Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Biblical references to Alexander

I don't think the article on Alexander is complete without referring to the Bibilical prophesies of the book of Daniel, chapter 8. The passage is quite clear and I don't know of anyone that disputes it is directly referring to Alexander's destruction of the Media-Persian empire - regardless of whether they believe it was written as prophesy or history. The writing in Daniel points to being written in 600BC or before, and even those who believe it was postdated would put it within 100 to 200 years of Alexanders reign.

Regardless of ones viewpoint on the Bible, the historical relevance of books, particularly ones such as Daniel, is unquestioned. The fact that Alexander is referred to specifically in the Bible is rare for anyone outside the history of ancient Israel.

This is particularly true if the portion on the Quran's (very sketchy) references to Alexander are retained in the article. At best this is hearsay on the Daniel legend written nearly a century after the fact, and therefore offers little historical merit.

In Alexander (disambiguation), it is written as Alexander the Great (336-323BC) it should be 356-323BC

Yes, this is an excellent point. But there's not enough said about Alexander in the Bible to create a sub-topic. Perhaps it would be best as a trivia point or as something noted in some other related section. Jtpaladin 15:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

-- 1 Maccabees chapter 1, verses 1 - 7 contains a satisfying very clear account about Alexander occupying the area. But I just found out not all versions of the Bible does not contain the Books of the Maccabees but the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition do. The King James Version of the Bible also have The First Book of the Maccabees.Jpogi 03:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cant place citation

I put the quote from Arrian in a few months ago and now realise I should have given a citation. Now the page is locked I can't make good my error. Can whoever still has rights put the following citation against the quotation of Arrian at the end of the greek and latin source section: 'The Campaigns of Alexander', Arrian, Book One, Page 12.

My version is the Penguin Classics edition (ISBN 0-140-44253-7) from the translation by Aubrey De Selincourt

(its on page 67 in this edition, I'm not sure of the citation protocol in Wikipedia so I have given both 'sources') Harecourt 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

>>>Funny not to find references to 'Alexander' by Theodorus Dodge. A very readable history.

Question

Why is this protected? Hawk27 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Star of Vergina

"It originated from the vergina tombs on a golden casket from the tomb of Philip, father of Alexander The Great. But this archaeological find had already long been a part of Greek identity - causing a massive diplomatic row""

"Similar abuses occurred during the Balkans conflicts following Yugoslavia's break-up - not just in Macedonia, but throughout the region, argued Stasa Babic of Belgrade University"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3372117.stm

Alexander's demands regarding Demosthenes in 335 BC

The article use to say that, following the razing of Thebes in 335 BC that,

The end of Thebes cowed Athens into submission and it readily accepted Alexander's demand for the exile of all the leaders of the anti-Macedonian party, Demosthenes first of all.

218.111.209.95 recently changed this to read:

The end of Thebes cowed Athens into submission and it but refused Alexander's demand for the exile of leaders of the anti-Macedonian party, particularly his demand for Demosthenes.

I've again changed this to:

The end of Thebes cowed Athens into submission, but According to Plutarch, a special Athenian embassy led by Phocion, an opponent of the anti-Macedonian faction, was able to persuade Alexander to give up his demand for the exile of leaders of the anti-Macedonian party, particularly Demosthenes.

I've based this change solely on the cited reference, Plutarch, Phocion 17. Does anyone have sources which support the other two version over the current version above?

Paul August ☎ 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As for other sources Arrian in i. 10 [1] mentions how the ecclesia sent at first 10 known pro-Macedonians to bring the congratulations of Athens for the destruction of Thebes. Alexander received them, and asked the heads of Demosthenes and others. The Athenians awnsered by sending a second embassy which implored leniency for those wanted by Alexander. The latter accepted, only ordering that Charidemus, an anti-macedonian commander, was banished, and this was done.--Aldux 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Military campaigns of Alexander

Should a new article dealing with the military campaigns of Alexander be created that will be similar to say the Pelopennesian War or the Corinthian War or should we expand this article so that it becomes a good description of his war? This article is already 74kb, expansions should be limited yet Alexander's campaign and strategy deserves more space. Ikokki 09:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Calling it "Alexander the Great" seems to be very biased. Not everyone thinks he was "Great", no even "good". Do we title the articles on Frederick II of Prussia or Alfonso III of León "Frederick the Great" or "Alfonso the Great", even they are known as such? No. Kings and monarchs are usually known by their name and reign number, in the order of "Name # of X country". Why should Alexander's article be title differently? Just because some see him as "great" does not mean it is a general consensus, nor that we should present such a biased view as part of an article's title.--The Gonz 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has actually been discusses in the archives. The Wikipedia guideline is that biographical articles use the persons most common name in English. For this particular king his name in English is "Alexander the Great" not "Alexander III of Macedon" or something else Ikokki 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Frederick nor Alfonso conquered more than 90% of the world known to their civilizations in their lifetime. Alexander the Great is called such by numerous references in history, and the most recent biography calls him likewise. Alexander the Great was also reverenced as a god...present tense: i.e., during his own lifetime. That most recent biography (circa 2004 or so) also rather quietly states that Julius Caeser, of Kaiser/Czar name-taking fame, lamented that at the age Alexander the Great died at, he himself had achieved no notable successes at that time in his life...and that Alexander's name, when checking records, seems to be known to over 75% of the world that has writing, a mark surpassed perhaps only by Jesus Christ. Yeah, we're undoubtedly biased. --Chr.K. 10:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexander only destroyed the Persian Empire that started in about 1500 B.C. and by the time he started returning home from the banks of the Indus, people had already started rebelling, so should this article really be titled, 'Alexander the great (suggesting he was great)?'Dr.Ramanand 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Ramanand

