Wikipedia

Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 13

< Talk:Alexander the Great
(Redirected from Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive13)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by PelasgicMoon in topic The way this article is being managed completely discredits Wikipedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Comment

He was Greek thats what the consensus and the FActs say.Megistias (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Consensus cannot really deside facts...but the facts say he was Macedonian. Macedonians and Greeks at the time were really all of one race, but they were still divided geographically, and you can't argue that he was king of Greece since Greece had no king.--Phoenix-wiki 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sources decide facts and they say Greek and thats what the article was for a year.There is no issue here..Megistias (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an issue here if 2 editors disagree with the statement that he was the "ancient greek" king. Anyway, as they were practically one race, there is really no point in emphasising he was Greek.--Phoenix-wiki 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no issue if there are two really reliable sources saying so, and if there's no source to the contrary. NikoSilver 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I agree with you. It is a pleonasm. Exactly as you don't need to emphasize that Pericles was Greek. However you will be surprised what some other editors say and what forced the inclusion of Alexander's ancestry in the article.--   Avg    21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You obviously haven't had the good fortune to read aboutFamous Albanians yetXenovatis (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that's...ridiculous...I suppose it would be worth mentioning he was Greek right away just to counter things like that...but he Greek in the same way a person of Irish ancestory in England is Irish...he's not of Greek nationality really...--Phoenix-wiki 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed but that is implied in the use of the term "Greek" to refer to anybody prior to 1832 when the first Greek state was created. Previously the term was a cultural, linguistic or ethnic identifier but, by definition, never national.Xenovatis (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comment is excellent. Aside from the fact that no-one suggested that he was king of Greece and that everyone allready agrees he was king of Macedon the rest was really insightfull. It was also really usefull of you pointing out that "Greece" was divided into city-states at the time and that it had no king.Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
He was Ancient Greek.Consensus,1 year stable and sources to that effect.Not an issue here as an editor had started changing it with irrelevant political criteria and mixing slavs into it..Not an issue and beware all as when someone edits like that and he gets his way it gives a bad message to all.07:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a problem referring to Alexander the Great as "Greek" these nation states did not consider themselves "Greek" or even part of any loose confederation that called themselves "Greek". Spartans were Spartans and Athenians were Athenians, calling them Greeks before there was a Greece would be akin to calling Emperor Caligula an Ancient Italian. I mean we don't call Illyrians ancient Albanians or the Plymouth Pilgrims as ancient United States citizens. As there actually is a Macedonian country working today it would seem odd to refer to their people as Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.158.69 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the name Greek is late Roman name, even not connected with to day Greek ( Arvanites ,Slav) connected with modern Greek state. If the real Greeks are Arvanites then yes you may say that he was Greek but now days even this is a misnaming....:) Greeks are not Greek any more!!.You understand what I mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.246.183 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


They considered themselves Greeks and thats what they were as the abundance of sources say.Read related material on the issue like the archives.Megistias (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That was the most purile and uninformed opinion anyone could possibly contribute. Well done anonymous, now this discussion can only improve. What does this meand btw: ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΠΡΟΜΑΧΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΑΘΗΝΑΟΙ ΜΑΡΑΘΩΝΙ ΧΡΥΣΟΦΟΡΩΝ ΜΗΔΩΝ ΕΣΤΟΡΕΣΑΝ ΔΥΝΑΜH Don't tell me you don't know. I will be so surprised.Xenovatis (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Iskander was not a Greek king even though he was homosexual because Iskander is an Arabic name and there are many Muslim cities bearing his name, Iskenderyia, Iskederetta and others. Since at the time in Balkanie there was no al-Slavinie then he is can only be either Al' Baniq or Arabic. Since Iskander is not Al'Banian tribe name then the only choice is, by process of elimination, Arabik. So Iskander was ancient Arabik king, either from the tribe of Arapidaioi that mentions Herodot or, like Encarta say from Al'Exandar tribe which also make explain his name and of father Filippo (from Allepo-Allipo). I agree with the primary poster and deliniate to discussing this more further. Respectfully, Peace be Upon You Ibn Waraq (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ale Xan Daar he was of Chinese ancestralty because in China is Province Yunan which is same the word as in Greek. This mean that Greek is Chinese and cum at the starting from teh China. Original Shila it come from the China and conquered teh India and THEN conquered the Greek. NOT other way round like corrupt imperialist westernererns they say. Of course Greek but Greek mean Yunan so Chineses he was. Also Filippo, father Ale Xan Daar was from Island of Filipino close to China and become Chinese FIRST. So agree with the Greek but must make clear Greek is Chinese. SO saying "Ale Xinhua Daar, ancient Greek (i.e. Chinese) king of Macedonis" for examples. But I will watch yto making sure there no violation of NUTRAL PROTOCOL and no western imparialistis violat Chineses.Xinhua Li (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with our excellent scholars (a scholar of Arabic and a sinologist!). Alexander's name is clearly Greek and comes from the words aletho (αληθω; a later form of αλεω 'to grind') and anteron (αντερον; the local Ancient Macedonian form of εντερον 'intestine'). αληθω later, in Medieval times I believe, became αλεθω (if we follow Fomenko's New Chronology, we understand that classical antiquity didn't exist and that Alexander was a medieval Byzantine emperor so it all makes sense), so we have a clear etymology if we consider the Albanian derivation of Ale(-)si-ander: αλεσει (third person, future tense) + αντερ(ον), "he who will grind intestines". So, Alexander just liked his kokoretsi a lot, thus proving that he was definitely a Greek, since they still like to eat it on Easter. I believe this should put the matter to rest.
On a more serious note, can we get the, admittedly funny, comments (some intentionally like the previous two, some not) and various convos that have taken place again and again about the same, meaningless, subject archived (and maybe settle for something, perhaps completely NPOV *hint hint* that will -never- be changed again)? It's getting a bit ridiculous. :) 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's only getting ridiculous because Pelasgic Moon just won't take no for an answer, like someone else I know. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wher ein Galations is this "Alex Anders?" mentioned? I don't recall anhting liek that anywhere in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke, my friend. People poking fun at the futile nationalism being expressed in the edit wars over this article. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Portnoy's Complaint

Latest comment: 16 years ago57 comments10 people in discussion

my post was deleted and not possible now to continue my discussion in my post, why prefer the censorship? it's not a good way for wikipedia the censorship also for discussions.

guys, i was tryig to comunicate, and all i received was accusations and without discuting about the real problem i introduced. and please, stop speaking greek language here, not 100% of editors are greek here. PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing was deleted. You will withdraw your accusation immediately and apologize. The page was too long and was archived. If you think there are still discussions open bring them to the main talk page.
  • "please, stop speaking greek language here, not 100% of editors are greek here" was in reference to this:ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΠΡΟΜΑΧΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΟΙ ΜΑΡΑΘΩΝΙ ΧΡΥΣΟΦΟΡΩΝ ΜΗΔΩΝ ΕΣΤΟΡΕΣΑΝ ΔΥΝΑΜΙΝ Priceless. Truly priceless. You are utterly ignorant on this subject and yet you insist on trying to push your POV. Thanks PelasgicMoon, that is just what this article needed. I leave you with this: Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου καί οι Έλληνες πλήν Λακεδαιμονίων από τών βαρβάρων τών τήν Ασίαν κατοικούντων Xenovatis (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


I can't try to push my POV since i am not macedonian, and neither greek (see the argument of my post, nothing related with albanians) So, the only who can be accused to POV pushing are greek editors (...), so thanks you said all yourself, no needed my words.

i will post again the argument of my post. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The references say Greek and the same for the MAcedonians.There is no issue here.Megistias (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, 2 questions for you, and please i prefer if you will not change subject:

1) I found references that says he was a foreigner and had a graecized mode of life, and another that says his family was nothing related with greeks, in my last post that was archivied. If the problem is the number of references, i can find more. What do you think about this 2 referenced&reliable sources?

2) Explain me why in all encyclopedies of the world (britannica, encarta, books, websites) alexander the great is introduced simply as king of macedon, and not "ancient greek king of macedon", maybe because there is not rilevant evidence to write this affermation? wikipedia is the exeption

waiting answer, Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What you write above shows you have not read the archives.There is no such thing as "graecized mode of life".Macedonians were Hellenes and thats what the sources say.Megistias (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


I asked you how do you discuss my 2 sources, did you?

and please answer me why in all encyclopedies alexander is introduced as "king of macedon", and nowhere is introduces as "ancient greek king of macedon"?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


"If the Molossi and other Epirotic groups were not really of Greek ethnicity, then Alexander's mother, a Molossian, was probably not greek ancestry. Thus, neither Alexander's mother nor his father was greek."

"Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation" page 53 By John Shea Published 1997 McFarland & Company ISBN 0786402288


"These reactionary die-hards. were prepared to appeal to popular prejudice against alexander's acceptance of the new foreign ideas, his Graecized mode of life...." "Alexander the Great" page 85 By Lewis Vance Cummings Published 2004 ISBN 0802141498

PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that they are and that is a book on politics ........Megistias (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Alexander the great" Lewis Vance Cummings is a book on politics? PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The other one is.And Cummings is a cartographer and by no means the expert in Macedon.Whilist."::Quote: "these conclusions to the evidence of archaeology, the following picture emerges. The first Greek-speaking peoples settled in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus after c. 2500, and in these areas they developed different dialects". A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 56,1986Megistias (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)"Megistias (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

- if you want to accuse theese sources to be not reliable prove it.

