedonEmpire.jpg? Sparta was never conquered by Alexander the Great, see Sparta#Hellenistic_and_Roman_Sparta. Epirus was an ally due to family relationships, it wasn't part of the actual empire. Persia was conquered in its enterity, and India is only highlighted up to Indus river. I don't see any historical inaccuracies. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It says right there in the article, "Alexander was merciful, and he only forced the Spartans to join the League of Corinth, which they had previously refused to join". Athens for example is highlighted in File:MacedonEmpire.jpg, and it was a part of the macedonian empire as a result of the fact that it was a part of the league of Corinth. You can see this in the article as some of the decrees of the league were issued in Athens. Sparta became a part of the Macedonian Empire after this battle.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking better at the sources, they say that Antipater took 50 noble hostages and then ordered Sparta to join the League. Sparta discussed it with the League, and the League finally told Sparta to ask Alexander. Sparta sent envoys to Alexander, but it is not known whether Sparta finally joined the League or not [4][5]
Other sources say that Alexander left Sparta alone after the battle because it was no longer a military threat [6] or this one "Sparta was satisfied merely to survive and maintain her independence, even as an ordinary state that was far from being a leading power" page 116.
I don't see any source saying that Sparta became part of the Macedon Empire, or part of Alexander's territory. Making that claim with no source support would be aynthetizing original material to reach our own conclusions. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Delbruck, Hans (1982). History of the Art of War, Volume Three: Medieval Warfare. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. p. 123. ISBN 0-8032-6585-9..SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This book seems to treat only specific military tactics. I'm trying to search the google book's version, It doesn't seem to mention "Megalopolis", "Sparta", "Antipater", "Macedon", "Macedonic", or the league of Corinth. Could you quote here the relevant sentence(s)? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from RedJess, 7 July 2011

Please remove 'was' from this line "and he was eventually abandoned it", OR put 'forced' between "eventually" and "abandoned". This line is located in the third sentence of 4.7 Problems and Plots. I would like this changed as it is grammatically incorrect.

Thanks Jess

RedJess (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - see this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle teacher of Alexander?

Alexander seems to come out of myth. He is supposedly the son of a great king and was the pupil of Aristotle.
There is no writings of Aristotle which show him knowing Alexander.It should be mention.
Alexander may have existed, but the story of his conquest is mythological garbage.
Coins and statues found bearing Alexander's name come after the fact and are in tribute to him.
And there are no Persian or Indian records showing a Macedonian army conquering the known ancient world.
So did he reall exist.--Nkatyan (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Those are some pretty fringe views you have there. Stay in school.--Tataryn77 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
@Nkatayan You see, for Indians he could be a bloodthirsty warmonger. For Spartans, he was a kind King. This is how history is. You have to have secondary reliable sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The scource of Alexander come from this historian and book writeen by them.

1.Callisthenes. he wrote Deeds of Alexander,it is said he acomppined him in war.The book of Deeds of Alexander is now lost. It seems that later historians had access to a sequel to Callisthenes' Deeds of Alexander. This work was perhaps based on the Royal diary that is quoted by several authors who describe the death of Alexander . That would explain why we have detailed information about chronology and appointments. However, this is not certain.Callisthenes' book on the Deeds of Alexander and the Royal diary are primary sources. They are now lost, but were used by secondary authors like Cleitarchus and Ptolemy, who are at the beginning of the 'vulgate' and the 'good' tradition. Therefore, they share the same chronology and mention the same officials. Their works are now lost too, but can be reconstructed from tertiary sources: Diodorus of Sicily and Curtius Rufus, Arrian and Plutarch.

2. Megasthenes wrote indica, about india the book is lost, Arrian, Strabo, Diodorus, and Pliny refer to Indica in their works .in wiki artical about megasthenes there is not mention of Alexzander, did he not write about him.

3 Arrian of Nicomedia. Lucius Flavius Arrianus -or Arrian was born in Nicomedia, one of the Greek towns in the Roman empire, in c.87 CE. He wrote The Campaigns of Alexander" and Indica, an account of the voyage by Alexander's fleet from India to the Persian Gulf under Nearchus. He also wrote a political history of the Greek world after Alexander, most of which is lost. It is not known when Arrian died.