The rebellions followed the course already being run under Persia in general. Alexander thereafter put down those rebellions (as kings and/or supreme dictators are usually called to do), and was strong enough unity-wise to begin preparations for the conquest of Arabia when he died in Babylon. Alexander also seems to be the singular military commander in human history to never lose an actual military battle he engaged in, including sparodic guerrilla warfare in the Afghanistani mountains (soldiers' mutiny in the sub-equatorial monsoon-laden regions not counting). I guess it comes down to what one views as great: in modern liberal terms, they'd sneer at him. In Homeric Achillean/Heraclesian terms, he was mythical in proportions. I myself lean massively toward the latter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chr.K. (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Conquerer of the "world" ?

Alexander "conquered most of the known world", says the article. Really ? He did not conquer almost any territories north of the kingdom he inherited or west from Greece. How far was the closest point in the North from his Macedonian capital he never ruled ? 100 kilometers ? 200 kilometers ? Hardly qualifies as 'all world' !!! And I do not think 'known world' did not include local superpowers like Carthage at least.Warbola 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. Also, what does "known world" mean? known to whom? if that means known to greeks, its POV, if that means known to everyone (China, lets say), its a lie Z0r04st3r 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

'Known World' is a phrase used to describe the world as those in the past had conceived of it. For instance, in this case the 'known world' would not include North America, since it had not yet been discovered. Alexander DID conquer most of the 'known world' of his time (basically all the 'known' lands east of Greece and Macedon. --CaveatLector^Talk 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's far too POV and indistinct of a definition for an encyclopedia. Even your term "the world as those in the past had conceived of it" fails from multiple areas. Who exactly in the past are we talking about? The Chinese, Celtic tribes, or Germans, for example, wouldn't say so. What basis are we using to determine what they conceived? Is this concept from our view of what they conceived or what they actually did conceive?

You give an acurate answer in what we mean by the 'known world', but in my opinion, that answer is far to speculative and indistinct to be of any use in an encyclopedia. --Don Sowell 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Any talk about Alexander conquering most (or even 90%) area known to Greeks is just factually wrong. Greeks knew well Mediterranean costline (look distribution of Greek colonies [2]). Alexander controlled very tiny part of that area (see [3]). And it would be total absurd to claim that Greeks and Macedons somehow new areas around Indus river better than their continental European immediate neighbors. Alexander just did not conquer 'the world' his parents knew, i think this is line from the movie commercial or something similar Warbola 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

....First of all, to say that the term 'known world' is 'POV' is absolutely silly, and a misunderstanding of the POV policy. 'Known world' means whatever it means within the context it is used. When we say Alexander conquered most of the 'known world' of COURSE we mean the world known to the Greeks, and nobody who stops and thinks for a moment would think otherwise. There is no such thing as an 'Ancient Greek POV'. Especially in an Ancient Greece article. In response to Warbola, the 'known world' for the Greeks at the time very much did include those areas around the Indus river (not sure where you get the idea that this is 'absurd', since it was Alexander's plan all along to conquer these areas...). Can we please read some sources before throwing around statements like 'This is POV' or 'this is totally absurd'? --CaveatLector^Talk 04:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my full sentence what you are commenting? (Yes, that includes second half of that sentence which you are trying to ignore). If Alexander conquered 90% of the known world then you have 11.11% of Alexanders territory to cover all unconquered word, which Greeks knew something about (the same level or better as court of Philip II new about Alexanders future territories in Uzbekistan, Afganistan etc. ). Where on Earth do you want to locate this tiny area ? If you do not like the word 'absurd' then perhaps you want to draw me a map and post somewhere? I have GIS tools, can calculate area and made some rough experiments so I know very well what I am talking about. Warbola 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all agree that if an encyclopedia says "known world" while meaning "wolrd known to Grekks" that such a statement is a POV???? even if that is a true, that'd still be a POV, (cuz im sure Chinese knew where they could find their home town on map, or at least some did :) ). Lets not obtrude (is that the correct word?) european POV to everyone else, at least not in encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z0r04st3r (talk • contribs) 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

