Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Anaxarchus pointing to Alexander's blood as a sign he was mortal

Someone added a bit about Anaxarchus pointing to Alexander's blood as a sign he was mortal. But according to another tradition, Alexander himself had once pointed to it when someone else claimed it was ichor, so a reminder as a check to his divine aspirations seems a little odd. Any stories about Alexander have to be examined carefully. Does someone have a reference for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh Grosse (talk • contribs) 02:06, January 23, 2002 (UTC.

Haven't heard that one. I've added a bunch of stuff here from Arrian and Plutarch, and it's compatible with Peter Green's discussion of the Diadochoi (for the most part) in Alexander to Actium. I've tried to make this a bit more NPOV, as it seemed just a little too surprised that someone might see Alexander in any but the most positive of all possible lights. -- Blain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blain (talk • contribs) 16:07, January 25, 2002 (UTC).

Changed Macedonia link to Macedon

Changed Macedonia link to Macedon; ancients didn't call their land Macedonia, and the entry we have on "Macedonia" isn't useful for Alexander. Should probably have an article on Macedon, and take the one sentence about Alexander out of Macedonia, maybe with a "see also." Vicki Rosenzweig 08:30, February 15, 2002 (UTC)

IIRC, the kingdom was Macedon, but it became Macedonia when conquered by the Romans. --Townmouse 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly have a problem with Macedon/Macedonia, but don't the naming conventions suggest that articles be named based on their most popular usage, rather than their most correct usage (if there's a difference)? Perhaps using Macedonia to refer to recent history and Macedon for ancient history would work (with "see also" back and forth)? -- Blain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blain (talk • contribs) 15:51, February 25, 2002 (UTC)

My native language is Greek and I can assure you that Macedon and Macedonia is the same thing. Macedonia is the "modern" way to say Macedon. Maybe you should change back the link to Macedonia from Macedon. If the article about Macedonia is not informative enough you could always change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.170.0.25 (talk • contribs) 08:54, March 4, 2002 (UTC)

Just a note about the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander

Just a note about the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander. Those two were two different personalities and they used to clash a lot but Alexander did something that makes me wonder if their relationship was as bad as people think today. While he was invading Asia he would send to his teacher all new and interesting animals that he would incounter in his expedition because he knew that old Aristotle was almost obsessed with the classification of things. The result was that Aristotle formed a kind of a zoo back in Macedonia from the gifts of his student. Now, if young Alexander was so sick of his teacher why did he bother? --Eanorel, 08:45, March 5, 2002

Good point. I think Alexander was complicated enough that trying to determine who he liked and who he didn't (and which was safer) isn't all that easy. He was known to treat his enemies rather well and to kill his friends when they ticked him off. I think he might have respected Aristotle and just not wanted to spend time around him anymore. Just a thought -- Blain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.252.237.47 (talk • contribs) 22:50, March 20, 2002 (UTC)

The most recent edits to this article are very strange

The most recent edits to this article are very strange. Why change Egypt to "Pgypt"?? Why delete the paragraphs that were deleted? Can someone give me a reality check on this? -- April —Preceding unsigned comment added by -- Apri (talk • contribs) l10:02, April 22, 2002 (UTC)

Hephaestion

Need more on Hephaestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.234 (talk • contribs) 20:31, October 8, 2002 (UTC)

I second this. Lizzie 05:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Erotomenes?

RE Erotomenes:

1) Am I spelling this correctly? 2) Am I using this correctly? 3) We probably should have an entry on this, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.234 (talk • contribs) 20:32, October 8, 2002 (UTC)

UPDATE:

Should be Eromenos. Apparently implies a young (or "younger than" man), so probably not appropriate for Hephaestion, who was apparently the same age as Alexander or slightly older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.234 (talk • contribs) 20:45, October 8, 2002 (UTC)

Gordian Knot?

Perhaps this could use a passing mention of the Gordian Knot? One of the anecdotes of his life more commonly used in metaphor. --JohnOwens 15:16 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

I think this page should be moved to Alexander III of Macedon

I think this page should be moved to Alexander III of Macedon (is that right)? because native people of areas around Persia do not consider him to be "the Great." They really dont like him and think he's "the Terrible". -fonzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonzy (talk • contribs) 19:32, March 2, 2003 (UTC)