Persian account says Alexander, the Rûman. not greek (yunan). May be Sikander in persian launguage. And indian scource say nothing about Alexander or invasion.There are coin showing Alexzander in a horse attacking king puru( porus) were struck latter not a singile coin of Alexander is found. Aristotle did not mention Alexander who is said to be his teacher.It is not what i think and what you think it is about what is write and what is wrong. it is not necessary that what is writen in school book is true we should chek out the scource.it is all in the wiki which i am giving.--Nkatyan (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexander - India and primary secondary debate

Thisthat2011 has brought some interesting insights to the article regarding India. Why is that bad?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What can anyone say? Can anyone with understanding of civility say that perhaps a self-declared Son( or anyone related/admired) of God has self-declared-right to massacre natives and those who defend motherland? Perhaps he was amongst the ones to give such an argument to collect human rights away from everyone and for himself, thus making it look alright to destroy & pillage others; which it may not be actually true for anyone more civilized than a bloodthirsty warmonger. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ammonitida, 7 August 2011

I have more information regarding Alexander's physical appearance.

This passage is found in Aelian's "Historical Miscellany" (page 365)

"Alexander the son of Phillip is reported to have possessed a natural beauty: his hair was wavy and fair. They say there was something slightly alarming about Alexander's appearance."

Source: [7]


Ammonitida (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Topher385 (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Marking as answered. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Cleopatra Eurydice

In the first paragraph of the section "Power Consolidation" there is this sentence:

"Regardless of whether Attalus actually intended to defect, he had already severely insulted Alexander, and having just had Attalus's daughter and grandchildren murdered, Alexander probably felt Attalus was too dangerous to leave alive."

Elsewhere in the article Cleopatra Eurydice is always described as Attalus's niece, not his daughter. Shouldn't this sentence therefore read "Attalus's niece and her children" or "Attalus's niece and grandniece"?

Also, the use of children in the plural here was confusing as the previous text only refers to one daughter (burned alive along with Cleopatra Eurydice). Can anyone confirm that she had more than one child?

184.222.52.225 (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. That Attalus was Cleopatra's uncle seems to be undisputed by modern historians, so I corrected that. With regards to the children, there was supposedly a son, Caranus, as well who, according to Justin, Alexander had put to death. But everything regarding Cleopatra's children seems to be rather murky and, judging by the notes at Cleopatra Eurydice of Macedon, of disputed historicity. Since I don't have any modern books at hand dealing with the subject I chose to forgo mentioning any children in that sentence. Fornadan (t) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexander self-identified as Greek, so why are we so afraid to agree with his own words 2000 years later?

I have noticed the 'Greek King' phrase has been removed. If it was important enough for Alexander III to state on many occassions he was Greek and of Greek descent, what makes editors today think it is wise to remove the 'Greek King' phrase, especially seeing as a country in close proximity to northern Greece is now claiming many associations with the said king of Macedon? I say 'editors' losely of course, it seems there are a few nameless IP's pushing the agenda who I do not recognise as of yet..but if modern macedonians of the 'republic of macedonia' state clearly that they are not Greeks, is it not wise to state Alexander saw himself as greek so as not to help create and awkward, spurious and in fact quite bias article just for the sake of it? Reaper7 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Alexander the Great was a Macedonian and a Greek as Leonidas I was a Spartan and a Greek or Themistocles was an Athenean and a Greek. What was being a "Greek" at the time if not to share the same kinship, language and culture (religion, cults, customs, etc.) with other Greeks? Wikipedia tries to maintain a political correct policy, which is fair; however it's true that even if political correctness was created in good intentions, it seems that it's often overused, misused, or taken way out of context, but I don't think that's the case here. Yannismarou comments well about it above, take a look. A Macedonian (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to dramatically disagree with Yannismarou which I interpret as political correctness at the expense of historic truth (i.e. threats of an edit war to censor information is not a academic justification to omit information on Wikipedia) Yannismarou is defacto defining Alexander as non-Greek on Wikipedia by omitting Alexander's Greekness - rather letting readers know how Alexander defined himself. Claiming that Greekness is vague is no different than claiming Jewishness is vague. Or being German is vague. Or any ethnicity whatsoever (especially seeing as nations evolve though time - see the German speaking Romans of the Holy Roman Empire). If a reader wishes to define the ambiguities of Greekness they can further research other articles for that information just like the ambiguities of any other ethnic groups.