The POV statement was given in ancient times by the Greeks themselves. Arrian is one such claimant, that Alexander conquered the known world...and yet, paradoxically, claims in turn that he would've continued conquering even after all Europe, Arabia, northern Africa, and Asia. Therefore, the meaning of the phrase is very simple: the Greeks felt that what concerned their civilization is what mattered, period; it was the known world until they knew more of it. Enormously egotistical and ethnocentric: and they didn't give a damn. --Chr.K. 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, Megas Alexandros conquered everything he ever faced, save his own troops' mutiny. In many ways, he did conquer the world: nothing stood against him. Ever. --Chr.K. 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, if that's your argument then there should be sooo many "conquers of the world" because there are many warlords that never faced a defeat. That kind of argumenting is wrong and the term "conquer of the world" never ever (except in your statement) was used to describe simply an undefeated commander. Z0r04st3r 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I mean, if you could conquer the world through continous victories, Napoleon would have conquered the world, as would have Trajan, and almost every single general EVER. There would have been so many generals like that we probably be living in a Greco-Roman-Chinese-French-African-Russian-German-Indian-Japanese-Korean-Mongolian-Hun-Visigoth-Holy Roman Empire-Egyptian-Mesopotamian-Babylonian-Assyrian-Aztec-Mayan-Phoenician-Sea People-British-Ottoman-and whatever the heck else-monarchy/democracy/oligarchy/republic mega empire, which we don't.

It bears mentioning, to put the phrase in perspective, that Erastothenes' measurement of the Earth's size came not too long after Alexander's return from India (under a century), probably in part based on the revelation that the Greeks got after the rude awakening that Alexander and his army received upon finding out that they were nowhere near the eastern shore of the "world" and that, in fact, the lands between had large populations. The "known world" is, of course, that depicted on Erastothenes' world map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran.jpg Known means known to the Greeks, of course. Despite the lack of extensive territorial holdings most of their history, the Greeks weren't exactly a small envlave sitting amongst large populations of other people. Like India and China, the Greek population was a large part of its region of the world. When China conquers the world, they'll get to redefine "known world" in Sinocentric terms ... until then, it's Hellenocentric, since the dominant powers of the world have been too, lately.

Macedonian?

Speaking about the naming: what Alexander's name in the contemporary Macedonian doing in the beginning of the article? (Sorry if that question has been asked before.) There is a link to the article on him in that language, surely it enough, isn't it? If no objections will be raised, I'll remove it.--Barbatus 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians are greeks

Hello wikipedia.There is something in this article that made me sad.It is written:"non macedonians,non greeks...".This make me think that the world believes the macedonians aren't greeks.And now i wanna ask.Which language were speeking the macedonians;perhaps greek.Haven't they the same gods as the ancient greeks,like zeus,neptun,mercury etc or not;I wanna say with this that history has been written once and cannot being written again from the beginning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.49.160 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Alexander was careful to differentiate the difference between Greek and Macedonian, and further differentiated among different types of Greeks. Arrian writes that Alexander was lenient with Thebans in later years given that their city had been destroyed. Curtius (and, to a lesser extent, Arrian) cite Alexander as having made different appeals to his troops based on whether they were of Greek or Macedonian origin. Furthermore, per my recollection Thucydides did not consider the Macedonians to be Hellenes at all. So clarifying "non-Macedonian, non-Greek" in context makes perfect sense.71.131.214.215 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spartans were careful in differentiating from Athenians or Thebans or Korinthians and vice versa. "Different" appeals could be necessary even today among Modern Greek#Varieties (heh, I remember the accent and idioms of my sergeant!). Attribution of "barbaric" origin among Greeks was a frequent pejorative practice, mainly due to politics (democracy vs monarchy), even among members of the same city state. Finally, what matters (as today) is how these people self-identified, and what cultural traits they had. They all believed exclusively to the Twelve Olympians (a mountain they immediately bordered -if not included in their realm), they all participated exclusively in the Olympics, and their leader (at least) self-identified exclusively as a Greek, was taught exclusively in Greek by the Athenian philosopher Aristotle, and spread Hellenism -not Barbarism. Both the clarification and the note below are undue endorsements to recent pseudoscientific fringe theories against overwhelming academic consensus, not to mention motivated by extreme nationalistic purposes for (a)"doubts" and (b)appropriation (when doubt has been relatively "establised"). It is a mockery to reason. Oh, and it was Demosthenes, (not Thucydides), his main adversory... NikoSilver 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with transliterations

Could somebody with more background on Alexander confirm (or refute) these transliterations of his name:

1. Alakshendra in Sanskrit
2. Sikander in Persian
3. Alehandreh in Greek

If some or all of these are correct then they should be added to the article, no? Rumpelstiltskin223 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In Greek transliteration is "Aléxandhros" (the "h" is optional depending on which of the four transliteration methods you use, and the stress is on "e"). See note about name etymology. Where did you find all these? they all look peculiar (although not a specialist in the rest). NikoSilver 23:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alakshenra is mentioned in Kautilya's Arthashastra, Sikander from the wiki article (plus that's what Iranians and Pakistanis call him) and Alehandreh from my Greek office mate who said it. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, Alehandreh doesn't exist in Greek. It is Aléxandros or Aléxandhros, literally "Manproof" [sic]. Alex- means to repel, to shield, to protect; and andhrós is the genitive case of ándhras meaning "man" (male). As a parallel in Greek, we have alexísphero (for "bulletproof"); alexikéravno (for "lightning arrestor"), etc... NikoSilver 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello All,