- why everywhere (britannica encyclopedia online and books editions, encarta, every book, every website) alexander is introduced as king of macedon?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not for general discussions.Take some time to read the archives.Megistias (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


- why everywhere (britannica encyclopedia online and books editions, encarta, every book, every website) alexander is introduced as king of macedon and no-where as "ancient greek king of macedon"?

just this answer, can you answer please? i just need to know the reason, i think i'm not asking too much. PelasgicMoon (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

brit.Even in Brittanica " from the ancient Greek civilization article" on Macedon.Greeks ok?Megistias (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

here some links could help you as suggestions Megistias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PelasgicMoon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564408/Alexander_the_Great.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106078/Alexander-the-Great

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354954

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/alexander/p/alexanderthegre.htm

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html

i can bring here other 100 sources.

find me where is written alexander was an ancient greek king of macedon.

"The rise of Macedon" "from the ancient Greek civilization article" does not mean that automatically alexander was an ancient greek. Else in the encyclopedies of all over the world it was written that alexander wan an ancient greek, but no, nowhere i read that.

Alexander the great, technically, to the dead of the father Filippo II became king of Macedonia, because Greece had been yes conquered but a reign did not exist in Greece but much Poleis. However Alexander passed to the history like Alexander the great the macedonian. At the end of its life he was then practically at the head of an empire that we could call hellenistic. From therefore this point it can be derived the accidental confusion between Macedonia and Greece.

PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's enough with this discussion. We are debating this topic for weeks and you, PelasgicMoon, are telling again and again the same things. Ancient Greeks are described as ancient Greeks because that was their ethnicity, we don't talk about an ancient Greek state. Ancient Greece existed through the city-states but in several occasions all these states proclaimed their greekness. As far as the other question you ask is concerned, each encyclopedia is independent. In this encyclopedia and in this article, the fact that Alexander was Greek is cited, so you have nothing else to say about it. Nowadays, the term Macedonian leads the readers to FYROM and its nation, so Alexander (or anyone else) was a Macedonian... results in confusions which cannot exist in a respectable encyclopedia. - Sthenel (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


PhoenixWiki, the poster, realizes there is something wrong in this article, and someone else too who agreed with me, the problem exists.

"the fact that Alexander was Greek is cited"

are you sure Sthenel? caution with reinterpretations, check again the sources, this don't mean alexander was greek, i did not read "alexander was ancient greek" (maybe you was meaning ancient greek).

I repeat again, at the end of its life he was then practically at the head of an empire that we could call hellenistic, this don't mean he can be called ancient greek.

"Alexander (or anyone else) was a Macedonian... results in confusions which cannot exist in a respectable encyclopedia"

i think generalizing it's the real confusion...

so, tell me, Sthenel, you mean with this all encyclopedies of the world are confused exept wikipedia? PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since most sources, ancient or modern, agree that Macedonians were Greeks, and the ancestors of Alexander competed in the Olympic Games, yes he was Greek. For your information, the era of what is described as "Ancient Greece" extends to the times that Greece was conquered by the Romans. So, please study history before you take part in such discussions. Cheers! - Sthenel (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


largely unsourced, direct accusations of knowledge.

I maintain the idea of Phoenix-wiki. It's better and more accurate to present him simply as "king of macedon", until when bringed forward rilevant and DIRECT source afferming alexander the great was an "ancient greek king of macedon", without reinterpretations of the editors here. I remember to all that wikipedia is not a research center, so here we don't make researchs, and the world-wide sources presents him as king of macedon, that's it. If you want to avoid the evidence, that's your problem (i am speaking to some greek editors). PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ps. another source

"his own career hardly allowen him any other process of thinking; the Greeks often denied him the name of "Greek"" ... "yet in the interest of Greek culture he had overtrown the enemies of Greece and won the empire of all the world that mattered."

"The battles that changed history", page 39, By Fletcher Pratt Published 2000, ISBN 048641129X, PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


that's another source more.

Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, "The Australian People" writes:

"What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire- but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes." PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right, his mother tongue was not Greek, it was Ancient Macedonian, a language which most scholars believe was closely related to Ancient Greek. Rsazevedo msg 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
where did you read that ancient macedonian language is not ancient greek? Are there any evidence? Because I know one or two scholar that formed a theory about it but they do not have any evidence to support it. Theories are nice but without evidence are no different than alien abductions/conspiracy theories. As for PelasgicMoon I have a question: Do you know that in ancient times there was no nationality? Because it seems to me that you deny the Greekness based on nationality. Because it is true that evidence about Macedonians started to come to light only recently but the evidence so far support the Greekness. A.Cython (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There is abundance of sources primary and secondary saying they were Greek and that he was Greek.See the archives and stop ignoring other users.Megistias (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Tree for Hellenic Hellenic languages and Macedonian Hellenic as well.Megistias (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Your link "tree for ellenic" it's largely unrelated, if an english guy go to usa, he become american because they're language is similar?

Megistias, i have sources telling directly that is ridicolus to make him greeek as you saw, and as you see all the non-greek users don't agree in yours points, as you see the behaviour yours and of the other 7 greek users here is ridicolus, all you're trying to do is rebounding arguments, changing topics, accusing me etj etj, i suppose this behaviour is the last resort of some editors who have not nothing more to answer to defend theyr POV pushing.

-I found you 4 sources says it's ridicolus to call him greek and says he was a foreigner (with this there does not exists an argument avoiding this fact).

-Your sources are 0, this was just reinterpreted

-I brought here the letal fact that all encyclopedies of the world don't call him greek, but just some greek (accidentally all greeks) of wikipedia thinks that. For my opinion it's extreme-organized-POV-pushing

now it's just missing alexander in first person to say us something...

PelasgicMoon (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is such a joke. There is no posssible way in which Alexander was not Greek. His Macedonians were a Hellenic people - he spoke Greek, was infused with Greek-superiority ideals by Aristotle, and so on. Sure, the Macedonians were always regarded as rather disreputable Greeks by others, but Greeks all the same. He wasn't Albanian or Chinese or anything else. Please don't waste our time with this nonsense. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


it's clearly ridiculus to call him greek since he was considered foreigner and several sources inform us he was not greek, he adopted the greek language this don't mean he became greek. that's very simple.

Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, "The Australian People" writes:

"What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire- but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes."

more clear than this....

PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i maintain the opinion he sould be introduced as all the rest of encyclopedies, "king of macedon", evidences are infinite.PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


that's another one.

"In any case, neither the ancient Macedonians nor the ancient Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek", page 17, "Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation", By John Shea Published 1997 McFarland & Company ISBN 0786402288 PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

could you please define "ancient Greek", is it Athens or Sparta, because neither liked each other and in the chance they cast doubts about the greekness of other as an insult? in fact Athenians did not recognize almost anyone else as Greeks. If you exclude the Macedonians then you exclude everybody else i.e. noone else left to be greek. Ancient insults are not evidence. A.Cython (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring other users wont work pelasgicmoon.This is a source Tree for Hellenic.And john shea wrote a modern political book that is completely irrelevant as he tries to imagine a assume the modern Slavic nation.Megistias (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
John Shea john shea.
  • Research Areas:

Psychological factors that affect health, especially immune functions, allergies and cancer Support groups for cancer patients Personality factors as predictors of hypnotic talent, and the use of hypnosis for bodily change Human sexuality My PhD work at the University of Queensland was in the area of attachment behaviour in children. Following four years as a tutor at the University of Queensland, I went to the University of Papua New Guinea for seven years. Here I studied a variety of issues of concern to such a developing country, in particular questions about cognitive development and the measurement of cognitive skills. I joined the University of Newcastle in 1979 and continued my interests in applied areas of psychology, teaching and researching in the areas of child development, human sexuality, and health. My applied interests were reflected also in my work as a practising psychologist during this period. For more than 25 years now I have worked as a consulting psychologist, and am a fellow and immediate past president of the Australian College of Practising Consulting Psychologists (ACPCP). Ongoing involvement with the practice of psychology includes work with Psychology Private Australia, the peak body of private practising psychologists in Australia.

You got your arguments from this (rom) propaganda site.rom site.All that you wrote is from Shea the psychologist.Megistias (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Megistias, i got my arguments reading books, not searching continuosly in the web....

1) I argumented your 2 sources sayng this was reinterpreted, alexander nowhere is called greek, and remembering wikipedia is not a research center:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) writes:

"you must cite reliable sources that provide information DIRECTLY related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

"direct support", the rules are very clear, so, before sayng what you said i must read alexander was an "ancient greek king of macedon".

2) i found 4-5 sources contraddicting directly many of your affermations. and 1 of these wich go directly contraddicting the affermation of the issue.

i repost-here as i did not read any comment about: Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, "The Australian People" writes:

"What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire- but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes."

with this i think it can continued rebounded the argument from greek-stuff, but the rules speaks clearly (and the world-wide evidences too).

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research"

... very clear, PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Pelasgic Moon is displaying typical POV-pusher behavior. He cherry-picks only those sources that support his POV (which are hacks such as John Shea and Peter Hill taken from fringe-lunatic websites such as this one, ignores all arguments to the contrary, and mindlessly posts and re-posts the same tired old things over and over ad nauseam. I've really had enough of this disruptive editorand this ridiculous argument that seems like it will go on forever because of him. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
What part of he is a psychologist dont you get ?Megistias (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


"Pelasgic Moon is displaying typical POV-pusher behavior" - I'm not greek neither macedonian, and my argument is nothing related with albanians, so the only who can be accused for POV-pushing are greek editors

"ignores all arguments to the contrary" - i discussed the 2 (also not direct) sources.

"taken from fringe-lunatic websites such as this one" -we was not talking about websites here, but about encyclopedies and books.