Biographical articles on individuals throughout Wikipedia do not omit key information like their own self-identification. Although I may have my own biases being of Greek background, I sincerely can see no good rational or moral justification why Alexander should be treated any differently.

Furthermore if the claim is that self-identification is what matters most (see name dispute where citizens of the former Yugoslav republic are referenced as "Macedonians" on this basis - much to my chagrin), then I can see no logical basis for claiming that Alexander is not subject to the same set of rules of self-identification. He was indisputably a SELF-IDENTIFYING Greek King. (which in my opinion why the phrase "self-identifying Greek King" should be added to the article - which is a statement that not even Borza would question) Otherwise there is a glaring logical inconsistency between various articles as to how identity is being recognized on Wikipedia (which frankly stinks of prejudice but I'm supposed to smile and pretend Macedonia related articles are currently being written in good faith not political correctness gone wild). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.150 (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

'Our ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you...' - Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea -in which he SELF-IDENTIFIES as Greek (Arrian, "Anabasis Alexandri", II, 14, 4)
'Alexander, son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians", present this offering from the spoils taken from the foreigners inhabiting Asia' - Alexander once describes as a SELF-IDENTIFYING Greek (Arrian, "Anabasis Alexandri", I, 16, 7)

Even Alexander's ancestors SELF-IDENTIFIED as Greeks. (thus we are even talking generations of self-identifying Greeks - not being defined as Greeks?)

'Men of Athens... In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas (Greece); I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery.' - Speech of Alexander I of Macedonia upon being admitted to the Olympic games (Herodotus, Histories, 9.45, ed. A. D. Godley) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.150 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

An important message by Alexander, self-identifying himself as "Greek" has been omitted:

THE “OATH”

OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

(OPIS, 324 BC)


“IT IS MY WISH, NOW THAT WARS ARE COMING TO AN END, THAT YOU SHOULD ALL BE HAPPY IN PEACE. FROM NOW ON, LET ALL MORTALS LIVE AS ONE PEOPLE, IN FELLOWSHIP, FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. SEE THE WHOLE WORLD AS YOUR HOMELAND, WITH LAWS COMMON TO ALL, WHERE THE BEST WILL GOVERN REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE. UNLIKE THE NARROWMINDED, I MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS. THE ORIGIN OF CITIZENS, OR THE RACE INTO WHICH THEY WERE BORN, IS OF NO CONCERN TO ME. I HAVE ONLY ONE CRITERION BY WHICH TO DISTINGUISH THEM VIRTUE.

FOR ME, ANY GOOD FOREIGNER IS A GREEK AND ANY BAD GREEK IS WORSE THAN A BARBARIAN. IF DISPUTES EVER OCCUR AMONG YOU, YOU WILL NOT RESORT TO WEAPONS BUT WILL SOLVE THEM IN PEACE. IF NEED BE, I SHALL ARBITRATE BETWEEN YOU. SEE GOD NOT AS AN AUTOCRATIC DESPOT, BUT AS THE COMMON FATHER OF ALL AND THUS YOUR CONDUCT WILL BE LIKE THE LIVES OF BROTHERS WITHIN THE SAME FAMILY. I, ON MY PART, SEE YOU ALL AS EQUAL, WHETHER YOU ARE WHITE OR DARK-SKINNED. AND I SHOULD LIKE YOU NOT SIMPLY TO BE SUBJECTS OF MY COMMONWEALTH, BUT MEMBERS OF IT, PARTNERS OF IT. TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, I SHALL STRIVE TO DO WHAT I HAVE PROMISED. KEEP AS A SYMBOL OF LOVE THIS OATH WHICH WE HAVE TAKEN TONIGHT WITH OUR LIBATIONS”.