His name is Alexander the Great, regardless of what you actually think of the man. At the time, different kings of the same name were not given numbers as they are now, but were given sobriquets. For instance, Demetrius the Besieger, Seleucus the Victor, Ptolemy the Savior. It would be silly to argue that Demetrius wasn't really a capable besieger or that Ptolemy wasn't actually a savior, and the same situation applies here. It should be noted, though, that the other kings are typically referred to by number, so perhaps Alexander should be moved for consistency sake - but not because "the Great" is NPOV. --Josh Grosse 20:38, March 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree -- we shouldn't start calling Charlemagne "Charle," either. Slrubenstein 20:56, March 2, 2003 (UTC)

Why would i want to move Charlemagne to Charle?? Anyway I still think it should move ok, to me it does not mean anything but native people of those areas don't consider him "great." There he's not called Alexander the Great. I can't remember exactly what they call him. But names like Edward the Confessor are not as (abit?) an issue, as it's not really implying anything. But he was called the Great because the people who named him that believed that he was. -fonzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonzy (talk • contribs) 11:17, March 3, 2003 (UTC)

It would be absurd to rename the page. This is covered by policy already: "best known common name". Now Google isn't the be-all and end-all, sure, but are you seriously contemplating moving to a name that gets 306 Google hits from one that gets 199,000? Tannin 11:43 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

We shouldn't change the name, but I think we should change the sentence Alexander is remembered as a legendary hero in Europe and much of western and central Asia, where he is known as Iskander. fonzy is I believe correct about Alexander's reputation in western Asia. Incidentally, even referring to a monarch by number can be NPOV, e.g. Napoleon III, or Elizabeth II of Scotland. --Townmouse 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can anybody state the refference for his birthday in June?

Can anybody state the refference for his birthday in June? Are you sure about this? Because i remember reading in Plutrach that he was of the sign of Leo (21 July - 21 August), and he wore a lion ring all of his life. Muriel Gottrop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muriel Gottrop (talk • contribs) 10:32, March 28, 2003 (UTC)

I am afraid the reference is again Plutarch. He states that Alexander was born at the same night Herostratus burned the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Since that event is placed on June 21 , 356 in wikipedia's timelines so does Alexander's birth. See if placement needs correcting. User: Dimadick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.225.67 (talk • contribs) 15:54, April 15, 2003 (UTC)

You were right. Most sites about Alexander place his birth on July, 356 and those trying to assign dates use either July 20 or July 26. I'll change the birth date and the burning according to your info. Thanks. User: Dimadick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.225.67 (talk • contribs) 16:08, April 15, 2003 (UTC)

see Alexander the Great (pl) : http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Macedo%C5%84ski LINK Macedonii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.16.191 (talk • contribs) 13:06, April 27, 2003 (UTC)

Date of Alexander's birth July 26 ?? sources: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t32.html and http://www.infoephesus.com/templeofartemis.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.150.10 (talk • contribs) 14:13, July 6, 2003 (UTC)

Formatting

Table formatting replaced with "div" formatting

File:Alexander the great 1.jpg
Contemporary bust of Alexander the Great

.. Rednblu 03:02 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Body taken to Egypt?

Does anyone know if his body was taken by Ptolemy I to Egypt?

--ciaran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.246.205.191 (talk • contribs) 18:46, August 21, 2003 (UTC)

Conquered Sparta?

I learned in my HIS 101 class that Alexander the Great inherited the conquered Greek city-states, but that Sparta was not yet conquered, so he conquered Sparta then went on to conquer Persia. Is this fact or fiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.154.225 (talk • contribs) 06:23, December 9, 2003 (UTC)

He did not conquer Sparta. Sparta was not part of Philip's League of Corinth, but was quiescent. Upon Alexander's accession, he marched north to deal with some northern tribes. Rumors came back that he was dead. Thebes revolted, and he put down the revolt with prejudice. Then he went off to Persia. Antipater was left as regent, and during that time had to deal with a war with Sparta, which he won. Sparta never did join the league, though. john 06:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify the Sparta situation. The number knowledgeable people on Wikipedia amazes me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.154.225 (talk • contribs) 08:46, December 10, 2003 (UTC)

Inherited a conquered Greece?

Something that surprised me was the article's statement that he inherited a conquered Greece, and began his campaigns at the Dardannelles. (Well, I may have it wrong, but that is the impression I received.) What about him pacifying the revolts on the two sides of the Danube, and the subjugation of Thebes and selling its leading citizens into slavery; are those stories not historical? Pagan 07:47, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Date of his death June 11 not 10

This page http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t41.html makes a good case for June 11 being the date of Alexander's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.140.211 (talk • contribs) 11:25, June 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have seen referenced to his death as June 13. Why the confusion? --Eoghanacht 20:31, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Corrections

I've corrected many misspellings (dont think anyone will disagree).
The Kingdom of Macedon was part of Classical Greece. Im giving a map (two links, same map):

http://www.wls.wels.net/conted/Science/Classical%20Greece.jpg http://www.wellesley.edu/ClassicalStudies/CLCV104/images/classical_greece.gif Please don't mix Athens with Greece.