I just wanted to make a clarification. Alexander is not mentioned in the Arthashastra. Actually, Alexander is not mentioned anywhere in an ancient Indian source. He only comes into parlance after the Turkish Invasions (Sikandar). In fact, the only Greek ruler to campaign in India who was mentioned in an ancient Indian source is Menander. Nevertheless, with respect to furthering this effort, there does exist a pali transliteration of Alexandria (presumably Alexandria-Kapisa or Eschate), which is Alasanda. I just wanted to point that out. I can provide sources to note these points as well.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Well I'm not sure about the transliterations but there should be some ancient Indian sources regarding Alexander considering he defeated Porus and established his eastern border there. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Porus was a small local ruler in Punjab, but it's known that the knowledge of a huge Magadha army was a reason that forced Alexander to retreat. It still can't be said, though, whether the Indians were aware of him at that point. deeptrivia (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I read the part where it says the concept of homosexuality was different during Alexander's time. One form of this was called Pederasty. I don't recall seeing that link in the article. You should mention it. Pederastic relationships were also big in Edo period Japan. This was called Shudo. You might want to liken one to the other to show that all cultures had some form of this and that it was considered normal. (Ghostexorcist 11:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

I think that a link to Shudo would be a bit outside the remit of an article on Alexander the Great, but I have linked the phrase "love of beautiful youths" to the article on pederasty in ancient Greece, which provides information about the context of pederasty in Alexander's time and culture. There has been controversy on this page in the past about categorizing Alexander's sexuality; however, this should be non-controversial, because the link is not saying that Alexander's relationships with Hephaestion and Bagoas were necessarily pederastic or sexual — merely pointing out the context. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty aye... its funny that Macedonians today use that word "PEDER" for the same meaning...just more evidence that todays Macedonians are decendants of those in ALEKSANDAR THE GREATS time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.182.162.187 (talk • contribs) 07:19, March 12, 2007 (UTC)

It's the same word, derived from Greek pais/paidis (boy) + erastes (lover). Not sure how the fact that the Macedonian language uses a term derived from Greek is evidence of anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That very same word, "peder", is also very often used in Croatia, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia (don't know about Slovenia, but I'd say in Slovenia too) as "politically incorect" word for male gay/homomosexual, something like fag in english. Soooo, let me guess...we all are (I'm Croatian) decadants of Alexander? C'mon... Z0r04st3r 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To write in this article that Alexander was having homosexual relationships is just silly and very uneducated. The idea that ancient greeks were gay was created and is being communicated the last 30 years. Leave this section here, only if there are contemporary sources and only if they are unbiased (not rivals of Alexander). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.86.154.252 (talk • contribs).

There are lots of sources for this, both ancient and modern, and the article doesn't say that A. was "gay". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Names of Alexander in the lead

With the recent attempts to put Alexander's name in Macedonian into the lead, I'm wondering if we should move or delete the list of Alexander's names in different languages. To me, it doesn't seem like the first paragraph should be telling us what Alexander is called in Aramaic. The list could either be moved to a section of the article, or just be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Having Alexander's name in the languages that were spoken by the people of his Empire, is relevant enough. But having his names in languages other than them, is simply unhistorical... Under the pretext of including "Macedonian" we should include Bulgarian (well, it is the same, but some, pity, will disagree...), Romanian, Roma, Turkish, Uzbek, Tourkmen, and a gazillion more... Not to mention that i have suspicions about the reasons to insert the name in the language of FYROM (everyone can guess what i suspect). Hectorian 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral writing

Hi all. This is a great article - fascinating. There are WP words to avoid though [4]. I believe this can be adhered to and still have readable comprehensible English throughout. The argumentative phrases are only minor but its a good idea to be careful with debate. If I have removed any argument by a scholar then feel free to add quotes with a source ref. But howevers, whereas, etc are considered a bit argumentative and neutral writing can make this article even better. AlanBarnet 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Map 323 BC

Hello All,

Although I absolutely completely dumbfoundly do appreciate the efforts of the creator of this map to posit Alexander's empire in context, I do want to note that the eastern borders of Alexander, as represented here, are inaccurate. All other maps show Alexander's eastern limit as the Beas in the North and Sindh in the South. This map shows his borders inaccurately extending well into India to include Indian Punjab, Rajasthan, and Kutch. Please let me know if you have any questions. I would appreciate it if these changes could be.