Ο "ΟΡΚΟΣ"

ΤΟΥ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ

(ΟΠΙΣ, 324 π.Χ.)


"ΣΑΣ ΕΥΧΟΜΑΙ ΤΩΡΑ ΠΟΥ ΤΕΛΕΙΩΝΟΥΝ ΟΙ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΙ ΝΑ ΕΙΣΤΕ ΕΥΤΥΧΙΣΜΕΝΟΙ ΜΕΣΑ ΣΕ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ. ΟΛΟΙ ΟΙ ΘΝΗΤΟΙ ΑΠΌ 'ΔΩ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΑ ΝΑ ΖΗΣΟΥΝ ΣΑΝ ΕΝΑΣ ΛΑΟΣ, ΜΟΝΙΑΣΜΕΝΟΙ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΚΟΙΝΗ ΠΡΟΚΟΠΗ. ΝΑ ΕΧΕΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΗ ΠΑΤΡΙΔΑ ΣΑΣ, ΜΕ ΝΟΜΟΥΣ ΚΟΙΝΟΥΣ, ΟΠΟΥ ΘΑ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΟΥΝ ΟΙ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΙ ΑΝΕΞΑΡΤΗΤΑ ΑΠΌ ΤΗΝ ΦΥΛΗ. ΔΕΝ ΧΩΡΙΖΩ ΤΟΥΣ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥΣ, ΌΠΩΣ ΚΑΝΟΥΝ ΟΙ ΣΤΕΝΟΜΥΑΛΟΙ, ΣΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΥΣ. ΔΕΝ Μ' ΕΝΔΙΑΦΕΡΕΙ Η ΚΑΤΑΓΩΓΗ ΤΩΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ ΟΥΤΕ Η ΡΑΤΣΑ ΠΟΥ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΚΑΝ. ΤΟΥΣ ΚΑΤΑΜΕΡΙΖΩ ΜΕ ΜΟΝΑΔΙΚΟ ΚΡΙΤΗΡΙΟ ΤΗΝ ΑΡΕΤΗ.

ΓΙΑ ΜΕΝΑ, ΚΑΘΕ ΚΑΛΟΣ ΞΕΝΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΕ ΚΑΚΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΑΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΧΕΙΡΟΤΕΡΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟ. ΑΝ ΠΟΤΕ ΣΑΝ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΣΘΟΥΝ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΕΣ, ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΚΑΤΑΦΥΓΕΤΕ ΣΤΑ ΟΠΛΑ, ΠΑΡΑ ΘΑ ΤΙΣ ΛΥΣΕΤΕ ΕΙΡΗΝΙΚΑ. ΣΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΓΚΗ ΘΑ ΣΤΑΘΩ ΔΙΑΙΤΗΤΗΣ ΣΑΣ. ΤΟ ΘΕΟ ΔΕΝ ΠΡΕΠΕΙ ΝΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΧΕΤΕ ΑΥΤΑΡΧΙΚΟ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΤΗ, ΑΛΛΑ ΣΑΝ ΚΟΙΝΟ ΠΑΤΕΡΑ ΟΛΩΝ, ΩΣΤΕ Η ΔΙΑΓΩΓΗ ΣΑΣ ΝΑ ΜΟΙΑΖΕΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΖΩΗ ΠΟΥ ΚΑΝΟΥΝ Τ' ΑΔΕΛΦΙΑ ΜΕΣΑ ΣΤΗΝ ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΑ. ΕΓΩ, ΑΠ΄ ΤΗ ΜΕΡΙΑ ΜΟΥ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΣΑΣ ΘΕΩΡΩ ΙΣΟΥΣ, ΛΕΥΚΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΛΑΨΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΘΑ ΗΘΕΛΑ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΑΙΣΘΑΝΕΣΤΕ ΜΟΝΟ ΣΑΝ ΥΠΗΚΟΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΚΟΙΝΟΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑΣ ΜΟΥ, ΑΛΛΑ ΝΑ ΝΟΙΩΘΕΤΕ ΟΛΟΙ ΣΑΝ ΜΕΤΟΧΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΝΕΤΑΙΡΟΙ. ΟΣΟ ΠΕΡΝΑ ΑΠ' ΤΟ ΧΕΡΙ ΜΟΥ ΘΑ ΠΡΟΣΠΑΘΗΣΩ ΝΑ ΓΙΝΟΥΝ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ ΑΥΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΥΠΟΣΧΟΜΑΙ. ΑΥΤΟ ΤΟΝ ΟΡΚΟ ΠΟΥ ΔΩΣΑΜΕ ΑΠΟΨΕ ΜΕ ΣΠΟΝΔΕΣ ΚΡΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΣΑΝ ΣΥΜΒΟΛΟ ΑΓΑΠΗΣ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.153.107 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Physical appearance section