Epirus was not wild, nor semi(!)greek

-Stefka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.185.182.214 (talk • contribs) 15:57, June 19, 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration

What do people think about transliteration? I'd like to get Alexander entirely in one system. Having one part of the bio talk of "Isokrates," and another "Cleopatra" gives me the willies. The prevalent system in this article is the "conventional" English-through-Latin scheme, eg., Athens (not Athenai), Ptolemy (not Ptolemaios), etc. This is still the dominant way--probably in academia and certainly on the Web, where public domain translations from earlier eras abound. The rule can have exceptions--I prefer to make a "minor" Ptolemy into a Ptolemaios to avoid confusion--but there would still be a rule.

Any objections? If I went through changing everything to the "conventional" system, will it get changed back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.133.143 (talk • contribs) 05:42, June 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia policy is to use the naming that most English speakers know. Cleopatra is not Kleopatra. Isokrates is not Isocrates. Are you going to change Alexander to Aleksandros? RickK 05:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

That's jumbled. "Isocrates" is the better known (Google 20,600 vs 4,760). The K is Isokrates is the same letter (a kappa) in Kleopatra; these went into Latin as Cs, and this is the better-known form. Forms like Isokrates, Kleopatra, Alexandros, Ptolemaios, etc. reproduce the Greek spelling better, at the expense of being unfamiliar (and a bit exotic) to most readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.133.143 (talk • contribs) 13:15, June 29, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the most common spelling be used, with redirects where necssary? Isocrates has an article; Isokrates does not even have a redirect. I have changed it. Are any other of the other names not "conventional"? The only one I can see is Parmenio who I know as Parmenion, but, again, there is no article for Parmenion so perhaps my education is at fault! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But nobody would recognize Kleopatra. Leave it at Cleopatra, and if you need to, explain the transliteration in the article about her. RickK 18:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, I suggest removing the section headlined "Names used for Alexander the Great in different parts of the world." This seems to be a pointless exercise and the article is already rather long and digressive. Should one point out that in Spain Charlemagne is known as Carlomagno and New York as Nueva York, or that the current English monarch is referred to as Isabelle II in France? (Actually old Spanish encyclopaedias took this further and translated all given names, making George Washington into Jorge Washington, and so on.) -- Eb.hoop 2:05 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed that section. Besides my objection above, the forms of the name in other languages are already discussed in Alexander. Here's what I cut out:

Names used for Alexander the Great in different parts of the world

Because of the diversity of the conquered lands, Alexander the Great was known by different names, if not in his time then in the stories passed down in generations since then.

Greek: ho Megas Alexandros (ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) or, more formally, Alexandros III ho Makedon (Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδόν): "Alexander the Great" or, more formally, "Alexander III of Macedon";; also Alexandros Philipou: "Alexander the son of Philip."
Albania: Aleksander , Lek meaning "Born as a dream" (Ai-ka-le-si-ander)
Central Asia: Iskander
Arab world and parts of India: Sikandar or Iskander (see the Iraqi city of Iskandariya, also called Sikandariyeh)
Parts of India: Alakshendra
Poland: Aleksander Macedoński
Russia: Александр Македонский (pronounced "Aleksandr Macedonski" literally means Alexander of Macedonia)
Spain: Alejandro

--Eb.hoop 12:02 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Romance

I added a bit about the Alexander Romance. How do we go about getting a separate entry for it? To describe it correctly--I didn't describe it's contents at al!--would range very far from the historical Alexander. Lectiodifficilior 04:57, June 29, 2004 (UTC)

Aristander of Telmessus

I added a note about Aristander of Telmessus being the seer who interpreted Philip's dream, and then went ahead and wrote a very full article on this fascinating individual. I wrote it with the intention of condensing a talk I gave on Aristander, which I will probably never get up on the web. As such, it pushes the edge of what's published about Aristander. It would be interesting to see if other's take it up. Lectiodifficilior 07:45, July 5, 2004 (UTC)

"medizing"

