Talk:Alexander the Great

Nationality of Alexander If you are editing this page to contest the nationality of Alexander, then please check first the archives for past discussions. There is a "recurrent topics" lists that you can consult. Remember to use reliable sources for your claims. Please remember that this is an article about ancient times and not about modern times, so discussions about Republic of Macedonia are off-topic here.

Meaning of the name

As the meaning of the name Philip is in the page of Alexander's father (friend+horse = φίλος+άλογο=φίλιππος)shouldn't here be Αλέξανδρος from άλεξ+ανδρός=αλέξανδρος which means protector+man???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.193.141 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not exceptionally important, but we could add it, eg as a footnote. Antipastor (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Antipastor (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the name Αλέξανδρος comes from ancient Greek Αλέξω + Άνδρας (alexo + andras). Αλέξω as a verb means to protect/shield/block/guard and it is used in modern Greek in composite words such as Αλεξικέραυνο (αλέξω + κεραυνός) = Lightning rod, αλεξίσφαιρο (αλέξω + σφαίρα) = bullet proof item. Άνδρας (andras) means man, thus Αλέξανδρος means the protector/guardian of man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.158.146.164 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The etymology of "Alexander" is VERY important (gives a very sound answer to the flame about his nationality). Some people do their best to hide it and they constantly removing it from this article.147.102.160.27 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really of big importance here and, anyway, there is an article Alexander about the name and its etymology. A Macedonian (talk) 13:01, 18 October 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)

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)

Alexander the Great New Research-Are His Mummified Remains in Gortynia-Arkadia, Greece?

In 2008, a theory proposed by Classicist, Hellenic historian and researcher Christos A. Mergoupis, states that the mummified remains of Alexander the Great (not his actual tomb), may in fact be located in Gortynia-Arkadia, in the Peloponnesus of Greece. Since 2008, the new research is an ongoing work in progress and is still being currently conducted in Greece. The research was first mentioned on CNN International in May 2008.

Alexander the Great New Research-Are His Mummified Remains in Gortynia-Arkadia, Greece?

Alexander the Great Discovery-New Important Research Conducted in Greece

It’s amazing how no one picked up on this story before and added it to the article. If you believe it to be worthy enough to be added, please do so. The new research makes for a very good argument that Alexander’s remains may in fact be in Greece.

(Dioseus86xm (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

Too fringe. It seems claims of having found Alexanders tomb or remains crop up every year. If the results are accepted by the mainstream academia (which I highly doubt), then it will be time to add something about it in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for following up here instead of continuing on my talkpage. This way more editors can see your proposed edit and comment on it. I think what you are proposing to add to the article is just a theory. In my opinion, until it gets accepted by the mainstream academia it is too speculative to add here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a new section and/or separate page article that is entitled "Theories and Ongoing Research About Alexander the Great?" It would not hinder the validity of the encyclopedia page of Alexander the Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioseus86xm (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, a separate section would include various ongoing theories and research about Alexander's life. For instance, the 2010 new theory about his death being caused by water from the River Styx was included in the main article. The theory is unproven and unverified by academia, thus, it should be included in a separate section, just like any other theory/ongoing research about Alexander the Great.Dioseus86xm (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. And no, unproven theories are not welcome in Wikipedia at least inside a mainstream article such as this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Euxaristo Dr.K. Mono na katalavoume pws O Alexandros einai panw apo olous mas. Oti ereunes uparxoun tou aksizei na dw8oun ston kosmo pou den xeroun to megaleio tou.Dioseus86xm (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry dio, that may be important, by it would be more useful in English IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Dioseus86xm is a very civil interlocutor. He wrote a nice message thanking me and mentioning that we have to understand that Alexander is above us all and that people should know about research on topics centering on Alexander so that they can understand his greatness. I agree fully with this point and I hope that in the future this fascinating research topic becomes notable enough to be included along with the other theories or even in its own article. I also thank Dioseus86xm for his civility and understanding. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to the translation Dr. K. Once again, I want to warmly thank you and others on Wikipedia (editors and contributors). It is always good to know, that there are individuals who are dedicated to protecting the legacy of Alexander by carefully verifying all information (theories, proven facts, research, etc.) that should or shouldn't be included in such a very important, mainstream article. On behalf of myself and others, who are trying to protect such a great legacy as Alexander's (by trying to have other individuals know about various topics/research being discussed about Alexander), the effort is always greatly appreciated. Thank you.Dioseus86xm (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.110.229.70, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

69.110.229.70 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC) In the section "Death & Succession", under "Possible Causes" in "Poison", in the very last sentence, "...bacteria present its waters.", should be replaced with "...bacteria present in its waters.".

Later in the section "Influence on Rome", in the second sentence, "...saw him as his role model..." should be replaced with "...saw him as their role model..."

Tom Gleason (I don't know how to type tilds.)

Thanks. Done.--Charles (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

Following his desire to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea", he invaded India in 326 BC, but was eventually forced to turn back by the near-mutiny of his troops, who feared the military might of the Northern Indian kingdoms.

There are many explanations of the Alexander's retreat. One of them was not fearing the military might of anyone, rather the poor physical state and weariness of his troops exhausted by long marches through Afganistan mountains and the Indian north.--71.163.226.233 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right... This article often gets such comments by editors who want to overstress how mighty the Indians were then and how terrified Alexander and his men were... how in reality he was a vassal of Porus and how the poor Macedonians run for their lives from Punjub... and without saying that the men of Alexander did not respect the Indian might and were not afraid of having to give more battles, this surely was not the only nor the main reason for their mutiny. GK (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)