To the extent that it is even necessary (do we have such a section for other notable historical figures e.g. Caesar, Cyrus, etc...?) this section is far too long. Nor is it my understanding that reliable sources on Alexander devote as much space to his physical appearance as we do here. Moreover, not all its contents are informative, relevant to Alexander's appearance, or even sourced. I would like to bring the article to GA status sometime soon, so I have made some changes accordingly. Athenean (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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:
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:

Regarding the battle diagrams, I think this one [9], 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)
    •  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)

 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  Done Athenean
  • #31  Done Athenean
  • #55  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  Done Yannismarou
  • #115 - remove  Done Yannismarou
  • #124 (which Worthington?)  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".  Done --Yannismarou (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • #146 - author  Done --Dianna (talk)
  • #147 and #150 with proper titles  Done --Dianna (talk)
  • #153 needs something else preferably  Done removed it as it is redundant Athenean
  • #165  Done --Dianna (talk)
  • #166  Done --Dianna (talk)
  • #169  Done --Dianna (talk)
  • #190  Done --Dianna (talk)
  • #193 - proper title and a better name for the website  Done -- Dianna (talk)
  • #199. 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.  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  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.  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)  Done Yannismarou

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)

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

Education

The information in this section is incorrect. Accordint to Christopher Shields "In 343, upon the request of Philip, the king of Macedon, Aristotle left Lesbos for Pella, the Macedonian capital, in order to tutor the king's thirteen-year-old son, Alexander—the boy who was eventually to become Alexander the Great. Although speculation concerning Aristotle's influence upon the developing Alexander has proven irresistible to historians, in fact little concrete is known about their interaction. On the balance, it seems reasonable to conclude that some tuition took place, but that it lasted only two or three years, when Alexander was aged from thirteen to fifteen. By fifteen, Alexander was apparently already serving as a deputy military commander for his father, a circumstance undermining, if inconclusively, the judgment of those historians who conjecture a longer period of tuition. Be that as it may, some suppose that their association lasted as long as eight years." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#AriLif). Also, according to Peter Green the letters are fake - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/alexfake.asp. Avner (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

This must've been discussed at great length before, but shouldn't the lead be slightly less explicit as to whether Alexander was necessarily 100% Greek? To my knowledge there is a significant scholarly debate on that subject. Ancient Macedonians were not considered Greeks, or at least their status as such was debatable both for them and for "Greeks proper". I know at least four historians who are quite explicit on the Macedonians being a different ethnicity. For the Greeks at the time it was a matter of some debate whether members of the Macedonian royal family should be allowed to join the Olympic games (the case of Alexander I). They did eventually allow them to participate, but there nonsense mythological claims like them being "descendants of Hercules" played a part for the bronze age people. The man was certainly "Hellenic", but it is a legitimate scholarly position that the family of Alexander did not, in fact, descend from Hercules (or move from Greece), and was, would you believe it - Ancient Macedonian rather than Greek proper. -- Director (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If, as you say, he was certainly Hellenic, then he was Greek. They are synonyms. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 04:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
In English use, that depends on the context. By say 100 BC practically the whole eastern Mediterranean was "Hellenic" in culture (and that would only increase until the Muslim conquest), would you say they were all Greeks? -- Director (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean Hellenistic. Hellenic and Greek are synonyms. ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 10:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said, not necessarily in English usage. What I propose is that we add "and Ancient Macedonian" to the lede. -- Director (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
In English usage, when are they not? ·ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ· 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
While reading-up on this I encountered the terms used in a slightly different sense. Now is that relevant to the issue at hand? -- Director (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 June 2012

i would like to edit where Alexander the Great was the king of Macedon now know as Macedonia and a macedonian translation of his name Bacondevil8 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