In the "character" section, Alexander is described as "medizing". I don't know this word, and I suspect most nonexperts in ancient history don't either. A Google search reveals it has something to do with Persia, but I can't find a clear definition. Could somebody clarify this? --Shibboleth 23:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It means "becoming like a Persian." Greeks conflated the Medes and the Persians. In Greek history it generally means either bending foreign policy (ie., "Finlandizing") or, as here, adopting suspect non-Greek habits (ie., "going native"). Lectiodifficilior 00:22, July 31, 2004 (UTC)

Greek etymology, Albanian nationalism

I reverted with slight changes the Albanian-language changes of 81.242.229.199. Alexander was half Epirote, the probable ancestors of the modern Albanians, but "Alexandros" is a perfectly normal, explicable, common and extremely ancient Greek name. (Not only was "Alexander" a Macedonian dynastic name before Epirotes married in, but the Trojan individual known to most Westerners as "Paris" was generally known in Greek as "Alexander.") By contrast the Albanian explanation ("born like a dream") is a folk etymology, and based on modern Albanian. Ancient Epirote--about which we know almost nothing--was surely quite different from modern Albanian. 2,300 years is a very long time, particularly as Albanian was not fixed in written form until the Renaissance.

To be fair, I also moved the Greek etymology "Defender or Men" down the page. As stated, the etymology is not particularly important. Greeks no more thought "Oh, he's a defender of men" when they met an Alexander as Germans think "Oh, he's a forest of fir trees" when they meet a Tannenwald, or American's think about barrel-making when they meet someone with the last name "Cooper." Lectiodifficilior 00:15, July 31, 2004 (UTC)

--- Beyond that everybody knows that Alexander's native language wasn't the greek but an uknown language that the greeks called 'barbaric language'. Which kind of language was?

In Balkan there are only two old and unic languages, Albanian and Greek.

Greek nationalism considere Macedonia as part of Greece, even thought they know that the ancient Macedonians didn't speak Greek, they still don't speak Greek, and also there are no Greeks living there. According to Albanian etymology 'Emadhia', the great land, seems to be Macedonia. This is like 'Shqiperia', the country of Eagles, is called Albania.

The facts are that the majority of people living in Macedonia are ethnic Albanians, an nation as old as the Greeks at least, and the second majority of people living there are Slavics who came in Balkan about the 7-8 century A.C.

Still today some greeks keep calling Albanian language 'barbaric language' because they don't know it, many people don't know it and ignore it, it is easier like that. As we still don't know today what was the native language that Alexander the Great used to speak to his troops before the battels...

Andi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.185.77 (talk • contribs) 05:22, April 14, 2005 (UTC)

this is false, it is almost certain Ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect Greek. Just because the Athenians regarded the language as the "barbaric" it does not mean the language they spoke was not Greek. All writings on Ancient Macedonian coins and artifcacts are in Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.176.133 (talk • contribs) 10:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Diadochi

The section on the Diadochi ought to be pruned severely, since it's only semi-literate and better described elsewhere anyway. Stan 21:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I and others have had a go at tidying it, but I agree - most of it should be merged into Diadochi - are there any other obvious overlaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

greec terminology

as far as i know, the comander of the cavaliry is "hiparchus" (from hippo - horse) and not "chiliarchos" as it is written. gilgamesh_he 08:48, August 15, 2004 (UTC)

misstatements, misrepresentations and presentations of speculation and/or unreliable source accounts

There are so many misstatements, misrepresentations and presentations of speculation and/or unreliable source accounts as fact in this entry that it's difficult to know where to begin correcting them - and, at the moment, I'm unwilling to make the effort at correcting them, given the amount of time that would be required. Nonetheless, if this is representative of what a Wiki encyclopedia has to offer, it's a damning indictment of the whole notion of open source history.

Here are just three examples:

In the Early Life section, the contention that Alexander was responsible for spreading the "legends" (more properly "logos" or stories - legends are folklore, not propaganda) about Zeus fathering him. (Virtually this entire section is from Plutarch, btw.) The evidence for this viewpoint is shaky, mostly relies on hostile sources and is not generally accepted by historians. The most likely original sources of these stories are Callisthenes, his official campaign historian, or, especially, Onesicritus, his chief helmsman and author of a lost work entitled "The Education of Alexander" that was infamous for its many inventions and wild exaggerations.

In the Period of Conquests section, it is stated as fact that Alexander was proclaimed Pharoah by the priests of Amon. In fact, no such statement is attributed to the high priest of the Libyan deity Ammon by any of the sources, although, according to several of the source historians, the high priest greeted him with the words "O Paidos", which translates as "O Son of God". He is specifically said to have been crowned as Pharoah at Memphis ONLY in the Alexander Romance, which is not considered a reliable source in any way by any one.