"I've really had enough of this disruptive editorand this ridiculous argument that seems like it will go on forever because of him." - i am notifying that the first affermation of alexander in wikipedia is not correct, it's a reinterpretation of some editors of wikipedia, it's research, it's ultra-POV-pushing of the greek stuff in wikipedia, not direct source, confused.

i consider your largely unsourced answer as a last resort of someone who don't know how to defend his POV-pushing.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He is a Psychologist and you took the material from those sites and they took them from his book.Megistias (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, so encyclopedies also taken material from this website you post here? PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

can you do a favour for me? to post me the exact words of the sources sayng alexander was an ancient greek king of macedon? I mean sources supporting directly the affermation as it isPelasgicMoon (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop ignoring us you have been doing it in the whole "discussion".You did not even read the archives nor did you interact with us here on the talk page.Megistias (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok, let's calm a little bit. I think the discussion could continue infinite. I saw the tones became "hot".

I think the best way to solution, is to, open a new post, i argue my points of disappoint, and you argue your points (without beginning long discussions from answer to answer). and then let's call uninvolved editors for judgment, ok? in this way for the ununvolved editors it would be more and more easy to take his own point of view, that is ok for all?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 
Please do not feed the trolls.

Seriously just don't. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis, please assume good faith and remain civil. I've been working with PelasgicMoon on #wikipedia-en-help, and while his proposal is certainly controversial, he is trying to help. Opening a further discussion may help bring this to an easy close, however accusations such as that will not help at all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Psychologist case closed. Archives and sources exist MAcedonians were Hellenes and Alexander the Great was Hellene as well.Megistias (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No good faith here under any circumstances.He took his "arguments" from that fringe theory website and even presented a psychologist as a source. Megistias (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Megistias. Classic POV-pushing. Cherry-picks sources that back his POV, ignores all sources that contradict it, ignores what other editors say in discussion, uses material from fringe websites, deliberately misquotes and misinterprets sources that are reliable to back his POV, and goes on and on like a broken record. This has been going on for days now. WP:DFTT --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I taked the link you said from a fringe website exactly here [1], page 26, so, Before accusing someone, be more civilized, i was accused irrilevantly, and this is sourced. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sourced he is a Psychologist nomatter where you got it from.And the same was written on the site and copy pasted google books does not offer text.Megistias (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Pelasgic Moon, but Megistias is right. Shea is simply not a reliable source on the Ancient Macedonians. I doubt will ever convince anyone of that. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, it can be discussed by the point of view of uninvolved editors if it's reliable or not (no evidence that introduces the book as macedonian-nationalist or not reliable), tomorrow i will post the topic arguing my points about the general issue, and you will do the same, so for the uninvolved editors it will be more easy to get the issue. I think it's the best way. PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Psychologist thus actually useless with no value at all.Megistias (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this "consensus" thing is that you Wikipedia people keep yapping on about, but I just made the article 50% more awesome. Anybody who reverts my edit is a terrorist. --DontCallThisHandBad (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the great, "Ancient greek king of macedon" or "king of macedon" ?

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I created this post arguing my points, after posted his arguments the contraddicting party , i will use procedures who calls uninvolved editors, as the solution will be more easy to solve.

The argument of the issue it's the introduction of the article about alexander the great, introduced as "ancient greek king of macedon" My suggestion is to intriduces him simply as "king of macedon", it's more accurate and more correct.

To be sure what i'm sayng, i searched how the other big encyclopedies (britannica, encarta, columbia etc) or history-websites presents him, and nowhere i read he is introduced as "ancient greek king of macedon"

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564408/Alexander_the_Great.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106078/Alexander-the-Great

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354954

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/alexander/p/alexanderthegre.htm

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00.html

http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlexGreat.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8740/Alexander.htm

http://www.kingofmacedon.net/Story.html

http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0803249.html


Macedonian Fadher and Epiriot Mother. He had to conquer greece several times before the greeks accepted him as their own, this don't mean he can be called greek.

Some sources demostrating it's wrong calling him as ancient greek since all speaks about he had a Graecized mode of life... this clearly does not mean he became greek.


//-----------------------------------------------------

"These reactionary die-hards. were prepared to appeal to popular prejudice against alexander's acceptance of the new foreign ideas, his Graecized mode of life...." "Alexander the Great" page 85 By Lewis Vance Cummings Published 2004 ISBN 0802141498

//------------------------------------------------------

"If the Molossi and other Epirotic groups were not really of Greek ethnicity, then Alexander's mother, a Molossian, was probably not greek ancestry. Thus, neither Alexander's mother nor his father was greek."

"Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation" page 53 By John Shea Published 1997 McFarland & Company ISBN 0786402288

//-----------------------------------------------------

"his own career hardly allowen him any other process of thinking; the Greeks often denied him the name of "Greek"" ... "yet in the interest of Greek culture he had overtrown the enemies of Greece and won the empire of all the world that mattered."

"The battles that changed history", page 39, By Fletcher Pratt Published 2000, ISBN 048641129X, PelasgicMoon (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

//-----------------------------------------------------

Peter Hill, author of the section "Macedonians" in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, "The Australian People" writes:

"What is certain is that Alexander's mother tongue was not greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire- but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes."

([2])

//-----------------------------------------------------

"In any case, neither the ancient Macedonians nor the ancient Greeks thought that the Macedonians were Greek", page 17, "Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation", By John Shea Published 1997 McFarland & Company ISBN 0786402288 PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

//--------------------------------------------------------


Alexander the great, technically, to the dead of the father Filippo II became king of Macedonia, because Greece had been yes conquered but a reign did not exist in Greece but much Poleis. However Alexander passed to the history like Alexander the great the macedonian. At the end of its life he was then practically at the head of an empire that we could call hellenistic. From therefore this point it can be derived the accidental confusion between Macedonia and Greece.


//-----------------

The sources proposed pushing alexander was an ancient greek king, are sayng that ancient macedonians can be considered as ancient greeks (and for this it can be discussed too, because everywhere we find sources pushing and sources contraddicting this affermation) And so the conclusion was that alexander can be called ancient greek in according to this 2 sources. I think this is not right, as the rules of wikipedia speaks clearly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research writes:

"you must cite reliable sources that provide information DIRECTLY related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

"However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research"

This mean, the sources should afferm alexander was an ancient greek king, else it's reinterpretation, and in wikipedia it's called "Original Research", and it's wrong.

All encyclopedies (some of them i linked below) does not claim he was an ancient greek king simply because it could not be correct and accurate, that's a big evidence that could help as big example.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You used the Psychologist again.And Epirotes and Macedonians were both Greeks
  • Quote: "these conclusions to the evidence of archaeology, the following picture emerges. The first Greek-speaking peoples settled in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus after c. 2500, and in these areas they developed different dialects". A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 56,1986
  • Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."

E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62Megistias (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you even read the sources you are posting, PelasgicMoon?
For example this is a nationalistic site: http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html
As for the links you have posted half of them are not trustworthy and the other half indirectly support the Greek element!
As for Britannica they assume that Macedonians are Greek, just in the same way Pericles is Greek and Athenian.
The article from Britannica for Pericles http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059246/Pericles
And if you are bored to click it here is the intro:
Athenian statesman largely responsible for the full development, in the later 5th century BC, of both the Athenian democracy and the Athenian empire, making Athens the political and cultural focus of Greece. His achievements included the construction of the Acropolis, begun in 447.
At the end of Britannica's article about Alexander, the sources are sources found in the archives supporting Alexander's Greekness such as Hammond and apparently the Britannica does not cite any of your sources, strangely enough, don't you think!
Please try not to repeat yourself and read the bloody articles properly!A.Cython (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT, people. It doesn't really matter if PelasgicMoon is being sincere or not. He/she has demonstrated that consensus is not in the discussion here, and whether it's a language barrier or what, I don't see any effective two-way communication going on here. The obvious consensus is against PM's changes, so let's leave it at that. He/she can rant all he/she wants on the Talk page, and if a change is made to the article it gets reverted. The conversation pretty much ends there. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


just a small precisation, you are all speaking again about similarities between ancient greeks and ancient macedonians, when i demostrated throught the rules of wikipedia the sources must afferm directly alexander was an ancient greek king of macedon (No research in wikipedia, ""you must cite reliable sources that provide information DIRECTLY related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.")

" Britannica does not cite any of your sources, strangely enough, don't you think!" encyclopedies does not cites sources, this is not new... encyclopedies just consider rilevant sources and then write articles, if 0 encyclopedies introduces him as is introduced here, this mean something to my eyes... i maintain my opinion. but i did not open this new post to discuss again abotu what we discussed, but to make easier to the uninvolved editors to get the point, soon i will contact a way to dispute throught the rules of wikipedia when someone don't agree with something.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you PelasgicMoon for saying "...encyclopedies does not cites sources..." you just proved that you do not have access to Britannica and even if you had you haven't bothered to check it. Now I will shut up! Enjoy life! A.Cython (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A.Cython, you are confused. Yes, yes, encyclopedias cite sources, but PM was speaking about enyclopedies (also called "'peedeez" for short). I think this explains the problem, he is simply at the wrong website. Please try http://www.wikipeedeeeee.org . Thanks, and best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

that's very simple, showing sources or not, all online encyclopedies (and of course paper encyclopedies) introduces alexander as "king of macedon", and not "ancient greek king of macedon", and i remember this could serve as a big example, encyclopedies are maked generally by serious teams, if the encyclopedies did not affermed directly alexander was an ancient greek king there is a reason. And furthermore, my sources contraddict any possible affermation of the countrary, (even if there is still not source afferming directly alexander as an ancient greek king of macedon), so, in according to the rules of wikipedia, the sources sayng alexander was an ancient greek king are 0. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to participate gently in your discussion by inserting these sources which support PelasgicMoon view once more.Thank you.

  • Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) King of Macedonia (336–323 BC), considered the greatest conqueror of classical times. Son of Philip II of Macedonia and tutored by Aristotle, Alexander rapidly consolidated Macedonian power in Greece. How to cite this entry:

"Alexander the Great" World Encyclopedia. Philip's, 2005. Oxford Reference Online and [3]

  • Alexander never got along well with his father, although Philip was proud of Alexander for the Bucephalus incident and founding the city. Alexander had always been closer to Olympias than Philip and everybody knew it. Philip and Olympias also did not ge t along all that well, owing primarily to Olympias' "barbarian" heritage of Epirus, now Albania. [4]
Not to question anybody's motives, but this comment from the IP to PM is worth a look. Excerpt: "The correct revelation of...the value of the Ancient Civilizations of the Illyrians and the Macedonians is a work that has to be undertaken commonly by today´s Kosovars, Macedonians and Albanians." Just sayin'... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are excaping the argument seems that this does not interest you sorry , look to the next reference to close the discussion:

Alexander and Greek Conflicts. Arrian related the story of how Alexander dealt with Thebes and Athens. There were rumors in these cities that Alexander had been killed, and that the time was right for them to separate themselves from Macedonia. Instead, in the fall of 335 B.C.E., Ale xander marched up to the gates of Thebes, and let them know that it was not too late for them to change their minds. The Thebans responded with a small contingent of soldiers, which Alexander repelled with archers and light infantrymen. [5]

The discussion has ended many comments ago as jaysweet has stated.And sources say

Epirotes and Macedonians were both Greeks the people and Olympias and Phillip respectively.

  • Quote: "these conclusions to the evidence of archaeology, the following picture emerges. The first Greek-speaking peoples settled in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus after c. 2500, and in these areas they developed different dialects". A History of Greece to 322 B.C.by N. G. L. Hammond .ISBN-10: 0198730950,page 56,1986
  • Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."

E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62Megistias (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Alexander the Great - Ancient Greek, or not?

Latest comment: 16 years ago51 comments14 people in discussion

i requested a comment, we decided to post in the last post named "Alexander the great, "ancient greek king of macedon" or "king of macedon'" our points to make more easy to the uninvolved editors to get the point. PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has two reputable sources calling him such, and that was only made because we didn't want to make a WP:POINT violation by inserting a hundred little numbers next to the word "Greek". There is no reliable source whatsoever for the contrary. NikoSilver 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

i didn't still read a reliable source where is written directly alexander the great was an ancient greek king, and sources of the countrary are 5. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • What are 5 sources? You do not have any sources because either you push nationalistic sites such as this one: http://faq.macedonia.org/history/alexander.the.great.html or you haven't even read them properly i.e. Britannica supports the greekness of Alexander the Great, see the sources they cite at the end of the article, which are the same sources we use in WP for the "...Greek king..."! I think I said in my previous post to enjoy life! A.Cython (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


I explained sources by books, not by websites (as you can see), Britannica and no-one support directly the "greekness" of alexander the grat, else britannica should call him as "ancient greek king", you don't think? but as you can see it's simply called "king of macedon"

maybe you still did not got the point, i'm talking about the introduction of him, and i brought as example all the biggest encyclopedies, and as you cann see no-one is calling him "ancient greek king of macedon".

But this don't have importance since there are not sources afferming directly ([6] : "you must cite reliable sources that provide information DIRECTLY related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.") that alexander was an ancient greek king of macedon.

Now we should not continue again the discussion, to let the uninvolved editors to get the point easyer. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Some of the books are not trustworthy, i.e. written by a psychologist, while the sources directly calling him Alexander Greek are on the WP article.
  • "I explained sources by books...", then why did you posted these sites, including nationalistic ones?
  • Other books may exist, which follow what Britannica is doing i.e. assume that Macedonians are Greeks, just in the same way Pericles is Athenian (see the introduction at the Britannica article)! Therefore there is no need to repeat it. Please check the sources at the end of the article at Britannica, I repeat myself here, they include the sources we are using in this article for the "...Greek King...", while they do not site any of your book you are mentioning!
  • I do get what you are trying to say and I would agree with you if the circumstances were different, however try to understand my point! If you keep "Ancient Greek King" then it is unnecessary to have it, but if you remove it then you create huge NPOV problems benefiting the youngest nation in Europe who decided to call themselves Macedonians, and so far they have no relation with the ancient Macedonians (no evidence exist so far). Also it is better to keep the Greek for not confusing the readers. Please do not get me wrong here, I am not saying that Ancient Macedonians or Athenians are Greeks in the modern sense, but all the evidence so far show that these tribes i.e. Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians, etc were Ancient Greek, please read the sources in the archives.
  • Overall keeping the "Ancient Greek King" is what the evidence say i.e. the royal family was from Argos etc etc (please read the sources in the archives) and it is under the current circumstances, the most neutral statement.A.Cython (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Source that indicates that Alexander the Great was not a king of Ancient Greece but him as his father conquered ancient Greece ( and not only .. ) and originally was not Greek…. :

  • Philip II of Macedonia ruled from 359-336 B.C.E. Without the military and political efforts of Philip, Alexander would never have been as successful as he was. According to Bosworth, Philip's work with the Macedonian army and establishment of alliances with the Balkan peoples gave both himself and Alexander the resources necessary to carry out such conquests.


  • Philip's military zenith was at the battle at Chaeronea in August of 338 B.C.E. Philip's army was greatly outnumbered by the Athenian and Theban forces, yet his phalanxes overwhelmed the Athenians and Thebans. Athens and Thebes were forced to become subjects of Philip and Macedonia, leaving Sparta as the only Greek state not under Macedonian control.


  • The area from which Olympias came was considered barbaric, and her practice of Dionysian rituals did little to convince Philip and other Macedonians otherwise…..Alexander then moved Olympias back to Epirus, and he went to Illyria.


  • The next day, Alexander's general, Perdiccas, attacked the gates. Arrian claims that he did so before Alexander gave a signal; Diodorus says that the signal had been given. Regardless, the battle had begun. Perdiccas broke through and into the city, an d Alexander moved the rest of his force in behind to prevent the Thebans from cutting Perdiccas off from the rest. The Macedonians then stormed the city, killing almost everyone in sight, women and children included. They plundered, sacked, burned and r azed Thebes, as an example to the rest of Greece.
  • By making the military a full-time occupation, Philip was able to drill his men regularly, building unity and cohesion within the army. Alexander fought with the finest military machine that Asia or Greece had ever seen, primarily because of the amount of time and effort spent on maneuvers.

Link suggested by "Alexander the Great" World Encyclopedia. Philip's, 2005. Oxford Reference Online [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.28.81 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above sources only state that Macedonians were different just in the same way Spartans are different to Athenians. Also, that is exactly what I was mentioning above by not keeping "Ancient Greek King"! People get confused, or try to push their nationalistic ideas. The reasons why Ancient Macedonians were Ancient Greeks are in the archives, please read them! And above all enjoy life! A.Cython (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


my opinion is very simple, before discussing about similarities with ancient macedonians, before, it must be found sources afferming directly alexander was an ancient greek king of macedon. Simple for wikipedia rules. until then, this discussions are not useful as are called reinterpretation or "Original Research" ([8]) . Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC) If Alexander's Father and Ancestors carried Greek/Helenic names AND so did his Mother, IF his Ancestors partook in the OLYMPIC games which was purely for the GREEKS/Hellenes, then why is there a debate as to whether Alexaxnder was a King of the Greeks or not?
He said that he was the LEADER of the Greek/Hellenic League against the Persians. He founded cities that used Greek/Hellenic. His own Macedonian generals had Greek/Hellenic names, eg: Ptolemy, etc.
We know that the Macedonian empire was a Greek/Hellenic one since not only did he spread the culture all the way to Asia, the empire was taken over by his Macedonian successors who maintained Greek/Hellenic and also had Greek/Hellenic derivative names.
Therefore we could say that he was the King of Macedons (Greek/Hellenic) or King of the Ancient Macedonians and Leader of the Hellenes. Because let's face it, he spread Hellenism as a Leader/Ruler of the Greek League. Applesnpeaches (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When PelasgicMoon makes his case, it's all Greek to me! --Jaysweet (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"King of the Ancient Macedonians and Later Leader of the Hellenes" it's technically correct, it's ok for all? PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"...Later leader of Hellenes" is technically not correct because you imply that there was no Greekness before, which comes into contradiction with the sources; please read the sources in the archives. Also note that there are some old theories which argue that Macedonians become Hellenistic during Alexanders' period, but the last evidence dispel these theories i.e. Macedonians belong to the family of tribes (i.e. Doric), which were established in Greece long before Philip and Alexander's time. The technical correct and neutral statement is "Ancient Greek King". Enjoy life. A.Cython (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From RFC: The article should definitely continue to read "Greek king" - the scholarly sources for this are so innumerable anything else would be pathetic. "Later leader of the Hellenes" will not due and the anonymous user's (92.60.28.81) atrocious misunderstanding of his own quotes does not further the argument. Obviously, we wouldn't even be talking about this if it weren't for the modern nationalism issues. Brando130 (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

heheheeh, now neither ancient? now "greek king" ? "else would be pathetic": ok, britannica is pathetic? you did not even argued my sources and the rules of wikipedia. no need comments. PelasgicMoon (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Macedonia and Greece

"A debate has raged since antiquity about whether Alexander and his Macedonians were Greek. The coasts had long been within Greek consciousness; colonies had been founded in the archaic period, while rich Athenians like Thucidides had exploited the gold and silver resources of the hinterland. Before the fourth century, however, Macedonia may have been regarded as a fringe area, and during that century Athenian politicians were able to deny, when it suited them, that the Macedonians were Greeks. Once the Macedonians became a threatening power, some Greek writers represented them as in almost every way un-Greek. It is likely, however, that the ruling Argeadai were more or less fully hellenized from at least the fifth century, when we see them establishing cultural links with the southern Greeks. The kings claimed descent from Zeus; Alexander I took part in the Olympic games, apparently the first Macedonian to do so, persuading the judges of his Greekness by enumerating his ancestors back to the kings of Argos. There seems to have been a presumption that ordinary Macedonians, despiute their dialect, were not as Greek as their kings. - Herodotos describes Amyntas (c. 500) as 'a Greek ruling over Macedonians' - but despite ancient and modern controversies it seems clear that the Macedonians as a whole were Greek-speakers." Shipley, Graham The Greek World After Alexander 323 - 30 BC Routledge History of the Ancient World. pg. 111 (Routledge, 2000) Brando130 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fully hellenized" "Greek-speakers" from a reliable, verifiable source. Thats just what I had sitting 15 feet from me. I imagine if someone actually did a little legwork, there could be twenty more sources where that came from. Brando130 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Brando130, can you answer me a question: If a japanese guy become "Fully hellenized", this mean his mode of life became the same of the hellens right? this mean he became hellen?

