Talk:Alexander the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleAlexander the Great has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
September 11, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Alexander the Great is NOT Dhul-Qarnayn[edit]

OzH349 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Dhul-Qarnayn is mentioned the Quran in Surah 18 and the Quran explicitly states that he believed in one God, which is not true for the Ancient Greeks. Dhul-Qarnayn is also knows as "Sikandar Dhul-Qarnayn" and many believe that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great of Persia. It is quite clear from the Quran that Dhul-Qarnayn built a wall to protect against Gog and Magog, and Alexander the Great built no such wall. Additionally, Dhul-Qarnayn literally means "two-horned" and Cyrus the Great is depicted as having a crown with two horns. Alexander the Great's life is quite well documented so it leaves no question that he is not Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Quran.

The name Sikandar in Persian/Arabic translates to Alexander in English is the source of most of this confusion. It is a common mistake as the name "Sikandar" means "ruler" and is often used as a title for a great ruler. Since Alexander the Great was a great ruler, he is called Sikandar-e-azam by Persian/Urdu speakers. The use of the name "Sikandar" is similar to how the word "Caeser" has been used. It became a title during the Roman empire and after the Roman empire's collapse it was used as a title by Byzantian rulers. The use of the word Kaiser has the same root.

The Caspian Gates in Derbent, often identified with the Gates of Alexander are again translated from the gates of "Sikandar" referring to Dhul-Qarnayn, not Alexander the Great.

This is presented as a fact in many places in Wikipedia and they should all be corrected. I will be happy to help.OzH349 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


@OzH349: The text of this article says Dhul-Qarnayn is "believed by some scholars to represent Alexander", and it is certainly true that some scholars believe that. Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Quran does not match the documented career of Alexander, but many scholars argue that the figure in the Quran is based on legends about Alexander that circulated in the Mediterranean and Middle East. Muslims find this argument objectionable because it implies that the Quran contains an error, and other possible sources of the story have been advanced, including Cyrus, as you can see at the article on Dhul-Qarnayn. But that's not really relevant in this article. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the opinions of reliable, scholarly sources. When there is significant disagreement among those sources, Wikipedia has to reflect the major points of view without treating one position or another as certain. This article's statement about Dhul-Qarnayn does exactly that, so I don't see that it needs to be changed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
That Dhul Qarnayn is derived from the legendary (not the historical) Alexander is the consensus among scholars. See the article Dhul Qarnayn for sources.PiCo (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You can find Quranic stories of Dhul-Qarnayn in Alexander section of the Shahnameh too. Dhul-Qarnayn is clearly Alexander the Great. Aryzad (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


Place of birth specification[edit]

Please add the following in Line 3, so people do not confuse Macedonia with the country "North Macedonia": "...He was born in Pella (Macedonia)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einserschüler (talkcontribs) 14:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Arrian on the physical appearance of Alexander the Great[edit]

Although the article allegedly quotes Arrian, there seems to be no solid evidence to my experience that he actually stated anything about heterochromia. Checking the sources cited, neither give a proper explanation of the location of this quote within Arrian's corpus. I would strongly recommend amending this article unless the actual quote can be found in Arrian's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4601:9E43:CC9B:1650:F70D:6DB1 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Accursed"[edit]

@HistoryofIran:, He is called the Great because he conquered the empire of the people whom call him the Accursed. Stop reverting. Aryzad (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