Regards, Devanampriya

This map is precisely sourced from The Loeb Classical Library, Arrian, "Anabasis of Alexander", Harvard University Press. It indeed shows the easternmost expansion of Alexander to the Beas (Hyphasis). The eastern expansion in the south follows the ancient course of the Indus, which went farther east than today (same source, and al.). PHG 06:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not properly executed as there are plenty of Alexander maps that counter that. Also, I don't believe I denied expansion to the beas, but you are off the mark with Rajasthan. Since you are precisely sourcing from this book, could you post a relevant quote? I believe instead of engaging in pointless debate, it would only make sense to observe the conventions recognized by the vast majority of maps. Moreover, it is internally inconsistent, thereby confusing the reader. Let us avoid original research and stick to the recognized authorities. Devanampriya 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again unwarranted accusations I am afraid. I suggest you buy the book and check the map, it is exactly as the one I drew. Then we can discuss. If Harvard University Press is not a recognized authority, then I don't known what is. You can also check more closely the other map in the article: Image:MacedonEmpire.jpg, it is near identical. PHG 21:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PHG, if our past discussions demonstrate anything, we must exercise caution regardless of the source. Please do not hide behind the respectable name of Harvard University Press, which after all, published and did not author the book. Tarn was published by cambridge, and i believe we've already gone over his infallibility. Regardless, the request was for a direct quote stating that the Indus river's path was hundreds of miles off course, cutting into Rajasthan. In fact, there is a strong possibility that this was mistaken for the Sarasvati, which recent satellite imagery confirmed its path through Rajasthan. Hence my request for the quote. Again, this contradicts the two other maps on the page. And the two maps are not near identical, let alone identical. You may want to take a look at a modern map to confirm this. This question/s are warranted, so let's not cut off the discussion. Devanampriya 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I fine-tuned the map on the lower Indus. Hope you'll like it. The written reference is "Indus (modern course)" on the same original map, which I now incorporated in the duplicate map also. PHG 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, There were no changes made to the world map. It still shows Kutch (Indian territory immediately west of the Indus delta) and half of Rajasthan as part of Alexander's empire, which is false. Please follow the conventions of the main Alexander map on the page. Devanampriya 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This map is exactly the same as The Loeb Classical Library, Arrian, "Anabasis of Alexander", Harvard University Press press map. This is fully referenced material. PHG 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

When there is no evidence that Alexander conquered parts of present day Sind, Rajasthan or Kutch, I don't see why these parts should be shown as areas he conquered in the mapDr.Ramanand 00:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fail GA

This article certainly contains many interesting facts about Alexander, and its length ensures that most people would learn something by reading it.

However, according to the GA criterias, everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be referenced, in an unambiguous style such as inline references. The article fails this criteria in several places. I have collected some unsourced and possibly questionable statements:

• Alexander hurled his goblet at Attalus shouting "What am I, a bastard then?"
• Alexander remarked "Here is the man planning on conquering from Greece to Asia, and he cannot even move from one table to another."
• (it is believed he was treating the wounded and burying the dead, both of his own troops and of the enemy). -- what does "believed refer to, who believed this?
• The assassin was supposedly a former lover of the king, the disgruntled young nobleman Pausanias of Orestis, who held a grudge against Philip because the king had ignored a complaint he had expressed. -- In particular, the word "supposedly" adds an element of ambiguation. Who was it that supposed?
• Philip's murder was once thought to have been planned with the knowledge and involvement of Alexander or Olympias. -- what does "once thought " mean exactly? Was it thought 2,000 years ago, or 1,000 years ago, or 50 years ago? Please use an inline reference.
• In R. Lane Fox's opinion, the strongest argument against the poison theory is the fact that twelve days had passed between the start of his illness and his death and in the ancient world, such long-acting poisons were probably not available. -- where can I verify this?
• Some believe that Alexander said, "Kratisto" (that is, "To the strongest!") or "Krat'eroi" (to the stronger). -- "some believe" needs referencing; who believed? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Check through the article, make sure these issues and other similar issues are correct. Otherwise it will be failed again. I wish you good luck.

Fred-Chess 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fred. I'm not an expert but I'd like to research this subject as the character is so interesting. If citations are added - I'd be happy to do a check on whatever literature I can obtain. AlanBarnet 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say that when you believe you have amended the concerns, you are welcome to resubmit the article as a GA candidate. / Fred-Chess 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Within the last 2 or 3 days, there have been 6 or more instances of vandalism on this article. Maybe an administrator should block this article for a while. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 22:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw another instance of vandalism today. Before I could do anything it had been changed back. Kudos to everyone for keeping an eye out, but maybe indeed it should be blocked for a while? NotElizabeth 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can list the page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, but I don't think the level of vandalism is high enough for protection to be approved. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

File:AlexandersstatueNIE.jpg

Berlin Museum bust

PixOnTrax 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

His likeness varies amongst artists.