"Greek-speakers" mean greek? (english-speakers mean english?)

("his own career hardly allowen him any other process of thinking; the Greeks often denied him the name of "Greek"" ... "yet in the interest of Greek culture he had overtrown the enemies of Greece and won the empire of all the world that mattered."

"The battles that changed history", page 39, By Fletcher Pratt Published 2000, ISBN 048641129X)

he can't be called ancient greek, (look the source, and i can find others too)

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for the non-crazy people here: Would it make sense to have a brief paragraph in the article lower down discussing the controversy over Alexander's Greek-ness? Brando's quote from the Routledge source says that this debate has "rage since antiquity," and in light of these recent nationalist rumblings it looks like the ancient debate is particularly active right now.
Or is this such a BS fringe theory that it would run against WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to even give it a brief voice in the article? I don't know anything about the topic except for what I have read here, so I don't feel qualified to make that judgment either way. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Not in the form of a debate but reporting on the amount of idiocy out there could work. That's the way we got rid of Slav nationalist morons in the Cyril and Methodius article.Xenovatis (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
To PelasgicMoon... honestly Fletcher Pratt??? He is a science fiction and fantasy writer, how is it possible to be trustworthy?????!!!!! A.Cython (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Having read the first sentence of the first paragraph the Greek mention seems odd. "Alexander III, was a Greek[6][7][8] king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC)." It sounds as though his being a Greek king of Macedon is worthy off note. Which as I've read here, seems to be in dispute. I haven't done any in-depth reading on Anicent Greece since I was an undergraduate, but the description given by user:Brando130 that the ruling family were more 'hellenised' than their subjects seems familar. Whether they were ethinically hellenes is something I personally cannot comment upon, but they did consider themselves to hellenes (i.e. ancient greek). The article of his father, Philip II, refers to him as an ancient greek king of Macedon. Personally, I think putting that in for Alexander III makes sense also, as it distances his ethinicity (albeit, rather academically) from the rather unfortunate trappings of current nationalism. Mark t young (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It used to say that, and now it does again. It had been edited to the version you saw earlier today, presumably by a Greek nationalist. Oy... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Guys, can we put simply "King of the Ancient Macedonians and Leader of the Hellenes" (without "later" as i don't want to continue discuss infinitly) as suggested by Applesnpeaches?

it will be correct, and i think all parties will agree. PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well King of Macedon, and Hegemon of the League of Corinth would be more accurate... But that information is already in the infobox. Also, in the other articles referring to the Kings of Macedon they are referred to as ancient Greek. Keeping that information in this article is in keeping with that of Philip II. But I have to admit is does read strangely, "ancient Greek[6][7][8] king (basileus) of Macedon." Other articles, such as Augustus do not state he was a ancient Italian emperor of Rome. But then I do not have an alternative. Mark t young (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mark t young, it does reads strange just in the same way when you say Pericles is Greek and Athenian. Both descriptions are correct according to the evidence (please read the sources at the archives), but it is like saying the same thing twice. However, under the current circumstances it is needed to avoid nationalistic pushing into WP. As far for the "Hegemon of the League of the Corinth" is also inaccurate in the sense that you remove Hellenism/Greekness before the League of Corinth was formed, and this puts things under the carpet.A.Cython (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It is precisely because of people such as Pelasgic Moon that the "ancient Greek king of Macedon" needs to stay, to dispel any doubts. For Pericles that is not necessary, because that article is not under attack by relentless POV-pushers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame that such an inelegant sentence has to remain in order to prevent those with a nationalistic POV from skewing the article. Mark t young (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

in fact it sounds strange speaking about POV pushing especially when some of the peoples who makes this accusations are greeks (...), and i'm not macedonian neither greek.

my opinion remains that since for the ethnicity of alexander there are dibates of definitions, i think we should simply call him king of macedon, without probabilites to fall in error, and adding something knowing that at the end of his life he was at the head of an empire that we could call hellenistic. PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So now you are saying that you couldn't possibly be a POV-pusher because you are not Greek, and that being Greek automatically means that someone is a POV-pusher? Ethnicity has nothing to do with whether one is a POV-pusher. That is a question of behavior, and your behavior is exactly that of a relentless POV-pusher. You could be from Mars for all I care, you'd still be a POV-pusher. Everyone disagrees with you. You are alone. You have tried a million things, and still you are alone. Stop it. You have filled pages and pages with you nonsense. Enough already. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


to PelasgicMoon>

take it easy now. being confused is ok. why don't you get some good old ancient (and modern) quotes?> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia

the "ancient Greek king" must stay because it is a fact and it underlines Alexander's heritage in order to defend it from fairy-tale tellers who say he was Albanian or Slavic<lol or chinese or arab or whatever. straight and clear. where is the problem? is defending against POV nationalistic rapists of history bad?

Even if you prove your supposed Macedonian Nation of the ancient times. (which is something ridiculous considering Alexander the Great, was a pure Greek himself, he repeats that in pride over and over again. (his mother Olympias-remember a mountain called Olympus? or is that disconnected from Greeks too?, his father Phillip, Greek names Greek culture , blood and people)

he perfused Greek(Hellenic -synonym) culture in Asia. Greek and Greek only. that's why there are the terms Indo-Greek and Greco-Bactrian because the national culture he perfused was Greek and not Spartan or Macedonian or Athenian. and absolutely not Slavic or Albanian or Chinese or Celtic or Arabic culture) Greek and Greek only. because how could a non-Greek spread Greek culture? have you seen the coins? how could a non-Greek give his whole life to defend and secure Greece from Persians and conquer the world for Greece?

can you think about that for 3 seconds?

it's embarrassing that we have to discuss that kind of self-proven facts with self-hating ethnogenesis nationalists. really.

these are our sources for the Greekness of Alexander. and all ancient Macedonians that ever existed> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia

so. what are your points and sources? bring them up. if you want to somehow disconnect Alexander the Great from Hellenes/Greeks, you must delete 3/4 of this article. including Alexander's his name of course. it's ok but don't make a big deal like you can prove stuff, when in fact, you cannot. well, no harm in trying. DefendEurope (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


DefendEurope, of course you did not read anything before speaking agressively to me, check at the top of the page for my sources, and with this your last research you open a lot of unrelated new points, if we have to discuss every point 1 per 1 we go to create a book. But in wikipedia we don't make researchs. just 1 link for you, [9] , and still i don't read any DIRECT source afferming such that. Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading the somewhat aggressive posts against PelasgicMoon I can't help but feel this debate is getting a little too heated. I think we can all agree we do not want nationalistic POV 'pushing', and that referring to Alexander as ancient Greek does not (well should not) have a an overtone, or overt connotation, for modern arguements on whether he was either Greek or Macedonian, or XYZ. Anyway, we all know he was a Celt-warrior with ancestry in what is today Scotland. ;-) Mark t young (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i think there is nothing wrong to post this sources:

  • During the reign of Alexander the Great, the Macedonians spoke their own native language, as the native language language of Alexander the Great was not understood by the ancient Greeks (Quintus Curtius Rufus, VI, 9, 37 ).
  • "he [Alexander] called out aloud to his guards in the Macedonian language, which was a certain sign of some great disturbance in him" (Plutarch, Alexander, 51).
  • 'The Macedonians are about to pass judgment upon you; I wish to know whether you will use their native tongue in addressing them.' Philotas replied: 'Besides the Macedonians there are many present who, I think, will more easily understand what I shall say if I use the same language which you have employed.' Than said the king: 'Do you not see how Philotas loathes even the language of his fatherland? For he alone disdains to learn it. But let him by all means speak in whatever way he desires, provided that you remember that he holds out customs in as much abhorrence as our language.'"Quintus Curtius Rufus, Alexander, VI. ix. 34-36
  • Evidence from phonology indicates that the ancient Macedonian language was distinct from ancient Greek and closer to the Tracian and Illirian languages.*It is to be assumed that the Macedonian dialect (or language) succumbed to Attic Greek..during the Hellenistic Age. 1972 W. B. LOCKWOOD Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Languages for which Illyrian origin is claimed or disputed are Venetic and Messapian in ancient Italy, Macedonian, and Albanian. Macedonian, that is, the native speech of the Macedonians as distinguished from the Attic which they came to adopt as their official language1933 C. D. BUCK Compar. Gram. Greek & Latin Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • His father Philip appears to have established Macedonian hegemony over Greece through League of Corinth The army of Alexander the great were Thracians , Illryrians and the hoplites of Corinthian Legue "Alexander(2) " Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007 Polybius, 2. pp.65–9. Stephen Nutt "Sellasia, battle of" The Oxford Companion to Military History. Ed. Richard Holmes. Oxford University Press, 2001
  • It seems likely that Philip II instituted regular training in all branches of his Macedonian army, and when Alexander (2) the Great succeeded, he was able to put on an impressive display for the Illyrians Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007
  • Macedonian phalanx was not only uniformly thicker but projected a good deal farther ahead than its Greek counterparts. 1989 R. L. O'CONNELL Arms & Men iv. 61" The Oxford Companion to Military History. Ed. Richard Holmes. Oxford University Press, 2001
  • Occupied territory was split between Macedonian royal families "Macedonia" Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007

PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


... i think now no more doubts... i hope now it will be accepted. PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


oh em gee. abortions of historical perception. no offence. you have no evidence about Macedonian being an other language than a Greek dialect. (to the one who mentioned such claims) a dialect like the many Greek dialects. noone has that evidence. on the contrary all point to macedonian being a Greek dialect. even before 3rd century BC. check out the Pella Curse tablet. you seem to purposely avoid that kind of rock solid facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_curse_tablet but i assume good faith and i tell you for your sources to overlap those there already you need to overlap these too>>http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia as well as something else than "doubt". your doubt about Alexander is not a source nor a factual analysis. and you need to find a way with which Macedonians who "supposedly" did not speak Greek managed to all "learn" and call themselves Greek by the 3rd Century BC. not to mention the fact that nationalism was a matter of life and death especially to Greeks and all nations of that time. mixings were not like mixed-race Brazilians. those were ancient times. not your today balkan/european village. you could get killed for being mixed or from lower nations back then in Greece. not become a King. almost every single claim of yours can be refuted. if you want change , it's your duty to refute our solid facts. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia not the other way around.DefendEurope (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ehm.. someone accused me to ignore sources? PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

huh? nothing else to prove? you.. were saying? <.<

but seriously. if you want change towards hiding facts you need to overcome lots of other current facts about Alexander the Great. from 1. his family names to 2 .the quotes about Ancient Macedonians from Persians and other Greeks.. to 3. his Hellenistic expansion campaigns... until ancient Macedonian Artifacts http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/macedonia.html and 4. coins which show Alexander and read his name in Greek characters that any 5yo that can read Greek can see. him with Greek Gods and deities etc etc etc. not to mention the interpretations of ancient, older and newer historians...
"For all of us who love History, and know History, Macedonia is as Greek as the Acropolis."

  • Mike Rann, Eleftherotypia newspaper, May 05, 2007

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia#Politicians_2

i have to go now. .. "delete" all these facts and sources above, about Alex and the other Macedonians and the way is open for you. DefendEurope (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgic moon's sources
  • Original research
  • Original research
  • Original research
  • 1972 W. B. LOCKWOOD.....We know its Greek today your fella is old
  • written in 1933.....what more can i say
  • Irrelevant
  • Irrelevant
  • Irrelevant
  • Irrelevant

Megistias (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 *sigh*...*extra deep sigh*... will this ever stop please? It brings WP back to square one... NikoSilver 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Niko, pretending there is not a problem with all those history rapists is against anything humane.

especially when their intentions are obviously nationalistic and destructive.

oh and the today's nation birth of South Slavs has nothing to do with ancient Macedonians. some people here mistake even that. please don't edit historical wiki articles about balkans when you do not know Slavs arrived in the balkan region at 6th-10th century AD. just to clear that out because someone mentioned it.DefendEurope (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After fruitlessly trying to talk to PM, I've finally reported him to WP:ANI for his disruptive behavior. This will never end otherwise. As soon as users tire of him and finally decide to ignore him, a new user joins in the fray and the cycle restarts. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


(Defend is speaking about slavs?!?)

Since nobody here is respecting the rule of wikipedia (showed everywhere when you're in editing mode), since nobody have direct sources calling alexander as "ancient greek king" ([10] "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research,you must cite reliable sources that provide information DIRECTLY related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.") ("However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research")


give me just 1 reliable source calling alexander the great "ancient greek king of macedon" and i will leave the discussion, no problem for me. 1 reliable source. and please, if you don't have don't change subject starting again accusations. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that PelasgicMoon has nothing to contradict to the fact that Alexander the Great was Greek. The Greek nation did exist, though a united Greek country not. Alexander and his family - at least - were of Greek origin and this is a fact. Let him first read some history in order to distinguish the Ancient Macedonians from the Macedonian-Slavs. Possibly he is the so-called Dodona who uses several accounts, who is font of the Pelasgian history, who turns the talk pages of some articles (see Arvanites) in endless discussions posting his nationalistic views, which are based on anything else but reliable sources, which cannot contradict the majority of the scientific researches. This should sometime stop. - Sthenel (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

maybe i will be banned for my insistance. But aniway, i want to remember still i never saw 1 direct reliable source contraddicting, but just direct accusations from, User:Tsourkpk, User:A.Cython, User:Xenovatis, User:Megistias, User:3rdAlcove, User:NikoSilver, User:Sthenel, User:DefendEurope (accidentally all greek editors seeing from theyr talk-page), because no-other accused me, and editors like PhoenixWiki agreed with me.

i was very clear even if usualy i am against judging editors for where are they from. But this time i have to admit... really good greek pushing team guys.

Banned or not, this is my last message. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope so, but I have a feeling it won't be. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All parties in this dispute wish for this to be the end of what can only be described as a truely vitrolic debate. I am sure no-one wishes for this to be become personal, and that a nationalistic skew to an encyclopedic endeavour such as Wikipedia is nothing but detrimental. So, after watching this "debate" and others very much like it for a number of weeks, I feel that we can now finally let this issue rest. For good. Mark t young (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mark. I couldn't agree more. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


PelasgicMoon since you insist on sources, let's take you by the hand. these are the publication-researches-books you ask for. you asked for one mentioning him as Greek. i'll give you 20. will you stop complaining now? >http://worldcat.org/search?q=0195097424&qt=owc_search

http://worldcat.org/search?q=0198148836&qt=owc_search also http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia ALL of those quotes are sourced. -SOURCED-. both ancient and modern sources. what else could you possibly ask? you can trace the sources they come from. they are hundreds of publications analyzing exactly that. you think you can overcome all that? we are talking about experts on Greek/Macedonian/Alexandric subjects. not some agenda POV revisionist who gives only doubts ..and labels them as sources..only doubts from poor sites full of ads. sources means reliable, scientifically approved publications. not doubts nor half-assed sentences of sources, but whole sources. so. where are your sources??? those which you gave contradict your sayings. your first source site>> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555940/Macedonia_(historic_region).html >>"After 3000 bc, a Greek-speaking tribe of shepherds settled first in the mountainous regions between Mounts Olympus and Pindus"

2nd> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106078/Alexander-the-Great "laid the foundations for the Hellenistic world of territorial kingdoms." without considering that sentence , the mentions that he worshiped Greek Gods that his great-great-great-great-great grandfather participated in the Hellenes-only Olympic Games and with your logic, PelasgicMoon, Alexander the 3rd could be an Australian aboriginal King of Macedon for all these articles and you are concerned. 3rd> http://www.kingofmacedon.net/Story.html "..in the ancient country of Greece" http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-138538066.html


i could go on forever.. and without original research. just the sources you mentioned. and anything that exists already. you take poor articles which do state the truth but they are not straight up clear because all they talk about when they talk about Macedonian culture is Greek, Greek and Greek. and Greek tribes struggling for domination. you bring those as sources because they don't repeat alexander's/macedonians' greekness 10 times per sentence? this is nonsense. don't you get it? DefendEurope (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


(removed trolling and comments of editors feeding the troll, you can still see the deleted comments here) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Non-factual reference to Candace of Meroë

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe the following paragraph (under Fall of the Achaemenid Persian Empire):

"In 332 BC Alexander attempted to lead his army into Nubia. He was confronted with the brilliant military formation devised by their warrior queen, Candace of Meroë. She led her army in the opposition from on top of an elephant. Daunted by the prospect of defeat while engaging with her opposing army, he concluded it would be best to withdraw his forces and he chose to enter Egypt instead.[13]"

Is fictional, and should be removed. Although I haven't read the reference cited here (Jones, David E., Women Warriors: A History, Brasseys, Inc.; (2000)), even the Wikkipedia entrance on Candace of Meroë states that this story:

"...may originate from "The Alexander Romance" by an unknown writer called "Pseudo-Callisthenes", and this work is largely a fictionalized and grandiose account of Alexander's life. It is commonly quoted, but there seems to be no historical reference to this event from Alexander's time."

I would like to remove the paragraph, but I as I haven't read the referenced work, I would like some feedback on this...