In the Death section, the absurd speculation of the unnamed New Scotland Yard detective is presented as definitive. In fact, the described symptoms of Alexander's death do not in any way conform to those of hellebore poisoning and the poisoning theory is universally deprecated by modern historians. In the article "A Mysterious Death" in The New England Journal of Medicine, 38:1764-1769 (June 11), 1998, Eugene N. Borza (one of the most respected scholars of Alexander and Macedon of the 20th Century), David W. Oldach, M.D. (then Professor of Pathology at the University of Maryland Medical School), Robert E. Richard, M.D., Ph.D., and R. Michael Benitez M.D. (both also of the UM Med School) present a compelling case for Salmonella typhi enteritis, complicated by bowel perforation and ascending paralysis as the cause of Alexander's Death. Oldach's analysis notes, "If ascending paralysis developed during the course of Alexander's fatal febrile illness (presumably typhoid fever), this paralysis may have given the impression of death before it actually occurred," in addressing the stories in both Curtius and Arrian that Alexander's body showed no signs of corruption after several days of being locked in his bedroom at the height of the Babylonian summer.

There are any number of other, similar problems with this article - far too many for me to correct at the moment. However, I think you should definitely add Plutarch's "Life of Alexander" (particularly in view of the fact that the Early Life section is drawn almost entirely from that work), as well as the Roman rhetor Justin's "Epitome of the Phillipic History of Pompeius Trogus" and the Roman geographer Strabo's "Geography" to your list of Ancient Sources. - Thom Stark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.158.127 (talk • contribs) 15:32, September 17, 2004 (UTC)

Response: Callisthenes was comissioned to write by Alexander and he spread stories of Alexander's divine parentage at Alexander's behest so I feel obliged to correct you on that one. The Pharoah was the son of god so I think you are being slightly faceatious. Many historians have chosen to interpret the high priests words in that manner. E.A.B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.37.102 (talk • contribs) 10:27, October 14, 2005 (UTC)

I just couldn't stand the misinformation on this page, so I made time to correct most of the errors. I have also cited Plutarch's actual text for the discussion of Alexander's birth and origins, expanded the discussion of the Central Asian campaign and the death of Darius, added two of the primary sources and fine-tuned some of the grammar.

- Thom Stark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.192.213 (talk • contribs) 03:26, September 21, 2004 (UTC)

In general, this is good, thanks! In a couple places, you added "some historians" or "most historians", but without (presumably modern) attributions, so I don't know what books to go buy. :-) Ancient authors are fun, but only moderns, Peter Green for instance, are in a position to tell us who to believe. Stan 04:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Homosexual, or not?

The summary mentions he was homosexual, but that word never even occurs in the rest of the article. If it's important enough to be in the summary, you'd think it would make the main article. 170.35.224.64 18:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No kidding. The question of Alexander's sexuality is even in the news at the moment, thanks to Oliver Stone's film. There should be at least a paragraph explaining why Alexander is believed by some to have been homosexual. The Singing Badger 21:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a whole section on 'Alexander's marriages and sexuality' now. --mav 16:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered today that a homophobic anonymous user (64.12.116.13) had deleted many sources refering to Alexander's sexuality. Fortunately, there's always the history system so that we can restore old stuff :-) --dionyziz 10:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no known evidence that Alexander was homosexual. He was a king and had a public presence. Any problems would have destabilized his kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.37.117 (talk • contribs) 06:35, October 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, anonymous. It's 98% certain that Alexander the Great was bisexual, and he most likely preferred men. A number of sources discuss this. "No evidence" is a strawman argument, unless you expect photos of his homosexual liasons to surface on the internet. Alexander 007 01:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Furhtermore, what are these "problems" to which you refer? In the time of Alexander, there would certainly not have been controversy over most of his alleged affairs with men. If this is what you meant, I don't really see your argument. Please explain. Hinakana 19:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don t get it. All archaelogical evidence show that Greeks practiced in their majority bisexuality (not homosexuality), so why bothering explainig that even thow he had a wife and women in his bed, he was homosexual? Who can interpret a bisexual society with modern terms of sexuality? I think it would be great to have an articel on ancient greek sexuality, so that the articles about ancient greek people and society can be placed in a better frame.88.7.64.204 (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

Many modern Greeks and Macedonian Slavs are outraged at such suggestions

has any sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaen (talk • contribs) 23:41, November 23, 2004 (UTC)

Alexander sources and legend

The sources and legend sections were removed somewhat earlier without discussion. Considering how major the revision and how many people worked on those sections I'm surpirsed this slipped by. I think they should be reinstated, and have done so. I think we should also reconstitute the "Alexander in Popular Culture." Stripped of the sources, legend and cultural impact, this is merely a narrow biography, full of errors and arguable claims. Wikipedia will never be perfect, but it shouldn't be narrow.