Alexander's Bematists

I would like to include a link to Alexander's bematists and the distances they recorded on the campaign, but I have no idea where to add the link. Perhaps somebody more familiar with the article can do that. See bematist. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fusion Policy

do any of you know the Persian tradition of 'bowing'? Alexander demanded this from his Macedonian Generals, but I have forgotten the name, this was definitely post Fusion Policy. ( Seong0980 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC) )

Wasn't this proskynesis? PHG 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Size considerations

We are up to 78k in this article. Should we spin off Alexander the Great's personal relationships? Haiduc 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. It was proposed months ago, and the idea didn't pass mostly because you were against Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive4#Alexander.27s_sexuality. As then, I strongly support this course.--Aldux 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned about a pov fork, but I realize now that as long as it is handled properly it may serve the readers better. Haiduc 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alexander's Battle Against the Malli

The article stated the following: "Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return. Alexander was forced to turn south. Along the way his army ran into the Malli clans (in modern day Multan). The Malli were the most warlike clans in India during that period. Alexander's army challenged the Malli, and the ensuing battle led them to the Malli citadel, which the Malli successfully defended against him[10]. Alexander himself was wounded in the attack by a Malli arrow. Eventually, the Malli and Alexander made a truce and his army moved on, severely weakened by this battle[11]."

Neither source supports the above text, with the former (from the Baldwin Project) indicating both the taking of the citadel and a massacre of all Mallians within, and the latter stating that surviving Mallians surrendered to Alexander's forces. This is far from a successful defense and a simply truce.

Given this, I have changed the text to read thus: "Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return. Alexander was forced to turn south. Along the way his army ran into the Malli clans (in modern day Multan). The Malli were the most warlike clans in India during that period. Alexander's army challenged the Malli, and the ensuing battle led them to the Malli citadel. During the assault, Alexander himself was wounded seriously by a Malli arrow. His forces, believing their king dead, took the citadel and unleashed their fury on the Malli who had taken refuge within it [10]. Following this, the surviving Malli surrendered to Alexander's forces, and his beleaguered army moved on [11]."

I'm a new user, and I apologize if I have unwittingly broken any conventions with my first interaction here. I have enjoyed studying Alexandros for years, and am looking forward to debating and discussing his life and works objectively and lucidly with y'all. I think it goes without saying that his was a very interesting life, whose details and facts were left in woefully short supply for us.

/R Phoebus Americanos 06:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This might be OT, but are you a member of TWC? Just a question pal. - Beares 12:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fall of the Persian Empire

The first sentance of the "Fall of the Persian Empire" section is a fragment. Also, the section instantly begins with Alexander marching into Persia. The section doesn't give any background information and/or intro to the invasion. I'm not an expert on Alexander the Great, but I just wanted to point that out so accurate information could be entered. Brian 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

remains of Alexander the Great

story is that his remains disappeared about the same time the Venetians 'found' the remains of St. Mark and brought them to Venice. 'Someone' may have done a swap there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mepossem (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Name of Alexander the Great in Arabic is stated wrong.

There is definitely no true source in Arabic that calls Alexander the Great as "Dhul-Qarnayn" (the two-horned one). This statement is false. Dhul-Qarnayn is a great prophet in islam who roamed the earth to spread goodness and diminish evil-doers. There is no actual or historical connection between the two. Alexander the Great is called "Aliskander Almakadoni" which simply means (Alexander of Macedonia). Can somebody change it please beacause i don't know how.

No, my dear, it is not wrong, and we aren't going to change sth. stated by all historians everywhere just because you say it. What are your sources to claim that?? Bucephala 12:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My source is Wiki itself. The artical about Alexander states, "The reason being is Dhul-Qarnayn is described in the Holy Quran as a monotheist believer who worshipped Allah (God). Taking this into consideration this removes Alexander as a candidate for Dhul-Qarnayn as it is well known that Alexander was a man who followed the Hellenistic traditions of Greece making him a polytheist not a monotheist." Thus Alexander the great is not Dhul-Qarnayn in Islam because of a simple and fundimental reason which is Dhul-Qarnayn believes in God(Allah) only. And even if muslims call him so that does not make the name of Alexander the Great, Dhul-Qarnayn, beacause islam is a religion while arabic spoken by arab (muslims, christians and others) is a language. So muslims everywhere arab and non-arab can call him what ever they want but as a christian I know that Alexander the Great is called "Al-Iskander Al-Makadoni" in arabic, we studied it in schools we read it in arabic encyclopedias and others. (Samimas 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)).

Where is the Source?