Msgarrett (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Leonidas- wrong person

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Leonidas redirects to Leonidas I, who died in 124 years before Alexander was born. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Different person from Leonidas (teacher). - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

leonidas is mentioned as alexander's tutor

this may be true but the link of leonidas name goes to the leonidas that died 100 years before alexander so it needs to be fixed 207.47.186.59 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed per your earlier report. It is now a redlink since there is no article for this person. If he is notable, then someone will create an article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle with Candace of Meroë

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Like the Queen's article says, the battle most probably never happened. The book used as reference is probably not reliable for this, as it's probably taking all accounts of battles with women on them and listing them regardless of whether they are apocryphal, legends or simply made up --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On this edit, the article should make clear that the battle is most probably a legend. Also, the sentence "Resisting Hellenization is a euphemism for repelling Alexander and his invading army", is unsourced especulation. The source for the battle is probably not reliable. There also appears to be synthesis by using the map to support the battle. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Notice that an anonymous editor removed the source about the legend on a sloppy way from the Candace article. See details at Talk:Candace_of_Meroë#warning:_posible_POV_pushing --Enric Naval (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The same text about Candace inserted here, using the same source, was also inserted in the article on Nubia a while back. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It was added by User:Taharqa on 24 September 2007 [11]. I think that 83d40m just copied it here when he saw the paragraph at the Nubia article --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexander did NOT invade india but rather amalgamated Pakistan and stopped at the current modern day border

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After doing considerable reasearch, reviewing maps and the personally visiting many of the great cities founded by Alexander, it should be categorically stated that Alexander the great did not invade any part of the modern day country of India. In fact, if you look at any map of the Hellenistic empire, it becomes even more interesting to note that the border is almost identical to that of the current modern day Pakistan-india border. Alexander established his easternmost outpost near Sagala which is the modern day city of Sialkot in North Eastern Pakistan, so why is that this article continually mentions ancient india as the region of his expeditions when the regions involved were clearly west of it involving Afghanistan, ancient Pakistan and ancient Panjab which again was an independent region seperate from the region of modern day india. I hope you can make these corrections and alterations to the wikipedia article to improve its accuracy as the article in its current form is innacurate and promoting an incorrect viewpoint on Alexander and the Hellenistic empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.161.16 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 May 2008

Please notice that we can't include WP:OR original research on the article. We need WP:V verifiable WP:RS reliable sources --Enric Naval (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This subject has been discussed in the past, see at the Archives A.Cython (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Candace on Alexander the Great

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

83d40m, please read Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Battle_with_Candace_of_Mero.C3.AB? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion here as the best place to continue the topic and copied to talk for further discussion if necessary... I will investigate the source you have noted and rewrite the section in my next long session to include your reference and its implication. Thanks, 83d40m (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Noting this diff here. I think some mention of this would be good, even if only a passing footnote saying that this likely never happened. Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you can ignore the nationalist editing, there is some interesting stuff here. I learnt some new stuff tonight. In particular, Candace of Meroë, Alexander the Great in the Qur'an and Alexander Romance. But then we went from the sublime to the ridiculous. I fully support articles like Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great, but I went "pppffffffttttttt!!!" when I read (at the bottom of that mostly good collection of links): "Shaun Alexander, of the Seattle Seahawks, is often referred to as "Alexander the Great"." <sob>! Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexander was not greek, he was Macedonian

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The ancient greeks did not wont to have anything with the Macedonians and saw them barbarians. Even Demostenius said that Macedonians are not greek by fabric. The modern greeks are trying to steal the history for them selfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.5.236 (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I don't know where you are getting this Macedonia or this Greek stuff from. Alexander the Great was "Great", right? And America is the greatest country on Earth. Therefore, logically, Alexander the Great was a proud American, standing tall over his Macedonian territories.
I tried to edit the article yesterday to reflect this new discovery, but the factonistas reverted me. Something about a bunch of "books" written by "experts" saying that he is actually Greek. Frankly, I find this reliance on expert opinions to be highly elitist. Just because somebody studied Alexander the Great for years, who are they to tell me what nationality he is?
Now, I'm sure some wise guy is going to point out that America wasn't founded until many centuries after Alexander's death. Those people just don't understand how "Great" Alexander and America are. So what's a little anachronism to a powerful king? If Alexander can single-handedly conquer the Nubians with nothing more than a sword and his trusty Hummer SUV, I think he can resolve a little time paradox too.
Go Alexander! Go America! Eat it, Greece and Macedonia! Woo hoo! DontCallThisHandBad (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! Here is another version. In ancient times the proud Athenians, who considered themselves the only true Greeks, used to insult all other as barbarians. Look in the case of Corinth. Corinth was a famous port, and the Athenians were very jealous about it. What Corinth also was famous was for its prostitutes, who were protected by temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love! The jealousy of the Athenians was so great that when were seeing someone going with a prostitute they would say: He is Corinth-ing (as an insult)! This can lead us to the following conclusion: only the Athenians are the true Greeks all the other are barbarians who Corinth-ing all day! lol A.Cython (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

False sources

Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

After doing some research, it has come to my attention that whoever cited these sources lied, these works do not say anything about Alexander being a Greek:

  • Pomeroy, S., Burstein, S., Dolan, W., Roberts, J. (1998) Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-509742-4
  • Hammond, N.G.L., (1989) The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions, and History, pp. 12-13, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-814883-6

And I also can't believe how someone would source Hammond's work for this, because in his book "A History of Greece to 322BC" Second edition Oxford University Press, 1967, 1986, Hammond specifically writes on page 535 that: ""The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours." For this sentence, Hammond cites the following:

  • hdt.I.56.3
  • Th.2.99
  • Hdt.8.137-139,5.22
  • Isoc.5.105
  • Str.32
  • Plu.Alex.51.6
  • Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens
  • Th.4.124.I


Alekishere (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, strange... In the same book Hammond also said:
"At the end of the bronze age a residue of Greek tribes stayed behind in Southern Macedonia [...] one of these, the "Makedones" occupied Aegae and expanded into the coastal plain of lower Macedonia which became the Kingdom of Macedon; their descendants were the Macedonians proper of the classical period and they worshipped Greek gods. The other Greek tribes became intermingled in upper Macedonia with Illyrians, Paeonians and Thracians[...] in the early 5th century the royal house of Macedon, the Temenidae was recognized as Greek by the Presidents of the Olympic Games. Their verdict was and is decisive. It is certain that the Kings considered themselves to be of Greek descent from Heracles son of Zeus. "Macedonian" was a strong dialect of very early Greek which was not intelligible to contemporary Greeks." (A History of Greece to 323 BC, Cambridge University, 1986, p 516) Cheers! The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? So what is Hammond getting at here, that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe who in general considered themselves non-Greeks? Alekishere (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure if you read the whole paragraph (instead of quoting just a sentence) you will get the actual meaning of it. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
About Herodotus:
"These races, Ionian and Dorian, were the foremost in ancient time, the first a Pelasgian and the second a Hellenic people. The Pelasgian race has never yet left its home; the Hellenic has wandered often and far. For in the days of king Deucalion it inhabited the land of Phthia, then the country called Histiaean, under Ossa and Olympus, in the time of Dorus son of Hellen; driven from this Histiaean country by the Cadmeans, it settled about Pindus in the territory called Macedonian; from there again it migrated to Dryopia, and at last came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where it took the name of Dorian." (Histories, 1.56, ed. A. D. Godley)
"Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know and will prove it in the later part of my history." (Histories, 5.22.1, ed. A. D. Godley)
About Thucydides:
"The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander (I), the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos." (The Peloponnesian War, London, 2.99.3, J. M. Dent, New York, E. P. Dutton, 1910)
About Isocrates:
"Therefore, since the others are so lacking in spirit, I think it is opportune for you to head the war against the King; and, while it is only natural for the other descendants of Heracles, and for men who are under the bonds of their polities and laws, to cleave fondly to that state in which they happen to dwell, it is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Hellas (Greece) your fatherland, as did the founder of your race, and to be as ready to brave perils for her sake as for the things about which you are personally most concerned." (To Philip, 5.127, Loeb)
About Strabo:
"There remain of Europe, first, Macedonia and the part of Thrace that are contiguous to it and extend as far as Byzantium; secondly, Greece; and thirdly, the Islands that are close by. Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece, yet now, since I am following the nature and shape of the place geographically, I have decided to classify it apart from the rest of Greece and to join it with that part of Thrace..." (Geography, VII, Frg. 9, Loeb)
About Plutarch:
"Yet through Alexander (the Great) Bactria and the Caucasus learned to revere the gods of the Greeks ... Alexander established more than seventy cities among savage tribes, and sowed all Asia with Greek magistracies ... Egypt would not have its Alexandria, nor Mesopotamia its Seleucia, nor Sogdiana its Prophthasia, nor India its Bucephalia, nor the Caucasus a Greek city, for by the founding of cities in these places savagery was extinguished and the worse element, gaining familiarity with the better, changed under its influence." (Moralia: On the Fortune of Alexander, I, 328d, 329a Loeb)
I'm sorry, I don't have Kalleris... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you cannot pick and choose stuff and ignore the rest. Alekishere (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not have Hammond's book at the moment, so... under what perspective does Hammond state that the Macedonians did not considered themselves Greek? 22:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Cython (talk • contribs)
I do not have the book with me either at the moment, but I will tommorow. He says that on page 535. He cites seven ancient sources for it. I listed them above. He also listed one French source from 1954 (JN KALLÉRIS - Étude linguistique et historique, 1954) Alekishere (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE FACT THAT HAMMOND writes ""The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours." For this cites the following:

  • hdt.I.56.3
  • Th.2.99
  • Hdt.8.137-139,5.22
  • Isoc.5.105
  • Str.32
  • Plu.Alex.51.6
  • Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens
  • Th.4.124.I

Alekishere (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've quoted the same people above, take a look.The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And again you are only picking and choosing from their works. Why don't you show us the exact quotes cited by Hammond? Alekishere (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have the book with me at the moment... Why don't you do it for us? Anyway, since we are on Alexander's page, lets remeber what he thought of himself to be:

Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you... (Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea, as quoted in "Anabasis Alexandri" by Roman historian Arrian, Book II, 14, 4)

Holy shadows of the dead, I’m not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another. I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions. (Addressing the dead Greeks of the Battle of Chaeronea, as quoted in “Historiae Alexandri Magni” by Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus.)

If it were not my purpose to combine foreign things with things Greek, to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the bounds of Macedonia to the farthest Ocean, and to disseminate and shower the blessings of Greek justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me, Diogenes, that I imitate Heracles, and emulate Perseus, bands follow in the footsteps of Dionysus, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and desire that victorious Greeks should dance again in India and revive the memory of the Bacchic revels among the savage mountain tribes beyond the Caucasus. (Plutarch, "Moralia: On the Fortune of Alexander", I, 332a-b)

Youths of the Pellaians and of the Macedonians and of the Greek Amphictiony and of the Lakedaimonians and of the Corinthians… and of all the Greek peoples, join your fellow-soldiers and entrust yourselves to me, so that we can move against the barbarians and liberate ourselves from the Persian bondage, for as Greeks we should not be slaves to barbarians. (Pseudo-Kallisthenes, “Historia Alexandri Magni”, 1.15.1-4)

Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Greek king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. A king does not kill messengers. (Pseudo-Kallisthenes, “Historia Alexandri Magni”, 1.37.9-13)

There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay — and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. (Addressing his troops prior to the Battle of Issus, as quoted in “Anabasis Alexandri” by Roman historian Arrian, Book II, 7)

The Cat and the Owl (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

""The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours."