Perhaps the book of Daniel was not written in 165 BC, especially since the evidence used is so frail. Many such judgments have been given for various biblical books, one scholar writing prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was even convinced that Ecclesiastes was written during the reign of Herod the Great due to internal evidence (much of the same evidence used to place Daniel late). In any case, one shouldn't resort to a hypothesis, that Daniel was written late, as fact. Since Josephus does indeed narrate the episode as happening, one can simply put, "According to Josephus..." if that makes you feel better. Cornelius (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC

article states that " Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC" but aslo states he won wars of 343 334 and 326. needs to be revisited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.60.78 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

BC dates are counted backwards. He was born in 356 and died in 323. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

BBC Article and radio

Just spotted this BBC Article about Alexander viewed from a Persian perspective. Might be some bits of interest, also some links there to radio programme about history from persian perspective which almost certainly contain some more details. EdwardLane (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up successors and predecessors. Add Diodochi to succesors?

Hi all, the successors are not coming through in dbpedia. This may be because of the numeric designation (successor2, successor3, etc.). Please remove numeric designations if possible, and add a section for the Diodochi. In dbpedia, I should be able to to start with Alexander and crawl through the Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Antigonid kingdoms, but Alexander dead-ends with respect to successors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewg118 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What is "unmixed wine"?

Exactly what is unmixed wine? 98.236.31.128 (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The classical custom was to drink wine mixed/diluted with water (cf. Greek wine).  Roger Davies talk 05:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the Greeks liked to make fun of peoples who drank unmixed wine, they considered it barbaric. :) -- Director (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed they did. They believed that unmixed wine would make you drunk very quickly (true to one extend) and they considered drunkeness a sign of barbarism. So unmixed wine = drunkeness = barbarism. Arathian (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Alexander the great

Alexander the Great was a very strong man who fufilled his faters dream of taking over The Persan Empire. After Alexander took over persa he took over other cities. Alexander made a big empire and it would have been bigger if his army didn't want to go home. On his journey back he had greek ships follow on water as the walking troops walked acrossed the Gedrosian Desert. More information Alexander took his fathers throne when he was around 20 or 21 years old. Alexander was a great leader because aslong as people knew that he was their leasder he didn't care who or what they worshiped. Alexander respected hid troops and showed them that he is not afraid by going in the front of the troops in battle. Alexander died in babalon. Alexander had 2 wives and no kids. After his death his kingdom fell apart because his generals were fighting over power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelashadowlb8 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hephaestion

It seems a bit much to list Roxana of Bactria, Stateira II of Persia, and Parysatis II of Persia as spouses to Alexander, while not listing Hephaestion as life partner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.173.27.109 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

the first few lines

I don't see how the Greek etymology about the name "Alexander" belongs in the first sentence. It's especially misleading to me because I was looking for the etymology of the title "great." So unless somebody has a reason for keeping it up, it's coming down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyB88 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

LGBT category

Please read Alexander_the_Great#Personal_relationships. The categories of homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality/pederasty were already discussed and rejected as a minority view in Alexander scholarship:

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To call those views as "rejected" is rather nonsensical when you actually take the time to sift through those links and realize that many of those purported sources and arguments are highly dubious at best, some people spewing outright animus. If anything, what you posted is only further proof to how unsettled this debate is. What you don't seem to be aware of is that in no way has Alexander been referred to as "homosexual", but rather covered under the umbrella of Queer, which is a critical distinction that is not present in previous discussions. This ignoring the fact that many scholars indeed employ terms such as "homosexuality" when dealing with ancient civilizations, and, ironically enough, Wikipedia itself.
I will avoid an edit war that is being stirred, however. Readmanthepaper (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_19&oldid=1091473808"