I need the source, please. "Throughout the Roman world, the one language spoken everywhere was Alexander's Greek". It sounds a bullshit... Jack 00:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I second your point Jack - the Language the Romans used and 'respected' was Latin. Even if Greek was used, how can one call it, 'Alexander's Greek'?Dr.Ramanand 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

'Alexander's Greek' refers only to the type of Greek Alexander spoke, not to some ownership of the language. Also, Greek did not just go up in a poof of smoke when the Romans came along, and Latin was not the most used and respected language by the Romans. Quite the contrary. For one thing, learning Greek was a staple of any well educated Roman. Also, conquered Greece (which comprised most of what we would call the 'Roman world') kept their Greek language, and used it much more frequently than they did Latin. I can dig through my books to find a citation for you, but I haven't the time at the moment, though just about any book on Roman history should mention this fact. CaveatLector^Talk 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander's Greek is a metaphor to name the Koine, since it was extended in his campaigns. So it is perfectly ok. Why not read before writing in such a way? Many questions would be answered... and I'm sure the majority of them aren't, as in this case, bullshit --Bucephala 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander and Porus

Unfortunately, there was not one Indian account of the Alexander-Porus encounter. It is quite natural that Greek accounts glorified Alexander's foray into India. The episode of Ambhi (Omphis) must have been very true because many such self-destructing incidents, fuelled by envy and jealousy, happened in Indian history. Oliver Stone has projected a picture quite sympathetic to Porus. Does it have any historical evidence? There was a story that Rukshana (Roxana) visted Porus's tent the day before the battle and tied Rakhi to Porus's wrist (Rakhi is an Indian festival/tradition during which sisters tie a sacred thred to brothers' wrists seeking protection to their honour and family). During the battle Alexander fell down the horse wounded by an arrow from an Indian soldier. Porus jumped at him and raised the sword to Kill Alexander. While raising the hand he watched the Rakhi tied by Rukshana and overpowered by sentiment he left Alexander untouched. The Greek soldiers carried away the wounded Alexander to the camp. I do not know if this story had any historical support. Can anyone help with the sources?Kumarrao 15:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Few stories on this have historical support. This one is perhaps as good as the stories told by Arrian which is the basis of most of this article. deeptrivia (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

Hi,

This article is about undoubtedly the most famous man on the Earth.

Unfortunately only few citations are provided along with brittle references such as (Ref 6 of Curtius).

Host of research papers have been actively published in recent times, finding no place in this article.

I would request experts to kindly consider this fact and improve the authenticity and credibility of Wikipedia articles on history.

Regards,

Harshal 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear Harshal, modern historians write according to the ancient sources, which are the ones that are cited here. It is untrue that they have no place here, what happens is that we have to give references to Alexander's contemporaries in order to show the veracity of the texts and facts stated. Modern historians cannot know what happened then because they live now. So, the important thing is not which modern historian said what, but in which ancient historian has the modern historian based to say sth. Hope this clarifies your petition --Bucephala 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hephaestion & Alexander

It is said that Alexander died eight months after Hephaestion. I think that he could not live with out him. He may have died of some other thing. But I beleive he died because he missed his lover and wanted to join him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.74.119.230 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

That's a really Romantic view you have, but Alexander's cause of death is in any way related to Hephaistion's absence. It is true that he loved him more than any other, but Alexander was a strong man, and he knew that the best thing he could do to honor his lifelong friend was to live up to his dreams. Don't you think? Historically, Alexander died of a fever, probably caused by Malaria, not of a broken heart, although I think Hephaistion's death affected him deeply.--Bucephala 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

why the great?

well the title "the great" could have came from the fact that he was a great solider a great leader and aparently a son of zeus so posibly he was a god him self —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.185.168.10 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Your point being? El Greco 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Your opinions about Alexander aren't relevant here. Discuss the article or nothing at all --Bucephala 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Wikiproject

There's a little edit war going on about this project's banner. Now, this edit war is even sillier than most, because the banner has been on the page all along, as part of the hidden infoboxes you can see when you click on "more" at the top of the page (for me, it's showing right above the archive box). Furthermore, the article is clearly within the scope of the LGBT project. Plenty of articles dealing with the ancient Greco-Roman world, including many biographies (e.g. Sappho), are covered by this wikiproject. While I think we'd all agree that classifying an ancient Greek as a homosexual is anachronistic, at least one prominent modern scholar of Alexander, Robin Lane Fox, has said that Alexander was bisexual. Furthermore, the phenomenon of same-sex relationships in antiquity is widely studied. Any classics article that has material about same-sex relationships is covered by the LGBT project, and there is evidence that Alexander was in a pederastic relationship with two males (or, at least, relationships that are described in ancient sources as being erastes-eromenos relationships). --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the LGBT movement is a modern one, and I don't think Alexander or Sappho could be in that category, because words like bisexual or lesbian are modern. Lane Fox didn't say that Alexander was bisexual, just that he had relationships with men, women and a eunuch. Don't misinterpret his words, he never put labels to it. And that Sappho had sexual relationships with her pupils is not known, it's just a presumption. Though bisexual would be the most appropiate term to define Alexander's sexuality, we must be careful in using a word and a concept that didn't exist, sth. that Lane Fox was aware of too. The ancients had a different way of looking at sexuality. A paragraph that clearly explains what I mean (and Lane Fox meant) is this (taken from Alexander the Great on the Web):

The choices are not (a) Alexander was heterosexual (b) Alexander was homosexual or—surprise— (c) Alexander was bisexual. Alexander was not a 21c. American. Alexander's culture conceived of the matter differently than we do today, and whatever underlying "realities" there are—and I am inclined to think there are some—culture is a powerful factor in sexual expression and even sexual identity. Antiquity was not, in fact, a sexual free-for-all. But the "rules" were different. According to the most popular theory of ancient sexuality, Alexander drew sniggers not for having a gay lover, but having one his age. The implication was that, with Hephaestion, he would both "give," which was manly, and "receive," which was not. Today, sexuality is defined not by "what you do" but by "who you do it to."