  • hdt.I.56.3
  • Th.2.99
  • Hdt.8.137-139,5.22
  • Isoc.5.105
  • Str.32
  • Plu.Alex.51.6
  • Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens
  • Th.4.124.I

Alekishere (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok, you convinced us... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have a problem with this, you can contact Oxford University, they are the ones who published it. Alekishere (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever is said about the ancient Macedonians as a whole, The Argead dynasty claimed Greek descent and this was accepted by everyone in ancient Greece. All modern sources are also in agreement. The quote from Hammond you keep posting and re-posting concerns the Macedonians as a whole, and that is moreover just one source. There are hundred of sources that say the exact opposite, so stop this nonsense. This issue has been debated extensively in the article's archives (which I doubt you've bothered to read) and a consensus has been reached. You are going against the consensus and are behaving like a disruptive editor. Please stop this nonsense or you will be reported. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(un)(N+1)th time? This is getting rather ridiculous. Indeed, Hammond writes that in Classical times, the Macedonians (whom he considers to have been Greek-speaking, however, and I believe Kalleris is also of that opinion -don't quote me- which is one of a number of viewpoints, as well) were not viewed by the Greeks (or even viewed themselves, but do we have any info on that?) as fellow Greeks (that, of course, changed in Hellenistic and Roman times but I suppose it's besides the point). As for the other sources, well, some like Isocrates considered the Argeads as Greeks ruling over barbarians, Herodotus thought that the Dorians and the Macedonians shared a common origin (and he repeated Alexander I's Argead claim which he might have believed), Plutarch clearly considers Alexander a Greek hero (though he is a Roman-era writer; 'ethnic' consciousness changes) and so on. Alexander's education and the fact that the royal house was increasingly Hellenizing are also strong arguments.

Though, like I've said in the past, perhaps removing the "Greek" from the intro would be best. Sure, everyone who has commented on it so far has an obvious nationalist axe to grind but there can be genuine NPOV concerns. Plus it saves people from commenting on the same old matters, which take up everyone's time in a most unproductive manner. If one values Alexander so much, he should perhaps try to improve the article to GA/FA status, a task that no doubt would take some dedication. 3rdAlcove (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? So as to appease the occasional nationalist troll that comes along every once in a while? There are very effective, and far less drastic ways of dealing with them. We can equivocate on the ancient Macedonians as a whole, but the sources on the Argeads, ancient and modern, are unequivocal. If some people from a certain country have a problem with that, it is their problem, not Wikipedia's. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. We can’t remove "Greek" just to favor a tiny minority of people that -in spite of the mass of the reliable scholarship- they would prefer him not to be a Greek for the obvious political reasons! See undue weight. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


My opinion remains this:

since there are sources contraddicting at least the similarity between ancient macedonians and ancient hellens (the sources was posted in the articles above), and there are others afferming it, we can fall in debate calling him as "ancient greek king", because sources are contraddicting themselves.

But leaving this fact alone, i think when there are issues about something, the rules of wikipedia should help:

"you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

"Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source"

"Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research;"

[12]

This mean, even in the case all sources speaks about similarity between ancien macedonians and ancient hellens, it can not be done the conclusion of calling alexander the great as ancient greek king (exept if we have direct referenced sources calling him such).

Now if this rule will not be respected, what is happening in this article will become self-evident, no need my comments.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

for the users who agree to introduce alexander as ancient greek king, let's speak calmly, and let's analize questions step per step: there are sources afferming directly and calling directly alexander as ancient greek king? PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Here we go again! Someone found a sentence that seems to contradict and we will have the same story all over again! Before i asked under what perspective the above sentence was stated, but noone replied so I looked to the sources of Hammond and I found the following:

Hdt.5.22

Thus the death of these Persians was kept concealed. And that these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes, as they themselves say, I happen to know myself, and not only so, but I will prove in the succeeding history that they are Hellenes. Moreover the Hellanodicai, who manage the games at Olympia, decided that they were so: for when Alexander wished to contend in the games and had descended for this purpose into the arena, the Hellenes who were to run against him tried to exclude him, saying that the contest was not for Barbarians to contend in but for Hellenes: since however Alexander proved that he was of Argos, he was judged to be a Hellene, and when he entered the contest of the foot-race his lot came out with that of the first.

from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh5020.htm

Plu. Alexander 5.16

For many kinds of glory, however, Alexander cared little; unlike his father Philip, who prided himself on his oratorical powers, and used to record his victories in the chariot races at Olympia upon his coins. Indeed, when Alexander's friends, to try him, asked him whether he would contend in the foot race at Olympia, for he was a remarkably swift runner, he answered, "Yes, if I have kings to contend with." He seems to have been altogether indifferent to athletic exercises; for though he gave more prizes than any one else to be contended for by dramatists, flute players, harp players, and even by rhapsodists...

from: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14140/14140-h/14140-h.htm#LIFE_OF_ALEXANDER

I am afraid I do not have the time to check the other sources but from these I can say the following: The sentence of Hammond only means that Macedonians were Greek (as it has been stated by the other editors) but on the other hand among the Ancient Greeks they had their on way of doing things. In effect, each greek tribe was different (Athenians, Spartans, etc) but the tribe which was most different was the Macedonians. I see no contradiction of sources, and assuming you post in good faith please stop posting staff unless you understood what the whole text says and you have checked the references! Enjoy life! A.Cython (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


"Alexander proved that he was of Argos, he was judged to be a Hellene"

we knew it, before accepting him as theyr own too much years was spent, and then he was the head of an empire and he had a Graecized mode of life, at the end of his life the hellens accepted him as theyr own, but, i repeat you, this absolutely don't state he was an ancient greek.

Cython, do you accept the fact you're going beyond what is expressed in the source?

PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I take your pardon!? For starters, fix your english, second place a meaning in your english. Now about me. I started looking at the sources with the assumption that I was wrong. I always do that! I use the scientific method every day, and as a scientist I am trying see the evidence with an open mind! Maybe you should try it, it is very dangerous it can prove you wrong. But at the moment, I have more important things to do so... Enjoy Life!A.Cython (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Open mind? you see i'm trying to conversate, if you cannot answer please next don't change subject speaking about my english or about how important are thinks you have to do.

Cython, the sources does support directly and explicitly the affermation as it is presented? (sincerity) PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians were not Ancient Greeks.

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The proof comes from the use of the word "Philhellene" (a term reserved for non-Greeks) to refer to Ancient Macedonians (by Ancient Greeks) and from a very likely distinct origin for Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks [Ref.: Eugene Borza, "In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon"]. Therefore (and especially taking into account the number of doubts/debates over this subject) Alexander the Great should not be qualified as Greek. He was Macedonian, beyond any doubt and that's the way he should be referred to.Ilidio.martins (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Sigh*. This has been debated to the death in the past. Please read the archives of this talk page and stop wasting everybody's time. The sources, ancient and modern, are unequivocal that the Argead dynasty was of Greek descent. I can't understand why some people have so much trouble understanding that. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great was borne in, what was at the time of his birth, Macedon soil, hence he is Macedonian. I think that is the clearest criterion for nationality. I think is irrelevant his ascendancy if was born Macedon and, particularly, when he ruled Macedon.Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking to you is obviously a waste of time. The ancient Macedonians were Greek. The Argeads were Greek. Alexander the Great was Greek. It's that simple. This article represents the consensus version, reached after much debate. Please do not tamper with it further, or you will reported for disruptive editing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In which reference you base your affirmation that the Macedonians were Greek. The reference that I presented clearly demonstrates that is not accurate.Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see here User:The Cat and the Owl for sources. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is then several conflicts between references. Hence the Greek origins of Macedonians and Alexander the Great are a disputed fact. Therefore that must be displayed as such or the Greek reference erased.Ilidio.martins (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources on the Argeads are unequivocal. Hence the Greek origins of Alexander the Great are undisputed. Therefore the article stays as it is. --Tsourkpk (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is illogical, I do not understand... So you claim that ascendancy/ethnicity determine nationality?Ilidio.martins (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilidio, I suggest you read Ancient Macedonians article. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Exactly, there is debate! So why choose sides? unless you have a definitive proof or... an agenda! If historians have conflicting views why this article should have a definitive word on the subject?Ilidio.martins (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The way this article is being managed completely discredits Wikipedia

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Enough said! Here I found people that:
1. Do not present rational and clear arguments; 2. Do not present reliable references; 3. Treat my comments with satire; 4. Are not able to reach a compromise/midpoint; 5. Promote ethnical/racial divides; 6. Make false accusations; 7. Show complete disregard and disrespect for different opinions/points of view;
You can take a look for yourself in previous sections.Ilidio.martins (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is my summarization above not to your liking? What pains me most is that NO single non-POV pushing, legitimate editor has raised any concerns (though they could have)...Nationalists after nationalists. 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me how it attracts them. Like flies and honey. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, which comment you refer to?Ilidio.martins (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree the title of this post, as you can see in the post named "False sources", nobody still answered me.

Tendentious editing, Original Research, No good faith, rebounding of sources, ignoring extremly other opinions, direct accusations, greek POV pushing, censorship, denying facts, unproductive answers to hear others opinions

i wanna try to discuss in a civil way, can i? PelasgicMoon (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_13&oldid=1046099109"