Sources

Without a section on the sources, we are left with a bare list of two sources, one only in Latin. But Plutarch, Diodorus, Arrian and Justin are *all* now fully online in English translations. More importantly, you simply cannot write a "biography" of Alexander--indeed of most ancient figures--without some reference to the source tradition. Alexander isn't Napoleon or some other absurdly well-documented modern; what we know about him is intimately tied to what ancient authorities said about him. The removal of the any sense of a source tradition is particularly bad in light of some of the decisions, eg., that Roman-era schoolboy exercise the "Letter of Diogenes" given as if it were a contemporary document. For shame! We might as well include Lucian's conversations with the dead Alexander.

Legend

Alexander is one of the world's great culture heroes—a hero to Jews, a prophet to Muslims, subject of one of the most widely-read works of literature, the Alexander Romance, etc. etc.. To eschew mention of this in favor of a lengthy and variably reliable list of his actions is myopic.

Sexuality changes

I changed a few things in the sexuality section and will change more unless citations are forthcoming. There is some very sketchy evidence being put forward as gospel. For example, where does Athenaeus say that Alexander was a "wild paederast"? Give me chapter and verse here.

Changes to Aelian: (1) Hephaestion did not "show" that he was Alexander's lover, he "intimated" it. The verb is ainittomai, to speak in riddles, to intimate. Wilson's Loeb translation is as follows "Note that Alexader laid a wreath at Achilles' tomb and Hephaestion on Patroclus', hinting that he was the object of Alexander's love, a Patroclus was of Achilles." In Greek "Hoti Alexandros ton Achilleos taphon estephanose kai Hephaistion ton tou Patroklou, ainittomenos hoti kai autos en eromenos tou Alexandrou, hosper Achilleos ho Patroklos." (2) "Alexander's lover" to "the object of Alexander's love." Aelian uses the word "eromenos." In conventional Greek pederasty, the "erastes" is the older guy, the "eromenos" the younger. The erastes "does the loving" (use your imagination here), the eromenos receives it. Now, it may well be true that Hephaestion and Alexander had a more equal love. It is often suggested that the scandal, if there was one, was that Alexander had a "lover" his own age, the implication being that Alexander both gave and *received* sexually, the latter being shameful, particularly from an inferior. Or it may be the case, as some have argued, that Macedonians engaged in same-age homosexual relationships without the stigma usually attached to that in southern Greek regions. The fact is,however, that Aelian uses a word with a specific meaning, eromenos.

The Letter of Diogenes. This one is making the rounds a lot. It must be stopped. Classicists are united in thinking the letter a much later rhetorical exercise, not a real letter by the Cynic Philosopher. The whole collection of Diogenes' letters falls into that category. See, for example, OCD2 on "Letters, Greek": "(2) Letters, for the most part spurious, attributed to persons of note, which owe their survival to the general interest of their contents or the reputations of their supposed authors. The spurious letters are sometimes real forgeries; more often they are school exercises or ivnentions intended to illustrate the characters of famous men. … the second sort is chiefly the product of the period 100 BC - AD 200, amongs them those of Anacharsis..., Hippocrates, and Diogenes the Cynic." Now, these letters reference current opinions and may contain contemporary information, but they are not direct sources on the matter.

Lastly, if you want the quotes by Eumenes of Cardia and Athenaeus to stay in, please provide a citation. I think they are, at best, quotes describing something in these authors.

Generally, I am not being hostile to those who claim Alexander was homosexual. I basically agree, so long as ancient sexual mores are understood. But I don't think anything is gained by twisting evidence.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilior (talk • contribs) 00:29, December 14, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alexander_the_Great article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alexander_the_Great}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Complaints

It's appalling to see that most of the authors/editors of this entry have chosen to use pseudohistory and slanderers as their sources. Too bad no one has EVER read J.F.C. Fuller's "The Generalship of Alexander The Great"? It's the best single historical account, and also goes and scrutinizes Alexander's policy and strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.99.178 (talk • contribs) 20:02, December 30, 2004 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexander the Great/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

References section should be redone so items referenced in notes are in a References section not in External links plange 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)