About the pederastic relationships, you couldn't be more wrong, and insulting (again, comparing ancient times with modern ones...) In Ancient Times, an 16 year old boy was considered to have reached the adult age. And who is the other boy?? The only boy we know that he had sexual intercourse with for sure is Bagoas (who was 16/17, that is, he WAS an adult), and Hefaistion was the same age Alexander was. Who is the other boy you are referring to?

So people, think like a 4th century BC person, not like a modern one, to judge s.o. from Ancient Greece... --Bucephala 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If we think like a 4th century person, we can't write the articles Economy of ancient Greece, Greek mythology and Religion in ancient Greece, because economy, mythology, and religion aren't ancient concepts. I'd rather think like a 21st century person, and follow the lead of modern secondary sources in writing these articles. Furthermore, as I've already said, the subject of same-sex relationships in antiquity is intensively studied, under the label "homosexuality" (see e.g. Homosexuality in ancient Greece), which is naturally at home in the LGBT project. You also seem to be misunderstanding what's meant by pederasty, which is covered at pederasty in ancient Greece--it doesn't mean sex with children. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there's only one CORRECT meaning for the word "pederasty" if we look to its etymology. In my language it clearly means "to have sexual intercourse with children" (from pais, paidos, which means "child" and "erastes" which means "lover"), and that is the main meaning of the word, taken from its etymology. Other meanings are bad (sodomy, if you refered to it, has nothing to do with the etymology). So the correct definition is sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner). Historians of the ancient world (myself included) believe that you have to get rid of today's mores to understand their world. If you can't, you won't be able to do that, that was the first thing I and the others studying the ancient world were taught (at least in Europe). Calling s.o. from ancient Greece homosexual or bisexual (or even heterosexual) is as wrong as calling Sappho a feminist, or any working revolt in ancient times as being marxist. Concepts can be applied from the moment they are created, not before... --Bucephala 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC) PD: By the way, myth and economy WERE ancient concepts, and thus we have ancient texts including these words, which can't be said of heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or lesbian ... So, can we all keep this in mind and stop labelling what wasn't labelled?

You might want to look at etymological fallacy. You might also want to investigate the history of the words mythos and oikonomia--those didn't mean the same thing in ancient Greek as "myth" and "economy" in modern English. For instance, the Oxford Classical Dictionary entry on "economy, Greek" says: "Our 'economy' is derived from the ancient Greek word oikonomia, but this meant originally and usually the management of a private household (oikos) than that of a 'national' economy."

Furthermore, you're right that we shouldn't call ancient Greek people lesbian, homosexual, etc. Surprisingly, that's something that's said in homosexuality in ancient Greece, which also explains the sense in which we can talk about homosexuality in the ancient world. As for the meaning of "pederasty", have you looked at pederasty in ancient Greece yet? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a historian of the Classical World, specialized on Alexander the Great, and a Greek, for your knowledge. Pederasty may have other meanings in English, but in Latin and Greek derived languages it preserves its original, true meaning ("lover of children"), so it is not an etymological fallacy because it means exactly the same as its roots. No matter where the "sodomy" interpretation is from, it is clearly bad, a misunderstanding from barbarian languages. I don't need to investigate words from my own language, thank you. Of course oikonomia ("laws/rules of the house" -obviously related to money and possessions) didn't mean the same (how could it mean the same in different worlds?) as with any other term, but the words actually existed, which is what I said. Furthermore, in the actual word "economy", the oikos is a metaphor for the country, so it is not so far away from it's original meaning. And I won't feed this discussion anymore, as it is intended to provoke, clearly (if you had a look at my profile, or most importantly, at my contributions at the Spanish wikipedia, you'd understand I don't need explanations about my culture, language and country, which can be interpreted as offensive or ironic and thus violating WP:EQ). Greetings --Bucephala 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lanike

Please add something about Lanike nursing Alexander as a child. That article needs more links and this article should be an obvious one to link to it. I don't make enough edits myself (I'm just on a university computer now) to justify starting an account to add the link myself. Thanks! --164.107.223.217 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing it ;) Thanks for the reminder (Cleitus' sister should not be forgotten). Greetings --Bucephala 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Predecessors

I recall reading somewhere that Alexander referred to his predecessors, allegedly two men have before already tried themselves out in a campaign to conquer India. However I don't recall history remembers any at all.

Does anyone know anything 'bout this? --PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He referred to his ancestor Heracles and also the god Dionysus. Greetings --Bucephala 22:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)