See my edit summary. If you want to expand about cute pejorative nicknames about him, please do it here [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Look, this is very easy. "The Great" is one side of the story, and "the Accursed" is the other side. Being his nickname in the west, doesn't make "the Great" more important. This is as important as "commonly known as Alexander the Great [in the west]", so the lead is where it should be. Can you explain why "we don't put pejorative nicknames in the lead"? There is no Parthian source about him. Aryzad (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
And that "commonly known as Alexander the Great" should be changed to "commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west" Aryzad (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No, because he is not commonly known as the "the Accursed". He is however, commonly known as "the Great." Him being mentioned as "the Accursed" in some Sasanian-Zoroastrian sources doesn't mean he was known by that by every Iranian/Zoroastrian. He wasn't viewed negatively in Parthian/Eastern Iranian oral story. In fact, overall he is seen more positively in Iranian history than negatively. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with the above. This is an attempt at pushing fringe Sasanian-Zoroastrian POV, which is among the most bizarre things I have ever seen. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both HistoryofIran and Khirurg. Dr. K. 22:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, if we shall put it simple, then when it comes to weighing possible contents of articles to each other then we generally let the article reflect, what is commonly accepted or considered as being important as to the subject in question. This at least applies for the language English, wich is the issue here.
A quick "Google-survey" of some of the topics or expressions debated shows a rather unanimous support for "Alexander the Great" as the commonly accepted expression when it comes to "Alexander of Macedonia":
"commonly known as Alexander the Great": Ca. 35.600 results
"commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west": No results found for "commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west".
"Alexander the Great": Ca. 17.400.000 results
"Alexander of Macedonia": Ca. 107.000 results
"Alexander the Accursed": Ca. 41.600 results
And just for the sake of clarification; it's not merely in "the West", that he is called Alexander the Great in various languages in "the East" (cetral and eastern parts of Asia) he is called something quiet similar as the expression in the "West":
Vietnamese: Alexandros Đại đế = Alexander the Great
Bahasa Indonesia: Aleksander Agung = Alexander the Great
Burmese: မဟာအလက်ဇန္ဒား = Alexander the Great
Nepali: अलेक्जेन्डर द ग्रेट = Alexander the Great
Punjabi: ਸਿਕੰਦਰ ਮਹਾਨ = Alexander the Great
Thai: อเล็กซานเดอร์มหาราช = Alexander the Great
Tagalog: Alejandro ang Dakila = Alexander the Great Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aryzad: King Alexandros III of Makedonia is commonly known in English as "Alexander the Great"; he is virtually never referred to as "Alexander the Accursed"—or at least not in English. Regardless of whether you think he should be called "Alexander the Accursed," the fact remains that he is almost never called this, so we have no justification to call him this in the first paragraph of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for you to right great wrongs. If you think Alexander the Great should be more commonly known as "Alexander the Accursed," you are welcome to write your own book or article advocating in favor of people calling him this. If you can provide citations to reliable, modern, scholarly sources explicitly stating that Alexander the Great is mentioned in Persian sources as "Alexander the Accursed," then you are even welcome to mention the nickname "Alexander the Accursed" in one of the later sections in the body of the article where it makes sense to mention it in context, but we have no justifiable reason to mention an obscure Sassanian nickname for Alexander the Great in the first paragraph of the article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: @Khirurg: @Oleryhlolsson: I think you guys don't know what is the point. I've never said he is commonly as "Alexander the Accursed". I've said he is known in the Zoroastrian and ancient Iranian sources as "Alexander the Accursed". The point is that he is known as "the Great" because he conquered an Iranian empire, but this is one side of the story. People of that empire called him "Alexander the Accursed", and this is the other side of the story. And there is no reason that makes his name in the texts of the winner side more important than his name in the texts of the loser side. Aryzad (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Aryzad, here are my concerns on your edit.[2] a)First of all, you do not go straight to the introduction to add sourced material. Nope. The intro should summarize the main body of the article. So, if you would like something to be inserted to the article, just add it to the main body, wait for some period to stabilize and then, if it is important, add a quick comment on the intro. That is a general rule. Have a look at this guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. b)In case you would like to add something in the main body, it has to be sourced and neutral. Have a look here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. c) My final comment is that if you would like to add the view of the persians (or others), I would suggest you look into the Alexander's literature (scholarly articles or books) and find the appropriate material. It would be much more interesting to add some words about it without adjectives having a pivotal role. Cinadon36 13:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Cinadon36: 1) It is already explained in the article. In Alexander_the_Great#In_ancient_and_modern_culture 2) I used the academic sources, there academic sources in fact. And it is neutral. I didn't said he is an evil man. I said he is known as Alexander the Accursed in some sources. It is definitely more neutral than saying "He is commonly known as Alexander the Great"; While he is known that way only in the west.
Anyway, I don't want to add it to the article anymore, since there are so many people against it. Aryzad (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As I explained in my previous comment, it's not merely in "the West" that the expression "the Great" is used. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019[edit]

Under Section Persia - following the sentance "Possible causes include a drunken accident or deliberate revenge for the burning of the Acropolis of Athens during the Second Persian War by Xerxes". Add that "A servant named Thais was the inistigator of buring of Perspolis according to historians Diodorus Siculus ((90-21 BCE)and Quintus Curtius Rufus (41-54 CE)."

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Source: Alexander the Great & the Burning of Perspolis, Joshua J. Mark, Ancient History Encyclopedia, February 2011 Xpen2000 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)